ianrobo1 Posted February 13, 2009 Author Share Posted February 13, 2009 the thing about privatisation is that there are some industires that should be private BT for example others clearly not - power, rail etc but that has gone, Labour amended it because the peopel would not except any form of nationalisation, times have changed though said it before loads of times and Richard never answered my question on the previous page but the worse of all was the selling of the council houses, I have no doubt on that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Selling off the council houses per se was not wrong. Driving an economic boom on the back of over inflated house prices was wrong Ian. and Richard never answered my question The amount of times you blatantly fail to answer questions Ian I think you are out of order for throwing that one around. Besides I thought a post with questions was not "contributing to a debate" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 I suppose no one can doubt that the Japanese though build the best trains and weren;t the virgin pendolino's built in Italy ? Try Birmingham. They were built about 10 minutes from Villa Park, in Washwood Heath. Alstom "own" them though, and they are French. I think. oh right could have swor they were Italian, wasn;t there a big fuss at the time ? Alstom is definitely French, I checked. Pendolino is an Italian word, and I think it might be an Italian design. Alstom did buy into Fiat's railway section (apparently the Italians are world leaders in tilting train design) so the name must have stuck for historical reasons. I'm fairly sure that the money would have ended up in France, but Pendolino's certainly created plenty of British jobs, both at Washwood Heath where they were built and the number of dedicated maintenance staff who will have jobs until Pendolino's arent running any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Pendolino leased from Angel trains who In 2008 the Royal Bank of Scotland group sold their stake of ... for £3.6 billion as part of a £10 billion assets sale to raise cash so seems as though even back in June , when the deal went through , RBS were trying to raise funds ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Pendolino leased from Angel trains who In 2008 the Royal Bank of Scotland group sold their stake of ... for £3.6 billion as part of a £10 billion assets sale to raise cash so seems as though even back in June , when the deal went through , RBS were trying to raise funds ? You mean they had some assets actually worth anything? :shock: 'Ere, you seem like a veritable font of knowledge over the past couple of days, Tony. Have you got your researchers working overtime? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Ere, you seem like a veritable font of knowledge over the past couple of days, Tony. Have you got your researchers working overtime? Mr. Green Wiki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 the worse of all was the selling of the council houses, I have no doubt on that i don't think i agree with that. i think selling off the council houses was a good idea - why? 1) people look after their own house that they own, people don't look after houses owned by the council. 2) people who own their house, have more of an interest in their surrounding area. 3) because of this, council estates end up becoming 'run-down' or sink estates. 4) there's no reason why a private renting market wouldn't/doesn't work. i think it works pretty much in fact, and can drive up standards in housing. The real issue in housing is that not enough houses have been built over the past 25 years. If enough land & planning permission was given, then we would have a good supply of houses, which would have meant that house price would be at a sensible level, and therefore affordable to the majority of the population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted February 13, 2009 VT Supporter Share Posted February 13, 2009 the worse of all was the selling of the council houses, I have no doubt on that i don't think i agree with that. i think selling off the council houses was a good idea - why? 1) people look after their own house that they own, people don't look after houses owned by the council. 2) people who own their house, have more of an interest in their surrounding area. 3) because of this, council estates end up becoming 'run-down' or sink estates. 4) there's no reason why a private renting market wouldn't/doesn't work. i think it works pretty much in fact, and can drive up standards in housing. The real issue in housing is that not enough houses have been built over the past 25 years. If enough land & planning permission was given, then we would have a good supply of houses, which would have meant that house price would be at a sensible level, and therefore affordable to the majority of the population. I generally agree, but should add that I don't (speaking pragmatically, not philosophically) necessarily think that there's no space for the government to provide for affordability in housing. However, I think that government delivery of housing (and education and health...) services should be minimized, as those are areas that will not tend towards natural monopolies and thus market delivery of those services will generally deliver a better quality, more cost-effective service. The solution, IMO, is to have a system entirely based on private landlords, but with the government covering rents above a certain percentage of income. Thus, poor-quality landlords (who fail to properly maintain their properties, etc.) will find it more difficult to get high rents and those less fortunate would have more ability to obtain housing that meets their needs and desires rather than having to bend to the what the government thinks they need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted February 13, 2009 Author Share Posted February 13, 2009 the worse of all was the selling of the council houses, I have no doubt on that i don't think i agree with that. i think selling off the council houses was a good idea - why? 1) people look after their own house that they own, people don't look after houses owned by the council. 2) people who own their house, have more of an interest in their surrounding area. 3) because of this, council estates end up becoming 'run-down' or sink estates. 4) there's no reason why a private renting market wouldn't/doesn't work. i think it works pretty much in fact, and can drive up standards in housing. The real issue in housing is that not enough houses have been built over the past 25 years. If enough land & planning permission was given, then we would have a good supply of houses, which would have meant that house price would be at a sensible level, and therefore affordable to the majority of the population. see that is the argument of those who espose the situation we now have simply put private renting is shite, Council housing worked for many years and the good stuff was the bits that was sold off not the shite which the councils were left with. the free market does not have the answers, landlords are basically crooks and little security Council housing provided cheap affordable and mostly ok housing which meant people did not have to over borrow or over stretch themselves peopel on low wages were in amny cases forced to take high multiple moprtgages added to this no one wanted new houses built next to them or in green fields so demand never kept up with supply and a boom ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted February 13, 2009 VT Supporter Share Posted February 13, 2009 Bill Watterson saw this whole thing coming: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 :crylaugh: That's brilliant. I used to love Calvin & Hobbes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markavfc40 Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 I often have a browse in threads like these and rarely comment. I do however always end up laughing my bollocks off at the fact that some on here genuinely believe,that as bad as things are under a Labour government, that they would actually be better under the clown double act of Cameron and Osbourne. I am not a Labour supporter but if anyone thinks that the joke of a party, who appear to have no viable policies,would do better then they are living in La La land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted February 13, 2009 Author Share Posted February 13, 2009 thats my point Mark it is the lack o an alternative, peopel snipe and make party points but when challenged I do not hear a coherent argument on how to get us out of the mess with the losses at HBOS today it shows the shit the bankers got us into but I did hear for the past 3 years they had made 4 times the money in proits, so were these real profits or just false ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Just watching Darling on Newsnight and I thought I'd quote part of How to Detect a Lie: ... Frequent blinking. Maybe they’re trying to unconsciously hide their lie by doing this, but instead give it away. (Keep in mind there are other reasons for excessive blinking such as sensitive eyes or contact lenses) Their eyebrows become raised. This is not proof of lying on its own, but combined with other things it does tend to signify defensiveness. If they know about the blinking they tend to do this to over compensate. This one in particular seems hard for people to stop doing. ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 it is the lack o an alternative, peopel snipe and make party points but when challenged I do not hear a coherent argument on how to get us out of the mess Apart from the suggestions that have been made in this thread and linked in this thread? (I think I posted exactly the same a couple of pages ago). Apart from your very own suggestion a couple of pages ago? Do you know what, Ian, it's starting to get a bit tiresome - all of this 'I hear no altenative' baloney a page or so after a raft of alternatives. If you mean that the Tories offer no alternatives then why don't you say that and make the kind of party political point that you seem to be decrying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted February 13, 2009 Author Share Posted February 13, 2009 sorry Snowy I thought I made it clear I meant the tories I still have yet to work out what they would have done either to stop this (almost imposible as they are more wedded to the housing market) or to tackle the problems they had fun over the german minister laiming brown was wrong, a month or so later Germany did the same !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 sorry Snowy I thought I made it clear I meant the tories Fair enough, Ian. Sorry not to have got that. I still have yet to work out what they would have done either to stop this (almost imposible as they are more wedded to the housing market) or to tackle the problems they had fun over the german minister laiming brown was wrong, a month or so later Germany did the same !! Okay but ignoring the anti-Tory stuff for a mo, speak to me as someone who supports neither party and who is looking at what is actually happening ~(and ignore my prejudice against the current economic norms). Frankly, apart from being 'slightly fun' as part of a hypothetical political argument, what the Tories would or wouldn't do is irrelevant. The labour party is the government of the day. It is up to the government to attempt to do what they can to address the situation. Comparisons with the opposition are, effectively, futile especially in relation to their effect upon the economy. I have just seen Will Hutton on Newsnight (as far from being a Tory as anyone could imagine) and he is now starting to accuse Gordo of being indecisive (I think mainly in terms of either nationalising all banks or of creating a toxic bank). I still do not adhere to this political socio-economic outlook for which all have yearned and still seem to yearn and, as such question what Hutton seeks, but what he seeks is what Brown seeks and those in sympathy are now starting to criticize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted February 13, 2009 Author Share Posted February 13, 2009 Hutton is a socialist and thus would support the nationialisation of all banks I am just not sure of it, there are plus points but a lot of minuses jut in the cost alone, the admin and the benefits. said it before but no one holds any answers because this has never been seen before so everything is a wait and see problem is in this age people are too impatient there is no quick answer and would be good if all the parties could sit together and come up with a common approach but that would be impossible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markavfc40 Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 what the Tories would or wouldn't do is irrelevant. You really believe that? The main oppostion party in this country with almost two hundred elected MPs, elected by god knows how many millions of people, and you say that what they would or wouldn't do is irrelevant. I couldn't agree less. They are surely there to not just slate what the current government may be doing wrong, as quite franky in times like this that is easy prey, but they surely have to offer viable alternatives as when the time comes for people to vote again what the **** will we be voting for if we vote for the Tories as I have not got a clue what they are all about. Are Brown and Darling the right people to lead this country = Debateable Are Cameron and Osbourne the right people to lead this country = Laughable ( as I don't have a clue what the **** they are about ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Hutton is a socialist and thus would support the nationialisation of all banks Actually, I think Hutton has been an advocate of a toxic bank for many, many months. said it before but no one holds any answers because this has never been seen before so everything is a wait and see Of course there are no guaranteed answers. problem is in this age people are too impatient there is no quick answer and would be good if all the parties could sit together and come up with a common approach but that would be impossible Would that there were such a consensus in all times not just times of trouble. If democracy were really to occur then perhaps we might take into account all of the people... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts