Margaret Thatcher

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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

Margaret Thatcher

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 91 of 126 < 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 >

chris123 hove actually 13 Apr 13 10.57pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Apr 2013 10.50pm Quote chris123 at 13 Apr 2013 10.16pm Quote Stirlingsays at 13 Apr 2013 10.09pm Quote newickeagle at 13 Apr 2013 9.53pm Srirling, agreed, Major hung in there long enough to make the railways worse than they were. BUT, she privatised all the utility companies who rip us off now. And big time if you run a business. She had the North Sea revenue and invested none of these huge receipts on the infrastructure. Her tax cutting has not improved our economy or arrested our national decline. IMO!! I'm not sure where I stand on the utility privatisations to be honest.....The railways were a disasterous idea, in fact bringing in the profit motive in areas of safety just isn't a good idea period.....Anyone who's seen programmes about the early airplane industry would know that. Competition to supply power, gas and water is surely a good thing, plus the capital investment in all three is massive and requires investors or are in for the long term. Until you need to regulate and control prices to the user. The massive advantage of a state control of part of an industry is that you set the price, even if it means subsidising the cost of the utility via the treasury, where as the free market has to operate based entirely on profit, a state industry can if necessary take a hit to keep prices low, or more importantly slow the rise of price. The problem is that private industry isn't really in competition, it generally locks down the business to a few major companies, and their subsidiaries. The actual level of competition is fairly minor, and the need to compete minimal. Edf and Gdf are both partly state owned, and both operate in markets were they cannot control price. Particularly with gas were most of it is purchased three years ahead of delivery with fine tuning bought and sold in the market.
Alert a moderator to this post

chris123

hove actually 13 Apr 13 10.57pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Apr 2013 10.50pm

Quote chris123 at 13 Apr 2013 10.16pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 13 Apr 2013 10.09pm

Quote newickeagle at 13 Apr 2013 9.53pm

Srirling, agreed, Major hung in there long enough to make the railways worse than they were.

BUT, she privatised all the utility companies who rip us off now. And big time if you run a business. She had the North Sea revenue and invested none of these huge receipts on the infrastructure. Her tax cutting has not improved our economy or arrested our national decline. IMO!!

I'm not sure where I stand on the utility privatisations to be honest.....The railways were a disasterous idea, in fact bringing in the profit motive in areas of safety just isn't a good idea period.....Anyone who's seen programmes about the early airplane industry would know that.

Competition to supply power, gas and water is surely a good thing, plus the capital investment in all three is massive and requires investors or are in for the long term.

Until you need to regulate and control prices to the user. The massive advantage of a state control of part of an industry is that you set the price, even if it means subsidising the cost of the utility via the treasury, where as the free market has to operate based entirely on profit, a state industry can if necessary take a hit to keep prices low, or more importantly slow the rise of price.

The problem is that private industry isn't really in competition, it generally locks down the business to a few major companies, and their subsidiaries. The actual level of competition is fairly minor, and the need to compete minimal.

Edf and Gdf are both partly state owned, and both operate in markets were they cannot control price. Particularly with gas were most of it is purchased three years ahead of delivery with fine tuning bought and sold in the market.

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 13 Apr 13 10.58pm
Quote chris123 at 13 Apr 2013 9.37pm Quote newickeagle at 13 Apr 2013 9.33pm Chris, how many people went to their death in the South Atlantic and particularly on the Belgrano? She stuck herself in a pseudo tank to celebrate and they were in their early years. 87 is a good innings, she didn't allow that to her victims. How does it feel to be the Mother of a 1000 dead? We were at war. No we were in a conflict. The UK specifically didn't declare war, and the Belgrano was sunk outside the exclusion zone, on executive order of the prime minister - It was of course the right decision. But she did celebrate the victory, which is the celebration of others deaths, most of whom were young kids conscripted by a facist regime that murdered and tortured its own people. Those kids, what choice did they have. It might have had to be done, it might even have been of benefit to argentina (as the Junta collapsed soon after). Nothing really to celebrate there. 649 Argentinans died along with 3 Falkland Islanders and 255 British Service men. Ironically more service men from the Falklands would die by their own hand in the coming decade after the war, than were killed by enemy fire - largely down to the Conservative parties dismantling of the British Mental Health system. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 13 Apr 13 10.58pm

Quote chris123 at 13 Apr 2013 9.37pm

Quote newickeagle at 13 Apr 2013 9.33pm

Chris, how many people went to their death in the South Atlantic and particularly on the Belgrano? She stuck herself in a pseudo tank to celebrate and they were in their early years. 87 is a good innings, she didn't allow that to her victims. How does it feel to be the Mother of a 1000 dead?

We were at war.

