UK Politics Thread V: Upon This Blasted Heath

[Frank Zipper]

I think it's already been proven that private companies are incapable of that, so I'm all for state ownership.

And I'm sure there is a way around the EU crap, even if you have to revert to the 'national security' excuse.

Not necessarily, post office privatization for instance went quite well.

It has to be said that the GPO had its finest moments, and provided the best service, when it was a nationalised institution.

[Souseiseki]

profits slumped, jobs were cut, prices rose immediately, stocks were sold way under their real value. when you said "quite well" i imagined you meaning it was improved not simply not worse than before, which leaves us with little reason to ever do it in the first place.

Well, the mail still gets delivered, so no biggie.

the royal mail hasn't opened up a crater to hell in bristol and fallen down it, but nobody said it had. i'm not sure what this response actually means or what it's trying to say.

[Wolfmanne2]

Well, the mail still gets delivered, so no biggie.

the royal mail hasn't opened up a crater to hell in bristol and fallen down it, but nobody said it had. i'm not sure what this response actually means or what it's trying to say.

It was just a test to see if you'd go all 'Scottish Scottish Scottish' on me.

[Imperializt Russia]

the royal mail hasn't opened up a crater to hell in bristol and fallen down it, but nobody said it had. i'm not sure what this response actually means or what it's trying to say.

It was just a test to see if you'd go all 'Scottish Scottish Scottish' on me.

Royal mail still exists and does its job and no-one said it wouldn't.

But it was undersold, and now it underperforms, likely as a direct result of its privatisation.

[Souseiseki]

the royal mail hasn't opened up a crater to hell in bristol and fallen down it, but nobody said it had. i'm not sure what this response actually means or what it's trying to say.

It was just a test to see if you'd go all 'Scottish Scottish Scottish' on me.

i was tempted. as a supposed scion of labour and the nation your response to the conservatives selling off a centuries old national institution against the public will for no benefit should be stronger than "no biggie". :-)

[Wolfmanne2]

It was just a test to see if you'd go all 'Scottish Scottish Scottish' on me.

i was tempted. as a supposed scion of labour and the nation your response to the conservatives selling off a centuries old national institution against the public will for no benefit should be stronger than "no biggie". :-)

If I'm honest, it didn't really seem like a big deal to me at the time and still isn't really one.

[Dooom35796821595]

I was referring specifically to private rail franchises.

On private rail franchises, they haven't succeeded however there is no reason for government to heavy handedly step in and tear up the contracts damaging their ability to do business in other sectors down the line. If someone else wants to come along and privatize the railways again, stop them in parliament.

There really is, since it's the government who privatise stuff in the first place. If you get a government who uses heavy handed tactics to secure vital infrastructure it makes it that much harder for the next government to sell it for a fraction of its worth.

[Imperializt Russia]

i was tempted. as a supposed scion of labour and the nation your response to the conservatives selling off a centuries old national institution against the public will for no benefit should be stronger than "no biggie". :-)

If I'm honest, it didn't really seem like a big deal to me at the time and still isn't really one.

It was fundamentally dumb.

Unless a portal to hell were to open under RM HQ, or RM's profits not remain more or less constant, the government would be making more money than they had from the sale by like 2020 anyway, and its performance probably wouldn't have taken a hit.

Although the weird thing I've noticed, is that anything delivered by central or local government is now delivered by Whistl and not Royal Mail itself.
What is this?

[Souseiseki]

i was tempted. as a supposed scion of labour and the nation your response to the conservatives selling off a centuries old national institution against the public will for no benefit should be stronger than "no biggie". :-)

If I'm honest, it didn't really seem like a big deal to me at the time and still isn't really one.

hate to get scottish scottish scottish but the only way i can see this being the case is if you don't really have much of a problem with selling off national infrastructure for the sake of selling off national infrastructure

the entire thing was like everything wrong with the conservative party in microcosm

[New Benian Republic]

I wonder how many of these threads can be made

[Wolfmanne2]

If I'm honest, it didn't really seem like a big deal to me at the time and still isn't really one.

hate to get scottish scottish scottish but the only way i can see this being the case is if you don't really have much of a problem with selling off national infrastructure for the sake of selling off national infrastructure

the entire thing was like everything wrong with the conservative party in microcosm

It was Vince Cable who was ultimately responsible for the privatisation, so add the Liberal Democrats to that. I mean yeah I do care, it helped deliver Labour a few more lines to hammer the Tories on.

I don't have a problem selling off national infrastructure provided we as the taxpayer can make a decent sum for privatising said infrastructure and the service as a whole can be improved by privatisation. So I wouldn't have supported railway privatisation at the time, whereas telecommunications was a relatively successful privatisation (sorry to trigger you IR) along with the privatisation of BP. As for Royal Mail, I think the jury is still out on it. It was a botched privatisation mind you, which is more reflective on the government at the time then privatisation itself. Personally I would have preferred it to be mutualised, but whatever.

I wonder how many of these threads can be made

I'm sure we can make one for every year Ulster has been part of the Union.

[The Archregimancy]

why do I feel oddly happy that Arch is OP again?

because you have yet to truly feel the effects of his bantz crackdown

Top-hole.

Bally Jerry pranged his kite right in the how's-your-father; hairy blighter, dicky-birdied, feathered back on his sammy, took a waspy, flipped over on his Betty Harpers and caught his can in the Bertie.

Grab your egg-and-fours and let's get the bacon delivered - bally tenpenny ones are dropping in the custard!

[Great Nepal]

What? I haven't seen any reports of deterioration of service since royal mail privatization unless you've something that says contrary?

profits slumped, jobs were cut, prices rose immediately, stocks were sold way under their real value. when you said "quite well" i imagined you meaning it was improved not simply not worse than before, which leaves us with little reason to ever do it in the first place.

e: fuck it, scrolling it you said "better" in the earlier post. it's up to you to show it's doing better.

Actual proft 2012/13 it was 403m in 2015/16 it was 551m, jobs cuts were necessary given reduction in letter volume, stocks don't have 'real value' - unless there's evidence someone was offering government more money but government chose to sell it for lower value; the sale was made at he value by definition. Given there has been no deterioration of service, this raises money for the government and insulates it from shocks in that market.

It is offering same level of service at an increased margin, it is free to compete with other companies on an equal footing, government is isolated from risks in the industry, it's investing more to modernize the service, it'll respond to market forces better without government intervention - it's doing better.

On private rail franchises, they haven't succeeded however there is no reason for government to heavy handedly step in and tear up the contracts damaging their ability to do business in other sectors down the line. If someone else wants to come along and privatize the railways again, stop them in parliament.

There really is, since it's the government who privatise stuff in the first place. If you get a government who uses heavy handed tactics to secure vital infrastructure it makes it that much harder for the next government to sell it for a fraction of its worth.

It makes it harder for next government to sell anything.

[Vassenor]

why do I feel oddly happy that Arch is OP again?

I'll try not to be too offended by that.

[Dooom35796821595]

profits slumped, jobs were cut, prices rose immediately, stocks were sold way under their real value. when you said "quite well" i imagined you meaning it was improved not simply not worse than before, which leaves us with little reason to ever do it in the first place.

e: fuck it, scrolling it you said "better" in the earlier post. it's up to you to show it's doing better.

Actual proft 2012/13 it was 403m in 2015/16 it was 551m, jobs cuts were necessary given reduction in letter volume, stocks don't have 'real value' - unless there's evidence someone was offering government more money but government chose to sell it for lower value; the sale was made at he value by definition. Given there has been no deterioration of service, this raises money for the government and insulates it from shocks in that market.

It is offering same level of service at an increased margin, it is free to compete with other companies on an equal footing, government is isolated from risks in the industry, it's investing more to modernize the service, it'll respond to market forces better without government intervention - it's doing better.

There really is, since it's the government who privatise stuff in the first place. If you get a government who uses heavy handed tactics to secure vital infrastructure it makes it that much harder for the next government to sell it for a fraction of its worth.

It makes it harder for next government to sell anything.

is that a bad thing?

[Frank Zipper]

Top-hole.

Bally Jerry pranged his kite right in the how's-your-father; hairy blighter, dicky-birdied, feathered back on his sammy, took a waspy, flipped over on his Betty Harpers and caught his can in the Bertie.

Grab your egg-and-fours and let's get the bacon delivered - bally tenpenny ones are dropping in the custard!

Er, I'm afraid I don't quite follow you, Moderator ...

[The Archregimancy]

Top-hole.

Bally Jerry pranged his kite right in the how's-your-father; hairy blighter, dicky-birdied, feathered back on his sammy, took a waspy, flipped over on his Betty Harpers and caught his can in the Bertie.

Grab your egg-and-fours and let's get the bacon delivered - bally tenpenny ones are dropping in the custard!

Er, I'm afraid I don't quite follow you, Moderator ...

It's perfectly ordinary banter, Zippy.

[New Benian Republic]

hate to get scottish scottish scottish but the only way i can see this being the case is if you don't really have much of a problem with selling off national infrastructure for the sake of selling off national infrastructure

the entire thing was like everything wrong with the conservative party in microcosm

It was Vince Cable who was ultimately responsible for the privatisation, so add the Liberal Democrats to that. I mean yeah I do care, it helped deliver Labour a few more lines to hammer the Tories on.

I don't have a problem selling off national infrastructure provided we as the taxpayer can make a decent sum for privatising said infrastructure and the service as a whole can be improved by privatisation. So I wouldn't have supported railway privatisation at the time, whereas telecommunications was a relatively successful privatisation (sorry to trigger you IR) along with the privatisation of BP. As for Royal Mail, I think the jury is still out on it. It was a botched privatisation mind you, which is more reflective on the government at the time then privatisation itself. Personally I would have preferred it to be mutualised, but whatever.

I wonder how many of these threads can be made

I'm sure we can make one for every year Ulster has been part of the Union.

Wait so they'll be ending soon?

[Great Nepal]

Actual proft 2012/13 it was 403m in 2015/16 it was 551m, jobs cuts were necessary given reduction in letter volume, stocks don't have 'real value' - unless there's evidence someone was offering government more money but government chose to sell it for lower value; the sale was made at he value by definition. Given there has been no deterioration of service, this raises money for the government and insulates it from shocks in that market.

It is offering same level of service at an increased margin, it is free to compete with other companies on an equal footing, government is isolated from risks in the industry, it's investing more to modernize the service, it'll respond to market forces better without government intervention - it's doing better.


It makes it harder for next government to sell anything.

is that a bad thing?

Yes, if a service works better in private hands there's no cause for government intervention there and if government currently holds those services it makes sense for government to offload those, and it should be possible for governments to do so where and if necessary.

[Vassenor]

So Clegg is admitting the Osborne cuts were ideologically driven with no care for the human consequences.

[Wolfmanne2]

Clegg has nothing to lose politically, so he decides to go spill the beans.

EDIT: Ninjaed.

[Wolfmanne2]

So Clegg is admitting the Osborne cuts were ideologically driven with no care for the human consequences.

I don't think there really seems to be an ideology behind those cuts. It is purely for electoral purposes; social housing and whatnot supposedly creates Labour voters.

[Vassenor]

So Clegg is admitting the Osborne cuts were ideologically driven with no care for the human consequences.

I don't think there really seems to be an ideology behind those cuts. It is purely for electoral purposes; social housing and whatnot supposedly creates Labour voters.

I thought it was the whole "screw the poor" thing. Shows what I know.

[Wolfmanne2]

Just for the record, the Liberal Democrats are still pricks and anyone who voted for them in 2010 should be ashamed of themselves.

[Souseiseki]

Just for the record, the Liberal Democrats are still pricks and anyone who voted for them in 2010 should be ashamed of themselves.

better to have voted lib dem than tory

shots fired