Cameron? Anyone?

[Lordship 516]

Now there is another problem looming - long term projects of critical mass with uncertain & unproven actual benefit commencing [HS2 & nuclear generation]. The sheer scale of these investments and also the imported content will cause "crowding out" effects in the UK economy. The construction elements will poach labour that would be better utilized in more urgent projects that are relevant to resolving current outstanding issues[housing, hospitals, schools etc]. There is also the crowding in effect that these mega projects will have on commercial interest rates as banks will charge more for funding as these projects will take up considerable capacity for funding in the market making project finance for other essential investment more expensive. Add to all that the considerable amount of foreign goods [generating sets from GE, specialist nuclear vessels from France & possibly China, train sets from outside the UK [China?] that will be purchased for these projects & this will affect the balance of payments over many years. Government investment can have an adverse effect if it is not directed towards infrastructure that has positive impacts across the board for all economic elements of the economic mix. There appears to be a lack of a cohesive investment policy in Westminster with ministers at all levels adopting an disjointed al la carte approach to project investment without considering the wider competing economic, social & environmental impacts of each project.

[Blah Blah]

I completely agree with that Lordship, which is why I would argue that governemnt investment in housing for example would be a better use of money than HS2. It's not that investment in rail infrastructure in itself is a poor use of money, it isn't. But HS2 is kind of like putting all the eggs in one basket with only limited return. Plus the belief that state investment is bad and private investment is good is behind much of government policy.

[Lordship 516]

"But HS2 is kind of like putting all the eggs in one basket with only limited return. "

Many submissions were made for alternative applications of this money including improving & upgrading a wider selection of rail routes but these were brushed aside by Cameron/Osbourne in apparent obsession with grandiose project reasons -"keeping up with the Joneses" - bragging about how advanced the UK is becoming. No point in claiming advancement if much of your population has very poor [or no] accommodation or even not enough food.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Unfortunately government always favour large grandiose vanity projects.

[Jenny1]

I agree that too often they favour such projects rahrahrah, but clearly not always.

[Blah Blah]

Crossrail has cost a fortune but undoubtedly will be of huge benefit to London. HS2 will benefit who exactly? More commuters to London.

[malumbu]

What an ignorant comment. HS2 is about connecting London with the Northern Powerhouse (or whatever project May has christened it).

Shame on the UK as the first railway network in the world to be behind many of our European cousins. And proposed by the labour government.

[Lordship 516]

malumbu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What an ignorant comment. HS2 is about connecting

> London with the Northern Powerhouse (or whatever

> project May has christened it).

>

> Shame on the UK as the first railway network in

> the world to be behind many of our European

> cousins. And proposed by the labour government.

So you say. However only three years ago the projected costs stood at ?33billion - now "revised" to ?55billion. There are rumour that this cost is likely to rose to over ?80 Billion..! How can any society trust such a project in the hands of such incompetent reckless managers..? What the other cities in the UK need is a better & more efficient local transport system before the costly high speed connections are put in place. The Government have already locked taxpayers into a dubious Hinckley Point deal - their legacies will be paid for by future generations and by starving other essential investment of funds.

If they really have the interests of the North at heart, they would concentrate their efforts & funds in upgrading the Northern Intercity Network, go ahead with HS3 first [connecting Manchester to Leeds], continue upgrading the Transpennine Network, upgrade the existing routes between London & Birmingham instead of shaving a half hour off the traveltime between London & the northern cities. Also possibly building HS2 Phase 2 first which is more relevant to the Northern cities. More bang for your buck & directly beneficial to the Northern Regions without any disadvantage to London. There is also a significant need to improve the western networks before going off buying fancy shiny boy racer trains.

[Otta]

I used to say I hated the tories. I do hate some of their ideas, and I dare say there are a few of the harder right ones that I'd probably not like very much.

Right now though I hate the Corbyn club and the muppets running Momentum much more than I ever hated any tory.

I caught up with last week's QT last night. To be completely fair, it was Anna Soubry that started the personal stuff against McDonnell, but he and Campbell certainly carried it on. It was embarrassing to watch.

I was only 18 in 1997. Not politically switched on, but with a generally lefty outlook. Tony Blair never did it for me because I hated his grin, he played a Fender strat slung way too high, and he shook hands with Noel Gallacher. All perfectly valid reasons to label him a wrongun to my 18 year old mind.

Then Iraq happened, and that was it, so I never voted for Blair's Labour even though I liked a lot of the characters and a lot of what they were doing. Back then I felt drawn towards the Lib Dems but that all ended with Clegg (way before the coalition. I just never trusted him).

I did like Gordon Brown, and think he is a decent man who inherited an already heavily poisoned chalice. I think by the time he finally got the top job, the public were already after a change.

In that climate Cameron played a blinder and captured a lot of voters who were drifting away form Labour.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I think Cameron was just in the right place at the right time - for all the reasons you say. Much like May actually, who won the leadership by just keeping quite on the sidelines and letting everyone else implode. Blair (love him or loathe him) was the only prime minister in recent memory who actively won an election by engaging and exciting large numbers of people.

[Blah Blah]

That's an interesting perspective Otta, because for many of who lived through Thatcher, Blair and New Labour were saviours. That is, until the Iraq War, as you say.

Just on Momentum. What do you know in reality about Momentum? I ask that because, as much as the media like to protray Momentum as some hard left top down organisation, it actually isn't. Local Momenuntum groups are self managing - there is no central office mantra in that orgaisation. There is a steering committee, but that's about it.

On the whole, Momentum is a local campaigning affair, and most of the people who attend those meetings are people with campaign interests in local or trade union issues, the same issues you and I care about, housing, jobs, etc. Those people also knocked on doors for the Labour party to help get Sadiq elected etc. So there is a lot of nonsense written about Momentum, not based in any kind of reality.

The problems seem to be with a few specific local Momentum groups (who are definitely behaving in a militant way) and with one or two specific steering group members, like Sam Tarry - who has a persona that is chilling at times. In other words, finding the hard left, or muppets within that is down to a few specific individuals. So the issue (or rather worry) there would be how close those individuals get to government. I tend to think that without Momentum, they would find another way anyway.

[Earl Aelfheah]

It'll be interesting to see what happens next, once Corbyn wins the leadership contest.

[Otta]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> That's an interesting perspective Otta, because

> for many of who lived through Thatcher, Blair and

> New Labour were saviours. That is, until the Iraq

> War, as you say.

Yeah, I was just a kid in the 80s, my memories of Thatcher are basically from Spitting Image. And we were dirt poor then, but at that time I think we would have been whoever the government was. During my teens I knew I was left leaning in terms of ideas, but it's only since my late 20s that I really started paying much attention to what was going on outside of my little bubble, and I think that's true of more people than would admit it.

>

> Just on Momentum. What do you know in reality

> about Momentum? I ask that because, as much as the

> media like to protray Momentum as some hard left

> top down organisation, it actually isn't. Local

> Momenuntum groups are self managing - there is no

> central office mantra in that orgaisation. There

> is a steering committee, but that's about it.

>

> On the whole, Momentum is a local campaigning

> affair, and most of the people who attend those

> meetings are people with campaign interests in

> local or trade union issues, the same issues you

> and I care about, housing, jobs, etc. Those people

> also knocked on doors for the Labour party to help

> get Sadiq elected etc. So there is a lot of

> nonsense written about Momentum, not based in any

> kind of reality.

>

> The problems seem to be with a few specific local

> Momentum groups (who are definitely behaving in a

> militant way) and with one or two specific

> steering group members, like Sam Tarry - who has a

> persona that is chilling at times. In other words,

> finding the hard left, or muppets within that is

> down to a few specific individuals. So the issue

> (or rather worry) there would be how close those

> individuals get to government. I tend to think

> that without Momentum, they would find another way

> anyway.

Stuff I see 0on social media, and stuff I've seen at local meetings makes me pretty distrustful of some of these guys. I am sure the majority are good people wanting to do good, but there is without a shadow of doubt an element that are looking to take over. And they do so aggressively.

Basically in the last year I have really had my eyes opened to just how unpleasant a lot of the left can be. It's made me look at my views quite a bit.

[Earl Aelfheah]

There are unpleasant people on the left and right. No one has a monopoly on being a sheetbag.

[DaveR]

"....because for many of who lived through Thatcher, Blair and New Labour were saviours"

Would the people who 'lived through Thatcher' be the same as those who voted in a Tory govt. in the 1992 general election?

I have no objection to lots of people who think the same congratulating each other on how right they are - see the majority of the posts above. But don't kid yourselves that everyone thinks that way - that's how the Labour party got saddled with Corbyn.

And BTW, this is the biggest load of horsesh!t posted on the forum for a very long time:

"Many submissions were made for alternative applications of this money including improving & upgrading a wider selection of rail routes but these were brushed aside by Cameron/Osbourne in apparent obsession with grandiose project reasons -"keeping up with the Joneses" - bragging about how advanced the UK is becoming. No point in claiming advancement if much of your population has very poor [or no] accommodation or even not enough food."

As you were.

[Blah Blah]

To be fair Dave, every new government is a reaction to the last. So yes, the success of Blair was a reaction to Thatcher, just as the election of Corbyn as leader is a reaction to Blair. I still think and have said it many times, that the overton window doesn't and hasn't ever shifted much either way. The main parties still win elections by winning the centre ground on the whole. It's also why we get the parties and government we deserve, for better or worse.

I also wouldn't call a comment like "No point in claiming advancement if much of your population has very poor [or no] accommodation or even not enough food." horseshit either. This is the reality of the impact of cuts made by this government, and some people really are suffering in ways I hope you never have to.

I think most people rethink (or even thnk for the first time) their stance on politics Otta, during their twenties. It's easy to be idealistic and revolutionary when you are a student (and I've been there too), it's not so easy to be that when you have a family to raise and support.

I'm just watching Dispatches on Momentum. It shows what I was saying about indvicuals and their links. But to be fair, the labour party will (and has) expelled anyone who shows support for the AWL. Momentum also has a rule that no person who is not a member of the Labour party can hold a position, however, Jill Mountford has been expelled, but still sits on the steering committee. This is the problem Momentum will have if they are seeking official affiliation to the labour party down the line (which I think they are). Thay will have to clean up their ranks. Some concerning issues around data collection there too.

[LondonMix]

Yes, but for a lot of people on the left I think its surprising. Being a left leaning centrist I always thought of the far left as a bit looney and overly idealistic whereas the far right were truly violent and racist. However, the real far left and the real far right are exactly the same. The political extremes of both groups historically end up as oppressive dictatorships. The logic underlying ideological purists is exclusion and oppression of those that disagree with them.

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There are unpleasant people on the left and right.

> No one has a monopoly on being a sheetbag.

[Blah Blah]

There is also that saying that any ideology that fails to reign in it's extremes and excesses, becomes a corrupt one. That also is as true for the left as it is for the right.

[Lordship 516]

DaveR Wrote:

> And BTW, this is the biggest load of horsesh!t

> posted on the forum for a very long time:

>

> "Many submissions were made for alternative

> applications of this money including improving &

> upgrading a wider selection of rail routes but

> these were brushed aside by Cameron/Osbourne in

> apparent obsession with grandiose project reasons

> -"keeping up with the Joneses" - bragging about

> how advanced the UK is becoming. No point in

> claiming advancement if much of your population

> has very poor accommodation or even not enough

> food."

>

> As you were.

I see compassion & care for the disadvantaged are not your greatest attributes.

[LondonMix]

Lordship, you sound pretty unpleasant...

[Lordship 516]

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Lordship, you sound pretty unpleasant...

Not unpleasant - just a reaction to DaveR's rather unpleasant comment in regard to what I had written......

[LondonMix]

He said your argument was horse shit which I agree was rude, particularly without any refutation of specific points.

But you suggesting him disagreeing with your reasoning means he does't care about poor people is much worse. Accusing someone of being a 'bad person' because they hold different positions than you creates the kind demonisation and nastiness in politics previously discussed.

[Lordship 516]

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> He said your argument was horse shit which I agree

> was rude, particularly without any refutation of

> specific points.

>

> But you suggesting him disagreeing with your

> reasoning means he does't care about poor people

> is much worse. Accusing someone of being a 'bad

> person' because they hold different positions than

> you creates the kind demonisation and nastiness in

> politics previously discussed.

I wasn't making an argument - only making a comment about values.

Had he expressed it differently I wouldn't have written what I did. I don't mind when someone merely disagrees with me - that is the essence of reaching common ground. I didn't appreciate his crude dismissive approach. C'est la vie.

[Blah Blah]

It's not like you LM to pick such frivolous fights. DaveR has shown no regard for the impact of this government's policies on the poorest before. I don't thnk Lordship has said anything out of turn.

[rendelharris]

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Lordship, you sound pretty unpleasant...

That's not fair LM, Lordship suggested that given the poverty and lack of housing in this country that many people had suggested the HS2 money would be better spent on that (true) and Dave called that "horseshit." In that context Lordship's response was pretty measured in my opinion - if anyone's being unpleasant it's Dave with his failure to address a point any further than simply to chuck abuse at it.