Labour Conference....total maddness or even possable ?
Discussion
andymadmak said:
right up until the money started to run out....and the publicly owned industries were starved of the investment they needed if they were to modernise and adapt to remain in any way competitive.
By the 1970s the effects of that lack of investment became acute as Governments of the day grappled with the demands that money be spent on other parts of the economy/public services. This, coupled with crap products, terrible management, bolshy Unions (who felt that they could hold the country to ransom on behalf of their members) meant that publicly owned industries were a national disgrace.
Can you imagine the state of modern day telecommunications in this country if the GPO was still in charge of it?
By the 1970s the effects of that lack of investment became acute as Governments of the day grappled with the demands that money be spent on other parts of the economy/public services. This, coupled with crap products, terrible management, bolshy Unions (who felt that they could hold the country to ransom on behalf of their members) meant that publicly owned industries were a national disgrace.
Can you imagine the state of modern day telecommunications in this country if the GPO was still in charge of it?
98elise said:
Unfortunately they promising lots of "free" stuff to self entitled people who don't realise they will be paying for it anyway.
Anyone old enough to remember nationalised industries will know how crap they were. Anyone who has ever worked in the Public Sector will know things are no different now.
Dont have to pay for it if you dont have a job/earn below the threshold though sillyAnyone old enough to remember nationalised industries will know how crap they were. Anyone who has ever worked in the Public Sector will know things are no different now.
Breadvan72 said:
I think that Corbyn and McD are idiots, but leave them aside for a moment.
Back in the mid 1940s, lots of stuff was nationalised, and the sky failed to fall. Indeed, things went quite well for quite a bit. Much of the so called privatisation of the last few decades hasn't been real privatisation - it has been conjuring with balance sheets. Much risk has remained with the public (sometimes with reward going elsewhere). Recent events show that even banks can get nationalised without Communism suddenly happening.
EU State aid rules would, however, pose some potential hurdles to some models of nationalisation. The EU is widely mistaken for a socialist thing, but in fact it is a capitalist thing, which is why Corbyn is a Brexiteer. I reiterate that Corbyn is an idiot.
Are you really comparing post War (im assuming you mean post war) Britain when the country was on its knees to todays modern world?Back in the mid 1940s, lots of stuff was nationalised, and the sky failed to fall. Indeed, things went quite well for quite a bit. Much of the so called privatisation of the last few decades hasn't been real privatisation - it has been conjuring with balance sheets. Much risk has remained with the public (sometimes with reward going elsewhere). Recent events show that even banks can get nationalised without Communism suddenly happening.
EU State aid rules would, however, pose some potential hurdles to some models of nationalisation. The EU is widely mistaken for a socialist thing, but in fact it is a capitalist thing, which is why Corbyn is a Brexiteer. I reiterate that Corbyn is an idiot.
andymadmak said:
right up until the money started to run out....and the publicly owned industries were starved of the investment they needed if they were to modernise and adapt to remain in any way competitive.
By the 1970s the effects of that lack of investment became acute as Governments of the day grappled with the demands that money be spent on other parts of the economy/public services. This, coupled with crap products, terrible management, bolshy Unions (who felt that they could hold the country to ransom on behalf of their members) meant that publicly owned industries were a national disgrace.
Can you imagine the state of modern day telecommunications in this country if the GPO was still in charge of it?
BT are a fine example of what exactly?By the 1970s the effects of that lack of investment became acute as Governments of the day grappled with the demands that money be spent on other parts of the economy/public services. This, coupled with crap products, terrible management, bolshy Unions (who felt that they could hold the country to ransom on behalf of their members) meant that publicly owned industries were a national disgrace.
Can you imagine the state of modern day telecommunications in this country if the GPO was still in charge of it?
Stickyfinger said:
BigRedMac wants to:
Nationalise RAIL : WATER : ENERGY : MAIL
Add to the above , Pay-Cap & "Controlling" Loans/costs
edit: NO pay cap for everybody....oh and we will control inflation as well !
and other spend spend spend, or is it investment.
Will Labour win votes ?
Is the above possible due to Eu rules, is this why they/we are going to also leave the Eu under Labour (if) they get in ?
What you didn't mention is that they are not necessarily going to pay full market value for them either. "Vote Labour for the confiscation of your pension fund"Nationalise RAIL : WATER : ENERGY : MAIL
Add to the above , Pay-Cap & "Controlling" Loans/costs
edit: NO pay cap for everybody....oh and we will control inflation as well !
and other spend spend spend, or is it investment.
Will Labour win votes ?
Is the above possible due to Eu rules, is this why they/we are going to also leave the Eu under Labour (if) they get in ?
That said not particularly bothered about water as it is a natural monopoly. Energy isn't and neither is mail services so both should stay private.
Oakey said:
They'll rip up contracts for PFI hospitals and schools too. Also they wanted to have Jeremy give his speech from a platform in the sea to give the appearance of walking on water. I thought that last bit was from the Mash but it was in the Telegraph
What is your point exactly?Europa1 said:
Zod said:
He was really not very good on Today this morning. He looks shifty for the way he's trying to distance himself from the uber debacle and he's weak on the subject of the EU. He talked about the concept of not having access to the single market. That's North Korea territory. Everyone has access. It's a question of tariffs and non-tariff barriers. He needs to be better briefed and he should take responsibility for the uber situation and for resolving it. Uber is a big vote loser for him. Siding with the vested interests of the unions and the LTDA to kill a service used by younger Londoners (and me) and put 40,000 people out of work is not a good look.
I heard him on Today during the election campaign and he wasn't very good then either - talked about renationalising utilities without increasing the national debt. When questioned on this, he said a Labour government would issue bonds to pay for it. This from the man who would be chancellor. Oh, and parliament will apparently set the price to be paid for the shares in these companies - that should end well.JagLover said:
What you didn't mention is that they are not necessarily going to pay full market value for them either. "Vote Labour for the confiscation of your pension fund"
That said not particularly bothered about water as it is a natural monopoly. Energy isn't and neither is mail services so both should stay private.
Genuine question, why do you see water as a natural monopoly but energy not? I can see that there may be competition between the different types of energy, but personally, I would see the gas and electricity markets as natural monopolies.That said not particularly bothered about water as it is a natural monopoly. Energy isn't and neither is mail services so both should stay private.
Frankthered said:
Genuine question, why do you see water as a natural monopoly but energy not? I can see that there may be competition between the different types of energy, but personally, I would see the gas and electricity markets as natural monopolies.
Perhaps I should clarify that the production of energy, whether that be generation of electricity or gas, is not a natural monopoly. Rovinghawk said:
Oakey said:
They'll rip up contracts for PFI hospitals and schools too.
So a government with a reputation for reneging on deals- that'll play well when they want to make future contracts.JagLover said:
Frankthered said:
Genuine question, why do you see water as a natural monopoly but energy not? I can see that there may be competition between the different types of energy, but personally, I would see the gas and electricity markets as natural monopolies.
Perhaps I should clarify that the production of energy, whether that be generation of electricity or gas, is not a natural monopoly. andymadmak said:
Breadvan72 said:
Back in the mid 1940s, lots of stuff was nationalised, and the sky failed to fall. Indeed, things went quite well for quite a bit.
By the 1970s the effects of that lack of investment became acute as Governments of the day grappled with the demands that money be spent on other parts of the economy/public services. This, coupled with crap products, terrible management, bolshy Unions (who felt that they could hold the country to ransom on behalf of their members) meant that publicly owned industries were a national disgrace.
Can you imagine the state of modern day telecommunications in this country if the GPO was still in charge of it?
There are a small number of sectors that were ridiculous to privatise IMO. Water is the standout one. Rail infrastructure was probably another.
But on the whole, nationalising only proved that over the longer term nationalising doesn't work.
The terms of the privatisations should have been addressed much better. But to do most of them was right.
I doubt Sadiq would get past the Momentum lot. The other Milliband is who they need. But I doubt he would get past Momentum either.
The ignorance of postwar history displayed here and elsewhere in NPE is sad.
BL was nationalised because it had failed as a private sector business. There was no lefty ideology involved. It was a bail out. Remember those? The post war nationalisations concerned assets that it was thought should be under public control - water, rail, coal, and so on. Coal is over, but there remain good arguments for having some things in public hands, on the basis that they are too important to be left to the vagaries of markets. Water, roads, rail and some other things could be included.
Back to BL: it did indeed struggle because of lack of investment (this having been a thing that set in during the private sector days), and it struggled because of bad management and over aggressive unions that filled voids left by bad management. My father was a Production Engineer based at Rover just before the Honda hook-up. Honda engineers came to visit and asked when the factory had last retooled. The answer was 1946. The Honda guys said that they retooled their factories every eight years. Rover had not been in public ownership for all of the period 1946 to 1980, so place blame where blame is due.
BL's products were mixed (and too numerous), but included some that could have been world leaders if properly developed - some of the design and engineering was very fine (some, not all). Nationalised BL invented the SUV (Range Rover). Nationalised BL invented the supermini (Metro). (The other game changers, Land Rover and Mini, were private sector inventions). As it was, BL underwent a turnaround in the late 70s and early 80s, (not helped by attempts to micro manage from Whitehall; and even from Downing Street). Michael Edwardes' book "Back from the Brink" is worth a read.
BL was nationalised because it had failed as a private sector business. There was no lefty ideology involved. It was a bail out. Remember those? The post war nationalisations concerned assets that it was thought should be under public control - water, rail, coal, and so on. Coal is over, but there remain good arguments for having some things in public hands, on the basis that they are too important to be left to the vagaries of markets. Water, roads, rail and some other things could be included.
Back to BL: it did indeed struggle because of lack of investment (this having been a thing that set in during the private sector days), and it struggled because of bad management and over aggressive unions that filled voids left by bad management. My father was a Production Engineer based at Rover just before the Honda hook-up. Honda engineers came to visit and asked when the factory had last retooled. The answer was 1946. The Honda guys said that they retooled their factories every eight years. Rover had not been in public ownership for all of the period 1946 to 1980, so place blame where blame is due.
BL's products were mixed (and too numerous), but included some that could have been world leaders if properly developed - some of the design and engineering was very fine (some, not all). Nationalised BL invented the SUV (Range Rover). Nationalised BL invented the supermini (Metro). (The other game changers, Land Rover and Mini, were private sector inventions). As it was, BL underwent a turnaround in the late 70s and early 80s, (not helped by attempts to micro manage from Whitehall; and even from Downing Street). Michael Edwardes' book "Back from the Brink" is worth a read.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff