oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,082
|
Post by oldnat on Aug 15, 2022 21:52:48 GMT
Those people obviously don't remember how utterly shambolic energy and rail in particular were when they were nationalised. My energy bills dropped a lot when they were privatised ( and of course a lot of people made a bit of money on the shares), and I believe there are now far more people using the railways than before privatisation. I'm surprised that you remember the nationalisation of energy and rail in the immediate post war years, but my parents told me that railways were really shambolic at that time under private ownership.
The private sector wasn't interested in providing an electricity supply to rural Scotland, but I still remember getting electricity through the state owned Hydro Board in the early 50s.
Scottish Water is publicly owned and far outperforms the disaster that is water and sewage provision in England.
Public ownership isn't some magic wand, of course, but neither is the privatisation that the Tories embraced and Labour didn't reverse.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Aug 15, 2022 21:58:28 GMT
oldnatOK, perhaps I should have said 'while' rather than 'when' in my first sentence. You win this round of the pedantry Olympics. đ (though I suppose I could always argue that "it's a very common usage down my way", or that English English is different to Scottish English which is your own get-out clause)
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Aug 15, 2022 22:16:10 GMT
Came to UKPR to get expert opinion on Labour's plans. In general the response seems a bit lukewarm, with the main criticisms being that it is not sufficiently targeted, and is at best a stop-gap measure. This seems a tad ungenerous to me. I like this scheme because a) I have long been wanting Labour to start saying something more definite and positive and here it is b)I am genuinely horrified at the conservative leadership debate - what on earth have tax cuts and a bonfire of the regulations that enable us to trade with the EU got to do with climate change, the cost of living crisis, the collapse of our services, looming strikes, massive inequality or other great issues of our time. At least this is a plan that would address the immediate threat of destitution caused by the fuel price rise. So yes, it is not a long-term solution for inflation or our energy problems and it does not address inequality. But as I understand it, a sizeable proportion of our national debt has interest rates linked to inflation. A non-targeted scheme will be easier to put into effect and will bring down the measures of inflation and this is key to the scheme's viability. So yes, in my view Labour should be trying to create a fairer society, and I want to know how it is going to go about that. In the meantime, however, it has to stop people freezing or starving over this coming winter and it looks to me as if this scheme will do that. It also seems to me that the government is going to have to do something very similar and I will be interested to look on UKPR to see how that will be received. Good stuff. Colin and others have endlessly whined about the lack of Labour's policies on the energy crisis. When these emerge, they are immediately rubbished because they are not sufficiently targeted, involve a certain prestidigitation about the data, etc. That amiable workhorse -- PJW1961 -- then establishes that the main element of the Tories' trageted benefits, those payable to households on benefits & pensionsers, have in fact been retained in Labour's proposals. Ironically no intensive scrutiny has been made of Truss's poposals because it's impossible to run a magnifying glass over proposals that don't exist. We therefore have the laughable position whereby the opposition's ideas, which won't be implemented anyway, are scrutinised to death, while Truss's ineffably vague & gormless plans for ÂŁ30 billion tax cuts, which will certainly not be targeted ones, are passed over in near silence. Besides, it's naive to take Labour's plans literally: they are, as you imply, putting down not a manifesto committment but a marker, a challenge, a provocation, a messge of hope, an act of pre-emption: an attempt both to fill the vacuum left by the fact we don't have a functioning government & to force Truss's hand when the verdict of that most decayed of English Rotten Boroughs, the Tory Party membership, is finally delivered.
|
|
|
Post by pete on Aug 15, 2022 22:26:48 GMT
If you say so - but not everybody believes that Jesus would have approved of 'laisser -faire' moral standards. He did have some sense of 'right' and 'wrong'. I doubt that that he would have approved of 'paedophilia' or 'incestuous relationships' , but I am sure there are some who will disagree with that view. May I also point out that my original comments were not addressed to specific posters.
Jesus said "I do not judge anyone who hears my word and does not keep them, for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world." John 12:47 (NRSV) If your going to do the Bible it really needs to King James 1611 And if any man heare my words, and beleeue not, I iudge him not; For I came not to iudge the world, but to saue the world.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Aug 15, 2022 22:27:34 GMT
robbiealiveI admit that I'm not particularly interested in the Tory party leadership election, and stopped paying any attention some time ago. Why on earth is it being debated in public when only Tory party members can vote? Ridiculous. However I have to pull you up one one point "...while Truss's ineffably vague & gormless plans for ÂŁ30 billion tax cuts, which will certainly not be targeted ones, " I wish posters would stop posting this sort of thing. Of course, if it happens, call it out, but posts saying so-and-so would or will or would have done such and such add nothing whatever except to reinforce prejudice.
|
|
|
Post by somerjohn on Aug 15, 2022 22:28:00 GMT
Mercian: "Those people obviously don't remember how utterly shambolic energy and rail in particular were when they were nationalised. My energy bills dropped a lot when they were privatised"
It's impossible to imagine the current ramshackle gas supply system tackling anything as complex as the conversion of every household and appliance in the country to natural gas around 1970 with anything like the amazing efficiency and economy that British Gas achieved. You may have personal gripes over personal interactions, but your account suggests nothing that couldn't have been resolved by buying new appliances to replace your dangerous fires (and the CORGI system of approved independent suppliers and installers was established in 1970, so you weren't faced with a take-it-or-leave-it monopoly supplier, still less the Nazi-like organisation you fantasize about).
Of course gas bills dropped after North Sea gas came on stream. That was no more the result of privatisation than the current explosion in gas prices is.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Aug 15, 2022 22:39:25 GMT
Does anyone else think that the idea of the government making cash grants to help people out is a bit odd? Don't get me wrong I'll happily accept whatever's going, but I don't recall this ever happening prior to the furlough and other schemes during the pandemic. I can remember the fuel crisis of the early 70s, when Saudi Arabia decided to whack up the oil price. The response was to issue ration books for fuel, not to just subsidise everyone. Perhaps the difference is that food rationing was only about 20 years in the past then so a lot of people remembered it and were used to the idea. Now a lot of people seem to expect the government to look after them. Why? I'm ok with rationing. Maybe timed electricity blackouts or something as some countries do. I don't know how it would work for gas, but I'm sure someone does. Keep calm and carry on and so on. Hmm. In the era you are discussing practically everything was subsidised. Energy was still nationalised, as was water, rail etc.
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blipâŚ
Posts: 6,175
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Aug 15, 2022 22:45:52 GMT
âRecord numbers of British teenagers have been rejected by elite universities in favour of lucrative overseas students and face a scramble for a less prestigious place when A-level results are announced this week.
The most selective institutions, including Oxford and Cambridge, turned away four out of ten UK candidates who applied this summer â the biggest rejection rate ever recorded.
University leaders say that some with a high tariff for entry have switched to recruiting students from countries such as China and India. Overseas students now pay an average of ÂŁ24,000 a year, almost triple that of applicants from England. New data shows that overseas students make up a record one in four of all undergraduates in Russell Group universities in England.â
Times
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Aug 15, 2022 22:47:03 GMT
charles - thank you for a slightly saner view of Starmer's plan. Little mention today of course of the longer term proposals, which Labour have backed for a very long time indeed, of much greater spending on energy efficiency measures, scrapped by Cameron in his rush to 'ditch the green crap'. A short term, wide ranging fix for energy costs, also benefiting the inflation situation, alongside an ongoing long term project to make homes more efficient marks Labour out as a party genuinely grappling with the needs of the country, as opposed to the Tories, who remain grappling with their egos, with nothing to say on the important issues. Time, I think, for everyone to get some perspective. On the other hand, Nils Pratley makes a good case on energy efficiency. "The Labour leader has opted to back the most untargeted form of support this winter â a plan to freeze the price of energy for all consumers, rich and poor alike, at its current level for six months. The idea is popular, weâre told, because three out of four Tory voters support it. In that sense, it may represent smart politics; the next prime minister will be under pressure to adopt chunks of the proposal [indeed], including the increase in the windfall tax . . . But the economics of freezing energy prices for all households, as opposed to only those least able to afford higher prices, makes little sense. Starmerâs scheme has the virtue of simplicity [indeed] it could be argued â and, yes, the plan is costed if one accepts the ÂŁ7bn fiddle [it's still ÂŁ7 Billion whatever Nils & the IFS say] with the effect of temporarily reduced inflation-related payments on government debt. But a programme that costs ÂŁ30bn for six months becomes vastly expensive if it has to be repeated for as long as wholesale prices remain high â a timeframe that is currently unknowable. More to the point, artificially holding down prices for everybody undermines the incentive on wealthier households to reduce their energy consumption, an imperative that ought to be front and centre of any national plan to get through the emergency. Starmer is also talking the language of more insulation in homes, but artificially underpricing a scarce resource does nothing to encourage consumers to turn down their boiler settings in the short term, use their spin dryers less [who the f has a spin dryer these days, tho they are economical cf tumble dryers] and so on. Suppressing the price signal is only going to increase the likelihood that we run out of energy this winter." www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2022/aug/15/starmer-bungled-failing-energy-bill-target-support
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Aug 15, 2022 22:48:03 GMT
You may have personal gripes over personal interactions, but your account suggests nothing that couldn't have been resolved by buying new appliances to replace your dangerous fires (and the CORGI system of approved independent suppliers and installers was established in 1970, so you weren't faced with a take-it-or-leave-it monopoly supplier, still less the Nazi-like organisation you fantasize about). I was a young man with a young family and had a mortgage rate of at least 12% at the time (it was higher than that at times). Buying new appliances was impossible financially and I was conned. I had no knowledge of corgi suppliers and no mention was made of them in the entire saga. It was no fantasy believe me.
|
|
|
Post by isa on Aug 15, 2022 22:50:28 GMT
From a personal perspective, I'd prefer ongoing lower bills than a one off payment which will cover two months of rises then have to find hundreds a month starting from a few weeks before Christmas, unless I've misunderstood how the various complicated rebates and loans and stuff works. I'd agree with that, not least on the basis that if a one-off bonus appears in your bank account, the temptation, in these straitened times, will be to spend it on whatever else is most pressing at the time, rather than consciously allocating it for energy bills, with the result that you're rapidly back at square one anyway.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Aug 15, 2022 22:52:23 GMT
Does anyone else think that the idea of the government making cash grants to help people out is a bit odd? Don't get me wrong I'll happily accept whatever's going, but I don't recall this ever happening prior to the furlough and other schemes during the pandemic. I can remember the fuel crisis of the early 70s, when Saudi Arabia decided to whack up the oil price. The response was to issue ration books for fuel, not to just subsidise everyone. Perhaps the difference is that food rationing was only about 20 years in the past then so a lot of people remembered it and were used to the idea. Now a lot of people seem to expect the government to look after them. Why? I'm ok with rationing. Maybe timed electricity blackouts or something as some countries do. I don't know how it would work for gas, but I'm sure someone does. Keep calm and carry on and so on. Hmm. In the era you are discussing practically everything was subsidised. Energy was still nationalised, as was water, rail etc. Perhaps it was. Certainly a lot of the nationalised industries made a loss. I was just making the point that direct handouts to the public at large (i.e. outside the normal benefits and pension system) seem to be a new thing. And though I'm not going to turn money away I don't think that in general people should expect a direct cash handout every time things get a bit expensive.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2022 22:54:09 GMT
robbiealive I admit that I'm not particularly interested in the Tory party leadership election, and stopped paying any attention some time ago. Why on earth is it being debated in public when only Tory party members can vote? Ridiculous. Totally agree. Itâs basically the private business of the equivalent of a couple of football groundsâ worth of people who support one political party. In reality they could have done the knock out rounds in one, mildly busy day and then got the members to vote for Liz Truss the following week. We would then have had an actual government without waiting for three months. A bloody awful government, yes, but at the moment the actual people in government are either on holiday - free for the current PM, obviously - or, if they are actually in this country, doing bugger all anyway
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Aug 15, 2022 22:59:00 GMT
@crofty It's good to agree occasionally! đ If we all tried to find common ground we might be able to influence the many government spies that are watching us. đ¤
|
|
|
Post by peterbell on Aug 15, 2022 23:00:12 GMT
Interesting comments re Labours energy proposals. Personally I think it is an excellent proposal as far as it goes. However, in response to various posters concerns that it benefits the rich as well as the poor I would mention one thought that has so far been ignored. Increased tax for the rich. This could be income tax or a wealth tax.
The government has to balance the books but while I am no economist (that role belongs to my son), my understanding is that it can be achieved by reducing expenditure or alternatively, surprise, surprise, increasing income. The Tories seem to have wiped this from the equation and the opposition parties have accepted it. All the info suggests that the top 5-10% are increasing their wealth at a much higher rate than the remaining 90%. Increased tax from these people could then go to help minimise further increases to the energy price cap.
|
|
|
Post by isa on Aug 15, 2022 23:01:50 GMT
Not just interesting, neilj, but compelling, and consistently so across the piece, it would seem.
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blipâŚ
Posts: 6,175
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Aug 15, 2022 23:02:43 GMT
Does anyone else think that the idea of the government making cash grants to help people out is a bit odd? Don't get me wrong I'll happily accept whatever's going, but I don't recall this ever happening prior to the furlough and other schemes during the pandemic. I can remember the fuel crisis of the early 70s, when Saudi Arabia decided to whack up the oil price. The response was to issue ration books for fuel, not to just subsidise everyone. Perhaps the difference is that food rationing was only about 20 years in the past then so a lot of people remembered it and were used to the idea. Now a lot of people seem to expect the government to look after them. Why? I'm ok with rationing. Maybe timed electricity blackouts or something as some countries do. I don't know how it would work for gas, but I'm sure someone does. Keep calm and carry on and so on. people have realised, partly by what happened in the 70s energy crisis, that high energy prices kill the economy as well as causing hardship. They have also seen, via austerity policies after the banking crash (and indeed what happened when Thatcher made cuts), reinforced by how furlough stopped the Covid hit from being too bad economically, that it is cheaper overall to borrow and subsidise rather than kill peopleâs ability to buy, as that means more business fails, which means fewer people can buy, so more business fails etc. Also, civilisations tend to prosper when thereâs a new source of cheap energy, illustrating its importance. So much is affected by it. Regarding your other point, concerning how privatising energy might lead to lower prices initially, the problem is that it may well not stay that way. That over time, capital seeks to buy out rivals, reducing competition, then they buy out suppliers, then they increasingly game things, e.g. making it hard to switch to better tariffs by making them too complicated, or they fit smart meters that make it problematic to switch suppliers, meanwhile they use their profits to pay for lobbyists to favour them in government, hire the best regulators to work for them to stay a step ahead of regulation, maybe they might hire some MPs⌠Itâs so bad that even if people make cuts in their energy use, the energy companies might just put up the standing charge. (Which incidentally highlights the problem with hoping insulation etc. will reduce bills. It might reduce energy usage, but whether it means lower bills is something else. The energy companies might just put up prices once again, so they make more from supplying less energy).
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,082
|
Post by oldnat on Aug 15, 2022 23:04:46 GMT
From a personal perspective, I'd prefer ongoing lower bills than a one off payment which will cover two months of rises then have to find hundreds a month starting from a few weeks before Christmas, unless I've misunderstood how the various complicated rebates and loans and stuff works. I'd agree with that, not least on the basis that if a one-off bonus appears in your bank account, the temptation, in these straitened times, will be to spend it on whatever else is most pressing at the time, rather than consciously allocating it for energy bills, with the result that you're rapidly back at square one anyway. Have the arrangements been changed? When CoE Sunak announced them, the idea was that the cash would go directly to the energy suppliers who would use it to reduce the bills of their current customers, and would then recoup the money by increasing the bills of their (then) customers over the next few years and repay the Treasury.
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Aug 15, 2022 23:05:44 GMT
Jesus said "I do not judge anyone who hears my word and does not keep them, for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world." John 12:47 (NRSV) If your going to do the Bible it really needs to King James 1611 And if any man heare my words, and beleeue not, I iudge him not; For I came not to iudge the world, but to saue the world. I prefer a translation that is based on the best biblical scholarship of the last 400 years to the version that American conservative evangelicals rely on.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Aug 15, 2022 23:10:46 GMT
Does anyone else think that the idea of the government making cash grants to help people out is a bit odd? Don't get me wrong I'll happily accept whatever's going, but I don't recall this ever happening prior to the furlough and other schemes during the pandemic. I can remember the fuel crisis of the early 70s, when Saudi Arabia decided to whack up the oil price. The response was to issue ration books for fuel, not to just subsidise everyone. Perhaps the difference is that food rationing was only about 20 years in the past then so a lot of people remembered it and were used to the idea. Now a lot of people seem to expect the government to look after them. Why? I'm ok with rationing. Maybe timed electricity blackouts or something as some countries do. I don't know how it would work for gas, but I'm sure someone does. Keep calm and carry on and so on. people have realised, partly by what happened in the 70s energy crisis, that high energy prices kill the economy as well as causing hardship. They have also seen, via austerity policies after the banking crash (and indeed what happened when Thatcher made cuts), reinforced by how furlough stopped the Covid hit from being too bad economically, that it is cheaper overall to borrow and subsidise rather than kill peopleâs ability to buy, as that means more business fails, which means fewer people can buy, so more business fails etc. Also, civilisations tend to prosper when thereâs a new source of cheap energy. Regarding your other point, concerning how privatising energy leading to lower prices initially, the problem is that it may well not stay that way. That over time capital seeks to buy out rivals, reducing competition, then they buy out suppliers, then they increasingly game things, e.g. making it hard to switch to better tariffs by making them too complicated, or they fit smart meters that make it problematic to switch suppliers, meanwhile they use their profits to pay for lobbyists to favour them in government, hire the best regulators to work for them to stay a step ahead of regulation, maybe they might hire some MPs⌠Itâs so bad that even if people make cuts in their energy use, the energy companies can just put up the standing charge. (Which incidentally highlights the problem with hoping insulation etc. will reduce bills. It might reduce energy usage, but whether it means lower bills is something else. The energy companies might just put up prices once again, so,they make more from supplying less energy). That doesn't answer my question. Does nobody find it odd that one of the main strategies being proposed is to just give everyone money? I'm open to correction as usual, but I can't remember it happening pre-Covid.
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blipâŚ
Posts: 6,175
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Aug 15, 2022 23:12:50 GMT
people have realised, partly by what happened in the 70s energy crisis, that high energy prices kill the economy as well as causing hardship. They have also seen, via austerity policies after the banking crash (and indeed what happened when Thatcher made cuts), reinforced by how furlough stopped the Covid hit from being too bad economically, that it is cheaper overall to borrow and subsidise rather than kill peopleâs ability to buy, as that means more business fails, which means fewer people can buy, so more business fails etc. Also, civilisations tend to prosper when thereâs a new source of cheap energy. Regarding your other point, concerning how privatising energy leading to lower prices initially, the problem is that it may well not stay that way. That over time capital seeks to buy out rivals, reducing competition, then they buy out suppliers, then they increasingly game things, e.g. making it hard to switch to better tariffs by making them too complicated, or they fit smart meters that make it problematic to switch suppliers, meanwhile they use their profits to pay for lobbyists to favour them in government, hire the best regulators to work for them to stay a step ahead of regulation, maybe they might hire some MPs⌠Itâs so bad that even if people make cuts in their energy use, the energy companies can just put up the standing charge. (Which incidentally highlights the problem with hoping insulation etc. will reduce bills. It might reduce energy usage, but whether it means lower bills is something else. The energy companies might just put up prices once again, so,they make more from supplying less energy). That doesn't answer my question. Does nobody find it odd that one of the main strategies being proposed is to just give everyone money? I'm open to correction as usual, but I can't remember it happening pre-Covid. It explains why itâs necessary. As for the method, itâs the way things are headed, as you might see from things like the trials of universal basic incomes etc. Less bureaucracy. Also it doesnât involve shafting others as much in the way the boomer freebies did, ramping up house prices, saddling youth with PFI, giving boomers cheap privatisation shares etc.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Aug 15, 2022 23:15:16 GMT
c-a-r-f-r-e-wBut more state dependency. This is bad in principle. (IMO)
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blipâŚ
Posts: 6,175
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Aug 15, 2022 23:17:50 GMT
c-a-r-f-r-e-w But more state dependency. This is bad in principle. (IMO) Itâs better than being dependent on capital ruining your life with crazy energy prices. Boomers were dependent on the state for better jobs and cheap housing and cheaper degrees and sane utility bills etc. Which in turn allowed them in time to prosper to achieve greater independence. Unfortunately they then milked the state some more by pulling up the ladder while profiting from the housing price hikes and utility shares and triple lock etc. Meanwhile, capital is busy buying up more and more farming land globally, concentrating it in fewer hands. Watch whatâs happened to energy, happen to food if we let that continue.
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,082
|
Post by oldnat on Aug 15, 2022 23:22:19 GMT
@leftmercian
"Certainly a lot of the nationalised industries made a loss."
It's worth distinguishing between "publicly owned companies" and "nationalisation" (if by the latter is meant direct management of an industry by government ministers).
While both can be subject to bad decision making at government level through short term political motivation, I think it is much less common with "arms length" companies, than those under direct government control. laszlo4new will know better than me, though.
|
|
|
Post by isa on Aug 15, 2022 23:26:09 GMT
Came to UKPR to get expert opinion on Labour's plans. In general the response seems a bit lukewarm, with the main criticisms being that it is not sufficiently targeted, and is at best a stop-gap measure. This seems a tad ungenerous to me. I like this scheme because a) I have long been wanting Labour to start saying something more definite and positive and here it is b)I am genuinely horrified at the conservative leadership debate - what on earth have tax cuts and a bonfire of the regulations that enable us to trade with the EU got to do with climate change, the cost of living crisis, the collapse of our services, looming strikes, massive inequality or other great issues of our time. At least this is a plan that would address the immediate threat of destitution caused by the fuel price rise. So yes, it is not a long-term solution for inflation or our energy problems and it does not address inequality. But as I understand it, a sizeable proportion of our national debt has interest rates linked to inflation. A non-targeted scheme will be easier to put into effect and will bring down the measures of inflation and this is key to the scheme's viability. So yes, in my view Labour should be trying to create a fairer society, and I want to know how it is going to go about that. In the meantime, however, it has to stop people freezing or starving over this coming winter and it looks to me as if this scheme will do that. It also seems to me that the government is going to have to do something very similar and I will be interested to look on UKPR to see how that will be received. Good to see you posting again, charles, and in your customary quiet, thoughtful but powerful, style. I for one wish you would contribute to UKPR2's activities more frequently.
|
|
|
Post by graham on Aug 15, 2022 23:26:45 GMT
Does anyone else think that the idea of the government making cash grants to help people out is a bit odd? Don't get me wrong I'll happily accept whatever's going, but I don't recall this ever happening prior to the furlough and other schemes during the pandemic. I can remember the fuel crisis of the early 70s, when Saudi Arabia decided to whack up the oil price. The response was to issue ration books for fuel, not to just subsidise everyone. Perhaps the difference is that food rationing was only about 20 years in the past then so a lot of people remembered it and were used to the idea. Now a lot of people seem to expect the government to look after them. Why? I'm ok with rationing. Maybe timed electricity blackouts or something as some countries do. I don't know how it would work for gas, but I'm sure someone does. Keep calm and carry on and so on. The ration books never got to be issued over the winter of 1973/74 - though we ended up with the 3 Day week under Ted Heath.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Aug 15, 2022 23:29:57 GMT
c-a-r-f-r-e-w But more state dependency. This is bad in principle. (IMO) Itâs better than being dependent on capital ruining your life with crazy energy prices. Boomers were dependent on the state for good jobs and cheap housing and cheaper degrees and sane utility bills etc. Which in turn allowed them in time to prosper to achieve greater independence. Unfortunately they then milked the state some more by pulling up the ladder while profiting from the housing and utility shares and triple lock etc. Meanwhile, capital is busy buying up more and more farming land, concentrating it in fewer hands. Watch whatâs happened to energy happen to food if we let that continue. I don't agree. I wasn't dependent on the state for good jobs. I always worked in private industry or myself until the last few years by accident. I certainly didn't have any notion of 'pulling up the ladder'. You can't blame all 'boomers' for government decisions. If your scare story about food has any truth, then the ordinary folk can 'dig for victory'. đ
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blipâŚ
Posts: 6,175
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Aug 15, 2022 23:31:41 GMT
@leftmercian
"Certainly a lot of the nationalised industries made a loss."
It's worth distinguishing between "publicly owned companies" and "nationalisation" (if by the latter is meant direct management of an industry by government ministers).
While both can be subject to bad decision making at government level through short term political motivation, I think it is much less common with "arms length" companies, than those under direct government control. laszlo4new will know better than me, though. An issue with âpublically-ownedâ, is whatâs happening in France at the moment where the state-owned supplier is talking about suing the government for making it sell energy cheaper?
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Aug 15, 2022 23:34:27 GMT
Does anyone else think that the idea of the government making cash grants to help people out is a bit odd? Don't get me wrong I'll happily accept whatever's going, but I don't recall this ever happening prior to the furlough and other schemes during the pandemic. I can remember the fuel crisis of the early 70s, when Saudi Arabia decided to whack up the oil price. The response was to issue ration books for fuel, not to just subsidise everyone. Perhaps the difference is that food rationing was only about 20 years in the past then so a lot of people remembered it and were used to the idea. Now a lot of people seem to expect the government to look after them. Why? I'm ok with rationing. Maybe timed electricity blackouts or something as some countries do. I don't know how it would work for gas, but I'm sure someone does. Keep calm and carry on and so on. The ration books never got to be issued over the winter of 1973/74 - though we ended up with the 3 Day week under Ted Heath. Well I still have my ration book. I was looking forward to it coming into force as I had a 50cc motorbike and had coupons for a 2 litre car! 𤣠The 3-day week was also brilliant because I stayed on the same salary. As a matter of fact I asked to stay on the 3-day week after it officially finished (on a pro-rata rate), but request was denied. đ˘
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blipâŚ
Posts: 6,175
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Aug 15, 2022 23:39:40 GMT
Itâs better than being dependent on capital ruining your life with crazy energy prices. Boomers were dependent on the state for good jobs and cheap housing and cheaper degrees and sane utility bills etc. Which in turn allowed them in time to prosper to achieve greater independence. Unfortunately they then milked the state some more by pulling up the ladder while profiting from the housing and utility shares and triple lock etc. Meanwhile, capital is busy buying up more and more farming land, concentrating it in fewer hands. Watch whatâs happened to energy happen to food if we let that continue. I don't agree. I wasn't dependent on the state for good jobs. I always worked in private industry or myself until the last few years by accident. I certainly didn't have any notion of 'pulling up the ladder'. You can't blame all 'boomers' for government decisions. If your scare story about food has any truth, then the ordinary folk can 'dig for victory'. đ The state having a policy of full employment and creating good public sector jobs, as well as bailing out key private sector employers, has a knock-on effect on salaries and conditions in other private sector jobs. Stronger unions fighting for better wages also helped keep wages higher in non-union industries. Hence wages tended to stagnate after that era. Indeed we are seeing the reverse now, where lack of such policies means that even previously secure and well-paid careers like lecturing are now being casualised. I donât blame all boomers for all decisions. But quite a lot have benefitted from state assistance on house prices, utility shares, employment etc., and seem ok with pulling up the ladder. Indeed I have posted polling a few times on how the majority of boomers donât seem overly keen on passing their gains on to their offspring. Regarding digging for victory, fewer and fewer will own gardens as - absent of state action - capital concentrates and housing gets concentrated in fewer hands. Home ownership is declining.
|
|