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 (2,549 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:
johnofgwent
Member Avatar
It .. It is GREEN !!
[ *  *  *  * ]
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?
Just before I comply with your request to stick to the gas industry, I'll remind you how well the privatised east coast main line is doing .. oh hang on a minute, they had to take it back into public ownership didn't they, and embarrassingly, ITS DOING RATHER BETTER THAN IT DID as a privatised business. Funny that.

Anyway, Gas. Now I know a bit about this from my days writing the call centre apps for tranche four. The only reason the gas deregulation worked so well is the government forced british gas to leave its prices some 30% above every one of the companies offering people "30% lower gas bills if you transfer to us" as it said on the back of all the buses. And who were these companies ? why the ones that used to be your "electricity board". The antics of the "salesmen" were on a par with the PPI scumsellers and a five minute perusal of the OfWTF-are-we-called-now site will show you that Npower's still are.

Of course the REAL fun started when the electricity boards as were started to package up "dual fuel" discounts. You see, the government pulled the same stunt they did with british gas, the "in area" electricity supplier was forced to sit and watch their in area customers get stolen from them by the legislation that denied them the right to compete. Oh, you should have seen the sparks fly ...

No, sorry, energy in Britain has been a rigged market from the start.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Kudos for holding your hands up to that one.

It would be nice to think that the energy market was a cartel. I don't know really that there is actually evidence to support this other than insinuation. From my recall of economics I think it seems far more likely that what we have is a oligopoly with a kinked demand curve. The same is true of the petrol market.

At the end of the day it is one of two things. Prices are going up as a consequence of demand or we are being ripped off. There's probably a bit of both. What is requried is a watchdog with teeth.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
gee4444
Oct 31 2014, 02:35 PM
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.



But the question is have Shareholders gained at the expense of consumers and here in the UK you have not offered one iota of evidence to indicate that is the case. You have to understand that if the State were to own and operate it too would have a cost of capital employed. So with the Labour Gov prepared to pay up to 18 per cent on PFI projects a dividend of around 5 or maybe if lucky 6 per cent for Utitity Shareholders looks like a good deal. There is no evidence in the history of this Planet that indicates that the State control of such industries benefits consumers or taxpayers. If you have such put it up, if you don't then best question your dogma.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Oct 31 2014, 02:24 PM
Rich
Oct 31 2014, 12:26 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.
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?

I would suggest that should the essential services industries were ever to be re nationalised that the CEO's of them were recruited from within companies in the footsie 100 and let their tried and trusted methods be used to run them and also make the services non unionised.

I suppose I am tilting at windmills here but just because they were very badly managed in the past does not mean that would be the case in the future, at least I would hope so anyway, perhaps a trial period of a decade could be settled on and see how they progress.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Oct 31 2014, 04:14 PM
RJD
Oct 31 2014, 02:24 PM
Rich
Oct 31 2014, 12:26 PM
Lewis
Oct 30 2014, 11:14 PM

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

I would suggest that should the essential services industries were ever to be re nationalised that the CEO's of them were recruited from within companies in the footsie 100 and let their tried and trusted methods be used to run them and also make the services non unionised.

I suppose I am tilting at windmills here but just because they were very badly managed in the past does not mean that would be the case in the future, at least I would hope so anyway, perhaps a trial period of a decade could be settled on and see how they progress.
How do you apply the tried and trusted profit motive with a state owned monopoly? No competition means that overmanning and employee orientation will become the norm, costs will rise and services decline. Predictable. Same result with every state run operation ever in the history of the universe.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gee4444
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
RJD
Oct 31 2014, 02:55 PM
gee4444
Oct 31 2014, 02:35 PM
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.



