dennis@home wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote

Actually there are, but thats beside the point

And no one said they were registering for a laugh.
Destroying Labour is a solemn duty for anyone who
understands theh damage that sort of ideology does.

I nearly registered my self a few times.

TNP is not content with destroying the UK

He has done nothing of the sort.

and the EU

No turnip can ever do anything like that.

he wants to destroy everything before he pops his clogs.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

He used to be red robbo.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Yep, Massive increase in membership and funds and soon to be an
overwhelming vote of confidence in the leader. Clearly a party in it's
death throes.


It would be if the people who joined were not there to destroy the party.

They aren't labour voters. All over what you would call 'the Right'
people are coughing up £25 to make sure Corbyn stays, because that will
destroy Labour.

You could always attend a meeting where Corbyn is speaking and judge the
caliber of his supporters there. You might learn something for once.

Corbyn appeals to grass roots Labour supporters in rather the same way as
St Nige appealed to grass roots Tories.

--
*Many hamsters only blink one eye at a time *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
And know that Corbyn is just another dinosaur
who wants to renationalise everything again.

Then you know wrong. Again.

--
*The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote

Yep, Massive increase in membership and funds and
soon to be an overwhelming vote of confidence in
the leader. Clearly a party in it's death throes.

It would be if the people who joined were not there to destroy the party.

They aren't labour voters. All over what you would call 'the Right'
people are coughing up £25 to make sure Corbyn stays, because
that will destroy Labour.

You could always attend a meeting where Corbyn is speaking and judge
the caliber of his supporters there. You might learn something for once.

Corbyn appeals to grass roots Labour supporters

Whatever the hell that is. And it isnt enough people
to have a hope in hell of ever seeing a Labour govt.

in rather the same way as St Nige appealed to grass roots Tories.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote:

And know that Corbyn is just another dinosaur
who wants to renationalise everything again.

Then you know wrong.

Have fun listing what he doesn’t want to renationalise.

On 22/07/2016 11:21, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Yep, Massive increase in membership and funds and soon to be an
overwhelming vote of confidence in the leader. Clearly a party in it's
death throes.


It would be if the people who joined were not there to destroy the party.

They aren't labour voters. All over what you would call 'the Right'
people are coughing up £25 to make sure Corbyn stays, because that will
destroy Labour.

You could always attend a meeting where Corbyn is speaking and judge the
caliber of his supporters there. You might learn something for once.

The question is then, how many grass roots labour people are there left
who still go in for things like nationalisation, unilateral disarmament,
state control, high taxes etc?

(e.g. all the kind of stuff that featured heavily in Michael Foot's 1982
manifesto)


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
On 22/07/2016 11:21, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Yep, Massive increase in membership and funds and soon to be an
overwhelming vote of confidence in the leader. Clearly a party in it's
death throes.


It would be if the people who joined were not there to destroy the
party.

They aren't labour voters. All over what you would call 'the Right'
people are coughing up £25 to make sure Corbyn stays, because that will
destroy Labour.

You could always attend a meeting where Corbyn is speaking and judge the
caliber of his supporters there. You might learn something for once.

The question is then, how many grass roots labour people are there left
who still go in for things like nationalisation, unilateral disarmament,
state control, high taxes etc?

(e.g. all the kind of stuff that featured heavily in Michael Foot's 1982
manifesto)

Must be more than we think, John.
~40 years back the wife used to have a collection round for Provident
Cheques - https://www.providentpersonalcredit.com/
The wives would come to the door with snotty nosed kids, no payment (very
often) and hubby (who usually appeared to be a bruiser) down the boozer.
Actually they appeared to be more interested in a punch-up rather than
nationalisation/disarmament etc.
Prolly when workers voted Labour and gaffers voted Tory. Maybe it hasn't
changed much?

On 22/07/16 22:37, John Rumm wrote:
On 22/07/2016 11:21, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Yep, Massive increase in membership and funds and soon to be an
overwhelming vote of confidence in the leader. Clearly a party in it's
death throes.


It would be if the people who joined were not there to destroy the
party.

They aren't labour voters. All over what you would call 'the Right'
people are coughing up £25 to make sure Corbyn stays, because that will
destroy Labour.

You could always attend a meeting where Corbyn is speaking and judge the
caliber of his supporters there. You might learn something for once.


I do knows some of them. They are very sweet, and very naive.

The question is then, how many grass roots labour people are there left
who still go in for things like nationalisation, unilateral disarmament,
state control, high taxes etc?

(e.g. all the kind of stuff that featured heavily in Michael Foot's 1982
manifesto)


Youu remember when you were a student and you coulsn't believe no one
had thought of getting rid of wars before?

And then you grew up and realised that they had, but there isn't a
practical way of doing it.

They are hardline lefyt****s, or students.



--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Corbyn appeals to grass roots Labour supporters

Whatever the hell that is. And it isnt enough people
to have a hope in hell of ever seeing a Labour govt.

in rather the same way as St Nige appealed to grass roots Tories.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

Didn't really expect you to understand. Not surprising given you're not in
the UK. So know absolutely nothing about its people.

--
*Isn't it a bit unnerving that doctors call what they do "practice?"

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
You could always attend a meeting where Corbyn is speaking and judge
the caliber of his supporters there. You might learn something for
once.

The question is then, how many grass roots labour people are there left
who still go in for things like nationalisation, unilateral disarmament,
state control, high taxes etc?

You think everyone believes Trident presents good value for money?
The railways work perfectly? Etc? Taxation is fair? Plenty of housing
around for the lower paid?

I can't see a problem having everything up for discussion, as with Corbyn.

The referendum result has proved that a very large number in the UK aren't
happy with the same old tired capitalistic dogma. Even May herself.

--
*Remember, no-one is listening until you fart.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Youu remember when you were a student and you coulsn't believe no one
had thought of getting rid of wars before?

And then you grew up and realised that they had, but there isn't a
practical way of doing it.

No need - after all most recent wars we've been involved in have done
exactly what they set out to. Afghanistan. Iraq. Syria. Or am I missing
something?

--
*A conscience is what hurts when all your other parts feel so good *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Youu remember when you were a student and you coulsn't believe no one
had thought of getting rid of wars before?

There won't be another war because we won't turn up. Simples, eh? It
didn't occur to the naive ones that although they might not turn up,
the opposition would.

Your absolutely right. What we need is another world war. After all, we
did so well out of the last one. As we have done in virtually every other
one we've been involved in since.

--
*It IS as bad as you think, and they ARE out to get you.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
You could always attend a meeting where Corbyn is speaking and judge
the caliber of his supporters there. You might learn something for
once.

The question is then, how many grass roots labour people are there left
who still go in for things like nationalisation, unilateral disarmament,
state control, high taxes etc?

You think everyone believes Trident presents good value for money?
The railways work perfectly? Etc? Taxation is fair? Plenty of housing
around for the lower paid?

I can't see a problem having everything up for discussion, as with Corbyn.

The referendum result has proved that a very large number in the UK aren't
happy with the same old tired capitalistic dogma. Even May herself.

Not renationalising almost everything isnt anything even
remotely like the the same old tired capitalistic dogma.

If anything nationalising almost everything is
in fact just the same old tired socialist dogma.

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
The referendum result has proved that a very large number in the UK
aren't happy with the same old tired capitalistic dogma. Even May
herself.

Not renationalising almost everything isnt anything even
remotely like the the same old tired capitalistic dogma.

It is exactly the same.

The ideal is a mixture of both - using the best bits. Not dogma that you
just love so much.

--
*I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

The referendum result has proved that a very large number in the UK
aren't happy with the same old tired capitalistic dogma. Even May
herself.

Not renationalising almost everything isn't anything even
remotely like the the same old tired capitalistic dogma.

It is exactly the same.

The ideal is a mixture of both - using the best bits.

Corbyn is doing nothing of the sort with his demand
demand that everything be renationalised.

And your original about the referendum result is another bare faced like.

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Corbyn is doing nothing of the sort with his demand
demand that everything be renationalised.

Despite what you want to believe, he's never said that.

--
*If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 23/07/2016 11:06, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Youu remember when you were a student and you coulsn't believe no one
had thought of getting rid of wars before?

And then you grew up and realised that they had, but there isn't a
practical way of doing it.

No need - after all most recent wars we've been involved in have done
exactly what they set out to. Afghanistan. Iraq. Syria. Or am I missing
something?

Sierra Leone


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 23/07/2016 11:03, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
You could always attend a meeting where Corbyn is speaking and judge
the caliber of his supporters there. You might learn something for
once.

The question is then, how many grass roots labour people are there left
who still go in for things like nationalisation, unilateral disarmament,
state control, high taxes etc?

You think everyone believes Trident presents good value for money?

I don't see any viable alternatives - so value does not come into it alas.

The railways work perfectly? Etc? Taxation is fair? Plenty of housing
around for the lower paid?

None of those are perfect, never will be. No harm in improving them
where you can.

I can't see a problem having everything up for discussion, as with Corbyn.

Having these things for discussion is not the issue.

The referendum result has proved that a very large number in the UK aren't
happy with the same old tired capitalistic dogma. Even May herself.

However it has not demonstrated that the populous at large would be
prepared to elect a hard left government, tied to all kinds of long
discredited socialist policy and economics that they have rejected on
every opportunity available in the past.

It also does not get round the problem that to have a credible
opposition (which we need) you need a party, and MPs that are prepared
to work toward common goals with their leader. Since the vast majority
of the labour MPs think their leader is hopeless, it strikes me they
have a serious problem. Chances are the "problem" will be solved by
Corby finding way to deselect the troublesome MPs so that he can place
more like thinking individuals to stand in their places. That's going to
be an interesting panto to watch.

The called Mr Foot's '82 manifesto the longest suicide note in history,
perhaps it may lose its claim?


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
The question is then, how many grass roots labour people are there
left who still go in for things like nationalisation, unilateral
disarmament, state control, high taxes etc?

You think everyone believes Trident presents good value for money?

I don't see any viable alternatives - so value does not come into it
alas.

Plenty others see a viable alternative. Scrap it and make sure our
conventional defence forces are up to scratch. Given we don't have
unlimited money.

The railways work perfectly? Etc? Taxation is fair? Plenty of housing
around for the lower paid?

None of those are perfect, never will be. No harm in improving them
where you can.

Well, market forces and the private sector have made a right pigs ear of
providing housing. Unless you are pretty wealthy.

I can't see a problem having everything up for discussion, as with
Corbyn.

Having these things for discussion is not the issue.

Sorry? When had anyone in opposition stuck rigidly to their 'policies'
when elected? Or rather long before any likely election?

--
*OK, so what's the speed of dark? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Corbyn is doing nothing of the sort with his
demand that everything be renationalised.

Despite what you want to believe, he's never said that.

Have fun listing what he doesn’t want to see renationalised,
at an immense cost that would be much better spent on the
stuff that is already nationalised like the NHS etc.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
John Rumm wrote

The question is then, how many grass roots labour people
are there left who still go in for things like nationalisation,
unilateral disarmament, state control, high taxes etc?

You think everyone believes Trident presents good value for money?

I don't see any viable alternatives

More fool you.

- so value does not come into it alas.

Corse it does.

Plenty others see a viable alternative.

Yep, anyone with even half a clue does.

Scrap it

Yes.

and make sure our conventional
defence forces are up to scratch.

They are fine for everything except the sort of
military adventurism that Blair got involved in.

Not ideal for hanging on to the Falklands if the
Argys are actually stupid enough to try it again,
but it makes no sense to be spending countless
billions to have a military system that can hang
on to a few useless islands in the extreme south
atlantic that Britain never had any right to grab
in the first place.

Given we don't have unlimited money.

And given that it makes no no sense to be spending
billions on a military system that can keep the Falklands.
Plenty of stuff is much better to spend that money on,
even just reducing the national debt.

The railways work perfectly? Etc? Taxation is fair?
Plenty of housing around for the lower paid?

None of those are perfect, never will be.
No harm in improving them where you can.

Well, market forces and the private sector have made a right
pigs ear of providing housing. Unless you are pretty wealthy.

Even sillier than you usually manage. What has produced
that result is controls on new building that make it impossible to
do that at a reasonable price, particularly with the cost of land.

I can't see a problem having everything
up for discussion, as with Corbyn.

Having these things for discussion is not the issue.

Sorry? When had anyone in opposition stuck rigidly to their
'policies' when elected? Or rather long before any likely election?

We arent talking about rigidly, we are talking
about doing what they said they would do
policy wise. Blair and Brown certainly did that.

Yes, Blair did get involved in a lot of military adventurism
that he never said anything about when in opposition,
but the voters were free to give him the bums rush at
the ballot box after his first term and they didn’t, he
got back in another landslide, the first time any Labour
govt had actually managed two consecutive terms.

On 23/07/2016 15:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
The question is then, how many grass roots labour people are there
left who still go in for things like nationalisation, unilateral
disarmament, state control, high taxes etc?

You think everyone believes Trident presents good value for money?

I don't see any viable alternatives - so value does not come into it
alas.

Plenty others see a viable alternative. Scrap it and make sure our
conventional defence forces are up to scratch. Given we don't have
unlimited money.

I don't buy that as an option. Much as I would love a nuke (weapon) free
world, I can see no sense in unilaterally getting rid of ours.

The railways work perfectly? Etc? Taxation is fair? Plenty of housing
around for the lower paid?

None of those are perfect, never will be. No harm in improving them
where you can.

Government policy had made a bigger pigs ear of not limiting the demand.
We are building quite a few houses per year, just not enough. The NIMBY
brigade and restrictive planning laws don't help either.

Needless to say building houses alone is only a partial solution. You
need the infrastructure, schools, GPs etc and all the other stuff as well.

Well, market forces and the private sector have made a right pigs ear of
providing housing. Unless you are pretty wealthy.

I can't see a problem having everything up for discussion, as with
Corbyn.

Having these things for discussion is not the issue.

Sorry?

No need to apologise.

When had anyone in opposition stuck rigidly to their 'policies'
when elected? Or rather long before any likely election?

Not sure I follow your point?

Do elected governments do what they say they are going to do? At best
partly.

Not sure what any of that has to do with a set of policies that are
seemingly election proof in the first place! Or a party of MPs that
don't support or agree with them.

Still I suppose it does save them having to worry about actually
implementing them.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote

Youu remember when you were a student and you coulsn't
believe no one had thought of getting rid of wars before?

And then you grew up and realised that they
had, but there isn't a practical way of doing it.

No need - after all most recent wars we've been involved
in have done exactly what they set out to. Afghanistan.
Iraq. Syria. Or am I missing something?

Yep, as always. Kosovo, Sierra Leone, even Cyprus.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

Corbyn appeals to grass roots Labour supporters

Whatever the hell that is. And it isnt enough people
to have a hope in hell of ever seeing a Labour govt.

in rather the same way as St Nige appealed to grass roots Tories.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

Didn't really expect you to understand.

Nothing to understand with that mindless silly **** of yours.

There is no such animal as grass roots anything with any party.

On 23/07/16 21:39, John Rumm wrote:
Do elected governments do what they say they are going to do? At best
partly.

Before the EU, elected governments said what they had to to get elected,
and then did a little of what they promised, sometimes well, sometimes
badly.

Post the EU, governments said what they had to to get elected, and then
proceeded to let the EU decide what to do, while they managed their
party image with utterly irrelevant issues like gay marriage and foxhunting.

The deficiencies of this approach are becoming apparent.

--
Microsoft : the best reason to go to Linux that ever existed.

On 22/07/2016 22:37, John Rumm wrote:
On 22/07/2016 11:21, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Yep, Massive increase in membership and funds and soon to be an
overwhelming vote of confidence in the leader. Clearly a party in it's
death throes.


It would be if the people who joined were not there to destroy the
party.

They aren't labour voters. All over what you would call 'the Right'
people are coughing up £25 to make sure Corbyn stays, because that will
destroy Labour.

You could always attend a meeting where Corbyn is speaking and judge the
caliber of his supporters there. You might learn something for once.

The question is then, how many grass roots labour people are there left
who still go in for things like nationalisation, unilateral disarmament,
state control, high taxes etc?


Enough to ensure that Corbyn remains leader. I doubt there's enough to
secure a Labour victory, though. That would have to come from somewhere
else. Probably the 30% who don't vote, the non-Labour left and
ironically, the UKIPs.

For the first time in along time, 2020 will involve people offered a
menu of tangible change and substantial issues, rather than nonsense
like Big Society, New Labour and austerity.

(e.g. all the kind of stuff that featured heavily in Michael Foot's 1982
manifesto)


Not even I am going to present that as a marketing triumph :-) But that
election had a lot of context (Falklands, strong SDP etc), and at the
end of it all, Labour still managed almost 30% of the vote (and 40% of
the seats).

--
Cheers, Rob

RJH wrote
John Rumm wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote

Yep, Massive increase in membership and funds and soon to be an
overwhelming vote of confidence in the leader. Clearly a party in it's
death throes.

It would be if the people who joined were not there to destroy the
party.

They aren't labour voters. All over what you would call 'the Right'
people are coughing up £25 to make sure Corbyn stays, because that will
destroy Labour.

You could always attend a meeting where Corbyn is speaking and judge the
caliber of his supporters there. You might learn something for once.

The question is then, how many grass roots labour people are there left
who still go in for things like nationalisation, unilateral disarmament,
state control, high taxes etc?

Enough to ensure that Corbyn remains leader.

Even that is unclear. It is unclear how many who chose to
vote are actually Labour Party members and how many are
deliberate spoilers who are nothing like Labour Party members.

I doubt there's enough to secure a Labour victory, though.

I know there isnt now that SNP has produced
almost no Labour MPs in Scotland anymore.

That would have to come from somewhere else.

And there is nowhere else for them to come from now.

Probably the 30% who don't vote,

Can't see that anything other than some complete
economic catastrophe like another Great Depression
or worse would actually get them to vote now.

the non-Labour left

Can't see them voting for Labour now even if we did
see another Blair who put one hell of a bomb under
Labour, just because of how badly that ended up.

and ironically, the UKIPs.

I just don’t believe that enough of them are natural
Labour voters to get Labour into govt again now
that the whole of Scotland has gone SNP.

In theory at least a Labour SNP coalition might in theory
be possible, but not with Corbyn, because hardly any MP
are actually silly enough to want renationalisation again
and there isnt any way of paying for the immense cost
of even renationalising the most important stuff like
electricity generation, water supply, railways and all
the privately operated toll roads etc and airports.

For the first time in along time, 2020 will involve people offered a menu
of tangible change and substantial issues, rather than nonsense like Big
Society, New Labour and austerity.

Maybe. I just don’t believe that May will **** up Brexit
badly enough to say end up with exactly what Britain had
before it left the EU and be out of the EU in name only.

I don’t believe that she will be stupid enough to agree to the
completely freedom of movement of EU citizens into Britain either.

And with Corbyn still the Labour leader and the massive ripping
of Labour to shreds so publicly that that will inevitably involve,
I can't see that enough of the voters will believe that if Labour
can't even get its act into gear in its own party that it is in any
position to be worth risking to run the whole country. Quite
apart from there being **** all that want renationalisation now.

(e.g. all the kind of stuff that featured heavily in Michael Foot's 1982
manifesto)

Not even I am going to present that as a marketing triumph :-) But that
election had a lot of context (Falklands, strong SDP etc), and at the end
of it all, Labour still managed almost 30% of the vote (and 40% of the
seats).

But it is less clear how many who did vote Labour then had
any expectation that Labour had any possibility of being the
govt and how many just could bring themselves to vote Tory
no matter how on the nose Labour was policy wise. Bet many
of those were rusted on Labour voters who would vote Labour
even if Foot had proposed the elimination of parliament and
a full communist state.

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Corbyn is doing nothing of the sort with his
demand that everything be renationalised.

Despite what you want to believe, he's never said that.

Have fun listing what he doesn’t want to see renationalised,

My corner shop.

at an immense cost that would be much better spent on the
stuff that is already nationalised like the NHS etc.

Ah - right. You're one of those cretins who are against state ownership in
principle. Apart from when it suits you.

--
*If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Corbyn is doing nothing of the sort with his
demand that everything be renationalised.

Despite what you want to believe, he's never said that.

Have fun listing what he doesn't want to see renationalised,

My corner shop.

It wasn't ever nationalised, so can't be renationalised.

at an immense cost that would be much better spent on
the stuff that is already nationalised like the NHS etc.

Ah - right. You're one of those cretins who
are against state ownership in principle.

Nope. I have always been in favour of the health care system
being done by govt because that means that billions don't
need to be ****ed against the wall on trying to get consumers
to sign up for your health insurance and billions more doesn't
have to be ****ed against the wall deciding what is covered by
the policy and what isnt.

I have always been in favor of the govt doing the bulk of the
schools, with non government schools being available for those
who are happy to pay the fees they charge if the parents decide
that they are doing a better job than the govt schools for their kids.

I have never been in favour of all the roads being done
by non govt with tolls charged to pay for them.

In spades with the judicial system and the military.

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
Plenty others see a viable alternative. Scrap it and make sure our
conventional defence forces are up to scratch. Given we don't have
unlimited money.

I don't buy that as an option. Much as I would love a nuke (weapon) free
world, I can see no sense in unilaterally getting rid of ours.

Fairy nuff. But in my opinion the whole idea of a deterrent is flawed.
Deterrents only work with those who reason things out. And as I'm sure you
know, plenty don't.

The railways work perfectly? Etc? Taxation is fair? Plenty of housing
around for the lower paid?

None of those are perfect, never will be. No harm in improving them
where you can.

Government policy had made a bigger pigs ear of not limiting the demand.

Then perhaps we need a radical government who don't make such basic
mistakes.

We are building quite a few houses per year, just not enough. The NIMBY
brigade and restrictive planning laws don't help either.

There is no shortage of housing for those who can afford it. The problem
is for those on lower incomes who can only afford a lowish price or rent.
Which for a very long time was provided by local authority housing.

To solve this you either need to up the pay of the lower paid so they can
buy or rent - or change the way house building is financed. It is not a
problem that a free market can solve.

Needless to say building houses alone is only a partial solution. You
need the infrastructure, schools, GPs etc and all the other stuff as
well.

And those are precisely the things private developers use every trick in
the book to avoid having to pay for. Even when promising to do so as part
of planning permission.

--
*I like cats, too. Let's exchange recipes.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Have fun listing what he doesn't want to see renationalised,

My corner shop.

It wasn't ever nationalised, so can't be renationalised.

How do you know?

--
*Funny, I don't remember being absent minded.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Have fun listing what he doesn't want to see renationalised,

My corner shop.

It wasn't ever nationalised, so can't be renationalised.

How do you know?

Trivial to check what ever got nationalised, even you should
be able to manage that, when you aren't completely blotto.