Support NeoGAF

[Acorn]

Investment is exactly what the economy will require when its in the toilet

Yep which guarantees their 2025 target isn't worth the paper it's written on. Not that am a hawk anyway.

 

[Faddy]

People stopped buying that argument when McConnell was in charge, partly because scot lab road tested possibly contentious UK lab policies here.

The argument we were the centre lost when it made most sense (Brown).

Nah people switched to SNP in the Scottish Elections because Labour kept putting up B-Team politicians promoted from within party offices. People backed Gordon Brown with 41 MPs returned.

The problem was rooted in Scottish Labour because they treated the Scottish Parliament as a second rate institution.

Anyway Scottish Labour are a sideshow, we should get back to talking about Theresa robbing the country blind.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Labour are CK2, lots of intrigue, plotting, seduction of your council.

Tories are EU4, the glory days when English foreign policy was war with Scotland and France, along with colonising the world through the cunning use of flags.

UKIP are HOI4, big fans of alternate history, but not that good in the air.

Lib Dems are Vicky3, long awaited to lead us into a glorious future, but somehow never quite arriving.

The Greens are Tyranny.

Just like that game, you forgot all about them.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Investment is exactly what the economy will require when its in the toilet

Is it actually investment if all you are doing is swapping privately owned industries to publicly owned?

I'd count investment as building a new railway, not buying an old one.

 

[Ghost]

Is it actually investment if all you are doing is swapping privately owned industries to publicly owned?

I'd count investment as building a new railway, not buying an old one.

In principle yeah it's definitely investment because it's an asset on the public ledger, whether it's a good investment depends on what they pay for it and what it's worth.

 

[RobotNinjaHornets]

Is it actually investment if all you are doing is swapping privately owned industries to publicly owned?

I'd count investment as building a new railway, not buying an old one.

*points to the Independent article I linked about how much East Coast rail was making under public ownership*

I mean, privatising something would count as an investment for whoever ended up owning it, no? Why not the other way around?

EDIT: Lmao, seen off

 

[Box of Kittens]

Because separated executives elected by first past the post are working so well elsewhere!

I can't speak for anyone else, but the US would be better off right now if we actually elected our executive via FPTP.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

EDIT: Lmao, seen off

Labour has nasty things to say about Lib Dems in General Election shocker!

You won't believe that Labour say the Lib Dems can't be trusted, on their own website!

---

The thing I like about Crab is that he thinks for himself and doesn't just link Labour propaganda, so we who clearly have very different views can chat and debate. Be more like Crab. This isn't a contest.

---

You are right that there's recent good examples of publicly owned railways. That is why the Lib Dems want to nationalise Southern immediately to fix its chronic issues. Sometimes a railway is better off in public ownership.

That is very different from promising to buy back, using big piles of capital, big chunks of privatised utilities, transport and post networks - and without giving it as a cost, I think it exposes a lack of confidence. Why not be honest and say how much you think it'd be likely to cost?

And why is it that when Labour gets up and says 'we can raise loads of money for services from raising income tax on the top 5%', and it gets refuted by the IFS as unlikely to match the prediction, I don't hear any Labour sources give a good explanation for the discrepancy?

Instead, when I press on this, I hear the same old attacks from Labour people.

I think the truth is that you don't have real confidence in your figures, but you don't think it matters - after all, you've put out a proper socialist manifesto for a change!

And why is it when folks point out 'the Brexit process is going to weaken the economy', Labour is silent too? They agree, surely.

 

[CyclopsRock]

In principle yeah it's definitely investment because it's an asset on the public ledger, whether it's a good investment depends on what they pay for it and what it's worth.

But that's not really what people mean when they say "investment". It's not about how much stuff the government owns - as said, if all they do is buy a railway for £10bn then they've got a £10bn asset and -£10bn, and the people have access to the same railway as before. "Investment" really just means stuff that costs money in the short term with a goal to long term prosperity. Investment in infrastructure is a perfect example of this, but it's not the only one. Low tax areas can be considered investments if they help grow an industry that might not exist without one, or in a place that it might not otherwise (such as Canary wharf in the 80's, which was also backed up by infrastructure spending. And it doesn't have to be the government doing it, either - car makers building a new factory is investment, and (the UK half at least) Eurotunnel was investment and that was financed privately.

So in this context, as Huw said, building a new railway is investment, like HS2. It costs money but at the end you have something you didn't have before (whether that's worth the money is another matter). But simply buying up existing stuff - which may well have virtue in and of itself for various reasons - isn't really an investment.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Stolen from Twitter:

"The #torymanifesto effect on non-EU migrants - £2000 per person to hire you, NHS surcharge of ~£1000 p/a, £18k spouse visa limit going up.

So basically either work in the city finance sector, marry a rich person, or get out. Expect this to apply to EU workers too after Brexit."

lol you can earn £18k without working in the "city finance sector"

 

[*Splinter]

*points to the Independent article I linked about how much East Coast rail was making under public ownership*

I mean, privatising something would count as an investment for whoever ended up owning it, no? Why not the other way around?

EDIT: Lmao, seen off

Seen off? It's embarrassing seeing Labour resort to shit like this. The only thing it's missing is a "Farron is a homophobe" headline.

 

[Acorn]

Nah people switched to SNP in the Scottish Elections because Labour kept putting up B-Team politicians promoted from within party offices. People backed Gordon Brown with 41 MPs returned.

The problem was rooted in Scottish Labour because they treated the Scottish Parliament as a second rate institution.

Anyway Scottish Labour are a sideshow, we should get back to talking about Theresa robbing the country blind.

Fair point. I still stand by my thoughts that Brown should've went to holyrood, pre vow he was widely respected here. Plus after some of the anti Scottish shit and mental health attacks we viewed him as hard done by.

 

[twofoldd]

lol you can earn £18k without working in the "city finance sector"

It's 18k currently - it will go up once May is re-elected.

And remember you need around £4-5k to apply for the visa too, so these changes will put them out of reach of a lot of people.

Edit - May wanted to increase the threshold to £25,700 back in 2012 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...nisters-plan-major-immigration-crackdown.html) - I expect they'll increase the limit to this figure, if not more.

Edit 2 - Just saw the thresholds if you have children.. Jesus christ.

For a partner with one child, the income threshold would rise to £37,000 a year, for two to £49,300 and for three children it would hit £62,600 according to the letter.

Edit 3 - Oh, should probably point out that this visa is only valid for two and a half years. Once it expires you need to apply for another visa which lasts another two and a half years. This costs a similar amount and the costs keep going up every April (went up around £300-500 this past April: I can't remember the exact cost off the top of my head).

Then, after you've been here five years, you can apply for an 'Indefinite Leave to Remain' is slightly cheaper since you no longer have to pay the International Health Surcharge.

You need to be incredibly well off to afford this.

 

[Spaghetti]

New episode of Anywhere but Westminster.

Interesting how they went back and interviewed some people they saw last year who've gone from being for Brexit, to changing their minds.

 

[Pandy]

I think in the long-run, the rise of the SNP in Scotland could be incredibly damaging. Half of the reason NI does so poorly is because the DUP can literally become involved in a scandal costing millions of pounds and still get an increased share of the vote because fuck Catholics. Most of politics is negotiable and nuanced - you can increase spending a lot, in part, very little, not at all, cut it slightly, cut it a lot, etc. But the independence issue is binary. Scotland can't be a little bit independent. And if that becomes the primary motivation for voting, all incentive for good governance flies out the window because you're either a good guy on the issue or a bad guy.

I genuinely think the recovery of Scottish Labour is one of the most important things for determining the UK's general direction. It puts to bed the scary notion of Sturgeon running the UK government for English voters, would create the media narrative that Labour is on the up, restore a hotbed of genuine political talent for Labour that was a huge source of their intellectual prowess, reduce the London-centric party personnel. It's to the point that I struggle to recognise SNP voters (jn Westminster elections, at least - no problem for Holyrood) as meaningfully leftwing, only nationalist, at the point that they're de facto enabling the Conservatives.

I understand how viewed from a certain perspective it might seem that way, but the reality is that Scotland is mostly irrelevant to English politics, and has only become more so recently as a bogey-man. The 'scary notion' might make sense down there, but from up here it underlines the Unionist narrative that Scotland should be seen, but not heard.

Scottish seats in Westminster are rarely decisive to the result of the general election anyway, so you won't miss us much:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11552991/The-general-elections-where-Scotland-decided-who-ran-the-UK.html

But it's also because Scotland is a relatively small part of the UK: 5.3 million out of a total population of 64 million. Why, some ask, should the elected representatives of barely 8 per cent of the country hold sway over the whole nation?
Yet it's not unprecedented for Scots to make a decisive difference at general elections.
We looked at the results for elections since 1945, to see what would have happened in each one if Scotland hadn't been part of the UK.
The results show that in three -- and possibly four -- of the 18 elections, the way Scots voted and the MPs they returned actually decided who won and who governed the whole of the UK.

So far the SNP at Holyrood have shown themselves to be a much more competent administration than those prior. Not to say they've been without faults, but given that their time in power has almost entirely been taken up with post 2008 crash austerity they've managed their priorities fairly well. Several of Labour's new manifesto pledges are already in effect up here, so given their limited remit I have to wonder how much further you expect them to go to be 'meaningfully' leftwing.

Meanwhile the Scottish Tories have been the ones ramping up the dog whistles to 11 on the sectarian rhetoric, with several of their recently elected councillors being members of the Orange Order. They have been pushing the polarisation of Scottish Politics and making every talking point about independence and stopping the SNP, because opposing independence is the one policy they have that has greater than nominal support up here.

Scottish Labour and Lib Dems are lost at the moment, trying to figure out how it was that the Tories sucked up the Unionist votes instead of them despite them playing the same 'stop the SNP' card at every opportunity. Until the independence question is (re)answered I don't see any major comebacks for them (unless Corbyn wins the election and succeeds in making the UK a place people actually want to be a part of again).

 

[Faddy]

Theresa May's plan for a meritocracy.

Redistribute the equity in your home to private care companies.

Students pay huge fees to university so the university can turn around and pay for schools.




Edit to add:

Remove Inheritance Tax for estates worth up to £1 Million because that is a DEATH TAX.

 

[RenditMan]

It's 18k currently - it will go up once May is re-elected.

And remember you need around £4-5k to apply for the visa too, so these changes will put them out of reach of a lot of people.

Edit - May wanted to increase the threshold to £25,700 back in 2012 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...nisters-plan-major-immigration-crackdown.html) - I expect they'll increase the limit to this figure, if not more.

Edit 2 - Just saw the thresholds if you have children.. Jesus christ.



Edit 3 - Oh, should probably point out that this visa is only valid for two and a half years. Once it expires you need to apply for another visa which lasts another two and a half years. This costs a similar amount and the costs keep going up every April (went up around £300-500 this past April: I can't remember the exact cost off the top of my head).

Then, after you've been here five years, you can apply for an 'Indefinite Leave to Remain' is slightly cheaper since you no longer have to pay the International Health Surcharge.

You need to be incredibly well off to afford this.

You have to be well off to move to most developed countries, usually whilst providing a detailed evacuation plan if you fall ill. Fact of life.

 

[Beefy]

Hmmm, any one thinking May has fucked up by attacking the poor and old?

 

[Camp Freddie]

Labour are CK2, lots of intrigue, plotting, seduction of your council.

Tories are EU4, the glory days when English foreign policy was war with Scotland and France, along with colonising the world through the cunning use of flags.

UKIP are HOI4, big fans of alternate history, but not that good in the air.

Lib Dems are Vicky3, long awaited to lead us into a glorious future, but somehow never quite arriving.

Nice!

But Labour are really Star Citizen. Lots of grass roots support who think it'll be the best thing ever and some ridiculously overambitious goals. Most people have given up on it for the next couple of years, but maybe one day they'll figure out what they're doing and produce something that isn't completely broken.

The Tory's are Call of Duty. Massively popular despite achieving nothing of note in the last few years, especially since the developer with the best ideas left.

UKIP are whatever indie studio is currently being eaten alive after their lead dev left and sold them out to Microsoft and/or EA

The Lib Dems are Peter Molyneux. Everyone likes their ideas, but the implementation let people down and no-one trusts them anymore. Especially the student that was promised a big reward

The SNP are Pillars of Eternity or Divinity:OS. Well-loved by their niche demographic, and lots of support for a sequel. Their leaders have some talent but they will always be outnumbered by the mainstream CoD fans.

 

[Faddy]

Hmmm, any one thinking May has fucked up by attacking the poor?

I mean it just isn't school meals, university fees and social care that are targeting the working class. It is a incoming National Insurance rise that leaves people earning over £43,000 paying the same while median and lower wage workers pay more.

 

[Randdalf]

I've been feeling a bit more positive about this election over the last few days - it doesn't feel like May is going to romp off with a crushing majority anymore. I still don't want them to win, but I'm less concerned than I was when this election started.

 

[Pandy]

Hmmm, any one thinking May has fucked up by attacking the poor?

I'm not an expert on manifestos, but I can't remember one ever that was as honest as this about wanting to shit on the people that it was asking to vote for it.

I can't bring myself to hope that it'll cost her the election though. The BBC 'mainstream' spin is what will set the tone.

 

[daviyoung]

Hmmm, any one thinking May has fucked up by attacking the poor?

Research has probably shown those people won't vote anyway

 

[War Peaceman]

The Tory manifesto just seems to have nothing for anyone. They'd have been better off saying nothing at all.

 

[Faddy]

Research has probably shown those people won't vote anyway

If you are an older person with a £400,000 house in the South East why would you vote Tory? The Tory manifesto could potentially take £300,000 of value plus your savings if you have the misfortune of requiring personal care.

 

[Faddy]

The Tory manifesto just seems to have nothing for anyone. They'd have been better off saying nothing at all.

The removal of the triple lock of a guaranteed 2.5% pension rise is basically admitting that the Tories are not projecting wages to rise or large amounts of inflation so welcome to Brexit Stagflation as wages fall and a huge sell off of UK assets begins.

 

[twofoldd]

You have to be well off to move to most developed countries, usually whilst providing a detailed evacuation plan if you fall ill. Fact of life.

This is the cost to bring over an immediate non-EU family member - a spouse or a child. You think it's reasonable?

I feel for the families being split up because of these exorbitant costs. Guess it's their fault for falling for a person with the wrong colour passport.

 

[TimmmV]

So in this context, as Huw said, building a new railway is investment, like HS2. It costs money but at the end you have something you didn't have before (whether that's worth the money is another matter). But simply buying up existing stuff - which may well have virtue in and of itself for various reasons - isn't really an investment.

Both would be investments - ultimately all investment spending is just spending money with the intention that in the long term it will pay off. It doesn't need to result in a shiny new railway or airport or whatever to be considered an investment.

But this is arguing about semantics really. The point is whether spending that money on renationalising will pay for itself in the long run, and how long it will take for that to happen

This is the cost to bring over an immediate non-EU family member - a wife or a child. You think it's reasonable?

I feel for the families being split up because of these exorbitant costs. Guess it's their fault for falling for a person with the wrong colour passport.

His point isn't really relevant anyway, given that this hasn't been the case for EU members for the last 40ish years

That's quite a substantial amount of money for people to suddenly find, who had previously been living here with the same costs as a British person

 

[daviyoung]

If you are an older person with a £400,000 house in the South East why would you vote Tory? The Tory manifesto could potentially take £300,000 of value plus your savings if you have the misfortune of requiring personal care.

Oh I agree. The fucking of the core voter base is unprecedented.

Edit: actually this doesn't fuck over the core, it fucks over the cores inheritants. It's a scorched earth strategy, alongside of the inheritance tax, to widen the divide between middle and upper classes. The middle class after this generation will have LESS to their name than the previous one, while the very rich will be fine. We're seeing the class system being reconfigured with these policies and is a muturation of the years of austerity.

But, it could also be one if those old bait and switch policies that the Torres are so good at. Promise hell and deliver purgatory, it's great compared to hell.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

The point is whether spending that money on renationalising will pay for itself in the long run, and how long it will take for that to happen

Which is why, as a fan of evidence-based policy, I can't support mass nationalisation without seeing actual figures and facts.

Blowing big stacks on nationalisation based on the assumption that it will definitely make services better is an irresponsible use of government money until it is proven that it would. I need science, damn it, not rhetoric!

 

[jelly]

If you are an older person with a £400,000 house in the South East why would you vote Tory? The Tory manifesto could potentially take £300,000 of value plus your savings if you have the misfortune of requiring personal care.

The Daily Mail doesn't quite spell it out that way I presume and they hate foreigners more.

The removal of the triple lock of a guaranteed 2.5% pension rise is basically admitting that the Tories are not projecting wages to rise or large amounts of inflation so welcome to Brexit Stagflation as wages fall and a huge sell off of UK assets begins.

Begins, does the UK have much left? UK politicians have been idiotic and short sighted about UK assets for a long time.

I expect May to get an obviously lopsided US trade deal that seals the fate of the NHS.

 

[jelly]

Which is why, as a fan of evidence-based policy, I can't support mass nationalisation without seeing actual figures and facts.

Blowing big stacks on nationalisation based on the assumption that it will definitely make services better is an irresponsible use of government money until it is proven that it would. I need science, damn it, not rhetoric!

I don't think Nationalisation is a silver bullet but countries should have a controlling stake with long term investment agreed by all parties instead of chopping and changing every parliament. Just implement something right that might need 10-20 years to implement completely then so be it but don't torpedo it for party politics, opposition politics and made up targets.

 

[Faddy]

Which is why, as a fan of evidence-based policy, I can't support mass nationalisation without seeing actual figures and facts.

Blowing big stacks on nationalisation based on the assumption that it will definitely make services better is an irresponsible use of government money until it is proven that it would. I need science, damn it, not rhetoric!

Here are the facts. Services are terrible right now. When East Coast was run by government it made record profits.

So tell me why tax money should be lining Southern rails pockets instead of coming back to the Treasury.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Here are the facts. Services are terrible right now. When East Coast was run by government it made record profits.

So tell me why tax money should be lining Southern rails pockets instead of coming back to the Treasury.

Did the Department of Transport have to pay to licensing fees the itself? That's a genuine question.

 

[Linkstrikesback]

Stolen from Twitter:

"The #torymanifesto effect on non-EU migrants - £2000 per person to hire you, NHS surcharge of ~£1000 p/a, £18k spouse visa limit going up.

So basically either work in the city finance sector, marry a rich person, or get out. Expect this to apply to EU workers too after Brexit."

Oh fuck me, great, we're going to end up with similar charges for Brits wanting to go to the EU aren't we?

 

[TimmmV]

Which is why, as a fan of evidence-based policy, I can't support mass nationalisation without seeing actual figures and facts.

Blowing big stacks on nationalisation based on the assumption that it will definitely make services better is an irresponsible use of government money until it is proven that it would. I need science, damn it, not rhetoric!

You say you don't want rhetoric, but have repeatedly thrown around the term "mass nationalisation" in the same way that US politicians use "socialism" to dismiss something as bad

Oh fuck me, great, we're going to end up with similar charges for Brits wanting to go to the EU aren't we?

If its applied to EU migrants who already live here, then a lot of them are going to leave - either because they can't afford to pay it, or because there are plenty of other nice EU countries to go and work in that won't charge them an arm and a leg

 

[Ravensmash]

BBC reality check stated that it could cost 6 billion for the Tories to reduce net migration by 100,000 or so.

Something like that number - was in passing when I heard it.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

I only use the term 'mass nationalisation' to distinguish it from the good case-by-case examples. It's clear that having utilities/transport/mail under the public sector is often a good idea (see: northern European countries). But there needs to be an economic case for it. Nationalisation is not a good or bad idea - it is something that I would need to see good proof of before I can back either direction. On rail, I am more friendly to the idea, but given the opportunity cost it's still a high price that I'd want justified.

In the instances where you have a failed service (Southern) then there is clearly a failure that the government needs to solve.

Anyway. Leader's debate in a bit. I'm hoping for the country's sake - and certainly my party's prospect of gaining seat's sake - Farron can put on a good performance. Him and Sturgeon I think will come out looking best tonight unless something odd happens.

 

[Pandy]

Oh fuck me, great, we're going to end up with similar charges for Brits wanting to go to the EU aren't we?

There will be other avenues: http://en.legion-recrute.com/

Spoiler

Only half joking.

BBC reality check stated that it could cost 6 billion for the Tories to reduce net migration by 100,000 or so.

Something like that number - was in passing when I heard it.

It'll be far, far worse than that in the long term.
Reducing inward migration to the levels May wants will rapidly accelerate the demographic shift towards an unsupportable aging population, and we've already got the two-child policy in place to discourage those on lower incomes (ie. most families) from making up the difference.

 

[RenditMan]

This is the cost to bring over an immediate non-EU family member - a spouse or a child. You think it's reasonable?

I feel for the families being split up because of these exorbitant costs. Guess it's their fault for falling for a person with the wrong colour passport.

I think it's normal protocol and the Uk is not unique in this regard.

 

[RenditMan]

Oh fuck me, great, we're going to end up with similar charges for Brits wanting to go to the EU aren't we?

Non EU migration is heavily controlled in all EU countries.

 

[operon]

You say you don't want rhetoric, but have repeatedly thrown around the term "mass nationalisation" in the same way that US politicians use "socialism" to dismiss something as bad



If its applied to EU migrants who already live here, then a lot of them are going to leave - either because they can't afford to pay it, or because there are plenty of other nice EU countries to go and work in that won't charge them an arm and a leg

We're going to be short a lot of nurses

 

[jelly]

We're going to be short a lot of nurses

Boot strap healthcare.

 

[Royal_Phalanx]

Non EU migration is heavily controlled in all EU countries.

Assuming you voted to leave, this is absolutely your fault for taking our rights away.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

It's 18k currently - it will go up once May is re-elected.

And remember you need around £4-5k to apply for the visa too, so these changes will put them out of reach of a lot of people.

Edit - May wanted to increase the threshold to £25,700 back in 2012 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...nisters-plan-major-immigration-crackdown.html) - I expect they'll increase the limit to this figure, if not more.

Edit 2 - Just saw the thresholds if you have children.. Jesus christ.

Edit 3 - Oh, should probably point out that this visa is only valid for two and a half years. Once it expires you need to apply for another visa which lasts another two and a half years. This costs a similar amount and the costs keep going up every April (went up around £300-500 this past April: I can't remember the exact cost off the top of my head).

Then, after you've been here five years, you can apply for an 'Indefinite Leave to Remain' is slightly cheaper since you no longer have to pay the International Health Surcharge.

You need to be incredibly well off to afford this.

Yeah, I'm aware of what's involved (my wife is a non-EU immigrant). I don't think you need to be "incredibly well off" or "work in the city". The average salary is something like £25k.

 

[Faddy]

 

[TM94]

That Tory manifesto is incredible.

Absolutely reeks of disdain for ordinary people and even their traditional, older voting base.

Haha vote for us you useless cunts because there's nobody else.

 

[operon]

Yeah, I'm aware of what's involved (my wife is a non-EU immigrant). I don't think you need to be "incredibly well off" or "work in the city". The average salary is something like £25k.

The average industrial wage is less than that.

 

[JonathanEx]

The debate is on! Two hours of not the main two party leaders for you not to give a shit about

@GdnPolitics
Here's Prime Minister Theresa May's opening statement on the #ITVDebate tonight

 

[Daffy Duck]

It's 18k currently - it will go up once May is re-elected.

And remember you need around £4-5k to apply for the visa too, so these changes will put them out of reach of a lot of people.

Edit - May wanted to increase the threshold to £25,700 back in 2012 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...nisters-plan-major-immigration-crackdown.html) - I expect they'll increase the limit to this figure, if not more.

Edit 2 - Just saw the thresholds if you have children.. Jesus christ.



Edit 3 - Oh, should probably point out that this visa is only valid for two and a half years. Once it expires you need to apply for another visa which lasts another two and a half years. This costs a similar amount and the costs keep going up every April (went up around £300-500 this past April: I can't remember the exact cost off the top of my head).

Then, after you've been here five years, you can apply for an 'Indefinite Leave to Remain' is slightly cheaper since you no longer have to pay the International Health Surcharge.

You need to be incredibly well off to afford this.

Wow, I had no idea it was that bad!

And I bet zero air time gets given this to this.