But the question is have Shareholders gained at the expense of consumers and here in the UK you have not offered one iota of evidence to indicate that is the case. You have to understand that if the State were to own and operate it too would have a cost of capital employed. So with the Labour Gov prepared to pay up to 18 per cent on PFI projects a dividend of around 5 or maybe if lucky 6 per cent for Utitity Shareholders looks like a good deal. There is no evidence in the history of this Planet that indicates that the State control of such industries benefits consumers or taxpayers. If you have such put it up, if you don't then best question your dogma.
Apart from the evidence in black and white on my bills, where I think it's a fairly safe assumption the rise in my bills for gas and electric translate into higher profits for shareholders, here's some from the torygraph:

'...Ofgem said the 'Big Six' - British Gas, Npower, Scottish & Southern Energy (SSE), Scottish Power, E.ON and EDF - made a combined £1.2 billion in their household supply businesses last year, up 75 per cent on 2011 and five times higher than £221 million in 2009. Profit per household was £53 in 2012, against just £8 three years before...'

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10472758/Profits-at-Big-Six-energy-companies-have-rocketed-since-the-financial-crisis-began.html


Comparing PFI projects with energy company profits smack to me of desperation - and suggesting PFI is all the fault of the state quite infantile. We both know and agree PFI is a rip off. Comparing something that is horrendously disgusting to something that is downright disgusting proves nothing except the lack of substance in your argument.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gee4444
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
RJD
Oct 31 2014, 09:05 AM
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?
I was following your points and even agreeing with some of them. But you lost my interest when you claimed such advances have resulted in shorter working weeks and longer holidays. I suppose compared to the 1800s that statement does hold some truth. Unfortunately Cammers, Gideon and the rest of the plum duffed silver spooned beholders of oligarchies everywhere that you fawn over are fast returning us to workshop conditions. So as Cammer's like to spout - I'll take no lectures from you on those matters.

The legions of unemployed you ask? They possibly arrived (or more accurately transposed into for they were already residents) due to the importation of cheap labour from the Easter European sector. Yet another fantastic ploy by the Tories who signed these agreements under Heath, with not a sniff of a referendum (I know you like to blame NL but I've been reading up on a few facts in this area) to supply legions of cheap labour for UK capitalists to exploit. Then along came Thatcher who abolished any minimum wage law and crushed the unions to reduce organised rejection of Capitalist exploitation.

I propose a return to nationalism for essential services with profits reinvested into improving services and not for lining the pockets of the selected few. But you already know that.
Edited by gee4444, Oct 31 2014, 08:49 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gee4444
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
RJD
Oct 31 2014, 05:13 PM
Rich
Oct 31 2014, 04:14 PM
RJD
Oct 31 2014, 02:24 PM
Rich
Oct 31 2014, 12:26 PM

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

I would suggest that should the essential services industries were ever to be re nationalised that the CEO's of them were recruited from within companies in the footsie 100 and let their tried and trusted methods be used to run them and also make the services non unionised.

I suppose I am tilting at windmills here but just because they were very badly managed in the past does not mean that would be the case in the future, at least I would hope so anyway, perhaps a trial period of a decade could be settled on and see how they progress.
How do you apply the tried and trusted profit motive with a state owned monopoly? No competition means that overmanning and employee orientation will become the norm, costs will rise and services decline. Predictable. Same result with every state run operation ever in the history of the universe.
Didn't JohnofGwent just provide an example of a profitable state run enterprise in Eastern Railways? As far as I'm aware they operate within this universe. Although it's an understandable mistake on your part for you frequently make statements that infer you exist in a parallel universe.
Edited by gee4444, Oct 31 2014, 08:50 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Oct 31 2014, 05:13 PM
Rich
Oct 31 2014, 04:14 PM
RJD
Oct 31 2014, 02:24 PM
Rich
Oct 31 2014, 12:26 PM

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

I would suggest that should the essential services industries were ever to be re nationalised that the CEO's of them were recruited from within companies in the footsie 100 and let their tried and trusted methods be used to run them and also make the services non unionised.

I suppose I am tilting at windmills here but just because they were very badly managed in the past does not mean that would be the case in the future, at least I would hope so anyway, perhaps a trial period of a decade could be settled on and see how they progress.
How do you apply the tried and trusted profit motive with a state owned monopoly? No competition means that overmanning and employee orientation will become the norm, costs will rise and services decline. Predictable. Same result with every state run operation ever in the history of the universe.
But that is because unions were in the equation, take them out and then you will find a willingness to do a days work for a days wages and with wages rising at the same rate as inflation then I see no problem, it seems to me that you have neither read through my post or fully understood it.
Edited by Rich, Oct 31 2014, 08:47 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gee4444
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
oops
Edited by gee4444, Oct 31 2014, 08:49 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Oct 31 2014, 12:24 PM
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.


A lot of this is very true, there is a reluctance on politicians to be held accountable for how public services are performing - and in that is a lot of the reason for wanting them privatised.
And if privatisation does deliver provision of these services at an acceptable standard and cost there is no cause for complaint.
Alas - privatisation has proven it is no better than government in providing these services, and is taking the blame that politicians think they escaped. The thing wrong then is that we can hold politicians to account for their failures, but we cannot do a bloody thing to stop the private Sector from screwing us.

Government overseeing of essential services is by definition of government 'their duty/responsibility'.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Oct 31 2014, 08:44 PM
But that is because unions were in the equation, take them out and then you will find a willingness to do a days work for a days wages and with wages rising at the same rate as inflation then I see no problem, it seems to me that you have neither read through my post or fully understood it.


Yesterday's war .......... fighting the Unions is over, there is no battle to be fought except in the minds of those who wish there was a demon to frighten voters with.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
When a union can dictate whom the leader of the Labour movement will be then I sense danger.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior 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.
How come other countries can manage it and we can't? Are we so utterly incompetent these days that we could not run public utilities or major public programmes? And if we are incapable we need some competent and patriotic politicians to change that, not cocks in suits just lining their own pockets as usual.

Fact, many UK utilities are now owned by nationalised or part nationalised European companies.

Utterly shameful in my opinion.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Oct 31 2014, 09:24 PM
When a union can dictate whom the leader of the Labour movement will be then I sense danger.
Although you seem less concerned about a Tory party that takes donations from pension thieves, asset strippers and price gougers.

They have trained you well. :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Oct 31 2014, 05:13 PM
Rich
Oct 31 2014, 04:14 PM
RJD
Oct 31 2014, 02:24 PM
Rich
Oct 31 2014, 12:26 PM

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

I would suggest that should the essential services industries were ever to be re nationalised that the CEO's of them were recruited from within companies in the footsie 100 and let their tried and trusted methods be used to run them and also make the services non unionised.

I suppose I am tilting at windmills here but just because they were very badly managed in the past does not mean that would be the case in the future, at least I would hope so anyway, perhaps a trial period of a decade could be settled on and see how they progress.
How do you apply the tried and trusted profit motive with a state owned monopoly? No competition means that overmanning and employee orientation will become the norm, costs will rise and services decline. Predictable. Same result with every state run operation ever in the history of the universe.
That didn't happen with Cable & Wireless. C&W were awarded the 'Queens Award to Industry' in 1979, that was before it became the first nationalised company to feel the greedy fingers of Thatcher's pets.

To my knowledge C&W never made a loss from the day it cut the wages of the overpaid underworked management after it was nationalised in 1948.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
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.

How do you compensate the share holders of the companies involved, and how do you deal with the pension fund providers that depend on companies to improve their share prices, and to pay the dividends that pays those with the pensions?
How do you compensate all those with share funded Isa's that are put aside for their retirement?
Its not going to happen IMO except by a Marxist state.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Oct 31 2014, 08:57 PM
Tytoalba
Oct 31 2014, 12:24 PM
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.


A lot of this is very true, there is a reluctance on politicians to be held accountable for how public services are performing - and in that is a lot of the reason for wanting them privatised.
And if privatisation does deliver provision of these services at an acceptable standard and cost there is no cause for complaint.
Alas - privatisation has proven it is no better than government in providing these services, and is taking the blame that politicians think they escaped. The thing wrong then is that we can hold politicians to account for their failures, but we cannot do a bloody thing to stop the private Sector from screwing us.

Government overseeing of essential services is by definition of government 'their duty/responsibility'.



