Join the Labour Party and save your country!
Comments
-
Thats going to take a long time - franchise durations are 10-22 years.
Even if you take coal mines out of the equation, the cost of what he has so far publicaly said he will nationalise will be hundreds of billions. So where is the money coming from to fund this?Tangled Metal - from what I've seen, what he actually said was that Britain should CONSIDER re-opening certain coal mines in South Wales if it is economically viable (in the case of rising coal prices) in the future and if the technology exists to make it clean burning and carbon neutral.
And who knows what else he will aim to nationalise once he is heading up Old Labour?
With the trains, he could just let the franchises run out and then nationalise. Also, these are money-making organisations, so money used for buying back shares (and shares in nuclear might become very cheap, very quickly if the government refuses to insure the next generation of power stations on behalf of the energy companies) could be recouped from energy bills.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8469221.stm
As for energy companies, no such option and are you saying the cost would be recouped by increasing energy bills? Rather impractical given the expected outlay:
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/aug/07/jeremy-corbyns-bill-nationalising-energy-sector-185bn
Aside from the small matter that a lot of the energy supplipy companies are owned by overseas conglomerates who cannot be taken over and may not want to sell, or demand a large premium... (EDF, NPower, eon and Scottish power fall in to this category).
Neither credible nor deliverable."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Sorry but here you go again making statements about what you see as wrong with the country as if they were fact and offering no evidence to back them up. I refer you back to my definition of 'leftiebollox'Cameron has no answer to extreme rent rises, a failing nhs or transport infrructure and no answer to a shabby education system or even recognise there is anything wrong but why would he? he lives in a bubble of private schooling and wealth, so, our local comp is in special measures and thats an academy, so how is making all schools one going to help? he is an out of touch idiot.
His plans on building more housing are just talk and with net migration running at 0.5m per year, how is right to buy going to help anyone struggling to house themselves? infact will reduce social housing stock.
To me Stevo, it is the right that are on that blue pill and xxxxing the rest of us with it :evil:
On the point about Corbyn's policies lacking credibility and deliverability, would care to explain how you think he will find the considerable funds required to what you perceive as the problems above? This is of course after he has spent the hundreds of billions of pounds required to nationalise the energy industry, the rail industry and reopen a network of uneconomic mines? Actually, first tell us where you think he will find the money needed to do those three things? :roll:
Maybe money grows on trees, or maybe he can raise taxes on the rich a bit to fund it
Seriously, this is leftie la-la land and a large proportion of the electorate know it.[/quote]
Right wing BullShxt, this is a rich country, one of the richest in the world, with seat on the UN and about to embark on renewing Trident at a cost of at least 100billion.
another 40b on HS2.... but apparently we ve no money to ensure our kids get a decent education, not better than our competitors but just perhaps equal, how on earth are we going to ensure a good economic future without a well educated work force? our competitors are not following us into race to the bottom in this respect.
but i do agree on nationalisation of power, water and train companies, not needed and expensive, some regulation on pricing, esp for energy and water would be a better option to consider.
But it does look like that in stevo land everything in the UK is rosy and no need to do anything different.... jeez and you want to stay in power? god alone help us.0 -
For stev66 to say we ve no money is rubbish.
Governments can find cash to spend 2billion on free childcare, 12billion on foreign aid but no money to improve school standards.
what about the billions wasted on housing benefit paid via inflated rents to private land lords? and many more buyers lining up to snap up properties to rent out.
what about scrapping the charitable status of private schools for start?
Unless we address the skills gap in this country, we will never improve our economic output to match our rivals and give us the extra revenue to improve our country.
Corbyn pushes this agenda, so should he become leader, with help from S66, i ll be voting for him.0 -
Apparently, the railways are subsidised in real terms x3 the amount of money from the tax payer than before privatisation. Withdraw that subsidy and see how long it is before they have to be taken back into public ownership.
I'm sure you'll all be surprised see me post, I'd just take them back into public ownership anyway. Followed by water and the utilities.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
Yes, if you don't bother with the difference between a hopelessly under-investing regime under BR compared to vast capital sums being invested in e.g. Crossrail. Now this is not necessarily an argument against nationalisation, but it certainly isn't an argument for it.Apparently, the railways are subsidised in real terms x3 the amount of money from the tax payer than before privatisation.
Of course, if all the overpaid drivers were sacked and replaced by the £50 worth of technology it would take to do the job, that would save a lot of money...0 -
Yes, if you don't bother with the difference between a hopelessly under-investing regime under BR compared to vast capital sums being invested in e.g. Crossrail. Now this is not necessarily an argument against nationalisation, but it certainly isn't an argument for it.Apparently, the railways are subsidised in real terms x3 the amount of money from the tax payer than before privatisation.
Of course, if all the overpaid drivers were sacked and replaced by the £50 worth of technology it would take to do the job, that would save a lot of money...
yes you right, it would save money, long term but it needs a substantial investment first and those train drivers currently spending their money, paying taxes etc they d become unemployed, claim benefits, maybe even housing and working tax credits should they find other low paid work, what overall saving then?
BR invested in the intercity 125, it has taken 40 plus years for that sevice to begin to be replaced, its not all red and blue.0 -
what about scrapping the charitable status of private schools for start?
Whilst you are about it you could scrap the tax exempt status of a lot of other bodies such as religions, perhaps elements of trade unions finances too (not the provident bits, I guess like the pensions, etc).0 -
Quoted for reference. This richness and prosperity is an unfortunate side effect of decades of capitalism, good of you to finally acknowledge itRight wing BullShxt, this is a rich country, one of the richest in the world, Let's not spoil it...
Unfortunately when you add up the list of things that the likes of Corbyn and Frank want to bring back into public ownership then the amounts get pretty eye-watering, even compared to the cost of Trident."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I had estimated the value of energy and railways as a few hundred billion. Chuck in the utilities and a few other things on the hard left wish list ands you're probably knocking on a trillion. That's a lot of money...so let us know what you think it would cost to renationalise everything that you want to see back in public ownership and let us know where that amount of money would come from. Seems people are reluctant to answer my question, wonder why?Apparently, the railways are subsidised in real terms x3 the amount of money from the tax payer than before privatisation. Withdraw that subsidy and see how long it is before they have to be taken back into public ownership.
I'm sure you'll all be surprised see me post, I'd just take them back into public ownership anyway. Followed by water and the utilities.
Also I assume you are happy for this sort of amount to flow to the private sector and some of it overseas to achieve this result?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Quoted for reference. This richness and prosperity is an unfortunate side effect of decades of capitalism, good of you to finally acknowledge itRight wing BullShxt, this is a rich country, one of the richest in the world, Let's not spoil it...
Unfortunately when you add up the list of things that the likes of Corbyn and Frank want to bring back into public ownership then the amounts get pretty eye-watering, even compared to the cost of Trident.
yes decades of right wing Government has taken us to the bottom of the world league tables on education, given us some of the worst leisure and sporting facilities in western europe, child and adult sex abuse scandals and now, a world wide refugee problem that dawfs even that after ww2, to which the the west has absolutley no answer too (the wars in Iraq Afgan and libya, carried out by a right wing Bush/blair and supported by the Tories, whcih derectly has led to the crisis in syria)
Its no good being a so called wealthy country, if the vast majority of the wealth is in the hands of 0.01 % of the population.
I also said that renationalisation of energy and rail companies isnt necessary, the point here Steve is that the UK has money to spend.0 -
All this talk about trains.
Would these be the segregated ones?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Thats going to take a long time - franchise durations are 10-22 years.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8469221.stm
So do it as and when they become available. Not all the franchises will be starting on election day 2020.As for energy companies, no such option and are you saying the cost would be recouped by increasing energy bills? Rather impractical given the expected outlay:
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/aug/07/jeremy-corbyns-bill-nationalising-energy-sector-185bn
Aside from the small matter that a lot of the energy supplipy companies are owned by overseas conglomerates who cannot be taken over and may not want to sell, or demand a large premium... (EDF, NPower, eon and Scottish power fall in to this category).
Neither credible nor deliverable.
I never said that energy bills should be increased. In fact some studies have shown that privatisation has resulted in higher bill (I'll look for the link and edit this message when I've found it). This isn't just money that would be chucked into some big black hole - if private companies are willing to buy them off the government, that's because there's money to be made, so given the amount of subsidies (£12bn per year according to the very first paragraph in this report) and government underwriting of the energy industry, why not just get that money to go into the government's coffers instead of carrying on the Tory wet dream of privatised profit, socialised risk?
Also, even if all that were not the case, please correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I've read, Corbyn hasn't actually pledged to re-nationalise all utilities. He's said he would like to, but maybe he'd prefer to have a feasibility study done first.0 -
All this talk about trains.
Would these be the segregated ones?
This is yet another one in which Corbyn hasn't actually proposed a policy yet, he's said that he wouldn't favour women-only carriages, but it should be up for consultation.
The Tory Transport Minister has also previously suggested that such schemes should be considered.0 -
I presume the bad weather, the loss at the Oval Test and the puncture I had last week are all the fault of right wing governments too?yes decades of right wing Government has taken us to the bottom of the world league tables on education, given us some of the worst leisure and sporting facilities in western europe, child and adult sex abuse scandals and now, a world wide refugee problem that dawfs even that after ww2, to which the the west has absolutley no answer too (the wars in Iraq Afgan and libya, carried out by a right wing Bush/blair and supported by the Tories, whcih derectly has led to the crisis in syria)
Its no good being a so called wealthy country, if the vast majority of the wealth is in the hands of 0.01 % of the population.
I also said that renationalisation of energy and rail companies isnt necessary, the point here Steve is that the UK has money to spend.
Personally I would like to see a few more policy suggestions based on evidence - whether that evidence points left or right - and a lot less based on tribalism, hatred and prejudice. I suspect a bit of fact checking wouldn't come amiss.
(non-political aside - interesting to note that fact checking, if you hyphenate it rather than use a space, is censored! Must be those ********** Tories to blame...)0 -
I have a clear vision in my head as to how the consultation is going to go.All this talk about trains.
Would these be the segregated ones?
This is yet another one in which Corbyn hasn't actually proposed a policy yet, he's said that he wouldn't favour women-only carriages, but it should be up for consultation.
The Tory Transport Minister has also previously suggested that such schemes should be considered.
In a nutshell, not well.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I have a clear vision in my head as to how the consultation is going to go.All this talk about trains.
Would these be the segregated ones?
This is yet another one in which Corbyn hasn't actually proposed a policy yet, he's said that he wouldn't favour women-only carriages, but it should be up for consultation.
The Tory Transport Minister has also previously suggested that such schemes should be considered.
In a nutshell, not well.
Well from the reaction so far, Jeremy Corbyn will say "I don't favour these". Women's rights groups will say "no, neither do we", as will the rest of the Labour Party, Lib Dems and Tories.
I don't know what the majority of ordinary women would say though.0 -
I presume the bad weather, the loss at the Oval Test and the puncture I had last week are all the fault of right wing governments too?
If Stevo comes out with rubbish about what a wonderful wealthy country we live in and its all down to right wing Governments, then my reply was in respnse to that.
But seriously, all parties make c0ck ups and no one is perfect, except Stevo.
But interesting that australia has a right wing PM and they ve just lost the Ashes....
as for policy, Corbyn isnt even labour leader and any election is years away, so debate and consultation is all you ll get from anyone.0 -
And England has a right wing PM and they won the Ashes. Not bad really if you ask me. Always a good thing when England wins the Ashes. Two very impressive tests for England too. Let us hope our right wing PM gets us the Rugby world cup as well!!I presume the bad weather, the loss at the Oval Test and the puncture I had last week are all the fault of right wing governments too?
If Stevo comes out with rubbish about what a wonderful wealthy country we live in and its all down to right wing Governments, then my reply was in respnse to that.
