What exactly is Jeremy Corbyn's plan?

Myranda

streethawk said:

UnclePsychosis said:

@streethawk - if the numbers don't lie then Corbyn is f**ked. Have you seen any opinion polls? He's opposition leader during a period when the Tories are the most right-wing that they've been for a long time and Corbyn is doing so badly that the only politician he polls better than is Donald Trump!

Anyway, just came in to post this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37167700

So much for Jeremy's new politics, telling the truth and leaving the spin doctors at home...

Also shocked to discover that well known Blairite Tam Dalyell will be voting for Owen Smith. Damn these Blairite careerists!

 

It's a disgrace, you pay for a ticket, board the train with a paid group of staff to fill up a train carriage and have to sit on the floor!! There might have been seats on parts of the train you haven't deliberately employed people to make it look like the train is full, so needs privatising, but it's still a disgrace...

Wait a minute, if you have to fake how busy trains are, in order to show that they're soo busy that you need to privatise, do you actually need to privatise?

And weren't the trains shit when they were last private... 

Do you think he's trolling the nation/party for fun?

Cirrus

Train networks basically can't make money - at best they're a part of infrastructure, a loss leader for making your economy better, but the premise that they could ever actually survive in the private sector without endless public investment is silly, so they may as well be publicly owned.

Here ends a political broadcast from the Cirrus party.

Jalapeno

Myranda said:

And weren't the trains shit when they were last private... 

Do you think he's trolling the nation/party for fun?

Last time they were in Public ownership and operation the trains were fecking abysmal.

Evilmags

streethawk said:

Evilmags said:

Would the next moron to use the phrase Neo-Liberal please try and explain to me what it means. I have never heard a single economist ever describe himself or his school of thought as neo liberal. The phrase is an invention of leftist journalisrs and is entirely meaningless as it does not describe any single strand of economic thought. If you think states are so "Neo Liberal" then could you please try and explain how they control over 45% of every pound spent in the economy. That number would be around 20% tops for a Chicago school economist and around 5% for an Austrian School economist. (The two major strands of Liberal economic thought). Their is absolutely no coherence at all in calling the UK a free market economy (It is not or it would have a different monetary system for starters) when the state confiscates and redistributes 45% of generated wealth. A social democracy is the only accurate term any social scientist would use. 

You sound upset. Let's try and get past that and have a discussion.

The neo liberal experiment has failed miserably not only in its outcomes, but also in - as you correctly argue - its ideological execution.

There is no 'free market', it's actually highly protectionist. Same applies to so called 'free trade' deals which are anything but. However: the minds behind this great social experiment since the dropping of the gold standard have all read their Ayn Rand and subscribe to Hayek, Friedman and co. Unless you can find a Fed Chairman who spouts Keynes? Bernanke and Greenspan describe themselves as Libertarians, their words - not mine.

Where I do take exception is with your opinion that the state 'confiscates' wealth to distribute (among the entitled). This doesn't tell the whole story. The great tech revolution was state funded: taxpayer funded institutes created the technology, distributed freely, for the likes of Bill Gates to go and make his billions. States effectively subsidise the likes of Amazon by providing in work tax credits and so on to an underpaid workforce, while Amazon gets away with not paying its fair share of taxes. 

So while the term neo liberal is something of a misnomer, it has provided the intellectual framework for some pretty greedy bastards who want the freedom to make a fortune and not support the State, while in fact being supported by the State.

Maybe start calling them 'shit liberals'?

Actions are not words. Nothing in the words of Friedman, Mises, Hayek, Rothbard or Rand ever, for one moment, suggested the level of interest rate manipulation practiced by Greenspan. Nor the horrific corporate wellfare practiced in most of the world. Greenspan himself admits his own failure and states that none of the mathematical, developed at a cost of about a quarter billion of taxpayers money, worked. Indeed (this is lifted from a friend of mine)

 Normal financial conditions are when:

Interest rates are at 6%.
You can reasonably save for the future in a bank account.
Stocks are neither rich nor cheap.
Businesses invest.
Stockmarket multiples don't expand on contracting earnings.
Houses are a consumer good and not an ATM.
Bonds aren’t trading at 160 or 180 or 200 cents on the dollar.
Cenral banks only buy top rated AAA Government Bonds and there are AAA Government Bonds
And dozens of startup companies aren’t valued at more than a billion dollars.

Be fearful.

randella

Jalapeno said:

Myranda said:

And weren't the trains shit when they were last private... 

Do you think he's trolling the nation/party for fun?

Last time they were in Public ownership and operation the trains were fecking abysmal.

Which is surely why the German/Dutch/French ownership model makes sense.  Government is the majority shareholder in the company, nothing else.  Not publicy-run, but publicy-owned.  Then whatever profit they make is going back in the coffers.  Even if they are loss-leading after subsidy, at least we're making back the money that's otherwise going to some other country.  As it is now, we're effectively subsidising the French, German and Dutch state.

All this only holds true of course if the government-owned operating companies are not tinkered with to death by interference from said government, which is where I don't trust Corbyn as far as I could throw him.

Evilmags

randella said:

Jalapeno said:

Myranda said:

And weren't the trains shit when they were last private... 

Do you think he's trolling the nation/party for fun?

Last time they were in Public ownership and operation the trains were fecking abysmal.

Which is surely why the German/Dutch/French ownership model makes sense.  Government is the majority shareholder in the company, nothing else.  Not publicy-run, but publicy-owned.  Then whatever profit they make is going back in the coffers.  Even if they are loss-leading after subsidy, at least we're making back the money that's otherwise going to some other country.  As it is now, we're effectively subsidising the French, German and Dutch state.

All this only holds true of course if the government-owned operating companies are not tinkered with to death by interference from said government, which is where I don't trust Corbyn as far as I could throw him.

The SNCF is one of the main reasons France´s economy is in such dire straights. It runs on multi billion pound losses and is essentially national vanity at the expense of the people´s welfare. The main problem from UK trains is that they don´t have any real competition as franchises are bid for and don´t have to try and compete for customers, just government patronage. If any company was allowed to run a train as long as it paid its track fees, I doubt strikes would last very long (as the trains are all owned by bank leasing arms)  

hywelg

OK Nationalisationists (is that a word! ) Name me one thing our Government(s) have been good at running?






Apart from a deficit, of course.

randella

hywelg said:

OK Nationalisationists (is that a word! ) Name me one thing our Government(s) have been good at running?






Apart from a deficit, of course.

Not sure if that was a swipe at what I suggested or not.  I'm suggesting ownership, not running. God knows (as I've repeatedly said) I don't want the state running them. I'm old enough to remember the arse end of BR and certainly have no desire to see a return to those days.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nationalised-east-coast-rail-line-returns-209m-to-taxpayers-8866157.html

If the German, French and Dutch governments are making money out of a share of our railways, do you not think that money would be better off coming back our way? Given that the money comprises a chunk of our taxes in the form of subsidy?

holnrew

randella said:

If the German, French and Dutch governments are making money out of a share of our railways, do you not think that money would be better off coming back our way? Given that the money comprises a chunk of our taxes in the form of subsidy?

That is just insane to me. It's totally illogical, and just proves it's ideology over looking after the tax payers interest. Worse still is the whole nuclear power stations idiocy.

Oh and selling our share in Eurostar, pointless.

holnrew

Evilmags said:

randella said:

Jalapeno said:

Myranda said:

And weren't the trains shit when they were last private... 

Do you think he's trolling the nation/party for fun?

Last time they were in Public ownership and operation the trains were fecking abysmal.

Which is surely why the German/Dutch/French ownership model makes sense.  Government is the majority shareholder in the company, nothing else.  Not publicy-run, but publicy-owned.  Then whatever profit they make is going back in the coffers.  Even if they are loss-leading after subsidy, at least we're making back the money that's otherwise going to some other country.  As it is now, we're effectively subsidising the French, German and Dutch state.

All this only holds true of course if the government-owned operating companies are not tinkered with to death by interference from said government, which is where I don't trust Corbyn as far as I could throw him.

The SNCF is one of the main reasons France´s economy is in such dire straights. It runs on multi billion pound losses and is essentially national vanity at the expense of the people´s welfare. The main problem from UK trains is that they don´t have any real competition as franchises are bid for and don´t have to try and compete for customers, just government patronage. If any company was allowed to run a train as long as it paid its track fees, I doubt strikes would last very long (as the trains are all owned by bank leasing arms)  

You know how impractical that is though right?

ICBM

hywelg said:

OK Nationalisationists (is that a word! ) Name me one thing our Government(s) have been good at running?

You're confusing state ownership and state management. State ownership is a good thing in many situations - natural monopolies and public utilities in particular. State management often isn't.

Recently, due to the previous private operator making a royal balls-up of it, East Coast Trains was taken back into public ownership - but it was still operated as an independent company. Efficiency increased dramatically and it returned a substantial profit to the taxpayer. It was then re-privatised for no good reason other than political dogma.


(Edit - randella posted this already, sorry. Note to self, don't go away and then finish the post two hours later without reading the replies!)

Jalapeno

ICBM said:

Recently, due to the previous private operator making a royal balls-up of it, East Coast Trains was taken back into public ownership - but it was still operated as an independent company. Efficiency increased dramatically and it returned a substantial profit to the taxpayer. It was then re-privatised for no good reason other than political dogma.

Virgin Trains I think you'll find - the very ones that Corbyn's been telling porkies on

ICBM

Jalapeno said:

Virgin Trains I think you'll find - the very ones that Corbyn's been telling porkies on  

Yes, it's Virgin who have it now - not the ones who ballsed it up, that was National Express.

To be fair, Virgin seem to be doing better, but I still can't see the point when it was producing a good profit for the taxpayer.

Jalapeno

Yes, I meant that Virgin had turned it around.

Heartfeltdawn

Evilmags said:

Would the next moron to use the phrase Neo-Liberal please try and explain to me what it means. I have never heard a single economist ever describe himself or his school of thought as neo liberal. The phrase is an invention of leftist journalisrs and is entirely meaningless as it does not describe any single strand of economic thought. If you think states are so "Neo Liberal" then could you please try and explain how they control over 45% of every pound spent in the economy. That number would be around 20% tops for a Chicago school economist and around 5% for an Austrian School economist. (The two major strands of Liberal economic thought). Their is absolutely no coherence at all in calling the UK a free market economy (It is not or it would have a different monetary system for starters) when the state confiscates and redistributes 45% of generated wealth. A social democracy is the only accurate term any social scientist would use. 

Neoliberalism has a pretty well defined origin and it wasn't leftist journalists. I completely agree that the UK is not a free market economy but not for the same reasons. Social democracy = yes. Which would come back to point 1 and Rustow and the social market economy. 

Actually I can't really type after a 13 hour day. My eyes feel like they've been out on a date with Courtney Love. 

ICBM

Jalapeno said:

Yes, I meant that Virgin had turned it around.

No, it was Directly Operated Railways that turned it around - Virgin have just carried on from there. Which is fair enough, but the first part is proof that state-owned business can work well - it's competence which is the issue, not ownership.

siremoon

At the moment there are two state controlled railway organisations.  Network Rail, which has been state owned since 2014, and one TOC which is operated as a management contract on behalf of the DfT rather than as a franchise.  DfT takes all the revenue risk and sets the policies and the train company is paid a fee to run the service

The TOC concerned is GTR which is the one that runs Southern.   The attempts to extend DOO on Southern are because that is what the DfT wants.  Why do you think GTR has not been removed despite being in breach of every metric in the book?  Because it is doing the DfT's bidding.  A senior civil servant from the DfT gave a speech in February in which he vowed to break the power of the rail unions.  Three months later GTR start trying to impose more DOO.  Doesn't take a brain surgeon to work out that might not be a conicidence.  Makes me laugh when I hear the RMT leadership bleating on about more state ownership.  It is the state that is going after RMT members on Southern and they want more of the same?  Bizarre

randella

ICBM said:

hywelg said:

OK Nationalisationists (is that a word! ) Name me one thing our Government(s) have been good at running?

You're confusing state ownership and state management. State ownership is a good thing in many situations - natural monopolies and public utilities in particular. State management often isn't.

Recently, due to the previous private operator making a royal balls-up of it, East Coast Trains was taken back into public ownership - but it was still operated as an independent company. Efficiency increased dramatically and it returned a substantial profit to the taxpayer. It was then re-privatised for no good reason other than political dogma.


(Edit - randella posted this already, sorry. Note to self, don't go away and then finish the post two hours later without reading the replies!)

Hahaha, no worries @ICBM - I'll take the coveted prize of beating you to the punch, even if you did offer me a two-hour head start.

You and @holnrew are right about dogma.  I do believe a lot of what the Cons get up to is what they genuinely believe will make the country a better place.  I don't agree with a lot of it, but I'll at least give them the benefit of the doubt.  This though, and that bullshit at Hinckley Point (as holnrew pointed out), can't be anything other than petty, blinkered ideology.  It really can't.

My dad used to use the long-distance services on the EC line several times a week for business.  He moaned like hell when National Express took over from GNER (I think it was GNER, I lose track).  He was fairly even about the service up to that point, the staff were decent, you could get an edible bacon sandwich, they ran on time.  Typical business user, the client was ultimately picking up the (exorbitant) tab, but his consensus was it was fine for peak-hour travel as long as you weren't paying.
 
By all accounts National Express managed to nosedive the service into the ground within months.  He moved to another area before it went back into Government ownership, I'd have been interested in his opinion; from what I read the service improved dramatically.  The state owned operator didn't just maintain the previous company's level of service, it *improved it dramatically*.  The exact opposite of the received wisdom (in some quarters) that state=bad.

In summary then the EC line has recently had, in chronological order, one good operator (private), one appalling failure of an  operator (private), one good operator (state), one good operator (private).  One of those returned a couple of hundred million quid to the treasury during its tenure, the other three didn't.  I know I'm like a stuck record on this one, but I'm struggling to see the thinking.  I really am.

EDIT - it was National Express not Stagecoach who made a mess on the EC mainline.  Bah, getting bus companies mixed up

oaf

Evilmags said:

Would the next moron to use the phrase Neo-Liberal please try and explain to me what it means.

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/neoliberalism

neoliberalism
(ˌniːəʊˈlɪbərəˌlɪzəm , -ˈlɪbrəˌlɪzəm)
Definitions
Collins English Dictionary
noun

a modern politico-economic theory favouring free trade, privatization, minimal government intervention in business, reduced public expenditure on social services, etc

Evilmags

oaf said:

Evilmags said:

Would the next moron to use the phrase Neo-Liberal please try and explain to me what it means.

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/neoliberalism

neoliberalism
(ˌniːəʊˈlɪbərəˌlɪzəm , -ˈlɪbrəˌlɪzəm)
Definitions
Collins English Dictionary
noun

a modern politico-economic theory favouring free trade, privatization, minimal government intervention in business, reduced public expenditure on social services, etc

It is not a theory at all, except in the y eyes of leftists. It's a catch all term for any economic school of thought that is not socialist or social democratic. Idiots like Monbiot seem unable to distinguish between the various schools so use it as an insult.