Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Ed Miliband will destroy Britain; David Cameron warns the electorate of Labour danger
Topic Started: Oct 18 2014, 11:37 PM (2,550 Views)
Heinrich
Member Avatar
Regular Guy
[ *  *  *  * ]
Writing in The Sunday Telegraph, David Cameron, flushed with his success at scaring the Scottish about Alex Salmond, declares that Britain’s prosperity is at stake in the most important election “for a generation”. He warns today that "Mortgages will rise, businesses will be crushed and the international markets will take fright if Ed Miliband wins power in the general election in 200 days’ time."
The Sunday Telegraph
Readers of The Sunday Telegraph might be frightened away from supporting New Labour after reading this.
Edited by Heinrich, Oct 18 2014, 11:38 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Oct 29 2014, 08:27 PM

Nationalisation is not a failed concept!

The failures were all a consequence of Tory governments having no desire for Nationalisation to succeed.

I ask that instead of judging the practice, judge those in charge of it - harshly.
There can be no reason at all for any Nationalised industry/service provider not to be able to compete and beat those that are privatised - it all boils down to how they are managed, how they are made to perform, the level of investment, and the commitment to succeed.


Labour were in power when what is now BT wanted 2 months to install what would be a shared party line just 200 yards from the exchange because of the agreements they had with the unions

I don't forget that easily, or how Labour government intervention in British Steel was an unmitigated disaster as was British Leyland, the BOAC money pit and for those of us that live in East Sussex we remember how the nationalised British Rail gave us Hither Green

Nationalisation should be a last and rare resort where regulation and market forces really cannot work. Sooner or later it always leads to complacency and over manning for an uncompetitive set of offerings

Trabant anyone?
Edited by Steve K, Oct 29 2014, 09:28 PM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Major Sinic
Oct 26 2014, 11:51 PM
Major Sinic
Oct 26 2014, 11:45 PM
Tigger
Oct 26 2014, 06:18 PM
johnofgwent
Oct 26 2014, 05:21 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
If you currently earn in excess of circa £70K pa you can employ the services of a tax planner and avoid much of the stuff newspapers dishonestly say you must pay.

I believe even high ranking civil servants are eligible. :'(
If you have managed your affairs sensibly, used the tax concessions available and are approaching or beyond your mid fifties you could comfortably enjoy an income exceeding £50k per annum, or £100k if you are married, without paying a single penny in income or capital taxes. Admittedly you had to make enough to have the excess available to invest as you progressed through your working life, and for those investments to be moderately successful, but many successful middle income earners, miles from being truly wealthy or even being in danger of paying a mansion tax (family home tax in London), have put themselves into this situation.

First of all you will have taken maximum advantage of equity PEPs/ISAs and now NISAs. Invested in a FTSE tracker this will have, with capital growth, given a couple around £700k. With a higher risk profile this would be over £1m. Reinvested in equity income funds, direct dividend paying shares or investment trusts this would yield around £40k pa tax free. If you had also been able to accumulate further savings over a working life similarly invested these might possibly be worth a further £500k. Yield alone at around 4% will provide husband and wife with another £20k pa which just about equates to the joint tax free allowance. On £500k if you should be able to realise your capital gains tax free allowance each year as a minimum on average, which is currently £11k each so we are up to £82k. Another £400k invested in Venture Capital Trusts or Enterprise Investment Schemes should yield your final £18k tax free of course, because all dividends as well as capital growth from VCTs and EISs are free from income and capital taxes, and you even get an income tax rebate in the year you make the investment.

The above are all entirely legitimate, main stream tax avoidance measures. Not evasion, not aggressive avoidance! The only catch is that you have to earn and pay tax on the seed capital yourself to enjoy the fruits of your labours. What an incentive for some!

Now I realise Tigger that you don't like the concept of your money working for you, rather than you working for your money, but some of us think it is a fine concept.
I already know most of this as I run a business and employ various accountants and a family tax planner.

I was simply pointing out the false impression that the press and the vested interests like to give, I could easily afford to pay more tax and would not feel the pinch, the real question is would you and others be willing to do the same for the sake of the nation?
Edited by Tigger, Oct 29 2014, 09:55 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Oct 29 2014, 09:25 PM

Trabant anyone?
Well when it comes to the privatised and fragmented railways we already have a Trabant, and a very expensive one at that.

;-)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AndyK
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Oct 29 2014, 08:27 PM
Steve K
Oct 29 2014, 06:28 PM
gee4444
Oct 29 2014, 05:42 PM
johnofgwent
Oct 29 2014, 03:04 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
The solution is simple. Renationalise.
yes of course the list of successes of nationalised industries is so long isn't it  ::)




Nationalisation is not a failed concept!

The failures were all a consequence of Tory governments having no desire for Nationalisation to succeed.

I ask that instead of judging the practice, judge those in charge of it - harshly.
There can be no reason at all for any Nationalised industry/service provider not to be able to compete and beat those that are privatised - it all boils down to how they are managed, how they are made to perform, the level of investment, and the commitment to succeed.






I think where there is little or no competition (such as utility companies) it should be publicly owned.

Otherwise it should be private.

I think British Airways or Rolls Royce would be dead by now had they remained in public hands.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Oct 25 2014, 05:38 PM
gansao
Oct 25 2014, 04:23 PM
How the well heeled squeal when the tax man cometh.
Every right to complain when their expected planed for standard of living is reduced and eroded by the demands of the lgovernments. Those on fixed pensions are thehardest hit, for the value of their incomes is reduced by inflation year on year.
I dont thin ,k it is the rich complaining only the comfortably off who prepared their way for retirement. the ones expected to pay for their own care in care homes.
They are fortunately in the majority , enabling the poor and the fectless to get theirs for free.

Fectless Lacking purpose or vitality; feeble or ineffective. 2. Careless and irresponsible.
And yet, apparently, life is supposed to get easier as one grows older, it would seem, nay, it is definitely the case, that the more prudent you are throughout life then the worse off you will be when in times of need........so much for a free and FAIR society.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gee4444
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Steve K
Oct 29 2014, 07:36 PM
Yes I will bear that in mind every time I use the telephone system, the one the nationalised idiocy would have denied me.

Nationalisation has been a stream of disasters. A triumph of dogma over practicality. It is the right solution in a very few cases as it denies the competition to keep the efficiency improving.

