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

Who should replace TM as leader of the Tories? Watch

Announcements
  • View Poll Results: Who should be Conservative leader in 2018/19?
    Theresa May (or Amber Rudd)
    9
    11.84%
    Boris Johnson
    20
    26.32%
    Other (please state)
    47
    61.84%

    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hatter_2)
    Energy certainly does not come from the same source.

    The government is so keen on using taxpayers money to pay rich landowners to install wind turbines, which double energy prices; doesn't work when it's not windy or too windy and blights the landscape.

    They are too concerned of public opinion to take advantage of fracking and instead rely on importing fuel then putting high tax on it so companies and manufacturers go abroad to the Far East and use non-green energy.

    So household energy is ridiculously high while green policies have a negative impact on the environment.
    There is one national grid. Fossil fuels are also limited, not to mention the environmental damage they cause and as a matter of necessity we need to start replacing them with renewables.

    I haven't seen any good justification for energy being privatised.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    It's hard to see this happening personally. As much as the SNP don't have their glow anymore (they have created their own domestic issues and have been governing too long to blame somebody else and they also overplayed their hand on independence) it's hard to see much of a credible reason for the left in Scotland to rally round in numbers that could win an election. It's possible they could exchange a few percent here or there but the loyalty labour had in Scotland no longer exists.

    I think the Lib Dem's are far more vulnerable in Scotland personally and fortunately that the Tory vote is probably pretty stable.
    It's possible that within the next few years we could have a Labour England and Tory Scotland. Lol.

    The Tories are benefiting in Scotland from the spolier effect. Two centre-left/left wing parties splitting the left vote while the Tories have the space on the right all to themselves.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    It's possible that within the next few years we could have a Labour England and Tory Scotland. Lol.

    The Tories are benefiting in Scotland from the spolier effect. Two centre-left/left wing parties splitting the left vote while the Tories have the space on the right all to themselves.
    It was like that in the 50s. The Scottish demographics put a lot of seats in the central belt when outwith that are more rural and Tory leaning areas.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    And to wealthy directors like Damien Green who was making a huge profit off our water industry while prices were becoming more expensive for the consumer. The surplus generated should benefit everyone rather than just a handful of people. It should be reinvested back into the system, not taken out as dividends.

    Yes, there are likely some wealthy individuals but reality is not that many, Green earned fees from the water industry but not vast sums, whether MPs should earn outwith government is more the point. You do know all the dividends they paid did not go to him?

    That's a rather romantic view of shareholder capitalism. The reality is that prosperous companies tend to be largely owned by relatively few shareholders, often companies themselves. A lot of our key industries are largely owned by foreign governments, rather than ours.

    No, it is a reality based view, for a company to be quoted it needs a free float of shares, and the large institutional holdings by other companies, your life offices etc, these investments are held by them for all sorts, pension schemes, life policies, further down the line individuals benefit. Here is one example, my wife, with thousands of others, will benefit from this.

    http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/lpf1/dow...h_2017_ex_cash

    Just click the pdf to get the list of holdings, and that is just one pension scheme there are thousands like it, it it was not for the stockmarket everyone in a funded pension scheme would be very poor come retirement, that is reality and certainly not a romantic view. (In the past I even worked on the audits of some of these beasts and also audited a quoted company's pension schemes)

    Also do not be deceived by share registers, Shell say may have say Hargreaves Lansdown holding x percent, but they are nominees, the benefical owners are likely thousands of individuals. My SIPP holds Shell, Royal Mail. BAE, HSBC, Legal and General, Glaxo etc but my name is not on the register for any of them, HL holds, on behalf of my SIPP, as nominee.

    It's still better off being in public hands where surpluses can be reinvested back into the system.

    Only if a surplus, Royal Mail letters will run into losses sooner rather than later, I know, I hold them in my pension scheme-the key will be can the parcels side show enough growth to cover what will be losses in the future, my guess is the letters side will be dropped-and there is plenty of competition in parcel delivery.

    I've been thoroughly unimpressed with the private sector's handling of key industries. For some reason the private sector's failures keep being overlooked.

    And I was pretty unimpressed with the government's handling of them in the 1970s.
    ..
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DJKL)
    ..
    I have no problem with there being a private sector which can thrive. In fact it's necessary. However, the private sector should not have control over key industries in which there is a natural monopoly.


    There is very little evidence that the private sector can run key industries more efficiently than the public sector can.

    Private sector phones? Great. Private sector water, not so much.

    In fact the very notion of our water being controlled privately it absolutely ridiculous. There shouldn't be anything taken out for dividends.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I have no problem with there being a private sector which can thrive. In fact it's necessary. However, the private sector should not have control over key industries in which there is a natural monopoly.


    There is very little evidence that the private sector can run key industries more efficiently than the public sector can.

    Private sector phones? Great. Private sector water, not so much.

    In fact the very notion of our water being controlled privately it absolutely ridiculous. There shouldn't be anything taken out for dividends.
    Fine, provided the state is willing to pick up the tab for the antiquated supply and waste systems that need refurbished all around the UK. Offloading to the private sector can offload liabilities as well as pass up profits.

    Also not all is private sector, Scottish Water is a public sector body and frankly its service level is woeful, I know, I have to deal with them on a weekly basis (Property Group) Getting bills correct and in the right name requires the patience of a saint and 10 emails or calls.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Ruth Davidson and Amber Rudd are the only competent Tories that potentially challenge.

    Has to be Ruth Davidson.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DJKL)
    Fine, provided the state is willing to pick up the tab for the antiquated supply and waste systems that need refurbished all around the UK. Offloading to the private sector can offload liabilities as well as pass up profits.

    Also not all is private sector, Scottish Water is a public sector body and frankly its service level is woeful, I know, I have to deal with them on a weekly basis (Property Group) Getting bills correct and in the right name requires the patience of a saint and 10 emails or calls.
    Foreign governments seem to think many of our industries are worth owning but apparently our government does not. We have foreign governments benefiting from our public services, while prices rise for our consumers.

    Though I disagree with your assessment that passing services onto the private sector offloads liabilities. It very often does not. The state ends up bailing them out and funding redevelopments, as with the railways, while the private sector takes home the profits.

    The railways, royal mail, water, national grid, healthcare and state education should be fully publicly owned, without contracting stuff out to the private sector. Basically anything that leads to a natural monopoly.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    A poo on a stick would be better than Theresa May so honestly I couldn't give a ****. Do Boris for all I care now we're ****ed either way whilst the Tories are in
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Foreign governments seem to think many of our industries are worth owning but apparently our government does not. We have foreign governments benefiting from our public services, while prices rise for our consumers.

    Though I disagree with your assessment that passing services onto the private sector offloads liabilities. It very often does not. The state ends up bailing them out and funding redevelopments, as with the railways, while the private sector takes home the profits.

    The railways, royal mail, water, national grid, healthcare and state education should be fully publicly owned, without contracting stuff out to the private sector. Basically anything that leads to a natural monopoly.
    Well, good luck with the letters side, here is most recent three month update, the trend is your friend:

    Letters Underlying change1
    Addressed letter volumes (6%) Revenue (4%)

     Addressed letter volumes decreased by 6% (excluding the impact of political parties’ election mailings). Volumes benefitted from certain mailings associated with the 2017 General Election, which had around a 1 percentage point positive impact on the movement.

     Total letter revenue was down 4%, benefitting from higher than expected revenue associated with the UK political parties’ 2017 General Election mailings.

     We do not report marketing mail revenue on a quarterly basis due to the timing of the required survey data. However, at this early stage in the year, the revenue trend in our main advertising products (retail addressed, unaddressed and access advertising letters) remains the same as last year.

    http://www.royalmailgroup.com/sites/...g%20Update.pdf
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DJKL)
    Well, good luck with the letters side, here is most recent three month update, the trend is your friend:

    Letters Underlying change1
    Addressed letter volumes (6%) Revenue (4%)

     Addressed letter volumes decreased by 6% (excluding the impact of political parties’ election mailings). Volumes benefitted from certain mailings associated with the 2017 General Election, which had around a 1 percentage point positive impact on the movement.

     Total letter revenue was down 4%, benefitting from higher than expected revenue associated with the UK political parties’ 2017 General Election mailings.

     We do not report marketing mail revenue on a quarterly basis due to the timing of the required survey data. However, at this early stage in the year, the revenue trend in our main advertising products (retail addressed, unaddressed and access advertising letters) remains the same as last year.

    http://www.royalmailgroup.com/sites/...g%20Update.pdf
    It should be back under public control.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    It should be back under public control.

    Letters, parcels or both?

    Letters are a dead duck, if taken into public control there will be vast pressure to maintain it well beyond the point when it should have been put out of its misery, the UK does not operate these days requiring letters, it is why fewer and fewer are being sent.

    And why reinvent the wheel re parcels, there are plenty of courier companies in a free market keeping prices low, the state does not need to be one of them.

    Royal Mail is yesterdays essential industry, pretty soon (40 years) gas will follow suit, why saddle HMG with the cost of supporting old tech?

    The fact is industries under public control tend to be starved of investment and tend to wither, there are always competing needs, worthy intentions do not overcome that when the NHS is pleading for extra money, but Royal Mail needs £2bn of investment, Royal Mail will lose, fewer votes in it.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    David Davis would be my pick. I don't trust Boris on brexit though I do think he's likely the next PM after the end of brexit talks.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Foreign governments seem to think many of our industries are worth owning but apparently our government does not. We have foreign governments benefiting from our public services, while prices rise for our consumers.

    Though I disagree with your assessment that passing services onto the private sector offloads liabilities. It very often does not. The state ends up bailing them out and funding redevelopments, as with the railways, while the private sector takes home the profits.

    The railways, royal mail, water, national grid, healthcare and state education should be fully publicly owned, without contracting stuff out to the private sector. Basically anything that leads to a natural monopoly.
    I'd like to point out that mail is not a naturally monopoly and has not been since around 1950 when other people were able to buy a van to deliver a package.

    Don't confuse monopoly with natural monopoly.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I rate we get Russel Howard in for a laugh
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I'd like to point out that mail is not a naturally monopoly and has not been since around 1950 when other people were able to buy a van to deliver a package.

    Don't confuse monopoly with natural monopoly.
    You know what I mean.

    The Royal Mail was publicly owned for 499 years. It's one of our oldest and most historic public institutions. It's tremendously British.

    I would have thought that patriots would be annoyed about us flogging it off on the cheap.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    Not sure why Amber Rudd is grouped in with Theresa May in the poll like they are the same person...

    I'm not sure I believe Jacob Rees-Mogg is uninterested in the leadership. Were he to be considered a serious candidate I am sure he would put himself forward for it. I certainly don't believe David Davis is uninterested, despite the public comments he might make.

    Ruth Davidson wants to be First Minister of Scotland, not UK PM – an understandable ambition for a Scottish politician in the devolution age. I don't think she has a hope in hell of becoming FM, but that's beside the point to an extent.

    I'm not sure if Gavin Williamson is still being talked about as a future leader (though mybe not for tomorrow or next week) – he's not well known publicly but has a somewhat interesting background and a northern accent and is well connected. I can't claim to know much about his politics though.
    Rudd and May basically are the same person, not that anybody wants continuity when May goes but she would be the continuity candidate, she's May's Osborne.

    As for David Davis we had him as a speaker at uni before the referendum and when he said he had no interest in going for the party leadership again he really gave the impression that he meant it. Of course one could argue that even though he was just speaking to a bunch of students if he said he was interested word would still get around and so he denies it, but I genuinely believe he's not interested. At the end of the day he's already 68, by the time May is gone he will be in his 70s so to do a proper stint as leader he would be nearly 80 before retiring.

    (Original post by Rakas21)
    You have made this point a number of times and i still feel that you miss the point. Mogg's social views may put off those at the margins but a lot of that 30-50 group would find an ambitious policy platform quite appealing if he tackled the right issues. Mogg for example has actually stated that he would expand social housing significantly (QT July) so he clearly see's housing as an issue.

    He's not my first preference but i think those dispelling him are overestimating how loyal centrists and the middle aged are quite significantly. Politics is in flux.
    Perhaps the video of the Tory focus group for next leader should be considered when talking about Mogg in that even floating Tories who don't like his social views like him regardless because he clearly explains what he means and most importantly makes clear his respect for Parliament and that while he may disagree with X and Y Parliament has made it's decision and shows no signs of wanting to change it, he clearly separates his views as a private individual and his views as hypothetical leader.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    You know what I mean.

    The Royal Mail was publicly owned for 499 years. It's one of our oldest and most historic public institutions. It's tremendously British.

    I would have thought that patriots would be annoyed about us flogging it off on the cheap.
    I agree there's a historic case for it but ultimately mail is a market that does arguably get close to providing perfect competition. If anything i think post offices (though arguably we don't even need them in a digital age) should actually be like price comparison websites and act as collection points for whichever firm wants to use them.

    When it comes to privatisations in which the public are able to get more or less first dibs on the shares i don't think it's bad of the state to discount them. The only point i disagree with the government on is that we should have perhaps kept a minority stake.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    You know what I mean.

    The Royal Mail was publicly owned for 499 years. It's one of our oldest and most historic public institutions. It's tremendously British.

    I would have thought that patriots would be annoyed about us flogging it off on the cheap.
    Given float at 330 in October 2013 and current price of 378 in October 2017, just shy four years, it has on average grown at 3.64% per annum, so hardly deal of the century.

    Forget the hype, forget what it went up to, the market, right now, has little confidence in its growth and most of the price is propped by parcel service growth (thanks Amazon, E Bay etc) and not re the letters business that is shrinking.

    Remember, HMG has had the use of the money raised for these four years so in the round, currently, it was pretty fairly priced.

    http://www.hl.co.uk/shares/shares-se...dinary-gbp0.01
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    CoffeeGeek
    For real tho, idek. Like the party is kinda lost right now.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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

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