• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

General UK politics VIII - The Last Tory

3point14 said:
I struggle to see how it can be. Can I have two different sets of water pipes into and out of my house and throw a switch when one is cheaper or provides a better service than the other?

It's faux capitalism. There's zero consumer choice.
Click to expand...
Since when is capitalism about customer choice? It is about rewarding the rich with the fruits of others labor. This rewards the ownership classes so really is capitalism, they had the capital they get the rewards.
 
Andy_Ross said:
According to the Sun 'affordability checks' and other restrictions on betting are destroying the horse racing industry and Starmer had to scrap them all to save it.
Government 'nanny state' interference in the gambling industry are restrictions on freedom and it should be up to the individual to take responsibility for their behaviour.
Click to expand...
Like with weapons, drugs and so forth.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
Consumer choice has no place in capitalism.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you know what capitalism is.
Gulliver Foyle said:
The only rule of capitalism is that the owners of capital should have free rein over whatever is done with their capital.
Click to expand...

Now I'm sure you don't know what capitalism is.
Gulliver Foyle said:
Given the utter lack of meaningful regulation of the water companies they are a perfect example of what capitalism does.
Click to expand...
Nope.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
I'm not sure you know what capitalism is.


Now I'm sure you don't know what capitalism is.

Nope.
Click to expand...

He's being obtuse.

A strict definition of capitalism is "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit." So he's right there. What's missing is all of the reasons expounded for why that's a good idea. None of which apply to water companies.
 
3point14 said:
He's being obtuse.

A strict definition of capitalism is "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit." So he's right there. What's missing is all of the reasons expounded for why that's a good idea. None of which apply to water companies.
Click to expand...
No that's a definition of every system that allows private ownership of economic vehiles, from Lenin's New Economic Plan to Randian Objectivism and everything in between.

Capitalism is a specific type of sub-system within that grouping that deliniates that no restrictions can be placed on capital.
 
3point14 said:
He's being obtuse.

A strict definition of capitalism is "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit." So he's right there. What's missing is all of the reasons expounded for why that's a good idea. None of which apply to water companies.
Click to expand...
No, that's actually the first dictionary definition you get when you google 'capitalism'. It's not "strict", nor is it by any means the only definition.
Here's the IMF's definition:
Capitalism is often thought of as an economic system in which private actors own and control property in accord with their interests, and demand and supply freely set prices in markets in a way that can serve the best interests of society.
Click to expand...
Wikipedia offers this:
Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. The defining characteristics of capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, competitive markets, price systems, recognition of property rights, self-interest, economic freedom, meritocracy, work ethic, consumer sovereignty, economic efficiency, decentralized decision-making, profit motive, a financial infrastructure of money and investment that makes possible credit and debt, entrepreneurship, commodification, voluntary exchange, wage labor, production of commodities and services, and a strong emphasis on innovation and economic growth.
Click to expand...

You can see from the above that there are plenty of good reasons why this is a good idea.
That said, I agree that privatisation of water, and the trains, doesn't work. In the case of the latter, I remember on the mid-90s, when privatised trains first started running, and it was great! New, comfortable carriages, faster trains, better food and a much-improved overall service. However, the lax regulation that was supposed to oversee these companies allowed for a gradual deterioration of the service. The same applies to the water companies: this could have worked, if the oversight had been up to scratch. It wasn't, which is how we got the mess we have now. Really, though, I don't think that a national resource like railways or water can be privatised with any degree of success. Look at the confusion about who owns the tracks and the stations, and who is responsible for their upkeep. No, better that national resources remain in the hands of the state. The same point applies, though, about oversight. There needs to be a much tougher watchdog system, whether over privatised or nationalised companies or assets. It's far too much of an old boys' club right now.
 
Regarding the railways, the means of privatisation, especially splitting out the train ownership and infrastructure ownership was mostly targeted at making it as difficult as possible to re-nationalise rather than making the railways more efficient.

Any immediate benefits were down to a huge increase in subsidy (which in the first couple of years wasn't immediately passed on to shareholders, though they learned to do that quickly) rather than privatisation working.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Railways are being renationalised.
As franchises expire they are not being put back out.
Click to expand...
It's taken nigh on 30 years, the renationisation is piecemeal and the government is left holding the debt. Sounds like the fat cats are getting what they paid for.
 
Elon cannot legally give, donate or loan funds to a UK political party, per the electoral commision:

Tesla Motors Limited could, as that is "a UK-registered company which is incorporated in the UK and carries on business in the UK".
Tesla Motors Limited is 75% owned by Tesla Inc., of which Musk is CEO and the largest shareholder (around 22%).

So Musk himself cannot donate or loan money to Reform UK Ltd. A controlled by a company Musk controls could.

Farage, being the dummy he is, keeps honking about how much Elon supports Reform, not that Tesla Motors Ltd. supports Reform UK Ltd.

How much money does Tesla Motors Ltd. have available to gift/loan to political parties?


ETA: also, he (Noel) can't get round this by donating to/setting up a PAC, as we don't have those.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom