Literally zero chance of this ever happening.
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
I don’t know who I despise more, these scumbag Tories or the fecking cnuts that vote for them!!
They don't need to cover it up. They just ignore it, or ignore the independent reviews or tell us it's not what people really care about. There is no recourse and they will get voted in again.
That is what I meant by cover up. Deflect, distract and ignore.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Quite right. And this is the world we now live in.
they will investigate themselves and conclude that they’ve done nothing wrong
I’m sure we be were told that this could never happen and would be terrible for the rail industry when Corbyn proposed something similar
And come out of it in an even better position no doubt.
Yep! Boris et al will be seen as trustworthy and fiscally responsible
Or if whoever is appointed to investigate does conclude they did something wrong they'll just disagree and ignore it.
Yeah, that's more likely, they'll just brazen it out and it will get covered up by the next controversy.
Trump's playbook, page 1, chapter 1
I suspect you only read the headline. This is not nationalisation, the trains and track will still be run by private companies, they just won't be called franchises any more. It's arguably an increase in privatisation, as currently much of the track, and some of the trains, are state-run, whereas they won't be in future.
Labour's long-time policy, not just Corbyn's, has been to actually re-nationalise, and it has generally been one of their more popular policies.
And the person leading the so called investigation will be knighted.... for services to smoke and mirrors.Yep! Boris et al will be seen as trustworthy and fiscally responsible
Great. Cos the last railway privatisation went so well
Another grift.
Yep, if Labour were doing this, the Tories would be apoplectic with fake rage. Nice to see them admitting that privatisation has been a complete disaster though.
No I read the article, and I didn't say nationalisation, I said Corbyn proposed something similar - which he did. His proposal went further than this, but it's still a similar concept.
I'm pretty sure that everyone here understands that not every proposal set out in a manifesto gets put into law as intended - it usually gets watered down through debates from opposition parties as part of political debate.
I wouldn't say this is an increase in privatisation either - they will fall under and be held accountable to a State-owned body. There might be an increase in the number of private companies operating, but they don't get to dictate their own rules or prices in the same manner anymore - which is the whole point of privatisation in the first place.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
This must be a fetish for her. Sadistic as it gets.
Plays up to her audience. They'll lap this up and likely remember it if she ever makes a run for leader.
I know it's besides the point and a bit chauvinistic but I kind of admire that she can have the face of a vogue cover and the skirt, feet and legs of a 85year old. Also black on black clothes are tried and tested for people pulling other people from homes.
As much as I insult the electorate in this country, I would truly hope that they are smarter than to vote for her to be leader of this country.
Gotta be fashionable when you're forcibly splitting families apart.
I know it doesn't fit the narrative, but the police were arresting people who were suspected of facilitating people trafficking.
Sorry, Labour nationalisation would in no way, shape or form be a similar concept to the new 'Great British Railways'.
You are right to say the private companies will be dictated to by the state-owned body, but the franchisees already are, very much so, to the Office of the Rail Regulator. In some ways rail privatisation was the privatisation that never was, everything the franchises can do is laid down by the ORR, how many trains they have to run, where they have to stop, where they can't stop, how much they can raise most of their fares by and so on. With the big similarity between now and the future being that taxpayer's money will still be going to private companies. Often owned foreign state railways, ironically.
The point of rail privatisation incidentally was to raise money for the treasury, the sale of network rail and the rolling stock raised £6 billion, equal then to over a penny off income tax for four years, for the tories to spend wisely by buying votes with tax cuts. They span it of course, with talk of competition and freedom, but none of that was actually true, as we found out.
If they broke the law they should be punished, I don't think anyone suggested otherwise?
Well yeah the companies can't operate exactly how they wish with no rules in place, but the most important points that matter to the consumer - price of rail tickets - being managed and accountable to a State body should suit the consumer better than the current system.
The underlying point here is that any discussion about the State being in charge of the railways was derided by the Tories at the last election.
So this change in narrative by them is funny, that's all.
The tweet doesn't intimate that, hence why the now deleted post by someone about breaking up families (ie. its an illegal immigrant that she's posing with). Weird photo opportunity grab aside.
Yeah, It's probably not generally realised but the price of many rail tickets was regulated anyway. For many years franchises weren't allowed to raise season tickets by more than inflation, and then Cameron swung the opposite way and said they had to rise by more than inflation with the difference being used to reduce subsidy.
It boils down to the government having to respond to 'something must be done' and whatever is done they're not going to climb down on their previous policies and spin, however shit they turned out to be. Against a background of failure after failure by private companies, notably the collapse of Railtrack, who were huge, but also train operators, even pre-covid.
My post was about her presence in the situation in the first place, whether it's an immigration raid, or to catch human traffickers - her being there is frankly odd. Like others says, it plays up to her base. I still think she gets off on crime & punishment.
To me it feels a bit like the Tories know nationalising rail in this country is popular... so they are going to make it almost seem nationalised but most of it will still be run privately and even Government policy regarding rail will largely be dictated by private interests as long as the Tories remain in Government.
Feels like smoke and mirrors to me.
Feels like smoke and mirrors to me.
True. If Corbyn had done this there would be pictures of him with Stalin on the front pages.
Although in this case it is just another way to give contracts to Tory friends.
The management will be publicly owned and still dish out contracts to private companies, no?
Why would you do that!
She is one sick lady. I previously thought she was only a narcisst. But her condition may be worse than feared.
She didn't need to be there and I assume they have not been convicted yet.
It is pure opportunistic far right populism.
She wouldn't attend anything that was concrete in terms of a conviction without the fear of it biting her back. Assumption of conviction status on the morning of an arrest is somewhat hasty.
Yes it's absolute populism, it's all about displaying action and getting things done. Shown to be a vote winner for some of the electorate unfortunately.
Visible ladyboner
That’s actually a little bit frightening.
You give them too much credit.