Why can't Corbyn connect with public?

[MikeG]

And the rejoinder to that is: "you guys had your chance, and you got smashed. Hammered. Record defeat. Which bit of that are you struggling to understand, Mr Corbyn, Mr McDonnell?".

 

[NWO Sentryman]

And the rejoinder to that is: "you guys had your chance, and you got smashed. Hammered. Record defeat. Which bit of that are you struggling to understand, Mr Corbyn, Mr McDonnell?".

Agreeing with you, but I can't see them giving up power that easily. After all, New Labour wasn't tainted by Iraq and PFI when it first came in. In short, it's going to need a new party that doesn't have baggage from either Corbyn or Blair.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Profits.

Water companies are taking billions and billions in profits and shareholder dividends. This is money which should be used for the general good, rather than the enrichement of shareholders. It should be entirely, 100%, ploughed back into infrastructure and maintenance.

There's a lot I disagree with you on, but here I agree with you 100%.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

I agree that there industries that IMO should never have been privatised in the first place. From my perspective they include the water, gas, electricity and rail industries.

The difficulty I have is with re-nationalising them. Where is the money going to come from ? How will the existing shareholders (many of whom are regular folks with pension plans) be compensated ? How can we ensure that the necessary investment continues (having been involved the electricity, water and rail industries post-privatisation I'm painfully aware of the lack of investment when in public hands) ?

Well we effectively did it with the banks and then sold them back off when the money was recouped (bit early IMHO). Most of the utilities are making a handsome profit so something similar may be possible without the selling them back off bit. I think Labour's suggestion for the railways is to do it gradually as each franchise expires which sounds relatively measured and sensible to be fair - shame they have an unelectable leader...

Agree though, not selling the utilities in the first place would have been far more sensible.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Someone I know who was in the area of government IT contracts for a company that'll be unnamed likened the whole thing to dodgy builders putting one over an OAP.

Hah, I couldn't possibly comment on how accurate that may be in some cases...though getting better now.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

In most cases yes. The key point is that they have not been captured by the industries they are regulating.

One areas that is problematic is the intention that regulation could be made redundant by competition between suppliers. This works well when you have frequent purchases, or a clear renewal point (car insurance). It has worked less well for electricity, gas etc.



You want to nationalise mobile phones?



OK - examples of obscene profits please.



I'm on the board of a housing association which took over housing from a council. Key things that the board is always concerned about are "is this being done for the benefits of the tenants, or the befit of the management", and the budget being set at a very comfortable level, so difficult decisions do not have to be made. Both seem typical of public sector organisations.

Similarly there were concerns that the electricity industry was run by and for the engineers.



As long as they are doing a decent job, does it matter who owns them?

Mobile phones? No. Classic commodity item suitable for competition. Now the networks they use, that's a possibility.

Examples of obscene profit, how about us paying £2b pa more than we should for electricity:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/07/23/energy-giant-profits-five-times-too-high/

That was one of the simplest Google searches ever. I'm sure you could find loads more if you wished to look.

If you think public sector budgets are 'comfortable' these days then I'd suggest you're out of touch.

You ask if it matters who owns the utilities? Well d'oh, if they're owned by foreign utility companies then the profits are being siphoned out of the country. I would have thought that was self-evident.

You seem to have quite a different take on the privatised utilities than I'm used to hearing, which suggests you either have information others, including the media, lack or you're living in a bubble. Don't happen to own shares yourself do you?

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Here's some water company ones:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/a6808386.html
https://www.ft.com/content/41491202-b92f-11e5-b151-8e15c9a029fb
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/water-giants-make-2billion-profit-4703371

All about excessive profits (and little taxes). Middle one is behind a pay wall, sorry - headline is 'Water watchdog taken to task over sector's excessive profits'. You know, those regulatory bodies you think are doing such a good job.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

In which case he demonstrates how unfit he is to be Prime Minister

You've lost me with this comment to be honest. I expect the response to just about anything at this point would be that just proves his bad Corbyn is.

I really hope you are right about me exaggerating Mays defects because I'm genuinely worried about what is coming next and slightly scared about the social effects of a number of things she is doing.

She genuinely makes me nervous in a way Cameron never did. He was a posh twat but he lacked any real nasty streak. May is nasty.

The problem is, Labour are heading for a split. My bet, the Centrists will form the SDP with the LDs and the Momentum faction will become labour.

I do somewhat hope that there is a bit of a reshaping of the parties. It would be nice to have an actual left of centre party and a centrist party for voters to choose from. Of course with our silly system that just splits the vote and let's the Tories win.

 

[The Don]

She genuinely makes me nervous in a way Cameron never did. He was a posh twat but he lacked any real nasty streak. May is nasty.

IMO it's Cameron who was the outlier - at least in my adult lifetime. Cameron was an attempt to wrest back the centre-ground after a series of significantly more right wing leaders:

- Thatcher
- Major
- Hague
- IDS
- Howard
- Cameron

Of that lot, IMO only Major is less right-wing than May.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

IMO it's Cameron who was the outlier - at least in my adult lifetime. Cameron was an attempt to wrest back the centre-ground after a series of significantly more right wing leaders:

- Thatcher
- Major
- Hague
- IDS
- Howard
- Cameron

Of that lot, IMO only Major is less right-wing than May.

Cameron and Major were the obvious ones. I The others less clear but I'd put her in the mix with Thatcher with some of her statements positions worse. It would be interesting to do a comparison in detail but my sense is May feels less extreme to some because the centre has shifted rather than because her policies are softer than Thatcher's.

I can see her leading us back to capital punishment for example.

It's also pretty obvious that she will stand shoulder to shoulder with Trump no matter his excesses and I'd put him worse than Reagan or Bush.

 

[The Don]

Cameron and Major were the obvious ones. I The others less clear but I'd put her in the mix with Thatcher with some of her statements positions worse. It would be interesting to do a comparison in detail but my sense is May feels less extreme to some because the centre has shifted rather than because her policies are softer than Thatcher's.

Compared to Hague, Thatcher and especially IDS and Howard she's almost left-wing. Some Conservative economic policies like the energy price cap have come right out of the Blairite playbook, on many social issues, for example her stance on gay rights, she's more liberal than her predecessors. Thatcher, IDS and Howard were more hostile to welfare recipients and the NHS than May has been.

I can see her leading us back to capital punishment for example.

I've erroneously claimed that in the past. In fact her pronouncements on the matter have been resolutely anti. In 2012 she said that the death penalty would not have prevented police officer deaths.

It's also pretty obvious that she will stand shoulder to shoulder with Trump no matter his excesses and I'd put him worse than Reagan or Bush.

Name a Prime Minister, especially a Conservative one, who wouldn't stand shoulder to shoulder with the US president. We cannot blame May for Trump.

 

[MikeG]

Compared to Hague, Thatcher and especially IDS and Howard she's almost left-wing.........

Whilst I completely agree with this assessment, I would just point out that Hague (as did Portillo before him) moved from the right wing of the party gradually over to the left wing as they matured (in Portillo's case, after he was ousted from Parliament).

 

[The Don]

Whilst I completely agree with this assessment, I would just point out that Hague (as did Portillo before him) moved from the right wing of the party gradually over to the left wing as they matured (in Portillo's case, after he was ousted from Parliament).

Good point.

 

[Darat]

Whilst I completely agree with this assessment, I would just point out that Hague (as did Portillo before him) moved from the right wing of the party gradually over to the left wing as they matured (in Portillo's case, after he was ousted from Parliament).

Good point.

Going to disagree - they moved to the more liberal wing of the conservative party. They were still on the right of politics.

And lets not forget that Thatcher's policies supported pumping money into the likes of BL and so on. In many ways Thatcher would be more to the centre/left of the conservative party these days, but she certainly would have been in the more illiberal wing. Which is where I think there is clear blue water between say a Thatcher and a May.

 

[MikeG]

Going to disagree - they moved to the more liberal wing of the conservative party. They were still on the right of politics.......

Your not disagreeing. That's what I said.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Compared to Hague, Thatcher and especially IDS and Howard she's almost left-wing. Some Conservative economic policies like the energy price cap have come right out of the Blairite playbook, on many social issues, for example her stance on gay rights, she's more liberal than her predecessors. Thatcher, IDS and Howard were more hostile to welfare recipients and the NHS than May has been.



