Selling the Land Registry

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Chat' started by Mesmerist, Mar 27, 2016.

  1. Mesmerist

    Mesmerist Well-Known Member

    mikelyons likes this.
  2. MoominDave

    MoominDave Well-Known Member

    Just another corrupt manoeuvre to divert publicly raised funds into the pockets of mates of our democratically elected leadership.
  3. Mesmerist

    Mesmerist Well-Known Member

    Summed up beautifully as always Dave. I was hoping you would reply.
  4. MoominDave

    MoominDave Well-Known Member

    All this social vandalism is going to have to be undone by some future government. I really despair at the attitudes driving it.

    I guess if a party is set up to represent the interests of the rich, then maybe we shouldn't be surprised when it continually goes out of its way to do things that mess things up for the rest of us. It seems to me that more and more people are cottoning on (too late, alas) to what a shower of self-interested awfulness we've managed to arrange to be governed by for at least the next 4 years.
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2016
    fartycat and mikelyons like this.
  5. mikelyons

    mikelyons Supporting Member

    Unfortunately, there are still far too many people who think this asset stripping of the public sector is a good thing, or who don't care what happens because they don't think it affects them - the "I'm alright Jack" syndrome.
    Euphonium Lite and fartycat like this.
  6. fartycat

    fartycat Member

    Copy and pasted from a mate's facebook but it sums up the short-termism smash and grab attitude of this privatisation (and most others)

    The Land Registry currently delivers £100m/y into the UK Treasury. This deal is expected to raise £1.2Bn. In other words, 12 years' net revenue. Who the hell makes land and property deals on a 12 year turnaround? Worse, this one-off payment will be used to massage the deficit figures to make it easier to reach Georgie's self imposed fiscal lock. Which at best shows that he doesn't understand a balance sheet. At worst, is highly creative accounting.
    Mesmerist, MoominDave and mikelyons like this.
  7. 2nd tenor

    2nd tenor Active Member

    The assist stripping is typical of the way governments over recent decades have run the Country, they choose to do it to pay for goods and services who's cost is not covered by other monies into the Treasurey.

    At some point we, both as individuals and as a country, need to wake up and accept that we need to pay more in tax and we need to be less willing to burden the Treasurey with extra bills. Simple really, but suggesting that we can't do many socially desirable things without putting our hands into our own pocket is not likely to win votes. Pity 'cause that's the only way forward for the long term, if you want any product then you have to pay the price for it.
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2016
  8. Ianroberts

    Ianroberts Well-Known Member

    I bet Kapitol end up getting it for bugga all and then The Empire will be complete !
    Euphonium Lite likes this.
  9. Ianroberts

    Ianroberts Well-Known Member

    Emperor Morris and Darth Bland will rule the Galaxy.
  10. MoominDave

    MoominDave Well-Known Member

    Hi 2T, long time no chat. I think we're basically deploring the same stuff here...

    I think there's more to this privatisation racket though than the short-term asset stripping aspect, noxious though that is. What happens with each privatisation is that in return for a one-off revenue injection the government become committed to spending similar sums of money to those that they were already spending - with the difference that whereas previously they were employing in-house expertise directly, afterwards they must hire in private companies to do so. And who is well-placed to be setting up private companies to compete in a field in which private enterprise has not hitherto in this country had a place? Those that have been tipped off about what is about to be legislated, of course. And who are those? Why, those that know the governing personalities well, for example through family ties.

    The dirty process as it was back when our government seemed to feel an obligation to try to disguise their motives from us ran:
    1) Identify public utility, built and sustained with public money.
    2) Reduce the money flow to said utility until public start to complain about the state of it.
    3) Use public dissatisfaction to justify selling it off, obtaining a one-time payment of usually quite a lot less than its estimated worth (cf. Royal Mail).
    4) Then use the new process to inject a new parasitic layer of corporate management, headed by chums of the government, which reduces wages to the workers ("market forces, our hands are tied") while charging ever-increasing amounts to the government, thus creating a hefty amount of financial buffer between the twin squeezes on the workers and the government (which of course is paid for by the workers) for the parasitic layer to enrich themselves on.

    But now with this Land Registry sell off, something new arises. Apparently now they don't consider it necessary to go through the tedious step of pretending to us that something is a problem before being sold off. At least their true colours are revealed, I suppose - a triumph of sorts when the actual Prime Minister is genuinely a repurposed PR executive.

    To come to your other point, I'm totally in agreement that we need to pay more tax. It is not an accident that other nearby countries that have better functioning services pay quite a lot more tax. While governments remain more focussed on obtaining power for themselves than doing what is perceived to be 'right', this won't be fixed though (sadly). Mind you, I'm not happy to pay more tax to fund the ever-increasing cost of funding payments to the ever-expanding raft of private companies living off the public purse. It isn't rocket science to see that if it costs a certain amount to fund a work, then funding that work plus also a corporate layer that demands a profit will cost more. Our taxes are not being spent wisely while they are being used to fund the lavish lifestyles of the upper management of the new companies tendering for public service contracts.

    Remember how vile this stuff looks right now, far away from the crunch point of the election cycle. In 2019, they are banking that these things will be long forgotten as they once more set out to charm us.
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2016
  11. Euphonium Lite

    Euphonium Lite Active Member

    True Moomin, but they have such a small majority I think they're trying to get the unpleasant stuff through in the first 2 years - because they need plenty of time for people to forget it. Expect more stories about immigration and benefits as well so that they can slide really important stuff under the radar.

    All one can really hope for is a series of byelections in the next 12 months.....may just stop them if their majority becomes even thinner, although they will be helped a bit further by the Northern Irish political situation.....
    MoominDave likes this.
  12. Mesmerist

    Mesmerist Well-Known Member

    In "True Blue Areas" like mine it makes no difference what this Government do to change how the majority will vote. If Cameron was filmed punching the Queen that might be the only thing to bring a change.
  13. 2nd tenor

    2nd tenor Active Member

    There is every chance that the Tories will loose the next election, all it needs is a credible opposition who listen to the electorate rather than tell people what to think. New Labour may have had its faults but it was in power for a long time before it eventually lost the plot. I believe that we would have a Labour Goverment now if the Labour Party had embraced the Lib Dems in 2010 and had been more self critical of its several roles in the Financial Crash.

    Be angry about Privatisation and Sell Offs but be angrier still about the situation of the Labour Party and how its current leadership got there. I understand that, due to the current leadership, many members of the PLP are in despair about the Party's prospects in 2020, unless people want another five years of Tory rule they need to engage brain and look at what voters (eg. 'Worcester Man and Woman') will support. As a Tory MEP recently said on the Andrew Marr show it is a disgrace that we do not have an effective opposition in Parliament to hold Government to account, I think his comments will chime with a lot of people.

    On seperate notes does anyone remember the Co-operative Insurance Society and the Co-operative Bank? What wonderful and massive organisations they were, but where are they now? The way I recall and understand events (one man's perspective rather than a statement of fact) is that their fall had a lot to do with shambolic management. I use our local Co-op store and can only confirm Which's findings, not a very good store/organisation from a user's standpoint. Such displays of competence (by a Labour rooted group) do little to encourage the voting public to put fiscal confidence in the Labour movement.
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2016
    Euphonium Lite likes this.
  14. MoominDave

    MoominDave Well-Known Member

    Oxford East is a little red island in a blue sea on the parliamentary map, and Wantage, where I grew up, lies deep in that sea; I feel your pain in watching the inevitable unfold each time round.

    I also see the shambles that the Labour party are in and wish they were providing much more substantive opposition while all these corrupt iniquities are being hurried through. I depart from you on your thinking that Corbyn is the problem though. He is certainly being treated as the problem by his MPs, and the media. Much of the media's reaction to Corbyn - that's a whole societal disgrace in itself... After they showed their true Murdoch-emblazoned colours straight after his election by attempting to desperately smear him non-stop for months, often on the most frivolous grounds, they evidently decided that as they hadn't managed to knock him off his perch, they'd move to siege warfare, and (to mix metaphors) starve him of the oxygen of publicity by writing about him as little as they possibly could. When he is mentioned now in organs such as the Barclay brothers' Telegraph, Murdoch's Sun or Times, Rothermere's Mail, it is only when they think they see a clear opportunity to make him look stupid and dangerous. As smear campaigns held in the public gaze go, it has been remarkable in its viciousness and consistency. Corbyn has manifestly not been given a fair go, by either those that are supposed to support him or those that we erroneously depend on to report on facts even-handedly. Even the Independent and the historically staunchly Left Guardian have not been anywhere near on his side.

    In my view, there is no reason why a properly-supported Corbyn could not take the election in 2020 - he is articulate, he opposes the stuff we are angry about here passionately enough to have devoted his career to the effort, he stands for a lot of ideas that many of the ever-growing number of younger people trapped without as good prospects as their parents had instinctively value, and he debates maturely, meeting opposing views in the pragmatic compromise natural to adult politics that is so alien to the current, recent, and not-so-recent holders of the Conservative party mantle. But he is not properly supported by his MPs, and so he will struggle, particularly if wavering Tory support goes for the charm offensive that will come in 2019. It is to his disruptive MPs that I direct my anger - by their own process they have elected a man that frightens them in challenging the established political narrative of the last 37 years, and rather than stand by that choice they back off, undermining him from within. The problem with the Labour party is a deep one - the members want Corbyn's attitudes, but the parliamentary party don't. To be frank, I think the parliamentary party are behaving in a contemptible manner on the subject - it is their duty to represent the views of those that elected them, after all. One can make an argument about the need to pragmatically seek power at all ideological costs, but they aren't doing that either - just hemming and hawing around the edges in a way that slowly bleeds support away.
    It's of course a more complex problem than a simple members-vs-party narrative, badly though that is playing out at the moment. The surge of the SNP in Scotland came largely at Labour's expense, with Labour's traditional support there finally losing patience with the New Labour years in seeing an opportunity to rid themselves of the Conservative party's policies for good. That's a whole other quagmire - the problem for all the rest of us came with the combination of that move and the unreasonable desire to punish the coalition Lib Dems for Conservative policies ending up rewarding Cameron with the bizarre majority that he has and looking likely to tilt the balance of the Commons in a blue direction for several election cycles to come.

    But perhaps in the final analysis it doesn't make a difference if we disagree on who is culpable for the mess of the current Labour party in the Commons. Whether or not it's Corbyn or his MPs that are the problem, a problem exists, one that needs to be sorted out. Perhaps Labour can take the 2020 election even as it is - but the Tories will take much care to avoid looking this bad as we approach the election, and I wouldn't stake my house on it. I suspect there will be another change of leadership before then on pragmatic grounds, but having seen the results of Labour's last leadership election I wonder if they will elect someone notably different from Corbyn - I suppose they could simply as a group of MPs not nominate anyone that recognisably Laboury, restricting the choice. But there is a grass-roots appetite for an old-fashioned left-wing input to our high-level politics that has been missing since Thatcher's time shifted the playing field several miles to the right, and pretending that that doesn't exist is not going to end happily for the Labour party, which seems quite detached from its roots right now. As Margaret Thatcher once said, Tony Blair was her greatest political creation - the opposition leader that recognised that the rules had changed and moved the Left to the Centre to keep the Conservatives within sight (unnecessarily, in my view, but that's another story). The time now feels ripe for another paradigm shift, as the pendulum swings back, but the stage seems awash with chaos. Perhaps's Corbyn's 2020 can be Thatcher's 1979 - after all, the "neoliberal consensus" has now lasted as long as the "post-war consensus" and for many, these are again economically hard but not entirely ruinous times, as the 1970s. These are, if nothing else, interesting times.

    So, I suppose the question was... Should we be angrier about the people committing the crime or with the people who are supposed to try to stop them committing it and don't? Both deserve ire, but ultimately the former are more obviously culpable. The policeman that looks the other way is enabling the menace, but isn't the root cause of the problem. But then maybe the criminal has been conditioned by their upbringing not to realise that the normal rules of good behaviour apply to them - it is the policeman that we can hope to have leverage over.
    So we end up here - raging at the deceitfully self-interested things the Tory party does (reduced to "bless them, they know not what they do" when they most certainly do know exactly what they are doing) and also raging at the failure of the Labour party to be at all effective in blocking them.
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2016
    mikelyons likes this.
  15. 2nd tenor

    2nd tenor Active Member

    The usual top class response Dave. Whilst we don't always agree on everything I do feel that you are just the sort of person who would be an asset to any Parliament or other public elected body - something you might consider? I do agree that the press uses its power inappropriately at times and I would (also) like to see that changed for the better.

    JC might have been elected but by who? IMHO the leadership contest was a shambles the result of which was decided by a small number of activists who don't represent the wishes of people who might visit the poling station, to me that seems not to be a formula for success. JC says a lot of interesting things but if the Labour Party really wants to govern in 2020 then, to sufficiently widen its appeal, it will need to have another leadership election with a changed electoral college.

    Sorry, to the OP, if my additions to this thread have detracted or taken it off course.
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2016
  16. MoominDave

    MoominDave Well-Known Member

    I hope Mezzy doesn't mind. It's all inter-related, and it's nice to have a decently contentious topic to get one's teeth into here for a change. Mind you, none of us posting or liking so far seem to disagree on very much related to the topic...

    I don't remember the last Labour leadership contest being that kind of affair. I saw a lot of genuinely-felt support for Corbyn coalescing quite spontaneously. In real life, I spend quite a bit of time in arenas where right-wing ideas don't tend to gain winning purchase - among scientists, among amateur orchestral musicians, among brass band musicians. Places where one tends to come across people receptive to traditionally left-wing ideas, covering a spectrum of societal flavours within that. In these places, Corbyn seemed to many to appear as a breath of fresh air, something new in the guise of something old, worth encouraging. Some became so spontaneously enthusiastic that they started going along to his events - did they become "activists" at that point, their opinion to be discounted as skewed?

    The actual numbers perhaps tell a story: Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2015 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Corbyn drew a quarter of a million votes against Burnham's 80 thousand. I doubt that a small number of activists were the cause of that. When I saw the result, I personally felt glad that a balancing voice had been restored to the upper levels of our politics - that there was official recognition that things had gone too far in the direction we've been travelling in for my whole life. I didn't vote - I'm not a member of the Labour party - but it wouldn't have been the most unnatural thing in the world if I had become one in order to have that say - I do tend to feel that their traditional message points most clearly the direction that we should take from this particular point, in contrast to other options. They are not the only party I could in good conscience cast a vote for - the Lib Dems I also feel political kinship for. I sympathise with the Greens too, but their stance on nuclear power I find naive and in contradiction to my professional existence - and in general don't find their approach practical enough. Anyway - I don't think I was at all influenced by activists (I tend to filter them out in all matters - just advertising), but Corbyn would have been my choice, an unexpectedly philosophically inspiring option placed on a sheet of the usual grey tones. Just one anecdotal data point among the statistics, but I don't think I was alone in my thinking.

    Btw, I am much less articulate when I am talking than when I'm typing... I'd be dreadfully ineffective in a bearpit like the House of Commons!
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2016
    mikelyons likes this.
  17. Mesmerist

    Mesmerist Well-Known Member

    I've also suggested previously that Dave Taylor is a huge asset to whichever cause he aligns himself with. He gets my vote anytime.

    This thread has become stimulating and educational thanks to the intelligent posters like yourself 2nd Tenor (and Moomin of course!) so why would anyone object if it veers slightly?

    I like Jeremy Corbyn and have been horrified and shocked by the undermining tactics he has suffered. I'm not a Labour voter (Lib Dem or Green) but the sheer unfairness has made it likely I'll vote his way next time.

