UK PM Theresa May to seek snap election.

[Huehuecoyotl]

There were no difficult aspects to your post. Your opening argument was based on a false statement in the second sentence that rendered your entire first paragraph void.



The defecit is going down, slower than they said, but nevertheless it is reducing. Saying the country is "perpetually in deficit" and "in depression" are just wrong.

So you are just ignoring the fact that they were elected in 2010 on a promise to clear the deficit in 5 years. They went into the 2015 election, having failed to do so, promising again to clear it in 5 years. Their latest position; this year, is that they will clear the deficit in 5 years. I wouldn't be surprised to see it in their manifesto again. They keep saying it, they keep following their economic philosophy to achieve it. They keep failing. Einstein would have something to say about that, I'm sure. Capable? Not so much.

The second paragraph ignores that the privatisation increased sales revenue by 55% in just three years and made it worth the increased sum to the buyer, it was not worth £800 when it was sold. The UK kept a 20% stake and I cannot see where you are getting the £150m figure from, the FT says £200m + £50m investment.

Privatisation increased sales revenue. And you post that as a positive. You really aren't thinking this through at all, are you? Where is that revenue coming from? What exactly is generating that increased revenue? Could it be something to do with them being in a monopoly position providing a service to the NHS, and the increased revenue is coming from them effectively charging taxpayers more for the same service?

But of course, in your world this is a wonderful thing. Selling something cheap so that they can charge taxpayers more, increasing the pace of money transfer from the country to the rich.

You want British people to relive the 1970s, you are in no position to judge me. I want what is best for the country taking into account the need to balance the economy, defence, etc., I am not interested in ideological purity led by a man with a dubious history.

Corbyn is toxic, McDonnell follows pie-in-the-sky economic ideas and Diane Abbott is a clown, which is not really what I want from a Home Secretary. Emily Thornberry is currently looking good in comparison to the rest of the shadow front bench...Emily bloody Thornberry is their big hitter! That shows a dearth of talent.

At the end of the 1970s the economy was not in a good place. But the debt that Thatcher inherited was below 50% of GDP. Thanks to the Tory policies of the last 7 years it is approaching 100%. At and that end of the 1970s we owned, as a country, the railways, the Post Office, ALL of the NHS, substantially more council houses, gas, electricity, water, telecomms. Over the last 40 years we have sold all of those assets off, ended up having to pay more to run them all, and STILL ended up with a massive amount of debt.

Thatcher always went on about running a country like a household budget. We appear to have spent decades selling off the house, garden, all services, furniture, jewelry, fixtures and fittings, and still find ourselves increasingly in debt to that loan shark that will break our legs if we don't pay him.

Keep those comments about "competence" coming though. Because I'm almost starting to believe you that the Tories are actually doing good things for the country. There is just so much "evidence" on your side.

I want what is best for the country taking into account the need to balance the economy, defence, etc., I am not interested in ideological purity led by a man with a dubious history.

So you support a party that has damaged the country over the last 7 years, and will damage it more with a Brexit that was only forwarded as an option to keep the toxic elements of their own party quiet. They have failed on the economy, repeatedly. They have cut defence spending to the point where our ability to fight conventional battles is compromised. But hey, lets keep playing the man instead of the ball when it comes to Labour.

Or maybe we could focus on the competence of May, the Tory leader? The woman who constantly failed utterly to hit the immigration targets that her party set. Who is now promising to control something as PM that she was utterly unable to control when she was actually in charge of it. The woman who is so terrified of debating this opponent that is so weak, so incapable. Why is she so scared? Why does she refuse to interact with any of the people she is asking to elect her?

More importantly, why do you focus so much on the weakness of Labour, ignoring the same weaknesses in the Tories? How about you just come straight, and admit that you support them because they are good for you personally. And that you are willing to ignore the damage they do to everyone else because of your "I'm alright Jack" philosophy?

[Deleted]

I have a serious question - why can't/won't May initiate a redo on the Brexit referendum? Give the Brits a chance to think some more and then actually vote.

People had plenty of time before the Referendum to formulate an opinion and make a choice.

Calling referendum after referendum until the "correct" choice is made just invalidates the whole process.

[Nigel Tufnel]

The £3.9bn is probably fine.

You think?

We will no longer have access to the single market, corporation tax goes up, personal taxes go up, EU makes itself as attractive as possible? Mass exodus.

Personally, I don't have a huge problem with the increase in personal taxes. I do worry about the proposed increase in corporation tax.

[cubby]

People had plenty of time before the Referendum to formulate an opinion and make a choice.

Calling referendum after referendum until the "correct" choice is made just invalidates the whole process.

I understand what you are saying, and I agree with the second part - you can't just keep having them until you get your desired outcome.

But the first part isn't entirely correct. Many, many people had no clue what Brexit was really all about - even Google had a story on the highest search term after the vote was "what is brexit".

I'm just asking why not do it again and just sort of "confirm" the decision.

[Deleted]

I understand what you are saying, and I agree with the second part - you can't just keep having them until you get your desired outcome.

But the first part isn't entirely correct. Many, many people had no clue what Brexit was really all about - even Google had a story on the highest search term after the vote was "what is brexit".

I'm just asking why not do it again and just sort of "confirm" the decision.

People know exactly what they voted for. Hard Brexit. They would rather be poorer than have anyone who looks or speaks differently knocking about.

[Kalis]

I have a serious question - why can't/won't May initiate a redo on the Brexit referendum? Give the Brits a chance to think some more and then actually vote.

Why would she?

So you are just ignoring the fact that they were elected in 2010 on a promise to clear the deficit in 5 years. They went into the 2015 election, having failed to do so, promising again to clear it in 5 years. Their latest position; this year, is that they will clear the deficit in 5 years. I wouldn't be surprised to see it in their manifesto again. They keep saying it, they keep following their economic philosophy to achieve it. They keep failing. Einstein would have something to say about that, I'm sure. Capable? Not so much.

They are behind schedule in reducing the deficit, it is still being reduced though and is better than a promise to increase the deficit.

Privatisation increased sales revenue. And you post that as a positive. You really aren't thinking this through at all, are you? Where is that revenue coming from? What exactly is generating that increased revenue? Could it be something to do with them being in a monopoly position providing a service to the NHS, and the increased revenue is coming from them effectively charging taxpayers more for the same service?

But of course, in your world this is a wonderful thing. Selling something cheap so that they can charge taxpayers more, increasing the pace of money transfer from the country to the rich.

From what I can gather their sales are primarily in the US, not UK.

At the end of the 1970s the economy was not in a good place. But the debt that Thatcher inherited was below 50% of GDP. Thanks to the Tory policies of the last 7 years it is approaching 100%. At and that end of the 1970s we owned, as a country, the railways, the Post Office, ALL of the NHS, substantially more council houses, gas, electricity, water, telecomms. Over the last 40 years we have sold all of those assets off, ended up having to pay more to run them all, and STILL ended up with a massive amount of debt.

Thatcher always went on about running a country like a household budget. We appear to have spent decades selling off the house, garden, all services, furniture, jewelry, fixtures and fittings, and still find ourselves increasingly in debt to that loan shark that will break our legs if we don't pay him.

Keep those comments about "competence" coming though. Because I'm almost starting to believe you that the Tories are actually doing good things for the country. There is just so much "evidence" on your side.

Not in a good place...something of an understatement. We had rubbish piling up on the streets, the country was racked by strikes, the economy was down the shitter to the point that France felt sorry for us, but at least we owned everything. It was a turd, but it was our turd.

So you support a party that has damaged the country over the last 7 years, and will damage it more with a Brexit that was only forwarded as an option to keep the toxic elements of their own party quiet. They have failed on the economy, repeatedly. They have cut defence spending to the point where our ability to fight conventional battles is compromised. But hey, lets keep playing the man instead of the ball when it comes to Labour.

Or maybe we could focus on the competence of May, the Tory leader? The woman who constantly failed utterly to hit the immigration targets that her party set. Who is now promising to control something as PM that she was utterly unable to control when she was actually in charge of it. The woman who is so terrified of debating this opponent that is so weak, so incapable. Why is she so scared? Why does she refuse to interact with any of the people she is asking to elect her?

More importantly, why do you focus so much on the weakness of Labour, ignoring the same weaknesses in the Tories? How about you just come straight, and admit that you support them because they are good for you personally. And that you are willing to ignore the damage they do to everyone else because of your "I'm alright Jack" philosophy?

Labour would have damaged country more under Miliband, Corbyn would destroy the country, but he has bugger all chance of getting in, so we are safe from that nightmare. The Tories are not perfect, but they are heading in the right direction, it has been harder than envisaged.

People voted for Brexit, we deserved a choice and we got one. Even though it did not turn out how I would have wished, it was something that Blair should have done years before. The sheer number of votes showed that it was not just a Tory thing.

[Deleted]

I understand what you are saying, and I agree with the second part - you can't just keep having them until you get your desired outcome.

But the first part isn't entirely correct. Many, many people had no clue what Brexit was really all about - even Google had a story on the highest search term after the vote was "what is brexit".

I'm just asking why not do it again and just sort of "confirm" the decision.

If people had no clue what Brexit was about, and still voted, they deserve everything that is coming to them.

We don't need another referendum to confirm the decision, the decision has been made, Article 50 has been triggered, the EU has already started having meetings without the UK, for all intents and purposes, we are out, it's just the negotiations process about how far out we end up being.

[Kalis]

You think?

We will no longer have access to the single market, corporation tax goes up, personal taxes go up, EU makes itself as attractive as possible? Mass exodus.

Personally, I don't have a huge problem with the increase in personal taxes. I do worry about the proposed increase in corporation tax.

Labour are proposing to raise £48.6bn, the IFS say it could bring in £20-30bn, so that £3.9bn is neither here nor there.

This is quite a good article on it.

[Valerean]

The British people as a whole tend to reject hard left idiocy at the ballot box at every available opportunity - which is why Corbyn's ideological peers have never managed to win an election. It's also why they're about to get annihilated by the Tories.

Labour has always succeeded when it occupies the centre ground, something that Blair proved when he won three elections back to back. This is (amusingly) viewed as heresy by the current leadership.

[Huehuecoyotl]

They are behind schedule in reducing the deficit, it is still being reduced though and is better than a promise to increase the deficit.

A promise to increase the deficit? You mean a funded set of policies, which are designed around having a neutral impact on the deficit? And a plan for borrowing for infrastructure investment that would actually go a lot further to clearing the deficit than the Tory austerity has in 7 years.

And behind schedule? So if a builder came to your house, and told you he could build you an extension in 5 years, and 5 years later he had just about dug out the foundations and was telling you that it would still take 5 years to build that extension, you would be happy to stick with that builder because he was making progress? And if 2 years later he had a couple of layers of bricks down and was STILL telling you it would take 5 years, you would still keep supporting him?

Sure, makes sense to me. Just let me know when you need some building work done. I reckon I can put you in touch with the right people.

[Nigel Tufnel]

Labour are proposing to raise £48.6bn, the IFS say it could bring in £20-30bn, so that £3.9bn is neither here nor there.

This is quite a good article on it.

Yeah, that's a really good article.

Finally, there’s the sleight of hand. Labour’s manifesto does not include costings for renationalising the railways, water, the Royal Mail and energy. This will be an expensive business: the water industry alone is valued at more than £60bn. How would Labour pay for this? From even higher taxes? From the £25bn of borrowing it has earmarked for public infrastructure? From additional borrowing in addition to the £25bn? The manifesto was silent on this and it was telling that one shadow cabinet member, Sarah Champion, said the water proposal was an “intent”.

In short, unless someone can persuade me otherwise: I don't trust them with a barge pole, no matter how much I agree with some of their goals.

[Kalis]

A promise to increase the deficit? You mean a funded set of policies, which are designed around having a neutral impact on the deficit? And a plan for borrowing for infrastructure investment that would actually go a lot further to clearing the deficit than the Tory austerity has in 7 years.

The impact will not be deficit neutral, it will be increase both deficit and debt. The numbers do not add up.

And behind schedule? So if a builder came to your house, and told you he could build you an extension in 5 years, and 5 years later he had just about dug out the foundations and was telling you that it would still take 5 years to build that extension, you would be happy to stick with that builder because he was making progress? And if 2 years later he had a couple of layers of bricks down and was STILL telling you it would take 5 years, you would still keep supporting him?

Sure, makes sense to me. Just let me know when you need some building work done. I reckon I can put you in touch with the right people.

Except they have not just done the foundations, they have the structure in place and tarp on the roof. I would rather stick with that builder than hire a bloke who has never been involved in house building and intends to remodel the place with semtex.

[Valerean]

Basically the only way Corbyn & co would be able to pay for their nationalisation spree is by borrowing on a massive scale, or expropriating funds from "existing assets" (like your pension...)

But then he'll never be elected to it's all academic

[Nigel Tufnel]

Basically the only way Corbyn & co would be able to pay for their nationalisation spree is by borrowing on a massive scale, or expropriating funds from "existing assets" (like your pension...)

But then he'll never be elected to it's all academic

Yep, and that's the point the Guardian guy is making:

They're proposing to borrow c. £25bn per year (£250bn over the next 10 years). The water industry alone is worth £60bn. Forgetting about the railways, energy, Royal Mail, HS2 extension to Glasgow, broadband, housing etc.

Where is all this money coming from?

There is no signal from the capital markets that investors are unwilling to buy government debt. In fact, the Government’s 10-year borrowing costs are currently close to all-time lows.

Yet some still argue that could rapidly change if a new Labour government came to power and that investors could suddenly refuse to lend to the British state except at penal rates.

Paul Mason saying that under such circumstances “we’ll print it” implies that Labour would be willing to ignore the central bank’s independence and order the Bank of England to print the money that the Government wanted to spend on infrastructure. That would potentially mean the end of the central bank’s independence, which is widely seen as a fundamental pillar of UK economic stability.

And if politicians are ordering the central bank to print money that could also mean they will go too far and cause a damaging surge of inflation, further undermining investor confidence in the UK.

John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn have said they would respect the Bank's operational independence. But comments like those of Mason throw that commitment into question.

edit: source

[Huehuecoyotl]

Yeah, that's a really good article.

Finally, there’s the sleight of hand. Labour’s manifesto does not include costings for renationalising the railways, water, the Royal Mail and energy. This will be an expensive business: the water industry alone is valued at more than £60bn. How would Labour pay for this? From even higher taxes? From the £25bn of borrowing it has earmarked for public infrastructure? From additional borrowing in addition to the £25bn? The manifesto was silent on this and it was telling that one shadow cabinet member, Sarah Champion, said the water proposal was an “intent”.

In short, unless someone can persuade me otherwise: I don't trust them with a barge pole, no matter how much I agree with some of their goals.

I am pretty sure that the intention for the railways involves taking them back into government control as each current franchise expires. Which will cost us precisely nothing. In fact it will make the government money, as was shown by them taking over another franchise (I forget which one, someone can remind me) and running it at a profit while providing a service that the customers rated as excellent. Of course they got it back into private control as soon as possible. Can't have something run by the government going well and making money, would make people start to think.

At the moment our railways are being used to subsidise the national rail networks of other countries. While costing us more to run than they used to as BR. The Southern farce is the best one; we as taxpayers are paying them to run the service even on strike days, when there IS no service. They actually make more money the more strike days there are. Another example of the wonderful government competence involved in signing that franchise deal.

- - - Updated - - -

Yep, and that's the point the Guardian guy is making:

They're proposing to borrow c. £25bn per year (£250bn over the next 10 years). The water industry alone is worth £60bn. Forgetting about the railways, energy, Royal Mail, HS2 extension to Glasgow, broadband, housing etc.

Where is all this money coming from?

There is no signal from the capital markets that investors are unwilling to buy government debt. In fact, the Government’s 10-year borrowing costs are currently close to all-time lows.

Yet some still argue that could rapidly change if a new Labour government came to power and that investors could suddenly refuse to lend to the British state except at penal rates.

Paul Mason saying that under such circumstances “we’ll print it” implies that Labour would be willing to ignore the central bank’s independence and order the Bank of England to print the money that the Government wanted to spend on infrastructure. That would potentially mean the end of the central bank’s independence, which is widely seen as a fundamental pillar of UK economic stability.

And if politicians are ordering the central bank to print money that could also mean they will go too far and cause a damaging surge of inflation, further undermining investor confidence in the UK.

John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn have said they would respect the Bank's operational independence. But comments like those of Mason throw that commitment into question.

edit: source

Wow, the capital markets that would stand to pay the most if Labour got in, are saying they would apply penal rates to a Labour government trying to borrow money. It's almost as if the rich people don't want to take the chance of anything happening that would stop them accumulating more and more money. Sickening.

That's the problem with letting the Tories control things and rack up such a huge amount of debt. It leaves us at the mercy of the bankers. Still, look at how competent they are, eh?

[Nigel Tufnel]

I am pretty sure that the intention for the railways involves taking them back into government control as each current franchise expires. Which will cost us precisely nothing. In fact it will make the government money, as was shown by them taking over another franchise (I forget which one, someone can remind me) and running it at a profit while providing a service that the customers rated as excellent. Of course they got it back into private control as soon as possible. Can't have something run by the government going well and making money, would make people start to think.

At the moment our railways are being used to subsidise the national rail networks of other countries. While costing us more to run than they used to as BR. The Southern farce is the best one; we as taxpayers are paying them to run the service even on strike days, when there IS no service. They actually make more money the more strike days there are. Another example of the wonderful government competence involved in signing that franchise deal.

But that's completely ignoring purchasing rolling stock. Completely ignoring the fact the Corbyn wouldn't take sides against the rail unions.

As I understand it, the the issue is funding not ownership:

Consider the figures: farepayers put £8.8bn into the railways in 2014-2015, compared with £3.5bn from the state. Next to this combined “input” of £12.3bn, private operators took out £222m in dividend payments. These figures suggest that nationalisation will not make a meaningful difference in terms of adding more seats – new carriage orders cost between £1bn and £4.5bn a go – or lowering fare levels through greater subsidy.

See source

[Valerean]

Wow, the capital markets that would stand to pay the most if Labour got in, are saying they would apply penal rates to a Labour government trying to borrow money. It's almost as if the rich people don't want to take the chance of anything happening that would stop them accumulating more and more money. Sickening.

That's the problem with letting the Tories control things and rack up such a huge amount of debt. It leaves us at the mercy of the bankers. Still, look at how competent they are, eh?

...or maybe the markets simply aren't as confident in the ability of the wannabe Labour government to manage public finances responsibly, which is why they make it more expensive to borrow...

Not everything is an evil Tory bankster conspiracy theory.

[Nigel Tufnel]

Not everything is an evil Tory bankster conspiracy theory.

Yes, this. I'm getting a bit fed up with it. You can argue against the workings of a market economy until you're blue in the face, but unless you can propose a viable alternative, then forget it.

Either way this is a fascinating election.... I've never voted in one where the choice has been this stark.

[Huehuecoyotl]

But that's completely ignoring purchasing rolling stock. Completely ignoring the fact the Corbyn wouldn't take sides against the rail unions.

As I understand it, the the issue is funding not ownership:

Consider the figures: farepayers put £8.8bn into the railways in 2014-2015, compared with £3.5bn from the state. Next to this combined “input” of £12.3bn, private operators took out £222m in dividend payments. These figures suggest that nationalisation will not make a meaningful difference in terms of adding more seats – new carriage orders cost between £1bn and £4.5bn a go – or lowering fare levels through greater subsidy.

See source

Have a look at this as a counterpoint to that. An examination of the profitability of railways. Have a look at the "pre-tax returns" detailed on page 15. That seems to me to represent a pretty nice return on the investment that the rail companies are being asked to make. Almost like they are being significantly subsidised by you and me.

If the country ran those lines, then any profit made could be reinvested. Used to make our railways better for the passengers. Instead the profits are sucked out and used to make the railways better in France and Germany.

Those countries believe that investing in our railways makes good financial sense. So why doesn't our government think that as well?

[Fleuria]

At the moment our railways are being used to subsidise the national rail networks of other countries. While costing us more to run than they used to as BR. The Southern farce is the best one; we as taxpayers are paying them to run the service even on strike days, when there IS no service. They actually make more money the more strike days there are. Another example of the wonderful government competence involved in signing that franchise deal.

The intention of the railways was to take them back at the end of the franchising period yeah. It's the other utilities and services people were questioning i.e water/electricity etc. the ones that aren't franchises and are multi billion pound companies.

To be fair though just before they started to sell off BR it was as bad as Southern rail is now, Southern rail fiasco would only get worse if the proposed abolishing of the strike day rule happened that is in the Labour manifesto. Also if a rift ever opened up between Unions and the Government like what happened in France it would be a whole lot worse in the grand scheme of things.