Politics Today

Alistair20000

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
46,891
Location
Hunkered down
I would be to slightly differ Al.

The fundamental problem though is that the inevitable ultimate goal of most "free market" operators is to evolve toward (ideally) a monopoly situation or (alternatively) a convenient "cartel" with so called competitors.

For the former one only has to look at the water industry for example where, although different operators exist most customers are geographically tied to a monopolist provider. One could also point to the rail industry where, in large parts of the country, more or less the same applies.

For the latter I would offer the likes of energy, communications and even, perhaps, the big supermarket chains. Although ostensibly in competition they still largely coalesce where matters of mutual interest (and profit) arise.

And to police this we have a largely ineffective Monopoly and Mergers commission and, even worse, a set of useless so-called "regulators" who seem to be clearly in hock to the providers rather than the customers.

State monopolies are not necessary the total answer, but at least we, the grate unwashed, do have the opportunity every few years to vote the current "board of directors" out. Unlike the privatised sector where the only ones who have a real say are the (often offshore or foreign government) investors.
Your point about monopolies has some merit but in the private sector monopolies do get challenged. In the context of big supermarkets the discounters such as Lidl and Aldi (others available) are effective challengers..

As regards our powers to kick out the Board of Directors, the choice on offer is feckin' lousy.
 

Grecian2K

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Mar 9, 2004
Messages
30,397
Location
Red & White Forever
Al. To a certain extent I take your point about the "discount" supermarkets but my recent experience (Aldi vs Sainsbury mainly) is that the price differentials have been steadily shrinking as all the prices go up.

Whether that is due to the big chains reacting to competition of the discounters seizing the opportunity to edge their prices upward is a moot point.

One thing is for sure. After a year where many industries have been softening we punters up about the threat of looming inflation they are all sure as hell reaping the rewards together now.
 

Grecian2K

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Mar 9, 2004
Messages
30,397
Location
Red & White Forever
As regards our powers to kick out the Board of Directors, the choice on offer is feckin' lousy.
Is it any different in the private sector? Appointments are often made within the same cosy selectorate with the only real criteria is the "fiducary duty" to their shareholders.
Similarly "reward" is determined by those "revolving door" remuneration committees.
Surely even you have to agreed that considering nurses etc to be worthy of only 3% pay rises while those great and the not-so-good captains of commerce are routinely being awarded enhancements of 20%+ on their already eye-watering packages - even in underperforming companies - is an injustice of the highest order?

Remuneration of FTSE 100 CEOs has gone up by an average of 23% in the past year.
Over the same period the FTSE 100 has actually FALLEN by 8%
Go figure? :rolleyes:
#rewardingfailure
 
Last edited:

tavyred

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
10,911
Good to hear a Government Minister actually confront a whingeing SNP MP with the truth bomb that says Scotland gets 26% (yes 26%!!) more by way of per capita public spending than England.
How is that massive disparity in funding not a huge political hot potato for English MP’s with their constituents?
Beggars belief.
 

angelic upstart

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jul 8, 2004
Messages
25,985
Good to hear a Government Minister actually confront a whingeing SNP MP with the truth bomb that says Scotland gets 26% (yes 26%!!) more by way of per capita public spending than England.
How is that massive disparity in funding not a huge political hot potato for English MP’s with their constituents?
Beggars belief.
Where does he get his figures from? I can only see 18% or 2.3k per head. Which is enough for Scotland to pay their rail workers and largely avoid strikes except for teachers, which we'll have next year and do free unis.

Whatever you think of the govt it's genuinely shameful that they're having little to no dialogue with the vast majority of striking workers. For once, it seems that the public are largely onside which isn't usually the case.

Back in more normal times the union would demand 15% and no changes to anything, the govt would offer 10% and demand some change. The union agree (most people don't want to strike) and everyone gets on with life. Now a union wants 15% the govt say we'll make striking more difficult than it already is.
 

DB9

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jun 19, 2005
Messages
21,602
Location
Hampshire. Heart's in N Devon
Good to hear a Government Minister actually confront a whingeing SNP MP with the truth bomb that says Scotland gets 26% (yes 26%!!) more by way of per capita public spending than England.
How is that massive disparity in funding not a huge political hot potato for English MP’s with their constituents?
Beggars belief.
Unfortunately Tavy you seem to be ploughing a lone furrow with this subject, It's seems all parties are happy with this formula.
 

tavyred

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
10,911
Where does he get his figures from? I can only see 18% or 2.3k per head. Which is enough for Scotland to pay their rail workers and largely avoid strikes except for teachers, which we'll have next year and do free unis.
It was Penny Mordaunt yesterday.
I’m sure if her quoted figure is wrong the grievance-mongers of the SNP will no doubt seek for her to correct record.

You’re right however to flag up the wholly artificial economic picture in Scotland. I recall attending my Union’s annual conference during austerity 1.0 where we in England and Wales were spitting feathers about the circa 30% cuts to the justice budget and the Scottish delegates were sitting pretty as there were no cuts needed up there.
Why would there be, Scotland gets more money and ergo posts a budget deficit every year with no worries whatsoever as to how they pay for it.
Westminster uses English public services to pay back Scottish deficits. 🤷‍♂️
 

tavyred

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
10,911
Unfortunately Tavy you seem to be ploughing a lone furrow with this subject, It's seems all parties are happy with this formula.
Oh yes, the Barnett formula and England’s inferior fiscal position has the total support of whole political class in the UK.
I wonder what difference a 26% uplift in English public spending would make to our vital public services?
Care to speculate on that DB?
 

DB9

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jun 19, 2005
Messages
21,602
Location
Hampshire. Heart's in N Devon
Oh yes, the Barnett formula and England’s inferior fiscal position has the total support of whole political class in the UK.
I wonder what difference a 26% uplift in English public spending would make to our vital public services?
Care to speculate on that DB?
Probably at lot Tavy but it seems they're all happy with that, I don't understand it either but we're just minions in the scheme of things.
 

Alistair20000

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
46,891
Location
Hunkered down
Oh yes, the Barnett formula and England’s inferior fiscal position has the total support of whole political class in the UK.
I wonder what difference a 26% uplift in English public spending would make to our vital public services?
Care to speculate on that DB?
Joel Barnett who devised it described its continuance as a terrible mistake.
 
Top