Political round up.............

First topic message reminder :

ps the Best leaders surround themselves with the best people.   Not so good leaders surround themselves with those that are not going to challenge them.  So maybe the reason why it appears that there is a poor selection of candidates is partly due to Boris Johnson.  Another reason may be that the leadership qualities and the general competence levels of elected mps has declined.

It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:I'd just like to say that I have no interest whatsoever in hearing what random people in the queue to see the Queen lying in state have to say about it. Why on earth are broadcasters interviewing them? As if there isn't already enough airtime being taken up by the whole thing!

My 10 year old daughter said something similar yesterday - yes, it was news when HM the Queen died, and there are some news-worthy bits during the travels of her coffin between Balmoral and Westminster, but the coverage has gone far beyond what it merits. Hopefully, after Monday the news can return largely to normal issues.

dummy_half wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:I'd just like to say that I have no interest whatsoever in hearing what random people in the queue to see the Queen lying in state have to say about it. Why on earth are broadcasters interviewing them? As if there isn't already enough airtime being taken up by the whole thing!

My 10 year old daughter said something similar yesterday - yes, it was news when HM the Queen died, and there are some news-worthy bits during the travels of her coffin between Balmoral and Westminster, but the coverage has gone far beyond what it merits. Hopefully, after Monday the news can return largely to normal issues.

Indeed. As I stated previously, I'm in favour of the monarchy but this is getting silly. I'm usually an avid watcher of the BBC news at 1800/2200 but I just haven't bothered this week, it's been ridiculous. Fair play though to the BBC, they've managed to find something to say literally 24/7 over basically nothing happening. As for queuing 8 hours to walk past a coffin for 10 seconds, as Bart Simpson might say Ay Caramba!

The media has turned mourning into an olympic sport. I read a story about one fella who had sat out in the street since she passed, only getting a few hours kip a night in a Poopie tent.

What a strange country we live in.

How else to say goodbye to the queen of Britain than with a Frak long queue and having a flap over what is enough respect to show publicly

Wouldn't think we have a cost of living crisis ongoing.

Why all this howling hysterical sorrow?
What kind of goddess has lived among us?
How will we ever get by without her?

It is always debatable as to what is "routine" and what is important.

bbc wrote: Thousands of NHS operations and appointments look set to be cancelled on the day of the Queen's funeral.

The introduction of a last-minute bank holiday has meant hospitals are now postponing some routine treatments which had been booked in for Monday.

A host of leading hospitals told the BBC there would be some disruption to their services

.... Patients are being asked not to contact hospitals directly....

The disruption is affecting planned treatments, such as hip replacements and outpatient appointments. Emergency care services will be running as normal.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-62902341

Derek Smalls wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

mountain man wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

mountain man wrote:


Thanks for the patronising reply.

I wouldn't let yourself get wound up by navytrainingpants. This is his "style". Thinks he is a little bit smarter, a little more informed and a little more perceptive than the rest of us. Reality is, he is slightly more pompous and a lot angrier than the rest of us!

He is also a bit needy. He flounced off the forum once, threatening never to return. But he is back, clipboard in hand like that kid at school you just knew would end up a local councillor.

Just enjoy his increasingly angry ramblings, I certainly do. The world forum needs all sorts.

And old Andy is definitely a nonce.

Well, there's someone who knows the meaning of the word 'patronising'. Good to know it's not just me .

Dunno, I'd say you don't. I'd have said that poster was more insulting than patronising.

If you say so. Not fussed. Main issue now is if I 'flounce off' and leave you all to your own devices, it'll appear as if I'm doing so in response to Tino. Bugger...

Thanks for coming...don't let the door hit you on the way out...

Sorry, love. You need to read comments from people that don't simply reflect your own views from time to time. Unlucky.

No name Bertie wrote:It is always debatable as to what is "routine" and what is important.

bbc wrote: Thousands of NHS operations and appointments look set to be cancelled on the day of the Queen's funeral.

The introduction of a last-minute bank holiday has meant hospitals are now postponing some routine treatments which had been booked in for Monday.

A host of leading hospitals told the BBC there would be some disruption to their services

.... Patients are being asked not to contact hospitals directly....

The disruption is affecting planned treatments, such as hip replacements and outpatient appointments. Emergency care services will be running as normal.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-62902341

Yep; the height of absurdity. Not like people can't watch the funeral etc on catch up if they wanted to in this day and age. Imagine it'll be repeated ad nauseam given the way coverage has gone so far. Some 'routine' operations due for Monday have probably already been delayed for an age already - wonder if they'll bump surgical lists to fit these in on the following day? Doubt it, so where do the operations for these poor souls now get punted to?

Truss is planning on giving energy companies about £150bn of tax payer money (which we’ll be paying back for decades) to cover the cost of her price cap plan.

Meanwhile the EU is hoping to raise around £120bn via a windfall tax to help members states on top of whatever other individual measures they have in place.

Still. Sunlit uplands and all that.

The EU won't get anywhere near that figure and it'll drive up energy prices in the medium-term. It isn't the answer, but it makes nice headlines. Interesting that the EU is avoiding the use of the term windfall tax, owing to political sensitivities. It may take a few months for them to get it through as well, which is plenty of time for the energy companies to react.

The UK's solution isn't a good one either. We've already had a small windfall tax, of course (I think many have already forgotten!), but Truss is backed into a corner in which I don't think she has many good options. The option she has chosen will equal a modicum of short-term popularity, for a hit in the long-term.

Overall, we're now paying for the incompetence of successive Tory and Labour governments who didn't invest in nuclear power over the past 70 years, thereby increasing our dependence on imports. We're also paying for our adherence to EU directives (2001 Large Combustion), and the stupidity of the Tory/LD coalition, which phased out coal, further reducing our energy independence.

I can agree with you re: nuclear power. We should have went balls deep into it decades ago.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-62892013
"Switching to renewable energy could save trillions - study"

In the old days people in rural areas used to go into hibernation - entire families sleeping in one bed.  Then every now and again they would put wood on the hearth and cook some turnips and rabbit. I think the average lifespan if you made it past childhood would have been 40.

Reminds me of my time in Pembrokeshire.

No name Bertie wrote:In the old days people in rural areas used to go into hibernation - entire families sleeping in one bed.  Then every now and again they would put wood on the hearth and cook some turnips and rabbit.  I think the average lifespan if you made it past childhood would have been 40.

And in the evening we all got round the Joanna and had a few verses of 'My Old Man's a Dustman', 'Don't Dilly Dally on the Way' and 'It's a Long Way to Tipperary'.

Wonderful times.

Samo wrote:Truss is planning on giving energy companies about £150bn of tax payer money (which we’ll be paying back for decades) to cover the cost of her price cap plan.

Meanwhile the EU is hoping to raise around £120bn via a windfall tax to help members states on top of whatever other individual measures they have in place.

Still. Sunlit uplands and all that.

I kind of want to agree with this. However, if it's the done thing to ping a company for windfall that they accrue through no clever business practice of their own, should we not also bail out those companies that are hit through no fault of their business decisions?

JuliusHMarx wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-62892013
"Switching to renewable energy could save trillions - study"

Yup. Given that this sort of thing is inevitable in the long term, one might have thought that it would have made sense to invest, so that the UK could become a leader in this sort of tech. That boat's sailed though - no surprise, given the pygmy politicians we're saddled with.

Under capitalism, we are supposed to stand or fall on our good or bad business decisions. Rewards for failure is the business model under crony capitalism -some call it "socialism for the rich", as they are endlessly propped up with state money.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Samo wrote:Truss is planning on giving energy companies about £150bn of tax payer money (which we’ll be paying back for decades) to cover the cost of her price cap plan.

Meanwhile the EU is hoping to raise around £120bn via a windfall tax to help members states on top of whatever other individual measures they have in place.

Still. Sunlit uplands and all that.

I kind of want to agree with this. However, if it's the done thing to ping a company for windfall that they accrue through no clever business practice of their own, should we not also bail out those companies that are hit through no fault of their business decisions?

Its not clever business practice, its ripping the pish. They're already making record profits in the 10's of billions. Theres no reason to raise the cap other than pure Frak greed. And we have no choice because energy is a necessity. It is the absolute ugliest side of capitalism.

Its interesting that dyed in the wool capitalists dont have a problem bailing out corporations with tax payer money, but a slight increase in benefits is full blown communism. (Thats not directed at you Navy, more of a general point.)

Samo wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Samo wrote:Truss is planning on giving energy companies about £150bn of tax payer money (which we’ll be paying back for decades) to cover the cost of her price cap plan.

Meanwhile the EU is hoping to raise around £120bn via a windfall tax to help members states on top of whatever other individual measures they have in place.

Still. Sunlit uplands and all that.

I kind of want to agree with this. However, if it's the done thing to ping a company for windfall that they accrue through no clever business practice of their own, should we not also bail out those companies that are hit through no fault of their business decisions?

Its not clever business practice, its ripping the pish.  They're already making record profits in the 10's of billions.  Theres no reason to raise the cap other than pure Frak greed.  And we have no choice because energy is a necessity.  It is the absolute ugliest side of capitalism.

Its interesting that dyed in the wool capitalists dont have a problem bailing out corporations with tax payer money, but a slight increase in benefits is full blown communism.  (Thats not directed at you Navy, more of a general point.)

Forgive me - I'm not saying it's clever business practice; they've gained through no skills of their own. I just think that if bailing out failures, or windfalls on large profits (assuming either is fortune, rather than result of any business decisions) occurs, then the other probably also has to be expected/allowed.

Tend to agree that there's no reason to increase the cap, given profits involved, but that's what we get w/ politicians who think that received dogma is how one must go about things.

One of the worst corruptions of language is the twisting of 'socialist/socialism' as a swear word equated w/ communism in the U.S. and, increasingly, here. If we aren't at all 'socialist' in the 21st century, what's the point? If it's everyone for themselves, let's just have one huge game of real-life Fortnite Battle Royale and have done with it.

Samo wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Samo wrote:Truss is planning on giving energy companies about £150bn of tax payer money (which we’ll be paying back for decades) to cover the cost of her price cap plan.

Meanwhile the EU is hoping to raise around £120bn via a windfall tax to help members states on top of whatever other individual measures they have in place.

Still. Sunlit uplands and all that.

I kind of want to agree with this. However, if it's the done thing to ping a company for windfall that they accrue through no clever business practice of their own, should we not also bail out those companies that are hit through no fault of their business decisions?

Its not clever business practice, its ripping the pish.  They're already making record profits in the 10's of billions.  Theres no reason to raise the cap other than pure Frak greed.  And we have no choice because energy is a necessity.  It is the absolute ugliest side of capitalism.

Its interesting that dyed in the wool capitalists dont have a problem bailing out corporations with tax payer money, but a slight increase in benefits is full blown communism.  (Thats not directed at you Navy, more of a general point.)

The cap is being raised because numerous energy suppliers (about 30) have collapsed in the last year. If the cap isn't raised even more will go down, further adding to costs, it's not down to greed.

The ones making huge profits are the energy producers, who are a different entity.

Oh yeah, think about signing this:

PR Now

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Samo wrote:Truss is planning on giving energy companies about £150bn of tax payer money (which we’ll be paying back for decades) to cover the cost of her price cap plan.

Meanwhile the EU is hoping to raise around £120bn via a windfall tax to help members states on top of whatever other individual measures they have in place.

Still. Sunlit uplands and all that.

I kind of want to agree with this. However, if it's the done thing to ping a company for windfall that they accrue through no clever business practice of their own, should we not also bail out those companies that are hit through no fault of their business decisions?

Its not clever business practice, its ripping the pish.  They're already making record profits in the 10's of billions.  Theres no reason to raise the cap other than pure Frak greed.  And we have no choice because energy is a necessity.  It is the absolute ugliest side of capitalism.

Its interesting that dyed in the wool capitalists dont have a problem bailing out corporations with tax payer money, but a slight increase in benefits is full blown communism.  (Thats not directed at you Navy, more of a general point.)

The cap is being raised because numerous energy suppliers (about 30) have collapsed in the last year. If the cap isn't raised even more will go down, further adding to costs, it's not down to greed.

The ones making huge profits are the energy producers, who are a different entity.  

These would be the suppliers who didn't include plans for energy price increases in their business models? Why was that? Was it to provide nice shareholder dividends?

Energy should never have been privatised, or if it had to happen, we should have had politicians who gave a 4X about anything except their next vote. Still, that boat has long since sailed and, boy, are we ever paying for it now. Communism made a mistake - it forgot about selfish human nature. Capitalism may be better, but it's made the same utter **** up.

God, she's awful:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62968072

You'd think she'd realise that trickle down economics is a busted flush and was simply those with, pulling the wool over the eyes of those without. Biden's quoted remark quite interesting.

navyblueshorts wrote:Oh yeah, think about signing this:

PR Now

PR would be nice, but it's not going to happen. It would require at least one of Con/Lab to agree with it, and as Con/Lab would lose their guaranteed duopoly with PR they would be mad to agree to it. Further, I'm not sure how much appetite there is to go through the inevitable drawn-out process that would be required to get PR established as a voting system, after years of constitutional wrangling with exiting the European Union. I recently read how NZ got PR for their elections and it was a long drawn-out struggle:

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/how-did-new-zealand-get-proportional-representation/

The only plausible way I see it happening is: Lab become largest party in 2024 GE, LDs prop them up in exchange for referendum on PR (not really very likely thinking about it, Lab could just say 'don't support us and have the Tories stay in no.10', but we'll run with it); referendum happens and PR wins; Labour um and ah about implementing the results of the referendum because it's not something they really support; in the end Labour say support us in 2029 and we'll implement PR; Cons run on FPTP platform; Lab win in 2029; PR implemented. Political landscape incredibly fragmented for duration of 2030s. End of Lab/Con as serious political forces.

I would like PR, though. Better than FPTP and it would be a good step towards getting rid of political parties.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Samo wrote:Truss is planning on giving energy companies about £150bn of tax payer money (which we’ll be paying back for decades) to cover the cost of her price cap plan.

Meanwhile the EU is hoping to raise around £120bn via a windfall tax to help members states on top of whatever other individual measures they have in place.

Still. Sunlit uplands and all that.

I kind of want to agree with this. However, if it's the done thing to ping a company for windfall that they accrue through no clever business practice of their own, should we not also bail out those companies that are hit through no fault of their business decisions?

Its not clever business practice, its ripping the pish.  They're already making record profits in the 10's of billions.  Theres no reason to raise the cap other than pure Frak greed.  And we have no choice because energy is a necessity.  It is the absolute ugliest side of capitalism.

Its interesting that dyed in the wool capitalists dont have a problem bailing out corporations with tax payer money, but a slight increase in benefits is full blown communism.  (Thats not directed at you Navy, more of a general point.)

The cap is being raised because numerous energy suppliers (about 30) have collapsed in the last year. If the cap isn't raised even more will go down, further adding to costs, it's not down to greed.

The ones making huge profits are the energy producers, who are a different entity.  

These would be the suppliers who didn't include plans for energy price increases in their business models? Why was that? Was it to provide nice shareholder dividends?

Energy should never have been privatised, or if it had to happen, we should have had politicians who gave a 4X about anything except their next vote. Still, that boat has long since sailed and, boy, are we ever paying for it now. Communism made a mistake - it forgot about selfish human nature. Capitalism may be better, but it's made the same utter **** up.

Suppliers couldn't raise prices because they were limited by the cap, which in itself was time-locked (and why the government couldn't rescue the 30 who went to the wall; doubt they got nice dividends.) They had already lifted them to the highest level.

Privatisation isn't a perfect system, but it's a damn sight better than nationalisation. However, successive governments failed with regards to privatisation of the energy market as they allowed cartels (the big six) to develop, which in itself is against free market principle.

By-election coming up in West Lancashire, but it will be of little interest as it's a safe Labour seat that will be safer still with Labour's current poll lead. Starmer just needs to get through it without irritating the local Labour association.

There has been a small bounce for Truss in the national polls released so far, but nothing near to overhauling Labour's lead at the moment.

[quote="Duty281"]

navyblueshorts wrote:Oh yeah, think about signing this:

PR Now

PR would be nice, but it's not going to happen. It would require at least one of Con/Lab to agree with it, and as Con/Lab would lose their guaranteed duopoly with PR they would be mad to agree to it. Further, I'm not sure how much appetite there is to go through the inevitable drawn-out process that would be required to get PR established as a voting system, after years of constitutional wrangling with exiting the European Union. I recently read how NZ got PR for their elections and it was a long drawn-out struggle:

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/how-did-new-zealand-get-proportional-representation/

The only plausible way I see it happening is: Lab become largest party in 2024 GE, LDs prop them up in exchange for referendum on PR (not really very likely thinking about it, Lab could just say 'don't support us and have the Tories stay in no.10', but we'll run with it); referendum happens and PR wins; Labour um and ah about implementing the results of the referendum because it's not something they really support; in the end Labour say support us in 2029 and we'll implement PR; Cons run on FPTP platform; Lab win in 2029; PR implemented. Political landscape incredibly fragmented for duration of 2030s. End of Lab/Con as serious political forces.

I would like PR, though. Better than FPTP and it would be a good step towards getting rid of political parties.[/quote ]

I don't think that the matter is even that complicated ie Labour don't need to hold a referendum on it, being in the manifesto would help but not even that is necessary for implementing PR.

I think your understanding of the downside for Labour was the Blair view which is why he backed off from Lord Ashdown's proposal. William Hague was gobsmacked as he couldn't understand why a Labour administration would not do PR.Thr fact is that although it does fragment the duopoly, it effectively stops a Tory gvmt in perpetuity. More than half the electorate is on the side of Labour or Liberal (et al) and it benefits Labour by at least being in government as the largest party.


Personally I hope Starmer is realistic about working with SNP despite their bogeyman status within the Murdoch press and by extension the wider English public.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Conservatives are the largest party in 2024 but without enough support to form an administration. If we are going to turn this country around we need to flush these cronies out of the body politic for good.

Derek Smalls wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Oh yeah, think about signing this:

PR Now

PR would be nice, but it's not going to happen. It would require at least one of Con/Lab to agree with it, and as Con/Lab would lose their guaranteed duopoly with PR they would be mad to agree to it. Further, I'm not sure how much appetite there is to go through the inevitable drawn-out process that would be required to get PR established as a voting system, after years of constitutional wrangling with exiting the European Union. I recently read how NZ got PR for their elections and it was a long drawn-out struggle:

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/how-did-new-zealand-get-proportional-representation/

The only plausible way I see it happening is: Lab become largest party in 2024 GE, LDs prop them up in exchange for referendum on PR (not really very likely thinking about it, Lab could just say 'don't support us and have the Tories stay in no.10', but we'll run with it); referendum happens and PR wins; Labour um and ah about implementing the results of the referendum because it's not something they really support; in the end Labour say support us in 2029 and we'll implement PR; Cons run on FPTP platform; Lab win in 2029; PR implemented. Political landscape incredibly fragmented for duration of 2030s. End of Lab/Con as serious political forces.

I would like PR, though. Better than FPTP and it would be a good step towards getting rid of political parties.

I don't think that the matter is even that complicated ie Labour don't need to hold a referendum on it, being in the manifesto would help but not even that is necessary for implementing PR.

I think your understanding of the downside for Labour was the Blair view which is why he backed off from Lord Ashdown's  proposal. William Hague was gobsmacked as he couldn't understand why a Labour administration would not do PR.Thr fact is that although it does fragment the duopoly, it effectively stops a Tory gvmt in perpetuity. More than half the electorate is on the side of Labour or Liberal (et  al) and it  benefits Labour by at least being in government as the largest party.


Personally I hope Starmer is realistic about working with SNP despite their bogeyman status within the Murdoch press and by extension the wider English public.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Conservatives are the largest party in 2024 but without enough support to form an administration. If we are going to turn this country around we need to flush these cronies out of the body politic for good.

True, they don't have to hold a referendum, but as they don't support it I can't see them initiating it any other way.

PR may stop a Tory government, but the downsides for Labour are greater. I don't think it would be safe to assume that they would be the largest party in a coalition government under a PR election, because:

1) Labour would split. I think this is inevitable. If PR were introduced tomorrow, the left of the party (Corbynite wing if you like) would leave Starmer's lot and form their own party, based around the 2019 manifesto. They don't do this now because they know how difficult it is to get a new party off the ground with regards to FPTP, but under PR they would be guaranteed some seats and they wouldn't be crushed by party machines.

2) Tactical voting would end. The current Labour Party is propped up by tactical voting. Millions who want to vote Lib Dem or Green or for even smaller entities actually vote Labour, because they know if they vote for their preferred choice it is in effect a 'wasted vote' and, more often than not, actually helps the Tories. But under PR that tactical element vanishes.

Under FPTP, Starmer knows that his party are guaranteed, at worst, to be in opposition and, at best, leading a government with a majority of the seats being Labour. But both of those things vanish with PR. Labour could well split and Starmer's entity ends up being relegated to the 4th or 5th biggest party in the land; and also it would be a near-guarantee, under PR, that there would never be a Labour majority government again.

So looking at it from Starmer's perspective, I think he would be mad to go for any form of PR.

It is fair to say that more than half the electorate support the Lab + SNP + LD + Grn + PC parties - it comes in at 50.6% for the last election, but it's by no means set in stone going forward with such a narrow margin. You only have to go back to 2015 to find a time when Con + UKIP + DUP merited just over 50% of the vote.

Starmer may find the cost of working with the SNP too high, especially if the price is another referendum on Scotland leaving the UK.

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Oh yeah, think about signing this:

PR Now

PR would be nice, but it's not going to happen. It would require at least one of Con/Lab to agree with it, and as Con/Lab would lose their guaranteed duopoly with PR they would be mad to agree to it. Further, I'm not sure how much appetite there is to go through the inevitable drawn-out process that would be required to get PR established as a voting system, after years of constitutional wrangling with exiting the European Union. I recently read how NZ got PR for their elections and it was a long drawn-out struggle:

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/how-did-new-zealand-get-proportional-representation/

The only plausible way I see it happening is: Lab become largest party in 2024 GE, LDs prop them up in exchange for referendum on PR (not really very likely thinking about it, Lab could just say 'don't support us and have the Tories stay in no.10', but we'll run with it); referendum happens and PR wins; Labour um and ah about implementing the results of the referendum because it's not something they really support; in the end Labour say support us in 2029 and we'll implement PR; Cons run on FPTP platform; Lab win in 2029; PR implemented. Political landscape incredibly fragmented for duration of 2030s. End of Lab/Con as serious political forces.

I would like PR, though. Better than FPTP and it would be a good step towards getting rid of political parties.

Interesting points, but I don't think excuses are acceptable any more. So much revolves around representation, and being seen to have one's vote matter, that this should be a priority. Cost and complications be damned - it's too important. It's instructive, if correct, if we're the only European nation along with Belarus (and I don't think we want to be bracketed with them for anything) that don't use a form of PR.

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Samo wrote:Truss is planning on giving energy companies about £150bn of tax payer money (which we’ll be paying back for decades) to cover the cost of her price cap plan.

Meanwhile the EU is hoping to raise around £120bn via a windfall tax to help members states on top of whatever other individual measures they have in place.

Still. Sunlit uplands and all that.

I kind of want to agree with this. However, if it's the done thing to ping a company for windfall that they accrue through no clever business practice of their own, should we not also bail out those companies that are hit through no fault of their business decisions?

Its not clever business practice, its ripping the pish.  They're already making record profits in the 10's of billions.  Theres no reason to raise the cap other than pure Frak greed.  And we have no choice because energy is a necessity.  It is the absolute ugliest side of capitalism.

Its interesting that dyed in the wool capitalists dont have a problem bailing out corporations with tax payer money, but a slight increase in benefits is full blown communism.  (Thats not directed at you Navy, more of a general point.)

The cap is being raised because numerous energy suppliers (about 30) have collapsed in the last year. If the cap isn't raised even more will go down, further adding to costs, it's not down to greed.

The ones making huge profits are the energy producers, who are a different entity.  

These would be the suppliers who didn't include plans for energy price increases in their business models? Why was that? Was it to provide nice shareholder dividends?

Energy should never have been privatised, or if it had to happen, we should have had politicians who gave a 4X about anything except their next vote. Still, that boat has long since sailed and, boy, are we ever paying for it now. Communism made a mistake - it forgot about selfish human nature. Capitalism may be better, but it's made the same utter **** up.

Suppliers couldn't raise prices because they were limited by the cap, which in itself was time-locked (and why the government couldn't rescue the 30 who went to the wall; doubt they got nice dividends.) They had already lifted them to the highest level.

Privatisation isn't a perfect system, but it's a damn sight better than nationalisation. However, successive governments failed with regards to privatisation of the energy market as they allowed cartels (the big six) to develop, which in itself is against free market principle.

There's no a priori reason why nationalised industries shouldn't function properly. Too many just carp on about Communism and the 70s etc. Privatisation of utilities shouldn't be allowed. Period. They're too important and I've seen, frankly, chuff all that suggests to me we've (i.e. the regular punter) benefitted in any meaningful way.

Duty281 wrote:

Derek Smalls wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Oh yeah, think about signing this:

PR Now

PR would be nice, but it's not going to happen. It would require at least one of Con/Lab to agree with it, and as Con/Lab would lose their guaranteed duopoly with PR they would be mad to agree to it. Further, I'm not sure how much appetite there is to go through the inevitable drawn-out process that would be required to get PR established as a voting system, after years of constitutional wrangling with exiting the European Union. I recently read how NZ got PR for their elections and it was a long drawn-out struggle:

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/how-did-new-zealand-get-proportional-representation/

The only plausible way I see it happening is: Lab become largest party in 2024 GE, LDs prop them up in exchange for referendum on PR (not really very likely thinking about it, Lab could just say 'don't support us and have the Tories stay in no.10', but we'll run with it); referendum happens and PR wins; Labour um and ah about implementing the results of the referendum because it's not something they really support; in the end Labour say support us in 2029 and we'll implement PR; Cons run on FPTP platform; Lab win in 2029; PR implemented. Political landscape incredibly fragmented for duration of 2030s. End of Lab/Con as serious political forces.

I would like PR, though. Better than FPTP and it would be a good step towards getting rid of political parties.

I don't think that the matter is even that complicated ie Labour don't need to hold a referendum on it, being in the manifesto would help but not even that is necessary for implementing PR.

I think your understanding of the downside for Labour was the Blair view which is why he backed off from Lord Ashdown's  proposal. William Hague was gobsmacked as he couldn't understand why a Labour administration would not do PR.Thr fact is that although it does fragment the duopoly, it effectively stops a Tory gvmt in perpetuity. More than half the electorate is on the side of Labour or Liberal (et  al) and it  benefits Labour by at least being in government as the largest party.


Personally I hope Starmer is realistic about working with SNP despite their bogeyman status within the Murdoch press and by extension the wider English public.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Conservatives are the largest party in 2024 but without enough support to form an administration. If we are going to turn this country around we need to flush these cronies out of the body politic for good.

True, they don't have to hold a referendum, but as they don't support it I can't see them initiating it any other way.

PR may stop a Tory government, but the downsides for Labour are greater. I don't think it would be safe to assume that they would be the largest party in a coalition government under a PR election, because:

1) Labour would split. I think this is inevitable. If PR were introduced tomorrow, the left of the party (Corbynite wing if you like) would leave Starmer's lot and form their own party, based around the 2019 manifesto. They don't do this now because they know how difficult it is to get a new party off the ground with regards to FPTP, but under PR they would be guaranteed some seats and they wouldn't be crushed by party machines.

2) Tactical voting would end. The current Labour Party is propped up by tactical voting. Millions who want to vote Lib Dem or Green or for even smaller entities actually vote Labour, because they know if they vote for their preferred choice it is in effect a 'wasted vote' and, more often than not, actually helps the Tories. But under PR that tactical element vanishes.

Under FPTP, Starmer knows that his party are guaranteed, at worst, to be in opposition and, at best, leading a government with a majority of the seats being Labour. But both of those things vanish with PR. Labour could well split and Starmer's entity ends up being relegated to the 4th or 5th biggest party in the land; and also it would be a near-guarantee, under PR, that there would never be a Labour majority government again.

So looking at it from Starmer's perspective, I think he would be mad to go for any form of PR.

It is fair to say that more than half the electorate support the Lab + SNP + LD + Grn + PC parties - it comes in at 50.6% for the last election, but it's by no means set in stone going forward with such a narrow margin. You only have to go back to 2015 to find a time when Con + UKIP + DUP merited just over 50% of the vote.

Starmer may find the cost of working with the SNP too high, especially if the price is another referendum on Scotland leaving the UK.

With respect, all of this is speculation. It just needs to be done. Too many are disenfranchised and it's the obvious moral thing to do. The form of any PR system is an argument down the line, but FPTP is something that should be consigned to history.

I see... however, can the Labour Party have any confidence in winning ever again in FPTP? The huge challenges of massive media bias and interference which puts everything through their warped prism( Johnson hanging on a wire is brilliant ,Ed eating a sandwich awkwardly is unforgivable), boundary changes which benefit the Conservative Party and huge donated funds being funneled in to swing marginals.. 2024 (if it is then) is possibly the last good chance of a Labour government. If Starmer fails bigly, the hard left are on the warpath and causing more civil war and quite possibly the party splits anyway within a few years. Question is, how many of the hard left's votes can they do without?

Derek Smalls wrote:I see... however, can the Labour Party have any confidence in winning ever again in FPTP? The huge challenges of massive media bias and interference which puts everything through their warped prism( Johnson hanging on a wire is brilliant ,Ed eating a sandwich awkwardly is unforgivable), boundary changes which benefit the Conservative Party and huge  donated  funds being funneled in to swing marginals.. 2024 (if it is then) is possibly the last good chance of a Labour government. If Starmer fails bigly, the hard left are on the warpath and causing more civil war and quite possibly the party splits anyway within a few years. Question is, how many of the hard left's votes can they do without?

Mainstream media matters less than ever before, but it's the responsibility of Labour's leadership to either a) Court sections of the mainstream media (like Tony Blair) or b) Ignore the mainstream media and do their own thing (Trump 2016).

Boundary changes, that will happen after the next GE, are unlikely to benefit the Tory Party that much, if at all.

"Martin Baxter, founder of Electoral Calculus, said the changes could help the Tories overall, but “not as much as it might have done since they now hold some red wall seats themselves which might disappear”.

And that's in their present state, the changes will be altered before they get finalised.

Election spending is a huge issue because the regulations are pointless and it's essentially the wild west. But money can only move so much. Labour won in 1997 and 2001 and spent less than the Tories both times, and won in 2005 spending pretty much the same. Of course it's part of the political game to attract donors and wealth.

If FPTP remains then Labour's last good chance won't be in 2024. They'll always have a good chance under FPTP. And they should have confidence of winning again under FPTP.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Derek Smalls wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Oh yeah, think about signing this:

PR Now

PR would be nice, but it's not going to happen. It would require at least one of Con/Lab to agree with it, and as Con/Lab would lose their guaranteed duopoly with PR they would be mad to agree to it. Further, I'm not sure how much appetite there is to go through the inevitable drawn-out process that would be required to get PR established as a voting system, after years of constitutional wrangling with exiting the European Union. I recently read how NZ got PR for their elections and it was a long drawn-out struggle:

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/how-did-new-zealand-get-proportional-representation/

The only plausible way I see it happening is: Lab become largest party in 2024 GE, LDs prop them up in exchange for referendum on PR (not really very likely thinking about it, Lab could just say 'don't support us and have the Tories stay in no.10', but we'll run with it); referendum happens and PR wins; Labour um and ah about implementing the results of the referendum because it's not something they really support; in the end Labour say support us in 2029 and we'll implement PR; Cons run on FPTP platform; Lab win in 2029; PR implemented. Political landscape incredibly fragmented for duration of 2030s. End of Lab/Con as serious political forces.

I would like PR, though. Better than FPTP and it would be a good step towards getting rid of political parties.

I don't think that the matter is even that complicated ie Labour don't need to hold a referendum on it, being in the manifesto would help but not even that is necessary for implementing PR.

I think your understanding of the downside for Labour was the Blair view which is why he backed off from Lord Ashdown's  proposal. William Hague was gobsmacked as he couldn't understand why a Labour administration would not do PR.Thr fact is that although it does fragment the duopoly, it effectively stops a Tory gvmt in perpetuity. More than half the electorate is on the side of Labour or Liberal (et  al) and it  benefits Labour by at least being in government as the largest party.


Personally I hope Starmer is realistic about working with SNP despite their bogeyman status within the Murdoch press and by extension the wider English public.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Conservatives are the largest party in 2024 but without enough support to form an administration. If we are going to turn this country around we need to flush these cronies out of the body politic for good.

True, they don't have to hold a referendum, but as they don't support it I can't see them initiating it any other way.

PR may stop a Tory government, but the downsides for Labour are greater. I don't think it would be safe to assume that they would be the largest party in a coalition government under a PR election, because:

1) Labour would split. I think this is inevitable. If PR were introduced tomorrow, the left of the party (Corbynite wing if you like) would leave Starmer's lot and form their own party, based around the 2019 manifesto. They don't do this now because they know how difficult it is to get a new party off the ground with regards to FPTP, but under PR they would be guaranteed some seats and they wouldn't be crushed by party machines.

2) Tactical voting would end. The current Labour Party is propped up by tactical voting. Millions who want to vote Lib Dem or Green or for even smaller entities actually vote Labour, because they know if they vote for their preferred choice it is in effect a 'wasted vote' and, more often than not, actually helps the Tories. But under PR that tactical element vanishes.

Under FPTP, Starmer knows that his party are guaranteed, at worst, to be in opposition and, at best, leading a government with a majority of the seats being Labour. But both of those things vanish with PR. Labour could well split and Starmer's entity ends up being relegated to the 4th or 5th biggest party in the land; and also it would be a near-guarantee, under PR, that there would never be a Labour majority government again.

So looking at it from Starmer's perspective, I think he would be mad to go for any form of PR.

It is fair to say that more than half the electorate support the Lab + SNP + LD + Grn + PC parties - it comes in at 50.6% for the last election, but it's by no means set in stone going forward with such a narrow margin. You only have to go back to 2015 to find a time when Con + UKIP + DUP merited just over 50% of the vote.

Starmer may find the cost of working with the SNP too high, especially if the price is another referendum on Scotland leaving the UK.

With respect, all of this is speculation. It just needs to be done. Too many are disenfranchised and it's the obvious moral thing to do. The form of any PR system is an argument down the line, but FPTP is something that should be consigned to history.

I agree it's speculation but I think it's what will happen and why Labour won't support PR.

I do support PR over FPTP. I just think it's very unlikely to happen.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Oh yeah, think about signing this:

PR Now

PR would be nice, but it's not going to happen. It would require at least one of Con/Lab to agree with it, and as Con/Lab would lose their guaranteed duopoly with PR they would be mad to agree to it. Further, I'm not sure how much appetite there is to go through the inevitable drawn-out process that would be required to get PR established as a voting system, after years of constitutional wrangling with exiting the European Union. I recently read how NZ got PR for their elections and it was a long drawn-out struggle:

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/how-did-new-zealand-get-proportional-representation/

The only plausible way I see it happening is: Lab become largest party in 2024 GE, LDs prop them up in exchange for referendum on PR (not really very likely thinking about it, Lab could just say 'don't support us and have the Tories stay in no.10', but we'll run with it); referendum happens and PR wins; Labour um and ah about implementing the results of the referendum because it's not something they really support; in the end Labour say support us in 2029 and we'll implement PR; Cons run on FPTP platform; Lab win in 2029; PR implemented. Political landscape incredibly fragmented for duration of 2030s. End of Lab/Con as serious political forces.

I would like PR, though. Better than FPTP and it would be a good step towards getting rid of political parties.

Interesting points, but I don't think excuses are acceptable any more. So much revolves around representation, and being seen to have one's vote matter, that this should be a priority. Cost and complications be damned - it's too important. It's instructive, if correct, if we're the only European nation along with Belarus (and I don't think we want to be bracketed with them for anything) that don't use a form of PR.

Yep, if Wikipedia's correct, not many places use FPTP exclusively.

I see that that great stickler for proper parliamentary procedure, Jacob Rees-Mogg, is the latest Government minister to have announced policy details to the media before announcing it to the House.

Duty281 wrote:I would like PR, though. Better than FPTP and it would be a good step towards getting rid of political parties.

Really don't know what makes you think that. PR generally gives parties more control over who gets elected.

Nice of Zarah Sultana to provide entertainment for everyone. She complained about a delayed train service, and opined that it would be so much better if it were nationalised...failing to realise that the train service she was travelling on is a nationalised one!

Almost as if it the problems with the train service go beyond the simple nationalised/privatised binary.

Lowlandbrit wrote:

Duty281 wrote:I would like PR, though. Better than FPTP and it would be a good step towards getting rid of political parties.

Really don't know what makes you think that. PR generally gives parties more control over who gets elected.

Any introduction of PR should also come with an enhanced right for constituents to fire individual MPs and, possibly, bar those fired MPs from standing/be on the party list at the next election.

Duty281 wrote:

Lowlandbrit wrote:

Duty281 wrote:I would like PR, though. Better than FPTP and it would be a good step towards getting rid of political parties.

Really don't know what makes you think that. PR generally gives parties more control over who gets elected.

Any introduction of PR should also come with an enhanced right for constituents to fire individual MPs and, possibly, bar those fired MPs from standing/be on the party list at the next election.

What constituents? And even then, how does that get rid of parties?

Telling small lies and narrative pushing, and when things begin to go unexpectedly wrong, not admitting to mistakes or their lies, having to tell bigger lies, double downing on the narrative, then trying to silence critics and censoring - seems to be how politics is often pushed nowadays.  Is it a question of not trusting the public with information or is it all about protecting their own positions, trying to progress and preserve their own careers - difficult to say, but probably a combination of both.

I think Brexit referendum had this and I think the UKs response to what is happening in Ukraine has this.  

Well it now seems that Russia is now partially mobilising for war.  Putin and his Minister of Defence have reportedly made national statements on Russian television.  They claim their special operations defeated the Ukrainians, that it was a success, that Donetsk and Luhansk were liberated, plus two other regions around Crimea.  They claim that the continued fighting is now with the West - that only NATO money, weapons, logistics funneling into Ukraine is keeping the fight going.  They claim they had brokered peace deals with Ukraine but every time the NATO west threw money and resources at Zelensky to keep the fight going and reject the deals.  

So there is now going to be rapid referenda in all four regions and they expect it to be an overwhelming vote to join Russia.   The Russians claim they nearly had a deal with Ukraine for Donetsk and Luhansk to be independent but that was rejected - and now the referenda is for a full on merger with Russia + two other regions of Ukraine.   If and when the four regions become part of Russia, any further incursions into these regions by Ukraine would no longer be considered as a special operations but an attack on Russia itself.

Of course many could say the above is all propaganda and bluster, but if you don't get to hear what is being said by the other side, you won't know what may be around the corner.

You know he's flailing when the nukes get threatened again. His votes have no credibility internationally and he knows it.

His invasion has been a disaster and probably set Russia back decades. it's probably more a matter of when he's finished than if.

Lowlandbrit wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Lowlandbrit wrote:

Duty281 wrote:I would like PR, though. Better than FPTP and it would be a good step towards getting rid of political parties.

Really don't know what makes you think that. PR generally gives parties more control over who gets elected.

Any introduction of PR should also come with an enhanced right for constituents to fire individual MPs and, possibly, bar those fired MPs from standing/be on the party list at the next election.

What constituents? And even then, how does that get rid of parties?

The constituents of MPs.

PR in itself won't get rid of political parties, but it's a second step towards wholesale democratic reform, and quite a big step at that.

GSC wrote:You know he's flailing when the nukes get threatened again. His votes have no credibility internationally and he knows it.

His invasion has been a disaster and probably set Russia back decades. it's probably more a matter of when he's finished than if.

Could easily see Putin using nukes if he knows the game's up. Just depends on if anyone in Russia's interior can prevent him from doing so, or if they hold him in some sort of North Korean awe and will let him do as they please.

Putin needs to be taken out.

Duty281 wrote:

GSC wrote:You know he's flailing when the nukes get threatened again. His votes have no credibility internationally and he knows it.

His invasion has been a disaster and probably set Russia back decades. it's probably more a matter of when he's finished than if.

Could easily see Putin using nukes if he knows the game's up. Just depends on if anyone in Russia's interior can prevent him from doing so, or if they hold him in some sort of North Korean awe and will let him do as they please.

Putin needs to be taken out.

Mister Putin said, "We will bury you"
I don't subscribe to this point of view
It'd be such an ignorant thing to do
If the Russians love their children too

Mister Putin said, "We will bury you"
I don't subscribe to this point of view
It'd be such an ignorant thing to do
If the Russians love their children too

Truss to Putin and Sturgeon?

"De Do Do Do, De Da Da Da/Is all I want to say to you".

Duty281 wrote:The constituents of MPs.

PR in itself won't get rid of political parties, but it's a second step towards wholesale democratic reform, and quite a big step at that.

The point is that if you go PR there aren't constituencies because there's one national list. It's also why it gives more power/importance to the parties, which is why I don't understand your hope that it would cause them to disappear.

Lowlandbrit wrote:

Duty281 wrote:The constituents of MPs.

PR in itself won't get rid of political parties, but it's a second step towards wholesale democratic reform, and quite a big step at that.

The point is that if you go PR there aren't constituencies because there's one national list. It's also why it gives more power/importance to the parties, which is why I don't understand your hope that it would cause them to disappear.

Of course there are constituencies under PR, there doesn't have to be one national list.