Off Topic Political Debate

The private finance element is interesting though... the private companies invest to make a profit later.... Ultimately we the consumers pay.

Meanwhile the current Govt is partnering with Chinese investors to build a nuclear power station..... they make a profit..... we pay.

 

Of course there is an alternative method to fund these - PFI, that has been a huge success under a Labour Government, check out how much the PFI hospitals and schools are costing the tax payer.
I wonder all of those complaining about being without Broadband for a couple of hours remember when the phone lines were managed by the GPO - It took 6 months to get a phone line!

 

I'm not sure why a company making a profit is a bad thing. Mention private companies working within the NHS and there is almost hysteria. In France, a socialist country, it is normal for the state system to be intertwined with private enterprises. One of the best examples in France is the ease in which thorough blood tests can be bought, swiftly and relatively cheaply.

 

The electricity market is becoming dominated in the UK by EDF a nationalized French company.

Abellio a arm of the Dutch national rail company runs Scot Rail, . Arriva, which is owned by Germany’s Deutsche Bahn, runs five UK rail contracts, including CrossCountry and Arriva Trains Wales, while Keolis, controlled by the French state rail company SNCF, is the joint operator of four franchises, including Southeastern and London Midland. The latter is also shortlisted for the London-to-Edinburgh east coast route in a joint bid with SNCF-backed Eurostar.

There is nationalization, but not by the UK government. Not that sure how the country could ever pay off these operators if they thought of taking it back.

 

Well how do we then pay for new schools and hospitals?

On your second point the world of technology has changed significantly... nothing to do with ownership....

The farce of multiple ownership of the telecomms industry means I now have to have three companies supplying the three phone services to our house BT, Virgin and Sky, all of whom make a profit out of me. No one told me that whilst my phone number was portable it was actually 'owned' by the company I first signed up with... hence I had to re- sign with my 'old' company and then get my old number (business) out of a pool..... Three weeks of phone hell.

 

A farce.... brought on by ideology???

 

New schools and hospitals should be funded from taxation but using private companies to do the work, but these companies need to provide a profit. If you have competent people doing the RFT's and drive well structured Cost + contracts, good deals can be struck. Trouble is that state procurement is not very variable - it's even worse at the MOD. I read a long time ago that whilst Israel has a similar defence budget to the UK, the UK has 10 times as many people working in procurement as Israel does.
In the world of State Socialism in New New Labour, where does state control end? State Builders, State Telecom's providers, State IT companies?

You now have choice in your Telecom providers, why not rationalise to 1? I am just doing my annual energy provider change and will save approx. £250 over the next 12 months by moving. In the summer I will being doing my annual Broadband switch as well.

 

The coalition in 2010 inherited a massive blackhole in defence spending, something like 30-40 billion. No wonder Liam Byrne, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, left his 'no money left' note.

Osborne has had to sell off some of the UK's assets to correct incompetence such as this.

 

First comments make sense to me.

I dont buy State Socialism as you put it. On the other hand I dont support selling off all our assets and having a streamlined state with the minimum of services. I believe the state should profit not provide companies and that profits should benefit the population. I remember the good old days of the GLC... not sure any of us want to go back to that. So there has to be for me a middle ground with the best of both worlds.

Re Telecoms Right in a twist here and not sure how to go with it. Three phone lines all with 'saved' numbers plus one broadband provider. If I change I will seemingly lose one or more numbers and/or email addresses which are needed from my business and family contacts. (Would welcome any advice on how to streamline and will look into what is really possible).

 

[QUOTE="oldfrenchhorn, post: 9077596, member: 1000816" ] EDF [/QUOTE]

We changed to EDF a couple of years back. I am sure they are profiting from my bills.... to prop yours up Frenchie?

 

At least Sturgeon has the sense to see by Scotland raising the top rate of tax it will actually result in a decrease of revenue by £30 million a year. There is a concern that the top 1% of earners, who pay more than a fifth of the income tax total, are often more mobile.

 

State Socialism is my way to differentiate the Socialism of New New Labour of Comrade Corbyn who would honour the principles of "controlling the means to Production" and "owning the creation of wealth" and the Socialism of New Labour Blair and Brown. Behind the campaign to get Comrade Corbyn is the modern day version of Militant Tendency..these are very much State Socialists

 

They managed to produce manifestos without the word 'socialism' in them. Not considered socialists by many on the left of the spectrum.

 

My wife was recently very ill and needed immediate ambulance blues and twos transport to hospital. When we got there, the ambulance entrance was blocked.
"I know why that bugger is there!" said the driver of our privately-owned ambulance, about another company's ambulance who was not taking the opportunity of taking an alternative route to the hospital entrance and so was blocking all ambulances' access to the hospital, " 'course he's happy to sit in a queue, he's paid by the hour, not like us!" So our ambulance mounted the pavement to gain access.
I'm glad he did but it is one example of how people will selfishly turn what should be a clinical decision into a financial one.
I don't see the benefit to the country of a privatised ambulance service. Other than dogma.

 

Thanks for getting back on this, SH.
But the point I'm making is not that people may leave Scotland, but that recognising that a system has to be paid for to improve, as the lot of Watford has/will due to Sky money (as you rightly point out), is very similar to paying tax equitably to enable a government to fund improvements to things like the NHS and education.

 

I fully agree that services need to be paid for, it is easy to compare the excellent well funded french system compared to the NHS. I would like to make two points, firstly if you have high tax rates, up to 60%, (50% tax plus NI) it has a negative effect on fund raising by removing the incentive to work more. Secondly there is tremendous scope to improve the NHS by more private involvement as again proved by the french system. I have quite a bit of experience dealing with the NHS and unfortunately there is still considerable waste in resources and opportunities. We should not be restricted by the dogma of total state control only.

 

I would agree that dogma should not dictate. I have seen both state and private enterprise waste money horrendously, I'm sure we all have.
Re the income tax there is a disincentive to work if tax is too high, equally there is a disincentive to work if tax is too low - I'll work fewer hours but still receive same net pay.

 

That is sort of one of my points - but if you asked B&B, Baron Mandelson & Campbell, they would maintain they are good Socialists. So what is the description of Socialism?

 

Ask Cologne, he knows all about socialism.