On Jul 1, 10:11*am, Alex Potter wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 09:44:19 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
Blair and Prescott promised lots of things last time around, and failed
to deliver. Why would Labour act differently next time (assuming they
ever get a next time).

Given that it's impossible to discern any difference between the parties,
I doubt that they would.

You hit that one on the head.

The article described something less than *complete re-nationalisation
anyway, so there'd still be plenty trough available for their mates.

On 01/07/2012 00:05, Bruce wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/30/labour-railway-network-state-control

Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control

The changes would amount to the biggest overhaul of the train system
since British Rail was broken up in the mid-1990s and be seen as a
deliberate pitch by Ed Miliband's party for millions of "commuter
votes" in key marginal seats ahead of the next election.

Will we be getting back the curling sandwiches and the Winter of
Discontent?


--
Graham Nye
news(a)thenyes.org.uk

On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 15:42:21 +0100, Bevan Price
wrote:

On 01/07/2012 00:15, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 00:05:25 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/30/labour-railway-network-state-control

Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control

Sweeping reform would begin with renationalisation of key routes and
end franchising of services

Plans to bring the national rail network back under public ownership
in order to halt big fare increases and prevent private companies
siphoning off huge profits will be considered by Labour as part of its
policy review, the Observer can reveal.



I'll believe it when I see it. Maybe they've conveniently forgotten to
mention how they will achieve it without tripping over EU rules which
will come as an "unexpected surprise" when they try it ?



Yes, it is just as believable as Harold Wilson & co. saying they will
halt the Beeching closures. But as for the EU - sooner or later, we will
get a UK government that will tell EU precisely what to do with their
policies. A lot of people are getting fed up with EU meddling in what
they consider to be matters for our own government.

Swings and roundabouts. That "lot of people" conveniently forget about
the amount of exports enabled by "EU meddling" and seem to be more
concerned with turning the UK into a remote-controlled satellite of
Uncle Sam than with re-establishing any kind of self-sufficiency.

On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 16:41:35 -0700 (PDT), Owain
wrote:

On Jul 1, 11:09*pm, Graham Nye wrote:
Will we be getting back the curling sandwiches and the Winter of
Discontent?

And 'blue days' and 'white days' or are they now banned under race
relations?

Have the usual suspects complained on behalf of the Smurfs ?

On 01/07/2012 09:27, e27002 wrote:
On Jul 1, 12:29 am,
wrote:
On 01/07/2012 00:15, Charles Ellson wrote:

Network Rail is a State Monopoly in everything but name. The Railways
are as Government Controlled as they have ever been. Why would the UK
go back to the dark days of British Railways? Better IMO to allow
operating companies to buy the infrastructure. Then drop franchising,
allow history to take its course (given neccessary regulation and
grants for desirable, but loss-making services).

Friedmanite dogma is a good example of Einstein's statement that
insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a
different result.
--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

On 01/07/2012 17:13, e27002 wrote:
On Jul 1, 10:11 am, Alex wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 09:44:19 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
Blair and Prescott promised lots of things last time around, and failed
to deliver. Why would Labour act differently next time (assuming they
ever get a next time).

Given that it's impossible to discern any difference between the parties,
I doubt that they would.

You hit that one on the head.

The article described something less than complete re-nationalisation
anyway, so there'd still be plenty trough available for their mates.



While this may be true, you have to believe that people can change. The
composition of the PLP has changed and will change even more if they win.

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

On Jul 1, 4:42*pm, Bevan Price wrote:

Yes, it is just as believable as Harold Wilson & co. saying they will
halt the Beeching closures. But as for the EU - sooner or later, we will
get a UK government that will tell EU precisely what to do with their
policies. A lot of people are getting fed up with EU meddling in what
they consider to be matters for our own government.

My perception is that a lot of what people are getting fed up with is
either organisations with "Europe" in their names that are nothing to
do with the EU (eg European Court of Human Rights), or things that HMG
chose to do, and claim to be a requirement of the EU, but when the EU
directives in question are examined, are found to contain no such
requirement (eg Railtrack). Personally I see as many examples of the
EU preventing the UK government from doing stupid or wrong things at
least as often as regulations coming out of the EU that are
objectionable (and plenty of the objectionable regulations appear to
have been created with the blessing of UK commissioners in Europe).

Robin

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 15:42:21 +0100, Bevan Price
wrote:
On 01/07/2012 00:15, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 00:05:25 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/30/labour-railway-network-state-control

Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control

Sweeping reform would begin with renationalisation of key routes and
end franchising of services

Plans to bring the national rail network back under public ownership
in order to halt big fare increases and prevent private companies
siphoning off huge profits will be considered by Labour as part of its
policy review, the Observer can reveal.



I'll believe it when I see it. Maybe they've conveniently forgotten to
mention how they will achieve it without tripping over EU rules which
will come as an "unexpected surprise" when they try it ?



Yes, it is just as believable as Harold Wilson & co. saying they will
halt the Beeching closures. But as for the EU - sooner or later, we will
get a UK government that will tell EU precisely what to do with their
policies. A lot of people are getting fed up with EU meddling in what
they consider to be matters for our own government.

Swings and roundabouts. That "lot of people" conveniently forget about
the amount of exports enabled by "EU meddling" and seem to be more
concerned with turning the UK into a remote-controlled satellite of
Uncle Sam than with re-establishing any kind of self-sufficiency.


On the contrary, most people now recognise that over 50% of British
exports go to other EU countries and that only a tiny fraction of our
exports go to the USA. The UK is also a major market for goods from
other EU countries.

What people here don't want is a United States of Europe. The
ever-closer monetary, fiscal and political union that is being touted
as the solution to the crisis in the Eurozone is exactly what most
British people don't want.

In 1973, the UK joined a Common Market with a view to increasing trade
with other European countries at a time when our markets in the
Commonwealth were diminishing. However, our politicians were less
than honest with us because the treaty we signed also pointed the way
to an eventual political union which is now getting ever closer
because of the Euro crisis.

The UK needs to take a step back from those countries that want
political union, but at the same time both the UK and the rest of the
EU need free trade. The answer seems obvious: the UK should rejoin
the EFTA/EEA countries including Switzerland, Norway, and Iceland and
remain in the Single Market while not being a member of the EU.

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 12:01:27 +0100
Bruce wrote:
What people here don't want is a United States of Europe. The
ever-closer monetary, fiscal and political union that is being touted
as the solution to the crisis in the Eurozone is exactly what most
British people don't want.

Political union won't happen. There are certain countries that will never
accept being de facto controlled by germany. If you think the east european
countries that have just escaped from the yoke of the USSR will be happy to be
run from Berlin, sorry , I mean Brussels, then you're dreaming. If riots
like that can happen in a laid back country like greece imagine what can
happen in warsaw or prague with their history of uprising.

The federal USA worked because it was essentially all the same culture and
nationality from east to west. Europe isn't. If the eurocrats want massive
civil unrest across the continent then sure, go for political union.

B2003

On Jul 2, 12:24*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 12:01:27 +0100

Bruce wrote:
What people here don't want is a United States of Europe. *The
ever-closer monetary, fiscal and political union that is being touted
as the solution to the crisis in the Eurozone is exactly what most
British people don't want.

Political union won't happen. There are certain countries that will never
accept being de facto controlled by germany. If you think the east european
countries that have just escaped from the yoke of the USSR will be happy to be
run from Berlin, sorry , I mean Brussels, then you're dreaming. If riots
like that can happen in a laid back country like greece imagine what can
happen in warsaw or prague with their history of uprising.

The federal USA worked because it was essentially all the same culture and
nationality from east to west. Europe isn't. If the eurocrats want massive
civil unrest across the continent then sure, go for political union.

Given the robust state of the Australian economy in recent years, the
UK would have been better off staying with what she had.