No we were in a conflict. The UK specifically didn't declare war, and the Belgrano was sunk outside the exclusion zone, on executive order of the prime minister - It was of course the right decision.

But she did celebrate the victory, which is the celebration of others deaths, most of whom were young kids conscripted by a facist regime that murdered and tortured its own people. Those kids, what choice did they have. It might have had to be done, it might even have been of benefit to argentina (as the Junta collapsed soon after).

Nothing really to celebrate there. 649 Argentinans died along with 3 Falkland Islanders and 255 British Service men. Ironically more service men from the Falklands would die by their own hand in the coming decade after the war, than were killed by enemy fire - largely down to the Conservative parties dismantling of the British Mental Health system.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

SloveniaDave Tirana, Albania 13 Apr 13 11.01pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Apr 2013 10.50pm Quote chris123 at 13 Apr 2013 10.16pm Quote Stirlingsays at 13 Apr 2013 10.09pm Quote newickeagle at 13 Apr 2013 9.53pm Srirling, agreed, Major hung in there long enough to make the railways worse than they were. BUT, she privatised all the utility companies who rip us off now. And big time if you run a business. She had the North Sea revenue and invested none of these huge receipts on the infrastructure. Her tax cutting has not improved our economy or arrested our national decline. IMO!! I'm not sure where I stand on the utility privatisations to be honest.....The railways were a disasterous idea, in fact bringing in the profit motive in areas of safety just isn't a good idea period.....Anyone who's seen programmes about the early airplane industry would know that. Competition to supply power, gas and water is surely a good thing, plus the capital investment in all three is massive and requires investors or are in for the long term. Until you need to regulate and control prices to the user. The massive advantage of a state control of part of an industry is that you set the price, even if it means subsidising the cost of the utility via the treasury, where as the free market has to operate based entirely on profit, a state industry can if necessary take a hit to keep prices low, or more importantly slow the rise of price. The problem is that private industry isn't really in competition, it generally locks down the business to a few major companies, and their subsidiaries. The actual level of competition is fairly minor, and the need to compete minimal. Big utilities are undoubtedly a problem for the free market because the number of companies who can practically compete is inevitably limited. However, I do not see the solution as re-nationalisation but as preventing or punishing cartels. The UK airline industry is a good example of where competition has been of huge benefit to passengers but it took some mavericks and a number of lawsuits to get a reasonably level playing-field. Its by no means perfect but the problem was not the principle of privatisation, but its practical application. Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand! My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right. (Member of the School of Optimism 1969-2016 inclusive)
Alert a moderator to this post

SloveniaDave

Tirana, Albania 13 Apr 13 11.01pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Apr 2013 10.50pm

Quote chris123 at 13 Apr 2013 10.16pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 13 Apr 2013 10.09pm

Quote newickeagle at 13 Apr 2013 9.53pm

Srirling, agreed, Major hung in there long enough to make the railways worse than they were.

Competition to supply power, gas and water is surely a good thing, plus the capital investment in all three is massive and requires investors or are in for the long term.

Big utilities are undoubtedly a problem for the free market because the number of companies who can practically compete is inevitably limited. However, I do not see the solution as re-nationalisation but as preventing or punishing cartels. The UK airline industry is a good example of where competition has been of huge benefit to passengers but it took some mavericks and a number of lawsuits to get a reasonably level playing-field.

Its by no means perfect but the problem was not the principle of privatisation, but its practical application.

Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand!

My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.

(Member of the School of Optimism 1969-2016 inclusive)

Alert a moderator to this post

chris123 hove actually 13 Apr 13 11.02pm
Quote newickeagle at 13 Apr 2013 10.48pm Being a bit of a lefty, may have to agree, regrettably. Global warming, take the stage. Well if you want long term contol of your supply, nuclear is the way to go. Most of France's power is nuclear generated and of course while the plants are expensive to construct, once you're up and running, nuclear is cheaper.
Alert a moderator to this post

chris123

hove actually 13 Apr 13 11.02pm

Quote newickeagle at 13 Apr 2013 10.48pm

Being a bit of a lefty, may have to agree, regrettably. Global warming, take the stage.

Well if you want long term contol of your supply, nuclear is the way to go. Most of France's power is nuclear generated and of course while the plants are expensive to construct, once you're up and running, nuclear is cheaper.

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 13 Apr 13 11.03pm
Quote chris123 at 13 Apr 2013 10.57pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Apr 2013 10.50pm Quote chris123 at 13 Apr 2013 10.16pm Quote Stirlingsays at 13 Apr 2013 10.09pm Quote newickeagle at 13 Apr 2013 9.53pm Srirling, agreed, Major hung in there long enough to make the railways worse than they were. BUT, she privatised all the utility companies who rip us off now. And big time if you run a business. She had the North Sea revenue and invested none of these huge receipts on the infrastructure. Her tax cutting has not improved our economy or arrested our national decline. IMO!! I'm not sure where I stand on the utility privatisations to be honest.....The railways were a disasterous idea, in fact bringing in the profit motive in areas of safety just isn't a good idea period.....Anyone who's seen programmes about the early airplane industry would know that. Competition to supply power, gas and water is surely a good thing, plus the capital investment in all three is massive and requires investors or are in for the long term. Until you need to regulate and control prices to the user. The massive advantage of a state control of part of an industry is that you set the price, even if it means subsidising the cost of the utility via the treasury, where as the free market has to operate based entirely on profit, a state industry can if necessary take a hit to keep prices low, or more importantly slow the rise of price. The problem is that private industry isn't really in competition, it generally locks down the business to a few major companies, and their subsidiaries. The actual level of competition is fairly minor, and the need to compete minimal. Edf and Gdf are both partly state owned, and both operate in markets were they cannot control price. Particularly with gas were most of it is purchased three years ahead of delivery with fine tuning bought and sold in the market. So, partially owned, a state operated competitor would present a competition on the low end of the price scale to protect consumers from massive rises based on market speculation. Even if that requires tax payers money, I see that as tax well spent if it regulates and controls the cost of essential utilities to the public. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 13 Apr 13 11.03pm

Quote chris123 at 13 Apr 2013 10.57pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Apr 2013 10.50pm

Quote chris123 at 13 Apr 2013 10.16pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 13 Apr 2013 10.09pm

Quote newickeagle at 13 Apr 2013 9.53pm

Srirling, agreed, Major hung in there long enough to make the railways worse than they were.

Competition to supply power, gas and water is surely a good thing, plus the capital investment in all three is massive and requires investors or are in for the long term.

Edf and Gdf are both partly state owned, and both operate in markets were they cannot control price. Particularly with gas were most of it is purchased three years ahead of delivery with fine tuning bought and sold in the market.

So, partially owned, a state operated competitor would present a competition on the low end of the price scale to protect consumers from massive rises based on market speculation. Even if that requires tax payers money, I see that as tax well spent if it regulates and controls the cost of essential utilities to the public.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 13 Apr 13 11.05pm
Quote chris123 at 13 Apr 2013 11.02pm Quote newickeagle at 13 Apr 2013 10.48pm Being a bit of a lefty, may have to agree, regrettably. Global warming, take the stage. Well if you want long term contol of your supply, nuclear is the way to go. Most of France's power is nuclear generated and of course while the plants are expensive to construct, once you're up and running, nuclear is cheaper. Agreed, particularly give the capacity for reprocessing and the huge number of abandoned mines in the UK that could be used to store any toxic waste. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 13 Apr 13 11.05pm

Quote chris123 at 13 Apr 2013 11.02pm

Quote newickeagle at 13 Apr 2013 10.48pm

Being a bit of a lefty, may have to agree, regrettably. Global warming, take the stage.

Agreed, particularly give the capacity for reprocessing and the huge number of abandoned mines in the UK that could be used to store any toxic waste.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 13 Apr 13 11.19pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Apr 2013 10.58pm No we were in a conflict. The UK specifically didn't declare war, and the Belgrano was sunk outside the exclusion zone, on executive order of the prime minister - It was of course the right decision. But she did celebrate the victory, which is the celebration of others deaths, most of whom were young kids conscripted by a facist regime that murdered and tortured its own people. Those kids, what choice did they have. It might have had to be done, it might even have been of benefit to argentina (as the Junta collapsed soon after). Nothing really to celebrate there. 649 Argentinans died along with 3 Falkland Islanders and 255 British Service men. Ironically more service men from the Falklands would die by their own hand in the coming decade after the war, than were killed by enemy fire - largely down to the Conservative parties dismantling of the British Mental Health system. Of course she celebrated the victory. All war victory is celebrated....It's an unusual thing to comment on. What do you expect Jamie? At the end of WW2 should people have just stood around and cried over loss.....They had been doing that already and for much of them many times after. People weren't celebrating killing soldiers. No one wanted to go to war here. We went to war because we were attacked and invaded and we celebrated because we repulsed that invasion.....No right minded person celebrates soldiers drowning in the sea....War is and has always been terrible. Yes, it was a technically a conflict....But come on it was a 'war' in a restricted zone...A war for those within it.... It's a rose by any other name. '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

13 Apr 13 11.19pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Apr 2013 10.58pm

No we were in a conflict. The UK specifically didn't declare war, and the Belgrano was sunk outside the exclusion zone, on executive order of the prime minister - It was of course the right decision.

Of course she celebrated the victory. All war victory is celebrated....It's an unusual thing to comment on.

What do you expect Jamie?

At the end of WW2 should people have just stood around and cried over loss.....They had been doing that already and for much of them many times after.

People weren't celebrating killing soldiers. No one wanted to go to war here. We went to war because we were attacked and invaded and we celebrated because we repulsed that invasion.....No right minded person celebrates soldiers drowning in the sea....War is and has always been terrible.

Yes, it was a technically a conflict....But come on it was a 'war' in a restricted zone...A war for those within it.... It's a rose by any other name.

'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 13 Apr 13 11.29pm
Quote chris123 at 13 Apr 2013 10.16pm Quote Stirlingsays at 13 Apr 2013 10.09pm Quote newickeagle at 13 Apr 2013 9.53pm Srirling, agreed, Major hung in there long enough to make the railways worse than they were. BUT, she privatised all the utility companies who rip us off now. And big time if you run a business. She had the North Sea revenue and invested none of these huge receipts on the infrastructure. Her tax cutting has not improved our economy or arrested our national decline. IMO!! I'm not sure where I stand on the utility privatisations to be honest.....The railways were a disasterous idea, in fact bringing in the profit motive in areas of safety just isn't a good idea period.....Anyone who's seen programmes about the early airplane industry would know that. Competition to supply power, gas and water is surely a good thing, plus the capital investment in all three is massive and requires investors or are in for the long term. I just don't know enough about it to have a view. Competition is good certainly, but loss of control isn't...I don't know. I know many old Tories were against it. I'm sure there are balanced articles that weigh up the impacts of these policies....I've just never read them....So I'm neutral on it....Apart from rail, which I'm pretty sure that...Even if we had to privatise it that it could have been set up and regulated so much better than it was....Still, as rail involves public safety I'm just against introducing a profit motive. '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

13 Apr 13 11.29pm

Quote chris123 at 13 Apr 2013 10.16pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 13 Apr 2013 10.09pm

Quote newickeagle at 13 Apr 2013 9.53pm

Srirling, agreed, Major hung in there long enough to make the railways worse than they were.

Competition to supply power, gas and water is surely a good thing, plus the capital investment in all three is massive and requires investors or are in for the long term.

I just don't know enough about it to have a view.

Competition is good certainly, but loss of control isn't...I don't know. I know many old Tories were against it.

I'm sure there are balanced articles that weigh up the impacts of these policies....I've just never read them....So I'm neutral on it....Apart from rail, which I'm pretty sure that...Even if we had to privatise it that it could have been set up and regulated so much better than it was....Still, as rail involves public safety I'm just against introducing a profit motive.

'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

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 13 Apr 13 11.53pm
[Link] A great track from the Thatcher era.
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 13 Apr 13 11.53pm

[Link]

A great track from the Thatcher era.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 14 Apr 13 12.11am
Quote nickgusset at 13 Apr 2013 11.53pm [Link] A great track from the Thatcher era. Nick....You almost make me wish for some kind of musical Police state. '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

14 Apr 13 12.11am

Quote nickgusset at 13 Apr 2013 11.53pm

[Link]

A great track from the Thatcher era.

Nick....You almost make me wish for some kind of musical Police state.

'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

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 14 Apr 13 12.50am
Quote Stirlingsays at 14 Apr 2013 12.11am Quote nickgusset at 13 Apr 2013 11.53pm [Link] A great track from the Thatcher era. Nick....You almost make me wish for some kind of musical Police state. White Reggae?
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 14 Apr 13 12.50am

Quote Stirlingsays at 14 Apr 2013 12.11am

Quote nickgusset at 13 Apr 2013 11.53pm

[Link]

A great track from the Thatcher era.

Nick....You almost make me wish for some kind of musical Police state.

White Reggae?

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 14 Apr 13 1.20am
Quote nickgusset at 14 Apr 2013 12.50am Quote Stirlingsays at 14 Apr 2013 12.11am Quote nickgusset at 13 Apr 2013 11.53pm [Link] A great track from the Thatcher era. Nick....You almost make me wish for some kind of musical Police state. White Reggae? Don't care if it's purple reggae it should be battered with sticks. Would probably sound better. I had to listen to this to recover. [Link] '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

14 Apr 13 1.20am

Quote nickgusset at 14 Apr 2013 12.50am

Quote Stirlingsays at 14 Apr 2013 12.11am

Quote nickgusset at 13 Apr 2013 11.53pm

[Link]

A great track from the Thatcher era.

Nick....You almost make me wish for some kind of musical Police state.

White Reggae?

Don't care if it's purple reggae it should be battered with sticks.

Would probably sound better.

I had to listen to this to recover.