UKC

...is here:

http://www.labour.org.uk/page/-/Images/manifesto-2017/Labour%20Manifesto%20...

I just opened it, expecting a huge unreadable document. It's actually really quite snappy and easy to digest. Each section only takes a minute or two to read.
So whatever your political colours, don't rely on the politicised news soundbites or targeted social media adverts: open this document and have a look at the sections that most interest you. See if you agree with them.
Hopefully the other major party manifestos will be similarly useful.

In reply to Si dH:

The issue with the Labour manifesto is not what's written in it, who doesn't want free everything that some nasty rich people will have to pay for? Its whether the sums actually add up and whether it can be delivered by the bunch of inexperienced and/or incompetent buffoons that make up the shadow cabinet.

In reply to pec:

If it's a choice between the incompetence of Tory buffoons or the incompetence of Labour buffoons I'll vote for whichever bunch of buffoons offers an inclusive and hopeful vision for the future.

In reply to pec:


and the current cabinet are ...?

In reply to pec:

>
It's not just that. It's the ludicrously childish assumption that for some reason the State will run things better and look after the interests of the many.

In reply to Postmanpat:

East Coast Rail managed to pump a Billion GBP back to the Treasury. Maybe we need more children running things?!

In reply to Lusk:


In a different league from the buffoons running the Labour party, in fact I'd be surprised if most Labour MP'S didn't agree with that off the record which is precisely why anyone with any talent or experience won't have anything to do with Corbyn's shadow cabinet.

Here's a reminder of how on top of their game the shadow cabinet are
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/12/labours-general-election-gaffes/

In reply to pec:

Boris Johnson?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Perhaps you can explain why the assumption that the state will run things certain better than private companies is "ludicrously childish" whereas the assumption that the market will deliver better services is sensible? Aren't both positions just bald statements of ideology, without any substance or evidence?

There are lot of very good, very obvious reasons why where certain specific criteria are met (e.g. there is no consumer choice to create meaningful competition; a complex service requires co-ordination and co-operation of many different functions), it would be far more efficient to run the service centrally for the sole purpose of delivering service to the public than to have responsibility fragmented into different organisations whose raison d'etre is to make money for shareholders.

I can't prove to you that this will generate better outcomes, but I cannot for the life of me see why it's "ludicrously childish". Perhaps you can explain (preferably without resorting to "remember British Rail?" to which my answer, is "no, and that's a shit argument because the world is now a different place").

In reply to Jon Stewart:
I tend to agree that it's not a given that the state cannot manage the railways better. It seems to work rather well in Switzerland doesn't it? However I'm not sure how much of that is down to government competence and how much to an inherent culture of precision and punctuality that is less evident here.

Those of us old enough to remember British Rail physically shudder at the memory. But we can't be certain that the "state vs workers" mentality of those days would return, not can we ignore the possibility.

You and I had a good debate last week about the leaked manifesto and you accused me of focusing too heavily on tax, in particular, and, to a lesser degree, on borrowing. I kept the analysis tight however because isolating certain factors facilitates much deeper analysis and hopefully discovery.

If you study the granularity of Labour's tax proposals you'll see that my predictions (if you look back at our conversation) were uncannily accurate. What you'll see in the papers today and online, and that includes the Guardian, is a matching analysis which concludes that a Labour administration won't collect half their planned tax receipts. Initially that will be on account of legitimate income shifting, eventually and more worringly, because enterprise will simply wither or find a new home.

As for borrowing, this is a manifesto that simply ignores the vast escalation of government debt entailed in the nationalisation process. Worse, it promises to reduce the deficit at the same time. A worthy ambition but one that flies in the face of the "tax, borrow and spend" of the manifesto. It's this economic fantasyland that so worries the world of business. The response will be measured in employment cuts and corporation tax collapse.

Labour could have rowed back on the commitments to try to square the figures, but instead we have a manifesto for opposition, not government. Yes, the sitting government should be taken to task on all its policies, but wouldn't you prefer a coherent alternative administration?

And as for rowing back on their original intention to end the freeze on benefits in order to pay for an election bribe to 18 year olds. How do you feel about that?

In reply to Jon Stewart:

This is how some lines are run in Sweden. Track distance is too long, population and good flow too low for any operator to make a profit. So the either the state owned rail or goods company runs the line at a loss, or they subsidise the private operator. Either way it runs at a loss and the taxpayer funds it.

On busier lines the state passenger service runs trains as well as the private operators. Pricing is near identical. The service differs, the state rolling stock is aging(x2000 for those who've been on it), sometimes a little late etc.. no government wants to be the one who borrows or spends a large sum replacing them. The private companies see having efficient stock as critical to it's service. It if was solely state owned there would be no pressure on the state to provide a better service.

Of course service is relative and the vast majority of time trains get you where you need on time, with a seat, for less than half the price of the UK, often in weather that would grind the UK to a halt. The cost is through taxation, having heated points etc.. Can't be cheap to install or run.

There is a plan for a new super line between Copenhagen and Stockholm though, which will see newer trains. It's currently a 5-6hrs train ride.

The critical point is, they don't make the state a profit, the taxpayer is funding them.

In reply to Lusk:

What about him? He has a proven track record of holding positions of power and influence and the experience that comes from that.
You may not like him or his policies, fair enough, but he has more media savvy and a greater intellect than almost the entire shadow cabinet put together. Some poeple like his style, some don't but in all honesty who thinks Dianne Abbot's style ( um . . err . . . that would be . . . err . . about . . . ? you've heard the interview) is anything but a disaster?

Some of the shadow cabinet have only been in parliament 2 years, they aren't even ready to be a junior minister's assistant let alone a minister. They are only there because Corbyn can't get anyone competent to work with him, basically if you're a Labour MP and willing to work with him you've got the job. How can anyone who can't even run his own party run the country, its a complete farce.

youtube.com/watch?v=BlnWv2xrPdo&

In reply to Si dH:

It is very magnanimous of the Labour party to write this manifesto for "The Many" rather than "The Few" considering it is the many will be voting Conservative on June 8th

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Because it is simplistic and not supported by the evidence. A brief look at the British (past or present) or other experiences demonstrates that State run services can be appallingly bad. The idea that the services will necessarily be run in the interests of the users is counter-intuitive and often demonstrably not true. The idea (often cited) that the absence of dividend payments will necessarily result in significantly lower prices is neither born out by the arithmetic nor experience. The idea that "planning" by poorly paid factotums will miraculously solve every issue is utopian.

None of which is to say that State run services are always worse. As BnB suggests, and incidentally the guy who ran the East Coast mainline for the State says, much of it has to with cultural or other issues. But faced with a Labour leadership that cannot even manage itself (I just heard their financial spokesman pulled out of the Today show this morning at short notice the day after the manifesto launch!), that it is clearly heavily dominated by Union interests (aka:"the few"), and has shown absolutely no recognition of the issues involved designing an effective State owned service (except spending more money) I'll stick with "ludicrously childish", but "silly" will suffice.

There seems to be a weird failure on the part of the "Cornbynite left" to understand cause, effect and incentives. This is characterised by their views on tax: a refusal to understand that tax changes lead to behavioural changes , on benefits: a refusal to understand that changes in benefits change behaviours, and on State planning: a naive assumption that without appropriate incentives an institution will always operate in the interests of the public rather than itself.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

My memory may be clouded and hazy, but I don't have good recollections of nationalised industries from the last time around, I recall everyone being eternally grateful when they went into the private sector.
Not to say they wouldn't be better this time, but I have little (zero actually) faith in Corbyn, Abbott etc. making them work and balancing the books.

In reply to Postmanpat:


This is the in-built fallacy in Labour's accounting. The dividends won't need to be paid to shareholders yes, but now they are predicated against the repayment of "bonds" (that's borrowing to you and me however Corbyn/McDonnell don't want to be honest about how they'll fund the state takeover so they've given it a new name). The same dividends will then be spent a second time to repay consumers in the form of cheaper prices. Unfortunately, the track record of any government whose major donor is the unions means that the same money gets spent a third time on wage rises for employees, not necessarily a bad thing, but a case of the "many" sponsoring a different "few", and this time while the deficit soars. Truly a case of the magic money tree.

In reply to BnB:
I just wish the Labour Party this time would concentrate on a couple of issues. The NHS is their strength and instead they have diluted their message with this nationalisation rubbish .

In reply to neilh:

That's because this is not the Labour party that you or I might consider voting for. This is Momentum dressed up as Labour which most sensible people would not vote for. Once this elections over they can sort their party out and hopefully split to allow the more centralist part of the party to form a decent opposition.

In reply to Moley:

To be fair, in most cases the businesses were nationalised because they were already failing.
Car making, shipbuilding and steel were all going bust as they couldn't compete with Japan and Korea who had some or all of better management, better processes, less union power, cheaper wages (to start with) and government protection. Nationalisation kept people in work for 10 or 15 years, but didn't rescue any of these businesses. It did , however, rescue Rolls Royce and BAe. Without nationalisation both of these may well have gone under.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Choosing between two organisational/ownership models, one who's primary responsibility is service delivery, the other who's primary responsibility is profit delivery I know which as a service user I prefer the sound of especially in the situation where those organisations are effective monopolies (rail and water).
jk

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Agreed, labour have to appeal again to the people who voted for Blair instead of speaking only to the true believers

In reply to Postmanpat:


Is being disabled a 'behavior'?
jk

In reply to jkarran:

My private business is built on the profit model but to achieve that we need to deliver better service than our competitors.

The issue with privatisation of monopolies is one of regulation which could have better addressed the model's inherent weakness, ie the impact of the monopoly

In reply to jkarran:

But the private sector needs to provide service to produce profit. The State model has no particular reason to deliver service and therefore often doesn't.

I'll willingly acknowledge that the current private sector models are imperfect and need better regulation and/or competition.

If Corbyn could acknowledge any of the inbuilt failings in the State model and his plans to address them he might make a case. Instead he depends on utopian eulogising of a flawed model.

In reply to jkarran:

The history of UK nationalised companies delivering good service long term isn't exactly staggeringly great?

People talking about a brief window where some government advisors ran an already established train line for a short period of time. Isn't the same as allowing them to control all of the UKs critical infrastructure long term.

In reply to jkarran:

No, most people on benefits are not disabled, as you know. The issue of protection and benefits for disabled is a specific subset of a larger principle.

Do you ask because you don't understand the point or because you enjoy a cheap shot?

In reply to BnB:


Or eliminate competitors, also a central driving force of, particulalry big, business is it not? Thus also eliminating the drive to provide a better service, which can be costly.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I understand the point AND I disagree with it so I guess you could consider it a cheap shot, I personally consider it a valid point.

The whole idea that there are vast swathes of the population actively choosing benefits as a lifestyle is just bollocks we're fed to demonise all benefits recipients, the disabled included so spending on them and taxes for you and me can be cut.
jk

In reply to jkarran:


I think even the most ardent Tory can separate the case of the disabled person who struggles to work and the twenty something hanging around a shopping centre right now. Indeed the reason the twenty something is there is arguably the result of other policy failings, but that's a different argument.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Presumbaly a look at some reasonably well run state services around the world may provide some evidence?



Indeed, which is why I cant imagine anyone claiming something so stupid, 'childish' even. Do you have evidence that anyone did say something along these lines; 'miraculously solve every issue'?


So, it is not always 'luicrously childish' then? And it may be supported by evidence?

In reply to summo:


The last time most of these monopoly services were in national ownership pretty much nobody was delivering great service or products. Times have changed.

Is a 1970's Mini crap* by comparison with a 2010's because BL was publicly owned and BMW isn't or because there's 50+ years of technology separating them?

*Ok they have a lot of charm, are fun to drive and the right size for our roads but they're still crap when viewed objectively from 2017.


No, obviously we're much better off selling our *critical infrastructure* to the highest bidder then continuing to subsidise them when the fail to extract enough profit. Now you've made such a strong case it makes perfect sense!
jk

In reply to IM:
>
You've somewhat(!)missed the point. I was specifically NOT saying that all State run models are bad and all private models are good.

I was saying that it is silly to believe, as Corbynites would have us do, that State run services are by definition better.

In reply to BnB:


You have competitors, you operate in a functioning marketplace.

I simply don't see why anyone would be happy to rely on a state regulator controlling a subsidy dependent private monopoly, often majority owned by foreign state service providers but not on a uk owned state monopoly. In both cases you rely on the uk state to determine and regulate the minimum service standard but one shifts value from our taxes overseas, the other doesn't.
jk

In reply to jkarran:

Do you or do you not accept that how benefits system is structured and how strictly benefits are adminstered will impact the behaviour of people and their likelihood to require or want benefits. And, to clarify, that is not to imply that their are grillions of deleberate "benefits cheats".

In reply to Postmanpat:


You seemed to me (!) to be replying to a much more general question made by Jon Stewart - i.e. 'Perhaps you can explain why the assumption that the state will run things certain better than private companies is "ludicrously childish" whereas the assumption that the market will deliver better services is sensible?'

However, I am not going to get drawn any further into engaging with your own peculiar brand of passive aggressive pedantry.

In reply to Postmanpat:


To a limited degree. Many people are already at the limit of their ability to adjust their behavior. Easy to forget when one is relatively comfortable and possessed of options that aren't all awful.


Sure but that lie has been routinely and extensively used by this government (your government) to cut essential funding to the most vulnerable and it is the fall back position whenever their inhumanity is challenged.
jk

In reply to Postmanpat:


And yet you're happy for other states to run our infrastructure, if Germany, France and China think there's a profit in our infrastructure and services. Why is it good for them but not for us?

Surely we should be looking after our own stuff rather than putting it in the hands of foreign governments.

The biggest argument in Brexit was taking back control, and yet you want other nations controlling OUR country, and taking the profits with them.

In reply to Lusk:


Case rested.

Although, I see your Boris and raise you a Michael Gove.

In reply to jkarran:


What exactly has changed? Corbyn certainly hasn't changed.


You mean shares, which probably form the back bone of your pension etc..

In reply to Postmanpat:


But the Tories are also asking us to make a bunch of ludicrously childish assumptions in their campaign.

So, as someone above said, I'll vote for whichever bunch offers an inclusive and hopeful vision for the future.

In reply to summo:


Well we're no longer teetering on the brink on national bankruptcy post war and technology has massively improved our products and services.


Do you suppose he'd personally be splitting his week, a day at party HQ, a day at British Rail, a day at National Water, a day in parliament... or do you think perhaps, like now they would be run as self contained industries with arms length ministerial oversight?


Pension, what pension! Even if I did have investments there are plenty of other places they could be put to earn a dividend that do not just divert taxes from the masses into the hands of those with capital.
jk

In reply to IM:


What's that got to do with the railways? A franchise can't eliminate other franchises as they have no infrastructure or cost base when out of play. They can only keep the competition at bay by meeting the franchiser's (or regulator's) service and financial targets

In reply to summo:



And if it was Nationalised the money would go into everyone's pension!! FFS!

In reply to Postmanpat:

Much of UK infrastructure is state run, its just not our state!

In reply to jkarran:

The more fundamental question is whether financially it is sensible to privatise those services.

Considering the money may be better spent in the NHS , I would seriously question whether this should even be on the table.

It also misses the big point which over the next 5 years us Brexit . Whether we like it or not that is the critical issue. Privatisation should not even be on the starting block.

In reply to krikoman:


And how will that work. Compulsory purchase shares after freezing the price? Sounds great, welcome to the communist state of Islington.

In reply to neilh:

I don't understand the rationale of privatised industries that are natural monopolies, like water - no competitor is ever going to build a new sewage system and water delivery system and offer their services to each household, so there can never be the competition that so wondrously improves our lives.

As a result they have to be 'regulated', which means someone in the public sector is responsible for doing the maths, telling them how much they can charge, telling them where they have to improve services and all the rest. If the public sector can do THAT then it seems a fairly small step to being wholly publically owned.

But I agree that Brexit is the big issue, and Labour have signally failed to come up with any coherent alternative to May's hard Brexit, or come up with any other vision that could inspire the electorate.

In reply to neilh:


If they're profitable then the profit covers the cost of buying them, if they're not then we as taxpayers are subsidising them to ensure they remain afloat (and providing 'profit') because they are monopoly providers of essential services. Borrowing costs are rock bottom, why wouldn't we take back ownership?


I'm still hopeful we'll come to our senses because the alternative is a manifesto in red, blue or yellow ink that reads: *FIRE SALE!*
jk

In reply to summo:


No, he means the ownership and control of our public services by foreign states. Many of the train services are owned not by overseas companies in which our pension providers could by shares, but by foreign governments, in which we cant buy shares, with the profits / subsidies from our railways being used to subsidise their own state run train services.......

In reply to krikoman:


After the surplus has been used several times over to pay of the debt incurred in re-nationalising, reducing consumer prices, and paying the extra wages in payback to the union backers.

Don't tell me you were hoping to retire on what's left?

In reply to Ian W:


That's not really case of any of the utilities though is it. Exactly how will Corbyn buy back all those shares?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Exactly. Whichever government is in power for the next five years will have little time for anything but Brexit. Yet Momentum, I mean Labour, hardly mentions the issue, such is their headlong rush to cripple the economy.

In reply to BnB:


Except that bond rates are significantly below dividend norms for that industry; and the money would be kept "within the loop" rather than leaving the system (UK plc) completely.

And what is the problem in reducing consumer prices? Our rail prices may then become competitive with other forms of transport..........and I'm not really sure your last point stacks up, but then we obviously come from different parts of the political spectrum.

In reply to summo:

By launching takeovers of the controlling entities, the same process that led to the current state of affairs. Market forces, dear boy! I'm sure you would approve!

In reply to Ian W:

You never know, might be quite handy when trying to negotiate a BREXIT free trade deal.

"You want 100 billion euros? I see , well first tell Deutsche Bahn, SNCF, Abellio and Trenitalia that we have comandeered our rail back..oh and EDF and GDF Suez...we are sequestrating your UK assets back too"

In reply to BnB:

Yet Momentum, I mean Labour, hardly mentions the issue, such is their headlong rush to cripple the economy.

" No deal is better than a poor deal "

Yup, sounds like Mayhem et al are committed to improving the economy.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Who the hell mentioned sequestering assets?

In reply to Ian W: "Who the hell mentioned sequestering assets?"

I did, in my proposal in how to deal with these pesky Europeans over BREXIT. It's not like they can threaten us with the same <maniacal laughter>

BTW, the smiley face indicates it was a light hearted post not to be taken too seriously

In reply to Ian W:


Launching a take over? You mean the government buys up all available shares of a given company? You do realise what would happen to the price? I presume this hostile take over will be acceptable by the various exchanges and also legal? You do understand there are rules and declarations when any individual reaches thresholds of ownership?

If I thought Corbyn has a chance of winning I'd be busy buying shares now, ready for the price going through the roof.

Market forces, you do realise that contrary to what Corbyn may tell you, there are quite a lot of rules and regulations around share trading etc.. dear boy.

In reply to lummox:


You don't appear to understand how a negotiation works.

In reply to summo:


How is it funded? Borrowing, funded by profit from the asset. How is the purchase handled? Dunno, it's a reasonable question. Gradually over a couple of parliaments like the nationalised bank share sales have been handled would seem sensible and politically palatable if the aim is a majority holding that continues to grow over time rather than an outright purchase in one go.

In the case of the electricity supplier proposal they may not need to buy anything, they may choose to start new providers then grow them organically.
jk

In reply to BnB:

Please don't adopt such a patronising tone. I'm glad you have confidence in the ability of May, Davis, Fox et al to secure the best possible outcome from Brexit. I cannot see any evidence to suggest they will do so.

In reply to BnB:


There's no fallacy. This is just obvious and no one would deny it. Questions is whether payment on bonds is greater than rate of return paid to private regulated companies? For obvious reasons it would be less - Government pays less to borrow than regulated utilities - which is what their rate of return is based on - and is in a very strong position to drive down the price before it buys.

(Obviously whether it's a good idea depends more on how government runs things once nationalised. I'd say your views on this are a bit pessimistic.)

In reply to jkarran:

Wouldn't work, any share holders will just hold out knowing government created demand would push the price up.

In reply to Si dH:
ironic to recall the last industries to be nationalized were some dodgy banks in 2008? Or was it an underperforming private railway?

In reply to edwardgrundy:


I'm actually much less critical of the concept of renationalisation than I am about the mendacious presentation of it as free of financial risk

Then again perhaps any shortfall can be accommodated by another 15% on millionaire's tax bills

In reply to summo:

Average investment period these days is just a few months, there'd be a ready enough turn over for a gradual purchase over a decade or so without severely distorting the value if that was the chosen option.
jk

In reply to BnB:


The taxpayer backstops the shareholders' risk now, these are essential services that can not be allowed to fail so they get further subsidised whenever they start to look shaky. The risks with public ownership change but it isn't a binary change.
jk

In reply to lummox:


I wasn't being patronising. I was holding up to scrutiny your claim that a classic and effective, indeed virtually mandated in all commercial talks, negotiating tool should be evidence of incompetence. On the contrary, avowing that you'll do a deal, whatever the terms, is an invitation to a beating. Now where have I seen that admission lately?

In reply to jkarran:


Yes on a normal share although I'd debate the timescale. The minute you declare a take over plan, normal trading would cease.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Most people on benefits have jobs. Perhaps employers should've paying them more so the taxpayer doesn't have to subsidise their wages?

£10 an hour sounds like a good start.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Clearly didnt read it that thoroughly...but now I get your approach, have a like!

In reply to summo:


You'd be right to debate, the figure I was using was apparently a few years out of date, according to the Telegraph it's under a minute now.

How long do you think trading suspends before normal market forces take hold again... years? And in that time of course the value will hold rock steady, there won't even be any tiny value fluctuations triggering stop orders and automatic transactions to get everything moving again?
jk

In reply to summo:


Yup, thats how it works. The price rises until only one party remains interested, as in an auction.


Indeed there are; the same rules apply no matter who is the seller / buyer.


Go for it! Thats how some make their money, gambling on share price movements. There are also rules and regs that allow companies to be delisted and acquire shares from minority holdings.

>Market forces, you do realise that contrary to what Corbyn may tell you, there are quite a lot of rules and regulations around share trading etc.. dear boy.

Fully aware; been involved in it. Nobody said it would be easy / cheap, just that it can be done.

In reply to summo:


Small shareholders can hold out as long as they like; all you need is a controlling share. Once you have no remaining influence, theres not really any point in holding out (minority interest < 10%, I think)..........

In reply to Si dH:

I agree with their income tax proposals but not with their corp tax ones (if what's being reported is true).
I agree with most of the rest of the manifesto.

In reply to Ian W:


Government would still need to spend a fortune whilst price escalates to reach that point. Repeat it through many companies abd it would throw the markets into chaos.

Nope, i don't need to buy them as Corbyn thankfully won't get to enact his plans.

In reply to Moley:

A lot of people were because they thought they'd made a killing on the share issues, same as if you bought your council house at a knock down price you were grateful - that's not to say it was in the long term national interest. I think that a lot of the traditional privatised industries were doing similarly badly at the time, maybe Thatcher's neutering of the unions was all it took but we'll never know as both occurred at around the same time.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Overall, that was a mononumentally unconconvincing defense of your point, but thanks anyway,


We have no analysis of the evidence available. Let's be honest, we have no evidence from which to conclude whether renationalisation of the railways would work well or badly, it could easily be either, and it would depened on the details of exactly how it was implemented. What I object to is your bald ideological statement that to believe in nationalisation is "ludicrously childish". It isn't, and you have failed to give good reasons why you think it is.


Any system needs to be set up correctly with the right incentives to encourage success. You're just making a crappy straw man argument: naitonalisation means putting a load of civil servants with no particular interest in anything in charge of running something important, not paying them much regardless of results, and hoping that they'll do a brilliant job because they're all so passionate about delivering public services. You haven't given any reasons why a system cannot be created that incentivises success.

One theme that runs through right-wing thinking is that only thing human beings care about is money (one can only speculate why they think this...). This misses the point that money is a proxy for status ("glory" or "honour") and that the choice between public glory and humiliation is also a strong motivator. If the people running public services are faceless bureaucrats who get a big pay-off when they f*ck everything up and get sacked, then there is very little motivation to do well, and that would not be a good way to run the system. Such incentives to succeed need to run throughout the system - it requires good design. As of course does a private business. There is nothing automatically good or successful about either. A business can be designed such that the only thing it does is attempt to make money the easiest way at the cost of actually producing anything worthwhile, and engaging in dishonest, dangerous behaviours (without the very strict regulation and other non-profit incentives, the company I work for would do precisely this, and indeed it tries to sometimes and falls fowl of the consequences). Ignoring this motivation in private business is simplistic and utopian and is willfully ignored by those with an ideological bent towards privatisation.


Exactly. Your statement was ideological guff, not an argument.


I agree. I'm not defending the Labour manifesto, which reads more like a fairy story than a realistic programme of government. But I am defending the policy renationalisation against empty ideological statements based on nothing more on than the right-wing fallacy that the market knows best and will deliver efficient public services just because someone can make money out it.

In reply to BnB:

I don't think there's anything wrong with how they've presented it really. From what I've seen, people have said but you'll need to borrow to pay for it. And they've said yes, but we'll not need to pay dividends so that's fine. Unless they run it badly, then that's fine - obviously they're not going to say it's fine unless we run it badly.

The misleading thing is to say "we can't afford it".

In reply to edwardgrundy:


Or the scale of borrowing required? On top of a deficit and existing national debt.

In reply to BnB:

Yes, from all the analysis I heard yesterday it seemed that a) there wasn't a snowman's chance in hell that Labour could raise the £50b from their tax proposals and b) loads of the stuff they'd promised just wasn't included in the costings anyway. The whole thing does not appear credible, and I won't be voting for it. (I live in Tim Farron's constituency where there's a 40% Tory vote - I'm not mental!)


Look, I'd prefer a lot of things that I'm not being offered, and so I'll choose between what there is. The tuition fees promise is hilarious: imagine if they actually won and and Corbyn had to go on youtube with a face like a smacked arse and say sorry to all the students he'd conned, that would be sight! Bur the very last thing I want is Tory landslide. But the Tory policies are so awful, so destructive, so power-grabbing, so unfair towards the people born into the worst circumstances in our society, so willing to see the vulnerable trodden under the heel of the wealthy, that the thought of them pushing forward with this agenda essentially unopposed is terrifying. The fact that the hard brexit will also affect me in my wealthy, cosy little life and quite possibly make even my privileged little bubble within society crap and depressing is a further consideration, and if it is that bad, I will up sticks.

Yes, I would prefer a coalition of the centre left that could construct a pragmatic policy agenda to improve our schools, hospitals, infrastrcture, environment, with a higer tax/higher spend (but realistic), stronger state, brexit reversed (or "neutralised") and do a good job of managing the economy so that it delivers better social outcomes, then that is how I would vote. As it is, I'm voting for Tim Farron. Anywhere else, I would vote for anyone except the Tories.

In reply to summo:

I don't really understand what your point is

In reply to summo:


Surely the government can pass a law and simply buy them for what they think is a fair price? Or they can force down the value, for example by reducing the regulated rate of return or making clear that stranded asset risk is on shareholders. Or once they have 50%, stop paying dividends. etc. etc.

In reply to edwardgrundy:


Sounds like a fiscal policy in line with China's currency manipulation. Are you really suggesting a government in a democratic country should pass laws purely so it can buy companies at lower prices?

In reply to edwardgrundy:

How do you think that would play out in the Uk or global stock market? Do you think other shares in Uk would then collapse ?What sort of message would that give to investors in the UK.

You would see the biggest flight in capital out of the UK, leading to job losses etc.

In reply to Jon Stewart:



Well thanks but you seem 1) not to be reading what I wrote 2) So emotionally biased against anything supported by the dreaded "Tories" that you switch off your critical faculties.

Now, we've got the random abuse out of the way: "you haven't given any reasons why a system cannot be created that incentivises success"
Well that would be because I wasn't making that claim!! I actually wrote it deliberately not to make that claim. You just assumed it.


1) I said that there was plenty of evidence that nationalisation can fail, specifically not that it inevitably fails (read more carefully-I repeated this point more than once ). I then enumerated some of the reasons why it often fails.
It is incumbent upon Corbyn to explain why "this time is different". That he has made no attempt to do suggests he has no innovative ideas about how it might be made to work next time around. He just assumes it, as per my OP.

2) Corbyn has given absolutely no evidence that he understands the need to create incentives, financial or otherwise. He simply repeats the mantra "for the many not the few" whilst being financed by the unions who will be the few beneficiaries. Everything points to a rerun of the post war debacle of nationalisation.

As the boss of East Coast mainline said, the reason that it worked under State ownership was that it was run like a private company. Do you think Corbyn will go for that in the light of his criticism of marketisation of the NHS.

I somebody produced a sensible blueprint for a nationalised railway or other specifically designed to avoid the blindingly obvious pitfalls, I would listen. But there is no evidence that this has been done. The Labour arguments simply rely on a lot of ideological mendacious claptrap and poor arithmetic, whilst completely ignoring the arguments against it.

Would you listen to proposals to reform the privatised utilies?

In reply to Postmanpat:

'He simply repeats the mantra "for the many not the few"'

Er, with respect I think 'Strong and stable' became a mantra before Labour's own rather less vacuous or inane slogan.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Yes, as usual, the Tories set the pace

Although one might question which is more vacuous or inane: score draw I think.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Corbyn has just announced a headline policy of renationalisation, in terms to attempt to woo voters who like this kind of thing. He's not engaged in demonstrating in detail how this will work. This is a snap election - whatever opposition parties propose will by definition be half-baked, badly researched - that's the point of calling a snap election! The fact that he hasn't elaborated on the detail at this juncture isn't a valid criticism of the policy of renationalising the railways.

2) Corbyn has given absolutely no evidence that he understands the need to create incentives...The Labour arguments simply rely on a lot of ideological mendacious claptrap and poor arithmetic, whilst completely ignoring the arguments against it.
Isn't this just a repeat of point 1 above? This is a snap election campaign - if you expect anything other than mendacious claptrap from anyone, prepare to be disappointed!


Yes. But I struggle to listen to the criticism that the nationalisation policy is based on "ludicrously childish assumptions". It isn't.

In reply to Jon Stewart:
>
Corby and his friends have had thirty years of stagnant political ophilosophy to come up with a blueprint for successful nationalisation. If his best excuse is that "I've only had two weeks" then it speaks volumes for their lack of thinking. I suspect it reflects a self satisfied assumption that it is all self evident.

On a slight tangent I find it weird that parties don't have long lists of costed "off the shelf" policies that they can review and insert in manifestos at short notice. Aren't policies their raison d'etre?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Funny that!
When the state had to take over the East Coast rail line because the private company running it made a total hash of it, it ran efficiently, made a profit for the tax payer, and had high customer satisfaction.
Then the Tories couldn't leave a good working system alone and reprivatised it. Political dogma nothing else.

In reply to Si dH:

Not quite sure how increasing Corporation Tax to 26% encourages investment and helps businesses grow to create more jobs. Best to just take the business elsewhere.

In reply to Root1:
>
And the boss at the time said it's success had nothing to do with State ownership and that it continued to be run much as a private company. And, of course, it was only a short interegnum.
Have you looked at the mighty success of Network Rail?

In reply to cragtaff:

I don't know what the effect of the increase will be on business, as of course it's all about the economic conditions at the time, but the Tory line seems to be "What?? 26%?!!?? That's lucdicrous!! Business will simply keel over and die" - which is of course quite silly in both the historical and global context.

In reply to Postmanpat:

'If somebody produced a sensible blueprint for a nationalised railway or other specifically designed to avoid the blindingly obvious pitfalls, I would listen. But there is no evidence that this has been done. '

I doubt that Corbyn's team is up to the task; that doesn't mean it couldn't be done. UK healthcare is by most measures significantly more efficient than healthcare in the US - i.e. better outcomes per buck.

My own view is that there are some sectors which so patently CANNOT be enhanced by competition - railways, roads, water, health - that we accept that the only rational approach is to run them under some sort of public ownership, and - as is the case with the NHS - just live with the fact that There Is No Alternative. And keep looking for ways to make the public sector work better; make that the political football, rather than the sterile nationalise/privatise version.

People could be incentivised more; they could be led by leaders who have earned their respect by their commitment to shared goals; there could be ways of ring fencing funding a la the BBC; in fact the BBC is an interesting example and model for a public enterprise. Could the NHS be run on the same sort of basis?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Well, the assumption that "there are some sectors which so patently CANNOT be enhanced by competition - railways, roads, water, health" seems to be ideological. Water seems in the UK to have benefited from privatisation. Health in most places is mixed public/private, and private railways have worked perfectly well for decades in Japan.

What matters is what works.

In reply to BnB:


20 year index-linked gilt yields are now minus 1.6 per cent (so if the government borrows £100 now it will have to repay only £72 in real terms).

Not so much a magic money tree, but an example of how you do not know the current cost of borrowing.

In reply to cragtaff:


As Starbucks found out, you cannot take DEMAND with you....

In reply to Shani:

Ah. So you mean it's not really borrowing at all?

In reply to BnB:


It is definitely borrowing. There is an appetite for long-term government debt. It's simple free market economics.

The borrowing could be used to buy profitable assets, several of which are natural monopolies.

In reply to Shani:


So a government buys a utility company from its share holders. Good price for the shareholders etc.. the government pays a modest rate of interest on the loan. The company makes a profit by charging the public more then it needs to cover the loan interest? How is this any better than now?

Then in 20years they'll be making massive losses through lack of investment and unionisation. The Tories will privatise and they'll creep back into profit....

In reply to summo:

If it's in it's manifesto to renationalise and shareholders are holding them to ransom, they can and should pass a law to pay a fair price.

neil: The idea that that would cause market panic is ridiculous

In reply to summo:

The interest on government debt will be less than the rate of return that regulated monopolies get. So all other things kept the same it would be better.

As you say though, government could well mess it up. They could do it better as well though. This is the question though - who runs it better? (Not can we afford it?, what about the borrowing!?, shareholders will hold us to ransom or panic and other economically illiterate nonsense)

In reply to edwardgrundy:

That the UK's economic status is out of proportion to its population is down to several factors. Looming large however is the historical stability of capital and the absence of government sequestration of private assets. There's nothing wrong with a nationalisation or two, but the forced sale of private capital assets without negotiation would strike at the heart of that reputation and make the UK less attractive to much needed foreign investment. Think Nissan Qashqai. It might also spark a race to the bottom for comparable assets. Both outcomes have obvious consequences for jobs and markets. Get real.

In reply to Si dH:

!o)

In reply to summo:


Hopelessly limited understanding. Reread my post.

In reply to Postmanpat:

No, it's not ideological - it's common sense, with different reasons for different sectors. You can't have two, three or 'n' suppliers of sewage disposal or water. There can only be one in any given area.

Privatisation of healthcare makes no sense at all - none of know what we are going to encounter, and when things go grim the costs become more than an honest man can pay. Insurance can't cut it - there will constantly be pressure to discover genetic conditions and reflect those in unaffordable premiums. I'd rather chuck my money in a pot to be doled out on a basis of need - i.e. contribute to the NHS.

Your ideology says that publically owned enterprises can't work. Well, we won WW II mostly by nationalising everything in sight; the NHS still works better than many competitors; and the BBC doesn't seem too bad either.

In reply to BnB:


You do have a point here. We have to be careful what we renationalise.

Natural monopolies would lend themselves to nationalisation with little market kickback - like water.

Rail franchises naturally expire and so can easily be renstionalised (and look at the great success of East Coast Mainline returning millions in profit to the Treasury).

We can also reflect on the fact that many of these privatised businesses are actually owned by governments....just those of foreign countries through sovereign wealth funds.

With dividends reinvested domestically, savings on competition and compliance, and, reduction in tax avoidance and evasion, this could be good for the UK to pay of debt and fund its ambitions.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

It's clearly not "common sense" given that government and academics have widely rejected it for 40 years. It's just a point of view.

My ideology doesn't say " that publically owned enterprises can't work". It says they very often don't work so it is incumbent on any party that wants to renationalise them to produce an evidence based blueprint as to why this time will be different. (as I have already made clear several times)

If the argument is "it worked in the war" then you really are struggling.

In reply to edwardgrundy

look at basket cases like Venezula

In reply to Shani:

I wold go back to BnB's earlier posts and just say that historically and culturally we are just not good at nationalisation .

In reply to Postmanpat:


So you'll be able to point me at evidence-based blueprints to justify all of May's election promises then?

... oh sorry, she hasn't told us what she's going to do; we just have to trust in her strength and stability and all will magically be alright.

Apart from Brexit, of course, upon which pretty much every evidence-based expert was in agreement about it being unwise in the extreme, yet we appear dead set on the hardest of hard Brexits imaginable. But it will be ok really, because we're strong and stable. Convinced yet? Or do I need to say strong and stable a few more times to win you over, whilst actually telling you precisely nothing?

In reply to neilh:

East-Coast Mainline? Alternatively what about ownership through a sovereign wealth fund like already happens?

In reply to edwardgrundy:


Name a state run UK company that stayed consistently profitable long term?

In reply to Shani:

That was just a mere blip in time where they ran it for brief interval, between operators.

Same question. Name any UK state owned and run company that remained profitable or solvent long term?

I'll give you one, that eventually came good after a hundred years of subsidies, because they could sell their world class digital mapping. Ordnance Survey. I can't think of others. Although the forestry commission would be close.

In reply to john arran:
>
Whataboutery.

It's the left that is always arguing for "evidence based policy" except, apparently, when it is their policy.

I don't agree with all May's policies, especially since we don't know what they are but they don't seem to involves a radical undermining of the UK economy.

In reply to Postmanpat:

'It says they very often don't work so it is incumbent on any party that wants to renationalise them to produce an evidence based blueprint as to why this time will be different' Er .. well that means we can't ever try anything different because we haven't evidence that it worked in the past!

And in fact ... it did. BR was OK, not great, but it lurched from crisis to crisis because it started from an underfunded and historically inefficient base (before nationalisation, 1 poverty level railwayman per mile of track, IIRC - remember Nesbit's station master rejecting charity?) and funding was always way down the pecking order for hard pressed chancellors. And yet, and yet...

And the NHS works. So does the BBC.

And WW II isn't such a stupid example either. We won, at least partly because our entire economy came under government control, i.e. that of civil servants, who on the whole (not exclusively) ran things in the best interests of the country. This was starkly in contrast to both US and German models, which on the whole were both less efficient (massively so in the case of Germany) and much more expensive.

In reply to summo:


I would have thought that if a state-owned company responsible for essential services (e.g drinking water) was turning a profit, then it should be lowering its prices. You seem to have been infected by the mentality that the more money you can make, the more successful a business you run, which fundamentally doesn't apply when it concerns essential services.

In reply to summo:

'Name a state run UK company that stayed consistently profitable long term? '

Er... that would be a contradiction in terms. However, the BBC has consistently delivered state of the art broadcasting for 90 years; the NHS delivers quality healthcare at a lower per capita cost than just about anywhere in the world.

And your point is?...

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

See above: It's the left's mantra that policies must be "evidence based". (It's actually one of Jon's hobby horses)

BR was shite and largely because it was deliberately underfunded by successive governments who believed rail travel was obsolescent (and suffered from repetitive fiscal crises anyway). The classic case of monopoly government policy error. Being the victims of overpwerful unions which could bring the whole system to a standstill (and clearly aim to do the same again) didn't help.

The NHS is chronically underfunded, unlike most of its European peers.

Using the wartime example is ridiculous. There is a natural community of interests, a specific aim, a (hopefully) limited timeframe, and special government powers, none of which exist in peacetime.

In reply to summo:

Irrelevant really as nobody is demanding a return to a prenationalised managerial model.

To use East-Coast as an example, suggesting nationalisation cannot evolve is like looking at the failures of the previous (private) owners of East Coast and saying all privatisation is bad.

Look at all the privatised UK industries that are actually owned by foreign governments through sovereign wealth funds; from transport and engineering through to utilities and energy.

Huge swathes of UK infrastructure was privatised in to ownership of other governments for the benefit of foreign citizens.....but somehow you think WE can't own our OWN infrastructure?

Stop talking Britain down.....or rather, i have WAY more confidence in the British people to run their own affairs than you do.

In reply to BnB:

If it's *in manifesto to renationalise* and shareholders *are holding them to ransom*, they can and should pass a law to *pay a fair price*

In reply to neilh:


good and relevant comparisson

In reply to edwardgrundy:

There are corollaries to poorly conducted nationalisation; look at the (private) financial system in 2008. What got 'nationalised' then?......yep, billions in losses got nationalised. Now THAT was a basket case.

In reply to summo:


I can't - I genuinely don't know how profitable or not nationalised companies were. I understand they weren't good though.

It's a strange question in response to my comment though. I don't think you understood what I wrote.

In reply to john arran:


I agree. Not my mentality. Read all the comments above about how state ownership will good and make profit etc.. I don't think they grasp the profit would be their money.

In reply to Shani:


Glad we agree it should be left in the control of British people to run itself privately and not taken over by the minority in momentum and the union leaders.

In reply to edwardgrundy:


So you are proposing state ownership but you don't know just how bad state ownership was previously. I would do a little research or ask your older relatives.

In reply to summo:
I've not been arguing for or against state ownership. As I've said, whether it's a good thing depends on how it's run. I'm simply pointing out where arguments against state ownership are nonsense.

Personally I wouldn't put too much weight on how nationalised companies were run in the UK before. As other countries show, It can be done reasonably well and I don't think we'd make egregious mistakes of the past.

I doubt my older relatives know how profitable they were either. I do know that train companies aren't profitable now before subsidy though, and the way we regulate utilities means they are pretty much guaranteed to be profitable. That said, they are more efficient than they used to be.

If it were up to me, I'd nationalise some companies where they can be bench marked against other private companies -
some rail franchises, some regional utilities - keep them run for profit and see how they went.

In reply to summo:

We only need to look just across some water to see successful either partly or wholly state owned companies. Your argument appears to be that we would choose as our model a beige forty-years out-of-date one rather than a modern, easily replicable one as seen all over Europe. Why would we?

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


Not my argument, it's Corbyn that's behind the times.


I agree to an extent. Only everything is also different. They have always been nationalised, not renationalised. Work force mentality is very different to the union driven mentality Corbyn would like to see. UK productivity is lower then mainland Europe. Some European nationalisation are willingly subsidised by the taxpayer etc..

There just isn't any example where a government has bought up the shares of a private utility company, ran it efficiently and cheaply for the public, plus some how made a profit for their treasury.

In reply to edwardgrundy:


Now that seems a pragmatic approach. I'd be content to see us nationalise the railways, nothing else, as a test of the efficacy of the principle. Re-absorbing the franchises as they expire is very different from snatching assets from their owners, so avoiding any impacts on markets and accusations of untested Statism on a Marxist scale. Secondly, the deficiencies of the railways are plain to see. The service can be easily measured in price, punctuality, presentation and rail-worthiness (struggled for a final "p" there). Far harder for the public to measure water quality or the wattage of their electricity.

If the government can improve what appears to be the prime candidate for a re-model, then let them have a go at the next utility.

This is where the manifesto fails. Thoughtful voters are more readily convinced by a pragmatic "let's see how it goes" than an idealistic "everything will be better".

In reply to edwardgrundy:


You want to some how buy up shares at public expense, then run it for a profit (ie. the public is funding the profit) ?

Sounds like hard work. Why not invent something called tax and apply it to the profits of all regulated private utility companies and save yourself the borrowing and risk?

In reply to summo:


Stop looking at everything in terms of profit. If people are paying less for their energy then they'd have more disposable cash to spend elsewhere in the economy.

Money goes round, and the more it goes round before ending up as part of a billionaires bank balance, the better it is for the treasury.


But how are they going to pay for it?

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2017/05/04/how-are-you-going-to-pay-for-...

In reply to Dell:


I'm not, it's all those people who think that if its nationalised it will bring in profit for the government.


Or in millions of UK citizens pension and insurance funds? If you think Labour will run the utilities efficiently for years, producing a stream of income or keeping costs low for the consumer then I think you are dreaming.

The current Labour shadow cabinet don't understand their own briefs enough to talk about them accurately for 3-4mins, how can they possibly claim to be able to deliver renationalisation programme costing billions.

In reply to Dell:


A left wing economic book writer, who undertakes studies in universities directly funded by the EU. Hardly an unbias source.

In reply to summo:

It doesn't need to bring in profit for the government- it would be better first used to get better deal for citizens. Energy for example should cost Cost of Generation + Cost of Transmission + Investment in Infrastructure, not whatever the output of whichever confusing tariff you find yourself on. National Grid are halfway through an eight year regulatory deal which incentivises replacement of x amount of certain assets and so it does this to hit its targets, regardless of if it runs out of assets that actually need replacing. A state controlled body could actually change direction much quicker than a regulator can renegotiate with a private monopoly.

In reply to Dell:


Where it would end up as errrmmmm profit....

In reply to Shani:

East Coast has already been covered. And to counter the East coast I would argue that West Coast under Virgin is outstanding. I have used both and the West coast in particular..

Personally I am of the view that utilities like water should be publicly held. But the stumbling block for me is ( 1) what model (2) the cost when there are more important things to do with the money - I am sure like me you would prefer the NHS or education to get priority( 3) how for example on trains you keep innovation going -can you imagine the battles with the unions on guards(4) nobody mentions the cost of consolidating for example bringing water utilities under one roof as I assume there be redundancies in overlapping functions on IT etc etc.(5) at least at the moment the govt can force the companies to invest in new sewars etc.

In reply to Shani:

Slightly different considering the impact that a failed NatWest would have had on the whole system.

In reply to BnB:


I'd agree with much of this. Not sure why you have been downvoted for it as it seems eminently sensible.

In reply to neilh:
Re 2:the cost when there are more important things to do with the money .

As noted above, this was a key problem for BR.

It was also a key problem with the water companies. Because governments couldn't afford investment in the water infrastructure capex was cut and prices rose in order to offset attempts to reduce debt. As with the railways the private sector thus inherited a delapidated infrastructure and are now accused of profiteering because they raise prices to fund investment.
It is not difficult to envisage in an environment of "austerity" that capex in these sectors would be the first thing to go.

A model would have to be created which ringfences the sectors from the government finances. Given that ultimately any debt would be regarded as guaranteed by the Government this would be quite a complex problem.

In reply to Dell:

> But how are they going to pay for it?
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2017/05/04/how-are-you-going-to-pay-for-...

Very interesting.

In reply to IM:


This is wasted on a few people here who are trapped in the 'household economics' concept (as you can see above) - Household economics dominates the media and public understanding.

In contrast macro economics is counter intuitive and hard to feel comfortable with.

The media and government rely on this misunderstanding to maintain the status quo.

In reply to Shani:


Yip, I agree. I actually think it is a modern day political scandal.
Although I often wonder how many get it but pretend they don’t in order to perpetrate the 'economy-is -like-a-household' narrative or some politicians actually do think national economies/debt/spending/tax can be understood as giant household. The latter is probably more disturbing than the former..

In reply to Shani:

Whether Richard Murphy is an economic genius or total buffoon is irrelevent. Every time Diane Abbott, McDonnel , Andy McDonald, Corbyn etc are quizzed on air about the numbers they monumentally fck up and show us in no uncertain terms that they are total amateurs, charlatans even... promoted stratospheres above their limited abilities. Yes, I am sure they are nice people but very few trust them (correctly IMO) on having a scooby do on running our economy.

What the public and press (or people on here) understand about macro economics is moot whilst Labour present themselves as clueless even if they do have the greatest idea in the world.

In reply to Shani:


Yes, we know you think you are some how economically superior in your wisdom. But just because a person has a different view on government spending to you, doesn't mean they are wrong etc..

I personally don't like the idea of borrowing unsubstantiated sums of money to 'improve' something by some nonspecific amount in education, health etc.. borrow for infrastructure, borrow to nationalise..... borrow to 'invest' for growth...

All to be repaid at some point in the future with magical growth that is just bound to happen.

If you have a specific plan, costed, forecast return etc.. Then borrow away. But that isn't what Labour are proposing.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


You forgot Lady Nugee.

In reply to Shani:

"We’re not going to pay for it. We’re going to issue debt to pay for it. That’s because people like pension funds, the banking system and prudent savers are exceptionally keen to buy that debt."

That statement there reminded me of my Aussie mother in law telling me that leveraging up to keep buying more property was a one way bet to riches. She is bankrupt now of course because not everyone was "exceptionally keen to buy that..." house

And when pension funds, prudent savers and the banking system change their mind on your debt (many examples of this to examine) you have to start offering more incentives (hike the interest) to borrow. That of course has massive ramifications for us as base rates hike and our mortgages, personal debt goes through the roof and for millions become unaffordable. Remembering that the UK public has never had more appetite for personal debt than it does now.

He didn't mention that scenario in his blog.

In reply to cragtaff:


At 26% we would still be relatively cheap compared to most european countries. It wont make much difference at all, the same way reducing it to 17% wont attract much new investment.

In reply to Shani:


Maybe they recognise it for the shorthand, but not accurate, way of describing/discussing the government finances that most do.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Evidence based policy is a thing of 'the left'? I'm not sure I agree but you're a knowledgeable guy so taking the statement at face value lets consider why that might be, why might 'the left' favour evidence based policy and 'the right' not? For the effectiveness of a policy to be examined it's objectives must first be clearly defined. I wonder perhaps are 'the right' nervous of clearly stating the objectives of their policies, the metrics by which success would truly be measured because it would illuminate clearly who those policies serve and who they harm. Would similar forensic scrutiny of 'the left's' policy objectives prove equally and as widely unpalatable I wonder? Or perhaps evidence based policy isn't really an idea of the right or left, it's a tool akin to the scientific method to ensure ideological goals are achieved efficiently, what differs between left and right is not the tool but the goal.


And in that depressed environment private owners would have done what? 1: Invested heavily in a bold new vision for rail. 2: Pare back jobs and services to the bare profitable bones so as to avoid looming bankruptcy. 3: Go begging to the taxpayer for subsidy? Assuming option one, big investment during recession seems as unlikely to you as it does to me remind me again how options 2 and 3 are better for you and me, the tax paying service user?


By your government to erode public support for it so they and their benefactors may strip the assets and profiteer from the marketisation of health.
jk

In reply to Big Ger:


'shorthand, but not accurate', I guess that is the problem though.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Typical deny the facts, you sound like Donald Trump.

Network Rail a success? only by sucking the taxpayer dry.

In reply to Root1:


You sound extremely confused. Are you replying to me?

Where did I say Network Rail is a success? Why would I possibly claim that when I am arguing that nationalisation (Network Rail is a public sector body) is not necessarily a solution?

In reply to jkarran:

The "left" routinely uses "evidence based" as a stick with which to beat its opponents. I am simply drawing atttention to their hypocrisy. I don't have a problem with the idea that evidence should be used when creating policy, but nor do I think the government is notably deficient in that sphere.

If private sector railways were properly regulated they would have to invest for the future. Such investment might be cyclical but it wouldn't be on a long term strategic downturn. And yes, I hope they would improve productivity by cutting costs, unlike BR which was at the mercy of Ray Buckton and his cronies.

Ah, NHS privatisation, that old myth . I've been hearing that since I left university and I'm now approaching retirement age. NHS private provision is about 6% of the total and it remains almost exclusively State funded.

In reply to Postmanpat:
NHS Improvement has noted that the costs of outsourcing in the provider sector is set to rise from £241 million in 2015/16 to £402 million in 2016/17. The percentages quoted recently are approaching 8%.

For someone with your views and common complaints in this subject you should have known this already.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


We are talking about the problems of conflating 'housebold economics' with macroeconomics, and you then attempt to take down macroeconomics with an example quite literally premised on 'housebold economics'.

You couldn't make it up.

In reply to summo:


It is nothing to do with me. You are playing the man not the ball. The arguments I present are rooted in macroeconomics - not my wisdom, nor my view.

We can actually verify macroeconomic arguemnts (the appetitie for government debt), in the price of bonds and current yields. Now that *IS* simple economics.

In reply to Offwidth:

Yup, didn't have time to check. I'm not sure your number is specifically for "private providers" as opposed to "non NHS providers". Can you clarify? Anyway, doesn't change the point. It's still a small element.

It's the ideologues of the left want to make it a political battleground. Other countries just try and make the system work.

In reply to Shani:


Likely because I'm a Tory c*nt (who voted for Labour & the LibDems in 3 of the last 5 elections)

In reply to Shani:
ha, hardly...I think you have totally misunderstood my point.

