Jeremy Corbyn

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.

You realise that nearly 30% of the electorate didn’t, right? Not to make you feel old or anything.

I feel old anyway. But those not living in those times loose some of the context, I fear.

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 bringing back Clause IV?

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 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’.

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 : “muppets”.

Another voice from the war criminal wing of the labour party. 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/

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.

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?

?!?
Turnout was only 66.1% -are you saying labour, greens, plaid cymru and snp only got no more than 16% of the vote?

Sorry. More than 50% of those who voted in England (where nobody voted for the SNP.)

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.

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 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

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.

Although I’ve ignored coal and steel

They were troubled industries on a world scale, admittedly, but public ownership did nothing to help them and cost the country.

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.

and it will still be there if it ever becomes economic and environmentally acceptable to dig it out of the ground.

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.

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%)

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.
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?

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.[/quote]
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!!!!

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.

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 – Member

Where 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.