Andrew Marr

[Vic]

Why then if it was so disastrous didn't the Tories change the rules? It's like an ex wife of ten years giving you stick because you don't put her bins out. If they thought it was terrible they are even more culpable for doing fuck all about it. When a party has 10 years in power and harks back to previous mistakes without acti g to rectify it, they haven't a keg to stand on.

It's like the old joke, the band on before us were so bad, they were still booing when we were on. You can't have it both ways. If they just came in and didn't have the time to change it, your poi ts would be valid criticism, but, having ten years to fix it shows even greater misjudgement by doing nothing.

If Johnson has been saying that we should imprison terrorists for longer...

When did he say it?
Whom did he tell?
Did the cabinet say no?

 

[blueish swede]

Well you are wrong - it is that simple. Labour introduced a policy that let dangerous criminals out automatically after serving half of their time. That is a fact. Spout all the shite you want it is really that simple. But for that Policy this horrendous event would not have happened.

The law you are refering to didn't apply to Usman Kahn though did it. He was sentenced prior to this under an earlier law, also enacted by Labour, which meant he could be held indefinitely. Kahn was released because he appealed to the high court - during Tory government rule. Cameron was Prime Minister, Theresa May was Home Secretary and Michael Gove was Justice minister at the time.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Cooper said simply, "Usman Khan was sentenced for serious terror offence in Feb 2012. Thought to be so dangerous by judge he was given IPP sentence to prevent release if still serious threat. Instead he was released 6 yrs later without Parole Board assessment. How cd this be allowed to happen?"

Now if she had said how could Boris Cretin have allowed it you might have a case for saying she started it.

(Seriously, you object to Liar Johnson but use the word cretin?)

How bizarre (not) that you neglected to add the rest of her commentary, posted at the same time. "When the Government replaced IPPs in December 2012 they claimed new arrangements would still protect the public. Why have they failed in this case?"

As I say, Cooper started it. Disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise.

 

[bluethrunthru]

when watching the interview yesterday morning with Johnson harrumphing and chuntering and I did think anyone who didn't know either man and started to watch armed only with the info that one of the men involved has had a stroke that they would be hard pushed to tell which one it was. And I have had one !!

 

[Vic]

How bizarre (not) that you neglected to add the rest of her commentary, posted at the same time. "When the Government replaced IPPs in December 2012 they claimed new arrangements would still protect the public. Why have they failed in this case?"

As I say, Cooper started it. Disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise.

I'd seen only that first tweet so was unaware of the follow-up. So I can see the case that Cooper started the blame game.

That said, the full series of questions she posed takes the debate a bit further...


Usman Khan was sentenced for serious terror offence in Feb 2012. Thought to be so dangerous by judge he was given IPP sentence to prevent release if still serious threat. Instead he was released 6 yrs later without Parole Board assessment. How cd this be allowed to happen? ...1

When the Government replaced IPPs in December 2012 they claimed new arrangements would still protect the public. Why have they failed in this case? ...2

What assessment did the Government make of the number of serious criminals or terrorists originally given IPPs who could be released early without any Parole Board assessment? How many other convicted terrorists are in this situation ...3

When Appeal Court in 2013 replaced Usman Khan's IPP with an extended sentence they said “such a decision is better left to the Parole Board” So why wasn’t there any arrangement for parole board consideration? What alternative action did the government take given the risks? ...4

Was a security or Prevent assessment done of Khan before release? Did they believe he was still a risk? Previously Govt could have applied a Control Order to restrict his location if dangerous, but they were abolished in 2012. Did Govt apply or consider a TPIM? If not why not? 5

What monitoring arrangements were applied to Usman Khan? Was there any restriction on his movement to prevent him going into central London? Were probation, police or security services aware that he was going to a big public conference? Did they have resources to monitor him? ..6

How many other convicted terrorists may be in a similar situation? Govt was warned about the risks of ending IPPs, the lack of resources for probation, monitoring and rehabilitation, and about the number of convicted terrorists due for release. What action did they take? 7

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1200761294892257285.html

 

[Vic]

What about the idiotic nationalisations? You must mean back to the 1970's. BT was privatised in 1984. Water privatisation came in in 1989. Energy companies late 80's as well. Rail companies early 90's.

Your idiotic party wants to take the country back 40 years. These privatisation proceeds have been received - from taxpayers like you and me - and spent on public services already. Where do you propose to get the money from to buy them back again? More debt, which has to be paid for by who? Our children. THIS is official Labour policy: Borrow a shed load more money, fuck the consequences and "other people" - our children in fact - can pay for it.

Please try and engage your brain, it's so much better when people do that.

When you say "taxpayers like you and me" bought the nationalised companies, you mean taxpayers (investors) like you bought them while taxpayers like me who thought we already owned them had them sold off at less than market value (i.e. stolen). "Selling the family silver", as former Tory PM Macmillan called it.

How will Labour pay to buy them back? By selling bonds to taxpayers (investors). But if the state buys a company it then has the assets on its books and takes any profit (or reduces prices for the benefit of consumers). I think you may have been misled by the CBI's miscalculations which the Tories have misused.

https://fullfact.org/economy/labour...MIlc_Ltp-Y5gIVQbDtCh39Uw-sEAAYAiAAEgJYhPD_BwE

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-50046329

 

[Chippy_boy]

When you say "taxpayers like you and me" bought the nationalised companies, you mean taxpayers (investors) like you bought them while taxpayers like me who thought we already owned them had them sold off at less than market value (i.e. stolen). "Selling the family silver", as former Tory PM Macmillan called it.

The state received lots of money for the sale of the former nationalised industries. Where did you think all that money went? Geoffrey Howe's Swiss bank account and his £540m yacht? He doesn't have one.

It went on public spending. The government had more money than it otherwise would have had, were these industries not sold off. Had they not been sold off, then the government(s) would not have had this money and therefore either public spending would have had to be cut, or taxes raised. The sales of nationalised assets, brought benefits to ordinary citizens like you and me, and these benefits have been paid for by investors.

Now we can reverse that if you like? Take money off the likes of you and me, in order to fund the government sufficiently to buy the assets back again. The government can either do that directly by increasing your income tax for a period of years, or by issuing debt and then taxing you more over time.

And for what exactly? Why on earth would anyone want to take money off people simply to return privatised businesses into state ownership? It's utter madness, driven by Marxist ideology and nothing more than that. The ludicrous misconception that "the state knows best". That government knows how to make cars better than BMW does. That government knows how to do broadband better than BT does. That government knows how to run trains better than First Group does.

It's madness. Government cannot run a piss up in a brewery, so what on earth makes anyone think they can run nationalised industries better?

Do you remember the state of British Leyland? How utterly shit the trains were before privatisation? How long it took the GPO to install a phone line? These industries were fucking awful under state ownership.

Look at the water industry by comparison now. Bills (in real terms) are down, leaks are down, beaches are cleaner, investment is at record levels. Seeking to nationalise this again - at great cost to the taxpayer - is fucking bonkers and there can be no other words for it. Marxist, ideological bullshit.

 

[Vic]

The state received lots of money for the sale of the former nationalised industries. Where did you think all that money went? Geoffrey Howe's Swiss bank account and his £540m yacht? He doesn't have one.

It went on public spending. The government had more money than it otherwise would have had, were these industries not sold off. Had they not been sold off, then the government(s) would not have had this money and therefore either public spending would have had to be cut, or taxes raised. The sales of nationalised assets, brought benefits to ordinary citizens like you and me, and these benefits have been paid for by investors.

Now we can reverse that if you like? Take money off the likes of you and me, in order to fund the government sufficiently to buy the assets back again. The government can either do that directly by increasing your income tax for a period of years, or by issuing debt and then taxing you more over time.

And for what exactly? Why on earth would anyone want to take money off people simply to return privatised businesses into state ownership? It's utter madness, driven by Marxist ideology and nothing more than that. The ludicrous misconception that "the state knows best". That government knows how to make cars better than BMW does. That government knows how to do broadband better than BT does. That government knows how to run trains better than First Group does.

It's madness. Government cannot run a piss up in a brewery, so what on earth makes anyone think they can run nationalised industries better?

Do you remember the state of British Leyland? How utterly shit the trains were before privatisation? How long it took the GPO to install a phone line? These industries were fucking awful under state ownership.

Look at the water industry by comparison now. Bills (in real terms) are down, leaks are down, beaches are cleaner, investment is at record levels. Seeking to nationalise this again - at great cost to the taxpayer - is fucking bonkers and there can be no other words for it. Marxist, ideological bullshit.

I can't be bothered trying to counter all those. Just a couple though.

Water industry? Not privatised in Scotland and Wales. What have clean beaches got to do with privatising water companies? - more to do with EU directives. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32006L0007

Train companies? First? Handed back franchises.... https://www.ft.com/content/54aa9e30-7c06-11e0-9b16-00144feabdc0

 

[Chippy_boy]

I can't be bothered trying to counter all those. Just a couple though.

Water industry? Not privatised in Scotland and Wales. What have clean beaches got to do with privatising water companies? - more to do with EU directives. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32006L0007

Train companies? First? Handed back franchises.... https://www.ft.com/content/54aa9e30-7c06-11e0-9b16-00144feabdc0

I didn't need a line by line critique mate ;-) Your reply will do just fine.

Regards the clean beaches, I don't know how much the EU directive has been responsible to be honest? Maybe it is all down to that so fair point if so. All I know is that the water companies are generally performing much better than they were when the government ran them.

And regards the First Group thing, it's behind a paywall so don't know what it says. The only article I could read was from 2011, with other articles talking about them taking on other franchises. Anyway, if they are handing back franchises early, then it just goes to show there's no excessive profit in it, doesn't it. Or they wouldn't be handing them back!

As I posted elsewhere, the industry makes circa 3% profit, AFTER government rebate. So hardly a load of fat cats, sitting back, milking profits and rolling in it. As some of your lefty mates would like to paint it.

 

[Vic]

I didn't need a line by line critique mate ;-) Your reply will do just fine.

Regards the clean beaches, I don't know how much the EU directive has been responsible to be honest? Maybe it is all down to that so fair point if so. All I know is that the water companies are generally performing much better than they were when the government ran them.

And regards the First Group thing, it's behind a paywall so don't know what it says. The only article I could read was from 2011, with other articles talking about them taking on other franchises. Anyway, if they are handing back franchises early, then it just goes to show there's no excessive profit in it, doesn't it. Or they wouldn't be handing them back!

As I posted elsewhere, the industry makes circa 3% profit, AFTER government rebate. So hardly a load of fat cats, sitting back, milking profits and rolling in it. As some of your lefty mates would like to paint it.

Perhaps you should Google a bit before suggesting First as a private company can do better than "the government" (I.e. the DfT people who've taken over the East Coast franchise from two failed private TOCs).

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...il-franchise-investor-pressure-annual-results

 

[Chippy_boy]

Perhaps you should Google a bit before suggesting First as a private company can do better than "the government" (I.e. the DfT people who've taken over the East Coast franchise from two failed private TOCs).

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...il-franchise-investor-pressure-annual-results

I don't know why you seem to think that private companies struggling to make profits, means the government can automatically do better. Bizarre perspective IMO. The government can't do anything better, let alone automatically.

 

[Vic]

I don't know why you seem to think that private companies struggling to make profits, means the government can automatically do better. Bizarre perspective IMO. The government can't do anything better, let alone automatically.

But it did do better. It ran the East Coast service at a profit before putting it back in a private franchise which also failed.

"...franchises can occasionally fail. But we do not expect companies to hold unlimited liabilities when they take on franchises, they would not bid for them if they had to. This will mean sometimes franchises will fail. That is why it was a Conservative government that created the structures for the Operator of Last Resort – to ensure we can always guarantee passengers’ services if franchises cannot continue."

Yet again Tories are the only people who can put right their own daft policies.

 

[Chippy_boy]

But it did do better. It ran the East Coast service at a profit before putting it back in a private franchise which also failed.

"...franchises can occasionally fail. But we do not expect companies to hold unlimited liabilities when they take on franchises, they would not bid for them if they had to. This will mean sometimes franchises will fail. That is why it was a Conservative government that created the structures for the Operator of Last Resort – to ensure we can always guarantee passengers’ services if franchises cannot continue."

Yet again Tories are the only people who can put right their own daft policies.

Have a read of this, please. It's a point of view which is wildly different from your own, and I am struggling to see why anyone would think it's wrong.

Excerpt:

The railways suffered decades of decline in public ownership.

Post-privatisation, on Europe's fastest-growing rail network, stations and branch lines are actually being re-opened, in contrast with France and Germany, where stations, routes and lines are being cut or even considered for closure.

It is also hard to see how renationalisation would solve the main passenger complaints - delays, overcrowding and high ticket prices.

Many delays - up to two-thirds, depending on the route - are caused not by the private operators but by Network Rail, which is already state-owned.

Supporters of renationalisation argue fares could fall if profits currently made by train operators were diverted back into the rail network.

Not really. These companies do not earn enough profits to make a difference.

Profit margins made by the private train operators are wafer-thin, at an average of just 3%, meaning that 97p in every £1 from fares already pays to run and improve services.

Nationalising rail operations would simply not bring in enough money to cut fares meaningfully.

In any case, the main reason rail fares are rising is the deliberate Government decision to make rail passengers pay for trains, rather than taxpayers.

https://news.sky.com/story/sky-views-rail-privatisation-has-been-a-success-10719242

 

[Vic]

You'd expect improvements if the taxpayer trebled their subsidy to the railway system. That's why it's better, not because of who runs it (or worse, if Network Rail don't get the money they need to upgrade the infrastructure).

Tories love "market forces" but one example - they insisted BR charge each train for a share of fixed costs. The Fort William line had trains taking timber from forests near it, but they'd been priced at marginal cost - fuel and wages - plus a small profit which would help toward running the line. The Tories insisted on a full contribution to track and signalling. BR put the price up, so the timber went back on the roads, leaving the passenger trains bearing all the fixed costs.

But it was British Rail who started "charging what the market will bear", i.e. putting up prices where price elasticity was low. Privatisation was supposed to bring in competition, but you can only go from Manchester to London with Virgin - oh, wait, from next weekend that's the Italian nationalised railways running it.

 

[BlueAnorak]

But it did do better. It ran the East Coast service at a profit before putting it back in a private franchise which also failed.

"...franchises can occasionally fail. But we do not expect companies to hold unlimited liabilities when they take on franchises, they would not bid for them if they had to. This will mean sometimes franchises will fail. That is why it was a Conservative government that created the structures for the Operator of Last Resort – to ensure we can always guarantee passengers’ services if franchises cannot continue."

Yet again Tories are the only people who can put right their own daft policies.

I really hoped that the Conservative Party would be radical WRT the railways and totally adopt the Japanese model of railway denationalisation that actually works.

 

[BlueAnorak]

I really hoped that the Conservative Party would be radical WRT the railways and totally adopt the Japanese model of railway denationalisation that actually works.

An article on the benefits of this approach:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...re-renationalising-just-need-little-japanese/

 

[worsleyweb]

Does Bigga just spend his entire life on this politics forum?

 

[Bigga]

Does Bigga just spend his entire life on this politics forum?

Ahahaha!!

Clearly not if I've only just seen this post!!

Aww, you've unblocked me! Knew you'd miss me!

LOL!

 

[Chippy_boy]

I really hoped that the Conservative Party would be radical WRT the railways and totally adopt the Japanese model of railway denationalisation that actually works.

I'd missed your posts here, but absolutely spot on. I've been saying for 10 years that when we privatised the railways, we did it wrong.

 

[urban genie]

Is there a point to this show anymore?