Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
It is funny how ‘the market’ (well, the high value end of it) always needs and gets taxpayer support when things go wrong…
With utilities, there is at least some rationale behind that. If an electricity company goes into administration, what happens to the customers? It wouldn’t be great if suddenly x% of the country gets suddenly cut off despite them paying the bills.
This is part of the problem with having essential infrastructure in the hands of private companies that only really care about profit and not their customers. What we need is public ownership of the fuel companies (and other utilities) and then the tax-payer can push full-steam ahead with converting to wind/solar power and reap the benefits in the future.
However, that’s long-term thinking which our political system does not select for.
I thought for a minute that
I thought for a minute that this was about another parking dispute that I read: https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/real-life/west-country-man-vows-never-7444586
Very similar in that Michael Davies has vowed to never return to Cornwall. A few more of these and Cornwall will be an empty wasteland.
There is truth that the poorly managed went out of business and yes we are all paying for them.I suppose my ire is more with those that create the system rather than the companies themselves.
The price cap, which was never expected to be the minimum anyone paid, is not and and never has been, designed to protect those vulnerable from significant bill rises.
Is it poorly managed or just the end-game of capitalism? I’d argue that if they made a short-term profit and then left before they had to deal with the aftermath, then it’s exactly how our financial system is designed to operate. I mean, what’s the worst that could happen to them – if they go broke, then the tax-payer foots the bill.
I read someone’s opinion the
I read someone’s opinion the other day on domestic solar panels, and they brought up the point that excess electricity produced is typically sold back to the energy companies at below market rates, which means that people are paying lots of money for panels and batteries and then end up subsidising a private company with the excess energy.
a new party fronted by LunchThat’s all very well, but what’s their policy on Second Breakfast?
Mandatory for all union members.
I’ve corrected my fat fingering now, but at least “The Lunch Party” sounds a lot more appealing than “The Lynch Party”.
Although…
So if the Conservatives have stolen New Labour policy maybe Labour might move towards ‘Old’ Labour and remember how they got their name.Given how Mick Lynch has recently performed in interviews showing complete and utter contempt for the media and politicians alike he seems a perfect candidate for the leaders job which is currently held by, you know, that guy in a suit, whatshisname. It’ll come to me eventually.
What we really need is a new party fronted by Lynch and Corbyn pushing a strong socialist agenda to redress the balance somewhat. Labour is now just Tory-lite.
NOtotheEU wrote:
The most interesting thing was how the policy developed within the Conservative Party. When suggested by Ed Milliband, it was Dangerous Socialism. By the time of the next election, it was Tory policy. Odd.So if the Conservatives have stolen New Labour policy maybe Labour might move towards ‘Old’ Labour and remember how they got their name.
Given how Mick Lynch has recently performed in interviews showing complete and utter contempt for the media and politicians alike he seems a perfect candidate for the leaders job which is currently held by, you know, that guy in a suit, whathisname. It’ll come to me eventually.
Keith something?
Does anyone think there will still be human civilisation on Earth in Y10K?Do you think we’ve got human civilisation on Earth now?
TheBillder wrote:
The idea was to protect people who had either never switched from the old gas and electricity board tariffs, or were coming off a fixed price, from punitive costs caused by ignorance of switching or inertia. It could never insulate people fully from global price hikes without regulating the entire energy process. The most interesting thing was how the policy developed within the Conservative Party. When suggested by Ed Milliband, it was Dangerous Socialism. By the time of the next election, it was Tory policy. Odd.
(22 posts to go before you get your free road.cc socks !)??? I’d assumed if I hit 10K posts then I break the site or something…
That’s what I’m hoping for, but looks like you’re going to find out before I do.
It may be easier for you to
It may be easier for you to upload pictures in the comments as you’ll get a ‘Choose File’ and ‘Upload’ buttons. Alternatively, you can include multiple pictures in the Forum topic by hosting the photos somewhere (e.g. Imgur) and putting the link in between [ img ] and [ img ] tags (without the spaces that I used to stop them getting interpreted).
It’s funny that the party which is so dedicated to retaining first past the post for elections by the public, has such a complicated and multilayered procedure for selecting their own party leader…I saw some post the other day where someone used a VPN to connect via a different country and was still able to pay £5 to vote for the new Conservative leader. I don’t know how true it was, but some people raised the point that it’s an easy way of funnelling dark money into their coffers which made me think that there could be a reason for the loophole.
Edit: Found it: https://www.reddit.com/r/GreenAndPleasant/comments/w63e0r/aita_for_rigging_the_tory_leadership_election/
(You would have to sign up at least three months ago to be able to vote)
It’s not so much staying out of politics as believing most politicians are liars who all have the same agenda. They put on a show of disagreeing with each other to get our votes but basically they are all part of the same system which does little to improve the lives of regular people.As for Brexit I was encouraged that most people seem to have voted on their beliefs rather than along party lines whether they were for or against, showing how pointless political parties really are. I certainly have no malice towards Remainers so I try to avoid slanging matches and hope most of my comments are constructive, or occasionally funny.
I hadn’t considered Brexit in that light – that’s a good way of looking at it.
Totally agree about political parties and I think we should bin them and the first-past-the-post system. It’s a a conundrum, though, on how we can push through political changes without somehow getting politicians to work together, so maybe political parties is the least worst option although I’d much prefer to see data-driven policies rather than populist fakery.
Where’s Rod Hull when you
Where’s Rod Hull when you need him?