Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Whirlwind wrote: ...Never mentioned anything about restrictions on what individuals can sell houses for...it's only within an individual business the price should be fixed. The businesses should be competing against each other, whereas at the moment you have businesses making individuals compete against each other. This raises prices and forcing the poorest out of all but the poorest areas which greatly constrains social mobility. On the other hand it will reduce house prices because it brings back market competition (rather than individual competition) and of course there will be resistance to this, but is necessary to bring back housing to more manageable cost envelopes for all. If a business can manage to build thousands of properties and make a profit then so can a council. It should be easier for a council in fact as it doesn't have to worry about making a 15% shareholder profit mark up on every site. It is a misconception that a Council can't do this, something that is enforced by certain governments as if you have an organisation that doesn't have to worry about share holders then it can easily out compete an organisation that does.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
r_squared wrote: I don't like the man, but Americans elected him as their President,and that should be respected, however....
You wait until the Tory party vote in Boris, then we'll have our own version. If the US votes in a clown as a president the world still sort of takes notice even if they roll their eyes when he does. If we vote in a blond clown then the rest of the world just laughs at us (even more so than they are doing now too!).
The thing is, much as I dislike Boris, he's not a patch on the genuinely unpleasant, ratings obsessed shower of gak that the Yanks have popped on top of their heap. I'd rather have Boris running the UK for the next 5 years than have to endure 5 days with that preening, narcissistic arsehole calling the shots.
I'm expecting to hear the news any day now that some nut job has slotted him. I imagine that there would be a huge collective sigh of relief that the insanity has been nipped in the bud, until Pence assumed office.
At least that cu t stays off twitter.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Whirlwind wrote: ...Never mentioned anything about restrictions on what individuals can sell houses for...it's only within an individual business the price should be fixed. The businesses should be competing against each other, whereas at the moment you have businesses making individuals compete against each other. This raises prices and forcing the poorest out of all but the poorest areas which greatly constrains social mobility. On the other hand it will reduce house prices because it brings back market competition (rather than individual competition) and of course there will be resistance to this, but is necessary to bring back housing to more manageable cost envelopes for all. If a business can manage to build thousands of properties and make a profit then so can a council. It should be easier for a council in fact as it doesn't have to worry about making a 15% shareholder profit mark up on every site. It is a misconception that a Council can't do this, something that is enforced by certain governments as if you have an organisation that doesn't have to worry about share holders then it can easily out compete an organisation that does.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
r_squared wrote: I don't like the man, but Americans elected him as their President,and that should be respected, however....
You wait until the Tory party vote in Boris, then we'll have our own version. If the US votes in a clown as a president the world still sort of takes notice even if they roll their eyes when he does. If we vote in a blond clown then the rest of the world just laughs at us (even more so than they are doing now too!).
The thing is, much as I dislike Boris, he's not a patch on the genuinely unpleasant, ratings obsessed shower of gak that the Yanks have popped on top of their heap. I'd rather have Boris running the UK for the next 5 years than have to endure 5 days with that preening, narcissistic arsehole calling the shots.
I'm expecting to hear the news any day now that some nut job has slotted him. I imagine that there would be a huge collective sigh of relief that the insanity has been nipped in the bud, until Pence assumed office.
At least that cu t stays off twitter.
Pence is genuinely more effective and skilled though. He a greater danger if you dislike republicans.
And Boris yes. He might have his faults and he is abit silly at times but I'd definitely take him over a Trump like figure.
Boris is abit silly. But he is not dangerous though.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
I’m saying nothing about the US because I don’t want the thread locked.
With regards to BoJo, I think he would be a terrible PM, but I also think he is a seasoned politician and think he does have what he thinks are the best interests of the country at heart. He did a lot of good for London and worked for the best of the people of London. I think he would honestly try his best. I disagree with his ideology and think his buffoonery would make the UK look stupid, but I don’t think he would be wilful damaging or intentionally devisive for the sake of his own ego.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/21 18:59:28
insaniak wrote: Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
Steve steveson wrote: I’m saying nothing about the US because I don’t want the thread locked.
With regards to BoJo, I think he would be a terrible PM, but I also think he is a seasoned politician and think he does have what he thinks are the best interests of the country at heart. He did a lot of good for London and worked for the best of the people of London. I think he would honestly try his best. I disagree with his ideology and think his buffoonery would make the UK look stupid, but I don’t think he would be wilful damaging or intentionally devisive for the sake of his own ego.
Aye I doubt he mean harm to people.
He did make mistakes but yes he tried to do his best by London when he was in charge, and launched multiple ideas, some less successful than others.
However he did try. He did want to improve things.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
IMO BoJo is a seasoned poltician who has his own best interests firmly at the centre of his policies. His mayoralty of London was a congeries of luck and opportunism with several notable failures in major initiatives and nothing important in policy being enacted,
Yeah, Boris isn't a Trump. He's almost kinda an anti-Trump in a few ways. In DnD terms, Boris probably has an equal Cha stat to Trump, a significantly higher Int stat, but a ridiculously low WIS. Trump, I feel is probably the other way round. Our Trump equivalent (aside from Farage), probably Andrea Leadsom?
Yes that's correct along with a number of other measures.
The issue we have at the moment is that a relative few number of builders control both the supply and the cost of new homes. As such they can constrain the supply in any area to ensure they maximise the profit on each build. There isn't an increase of significance that justifies the price differential to build these houses in different areas. For example my brother purchased a £300k house. They wanted to move to that area, because of road access, job, school etc. The sales pitch was if you don't buy this house now you'll lose because in the future these same houses will go in price. Which they did; the same style of house cost £40k more 6 months later than they did at that time, they forced the sale through manipulation of fear that you'll lose out. The reason for this is there is no competition in the market. The only competition is between private individuals trying to buy those houses. In a true open market businesses would be competing directly against each other which would make profiteering like this more difficult (it is the same as the railways an individual company can put up its prices regardless within the government limits because there is no competition).
As such the principle is to ensure that you force competition into the market by rather than approaching the housing market at a very local level, it has to be from a nationwide level. A company for the same building plan would have to put the house on the market at the same rate whether in Yorkshire or Kent, but at the same time also within an estate. The company then has to make a decision how it competes overall against private sales which can be put on the market at any price, and other builders who can put their own 2 bed semi on the market at a different price (but which must be the same throughout the country). If the land was then not brought forward then at that point the Council's / self builds can take over.
What we have to get away from is builders being able to control the supply of houses to ensure continued profits year on year simply because of their own implementation of how many houses they bring forward. The market needs to be opened up to greater competition.
Which won't/can't happen. Now that I know where you're coming from which is the £/m2 construction costs, those costs will never be equal across the country until such time as all builders and labourers are paid the same wage across the country. Wage differential will (is?) a significant factor in construction. For example (and this is about five years old, but I don't see it as having ever changed) scaffolders in Invernesshire were being paid app £3K more per annum that in Morayshire. These regions are adjacent to each other.
As the individual costs in each area are different so how do you calculate a national cost structure? And I'm sorry to ruin the illusion but profiteering in the manner you describe will still take place. For example you propose that construction companies are prohibited from selling a property above a certain cost, but individuals aren't? How about investment companies? Lets say an individual buys a tract of land, pays a construction company to build the property and then sells them on? With the system you propose as the speculator is not the builder they can charge whatever they want. It's a self build for profit. And the rules you outlined can't do anything about it.
I am sorry that your brother was charged more for his house than one in another shire, but I would presume that the area he was moving to contained a greater capacity for employment, education and socialising. Location is intrinsically linked to the value its worth. I recently moved from a 4 bed bungalow with front and back gardens, garage and driveway. That just covered the cost of a 3 bed flat in my new area. Am I feeling robbed? Not by the price I paid, I gained by an excellent school for the kids, and there are considerable benefits in available work and transportation networks that the previous area didn't.
Councils are already waking up to the buy to let market, especially with the changes to the mortgage tax relief, which is a start but not quite enough. I'd rather see a compulsory confiscation order for properties not deemed habitable. Serve notice on slum landlords with safety requirements, mandatory repairs, give them a set period of time to carry them out, failing that take possession of the property as an abandoned site and then carry them out and rent on as social housing.
It's, on a personal level, quite appalling that some people on here view us homeowners as some sort of parasite on society and we deserve to lose all our hard work at saving and budgeting in order to own our house, yet as I've seen in another thread there are many who are outraged at the thought that they lose their old figures that are no longer codex compliant.
Mad is right, we need more social housing rather than interfering with the housing market, but he is also flat out wrong to blame homeowners for owning their own properties. Negative equity does not become an issue when you want to move or re-mortgage, it also affects every attempt at gaining credit from any reputable firm as they will look at assets vs liabilities and consider them an extreme risk, leaving them open to the 2600% legal loan sharks on TV. And no, for the vast overwhelming majority, when you buy a property you are buying a home, not with a view to making a profit, but with the hope that the value doesn't go down.
Cheers
Andrew
I don't care what the flag says, I'm SCOTTISH!!!
Best definition of the word Battleship?
Mr Nobody wrote:
Does a canoe with a machine gun count?
Kilkrazy wrote: IMO BoJo is a seasoned poltician who has his own best interests firmly at the centre of his policies. His mayoralty of London was a congeries of luck and opportunism with several notable failures in major initiatives and nothing important in policy being enacted,
This. The Garden Bridge was a perfect example of a project that nobody wanted except Bojo, Osborne, the architect, their wife (who was a journalist, I believe), their wife's journalist friends, and the companies positioned to profit off it. I never read a single positive thing about the bloody thing from anyone who knew any detail about it that couldn't be traced back to one of those sources. Yet he still committed vast amounts of public funds to it in a period when cost cutting was rampant.
Bojo is out for Bojo. He's utterly self-centred, narcissistic, and sees himself as Churchill reborn.
What really gets my goat here, is that they're services paid for by the public purse, and then sold off on the cheap to private investors.
Most of it has occurred in my lifetime. And to think of it, I can't actually think of a single instance where bringing in a company with the inevitable profit motive has actually, genuinely driven prices down.
But, my perspective is limited. As a genuine question, can anyone explain where it's actually worked as intended, instead of simply handing pre-paid monopolies to private interests to charge whatevs?
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
What really gets my goat here, is that they're services paid for by the public purse, and then sold off on the cheap to private investors.
Most of it has occurred in my lifetime. And to think of it, I can't actually think of a single instance where bringing in a company with the inevitable profit motive has actually, genuinely driven prices down.
But, my perspective is limited. As a genuine question, can anyone explain where it's actually worked as intended, instead of simply handing pre-paid monopolies to private interests to charge whatevs?
I don't have any evidence to back it up, but I think telecommunications might have worked? If not from a sheer cost point of view, then from an innovation stand point. The industry seems pretty dynamic and competitive, but I think there are a few differences between that and a lot of the other privatised industries. Infrastructure costs are probably lower and easier to build and there are genuine parallel networks (phone, cable companies, satellite and mobile networks).
Parcel freight too actually, when viewed in isolation, for pretty much the same reasons. The problem is that the government never recognised that the profit earning parcel traffic subsidised the whole of the rest of Royal Mail. Local post offices and door to door letter deliveries for a few pence is never going to be profitable, but it forms a vital social function. This was the mistake British Rail made under Beeching, they purely looked at the profitability of lines; no one could put a value on the contribution to the way people live their lives.
Thinking about it, that's also part of the argument around social housing. Everyone talks about prices and negative equity and retirement assets, but the primary function of a house is to be a home. But we don't seem to have any method for putting the value of a stable home into the equation, so we have millions of people living week-to-week in short term rented accommodation, unsuitable for their needs and suffering stress, depression and god knows what because of that.
Zed wrote: *All statements reflect my opinion at this moment. if some sort of pretty new model gets released (or if I change my mind at random) I reserve the right to jump on any bandwagon at will.
I don't have any evidence to back it up, but I think telecommunications might have worked? If not from a sheer cost point of view, then from an innovation stand point. .
What really gets my goat here, is that they're services paid for by the public purse, and then sold off on the cheap to private investors.
Most of it has occurred in my lifetime. And to think of it, I can't actually think of a single instance where bringing in a company with the inevitable profit motive has actually, genuinely driven prices down.
But, my perspective is limited. As a genuine question, can anyone explain where it's actually worked as intended, instead of simply handing pre-paid monopolies to private interests to charge whatevs?
I don't have any evidence to back it up, but I think telecommunications might have worked? If not from a sheer cost point of view, then from an innovation stand point. The industry seems pretty dynamic and competitive, but I think there are a few differences between that and a lot of the other privatised industries. Infrastructure costs are probably lower and easier to build and there are genuine parallel networks (phone, cable companies, satellite and mobile networks).
Parcel freight too actually, when viewed in isolation, for pretty much the same reasons. The problem is that the government never recognised that the profit earning parcel traffic subsidised the whole of the rest of Royal Mail. Local post offices and door to door letter deliveries for a few pence is never going to be profitable, but it forms a vital social function. This was the mistake British Rail made under Beeching, they purely looked at the profitability of lines; no one could put a value on the contribution to the way people live their lives.
Thinking about it, that's also part of the argument around social housing. Everyone talks about prices and negative equity and retirement assets, but the primary function of a house is to be a home. But we don't seem to have any method for putting the value of a stable home into the equation, so we have millions of people living week-to-week in short term rented accommodation, unsuitable for their needs and suffering stress, depression and god knows what because of that.
That is the problem that the conservatives have never been able to grasp, they know the cost of things, but struggle to understand their value. That is why they look cruel and callous.
All privatisation does is move the cost of the utility from the individual via taxation, to the individual via a profit motivated company. We still pay for it, just it always ends up that we pay more, especially when you consider that some of these industries continue to attract subsidies, like the railways. In those instances not only are we paying privately, but we're also paying via taxation.
It's actually frankly ludicrous to privatise any of these industries, and the only reason to do so is because of ideologically driven politics to create small government.
This is why I joined a revitalised Labour party. I may disagree with them on some things, but I am strongly in favour of reversing privatisation and reverting essential infrastructure into public hands. Every sell off has disgusted me tbh, people circle around our property to pluck off the cheapest and juiciest parts, leaving us with the expensive difficult bits, and then flip them back at us for more cash.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/10/22 09:12:36
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Why do we do that? Why do we always do that? We lead the way in a new technology and then we just shelf it, just because. Jets, rockets, computers, fibre optics. I dispair, I really do.
Why do we do that? Why do we always do that? We lead the way in a new technology and then we just shelf it, just because. Jets, rockets, computers, fibre optics. I dispair, I really do.
Depressing, isn't it?
I can only think it's because we keep electing parliamentarians that are driven by ideological and short-term thinking.
A friend's dad was one of the engineers involved in the fibre project and he used to show us all sorts of stuff that blew our mind at the time. The decision to scrap it has set us back about three decades so far.
Why do we do that? Why do we always do that? We lead the way in a new technology and then we just shelf it, just because. Jets, rockets, computers, fibre optics. I dispair, I really do.
Depressing, isn't it?
I can only think it's because we keep electing parliamentarians that are driven by ideological and short-term thinking.
A friend's dad was one of the engineers involved in the fibre project and he used to show us all sorts of stuff that blew our mind at the time. The decision to scrap it has set us back about three decades so far.
So we could of been the South Korea, Japan of this world and we decided to be complete, utter pathetic morons...
We are run by utter idiots...
At this rate someone needs to run for government out of Dakka and fire half thr government etc and force them to invest and work on this tech and get it rolled out and any other tech in waiting.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/22 09:49:53
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
What's worst of all is that anything we do now to rectify it will only be playing catch up. We had a head start and we lost it. No wait, we had a head start and we gave it up. For purely ideological reasons too.
Future War Cultist wrote: What's worst of all is that anything we do now to rectify it will only be playing catch up. We had a head start and we lost it. No wait, we had a head start and we gave it up. For purely ideological reasons too.
We had a 10-20 year head start.
Geez. We could be on South Korean 5G, downloading movies in seconds. Fully digital high speed data infrastructure and cloud networks that enable business and govement able to react in seconds and have massive productivity.
But...
We are idiots
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
If you're of a certain age, you'll remember that the Tories did this to our nuclear power industry as well.
Which is why we're in the embarrassing position of having to get the French or the Chinese to build nuclear power plants for us
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If you're of a certain age, you'll remember that the Tories did this to our nuclear power industry as well.
Which is why we're in the embarrassing position of having to get the French or the Chinese to build nuclear power plants for us
I have watched, agog and disgusted at every privatisation that has been forced through since the 80s. It's boggled my mind, but the propoganda that goes alongside supporting neo-liberalism is overwhelming, it even infected traditional socialist parties like Labour, hence "New" Labour. We have impoverished ourselves, and removed the levers of control from our own hands and handed them to others for no real tangible benefit. Unless you belive that the public sector being small and ineffectual is a benefit.
These changes are about attacking the people "for our own good", but they do not serve us. We need to truly take back control.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If you're of a certain age, you'll remember that the Tories did this to our nuclear power industry as well.
Which is why we're in the embarrassing position of having to get the French or the Chinese to build nuclear power plants for us
I have watched, agog and disgusted at every privatisation that has been forced through since the 80s. It's boggled my mind, but the propoganda that goes alongside supporting neo-liberalism is overwhelming, it even infected traditional socialist parties like Labour, hence "New" Labour. We have impoverished ourselves, and removed the levers of control from our own hands and handed them to others for no real tangible benefit. Unless you belive that the public sector being small and ineffectual is a benefit.
These changes are about attacking the people "for our own good", but they do not serve us. We need to truly take back control.
You and I obviously disagree on EU membership, and you may find this hard to believe, but my political outlook is generally left-wing with a libertarian slant. Apologies to Shadow Captain and Future War
My background is that of a working man, and my political views have always been trying to stick up for working class men. My ideology and opposition to the EU is drawn from a time when the Labour party was very much anti-EEC/EU.
You obviously disagree, with me on that, but IMO, the free movement of money and goods, and the love towards the ECC/EU from big banks and business, has always set off alarm bells ringing for me.
These people are no friends of working class men never have been, and never will be.
That is why I have always been very suspicious and hostile to the European project. That and the disregard for democracy.
Never the less, we do have common ground on privitization in the UK. It has been a fething disaster
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: You and I obviously disagree on EU membership, and you may find this hard to believe, but my political outlook is generally left-wing with a libertarian slant. Apologies to Shadow Captain and Future War
Why? I'm centre-libertarian myself, if you put any stock in those online political compass tests. And I voted for Phil Wilson MP (Lab) in the last election.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: You and I obviously disagree on EU membership, and you may find this hard to believe, but my political outlook is generally left-wing with a libertarian slant. Apologies to Shadow Captain and Future War
Why? I'm centre-libertarian myself, if you put any stock in those online political compass tests. And I voted for Phil Wilson MP (Lab) in the last election.
Apologies for my mistake, but I thought you were old school Conservative?
Looks like I got it wrong
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
I think that rushing to condemn the privatisation of various services over the last twenty to thirty years is somewhat misguided. Not because I disagree, but because it misses the wider context as to why it occurred, and why it was necessary that we got to this point. I'll elucidate.
If you go back to the nineteenth century, you'll see that the origins of most things we regard as being necessary for the public good (electricity, water, railways, etc) were reliant upon private development and exploitation (in the non-moral sense). Smaller companies were established for new inventions/innovations which sought out forms of venture capital and investment to further develop themselves.Often you might find that local governments had a stake in such companies at the time, and powerful/wealthy locals would also invest into them in order to cultivate/improve local services.
The problem with such a small scale growth and corresponding layout is that it's hideously inefficient. Furthermore, little legislation existed to regulate these services, and it was often difficult to raise the capital needed to properly establish/develop them. The State would occasionally intervene to establish a local service if it deemed it necessary for a specific project (see the Swansea and Mumbles Railway or the Royal Mail), but Parliamentary funds were considerably scarcer in the past. Taxation was less efficient and defence/empire were a much greater proportion of expenditure. Without the financial apparatus in place to support it, government initiated services would usually be farmed out to companies/individuals to run as a result (see the P&O mail deliveries). Even in the case of the Royal Mail more generally, it wasn't retained for the good of all mankind, but because it fulfilled specific governance needs.
It wasn't until the twentieth century that the idea that the State should be directing public services for the good of the people really took root, or indeed, was even particularly an option. After WW1, the government saw the advantages of more centralised planning, and began to consolidate industries into a smaller number of regional entities (See the Electricity Supply Act of 1919, or the Railways Act of 1921, undertaken by a majority Conservative government). It was a gradual change however, and they weren't intended to be nationalisations. It should be understood that for the most part, these services (RM as the exception) were funded and run by private companies quite successfully until this point, and if one collapsed another would spring up to replace it. The very multiplicity of smaller companies specialising in water and power kept competition open. The more consolidated cable/railway networks had sufficient other concerns (bus networks for example) to prevent any real issues.
In the immediate post WW2 period however, the Government began to nationalise industries. This was part of good ol' Atlee's reforms. British Rail was formed, some 625 electricity firms were nationalised and merged, Cable and Wireless were taken over, and so forth. Essentially, you saw what is currently being advocated in this thread occurring. The problem that this had however, was that it didn't work particularly well. Bureaucracies by their very nature tend to bloat and react poorly to market circumstances, leading to the government propping up many ailing industries which simply couldn't survive, or run effectively. I'm not even talking necessarily about the miners/steelworkers here, if you look up circumstances that led to the Beeching railway cuts in the 1960's, you'll see what I mean. By the time the water industry was privatised in the 80's, it had accumulated 5 billion pounds of debt (about 23 billion by today's reckoning). These sectors were leeching substantial sums of money from the exchequer at a time when the productivity of the country had never been lower and the public purse strings tighter.
Naturally, that led to questions being raised over why the taxpayer should be footing the bill for uncompetitive, bloated (and often horrendously inefficient) industries when the country was so poor that we were having to go to the IMF for loans. The reliance on the public purse also meant that as money was tight, there was little available for future investment; some of the rolling stock on the railways was functioning well past when it should have been decommissioned. This in turn contributed to further inefficiencies. The consequent idea of the 1980's was that privatising all these industries would breathe fresh life into them. Private capital would be injected to bring them up to date, public debt would be discharged, and competition would ensure efficiency. And to varying degrees, this has occurred. Certainly, the situation of the 1960's and 1970's was untenable, and a change of some kind had to be made. I don't believe it was necessarily the wrong decision to make at the time.
The problem however, is that it has revealed a host of alternative inadequacies intrinsic to the 'limited competition/franchises' model. Namely, that the greater efficiencies don't pay for future investment; that goes instead on dividends. The taxpayer still foots the cost for future investment through higher prices. Confuseopolies reign supreme, and when service begins to suffer the taxpayer has absolutely no recourse, as the competition is an illusion.
On the whole, I'd say it's better than what came before it, but not by much. The model has clearly failed. So I'm quite receptive to cries for re-nationalisation. The thing that bugs me however, is the lack of detail as to why it will be better this time than it was last time. I need to know, as a voter, what actions will be taken to mitigate the flaws revealed when we adopted the nationalised model beforehand. It is all well and good to espouse nationalisation, but I want to see some substance, some forward planning, something to show me that we're not doing it for vague ideological motives, but in order to produce a tangible improvement for the British taxpayer.
And that's something I just haven't seen from Corbyn,
This message was edited 10 times. Last update was at 2017/10/22 12:34:45
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: You and I obviously disagree on EU membership, and you may find this hard to believe, but my political outlook is generally left-wing with a libertarian slant. Apologies to Shadow Captain and Future War
Why? I'm centre-libertarian myself, if you put any stock in those online political compass tests. And I voted for Phil Wilson MP (Lab) in the last election.
Apologies for my mistake, but I thought you were old school Conservative?
Looks like I got it wrong
Old School? Hardly. I'm only 26.
I'm the very definition of a floating voter. I voted Conservative, then UKIP, then Labour. I'm loyal to no party. I have never been a member of a political party. I have never donated to a political party. I simply have a lingering distrust and dislike of the Left thanks to the legacy of New Labour (the Government I grew up under), which has left me biased against Labour. I didn't vote for the Conservatives in 2010, I voted against New Labour.
But I'm fast developing a similar distrust and dislike for the Conservatives, and Corbyn is slowly rehabilitating Labour in my eyes.
@Ketara, a well thought out post as always, but this is what gets my goat:
The Tories are opposed to state owned rail and utilities.
But we have this absurd, and utterly fething ridiculous situation of state owned companies from abroad, snapping up our rail and utilities, with the end result that money flows out the nation.
British state owning electricity company = bad. Foreign state owning Brtish electricity company = good.
I cannot understand this contradiction.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: @Ketara, a well thought out post as always, but this is what gets my goat:
The Tories are opposed to state owned rail and utilities.
But we have this absurd, and utterly fething ridiculous situation of state owned companies from abroad, snapping up our rail and utilities, with the end result that money flows out the nation.
British state owning electricity company = bad. Foreign state owning Brtish electricity company = good.
I cannot understand this contradiction.
I agree. If we're not going to have British nationalisation, then State owned foreign companies should be banned from owning British utilities too. We shouldn't have a double standard.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: @Ketara, a well thought out post as always, but this is what gets my goat:
The Tories are opposed to state owned rail and utilities.
But we have this absurd, and utterly fething ridiculous situation of state owned companies from abroad, snapping up our rail and utilities, with the end result that money flows out the nation.
British state owning electricity company = bad. Foreign state owning Brtish electricity company = good.
I cannot understand this contradiction.
I agree. If we're not going to have British nationalisation, then State owned foreign companies should be banned from owning British utilities too. We shouldn't have a double standard.
Ideally you want some sort of system where you have state owned utilities, but there is also the option for private companies to be involved as a way of keeping things vaguely competitive.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: @Ketara, a well thought out post as always, but this is what gets my goat:
The Tories are opposed to state owned rail and utilities.
But we have this absurd, and utterly fething ridiculous situation of state owned companies from abroad, snapping up our rail and utilities, with the end result that money flows out the nation.
British state owning electricity company = bad. Foreign state owning Brtish electricity company = good.
I cannot understand this contradiction.
So the question must be; how are these foreign nationalised system functioning as private companies to invest in our services to subsidise their own? Is it effective? Is it something indeed, that we could adopt? Rather than having privately owned services with a veneer of public interest, is it possible to have publicly owned services with a veneer of private interest? How do we keep access to private capital whilst retaining ownership?
I'm sure that there are ways that we can make this happen. I'm not a specialist, but I'm certain the goverment could easily retain a group of qualified people to look into it. It is clear that what this problem needs a clearheaded diagnosis of the available models, and the deliberate adoption of one that gives the results we're after. Simply crying for nationalisation is ultimately just as harmful here, I think, as adamantly sticking to privatisation due to corporate interests whispering in your ideologically biased ear (aka, the Tories). The real solution is quite clearly something in the halfway house between the two, and the best course of action needs to be carefully considered and adopted; instead of sliding from one extreme to the other. We need to learn from what has happened so far, and use that data to try and produce a workable solution. It might not be perfect, but even if it's only a minor improvement (as our current system is on that of yesteryear), then we can revisit the issue in thirty years with that additional data and refine it further.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/10/22 12:44:43
if you look up circumstances that led to the Beeching railway cuts in the 1960's, you'll see what I mean.
I watched that Hislop documentary as well.
It wasn't until the twentieth century that the idea that the State should be directing public services for the good of the people really took root, or indeed, was even particularly an option.
really ?
Which empires was it who built those sewer systems, aqueducts, roads etc etc etc again ?
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: @Ketara, a well thought out post as always, but this is what gets my goat:
The Tories are opposed to state owned rail and utilities.
But we have this absurd, and utterly fething ridiculous situation of state owned companies from abroad, snapping up our rail and utilities, with the end result that money flows out the nation.
British state owning electricity company = bad. Foreign state owning Brtish electricity company = good.
I cannot understand this contradiction.
I agree. If we're not going to have British nationalisation, then State owned foreign companies should be banned from owning British utilities too. We shouldn't have a double standard.
Ideally you want some sort of system where you have state owned utilities, but there is also the option for private companies to be involved as a way of keeping things vaguely competitive.
Utilities should be owned by the British state if anything, not foreign states.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/22 12:52:32
never have been, and never will be. 
And I voted for Phil Wilson 
