Rayvin

I'm talking about targeting the areas that make sense. Yes, a very large number of people don't live and work within walking distance of a train station (overlooking buses for a moment) and if the 'postcode lottery' judged this to be the case then they would be on a different tax code. I'm confused ewerk, you've just repeated back to me what I thought we'd already settled. Is this another one of those occasions where you're winding me up and I don't get it? I cited cities specifically since they would be clear cut examples of areas in which the tax could be applied. They also constitute about 90% of the population. There will be other areas too, since there are plenty of stations in the arse end of nowhere.

Why am I assuming that? I think there's a part of your argument that you're implying but that I'm not picking up. Which services? You mean direct trips to every other station in the country? Maybe you mean that people will live near some stations but will have to travel to places that aren't near one, thus meaning they will have to drive. Ok, those people lose out. How many people can that possibly cover though? How many city dwellers regularly make trips into the country often enough for this to really be an issue? The only ones it should affect in any meaningful sense would be those that need to do so for work. And there just can't be too many of those. Certainly not those at the poorer end of the scale as far as I can imagine, since they would likely be living near to work.

True but then I think it's fair to say his ambitions for our club have changed from those he had when he took over. He's making the best of it with us maybe but must still associate some value with the advertising. In fact, this could be a useful comparative test. If their stadium fills up with SD logos then that's clearly what he's in it for with us. If it doesn't, and he sells the commercial space to other businesses, then maybe we overstate the importance of the advertising. Not that I particularly care anymore, my brain is just wired right now from political discussions.

It's only ridiculous because you've decided it is, I don't really get why it would be a challenge in a digital age. Program runs postcode and assigns tax code based on it. Technologically staggering stuff. I mean they do this with council tax already. The alternative is Renton's view which, truthfully, I'm also ok with. But if it was a really serious sticking point, I think what I've outlined above would be fine.

Could be localised based on that. Come on man, the government can more or less do whatever it wants with this stuff. London already imposes fees that the rest of the country doesn't have to suffer.

Have you launched it in safemode? I know that's the obvious answer always, but if there's an application draining your processing power, it shouldn't be able to load in safemode. If your machine still runs slow, then I would suggest it's probably a hardware issue. I stand ready to be corrected by those who work with PCs all their lives though

Do they ever make losses? The government is far more able to control uptake of trains than private companies are anyway. They could increase road and domestic air tax and make rail options seem cheaper, thus also winning the battle on the environmentalist side of things, whilst at the same time encouraging uptake of the service.

Also, dare I say it, the more publicly owned utilities there are, the greater your economies of scale. For instance, say they take electricity back. The same saving applies there concerning profit, so that can be passed on, but you can also put up rates for private companies (maybe those who dodge tax in conventional ways in particular, although I doubt how workable it would be to target them specifically) in order to subsidise discounts to government departments. I mean this is just off the top of my head though.

Maybe it could be invested in less crowded trains. Better service. The point stands, surely, that it's effectively wasted as far as the public are concerned, at present.

I think logically it should stand to reason that if the service can be operated at x cost, that is true whether or not the service is privitised or publicly owned. Therefore, railfares = x. The difference in the equation in terms of fares for rail passengers would be that in privately owned trains, the equation becomes railfares = x + y where y is profit. Even if you take tax into the equation, the government could offset the loss in tax revenues by adding what they would have made to the public option, and it would still be less than y (since it would always be a %age of y). Prepared to be wrong, but that would be my argument. EDIT - oh and also, train companies don't appear to be running trains very well in general. Even if the government is shocking at it, it'll still be better.

I'm struggling to think that the trains wouldn't be better served if they were nationalised, especially since the government just issues licenses, does it not? Just let them expire and then take over - I daresay costs will be involved but I doubt any companies will need buying. Also tempted to say water companies based on the evidence in that article, although the downside there is you'd have to pick up the debt with it I guess since the infrastructure is probably privately owned now.

I've been told that she effectively created an 'underclass' (unpleasant word but perhaps apt on this occasion) with the speed at which she closed down industry, catapulting people skilled at really only one thing into unemployment with no sense of managed decline, or opportunities being provided for people to retrain in other industries. Maybe that's an unfavourable depiction of it though?

Suppose we can infer from this that the advertising he gets must be worth it, or he wouldn't be wasting money buying another club.

Yes, I'm not saying that there's much new info there apart from the IMF report really - although I do find that water company stat to be almost as hilarious as it is depressing.

That doesn't sound so bad to me, CT. Appreciate that there are other factors at play but that's currently one data point in support.

Good thing I don't want a hard left utopia then (was that a pun or a typo?). I want a scandinavian model CT. That's all. That's all Labour seem to be proposing as well. The second they go further, they can be kicked out. I want a mixed economy. Not this privitised, dysfunctional hellhole that we seem to be living in. There are many examples of successful, functional mixed economies. The fact that you have to take the most extreme vision says it all. It's like when people on the left go around branding anyone with concerns about immigration a nazi. It's the same non-engagement with the argument.

Do you have anything to put forward about the state of the country in the 70s? I like to think I'll give a balanced hearing to everything to be honest CT, it's why I get called a nazi from time to time. I don't think you can dismiss the IMF and university level research as bollocks though. What about the water company thing? That's not just been made up, it's demonstrably true. As is the economic placement of the UK versus other nations. So those are facts. Is your contention that there are other factors at play?

