Anything Political

[DJ360 6,728]

21 hours ago, Brew said:

 

Apart from the oxymoron I quite agree...  

 

I should hope so.. and 'Legalised Theft' is indeed a true oxymoron,  since it's an apt descriptor of what has been happening since Thatcher., according to this definition:

 

Quote

A true oxymoron must be deliberately crafted in advance, with the goal of creating a rhetorical effect or revealing a deeper figurative meaning.

 

from: https://www.litcharts.com/literary-devices-and-terms/oxymoron

 

But irrespective of oxymorons and for the benefit of anyone who still doesn't get it.. lets just explore the issues around water companies.

Taking Thames Water as an example, but it seems most privatised water co's are in a similar mess...

 

The first and most obvious point to me, is that everyone from Water Co CEOs, through Politicians and TV Journalists, seem to start from the position that the Water Companies are simply 'Businesses' which have been mismanaged.. when in fact they are SCAMS from DAY ONE.

 

They had no debt when created, but they have, since privatisation, borrowed huge sums of money in order to finance huge shareholder dividends and 'Fat Cat' salaries, running into the £Bn10s, or even £Bn100s. Meanwhile, they have consistently underinvested in the their core operation, allowing leakage, sewage overflow etc, to reach epidemic proportions.

That is a bizarre business model which, can only be understood as a deliberate method by 'Investors' many of whom are foreign companies, some even owned by Foreign Govt's, to siphon money out of the British electorate, in return for nothing.

You don't have to be an Economics Graduate to see this SCAM for what it is.

 

If it weren't so serious, it might actually be seen as funny, that the Privatised Water 'Business Model', of borrowing to finance profit for so called 'Investors', who are in fact shareholders who have invested nothing beyond the share purchase price, literally doesn't hold water. It also echoes Truss's lunatic idea of borrowing to fund tax cuts for the already rich. These ideas can only logically derive from the most extreme NeoCon lobbyists. (Tufton Street..again...)

 

Add to that, the spectacle of the CEO of Thames Water on TV, arguing that Bills will HAVE TO RISE in order to get them out of the deep mess of their own  making, and even trying to blame it all on Climate Change.

 

And now, when asked to contribute funds to the source of their wealth.. , these criminal speculators are DEMANDING that Water companies increase their charges, which puts Water Companies in conflict with Ofwat, who for now at least seem to be standing their ground, though I'd be surprised if this Tory Govt allowed that to continue.

 

The main takeaway here though, is that this is just the most currently obvious example of the UTTER FAILURE of Thatcher's Great Privatisation Project. We were promised leaner, more efficient services. We got the opposite.

It was always going to end this way, as many of us said at the time.

 

And even I don't totally blame Thatcher for this mess.  That woman has been dead for 13 years and out of office for 34 years, but her enthusiastic Neo-Con disciples continue in their attempts to 'Sell Britain By The Pound', to the detriment of the majority of us.

 

If it was me, I would simply inform all shareholders that their dividends stop now, offer them the opportunity to pay off their debts, in light of the profits they have extracted for decades, or failing that, surrender their shares to a new National Water Company, for nothing.  In short, I would treat them with equal contempt to that they have shown to the people of the UK.

 

And that's just water.... Versions of the same scam have been tried with every public utility, every public service, etc.

 

It has to stop, and it has to be reversed.

[DJ360 6,728]

22 hours ago, Brew said:

But is it?

To my mind 20% seems a fairly normal profit margin. I can't really see why they're trying to make out it's some sort of outrageous profiteering. They are after all a business like any other.

 

Why does there need to be any profit at all in what amounts to an essential service for the bulk of parents and a necessary socialising and educative precursor to Mainstream Education?

 

Childminding is a different issue.  We used a Childminder to take our kids to and from school and supervise them for an hour or so until we returned from work. Different thing entirely.

 

And anyway, you are missing the point. 

 

Quote

The analysis shows nurseries backed by investment companies – including private equity firms, asset managers and international pension funds – reported double the profits of other private providers and seven times those of non-profits.

 

Quote

Abby Jitendra, the JRF’s principal policy adviser on care, said: “Our childcare system is a wild west where the biggest providers cash in while others struggle and workers live on poverty pay – pouring billions into it without proper controls is utterly irresponsible.”

The companies backed by private equity or investment firms covered by the analysis – which represent some of England’s largest childcare providers – reported average profits equivalent to 22% of their turnover over the five-year period between 2018 and 2022.

This is twice the 11% reported by other private providers not backed by investment companies, and more than seven times the 3% reported by the non-profit companies analysed.

Quote

The analysis shows that the combined debt of England’s 43 largest childcare companies, regardless of ownership, rose dramatically in the same five-year period from £0.6bn in 2018 to £1.13bn in 2022, an 85% rise. The increase has mainly been driven by providers backed by investment firms, who are more willing to take on larger debts in order to finance rapid expansion.

 

Are you seeing any pattern here?

 

Quote

As of July 2023, the company (Thames Water) listed its shareholders as: OMERS (32%), the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS - 20%), Infinity Investments (a subsidiary of the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority) (10%), British Columbia Investment Management Corporation (9%), Hermes Investment Management (manager of the BT Pension Scheme) (9%), the China Investment Corporation (9%), Queensland Investment Corporation (5%), Aquila GP Inc. (5%), and Stichting Pensioenfonds Zorg en Welzijn (2%).^[15] Shareholders have not taken a dividend since 2017, though the company has paid internal dividends from the operational business to holding companies to be able to service its debt obligations.^[10]

 

 

[Brew 5,413]

15 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

If it was me, I would simply inform all shareholders that their dividends stop now, 

 

I would treat shareholders for exactly what they are - shareholders in a bankrupt company and the value of their shares is zero.

[DJ360 6,728]

But would they not then claim ownership of whatever 'Assets' Water companies have?  Those are considerable I imagine, when you take in reservoirs, etc, etc.

ISTM that Govt, would need to 'seize' all assets in lieu of debt repayment and then finance the required infrastructure work from general taxation or Public borrowing.  They are happy enough to borrow for purposes which suit them.

Maybe the profits from the completely unneccessary Rosebank Oilfield will provide a significant taxation contribution to UK Water,

[Brew 5,413]

18 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

But would they not then claim ownership of whatever 'Assets' Water companies have?

No, shareholders cannot take over the assets they must be sold to clear debts.

When a company fails, whatever cash is in the business following the sale of assets goes to pay any liabilities.

What's left (often nothing), will be divided amongst the shareholders on a pro-rata basis (number of shares held).

In most instances investors lose all their money.

 

I very much doubt they will be declared bankrupt as they would have to cease trading and obviously that can't happen. 

If they nationalise water there will be a similar scheme to previous nationalisations in the past - probably.

 

[DJ360 6,728]

Continuing the Privatisation Scam theme.

Yesterday I received a letter from a company called Outside Clinic, who claim to be delivering NHS Services, and in fact have the NHS logo more prominently displayed on their blurb, than their own company name.

 

Their basic pitch is that they can deliver FREE HOME EYETESTS, ( to qualifying people ) via a little known NHS Funded scheme.

 

It is pretty much certain that I do not qualify for this, as I am pretty mobile.

However, I would no doubt, on enquiring, be offered a Home Test anyway, for the 'bargain price' of £60.

 

Even a Taxi to my nearest Optician would cost a fraction of that, and of course the test would be free.

 

I've already emailed them, pointing out their dubious marketing practices, and demanding to know how they got my Name and Address.

[Brew 5,413]

36 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

Why does there need to be any profit at all in what amounts to an essential service for the bulk of parents and a necessary socialising and educative precursor to Mainstream Education?

 

Without a profit incentive there is no business and in my mind 'essential' is a bit of a stretch.

I would hazard a guess the vast majority of nurseries are for pre-schoolers.

 

Your description of childminding is of what amounts to an ad hoc school run arrangement with a friendly neighbour.

 

For many it starts way before school age and he kids were looked after in someone's home for most of the working day. 

When political correctness burst on the scene and every officious know-all had something to say it became an industry and regulated to the point it was virtually impossible to continue in a domestic environment.

An entirely different setup to the one you describe and one many thousands relied on.

Without it commerce stepped in to the fill the gap.

 

Do I see a pattern in your links? Yes of course it's called business and the prime objective is business and making profits.  Quite why some can't see that beyond legal requirement corporate responsibility doe not extend to social responsibility, is difficult to understand.

It is an entirely empathy free zone.

 

I'm under the impression some think a government or council run scheme is required.

Do we really want a state run system of regimented pre-school education?

[Brew 5,413]

3 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Yesterday I received a letter from a company called Outside Clinic, who claim to be delivering NHS Services,

I've had lots of those and and never bothered to read further than the mobility qualifier. Next one that arrives I'll look a little closer...

[Brew 5,413]

Yesterday Starmer launched Labours campaign...... and oh dear...

I've said many times he has no ideas - at lease none of his own!

 

Starmer and his slightly dodgy looking deputy acknowledged Johnson for his 'levelling up' program and that his "analysis was good"

 

He now proposes the Starmer version with legislation called the 'Take Back Control Act' which will mandate councils to make a local growth plan, quite what he thinks they do now is anybody's guess.

Taking, or giving, back control sounds an awful lot like Thatcher who said similar, that and giving people choice.

 

He claimed in a speech Johnsons plan was sabotaged by Sunak who, as chancellor, denied the funds to carry through levelling up. Will he therefore be allocating more money to fund his TBC act? - in a word no.

 

Labour’s rehash of Johnson's scheme he said will not have any more money than Sunak allowed, i.e. zilch.

Instead the finance will come from “empowerment,” “benefits of scale” and “strong partnership with the private sector".

 

In my own simple way I take that seemingly gibberish statement to mean:

 

Private sector partnerships.

The much discredited Private Finance Initiatives that are crippling the NHS as we speak.

 

Empowerment

We will have a Mayor in May with hugely increased powers to raise taxes and other schemes to raise money - usually through the pockets of those least able to pay.

 

Benefits of scale:

Can mean benefiting through greater utility of assets. but can also mean the opposite, saving money through reduction i.e. reducing council services.

---------

So far I've had three communiques  by the Tory candidate for the new Mayors job. He seems to have a bee in his bonnet about pot holes. But apparently has nothing to say, not a single word, about Nottingham's debt crisis.

No word at all from Labour, Greens, Independent or Reform

 

 

[letsavagoo 963]

If Angela Raynor were a Tory I’m sure we would have heard from Col by now about disgraceful tory corruption. She is being investigated in relation to the sale of one of her homes, a former council house which she purchased under the Tory right to buy policy. She said she was living there although her husband and children were registered living at a separate property and thereby avoided paying certain taxes. Seems she’s on the ropes. Her almost tearful performance at a recent press conference was not convincing nor is her refusal to publish the tax advice she received. 

[siddha 825]

And if she were a Tory there would be nobody hounding her to reveal the details of her tax advice.

[Oztalgian 3,278]

On 3/23/2024 at 10:17 PM, DJ360 said:

In my view..far too many, and recent appointments such as Cruddas and Mone for the Cons offend all notions of decency and fairness.

I'm reasonably happy for an 'Upper House' to exist, but I'd favour a major reduction in numbers, a limit on numbers allowed per PM etc.. and a House of Lords Appointments Commission with real teeth.

Is it time to abolish the House of Lords and operate a unicameral Parliament. Queensland has had one since 1922 and it seems to work OK there providing that the electorate do not give an outright majority to any particular party as it did in the days of Joh Bjelke-Petersen. It is the only state in Australia to have this system.

[Oztalgian 3,278]

On 3/24/2024 at 6:34 PM, letsavagoo said:

The rise in state pension will also see millions more retirees paying more in income tax.

Thanks letsavagoo, it seems the government has a funding problem entirely of its own making, apart from more pensioners paying increasing income tax, it appears that long term funding will be an on-going budgetary problem. Here in OZ if your age pension is your only source of income you pay no tax on it.

[letsavagoo 963]

11 hours ago, siddha said:

And if she were a Tory there would be nobody hounding her to reveal the details of her tax advice.

Obviously the government will exploit this for all they can but I think much of the pressure she faces and demands to publish the tax advice she received comes from the press.

[Brew 5,413]

5 hours ago, Oztalgian said:

Here in OZ if your age pension is your only source of income you pay no tax on it.

Same here Oz. The personal allowance before tax is due is £12,750, the basic state pension is £10,600.

[DJ360 6,728]

17 hours ago, letsavagoo said:

If Angela Raynor were a Tory I’m sure we would have heard from Col by now about disgraceful tory corruption. She is being investigated in relation to the sale of one of her homes, a former council house which she purchased under the Tory right to buy policy. She said she was living there although her husband and children were registered living at a separate property and thereby avoided paying certain taxes. Seems she’s on the ropes. Her almost tearful performance at a recent press conference was not convincing nor is her refusal to publish the tax advice she received. 

 

The Police were not originally bothered by whatever allegations were made, but it's pretty clear that someone has been busy persuading the Police to pursue it.

Raynor has stated very clearly that she is entirely happy for the Police to investigate, but that she sees no reason why she should publish her personal tax affairs to satisfy a baying Tory owned media.

I agree with her.

No doubt the Police will pronounce at some point. Until then it is, as she says, a 'non story'.

 

And, FWIW, even if she turns out to be as guilty as hell, it pales into insignificance c.f. the constant, blatant and endemic corruption within the Tory Party, Tory Govt, Tory Press and Tory Media. It is possible she might have avoided £1500 in tax and even then not deliberately.  I'm sure she'd happily pay it found to owe it. You are grasping at straws.

 

How much are Rees Mogg et.al being paid to to break the law by acting as 'presenters' on GB News whilst being active Politicians?

Tory Donors?  Yet another elevated to the Lords only yesterday.

There have been so many Tory scandals in the last ten years that most people have lost count and and are now so inured to them that they barely register.  And of course the Tory owned/owning Press and Media don't pursue them equally c.f. Labour and others.  You know this.

 

 

 

The whole bloody Tory Government is a Criminal Enterprise.

[DJ360 6,728]

6 hours ago, letsavagoo said:

Obviously the government will exploit this for all they can but I think much of the pressure she faces and demands to publish the tax advice she received comes from the press.

 

And what do we think is the relationship between the Tory Govt, Tory backers, Tory Donors etc..and 'The Press' ?

[Brew 5,413]

8 hours ago, Oztalgian said:

Is it time to abolish the House of Lords and operate a unicameral Parliament. Queensland has had one since 1922 and it seems to work OK there providing that the electorate do not give an outright majority to any particular party as it did in the days of Joh Bjelke-Petersen. It is the only state in Australia to have this system.

 

Seem to answer your own question Oz

 

There are unicameral systems operating in the UK. The Scottish Parliament, Welsh Senedd, The Northern Ireland Assembly and the London Assembly are all unicameral. Having said that the main protection against extremism for them is the overarching powers residing in Westminster. I don't know how that works un the federal system in Australia.

 

The main criticism of the unicameral system is its perceived lack of checks and balances, the risk of a  concentration of power and limited scrutiny. 

One considered advantage is the speed legislation and therein lies the danger. I have no doubt Johnson, Truss and Blair with their massive majority would have run amok.

The Lords defeated more of Johnsons legislations than any other PM with the exception of Harold Wilson in the mid '70s

 

Personally I feel more comfortable with a second chamber.

 

 

 

 

 

I

[Brew 5,413]

36 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

How much are Rees Mogg et.al being paid to to break the law by acting as 'presenters' on GB News whilst being active Politicians?

 

Except he's not breaking any laws Col and your prejudice has led to a wild exaggeration.

Ofcom has, with provisos, given a green light to serving politicians presenting TV programs..

[Brew 5,413]

52 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

The Police were not originally bothered by whatever allegations were made, but it's pretty clear that someone has been busy persuading the Police to pursue it.

 

And the Johnson partygate investigation was the result of pressure by whom?

[DJ360 6,728]

OK, Rees Mogg didn't break laws, but he and other right wing serving Tories were found, by Ofcom to have broken impartiality rules when acting as presenters on GB News. This not the first time, and GB News are 'on notice'.

 

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/five-gb-news-programmes-presented-104843739.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAAJDTxdBCpAPFcIAan5d-RIedR5dklwqvgE7RYukV8WshftTuvR98xcwgkdm5K262tDozjgqEwo6_p5JRBOFqLv1_M8IpnnEzfxupi6GZq4IayKOS7XYUKFq3bAjeFfGqxL_LGlD4HB60D9ragT6xixfs85Nw8kbSP1vhYdZ2Dl_

[DJ360 6,728]

5 minutes ago, Brew said:

 

And the Johnson partygate investigation was the result of pressure by whom?

 

Commons Priveleges Committee.

[Brew 5,413]

Yeahbutnobut?

 

What you say is true but it's not, so far. illegal. GB News is as we know little more than a right wing mouth piece but unless they break the rules then the right to freedom of speech must prevail and they be allowed their say whether we like it or not.

[Brew 5,413]

4 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

 

Commons Priveleges Committee.

Not originally, it was an investigative piece of journalism by the Guardian with The Independent. They carried the story and the rest of the media picked it up and ran it until the CPC had little choice but to take action

[letsavagoo 963]

19 hours ago, DJ360 said:

 

And what do we think is the relationship between the Tory Govt, Tory backers, Tory Donors etc..and 'The Press' ?

Sorry Col. It goes without saying I meant to say much of the pressure comes from the evil Tory controlled press. Put it down to a senior moment.