Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

RidingPie

Has privatisation ever brought prices down in the UK

157 posts in this topic

But of course DVD's didn't come about for another 15/20 years and Blu-Ray even longer so there wasn't a choice (even the ill fated laser-disc wasn't out for another 10 years... now there was a product that fits with your arguement)

Yes, but you seemed to implying that the loss of choice was something permanent. It wasn't, VHS beat Betamax but it has, itself, become obsolete. People preferred DVDs to VHS and don't care enough about Blu-Ray.

You're aware that Betamax was a format not a company aren't you? The format was supported by many company's with products in every price bracket that VHS was in. The cassettes were smaller, containing the same running time of tape with better picture quality. It wasn't the product that was wrong, it was merely that it was pushed by a specific (and not particularly nice) industry. The consumer chose based on content fair enough, but where was the competition in this fight? It could only have been a fair (free market) fight had the porn industry released material on both, and that plays in to my implication in the original post that industry cartels are reducing consumer choice and not allowing true free market economics.

Now Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD was a more open consumer led selection. It could have gone very differently had Microsoft shipped the a HD-DVD drive in the original xbox 360.

Free choice applies to everybody including producers of smut. The competition was fair, doubtless the porn barons had their reasons for choosing VHS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I already answered that point either last page or the page before.

Obviously not to my satisfaction. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet another wonderful example of privatisation.

The autumn grange care home in Nottingham closed with 24hours notice dumping 30 dementia patients on to the street.

Peter Walsh from a medical charity said "this is totally unacceptable . . . Leaving the state and the taxpayer to pick up the tab".

'twas ever thus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet another wonderful example of privatisation.

The autumn grange care home in Nottingham closed with 24hours notice dumping 30 dementia patients on to the street.

Peter Walsh from a medical charity said "this is totally unacceptable . . . Leaving the state and the taxpayer to pick up the tab".

'twas ever thus.

Welcome to Thatcher's legacy Britain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to Thatcher's legacy Britain.

really?

over 20 years since she left office and you still try to blame her?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was the name of the NHS dept that hit all the targets?I think it was something like logistics.Any way because it was very profitable they sold it off

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

really?

over 20 years since she left office and you still try to blame her?

Absolutely. It will be generations before the nation recovers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely. It will be generations before the nation recovers.

Will never recover in ex-mining areas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

really?

over 20 years since she left office and you still try to blame her?

Decisions made in government hace long reaching repercussions. It's something I wish politicians from all sides of the house would realise instead of thinking short term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

really?

over 20 years since she left office and you still try to blame her?

Yes. Many of the things she did are simply not reversable.

Mines can never be opened, hospitals and health care once flogged off can never be put right. Who would dare or could afford to re nationalise the railways when all unbiased observers agree they should be.

And who ruined the English pub for all time with the stupid beer orders?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

really?

over 20 years since she left office and you still try to blame her?

Everyone needs a scapegoat. You have to admit the Wicked Witch of the West was always a terrific scapegoat. Oh, and 20-odd years of rampant free market economics, not checked by subsequent governments but initially pushed forward on her watch, has a lot to answer for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will never recover in ex-mining areas

It depends on which mining areas you are talking about.

The former mining strongholds in the Wakefield district are not doing too badly, mainly because the local authority has been very energetic in pushing forward a largely successful regeneration strategy, taking advantage of grant aid from various sources.

I was talking to Wakefield Council's deputy leader Denise Jeffery and she pointed out that the unemployment rate in the former mining areas south of the city, such as South Elmsall, South Kirkby and Hemsworth, is now lower than when mining was the dominant industry. The figures shown in the link below suggest that unemployment in those areas now is no worse than in most places not affected by mining closures. And of course the environment is now far more attractive than it was in those days. That isn't to under-state the problems that former miners faced, but I do know a lot of miners who are now doing well for themselves in quite different fields.

I don't know whether other districts have coped as well as Wakefield, and I'm sure there are some wide variations, but I don't think you can say that they'll inevitably never recover.

http://www.wakefield.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/61953D48-E563-41C5-8E46-FF09BC898B46/0/UnemploymentBulletin_Sep2012.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was talking to Wakefield Council's deputy leader Denise Jeffery and she pointed out that the unemployment rate in the former mining areas south of the city, such as South Elmsall, South Kirkby and Hemsworth, is now lower than when mining was the dominant industry.

Tbf I think people moving away from the area looking for work might have something to do with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tbf I think people moving away from the area looking for work might have something to do with that.

Not if you see the new housing that has been built recently in those communities.

If you check the census data I don't think there's been any loss of population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not if you see the new housing that has been built recently in those communities.

If you check the census data I don't think there's been any loss of population.

Population has increased everywhere, if the population has stayed the same then there will have been net migration from the area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Population has increased everywhere, if the population has stayed the same then there will have been net migration from the area.

An odd conclusion! If the population has stayed the same then surely there has been no net migration inwards or outwards.

In any case, the point I made was that the prevalence of new housing in many of those areas suggests that the population is at least stable, and may be increasing. I'll leave you to check the census figures from times past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Population has increased everywhere, if the population has stayed the same then there will have been net migration from the area.

Your net capacity to talk rubbish with increasing levels of misplaced self confidence and authority has increased enormously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An odd conclusion! If the population has stayed the same then surely there has been no net migration inwards or outwards.

Where do births and deaths feature in this model of yours?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your net capacity to talk rubbish with increasing levels of misplaced self confidence and authority has increased enormously.

Your ability to make coherent arguments seems to be about the same though.

Care to specify what you object to in the point I made?

No, thought not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your ability to make coherent arguments seems to be about the same though.

Care to specify what you object to in the point I made?

No, thought not.

"Population has increased everywhere"

No it hasn't.

"if the population has stayed the same then there will have been net migration from the area."

You cannot deduce that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Population has increased everywhere"

No it hasn't.

"if the population has stayed the same then there will have been net migration from the area."

You cannot deduce that.

Can't I?

The UK population has increased from just about 50 million to over 60 million in my lifetime. Most of this is down to births outweighing deaths not migration; we haven't had 10 million migrants move to the UK.

I'd like to know just where you think that deaths have exceeding births in the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't I?

The UK population has increased from just about 50 million to over 60 million in my lifetime. Most of this is down to births outweighing deaths not migration; we haven't had 10 million migrants move to the UK.

I'd like to know just where you think that deaths have exceeding births in the UK.

Have a look at some of the headline data from the 2011 census. Over half the population increase in England and Wales over the last decade has indeed been through immigration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have a look at some of the headline data from the 2011 census. Over half the population increase in England and Wales over the last decade has indeed been through immigration.

In which case then there has been a 10% increase simply due to births exceeding deaths. You would expect Wakefield to be broadly in line with this and have at least 5% growth. Hence a population that remained the same would be indicative of a net migration away from the district.

New housing per se isn't a necessarily indicative of a growth in population since there has been a fall in the average number of people in one house due to changes in society e,g, increase in divorce rates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - April 2017

League Express - Mon 10th April 2017