politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Who knows? The public get a taste for public ownership
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Who knows? The public get a taste for public ownership
For the last 30 years we’ve heard Prime Ministers Thatcher, Major, Blair and Cameron argue for policies of privatisation, private finance initiatives, public-private partnerships and so on. Whether it’s our utilities or our postal service the belief in the inherent private sector has been steadfast.
Comments
-
Next, tim will be lauding the return of Derek Hatton.0
-
Note to self - PB has a tendency to micro analyse the short game, in fact the very very short game.
One of the most important factors that PBers need to remind themselves of, especially the day after a by-election and GDP figures, is that this electoral cycle would always be determined by the long game, the more so with a fixed term parliament in place.
It is the mantra that Cameron, Osborne and Clegg have clung to during the early difficult years of the Coalition. They have been vindicated.0 -
I'd agree that there is a sense that people wouldn't mind higher electricity bills as long as no-one was making a profit. I'll have a cheaper bill, thanks.0
-
Cameron is merely stating the obvious. He is trying to force Labour to make their mind up before the election, so they can't use the money "saved" from cancelling HS2 to fund a series of electoral bribes.tim said:I think Cameron just gave Ed Miliband control of HS2
PoliticsHome @politicshome
David Cameron on HS2 and major infrastructure: "They can’t go ahead without all-party support."0 -
Henry and Tim seems to be an amusing case of déjà vu to the critics of Hague, IDS, Howard etc (and still today) that the reason their party is struggling and in opposition is because they're not extreme enough. Those critics always said that the Tories were struggling as they weren't right wing enough and that the public is more right wing and clear blue water was all that is needed to be successful.
Now Henry, Tim etc are acting exactly the same. Labour is struggling as they're not left wing enough, the public is to the left of Labour. Clear red water is needed.
Same old story, different extremists.0 -
On topic - After the Royal Mail windfall the shareholding public certainly have a taste for privatisation.
Bbc next - then who knows - the NHS..0 -
@Malcolm - no apology required sir. I can see that the OP was ambiguous. My fault.
@Tim et al - Hodges has again surpassed himself. The guy is a tool, on that we can all agree
@Henry G Manson - you may be right. Lots of the franchises come up in the next parliament - Labour's policy should be to simply allow public agencies and mutuals to bid for them. Also, to rationalise ticketing as we discussed this morning.0 -
Same old story, different extremists.
If labour do go to the left, and they don;t get back into power, where do they go after that?0 -
The public has a taste for public ownership, believing in its naivety that removing profit from the equation will make costs lower. Sensible Labour politicians understand that this isn't the case, and why - rather like sensible Tory politicians understand that agitating for the return of the death penalty for certain crimes might make for a few positive headlines in the Mail but is destined to end in tears.
It's easy to quote examples where the private sector has failed. They should be balanced against similar examples - for example, the same industry in similar circumstances - where it has succeeded. Not all rail franchises have been handed back or stripped and overall, as mentioned on the last thread, rail usage is significantly up since privatisation in the mid-1990s when it had been falling for decades beforehand. Likewise, failed publicly owned industries or services have to be thrown into the comparative mix.
In any case, the Eds' energy policy is neither the one nor the other. The current set-up isn't working and needs fundamental reform, including a regulator with teeth that they're willing to use. However, seeking to abolish price competition isn't the answer either.0 -
Not sure about this. What is clear, though, is that in many areas the private sector has not covered itself in glory; the news from Serco today is depressingly unsurprising. It seems to me that there is an opportunity here for Labour. But the problem is that not enough people in the party have a clear understanding of how private sector business works, especially at the SME end of things.0
-
By not worrying about silly polls the coalition have taken difficult decisions.tim said:
Brown fretting about the small stuff and failed the country.
Perhaps less polls, less single data points and more fundamentals like sound money.0 -
Not just Labour in general but our own Nick Palmer.OblitusSumMe said:
Cameron is merely stating the obvious. He is trying to force Labour to make their mind up before the election, so they can't use the money "saved" from cancelling HS2 to fund a series of electoral bribes.tim said:I think Cameron just gave Ed Miliband control of HS2
PoliticsHome @politicshome
David Cameron on HS2 and major infrastructure: "They can’t go ahead without all-party support."
I asked him a few months back whether he supported HS2. No response then and again today with the same result.
Has Nick Palmer come to a determination or is he awaiting higher authority or fence sitting for the next 18 months ??
0 -
@Mr Me
Not going to happen. I support HS2 but I can't see Balls turning down a £50bn gift to lavish on stuff that is a clear vote winner, such as free childcare.
@TGOHF
Erm, the polling evidence is clear... (Although, for the record, I don't see why nationalising the railway is left-wing -- they already get 4x the public subsidy that they ever did under BR)0 -
Coming to the Grangemouth news late. Looks like the management played a blinder - getting everything it wanted from Unite, the Council, the Scottish and Westminster governments. I guess being 8% of Scotland's manufacturing at this point in history gives you real leverage.0
-
on topic Henry might be right regarding the views of the public. This might be due to the 70s being a distant memory. Does public ownership really lead to a better service. The east coast mainline is an interesting example as it is in a form of competition with the other rail networks as well as road/rail etc. People has rosy tinted spectacles regarding state ownership.
The two ronnies made jokes about BR in the 70s and 80s because the service was rubbish. No one makes jokes about our railways now because they have improved so much. I travel by train as much as I can and the standards and timekeeping are a different league to what BR provided. In my job I have lots of dealings with Councils and their employee and what goes on unchallenged is laughable. I know now that if I need to speak to an engineer at this time on a friday afternoon I would have now chance, they have already gone for the day. Local councils have no competition, lack accountability and hence some of their custom and practices are amazing in this modern competitive world. I fear that a return to more public ownership would have a massive negative impact on the overall competitiveness of Britain. Humans are a strange breed, they need to be challenged and have incentives to work to their best. If people learn that they can get away with doing less for the same money with no accountability then often they will do that. That is why communism will never work. There is no incentive to work hard so people dont. Public ownership can lead to this. Compare Nissan at Sunderland to British Leyland.0 -
Undoubtedly some of the public are just as there are others of the public who are instinctively to the right of the Tories on other key issues. Rather than rage I am sure PB Tories will be quite relaxed if Labour want to include proposals to renationalise industries in their manifestotim said:The PB Tories will rage, but the public are to the left of Labour on all of these issues now.
0 -
'Audacious' policies require sufficient levels of trust from the public in those proposing them for them to be considered seriously and thus become a political asset. You don't get awarded trust just for proposing something the public might like. You have to earn it by sounding plausible, not u-turning every five minutes and being someone the public is inclined to trust anyway. Promises, pledges and posturing are one thing, reality another.
0 -
That's because Balls probably cannot tell the difference between spending and investment.Bobajob said:@Mr Me
Not going to happen. I support HS2 but I can't see Balls turning down a £50bn gift to lavish on stuff that is a clear vote winner, such as free childcare.
And anyway that £50bn is not a lump of money, sitting around, waiting to be spent.0 -
Today's biggest joke is Currystar's claim that "no one makes jokes about the railways anymore"
LOL0 -
0
-
Jack, Nick will faithfully toe the party line whatever it was, is and will be and however many U turns and divers assorted contortions that may involve.JackW said:
Not just Labour in general but our own Nick Palmer.OblitusSumMe said:
Cameron is merely stating the obvious. He is trying to force Labour to make their mind up before the election, so they can't use the money "saved" from cancelling HS2 to fund a series of electoral bribes.tim said:I think Cameron just gave Ed Miliband control of HS2
PoliticsHome @politicshome
David Cameron on HS2 and major infrastructure: "They can’t go ahead without all-party support."
I asked him a few months back whether he supported HS2. No response then and again today with the same result.
Has Nick Palmer come to a determination or is he awaiting higher authority or fence sitting for the next 18 months ??0 -
-
Before you incur the wrath of MrG – the figure is closer to 2% of Scottish GDP - I believe.TimT2 said:Coming to the Grangemouth news late. Looks like the management played a blinder - getting everything it wanted from Unite, the Council, the Scottish and Westminster governments. I guess being 8% of Scotland's manufacturing at this point in history gives you real leverage.
{edit] Ah yes 'Manufacturing' my mistake.0 -
Really? Other than jokes about engineering work on a sunday, what jokes are made. The current rail service in Britain is fantastic in comparison to BR days, that is why is so popular. Did you ever travel on a BR train?Bobajob said:Today's biggest joke is Currystar's claim that "no one makes jokes about the railways anymore"
LOL
0 -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h80Gt0rG8Jocurrystar said:
Really? Other than jokes about engineering work on a sunday, what jokes are made. The current rail service in Britain is fantastic in comparison to BR days, that is why is so popular. Did you ever travel on a BR train?Bobajob said:Today's biggest joke is Currystar's claim that "no one makes jokes about the railways anymore"
LOL0 -
That’s very ungallant of you to remind us all of his record on the Lisbon Treaty referendum - where he first flipped, then flopped like a flippy-floppy thing.JohnO said:
Jack, Nick will faithfully toe the party line whatever it was, is and will be and however many U turns and divers assorted contortions that may involve.JackW said:
Not just Labour in general but our own Nick Palmer.OblitusSumMe said:
Cameron is merely stating the obvious. He is trying to force Labour to make their mind up before the election, so they can't use the money "saved" from cancelling HS2 to fund a series of electoral bribes.tim said:I think Cameron just gave Ed Miliband control of HS2
PoliticsHome @politicshome
David Cameron on HS2 and major infrastructure: "They can’t go ahead without all-party support."
I asked him a few months back whether he supported HS2. No response then and again today with the same result.
Has Nick Palmer come to a determination or is he awaiting higher authority or fence sitting for the next 18 months ??0 -
British Rail are putting up the price of tea ... by 5 pence a slice.currystar said:
Really? Other than jokes about engineering work on a sunday, what jokes are made. The current rail service in Britain is fantastic in comparison to BR days, that is why is so popular. Did you ever travel on a BR train?Bobajob said:Today's biggest joke is Currystar's claim that "no one makes jokes about the railways anymore"
LOL0 -
0
-
Plato,
hauntingly, Jimmy Savile used to do adverts for BR.
And road safety
Clunk, Click every trip0 -
Is that one of Roger's commercials?Plato said:currystar said:
Really? Other than jokes about engineering work on a sunday, what jokes are made. The current rail service in Britain is fantastic in comparison to BR days, that is why is so popular. Did you ever travel on a BR train?Bobajob said:Today's biggest joke is Currystar's claim that "no one makes jokes about the railways anymore"
LOL0 -
The rail service is better, yes, but so it bloody well should be given the vast increase in the subsidy. East Coast has shown better journey times and great numbers since renationalised.0
-
Renationalise the railways, or withdraw the ludicrous subsidies they receive.
One of the two.0 -
Do you think rail subsidies should be removed?Bobajob said:The rail service is better, yes, but so it bloody well should be given the vast increase in the subsidy. East Coast has shown better journey times and great numbers since renationalised.
0 -
The latter. And wait for the anguished howls as train fares float upwards to their correct price level.Pulpstar said:Renationalise the railways, or withdraw the ludicrous subsidies they receive.
One of the two.
0 -
Just looking through the detail of the GDP figures. Oil and gas knocked 0.1% off growth. Since the first quarter of 2010 falling oil and gas extraction has knocked a full principal point off GDP, 4% growth including vs 5% growth excluding. It also answers a lot of the productivity decline questions, and partly falling real terms wages as oil and gas is a very high productivity and well paid sector. Output per employee in the sector is the highest in the world, and of course pay and conditions tend to follow that too. As the sector declines because of peak oil (and silly decisions made by the Treasury to a smaller degree) it will drag the economy down with it, it has done by 1% already since the first quarter of 2010.
Excluding oil and gas, the government are about 1.3% away from reaching the 2007/8 peak, so the regular economy has recovered to a great degree since then and that can be seen in the job creation and productivity figures (which are up and down respectively), honestly recovering that final 1.3% will see the unemployment figure fall below the BoE's 7% guidance which is going to mean interest rate rises at some point in 2014.
As for Tim's ridiculous assertion that the economy isn't being rebalanced, well housebuilding is up, the production figures are being hugely effected by falling oil and gas extraction which is a consequence of peak oil (nothing we can really do about it, except frack the hell out of Blackpool) and in advanced economies services are always going to be where recoveries are based. I work in the services industry but we also export our goods globally and Britain is a leader in the creative industry which I think should be reclassified as production rather than services. The growth in the creative industries all comes under "business services" in the ONS's figures which masks the true nature of what happens. We produce a real product that is exported gloabally, a product that people can watch, play or listen to. It is a production industry, not services. I think taking creative out of services and into production will show that services growth is probably not as strong as is currently estimated. As the economy moves towards a digital age we need our statistics to reflect the changes as well by having a second look at what production really means, not just the old fashioned definition.0 -
It seems the PB Tories yet again need a basic economics lesson before they make even more of a fool of themselves by posting ancient BR vids.
1. The public subsidy to the railways is 4x that under BR.
2. East Coast has run faster average journey times and increased passengers since nationalised.
3. There is effectively no or very little competition in the industry as, if you want to go to Manchester or Newcastle, there is only one sensible route you can take.
4. The track has been nationalised in the form of network rail since Railtrack's failure. It has worked much better.0 -
Anyone mentioned British Leyland yet?0
-
Just saying...
____ ____ __
.' '. .' __ '. _ / /
| .--. | | (__) | (_)/ /
| | | | .`____'. / / _
| `--' |_ | (____) | / / (_)
'.____.'(_)`.______.'/_/0 -
Renationalise and correctly price routes anyway, creating nice rake for the treasury ?
0 -
Youngest used to work for Kenneth Grange, who designed the Intercity 125 – (now a much deserved Sir Kenneth, since the New Year honours)
Just saying.
0 -
No - I think we should retain them and increase investment under a nationalised system.TheWatcher said:
Do you think rail subsidies should be removed?Bobajob said:The rail service is better, yes, but so it bloody well should be given the vast increase in the subsidy. East Coast has shown better journey times and great numbers since renationalised.
0 -
Yes. Fly.Bobajob said:It seems the PB Tories yet again need a basic economics lesson before they make even more of a fool of themselves by posting ancient BR vids.
1. The public subsidy to the railways is 4x that under BR.
2. East Coast has run faster average journey times and increased passengers since nationalised.
3. There is effectively no or very little competition in the industry as, if you want to go to Manchester or Newcastle, there is only one sensible route you can take.
4. The track has been nationalised in the form of network rail since Railtrack's failure. It has worked much better.0 -
That's funny. There was me thinking that you were all for level playing fields; you've been whining all week about the inequality of advance travel prices versus late booking costs.Bobajob said:
No - I think we should retain them and increase investment under a nationalised system.TheWatcher said:
Do you think rail subsidies should be removed?Bobajob said:The rail service is better, yes, but so it bloody well should be given the vast increase in the subsidy. East Coast has shown better journey times and great numbers since renationalised.
Why should I subsidise your lifestyle?
0 -
Currystar,
"This might be due to the 70s being a distant memory"
Indeed.
Large service providers frequently annoy people, whether it be expense or convenience, and there's a feeling that a change would be good. "Let's cut out the dividends they pay", or "Let's get some efficiency into it."
Overall, I'd say private is better for the public and state is better for the workers. Probably a reflection of union membership.0 -
On topic - 'where's the money going to come from?'
And you've spent the 'Banker's Bonus Tax' already. Several times.
On Grangemouth - Eric Joyce is a good hater, but worth a read, and while he may have an axe or two to grind is at least well informed:
"So far, Grangemouth has exposed Labour’s distaste for the private sector, where most people earn a living. It’s about to expose the terrible extent to which Unite is dominating the party’s decisions. A rubicon may have been crossed. But in the wrong direction."
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/10/grangemouths-will-expose-just-how-much-power-unite-has-over-the-labour-party/0 -
Nationalisation requires money. Where would Labour get that from?0
-
F1: it's my plan to watch P3, then post a pre-qualifying piece prior to, er, qualifying. If so, that'll be pretty early (probably circa 8am, or a bit later) tomorrow.0
-
-
So general tax payers should subsidise rail users?Bobajob said:
No - I think we should retain them and increase investment under a nationalised system.TheWatcher said:
Do you think rail subsidies should be removed?Bobajob said:The rail service is better, yes, but so it bloody well should be given the vast increase in the subsidy. East Coast has shown better journey times and great numbers since renationalised.
0 -
As long as 'bob is better off' that would seem to be the case.CarlottaVance said:
So general tax payers should subsidise rail users?Bobajob said:
No - I think we should retain them and increase investment under a nationalised system.TheWatcher said:
Do you think rail subsidies should be removed?Bobajob said:The rail service is better, yes, but so it bloody well should be given the vast increase in the subsidy. East Coast has shown better journey times and great numbers since renationalised.
0 -
I'm sure that there is zero chance of the public getting a taste for public ownership (those of us who have been through all that will have no doubt on that score), but there is a risk that those not old enough to remember the reality fall for Miliband snake-oil for long enough to vote for him. Once.
It's not coincidence that virtually every major economy in the world, and many mid-size economies as well, copied the Thatcher reforms, to a lesser or greater extent.
Of course, we shouldn't forget one key factor - the EU, which actually has a lot of Thatcherite principles built into its body of law. That will, fortunately, limit the damage Labour can do on this score, if they form the next government.0 -
Not my premise, my premise is that the cash generated should go back into the British pot rather than the SNCF & Deutsche Bahn Euro ones.SimonStClare said:0 -
As someone old enough to have used both pre- and post- nationalisation British Rail, British Airways, British Telecom and British Gas - I am in no doubt which I prefer.
Perhaps those in favour of nationalisation could offer examples of how service was better 'in the old days'?0 -
A few counter-points:Bobajob said:It seems the PB Tories yet again need a basic economics lesson before they make even more of a fool of themselves by posting ancient BR vids.
1. The public subsidy to the railways is 4x that under BR.
2. East Coast has run faster average journey times and increased passengers since nationalised.
3. There is effectively no or very little competition in the industry as, if you want to go to Manchester or Newcastle, there is only one sensible route you can take.
4. The track has been nationalised in the form of network rail since Railtrack's failure. It has worked much better.
1) Passenger traffic has doubled since privatisation. Freight traffic has increased. The subsidy may be more, but it's not so bad when you take into account the traffic volumes. It's still far from ideal, but not as bad as you make out.
2) The railways had suffered from decades of under-investment throughout the BR years. Many things were worn out, for instance rolling stock and some infrastructure. These are very costly to renew. Vast investment was needed just to stand still.
3) To make matters worse, BR were managing a shrinking railway. It costs less to single a line, that to re-double it. NR has had to invest massively to cope with the increased traffic volumes. And we are at the stage where we get less bang for the buck - many of the 'easy' projects have already been done.
4) As for East Coast, see my post on the previous thread. The line has two competitors on it now, reducing EC's payments to NR, and it is hardly the only operator paying the taxpayer to run services, instead of receiving a direct subsidy. Virgin has greater customer satisfaction ratings.0 -
Not much of a nationalisation then. Only four franchises come up for renewal in the next term:Bobajob said:Anot
another one who doesn't understand the system. The government simply bids for franchises as they come up for renewal.antifrank said:Nationalisation requires money. Where would Labour get that from?
http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/rail-franchising-timetable/rail-franchising-timetable.pdf
One of these will presumably be retendered before the next election date.0 -
There is something schizophrenic with the way the public are reacting to business these days. Yesterday we heard how the mighty Bravehearts of Scotland were laid low by billionaire Jim Radcliffe.
Lose pension rights and pay rises for three years and the right to strike and anything else I care to impose or I'll put 800 workers out of a job. Back to the Victorian days and most depressing of all (as Mick points out) the Scots are normally the most socially aware of the four nations.
At the same time we have a government at Westminster who were either born with a silver spoon or who like Jim Radcliffe acquired one and seem totally oblivious to those who weren't and those on the average wage are starting to ask questions. Is this fair? Is this how it has to be? Do we have to be know our place? Who chose these people to be 'Masters of the Universe'?0 -
I hope there aren't too many 'struggling middle income on £75k' voters!TheWatcher said:
As long as 'bob is better off' that would seem to be the case.CarlottaVance said:
So general tax payers should subsidise rail users?Bobajob said:
No - I think we should retain them and increase investment under a nationalised system.TheWatcher said:
Do you think rail subsidies should be removed?Bobajob said:The rail service is better, yes, but so it bloody well should be given the vast increase in the subsidy. East Coast has shown better journey times and great numbers since renationalised.
Oh, that's right!
There aren't.
0 -
Personally I'd have scrapped the cap on a price of mail delivery and let the previously nationalised Royal Mail have full rip at making as much cash as possible.
Maybe I'd keep the BBC nationalised but allow adverts on the Telly... If it can make a profit keep it, if it can't - ditch it/flog it off. Its hardly vital national infrastructure.
Oh and I'd ban all unions from the public sector, particularly Mcluskey's and stick all public sector workers onto defined contribution pension schemes.0 -
First of all, you have made up that quote, haven't you?CarlottaVance said:
I hope there aren't too many 'struggling middle income on £75k' voters!TheWatcher said:
As long as 'bob is better off' that would seem to be the case.CarlottaVance said:
So general tax payers should subsidise rail users?Bobajob said:
No - I think we should retain them and increase investment under a nationalised system.TheWatcher said:
Do you think rail subsidies should be removed?Bobajob said:The rail service is better, yes, but so it bloody well should be given the vast increase in the subsidy. East Coast has shown better journey times and great numbers since renationalised.
Oh, that's right!
There aren't.
Second, that's my household income.
Third, that is a fairly normal income in London - it is not rich.
But I know not to discuss economics with the wo/man who thought the reason Grangemouth supplies 80% if Scotland was because its prices were too high...
0 -
Roger, in the words of Mr Pork FPT - "Unite made a fool out themselves. I can assure you that scotland is far more amenable to trade unions than most places but even given that there is very limited sympathy for their actions over this. It was unite who were forced to roll over after putting some 800 jobs on the brink. This all began with Stephen Deans who, lest we forget, chaired Falkirk CLP when Unite was accused of trying to rig the selection.Roger said:There is something schizophrenic with the way the public are reacting to business these days. Yesterday we heard how the mighty Bravehearts of Scotland were laid low by billionaire Jim Radcliffe.
Lose pension rights and pay rises for three years and the right to strike and anything else I care to impose or I'll put 800 workers out of a job. Back to the Victorian days and most depressing of all (as Mick points out) the Scots are normally the most socially aware of the four nations.
At the same time we have a government at Westminster who were either born with a silver spoon or who like Jim Radcliffe acquired one and seem totally oblivious to those who weren't and those on the average wage are starting to ask questions. Is this fair? Is this how it has to be? Do we have to be know our place? Who chose these people to be 'Masters of the Universe'?
Though you could of course personally try telling the workers of Grangemouth that they are "humiliating themselves" and "sitting on their hind legs tongues out infront" for trying to hold on to their livelihoods. Best have some good stout running shoes if you do.
Nor does it sound a particularly effective spin line for Labour to pursue, though perhaps you know better in this case."0 -
@Antifrank
Got to run- meeting beckons. But those you cite are still significant and allow a step by step renationisation. I also don't know the revised schedule for the WCML.0 -
I've never heard of a 'black hole' in a contribution system. Always seem to appear in a defined benefit system.Neil said:
You couldnt afford to.Pulpstar said:stick all public sector workers onto defined contribution pension schemes
If the stock market goes to shit my pension (65% of it) is up shit creek. If I was on Defined Benefit I'd be fine...
All new starters at any rate.0 -
Will Grangemouth be Unite's achilles heel? Early retirement for Len?
0 -
Having called the economy so wrong, why should we trust Labour to run our trains?
And having messed up Grangemouth, being able to mess up the whole countries train service should not be Unite's reward.0 -
What has any of that got to do with the fact this country cant afford to put public sector workers into DC schemes?Pulpstar said:
I've never heard of a 'black hole' in a contribution system. Always seem to appear in a defined benefit system.
If the stock market goes to shit my pension (65% of it) is up shit creek. If I was on Defined Benefit I'd be fine...0 -
Franchises are just a part of it. What would happen to the ROSCOs (owners of most of the rolling stock) and the various other parts of the privatised network?Bobajob said:Anot
another one who doesn't understand the system. The government simply bids for franchises as they come up for renewal.antifrank said:Nationalisation requires money. Where would Labour get that from?
People seem to want to return to a BR structure. That won't happen. So it's fair to ask what they think a renationalised network would look like.
I'm still waiting to see what problems they are trying to fix. To help them, I'll give one: the franchising system is vastly inefficient, costly and arcane, witness the WC farrago. It costs millions for the government to run, and AIUI the losing bidders are refunded their bidding costs of sometimes tens of millions.0 -
So Labour supporters want to renationalise the rail network whilst making no significant investment to increase capacity. Overcrowded trains going over aging, over used infrastructure. Hard to see how that would end badly for them.0
-
Economics really isn't your strong suit, is it?Bobajob said:
the reason Grangemouth supplies 80% if Scotland was because its prices were too high...CarlottaVance said:
I hope there aren't too many 'struggling middle income on £75k' voters!TheWatcher said:
As long as 'bob is better off' that would seem to be the case.CarlottaVance said:
So general tax payers should subsidise rail users?Bobajob said:
No - I think we should retain them and increase investment under a nationalised system.TheWatcher said:
Do you think rail subsidies should be removed?Bobajob said:The rail service is better, yes, but so it bloody well should be given the vast increase in the subsidy. East Coast has shown better journey times and great numbers since renationalised.
Oh, that's right!
There aren't.
The issue with Grangemouth is its costs are too high....they could charge what they like for their petrol - but go too far & people would simply buy it elsewhere.....
0 -
New starters ! If we can't afford to put workers onto DC, how the hell can we put workers onto DB ?! Which has by definition alot more uncertainty over the deficit or surplus at retirement...Neil said:
What has any of that got to do with the fact this country cant afford to put public sector workers into DC schemes?Pulpstar said:
I've never heard of a 'black hole' in a contribution system. Always seem to appear in a defined benefit system.
If the stock market goes to shit my pension (65% of it) is up shit creek. If I was on Defined Benefit I'd be fine...0 -
This very simple effort in many ways was one of the most significant British Rail commercials in that it uncovered Tony Kaye one of the more interesting directors of the last 20 years. He famously used 120 rolls of film.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyTgEpVttBE0 -
@Roger - I suggest you read that well known PB Tory Eric Joyce MP:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/10/grangemouths-will-expose-just-how-much-power-unite-has-over-the-labour-party/0 -
You think we have enough money to put new starters on DC schemes? What else would you cut to pay for it?Pulpstar said:
New starters ! If we can't afford to put workers onto DC, how the hell can we put workers onto DB ?! Which has by definition alot more uncertainty over the deficit or surplus at retirement...0 -
PBtories, PBHodgs - PBJoyces nextCarlottaVance said:@ Roger - I suggest you read that well known PB Tory Eric Joyce MP:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/10/grangemouths-will-expose-just-how-much-power-unite-has-over-the-labour-party/
? 0 -
How are we paying for their DB schemes !?Neil said:
You think we have enough money to put new starters on DC schemes? What else would you cut to pay for it?Pulpstar said:
New starters ! If we can't afford to put workers onto DC, how the hell can we put workers onto DB ?! Which has by definition alot more uncertainty over the deficit or surplus at retirement...
Finger in the air and hope the assets keep pace with the liabilities over the years ? If there is anything 2008 taught us its that you can't rely on that !0 -
I agree that eventually utilities will have to be nationalised,even rail.
It`s crazy paying increased prices not for competition and quality but for effective monopolies and organised profiteering.
0 -
'He famously used 120 rolls of film. '
Are you sure about that? It's a 40 second commercial with about 20 shots in it. If he did, talk about waste; most of that would have ended up in the bin. Not a very good director really.
Unless you mean 120 format?0 -
It does look like MacCluskey went in to sort out the local UNITE branch - who appear to have been more concerned over the fate of their Union convener than 800 jobs.JonathanD said:
Milband, on the other hand maintained a Zen-like silence over Lamont's foolish pronouncements.....
0 -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/10404746/Hurricane-strength-wind-warnings-extended-to-Midlands.html
DT warning of gusts up to '12 on the Richter scale'. Hold on to your hats people! LOL0 -
And thats precisely why these huge 'Black Holes' appear. Tommorow's problem... Whether a scheme is DC or DB it needs to be constantly invested in, and checked for the 'corridor' if its DB. FRS17 and all that.Neil said:
We dont pay for them until they retire. That's the point. Paying for them today instead has huge upfront costs.Pulpstar said:
How are we paying for their DB schemes !?0 -
It`s crazy paying increased prices not for competition and quality but for effective monopolies and organised profiteering.
The market seems to work in the US where they pay a third of the price we do. There are no nationalised utilities there.
What are they doing right?0 -
Shale gas is often given as a reason. Haven't seen any numbers myselftaffys said:It`s crazy paying increased prices not for competition and quality but for effective monopolies and organised profiteering.
The market seems to work in the US where they pay a third of the price we do. There are no nationalised utilities there.
What are they doing right?0 -
Shale gas is often given as a reason. Haven't seen any numbers myself
Me neither but there must be some de facto local monopolies, or places where there are only a couple of choices.0 -
And that's their Science Correspondent!RobD said:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/10404746/Hurricane-strength-wind-warnings-extended-to-Midlands.html
DT warning of gusts up to '12 on the Richter scale'. Hold on to your hats people! LOL
0 -
One of the growing concerns with defined benefit plans is that the level of future obligations will outpace the value of assets held by the plan. This “underfunding” dilemma can be faced by any type of defined benefit plan, private or public, but it is most acute in governmental and other public plans where political pressures and less rigorous accounting standards can result in excessive commitments to employees and retirees, but inadequate contributions. Many states and municipalities across the county now face chronic pension crises.
Lemke and Lins, ERISA for Money Managers, §1:1 (Thomson West, 2013).0 -
Arse 'n' elbow - Rather embarrassing not to know your Beaufort from your Richter?CarlottaVance said:
And that's their Science Correspondent!RobD said:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/10404746/Hurricane-strength-wind-warnings-extended-to-Midlands.html
DT warning of gusts up to '12 on the Richter scale'. Hold on to your hats people! LOL0
