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 (2,548 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:
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Nov 1 2014, 07:12 PM
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Nov 1 2014, 07:15 PM
Tigger
Nov 1 2014, 07:12 PM
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.
I've already said that! ;D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Nov 1 2014, 07:12 PM
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.
I note the word market. which is now overseen by watchdogs, and are in direct competition with each other, and where the customer has a choice of whom to purchase their energy from, and at a price they are willing to pay.
There is no proof, and can be no proof, that to nationalise the industry would reduce prices or actually keep them down to a lower level than at present, or put more money into the infrastructure to give the better long term results that growing consumption needs.
The only desire to nationalise the industries is a {socialistic} idealistic belief that it would give a better return to the taxpayer and a better service.
The evidence is that the current system is the best sytem for past nationalised industries were not producing or maintaining what was necessery
Currently all privtised services are working well, as I think most reasonable people will have to agree with, so leave them alone to get on with what they are best at.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Nov 1 2014, 07:23 PM
I've already said that! ;D


We do not know what the wise owl had to tell us about it because it hasn't appeared in print.
I would hope that he does see the point you made as being a valid observation .... and perhaps join me in wanting an end to the divisive culture governing the UK, the 'Them & Us' mentality that destroys rather than builds.
So much more is achievable if people work together instead of resisting each other.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Nov 1 2014, 07:34 PM
Tigger
Nov 1 2014, 07:23 PM
I've already said that! ;D


We do not know what the wise owl had to tell us about it because it hasn't appeared in print.
I would hope that he does see the point you made as being a valid observation .... and perhaps join me in wanting an end to the divisive culture governing the UK, the 'Them & Us' mentality that destroys rather than builds.
So much more is achievable if people work together instead of resisting each other.



There is no greater evidence of the divisive culture than these boards Affa,
I dont know how it can change, or how we can be reconciled to each others point of view, for on some issues we seem to be diametrically opposed.
I suspect that those to the left have an instict to control events, and human nature whilst, those to the right believe in free choice, and individuals making their own ways in life, be it to their advantage or disadvantage,
There is common ground on the need to support the less fortunate, or the least successful , but in reality everyone needs to make the best effort for themselves, to make a contribution to their own and the communities needs where they can.
It not a matter of knocking the crutch away from under them , but supplying them with a limb support that will enable them to walk and make their own way.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Nov 1 2014, 07:31 PM
Tigger
Nov 1 2014, 07:12 PM
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.
I note the word market. which is now overseen by watchdogs, and are in direct competition with each other, and where the customer has a choice of whom to purchase their energy from, and at a price they are willing to pay.
There is no proof, and can be no proof, that to nationalise the industry would reduce prices or actually keep them down to a lower level than at present, or put more money into the infrastructure to give the better long term results that growing consumption needs.
The only desire to nationalise the industries is a {socialistic} idealistic belief that it would give a better return to the taxpayer and a better service.
The evidence is that the current system is the best sytem for past nationalised industries were not producing or maintaining what was necessery
Currently all privtised services are working well, as I think most reasonable people will have to agree with, so leave them alone to get on with what they are best at.
Rather comical and slightly patronising! ;D

Not the sharpest tool in the box are you?

"Currently all privatised services are working well" !clp!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Nov 1 2014, 07:52 PM

I suspect that those to the left have an instict to control events, and human nature whilst, those to the right believe in free choice, and individuals making their own ways in life, be it to their advantage or disadvantage,
Stop it! !jk!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Nov 1 2014, 07:52 PM

I suspect that those to the left have an instict to control events, and human nature whilst, those to the right believe in free choice, and individuals making their own ways in life, be it to their advantage or disadvantage,


By those definitions I would place myself on the right!
Not that surprising as there is where I naturally belong.

To me the main aim (of government) should be to enhance opportunities, to give everyone regardless of 'class' an equal shot at fulfilling their full potential. It starts and ends with education. After that it is indeed up to every man to make his own way.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Nov 1 2014, 07:12 PM
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.
Yes of course that must be true. Except it's not

You are a founder member of the Sling any old mud because some of it always sticks movement and I claim my £5

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 1 2014, 10:52 PM
Tigger
Nov 1 2014, 07:12 PM
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.
Yes of course that must be true. Except it's not

You are a founder member of the Sling any old mud because some of it always sticks movement and I claim my £5

I sling mud because I like to see who is teflon coated and who is not. ;-)

I could of course mention currency manipulation between banks, rate rigging and of course fixing of stock prices all possible because of cartels whether admitted or not, human nature does not mutate because you pretend vested interests would not dare take advantage of contrived situations.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
I could name some dodgy plumbers but I'm smart enough and honest to know they're a small minority and some of the mud would stick to the decent guys

Go on let's see your real evidence of that cartel you allege
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Nov 1 2014, 09:33 PM
Tytoalba
Nov 1 2014, 07:52 PM

I suspect that those to the left have an instict to control events, and human nature whilst, those to the right believe in free choice, and individuals making their own ways in life, be it to their advantage or disadvantage,


By those definitions I would place myself on the right!
Not that surprising as there is where I naturally belong.

To me the main aim (of government) should be to enhance opportunities, to give everyone regardless of 'class' an equal shot at fulfilling their full potential. It starts and ends with education. After that it is indeed up to every man to make his own way.


Bring back grammar and the old Technical schools where true potential can be encouraged. I think your right in saying that we should give equal opportunity to all, but there seems to be too many obstacles in the way, or lack of interest or lack of confidence in some young people, or in the encouragement or support that they can get from their parents.
In the end it always seems comes down to effort and application and a drive to succeed.

In that last respect I count myself as a failure.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 1 2014, 10:52 PM
Tigger
Nov 1 2014, 07:12 PM
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.
Yes of course that must be true. Except it's not

You are a founder member of the Sling any old mud because some of it always sticks movement and I claim my £5


Did you miss this? post 275
http://w11.zetaboards.com/UK_Debate_Mk_2/single/?p=8231612&t=10670748
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Nov 1 2014, 06:50 PM
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 -
Yes I did spot it, didn't much care for it

Lets have some examples from you of where nationalisation did not take the vast majority of an industry
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 2 2014, 12:37 AM
Affa
Nov 1 2014, 06:50 PM
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 -
Yes I did spot it, didn't much care for it

Lets have some examples from you of where nationalisation did not take the vast majority of an industry
Isn't that, as Affa suggests, just proof that the private sector was not able to be competitive.

All The Best
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Boxter
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
The only thing Milliband is destroying is the Labour party. Between him and Cameron they have managed in a few weeks of a successful no vote to alienate the Scots so badly that if there was a rerun tomorrow Salmonds face would be painted blue and he would be crowing about winning his freedom while showering handfuls of the new 20 Haggis Bank of Salmond notes on the party faithful.

Milliband has reduced them to 4 seats if their lucky next time out! Any wonder Cameron was so keen to prevent Scottish MPs from making decisions on English affairs as that would have given him a totally free hand to do what ever he wanted there.



Edited by Boxter, Nov 2 2014, 01:09 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Nov 1 2014, 08:05 PM
Tytoalba
Nov 1 2014, 07:31 PM
Tigger
Nov 1 2014, 07:12 PM
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.
I note the word market. which is now overseen by watchdogs, and are in direct competition with each other, and where the customer has a choice of whom to purchase their energy from, and at a price they are willing to pay.
There is no proof, and can be no proof, that to nationalise the industry would reduce prices or actually keep them down to a lower level than at present, or put more money into the infrastructure to give the better long term results that growing consumption needs.
The only desire to nationalise the industries is a {socialistic} idealistic belief that it would give a better return to the taxpayer and a better service.
The evidence is that the current system is the best sytem for past nationalised industries were not producing or maintaining what was necessery
Currently all privtised services are working well, as I think most reasonable people will have to agree with, so leave them alone to get on with what they are best at.
Rather comical and slightly patronising! ;D

Not the sharpest tool in the box are you?

"Currently all privatised services are working well" !clp!
I would like to see your buisiness nationalised Tigger, feeding back the profits into the public sector. or do you think that as a private buisiness your both competitive and efficient and give a very good return on what you do, whilst making a reasonable profit to finance your well financed socialist life style. :P :)  ::)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable 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.
I agree there is a problem with unions, I think it is caused by the fact that all too often it is the more extreme individuals that are the ones who manage to gain control.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Nov 2 2014, 11:45 AM
Rich
Nov 1 2014, 01:45 AM
C-too
Nov 1 2014, 01:36 AM
Rich
Nov 1 2014, 01:30 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
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.
I agree there is a problem with unions, I think it is caused by the fact that all too often it is the more extreme individuals that are the ones who manage to gain control.
They tend to have a fire in their belly. and driven by strong beliefs, but ones that brook no contradiction. In many ways they are to be admired, if they were not so dogmatic and narrow minded.
Little Hitlers.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Nov 2 2014, 11:57 AM
C-too
Nov 2 2014, 11:45 AM
Rich
Nov 1 2014, 01:45 AM
C-too
Nov 1 2014, 01:36 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

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.
I agree there is a problem with unions, I think it is caused by the fact that all too often it is the more extreme individuals that are the ones who manage to gain control.
They tend to have a fire in their belly. and driven by strong beliefs, but ones that brook no contradiction. In many ways they are to be admired, if they were not so dogmatic and narrow minded.
Little Hitlers.
If they weren't dogmatic they would have such a strong belief structure. I do have an admiration for people who stand true to their beliefs, even if I don't agree with them. One of the reasons I dislike Scameron so much is that he bends with the wind, hence the reason he has done so many 'U' turns. The deadwood has no sound principles at all.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Nov 1 2014, 08:05 PM
Tytoalba
Nov 1 2014, 07:31 PM
Tigger
Nov 1 2014, 07:12 PM
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.
I note the word market. which is now overseen by watchdogs, and are in direct competition with each other, and where the customer has a choice of whom to purchase their energy from, and at a price they are willing to pay.
There is no proof, and can be no proof, that to nationalise the industry would reduce prices or actually keep them down to a lower level than at present, or put more money into the infrastructure to give the better long term results that growing consumption needs.
The only desire to nationalise the industries is a {socialistic} idealistic belief that it would give a better return to the taxpayer and a better service.
The evidence is that the current system is the best sytem for past nationalised industries were not producing or maintaining what was necessery
Currently all privtised services are working well, as I think most reasonable people will have to agree with, so leave them alone to get on with what they are best at.
Rather comical and slightly patronising! ;D

Not the sharpest tool in the box are you?

"Currently all privatised services are working well" !clp!
I have to admit that I do not have any problems with any of them, be it water, power or transport. Our electricity provider is Scottish power , who have given us a good service, especially as we live in a rural location wher epower can be interupted by falling trees or branches. Our water supply is excellent with the tap water equal in quality to most bottled waters. As someone who lived through the times when utilities and railways were nationalised, and even before Beeching, I think that what we see is many times better, even if the costs are higher., but much of the cost is because of the improvements to the infrastructure. I thinkwe have got into the habit of knocking all our instatutions , whenmany do provide a very good service. Theere is a lot to say about this country we can be proud of.
As an aside , a friend is a South African, whose parents are here on holiday, and the Father says that he is amazed how he can walk everywhere, in towns cities and country lanes in total safety, and without the fear that he will be attacked or robbed, abused or insulted at anytime.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
somersetli
Member Avatar
somersetli
[ *  *  * ]
From personal experience I can tell you that the problem with trade unions largely stemmed from their members apathy and reluctance to involve themselves with the day to day running of their branches.

I am talking of the days of the closed shop, where union membership was a condition of employment and to lapse your membership meant you lost your job.
You would think in that situation members would be keen to participate in their unions affairs, but sadly on too many occasions that didn't happen.

You could have meetings in firms with hundreds of union members and be lucky to get enough to attend to form a quorum.
This situation allowed people with a different agenda to dominate the business, and force through motions that caused any amount of trouble.
The apathy also allowed these people to get elected to influential positions like shop stewards and branch officers. Once in those positions, and supported by like minded followers they were able to create havoc in the workplace.
It was apparent back then in places like the Docks, London transport, and later in the British motor industry.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Nov 2 2014, 11:57 AM
They tend to have a fire in their belly. and driven by strong beliefs, but ones that brook no contradiction. In many ways they are to be admired, if they were not so dogmatic and narrow minded.
Little Hitlers.

Do you not subscribe to the theory 'that you get the sort of leadership you deserve'?
TU officials spend much of their time in discussions with management. When these talks are productive, we get a settled workforce, contented management, a prosperous industry. When these talks end in conflict, we get militancy, we get people like A Scargill.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Nov 2 2014, 01:00 PM
Tytoalba
Nov 2 2014, 11:57 AM
They tend to have a fire in their belly. and driven by strong beliefs, but ones that brook no contradiction. In many ways they are to be admired, if they were not so dogmatic and narrow minded.
Little Hitlers.

Do you not subscribe to the theory 'that you get the sort of leadership you deserve'?
TU officials spend much of their time in discussions with management. When these talks are productive, we get a settled workforce, contented management, a prosperous industry. When these talks end in conflict, we get militancy, we get people like A Scargill.

Your probably right Affa, but good union leader will try to understand the running of the buisiness, its efficiency and profitability, and co operate with what is possible No buisiness no work and no income.
I did hera today , and Borris has aid it before a growing number of buisinesses are paying the "living wage " whatever that is.
A good well paid workfprce want to keep their jobs and are a happy workforce.
Comp-anies prefr to work with unions and negotiate with them instead of everyone individually,. Since UNite lost its last leader, we have had much more peaceful industrial relations in recent times.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Nov 2 2014, 11:57 AM
C-too
Nov 2 2014, 11:45 AM
Rich
Nov 1 2014, 01:45 AM
C-too
Nov 1 2014, 01:36 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

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.
I agree there is a problem with unions, I think it is caused by the fact that all too often it is the more extreme individuals that are the ones who manage to gain control.
They tend to have a fire in their belly. and driven by strong beliefs, but ones that brook no contradiction. In many ways they are to be admired, if they were not so dogmatic and narrow minded.
Little Hitlers.
"little hitlers" is a bit strong, but I know what you mean.

The unanswered question and perhaps the unasked question is "are these people an opposite and equal reaction to others in society"?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Nov 2 2014, 02:05 PM


The unanswered question and perhaps the unasked question is "are these people an opposite and equal reaction to others in society"?


Emperor Barons?

The thing is that all the literature that exists to advise on how best to run a business tells us how a culture of cooperation and inclusiveness works best ........ but still there are those that think they know better.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Nov 1 2014, 06:50 PM
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 -
What a load of twaddle. Water, gas, electricity, steel, telecoms, rail etc. etc were all State owned and State run monopolies with no indication whatsoever that the State would be prepared to place contracts with anyone in the private sector for such products. Nobody is going to waste money on bidding for anything where there is zero demand.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Pro Veritas
Nov 2 2014, 12:51 AM
Steve K
Nov 2 2014, 12:37 AM
Affa
Nov 1 2014, 06:50 PM
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 -
Yes I did spot it, didn't much care for it

Lets have some examples from you of where nationalisation did not take the vast majority of an industry
Isn't that, as Affa suggests, just proof that the private sector was not able to be competitive.

All The Best
No

Sometimes nationalisation has taken in both failing and succeeding private companies but the truth is it s overwhelmingly done for dogmatic clause 4 reasons and the way too frequent outcome is overmanning, restrictive practices, poor offerings and a money pit drain on the public purse

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
somersetli
Nov 2 2014, 12:25 PM
From personal experience I can tell you that the problem with trade unions largely stemmed from their members apathy and reluctance to involve themselves with the day to day running of their branches.

I am talking of the days of the closed shop, where union membership was a condition of employment and to lapse your membership meant you lost your job.
You would think in that situation members would be keen to participate in their unions affairs, but sadly on too many occasions that didn't happen.

You could have meetings in firms with hundreds of union members and be lucky to get enough to attend to form a quorum.
This situation allowed people with a different agenda to dominate the business, and force through motions that caused any amount of trouble.
The apathy also allowed these people to get elected to influential positions like shop stewards and branch officers. Once in those positions, and supported by like minded followers they were able to create havoc in the workplace.
It was apparent back then in places like the Docks, London transport, and later in the British motor industry.
Note just apathy I watched them being led by their noses out of factory gates just to demonstrate that the Union had the power to stop production and wreck a company if it so wished. Some went through the gates reluctantly but dared not voice an opinion. My FIL was locked out of his place of work, at Cammel Laird's shipyard, in the 1950s, against his wishes because of a demarcation dispute by other trades. The infamous "who twanges the string" Patternmakers or Boilermakers. I watched them all in the 50s, 60s and 70s as step by step they sought to destroy their own jobs. Even a Labour Gov. in the 1970s could not appease them, it pumped up wage rates and never ever saw the promised productivity gains and we all know what happened to poor Sunny Jim. By 1979 there was no longer any ground left to deal sensibly with the Unions, they had lost the support of Joe Public, they were doomed, doomed by their past bullying and arrogance. Those here that still believe another round of tea and sandwiches at No.10, in 1979, would have done the trick learned absolutely nothing from the recent history. The Winter of Discontent was their denouement.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 2 2014, 03:25 PM
Pro Veritas
Nov 2 2014, 12:51 AM
Steve K
Nov 2 2014, 12:37 AM
Affa
Nov 1 2014, 06:50 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
Yes I did spot it, didn't much care for it

Lets have some examples from you of where nationalisation did not take the vast majority of an industry
Isn't that, as Affa suggests, just proof that the private sector was not able to be competitive.

All The Best
No

Sometimes nationalisation has taken in both failing and succeeding private companies but the truth is it s overwhelmingly done for dogmatic clause 4 reasons and the way too frequent outcome is overmanning, restrictive practices, poor offerings and a money pit drain on the public purse

There is just zero evidence anywhere in the western world that State run industries benefit customers and/or taxpayers. If it did they would put it up and scream from the roof tops. There is none and the left have scratched over the sand and upturned every stone looking for it. It is a bit like the GAY gene, elusive.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Marconi
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
RJD
Nov 2 2014, 03:32 PM
There is just zero evidence anywhere in the western world that State run industries benefit customers and/or taxpayers. If it did they would put it up and scream from the roof tops. There is none and the left have scratched over the sand and upturned every stone looking for it. It is a bit like the GAY gene, elusive.
RBS, HBOS, Lloyds TSB - part-nationalised to save them from themselves.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Nov 2 2014, 03:15 PM
What a load of twaddle. Water, gas, electricity, steel, telecoms, rail etc. etc were all State owned and State run monopolies with no indication whatsoever that the State would be prepared to place contracts with anyone in the private sector for such products. Nobody is going to waste money on bidding for anything where there is zero demand.
But all these HAVE been taken over by Private operators though not as a consequence of being in competition ..... instead gifted as a replacement.
And have any of them delivered on the promise of cheaper, better, more efficient providers? Has the tax payer had his burden of taxes reduced as a consequence?

I do not disagree with the argument that these Nationalised industries were over-manned, inefficient, and costly ......... and have made it clear that I do blame government(s) for that. But by agreeing and then comparing them to what we have now there is only one conclusion to be drawn - these Private industries do not deliver a better service than those awful Nationalised ones did.
Telecoms is the exception, but the reasons for that is the development of the cellular mobile phone. The one example where competition actually has benefited the user.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa: But all these HAVE been taken over by Private operators though not as a consequence of being in competition ..... instead gifted as a replacement.
And have any of them delivered on the promise of cheaper, better, more efficient providers? Has the tax payer had his burden of taxes reduced as a consequence?

I was answering your first claim now you have decided to shift ground. However. I think you will find that there is more competition for such today than there was in 1979. Indeed I can buy my energy from a number of suppliers and yes, if you looked at the price of such in EU terms over the last 25 years say, you will find that we in the UK have benefited from such privatisation via lower than average pre-tax prices, particularly so with gas. Whilst the routes for rail are defined and the main carriers established there is competition and yes today the subsidies (which only go to rural routes) are matched by tax revenues. With BR there were no tax revenues. As for air just look at the competition and this is an international business with focus on fairs. Unlike AirFrance and Lufthansa BA have not been cap in hand to the Exchequer. AirFrance I think have nocked on that door three times in the last 25 years. Well Telecomms really is a competitive business and once upon a time I would have to wait for BT about 6 weeks to install a line, today I would be annoyed if it were >6 days. Water, well just look at the massive post privatisation investment in capital infrastructure, it dwarfs all that went before.


Affa: I do not disagree with the argument that these Nationalised industries were over-manned, inefficient, and costly ......... and have made it clear that I do blame government(s) for that. But by agreeing and then comparing them to what we have now there is only one conclusion to be drawn - these Private industries do not deliver a better service than those awful Nationalised ones did.


You are wrong. All the evidence is of improved performance and better quality. There are no examples where such is now less than pre-privatisation. If you have evidence of such then put it up for inspection. Milliband et al have been looking for such evidence for decades and have failed to find any. But that does not stop those on the left from day dreaming and deluding themselves. The profit motive works get used to it as the rest of the World already have.


Affa: Telecoms is the exception, but the reasons for that is the development of the cellular mobile phone. The one example where competition actually has benefited the user.

Not an exception. Just a spectacular success due to technology and market place. Even rail, the one we love to bitch about, has been a success with demand increasing and today subsidies covered by tax revenues.
These industries do not need less competition, a State monopoly, they need more. Who allowed a reduction in the number of Energy suppliers? Yep NL went down from 14 to 6 and ownership moved, for some, out of the UK.
Angry about Electricity charges? Well the largest single effect on these was Milliband's green levies.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Nov 2 2014, 04:09 PM



You are wrong. All the evidence is of improved performance and better quality.

I do not know of a single example (BT excepted) of where household bills, or costs have fallen after privatisation.

Take the most essential service - Water.

tariffs increased by 46% in real terms during the first nine years,
operating profits more than doubled (+142%) in eight years,
investments were reduced and
public health was jeopardised through cut-offs

Electricity - www.psiru.org/reports/2002-08-E-UKImpactPriv.doc

Competition in generation failed to reduce generation prices. Generation prices fluctuated but overall, by 1998, were little lower than in 1990, despite reductions of 30-40 per cent in gas and coal prices (generation from gas and coal accounts for about 70 per cent of generation in Britain). These price reductions had partly been kept by generators as extra profits.

There's no point going further ....... The tax payer was no better off after privatisation, not in the prices paid on bills. and not by any reduction in taxes from earnings - in fact VAT charges also increased.
Investors on the other hand did make a profit, were rewarded ........ the few gained, the majority lost out.




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Marconi
Nov 2 2014, 03:46 PM
RJD
Nov 2 2014, 03:32 PM
There is just zero evidence anywhere in the western world that State run industries benefit customers and/or taxpayers. If it did they would put it up and scream from the roof tops. There is none and the left have scratched over the sand and upturned every stone looking for it. It is a bit like the GAY gene, elusive.
RBS, HBOS, Lloyds TSB - part-nationalised to save them from themselves.
"Part nationalised", is that like being a little bit pregnant?

None of those you name are nationalised, there is a % share holding held by the government, in some cases enough to name a director or two. But they are run as PLC companies.

You want a classic nationalised industry story look at British Steel



Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 1 2014, 11:21 PM
I could name some dodgy plumbers but I'm smart enough and honest to know they're a small minority and some of the mud would stick to the decent guys

Go on let's see your real evidence of that cartel you allege
I've just told you! ;D

Those financial institutions fix rates and manipulate stock prices, or am I just imagining previous fines for doing this and just having a WAG that more will be on the way very soon?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Nov 2 2014, 12:12 PM
Tigger
Nov 1 2014, 08:05 PM
Tytoalba
Nov 1 2014, 07:31 PM
Tigger
Nov 1 2014, 07:12 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
I note the word market. which is now overseen by watchdogs, and are in direct competition with each other, and where the customer has a choice of whom to purchase their energy from, and at a price they are willing to pay.
There is no proof, and can be no proof, that to nationalise the industry would reduce prices or actually keep them down to a lower level than at present, or put more money into the infrastructure to give the better long term results that growing consumption needs.
The only desire to nationalise the industries is a {socialistic} idealistic belief that it would give a better return to the taxpayer and a better service.
The evidence is that the current system is the best sytem for past nationalised industries were not producing or maintaining what was necessery
Currently all privtised services are working well, as I think most reasonable people will have to agree with, so leave them alone to get on with what they are best at.
Rather comical and slightly patronising! ;D

Not the sharpest tool in the box are you?

"Currently all privatised services are working well" !clp!
I have to admit that I do not have any problems with any of them, be it water, power or transport. Our electricity provider is Scottish power , who have given us a good service, especially as we live in a rural location wher epower can be interupted by falling trees or branches. Our water supply is excellent with the tap water equal in quality to most bottled waters. As someone who lived through the times when utilities and railways were nationalised, and even before Beeching, I think that what we see is many times better, even if the costs are higher., but much of the cost is because of the improvements to the infrastructure. I thinkwe have got into the habit of knocking all our instatutions , whenmany do provide a very good service. Theere is a lot to say about this country we can be proud of.
As an aside , a friend is a South African, whose parents are here on holiday, and the Father says that he is amazed how he can walk everywhere, in towns cities and country lanes in total safety, and without the fear that he will be attacked or robbed, abused or insulted at anytime.
Nope no idea and I read it twice. Still as long as you are happy sod everyone else.

And here is a little fact for you most bottled waters would fail the tests conducted on tap water because some contain heavy metals, bacteria and believe it or not radiation, and would you also believe that the laws regarding water standards predate any privatisation of the water industry, in fact the industry has expended a lot of effort in getting some of the standards lowered, like being allowed to pump raw sewage into the seas around popular bathing spots.

For further information buy yourself a copy of the Water Regulations 2000, available from all good bookshops. ;-)
Edited by Tigger, Nov 2 2014, 08:03 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Nov 2 2014, 03:29 PM
somersetli
Nov 2 2014, 12:25 PM
From personal experience I can tell you that the problem with trade unions largely stemmed from their members apathy and reluctance to involve themselves with the day to day running of their branches.

I am talking of the days of the closed shop, where union membership was a condition of employment and to lapse your membership meant you lost your job.
You would think in that situation members would be keen to participate in their unions affairs, but sadly on too many occasions that didn't happen.

You could have meetings in firms with hundreds of union members and be lucky to get enough to attend to form a quorum.
This situation allowed people with a different agenda to dominate the business, and force through motions that caused any amount of trouble.
The apathy also allowed these people to get elected to influential positions like shop stewards and branch officers. Once in those positions, and supported by like minded followers they were able to create havoc in the workplace.
It was apparent back then in places like the Docks, London transport, and later in the British motor industry.
Note just apathy I watched them being led by their noses out of factory gates just to demonstrate that the Union had the power to stop production and wreck a company if it so wished. Some went through the gates reluctantly but dared not voice an opinion. My FIL was locked out of his place of work, at Cammel Laird's shipyard, in the 1950s, against his wishes because of a demarcation dispute by other trades. The infamous "who twanges the string" Patternmakers or Boilermakers. I watched them all in the 50s, 60s and 70s as step by step they sought to destroy their own jobs. Even a Labour Gov. in the 1970s could not appease them, it pumped up wage rates and never ever saw the promised productivity gains and we all know what happened to poor Sunny Jim. By 1979 there was no longer any ground left to deal sensibly with the Unions, they had lost the support of Joe Public, they were doomed, doomed by their past bullying and arrogance. Those here that still believe another round of tea and sandwiches at No.10, in 1979, would have done the trick learned absolutely nothing from the recent history. The Winter of Discontent was their denouement.
(cough)

It's 2014 not 1974.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 2 2014, 05:47 PM
Marconi
Nov 2 2014, 03:46 PM
RJD
Nov 2 2014, 03:32 PM
There is just zero evidence anywhere in the western world that State run industries benefit customers and/or taxpayers. If it did they would put it up and scream from the roof tops. There is none and the left have scratched over the sand and upturned every stone looking for it. It is a bit like the GAY gene, elusive.
RBS, HBOS, Lloyds TSB - part-nationalised to save them from themselves.
"Part nationalised", is that like being a little bit pregnant?

None of those you name are nationalised, there is a % share holding held by the government, in some cases enough to name a director or two. But they are run as PLC companies.

You want a classic nationalised industry story look at British Steel



Part nationalised is dogma as well.

A decent government would have fully nationalised them and wound them up in an organised and rational way, but what we got instead was a re run of the bad policies that supported the badly run heavy industries of the 1970's ie throw loads of taxpayer money at the problem pretend to reform but do little other than superficial window dressing. we have so called "bad banks" and god knows what sort of underhand tactics are going on behind the curtains.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Nov 2 2014, 08:05 PM
RJD
Nov 2 2014, 03:29 PM
somersetli
Nov 2 2014, 12:25 PM
From personal experience I can tell you that the problem with trade unions largely stemmed from their members apathy and reluctance to involve themselves with the day to day running of their branches.

I am talking of the days of the closed shop, where union membership was a condition of employment and to lapse your membership meant you lost your job.
You would think in that situation members would be keen to participate in their unions affairs, but sadly on too many occasions that didn't happen.

You could have meetings in firms with hundreds of union members and be lucky to get enough to attend to form a quorum.
This situation allowed people with a different agenda to dominate the business, and force through motions that caused any amount of trouble.
The apathy also allowed these people to get elected to influential positions like shop stewards and branch officers. Once in those positions, and supported by like minded followers they were able to create havoc in the workplace.
It was apparent back then in places like the Docks, London transport, and later in the British motor industry.
Note just apathy I watched them being led by their noses out of factory gates just to demonstrate that the Union had the power to stop production and wreck a company if it so wished. Some went through the gates reluctantly but dared not voice an opinion. My FIL was locked out of his place of work, at Cammel Laird's shipyard, in the 1950s, against his wishes because of a demarcation dispute by other trades. The infamous "who twanges the string" Patternmakers or Boilermakers. I watched them all in the 50s, 60s and 70s as step by step they sought to destroy their own jobs. Even a Labour Gov. in the 1970s could not appease them, it pumped up wage rates and never ever saw the promised productivity gains and we all know what happened to poor Sunny Jim. By 1979 there was no longer any ground left to deal sensibly with the Unions, they had lost the support of Joe Public, they were doomed, doomed by their past bullying and arrogance. Those here that still believe another round of tea and sandwiches at No.10, in 1979, would have done the trick learned absolutely nothing from the recent history. The Winter of Discontent was their denouement.
(cough)

It's 2014 not 1974.


When Mrs T was insisting business must stand or fall on its own merits, I do not think she envisaged the Banks en bloc would end up with a begging bowl looking for rescue.






Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply