| Tonight opened my eyes 21:35 - May 16 with 12164 views | StokieBlue |
I've had an interesting night. I don't want this to become a them versus us rant or one side is better than the other. Both sides have failed.
I graduated the best part of 20 years ago in a vibrant city and tonight I met one of my very best friend's in Nottingham to see what things are like 20 years later.
I'll tell you the place is a wasteland. Blame whoever you like for his but it's crap. Party partisanship has got is to this position. The city is awful, the is no investment and is unrecognisable from the place I knew in the 90's.
I don't think JC tax grab is the way to sort this. Who cares if something is nationalised or not. 100m would sort Nottingham out completely. A tiny amount from their nationalisation budget and I'm sure there are many places just the same
Shoot me and down and insult, that's fine. But tonight opened my eyes an massive nationalisation isn't the way.
Critic all you like, I won't moan.
SB
Edit: In hindsight I think I phrased the above badly. I do think there should be more investment outside of London and Manchester and in my opinion it's something that should come higher on the agenda than nationalisation when the money is distributed. Maybe there will be enough for both but that seems unlikely.
[Post edited 17 May 2017 10:17]
|  |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |  |
| Tonight opened my eyes on 21:40 - May 16 with 4334 views | Gromheort |
The innate suggestion in your post is that nationalisation is the central plank of JC's package. It isn't. That's just a return to the rationality of public good provision, kicking right wing ideology in the teeth. The central plank is investment. I know, for example, all about Stoke. Left behind by Thatcher's deindustrialisation and unaided by New Labour's soft Toryism. All change now. |  | | |
| Tonight opened my eyes on 21:46 - May 16 with 4267 views | WD19 |
Spent quite a bit of time poking around there before and after the game the other week. Basically it looks like it suffered most from 'investment' in the 1960/70s. Beautiful history interspersed with rotting concrete. 50% of it needs ripping down and starting again.
Once we get to a place where the tax take is higher than it has been since the 1940s I am sure there will be plenty enough to spend on sorting it out. Fortunately nobody other than the magic money tree that is the 5% will have to pay for any of it. |  | | |
| Tonight opened my eyes on 21:47 - May 16 with 4251 views | blueislander |
| Tonight opened my eyes on 21:40 - May 16 by Gromheort |
The innate suggestion in your post is that nationalisation is the central plank of JC's package. It isn't. That's just a return to the rationality of public good provision, kicking right wing ideology in the teeth. The central plank is investment. I know, for example, all about Stoke. Left behind by Thatcher's deindustrialisation and unaided by New Labour's soft Toryism. All change now. |
To those of us who have not read an economics text book , could you please explain the difference between nationalisation, and public good provision, |  | | |
| Tonight opened my eyes on 21:47 - May 16 with 4246 views | Dubtractor |
Why do regeneration and renationalisation need to be exclusive from each other?
Privatisation of utilities, for example has resulted in increased bills, a fraction of the jobs originally belonging to the national companies, and profits being sent oversees.
Surely that profit could be used to support places like Nottingham?
My problem with the Labour manifesto is that it probably over promises from the start, maybe smaller initial aims with some aspirational stuff for the longer term would have been better. |  |
| |
| Tonight opened my eyes on 21:50 - May 16 with 4215 views | EastTownBlue |
It must have something going for it if it can get hundreds of millions spent on their tram network.
I quite like Nottingham. Although as per WD19's post, the concrete buildings in the centre don't do it any favours. | | | |
| Tonight opened my eyes on 21:53 - May 16 with 4191 views | olimar |
Funnily enough, I was there a couple of years ago for the first time in 10 years and thought the city centre, main square area, had improved quite a bit. | | | |
| Tonight opened my eyes on 21:57 - May 16 with 4142 views | Swansea_Blue |
That's a bit perverse Stokie. You could easily turn that on it's head and say that because town centres have deteriorated under a globalised, privatised economy we should be considering whether there is a better way.
If what we've been doing isn't working, why carry on? |  |
| |
| Tonight opened my eyes on 22:01 - May 16 with 4097 views | lowhouseblue |
| Tonight opened my eyes on 21:47 - May 16 by blueislander |
To those of us who have not read an economics text book , could you please explain the difference between nationalisation, and public good provision, |
a public good is something that, since you can't exclude people from consuming, the market has no way of making people pay for. for example, national defence is a public good - you can't exclude anyone in the country from getting the benefit and people get that benefit even if they don't pay. state provision funded by tax is a way of providing such goods.
obviously utilities are not public goods, they are completely excludable. so what he means by nationalising utilities being 'a return to the rationality of public good provision' i have no idea. [Post edited 16 May 2017 22:03]
|  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Tonight opened my eyes on 22:04 - May 16 with 4064 views | StokieBlue |
| Tonight opened my eyes on 21:40 - May 16 by Gromheort |
The innate suggestion in your post is that nationalisation is the central plank of JC's package. It isn't. That's just a return to the rationality of public good provision, kicking right wing ideology in the teeth. The central plank is investment. I know, for example, all about Stoke. Left behind by Thatcher's deindustrialisation and unaided by New Labour's soft Toryism. All change now. |
I tried to make a non-partisan point and you had to be a fool.
In hindsight I should have worded the OP better.
SB [Post edited 17 May 2017 10:12]
| |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Tonight opened my eyes on 22:05 - May 16 with 4052 views | Gromheort |
| Tonight opened my eyes on 22:01 - May 16 by lowhouseblue |
a public good is something that, since you can't exclude people from consuming, the market has no way of making people pay for. for example, national defence is a public good - you can't exclude anyone in the country from getting the benefit and people get that benefit even if they don't pay. state provision funded by tax is a way of providing such goods.
obviously utilities are not public goods, they are completely excludable. so what he means by nationalising utilities being 'a return to the rationality of public good provision' i have no idea. [Post edited 16 May 2017 22:03]
|
Crikey, you do make basic error. There is no such thing as a pure public good (non excludability and non rivalry in consumption). Defence certainly isn't one: e.g. see how the military have been used historically to break strikes. But, those traits ensure government provision is typically the best option. Goes back to Coase's debate over lighthouses | | | |
| Tonight opened my eyes on 22:07 - May 16 with 4042 views | blueislander |
| Tonight opened my eyes on 22:01 - May 16 by lowhouseblue |
a public good is something that, since you can't exclude people from consuming, the market has no way of making people pay for. for example, national defence is a public good - you can't exclude anyone in the country from getting the benefit and people get that benefit even if they don't pay. state provision funded by tax is a way of providing such goods.
obviously utilities are not public goods, they are completely excludable. so what he means by nationalising utilities being 'a return to the rationality of public good provision' i have no idea. [Post edited 16 May 2017 22:03]
|
Crikey! Your first sentence could have been posted by him. | | | |
| Tonight opened my eyes on 22:07 - May 16 with 4040 views | Gromheort |
| Tonight opened my eyes on 22:04 - May 16 by StokieBlue |
I tried to make a non-partisan point and you had to be a fool.
In hindsight I should have worded the OP better.
SB [Post edited 17 May 2017 10:12]
|
You made an error over the relative importance of nationalisation. That investment is at the core of the proposals just made your "come hug me" moment a little awkward | | | |
| Tonight opened my eyes on 22:09 - May 16 with 4019 views | lowhouseblue |
| Tonight opened my eyes on 22:05 - May 16 by Gromheort |
Crikey, you do make basic error. There is no such thing as a pure public good (non excludability and non rivalry in consumption). Defence certainly isn't one: e.g. see how the military have been used historically to break strikes. But, those traits ensure government provision is typically the best option. Goes back to Coase's debate over lighthouses |
you sir are a complete twit. you give students a bad name. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Tonight opened my eyes on 22:09 - May 16 with 4017 views | StokieBlue |
| Tonight opened my eyes on 22:07 - May 16 by Gromheort |
You made an error over the relative importance of nationalisation. That investment is at the core of the proposals just made your "come hug me" moment a little awkward |
You love yourselve don't you?
SB [Post edited 17 May 2017 10:11]
| |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Tonight opened my eyes on 22:10 - May 16 with 4014 views | Gromheort |
| Tonight opened my eyes on 22:09 - May 16 by lowhouseblue |
you sir are a complete twit. you give students a bad name. |
I assume you can't respond. Fair enough! | | | |
| Tonight opened my eyes on 22:11 - May 16 with 3996 views | Gromheort |
| Tonight opened my eyes on 22:09 - May 16 by StokieBlue |
You love yourselve don't you?
SB [Post edited 17 May 2017 10:11]
|
Again, nothing but insults. You will see my post was non-partisan. It attacked both parties after all. You just haven't understood the manifesto: the key is investment. Sorry, mind you, that it didn't fit in with your 'hug me' agenda [Post edited 16 May 2017 22:11]
| | | |
| Tonight opened my eyes on 22:13 - May 16 with 3967 views | StokieBlue |
| Tonight opened my eyes on 22:11 - May 16 by Gromheort |
Again, nothing but insults. You will see my post was non-partisan. It attacked both parties after all. You just haven't understood the manifesto: the key is investment. Sorry, mind you, that it didn't fit in with your 'hug me' agenda [Post edited 16 May 2017 22:11]
|
Do you read what you post? Nearly every post you make is an insult. You never reply, you answer what you want to. It's pathetic.
SB [Post edited 17 May 2017 10:12]
| |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Tonight opened my eyes on 22:14 - May 16 with 3953 views | Gromheort |
| Tonight opened my eyes on 22:13 - May 16 by StokieBlue |
Do you read what you post? Nearly every post you make is an insult. You never reply, you answer what you want to. It's pathetic.
SB [Post edited 17 May 2017 10:12]
|
Where's the insult? Happy to apologise if there is one.
Loved how you added more insults to try and prove me wrong mind you | | | |
| Tonight opened my eyes on 22:16 - May 16 with 3931 views | blueislander |
| Tonight opened my eyes on 22:11 - May 16 by Gromheort |
Again, nothing but insults. You will see my post was non-partisan. It attacked both parties after all. You just haven't understood the manifesto: the key is investment. Sorry, mind you, that it didn't fit in with your 'hug me' agenda [Post edited 16 May 2017 22:11]
|
I haven't read the manifesto, and I would venture to suggest that you haven't either. My take is that ideology has been the driving force behind it, and the rest is trying to justify how these ideologies could become a reality. | | | |
| Tonight opened my eyes on 22:17 - May 16 with 3922 views | lowhouseblue |
| Tonight opened my eyes on 22:07 - May 16 by blueislander |
Crikey! Your first sentence could have been posted by him. |
apologies. when wikipedia asks for donations do you donate? most people don't because at the moment, as it is currently set up, there is no way to stop you using it. you therefore have no incentive to contribute towards the cost - it is there for you whether you pay for it or not. so as it is currently set up, wikipedia is a sort of public good. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Tonight opened my eyes on 22:17 - May 16 with 3918 views | Gromheort |
| Tonight opened my eyes on 22:16 - May 16 by blueislander |
I haven't read the manifesto, and I would venture to suggest that you haven't either. My take is that ideology has been the driving force behind it, and the rest is trying to justify how these ideologies could become a reality. |
Ideology certainly drives it. Is that a bad thing? Principles shouldn't be discarded as a bad (either for the left or the right) | | | |
| Tonight opened my eyes on 22:18 - May 16 with 3908 views | StokieBlue |
| Tonight opened my eyes on 22:14 - May 16 by Gromheort |
Where's the insult? Happy to apologise if there is one.
Loved how you added more insults to try and prove me wrong mind you |
You took a non partisan point about under investment, made it partisan.
SB [Post edited 17 May 2017 10:12]
| |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Tonight opened my eyes on 22:20 - May 16 with 3881 views | Gromheort |
| Tonight opened my eyes on 22:18 - May 16 by StokieBlue |
You took a non partisan point about under investment, made it partisan.
SB [Post edited 17 May 2017 10:12]
|
You're rather free with the truth here. I attacked both sides. I just happened to also mention that your whole post actually is consistent with being a JC fan: given the new focus of Labour on investment, particularly for relatively deprived areas. | | | |
| Tonight opened my eyes on 22:22 - May 16 with 3866 views | blueislander |
| Tonight opened my eyes on 22:17 - May 16 by Gromheort |
Ideology certainly drives it. Is that a bad thing? Principles shouldn't be discarded as a bad (either for the left or the right) |
So you have changed your mind? By the way, have you read the manifesto? | | | |
| Tonight opened my eyes on 22:25 - May 16 with 3841 views | Gromheort |
| Tonight opened my eyes on 22:22 - May 16 by blueislander |
So you have changed your mind? By the way, have you read the manifesto? |
About what? And yep. Liked the BBC 'how things changed with the leaked one' humph too [Post edited 16 May 2017 22:25]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
