Today I'm angry about.....

[Worthy4England]

Shit business models should go to the wall - you won't find many on the right disagreeing with that.

I'm not sure why you think that any business that couldn't accommodate a significantly higher minimum wage structure should automatically be included in this bracket, however.

I suspect what you don't like are those companies that make large profits whilst paying the minimum wage level that is currently set fairly low?

If that is so, and creaming off that 'surplus' profit is what is important to you, there must be better ways of getting at that than minimum wage laws? Even at current (low) wage levels, we are so uncompetitive that there are huge incentives to automate and outsource.

Outsourcing, automation and minimum wage are not directly linked. The thought that big business would retain more low cost labour, without a minimum wage for anything they could automate or outsource isn't one I concur with. I seem to recall economic armeggeddon being predicted by the right on the introduction of the minimum wage. I don't recall anything remotely like armeggeddon occurring. Our performance against German GDP was impacted not one whit by the introduction of the minimum wage.

Where the minimum wage is more likely to be abused in my opinion is the smaller (maybe to medium) businesses rather than "big business" who oftem tend to pay over the minimum anyhow.

[bobo the clown]

Where the minimum wage is more likely to be abused in my opinion is the smaller (maybe to medium) businesses rather than "big business" who oftem tend to pay over the minimum anyhow.

Absolutely.

I've seen very little 'minimum wage' in large businesses. As I said previously the overall difference to employment costs of 50-75p an hour is very marginal.

[Prufrock]

Market Price is a rather pejorative term to use,

This is, of course, a chasm between our viewpoints that will never be bridged!

When it comes to proper competitive markets, in areas where market forces apply, I'm generally with you. However, there seems to be a blind acceptance politically right now that they do apply, at all times, in all areas, which seems to be obviously bollocks to me. (I occasionally refer briefly to train companies in this respect!)

What's your view on the energy companies ? IMO, it doesn't seem to work. For all six to be coming up with such similar prices, then either they're price fixing (in which case they can f*ck off) or the market isn't working. If their costs are identical and inelastic, meaning they can't undercut each other, then you'd expect *the benefits of the private sector* to mean they'd be investing in ways to get around those costs and deliver a cheaper price. If they've all just given up and decided there's nowt they can do, then what good is the private sector doing? Surely no-one believes the state is that inefficient that it can't buy gas from Russia (or wherever) at the same price all six manage to and then sell it to us either at the same price (pocketing the profits for the national purse) or at a subsidy so there's no profit?

[bobo the clown]

Just give me an example of a significant public sector project which has been built and then run efficiently, to time and within cost estimates and been managed properly Pru.

[CrazyHorse]

The big six come up with similar prices because they all buy it in at the same price. Their hands are tied.

The price they pay is set by supply and demand. We have high demand and low supply in this country. A recipe for sky high costs.

Of course the generating companies will use whatever methods they can to tip the balance even more in their favour. Y'know like when a power station gets a steam leak which ordinarily should take three days to fix but for some reason takes a week and half in the dead of winter when we're screaming out for energy.

But what's that? The generating companies are the same companies who have their hands tied because of the fixed costs? They're literally holding themselves to ransom and we're footing the bill. And it'll only get worse as the creaking, aging power stations reach the end of their lifespan and the gas runs dry.

Thatcher could've sorted it, so could Major. Blair was too busy getting our soldiers killed for no reason whatsoever to care and Brown ignored it too. Only now, when it's skin of the teeth time and the coalition have no choice are they finally greenlighting new generators.

[Bruce Rioja]

You still at Fiddlers Ferry, Hoss? Who operates that?

[CrazyHorse]

Nope, I'm not there any more, they fired me off. It's an SSE owned site. They joke there that when those turbines are spinning in winter it's like they're minting their own money.

Which, of course, they are.

[Prufrock]

Just give me an example of a significant public sector project which has been built and then run efficiently, to time and within cost estimates and been managed properly Pru.

It's not a question of the state being able to do it more efficiently, rather the state doing in no less inefficiently. Plus, as with the trains, aren't we already paying for the shit non-profitable infrastructure bits anyway?

Whilst I don't disagree that the lumbering central management of state run 'enterprises' is less efficient than the private sector, that's only the case IMO where there is a genuine market and so genuine competition. The motive to win customers and so make a profit means costs are trimmed or developments made. If the making of mobile phones for instance was a public sector thing, I'm sure we wouldn't be at the point we are now where the things can do magic. Consumer-focussed market economics essentially won the cold war and is generally a good thing IMO, hurrah for that.

But it only works where there is a genuine market for competition. Everything Hoss has said there rings true -from someone who'd know - but even if it isn't their *fault*, it doesn't change what appears to be the fact that there isn't any benefit to the public by this area being under private control.

The usual deal is, we accept that the profits go to a few shareholders and highly paid execs rather than the public purse because in return we get a much better service. Are we really saying the state is so unwieldy that it can't buy gas for a fixed price before selling it on for a fixed price through the pipes it already pays for?

[bobo the clown]

So, in your view, the Nationalised version would be 'no worse run' ?

You're very young, aren't you.

[Lord Kangana]

Actually bob, and I hate to burst the bubble here, but when vast amounts of our industries were owned by the tax payer, the net cost to us was er, somehwere about zero.

Now, I can already hear steam coming out of your ears, so let me explain. The industries that would be considered "profitable" (in that they generated a surplus) had that surplus ploughed into the inefficient (ie those that posted a defecit) industries. Now then, the smart thing about running things like this is truly, beautifully simple. If you privatise all these, the profitable ones continue to cost us the same, but the unprofitable ones will need to charge more -remember, individual disparate private businesses have no holistic, nor altruistic reason to do anything.

I lodge as evidence No 1) the trains. If we'd invested the kind of money that we are doing now when they were public (for they are subsidised more now than ever) we would have had a better service than we do now. Its f*cking mental to suggest privatisation had provided anything better or cheaper for us.

[bobo the clown]

Actually bob, and I hate to burst the bubble here, but when vast amounts of our industries were owned by the tax payer, the net cost to us was er, somehwere about zero.

Now, I can already hear steam coming out of your ears, so let me explain. The industries that would be considered "profitable" (in that they generated a surplus) had that surplus ploughed into the inefficient (ie those that posted a defecit) industries. Now then, the smart thing about running things like this is truly, beautifully simple. If you privatise all these, the profitable ones continue to cost us the same, but the unprofitable ones will need to charge more -remember, individual disparate private businesses have no holistic, nor altruistic reason to do anything.

I lodge as evidence No 1) the trains. If we'd invested the kind of money that we are doing now when they were public (for they are subsidised more now than ever) we would have had a better service than we do now. Its f*cking mental to suggest privatisation had provided anything better or cheaper for us.

Bloody hell LK, that's revisionism of the very worst sort.

Every last one lost a bucket, often many buckets. The management of them was a disaster and the over-manning was rife.

By all means prefer that model, but to say they broke even overall is just not correct.

[Lord Kangana]

It most certainly is.

[bobo the clown]

Not

[Dujon]

Go for it lads, I love playground brawls.

[Hoboh]

Actually, the trade unions were the downfall of the nationalised industries failing to let the bosses run the things anything like efficiently. Now as unite have just found out playing the old tricks will not work, you need a sensible approach to industrial matters not the old ‘everybody out’, workers working with their companies are a big asset. I know there are some arsehole companies out there and slacking rules like tribunals etc is not a good idea, they need to be kept in check as well as the unions.
There should be no problems with the state running vital services for the good of the country, better to improve the lot of many not the bank balance of a few, a nationalised proper run energy company would with stability help business as well as Joe public.

[TANGODANCER]

Declaring war on the fxxxing Sun newspaper. Wife insists on reading this garbage collection. Latest "hot" news, all over the front page today, " Strictly Su (Susanna Reid) in fling with her University professor" The woman's 47 now, this happened when she was single donkeys years ago, and is actually fxck-all to do with anybody, ( the public have a right to know, you know) yet it's a page one headline? Shxt-stirring is hardly unknown with this lot, but I wonder just how innocent the sanctimonious plonkers who print this shxt are themselves?

[Annoyed Grunt]

Declaring war on the fxxxing Sun newspaper. Wife insists on reading this garbage collection. Latest "hot" news, all over the front page today, " Strictly Su (Susanna Reid) in fling with her University professor" The woman's 47 now, this happened when she was single donkeys years ago, and is actually fxck-all to do with anybody, ( the public have a right to know, you know) yet it's a page one headline? Shxt-stirring is hardly unknown with this lot, but I wonder just how innocent the sanctimonious plonkers who print this shxt are themselves?

Anything to sell papers.......

[bobo the clown]

Latest "hot" news, all over the front page today, " Strictly Su (Susanna Reid) in fling with her University professor" The woman's 47 now, this happened when she was single donkeys years ago ...

... but, to be fair ... you would, wouldn't you !!!

[TANGODANCER]

Latest "hot" news, all over the front page today, " Strictly Su (Susanna Reid) in fling with her University professor" The woman's 47 now, this happened when she was single donkeys years ago ...

... but, to be fair ... you would, wouldn't you !!!

With all those pro-dancers to choose from? Nah, not me.

[bobo the clown]

Latest "hot" news, all over the front page today, " Strictly Su (Susanna Reid) in fling with her University professor" The woman's 47 now, this happened when she was single donkeys years ago ...

... but, to be fair ... you would, wouldn't you !!!

With all those pro-dancers to choose from? Nah, not me.

Then tomorrow's front page should be "Bolton OAP snubs Susanna".