1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Labour unveils National Grid takeover plan - your thoughts?

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by SDK^, May 16, 2019.

  1. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 39,083

    That sounds like a bit of a hand wavy explanation - what is it actually based on in this particular case with regards to quality of service and prices shooting through the roof (with respect to any impact the national grid has had on them)?

    As for the government absorbing losses - it isn't like the government is some foreign entity, it is taxpayers, ultimately, covering any losses.
     
  2. DarkHorizon472

    Mobster

    Joined: May 16, 2007

    Posts: 2,695

    Where we have to be careful is the assumption private sector good public sector bad. It is simply a case of what balance of both works best. If it is looked at objectively there are examples of both performing very well and very poorly, these need to be understood to see what the best answer is in any case.
     
  3. FoxEye

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 17, 2006

    Posts: 19,951

    Location: Cornwall

    Can't see Labour getting into power at any time in the next decade. By which time their ideas will likely be totally different, having decided that this skin isn't appealing to voters so shedding it for the next one.

    I think Labour have so completely lost their identity that the biggest challenge for them is deciding what they stand for as a party. I can't see them getting anywhere near power whilst a large chunk of their MPs hate Corbyn and everything he stands for, lol.

    The local elections showed how far away they are from winning an election. The Tories bled seats but didn't lose them to Labour... lost them to just about everyone else. Labour even managed to lose seats themselves!
     
  4. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 39,083

    The assumption in this case was private sector bad. The question is why is that the case in this particular instance?
     
  5. FoxEye

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 17, 2006

    Posts: 19,951

    Location: Cornwall

    Out of curiosity (and feel free to tell me to do my own homework...) how many other countries (esp western/eu countries) have allowed their critical infrastructure to rest in private hands?

    Isn't even our nuclear deterrent privately owned?!
     
  6. FortuitousFluke

    Mobster

    Joined: Jul 7, 2011

    Posts: 3,421

    Location: Cambridgeshire

    It's not privately owned but I believe some of the operational contracts were outsourced to Serco.

    It is committed to NATO however.

    I could be way off with this but that's my understanding.
     
  7. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 46,550

    Location: Plymouth

    Most of them? Certainly almost none of them ran them the way we used to, and Corbyn plans to do again, as there is a clear distinction between state owned and state run.

    No.
     
  8. Mercenary Keyboard Warrior

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Aug 4, 2007

    Posts: 8,368

    Location: Wilds of suffolk

    I agree with Dolph on this the model isnt the issue really.

    Getting back to NG (i think its got different issues to water), having the backbone in public control isn't too bad. Its blatantly obvious that if this isn't working it will be transparent since if the grid is failing your going to have black outs, surges etc.

    Private companies will always aim to maximise profits, so you need an environment thats keeps them in order. A badly run one will always struggle against a well run one. They can attempt to maximise profits but if they are managed badly they will not achieve high profits.

    I wouldn't be adverse to seeing the majority of electricity in public hands, but with the "regions" or whatever they decided to chop it up into in competition.
     
  9. PlacidCasual

    Soldato

    Joined: May 13, 2003

    Posts: 5,756

    Transmission is a National monopoly, distribution is regional monopolies and generation has been chopped up into a complete mishmash of barely sustainable businesses.
     
  10. SPG

    Soldato

    Joined: Jul 28, 2010

    Posts: 5,291

    Water is a good start, same as power in the 2nd return.

    I do wonder if a flat rate model where your bill is taxed at source could work based on your salary band.... (that will upset the Tory rich) so i am all for it.
     
  11. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 62,198

    So rich people will start putting their electricity/water in someone else's name to get it cheaper? and if you start tying it to the homeowner etc. that is going to get very complicated for people who are doing the right thing but doing things like letting someone else live in their house, etc.
     
  12. SPG

    Soldato

    Joined: Jul 28, 2010

    Posts: 5,291

    You earn you pay, you claim benefit you pay only those not in the system get free electricity.


    So you live in someone else`s house do you not use power then ........... oh wait.
     
  13. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 62,198

    There are load of people living in situations like a relative having a spare home for whatever reason that they live in for cheap rent and pay their own bills and might be on a very different salary to the homeowner - rich people will take advantage of stuff like that to get their electricity/water cheap by putting those bills in someone else's name who is earning a lower salary.
     
  14. balls

    Wise Guy

    Joined: May 20, 2007

    Posts: 1,173

    Location: Bath, Somerset

    or anyone who's rich
     
  15. SPG

    Soldato

    Joined: Jul 28, 2010

    Posts: 5,291

    Yet your points are what ? Aside from keeping your own wealth in your own pockets, Yet we have a generation on food banks, Kids having to be fed by teachers as no food at home.

    The system has failed this country, failed it big time. The chance was given for equality yet its been abused by greed, greed of the self and the greed of corporations.

    Radical change is required and unless capitalism can sort it self out (which it wont due to A - Greed) then somethings need to be brought back for the benefit of all.
     
  16. D.P.

    Caporegime

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 29,966

    even better then, means-based taxation to support national infrastructure that benefits everyone.
     
  17. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 46,550

    Location: Plymouth

    What an utterly idiotic and abusive idea. Still, ar for the course I guess. Bigots will always be bigots, only the target varies.
     
  18. SPG

    Soldato

    Joined: Jul 28, 2010

    Posts: 5,291

    Your system has failed, it is crumbling at the seems, inequality is driving the world apart.

    We need radical policy to combat the failed policys of Thatcher and the generation of cronies that worship her ideology as the only true way.

    Y
     
  19. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 46,550

    Location: Plymouth

    Spoken like a true fascist. Just impose arbitrary rules and punishments as long as they impact 'others'.

    As I said, the only difference between you and every other hateful bigot is... Well, nothing. They believe their purpose is just, in exactly the same way you do. It still makes them a bigoted moron.
     
  20. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 62,198

    The point is the system you are proposing - like many left leaning ideas - can't work - the greedy will think nothing of working around it as I mentioned and those hit hardest will be the hard working people who've been doing the "right thing" all their lives.