Jeremy Corbyn

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] “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.“

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11794381/Jeremy-Corbyn-will-march-Labour-off-a-cliff-Alastair-Campbell-warns.html

Well I’m glad you agree that it’s not a good example.

Touche

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.

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.

Does it not kind of go without saying that when choosing examples, you should pick good ones?

I think its more apposite that they’re typical and not bad.

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:

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.

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 hardly 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 😀

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.

That’s my point surely. Its gone despite the Canute like attempts of the nationalisers.

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 “evil private sector” ? 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 ?

It’s been “a very expensive exercise for the country” because of the complete failure of the private sector.

Agreed. But made a lot more expensive by the move to 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”.

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.
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 “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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 – Member

I 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 – Member

And 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.

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…

Left – wing manifestos seem to consist of little but “La la la la I’m not listening”.

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.