Have they got public sympathy?

Stevo_666

johnfinch wrote:

France and Germany may well pay higher taxes, but they do so on higher incomes, possibly due in part to the fact that they have superior infrastructure to us. Farms and supermarkets just can't be compared to rail because they don't require the same sort of central coordination..

Higher incomes? Wrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_wage
So are you claiming that better infrastructure leads to lower income? They pay higher taxes because tax rates are higher...

I see you have moved your reasoning for nationalisation from 'vital to the national interest' (as the logic doesn't stack up), to 'need for central coordination'. Which one is it then? It's very clear that a decent food supply is vital to the national interest. Not sure why rail services need central coordination more than already happens. BR didn't do very well when it was centrally coordinating did it.

johnfinch wrote:

And please, don't give me all this BS about private sector running public services so much better than the state. They might be more efficient if you just look at lowering costs, but just to take 1 example, when I was at primary school we were fed by the council. The food wasn't the best in the world, but we got a healthy meal every day. The private sector got involved and what happened? Children being fed complete and utter crap for over a decade and it needed a celebrity chef to get involved and even then the changes were only made with increased government subsidies! So the long-term costs to the nation would probably outweigh any savings that short-termist, penny-pinching bean counters manage to make.

There are plenty more examples (hospitals not being cleaned properly being the one which is closest to my heart, seeing as my great-grandmother died of MRSA that she contracted in hospital) but I don't want to go into a big long list at this time.

Anyway, back to the firemen. Yes, they have my sympathy for reasons others have mentioned earlier in the thread.

Not BS at all. And your experience of school food is hardly scientific evidence is it. Sounds like your judgement is a bit clouded on this one.

You tell me why I should subsidise people who use a service that I don't. I don't expect anyone to do that for me. The fairest form of charging is based on usage. The problem for the leftie brigade is that most people have rumbled this idea of state ownership being 'for the common good' - it's just the tired old socialist policy of putting the cost of services onto taxpayers rather than have people pay for what they use. We're not buying it and dream on if you think the railways will get renationalised in the foreseeable future.

But tell you what, do a list of the industries that you want nationalised, let's do an estimate of how much it would cost the taxpayer to buy them and see what it does for the UK debt

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

But tell you what, do a list of the industries that you want nationalised, let's do an estimate of how much it would cost the taxpayer to buy them and see what it does for the UK debt

Don't mention the debt.
Some kittens may be harmed.
Allegedly.

finchy

Stevo 666 wrote:

Higher incomes? Wrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_wage
So are you claiming that better infrastructure leads to lower income? They pay higher taxes because tax rates are higher...

I was using median income, and both France and Germany are ahead of us on that one.

Stevo 666 wrote:

I see you have moved your reasoning for nationalisation from 'vital to the national interest' (as the logic doesn't stack up), to 'need for central coordination'. Which one is it then? It's very clear that a decent food supply is vital to the national interest. Not sure why rail services need central coordination more than already happens. BR didn't do very well when it was centrally coordinating did it.

I haven't changed my reasoning, I was pointing out that the two are completely different. Rail is a natural monopoly - apart from a small number of journeys between London and other big towns, how much of a choice do I really have? The same conditions do not apply to farms and supermarkets.

Saying BR failed therefore a nationalised system would fail today makes no sense at all. These days attitudes towards transport have changed within government, it's not just "car is king" and there is more of a consensus that we need a decent rail system, which means that all major parties, for example, are committed to supporting high speed rail. This simply was not the case in the past. Seeing as governments can get people into space, I see no reason why they couldn't get people from London to Edinburgh in an efficient manner.

Stevo 666 wrote:

Not BS at all. And your experience of school food is hardly scientific evidence is it. Sounds like your judgement is a bit clouded on this one.

That was just one example. And it wasn't just my school dinners, it was all across the nation.

Stevo 666 wrote:

You tell me why I should subsidise people who use a service that I don't. I don't expect anyone to do that for me. The fairest form of charging is based on usage.

It's called external costs and benefits. If you subsidise the trains, that means that there will be fewer people driving into the city polluting the air you breathe, congesting your streets, increasing noise levels, etc. So you benefit, you just don't realise it. I doubt a London dweller like you would be too happy with, say, 50,000 additional cars coming into the capital every day.

And plenty of the services that you use are subsidised in one way or another. Energy is subsidised, food is subsidised, education is subsidised...

Stevo 666 wrote:

The problem for the leftie brigade is that most people have rumbled this idea of state ownership being 'for the common good' - it's just the tired old socialist policy of putting the cost of services onto taxpayers rather than have people pay for what they use. We're not buying it and dream on if you think the railways will get renationalised in the foreseeable future.

Check the opinion poll I linked to earlier in the thread. The vast majority of Labour, Lib Dem, UKIP and Green voters want the railways (and energy) renationalised. 52% of Tory voters support nationalisation. The majority of the country supports renationalisation. What do you know that they don't?

Here are a few more showing the same thing. Most people have not "rumbled" the idea of state ownership, they support it.

http://survation.com/would-nationalisin ... marginals/
http://www.globalrailnews.com/2012/09/1 ... atisation/
Even City AM admits it http://www.cityam.com/article/138361885 ... e-controls

Stevo 666 wrote:

But tell you what, do a list of the industries that you want nationalised, let's do an estimate of how much it would cost the taxpayer to buy them and see what it does for the UK debt

Railways - just let the franchises run out, then the state can take over. No purchase necessary.
Energy - I don't know enough about it to be honest.
Royal Mail - the public have been massively screwed over with that one.

ben@31

Stevo 666 wrote:

But tell you what, do a list of the industries that you want nationalised, let's do an estimate of how much it would cost the taxpayer to buy them and see what it does for the UK debt

Am I correct in thinking with nationalisation all the profit is reinvested into the industry. With privatisation, profit is syphoned away into someones bank account.

If some rural rail routes need to be subsidised, at least it is providing a community service. Unlike privatisation which puts someone else's profit first.

I've just been watching the tv series "24 Hours in A&E" thats on the 4 On Demand website. To me it is a great testimony to nationalisation / welfare state looking after people. People arrived into A&E needing all sorts of complex treatment and not one was asked for their credit card details and turned way. Sometimes I think if you were in the USA and were made redundant and needed that A&E treatment you'd get a big bill to pay.

ballysmate

ben@31 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

But tell you what, do a list of the industries that you want nationalised, let's do an estimate of how much it would cost the taxpayer to buy them and see what it does for the UK debt

Am I correct in thinking with nationalisation all the profit is reinvested into the industry. With privatisation, profit is syphoned away into someones bank account.

If some rural rail routes need to be subsidised, at least it is providing a community service. Unlike privatisation which puts someone else's profit first.

I've just been watching the tv series "24 Hours in A&E" thats on the 4 On Demand website. To me it is a great testimony to nationalisation / welfare state looking after people. People arrived into A&E needing all sorts of complex treatment and not one was asked for their credit card details and turned way. Sometimes I think if you were in the USA and were made redundant and needed that A&E treatment you'd get a big bill to pay.

Never happens mate.

Stevo_666

ben@31 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

But tell you what, do a list of the industries that you want nationalised, let's do an estimate of how much it would cost the taxpayer to buy them and see what it does for the UK debt

Am I correct in thinking with nationalisation all the profit is reinvested into the industry. With privatisation, profit is syphoned away into someones bank account.

No.

I posted an estimate a while back of how much it would cost to nationalise the energey industry. The market value of the retail energy companies is over £100 billion alone. Add to that the cost of nationalising the UK portion of the primiry producers (BP, Shell etc) and you are talking hundred of billions. Simply unaffordable so Finchys argument is a non-starter even if we only look at one of his 3 candidates for a state monopoly.

ben@31 wrote:

I've just been watching the tv series "24 Hours in A&E" thats on the 4 On Demand website. To me it is a great testimony to nationalisation / welfare state looking after people. People arrived into A&E needing all sorts of complex treatment and not one was asked for their credit card details and turned way. Sometimes I think if you were in the USA and were made redundant and needed that A&E treatment you'd get a big bill to pay.

This is not the USA.

ben@31

Stevo 666 wrote:

This is not the USA.

Tell Tony Blair that.

Stevo_666

johnfinch wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Higher incomes? Wrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_wage
So are you claiming that better infrastructure leads to lower income? They pay higher taxes because tax rates are higher...

I was using median income, and both France and Germany are ahead of us on that one.

Stevo 666 wrote:

I see you have moved your reasoning for nationalisation from 'vital to the national interest' (as the logic doesn't stack up), to 'need for central coordination'. Which one is it then? It's very clear that a decent food supply is vital to the national interest. Not sure why rail services need central coordination more than already happens. BR didn't do very well when it was centrally coordinating did it.

I haven't changed my reasoning, I was pointing out that the two are completely different. Rail is a natural monopoly - apart from a small number of journeys between London and other big towns, how much of a choice do I really have? The same conditions do not apply to farms and supermarkets.

Saying BR failed therefore a nationalised system would fail today makes no sense at all. These days attitudes towards transport have changed within government, it's not just "car is king" and there is more of a consensus that we need a decent rail system, which means that all major parties, for example, are committed to supporting high speed rail. This simply was not the case in the past. Seeing as governments can get people into space, I see no reason why they couldn't get people from London to Edinburgh in an efficient manner.

Stevo 666 wrote:

Not BS at all. And your experience of school food is hardly scientific evidence is it. Sounds like your judgement is a bit clouded on this one.

That was just one example. And it wasn't just my school dinners, it was all across the nation.

Stevo 666 wrote:

You tell me why I should subsidise people who use a service that I don't. I don't expect anyone to do that for me. The fairest form of charging is based on usage.

It's called external costs and benefits. If you subsidise the trains, that means that there will be fewer people driving into the city polluting the air you breathe, congesting your streets, increasing noise levels, etc. So you benefit, you just don't realise it. I doubt a London dweller like you would be too happy with, say, 50,000 additional cars coming into the capital every day.

And plenty of the services that you use are subsidised in one way or another. Energy is subsidised, food is subsidised, education is subsidised...

Stevo 666 wrote:

The problem for the leftie brigade is that most people have rumbled this idea of state ownership being 'for the common good' - it's just the tired old socialist policy of putting the cost of services onto taxpayers rather than have people pay for what they use. We're not buying it and dream on if you think the railways will get renationalised in the foreseeable future.

Check the opinion poll I linked to earlier in the thread. The vast majority of Labour, Lib Dem, UKIP and Green voters want the railways (and energy) renationalised. 52% of Tory voters support nationalisation. The majority of the country supports renationalisation. What do you know that they don't?

Here are a few more showing the same thing. Most people have not "rumbled" the idea of state ownership, they support it.

http://survation.com/would-nationalisin ... marginals/
http://www.globalrailnews.com/2012/09/1 ... atisation/
Even City AM admits it http://www.cityam.com/article/138361885 ... e-controls

Stevo 666 wrote:

But tell you what, do a list of the industries that you want nationalised, let's do an estimate of how much it would cost the taxpayer to buy them and see what it does for the UK debt

Railways - just let the franchises run out, then the state can take over. No purchase necessary.
Energy - I don't know enough about it to be honest.
Royal Mail - the public have been massively screwed over with that one.

Finchy - see my comment above about the cost of nationalising just the enrgy industry. It is unaffordable and so won't work. You quote polls and sure enough people are protesting because they think that nationalisation might bring the prices down, without thinking about how the subsidy is funded - via tax. Lots of people vote UKIP and we all sit here and call them idiots - but the moment people call for something that fits in with you ideaology they're not idiots....

It's not like this is pie in the sky theory - we have endured large scale nationalisation in this country before and it just did not work. It also coincided with a period of significant industrial and financial problems for this country - look at the mess the country was in when Labour got kicked out in '79. Nationalised industries are the experiment that failed. Let's not make the same mistakes again.

You give me an example of a country that is actively nationalising at present. The only recent one I can think of recently is Hogo Chavez/Venezuela - hardly a model of economic sensibility. Even supposedly socialist Norway is undergoing a privatisation programme.

If you think that subbing the railways by raising tax will put tens of thousands of cars on the road in London then you're wrong. It still makes more sense to take public transport vs driving in London by a long way.

Government monopolies with a total lack of competition and so no real incentive to be efficient of deliver a good service will cost us more money in the end. A private oligoply isn't perfect but it's better than a state monoply as the knowledge that franchises can be lost is always an end result.

So, let's put some money down on the next UK industry to be nationalised

Stevo_666

ben@31 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

This is not the USA.

Tell Tony Blair that.

Err - he left power over 7 years ago in case you hadn't noticed. How is this relevant?

ben@31

Stevo, what is the cost of fuel in Venezuela and what is the cost of fuel in the UK ?

Stevo_666

ben@31 wrote:

Stevo, what is the cost of fuel in Venezuela and what is the cost of fuel in the UK ?

Are you seriously going to put Venezuela as an example of economic good practice and social harmony for other countries to follow? Please go ahead and tell us, this should be fun

ben@31

No.

But then capitalism isn't exactly moral and ethical.

My question is what is the price of petrol or diesel in Venezuela and what is the price in the UK ?

Stevo_666

So you are the self appointed judge of capitalism? Congratulations

I don't know the price of petrol in Venezuela but the suspense is killing me, so please do tell us....

slowmart

https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... os/ve.html



You know when people have lost an argument when they use Venezuela as an example.

And when does a snap shot in time of the so called majority reinforce an argument for nationalisation? Its sounds great, as does communism but given that both aspects have been mostly been extinguished suggests the argument has already been comprehensively lost

ben@31

Slowmart wrote:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ve.html



You know when people have lost an argument when they use Venezuela as an example.

