Sir Keir Starmer’s Barmy Army

Discussion in 'Politics 2.0' started by Moose, Sep 29, 2021.

  1. Moose

    Moose First Team Captain

    I can’t help but feel there is an indignation from some quarters about what train drivers earn because they are generally working class or certainly perceived to be so. It’s a bit ‘how dare they’. Good Lord, some may even be able to buy a very modest house in the South. How can that be?

    But as you’ve acknowledged, they are not the only story here and lots of railway workers work hard for average rewards.
     
  2. hornmeister

    hornmeister Tired

    "Excessive" is fine when it's paid for out of proffit from a private company, that's a business decision. When it's paid out of neccesity due to ransom and the public pocket, it's not fine.

    Project managers don't go on strike to demand a high salary, they command a high salary because there is more need for them than supply. They didn't go on strike to hold people to ransom to gain that high salary and anyone can become a project manager (with a little self funded training and some education) without signing up to a union entering a closed shop. Are project managers in the public sector overpaid? Probably but if transport workers want more money rather than hold the country to ransom why don't they train to become project managers?

    Sorry but I don't get the rationale here. It seems to be based on envy rather than solid economic fact. The unions have done a darn good job at protecting their industry workers but it is at the expense of everyone else and possibly their industry as a whole and I would and have argued especially other publically funded roles.
     
    iamofwfc and miked2006 like this.
  3. Moose

    Moose First Team Captain

    You must lose this erroneous distinction you hold in your mind between private and public, where you think private business operates in a vacuum.

    Much of business is funded one way or another through the public purse. Other businesses, like energy, run virtual monopolies on behalf of the state. And those directly facing the consumer have a direct impact on consumers through what they charge. So there isn’t a virtuous place for businesses to pay themselves what they like with no impact.

    Nor are they are able to function without the support of the state. If there are not trains or blokes fixing the road staff don’t get to work, services not provided, goods not distributed.

    So let’s not have this fantasy that private business is immune from criticism when it’s part of one ecosystem.

    As for it being ‘envy’? Look in the mirror and consider how you feel about train drivers.
     
  4. miked2006

    miked2006 Premiership Prediction League Proprietor

    Any society that places equal value on ambition and lack of ambition, hard work and laziness, innovation and stagnation etc. isn't one that is going to do very well whatsoever.

    We are and will always be a rank based, competitive species.

    I’m personally not sure it’s about class. I wouldn’t assume a train driver is from a working class background.

    I think it’s more that it’s high paying (and very well protected) for a job which pretty much anyone could do with training.

    People of all classes are then annoyed that people who are often better paid and work better hours than them, aren't doing their job, stopping them from going to work or making their days longer and/ or their pay lower.
     
    iamofwfc and hornmeister like this.
  5. Since63

    Since63 Squad Player

    Or shareholder return, maybe? The insidious creep of viewing people having to access what are effectively aspects of national infrastructure as customers has been central to the general 5uck-up we are now witnessing. Forget all the management-positive speak it's dressed up in, the need to pay for such things as electricity and gas does not a customer make. Deciding whether to buy a new bbq, whether to go for gas or kettle style, then what brand & from whom to buy are the actions of a customer. The attempt to create a 'dynamic free market' in essentials such as domestic energy is akin to trying to make Cathcart into an attacking RWB; it'll end in the type of failure we are now experiencing.
     
    Bwood_Horn likes this.
  6. miked2006

    miked2006 Premiership Prediction League Proprietor

    The concept of shareholder capitalism is absolutely fine in a natural market. We need to eat food, and we have some of the most affordable supermarkets in the world, due to competition brought around by expectant shareholders. Shareholder capitalism allows much easier, quicker and more flexible access to finance than any other mechanism, increasing competition and good competition lowers prices.

    But with something as highly regulated as energy and with an idea as stupid as the energy cap, the market was always going to crash when there was an issue with supply. The government just wants to have its cake and eat it, by getting firms to invest in green energy cheaply on the promise of shareholder returns and offer energy at a loss to increase market share, whilst also trying to limit/ take returns when they eventually come because of political sensitivities, ending up with the worst of all worlds.

    I remember how crap my energy provider used to be, and really liked the new firms which offered only-green produced energy, offered competitive prices on market comparison sites and much better technology to measure my energy use that I would never have got on British Gas. So as a 'customer', I'm much happier than I was before, even though I am paying for a staple that I need to live. But as a taxpayer, I have no idea if I am better or worse off financially.
     
    iamofwfc likes this.
  7. Moose

    Moose First Team Captain

    Food is an exceptionally managed market heavily reliant on Government subsidy.

    Big Agribusiness has delivered cheaper food, but you pay for it elsewhere in that the farms need subsidising and those working in it have been paid so poorly they mostly need benefits to live on, public housing or housing benefit.

    And why do they need public housing? Because the wealthy shareholding class benefitting from this form of the market have enough money to buy lots of property for themselves as second homes or buy to rent.
     
  8. Since63

    Since63 Squad Player

    By 'British Gas' of course you mean the subsidiary of Centrica not the original nationalised version so I am not sure that any poor performance you may have experienced with them has anything to do with the comparison between the situation that existed under nationalisation and that under a free market. The technological improvements you mention could also have been delivered under a nationalised scheme, and the failure of British Gas you mention is simply the failure of a poorly-performing private company in a free market, which is not the point I was making, which was that I do not believe it has been proven that 'shareholder capitalism' is the best model for fundamental societal infrastructure. The physical and engineering aspects of delivering domestic energy to households makes the sector different in kind to food supply, notwithstanding discussions as to 'open' the latter market may truly be.

    The argument that only shareholder capitalism in a free market can deliver the necessary improvements and advances in such fundamental infrastructure is, I would suggest, difficult to sustain. The impact of privatisation on rail safety is one case in point. The requirement to deliver shareholder return can, and does, lead to poor, sometimes catastrophic, decision making. Granted, any nationalised approach to infrastructure would require long term political will and commitment from government to achieve the required results, and there we have the crux of the argument. For over 40 years, no government has felt itself willing, or able, to commit to such an approach.

    But it can be done, and I do not for a minute believe that 'shareholder capitalism' would have been able to create the NHS.
     
  9. miked2006

    miked2006 Premiership Prediction League Proprietor

    I agree that it hasn’t been proven that it’s the best method, but it also hasn’t been proven that it’s the worst. To me, privatising move costs from pensions to shareholders, create better technological innovation and better long term thinking away from the whim of short term politicians, but you also often end up with disjointed fixes and government intervention being required that cancels out most of the benefits.

    Technology ‘could’ hypothetically be introduced, but the public sector does such things incredibly poorly, due to short term funding models and a lack of skills. How many good public sector devised apps do you know/ use?

    And of those (if any), how many are reliable/ fit for purpose?
     
    iamofwfc and hornmeister like this.
  10. hornmeister

    hornmeister Tired

    The NHS one is pretty decent for tracking appointments, results and medication, if a bit clunky. It probably cost 100x what it should have done.
     
    iamofwfc likes this.
  11. Since63

    Since63 Squad Player

    Which is exactly why I stated in my post it would require 'long term political will and commitment from government'. You cannot justifiably criticise something for poor performance when an essential component of any possible success has not been provided. That is an issue of political will in the end. Given the requisite political will and resources, it will work, cf. NHS, where increasing privatised involvement has, if anything, led to a lot of the current problems. I agree with your allusion to strategies needing to be 'joined up', but find the appeal to 'government intervention' as a reason for poor delivery of benefits a little disingenuous as many (not all, I accept) of those 'interventions' have been in response to unacceptable practices having an unfair impact upon 'customers'; should such practices be required to deliver a benefit, then any such benefits cannot be viewed as relevant.

    I also feel you're being a little too sanguine in assuming private companies always have 'better long term thinking' as I have had personal involvement in preventing institutional shareholders forcing through decisions that would have had long-term catastrophic results in the search for short-term return. Many shareholders can have as short-term an approach as politicians.

    I use very few apps of any provenance so cannot comment on that. However, I am not saying there is no role for shareholder capitalism in a modern economy, far from it. I am saying that I think such fundamental infrastructure as NHS, energy supply, railways, road network etc are too important to be treated as just another part of an open market. With the requisite political will and commitment from government and an over-arching strategy that would ensure the early involvement of private sector advances and skills, these sectors would deliver required performance for the good of the real societal shareholders: its members.
     
  12. Moose

    Moose First Team Captain

    Starkers describes Johnson as ‘Jabba the Hutt’ in name calling that we’d all like to see more of.

     
  13. hornmeister

    hornmeister Tired

    Starmer should be asking proper questions rather engaging smug mode and insulting the gibbon, looking pleased with the jokes his script writer has provided for him. **** me get rid of both of them and let's get someone in power & opposition that have an cat in hells chance of actually getting us out of the various messes we're in and holding the other to account when they don't.

    No love for Boris but Starmer is a horse's arse.
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2022
    iamofwfc likes this.
  14. Moose

    Moose First Team Captain

    I thought it was fine and I’m no great Starmer lover.

    I’m always curious what people with no time for Labour politics expect from Labour. If he said anything vaguely socialist you’d be on him like a ton of bricks. It’s the demands of people who consider themselves in the centre that lead to this watered down approach.

    In saying that, Labour is making progress with policy and will provide a viable alternative at the next election if people want to stop voting in joke nationalists and corruption just because it waves a flag.
     
    hornmeister likes this.
  15. hornmeister

    hornmeister Tired

    Maybe, to be honest he comes across as so bland and uninteresting that it take something like this for me to notice. Just need to watch that video of him being thrown out of the pub again:D

    Fingers crossed. I want to be able to vote for them. A small dose of realism, with some quality policies and a more central move and I expect a lot of other people will to. If not buckethead gets my cross again.
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2022
    iamofwfc likes this.
  16. Keighley

    Keighley First Team

    So why does Starmer being 'interesting' have anything to do with that?

    If the policies are right why does the personality matter?
     
  17. hornmeister

    hornmeister Tired

    They don't I was being somewhat facetious about his personlity hence the smiley.
    The big issue Labour has for me is indeed the policies (or lack of them at the moment). Take economic policy for example. I want to see something that taxes based on earnings, ability to pay, not wealth, with no account for how that wealth was accumulated. What we don't want to do is penalise prudence good future planning and hard work.
     
    iamofwfc likes this.
  18. miked2006

    miked2006 Premiership Prediction League Proprietor

    A significant number of people in the UK today made more on house prices going up than for all the work they did for their entire career.

    Most wealth in the UK has come from buying a monopoly resource (land), especially for those who won the postcode lottery. Governments and landowners have then done everything in their power to increase prices, so owners feel richer and vote for those in power, with richer households having more political sway and therefore the greatest ability to block increases in housing stock.

    Where and when people bought houses had little to do with hard work, or innovation or anything that is remotely linked to productive capitalism. Some hard working people in Durham bought council houses and now have a house worth 150k, others bought them in Kensington and now have a flat worth 2 million. It’s mostly random.

    To me, it makes sense that huge, random profits from monopoly resources, that far exceed wages, should be taxed, especially if planning rules continue to severely curtail supply.

    Hard work needs to be rewarded. This means lowering taxes on those who are working hard, producing and innovating I.e. income (especially low-middle income) and not attacking savings on pensions.

    Or genuinely relaxing planning laws and ensuring developers are rewarded for building the right type of housing.
     
    Captain Mandibles and UEA_Hornet like this.
  19. hornmeister

    hornmeister Tired

    House prices. Have risen due to poor policy from successive governments. My house price has risen but when I move so has the price of the house I move to. Assuming I work hard save a few pennies and upsize. The difference in price is now greater. I've actually lost out, I've paid more stamp duty and had to work longer to get on the ladder in the first place.

    People who have taken advantage by investing or own multiple properties do need the profit taxed as income though. On that we agree.

    Those that didn't get on the ladder have lost out completely.

    Simple fix. Change policy and ensure more housing is built. That's a whole discussion thread on its own.
     
  20. sydney_horn

    sydney_horn Squad Player

    I'm not sure supply is the only, or indeed the main, cause of the ridiculous rise in house prices over the last two decades.

    The evidence points more to the low cost of borrowing and the high multiples that lenders can now offer. Back in the 90s 3 times your annual income was the maximum you could borrow. Now 8 times plus is available.

    We may find the current cost of living crisis and rapidly rising interest rates will have more of an impact on house prices than any house building plan.

    Unfortunately that will also include an increase in defaults and repossessions with many others moving into negative equity. The home owning dream could become a nightmare for some.

    This is a good blog that actually shows housing stock has maintained a growth that matches or exceeds population/household growth over the period of house price inflation:

    https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/tackling-the-uk-housing-crisis/
     
    hornmeister and Moose like this.
  21. Keighley

    Keighley First Team

    If you tax earnings not wealth doesn’t that mean that the landed gentry (they still exist) don’t get taxed?

    Hardly a very Labour policy…
     
  22. hornmeister

    hornmeister Tired

    If they make a profit on their wealth it should be taxed. All income earned or unearned should be taxed.

    If you tax wealth you risk taxing someone that can't afford to pay because they have no income and you dissuade people from saving for their future. It's a policy that promotes wasting money and risks higher public support costs in latter life. Penalising savers is unfair.
     
    iamofwfc likes this.
  23. Keighley

    Keighley First Team

    But equally you risk not taxing someone who is sitting on mountains of inherited wealth that they have done nothing to earn. Those people aren't 'savers'.
     
    Since63 likes this.
  24. hornmeister

    hornmeister Tired

    But their predecessors may have been or they may have worked bloody hard for it. The issue is you don't know. It's the fault of previous tax systems if they were not taxed efficiently. Retrospectively taxing is like changing a law and then prosecuting someone for something that was legal at the time.

    2 people earn the same.
    Person A pisses their money up the wall on booze and drugs and has to rely on state aid to support themselves in older life passes nothing on to their kids.
    Person B lives frugally saves for their future, dies early and passes their savings onto their kids. Government nicks it all in tax.

    What message does taxing wealth give to people? It's a poorly thought out method of raising funds based on envy, not logic. People need to be encouraged to save for the future, to support themelves. If anything is passed on it means their kids will be less reliant on the state. Tax earnings fairly, people pay according to ability. People are encouraged to work harder, support themselves, state is reduced, costs less, we get more for our money.
    If people make a profit on their inherited wealth then that should be taxed on that profit of course.
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2022
    iamofwfc likes this.
  25. Bwood_Horn

    Bwood_Horn Squad Player

    FVwrOT2WQAYjxYA.jpeg
     
    Moose likes this.
  26. Moose

    Moose First Team Captain

    Mick Lynch very good on Politics Live today. Outlining the deal actually offered by the employers 2% + 1% (following years without rises) if the Union accepts all changes and redundancies, debunking myth after myth.

    But ner ner ner Tories and Liberals won’t listen, even if they would be mightily affronted to be negotiated with in this way.
     
  27. sydney_horn

    sydney_horn Squad Player

    You say that but my son, who normally has very little interest in politics, described him as coming across as a bit of a t1t.
     
    Lloyd and hornmeister like this.
  28. Moose

    Moose First Team Captain

    We’ll have to agree to respectfully differ. I thought on the details he was spot on and delivered it entertainingly in the manner of Ronnie Barker as Norman Stanley Fletcher.

    I think people, who would normally claim to be immune to Tory propaganda, dismiss him too easily.
     
  29. sydney_horn

    sydney_horn Squad Player

    I don't disagree but it is interesting to get the opinion of someone who has no "skin in the game".

    I think Lynch was factually correct and he tore the Tory MP a new one but as per the Owen Jones discussion, it's not just the message but how it is delivered.
     
    Moose likes this.
  30. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Reservist

    So, as a successful executive working for a company that provides services to the NHS (presumably funded by the Government); where do you stand on the limitation of your own wages? Have you been on strike to protest against any pay rises recently? If not, should we complain about your capitalist greed?

    Sorry if my summary of your job description is flakey.
     
    iamofwfc likes this.
  31. Moose

    Moose First Team Captain

    Wide of the mark.
     
  32. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Reservist

    Very sorry. I must remind myself not to take what you tell us seriously in future.
     
  33. Moose

    Moose First Team Captain

    Not correcting your assumptions isn’t then a source. You don’t know what I do and that’s the way it will stay.
     
  34. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Reservist

    Like I say. I can only go by what you have said about yourself on this forum. Which to my memory is that you are a successful executive and, as you said during the COVID supply problem, a supplier of services to the NHS.

    Given your current argument, I don’t think it is unfair to ask how what you are saying squares with the life style you have chosen. There is no criticism of you, just curiosity because of how one thing, the ideology, seems to contradict the other, being the reality.

    You are welcome to explain or not, but no one is trying to say you have done anything wrong.

    You, GoBE and countless others on the left have directly asked my profession in the past, as if it is important to my opinion. I have never asked you guys what you do, and only comment on it because it is information you have volunteered.

    If I have got something wrong, put me right, but if I am right, please don’t try to deflect from issues regarding your opinions that may seem contradictory to the people reading them..
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2022
    iamofwfc likes this.
  35. Moose

    Moose First Team Captain

    Your memory is not accurate and it’s a tedious line trying to drum up some sort of fake accusations of hypocrisy because I support workers in trying to secure the best deal for themselves.

    If you had any pride or self-respect as a working person you’d support that principle too.

    Interest in your role was only piqued by you constantly offering titbits about the respect you receive from your multicultural colleagues and your role in treating cancer patients, which remains vague. But interest quickly faded. I mean really quickly.
     

Share This Page