    Moomin, I would be interested to hear your views on the nuclear power stance taken by the Green Party please? I find it concerning but it is more an emotive reaction than a scientific knowledge.
    mikelyons likes this.
  18. MoominDave

    MoominDave Well-Known Member

    I'm just about to run off to start a shift helping to operate the largest Nuclear Fusion research device in the world... That might shed a light - if not, chat later - will be busy during the shift.
    Slider1 likes this.
  19. 2nd tenor

    2nd tenor Active Member

    There seems to be a lot of common ground shared above and I too lean towards supporting the Lib Dems and feel that they got harshly treated, crushed by polarised politics when a middle way would collectively serve us better. It was interesting to see that the Conservatives and Labour parties worked together to ensure that the Proportional Representation vote did not go the Liberal way. I feel that we, as a Nation, are not well served by the current electoral system and that some form of Proportional Representation with resulting governce by broad concensus would be best. To my view Germany provides a good model of how successful a country can become when all the people are involved, I like the Swiss idea of referendums too - politicians regularly go beyond and exploite the mandate gained at the ballot box.

    As I understand it the Greens are opposed to Nuclear Power due to the associated pollution. Historical pollution from NP is a problem but new plants create a small fraction of the waste associated with the past and have but a tiny carbon footprint, if the type of reactor and its size (multiple small ones please) is chosen with care then in practice the pollution and safety issues are tiny (to the point were I'd be happy enough to live near one). IMHO green house type gas pollution from fossil fuel type plants is much more of a worry, renewables and nuclear need to move forward together.

    Dave's comment on the 'Bear Pit' is sad but true. Westminster seems to be a place where only the loud mouthed and arrogant can survive and so we loose just the type of well informed and open to debate people that we need in Parliament.

    Did 250,00 votes get caste for JC and does that mean that the same number of people voted for him? Were those votes from members of the the Labour Party or other Parties? I think that the whole process just lacked credibility. Incidentally some Labour MP's might have proposed JC as a Candidate for the Leadership but most of them regret doing so, only did it to enliven debate and didn't vote for him in the contest - JC's election was an unintended consequence.

    Not sure where that leaves the Land Registery debate beyond my belief that the tax cuts and increased personal allowances handed out in the last budget would have been better saved and the monies used to cut the defacite and support public services. I'm not a Labour Party member but just someone who just recognises that to fund the society that we want it is necessary for each of us to pay-up.
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2016
    Euphonium Lite and Slider1 like this.
  20. Euphonium Lite

    Euphonium Lite Active Member

    First thing to mention is that my view will be very subjective - I actually stood as a Prospective Parliamentary Candidate (PPC) for the LibDems in the last General Election. My part of the world (Norfolk) is also very blue (although we have a LibDem Island in the North and a Labour Island in Norwich).
    Whilst the coalition didn't totally sit comfortably with my political views (as a child during Thatcher's time, I vowed I would never EVER vote Tory) I think its now dawning on the rest of the country what the Lib Dems actually did in putting a brake on a lot of Tory policy. The country unfortunately decided to give us a kicking last time round - more I think because people couldn't believe we'd sided with the Tories than because of the convenient excuse of University fees. However hindsight is a wonderful thing and from a personal perspective a sole Tory government is probably the one outcome that will help us recover lost ground as people start to see the bigger picture. Indeed we've started to see gains in local by elections.
    Personally I don't think the current Parliament will last the statutory term - whilst Dave and his chums can't go to the country early to try and increase his majority (thanks again to the Lib Dems) I think the inevitable round of byelections will see the Tories relying on the Irish vote (and Sinn Fein abstentions) well before the 5 years are up.

    We do need a strong opposition - however I do feel concern that more dissent seems to come from the SNP than from Labour on a lot of issues. Unfortunately our collective voice in Parliament is very small at the moment which doesn't help. Whether Corbyn is the man to overcome the Tories, I have my doubts although my "pure Labour" mates support him totally. Personally I think the party has probably overcompensated for the Blair/Brown years, which it was never totally comfortable with and probably needs to realign itself still further to be a truly credible be truly effective a Labour leader needs to win the confidence of LibDem, SNP and Green supporters, and I don't think Corbyn has that, at least at the moment
    Leveridge96 and MoominDave like this.

Share This Page