|
-
McDonnell has a plan.
John McDonnell: Labour public ownership plan will cost nothing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43014861
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
Check Todays Deals on Ebay.co.uk
Check Todays Deals On Amazon.co.uk
-
Originally Posted by Hamble
Some nationalisation will genuinely have no immediate cost, all rail services are on a timed contract, although it is becoming clear that private companies are more than happy to walk away if the contract doesn't suit, but in any event as each franchise comes up for a new contract, just keep the franchise, re-employ 99% of staff just dumping the fat cats and shareholders, job done, in the case of utilities, particularly the water companies, scrap the tax breaks they have enjoyed, they will be happy to dump the whole thing.
Remember all the skills required to keep these jobs rolling are already in the companies, but each company does not need a gaggle of senior execs on ridiculous pay just to manipulate the money, shareholders will of course own nothing.
Tories constantly point to British Rail as the classic example of a nationalised industry was failing, the truth is that Tory governments in particular had woefully and willfully underfunded the railways, then claimed it wasn't fit for purpose, instead the government pump more money in as subsidy to private companies than British Rail ever saw, when serious investment is needed, surprise, surprise it is again government (taxpayer's) money that pays the bills, if we are to fund and subsidise these alleged private companies, then we may just as well fund the operation direct and cut out the profit take.
Before I get the standard Tory cry that I and others like me are anti business or anti profit, totally wrong, what I am anti is public money being used as a profit stream for private pockets, if a private company operating on it's own funding produces a healthy profit, good on them, they earned it, but where the taxpayer is funding the investment, providing a subsidy, whether in tax breaks or direct, that company should not be paying out huge sums to the alleged senior execs or shareholders.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by silver fox
Some nationalisation will genuinely have no immediate cost, all rail services are on a timed contract, although it is becoming clear that private companies are more than happy to walk away if the contract doesn't suit, but in any event as each franchise comes up for a new contract, just keep the franchise, re-employ 99% of staff just dumping the fat cats and shareholders, job done, in the case of utilities, particularly the water companies, scrap the tax breaks they have enjoyed, they will be happy to dump the whole thing.
Remember all the skills required to keep these jobs rolling are already in the companies, but each company does not need a gaggle of senior execs on ridiculous pay just to manipulate the money, shareholders will of course own nothing.
Tories constantly point to British Rail as the classic example of a nationalised industry was failing, the truth is that Tory governments in particular had woefully and willfully underfunded the railways, then claimed it wasn't fit for purpose, instead the government pump more money in as subsidy to private companies than British Rail ever saw, when serious investment is needed, surprise, surprise it is again government (taxpayer's) money that pays the bills, if we are to fund and subsidise these alleged private companies, then we may just as well fund the operation direct and cut out the profit take.
Before I get the standard Tory cry that I and others like me are anti business or anti profit, totally wrong, what I am anti is public money being used as a profit stream for private pockets, if a private company operating on it's own funding produces a healthy profit, good on them, they earned it, but where the taxpayer is funding the investment, providing a subsidy, whether in tax breaks or direct, that company should not be paying out huge sums to the alleged senior execs or shareholders.
On paper I like the idea of Government owned utilities.
In reality the service will end up management heavy like the nhs
with too many resources and money diverted to stopping fraud.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
To be honest, I wouldn’t trust McDonnell to run a bath.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by Hamble
On paper I like the idea of Government owned utilities.
In reality the service will end up management heavy like the nhs
with too many resources and money diverted to stopping fraud.
Totally agree the NHS is management heavy. Far too much privatisation. Far too much contracting out. Too little staff stretched to the limits.
Too many immigrants at the user end of the service, not enough immigrants working in the NHS. And by that I mean immigration is healthy and essential to growth, as long as the infrastructure is in place to both absorb the extra people, and employ them.
I suppose that one argument against government owned utilities is a lack of competition. However, a couple of examples of privatisation that hasn't provided any healthy competition are our rail system and our water. Our rail system, owned mainly by state owned transport companies from other countries, is poor in comparison those country's own systems. The rolling stock varies wildly from rickety to quite comfortable (compare the Merseyrail trains to the Arriva trains to Manchester - daytime trips to Victoria are like travelling on an 1950s coach). As far as water is concerned, where is the competition? Where is the choice?
And back to the NHS: the privatisation by stealth of our most amazing gift to the public is an abomination. I'm all for healthy competition, but this isn't healthy, not by any stretch of the imagination.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by Hamble
On the face of it, this sounds like a crackpot notion - but thinking about it - can re-nationalisation of these services create any greater problems than there are under privatisation? The first consideration would be to the rail services. Many of the rail services are owned by overseas companies that are themselves publicly owned. That means that the profits and our Government subsidies go to other countries. These privatised British services are management top heavy because of it. In addition, each separate privatised company employ individual costly tax and legal bodies as opposed to one main body under nationalisation. By channelling rail services into a natural monopoly has delivered fragmentation,low investment, annual costs of £1.2bn, the most expensive train fares in Europe, and more than double the level of state subsidy than under British Rail. On the other hand, The East Coast mainline has provided a far better service under public ownership and delivered £800m to the exchequer - similarly the publicly owned Scottish Water.
The franchises for British Rail services are for a certain period only and several of these are due for renewal in the next few years - these could be brought back under nationalisation.
The general public are amazed by the power that private companies appear to have over the country - it would appear that the disastrous failures and fraud committed by certain companies is allowed to go unchecked and even more amazing is that these companies are given new contracts to boot. i.e. G4S, Atos and Serco - in what is already an £80bn business.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by justbecause
To be honest, I wouldn’t trust McDonnell to run a bath.
He is without a doubt the most deluded and dangerous man in the country.
I'm only happy when it rains....
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by Darkside
He is without a doubt the most deluded and dangerous man in the country.
What are you on about? I'm absolutely positive that he doesn't vote Tory.
When Idiots talk about Rees-Mogg being Leader of the Nasty Party that really IS DANGEROUS.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by Toodles McGinty
Totally agree the NHS is management heavy. Far too much privatisation. Far too much contracting out. Too little staff stretched to the limits.
Too many immigrants at the user end of the service, not enough immigrants working in the NHS. And by that I mean immigration is healthy and essential to growth, as long as the infrastructure is in place to both absorb the extra people, and employ them.
I suppose that one argument against government owned utilities is a lack of competition. However, a couple of examples of privatisation that hasn't provided any healthy competition are our rail system and our water. Our rail system, owned mainly by state owned transport companies from other countries, is poor in comparison those country's own systems. The rolling stock varies wildly from rickety to quite comfortable (compare the Merseyrail trains to the Arriva trains to Manchester - daytime trips to Victoria are like travelling on an 1950s coach). As far as water is concerned, where is the competition? Where is the choice?
And back to the NHS: the privatisation by stealth of our most amazing gift to the public is an abomination. I'm all for healthy competition, but this isn't healthy, not by any stretch of the imagination.
Gp's are 'privatised'.
Eventually I am sure they will be State nhs Gp's .
What would you rather have.
Some privatisation of the nhs or no nhs at all?
The nhs is management heavy is awful but there from necessity to control funding services and protecting assets.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by Darkside
He is without a doubt the most deluded and dangerous man in the country.
We are allegedly lookng at a triumvirate of Gove, Boris and Mogg and you think McDonnell is dangerous.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by said
On the face of it, this sounds like a crackpot notion - but thinking about it - can re-nationalisation of these services create any greater problems than there are under privatisation? The first consideration would be to the rail services. Many of the rail services are owned by overseas companies that are themselves publicly owned. That means that the profits and our Government subsidies go to other countries. These privatised British services are management top heavy because of it. In addition, each separate privatised company employ individual costly tax and legal bodies as opposed to one main body under nationalisation. By channelling rail services into a natural monopoly has delivered fragmentation,low investment, annual costs of £1.2bn, the most expensive train fares in Europe, and more than double the level of state subsidy than under British Rail. On the other hand, The East Coast mainline has provided a far better service under public ownership and delivered £800m to the exchequer - similarly the publicly owned Scottish Water.
The franchises for British Rail services are for a certain period only and several of these are due for renewal in the next few years - these could be brought back under nationalisation.
The general public are amazed by the power that private companies appear to have over the country - it would appear that the disastrous failures and fraud committed by certain companies is allowed to go unchecked and even more amazing is that these companies are given new contracts to boot. i.e. G4S, Atos and Serco - in what is already an £80bn business.
Here's a plus of privatisation - losses and litigation do not come out of the public finances.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by Little Londoner
What are you on about? I'm absolutely positive that he doesn't vote Tory.
When Idiots talk about Rees-Mogg being Leader of the Nasty Party that really IS DANGEROUS.
Mogg does not belong to Momentum or have terrorist friends.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
nhs
Quote
.........................
"Yet, in financial protection terms, the UK NHS continues to provide coverage for 100 per cent of the population. This appears to show that there is no direct effect from increased independent sector provision of healthcare on the principle of a health service that is free at the point of use. In addition, all measures of cost preventing patients from receiving care have decreased (see figure 3).
...............................
Conclusion In the context of an increasingly pressured environment across both health and social care, every area where spending is increasing needs to be rigorously evaluated. Independent sector provision of NHS healthcare has increased every year for the past five years.
This report shows that there are still a number of unknowns with regard to independent sector provision of NHS healthcare. The recommendations contained in this report are a starting point for understanding the effect that using independent sector providers of NHS care has on the NHS as a whole. They also outline exactly how important it is that independent sector providers are held to the same standards as NHS providers when providing NHS care.
Many of the recommendations laid out in this report are not new. Yet, given that nearly £7 billion is now spent on independent sector provision of NHS services each year, it is clear that several of them are long overdue.
The BMA supports a publicly funded and publicly provided NHS but we believe that these recommendations will help to ensure that, where independent sector providers are already delivering NHS care, the priority remains for them to support the NHS to deliver high quality services."
file:///C:/Users/steph/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/IE/ADJ9C08W/BMA-IndependentsectorprovisionofNHScare-18042016-2.pdf
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by Hamble
Mogg does not belong to Momentum or have terrorist friends.
D.U.P. Clean as a new pin I suppose.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by Little Londoner
D.U.P. Clean as a new pin I suppose.
Give me the DUP and its military wing any day than Labours.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
|
Search Qlocal (powered by google)
Privacy & Cookie Policy
Check Todays Deals On Amazon.co.uk
Check Todays Deals on Ebay.co.uk
Also website at southportnews.co.uk
Qlocal Supports Woodlands Animal Sanctuary
Booking.com
Supporting Local Business
Be Seen - Advertise on Qlocal
UK, Local Online News Community, Forums, Chats, For Sale, Classified, Offers, Vouchers, Events, Motors Sale, Property For Sale Rent, Jobs, Hotels, Taxi, Restaurants, Pubs, Clubs, Pictures, Sports, Charities, Lost Found
southport,
southport News,
|