Join the Labour Party and save your country!
Comments
-
bendertherobot wrote:rjsterry wrote:
Go on...bendertherobot wrote:Water company nationalisation is an interesting one. The people of the SE would be well advised to have a look at that carefully......
At the moment, if there's a drought, there's no mechanism outside a bulk water supply to supply the SE with water from the wetter areas.
If the entire thing is nationalised, even if into 9 regions, then there's the potential for that water to be transferred for 'free.'
I suspect it would be cheaper to build a desalination plant on the edge of the Thames estuary. Put a levy on the prices in the SE to pay for it. Unlike electricity, water can be stored in vast quantities that the desalination plant produces ahead of the summers.0 -
Coopster the 1st wrote:bendertherobot wrote:rjsterry wrote:
Go on...bendertherobot wrote:Water company nationalisation is an interesting one. The people of the SE would be well advised to have a look at that carefully......
At the moment, if there's a drought, there's no mechanism outside a bulk water supply to supply the SE with water from the wetter areas.
If the entire thing is nationalised, even if into 9 regions, then there's the potential for that water to be transferred for 'free.'
I suspect it would be cheaper to build a desalination plant on the edge of the Thames estuary. Put a levy on the prices in the SE to pay for it. Unlike electricity, water can be stored in vast quantities that the desalination plant produces ahead of the summers.
Do you suspect that there is already one?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Wa ... tion_Plant
You're missing long term water security and a proper national infrastructure. Tidy investment, jobs, etc.
Thought you'd be for something like that
My blog: http://www.roubaixcycling.cc (kit reviews and other musings)
https://twitter.com/roubaixcc
Facebook? No. Just say no.0 -
bendertherobot wrote:Coopster the 1st wrote:bendertherobot wrote:rjsterry wrote:
Go on...bendertherobot wrote:Water company nationalisation is an interesting one. The people of the SE would be well advised to have a look at that carefully......
At the moment, if there's a drought, there's no mechanism outside a bulk water supply to supply the SE with water from the wetter areas.
If the entire thing is nationalised, even if into 9 regions, then there's the potential for that water to be transferred for 'free.'
I suspect it would be cheaper to build a desalination plant on the edge of the Thames estuary. Put a levy on the prices in the SE to pay for it. Unlike electricity, water can be stored in vast quantities that the desalination plant produces ahead of the summers.
Do you suspect that there is already one?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Wa ... tion_Plant
You're missing long term water security and a proper national infrastructure. Tidy investment, jobs, etc.
Thought you'd be for something like that
Did not know that was there. Sounds perfect as a template for future plants around the SE if they are needed
Shows that private companies can build long term infrastructure and I don't see how having these plants is less secure for the country(unless you think we are going to run out of sea water!) than pipeline(s) from north to south. Thanks for invalidating your points about the reasons to nationalise the water companies 0 -
But what is the point of working out a legal framework for something that is not practically possible? A Wales-SE pipeline would make HS2 look easy. There's a good reason the water regions are based on the major river basins. I remember this all being discussed during the last really dry summer. As someone pointed out, unlike gas, water is very heavy and cannot be compressed. This basically rules out pipelines on any meaningful basis.bendertherobot wrote:rjsterry wrote:bendertherobot wrote:rjsterry wrote:
Go on...bendertherobot wrote:Water company nationalisation is an interesting one. The people of the SE would be well advised to have a look at that carefully......
At the moment, if there's a drought, there's no mechanism outside a bulk water supply to supply the SE with water from the wetter areas.
If the entire thing is nationalised, even if into 9 regions, then there's the potential for that water to be transferred for 'free.'
My understanding is that the logistics of transferring significant volumes of water are such that it's only ever a last ditch solution. It's a problem in the SE due to the high population +lower rainfall, so no real reason to spread the cost of works to SE infrastructure over the whole country.
That's infrastructure. My point is about legal mechanism. Water is 'owned' by the privatised company. Outside the bulk water supply agreement there's nothing that can be done for TW to source its water from, say, Wales. If the companies are all joined up then water is a national not regional resource.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
rjsterry wrote:
But what is the point of working out a legal framework for something that is not practically possible? A Wales-SE pipeline would make HS2 look easy. There's a good reason the water regions are based on the major river basins. I remember this all being discussed during the last really dry summer. As someone pointed out, unlike gas, water is very heavy and cannot be compressed. This basically rules out pipelines on any meaningful basis.bendertherobot wrote:rjsterry wrote:bendertherobot wrote:rjsterry wrote:
Go on...bendertherobot wrote:Water company nationalisation is an interesting one. The people of the SE would be well advised to have a look at that carefully......
At the moment, if there's a drought, there's no mechanism outside a bulk water supply to supply the SE with water from the wetter areas.
If the entire thing is nationalised, even if into 9 regions, then there's the potential for that water to be transferred for 'free.'
My understanding is that the logistics of transferring significant volumes of water are such that it's only ever a last ditch solution. It's a problem in the SE due to the high population +lower rainfall, so no real reason to spread the cost of works to SE infrastructure over the whole country.
That's infrastructure. My point is about legal mechanism. Water is 'owned' by the privatised company. Outside the bulk water supply agreement there's nothing that can be done for TW to source its water from, say, Wales. If the companies are all joined up then water is a national not regional resource.
Why do you assume it's 'a pipe?'My blog: http://www.roubaixcycling.cc (kit reviews and other musings)
https://twitter.com/roubaixcc
Facebook? No. Just say no.0 -
Are you suggesting diverting the Severn?bendertherobot wrote:rjsterry wrote:
But what is the point of working out a legal framework for something that is not practically possible? A Wales-SE pipeline would make HS2 look easy. There's a good reason the water regions are based on the major river basins. I remember this all being discussed during the last really dry summer. As someone pointed out, unlike gas, water is very heavy and cannot be compressed. This basically rules out pipelines on any meaningful basis.bendertherobot wrote:rjsterry wrote:bendertherobot wrote:rjsterry wrote:
Go on...bendertherobot wrote:Water company nationalisation is an interesting one. The people of the SE would be well advised to have a look at that carefully......
At the moment, if there's a drought, there's no mechanism outside a bulk water supply to supply the SE with water from the wetter areas.
If the entire thing is nationalised, even if into 9 regions, then there's the potential for that water to be transferred for 'free.'
My understanding is that the logistics of transferring significant volumes of water are such that it's only ever a last ditch solution. It's a problem in the SE due to the high population +lower rainfall, so no real reason to spread the cost of works to SE infrastructure over the whole country.
That's infrastructure. My point is about legal mechanism. Water is 'owned' by the privatised company. Outside the bulk water supply agreement there's nothing that can be done for TW to source its water from, say, Wales. If the companies are all joined up then water is a national not regional resource.
Why do you assume it's 'a pipe?'1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
No. What methods are available?My blog: http://www.roubaixcycling.cc (kit reviews and other musings)
https://twitter.com/roubaixcc
Facebook? No. Just say no.0 -
Labour going for the 72% tax bracket between £100k and £123k. Still, Tories got away with 62%, so I imagine it will be fine.0
-
They can F.R.O. (Well the electorate will tell them to do that on the 8th June).TheBigBean wrote:Labouring going for the 72% tax bracket between £100k and £123k. Still, Tories got away with 62%, so I imagine it will be fine."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Eh?bendertherobot wrote:No. What methods are available?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
How much do they think it will cost to buy back the water companies? On top of the other nationalisations already promised.bendertherobot wrote:Water company nationalisation is an interesting one. The people of the SE would be well advised to have a look at that carefully......
yes they are bit vague on this...... however, over time, should these companies continue to make money but no longer have to pay dividends then would it be a wise investment long term?
i can under stand gpo telco sell-offs but water/'leckie ??? there is no real competition, just billing, heck even with telco, bt/open reach are forced to sell capacity and infrastructure to the compettion, not what really happens in a competitive market is it?
however so far what i seen from the Tories is, well, another 5 years of austerity, public sector wage cuts and disability/schools and nhs real term cuts....
May is relying on her S&S mantra on brexit and saying fcuk all else and assuming that will be enough, oddly it will be.0 -
Just seen in the Graun.In an interview with the Politico website, the general secretary of Unite, Len McCluskey, has said Labour will have run a “successful campaign” if it manages to hold on to 200 seats at the election, adding that it would be “extraordinary” if the party actually won.
Blimey, so success now means losing another 29 seats. I'm all for managing expectations but it doesn't seem terribly ambitious. Would seem to confirm the "not interested in governing" criticism.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
rjsterry wrote:
Just seen in the Graun.In an interview with the Politico website, the general secretary of Unite, Len McCluskey, has said Labour will have run a “successful campaign” if it manages to hold on to 200 seats at the election, adding that it would be “extraordinary” if the party actually won.
Blimey, so success now means losing another 29 seats. I'm all for managing expectations but it doesn't seem terribly ambitious. Would seem to confirm the "not interested in governing" criticism.
As I said before: they're desperate to hold on to power until September when they can change the selection rules to make the party much harder left wing permanently.0 -
On Look North there was an item on Corbyn drawing genuinely big crowds in Leeds and other places.
Only, if he was interested in winning an election, he wouldn't be holding rallies in some of the safest seats in the country.
He's trying to energise the Corbyn core voters to bs k him beyond the election and in September.0 -
The price of buying up the utilities will ne substantial. I'm sure someone can find a source for the combined value, which will be an up front cost that is added to the national debt.mamba80 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
How much do they think it will cost to buy back the water companies? On top of the other nationalisations already promised.bendertherobot wrote:Water company nationalisation is an interesting one. The people of the SE would be well advised to have a look at that carefully......
yes they are bit vague on this...... however, over time, should these companies continue to make money but no longer have to pay dividends then would it be a wise investment long term?
i can under stand gpo telco sell-offs but water/'leckie ??? there is no real competition, just billing, heck even with telco, bt/open reach are forced to sell capacity and infrastructure to the compettion, not what really happens in a competitive market is it?
however so far what i seen from the Tories is, well, another 5 years of austerity, public sector wage cuts and disability/schools and nhs real term cuts....
May is relying on her S&S mantra on brexit and saying fcuk all else and assuming that will be enough, oddly it will be.
Dividends are in the low single % points range so when you take this saving less the cost of servicing the debt (which will rise under a hard left tax and spend regime) then the payback will probably be in the 30-50 year bracket. Not a good investment IMO.
That's assuming that the state is capable of running an efficient business. History would suggest that it is not."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Even by those low standards I think they will fail. This has become a fight between conservatism and socialism and the socialists arr going to get their arses kicked. Hard.rjsterry wrote:
Just seen in the Graun.In an interview with the Politico website, the general secretary of Unite, Len McCluskey, has said Labour will have run a “successful campaign” if it manages to hold on to 200 seats at the election, adding that it would be “extraordinary” if the party actually won.
Blimey, so success now means losing another 29 seats. I'm all for managing expectations but it doesn't seem terribly ambitious. Would seem to confirm the "not interested in governing" criticism.
But lefties just don't learn as I've said before..."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Not this state at any rate. For all the muttering about under-investment ny privatised utilities (some of which may be justified), pre-privatisation investment in aging infrastructure - be that railways, power stations or water mains - was pretty poor as well. Other countries seem to manage it though.Stevo 666 wrote:
The price of buying up the utilities will ne substantial. I'm sure someone can find a source for the combined value, which will be an up front cost that is added to the national debt.mamba80 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
How much do they think it will cost to buy back the water companies? On top of the other nationalisations already promised.bendertherobot wrote:Water company nationalisation is an interesting one. The people of the SE would be well advised to have a look at that carefully......
yes they are bit vague on this...... however, over time, should these companies continue to make money but no longer have to pay dividends then would it be a wise investment long term?
i can under stand gpo telco sell-offs but water/'leckie ??? there is no real competition, just billing, heck even with telco, bt/open reach are forced to sell capacity and infrastructure to the compettion, not what really happens in a competitive market is it?
however so far what i seen from the Tories is, well, another 5 years of austerity, public sector wage cuts and disability/schools and nhs real term cuts....
May is relying on her S&S mantra on brexit and saying fcuk all else and assuming that will be enough, oddly it will be.
Dividends are in the low single % points range so when you take this saving less the cost of servicing the debt (which will rise under a hard left tax and spend regime) then the payback will probably be in the 30-50 year bracket. Not a good investment IMO.
That's assuming that the state is capable of running an efficient business. History would suggest that it is not.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
The price of buying up the utilities will ne substantial. I'm sure someone can find a source for the combined value, which will be an up front cost that is added to the national debt.mamba80 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
How much do they think it will cost to buy back the water companies? On top of the other nationalisations already promised.bendertherobot wrote:Water company nationalisation is an interesting one. The people of the SE would be well advised to have a look at that carefully......
yes they are bit vague on this...... however, over time, should these companies continue to make money but no longer have to pay dividends then would it be a wise investment long term?
i can under stand gpo telco sell-offs but water/'leckie ??? there is no real competition, just billing, heck even with telco, bt/open reach are forced to sell capacity and infrastructure to the compettion, not what really happens in a competitive market is it?
however so far what i seen from the Tories is, well, another 5 years of austerity, public sector wage cuts and disability/schools and nhs real term cuts....
May is relying on her S&S mantra on brexit and saying fcuk all else and assuming that will be enough, oddly it will be.
Dividends are in the low single % points range so when you take this saving less the cost of servicing the debt (which will rise under a hard left tax and spend regime) then the payback will probably be in the 30-50 year bracket. Not a good investment IMO.
That's assuming that the state is capable of running an efficient business. History would suggest that it is not.
I d like to see more state/private partnership, rather than out right buy outs, which seem, like austerity, ideologically driven.
there are examples of state industries that have turned a very good profit and have then been sold, royal Mail and wasnt there a s/w company? also Kingston Comms in Hull was very profitable as a pto, a disaster when Prescott ordered it sold off, adult social care, out sourced to the private sector has proved to be a terrible decision.
you know, i ve just come back from Mallorca, Spain a much maligned country by the right over here, seems to manage its public services very well, most are state run, we are the 5th (or there abouts) richest country in the world, but instead of saying we ve not the money, maybe we should ask "where is the money?"
No point being xyz in some league table if the general population dont benefit.0 -
rjsterry wrote:
Not this state at any rate. For all the muttering about under-investment ny privatised utilities (some of which may be justified), pre-privatisation investment in aging infrastructure - be that railways, power stations or water mains - was pretty poor as well. Other countries seem to manage it though.Stevo 666 wrote:
The price of buying up the utilities will ne substantial. I'm sure someone can find a source for the combined value, which will be an up front cost that is added to the national debt.mamba80 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
How much do they think it will cost to buy back the water companies? On top of the other nationalisations already promised.bendertherobot wrote:Water company nationalisation is an interesting one. The people of the SE would be well advised to have a look at that carefully......
yes they are bit vague on this...... however, over time, should these companies continue to make money but no longer have to pay dividends then would it be a wise investment long term?
i can under stand gpo telco sell-offs but water/'leckie ??? there is no real competition, just billing, heck even with telco, bt/open reach are forced to sell capacity and infrastructure to the compettion, not what really happens in a competitive market is it?
however so far what i seen from the Tories is, well, another 5 years of austerity, public sector wage cuts and disability/schools and nhs real term cuts....
May is relying on her S&S mantra on brexit and saying fcuk all else and assuming that will be enough, oddly it will be.
Dividends are in the low single % points range so when you take this saving less the cost of servicing the debt (which will rise under a hard left tax and spend regime) then the payback will probably be in the 30-50 year bracket. Not a good investment IMO.
That's assuming that the state is capable of running an efficient business. History would suggest that it is not.
Really? intercity 125, the current generation of nuclear power stations, now being decommissioned, were all built under the state, Even concorde was a co-op between a state merged BAC and the french....
the network of cables and exchanges, all built under GPO, BT/Openreach could in no way lay a new network of millions of miles of copper that carry 90% of our voice and IE traffic (domestic) and still be able to turn a profit.
If the Gov of the day takes the profits raised from state industries and uses that for other things, then it really doesnt matter how efficient they are, investment wont happen, just like the UK Motor Cycle industry, in its day made the equivalent of billions, but it wasnt used in R&D, the japs did invest and they became a world wide success, our industry on the other hand......0 -
The Intercity 125 demonstrates the lack of investment very well. It is 41 years old. It was conceived in the early 70s as a short term stop-gap while the heavily delayed APT* was completed. The fact that it is still running because they still haven't electrified large sections of the network tells its own story.mamba80 wrote:rjsterry wrote:
Not this state at any rate. For all the muttering about under-investment ny privatised utilities (some of which may be justified), pre-privatisation investment in aging infrastructure - be that railways, power stations or water mains - was pretty poor as well. Other countries seem to manage it though.Stevo 666 wrote:
The price of buying up the utilities will ne substantial. I'm sure someone can find a source for the combined value, which will be an up front cost that is added to the national debt.mamba80 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
How much do they think it will cost to buy back the water companies? On top of the other nationalisations already promised.bendertherobot wrote:Water company nationalisation is an interesting one. The people of the SE would be well advised to have a look at that carefully......
yes they are bit vague on this...... however, over time, should these companies continue to make money but no longer have to pay dividends then would it be a wise investment long term?
i can under stand gpo telco sell-offs but water/'leckie ??? there is no real competition, just billing, heck even with telco, bt/open reach are forced to sell capacity and infrastructure to the compettion, not what really happens in a competitive market is it?
however so far what i seen from the Tories is, well, another 5 years of austerity, public sector wage cuts and disability/schools and nhs real term cuts....
May is relying on her S&S mantra on brexit and saying fcuk all else and assuming that will be enough, oddly it will be.
Dividends are in the low single % points range so when you take this saving less the cost of servicing the debt (which will rise under a hard left tax and spend regime) then the payback will probably be in the 30-50 year bracket. Not a good investment IMO.
That's assuming that the state is capable of running an efficient business. History would suggest that it is not.
Really? intercity 125, the current generation of nuclear power stations, now being decommissioned, were all built under the state, Even concorde was a co-op between a state merged BAC and the french....
the network of cables and exchanges, all built under GPO, BT/Openreach could in no way lay a new network of millions of miles of copper that carry 90% of our voice and IE traffic (domestic) and still be able to turn a profit.
If the Gov of the day takes the profits raised from state industries and uses that for other things, then it really doesnt matter how efficient they are, investment wont happen, just like the UK Motor Cycle industry, in its day made the equivalent of billions, but it wasnt used in R&D, the japs did invest and they became a world wide success, our industry on the other hand......
*The APT project was eventually cancelled, but most of the pioneering ideas within it were taken on and perfected by other train manufacturers around the world. Now where have I heard that story before.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
KingstonGraham wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:It is strange how she is chasing every vote rather than stating her policies and getting a strong mandate. It could give us an inkling into how she thinks. Personally I think she is canny as fvck. Give the Countryside Alliance a vote on fox hunting so that when the fvcks the farmers they will not unite against her.
I think she might look back in 5 years at a lost opportunity. She's going to win, why not articulate what she actually wants to do? Unless that really is just to win.
Because it'd cut her lead enough to destroy any prospect of a large overall majority.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
rjsterry wrote:
The Intercity 125 demonstrates the lack of investment very well. It is 41 years old. It was conceived in the early 70s as a short term stop-gap while the heavily delayed APT* was completed. The fact that it is still running because they still haven't electrified large sections of the network tells its own story.mamba80 wrote:rjsterry wrote:
Not this state at any rate. For all the muttering about under-investment ny privatised utilities (some of which may be justified), pre-privatisation investment in aging infrastructure - be that railways, power stations or water mains - was pretty poor as well. Other countries seem to manage it though.Stevo 666 wrote:
The price of buying up the utilities will ne substantial. I'm sure someone can find a source for the combined value, which will be an up front cost that is added to the national debt.mamba80 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
How much do they think it will cost to buy back the water companies? On top of the other nationalisations already promised.bendertherobot wrote:Water company nationalisation is an interesting one. The people of the SE would be well advised to have a look at that carefully......
yes they are bit vague on this...... however, over time, should these companies continue to make money but no longer have to pay dividends then would it be a wise investment long term?
i can under stand gpo telco sell-offs but water/'leckie ??? there is no real competition, just billing, heck even with telco, bt/open reach are forced to sell capacity and infrastructure to the compettion, not what really happens in a competitive market is it?
however so far what i seen from the Tories is, well, another 5 years of austerity, public sector wage cuts and disability/schools and nhs real term cuts....
May is relying on her S&S mantra on brexit and saying fcuk all else and assuming that will be enough, oddly it will be.
Dividends are in the low single % points range so when you take this saving less the cost of servicing the debt (which will rise under a hard left tax and spend regime) then the payback will probably be in the 30-50 year bracket. Not a good investment IMO.
That's assuming that the state is capable of running an efficient business. History would suggest that it is not.
Really? intercity 125, the current generation of nuclear power stations, now being decommissioned, were all built under the state, Even concorde was a co-op between a state merged BAC and the french....
the network of cables and exchanges, all built under GPO, BT/Openreach could in no way lay a new network of millions of miles of copper that carry 90% of our voice and IE traffic (domestic) and still be able to turn a profit.
If the Gov of the day takes the profits raised from state industries and uses that for other things, then it really doesnt matter how efficient they are, investment wont happen, just like the UK Motor Cycle industry, in its day made the equivalent of billions, but it wasnt used in R&D, the japs did invest and they became a world wide success, our industry on the other hand......
*The APT project was eventually cancelled, but most of the pioneering ideas within it were taken on and perfected by other train manufacturers around the world. Now where have I heard that story before.
...and shows that despite private ownership we are still not investing in railways, this time round instead of the state taking the money, it is going to the private sector.
People are quick to slag off state ownership but done properly, it works very well for public services, as can be seen by our former friends in Europe - whether it should be a priority for Labour is another matter.0 -
Some of the franchises have invested quite heavily in new rolling stock, others less so. A lot of the problems have been down to the track and signalling which has been on quasi state control, but I agree that whether state or privately run, if utilities and rail are approached from the point of view of what can be extracted to fund something else then investment is likely to take a back seat.mamba80 wrote:rjsterry wrote:
The Intercity 125 demonstrates the lack of investment very well. It is 41 years old. It was conceived in the early 70s as a short term stop-gap while the heavily delayed APT* was completed. The fact that it is still running because they still haven't electrified large sections of the network tells its own story.mamba80 wrote:rjsterry wrote:
Not this state at any rate. For all the muttering about under-investment ny privatised utilities (some of which may be justified), pre-privatisation investment in aging infrastructure - be that railways, power stations or water mains - was pretty poor as well. Other countries seem to manage it though.Stevo 666 wrote:
The price of buying up the utilities will ne substantial. I'm sure someone can find a source for the combined value, which will be an up front cost that is added to the national debt.mamba80 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
How much do they think it will cost to buy back the water companies? On top of the other nationalisations already promised.bendertherobot wrote:Water company nationalisation is an interesting one. The people of the SE would be well advised to have a look at that carefully......
yes they are bit vague on this...... however, over time, should these companies continue to make money but no longer have to pay dividends then would it be a wise investment long term?
i can under stand gpo telco sell-offs but water/'leckie ??? there is no real competition, just billing, heck even with telco, bt/open reach are forced to sell capacity and infrastructure to the compettion, not what really happens in a competitive market is it?
however so far what i seen from the Tories is, well, another 5 years of austerity, public sector wage cuts and disability/schools and nhs real term cuts....
May is relying on her S&S mantra on brexit and saying fcuk all else and assuming that will be enough, oddly it will be.
Dividends are in the low single % points range so when you take this saving less the cost of servicing the debt (which will rise under a hard left tax and spend regime) then the payback will probably be in the 30-50 year bracket. Not a good investment IMO.
That's assuming that the state is capable of running an efficient business. History would suggest that it is not.
Really? intercity 125, the current generation of nuclear power stations, now being decommissioned, were all built under the state, Even concorde was a co-op between a state merged BAC and the french....
the network of cables and exchanges, all built under GPO, BT/Openreach could in no way lay a new network of millions of miles of copper that carry 90% of our voice and IE traffic (domestic) and still be able to turn a profit.
If the Gov of the day takes the profits raised from state industries and uses that for other things, then it really doesnt matter how efficient they are, investment wont happen, just like the UK Motor Cycle industry, in its day made the equivalent of billions, but it wasnt used in R&D, the japs did invest and they became a world wide success, our industry on the other hand......
*The APT project was eventually cancelled, but most of the pioneering ideas within it were taken on and perfected by other train manufacturers around the world. Now where have I heard that story before.
...and shows that despite private ownership we are still not investing in railways, this time round instead of the state taking the money, it is going to the private sector.
People are quick to slag off state ownership but done properly, it works very well for public services, as can be seen by our former friends in Europe - whether it should be a priority for Labour is another matter.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
mamba80 wrote:People are quick to slag off state ownership but done properly, it works very well for public services...
I think people are quick to slag off state ownership in the UK. And rightly so. Trains, cars, coal, power and phones were pretty shonky in the 70s/80s when under state control. Whether this was as a result of state control per se, under-funding, crap management or a lack of ability to control the unions is an interesting question. As you observe, state control can work well when it's a different state to the UK doing the controlling. State control in the UK is obviously not a silver bullet, as evidenced by the NHS.0 -
Wallace and Gromit wrote:mamba80 wrote:People are quick to slag off state ownership but done properly, it works very well for public services...
I think people are quick to slag off state ownership in the UK. And rightly so. Trains, cars, coal, power and phones were pretty shonky in the 70s/80s when under state control. Whether this was as a result of state control per se, under-funding, crap management or a lack of ability to control the unions is an interesting question. As you observe, state control can work well when it's a different state to the UK doing the controlling. State control in the UK is obviously not a silver bullet, as evidenced by the NHS.
governments should nt hav anything to do with making cars etc just make the conditions right for private business to thrive, how about a hi skilled work force for starters.
As i said, its the Gov taking the profits form key public services that has bought about decades of under investment.
May banging on about the Tories being strong and stable, even blaming labour for the banking crisis, she is a fcuking liar, couldnt bring down immigration, wrecked the Police force and screwed the justice system.
all the tories are doing is slating the opposition WITHOUT telling us what they ll do....... but then we know that, more cuts.
gotta to love the plan for people to take time off - unpaid - to look after loved ones and still have to sell the family house when you are too exhausted to carry on, yeah May, you r not ducking adult social care, you want to take take us back to the 1930's when my mum would tell me off the smell of having her granny living with them, demented and incontinent, my Gran had to give up work to look after her mum....... unpaid of course!0 -
mamba80 wrote:...May banging on about the Tories being strong and stable, even blaming labour for the banking crisis...
It's shocking isn't it? The government that had been in charge of bank regulation for a decade getting blamed for a problem with the banks when everyone knows it was Father Christmas, George Bush and Maggie Thatcher that caused the crisis in the UK.0 -
I don't have a big objection to state/private partnerships if they are right in the individual cases in question. That said I'm no expert on PPP.mamba80 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
The price of buying up the utilities will ne substantial. I'm sure someone can find a source for the combined value, which will be an up front cost that is added to the national debt.mamba80 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
How much do they think it will cost to buy back the water companies? On top of the other nationalisations already promised.bendertherobot wrote:Water company nationalisation is an interesting one. The people of the SE would be well advised to have a look at that carefully......
yes they are bit vague on this...... however, over time, should these companies continue to make money but no longer have to pay dividends then would it be a wise investment long term?
i can under stand gpo telco sell-offs but water/'leckie ??? there is no real competition, just billing, heck even with telco, bt/open reach are forced to sell capacity and infrastructure to the compettion, not what really happens in a competitive market is it?
however so far what i seen from the Tories is, well, another 5 years of austerity, public sector wage cuts and disability/schools and nhs real term cuts....
May is relying on her S&S mantra on brexit and saying fcuk all else and assuming that will be enough, oddly it will be.
Dividends are in the low single % points range so when you take this saving less the cost of servicing the debt (which will rise under a hard left tax and spend regime) then the payback will probably be in the 30-50 year bracket. Not a good investment IMO.
That's assuming that the state is capable of running an efficient business. History would suggest that it is not.
I d like to see more state/private partnership, rather than out right buy outs, which seem, like austerity, ideologically driven.
there are examples of state industries that have turned a very good profit and have then been sold, royal Mail and wasnt there a s/w company? also Kingston Comms in Hull was very profitable as a pto, a disaster when Prescott ordered it sold off, adult social care, out sourced to the private sector has proved to be a terrible decision.
you know, i ve just come back from Mallorca, Spain a much maligned country by the right over here, seems to manage its public services very well, most are state run, we are the 5th (or there abouts) richest country in the world, but instead of saying we ve not the money, maybe we should ask "where is the money?"
No point being xyz in some league table if the general population dont benefit.
One thing I would say though is there there has been more than one comment on here (including yours above) that other states seem to be able to run public services well or at least better than the UK. This seems to be based on short term observation as an outsider/visitor and on the basis that there is nothing visibly wrong. I'd like to some evidence or at least feedback from those in the countries in question to back that up."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Wallace and Gromit wrote:mamba80 wrote:...May banging on about the Tories being strong and stable, even blaming labour for the banking crisis...
It's shocking isn't it? The government that had been in charge of bank regulation for a decade getting blamed for a problem with the banks when everyone knows it was Father Christmas, George Bush and Maggie Thatcher that caused the crisis in the UK.
I seem to remember it being a global financial crisis?When a true genius appears in this world, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him. - Jonathan Swift0 -
reallyarunner wrote:Wallace and Gromit wrote:mamba80 wrote:...May banging on about the Tories being strong and stable, even blaming labour for the banking crisis...
It's shocking isn't it? The government that had been in charge of bank regulation for a decade getting blamed for a problem with the banks when everyone knows it was Father Christmas, George Bush and Maggie Thatcher that caused the crisis in the UK.
I seem to remember it being a global financial crisis?
Which affected some countries more than others.0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
They can F.R.O. (Well the electorate will tell them to do that on the 8th June).TheBigBean wrote:Labouring going for the 72% tax bracket between £100k and £123k. Still, Tories got away with 62%, so I imagine it will be fine.
Brown introduced the 62% but Tories have not amended in 7 years.
Stevo does that mean you will be voting LibDem or will you just up your pension contributions to avoid paying it along with 90% of everybody else.
It would be far more honest (and productive) to drop the top rate threshold to £100k0
