Political Nonsense

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

I’m not sure if this is interesting or not… But it’s interesting to me and it makes me wonder how other people think.

On one of the threads yesterday someone mentioned a political thermometer or words to that effect.. So I went online, answered around 50 questions and it gave me an output…

According to the computer, I’m slightly Left of Centre and moderately ‘Libertarian’.

So here’s the interesting bit… perhaps.

On the basis of my views and opinions, I probably should be voting for Labour (something I’ve never done before - last time I voted Green) at the next General Election… I agree with most of their Policies (though I do have some Red Lines on things like Nationalisation, which I’m categorically opposed to) however… I can’t stand Starmer … Every time I hear him or look at him, I just want to smack him in the face…

And … It gets worse..

On the Flip side and despite everything my logical brain tells me (and I’m normally so rational) I absolutely love Boris Johnson… In fact, if Boris were to be reinstated and fight the next election, it would challenge every part of my inner being not to vote for him (and he’s an absolute idiot).

I don’t get it… at all… it defies all logic

What’s wrong with me? (Politically focused answer only please!)

 

[Mexboroseasider]

I’m not sure if this is interesting or not… But it’s interesting to me and it makes me wonder how other people think.

On one of the threads yesterday Simone mentioned a 3 thermometer or words to that effect.. So I went online, answered around 50 questions and it gave me an output… According to the computer, I’m slightly Left of Centre and moderately‘Libertarian’.

So here’s the interesting bit… perhaps.

On the basis of my views and opinions, I probably should be voting for Labour (something I’ve never done before - last time I voted Green) at the next General Election… I agree with most of their Policies (though I do have some Red Lines on things like Nationalisation, which I’m categorically opposed to) however… I can’t stand Starmer … Every time I hear him or look at him, I just want to smack him in the face…

And … It gets worse..

On the Flip side and despite everything my logical brain tells me (and I’m normally so rational) I absolutely love Boris Johnson… In fact, if Boris were to be reinstated and fight the next election, it would challenge every part of my inner being not to vote for him (and he’s an absolute idiot).

I don’t get it… at all… it defies all logic

What’s wrong with me? (Politically focused answer only please!)

Who is Simone?

Is she nice?

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

Who is Simone?

Is she nice?

I’ve edited

 

[Matesrates]

How did yuo access this BFC x 3? Is there a link?

 

[Lala]

I usually come out as a Lib Dem in these type of things, and I’ve never voted for them. Is there a link ?

 

[Mexboroseasider]

I’ve edited

Ah yes. That makes more sense.

Funnily enough my thoughts about Starmer and Johnson aren’t too different to yours. Starmer comes across as more than a little boring and Johnson when he’s in clownish mode makes me laugh.

But I suppose there’s two different questions at play.

Who do I want and trust as PM?

And who would be good company down the pub?

Starmer wins the first hands down.

Johnson wins the second (so long as you don’t expect him to buy a round and don’t trust him with your wallet or your wife or daughters).

I don’t need my PM to be able to entertain me. But I do expect a certain level of competence, honesty and integrity.

 

[Mexboroseasider]

I usually come out as a Lib Dem in these type of things, and I’ve never voted for them. Is there a link ?

Yes. The software isn’t very good.

 

[glasshalffull]

I don’t think I have actually heard anyone say they like Keir Starmer yet to be honest.
This makes me think the next GE is far from the shoo-in that many people think it will be.
I suppose they don’t really need us to like them though. They just need us to think they are probably better than the other lot, and to be prepared to vote for them even if that is with low expectations.

 

[bollieboy]

I’m not sure if this is interesting or not… But it’s interesting to me and it makes me wonder how other people think.

On one of the threads yesterday someone mentioned a political thermometer or words to that effect.. So I went online, answered around 50 questions and it gave me an output…

According to the computer, I’m slightly Left of Centre and moderately ‘Libertarian’.

So here’s the interesting bit… perhaps.

On the basis of my views and opinions, I probably should be voting for Labour (something I’ve never done before - last time I voted Green) at the next General Election… I agree with most of their Policies (though I do have some Red Lines on things like Nationalisation, which I’m categorically opposed to) however… I can’t stand Starmer … Every time I hear him or look at him, I just want to smack him in the face…

And … It gets worse..

On the Flip side and despite everything my logical brain tells me (and I’m normally so rational) I absolutely love Boris Johnson… In fact, if Boris were to be reinstated and fight the next election, it would challenge every part of my inner being not to vote for him (and he’s an absolute idiot).

I don’t get it… at all… it defies all logic

What’s wrong with me? (Politically focused answer only please!)

Interesting post BFCx3.

Question for you regarding Nationalisation. Why do you think privately owned water companies are better for the UK than publically owned water companies ?

 

[ElBurroSinNombre]

I don’t think I have actually heard anyone say they like Keir Starmer yet to be honest.
This makes me think the next GE is far from the shoe-in that many people think it will be.
I suppose they don’t really need us to like them though. They just need us to think they are probably better than the other lot, and to be prepared to vote for them even if that is with low expectations.

A friend has worked with him in a charity she is involved with and she is a big fan, this was when he was at the CPS, he is prepared to listen and to act on the voices of people on the ground according to her.
Another friend who is a barrister was not a fan of his style at the CPS and said he talked a good game but was generally ineffective.

Anyway Starmer, at least, has had a big and difficult job where he was accountable to the general public and had to show strong leadership.
Contrast this with Sunak who seems to resent having to answer reasonable questions and is unable to think on his feet. Sunak does not show strong leadership and seems happy to undermine parliament when it suits him. It's like he thinks that parliament and things like that are for the little people, he really seems to devalue the office that he is in. And of course, Sunak with his culture wars, is dragging politics into the gutter - it says a lot if he thinks his best chance of winning is to appeal to people's worst instincts.

So in terms of leadership qualities, Starmer wins easily IMO.
I have a feeling he may be more dynamic than his clenched buttock persona in parliament. Starmer doesn't seem so good at landing punches at PMQs but is always well prepared and forensic - qualities that are needed to be PM.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

Interesting post BFCx3.

Question for you regarding Nationalisation. Why do you think privately owned water companies are better for the UK than publically owned water companies ?

Mainly because I can remember very clearly what the Nationalised Water Companies were actually like (having worked closely with them) as opposed to having one of those very romantic and imaginary pictures in my head that tend to improve as the years go by.

I'd liken it very much to how much better a Football Player tends to get the longer they are sat on the Bench....

That's not to say their aren't issues that we need to address, but I'd prefer to see that done by encouraging genuine competition and investment as well as regulation and policy to define standards and long term investment requirements for infrastructure.

 

[BWseasider]

I’m not sure if this is interesting or not… But it’s interesting to me and it makes me wonder how other people think.

On one of the threads yesterday someone mentioned a political thermometer or words to that effect.. So I went online, answered around 50 questions and it gave me an output…

According to the computer, I’m slightly Left of Centre and moderately ‘Libertarian’.

So here’s the interesting bit… perhaps.

On the basis of my views and opinions, I probably should be voting for Labour (something I’ve never done before - last time I voted Green) at the next General Election… I agree with most of their Policies (though I do have some Red Lines on things like Nationalisation, which I’m categorically opposed to) however… I can’t stand Starmer … Every time I hear him or look at him, I just want to smack him in the face…

And … It gets worse..

On the Flip side and despite everything my logical brain tells me (and I’m normally so rational) I absolutely love Boris Johnson… In fact, if Boris were to be reinstated and fight the next election, it would challenge every part of my inner being not to vote for him (and he’s an absolute idiot).

I don’t get it… at all… it defies all logic

What’s wrong with me? (Politically focused answer only please!)

Your gut is voting on personality rather than policy. It’s something very common and many political leaders lean into it. Particularly in the US it’s a commonly accepted factor “Yes but who would you rather have a drink with?” and presidential hopefuls go out of their way to seem like that person.

 

[1966_and_all_that]

Left of centre and libertarian? Someone who believes in individuals being obligated to contribute towards a society that is run by and for the benefit of the whole community whilst also favouring individual freedoms unencumbered by encroachment from the State. Hmmm? The closest I can get with that one is to suggest that you believe in minimum controls over individuals' rights and facilities to fend for themselves whilst applauding an obligation on individuals to fund legislation that seeks to provide a welfare safety net for those unable to support themselves.

 

[Costero Poderoso]

I’m not sure if this is interesting or not… But it’s interesting to me and it makes me wonder how other people think.

On one of the threads yesterday someone mentioned a political thermometer or words to that effect.. So I went online, answered around 50 questions and it gave me an output…

According to the computer, I’m slightly Left of Centre and moderately ‘Libertarian’.

So here’s the interesting bit… perhaps.

On the basis of my views and opinions, I probably should be voting for Labour (something I’ve never done before - last time I voted Green) at the next General Election… I agree with most of their Policies (though I do have some Red Lines on things like Nationalisation, which I’m categorically opposed to) however… I can’t stand Starmer … Every time I hear him or look at him, I just want to smack him in the face…

And … It gets worse..

On the Flip side and despite everything my logical brain tells me (and I’m normally so rational) I absolutely love Boris Johnson… In fact, if Boris were to be reinstated and fight the next election, it would challenge every part of my inner being not to vote for him (and he’s an absolute idiot).

I don’t get it… at all… it defies all logic

What’s wrong with me? (Politically focused answer only please!)

thats quite a combination - im sure the answer isnt political but rather psychological. Id say you're a centrist which generally means picking bits and pieces from different parties, centrist labour, conservative, general lib dem or green which both tend towards a more traditional leftist view.

Deep down we all know that a publicly centrist or rightish leaning labour politician is lying, they are either traditional left, or tending to the right or very institutionalist points of view. That creates suspicion, Starmer triggers this in my opinion, as did Blair for me. Starmer cant be true to himself and isnt a true reflection of the labour party.

being slightly left of centre on the survey and moderately libertarian would seem conflicted at first glance and something of an impossibility but being a centrist and cherry picking policies from here and there would confuse a poorly developed survey response which most of these things are.

Loving Boris is genuinely disturbing, you might be suffering from some form of Stockholm syndrome.

You're definitely making emotional decisions - as we all do - the emotional brain is significantly more influential than our rational brain - emotional decisions are made very quickly and it takes a long time for the rational brain to sort through those emotional decisions, and will, depending on personal background and influences may never get over the psychological dissonance.

i would in the past have considered myself a centrist and the times i have voted its been lib dem, but im not a centrist. im defo not traditional labour, nationalisation for me is not a good method of managing valuable national infrastructure and services, but privatisation in most cases is even worse. I was asked about my political leanings quite a long time ago (when i started working as an adviser and consultant to a few governments) and at the time couldn't really define them but over the last twelve years or so i have started figuring out what my positions actually are and it comes down to being a humanistic liberal communitarian. however the things i think would work are so far out of normal political normalcy in the modern age that anarchy is where i am actually at. political nonesense indeed.

 

[1966_and_all_that]

I don’t think I have actually heard anyone say they like Keir Starmer yet to be honest.
This makes me think the next GE is far from the shoe-in that many people think it will be.
I suppose they don’t really need us to like them though. They just need us to think they are probably better than the other lot, and to be prepared to vote for them even if that is with low expectations.

shoo-in.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

thats quite a combination - im sure the answer isnt political but rather psychological. Id say you're a centrist which generally means picking bits and pieces from different parties, centrist labour, conservative, general lib dem or green which both tend towards a more traditional leftist view.

Deep down we all know that a publicly centrist or rightish leaning labour politician is lying, they are either traditional left, or tending to the right or very institutionalist points of view. That creates suspicion, Starmer triggers this in my opinion, as did Blair for me. Starmer cant be true to himself and isnt a true reflection of the labour party.

being slightly left of centre on the survey and moderately libertarian would seem conflicted at first glance and something of an impossibility but being a centrist and cherry picking policies from here and there would confuse a poorly developed survey response which most of these things are.

Loving Boris is genuinely disturbing, you might be suffering from some form of Stockholm syndrome.

You're definitely making emotional decisions - as we all do - the emotional brain is significantly more influential than our rational brain - emotional decisions are made very quickly and it takes a long time for the rational brain to sort through those emotional decisions, and will, depending on personal background and influences may never get over the psychological dissonance.

i would in the past have considered myself a centrist and the times i have voted its been lib dem, but im not a centrist. im defo not traditional labour, nationalisation for me is not a good method of managing valuable national infrastructure and services, but privatisation in most cases is even worse. I was asked about my political leanings quite a long time ago (when i started working as an adviser and consultant to a few governments) and at the time couldn't really define them but over the last twelve years or so i have started figuring out what my positions actually are and it comes down to being a humanistic liberal communitarian. however the things i think would work are so far out of normal political normalcy in the modern age that anarchy is where i am actually at. political nonesense indeed.

In fairness, the survey only had 4 options (Strongly Agree, Agree, Strongly Disagree and Disagree) and to be honest on many of the questions finding myself desiring a further option of 'Neither' or 'Undecided'. So 'Centrist' is probably where I would pin myself... Obviously on questions like the Death Penalty for example I find an easy question to answer, but when it gets into more complex areas (say the whole Trans Debate) I am instinctively more right of Centre although try to keep myself in check and retain an open mind.

I think the psychological thing may be a factor.. I was brought up in a Tory household and somewhere there's possibly some kind of deep rooted mistrust in Labour that was imprinted on me perhaps

In all honestly though, Boris is quite a character and Kier is an absolute bore.... I also really don't mind the kind of bumbling fallibility and incompetence... It's quite endearing and I kind of found myself rooting for Boris to come good... As it is, I can't say I like Sunak much... and so I'll probably be guided by policy.

 

[bollieboy]

Mainly because I can remember very clearly what the Nationalised Water Companies were actually like (having worked closely with them) as opposed to having one of those very romantic and imaginary pictures in my head that tend to improve as the years go by.

I'd liken it very much to how much better a Football Player tends to get the longer they are sat on the Bench....

That's not to say their aren't issues that we need to address, but I'd prefer to see that done by encouraging genuine competition and investment as well as regulation and policy to define standards and long term investment requirements for infrastructure.

I worked for North West Water for a while pre-privitisation so am aware of the drawbacks of public ownership but I just can't see how you can get genuine competition in the provision of potable water through your taps and proper treatment of sewage. Lack of competition means a monopoly and the raft of problems that creates.

 

[Curryman]

I’m not sure if this is interesting or not… But it’s interesting to me and it makes me wonder how other people think.

On one of the threads yesterday someone mentioned a political thermometer or words to that effect.. So I went online, answered around 50 questions and it gave me an output…

According to the computer, I’m slightly Left of Centre and moderately ‘Libertarian’.

So here’s the interesting bit… perhaps.

On the basis of my views and opinions, I probably should be voting for Labour (something I’ve never done before - last time I voted Green) at the next General Election… I agree with most of their Policies (though I do have some Red Lines on things like Nationalisation, which I’m categorically opposed to) however… I can’t stand Starmer … Every time I hear him or look at him, I just want to smack him in the face…

And … It gets worse..

On the Flip side and despite everything my logical brain tells me (and I’m normally so rational) I absolutely love Boris Johnson… In fact, if Boris were to be reinstated and fight the next election, it would challenge every part of my inner being not to vote for him (and he’s an absolute idiot).

I don’t get it… at all… it defies all logic

What’s wrong with me? (Politically focused answer only please!)

Be like me and continue voting Green. The current state of the world, weatherwise, shows they are correct.

 

[Lytham_fy8]

Having done the survey as well apparently I'm Arthur Scargill.

I can't stand Starmer either, the man appears to be unable to make a policy decision without some kind of five year focus group plan after which he just decides on a soft right direction.

Green for me as well.

 

[Wizaard]

I don’t think I have actually heard anyone say they like Keir Starmer yet to be honest.
This makes me think the next GE is far from the shoo-in that many people think it will be.
I suppose they don’t really need us to like them though. They just need us to think they are probably better than the other lot, and to be prepared to vote for them even if that is with low expectations.

This is the problem. Being PM shouldn't be a charisma show. Its who's best to lead the collective in doing what's right for the country.

Instead we get someone who can do a stand up routine at the Comedy Club.

 

[1966_and_all_that]

thats quite a combination - im sure the answer isnt political but rather psychological. Id say you're a centrist which generally means picking bits and pieces from different parties, centrist labour, conservative, general lib dem or green which both tend towards a more traditional leftist view.

Deep down we all know that a publicly centrist or rightish leaning labour politician is lying, they are either traditional left, or tending to the right or very institutionalist points of view. That creates suspicion, Starmer triggers this in my opinion, as did Blair for me. Starmer cant be true to himself and isnt a true reflection of the labour party.

being slightly left of centre on the survey and moderately libertarian would seem conflicted at first glance and something of an impossibility but being a centrist and cherry picking policies from here and there would confuse a poorly developed survey response which most of these things are.

Loving Boris is genuinely disturbing, you might be suffering from some form of Stockholm syndrome.

You're definitely making emotional decisions - as we all do - the emotional brain is significantly more influential than our rational brain - emotional decisions are made very quickly and it takes a long time for the rational brain to sort through those emotional decisions, and will, depending on personal background and influences may never get over the psychological dissonance.

i would in the past have considered myself a centrist and the times i have voted its been lib dem, but im not a centrist. im defo not traditional labour, nationalisation for me is not a good method of managing valuable national infrastructure and services, but privatisation in most cases is even worse. I was asked about my political leanings quite a long time ago (when i started working as an adviser and consultant to a few governments) and at the time couldn't really define them but over the last twelve years or so i have started figuring out what my positions actually are and it comes down to being a humanistic liberal communitarian. however the things i think would work are so far out of normal political normalcy in the modern age that anarchy is where i am actually at. political nonesense indeed.

I just want to home in on your nationalisation concerns. When most of the older generation think about nationalisation they're thinking back to depressing experiences on railways, strikes among miners, dockers and car manufacturers and unimaginatively, scloretic design work in British Leyland cars. Younger people don't have that view because they don't have experience of nationalisation. Which makes me think that there could be an appetite for it if it is focussed solely on national infrastructure - the activities that require nationwide coordination: Roads, rail, docks and airports; electricity generation and distribution, gas supply and distribution, telephony and IT networking, water and sewerage supply.

There must also be up-to-date structures and organisation - reflecting private structures where those are appropriate. Of course, the country would need expertise from the private sector to manage these industries. Importantly however, the strategic and operational policies implemented in these industries must be grounded solely in the public interest. I can see that working. Carbon-based industrial strategy would then not be working in conflict with climate protection policy but in harmony with it.

 

[Wizaard]

I just want to home in on your nationalisation concerns. When most of the older generation think about nationalisation they're thinking back to depressing experiences on railways, strikes among miners, dockers and car manufacturers and unimaginatively, scloretic design work in British Leyland cars. Younger people don't have that view because they don't have experience of nationalisation. Which makes me think that there could be an appetite for it if it is focussed solely on national infrastructure - the activities that require nationwide coordination: Roads, rail, docks and airports; electricity generation and distribution, gas supply and distribution, telephony and IT networking, water and sewerage supply.

There must also be up-to-date structures and organisation - reflecting private structures where those are appropriate. Of course, the country would need expertise from the private sector to manage these industries. Importantly however, the strategic and operational policies implemented in these industries must be grounded solely in the public interest. I can see that working. Carbon-based industrial strategy would then not be working in conflict with climate protection policy but in harmony with it.

Look at water. Would we be in a better place if someone like Southern Water had invested the £72 billion paid out in dividends to shareholders, back into the infrastructure instead?

 

[1966_and_all_that]

In fairness, the survey only had 4 options (Strongly Agree, Agree, Strongly Disagree and Disagree) and to be honest on many of the questions finding myself desiring a further option of 'Neither' or 'Undecided'. So 'Centrist' is probably where I would pin myself... Obviously on questions like the Death Penalty for example I find an easy question to answer, but when it gets into more complex areas (say the whole Trans Debate) I am instinctively more right of Centre although try to keep myself in check and retain an open mind.

I think the psychological thing may be a factor.. I was brought up in a Tory household and somewhere there's possibly some kind of deep rooted mistrust in Labour that was imprinted on me perhaps

In all honestly though, Boris is quite a character and Kier is an absolute bore.... I also really don't mind the kind of bumbling fallibility and incompetence... It's quite endearing and I kind of found myself rooting for Boris to come good... As it is, I can't say I like Sunak much... and so I'll probably be guided by policy.

If we consider charisma among leaders as a key issue I would doubt that Clement Atlee or Abraham Lincoln would have garnered as many votes as they did. Take Atlee specifically. As the soft-spoken leader of the Labour Party he was up against the massively charismatic wartime leader, Churchill. And yet, Labour won by a landslide - why? It was because, after the deprivations of war and the memories of life before it in the depression of the early-mid 1930s, people wanted change. Not just any change but they wanted to vote for a party that promised good quality health and education, free at the point of delivery. A Party that said they would take key industries into public control, working for the people and not for the benefit of wealthy owners.

I see this attitude reflected in today's voters. Not just an anti-Tory feeling but a belief that Labour wants to protect and cherish the NHS, wants to drive through an environmentally friendly energy policy and wants to govern for everyone, not just the rich and the chaps in the City. We do ourselves a grave injustice if we only look to the charisma of party leaders.

 

[Costero Poderoso]

I just want to home in on your nationalisation concerns. When most of the older generation think about nationalisation they're thinking back to depressing experiences on railways, strikes among miners, dockers and car manufacturers and unimaginatively, scloretic design work in British Leyland cars. Younger people don't have that view because they don't have experience of nationalisation. Which makes me think that there could be an appetite for it if it is focussed solely on national infrastructure - the activities that require nationwide coordination: Roads, rail, docks and airports; electricity generation and distribution, gas supply and distribution, telephony and IT networking, water and sewerage supply.

There must also be up-to-date structures and organisation - reflecting private structures where those are appropriate. Of course, the country would need expertise from the private sector to manage these industries. Importantly however, the strategic and operational policies implemented in these industries must be grounded solely in the public interest. I can see that working. Carbon-based industrial strategy would then not be working in conflict with climate protection policy but in harmony with it.

i think there is an appetite even amongst older people, who have seen the failures of privatisation in energy and railways etc. the traditional labour view of nationalised industry is problematic in my view because government isnt equipped to manage business, but then from my own experience most big businesses are not equipped to handle business. What most big businesses are striving for is monopolised or pseudo monopolised markets that guarantees margins, profit and ultimately growth - its privatised nationalisation. Privatisation doesnt work because the nature of private (PLC) businesses are that they are very quickly driven by markets, which means they have to be profitised. That profitisation being markets driven is almost always short term, so industries that need long term management, development and investment are always at risk of collapse once the cycle of profitisation becomes the norm.

My personal opinion is that there are certain industries; energy, public transport, infrastructure and domestic banking (that will raise the heckles of a couple on here) that cannot be profitised in the way the markets want, so things like utility compnies borrowing to pay dividends becomes a normative point of view. That cycle of profitisation has to be broken, so energy, utilities, infrastructure become either non-profit or long term steady profit. Nationalisation obviously breaks that cycle but because so many normal working people have their pensions in companies like that there is a real risk that those pensions and other investments take a massive hit.

Ive done some work on this for emerging economy countries where our proposals were for community corps, this example was tied to renewable energy and eco utility provision for new towns being built. The residents of a town were the shareholders of the community corps, the shares were non transferable and non marketable, but the institution was managed at arms length from governmental bodies, and each comcorp couldnt get bigger than a specified size in order to ensure that management of the entities would remain accountable to user / shareholders, rather than accountable to political whim or markets or some other thing generally detrimental to the users / shareholders. This obviously needs initial government investment, and those governments need funding from the big international development funds; EBRD, WTO, USIDF etc etc but they run a mile if it isnt a traditional privatised model that EU, UK, US or other western companies can come in to exploit.

The view that it has to be privatisation or nationalisation is unfortunately embedded in normative political and economic thinking as part of the market driven economic models that are now standard.

Most big businesses have structures that are as inefficient as government structures, as bureaucratic and as resitant to change, and c- suite executives are insulated from their actions in the same way that politicians are hence most of their decisions become focused on their personal advancement, financial gain etc.

There are potentially more creative and better structures that could be developed to deal with major societal needs. However transitioning away form a market driven model in established economies would cause real pain for average, normal working people, no matter how ive looked at it i cannot find a way to ensure that the 95% of the population who are not the hyper wealthy do not take up the burden of the cost of that transition. The only way i can find a financial breakthrough is by doing a comparison to projected (and inevitable) failures in the privatised companies for: energy infrastructure, banking etc and the financial burden on losses to pension funds and / or the subsequent taxpayer funded bailouts.

 

[1966_and_all_that]

i think there is an appetite even amongst older people, who have seen the failures of privatisation in energy and railways etc. the traditional labour view of nationalised industry is problematic in my view because government isnt equipped to manage business, but then from my own experience most big businesses are not equipped to handle business. What most big businesses are striving for is monopolised or pseudo monopolised markets that guarantees margins, profit and ultimately growth - its privatised nationalisation. Privatisation doesnt work because the nature of private (PLC) businesses are that they are very quickly driven by markets, which means they have to be profitised. That profitisation being markets driven is almost always short term, so industries that need long term management, development and investment are always at risk of collapse once the cycle of profitisation becomes the norm.

My personal opinion is that there are certain industries; energy, public transport, infrastructure and domestic banking (that will raise the heckles of a couple on here) that cannot be profitised in the way the markets want, so things like utility compnies borrowing to pay dividends becomes a normative point of view. That cycle of profitisation has to be broken, so energy, utilities, infrastructure become either non-profit or long term steady profit. Nationalisation obviously breaks that cycle but because so many normal working people have their pensions in companies like that there is a real risk that those pensions and other investments take a massive hit.

Ive done some work on this for emerging economy countries where our proposals were for community corps, this example was tied to renewable energy and eco utility provision for new towns being built. The residents of a town were the shareholders of the community corps, the shares were non transferable and non marketable, but the institution was managed at arms length from governmental bodies, and each comcorp couldnt get bigger than a specified size in order to ensure that management of the entities would remain accountable to user / shareholders, rather than accountable to political whim or markets or some other thing generally detrimental to the users / shareholders. This obviously needs initial government investment, and those governments need funding from the big international development funds; EBRD, WTO, USIDF etc etc but they run a mile if it isnt a traditional privatised model that EU, UK, US or other western companies can come in to exploit.

The view that it has to be privatisation or nationalisation is unfortunately embedded in normative political and economic thinking as part of the market driven economic models that are now standard.

Most big businesses have structures that are as inefficient as government structures, as bureaucratic and as resitant to change, and c- suite executives are insulated from their actions in the same way that politicians are hence most of their decisions become focused on their personal advancement, financial gain etc.

There are potentially more creative and better structures that could be developed to deal with major societal needs. However transitioning away form a market driven model in established economies would cause real pain for average, normal working people, no matter how ive looked at it i cannot find a way to ensure that the 95% of the population who are not the hyper wealthy do not take up the burden of the cost of that transition. The only way i can find a financial breakthrough is by doing a comparison to projected (and inevitable) failures in the privatised companies for: energy infrastructure, banking etc and the financial burden on losses to pension funds and / or the subsequent taxpayer funded bailouts.

My point in the earlier post, delivered probably opaquely, is that nationalisation does not preclude new and dynamic operating structures. These industries could be nationalised whilst also working at arms length from Government. Clearly there would need to be strategic management in consultation with Government (Public Corporations?), to ensure that the industries are working in accordance with long term Govt policy. I'm also reasonably confident that operating budgets could be allocated on a mid-term (5 year?) basis without having to adhere strictly to Treasury annualisation requirements.

As for the public's pension funds being tied up in private utility companies, this only needs some positive creative thinking. There has been talk of the Govt launching public bonds related to infrastructure investment. I think this is an excellent idea whilst facilitating the transfer of pension funds into safe, albeit slow growing, stock.

 

[Bend it like Suddick]

Starmer wins the first hands down

Why? Im not trying to be political with my view, but Starmer hasn't any policies as he is constantly, and I reiterate constantly changing them to suit the political climate at the time. Remember this idiot only a few years ago backed Corbyn and his policies to the hilt.

...and don't get me going about his tenure of the CPS.

 

[Mexboroseasider]

Why? Im not trying to be political with my view, but Starmer hasn't any policies as he is constantly, and I reiterate constantly changing them to suit the political climate at the time. Remember this idiot only a few years ago backed Corbyn and his policies to the hilt.

...and don't get me going about his tenure of the CPS.

It was a comparison between Starmer and Johnson. If it’s a choice between those two then it’s a no brainer.

Johnson has no honesty or integrity and should be nowhere near the levers of power.

Edit to add - if it had been a choice between Starmer and Sunak then, simply as a matter of character, I agree it wouldn’t have been as clear cut. Bearing in mind they both seem to be personality free zones.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

i think there is an appetite even amongst older people, who have seen the failures of privatisation in energy and railways etc. the traditional labour view of nationalised industry is problematic in my view because government isnt equipped to manage business, but then from my own experience most big businesses are not equipped to handle business. What most big businesses are striving for is monopolised or pseudo monopolised markets that guarantees margins, profit and ultimately growth - its privatised nationalisation. Privatisation doesnt work because the nature of private (PLC) businesses are that they are very quickly driven by markets, which means they have to be profitised. That profitisation being markets driven is almost always short term, so industries that need long term management, development and investment are always at risk of collapse once the cycle of profitisation becomes the norm.

My personal opinion is that there are certain industries; energy, public transport, infrastructure and domestic banking (that will raise the heckles of a couple on here) that cannot be profitised in the way the markets want, so things like utility compnies borrowing to pay dividends becomes a normative point of view. That cycle of profitisation has to be broken, so energy, utilities, infrastructure become either non-profit or long term steady profit. Nationalisation obviously breaks that cycle but because so many normal working people have their pensions in companies like that there is a real risk that those pensions and other investments take a massive hit.

Ive done some work on this for emerging economy countries where our proposals were for community corps, this example was tied to renewable energy and eco utility provision for new towns being built. The residents of a town were the shareholders of the community corps, the shares were non transferable and non marketable, but the institution was managed at arms length from governmental bodies, and each comcorp couldnt get bigger than a specified size in order to ensure that management of the entities would remain accountable to user / shareholders, rather than accountable to political whim or markets or some other thing generally detrimental to the users / shareholders. This obviously needs initial government investment, and those governments need funding from the big international development funds; EBRD, WTO, USIDF etc etc but they run a mile if it isnt a traditional privatised model that EU, UK, US or other western companies can come in to exploit.

The view that it has to be privatisation or nationalisation is unfortunately embedded in normative political and economic thinking as part of the market driven economic models that are now standard.

Most big businesses have structures that are as inefficient as government structures, as bureaucratic and as resitant to change, and c- suite executives are insulated from their actions in the same way that politicians are hence most of their decisions become focused on their personal advancement, financial gain etc.

There are potentially more creative and better structures that could be developed to deal with major societal needs. However transitioning away form a market driven model in established economies would cause real pain for average, normal working people, no matter how ive looked at it i cannot find a way to ensure that the 95% of the population who are not the hyper wealthy do not take up the burden of the cost of that transition. The only way i can find a financial breakthrough is by doing a comparison to projected (and inevitable) failures in the privatised companies for: energy infrastructure, banking etc and the financial burden on losses to pension funds and / or the subsequent taxpayer funded bailouts.

In short (in Energy at least) I think that Starmer’s idea of introducing a State Owned Energy Company into the mix (similar to France’s EDF) may well be a way to strike the right balance.

Personally I believe that the Private Market opens up far more scope for ingenuity and fast track development and that’s not something I’d like to see us miss out on. For example Tesla are likely to be entering the Supply Market soon and will inevitably shake things up and likely force fundamental change….

Careful Legislation alongside State Owned Competition to keep everyone honest / on their toes, feels like a sensible way forward to me and I think it strikes the right balance…

I’m not sure I’d want to start disrupting the status quo much beyond that really.

 

[Chunkylad]

Your gut is voting on personality rather than policy. It’s something very common and many political leaders lean into it. Particularly in the US it’s a commonly accepted factor “Yes but who would you rather have a drink with?” and presidential hopefuls go out of their way to seem like that person.

For a large number of Americans, the question is:

“Who would you want stood alongside you with a rifle come the inevitable purge”

Nation full of mentalists

 

[1966_and_all_that]

Why? Im not trying to be political with my view, but Starmer hasn't any policies as he is constantly, and I reiterate constantly changing them to suit the political climate at the time. Remember this idiot only a few years ago backed Corbyn and his policies to the hilt.

...and don't get me going about his tenure of the CPS.

Labour's manifesto at the next GE will be structured around 5 key missions:

1. To secure for the UK, the highest, sustained level of growth in the G7.
With good jobs and productivity growth in every part of the country. Benefitting everyone, not just a few.

2. To make Britain a clean energy superpower.
To create good jobs cut bills and boost energy security with zero carbon electricity by 2030, accelerating to net-zero.

3. Build an NHS fit for the future,
that is there when people need it.

4. Make Britain's streets safe
by halving violent crime and restoring confidence in the Police and criminal justice system to the highest level.

5. Break down the barriers to opportunity at every stage
for every child by reforming the childcare and education systems, raising standards everywhere and preparing young people for work and life.

Now, it's easy to be sceptical and say thst this is just a wish list. But, a. It's a good wish list, and b. these are strategic missions through which every policy must be directed if it is to be adopted. This is a big challenge but don't say that Labour doesn't have any policies going into the next election.

 

[Costero Poderoso]

My point in the earlier post, delivered probably opaquely, is that nationalisation does not preclude new and dynamic operating structures. These industries could be nationalised whilst also working at arms length from Government. Clearly there would need to be strategic management in consultation with Government (Public Corporations?), to ensure that the industries are working in accordance with long term Govt policy. I'm also reasonably confident that operating budgets could be allocated on a mid-term (5 year?) basis without having to adhere strictly to Treasury annualisation requirements.

As for the public's pension funds being tied up in private utility companies, this only needs some positive creative thinking. There has been talk of the Govt launching public bonds related to infrastructure investment. I think this is an excellent idea whilst facilitating the transfer of pension funds into safe, albeit slow growing, stock.

i agree with you generally about new and dynamic structures - but as with the models ive talked about they go against political and economic orthodoxy, the left thinks in terms of clause 4 nationalisation and government ownership and the right and centrist tend to think in terms of market driven profitised privatisation. The way i see it you have to break the cycles of the orthodoxies - the issue is how do you get mass approval or even mass interest in the subject matter when most of politics is highly partisan and any level of innovation gets trashed by the media and interested lobby groups.

In my mind there might also be a difference between long term national need and even long term government policy, but that might just be my cynicism of the political process - and how government functions at a political level.

 

[Ollygon]

I don’t think I have actually heard anyone say they like Keir Starmer yet to be honest.
This makes me think the next GE is far from the shoo-in that many people think it will be.
I suppose they don’t really need us to like them though. They just need us to think they are probably better than the other lot, and to be prepared to vote for them even if that is with low expectations.

I do.

Yes he may seem boring and uninspirational, but after that clown Lying Bastard, we need someone like him.

BTW quite like Sunak too. I think he's been dealt a shit hand by his predecessors.

 

[Costero Poderoso]

In short (in Energy at least) I think that Starmer’s idea of introducing a State Owned Energy Company into the mix (similar to France’s EDF) may well be a way to strike the right balance.

Personally I believe that the Private Market opens up far more scope for ingenuity and fast track development and that’s not something I’d like to see us miss out on. For example Tesla are likely to be entering the Supply Market soon and will inevitably shake things up and likely force fundamental change….

Careful Legislation alongside State Owned Competition to keep everyone honest / on their toes, feels like a sensible way forward to me and I think it strikes the right balance…

I’m not sure I’d want to start disrupting the status quo much beyond that really.

I think your second statement is one of the great presuppositions of the modern world, it may have been true a hundred years ago, but private business is now too short term and too driven by market needs to be innovative in the main. The focus for most innovation in modern business is simply towards maximising financial gain, often to the detriment of customers, shareholders and to the entities survival.

Disrupting the status quo is exactly what needs to happen, otherwise all you are doing is tinkering at the edges of a broken system, but i get that most people wont think like that, or even want to consider thinking like that. Its one of the reasons i have a generally pessimistic view of all political processes.

 

[glasshalffull]

I do.

Yes he may seem boring and uninspirational, but after that clown Lying Bastard, we need someone like him.

BTW quite like Sunak too. I think he's been dealt a shit hand by his predecessors.

Yes that’s how I see it with Starmer, but he isn’t well liked by anyone I have spoken to.

Sunak is miles better than the last two and I agree he is in an impossible situation, but he is very evasive in answering direct questions and comes across as shallow IMO.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

I think your second statement is one of the great presuppositions of the modern world, it may have been true a hundred years ago, but private business is now too short term and too driven by market needs to be innovative in the main. The focus for most innovation in modern business is simply towards maximising financial gain, often to the detriment of customers, shareholders and to the entities survival.

Disrupting the status quo is exactly what needs to happen, otherwise all you are doing is tinkering at the edges of a broken system, but i get that most people wont think like that, or even want to consider thinking like that. Its one of the reasons i have a generally pessimistic view of all political processes.

Presumptuous?

I'm simply going off what we actually see with our own eyes to be honest....As I see it, your first sentence is just 'made up' rather than reflecting any reality that I'm engaged with. I'm also very comfortable with profit being a key driver.

I didn't suggest we shouldn't 'disrupt the status quo' I just placed limitations on how far I would go to disrupt a market that I'm very familiar with.

 

[Costero Poderoso]

Labour's manifesto at the next GE will be structured around 5 key missions:

1. To secure for the UK, the highest, sustained level of growth in the G7.
With good jobs and productivity growth in every part of the country. Benefitting everyone, not just a few.

2. To make Britain a clean energy superpower.
To create good jobs cut bills and boost energy security with zero carbon electricity by 2030, accelerating to net-zero.

3. Build an NHS fit for the future,
that is there when people need it.

4. Make Britain's streets safe
by halving violent crime and restoring confidence in the Police and criminal justice system to the highest level.

5. Break down the barriers to opportunity at every stage
for every child by reforming the childcare and education systems, raising standards everywhere and preparing young people for work and life.

Now, it's easy to be sceptical and say thst this is just a wish list. But, a. It's a good wish list, and b. these are strategic missions through which every policy must be directed if it is to be adopted. This is a big challenge but don't say that Labour doesn't have any policies going into the next election.

1. why? growth might be the issue that is driving many of the current economic and social problems, not just in the UK but globally. My personal view is that economic participation is a better goal even if the economy is shrinking.
2. no problem with this but its not achievable if there isnt massive investment in infrastructure, skills, and probably a wholesale change in how energy is produced and delivered as well as used.
3. no problem with the goal - but how? The NHS needs root and branch change and the marketplace mentality that currently exists probably need to be thrown out
4. its difficult to not want this. but how? the actual function of the criminal justice system and the police needs to be reviewed - what function does it provide to the public or are they both just instruments of state? there are deeper issues behind violent crime, which policing doesnt fix and policing is far too preocupied with petty rule enforcement to deal with actual crime that has societal impact. Satrmer's record in the CPS doesnt bode well for that.
5. this would be a relatively easy one, but hes already stated hat he will maintain certain tory policy in regards child welfare.

as a wish list its barely adequate in my very humble and admitedly rather cynical opinion, but its better than the tories have ever put up,

 

[Threepeaksphil]

I’m not sure if this is interesting or not… But it’s interesting to me and it makes me wonder how other people think.

On one of the threads yesterday someone mentioned a political thermometer or words to that effect.. So I went online, answered around 50 questions and it gave me an output…

According to the computer, I’m slightly Left of Centre and moderately ‘Libertarian’.

So here’s the interesting bit… perhaps.

On the basis of my views and opinions, I probably should be voting for Labour (something I’ve never done before - last time I voted Green) at the next General Election… I agree with most of their Policies (though I do have some Red Lines on things like Nationalisation, which I’m categorically opposed to) however… I can’t stand Starmer … Every time I hear him or look at him, I just want to smack him in the face…

And … It gets worse..

On the Flip side and despite everything my logical brain tells me (and I’m normally so rational) I absolutely love Boris Johnson… In fact, if Boris were to be reinstated and fight the next election, it would challenge every part of my inner being not to vote for him (and he’s an absolute idiot).

I don’t get it… at all… it defies all logic

What’s wrong with me? (Politically focused answer only please!)

There is nothing wrong with you at all! Keir Starmer has had a charisma bypass but his speeches are great if you have insomnia don’t worry about Boris he isn’t coming back

 

[1966_and_all_that]

There is nothing wrong with you at all! Keir Starmer has had a charisma bypass but his speeches are great if you have insomnia don’t worry about Boris he isn’t coming back

Not every speech can be about fighting other countries on the beaches.

 

[Costero Poderoso]

Presumptuous?

I'm simply going off what we actually see with our own eyes to be honest....As I see it, your first sentence is just 'made up' rather than reflecting any reality that I'm engaged with. I'm also very comfortable with profit being a key driver.

I didn't suggest we shouldn't 'disrupt the status quo' I just placed limitations on how far I would go to disrupt a market that I'm very familiar with.

no pre-supposition not presumption. its a belief that is held as a fact without any discernable evidence, and particularly where something is held as a fact which defines the truth of subsequent consequences.

the lack of innovation in at least corporate business is measurable. We arent moving to a more sustainable energy model because it will affect corporate profit of traditional energy companies. weve had several banking crashes in the last 40 years the last one almost breaking the world economy because banks were chasing profit. its not a good driver of anything, other than the ability to carry on doing what you are doing.

im not criticising you, ive spent a lot of time thinking about these issues and i cant find a way that the kind of disruption i advocate for doesnt screw a very large proportion of the population, im just not convinced that the same proportion of the population isnt going to suffer under the current system, no matter how much we tinker with it.

 

[1966_and_all_that]

1. why? growth might be the issue that is driving many of the current economic and social problems, not just in the UK but globally. My personal view is that economic participation is a better goal even if the economy is shrinking.
2. no problem with this but its not achievable if there isnt massive investment in infrastructure, skills, and probably a wholesale change in how energy is produced and delivered as well as used.
3. no problem with the goal - but how? The NHS needs root and branch change and the marketplace mentality that currently exists probably need to be thrown out
4. its difficult to not want this. but how? the actual function of the criminal justice system and the police needs to be reviewed - what function does it provide to the public or are they both just instruments of state? there are deeper issues behind violent crime, which policing doesnt fix and policing is far too preocupied with petty rule enforcement to deal with actual crime that has societal impact. Satrmer's record in the CPS doesnt bode well for that.
5. this would be a relatively easy one, but hes already stated hat he will maintain certain tory policy in regards child welfare.

as a wish list its barely adequate in my very humble and admitedly rather cynical opinion, but its better than the tories have ever put up,

It's an overriding set of missions. Of course there will be a need for significant change and infrastructure investment. This is where the good jobs of statement (1) come in and the corollary is having the most sustainably high level of growth in the G7.

 

[Costero Poderoso]

It's an overriding set of missions. Of course there will be a need for significant change and infrastructure investment. This is where the good jobs of statement (1) come in and the corollary is having the most sustainably high level of growth in the G7.

we have a difference of opinion, but its an interesting subject matter.

if it was my wish list it would be
1, make opportunity a level playing field; socially, politically and economically
2, ensure maximal economic participation across the whole of society
3, make health a cornerstone of societal need not a reaction to illness, create long lasting protections for the NHS against commercial interests
4, treat education as a national resource -
5, build a sustainable society: in energy, economically, socially
6, make the justice system and the police a community resource
7, reform of the political system to reflect its goal of serving the public - not serving itself

you might think its a shit list -

 

[TangoDave]

I’m not sure if this is interesting or not… But it’s interesting to me and it makes me wonder how other people think.

On one of the threads yesterday someone mentioned a political thermometer or words to that effect.. So I went online, answered around 50 questions and it gave me an output…

According to the computer, I’m slightly Left of Centre and moderately ‘Libertarian’.

So here’s the interesting bit… perhaps.

On the basis of my views and opinions, I probably should be voting for Labour (something I’ve never done before - last time I voted Green) at the next General Election… I agree with most of their Policies (though I do have some Red Lines on things like Nationalisation, which I’m categorically opposed to) however… I can’t stand Starmer … Every time I hear him or look at him, I just want to smack him in the face…

And … It gets worse..

On the Flip side and despite everything my logical brain tells me (and I’m normally so rational) I absolutely love Boris Johnson… In fact, if Boris were to be reinstated and fight the next election, it would challenge every part of my inner being not to vote for him (and he’s an absolute idiot).

I don’t get it… at all… it defies all logic

What’s wrong with me? (Politically focused answer only please!)

What? And you don't feel like smacking Sunak every time you see his Roland Rat face?
Can't understand why you are opposed to nationalisation either, specifically utilities and trains, which have been a shit show since privatisation?

 

[1966_and_all_that]

we have a difference of opinion, but its an interesting subject matter.

if it was my wish list it would be
1, make opportunity a level playing field; socially, politically and economically
2, ensure maximal economic participation across the whole of society
3, make health a cornerstone of societal need not a reaction to illness, create long lasting protections for the NHS against commercial interests
4, treat education as a national resource -
5, build a sustainable society: in energy, economically, socially
6, make the justice system and the police a community resource
7, reform of the political system to reflect its goal of serving the public - not serving itself

you might think its a shit list -

That's an excellent list. I might say that most (if not all) of it is covered by Labour's 5 missions, albeit your wording is better.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

no pre-supposition not presumption. its a belief that is held as a fact without any discernable evidence, and particularly where something is held as a fact which defines the truth of subsequent consequences.

the lack of innovation in at least corporate business is measurable. We arent moving to a more sustainable energy model because it will affect corporate profit of traditional energy companies. weve had several banking crashes in the last 40 years the last one almost breaking the world economy because banks were chasing profit. its not a good driver of anything, other than the ability to carry on doing what you are doing.

im not criticising you, ive spent a lot of time thinking about these issues and i cant find a way that the kind of disruption i advocate for doesnt screw a very large proportion of the population, im just not convinced that the same proportion of the population isnt going to suffer under the current system, no matter how much we tinker with it.

Apologies, I read one thing and then wrote another... My answer was based on what I read rather than what I wrote (if that makes sense)

OK... There's a valid point in there CP and I can see where you are coming from, but that for me is where good quality legislation and Government direction comes in. So essentially the Government is the guiding hand or the puppeteer that drives the overall direction of travel and determines the destination, whilst Private Enterprise goes about innovating and delivering the technology to get us there.

As I see it, you are absolutely correct in that corporate profit of the traditional companies (Oil etc) has definitely held back innovation, but wrong in the sense that private enterprise isn't more than capable of delivering and being driven to deliver the innovation that is required to transition. For me it ultimately boils down to political will and in many ways you can boil that down further and say the collective will of us, the people. Of course, it's not entirely that simple and big corporates have the power and finances to influence both Governments and Public opinion...

In fairness, I've had discussions myself (often whilst walking with a mate) as well as churning scenarios over and over in my head as to how we deal with some of the challenges that the modern world presents... The main focus of those discussions being the ever diminishing role of Human Beings in the workplace, increasing advancements and capabilities of technology and ultimately the further concentration of wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people.... So I think I'm on board that we need to remodel some of our existing thinking around economy as well as how we actually function as a society in general..... I'm just not entirely sure I feel entirely comfortable with a shift away from where I believe we are now heading.... I'm not saying there isn't room for different models to emerge (in some ways I think that is already happening in the Energy Markets), but I just don't share your pessimism and I can visualise a very different future than the one you describe.

What? And you don't feel like smacking Sunak every time you see his Roland Rat face?
Can't understand why you are opposed to nationalisation either, specifically utilities and trains, which have been a shit show since privatisation?

Sunak is very small and weedy.... But I think Kier could take a decent punch.

I've already explained myself on Privatisation

 

[Bend it like Suddick]

Labour's manifesto at the next GE will be structured around 5 key missions:

1. To secure for the UK, the highest, sustained level of growth in the G7.
With good jobs and productivity growth in every part of the country. Benefitting everyone, not just a few.

2. To make Britain a clean energy superpower.
To create good jobs cut bills and boost energy security with zero carbon electricity by 2030, accelerating to net-zero.

3. Build an NHS fit for the future,
that is there when people need it.

4. Make Britain's streets safe
by halving violent crime and restoring confidence in the Police and criminal justice system to the highest level.

5. Break down the barriers to opportunity at every stage
for every child by reforming the childcare and education systems, raising standards everywhere and preparing young people for work and life.

Now, it's easy to be sceptical and say thst this is just a wish list. But, a. It's a good wish list, and b. these are strategic missions through which every policy must be directed if it is to be adopted. This is a big challenge but don't say that Labour doesn't have any policies going into the next election.

Agreed to a point. More aims than policies, similar to what Rishi proffered. My problem is how they are going to fund all this. Every time a shadow cabinet minister is asked, all you get are vague answers and 'its been costed', and we all know Labours success historically with costing.

 

[Bend it like Suddick]

But I think Kier could take a decent punch.

Starmer looks punch drunk already with the charisma of a weed.

 

[1966_and_all_that]

Agreed to a point. More aims than policies, similar to what Rishi proffered. My problem is how they are going to fund all this. Every time a shadow cabinet minister is asked, all you get are vague answers and 'its been costed', and we all know Labours success historically with costing.

Well, Starmer is saying that it's all funded. We'll see in the manifesto. However, and to be fair, your post did suggest that Starmer hasn't any policies. My post states that he has. I would ask you to seriously consider what Labour is saying before casting it aside.

 

[Costero Poderoso]

Apologies, I read one thing and then wrote another... My answer was based on what I read rather than what I wrote (if that makes sense)

OK... There's a valid point in there CP and I can see where you are coming from, but that for me is where good quality legislation and Government direction comes in. So essentially the Government is the guiding hand or the puppeteer that drives the overall direction of travel and determines the destination, whilst Private Enterprise goes about innovating and delivering the technology to get us there.

As I see it, you are absolutely correct in that corporate profit of the traditional companies has definitely held back innovation, but wrong in the sense that private enterprise isn't more than capable of delivering and being driven to deliver the innovation that is required to transition. For me it ultimately boils down to political will and in many ways you can boil that down further and say the collective will of us, the people. Of course, it's not entirely that simple and big corporates have the power and finances to influence both Governments and Public opinion...

In fairness, I've had discussions myself (often whilst walking with a mate) as well as churning scenarios over and over in my head as to how we deal with some of the challenges that the modern world presents... The main focus of those discussions being the ever diminishing role of Human Beings in the workplace, increasing advancements and capabilities of technology and ultimately the further concentration of wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people.... So I think I'm on board that we need to remodel some of our existing thinking around economy as well as how we actually function as a society in general..... I'm just not entirely sure I feel entirely comfortable with a shift away from where I believe we are now heading.... I'm not saying their isn't room for different models to emerge (in some ways I think that is already happening in the Energy Markets), but I just don't share your pessimism and I can visualise a very different future that the one you describe.


Sunak is very small and weedy.... But I think Kier could take a decent punch.

I've already explained myself on Privatisation

Just to add a point which kind of responds to the above, culturally government is a responding mechanism to corporate and very, very occasionally public need, so we would disagree there, theres a power dynamic where corporations determine what they need and government legislates and regulates accordingly as a guiding hand, but it ends of with the puppet manipulating the puppeteer to some extent my whole point of view with humanistic bias is that government might become a guiding hand in ensuring humanistic hedgmony.

Private initiative is capable of delivering innovation, government should not be immune to those possiblities, but again there is a cultural aspect that reigns in both private and governmental operations., and various cultural aspects as to the way politics operates which hinders progress and political will. MPs being sanctioned for calling a liar a liar is one such thing in a small scale.

Glad you're more optimistic, i just cannot get there.

im now going to half fill my glass with a very large cocktail, thanks for the interactions. its surprising how these interaction on a crappy little football board focus my thoughts.

 

[1966_and_all_that]

Just to add a point which kind of responds to the above, culturally government is a responding mechanism to corporate and very, very occasionally public need, so we would disagree there, theres a power dynamic where corporations determine what they need and government legislates and regulates accordingly as a guiding hand, but it ends of with the puppet manipulating the puppeteer to some extent my whole point of view with humanistic bias is that government might become a guiding hand in ensuring humanistic hedgmony.

Private initiative is capable of delivering innovation, government should not be immune to those possiblities, but again there is a cultural aspect that reigns in both private and governmental operations., and various cultural aspects as to the way politics operates which hinders progress and political will. MPs being sanctioned for calling a liar a liar is one such thing in a small scale.

Glad you're more optimistic, i just cannot get there.

im now going to half fill my glass with a very large cocktail, thanks for the interactions. its surprising how these interaction on a crappy little football board focus my thoughts.

Hegemony?

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

Just to add a point which kind of responds to the above, culturally government is a responding mechanism to corporate and very, very occasionally public need, so we would disagree there, theres a power dynamic where corporations determine what they need and government legislates and regulates accordingly as a guiding hand, but it ends of with the puppet manipulating the puppeteer to some extent my whole point of view with humanistic bias is that government might become a guiding hand in ensuring humanistic hedgmony.

Private initiative is capable of delivering innovation, government should not be immune to those possiblities, but again there is a cultural aspect that reigns in both private and governmental operations., and various cultural aspects as to the way politics operates which hinders progress and political will. MPs being sanctioned for calling a liar a liar is one such thing in a small scale.

Glad you're more optimistic, i just cannot get there.

im now going to half fill my glass with a very large cocktail, thanks for the interactions. its surprising how these interaction on a crappy little football board focus my thoughts.

Enjoy your cocktail...

I had a brief discussion with Curryman the other day on here and I referred to the idea of our politcal system being the least shit of all the avilable options.... And unfortunately, I think that's what it comes down to... Obviously that doesn't mean you can't strive to improve, but in every 'system' or approach there is always some fallibility. Trouble is, you often don't find out what it is until it's too late... I suppose that's why I lean towards 'stick to what you know' or at least an enhanced version of it.