Cost of living crisis.

[dsr-burnley]

9 hours ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

They were only useless because making them useless was a deliberate ploy to say that privatisation is the only way to fix it.

 

The running down of services is classic policy prior to manufacturing consent.

 

The other reason for poor services is the outright blatant corruption from the regulators and those who negotiate the contracts of service where profits are guaranteed by the tax payer, risk is guaranteed by the tax payer and even massive subsidies are given.

 

Then profits don't have to be reinvested or even taxed.  This leads to poor energy security, food security as well as jeopardising our water security. 

 

Privatisation is a scam supported by a brainwashed weary population who can't imagine another way.

 

You seem to be a clever person so I know that you don't actually believe what you just typed.

 

 

Actually, "you're clever but you're a liar" is more insulting than "you're stupid because you agree with me".  So no thanks for the last line.  I do believe what I typed.

 

As for you assertion that utilities were run down by the government because they wanted privatisation, there are just a couple of things wrong with it IMO.  One, none of Wilson or Heath or Callaghan have any reputation for wanting privatisation, so presumably you're suggesting that the utilities and other nationalised industries were fine and dandy in the seventies (which I would contend is not true).  Two, I find it hard to believe that the government would deliberately reduce the value of its assets so they could get less money from the sale.

[dsr-burnley]

Wouldn't co-operatives be the answer?  Committees of honest and upright citizens who are willing to do the work of private enterprise without demanding a share in the profits, except those profits which are shared between the entire workforce?  The Co-op itself used to be run on that basis, and it would cut out capitalists altogether if run efficiently.

[ajthefox]

20 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

The problem with nationalising essential services is that the government and civil service are hopeless at running things.  How much is high speed rail costing today?  It may well have gone up a billion overnight.  They haven't a clue.

 

One of the reasons these entities were denationalised (apart from to raise money, which I don't deny was a factor) was because the service was abysmal.  I see no reason to suppose that it would be any better this time round.

And the services we're being offered at the moment are great are they?

 

I'm genuinely curious, do you have any thoughts on what we should be doing to improve some of our services? Because from where I sit, it sounds like you're saying leave things as they are. It's broke but er, let's not even try and fix it because we might not be able to.

 

I know it's not your job to do that and I agree that nationalising these services doesn't mean they'll be fine and dandy suddenly but we simply cannot continue to accept things the way they are. How on earth can we allow Thames Water to pay out practically as much in dividends as they have debt, and then bail them out at the expense of taxpayers because they have completely failed the people they serve. 

 

 

[dsr-burnley]

1 hour ago, ajthefox said:

And the services we're being offered at the moment are great are they?

 

I'm genuinely curious, do you have any thoughts on what we should be doing to improve some of our services? Because from where I sit, it sounds like you're saying leave things as they are. It's broke but er, let's not even try and fix it because we might not be able to.

 

I know it's not your job to do that and I agree that nationalising these services doesn't mean they'll be fine and dandy suddenly but we simply cannot continue to accept things the way they are. How on earth can we allow Thames Water to pay out practically as much in dividends as they have debt, and then bail them out at the expense of taxpayers because they have completely failed the people they serve. 

 

 

It's a long time since power cuts, cars that wouldn't go, and so on.  The supply is more reliable now than then.  Yes, even the railways are more reliable now than then - I used to go to school by train under BR.

 

As for dividends, if they didn't have share capital, they would be funded by loans instead.  There would be interest to pay instead of dividends.  I suppose that could be got round by nationalisation without compensation, but that would definitely be an anti=prosperity measure as well as a vote loser.

 

There are regulatory procedures in place that should stop Thames Water overcharging for service that it isn't providing.  If the regulations aren't working, perhaps the regulations could be changed rather than the zero option of renationalisation?

Edited 30 July 2023 by dsr-burnley

[Lionator]

31 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

It's a long time since power cuts, cars that wouldn't go, and so on.  The supply is more reliable now than then.  Yes, even the railways are more reliable now than then - I used to go to school by train under BR.

 

As for dividends, if they didn't have share capital, they would be funded by loans instead.  There would be interest to pay instead of dividends.  I suppose that could be got round by nationalisation without compensation, but that would definitely be an anti=prosperity measure as well as a vote loser.

 

There are regulatory procedures in place that should stop Thames Water overcharging for service that it isn't providing.  If the regulations aren't working, perhaps the regulations could be changed rather than the zero option of renationalisation?

The problem is with the current government, is that tighter regulation doesn't seem to be on the table, the modern tory party is about making those people at the top of those businesses as rich as possible. The British gas thing this week is an utter absurdity, and the more absurd, the more radical people get. What I'd expect to happen is Labour to introduce tighter regulation, some internal debate about windfall taxes that ends with Ed Miliband resigning his front bench post, and not much else changing. 

[Foxdiamond]

4 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

It's a long time since power cuts, cars that wouldn't go, and so on.  The supply is more reliable now than then.  Yes, even the railways are more reliable now than then - I used to go to school by train under BR.

 

As for dividends, if they didn't have share capital, they would be funded by loans instead.  There would be interest to pay instead of dividends.  I suppose that could be got round by nationalisation without compensation, but that would definitely be an anti=prosperity measure as well as a vote loser.

 

There are regulatory procedures in place that should stop Thames Water overcharging for service that it isn't providing.  If the regulations aren't working, perhaps the regulations could be changed rather than the zero option of renationalisation?

How many of the rail franchises failed and the government had to take up the slack. I understand that France and German railways are not privatised. I wonder why.

[fox_up_north]

The older I get, the more "anti-prosperity" I become. Life is what you make it; I don't need million pound house and Michelin star food to be happy. I enjoy going for a run and being around friends. 

 

Nobody in the world needs, or should, be a billionaire. I'd argue nobody needs to earn more than a couple of million. When most of the people in this country can survive on "just" £50k household per year, there's nothing justifying million pound mansions.

 

As for the argument that it gives something for people to aspire to, again, I don't even think many people are driven to be a millionaire and set up a business that employs thousands. They just want to be able to feed their kids and keep the heating on. 

 

I've turned down better pay because I am comfortable and happy. I have no interest in having a bigger house or a fancy car. Based on my experience in life, very few people are driven by that. 

[dsr-burnley]

7 hours ago, fox_up_north said:

The older I get, the more "anti-prosperity" I become. Life is what you make it; I don't need million pound house and Michelin star food to be happy. I enjoy going for a run and being around friends. 

 

Nobody in the world needs, or should, be a billionaire. I'd argue nobody needs to earn more than a couple of million. When most of the people in this country can survive on "just" £50k household per year, there's nothing justifying million pound mansions.

 

As for the argument that it gives something for people to aspire to, again, I don't even think many people are driven to be a millionaire and set up a business that employs thousands. They just want to be able to feed their kids and keep the heating on. 

 

I've turned down better pay because I am comfortable and happy. I have no interest in having a bigger house or a fancy car. Based on my experience in life, very few people are driven by that. 

Billionaires employ people.  If billionaires were to be banned, then what becomes of the Microsoft employees?  

[Babylon]

8 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Billionaires employ people.  If billionaires were to be banned, then what becomes of the Microsoft employees?  

They become employed by multi millionaires, rather than billionaires. 

[HighPeakFox]

8 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Billionaires employ people.  If billionaires were to be banned, then what becomes of the Microsoft employees?  

Non billionaires also employ people too. 

[Leicester_Loyal]

On 29/07/2023 at 15:06, Grebfromgrebland said:

They were only useless because making them useless was a deliberate ploy to say that privatisation is the only way to fix it.

 

The running down of services is classic policy prior to manufacturing consent.

 

The other reason for poor services is the outright blatant corruption from the regulators and those who negotiate the contracts of service where profits are guaranteed by the tax payer, risk is guaranteed by the tax payer and even massive subsidies are given.

 

Then profits don't have to be reinvested or even taxed.  This leads to poor energy security, food security as well as jeopardising our water security. 

 

Privatisation is a scam supported by a brainwashed weary population who can't imagine another way.

 

You seem to be a clever person so I know that you don't actually believe what you just typed.

 

 

It's happening right now in the rail industry on a daily basis. The latest one, close all the ticket offices or most of them, then come out with figures stating 'over 90% of tickets are bought via machine or online', well yeah because most people don't have a choice to buy one anywhere else anymore.

[dsr-burnley]

48 minutes ago, Babylon said:

They become employed by multi millionaires, rather than billionaires. 

Except the reason Bill Gates is a billionaire is because Microsoft is worth so much.  If it had never been allowed to grow to billion-dollar status, it would employ a lot fewer people.

[dsr-burnley]

42 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

It's happening right now in the rail industry on a daily basis. The latest one, close all the ticket offices or most of them, then come out with figures stating 'over 90% of tickets are bought via machine or online', well yeah because most people don't have a choice to buy one anywhere else anymore.

Agreed.  And that's not a new concept either - remember the Beeching axe?  They ran down the branch lines on purpose before counting the passengers.

[Guest Mee-9]

I'm not one to be too political, but paying extortionate amounts to fund my tomato sauce addiction is infuriating. Only Heinz will do. 

 

Might get hooked on crack, it's probably cheaper. 

[Babylon]

13 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Except the reason Bill Gates is a billionaire is because Microsoft is worth so much.  If it had never been allowed to grow to billion-dollar status, it would employ a lot fewer people.

Nobody is saying don't let companies reach that status are they?

 

The reality is, it's impossible to police as few billionaires are actually cash rich, they generally own shares in their own company which makes them worth a billion on paper alone. 

 

If and when they decided to cash in, then there is the argument, how much do you need and capital gains should be way way more. 

[fox_up_north]

A free market, private company, can make as much as it makes. If it's computers, cars, bikes, whatever. It can employ people and so on.

 

But there is absolutely no reason for one person to have the wealth of around 33,000 people. What purpose does it serve, just sitting and being hoarded when it could make those 33,000 lives better?

[HighPeakFox]

6 minutes ago, fox_up_north said:

A free market, private company, can make as much as it makes. If it's computers, cars, bikes, whatever. It can employ people and so on.

 

But there is absolutely no reason for one person to have the wealth of around 33,000 people. What purpose does it serve, just sitting and being hoarded when it could make those 33,000 lives better?

Careful, you'll be called a woke, Commie libtard with this kind of unhappy talk. 

[Leicester_Loyal]

1 hour ago, Mee-9 said:

I'm not one to be too political, but paying extortionate amounts to fund my tomato sauce addiction is infuriating. Only Heinz will do. 

 

Might get hooked on crack, it's probably cheaper. 

I was always the same, try something different and stick with it for a couple of weeks and you'll be on it for life. Aldis one is nice, but now I'm on the Asda brand and it saves me a few quid every month.

[Guest Mee-9]

38 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

I was always the same, try something different and stick with it for a couple of weeks and you'll be on it for life. Aldis one is nice, but now I'm on the Asda brand and it saves me a few quid every month.

You know what I'm exactly the same. Had a brief flirtation with Daddies Ketchup, but when I told the wife that I'm consuming Daddies Ketchup she looked at me in a very strange way. 

 

The Aldi one is half decent, i'll give you that. 

[fox_up_north]

1 hour ago, HighPeakFox said:

Careful, you'll be called a woke, Commie libtard with this kind of unhappy talk. 

The irony is, I'm not even that leftwing. On a number of issues, including law and order, I'd be considered centre-right. 

 

I'm also perfectly happy with people being rich. Wanna live in a big mansion and wear expensive clothes and Swiss watch? Go for it. Doesn't impress me but whatever.

 

I just don't want it to be at the expense of plenty of other people, who don't actually need that much to make their lives (and society) better.

[leicsmac]

Edit: That's what happens when you have multiple FT tabs open at the same time.

Edited 31 July 2023 by leicsmac

[Lionator]

Is anyone else experiencing redundancies around them at the moment? Had 3 friends lose their jobs in 3 different sectors over the past month. 

[Wymsey]

13 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Is anyone else experiencing redundancies around them at the moment? Had 3 friends lose their jobs in 3 different sectors over the past month. 

Are any of them due to AI developments?

[FoxesDeb]

We were planning to come and house sit in the UK for a month in January, we thought we could visit family. We've changed our minds.  Even after the travel costs, the difference in the cost of fuel, supermarket shopping, eating out, everything is just so much more expensive in the UK, and the quality is worse, so we just can't justify it, and that's before you factor in the completely shit weather and the fact that everyone over there is so fvcking miserable. We will stay here and fly people over instead, it will work out cheaper overall and hopefully everyone will be a bit happier for it too 

[Zear0]

30 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

Are any of them due to AI developments?

I've moved the individuals onto different roles, but our data and business analysts are no more. Completely blindsided me the speed and ease of AI deployment.