And that is why there are government watch dogs and complaint proceedures, and the competion between companies and removal of the monopolies. You can pick and chose which providor you wish to choose.
I did read somewhere that electricity prices will have doubled by 2020, but that the price rises are unavoidable. Now who will we blame for that,? Privitised or nationalised wont make a difference.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Oct 31 2014, 02:31 PM
C-too
Oct 31 2014, 12:42 PM
Tytoalba
Oct 31 2014, 12:24 PM
Lewis
Oct 30 2014, 11:14 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepof course
Nationalisation is not a failed concept!
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.
There are nationalised companies in Germany, France and Japan that I'm aware of. Japan took a lead from the post war Labour government copying both nationalisation and an export led recovery. Amtrak in America was nationalised because it failed under private ownership, don't know if it is still nationalised. I don't doubt there are many other examples around the world.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
yougov 2013.

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/11/04/nationalise-energy-and-rail-companies-say-public/



Aditional; What was someone saying about foreign companies nationalising British assets?

http://theguardian.com/business/2010/apr/25/arriva-deutsche-bahn-takeover-rules
Edited by C-too, Nov 1 2014, 12:15 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Oct 31 2014, 10:52 PM
Rich
Oct 31 2014, 09:24 PM
When a union can dictate whom the leader of the Labour movement will be then I sense danger.
Although you seem less concerned about a Tory party that takes donations from pension thieves, asset strippers and price gougers.

They have trained you well. :)


Did the unite union consult their members before bankrolling and blockvoting Milliband?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Nov 1 2014, 01:11 AM
Tigger
Oct 31 2014, 10:52 PM
Rich
Oct 31 2014, 09:24 PM
When a union can dictate whom the leader of the Labour movement will be then I sense danger.
Although you seem less concerned about a Tory party that takes donations from pension thieves, asset strippers and price gougers.

They have trained you well. :)


Did the unite union consult their members before bankrolling and blockvoting Milliband?
Let's assume there were no unions, what then?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Nov 1 2014, 01:14 AM
Rich
Nov 1 2014, 01:11 AM
Tigger
Oct 31 2014, 10:52 PM
Rich
Oct 31 2014, 09:24 PM
When a union can dictate whom the leader of the Labour movement will be then I sense danger.
Although you seem less concerned about a Tory party that takes donations from pension thieves, asset strippers and price gougers.

They have trained you well. :)


Did the unite union consult their members before bankrolling and blockvoting Milliband?
Let's assume there were no unions, what then?

David Milliband would in all likelyhood be the next Prime minister. (imo)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Nov 1 2014, 01:30 AM
C-too
Nov 1 2014, 01:14 AM
Rich
Nov 1 2014, 01:11 AM
Tigger
Oct 31 2014, 10:52 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep


Did the unite union consult their members before bankrolling and blockvoting Milliband?
Let's assume there were no unions, what then?

David Milliband would in all likelyhood be the next Prime minister. (imo)
Probably, but it took more than the union vote to give us the wrong result.

But more to the point, most of the improvements enjoyed by ordinary working people have come either through the unions or Labour governments. It follows that in this country, no unions would mean people like yourself would be worse off to some degree.

Edited by C-too, Nov 1 2014, 01:37 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Nov 1 2014, 01:36 AM
Rich
Nov 1 2014, 01:30 AM
C-too
Nov 1 2014, 01:14 AM
Rich
Nov 1 2014, 01:11 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
Let's assume there were no unions, what then?

David Milliband would in all likelyhood be the next Prime minister. (imo)
Probably, but it took more than the union vote to give us the wrong result.

But more to the point, most of the improvements enjoyed by ordinary working people have come either through the unions or Labour governments. It follows that in this country, no unions would mean people like yourself would be worse off to some degree.


I have no problems with unions per se when they stick to union business such as the welfare and betterment of the members, I object when unions use their members as a weapon to try and bring down ANY government that has been democratically elected by the majority of the country and when the union holds the country to ransom by withdrawing Labour from essential services and scabbing those that conscientiously feel the need to carry out their work......in short, the unions need to become democratic and not stay autocratic.
Edited by Rich, Nov 1 2014, 01:46 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gnikkk
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
He's a godsend, the mess left by New Labour will take some sorting out. We need Ed to ensure the job continues under the current regime.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Oct 31 2014, 08:57 PM
Tytoalba
Oct 31 2014, 12:24 PM
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.


A lot of this is very true, there is a reluctance on politicians to be held accountable for how public services are performing - and in that is a lot of the reason for wanting them privatised.
And if privatisation does deliver provision of these services at an acceptable standard and cost there is no cause for complaint.
Alas - privatisation has proven it is no better than government in providing these services, and is taking the blame that politicians think they escaped. The thing wrong then is that we can hold politicians to account for their failures, but we cannot do a bloody thing to stop the private Sector from screwing us.

Government overseeing of essential services is by definition of government 'their duty/responsibility'.



Really. You think that BT today is as inefficient and poor service as it ever was? The truth is the exact opposite of what you claim and that each and every privatised company improved it's productivity and services. Name one where it did not. Just look at the massive investment in capital infrastructure by Water companies post privatisation and check that the UK has enjoyed among the lowest energy costs (pre tax) for decades. You have no evidence of your claims but I have posted copious amounts to support mine at the other place. Nationalisation has a very poor reputation right across the western World because it was a disaster.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Nov 1 2014, 01:36 AM
Rich
Nov 1 2014, 01:30 AM
C-too
Nov 1 2014, 01:14 AM
Rich
Nov 1 2014, 01:11 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
Let's assume there were no unions, what then?

David Milliband would in all likelyhood be the next Prime minister. (imo)
Probably, but it took more than the union vote to give us the wrong result.

But more to the point, most of the improvements enjoyed by ordinary working people have come either through the unions or Labour governments. It follows that in this country, no unions would mean people like yourself would be worse off to some degree.

Really. This Gov has increased the basic tax threshold in four years more than the Labour Gov did in 13. In what way did the ordinary working man, the natural Labour voter, benefit from NL? The truth is they lost ground and as a consequence many stopped voting Labour. Yep the Workers made big gains under Wilson, but they did not deliver on productivity as promised and we all know where that led us. It put Labour out for 18 years and forced them to become the left wing of the Conservative Party. Labour today, well the NL rump, sits in the ground once held by a certain Mrs Thatcher. The centre of gravity of UK politics has been moving inexorably to the right since 1979 and today UKIP is shoving it further. The old fAshioned Labourites are in a minority and the extremists of today. But that rump of quasi Marxists will never ever learn anything from history.poP
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Oct 31 2014, 09:24 PM
When a union can dictate whom the leader of the Labour movement will be then I sense danger.
On the other hand stockbrokers, bankers and rip off merchants who donate, decide who the Tory leader is.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Nov 1 2014, 01:45 AM
C-too
Nov 1 2014, 01:36 AM
Rich
Nov 1 2014, 01:30 AM
C-too
Nov 1 2014, 01:14 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

David Milliband would in all likelyhood be the next Prime minister. (imo)
Probably, but it took more than the union vote to give us the wrong result.

But more to the point, most of the improvements enjoyed by ordinary working people have come either through the unions or Labour governments. It follows that in this country, no unions would mean people like yourself would be worse off to some degree.


I have no problems with unions per se when they stick to union business such as the welfare and betterment of the members, I object when unions use their members as a weapon to try and bring down ANY government that has been democratically elected by the majority of the country and when the union holds the country to ransom by withdrawing Labour from essential services and scabbing those that conscientiously feel the need to carry out their work......in short, the unions need to become democratic and not stay autocratic.
Rich the 1970s ended nearly 35 years ago! The unions these days are far more democratic than your very own Tory Party is.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Nov 1 2014, 06:42 AM
Really. You think that BT today is as inefficient and poor service as it ever was? The truth is the exact opposite of what you claim and that each and every privatised company improved it's productivity and services. Name one where it did not. Just look at the massive investment in capital infrastructure by Water companies post privatisation and check that the UK has enjoyed among the lowest energy costs (pre tax) for decades. You have no evidence of your claims but I have posted copious amounts to support mine at the other place. Nationalisation has a very poor reputation right across the western World because it was a disaster.

In brief (time is short) ........ Telecommunications has undergone the most dramatic changes since the eighties. I cannot see how anyone can compare BT as it was then to how the whole system works now.
The BT monopoly was lost no matter privatisation or not, and the changes made it it are from that consequence not privatisation per se'.

Nationalisation is not a Failed Concept!
Under Capitalist obsessed regimes (Tories) Nationalisation will always fail because these intend them to fail, orchestrate the failure!

Reputations are made or destroyed by the media - Propaganda exists to destroy reputations, Bullshit exists to create undeserved reputations for competence where none exists!

But you know all this ........ and still decline to observe it.





Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
You have that the wrong way round. BT lost much of its monopoly because it was made private.

Nationalisation always requires a near monopoly to survive, it inherently cannot stand the competition.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Lewis
Nov 1 2014, 07:33 AM
Rich
Oct 31 2014, 09:24 PM
When a union can dictate whom the leader of the Labour movement will be then I sense danger.
On the other hand stockbrokers, bankers and rip off merchants who donate, decide who the Tory leader is.
Your wrong. The leadership was decided by a vote made by all the members of the conservative party. If the bankers, stock brokers or rip off merchants had any say in it , they would first have to be members of the party, and then they would have had just the one vote each, meaning no excessive or unfair advantage over anyone else.
I think factual information can be ever so educating, and easily overwhelms uninformed bias.
Of course there is nothing wrong with bias if it is objective and aquired by informed and experienced means.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Nov 1 2014, 11:18 AM
RJD
Nov 1 2014, 06:42 AM
Really. You think that BT today is as inefficient and poor service as it ever was? The truth is the exact opposite of what you claim and that each and every privatised company improved it's productivity and services. Name one where it did not. Just look at the massive investment in capital infrastructure by Water companies post privatisation and check that the UK has enjoyed among the lowest energy costs (pre tax) for decades. You have no evidence of your claims but I have posted copious amounts to support mine at the other place. Nationalisation has a very poor reputation right across the western World because it was a disaster.

In brief (time is short) ........ Telecommunications has undergone the most dramatic changes since the eighties. I cannot see how anyone can compare BT as it was then to how the whole system works now.
The BT monopoly was lost no matter privatisation or not, and the changes made it it are from that consequence not privatisation per se'.

Nationalisation is not a Failed Concept!
Under Capitalist obsessed regimes (Tories) Nationalisation will always fail because these intend them to fail, orchestrate the failure!

Reputations are made or destroyed by the media - Propaganda exists to destroy reputations, Bullshit exists to create undeserved reputations for competence where none exists!

But you know all this ........ and still decline to observe it.





Nationalisation failed and neither you nor anyone else has offered any evidence to show otherwise as a consequence the supporters of this failed model scramble for conspiracy theories. I saw it fail with my own eyes, I saw the massive overmanning, the inefficiencies and how easy it was for suppliers to maximise their profit margins. Without exception post privatisation productivity increased dramatically. It appears that many here have learned nothing from the 20th C. and wish to repeat past mistakes.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 1 2014, 12:38 PM
You have that the wrong way round. BT lost much of its monopoly because it was made private.

Nationalisation always requires a near monopoly to survive, it inherently cannot stand the competition.

Here, in the UK, there never has been the prevention of a private producer/service provider being allowed to compete with State managed industries - and if the private sector could have been more competitive and had been able to 'take business away from the State' it would have. It didn't!

The premise you gave is false -
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Nov 1 2014, 01:11 AM
Tigger
Oct 31 2014, 10:52 PM
Rich
Oct 31 2014, 09:24 PM
When a union can dictate whom the leader of the Labour movement will be then I sense danger.
Although you seem less concerned about a Tory party that takes donations from pension thieves, asset strippers and price gougers.

They have trained you well. :)


Did the unite union consult their members before bankrolling and blockvoting Milliband?
You seem to be terribly worried that some ordinary working people like you might have a voice, any reason for that? Or are you happy to stay on your knees and get uppity should anyone else from a humble background try and get a better deal for themselves thorough a legitimate political party?

Frankly if I had your attitude I'd still be living in a grubby East London flat worrying if my neighbour was getting something from the state that I wasn't.  :(
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Nov 1 2014, 02:55 PM
Lewis
Nov 1 2014, 07:33 AM
Rich
Oct 31 2014, 09:24 PM
When a union can dictate whom the leader of the Labour movement will be then I sense danger.
On the other hand stockbrokers, bankers and rip off merchants who donate, decide who the Tory leader is.
Your wrong. The leadership was decided by a vote made by all the members of the conservative party. If the bankers, stock brokers or rip off merchants had any say in it , they would first have to be members of the party, and then they would have had just the one vote each, meaning no excessive or unfair advantage over anyone else.
I think factual information can be ever so educating, and easily overwhelms uninformed bias.
Of course there is nothing wrong with bias if it is objective and aquired by informed and experienced means.
You are completely wrong Scammer's was chosen initially not by a vote of all the incompetents Parties members but it's MPs for the first and second rounds of the selection process. Mind you how many of the incompetent parties dwindling membership are bankers and rip off merchants? See this source below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK)_leadership_election,_2005

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Nov 1 2014, 03:47 PM
Affa
Nov 1 2014, 11:18 AM
RJD
Nov 1 2014, 06:42 AM
Really. You think that BT today is as inefficient and poor service as it ever was? The truth is the exact opposite of what you claim and that each and every privatised company improved it's productivity and services. Name one where it did not. Just look at the massive investment in capital infrastructure by Water companies post privatisation and check that the UK has enjoyed among the lowest energy costs (pre tax) for decades. You have no evidence of your claims but I have posted copious amounts to support mine at the other place. Nationalisation has a very poor reputation right across the western World because it was a disaster.

In brief (time is short) ........ Telecommunications has undergone the most dramatic changes since the eighties. I cannot see how anyone can compare BT as it was then to how the whole system works now.
The BT monopoly was lost no matter privatisation or not, and the changes made it it are from that consequence not privatisation per se'.

Nationalisation is not a Failed Concept!
Under Capitalist obsessed regimes (Tories) Nationalisation will always fail because these intend them to fail, orchestrate the failure!

Reputations are made or destroyed by the media - Propaganda exists to destroy reputations, Bullshit exists to create undeserved reputations for competence where none exists!

But you know all this ........ and still decline to observe it.





Nationalisation failed and neither you nor anyone else has offered any evidence to show otherwise as a consequence the supporters of this failed model scramble for conspiracy theories. I saw it fail with my own eyes, I saw the massive overmanning, the inefficiencies and how easy it was for suppliers to maximise their profit margins. Without exception post privatisation productivity increased dramatically. It appears that many here have learned nothing from the 20th C. and wish to repeat past mistakes.
Well nationalisation seems to work very well on the Continent.

I have asked every right wing retard on this forum how foreigners can manage it but we can't, I've yet to get a coherent from any of your sort.

Care to give that question a go?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 1 2014, 12:38 PM
You have that the wrong way round. BT lost much of its monopoly because it was made private.

Nationalisation always requires a near monopoly to survive, it inherently cannot stand the competition.
But on the other hand we seem to end up with privatised cartels, look at the energy market for example where competition seems to be almost non existent among the big players.
Edited by Tigger, Nov 1 2014, 07:12 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AndyK
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 1 2014, 12:38 PM
You have that the wrong way round. BT lost much of its monopoly because it was made private.

Nationalisation always requires a near monopoly to survive, it inherently cannot stand the competition.
I'm struggling to see why a ftse100 company would be any better run than a nationalised one.

Both are run by career managers, its not as if they have any special interest in what they are doing.

I don't think you can compare the bad practices of both management and unions during the 60's and 70's with today, it has poisoned the minds of many people who lived through those decades including myself.

But a lot has changed since then and it does no harm to at least try it out,, its doesn't have to seen as socialism, just common sense.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply