Discussion:
may does not have the desireable intellect for the job....does she have the necessary humility?
Add Reply
abelard
2017-10-07 12:20:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at
suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the
surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on
well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the
right to do so being obtained, of course, by tendering for leases of
the note-bearing territory) there need be no more unemployment and,
with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community,
and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater
than it actually is. It would, indeed, be more sensible to build
houses and the like; but as there are political and practical
difficulties in the way of this, the above would be better than
nothing.
[General Theory, 1936, bk. 3]


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4621733/theresa-may-housing-crisis-speech/
read and comprehend!


she is obviously a good and dutiful girl with her heart in the
right place, but hair-brained schemes for grammar schools
and economic nonsense like help to buy, will not solve
educational not housing problems....

student loan interest should also be halved immediately

has she the sense to listen to better experienced and educated
advisors or does she believe she knows better like some corvyd
lite?


very possibly the tory party with several years to go is hoping to
deal with these serious long term problems nearer the next
election and with a more able leader....
but allowing stereotypes to settle in while not going for the
core of the problems, could be too late and pitch us into
another session of socialist destruction...


her 'feelings', her common sense and her sense of duty
should not be allowed to over-ride her dubious judgement
removing rivals is a poor substitute for listening to them

thatcher ended up surrounded by a load of mediocrities...
i hope may means it when she says she does not want
to be surrounded by a bunch of yes-men
--
www.abelard.org
James Hammerton
2017-10-07 12:49:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at
suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the
surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on
well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the
right to do so being obtained, of course, by tendering for leases of
the note-bearing territory) there need be no more unemployment and,
with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community,
and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater
than it actually is. It would, indeed, be more sensible to build
houses and the like; but as there are political and practical
difficulties in the way of this, the above would be better than
nothing.
[General Theory, 1936, bk. 3]
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4621733/theresa-may-housing-crisis-speech/
read and comprehend!
she is obviously a good and dutiful girl with her heart in the
right place, but hair-brained schemes for grammar schools
and economic nonsense like help to buy, will not solve
educational not housing problems....
Nicking Miliband's energy cap also seems to me to be economic nonsense -
reducing taxes or making it easier for competitors to set up in the
market would be more likely to address prices without distorting the
price signal like that.
Post by abelard
student loan interest should also be halved immediately
What are you aiming to achieve with that suggestion aside from reducing
the burden of the debts on students?
Post by abelard
has she the sense to listen to better experienced and educated
advisors or does she believe she knows better like some corvyd
lite?
very possibly the tory party with several years to go is hoping to
deal with these serious long term problems nearer the next
election and with a more able leader....
but allowing stereotypes to settle in while not going for the
core of the problems, could be too late and pitch us into
another session of socialist destruction...
At the moment, if a general election were held I'd expect Labour to win.
ISTM the Tories lack ideas, lack energy and lack enthusiasm, (and seem
to have a PM who is unlucky) and are blamed for much of what is going
wrong in the country whereas Labour now has ideas, energy, enthusiasm
and policies that they can sell as addressing concerns about low wages,
lack of affordable accommodation, high energy prices, etc.
Post by abelard
her 'feelings', her common sense and her sense of duty
should not be allowed to over-ride her dubious judgement
removing rivals is a poor substitute for listening to them
thatcher ended up surrounded by a load of mediocrities...
i hope may means it when she says she does not want
to be surrounded by a bunch of yes-men
Regards,

James
--
James Hammerton
http://jhammerton.wordpress.com
http://www.magnacartaplus.com/
abelard
2017-10-07 13:01:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 13:49:35 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at
suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the
surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on
well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the
right to do so being obtained, of course, by tendering for leases of
the note-bearing territory) there need be no more unemployment and,
with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community,
and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater
than it actually is. It would, indeed, be more sensible to build
houses and the like; but as there are political and practical
difficulties in the way of this, the above would be better than
nothing.
[General Theory, 1936, bk. 3]
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4621733/theresa-may-housing-crisis-speech/
read and comprehend!
she is obviously a good and dutiful girl with her heart in the
right place, but hair-brained schemes for grammar schools
and economic nonsense like help to buy, will not solve
educational not housing problems....
Nicking Miliband's energy cap also seems to me to be economic nonsense -
reducing taxes or making it easier for competitors to set up in the
market would be more likely to address prices without distorting the
price signal like that.
just so...i didn't want to overload my post but it is good and
useful that you raise that point
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
student loan interest should also be halved immediately
What are you aiming to achieve with that suggestion aside from reducing
the burden of the debts on students?
allow student more of a transition to adulthood...teach them
about money and public goods...demonstrate that one
nation toryism is inclusive...
break this foolish them and us narrative always sued by socialism
to cause division in the society
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
has she the sense to listen to better experienced and educated
advisors or does she believe she knows better like some corvyd
lite?
very possibly the tory party with several years to go is hoping to
deal with these serious long term problems nearer the next
election and with a more able leader....
but allowing stereotypes to settle in while not going for the
core of the problems, could be too late and pitch us into
another session of socialist destruction...
At the moment, if a general election were held I'd expect Labour to win.
i wouldn't...but it may well break the tory overall majority
Post by James Hammerton
ISTM the Tories lack ideas, lack energy and lack enthusiasm, (and seem
to have a PM who is unlucky) and are blamed for much of what is going
wrong in the country whereas Labour now has ideas, energy, enthusiasm
and policies that they can sell as addressing concerns about low wages,
lack of affordable accommodation, high energy prices, etc.
imv fascist 'new' labour is the destructive force it always has been
and will be...they will solve nothing and just leave another and
bigger mess

i just wish the lib dems would 'get their act together'...but as usual
they try to appease lefties instead of making their own case
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
her 'feelings', her common sense and her sense of duty
should not be allowed to over-ride her dubious judgement
removing rivals is a poor substitute for listening to them
thatcher ended up surrounded by a load of mediocrities...
i hope may means it when she says she does not want
to be surrounded by a bunch of yes-men
--
www.abelard.org
James Hammerton
2017-10-07 18:18:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 13:49:35 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at
suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the
surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on
well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the
right to do so being obtained, of course, by tendering for leases of
the note-bearing territory) there need be no more unemployment and,
with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community,
and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater
than it actually is. It would, indeed, be more sensible to build
houses and the like; but as there are political and practical
difficulties in the way of this, the above would be better than
nothing.
[General Theory, 1936, bk. 3]
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4621733/theresa-may-housing-crisis-speech/
read and comprehend!
she is obviously a good and dutiful girl with her heart in the
right place, but hair-brained schemes for grammar schools
and economic nonsense like help to buy, will not solve
educational not housing problems....
Nicking Miliband's energy cap also seems to me to be economic nonsense -
reducing taxes or making it easier for competitors to set up in the
market would be more likely to address prices without distorting the
price signal like that.
just so...i didn't want to overload my post but it is good and
useful that you raise that point
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
student loan interest should also be halved immediately
What are you aiming to achieve with that suggestion aside from reducing
the burden of the debts on students?
allow student more of a transition to adulthood...teach them
about money and public goods...demonstrate that one
nation toryism is inclusive...
break this foolish them and us narrative always sued by socialism
to cause division in the society
And what of the lost revenues from reducing the interest in this way?
Would that be made up by raising taxes?
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
has she the sense to listen to better experienced and educated
advisors or does she believe she knows better like some corvyd
lite?
very possibly the tory party with several years to go is hoping to
deal with these serious long term problems nearer the next
election and with a more able leader....
but allowing stereotypes to settle in while not going for the
core of the problems, could be too late and pitch us into
another session of socialist destruction...
At the moment, if a general election were held I'd expect Labour to win.
i wouldn't...but it may well break the tory overall majority
You mean that the Tories would no longer be able to retain a majority by
combining with the DUP and would have to e.g. add the Lib Dems or some
other party to the coalition?
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
ISTM the Tories lack ideas, lack energy and lack enthusiasm, (and seem
to have a PM who is unlucky) and are blamed for much of what is going
wrong in the country whereas Labour now has ideas, energy, enthusiasm
and policies that they can sell as addressing concerns about low wages,
lack of affordable accommodation, high energy prices, etc.
imv fascist 'new' labour is the destructive force it always has been
and will be...they will solve nothing and just leave another and
bigger mess
I should clarify - I'm speaking in terms of their appeal to the public
not what I think would be the results of them being elected and enacting
their policies. I'm not convinced by them but they appear to have
policies that are popular with much of the population, especially those
under 40, but not just them.

E.g. many people would support renationalisation of the railways and
possibly the utilities as they think that would solve the problems they
have with them.

Students are obviously happy to see tuition fees abolished and this has
appeal both to the students and their parents.

The promise to 'end austerity' resonates with those who feel they or the
poorer members of society have struggled in the aftermath of the 2008
crash, under wages that have declined in real terms, especially in the
public sector and those who have been on the sharp end of the benefit cuts.

Anyway to return to my original point, I was trying to contrast a party
and government that seem tired and moribund with an opposition who have
defied expectations and appear confident and seem to appeal to a large
part of the public. I think especially if May's at the helm, the Tories
will most likely lose if an election is held any time soon. Possibly
Labour might need a coalition to govern, but that still means Corbyn in
power.
Post by abelard
i just wish the lib dems would 'get their act together'...but as usual
they try to appease lefties instead of making their own case
They seem to be focussed on trying to undo Brexit, much good it's doing
them so far...

Regards,

James
--
James Hammerton
http://jhammerton.wordpress.com
http://www.magnacartaplus.com/
abelard
2017-10-07 19:22:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 19:18:59 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 13:49:35 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at
suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the
surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on
well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the
right to do so being obtained, of course, by tendering for leases of
the note-bearing territory) there need be no more unemployment and,
with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community,
and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater
than it actually is. It would, indeed, be more sensible to build
houses and the like; but as there are political and practical
difficulties in the way of this, the above would be better than
nothing.
[General Theory, 1936, bk. 3]
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4621733/theresa-may-housing-crisis-speech/
read and comprehend!
she is obviously a good and dutiful girl with her heart in the
right place, but hair-brained schemes for grammar schools
and economic nonsense like help to buy, will not solve
educational not housing problems....
Nicking Miliband's energy cap also seems to me to be economic nonsense -
reducing taxes or making it easier for competitors to set up in the
market would be more likely to address prices without distorting the
price signal like that.
just so...i didn't want to overload my post but it is good and
useful that you raise that point
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
student loan interest should also be halved immediately
What are you aiming to achieve with that suggestion aside from reducing
the burden of the debts on students?
allow student more of a transition to adulthood...teach them
about money and public goods...demonstrate that one
nation toryism is inclusive...
break this foolish them and us narrative always sued by socialism
to cause division in the society
And what of the lost revenues from reducing the interest in this way?
Would that be made up by raising taxes?
these are long forward notional revenues...most people won't follow
the details...
much of the so-called revenues will die on the branch...many will
dump the debts...much will be written off...by inflation or
whatever...

there is far too much attention to materialism (widely disguised
as 'money')

tax is about power, not about money...government can always
get more taxes up to the maximum in socialist regimes of 100%

a society can build pyramids and still get more wealth as technology
probes to meet the demands of such non productive activities...

government can build more living units...society won't go bankrupt
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
has she the sense to listen to better experienced and educated
advisors or does she believe she knows better like some corvyd
lite?
very possibly the tory party with several years to go is hoping to
deal with these serious long term problems nearer the next
election and with a more able leader....
but allowing stereotypes to settle in while not going for the
core of the problems, could be too late and pitch us into
another session of socialist destruction...
At the moment, if a general election were held I'd expect Labour to win.
i wouldn't...but it may well break the tory overall majority
You mean that the Tories would no longer be able to retain a majority by
combining with the DUP and would have to e.g. add the Lib Dems or some
other party to the coalition?
just so
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
ISTM the Tories lack ideas, lack energy and lack enthusiasm, (and seem
to have a PM who is unlucky) and are blamed for much of what is going
wrong in the country whereas Labour now has ideas, energy, enthusiasm
and policies that they can sell as addressing concerns about low wages,
lack of affordable accommodation, high energy prices, etc.
imv fascist 'new' labour is the destructive force it always has been
and will be...they will solve nothing and just leave another and
bigger mess
I should clarify - I'm speaking in terms of their appeal to the public
not what I think would be the results of them being elected and enacting
their policies. I'm not convinced by them but they appear to have
policies that are popular with much of the population, especially those
under 40, but not just them.
free cake is always popular among idiots
Post by James Hammerton
E.g. many people would support renationalisation of the railways and
possibly the utilities as they think that would solve the problems they
have with them.
it would not produce one more service of rail line
Post by James Hammerton
Students are obviously happy to see tuition fees abolished and this has
appeal both to the students and their parents.
yes, free cake appeals to idiots...but it doesn't teach social
responsibility or social exchange...
and it doesn't give them a genuine stake in society
Post by James Hammerton
The promise to 'end austerity' resonates with those who feel they or the
poorer members of society have struggled in the aftermath of the 2008
crash, under wages that have declined in real terms, especially in the
public sector and those who have been on the sharp end of the benefit cuts.
if you borrow hundreds of billions there is some suggestion you intend
to repay it...
i'm unconvinced by 'real wages'...everything i see suggests a society
getting more wealthy...what exactly would a higher standard of
living look like? i'm even told the ginis are coming down

but when you shift in another 300,000 a year to share the wealth...
ie, the individual share goes down 1% every 2 or 3 years...
and much of this is crowded into a small part of a small island...

i want a far more detailed definition of 'standard of living' before
i can make sense of the standard leftist whiners
Post by James Hammerton
Anyway to return to my original point, I was trying to contrast a party
and government that seem tired and moribund with an opposition who have
defied expectations and appear confident and seem to appeal to a large
part of the public. I think especially if May's at the helm, the Tories
will most likely lose if an election is held any time soon. Possibly
Labour might need a coalition to govern, but that still means Corbyn in
power.
but the idea of another election in the near future won't happen
(some) unless people lose their senses
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
i just wish the lib dems would 'get their act together'...but as usual
they try to appease lefties instead of making their own case
They seem to be focussed on trying to undo Brexit, much good it's doing
them so far...
yes, it's incredible...
--
www.abelard.org
James Hammerton
2017-10-07 20:22:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 19:18:59 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 13:49:35 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at
suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the
surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on
well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the
right to do so being obtained, of course, by tendering for leases of
the note-bearing territory) there need be no more unemployment and,
with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community,
and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater
than it actually is. It would, indeed, be more sensible to build
houses and the like; but as there are political and practical
difficulties in the way of this, the above would be better than
nothing.
[General Theory, 1936, bk. 3]
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4621733/theresa-may-housing-crisis-speech/
read and comprehend!
she is obviously a good and dutiful girl with her heart in the
right place, but hair-brained schemes for grammar schools
and economic nonsense like help to buy, will not solve
educational not housing problems....
Nicking Miliband's energy cap also seems to me to be economic nonsense -
reducing taxes or making it easier for competitors to set up in the
market would be more likely to address prices without distorting the
price signal like that.
just so...i didn't want to overload my post but it is good and
useful that you raise that point
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
student loan interest should also be halved immediately
What are you aiming to achieve with that suggestion aside from reducing
the burden of the debts on students?
allow student more of a transition to adulthood...teach them
about money and public goods...demonstrate that one
nation toryism is inclusive...
break this foolish them and us narrative always sued by socialism
to cause division in the society
And what of the lost revenues from reducing the interest in this way?
Would that be made up by raising taxes?
these are long forward notional revenues...most people won't follow
the details...
much of the so-called revenues will die on the branch...many will
dump the debts...much will be written off...by inflation or
whatever...
If I read you correctly you're suggesting that the apparent lost
revenues would largely not have materialised anyway and those that do
will not be difficult to deal with due to the effects of inflation.
Post by abelard
there is far too much attention to materialism (widely disguised
as 'money')
tax is about power, not about money...government can always
get more taxes up to the maximum in socialist regimes of 100%
a society can build pyramids and still get more wealth as technology
probes to meet the demands of such non productive activities...
government can build more living units...society won't go bankrupt
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
has she the sense to listen to better experienced and educated
advisors or does she believe she knows better like some corvyd
lite?
very possibly the tory party with several years to go is hoping to
deal with these serious long term problems nearer the next
election and with a more able leader....
but allowing stereotypes to settle in while not going for the
core of the problems, could be too late and pitch us into
another session of socialist destruction...
At the moment, if a general election were held I'd expect Labour to win.
i wouldn't...but it may well break the tory overall majority
You mean that the Tories would no longer be able to retain a majority by
combining with the DUP and would have to e.g. add the Lib Dems or some
other party to the coalition?
just so
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
ISTM the Tories lack ideas, lack energy and lack enthusiasm, (and seem
to have a PM who is unlucky) and are blamed for much of what is going
wrong in the country whereas Labour now has ideas, energy, enthusiasm
and policies that they can sell as addressing concerns about low wages,
lack of affordable accommodation, high energy prices, etc.
imv fascist 'new' labour is the destructive force it always has been
and will be...they will solve nothing and just leave another and
bigger mess
I should clarify - I'm speaking in terms of their appeal to the public
not what I think would be the results of them being elected and enacting
their policies. I'm not convinced by them but they appear to have
policies that are popular with much of the population, especially those
under 40, but not just them.
free cake is always popular among idiots
ISTM more than about 'free cake', though I grant that is a factor.

Many are angry/concerned about the ongoing cuts in welfare, the impact
that has on the poor (e.g. rise in use of foodbanks), the phenomenon of
sick and disabled people being declared fit to work when they clearly
are not and losing beneifts as a result, the apparent ease with which
large corporations can avoid paying taxes or the low paid and uncertain
nature of many jobs. And they see Labour apparently willing to address
all these concerns after a long period where the Tory dominated
governments seem to have done little about it all.
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
E.g. many people would support renationalisation of the railways and
possibly the utilities as they think that would solve the problems they
have with them.
it would not produce one more service of rail line
quite probably - but they don't see the Tories offering solutions to the
problems they have (e.g. 'rip off' energy prices, packed commuter
trains) and they do see Labour doing so.
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Students are obviously happy to see tuition fees abolished and this has
appeal both to the students and their parents.
yes, free cake appeals to idiots...but it doesn't teach social
responsibility or social exchange...
and it doesn't give them a genuine stake in society
Post by James Hammerton
The promise to 'end austerity' resonates with those who feel they or the
poorer members of society have struggled in the aftermath of the 2008
crash, under wages that have declined in real terms, especially in the
public sector and those who have been on the sharp end of the benefit cuts.
if you borrow hundreds of billions there is some suggestion you intend
to repay it...
Of course, but they'll note that despite Tory rhetoric the national debt
has grown and more debt has been added than Labour ramped up, that the
Tories promised to remove the deficit by 2015 but then let that slip to
2025 and we still have a sizeable deficit (in nominal terms, and in
'real' terms if using official measures of inflation, using your measure
of inflation implies the economy is currently contracting in real terms)
so they don't trust them anymore,
Post by abelard
i'm unconvinced by 'real wages'...everything i see suggests a society
getting more wealthy...what exactly would a higher standard of
living look like? i'm even told the ginis are coming down
AIUI the median wage in real terms is still lower than it was pre-credit
crunch, and official inflation has recently outdone average wage
increases so again we have declining real terms wages. Note that moving
to your measure of inflation would actually mean that median real terms
wages would be falling even faster!
Post by abelard
but when you shift in another 300,000 a year to share the wealth...
ie, the individual share goes down 1% every 2 or 3 years...
and much of this is crowded into a small part of a small island...
i want a far more detailed definition of 'standard of living' before
i can make sense of the standard leftist whiners
Fair enough - I do see people talking about rising numbers in 'poverty'
(defined as 60% of median wage), there's the whole foodbank phenomenon
plus increases in the number of homeless, as well as stories of disabled
people losing benefits, people being moved onto universal credit having
to wait weeks during the switch over without getting any money, etc, but
I'd need to do a lot of digging to unearth numbers and definitions.

But this is almost a side point to my main point - Labour has managed to
appeal to many because they seem to aware of all these issues and
proposing to deal with them, whilst the Tories ISTM are not and are
increasingly looking out of touch or uncaring. This is about people's
perceptions (including my own perception of how people are judging the
Tories and Labour) as much as about the underlying reality (but
people's perceptions and their resultant behavious are part of that
reality).

It's why I think there's a real danger of a Corbyn government unless the
Tories manage to renew themselves.
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Anyway to return to my original point, I was trying to contrast a party
and government that seem tired and moribund with an opposition who have
defied expectations and appear confident and seem to appeal to a large
part of the public. I think especially if May's at the helm, the Tories
will most likely lose if an election is held any time soon. Possibly
Labour might need a coalition to govern, but that still means Corbyn in
power.
but the idea of another election in the near future won't happen
(some) unless people lose their senses
Maybe, and if so then there is time for the Tories to address their own
weaknesses and the appeal that Corbyn has, but they appear to me
exhausted and Brexit will dominate until its delivered which makes me
wonder how much enery the party will be able to put into renewing itself.
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
i just wish the lib dems would 'get their act together'...but as usual
they try to appease lefties instead of making their own case
They seem to be focussed on trying to undo Brexit, much good it's doing
them so far...
yes, it's incredible...
They appear believe Brexit is going to be a disaster and that once the
public realise that they'll flock to them, though I note Clegg has
talked recently of people joining Labour to halt Brexit which seems
bizarre to me coming from a former Lib Dem leader who led his party into
a coalition government for the first time since the war...

Regards,

James
--
James Hammerton
http://jhammerton.wordpress.com
http://www.magnacartaplus.com/
abelard
2017-10-07 22:00:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 21:22:48 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 19:18:59 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
And what of the lost revenues from reducing the interest in this way?
Would that be made up by raising taxes?
these are long forward notional revenues...most people won't follow
the details...
much of the so-called revenues will die on the branch...many will
dump the debts...much will be written off...by inflation or
whatever...
If I read you correctly you're suggesting that the apparent lost
revenues would largely not have materialised anyway and those that do
will not be difficult to deal with due to the effects of inflation.
yes..and the ability to find other places to extract tax
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
ISTM the Tories lack ideas, lack energy and lack enthusiasm, (and seem
to have a PM who is unlucky) and are blamed for much of what is going
wrong in the country whereas Labour now has ideas, energy, enthusiasm
and policies that they can sell as addressing concerns about low wages,
lack of affordable accommodation, high energy prices, etc.
imv fascist 'new' labour is the destructive force it always has been
and will be...they will solve nothing and just leave another and
bigger mess
I should clarify - I'm speaking in terms of their appeal to the public
not what I think would be the results of them being elected and enacting
their policies. I'm not convinced by them but they appear to have
policies that are popular with much of the population, especially those
under 40, but not just them.
free cake is always popular among idiots
ISTM more than about 'free cake', though I grant that is a factor.
Many are angry/concerned about the ongoing cuts in welfare, the impact
that has on the poor (e.g. rise in use of foodbanks), the phenomenon of
sick and disabled people being declared fit to work when they clearly
are not and losing beneifts as a result, the apparent ease with which
large corporations can avoid paying taxes or the low paid and uncertain
nature of many jobs. And they see Labour apparently willing to address
all these concerns after a long period where the Tory dominated
governments seem to have done little about it all.
the tax will come out of production whatever the excuses or
pretences...

government is about power, not money...

you can't have what you don't produce...no person can consume
a *great* deal more than any other...
so many want status and fame rather than serious wealth...
they want symbols like a ferrari when there are multiple
simple substitutes...

give most people money and they spend it on waste and symbols

from your para above so much is jealousy...no--one starves in the uk..
a food bank is just more free cake...i'm happy some middle class
people collect and dole it out...it's good for them!

i have a much different view of society than the victimology of
socialism...most british people know nothing of real poverty...

