Political round up.............

First topic message reminder :

ps the Best leaders surround themselves with the best people.   Not so good leaders surround themselves with those that are not going to challenge them.  So maybe the reason why it appears that there is a poor selection of candidates is partly due to Boris Johnson.  Another reason may be that the leadership qualities and the general competence levels of elected mps has declined.

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Remaining EU laws are to be torn up by the end of next year as part of the Chancellor's bid to reduce unnecessary costs for British businesses and unleash growth.

Kwasi Kwarteng said the bonfire of red tape would lead to “a simpler system” that was easier for firms to navigate, as he also unveiled a bonanza of tax cuts to boost the flagging economy.

He said government departments have been ordered to review all retained EU regulations by December 2023, by which point they will be “automatically” axed unless they are amended or replaced.

According to official data, the UK has retained 2,417 pieces of EU law since leaving the bloc.

Only 182 of these laws have been amended, 196 have been appealed and 33 have been replaced.

Good. A proper break with the EU. This is the exact stuff Johnson should have been doing.

Which laws are you looking forward to them getting rid of?

The ones that impose regulation on financial services and GDPR should be reformed, at the very least, for a start.

Which bits of GDPR should be reformed, specifically?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Why does someone earning £200k per year need an extra £5k right now? How is this good?

Alternatively, why is it bad that someone gets to keep more of the money they earn?

If it's good that someone gets to keep more of the money they earn, then why have taxes at all? Presumably at a certain point keeping more of your money becomes bad?

It's good because it's the moral thing to do and because private individuals are better placed to spend money than the state.

The state needs some level of general taxation to fund services, but the issue arises when taxes are too high (as they have been) and state spending becomes inefficient, in addition to all the other detriments of a high-tax, highly regulated economy.

The moral thing to do would then be for the people who get that extra money to willingly pass it on to those more in need, in order to benefit society as a whole. But it's highly doubtful many (or any) will do that. And thus society ends up worse off than if they had been taxed and the money gone to those in need. But hey, why should the rich care about that? We have evolved to be selfish, right? It's not morally wrong, it's just the way we are.

As for taxes being too high - says who? And state spending can be equally as inefficient regardless of the taxation rate.

The tax burden was recently the highest since the 1940s.

https://www.cityam.com/uk-households-to-be-saddled-with-heaviest-tax-burden-since-1940s/

State spending has to be streamlined and more efficient if they are taking in less through taxation. The NHS might be more efficient if it didn't find itself getting endless amounts of increased funding from the state, for instance.

On your first paragraph, how much do you believe someone who earns 150k should be taxed?

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Why does someone earning £200k per year need an extra £5k right now? How is this good?

Alternatively, why is it bad that someone gets to keep more of the money they earn?

If it's good that someone gets to keep more of the money they earn, then why have taxes at all? Presumably at a certain point keeping more of your money becomes bad?

It's good because it's the moral thing to do and because private individuals are better placed to spend money than the state.

The state needs some level of general taxation to fund services, but the issue arises when taxes are too high (as they have been) and state spending becomes inefficient, in addition to all the other detriments of a high-tax, highly regulated economy.

The moral thing to do would then be for the people who get that extra money to willingly pass it on to those more in need, in order to benefit society as a whole. But it's highly doubtful many (or any) will do that. And thus society ends up worse off than if they had been taxed and the money gone to those in need. But hey, why should the rich care about that? We have evolved to be selfish, right? It's not morally wrong, it's just the way we are.

As for taxes being too high - says who? And state spending can be equally as inefficient regardless of the taxation rate.

The tax burden was recently the highest since the 1940s.

https://www.cityam.com/uk-households-to-be-saddled-with-heaviest-tax-burden-since-1940s/

State spending has to be streamlined and more efficient if they are taking in less through taxation. The NHS might be more efficient if it didn't find itself getting endless amounts of increased funding from the state, for instance.

On your first paragraph, how much do you believe someone who earns 150k should be taxed?

Can't say I've worked out exactly how much any particular salary should be taxed, but I had no issue with the 45% tax rate as it was.
State spending doesn't have to be streamlined and more efficient if they are taking in less. That's just politicians being lazy when they have more. It should be equally streamlined and efficient regardless. Does it make you proud to be British that government spending is not as streamlined and efficient as it should be?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Why does someone earning £200k per year need an extra £5k right now? How is this good?

Alternatively, why is it bad that someone gets to keep more of the money they earn?

If it's good that someone gets to keep more of the money they earn, then why have taxes at all? Presumably at a certain point keeping more of your money becomes bad?

It's good because it's the moral thing to do and because private individuals are better placed to spend money than the state.

The state needs some level of general taxation to fund services, but the issue arises when taxes are too high (as they have been) and state spending becomes inefficient, in addition to all the other detriments of a high-tax, highly regulated economy.

The moral thing to do would then be for the people who get that extra money to willingly pass it on to those more in need, in order to benefit society as a whole. But it's highly doubtful many (or any) will do that. And thus society ends up worse off than if they had been taxed and the money gone to those in need. But hey, why should the rich care about that? We have evolved to be selfish, right? It's not morally wrong, it's just the way we are.

As for taxes being too high - says who? And state spending can be equally as inefficient regardless of the taxation rate.

The tax burden was recently the highest since the 1940s.

https://www.cityam.com/uk-households-to-be-saddled-with-heaviest-tax-burden-since-1940s/

State spending has to be streamlined and more efficient if they are taking in less through taxation. The NHS might be more efficient if it didn't find itself getting endless amounts of increased funding from the state, for instance.

On your first paragraph, how much do you believe someone who earns 150k should be taxed?

Can't say I've worked out exactly how much any particular salary should be taxed, but I had no issue with the 45% tax rate as it was.
State spending doesn't have to be streamlined and more efficient if they are taking in less. That's just politicians being lazy when they have more. It should be equally streamlined and efficient regardless. Does it make you proud to be British that government spending is not as streamlined and efficient as it should be?

My love of this country doesn't come from the people who run it (usually), it comes from the other things I mentioned before.

