| Reform. 09:17 - Jul 16 with 6765 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
Reassuring to hear Keir talking about reforming public services with not a jot of detail on what that means. (Assume he means more privatisation) But at least he's still "laser focused!"
 |  |
| |  |
| Reform. on 19:06 - Jul 16 with 744 views | giant_stow |
| Reform. on 19:00 - Jul 16 by WeWereZombies |
OK, OK, I went in a bit two footed, sorry.
I don't think that growing wealth through an almost complete change of supply to renewable energy, for example, is impossible but the looking after what we have as the priority before feathering our nests is the important objective. It is taking a long time for the penny to drop with many people and an awful lot of politicians and economists seem to be at the back of the common sense queue.
Still no way I am trying one of Delia's deep fried jam sandwiches... |
Don't apologise - you rightly pulled me up.
I can't say I blame you for dodging Delia's sandwich |  |
| |
| Reform. on 19:22 - Jul 16 with 716 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Reform. on 11:38 - Jul 16 by DJR |
This article suggests there may well be, and this is just one area.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/wes-streeting-keirs-not-superman-he-cant-do-
The problem it seem to me, when it comes to Labour under both Blair and Starmer, is that their natural instinct is to look to the private sector for solutions, PFI probably being the worst example.
And my view is that this is ideological. Just take Osborne and Balls who are now the best of friends, and who the latest issue of Private Eye indicates were very close on issues like the deregulation of the City early in the century (which had a part in the financial crash) and austerity, which Balls supported from 2013 onwards.
[Post edited 16 Jul 2023 11:50]
|
That’s not an example that Starmer intends lots of privatisations.
It’s showing that a future Labour government will engage with the private sector to deliver a 21st century health service that is fit for purpose, and a model that is used by most progressive Western European countries which have a far better functioning health service than we do.
We can’t continue to be wedded to system of healthcare which was thought up after the Second World War. |  |
| |
| Reform. on 19:23 - Jul 16 with 716 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Reform. on 18:58 - Jul 16 by You_Bloo_Right |
Am I to assume the "legalised state theft" remark is in response to this?
"Compensation - where applicable - to be the sum investors put in rather than current share value, minus, of course, whatever returns they have already had on those investments."
I'm prepared to negotiate. But any privatised company that may, for example, have artificially kept its own prices high or have been fined by the regulator cannot expect current share value. |
Is this some kind of hypothetical? Because of course all transition from private to public sector would go through due legal process, and the cost not be decided by politicians. Even Corbyn recognised this in his manifesto, hence he was unable to put an exact cost to privatisation.
The “I’m prepared to negotiate” is a bit banana republic, and would lead to capital outflows and a severe reduction in FDI a la Venezuela. |  | | |
| Reform. on 19:42 - Jul 16 with 701 views | You_Bloo_Right |
| Reform. on 19:23 - Jul 16 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Is this some kind of hypothetical? Because of course all transition from private to public sector would go through due legal process, and the cost not be decided by politicians. Even Corbyn recognised this in his manifesto, hence he was unable to put an exact cost to privatisation.
The “I’m prepared to negotiate” is a bit banana republic, and would lead to capital outflows and a severe reduction in FDI a la Venezuela. |
Yes of course it's hypothetical.
Nevertheless using the Northern Rock case as precedent the high court, court of appeal and the ECHR aligned their decisions around public interest. The ECHR judges' ruling was:
“Legitimate objectives in the ‘public interest’, such as those pursued in measures of economic reform or measures designed to achieve greater social justice, may call for less than reimbursement of the full market value.”
That leaves the way open to negotiation does it not? And manifestly the cost could certainly be decided by politicians. |  |
| |
| Reform. on 19:50 - Jul 16 with 695 views | WeWereZombies |
| Reform. on 19:22 - Jul 16 by GlasgowBlue |
That’s not an example that Starmer intends lots of privatisations.
It’s showing that a future Labour government will engage with the private sector to deliver a 21st century health service that is fit for purpose, and a model that is used by most progressive Western European countries which have a far better functioning health service than we do.
We can’t continue to be wedded to system of healthcare which was thought up after the Second World War. |
'progressive Western European countries which have a far better functioning health service than we do'
I guess you have never sat in a car on the square of a French town waiting interminably for someone to pick up their (probably bogus because French doctors are just as wedded to the notion that they can get rid of most of their appointments with pills as British doctors) prescription.
Don't write off how good the NHS is, even those go getting Yanks said so when MIT reviewed how healthcare is provided (where the NHS did not do so well was in attracting staff internationally on pay rates), the latest data I can find places us tenth in the World, admittedly that is behind France, Denmark, Spain, Belgium and Austria but ahead of Germany, Sweden, The Netherlands, Italy, Finland and Norway:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/best-healthcare-in-the-world |  |
| |
| Reform. on 20:21 - Jul 16 with 675 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Reform. on 19:42 - Jul 16 by You_Bloo_Right |
Yes of course it's hypothetical.
Nevertheless using the Northern Rock case as precedent the high court, court of appeal and the ECHR aligned their decisions around public interest. The ECHR judges' ruling was:
“Legitimate objectives in the ‘public interest’, such as those pursued in measures of economic reform or measures designed to achieve greater social justice, may call for less than reimbursement of the full market value.”
That leaves the way open to negotiation does it not? And manifestly the cost could certainly be decided by politicians. |
Foreign investors are unlikely to be scared off by the Govt nationalising a severely under capitalised mostly UK serving bank. It’s not really a precedent compared to say the compulsory purchase of millions of dollars of assets owned by a multinational oil major for example.
I don’t have an issue with taking back our utilities etc in to public ownership, but it has to be done in such a way as to not entirely destroy the UK as a place to operate and invest, especially after the damage of Brexit. The thought of it being negotiated by politicians should be f’ing terrifying to anyone employed in the private sector. | | | |
| Reform. on 23:23 - Jul 16 with 581 views | You_Bloo_Right |
| Reform. on 20:21 - Jul 16 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Foreign investors are unlikely to be scared off by the Govt nationalising a severely under capitalised mostly UK serving bank. It’s not really a precedent compared to say the compulsory purchase of millions of dollars of assets owned by a multinational oil major for example.
I don’t have an issue with taking back our utilities etc in to public ownership, but it has to be done in such a way as to not entirely destroy the UK as a place to operate and invest, especially after the damage of Brexit. The thought of it being negotiated by politicians should be f’ing terrifying to anyone employed in the private sector. |
So we are in broad agreement that utilities should be placed into public ownership (OK we can't have all of Centrica but we can have British Gas for example).
We're just really haggling about the price.
If utilities are to be re-nationalised of course politicians need to at least be seen to lead any discussions. Personally I'd have the Civil Service (or some other third party if you like but the CS, if allowed to perform the role without undue interference, seem best placed to me) act a bit like mediators and help the politicians and the companies arrive at a mutually acceptable solution.
For me how close that solution comes to full market value will depend on a number of factors - performance (including performance to customers), investment vs dividend ratio, customer bills, regulator fines/reports, the level of debt and how this was incurred, etc. Luckily for the companies involved I will play no part in such discussions. [Post edited 16 Jul 2023 23:24]
| |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
