The act is hated in this country

 

We are unable to deport terrorists and hate preachers because of their 'right to a family life' and prisoners want the vote etc so until we get rid of the ridiculous abuse of the HRA by people then there is rightly strong public support to scrap it

 

I would be in favour of radical reform of it but if that doesn't happen then get rid of it

People (I have no idea what proportion as I've never seen a poll on the matter) hate the Daily Mail version of the Act. As that version bears almost no relation to the truth, it is hard to take those views seriously.

 

Perhaps you could explain which parts of the European Convention (signed, on behalf of the UK by Churchill) you disagree with. That is, you disagree with the principle, not a single isolated incident where you disagree with the outcome.

 

Just for the record, between 1999 and 2010, there were 12,000 challenges to the UK under the convention. Only 390 of those were considered sufficiently robust even to be considered in detail. Of those, a mere 215 resulted in the UK being found in breach of one or more Articles of the convention. If you exclude what were effectively duplicate judgements, that figure falls to 161. Even the higher figure represents just 1.8% of cases. In 2011 (the last year for which figures are currently available) the figure was even lower at 0.5%. Most other EU countries lose a higher proportion of cases. I suspect non-EU members probably lose an even higher proportion.

 

I asked you several weeks ago to provide a list of all the major European parties who wish to see their country withdraw from the Convention. You have had plenty of time so where is the list? If the list starts and ends with the British Tory party (hint - it does), perhaps you should start asking why that is.

I think the Human Rights Act is another thing which the media overestimate how much the average person cares, just like most things to do with "Europe". The reason immigration is such a big issue (and even immigration is not something people necessarily associate with "Europe" in the way it might be expected) is because people perceive immigration to directly affect them, in terms of taking jobs, taking houses or occasionally "ruining" their local communities (as they see it). Most other things to do with "Europe" that the politicians and media obsess with, like "our laws being made in Brussels", regulation, etc. - even if most people would probably say they disagreed with it if you specifically asked them about it, I don't think most people care that strongly about at all, purely because it doesn't affect people's lives directly in the way immigration is perceived to.

 

To go back to the point, I think if a Conservative minority government had engineered an election on the Human Rights Act, I think people would've been utterly bemused that another election was being forced on such an irrelevant issue, and I don't think it would've necessarily worked in their favour at all.

It's a temporary non-governmental crowd-pleaser. Of course it would make a minor difference for a year. It won't, however, do a thing about the massive debts of the government, or do a thing after it runs out (after the election of course). It's a gimmick. Might as well just say we'll tax the banks for a one-off year to compensate for the mess they made - oh hang on the government did that too and it didn't amount to much or reduce the deficit or improve the lives of anyone in need...!

 

If it's not a permanent promise to not make vast profits for what is an essential service then it's just tinkering around the problem edges - something Blair made an artform. I'd happily re-nationalise them, personally, it's been effectively a cartel (just like all big biz ends up) for some time. Does this not all sound a little odd? That me, a LibDem voter, is arguing for more left-wing policies than the Labour party have proposed for the last 20 years....? Sounds odd to me :huh:

 

Bedroom tax, I'm not in favour of, because all it's doing is making a bad situation worse, it's not actually helping anything much, but that's also a farty little attempt to reverse something that wont make much difference to anything except the few people affected by it. I think one spare room per household is reasonable. I would however consider that people in rented accommodation with three empty rooms need to be re-housed into a decent smaller property near where they already live. We need more council houses, scrapping Right To Buy. That's a proper Labour party policy. Where is it?

Non-governmental? What do you expect from a party that isn't in government?

 

That rather highlights the point. There are certain things (water, energy, trains, buses) that I'd like to see nationalised but sometimes the finances just don't add up, especially if they were undersold in the first place. Hence the need for feasibility studies, which are more difficult to do when not in government. Hence why it might not be the best idea for parties with a serious chance of actually introducing major policy to make announcements on such things without knowing the full consequences.

Non-governmental? What do you expect from a party that isn't in government?

 

That rather highlights the point. There are certain things (water, energy, trains, buses) that I'd like to see nationalised but sometimes the finances just don't add up, especially if they were undersold in the first place. Hence the need for feasibility studies, which are more difficult to do when not in government. Hence why it might not be the best idea for parties with a serious chance of actually introducing major policy to make announcements on such things without knowing the full consequences.

 

I meant non-governemntal in the sense that it costs the government only slightly lost tax revenues and therefore has no bearing on anything they do (for better or worse), it's the private sector that it will affect.

 

feasibility studies are another Labour party and Tory party delaying tactic - to test the political fall-out without committing to anything. Local government is just the same. We can't afford to mess around with vested interests to sort out the mess - consequences of re-nationalizing, off the top of my head, not an expert in any way whatsoever~:

 

cost of paying off shareholders and any management that are no longer required, presumably any existing contracts with 3rd parties are honoured and don't affect cost. Maybe there's some EU legislation I'm not aware of that would stop nations having a nationalised electric/gas service, maybe not, I'd have to leave that to legal experts to comment on...

 

errr that's about it really.

 

Local government staff get privatised and renationalised all the time, it's not complicated (though it's very frustrating for the staff involved). TUPE rules, name changes, and usually on merging job losses to justify efficiency savings. Government employees can then invest any profits back into the infrastructure (rather than each company being in a state of denial it's their problem) and make sure prices reflect the cost (not the profits).

 

There you go, just saved Labour millions in paying private companies to justify their political desires or at least raised a few flags to check out first and see if it's a go-er.....

 

It's nothing to do with cost, everything to do with politics.

 

 

I meant non-governemntal in the sense that it costs the government only slightly lost tax revenues and therefore has no bearing on anything they do (for better or worse), it's the private sector that it will affect.

 

feasibility studies are another Labour party and Tory party delaying tactic - to test the political fall-out without committing to anything. Local government is just the same. We can't afford to mess around with vested interests to sort out the mess - consequences of re-nationalizing, off the top of my head, not an expert in any way whatsoever~:

 

cost of paying off shareholders and any management that are no longer required, presumably any existing contracts with 3rd parties are honoured and don't affect cost. Maybe there's some EU legislation I'm not aware of that would stop nations having a nationalised electric/gas service, maybe not, I'd have to leave that to legal experts to comment on...

 

errr that's about it really.

 

Local government staff get privatised and renationalised all the time, it's not complicated (though it's very frustrating for the staff involved). TUPE rules, name changes, and usually on merging job losses to justify efficiency savings. Government employees can then invest any profits back into the infrastructure (rather than each company being in a state of denial it's their problem) and make sure prices reflect the cost (not the profits).

 

There you go, just saved Labour millions in paying private companies to justify their political desires or at least raised a few flags to check out first and see if it's a go-er.....

 

It's nothing to do with cost, everything to do with politics.

Of course it affects the private sector, that's the bloody point.

 

I'm making an educated guess here but I'm guessing that renationalising a few local government staff isn't quite the same as all the infrastructure needed to fully renationalise a utility or transport system.

 

How can you assume cost isn't a factor? You seem to be obsessed with getting national debt down but don't mind throwing god knows how much at renationalising things that were deliberately undersold in order to make it more difficult?

 

I'll spell it out.

 

I want these things to be nationalised - partly because it's the right thing to do, partly because in the long run it'll save an awful lot of money. But I completely sympathise with the party leadership for being cautious over it - anyone remember "underpromise, overdeliver"?

You forget that several power, water and rail companies are already renationalised. Mostly by the French and Germans.

You forget that several power, water and rail companies are already renationalised. Mostly by the French and Germans.

I didn't forget that at all. Presumably the contracts will work in a similar way to those which are genuinely private companies.

Of course it affects the private sector, that's the bloody point.

 

I'm making an educated guess here but I'm guessing that renationalising a few local government staff isn't quite the same as all the infrastructure needed to fully renationalise a utility or transport system.

 

How can you assume cost isn't a factor? You seem to be obsessed with getting national debt down but don't mind throwing god knows how much at renationalising things that were deliberately undersold in order to make it more difficult?

 

I'll spell it out.

 

I want these things to be nationalised - partly because it's the right thing to do, partly because in the long run it'll save an awful lot of money. But I completely sympathise with the party leadership for being cautious over it - anyone remember "underpromise, overdeliver"?

 

Yes, we're both making the same point. Except I'm saying it's a cop-out. Why not force tesco to reduce prices for a year (as opposed to having real policies)? Because it isn't a solution or sustainable in any way!

 

Renationalising large numbers of local gov staff (not just a few) is just the same, scale is irrelevant, business carries on as usual, any major changes happen over a long period of time after the switch. There's nothing to change except the name on the bill, the pipelines, staff, meters will all still be there and still be used. I can see IT systems as the main challenge, they almost always are the main problem as I doubt they are all on the same system. Rule of thumb for IT quotes: triple the cost estimates and triple the time it's estimated to take....

 

Glad you support the renationalisation, and I agree caution is called for, but it's not an insurmountable problem (thanks to Suedehead2 for the examples of where it's been done). Hey, maybe there's hope B-)

 

 

Yes, we're both making the same point. Except I'm saying it's a cop-out. Why not force tesco to reduce prices for a year (as opposed to having real policies)? Because it isn't a solution or sustainable in any way!

 

Renationalising large numbers of local gov staff (not just a few) is just the same, scale is irrelevant, business carries on as usual, any major changes happen over a long period of time after the switch. There's nothing to change except the name on the bill, the pipelines, staff, meters will all still be there and still be used. I can see IT systems as the main challenge, they almost always are the main problem as I doubt they are all on the same system. Rule of thumb for IT quotes: triple the cost estimates and triple the time it's estimated to take....

 

Glad you support the renationalisation, and I agree caution is called for, but it's not an insurmountable problem (thanks to Suedehead2 for the examples of where it's been done). Hey, maybe there's hope B-)

In what way does a state-owned French company winning a contract in this country constitute a genuine example of renationalisation?

 

And as I said before, given your demand for economic credibility you seem awfully laid back on the financial consequences.

In what way does a state-owned French company winning a contract in this country constitute a genuine example of renationalisation?

 

And as I said before, given your demand for economic credibility you seem awfully laid back on the financial consequences.

 

I'll let suedehead2 reply on french and german renationalisation, I assume he meant in their own country, not the UK, at least that's how I read it.

 

I'm not laid back on economic credibility at all. Certainly not as laid back as the Labour Party have been for 20 years. Boom!

 

I gave examples of where I think the main costs of it are likely to be. Up to the "experts" to cost it up and explain why it's not a good idea (when of course we managed perfectly well with nationalised industries till Thatcherism made profit King) if some people (ie me) are saying it is a good thing to consider as part of a wider package of good programmes such as Council House building. Explain to me how Labour's continued support for selling off Council Housing at half price is in any way of any use to anyone except in keeping the banks afloat, private landlords rich, and to individuals who get something for nothing at the cost of the tax payer and decade-long waits for housing.

 

I thought Clegg gave up some good points on Marr today. Look forward to Miliband doing the same.

I'll let suedehead2 reply on french and german renationalisation, I assume he meant in their own country, not the UK, at least that's how I read it.

 

I'm not laid back on economic credibility at all. Certainly not as laid back as the Labour Party have been for 20 years. Boom!

 

I gave examples of where I think the main costs of it are likely to be. Up to the "experts" to cost it up and explain why it's not a good idea (when of course we managed perfectly well with nationalised industries till Thatcherism made profit King) if some people (ie me) are saying it is a good thing to consider as part of a wider package of good programmes such as Council House building. Explain to me how Labour's continued support for selling off Council Housing at half price is in any way of any use to anyone except in keeping the banks afloat, private landlords rich, and to individuals who get something for nothing at the cost of the tax payer and decade-long waits for housing.

 

I thought Clegg gave up some good points on Marr today. Look forward to Miliband doing the same.

What do you mean we "managed fine with nationalised industries"? Of course we did, they'd already been nationalised! Your Right To Buy reference is actually unknowingly apt - renationalisation is the equivalent of having to buy those ex-council houses back at market price after they'd been undersold. I don't know how many times I need to reiterate this because you keep completely missing the point - I want these things nationalised, but I understand completely why we're not effectively promising the current owners a blank cheque before we're even in office.

 

And I agree that we need more housing, it's one area that I think we're being overly cautious currently. Saying that, giving councils the ability to seize land that developers have sat on for too long is a (minor) masterstroke and to me it sounds like we're gearing up to announce what councils will be doing with the land (ie. building houses).

I'll let suedehead2 reply on french and german renationalisation, I assume he meant in their own country, not the UK, at least that's how I read it.

No, I was referring to the fact that several of the privatised utility companies etc. are now owned by French and German state-owned companies.

No, I was referring to the fact that several of the privatised utility companies etc. are now owned by French and German state-owned companies.

 

Interesting. so the french and german government are making cash out of the British consumer. They obviously recognise a good deal when they see one (I assume they aren't doing it out of charity). Pity the UK governments don't hold/haven't held the same view.....

 

 

 

Interesting. so the french and german government are making cash out of the British consumer. They obviously recognise a good deal when they see one (I assume they aren't doing it out of charity). Pity the UK governments don't hold/haven't held the same view.....

Oh, it's worse than that. They can raise prices for UK consumers in order to keep prices down in their home market.

What do you mean we "managed fine with nationalised industries"? Of course we did, they'd already been nationalised! Your Right To Buy reference is actually unknowingly apt - renationalisation is the equivalent of having to buy those ex-council houses back at market price after they'd been undersold. I don't know how many times I need to reiterate this because you keep completely missing the point - I want these things nationalised, but I understand completely why we're not effectively promising the current owners a blank cheque before we're even in office.

 

And I agree that we need more housing, it's one area that I think we're being overly cautious currently. Saying that, giving councils the ability to seize land that developers have sat on for too long is a (minor) masterstroke and to me it sounds like we're gearing up to announce what councils will be doing with the land (ie. building houses).

 

No I understood the point, thanks. I managed to grasp what you were saying. Pretty sure the words "experts" "cost it up" and "explain" were in there somewhere.

 

Council housing isn't quite a case of buying them back (though that is admittedly currently happening in councils right now while the government is busy simultaneously selling 'em off cheap) it's a case of creating hundreds or thousands of jobs building new ones. Like the non-council garden-city plans the Tories are sitting on to the annoyance of the Libdems, would also create jobs.

No I understood the point, thanks. I managed to grasp what you were saying. Pretty sure the words "experts" "cost it up" and "explain" were in there somewhere.

 

Council housing isn't quite a case of buying them back (though that is admittedly currently happening in councils right now while the government is busy simultaneously selling 'em off cheap) it's a case of creating hundreds or thousands of jobs building new ones. Like the non-council garden-city plans the Tories are sitting on to the annoyance of the Libdems, would also create jobs.

I know it's a case of building new ones, hence why I advocated it. It was just an analogy.

which really did Cleggmania in after the 'Clegg = Brown' scaremongering in the last few weeks of the campaign.

 

 

Yeah, and the Labour vote generally fell in 2010 more in the south than other places. The other significant left-wing party were always likely to be a strong receptacle for those gains after a three-term government which a lot of people were tired with - former Labour voters were always going to be more likely to give the Lib Dems a chance or be willing to tactically vote for them in 2010. The point is that the Lib Dems were likely to have done even better in the south had Cleggmania carried on as those votes dissipated towards the Tories - more of the losses the Lib Dems sustained in the polls in the last two weeks of the campaign corresponded with a rise in Conservative fortunes. Labour pretty much always hovered between the 27-31 mark during the campaign. The Conservatives spent most of it during Cleggmania in the low thirties, the Lib Dems spent most of Cleggmania in the high twenties/low thirties. Given the Tories ended up on 36% and the Lib Dems on 23%...

 

Not to be too petty (emphasis on the "too" :P ), but just to revisit this, interesting chart on Political Betting shows the Lib Dem vote actually fell slightly more in 2010 on average in Labour/LibDem marginals than it did in Tory/LibDem marginals. So I just don't see how that could be squared with saying "vote Clegg, get Brown" is what did for Clegg in the slightest.

 

http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php...-past-the-post/

Edited January 13, 201411 yr by Danny

That chart doesn't really prove your point, as it's comparing 2010 with 2005 - after all, in the end they didn't make much headway in terms of raw vote gains, so the final result was more of a reversion to the mean.

 

A chart that would prove your point would be one comparing the swing on election day to various parties from the Lib Dems compared with the height of Cleggmania, as my point is that the swing from Conservatives to the Liberal Democrats would have been far higher were it not for the constant 'vote Clegg, get Brown' messaging in the last two weeks, and that many of those voters who were saying they were Lib Dem after the debates (having been unsure Conservatives since around 2008, and most likely reluctant Labour in 2005) went back to the Conservatives come election day - hence, the swing of those people would most likely be reflected in the swing from Labour to the Conservatives.

 

Not that that chart proves my point either there, as I'm only speculating that the kind of voter who was seduced by Cleggmania was probably a reluctant Labour voter in 2005 looking for a party from late 2007 onwards who never really felt especially confident in Cameron but who didn't want another term of Brown.

That chart doesn't really prove your point, as it's comparing 2010 with 2005 - after all, in the end they didn't make much headway in terms of raw vote gains, so the final result was more of a reversion to the mean.

 

Maybe I'm just being slow, but I can't understand how it being a comparison between 2005 and 2010 makes it invalid? It clearly shows that they lost more ground in fights against Labour than against the Conservatives. How could it be that one of the reasons the Lib Dems collapsed was because of a fear of Gordon Brown staying Prime Minister, if the Lib Dems managed to hang onto more of their voters in places where the Conservatives were the main opposition and where people who wanted to get rid of Brown had a very easy, ready-made option to make that more likely?

Edited January 14, 201411 yr by Danny

Surely the figures in Lab-Lib marginals are a little anomalous given there was a big swing to the Lib Dems in 2005 as a result of Iraq, and those marginals are the ones where people wouldn't have to hold their nose and stick with Labour to keep out a Tory. There would have been a natural swingback in 2010.