Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#41
Oh, I remember...
The deliberate running-down of public assets to make them cheaper to privatise and to make the privatisation look good. (in the early years). British Rail.
The hiking of the gas tariffs to make electricity competitive. All the better for privatisation.
The advertising and low price of GPO-Telecom Shares to allow instant profits for a very few.
Right up to today with the emphasis on "Free at the point of use." with the current Privatisation of the NHS.
Let us not forget Royal Mail. Where the boss is paid huge sums for overseeing the worsening of the postal service and all the talk of e-mail traffic replacing letter-writing and the ignoring of online shopping and the post it generates.
If a Public Asset is worth selling it is worth selling cheap and we can always count upon the Conservatives to ensure that things will always look bad just prior to the sell of. Hey-presto, isn't Privatisation wonderful.
All of this to one side. We do not have to look back at all to see terrible days. The merits of tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee Governments over recent years and decades are plain to see.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#42
Let us indeed think back to pre-privatisation days.
Back when The Post Office had a telephone monopoly. There was waiting lists to get a phone and they were all old dial phones unless you paid more to get a push button trim phone. It was so very expensive too, a creaky system that tried all it could to prevent innovation.
I remember the old National Freight Corporation, subsidised and inefficient competing against private haulage firms - the first of the privatisations, showing the way to a better future.
Then of course we had heavily taxpayer subsidised steel industry, producing steel from subsidised coal, some of which went to subsidised shipyards that built subsidised ships for Poland (among others) that competed with the British Merchant Marine - who of course could not compete and shrunk in size. Not to mention the subsidised steel that went to Leyland to build expensive cars that did not work and no-one really wanted.
All that subsidy of course went to cover the costs of over-manning to protect old-fashioned restrictive working practises and to cover the costs of regular strike action....
Then of course there was all that expensive energy provided by inefficient state monopoly providers. Yes, indeed - remember the regular 'black-outs' thanks to all those strikes as well.... Halcyon days of big state industries being protected from having to modernise and compete. A recipe for economic decline and disaster.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
#43
# 40...........`appears`to know the cost of everything......and the value of very little.........
....water and energy in safe hands is not a monetary issue.....it is to safeguard resouces /supplies for the British people
in the near future and beyond......
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#44
I recall nothing akin to, "regular 'black-outs'".
Why is 4 million unemployed such a huge step forward? Is the fact that households these days must self-regulate their heat and light? Is, "Eat before heat!" to be the next slogan from Francis Maude?
Where is steel and shipping in these gay-days of privatisation, where is coal?
For all that went on (had to go on?) with the political in-fighting over the 'curse' of industrialised Britain we have financial services to thank for our current sorry-pass.
Was it Monty Python's History of the World (Part two) where we could see office-block sail into battle against office-block?
PR got us into this mess, will PR alone get us out?
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#45
Reg - nationalisation does not change the reality of energy supply and our dependence on international markets. There is nothing intrinsically safe about state ownership, the opposite.
Tom - those industries were killed off over donkey's years by being nationalised monopolies and dealt a death blow by militant trade unions. The heavy hand of government prevented them competing in the modern world and they were unsustainable as they were. If they were not nationalised in the first place those industries would have had to develop, modernise and compete over the decades after WW2. The damage had already been done by 1979 and markets lost with poor reputation for their overpriced and often out-dated products.
Some though thrived post-privatisation and we are all the better off as a result. BT and utilities being prime examples alongside the NFC. The only one that was a failure, simply because the privatisation was bodged by the Major government, was rail.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#46
Tom, I remember regular rostered power cuts in the late '60s and I also remember the three-day week because of them.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#47
The Privatisation of utilities has certainly been a major boon to Government coffers...the French Government, that is.
You speak eloquently Barry, the language of the Anglo-centric-mindset so complained of by Governments across Europe. With your mantra, Public=BAD, Private=GOOD.
You'd far rather our Nation was indebted to the Banks and not profiting directly from any partnership with industry.
The Conservatives enter into Government with the sole purpose of beggaring our economy to the exclusive benefit of the new bean-counter-Barony. You talk of and cry-out for small-government when what you really want is NO Government and to have the affairs of the Globe ordered from some Swiss mountain-peak boardroom.
That New Labour was born out of a craving for a seat at this same table gave the Right pause for thought, it has also worked against your raison d'être. This drive towards less and lesser government has driven the population to the conclusion that they (we) are as of now without Government, and without a major Political Party with the least ambition to become a Government.
Government, you say, cannot/should not/dare not/may not/will not create jobs, but it sure can talk of Growth 'till the cows come home and lower taxes, for the very few, at a stroke.
No dog can obey two masters. It is high time the Government-Dog was brought to heel by the Electorate, for the benefit of the electorate.
"We've never had it...So, good!"
Little did we realise that the 'it' was Democracy.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#48
Tom - you are in a different world!!!!
It is the bloated public sector that is beggaring the country. We had 13 years of a massive expansion of public sector spending much of it on excessive welfare benefits and all done by borrowed money. That is not workable long term.
I and others on the right believe in 'sound money' and not being indebted. I want an economy based on saving and investment not borrowing and that goes for government and private individuals. I have listed before a whole range of measures of the Labour government that disincentivised saving and investment while boosting borrowing.
Big government is the enemy whatever you say. The left love to try to claim that somehow Labour were following Mrs T's policies that that is a shallow and perverted distortion of the truth. They promoted a society based on borrowing and benefits, pushing even families with over £50k income into the benefit system. Mrs T believed in living within your means for both individuals and government and that is a sensible approach that is as true today as ever it was.
Guest 656- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 2,262
#49
I guess we should be grateful for small mercys, at least this is a positive move, our supplier will let us know their best offer and then we can compare like for like with other suppliers. It gives us a good benchmark to work with.
In my view Laura Sandys does a great job and communicates very well with her constituents. She is a very proactive MP which I admire
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
#50
Barry companies can be run for the citizens without shareholders siphoning of profit
All it needs is to let management manage! , the remit could have been ensure long-term planning for energy investment in infrastructure ensure the best deal for business and domestic customers use .
Not plunder from the British public,
all business and industry need affordable energy to survive and create wealth Profiteering from the basic utilities is ante conservative.
Thatcher made a big mistake and the conservative party could just admit it and try to rectify it
Is the local MP not suggesting something similar for the port of Dover?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#51
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
#52
"Big government is the enemy whatever you say. The left love to try to claim that somehow Labour were following Mrs T's policies that that is a shallow and perverted distortion of the truth."
This government has passed more legislation, in a shorter amount of time, than any other. So I would suggest it is the Conservatives that are 'big' on big government...as long as the government is them!
As for the left suggesting Labour have continued Mrs T's ideals, I think it was actually Mrs T herself that secured this notion in 2002. This is a 'fact' because I read it on the Conservativehome website *chokes on cornflakes*
As for the list of what we did in the days of nationalisation - didn't we do a lot!? It would make anyone proud to be British. Sadly, instead of a bit of Dunkirk spirit to turn things around, we just gave up and became a tertiary society. It is quite clear that the physical manifestation of labour (small L) works towards the symbolism of identity and pride.
One thing Barry does get right is the telephone monopoly, an inferior system with analogue dials and by 'post-privatisation' standards, very old fashioned. I know this because I remember how slow our internet connection was in 1983!
Funny how comparisons can become meaningless over time.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#53
You have done better than that in the past DT....
The simple fact that in our over-centralised state it requires legislative 'big state' action in order to get a small state. Look at what that legislation actually was all about and you will find that most of it is about devolving power away from government and local government.
As for Mrs T - the grocer's daughter... Come on, whatever you try to claim she never did believe in borrowing and 'living within your means' was always her battle-cry. You cannot dress that up and its a far cry from the Blair perversion and Browns debt funded benefit state.
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
#54
Train fares where also cheaper in the past...perhaps privatisation is getting to me too.
Disagree about Mrs Thatcher. A big drive was to get people locked into mortgages. I know you will dress this up as ownership, but ultimately it's the ownership of a debt for 30 years. And one that didn't work out too well for many who lost their homes in the 80s.
The possibility of losing your home (fear) is a very powerful tool.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#55
You have hit the nail squarely upon the head there Darren, "Debt is good." was certainly a Thatcher mantra. Get everybody locked-in to the Pyramid Scheme of house price inflation. Some did very well out of it too, but lo-and-behold, it is they who are now "asset-rich/cash-poor" and are being held up as an example of why LVT* simply would not work. Whereas, really is simply does not suit.
*
http://www.landvaluetax.org/
Let us not forget too that it was Capitalist's big-thinkers who declared at separate times on the futures of both the Telephone and Computer, that, "Soon, each town will have one."
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
#56
Resisting the temptation to join in the political discussion - with an effort! - I will simply echo Colette and support Laura Sandys. An MP who makes the effort to communicate effectively with constituents should be cherished.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#57
Darren - pay rent or pay a mortgage - there is very little difference on the cost and at the end of it, with a mortgage, you own a home and have no rent to pay.
This week I met with some long term clients who were right to buys, they were always sensible people and though they have moved twice, both times upmarket, they still managed to clear their mortgage 5 years early, after just 20 years. They also have built up a lot of savings and soon an endowment (bought by them before they became my clients) matures and they will not have any mortgage to pay off with the maturity, they can invest the money and will be retiring very early with that and the other money they have built up. They have never had a combined family income of over £30k gross and have children. As I say the outcomes are down to the choices you make and buying your own home is the best thing people can do provided they are sensible with affordability.
If not for right to buy they would be locked into rent....
I do not like debt and I am always urging clients to clear it down and to pay off mortgages early and above is a result of people who always did what I advised. But debt taken on with a view to a capital purchase like a mortgage, at a sensible level is a positive thing.
Debt taken on through such as credit cards to pay for day to day spending or just for the latest gadget is madness. In fact the kind of debt Brown landed the government with, debt to pay excessive benefits is the definition of financial insanity.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#58
Bernie Madoff did well by a few too Barry.
RTB. A wise move indeed to get away from the reach of want and homelessness. And with all they who are burdened with a mortgage higher than the value of their asset and the others fulfilling the dreams of the Credit Industry's Business Plans: those who have benefited from all of this know where the 'largesse' is coming from.
The beggar-my-neighbour business model is as old as prostitution itself, and none to distant from it either.
Of course the trick with all of this, given that the number of those who profit can never be the majority, is to 'convince' a sufficient number that such a bright future is there for them too so as to achieve a majority at an Election. This has certainly worked in the past, though not the recent past.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
#59
I think I understand this Barry.
As for your clients, they would have paid their mortgage off sooner if perhaps they had taken Laura Sandys' last pearl of wisdom 'make do and mend'.
Perhaps the private companies that we are now so dependent on should also adopt this patronising mantra too?
After all business is just like home finances, or a game of monopoly...I read that too on Conservativehome *chokes on sausage roll*
Guest 725- Registered: 7 Oct 2011
- Posts: 1,418
#60
Blimey talk about angels dancing on the head of a pin.
Over the next few years life in the UK is set to change and not in a good way. If you believe any political party's promise to lead us to a better place then I'm sorry but word on the street is that they are lying, or at least deluding themselves and us.
Europe is damned, we are damned being hamstrung by the likes of Laura Sandys and other politicians concerned about the weather. We have a government who U-turn at every opportunity and are making such a success at U-turning there are plans to include it in the next Olympics. In fact they might even join with Labour in a synchronised U-turning event with the former competing so well with the conservatives at international U-turning.
To get back to the title of the thread which talks of an energy deal as I have pointed out before there is no such energy deal in reality.
What is certain is that the costs we pay for our energy and therefore every single thing we buy will increase greatly over the next few years because of ridiculous laws brought in by this and the last bunch of clowns who call themselves leaders.
But it appears that the consensus here is that the planet is warming, something must be done and nuclear, coal and gas are bad and alternative energy is good.
Good. If that is the case I cannot possibly see why people complain about the price of their energy bills if they consider it good that we have to stop using fossil fuels and go with the other methods of energy production.
By paying more for your bill is an essential price to pay to go down this road so hopefully we can now put a stop to all this moaning about the costs of electricity and gas.
