Poll: Poll: Prime Minister Theresa May calls General Election on June 8th

[Lartyconshayo]

eh? RDM was talking about the post office..

my point was he claimed nationalisation has no place in the modern economy - yet plenty of other foreign owned state companies run parts of UK infrastructure

 

[dowie]

my point was he claimed nationalisation has no place in the modern economy - yet plenty of other foreign owned state companies run parts of UK infrastructure

you should make use of the quote facility, regardless he didn't state that in the post I'm referring to but spoke about Royal Mail

It is the small things that can make a difference. For me I think it is the nationalisation of the Royal Mail which shows just how out of touch Corbyn is. We are living in the 21st Century and the Royal Mail is no longer the essential service it was, it is likely to get less important rather than more and yet it is deemed important enough to need renationalisation. There is zero vision in Labour's manifesto, it is harkening back to an industrial nation in a post industrial world. Corbyn is wedded to a late 19th Century ideology that just doesn't really make sense in today's world.

 

[Lartyconshayo]

I don't think @RDM meant out of touch with the electorate but rather with the modern economy

I inferred from that you were talking about nationalisation as a whole using RM as an example

 

[Kenai]

you're talking about your personal issue with your friends - I'm talking about people criticising the UK's approach to negotiation - in terms of negotiation it would be stupid to give away concessions unilaterally

if you're criticising based on a selfish/emotive perspective i.e. you're only interested in your personal friends and don't give a stuff about the wider impact on UK citizens overseas and are up front about that then no I'd not say that is clueless. In that instance you appreciate why the UK has acted as it has but don't care as you place more importance on your friends for personal reasons rather than the wider picture the government has to consider.

It's not completely a 'stuff you' attitude to expats but the way I see it, I can effectively take one of two positions.

I can support my friends here, feel bad that I don't have opportunity to positively influence the treatment of expats abroad and hope that once negotiations start the EU would be reasonable and match the gesture.

Or I can support neither and leave their fate to a government I see as more interested in itself than it's population. A government already pledging to make life more difficult for EU nationals even if they are allowed to continue living here past 2019.

If I could support both, I would. It's fundamentally not fair to turn decades of people's lives upside down, just for political tit-for-tat that won't affect any of the people engaging in that tit-for-tat.

Personally, it barely even registers as a choice for me.

 

[RDM]

my point was he claimed nationalisation has no place in the modern economy - yet plenty of other foreign owned state companies run parts of UK infrastructure

I inferred from that you were talking about nationalisation as a whole using RM as an example

I didn't claim nationalisation has no place in the modern economy, the case can be made for any strategic business where competition is limited or where a local monopoly is either desirable or necessary. The Royal Mail isn't such a business any more, the world has moved on.

I was using that as an example of how mired in the past Corbyn is. But then his political ideology is one from the late 19th Century so what do you expect?

 

[VincentHanna]

Just a comment on rail. The UK could not afford re-nationalisation of the railways. Nationalisation would lead to higher fares to pay for public pensions which are more costly to the economy than private pensions. Unions would be stronger and more militant so strikes would be more common. It's a nice idea that nationalisation would result in a better rail service but in reality it just wouldn't and be even more burdensome on the UK budget.

It won't cost much at all because when the current contracts/tenders expire they simply bring each line back under state control.

Pensions won't magically increase and strikes already affect lines.

 

[VincentHanna]

Conservatives inherited a screwed economy from Labour so of course it's cost loads.

2008
world financial crisis

Ring a bell?

 

[Vonhelmet]

I wouldn't advocate nationalising the Royal Mail either. It's done, game over. They exist for birthday and Christmas cards. Email and couriers are killing them for everything else.

 

[scorza]

Companies pay corporation tax so ditch employer NI and raise corporation tax to compensate.

Companies don't pay as much corporation tax as they should do as it's too easy to avoid. Unfortunately we need to look at ways of taxing economic activity that companies can't avoid so easily to make up the short-fall.

Just a comment on rail. The UK could not afford re-nationalisation of the railways. Nationalisation would lead to higher fares to pay for public pensions which are more costly to the economy than private pensions. Unions would be stronger and more militant so strikes would be more common. It's a nice idea that nationalisation would result in a better rail service but in reality it just wouldn't and be even more burdensome on the UK budget.

Our network is much older than that of Europe. Ours wasn't pretty much obliterated during world war 2. Europe's rail network is far more efficient than ours because it's really only half the age of ours. The cost to start again for the UK would be too expensive.

Just to point out that the UK can nationalise the railways without paying a penny - just wait for the franchise terms to expire and don't re-tender them. When the East Coast Mainline returned to public ownership because the private company wasn't making enough money, the publicly owned franchise was the best performing across the whole network. I'd like to see at least one of the franchises return to public hands - public sector usually performs incredibly well when it has to compete with the private sector.

 

[Greebo]

That crossed my mind, but profitability doesn't always track with employee numbers. That being said, it might make sense to roll an employment related levy into the ctsa system in terms of admin and collection for simplicity's sake.

Suppose if a company with a 1000 employees wasnt paying 12.8% Employers NI they would make a lot more profit?

 

[[TW]Fox]

Just a comment on rail. The UK could not afford re-nationalisation of the railways. Nationalisation would lead to higher fares to pay for public pensions which are more costly to the economy than private pensions. Unions would be stronger and more militant so strikes would be more common. It's a nice idea that nationalisation would result in a better rail service but in reality it just wouldn't and be even more burdensome on the UK budget.

This is likely not true - the UK rail network is not true private enterprise, it receives enormous government subsidies. It's likely that the extra cost of simply not retendering franchises when they expire and allowing them to be run by Directly Operated Railways as was the case with East Coast would not be material.

 

[VincentHanna]

Suppose if a company with a 1000 employees wasnt paying 12.8% Employers NI they would make a lot more profit?

The trouble is they could just reinvest the profits in the same year and pay zero corporation tax.

 

[hurfdurf]

This is likely not true - the UK rail network is not true private enterprise, it receives enormous government subsidies. It's likely that the extra cost of simply not retendering franchises when they expire and allowing them to be run by Directly Operated Railways as was the case with East Coast would not be material.

What are the benefits of our current system? From a layman's glance it looks like a simple case of subsidising losses but allowing private companies to keep any profit.

 

[Greebo]

What are the benefits of our current system? From a layman's glance it looks like a simple case of subsidising losses but allowing private companies to keep any profit.

Yep. That's what it looks like to me as well.

 

[hurfdurf]

Yep. That's what it looks like to me as well.

If that is the case and it turns out money is going from the private companies into the pockets of politicians for this kind of treatment, heads need to hang. I cannot stand the espousal of free market economics whilst such subsidies are in place, it is hypocrisy of the highest order.

 

[thenewoc]

2008
world financial crisis

Ring a bell?

Yes that was when Labour chose to ignore the warnings of a ballooning housing market where they turned their back on working class principles and housing became less affordable. Labour rather sit on it's hands and reap higher tax receipts from an over heating property market to help pay for their grandiose non costed plans to drive the country into an economic brick wall and leave the nation including the working class to foot the bill through long term austerity.

 

[Freakbro]

Yes that was when Labour chose to ignore the warnings of a ballooning housing market where they turned their back on working class principles and housing became less affordable. Labour rather sit on it's hands and reap higher tax receipts from an over heating property market to help pay for their grandiose non costed plans to drive the country into an economic brick wall and leave the nation including the working class to foot the bill through long term austerity.

Right, so it doesn't ring a bell to you then

 

[mrbios]

and leave the nation including the working class to foot the bill through long term austerity.

Labour are proposing that they'll get nearly £20bn from reversing the cuts to corporation tax...the working class didn't have to foot the bill, the tories chose to make them foot the bill.

 

[Kenai]

Right, so it doesn't ring a bell to you then

It's no wonder there was such Brexit support if people think the UK government was powerful enough to cause a global financial meltdown single handedly

 

[crinkleshoes]

Yes that was when Labour chose to ignore the warnings of a ballooning housing market where they turned their back on working class principles and housing became less affordable. Labour rather sit on it's hands and reap higher tax receipts from an over heating property market to help pay for their grandiose non costed plans to drive the country into an economic brick wall and leave the nation including the working class to foot the bill through long term austerity.

And yet the Cons have increased taxes through back handed means far more than any Labour gov since I've been alive...

Look at the Cons spending and you will see the Cons incited excessive austerity was un-necessary - they have wasted so much more money on other useless things that could have been used to continue to support the NHS, elderly, disabled, etc.