Forum menu
Gowrie, 55% of a turnout of <66% of the total english-in-england electorate (your words) still doesn't make over 50%! (Even if i grudgingly accept the political compass calucaltion that the lib dems were one little square to the right of Labour at the time of the last election, your figure is far far more like 40 than 50%)
And in any case labour will probably run candidates in all constituencies not just the english ones, whoever is in charge.
A total an utter misrepresentation by newspapers who are showing their true colours. What he actually said, if you're capable of seeing past new labour propaganda is:'I think we should talk about what the objectives of the party are, whether that’s restoring the Clause Four as it was originally written or it’s a different one, but I think we shouldn’t shy away from public participation, public investment in industry and public control of the railways.'
Which is a long way from 'I'm going to bring back clause IV'.
Now I've read that quote several times now - I can't construe it in any way that he denies the possibility of bringing back Clause IV. He's showing his true old labour colours. That seems to appeal to some, but I think its going to marginalise the Labour party with the general electorate.
It is also an example of failure of public investment. All it ever did was loose public money. In that respect its not a bad example, its a typical example.
British Leyland had been part-nationalised for 4 years by the time Thatcher came along. If you think that provides a "good example" of a nationalised company then it shows just how weak your argument is.
Again you are correct. But it is more than 50% of those who voted. Are those who voted a good proxy for the electorate overall? Perhaps, perhaps not. Voting intentions change, as we see every 5 years or so. There may be a huge swing to left and Corbyn's Old Labour may sweep the board in 2020.Gowrie, 55% of a turnout of <66% of the total english-in-england electorate (your words) still doesn't make over 50%! (Even if i grudgingly accept the political compass calucaltion that the lib dems were one little square to the right of Labour at the time of the last election, your figure is far far more like 40 than 50%)
As for Scotland, we could muse on whether the SNP are to the left or right of Labour, but its pretty pointless because, even if Labour won every seat in Scotland they couldn't form a government without more seats from the rest of the UK as well. Does JC's Old Labour make that more or less likely?
British Leyland had been part-nationalised for 4 years by the time Thatcher came along. If you think that provides a "good example" of a nationalised company then it shows just how weak your argument is.It is also an example of failure of public investment. All it ever did was loose public money. In that respect its not a bad example, its a typical example.
I fail to see why that timescale invalidates my argument. Where did I say, specifically, it was a "good example?"
Gowrie, take a deep breath and get ready for some wonderful economic revisionism.
The great GB car industry - when we were great (sic) at making stuff - protected from competition by import tariffs making cars no one liked and no one wanted. And then instead of the political planners poor ideas along came Issigonis (gawd bless 'im) making a car out of the box that became the industry's saviour. That is until the wonderful era of industrial relations that made the industry famous globally. Aaahhhh, the good old days!!!!
And they chose to attack the European market with, wait for it, the Allegro!!!!
I once had an Allergo. Please don't think worse of me for it (but it was an absolute dog) Talking of dogs, my dog ate my budgie in my Allegro when it broke down and we were waiting for the repairman. We were moving house at the time. That was a fun trip.And they chose to attack the European market with, wait for it, the Allegro!!!
Wouldn't it be more relevant to discuss more recent nationalisations,like RBS ? Should we have or not? What would the Tories have done?
Aye, funny how nationalisation in fine when the financial markets **** up! 😆
The Conservatives have said they will be “as constructive as possible”. George Osborne, shadow chancellor, said: “We want this to work, we hope it will work”.....But Mr Osborne warned the government to impose stringent conditions on any banks choosing to take up state capital. “I think people would be shocked if bonuses were being paid to the banks that take this money,” he said.
Funny old world
Gowrie - MemberWhere did I say, specifically, it was a "good example?"
Does it not kind of go without saying that when choosing examples, you should pick good ones?
I fail to see why that timescale invalidates my argument. Where did I say, specifically, it was a "good example?"
Well I'm glad you agree that it's not a good example. Timescale is hugely important specially in the car industry, it takes years to design and launch a new model. The Allegro of course epitomises the underinvestment and failure of the private sector.
And btw "timescale" invalidates your argument about British Telecom too - BT lifted restrictions on domestic use appliances while it was still a state owned company, privatisation had nothing to do with it. Previously there was no choice because technology hadn't advanced - a phone was a phone and that was it, it made perfect sense that the GPO/BT should own it and replace it if faulty, in the same way as your gas or electricity meter wasn't yours.
First it was Blair, now its that charming chap Alastair Campbell warning us dim witted electorate against Corbyn.
Comically reminiscent of Corporal Jones yelling
"Don't panic! Don't panic!" to the platoon members.
Must say the more the Establishment of whatever party screech the more it adds to the belief Corbyn must be a very good thing and well worth my vote.
I guess the war crimes comments from Corbyn are making some people nervous.
Maybe if Corbyn gets elected in 2020 he might get that war report finally released to the public... puzzlingly no one else seems to be able to get it published into the public domain. Its almost like its a conspiracy, but that can't be.
Comically reminiscent of....
Sounds very fitting as its panto season
Must say the more the Establishment of whatever party screech the more it adds to the belief Corbyn must be a very good thing and well worth my vote.
I won't be completely convinced until Peter Mandelson tells us what he thinks.
Just found todays best quote from Campbell - a man who has no understanding of irony at all, unless he intended this as a joke to get the UK laughing:
[Campbell] also said that [Corbyns] "[i]career has "laid a plentiful minefield" for the Conservatives to use against him if he wins. "The past, he will discover, is not another country," [Campbell] said.[/i]"
ToucheWell I'm glad you agree that it's not a good example.
But taking the companies into partial pubic ownership was not a good response to that failure. A better response would have been to let the companies go to the wall, and start again with something else. That's what happened eventually anyway, only after a lot of tax payers' money had been wasted.Timescale is hugely important specially in the car industry, it takes years to design and launch a new model. The Allegro of course epitomises the underinvestment and failure of the private sector.
I think its more apposite that they're typical and not bad.Does it not kind of go without saying that when choosing examples, you should pick good ones?
Aye, funny how nationalisation in fine when the financial markets **** up!
Well not for me. The nationialsation of the banks had all the lamentable features of most other nationalisations of the last 100 years.
1) Pre nationalisation interference (eg Lloyds being persuaded to buy Halifax)
2) Nationalisation at great cost
3) Political dabbling post nationalisation
4) Continued public cost.
There is an argument that not taking them into public ownership would have been worse, but overall its been a very expensive exercise for the country, which is typical of public ownership.
A better response would have been to let the companies go to the wall, and start again with something else. That's what happened eventually anyway
But that's not what happened. BL had 40% of the UK domestic market, 1 million jobs relied on it, and was a major export earner. Selling it to BMW was not an example of letting the company go to the wall and starting again with something else.
Today there is no British mass car manufacturer which has 40% of the market, which 1 million jobs rely on, and which is a major export earner.
Plus ca change:
[i]The rail regulator has fined Network Rail £2m for inept timetabling and poor planning for upgrades that caused severe disruption at London Bridge station.
The Office of Rail and Road (ORR) said Network Rail had made repeated mistakes in timetabling services in and out of London Bridge, had failed to work properly with train operators, and had neglected to plan in passengers’ interests.[/i]
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/aug/10/rail-watchdog-fines-network-rail-2m-london-bridge
Of course, it would run better if they nationalised it 😉
The nationialsation of the banks........There is an argument that not taking them into public ownership would have been worse, but overall its been a very expensive exercise for the country, which is typical of public ownership.
It's been "a very expensive exercise for the country" because of the complete failure of the private sector.
And if you continue to nationalise the loses and privatise the profit it will continue to be "a very expensive exercise for the country".
Right now the privatised railways receive 4 times the government subsidy they were receiving when they were nationalised. For example we buy the trains, hand them over to the private companies, who charge us for using them, and then walk away with a nice fat profit.
And if they can't make a profit because of their complete ineptitude, like the East Coast Line, they still walk away anyway.
And ninfan focuses on Network Rail !!!
The rail infrastructure wasn't excluded from the rail privatisation - it was 100% privatised. The reason it isn't still privatised is because of the complete, total, and comprehensive failure, of the private sector.
If the government hadn't stepped in we would today have railway companies without any rail tracks !
So much for private enterprise 😆 😆
Don't breath out yet Gowrie...
We are lamenting an industry that despite tariffs and protected markets, managed to go into terminal decline. The only success (the mini) was private enterprise ignoring central planning. During this period, there was a deliberate government underinvestment in railways - "managed decline". Good old state planning.
And now we still have a heavily distorted rail market - set prices, pointless investment in a vain attempt to find grow and routes that receive 50% taxpayers money are used by 2-3% of the population. And this load of bllx is considered a free market. Taxpayers money used to fund pointless investment that few people use but heaven forbid that free pricing to manage supply and demand could be allowed.
Pre-Cambrian, preposterous more like....
Ah, but inept timetabling, poor planning, failing to work with rail companies and neglecting passengers best interest are [b]hardly[/b] issues caused by decades of underinvestment by the evil private sector are they Ernie?
In fact, many would comment they they were absolutely symbolic of British Rail back in the good old bad old days 😀
That's my point surely. Its gone despite the Canute like attempts of the nationalisers.Today there is no British mass car manufacturer which has 40% of the market, which 1 million jobs rely on, and which is a major export earner.
Harold Wilson was quite vocal about supporing the industry being pointless given the level of industrial action
So Labour PM states
In a speech the Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, said: ‘Parts of British Leyland are profitable, others are not… But public investment and participation cannot be justified on the basis of continued avoidable loss-making…‘Our intervention cannot be based on a policy of turning a private liability into a public liability… The achievement of that aim does not depend on the action of the Government alone… In a very real sense the success of public intervention to fight the threat of unemployment means a full contribution, a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay by everyone for whose security we are fighting.
Bloody scroungers - was he related to IDS?!? 😉
Agh, the good old days when loads of people we employed in a protected market making things that people didn't want. Welcome back.....it's utopia in sepia!
Ah, but inept timetabling, poor planning, failing to work with rail companies and neglecting passengers best interest are hardly issues caused by decades of underinvestment by the evil private sector are they Ernie?
I suspect that government investment in Network Rail is comparable to government investment in BR, they much prefer to buy new trains and hand them over to private companies (or foreign state owned companies) to make a nice handsome profit out of us.
But anyway we digress. Explain why the privatized rail infrastructure completely and utterly failed? Why if it had been left to a privatized company would we today have no railway track, signals, etc?
BTW why the reference to [i]"evil private sector"[/i] ? There's nothing "evil" about the failed private sector. Try to be a little bit more grown up and less childish in your debates ? 💡
Oh well, I finally got round to signing up to vote.
THM I've read it several times and I still have no idea why you think your selected quote by Harold Wilson makes your point.
Still never mind, have you figured out yet why it's ok for a French state owned company to tender for a UK rail franchise but not for a UK state owned company to do so ?
Agreed. But made a lot more expensive by the move to public ownership.It's been "a very expensive exercise for the country" because of the complete failure of the private sector.
So best not nationalise in the first place. Picking up the pieces from the fallout of collapsing banks might well have been cheaper overall than taking them into public ownership.
And if you continue to nationalise the loses and privatise the profit it will continue to be "a very expensive exercise for the country".
If Lloyds hadn't been "persuaded" to buy Halifax, Lloyds probably wouldn't have needed public ownership. Halifax would have failed, but at a lower cost than putting Lloyds through the public owenrship mill, perhaps.
RBS would surely have been more tricky, but if UK gov had adopted the tactics of the French and German governments (there's no real problem, here's some cash under the table) then we might have got out of that at a lot lower cost, even if UK gov had to take over some of the more toxic debt.
Now I can hear you parroting "that's nationalising the loses and privatising the profits" - yes but at potentially a lot lower cost to the public purse overall.
So in this privatised free market (sic) government getss net positive payments back from TOC - and have done for past four years - inconvenient for the narrative I know, and that is despite that in a free market (no really) train goers in the south subsidise the Scots and the Welsh and we have inefficient subsidisation of little used lines.
Now where is old Beeching..
Suffer neither myopia nor xenophobia. Simple and stated before. Plus support UK companies doing the very same overseas, so would be very hypocritical to object one way.
Comparative advantage.....
Thanks for your insight Gowrie, however your extreme [i]"the market knows best, governments keep out"[/i] if applied would have resulted in the UK having no railways today, as well as a few less banks.
And it's not mainstream thinking which enjoys popular support.
Which is of course ironic as you came onto this thread to claim that Jeremy Corbyn is out of touch with public opinion.
But that's not my position. My point was one of observation as much as philosophy - nationalisation of firms and industries in the the UK over the last 100 years have largely been expensive disasters. Who knows what the railways would look like today if they had never been taken into public ownership? And I thought the left in general hated banks. Surely a few less would be a good thing. We've lost plenty in the last few years anyway.Thanks for your insight Gowrie, however your extreme "the market knows best, governments keep out" if applied would have resulted in the UK having no railways today, as well as a few less banks.
It matters little if my position is mainstream, or indeed that you see irony in the juxtaposition of ideas - the fact remains Corbyn's views on public ownership are discredited and marginal in the current overall political spectrum.And it's not mainstream thinking which enjoys popular support.
Which is of course ironic as you came onto this thread to claim that Jeremy Corbyn is out of touch with public opinion.
Didn't the UK manufacture more cars in 2014 than anytime ever (passing the previous peak of the late 1970's)?
As an owner of 3 Leyland cars (mini and two metro) I can say I am happy for them to go to the wall, never has a car rusted as much as BL crap.
National infrastructure should be national however, eg gas, electricity, water and rail. Though we have some of the cheapest energy prices in europe, our rail prices are a national disgrace.
And I thought the left in general hated banks
Do you love them?
Kona - and if Jermey is going to use taxpayers money to buy up these stakes, not a smart idea to announce it in advance is it? He'll learn in the end. Plenty of policians have been burnt by the markets before. He won't be the last!
if you're a state that nationalizes private property, you (generally) don't buy the property on the open market. you pass pass legislation that transfers ownership and then you pay compensation.
it is a little surprising that you are suggesting Corbyn should have a secret plan for nationalizing private property, for obvious reasons.
[quote=ernie_lynch said]Try to be a little bit more grown up and less childish in your debates ?
[img] 
[/img]
Kona, somebody better tell Jeremy how capital markets work. He was talking about/mixing up buying shares in the open market, enforced capital railings, ignoring pre-emotive rights etc. it goes more confusing after that, especially as he is proposing forcing foreign shareholders to be diluted out - welcome to GB, we are welcome to your investment, it's safe with us....
Just try getting that past the EU!!!
I am not suggesting that he has a plan at all - at the moment it's mainly confusing fluff. Still the YouGov (remember them?) have him as an outright winner in the first round, so I am sure he will clear all this up very soon.
The correct Canure analogy is getting more and more relevant by the day!
Can you all not just realise that Corbyn is never going to be PM anyway so we would be better off discussing the werits of endless austarity?
teamhurtmore - Member
Kona, somebody better tell Jeremy how capital markets work
Generally, they don't work.
teamhurtmore - MemberI am not suggesting that he has a plan at all
And yet the Financial Times, the paper you claim to read, does not have any problem at all in recognizing his plans. City analysts Jefferies even put time and effort into costing Corbyn's plans, which you claim are non-existent.
.
Gowrie - MemberAnd I thought the left in general hated banks. Surely a few less would be a good thing.
What on earth are you talking about?
Baldrick also had "plans", lots of cunning ones!
Baldrick also had "plans"
For someone who wants to maintain this ridiculous pretense that he's "politically neutral" you don't go about it in a very clever way.
it made perfect sense that the GPO/BT should own it and replace it if faulty, in the same way as your gas or electricity meter wasn't yours.
I don't mean to sound cruel, but that really is pathetic.
Sorry.