The end of the Labour party

[Robin-H]

Speculate to accumulate, as my friend was wont to say when playing monopoly.

All of the profits that currently go to the shareholders would come to the nation instead to pay off the debt of buying them.

 

I don't think it is as simple as that.

 

Take water for example. It was conservatively cost £69,000,000,000 to buy the water companies back at their current prices. This would be funded by borrowing.

 

Labour says that they want to use the profit to pay off the interest from the extra debt incurred by buying water back. Water doesn't make a massive profit. Bare in mind they've only mentioned paying off the interest on the debt, not the debt itself. What happens if interest rates rise?

 

Labour have also said that they will use the profit to lower water bills (I believe that is the entire point of nationalising it, otherwise why bother?).

 

Water bills are actually an estimated £100 a year lower than they would have been had water not been privatised due to the £130billion of private investment made in replacing our old and insufficient infrastructure.

 

That infrastructure will also need future investment, which would be the government's responsibility were water nationalised. Is the profit going to pay for that investment too? I very much doubt that there is enough money to pay back the interest on the debt, lower water bills, and pay in the capital infrastructure costs when they are needed.

 

The £69billion initial cost wasn't even added to the £250billion of other borrowing they want.

[Anna B]

Debate tonight 7.30pm BBC1 is going to include all the parties, including Jeremy Corbyn, but not Theresa May, taking questions from the audience.

 

A very bad decision by May.

 

What's she afraid of?

[tinfoilhat]

Debate tonight 7.30pm BBC1 is going to include all the parties, including Jeremy Corbyn, but not Theresa May, taking questions from the audience.

 

A very bad decision by May.

 

What's she afraid of?

 

I dont understand british politics at the moment. Its like neither want to win it.

[Anna B]

I dont understand british politics at the moment. Its like neither want to win it.

 

State things are in, can you blame them...?

[truman]

Do we need to know? Reminds me of the phrase: "knowing the cost of everything, but the value of nothing".

 

 

 

.

 

No of course we don't need to know the cost..we have a bottomless purse ...

[banjodeano]

Corbyn has just announce he take part in the live tv debate, May has refused. So much for stating she is a strong leader and the right person for Brexit, when she cowers away from Corbyn, a strong leader would would say "come on then", this is a sad reflection on May and im sure will be viewed as a weak leader and will drop the Tories some more in the polls..

[truman]

Corbyn has just announce he take part in the live tv debate, May has refused. So much for stating she is a strong leader and the right person for Brexit, when she cowers away from Corbyn, a strong leader would would say "come on then", this is a sad reflection on May and im sure will be viewed as a weak leader and will drop the Tories some more in the polls..

 

Then again you could say Jeremy has done a U turn

 

"Jeremy Corbyn has said he will not take part in any head-to-head TV election debates without Theresa May."

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39725148

[banjodeano]

Then again you could say Jeremy has done a U turn

 

"Jeremy Corbyn has said he will not take part in any head-to-head TV election debates without Theresa May."

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39725148

You could...be we all know he is out manoeuvring her. He is playing a pretty sharp game here, he probably knew all along he was going to take part. Now this puts her into a very bad position. Well done Mr Corbyn. After all the flak, he is still not scared to debate his points....unlike May

[Anna B]

I don't think it is as simple as that.

 

Take water for example. It was conservatively cost £69,000,000,000 to buy the water companies back at their current prices. This would be funded by borrowing.

 

Labour says that they want to use the profit to pay off the interest from the extra debt incurred by buying water back. Water doesn't make a massive profit. Bare in mind they've only mentioned paying off the interest on the debt, not the debt itself. What happens if interest rates rise?

 

Labour have also said that they will use the profit to lower water bills (I believe that is the entire point of nationalising it, otherwise why bother?).

 

Water bills are actually an estimated £100 a year lower than they would have been had water not been privatised due to the £130billion of private investment made in replacing our old and insufficient infrastructure.

 

That infrastructure will also need future investment, which would be the government's responsibility were water nationalised. Is the profit going to pay for that investment too? I very much doubt that there is enough money to pay back the interest on the debt, lower water bills, and pay in the capital infrastructure costs when they are needed.

 

The £69billion initial cost wasn't even added to the £250billion of other borrowing they want.

 

I have always been uneasy with the thought of our most precious and necessary infrastructure / resources being in the hands of big business and overseas competitors who have no affiliation to Britain.

 

It should never have been sold off in the first place, and the promised benefits have not been forthcoming. Profits have been taken and a few people have got very rich out of it, but real investment has not gone in. So yes, I think it should be taken back into public ownership.

 

As for the cost, what happened to the money when it was sold? Serious question, I have no idea where it all went. It will be expensive to buy it back, but I think it's the right thing to do. Incidently, it was discussed on Newsnight a few days ago, and it was said that it comes out of an entirely different source, so did not need to be added to the Labour Budget.

[sgtkate]

I don't think it is as simple as that.

 

Take water for example. It was conservatively cost £69,000,000,000 to buy the water companies back at their current prices. This would be funded by borrowing.

 

Labour says that they want to use the profit to pay off the interest from the extra debt incurred by buying water back. Water doesn't make a massive profit. Bare in mind they've only mentioned paying off the interest on the debt, not the debt itself. What happens if interest rates rise?

 

Labour have also said that they will use the profit to lower water bills (I believe that is the entire point of nationalising it, otherwise why bother?).

 

Water bills are actually an estimated £100 a year lower than they would have been had water not been privatised due to the £130billion of private investment made in replacing our old and insufficient infrastructure.

 

That infrastructure will also need future investment, which would be the government's responsibility were water nationalised. Is the profit going to pay for that investment too? I very much doubt that there is enough money to pay back the interest on the debt, lower water bills, and pay in the capital infrastructure costs when they are needed.

 

The £69billion initial cost wasn't even added to the £250billion of other borrowing they want.

 

I agree that we do need more details on this and how Labour perceive it working long term. I am in favour hugely of renationalisation of core services but not at any cost and I do have some concerns about how the debt would be paid back. I don't want a decision to be made that sounds great on paper but that my grandkids are still paying back. I don't want PFI in another name.