But, that's not all the state pension, I'm assuming you also have a decent occupational or private pension as well. Is that right?
The big issue is that until the last 10-20y the message to working people was that they work, pay their NI contributions and when they retire they'll have a state pension that's sufficient to live on. What's happened is that the pension they receive isn't enough to live on (and in some cases people have found that they couldn't get it when they retired because the message that state pension ages were going up hadn't been successfully communicated to them). Even with that no longer being the case, it's probably too late for people in their 50s to start putting away anything for an additional pension (assuming they have sufficient income to do that) and get anything significant from it. Building a significant pension to supplement the state pension is a life times work.
One thing to note, with regard to your proposal here, is that if I have a pension fund of some sort, then it clearly looks like my property, and suggestions that the government should confiscate my property to pay for something else they want looks aggressively communist.
Whereas if what I have is the promise of a pension of twice my (capped) median lifetime earnings, then that looks a lot more like the government's money, that they can adjust to suit their whims. And playing games with the cap threshold, or the rate at which they adjust for inflation, is exactly the sort of thing that governments tend to do.
So how much do you trust the government?
In respect of this government and pensions..totally. I have never been so well off.
But, that's not all the state pension, I'm assuming you also have a decent occupational or private pension as well. Is that right?
I'm assuming it's a final salary pension based on years of service as a police officer, of the kind that is no longer available even to new recruits to the police, let alone to anyone starting working in the private sector.
One thing to note, with regard to your proposal here, is that if I have a pension fund of some sort, then it clearly looks like my property, and suggestions that the government should confiscate my property to pay for something else they want looks aggressively communist.
Whereas if what I have is the promise of a pension of twice my (capped) median lifetime earnings, then that looks a lot more like the government's money, that they can adjust to suit their whims. And playing games with the cap threshold, or the rate at which they adjust for inflation, is exactly the sort of thing that governments tend to do.
So how much do you trust the government?
In respect of this government and pensions..totally. I have never been so well off.
But your pension was looked after by different governments from different parties. This government has had a hand in your pension nothing more.
Thomas More: “If the price of a castle in France was my head, it should not fail to go”.
That is roughly how I feel about the Government's commitment to my pension. They have already changed it from RPI to CPI updating, while not doing the same for MPs' pensions. A thief who steals a small thing may well come back to take a larger. Who can be sure?
But, that's not all the state pension, I'm assuming you also have a decent occupational or private pension as well. Is that right?
The big issue is that until the last 10-20y the message to working people was that they work, pay their NI contributions and when they retire they'll have a state pension that's sufficient to live on. What's happened is that the pension they receive isn't enough to live on (and in some cases people have found that they couldn't get it when they retired because the message that state pension ages were going up hadn't been successfully communicated to them). Even with that no longer being the case, it's probably too late for people in their 50s to start putting away anything for an additional pension (assuming they have sufficient income to do that) and get anything significant from it. Building a significant pension to supplement the state pension is a life times work.
57 years ago I chose to take a job which was not well paid ( £700 a year ) It did, however, have the promise of a good pension. Most others could have made a similar choice
But, that's not all the state pension, I'm assuming you also have a decent occupational or private pension as well. Is that right?
The big issue is that until the last 10-20y the message to working people was that they work, pay their NI contributions and when they retire they'll have a state pension that's sufficient to live on. What's happened is that the pension they receive isn't enough to live on (and in some cases people have found that they couldn't get it when they retired because the message that state pension ages were going up hadn't been successfully communicated to them). Even with that no longer being the case, it's probably too late for people in their 50s to start putting away anything for an additional pension (assuming they have sufficient income to do that) and get anything significant from it. Building a significant pension to supplement the state pension is a life times work.
57 years ago I chose to take a job which was not well paid ( £700 a year ) It did, however, have the promise of a good pension. Most others could have made a similar choice
No, they couldn't, because there weren't and aren't enough such jobs for everyone to have one. Someone had to do the other jobs instead. Perhaps people who applied for your job but didn't get it, or couldn't apply because they didn't meet the requirements.
But, that's not all the state pension, I'm assuming you also have a decent occupational or private pension as well. Is that right?
The big issue is that until the last 10-20y the message to working people was that they work, pay their NI contributions and when they retire they'll have a state pension that's sufficient to live on. What's happened is that the pension they receive isn't enough to live on (and in some cases people have found that they couldn't get it when they retired because the message that state pension ages were going up hadn't been successfully communicated to them). Even with that no longer being the case, it's probably too late for people in their 50s to start putting away anything for an additional pension (assuming they have sufficient income to do that) and get anything significant from it. Building a significant pension to supplement the state pension is a life times work.
57 years ago I chose to take a job which was not well paid ( £700 a year ) It did, however, have the promise of a good pension. Most others could have made a similar choice
No, they couldn't, because there weren't and aren't enough such jobs for everyone to have one. Someone had to do the other jobs instead. Perhaps people who applied for your job but didn't get it, or couldn't apply because they didn't meet the requirements.
Which included, for example, a minimum height at the time Telford was reportedly employed in the police.
How convenient for you, Telford.
(The height requirement was removed in the 90s because it was recognised as discriminatory).
But, that's not all the state pension, I'm assuming you also have a decent occupational or private pension as well. Is that right?
The big issue is that until the last 10-20y the message to working people was that they work, pay their NI contributions and when they retire they'll have a state pension that's sufficient to live on. What's happened is that the pension they receive isn't enough to live on (and in some cases people have found that they couldn't get it when they retired because the message that state pension ages were going up hadn't been successfully communicated to them). Even with that no longer being the case, it's probably too late for people in their 50s to start putting away anything for an additional pension (assuming they have sufficient income to do that) and get anything significant from it. Building a significant pension to supplement the state pension is a life times work.
57 years ago I chose to take a job which was not well paid ( £700 a year ) It did, however, have the promise of a good pension. Most others could have made a similar choice
No, they couldn't, because there weren't and aren't enough such jobs for everyone to have one. Someone had to do the other jobs instead. Perhaps people who applied for your job but didn't get it, or couldn't apply because they didn't meet the requirements.
Which included, for example, a minimum height at the time Telford was reportedly employed in the police.
How convenient for you, Telford.
(The height requirement was removed in the 90s because it was recognised as discriminatory).
But, that's not all the state pension, I'm assuming you also have a decent occupational or private pension as well. Is that right?
The big issue is that until the last 10-20y the message to working people was that they work, pay their NI contributions and when they retire they'll have a state pension that's sufficient to live on. What's happened is that the pension they receive isn't enough to live on (and in some cases people have found that they couldn't get it when they retired because the message that state pension ages were going up hadn't been successfully communicated to them). Even with that no longer being the case, it's probably too late for people in their 50s to start putting away anything for an additional pension (assuming they have sufficient income to do that) and get anything significant from it. Building a significant pension to supplement the state pension is a life times work.
57 years ago I chose to take a job which was not well paid ( £700 a year ) It did, however, have the promise of a good pension. Most others could have made a similar choice
No, they couldn't, because there weren't and aren't enough such jobs for everyone to have one. Someone had to do the other jobs instead. Perhaps people who applied for your job but didn't get it, or couldn't apply because they didn't meet the requirements.
and yet there must have been many who would have met the requirements who made the decision not to apply.
But, that's not all the state pension, I'm assuming you also have a decent occupational or private pension as well. Is that right?
The big issue is that until the last 10-20y the message to working people was that they work, pay their NI contributions and when they retire they'll have a state pension that's sufficient to live on. What's happened is that the pension they receive isn't enough to live on (and in some cases people have found that they couldn't get it when they retired because the message that state pension ages were going up hadn't been successfully communicated to them). Even with that no longer being the case, it's probably too late for people in their 50s to start putting away anything for an additional pension (assuming they have sufficient income to do that) and get anything significant from it. Building a significant pension to supplement the state pension is a life times work.
57 years ago I chose to take a job which was not well paid ( £700 a year ) It did, however, have the promise of a good pension. Most others could have made a similar choice
No, they couldn't, because there weren't and aren't enough such jobs for everyone to have one. Someone had to do the other jobs instead. Perhaps people who applied for your job but didn't get it, or couldn't apply because they didn't meet the requirements.
Which included, for example, a minimum height at the time Telford was reportedly employed in the police.
How convenient for you, Telford.
(The height requirement was removed in the 90s because it was recognised as discriminatory).
The minimum height in my force was 5'8" for males ( 6 ft in some places like Nottingham) and 5'4" for females. I guess it was discriminatory against males who were at least 5'4"
Yes, it was. After all how did a penis make being 5ft 4in less effective ?
I'm not convinced by the argument that a police officer needs to be any particular height at all.
But let's say that I bought the argument that being tall was a useful attribute for a police officer. If I place a cut-off at a particular height for all people, you'd also tell me that that is discriminatory, because women are on average 3-4 inches shorter than men, and so a height threshold discriminates against women, just like a "don't be pregnant" requirement discriminates against women.
I wouldn’t be a police officer. Not the right material, same with the forces.
It seems that of the hundred MPs standing down at the election 63 are Tory. I am left wondering if they can field replacements. Labour could really gain here.
One thing for certain, the Conservatives will have a candidate for each constituency in England, Wales and Scotland - along with Labour and the LibDems (SNP will stand in all Scottish seats, PC in all Welsh seats, seats in Northern Ireland aren't usually contested by the main UK parties). Whether they find any of them having to be dropped between close of nominations and the election is an interesting question - that Labour and Greens have been caught out in recent by-elections (where, by rights, the full resources of the party should have been available for vetting) then it's not impossible that some candidates will need to step down in the equivalent period before the General Election (there'd be less resources to vet each candidate, but also probably less resources for the media and others to scour old social media and other material to find dirt). I'm not going to comment on the quality of the candidates who will be standing for any party.
Yes, it was. After all how did a penis make being 5ft 4in less effective ?
I'm not convinced by the argument that a police officer needs to be any particular height at all.
But let's say that I bought the argument that being tall was a useful attribute for a police officer. If I place a cut-off at a particular height for all people, you'd also tell me that that is discriminatory, because women are on average 3-4 inches shorter than men, and so a height threshold discriminates against women, just like a "don't be pregnant" requirement discriminates against women.
It is now common to refer to the Police as a Police service, rather than a Police Force. It was called a Police Force because it was acknowledged that often force would have to be used. That's where size and fitness comes into it. When I joined, female officers had their own little department and they dealt with the jobs they were good at. They actually got paid a bit less but their working week was shorter.
Sometime in the 70s male and female officers were paid the same and the Policewomen's departments were disbanded. All the women went onto shifts. A good controller, if there was a choice, would always dispatch the most suitable officer(s) to a job.
I can recall one very good officer who was barely 5'8" but he had been a member of the SBS ( Special Boat Service).
<snip>
It is now common to refer to the Police as a Police service, rather than a Police Force. It was called a Police Force because it was acknowledged that often force would have to be used. <snip>
Once again, we see how important it is to make sure of one's facts before posting blanket assertions, though I seem to have lost the plot somehow - what has all this to do with today's Labour party?
One thing to note, with regard to your proposal here, is that if I have a pension fund of some sort, then it clearly looks like my property, and suggestions that the government should confiscate my property to pay for something else they want looks aggressively communist.
Whereas if what I have is the promise of a pension of twice my (capped) median lifetime earnings, then that looks a lot more like the government's money, that they can adjust to suit their whims. And playing games with the cap threshold, or the rate at which they adjust for inflation, is exactly the sort of thing that governments tend to do.
So how much do you trust the government?
In respect of this government and pensions..totally. I have never been so well off.
One thing to note, with regard to your proposal here, is that if I have a pension fund of some sort, then it clearly looks like my property, and suggestions that the government should confiscate my property to pay for something else they want looks aggressively communist.
Whereas if what I have is the promise of a pension of twice my (capped) median lifetime earnings, then that looks a lot more like the government's money, that they can adjust to suit their whims. And playing games with the cap threshold, or the rate at which they adjust for inflation, is exactly the sort of thing that governments tend to do.
So how much do you trust the government?
In respect of this government and pensions..totally. I have never been so well off.
I was merely indicating why I trust the current government with my pensions.
Exactly.
FUJIAR.
What do these abbreviations stand for? (Google didn't help).
FUJIAR = F*** yoU Jack, I Am Alright
“I’m alright Jack” is an expression for someone with a selfish attitude who is complacent about others, as exemplified in the film that takes the expression for its title.
One thing to note, with regard to your proposal here, is that if I have a pension fund of some sort, then it clearly looks like my property, and suggestions that the government should confiscate my property to pay for something else they want looks aggressively communist.
Whereas if what I have is the promise of a pension of twice my (capped) median lifetime earnings, then that looks a lot more like the government's money, that they can adjust to suit their whims. And playing games with the cap threshold, or the rate at which they adjust for inflation, is exactly the sort of thing that governments tend to do.
So how much do you trust the government?
In respect of this government and pensions..totally. I have never been so well off.
My concern with the ban, is that prohibition has been very ineffective and damaging in respect of other drugs. That said, I think there has probably been enough social change to make it work. Rather as we don't have a huge problem with children going after snuff and chewing tobacco.
The ban is pointless without the remedicalisation of vaping. It was originated as a stepping stone for smokers who were quitting, and we should follow the Australians in restricting them to that use.
My concern with the ban, is that prohibition has been very ineffective and damaging in respect of other drugs. That said, I think there has probably been enough social change to make it work. Rather as we don't have a huge problem with children going after snuff and chewing tobacco.
I suspect (and hope) it will turn out to be like drink driving or mandatory seatbelts.
Anyone remember the episode of Yes Minister when Jim Hacker wanted to gradually increase the tax on cigarettes until a packet of Silk Cut cost the same as a bottle of single malt whisky?
Anyone remember the episode of Yes Minister when Jim Hacker wanted to gradually increase the tax on cigarettes until a packet of Silk Cut cost the same as a bottle of single malt whisky?
Anyone remember the episode of Yes Minister when Jim Hacker wanted to gradually increase the tax on cigarettes until a packet of Silk Cut cost the same as a bottle of single malt whisky?
It’s almost there: cheapest single malt around £19, pack of silk cut around £17 (I think).
I am in strongly in favour of helping people stop smoking, but the taxation level feels a bit cynical these days, without more help for those addicted. It’s poorer people who are more likely to smoke.
(I don’t smoke or drink, so I don’t have a personal stake!)
Anyone remember the episode of Yes Minister when Jim Hacker wanted to gradually increase the tax on cigarettes until a packet of Silk Cut cost the same as a bottle of single malt whisky?
Are you thinking of this clip from Yes, Prime Minister ?
Labour have announced that they want to nationalise the Railways. Supported by 70% of the public apparently plus myself.
Source..all the news channels today.
It had been on the cards for a while. I agree with it too. We need to be careful though that the rail companies are responsible for the debt they have and we don’t pay it off for them.
Labour have announced that they want to nationalise the Railways. Supported by 70% of the public apparently plus myself.
Source..all the news channels today.
It had been on the cards for a while. I agree with it too. We need to be careful though that the rail companies are responsible for the debt they have and we don’t pay it off for them.
In particular the rolling stock operating companies will still remain private (and that's a large source of cost in the system).
I don't think any of the private rail companies who will be replaced under Labour's plans have significant debts that could fall on the taxpayer. They are simply contractors operating the train services.
Network Rail has massive debts, but is already publicly owned.
Although there are some privatised organisations who have taken out significant loans and built up debt, while still paying out significant sums in dividends to share holders. Bringing those back into public ownership will, therefore, need to address that debt - does the take payer pay it off, the public who rely on those services, or can it be clawed back from the dividends paid to shareholders?
Although there are some privatised organisations who have taken out significant loans and built up debt, while still paying out significant sums in dividends to share holders. Bringing those back into public ownership will, therefore, need to address that debt - does the take payer pay it off, the public who rely on those services, or can it be clawed back from the dividends paid to shareholders?
A look at the nationalisations of 1947-48 might be instructive here. IIRC they essentially paid shareholders in gilts with guaranteed returns. Nothing that looks like confiscation is going to fly politically - as it wasn't then - so people tend to gloss over the fact that 'nationalisation' = 'state purchase from shareholders'
particularly when there was a mixed outcome of shareholders in dividend paying companies taking a haircut because the valuation was based on 1946 data, and others whose shares were in the basket case companies actually doing far better with the government pay-out than they could have expected had they retained their shares.
Although there are some privatised organisations who have taken out significant loans and built up debt, while still paying out significant sums in dividends to share holders. Bringing those back into public ownership will, therefore, need to address that debt - does the take payer pay it off, the public who rely on those services, or can it be clawed back from the dividends paid to shareholders?
A look at the nationalisations of 1947-48 might be instructive here. IIRC they essentially paid shareholders in gilts with guaranteed returns. Nothing that looks like confiscation is going to fly politically - as it wasn't then - so people tend to gloss over the fact that 'nationalisation' = 'state purchase from shareholders'
To a point, but there are all sorts of other things you can do once a company is heavily indebted (and the debt is trading at a significant discount due to lack of refinancing options).
Although there are some privatised organisations who have taken out significant loans and built up debt, while still paying out significant sums in dividends to share holders. Bringing those back into public ownership will, therefore, need to address that debt - does the take payer pay it off, the public who rely on those services, or can it be clawed back from the dividends paid to shareholders?
A look at the nationalisations of 1947-48 might be instructive here. IIRC they essentially paid shareholders in gilts with guaranteed returns. Nothing that looks like confiscation is going to fly politically - as it wasn't then - so people tend to gloss over the fact that 'nationalisation' = 'state purchase from shareholders'
To a point, but there are all sorts of other things you can do once a company is heavily indebted (and the debt is trading at a significant discount due to lack of refinancing options).
Yeah, particularly when the companies are massively reliant on government subsidy to pay their bills. There are plenty of ways to ensure that any price paid is fair to the taxpayer. I suspect, however, that with Labour putting a 5 year target in place they may simply plan to let contracts expire or give the train operating companies enough rope that they hand the contracts back. That's all assuming this isn't the usual type of Starmer "pledge".
I suspect, however, that with Labour putting a 5 year target in place they may simply plan to let contracts expire or give the train operating companies enough rope that they hand the contracts back. That's all assuming this isn't the usual type of Starmer "pledge".
I'd thought they've said that is indeed the plan. But they're not touching the rolling stock leasing firms - so the state will own the infrastructure, the operating companies will return routes to DfT as and when their contracts expire, and we'll end up with the state leasing all the rolling stock rather than just specifying it as it does at the moment.
A return to a fully integrated BR is not either being proposed or going to happen on the current plans.
Yeah, particularly when the companies are massively reliant on government subsidy to pay their bills. There are plenty of ways to ensure that any price paid is fair to the taxpayer.
It's actually easier in this case because while the operating companies may carry debt, their only asset really is their access to the routes. They lease the trains. The government already owns the infrastructure on which the trains run, and they HAVE (AIUI) ruled out touching the trains. Also virtually no operating company has operating a UK rail route as its primary business (by the time you get to top level owning company, anyway).
So really there shouldn't be any payments if they're just going to let the current contracts lapse.
So talk of compensating shareholders would only come into it if they were going to start tearing up contracts, or forcing departures, neither of which seem likely on what has been said.
The rail industry is not as privatised as opponents of rail privatisation like to paint it as, and more nationalised than the proponents of privatisation care to admit.
What this decision does do is make the government responsible* for train timetables and performance going forward. Personally - and I don't think they should have been privatised in the first place - I'd say I can see why Labour have proposed it, but I'm not totally sure they understand what they're proposing - unless this is genuinely to be filed under 'brave' decisions.
*they'll probably use something like Great British Railways as the arms length fig leaf modern equivalent of the British Transport Commission, but no one should be in any doubt that all the problems on the rail network (a rail network that has been explicitly 're-nationalised' no less) are about to land on Downing Street as though the fig leaf isn't there.
ROSCOs - as mad a scheme as was ever presented to Parliament. All about enriching hedge funds at public expense while making sure passenger provision is minimal and of low quality to boot.
It's high time these abominations were consigned to the dustbin of history along with academy schools, free schools and all the other anti-democratic nonsense imposed by right-wing ideologues.
ROSCOs - as mad a scheme as was ever presented to Parliament. All about enriching hedge funds at public expense while making sure passenger provision is minimal and of low quality to boot.
It's high time these abominations were consigned to the dustbin of history along with academy schools, free schools and all the other anti-democratic nonsense imposed by right-wing ideologues.
It's possible to phase out the ROSCOs as new rolling stock comes on stream.
ROSCOs - as mad a scheme as was ever presented to Parliament. All about enriching hedge funds at public expense while making sure passenger provision is minimal and of low quality to boot.
It's high time these abominations were consigned to the dustbin of history along with academy schools, free schools and all the other anti-democratic nonsense imposed by right-wing ideologues.
Slight misunderstanding there - the operating companies, since the coalition really - have been able just about to choose their own livery. Seat design, quality, capacity, accessibility, lighting, everything really is specified for them by the DfT.
Shorter version - very little is running on the passenger railways that hasn’t been instructed by Westminster, Holyrood or Cardiff. Not designed or spec’d by the operators. But at the moment - as I said in my last post - so few people understand what ‘privatised’ really means here that on this specific point the operators continue to get kicked for the sub-optimal stock they’ve been forced to buy by DfT civil servants. instead of DfT, which is where the blame lies really. So it’s a win for the government.
if I was betting I’d say Labour are happy to keep ROSCOs because it gives them someone to whip and removes some balance sheet liability.
Nationalisation of the franchises and increasing integration of British Railways services makes sense and costs nothing if phased in with the ending of contracts. In the past decade the DfT has had to do so on several occasions when operating companies have handed back franchises early. When they did so, the arms-length management provided a better service at lower cost. Many of the franchise holders have extracted profits over the years, including French and German state owned companies.
It's a good policy and costs nothing.
The rolling stock companies should also be disbanded as they make huge returns on minimal risk. But that's a harder nut to crack and would cost a lot more so I understand why it's not part of this announcement.
Otoh, I think the government should set up.a state owned competitor and gradually ease them out over time.
Comments
The big issue is that until the last 10-20y the message to working people was that they work, pay their NI contributions and when they retire they'll have a state pension that's sufficient to live on. What's happened is that the pension they receive isn't enough to live on (and in some cases people have found that they couldn't get it when they retired because the message that state pension ages were going up hadn't been successfully communicated to them). Even with that no longer being the case, it's probably too late for people in their 50s to start putting away anything for an additional pension (assuming they have sufficient income to do that) and get anything significant from it. Building a significant pension to supplement the state pension is a life times work.
Exactly.
FUJIAR.
I'm assuming it's a final salary pension based on years of service as a police officer, of the kind that is no longer available even to new recruits to the police, let alone to anyone starting working in the private sector.
But your pension was looked after by different governments from different parties. This government has had a hand in your pension nothing more.
That is roughly how I feel about the Government's commitment to my pension. They have already changed it from RPI to CPI updating, while not doing the same for MPs' pensions. A thief who steals a small thing may well come back to take a larger. Who can be sure?
57 years ago I chose to take a job which was not well paid ( £700 a year ) It did, however, have the promise of a good pension. Most others could have made a similar choice
No, they couldn't, because there weren't and aren't enough such jobs for everyone to have one. Someone had to do the other jobs instead. Perhaps people who applied for your job but didn't get it, or couldn't apply because they didn't meet the requirements.
Which included, for example, a minimum height at the time Telford was reportedly employed in the police.
How convenient for you, Telford.
(The height requirement was removed in the 90s because it was recognised as discriminatory).
The minimum height in my force was 5'8" for males ( 6 ft in some places like Nottingham) and 5'4" for females. I guess it was discriminatory against males who were at least 5'4"
I'm not convinced by the argument that a police officer needs to be any particular height at all.
But let's say that I bought the argument that being tall was a useful attribute for a police officer. If I place a cut-off at a particular height for all people, you'd also tell me that that is discriminatory, because women are on average 3-4 inches shorter than men, and so a height threshold discriminates against women, just like a "don't be pregnant" requirement discriminates against women.
It seems that of the hundred MPs standing down at the election 63 are Tory. I am left wondering if they can field replacements. Labour could really gain here.
It is now common to refer to the Police as a Police service, rather than a Police Force. It was called a Police Force because it was acknowledged that often force would have to be used. That's where size and fitness comes into it. When I joined, female officers had their own little department and they dealt with the jobs they were good at. They actually got paid a bit less but their working week was shorter.
Sometime in the 70s male and female officers were paid the same and the Policewomen's departments were disbanded. All the women went onto shifts. A good controller, if there was a choice, would always dispatch the most suitable officer(s) to a job.
I can recall one very good officer who was barely 5'8" but he had been a member of the SBS ( Special Boat Service).
What do these abbreviations stand for? (Google didn't help).
FUJIAR = F*** yoU Jack, I Am Alright
“I’m alright Jack” is an expression for someone with a selfish attitude who is complacent about others, as exemplified in the film that takes the expression for its title.
I think they've been explained earlier in the thread, but, if not, apologies for the omission:
I see that @Cameron also explained just a minute or so before I posted.
Indeed.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/19/new-zealand-smoking-ban-what-uk-can-learn
Yes!
It’s almost there: cheapest single malt around £19, pack of silk cut around £17 (I think).
I am in strongly in favour of helping people stop smoking, but the taxation level feels a bit cynical these days, without more help for those addicted. It’s poorer people who are more likely to smoke.
(I don’t smoke or drink, so I don’t have a personal stake!)
Are you thinking of this clip from Yes, Prime Minister ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mtp2-PEH20&t=233s
Source..all the news channels today.
It had been on the cards for a while. I agree with it too. We need to be careful though that the rail companies are responsible for the debt they have and we don’t pay it off for them.
In particular the rolling stock operating companies will still remain private (and that's a large source of cost in the system).
Network Rail has massive debts, but is already publicly owned.
A look at the nationalisations of 1947-48 might be instructive here. IIRC they essentially paid shareholders in gilts with guaranteed returns. Nothing that looks like confiscation is going to fly politically - as it wasn't then - so people tend to gloss over the fact that 'nationalisation' = 'state purchase from shareholders'
particularly when there was a mixed outcome of shareholders in dividend paying companies taking a haircut because the valuation was based on 1946 data, and others whose shares were in the basket case companies actually doing far better with the government pay-out than they could have expected had they retained their shares.
That's the precedent.
To a point, but there are all sorts of other things you can do once a company is heavily indebted (and the debt is trading at a significant discount due to lack of refinancing options).
Yeah, particularly when the companies are massively reliant on government subsidy to pay their bills. There are plenty of ways to ensure that any price paid is fair to the taxpayer. I suspect, however, that with Labour putting a 5 year target in place they may simply plan to let contracts expire or give the train operating companies enough rope that they hand the contracts back. That's all assuming this isn't the usual type of Starmer "pledge".
I'd thought they've said that is indeed the plan. But they're not touching the rolling stock leasing firms - so the state will own the infrastructure, the operating companies will return routes to DfT as and when their contracts expire, and we'll end up with the state leasing all the rolling stock rather than just specifying it as it does at the moment.
A return to a fully integrated BR is not either being proposed or going to happen on the current plans.
It's actually easier in this case because while the operating companies may carry debt, their only asset really is their access to the routes. They lease the trains. The government already owns the infrastructure on which the trains run, and they HAVE (AIUI) ruled out touching the trains. Also virtually no operating company has operating a UK rail route as its primary business (by the time you get to top level owning company, anyway).
So really there shouldn't be any payments if they're just going to let the current contracts lapse.
So talk of compensating shareholders would only come into it if they were going to start tearing up contracts, or forcing departures, neither of which seem likely on what has been said.
The rail industry is not as privatised as opponents of rail privatisation like to paint it as, and more nationalised than the proponents of privatisation care to admit.
What this decision does do is make the government responsible* for train timetables and performance going forward. Personally - and I don't think they should have been privatised in the first place - I'd say I can see why Labour have proposed it, but I'm not totally sure they understand what they're proposing - unless this is genuinely to be filed under 'brave' decisions.
*they'll probably use something like Great British Railways as the arms length fig leaf modern equivalent of the British Transport Commission, but no one should be in any doubt that all the problems on the rail network (a rail network that has been explicitly 're-nationalised' no less) are about to land on Downing Street as though the fig leaf isn't there.
It's high time these abominations were consigned to the dustbin of history along with academy schools, free schools and all the other anti-democratic nonsense imposed by right-wing ideologues.
It's possible to phase out the ROSCOs as new rolling stock comes on stream.
Slight misunderstanding there - the operating companies, since the coalition really - have been able just about to choose their own livery. Seat design, quality, capacity, accessibility, lighting, everything really is specified for them by the DfT.
Shorter version - very little is running on the passenger railways that hasn’t been instructed by Westminster, Holyrood or Cardiff. Not designed or spec’d by the operators. But at the moment - as I said in my last post - so few people understand what ‘privatised’ really means here that on this specific point the operators continue to get kicked for the sub-optimal stock they’ve been forced to buy by DfT civil servants. instead of DfT, which is where the blame lies really. So it’s a win for the government.
if I was betting I’d say Labour are happy to keep ROSCOs because it gives them someone to whip and removes some balance sheet liability.
It's a good policy and costs nothing.
The rolling stock companies should also be disbanded as they make huge returns on minimal risk. But that's a harder nut to crack and would cost a lot more so I understand why it's not part of this announcement.
Otoh, I think the government should set up.a state owned competitor and gradually ease them out over time.
AFZ