|
|
Post by zou on Jul 2, 2024 20:57:05 GMT
So is should generate... funding... Smarty pants.  |
|
|
|
Post by JohnY on Jul 2, 2024 21:38:09 GMT
The Tories have been bad for energy security.Even in Summer we import huge amounts of power from Europe on the inter-connectors. In Summer we could keep the lights on by more expensive gas generation. If Mr Putin decides to blow up the inter-connectors in Winter when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining the grid will collapse. Just to make things worse Radcliffe is about to shut down for good.
Labour will be even worse with their ridiculous plan to go green by 2030. It can be done; just shut down the grid in the most deserving place to be shut down. I would suggest greater London.
|
|
|
|
Post by mick on Jul 3, 2024 5:56:22 GMT
It's maybe because the actual definition of socialism means that the workers own the means of production and we Brits, on the whole, tend not to espouse that policy. That's probably a bit esoteric so the other possibility is that the word is associated with the extreme left wing and Corbynism etc. That's not popular either.
As a nation we don't much like extremism in any shape so you don't hear of the other side of the coin either. When did you last hear of anyone proclaiming that they are a capitalist? Imagine doing that on this forum - you be torn to shreds!!!
Mick
Mick
Not popular with the banks, financial whizz kids and those who have big fingers in our pie (including those Tories in Government who take care of their buddies). It is popular with the electorate plebs who work for others' profits.That's probably why Corbyn did so well in the elections he fought. It also might explain why Starmer backed Corbyn because he knew that they would lose. Maybe it also explains why Starmer has been busy deCorbynising the party .
Mick
|
|
|
|
Post by mick on Jul 3, 2024 6:59:04 GMT
Thank heavens that it's almost over!!
Mick
|
|
|
|
Post by MJB on Jul 3, 2024 7:49:14 GMT
Rishi Sunak "you name it, Labour will tax it"
Population of the UK "your wife"
|
|
|
|
Post by andytake2 on Jul 3, 2024 8:22:28 GMT
More PFI shite we'll be left paying for long after the private investors have stopped caring. I see no mention of PFI and apparently the tories stopped that in 2018 anyway. What it sounds like is the UK government putting up money to start a new energy company in the hopes of one day rivaling the likes of EDF. EDF are probably the best example of how UK governments don't seem to get the irony of 'private' companies providing electricity and becoming huge over here. Did anyone ever explain to them who actually owns EDF?  |
|
|
|
Post by dans on Jul 3, 2024 8:49:23 GMT
I had to smile just now when a Green candidate was asked if she was a socialist. You could almost see her retreating into her shell as she stumbled out the usual mantra of their aims. Why do people fight shy of saying they a socialist? If you think about it, we are a society of sorts. Many of us have similar aims. A good place to live, safe, comfortable in our homes and jobs if we have one. Positive about circumstances if we get ill or just old. Good education for our youngsters. Not burdening them with debt. Not bankrupting older folk to pay for care. Good public transport. Housing to suit all needs. So why is it a dirty word this socialism? A word to be avoided, it seems, by politicians in our democratic nation? Is it because it reduces capitalism? Is it because we would have to pay real taxes (all of us) to enjoy a fair society for all? Is that so scary? It's maybe because the actual definition of socialism means that the workers own the means of production and we Brits, on the whole, tend not to espouse that policy. That's probably a bit esoteric so the other possibility is that the word is associated with the extreme left wing and Corbynism etc. That's not popular either.
As a nation we don't much like extremism in any shape so you don't hear of the other side of the coin either. When did you last hear of anyone proclaiming that they are a capitalist? Imagine doing that on this forum - you be torn to shreds!!!
Mick
Mick
I've never understood why the workers owning the means of production is so unpopular, compared to few elites owning the means of production, which is what we have now and is what is failing us so dramatically. |
|
|
|
Post by El Sid on Jul 3, 2024 11:35:06 GMT
It's maybe because the actual definition of socialism means that the workers own the means of production and we Brits, on the whole, tend not to espouse that policy. That's probably a bit esoteric so the other possibility is that the word is associated with the extreme left wing and Corbynism etc. That's not popular either.
As a nation we don't much like extremism in any shape so you don't hear of the other side of the coin either. When did you last hear of anyone proclaiming that they are a capitalist? Imagine doing that on this forum - you be torn to shreds!!! Mick
Mick
I've never understood why the workers owning the means of production is so unpopular, compared to few elites owning the means of production, which is what we have now and is what is failing us so dramatically. If it actually was the workers that might be Ok but in reality it seems to end up being the government that does the owning meaning the business is run by political incompetents and time serving bureaucrats just going through the motions...  |
|
|
|
Post by zou on Jul 3, 2024 11:36:11 GMT
It's maybe because the actual definition of socialism means that the workers own the means of production and we Brits, on the whole, tend not to espouse that policy. That's probably a bit esoteric so the other possibility is that the word is associated with the extreme left wing and Corbynism etc. That's not popular either.
As a nation we don't much like extremism in any shape so you don't hear of the other side of the coin either. When did you last hear of anyone proclaiming that they are a capitalist? Imagine doing that on this forum - you be torn to shreds!!!
Mick
Mick
I've never understood why the workers owning the means of production is so unpopular, compared to few elites owning the means of production, which is what we have now and is what is failing us so dramatically. I shall invoke Thatcher. She knew that right to buy etc. would split the working class. You'd have an element that aspired to the trappings of wealth - home ownership, consumerism, private car vs public transport, etc. who would then begin to look down on those without. 'We've worked hard for it, they could have had it if they'd worked harder' This group, plus the already established middle classes, then accept the model that those with most deserve it/there's virtue in wealth. Calvinism/deterministic Protestantism also feeds into this, it isn't all about Thatcher! So with this attribution of virtue there's an implicit understanding that only those with most are truly qualified for that position, and a twisted sense of meritocracy in which anyone who works hard enough can get there. So that's (just one reason) why a lot of folk look down on workers owning the means of production, at a 'moral' level of objection. |
|
|
|
Post by El Sid on Jul 3, 2024 11:41:38 GMT
Look on the bright side, soon it'll all be over... ...all over that is except for the endless media analysis and another 5 years of useless government...  |
|
|
|
Post by mick on Jul 3, 2024 11:53:28 GMT
I've never understood why the workers owning the means of production is so unpopular, compared to few elites owning the means of production, which is what we have now and is what is failing us so dramatically. I shall invoke Thatcher. She knew that right to buy etc. would split the working class. You'd have an element that aspired to the trappings of wealth - home ownership, consumerism, private car vs public transport, etc. who would then begin to look down on those without. 'We've worked hard for it, they could have had it if they'd worked harder' This group, plus the already established middle classes, then accept the model that those with most deserve it/there's virtue in wealth. Calvinism/deterministic Protestantism also feeds into this, it isn't all about Thatcher! So with this attribution of virtue there's an implicit understanding that only those with most are truly qualified for that position, and a twisted sense of meritocracy in which anyone who works hard enough can get there. So that's (just one reason) why a lot of folk look down on workers owning the means of production, at a 'moral' level of objection. My explanation is much more down to earth!
Read the 'disadvantage' section (read the rest later). Those disadvantages are what sticks in the mind of many of we oldies. We were there!!
Mick
|
|
|
|
Post by MJB on Jul 3, 2024 12:00:25 GMT
Name one nationalised business that improved after privatisation. I can only think of one.
|
|
|
|
Post by kate on Jul 3, 2024 12:02:53 GMT
Name one nationalised business that improved after privatisation. I can only think of one. The improvement is that money will not leak out of the country as it does now. PS Looking at what is currently owned by the UK it appears that banks and financial institutions predominate. I saw few wealth generating enterprises for the general public amongst Wiki's list. Let's face it, the banks and financial instutions generate massive wealth for the few 'owners' and not for the many. |
|
|
|
Post by dans on Jul 3, 2024 12:12:20 GMT
I've never understood why the workers owning the means of production is so unpopular, compared to few elites owning the means of production, which is what we have now and is what is failing us so dramatically. I shall invoke Thatcher. She knew that right to buy etc. would split the working class. You'd have an element that aspired to the trappings of wealth - home ownership, consumerism, private car vs public transport, etc. who would then begin to look down on those without. 'We've worked hard for it, they could have had it if they'd worked harder' This group, plus the already established middle classes, then accept the model that those with most deserve it/there's virtue in wealth. Calvinism/deterministic Protestantism also feeds into this, it isn't all about Thatcher! So with this attribution of virtue there's an implicit understanding that only those with most are truly qualified for that position, and a twisted sense of meritocracy in which anyone who works hard enough can get there. So that's (just one reason) why a lot of folk look down on workers owning the means of production, at a 'moral' level of objection. The right to buy council house was genius. It is a fantastic thing to be able to buy your house, and it sounded like a great idea. But the majority of those house are no longer owned by the peoole who bought them. And no replacement council houses were built. Once again the houses owned by us, went to the rich. The super rich are owning everything, all the assets which used to be ours, or owned by government, have gone to the super rich. At least if the government owned our utilities, they are accountable, no one is accountable when it is privately owned, the only accountability is to the share holders, the likes of Sunak and all the other non working rich people. For some reason this country hates the idle poor but happily accepts the idle rich. |
|
|
|
Post by dans on Jul 3, 2024 12:25:47 GMT
I shall invoke Thatcher. She knew that right to buy etc. would split the working class. You'd have an element that aspired to the trappings of wealth - home ownership, consumerism, private car vs public transport, etc. who would then begin to look down on those without. 'We've worked hard for it, they could have had it if they'd worked harder' This group, plus the already established middle classes, then accept the model that those with most deserve it/there's virtue in wealth. Calvinism/deterministic Protestantism also feeds into this, it isn't all about Thatcher! So with this attribution of virtue there's an implicit understanding that only those with most are truly qualified for that position, and a twisted sense of meritocracy in which anyone who works hard enough can get there. So that's (just one reason) why a lot of folk look down on workers owning the means of production, at a 'moral' level of objection. My explanation is much more down to earth!
Read the 'disadvantage' section (read the rest later). Those disadvantages are what sticks in the mind of many of we oldies. We were there!!
Mick
The disadvantage in the article re, they can't fail as they get a government subsidy, is something that is also true of the private companies. The water companies can't be allowed to fail, they will get what they need, they then give it to their shareholders or pass the cost onto us directly, rather than through the government. The water companies have a different aganda once privatised, their agenda is profit, a government owned water company will have suppling water as the agenda. I'm not sure the innovation claim is true either, I can't recall the UK falling behind in technologies. If the will is there then it matters not who owns it, it is simply that private companies pay less wages, reduce service and pass our money for the service to people who don't work for a living, the shareholders. And competition for our money is a joke, if it really worked in our favour then these companies wouldn't be making such huge profits every year. |
|