The phrase I quoted from the blog is unbelievably naive, hence the comparison to a hubristic investor (my MiL) to make a point. The point being that "everyone loves to buy this stuff". I was not conflating household economics with macro economics...just amused at his confidence and him missing out one very important element......

Yes they are keen to buy that debt (gilts), when the interest reflects the risk. That is the important bit (unmentioned) Ignore that at your peril, and he does ignore it...throughout the rest of the blog post.

I then pointed out how that could effect households (gilt yields increasing would be bad for borrowers). That is not conflating household economics with macro economics. That is household economics being negatively impacted by macro economics. Very different.

In reply to Shani:

"We can actually verify macroeconomic arguemnts (the appetitie for government debt), in the price of bonds and current yields. Now that *IS* simple economics."

Lol....this is the essence of my post which you ridiculed!!

In reply to Shani:

Moving onto the rest of the manifasto... I am not sure that it really stacks up anyway on " day to day "spending.There is one hell of a long list of things to do all on funding by corporations and high earners.

Have they defined what they mean by corporations? Is it just multinationals- or every small ltd company in the UK.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Is there any reason why this couldn't be the model for the future "re-nationalisation" of the rail franchises as they come up for renewal? As has been proved (though only for the 5 or 6 years is ran) by East Coast it is possible. I don't quite understand your objections?


Would you say they are doing a lot worse than Railtrack?

I always thought that the rail franchises should be subsidising the investment requirement in Railtrack, having them all nationalised (but still run as independent state owned franchises if that provides the best management/return/service/etc) would seem the simplest way to balance the books?

I don't support mass re-nationalisation but I'm not sure that is what Labour are proposing. I do, however, believe that private companies providing essential services within a natural monopoly and the current regulatory framework don't seem to be providing the UK population with the best "value for money" and some assessment of how this could be changed is required.

In reply to Shani:


The ability to borrow huge sums at very low rates as a nation, is not necessarily an indication that a country will benefit from it, or even be able to pay it all back in a relatively timely fashion. It's just a sign that commercial organisations think buying sonething over a 10 or 20 period will net them a near zero risk income. Look at southern Europe.

In reply to summo:


Seriously, I give up.

In reply to neilh:


IIRC they are proposing different corporation tax rates for small and large companies but small is very small.
jk

In reply to jkarran:

How about a corporation tax band set by a calculation taken from the number of employees and the wage of the lowest paid worker? This would encourage companies to pay a fair wage, and ones that don't subsidize the state which supports the low paid by paying more corp tax.

Admittedly very basic but is there a seed of an idea there?

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

They have tried similar schemes in the USA targetting smaller companies. Perversely what happened as that the larger companies figured out a way of registering themselves as smaller companies ( god knows how). So it was rapidly dropped.

Best way to avoid this is having say the first £20k at a lower rate, and just a form of progressive band of corporation tax.That is what happened a few years ago from memory.

Keep it very simple is the best way.

In reply to galpinos:


His objections (Mr. Postman and Summo, are he doesn't like Labour and he doesn't like nationalised industries ( except if it's a foreign nation that own them ).

I'd still like to know WHY it's ok for the French, German and Chinese nation states to own OUR industries and services, but not our own nation. Is it only that Britain should own it's own stuff that's the problem?

As for the difficulty in re-nationalising the railways it's easy, you don't renew their franchise when it runs our. Water and electricity are more difficult, but it doesn't mean it's wrong.

In reply to krikoman:


Because amongst other things, as a moment's thought would reveal, by creating a (permanent) monopoly owner which is the same as the (permanent) monopoly operator, even if under (the same) permanent monopoly regulator one has created the perfect recipe for producer capture and distortion of incentives.

When Jezzer shows the slightest understanding of this risk, and his mechanism for combating it, there is a discussion to be had.

In reply to Postmanpat:


So the risk of some internal market distortion outweighs the certainty of (significant) funds flowing out of the UK economy?
Past market models are now redundant; the bad old days of union dominance have gone. For me this risk is worth taking as if nothing else, there would be a boost to uk plc coffers. It also would remove the highly perverse situation where the public purse is used to guarantee profits for private operators in an arena where we seem to be alone in thinking a service (public transport) should be a profit generating business.

In reply to summo:


For one, it would be interesting to see how the two compare. The public company might, for example, do less of the bad stuff private companies do.

For two, it would cost less because governement debt is cheaper than private debt.

In reply to Postmanpat:

What he said ^^^

Ian W

In reply to Postmanpat: When Jezzer shows the slightest understanding of this risk, and his mechanism for combating it, there is a discussion to be had.


This is the most pompous line I've read on UKC. And doesn't really answer his question or make much sense.


This is your whole argument - you don't think the current Labour governement wouldn't do it well. Which is a fair enough point of vew.

In reply to Ian W:

the bad old days of union dominance have gone.

For the time being.
Corbyn has made no secret about the fact that he wants to reverse many of the Trade Union rules implemented over the last few Governments. He's also made it quite clear that he wants UK employment to be more unionised then it is at present. The bad old days of union dominance might not wholly return, but McCluskey and co must be rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of Corbyn as PM.

In reply to Ian W:

>
That's a very reactionary jingoist way of looking of things. As a matter of interest, how much do you think is paid to these nasty foreigners?

Looking at the debacle on Southern Trains, the old days of union dominance in the rail industry are alive and kicking and see in Corbyn the opportunity for a renaissance.

One of the basic problems with the UK rail network is the outdated infrastructure (courtesy largely of BR days). You have to explain how nationalisation will solve that problem without higher costs either to passengers or the State.

In reply to edwardgrundy:

>
You're obviously new to UKC

What don't you understand about it?

In reply to FactorXXX:


The extremes of the past and the present are both bad - a more centrist path needs to be found. However, all Corbyn is not making a secret of (your words, not sure if it is true, but it sounds about right), is that he would lead a government more sympathetic to his backers (the unions and their membership). Which isnt so different to May / Cameron and co leading a government sympathetic to the interests of their backers..........

In reply to Postmanpat:


Not reactionary, just not in line with your views.....

Several billions a year. Google it.

>Looking at the debacle on Southern Trains, the old days of union dominance in the rail industry are alive and kicking and see in Corbyn the opportunity for a renaissance.

You are right there! And add London underground, especially when Bob Crow was around. But that is a small (if significant) example caused by a very strong union leader and very weak operator management (easy to say, but then neither of us were involved).

>One of the basic problems with the UK rail network is the outdated infrastructure (courtesy largely of BR days). You have to explain how nationalisation will solve that problem without higher costs either to passengers or the State.

That problem exists whoever is the owner / operator. The cost of upgrading isnt dependent on ownership. And wont be any higher for the passengers or state under either ownership / operator model, especially given the current subsidy based model........

And a little more jingoism for you - if a French company (**other foreign owners are available**) owns the UK based asset, do you think they will use a UK based or a french based company for the upgrade?

PS - I am very much in favour of continued EU membership, "brexit" is the most calamitous idea in a long time, especially given the lunacy of the rhetoric spouted by the current "strong and stable" leadership.......

In reply to Ian W:

>
As dividends, or what?

In reply to Postmanpat:


I'm not sure really. It just doesn't make much sense or answer the question why it's okay for other countries to buy or bid for monopolies here but not our state. Suggest you might want to take an example, and then think through what the actual differences between the two ownership situations woul be and then reason from there.

In reply to Ian W:
One of the basic problems with the UK rail network is the outdated infrastructure (courtesy largely of BR days). You have to explain how nationalisation will solve that problem without higher costs either to passengers or the State. That problem exists whoever is the owner / operator. The cost of upgrading isnt dependent on ownership.

Yes, so I'm asking you why a State monopoly is a better solution.

In reply to edwardgrundy:


Because the foreign owners only own a single (or a couple) of many operating companies and are subject to external regulation. They are one part of a the railways structure so they don't hold a monopoly on the whole industry to be exploited for their own ends. There is a diffusion of power.

Arriva Trains (owned by Deutche bahn) can't change the regulations under which it works, it can't increase the subsidy it gets, it can't change prices etc etc without third party independent approval.

In reply to Postmanpat:


The one state owned rail franchise returned money to the Treasury. Should all the nationalised franchises follow this model, this money could be ring fenced into going to Network Rail for track upgrade projects.

In reply to galpinos:


So how much will this be ?

In reply to Postmanpat:
Several million per franchise?

I'm afraid I've not managed to fully cost my proposal whilst having a coffee. I'll take the Labour approach and assume it'll all be fine.....

In reply to galpinos:

>
So petty cash?!

In reply to Postmanpat:


Because it cant be worse than the current one, which appear s to be for the benefit of anyone but the users and the funders.
It is a bit of a gamble, but starting off from such a poor position gives plenty of scope for improvement.

And why, in your opinion, is the current model better?

In reply to FactorXXX:


The other day McClusky was saying Corbyn and Labour would be doing very well to retain 200 seats, in the next breath he is quoted as saying he expects them to win. A quick change of mind or did he receive a phone call?

In reply to Ian W:
Out now. Can u clarify on the money going overseas as per my question of 10.40 please?

In reply to galpinos:

The directly operated east coast mainline returned £1 billion over 5 years.
Considering that the whole national subsidy for all rail services is around £5-6 billion per year, I'd say this is a significant improvement.
Since there are around 25 train operating companies, getting 4% of the subsidy back from one company is a damn good start.

In reply to Postmanpat:

For those who are sole owners, profits. For those who hold shares, then dividends.............

And your answer to my question of 11.30?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Didn't your grandma always tell you that if you look after the millions, the billions will look after themselves?

In reply to stevieb:


But, as the CEO pointed out, this was nothing to do with the company being in private or public ownership so proves nothing either way.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Exactly - you can run a surplus in either scenario, as well as a loss.....

And your answer to my question of 11.30?

In reply to john arran:


Bloody hell, John, I didn't think inflation had hit proverbs and sayings that much!

In reply to Postmanpat:

It proves that the country was significantly better off under direct operation than under stagecoach, or whoever, and a strategic train service was saved when the private company would have walked away.
I'm not keen on a national monolithic railway with collective bargaining. I am keen on a British state train operating company being allowed to compete for franchises against the German national railway, the French national railway and the Dutch national railway.

In reply to Postmanpat:


This doesn't answre the question: why couldn't you have a state owned company doing the same?

In reply to Postmanpat:


But does suggest you can have a state owned company doing what private and foreign state owned companies do now....

In reply to Ian W:

Back now and I'll help you! Total dividends paid by the operating franchises are about £200mn per year and the foreign owners appear to receive their return in this way. So, not billions at all, but millions. Foreign owners account for about half of franchises so it's not unreasonable to estimate that they receive £100mn in dividends. Given that they often own other UK businesses it's highly likely that some of these funds are reinvested in the UK, but lets leave that out for now.

£100mn represents about 1% of operating franchise fare revenues and 3% of the government subsidy. It also represents about 2.3% of labour costs. So, in the greater scheme of things a pretty small amount. I'll give you a clue, by the time the unions had got their hands on it via a 2.3%+ wage rise nothing would change in terms of either the government subsidy or fares. Indeed, the strong likelihood is that subsidies would rise to cover both.

I think everybody agrees that the current model is far from perfect but the argument about removing the profit element through nationalisation being some sort of solution to funding or fare rises is evidently nonsense.

The best case for nationalisation is probably to provide better integration, not something that countries with a privatised network like Japan have struggled with. I see no evidence that Corbyn has the vaguest intention of addressing the pitfalls of nationalisation or whther in any case it would be a better solution than reforming the privatised system to create greater integration..

In reply to edwardgrundy:

Sheesh.... Yes, but not that the State owning the whole damn industry is optimal, which is what most of my points refered to!!

Incidentally, the East Coast mainline had the "benefit" of running old existing rolling stock which it never upgraded, thus boosting profits.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Which is why your answer didn't really make sense. You were asked why can't we own our industries if foreign states currently own them; and you replied to the question why can't we own our industries and run them in a specific way.

And anyway it just depends how they run it even if they do own the whole thing.

So all your argument really is that you don't trust current labour to do it properly. Which you is fair enough and could be written in two sentences without pretending you know lots of stuff about regulatory ecomomics.

In reply to Postmanpat:

This is where honest disagreement on values occurs: you see a wage rise and divdiends as equivalent. I think you should have a think abot what matters in life.

In reply to edwardgrundy:
>
I think you are terribly confused. I'll try one more time:

Do you understand the difference between:

a) Owning one operating franchise.

and

b) Owning all the supply franchises, owning the network on which they depend, being the financier of all those supply franchises and the network, and setting and regulating the rules that govern them?

I'll give you a clue: you don't have to be an expert on regulatory economics (which I'm most definitely not) to spot the difference.

In reply to edwardgrundy:


Not being rude, but how old are you?

In reply to edwardgrundy:

Rolls eyes: not being rude, but how old are you ?

In reply to Postmanpat:

I'm a regulatory economist.

The difference depends on how things are organised if the state owns it all. You're assumption that different parts of the state can't operate independently is just not true. Current regulators for example don't just do what government asks. That's all rather beside the point I was making...

I'm relatively immature thirty odd.

In reply to edwardgrundy:

Lol, touche. Which still doesn't explain why you don't recognise the distinction between being an owner of a single franchise and being the owner of the whole industry.

Given your expertise you are in prime position to explain how the pitfalls of nationalisation can be addressed. So fire away. Not that I think Mr.Corbyn has the vaguest interest.

In a parliamentary democracy how do you ensure that a government with a big majority appropriately separates regulator and industry?

Is it your view that a pay rise is always a better option than paying a dividend?

In reply to Postmanpat:


I think you'll find there's little to choose between them.

In reply to john arran:


Don't know what you mean

In reply to Postmanpat:

You have laws to separate different things and put different powers and duties in place. As we do now with independent regulators and splitting out regulated industries, eg network owners and network operators. Of course they can always be overturned by government, but government can always nationalize things...

Not always but mostly and definitely in the context you were discussing it in. Which was: okay, even if we'll not be paying that private and/or overseas dividend, it'll get spent on a wage rise anyway so who cares.

As above, I'm not particularly arguing for or against nationalization. I'm just pointing out ill informed arguments against it. The only decent argument you have is that you don't trust Corbyn to do it well - which is fair enough. I'm a bit more optimistic, as they've not been too bad on seeking expert advice else where.

I would say time will tell, but obviously it won't. Instead we'll be getting red ed's energy price freeze slightly repackaged (a bit better to be fair - but similar enough for them to be massive hypocrites for calling Ed's version tantamount to communism)

In reply to edwardgrundy:

>
I've highlighted from my first response to Jon that nationalised industries can work but that there are intrinsic dangers that Corbyn shows no sign of recognising or addressing. Indeed his statist philosphy and desire to increase union powers suggests just the opposite.

Maybe it is an age thing after all . You are only familiar with world of separated powers and independent regulation so you think that this is inviolate. Maybe that is why why you think my objections are "ill informed". I regard your complacency as either ill informed or just complacent. They are not inviolate and just as not nationalising is a decision of parliament so consolidating and centralising power over the industry would be.

I openly acknowledge that if a Tory, or even a Libdem government, raising the possibility of renationalisation I would be highly suspicious but I'd take on trust that at least they recognised the pitfalls and would try and address them. With Corbyn's Labour, not a chance.

Regarding pay versus dividends, you implied that this was a simple moral choice. It clearly isn't. It's a pragmatic choice about the way to get the best service at the best cost (which in itself is moral imperative). There is no reason why the "producer" should be attributed some special status over and above other stakeholders which makes paying them the "moral choice".

In reply to Postmanpat:

You're just not responding to what I've written.

In reply to edwardgrundy:

You seem barely taken anything on board since the beginning hence you don't respond to what is written. If you want to clarify what you want responses to feel free.

I read you as, very belatedly, saying that you don't accept the argument that the the State holding monopoly ownership over the whole industry and the regulator is dangerous because that is not how it needs to work-there is currently a separate of powers ("
You have laws to separate different things and put different powers and duties in place. As we do now with independent regulators and splitting out regulated industries"). If this is not what you are saying, what are you saying?

In reply to Postmanpat:
Your highbrow economic discussions are way out of my league, carry on as you were ...
But can you and summo answer me a simple question?
You are both hardcore EU leavers, GB can fend for itself, why should we pay the EU x billions/year, etc., , but you seem to be quite happy that France, Germany etc are making millions/billions out of us.
There appears to be some kind of contradiction going on here, or you just blinded by your Tory ideology of privatising anything in sight, regardless of where the proceeds are going?

Edit: bit on the end

In reply to Lusk:

>
I'm not a "hardcore leaver" whatever you think that is. But anyway, if I understand it correctly your question is seems to be based on two false assumptions: 1) That I believe that the UK should pay the EU nothing. 2) That paying a foreign owner a dividend on their company's earnings is the same thing as paying a foreign organisation for as yet unspecified costs or contracts.

The only equivalence seems to be that cross border transactions may be involved.

In reply to Lusk:

Who was it who said capitalism was not a flawed model? When the Eco system has collapsed because of over consumption in search of the profit motive, what model do you think will replace it?

In reply to Postmanpat:
You were one of the most vocal proponents on UKC about leaving the EU.
One of the core reasons of leaving the EU was the amount of cash they get off the UK.

I'll pass on on point 2!

In reply to Lusk:


I was a leaver but not a hard core leaver and the costs barely figured in my decision. Point 2 was the key point!

In reply to Postmanpat:


Re-read the first line of 23:27
We're never going to agree, so best leave it.

In reply to Lusk:

Sleep well

In reply to Si dH:

There's actually a lot of good stuff in there. If it could be delivered it would be great. Can it be delivered?

You guys are focusing on re nationalisation of the railways. The railways are in a mess and need of change. HS2 is going to cost a fortune.

I have to ask you this.

Have any of you ever had a zero hours contract?

If you haven't you are lucky, if you have, you realise just how non existent any rights you actually hold in our modern economy you actually have. You can forget all the spouting of words from any single politician in the UK who probably has never successfully run a private company. There are so many companies are run by mickey mouse people who don't give a S**t about the people actually delivering this so called profit motive some of you gave been banging on about.

If you are over 50, own or pay a mortgage for a house that is almost paid for or are lucky to be on the housing ladder, provided you are not stacking a portfolio of houses that capitalism encourages, and a pension you believe you have worked hard for and contributed into and feel you have a sense of entitlement towards, you are sorted. If you are 20+, with parents who cant financially help you out and you have student debt, you are stuffed.....

It's a fair capitalist model, isnt it?

In reply to The Ice Doctor:


£15 billion for a little tunnel under London is OK!!!

In reply to Ian W:

The extremes of the past and the present are both bad - a more centrist path needs to be found. However, all Corbyn is not making a secret of (your words, not sure if it is true, but it sounds about right), is that he would lead a government more sympathetic to his backers (the unions and their membership). Which isnt so different to May / Cameron and co leading a government sympathetic to the interests of their backers..........

Unfortunately, I have no confidence that Corbyn will follow a centrist path when it comes to Trade Unions. If he wins the election, I fully expect him to hand the Trade Unions a sizable increase in 'power' in one way, shape or another.

In reply to Lusk:


Why should the UK pay anything. We pay our due up to exit date. Then the UK can assume responsibility for only the UK MEPs pensions, then that's it, a clean break. As a net contributor to the eu for many years, the UK still has money tied up in many assets, development pots, ECB and even obscure things like the eu art and wine collection. .

Of course UK should accept the politicians pension etc.. But anything else the UK should technically be getting money back from the eu.

Your other point, privatisation has been poor in some cases, but unionisation in the past was poor in 99% of cases. Corby and the union leaders haven't change their mentality or opinion since the 70/80s so I have zero faith it would be any better than then now.

What the Tories plans need is good opposition. Perhaps after some leadership changes in Libdem and Labour camps in June, that opposition will develop.

In reply to Si dH:

I am voting purely for hope.

Labours manifesto, I have no idea whether it can be funded or not but who cares it's a better vision than taking the kids free school meals.

A year ago I said I would never vote for Corbyn and his Labour party, how things change.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:
Parts of the railway are in a mess. Parts are not. There are some excellent parts. And we are all awaiting Crossrail. The engineering in that is phenomenon. Which to me indicates that private / public partnership can work.

The big issue is investment in it. I just do not see either party coming up with vast quantities of cash instantly .

In reply to FactorXXX:

So basically, you are voting Tory, because you feel you have been left no choice.

Like I say, democracy is a joke, a scam and a sham. Nothing will improve, but the politicians will vote themselves a pay rise, and continue to act like children in kindergarten in the houses of parliament.

Its not even shocking. Just sick.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

So basically, you are voting Tory, because you feel you have been left no choice.

Just because I criticise Corbyn's ideology and manifesto pledges doesn't mean that I'm either a traditional Conservative voter or that I'm going to vote for them at this election. However, Labour have made my decision a little easier for this election by entirely removing themselves from my thought process - I'm guessing a lot of people are thinking similarly.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

£60 billion for the water industry, £60 billion for the national grid,£5 billion for Royal Mail.borrowing for such large amounts would put upward pressure on government bond yields which would then raise mortgages and corporate borrowing costs.

Nationalising railways can be done cheaper, bit most franchises do not run out until mid 2020's.

As per economist

In reply to FactorXXX:


Your thought process needs more work.

In reply to summo:


What hope for good opposition if the Tories have a 100+ majority?

In reply to Trevers:


The only reason they might win with that majority is because Corbyn is useless as a leader. Replace the leader, or split the party and have a socislist/communist party and a Labour party, then there will be opposition again. You have to be pretty bad as a leader to make Miliband look better, but Corbyn has achieved that.

In reply to summo:


My point wasn't about leadership but purely about numbers. If the Tories have a landslide majority, what hope does any opposition party have of providing anything better than opposition for the sake of it.

I also do not believe that either Cameron or May provided anything like good leadership, but the Tories have the advantage both that they are willing to put aside their differences and get behind the leader when it is right for the party, and of a strongly sympathetic press.

In reply to Trevers:
A strong, articulate leader of the opposition would still apply pressure to the Tories, even if they only had 50 seats as on open votes many tories might side with the opposition.

Labour isn't united because the party has swing to left, Corbyn was never loyal in the previous 30years, so no Labour mp feels they owe him loyalty now. Loyalty is earned.

In reply to summo:


Back to it's natural position, one might be tempted to say. Labour is hardly a far left party even now, although I don't think the manifesto needed quite so much nationalisation. Failing to oppose austerity under Milliband made them irrelevant and was the beginning of their current struggles, plus sharing a platform with the Tories over Scotland.

In reply to Trevers:

If it was 1930 or 1950, but world has changed a little since then.


Some of it policies are just left of centre, but it's ideas on how to fund them and the tax the successful mantra from Corbyn and his union buddies is far left. What people wonder is what would happen if they held office.


Labour has failed to do much of anything for the past 7 years. Perhaps Corbyn can eat a falafel buttie with ketchup cleanly and lay at least one ghost to rest!

In reply to Trevers:
Labour was the party of organised Labour and replaced the Liberals for that reason. Organised Labour ony really exists in the public sector and a few hold outs like the railways nowadays. So logically the Liberals should now replace Labour as the second major party (aka.the party of the few).

I certainly hope so.

In reply to summo:


Could you explain this objectively in terms of proposed tax and borrowing policy?

I've not looked at their proposals in detail but the stuff on funding - tax and borrowing - don't strike me as far left. Off the top of my head: top rate income tax would be 52%, corporation tax 26%, borrowing proposals aren't mental, not sure what total tax/spending as proportion GDP would be but I don't think it would be off the chart compared to social democracies. Maybe the tax would be more 'progressive' overall and you see that as far left? Then again, income and wealth is probably more unequal to start with..

Anyway, interested to hear what's far left about it and v.open to having my view changed.

In reply to Postmanpat:


You seem to be supposing that Labour's only purpose is to represent unionised workers, and ignoring the disproportionate importance of those workers (health and education in particular) in society.

In reply to Trevers:


I don't follow your logic. Why does pointing out that Labour represents these workers indicate whether they are important or not? (they are)

In reply to Postmanpat:


Because you've said that Labour's relevance is/should be diminished because they only represent these workers. That's why I said "seem", I know that's not what you meant but it came across like that.

In reply to Trevers:


Well you misunderstood. The argument is that as the role of organised labour shrinks so does the Labour party's with because it simply represents a smaller number of people.

In reply to Postmanpat:


But you could equally well say that since the vast majority of people will at some point rely on either our public health service or our state provided education, therefore the Labour Party is far more relevant than the Tories who represent... who exactly?

I don't necessarily agree with that, but my point is that framing a party's importance in terms of their historical representation doesn't really work out.

In reply to Trevers:
>
It's not about "relevance". It's about numbers. Blair understood this: Labour couldn't be elected unless it diversified its voter base away from its traditional base . Corbyn has done the opposite, retreated to Labour's shrinking core franchise allowing May to try and mop up the rest. Unless Labour reverses Corbyn's "strategy" it will be replaced either by the Tories, or more likely by some sort of resurgent left Liberal party.

Just a thought. Other views are possible.

In reply to Dell:

Your thought process needs more work.

If Corbyn gets into power, will I be found guilty of having a Thoughtcrime if I don't agree with him or his policies?

In reply to Postmanpat:

Well if you're arguing that Labour currently is only representing/trying to appeal to unionised workers, and the Tories everybody else, then we can agree to disagree on that. I thought you were arguing from a purely historical perspective.

In reply to Trevers:


If we were to go on the voting intentions of UKC, one would swear that Labour were to be the ones cruising to a massive majority, and the worthless scum Tories who just want to kill the poor and sell off the UK to the cheapest bidder, are to be on a hammering to nothing.

Yet out in reality land, the opposite is so.

Why is Labour not connecting with the UK in the way it is connecting with UKC?

In reply to Trevers:

OK, are you saying that May isn't trying to appeal to Labour's traditional working class voters?

In reply to Big Ger:

Climbers are generally quite a clever and good-hearted bunch?

That's not to say tory voters aren't these things. You seem quite clever and a good guy, for example. Just that on average being clever and nice makes you more likely to vote labour. Or maybe just less likely to vote conservative

In reply to edwardgrundy:
>Just that on average being clever and nice makes you more likely to vote labour. Or maybe just less likely to vote conservative
>

This is the most pompous line I've read on UKC

In reply to edwardgrundy:




I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments, but would add the caveat that for some, more likely us old fogeys, sometimes "head has to rule heart" when voting.

In reply to Big Ger:

Well one reason is that a high proportion of the lefties, remoaners, anti austerity bods on here will be voting lib dem, green or snp.
The vote in the last election was roughly 50:50 left/right (if you call the lib dems left).
Fragmenting your vote is a really bad idea in a fptp system.

In reply to stevieb:

Eddie's assertion is actually bollocks on stilts. For 2015 analysis suggests 35% of graduates voted Con and 34% Lab. UKIP and Greens were about even amongst graduates.
The higher the social class the greater likelihood of voting conservative.

There isn't an analysis of "nice peoples'" voting habits but we can be sure what sanctimonious peoples' voting habits would be......

In reply to Postmanpat:


But this is a Tory issue since Southern Rail is compensated for any losses from the strike, so it costs them nothing. In fact it's easier for them when there is a strike! There's no incentive for them to settle things as quickly as possible, as there would be in a "normal" company, so if you are going to use them as an example it's a piss poor one.

Considering the issue is one of safety, what would you suggest happens? Should they just roll over and let our transport system become less safe?

In reply to Postmanpat:
Don't your figures actually suggest that graduates are to the left of the general public?
I think ukip and the cons got about 50% of the total vote including Scotland and NI.
Your figure looks more like 40% for graduates.

And there's different sorts of sanctimony.
Lefties think they are the only ones that care.
Right wingers think they are the only ones with bloody common sense.

In reply to Big Ger:

Thing is, clever or not, for most people it's heart, identity, values etc that rule head. I'm pretty sure that goes for you too.

I'm an economist for my job. I've plenty friends and colleagues that understand policy, politics etc. much better than people on here (but still not that well - the stuff's complicated). But how they vote is, for the most part, a heart thing; about how they see themselves and underlying values.

I suspect your 'head rules heart' thing is mostly just a self image, identity thing. No offence intended at all - and of course I don't know that for sure. We pretty much all do this to greater or lesser degrees. I know I do.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I think it's just true. I saw something with voting intentions by degree, and Tory definitely went steeply down the more educated people were. I'm not sure Labour went up, hence the second sentence.

I have voted Labour before but I've never been supporter. I'd normally vote Green.

You might see voting green as lacking common sense; but I think the issues they raise are the most important for humanity* and the best thing I can do with my vote is to give it to them to encourage other parties to take these things seriously. To me this is common sense.

(*this does sound a bit pompous but, well, it's what I think)

In reply to edwardgrundy:


Any tax increase needs to be across the board, everyone is paying too little for what they expect back. Corporation tax increase is in effect a double whammy after it was lowered previously. BnB has done this one to death elsewhere.

As I said it's the mantra, rhetoric... The 95% won't pay any extra tax etc.. also they plan to improve everything, nationalise everything.. but only tax the rich to fund it... they'll be making out the credit cards in no time at all. I have zero faith and their connections to the unions is just scary.

In reply to edwardgrundy:

:
Well my sources were the Yougov poll of the 2015 election and the Ipsos Mori review of the 2010 election. What was the "something" you saw?

Judged by "social class", which is admittedly a pretty rough and ready proxy, the Labour vote goes down as people get more educated.

In reply to krikoman:


Weird comment. How does it make it a "Tory issue"? It does call into question the compensation mechanism, but nationalisation would likely replace it with nationalised union blackmail and nationalised taxpayer "compensation" to both the industry and the unions.

The Unions are the ones who want to strike. I would suggest that the Unions stop pretending the issue has anything to do with safety and allow Southern to move into the 21st Century. But pigs might fly.

In reply to stevieb:

>
How so.?6% of graduates voted UKIP and 5% voted Green. So, if one regards UKIP as "right wing" (debatable) 41% of graduates voted "right" and 39% "left". ie. on this basis there is no clear difference.

In reply to summo:

I'm still struggling to understand what you think is far left about the policy. Is it that following the tax increases the tax system in total will put so much of the burden on the rich as to be far left?

In reply to Postmanpat:

Well who do the other 20% vote for? I assumed they must've voted for the lib dems, snp, ni parties and plaid, having not seen your figures.
So 59% to 'the rest' instead of 50%

In reply to Postmanpat:

As I said, I'm not sure about labour vote going up, I'm am sure about tory vote going down with education. I don't think you disagree and I'm too lazy to find it again. bbc article on voting intentions if you can be bothered

In reply to stevieb:


6% are SNP so I guess you could include them. 11% vote libdem but I would regard them as "centre". The balance vote for "other".

In reply to edwardgrundy:

Tory vote goes from 38% (GCSEs or less) to 35% (graduates). It's probably within the bounds of polling error and still leaves a greater proportion of graduates voting Con than Lab.
(Lab goes up from 30% to 34). Probably accounted for by Islington and Hampstead luvvies

In reply to Postmanpat:

here we go http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39936927

In reply to Postmanpat:
Fair enough on the descriptions, but nonetheless if we accept that ukip and the cons are the parties of the right, they took 49.5% of all uk votes (over 50% of mainland votes) but only 41% of graduate votes. So, QED, graduates are less right wing than the general population.

In reply to stevieb:


The difference is basically UKIP which, in 2015, took 20% of GCSE or lower but only 6% of graduates. So, it really has not much to with Cons v Lab in the way that Eddie suggested.

One would have to analyse whether the UKIP voters were from the right or the left which opens a whole new can of worms......