Who Owns Britain?

  • 181 Views
  • Last Post 13 January 2018
Cobham Saint posted this 04 January 2018

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-42569750.

In the mad rush to increase shareholder value and dividends the UK has been sold off to the highest bidder.

Examples are

Football clubs (topical....)

Rail franchises

Utility companies (all types)

Well known "British" brands like HP Sauce and Harrods

Now it looks like Colemans Mustard is a casualty of decisions made by multinational owners

Arguably the people of the UK - apart from the rich (&institutional shareholders e.g your pension provider) have not benefited from the great sell off.

Should we be taking back control when we regain our sovereignty? There's been a deafening silence about the great sell off. Or am I being a bit harsh?

 

20 Comments
Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
Sadoldgit posted this 04 January 2018

What have the Chinese said?

Areola Grandee posted this 04 January 2018 - Last edited 04 January 2018

他媽的你, Barry lou_lol

Fowllyd posted this 04 January 2018

Capitalism on a global rather than a national scale. The whole thing about businesses being British owned is a red herring; they were, to all intents and purposes, owned by the British bourgeoisie (to use a bit of Marxist terminology), whereas now they're owned by the international bourgeoisie.

To extend the Marxist terminology, the only difference for the British proletatriat is whether they sell their labour to a British or non-British bourgeois. Which, when it comes right down to it, is no difference at all.

Barry Sanchez posted this 04 January 2018

Originally posted by Fowllyd

Capitalism on a global rather than a national scale. The whole thing about businesses being British owned is a red herring; they were, to all intents and purposes, owned by the British bourgeoisie (to use a bit of Marxist terminology), whereas now they're owned by the international bourgeoisie.

To extend the Marxist terminology, the only difference for the British proletatriat is whether they sell their labour to a British or non-British bourgeois. Which, when it comes right down to it, is no difference at all.

 I wouldn't mind that as such but other Nations aren't allowed to sell off their silverware but allowed to buy ours, morally they're ours, the people, infrastructure paid for by the tax payer and sold off Russian style, a disgrace.

Fowllyd posted this 04 January 2018

Originally posted by Barry Sanchez

Originally posted by Fowllyd

Capitalism on a global rather than a national scale. The whole thing about businesses being British owned is a red herring; they were, to all intents and purposes, owned by the British bourgeoisie (to use a bit of Marxist terminology), whereas now they're owned by the international bourgeoisie.

To extend the Marxist terminology, the only difference for the British proletatriat is whether they sell their labour to a British or non-British bourgeois. Which, when it comes right down to it, is no difference at all.

 I wouldn't mind that as such but other Nations aren't allowed to sell off their silverware but allowed to buy ours, morally they're ours, the people, infrastructure paid for by the tax payer and sold off Russian style, a disgrace.

That's a different matter. State-owned utilities and other industries were sold off in this country; once that happened they could end up in any hands, so the only way to prevent that would have been to keep them state owned. But don't kid yourself that those assets belonged to the people in any way - they belonged to the state, and the state in this country doesn't belong to the people, nor has it ever done.

I'd certainly agree that selling them off was disgraceful and has given no benefit whatsoever to anyone who couldn't afford to buy shares in those sell-offs.

Barry Sanchez posted this 04 January 2018

Insider trading on the sell offs is and was rife, I know a bloke who made an awful lot of money on a public utility being sold off, this nation and its people have nothing, don't make anything, produce nothing and have sold everything, other nations protect their assets, we have a service industry in London.

From the workshop of the World to being on its knees in 100 years. The UK is very simliar to Southampton FC.

Goatboy posted this 05 January 2018

Originally posted by Barry Sanchez

Insider trading on the sell offs is and was rife, I know a bloke who made an awful lot of money on a public utility being sold off, this nation and its people have nothing, don't make anything, produce nothing and have sold everything, other nations protect their assets, we have a service industry in London.

From the workshop of the World to being on its knees in 100 years. The UK is very simliar to Southampton FC.

 No chance of being in  Europe next year?.

pap posted this 05 January 2018

The actual answer is easy.  It's the Queen.  She owns nearly all the land.  Prince Charles owns Cornwall, because it managed to get itself declared a feudal entity in a High Court case an ol' Big Ears is their feudal lord.  Apart from those two, no-one in the UK owns the land underneath their feet.

People have either freehold or leasehold. Most consider it ownership of the land, but it's not quite that. It's the right to use the land, usually in perpetuity.

Further, what people think of as large land owners are actually big freeholders, able to exploit the freehold through rents and selling bits of it off to property developers.  The biggest freeholder in the country?  Why, that's Her Majesty again.   Around 74% of all Britain's freeholds are controlled by just 550k families.

 

  • Liked by
  • Goatboy
  • Fowllyd
Cobham Saint posted this 05 January 2018

In which case Pap is Karl still on the money? I was ever an indifferent student of politics (& it shows before you say it...). :


You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.


KARL MARX, The Communist Manifesto

 

pap posted this 06 January 2018 - Last edited 06 January 2018

Originally posted by Cobham Saint

In which case Pap is Karl still on the money? I was ever an indifferent student of politics (& it shows before you say it...). :


You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.


KARL MARX, The Communist Manifesto 

 Right on a lot of things, didn't see other events coming.  The Communist Manifesto also called for nations to be abolished, but I doubt Marx would find too much comfort in the EU, apart from as a handy mechanism to bring a lot of nations under a Communist system.  Even that would seem unlikely.

Its all a big con.  My preference would be for everyone to get a six billionth of the planet, allowing folks to pool allocations if they want to live together.

When you think of all the resources people spend on just having the right to use a piece of land, you gotta wonder how good our economy would be with all that disposable income.

gavstar posted this 06 January 2018

Originally posted by pap

Originally posted by Cobham Saint

In which case Pap is Karl still on the money? I was ever an indifferent student of politics (& it shows before you say it...). :


You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.


KARL MARX, The Communist Manifesto 

 Right on a lot of things, didn't see other events coming.  The Communist Manifesto also called for nations to be abolished, but I doubt Marx would find too much comfort in the EU, apart from as a handy mechanism to bring a lot of nations under a Communist system.  Even that would seem unlikely.

Its all a big con.  My preference would be for everyone to get a six billionth of the planet, allowing folks to pool allocations if they want to live together.

When you think of all the resources people spend on just having the right to use a piece of land, you gotta wonder how good our economy would be with all that disposable income.

 shotgun not eastleigh.

  • Liked by
  • pap
  • Goatboy
PhilippineSaint posted this 07 January 2018

Originally posted by pap

The actual answer is easy.  It's the Queen.  She owns nearly all the land.  Prince Charles owns Cornwall, because it managed to get itself declared a feudal entity in a High Court case an ol' Big Ears is their feudal lord.  Apart from those two, no-one in the UK owns the land underneath their feet.

People have either freehold or leasehold. Most consider it ownership of the land, but it's not quite that. It's the right to use the land, usually in perpetuity.

Further, what people think of as large land owners are actually big freeholders, able to exploit the freehold through rents and selling bits of it off to property developers.  The biggest freeholder in the country?  Why, that's Her Majesty again.   Around 74% of all Britain's freeholds are controlled by just 550k families.

 

Which in easier times you could go and lop her head off and proclaim yourself King or Queen.

Shame we still cant do that 

  • Liked by
  • Cobham  Saint
Cobham Saint posted this 07 January 2018

A bit Game of Thrones @PhilippineSaint so therefore ok in the Papsters book?

lou_sunnies

Goatboy posted this 13 January 2018

"The dirty secret of PFI and all government attempts to pass public services into the private realm is that the shareholders make profits while the taxpayers remain on the hook for any losses."

That about sums it up. All hail the power of the free market and the dominance of the private sector. Unless it goes tits up. Then you and I will be bailing the cunts out.

  • Liked by
  • Saint or sinner
Goatboy posted this 13 January 2018 - Last edited 13 January 2018

And yet again, it's the banks who are all too eager to reap the (tax free) profits and all too keen for the tax paying public to pick up the bill.

Goatboy posted this 13 January 2018

Dubai_Phil posted this 13 January 2018

Now who was running the place when many of these pfi things were started up?

PhilippineSaint posted this 13 January 2018

Lloyds have sent me a new statement which says my balance with them is now Zero and I earnt 0.003p on the balance that they cannot credit to the account.

The previous statement was -15000.00 in debt which I refused to pay as they stopped my account and would not give me an address to send a cheque stating we do not accept cheques.

Its a bank all they do is play with cheques.

As they have now written of 15 grand thank you very much.

Goatboy posted this 13 January 2018