National News Official 2019 General Election Thread

[Sarge]

yep .....

 

[SteMerritt]

yep .....View attachment 2438

Was me earlier ?

 

[Marked Ox]

Sorry he`s right!

"They're crowdfunding for that purpose and we just cannot responsibly allow ourselves to be sued without taking the normal action in defending ourselves when the position that the representative and the family are pursuing in law is wrong.

"It pains me because I want to give them the solace of justice in this case.

"But we also need to protect the taxpayers' money and the legal position that we set out, which is the correct one.

"So it's very difficult, but that's the position that we're in."

Whilst it is a tragic case that could/should have been resolved much sooner, that doesn`t give the parents the right to pursue an incorrect legal position and somebody has to tell them that. The lawyer won`t (££££`s)!

The should be working with, not against the very State that can help them get justice!!

That is assuming you believe what Raab* is saying and of course this Govt (or group of Ministers) have not got their legal cases wrong at all recently....

From the same article, the alternative view is:

Mr Dunn's parents reacted with fury to the cabinet minister's comments, with Radd Seiger - the family's spokesperson - revealing they were "livid".
He added: "They are not engaged in some frivolous vexatious litigation frolic of their own against the FCO.
"Quite the opposite. They are British citizens who have had their entitlement to justice robbed from them by the US government under the watch of Mr Raab and the FCO.
"He knows perfectly well that Mrs Sacoolas never had diplomatic immunity.
"He has lied to the parents before and he is now lying to the nation. The parents are entitled to answers and the truth.
"If he is so concerned about taxpayers' money in the litigation then he would come and talk to us to find a resolution, rather than risking having to have the taxpayers themselves having to pay a very expensive legal bill if the FCO lose."


*Who after his performance as Brexit Minister hardly inspires confidence, remember his Dover comments!

 

[Sarge]

 

[Gary Baldi]

So yet more "look a squirrel!" tactics then, rather than debate the real issues?

What can they be so scared of

That is up to the Tories to speak for. I'm not a member or a paid strategist.

So no examples or fact, just gaslighting? Brainwashed.

There are no recent examples because thankfully, we've stepped away from the Govt, and it's unions, having it's fingers deep in the pie.

Perhaps you can give me examples of the how other countries of a similar size (population, economy, land, infrastructure, etc) have completed what Labour are proposing, with the money they claim they can do it with, with the amount of jobs they claim they can rustle up, in the timeframe they wish to do it, with the amount of concurrent projects running at the same time? Should be pretty simple from what you are saying!

 

[Gary Baldi]

View attachment 2442

Murdoch doesn't own Sky anymore. It's owned by Comcast in the US who offered more than Disney.

The Evening Stannah is owned by:

• Evgeny Lebedev (63%)
• Daily Mail and General Trust (24.9%)
• Justin Byam Shaw (7%)
• Geordie Greig (5%)

Richard Desmond doesn't own the Express any longer - sold to the Mirror Group, but looks to have a minority stake in it. He also sold Channel 5 to Viacom in 2014.

The Barclay Bros are looking to sell the Torygraph.

So respectfully, fake news

 

[Gary Baldi]

And to keep up with Joneses

 

[YellowTaxi]

You think these things are cooked up overnight? Who "signs them off" is almost irrespective.
I would be looking more towards TfL as the clusterfuck agents..... https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...-project-charity-commission-concluding-report

Of course understanding the reality of public projects won`t change your blinkered opinion of those more fortunate than yourself.

Don’t patronise me you little scrote.

Johnson was corrupt. He authorised Fifty Million pounds of public money spent on his vanity project

the Head of Transport for London went to work for Arup the civil engineers who got the bridge contract - they trousered Arup, the engineering group, received £12.7m in fees, The taxpayers of Britain and of London, via the Department for Transport and TfL, have to pay £43m of the total. When the bridge was announced in 2013, it was going to be free to the public, entirely funded by private sponsorship. “A gift to the people of London”, it was called.

the only way Johnson is more fortunate than me is that if I pulled off a scam of that size I’d be rightly in prison. How odd that the likes of Essex yellows usually so worried about public funds if they are spent on feeding the starving stand in awe as the Old Etonian fraudster shovelled lmillions to his mates.

 

[Navegante]

That is up to the Tories to speak for. I'm not a member or a paid strategist.

There are no recent examples because thankfully, we've stepped away from the Govt, and it's unions, having it's fingers deep in the pie.

Perhaps you can give me examples of the how other countries of a similar size (population, economy, land, infrastructure, etc) have completed what Labour are proposing, with the money they claim they can do it with, with the amount of jobs they claim they can rustle up, in the timeframe they wish to do it, with the amount of concurrent projects running at the same time? Should be pretty simple from what you are saying!

Classic whataboutism from Gaslighting Gazza!

Thatcherism ensured privatisation on a scale seen in very few other countries especially in Europe. Therefore, there hasn't been the need to roll-back failing core services from private ownership to the state. I have however provided examples where entities have seamlessly switched from public to private ownership.

You seem to be concerned that Jez the Red and the Socialists will be directly responsible for the day-to-day running these state-owned entities. Is Macron running the EDF owned nuclear power stations or Merkel planning timetables for Arriva buses?

These "communist" proposals will merely align the UK back to European mainland norm where core services (utilities, trains, postal) remain in public ownership i.e. the state is the majority shareholder (doesn't mean it owns 100% of shares, run the day-to-day business or operates a monopoly).

Why does UK have full-fibre broadband rate of 7% where as Spain (similar population, bigger area, poorer economy) have 71%? Could it be the "free-market" dogma which you have been brainwashed into never questioning may not always work?

 

[Gary Baldi]

Classic whataboutism from Gaslighting Gazza!

Thatcherism ensured privatisation on a scale seen in very few other countries especially in Europe. Therefore, there hasn't been the need to roll-back failing core services from private ownership to the state. I have however provided examples where entities have seamlessly switched from public to private ownership.

You seem to be concerned that Jez the Red and the Socialists will be directly responsible for the day-to-day running these state-owned entities. Is Macron running the EDF owned nuclear power stations or Merkel planning timetables for Arriva buses?

These "communist" proposals will merely align the UK back to European mainland norm where core services (utilities, trains, postal) remain in public ownership i.e. the state is the majority shareholder (doesn't mean it owns 100% of shares, run the day-to-day business or operates a monopoly).

Why does UK have full-fibre broadband rate of 7% where as Spain (similar population, bigger area, poorer economy) have 71%? Could it be the "free-market" dogma which you have been brainwashed into never questioning may not always work?

I ask you a question and then you start the insults. With respect, you have alluded that I am scaremongering, so then you must have some knowledge to prove me wrong? I am not being unreasonable

We don't know what Labour will do, nor what pies will have their fingers deeply into it. Listening to McDonnell (Shadow Chancellor) over the past few years, it doesn't sound like they will be hands off, very much hands on. Do you have proof they will follow the Macron model? It maybe aligning back to Europe, but you avoid the question about how they are going to do it in the time frames they propose, with the money they propose and no clear view of the personnel side. And of course, the lawsuits that will likely be involved.

In all honesty, BT are a horror of a company, and as I have seen locally, now different firms are involved in putting Fibre down, the results are quite transformative. Thus, the Govt don't need to take it in house to get it done. What it needs is Govt money and willingness.... Can you provide a breakdown of where the figures of Spain lie - is it concentrated in Cities or majorly in the countryside?

 

[Sheik djibouti]

I ask you a question and then you start the insults. With respect, you have alluded that I am scaremongering, so then you must have some knowledge to prove me wrong? I am not being unreasonable

We don't know what Labour will do, nor what pies will have their fingers deeply into it. Listening to McDonnell (Shadow Chancellor) over the past few years, it doesn't sound like they will be hands off, very much hands on. Do you have proof they will follow the Macron model? It maybe aligning back to Europe, but you avoid the question about how they are going to do it in the time frames they propose, with the money they propose and no clear view of the personnel side. And of course, the lawsuits that will likely be involved.

In all honesty, BT are a horror of a company, and as I have seen locally, now different firms are involved in putting Fibre down, the results are quite transformative. Thus, the Govt don't need to take it in house to get it done. What it needs is Govt money and willingness.... Can you provide a breakdown of where the figures of Spain lie - is it concentrated in Cities or majorly in the countryside?

Patience, Gaz!

Wait for the fully costed manifesto [emoji6]

Of course, you could always choose to believe the 1.2tn costing that the Selfsevatives have estimated. Careful though, it is widely derided as a work of fiction and various genuine independent fact checking site have said as much.

 

[Essexyellows]

Don’t patronise me you little scrote.

Johnson was corrupt. He authorised Fifty Million pounds of public money spent on his vanity project

the Head of Transport for London went to work for Arup the civil engineers who got the bridge contract - they trousered Arup, the engineering group, received £12.7m in fees, The taxpayers of Britain and of London, via the Department for Transport and TfL, have to pay £43m of the total. When the bridge was announced in 2013, it was going to be free to the public, entirely funded by private sponsorship. “A gift to the people of London”, it was called.

the only way Johnson is more fortunate than me is that if I pulled off a scam of that size I’d be rightly in prison. How odd that the likes of Essex yellows usually so worried about public funds if they are spent on feeding the starving stand in awe as the Old Etonian fraudster shovelled lmillions to his mates.

If you care to look there have been many inquiry`s into this project. All reaching the same conclusion, it was a clusterfuck that would never really get off the ground. However, as with any such project, if the idea seems good folk need to back it and someone needs to start the ball rolling.

Working in the public sector you see dozens, if not hundreds, of started but failed projects that somebody thought was a great idea....they do the groundwork, they draw up contracts and on many occasions the project fails. Nobody "goes to prison" for it.

Trying to pin it on one person because of a preconceived judgement of anyone who is more fortunate than you is pathetic.
Look at the inquiries and the evidence rather than your own personal bias.

 

[Essexyellows]

That is assuming you believe what Raab* is saying and of course this Govt (or group of Ministers) have not got their legal cases wrong at all recently....

From the same article, the alternative view is:

Mr Dunn's parents reacted with fury to the cabinet minister's comments, with Radd Seiger - the family's spokesperson - revealing they were "livid".
He added: "They are not engaged in some frivolous vexatious litigation frolic of their own against the FCO.
"Quite the opposite. They are British citizens who have had their entitlement to justice robbed from them by the US government under the watch of Mr Raab and the FCO.
"He knows perfectly well that Mrs Sacoolas never had diplomatic immunity.
"He has lied to the parents before and he is now lying to the nation. The parents are entitled to answers and the truth.
"If he is so concerned about taxpayers' money in the litigation then he would come and talk to us to find a resolution, rather than risking having to have the taxpayers themselves having to pay a very expensive legal bill if the FCO lose."


*Who after his performance as Brexit Minister hardly inspires confidence, remember his Dover comments!

Try reading Article 37 of the Vienna convention.

"Article 37. The family members of diplomats that are living in the host country enjoy most of the same protections as the diplomats themselves."

Now we could have waived that under Article 32, however it didn`t happen. The time-frame would be interesting to see as to when & who knew she was planning to leave.

Just for clarity she should have been on the next plane back IMHO....... however "we" don`t know what power game is going on behind the scenes.

 

[Marked Ox]

Try reading Article 37 of the Vienna convention.

"Article 37. The family members of diplomats that are living in the host country enjoy most of the same protections as the diplomats themselves."

Now we could have waived that under Article 32, however it didn`t happen. The time-frame would be interesting to see as to when & who knew she was planning to leave.

Just for clarity she should have been on the next plane back IMHO....... however "we" don`t know what power game is going on behind the scenes.

They will be arguing she doesn't fit Article 37 as he wasn't a diplomat would be my guess (but it is a guess). Unless all US military/Spy services personnel and the like are also covered.

Still doesn't change the point the family feel they have a legal case and the Govt were publically certain over their legal claims surrounding prorogation etc.

I don't doubt there was political consideration involved in how she left and subsequent events. Whether the family can prove that is a different matter. I suspect the best the family can hope for is to financially ruin her via the civil courts as "justice".

