Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

Neither particularly witty nor insightful, and more than a little unpleasant.

I guess your reply probably speaks for itself and was simply intended to offend or at least irritate. It may not even reflect your true feelings.

However, I will take the bait. Just out of interest, are your feelings about the traitorous & parasitic left directed towards a small number of individuals on the 'left', or to anyone whose political views happen to be somewhat to the left of the likes of Rees Mogg, John Redwood or Nigel Farage?  

Hmack posted:

Neither particularly witty nor insightful, and more than a little unpleasant.

I guess your reply probably speaks for itself and was simply intended to offend or at least irritate. It may not even reflect your true feelings.

However, I will take the bait. Just out of interest, are your feelings about the traitorous & parasitic left directed towards a small number of individuals on the 'left', or to anyone whose political views happen to be somewhat to the left of the likes of Rees Mogg, John Redwood or Nigel Farage?  

 

 

Anyone living parasitically on the public's purse. However, if you look at quangos and charities rather a lot of their top dogs are allegedly left wing but I would call them at best Champagne Socialists, or spongers at worst. Am happy to include any Conservative peer grasping money from the EU  while clearly doing no Lordly duties. But any right winger doing the same as the Kinnocks or the Milibands is fair game as well. I hope you don't think I am prejudiced, Hmack.

Hmack posted:

Hardly a loser if he commands a salary of $600,000, surely.

A particularly strange (and I am sure in this case it is meant to be disparaging) put-down, given that in a fairly recent post you eulogised about a certain Rees Mogg and specifically the fact that he was a self made man who now had a net worth of around £100m.

So I guess your point is that people on the left of the political scene are not allowed to make or possess money whereas it's not only acceptable but downright commendable for those on the right? What a strange world in which you appear to live!

Meaning a loser in terms of his political career.

Can anyone remember anything he said or any deed or action he carried out?

thebigfredc posted:

Hmack posted:

Hardly a loser if he commands a salary of $600,000, surely.

A particularly strange (and I am sure in this case it is meant to be disparaging) put-down, given that in a fairly recent post you eulogised about a certain Rees Mogg and specifically the fact that he was a self made man who now had a net worth of around £100m.

So I guess your point is that people on the left of the political scene are not allowed to make or possess money whereas it's not only acceptable but downright commendable for those on the right? What a strange world in which you appear to live!

Meaning a loser in terms of his political career.

Can anyone remember anything he said or any deed or action he carried out?

Hmmmm.  Now that you pose the question, while I can recall what office he held, I must confess to struggling to remember anything he did. Maybe that's the art of politics: you will only be known for the cock-ups you make so best not to do anything at all.    

He’s pretty shrewd when it comes to keeping his head down and keeping his powder dry. He obviously see’s this as an opportunity to be associated with team soft brexit or team no brexit. One of which will ultimately be successful.

I expect him to given the next safe labour seat and become the next labour leader. Jeremy is looking very old and tired these days, the witch-hunt from part of the Jewish establishment seems to have taken a toll. I doubt if he’ll stick it out much longer.

A pro EU labour leader will be a game changer.

BYE BYE BREXIT.

It's interesting to speculate as to what would have happened had David M not lost the leadership election to his younger brother Ed: an election in which it is alleged that the left wing of the party swung the vote.  I think David M is more statesman-like than his younger brother, and Ed's mishaps in the election campaign proper seemed to undermine him. I don't think David M would have endured the 'bacon sandwich' episode.  

If David M had won that party election I think it highly possible he would have gone on to defeat Cameron, who was rather surprised to win a majority after the coalition and 'austerity'.  If David M had become PM the political world would look very different today i.e. Corbyn would still be a back-bencher and there would be no Brexit.  Maybe Resurrection should be more generous to David M, after all?!    

fatcat posted:

He’s pretty shrewd when it comes to keeping his head down and keeping his powder dry. He obviously see’s this as an opportunity to be associated with team soft brexit or team no brexit. One of which will ultimately be successful.

I expect him to given the next safe labour seat and become the next labour leader. Jeremy is looking very old and tired these days, the witch-hunt from part of the Jewish establishment seems to have taken a toll. I doubt if he’ll stick it out much longer.

A pro EU labour leader will be a game changer.

BYE BYE BREXIT.

Optimistic! The 500,000 Momentum Labour supporters are well entrenched and going nowhere. They hate the old Blairites almost as much as they hate the Tories, soooo, no safe seat for David. 

MDS posted:

It's interesting to speculate as to what would have happened had David M not lost the leadership election to his younger brother Ed: an election in which it is alleged that the left wing of the party swung the vote.  I think David M is more statesman-like than his younger brother, and Ed's mishaps in the election campaign proper seemed to undermine him. I don't think David M would have endured the 'bacon sandwich' episode.  

If David M had won that party election I think it highly possible he would have gone on to defeat Cameron, who was rather surprised to win a majority after the coalition and 'austerity'.  If David M had become PM the political world would look very different today i.e. Corbyn would still be a back-bencher and there would be no Brexit.  Maybe Resurrection should be more generous to David M, after all?!    

Yes, you have to feel sorry for a man so undone by a banana! ????

Resurrection posted:

fatcat posted:

He’s pretty shrewd when it comes to keeping his head down and keeping his powder dry. He obviously see’s this as an opportunity to be associated with team soft brexit or team no brexit. One of which will ultimately be successful.

I expect him to given the next safe labour seat and become the next labour leader. Jeremy is looking very old and tired these days, the witch-hunt from part of the Jewish establishment seems to have taken a toll. I doubt if he’ll stick it out much longer.

A pro EU labour leader will be a game changer.

BYE BYE BREXIT.

Optimistic! The 500,000 Momentum Labour supporters are well entrenched and going nowhere. They hate the old Blairites almost as much as they hate the Tories, soooo, no safe seat for David. 

Bejesus, I'd never thought I'd agree with you, Resurrection, but for once I think you're on the money...

Which just highlights the fact that JC was in my view just as complicit in delivering the Referendum result as the likes of Boris & Gove, through his studied indifference and lukewarm campaigning. He vigorously denies it, of course, but like most unreconstructed 70's Marxists he's intrinsically opposed to the EU, not least because EU rules severely constrain national governments from nationalising everything in sight. Not that I'd be opposed to the latter, in some sectors, I should add, where pragmatism overrides political dogma - i.e. the railways.

fatcat posted:

A pro EU labour leader will be a game changer.

BYE BYE BREXIT.

Except by the time there is the opportunity for a Labour government (with whoever in charge) Brexit will be negotiated for good or bad.  Once out of the EU I doubt there will be much support for rejoining, even many who voted Remain would likely not vote to rejoin the EU.  The U.K. will be licking it’s wounds, but an immediate rejoining of the EU is not on the cards.

Dont get me wrong, I think Brexit is wrong for the country, I just don’t have such an optimistic outlook on the possibility of anyone coming to their senses...

Resurrection posted:

MDS posted:

It's interesting to speculate as to what would have happened had David M not lost the leadership election to his younger brother Ed: an election in which it is alleged that the left wing of the party swung the vote.  I think David M is more statesman-like than his younger brother, and Ed's mishaps in the election campaign proper seemed to undermine him. I don't think David M would have endured the 'bacon sandwich' episode.  

If David M had won that party election I think it highly possible he would have gone on to defeat Cameron, who was rather surprised to win a majority after the coalition and 'austerity'.  If David M had become PM the political world would look very different today i.e. Corbyn would still be a back-bencher and there would be no Brexit.  Maybe Resurrection should be more generous to David M, after all?!    

Yes, you have to feel sorry for a man so undone by a banana! ????

I bet family gatherings of the Millibands are an interesting spectacle -  I’d pay good money to be a fly on the wall ... lol

Duncan Mann posted:

"Which just highlights the fact that JC was in my view just as complicit in delivering the Referendum result as the likes of Boris & Gove, through his studied indifference and lukewarm campaigning. He vigorously denies it, of course, but like most unreconstructed 70's Marxists he's intrinsically opposed to the EU, not least because EU rules severely constrain national governments from nationalising everything in sight. Not that I'd be opposed to the latter, in some sectors, I should add, where pragmatism overrides political dogma - i.e. the railways."

Despite having a grudging respect for Corbyn and sympathy for some of his policies, I have to agree with you.

Resurrection posted:

Hmack posted:

Neither particularly witty nor insightful, and more than a little unpleasant.

I guess your reply probably speaks for itself and was simply intended to offend or at least irritate. It may not even reflect your true feelings.

However, I will take the bait. Just out of interest, are your feelings about the traitorous & parasitic left directed towards a small number of individuals on the 'left', or to anyone whose political views happen to be somewhat to the left of the likes of Rees Mogg, John Redwood or Nigel Farage?  

 

 

Anyone living parasitically on the public's purse. However, if you look at quangos and charities rather a lot of their top dogs are allegedly left wing but I would call them at best Champagne Socialists, or spongers at worst. Am happy to include any Conservative peer grasping money from the EU  while clearly doing no Lordly duties. But any right winger doing the same as the Kinnocks or the Milibands is fair game as well. I hope you don't think I am prejudiced, Hmack.

 'Anyone living parasitically on the public purse' is rather vague and woolly and open to quite a bit of biased (or prejudiced) interpretation, don't you think?

However, I am a little perturbed  that you should think of the term 'Champagne Socialist' as being pejorative in any way. I aspire to be a champagne socialist - I just can't afford the champagne.

Hmack posted:

Duncan Mann posted:

"Which just highlights the fact that JC was in my view just as complicit in delivering the Referendum result as the likes of Boris & Gove, through his studied indifference and lukewarm campaigning. He vigorously denies it, of course, but like most unreconstructed 70's Marxists he's intrinsically opposed to the EU, not least because EU rules severely constrain national governments from nationalising everything in sight. Not that I'd be opposed to the latter, in some sectors, I should add, where pragmatism overrides political dogma - i.e. the railways."

Despite having a grudging respect for Corbyn and sympathy for some of his policies, I have to agree with you.

This railway re-nationalisation enthusiasm always surprises me !

The Gov owns the railway infrastructure.

Network Rail has a 30 year licence to operate, maintain and renew that infrastructure. To all intent and purpose, Network Rail is already a Gov department.

The Train Operating Companies (TOCs) and Freight Operating Companies (FOCs) each have short-tern operating licences (c. 5 years) and these licences don’t have to be renewed, the Gov can take them over on expiry. The Gove sets the basic timetable for each TOC , who bids in competition for the right to operate that service.

The big banks (mostly) own the train sets. HMG would need to buy these back or invest in new trainsets.

The manpower, middle-managers and most of the directors (ie the entire workforce) would simply be TUPE’d across to any revised organisation. About a dozen top executives would be replaced (probably be Jeremy Corbin/Diane Abbot clones to oversee the new organisation.

With the same workforce in place and newly appointed incompetent management, I don’t anticipate any real improvement - Brexit or no-Brexit !

Hmack posted:

Resurrection posted:

Hmack posted:

Neither particularly witty nor insightful, and more than a little unpleasant.

I guess your reply probably speaks for itself and was simply intended to offend or at least irritate. It may not even reflect your true feelings.

However, I will take the bait. Just out of interest, are your feelings about the traitorous & parasitic left directed towards a small number of individuals on the 'left', or to anyone whose political views happen to be somewhat to the left of the likes of Rees Mogg, John Redwood or Nigel Farage?  

 

 

Anyone living parasitically on the public's purse. However, if you look at quangos and charities rather a lot of their top dogs are allegedly left wing but I would call them at best Champagne Socialists, or spongers at worst. Am happy to include any Conservative peer grasping money from the EU  while clearly doing no Lordly duties. But any right winger doing the same as the Kinnocks or the Milibands is fair game as well. I hope you don't think I am prejudiced, Hmack.

 'Anyone living parasitically on the public purse' is rather vague and woolly and open to quite a bit of biased (or prejudiced) interpretation, don't you think?

However, I am a little perturbed  that you should think of the term 'Champagne Socialist' as being pejorative in any way. I aspire to be a champagne socialist - I just can't afford the champagne.

Come on, if you can’t afford Champagne you can’t afford Naim gear.

Don Atkinson posted:

This railway re-nationalisation enthusiasm always surprises me !

The Gov owns the railway infrastructure.

Network Rail has a 30 year licence to operate, maintain and renew that infrastructure. To all intent and purpose, Network Rail is already a Gov department...

With the same workforce in place and newly appointed incompetent management, I don’t anticipate any real improvement - Brexit or no-Brexit !

I can't say I'm any kind of expert on trains, Don (apparently I misspent my time as a spotty youth not collecting train numbers), and I'm conscious that we're heading off piste topic wise - but what the hell, after 97 pages of the same old, why not?!

You're right, Network Rail is effectively a public body, though it's only in recent years that this has become the case, with the treasury classifying it as a private sector body until 2014, no doubt to keep its debts off the treasury books.

I don't think that nationalisation per se holds the key to transforming the British rail infrastructure into something approaching world class standards. Network Rail's performance has been a very mixed bag, with some projects being delivered satisfactorily (Crossrail), whereas others have been botched (Great Western Electrification, for example) - and usually where there have been problems, ministerial prevarication and interference has been the main cause. 

However, most people accept that the British rail network is extremely expensive (cf. other European countries), and performance by many of the private TOCs is distinctly substandard (Southern Rail, anyone?). The classic example quoted is the East Coast line, where private operators have struggled to turn a profit, and Virgin/Stagecoach look ready to walk away from their contract early as a consequence. This has happened on this line before (as any reader of Private Eye would know!), but the current government refuses to accept that private enterprise doesn't have the answer to everything. It looks likely that a not-for-profit hybrid body will replace Virgin/Stagecoach, so Grayling doesn't have to give succour to JC by admitting that a publicly owned TOC can succeed where private companies cannot.

Interesting to note that according to a Yougov survey in May 2017, 60% of those polled felt that TOCs should be run in the public sector, as indeed they are generally across much of Europe.

Hmack posted:

 'Anyone living parasitically on the public purse' is rather vague and woolly and open to quite a bit of biased (or prejudiced) interpretation, don't you think?

To Resurrection (rather than Hmack): does that include the heads of private organisations like G4, Capita and Carillion?

However, I am a little perturbed  that you should think of the term 'Champagne Socialist' as being pejorative in any way. I aspire to be a champagne socialist - I just can't afford the champagne.

Personally I prefer prosecco or Australian sparkling wine...

The big four accountancy firms have been described by the select committee report as living parasitically off Carillion, and given that Carillion were largely funded by state contracts, it follows that Deloittes, Ernst & Young and the others have been living parasically off the public purse. 

Eloise posted:

However, I am a little perturbed  that you should think of the term 'Champagne Socialist' as being pejorative in any way. I aspire to be a champagne socialist - I just can't afford the champagne.

Personally I prefer prosecco or Australian sparkling wine...

Maybe you have only experienced Champagne shipped for the British market? I don’t like the majority I’ve tried, with the ‘bog standard’ Moet & Chandon being the worst of all, only fit for the bog in my view. But a holiday in the Champagne region of France, tasting at small vineyards normally only frequented by the French, opened my eyes (and taste buds). A benefit of free travel and movement of goods in the EU meant I could not only discover premier cru Champagnes at around £9 a bottle (as adjusted to today’s prices), but I could happily bring back 16 cases for my subsequently happy consumption.

Until I do that trip again, Prosecco is normally also my fizz of choice. I wonder what will be the effect of Brexit on being able to bring back wines in bulk, and on prices of European wines in UK.

Eloise posted:

Personally I prefer prosecco or Australian sparkling wine...

Well you should also consider New Zealand (Cloudy Bay Pelorus) and Spain (Freixenet and other Cava).

Champagne can be bought at good prices from Sainsbury when they have a 25% off weekend combined with another discount. Costco do offers on Bolly at about £26 a bottle.

Pre Brexit visits to Calais are worthwhile because you can get the excellent Canarde Duchene champagne at very good prices. You can also get vintage Freixenet at around €5 a bottle.

Duncan Mann posted:

I can't say I'm any kind of expert on trains...

Well, I am going to self identify as an expert on trains. This is solely on the basis that I have a large LGB 'G Scale' train set. Sadly, this has lain unused in a cupboard for 15 years (since the kids grew out of it) and has had no maintenance over that period. And, there lies the problem...

Our rail system went for decades without any proper investment. Every time the passenger numbers (and fare revenue) went up the Treasury reduced its subsidies. This all came to a head in the Hatfield train crash of 2000. It was from this that Network Rail was born. One of the reasons our rail system costs so much is because of all the investment needed to 'catch up'. They are doing a huge amount of work and I have respect for them. 

At least railways and champagne make a welcome break from the train crash that is Brexit (I'm not necessarily anti Brexit but the whole thing has been unbelievably cocked up by our politicians and unelected officials).

The man in seat 61 is the best expert on trains that I have come across (beats that former tory MP anyyway)

Eloise posted:

Hmack posted:

 'Anyone living parasitically on the public purse' is rather vague and woolly and open to quite a bit of biased (or prejudiced) interpretation, don't you think?

To Resurrection (rather than Hmack): does that include the heads of private organisations like G4, Capita and Carillion?

However, I am a little perturbed  that you should think of the term 'Champagne Socialist' as being pejorative in any way. I aspire to be a champagne socialist - I just can't afford the champagne.

Personally I prefer prosecco or Australian sparkling wine...

Absolument Eloise! I also am neither keen on Chsmpagne or Prosecco. Strangely, I’m a lager lout when not drinking wine ie I don’t like beer either. Don’t like hops.

Hungryhalibut posted:

The big four accountancy firms have been described by the select committee report as living parasitically off Carillion, and given that Carillion were largely funded by state contracts, it follows that Deloittes, Ernst & Young and the others have been living parasically off the public purse. 

I don’t like the big four parasites either or Goldman Sachs. Blood suckers!

Resurrection posted:

Eloise posted:

Hmack posted:

 'Anyone living parasitically on the public purse' is rather vague and woolly and open to quite a bit of biased (or prejudiced) interpretation, don't you think?

To Resurrection (rather than Hmack): does that include the heads of private organisations like G4, Capita and Carillion?

However, I am a little perturbed  that you should think of the term 'Champagne Socialist' as being pejorative in any way. I aspire to be a champagne socialist - I just can't afford the champagne.

Personally I prefer prosecco or Australian sparkling wine...

Absolument Eloise! I also am neither keen on Chsmpagne or Prosecco. Strangely, I’m a lager lout when not drinking wine ie I don’t like beer either. Don’t like hops.

There seems to be an awful lot that you don’t like. Anyway, lager contains hops; it’s one of the key ingredients.