The BBC 1 'Prime Minister' debate

[cloughie]

I wouldn't be surprised if Boris's chances might now have been scuppered.

Redwinegate won’t have helped, particularly with the female party members!

[Bryn]

From what I read in today's papers and hear on the radio I wouldn't be surprised if Boris's chances might now have been scuppered or greatly diminished.

Why would you think that? The electorate, in this case, comprises Tory Party members, remember.

[Stanfordian]

Redwinegate won’t have helped, particularly with the female party members!

Yes, it was 'Redwinegate' that I was referring to. Big damage for him I think!

[Stanfordian]

Why would you think that? WThe electorate, in this case, comprises Tory Party members, remember.

Very good!

[DracoM]

And according to his 'aides' on Newsnight etc, that's behaving as 'an ordinary bloke which endears him to his core vote............'

............yikes!

[Stanfordian]

I wonder what else is going to come out about Boris. I don't think we have heard the last.

[Bryn]

As referred to by Apple News, https://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...-a4172856.html

[cloughie]

And according to his 'aides' on Newsnight etc, that's behaving as 'an ordinary bloke which endears him to his core vote............'

............yikes!

Further cause for worry? Do the ordinary blokes on these threads behave like that?

[Dave2002]

As referred to by Apple News, https://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...-a4172856.html

Yes - but - typical reporting

In round one, Johnson duly found the number 114 written in ballpoint pen under the flap — an exact prediction of the number of votes achieved. The same trick was repeated in every round.

“We not only knew exactly how many votes Boris had, we knew precisely how many the other candidates had as well,” said a senior source.

It is of course not possible for us, mere readers, to verify these post hoc claims.

For once I have some sympathy with Donald re the possibility of fake news.

[Richard Barrett]

it does seem to me (well, it would, wouldn't it?) that the idea of returning to the 'British Rail' of yesteryear, as one reason for the need to leave the EU, is being too rigidly doctrinaire

It's been said quite often over the past three years that the idea of the EU as a "doctrinaire" enforcer of neoliberal economic policies is nonsense, and that it wouldn't stand in the way of any renationalisation policy that a future UK government might be elected with a mandate to pursue. But clearly this is not the case, and it's useful to see that explained in such a way that indicates why there have been differences of opinion on it in the past.

[Dave2002]

And according to his 'aides' on Newsnight etc, that's behaving as 'an ordinary bloke which endears him to his core vote............'

............yikes!

Is he going down to the pub to have a few pints with his "mates" perhaps? Remember William Hague.

[french frank]

It's been said quite often over the past three years that the idea of the EU as a "doctrinaire" enforcer of neoliberal economic policies is nonsense, and that it wouldn't stand in the way of any renationalisation policy that a future UK government might be elected with a mandate to pursue.

That seems a rather defensive diversion.

But clearly this is not the case, and it's useful to see that explained in such a way that indicates why there have been differences of opinion on it in the past.

It must depend on where one starts from. What I read was that, although there may be no chance of a return to a totally nationalised railways system, it wouldn't preclude a substantially state-owned system. Taking a non doctrinaire stance, I would be happy with that. But for me the service provided to the customer would take precedence over who provides it or how it's provided.

This is the article's key conclusion:

"As they stand, EU rules certainly do not mandate the UK’s railways being as privately operated as they are now, and they probably never will. But in practice, the latest regulations will make it impossible to get rid of private operators entirely. In short, it would be possible to recreate British Rail, but not to have it running the whole system in the way it did before privatisation. Ultimately, the answer to whether EU rules stop Britain nationalising its railways is: it depends on what you mean by nationalising them."

So this is where I see the 'left-wing' position as being doctrinaire - as against the EU's - in pursuing nationalisation as a principle, rather judging on the basis of the service delivered. What is the virtue of a '100% nationalised' system unless this is a fundamental principle of socialism which cannot be diluted?

I would further add that there is a 99% unlikelihood that a Labour/socialist/progressive government would ever have a 'mandate' to pursue the nationalisation of the railways unless they held a referendum on that issue. Claims to have a mandate for any single issue as the result of winning a General Election are always absurd: people vote for a job lot and have no option to exclude any individual issue.

[Bryn]

How about leaving the Talyllyn and similar small gauge and volunteer-run railways private, the Volk's Railway in the hands of Brighton and Hove Council, and the rest being renationalised?

[teamsaint]

Railway renationalisation is a really popular policy, with a positive response in polls of about 65%.That would be a clear mandate for a Labour administration elected with that in its manifesto.

One virtue of course of 100% nationalisation is keeping greater control of where subsidies end up.

I can’t see what is more doctrinaire about nationalisation than having a raft of legislation which is clearly designed to promote competition.

[french frank]

Railway renationalisation is a really popular policy, with a positive response in polls of about 65%.That would be a clear mandate for a Labour administration elected with that in its manifesto.

About as clear a 'mandate' as an opinion poll. The best you could say is that anyone who voted Labour probably wasn't opposed to it, if it was contained in their manifesto. But, again, 'the best you could say': most people voting wouldn't be thinking about the nationalisation of the railways at all. "Time for a change" seems to be the usual reason.

I can’t see what is more doctrinaire about nationalisation than having a raft of legislation which is clearly designed to promote competition.

You can't? Nationalisation is socialist doctrine. The EU doesn't have its own 'doctrine': it may act in ways which coincide with one doctrine or another, but there is no 'EU doctrine' as such. Indeed, it seems to me that the left-wing argument against the EU is most often just that it doesn't pursue socialist policies. If capitalism is seen as an evil which must be destroyed utterly, that probably explains why a pure socialist regime is hard to find anywhere.