Cabinet Reshuffle

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Cabinet Reshuffle

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 6 of 6 << First < 2 3 4 5 6

johnno42000 22 Jan 18 1.08pm
Welsh Water is an interesting company as it is a not for profit company which seems to be a good example of, perhaps, a compromise between nationalised and privatised industry. 'Lies to the masses as are like fly's to mollasses...they want more and more and more'
Alert a moderator to this post

johnno42000

22 Jan 18 1.08pm

Welsh Water is an interesting company as it is a not for profit company which seems to be a good example of, perhaps, a compromise between nationalised and privatised industry.

'Lies to the masses as are like fly's to mollasses...they want more and more and more'

Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself Matataland 22 Jan 18 1.09pm
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle You're implying that the private sector has some magic money tree and its involvement to provide finance is necessary. But it would only get involved if it was going to make a profit. Given corporate sector investment is lower than the rate of depreciation, privately owned assets are crumbling and business are not investing in even the most basic means of production. The idea that they will provide the investment required to improve national infrastructure is laughable. We need concerted social efforts to provide the expertise, labour, investment into providing the services and infrastructure we need. It's perfectly plausible to have publicly owned competitors in markets for utilities or other public goods/services. If your contention is that private interests would flee in the face of such competition then I disagree. They are perfectly happy to compete against the French state in providing electricity or the Dutch state in providing railway services. The government has considerable scope to raise the revenue required, through more reasonable taxation, sensible borrowing policies and clamping down on the massive tax avoidance industry. Studies show that such policies have minimal effect on capital flight or brain drains contrary to the dire warnings from politicians funded by tax avoiders or the avoiders themselves. Our system is broken and the electorate knows it. I am not implying anything. You don’t have a cogent argument. Your ideas are in the past and we’re buried because they don’t work. "That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02
Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself

Matataland 22 Jan 18 1.09pm

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

You're implying that the private sector has some magic money tree and its involvement to provide finance is necessary. But it would only get involved if it was going to make a profit. Given corporate sector investment is lower than the rate of depreciation, privately owned assets are crumbling and business are not investing in even the most basic means of production. The idea that they will provide the investment required to improve national infrastructure is laughable.

We need concerted social efforts to provide the expertise, labour, investment into providing the services and infrastructure we need.

It's perfectly plausible to have publicly owned competitors in markets for utilities or other public goods/services. If your contention is that private interests would flee in the face of such competition then I disagree. They are perfectly happy to compete against the French state in providing electricity or the Dutch state in providing railway services.

The government has considerable scope to raise the revenue required, through more reasonable taxation, sensible borrowing policies and clamping down on the massive tax avoidance industry. Studies show that such policies have minimal effect on capital flight or brain drains contrary to the dire warnings from politicians funded by tax avoiders or the avoiders themselves.

Our system is broken and the electorate knows it.

I am not implying anything.

You don’t have a cogent argument.

Your ideas are in the past and we’re buried because they don’t work.

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself Matataland 22 Jan 18 1.13pm
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle You learn from history and previous mistakes, you don't just do the same thing. Also transport for instance is very much a key social policy. Transport is a means to achieving social aims, not just a service to be sold for its own sake. It's there to give access to the public at large to employment, care, leisure etc. Public involvement doesn't mean that the experts disappear overnight and no one has a clue how to run an energy company any more. History (your good friend) suggests the opposite. When Railtrack was privatised and split up the huge body of highly qualified engineers who worked for Railtrack were put out to pasture and not replaced in sufficient numbers, meaning our rail infrastructure has been left to rot and fallen far behind the level of efficiency and quality you see in continental Europe. It's one of the major reasons why the UK has the 2nd highest fares in Europe but the 3rd highest public subsidy. Thanks to privatisation and underfunding and mismanagement that resulted from it. The privatisation was sold on the promise of signalling technology that still doesn't exist today. Now we have an expensive system where profits are sent abroad to fund European railways as they own most of the operating companies and the UK public has to pay high fares for the privilege. When the unions, labours paymasters, ask for ridiculous and out of kilter pay rises for their members working in the nationalised industries, how will Labour rebuff this? When pay, pension and other costs rise exponentially because of the Labour governments pursuit of their social policies, where will the money for investment come from? Where will the profits you mention come from if the government is committed to reducing energy prices, full employment and raising workers pay? "That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02
Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself

Matataland 22 Jan 18 1.13pm

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

You learn from history and previous mistakes, you don't just do the same thing.

Also transport for instance is very much a key social policy. Transport is a means to achieving social aims, not just a service to be sold for its own sake. It's there to give access to the public at large to employment, care, leisure etc.

Public involvement doesn't mean that the experts disappear overnight and no one has a clue how to run an energy company any more.

History (your good friend) suggests the opposite. When Railtrack was privatised and split up the huge body of highly qualified engineers who worked for Railtrack were put out to pasture and not replaced in sufficient numbers, meaning our rail infrastructure has been left to rot and fallen far behind the level of efficiency and quality you see in continental Europe. It's one of the major reasons why the UK has the 2nd highest fares in Europe but the 3rd highest public subsidy. Thanks to privatisation and underfunding and mismanagement that resulted from it. The privatisation was sold on the promise of signalling technology that still doesn't exist today. Now we have an expensive system where profits are sent abroad to fund European railways as they own most of the operating companies and the UK public has to pay high fares for the privilege.

When the unions, labours paymasters, ask for ridiculous and out of kilter pay rises for their members working in the nationalised industries, how will Labour rebuff this?

When pay, pension and other costs rise exponentially because of the Labour governments pursuit of their social policies, where will the money for investment come from?

Where will the profits you mention come from if the government is committed to reducing energy prices, full employment and raising workers pay?

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle Sydenham 22 Jan 18 1.46pm
Originally posted by matt_himself When the unions, labours paymasters, ask for ridiculous and out of kilter pay rises for their members working in the nationalised industries, how will Labour rebuff this? When pay, pension and other costs rise exponentially because of the Labour governments pursuit of their social policies, where will the money for investment come from? Where will the profits you mention come from if the government is committed to reducing energy prices, full employment and raising workers pay? You're treating this like a zero sum game. It's not. You don't understand how modern trade unions work either. Furthermore De-unionisation has had a huge negative impact on productivity and living standards.
Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle

Sydenham 22 Jan 18 1.46pm

Send a Private Message to CambridgeEagle

Originally posted by matt_himself

When the unions, labours paymasters, ask for ridiculous and out of kilter pay rises for their members working in the nationalised industries, how will Labour rebuff this?

When pay, pension and other costs rise exponentially because of the Labour governments pursuit of their social policies, where will the money for investment come from?

Where will the profits you mention come from if the government is committed to reducing energy prices, full employment and raising workers pay?

You're treating this like a zero sum game. It's not.

You don't understand how modern trade unions work either. Furthermore De-unionisation has had a huge negative impact on productivity and living standards.

Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle Sydenham 22 Jan 18 1.48pm
Originally posted by matt_himself I am not implying anything. You don’t have a cogent argument. Your ideas are in the past and we’re buried because they don’t work. No my ideas are based on current thinking and successful models of public ownership practices elsewhere in the world. You've had no response to the points I've made about the disaster of railway privatisation. Just saying nationalisation wasn't very good in the olden days so therefore it can't work in any format whatsoever in spite of any evidence to the contrary, which I shall ignore.
Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle

Sydenham 22 Jan 18 1.48pm

Originally posted by matt_himself

I am not implying anything.

You don’t have a cogent argument.

Your ideas are in the past and we’re buried because they don’t work.

No my ideas are based on current thinking and successful models of public ownership practices elsewhere in the world.

You've had no response to the points I've made about the disaster of railway privatisation. Just saying nationalisation wasn't very good in the olden days so therefore it can't work in any format whatsoever in spite of any evidence to the contrary, which I shall ignore.

Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself Matataland 22 Jan 18 2.23pm
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle You're treating this like a zero sum game. It's not. You don't understand how modern trade unions work either. Furthermore De-unionisation has had a huge negative impact on productivity and living standards. You do realise that just saying what you think is correct, and saying to me ‘you don’t understand’, without posting any collaborative information, is self defeating and giving me the impression that you are full of wistful thinking, rather than being grounded in reality? "That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02
Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself

Matataland 22 Jan 18 2.23pm

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

You're treating this like a zero sum game. It's not.

You don't understand how modern trade unions work either. Furthermore De-unionisation has had a huge negative impact on productivity and living standards.

You do realise that just saying what you think is correct, and saying to me ‘you don’t understand’, without posting any collaborative information, is self defeating and giving me the impression that you are full of wistful thinking, rather than being grounded in reality?

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 22 Jan 18 3.10pm
I think the railway privatization was and has been a failure. Other ones like British gas a relative success, while I'm in the middle over others. Rail has.....like football...become too expensive for too many people. That is an unacceptable outcome in principle for me. Whether something is privately run or publicly run what really matters is what the outcomes are......In the area of rail I haven't been impressed at all. Now like most subjects I'm only a layman on this....and it would be great if we had a view put forward from someone in the industry but from what I can see....like most things the problem of a proper full renationalisation is cost and so is off the table...to be fair Cambridge recognises this. So we accept that real nationalisation becomes a long term project that would have to run over....at the very least probably three full term governments....based upon the policy of you just wait until the contracts expire. With the uncertainty of one party staying in power this is like putting the whole concept of nationalization on the 'never never'. In truth a limited nationalisation could be done....and if operated properly it could be done effectively. What this would mean for infrastructure I'm not sure.....but again, the working man and women has in many cases been priced out of the game...and again I think this is unacceptable for a government that is meant to represent everybody to accept. Out of seventeen franchises only six fall into the time frame of the next government.....excepting that this government runs until 2022.....If we have an election due to Brexit say in 2019 that rises to thirteen......Which would represent a much more impactful nationalization policy. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

22 Jan 18 3.10pm

I think the railway privatization was and has been a failure. Other ones like British gas a relative success, while I'm in the middle over others.

Rail has.....like football...become too expensive for too many people. That is an unacceptable outcome in principle for me. Whether something is privately run or publicly run what really matters is what the outcomes are......In the area of rail I haven't been impressed at all.

Now like most subjects I'm only a layman on this....and it would be great if we had a view put forward from someone in the industry but from what I can see....like most things the problem of a proper full renationalisation is cost and so is off the table...to be fair Cambridge recognises this.

So we accept that real nationalisation becomes a long term project that would have to run over....at the very least probably three full term governments....based upon the policy of you just wait until the contracts expire. With the uncertainty of one party staying in power this is like putting the whole concept of nationalization on the 'never never'.

In truth a limited nationalisation could be done....and if operated properly it could be done effectively. What this would mean for infrastructure I'm not sure.....but again, the working man and women has in many cases been priced out of the game...and again I think this is unacceptable for a government that is meant to represent everybody to accept.

Out of seventeen franchises only six fall into the time frame of the next government.....excepting that this government runs until 2022.....If we have an election due to Brexit say in 2019 that rises to thirteen......Which would represent a much more impactful nationalization policy.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle Sydenham 24 Jan 18 11.39pm
This bloke needs to be shuffled off ASAP. [Link] He's an embarrassment. He is constantly under prepared and totally ill equipped for his role. A clueless buffoon.
Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle

Sydenham 24 Jan 18 11.39pm

This bloke needs to be shuffled off ASAP.

[Link]

He's an embarrassment. He is constantly under prepared and totally ill equipped for his role. A clueless buffoon.

Alert a moderator to this post