Associate
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2012
- Posts
- 657
They are the second largest oil producer in the world, it isn't really feasible not to do business with them. What do we do, stop doing business with every country that has terrorists attacking the west?
Poll: Poll: UK General Election 2017 - Mk II
- Thread starter Zefan
- Start date
- Status
They are the second largest oil producer in the world, it isn't really feasible not to do business with them. What do we do, stop doing business with every country that has terrorists attacking the west?
Specially as Labour seem to pushing very hard on social media, i can see that having a big affect on younger voters.
- Joined
- 9 Apr 2012
- Posts
- 13,148
It could make some difference?
Just leave the contracts to end and take them then, free and easy. Well until you need to run it.
- Joined
- 9 Apr 2012
- Posts
- 13,148
I actually quite like their idea of making a competing company, that's Government owned. The Tories seem so anti this even though Germany and other European countries do it.
The East Coast line returned what, £250 million wasn't it, to the treasury in operating profit.
And we currently massively subsidise the so-called "private" franchises with public money, so it's not like they're "free" at the moment.
Well only if they then end subsidised rail for the others, as that would be dumb.
They haven't accounted for nationalisation costs as it's all going straight on the national debt. None of it is coming out of the annual budget. That's Labour's commitment when it comes to national finances; ending borrowing for day-to-day spending by 2022. They fully intend to keep borrowing to invest in the economy; nationalisation, new infrastructure projects, social housing.
Basically, they're fully intending to have us inflate/grow ourselves out of our current debt problem. Compared to the Tory plan, it's high-risk, high-reward. If it goes well, we're going to look back on 2010-2017 as a bad time. If it goes badly, the current round of austerity is going to seem meek.
Last edited:
Though it is an Investment which no doubt has no chance of paying for itself as cuts (that are no no never ideological) are the only possibility.
All this despite the following historical facts:
http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/11697/debt/post-war-boom/
ReBuilding national railways, the NHS, Comprehensive Education, Social Housing: All impossible and never happened?
Not long ago we were told that the election definately had nothing to do with the Crown Prosecution Services investigations into enough Tory MPs for May's slim majority to collapse. The people who suggest that was the reason were tin foil hat wearing lefties?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/02/craig-mackinlay-charged-over-tory-election-expenses
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/02/craig-mackinlay-charged-over-tory-election-expenses
The IFS put it at around £50bn. About the same as the Tory manifesto.
Why does that change anything? whether they were investigating or whether they've charged someone you've not provided any link to this being related to the decision to call the election?
Figures which are dwarfed by the potential cost of the "No deal is better than a BAD deal" approach. Dropping to WTO rules makes all of this seem like shuffling the deckchairs on the titanic. Luckily no idiot in charged started by holding hands with a recently invite (to a state visit) protectionist American fascist and certainly didn't follow that up by accusing the people we're negotiating with of interfering with an idiotic election they just called because the judiciary were investigating their party, I mean that would all be madness...
Strong and ****** Stable?
Actually I believe they are currently charging 3 people, is the link only proven when the exact number required for the slim government majority to have failed are prosecuted or what?
Caporegime
There's precious little nationalisation in the Labour manifesto, they're planning on re-nationalising trains as the franchises come up for renewal, and likely the post office but that's about it. But, in any case, nationalisation is balance-sheet neutral; you buy an asset for £x, you now have an asset worth £x offset the cost of buying it.
no, I'm pointing out that it doesn't provide evidence for any link - what difference does it matter if someone is being investigated or now charged?
If you're going to propose that this is/was the reason for calling the election then you ought to provide something to support that otherwise it is pretty weak speculation/conspiracy
pointing out a story that someone who was previously investigated has now been charged doesn't add anything
So you are basically saying having children blown up every few years is a price worth paying to keep getting oil?
Lol no. It's about £10b I think because their tax rises won't raise the money they have planned. The Tories doesn't balance full stop by a similar amount and nothing needs to change for that. If they go for a full on hard brexit they will be 110 billion adrift
- Status