But seriously, all parties make c0ck ups and no one is perfect, except Stevo.
But interesting that australia has a right wing PM and they ve just lost the Ashes....
as for policy, Corbyn isnt even labour leader and any election is years away, so debate and consultation is all you ll get from anyone. 0 -
And England has a right wing PM and they won the Ashes. Not bad really if you ask me. Always a good thing when England wins the Ashes. Two very impressive tests for England too. Let us hope our right wing PM gets us the Rugby world cup as well!!I presume the bad weather, the loss at the Oval Test and the puncture I had last week are all the fault of right wing governments too?
If Stevo comes out with rubbish about what a wonderful wealthy country we live in and its all down to right wing Governments, then my reply was in respnse to that.
But seriously, all parties make c0ck ups and no one is perfect, except Stevo.
But interesting that australia has a right wing PM and they ve just lost the Ashes....
as for policy, Corbyn isnt even labour leader and any election is years away, so debate and consultation is all you ll get from anyone.
Ah, but their best ever performance (well, best I've ever seen) was in 2005. Who was in power in 1966? Could be very important at the next election.0 -
You're the one who said we were rich...I presume the bad weather, the loss at the Oval Test and the puncture I had last week are all the fault of right wing governments too?
If Stevo comes out with rubbish about what a wonderful wealthy country we live in and its all down to right wing Governments, then my reply was in respnse to that.
But seriously, all parties make c0ck ups and no one is perfect, except Stevo.
But interesting that australia has a right wing PM and they ve just lost the Ashes....
as for policy, Corbyn isnt even labour leader and any election is years away, so debate and consultation is all you ll get from anyone.
I never said it was a flawless system, just better than the poorly thought out, unaffordable and unworkable alternative system that you seem to favour - which seems hell bent on eliminating any perceived unfairness in a fundamentally unfair world. King Canute and the tide spring to mind. The system we are in now is the one that allows you (a self confessed higher rate tax payer and former two times tory voter) to sit in relative comfort behind your keyboard and whinge about how unfair the system is :roll:"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
-
So what's the point of renationalising at a cost of hundreds of billions if people's energy bills stay the same?Thats going to take a long time - franchise durations are 10-22 years.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8469221.stm
So do it as and when they become available. Not all the franchises will be starting on election day 2020.As for energy companies, no such option and are you saying the cost would be recouped by increasing energy bills? Rather impractical given the expected outlay:
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/aug/07/jeremy-corbyns-bill-nationalising-energy-sector-185bn
Aside from the small matter that a lot of the energy supplipy companies are owned by overseas conglomerates who cannot be taken over and may not want to sell, or demand a large premium... (EDF, NPower, eon and Scottish power fall in to this category).
Neither credible nor deliverable.
I never said that energy bills should be increased. In fact some studies have shown that privatisation has resulted in higher bill (I'll look for the link and edit this message when I've found it). This isn't just money that would be chucked into some big black hole - if private companies are willing to buy them off the government, that's because there's money to be made, so given the amount of subsidies (£12bn per year according to the very first paragraph in this report) and government underwriting of the energy industry, why not just get that money to go into the government's coffers instead of carrying on the Tory wet dream of privatised profit, socialised risk?
Also, even if all that were not the case, please correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I've read, Corbyn hasn't actually pledged to re-nationalise all utilities. He's said he would like to, but maybe he'd prefer to have a feasibility study done first.
And just the small point that the hundreds of billions that it will cost to renationalise will take decades before the profits of this sector reach a payback point. In the meantime we all have to suffer increased taxes either directly to pay for it, and/or indirectly to pay for the extra borrowing required. And if you do drop energy prices, tax bills go up even more. We pay one way of the other.
The economics don't work. But that said the likes of Corbyn are doing it for ideological reasons, they haven't thought through whether this makes financial sense for the country or the people."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
It was Harold Wilson just won election March that year apparently. His second of 4 terms. He never managed to help England win the world cup in any of his other terms of office though.
And England has a right wing PM and they won the Ashes. Not bad really if you ask me. Always a good thing when England wins the Ashes. Two very impressive tests for England too. Let us hope our right wing PM gets us the Rugby world cup as well!!I presume the bad weather, the loss at the Oval Test and the puncture I had last week are all the fault of right wing governments too?
If Stevo comes out with rubbish about what a wonderful wealthy country we live in and its all down to right wing Governments, then my reply was in respnse to that.
But seriously, all parties make c0ck ups and no one is perfect, except Stevo.
But interesting that australia has a right wing PM and they ve just lost the Ashes....
as for policy, Corbyn isnt even labour leader and any election is years away, so debate and consultation is all you ll get from anyone.
Ah, but their best ever performance (well, best I've ever seen) was in 2005. Who was in power in 1966? Could be very important at the next election.0 -
It is being done elsewhere, yes it would be expensive but I am prepared to pay more tax if it resulted in a far more egalitarian society. If those earning obscene amounts wish to leave let them, there are others who can do their jobs, but I don't think they will leave. There are many good things about GB that are lacking elsewhere in the world, but that would be their choice.
I had estimated the value of energy and railways as a few hundred billion. Chuck in the utilities and a few other things on the hard left wish list ands you're probably knocking on a trillion. That's a lot of money...so let us know what you think it would cost to renationalise everything that you want to see back in public ownership and let us know where that amount of money would come from. Seems people are reluctant to answer my question, wonder why?Apparently, the railways are subsidised in real terms x3 the amount of money from the tax payer than before privatisation. Withdraw that subsidy and see how long it is before they have to be taken back into public ownership.
I'm sure you'll all be surprised see me post, I'd just take them back into public ownership anyway. Followed by water and the utilities.
Also I assume you are happy for this sort of amount to flow to the private sector and some of it overseas to achieve this result?Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
You're the one who said we were rich...I presume the bad weather, the loss at the Oval Test and the puncture I had last week are all the fault of right wing governments too?
If Stevo comes out with rubbish about what a wonderful wealthy country we live in and its all down to right wing Governments, then my reply was in respnse to that.
But seriously, all parties make c0ck ups and no one is perfect, except Stevo.
But interesting that australia has a right wing PM and they ve just lost the Ashes....
as for policy, Corbyn isnt even labour leader and any election is years away, so debate and consultation is all you ll get from anyone.
I never said it was a flawless system, just better than the poorly thought out, unaffordable and unworkable alternative system that you seem to favour - which seems hell bent on eliminating any perceived unfairness in a fundamentally unfair world. King Canute and the tide spring to mind. The system we are in now is the one that allows you (a self confessed higher rate tax payer and former two times tory voter) to sit in relative comfort behind your keyboard and whinge about how unfair the system is :roll:
i dont want a communist system as well you know.
just a change of emphasis away from the way the modern tory party wants to Govern.
You on the other hand, like things just the way they are, i ve never read you criticise Cameron at all, infact the very opposite, like the tory party, you ve no ideas or views on how to change anything, just full steam ahead, 'cause everything is rosey in stevo towers.0 -
Mamba, you have in effect described traditional Conservatism. The "no need for change" attitude. A very British attitude, in fact.
I would argue that the present Govt are very different. They are convinced they have a sizeable mandate for pushing through some quite large changes, which is why we should be concerned. Reforming Tories can be a disaster for so many people.
I suspect though it is mainly hot air from Cameron and Osborne, and they will splutter to a bit of a halt before some massive tax giveaways in 2019.Ecrasez l’infame0 -
Actually the economics of rationalization are simple, given that the electricity companies are Franchises who are supported by government funds there are a number of cash-flow neutral options to repatriate the electricity companies. Why do it? Well, you would enable a more equitable distribution of the electricity companies approx 25billion pa dividends (and dont start about pension funds needs, higher income segments of the population are much more likely to be on Final Salary schemes ), plus its an easy way to start addressing the absurd 130x salary premium FTSE 100 bosses receive.
So what's the point of renationalising at a cost of hundreds of billions if people's energy bills stay the same?Thats going to take a long time - franchise durations are 10-22 years.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8469221.stm
So do it as and when they become available. Not all the franchises will be starting on election day 2020.As for energy companies, no such option and are you saying the cost would be recouped by increasing energy bills? Rather impractical given the expected outlay:
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/aug/07/jeremy-corbyns-bill-nationalising-energy-sector-185bn
Aside from the small matter that a lot of the energy supplipy companies are owned by overseas conglomerates who cannot be taken over and may not want to sell, or demand a large premium... (EDF, NPower, eon and Scottish power fall in to this category).
Neither credible nor deliverable.
I never said that energy bills should be increased. In fact some studies have shown that privatisation has resulted in higher bill (I'll look for the link and edit this message when I've found it). This isn't just money that would be chucked into some big black hole - if private companies are willing to buy them off the government, that's because there's money to be made, so given the amount of subsidies (£12bn per year according to the very first paragraph in this report) and government underwriting of the energy industry, why not just get that money to go into the government's coffers instead of carrying on the Tory wet dream of privatised profit, socialised risk?
Also, even if all that were not the case, please correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I've read, Corbyn hasn't actually pledged to re-nationalise all utilities. He's said he would like to, but maybe he'd prefer to have a feasibility study done first.
And just the small point that the hundreds of billions that it will cost to renationalise will take decades before the profits of this sector reach a payback point. In the meantime we all have to suffer increased taxes either directly to pay for it, and/or indirectly to pay for the extra borrowing required. And if you do drop energy prices, tax bills go up even more. We pay one way of the other.
The economics don't work. But that said the likes of Corbyn are doing it for ideological reasons, they haven't thought through whether this makes financial sense for the country or the people.
The sad fact is weve become so used to seeing increasing income differentials as being normal that when a politician seeks ways to address that hes seen as a radical. Oh, and FWIW, there is NO economic theory, and I mean NONE, behind placing monopolies into private ownership. 1st principles of supply/demand curve is an open market with multiple sellers and willing buyers.Fitter....healthier....more productive.....0 -
Looks like these guys also blame cameron for many of our present day problems too, maybe they vote Corbyn?
a great shame Gaddafi dint get out of Libya.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3215566/Ex-Army-head-PM-blame-rise-ISIS-Damning-accusation-Chief-Staff-explosive-new-Cameron-biography.html0 -
The rail operators are franchises: the electricity retail companies are not as far as I am aware. Show me these cash neutral models - it will be interesting to see how the few hundred billion cost is recouped. And would you just nationalise the energy retailers? What about the distribution companies or even national grid? Or even the primary producers. Hard to see how this is affordable. If you don't buy all of them you have no control over the prices that the retailers pay.
Actually the economics of rationalization are simple, given that the electricity companies are Franchises who are supported by government funds there are a number of cash-flow neutral options to repatriate the electricity companies. Why do it? Well, you would enable a more equitable distribution of the electricity companies approx 25billion pa dividends (and dont start about pension funds needs, higher income segments of the population are much more likely to be on Final Salary schemes ), plus its an easy way to start addressing the absurd 130x salary premium FTSE 100 bosses receive.
So what's the point of renationalising at a cost of hundreds of billions if people's energy bills stay the same?Thats going to take a long time - franchise durations are 10-22 years.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8469221.stm
So do it as and when they become available. Not all the franchises will be starting on election day 2020.As for energy companies, no such option and are you saying the cost would be recouped by increasing energy bills? Rather impractical given the expected outlay:
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/aug/07/jeremy-corbyns-bill-nationalising-energy-sector-185bn
Aside from the small matter that a lot of the energy supplipy companies are owned by overseas conglomerates who cannot be taken over and may not want to sell, or demand a large premium... (EDF, NPower, eon and Scottish power fall in to this category).
Neither credible nor deliverable.
I never said that energy bills should be increased. In fact some studies have shown that privatisation has resulted in higher bill (I'll look for the link and edit this message when I've found it). This isn't just money that would be chucked into some big black hole - if private companies are willing to buy them off the government, that's because there's money to be made, so given the amount of subsidies (£12bn per year according to the very first paragraph in this report) and government underwriting of the energy industry, why not just get that money to go into the government's coffers instead of carrying on the Tory wet dream of privatised profit, socialised risk?
Also, even if all that were not the case, please correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I've read, Corbyn hasn't actually pledged to re-nationalise all utilities. He's said he would like to, but maybe he'd prefer to have a feasibility study done first.
And just the small point that the hundreds of billions that it will cost to renationalise will take decades before the profits of this sector reach a payback point. In the meantime we all have to suffer increased taxes either directly to pay for it, and/or indirectly to pay for the extra borrowing required. And if you do drop energy prices, tax bills go up even more. We pay one way of the other.
The economics don't work. But that said the likes of Corbyn are doing it for ideological reasons, they haven't thought through whether this makes financial sense for the country or the people.
The sad fact is weve become so used to seeing increasing income differentials as being normal that when a politician seeks ways to address that hes seen as a radical. Oh, and FWIW, there is NO economic theory, and I mean NONE, behind placing monopolies into private ownership. 1st principles of supply/demand curve is an open market with multiple sellers and willing buyers.
Although if your theory is right, why not just nationalise everything and have all the proceeds go to the state? Nice theory but we know it doesnt work in the real world.
If there were no difference between a national monopoly and a private monopoly then there is still no compelli g reason to choose the public monopoly. However you seem to be confused about what a monopoly is. A monopoly is where there is only one supplier. Not true for both railways and energy. The competition is pretty limited on the railways - but there always the possibility to change the franchisee as has been done before. We have a choice of energy supplier - some way from being full and open competition. But there is clearly a choice and some competition.
But if you nationalise either then you create a true monopoly with no competition and no choice. Bad idea, as well as extremely expensive."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
HOW- The way(s) I would nationalize them:
1) Id make the government subsidies either convertible superannuated debt, with a simultaneous call date so that they could all be nationalized together, or,
2) I would require these quoted companies to create an extraordinary voting class of shares which would be issued by them and purchased by the government, again in exchange for the subsidies and for any government funded CapEx, not sure if you could just buy a controlling interest 35% or the takeover code would require 100% purchase, but at the point at which you're telling the markets that these companies will no longer get government assistance their share prices will tank anyway.
3) Of course once you have stated you are publicly re nationalizing these companies, they each would create a legal entity to hive off their UK operations (if they haven't already), otherwise E-on, for example, ends up with the UK govt owning a large percentage of its international operations
4) Hardball option is simply to remove subsidies (personally Id ask the EU courts for a ruling, Neelie Kroes or her successor loves nothing more than another chance to criticize a national government for giving money away), and you buy the assets and contracts cheap. This, btw, is what UK PLC SHOULD have done when they re-nationlised the banks, let them fail with the undertaking that the UK govt would buy all their asset & loan books upon bankruptcy making every single employment/bonus /jet leasing contract void
You get some pretty pissed off fund managers and the "we wlll relocate to Singapore" bank lobby starts up again but no-one really believes them as corporate HQs locations are based upon where the Chairmans wife can shop and where their kids can get good schooling.
As to the "monopoly versus free markets point", granted, I was simplifying, the Electricity companies are a collusive oligopoly but I didn't want this to be a microeconomics 102 lecture. The point being, to apply jolly old Michael Porters "five forces" framework, that without transparency on prices (how many consumers understand how much a pair of trousers cost? How many understand how much their electricity costs? ), consumers with high switching costs and little opportunity of substitutes, plus network effects limiting new entrants its a VERY imperfect market, made the more so by the fact that successive UK governments have dis-aggregated the Electicity distribution network in the same way they have in the rail preventing integration and leading to inflexibility of supplier prices.
The ONLY premise for liberalizing these markets in the first place (increased competition leading to higher efficiency and lower costs fro consumer) have been concretely disproved, so why not pocket the dividends and the CEOs salaries and bonuses for the wider UK population.Fitter....healthier....more productive.....0
