Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Who knows? The public get a taste for public ownership
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Who knows? The public get a taste for public ownership
For the last 30 years we’ve heard Prime Ministers Thatcher, Major, Blair and Cameron argue for policies of privatisation, private finance initiatives, public-private partnerships and so on. Whether it’s our utilities or our postal service the belief in the inherent private sector has been steadfast.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
One of the most important factors that PBers need to remind themselves of, especially the day after a by-election and GDP figures, is that this electoral cycle would always be determined by the long game, the more so with a fixed term parliament in place.
It is the mantra that Cameron, Osborne and Clegg have clung to during the early difficult years of the Coalition. They have been vindicated.
Now Henry, Tim etc are acting exactly the same. Labour is struggling as they're not left wing enough, the public is to the left of Labour. Clear red water is needed.
Same old story, different extremists.
Bbc next - then who knows - the NHS..
@Tim et al - Hodges has again surpassed himself. The guy is a tool, on that we can all agree
@Henry G Manson - you may be right. Lots of the franchises come up in the next parliament - Labour's policy should be to simply allow public agencies and mutuals to bid for them. Also, to rationalise ticketing as we discussed this morning.
If labour do go to the left, and they don;t get back into power, where do they go after that?
It's easy to quote examples where the private sector has failed. They should be balanced against similar examples - for example, the same industry in similar circumstances - where it has succeeded. Not all rail franchises have been handed back or stripped and overall, as mentioned on the last thread, rail usage is significantly up since privatisation in the mid-1990s when it had been falling for decades beforehand. Likewise, failed publicly owned industries or services have to be thrown into the comparative mix.
In any case, the Eds' energy policy is neither the one nor the other. The current set-up isn't working and needs fundamental reform, including a regulator with teeth that they're willing to use. However, seeking to abolish price competition isn't the answer either.
;-)
Brown fretting about the small stuff and failed the country.
Perhaps less polls, less single data points and more fundamentals like sound money.
I asked him a few months back whether he supported HS2. No response then and again today with the same result.
Has Nick Palmer come to a determination or is he awaiting higher authority or fence sitting for the next 18 months ??
Not going to happen. I support HS2 but I can't see Balls turning down a £50bn gift to lavish on stuff that is a clear vote winner, such as free childcare.
@TGOHF
Erm, the polling evidence is clear... (Although, for the record, I don't see why nationalising the railway is left-wing -- they already get 4x the public subsidy that they ever did under BR)
The two ronnies made jokes about BR in the 70s and 80s because the service was rubbish. No one makes jokes about our railways now because they have improved so much. I travel by train as much as I can and the standards and timekeeping are a different league to what BR provided. In my job I have lots of dealings with Councils and their employee and what goes on unchallenged is laughable. I know now that if I need to speak to an engineer at this time on a friday afternoon I would have now chance, they have already gone for the day. Local councils have no competition, lack accountability and hence some of their custom and practices are amazing in this modern competitive world. I fear that a return to more public ownership would have a massive negative impact on the overall competitiveness of Britain. Humans are a strange breed, they need to be challenged and have incentives to work to their best. If people learn that they can get away with doing less for the same money with no accountability then often they will do that. That is why communism will never work. There is no incentive to work hard so people dont. Public ownership can lead to this. Compare Nissan at Sunderland to British Leyland.
"Rather than rage I am sure PB Tories will be quite relaxed if Labour want to include proposals to renationalise industries in their manifesto"
I'd be delighted.
And anyway that £50bn is not a lump of money, sitting around, waiting to be spent.
LOL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=r1XeLHZ_KNw
Labour should clearly go for it.
{edit] Ah yes 'Manufacturing' my mistake.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8EKe08BP0E
hauntingly, Jimmy Savile used to do adverts for BR.
And road safety
Clunk, Click every trip
One of the two.
Excluding oil and gas, the government are about 1.3% away from reaching the 2007/8 peak, so the regular economy has recovered to a great degree since then and that can be seen in the job creation and productivity figures (which are up and down respectively), honestly recovering that final 1.3% will see the unemployment figure fall below the BoE's 7% guidance which is going to mean interest rate rises at some point in 2014.
As for Tim's ridiculous assertion that the economy isn't being rebalanced, well housebuilding is up, the production figures are being hugely effected by falling oil and gas extraction which is a consequence of peak oil (nothing we can really do about it, except frack the hell out of Blackpool) and in advanced economies services are always going to be where recoveries are based. I work in the services industry but we also export our goods globally and Britain is a leader in the creative industry which I think should be reclassified as production rather than services. The growth in the creative industries all comes under "business services" in the ONS's figures which masks the true nature of what happens. We produce a real product that is exported gloabally, a product that people can watch, play or listen to. It is a production industry, not services. I think taking creative out of services and into production will show that services growth is probably not as strong as is currently estimated. As the economy moves towards a digital age we need our statistics to reflect the changes as well by having a second look at what production really means, not just the old fashioned definition.
1. The public subsidy to the railways is 4x that under BR.
2. East Coast has run faster average journey times and increased passengers since nationalised.
3. There is effectively no or very little competition in the industry as, if you want to go to Manchester or Newcastle, there is only one sensible route you can take.
4. The track has been nationalised in the form of network rail since Railtrack's failure. It has worked much better.
Just saying.
Why should I subsidise your lifestyle?
"This might be due to the 70s being a distant memory"
Indeed.
