Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    You live in a city, don't you?
    Sort of in a outskirt. What significance does this have?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    Well, my source was the BBC, which got it from Ofgem, so I'd imagine it's pretty accurate.

    The payoff time can be decreased by nationalising all solar panel production units in the UK - or building a couple - and then giving the solar panels out for free or at a very very heavily discounted price, in stages, with this being partially paid for by selling solar panels abroad for a large profit and cuts to high-earning government employees' salaries as necessary.
    A few things:

    1. Nationalisation makes industries less efficient.
    2. It is expensive for the government to acquire industries, and money will have to be raised either by higher taxes or an increased deficit. Either way, the average citizen loses out.
    3. The international solar panel market is very competitive, with China the biggest producer of solar panels. I doubt that, in "selling solar panels abroad for a large profit" to recoup the costs of "giving solar panels out for free or at a very very heavily discounted price", a nationalised British-made solar panel would be cheaper and thus more attractive than the average China-made solar panel.
    4. Cutting high-earning government employee salaries will just make them jump to the private sector - if they dare, of course - leaving a vacuum in governmental leadership. They might also be less incentivized to work hard
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ZZTop1)
    Sort of in a outskirt. What significance does this have?
    I'm afraid policies, such as

    (Original post by ZZTop1)
    £5 for a litre of petrol
    No cars allowed on roads everyone has to walk or cycle.
    Trains and Metros the only public travel
    Anything which is over excessive and affects our way of life
    which you suggested would not be terribly suited to people living in the more rural parts of the UK.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    Hear, hear. Nuclear, while still not environmentally fantastic, is better than fossil fuels and will give us the time we need to transition to renewables like wind and solar.
    With all the green measures we're guaranteeing a price 3 times higher than now. I like nuclear but the market choose coal and for the consumer, that's the best stop gap.

    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    Nationalising the energy sector to get rid of the profit incentive will eliminate a large proportion of the energy bills.
    You may want to look at the detail. Average profit margins are below 10% and removing all taxation and profit in 2013 would save just 17%.

    I don't see how you can complain about a small profit when you support government building nuclear plants which shaft the consumer and then add green taxes on top. Private suppliers are not the reason energy is expensive. The National Grid is a factor but that's another franchise.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    A few things:

    1. Nationalisation makes industries less efficient.
    Not true at all. It absolutely depends on both the state and the industry itself as to how efficient it would be once nationalised.

    2. It is expensive for the government to acquire industries, and money will have to be raised either by higher taxes or an increased deficit. Either way, the average citizen loses out.
    ...Much like with the NHS...

    4. Cutting high-earning government employee salaries will just make them jump to the private sector - if they dare, of course - leaving a vacuum in governmental leadership. They might also be less incentivized to work hard
    This is nonsense. For example, many have left very high paying jobs to work in civil service, cutting their pay would most likely have no such effect.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    Not true at all. It absolutely depends on both the state and the industry itself as to how efficient it would be once nationalised.
    While I stand corrected, my statement is almost entirely true for the manufacturing sector.

    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    ...Much like with the NHS...
    The key difference is that the NHS is a service which is not intended for profit, while cranbrook_aspie's suggestion was for the government to purchase the industry to speed up profits / payout on the purchase of solar panels - which in actual fact just takes money from the taxpayers' pockets and puts it on their roof, without any real differences.

    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    This is nonsense. For example, many have left very high paying jobs to work in civil service, cutting their pay would most likely have no such effect.
    I don't see how your example would prove this. It is precisely because the civil service pays well and has a good work/life balance which is why people leave their high-paying jobs in the private sector.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    While I stand corrected, my statement is almost entirely true for the manufacturing sector.


    The key difference is that the NHS is a service which is not intended for profit, while cranbrook_aspie's suggestion was for the government to purchase the industry to speed up profits / payout on the purchase of solar panels - which in actual fact just takes money from the taxpayers' pockets and puts it on their roof, without any real differences.

    I don't see how your example would prove this. It is precisely because the civil service pays well and has a good work/life balance which is why people leave their high-paying jobs in the private sector.
    Ah, well whilst I do think that privatisation has gone a bit OTT, I don't think we should be nationalising the manufacturing industry. But, in a typical third way fashion, the state could set up and run a company and then sell it once it's got off the ground.

    People who work in civil service are not doing so because of the pay, it's common opinion that they are paid too much as it is, a small paycut would most likely have no adverse effect
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    Ah, well whilst I do think that privatisation has gone a bit OTT, I don't think we should be nationalising the manufacturing industry. But, in a typical third way fashion, the state could set up and run a company and then sell it once it's got off the ground.

    People who work in civil service are not doing so because of the pay, it's common opinion that they are paid too much as it is, a small paycut would most likely have no adverse effect
    What you're proposing is something nobody likes. The right will disaprove of the government setting up and running businesses, then the left will disapprove of the privatising of it; congratulations on pissing off just about 100pc of the electorate.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    What you're proposing is something nobody likes. The right will disaprove of the government setting up and running businesses, then the left will disapprove of the privatising of it; congratulations on pissing off just about 100pc of the electorate.
    Maybe the politically inclined electorate, but most people don't think between left and right and I think you'll find that the electorate are actually pragmatic enough to not be blinded by ideology
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    Maybe the politically inclined electorate, but most people don't think between left and right and I think you'll find that the electorate are actually pragmatic enough to not be blinded by ideology
    Near enough 100pc of the voting electorate will have a problem with some aspect of it
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Near enough 100pc of the voting electorate will have a problem with some aspect of it
    Can you please find one piece of government policy where near enough 100pc of the voting electorate didn't have a problem with some aspect of it?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    Can you please find one piece of government policy where near enough 100pc of the voting electorate didn't have a problem with some aspect of it?
    Given how authoritarian many people are on things that have nothing to do with them, probably the hunting Act is good start, and the problem with declaring "some aspect" is with that you can go very deep into the legislation and find something, rather than considering the visible and publicised bits that everybody will know about. For instance, if there were a bill to, say, demand gender equality on banknotes (HM aside) then there would be a load against it, but nowhere near 100%. Now suppose that this piece of legislation also cost £10 per person, nobody would see that bit, yet nearly everybody would have a problem with it.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Given how authoritarian many people are on things that have nothing to do with them, probably the hunting Act is good start, and the problem with declaring "some aspect" is with that you can go very deep into the legislation and find something, rather than considering the visible and publicised bits that everybody will know about. For instance, if there were a bill to, say, demand gender equality on banknotes (HM aside) then there would be a load against it, but nowhere near 100%. Now suppose that this piece of legislation also cost £10 per person, nobody would see that bit, yet nearly everybody would have a problem with it.
    So there we go then.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    So there we go then.
    I think you missed the point... popularity of Acts is not based on the small print nobody knows, it is based on the headlines; the hypothetical Act would be fairly popular, consider every single last aspect and it would not; your suggestion would probably fail the wide popularity without delving into details and barely related aspects.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I think you missed the point... popularity of Acts is not based on the small print nobody knows, it is based on the headlines; the hypothetical Act would be fairly popular, consider every single last aspect and it would not; your suggestion would probably fail the wide popularity without delving into details and barely related aspects.
    Well you're looking at it from a right wing point of view, and I'm sure that some lefties would have a problem too but most people do not generally look at things from the view of left to right, it's all about how it effects them. So what would we have here then, we'd have state investment in infrastructure, we'd have jobs created, we'd have more competition in the energy sector, and once it's been sold we'd have made money and helped the economy. There will be those who disapprove of the method, but these people aren't the majority when 60% of the population holds no allegiance to the left or the right.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    I'm afraid policies, such as



    which you suggested would not be terribly suited to people living in the more rural parts of the UK.
    In fact it should get cheaper in line with crude oil. If you want to do that you are hitting working people who have to travel to work
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by ZZTop1)
    In fact it should get cheaper in line with crude oil. If you want to do that you are hitting working people who have to travel to work
    What should, because I can think of nothing that should get cheaper in line with crude other than, well, crude.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    What should, because I can think of nothing that should get cheaper in line with crude other than, well, crude.
    petrol the government screw you for tax and the labour imposters want it £5 a litre
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by ZZTop1)
    petrol the government screw you for tax and the labour imposters want it £5 a litre
    Well, unless you also intend on cutting all wages in line with the price of crude, and somehow cutting all other fixed costs in line with crude, it is mathematically impossible to cut the price of fuel in line with crude, and that's before considering the fixed rate taxes.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Well, unless you also intend on cutting all wages in line with the price of crude, and somehow cutting all other fixed costs in line with crude, it is mathematically impossible to cut the price of fuel in line with crude, and that's before considering the fixed rate taxes.
    I worded it a bit badly take off government tax for anything over £1 a litre should be capped to the loss of the treasury and if they want to balance the approach do not send aid to anyone
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 18, 2018
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.