Nationalisation..

[inbetween]

renationalisation of rail will not cost a penny.... we will take back the franchise agreements as and when they fall due for renewal. The lines are profitable (they would hand them back if they weren't ) the difference will be that the profit will be reinvested into rail or other infrastructure projects.

Which trains will we use? Who will run them?

If it costs zero then it will be because people are walking to work instead.

 

[urban genie]

So, NOT free then!

Do you own a car wash or some other heavy water using business?!

Instead of “free,” make DELIVERY an included cost of infrastructure, but USAGE a per liter cost. This serves to not only help pay for the cost of generating clean water, but also creates a user fee based on volume. After all, why should someone who conserves water pay as much as someone who wastes it? Water will be the new sin tax, you watch!!

Taxation is taxation, paying for a service is different.

Water should be free for all as should basic sanitation.

Industrial use is completely different to supplying every houshold with free water, I would expect my statement was simple enough to understand water and sanitation should be available to every houseshold free of charge, your taxation would include it's upkeep.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Taxation is taxation, paying for a service is different.

Water should be free for all as should basic sanitation.

Industrial use is completely different to supplying every houshold with free water, I would expect my statement was simple enough to understand water and sanitation should be available to every houseshold free of charge, your taxation would include it's upkeep.

Lest this is too difficult to understand...

NOTHING IS FREE!

So, one either pays for it in taxes (but let’s make them rich folk pay all them, eh?!) or one pays with user fees.

What I said was that the infrastructure for things should be covered by general revenues, because everybody deserves to have equal access to the basics of life and the pursuit of a better one. However, simple user fees, metered for residential vs commercial, helps conserve the water we have, which is a good thing, dontchathink?!

Conversely, of course, you could have taxes pay for all water related costs and simply let people waste water like it is actually free...and lose millions!

Yeah, let’s do that! That always works!

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

Which trains will we use? Who will run them?

If it costs zero then it will be because people are walking to work instead.

The same trains currently being used (they only repaint / rebrand them when the franchise changes). We would continue to lease them from the ROSCO's (I know its amazing isn't it ... we give the rolling stock to three companies in 1994 and then pay to lease them back ...... because Conservatives)

http://www.rail.co.uk/rail-news/2015/who-really-owns-britains-trains/

 

[urban genie]

Lest this is too difficult to understand...

NOTHING IS FREE!

So, one either pays for it in taxes (but let’s make them rich folk pay all them, eh?!) or one pays with user fees.

What I said was that the infrastructure for things should be covered by general revenues, because everybody deserves to have equal access to the basics of life and the pursuit of a better one. However, simple user fees, metered for residential vs commercial, helps conserve the water we have, which is a good thing, dontchathink?!

Conversely, of course, you could have taxes pay for all water related costs and simply let people waste water like it is actually free...and lose millions!

Yeah, let’s do that! That always works!

I saperate taxation as part of my civil duty to the upkeep to the national infrastructure, I don't class it as a payment.

VAT I think is a pisstake however in some ways

 

[ChicagoBlue]

I saperate taxation as part of my civil duty to the upkeep to the national infrastructure, I don't class it as a payment.

VAT I think is a pisstake however in some ways

I have no problem with taxation for the public good, which is why I have no problem with a national rail, road, air, and even water system. However, I think we should have to pay to use them, don’t you?

 

[urban genie]

I have no problem with taxation for the public good, which is why I have no problem with a national rail, road, air, and even water system. However, I think we should have to pay to use them, don’t you?

Yes but not water for your household and sanitastion, that should be a right for every human on the planet, accessable clean water.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Yes but not water for your household and sanitastion, that should be a right for every human on the planet, accessable clean water.

Accessible clean water - agreed.
Pay for use - apparently contentious and not agreed.

I can live with that. I’m not suggesting anyone make a profit from the use of water, but neither am I saying wasting a precious resource should be “free.”

 

[KS55]

renationalisation of rail will not cost a penny.... we will take back the franchise agreements as and when they fall due for renewal. The lines are profitable (they would hand them back if they weren't ) the difference will be that the profit will be reinvested into rail or other infrastructure projects.

Well, there's a thought.. During the period when rail was nationalised, investment fell by 30%. It was absolutely necessary to nationalise the old rail companies which were effectively bankrupt, but investment was always the problem. At the time of privatisation, Britain was 26th in Europe for investment in electrification, just behind Roumania.
You are the Chancellor, an election is due, but nationalised industries are crying out for new investment.. What to do? Put up taxes to pay for if, increase prices to users, Or put off the investment programme? Our political masters shut down a third of the rail network.
Same story with water.
Btw, EU grants paid for a significant slice of our electrification, when it finally arrived.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

I'm sorry but this is a completely pointless argument because for every good example of nationalised companies there are bad ones and vice versa for private ones.

I can say without any doubt that who owns or operates an airline makes absolutely no difference to the service you get back.

Which is exactly what I said. I said that it is entirely possible to have an effective airline that is nationalised and a private one (otherwise why would I have corrected the original poster that Qantas and Lufthansa are private?). What you said was that "every one of the top 10 airlines in the world is privately owned." Which is blatantly false and has been proven wrong on this thread.

You mention Fukushima so I will just say have you not looked at who owned and operated Chernobyl?

Yeah, a communist dictatorship hell bent on maintaining an iron grip by not showing any weakness. Whereas my example of Fukushima happened in a developed country far more similar economically to the the UK currently. Nobody is arguing that we should be running things like the Soviet Union. Plenty of people argue that having a system like modern day Japan is always more effective.

Chernobyl is a great one to read about because the pressures coming from the national government and cost cutting were considered a major contributor to the explosion.

Yes and the Fukushima reports revealed that one of the main contributors to the failure to take active safety measures was that it would leave the company vulnerable to lawsuits. Better to maintain a coherent message denying that there is any potential danger. We've seen this from private companies time and time again with smoking, sugar, use of dangerous chemicals, and plenty of other health catastrophes. Again, none of this is an argument against private companies generally being a positive thing, just against this bullshit dogmatic argument that private = good, public = bad.

Similarly with trains, as I mentioned earlier, there are countries with good private trains and countries with good national rail providers, and plenty with shit versions of each too. Nationalisation isn't the silver bullet that some think it is, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be on the table because some idiots believe that everything is better run by a private company, despite all of the evidence to the contrary.

Of course accidents, cock ups and total incompetence doesn't happen with national operators though does it?

Who said anything of the sort?

 

[KS55]

The same trains currently being used (they only repaint / rebrand them when the franchise changes). We would continue to lease them from the ROSCO's (I know its amazing isn't it ... we give the rolling stock to three companies in 1994 and then pay to lease them back ...... because Conservatives)

http://www.rail.co.uk/rail-news/2015/who-really-owns-britains-trains/

You would have to buy back the rolling stock or leave that part in private hands and lease.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

You would have to buy back the rolling stock or leave that part in private hands and lease.

How expensive could it be to buy back the 4 trains a day that Northern Rail seem to put on?

 

[urban genie]

You would have to buy back the rolling stock or leave that part in private hands and lease.

As expensive as a franchise with a load of dead weight stock they will not use again want to make from it, but they will hardly willing to want over the odds prices and lose any chance on making money from it.

Also a lot of stock is getting old, it is about time we invested in industries to build n produce new stock in britain, and utilise the skilled workforces we have when other industries shut down.

 

[aguero93:20]

The last time I read Labour's nationalisations will cost in excess of £250bn.

So okay let's ignore profit and loss however if you want those nationalisations then you have to put taxes up, make cuts elsewhere or have ticket prices priced to pay for it... Which will it be?

Assuming you will run it at a loss then you will just add to debt but the elephant in the room is we already have a debt that costs us more per year in interest than we spend on defence.

This is for the sake of what, a ticket that costs £5 instead of £15? Lol

How much profit do those nationalised industries make?

 

[KS55]

As expensive as a franchise with a load of dead weight stock they will not use again want to make from it, but they will hardly willing to want over the odds pricesand los eany chance on makin gmoney from it.

Also a lot of stock is getting old, it is about time we invested in industries to build n produce new stock in britain, and utilise the skilled workforces we have when other industries shut down.

Uk train manufacture is undergoing a revival, with new factories planned in S.Wales and the NE.
https://www.ibisworld.co.uk/industr...quipment/railway-equipment-manufacturing.html

 

[urban genie]

Uk train manufacture is undergoing a revival, with new factories planned in S.Wales and the NE.
https://www.ibisworld.co.uk/industr...quipment/railway-equipment-manufacturing.html

Well thats a good thing.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

You would have to buy back the rolling stock or leave that part in private hands and lease.

We would lease whilst replacements were being manufactured .(hopefully using UK skills and UK steel)... who would want to buy rolling stock manufactured in the 60's

 

[inbetween]

Which is exactly what I said. I said that it is entirely possible to have an effective airline that is nationalised and a private one (otherwise why would I have corrected the original poster that Qantas and Lufthansa are private?). What you said was that "every one of the top 10 airlines in the world is privately owned." Which is blatantly false and has been proven wrong on this thread.

Yeah, a communist dictatorship hell bent on maintaining an iron grip by not showing any weakness. Whereas my example of Fukushima happened in a developed country far more similar economically to the the UK currently. Nobody is arguing that we should be running things like the Soviet Union. Plenty of people argue that having a system like modern day Japan is always more effective.

Yes and the Fukushima reports revealed that one of the main contributors to the failure to take active safety measures was that it would leave the company vulnerable to lawsuits. Better to maintain a coherent message denying that there is any potential danger. We've seen this from private companies time and time again with smoking, sugar, use of dangerous chemicals, and plenty of other health catastrophes. Again, none of this is an argument against private companies generally being a positive thing, just against this bullshit dogmatic argument that private = good, public = bad.

Similarly with trains, as I mentioned earlier, there are countries with good private trains and countries with good national rail providers, and plenty with shit versions of each too. Nationalisation isn't the silver bullet that some think it is, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be on the table because some idiots believe that everything is better run by a private company, despite all of the evidence to the contrary.

Who said anything of the sort?

I never said privatisation was better, in an ideal world of course nationalisation would be better. We don't however live in an ideal world.

If I see something credible like a plan for nationalisation then I will support it. But where is this plan? So far as I can see Labour will spend £250bn on 'something' and that will apparently just give us a fully functional highly efficient and cheap rail network.

The reason why this will happen is apparently just 'because' it is nationalised, no-one knows how it will work or whether it will work but it just will work apparently!

Anyway I'm going to go and buy a new car, I know roughly how much it costs but I don't know if its in good knick or anything. It might not even have wheels, I don't even know if I can afford it or even drive it but anyway off I go to buy it! Oh I'm also using your money to do it if that's okay?

 

[sir baconface]

If the state ran a café, it would be closed 12:00 - 14:00 for staff to take their lunch. The Unions would strike, demanding an extra lunch hour hour on elf n safety grounds. Outside those hours, customers would be welcome on payment of a compulsory 25% service charge to pay for ill health early retirement at age 50. Management would be cowering in the bog, checking for a pair of bollocks in the misted mirror while secretly hoping for the same deal.

Meanwhile the regulator gives an “outstanding” rating, allows the top brass a tasty bonus and picks up an OBE for 30 years’ stagnation (excluding 5 years on paid sick leave) in a failing organisation.

Bring it fcukin on.

 

[urban genie]

If the state ran a café, it would be closed 12:00 - 14:00 for staff to take their lunch. The Unions would strike, demanding an extra lunch hour hour on elf n safety grounds. Outside those hours, customers would be welcome on payment of a compulsory 25% service charge to pay for ill health early retirement at age 50. Management would be cowering in the bog, checking for a pair of bollocks in the misted mirror while secretly hoping for the same deal.

Meanwhile the regulator gives an “outstanding” rating, allows the top brass a tasty bonus and picks up an OBE for 30 years’ stagnation (excluding 5 years on paid sick leave) in a failing organisation.

Bring it fcukin on.

Nonsense