UKC

Has he said where the £500b is coming from? More debt?
Does the renationalising the railways come out of this figure?
What about the cost of 500m council houses (and where are they going)
And the cost of NHS services currently private?
What is a "fair" tax rate?
Will I be forced to join a union?

Etc.

In reply to MG:

500m council houses seems a little excessive or are we inviting all the refugees in Syria in?

In reply to MG:

I suspect a lot of it is based on typical Labour ideals - If a rail company can run the railway and make a profit and pay shareholders, then surely nationalising it will generate revenue (not cost) as you run the same company but remove the profit margin (or use the profits as treasury income). This of course ignores the real world problems associated with governments running anything efficiently.

In reply to balmybaldwin:
Sorry, not quite that many!

In reply to MG:

I don't think politicians are expected to explain their plans these days, they just make statements for the front pages and hope the voters believe them and vote for them next time around.

It certainly worked for Brexit!

In reply to Moley:



That's tragically all too true. People buy this bull crap hook line and sinker too.

In reply to balmybaldwin:


Yes. The privatised rail system is a model of efficiency. Thank heavens for the private sector.

In reply to digby:

Yes, it's funny how when a private sector train company goes under and the public sector take over, the public sector does better but everyone still believes the public sector couldn't run the trains. They still have to deal with the tracks which appears to be the hard bit.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Think the 500 million should have a £ in front?

In reply to digby:


I worked for the nationalised railway service, it was a fiasco.

In reply to MG:

Good, innit?

In reply to Big Ger:


No it wasn't.

In reply to MG:

Here's a shift in policy for Corbyn

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36983112

"I'll never send anyone to the house of Lords"

Well, not unless I need to pay for a whitewash.

In reply to digby:


Well, that's me told!

Your evidence?

In reply to johncook:


Must check, but I seem to recall the figure of 1m new homes over 5 years being mentioned. I didn't actually hear a cost for this, but £500/home seems a bit ambitious!

In reply to Fraser:
Yes I should have written 500000( 50% council), as above.

In reply to MG:

Probably from the National Investment Bank that he's been talking about since he was elected leader. Similar to what they have in Germeny I believe, and to what was being tabled in the pre-coalition days:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/kamal-ahmed/7279452/A-state-inve...


What do you mean by that? Do you think that privatised NHS services are free to the UK taxpayer?


Er no, why?

In reply to Big Ger:


Is that why you emigrated?

In reply to RyanOsborne:


So that's yes to more (30%) goverment debt?


I mean shareholders of private companies will need to be paid if they are nationalised, such as GPs who own their surgery buildings

See point 3 of this"plan"

In reply to Big Ger:

His evidence was just as good (bad) as yours! I'd be interested in yours and his....

In reply to MG:


Did you read the link? Do some research on how something like this works, maybe look at the German one for an example.


Seems better than those shareholders creaming off profits from our healthcare.


Are you referring to mandatory collective bargaining?

MANDATORY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FOR LARGER COMPANIES
In an economy where people come first, and profit follows, we should make collective bargaining mandatory for larger companies. This means that the employer would have to consult with staff representatives before making changes that would impact on their work - whether that's pay, working hours, pensions, or anything else.

What don't you like about that?

In reply to Matt Vigg:

Nope, my evidence was that I have personal experience. Anecdotal admittedly, but working for a company does give you some insights.

I worked on freight trains as a guard from 1979 to 1980.

Demarcation was rife, unions decided who run, when they run, and how many staff were employed.


ETA:
The APT-E first ran on 25 July 1971. The train drivers' union, ASLEF black-listed the train due to the use of a single driver. The train was moved to the works at Derby (with the aid of a locomotive inspector). This triggered a one-day strike by ASLEF that cost BR more than the research budget for the entire year

In reply to digby:


it might have been great to work for, but travelling by train in the 70s, 80s and early 90s was pretty dreadful. At least now you can stand in an over crowded badly heated/cooled train, that isn't quite so dirty and the food isn't so naff etc... Most UK trains and the services are still a decade or more behind the continent, the only futuristic thing the UK has are prices that the rest of Europe will be paying in 2050.

In reply to RyanOsborne:

Yes I did. It states "The bank can then re-finance the loan at favourable rates because of its government guarantee...", so the answer appears to be yes to greater government debt. Which is fine, maybe, if the it used for projects that help the economy sufficiently so paying the debt and interest is sustainable. I don't see how spending it on large scale nationalisation of railways, NHS services and so on does this. Hence my following questions.


So we have had GPs operating pretty well for 70 years as private contractors and now spending £??? on forced nationalisation is the way forward?


Yes. If no one in a company wants to be part of a union how can you have mandatory collective bargaining without mandatory union membership?

In reply to MG:


The answer isn't yes, if your question is 'where the £500b is coming from? More debt?'


Are GP surgeries what you were referring to when you said 'shareholders of private companies will need to be paid if they are nationalised'?


Easy. You don't have to be in a union, you have employee representatives.

In reply to RyanOsborne:


it doesn't matter what you call a bank, money still has to come from somewhere to fund the public sector, hammering the private sector to fund his growth of the public sector, whilst exiting the EU won't encourage businesses to set up or remain in the UK. Higher taxes, greater union control and Corbyn at the helm... I think many international companies would give the UK a wide berth.

In reply to summo:
Your profile says you are 38. How would you know?


And many of these are, or recently were, nationalised. The issue isn't really the structure so much as expense and continuity. By the 1990s BR was reasonably good for the level of investment. Then there were 15 years of mess and upheaval due the privatisation. Now again we have a reasonable rail service. Proposing the expense and upheaval of re nationalising is an absurd waste of money and distraction.

In reply to RyanOsborne:

According to your link it is.


They are one set of shareholders, yes. There are others, of course.


Semantics. Why should anyone be forced into collective bargaining against their wishes?

In reply to summo:


Our country doesn't exist purely to attract foreign businesses to have their headquarters here, and if our country is more fairly balanced towards it's citizens rather than CEOs of MNCs then that's fine by me.

In reply to MG:


I think you need to do more research into it.



Why would anyone want to opt out of working rights? It's not semantics, there's a world of difference between a union and having employee representatives.

In reply to RyanOsborne:


I think that is you.


Because they think they will get a better deal negotiating their own salary than collectively would be the obvious reason.

In reply to MG:

Just read the ten points. Harold Bloody Wilson all over again.

In reply to balmybaldwin:


Is it? Average price to build so-so house with 3 - 4 bedrooms is around £200k now I think. From £500m you could get 2500 houses if that money will be spend only on houses and not infrastructure.

2500 new council houses for a nation of 64m people is not excessive.

In reply to Big Ger:

Fair enough, bit limited really in terms of evidence but certainly not irrelevant. I guess a lot has changed in terms of what the unions can control these days, although corbyn would probably want to change that too. To me it does seem like a natural monopoly, even the successful German privatisation isn't really private, investment this year is gonna be 20bn private and 35bn from public money.

In reply to MG:


The nationalised system, leaving aside the union bugbear which affected most industries, was a unified railway with a rational ticketing system and the profits went back to the government, or us.
Now we have an incredibly expensive service with a horrible labyrinthine ticketing system. That it hangs together is remarkable. Though southern rail 'customers' might dispute that.

In reply to digby:

I agree. What we have is probably slightly worse than if it hadn't been privatised. BUt the upheaval and cost of nationalising isn't the solution.

In reply to digby:
I find train line very good. And the service from virgin on the Warrington/ Euston line excellent. Non stop in about 2 hrs . I doubt br would ever have got any where near that.

Mind you I do not commute in London. And the Manchester lines need upgrading. I suspect that will happen over the next few years.

If anybody thinks rthat renationalisation of the railways is going to win an election then they need to have a rethink

In reply to MG:


Profiles don't auto update, I don't see that my age is critical enough to keep updating it annually on here, so I haven't bothered. I guess you do.


BR was good in 90s relative to investment yes, relative to the most of the developed world, no.

I agree renationalising would be a waste, but to say the UK has a reasonable service is stretching it. Trains are slow, cramped, with less than perfect timing and a very expensive.

In reply to RyanOsborne:




A lot of squabbling and different ideas and slow decisions, it may be democratic in theory but hell for running a company in a highly competitive world. They would take their business elsewhere.

In reply to summo:


Come on, you don't remember 70s rail travel!


Im not really arguing with that, although price-wise they seem comparable with Germany and Switzerland.

In reply to RyanOsborne:


it's not about HQs, it's about drawing companies here that produce and manufacture that would run a mile if Corbyn & the Unions had their way.

It is quite likely your pension is dependant on how well those CEOs of those MNCs perform?

In reply to nutme:


Not my field of expertise, I'll say that up front but that 200k per property build cost figure figure looks outrageous if we're considering multiple units of terraced or semidetached no frills housing.
jk

In reply to MG:


I was only 9/10 at the end of 70's but have a recollection, granted I was hardly going to be a business traveller at the age though!


Perhaps the UK, given it's rail history should aim a little higher, rather than think it's acceptable to be one or two places above the bottom of Europe in terms of price, speed, punctuality, cleanliness, space etc.. By the time the UK gets a decent metal track based service, the rest of the world will have moved onto some hover vehicles that fly and land anywhere. It is little like 3/4/5g or fibre, the UK is still trying to catch up where other modern countries were a decade ago, it's a little sad really.

In reply to Matt Vigg:


fair, I always like to believe people who have been there and seen it.


Exactly.

In reply to jkarran:


I think the big housing companies once you remove land costs will knocked them up for a fraction of that. Even cheaper if you move forward into the 1990s and have a centralised heating system etc.. rather than fitting individual boilers to every house etc.. Face them the right way, better roof pitches, panels on each south facing roof etc... they would be cheaper to run for the occupants of social housing too then.

In reply to summo:
. By the time the UK gets a decent metal track based service, the rest of the world will have moved onto some hover vehicles that fly and land anywhere. It is little like 3/4/5g or fibre, the UK is still trying to catch up where other modern countries were a decade ago, it's a little sad really.

Well yes, and if Corbyn was offering this, perhaps financed via his scheme, I may be persuadable. But he isn't.

In reply to RyanOsborne:

there is some collective bargaining within some companies in Sweden, the worst employee gets the same pay rise or annual bonus as the best, pay levels are capped based on the job title not a person's skills or previous experience. Most of those companies run like the public sector, the less talented sit tight and aim for pension day, those able and keen leave to work elsewhere. It makes them too inefficient, as production against wage costs is lower, it only really works in companies like Ikea or Lego, as they aren't floated and the family/trust can afford to put more money into (ie reduce profit and competitiveness). Others like Saab, Volvo, SKF, Eriksson etc.. struggle/d and lost competiveness.

The Union or employee reps would rather see the companies go under, redundancies or bought by china than back down on their 'employee rights'. But then again just like the UK the union leaders are a little detached from the real world and paid much more than the employees they claim to represent.

In reply to MG:

I like that most of the evidence for shit trains comes from the 70's, as if nothing has changed in the last 40 years!!

While Southern Rail is doing such a fine job of running their franchise, this is evidence from 2 months ago!!

JC use of PQE at least benefits the people rather than just supporting the banks FFS.

Haven't they had enough already.

Building Council houses is the only way we can have any control over rents, and stop private companies profiteering from our need to house people.

What's not to like?

In reply to krikoman:

It s a reasonable prediction that the Tories are going to go after JC on these 10 points. They are pretty easy to replicate under a Tory manifesto that can be dressed up as non socialist and more palatable. For example £ 500 Bn of infrastructure spending. By the time you have added up Hs 2, Hinckley and others if approved you get close to that figure anyway.

To me it looks like a rehash of ed's infamous 10 pt before the last election.

In reply to neilh:



The "Corbyn Stone"?

In reply to neilh:

That route was pretty good in BR days. And FWIW BR were a world leader - yes really - in networking technology in the early 80s, they almost bought Novell who at that time were competing with and beating Microsoft. There's an 'if only' if ever there was one!

In reply to summo:


That's not my experience of employee reps in the UK at all.

In reply to RyanOsborne:


that's probably because the UK hasn't had a genuine union loving government in power since 1979.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Fair point. There was a huge public outcry against virgin losing that franchise a few years ago, and there was some backtracking and virgin were successful . Expect the same if anybody tries to take over that service, virgin have done a good job.

In reply to MG:


Network Rail is the root of a lot of the problems, and should have been privatised along with the operating companies, so that the franchise holder is also responsible for the track.

In reply to Andy Hardy:

What do you do if the Privatised company goes bust?

What if they don't uphold the maintenance of the tracks?

In reply to MG:
You and most other people on this thread have not a clue about things which you hold strong opinions on

In reply to Donald82:

Whereas you are world authority on everything. I think we've gathered that previously, thanks.

In reply to RyanOsborne:

In the early 90s one of my customers was a staunch Union shop.
It was very similar to the carry on film about the toilet and sink factory.
Many times I was in the compressor room and all the air compressors would go off load at the same time.
A quick look outside world show the entire shopfloor staff on the street.

A few of my favourite reasons for striking.

One guy was sacked for jumping off the silo roof to land in a pile of sand 20 foot below.

One guy was sacked for pending an electrical panel (not an electrician) and wedging in a motor overload with a match stick to stop it tripping, this lead to a fire.

Management bought a pallet wrapping machine, all out we are being replaced by robot's.

Pay rise not as good as hoped for, all out. It was a very high wage factory too. I was out of my time but still a junior service engineer on 6k a year.
The lads who operated the bottle molding machines, basically watched them run and held a bottle against a go no go gauge every hour and ran an oily mop through the moulds every 10 mins were on 30k a year.

It was a great place to work as a contractor because their own lazy gits did bugger all so there was loads of work for us.

Edited to add I have direct experience of other Union shops too, some in my opinion were reasonable and others took the piss a bit but the glass factory took it to a whole new level.

In reply to MG:


Not at all. Just know enough to know you have strong opions about things which you haven't much of a clue about. That's all. Chunter on

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Did you know that the most recently privatised piece of railway was doing better in terms of customer satisfaction, and actually running a profit for the government before things were changed, with customer satisfaction now having dropped?

In reply to Big Ger:

That strikes me more as an argument against the power of the unions to call strikes at the drop of a hat (according to relatives) at the time, more than against a nationalised railway, given that other countries seem to manage to have a modern and well run (at least for the passengers) nationalised railway network?

My Dad used to work for BR as an engineer by the way, sometime during the 70's. He spent his time in the labs figuring things out to do with wielding and metals.

In reply to krikoman:

It doesn't make the evidence invalid. It demonstrates conclusively that nationalisation (particularly linked to collective bargaining) is not a magic solution to the challenges of running a railway. I travelled on the old Southern region every school day and subsequently work day for 12 years plus. It was shite.

In reply to Donald82:


Unlike you we are not young enough to know everything.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Not at all, my never-nude chum. I just know enough to know that you have strong opinions about stuff about which you haven't a clue

In reply to Donald82:


WTF is "never-nude" ?

And I know that you have a massively misplaced certainty about your correctness of your own opinions which can only be based on either on a closed mind or an astonishing naivety or laziness. Your didactic views on the impact of fiscal versus monetary stimulus, and on the motivation behind them, are a case in point. A significant part, and at one point the majority , of the economics world and the Treasury disagreed with your position but by implication you believe that they "haven't a clue".

It's a laughable position to hold.

In reply to Timmd:


They go hand in hand mate, Corbyn would open the doors to union rule.

In reply to Dax H:





>etc.

My favourite was a train load of coal which was kept on the main line from Pembroke docks to Severn junction, blocking all passenger transport for 10 hours, due to a non union worker changing the lamps on the guards van.

The fact that he changed it to the right, (i.e. not dangerous,) configuration as they had been put on wrongly by the guard, (who some believe was pissed at the time,) was not really open for debate.

In reply to Big Ger:

I guess Corbyn might, but the two don't have to, or else they would do in other countries.

It can seem like online threads can become a little bit binary.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Interestingly, it's a position held by many economists inlcuding at the treasury, the OBR, the IFS, IMF etc. You might hold it too if you had half a clue. Hopefully time will tell one way or another

I thought you said you were a never nude? http://arresteddevelopment.wikia.com/wiki/Never_nude

In reply to Timmd:



Not necessarily, the unions have always been more powerful in the UK, other countries regulate them more.

In reply to Big Ger:

I think you're agreeing with what I posted (poorly), that nationalisation and powerful unions (and drop of a hat strikes by implication) don't have to go together?

In reply to Timmd:
Yes mate, but indicating that the UK has a history of them doing so, also;


is a dead giveaway.


ETA:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-36987055

In reply to Donald82:


>
I doubt it. They simply disagreed with the policy which of course is not the same as regarding those who disagree as "not having a clue". Anyway, if you knew half as much as you presume to know you would be aware that the Treasury has been and remains cautious if not sceptical about an activist fiscal policy. The IMF has changed its mind on an almost annual basis and the IFS, in the form of its Director Paul Johnson, has accepted that even if Hammond abandons austerity that would does not show that austerity was wrong.

Given you don't know what my views are, indeed, you barely have a clue, you are in no position to prognosticate on them.

Nor will time likely tell. As the Economist pointed out, "the profession is still arguing about the causes and cures for the 1930s Great Depression so they may still be debating the current crisis in 2100. At the heart of the problem is that it is impossible to isolate one part of economic policy and run a "control" as in a proper scientific experiment. Was fiscal policy the dominant factor in Britain's economic performance or was it the health of the euro-zone economy, changes in commodity prices that cut into consumer spending, the Fed's success in getting global rates down? We can't be sure."

So grow up and stop acting like a 12 year know all.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I don't think everyone that disagrees doesn't have a clue at all. Just you and a few people on UKC with strong opinions about these things. I not particualrly certain about the impacts of fiscal/monetary policy either. I am certain that given the evidence available it was remiss not use fiscal policy to restore growth, and that the Tories know this and chose not to for poltical reasons.
I said a lot of economists 'at', not the organisations themseleves. The difference between IMF economics research and IMF poltical is quite telling here. The OBR and the IFS are careful with how they word things. The treasury is, well, the treasury. I was simply making the point that the position is held by many informed people so unlikely to be laughable.

RE PJ. Of course loosening in response to brexit doesn't mean the pre brexit policy was wrong - if pre brexit fiscal policy was right or too tight loosening is the correct response. The IFS has been pretty clear over the year's that they think Osbourne's policies were wrong and the article says *Hammond* changing course doesn't mean that *Hammond* rejects Osborne's policies. Quite carefully worded.

The economist's a bit of ideological rag. That quote makes a bit if a blooper. The worse the other factors were, the more fiscal policy was needed in response. Part of the reason it's clear the Tories were aware is that they did actually use fiscal policy to respond to lower growth.

The economics profession is a broad church indeed. It extends to people like you with but with a blog blethering about the gold standard. But mainstream economists have a lot of agreement on the 1930s.

You express your views on here quite regularly and articulately.

As above, I just know enough to know you don't really know what you're talking about

In reply to Donald82:







Sorry sunshine, the smiley doesn't cut it. I know enough to know that you are not as knowledgeable as you like to think and suspect that you have a habit of misremembering what people said (it was not me, for example, that argued with you about sectoral balances needing to balance, let along that the household budget analogy is valid). For what its worth, I've been highly sceptical about the logic behind and the opportunties for further austerity since before the 2015 election. Funnily enough, I don't invent my views out of the ether, I base them on the views of professional economists, so by implication you believe that these economists "haven't a clue". That is a pompous and simple minded position to hold.

Obviously some officials at the Treasury, IMF, IFS and many other economists held the view that fiscal stimulus was required. That is not the same as holding the position that to disagree was not to have a clue. And given that the official Treasury view was sceptical about fiscal stimulus (as at the time was the IMF) one might suspect that has something to do with the formation of Treasury policy.

In reply to Donald82:

As a general rule, those with knowledge don't need to belittle others understanding; they can express and argue their points clearly. Arrogant, blustering second-raters by contrast...

In reply to MG:

My experience is that expressing and arguing has little affect on people with strong opinions on things about which they know little. I have tried the patient explaining, discusing, responding approach before. I think it's better just to point out you have strong opinions on stuff you know little about. It might sink in some day

In reply to Donald82:


Really? Which opinions are these?

In reply to Big Ger:

Have you ever been in a Union?

In reply to Postmanpat:

As above i don't think people that disgree haven't a clue. And I don't think I have much of a clue either. Just a bit more. Thinking that you or people on UKC haven't a clue is different. To be fair, you're not too bad - I think I have just unfairly lumped you in with the sectoral balances crew. Sorry about that. I'm not sure your scepticisms about austerity really comes through to what you type though. And you might want to question your certainty that politicians are acting in what they think are in the best interests of the country.

In reply to krikoman:



What would have happened to e.g. LNER if it had gone bust?

Maybe we could have an independent body similar to the CAA looking at track maintenance?

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
I'm in one now, I've been in one most of my working life.

Was a shop steward once, why?