Lets just focus on the Gas industry you wanted renationalised. Any nationalised gas industries in other countries you would say work well?
Nationalisation doesn't deny the competition required to keep efficiency improving - that's a Tory myth peddled to succour it's supporters. Nationalised industries aim should be to return the profits back into the system to improve efficiency and service. I have no problems with implementing the better aspects of privately run businesses to improve efficiency, service and turnover in a nationalised industry (sans slave labour of course). But the key point is that no minority creams the profits - they are reinvested for the benefit of all. I know that sails close to Socialism and the thought of it makes you nauseous, but the current state sponsored privatisation is verging on neo fascism.

Indeed, let's take the gas industry and let's focus on the UK. Competition in this area has reduced prices significantly since privatisation. Discuss.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Oct 27 2014, 11:46 AM
Tigger
Oct 26 2014, 05:17 PM
CharlieandRufus
Oct 26 2014, 05:05 PM
Tigger
Oct 26 2014, 04:51 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepbusiness now pays the least (once near all taxation was from business), and employees pay near all (>90%)

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/history/taxhis1.htm
I agree - but originally inheritance tax was linked to the housing market until the level was pegged at £325,000.

Inheritance tax is a fairer way of taxing wealth held in property than the mansion tax, which doesn't take into account ability to pay. If levied as proposed ( and the details are very sketchy ) the loss to the revenue in Stamp Duty and the fact that payment could be deferred until death, reducing further the tax take from IT, could well mean there is no overall gain in revenue to HMRC.
We need to discourage storing wealth in property it is economically damaging, a house just sits there looking pretty but does absolutely nothing economically worthwhile. I think I'm right in saying that two thirds of the money lent by British banks is secured against land or property, this starves productive areas of the economy of investment, most continental banks have very little by comparison backed by these two asset classes.

Take steps to lower property values and the problem solves itself, btw I have a six bedroomed house......

Absolute twaddle. There is no information that the purchasing of property is starving any other sector of funds. Borrowing costs are at an all time low and there is oodles of money looking for a good investment. Bricks and mortar are seen as a safe store of wealth and a place to keep the rain off your garage full of sports cars. As for taxing savings in preference to incomes well that will have a great effect, it will kill off savings and boost the "live now and let someone else pay later". Not only that your statement demonstrates a complete ignorance of the magnitude of taxes derived from income and no calculation to show plausibility that these can be replaced by hammering assets. Stupid ignorant Red Nag drivel.


I think you should change your handle to "fuck you Jack, I'm alright".
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gee4444
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Andy K: 'I think where there is little or no competition (such as utility companies) it should be publicly owned.

Otherwise it should be private.

I think British Airways or Rolls Royce would be dead by now had they remained in public hands. '



In the main I agree, but I'd suggest any service that is either a necessity or a legal requirement should be publically run. Everything else can be privatised if people so wish it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Oct 29 2014, 10:36 PM
Tytoalba
Oct 25 2014, 05:38 PM
gansao
Oct 25 2014, 04:23 PM
How the well heeled squeal when the tax man cometh.
Every right to complain when their expected planed for standard of living is reduced and eroded by the demands of the lgovernments. Those on fixed pensions are thehardest hit, for the value of their incomes is reduced by inflation year on year.
I dont thin ,k it is the rich complaining only the comfortably off who prepared their way for retirement. the ones expected to pay for their own care in care homes.
They are fortunately in the majority , enabling the poor and the fectless to get theirs for free.

Fectless Lacking purpose or vitality; feeble or ineffective. 2. Careless and irresponsible.
And yet, apparently, life is supposed to get easier as one grows older, it would seem, nay, it is definitely the case, that the more prudent you are throughout life then the worse off you will be when in times of need........so much for a free and FAIR society.
But anyone on a fixed pension has most definitely NOT been prudent. In fact it's only been an allowed option in recent years precisely because of the risks. It's a jam today, gruel tomorrow route.



Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
gee4444
Oct 29 2014, 10:37 PM
. .Indeed, let's take the gas industry and let's focus on the UK. Competition in this area has reduced prices significantly since privatisation. Discuss.
So you can't or won't name a nationalised gas industry that's doing better

So what's a geographically comparable country to the UK? Ireland

Domestic gas price per kWh before tax: 13.94 pence UK and 16.51 in Ireland

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/357896/qep_551.xls

Now I guess you're ahead of me already but guess which one in nationalised? Not ours.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AndyK
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Oct 29 2014, 10:49 PM
gee4444
Oct 29 2014, 10:37 PM
. .Indeed, let's take the gas industry and let's focus on the UK. Competition in this area has reduced prices significantly since privatisation. Discuss.
So you can't or won't name a nationalised gas industry that's doing better

So what's a geographically comparable country to the UK? Ireland

Domestic gas price per kWh before tax: 13.94 pence UK and 16.51 in Ireland

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/357896/qep_551.xls

Now I guess you're ahead of me already but guess which one in nationalised? Not ours.
Probably not the best comparison as I bet they get most of their gas from the UK at inflated prices.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
AndyK
Oct 29 2014, 11:19 PM
Steve K
Oct 29 2014, 10:49 PM
gee4444
Oct 29 2014, 10:37 PM
. .Indeed, let's take the gas industry and let's focus on the UK. Competition in this area has reduced prices significantly since privatisation. Discuss.
So you can't or won't name a nationalised gas industry that's doing better

So what's a geographically comparable country to the UK? Ireland

Domestic gas price per kWh before tax: 13.94 pence UK and 16.51 in Ireland

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/357896/qep_551.xls

Now I guess you're ahead of me already but guess which one in nationalised? Not ours.
Probably not the best comparison as I bet they get most of their gas from the UK at inflated prices.
It's exactly the right comparison. They buy it in bulk from the North Sea, if they had private companies competing for business on price they'd look for better deals. Instead as a nationalised industry their consumers just have to accept the easiest deal they found.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AndyK
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Oct 29 2014, 11:28 PM
AndyK
Oct 29 2014, 11:19 PM
Steve K
Oct 29 2014, 10:49 PM
gee4444
Oct 29 2014, 10:37 PM
. .Indeed, let's take the gas industry and let's focus on the UK. Competition in this area has reduced prices significantly since privatisation. Discuss.
So you can't or won't name a nationalised gas industry that's doing better

So what's a geographically comparable country to the UK? Ireland

Domestic gas price per kWh before tax: 13.94 pence UK and 16.51 in Ireland

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/357896/qep_551.xls

Now I guess you're ahead of me already but guess which one in nationalised? Not ours.
Probably not the best comparison as I bet they get most of their gas from the UK at inflated prices.
It's exactly the right comparison. They buy it in bulk from the North Sea, if they had private companies competing for business on price they'd look for better deals. Instead as a nationalised industry their consumers just have to accept the easiest deal they found.
Fair enough !
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
AndyK
Oct 29 2014, 10:29 PM
Affa
Oct 29 2014, 08:27 PM
Steve K
Oct 29 2014, 06:28 PM
gee4444
Oct 29 2014, 05:42 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
yes of course the list of successes of nationalised industries is so long isn't it  ::)




Nationalisation is not a failed concept!

The failures were all a consequence of Tory governments having no desire for Nationalisation to succeed.

I ask that instead of judging the practice, judge those in charge of it - harshly.
There can be no reason at all for any Nationalised industry/service provider not to be able to compete and beat those that are privatised - it all boils down to how they are managed, how they are made to perform, the level of investment, and the commitment to succeed.






I think where there is little or no competition (such as utility companies) it should be publicly owned.

Otherwise it should be private.

I think British Airways or Rolls Royce would be dead by now had they remained in public hands.
Sorry to pull you up again on some of the detail in your post, although it does seem to be becoming a bit of a regular thing in recent days.

As a private company Rolls Royce actually went bankrupt in the early 1970's and had to be bailed out by the British government of the day.

So much for your unthinking statement eh?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Oct 27 2014, 11:46 AM
Tigger
Oct 26 2014, 05:17 PM
CharlieandRufus
Oct 26 2014, 05:05 PM
Tigger
Oct 26 2014, 04:51 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepbusiness now pays the least (once near all taxation was from business), and employees pay near all (>90%)

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/history/taxhis1.htm
I agree - but originally inheritance tax was linked to the housing market until the level was pegged at £325,000.

Inheritance tax is a fairer way of taxing wealth held in property than the mansion tax, which doesn't take into account ability to pay. If levied as proposed ( and the details are very sketchy ) the loss to the revenue in Stamp Duty and the fact that payment could be deferred until death, reducing further the tax take from IT, could well mean there is no overall gain in revenue to HMRC.
We need to discourage storing wealth in property it is economically damaging, a house just sits there looking pretty but does absolutely nothing economically worthwhile. I think I'm right in saying that two thirds of the money lent by British banks is secured against land or property, this starves productive areas of the economy of investment, most continental banks have very little by comparison backed by these two asset classes.

Take steps to lower property values and the problem solves itself, btw I have a six bedroomed house......

Absolute twaddle. There is no information that the purchasing of property is starving any other sector of funds. Borrowing costs are at an all time low and there is oodles of money looking for a good investment. Bricks and mortar are seen as a safe store of wealth and a place to keep the rain off your garage full of sports cars. As for taxing savings in preference to incomes well that will have a great effect, it will kill off savings and boost the "live now and let someone else pay later". Not only that your statement demonstrates a complete ignorance of the magnitude of taxes derived from income and no calculation to show plausibility that these can be replaced by hammering assets. Stupid ignorant Red Nag drivel.
Twaddle?

Can you find me some figures that tell us how much money British banks have secured on land or property in comparison to manufacturing? In this vein perhaps I should run my business into the ground and extract as much money as possible, buy half a dozen grotty semi's and live off the rent? I'd not have to lift a finger and could join the ranks of the respectable and lazy property troughers, shame about all those jobs going though!

I think you will be rather surprised how much money is secured against property as these days it has explicit government support. Although you'll ignore anything that does not fit the agenda won't you.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AndyK
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Oct 29 2014, 11:28 PM
AndyK
Oct 29 2014, 11:19 PM
Steve K
Oct 29 2014, 10:49 PM
gee4444
Oct 29 2014, 10:37 PM
. .Indeed, let's take the gas industry and let's focus on the UK. Competition in this area has reduced prices significantly since privatisation. Discuss.
So you can't or won't name a nationalised gas industry that's doing better

So what's a geographically comparable country to the UK? Ireland

Domestic gas price per kWh before tax: 13.94 pence UK and 16.51 in Ireland

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/357896/qep_551.xls

Now I guess you're ahead of me already but guess which one in nationalised? Not ours.
Probably not the best comparison as I bet they get most of their gas from the UK at inflated prices.
It's exactly the right comparison. They buy it in bulk from the North Sea, if they had private companies competing for business on price they'd look for better deals. Instead as a nationalised industry their consumers just have to accept the easiest deal they found.
How about the American health service?

Although its only a blog, you might want to read this

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2009/08/14/uk-v-usa-the-basic-healthcare-facts/

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AndyK
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Oct 29 2014, 11:59 PM
AndyK
Oct 29 2014, 10:29 PM
Affa
Oct 29 2014, 08:27 PM
Steve K
Oct 29 2014, 06:28 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepof course the list of successes of nationalised industries is so long isn't it  ::)




Nationalisation is not a failed concept!

The failures were all a consequence of Tory governments having no desire for Nationalisation to succeed.

I ask that instead of judging the practice, judge those in charge of it - harshly.
There can be no reason at all for any Nationalised industry/service provider not to be able to compete and beat those that are privatised - it all boils down to how they are managed, how they are made to perform, the level of investment, and the commitment to succeed.






I think where there is little or no competition (such as utility companies) it should be publicly owned.

Otherwise it should be private.

I think British Airways or Rolls Royce would be dead by now had they remained in public hands.
Sorry to pull you up again on some of the detail in your post, although it does seem to be becoming a bit of a regular thing in recent days.

As a private company Rolls Royce actually went bankrupt in the early 1970's and had to be bailed out by the British government of the day.

So much for your unthinking statement eh?
So did RBS, whats your point?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Oct 29 2014, 09:25 PM
Nationalisation should be a last and rare resort where regulation and market forces really cannot work.

So that would be the entire utilities sector (excluding phones), drugs R&D, the rail system, food production (regulation has failed to prevent the ever increasing use of very damaging additives), healthcare, social care, social housing, prison security and management, all of retail banking, did I miss anything?

All The Best
Edited by Pro Veritas, Oct 30 2014, 10:03 AM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Oct 29 2014, 08:27 PM
Steve K
Oct 29 2014, 06:28 PM
gee4444
Oct 29 2014, 05:42 PM
johnofgwent
Oct 29 2014, 03:04 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
The solution is simple. Renationalise.
yes of course the list of successes of nationalised industries is so long isn't it  ::)




Nationalisation is not a failed concept!