Large service providers frequently annoy people, whether it be expense or convenience, and there's a feeling that a change would be good. "Let's cut out the dividends they pay", or "Let's get some efficiency into it."
Overall, I'd say private is better for the public and state is better for the workers. Probably a reflection of union membership.
And you've spent the 'Banker's Bonus Tax' already. Several times.
On Grangemouth - Eric Joyce is a good hater, but worth a read, and while he may have an axe or two to grind is at least well informed:
"So far, Grangemouth has exposed Labour’s distaste for the private sector, where most people earn a living. It’s about to expose the terrible extent to which Unite is dominating the party’s decisions. A rubicon may have been crossed. But in the wrong direction."
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/10/grangemouths-will-expose-just-how-much-power-unite-has-over-the-labour-party/
It's not coincidence that virtually every major economy in the world, and many mid-size economies as well, copied the Thatcher reforms, to a lesser or greater extent.
Of course, we shouldn't forget one key factor - the EU, which actually has a lot of Thatcherite principles built into its body of law. That will, fortunately, limit the damage Labour can do on this score, if they form the next government.
Perhaps those in favour of nationalisation could offer examples of how service was better 'in the old days'?
1) Passenger traffic has doubled since privatisation. Freight traffic has increased. The subsidy may be more, but it's not so bad when you take into account the traffic volumes. It's still far from ideal, but not as bad as you make out.
2) The railways had suffered from decades of under-investment throughout the BR years. Many things were worn out, for instance rolling stock and some infrastructure. These are very costly to renew. Vast investment was needed just to stand still.
3) To make matters worse, BR were managing a shrinking railway. It costs less to single a line, that to re-double it. NR has had to invest massively to cope with the increased traffic volumes. And we are at the stage where we get less bang for the buck - many of the 'easy' projects have already been done.
4) As for East Coast, see my post on the previous thread. The line has two competitors on it now, reducing EC's payments to NR, and it is hardly the only operator paying the taxpayer to run services, instead of receiving a direct subsidy. Virgin has greater customer satisfaction ratings.
http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/rail-franchising-timetable/rail-franchising-timetable.pdf
One of these will presumably be retendered before the next election date.
Lose pension rights and pay rises for three years and the right to strike and anything else I care to impose or I'll put 800 workers out of a job. Back to the Victorian days and most depressing of all (as Mick points out) the Scots are normally the most socially aware of the four nations.
At the same time we have a government at Westminster who were either born with a silver spoon or who like Jim Radcliffe acquired one and seem totally oblivious to those who weren't and those on the average wage are starting to ask questions. Is this fair? Is this how it has to be? Do we have to be know our place? Who chose these people to be 'Masters of the Universe'?
Oh, that's right!
There aren't.
Maybe I'd keep the BBC nationalised but allow adverts on the Telly... If it can make a profit keep it, if it can't - ditch it/flog it off. Its hardly vital national infrastructure.
Oh and I'd ban all unions from the public sector, particularly Mcluskey's and stick all public sector workers onto defined contribution pension schemes.
Second, that's my household income.
Third, that is a fairly normal income in London - it is not rich.
But I know not to discuss economics with the wo/man who thought the reason Grangemouth supplies 80% if Scotland was because its prices were too high...
Though you could of course personally try telling the workers of Grangemouth that they are "humiliating themselves" and "sitting on their hind legs tongues out infront" for trying to hold on to their livelihoods. Best have some good stout running shoes if you do.
Nor does it sound a particularly effective spin line for Labour to pursue, though perhaps you know better in this case."
Got to run- meeting beckons. But those you cite are still significant and allow a step by step renationisation. I also don't know the revised schedule for the WCML.
If the stock market goes to shit my pension (65% of it) is up shit creek. If I was on Defined Benefit I'd be fine...
All new starters at any rate.
And having messed up Grangemouth, being able to mess up the whole countries train service should not be Unite's reward.
People seem to want to return to a BR structure. That won't happen. So it's fair to ask what they think a renationalised network would look like.
I'm still waiting to see what problems they are trying to fix. To help them, I'll give one: the franchising system is vastly inefficient, costly and arcane, witness the WC farrago. It costs millions for the government to run, and AIUI the losing bidders are refunded their bidding costs of sometimes tens of millions.
The issue with Grangemouth is its costs are too high....they could charge what they like for their petrol - but go too far & people would simply buy it elsewhere.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyTgEpVttBE
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/10/grangemouths-will-expose-just-how-much-power-unite-has-over-the-labour-party/
Finger in the air and hope the assets keep pace with the liabilities over the years ? If there is anything 2008 taught us its that you can't rely on that !
It`s crazy paying increased prices not for competition and quality but for effective monopolies and organised profiteering.
Are you sure about that? It's a 40 second commercial with about 20 shots in it. If he did, talk about waste; most of that would have ended up in the bin. Not a very good director really.
Unless you mean 120 format?
Ineos? Jim Ratcliffe? Alex Salmond?
Milband, on the other hand maintained a Zen-like silence over Lamont's foolish pronouncements.....
DT warning of gusts up to '12 on the Richter scale'. Hold on to your hats people! LOL
The market seems to work in the US where they pay a third of the price we do. There are no nationalised utilities there.
What are they doing right?
Me neither but there must be some de facto local monopolies, or places where there are only a couple of choices.
Lemke and Lins, ERISA for Money Managers, §1:1 (Thomson West, 2013).