Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Dave (U11711)
posted 7 hours, 2 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 9 hours, 33 minutes ago
comment by Mason The King Greenwood (U10026)
posted 5 minutes ago
Using Blair’s foreign policy to defend Tory austerity makes baby jesus cry.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As is using Blair's foreign policy to deride Corbyn, who opposed Blair's war crimes.
It never ceases to amaze me how people who exhibit such remarkable ignorance of issues can simultaneously be so outspoken and confidence about them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dunning-Kruger effect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The curse of the modern age.
comment by Dave (U11711)
posted 4 hours, 20 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 2 hours, 18 minutes ago
And are you seriously listing the Tories as being *better* on climate change? The frackers? The 3rd runway at Heathrow gang? The party with the most ties to energy/resource companies?
On what evidence do you believe that, to pick just one example?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This point is incomprehensible. Surely it's just a typo. Lambeau seems like a sensible, smart guy on just about every topic I've seen him comment on, and as he says, we're all entitled to opinions, but no one could have the opinion that the Tories are anything but the worst UK party on CC by a big margin.
I don't even think Tory politicians could say that they're anything but terrible on MMCC and pass a polygraph. Maybe Britain Trump could, but he's a compulsive liar from the George Costanza school of thought.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He said earlier in the thread that he doesn't agree with MMCC.
The worst election choice in living memory.
Corbyn just constantly says the wrong thing and is far too leftist.
Johnson seemingly either lies or runs away.
The rest are absolute no hopers. Hobson’s choice.
Best result is a hung parliament, no majority. That way there will be no hard Brexit, no destroying of the NHS and no crazy left wing spending spree.
comment by Striketeam7 (U18109)
posted 6 minutes ago
The worst election choice in living memory.
Corbyn just constantly says the wrong thing and is far too leftist.
Johnson seemingly either lies or runs away.
The rest are absolute no hopers. Hobson’s choice.
Best result is a hung parliament, no majority. That way there will be no hard Brexit, no destroying of the NHS and no crazy left wing spending spree.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes.. Centre left is far too leftist.
Far right is just "the right though"
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 43 minutes ago
comment by Striketeam7 (U18109)
posted 6 minutes ago
The worst election choice in living memory.
Corbyn just constantly says the wrong thing and is far too leftist.
Johnson seemingly either lies or runs away.
The rest are absolute no hopers. Hobson’s choice.
Best result is a hung parliament, no majority. That way there will be no hard Brexit, no destroying of the NHS and no crazy left wing spending spree.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes.. Centre left is far too leftist.
Far right is just "the right though"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Quite.
Fascism, the new centre ground.
comment by The Lambeau Leap (U21050)
posted 56 minutes ago
Higher corporation tax is fine. It’s social ownership aka nationalisation that’s ludicrously stupid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it ludicrously stupid in France, Germany, New Zealand, Japan, Austria, the Netherlands, Finland and Sweden as well?
Or just the UK?
Did you know that the UK is the only country in Europe that doesn’t own in part and recoup from its energy supply industry. The majority of EU countries own at least 50%.
The UK also has Europe’s second lowest interest in its own railway system. Those in most Northern and Western European countries own and operate theirs outright, or close to. Across the EU, state owned enterprises (SOEs) take 93% of all turnover generated by the railways. And that percentage is dragged down very significantly by the UK.
Take a look at this:
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/file_import/ip031_en_2.pdf
Skip to the graphs on pages 47 and 48 and look at performance in these industries in countries with majority SOEs managing the infrastructure and running services vs the private sector.
There’s no difference. Operating cost to turnover levels are the same, return on capital invested is the same, investment levels are the same...
We have to get over this bullsheet about the public sector not being able to run anything at all. Besides the US, no other large, developed country anywhere in the world has bought into the argument, and I have no idea why we have.
What has this got to do with Arsenal , could you not find a Brexit forum anywhere
comment by rosso is done with this (U17054)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by The Lambeau Leap (U21050)
posted 56 minutes ago
Higher corporation tax is fine. It’s social ownership aka nationalisation that’s ludicrously stupid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it ludicrously stupid in France, Germany, New Zealand, Japan, Austria, the Netherlands, Finland and Sweden as well?
Or just the UK?
Did you know that the UK is the only country in Europe that doesn’t own in part and recoup from its energy supply industry. The majority of EU countries own at least 50%.
The UK also has Europe’s second lowest interest in its own railway system. Those in most Northern and Western European countries own and operate theirs outright, or close to. Across the EU, state owned enterprises (SOEs) take 93% of all turnover generated by the railways. And that percentage is dragged down very significantly by the UK.
Take a look at this:
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/file_import/ip031_en_2.pdf
Skip to the graphs on pages 47 and 48 and look at performance in these industries in countries with majority SOEs managing the infrastructure and running services vs the private sector.
There’s no difference. Operating cost to turnover levels are the same, return on capital invested is the same, investment levels are the same...
We have to get over this bullsheet about the public sector not being able to run anything at all. Besides the US, no other large, developed country anywhere in the world has bought into the argument, and I have no idea why we have.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just to add to that:
Do some research on who owns those rail franchises you think are so much better than the state.
Foreign states. The Dutch national tail company commands three times as much track in the uk as the Netherlands, all its profits subsidise Dutch nationals travel, and has been used to make their rails run purely on renewable energy further driving down the cost.
It beggars belief.
Also look at the efficiencies of electricity networks since privatisation, ours is still stuck at 80's levels of 50%, mean 2kwh produced for every kwh used effectively doubling the cost of energy.
In Germany its over 80% efficient
Also (and I can bang on about this for hours)
Do you know what best rated public service in the uk is For efficiency and value?
Scottish water.. A nationalised service.
Insert random username.
Agree completely. Nationalisation is not a bad thing in itself, if done well it's the best.
Personally i think it'd be agrave error for the UK to revert to tried-and-failed policies just because there are a few success stories across Europe. Especially in ignorance of the fact that a lot countries are suffering from state controlled networks and are actually pushing for privatisation.
My view is that the private sector is important for access and standards at a high level.
That's before we even acknowledge the fact that such an endeavour would cost us tens upon tens of billions.
But hey, I'm no economist. I just pay attention to the news and form my own opinions.
Who's voted anyway? I've gotta say I was up very late re-reading the manifestos for the three main parties again. My opinions haven't really been swayed, but I am very conflicted today purely down to the fact that kramthered and gratedbeans said some stuff to me that really gave me pause.
At this point, I'm not even sure I'm going to vote. There's so much that I agree with both main parties on, and there's a lot that I concerns me about each of them as well. I really don't know.
Anyone else conflicted at all?
comment by Robbing Hoody - tell me I can't and I'll show you I can (U6374)
posted 9 hours, 13 minutes ago
Aside of nuclear weapons being morally bankrupt I find the whole premise of supporting having them counter intuitive really.
I assume we're not going to initiate launching one so that seems odd to have one.
If someone fires one/some at us we're all dead anyway.
I dont much see the point in killing millions of their civilians in retaliation because we'll all be dead anyway.
If by luck we dont die from the attack there is a very good chance that it'll create a nuclear winter so we'll all be dead anyway.
You know who wont die? Any of the people in charge of firing them.
Bizarre really that any civilian would back having them as a result really what with every scenario likely leading to our death.
Australia doesnt find them critical.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Having the nuclear weapon is just protection. Another country is a hell of a lot less likely to use one on you if they know you can do the same back to them.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - tell me I can't and I'll show you I can (U6374)
posted 9 hours, 13 minutes ago
Aside of nuclear weapons being morally bankrupt I find the whole premise of supporting having them counter intuitive really.
I assume we're not going to initiate launching one so that seems odd to have one.
If someone fires one/some at us we're all dead anyway.
I dont much see the point in killing millions of their civilians in retaliation because we'll all be dead anyway.
If by luck we dont die from the attack there is a very good chance that it'll create a nuclear winter so we'll all be dead anyway.
You know who wont die? Any of the people in charge of firing them.
Bizarre really that any civilian would back having them as a result really what with every scenario likely leading to our death.
Australia doesnt find them critical.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Having the nuclear weapon is just protection. Another country is a hell of a lot less likely to use one on you if they know you can do the same back to them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If a gangster pulls a nuclear weapon on you, or an intruder enters your home with one, would you not rather have a nuclear weapon of your own so as to level the playing field?
comment by The Lambeau Leap (U21050)
posted 1 minute ago
Personally i think it'd be agrave error for the UK to revert to tried-and-failed policies just because there are a few success stories across Europe. Especially in ignorance of the fact that a lot countries are suffering from state controlled networks and are actually pushing for privatisation.
My view is that the private sector is important for access and standards at a high level.
That's before we even acknowledge the fact that such an endeavour would cost us tens upon tens of billions.
But hey, I'm no economist. I just pay attention to the news and form my own opinions.
Who's voted anyway? I've gotta say I was up very late re-reading the manifestos for the three main parties again. My opinions haven't really been swayed, but I am very conflicted today purely down to the fact that kramthered and gratedbeans said some stuff to me that really gave me pause.
At this point, I'm not even sure I'm going to vote. There's so much that I agree with both main parties on, and there's a lot that I concerns me about each of them as well. I really don't know.
Anyone else conflicted at all?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you know how a lot of privatisation works?
With regards to the rail, we pay for the actual rails, tunnels, bridges, stations as taxpayers. The franchises pay the staff to collect the ticket fees. What you call the free market in this instance is socialism for the rich, spreading the cost of their business while privatising the profit.
I worked in social housing as a management accountant the story is largely the same with privatised social housing provision. The government pays 90% of the cost of building these "privately funded" council houses. By way of a 0% interest depreciating loan. Which reduces in value every year by 1% or the original amount.
These companies own the asset, receive all the rents and pay 0 taxes because they are registered as charities thanks to a peice of tory legislation. The one I worked for made a "surplus" each year of 7million thanks to its taxpayer funded assets, yet still increased their rents by the maximum permissible each year.
Privatisation of these essential services is a cash grab, the profit charged on top of the services inflate the cost for the population and reduce the amount of free wealth each person has to spend on other items that drive the economy and create jobs, in pubs clubs, cinemas, shops, restaurants etc.
Privatisation is an economic fallacy
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - tell me I can't and I'll show you I can (U6374)
posted 9 hours, 13 minutes ago
Aside of nuclear weapons being morally bankrupt I find the whole premise of supporting having them counter intuitive really.
I assume we're not going to initiate launching one so that seems odd to have one.
If someone fires one/some at us we're all dead anyway.
I dont much see the point in killing millions of their civilians in retaliation because we'll all be dead anyway.
If by luck we dont die from the attack there is a very good chance that it'll create a nuclear winter so we'll all be dead anyway.
You know who wont die? Any of the people in charge of firing them.
Bizarre really that any civilian would back having them as a result really what with every scenario likely leading to our death.
Australia doesnt find them critical.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Having the nuclear weapon is just protection. Another country is a hell of a lot less likely to use one on you if they know you can do the same back to them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If a gangster pulls a nuclear weapon on you, or an intruder enters your home with one, would you not rather have a nuclear weapon of your own so as to level the playing field?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If that happened your deterrent hasn't worked and was a waste of money
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - tell me I can't and I'll show you I can (U6374)
posted 9 hours, 13 minutes ago
Aside of nuclear weapons being morally bankrupt I find the whole premise of supporting having them counter intuitive really.
I assume we're not going to initiate launching one so that seems odd to have one.
If someone fires one/some at us we're all dead anyway.
I dont much see the point in killing millions of their civilians in retaliation because we'll all be dead anyway.
If by luck we dont die from the attack there is a very good chance that it'll create a nuclear winter so we'll all be dead anyway.
You know who wont die? Any of the people in charge of firing them.
Bizarre really that any civilian would back having them as a result really what with every scenario likely leading to our death.
Australia doesnt find them critical.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Having the nuclear weapon is just protection. Another country is a hell of a lot less likely to use one on you if they know you can do the same back to them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If a gangster pulls a nuclear weapon on you, or an intruder enters your home with one, would you not rather have a nuclear weapon of your own so as to level the playing field?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If that happened your deterrent hasn't worked and was a waste of money
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know - it was a reference to a conversation earlier in the thread.
comment by The Lambeau Leap (U21050)
posted 17 minutes ago
Personally i think it'd be agrave error for the UK to revert to tried-and-failed policies just because there are a few success stories across Europe. Especially in ignorance of the fact that a lot countries are suffering from state controlled networks and are actually pushing for privatisation.
My view is that the private sector is important for access and standards at a high level.
That's before we even acknowledge the fact that such an endeavour would cost us tens upon tens of billions.
But hey, I'm no economist. I just pay attention to the news and form my own opinions.
Who's voted anyway? I've gotta say I was up very late re-reading the manifestos for the three main parties again. My opinions haven't really been swayed, but I am very conflicted today purely down to the fact that kramthered and gratedbeans said some stuff to me that really gave me pause.
At this point, I'm not even sure I'm going to vote. There's so much that I agree with both main parties on, and there's a lot that I concerns me about each of them as well. I really don't know.
Anyone else conflicted at all?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In two ways, I guess.
I won’t be voting, because I don’t believe it’d be democratically legitimate for me to do so having no intention to ever return to live in the UK. For the same reason, those with residency in the UK, including the two million plus EU citizens who have been in the UK more than five years and have their entire lives, families, property and careers there, should all be eligible to do so.
It hasn’t been easy to stick to that though, given that a) I have the opportunity to vote, and b) I unequivocally believe that the Tories are absolutely destroying a country in which the majority of my family and many of my closest friends (and particularly their children, who I am most concerned about) live.
And then by tactical voting. Given my position it’s academic anyway, but given the undemocratic nature of the British electoral system, I’d be forced to vote for Labour in my former constituency rather than the Greens, with whose policies I’m comfortably most closely aligned (in every single policy area of interest to me according to a blind survey I undertook last night).
FPTP is anachronistic and undemocratic and has to go.
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - tell me I can't and I'll show you I can (U6374)
posted 9 hours, 13 minutes ago
Aside of nuclear weapons being morally bankrupt I find the whole premise of supporting having them counter intuitive really.
I assume we're not going to initiate launching one so that seems odd to have one.
If someone fires one/some at us we're all dead anyway.
I dont much see the point in killing millions of their civilians in retaliation because we'll all be dead anyway.
If by luck we dont die from the attack there is a very good chance that it'll create a nuclear winter so we'll all be dead anyway.
You know who wont die? Any of the people in charge of firing them.
Bizarre really that any civilian would back having them as a result really what with every scenario likely leading to our death.
Australia doesnt find them critical.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Having the nuclear weapon is just protection. Another country is a hell of a lot less likely to use one on you if they know you can do the same back to them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If a gangster pulls a nuclear weapon on you, or an intruder enters your home with one, would you not rather have a nuclear weapon of your own so as to level the playing field?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nuclear deterrent is a fallacy.
As if country A uses a nuclear weapon, and country B retaliates, the landscape left in the aftermath will be uninhabitable for human life.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
You have to ask your self why any state would want to nuke us anyway, can't we just be like Iceland? You also have to wonder why anybody would you want to incinerate a bunch of civilians in another country who had nothing to with the decision to kill us over here.
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Better than Gozer the Gozerian (U3126)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - tell me I can't and I'll show you I can (U6374)
posted 9 hours, 13 minutes ago
Aside of nuclear weapons being morally bankrupt I find the whole premise of supporting having them counter intuitive really.
I assume we're not going to initiate launching one so that seems odd to have one.
If someone fires one/some at us we're all dead anyway.
I dont much see the point in killing millions of their civilians in retaliation because we'll all be dead anyway.
If by luck we dont die from the attack there is a very good chance that it'll create a nuclear winter so we'll all be dead anyway.
You know who wont die? Any of the people in charge of firing them.
Bizarre really that any civilian would back having them as a result really what with every scenario likely leading to our death.
Australia doesnt find them critical.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Having the nuclear weapon is just protection. Another country is a hell of a lot less likely to use one on you if they know you can do the same back to them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If a gangster pulls a nuclear weapon on you, or an intruder enters your home with one, would you not rather have a nuclear weapon of your own so as to level the playing field?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nuclear deterrent is a fallacy.
As if country A uses a nuclear weapon, and country B retaliates, the landscape left in the aftermath will be uninhabitable for human life.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My response wasn’t serious (see reply to Insert).
But in your scenario, you’ve skipped the “deterrent” bit, haven’t you? The whole idea is that country A wouldn’t attack, largely because of the likely end result. Not sure that works as an argument against nuclear deterrent.
I’m not a defender of Trident at all though.
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Better than Gozer the Gozerian (U3126)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - tell me I can't and I'll show you I can (U6374)
posted 9 hours, 13 minutes ago
Aside of nuclear weapons being morally bankrupt I find the whole premise of supporting having them counter intuitive really.
I assume we're not going to initiate launching one so that seems odd to have one.
If someone fires one/some at us we're all dead anyway.
I dont much see the point in killing millions of their civilians in retaliation because we'll all be dead anyway.
If by luck we dont die from the attack there is a very good chance that it'll create a nuclear winter so we'll all be dead anyway.
You know who wont die? Any of the people in charge of firing them.
Bizarre really that any civilian would back having them as a result really what with every scenario likely leading to our death.
Australia doesnt find them critical.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Having the nuclear weapon is just protection. Another country is a hell of a lot less likely to use one on you if they know you can do the same back to them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If a gangster pulls a nuclear weapon on you, or an intruder enters your home with one, would you not rather have a nuclear weapon of your own so as to level the playing field?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nuclear deterrent is a fallacy.
As if country A uses a nuclear weapon, and country B retaliates, the landscape left in the aftermath will be uninhabitable for human life.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My response wasn’t serious (see reply to Insert).
But in your scenario, you’ve skipped the “deterrent” bit, haven’t you? The whole idea is that country A wouldn’t attack, largely because of the likely end result. Not sure that works as an argument against nuclear deterrent.
I’m not a defender of Trident at all though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Better than Gozer the Gozerian (U3126)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - tell me I can't and I'll show you I can (U6374)
posted 9 hours, 13 minutes ago
Aside of nuclear weapons being morally bankrupt I find the whole premise of supporting having them counter intuitive really.
I assume we're not going to initiate launching one so that seems odd to have one.
If someone fires one/some at us we're all dead anyway.
I dont much see the point in killing millions of their civilians in retaliation because we'll all be dead anyway.
If by luck we dont die from the attack there is a very good chance that it'll create a nuclear winter so we'll all be dead anyway.
You know who wont die? Any of the people in charge of firing them.
Bizarre really that any civilian would back having them as a result really what with every scenario likely leading to our death.
Australia doesnt find them critical.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Having the nuclear weapon is just protection. Another country is a hell of a lot less likely to use one on you if they know you can do the same back to them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If a gangster pulls a nuclear weapon on you, or an intruder enters your home with one, would you not rather have a nuclear weapon of your own so as to level the playing field?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nuclear deterrent is a fallacy.
As if country A uses a nuclear weapon, and country B retaliates, the landscape left in the aftermath will be uninhabitable for human life.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That would depend on the bombs used. Two nuclear bombs wouldn't mean the end of the world.
If only one country had the nuclear bomb then they would be able to do pretty much whatever they wanted. Other countries having them means that they are kept in check and greatly reduces the likelihood of the weapons ever being uses.
In an ideal world they would never have been invented, but we are beyond that now.
Sign in if you want to comment
Brexit Vote
Page 39 of 68
40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44
posted on 12/12/19
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 12/12/19
comment by Dave (U11711)
posted 7 hours, 2 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 9 hours, 33 minutes ago
comment by Mason The King Greenwood (U10026)
posted 5 minutes ago
Using Blair’s foreign policy to defend Tory austerity makes baby jesus cry.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As is using Blair's foreign policy to deride Corbyn, who opposed Blair's war crimes.
It never ceases to amaze me how people who exhibit such remarkable ignorance of issues can simultaneously be so outspoken and confidence about them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dunning-Kruger effect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The curse of the modern age.
posted on 12/12/19
comment by Dave (U11711)
posted 4 hours, 20 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 2 hours, 18 minutes ago
And are you seriously listing the Tories as being *better* on climate change? The frackers? The 3rd runway at Heathrow gang? The party with the most ties to energy/resource companies?
On what evidence do you believe that, to pick just one example?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This point is incomprehensible. Surely it's just a typo. Lambeau seems like a sensible, smart guy on just about every topic I've seen him comment on, and as he says, we're all entitled to opinions, but no one could have the opinion that the Tories are anything but the worst UK party on CC by a big margin.
I don't even think Tory politicians could say that they're anything but terrible on MMCC and pass a polygraph. Maybe Britain Trump could, but he's a compulsive liar from the George Costanza school of thought.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He said earlier in the thread that he doesn't agree with MMCC.
posted on 12/12/19
The worst election choice in living memory.
Corbyn just constantly says the wrong thing and is far too leftist.
Johnson seemingly either lies or runs away.
The rest are absolute no hopers. Hobson’s choice.
Best result is a hung parliament, no majority. That way there will be no hard Brexit, no destroying of the NHS and no crazy left wing spending spree.
posted on 12/12/19
comment by Striketeam7 (U18109)
posted 6 minutes ago
The worst election choice in living memory.
Corbyn just constantly says the wrong thing and is far too leftist.
Johnson seemingly either lies or runs away.
The rest are absolute no hopers. Hobson’s choice.
Best result is a hung parliament, no majority. That way there will be no hard Brexit, no destroying of the NHS and no crazy left wing spending spree.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes.. Centre left is far too leftist.
Far right is just "the right though"
posted on 12/12/19
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 43 minutes ago
comment by Striketeam7 (U18109)
posted 6 minutes ago
The worst election choice in living memory.
Corbyn just constantly says the wrong thing and is far too leftist.
Johnson seemingly either lies or runs away.
The rest are absolute no hopers. Hobson’s choice.
Best result is a hung parliament, no majority. That way there will be no hard Brexit, no destroying of the NHS and no crazy left wing spending spree.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes.. Centre left is far too leftist.
Far right is just "the right though"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Quite.
Fascism, the new centre ground.
posted on 12/12/19
comment by The Lambeau Leap (U21050)
posted 56 minutes ago
Higher corporation tax is fine. It’s social ownership aka nationalisation that’s ludicrously stupid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it ludicrously stupid in France, Germany, New Zealand, Japan, Austria, the Netherlands, Finland and Sweden as well?
Or just the UK?
Did you know that the UK is the only country in Europe that doesn’t own in part and recoup from its energy supply industry. The majority of EU countries own at least 50%.
The UK also has Europe’s second lowest interest in its own railway system. Those in most Northern and Western European countries own and operate theirs outright, or close to. Across the EU, state owned enterprises (SOEs) take 93% of all turnover generated by the railways. And that percentage is dragged down very significantly by the UK.
Take a look at this:
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/file_import/ip031_en_2.pdf
Skip to the graphs on pages 47 and 48 and look at performance in these industries in countries with majority SOEs managing the infrastructure and running services vs the private sector.
There’s no difference. Operating cost to turnover levels are the same, return on capital invested is the same, investment levels are the same...
We have to get over this bullsheet about the public sector not being able to run anything at all. Besides the US, no other large, developed country anywhere in the world has bought into the argument, and I have no idea why we have.
posted on 12/12/19
What has this got to do with Arsenal , could you not find a Brexit forum anywhere
posted on 12/12/19
comment by rosso is done with this (U17054)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by The Lambeau Leap (U21050)
posted 56 minutes ago
Higher corporation tax is fine. It’s social ownership aka nationalisation that’s ludicrously stupid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it ludicrously stupid in France, Germany, New Zealand, Japan, Austria, the Netherlands, Finland and Sweden as well?
Or just the UK?
Did you know that the UK is the only country in Europe that doesn’t own in part and recoup from its energy supply industry. The majority of EU countries own at least 50%.
The UK also has Europe’s second lowest interest in its own railway system. Those in most Northern and Western European countries own and operate theirs outright, or close to. Across the EU, state owned enterprises (SOEs) take 93% of all turnover generated by the railways. And that percentage is dragged down very significantly by the UK.
Take a look at this:
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/file_import/ip031_en_2.pdf
Skip to the graphs on pages 47 and 48 and look at performance in these industries in countries with majority SOEs managing the infrastructure and running services vs the private sector.
There’s no difference. Operating cost to turnover levels are the same, return on capital invested is the same, investment levels are the same...
We have to get over this bullsheet about the public sector not being able to run anything at all. Besides the US, no other large, developed country anywhere in the world has bought into the argument, and I have no idea why we have.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just to add to that:
Do some research on who owns those rail franchises you think are so much better than the state.
Foreign states. The Dutch national tail company commands three times as much track in the uk as the Netherlands, all its profits subsidise Dutch nationals travel, and has been used to make their rails run purely on renewable energy further driving down the cost.
It beggars belief.
Also look at the efficiencies of electricity networks since privatisation, ours is still stuck at 80's levels of 50%, mean 2kwh produced for every kwh used effectively doubling the cost of energy.
In Germany its over 80% efficient
posted on 12/12/19
Also (and I can bang on about this for hours)
Do you know what best rated public service in the uk is For efficiency and value?
Scottish water.. A nationalised service.
posted on 12/12/19
Insert random username.
Agree completely. Nationalisation is not a bad thing in itself, if done well it's the best.
posted on 12/12/19
Personally i think it'd be agrave error for the UK to revert to tried-and-failed policies just because there are a few success stories across Europe. Especially in ignorance of the fact that a lot countries are suffering from state controlled networks and are actually pushing for privatisation.
My view is that the private sector is important for access and standards at a high level.
That's before we even acknowledge the fact that such an endeavour would cost us tens upon tens of billions.
But hey, I'm no economist. I just pay attention to the news and form my own opinions.
Who's voted anyway? I've gotta say I was up very late re-reading the manifestos for the three main parties again. My opinions haven't really been swayed, but I am very conflicted today purely down to the fact that kramthered and gratedbeans said some stuff to me that really gave me pause.
At this point, I'm not even sure I'm going to vote. There's so much that I agree with both main parties on, and there's a lot that I concerns me about each of them as well. I really don't know.
Anyone else conflicted at all?
posted on 12/12/19
comment by Robbing Hoody - tell me I can't and I'll show you I can (U6374)
posted 9 hours, 13 minutes ago
Aside of nuclear weapons being morally bankrupt I find the whole premise of supporting having them counter intuitive really.
I assume we're not going to initiate launching one so that seems odd to have one.
If someone fires one/some at us we're all dead anyway.
I dont much see the point in killing millions of their civilians in retaliation because we'll all be dead anyway.
If by luck we dont die from the attack there is a very good chance that it'll create a nuclear winter so we'll all be dead anyway.
You know who wont die? Any of the people in charge of firing them.
Bizarre really that any civilian would back having them as a result really what with every scenario likely leading to our death.
Australia doesnt find them critical.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Having the nuclear weapon is just protection. Another country is a hell of a lot less likely to use one on you if they know you can do the same back to them.
posted on 12/12/19
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 12/12/19
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - tell me I can't and I'll show you I can (U6374)
posted 9 hours, 13 minutes ago
Aside of nuclear weapons being morally bankrupt I find the whole premise of supporting having them counter intuitive really.
I assume we're not going to initiate launching one so that seems odd to have one.
If someone fires one/some at us we're all dead anyway.
I dont much see the point in killing millions of their civilians in retaliation because we'll all be dead anyway.
If by luck we dont die from the attack there is a very good chance that it'll create a nuclear winter so we'll all be dead anyway.
You know who wont die? Any of the people in charge of firing them.
Bizarre really that any civilian would back having them as a result really what with every scenario likely leading to our death.
Australia doesnt find them critical.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Having the nuclear weapon is just protection. Another country is a hell of a lot less likely to use one on you if they know you can do the same back to them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If a gangster pulls a nuclear weapon on you, or an intruder enters your home with one, would you not rather have a nuclear weapon of your own so as to level the playing field?
posted on 12/12/19
comment by The Lambeau Leap (U21050)
posted 1 minute ago
Personally i think it'd be agrave error for the UK to revert to tried-and-failed policies just because there are a few success stories across Europe. Especially in ignorance of the fact that a lot countries are suffering from state controlled networks and are actually pushing for privatisation.
My view is that the private sector is important for access and standards at a high level.
That's before we even acknowledge the fact that such an endeavour would cost us tens upon tens of billions.
But hey, I'm no economist. I just pay attention to the news and form my own opinions.
Who's voted anyway? I've gotta say I was up very late re-reading the manifestos for the three main parties again. My opinions haven't really been swayed, but I am very conflicted today purely down to the fact that kramthered and gratedbeans said some stuff to me that really gave me pause.
At this point, I'm not even sure I'm going to vote. There's so much that I agree with both main parties on, and there's a lot that I concerns me about each of them as well. I really don't know.
Anyone else conflicted at all?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you know how a lot of privatisation works?
With regards to the rail, we pay for the actual rails, tunnels, bridges, stations as taxpayers. The franchises pay the staff to collect the ticket fees. What you call the free market in this instance is socialism for the rich, spreading the cost of their business while privatising the profit.
I worked in social housing as a management accountant the story is largely the same with privatised social housing provision. The government pays 90% of the cost of building these "privately funded" council houses. By way of a 0% interest depreciating loan. Which reduces in value every year by 1% or the original amount.
These companies own the asset, receive all the rents and pay 0 taxes because they are registered as charities thanks to a peice of tory legislation. The one I worked for made a "surplus" each year of 7million thanks to its taxpayer funded assets, yet still increased their rents by the maximum permissible each year.
Privatisation of these essential services is a cash grab, the profit charged on top of the services inflate the cost for the population and reduce the amount of free wealth each person has to spend on other items that drive the economy and create jobs, in pubs clubs, cinemas, shops, restaurants etc.
Privatisation is an economic fallacy
posted on 12/12/19
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - tell me I can't and I'll show you I can (U6374)
posted 9 hours, 13 minutes ago
Aside of nuclear weapons being morally bankrupt I find the whole premise of supporting having them counter intuitive really.
I assume we're not going to initiate launching one so that seems odd to have one.
If someone fires one/some at us we're all dead anyway.
I dont much see the point in killing millions of their civilians in retaliation because we'll all be dead anyway.
If by luck we dont die from the attack there is a very good chance that it'll create a nuclear winter so we'll all be dead anyway.
You know who wont die? Any of the people in charge of firing them.
Bizarre really that any civilian would back having them as a result really what with every scenario likely leading to our death.
Australia doesnt find them critical.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Having the nuclear weapon is just protection. Another country is a hell of a lot less likely to use one on you if they know you can do the same back to them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If a gangster pulls a nuclear weapon on you, or an intruder enters your home with one, would you not rather have a nuclear weapon of your own so as to level the playing field?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If that happened your deterrent hasn't worked and was a waste of money
posted on 12/12/19
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - tell me I can't and I'll show you I can (U6374)
posted 9 hours, 13 minutes ago
Aside of nuclear weapons being morally bankrupt I find the whole premise of supporting having them counter intuitive really.
I assume we're not going to initiate launching one so that seems odd to have one.
If someone fires one/some at us we're all dead anyway.
I dont much see the point in killing millions of their civilians in retaliation because we'll all be dead anyway.
If by luck we dont die from the attack there is a very good chance that it'll create a nuclear winter so we'll all be dead anyway.
You know who wont die? Any of the people in charge of firing them.
Bizarre really that any civilian would back having them as a result really what with every scenario likely leading to our death.
Australia doesnt find them critical.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Having the nuclear weapon is just protection. Another country is a hell of a lot less likely to use one on you if they know you can do the same back to them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If a gangster pulls a nuclear weapon on you, or an intruder enters your home with one, would you not rather have a nuclear weapon of your own so as to level the playing field?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If that happened your deterrent hasn't worked and was a waste of money
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know - it was a reference to a conversation earlier in the thread.
posted on 12/12/19
comment by The Lambeau Leap (U21050)
posted 17 minutes ago
Personally i think it'd be agrave error for the UK to revert to tried-and-failed policies just because there are a few success stories across Europe. Especially in ignorance of the fact that a lot countries are suffering from state controlled networks and are actually pushing for privatisation.
My view is that the private sector is important for access and standards at a high level.
That's before we even acknowledge the fact that such an endeavour would cost us tens upon tens of billions.
But hey, I'm no economist. I just pay attention to the news and form my own opinions.
Who's voted anyway? I've gotta say I was up very late re-reading the manifestos for the three main parties again. My opinions haven't really been swayed, but I am very conflicted today purely down to the fact that kramthered and gratedbeans said some stuff to me that really gave me pause.
At this point, I'm not even sure I'm going to vote. There's so much that I agree with both main parties on, and there's a lot that I concerns me about each of them as well. I really don't know.
Anyone else conflicted at all?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In two ways, I guess.
I won’t be voting, because I don’t believe it’d be democratically legitimate for me to do so having no intention to ever return to live in the UK. For the same reason, those with residency in the UK, including the two million plus EU citizens who have been in the UK more than five years and have their entire lives, families, property and careers there, should all be eligible to do so.
It hasn’t been easy to stick to that though, given that a) I have the opportunity to vote, and b) I unequivocally believe that the Tories are absolutely destroying a country in which the majority of my family and many of my closest friends (and particularly their children, who I am most concerned about) live.
And then by tactical voting. Given my position it’s academic anyway, but given the undemocratic nature of the British electoral system, I’d be forced to vote for Labour in my former constituency rather than the Greens, with whose policies I’m comfortably most closely aligned (in every single policy area of interest to me according to a blind survey I undertook last night).
FPTP is anachronistic and undemocratic and has to go.
posted on 12/12/19
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - tell me I can't and I'll show you I can (U6374)
posted 9 hours, 13 minutes ago
Aside of nuclear weapons being morally bankrupt I find the whole premise of supporting having them counter intuitive really.
I assume we're not going to initiate launching one so that seems odd to have one.
If someone fires one/some at us we're all dead anyway.
I dont much see the point in killing millions of their civilians in retaliation because we'll all be dead anyway.
If by luck we dont die from the attack there is a very good chance that it'll create a nuclear winter so we'll all be dead anyway.
You know who wont die? Any of the people in charge of firing them.
Bizarre really that any civilian would back having them as a result really what with every scenario likely leading to our death.
Australia doesnt find them critical.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Having the nuclear weapon is just protection. Another country is a hell of a lot less likely to use one on you if they know you can do the same back to them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If a gangster pulls a nuclear weapon on you, or an intruder enters your home with one, would you not rather have a nuclear weapon of your own so as to level the playing field?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nuclear deterrent is a fallacy.
As if country A uses a nuclear weapon, and country B retaliates, the landscape left in the aftermath will be uninhabitable for human life.
posted on 12/12/19
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 12/12/19
You have to ask your self why any state would want to nuke us anyway, can't we just be like Iceland? You also have to wonder why anybody would you want to incinerate a bunch of civilians in another country who had nothing to with the decision to kill us over here.
posted on 12/12/19
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Better than Gozer the Gozerian (U3126)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - tell me I can't and I'll show you I can (U6374)
posted 9 hours, 13 minutes ago
Aside of nuclear weapons being morally bankrupt I find the whole premise of supporting having them counter intuitive really.
I assume we're not going to initiate launching one so that seems odd to have one.
If someone fires one/some at us we're all dead anyway.
I dont much see the point in killing millions of their civilians in retaliation because we'll all be dead anyway.
If by luck we dont die from the attack there is a very good chance that it'll create a nuclear winter so we'll all be dead anyway.
You know who wont die? Any of the people in charge of firing them.
Bizarre really that any civilian would back having them as a result really what with every scenario likely leading to our death.
Australia doesnt find them critical.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Having the nuclear weapon is just protection. Another country is a hell of a lot less likely to use one on you if they know you can do the same back to them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If a gangster pulls a nuclear weapon on you, or an intruder enters your home with one, would you not rather have a nuclear weapon of your own so as to level the playing field?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nuclear deterrent is a fallacy.
As if country A uses a nuclear weapon, and country B retaliates, the landscape left in the aftermath will be uninhabitable for human life.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My response wasn’t serious (see reply to Insert).
But in your scenario, you’ve skipped the “deterrent” bit, haven’t you? The whole idea is that country A wouldn’t attack, largely because of the likely end result. Not sure that works as an argument against nuclear deterrent.
I’m not a defender of Trident at all though.
posted on 12/12/19
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Better than Gozer the Gozerian (U3126)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - tell me I can't and I'll show you I can (U6374)
posted 9 hours, 13 minutes ago
Aside of nuclear weapons being morally bankrupt I find the whole premise of supporting having them counter intuitive really.
I assume we're not going to initiate launching one so that seems odd to have one.
If someone fires one/some at us we're all dead anyway.
I dont much see the point in killing millions of their civilians in retaliation because we'll all be dead anyway.
If by luck we dont die from the attack there is a very good chance that it'll create a nuclear winter so we'll all be dead anyway.
You know who wont die? Any of the people in charge of firing them.
Bizarre really that any civilian would back having them as a result really what with every scenario likely leading to our death.
Australia doesnt find them critical.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Having the nuclear weapon is just protection. Another country is a hell of a lot less likely to use one on you if they know you can do the same back to them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If a gangster pulls a nuclear weapon on you, or an intruder enters your home with one, would you not rather have a nuclear weapon of your own so as to level the playing field?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nuclear deterrent is a fallacy.
As if country A uses a nuclear weapon, and country B retaliates, the landscape left in the aftermath will be uninhabitable for human life.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My response wasn’t serious (see reply to Insert).
But in your scenario, you’ve skipped the “deterrent” bit, haven’t you? The whole idea is that country A wouldn’t attack, largely because of the likely end result. Not sure that works as an argument against nuclear deterrent.
I’m not a defender of Trident at all though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 12/12/19
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Better than Gozer the Gozerian (U3126)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - tell me I can't and I'll show you I can (U6374)
posted 9 hours, 13 minutes ago
Aside of nuclear weapons being morally bankrupt I find the whole premise of supporting having them counter intuitive really.
I assume we're not going to initiate launching one so that seems odd to have one.
If someone fires one/some at us we're all dead anyway.
I dont much see the point in killing millions of their civilians in retaliation because we'll all be dead anyway.
If by luck we dont die from the attack there is a very good chance that it'll create a nuclear winter so we'll all be dead anyway.
You know who wont die? Any of the people in charge of firing them.
Bizarre really that any civilian would back having them as a result really what with every scenario likely leading to our death.
Australia doesnt find them critical.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Having the nuclear weapon is just protection. Another country is a hell of a lot less likely to use one on you if they know you can do the same back to them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If a gangster pulls a nuclear weapon on you, or an intruder enters your home with one, would you not rather have a nuclear weapon of your own so as to level the playing field?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nuclear deterrent is a fallacy.
As if country A uses a nuclear weapon, and country B retaliates, the landscape left in the aftermath will be uninhabitable for human life.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That would depend on the bombs used. Two nuclear bombs wouldn't mean the end of the world.
If only one country had the nuclear bomb then they would be able to do pretty much whatever they wanted. Other countries having them means that they are kept in check and greatly reduces the likelihood of the weapons ever being uses.
In an ideal world they would never have been invented, but we are beyond that now.
Page 39 of 68
40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44