Nationalise everything that a human depends on to live in the modern age.Healthcare, Water, Electricity, Transport, Internet, OnlyFans
Westminster Politics 2024-2029
- Thread starter Pexbo
- Start date
They are all incompetent, I watched an interview with Dominic Cummings few weeks back talking about how they had to use a his personal Google sheets account for the numbers on covid.
They didn't even have the death rates for the first few months from the hospitals digitally it was all done by phone and a fecking whiteboard.
If you watch it he says that the Head of the Civil Service is the real power in this country and its not the first time I've heard this.
# Name Dates Notes
1 Sir Warren Fisher 1919–1939 also Secretary to the Treasury
2 Sir Horace Wilson 1939–1942 also Secretary to the Treasury
3 Sir Richard Hopkins 1942–1945 also Secretary to the Treasury
4 Sir Edward Bridges 1945–1956 also Secretary to the Treasury
5 Sir Norman Brook 1956–1962 also Joint Secretary to the Treasury
6 Sir Laurence Helsby 1963–1968 also Joint Secretary to the Treasury
7 Sir William Armstrong 1968–1974 also Permanent Secretary, Civil Service Department
8 Sir Douglas Allen 1974–1978 also Permanent Secretary, Civil Service Department
9 Sir Ian Bancroft 1978–1981 also Permanent Secretary, Civil Service Department
10 Sir Douglas Wass 1981–1983 also Secretary to the Treasury
11 Sir Robert Armstrong 1981–1987 also Secretary to the Cabinet
12 Sir Robin Butler 1988–1998 also Secretary to the Cabinet
13 Sir Richard Wilson[26] 1998–2002 also Secretary to the Cabinet
14 Sir Andrew Turnbull 2002–2005 also Secretary to the Cabinet
15 Sir Gus O'Donnell 2005–2011 also Secretary to the Cabinet
16 Sir Bob Kerslake 2012–2014 also Permanent Secretary, Department of Communities and Local Government
17 Sir Jeremy Heywood 2014–2018 also Secretary to the Cabinet
18 Sir Mark Sedwill 2018–2020 also Secretary to the Cabinet
19 Simon Case 2020–present also Secretary to the Cabinet
Notice a pattern here in the titles?
I’m surprised they haven’t removed Case, he’s had a tonne of controversies.
Yeh of course..... then it will all be free, work perfectly, and sun will always be shining!!!
No that’s ridiculous statement.
Can you point to me where privatisation of these services has been a success and hasn’t resulted in shareholders taking billions in dividends while infrastructure is neglected and environment damaged with the public footing the bills for it?
EDIT - feck it don’t bother I’m not getting into a back and forth with you it’s boring and kills brain cells.
Can you point to where Nationalisation has worked properly?
I agree power and water should be controlled by the government in the coming decades. Provision of Education and Health services could be a joint enterprise, with Government the majority shareholder
However, nationalising everything that moves is not the answer.
The man with all the secrets? I was more surprised that they actually got him in front of the enquiry.
He was also the private secretary for Prince William, he must know some sh*t.
The NHS works pretty well when it’s getting appropriate funding and not being carved up to be sold off to private companies
save yourself
Are you nuts?
This is the same lot that used pagers until recently..
The NHS has been told to stop using pagers for communications by 2021, in order to save money. The health service still uses about 130,000 pagers, which is about 10% of the total left in use globally. They cost the NHS about £6.6m a year.
It's never been about funding the NHS, as a business its really poorly run.
I think there are few million on waiting list etc who might disagree.
The question is about appropriate funding, that is the key one, followed by agreed scope of services, if a consensus across political parties could be agreed, it would be a start. However the short term operation of our political system, mitigates against such agreements.
Nationalisation of the East coast mainline, under nationalisation the company actually turned a profit, was passed back to private ownership where it failed again and was renationalised for a second time successfully.
Lloyds and the RBS were saved by massive government investment, effectively indirect nationalisation, both survived as government ownership provided stability that the free market couldn't.
Those are just two off the top of my head.
Seems a weird criteria for the measurement of the efficacy of treating people’s illnesses for free.
While I will take @Pexbo ’s advice following this post, the NHS pre-2008 financial crisis was one of the best health services in the world and every NHS worker I know of who worked there before and after says this is when it was the best it had ever been.
In the 16 years since we have seen reduced funding and removal of services which have made it an underperforming organisation which is arguably unfit for purpose. The only reason it has got into this state is through ideological policy which aims to make the NHS unfit for purpose so its services can be sold off to the closest mates of conservative ministers
If you don't understand business then there is no point talking to you.
It was just an example of waste, NHS used spend millions on paper and printer ink.
6.6 million for the person to pick up the mobile and call back? 6.6 million is a lot of nurses or doctors pay.
The government runs the NHS. That’s the point. The Secretary of State appoints the Chair of the NHS and the directors.
Jeremy Hunt literally wrote a book about why the NHS should be privatised and went on to appoint Simon Steven’s as CEO of the NHS. The same Simon Steves who spent years working for UnitedHealth Group, an American Health insurance company that has a vested interest in the privatisation of the NHS.
It’s not falling to pieces with archaic systems because of the concept of nationalisation, it’s by the design of a malicious actors who are idealistically diametrically opposed to a national service succeeding and set to personally gain handsomely from it failing.
I do understand business, I just find it bizarre that is the first thing you go to when beginning an argument for the privatisation of the NHS
I wasn't arguing about the privatisation of the NHS, I was just saying that it's been broken for years.
I know because I've seen it myself personally in 2006 I sold laptops into a trust at £3000 pound a pop mate... got them for £750 - 90 quid for a fecking keyboard?! This was 2006... I was on 1.3k mth.
They didn't even use the laptops because they've not been trained, when they split up the trusts it was nuts, because they lost bulk buying power in the project phase.
I still do work for the NHS sometimes now, they are no better.
With the training part that was all unions, that argued that the position of the wrist on the laptop would lead to damage, hence the £90 keyboards, I don't remember if they got mice.
Yep, "100 new hospitals by 2010 mostly delivered through the Private Finance Initiative"
These lot, they been siphoning money off for years - these private firm raking it.
I know because I've worked for them, it's been around for years
The reason the Tories have been underpaying NHS staff is because the same staff then look to the private sector for more money. That created a major shortage in the NHS workforce which has since been filled by private agencies who charge obscene amounts to supply the NHS with the same staff who left (or still work there but prefer it to overtime) while skimming their obscene profits. It’s a racket.
It wasn't just one political party its been going on for years.
They are all at it.
Don't like any of them. Don't care the party.
The Cabinet Secretary gets knighted as part of the job. A bit like the head of the DPP.
Public money rescued the East coast railway line, great for those who use it but we all subsidise it even if we live on the West coast, or in Cornwall, or Scotland, etc. We all paid to secure the assets of Lloyds and Natwest customers, not really the examples I had in mind. Nationalisation should be reserved for those areas/services etc that are truly a national undertaking/requirement.... power, water supplies (especially for the future) and Health and Education, (if we could just divorce them from politics).
.
Also there is always a tweet
.
The proportion has actually increased only marginally, and for both parties (9 -> 11% for Labour, 23 -> 25% for the Tories).
There’s is some group in Labour called Socialist Campaign Group and it of course included landlords.
Truly the land of contradictions.
Just to note, this was from 2022 when the energy price cap was £1971. The Labour proposal was to freeze at that price. It is now going to be £1717. As Ofgem have said, the rise is due to international markets.
Can only assume the new adults in charge are leaving our oil in the ground until it’s $300 a barrel and we’ll be much richer. Because somebody someday is going to dig it up and burn it.
And so the energy companies can make a small/modest profit of a billion or so.
I have a problem with just about everything you've written here but keep private enterprise the feck away from education. Those 2 should be mutually exclusive.
International markets based upon current prices - the didn’t they buy stockpiles during the cheaper summer months? It’s an excuse to make us pay more when we all switch our heating back on.
The Government has just come to power. I don’t agree with the rise, just providing some context around the reasoning.
Michael Goves continuation of policies from adonis, Blair and Blunkett and maybe Morris are one of the few things to celebrate from Tory rule. We have improved drastically internationally
What's the pattern? All knights apart from Simon Case who hasn't been knighted (yet)? Or am I supposed to be seeing something else in that list?
We have minimal energy storage, ie oil and gas, storage facilities in the UK. A lot of it was flogged by the Tories. Most of the buying is done through futures contracts anyway.
Isn't this part of the argument for GB Energy.
You could say the government has just made private education part of its wider plans for education with the VAT proposals. The income from this VAT will be used to recruit more teachers into the state system. This is one of the (few) promises that were made pre GE by Starmer.
In a roundabout way, if they're increasing energy production. Not sure there are any plans on upping conventional storage, but they might well be pinning their hopes on battery technology breakthroughs.
I did notice you don’t see the massive gas storage domes around any more. Used to be one near the river where I live in the 90s, land was left derelict for years and is now housing estates.
So the energy suppliers secure their future supply at X date and their rate is fixed at that price?