oh dear...i've blown my handouts on fags and other drugs and
gambling machines...there's always the 'foodbanks'
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
E.g. many people would support renationalisation of the railways and
possibly the utilities as they think that would solve the problems they
have with them.
it would not produce one more service of rail line
quite probably - but they don't see the Tories offering solutions to the
problems they have (e.g. 'rip off' energy prices, packed commuter
trains) and they do see Labour doing so.
what 'solutions' do you want?

no extra services...but something to whine about...that's all
fascist 'new' labour retail
and then they screw up everything they touch as added bonus
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Students are obviously happy to see tuition fees abolished and this has
appeal both to the students and their parents.
yes, free cake appeals to idiots...but it doesn't teach social
responsibility or social exchange...
and it doesn't give them a genuine stake in society
Post by James Hammerton
The promise to 'end austerity' resonates with those who feel they or the
poorer members of society have struggled in the aftermath of the 2008
crash, under wages that have declined in real terms, especially in the
public sector and those who have been on the sharp end of the benefit cuts.
if you borrow hundreds of billions there is some suggestion you intend
to repay it...
Of course, but they'll note that despite Tory rhetoric the national debt
has grown
the real national debt is now falling...people just can't follow
the numbers because they are innumerate and ill-educated
by the government cartel blob
Post by James Hammerton
and more debt has been added than Labour ramped up, that the
Tories promised to remove the deficit by 2015 but then let that slip to
2025 and we still have a sizeable deficit (in nominal terms, and in
'real' terms if using official measures of inflation, using your measure
of inflation implies the economy is currently contracting in real terms)
so they don't trust them anymore,
you know well my trust in the numbers is close to zero...

the real deficit was already non-existent last i looked

you'll never get sense on economics from an innumerate, let
alone a cult socialist
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
i'm unconvinced by 'real wages'...everything i see suggests a society
getting more wealthy...what exactly would a higher standard of
living look like? i'm even told the ginis are coming down
AIUI the median wage in real terms is still lower than it was pre-credit
crunch, and official inflation has recently outdone average wage
increases so again we have declining real terms wages. Note that moving
to your measure of inflation would actually mean that median real terms
wages would be falling even faster!
agreed fully...but then fitted carpets rule and the computers keep
getting cheaper, better and more reliable...
and the flat screens get ever larger and the cars do more to the
gallon or have more gimmicks....

who needs 50 chinese t shirts...
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
but when you shift in another 300,000 a year to share the wealth...
ie, the individual share goes down 1% every 2 or 3 years...
and much of this is crowded into a small part of a small island...
i want a far more detailed definition of 'standard of living' before
i can make sense of the standard leftist whiners
Fair enough - I do see people talking about rising numbers in 'poverty'
(defined as 60% of median wage), there's the whole foodbank phenomenon
plus increases in the number of homeless, as well as stories of disabled
people losing benefits, people being moved onto universal credit having
to wait weeks during the switch over without getting any money, etc, but
I'd need to do a lot of digging to unearth numbers and definitions.
the party tells me they are 'teething problems'

the housing shortage is real...
Post by James Hammerton
But this is almost a side point to my main point - Labour has managed to
appeal to many because they seem to aware of all these issues and
proposing to deal with them, whilst the Tories ISTM are not and are
increasingly looking out of touch or uncaring. This is about people's
perceptions (including my own perception of how people are judging the
Tories and Labour) as much as about the underlying reality (but
people's perceptions and their resultant behavious are part of that
reality).
doubtless the myth building is cutting ice with dopes...

the socialists are constantly seeking matters to whine about...
tories are mostly trying to fix them...
but tories expect to enable the people to fix them...

socialists want to turn people into clients('victims')
Post by James Hammerton
It's why I think there's a real danger of a Corbyn government unless the
Tories manage to renew themselves.
more than 4 more years....plenty of time...

elections are won and lost in the last few weeks...not now...
ask theresa...

tories are steadily correcting 'the economy'...they can do that
for years...
ad the idiocracy won't even remember last week
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Anyway to return to my original point, I was trying to contrast a party
and government that seem tired and moribund with an opposition who have
defied expectations and appear confident and seem to appeal to a large
part of the public. I think especially if May's at the helm, the Tories
will most likely lose if an election is held any time soon. Possibly
Labour might need a coalition to govern, but that still means Corbyn in
power.
but the idea of another election in the near future won't happen
(some) unless people lose their senses
Maybe, and if so then there is time for the Tories to address their own
weaknesses and the appeal that Corbyn has, but they appear to me
exhausted and Brexit will dominate until its delivered which makes me
wonder how much enery the party will be able to put into renewing itself.
they let bliar in....nothing is impossible...
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
i just wish the lib dems would 'get their act together'...but as usual
they try to appease lefties instead of making their own case
They seem to be focussed on trying to undo Brexit, much good it's doing
them so far...
yes, it's incredible...
They appear believe Brexit is going to be a disaster and that once the
public realise that they'll flock to them, though I note Clegg has
talked recently of people joining Labour to halt Brexit which seems
bizarre to me coming from a former Lib Dem leader who led his party into
a coalition government for the first time since the war...
remember, the lib dems and the fnlp are out of power...

and therefore helpless for years to come...

how long do you suppose jerry and his whiners can maintain
the hysteria??
--
www.abelard.org
James Hammerton
2017-10-08 12:46:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 21:22:48 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 19:18:59 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
And what of the lost revenues from reducing the interest in this way?
Would that be made up by raising taxes?
these are long forward notional revenues...most people won't follow
the details...
much of the so-called revenues will die on the branch...many will
dump the debts...much will be written off...by inflation or
whatever...
If I read you correctly you're suggesting that the apparent lost
revenues would largely not have materialised anyway and those that do
will not be difficult to deal with due to the effects of inflation.
yes..and the ability to find other places to extract tax
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
ISTM the Tories lack ideas, lack energy and lack enthusiasm, (and seem
to have a PM who is unlucky) and are blamed for much of what is going
wrong in the country whereas Labour now has ideas, energy, enthusiasm
and policies that they can sell as addressing concerns about low wages,
lack of affordable accommodation, high energy prices, etc.
imv fascist 'new' labour is the destructive force it always has been
and will be...they will solve nothing and just leave another and
bigger mess
I should clarify - I'm speaking in terms of their appeal to the public
not what I think would be the results of them being elected and enacting
their policies. I'm not convinced by them but they appear to have
policies that are popular with much of the population, especially those
under 40, but not just them.
free cake is always popular among idiots
ISTM more than about 'free cake', though I grant that is a factor.
Many are angry/concerned about the ongoing cuts in welfare, the impact
that has on the poor (e.g. rise in use of foodbanks), the phenomenon of
sick and disabled people being declared fit to work when they clearly
are not and losing beneifts as a result, the apparent ease with which
large corporations can avoid paying taxes or the low paid and uncertain
nature of many jobs. And they see Labour apparently willing to address
all these concerns after a long period where the Tory dominated
governments seem to have done little about it all.
the tax will come out of production whatever the excuses or
pretences...
government is about power, not money...
Agreed - which I think is why some see the ability of the government to
throw taxpayers money at the problems as a solution...
Post by abelard
you can't have what you don't produce...no person can consume
a *great* deal more than any other...
What about the person who owns a large estate, is chauffeur driven or
flown in a private plane whenever they wish to go somewhere and has so
much money that they can live like this off interest payments alone?
ISTM they'll be consuming considerably more than say someone living in a
room in shared accommodation, earning the minimum wage and relying on
walking, cycling or public transport to go anywhere... But maybe I'm not
sure what you mean by 'a *great* deal more'...
Post by abelard
so many want status and fame rather than serious wealth...
they want symbols like a ferrari when there are multiple
simple substitutes...
True, but the focus of those whose anger/concern I mentioned is, at
least ostensibly, on those who are struggling to get by or who are
unfortunate to have a disability or long term serious illness, by which
I mean that the anger they have is directed at the government for, as
they see it, making things more difficult for those at the bottom of the
pile by reducing levels of support.
Post by abelard
give most people money and they spend it on waste and symbols
from your para above so much is jealousy...
Is it? When people see those on low incomes forced to make savings and
struggling to get by themselves, whilst large corporations are
apparently able to avoid paying much in the way of corporation tax, they
wonder about the government's priorities.
Post by abelard
no--one starves in the uk..
Maybe not, but apparently many people do struggle to get enough to eat:
http://foodfoundation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/FoodInsecurityBriefing-May-2016-FINAL.pdf
Post by abelard
a food bank is just more free cake...
AIUI you can only use it if you get referred e.g. by a doctor or social
worker: https://www.trusselltrust.org/what-we-do/how-foodbanks-work/
Post by abelard
i'm happy some middle class
people collect and dole it out...it's good for them!
ISTM many of them don't expect to have to do this in a wealthy country
and are angry that our governments have let the welfare state and wages
of the low paid fall to the level where it's necessary.
Post by abelard
i have a much different view of society than the victimology of
socialism...most british people know nothing of real poverty...
oh dear...i've blown my handouts on fags and other drugs and
gambling machines...there's always the 'foodbanks'
Is that description based on data about those who use foodbanks?
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
E.g. many people would support renationalisation of the railways and
possibly the utilities as they think that would solve the problems they
have with them.
it would not produce one more service of rail line
quite probably - but they don't see the Tories offering solutions to the
problems they have (e.g. 'rip off' energy prices, packed commuter
trains) and they do see Labour doing so.
what 'solutions' do you want?
Well something that works, ideally without extra government
interference. Or a clear explanation of why it may not be possible to
address the problems without ludicrous cost.

E.g. re: 'rip off' energy prices, if prices are thought too high, one
might ask whether some aspects of our current set up are preventing
competition, or whether the taxes or regulations the energy companies
have to comply with might be at fault or whether the problem is one of
expectations.

Yet what we get is an energy price cap, the solution rejected when
Miliband proposed it, and which starts buying into Labour's way of doing
things and contradicts the defence of markets the government have
attempted recently...
Post by abelard
no extra services...but something to whine about...that's all
fascist 'new' labour retail
and then they screw up everything they touch as added bonus
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Students are obviously happy to see tuition fees abolished and this has
appeal both to the students and their parents.
yes, free cake appeals to idiots...but it doesn't teach social
responsibility or social exchange...
and it doesn't give them a genuine stake in society
Post by James Hammerton
The promise to 'end austerity' resonates with those who feel they or the
poorer members of society have struggled in the aftermath of the 2008
crash, under wages that have declined in real terms, especially in the
public sector and those who have been on the sharp end of the benefit cuts.
if you borrow hundreds of billions there is some suggestion you intend
to repay it...
Of course, but they'll note that despite Tory rhetoric the national debt
has grown
the real national debt is now falling...people just can't follow
the numbers because they are innumerate and ill-educated
by the government cartel blob
Well most people are unaware of how inflation should be measured and
rely on the official definitions, where the national debt is set to fall
in real terms in the next few years, but there's a sting in the tail if
we adopt the M4-based measure you suggest in that it implies the economy
has been growing at considerably less than the rate of inflation.
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
and more debt has been added than Labour ramped up, that the
Tories promised to remove the deficit by 2015 but then let that slip to
2025 and we still have a sizeable deficit (in nominal terms, and in
'real' terms if using official measures of inflation, using your measure
of inflation implies the economy is currently contracting in real terms)
so they don't trust them anymore,
you know well my trust in the numbers is close to zero...
the real deficit was already non-existent last i looked
you'll never get sense on economics from an innumerate, let
alone a cult socialist
But one merely needs to take the official figures on debt and deficit
and inflation and believe they're reasonably accurate to make the
argument that we still have a sizeable deficit and that the amount of
debt added since Labour lost power is a lot more than the debt that
existed at that point. That's what most ordinary people will be dealing
with if they're paying attention to the debt and deficit, not your
figures on this.
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
i'm unconvinced by 'real wages'...everything i see suggests a society
getting more wealthy...what exactly would a higher standard of
living look like? i'm even told the ginis are coming down
AIUI the median wage in real terms is still lower than it was pre-credit
crunch, and official inflation has recently outdone average wage
increases so again we have declining real terms wages. Note that moving
to your measure of inflation would actually mean that median real terms
wages would be falling even faster!
agreed fully...but then fitted carpets rule and the computers keep
getting cheaper, better and more reliable...
and the flat screens get ever larger and the cars do more to the
gallon or have more gimmicks....
who needs 50 chinese t shirts...
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
but when you shift in another 300,000 a year to share the wealth...
ie, the individual share goes down 1% every 2 or 3 years...
and much of this is crowded into a small part of a small island...
i want a far more detailed definition of 'standard of living' before
i can make sense of the standard leftist whiners
Fair enough - I do see people talking about rising numbers in 'poverty'
(defined as 60% of median wage), there's the whole foodbank phenomenon
plus increases in the number of homeless, as well as stories of disabled
people losing benefits, people being moved onto universal credit having
to wait weeks during the switch over without getting any money, etc, but
I'd need to do a lot of digging to unearth numbers and definitions.
the party tells me they are 'teething problems'
I suspect that's for the universal credit bit, which I grant may be
feeding into the foodbank usage.

The phenomenon of disabled losing benefits due to being incorrectly
pronounced fit for work has been going on for years...
Post by abelard
the housing shortage is real...
Indeed and another point where the government's proposed solutions seem
rather modest if not counter productive, hence allowing Labour to enter
the space with more radical, if misguided, proposals and be taken
seriously...

Though I do understand that some of the changes needed to ramp up house
building would encounter resistance, e.g. relaxing planning laws,
allowing some of the 'green belt' to be used.
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
But this is almost a side point to my main point - Labour has managed to
appeal to many because they seem to aware of all these issues and
proposing to deal with them, whilst the Tories ISTM are not and are
increasingly looking out of touch or uncaring. This is about people's
perceptions (including my own perception of how people are judging the
Tories and Labour) as much as about the underlying reality (but
people's perceptions and their resultant behavious are part of that
reality).
doubtless the myth building is cutting ice with dopes...
the socialists are constantly seeking matters to whine about...
tories are mostly trying to fix them...
but tories expect to enable the people to fix them...
socialists want to turn people into clients('victims')
Post by James Hammerton
It's why I think there's a real danger of a Corbyn government unless the
Tories manage to renew themselves.
more than 4 more years....plenty of time...
elections are won and lost in the last few weeks...not now...
ask theresa...
Yeah, I think she lost her majority after the manifesto launch and a
series of excruciatingly bad public appearances. I think that caused
people to seriously question her and to take a fresh look at Corbyn's
offerings, though I also think he got an easy ride because there wasn't
much attempt to scrutinise the policies.
Post by abelard
tories are steadily correcting 'the economy'...they can do that
for years...
I think until people start seeing the improved economy reflected in e.g.
sustained pay rises or housing coming online that they really can afford
to buy they will question whether the Tories really are working.
Post by abelard
ad the idiocracy won't even remember last week
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Anyway to return to my original point, I was trying to contrast a party
and government that seem tired and moribund with an opposition who have
defied expectations and appear confident and seem to appeal to a large
part of the public. I think especially if May's at the helm, the Tories
will most likely lose if an election is held any time soon. Possibly
Labour might need a coalition to govern, but that still means Corbyn in
power.
but the idea of another election in the near future won't happen
(some) unless people lose their senses
Maybe, and if so then there is time for the Tories to address their own
weaknesses and the appeal that Corbyn has, but they appear to me
exhausted and Brexit will dominate until its delivered which makes me
wonder how much enery the party will be able to put into renewing itself.
they let bliar in....nothing is impossible...
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
i just wish the lib dems would 'get their act together'...but as usual
they try to appease lefties instead of making their own case
They seem to be focussed on trying to undo Brexit, much good it's doing
them so far...
yes, it's incredible...
They appear believe Brexit is going to be a disaster and that once the
public realise that they'll flock to them, though I note Clegg has
talked recently of people joining Labour to halt Brexit which seems
bizarre to me coming from a former Lib Dem leader who led his party into
a coalition government for the first time since the war...
remember, the lib dems and the fnlp are out of power...
and therefore helpless for years to come...
how long do you suppose jerry and his whiners can maintain
the hysteria??
So long as they can point to people on low incomes losing out, disabled
people losing benefits due to incorrect assessments of their fitness to
work, median wages falling in real terms, etc I think they can point to
evidence that things aren't work and blame it on the Tories and claim
they'll do better. And if the Tories can't give convincing responses to
that, then Corbyn may end up replacing them.

Regards,

James
--
James Hammerton
http://jhammerton.wordpress.com
http://www.magnacartaplus.com/
Farmer Giles
2017-10-08 13:28:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 21:22:48 +0100, James Hammerton
      the hysteria??
So long as they can point to people on low incomes losing out, disabled
people losing benefits due to incorrect assessments of their fitness to
work, median wages falling in real terms, etc I think they can point to
evidence that things aren't work and blame it on the Tories and claim
they'll do better. And if the Tories can't give convincing responses to
that, then Corbyn may end up replacing them.
Regards,
James
You are to be congratulated on your patience for attempting to have a
sensible conversation with this arch-idiot, Babbelard - I gave up years
ago. You've either found the best way to skewer him or you're an eternal
optimist. Whichever it is, best of luck.







---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
abelard
2017-10-08 13:29:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 13:46:17 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
the tax will come out of production whatever the excuses or
pretences...
government is about power, not money...
Agreed - which I think is why some see the ability of the government to
throw taxpayers money at the problems as a solution...
but you know that is nonsense...fiat money is a very poor measure
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
you can't have what you don't produce...no person can consume
a *great* deal more than any other...
What about the person who owns a large estate, is chauffeur driven or
flown in a private plane whenever they wish to go somewhere and has so
much money that they can live like this off interest payments alone?
ISTM they'll be consuming considerably more than say someone living in a
room in shared accommodation, earning the minimum wage and relying on
walking, cycling or public transport to go anywhere... But maybe I'm not
sure what you mean by 'a *great* deal more'...
she will still only eat 3 meals and sleep in one bed...

and provide 'employment'(something to while away the hours?)
for others...
we're running out of necessary 'work'

having read through your (long!!) post....you know i want a citizen's
wage...and clearly 'universal benefit' is leaning in that direction
mostly the unfit don't even *need* extras....perhaps a mobility
allowance or a bit of home help...

but every supplicant strives to qualify and maximise their own
handouts...
naturally there will be 'disputes' and hard luck stories...and errors
by the mediocrities who apply 'the rules'
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
so many want status and fame rather than serious wealth...
they want symbols like a ferrari when there are multiple
simple substitutes...
True, but the focus of those whose anger/concern I mentioned is, at
least ostensibly, on those who are struggling to get by or who are
unfortunate to have a disability or long term serious illness, by which
I mean that the anger they have is directed at the government for, as
they see it, making things more difficult for those at the bottom of the
pile by reducing levels of support.
every one has their cross to bear!

i don't have a difficultometer
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
give most people money and they spend it on waste and symbols
from your para above so much is jealousy...
Is it? When people see those on low incomes forced to make savings and
struggling to get by themselves, whilst large corporations are
apparently able to avoid paying much in the way of corporation tax, they
wonder about the government's priorities.
corporations are not people(despite the fictions of the 'law')

the tax still emanates from their activities...

meanwhile the public get cheaper goods...put up the taxes and
the goods scattered by those corps will also rise...
it's a fake argument...like all socialist arguments
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
no--one starves in the uk..
http://foodfoundation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/FoodInsecurityBriefing-May-2016-FINAL.pdf
they have a constituency and they have stakeholders just
like any other human group....

i've seen a whole slew of individual cases...if they are not
feeding well there are always reasons not based on inadequate
handouts
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
a food bank is just more free cake...
AIUI you can only use it if you get referred e.g. by a doctor or social
worker: https://www.trusselltrust.org/what-we-do/how-foodbanks-work/
i don't know the details nor how many such groups there are...

i do know very well that medics can be nagged or even bullied
into signing appropriate forms
and many are naturally soft-hearted...
...they also want to keep their customers
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
i'm happy some middle class
people collect and dole it out...it's good for them!
ISTM many of them don't expect to have to do this in a wealthy country
and are angry that our governments have let the welfare state and wages
of the low paid fall to the level where it's necessary.
g'wan...they want a cause...many want to experience 'justified' anger
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
i have a much different view of society than the victimology of
socialism...most british people know nothing of real poverty...
oh dear...i've blown my handouts on fags and other drugs and
gambling machines...there's always the 'foodbanks'
Is that description based on data about those who use foodbanks?
yes....but it is individual cases...not generalities...

i've never found anyone who couldn't improve their lot is they
have the will and will take advice
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
E.g. many people would support renationalisation of the railways and
possibly the utilities as they think that would solve the problems they
have with them.
it would not produce one more service of rail line
quite probably - but they don't see the Tories offering solutions to the
problems they have (e.g. 'rip off' energy prices, packed commuter
trains) and they do see Labour doing so.
what 'solutions' do you want?
Well something that works, ideally without extra government
interference. Or a clear explanation of why it may not be possible to
address the problems without ludicrous cost.
E.g. re: 'rip off' energy prices, if prices are thought too high, one
might ask whether some aspects of our current set up are preventing
competition, or whether the taxes or regulations the energy companies
have to comply with might be at fault or whether the problem is one of
expectations.
Yet what we get is an energy price cap, the solution rejected when
Miliband proposed it, and which starts buying into Labour's way of doing
things and contradicts the defence of markets the government have
attempted recently...
energy is a fundamental human cost...it is not optional...

i return to the keynes quote at the top of my original post

i will add another
The important thing for Government is not to do things which
individuals are doing already, and to do them a little better or a
little worse; but to do those things which at present are not done at
all.
[The End of Laissez-Faire, 1926, part 4]

the government should be building houses as the tories did after
the last war...
bliar et all have seriously aggravated the problems by opening the
borders....

government should force nuclear power build up...

capping fuel prices is fiddling at the edges

the tories will have to over-ride local nimbies...which is the main
reason they are hesitating to 'do what is right'
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Of course, but they'll note that despite Tory rhetoric the national debt
has grown
the real national debt is now falling...people just can't follow
the numbers because they are innumerate and ill-educated
by the government cartel blob
Well most people are unaware of how inflation should be measured and
rely on the official definitions, where the national debt is set to fall
in real terms in the next few years, but there's a sting in the tail if
we adopt the M4-based measure you suggest in that it implies the economy
has been growing at considerably less than the rate of inflation.
as in my last post...computers etc are improving...that is not
caught in the gdp and other deliberately distorted gov't
numbers

there also comes a time when most people who want a fitted
carpet of running hot water already have it...

gdp is about capital as well as running costs

increased capital reduces running costs

i'm not convinced you are understanding all my interacting points yet.
blame it on my poor communication!!
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
and more debt has been added than Labour ramped up, that the
Tories promised to remove the deficit by 2015 but then let that slip to
2025 and we still have a sizeable deficit (in nominal terms, and in
'real' terms if using official measures of inflation, using your measure
of inflation implies the economy is currently contracting in real terms)
so they don't trust them anymore,
you know well my trust in the numbers is close to zero...
the real deficit was already non-existent last i looked
you'll never get sense on economics from an innumerate, let
alone a cult socialist
But one merely needs to take the official figures on debt and deficit
and inflation and believe they're reasonably accurate to make the
argument that we still have a sizeable deficit and that the amount of
debt added since Labour lost power is a lot more than the debt that
existed at that point. That's what most ordinary people will be dealing
with if they're paying attention to the debt and deficit, not your
figures on this.
i know well that most people cannot think with any clarity...
but then the government blob cartel run the 'schools'
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
It's why I think there's a real danger of a Corbyn government unless the
Tories manage to renew themselves.
more than 4 more years....plenty of time...
elections are won and lost in the last few weeks...not now...
ask theresa...
Yeah, I think she lost her majority after the manifesto launch and a
series of excruciatingly bad public appearances. I think that caused
people to seriously question her and to take a fresh look at Corbyn's
offerings, though I also think he got an easy ride because there wasn't
much attempt to scrutinise the policies.
my view also

the party won't fall for that again
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
tories are steadily correcting 'the economy'...they can do that
for years...
I think until people start seeing the improved economy reflected in e.g.
sustained pay rises or housing coming online that they really can afford
to buy they will question whether the Tories really are working.
most people are *very* short sighted...they want...and they want now

they don't thing in the way decent gov't must
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
how long do you suppose jerry and his whiners can maintain
the hysteria??
So long as they can point to people on low incomes losing out, disabled
people losing benefits due to incorrect assessments of their fitness to
work, median wages falling in real terms, etc I think they can point to
evidence that things aren't work and blame it on the Tories and claim
they'll do better. And if the Tories can't give convincing responses to
that, then Corbyn may end up replacing them.
'they will *always* find something to whine about...that is in
their nature

i hope i've not cut anything i should not

i'm rushing...again!
--
www.abelard.org
James Hammerton
2017-10-08 19:18:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 13:46:17 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
the tax will come out of production whatever the excuses or
pretences...
government is about power, not money...
Agreed - which I think is why some see the ability of the government to
throw taxpayers money at the problems as a solution...
[snip]
Post by abelard
having read through your (long!!) post....you know i want a citizen's
wage...and clearly 'universal benefit' is leaning in that direction
The problems with universal credit I hear about seem now to be being
addressed - I heard on the news that the switch over to universal credit
will no longer result in 6 week gaps between payments. But I raised that
as one of many issues to illustrate a point.
Post by abelard
mostly the unfit don't even *need* extras....perhaps a mobility
allowance or a bit of home help...
but every supplicant strives to qualify and maximise their own
handouts...
naturally there will be 'disputes' and hard luck stories...and errors
by the mediocrities who apply 'the rules'
When the order of 80% of appeals against removal of benefits from the
disabled are being won, with anecdotal stories of people being classed
fit to work when they're clearly not simply because on the day of the
interview they were able to walk a few paces, I have to wonder at how
the decisions are being made in the first place.
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
so many want status and fame rather than serious wealth...
they want symbols like a ferrari when there are multiple
simple substitutes...
True, but the focus of those whose anger/concern I mentioned is, at
least ostensibly, on those who are struggling to get by or who are
unfortunate to have a disability or long term serious illness, by which
I mean that the anger they have is directed at the government for, as
they see it, making things more difficult for those at the bottom of the
pile by reducing levels of support.
every one has their cross to bear!
i don't have a difficultometer
Sure, but you must realise that if someone suddenly has their benefits
stopped or reduced they may struggle to pay bills and/or find a way of
making up for the lost income, especially if they're disabled, long term
sick or living in an area with few jobs or have no qualifications.

A sudden drop in income is likely to cause difficulty for most people
and the poorest or those who are unfit/disabled are the least likely to
cope.

Anyway we've kind of got off the topic that was behind my comments in
the first place, namely why I think Labour are likely to win an election
held any time soon. ISTM it's the combination of people being
angry/concerned about the sorts of issues we've been talking about with
the arrival of a leader who has defied expectations and seems to believe
what he's saying and offering a clear alternative to the status quo.


I feel I'm not really conveying this well, perhaps this article may help...

https://semipartisansam.com/2017/09/29/dont-mistake-labours-party-conference-triumphalism-for-complacency/

...especially when read in conjunction with this:

https://semipartisansam.com/2017/10/05/claudius-goes-to-manchester/

A quote from the first will give you some idea:

"Jeremy Corbyn has a compelling narrative because he actually believes
in something, and people know he believes in something because he has
been banging on about the same things for thirty-odd years, and doesn’t
have to consult a focus group before he opens his mouth to respond to a
question. So Labour’s confidence comes from a combination of new-found
charisma at the top (say what you will about any of Corbyn’s centrist
leadership competitors, but none of them could be described as
charismatic) and huge energy and enthusiasm within the base. This is a
potent combination, not to be sniffed at by cynical journalists and
arrogant Tories who utterly failed to predict the 2017 general election
result."

And from the second:

"But more than all of this, it is about the yawning void where a
positive, ambitious and genuinely conservative vision for Britain should
sit. Margaret Thatcher also once suffered a coughing fit during a
speech, but it didn’t threaten to end her premiership because unlike the
present incumbent, Thatcher was a good prime minister with abundant
vision, courage and clearly defined principles. By contrast, the
emptiness of Theresa May’s conference speech matched the aimlessness of
her premiership, and the farce of its delivery painfully reflected her
administration’s “limitless capacity” for self-inflicted political wounds."

NB: I don't agree with everything he says in those articles but I think
he's onto something in contrasting a Labour party that seems to be
believe in something (even if that's socialism) and a Tory party that
seems tired and muddled.
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
give most people money and they spend it on waste and symbols
from your para above so much is jealousy...
Is it? When people see those on low incomes forced to make savings and
struggling to get by themselves, whilst large corporations are
apparently able to avoid paying much in the way of corporation tax, they
wonder about the government's priorities.
corporations are not people(despite the fictions of the 'law')
the tax still emanates from their activities...
meanwhile the public get cheaper goods...put up the taxes and
the goods scattered by those corps will also rise...
it's a fake argument...like all socialist arguments
You raise a good point, although I suspect many of the people I'm
thinking of would question the morality of reducing benefits for the
worst off whilst continuing to allow the tax avoidance being talked about.
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
no--one starves in the uk..
http://foodfoundation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/FoodInsecurityBriefing-May-2016-FINAL.pdf
they have a constituency and they have stakeholders just
like any other human group....
Who is "they" here? The Food Foundation? The food bank operators?
Post by abelard
i've seen a whole slew of individual cases...if they are not
feeding well there are always reasons not based on inadequate
handouts
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
a food bank is just more free cake...
AIUI you can only use it if you get referred e.g. by a doctor or social
worker: https://www.trusselltrust.org/what-we-do/how-foodbanks-work/
i don't know the details nor how many such groups there are...
i do know very well that medics can be nagged or even bullied
into signing appropriate forms
and many are naturally soft-hearted...
...they also want to keep their customers
If food banks didn't exist, are you saying the people who use them would
find some other way to get their food? Are you denying that they are
actually struggling to make ends meet?
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
i'm happy some middle class
people collect and dole it out...it's good for them!
ISTM many of them don't expect to have to do this in a wealthy country
and are angry that our governments have let the welfare state and wages
of the low paid fall to the level where it's necessary.
g'wan...they want a cause...many want to experience 'justified' anger
But equally the rise of food banks is a recent phenomenon, they appeared
sometime during the 2000s as I recall, I don't seem to remember there
being such things in the 1980s or 1990s, and many regard it as a sign of
a step backwards from the ideals of the welfare state.
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
i have a much different view of society than the victimology of
socialism...most british people know nothing of real poverty...
oh dear...i've blown my handouts on fags and other drugs and
gambling machines...there's always the 'foodbanks'
Is that description based on data about those who use foodbanks?
yes....but it is individual cases...not generalities...
i've never found anyone who couldn't improve their lot is they
have the will and will take advice
I don't necessarily see this as mutually exclusive of people at the
bottom of the pile struggling to make ends meet.
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
E.g. many people would support renationalisation of the railways and
possibly the utilities as they think that would solve the problems they
have with them.
it would not produce one more service of rail line
quite probably - but they don't see the Tories offering solutions to the
problems they have (e.g. 'rip off' energy prices, packed commuter
trains) and they do see Labour doing so.
what 'solutions' do you want?
Well something that works, ideally without extra government
interference. Or a clear explanation of why it may not be possible to
address the problems without ludicrous cost.
E.g. re: 'rip off' energy prices, if prices are thought too high, one
might ask whether some aspects of our current set up are preventing
competition, or whether the taxes or regulations the energy companies
have to comply with might be at fault or whether the problem is one of
expectations.
Yet what we get is an energy price cap, the solution rejected when
Miliband proposed it, and which starts buying into Labour's way of doing
things and contradicts the defence of markets the government have
attempted recently...
energy is a fundamental human cost...it is not optional...
Yes... I'm not sure why you raise it here, are you suggesting there;s
some merit to the price cap?
Post by abelard
i return to the keynes quote at the top of my original post
i will add another
The important thing for Government is not to do things which
individuals are doing already, and to do them a little better or a
little worse; but to do those things which at present are not done at
all.
[The End of Laissez-Faire, 1926, part 4]
the government should be building houses as the tories did after
the last war...
and they're not, as yet, though things may have improved a bit since
2010 on this front...
Post by abelard
bliar et all have seriously aggravated the problems by opening the
borders....
government should force nuclear power build up...
agreed
Post by abelard
capping fuel prices is fiddling at the edges
exactly my point, but worse than that it gives credence to Labour's
approach.
Post by abelard
the tories will have to over-ride local nimbies...which is the main
reason they are hesitating to 'do what is right'
they've been 'hesitating' for some time on the issue of housing...

both the coalition, Cameron's Tory govt and May's have tinkered around
the edges of this AFAICT.
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Of course, but they'll note that despite Tory rhetoric the national debt
has grown
the real national debt is now falling...people just can't follow
the numbers because they are innumerate and ill-educated
by the government cartel blob
Well most people are unaware of how inflation should be measured and
rely on the official definitions, where the national debt is set to fall
in real terms in the next few years, but there's a sting in the tail if
we adopt the M4-based measure you suggest in that it implies the economy
has been growing at considerably less than the rate of inflation.
as in my last post...computers etc are improving...that is not
caught in the gdp and other deliberately distorted gov't
numbers
there also comes a time when most people who want a fitted
carpet of running hot water already have it...
gdp is about capital as well as running costs
increased capital reduces running costs
Are you suggesting that the GDP growth running below the level of
inflation may be due to an economy that's reduced it's running costs?

That sounds like a major flaw in GDP...
Post by abelard
i'm not convinced you are understanding all my interacting points yet.
blame it on my poor communication!!
I'm not sure you're understanding mine either... but again that may be
my fault!
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
and more debt has been added than Labour ramped up, that the
Tories promised to remove the deficit by 2015 but then let that slip to
2025 and we still have a sizeable deficit (in nominal terms, and in
'real' terms if using official measures of inflation, using your measure
of inflation implies the economy is currently contracting in real terms)
so they don't trust them anymore,
you know well my trust in the numbers is close to zero...
the real deficit was already non-existent last i looked
you'll never get sense on economics from an innumerate, let
alone a cult socialist
But one merely needs to take the official figures on debt and deficit
and inflation and believe they're reasonably accurate to make the
argument that we still have a sizeable deficit and that the amount of
debt added since Labour lost power is a lot more than the debt that
existed at that point. That's what most ordinary people will be dealing
with if they're paying attention to the debt and deficit, not your
figures on this.
i know well that most people cannot think with any clarity...
but then the government blob cartel run the 'schools'
My point is that one needn't be a socialist to notice that according to
official figures the government repeatedly has missed its deadlines for
eliminating the deficit and that the debt has risen massively in the
meantime. Given that almost everyone in society takes these figures at
least as a rough guide, if not seriously, it should not be a surprise
the government gets flack on this front.
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
It's why I think there's a real danger of a Corbyn government unless the
Tories manage to renew themselves.
more than 4 more years....plenty of time...
elections are won and lost in the last few weeks...not now...
ask theresa...
Yeah, I think she lost her majority after the manifesto launch and a
series of excruciatingly bad public appearances. I think that caused
people to seriously question her and to take a fresh look at Corbyn's
offerings, though I also think he got an easy ride because there wasn't
much attempt to scrutinise the policies.
my view also
the party won't fall for that again
Well I hope the lack of it happening now is largely down to keeping
powder dry in that case...
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
tories are steadily correcting 'the economy'...they can do that
for years...
I think until people start seeing the improved economy reflected in e.g.
sustained pay rises or housing coming online that they really can afford
to buy they will question whether the Tories really are working.
most people are *very* short sighted...they want...and they want now
they don't thing in the way decent gov't must
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
how long do you suppose jerry and his whiners can maintain
the hysteria??
So long as they can point to people on low incomes losing out, disabled
people losing benefits due to incorrect assessments of their fitness to
work, median wages falling in real terms, etc I think they can point to
evidence that things aren't work and blame it on the Tories and claim
they'll do better. And if the Tories can't give convincing responses to
that, then Corbyn may end up replacing them.
'they will *always* find something to whine about...that is in
their nature
Yes, but there are 2 parts to my para above... there's also the response
to the whining...
Post by abelard
i hope i've not cut anything i should not
i'm rushing...again!
Regards,

James
--
James Hammerton
http://jhammerton.wordpress.com
http://www.magnacartaplus.com/
abelard
2017-10-09 10:23:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 20:18:14 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
The problems with universal credit I hear about seem now to be being
addressed - I heard on the news that the switch over to universal credit
will no longer result in 6 week gaps between payments. But I raised that
as one of many issues to illustrate a point.
Post by abelard
mostly the unfit don't even *need* extras....perhaps a mobility
allowance or a bit of home help...
but every supplicant strives to qualify and maximise their own
handouts...
naturally there will be 'disputes' and hard luck stories...and errors
by the mediocrities who apply 'the rules'
When the order of 80% of appeals against removal of benefits from the
disabled are being won, with anecdotal stories of people being classed
fit to work when they're clearly not simply because on the day of the
interview they were able to walk a few paces, I have to wonder at how
the decisions are being made in the first place.
80% of what? what are the raw numbers?
how many are on the 'benefit'?...how many are being struck off?
how many are appealing?

i can't cope with the details of your 400 line post!
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
every one has their cross to bear!
i don't have a difficultometer
Sure, but you must realise that if someone suddenly has their benefits
stopped or reduced they may struggle to pay bills and/or find a way of
making up for the lost income, especially if they're disabled, long term
sick or living in an area with few jobs or have no qualifications.
we have a poster here going on about less than 5% drop
in over £1000 a month...far more than the basic for a pensioner
Post by James Hammerton
A sudden drop in income is likely to cause difficulty for most people
and the poorest or those who are unfit/disabled are the least likely to
cope.
Anyway we've kind of got off the topic that was behind my comments in
the first place, namely why I think Labour are likely to win an election
held any time soon. ISTM it's the combination of people being
angry/concerned about the sorts of issues we've been talking about with
the arrival of a leader who has defied expectations and seems to believe
what he's saying and offering a clear alternative to the status quo.
I feel I'm not really conveying this well, perhaps this article may help...
https://semipartisansam.com/2017/09/29/dont-mistake-labours-party-conference-triumphalism-for-complacency/
https://semipartisansam.com/2017/10/05/claudius-goes-to-manchester/
"Jeremy Corbyn has a compelling narrative because he actually believes
in something, and people know he believes in something because he has
been banging on about the same things for thirty-odd years, and doesn’t
have to consult a focus group before he opens his mouth to respond to a
question. So Labour’s confidence comes from a combination of new-found
charisma at the top (say what you will about any of Corbyn’s centrist
leadership competitors, but none of them could be described as
charismatic) and huge energy and enthusiasm within the base. This is a
potent combination, not to be sniffed at by cynical journalists and
arrogant Tories who utterly failed to predict the 2017 general election
result."
"But more than all of this, it is about the yawning void where a
positive, ambitious and genuinely conservative vision for Britain should
sit. Margaret Thatcher also once suffered a coughing fit during a
speech, but it didn’t threaten to end her premiership because unlike the
present incumbent, Thatcher was a good prime minister with abundant
vision, courage and clearly defined principles. By contrast, the
emptiness of Theresa May’s conference speech matched the aimlessness of
her premiership, and the farce of its delivery painfully reflected her
administration’s “limitless capacity” for self-inflicted political wounds."
NB: I don't agree with everything he says in those articles but I think
he's onto something in contrasting a Labour party that seems to be
believe in something (even if that's socialism) and a Tory party that
seems tired and muddled.
i wish i could fine time to read the details
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
meanwhile the public get cheaper goods...put up the taxes and
the goods scattered by those corps will also rise...
it's a fake argument...like all socialist arguments
You raise a good point, although I suspect many of the people I'm
thinking of would question the morality of reducing benefits for the
worst off whilst continuing to allow the tax avoidance being talked about.
i don't see any morality involved...this is taking money from
some working people in order to pay others who mostly are
not working...much of that for votes...
this is not charity

i'm content with income redistribution but the arguments are
quite complex
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
no--one starves in the uk..
http://foodfoundation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/FoodInsecurityBriefing-May-2016-FINAL.pdf
they have a constituency and they have stakeholders just
like any other human group....
Who is "they" here? The Food Foundation? The food bank operators?
yes
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
i've seen a whole slew of individual cases...if they are not
feeding well there are always reasons not based on inadequate
handouts
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
a food bank is just more free cake...
AIUI you can only use it if you get referred e.g. by a doctor or social
worker: https://www.trusselltrust.org/what-we-do/how-foodbanks-work/
i don't know the details nor how many such groups there are...
i do know very well that medics can be nagged or even bullied
into signing appropriate forms
and many are naturally soft-hearted...
...they also want to keep their customers
If food banks didn't exist, are you saying the people who use them would
find some other way to get their food? Are you denying that they are
actually struggling to make ends meet?
they are 'struggling...widely after gambling, fags and dedicated
idleness
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
i'm happy some middle class
people collect and dole it out...it's good for them!
ISTM many of them don't expect to have to do this in a wealthy country
and are angry that our governments have let the welfare state and wages
of the low paid fall to the level where it's necessary.
g'wan...they want a cause...many want to experience 'justified' anger
But equally the rise of food banks is a recent phenomenon, they appeared
sometime during the 2000s as I recall, I don't seem to remember there
being such things in the 1980s or 1990s, and many regard it as a sign of
a step backwards from the ideals of the welfare state.
they appeared after tories tried to get more into work and
started to reverse the crushing of the small battalions

government have been trying to crush local efforts for 300
years in favour of centralised power

socialism set out to destroy the family and any other competition
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
i've never found anyone who couldn't improve their lot is they
have the will and will take advice
I don't necessarily see this as mutually exclusive of people at the
bottom of the pile struggling to make ends meet.
i'm not against struggle...i'm not against helping others...

i am against turning adults into children and supplicants
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
energy is a fundamental human cost...it is not optional...
Yes... I'm not sure why you raise it here, are you suggesting there;s
some merit to the price cap?
no...i think it's ridiculous...
an element is built into the dole...

small adequately insulated living units are a better 'answer'
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
i return to the keynes quote at the top of my original post
i will add another
The important thing for Government is not to do things which
individuals are doing already, and to do them a little better or a
little worse; but to do those things which at present are not done at
all.
[The End of Laissez-Faire, 1926, part 4]
the government should be building houses as the tories did after
the last war...
and they're not, as yet, though things may have improved a bit since
2010 on this front...
yes, they are improving the situation...but it is far too slow in
the context...

one of the few half decent speeches at conference was javid

no-one is explaining economic to the masses....so socialist
keep pushing their utter nonsense
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
the tories will have to over-ride local nimbies...which is the main
reason they are hesitating to 'do what is right'
they've been 'hesitating' for some time on the issue of housing...
yes, cowardice...keep the base happy...they're making a vast
unearned income from it
it's not the rich who are depriving the poor...it's the middle classes
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
as in my last post...computers etc are improving...that is not
caught in the gdp and other deliberately distorted gov't
numbers
there also comes a time when most people who want a fitted
carpet of running hot water already have it...
gdp is about capital as well as running costs
increased capital reduces running costs
Are you suggesting that the GDP growth running below the level of
inflation may be due to an economy that's reduced it's running costs?
That sounds like a major flaw in GDP...
it would mean a lower gdp necessary to keep an adequate
standard of living....

most gov't numbers are pants and unfit for any useful purpose
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
i know well that most people cannot think with any clarity...
but then the government blob cartel run the 'schools'
My point is that one needn't be a socialist to notice that according to
official figures the government repeatedly has missed its deadlines for
eliminating the deficit and that the debt has risen massively in the
meantime. Given that almost everyone in society takes these figures at
least as a rough guide, if not seriously, it should not be a surprise
the government gets flack on this front.
i'm not surprised...socialism is a mental and social poison

and most of the rest are seriously innumerate...or dishonest...
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Yeah, I think she lost her majority after the manifesto launch and a
series of excruciatingly bad public appearances. I think that caused
people to seriously question her and to take a fresh look at Corbyn's
offerings, though I also think he got an easy ride because there wasn't
much attempt to scrutinise the policies.
my view also
the party won't fall for that again
Well I hope the lack of it happening now is largely down to keeping
powder dry in that case...
i have a jaundiced view of the intelligence of most humans
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
how long do you suppose jerry and his whiners can maintain
the hysteria??
So long as they can point to people on low incomes losing out, disabled
people losing benefits due to incorrect assessments of their fitness to
work, median wages falling in real terms, etc I think they can point to
evidence that things aren't work and blame it on the Tories and claim
they'll do better. And if the Tories can't give convincing responses to
that, then Corbyn may end up replacing them.
'they will *always* find something to whine about...that is in
their nature
Yes, but there are 2 parts to my para above... there's also the response
to the whining...
it needs intelligent politicians who will tell the truth in public...
then you get the cackling of the mediocrities....
'sack johnson'
and much better public education...

telling the truth in classrooms is also very unpopular...

there is much pressure to conform to the public myths

socialism is the received religion of the west, not christianity
...and the religion stinks
--
www.abelard.org
Ophelia
2017-10-07 21:36:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 13:49:35 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at
suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the
surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on
well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the
right to do so being obtained, of course, by tendering for leases of
the note-bearing territory) there need be no more unemployment and,
with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community,
and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater
than it actually is. It would, indeed, be more sensible to build
houses and the like; but as there are political and practical
difficulties in the way of this, the above would be better than
nothing.
[General Theory, 1936, bk. 3]
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4621733/theresa-may-housing-crisis-speech/
read and comprehend!
she is obviously a good and dutiful girl with her heart in the
right place, but hair-brained schemes for grammar schools
and economic nonsense like help to buy, will not solve
educational not housing problems....
Nicking Miliband's energy cap also seems to me to be economic nonsense -
reducing taxes or making it easier for competitors to set up in the
market would be more likely to address prices without distorting the
price signal like that.
just so...i didn't want to overload my post but it is good and
useful that you raise that point
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
student loan interest should also be halved immediately
What are you aiming to achieve with that suggestion aside from reducing
the burden of the debts on students?
allow student more of a transition to adulthood...teach them
about money and public goods...demonstrate that one
nation toryism is inclusive...
break this foolish them and us narrative always sued by socialism
to cause division in the society
And what of the lost revenues from reducing the interest in this way?
Would that be made up by raising taxes?
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
has she the sense to listen to better experienced and educated
advisors or does she believe she knows better like some corvyd
lite?
very possibly the tory party with several years to go is hoping to
deal with these serious long term problems nearer the next
election and with a more able leader....
but allowing stereotypes to settle in while not going for the
core of the problems, could be too late and pitch us into
another session of socialist destruction...
At the moment, if a general election were held I'd expect Labour to win.
i wouldn't...but it may well break the tory overall majority
You mean that the Tories would no longer be able to retain a majority by
combining with the DUP and would have to e.g. add the Lib Dems or some
other party to the coalition?
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
ISTM the Tories lack ideas, lack energy and lack enthusiasm, (and seem
to have a PM who is unlucky) and are blamed for much of what is going
wrong in the country whereas Labour now has ideas, energy, enthusiasm
and policies that they can sell as addressing concerns about low wages,
lack of affordable accommodation, high energy prices, etc.
imv fascist 'new' labour is the destructive force it always has been
and will be...they will solve nothing and just leave another and
bigger mess
I should clarify - I'm speaking in terms of their appeal to the public
not what I think would be the results of them being elected and enacting
their policies. I'm not convinced by them but they appear to have
policies that are popular with much of the population, especially those
under 40, but not just them.

E.g. many people would support renationalisation of the railways and
possibly the utilities as they think that would solve the problems they
have with them.

Students are obviously happy to see tuition fees abolished and this has
appeal both to the students and their parents.

The promise to 'end austerity' resonates with those who feel they or the
poorer members of society have struggled in the aftermath of the 2008
crash, under wages that have declined in real terms, especially in the
public sector and those who have been on the sharp end of the benefit cuts.

Anyway to return to my original point, I was trying to contrast a party
and government that seem tired and moribund with an opposition who have
defied expectations and appear confident and seem to appeal to a large
part of the public. I think especially if May's at the helm, the Tories
will most likely lose if an election is held any time soon. Possibly
Labour might need a coalition to govern, but that still means Corbyn in
power.
Post by abelard
i just wish the lib dems would 'get their act together'...but as usual
they try to appease lefties instead of making their own case
They seem to be focussed on trying to undo Brexit, much good it's doing
them so far...

Regards,

James

===

I seem to remember that the promise to abolish student tuition fees was
abandoned fairly quickly.

Given it was that promise that enthused young people to vote for them ...
how will they feel about it now?
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
James Hammerton
2017-10-07 23:24:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 13:49:35 +0100, James Hammerton
[snip]
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
ISTM the Tories lack ideas, lack energy and lack enthusiasm, (and seem
to have a PM who is unlucky) and are blamed for much of what is going
wrong in the country whereas Labour now has ideas, energy, enthusiasm
and policies that they can sell as addressing concerns about low wages,
lack of affordable accommodation, high energy prices, etc.
imv fascist 'new' labour is the destructive force it always has been
      and will be...they will solve nothing and just leave another and
      bigger mess
I should clarify - I'm speaking in terms of their appeal to the public
not what I think would be the results of them being elected and enacting
their policies. I'm not convinced by them but they appear to have
policies that are popular with much of the population, especially those
under 40, but not just them.
E.g. many people would support renationalisation of the railways and
possibly the utilities as they think that would solve the problems they
have with them.
Students are obviously happy to see tuition fees abolished and this has
appeal both to the students and their parents.
The promise to 'end austerity' resonates with those who feel they or the
poorer members of society have struggled in the aftermath of the 2008
crash, under wages that have declined in real terms, especially in the
public sector and those who have been on the sharp end of the benefit cuts.
Anyway to return to my original point, I was trying to contrast a party
and government that seem tired and moribund with an opposition who have
defied expectations and appear confident and seem to appeal to a large
part of the public. I think especially if May's at the helm, the Tories
will most likely lose if an election is held any time soon. Possibly
Labour might need a coalition to govern, but that still means Corbyn in
power.
Post by abelard
i just wish the lib dems would 'get their act together'...but as usual
     they try to appease lefties instead of making their own case
They seem to be focussed on trying to undo Brexit, much good it's doing
them so far...
Regards,
James
===
I seem to remember that the promise to abolish student tuition fees was
abandoned fairly quickly.
Given it was that promise that enthused young people to vote for them ...
how will they feel about it now?
AIUI there were 2 parts to the promise, one was abolishing tuition fees
which they apparently are sticking to, but other was to get rid of the
existing student debts which they've backed down from because it's a lot
of money. If I recall correctly, the Labour manifesto only mentioned the
first part, but Corbyn said something about the second part during the
election. After the election they backed down.

I can see students being disappointed about that, but sticking with
Labour because the promise is still there to abolish the fees, and the
Tories offer on this issue is much more modest.

Regards,

James
--
James Hammerton
http://jhammerton.wordpress.com
http://www.magnacartaplus.com/
James Harris
2017-10-08 00:01:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
...
Post by James Hammerton
Post by Ophelia
I seem to remember that the promise to abolish student tuition fees was
abandoned fairly quickly.
Given it was that promise that enthused young people to vote for them ...
how will they feel about it now?
AIUI there were 2 parts to the promise, one was abolishing tuition fees
which they apparently are sticking to, but other was to get rid of the
existing student debts which they've backed down from because it's a lot
of money. If I recall correctly, the Labour manifesto only mentioned the
first part, but Corbyn said something about the second part during the
election. After the election they backed down.
IIRC it was in a NME interview that Corbyn promised to deal with
existing debt.
Post by James Hammerton
I can see students being disappointed about that, but sticking with
Labour because the promise is still there to abolish the fees, and the
Tories offer on this issue is much more modest.
Labour's success was in persuading students that someone else would pay
the £11bn per year and that they (the students) wouldn't have to pay the
tuition fees back over many years of higher taxes.

Of course, paying tuition fees would not by itself deal with student debt.
--
James Harris
Ophelia
2017-10-08 12:36:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 13:49:35 +0100, James Hammerton
[snip]
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
ISTM the Tories lack ideas, lack energy and lack enthusiasm, (and seem
to have a PM who is unlucky) and are blamed for much of what is going
wrong in the country whereas Labour now has ideas, energy, enthusiasm
and policies that they can sell as addressing concerns about low wages,
lack of affordable accommodation, high energy prices, etc.
imv fascist 'new' labour is the destructive force it always has been
and will be...they will solve nothing and just leave another and
bigger mess
I should clarify - I'm speaking in terms of their appeal to the public
not what I think would be the results of them being elected and enacting
their policies. I'm not convinced by them but they appear to have
policies that are popular with much of the population, especially those
under 40, but not just them.
E.g. many people would support renationalisation of the railways and
possibly the utilities as they think that would solve the problems they
have with them.
Students are obviously happy to see tuition fees abolished and this has
appeal both to the students and their parents.
The promise to 'end austerity' resonates with those who feel they or the
poorer members of society have struggled in the aftermath of the 2008
crash, under wages that have declined in real terms, especially in the
public sector and those who have been on the sharp end of the benefit cuts.
Anyway to return to my original point, I was trying to contrast a party
and government that seem tired and moribund with an opposition who have
defied expectations and appear confident and seem to appeal to a large
part of the public. I think especially if May's at the helm, the Tories
will most likely lose if an election is held any time soon. Possibly
Labour might need a coalition to govern, but that still means Corbyn in
power.
Post by abelard
i just wish the lib dems would 'get their act together'...but as usual
they try to appease lefties instead of making their own case
They seem to be focussed on trying to undo Brexit, much good it's doing
them so far...
Regards,
James
===
I seem to remember that the promise to abolish student tuition fees was
abandoned fairly quickly.
Given it was that promise that enthused young people to vote for them ...
how will they feel about it now?
AIUI there were 2 parts to the promise, one was abolishing tuition fees
which they apparently are sticking to, but other was to get rid of the
existing student debts which they've backed down from because it's a lot
of money. If I recall correctly, the Labour manifesto only mentioned the
first part, but Corbyn said something about the second part during the
election. After the election they backed down.

I can see students being disappointed about that, but sticking with
Labour because the promise is still there to abolish the fees, and the
Tories offer on this issue is much more modest.

Regards,

James

==

Thanks, James. I missed the second part.
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
James Harris
2017-10-07 15:21:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at
suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the
surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on
well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the
right to do so being obtained, of course, by tendering for leases of
the note-bearing territory) there need be no more unemployment and,
with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community,
and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater
than it actually is. It would, indeed, be more sensible to build
houses and the like; but as there are political and practical
difficulties in the way of this, the above would be better than
nothing.
[General Theory, 1936, bk. 3]
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4621733/theresa-may-housing-crisis-speech/
read and comprehend!
she is obviously a good and dutiful girl with her heart in the
right place, but hair-brained schemes for grammar schools
and economic nonsense like help to buy, will not solve
educational not housing problems....
Nicking Miliband's energy cap also seems to me to be economic nonsense -
reducing taxes or making it easier for competitors to set up in the
market would be more likely to address prices without distorting the
price signal like that.
What about allowing public-private competition as in
http://pensites.com/politics/article-1195/public-private-competition?
--
James Harris
James Hammerton
2017-10-07 18:25:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at
suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the
surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on
well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the
right to do so being obtained, of course, by tendering for leases of
the note-bearing territory) there need be no more unemployment and,
with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community,
and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater
than it actually is. It would, indeed, be more sensible to build
houses and the like; but as there are political and practical
difficulties in the way of this, the above would be better than
nothing.
[General Theory, 1936, bk. 3]
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4621733/theresa-may-housing-crisis-speech/
read and comprehend!
she is obviously a good and dutiful girl with her heart in the
       right place, but hair-brained schemes for grammar schools
       and economic nonsense like help to buy, will not solve
       educational not housing problems....
Nicking Miliband's energy cap also seems to me to be economic nonsense -
reducing taxes or making it easier for competitors to set up in the
market would be more likely to address prices without distorting the
price signal like that.
What about allowing public-private competition as in
http://pensites.com/politics/article-1195/public-private-competition?
Would the publicly owned companies be required to operate solely from
the revenues they get from selling their products/services on the
market, as a private business must do?

If not, and tax payers money is used to support them, then ISTM the
publicly companies would have an unfair advantage.

If so, what would be the purpose of having the government or local
councils owning the companies if those companies will be run just like
private companies?

Regards,

James
--
James Hammerton
http://jhammerton.wordpress.com
http://www.magnacartaplus.com/
James Harris
2017-10-07 22:13:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at
suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the
surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on
well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the
right to do so being obtained, of course, by tendering for leases of
the note-bearing territory) there need be no more unemployment and,
with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community,
and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater
than it actually is. It would, indeed, be more sensible to build
houses and the like; but as there are political and practical
difficulties in the way of this, the above would be better than
nothing.
[General Theory, 1936, bk. 3]
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4621733/theresa-may-housing-crisis-speech/
read and comprehend!
she is obviously a good and dutiful girl with her heart in the
       right place, but hair-brained schemes for grammar schools
       and economic nonsense like help to buy, will not solve
       educational not housing problems....
Nicking Miliband's energy cap also seems to me to be economic nonsense -
reducing taxes or making it easier for competitors to set up in the
market would be more likely to address prices without distorting the
price signal like that.
What about allowing public-private competition as in
http://pensites.com/politics/article-1195/public-private-competition?
Good questions, James.
Post by James Hammerton
Would the publicly owned companies be required to operate solely from
the revenues they get from selling their products/services on the
market, as a private business must do?
The point of the exercise would be to run public services (and only
public services) at the best value for the consumer without the taxpayer
losing money to prop them up. Given that, I could see a case for public
ownership of the companies(*) to be paid for by government borrowing at
low rates, and they might be advantaged by having the government as
backer, but they would be expected to operate without making a loss. In
other words, they _would_ have advantages such as low returns on their
asset value and not having to make a profit to satisfy shareholders but
they would have to run, or operate, without taxpayer support, and to
charge enough to ensure they remained in the black.

(*) I say "companies" (which they could be) but they could alternatively
be government departments run by civil servants.
Post by James Hammerton
If not, and tax payers money is used to support them, then ISTM the
publicly companies would have an unfair advantage.
Public companies would have small advantages such as low interest on the
money used to purchase them but, arguably, also some disadvantages in
being limited in how much they could borrow at commercial rates for
development.
Post by James Hammerton
If so, what would be the purpose of having the government or local
councils owning the companies if those companies will be run just like
private companies?
The point would be to run services at best value for consumers and it
would be perfectly OK for government to run no service at all. But where
the whole nation's service was run by private companies and competition
was not working to the benefit of customers (e.g. too few commercial
suppliers or commercial suppliers making too much in profit) the
government could take over and run part of the service.

Alternatively, if the government ran the entire nation's service but
began to do so inefficiently then a private company would see an
opportunity to take over part of the service.

How does that sound?
--
James Harris
James Hammerton
2017-10-08 11:52:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at
suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the
surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on
well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the
right to do so being obtained, of course, by tendering for leases of
the note-bearing territory) there need be no more unemployment and,
with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community,
and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater
than it actually is. It would, indeed, be more sensible to build
houses and the like; but as there are political and practical
difficulties in the way of this, the above would be better than
nothing.
[General Theory, 1936, bk. 3]
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4621733/theresa-may-housing-crisis-speech/
read and comprehend!
she is obviously a good and dutiful girl with her heart in the
        right place, but hair-brained schemes for grammar schools
        and economic nonsense like help to buy, will not solve
        educational not housing problems....
Nicking Miliband's energy cap also seems to me to be economic nonsense -
reducing taxes or making it easier for competitors to set up in the
market would be more likely to address prices without distorting the
price signal like that.
What about allowing public-private competition as in
http://pensites.com/politics/article-1195/public-private-competition?
Good questions, James.
Post by James Hammerton
Would the publicly owned companies be required to operate solely from
the revenues they get from selling their products/services on the
market, as a private business must do?
The point of the exercise would be to run public services (and only
public services) at the best value for the consumer without the taxpayer
losing money to prop them up. Given that, I could see a case for public
ownership of the companies(*) to be paid for by government borrowing at
low rates, and they might be advantaged by having the government as
backer, but they would be expected to operate without making a loss. In
other words, they _would_ have advantages such as low returns on their
asset value and not having to make a profit to satisfy shareholders but
they would have to run, or operate, without taxpayer support, and to
charge enough to ensure they remained in the black.
So it wouldn't be a level playing field - the government run services
would only be required to break even and setting them up/nationalising
can be done via loans that give preferential rates compared to private
businesses.

Also, you can bet your bottom dollar that political pressure will
develop to allow tax payers money to be used to subsidise a public
company that's making a loss but serving large numbers of passengers.
Post by James Harris
(*) I say "companies" (which they could be) but they could alternatively
be government departments run by civil servants.
Post by James Hammerton
If not, and tax payers money is used to support them, then ISTM the
publicly companies would have an unfair advantage.
Public companies would have small advantages such as low interest on the
money used to purchase them but, arguably, also some disadvantages in
being limited in how much they could borrow at commercial rates for
development.
Would these limits be government imposed?
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
If so, what would be the purpose of having the government or local
councils owning the companies if those companies will be run just like
private companies?
The point would be to run services at best value for consumers and it
would be perfectly OK for government to run no service at all. But where
the whole nation's service was run by private companies and competition
was not working to the benefit of customers (e.g. too few commercial
suppliers or commercial suppliers making too much in profit) the
government could take over and run part of the service.
Why do you believe the government would do a better job than the private
companies in these circs?
Post by James Harris
Alternatively, if the government ran the entire nation's service but
began to do so inefficiently then a private company would see an
opportunity to take over part of the service.
What obligation would the government have to surrender that part of the
service to the private company?
Post by James Harris
How does that sound?
Like you're trying to have your cake and eat it...

Regards,

James
--
James Hammerton
http://jhammerton.wordpress.com
http://www.magnacartaplus.com/
James Harris
2017-10-08 22:22:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at
suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the
surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on
well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the
right to do so being obtained, of course, by tendering for leases of
the note-bearing territory) there need be no more unemployment and,
with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community,
and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater
than it actually is. It would, indeed, be more sensible to build
houses and the like; but as there are political and practical
difficulties in the way of this, the above would be better than
nothing.
[General Theory, 1936, bk. 3]
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4621733/theresa-may-housing-crisis-speech/
read and comprehend!
she is obviously a good and dutiful girl with her heart in the
        right place, but hair-brained schemes for grammar schools
        and economic nonsense like help to buy, will not solve
        educational not housing problems....
Nicking Miliband's energy cap also seems to me to be economic nonsense -
reducing taxes or making it easier for competitors to set up in the
market would be more likely to address prices without distorting the
price signal like that.
What about allowing public-private competition as in
http://pensites.com/politics/article-1195/public-private-competition?
Good questions, James.
Post by James Hammerton
Would the publicly owned companies be required to operate solely from
the revenues they get from selling their products/services on the
market, as a private business must do?
The point of the exercise would be to run public services (and only
public services) at the best value for the consumer without the taxpayer
losing money to prop them up. Given that, I could see a case for public
ownership of the companies(*) to be paid for by government borrowing at
low rates, and they might be advantaged by having the government as
backer, but they would be expected to operate without making a loss. In
other words, they _would_ have advantages such as low returns on their
asset value and not having to make a profit to satisfy shareholders but
they would have to run, or operate, without taxpayer support, and to
charge enough to ensure they remained in the black.
So it wouldn't be a level playing field - the government run services
would only be required to break even and setting them up/nationalising
can be done via loans that give preferential rates compared to private
businesses.
It would not be perfectly level. The idea is not to see which model is
most profitable but to provide a better-value service to the public. But
it would have to be close to level so as to be effective.
Post by James Hammerton
Also, you can bet your bottom dollar that political pressure will
develop to allow tax payers money to be used to subsidise a public
company that's making a loss but serving large numbers of passengers.
I'm not sure I follow that. Wouldn't a public company which was making a
loss simply put up prices? That, in turn, would open up an opportunity
for the private sector if it could do a better job.
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
(*) I say "companies" (which they could be) but they could alternatively
be government departments run by civil servants.
Post by James Hammerton
If not, and tax payers money is used to support them, then ISTM the
publicly companies would have an unfair advantage.
Public companies would have small advantages such as low interest on the
money used to purchase them but, arguably, also some disadvantages in
being limited in how much they could borrow at commercial rates for
development.
Would these limits be government imposed?
Yes, the publicly run company would be limited as to borrowing. And that
borrowing would basically have to be for infrastructure development, not
to cover inefficiency.
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
If so, what would be the purpose of having the government or local
councils owning the companies if those companies will be run just like
private companies?
The point would be to run services at best value for consumers and it
would be perfectly OK for government to run no service at all. But where
the whole nation's service was run by private companies and competition
was not working to the benefit of customers (e.g. too few commercial
suppliers or commercial suppliers making too much in profit) the
government could take over and run part of the service.
Why do you believe the government would do a better job than the private
companies in these circs?
I hadn't meant to express that it would. The idea of the proposal is
that whichever provider - govt or private sector - would get the best
value for consumers should run the service.

But having said that, private companies may collude to keep prices high.
Or competition may not work properly for other reasons.
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
Alternatively, if the government ran the entire nation's service but
began to do so inefficiently then a private company would see an
opportunity to take over part of the service.
What obligation would the government have to surrender that part of the
service to the private company?
A plausible offer from a private company would be enough.
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
How does that sound?
Like you're trying to have your cake and eat it...
I don't see why. Some of your comments puzzle me and lead me to wonder
if I explained it properly. Can you point out some ways in which having
cake and eating it seems to apply?
--
James Harris
abelard
2017-10-09 10:43:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 23:22:41 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
Also, you can bet your bottom dollar that political pressure will
develop to allow tax payers money to be used to subsidise a public
company that's making a loss but serving large numbers of passengers.
I'm not sure I follow that. Wouldn't a public company which was making a
loss simply put up prices? That, in turn, would open up an opportunity
for the private sector if it could do a better job.
no...government invariably involves more corruption and
lead swinging
Post by James Harris
But having said that, private companies may collude to keep prices high.
Or competition may not work properly for other reasons.
then make the monopolies and mergers law work
--
www.abelard.org
James Harris
2017-10-10 22:52:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
...
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
Nicking Miliband's energy cap also seems to me to be economic nonsense -
reducing taxes or making it easier for competitors to set up in the
market would be more likely to address prices without distorting the
price signal like that.
What about allowing public-private competition as in
http://pensites.com/politics/article-1195/public-private-competition?
Looks as though Mrs Sturgeon is going to do something along those lines:

The Scottish government is to set up a publicly-owned, not-for-profit
energy company

The SNP leader told the party's conference that the company will sell
energy to customers at "as close to cost price as possible".

Ms Sturgeon said it would be set up by 2021, and would give people -
particularly on low incomes - more choice of which supplier to use.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-41560397


I think it's exciting to see someone try this. Of course, delivery
matters; I hope they do it in a smart way.
--
James Harris
abelard
2017-10-11 10:05:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 23:52:54 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
...
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
Nicking Miliband's energy cap also seems to me to be economic nonsense -
reducing taxes or making it easier for competitors to set up in the
market would be more likely to address prices without distorting the
price signal like that.
What about allowing public-private competition as in
http://pensites.com/politics/article-1195/public-private-competition?
The Scottish government is to set up a publicly-owned, not-for-profit
energy company
which inevitably will be subsidised through other people's taxes...

in her case, including non-scotch taxes
Post by James Harris
The SNP leader told the party's conference that the company will sell
energy to customers at "as close to cost price as possible".
Ms Sturgeon said it would be set up by 2021, and would give people -
particularly on low incomes - more choice of which supplier to use.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-41560397
I think it's exciting to see someone try this. Of course, delivery
matters; I hope they do it in a smart way.
--
www.abelard.org
James Harris
2017-10-11 10:22:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 23:52:54 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
...
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
Nicking Miliband's energy cap also seems to me to be economic nonsense -
reducing taxes or making it easier for competitors to set up in the
market would be more likely to address prices without distorting the
price signal like that.
What about allowing public-private competition as in
http://pensites.com/politics/article-1195/public-private-competition?
The Scottish government is to set up a publicly-owned, not-for-profit
energy company
which inevitably will be subsidised through other people's taxes...
I am not sure they are going to do it "right" though I hope they do. If
they do it in the way I had in mind then it would cost the taxpayer
nothing on opex.

A concern I have is that they seem to want to set up the company anyway,
irrespective of whether it will be better value or not. I could imagine
that would lead to legal challenge.
Post by abelard
in her case, including non-scotch taxes
Post by James Harris
The SNP leader told the party's conference that the company will sell
energy to customers at "as close to cost price as possible".
Ms Sturgeon said it would be set up by 2021, and would give people -
particularly on low incomes - more choice of which supplier to use.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-41560397
I think it's exciting to see someone try this. Of course, delivery
matters; I hope they do it in a smart way.
--
James Harris
Andy Walker
2017-10-14 11:05:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 11/10/17 11:05, abelard wrote:
[James Harris:]
Post by abelard
Post by James Harris
The Scottish government is to set up a publicly-owned, not-for-profit
energy company
which inevitably will be subsidised through other people's taxes...
in her case, including non-scotch taxes
Nottingham ["Robin Hood Energy"] did this over two years ago,
allegedly the first such company since 1948 [tho' there were so many
qualifications that one is tempted to add "on a Tuesday in September"
to whatever record they claim]. Subsidies aren't inevitable, AFAICT;
indeed, they would be very visible [and annoying] to locals if they
happened. Given that the energy companies are not themselves doing
the drilling, fracking, refining, etc., there's not all that much to
go wrong. RHE is "just" a billing service, and there's no reason why
they should be interestingly different in that from the "Big Six" or
from the many new small companies. They have access to a relatively
small amount of local energy [incineration, currently going either to
district heating or to waste, and a few small projects] which will
help prevent real financial disasters.

Of course, if any such scheme is run "politically", *then*
it is doomed. But "not for profit" schemes in general can be highly
successful [education, health, ...]. As ever, it depends on good
management.
--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
shutemdown
2017-10-09 12:25:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
give most people money and they spend it on waste and symbols
seems to be 'standard upgrades'
markets are created around
'lifestyle upgrades'

you're sitting in your hot-tub watching your max package now, on your
max TV (150 inch) ...

isn't environmentally enhancing .. you could be anywhere
people making their environments into mcdonalds or a hotel

it's all corporate, set the mindset, place the idea, need

enhance, suggest, extend

spirits so annihilated in the struggle to get those things, they have
no creativity in thought, real need, real investment, useage of the
unlimited cash they gain

tokens

capital (cash) is going nowhere
i just got one of those new £10 notes .. pastic .. clear window
it may as well be invisible

what they say about 'people with money' and the people with massive
capital

they can't get rid of it .. the idea is to invest it, 'creatively', to
find a way of getting it into enterprises that are 'worthwhile'

there aren't any because the whole population is spiritually destroyed to
getting it

it's all about the tokens (short term). Spend years getting the tokens &
you're unfit for anything other than operation, extension of the minimal
game of tokens

possibility / vision is lost
Loading...