 

[Paul Cannell]

If you care to look there have been many inquiry`s into this project. All reaching the same conclusion, it was a clusterfuck that would never really get off the ground. However, as with any such project, if the idea seems good folk need to back it and someone needs to start the ball rolling.

Working in the public sector you see dozens, if not hundreds, of started but failed projects that somebody thought was a great idea....they do the groundwork, they draw up contracts and on many occasions the project fails. Nobody "goes to prison" for it.

Trying to pin it on one person because of a preconceived judgement of anyone who is more fortunate than you is pathetic.
Look at the inquiries and the evidence rather than your own personal bias.

Well, if we look at the reports, the key finding of the report you reference (on the charity aspects of the Garden Bridge scam) are that "For policy makers who are trying to encourage philanthropic donations and support for infrastructure projects of this kind, consideration should be given to alternative ways of furthering charitable purposes that do not involve exposing charities to operational risk. Nor does handing public money to charities absolve funders from the responsibility to ensure that it is properly spent.". It's oddly silent on the position of a charity providing only 20% of
the funding of a charitable project while the rest comes without their approval from rate or tax-payers. It's scope is to draw general conclusions rather than to examine the Garden Bridge.

Margaret Hodges' report is about the Garden Bridge and contains:

Point 8 "The procurements subject to this review comprised one contract that was awarded to Heatherwick Studio for design and consulting services and one contract that was awarded to Arup for engineering and project management services. These were not open, fair or competitive procurements and my review revealed systemic failures and ineffective control systems at many levels. " - done by the Mayor's office
Point 7 "The project has already used £37.4 million of public money and the agreement to underwrite cancellation costs by the Government could bring the bill to the taxpayer up to £46.4 million......" The amount the public spent and a guarantee from the Mayor's office to his mates.

Chronology:
Point 25: "it was a condition of central Government’s £30 million share of the funding that a satisfactory business case was produced, demonstrating the project provided value for money. On 14 January 2014, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury confirmed in his 2013 autumn settlement letter to the Secretary of State for Transport that the government would fund £30 million for the Bridge. This was on the basis that: • the Mayor of London would match this funding from Transport for London (TfL) resources; • a satisfactory business case would be produced, demonstrating that the project provided value for money; • TfL would fund the Bridge’s ongoing maintenance; and • the Mayor would cover cost overruns or shortfalls in funding. "

Point 23 "The strategic outline business case was produced in May 2014. By this time the following had already been completed: • Heatherwick Studio had secured a contract from TfL for Bridge Design Consultancy services (point 64-69); • Arup had secured a contract from TfL (point 70 - 73) for engineering and project management services; 8 • the Mayor had issued a Mayoral Direction to TfL instructing them to undertake activities to develop and help enable a proposed footbridge; • The Mayor and the Chancellor had announced a £60 million package of public funding; and finally • The Garden Bridge Trust had been established. "

Point 64 "The commercial evaluation was based on day rates alone and the total estimated prices they were required to submit were ignored in the evaluation. Yet Heatherwick Studio’s figure of £173,000 was much higher than Marks Barfield’s bid of £15,125 and Wilkinson Eyre’s bid of £49,939."

Point 65 "Subsequently Heatherwick Studio decided to reduce its fee (via a reduction in 18 day rates) because of the Studio’s “ongoing support and hopes for the project.” This discussion between Richard de Cani and Heatherwick Studio contravened TfL standard procedures. "

Point 68 ". In the assessment to design and build the bridge, Heatherwick Studio was awarded more points for relevant design experience than either of the rival bidders, despite the fact that they have only ever built one bridge, whereas one of the other bidders had built over 25 bridges, even winning the Stirling Prize.

Ponit 70 "The second tender was issued under one of TfL’s procurement frameworks in April 2013. Thirteen companies tendered for the work and Arup was awarded the contract in July 2013. A new contract to continue the work was agreed with the Garden Bridge Trust (the Trust) in April 2015. By that point Arup had been paid £8,422,000 by TfL for their work. They earned further monies from their contract with the Trust. "

Point 71 "The procurement process was again not consistent with TfL procedures. There were two aspects of the procurement that caused me some concern and that in my view undermine the fairness and transparency of the process. Under the original assessment of the tenders Arup was placed seventh out of thirteen bidders because their costs were higher. Richard de Cani said it was fair that they should be invited for interview as they had the strongest technical bid. "

Point 72 "It is worth pointing out that Arup had an advantage in that they had been involved with Heatherwick Studio and Mace in developing design proposals for the Garden Bridge for some time. One would expect that their technical bid would therefore be stronger. As Ernst and Young observe in their report: “There is also a challenge as to the extent to which Arup had an advantage over the other bidders from having a more technical understanding of the proposed bridge. "

Point 73 "The detailed comments made by the assessors have been destroyed so it is impossible to come to a conclusion on this issue. Again the rules require the notes to be kept for seven years and this did not happen. "

and so on.

In summary: Point 81 "The contracts were funded by taxpayers. There is an overriding duty on all public servants and elected politicians to act with integrity in administering public money. The money they are using is not their money; it is the taxpayers’ money. The Mayor’s appointees in City Hall should have stood up to Boris Johnson’s determination to achieve the outcome he wanted. TfL’s commissioner and his staff should not have interpreted a clear and proper desire of the Mayor to build a Garden Bridge as a licence to contravene procedures. " there's one person driving this, the Mayor - he's responsible

And the usual (Point 16) "I deeply regret that Boris Johnson, the London Mayor ultimately responsible for all the decisions and actions taken on the Garden Bridge refused to co-operate with this review, either in person or in writing and despite several requests." No doubt he was too busy designing busses that are too long and can't be run as planned because of Health & Safety,


Obviously you won't read this, nor many others, and your bluster will have it's drear effect. Never mind - there are facts, people did do things.

 

[Paul Cannell]

Furthermore: Housing Promises:

Tory promises: Tories deliver 0 (none, zero) of starter homes promised in 2015 manifesto.

"In April 2015, the Conservative Party manifesto committed to “200,000 Starter Homes, which will be sold at a 20% discount and will be built exclusively for first-time buyers under the age of 40.".................... In July 2018, the Department clarified that it had spent £250 million buying land to build affordable properties from two funds, the Starter Homes Land Fund and the Land Assembly Fund, with work under way to get the land ready for development, but that building had not yet started."

If the commercial builders don`t build the developments, that have the built in quota of starter/affordable homes, then they won`t appear out of thin air. Ergo "has not started.........."..........yet.

From that very same report..................
"The ambition to deliver 300,000 net additional homes is supported by an extensive and complex array of policies (Figure 2 on pages 6 and 7), many of which pre-date this Parliament and have been carried over from previous housing programmes. The programme to create Starter Homes is one of these and was first publicised in 2014. "

3/10 must try harder.

Not so. Private Eye 1509 has an article on the 200,000 starter home smokescreen in it's Housing News section. It includes this statement:

"Legislation made it's way through parliament nonetheless, and £2.3bn was allocated for the first 60,000 starter homes in the 2015 spending review. But, behind the scenes, as a report by the National Audit Office revealed last week, new ministers had cooled on the idea. The funding and land were gradually diverted to other schemes, no starter homes were built, and (my bold) the regulations to be developed have stil not been laid."

Meaning the commercial builds couldn't start. Your groundless bluster fails again.

 

[Sarge]

Being a simple soul, I note there are a myriad of online sources since 2010 confirming the Tories' promises to build a s**t load of much-needed housing. There are also irrefutable statistics showing that the Tories have failed to achieve any of these promises.

Not a political observation, as favoured by agent provocateur GB, but reflections of actual facts. If the government would rather spend our money on something else, just tell us, don't pretend they care about solving the growing homelessness problem.

its in the interests of the upper echelons of the Tory party to ensure homelessness continues isnt it? , as one of the initiation rites of being a member of the notorious Bullingdon Club is, apparently, burning a £50 note in front of a homeless person? .... lets not forget exactly who are members of that 'exclusive' Oxford University society .....

 

[Essexyellows]

Well, if we look at the reports, the key finding of the report you reference (on the charity aspects of the Garden Bridge scam) are that "For policy makers who are trying to encourage philanthropic donations and support for infrastructure projects of this kind, consideration should be given to alternative ways of furthering charitable purposes that do not involve exposing charities to operational risk. Nor does handing public money to charities absolve funders from the responsibility to ensure that it is properly spent.". It's oddly silent on the position of a charity providing only 20% of
the funding of a charitable project while the rest comes without their approval from rate or tax-payers. It's scope is to draw general conclusions rather than to examine the Garden Bridge.

Margaret Hodges' report is about the Garden Bridge and contains:

Point 8 "The procurements subject to this review comprised one contract that was awarded to Heatherwick Studio for design and consulting services and one contract that was awarded to Arup for engineering and project management services. These were not open, fair or competitive procurements and my review revealed systemic failures and ineffective control systems at many levels. " - done by the Mayor's office
Point 7 "The project has already used £37.4 million of public money and the agreement to underwrite cancellation costs by the Government could bring the bill to the taxpayer up to £46.4 million......" The amount the public spent and a guarantee from the Mayor's office to his mates.

Chronology:
Point 25: "it was a condition of central Government’s £30 million share of the funding that a satisfactory business case was produced, demonstrating the project provided value for money. On 14 January 2014, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury confirmed in his 2013 autumn settlement letter to the Secretary of State for Transport that the government would fund £30 million for the Bridge. This was on the basis that: • the Mayor of London would match this funding from Transport for London (TfL) resources; • a satisfactory business case would be produced, demonstrating that the project provided value for money; • TfL would fund the Bridge’s ongoing maintenance; and • the Mayor would cover cost overruns or shortfalls in funding. "

Point 23 "The strategic outline business case was produced in May 2014. By this time the following had already been completed: • Heatherwick Studio had secured a contract from TfL for Bridge Design Consultancy services (point 64-69); • Arup had secured a contract from TfL (point 70 - 73) for engineering and project management services; 8 • the Mayor had issued a Mayoral Direction to TfL instructing them to undertake activities to develop and help enable a proposed footbridge; • The Mayor and the Chancellor had announced a £60 million package of public funding; and finally • The Garden Bridge Trust had been established. "

Point 64 "The commercial evaluation was based on day rates alone and the total estimated prices they were required to submit were ignored in the evaluation. Yet Heatherwick Studio’s figure of £173,000 was much higher than Marks Barfield’s bid of £15,125 and Wilkinson Eyre’s bid of £49,939."

Point 65 "Subsequently Heatherwick Studio decided to reduce its fee (via a reduction in 18 day rates) because of the Studio’s “ongoing support and hopes for the project.” This discussion between Richard de Cani and Heatherwick Studio contravened TfL standard procedures. "

Point 68 ". In the assessment to design and build the bridge, Heatherwick Studio was awarded more points for relevant design experience than either of the rival bidders, despite the fact that they have only ever built one bridge, whereas one of the other bidders had built over 25 bridges, even winning the Stirling Prize.

Ponit 70 "The second tender was issued under one of TfL’s procurement frameworks in April 2013. Thirteen companies tendered for the work and Arup was awarded the contract in July 2013. A new contract to continue the work was agreed with the Garden Bridge Trust (the Trust) in April 2015. By that point Arup had been paid £8,422,000 by TfL for their work. They earned further monies from their contract with the Trust. "

Point 71 "The procurement process was again not consistent with TfL procedures. There were two aspects of the procurement that caused me some concern and that in my view undermine the fairness and transparency of the process. Under the original assessment of the tenders Arup was placed seventh out of thirteen bidders because their costs were higher. Richard de Cani said it was fair that they should be invited for interview as they had the strongest technical bid. "

Point 72 "It is worth pointing out that Arup had an advantage in that they had been involved with Heatherwick Studio and Mace in developing design proposals for the Garden Bridge for some time. One would expect that their technical bid would therefore be stronger. As Ernst and Young observe in their report: “There is also a challenge as to the extent to which Arup had an advantage over the other bidders from having a more technical understanding of the proposed bridge. "

Point 73 "The detailed comments made by the assessors have been destroyed so it is impossible to come to a conclusion on this issue. Again the rules require the notes to be kept for seven years and this did not happen. "

and so on.

In summary: Point 81 "The contracts were funded by taxpayers. There is an overriding duty on all public servants and elected politicians to act with integrity in administering public money. The money they are using is not their money; it is the taxpayers’ money. The Mayor’s appointees in City Hall should have stood up to Boris Johnson’s determination to achieve the outcome he wanted. TfL’s commissioner and his staff should not have interpreted a clear and proper desire of the Mayor to build a Garden Bridge as a licence to contravene procedures. " there's one person driving this, the Mayor - he's responsible

And the usual (Point 16) "I deeply regret that Boris Johnson, the London Mayor ultimately responsible for all the decisions and actions taken on the Garden Bridge refused to co-operate with this review, either in person or in writing and despite several requests." No doubt he was too busy designing busses that are too long and can't be run as planned because of Health & Safety,


Obviously you won't read this, nor many others, and your bluster will have it's drear effect. Never mind - there are facts, people did do things.

Furthermore: Housing Promises:







Not so. Private Eye 1509 has an article on the 200,000 starter home smokescreen in it's Housing News section. It includes this statement:

"Legislation made it's way through parliament nonetheless, and £2.3bn was allocated for the first 60,000 starter homes in the 2015 spending review. But, behind the scenes, as a report by the National Audit Office revealed last week, new ministers had cooled on the idea. The funding and land were gradually diverted to other schemes, no starter homes were built, and (my bold) the regulations to be developed have stil not been laid."

Meaning the commercial builds couldn't start. Your groundless bluster fails again.

Opinions, which are all we can give, are what we have.
People make decisions that, many years down the line, can have unfavourable outcomes. Doesn`t make the original decision wrong though. ?

 

[Navegante]

I ask you a question and then you start the insults. With respect, you have alluded that I am scaremongering, so then you must have some knowledge to prove me wrong? I am not being unreasonable

We don't know what Labour will do, nor what pies will have their fingers deeply into it. Listening to McDonnell (Shadow Chancellor) over the past few years, it doesn't sound like they will be hands off, very much hands on. Do you have proof they will follow the Macron model? It maybe aligning back to Europe, but you avoid the question about how they are going to do it in the time frames they propose, with the money they propose and no clear view of the personnel side. And of course, the lawsuits that will likely be involved.

In all honesty, BT are a horror of a company, and as I have seen locally, now different firms are involved in putting Fibre down, the results are quite transformative. Thus, the Govt don't need to take it in house to get it done. What it needs is Govt money and willingness.... Can you provide a breakdown of where the figures of Spain lie - is it concentrated in Cities or majorly in the countryside?

Insults? It's a forum for football not Sunday school, snowflake!

I have no proof that any businesses taken into public ownership under a Jez the Red government would operate at arms-length i.e. an independent board appointed to run each business on behalf of the shareholders (UK Plc) like any other major business.

In the meantime, I would hypothesise that it would be highly unlikely that Labour would actively be in the day-to-running of each business. Firstly, their (alleged) expertise is governing the country, not planning train timetables. Secondly, evidence on the other side of the channel suggests that this is the most commonly adopted method. And in UK I am not aware of elected officials being actively involved in running with organizations such as TFL, Network Rail etc. Would be somewhat strange to go against the grain?

We need to wait for the manifesto to get the real detail on the business cases. In the case of the train franchises, these have a natural expiry date so all will eventually pass over to public hands. Other companies in scope are publicly listed so in theory would be purchased like any other buyout with future profits being used to pay off the original outlay. Not sure about your obsession with personnel - they would continue as usual?

The figure for Spain was nationwide.

 

[Paul Cannell]

Opinions, which are all we can give, are what we have.
People make decisions that, many years down the line, can have unfavourable outcomes. Doesn`t make the original decision wrong though. ?

Sweetie, the reports detail what happened and who acted in bad faith.