I've erroneously claimed that in the past. In fact her pronouncements on the matter have been resolutely anti. In 2012 she said that the death penalty would not have prevented police officer deaths.



Name a Prime Minister, especially a Conservative one, who wouldn't stand shoulder to shoulder with the US president. We cannot blame May for Trump.

I don't think Cameron would have been so quick to run to Trumps side to be honest but I realise that's speculation. She also seems to be openly adopting some of his tactics. In any case I can certainly blame May for her actions in regards to Trump.

While May herself may be anti death penalty she has shown that she will throw herself head long into things she has been against in the past and some of her cabinet and colleagues certainly would jump at the chance.

She's also shown herself to have no concern for immigrants and a nasty streak when it comes to dealing with them.

No I don't buy this centrist May myth at all.

Especially as someone who isn't English, has immigrants in their immediate family, friends and relatives in potential troublespots and a general concern for minorities and those of other races and faiths. I don't think life is going to get better for any of these people under May and, importantly, I think she will actually be quite happy with that outcome.

 

[Aber]

You know, those regulatory bodies you think are doing such a good job.

CMA conclusion on electricity regulation:

Ofgem’s duties and objectives

Ofgem’s duties and objectives
324. Our view is that Ofgem’s statutory objectives and duties may, in certain circumstances, constrain its ability to promote effective competition. In particular, Ofgem told us that it considered that its duty to pursue its principal objective by ‘wherever appropriate promoting effective competition’ had been progressively downrated relative to other duties over the last ten years.
325. Our remedy is a recommendation to DECC to amend primary legislation in order to clarify Ofgem’s statutory objectives and duties and thereby remove any constraint (actual or perceived) on Ofgem’s ability to pursue its principal objective (protecting the interests of existing and future customers) by promoting effective competition where it considers this appropriate.
Relationship between DECC and Ofgem
326. We have decided on two remedies that are designed to recalibrate the relationship between DECC and Ofgem in a way that recognises Ofgem’s independence while allowing for appropriate coordination of activities to deliver overarching policy goals:
(a) First, we are recommending legislation to establish a clear process requiring Ofgem to publish opinions on all draft legislation and policy proposals that are relevant to its statutory objectives and that are likely to have a material impact on the GB energy markets.
(b) Second, we are recommending to DECC and Ofgem that they publish detailed joint statements setting out action plans for the implementation of proposed DECC policy objectives that are likely to necessitate Ofgem interventions, with clear responsibilities and timetables.

Now the networks they use, that's a possibility.

Mobile phone networks - utility networks built from scratch by private companies.

There is a really mixed attitude to the various network utilities:
Gas
Electricity
Water
Rail
Mobile phones
Landline phones
Broadband

In some cases there is a public perception that they are being ripped off, in others they are not. The conclusion of the CMAs report on electricity was that the problem was not enough customer engagement ie customers not changing suppliers, resulting in standard tariffs being higher than they should be. Why this happens in this market, but not say mobile phones or car insurance, is an interesting question on customer psychology, not on the nature of network industries.

Middle one is behind a pay wall, sorry - headline is 'Water watchdog taken to task over sector's excessive profits'.

And from the committee's report:

At each price review, Ofwat uses regulatory data and assumptions to set a revenue allowance for water companies’ costs for five years at a time. Ofwat’s approach allows companies to make gains if costs turn out to be lower than it has assumed when setting price limits. However, companies bear the risk of losses if costs turn out to be higher than expected. The approach aims to encourage efficiency by allowing companies to keep benefits from any efficiency savings they make. But some aspects of company costs, including financing and taxation, are outside of their control–which can result in windfall gains for them, or losses.

Ofwat told us that the settlement reached with companies in its 2009 price review now looked generous with hindsight, but that this had not been readily apparent at the time, given the then difficult environment for securing debt.

Criticism with hindsight is a wonderful advantage.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Refuse to believe that it is simply a hostile media.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hey.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Antonio Coceri]

Refuse to believe that it is simply a hostile media.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Probably it is just you who did not understand that Corbyn DID connect with the public and won some 20 plus new seats

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Wouldn't say it's just me


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk