Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

Re-nationalise public utilities, transport services...NOW!


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 57 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 3 Apr 2013 17:30:14 BDT
Even the doziest, right wing loon, must see that some things need to be run as a service to the and for the....people...

Posted on 3 Apr 2013 17:40:51 BDT
#1) OK give a full list of the industries you plan to renationalise, so we know what we're discussing.

#2) <<need to be run as a service to the people>>. Why? Were these industries more efficient when nationalised? Did they give a better <<service to the people>> (whatever that means) than they do today?

Posted on 3 Apr 2013 17:52:46 BDT
Water, gas, electric, buses and trains.

Forget the past, that is irrelevant. The question is would they work better now if they were not run for profit? I think yes.

Posted on 3 Apr 2013 18:22:23 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 18:32:37 BDT
Logic....the money given to shareholders can be used to reduce the charges to the public...more Spock please.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 18:46:31 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 18:49:58 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 18:55:11 BDT
Logic...explain the mechanism by which private industries are more 'efficient'? How is this achieved and why? Detail please.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 19:14:47 BDT
Let's analyse first the world of gas (a topic beloved knows all about)...if I change gas suppliers what happens...do I get different gas from a different source...or is it the same gas...then electric...if I change supplier do I get electricity from a different generator?...water...water...everywhere...a need...a human need...NOT something to make profit from...silly...

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 19:21:50 BDT
The funty pens,

<<Let's analyse first the world of gas (a topic beloved knows all about) >>

Funty you are an irrepressible wit.

OK Funty, tell me whether or not the real price of gas to consumers has risen, fallen or what, since denationalisation.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 19:24:45 BDT
Irrelevant....read my post....explain what this competition is?....

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 19:28:48 BDT
Also think how much cheaper it would be if we weren't lining shareholders pockets with totally unearned income....

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 19:39:34 BDT
Last edited by the author on 3 Apr 2013 19:40:08 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 19:46:19 BDT
No...that doesn't work does it...you are not asking the right questions...perhaps you have no answer?....you don't want to see the logic...why could these utilities not be run by the state?...what would be different?...explain...

Posted on 3 Apr 2013 20:25:21 BDT
"you are not asking the right questions"

He caught you with a question you couldn't answer, you mean.

Posted on 3 Apr 2013 21:34:20 BDT
Spin says:
Ensure physical and intellectual perfection.. Hmmm...Where have I heard that before?...

Posted on 3 Apr 2013 23:39:15 BDT
The One says:
If the utilities are efficient now and transferred to Public ownership next week, why would they become less efficient?

It wouldn't. It would only become inefficient when politicians start using utilities to employ thousands of people to do non-jobs in order to reduce the unemployment in UK.

However each company has their own headquarters, marketing departments, accounts departments, etc. If those companies were owned by the Public then 1 company is all we need to serve the UK and thus 1 head-quarter, 1 marketing department, 1 account department, therefore logic says that under public ownership it would be more efficient.

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Apr 2013 04:50:07 BDT
The One recognises a "truth"....nice...

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Apr 2013 07:17:27 BDT
easytiger says:
But it wouldn't have to compete with anybody would it- a state monopoly. I remember them well. Breaking down your door to switch off the lecky and gas if you were two weeks late with the bill, waiting 2 months for a landline etc.Happy days? I think not.

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Apr 2013 07:21:12 BDT
More saddo past thinking....we will never fly...why....cos no one has....thinking of the herd...pre the Wright bros.

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Apr 2013 07:22:25 BDT
Why should it 'compete'?..the army has no competition...it serves a higher purpose than making profit.

Posted on 4 Apr 2013 07:41:29 BDT
easytiger says:
It's called hindsight dearie. State run monopolies defy the laws of evolution; they turn into dinosaurs which have to regularly revived with large injections of taxpayers money.

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Apr 2013 08:37:23 BDT
The One says:
It doesn't need to compete as serving the public, all it needs to do is offer the lowest possible price.

Past state monopoly was bad as the politicians/unions kept interfering thus keep the politicians/unions out and it will be ok.

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Apr 2013 08:42:03 BDT
easytiger says:
How can you have a state monopoly without politicians/unions?

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Apr 2013 09:43:24 BDT
Last edited by the author on 4 Apr 2013 23:01:11 BDT
Funty shouts,

<<Logic....the money given to shareholders can be used to reduce the charges to the public...more Spock please>>

When they were nationalised Ukey govs starved utilities of investment. Private utility companies raise investment funds by issuing new share capital, profits are the price of that capital. How would you guarantee that govs invested sufficient money in these industries when they didn't before?

If the utilities were renationalised next week, the gov would have to borrow money, at interest, for investment to replace that provided by shareholders.

Btw where will the money come from to buy back the nationalised industries? Are you planning expropriation without compensation?
‹ Previous 1 2 3 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  9
Total posts:  57
Initial post:  3 Apr 2013
Latest post:  13 Apr 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions