Conservatives.

[Webbo]

What about the ones that don't,   but  expect us to subsidise them and still give out massive bonuses to directors and shareholders?

We subsidised British Rail as well,without the improvement in safety.Whether we'd be paying less if it was still nationised is debatable but we wouldn't have had the investment we've had if it had to come from the public purse.

[Zingari]

It'll hopefully become a cash cow for pension funds and and anybody else who wants to invest. What's wrong with allowing members of the public to benefit directly from a successful business? Surely if you're all about fair distribution of profits then that's a lot better than having them wasted on inefficient government admin and welfare programmes which only benefit those who contribute the least?

You've deftly moved the goalposts moosey . I was saying that privatised companies are not always better and more efficient than their predecessors . How the profits are spent or misspent  is a whole different discussion isn't it ?

[The God Emperor]

TBH I think in this day and age it leads to cartels anyway. The energy companies being the proto-example - they don't have any Government subsidies yet a few of them utterly control the market, control the prices and will continue to do so.   

energy companies that use fossil fuels receive huge subsidies in the form of favorable VAT rates and tax breaks. they receive a lot more than renewable sources which keeps them out the market and the cartel going. 

[leicsmac]

energy companies that use fossil fuels receive huge subsidies in the form of favorable VAT rates and tax breaks. they receive a lot more than renewable sources which keeps them out the market and the cartel going. 

 

Ah right, I get you. So subsidies, but in a different way. 

 

Unfortunately big business and government are entangled so much now it's almost impossible to extricate them from each other, and it's the consumer that will suffer because of it.

[The God Emperor]

Ah right, I get you. So subsidies, but in a different way. 

 

Unfortunately big business and government are entangled so much now it's almost impossible to extricate them from each other, and it's the consumer that will suffer because of it.

to do it would mean great suffering at first, so people wont vote for change because the benefits wont come immediately and politicians wont do it because the current system is too profitable for them. but I'll keep doing my part by spouting my anti government ramblings on foxestalk 

[MooseBreath]

You've deftly moved the goalposts moosey . I was saying that privatised companies are not always better and more efficient than their predecessors . How the profits are spent or misspent is a whole different discussion isn't it ?

Well that's pretty hard to measure. How can you know if the privatised business is performing any better or worse than the nationalised unit would have done under the same conditions? The government still sets regulations and performance metrics for most privatised businesses through industry regulators. One would assume more or less the same people would set the more or less the same targets if it was still nationalised, so I'd expect performance to be much the same. The only measurable difference is where the money goes. Would you prefer it to go to private individuals who work hard and save diligently into their pension funds and investments, or would you prefer the government had it to squander on whatever politically motivated issue helps them to buy more votes?

[Smudge]

I don't understand how anything can be managed as a nationalized entity when there's the prospect of a change in ideology and 'management' every 5-10 years.

I'm talking a bout a newly appointed minister who's only experience of the railways is riding on them.

[Harry - LCFC]

How is taking more money off people not punishing? And what are rewarding the people at the bottom for?

 

I'm not suggesting we take more money from people, just supporting the notion of a progressive tax system as it stands in the UK.

 

My reasoning for wanting to reward those on lower incomes is that many don't have the same opportunity to succeed as others do. I'd prefer to deal with this inequality of opportunity but until then I feel that some redistribution of wealth makes things fairer.

 

Also get the impression that the reward for effort is rather skewed towards those at top. If I'm correct in saying this then progressive taxes aren't punishing success, merely curbing the excessive reward for it.

[MooseBreath]

If you support equality of opportunity from a human rights type of angle then how do you feel about the fact that those born into poorer conditions in this country are still absolutely blessed with opportunity in comparison to vast majority of the rest of the world?

Why then stop at redistributing wealth within the artificial geographical boundries of Britain? Surely the billions of people across the world who barely have access to primary school level education should take priority over people in this country who in general have absolutely nothing stopping them from going to uni or college, learning a trade or profession and subsequently earning a high enough salary to place them easily within the top 5% of the entire world?

[ADK]

I agree with the progressive tax system because without progressive taxes we wouldn't be able to afford first class infrastructure, a first world military, a decent standard of healthcare and education, state pensions etc.

[Harry - LCFC]

If you support equality of opportunity from a human rights type of angle then how do you feel about the fact that those born into poorer conditions in this country are still absolutely blessed with opportunity in comparison to vast majority of the rest of the world?

Why then stop at redistributing wealth within the artificial geographical boundries of Britain? Surely the billions of people across the world who barely have access to primary school level education should take priority over people in this country who in general have absolutely nothing stopping them from going to uni or college, learning a trade or profession and subsequently earning a high enough salary to place them easily within the top 5% of the entire world?

 

Good point. I would like to change things here but the it would be wrong of me to claim that inequality of opportunity in Britain is a major problem in context with the rest of the world.

 

Giving money to other countries seems pretty unpopular at the moment and I can understand why, but personally I love the idea of contributing to the development of nations who are genuinely suffering. Was quite pleased when Osbourne said he'd commit to the 0.7% target set by the UN.

 

 

 

it leads to cartels if the government props those companies up like we have done since the war yes. this is the reason they don't reduce prices, the government makes them immune to the pricing system.

 

Reading your posts you sound a lot like a supporter of the libertarian movement in America. It's an interesting stance I think although not a very common one. Have you listened to Ron Paul before? I'd recommend him to someone like yourself.

[Captain...]

I don't understand how anything can be managed as a nationalized entity when there's the prospect of a change in ideology and 'management' every 5-10 years.

I'm talking a bout a newly appointed minister who's only experience of the railways is riding on them.

 

That is a very good point I was reading about a country where they have kept many public services owned by the state but run by private enterprise, I can't remember which one, but it keeps a consistent strategy to maximise profit but still with political influence over strategy.

[leicsmac]

That is a very good point I was reading about a country where they have kept many public services owned by the state but run by private enterprise, I can't remember which one, but it keeps a consistent strategy to maximise profit but still with political influence over strategy.

 

Many Far Eastern countries are run by that idea.

[Smudge]

That is a very good point I was reading about a country where they have kept many public services owned by the state but run by private enterprise, I can't remember which one, but it keeps a consistent strategy to maximise profit but still with political influence over strategy.

Thanks.

 

Japan, which has arguably the best railway in the world was privatized in the 80's and not looked back.

 

Running a company is all about strategy and focus on what drives improvement. Nationalization would hamper initiative and the civil service would revel in it.

[leicsmac]

Thanks.

 

Japan, which has arguably the best railway in the world was privatized in the 80's and not looked back.

 

Running a company is all about strategy and focus on what drives improvement. Nationalization would hamper initiative and the civil service would revel in it.

 

Then why is ours rubbish despite being privatised? 

 

And I think both Japan and Koreas railways are privatised but with Government subsidies. They're both world-class, but I think that is more to do with them spending massive money on brand new infrastructure than anything else.

[Smudge]

Then why is ours rubbish despite being privatised? 

 

And I think both Japan and Koreas railways are privatised but with Government subsidies. They're both world-class, but I think that is more to do with them spending massive money on brand new infrastructure than anything else.

How the **** do I know mate? I just know the opposite aint an option.

[The God Emperor]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reading your posts you sound a lot like a supporter of the libertarian movement in America. It's an interesting stance I think although not a very common one. Have you listened to Ron Paul before? I'd recommend him to someone like yourself.

 

there's a libertarian movement here in the UK. me and probably about 5 other people vote libertarian. although i prefer classical liberal, sounds more grandiose  .

I have listened to Ron Paul, I rather like him, along with the Milton Friedmans and the Hayeks.

I honestly find it quite sad and worrying that it is such an uncommon stance. Freedom is the single most important thing we have yet people seem driven to get rid of it in the name of equality and security.

[leicsmac]

How the **** do I know mate? I just know the opposite aint an option.

 

Ain't that the damn truth. 

 

For what its worth I think we'd need massive investment in infrastructure across a variety of services, which would provide a level of disruption in the meantime which the public wouldn't be able to accept.

 

So I guess we're fvcked. 

[Zingari]

I don't understand how anything can be managed as a nationalized entity when there's the prospect of a change in ideology and 'management' every 5-10 years.

I'm talking a bout a newly appointed minister who's only experience of the railways is riding on them.

How does it differ from change in ideology in the  treasury , foreign office , home office etc?

A newly appointed minister will face greater challenges surely .

The public utilities would surely have  had a management structure similar to privatised ones and would be unaffected by changes in government. 

[Smudge]

The treasury don't own the banks.

 

The military, judiciary and and police forces aren't businesses.

[Zingari]

The treasury don't own the banks.

 

The military, judiciary and and police forces aren't businesses.

No but as i said before , all the utilities had management structures that were completely separate from regime changes in government.

The day to day running of British Gas wouldn't have been affected the day after a general election, it would have been business as usual etc 

Do you ever remember a general election having an effect on the operations of the utilities? cuz i don't 

[Smudge]

No but as i said before , all the utilities had management structures that were completely separate from regime changes in government.

The day to day running of British Gas wouldn't have been affected the day after a general election, it would have been business as usual etc 

Do you ever remember a general election having an effect on the operations of the utilities? cuz i don't 

While I answer this go and look at the poem I wrote for you

[Zingari]

While I answer this go and look at the poem I wrote for you

i've seen it,  and it's as shite as your argument about a changing governments affecting the day to day running of british gas   

[Smudge]

No but as i said before , all the utilities had management structures that were completely separate from regime changes in government.

The day to day running of British Gas wouldn't have been affected the day after a general election, it would have been business as usual etc 

Do you ever remember a general election having an effect on the operations of the utilities? cuz i don't 

Maybe they did but who controlled the purse strings? Where is the ability to raised capital outside government funding and at what level of interest. The CEO becomes a puppet of the government with the attendant politics and the minster sets up another ten layers of civil servants to manage something that they know nothing about.

[Zingari]

Maybe they did but who controlled the purse strings? Where is the ability to raised capital outside government funding and at what level of interest. The CEO becomes a puppet of the government with the attendant politics and the minster sets up another ten layers of civil servants to manage something that they know nothing about.

Maybe this, maybe that,  maybe the other , but really come on !! the CEO a puppet ? was it all a big conspiracy?

 

I saw many changes of governments during the years of public ownership and they pretty well continued largely unaffected.

 

Sorry but unless you can give some examples that any of this occurred ,  i think this is all just opinion based on your ideological standpoint