politicians like to gloss over
He says after completely glossing over the question why it's ok for foreign state owned companies to tender for UK rail franchises but not for a UK state owned company to do so, or why it's "Jurassic" not to want our infrastructure to be in the hands of foreign state owned companies.
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?
Well it certainly was in the 60's 70's and 80's. British Leyland, British Steel, British Coal, British Telecom etc etc etc - all almost total disasters either for the taxpayer or for the consumer.
It amazes me how much support there is on here for public ownership when its been so comprehensively discredited over the last 30-40 years. Did you not live through the 70s?
As for Corbyn, he comes across as a likeable fellow, but more than 50% of the English electorate voted for parties further to the right than the Labour party under Ed. Corbyn may bring back some cultural purity to Labour, but I can't see how he'll bring electoral success.
Did you not live through the 70s?
You realise that nearly 30% of the electorate didn't, right? Not to make you feel old or anything.
British Leyland, British Steel, British Coal, British Telecom etc etc etc
AFAIK Corbyn is not suggesting that the car, steel or communications industries be re-nationalised. He's suggesting that the two industries where it has manifestly failed, rail and utilities, should be brought under some form of public control/ownership. And whilst I don't know the detail, I'm pretty sure he's talking about something a little more refined and modern than the old model of handing out state subsidies to failing industries.
The essential difference in those two industries are that they are essentially private monopolies, or effectively cartels.
In telecoms, car production etc you have genuine competition which drives development and keeps prices to consumers down - the holy grail that global capitalism always quotes. Try saying that about utilities or railways with a straight face.
Did you not live through the 70s?
I managed 2 years and 1 month. I wasn't politcally aware at this point! 😆
It's still not the point really though, because 1 form or state ownership failed/was deliberately sold off to cronies doesn't not mean that a viable model could not be formed.
Another idea, why does state ownership have to involve monolithic bohemoths? Why not different small state companies competiting with each other? (simple idea, but you get the point.)
I'm not against the markets, infact I think competition is necessary but when talking about renationalising, it'd be daft not to take into account the good bits of privatisation and develop the idea of state ownership further.
Giving everything to the markets has clearly failed if wealth equality is a consideration. Actually you could say it's the reason for the current shitfest that we are in. Put it this way if the privateers weren't hoarding so much cash and assets and it was in circulation the world economy would be in a much better position. Money is no good to anyone if it's tied up.
I wouldn't say the utilities have failed because of privatisation, they may be struggling due to the way they are full of useless dicks that don't know there arese from there elbow and have no idea about how to operate efficiently. I have seen first hand the most unbelievable waste of money from the nuclear industry to the gas and electric, National Grid was unbelievably shit and the people cretinous, but these are simply the people that have been there forever and still work in a silo mentality with no appreciation of the waste their actions are causing.
Utilities needs a massive kick up the arse but public ownership will ruin all the work that has been done to bring them in to some sort of responsible organisations.
I feel old anyway. But those not living in those times loose some of the context, I fear.You realise that nearly 30% of the electorate didn't, right? Not to make you feel old or anything.
And whilst I don't know the detail, I'm pretty sure he's talking about something a little more refined and modern than the old model of handing out state subsidies to failing industries.
I'd heard he was talking about [url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-to-bring-back-clause-four-contender-pledges-to-bury-new-labour-with-commitment-to-public-ownership-of-industry-10446982.html ]bringing back Clause IV?[/url]
no he wasnt talking about bringing back clause IV, he talked about similar but different in principle
I'd heard he was talking about bringing back Clause IV?
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]'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.'[/i]
Which is a long way from 'I'm going to bring back clause IV'.
British Leyland, British Steel, British Coal, British Telecom etc etc etc - all almost total disasters either for the taxpayer or for the consumer.
Well lets take two of your four examples, we'll ignore "etc etc etc". Firstly British Leyland. British Leyland is an exceptionally bad example of a nationalised industry as it was only ever part-nationalised, and that was only for half a dozen years or so years. If BL is any example of failure it is above all else an example of the failure of private enterprise and its lack of strategic investment.
British Telecom, or Post Office Telephones as it was before it was being prepared for privatisation, poured massive amounts of money into the Treasury coffers. If it hadn't been privatised it would be still doing so today - helping to reduced the deficit, instead we'll have to pay more in taxes (the tax burden was lower in the 1970s)
Although I've ignored coal and steel it's worth pointing that UK coal consumption is still very significant - about half that of 30 years ago. The difference is that it is pretty much all imported now, even though the UK has coal far in excess of its needs.
Is that the same Chinese who's nationalised companies are investing in our new nuclear build?
they're not nationalized companies (companies which were formerly private owned but then acquired by the state). they're state-owned enterprises that were always state-owned.
btw you need to pay compensation if you nationalize private property. nothing comes for free. unless you're a rail franchisee, in which case I suppose you get loads of free money...
Corbyn debates are such a barrel of laughs - the China model being a great example. Here is China accelerating its transfer of equity stakes in SOEs recently - not just because they will (according to the architect of the new plan and poss next central bank governor) be better run but because it will raise revenue for the government.
And we are having a laugh over exactly the opposite. Still it is the holiday season and this sure is amusing, good job none of it matters/is important.
Even today the Chinese market had its biggest gain in a (volatile) month due to reports to restructuring SOEs
I am not sure which is funnier this, or listening to Chelski fans singing along to the tune of the red flag!!!
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!
I am not sure which is funnier this, or listening to Chelski fans singing along to the tune of the red flag!!!
I think the funniest thing is you not wanting to talk about EDF, the largest electricity supplier in the world, instead dismissing them as, quote : [i]"muppets"[/i].
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/10/anyone-but-jeremy-corbyn-labour-leader-alastair-campbell ]Another voice from the war criminal wing of the labour party. [/url] Do they not realise that every time they open their mouths the likelihood of Corbyn winning increases?
Never mind Clause 4,would you vote for a man with this much steerer on show? Has he never seen Rule #45 ? http://www.velominati.com/the-rules/comment-page-8/
[img] 
[/img]
Private Eye captured the humour of the moment pretty well
As for Corbyn, he comes across as a likeable fellow, but more than 50% of the English electorate voted for parties further to the right than the Labour party under Ed.
?!?
Turnout was only 66.1% -are you saying labour, greens, plaid cymru and snp only got no more than 16% of the vote? 😯
Has he never seen Rule #45 ?
That's Corbyn's appeal.
He doesn't care about Rule 45.
[quote=nick1962 said]Never mind Clause 4,would you vote for a man with this much steerer on show?
Indeed, shocking.
I see he rides a Trek.
George Bush Jr also rides a Trek.
Makes you think, doesn't it?
Not really they were all the rage many years ago. Pre-Cambrian stems or something like that..,,c
George Bush Jr also rides a Trek.
And didn't Lance?
Sorry. More than 50% of those who voted in England (where nobody voted for the SNP.)?!?
Turnout was only 66.1% -are you saying labour, greens, plaid cymru and snp only got no more than 16% of the vote?
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.Firstly British Leyland. British Leyland is an exceptionally bad example of a nationalised industry as it was only ever part-nationalised, and that was only for half a dozen years or so years. If BL is any example of failure it is above all else an example of the failure of private enterprise and its lack of strategic investment.
But it was a disaster for the consumer. No choice, everything had to be rented, you couldn't attach your own phone to their system. Ok there have been technological advances, but privitisation was good for consumers in telecoms.British Telecom, or Post Office Telephones as it was before it was being prepared for privatisation, poured massive amounts of money into the Treasury coffers. If it hadn't been privatised it would be still doing so today
They were troubled industries on a world scale, admittedly, but public ownership did nothing to help them and cost the country.Although I've ignored coal and steel
and it will still be there if it ever becomes economic and environmentally acceptable to dig it out of the ground.it's worth pointing that UK coal consumption is still very significant - about half that of 30 years ago. The difference is that it is pretty much all imported now, even though the UK has coal far in excess of its needs.
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.
I doesn't sound cruel at all, it just sounds like you don't understand the issue. There was a time when all telephones throughout the world were pretty much identical, they all did exactly the same thing - you picked them up and answered, or dialed a number. Going out and buying your own phone was pointless as all phones everywhere were identical. Nationalisation was not the issue - countries with private telephone companies also used featureless phones. Then came technological breakthroughs and everything started to change, when this occurred choice became an option and buying your preferred choice was actually possible. Again, nothing to do with nationalisation.
Corbyn's going to romp it.
Or the pollsters will lose any remaining credibility.
[img] 
[/img]
anagallis_arvensis - Member
Can you all not just realise that Corbyn is never going to be PM anyway
I dunno, have you considered the choices in 5 years time, Corbyn, Osborne or Boris! 😆
The breakthroughs that you mention were exploited by private companies in pursuit of profit, enabling the explosion of choice that we experience today.
The idea that a centralised economy controlled by mostly hapless and inept politicians and ideologues is going to work on any level, is ludicrous.
Any attempt to direct things from the centre instead of allowing free markets to work has always ended in abysmal failure. That the idea is workable is still claimed by it's champions, even after all this time and experience, speaks volumes about humans' capacity for self-delusion and tendency to cognitive dissonance.
Left - wing manifestos seem to consist of little but "La la la la I'm not listening".
And so on...
[i]Left - wing manifestos seem to consist of little but "La la la la I'm not listening".[/i]
that's true for *all* manifesto's - "we know what's best for you".
All politicians say they're listening but I think they only actually hear what suits them.
Only YouGov have been foolish enough to predict the result. All the others aren't risking their credibility 🙂
They've been running profiles of the candidates in the Guardian over the last couple of days. One on Liz Kendall, one on Yvette Cooper. They both pointed out there belief that Corbyn would be a disaster, blah, blah, blah... yet over 2 broadsheet pages completely fail to advocate a single solitary belief, principle or policy of their own, that might provoke anyone into voting for them.
It appears its now ingrained in the Labour mindset to not actually say anything it all, under any circumstances, for fear of scaring the horses. Even when the polls show that your about to get absolutely trounced. I suppose you could call that Millibandism?
We know what's best for you - sums it up really, no you don't, you think you do. And that's not your job anyway - you are our representatives, don't forget that.
But economic revisionism is great. To extol the virtues of a declining industry that despite protection was in long term decline over many decades, or a more modern version of the world's largest industry supplier who still cannot generate returns anywhere near its cost of capital while ignoring the role of global liberalisation as a catalyst/driver for the development of the global telco industry is breathtaking or given the subject matter here, merely amusing!!
Still it's a bloody hard PR jobs selling Jurassic policies - imagination and SOH required clearly
The 2001 white paper from DTI gives a better narrative IMO
The breakthroughs that you mention were exploited by private companies in pursuit of profit, enabling the explosion of choice that we experience today.
Still you don't understand the issue. When nationalised post office telephones made massive profits. It was perfectly capable of "exploiting" technological breakthroughs - why wouldn't it be?
I think it's you who's guilty of "La la la la I'm not listening".
When nationalised post office telephones made massive profits.
They were profitable but not massively so and their return on capital was poor.