Council housing sell off 'will create ghettos'

[markjay]

Err...I'm not sure we agree on anything. You now claim to have no faith in the various regulatory bodies that operate in privatised industries and yet....

My point was that regulating something is easier than actually running it. So hopefully things will improve when the governemnt only regulates, rather than operates.

 

[Scott_F]

My point was that regulating something is easier than actually running it. So hopefully things will improve when the governemnt only regulates, rather than operates.

The Government doesn't directly regulate anything - it creates bodies like Ofgem and Ofwat to regulate these industries and frequently they fail the consumer. Do you honestly think that Ofgem does a good job of regulating what is effectively a domestic energy cartel ??

We already have the Postal Redress Service which may become a fully-fledged Ombudsman with greater powers after privatisation.

 

[Bellow]

MJ. In another post you cite 'national pride' as a prerequisite to democracy.
Just where is the national pride in the country being owned, run, and manipulated by foreign entities? Surely control over energy resources is worth more to national pride (let alone well being - how many die in the UK of hypothermia annually?) than a season of flag waving at a royal jubilee and an athletics event.

And while I can see your point re vested interest, the vested interests are more interested in a return on their investment than the well being of the UK. How long before we're working Chinese hours for Chinese wages?

 

[Bellow]

My point was that regulating something is easier than actually running it. So hopefully things will improve when the governemnt only regulates, rather than operates.

Is it easier/better to tame a rapacious capitalist system to standards of socially/ethically acceptable behaviour, or start with a more socially orientated system and give it capitalist levels of (tax funded) investment and support when required?

 

[finisterre]

My point was that regulating something is easier than actually running it. So hopefully things will improve when the governemnt only regulates, rather than operates.

the forestry commission has managed nearly 10% of our land for over a century and it has done it well. Regulation of the rail industry has been a joke. Ofcom should be short for comedy.

I think you are being ideological.

I skipped a lot of the post office posting, did anyone mention the selectapost deal?

 

[markjay]

MJ. In another post you cite 'national pride' as a prerequisite to democracy.
Just where is the national pride in the country being owned, run, and manipulated by foreign entities? Surely control over energy resources is worth more to national pride (let alone well being - how many die in the UK of hypothermia annually?) than a season of flag waving at a royal jubilee and an athletics event.

(I believe I actually said 'sense of national identity' or similar. The idea is that people in a Democracy should vote for their leaders based on the candidates' skills, ideology and manifesto, and not simply based on their ethnicity. When citizens in a country do not have a sense of national identity, ethnicity takes precedence and voters simply vote for the candidate who is a member of their tribe or ethnic group, regardless of skills, ideology or manifesto. This is simply a power-struggle dressed-up as Democratic elections, and it is these countries that often descent into civil war when the 'Democratic elections' fail to produce the result that one ethnic group was hoping for. A Democratic state in my view is one where skills, ideology, and manifesto determines who gets elected leader, rather than his/her ethnicity.)

We are in full control of our energy sources. EDF can only carry-out operations according to local UK regulations, which our government dictates. And the parts they own of our energy supply system can be nationalised at any time. We allow them some degree of supervised freedom in running the business, and we allow them to take away financial profits. In my view, as stated, this sort of arrangement laces together countries' financial interests, and aids stability.

And while I can see your point re vested interest, the vested interests are more interested in a return on their investment than the well being of the UK. How long before we're working Chinese hours for Chinese wages?

I suspect that things are going the other way. Our working condition in the west keep improving - shorter working hours, longer holidays. It's the Chinese who wake up to their appalling conditions and start demanding western-style workplaces. I posted in another thread how Chinese villagers will no longer accept that their property and land are being taken away by developers - they demonstrate and protest to the central government, something unheard of in the 1989 China of Tiananmen Square fame.

Is it easier/better to tame a rapacious capitalist system to standards of socially/ethically acceptable behaviour, or start with a more socially orientated system and give it capitalist levels of (tax funded) investment and support when required?

I am not sure why one would be easier or more difficult than the other? To my mind both are achievable.

The Government doesn't directly regulate anything - it creates bodies like Ofgem and Ofwat to regulate these industries and frequently they fail the consumer. Do you honestly think that Ofgem does a good job of regulating what is effectively a domestic energy cartel ??...

This is of course correct, my description was an over-simplification. More to the point, suggesting that the regulators failed to prevent an energy cartel assumes that energy prices would have been lower if the government still ran things - not sure if there is any evidence to support this?

the forestry commission has managed nearly 10% of our land for over a century and it has done it well. Regulation of the rail industry has been a joke. Ofcom should be short for comedy.

I think you are being ideological....

On the contrary. Many here seem to come from one ideology or the other, looking for examples that demonstrate their ideological point of view. I don't think we should start with the premise that the government should run everything, or that it should tun nothing. I think we should look at each industry individually, and decide what should be publicly-owned and run, and what should not.

To my mind, the NHS is doing a great job, and it being publicly owned makes it accessible to all. Royal Mail on the other hand performs poorly, and I can not see any reason why in this day and age the government should own and control it. And so on.

 

[Bellow]

I suspect that things are going the other way. Our working condition in the west keep improving - shorter working hours, longer holidays.

Sustainable? Do UK workers feel safe in their jobs?

I am not sure why one would be easier or more difficult than the other? To my mind both are achievable.

Because taming the capitalist beast entails being one step ahead of those who have zilch in the way of ethics and are better termed sociopaths. You will always trail them. The banking sector is proof enough of that. It is energy wasted - trying to out-think greedy selfish self-serving scum.

 

[Peter DLM]

What was this thread about again?