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.
Get on a train in France. Or Germany. Or Dubai.
Quite simply, the trains in this country are largely a disgrace for the prices they charge, especially in comparison to other European countries.
The Labour party, or perhaps specifically Jeremy and John (McDonnell) seem to be living in a world I remember almost 50 years ago.
At that time the two principle things that were held by many to be 'wrong' with nationalisation of public services (except funnily enough the NHS) was that there was a lack of opportunity for investment for infrastructure development and renewal, because of competing interests (i.e. from all the different sectors) for Government cash. Also the lack of a profit motive, meant that eventually the nationalised industry's became monolithic, run-down and incapable of change and perhaps even more debilitating was that although supposed to be services/sectors operated for the benefit of the public, they were anything but, in fact they seemed to many people who used them to be run only for the benefit of those employed in those services/sectors.
Of course Jeremy and those of his ilk, never seemed to see these arguments and hence their belief that the state knows best continues and nationalisation will always be a priority for them, even if they have to potentially bankrupt the country or borrow so much money to make their dreams come true, that our great, great, grandchildren will still be paying off the debt... in their dotage!
The view of many however is that 'nationalisation', or other such government intervention should only be undertaken in those areas where national defence, health or retaining a strategic interest in an industry because of world wide conditions (e.g. presently in steel making), are required to maintain the essentials, for the safeguarding of the Country. The objective from day one should be to prepare for privatisation at a date in the future, where the burden on the state is perceived to be needed to be lifted and private investors can step in. However it seems this view is now also out of date, so combined with the naysayers on Brexit, it seems we are all heading to hell in a hand cart, with Theresa feeding the horse at one end and Jeremy is preparing to shovel the s*** at the other.
Where do we turn next?
At that time the two principle things that were held by many to be 'wrong' with nationalisation of public services (except funnily enough the NHS) was that there was a lack of opportunity for investment for infrastructure development and renewal, because of competing interests (i.e. from all the different sectors) for Government cash. Also the lack of a profit motive, meant that eventually the nationalised industry's became monolithic, run-down and incapable of change and perhaps even more debilitating was that although supposed to be services/sectors operated for the benefit of the public, they were anything but, in fact they seemed to many people who used them to be run only for the benefit of those employed in those services/sectors.
Of course Jeremy and those of his ilk, never seemed to see these arguments and hence their belief that the state knows best continues and nationalisation will always be a priority for them, even if they have to potentially bankrupt the country or borrow so much money to make their dreams come true, that our great, great, grandchildren will still be paying off the debt... in their dotage!
The view of many however is that 'nationalisation', or other such government intervention should only be undertaken in those areas where national defence, health or retaining a strategic interest in an industry because of world wide conditions (e.g. presently in steel making), are required to maintain the essentials, for the safeguarding of the Country. The objective from day one should be to prepare for privatisation at a date in the future, where the burden on the state is perceived to be needed to be lifted and private investors can step in. However it seems this view is now also out of date, so combined with the naysayers on Brexit, it seems we are all heading to hell in a hand cart, with Theresa feeding the horse at one end and Jeremy is preparing to shovel the s*** at the other.
Where do we turn next?
Last edited:
You've remembered all the Tory spin of privatisation, some true some not, whilst completely missing it's central purpose, which was to raise money for the treasury, Macmillan's 'selling the family silver'. Now had the money raised been used to invest in infrastructure, or support the development of modern industry, then many more would have agreed with it, instead it went on paying for a massive increase in unemployment and bribing the voters by lowering taxes. Wasted, along with the cash from council tax sales, and the hefty increase in North sea oil revenues.
That's history now, borrowing huge sums to reverse privatisation by paying out private shareholders would possibly be even dumber.
When you see a Travel Agents that hasn't been nationalised
Who the hell are the 35% who want nationalised food???
What would that even mean?
Civil servants running Burger Franchises if you are thinking glamorous, breadlines and ration books if you're not...
Couldn't agree with you more, obviously this didn't come across in what I wrote.
Nationalisation, whatever it was for, has, in my mind had its day, although I would concede that where vital markets are effected by 'dumping', the example I gave was steel, then a case for state intervention could be made on a limited basis where such matters can effect state security.
I was thinking of the supposedly famous letter from Churchill to the Japanese government prior to Pearl harbour when he pointed out the differences in steel making capacity between the USA and Japan and that the Americans' in fact had the capability to put planes in the air faster than Japan could shoot them down! They still went ahead anyway, but true or false it makes a good story!
Maybe open doors at Westminster dining room
No, I just have never agreed with socialism and think Corbyn is devious self serving hypocrite.
He literally has 0 integrity.
If people choose to support him and believe he has good intentions, then great, but I can’t get behind the politics of envy and hate on any level.
While I think he's no saint, like any other politician, are you saying JRM and his ilk are better? At the moment, it's a choice of the least bad and Corbyn looks like he's not as awful as the Tories to most.
The fact some gullible ordinary voters think JRM's one of them is as depressing as when this happened with Trump.
Don't you think economies of scale should make the train cheaper than the car?
So I take you'd lobby for a privatised healthcare system similar to the US where something like 20% of GDP is spent on healthcare. Sounds efficient
I also don't know why you think private monopoly's or oliogopolies will not seeing vast profiteering.
What about German, Dutch and French nationionalised rail companies profiteering from British rail networks and pumping profits back into their own national rail networks? Is that good business for Britain?
That has nothing to do with nationalisation and everything to do with the size and economic capacity of the US. Also it's a bit ironic that you've mentioned a nationalised industry in the US Military that takes up a big chunk of governmental spending.
State run food banks? School meals? Meal on wheels for the elderly. Currently charities struggle pick up the slack for the welfare state.
Depends how often you catch the train, in London, I know there are plenty that would welcome TfL taking over commuter lines. As they have with TfL rail and the Overground, and from what I've gathered, they've improved the service.
I definitely see the benefits in doing so, as I do with many markets where there is a natural monopoly, it just can't or shouldn't be done so quickly.
Except he has more integrity than any politician in Westminster and is anything other than self serving or a hypocrite. He's always believed in causes and has never waivered from them and he's never looked to use his position to be 'self serving' in any way.
You're simply upset because he wants to tax the wealthy (perhaps yourself) to fund combating poverty. But you don't have to be completely dishonest because you're upset.
BTW he's not envious, he simply wants to tax the rich and probably should bring in more wealth taxes into his fiscal planning.
So welfare, education and social care...
The poll suggests nationalisation of the food industry.
Nationalization of utilities people cannot live without is certainly worth debate. Water and power being the main ones of course. Food would be in theory, but can't because of the way we consume as a species. With water and power though, there can't ever be a situation where people are priced out of the market or where private companies decisions Allan determine availability. There will always have to be safeguards to ensure full accessibility regardless, so putting them in private hands is always going to be artificially moderated by the state anyhow. May as well just have them state run, with incentives for efficient management. I don't know why we haven't approached nationalization like that anyway. In the private sector the motivating factors are profit and efficiency, so why not put efficiency of delivery as the management key delivery objectives and have bonuses/firing conditions tied to those anyway. Why does it have to become 'jobs for life/heavy unionization' just because it's state owned.
Whatever is nationalised under Labour will be later privatised by the Tories at knockdown prices. They will then use the proceeds to buy another term or two while the wealthy reap the dividends. Same old, same old...
No, read what I said about what's wrong with nationalisation ( except funnily enough NOT the NHS!)
Of course they will, its up to the Government to prevent this, but not via nationalisation, its not the answer to everything!
If they run them efficiently and cheaper than we can do it then yes its is good business for Britain, we get the service level we require at a cost we cannot provide ourselves, I would say a 'win-win'!
So you spotted that did you, well done.
I was simply using the 'Churchill letter' story to refer to the value of a country having a steel production capacity, enabling it to manufacture armaments when necessary, to defend its self
It shouldn't be, but the trouble is when the Government is the direct employer its open to 'political pressure' which often means acquiescing to whatever or whoever protest group shouts the loudest, by and large the private employer will have a better chance of resisting such pressures, because if its forced down a route where it cannot make a return on its investment, it will withdraw its capital and seek other areas for investment. Generally most of its employees know this and have to moderate demands.
In the past a culture of 'jobs for life' was created within state run organisations and then protected by ensuring 'closed shop' unionisation. Private enterprise can work but only if the Government applies proper oversight and regulation, to stop profiteering and ensure the national interest.
At the moment the public perception seems to be that in many areas like energy, railways, etc. this proper oversight is not being exercised by Government, hence the clamour for nationalisation. The question that should be considered is 'if the Government cannot regulate a sector or an organisations activities properly, that is in the national interest, then what makes anyone think they would be able to run the actual enterprise properly in the national interest?
Last edited:
Political pressure doesn't come from thin air but has an underlying idea. If the idea is good it should be implemented and vice versa. You don't want a.) privat employers to not give a feck about a legitimate claim, equally you don't b.) want a public employer to enforce an idiotic one. Either way political pressure isn't really an argument, because in case a.) politics should regulate anyway. Normally public employers give their workers better deals in exchange for higher prices. Whether that's ok or not should be debated in politics.
Re your question: if the govt. can't properly oversight it's probably down to a lack of political will not the absence of apt concepts or their implementation.
The key question is much more: is there functioning competition on these markets?
I think most do at a senior level, certainly in the NHS. Such targets have their issues as you'll see short term planning and as a consequence a high turn over of leadership.
Is it even true that a job for life applies at senior levels in the public sector? I'd say its at a lower level because it's hard to get rid of staff public or private when they're heavily unionised.
It's the answer to markets without competition of strategic importance. Otherwise those markets will be inefficent ones for consumers. Unless you believe in price capping
Well obviously we can provide a cheaper service through nationalisation if other countries national rail can provide the same service at a profit. Unless you think the British are incapable for some reason.
That's just an ideal though and just as ridiculous as the claims that nationalisation solves everything, if that was true then yeah privitisation would be great but there's clearly not common place.
Tendered companies will always go for the minimum viable service to increase their profits and when its a basic service that the state relies on then that spells disaster. No agreed service levels can fully resolve that conflict and that's the same whether the government or private enterprise tender services.
Of course but who decides what is a good idea and what is not?
The trouble is that every political party has its dogma, which it believes tells it what are good ideas and what are not. Every company has what it believes are good ideas to help its aim to make as much money as possible, every employee as his or her own idea about what he/she thinks is a decent wage, every consumer has ideas about what they consider is a great service or first class product and they can get it for as little as possible, admittedly some consumers might be prepared to pay a bit more, if for example its part of fair trade arrangements, but not the poor, they want 'bang for their buck', they have no choice.
So who decides what is a good idea? Who is total neutral in their approach? Who is fair? Probably in the final analysis its the courts, but who can afford to take a claim to court? what basis will the court use to make a judgement, presumably its based on the law of the land? Who makes the laws... back to politics, everything is affected by politics at some point or other?
Political Pressure and Political Will, drive everything, I would like to think Political Sense comes into it as well but consensual politics doesn't seem to work in Britain, e.g. even when everyone seemingly agrees there are problems with our NHS, we cannot get a consensus... why because of politics!
How does nationalisation induce competition of strategic importance?
Surely there would be no one to compete with, the consumer would have to take what the Government offered and like it? ["You can have any colour you like, as long as its black!" quote from Henry Ford and his Model T car]
The Government could raise prices, cut supplies (e.g. power supplies, the 3 day week in the 1970's), as it wished, it could in the extreme, force people to behave how it wanted (George Orwell 1984?) or deny them access to whatever!
A totalitarian state in the making, is that what Jeremy wants?
My lord you are a poor poster.
First you are strongly against nationalisation now you seem to reveal that you don't actually know that much about it altogether. Nationalisation obviously doesn't build on competition but on the absence of it. It has also nothing to do with totalitarian tendencies.
No sorry, ( see WackyWengerWorld # report 8551 21.50 yesterday) this poster claimed other countries were running our railways and ploughing the profits back into their own, so its not ridiculous. If someone can run our railways efficiently and do it cheaper than we can, then that's a 'win-win'
It's hard to understand the current policy of public investment while private companies piggyback of it and charge you through the nose. It would be fine if either A) it was cheap, or B) the trains were fecking amazing. But neither is the case.
Whys that then, because I asked an embarrassing question, that nobody may ask of Jeremy, please do give us a break? Jeremy wants to nationalised everything he doesn't perceive is working... "its not working John, lets nationalise it". We been here 50 years ago it didn't make sense then and it doesn't now.
No, it's because you can't understand the vast difference between nationalisation and wanting a totalitarian state.
Firstly I am not against Nationalisation, the example I quoted previously was to protect Steel making production. Nationalisation takes out all opposition/competition, that's a fact, you then take it or leave it, no competition whatsoever.
Jeremy's 'song' is about the gradualism of creeping state control in every aspect of our lives, read some of his old speeches!
Do you consider our Railways to be run efficiently though? I mean there's a major investment problem there for one and poor service secondly. Or have you misunderstood and you just mean at a profit?
Privatisation does serve some well but sadly all too often its the likes of Branson who profiteer off goverment subsidies.