REFERENDUM RESULTS AND DISCUSSION THREAD

[lemonjelly]

Sems to me it depends on who is asking, and why they're asking.

He has certainly said that the reports are being done, and have been done. Then publication of them was requested by numerous MPs.
Davis then said they're too sensitive to publish.
This view was over-ruled.
Now it appears these reports have never been written.

 

[lemonjelly]

[video]https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/938371372497166338[/video]

compared with:

[video]https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/938350357687783424[/video]

 

[lemonjelly]

David Lammy‏Verified account
@DavidLammy
5h5 hours ago
More
David Davis written statement to Parliament 7 November: "The sectoral analysis is a wide mix of qualitative and quantitative analysis contained in a range of documents"

David Davis today: No impact assessments have been done on the impact of Brexit on UK economy

.

 

[Tredman]

Bunch of lying chancers.

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

Sadly Del that is true. His economics are worse than a bunch of bumbling idiots lying about reports. That is not an excuse for said liars before anybody jumps on that.

Go on then, i'll bite. Please explain to me why "his economics are worse".

 

[Sniffer]

Rafael Behr

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...avis-bluffing-brexit-clear-impact-assessments

So how did this misunderstanding arise? Davis had previously referred to work undertaken in “excruciating detail” to consider the economic consequences of quitting the EU under various scenarios and for various sectors of the economy. (But he claims never to have called them “impact assessments”.) Setting aside the technical definition, the question still arises of how meticulous, forensic work undertaken over a long period of time behind closed doors in Whitehall morphed into stuff you could find on Google; what one committee member described as a “cuttings file”.

One explanation is that the redactions removed all the valuable material. This is possible but it requires believing that the department had too much stuff to share and required time only to sift and remove it. Yet the permanent secretary, Philip Rycroft, giving testimony after Davis, essentially admitted that the opposite was true. He had been surprised by his ministerial bosses’ offer to parliament and had promptly required to oversee a process of rapid collection and collation of data. In other words, DexEU hasn’t spent the past three weeks taking things out. It has been scrabbling around for stuff to put in.

The more convincing explanation is that Davis was bluffing. He presumed that there was a lot of detail around somewhere, recognised at some level that it was the sort of thing that certainly ought to exist and didn’t expect ever to be forced to admit that it didn’t. And when parliament called his bluff, he doubled down, played along with the idea of impact assessments and let his civil servants try to do a year’s worth of government homework in less than a month.

 

[Templeton Peck]

Sadly Del that is true. His economics are worse than a bunch of bumbling idiots lying about reports. That is not an excuse for said liars before anybody jumps on that.

Labours economic policies are about the only ones that make sense at the moment.

 

[Johnny75]

Labours economic policies are about the only ones that make sense at the moment.

This did make me laugh. How would you like to pay for the Nationalisation and how do you think they will be priced? And then how are you going to pay for all of the salaries needed and provision for pensions, H&S along with all the other regulations?

Finally, how are you going to afford the legal fees for breaking the private contracts?

And don't forget you've got Brexit going on as well. Yep, total sense.

 

[Tredman]

This did make me laugh. How would you like to pay for the Nationalisation and how do you think they will be priced? And then how are you going to pay for all of the salaries needed and provision for pensions, H&S along with all the other regulations?

Finally, how are you going to afford the legal fees for breaking the private contracts?

And don't forget you've got Brexit going on as well. Yep, total sense.

Have a quick look at the debt level of our privatised water companies and have a quick guess who currently pays for it.

It will be no difference if we nationalise them - privatising monopolistic providers such as water companies and railways is bonkers, almost as crazy as letting China buy them up. Run them independently and at arms length fine - but keep them as publicly owned.

 

[Johnny75]

Have a quick look at the debt level of our privatised water companies and have a quick guess who currently pays for it.

It will be no difference if we nationalise them - privatising monopolistic providers such as water companies and railways is bonkers, almost as crazy as letting China buy them up. Run them independently and at arms length fine - but keep them as publicly owned.

Apart from the fact we don't have that debt and don't service that debt your argument of 'it's crazy' doesn't tell me how we are going to pay for this. The huge infrastructure requirements of changeover and the new staff, tenders and adhesions to regulations that would involve. It's hundreds of billions and that's before we even start to pay for running them. And who pays for that?

To say it will be no different is simply not true. It would be a huge drain on the public purse at s time of great uncertainty with Brexit.

Personally, I can't think of much worse on the railways than the old BR trains, they were a joke.

 

[Tredman]

Apart from the fact we don't have that debt and don't service that debt your argument of 'it's crazy' doesn't tell me how we are going to pay for this. The huge infrastructure requirements of changeover and the new staff, tenders and adhesions to regulations that would involve. It's hundreds of billions and that's before we even start to pay for running them. And who pays for that?

To say it will be no different is simply not true. It would be a huge drain on the public purse at s time of great uncertainty with Brexit.

Personally, I can't think of much worse on the railways than the old BR trains, they were a joke.

Of course we have the debt, maybe not directly but since the majority of our privately owned water companies are virtually insolvent due to leverage takeovers what do you think would happen if any went bankrupt? One example:

https://theecologist.org/2014/jul/04/soaking-customer-thames-waters-ps4-billion-sewage-money-grab

Another might be the east coast rail line. I'm not advocating for BR style direct run trains, but most of our lines are at least partky currently run by foreign owned state companies.

 

[leedswolf]

Apart from the fact we don't have that debt and don't service that debt your argument of 'it's crazy' doesn't tell me how we are going to pay for this. The huge infrastructure requirements of changeover and the new staff, tenders and adhesions to regulations that would involve. It's hundreds of billions and that's before we even start to pay for running them. And who pays for that?

To say it will be no different is simply not true. It would be a huge drain on the public purse at s time of great uncertainty with Brexit.

Personally, I can't think of much worse on the railways than the old BR trains, they were a joke.

Are you suggesting that a Nationalised Industry has a greater requirement to comply with regulations and standards than a Private Organisation? Ergo we should relax legal compliance and standards to facilitate private exploitation? I only ask, because that is how it reads.

 

[Johnny75]

Are you suggesting that a Nationalised Industry has a greater requirement to comply with regulations and standards than a Private Organisation? Ergo we should relax legal compliance and standards to facilitate private exploitation? I only ask, because that is how it reads.

I'm not. I'm saying the manuals, people and certifications aren't directly transferable. They would have to be completed and that's an extra cost.

 

[Johnny75]

Of course we have the debt, maybe not directly but since the majority of our privately owned water companies are virtually insolvent due to leverage takeovers what do you think would happen if any went bankrupt? One example:

https://theecologist.org/2014/jul/04/soaking-customer-thames-waters-ps4-billion-sewage-money-grab

Another might be the east coast rail line. I'm not advocating for BR style direct run trains, but most of our lines are at least partky currently run by foreign owned state companies.

We don't have the debt. Legally it is the company and we do not service that debt, to suggest otherwise is disingenuous. Failure is a different matter and leverage from private equity is something I am not in favour of as I have stated lots of times.

As for foreign ownership, they do seem to be miles better at it then we are. Although Richard Brandon may own his own Island I'm not sure you can accuse him of running a country yet.

 

[Tredman]

We don't have the debt. Legally it is the company and we do not service that debt, to suggest otherwise is disingenuous. Failure is a different matter and leverage from private equity is something I am not in favour of as I have stated lots of times.

As for foreign ownership, they do seem to be miles better at it then we are. Although Richard Brandon may own his own Island I'm not sure you can accuse him of running a country yet.

I've not looked into all the virgin franchises, but I think they are all pretty much partnerships with German, French or Japanese state companies. Our view was tainted by experience with state run companies, in this case I'm talking about state ownership.

Whatever we might hope for we are ultimately liable for the all massive debt loaded on our water companies. They are completely show the fallacy of privatising them, interesting letter here which voices a lot of the thinking within the industy:

https://www.ft.com/content/5878de66-9c7d-11e7-8cd4-932067fbf946

The comparison with DCWW is very valid, state owned (but not run) and operate at least as well as the fully privately owned companies.

 

[leedswolf]

I'm not. I'm saying the manuals, people and certifications aren't directly transferable. They would have to be completed and that's an extra cost.

Why? The legislation would be the same irrespective of the owner/employer? Easily transferrable.

 

[Johnny75]

Why? The legislation would be the same irrespective of the owner/employer? Easily transferrable.

You will know better than most I'd have thought why you can't transfer certification? It's expensive and time consuming.

 

[Johnny75]

I've not looked into all the virgin franchises, but I think they are all pretty much partnerships with German, French or Japanese state companies. Our view was tainted by experience with state run companies, in this case I'm talking about state ownership.

Whatever we might hope for we are ultimately liable for the all massive debt loaded on our water companies. They are completely show the fallacy of privatising them, interesting letter here which voices a lot of the thinking within the industy:

https://www.ft.com/content/5878de66-9c7d-11e7-8cd4-932067fbf946

The comparison with DCWW is very valid, state owned (but not run) and operate at least as well as the fully privately owned companies.

State ownership isn't Lanour's policy is it?

 

[Tredman]

State ownership isn't Lanour's policy is it?

Not sure tbh, I doubt they have even really thought it through that much.

Our water companies are incredibly well run up to board level, they are pretty much the envy of the world. They are hampered by lack of investment and short termism at the ownership level - on average 27% of our bills go on debt finance, completely crazy.

 

[AndyWolves]

Maybe the impact assessments were done but they were pretty damning in their findings.

Anyway, what difference does it make? The impact assessments would have been useful when the country was making the decision. They won't affect the trajectory we're on now

The impact assessments could only weaken the UK's position as they'd say brexit is a really bad idea and we know it. If we don't admit we know it then it can't be used against us and we can still pretend we think it's a good idea