Vegas Seagull
New member
- Jul 10, 2009
- 7,782
Quit thinking
Prices charged have to include £100m's of divvi's required to be paid out, money that could/should be used on further improvements.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Jeremy Corbyn.
- Thread starter Diablo
- Start date
Quit thinking
Prices charged have to include £100m's of divvi's required to be paid out, money that could/should be used on further improvements.
looney
Banned
- Jul 7, 2003
- 15,652
No such thing, thats not how it works. So how will Corbyn help the poor of the UK by opening the immigration floodgates and swamping the country with more cheap labour?
BTW Most tories ive spoken to have't joined labour and are of the view the unions have it sown up for JC like they did for Ed.
You are correct, it is an AG, not a GmbH, with the single share in the AG being owned by the government.
Every trip I take on the state owned DB I'm kidding myself that this comfy, cheap and punctual journey is no better than the UK equivalent...which is probably actually a bus replacement.
looney
Banned
- Jul 7, 2003
- 15,652
"Meanwhile, Yvette Cooper called on Corbyn to condemn suggestions by some of his supporters that they intended to purge those who did not believe in his policies from the party should their candidate win the contest.
Cooper said: “I am deeply troubled by those who say they want a victory for Jeremy to be the start of a process to deselect hard-working councillors or MPs they believe are too rightwing..”"
I wonder what his views on craft beer are?
Tubs, you are in Germany, not on the old BR!
I can remember it ; dare say plenty of those wanting renationalisation cannot.
Ha Plooks, instead of being 'ripped off' as you believe, just watch your taxes go through the roof to pay for your socialist utopia!
I vave been commuting on the same line for 25 years. Privatisation looked like a good thing because the slam door trains were replaced. But these had all been bought before privatisation and were held back for 'ta da!' purposes. The first of the new trains were cheapos and the electric doors often failed. Moreover the toilets 'filled' too quickly and stank the place up. The price of tickets has increased faster than inflation. The journey time was an hour and 15 minutes in 1989. It is now 5 minutes longer (officially) and the amount of actual lateness (routinely by 10-20 minutes) has gone up. Buying tickets has become a nightmare, because you need to know exactly what type of ticket you want or you are liable to be sold an expensive option (not necessarily deliberately but becuase the ticket staff are not necessarily properly trained or all that bright - it is a lower grade type of job these days, downgraded like counter staff in banks). A gold card used to get me discounted rail fares across the UK. Now it is only up to Milton Keynes due to there being 'a different operator' or some such nonsense. All of this is due to a fragmented system with multiple franchises and multiple operators. The rail system was nationalised in the early 1900s because, to work well, a national rail system has to be . . . national . . . and since there would be no competition if there is only one company then it makes sense for it to be nationalised.
I am not sure that Jezza sees it like this, though. Unfortunately, by advocating nationalisation of things that really shouldn't be nationalised (like banks) the chance to have things that should be left in private hands (like rail) is lost. I'm not saying the other candidates would deploy rational nationalisation, merely that Jezza's plans mean that if he becomes leader he'd lose votes because of this, and the chance to renationalise rail would be lost. Remember how popular the Thatcher privatisations were? Who is going to vote to lose their BT shares (etc) with no compensation? If Jezza agrees to compensate he'll find he'll have to raise tax to pay for it. People (in a general election) are simply not going to vote for this.
Anyway, I read yesterday he advocates homeopathy on the NHS. Don't get me started on that!!!!!!
I am not sure that Jezza sees it like this, though. Unfortunately, by advocating nationalisation of things that really shouldn't be nationalised (like banks) the chance to have things that should be left in private hands (like rail) is lost. I'm not saying the other candidates would deploy rational nationalisation, merely that Jezza's plans mean that if he becomes leader he'd lose votes because of this, and the chance to renationalise rail would be lost. Remember how popular the Thatcher privatisations were? Who is going to vote to lose their BT shares (etc) with no compensation? If Jezza agrees to compensate he'll find he'll have to raise tax to pay for it. People (in a general election) are simply not going to vote for this.
Anyway, I read yesterday he advocates homeopathy on the NHS. Don't get me started on that!!!!!!
Albumen
Don't wait for me!
Hopefully it's a two part plan. One, remove the word 'Craft' as its beer. It's ale. Next, ban any 330ml bottles that are less than 5% but are priced the same.
Leave everything else.
Good thinking. And maybe a state subsidy for those barrel-aged expensive poncy ones?
I'm old enough to remember the days of BR Mr F.
Oh, bloody hell,Harry Wilson; I didn't know Jezza was in favour of Homeopathy on the NHS..........another madcap idea.
Perhaps, if he does away with the Monarchy and Charlie no longer has a job, Jezza can put him in charge of the NHS Homeopathy empire!
By the way, used to like Harry when he played for us; a good northern lad.
Perhaps, if he does away with the Monarchy and Charlie no longer has a job, Jezza can put him in charge of the NHS Homeopathy empire!
By the way, used to like Harry when he played for us; a good northern lad.
Thought you might be,Tubs, but plenty of those shouting for it aren't.
P.S.I can remember having a few beers at the Hauptbahnof in Munchen a very long time ago!
- Jan 18, 2009
- 4,886
I understand this, however Arriva which DB AG owns is listed so it is not a conventional state owned entity.
The fact that the state is a "shareholder" merely confirms that point, wouldn't you agree?
I don't necessarily think this arrangement wouldn't work in the UK either however is nationalisation lite with the state having a share, as oppose to it essentially being a department, directly funded and owned by the Government.
I also doubt that such an arrangement fits with Corbyn's view because it still has capitalist intentions, see Arriva.
Also if it is set up like a listed concern it is only one step from privatisation........
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...ation-studies-included-in-db-reform-plan.html
Like the German Govt is considering with DB AG ironically enough..........
Why is it nationalisation lite? DB AG is wholly directly owned by the state. The rest is just the finer details on how they operate. Does a nationalised industry have to be "a department, directly funded and owned by the Government." Clearly not.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about it being "one step from privatisation". If the German government want to privatise they will. If they don't they won't. Just like in the UK. Being one, two or three steps away doesn't make any difference.
- Jan 18, 2009
- 4,886
This is the crux of it HT you don't understand state socialism.........and it's why you are a Tory ( or at best a Blairite)
DB AG is running listed companies like Arriva that make profits which are then divested to shareholders (i.e Capitalists).
A genuine state owned concern would not generate any profit or divest it to shareholders, it would simply be reinvested in infrastructure and wages. There is a huge difference between the two models.
The nationalised model Corbyn wants, would work with no profits for capitalists, it is state socialism he wants. This state socialist model is what the EU are working hard to destroy around the EU because they are CAPITALISTS.........I am not saying it doesn't work, but it works on the basis of profit for capitalists.
I don't think we need to take it further, we have arrived at the same destination as always.
Chin chin.
- Jan 18, 2009
- 4,886
Indeed, he makes a lot of sense, here's what he said about the unelected European Commission negotiating on TTIP, which he is seeking the Tory Govt to REJECT.
"I conclude by asking why there is secrecy surrounding the negotiations. Is it because there are ante-rooms on either side of the Atlantic stuffed full of highly effective corporate lobbyists doing their best to develop their own interests? Should we not instead be demanding a free trade agreement that narrows the gap between the rich and the poor, that protects the advance of public services such as the national health service, that fundamentally protects food production, and that ensures that the best standards become the universal standards, rather than engaging in a race to the bottom that results in the worst standards becoming the norm on both sides of the Atlantic? I hope that the House will reject TTIP."
http://jeremycorbyn.org.uk/articles/question-on-ttip/