The failures were all a consequence of Tory governments having no desire for Nationalisation to succeed.

I ask that instead of judging the practice, judge those in charge of it - harshly.
There can be no reason at all for any Nationalised industry/service provider not to be able to compete and beat those that are privatised - it all boils down to how they are managed, how they are made to perform, the level of investment, and the commitment to succeed.






There is a lot of truth in your post unfortunately the failure of our capitalist culture had to find a scapegoat to blame for its own failures.

IMO the likes of Gas, Water, Electricity and Oil should never have been privatised.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gee4444
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Steve K
Oct 29 2014, 10:49 PM
gee4444
Oct 29 2014, 10:37 PM
. .Indeed, let's take the gas industry and let's focus on the UK. Competition in this area has reduced prices significantly since privatisation. Discuss.
So you can't or won't name a nationalised gas industry that's doing better

So what's a geographically comparable country to the UK? Ireland

Domestic gas price per kWh before tax: 13.94 pence UK and 16.51 in Ireland

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/357896/qep_551.xls

Now I guess you're ahead of me already but guess which one in nationalised? Not ours.
I have no need to. I prefer to discuss the situation in the UK. Although I have to admit I'm surprised at those figures.

A quick search on the net found this: 'http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/electricity-prices-fourth-highest-in-eu-after-5pc-rise-30294653.html: Electric Ireland – which remains the country's biggest supplier – said that the reason Irish electricity prices came out so high was that Eurostat based its figures on lower average consumption figures than were found here. Ireland fared better when the comparison was based on typical fuel consumption here, coming out at the eurozone average, the ESB said.'

It also showed Irish energy markets are not just state run these days. They too are open too competition, yet their prices rise too. Are you sure this competition idea is really such a good thing?


Now, can you tell me what % of profits made from the Irish energy industry goes to private shareholders and what % is reinvested?

Anyhow back on topic. UK energy prices have risen year on year, profits have risen year on year, all the companies raise their prices in coordinated fashion and not one tries to undercut the competition (the great benefit of privatisation myth). Bosses rake in bigger and bigger bonuses and salaries and many of the UK population remain or slip into fuel poverty.

If it looks like a cartel, smells like a cartel and acts like a cartel then it's probably safe to say it is a cartel.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Interesting but that's about Irish electric prices. We were talking about gas

You say that profits have gone up every year, all the companies raise their prices in co-ordinated fashion etc

A link please to back that allegation of illegality.

I suggest first though you actually look at the profit levels these companies are making and the prices offered by the smaller companies. The market isn't well structured I agree as it takes too long to change suppliers but I do not believe it's a cartel and I certainly do not believe the old nationalised British Gas would have come even close to offering competitive prices.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gee4444
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
It was indeed electricity, but I believe the two charges/rate rises are comparable in respect to their % increases. I haven't the time or inclination to investigate Ireland's energy situation in comparison the to the UK's so will have to accept theirs is more expensive than the UKs. I don't take that as proof that a state run UK energy supply could not provide better vfm for the UK population.

No link required for proof that prices rise in a coordinated fashion. Go and check your energy bills over the last ten years then pick an alternative UK supplier. I assure you the rises will be eerily similar. I know for I've hunted around for alternative suppliers and the potential savings are not worth the effort.

If you believe it's justified for these companies to continue making eye watering profits while many in the UK are afraid to heat their homes then there's little I can say.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
GE4444: More of the same old tired rhetoric, insinuations and insults from you RJD. You're probably too old to change your views on anything so it's to be expected.

No insults intended, but if you see such then that is OK with me. My reference to your Marxism neo or otherwise should have raised a smile not a frown, but there we go.

GE4444: I did enjoy your reference to the majority supporting Hitler being in the wrong as justification you're correct to be in the minority who think progressive tax reforms are unjustified. Quite a compelling comparison!

Just pointing out the illogicality of you claim that the majority must always be in the right. But again it went right over the Cuckoo's Nest.

GE4444: I'm quite aware you are totally disinterested in punishing people for perceived success (although that description is conveniently deceptive, designed to overlook their greed), for you as a Tory supporter of this Bullingdon club oligarchy are interested only in punishing the poorest and vulnerable.

I have problems with your use of emotion words such as greed and that is why I put spite and envy on the other side of the scales. Again right over the top of your head.

GE4444: You claimed risking your house as collateral should be rewarded,

No I did not.


GE4444: and to some extent I agree. So the responsibility is on you, not me, to back up your claim with figures.

No it is not as I made no such claim.

GE4444: Are you seriously suggesting the wealth gap hasn't widened in recent years? I do hope so, for it shows you for the bigot you clearly are.

No I did not and not even someone with the most twisted of imaginations can construe my statements to mean such. Again clear the emotional fug out of your head.

GE4444: VAT, council tax and other non direct taxes need to be considered. You want me to spoon feed you the stats? Just ask and I will.

Please do as I need to try and understand how you persuade yourself to adopt such extreme views. As I said you must have based these on some real facts from somewhere.

GE4444: Those with the means to pay more should pay more. That's what is just and right.

And the actuality of the situation. But your claim, if I am correct, is that they should pay even more and be denied the accumulation of any wealth as this is pure greed. Here you have decided to be Judge and Jury on what is greed and who is to be considered greedy without the decency of explaining your yardsticks. Very Marxist if you do not mind me saying so.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
gee4444
Oct 30 2014, 01:30 PM
It was indeed electricity, but I believe the two charges/rate rises are comparable in respect to their % increases. I haven't the time or inclination to investigate Ireland's energy situation in comparison the to the UK's so will have to accept theirs is more expensive than the UKs. I don't take that as proof that a state run UK energy supply could not provide better vfm for the UK population.

No link required for proof that prices rise in a coordinated fashion. Go and check your energy bills over the last ten years then pick an alternative UK supplier. I assure you the rises will be eerily similar. I know for I've hunted around for alternative suppliers and the potential savings are not worth the effort.

If you believe it's justified for these companies to continue making eye watering profits while many in the UK are afraid to heat their homes then there's little I can say.
As prices are "market prices" why would one expect them to rise or fall without consideration of the competitive situation. You confuse costs with sales prices and there is generally no fixed mathematical ratio that exists for a long period or is applicable to all suppliers at one and the same time. Suppliers respond to market prices and have to factor in raw material cost changes and the effect of already established fixed tariff supply contracts. You seem to have a very simplistic view that expects price variation to be in direct correlation with raw material cost variations. The only sensible judgement as to whether prices are exorbitant or not is to follow the money and here you will find that Shareholders are not getting rich pickings and most are Pension Funds that provide also for those with the most meagre of monthly incomes. There is absolutely no evidence that State ownership and control will result in manufacturing/distribution cost reductions to the consumer, unless of course the State subsidises these, but it does not need to own to do that does it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gee4444
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
RJD: No insults intended, but if you see such then that is OK with me. My reference to your Marxism neo or otherwise should have raised a smile not a frown, but there we go.

Save your BS for the gullable.

RJD: Just pointing out the illogicality of you claim that the majority must always be in the right. But again it went right over the Cuckoo's Nest.

And I was pointing out the relevance of your reference to the extreme right, but once again it was an insult wasted on the slow of uptake.

RJD: I have problems with your use of emotion words such as greed and that is why I put spite and envy on the other side of the scales. Again right over the top of your head.

You have lots of problems, your incorrectly perceived haughty superiority being just one of many.

RJD: ...more generalised denials....

Dismissed for the trash they are.

RJD: No I did not and not even someone with the most twisted of imaginations can construe my statements to mean such. Again clear the emotional fug out of your head.

Then explain the enigma that is the widening wealth gap in spite of increased taxes burdening the obscenely rich. You cannot see the logical failures in your argument, although it's hard to see anything with your head up your own arse, so I'll cut you some slack.

RJD: Please do as I need to try and understand how you persuade yourself to adopt such extreme views. As I said you must have based these on some real facts from somewhere.

Not very good with sarcasm are you? Go get 'em yourself, they are readily accessible all over the internet. Your laziness is quite unattractive.

RJD: And the actuality of the situation.

Then why are they getting richer? It's a conundrum isn't it. When I took mathematics at school x-y < x-z where x is constant and z<y. But in this case this is not true. So either x is not constant or z is not < y. (I'll help you out: x = income, y and z = taxes paid at two distinct moments in time).

I'd be so bold as to suggest anyone who is lucky enough to be caught by the 45% tax bracket (applies only on earnings over £150k - a fact that you constantly omit) should be more than content to pay 50% of it in taxes. Whining they are being persecuted is indeed an example of greed. Maybe we need to concentrate on a maximum wage as opposed to constantly discussing the minimum wage? No doubt your neo fascist stance couldn't be convinced of such an idea - hell, you probably can't even grasp the concept - but fairness never was a characteristic of the fully paid members of the self obsessed haughty club.
Edited by gee4444, Oct 30 2014, 06:09 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gee4444
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
RJD
Oct 30 2014, 02:33 PM
gee4444
Oct 30 2014, 01:30 PM
It was indeed electricity, but I believe the two charges/rate rises are comparable in respect to their % increases. I haven't the time or inclination to investigate Ireland's energy situation in comparison the to the UK's so will have to accept theirs is more expensive than the UKs. I don't take that as proof that a state run UK energy supply could not provide better vfm for the UK population.

No link required for proof that prices rise in a coordinated fashion. Go and check your energy bills over the last ten years then pick an alternative UK supplier. I assure you the rises will be eerily similar. I know for I've hunted around for alternative suppliers and the potential savings are not worth the effort.

If you believe it's justified for these companies to continue making eye watering profits while many in the UK are afraid to heat their homes then there's little I can say.
As prices are "market prices" why would one expect them to rise or fall without consideration of the competitive situation. You confuse costs with sales prices and there is generally no fixed mathematical ratio that exists for a long period or is applicable to all suppliers at one and the same time. Suppliers respond to market prices and have to factor in raw material cost changes and the effect of already established fixed tariff supply contracts. You seem to have a very simplistic view that expects price variation to be in direct correlation with raw material cost variations. The only sensible judgement as to whether prices are exorbitant or not is to follow the money and here you will find that Shareholders are not getting rich pickings and most are Pension Funds that provide also for those with the most meagre of monthly incomes. There is absolutely no evidence that State ownership and control will result in manufacturing/distribution cost reductions to the consumer, unless of course the State subsidises these, but it does not need to own to do that does it?
I'm not arguing about market costs, costs of resourcing products etc etc.

I'm stating that not one of the energy suppliers in the UK has attempted to undercut their competitors to garner new customers. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that supposed to be the foundation of free enterprise and competition in this Capitalist nightmare?

I'm suggesting none of these privately owned energy companies has any intention of undercutting anyone, that would result in a price war and none of them would win - only the serf in the street would gain from such ridiculous activity. Facts show that my understanding of the current situation is correct. I've asked many times for evidence to prove otherwise and not once has any been put forward. maybe you have some?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
gee4444
Oct 30 2014, 05:59 PM
RJD
Oct 30 2014, 02:33 PM
gee4444
Oct 30 2014, 01:30 PM
It was indeed electricity, but I believe the two charges/rate rises are comparable in respect to their % increases. I haven't the time or inclination to investigate Ireland's energy situation in comparison the to the UK's so will have to accept theirs is more expensive than the UKs. I don't take that as proof that a state run UK energy supply could not provide better vfm for the UK population.

No link required for proof that prices rise in a coordinated fashion. Go and check your energy bills over the last ten years then pick an alternative UK supplier. I assure you the rises will be eerily similar. I know for I've hunted around for alternative suppliers and the potential savings are not worth the effort.

If you believe it's justified for these companies to continue making eye watering profits while many in the UK are afraid to heat their homes then there's little I can say.
As prices are "market prices" why would one expect them to rise or fall without consideration of the competitive situation. You confuse costs with sales prices and there is generally no fixed mathematical ratio that exists for a long period or is applicable to all suppliers at one and the same time. Suppliers respond to market prices and have to factor in raw material cost changes and the effect of already established fixed tariff supply contracts. You seem to have a very simplistic view that expects price variation to be in direct correlation with raw material cost variations. The only sensible judgement as to whether prices are exorbitant or not is to follow the money and here you will find that Shareholders are not getting rich pickings and most are Pension Funds that provide also for those with the most meagre of monthly incomes. There is absolutely no evidence that State ownership and control will result in manufacturing/distribution cost reductions to the consumer, unless of course the State subsidises these, but it does not need to own to do that does it?
I'm not arguing about market costs, costs of resourcing products etc etc.

I'm stating that not one of the energy suppliers in the UK has attempted to undercut their competitors to garner new customers. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that supposed to be the foundation of free enterprise and competition in this Capitalist nightmare?

I'm suggesting none of these privately owned energy companies has any intention of undercutting anyone, that would result in a price war and none of them would win - only the serf in the street would gain from such ridiculous activity. Facts show that my understanding of the current situation is correct. I've asked many times for evidence to prove otherwise and not once has any been put forward. maybe you have some?
Well the rip off merchants operate a cartel, where the needs of the UK consumer comes a poor relation to that of corporate profit, the fat cats and to subsidise the foreign consumer in their own country. This at the expense and suffering of the UK consumer.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
AndyK
Oct 30 2014, 08:30 AM
Tigger
Oct 29 2014, 11:59 PM
AndyK
Oct 29 2014, 10:29 PM
Affa
Oct 29 2014, 08:27 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepof course
Nationalisation is not a failed concept!

The failures were all a consequence of Tory governments having no desire for Nationalisation to succeed.

I ask that instead of judging the practice, judge those in charge of it - harshly.
There can be no reason at all for any Nationalised industry/service provider not to be able to compete and beat those that are privatised - it all boils down to how they are managed, how they are made to perform, the level of investment, and the commitment to succeed.






I think where there is little or no competition (such as utility companies) it should be publicly owned.

Otherwise it should be private.

I think British Airways or Rolls Royce would be dead by now had they remained in public hands.
Sorry to pull you up again on some of the detail in your post, although it does seem to be becoming a bit of a regular thing in recent days.

As a private company Rolls Royce actually went bankrupt in the early 1970's and had to be bailed out by the British government of the day.

So much for your unthinking statement eh?
So did RBS, whats your point?

My point is you don't check your facts before operating your keyboard! ;D

Because you think something fits in with your ideology you make lazy mistakes.

I point them out. :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gee4444
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Lewis
Oct 30 2014, 07:46 PM
gee4444
Oct 30 2014, 05:59 PM
RJD
Oct 30 2014, 02:33 PM
gee4444
Oct 30 2014, 01:30 PM
It was indeed electricity, but I believe the two charges/rate rises are comparable in respect to their % increases. I haven't the time or inclination to investigate Ireland's energy situation in comparison the to the UK's so will have to accept theirs is more expensive than the UKs. I don't take that as proof that a state run UK energy supply could not provide better vfm for the UK population.

No link required for proof that prices rise in a coordinated fashion. Go and check your energy bills over the last ten years then pick an alternative UK supplier. I assure you the rises will be eerily similar. I know for I've hunted around for alternative suppliers and the potential savings are not worth the effort.

If you believe it's justified for these companies to continue making eye watering profits while many in the UK are afraid to heat their homes then there's little I can say.
As prices are "market prices" why would one expect them to rise or fall without consideration of the competitive situation. You confuse costs with sales prices and there is generally no fixed mathematical ratio that exists for a long period or is applicable to all suppliers at one and the same time. Suppliers respond to market prices and have to factor in raw material cost changes and the effect of already established fixed tariff supply contracts. You seem to have a very simplistic view that expects price variation to be in direct correlation with raw material cost variations. The only sensible judgement as to whether prices are exorbitant or not is to follow the money and here you will find that Shareholders are not getting rich pickings and most are Pension Funds that provide also for those with the most meagre of monthly incomes. There is absolutely no evidence that State ownership and control will result in manufacturing/distribution cost reductions to the consumer, unless of course the State subsidises these, but it does not need to own to do that does it?
I'm not arguing about market costs, costs of resourcing products etc etc.

I'm stating that not one of the energy suppliers in the UK has attempted to undercut their competitors to garner new customers. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that supposed to be the foundation of free enterprise and competition in this Capitalist nightmare?

I'm suggesting none of these privately owned energy companies has any intention of undercutting anyone, that would result in a price war and none of them would win - only the serf in the street would gain from such ridiculous activity. Facts show that my understanding of the current situation is correct. I've asked many times for evidence to prove otherwise and not once has any been put forward. maybe you have some?
Well the rip off merchants operate a cartel, where the needs of the UK consumer comes a poor relation to that of corporate profit, the fat cats and to subsidise the foreign consumer in their own country. This at the expense and suffering of the UK consumer.
Precisely.

Why certain others on here have trouble accepting the obvious is, well, quite obvious really. It doesn't fit their dogma.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Oct 30 2014, 10:27 AM
Affa
Oct 29 2014, 08:27 PM
Steve K
Oct 29 2014, 06:28 PM
gee4444
Oct 29 2014, 05:42 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
yes of course the list of successes of nationalised industries is so long isn't it  ::)




Nationalisation is not a failed concept!

The failures were all a consequence of Tory governments having no desire for Nationalisation to succeed.

I ask that instead of judging the practice, judge those in charge of it - harshly.
There can be no reason at all for any Nationalised industry/service provider not to be able to compete and beat those that are privatised - it all boils down to how they are managed, how they are made to perform, the level of investment, and the commitment to succeed.






There is a lot of truth in your post unfortunately the failure of our capitalist culture had to find a scapegoat to blame for its own failures.

IMO the likes of Gas, Water, Electricity and Oil should never have been privatised.

I have said the same ever since I joined this forum (and the old one) despite being a right winger, imo, essentials should not be in the hands of speculators and greedy profiteers.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
gee4444
Oct 30 2014, 01:30 PM
It was indeed electricity, but I believe the two charges/rate rises are comparable in respect to their % increases. I haven't the time or inclination to investigate Ireland's energy situation in comparison the to the UK's so will have to accept theirs is more expensive than the UKs. I don't take that as proof that a state run UK energy supply could not provide better vfm for the UK population.

No link required for proof that prices rise in a coordinated fashion. Go and check your energy bills over the last ten years then pick an alternative UK supplier. I assure you the rises will be eerily similar. I know for I've hunted around for alternative suppliers and the potential savings are not worth the effort.

If you believe it's justified for these companies to continue making eye watering profits while many in the UK are afraid to heat their homes then there's little I can say.
I suggest the key point is you were asked to name a nationalised supplier that was doing well and you have not

Speaks volumes imho
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Oct 30 2014, 09:33 PM
C-too
Oct 30 2014, 10:27 AM
Affa
Oct 29 2014, 08:27 PM
Steve K
Oct 29 2014, 06:28 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepof course the list of successes of nationalised industries is so long isn't it  ::)




Nationalisation is not a failed concept!

The failures were all a consequence of Tory governments having no desire for Nationalisation to succeed.

