Why? Probably because the Posh boys reckon we won't vote for them anyway, but the Chiltern residents will. (Or its to pacify the ones worried about HS2)
I doubt people 'south of the Watford gap' feel their train commute is luxurious and stress free. People on London's tube travel daily in conditions which would bring fines and prosecution if done to animals.
As for basic electoral math, the Conservative Party doesn't really exist in the North anymore so no, they probably don't give a flying fornication about it because it's not in their interest to. When the Labour Party are in (who barely exist in the South) they send plenty of cash up North.
|
|
|
There is much more to it than is printed in the press. Lines on the Northern Rail route between Liverpool and Manchester will be electrified by the end of 2014, so electric sets are required and Northern will then be leasing too many diesel sets.
"will be electrified by the end of 2014". How much money are you prepared to bet this will happen on schedule? If it does, the Guinness Book of Records will give it an entry as unique among such schemes.
In any case the worst congestion is not between Liverpool and Manchester, what about the service East of Manchester? Northern Rail's timetable for electrifying the route is "by 2016", so at least two years of fewer trains on the already overcrowded route, so that the train lease company can boost its profits and enhance the Chiltern service.
|
|
I know this isn't a HS2 thread, but may I make a minor point regarding HS2 and the North?
Politicians keep telling us shaving 20 minutes off getting from London to Manchester will drive business to the North. Clearly the argument is absurd but look at what happened in France, when high speed rail suddenly made Paris doable for cities previously hours away. It drove more business to Paris, not to the outlying regions.
|
I know this isn't a HS2 thread, but may I make a minor point regarding HS2 and the North?
Politicians keep telling us shaving 20 minutes off getting from London to Manchester will drive business to the North. Clearly the argument is absurd but look at what happened in France, when high speed rail suddenly made Paris doable for cities previously hours away. It drove more business to Paris, not to the outlying regions.
The argument about which way business will go is promotional fluff, HS2 is a about capacity. Speed is a by-product - you don't build a new railway for Victorian speeds.
|
|
|
|
"will be electrified by the end of 2014". How much money are you prepared to bet this will happen on schedule? If it does, the Guinness Book of Records will give it an entry as unique among such schemes.
Notwithstanding the occasional shambles (Rugby) major rail engineering projects these days arrive on time. The current massive remodel of Reading is a case in point. Liverpool/Manchester electrification is on schedule and 'live' as far as Newton le Willows allowing electric trains to run between Manchester and Scotland. New Siemens Class 350 trains are now entering service on that route.
In any case the worst congestion is not between Liverpool and Manchester, what about the service East of Manchester? Northern Rail's timetable for electrifying the route is "by 2016", so at least two years of fewer trains on the already overcrowded route, so that the train lease company can boost its profits and enhance the Chiltern service.
The timetable for the Standedge line to Leeds does not belong to Northern (or TPE) but Network Rail and they run the wiring project. Work has already started to adapt brides and other structures to provide clearance and fixing for the catenary.
Stock is moved around the railway system all the time. DfT and the lease companies need to explain what's happening here there's no real evidence that services will actually be cut.
I suspect the units going South are for the new Marylebone to Oxford service which is mainly about augmenting stretched capacity on the existing Paddington route.
|
Work has already started to adapt brides and other structures
That sounds interesting! :-)
|
|
"so at least two years of fewer trains on the already overcrowded route,"
How so? As explained its a zero sum game. All that is happening is train companies are getting some different stock and it happens all the time.
Northern have moved stock from the north west to Leeds. I often get on trains which have come from Arriva Wales now working Northern routes. The electrified Airedale Line from Leeds to Skipton has some sets were originally working in the south east.
Edited by daveyjp on 03/04/2014 at 13:44
|
The argument about which way business will go is promotional fluff, HS2 is a about capacity. Speed is a by-product - you don't build a new railway for Victorian speeds.
b******s is it about capacity.
Only around 2% of Britains commuters travel from London to Manchester and actually, all reliable feedback tells me that specific service isn't too bad. I haven't travelled it myself, maybe somebody here can confirm or deny.
HS2 is all about building faster trains for those 2%. If it's about capacity, then expand it for the other 98%, rather than spending all these billions !WE DON'T HAVE! on your mates in the rich, elite 2%.
|
|
Jamie,
I travelled on the Euston line every working day from 1986 until last November, albeit not as far as Manchester.
Over that period, and particularly since the 2002-4 upgrade numbers using it have increased exponentially. The line does not just serve Manchester, it's also main route to Birmingham and serves Liverpool, North Wales and NW England/Glasgow too. Shorter distance it handles commuter traffic from Northampton, Milton Keynes and Watford.
The lines are full and so are most of the trains. And dno't say bigger trains 'cos accomadating those would need massive work on stations and platforms.
Yes I know I'm falling into trap of solving disagreement by explanation but when the start point is as wide of the facts as you are (or pretend to be) there's no option!!!
|
Yes I know I'm falling into trap of solving disagreement by explanation but when the start point is as wide of the facts as you are (or pretend to be) there's no option!!!
If you try really hard, you could be even more sanctimonious and patronising. Albiet probably not much.
Your first point about numbers is easy to address. Trains will soon get full when you let 200,000 people settle here every year. That is the population of Norwich arriving every 12 months. I suggest we put an end to that before we spend any money we haven't got on trains to benefit a select few.
Second point, you don't appear to dispute the point that HS2 is for a tiny minority of people. You also don't appear to dispute the fact we can't afford it, but we already know you believe money grows on trees and you'll always back up every piece of Government expenditure, so that's pointless arguing.
One day you'll stumble into the real world I'm sure.
|
|
So the 200,000 people settling here every year all percolate into a tiny minority who use HS2 or or other trains?
Or am I missing something?
|
|
You said trains were full, I told you the population of Norwich arriving every 12 months probably has something to do with it.
I agree trains are full, which is why I'd support expanding capacity on existing lines or upgrading those lines. I want to expand capacity for the 98%, not your mates in the 2% rich elite who HS2 caters for.
Even all of that is pretty irrelevant against the big problem. You may have noticed Brompt, but I'll tell you again anyway; the country is bankrupt!
Where is this £50billion odd coming from to build your precious rich persons train line? Or that's todays estimate isn't it? Probably be 75b tomorrow.
We haven't got it.
|
|
Jamie,
First of all this country is not bankrupt. Nowhere near.
The cost of HS2 is borrowing to invest and is spread over many years, like a mortgage.
As I've said expanding capacity on or upgrading existing lines is not a low cost option.The pre 2004 upgrade of WCML, basically resignalling, new junctions and a few minor platorm lengthenings cost £8bn in 2004 prices - say £12bn today. It was full inside 10 yrs.
You could theoretically extend platforms at Euston, Manchester and the eight or so potential intermediate stops from urrent 11 to say 15 coaches. Same for Liverpool, Birmingham, Preston and stops to Glasgow. Or you could alter clearnces for double deck trains in all the tunnels. And do all that round a running railway. Would bee far more that £50bn though.
So instead you send the long distance passengers off on a new line and free up the old one for shorter distance services such as accomodating growth of Northampton and Milton Keynes. Oh and all the freight as well.
Where you get your 2% from, still less idea that they're either rich or mates of mine, is a mystery.
|
First of all this country is not bankrupt. Nowhere near.
If being over £1TRILLION in debt with the Government still spending £120BILLION more than they've got every year isn't bankrupt. I don't know what is.
The cost of HS2 is borrowing to invest and is spread over many years, like a mortgage.
That would be fine, but your mate Gordon Brown has already remortgaged the house 17 times and spent this borrowed money several times over. So it's not there.
You can't keep rewriting the English language to pretend debt now means investment, because it doesn't. I keep hearing politicians of all stripes band this word 'investment' around, when in fact they're just talking about spending money on things.
......Would bee far more that £50bn though.
Well I mention that figure because that's one I've heard plucked from the sky recently. I think HS2 started at £30billion, then it went to £50billion. Few weeks ago I heard somebody estimate £75billion and some think it'll need over £100billion. So really they haven't got a f***ing clue.
As for the stuff which cost £12billion, well in all likelyhood it shouldn't have done and could've been done for half of that. Government never sticks to budget and never shops around, they just chuck cash at it, because it's not theirs.
If this stuff really does need this much money, then for me that shows rail travel is just a very unaffordable white elephant in the modern world. If private industry and rail passengers wish to pay for all of this, they're welcome to, but considering the Government privatised the railways, I don't see why the taxpayer should have to put 1p into it.
Brompt, if you want to use these trains, you can pay for them.
Good day.
Edited by Avant on 06/04/2014 at 18:06
|
|
Jamie,
It obviously suits the present government to push the Labour bankrupted the country line. Their lackeys in the right wing press happily disseminate the same tale. One way they do this is by quoting massive numbers but conveniently forgetting the context.
You've swallowed it hook line and sinker.
The £120B is, as a proportion of GDP about same as when Lawson/Lamont/Major were chancellors. Gideon's austerity has hardly dented it. That's not surprising as real issue is a drop in tax take due a shrunken economy who's growth austerity delayed.
The total debt, again as % of GDP, is at a relative high as you might expect given the deepest recession since the twenties.
If we were bankrupt we would have to pay Spanish or Italian rates to borrow. In practice govt can borrow at unprecedentedly low cost.
On cost of HS2 all sorts of figures are being bandied about. The cost is massively inflated by buying off the NIMBYs in Tory seats but recent projects such as HS1 and Crossrail suggest on budget is doable. A lot of the wilder figures are bandied by opponents who hope they can make it go away.
It wasn't government that ran the WCML upgrade it was the private company Railtrack and its cohort of hangers on. Look where that got us. The respected rail writer Roger Ford reckons the privatised railway gets about half the bangs per buck we were getting under BR post Robert Reid's reforms.
As above rail privatisation has utterly failed to contain costs. Any suggestion that fat cats like Virgin or First group might get their wings clipped are met with threats/pleadings that make seventies Union vested interests look like rank amateurs. See Water and Electricity too.
|
It obviously suits the present government to push the Labour bankrupted the country line.
You've swallowed it hook line and sinker.
I think you need to take that chip off your shoulder and throw it away. I was of the opinion Gordon Brown bankrupted our country back when he was Chancellor, never mind Prime Minister. You insult my intelligence by suggesting I pay any attention to what the current Government or hacks in the press say about anything.
I can read basic figures and £1Trillion debt and £120billion overspend reads like bankruptcy to me
The £120B is, as a proportion of GDP about same as when Lawson/Lamont/Major were chancellors. Gideon's austerity has hardly dented it.
Well Lawson had to deal with the previous time the Labour Party bankrupted the country in the 1970s, but I agree Osborne has utterly failed in every regard to deal with the problem he vowed to solve. That's one point of agreement between us, but I wouldn't call his efforts austerity. If £120billion overspend is austerity, I'd hate to see reckless spending under this lot. There is no austerity, that is a media myth.
That's not surprising as real issue is a drop in tax take due a shrunken economy who's growth austerity delayed.
To believe 'austerity' has delayed any growth, you also need to believe that Government spending money on benefits, pensions and the NHS contributes to the economy, because that's what Government spends money on and they're all liabilities. The left wing press regularly put forward this ridiculous idea and you've swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
If we were bankrupt we would have to pay Spanish or Italian rates to borrow. In practice govt can borrow at unprecedentedly low cost.
Oh well that's fantastic. We're in a better position than countries in catastrophic depression with violence on the streets and the wealthy investing in AK-47s. That's brilliant.
On cost of HS2 all sorts of figures are being bandied about. The cost is massively inflated by buying off the NIMBYs in Tory seats
It's more evidence of this chip on the shoulder and 1980s viewpoint in that you believe there's some difference between the Tory and Labour parties on HS2. Cameron is fanatically pro-HS2, the Government have been extremely clear that HS2 will definately go ahead, we've had Osborne wheeled out regularly to shove the pro-HS2 case down our throats.
Your viewpoint is 100% aligned with Cameron's Conservative Party, so please stop the throwaway remarks about Nimbys in Tory seats. If anything, it's the Labour Party now getting cold feet about it.
A lot of the wilder figures are bandied by opponents who hope they can make it go away.
So you just completely hate everybody who doesn't want a 200mph unaffordable politicians plaything hurtling through their back garden then? They're just 'nimbys' to you?
You'd fit in very well within the 21st century political class with your absolute contempt for the public - don't forget the public you hate are the very same people you expect to bankroll your pet train project.
The respected rail writer Roger Ford reckons the privatised railway gets about half the bangs per buck we were getting under BR post Robert Reid's reforms.
The railway privatisation was a rushed bodge job when John Major was trying to look radical, I'd agree with you there, it's a total mess. If you're going to privatise it then do it properly. The first place to start is by cutting the taxpayer subsidy for rail fares down to 0.
Come on Brompt, you can't keep writing opponents off with 'Daily Mail right wing blah blah'. It's the argument of a three year old.
Either do better or don't bother.
Edited by jamie745 on 07/04/2014 at 01:11
|
|
Jamie,
As ever I'm going to concentrate on the facts, partly becuase that's what I do and partly 'cos you're way adfrift in places. Quote/insert gets impenetrable after a while so I'll stick to narrative, first on the economics then on the railway stuff.
You may well be 'of the opinion' Brown bankrupted the country but the statement is not well supported by fact. In so far as UK PLC is in a mess it's one she's lived in for years and shares with other mature economies, including the US.
Lawson was Chancellor in late eighties, after nine years of Thatcherite Tory government. He let the economy run away on a frenzy based on house prices. Lamont, Major and later Ken Clarke cleared up the mess. Nothing to do with Labour allegedly bankrupting the country in the seventies. It's at least arguable that problems faced by Wilson (64-70) and Wilson/Callaghan (74-79) were result of pre election booms engineered by outgoing Tory Chancellors Maudling and Tony Barber.
Government spending DOES stimulate economic activity so cutting it can increase prolong depression. Massive cuts to capital expenditure after 2010 had exactly that result. Stopping 'Schools for the Future' knoched chunks out of the construction industry for example. Even money paid out in Social Security is productive - the poor spend it in retail outlets. If you give it to the better off as tax cuts it goes straight into savings.
I don't remeber seeing AK-47s on the streets last time I was in Spain. Italy seems peaceful too though I accept Greece is a bit hot. Ireland on the other hand is not.
On railways, I accept both parties broadly favour HS2. Osborn is particularly gung ho about it but I doubt it goes that near to Tatton. Tory MPs in West London's outer suburbs and through places like Amersham into the Chilterns are implacably opposed. Cheryl Gillan MP (Chesham and Amersham) ended up out of Cabinet in 2012 for that reason. Votes of wavering members have been bough off with promises of (expensive) tunnels and cuttings. Yet if you look at HS1 - the St Pancras to Channel Tunnel line - you'll see that it's environmental impact once in service is minimal. The current WCML is less than half a mile from here and if I listen I can hear trains 24/7 but don't notice them. HS2 will be same.
Public subvention to the railway in effect pays track access fees. Theres an analogy there with roads maintianed at taxpayer expense. Only on the trains it'sdone through a web of contracts with everyman in the chain sucking out a %age.
By far the largest proportion goes to the London commuter services. The political effect of cutting that would make rebellion over HS2 look like the vicar's tea party. We've seen that already with proposals to move more of cost to fares by above inflation fare increases withdrawn again and again.
And I still don't know where 2% comes from. Rail's share of the Manchester - London city/city traffic is a lot more than that. If, as I suspect, it's rail's share of all journeys, including picking up the paper, then it is a nonesense comparison.
|
|
You really do believe all of your opinions count as fact purely because you said them don't you? I've given you several chances and I'm disappointed you can only manage more sanctimonious, arrogant dogma.
You tell me my assertion regarding Brown bankrupting Britain isn't supported by fact, but you don't tell me what facts. I'd love to know whose opinion you take as absolute gospel on these matters. Considering Gordon Brown inherited a balanced budget and left office with a £175billion yearly deficit, I think most impartial observers would conclude he spent all of our money.
Lawson was Chancellor in late eighties, after nine years of Thatcherite Tory government
That's fair, it was Howe who had to deal with the previous time Labour bankrupted the country in the 1970s.
Even most Labour Party members do now admit they made an absolute hash of it in the 1970s. You can't get away from the fact Denis Healey did have to obtain a bailout from the IMF. You'd be better off just accepting reality rather than try to tell me it didn't happen.
The Labour Party has accepted they were wrong by reversing practically none of Thatchers radical reforms during their 13 year stay in office. If they can accept it, why can't you?
Government spending DOES stimulate economic activity so cutting it can increase prolong depression. Massive cuts to capital expenditure after 2010 had exactly that result
Well that'd be a valid argument if the Governemnt actually spent much money on capital investment. I think only 5% of the overall spending total was on capital investment. That includes that £175billion overspend by the way.
You can't make massive cuts to something you weren't doing.
Stopping 'Schools for the Future' knoched chunks out of the construction industry for example
But the Government didn't have the money to fund 'Schools for the Future' Brompt. You still don't get it do you? They haven't got the money for much of what they're spending now. I don't support keeping the construction industry afloat on money we haven't got to build stuff we can't afford.
Much of the stuff the Coalition stopped was only put in place by Gordon Brown as political mantraps shortly before he left. He knew he'd lose the election, so signed up to lots of spending projects he knew we couldn't afford, knowing full well the Tories would have no choice but to cancel them.
It's much easier to stop something which hasn't started yet. You 'save money' without actually doing anything.
Even money paid out in Social Security is productive - the poor spend it in retail outlets. If you give it to the better off as tax cuts it goes straight into savings.
Only a semi-wealthy, middle class bureaucrat would view that as 'productive.' I think it's sad more than anything else, but can I pull you up on language here; tax cuts for the better off are not 'giving money' to them. It's letting them keep more of their own money.
I don't remeber seeing AK-47s on the streets last time I was in Spain. Italy seems peaceful too though I accept Greece is a bit hot. Ireland on the other hand is not.
Well off public sector workers with cushy pensions like yourself may think things in Italy and Spain are fine, but citizens there are being pushed into poverty every day as their nations sink into depression.
Wealthy people in Greece who haven't fled to London are investing in all sorts of security measures because they know it's not long until the desperate folk in the street will try to take what they have.
I accidentally hit post on this so I'll come back on the HS2 thing in a different post.
Edited by jamie745 on 07/04/2014 at 21:59
|
That would be fine, but your mate Gordon Brown has already remortgaged the house 17 times and spent this borrowed money several times over. So it's not there.
Jamie,was Gordon Brown also chancellor of Iceland,Ireland,Greece and all the other countries on the edge of financial meltdown(Italy,Spain)? No,he was not! The real culprits are the American capitalists you seem so fond of.Most of the debt we have went to fund quantative easing in an effort to get the economy going again. The real crooks are the bankers,who seem to have got away with it yet again. Anyway,who de-regulated the UK`s banks and ran down manufacturing which also contributed to the financial mess we`re in? Yes,you`ve guessed it, Maggie Thatcher.
|
Jamie,was Gordon Brown also chancellor of Iceland,Ireland,Greece and all the other countries on the edge of financial meltdown(Italy,Spain)? No,he was not! The real culprits are the American capitalists you seem so fond of.Most of the debt we have went to fund quantative easing in an effort to get the economy going again. The real crooks are the bankers,who seem to have got away with it yet again. Anyway,who de-regulated the UK`s banks and ran down manufacturing which also contributed to the financial mess we`re in? Yes,you`ve guessed it, Maggie Thatcher.
Waahey, someone else with a clear view of the world.
|
Waahey, someone else with a clear view of the world.
It's not a clear view of the world Brompt. It's just somebody who agrees with you.
If you'd asked me to write a paragraph of 'what a soft left, highly prejudiced individual with several chips on both shoulders would say about economics, I'd have probably given you Piggys post.
It's brilliant. It's got all of the cheap shots, all of the soundbites and all of the uneducted prejudice I associate with people of such ilk. It mentions the predictable holy trinity of 'capitalists', 'bankers' and 'Maggie Thatcher' all in one post. Top stuff.
It's also full of the BBC narrative which under examination, actually doesn't make any sense.
Jamie,was Gordon Brown also chancellor of Iceland,Ireland,Greece and all the other countries on the edge of financial meltdown(Italy,Spain)? No,he was not!
Was he the Chancellor of Switzerland, New Zealand, Canada and Australia? All developed countries where not a single bank has received Government help. No he was not!
The real culprits are the American capitalists you seem so fond of.
Considering I haven't said anything about 'American capitalists' it appears your prejudiced hatrid of them is stronger than my fondness.
Iceland isn't in financial meltdown at all. Iceland is now back in growth and signed a free trade agreement with China last month.
Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Spain & Italy are all trapped in the wrong currency, forced upon them by politicians who never gave their citizens a say. Gordon Brown is a member of that same elite political class with absolute distain for the public.
Most of the debt we have went to fund quantative easing in an effort to get the economy going again.
Well that's just simply not true because that's not how it works, but don't let fact get in the way of prejudiced feet stamping.
The real crooks are the bankers,who seem to have got away with it yet again.
Some of them have committed criminal acts, for sure. They should face charges for them and my view is that insolvent banks should go bust, not be propped up by the taxpayer without even asking them first.
The real crooks are the politicians who are all quite happy for you to think it's all the bankers fault. I know you can easily win an argument these days by ranting about 'bankers' but you'll have to learn how it all really works eventually.
Anyway,who de-regulated the UK`s banks and ran down manufacturing which also contributed to the financial mess we`re in?
You probably don't know the FSA's handbook on regulation compliance is over 10,000 pages long - that's just a handbook on how to comply with the rules. Not the rules themselves.
Aside from Nuclear Power, there is nothing more heavily regulated than financial services. Whether all the regulation works or not, that's a different argument, but please grow up and realise it's not de-regulated at all.
Thatcher's major 'de-regulation' was lifting exchange controls. The Americans scrapping Glass Steagal was a poor move, as was proven.
Bravo for even managing to insert the line about 'running down manufacturing' as though Britain was manufacturing wonderful things in the 70s, rather than making unprofitable s*** in the rare breaks between strikes.
|
|
Was he the Chancellor of Switzerland, New Zealand, Canada and Australia? All developed countries where not a single bank has received Government help. No he was not!
Ahem, fact alert. UBS was bailed out by Swiss authorities.
Australia's economy, with little releiance on banking and in rude health due demand for its minerals etc was simply not comparable. New Zealand similarly had little external exposure to stir it's banks in the storm.
I'll respond to the rest later!!
|
Ahem, fact alert. UBS was bailed out by Swiss authorities.
I forgot about UBS but you forget to mention they've actually repaid their loan to the Swiss Central Bank and it now owes nothing to the state. Quite a marked difference to here.
Australia actually has quite an active banking sector. New Zealand actually faced problems about 20 years ago and the Government there had the spine to tell the 'bankers' to sort it out themselves. So they did.
I see you ignore Canada.
Are you going to tell me Margaret Thatcher is to blame for a Swiss bank getting bailed out as well?
Edited by jamie745 on 10/04/2014 at 21:44
|
|
I forgot about UBS but you forget to mention they've actually repaid their loan to the Swiss Central Bank and it now owes nothing to the state. Quite a marked difference to here.
You asserted incorrectly that no Swiss bank had been bailed out. What happened afterwards is neithr here nor thers.
Australia actually has quite an active banking sector. New Zealand actually faced problems about 20 years ago and the Government there had the spine to tell the 'bankers' to sort it out themselves. So they did.
I see you ignore Canada.
The subject at issue is the 2007-8 international banking crisis. It struck me as odd that a country like Switzerland where banking is a mainspring of the economy had no problems in an event of that proportion. Oz banks like McQuarrie cetainly gor involved in intrnational investment and burned their fingers. Sydney/Melboune, Montreal and Wellington hardly rank wih London, Zurich, NYC etc centres of world finance.
Are you going to tell me Margaret Thatcher is to blame for a Swiss bank getting bailed out as well?
Errr No.
|
The subject at issue is the 2007-8 international banking crisis. It struck me as odd that a country like Switzerland where banking is a mainspring of the economy had no problems in an event of that proportion.
Compared to here, Switzerland suffered very little. Switzerland is of course outside of the European Union and just out of reach of the regulatory dead hand of Brussels, which helps them enormously.
Here, David Cameron has already handed control of Britain's financial services industry to the EU. You probably think our biggest employer being regulated by an unelected foreigner is awesome.
I don't.
|
|
It's not a clear view of the world Brompt. It's just somebody who agrees with you.
If you'd asked me to write a paragraph of 'what a soft left, highly prejudiced individual with several chips on both shoulders would say about economics, I'd have probably given you Piggys post.
Soft left is a badge I wear with pride , predjudiced I assume means song opinions different to your own. And f I've got chips on both shoulders then at least I'm balanced.
It's brilliant. It's got all of the cheap shots, all of the soundbites and all of the uneducted prejudice I associate with people of such ilk. It mentions the predictable holy trinity of 'capitalists', 'bankers' and 'Maggie Thatcher' all in one post. Top stuff.
It's also full of the BBC narrative which under examination, actually doesn't make any sense.
It asks a simple question, if GB was so uniquely carp how come pretty much every other Western Naion with banking as a chunky bit of its economy also came a cropper?
Was he the Chancellor of Switzerland, New Zealand, Canada and Australia? All developed countries where not a single bank has received Government help. No he was not!
Dealt with already.
Considering I haven't said anything about 'American capitalists' it appears your prejudiced hatrid of them is stronger than my fondness.
Iceland isn't in financial meltdown at all. Iceland is now back in growth and signed a free trade agreement with China last month.
Wherever Ieland is now, in spite of bailouts and defaults it was in a godawful mess in 07/8 as result of unregulated activites of a handful of idividuals.
Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Spain & Italy are all trapped in the wrong currency, forced upon them by politicians who never gave their citizens a say. Gordon Brown is a member of that same elite political class with absolute distain for the public.
Is there any evidence at all of significant informed opposition to these countrys acceding to the Euro? I don't reall much in the Celtic Tiger I visited in 98/9.
Most of the debt we have went to fund quantative easing in an effort to get the economy going again.
Well that's just simply not true because that's not how it works, but don't let fact get in the way of prejudiced feet stamping.
.
Some of them have committed criminal acts, for sure. They should face charges for them and my view is that insolvent banks should go bust, not be propped up by the taxpayer without even asking them first.
So what level of confidence do you have that governments will see charges laid against Goodwin and his ilk? I'll wager none whatsoever as their hands are right up the coalition's jacksy.
You probably don't know the FSA's handbook on regulation compliance is over 10,000 pages long - that's just a handbook on how to comply with the rules. Not the rules themselves.
Straw man. The FSA is about retail banking, the damage was done elsewhere.
Aside from Nuclear Power, there is nothing more heavily regulated than financial services. Whether all the regulation works or not, that's a different argument, but please grow up and realise it's not de-regulated at all.
No specific knowledge of AtomKraft. Civil Aviation is is subject to massive regulation but unlike in banking it's effective. There is dense regulation of retail finance but practically all of it is a tribute to failures of de-regulation/self regulation. PersonalPensions, Endowment Mortgages and PPI are tip of the iceberg.
Thatcher's major 'de-regulation' was lifting exchange controls.
PLenty others too, see above re de-regulation of financial services pot 86.
Bravo for even managing to insert the line about 'running down manufacturing' as though Britain was manufacturing wonderful things in the 70s, rather than making unprofitable s*** in the rare breaks between strikes.
Before you were born chum; you've no idea beyond the caracatures of the modern press.
|
Soft left is a badge I wear with pride , predjudiced I assume means song opinions different to your own. And f I've got chips on both shoulders then at least I'm balanced
Soft left is fine, prejudice isn't. Prejudice is an underlying theme in most of your posts. You angrily talk about 'capitalists', 'Tories', 'bankers' and 'the rich' which smacks of old fashioned, class war dogma.
It asks a simple question, if GB was so uniquely carp how come pretty much every other Western Naion with banking as a chunky bit of its economy also came a cropper?
I never said Brown was unique, far from it, but that's not the point. Stop talking about banking collapses. I'm talking about his day to day management of the public finances for 13 years which was shocking!
From around 2000 onwards, he let rip with the credit card, back when there was no opposition politics in this country and the Conservative Party supported him all the way.
Wherever Ieland is now, in spite of bailouts and defaults it was in a godawful mess in 07/8 as result of unregulated activites of a handful of idividuals.
Is there any evidence at all of significant informed opposition to these countrys acceding to the Euro? I don't reall much in the Celtic Tiger I visited in 98/9.
Well it's hard to know because only two countries gave their citizens a referendum on changing their currency - Sweden & Denmark - and they both voted no. The 17 who currently use it never bothered to ask their citizens, but I think every country would've voted no if given the chance.
The Euro is the EU's flagship political project. Their baby. They'll sacrifice entire nations to keep the thing afloat - as is plainly evident. Making the Euro a reality was made easier for them by a class of career politicians in most countries who will support anything for sufficient pieces of silver and the promise of an EU job when they get thrown out.
Tony Blair wanted us to join. So did Nick Clegg. So did the CBI, Vince Cable, Max Hastings, the CEO of Nissan and all sorts of other gastly people. They told us the City of London would die if we weren't in the Euro. They said all the business would leave our shores and we'd be living in caves within a year. Thank god we didn't listen to any of those horrible people.
Gordon Brown opposed the Euro, but probably only to p*** Blair off.
Before you were born chum; you've no idea beyond the caracatures of the modern press.
That's the insulting, sanctimonious, patronising prejudice I spoke about earlier. Right there. Again you resort to a cheap line about the 'modern press' despite me telling you loads of times that I don't read any of them. Yet you insult my intelligence !!AGAIN!! by trotting out that line.
Neither of us were alive during the English Civil War, does that mean neither of us can know anything about it?
Go on, what do I have 'no idea' about? Are you going to tell me Britain was a manufacturing powerhouse in the 70s with profit pouring out of our ears?
Maybe you'll tell me there were no strikes at all. Ever. No three-day-week. No piles of dead bodies at cemetary gates because gravediggers went on strike. No abandoned sick children because of nurses strikes. No 20-foot high piles of rubbish in the street. No Governments caving in to unions every couple of years under threat of mass shutdowns. Oh no, all made up by the Daily Mail isn't it?
Go on. Tell me all of that didn't happen.
|
|
Jamie vs Bromptonaut reminds me of Farage vs Clegg. Anyone else see the similarity? Who do we think has the more popular view?
|
|
"Jamie vs Bromptonaut reminds me of Farage vs Clegg. Anyone else see the similarity? Who do we think has the more popular view?"
Jamie as Nige? Wow! You mean the one with all those fruitcakes and nutcases in his party to back him up?
As for popularity, it's Nige all the way, though I doubt any substantial support will be forthcoming in a general election. European elections, maybe. He's a good stick to beat the government with.
On a personal level, I like Bromp more. Not Clegg.
I'm getting confused.
|
|
Oh Nigel Farage is streets ahead of me because I get wound up and turn semi abusive far too easily. He doesn't. I'd have probably ended up smacking Clegg because he is such a sanctimonious bully, I don't think I could've taken an hour of his bleating, fact-shy dogma. He really does bang on like a machine gun.
I'm pretty sure a random poll would show more people agreeing with my point of view over Brompts, but he articulates his better than I do. I just get wound up.
As for popularity, it's Nige all the way, though I doubt any substantial support will be forthcoming in a general election. European elections, maybe. He's a good stick to beat the government with.
Well we'll see. First past the post is difficult for them but I think they'll get something next year. The establishment assume/hope their support will drop off again by the general election, but looking at the numbers I'm not so sure. Their surge in votes in the last 2-3 years has been astonishing. We haven't seen anything like it since the rise of the Labour Party in the 1920s.
The popularity point is interesting. People in this country have a tendancy to vote for somebody they don't like and don't agree with, just so as somebody they really hate doesn't get in. It's a sad cycle and it needs to end.
|
|
I find Jamie to be a bit of an enigma, hence the sport in 'debating' him'.
I've read his posts about disability benefits, Motability cars etc based on the experiences of a relative (his Mother?). I'm considerably impressed there by his use of the facts about qualifying criteria and rationale for such beneits and his skill in articulating them. And i don't hink that's just because I agree with him on principle of benefits for the disabled irrespective of cirumstance, inome etc.
On wider politics (or cyclist's rights) I find myself disagreeing with his opinons not just because I find them in conflict with my own but because I doubt, and can ocasionally disprove, their factual basis.
It's a Guardian reader thing; Comment is Free but Facts are Sacred.
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2002/nov/29/1
Edited by Bromptonaut on 11/04/2014 at 22:33
|
|
Plug the Guardian any more and I'll start to think you work for them.
I don't think I'm inconsistent at all. It's people like you who believe taking one view on something puts you in some sort of camp whereby you must adhere to all sorts of other opinions. I don't really identify with right or left.
For instance these days people like the Guardian believe immigration is a 'right wing issue' despite it actually being the top concern for more Labour voters than Tory ones - and in years gone by it was very much a Labour Party issue. Labour's ostrich approach to it is the main reason why they're shipping votes to UKIP in the northern Old Labour areas.
It's telling that you actually identify yourself as a Guardian reader. I wouldn't identify myself as a reader of any newspaper, because that'd put me in somebodies big tent and I don't want to be in any of them. You talk about 'facts' but that depends on what you view as fact and indeed, which facts matter the most. You're naturally more likely to believe the Guardian as fact than the Daily Express for example.
You're naturally inclined to believe opinions matching your own as fact, whether they are or not. I don't have that many principles. I don't steadfastly believe in the NHS for example, but that doesn't mean I want to dismantle it either.
I believe three things really. I believe everybody should have what they need (people shouldn't freeze to death in the first world).
