Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Facts and fantasies about public ownership. Don Brind looks at
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Facts and fantasies about public ownership. Don Brind looks at the evidence from abroad
Did you Know?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I totally agree with this.
The prospect of any state run by Corbyn et al being entrepreneurial.... not so much.
It is also not the case that all European rail is fully nationalised, even Sweden has some private rail companies, though I accept UK public opinion favours rail renationalisation at the moment
Of course, they're utter shit.
He appears to have all the vacuousness of a page 3 girl
https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/920249098858647552
Probably that misses the point however. Singapore is a company masquerading as a country. Not the other way round.
Take: “48 million Americans, in over 2000 cities and districts, get their electricity from the public sector, at a price on average 12% lower than the price charged by private energy companies.”
The unspoken assumption is that the public sector's prices are cheaper because it is in the public sector. Without knowing more, however, it is hard to say that. For instance, is like being compared to like? Urban power systems tend to be cheaper than rural ones, so delivering power to a pub Five Miles from Anywhere will be much more expensive than delivering it to one in an inner city. So are the stated comparisons fair - is the power being delivered to similar facilities? Are there any local subsidies or advantages given to the public body? Does the public body provide power to all requested cases, or do they cherry pick? Etc, etc.
It works the other way as well. Saying that the massive increase in rail usage over the last twenty years is down to privatisation is difficult, as there are other factors involved. However a persuasive case can be made.
With China’s economy growing at its slowest in 25 years, economists say dealing with unwieldy state owned enterprises is the single most important step to restructuring the economy.
https://www.ft.com/content/253d7eb0-ca6c-11e5-84df-70594b99fc47
The SOEs, mind, started from a place that Jezza wants to get back to and they are heading away from it as fast as they are allowed. Which @Wulfrun_Phil seems not to appreciate.
Get your facts right.
Macfarlane wasn't fact checking - she was pointing out evidence that supports an alternative explanation.
Since Thatcher perhaps the Conservatives have become rather ideological about privatisation.
It's good to see Labour putting an alternative case and drawing attention to the evidence on the other side of the question.
It's also encouraging that public opinion is more open minded about this issue than many politicians.
Our experience up until the 1980s was of woeful mismanagement, poor allocation of resources, atrocious customer service, regular strikes, use of outdated technology well past its sell-by-date and, in general, producer interests writ-large.
Our electricity market is actually very good, and efficient, albeit some regulatory modifications would be welcome to make it even more so, and encourage movement away from the Big 6, and our railways have come on leaps and bounds since privatisation.
Telecommunications is eons better, and there's a diversity of choice in delivery and parcel services now that gives a lot of choice to the consumer. Privatisation has been a great success. The only dicey one for me is water and, even then, I'm not sure nationalisation would make a jot of difference.
Do I expect the Tories to defend and argue all these points from first principles?
No, absolutely not. I expect them to sh*t themselves and defensively do some Labour-lite stuff, so they'll lose the argument.
We have pitifully few brave thinkers and advocates in the Commons these days, and far too many media-spooned career politicians.
Bit funny that Hanan is so unnuanced that he actually uses a phrase like 'the magic formula'.
And so many people met an awful fate afterwards.
"Davis says transition deal will not apply unless there is an overall final Brexit deal as well."
https://theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/oct/17/david-davis-brexit-statement-boris-johnson-holding-up-progress-in-brexit-talks-claims-merkel-ally-politics-live
WTF?
Year Three of the People's Revolution.
Excellent news, comrades! Zoo crimes pertaining to murder of animals for food have declined by 7% quarter-on-quarter! Toilet paper supplies have increased, with more than 17% of people now satisfied with provision!
But it is often seen as a right winger paradise - especially the private medical savings accounts, low taxes and super free trade.
Train rostering shifted to being for the passengers benefit (rathe than the staff), same with station facilities, and purchasing new stock to replace decades old Mark I/II coaches and slamdoors.
https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/920249098858647552
The Government always has a higher political priority for public spending and investment than buying new rolling stock, that can win it more votes. More often than not, the NHS.
So it's very easy to roll over new vehicle purchase order from quinquennium to quinquennium and, before you know it, you're operating 40-year old stock.
Privatisation is supposedly meant to drive up the standards of services because, theoretically, the customer will go elsewhere if they're not satisfied - but, in practice, because so many privatised industries in this country are basically monopolies or cartels, they have no incentive to lower their prices or provide a better service, because they have no proper competitors and/or are conspiring with their competitors in order to maximise all of their profits (the "Big Six" energy companies).
So most of the privatised utilities can essentially take their customer base completely for granted in exactly the same way that nationalised industries can. Yet, at least with nationalisation, they wouldn't be jacking up their prices constantly to line their own pockets, and there would at least (theoretically) be a chance to democratically force changes to happen if we were really unhappy, through elections. As of now, there's no way of holding the managers of privatised industries to account.
Scrap democracy, free speech, human rights, all environmental and H&S standards, and send the families of those we execute an invoice for the bullet.
Sorted.
Example 1: State-run. Costs 100 units. Charges 100 units. No profit. But it charges 100 units.
Example 2: Private-run. Costs 85 units. Charges 90 units. Makes 5 units profit. But it charges 90 units.
People don't see that (2) is cheaper for them than (1) by 10 units. They just see the 5 unit profit at "their expense", and get annoyed by it.
It'd probably be so difficult we would've seen a heart-stopping 0.2% rise in inflation, rather than a mere pants-wetting 0.1% spike.
This is where Statism ends.
The broad swathe of SOEs, however, remain wholly state-owned and in those cases there is a drag on the economy because as you say, they aren't going bust, are inefficient, bring over-capacity to their sectors, and are a drag on the banks' balance sheets.
It's a mess but it's moving slowly in the right direction.
I wouldn't have a problem with private-utility owners making a (relatively modest) profit if it genuinely produced better services, but, in my view, it doesn't.
It would have been much much worse had General Dyer been able to get the armoured car through the narrow passage ways.
There's no reason why publicly owned corporations can't operate efficiently - if they're allowed to.
The problem comes when inefficient plants are kept open because they're located in marginal constituencies, prices are kept down for political reasons, workers who threaten to strike are bought off the government, competition is prohibited, and so on.
Come travel my local line for modern rolling stock. Broadband patchy at best. Mobile coverage intermittent away from houses.
Privatisation has been a boon where it is profitable. The problem is it is unevenly spread.
The government has been negligent in spreading the benefits around.
Bus privatisation in particular has been disastrous for rural areas.
https://amgreatness.com/2017/10/16/the-method-to-trumps-madness/
I don't normally bother reading Victor Davis Hanson, as his views are tediously predictable (perhaps his insistence on using the 'Davis' in his name should be a give away). But this article is a useful reminder that we can easily be misled by the magician's false direction. And we can mislead ourselves with our own confirmation bias, seeing Trump's outrageous statements as confirmation of our pre-existing view that he is a 'moron' (to borrow a term), rather than seeking any alternative possible explanation.
I do think that Hanson is right in pointing out that Trump mostly hits the popular side of the debate when he acts outrageously.
This theory of the Trump 'madness' has been doing the rounds since his upset wins in the primaries. The underlying theory, unnamed by Hanson, is Boyd's OODA loop. Boyd was a fighter pilot who revolutionized USAF's dogfight tactics. Essentially, the idea is to constantly change the environment so that your adversary is reacting to what was, not what is, while you control what is.
I doubt very much that Trump does this consciously (although that is possible), but rather that this is his natural, street fighting MO. What is clear is that none of his opponents have come up with an effective counter-strategy.
Edward II was not a fantastic king, it must be said.
However, the English army learned a very hard lesson from that defeat, and upped its game thereafter.
Guilty as charged. Now, had he said Amritsar Massacre, I would not have needed to Google.
Unfortunately that statement is true in far too many locations.
Ironically, the one place buses could be profitable, London, remains in public hands, at eye watering cheap prices compared to here.
General, how does a child, shot with a .303 Lee Enfield, "apply" for help?.
Thankfully, Northern have not ordered any - we are getting everyone else's cast-offs instead! (Plus some new trains, to be fair.)
PS: It was meant to be metaphorical but should have realised it would be taken literally by a pedant on here for sure.
Most of all, what do you hope to gain, and are those hopes realistic?
2. The "transition deal" is therefore in fact a "negotiation deal".
3. The negotiation deal will last a lot longer than two years.
is how.
The transformation in service upon privatisation was far from only a British phenomenon
Stint one in Belgium - telephone line 3 months appointment any time during the day, maybe.
Stint two in Belgium - telephone line day after tomorrow at 10.15, sorry we can’t do it any faster.
Far too often politicians prioritise producers over consumers (they are far fewer but much more focused and vocal) - writ large with nationalised industries...
A police force has been criticised after a team of officers was pictured enjoying dodgems at a funfair while on duty.
At least 18 officers from Humberside Police rode the cars in full uniform at Hull Fair while other colleagues looked on.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/17/police-fun-fair-officers-have-fantastic-afternoon-riding-dodgems/
In fact, I'd rather have an HST than a Pendelino or IEP.
Q: What is your greatest fear for Singapore?
Lee: “I think a leadership and a people that have forgotten, that have lost their bearings and do not understand the constraints that we face. Small base; highly, technically organised; very competent people; complete international confidence; and an ability to engage the big boys. You lose those, and you’re down. And you can go down very rapidly…
We all know Boris puts his own ambition first, does he really want to be the man that trashed the economy and made Corbyn PM, Hellz no.
BJ4PM.
It is the threat of competition, the mercy of the market, that drives customer service.
I remember BR, just; it was awful. Train travel today is 5 x better than it was 20 years ago. And I got to Cambridge and back yesterday, via London for £51.50. Bargain.
https://twitter.com/alantravis40/status/920291900162215936
Parachute in Gove before the budget?