Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35948126)

Privatisation was good because it ensured the badly needed investment that was required.

What is so sacred about water in terms of the public/private debate? The water is free - what we are paying for is the means of getting a pure supply of it to our homes and the means of disposing of the waste as sewerage. We were relying on old Victorian pipes with no public money available to replace them. That's why water was privatised.

As for the railways, nobody surely who used the railways while under public sector control would want to go back to that! Pre-war trains, window frames so dirty that if you put your hand on them, you could only remove the grime with soap and water, revolting turned up sandwiches which I wouldn't feed to the birds.... Honestly, who wants that?

In my part of the world, we had a two-carriage train to London, which was not well used. The fact that we now have a modern eight-carriage service with most seats taken speaks volumes for the difference privatisation has made.

Originally Posted by RizzyKing (Post 35948172)

Water and energy should be government owned and run imo they are utterly essential to the country and despite assurances that were given to the government when they initially privatised these utilities there hasn't been the level of infrastructure investment. All that's happened is private companies have at best taken all the profits or in some cases used them to offload debt from elsewhere with very minimal investment. I'd be happier paying my ever increasing utility bills to the government then having them used to pay dividends.

Originally Posted by RizzyKing (Post 35948238)

As I've said before the oversees aid budget brings in more money then it costs with all the conditions attached to receiving it and it would be more accurate to call it the bribe fund although it's often a target from those who don't understand how it works.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35948239)

I wish I could believe that. If it brings more in than it costs, how come we still need to put money into the overseas aid budget every year?
.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35948249)

Overseas aid is 0.7% of our GDP, in the grand scale of things diddly squat but something we can be proud of. It's in our interests that other countries don't implode, think of the migration and world instability consequences, we would be affected.

Originally Posted by RizzyKing (Post 35948248)

Because it's british industry that benefits rather then government and turn it round why would any government throw good money after bad if foreign aid bought no benefit to the UK. The money is given with the main condition being that british company's get any contracts that the money generates.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35948272)

Diddly squat? I'm sure the NHS would be rather grateful for such a sum of money!

So you think countries like China and India would implode if we stopped giving them crateloads of money in foreign aid? You've been reading too many articles in The Guardian, old chap.

---------- Post added at 08:51 ---------- Previous post was at 08:50 ----------



Why? My guess is that it gives some politicians a nice warm feeling inside.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35948280)

Rizzy is right, it's all about us rather than them

From the horses mouth




https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-your-aid.html

There's three reasons we give aid

1. To increase British soft-power by creating an impression of a generous state willing to help poorer nations.

2. To directly benefit British companies, aid-workers and other professionals who are the main recipients of the government & private sector funds allocated as aid.

3. To further indirectly benefit British industry by using aid as leverage to get trade concessions, mining rights etc. from desperate countries looking for immediate financial help. For instance if British aid money pays for a hospital you will probably find a caveat saying Britain has to provide all the equipment in it, thus cutting out the competition forever

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35948306)

A pretty cynical approach, isn't it, considering this should actually be about relieving absolute poverty and improving lives?

I think that 0.7% could be much better spent.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35948398)

I think it does improve lives, ours! It does benefit countries as well obviously and I suspect things like vaccination programmes have no conditions attached, can't be sure though. I think we should never have set a figure, if we spend 0.7% fine but don't put pressure yourserlf to achieve a set figure, that's when stupid things happen trying to fiddle figures.