I believe in democracy, therefore anything which subverts, threatens or bypasses it will always meet with my disapproval - which is why you'll never get me on board with the European project.
Thirdly I do believe the general principle that the State should keep out of peoples way and that we're more free and richer when the Government is small. Very simple really.
|
|
Jamie,
Self diagnosing prejudice is a difficult ask but I hope I dont bring any beyond those against big money capitalism implicit in a Croslandite outlook on the economy and society. While I talk angrily of Tories and might speak ill of banking and quote the post eighties gains of the better off and losses for the worse off I think, without troubling for sources, it is accepted that income redistribution has halted and been reversed since the late seventies.
There's a chart on govt borrowing here .It seems to show that borrowing largly mirrors economic downturns under govt of either cheek, hence the massive surge post 07/08. It's not declined post 11/12 as chart suggests, those numbers are estimates that Osborne failed to meet. While I know there are differing opinions on how PFI project reflects in national borrowing those figures don't support the theory that GB was on a credit spree from Y2K on.
The Euro had a gestation period that makes Elephants look fast breeders. If there was significant opposition in France, Germany, Italy, Ireland or Greece local politics would have exploited it with emergence of 'anti' parties. Scandinavian anti integration opposition was an issue, like in UK, an issue for historical/cultural reasons hence anti movements and those advocating referenda gained traction.
In UK terms Brown was probably right to oppose the Euro but modelling the scenarios that might have existed from 93 to 2007 with UK in is a big project.
If I offend by referring to your pre natal absence from seventies. I’m sorry. In a simplistic sense you've either swallowed the myths hook/line/sinker or you're writing a less than objective opinion piece. If you wrote a school essay, still less a degree assignment, on the Civil War from the same narrow perspective you took of the seventies you'd not get a pass/C never mind an honours mark or A* to C.
My recollection, I was 19 in 1979, is more nuanced. Yes, there were strikes, even those with the consequences you mention. They occurred not just in nationalised BL/NCB and amongst state employees like grave diggers, bin men, teachers etc but in Fords, fuel distribution et etc. OTOH society was more at ease with itself, income differences between haves/have not’s were significant rather than massive and Council Houses were a choice rather than, as seems to be coalition objective, the new Poor House.
What the Mail cannot misrepresent it makes up and, over time, becomes received wisdom.
Edited by Bromptonaut on 11/04/2014 at 23:39
|
If there was significant opposition in France, Germany, Italy, Ireland or Greece local politics would have exploited it with emergence of 'anti' parties.
Well at first of course, most people were taken in by the EU and their national Governments telling them the Euro would make them rich. That's what they all said.
There is worrying extremism rising in some of those countries. Greece has an openly Neo Nazi party polling over 20% and certain to win seats next month. Italy (where politics is always extreme) has openly fascist parties on the rise and a stand up comic got a better score than Nick Clegg. Euroscepticism is very much a growing force in Germany now along with Finland, Denmark and Holland.
I still find it astonishing that elected PM's in Greece & Italy were removed by Brussels and replaced with unelected technocrats and the BBC never talk about it.
My recollection, I was 19 in 1979, is more nuanced
Yeah, I was waiting for that word. The moment I saw you posted I knew the word 'nuanced' would be shoehorned in there where it means absolutely nothing. It's a word you use too often and when you say it, what you really want to say is 'my recollection is right, you are wrong.'
OTOH society was more at ease with itself,
And what 'fact' backs that one up exactly? You can't just say something like that and get away with it.
The 70s were a bitter decade and a bad time to live in Britain - I'm directly quoting Neil Kinnock there.
Generations of politicians spoke about wanting society to be 'at ease with itself' but that didn't happen until the turn of the century, when nobody cared anymore and people stopped voting.
income differences between haves/have not’s were significant rather than massive
it is accepted that income redistribution has halted and been reversed since the late seventies.
Thought I'd bunch these together because they're the same thing. You seem obsessed with the gap between rich and poor. In the 70s, practically everybody was poor, because the talented people left the country to escape 83% tax rates.
You'd rather the poor be poorer, so long as the rich were less rich. That's your priority and I don't like it.
Council Houses were a choice rather than, as seems to be coalition objective, the new Poor House.
Council Houses have always been for people who couldn't afford better. That's never changed. Take off the red specs.
What the Mail cannot misrepresent it makes up and, over time, becomes received wisdom.
Again you resort to a limp line about the press despite me telling you four times now that it insults my intelligence and that I don't read them.
You give the Daily Mail an awful lot of credit don't you? You must have incredible respect for them if you believe their influence to be this strong and powerful. You're becoming so depressing now Brompt. I really hoped you could do better than crass insults, sanctimonious waffle and being patronising.
You're so tribal and predictible it's so sad Brompt. I had bet myself your post would essentially say 'blah blah Daily Mail blah blah nuanced blah blah redistribution blah blah.'
It's depressing to be right. Please come up with something original or don't bother.
Edited by jamie745 on 12/04/2014 at 00:11
|
|
|
|