I ask that instead of judging the practice, judge those in charge of it - harshly.
There can be no reason at all for any Nationalised industry/service provider not to be able to compete and beat those that are privatised - it all boils down to how they are managed, how they are made to perform, the level of investment, and the commitment to succeed.






There is a lot of truth in your post unfortunately the failure of our capitalist culture had to find a scapegoat to blame for its own failures.

IMO the likes of Gas, Water, Electricity and Oil should never have been privatised.

I have said the same ever since I joined this forum (and the old one) despite being a right winger, imo, essentials should not be in the hands of speculators and greedy profiteers.
Agreed just shows that all essential utilities and services we rely on should not be in the hands of the rip off merchants. They should be nationalised and run for no profit for the benefit of the UK consumer.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
gee4444
Oct 30 2014, 05:53 PM
RJD: No insults intended, but if you see such then that is OK with me. My reference to your Marxism neo or otherwise should have raised a smile not a frown, but there we go.

Save your BS for the gullable.

RJD: Just pointing out the illogicality of you claim that the majority must always be in the right. But again it went right over the Cuckoo's Nest.

And I was pointing out the relevance of your reference to the extreme right, but once again it was an insult wasted on the slow of uptake.

RJD: I have problems with your use of emotion words such as greed and that is why I put spite and envy on the other side of the scales. Again right over the top of your head.

You have lots of problems, your incorrectly perceived haughty superiority being just one of many.

RJD: ...more generalised denials....

Dismissed for the trash they are.

RJD: No I did not and not even someone with the most twisted of imaginations can construe my statements to mean such. Again clear the emotional fug out of your head.

Then explain the enigma that is the widening wealth gap in spite of increased taxes burdening the obscenely rich. You cannot see the logical failures in your argument, although it's hard to see anything with your head up your own arse, so I'll cut you some slack.

RJD: Please do as I need to try and understand how you persuade yourself to adopt such extreme views. As I said you must have based these on some real facts from somewhere.

Not very good with sarcasm are you? Go get 'em yourself, they are readily accessible all over the internet. Your laziness is quite unattractive.

RJD: And the actuality of the situation.

Then why are they getting richer? It's a conundrum isn't it. When I took mathematics at school x-y < x-z where x is constant and z<y. But in this case this is not true. So either x is not constant or z is not < y. (I'll help you out: x = income, y and z = taxes paid at two distinct moments in time).

I'd be so bold as to suggest anyone who is lucky enough to be caught by the 45% tax bracket (applies only on earnings over £150k - a fact that you constantly omit) should be more than content to pay 50% of it in taxes. Whining they are being persecuted is indeed an example of greed. Maybe we need to concentrate on a maximum wage as opposed to constantly discussing the minimum wage? No doubt your neo fascist stance couldn't be convinced of such an idea - hell, you probably can't even grasp the concept - but fairness never was a characteristic of the fully paid members of the self obsessed haughty club.
Not a conundrum GE but well understood as we as a nation and elsewhere across this Planet have been earning more from capital than Labour for nigh on 30 years, increasingly so. It is those with the capital that obtains the most benefit and those with only a bit of manual dexterity to offer ibn competition with hundreds of others, the least. You might not like it but today investment in plant and machinery earns more than that with Labour. That said such has provided us shorter working week and longer holidays. As for the legions of unemployed where did they come crom?
There is a nice little graph somewhere that shows the constant year on year reduction in the importance of Labour in our GDP you should look it up. At the same time you will rediscover that our decline in manufacturing was all do to Thatcher is just another Red Nag myth as this started in earnest around 1965 and has been fairly constant in the rate of decline since. On top of that notice e for a mature economy the portion of manufacturing in our GDP, which relates to Labour activity, is average. So what do you propose? Go back to nationalisation and massive overhanging perhaps?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Was "overhanging" a bit of a slip there :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Lewis
Oct 30 2014, 11:14 PM
Rich
Oct 30 2014, 09:33 PM
C-too
Oct 30 2014, 10:27 AM
Affa
Oct 29 2014, 08:27 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepof course
Nationalisation is not a failed concept!

The failures were all a consequence of Tory governments having no desire for Nationalisation to succeed.

I ask that instead of judging the practice, judge those in charge of it - harshly.
There can be no reason at all for any Nationalised industry/service provider not to be able to compete and beat those that are privatised - it all boils down to how they are managed, how they are made to perform, the level of investment, and the commitment to succeed.






There is a lot of truth in your post unfortunately the failure of our capitalist culture had to find a scapegoat to blame for its own failures.

IMO the likes of Gas, Water, Electricity and Oil should never have been privatised.

I have said the same ever since I joined this forum (and the old one) despite being a right winger, imo, essentials should not be in the hands of speculators and greedy profiteers.
Agreed just shows that all essential utilities and services we rely on should not be in the hands of the rip off merchants. They should be nationalised and run for no profit for the benefit of the UK consumer.
Its been tried in the past and failed. Too often politics replaces profitability, with the Unions dictating the agenda, leading to over manning,to the point that there is no profit to feed back , standards drop and they have to be supported by the taxpayers.
Governments no longer want the responsibility or the blame for failure, or for rising prices,they prefer the private companies to carry the blame , and to get the taxes they generate back. into the public coffers.
Its too easy to say privatise, but much more complicated to put into effect, with its unforseen consequences
Like it or not, private companies are generally far more efficiently run and more accountable,even when they do make a profit.
There is no reson to believe that governments can run companies or utilities better than private buisiness.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Lewis
Oct 30 2014, 11:14 PM
Rich
Oct 30 2014, 09:33 PM
C-too
Oct 30 2014, 10:27 AM
Affa
Oct 29 2014, 08:27 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepof course
Nationalisation is not a failed concept!

The failures were all a consequence of Tory governments having no desire for Nationalisation to succeed.

I ask that instead of judging the practice, judge those in charge of it - harshly.
There can be no reason at all for any Nationalised industry/service provider not to be able to compete and beat those that are privatised - it all boils down to how they are managed, how they are made to perform, the level of investment, and the commitment to succeed.






There is a lot of truth in your post unfortunately the failure of our capitalist culture had to find a scapegoat to blame for its own failures.

IMO the likes of Gas, Water, Electricity and Oil should never have been privatised.

I have said the same ever since I joined this forum (and the old one) despite being a right winger, imo, essentials should not be in the hands of speculators and greedy profiteers.
Agreed just shows that all essential utilities and services we rely on should not be in the hands of the rip off merchants. They should be nationalised and run for no profit for the benefit of the UK consumer.
Now here I would disagree, I believe that a nationalised industry should and could make enough profit to cover it's own costs and anything left over should be given back to the shareholders.......the general public, I do not think that anyone in this country is not willing to pay for fuel and water assurance, what the hell, we pay for it already and we get a year on year increase, as long as a nationalised industry covers the cost of it's employees wages by the same rate of inflation then I am quite happy as a taxpayer to fund that premise.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Oct 31 2014, 12:24 PM
Lewis
Oct 30 2014, 11:14 PM
Rich
Oct 30 2014, 09:33 PM
C-too
Oct 30 2014, 10:27 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepof course
Nationalisation is not a failed concept!

I have said the same ever since I joined this forum (and the old one) despite being a right winger, imo, essentials should not be in the hands of speculators and greedy profiteers.
Agreed just shows that all essential utilities and services we rely on should not be in the hands of the rip off merchants. They should be nationalised and run for no profit for the benefit of the UK consumer.
Its been tried in the past and failed. Too often politics replaces profitability, with the Unions dictating the agenda, leading to over manning,to the point that there is no profit to feed back , standards drop and they have to be supported by the taxpayers.
Governments no longer want the responsibility or the blame for failure, or for rising prices,they prefer the private companies to carry the blame , and to get the taxes they generate back. into the public coffers.
Its too easy to say privatise, but much more complicated to put into effect, with its unforseen consequences
Like it or not, private companies are generally far more efficiently run and more accountable,even when they do make a profit.
There is no reson to believe that governments can run companies or utilities better than private buisiness.
You are painting a picture that reflects the failure of capitalism in this country, and have a true Tory approach in attempting to blame everything on nationalisation and the unions.

IMO 50 years of economic and social decline and failure was followed by the rot that began in the 1950s when the Tories scrapped Labour's export led recovery and relied more upon our internal markets. As a result of that, in 1964 Labour inherited the second largest trading deficit ever recorded.

Things went downhill from there with the final financial nail being put in the coffin by the dual problems of a world recession and the oil crisis in the early 1970s.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Oct 31 2014, 12:26 PM
Lewis
Oct 30 2014, 11:14 PM
Rich
Oct 30 2014, 09:33 PM
C-too
Oct 30 2014, 10:27 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepof course
Nationalisation is not a failed concept!

I have said the same ever since I joined this forum (and the old one) despite being a right winger, imo, essentials should not be in the hands of speculators and greedy profiteers.
Agreed just shows that all essential utilities and services we rely on should not be in the hands of the rip off merchants. They should be nationalised and run for no profit for the benefit of the UK consumer.
Now here I would disagree, I believe that a nationalised industry should and could make enough profit to cover it's own costs and anything left over should be given back to the shareholders.......the general public, I do not think that anyone in this country is not willing to pay for fuel and water assurance, what the hell, we pay for it already and we get a year on year increase, as long as a nationalised industry covers the cost of it's employees wages by the same rate of inflation then I am quite happy as a taxpayer to fund that premise.
Problem is that history shows that the outcome is more likely a demand for State subsidy rather than the opposite. I do not know where you have found evidence to indicate that the Public sector could run a proverbial at a brewery on time and within budget? Perhaps you can point to some evidence?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Oct 31 2014, 12:42 PM
Tytoalba
Oct 31 2014, 12:24 PM
Lewis
Oct 30 2014, 11:14 PM
Rich
Oct 30 2014, 09:33 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepof course
Nationalisation is not a failed concept!
Agreed just shows that all essential utilities and services we rely on should not be in the hands of the rip off merchants. They should be nationalised and run for no profit for the benefit of the UK consumer.
Its been tried in the past and failed. Too often politics replaces profitability, with the Unions dictating the agenda, leading to over manning,to the point that there is no profit to feed back , standards drop and they have to be supported by the taxpayers.
Governments no longer want the responsibility or the blame for failure, or for rising prices,they prefer the private companies to carry the blame , and to get the taxes they generate back. into the public coffers.
Its too easy to say privatise, but much more complicated to put into effect, with its unforseen consequences
Like it or not, private companies are generally far more efficiently run and more accountable,even when they do make a profit.
There is no reson to believe that governments can run companies or utilities better than private buisiness.
You are painting a picture that reflects the failure of capitalism in this country, and have a true Tory approach in attempting to blame everything on nationalisation and the unions.

IMO 50 years of economic and social decline and failure was followed by the rot that began in the 1950s when the Tories scrapped Labour's export led recovery and relied more upon our internal markets. As a result of that, in 1964 Labour inherited the second largest trading deficit ever recorded.

Things went downhill from there with the final financial nail being put in the coffin by the dual problems of a world recession and the oil crisis in the early 1970s.

All that you claim is disputed by others and you offer no evidence here or elsewhere that State control of any industry results in benefits for consumers. However there are literally tombs of evidence showing the opposite. If there was anything to be learned from the 20th C it is that the organs of the State are generally unfit for purpose. Not many Politicians in the western World would put their heads up and proclaim nationalisation of any industry to be a sensible strategy. Only the tiny lefty minority would be so bold and according to your definition they are just Extremists.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gee4444
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Steve K
Oct 30 2014, 11:10 PM
gee4444
Oct 30 2014, 01:30 PM
It was indeed electricity, but I believe the two charges/rate rises are comparable in respect to their % increases. I haven't the time or inclination to investigate Ireland's energy situation in comparison the to the UK's so will have to accept theirs is more expensive than the UKs. I don't take that as proof that a state run UK energy supply could not provide better vfm for the UK population.

No link required for proof that prices rise in a coordinated fashion. Go and check your energy bills over the last ten years then pick an alternative UK supplier. I assure you the rises will be eerily similar. I know for I've hunted around for alternative suppliers and the potential savings are not worth the effort.

If you believe it's justified for these companies to continue making eye watering profits while many in the UK are afraid to heat their homes then there's little I can say.
I suggest the key point is you were asked to name a nationalised supplier that was doing well and you have not

Speaks volumes imho
I have to admit you have me there. My knowledge on energy providers in non UK countries is certainly lacking. I do not intend to investigate them either, for in my opinion they are not really relevant to the point I am claiming - that a cartel is in operation in this sector here in the UK.

Did or did not the Thatcher government claim privatisation in the energy sector would reduce prices and benefit the consumer? The reality is they have benefited shareholders and the bosses who run them.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply