it’s remarkably depressing that elections in the UK are such that a social democratic candidate won’t win – not because voters wouldn’t vote for him…

So how do elections in the UK work then?
Which one is the social democratic – the last lot who used that name seem quite different?

squirrelking – Member

THM – your thoughts on the “Jurassic” concept of state ownership.

teamhurtmore – Member

Hopefully not the one that the EU ruled enjoys unfair advantages that distort competition or which bids for projects below its cost of capital etc. But be careful about mentioning your employers round here, people are very uncomfortable with their profits going back overseas. How very dare they.

When is cast flow expected to be positive – 2018 is it?

And he completely avoids answering the question.

Instead of mindlessly repeating parrot fashion what you read in the Tory press perhaps you could give the issue some thought and explain what you mean by “Jurassic” ?

Or don’t you know ?

If they vote him as party leader I can see another Tory term.

How can he appeal to the aspiring working class or middle- class wannabe’s?

I’d seriously consider Burnham as a swing-voter

Damn, beaten by Ernie.

Yeah, mind answering my questions rather than playing a guessing game as to who I work for (we work for seperate companies anyway BTW).

jambalaya – Member

I see also he’s offended numerous victims of IRA violencs by refusing to condem their campaign of violence.

Except for the bit where he did. “I condemn all bombing”

jambalaya – Member

Not surprisng from someone who took money from Hamas to pay for his visit to Gaza

Or, not. He received money from Interpal, not from Hamas. As I am sure you know.

Still, I like how fast you move- going from

jambalaya – Member

If it’s proven he took money from Hamas,

4 days ago, to “he took money from Hamas” now.

Jurassic (sic)

“I see also he’s offended numerous victims of IRA violence by refusing to condemn their campaign of violence. Not surprising from someone who took money from Hamas to pay for his visit to Gaza”

Corbyn has said negotiation is the key to improving relationships (my paraphrasing there). In my own view its obvious if you want to get meaningful dialogue going to break a stalemate and achieve any progress, its pretty clear that going in with hostile comments is not going to encourage constructive talks from the other side. Its not about shouting out the rights and wrongs, its about trying to find a solution in desperate situations – often the only way to stop even more people from dying.

“How can he appeal to the aspiring working class or middle- class wannabe’s?“
Maybe they would like a home or at least somewhere they can afford to live or healthcare for themselves or their kids, or maybe support for their elderly relatives so they don’t have to resign well paying jobs to look after them? Or maybe some people are just not utterly selfish and self obsessed and therefore want society to be somewhat more fair and kind to the vulnerable.

“It will be interesting to see if the people surging to support Corbyn will put their hands in their own pockets to cover the gap in financing that his gaining the leadership will create – are they socialist with their own money, or just other people’s ?“

“Cash pours in to left-winger’s Labour leadership campaign, with target to raise £50,000 in 50 days exceeded in less than two weeks” Telegraph headline.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11784374/Jeremy-Corbyn-raises-100000-in-crowdfunding-campaign.html
Its very interesting where the other candidates get their campaign funds from (same article)and how much they have recieved:
” Andy Burnham declared more than £130,000 in donations, including £20,000 from green energy company and previous Labour donor Ecotricity.

Yvette Cooper had received more than £80,000, including £50,000 from Ken and Barbara Follett, while Liz Kendall had received about £36,000 including £10,000 from Lord Hollick.”

They would be socialist with their own money as many voters, surprisingly to you, actually pay tax. Also no socialist party can spend any government money unless it is voted into government by a dominantly large section of the general population (ie democratically elected). I can only presume that those who resent using pooled money for general good float over road surfaces, never go anywhere with street lamps, never use any public education services and never get sick – given the results of pooled resources are so unworthy.

ONLY A FEW DAYS LEFT to sign up to vote in the Labour leadership campaign – whoever you want to vote for.

If you want to DONATE TO CORBYN or check how much he has raised from donations to his campaign given by the general public, its here:

https://jeremyforlabour.nationbuilder.com/donate

(£114,595.00 raised at time of posting this)

“it’s remarkably depressing that elections in the UK are such that a social democratic candidate won’t win – not because voters wouldn’t vote for him…
So how do elections in the UK work then?
Which one is the social democratic – the last lot who used that name seem quite different?”

1) apparently the concern is that a candidate without very wealthy people backing him would lose the election.

2) the social democratic candidate would be Corbyn

1) apparently the concern is that a candidate without very wealthy people backing him would lose the election.

Well if that is the case then we get the politicians that we deserve. Are voters really that passive? Are they incapable of independent thought and action? Personally I prefer to give voters more credit.

SQ sorry if not clear. It’s very simple. There are better models for allocating scare resources. We have long histories showing that to be the case. At its simplest, we have a starting point called contestable markets. But sorry if I am not in favour of companies that thrive on distorted markets and who take on work that gives returns well below their cost of capital. That’s hardly a model of success but good luck if they pay your salaries

SQ sorry if not clear. It’s very simple. There are better models for allocating scare resources.

So basically you don’t agree with UK state owned companies, the “Jurassic” jibe with regards to nationalisation was merely something which you threw in because you’ve heard the Tory press use it, you can’t actually explain why it is an appropriate term to use.

Never mind, can you perhaps explain why it is appropriate for a French state owned company to own a significant share of the UK energy market, for example, but not a UK state owned company ?

Is he a sinn fein/ira apologist then?

Ernie – See also German energy markets, Chinese energy markets, German rail markets, Spanish rail markets, UK facilities management markets, UK rail markets etc.

But it’s okay, we hold the moral high ground by selling all our national infrastructure assets to those same state owned companies. Lol.

Because I am neither myopic nor a xenophobe – I have no problem with Tata and Nissan owning car production, foreigners owning the biggest slug of Scottish whiskey or oil and love the great Polish builders over here. Welcome the lot of them. Free movement of capital, labour, goods and services ticks the boxes.

And particularly good to have French enegry companies invest in facilities that will generate returns well below their cost of capital. More fool them and we are the winners as we allocate our resources to better returns. Welcome those muppets with open arms……

Or are we going back again to the 1970s and the crass and doomed Buy Briish BS?

SQ pls go and compare the difference between Scottish GDP and GNI and then tell me about foreign ownership. Good or bad?

And particularly good to have French enegry companies invest in facilities that will generate returns well below their cost of capital.

What, may I ask, are you basing such profound bovine effluent upon?

I have no problem with the companies you mention either, not sure where you get the impression i was suggesting such a thing considering neither Nissan nor Tata are state owned.

Iberdrola, EDF Energy, Abellio, Deutsche Post, Deutsche Bahn are and seem to be doing just fine over here so I’ll ask you again, why is nationalisation bad?

Wait a minute, will you make up your mind? You are in favour of Nissan and Tata but think foreign ownership of assets is bad. But so is nationalisation. So what? Sell it to the Phoenix group for them to make good again?

Ernie – See also German energy markets, Chinese energy markets, German rail markets, Spanish rail markets, UK facilities management markets, UK rail markets etc.

Yes I know squirrelking I was only using EDF as an example as it is the most glaring one and one which most people are aware of, EDF didn’t even bother changing its name for its UK operations ffs, at least SNCF operates under a different name in the UK!

BTW it’s not widely known that when the legislation for the privatisation of the railways was drawn up there was a clause which specifically excluded BR from any franchise tendering.

The only company in the UK to have any experience in running a railway was specifically excluded by law from tendering for any of the franchises.

All other companies, including companies without any experience in running railways whatsoever and foreign state owned companies, had a right to tender.

The whole exercise has only ever been an expensive tax-funded Tory ideological farce. Which helps to explain the widespread support for the renationalisation of our railways.

I know the difference between GDP and GNI is skewed which is why I’m so in favour of nationalisation. You seem to be taking this waaay off course, I was using these companies as examples of where nationalisation has worked fantastically. You on the other hand…

…I have no idea what you’re talking about actually.

Understanding investment maths! Not something dear French SOEs are good at.

And Germany??? How many state owned companies in the leading Gemam companies – answer the number, places them at the low end of the globa scale, German success is not founded there. Far from it

But if it does pay your wages (who knows) then jolly good.

Better models for allocating scarce resources. Really not that difficult. But obviously it’s not one or the other as the world around us tells us. It’s balance.

…I have no idea what you’re talking about actually.

I am aware of that.

Actually now I have no idea where this is going. I do agree with you though that the whole process of denationalisation seriously screwed us over.

Plenty of companies have floundered whether state or prvately owned, writing off state ownership as failed because some have failed is a very flawed logic.

Look at the Panama canal.

Private French company – failed
Public US state owned comapny – succeeded (albeit via gunboat diplomacy)

Conversely the same man who failed in Panama had triumphed in Suez.

Better tell the Chinese, they have been rushing to do it. In fact co-incided with their growth acceleration. Quick, it’s a big mistake. Re-nationalise before its too late.

squirrelking – Member 
I know the difference between GDP and GNI is skewed which is why I’m so in favour of nationalisation

So nationalise the oil assets, nationalise Diageo and Pernod Ricard’s assets. Brilliant

Is that the same Chinese who’s nationalised companies are investing in our new nuclear build? Hmm.

Nationalisation allows us to invest in capital projects that private investment won’t touch because the return isn’t quick enough without serious incentives.

Actually now I have no idea where this is going.

I can give you a clue :

teamhurtmore – Member

And particularly good to have French enegry companies invest in facilities that will generate returns well below their cost of capital. More fool them and we are the winners as we allocate our resources to better returns. Welcome those muppets with open arms……

From past threads I can tell you that THM will argue that EDF, the largest electricity supplier in the world, are a bunch of suckers getting shafted by UK consumers.

^lol

As said:

And particularly good to have French enegry companies invest in facilities that will generate returns well below their cost of capital.

What, may I ask, are you basing such profound bovine effluent upon?

He – back to the topic – will be suggesting nationalising education next and we know what a great job governments do in tha field too. Oh hang on…

He – back to the topic

Sounds more like “let’s change the topic” to me.

But anyway……..if you want to go back………..I was under the impression that during the Jurassic era everything was privatised. You know different THM?

ernie_lynch – Member

BTW it’s not widely known that when the legislation for the privatisation of the railways was drawn up there was a clause which specifically excluded BR from any franchise tendering.This is the crux of the whole nationalisation problem. People complain that nationalised companies where in efficient and didn’t work, well aye, you give something a monopoly on something and that tends to happen. I don’t understand why we don’t allow state owned companies to work in the market, so that they have competition.

Under those conditions there’s no reason why nationalisation couldn’t work imo. If it fails, well there’s the market waiting to come in and take over..

*cough*East Coast*cough hack*British Energy*splutter*

But anyway, THM still hasn’t answered the question.

Joe, the principle of contestable markets is kind of on those lines – ok not exactly p, but close. far more sensible.

Here you go squirrel – better alternatives. Simple enough?

Bonne nuit especially to all those lovely people at EDF. Now how do we close down Fettes…….

Is he a sinn fein/ira apologist then?

1) No

2) Better than being a Blair apologist like the other candidates. He’s killed a lot more people.

Nationalisation allows us to invest in capital projects that private investment won’t touch because the return isn’t quick enough without serious incentives.

Hmm, EDF, Nuclear power station building in the UK, with extra Chinese “investment”, getting a special rate on their returns as an incentive to build = UK population shafted once again.

People complain that nationalised companies where in efficient and didn’t work, well aye, you give something a monopoly on something and that tends to happen. I don’t understand why we don’t allow state owned companies to work in the market, so that they have competition.
Under those conditions there’s no reason why nationalisation couldn’t work imo. If it fails, well there’s the market waiting to come in and take over..

The big issue there being that you have to ensure a level playing field – so the government has to recoup loans made to nationalised industries for capital investment at market rates, which takes away a large part of the advantage of lower costs available to the nationalised sector.

The other bid issue to consider is what happens when those nationalised industries do get into trouble, as the temptation is there for government to meddle to prevent large scale job losses etc. which they inevitably can’t resist the temptation of.

Little know example being the Coal industry under Nationalisation, which in the Sixties had huge government debts (£ hundreds of millions) from the cost of purchase written off because of the costs of servicing the debt, then went on to have the costs of restructuring in the sixties met by government, and then more debts written off in the seventies.

Well the Eu has very clear objectives in terms if national freight and passenger markets – open them up to as much cross-border competition as possible. So a nice little conundrum for Jeremy to get his head around.

Details, details….

Details, details….

What’s that reference to THM………your inability to answer direct questions ?

Or having slept on it have you now thought of an explanation to explain why it is ok for French and German state owned companies to tender for UK rail franchises but not for UK state owned companies to do so ?

You might like to patronize Corbyn with comments like “So a nice little conundrum for Jeremy to get his head around” but it’s you that can’t answer simple questions.

The other bid issue to consider is what happens when those nationalised industries do get into trouble, as the temptation is there for government to meddle to prevent large scale job losses etc. which they inevitably can’t resist the temptation of.

Didn’t stop them bailing out the banks did it?

Little know example being the Coal industry under Nationalisation

There are loads of modern examples of the govt being involved in propping up businesses whether it’s bank bailouts or subsidising low pay through tax credits, workfare etc. I fail to see why a modern model of state ownership couldn’t work. Is it really beyond the brightest minds in the treasury and BIS to figure out some way of common ownership of key infrastructure where operation and investment can be planned strategically without private investors creaming off the profits?

…..without private investors creaming off the profits?

WTF?

WTF?

Indeed. Bit of a radical idea. I’m obviously a communist. 😀

Yes Diaz, but in addition to championing cross-border competition in the rail market the EU have strong views on state aid too, especially if it distorts competition. So two powerful EU forces against rail nationalisation.. Still that’s all in the details that politicians like to gloss over as we saw with a disregard for how capital markets (pre-emptive rights, takeover panel etc) work in practice. Still if you view them merely as casinos, you might be forgiven for not knowing how they work.

Scratches beard in confusion…..

Still if you view them merely as casinos

Super Casino’s even.. <cough>Andy Burnham</cough>

Surely anything’s got to be better than just to continue handing billions of pounds a year of taxpayers money to grinning, subsidy-hoovers, like….

No wonder he’s grinning, as he buggers off to build himself another space ship. This is the man who referred to the West Coast Main line – the private monopoly run be himself – as ‘a licence to print money’

All these people saying that what Corbyn is proposing is tantamount to communism, should note that every survey of peoples attitude to the railways always has a massive majority, even among Tory voters, saying they should be returned to public ownership