Independent Leyton Orient Forum

Do you think those doing the Privately-funded project funding are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, or because they sense some sort or return on that investment? (Hint - do go for the obvious answer)

Perhaps we the people might benefit from having some investments.

StillSpike wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 5:31 pm Do you think those doing the Privately-funded project funding are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, or because they sense some sort or return on that investment? (Hint - do go for the obvious answer)

Perhaps we the people might benefit from having some investments.

Not disagreeing. I don’t like railways been owned by other countries either.

However that don’t change the situation today. Should the Government nationalise, private funding would stop now. The profits we talk about will drip feed in over many years but the funding is needed now. Cash flow. Therefore how will this shortfall be funded. Taxation, borrowing, diverting money from elsewhere.

I’m not arguing against the case for nationalisation, just how it could be funded. It is also likely to have spin off negatives with investors seeing the UK as a risky place to invest especially in utilities and so on.

dOh Nut wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 5:03 pm

tuffers#1 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 4:49 pm

Mikero wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 4:26 pm "The trouble is he intends to do it across several sectors and the cost to do so would be huge"

I thought the idea was to take each franchise in house as it expired thus removing the cost of buying out the TOCs. All the stock is leased so nothing there to buy and National Rail already own the stations and track. All in all sounds like a good idea.

Mikero

Especially as the Profit will stay here & not go to Germany & the Nederlands who own pretty
much all Of the train companies in the uk

Of course privately funded projects would cease so these would either stop or be taxpayer funded from day 1.

Doh the tax payer pays for Network rail.
If it breaks we pay for it being fixed.

The owners take the money out.

Let the tax payers money go elsewhere so the trains can pay for themselves

No I'm not explaining my point well.

In what way is it harder (or less desirable) for a sovereign country to fund investment in any infrastructure than it is for outside companies ? When the money comes from the state, you frame it as funding/shortfall/taxation/borrowing. When it comes from another state - you frame it as investment.

Nationalisation is not a cost, it's an investment. Why, when you can create money at the stroke of a pen to bail banks out with QE, and you can borrow money at no interest in any case, would you not choose to invest in public infrastructure.

StillSpike wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 6:26 pm No I'm not explaining my point well.

In what way is it harder (or less desirable) for a sovereign country to fund investment in any infrastructure than it is for outside companies ? When the money comes from the state, you frame it as funding/shortfall/taxation/borrowing. When it comes from another state - you frame it as investment.

Nationalisation is not a cost, it's an investment. Why, when you can create money at the stroke of a pen to bail banks out with QE, and you can borrow money at no interest in any case, would you not choose to invest in public infrastructure.

Figures I recall show how much we repay in interest as a country, interest free loans?

Those currently doing the investing in our infrastructure borrow funds to do so. They manage to repay the interest on that financing and still have significant enough profits to pay bonuses and dividends and sometimes even a little in tax.

There is simply no reason not to bring them back under our control. That goes for all infrastructure and utilities.

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 10:10 am

Red_Army wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 10:01 am

Disoriented wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 9:40 am I refer you respectfully to the Liberal Democrats policy unit for a full list of their fresh ideas. In particular, Policy Paper 137 entitled ‘Save the NHS and Social Care by Stopping Brexit’ is a riveting read.

Hopefully your friend will join the yellow masses.

Why would staying in the EU make the NHS any better? Staying in the EU would be the status quo, the NHS is currently in a mess. Granted that leaving may make it worse, but staying in the EU will not make it any better.

The Lib Dems are shamefully looking to increase their number of seats at the risk of a hard Brexit and a Tory majority. Better still for them, they might get back into coalition and get their ministerial cars back.

I'm almost motivated to go and campaign for the SNP in Jo Swinsons constituency. How nice would it be if she lost her seat.

It would be terrible to campaign against one of the true honest Scottish MPs in parliament.

RedO wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 7:01 pm Those currently doing the investing in our infrastructure borrow funds to do so. They manage to repay the interest on that financing and still have significant enough profits to pay bonuses and dividends and sometimes even a little in tax.

There is simply no reason not to bring them back under our control. That goes for all infrastructure and utilities.

In principle I have no issue with state owned utilities. I remain to be convinced we could adequately fund the buyout. I would need to be convinced that as state owned, the state could run them equally as well as private companies, nor could they raise the investment needed to continue to grow these in the future.

However, I would loved to be convinced.

dOh Nut wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 7:15 pm

RedO wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 7:01 pm Those currently doing the investing in our infrastructure borrow funds to do so. They manage to repay the interest on that financing and still have significant enough profits to pay bonuses and dividends and sometimes even a little in tax.

There is simply no reason not to bring them back under our control. That goes for all infrastructure and utilities.

In principle I have no issue with state owned utilities. I remain to be convinced we could adequately fund the buyout. I would need to be convinced that as state owned, the state could run them equally as well as private companies, nor could they raise the investment needed to continue to grow these in the future.

However, I would loved to be convinced.

Of course, privatisation has worked so well.

Disoriented wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 7:17 pm

dOh Nut wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 7:15 pm

RedO wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 7:01 pm Those currently doing the investing in our infrastructure borrow funds to do so. They manage to repay the interest on that financing and still have significant enough profits to pay bonuses and dividends and sometimes even a little in tax.

There is simply no reason not to bring them back under our control. That goes for all infrastructure and utilities.

In principle I have no issue with state owned utilities. I remain to be convinced we could adequately fund the buyout. I would need to be convinced that as state owned, the state could run them equally as well as private companies, nor could they raise the investment needed to continue to grow these in the future.

However, I would loved to be convinced.

Of course, privatisation has worked so well.

We have no way of comparing how things would be now if they were nationalised. We don’t know so such an observation is absurd.

dOh Nut wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 7:15 pm

RedO wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 7:01 pm Those currently doing the investing in our infrastructure borrow funds to do so. They manage to repay the interest on that financing and still have significant enough profits to pay bonuses and dividends and sometimes even a little in tax.

There is simply no reason not to bring them back under our control. That goes for all infrastructure and utilities.

In principle I have no issue with state owned utilities. I remain to be convinced we could adequately fund the buyout. I would need to be convinced that as state owned, the state could run them equally as well as private companies, nor could they raise the investment needed to continue to grow these in the future.

However, I would loved to be convinced.

You’re right. How on earth could he UK Government be expected to run a UK based business as well as the French government or an Australian pension fund?

Also laughable that you think we couldn’t raise the necessary finance but a load of City based chancers can.

Disoriented wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 7:17 pm

dOh Nut wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 7:15 pm

RedO wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 7:01 pm Those currently doing the investing in our infrastructure borrow funds to do so. They manage to repay the interest on that financing and still have significant enough profits to pay bonuses and dividends and sometimes even a little in tax.

There is simply no reason not to bring them back under our control. That goes for all infrastructure and utilities.

In principle I have no issue with state owned utilities. I remain to be convinced we could adequately fund the buyout. I would need to be convinced that as state owned, the state could run them equally as well as private companies, nor could they raise the investment needed to continue to grow these in the future.

However, I would loved to be convinced.

Of course, privatisation has worked so well.

It has for the executives running those businesses and their shareholders.

Not so much for the workers and us customers, granted. But you can’t have everything.

RedO wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 7:40 pm

Disoriented wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 7:17 pm

dOh Nut wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 7:15 pm

In principle I have no issue with state owned utilities. I remain to be convinced we could adequately fund the buyout. I would need to be convinced that as state owned, the state could run them equally as well as private companies, nor could they raise the investment needed to continue to grow these in the future.

However, I would loved to be convinced.

Of course, privatisation has worked so well.

It has for the executives running those businesses and their shareholders.

Not so much for the workers and us customers, granted. But you can’t have everything.

That was my point.

Someone is a little prickly this evening, aren’t they?

RedO wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 7:38 pm

dOh Nut wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 7:15 pm

RedO wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 7:01 pm Those currently doing the investing in our infrastructure borrow funds to do so. They manage to repay the interest on that financing and still have significant enough profits to pay bonuses and dividends and sometimes even a little in tax.

There is simply no reason not to bring them back under our control. That goes for all infrastructure and utilities.

In principle I have no issue with state owned utilities. I remain to be convinced we could adequately fund the buyout. I would need to be convinced that as state owned, the state could run them equally as well as private companies, nor could they raise the investment needed to continue to grow these in the future.

However, I would loved to be convinced.

You’re right. How on earth could he UK Government be expected to run a UK based business as well as the French government or an Australian pension fund?

Also laughable that you think we couldn’t raise the necessary finance but a load of City based chancers can.

So how then? Like I said to start with. More borrowing, more interest or more taxation. Of course finances can be raised but there is a cost to everything.

The exact same way the private investors do.

RedO wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 10:07 pm The exact same way the private investors do.

Of course, at a cost. No problem with the concept of borrowing, we do enough of it already. Just up it a 100 billion.

dOh Nut wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 10:10 pm

RedO wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 10:07 pm The exact same way the private investors do.

Of course, at a cost. No problem with the concept of borrowing, we do enough of it already. Just up it a 100 billion.

Imagine the returns that level of investment could bring

RedDwarf 1881 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 4:59 pm

jamespevans wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 10:33 am

Thor wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 10:18 am

Trouble is Redo Steptoe will drag this country backwards into an unmitigated disaster. His policies don't and won't work, show me a country where his style policies work?

You probably need to be more specific oh hammer-wielding god. Which particular policies are you referring to, e.g. rail nationalisation?

Venezuela. That should just about cover everything.

Loving the quality of debate on here

In is-the-pope-catholic-news, academics run the rule over the biased coverage of the Press.

http://theconversation.com/uk-election- ... our-127133

No surprises that the majority of titles slam Labour in an effort to push support towards the Tories.

But at least one principled Tory commentator is prepared to call the hacks out over the easy ride Johnson & Co get. Shame it’s in The Graun, rather than one of the Tory titles where it might make Blue voters think twice about being steered:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ying-media

slacker wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2019 10:02 am In is-the-pope-catholic-news, academics run the rule over the biased coverage of the Press.

http://theconversation.com/uk-election- ... our-127133

No surprises that the majority of titles slam Labour in an effort to push support towards the Tories.

no surprise that left wing academics accuse media of being pro Tory!

Somebody is sh*t scared that Labour might win then.

spen666 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2019 10:22 am

slacker wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2019 10:02 am In is-the-pope-catholic-news, academics run the rule over the biased coverage of the Press.

http://theconversation.com/uk-election- ... our-127133

No surprises that the majority of titles slam Labour in an effort to push support towards the Tories.

no surprise that left wing academics accuse media of being pro Tory!

Are you refuting their evidence?

Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:00 am Somebody is sh*t scared that Labour might win then.

A Few are. Very sh*t scared.