Who to vote for?

[TheArtfulDogger]

Yesterday I saw a Twitter hashtag I've never seen before #gove gan

I thought is gove running for PM of something weird then I read it again

#govegan (go vegan)

Doh

[Hemingway]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But it won't be the Labour Party running those

> nationalised companies Fishbiscuits. It will be

> people who know how to run large companies and

> ideally keep them in the black. Some things, like

> transport however, will always be subsidised, but

> at present we are subsidising private franchises

> while they make good profits.

>

> As for debt, like all borrowing, investment is a

> good option that ideally pays for itself over

> time. We are in a race to the bottom economy at

> the moment with a public who want tax cuts AND

> better public services. Sooner or later, things

> like adult social care are really going to bite

> and there will be no option but for increased

> borrowing for any party if they want to win

> elections.

But this doesn't happen. They tend to make political appointments, top quality management aren't really that motivated by nationalised industries; the lack of competition especially and the profit motive tend to drive inefficiencies; investment in the private sector the risk is (normally - the banking crisis was an exception!) with the shareholders, bondholder or lender; in nationalisation its the tax payer and there's nor really jeopardy. All very well meaning nationalisation is but we, the consumer end up with less choice; and in general the nationalised industries are inefficient, uninnovative and lack much incentive to be creative, competitive etc. and too often are a drain on the tax payer. The public support for renationalisation confounds me. I suspect it's a lack of memory or experience. They were generally shit for the customer and a drain on the public purse. Think anyone under 50 is going to have to experience this to believe it!

[Hemingway]

PS I'm ABC by the way, partly as I really don't believe their economic policies will work and probably be disastrous. But more importantly the AS is disgusting. Labour voters can get off their self-righteous, supposed moral high ground, high horses as far as I'm concerned.

[Captain Marvel]

Some will remember the triumph (pun intended) that was a nationalised British Leyland as all those great marques went into foreign ownership

Jaguar, Land Rover, and Rover, the Mini, MG, Triumph, Wolesley, Morris and Austin

A lot of the problems were foreign competition and crap design but most of it was shite management... and Red Robbo of course

So, a workers' utopia of nationalised industries, empowered unions, un incentivised work force, sub standard managers and socialist overlords. What could possibly go wrong?

[Jules-and-Boo]

what could possibly go wrong? compare with how things are right now

[JohnL]

Captain Marvel Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Some will remember the triumph (pun intended) that

> was a nationalised British Leyland as all those

> great marques went into foreign ownership

If you read the Wiki page there were many problems well before nationalisation.

Notice the line "there were multiple single points of failure in the company's production network which meant that a strike in a single plant could stop many of the others. Both Ford and General Motors had mitigated against this years before by merging their previously separate British and German subsidiaries and product lines"

Anyway BL improved from 1975 to 1980 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Leyland

and this was the end

"In 1988, the business was sold by the UK Government to British Aerospace (BAe), and shortly afterwards shortened its name to just Rover Group. It subsequently sold the business to BMW, which, after initially seeking to retain the whole business, decided to only retain the Cowley operations for Mini production and close the Longbridge plant. Longbridge, along with the Rover and MG marques, was taken on by MG Rover which went into administration in April 2005."

[Captain Marvel]

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> what could possibly go wrong? compare with how

> things are right now

How are things right now Jules or Boo? We don't have a UK owned car industry

And thank you John, you and Wiki are correct that there were multiple problems before nationalisation and there was improvement but it didn't and couldn't last. Lack of investment, foreign competition, union wars and bad management saw to that. So in future we'll have bad managers and bureaucrats.

How do you think a free broadband industry will work when there is no incentive to invest in it because there is no return on investment?

And name me one successful UK nationalised industry

[Sephiroth]

"And name me one successful UK nationalised industry"

Isn't a better question - why do you have to put UK in there?

Because outside the UK there are many - some of them own UK privatised industry

Why can't the UK be successful at it?

[Captain Marvel]

You tell me

[DulwichFox]

Captain Marvel Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > what could possibly go wrong? compare with how

> > things are right now

>

>

> How are things right now Jules or Boo? We don't

> have a UK owned car industry

>

> And thank you John, you and Wiki are correct that

> there were multiple problems before

> nationalisation and there was improvement but it

> didn't and couldn't last. Lack of investment,

> foreign competition, union wars and bad management

> saw to that. So in future we'll have bad managers

> and bureaucrats.

>

> How do you think a free broadband industry will

> work when there is no incentive to invest in it

> because there is no return on investment?

>

> And name me one successful UK nationalised

> industry

The BBC ??

[Captain Marvel]

When the BBC declares it no longer needs to survive on a tax, I'll agree with that

[fishbiscuits]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But it won't be the Labour Party running those

> nationalised companies Fishbiscuits. It will be

> people who know how to run large companies and

> ideally keep them in the black.

> As for debt, like all borrowing, investment is a

> good option that ideally pays for itself over time.

But I don't think these purchases can be viewed as traditional investments. Certainly not Royal Mail - which will probably have to be bought at above fair price, with dubious long-term prospects. And presumably the Openreach purchase price will need to be completely written off. So... IMO the "funding" is still a massive question mark.

Rail is a bit different, as franchise renewal (or lack of) provides a bit of a clearer path.. and I have to admit I've warmed to it a bit in recent times.

I really just wish they'd chosen their targets a bit more carefully.

[diable rouge]

Captain Marvel Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You tell me

A majority of Tory Govs over the years with a propensity to be hostile to nationalised companies can't have helped...

[Captain Marvel]

So that's the reason they have all been expensive disasters is it?

If politicians had any business acumen they'd be in business

[diable rouge]

Captain Marvel Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So that's the reason they have all been expensive

> disasters is it?

I didn't say that at all. What we do know is that if you underfund the NHS you get a crappy NHS, underfund the police force and you get a crappy police force, and so on.

> If politicians had any business acumen they'd be

> in business

Doesn't follow that they would be successful in business though, likewise when someone successful in business turns their hand to politics...

[cella]

When you look at all the private companies who have been handed public service contracts who turn out to be rubbish e.g. Corillion, Serco etc yet senior staff still walk away with massive bonuses and leave the debris and staffing casualties to the public sector to clean up, not sure this works either.

[Captain Marvel]

> > So that's the reason they have all been

> expensive

> > disasters is it?

>

> I didn't say that at all. What we do know is that

> if you underfund the NHS you get a crappy NHS,

> underfund the police force and you get a crappy

> police force, and so on.

>

> > If politicians had any business acumen they'd

> be

> > in business

>

> Doesn't follow that they would be successful in

> business though, likewise when someone successful

> in business turns their hand to politics...

You're dodging around a bit here. NHS, police, schools aren't what is meant by 'nationalised industries' and as services, however much you plough into them they will blame failure on underfunding and ask for more.

[Captain Marvel]

cella Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> When you look at all the private companies who

> have been handed public service contracts who turn

> out to be rubbish e.g. Corillion, Serco etc yet

> senior staff still walk away with massive bonuses

> and leave the debris and staffing casualties to

> the public sector to clean up, not sure this works

> either.

Of course no one wants that but I need it explained to me why nationalising Openreach and giving away free broadband doesn't destroy the sector.

It will give free broadband to people who can readily afford it and necessitate a tax to cover the cost of providing it to those who can't. Oh, and perhaps they need a laptop to use it on.

Other broadband companies won't compete with a free service and Virgin's infrastructure will be expensively rented out to 'Britband' unless McDonnell is going to nationalise that too.

It's an ill considered disaster in the making and a measure of people who have no clue.

[Spartacus]

Details of how labour will pay for all their promises are coming out now

Tax the rich equates to

Those earning over ?80,000

Removal of married couples tax allowance

Raid on inheritance allowance

None of this is going to effect the common person in the street is it? Unless you are married or you inherit anything.

🤔

[Blah Blah]

Those earning over 80k are just 10%, so not really a vote loser that one. The other two affect far more people and definitely are vote losers. It comes back to this culture we have of seeing tax as bad and expecting lower variations of it AND better public services. Something will have to give sooner or later, to pay for adult social care and other looming crisis. And while Corbyn may not be the solution, a debate absolutely needs to be had and won around tax and spend that focuses on better overall outcomes and not the 'what's in it for me' mantra that dominates free market political debate.

Just back on the points above around nationalisation. There is no reason to think whatsoever that nationalisation today will resemble anything that existed in the 70s and before. There is a big difference between state owned companies trading in a global free market and state owned monopoly that shuts out any competition. One of the myths of the left around the EU for example has been that members states can not renationalise a company, when actually it is the monopolisation of a sector that is against EU rules. So whilst I take on board the points about workers ownership, incentivisation and unions made above, it also has to be pointed out that the opposite of that, wage suppression, zero hours contracts, and tax avoidance on profits sent offshore, also have consequences that are bad for the economy. We need to pull back from that too.

[diable rouge]

Captain Marvel Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You're dodging around a bit here. NHS, police,

> schools aren't what is meant by 'nationalised

> industries' and as services, however much you

> plough into them they will blame failure on

> underfunding and ask for more.

I didn't say the NHS etc were nationalised industries, I was merely giving examples of what happens when you underinvest, same applies to private companies.

I'm not pro-nationalisation for the sake of it, but I don't think it should be dismissed either, and it's lazy to keep harping back to ''look what happened in the '70's''. As BB points out it's a completely different market place now which includes successful nationalised companies, let's learn why they have been successful and can it be reciprocated in the UK.

To me the Labour manifesto is Corbyn's last hurrah before he leaves the political stage, either by resigning should Johnson get a majority, or a coalition Gov falling once a 2nd Ref has taken place. So the whole nationalisation argument is a bit of a moot point...

[Jules-and-Boo]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Those earning over 80k are just 10%, so not really

> a vote loser that one. The other two affect far

> more people and definitely are vote losers. It

> comes back to this culture we have of seeing tax

> as bad and expecting lower variations of it AND

> better public services. Something will have to

> give sooner or later, to pay for adult social care

> and other looming crisis. And while Corbyn may not

> be the solution, a debate absolutely needs to be

> had and won around tax and spend that focuses on

> better overall outcomes and not the 'what's in it

> for me' mantra that dominates free market

> political debate.

>

> Just back on the points above around

> nationalisation. There is no reason to think

> whatsoever that nationalisation today will

> resemble anything that existed in the 70s and

> before. There is a big difference between state

> owned companies trading in a global free market

> and state owned monopoly that shuts out any

> competition. One of the myths of the left around

> the EU for example has been that members states

> can not renationalise a company, when actually it

> is the monopolisation of a sector that is against

> EU rules. So whilst I take on board the points

> about workers ownership, incentivisation and

> unions made above, it also has to be pointed out

> that the opposite of that, wage suppression, zero

> hours contracts, and tax avoidance on profits sent

> offshore, also have consequences that are bad for

> the economy. We need to pull back from that too.

This makes total sense. People want more in their pocket and more investment in Infrastrure, police NHS services etc but don't see the correlation.

The real issue it the wasting of money - how spend is prioritised, how it is monitored and controlled (Garden Bridge for example, Crossrail).

Nationalisation would mean that funding can be reinvested rather than syphoned off to private investors and would mean that the priorities of the companies are no longer to make money for shareholders but to run a service.

[Captain Marvel]

'let's learn why they have been successful and can it be reciprocated in the UK.'

Surely this is no time for experimentation. I cannot think of a single UK exportable nationalised industry that has ever existed or of those proposed ever could. The idea that 'Britband' could start taking market share from anything in Europe is laughable.

And as for the utilities...

[Jules-and-Boo]

Surely this is very much a time to pick up practices that work well elsewhere

[Earl Aelfheah]

I can't believe Johnson is going to walk back into government, rip a hole in our constitution and destroy existing trade arrangements whilst claiming that Labour are radical extremists. There is nothing more extreme than Brexit.