| I'm liking this Burn 'em chappie more and more 07:42 - Jun 13 with 1577 views | NthQldITFC |
https://www.theguardian.com/po
When you cut through all the bloated capitalist artifice, taking predatory, multi-level profiteering domestic or overseas 'ownership' out of the equation, the patriotic choice is clearly thus.
No compensation - the bastards have been creaming it off the Great British public for decades. |  |
| |  |
| I'm liking this Burn 'em chappie more and more on 08:35 - Jun 13 with 1392 views | Zx1988 |
"The move would constitute one of the biggest transfers of ownership of British industry since the privatisations of the 1980s, but could also leave the public on the hook for billions of pounds’ worth of infrastructure upgrades and running costs."
Erm... Isn't that how the current setup works as well, but with the public also having to pay for shareholders' dividends?
This post has been edited by an administrator |  |
| |
| I'm liking this Burn 'em chappie more and more on 11:02 - Jun 13 with 1044 views | You_Bloo_Right |
Nearly 40 years ago the English and Welsh public were sold the lie that private ownership of the water companies would provide the capital needed for the necessary infrastructure improvements, that their interests would be uppermost, that this would save the country money whilst standards were improved.
It was an ideologically driven policy as marked by how it was dropped (in 1984 and again in 1986) for fear of a negative impact on the result of the 1987 General Election.
As well as paying a knock down price and being given state funding by way of the government taking on some of the debt and providing a "dowry", predictably the new monopoly water companies were allowed to hike up borrowing to fulfill the one responsibility a private company has, to provide returns to the shareholders.
The slow progress on addressing leaks and general infrastructure improvements, the blatant ignoring of clean water regulations, the pollution of our waterways; all these for me would be justification enough to refuse compensation. Then, of course, there is the moral question of whether the supply of such a basic human necessity as water should ever be placed in the hands of private companies or individuals.
Simply "returning" to nationalised companies seems unlikely to work if, as before, those companies are starved of funds. Could the establishment of not-for-profit organisations be the way forward? Perhaps and on that we have the example of Welsh Water as a guide. For me, though, the issue is simply one more symptom of a capitalist system that is not fit for purpose as far as a nation's people is concerned
Edited for spellig [Post edited 13 Jun 11:04]
|  |
| |
| I'm liking this Burn 'em chappie more and more on 11:15 - Jun 13 with 1013 views | wrightsrightglove |
I don’t believe for a second that he’ll actually achieve it though. To me this stinks of him lining up a left leaning manifesto ready for the next election to try and combat the greens. I have zero confidence that he’d actually achieve those aims and it would just be more of the same. | | | |
| I'm liking this Burn 'em chappie more and more on 11:40 - Jun 13 with 935 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| I'm liking this Burn 'em chappie more and more on 11:02 - Jun 13 by You_Bloo_Right |
Nearly 40 years ago the English and Welsh public were sold the lie that private ownership of the water companies would provide the capital needed for the necessary infrastructure improvements, that their interests would be uppermost, that this would save the country money whilst standards were improved.
It was an ideologically driven policy as marked by how it was dropped (in 1984 and again in 1986) for fear of a negative impact on the result of the 1987 General Election.
As well as paying a knock down price and being given state funding by way of the government taking on some of the debt and providing a "dowry", predictably the new monopoly water companies were allowed to hike up borrowing to fulfill the one responsibility a private company has, to provide returns to the shareholders.
The slow progress on addressing leaks and general infrastructure improvements, the blatant ignoring of clean water regulations, the pollution of our waterways; all these for me would be justification enough to refuse compensation. Then, of course, there is the moral question of whether the supply of such a basic human necessity as water should ever be placed in the hands of private companies or individuals.
Simply "returning" to nationalised companies seems unlikely to work if, as before, those companies are starved of funds. Could the establishment of not-for-profit organisations be the way forward? Perhaps and on that we have the example of Welsh Water as a guide. For me, though, the issue is simply one more symptom of a capitalist system that is not fit for purpose as far as a nation's people is concerned
Edited for spellig [Post edited 13 Jun 11:04]
|
Now tell that to Sid! |  |
| |
| I'm liking this Burn 'em chappie more and more on 12:33 - Jun 13 with 855 views | J2BLUE |
Imagine people opposing the public owning WATER facilities. The second most critical thing for humans. |  | | |
| I'm liking this Burn 'em chappie more and more on 09:20 - Jun 14 with 615 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| I'm liking this Burn 'em chappie more and more on 11:15 - Jun 13 by wrightsrightglove |
I don’t believe for a second that he’ll actually achieve it though. To me this stinks of him lining up a left leaning manifesto ready for the next election to try and combat the greens. I have zero confidence that he’d actually achieve those aims and it would just be more of the same. |
Based on what? I'm led to believe he's done excellent things for Manchester, and that's all we have to go on. |  |
| |
| I'm liking this Burn 'em chappie more and more on 09:44 - Jun 14 with 567 views | StokieBlue |
It's clearly the right thing to do to have the essential infrastructure of the country nationalised but it might also prove quite tricky. If he's not going to be paying market rate for the equity (which I assume he won't) then it's going to face lots of legal issues and it's also going to affect peoples pensions etc.
It's still absolutely the right thing to do though, especially in these troubled times.
SB |  |
| Avatar - M101 - Pinwheel Galaxy |
| |
| I'm liking this Burn 'em chappie more and more on 10:18 - Jun 14 with 533 views | NthQldITFC |
| I'm liking this Burn 'em chappie more and more on 09:44 - Jun 14 by StokieBlue |
It's clearly the right thing to do to have the essential infrastructure of the country nationalised but it might also prove quite tricky. If he's not going to be paying market rate for the equity (which I assume he won't) then it's going to face lots of legal issues and it's also going to affect peoples pensions etc.
It's still absolutely the right thing to do though, especially in these troubled times.
SB |
If it's the right thing to do, then we need to find a way to cut through the obstacles and business-as-usual restrictions.
Take a (small) leaf out of the fascists playbook and bend the regulations to make it happen. But be very, very open about what you're doing and why.
To some extent, pensioners will have to suck it up a bit as well as the rest of us.
As you say these troubled times make this sort of brave action necessary. It should have happened ten, twenty years ago, but it HAS to happen now.
Not sure if Burnham will have the balls, but Starmer certainly hasn't. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| I'm liking this Burn 'em chappie more and more on 11:01 - Jun 14 with 476 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| I'm liking this Burn 'em chappie more and more on 10:18 - Jun 14 by NthQldITFC |
If it's the right thing to do, then we need to find a way to cut through the obstacles and business-as-usual restrictions.
Take a (small) leaf out of the fascists playbook and bend the regulations to make it happen. But be very, very open about what you're doing and why.
To some extent, pensioners will have to suck it up a bit as well as the rest of us.
As you say these troubled times make this sort of brave action necessary. It should have happened ten, twenty years ago, but it HAS to happen now.
Not sure if Burnham will have the balls, but Starmer certainly hasn't. |
Given the amount of debt they carry, it wouldn’t cost a lot to purchase. But we have one of the outstanding legal systems in the world, to override that on dogma is ridiculous, and finish us as a serious country. If you cheer the government overruling the law for something you like, you make it easier for them to do it for something you don’t like..
France renationalised their energy production legally and at a fair price with little fuss. Forced repossessions never end well. [Post edited 14 Jun 11:03]
| | | |
| I'm liking this Burn 'em chappie more and more on 11:45 - Jun 14 with 383 views | NthQldITFC |
| I'm liking this Burn 'em chappie more and more on 11:01 - Jun 14 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Given the amount of debt they carry, it wouldn’t cost a lot to purchase. But we have one of the outstanding legal systems in the world, to override that on dogma is ridiculous, and finish us as a serious country. If you cheer the government overruling the law for something you like, you make it easier for them to do it for something you don’t like..
France renationalised their energy production legally and at a fair price with little fuss. Forced repossessions never end well. [Post edited 14 Jun 11:03]
|
I have no idea about the detail - what I'm saying is more along the lines of force the issue as much as possible, where possible. No more half-arsed cop outs, pandering to corporate interests. Make it happen, and now, not five years down the line after some sort of enquiry, when everything's bound to have changed and invalidated the so-called promises.
The French example sounds good. | |
| |
| I'm liking this Burn 'em chappie more and more on 18:24 - Jun 14 with 118 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| I'm liking this Burn 'em chappie more and more on 11:45 - Jun 14 by NthQldITFC |
I have no idea about the detail - what I'm saying is more along the lines of force the issue as much as possible, where possible. No more half-arsed cop outs, pandering to corporate interests. Make it happen, and now, not five years down the line after some sort of enquiry, when everything's bound to have changed and invalidated the so-called promises.
The French example sounds good. |
He’s not (if successful) going to take a hard line with business. He has used public money to court private sector capital - it’s this that has been the driver of rapid growth and development in Manchester. Therefore, any moves to ren-nationalise infrastructure will be done in a pragmatic way, and without frightening the FDI and domestic investment that has seen Manchester outpace the other core cities in terms of productivity:-
“ The city’s rise is more about the “neoliberal” forces the politically astute Burnham has recently criticised, and less the socialist principles he suggests.”
https://www.ft.com/content/87e
The majority of the UK is employed by the private sector, and won’t want a radical strong arming of business. The pensions exposure is minimal (mostly foreign institutions rather than UK pension funds) and not an issue, but re-nationalisation is a process that will take years. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
