Labour,Manifesto, Hurry Up I want a good laugh.

[Fletch]

What's ROI in this context?

It's business ffs. Clue - profit and loss

Small wonder you are like you are

I can't see an R in there, or an O and surely the I doesn't stand for 'it's?

[LordRaven]

Some of the remarks here are banal, carry on taking the piss and laying out your plans for the tax payers to prop up nationalised industries that run at a cost to the tax payer.

None of you have learned anything from history, I can only hope the youngsters understand the need for ROI because you lot have the "big firm, they can afford it" attitude still.

And on here I have never heard such silly (purposeful) remarks to try and derail the thread.

Corbyn wants nationalisation, but the only way I would agree with that is if ROI was a driving force.

I am not in to"Jobs for all and don't worry about the cost" that you guys are pushing because that costs the tax payer. And that is you yourselves but as you seem to want to lump that cost onto future generations then it is clear that you don't really care.

p.s. Not one of you have come up with an answer to my original question yet--very telling
.

Only yours - which is why you refuse to answer the points raised with you.

And I have answered your ill-informed question more than once.

No offence, but if you choose to take the piss don't expect to be taken seriously anymore.

Bumped for FelchWit, in his and his shared belief friends utopia, nationalised industries don't require tax or ROI to be involved -just print money and keep things going seems to be their solution.

I don't think even Corbyn would be that drastic

No need to bump it - your ignorance on the subject is already well exposed.

Please excuse my ignorance on the ability to run businesses as zero profit/loss making organisations, pumping endless public funds in to keep them afloat and then declaring them huge successes.

It is an alien concept to me

Comrade Corbyn will be pleased

[Fletch]

Some of the remarks here are banal, carry on taking the piss and laying out your plans for the tax payers to prop up nationalised industries that run at a cost to the tax payer.

None of you have learned anything from history, I can only hope the youngsters understand the need for ROI because you lot have the "big firm, they can afford it" attitude still.

And on here I have never heard such silly (purposeful) remarks to try and derail the thread.

Corbyn wants nationalisation, but the only way I would agree with that is if ROI was a driving force.

I am not in to"Jobs for all and don't worry about the cost" that you guys are pushing because that costs the tax payer. And that is you yourselves but as you seem to want to lump that cost onto future generations then it is clear that you don't really care.

p.s. Not one of you have come up with an answer to my original question yet--very telling
.

What do you believe taxes should be used for raven?

Bump for raven.

It can't be difficult for you as you seem to know all about taxes and their use?

[McAz]

No need to bump it - your ignorance on the subject is already well exposed.

Please excuse my ignorance on the ability to run businesses as zero profit/loss making organisations, pumping endless public funds in to keep them afloat and then declaring them huge successes.

It is an alien concept to me

Comrade Corbyn will be pleased

I do excuse it - though ignorance is not something to giggle about.

[LordRaven]

What's ROI in this context?

It's business ffs. Clue - profit and loss

Small wonder you are like you are

No - collective enterprises are there to serve, not to profit. Just like the army you once served in.

I would like to see any trading nation try and thrive on world trade with that mentality

[McAz]

What's ROI in this context?

It's business ffs. Clue - profit and loss

Small wonder you are like you are

No - collective enterprises are there to serve, not to profit. Just like the army you once served in.

I would like to see any trading nation try and thrive on world trade with that mentality

Does the Army make a profit?

[Cannydc]

Raven...

Please excuse my ignorance on the ability to run businesses as zero profit/loss making organisations, pumping endless public funds in to keep them afloat and then declaring them huge successes.

It is an alien concept to me

Do you recall the huge numbers made redundant when those state run utilities were being 'slimmed down' prior to being flogged off?

To be added to the huge 4,000,000 unemployed, all on benefits - a 'price worth paying', the Tories said...

Half a billion a week, paid for by the taxpayer, and that was 35 years ago.

[LordRaven]

Raven...

Please excuse my ignorance on the ability to run businesses as zero profit/loss making organisations, pumping endless public funds in to keep them afloat and then declaring them huge successes.

It is an alien concept to me

Do you recall the huge numbers made redundant when those state run utilities were being 'slimmed down' prior to being flogged off?

To be added to the huge 4,000,000 unemployed, all on benefits - a 'price worth paying', the Tories said...

Half a billion a week, paid for by the taxpayer, and that was 35 years ago.

Short term pain, long term gain. And let's not forget the decades of running at a loss unable to compete internationally because Britain produced crap that was unfit to export.

Would you run Canny & Co pouring money into it annually just to keep it afloat for vanity reasons, and because all your workers knew you'd keep bailing them out and they'd always get their wages --or they'd go on strike (often) for more money on a whim -- so that it became a self defeating organisation too, because nobody wanted to buy what you were producing because other companies made cheaper, better, more efficient produce that people did want to buy?

Or would Mrs Canny slap you around the head and tell you to use some common sense and close it down before it bankrupted you?

One word answer required--"Close or Run?"

[Cannydc]

Raven...

Please excuse my ignorance on the ability to run businesses as zero profit/loss making organisations, pumping endless public funds in to keep them afloat and then declaring them huge successes.

It is an alien concept to me

Do you recall the huge numbers made redundant when those state run utilities were being 'slimmed down' prior to being flogged off?

To be added to the huge 4,000,000 unemployed, all on benefits - a 'price worth paying', the Tories said...

Half a billion a week, paid for by the taxpayer, and that was 35 years ago.

Short term pain, long term gain. And let's not forget the decades of running at a loss unable to compete internationally because Britain produced crap that was unfit to export.

Would you run Canny & Co pouring money into it annually just to keep it afloat for vanity reasons, and because all your workers knew you'd keep bailing them out and they'd always get their wages --or they'd go on strike (often) for more money on a whim -- so that it became a self defeating organisation too, because nobody wanted to buy what you were producing because other companies made cheaper, better, more efficient produce that people did want to buy?

Or would Mrs Canny slap you around the head and tell you to use some common sense and close it down before it bankrupted you?

One word answer required--"Close or Run?"

Long term gain???

"Almost three decades after water was sold-off, share ownership is now largely in the hands of a small group of international investors – many of them based in tax havens. Meanwhile, prices have increased by 40 per cent and over a quarter of the amount consumers pay on bills goes towards servicing debt interest and paying out dividends.

New investment has been financed by borrowing rather than by shareholders. When water was privatised, the Government generously took on the outstanding debts of the sector – all £4.9bn of them – leaving the new owners debt free. The private owners have taken advantage, ratcheting up a breathtaking £46bn of debt between them by 2016.

While racking up debt at taxpayers’ expense, the water firms have paid out billions to shareholders in dividends. Out of a combined total post-tax profit of £18.8bn over the last 10 years, all but £700m of it was paid out in dividends to shareholders. That’s more than £18bn flowing into the pockets of shareholders instead of being used to bring down bills and improve services.

The daylight robbery is also taking place in the energy sector. In 2016-17, National Grid made a £1.9bn profit on UK electricity and gas transmission. Around £660m in dividends were paid out on these operations, meaning a 12 per cent increase in hidden costs for consumers.

The promised benefits of market competition have never materialised: the "Big Six" energy companies have taken advantage of consumers, overcharging customers by £2bn in 2015. People don’t want to have to research options and shop around for a decent deal; they just want affordable and reliable energy."

Long term gain - please, you are hurting my ribs.

[LordRaven]

Raven...

Please excuse my ignorance on the ability to run businesses as zero profit/loss making organisations, pumping endless public funds in to keep them afloat and then declaring them huge successes.

It is an alien concept to me

Do you recall the huge numbers made redundant when those state run utilities were being 'slimmed down' prior to being flogged off?

To be added to the huge 4,000,000 unemployed, all on benefits - a 'price worth paying', the Tories said...

Half a billion a week, paid for by the taxpayer, and that was 35 years ago.

Short term pain, long term gain. And let's not forget the decades of running at a loss unable to compete internationally because Britain produced crap that was unfit to export.

Would you run Canny & Co pouring money into it annually just to keep it afloat for vanity reasons, and because all your workers knew you'd keep bailing them out and they'd always get their wages --or they'd go on strike (often) for more money on a whim -- so that it became a self defeating organisation too, because nobody wanted to buy what you were producing because other companies made cheaper, better, more efficient produce that people did want to buy?

Or would Mrs Canny slap you around the head and tell you to use some common sense and close it down before it bankrupted you?

One word answer required--"Close or Run?"

Long term gain???

"Almost three decades after water was sold-off, share ownership is now largely in the hands of a small group of international investors – many of them based in tax havens. Meanwhile, prices have increased by 40 per cent and over a quarter of the amount consumers pay on bills goes towards servicing debt interest and paying out dividends.

New investment has been financed by borrowing rather than by shareholders. When water was privatised, the Government generously took on the outstanding debts of the sector – all £4.9bn of them – leaving the new owners debt free. The private owners have taken advantage, ratcheting up a breathtaking £46bn of debt between them by 2016.

While racking up debt at taxpayers’ expense, the water firms have paid out billions to shareholders in dividends. Out of a combined total post-tax profit of £18.8bn over the last 10 years, all but £700m of it was paid out in dividends to shareholders. That’s more than £18bn flowing into the pockets of shareholders instead of being used to bring down bills and improve services.

The daylight robbery is also taking place in the energy sector. In 2016-17, National Grid made a £1.9bn profit on UK electricity and gas transmission. Around £660m in dividends were paid out on these operations, meaning a 12 per cent increase in hidden costs for consumers.

The promised benefits of market competition have never materialised: the "Big Six" energy companies have taken advantage of consumers, overcharging customers by £2bn in 2015. People don’t want to have to research options and shop around for a decent deal; they just want affordable and reliable energy."

Long term gain - please, you are hurting my ribs.

Fail! One word was required as an answer. I know it was too painful for you to answer --it's okay, I understand

[Cannydc]

Disputing the figures, Raven?

Or just not prepared to accept the reality that nationalisation of utilities was a financial disaster that left a hundred thousand and more on the dole and the businesses in the hands of foreign owners and foreign shareholders?

[LordRaven]

Disputing the figures, Raven?

Or just not prepared to accept the reality that nationalisation of utilities was a financial disaster that left a hundred thousand and more on the dole and the businesses in the hands of foreign owners and foreign shareholders?

How could I disagree with your agreeing with me that nationalisation was a social financial and economic disaster? The facts speak for themselves.
Thanks for agreeing

[Cannydc]

Disputing the figures, Raven?

Or just not prepared to accept the reality that nationalisation of utilities was a financial disaster that left a hundred thousand and more on the dole and the businesses in the hands of foreign owners and foreign shareholders?

Yep, caught my mistake made just as a delicious chicken casserole was delivered from the oven.

So, just to correct, the privatisation of utilities was a financial disaster, the legacy of profiteering remains to this day.

[McAz]

Disputing the figures, Raven?

Or just not prepared to accept the reality that nationalisation of utilities was a financial disaster that left a hundred thousand and more on the dole and the businesses in the hands of foreign owners and foreign shareholders?

Yep, caught my mistake made just as a delicious chicken casserole was delivered from the oven.

So, just to correct, the privatisation of utilities was a financial disaster, the legacy of profiteering remains to this day.

It was a success for the profiteers.

And interestingly, a considerable slice of it is in the hands of the French government. The people of France can own British utilities but the people of Britain cannot apparently.

[Rolluplostinspace]

What industries are you talking about Raven?
Here in Wales we have Welsh Water ... a company with no shareholders run for the customers.
The bills pay for it.
Seems to have been working pretty good for years.
Why would it be better with shareholders and a big company boss taking seven million quid a year with bonus on top?
Who would they want to be competing with in the world?