The British Politics Thread - The Bear and Badger

davyK

LarryDavid wrote:

davyK wrote:

I really don't get the railway thing. If it is privatised and the private sector is such a marvellous thing why the fuck to we have to bail it out on top of subsidising the thing year in year out? Make profit - fair enough - but don't come crying when you can't cut it any more. It's why public transport simply should not have been privatised as we can't afford to have these things fail. If any cunt is still making a profit off that (and I bet they are) they, and whoever commissions them, should be strung up by the balls.

We've 40 years of evidence that privatization doesn't improve services in the least. But it's not politically convenient to accept that, so we carry on down the path of failure. Being cynical you might assume that this will be an effort to make the public pay for the losses incurred whilst running a rail system operating nowhere near capacity due to covid. I mean there's surely some grift involved, it's the Tories after all, we just haven't discovered what it is yet.

It has its place - but national infrastructure isn't it. Energy, water and transport. I mean come on. Placing the vital organs of a country in the hands of privateers. The mechanism of the market doesn't work for that. Fucking mental.

Funkstain

So Starmer's speech. It may be a sign of my getting old and jaded and less radical, but I liked it.

I agree on the obvious statement: you have no power in opposition so the focus must be on getting elected. Where I have my doubts is in how he intends to go about this, and it involves a lot of peace-making with a lot of racist old cunts from Derby and Yorkshire, which I deplore - but the reality still seems to be that these people vote, every time, and you need at least some of them. Every election there are dreams that this time, finally, the youth / progressive / previously-apathetic ("they're all as bad as each other etc") blocs will defeat these (at best) centrists or (at worst) horrible fucker blocs, and we can get behind a truly progressive, new message / new deal / new politics party. But it never happens and I'm beginning to believe it never will.

If Starmer can navigate a very careful path between appealing to the fuckers, whilst not giving up a progressive suite of policies for the country (basically, not doing a Blair, but doing a Wilson) then I'll applaud that.

The concern as always is that everything will be sticky plasters over huge systemic problems (education gap, care "industry", public transport underfunding, health underfunding, etc etc) a la Blair. guess we'll have to see, but now is not the right time to expose himself to "same old socialist" criticism; now is the time to appeal to the fuckers, and criticise the govt, and this speech is job done for me.

mistercrayon

I want the next British prime minister to legislate for proportional representation so that we never get a majority one party government again.

Diluted Dante

Prepare for disappointment.

mistercrayon

Yes it will never happen. And it could create different problems but I think polarised and all powerful majorities are dangerous and hopefully that will be recognised.

Lurch666

I still think having rich people in politics was always a bad idea.
Conflict of interests.

acemuzzy

Shouldn't have poor people either though. They're also conflicted by yknow not wanting to be poor. Dur.

mistercrayon

I think the following people should be in charge:

Me.

I am neither rich nor poor.

Lurch666

acemuzzy wrote:

Shouldn't have poor people either though. They're also conflicted by yknow not wanting to be poor. Dur.

But if they made themselves better off by running the country more efficiently......

I know the problem is that anyone who wants to be a politician should in no way be allowed to be a politician (hitchhikers guide to the galaxy).

LarryDavid

Keith should ditch the patriotism, seeing as no Labour leader is ever going to be fully trusted by the flag wavers, and sell himself as 'the safe pair of hands' which could work, especially in comparison to the rolling disaster that is this current government. Looking like a faintly depressed regional sales rep will obviously help in this endeavor. Obviously, we assume Boris will be ditched by the next election and the Conservatives do that hard reset they often do where they magically wipe away all memory of previous callousness and incompetence and the press dutifully present them as fresh exciting new project, unrelated to the preceding shambles.

Electorally, he's obviously right to target those middle Englander's 'scared' by nutty Corbyn madness like not leaping head first into a nuclear conflict etc, and the mass of Brexiteers who abandoned Labour. His speech was alright. Faintly demoralising and depressing to me tbh, the same old cliches and tired nonsense. But then he's not trying to win me over, assuming that anyone like me will begrudgingly trudge off to throw him a vote, having nowhere else to really go.

Maybe it is the only way to win. Meh. The only hope is that deep down he isn't just the empty New Labour tribute act he's portraying. Expectations aren't high.

MattyJ

"Faintly depressed regional sales rep" made me do an actual lol

Diluted Dante

"Vote red if you want grey"

LarryDavid

Principal Starmer: "Ah, these uniforms are a godsend. Horseplay is down forty percent, youthful exuberance has been cut in half, high spirits are at an all time low."

davyK

acemuzzy wrote:

Shouldn't have poor people either though. They're also conflicted by yknow not wanting to be poor. Dur.

We should have politicians that have had proper jobs first.

And then they should work in the relevant depts. Imagine a teacher in education or a doctor in health.

Finance background for Chancellor. I presume we already have lawyers in the legislature side of things??????

It might just work.

monkey

Placing someone in the top finance position in the country because he’s mates with the bloke who got elected leader will seem like madness in 100 years.

monkey

Ditto letting that bloke sit on all the boards of companies that he’s just been setting the rules for.

davyK

The political party system by its nature facilitates this. It's "party over country" thinking that has us in the Brexit debacle.

I am ignorant of political systems though - no idea what the alternative is.

Funkstain

Sunak was in finance - hedge fund. Assume you mean someone who is in economics or something?

Look, no offence to the doctors and teachers here but I've met some right dumdums with some seriously harmful views.

Beyond that, you don't have to go very far to meet healthcare practitioners who are all for the abolition of the NHS, or teachers who think we should bring back corporeal punishment.

Politicians can stay as politicians -what needs to happen is that the SPADs and plain simple ADs are drawn from the right backgrounds, work well together to provide ministerial guidance and strategy, more people from relevant backgrounds are consulted, and ideology as much as possible is removed from the thinking. Good fucking luck with that

Diluted Dante

We just need to stop electing morons.

davyK

Professionals will always have opinions that we don't all agree with but they are at least coming from a position of experience. That's all I'm saying.

The transient nature of ministers who couldn't possibly become competent in a subject area before they are moved is the main problem. Having background either professionally or vocational has to help and puts you in a position to challenge waffle from the dept.

Private sector experience in finance can be toxic in some service areas but it can also be beneficial.

Brooks

LarryDavid wrote:

Looking like a faintly depressed regional sales rep will obviously help in this endeavor.

Mwah!

Brooks

I'm voting murder.

Armitage_Shankburn

Did Starmer mention that yesterday the Govt nationalised the railways like McDonnell and Corbyn, the fucking commies, were arguing for for years?

mistercrayon

Does it (would it) count as nationalised if the government is paying people to run a service?

Funkstain

Did they? I know they ditched the franchise system, and committed vast amounts of public money to keep shareholders happy, but didn’t realise it was in return for those shares?

Armitage_Shankburn

No, you're right- shares are now in a managerment service company, not franchise. But it's still a national system now. All risk owned by the state.

tigersgogrrr

Funkstain wrote:

Look, no offence to the doctors and teachers here but I've met some right dumdums with some seriously harmful views.

I mean, sure, you wouldn't just grab an idiot like me and put them in charge. But it would probably be quite helpful to have someone who has actually worked in education at some point do it. Experienced former head teacher with experience of governance and working in a range of schools strikes me as the logical candidate, so long as they had strong enough skills in other areas.

Funkstain

Sorry my statement was very unclear. I guess I meant that I don’t mind politicians being politicians, but I do mind when the people who actually come up with the policies and the strategies and the implementation plans are incompetent and/or inexperienced. Interestingly I probably sound a bit like Cummings there given that’s sort of his view on the movers and shakers in the civil service.

Anyway yes : absolutely no major policies or white papers etc without serious consultation with actual experienced experts, even better there could be a sort of experts panel who have to contribute to any policy to make sure it is practical, rooted in reality, useful, improves things, solves problems, good value etc. So get loads of teachers and administrators and doctors and nurses involved in consultation and checking and implementation but don’t make them politicians unless they wanna ve

Funkstain

Armitage_Shankburn wrote:

No, you're right- shares are now in a managerment service company, not franchise. But it's still a national system now. All risk owned by the state.

Sounds great can’t wait until we’re rewarded with super fast cross country train services

mistercrayon

I think that is basically how it works. Yes there’s an element of policy being driven by votes (as in the government says it will do something and we give them permission to do it). But I’d bet most policy is made via consultation and research by people who have worked in the field.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories