Corbyn effect! Re-nationalising! At last some sense!!!

.string.

I think we ought to Nationalise the Unions.

Would that result in a go-slow or a quick strike?

missbiggles1

lisyloo wrote: »

Basically, those who bought their houses a while ago.

Probably so long ago that they're over the age limit for driving buses!

missbiggles1

DTDfanBoy wrote: »

Why do we need our bus drivers to live permanently in London, there's no shortage of people around my neck of the woods who choose to live here, and commute into London, as they get a lot more house for their money.

If professional people are happy to accept such compromises I fail to see why a bus driver can't also

I doubt that most professional people are earning between £16k/£29k, nor that they start work at the same time in the morning and finish the same time of night as bus drivers do.

missbiggles1

michaels wrote: »

Fairly obviously people can afford to live on those wages otherwise there would be no bus services in London.

Where as if bus drivers were paid double either many other workers would struggle because their bus fare would double or everyone would suffer (including those on low wages in the countryside miles from a bus route) through higher taxes to subisdise bus fares further.

Oh and of course if buses hadn't been deregulated presumably there wouldn't be any night buses.....

Only because their wages are topped up by tax credits out of public money. Giving the driving down of wages as an advantage of privatisation is a poor argument - all you're doing is subsidising these employers out of the money we pay in taxes.

gadgetmind

stator wrote: »

If the UK government starts borrowing billions upon billions to buy Trains and Energy Companies it might cause people to question how much we can borrow.

Buy? Who mentioned buying them? Corbyn seems more of a South American style government confiscation of private assets person to me,

gadgetmind

ukcarper wrote: »

You don't know what a state telecoms company would be charging its costs would be a fraction of what they were pre nationalisation and they would not be subsidising the compition.

I'd disagree with you but don't have a clue what you just said!

ukcarper

gadgetmind wrote: »

I'd disagree with you but don't have a clue what you just said!

Perhaps you should do a bit of research and find out what I mean.

Graham_Devon

Generali wrote: »

I was once threatened with being taken to court because I hadn't paid my final bill of $0.00.

And you'd never find that in the private sector?

AN Eden man received a warning of county court action from Powergen despite the document showing that he did not owe the company a single penny.

Rainer Burchett, aged 67, of Watermillock, spent his working life in the IT industry. However, he believes that, ironically, a computer error is to blame for a predicament that has left him “fed up” after repeated but so far fruitless correspondence with the energy giant.

http://www.cwherald.com/a/archive/man-threatened-with-court-action-over-energy-bill-for-0-00p.217888.html

gadgetmind

ukcarper wrote: »

Perhaps you should do a bit of research and find out what I mean.

No amount of research would help as your sentence simply doesn't parse using the rules of English grammar. Perhaps if you give the spelling, punctuation, and sentence structure a bit of work, then we'll be able to know what you're trying to say? After that, we can rip your argument to shreds, but let's take it one step at a time.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

You don't know what a state telecoms company would be charging its costs would be a fraction of what they were pre nationalisation and they would not be subsidising the compition.

true, I don't know what a state monopoly would charge, nor do I know what a service a state monopoly would provide.

I believe that virgin and the other telecoms providers have led to lower prices and better service

If you have access to research that proves that a state telecoms monopoly would provide cheaper and better service I would be interested in reading it.