|
|
Post by Pacifico on Aug 15, 2023 21:14:55 GMT
Well there are a lot of words but no answers to the question. Lets stick to specifics - would you nationalise Shell?. If so where is the $400 Billion coming from?. Add in BP - thats another $300 Billion. You have spent an awful lot of money that you dont have. Or are you just going to nationalise the energy distributors like Centrica - which would cost about $30 Billion for each one (there are 6). Of course you would then get the profits from that investment - this year Centrica made a healthy profit, last year they lost money.. That you cannot articulate what differences you would expect to see for all this expense kinda indicates that it would be an exercise in futility. So because its difficult, we shouldn't do it. Hmm. yes - if you are going to spend so much money and energy on an outcome that is not going to change anything. I'm still waiting for an example of what would improve if we changed ownership - it needs to be something spectacular if you are going to spend that amount of taxpayers money that could easily be better spent in other areas. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Aug 15, 2023 21:17:42 GMT
What happens when the unionised civil servants who operate the switches, decide to cut off the nation's electricity to pursue a 150% pay rise and make Glory Hole Studies part of the UK's mandatory curriculum in primary schools? Edit to add - You are right about the practical problem if the infrastructure is all taken into public ownership Perhaps we should deal with more likely scenarios, Orac. And, yes, the actual infrastructure must all be nationally owned, a bit like the individual railway companies don't maintain the tracks. UK power networks must stay in control of maintenance. Foreign companies need to be recompensed, as we are not Argentina.what Public Spending would you cut to pay for this? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Aug 15, 2023 21:18:24 GMT
So joining the EU? excellent. I don't think so? We joined the Eu in 1993. IIRC both parties were in favour. Excellent whichever party you voted for you got the result you wanted. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2023 21:22:38 GMT
Perhaps we should deal with more likely scenarios, Orac. And, yes, the actual infrastructure must all be nationally owned, a bit like the individual railway companies don't maintain the tracks. UK power networks must stay in control of maintenance. Foreign companies need to be recompensed, as we are not Argentina.what Public Spending would you cut to pay for this? I don't know how much it would cost, but the 100,000 bloat in the civil service in the last few years could probably do with a pruning. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 16, 2023 7:54:59 GMT
I don't think so? We joined the Eu in 1993. IIRC both parties were in favour. Excellent whichever party you voted for you got the result you wanted. Sure. Nobody else having a choice but to do what you want is great news (in the short term). |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Aug 16, 2023 8:22:38 GMT
Perhaps we should deal with more likely scenarios, Orac. And, yes, the actual infrastructure must all be nationally owned, a bit like the individual railway companies don't maintain the tracks. UK power networks must stay in control of maintenance. Foreign companies need to be recompensed, as we are not Argentina.what Public Spending would you cut to pay for this? It’s all very well asking questions of others but you asked me how I was going to fund the purchase of shell and bp when I’d never said I wanted to and you never explained what that had to do with replacing the energy middlemen who in their role produce sod all. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Aug 16, 2023 10:42:19 GMT
what Public Spending would you cut to pay for this? It’s all very well asking questions of others but you asked me how I was going to fund the purchase of shell and bp when I’d never said I wanted to and you never explained what that had to do with replacing the energy middlemen who in their role produce sod all. Well I had assumed that when you wanted to Nationalise the energy suppliers you were talking about the energy supplies who used to be nationalised. My mistake sorry. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 16, 2023 10:59:12 GMT
If we had a civil service who could be trusted to just impartially and diligently do their jobs, we could entertain all sorts of notions.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Aug 16, 2023 19:25:06 GMT
Excellent whichever party you voted for you got the result you wanted. Sure. Nobody else having a choice but to do what you want is great news (in the short term). Yep, you walked right into that. So when an elected government does something YOU want its because the people voted for it. BUT When an elected government does something YOU DON'T want, that's a whole different matter. Just as I expected. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 16, 2023 20:13:30 GMT
Sure. Nobody else having a choice but to do what you want is great news (in the short term). Yep, you walked right into that. So when an elected government does something YOU want its because the people voted for it. BUT When an elected government does something YOU DON'T want, that's a whole different matter. Just as I expected. I'm not sure how you drew that from my posts. I thought i was pretty clear. The difficulty arises when both parties line up together in opposition to some substantial bulk of the population on a subject that is important. Examples are immigration and the EU My point is that this phenomena (probably) feels wonderful for the fraction of the population on the government's side on the issue, but it causes a serious legitimacy problems over time - esp if it is a persistent and repeated (apparently deliberate) pattern. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Aug 16, 2023 20:41:23 GMT
Yep, you walked right into that. So when an elected government does something YOU want its because the people voted for it. BUT When an elected government does something YOU DON'T want, that's a whole different matter. Just as I expected. I'm not sure how you drew that from my posts. I thought i was pretty clear. The difficulty arises when both parties line up together in opposition to some substantial bulk of the population on a subject that is important. Examples are immigration and the EU My point is that this phenomena (probably) feels wonderful for the fraction of the population on the government's side on the issue, but it causes a serious legitimacy problems over time - esp if it is a persistent and repeated (apparently deliberate) pattern. You seem to have forgotten your own words again. Let me help. You said, The British public had a choice between a nationalised provider that might be used to overturn elections and a private-ish approach that would reliably provide electricity There is no referendum. IIRC, one major party offered continuing nationalisation and the other offered privatization. Some time near the late eighties probably. So you think that if an elected party does something its because the electorate wanted them to and voted for them, But if an elected party does something you don't want its against the wishes of the electorate. An elected government bought loads of migrants into the country. An elected government took us out of the EU. So which elected government is legitimate? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 16, 2023 20:51:12 GMT
I'm not sure how you drew that from my posts. I thought i was pretty clear. The difficulty arises when both parties line up together in opposition to some substantial bulk of the population on a subject that is important. Examples are immigration and the EU My point is that this phenomena (probably) feels wonderful for the fraction of the population on the government's side on the issue, but it causes a serious legitimacy problems over time - esp if it is a persistent and repeated (apparently deliberate) pattern. An elected government bought loads of migrants into the country. An elected government took us out of the EU. So which elected government is legitimate? But I explained. There is a legitimacy problem when both parties side against some substantial sentiment in the population on an important topic. Otherwise, elections are a reasonable indicator. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Aug 16, 2023 21:42:40 GMT
An elected government bought loads of migrants into the country. An elected government took us out of the EU. So which elected government is legitimate? But I explained. There is a legitimacy problem when both parties side against some substantial sentiment in the population on an important topic. Otherwise, elections are a reasonable indicator. But this must mean that elected parties do not necessarily represent public opinion. So when folks claim an election result was proof that the public wanted Brexit they are right. But if that same government bring in millions of migrants you claim the opposite. If you refuse to address this I'll just let it go. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 16, 2023 22:47:35 GMT
But I explained. There is a legitimacy problem when both parties side against some substantial sentiment in the population on an important topic. Otherwise, elections are a reasonable indicator. So when folks claim an election result was proof that the public wanted Brexit they are right. But if that same government bring in millions of migrants you claim the opposite. I keep on explaining it to you, but you appear not to be listening. If BOTH (or all) parties side against a significant bulk of public opinion, the public do not get a choice on the matter through an election - ergo, the electoral success of the policy cannot be caused by public opinion because the alternative choice was not there. I cited immigration of an example of this tactic being used. I think this is simple enough - you are likely engaging in avoidance |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Aug 17, 2023 6:15:11 GMT
So when folks claim an election result was proof that the public wanted Brexit they are right. But if that same government bring in millions of migrants you claim the opposite. I keep on explaining it to you, but you appear not to be listening. If BOTH (or all) parties side against a significant bulk of public opinion, the public do not get a choice on the matter through an election - ergo, the electoral success of the policy cannot be caused by public opinion because the alternative choice was not there. I cited immigration of an example of this tactic being used. I think this is simple enough - you are likely engaging in avoidance So as long as one side disagree then all is well? The significant bulk of public opinion? Who decides that? On here any mention of poll results is scoffed at. Those polls say: 75% of UK citizens believe in man made climate change and want net zero 55% of UK citizens think we should re-join the EU. 65% of UK citizens think we should increase income tax. 66% of UK citizens think we should renationalise the power companies. |
|
