Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It is not efficient to take a natural monopoly, pour in public money and allow some of that to then be paid out to shareholders. 2+2 does of course equal 4, but in privatisation, your taking 2+2-1 and trying top get to 4. As we have seen, it deosn't work.
I strongly believe in the power of markets, competition and incentives, but it totally dogmatic to think that it is appropriate in all and every case to bring in the private sector. To say that there is only one way is the definition of dogma.

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ???? Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > How nationalisisng and freezing fares will

> solve

> > overcrowded over stretched services without a

> > massive investment from THE TAXPAYER is beyond

> my

> > logic - can someone explain how 2+2=5

> >

> > It's dogma - don't believe it.

>

> But some of us want massive investment from the

> taxpayer, funded by some tax rises for those who

> can well afford it and closing of all offshore

> loopholes. Sensibly managed infrastructure

> investment will increase employment, tax revenues

> and reduce spending on benefits. And if there's

> one bit of infrastructure that needs investment,

> it's the railways.

>

> ETA: And, as many economists have pointed out, at

> a time of historic low interest rates which we may

> not see again in decades if ever, what better time

> for a programme of borrowing for infrastructure

> investment?



I have less problem with the investment in infrastructure, especially when money is cheap (see also cross rail) but that's not much to do with the service operators

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I strongly believe in the power of markets,

> competition and incentives, but it totally

> dogmatic to think that it is appropriate in all

> and every case to bring in the private sector. To

> say that there is only one way is the definition

> of dogma.



Private sector created it in the first place. It's not a free market - operators have restrictions on charges etc for eg. Bidding for franchises for a local monopoly is a form of competition? Anyway interesting thread on Guardian Online on this I noticed this evening

Rendel,

Not that I think infrastructure investment at the moment is a poor idea, but it's specious of these economists you reference to point to current low rates in isolation and claim the debt funding will be low cost. The government doesn't get a fixed rate mortgage, rather it has to pay a yield on new issuance to rollover the current enourmous stock of debt. So the costs of long term debt will be passed on to future taxpayers when rates rise. Even the yield on debt traded in the secondary market (which doesn't directly impact the governments interest expense on the debt in question) gets charged to corporates including banks via their cost of capital. That means it also gets charged to you and I, and all else equal more debt means a higher cost of debt in terms of the both rate and obviously the bill.


rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ???? Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > How nationalisisng and freezing fares will

> solve

> > overcrowded over stretched services without a

> > massive investment from THE TAXPAYER is beyond

> my

> > logic - can someone explain how 2+2=5

> >

> > It's dogma - don't believe it.

>

> But some of us want massive investment from the

> taxpayer, funded by some tax rises for those who

> can well afford it and closing of all offshore

> loopholes. Sensibly managed infrastructure

> investment will increase employment, tax revenues

> and reduce spending on benefits. And if there's

> one bit of infrastructure that needs investment,

> it's the railways.

>

> ETA: And, as many economists have pointed out, at

> a time of historic low interest rates which we may

> not see again in decades if ever, what better time

> for a programme of borrowing for infrastructure

> investment?

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Back on taxpayer funding - I'm not sure that

> taxpayers should fund Middleclass commuters from

> the Home Counties (see also Tax Payer Funded

> Higher Education as another form of 'regressive'

> funding).


If you start down this route of reasoning, you quickly get to the 'I shouldn't pay for X, I don't use it' argument. in the end it leads to everyone just paying for the things they need, i.e. it undermines the whole idea of universal, public services. Start means testing everything and you undermine support for the system, services suffer and the less affluent end up being a lot worse off.

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Back on taxpayer funding - I'm not sure that

> taxpayers should fund Middleclass commuters from

> the Home Counties (see also Tax Payer Funded

> Higher Education as another form of 'regressive'

> funding).


Do working class Londoners not use the trains then?

Yup - the trains from the South East of England and all points there in are packed with the sweaty toilers of the proletariat during rush hour. You really, really think that most trains aren't massively skewed towards those in middle class occupations???
  • Administrator

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Here we go again. There is no ED thread complete without a bit of class war.


Untrue - evidence http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?28,1711623


Yes, Louisa is back in the ED Issues section as long as she doesn't start dragging class into things, which someone else has done.


Please stay on topic

Administrator Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Untrue - evidence

> http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?2 8,1711623


But there's an undercurrent... some members of society painstakingly choosing from colour swatches, then trialling sampler pots, and finally hiring a decorator to paint their house while they're away in Tuscany.


While other members are just desperate for paint, any paint (as long as it's not red).

Rendel,

The daily politics has amongst the least clues on this matter of anyone who chooses to comment on it. This is the same organisation who for decades on a week-daily basis have slavishly quoted the index level of the FTSE and the change on the day in index points as though that were meaningful information. Imagine doing something utterly useless for decades and never questioning why you are doing it. I would not be informed by an organisation suffering from such an illness.


rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There are some pretty good fixed rate deals for

> the government available at the moment Henry:

> according to The Daily Politics they can currently

> borrow at 1.08% for ten years and at less than 2%

> for thirty.

Bic Basher Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Southeastern no longer manage DH, the current

> operator in charge is Thameslink/GTR. They manage

> all stations on the Catford Loop with the

> exception of Peckham Rye (Southern).


I know, I didn't say Southeastern did. I think stations are generally managed by the operator running the most services, though it can become a bit arbitrary when there are several operators with a similar number as at Denmark Hill. However, if Southeastern is devolved to TfL then they will be responsible for a majority of the services there and I would expect them to ultimately take on management of the station.

Henry_17 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Rendel,

> The daily politics has amongst the least clues on

> this matter of anyone who chooses to comment on

> it. This is the same organisation who for decades

> on a week-daily basis have slavishly quoted the

> index level of the FTSE and the change on the day

> in index points as though that were meaningful

> information. Imagine doing something utterly

> useless for decades and never questioning why you

> are doing it. I would not be informed by an

> organisation suffering from such an illness.


Would you believe the Financial Times then, Henry?


"The UK?s benchmark government borrowing rate touched a historic low of 1.396 per cent on Thursday morning, as the ripple effects of central bank action in the face of low inflation spread worldwide.


"Tumbling oil and food prices in the UK and indications from the Bank of England that it had no plans to raise interest rates in the near future have weighed heavily on the country?s 10-year borrowing costs in recent months.


"As a result, the yield on UK 10-year gilts fell 5.5 basis points on Thursday morning to the lowest rate in UK history. Longer term 30-year gilt yields, considered particularly reflective of the country?s inflation prospects, also dropped to a record low of 2.102 per cent."

Henry_17 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Remodel,

> Good job they gave us that fourth significant

> figure. Do you believe the BoE sets the price of

> gilts with their monthly rate decision?



Remodel? I think people generally agree I'd be best off remodeled but...


Don't those figures indicate, contrary to what you said previously, that UKGOV can borrow at a fixed rate of just over 2% for thirty years?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I don’t think Reform will withstand the heat of any election.  Finding enough people to stand will be bad enough. Finding credible ones quite a bid tougher  I think yes this government is lacking in a long term plan and has not had a good first year. Today the least.   but the speed with which this was dealt with is a notable shift compared to last 14 years where months would drag by and we would constantly be told to draw a line under  if Labour called an election tomorrow, there is not a single party that could present a better alternative with any credibility. And that’s a low bar Reform are dangerous lunatics but more worrying is the descent of the Tories into the same swamp i also worry that England voters have contracted some melodrama virus after the Tories where we had 5 PMs in almost as many years  it’s ok for governments to be unpopular without needing to have an election every 1-2 years      
    • Well, I made £50 out of it and Alice owes me another bullseye, so I had a good day Clearly the thread has moved on, but just a final few words on Rayner (from me, at least). If she hadn't gone like this (with a chance to revive her career at some point in the future) there's plenty of other stuff loaded up and ready to be fired at her about the motivation, finances and machinations of her move down South. It's not pretty reading. Tawdry doesn't come close. I was born in Ashton Hospital and grew up in Tameside, I've got a lot of friends and family who weren't as lucky as me and didn't make it out, some close to her constituency party, and there's been a lot of bad feeling around 'Our Ange' for a long time. My favourite quote was: 'She should fuck off back to Stockport.' And that was from a party member. The writing was on the wall for her. Moving from Ashton (majority c6.5k, large Pakistani minority, but predominantly white working class and targeted by both the Independent Alliance and Reform) to Hove (majority c20k, neither of these issues with the electorate) was a pretty cynical move, and she's fucked it royally. 'The Honourable Member for Hove and Portslade' will be sleeping a lot easier in their bed tonight. This thread was never supposed to about Labour bashing, and I'm not sure it is. It's definitely descended into 'Whataboutery', and that seems to be the problem, in my mind at least, with British politics. It's playground stuff, he said/she said, blame-game bollocks. Watch PMQs and ask yourself if you'd accept this sort of behaviour amongst toddlers, let alone in an elected parliament. One thing that does stand out is the opposition to Reform across the board, and yet we seem to be sleepwalking towards a likely scenario where Farage could head up a minority Reform government. I've 'followed' politics since the late Seventies - mainly because the BBC News came on right after 'Roobard and Custard' or 'The Magic Roundabout' - and I can't remember an era where both major parties are so bereft of leadership, direction or ideas. There's a certain irony that we'll all be getting a test text on Sunday to warn us of an impending 'National Emergency'. Seems quite prescient.
    • But not old enough to remember the highest unemployment rate, inflation and interest rates in history in the early eighties under the Tories? A rather selective memory you have. There has never been a four-day week: it was a three-day week imposed by the Conservative government under the Blasted Heath.
    • I see that there was a government consultation started in July 2024, a response, and then a revision to the National Planning Policy Framework, and then to the Green Belt guidance in February 2025, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/green-belt .  It includes the updates but doesn't give the nescient much clue of what was materially changed. There will probably be some good, and less good, summaries to be found. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...