After 2015. Political - a warning from history.

Already we have nerds from the political sphere promising jam tomorrow. After 2015 (a phrase you will hear more and more often these next two years) we will - Do this and we will Do that. The latest gem from our illustrious Labour leader - We will seperate the banks to safeguard everyones money. Hive off the Investment side from the High Street banking side. Then everyone will feel safe and secure again.
I think not Mr Milliband - always and providing you are still Labour leader by then??????
Do they really think we all that stupid? Hmm - perhaps they do. And more to the point - perhaps we are?

Rather than these x factor type political speeches, I'd be more impressed if Mr. Milliband had a huge model railway constructed, a relief map replica of the British Isles and it's rail network, about as big as half a football pitch, with model trains representing the real trains as they are running in real time, all computerised. Now that would be impressive.

We are all trying to survive now never mind after 2015. What a load of burkes politicians at times. No faith in them anymore.

How true teamplayer2. Yet democracy dictates we elect 'something' in 2015. To do nothing is not an option. Should we try a six way coalition this next time. A Con/Lib/Lab/Green/UKIP/Independant government??
Could we do any worse??

40 million pounds of taxpayers money wasted on getting the tendering process for the railways wrong, undermining confidence in future investment.

Turns out it would actually have been much better to set up the real-time computerised model of the rail network as suggested above instead. Then people could see what actually happens with our rail network.

Regarding the opening post, in my opinion they should fully nationalise ALL the banking and finance industries, but at the very least, fully nationalise the part nationalised banks, and turn them into investment banks for major national building projects etc. The state then would not have to use the private sector to get all the building of homes etc that is required to build the homes required for low price housing. Sadly I don't think that the next government would have the balls(ED ) to do this.

Regarding the opening post, yes, all the evidence does point to us being stupid. But, of course, we as individuals aren't, it's just everyone else.

Another idea would be to have a national building service, that would instead of the likes of Mc Alpines, build the council houses, hospitals, schools etc. The idea behind these is that they would be able to build at a lower cost as they don't have to pay out dividends to shareholders etc. The money from these schemes would come via the new national investment bank. The workers would all be properly trained and paid to a good standard.

Where would this national investment bank get its money from UTD? Would it be allowed to invest in things like buying and selling debts like all the other banks?

Ah nationalise the banks and construction industries

Surefire way to guarantee they will lose money - for the banks AND for the nation.

Dalelad wrote:Where would this national investment bank get its money from UTD? Would it be allowed to invest in things like buying and selling debts like all the other banks?

From the state. No no dealing with buying and selling debts.

johnb wrote:Ah nationalise the banks and construction industries

Surefire way to guarantee they will lose money - for the banks AND for the nation.

Well of course the private banks and construction companies have really done well for the country. The banks are the ones that in the end needed state intervention-OUR money to survive.

The problem is Up The Dale we have been there haven't we. Do you remember the Nationalised Industries? Do you remember the Building Works Departments operated by every council in the country? They were a disaster.
We couldn't get rid of them fast enough. So we dumped them in favour of Private Enterprise over which we took little if any control. And then we trusted them to 'play the game'. HOW BL**DY STUPID CAN YOU GET!
Didn't someone know they were homosapiens???? Anyone????

This is my point as I answered John B, the privateers have NOT been successful, in running the ex nationalised industries/services, and yes there was problems with some of the old nationalisation. But the problems were they had become bureaucratic, and there has to be a new way of running state industries, and one of the ways to improve things would be to have workers on the management boards, which to my understanding was not the case previously.

Lets not forget, that post 1945 there was a massive rebuilding of the country, new homes, schools, the creation of the welfare state,NHS etc, and this led to the country's wealth growing, and it was state led.

I know that you Ray, advocate a major housebuilding programme, as we need the homes and we need the workers to work, and them to spend money. I don't like profits going to shareholders and in massive salaries, for things that should be run in the State's behalf, things like education should not be cash cows for privateers etc.

So where would the state get the money from UTD?
Also if it was an investment bank, what would it invest in to give a decent return on its investments?
If the government were going to fund it, why shouldn't they just spend the money on building houses and infrastructure, cutting out the bank altogether and saving all the money it takes to run a bank?

Sorry haven't explained myself properly. It would be a state bank that we could all be customers of, which would make money from selling mortgages to people and business loans to businesses that are currently not being serviced by other banks in order for them to invest in job creation. The original money would be there from the deposits it already has, plus some put in by the government for the above reasons-helping businesses, first time buyers etc . No idea if it could or would work , just an idea for something different. Of course the government could just build houses etc directly. I think as a society we should move away from this idea we need to be owner occupiers, instead concentrate on providing enough housing for people. Rents need to be decreased, and lower levels of private rentals, to cut the HB bills. As it stands the state subsidises private individuals who rent out their properties through HB.

Dalelad wrote:So where would the state get the money from UTD?
Also if it was an investment bank, what would it invest in to give a decent return on its investments?
If the government were going to fund it, why shouldn't they just spend the money on building houses and infrastructure, cutting out the bank altogether and saving all the money it takes to run a bank?

From borrowing on the international market and from the odd 'windfall' such as the present sale of G4 UTD.
There is nothing wrong in borrowing for capital infrastructure work which puts people back to work (ergo taxes instead of benefits) and boosting the economy at the same time. It's not rocket science. However - I suspect the present administration are suffering from the previous ten years mismanagement of our financial institutions and have no wish to spook the international markets by moving too hurriedly towards increasing the national debt and also have no wish to build so many houses that would inevitably hold the housing market values at their present levels. It's all a question of 'guts' to do the right thing and to put one's personal future on the line.
In answer to your question why not cut out the banks - because there has to be a 'control' on the monies lent for private developers and for social housing. Governments are not very good at keeping track of money like the banks are. For social housing a new 'bank' would have to be put in place and regulated in a proper manner (most are still not properly regulated) in order that value for money was seen to be had.

Cheers Ray.