Del Woppio
Virgin geek fuckwad
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2009
- Messages
- 25,710
- Reaction score
- 12,042
We can't be in a position where the brexit secretary is lying to the brexit scrutiny committee
We can't be in a position where the brexit secretary is lying to the brexit scrutiny committee
Maybe the impact assessments were done but they were pretty damning in their findings.
Anyway, what difference does it make? The impact assessments would have been useful when the country was making the decision. They won't affect the trajectory we're on now
The impact assessments could only weaken the UK's position as they'd say brexit is a really bad idea and we know it. If we don't admit we know it then it can't be used against us and we can still pretend we think it's a good idea
I never stated that it could. I was referring to legislation. Costs of any accreditation would be relatively small to the overall operating costs.You will know better than most I'd have thought why you can't transfer certification? It's expensive and time consuming.
I never stated that it could. I was referring to legislation. Costs of any accreditation would be relatively small to the overall operating costs.
What's the difference with current practice? None of the companies are loss making (since the regulators set charges so they don't make a loss), why would this change if they were run as state owned companies? They would be exactly the same, except owned by the state not some random cayman island company.
What's the difference with current practice? None of the companies are loss making (since the regulators set charges so they don't make a loss), why would this change if they were run as state owned companies? They would be exactly the same, except owned by the state not some random cayman island company.
So why change?
So we can take that 4% dividend for the UK government? Alternatively having all your national infrastructure massively debt laden and owned by potentially obstructive foreign government isn't a great idea?So why change?
Well for starters the £4.8bn government subsidies (excluding Network Rail loans) won't be going to privately run businesses.So why change?
Who then proceed to take all profits away instead of reinvesting for our benefit!
People need to stop equating "Nationalisation" and the Labour Party with "B.R and the 70's"
Well for starters the £4.8bn government subsidies (excluding Network Rail loans) won't be going to privately run businesses.
So we can take that 4% dividend for the UK government? Alternatively having all your national infrastructure massively debt laden and owned by potentially obstructive foreign government isn't a great idea?
I think we are at cross purposes, I'm not proposing state run, juts state owned and run at arms length - as we do for banks currently.Nationalised companies can't make profits and I think you're dreaming if you think it will be less to run under a government than it would under private ownership.
And let's nip the 'invest in the infrastructure' argument in the bid as successive governments have failed to do this in any Nationalised business to any effect.
As anybody who innovates and invents anything knows, nothing gets invented by committee and there would be a shit load of these spout up overnight.
The 'consultant' industry must be slavering over the thought of rinsing the government like they currently do with local authorities.
I think we are at cross purposes, I'm not proposing state run, juts state owned and run at arms length - as we do for banks currently.
I have noticed myself slavering, but if I start I will let you know
So you think that would stop? Or would it still be needed anyway? As far as I know that is part of the tender process and that number would probably double if we operated the train line.
Nobody has answered where we would get the money from and how we would pay it back?
I don’t think the government paid anything for Northern Rock shares when they nationalised that. Rail companies would transfer to public ownership at the end of their current contracts. Gas, electricity and water would probably be the costly ones to bring back into public ownership but this would be balanced (in an accounting sense) by the value of assets acquired. Shares would be exchanged for government bonds to pay for it.
The upfront cost of nationalisation of these industries is not the real issue, it is whether after nationalisation they are well run and make a “profit”. If they do then this covers the cost of any government bonds, investment and value for the tax payer. If they don’t, this is where the real cost lies.
You're assuming those businesses would accept these offers. They may well just say 'No, see you in court'. We would also still have to find the cash to pay for these businesses as they will want the money for them, regardless of how you put that on a balance sheet that has to come from somewhere.
The banks failing is a different matter as they couldn't exist without public ownership, the companies we are talking about can and do. As I said before this is an exorbitant amount of money at a time Brexit is going terribly.