I agree state spending should be streamlined and efficient no matter how much it takes in through taxation, but the reality is it isn't. More money breeds laxer spending. It's for a similar reason why private industry is better than nationalised industry.

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Why does someone earning £200k per year need an extra £5k right now? How is this good?

Alternatively, why is it bad that someone gets to keep more of the money they earn?

If it's good that someone gets to keep more of the money they earn, then why have taxes at all? Presumably at a certain point keeping more of your money becomes bad?

It's good because it's the moral thing to do and because private individuals are better placed to spend money than the state.

The state needs some level of general taxation to fund services, but the issue arises when taxes are too high (as they have been) and state spending becomes inefficient, in addition to all the other detriments of a high-tax, highly regulated economy.

The moral thing to do would then be for the people who get that extra money to willingly pass it on to those more in need, in order to benefit society as a whole. But it's highly doubtful many (or any) will do that. And thus society ends up worse off than if they had been taxed and the money gone to those in need. But hey, why should the rich care about that? We have evolved to be selfish, right? It's not morally wrong, it's just the way we are.

As for taxes being too high - says who? And state spending can be equally as inefficient regardless of the taxation rate.

The tax burden was recently the highest since the 1940s.

https://www.cityam.com/uk-households-to-be-saddled-with-heaviest-tax-burden-since-1940s/

State spending has to be streamlined and more efficient if they are taking in less through taxation. The NHS might be more efficient if it didn't find itself getting endless amounts of increased funding from the state, for instance.

On your first paragraph, how much do you believe someone who earns 150k should be taxed?

Can't say I've worked out exactly how much any particular salary should be taxed, but I had no issue with the 45% tax rate as it was.
State spending doesn't have to be streamlined and more efficient if they are taking in less. That's just politicians being lazy when they have more. It should be equally streamlined and efficient regardless. Does it make you proud to be British that government spending is not as streamlined and efficient as it should be?

My love of this country doesn't come from the people who run it (usually), it comes from the other things I mentioned before.

I agree state spending should be streamlined and efficient no matter how much it takes in through taxation, but the reality is it isn't. More money breeds laxer spending. It's for a similar reason why private industry is better than nationalised industry.

So why not privatise the NHS, the police, education, the fire and ambulance services, road maintenance and then you could reduce taxes to very low levels as there would be very little government spending and all those services would be improved?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Why does someone earning £200k per year need an extra £5k right now? How is this good?

Alternatively, why is it bad that someone gets to keep more of the money they earn?

If it's good that someone gets to keep more of the money they earn, then why have taxes at all? Presumably at a certain point keeping more of your money becomes bad?

It's good because it's the moral thing to do and because private individuals are better placed to spend money than the state.

The state needs some level of general taxation to fund services, but the issue arises when taxes are too high (as they have been) and state spending becomes inefficient, in addition to all the other detriments of a high-tax, highly regulated economy.

The moral thing to do would then be for the people who get that extra money to willingly pass it on to those more in need, in order to benefit society as a whole. But it's highly doubtful many (or any) will do that. And thus society ends up worse off than if they had been taxed and the money gone to those in need. But hey, why should the rich care about that? We have evolved to be selfish, right? It's not morally wrong, it's just the way we are.

As for taxes being too high - says who? And state spending can be equally as inefficient regardless of the taxation rate.

The tax burden was recently the highest since the 1940s.

https://www.cityam.com/uk-households-to-be-saddled-with-heaviest-tax-burden-since-1940s/

State spending has to be streamlined and more efficient if they are taking in less through taxation. The NHS might be more efficient if it didn't find itself getting endless amounts of increased funding from the state, for instance.

On your first paragraph, how much do you believe someone who earns 150k should be taxed?

Can't say I've worked out exactly how much any particular salary should be taxed, but I had no issue with the 45% tax rate as it was.
State spending doesn't have to be streamlined and more efficient if they are taking in less. That's just politicians being lazy when they have more. It should be equally streamlined and efficient regardless. Does it make you proud to be British that government spending is not as streamlined and efficient as it should be?

My love of this country doesn't come from the people who run it (usually), it comes from the other things I mentioned before.

I agree state spending should be streamlined and efficient no matter how much it takes in through taxation, but the reality is it isn't. More money breeds laxer spending. It's for a similar reason why private industry is better than nationalised industry.

So why not privatise the NHS, the police, education, the fire and ambulance services, road maintenance and then you could reduce taxes to very low levels as there would be very little government spending and all those services would be improved?

The NHS certainly needs wholesale reform and more private involvement. The other things remain (largely) key arms of the state, especially the emergency services.

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Why does someone earning £200k per year need an extra £5k right now? How is this good?

Alternatively, why is it bad that someone gets to keep more of the money they earn?

If it's good that someone gets to keep more of the money they earn, then why have taxes at all? Presumably at a certain point keeping more of your money becomes bad?

It's good because it's the moral thing to do and because private individuals are better placed to spend money than the state.

The state needs some level of general taxation to fund services, but the issue arises when taxes are too high (as they have been) and state spending becomes inefficient, in addition to all the other detriments of a high-tax, highly regulated economy.

The moral thing to do would then be for the people who get that extra money to willingly pass it on to those more in need, in order to benefit society as a whole. But it's highly doubtful many (or any) will do that. And thus society ends up worse off than if they had been taxed and the money gone to those in need. But hey, why should the rich care about that? We have evolved to be selfish, right? It's not morally wrong, it's just the way we are.

As for taxes being too high - says who? And state spending can be equally as inefficient regardless of the taxation rate.

The tax burden was recently the highest since the 1940s.

https://www.cityam.com/uk-households-to-be-saddled-with-heaviest-tax-burden-since-1940s/

State spending has to be streamlined and more efficient if they are taking in less through taxation. The NHS might be more efficient if it didn't find itself getting endless amounts of increased funding from the state, for instance.

On your first paragraph, how much do you believe someone who earns 150k should be taxed?

Can't say I've worked out exactly how much any particular salary should be taxed, but I had no issue with the 45% tax rate as it was.
State spending doesn't have to be streamlined and more efficient if they are taking in less. That's just politicians being lazy when they have more. It should be equally streamlined and efficient regardless. Does it make you proud to be British that government spending is not as streamlined and efficient as it should be?

My love of this country doesn't come from the people who run it (usually), it comes from the other things I mentioned before.

I agree state spending should be streamlined and efficient no matter how much it takes in through taxation, but the reality is it isn't. More money breeds laxer spending. It's for a similar reason why private industry is better than nationalised industry.

So why not privatise the NHS, the police, education, the fire and ambulance services, road maintenance and then you could reduce taxes to very low levels as there would be very little government spending and all those services would be improved?

The NHS certainly needs wholesale reform and more private involvement. The other things remain (largely) key arms of the state, especially the emergency services.

Yes they do, but from an ideological perspective you presumably believe they would all provide better services if privatised?

Health and education, yes, road maintenance probably. I would be unsure about the emergency services.

Former US Treasury secretary Larry Summers warned the pound could fall below the dollar due to the huge spending commitments outlined by Mr Kwarteng.

"It makes me very sorry to say, but I think the UK is behaving a bit like an emerging market turning itself into a submerging market," Mr Summers told Bloomberg.

"Between Brexit, how far the Bank of England got behind the curve and now these fiscal policies, I think Britain will be remembered for having pursuing the worst macroeconomic policies of any major country in a long time."

Sunlit uplands and all that though. Fish and that.

At least the bankers have bigger bonuses now.

Duty281 wrote:

Derek Smalls wrote:We'll be the new Thailand and we will certainly all live happily ever after, the shackles thrown off majestically, the red tape sprung back like an Olympian god playing with an elastic band,; the economy will be fired up , and I for one can't wait
I simply never understand why they didn't think of firing the economy up before!

Lady Thatcher did. Threw off the shackles of Keynesian orthodoxy, created wealth and tamed inflation. Since then we've been strangled by increasing taxation, increased regulation and an increased size of the state.

Yep. We've been dealing with a lot of what she did to society ever since.

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Why does someone earning £200k per year need an extra £5k right now? How is this good?

Alternatively, why is it bad that someone gets to keep more of the money they earn?

If it's good that someone gets to keep more of the money they earn, then why have taxes at all? Presumably at a certain point keeping more of your money becomes bad?

It's good because it's the moral thing to do and because private individuals are better placed to spend money than the state.

The state needs some level of general taxation to fund services, but the issue arises when taxes are too high (as they have been) and state spending becomes inefficient, in addition to all the other detriments of a high-tax, highly regulated economy.

Ah yes. It all trickles down so well, doesn't it.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Derek Smalls wrote:We'll be the new Thailand and we will certainly all live happily ever after, the shackles thrown off majestically, the red tape sprung back like an Olympian god playing with an elastic band,; the economy will be fired up , and I for one can't wait
I simply never understand why they didn't think of firing the economy up before!

Lady Thatcher did. Threw off the shackles of Keynesian orthodoxy, created wealth and tamed inflation. Since then we've been strangled by increasing taxation, increased regulation and an increased size of the state.

Yep. We've been dealing with a lot of what she did to society ever since.

Yeah, would have been better if Thatcher didn't do what she did. Society was better off with 25% inflation, frequent power cuts, rubbish piling up in the streets...better days, surely?

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Why does someone earning £200k per year need an extra £5k right now? How is this good?

Alternatively, why is it bad that someone gets to keep more of the money they earn?

If it's good that someone gets to keep more of the money they earn, then why have taxes at all? Presumably at a certain point keeping more of your money becomes bad?

It's good because it's the moral thing to do and because private individuals are better placed to spend money than the state.

The state needs some level of general taxation to fund services, but the issue arises when taxes are too high (as they have been) and state spending becomes inefficient, in addition to all the other detriments of a high-tax, highly regulated economy.

Ah yes. It all trickles down so well, doesn't it.

More of a cycle than a trickle, but I suppose these pejoratives have to stay around.

Duty281 wrote:Health and education, yes, road maintenance probably. I would be unsure about the emergency services.

I am more than fed up of the naive nonsense that public=bad and private=good. Dogma. There's no a priori reason that this should be the case, and it's not. There are a myriad of utter Poopie private services etc, but yep, private is awesome.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Health and education, yes, road maintenance probably. I would be unsure about the emergency services.

I am more than fed up of the naive nonsense that public=bad and private=good. Dogma. There's no a priori reason that this should be the case, and it's not. There are a myriad of utter Poopie private services etc, but yep, private is awesome.

This is not naive nonsense. It's what history has shown us. I would support nationalised industry if it worked better than private industry, but it simply doesn't.

Private = choice to the consumer; competition so innovation; price competition; penalty for failure; more investment from the private sector; not a political football; efficient
Public = no choice to the consumer; no competition so stagnation; no price competition; no penalty for failure; less investment from the private sector; political football meaning inconsistency of direction and short-termist outlook; inefficient.

The good thing about a terrible private service is you can switch to a different private service, presumably a better one. If it's state-owned and it's terrible (e.g. Broadband if Corbyn had won) you're stuck with it.

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Why does someone earning £200k per year need an extra £5k right now? How is this good?

Alternatively, why is it bad that someone gets to keep more of the money they earn?

If it's good that someone gets to keep more of the money they earn, then why have taxes at all? Presumably at a certain point keeping more of your money becomes bad?

It's good because it's the moral thing to do and because private individuals are better placed to spend money than the state.

The state needs some level of general taxation to fund services, but the issue arises when taxes are too high (as they have been) and state spending becomes inefficient, in addition to all the other detriments of a high-tax, highly regulated economy.

Ah yes. It all trickles down so well, doesn't it.

More of a cycle than a trickle, but I suppose these pejoratives have to stay around.

It doesn't work, and you know it. I'll keep the pejorative as, after all, you like the word 'choke'.

You dream that this country is (not quite) Utopian. It's so far from that, it's a joke. Comparisons with elsewhere, as if that makes us somehow in a better place, aren't a great way to demonstrate this almost Utopia that we live in. To be honest, I'd much rather, say, Canada or New Zealand, for example. Germany maybe.

It's been dying on its arse for ages. More people ripping money out and not paying taxes, whatever the rates are at any given time (thanks, Maggie). Selling off the country's assets until we have no energy security, Poopie water utilities (competition? **** off), no shipping, no motor industry, shrinking armed forces, Poopie policing, Poopie NHS, Poopie education, Poopie roads etc etc etc.

One thing this country hasn't got to grips with yet, and given the pygmy politicians etc we have here, probably won't until it's too late, is the fact that we're actually just a small country in the modern world, with no actual empire anymore. We're still in the throes getting used to losing an empire, but a hundred years or so behind Spain, Portugal etc in waking up to that fact. We still expect the sort of education, health, roads, policing, army, navy (hah! Look at the shadow of what that once was) etc that we had when we actually were a world power. We aren't anymore, and given the way we've allowed politicians to p1ss away any assets we had, we had better get used to it.

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Health and education, yes, road maintenance probably. I would be unsure about the emergency services.

I am more than fed up of the naive nonsense that public=bad and private=good. Dogma. There's no a priori reason that this should be the case, and it's not. There are a myriad of utter Poopie private services etc, but yep, private is awesome.

This is not naive nonsense. It's what history has shown us. I would support nationalised industry if it worked better than private industry, but it simply doesn't.

Private = choice to the consumer; competition so innovation; price competition; penalty for failure; more investment from the private sector; not a political football; efficient
Public = no choice to the consumer; no competition so stagnation; no price competition; no penalty for failure; less investment from the private sector; political football meaning inconsistency of direction and short-termist outlook; inefficient.

The good thing about a terrible private service is you can switch to a different private service, presumably a better one. If it's state-owned and it's terrible (e.g. Broadband if Corbyn had won) you're stuck with it.

You didn't read what I wrote. I said there's no a priori reason.

I'd accept that there's a role for private, but in a similar way to Communism forgetting human nature, so has the much vaunted Capitalist model. It has to be a balance, and IMO, it's skewed too much away from a good society and too much towards people filling their pockets and damn the rest. The attitude of far too many these days is me, me, me. If trickle down models were ever a good idea, it's not in the 21st Century; we're way too selfish.

Pretty much all energy suppliers are Poopie in too many ways. Ditto broadband. Ditto water utilities. Etc.

I guess if it were easy, most countries (Russia and other despotic hell holes excepted) would be a Utopia.

Duty281 wrote:Public = no choice to the consumer; no competition so stagnation; no price competition; no penalty for failure; less investment from the private sector; political football meaning inconsistency of direction and short-termist outlook; inefficient

Assuming all that to be true (which it isn't all the time e.g. Met Office, Ordnance Survey, Land Registry), that is exactly the type of indictment of the human race which I was talking about before. We are essentially too self-interested, selfish, greedy and lazy to overcome all that to provide good public services to the benefit of all society - the fact that we have to rely on the private sector - where the main driver is money (greed), and any benefit to people/society is just a by-product of that - to do it better is shameful.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Public = no choice to the consumer; no competition so stagnation; no price competition; no penalty for failure; less investment from the private sector; political football meaning inconsistency of direction and short-termist outlook; inefficient

Assuming all that to be true (which it isn't all the time e.g. Met Office, Ordnance Survey, Land Registry), that is exactly the type of indictment of the human race which I was talking about before. We are essentially too self-interested, selfish, greedy and lazy to overcome all that to provide good public services to the benefit of all society - the fact that we have to rely on the private sector - where the main driver is money (greed), and any benefit to people/society is just a by-product of that - to do it better is shameful.

The main driver of the private sector is profit. Profit is not greed and it's silly to think so. We all wish to be remunerated for our efforts in life, whatever that may be. There is nothing wrong in that.

Now, how does the private sector get profit? Does it magically turn up in their bank accounts? No, they have to deliver a good service in whatever it is they're offering, in the face of competition from others trying to do likewise, and consumers get to choose their provider. If they fail to do this, they go to the wall. This drives innovation and evolution in the private sector.

With a public service you don't get this. You just have to rely on their benevolence and maybe an election being around the corner.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Why does someone earning £200k per year need an extra £5k right now? How is this good?

Alternatively, why is it bad that someone gets to keep more of the money they earn?

If it's good that someone gets to keep more of the money they earn, then why have taxes at all? Presumably at a certain point keeping more of your money becomes bad?

It's good because it's the moral thing to do and because private individuals are better placed to spend money than the state.

The state needs some level of general taxation to fund services, but the issue arises when taxes are too high (as they have been) and state spending becomes inefficient, in addition to all the other detriments of a high-tax, highly regulated economy.

Ah yes. It all trickles down so well, doesn't it.

More of a cycle than a trickle, but I suppose these pejoratives have to stay around.

It doesn't work, and you know it. I'll keep the pejorative as, after all, you like the word 'choke'.

You dream that this country is (not quite) Utopian. It's so far from that, it's a joke. Comparisons with elsewhere, as if that makes us somehow in a better place, aren't a great way to demonstrate this almost Utopia that we live in. To be honest, I'd much rather, say, Canada or New Zealand, for example. Germany maybe.

It's been dying on its arse for ages. More people ripping money out and not paying taxes, whatever the rates are at any given time (thanks, Maggie). Selling off the country's assets until we have no energy security, Poopie water utilities (competition? **** off), no shipping, no motor industry, shrinking armed forces, Poopie policing, Poopie NHS, Poopie education, Poopie roads etc etc etc.

One thing this country hasn't got to grips with yet, and given the pygmy politicians etc we have here, probably won't until it's too late, is the fact that we're actually just a small country in the modern world, with no actual empire anymore. We're still in the throes getting used to losing an empire, but a hundred years or so behind Spain, Portugal etc in waking up to that fact. We still expect the sort of education, health, roads, policing, army, navy (hah! Look at the shadow of what that once was) etc that we had when we actually were a world power. We aren't anymore, and given the way we've allowed politicians to p1ss away any assets we had, we had better get used to it.

It does work, and I do know it. Choke isn't a pejorative, but 'trickle-down' is.

I do not dream this country is Utopian. I was pointing out that Julius seemed to wish for an Utopian world which, in my view, will never happen.

I know you're obsessed with the Empire, as you've brought it up numerous times before, but hardly anyone thinks of this country as an Empire anymore. Barely anyone alive has lived experience of being part of the Empire. We're not getting to grips with it, we've understood it for decades. What we are doing as a nation is defining our new place in the world following our exit from the EU and wishing to be an independent nation state again (not part of an EU Empire which Guy Verhofstadt bangs on about).

The UK is a wonderful country, and I love this place.

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Public = no choice to the consumer; no competition so stagnation; no price competition; no penalty for failure; less investment from the private sector; political football meaning inconsistency of direction and short-termist outlook; inefficient

Assuming all that to be true (which it isn't all the time e.g. Met Office, Ordnance Survey, Land Registry), that is exactly the type of indictment of the human race which I was talking about before. We are essentially too self-interested, selfish, greedy and lazy to overcome all that to provide good public services to the benefit of all society - the fact that we have to rely on the private sector - where the main driver is money (greed), and any benefit to people/society is just a by-product of that - to do it better is shameful.

The main driver of the private sector is profit. Profit is not greed and it's silly to think so. We all wish to be remunerated for our efforts in life, whatever that may be. There is nothing wrong in that.

Now, how does the private sector get profit? Does it magically turn up in their bank accounts? No, they have to deliver a good service in whatever it is they're offering, in the face of competition from others trying to do likewise, and consumers get to choose their provider. If they fail to do this, they go to the wall. This drives innovation and evolution in the private sector.

With a public service you don't get this. You just have to rely on their benevolence and maybe an election being around the corner.

Profit above all else is greed. Thats's why there is so much corruption and lack of ethics in big business. We see it over and over again.
The fact that we can't rely on benevolence illustrates my point. Let's hope we're not the best the universe can offer and that somewhere out there, there are beings who can rely on the benevolence of their fellows.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Health and education, yes, road maintenance probably. I would be unsure about the emergency services.

I am more than fed up of the naive nonsense that public=bad and private=good. Dogma. There's no a priori reason that this should be the case, and it's not. There are a myriad of utter Poopie private services etc, but yep, private is awesome.

This is not naive nonsense. It's what history has shown us. I would support nationalised industry if it worked better than private industry, but it simply doesn't.

Private = choice to the consumer; competition so innovation; price competition; penalty for failure; more investment from the private sector; not a political football; efficient
Public = no choice to the consumer; no competition so stagnation; no price competition; no penalty for failure; less investment from the private sector; political football meaning inconsistency of direction and short-termist outlook; inefficient.

The good thing about a terrible private service is you can switch to a different private service, presumably a better one. If it's state-owned and it's terrible (e.g. Broadband if Corbyn had won) you're stuck with it.

You didn't read what I wrote. I said there's no a priori reason.

I'd accept that there's a role for private, but in a similar way to Communism forgetting human nature, so has the much vaunted Capitalist model. It has to be a balance, and IMO, it's skewed too much away from a good society and too much towards people filling their pockets and damn the rest. The attitude of far too many these days is me, me, me. If trickle down models were ever a good idea, it's not in the 21st Century; we're way too selfish.

Pretty much all energy suppliers are Poopie in too many ways. Ditto broadband. Ditto water utilities. Etc.

I guess if it were easy, most countries (Russia and other despotic hell holes excepted) would be a Utopia.

Right, so everyone's selfish and everything is sh1t? I think you can do better, Navy.

We do have a balance in our society. We have a welfare state and a free market. We encourage high-earners, but also have a minimum wage. We have strong workers' rights and environmental regulation.

And it's not trickle down. This is just a lazy pejorative put about by the left (the same left that was moaning about the high taxes and NI rises and an increase in corporation tax not so long ago).

Duty281 wrote:I do not dream this country is Utopian. I was pointing out that Julius seemed to wish for an Utopian world which, in my view, will never happen.

Who's the miserable pessimist now?

Economic growth under Thatcher was lower than that under Wilson and Callaghan. Blair underperformed Thatcher and things have been going downhill since then. The economy over the past 50 years has become ever more stagnant.

For every £1 of real GDP growth between Thatcher and the 2007 crash, there was £2 of borrowing by households and government.

No worker aged 31 or under in the UK has worked in an economy with sustained average wage rises. That is a quarter of the workforce that has not seen work provide a rising standard of living.

This neoliberal model does not work. All it serves to do is make the rich richer. And boy has it worked. The ultra-wealthy are today more comparatively rich than they have ever been in history, while the poor will be choosing between heating their homes or feeding their children this winter.

To suggest that more of the same economic policies will remedy this situation is utter lunacy. To also suggest that cutting taxes for the ultra wealthy will stimulate economic greater spending in the actual economy, rather than, say, just allowing them to buy more properties in the UK's already bloated market or just ferrying that extra money offshore, is naïve in the extreme.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Public = no choice to the consumer; no competition so stagnation; no price competition; no penalty for failure; less investment from the private sector; political football meaning inconsistency of direction and short-termist outlook; inefficient

Assuming all that to be true (which it isn't all the time e.g. Met Office, Ordnance Survey, Land Registry), that is exactly the type of indictment of the human race which I was talking about before. We are essentially too self-interested, selfish, greedy and lazy to overcome all that to provide good public services to the benefit of all society - the fact that we have to rely on the private sector - where the main driver is money (greed), and any benefit to people/society is just a by-product of that - to do it better is shameful.

The main driver of the private sector is profit. Profit is not greed and it's silly to think so. We all wish to be remunerated for our efforts in life, whatever that may be. There is nothing wrong in that.

Now, how does the private sector get profit? Does it magically turn up in their bank accounts? No, they have to deliver a good service in whatever it is they're offering, in the face of competition from others trying to do likewise, and consumers get to choose their provider. If they fail to do this, they go to the wall. This drives innovation and evolution in the private sector.

With a public service you don't get this. You just have to rely on their benevolence and maybe an election being around the corner.

Profit above all else is greed. Thats's why there is so much corruption and lack of ethics in big business. We see it over and over again.
The fact that we can't rely on benevolence illustrates my point. Let's hope we're not the best the universe can offer and that somewhere out there, there are beings who can rely on the benevolence of their fellows.

Greed is an excess of something. Profit keeps business alive, unless you think all businesses should run at cost and be unable to pay their staff?

There may be better beings in the wider universe, but in the one we presently exist in private is better than public.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:I do not dream this country is Utopian. I was pointing out that Julius seemed to wish for an Utopian world which, in my view, will never happen.

Who's the miserable pessimist now?

Haha. I don't want a utopia anyway. Sounds miserable.

So you've never seen any examples of greed in private industry?

JuliusHMarx wrote:So you've never seen any examples of greed in private industry?

Of course I have, but basic profit in of itself is not greed.

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:So you've never seen any examples of greed in private industry?

Of course I have, but basic profit in of itself is not greed.

Never said it was. But there are plenty of non-profit organisations that somehow manage to pay their staff. The world would be a better place if there were more.

Pr4wn wrote:Economic growth under Thatcher was lower than that under Wilson and Callaghan. Blair underperformed Thatcher and things have been going downhill since then. The economy over the past 50 years has become ever more stagnant.

For every £1 of real GDP growth between Thatcher and the 2007 crash, there was £2 of borrowing by households and government.

No worker aged 31 or under in the UK has worked in an economy with sustained average wage rises. That is a quarter of the workforce that has not seen work provide a rising standard of living.

This neoliberal model does not work. All it serves to do is make the rich richer. And boy has it worked. The ultra-wealthy are today more comparatively rich than they have ever been in history, while the poor will be choosing between heating their homes or feeding their children this winter.

To suggest that more of the same economic policies will remedy this situation is utter lunacy. To also suggest that cutting taxes for the ultra wealthy will stimulate economic greater spending in the actual economy, rather than, say, just allowing them to buy more properties in the UK's already bloated market or just ferrying that extra money offshore, is naïve in the extreme.

I don't believe it was, but if you have a source for it I'd like to see it.



In any case, Thatcher's main achievement was taming inflation and transitioning the UK to a service-based economy.

Wages have struggled in the aftermath of the financial crash, but they are starting to pick up now.

The ultra-wealthy are wealthier than ever before, and the poorest are struggling, but this is down to a wide variety of factors well beyond taxation policy. Lockdown, for instance, crushed small businesses but allowed bigger businesses to thrive. The failure of UK energy policy over the past seventy years has left us vulnerable and dependent on imports, which have recently shot up, sending energy bills soaring.

This isn't more of the same economic policies, either. As noted earlier, taxes have been rising constantly through the past 12 years to the point where the tax burden is the highest in decades, and these policies reverse that trend.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:So you've never seen any examples of greed in private industry?

Of course I have, but basic profit in of itself is not greed.

Never said it was. But there are plenty of non-profit organisations that somehow manage to pay their staff. The world would be a better place if there were more.

Through the benevolence of others, who get their money from filthy capitalist business.

I'm referring to incorporated non-profits, not charities, but yes, there are still a few philanthropists out there. But as I said previously, everyone - individuals and companies - could do more, but we choose not to.

Duty281 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Economic growth under Thatcher was lower than that under Wilson and Callaghan. Blair underperformed Thatcher and things have been going downhill since then. The economy over the past 50 years has become ever more stagnant.

For every £1 of real GDP growth between Thatcher and the 2007 crash, there was £2 of borrowing by households and government.

No worker aged 31 or under in the UK has worked in an economy with sustained average wage rises. That is a quarter of the workforce that has not seen work provide a rising standard of living.

This neoliberal model does not work. All it serves to do is make the rich richer. And boy has it worked. The ultra-wealthy are today more comparatively rich than they have ever been in history, while the poor will be choosing between heating their homes or feeding their children this winter.

To suggest that more of the same economic policies will remedy this situation is utter lunacy. To also suggest that cutting taxes for the ultra wealthy will stimulate economic greater spending in the actual economy, rather than, say, just allowing them to buy more properties in the UK's already bloated market or just ferrying that extra money offshore, is naïve in the extreme.

I don't believe it was, but if you have a source for it I'd like to see it.



In any case, Thatcher's main achievement was taming inflation and transitioning the UK to a service-based economy.

Wages have struggled in the aftermath of the financial crash, but they are starting to pick up now.

The ultra-wealthy are wealthier than ever before, and the poorest are struggling, but this is down to a wide variety of factors well beyond taxation policy. Lockdown, for instance, crushed small businesses but allowed bigger businesses to thrive. The failure of UK energy policy over the past seventy years has left us vulnerable and dependent on imports, which have recently shot up, sending energy bills soaring.

This isn't more of the same economic policies, either. As noted earlier, taxes have been rising constantly through the past 12 years to the point where the tax burden is the highest in decades, and these policies reverse that trend.

You'll find that it's the case when inflation is taken into account.

Your reply is a dog's dinner. While Covid certainly increased the speed of the growing disparity between rich and poor, you're surely aware that it had been growing since the 1980s.

And yes, it is more of the same economic policies. The neoliberal school of economic thought has been calling the shots since Thatcher. You know that, you're not stupid. Cutting taxes for the already over-wealthy and saddling future generations with £400bn of debt will do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to help those worst off. It never has, and it never will.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Remaining EU laws are to be torn up by the end of next year as part of the Chancellor's bid to reduce unnecessary costs for British businesses and unleash growth.

Kwasi Kwarteng said the bonfire of red tape would lead to “a simpler system” that was easier for firms to navigate, as he also unveiled a bonanza of tax cuts to boost the flagging economy.

He said government departments have been ordered to review all retained EU regulations by December 2023, by which point they will be “automatically” axed unless they are amended or replaced.

According to official data, the UK has retained 2,417 pieces of EU law since leaving the bloc.

Only 182 of these laws have been amended, 196 have been appealed and 33 have been replaced.

Good. A proper break with the EU. This is the exact stuff Johnson should have been doing.

Which laws are you looking forward to them getting rid of?

The ones that impose regulation on financial services and GDPR should be reformed, at the very least, for a start.

Which bits of GDPR should be reformed, specifically?

*crickets*

On a separate note, UK Think Tanks should be forced to reveal the source of their funding.

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Economic growth under Thatcher was lower than that under Wilson and Callaghan. Blair underperformed Thatcher and things have been going downhill since then. The economy over the past 50 years has become ever more stagnant.

For every £1 of real GDP growth between Thatcher and the 2007 crash, there was £2 of borrowing by households and government.

No worker aged 31 or under in the UK has worked in an economy with sustained average wage rises. That is a quarter of the workforce that has not seen work provide a rising standard of living.

This neoliberal model does not work. All it serves to do is make the rich richer. And boy has it worked. The ultra-wealthy are today more comparatively rich than they have ever been in history, while the poor will be choosing between heating their homes or feeding their children this winter.

To suggest that more of the same economic policies will remedy this situation is utter lunacy. To also suggest that cutting taxes for the ultra wealthy will stimulate economic greater spending in the actual economy, rather than, say, just allowing them to buy more properties in the UK's already bloated market or just ferrying that extra money offshore, is naïve in the extreme.

I don't believe it was, but if you have a source for it I'd like to see it.



In any case, Thatcher's main achievement was taming inflation and transitioning the UK to a service-based economy.

Wages have struggled in the aftermath of the financial crash, but they are starting to pick up now.

The ultra-wealthy are wealthier than ever before, and the poorest are struggling, but this is down to a wide variety of factors well beyond taxation policy. Lockdown, for instance, crushed small businesses but allowed bigger businesses to thrive. The failure of UK energy policy over the past seventy years has left us vulnerable and dependent on imports, which have recently shot up, sending energy bills soaring.

This isn't more of the same economic policies, either. As noted earlier, taxes have been rising constantly through the past 12 years to the point where the tax burden is the highest in decades, and these policies reverse that trend.

You'll find that it's the case when inflation is taken into account.

Your reply is a dog's dinner. While Covid certainly increased the speed of the growing disparity between rich and poor, you're surely aware that it had been growing since the 1980s.

And yes, it is more of the same economic policies. The neoliberal school of economic thought has been calling the shots since Thatcher. You know that, you're not stupid. Cutting taxes for the already over-wealthy and saddling future generations with £400bn of debt will do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to help those worst off. It never has, and it never will.

How? Inflation was lower under Thatcher than during the 74-79 period under Labour, plus growth was higher, so I don't think this claim adds up. But, as I say, if you have a source I'd like to see it.

And no, it isn't more of the same economic policies. You're oversimplifying. Cameron, May and Johnson did not pursue Thatcherite economics or tax cuts on this scale (or tax cuts at all in some cases). Today is a huge break from Johnson/Sunak in particular. This is why there has been a big song and dance about it today, because it is a return to something that Britain hasn't seen for over 30 years. If Truss and Kwarteng were doing more of the same, there would have been barely a flicker in the press. Instead the press are talking about a 'radical new approach' (Guardian) and 'a revolutionary shift in policy' (Telegraph). Because that's exactly what it is.

So you genuinely believe that giving the richest in society thousands extra per year will help those that are worst off?

I mean, you're scratching for positives and it's genuinely amusing. The Pound has experienced a massive sell-off today and gilt yields are rising even more. The borrowing costs for these ridiculous decisions are going up. How is this good? What planet are you living on?

Pr4wn wrote:So you genuinely believe that giving the richest in society thousands extra per year will help those that are worst off?

I mean, you're scratching for positives and it's genuinely amusing. The Pound has experienced a massive sell-off today and gilt yields are rising even more. The borrowing costs for these ridiculous decisions are going up. How is this good? What planet are you living on?

In my last post I asked you to source a claim you made. You can't do that so I'm presuming it's false. And I'm also informing you that these are not the same economic policies pursued under the last three Tory PMs.

I'm not scratching for positives, this is the economic policy that the UK should pursue. I'm pleased about it. For the first time in my life the Conservative Party is behaving as it should.

The richest are also not being given thousands extra per year, they're having less of their earnings taken off them by the state, which is a difference.

I'm not expecting you to see the good in these tax-cutting policies because you and I approach things from a different angle. The proof will arrive over the next couple of years.

Duty281 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:So you genuinely believe that giving the richest in society thousands extra per year will help those that are worst off?

I mean, you're scratching for positives and it's genuinely amusing. The Pound has experienced a massive sell-off today and gilt yields are rising even more. The borrowing costs for these ridiculous decisions are going up. How is this good? What planet are you living on?

In my last post I asked you to source a claim you made. You can't do that so I'm presuming it's false. And I'm also informing you that these are not the same economic policies pursued under the last three Tory PMs.

I'm not scratching for positives, this is the economic policy that the UK should pursue. I'm pleased about it. For the first time in my life the Conservative Party is behaving as it should.

The richest are also not being given thousands extra per year, they're having less of their earnings taken off them by the state, which is a difference.

I'm not expecting you to see the good in these tax-cutting policies because you and I approach things from a different angle. The proof will arrive over the next couple of years.

Semantics. You know exactly what I mean and you dodge it anyway.

If these tax-cutting policies are so good, why is your hallowed market fleeing from UK currency and debt?

So why are all economists saying the mini budget is a massive risk. It's because this is a mini budget that's purpose is to solidify the Tory base. The "I'm alright Jack" property owners who are already well buttressed to monetary shock thanks to the taxpayer paying for their retirement.

Denigrate Keynes by all means, but isn't that just code for saying that redistribution is not the goal anu more? This is certainly the direction this government is heading towards

Keynesian economics has not been bettered by any model in the western world. What economists are you supporting? Or have you simply read a Milton Friedman book once..?

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:So you genuinely believe that giving the richest in society thousands extra per year will help those that are worst off?

I mean, you're scratching for positives and it's genuinely amusing. The Pound has experienced a massive sell-off today and gilt yields are rising even more. The borrowing costs for these ridiculous decisions are going up. How is this good? What planet are you living on?

In my last post I asked you to source a claim you made. You can't do that so I'm presuming it's false. And I'm also informing you that these are not the same economic policies pursued under the last three Tory PMs.

I'm not scratching for positives, this is the economic policy that the UK should pursue. I'm pleased about it. For the first time in my life the Conservative Party is behaving as it should.

The richest are also not being given thousands extra per year, they're having less of their earnings taken off them by the state, which is a difference.

I'm not expecting you to see the good in these tax-cutting policies because you and I approach things from a different angle. The proof will arrive over the next couple of years.

Semantics. You know exactly what I mean and you dodge it anyway.

If these tax-cutting policies are so good, why is your hallowed market fleeing from UK currency and debt?

Well you'd know all about dodging, I suppose.

Because it's unexpected and markets don't like the unexpected. They are surprised by this change of policy.

Derek Smalls wrote:So why are all economists saying the mini budget is a massive risk. It's because this is a mini budget that's purpose is to solidify the Tory base. The "I'm alright Jack" property owners who are already well buttressed to monetary shock thanks to the taxpayer paying for their retirement.

Denigrate Keynes by all means, but isn't that just code for saying that redistribution is not the goal anu more? This is certainly the direction this government is heading towards

Keynesian economics has not been bettered by any model in the western world. What economists are you supporting? Or have you simply read a Milton Friedman book once..?

It's a risk politically because it has a short time to work. If it doesn't deliver results in two years, Truss and Kwarteng are out. A risk economically because it increases borrowing as a percentage of GDP to over 100, and previous Tory chancellors (e.g. Osborne) wanted to push it below 90.

Interesting, I wonder when exactly it was that the Conservative Party decided to forget about the subject of "The Deficit"- some time  during May's tenure when they couldn't push austerity measures any more ..?
I  sympathise to an extent  with the idea of trying something new, as Johnson really was economically illiterate and wanted to please so he found a magic money tree. It was about as social democratic as they got and it wasn't a success.
Mind you, furlough and the cost thereof is something I don't think that we will recover from.I hope I'm wrong there.

If public service workers were given a pay rise in line with inflation at some point over the last decade then maybe they would be counted on to spend some hard earned in the high street, surely a better way of stimulating growth?

And let's not forget that National Debt is a different thing entirely to a deficit. That's still pretty considerable.

It's not unlikely that Liz Truss will be gone a few months in to the New Year.I don't think her party are convinced at all.

We shouldn't be surprised that, despite any claims he may make to the contrary, Duty cares so little about the poor and vulnerable in society, that he is pleased at the approach the Tories are taking.
It's a fairly good example of why I have so little faith in humanity.

JuliusHMarx wrote:We shouldn't be surprised that, despite any claims he may make to the contrary, Duty cares so little about the poor and vulnerable in society, that he is pleased at the approach the Tories are taking.
It's a fairly good example of why I have so little faith in humanity.

Sorry, Julius, can't quite hear you over the sound of another champagne cork popping.

Have to go to sleep now. It has been a great day for this country, but all great days must reach their conclusion.

Derek, I saw your pre-edited post about China "turning the loan money tap off" just before.

I believe this is already happening. Defaults on Belt & Road initiatives are now snowballing up to 60-70% levels leaving China very exposed. I didn't realise most of it was going to Russia to prop up their oil and gas industries. I did realise, however, that the rest was going to various central Asian countries which are also in severe distress and unable to meet their repayment obligations.

That, along with reduction of imports (and flow on reduction in exports), worsening BoP, credit rating shot, extreme Covid measures (and therefore economic productivity falling through the floor, factories closing but it's not so easy to flick a switch and simply restart... costs a fortune) and of course the collapse of the property market. The Belt & Road exposure is monumental - 3 times the property market exposure... so we are talking USD trillions and it's it's going to be very hard to turn around given the current global economic conditions.

So China is now in a very difficult place. Does the State bail out (it probably has to) or let the massive default payments continue? Their currency is also going the wrong way which only adds to the scale of the crisis. So all indicators look very bleak indeed. Lending has almost completely stopped now.

We'll know soon enough (October/November) if China is officially in recession with more than 2 quarters of decline in real GDP.

Have a look at the following video.

china debt crisis:

It's quite a simple presentation but the numbers don't look good at all. So together with what's going on in Ukraine and the rest of the globe as a whole we are all in a very precarious position at present. There's some other good videos from this bloke too re: Russia, China and even Turkey - which stupidly lowered interest rates when inflation was rising (!) and is having a bit of a squabble with Greece over military fly-overs and use of US military technology. Maybe the EU and NATO will try and pull them into line... or kick them out if they move closer to Russia.

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:We shouldn't be surprised that, despite any claims he may make to the contrary, Duty cares so little about the poor and vulnerable in society, that he is pleased at the approach the Tories are taking.
It's a fairly good example of why I have so little faith in humanity.

Sorry, Julius, can't quite hear you over the sound of another champagne cork popping.

Have to go to sleep now. It has been a great day for this country, but all great days must reach their conclusion.

Exactly the callous type of response I'd expect.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Health and education, yes, road maintenance probably. I would be unsure about the emergency services.

I am more than fed up of the naive nonsense that public=bad and private=good. Dogma. There's no a priori reason that this should be the case, and it's not. There are a myriad of utter Poopie private services etc, but yep, private is awesome.

The energy crisis we are in is largely down to privatisation. France has a state-owned energy company who have been forced by French government to cap price rises at 4% which has happened. Look at the long-running train strikes which is largely down to privatisation with the various TOC's in it to fatten shareholders wallets and ensure profits remain only at shareholder level whilst the real workers get next to nothing. Lots of other problems on the rail network caused by privatisation too.