Reply to: Nationalize everything!

[Purple Dalek]

I actually disagree, I think we should do away with railways.

The government are incapable of running a bath, much less a railway. I remember what they were like before privatisation.

Rip up the tracks, tarmac the routes, and reserve them for the use of coaches only. Plus Labour politicians in their Zils of course.

Gotcha, now that is one of threaded's sock-puppets for sure.

[Mich the Tester]

There is no such thing as non profit. If the railways are run by the public sector they may indeed not show that they are being run for hard cash, but they will most certainly be run for what I call "hidden profit"

Who will profit?

Firstly the government. They will ultimately control the money that goes into the rail and will probably spend it according to what influences voters.
Secondly it willl profit those who run it. These people will seek to exploit their monopoly to become unaccountable, to screw as much money as they can and to silence the consumer. Thirdly come those who work on the railways. They will exploit their power to protect their jobs, get as much money as they can, and not be responsible to either their bosses or to the consumer.

So if you fools STILL believe after all these years of corruption and incompetence, that this or any other govt is either capable or willing to run anything for the benefit of anyone other than themselves, then frankly you deserve whatever govt dishes out.

Yep, I would have agreed with you before I left the UK but I’ve seen well run, efficient railway systems all over Europe, in the hands of the government. Here in NL we had a brilliant public transport system until someone decided, without any real desire from the public, that it had to be split up and half-privatised. It is now the worst of both worlds. Corporate managers taking huge bonuses while running down services and maintenance, and at the same time it’s still largely a state run monopoly that costs the public more than ever.

Is the truth actually that British governments in general are incapable of running things like railways and energy networks, while some other governments are capable of running these things quite well?

[Doggy Styles]

I actually agree, i think the rail network also should be public non profit not private profit run.

I actually disagree, I think we should do away with railways.

The government are incapable of running a bath, much less a railway. I remember what they were like before privatisation.

Rip up the tracks, tarmac the routes, and reserve them for the use of coaches only. Plus Labour politicians in their Zils of course.

[DodgyAgent]

I actually agree, i think the rail network also should be public non profit not private profit run.

There is no such thing as non profit. If the railways are run by the public sector they may indeed not show that they are being run for hard cash, but they will most certainly be run for what I call "hidden profit"

Who will profit?

Firstly the government. They will ultimately control the money that goes into the rail and will probably spend it according to what influences voters.
Secondly it willl profit those who run it. These people will seek to exploit their monopoly to become unaccountable, to screw as much money as they can and to silence the consumer. Thirdly come those who work on the railways. They will exploit their power to protect their jobs, get as much money as they can, and not be responsible to either their bosses or to the consumer.

So if you fools STILL believe after all these years of corruption and incompetence, that this or any other govt is either capable or willing to run anything for the benefit of anyone other than themselves, then frankly you deserve whatever govt dishes out.

[expat]

I actually agree, i think the rail network also should be public non profit not private profit run.

It has become painfully obvious that the old phrase "natural monopoly" and the corresponding idea that they should eb state-run, was absolutely right.

What are the advantages of privatised energy, water, postal services, railways ....?

[Mich the Tester]

When Brown arrived it got harder. Being more socialist than Blair wasn't hard, anybody left of Attila the Hun would do. Being more socialist than Brown would be a tricky job for most of the Labour Party.

So if the people want a socialist alternative, it's back on the menu for the next election. I can hardly wait, should be fun!

Can’t we have a sort of ´not-really-any-ism-ist’ but at least financially competent alternative?

[NetwkSupport]

I'm not a millipede fan, but I think he is right. The energy industry is too important to be left to the private sector. That is, one run by shareholders that look about one dividend ahead.

I actually agree, i think the rail network also should be public non profit not private profit run.

[expat]

I think you are right, timing is everything.

The current problems with the banking system etc etc have come about, not because recent government policy in this area has been too far to the left, but exactly because, through de-regulation etc, that policy hasnt been "left wing" enough.

People are seeing that. ...

Which leaves the tories in an intresting position. If the electorate are ready for a bit of socialism, how do they move to out labour labour?

When Brown arrived it got harder. Being more socialist than Blair wasn't hard, anybody left of Attila the Hun would do. Being more socialist than Brown would be a tricky job for most of the Labour Party.

So if the people want a socialist alternative, it's back on the menu for the next election. I can hardly wait, should be fun!

[expat]

Electing a government is too important to be left to the electorate, who only look one pay-packet ahead.

That is far from being a symmetrical observation. As you know well (or else I will explain at tedious length )

[expat]

I'm waiting for Clause 4 to be re-introduced!

So what? For most of its existence, Clause IV made no difference to Real Life.

[sunnysan]

Hmmm

I hate to say but I think I agree.

There is a potential conflict of interests and a moral argument, when shareholders are making money while Mrs Cribbs freezes to death becuase she cannot affrod to turn on the heating.

The reason these services where privatised was to increase efficiency. So efficiency was increased, which meant that they where turned into profitable entities. Efficient in business means making more money, and if you need to provide a better service to do that then you do. Energy companies, as with transport can charge what they like and they dont have to improve their service.

So yes, the comapnies are more efficient, but for the shareholders not the customers

On the flip side though, governments (especially this one), have not exactly demonstrated any ability to manage anything, let alone the nations power.

[Doggy Styles]

The energy industry is too important to be left to the private sector. That is, one run by shareholders that look about one dividend ahead.

Electing a government is too important to be left to the electorate, who only look one pay-packet ahead.

[Pickle2]

You have a good point, but the timing is interesting. Not so long ago, any whisper of state control of an industry would have been an absolute no-no in the Labour publicity machine. Now it seems to be OK. Slight whiff of opportunism here.

I think you are right, timing is everything.

The current problems with the banking system etc etc have come about, not because recent government policy in this area has been too far to the left, but exactly because, through de-regulation etc, that policy hasnt been "left wing" enough.

People are seeing that. Now, it may be only true for the banking industry, but it is probably a great time for a bit of land grab by the left, as its now at the forefront of the public's minds that perhaps a bit of state control isnt such a bad thing after all.

Of course, whether the banking analogy really applies accross other industries
is debatable (to say the least). But theres no time like the present for the government to push through a more leftist agenda I would say.

Which leaves the tories in an intresting position. If the electorate are ready for a bit of socialism, how do they move to out labour labour?

[deano]

I'm waiting for Clause 4 to be re-introduced!

[Mich the Tester]

I'm not a millipede fan, but I think he is right. The energy industry is too important to be left to the private sector. That is, one run by shareholders that look about one dividend ahead.

You have a good point, but the timing is interesting. Not so long ago, any whisper of state control of an industry would have been an absolute no-no in the Labour publicity machine. Now it seems to be OK. Slight whiff of opportunism here.