Jeremy Corbyn (Vol. 4)

[arguti]

Evanivitch said:

arguti said:

I could be wrong but i thought PFI was an idea dreamed up by the Major government and implemented only by Labour; Labour certainly went hell for leather for PFI, which along with the Gold and Pension debacles on Brown's watch (let's not even talk about the GFC) casts doubt on Brown's being known ad the prudent Chancellor!

You are wrong. John Major's government were active in awarding PFI deals.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul...

Data shows:
23 schemes achieved financial close before or on 01/05/1997.
Data doesn't show how many were pre-contract prior to 1997 election.
718 deals closed by 2012.

I stand corrected, thank you !

[anonymous-user]

turbobloke said:

https://fullfact.org/economy/labour-cost-nationali...

Worth quoting:

"The analysis this is based on says either one or the other of these things happens, not both. Regardless its method is disputed and doesn’t factor in the potential economic benefits of nationalisation."

In other words the arguments against it are BS.

[anonymous-user]

Dont like rolls said:

Where do you get the money from to buy that in profit business ?

Borrow it. Rates are at a historic low and the profits will more than cover the interest.

Remember that the government subsidises the railways already so basically we are just giving them money for nothing in return now. At least if we own it the money is an investment in stuff we then own.

[Digga]

kuro68k said:

Dont like rolls said:

Where do you get the money from to buy that in profit business ?

Borrow it. Rates are at a historic low and the profits will more than cover the interest.

Remember that the government subsidises the railways already so basically we are just giving them money for nothing in return now. At least if we own it the money is an investment in stuff we then own.

You're probably too young...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zV2lmSDKvO8

[anonymous-user]

Earthdweller said:

Brilliant .. yet it’s not costed

All costed here: https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/F...

By the way, where is the Tory grey book laying out their costings for their fake 50,000 new nurses and the 20,000 police they want to re-hire after firing them?

[vaud]

Earthdweller said:

All to provide buses nobody uses going to places nobody wants to go to !

I think urban bus routes are an issue and some people are seriously disenfranchised as routes get cut. Some routes by their very nature will always be loss making. Question is, how do sustain what for some people is a vital service?

[surveyor]

The theory of state owning essential services is great. But it has not worked in the past and will not work in the future.

We can see the chaos involved in infrastructure investment through HS2, HS3, Cross-rail. Politicians just want to give all investment to NHS as it headlines well. Imagine these schemes x many many others...

[Munter]

vaud said:

I think urban bus routes are an issue and some people are seriously disenfranchised as routes get cut. Some routes by their very nature will always be loss making. Question is, how do sustain what for some people is a vital service?

You give them Taxis. Well first you build a strong economy, then you pay out the benefit to those who need it. Which in this case would probably be best served by paying a taxi firm to pick up Mrs Scroggins from her village 2 or 3 times a week.

[Mothersruin]

surveyor said:

The theory of state owning essential services is great. But it has not worked in the past and will not work in the future.

We can see the chaos involved in infrastructure investment through HS2, HS3, Cross-rail. Politicians just want to give all investment to NHS as it headlines well. Imagine these schemes x many many others...

If we imagine the State machine to have their brightest and best heading up the Government, then it goes without saying that those below won't be as good.

So they won't be as good as Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbott, Crayons, Wrong Daily, etc... because the good people will be clever enough to not go anywhere near it.

[Earthdweller]

kuro68k said:

All costed here: https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/F...

By the way, where is the Tory grey book laying out their costings for their fake 50,000 new nurses and the 20,000 police they want to re-hire after firing them?

Not mentioned at all .. I’ve just read it

Certainly not costed as there is absolutely no mention of it at all

[turbobloke]

kuro68k said:

turbobloke said:

https://fullfact.org/economy/labour-cost-nationali...

Worth quoting:

"The analysis this is based on says either one or the other of these things happens, not both. Regardless its method is disputed and doesn’t factor in the potential economic benefits of nationalisation."

In other words the arguments against it are BS.

Worth selective quoting and selective viewing of link material.

"Labour plans to issue government bonds to pay for the companies so while public debt will increase, so will the value of public assets" interest doesn't get added to the asset value which won't remain constant.

Legality: see FT, will it help: see Independent.

[Burwood]

Kuro, why do you think Nationalising is a good idea? How will the public benefit from it? It's a simple question-can you comment?

[freakybacon]

Burwood said:

Kuro, why do you think Nationalising is a good idea? How will the public benefit from it? It's a simple question-can you comment?

Also, how will the Labour government be able to nationalise any industries at all, bearing in mind it would be against European Union competition rules?

[ORD]

It’s going to be mighty close. I’m well into squeaky bum time.

[Dont like rolls]

Burwood said:

Kuro, why do you think Nationalising is a good idea? How will the public benefit from it? It's a simple question-can you comment?

It is a great system. Jezza told me so. I also do not remember it being done before so it must have been the nasty Tory's that got rid of it.

[Earthdweller]

Munter said:

vaud said:

I think urban bus routes are an issue and some people are seriously disenfranchised as routes get cut. Some routes by their very nature will always be loss making. Question is, how do sustain what for some people is a vital service?

You give them Taxis. Well first you build a strong economy, then you pay out the benefit to those who need it. Which in this case would probably be best served by paying a taxi firm to pick up Mrs Scroggins from her village 2 or 3 times a week.

Taxi’s provided for the needy is probably the way to go

Lots of buses running all over the place is harking back to the 70’s

As a kid in the 70’s my estate on the edge of cotton town was provided with a corporation bus every 15 minutes

I went to school on the bus, my dad went to work on the bus, we did have a car but very few did and ours was used sparingly

Now today you can’t move down that estate for cars parked everywhere and most houses have several, many of the front gardens have been paved over to provide additional car parking

The bus service was finally withdrawn a few years ago

There surely is a smarter way today

[vaud]

Given the growth of courier services, maybe a modern day post bus?

e.g. run by Amazon - part courier van, part bus. Amazon get great PR to offset a sightly dubious image.

[anonymous-user]

To put PFI in context total liabilities were in the region of 5bn in 1997 but ballooned to nearly 300bn by 2010 under Blair/Brown.

[andymadmak]

kuro68k said:

I get that different kinds of borrowing can be confusing, so let me try to help. If you buy a watch on credit that's a pretty bad debt. The watch is depreciating and doesn't generate any income for you. If you buy a business though that business keeps making money and the banks looks at it as an asset rather than a hole in your finances.

Oh my.

[pingu393]

Dr Jekyll said:

kuro68k said:

Strange, he's been very specific about that and the manifesto and grey book lay it out in even more detail. Perhaps you should get your hearing checked.

The railways are all on franchises so they can do what they did last time the government "bought" one, just wait for it to expire and then award it to themselves. Invest in a company to take over that franchise and the profits will cover the cost of any borrowing required, with the rest going into investment.

I get that different kinds of borrowing can be confusing, so let me try to help. If you buy a watch on credit that's a pretty bad debt. The watch is depreciating and doesn't generate any income for you. If you buy a business though that business keeps making money and the banks looks at it as an asset rather than a hole in your finances.

But why is paying interest to the creditors who put the money up perfectly acceptable, while paying dividends to the investors who put the money up bad?

With Government Bonds, nobody puts the money up.

An annual (non-index-linked) "dividend" of a certain (as yet undefined) percentage is paid. After a certain (as yet undefined period), the bond value is repaid by the Government.

It is a no-brainer if you are the lender, especially if you are not going to be around when the bond needs to be repaid.

The only advantage for the poor sod who is forced to swap a Government Bond for shares is a guaranteed (in cash terms) annual payment.

Everyone who has one of these bonds will have their future income eroded by inflation.



If the Government issued a 30-year £100M bond at 1.5%, it will cost the Government £1.5M cash per year for 30 years, and they then pay £100M cash to the bond holder in 30 year's time.

2% annual inflation is 81% devaluation over 30 years, so the repayment is only worth £55M in today's terms.