On the scale Jeremy envisages, it will lead to a totalitarian state, in everything but name!
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
On the scale Jeremy envisages, it will lead to a totalitarian state, in everything but name!
Its not a question of how its done, its about the State being in total control of an industry, sector, whatever, that's what Nationalisation means!
No it doesn't. I.e, the NHS is state controlled but you can still buy private health insurance and see private doctors in the UK.
I know what nationalisation is. In the absence of competition the national company could skim the whole economies of scale effect for example, which would lower prices. But this is a rather complex issue that needs to be discussed in each area specifically, since the settings are different in all of them. Most infrastructure in areas where it would be unsustainable to have different sets of them (imagine every company builduing their own railways) are nationalised in order to allow fair competition in the first place.
Yes, obviously. But to say that just because it didn't work 50 years ago with that specific approach back then in the unique setting back then it cannot work today is just a useless argument.
Aaaaaand back to being a poor poster again.
Oh, so I did meet with your approval at some point... must have missed that one..? anyway Jeremy's hoping to take us somewhere I would rather not go and whilst I respect the fact the man has held these views all his life.. they are still wrong!
They aren't "wrong" at all, they are just a different political view to your own. His views closely align to Scandy politics and as a UK national, who's now a Swedish citizen I personally think he's got some good ideas. But hey, each to their own.
You met my approval in your first response @I Believe , as you actually tried to add to the debate rather than harping on with some absolute bollocks about a totalitarian state.
Do you now, well sorry it sounds to me like you don't, or maybe you have a romantic view of how everything in the garden of
(energy, railways, etc.) would be rose like if only we nationalised it?
Precisely, its exactly why we should keep the Government away from it with a barge-pole if necessary, Governments are good a politics, not at running public services. That does not mean private industry is the best either, it means on public services at large we need a public consensus on what the service should be and how its to be delivered, what we should pay for it and who should run it. I would almost guarantee that if we could get a consensus on the first three, the what, the how and the price, the fourth choice that of operator, would not be the government
I am talking about the 'idealism' that surrounds nationalisation or state ownership and operation of an industry or sector. Yes it sounds fantastic let nanny state look after everything, but who's looking after nanny?
No,Sorry.. I should have added that they are different to my own... however they are still wrong, because they didn't work last time and as far as I can gather, Jeremy's just 'putting old wine in new bottles', very attractive looking bottles, especially to those coming out of a period of austerity, who probably haven't been able to afford any wine at all.
Yes, I made the point about NHS being the exception, about 10 posts back, please try to keep up!
Please show me where I have made it sound like I don't. I haven't actually advocated for nationalism. I said that there are reasons as to why it could make sense, the same way I have stated that there are reasons against it.
First you agree that every area needs to be adressed specifically, then you argue that the government should be kept out no matter what. You do realize these are conflicting statements? I agree with the rest, but it's also stating the obvious.
Idealism is not good, I agree. It should be about concepts/ideas. But the way you are arguing here just feel like idealism itself, just from the other corner. You are not actually open for debate, you already know that the govt. as operator is a bad idea irrelevant the circumstances. If that is not an idealistic statement, I don't know what is.
Right, so nationalisation simply doesn't work and is wrong? Because you've decided in didn't work in the UK over 3 decades ago? Are you going to ignore how well it works in other countries at the present?
Something being wrong because "it didn't work last time" might just be the dumbest thing I've read all day, and I've been reading a lot from gun nuts on twitter today.
Sorry, must have missed this one, been busy trying to answer other posters!
I did some work consultancy work for rail company (won't mention the name) a while back and it was clear that management did not have a grip on, or possible even understood, how trains operated, this of course doesn't help anybody, least of all the rail consumer. It seemed to me a hand to mouth operation, with 'Peter robbing Paul' at times in order to get the trains running at all (never mind on time). So in answer to your question no at the time I'm talking about say 5 years ago , I would say they were getting by that's all.
However to be honest taking into state ownership, the trains, the track, the stations etc. would not have solved the problem, management and investment were necessary, to meet the then requirements, however something must have worked because the number of rail passengers increased steadily, if not evenly, over the whole network in recent times and that has now produced other problems now overlaid on the previous problems.
Hence if foreign owners could come in and run our railways efficiently and profitably, at a cheaper rate than we can, then that's fine with me. I suspect however, the dead hand of state intervention will not make the improvements, just drive up costs to the taxpayers as well as the rail users!
Sorry my apologies, I had the impression you thought nationalisation was the answer!
Actually I don't think they are, in any case I was saying the Government should be kept away from running the public services, of course they will be involved in reaching a consensus and in commissioning any action on any agreements reached.
Is it stating the obvious? To me and you it may well be the obvious, but its not to our party politicians, or indeed the Government.
Jeremy's approach/reason for nationalisation didn't work, he's held the same views of a failed approach for forty years , if anyone's holding the telescope the wrong way round my friend its you in viewing what Jeremy's about!
I have advocated (read some of my previous posts) some nationalisation, e.g. for the protection of our steel making industry whilst China dumps its over production on the world markets, the state should guarantee the capability remains, whatever. Jeremy's approach to nationalisation is purely political, it aligns with his extreme socialist ideals, it is not just/even about solving public services problems its about political idealism and its wrong!
And you didn't understand it, so its dumb.. perhaps that sums up how you see life?
Ah, the slippery slope argument. Lovely stuff.
We are only talking about who should be running them.
Yes, because first you agree that every fields needs to be adressed separately. That means to analyze the service with all its attributes, the consumer needs and the possible delivery of them with an open mind. You look at all the different scenarios, of which nationalisation is one (complete free market also, both are the extremes though), and try to find the best one for this specific field. If you then go on and state the irrelevant of this evaluation nationalisation shouldn't even be in the mix you quite clearly contradict the first notion, because you are adressing all the different fields in general with your exclusion of nationalisation. This is just semantics of course, but I feel that everybody can profit from being more precise in their statements (it's also something I struggle with because I'm not a native speaker).
I understood it, and even after your nonsensical explanation above, I haven't changed my opinion about that.
Over and over in this thread you have ignored just how well certain services run in France, Germany, Sweden etc and think Corbyn knows only one way, the "wrong" way. He could never copy those nations and do it right could he? That would take the mind of a genius.
Last edited:
I haven't overlooked anything, in fact if you really have read my posts you will see I have mentioned these countries as being capable of running our railways, at a profit, after being told by another poster that they could, so I have ignored nothing.
I'm sorry my friend it is you who you are ignoring matters and being unable to get over the fact that I recognise Jeremy is trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes with his version of nationalisation. It has nothing, or at least very little, to do with efficiency, effectiveness or value for money, its to do with political ideology and state control. I accept Jeremy has held these views for years, I have actually heard him speak about them in public, but I've never once heard him mention foreign models of nationalisation as being a possible panacea for the UK, he may have done and I've missed it, but I don't think so.
feck me you've bought the media line hook line and sinker. Why does he have to say "look how good the state railway works in Germany and France" to prove to you that it can work? You can't see that for yourself and think "maybe that could work here too"?
Worth a read: https://www.opendemocracy.net/can-e...orbyn-mainstream-scandinavian-social-democrat
British Rail was far better than what you have now, public transport in the UK is just the worst thing ever and its damn pricey however, there are some things that should be privatised and the nhs is one of them.
That we can agree on.
As far as pricing goes I've heard so many horror stories from Swedes who have arrived in London planning to jump onto a train to Manchester and been told it's £200 one way for a 2 hour journey. It's not so much bad planning, they just can't fathom how it can be so.
But for some reason @I Believe thinks Corbyn is nuts for wanting to take back control of such things.
I disagree the NHS should be privatised but huge reform is certainly required, for example, in Sweden we have "free" healthcare but people have to pay a £20 admin charge to visit the doctor. The max charge in a calendar year is about £100 at which point you no longer pay for GP visits, x-rays, surgery etc etc. Small things like this can make a huge difference and stop time wasters at the same time.
Feck you all trying to learn from your mistakesAs if one would have to do it the same way again. That's a poor argument.
Well he needs to give examples of things that are better now privatised. I don't believe everything should be privatised but the degradation of service and the cost of transport is outrageous.
Nationalization can work if people are prepared to pay for it, when you have a tory govt offering tax breaks that will never happen, things cost and I am prepared to pay more for better service. Privatization also means a govt doesn't have to do any work, just like a shit boss that delegates everything.
Privatization also drives a massive race to the bottom In the name of profit.
Doing more for less. Less employee satisfaction, less service, less quality, less less less. more profit tho.
If I moved back home I would definitely have private health insurance tho.
The whole purpose of nationalisation is to have a none profit service, by the people, for the people. So if it's a state monopoly it doesn't matter because there is no motive for profiteering.
So again tell us why don't you want the NHS privatised? You're not consistent in your position. In theory medicene with greater competition should be more competitive and thus offer a better service and prices moreso than railways and utilities which have zero competition. Yet you want the latter privatised and not the former nationalised.
The only rational reason for your position is because privatised American healthcare has failed consumers. But in turn utilities and railway prices have risen exponentially since privatisation, thus also failing consumers in these markets.
We can discuss other potencial failings of a socialist government once you iron out your consistency on this position.
I can's say that i listened to all 1hr 40mins, but over half for sure. Somewhat annoyingly, the more interesting stuff came in the last half hour. lol I would cite the question which related to perpetual growth (every year leastwise) and sustainable living.McDonnell's answer on the NHS was noteworthy for what it didn't include, as the PFI policy is a red herring in the near-term.
As someone who's just had to pull out of an apartment purchase due to a totally extortionate ground rent regime, i'm not averse to a little state intervention. The case for, and extent of Labour's renationalisations is quite another matter. Peopel already know wht i think about the tuition fee sweetener. Renationalisation of water i could be persuaded on, and the same goes for voluntary public ownership of transport services at the local or regional level. The energy sector and Royal Mail, not at all.
Because at present there is no consensus on how it should be funded , how it should be run, what are its priorities and how are they set and most important how it should be managed, therefore the state cannot set effective service levels for delivery and the 'profiteers' would have a field day. Whilst it remains in state ownership most people feel 'comfortable' if not altogether happy with its maxim about "being free at the point of delivery"
Do you seriously consider these prices would not have risen under a nationalised entity? The main rise in energy costs has been the 'green levy' introduced by the Government to support alternative forms of generation and in terms of railways, it is in the main the imperative for further investment, (in rolling stock in particular) since the popularity of rail travel has grown phenomenally, despite the rises in fares. Of course those who travel regularly on trains feel hard done by, those who rarely travel on trains, are pleased general taxation is not being used to support the railways.
It would either be an insurance or paid on an adhoc basis. Some people wouldn't be able to afford it but that's the nature of privatisation. Some insurance companies would quible over paying out unless they were heavily regulated. I'm not saying I think it's a good policy
They wouldn't have sky rocketed exponentially given they hadn't before that. You can argue about gas/electricity having outside influences but water doesn't cost more to process on a real terms basis and that's increased exponentially too. The share price of the nationalised industries also sky rocketed, which shows either incompetance or corruption in the privatisation.
As for people who don't use trains not wanting to pay for them. Well who's to say they need subsidising through the taxation system? They can simply be run 'not for profit'. But if they were subsidised and cheaper maybe more people would use them. Which would be better for the environment. I remember my ex Managing Director looking up train prices for him and a colleague and confirming it was far cheaper by car so they'd drive instead. Well that can't be A) An effective use of railway infrastructure B) Good for the environment C) Any plan to reduce traffic conjection.
You also have to ask what else you don't want the state to pay for? Libraries are being closed down, is that a good thing? Should all schooling be private and paid for? What about selling off all roads and the owners charging as a toll to drive down them? No welfare safety net? No state pension?
Precisely, affordability shouldn't come into a national health scheme, as you, or someone else pointed out previously you can access private health in the UK at the moment, the safety net of the NHS is there for those who can't. You missed my main point, currently we do not have a consensus on how the health service should operate, how the priorities are set for the future, or who should run it, once those things are agreed across the spectrum of political views, then we can decide whether its privately run, or publically funded, the only consensus so far is its 'free at the point of delivery'
How do you know that? In the case of the railways the primary reason that prices sky rocketed was the level of investment required to keep operating not to improve, would have taken the operators complete profit, so the Government allowed them to raise prices overall to a fixed percentage; however that meant all the busy/in demand routes went up a higher percentage than those who had low demand, in fact some low demand routes went down. As for water again higher standards coming from the EU meant greater investment was required not only in treatment of water, but how it was stored and delivered, the government insisted on a certain standard level of repairs, in drought prone areas and the utilities companies were allowed by Government to raise their prices to pay for this upgrade.
The state doesn't pay for anything, its the public through taxation that pays for everything, please get a grip!
Ah! so you and @Stanley Road are both offering advice from afar!
I take it if Jeremy becomes our next Prime Minister, you will both be hot footing it back to 'Blighty' to help him run his Socialist Utopia
Can we swap them both for you?Ah! so you and @Stanley Road are both offering advice from afar!
I take it if Jeremy becomes our next Prime Minister, you will both be hot footing it back to 'Blighty' to help him run his Socialist Utopia
Absolutely.
I once asked a friend who was a staunch proponent of increased public expenditure through increased taxation "how much money would your family have to be paid each year for you to agree to pay for every public service, rather than have it paid for you through taxation". After much deliberation he came up with the figure of £25k.
I said that the amount the Government spends divided by the amount of families in the UK would give every family £45k. I then said that's the problem with increased public expenditure through taxation. The fact that one of the most staunch supporters feels that 55% in their pockets would be worth more than 100% through public services illustrates the waste that is created through a monopolised public sector system.
His argument essentially boiled down to the fact that he'd prefer 55% financial efficiency as long as someone else pays for a far greater share of said inefficiency than he had to.
Also if people want a model for a better healthcare system that isn't free at the point of use, rather than constantly pointing to the poorly run US system as the only example of a non-NHS based system, look to Singapore. Total expenditure on healthcare is far less than the UK and in terms of health outcomes they're far superior. They also have a very low tax-GDP ratio which stimulates economic growth, which in turn allows them to invest further.
Last edited:
People point to the 'poorly run US system' because it's the one opponents to the NHS that are in political positions constantly refer to.
Referring to the US when talking about the negatives of a mixed or quasi-private healthcare system is like referring to Andy Carroll when trying to justify a transfer fee.
When Jeremy Hunt co-authors a book calling for the NHS to be replaced with a Singapore style system I'm sure the focus will change accordingly.
Asking a layman to estimate it himself seems like a terrible argument to me.
When you have nothing and i have nothing, we will be truly equal.Ah! so you and @Stanley Road are both offering advice from afar!
I take it if Jeremy becomes our next Prime Minister, you will both be hot footing it back to 'Blighty' to help him run his Socialist Utopia