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. SPG

    Soldato

    Joined: Jul 28, 2010

    Posts: 5,292

    Poor people pay taxes, the majority never get into trouble, they just knuckle down and try and get on with life and work hard, just because your cleaning a toilet doesn't mean your not working.
     
  2. SPG

    Soldato

    Joined: Jul 28, 2010

    Posts: 5,292

    Exactly the same as your point of view and that YOUR way of doing things is the only way, except it is not and yet you are willing to try nothing else as it means you will lose out a little. So you can hide behind grand statements of irrationality and hatred when the system we currently have and the one that you believe in and pretty much worship, is actually the root cause of it all.....
     
  3. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 46,550

    Location: Plymouth

    I oppose arbitrary discrimination by the state. You don't. It isn't complicated. I could no more accept your special pleading as to why your arbitrary discrimination is valid than I would accept it from any other group that wants to punish people or treat them differently for irrelevant reasons.

    I'm fully comfortable that you don't accept you are wrong, just as I acknowledge that racists, sexists etc don't acknowledge or appreciate their behaviour is wrong either. Your irrationality isn't my problem, but that doesnt mean I will shy away from exposing it.
     
  4. SPG

    Soldato

    Joined: Jul 28, 2010

    Posts: 5,292

    Yet your quite happy to demean anyone with an opposing view of your own, and throw words at them as bigot, racist etc.

    Sorry but i wont stand that from either side of the fence whether its a right winger like yourself or some other lefty on the other.

    We need a change of system, one not based on PROFIT above all else.
     
  5. ttaskmaster

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Sep 11, 2013

    Posts: 8,197

    Location: Reading, UK

    What, like deciding that people who didn't pay their water bill could no longer be cut off?
    Yeah, great plan. Why not make all water free and just demand that only honest taxpayers take the hit?
    Better yet, have the MPs pay the bills... they could always claim that on expenses!

    Or did you mean Labour so very keenly jumping to fill government coffers via windfall taxation on this evil industry, once the Tories had privatised it and already paved the way... or encouraging outside investment from new markets in product development and ballast water treatment, like the Tories had already enabled when they privatised the industry and opened it to the global market that the corporate ownership brought?
    Shame they didn't think to do that in 2008 as well, when it was really needed, eh?

    Then again, Labour didn't want to renationalise the railways as it was too expensive, although they had just sold off our gold reserves at a ridiculously low price, so we probably couldn't have afforded it anyway.....

    What, the mid 1960s, you mean? :p
    As a reminder, Labour in 1974 regionalised the water authorities and then funded and invested so little, that the UK was eventually prosecuted for its abysmal water quality. This lack of investment and the resulting cost of bringing things up to standard is why the Conservatives ended up privatising the industry and passing the bill instead of trying to find that insane amount of money themselves.

    Both parties have done serious damage.
    Whichever one you vote for will have to un-**** the damage done by the other's time in power, or create some kind of distracting focus on a completely different aspect of life.

    Either way, RED or BLUE, are these people really the retards you want in charge of a nationalised service?
     
  6. Mercenary Keyboard Warrior

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Aug 4, 2007

    Posts: 8,369

    Location: Wilds of suffolk

    As Dolph (iirc) has pointed out there is a big difference between state run and state owned.
    As much as i am right of centre, in the cases of utilities I would prefer state owned, but not state run.

    There would be no simple model that could be applied to all, but I would rather they be state owned and non-politically run than any other option I could see.
    They should probably be run by stakeholders in collective.
     
  7. Tony Edwards

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Feb 4, 2018

    Posts: 2,421

    Is that right?
     
  8. DarkHorizon472

    Mobster

    Joined: May 16, 2007

    Posts: 2,696

    My view is simply workout what you are trying to achieve and avoid, then choose the best fit option. Monopolies rarely drive innovation, efficiency, value for money and usually become complacent or abuse their monopoly position. This applies equally to public or private just in different ways which is why in almost all markets you need the right balance and type of public and private involvement.
     
  9. Bear

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 24, 2002

    Posts: 12,247

    Location: Bucks and Edinburgh

    No far from it, I was only flipping the arguement as an illustration, you only read into what you wanted to read from your own bias. I dont have a chip on my shoulder about the rich or poor. I dont accept that all people that are well off are self serving Im alright Jack type people anymore than I think all poor people are useless loafers but as soon as I flipped the arguement you confirmed your bias by attacking one and not the other.

    Yes the wealthy pay more taxes because they make the most amount of money, only you fail to grasp that point else why would you want to slate them when they are paying for your services. There isnt any element of being grateful that people are getting services for nothing only hatred that they have more and you want more of it.


    You talk about a horrible divide and conquer and you are doing it yourself only from the other direction only you are too blind to see it. What if that rich man with the biscuits provides all the funds via debt and takes all the risk providing jobs. You would say that man has all the biscuits when we do all the work, we should have more of the biscuits setting up an us and them. If the workers want to own the means of production and reap the rewards, then stump up the cash and suffer the risk
     
  10. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 46,550

    Location: Plymouth

    You want a more restrictive system, that allows you to punish people, we get ot
     
  11. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 62,211

    But they "aren't" the problem so they don't see an issue with this - unfortunately for some reason these kind of things are highly polarised and few truly want to work towards a better overall balance.
     
  12. SPG

    Soldato

    Joined: Jul 28, 2010

    Posts: 5,292

    You call it punish, i call it equality, I get it.
     
  13. Tony Edwards

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Feb 4, 2018

    Posts: 2,421

    I think you may have me confused with someone else. Im not slatting the wealthy.
    Thank you kindly sir. Would some cap doffing make you feel better?

    Services for nothing, seriously? Who are you talking about there?
    That is exactly what Labour are planning on doing.
    Tax is a punishment?
     
  14. Bear

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 24, 2002

    Posts: 12,247

    Location: Bucks and Edinburgh

    People that arent net contributors of tax are getting at least some services for nothing if not the majority. Just because someone pays a few quid in tax a month doesnt mean they pay for the services they use. Seeing as the majority arent net contributors many are getting services for nothing
     
  15. ttaskmaster

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Sep 11, 2013

    Posts: 8,197

    Location: Reading, UK

    Well... yeah... 60% of the gold reserves sold off by Brown, about a year before he announced that renationalisation would cost £22 billion and that if they had that kind of cash, it'd used for hospitals and schools first.
    So yeah, we couldn't afford it. Brown said so. No way he's lying, right? Labour would never do that......!!
     
  16. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 46,550

    Location: Plymouth

    If you think treating people differently for arbitrary reasons is equality, then you clearly don't understand the term.

    Still, at least you share the same defective thought process as those who supported segregation and apartheid.
     
  17. Tony Edwards

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Feb 4, 2018

    Posts: 2,421

     
  18. Bear

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 24, 2002

    Posts: 12,247

    Location: Bucks and Edinburgh

    Not sure you made any point there. You seemed to disbelieve that people were getting any services for nothing, you were wrong.
     
  19. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 46,550

    Location: Plymouth

    If you don't understand how equal treatment can lead to unequal outcomes, then the problem sits with you.

    A system of universal entitlements and flat tax rates will still produce net payers and net recipients.
     
  20. DarkHorizon472

    Mobster

    Joined: May 16, 2007

    Posts: 2,696

    Where you have to be careful is to see it as an investment in society and not simply as a financial transaction. This does not mean a limitless “money tree”.