Labour Conference....total maddness or even possable ?
Discussion
wormus said:
Breadvan72 said:
PS: His name is Corbyn. He is a pillock.
I was actually talking about this guy...
Breadvan72 said:
Water, rail, roads, possibly aspects of aviation, energy. Arguably too important to leave to competing market forces. Most of us have little problem accepting that police, prisons, law courts, and the main schools and hospitals should be under public control. Communism does not ensue. To switch countries for a moment, when hurricanes strike, are you going to leave it to the private sector to sort out the aftermath? The market is cool, but the market can't do everything.
BV, there is no market issue affecting these matters. The principal issue is that too many privatised industries are privatised monopolies. Electricity and gas are fully open to competition, but consumers (including me) are too idle to switch. Water on the other hand is an outrage in that you are stuck with your local provider. Utilities were awful under public ownership and were heavily unionised and strike-prone. Just think about the difficulty of getting a phone, even in the early 80s. If BT had never been privatised and Labour had been in power in the 80s and 90s, do you think we would have multiple,operators choices on cellular networks? I think there would have been a single, slow network and you would have had to apply and wait for a mobile phone. There was no incentive whatsoever to provide good cusomter service.
There is force in what you say, mighty Zod, but it is wrong to assume that because X was done badly once, X2 would always be done badly in the future. Corbyn would do it badly, but I am making a wider point. To address the thread opener (who seems unaware of what happened after WW2 - perhaps not surprisingly given his or her spelling, which might suggest dyslexia, or might suggest poor education), nationalisation is possible, and it is not always necessarily bonkers. Its merits and demerits are at least arguable.
That leaves aside the subject of bailouts (sometimes AKA socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor) .
Your point about privatised monopolies is spot on. Much so-called privatisation isn't the real deal.
That leaves aside the subject of bailouts (sometimes AKA socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor) .
Your point about privatised monopolies is spot on. Much so-called privatisation isn't the real deal.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 25th September 18:31
I could live with water being nationalised. I don't have a choice of provider. Leakage rates are still very high. It isn't movable or on a grid to encourage competition.
Rail went too far and became too complex but should remain private, only simpler.
But the rest... nope.
Edit: Actually, nationalise British Airways and then we can finally kill it off for good but just not flying with them.
Rail went too far and became too complex but should remain private, only simpler.
But the rest... nope.
Edit: Actually, nationalise British Airways and then we can finally kill it off for good but just not flying with them.
NomduJour said:
Nationalised British Rail suffered from woeful underinvestment, hence why Network Rail is in the state it's in now.
Cannot believe anyone considers it viable - or this another wrong-kind-of-socialism argument?
That is not an argument against public ownership. It is an argument against under investment. The railways were knackered after the war, and remained under funded for ages. BR was just getting a bit good when it was broken up.Cannot believe anyone considers it viable - or this another wrong-kind-of-socialism argument?
Check out some European railways and see what properly run state funded infrastructure can be like.
Assuming that because a thing was done badly in the past it must be a bad thing is, I suggest, a mistake. On that basis, no one would ever buy a failing business with a view to making it a good business.
How will Labour fund the monumental investment required? Apart from bankers' bonuses etc. obviously.
Edit - travelled on trains all over Europe, can't really say the general service anywhere has been particularly impressive in relation to here
Edit - travelled on trains all over Europe, can't really say the general service anywhere has been particularly impressive in relation to here
Edited by NomduJour on Monday 25th September 19:13
Breadvan72 said:
That is not an argument against public ownership. It is an argument against under investment. The railways were knackered after the war, and remained under funded for ages. BR was just getting a bit good when it was broken up.
Check out some European railways and see what properly run state funded infrastructure can be like.
Assuming that because a thing was done badly in the past it must be a bad thing is, I suggest, a mistake. On that basis, no one would ever buy a failing business with a view to making it a good business.
SNCF is an interesting comparison though. Remarkable monuments to Mitterrand/d'Estaing (as big state projects) and have stood the test of time as services. I like travelling on them. But the regional connections have suffered and are in my experience, universally crap.Check out some European railways and see what properly run state funded infrastructure can be like.
Assuming that because a thing was done badly in the past it must be a bad thing is, I suggest, a mistake. On that basis, no one would ever buy a failing business with a view to making it a good business.
I wonder why the OP's curious (and highly articulate) anger and also why ISBN details are thought to be relevant to this thread. As for the thread title: "maddness" and "possable" might be the products of dyslexia, but I wonder.
I do get big fat royalties of Jack Bupkiss from the OUP, by the way, but that's because of the rubbish deal I signed, and not just because the book is super-boring (which it is).
I do get big fat royalties of Jack Bupkiss from the OUP, by the way, but that's because of the rubbish deal I signed, and not just because the book is super-boring (which it is).
Stickyfinger said:
Basically BV you are a snide troll......why do you feel the need to speak to people in such an insulting way ?....what is your motivation in being so unpleasant ?
He has a certain style, but I've never found it insulting. Robust. But not insulting like, say, calling someone a "prick"...If you are dyslexic, say so. If you struggle with spelling because you are poorly educated, that is not shameful, although you can expect to be chivvied for bad spelling. You can remedy poor education. The thread's opening question seemed to me to suggest that you perhaps did not know of the history of nationalisation in the UK, but perhaps you did.
Changing the quoted lines so as to replace "maddness" by "madness" and "possable" by "possible" is just plain cheesy, and also futile. The blunders in the thread title are there for all to see. You can if they bother you ask a Mod to correct them.
Changing the quoted lines so as to replace "maddness" by "madness" and "possable" by "possible" is just plain cheesy, and also futile. The blunders in the thread title are there for all to see. You can if they bother you ask a Mod to correct them.
Breadvan72 said:
The companies were not all doomed. Land Rover and Jaguar are still going.
Have you read John Egan's book Saving Jaguar? well worth a read if not.Saving it from BL mostly, but also from disinterested parts suppliers and recalcitrant unions. It's difficult to believe how much power the shop stewards had back in the 70's and 80's if you hadn't lived through it.
Vaud said:
Stickyfinger said:
Basically BV you are a snide troll......why do you feel the need to speak to people in such an insulting way ?....what is your motivation in being so unpleasant ?
He has a certain style, but I've never found it insulting. Robust. But not insulting like, say, calling someone a "prick"...Stickyfinger said:
Did you even read what he posted ?
If a "Guy in a Pub" talked to you like that.....what do you think would happen ? Down my way it would get more than a simple word.
I'd laugh and move on. Or drink with someone else. Or have a proper discussion over a drink.If a "Guy in a Pub" talked to you like that.....what do you think would happen ? Down my way it would get more than a simple word.
One of the above.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff