FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Politics

Nationalisation

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

I will admit previously and probably on here I have utterly opposed the idea and labelled it ridiculous and for certain industries

However there are perhaps certain utilities(especially energy) that perhaps shouldn’t have been taken out of state hands.I do think it is ridiculous that in some cases foreign states control and make money of our utilities when the whole political selling point of privatisation is that state-controlled companies couldn’t compete.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I will admit previously and probably on here I have utterly opposed the idea and labelled it ridiculous and for certain industries

However there are perhaps certain utilities(especially energy) that perhaps shouldn’t have been taken out of state hands.I do think it is ridiculous that in some cases foreign states control and make money of our utilities when the whole political selling point of privatisation is that state-controlled companies couldn’t compete.

"

How else are you going to pay a foreign country that invest in good paying jobs and not compensate them for your needs ? They have needs too just because you want to set a cap on your need does not justify their needs of course they going to sell to the highest bidder to justify their costs. It's simple supply and demand. It's a commodity.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago

North West


"I will admit previously and probably on here I have utterly opposed the idea and labelled it ridiculous and for certain industries

However there are perhaps certain utilities(especially energy) that perhaps shouldn’t have been taken out of state hands.I do think it is ridiculous that in some cases foreign states control and make money of our utilities when the whole political selling point of privatisation is that state-controlled companies couldn’t compete.

How else are you going to pay a foreign country that invest in good paying jobs and not compensate them for your needs ? They have needs too just because you want to set a cap on your need does not justify their needs of course they going to sell to the highest bidder to justify their costs. It's simple supply and demand. It's a commodity."

Unsurprisingly, you have completely missed the point.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago

North West


"I will admit previously and probably on here I have utterly opposed the idea and labelled it ridiculous and for certain industries

However there are perhaps certain utilities(especially energy) that perhaps shouldn’t have been taken out of state hands.I do think it is ridiculous that in some cases foreign states control and make money of our utilities when the whole political selling point of privatisation is that state-controlled companies couldn’t compete.

"

It is somewhat bizarre that German state owned railway operators and French state owned energy companies can profit in the U.K. because there are no competing U.K. state owned entities.

Privatisation has failed ordinary people and an experiment lasting 40 years has simply proved not to work as intended. The privatisation of core infrastructure was meant to provide better value for money because of competition in the market. In reality - it was a barely concealable racket in times of economic boom, but as soon as the wind and the rain started it was ordinary people who suffered, not the privatised entities and their shareholders.

The only issue with Nationalised industries in the U.K. is our system of Government. Look at the way that the NHS is tossed around and badly managed and then multiply that into transport, energy supply, utilities and communications. Entities with massive budgets just become political playthings for the Party’s.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"I will admit previously and probably on here I have utterly opposed the idea and labelled it ridiculous and for certain industries

However there are perhaps certain utilities(especially energy) that perhaps shouldn’t have been taken out of state hands.I do think it is ridiculous that in some cases foreign states control and make money of our utilities when the whole political selling point of privatisation is that state-controlled companies couldn’t compete.

"

There's always been a strong case that nationalising certain services is better for the people.

It's never straightforward, but I like the idea of energy production being for the benefit of the population, rather than for some multinational corporation to get rich from.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ealthy_and_HungMan
over a year ago

Princes Risborough, Luasanne, Alderney

by next spring it appears that the energy companies will collar between 25-35% of all household expenditure .... now that's a monopoly.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ustintime69Man
over a year ago

firest hill

The thing that really gets me is that ever since Thatcher, the only idea that politicians have is to flog off assets far too cheaply to the highest bidder with no long term plan for re-investing the profits of this. The market is supposedly there to allow competition and improve service but as we can see, there is little or no resilience among smaller competitors when crises happen so everything ends up in the hands of ever larger corporations who end up creating(!) their own market prices. Essential utilities should not be in the hands of the free market unless there is robust intervention from government to prevent excesses. Unfortunately the revolving door of MPs becoming lobbyists for Big Industry means it’s all tainted with corruption and so nationalisation is really the only way to go.

Oh and one other thing, if state pensions were better maybe all the ancient tories who enjoy the dividends of investing in disaster capitalism might not feel the need to fuck over their neighbours and country quite so much

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uninlondon69Man
over a year ago

Tower Bridge South

Labour have just announced that they would take back control of the railways one line at a time as the current contracts expire.

Profits staying in this country instead of going to shareholders in France or Germany.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ercuryMan
over a year ago

Grantham


"Labour have just announced that they would take back control of the railways one line at a time as the current contracts expire.

Profits staying in this country instead of going to shareholders in France or Germany."

A lot easier to do, now we are out of the EU.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton


"Labour have just announced that they would take back control of the railways one line at a time as the current contracts expire.

Profits staying in this country instead of going to shareholders in France or Germany.

A lot easier to do, now we are out of the EU."

Why?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ercuryMan
over a year ago

Grantham


"Labour have just announced that they would take back control of the railways one line at a time as the current contracts expire.

Profits staying in this country instead of going to shareholders in France or Germany.

A lot easier to do, now we are out of the EU.

Why?"

Because the EU insist on state run railways giving other private operators access to the tracks and infrastructure.

Where a truly Nationalised Railway system is going to leave private operators in this country, remains to be seen in the detail.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ionaScarletTV/TS
over a year ago

Dundee


"Labour have just announced that they would take back control of the railways one line at a time as the current contracts expire.

Profits staying in this country instead of going to shareholders in France or Germany.

A lot easier to do, now we are out of the EU.

Why?

Because the EU insist on state run railways giving other private operators access to the tracks and infrastructure.

Where a truly Nationalised Railway system is going to leave private operators in this country, remains to be seen in the detail."

Not an expert here on railways by any manner of means.

But the government already runs network rail - ie. the tracks already nationalised right? which was the case when we were in the EU. So I'm struggling to see how it would somehow it would cause a problem for operators now?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ercuryMan
over a year ago

Grantham


"Labour have just announced that they would take back control of the railways one line at a time as the current contracts expire.

Profits staying in this country instead of going to shareholders in France or Germany.

A lot easier to do, now we are out of the EU.

Why?

Because the EU insist on state run railways giving other private operators access to the tracks and infrastructure.

Where a truly Nationalised Railway system is going to leave private operators in this country, remains to be seen in the detail.

Not an expert here on railways by any manner of means.

But the government already runs network rail - ie. the tracks already nationalised right? which was the case when we were in the EU. So I'm struggling to see how it would somehow it would cause a problem for operators now?"

I'm using the assumption that Labout want to go back to British Rail. One company that operates every train on the railway system.

Whilst many at the moment are run under the "franchise" system, private operators such as Hull Trains, Grand Central, Colas and GBRf, just pay for access to the infrastructure.

You can allow the franchises to run out, then take their services back in house. It's not so simple to do that for private operators, and lawyers are bound to get involved.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *m389Man
over a year ago

Magherafelt

I think it comes down to whether you believe it is right for someone to profit off basic living needs of others.

If you were providing clean potable water to a third world country. What would you charge for it?

For social good, you might charge precisely the cost to provide the water. You could charge a bit more, so that you could expand your operation to provide clean water for more people.

A capitalist, would put a fat profit margin on his price because he knows people will pay. Pay or no clean water. He could probably even charge beyond what most people can afford, because an extortionate price with only 50% of the populate paying could make him more profit than a lower price with 100% affordability.

We have this notion, that other capitalists will keep each other in check but I don't think that truly happens.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top