From Newsgroup: aus.politics

The new PM there hints at de-privatizing English utilities. Could be
the start of something here?
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.politics

Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote

The new PM there hints at de-privatizing English utilities.

He had done a lot more than just hinting at that

They have ALREADY nationalised the steel industry
and some of the railways and are very likely to do
that to Thames Water, all of which are imploding
very spectacularly indeed.

Could be the start of something here?

No chance, because none of ours are doing
anything even remotely like that imploding
and no one has even proposed doing that
the manganese smelter in northern tasmania
which has been allowed to wind up or with
the Whyalla steel operation which has been
driven into the ground by its indian owner
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.politics

On Tue, 21 Jul 2026 08:57:50 +1000, Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:

The new PM there hints at de-privatizing English utilities. Could be
the start of something here?

Leader of the *Labour Party* same lying type of clown.

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other
people's money.

There is no difference between communism and socialism,
except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end:
communism proposes to enslave men by force,
socialism - by vote.
It is merely the difference between murder and suicide
#Ayn Rand

--
Petzl
"Our" Media and Major parties are run by lobbyists

Lobbyists write the laws, parliament sells the laws,
paid lucrative commissions for passing their laws.
ThatAs the modern legislative business of parliament.

When we talk about paying-off politicians in third-world
countries we call it bribery.
However, when we undertake the same process in parliament.
we call it lobbying.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.politics

Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other
people's money.

How odd that Norway never did and in
fact ended up with the exact opposite, an
immense sovereign wealth fund instead

There is no difference between communism and socialism,
except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end:
communism proposes to enslave men by force,
socialism - by vote.

Even sillier than you usually manage given that
socialism never enslaves anyone, let alone tells
them what they have to do work wise once they
have left school and has no gulag

It is merely the difference between murder and suicide
#Ayn Rand

That stupid fuck
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.politics

On Tue, 21 Jul 2026 10:10:24 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other
people's money.

How odd that Norway never did and in
fact ended up with the exact opposite, an
immense sovereign wealth fund instead

Not before a small population struck oil/gas in the North sea,

NorwayAs stake in its North Sea oil and gas isn't a flat 50%, but
significantly higher.
Through a dual-ownership model, the Norwegian state directly holds
large non-operational shares (averaging around 30%) in its licenses
via the State's Direct Financial Interest (SDFI) and a controlling 67%
equity stake in Equinor, its primary energy operator.
Additionally, the state imposes an aggressive 78% tax rate on
petroleum extraction profits, channeling the vast majority of
windfalls directly into the countryAs sovereign wealth fund.

--
Petzl
"Our" Media and Major parties are run by lobbyists
Lobbyists write the laws, parliament sells the laws,
paid lucrative commissions for passing their laws.
ThatAs the modern legislative business of parliament.

When we talk about paying-off politicians in third-world
countries we call it bribery.
However, when we undertake the same process in parliament.
we call it lobbying.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.politics

Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other
people's money.

How odd that Norway never did and in
fact ended up with the exact opposite, an
immense sovereign wealth fund instead

Not before a small population struck oil/gas in the North sea,

Irrelevant to the fact that choosing to have the govt
do the oil and gas, socialism, was the reason they
never ran out of other people's money and in fact
ended with with an immense sovereign wealth fund

NorwayrCOs stake in its North Sea oil and gas isn't a flat 50%, but significantly higher.

Irrelevant to the fact that choosing to have the govt
do the oil and gas, socialism, was the reason they
never ran out of other people's money and in fact
ended with with an immense sovereign wealth fund

Through a dual-ownership model,

That only happened MUCH later

the Norwegian state directly holds
large non-operational shares (averaging around 30%) in its licenses
via the State's Direct Financial Interest (SDFI) and a controlling 67%> equity stake in Equinor, its primary energy operator.
Additionally, the state imposes an aggressive 78% tax rate on
petroleum extraction profits, channeling the vast majority of
windfalls directly into the countryrCOs sovereign wealth fund.

Irrelevant to the fact that choosing to have the govt
do the oil and gas, socialism, was the reason they
never ran out of other people's money and in fact
ended with with an immense sovereign wealth fund
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.politics

On Tue, 21 Jul 2026 12:42:06 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other
people's money.

How odd that Norway never did and in
fact ended up with the exact opposite, an
immense sovereign wealth fund instead

Not before a small population struck oil/gas in the North sea,

Irrelevant to the fact that choosing to have the govt
do the oil and gas, socialism, was the reason they
never ran out of other people's money and in fact
ended with with an immense sovereign wealth fund

NorwayAs stake in its North Sea oil and gas isn't a flat 50%, but
significantly higher.

Irrelevant to the fact that choosing to have the govt
do the oil and gas, socialism, was the reason they
never ran out of other people's money and in fact
ended with with an immense sovereign wealth fund

Through a dual-ownership model,

That only happened MUCH later

the Norwegian state directly holds
large non-operational shares (averaging around 30%) in its licenses
via the State's Direct Financial Interest (SDFI) and a controlling 67%
equity stake in Equinor, its primary energy operator.

Additionally, the state imposes an aggressive 78% tax rate on
petroleum extraction profits, channeling the vast majority of
windfalls directly into the countryAs sovereign wealth fund.

Irrelevant to the fact that choosing to have the govt
do the oil and gas, socialism, was the reason they
never ran out of other people's money and in fact
ended with with an immense sovereign wealth fund

Not irrelant
Led to
Anders Behring Breivik (ABB)
"I know that there are hundreds, even thousands of incidents per year
(I have personally witnessed around 50 incidents) where ethnic
Norwegian youths ranging 14-18 are harassed, beaten, raped and robbed
and it's getting worse every year."
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.politics

Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other>>>>> people's money.

How odd that Norway never did and in
fact ended up with the exact opposite, an
immense sovereign wealth fund instead

Not before a small population struck oil/gas in the North sea,

Irrelevant to the fact that choosing to have the govt
do the oil and gas, socialism, was the reason they
never ran out of other people's money and in fact
ended with with an immense sovereign wealth fund

NorwayrCOs stake in its North Sea oil and gas isn't a flat 50%, but
significantly higher.

Irrelevant to the fact that choosing to have the govt
do the oil and gas, socialism, was the reason they
never ran out of other people's money and in fact
ended with with an immense sovereign wealth fund

Through a dual-ownership model,

That only happened MUCH later

the Norwegian state directly holds
large non-operational shares (averaging around 30%) in its licenses
via the State's Direct Financial Interest (SDFI) and a controlling 67%
equity stake in Equinor, its primary energy operator.
Additionally, the state imposes an aggressive 78% tax rate on
petroleum extraction profits, channeling the vast majority of
windfalls directly into the countryrCOs sovereign wealth fund.>> Irrelevant to the fact that choosing to have the govt

do the oil and gas, socialism, was the reason they
never ran out of other people's money and in fact
ended with with an immense sovereign wealth fund

Not irrelant

Completely irrelevant to your stupid claim at socialism
eventually runs out of other people's money. Norway
never did and in fact ended up with an immense
sovereign wealth fund instead

Led to
Anders Behring Breivik (ABB)

Bullshit the govt of the day choosing to have the govt do their
oil and gas and most of their electricity generation had anything
what so ever to do with what he did or what he was

"I know that there are hundreds, even thousands of incidents per year
(I have personally witnessed around 50 incidents) where ethnic
Norwegian youths ranging 14-18 are harassed, beaten, raped and robbed
and it's getting worse every year."

Nothing whatever to do with the govt of the day choosing to have
the govt do their oil and gas and most of their electricity generation
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2