Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)

[Javi]

Do you now, well sorry it sounds to me like you don't, or maybe you have a romantic view of how everything in the garden of
(energy, railways, etc.) would be rose like if only we nationalised it?

Please show me where I have made it sound like I don't. I haven't actually advocated for nationalism. I said that there are reasons as to why it could make sense, the same way I have stated that there are reasons against it.

Precisely, its exactly why we should keep the Government away from it with a barge-pole if necessary, Governments are good a politics, not at running public services. That does not mean private industry is the best either, it means on public services at large we need a public consensus on what the service should be and how its to be delivered, what we should pay for it and who should run it. I would almost guarantee that if we could get a consensus on the first three, the what, the how and the price, the fourth choice that of operator, would not be the government

First you agree that every area needs to be adressed specifically, then you argue that the government should be kept out no matter what. You do realize these are conflicting statements? I agree with the rest, but it's also stating the obvious.

I am talking about the 'idealism' that surrounds nationalisation or state ownership and operation of an industry or sector. Yes it sounds fantastic let nanny state look after everything, but who's looking after nanny?

Idealism is not good, I agree. It should be about concepts/ideas. But the way you are arguing here just feel like idealism itself, just from the other corner. You are not actually open for debate, you already know that the govt. as operator is a bad idea irrelevant the circumstances. If that is not an idealistic statement, I don't know what is.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

No,Sorry.. I should have added that they are different to my own... however they are still wrong, because they didn't work last time and as far as I can gather, Jeremy's just 'putting old wine in new bottles', very attractive looking bottles, especially to those coming out of a period of austerity, who probably haven't been able to afford any wine at all.

Right, so nationalisation simply doesn't work and is wrong? Because you've decided in didn't work in the UK over 3 decades ago? Are you going to ignore how well it works in other countries at the present?

Something being wrong because "it didn't work last time" might just be the dumbest thing I've read all day, and I've been reading a lot from gun nuts on twitter today.

 

[I Believe]

Do you consider our Railways to be run efficiently though? I mean there's a major investment problem there for one and poor service secondly. Or have you misunderstood and you just mean at a profit?

Sorry, must have missed this one, been busy trying to answer other posters!

I did some work consultancy work for rail company (won't mention the name) a while back and it was clear that management did not have a grip on, or possible even understood, how trains operated, this of course doesn't help anybody, least of all the rail consumer. It seemed to me a hand to mouth operation, with 'Peter robbing Paul' at times in order to get the trains running at all (never mind on time). So in answer to your question no at the time I'm talking about say 5 years ago , I would say they were getting by that's all.
However to be honest taking into state ownership, the trains, the track, the stations etc. would not have solved the problem, management and investment were necessary, to meet the then requirements, however something must have worked because the number of rail passengers increased steadily, if not evenly, over the whole network in recent times and that has now produced other problems now overlaid on the previous problems.

Hence if foreign owners could come in and run our railways efficiently and profitably, at a cheaper rate than we can, then that's fine with me. I suspect however, the dead hand of state intervention will not make the improvements, just drive up costs to the taxpayers as well as the rail users!

 

[I Believe]

Please show me where I have made it sound like I don't. I haven't actually advocated for nationalism. I said that there are reasons as to why it could make sense, the same way I have stated that there are reasons against it.

Sorry my apologies, I had the impression you thought nationalisation was the answer!

First you agree that every area needs to be adressed specifically, then you argue that the government should be kept out no matter what. You do realize these are conflicting statements

Actually I don't think they are, in any case I was saying the Government should be kept away from running the public services, of course they will be involved in reaching a consensus and in commissioning any action on any agreements reached.

I agree with the rest, but it's also stating the obvious

Is it stating the obvious? To me and you it may well be the obvious, but its not to our party politicians, or indeed the Government.

 

[I Believe]

Right, so nationalisation simply doesn't work and is wrong? Because you've decided in didn't work in the UK over 3 decades ago

Jeremy's approach/reason for nationalisation didn't work, he's held the same views of a failed approach for forty years , if anyone's holding the telescope the wrong way round my friend its you in viewing what Jeremy's about!

I have advocated (read some of my previous posts) some nationalisation, e.g. for the protection of our steel making industry whilst China dumps its over production on the world markets, the state should guarantee the capability remains, whatever. Jeremy's approach to nationalisation is purely political, it aligns with his extreme socialist ideals, it is not just/even about solving public services problems its about political idealism and its wrong!

might just be the dumbest thing I've read all day,

And you didn't understand it, so its dumb.. perhaps that sums up how you see life?

 

[Dobba]

On the scale Jeremy envisages, it will lead to a totalitarian state, in everything but name!

Ah, the slippery slope argument. Lovely stuff.

 

[Javi]

Actually I don't think they are, in any case I was saying the Government should be kept away from running the public services, of course they will be involved in reaching a consensus and in commissioning any action on any agreements reached.

We are only talking about who should be running them.

Yes, because first you agree that every fields needs to be adressed separately. That means to analyze the service with all its attributes, the consumer needs and the possible delivery of them with an open mind. You look at all the different scenarios, of which nationalisation is one (complete free market also, both are the extremes though), and try to find the best one for this specific field. If you then go on and state the irrelevant of this evaluation nationalisation shouldn't even be in the mix you quite clearly contradict the first notion, because you are adressing all the different fields in general with your exclusion of nationalisation. This is just semantics of course, but I feel that everybody can profit from being more precise in their statements (it's also something I struggle with because I'm not a native speaker).

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

And you didn't understand it, so its dumb.. perhaps that sums up how you see life?

I understood it, and even after your nonsensical explanation above, I haven't changed my opinion about that.

Over and over in this thread you have ignored just how well certain services run in France, Germany, Sweden etc and think Corbyn knows only one way, the "wrong" way. He could never copy those nations and do it right could he? That would take the mind of a genius.

 

[I Believe]

Over and over in this thread you have ignored just how well certain services run in France, Germany, Sweden

I haven't overlooked anything, in fact if you really have read my posts you will see I have mentioned these countries as being capable of running our railways, at a profit, after being told by another poster that they could, so I have ignored nothing.

I'm sorry my friend it is you who you are ignoring matters and being unable to get over the fact that I recognise Jeremy is trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes with his version of nationalisation. It has nothing, or at least very little, to do with efficiency, effectiveness or value for money, its to do with political ideology and state control. I accept Jeremy has held these views for years, I have actually heard him speak about them in public, but I've never once heard him mention foreign models of nationalisation as being a possible panacea for the UK, he may have done and I've missed it, but I don't think so.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

I haven't overlooked anything, in fact if you really have read my posts you will see I have mentioned these countries as being capable of running our railways, at a profit, after being told by another poster that they could, so I have ignored nothing.

I'm sorry my friend it is you who you are ignoring matters and being unable to get over the fact that I recognise Jeremy is trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes with his version of nationalisation. It has nothing, or at least very little, to do with efficiency, effectiveness or value for money, its to do with political ideology and state control. I accept Jeremy has held these views for years, I have actually heard him speak about them in public, but I've never once heard him mention foreign models of nationalisation as being a possible panacea for the UK, he may have done and I've missed it, but I don't think so.

feck me you've bought the media line hook line and sinker. Why does he have to say "look how good the state railway works in Germany and France" to prove to you that it can work? You can't see that for yourself and think "maybe that could work here too"?

Worth a read: https://www.opendemocracy.net/can-e...orbyn-mainstream-scandinavian-social-democrat

 

[Stanley Road]

The Labour party, or perhaps specifically Jeremy and John (McDonnell) seem to be living in a world I remember almost 50 years ago.

At that time the two principle things that were held by many to be 'wrong' with nationalisation of public services (except funnily enough the NHS) was that there was a lack of opportunity for investment for infrastructure development and renewal, because of competing interests (i.e. from all the different sectors) for Government cash. Also the lack of a profit motive, meant that eventually the nationalised industry's became monolithic, run-down and incapable of change and perhaps even more debilitating was that although supposed to be services/sectors operated for the benefit of the public, they were anything but, in fact they seemed to many people who used them to be run only for the benefit of those employed in those services/sectors.

Of course Jeremy and those of his ilk, never seemed to see these arguments and hence their belief that the state knows best continues and nationalisation will always be a priority for them, even if they have to potentially bankrupt the country or borrow so much money to make their dreams come true, that our great, great, grandchildren will still be paying off the debt... in their dotage!

The view of many however is that 'nationalisation', or other such government intervention should only be undertaken in those areas where national defence, health or retaining a strategic interest in an industry because of world wide conditions (e.g. presently in steel making), are required to maintain the essentials, for the safeguarding of the Country. The objective from day one should be to prepare for privatisation at a date in the future, where the burden on the state is perceived to be needed to be lifted and private investors can step in. However it seems this view is now also out of date, so combined with the naysayers on Brexit, it seems we are all heading to hell in a hand cart, with Theresa feeding the horse at one end and Jeremy is preparing to shovel the s*** at the other.

Where do we turn next?

British Rail was far better than what you have now, public transport in the UK is just the worst thing ever and its damn pricey however, there are some things that should be privatised and the nhs is one of them.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

British Rail was far better than what you have now, public transport in the UK is just the worst thing ever and its damn pricey however, there are some things that should be privatised and the nhs is one of them.

That we can agree on.

As far as pricing goes I've heard so many horror stories from Swedes who have arrived in London planning to jump onto a train to Manchester and been told it's £200 one way for a 2 hour journey. It's not so much bad planning, they just can't fathom how it can be so.

But for some reason @I Believe thinks Corbyn is nuts for wanting to take back control of such things.

I disagree the NHS should be privatised but huge reform is certainly required, for example, in Sweden we have "free" healthcare but people have to pay a £20 admin charge to visit the doctor. The max charge in a calendar year is about £100 at which point you no longer pay for GP visits, x-rays, surgery etc etc. Small things like this can make a huge difference and stop time wasters at the same time.

 

[Charlie Foley]

As if one would have to do it the same way again. That's a poor argument.

Feck you all trying to learn from your mistakes

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Feck you all trying to learn from your mistakes

 

[Stanley Road]

But for some reason @I Believe thinks Corbyn is nuts for wanting to take back control of such things.

Well he needs to give examples of things that are better now privatised. I don't believe everything should be privatised but the degradation of service and the cost of transport is outrageous.

Nationalization can work if people are prepared to pay for it, when you have a tory govt offering tax breaks that will never happen, things cost and I am prepared to pay more for better service. Privatization also means a govt doesn't have to do any work, just like a shit boss that delegates everything.

Privatization also drives a massive race to the bottom In the name of profit.

Doing more for less. Less employee satisfaction, less service, less quality, less less less. more profit tho.

If I moved back home I would definitely have private health insurance tho.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

If I moved back home I would definitely have private health insurance tho.

Me too, no question.

Agree with all of the rest of your post on this one.

 

[WackyWengerWorld]

How does nationalisation induce competition of strategic importance?
Surely there would be no one to compete with, the consumer would have to take what the Government offered and like it? ["You can have any colour you like, as long as its black!" quote from Henry Ford and his Model T car]
The Government could raise prices, cut supplies (e.g. power supplies, the 3 day week in the 1970's), as it wished, it could in the extreme, force people to behave how it wanted (George Orwell 1984?) or deny them access to whatever!

A totalitarian state in the making, is that what Jeremy wants?

The whole purpose of nationalisation is to have a none profit service, by the people, for the people. So if it's a state monopoly it doesn't matter because there is no motive for profiteering.

So again tell us why don't you want the NHS privatised? You're not consistent in your position. In theory medicene with greater competition should be more competitive and thus offer a better service and prices moreso than railways and utilities which have zero competition. Yet you want the latter privatised and not the former nationalised.

The only rational reason for your position is because privatised American healthcare has failed consumers. But in turn utilities and railway prices have risen exponentially since privatisation, thus also failing consumers in these markets.

We can discuss other potencial failings of a socialist government once you iron out your consistency on this position.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

Granted its a pro Left/Labour panel but it's worth a watch(Starts around the 10 min mark)

Spoiler

Spoiler

Now granted its pro Left/Labour panel but it's worth a watch.

I can's say that i listened to all 1hr 40mins, but over half for sure. Somewhat annoyingly, the more interesting stuff came in the last half hour. lol I would cite the question which related to perpetual growth (every year leastwise) and sustainable living.McDonnell's answer on the NHS was noteworthy for what it didn't include, as the PFI policy is a red herring in the near-term.

As someone who's just had to pull out of an apartment purchase due to a totally extortionate ground rent regime, i'm not averse to a little state intervention. The case for, and extent of Labour's renationalisations is quite another matter. Peopel already know wht i think about the tuition fee sweetener. Renationalisation of water i could be persuaded on, and the same goes for voluntary public ownership of transport services at the local or regional level. The energy sector and Royal Mail, not at all.

 

[I Believe]

So again tell us why don't you want the NHS privatised?

Because at present there is no consensus on how it should be funded , how it should be run, what are its priorities and how are they set and most important how it should be managed, therefore the state cannot set effective service levels for delivery and the 'profiteers' would have a field day. Whilst it remains in state ownership most people feel 'comfortable' if not altogether happy with its maxim about "being free at the point of delivery"

The only rational reason for your position is because privatised American healthcare has failed consumers. But in turn utilities and railway prices have risen exponentially since privatisation, thus also failing consumers in these markets.

Do you seriously consider these prices would not have risen under a nationalised entity? The main rise in energy costs has been the 'green levy' introduced by the Government to support alternative forms of generation and in terms of railways, it is in the main the imperative for further investment, (in rolling stock in particular) since the popularity of rail travel has grown phenomenally, despite the rises in fares. Of course those who travel regularly on trains feel hard done by, those who rarely travel on trains, are pleased general taxation is not being used to support the railways.

 

[WackyWengerWorld]

Because at present there is no consensus on how it should be funded , how it should be run, what are its priorities and how are they set and most important how it should be managed, therefore the state cannot set effective service levels for delivery and the 'profiteers' would have a field day. Whilst it remains in state ownership most people feel 'comfortable' if not altogether happy with its maxim about "being free at the point of delivery"

It would either be an insurance or paid on an adhoc basis. Some people wouldn't be able to afford it but that's the nature of privatisation. Some insurance companies would quible over paying out unless they were heavily regulated. I'm not saying I think it's a good policy

Do you seriously consider these prices would not have risen under a nationalised entity? The main rise in energy costs has been the 'green levy' introduced by the Government to support alternative forms of generation and in terms of railways, it is in the main the imperative for further investment, (in rolling stock in particular) since the popularity of rail travel has grown phenomenally, despite the rises in fares. Of course those who travel regularly on trains feel hard done by, those who rarely travel on trains, are pleased general taxation is not being used to support the railways.

They wouldn't have sky rocketed exponentially given they hadn't before that. You can argue about gas/electricity having outside influences but water doesn't cost more to process on a real terms basis and that's increased exponentially too. The share price of the nationalised industries also sky rocketed, which shows either incompetance or corruption in the privatisation.

As for people who don't use trains not wanting to pay for them. Well who's to say they need subsidising through the taxation system? They can simply be run 'not for profit'. But if they were subsidised and cheaper maybe more people would use them. Which would be better for the environment. I remember my ex Managing Director looking up train prices for him and a colleague and confirming it was far cheaper by car so they'd drive instead. Well that can't be A) An effective use of railway infrastructure B) Good for the environment C) Any plan to reduce traffic conjection.

You also have to ask what else you don't want the state to pay for? Libraries are being closed down, is that a good thing? Should all schooling be private and paid for? What about selling off all roads and the owners charging as a toll to drive down them? No welfare safety net? No state pension?

 

[I Believe]

Some people wouldn't be able to afford it but that's the nature of privatisation

Precisely, affordability shouldn't come into a national health scheme, as you, or someone else pointed out previously you can access private health in the UK at the moment, the safety net of the NHS is there for those who can't. You missed my main point, currently we do not have a consensus on how the health service should operate, how the priorities are set for the future, or who should run it, once those things are agreed across the spectrum of political views, then we can decide whether its privately run, or publically funded, the only consensus so far is its 'free at the point of delivery'

They wouldn't have sky rocketed exponentially given they hadn't before that

How do you know that? In the case of the railways the primary reason that prices sky rocketed was the level of investment required to keep operating not to improve, would have taken the operators complete profit, so the Government allowed them to raise prices overall to a fixed percentage; however that meant all the busy/in demand routes went up a higher percentage than those who had low demand, in fact some low demand routes went down. As for water again higher standards coming from the EU meant greater investment was required not only in treatment of water, but how it was stored and delivered, the government insisted on a certain standard level of repairs, in drought prone areas and the utilities companies were allowed by Government to raise their prices to pay for this upgrade.

You also have to ask what else you don't want the state to pay for

The state doesn't pay for anything, its the public through taxation that pays for everything, please get a grip!

 

[Dobba]

 

[I Believe]

Me too, no question

Ah! so you and @Stanley Road are both offering advice from afar!

I take it if Jeremy becomes our next Prime Minister, you will both be hot footing it back to 'Blighty' to help him run his Socialist Utopia

 

[Dobba]

Ah! so you and @Stanley Road are both offering advice from afar!

I take it if Jeremy becomes our next Prime Minister, you will both be hot footing it back to 'Blighty' to help him run his Socialist Utopia

Can we swap them both for you?

 

[finneh]

The state doesn't pay for anything, its the public through taxation that pays for everything, please get a grip!

Absolutely.

I once asked a friend who was a staunch proponent of increased public expenditure through increased taxation "how much money would your family have to be paid each year for you to agree to pay for every public service, rather than have it paid for you through taxation". After much deliberation he came up with the figure of £25k.

I said that the amount the Government spends divided by the amount of families in the UK would give every family £45k. I then said that's the problem with increased public expenditure through taxation. The fact that one of the most staunch supporters feels that 55% in their pockets would be worth more than 100% through public services illustrates the waste that is created through a monopolised public sector system.

His argument essentially boiled down to the fact that he'd prefer 55% financial efficiency as long as someone else pays for a far greater share of said inefficiency than he had to.

Also if people want a model for a better healthcare system that isn't free at the point of use, rather than constantly pointing to the poorly run US system as the only example of a non-NHS based system, look to Singapore. Total expenditure on healthcare is far less than the UK and in terms of health outcomes they're far superior. They also have a very low tax-GDP ratio which stimulates economic growth, which in turn allows them to invest further.

 

[Dobba]

Also if people want a model for a better healthcare system that isn't free at the point of use, rather than constantly pointing to the poorly run US system as the only example of a non-NHS based system, look to Singapore. Total expenditure on healthcare is far less than the UK and in terms of health outcomes they're far superior. They also have a very low tax-GDP ratio which stimulates economic growth, which in turn allows them to invest further.

People point to the 'poorly run US system' because it's the one opponents to the NHS that are in political positions constantly refer to.

 

[finneh]

People point to the 'poorly run US system' because it's the one opponents to the NHS that are in political positions constantly refer to.

Referring to the US when talking about the negatives of a mixed or quasi-private healthcare system is like referring to Andy Carroll when trying to justify a transfer fee.

 

[Dobba]

Referring to the US when talking about the negatives of a mixed or quasi-private healthcare system is like referring to Andy Carroll when trying to justify a transfer fee.

When Jeremy Hunt co-authors a book calling for the NHS to be replaced with a Singapore style system I'm sure the focus will change accordingly.

 

[Shamwow]

Absolutely.

I once asked a friend who was a staunch proponent of increased public expenditure through increased taxation "how much money would your family have to be paid each year for you to agree to pay for every public service, rather than have it paid for you through taxation". After much deliberation he came up with the figure of £25k.

I said that the amount the Government spends divided by the amount of families in the UK would give every family £45k. I then said that's the problem with increased public expenditure through taxation. The fact that one of the most staunch supporters feels that 55% in their pockets would be worth more than 100% through public services illustrates the waste that is created through a monopolised public sector system.

His argument essentially boiled down to the fact that he'd prefer 55% financial efficiency as long as someone else pays for a far greater share of said inefficiency than he had to.

Also if people want a model for a better healthcare system that isn't free at the point of use, rather than constantly pointing to the poorly run US system as the only example of a non-NHS based system, look to Singapore. Total expenditure on healthcare is far less than the UK and in terms of health outcomes they're far superior. They also have a very low tax-GDP ratio which stimulates economic growth, which in turn allows them to invest further.

Asking a layman to estimate it himself seems like a terrible argument to me.

 

[Stanley Road]

Ah! so you and @Stanley Road are both offering advice from afar!

I take it if Jeremy becomes our next Prime Minister, you will both be hot footing it back to 'Blighty' to help him run his Socialist Utopia

When you have nothing and i have nothing, we will be truly equal.

 

[finneh]

When Jeremy Hunt co-authors a book calling for the NHS to be replaced with a Singapore style system I'm sure the focus will change accordingly.

The mention of a private healthcare system instantly being responded to with the failings of the US predates Jeremy Hunt being Health Secretary by decades.

Asking a layman to estimate it himself seems like a terrible argument to me.

It isn't an argument in its own right. It's illustrative of how much people feel taxes are worth to them and how efficient they feel public money is being spent - far less than the amount actually spent on public services.

When given the choice of having the money and paying for the service, or having the service itself; the economies of scale involved with Governmental purchasing and departments should lead to a hugely efficient use of money and the question being a no-brainer in favour of having the public service. However that isn't the case and the monopolised, incentiveless, bureaucratic system means a largely inefficient use of funds and poor value for money.

Therefore we end up in a bizarre situation of the populace having their freedom curtailed via a huge proportion of their money being extracted from them against their free will and then Government spending it on services whereby people would prefer the money and freedom to procure said service themselves. A lose-lose if you will.

 

[Dobba]

The mention of a private healthcare system instantly being responded to with the failings of the US predates Jeremy Hunt being Health Secretary by decades

He wants it replaced by a US style system and is currently in charge of that department. Why on earth would people be focused on the failings of any other country's healthcare at this point in time?

 

[Shamwow]

It isn't an argument in its own right. It's illustrative of how much people feel taxes are worth to them and how efficient they feel public money is being spent - far less than the amount actually spent on public services.

When given the choice of having the money and paying for the service, or having the service itself; the economies of scale involved with Governmental purchasing and departments should lead to a hugely efficient use of money and the question being a no-brainer in favour of having the public service. However that isn't the case and the monopolised, incentiveless, bureaucratic system means a largely inefficient use of funds and poor value for money.

Therefore we end up in a bizarre situation of the populace having their freedom curtailed via a huge proportion of their money being extracted from them against their free will and then Government spending it on services whereby people would prefer the money and freedom to procure said service themselves. A lose-lose if you will.

So because people are bad at estimating how much public services actually cost, this means that public services are inefficient? Is it not more likely that most people don't understand the sheer scope of what public services actually achieve - both for them and for society in general?

 

[finneh]

So because people are bad at estimating how much public services actually cost, this means that public services are inefficient? Is it not more likely that most people don't understand the sheer scope of what public services actually achieve - both for them and for society in general?

I'd say anti competition laws were enacted to protect customers from the problems that a lack of consumer choice naturally brings. These problems include inefficiencies that instead of causing a business to lose market share and eventually improve or become insolvent, get passed on to the consumer through higher costs and with no other option the consumer is forced to pay up.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

As for people who don't use trains not wanting to pay for them. Well who's to say they need subsidising through the taxation system? They can simply be run 'not for profit'. But if they were subsidised and cheaper maybe more people would use them. Which would be better for the environment. I remember my ex Managing Director looking up train prices for him and a colleague and confirming it was far cheaper by car so they'd drive instead. Well that can't be A) An effective use of railway infrastructure B) Good for the environment C) Any plan to reduce traffic conjection.

You also have to ask what else you don't want the state to pay for? Libraries are being closed down, is that a good thing? Should all schooling be private and paid for? What about selling off all roads and the owners charging as a toll to drive down them? No welfare safety net? No state pension?

What about those people with inadequate public transport where they live, why should their needs be relegated below those who don't lack for such? For the most part, any new state involvement should be a voluntary initiative taken by cities or regions, with proportionate levels of financing from the same. The regulatory regime is another story, and one where local/central authority might be more imposing IMO.

As for utilities...

Nuclear power aside, for where the Government ought to insist on a stake in the operation, energy too should have a devolved emphasis. A far more effective use of taxation (efficient as well) would be to fund the installation of renewable technology at both private and commercial premises. In this way, the citizen is less beholden to both corporate imperatives and a bloated nationalised operator. It's good for job creation, the consumer and the environment.

I do also wonder about the risk to innovation in the years ahead if certain sectors are just swallowed up. Take rail travel for example, with the possible implementation of driverless trains being stifled by union interests.

 

[Kentonio]

What about those people with inadequate public transport where they live, why should their needs be relegated below those who don't lack for such? For the most part, any new state involvement should be a voluntary initiative taken by cities or regions, with proportionate levels of financing from the same. The regulatory regime is another story, and one where local/central authority might be more imposing IMO.

Typical Tory mantra. The reason areas have more need for public transport is generally because they're bigger and actually have a demand led need for those things. Conversely providing power or postal services or medical facilities to small rural communities is expensive and is subsidized by those urban dwellers who don't need them. It's called society, you don't always benefit from every initiative and service, and you pay for them because we ensure people have the things they actually need.

 

[Mozza]

I'd say anti competition laws were enacted to protect customers from the problems that a lack of consumer choice naturally brings. These problems include inefficiencies that instead of causing a business to lose market share and eventually improve or become insolvent, get passed on to the consumer through higher costs and with no other option the consumer is forced to pay up.

If you haven't got money you have no choice no matter how efficient the system

 

[finneh]

If you haven't got money you have no choice no matter how efficient the system

Every family has a £45k stake every year in th etreasury due to the government forcibly taking a good portion off people. Every litre of fuel is 4x the market price due to tax. Every pint of beer not far short. Everything we buy has a 20% VAT. It's how we use people's money thats the quesion, not the amount.

If instead of forcing parents into sending their children to the schools in their catchment area the Government for example contributed the c. £6k pppa cost and allowed the parents to choose whichever School they preferred the system would be much better.

Poor schools would soon improve or close down due to parents voting with their feet and moving school. Poor teachers would soon be unemployed for the same reason. Great schools would expand and become larger great schools.

The same with healthcare. If the Government merely contributed the c. £17,500 cost of heart bypass surgery and gave the person the freedom and choice to have the surgery wherever they wanted you'd see the same affect.

Instead of public services being inefficient due to no competition, they'd have to compete amongst themselves and the most efficient teachers, surgeons, schools and hospitals would be paid and expand accordingly.

 

[Smores]

Every family has a £45k stake every year in th etreasury due to the government forcibly taking a good portion off people. Every litre of fuel is 4x the market price due to tax. Every pint of beer not far short. Everything we buy has a 20% VAT. It's how we use people's money thats the quesion, not the amount.

If instead of forcing parents into sending their children to the schools in their catchment area the Government for example contributed the c. £6k pppa cost and allowed the parents to choose whichever School they preferred the system would be much better.

Poor schools would soon improve or close down due to parents voting with their feet and moving school. Poor teachers would soon be unemployed for the same reason. Great schools would expand and become larger great schools.

The same with healthcare. If the Government merely contributed the c. £17,500 cost of heart bypass surgery and gave the person the freedom and choice to have the surgery wherever they wanted you'd see the same affect.

Instead of public services being inefficient due to no competition, they'd have to compete amongst themselves and the most efficient teachers, surgeons, schools and hospitals would be paid and expand accordingly.

This and your previous example rely solely on your idea that the goverment must be wasteful, where's your statistics to back this argument up? You say they must be because there's no competition but thats terribly simplistic even monopolised markets have internal pressure to do more for less. The NHs are always under huge budgetary pressure and like most companies spend a fortune on consultants to achieve greater efficiency. I'm sure there are inefficiencies such as poor IT and Agency staff but thats outside your argument.

Your previous post is even worse, a mate can't predict the expenditure so it must be inefficient . Oddly enough people are only aware of direct services but they'd soon notice if it all went away.

 

[finneh]

This and your previous example rely solely on your idea that the goverment must be wasteful, where's your statistics to back this argument up? You say they must be because there's no competition but thats terribly simplistic even monopolised markets have internal pressure to do more for less. The NHs are always under huge budgetary pressure and like most companies spend a fortune on consultants to achieve greater efficiency. I'm sure there are inefficiencies such as poor IT and Agency staff but thats outside your argument.

You mean evidence such as the fact that Singapore and Hong Kong spend far, far less as a % of GDP on healthcare and education but have far better outcomes?

Even employing a bit of common sense in this area makes it obvious that efficiency can only be poor as there is no incentive to improve and no competition taking business away. Without incentives pushing management to improve why would they make their own jobs much more difficult? What incentive is there for management to run a School or Hospital efficiently? What incentive is there for management to undertake hard negotiations in order procure all goods at the minimum possible price? What incentive is there for management to undertake a time consuming and labour intensive staffing review in order to cut expensive agency/cover staff in favour of more cost effective long term strategy? What incentive is there to save a % of income for future investment when Government actually cut funding if you're seen not to be spending the entirety of your budget?

You talk about budgetary pressure, but this isn't a pressure at all as it has no effect on management. Pressure can only be pressure if it has a discernible effect on the people in charge. Public sector organisations when they come under budgetary pressure merely let the service levels slip and complain vocally about a lack of funding. There is no risk of the organisation losing market share or becoming insolvent so there is no pressure.

This is proven by the fact that as a country we spend over 105% of our yearly income, but I've yet to hear a public department whine that they aren't under-funded. Health, Education, Local Government, Defence, Welfare, Pensions, Housing, Policing, Justice System, Transport. How can every single department be under-funded when as a collective we're spending more than the total tax receipts? It's because the only incentive is to spend the maximum budget possible to prevent it being cut the following year.

Speak to someone who owns their own business and straight away they'll tell you the reason they for example purchase as competitively as possible. I own my own business and a £1,000 saving in something as trivial as stationary means £1,000 extra gross profit that can be used for investment to grow the company, increasing staff pay or even a paying the bar tab at the Christmas party! My incentive for being as efficient as possible therefore is obvious; however if I were a public sector manager I wouldn't undertake these exercises because the effort is high and the reward is non-existent.

It also works the other way - the second our company gets an enquiry from either the public or third sector it's simply a case of increasing our margin as much as realistically possible. We realise they don't have the inclination or incentive to drill us down on price and also realise they are only concerned with service (which gives them an easy life). Therefore we will jack up the price but ensure we provide great service so they have no reason to shop around. Likewise at the end of every tax year there is a rush to throw money away on needlessly expensive products in order for them to have used up the yearly budget so they aren't seen to be over-funded which would result in a funding cut. The incentive therefore is to be as inefficient as possible within their budgetary constraints.