• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

Gilzeantoscore said:
Re-nationalised. Yes, some. Of course it becomes very hard to do, unless said industry is run into the ground and is operating at a loss. There can be no justification for basic utilities, such as water being in private hands. It makes as much sense as privatising the air.....wait.....oh the Tories would do that, you just know they would.
Click to expand...

Thanks again.

Is state ownership of utilities more important than the service delivered to the customer and the cost to the taxpayer/customer?
 
I think we should have state owned energy and water companies along with the railways. I think it makes sense as these are natural monopolies and it works well with other similar sized western democracies. Instead, other countries state owned enterprises make money from our citizenry which can then, presumably, be re-invested in said state-owned enterprises for the benefit of the citizens in those countries. This makes no sense to me.

I wouldn't re-nationalise Rolls Royce any sooner than I'd privatise the army.

Privately owned isn't automatically bad and neither is state owned. I think some things are better off owned by the state for the benefit of the citizenry and other things (most things infact) not. There's no need to go to the extreme in one direction or another.
 
the dza said:
I think we should have state owned energy and water companies along with the railways. I think it makes sense as these are natural monopolies and it works well with other similar sized western democracies. Instead, other countries state owned enterprises make money from our citizenry which can then, presumably, be re-invested in said state-owned enterprises for the benefit of the citizens in those countries. This makes no sense to me.

I wouldn't re-nationalise Rolls Royce any sooner than I'd privatise the army.

Privately owned isn't automatically bad and neither is state owned. I think some things are better off owned by the state for the benefit of the citizenry and other things (most things infact) not. There's no need to go to the extreme in one direction or another.
Click to expand...
What if we could break the natural monopolies better? Surely that would be the best of both worlds.
 
scaramanga said:
What if we could break the natural monopolies better? Surely that would be the best of both worlds.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be against it, if we were getting the best outcome for our society. I'm not against this for the NHS for example (although I do strongly support the principle of healthcare that covers everyone that is free at the point of use) -- the trouble is, there are always some unscrupulous qunts who want to turn things from a public good into something purely to line their own pockets. That's not to say that investors can't make money and provide a good service for the public, they can and do. I just feel this is very often open to abuse and the people who are for it politically often stand to benefit financially, this being their main concern as opposed to the quality of the service provided to people.

I also think the worst thing, in some cases, is where the government will subsidise one of these monopolies (don't they do this with energy and rail to some degree?) and then the shareholders will get the benefit -- which is even worse when the major shareholder is a state-owned company from another country!
 
southern railway for a 20m hand out from the government to help them at the moment with all their problems then two days later announced a 100m profit for the year.

May is as stupid as all the others who have had her office.
 
Thanks for the answers @the dza - it sounds like you favour a mixed economy which is where I think that most people are.

This is what puzzles me when people use the term neo-liberal as an insult within the Labour Party. It is devoid of meaning because the Labour Party has never supported neo-liberalism.
 
the dza said:
I also think the worst thing, in some cases, is where the government will subsidise one of these monopolies (don't they do this with energy and rail to some degree?) and then the shareholders will get the benefit -- which is even worse when the major shareholder is a state-owned company from another country!
Click to expand...

You are right that both the rail companies and energy companies receive state funding. The latter is mainly for infrastructure building.

Would you still be against state funding of private monopolies if it was shown to be cheaper than delivering the same infrastructure building or services publicly?
 
milo said:
Thanks for the answers @the dza - it sounds like you favour a mixed economy which is where I think that most people are.

This is what puzzles me when people use the term neo-liberal as an insult within the Labour Party. It is devoid of meaning because the Labour Party has never supported neo-liberalism.
Click to expand...

I try not to use the term myself, I'm not quite sure who comes under the umbrella! I think, when most people say it in the UK, they mean Thatcherite policies (the 'big bang' in financial de-regulation, privitasation etc.) That's my understanding of it anyway.

And you are right, I favour a mixed economy.
 
milo said:
You are right that both the rail companies and energy companies receive state funding. The latter is mainly for infrastructure building.

Would you still be against state funding of private monopolies if it was shown to be cheaper than delivering the same infrastructure building or services publicly?
Click to expand...

If the quality of outcome was better for the public, then no I wouldn't be against it. But I would want to be sure of the impartiality of that information, particularly if it's been commissioned by politicians who have been lobbied to favour money flowing to private interests.

And this doesn't seem to be taken into account from the other direction. For example, the East Coast rail line, which was publicly owned, earning money for the treasury and had very high satisfaction rating amongst it's passengers. And was then privatised, despite the previous operators having walked away and the government having to step in. Things were going well, yet as soon as someone somewhere can earn out of it, boom, sold!
 
the dza said:
If the quality of outcome was better for the public, then no I wouldn't be against it. But I would want to be sure of the impartiality of that information, particularly if it's been commissioned by politicians who have been lobbied to favour money flowing to private interests.

And this doesn't seem to be taken into account from the other direction. For example, the East Coast rail line, which was publicly owned, earning money for the treasury and had very high satisfaction rating amongst it's passengers. And was then privatised, despite the previous operators having walked away and the government having to step in. Things were going well, yet as soon as someone somewhere can earn out of it, boom, sold!
Click to expand...

It was just a hypothetical question on state vs private ownership of public service provision. I agree with you on both points.
 
scaramanga said:
The market will provide the competing products, we just have to create an environment where that can happen.

It's not easy, but it works pretty well with telecoms.
Click to expand...
It works ok with telecoms but BT still owning the infrastructure is an issue.

Perhaps that model could work for power supply but I don't see how you break the monopoly and price collusion in a market that delivers an essential service. Telecoms is not an essential service, power supply is.
Some will argue that is irrelevant as telecoms is almost a guaranteed consumer service, thus making it near comparable with power - however the key difference in consumption choice between telecoms and power is you can stop telecoms consumption at any point, you cannot just disconnect a gas or electric supply and must be tied to a supplier at all times (even if you had zero consumption)

Sent from my Nexus 5X using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
the dza said:
I think we should have state owned energy and water companies along with the railways. I think it makes sense as these are natural monopolies and it works well with other similar sized western democracies. Instead, other countries state owned enterprises make money from our citizenry which can then, presumably, be re-invested in said state-owned enterprises for the benefit of the citizens in those countries. This makes no sense to me.

I wouldn't re-nationalise Rolls Royce any sooner than I'd privatise the army.

Privately owned isn't automatically bad and neither is state owned. I think some things are better off owned by the state for the benefit of the citizenry and other things (most things infact) not. There's no need to go to the extreme in one direction or another.
Click to expand...

I'm holder of utility stocks but I too would like to see the re nationalisation of the energy and water companies however, on the condition that the workforce cannot under any circumstances go on strike. There should also be workers representation at boardroom level.
 
wiziwig said:
I'm holder of utility stocks but I too would like to see the re nationalisation of the energy and water companies however, on the condition that the workforce cannot under any circumstances go on strike. There should also be workers representation at boardroom level.
Click to expand...

I would hope that if there was worker representation at board level, the likelihood of strikes is far less anyway. I suppose though, that stuff like electricity and water could come under the same bracket as the military, in that they are essential things and it'd be too dangerous for the workforce to be able to strike. So perhaps for those industries, or certain jobs within those industries, the right to strike could be waived if they were publicly owned. And I say that as a member of a trade union (GMB).
 
wiziwig said:
I'm holder of utility stocks but I too would like to see the re nationalisation of the energy and water companies however, on the condition that the workforce cannot under any circumstances go on strike. There should also be workers representation at boardroom level.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't it make more sense to have the board made up of people qualified to sit at board level?
 
scaramanga said:
Wouldn't it make more sense to have the board made up of people qualified to sit at board level?
Click to expand...

Do they have the 'workers representative' on the boards of German companies, Scara? I might be wrong, I thought I read that somewhere. I don't think it's a bad idea to have a proper link between those at the bottom and those at the top of a company, especially big companies where the top are quite disconnected from the average worker.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back