Sorry it took me a little while to respond to this. It's already been mentioned that if Labour are 'wrong' they can be voted out in a few years time. The Brexit issue has a far more striking permanence. I would prefer to live under the Tories for probably the next 15 years than leave the EU. Possibly longer. You see Venezuela as the extreme outcome for what happens if Corbyn gets in. For me, and I guess others, hard Brexit is the equal and equivalent outcome for what happens if right wing nut jobs get in, as they appear to have done. The thing is though, your 'fear' of Venezuela is incredibly unlikely to happen in the UK, and as I have said, can be counteracted at key intervals (unless you really, genuinely think that we would have armed police on the streets suppressing a vote). Our equal and opposite scenario with Brexit is right on our doorstep. So maybe when you read our comments, try to consider that we fear the outcome of Brexit in the same way that people with poor critical thinking skills and a general lack of comprehension about the economy fear Corbyn being elected. Brexit is our Venezuela. After reading that Neoliberalism article that I posted about in the politics thread, I am more convinced than ever before that everything the Tories say about the economy is delusional fantasy aimed at covering up decades of failed ideologically driven policy-making spanning two parties (depressingly), and until someone on the right can turn around and tell me why any of it is a better strategy than what Corbyn is proposing, using ACTUAL FUCKING ARGUMENTS with EVIDENCE, STATISTICS, INFORMATION THAT CAN BE RATIONALLY ASSESSED, etc, I'm just going to consider that anyone who brings up Venezuela is effectively admitting that they don't have the faintest clue what they're talking about. That should be your standard too, CT. When we give you information about Brexit, it has all the things I've put in caps. You can argue against it, sure, but it has to be using the same stuff. Until that happens, you have nothing to say. And I've seen nothing from the right which is any better researched or articulated than (and I'm not exaggerating here) the sorts of arguments Wolfy would make. Whether you agree with that or not, that is how it looks to people like me. That is why we get so worked up. It looks like the whole country woke up one morning and became completely delusional.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/17/economic-lies-neoliberalism-taxpayers This is a really good article. Since I know not everyone has time to read it, and because I think it's important, I'll summarise (though you'll doubtless get better info from the article itself). 1 - Privisation has failed as an economic strategy for maximising Britain's wealth potential. 2 - The IMF published a report (ignored by the BBC it seems, along with the government) that looked at 31 nations including many of our European partners, and found that Britain had the weakest economic position of all of them with the exception of Portugal. This was down to the fact that we have been selling off public assets in such a way that we have £5tn liabilities, and only £3tn assets. Gambia and Kenya were included amongst countries outperforming us. 3 - I'm going to paste this bit in word for word: Almost as startling are the IMF’s reasons for why Britain is in such a state: one way or another they all come back to neoliberalism. Thatcher loosed finance from its shackles and used our North Sea oil money to pay for swingeing tax cuts. The result is an overfinancialised economy and a government that is £1tn worse off since the banking crash. Norway has similar North Sea wealth and a far smaller population, but also a sovereign wealth fund. Its net worth has soared over the past decade. The other big reason for the UK’s financial precarity is its privatisation programme, described by the IMF as no less than a “fiscal illusion”. British governments have flogged nearly everything in the cupboard, from airports to the Royal Mail – often at giveaway prices – to friends in the City. Such privatisations, judge the fund, “increase revenues and lower deficits but also reduce the government’s asset holdings”. Specifically for CT: Throughout the austerity decade, ministers and economists have pushed for spending cuts by pointing to the size of the government’s annual overdraft, or budget deficit. Yet there are two sides to a balance sheet, as all accountants know and this IMF work recognises. The same goes for our public realm: if Labour’s John McDonnell gets into No 11 and renationalises the railways, that would cost tens of billions – but it would also leave the country with assets worth tens of billions that provided a regular income. Instead, what this IMF research shows is that the Westminster classes have been asset-stripping Britain for decades – and storing up financial trouble for future generations. 4 - Privitisation has given unearned wealth to a privileged few. A study carried out by Greenwich University revealed that if water companies remained public they would be able to operate day to day and invest in long term projects for the future. Instead, having gone private, they have accumulated £51bn of debt, as a result of making payments to shareholders (solely as a result of this) that we will all be paying for, through our bills, for years. 5 - Neoliberalism has not only failed to make Britain economically stronger (proving that Thatcher was indeed bad for this country on every conceivable level), it has made us all poorer, and continues to rip us off.

What if you're wrong CT?

If anyone, anywhere, comes out of this even remotely pleased with what's gone on, how we've arrived at it, or what it actually means for our future, then they're deluded beyond all hope and prayer. I give up. The Tories can set about wrecking the country, pulling it apart, I just can't handle watching anymore. Fuck you democracy, you massive, easily manipulated fucking lie.

Tbf to Gloom though it does sound like he's doing his bit.

It's good that the US takes a lot of the brunt of global warming though. Hopefully it'll sink in eventually.

Can see Essembee's point here to a degree, but it depends on the kind of 'racist' they are. If they're just ignorant fucks who've never really thought about the consequences of the things they're saying when they started being brandished by a fascist government, then maybe a sobering trip to Auschwitz might make them wake up to what they're saying a bit more. On the other hand, if they're open nazis, then yeah - not so sure.

The wall street journal has bigger fish to fry. They're focused on looking woke as a substitute for having moral substance.