And when does a snap shot in time of the so called majority reinforce an argument for nationalisation? Its sounds great, as does communism but given that both aspects have been mostly been extinguished suggests the argument has already been comprehensively lost

Slowmart, you're using a CIA website as an example. Do you think it could be biased at all? Because does the CIA really love South American revolutionaries who say no to the USA ?

Stevo_666

Slowmart wrote:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ve.html



You know when people have lost an argument when they use Venezuela as an example.

And when does a snap shot in time of the so called majority reinforce an argument for nationalisation? Its sounds great, as does communism but given that both aspects have been mostly been extinguished suggests the argument has already been comprehensively lost

Slowmart, give Ben a chance to explain how Venezuelan petrol prices prove that socialism works and only a shady global capitalist conspiracy is stopping other countries from replicating the Hugo Chavez economic miracle.

While we're waiting, here's an extract from your link:
"Venezuela remains highly dependent on oil revenues, which account for roughly 96% of export earnings, about 45% of budget revenues, and around 12% of GDP. Fueled by high oil prices, pre-election government spending helped spur GDP growth in 2012 to 5.6%. Government spending, minimum wage hikes, and improved access to domestic credit created an increase in consumption which combined with supply problems to cause higher inflation - roughly 20% in 2012 and rising to more than 56% in 2013. Former President Hugo CHAVEZ's efforts to increase the government's control of the economy by nationalizing firms in the agribusiness, financial, construction, oil, and steel sectors hurt the private investment environment, reduced productive capacity, and slowed non-petroleum exports. In 2013, Venezuela continued to wrestle with housing and electricity crises, and rolling food and goods shortages, resulting from the government's unorthodox economic policies. The budget deficit for the public sector reached 17% of GDP in 2012 and was trimmed to under 10% of GDP in 2013. The Venezuelan government has maintained a regime of strict currency exchange controls since 2003. Venezuelan law now sanctions a three-tiered exchange rate system, with rates based on the government's import priorities."

"GDP per capita
$13,600 (2013 est.)

Population below poverty line:
31.6% (2011 est.)

Inflation rate (consumer prices):
56.2% (2013 est.)

Central bank discount rate:
29.5% (31 December 2010)

Exports - partners:
US 39.1%, China 14.3%, India 12%, Netherlands Antilles 7.8%, Cuba 4.6% (2012)

Imports - partners:
US 31.7%, China 16.8%, Brazil 9.1%, Colombia 4.8% (2012) "

Well wow, the roaring success of a socialist country. Despite sitting on a huge stock of oil reserves, they have still managed to completely screw it up.
- 96% of their exports are oil. So no prizes for guessing what happens to petrol prices and their economy generally once it runs out.
- Inflation and interest rates are at levels that would make the 1970's UK labour government look competent.
- Annual GDP per capita is well under £10k and poverty is rife. So is crime IIRC.
- Nationalisation has had a clear negative impact on the economy.
- And who is their main trading partner? None other than The Great Capitalist Satan, the USA What's the Spanish word for 'hypocrite'?

I'm sure we can get similar stats from more neutral sources, but it won't change the conclusion.

Ben, thanks for giving us the best example yet of how socialism doesn't work.

ben@31

How about socialism working elsewhere ?

http://blog.peerform.com/top-ten-most-socialist-countries-in-the-world/


" If one imagines the USA pictured in sit-coms and Hollywood, then certainly [capitalism] looks rosy. However, for a significant number of Americans, the reality is vastly different from this idealistic image. Their reality is not much different to the average citizen in many developing nations.

The answer is that I'd be happy to live in any of the above countries when being run by Socialists, as long as they weren't being attacked by either their leaders or insurgents. Sadly many of the insurgents (and some of the despotic leaders) were funded by the United States.

The question that should be asked is "would you live in Nicaragua or Guatemala as they are being subjected to massacre after massacre at the hands of US funded Contras? Would you like to live in Indonesia, as your family is being massacred at the hands of the capitalist, US funded Suharto? Would you like to live in Chile under the capitalist, US funded Pinochet?" Perhaps another question that could be asked is, "would you like to live in a country that the USA has 'brought democracy' to?"

Perhaps, people don't wish to live in Nicaragua, Guatemala, Indonesia regardless of the political system. So would you like to live in the USA in a neighbourhood that is not white and wealthy?

Personally, I would not like to live in the United States. I would chose to live in a Social Democracy because most do not have human rights violations and most provide a better form of wealth redistribution to ensure that the poor have the opportunity for education, health and employment. The USA economy is a basket case, the politicians are more interested in power than their own poor. Social Democracies, whilst not necessarily Marxist, have at least embraced the best of Socialism without the perversion of Stalinism or Capitalistic greed.

Socialism in its purest form is egalitarian, fairer and provides the best chance for all citizens to participate in and contribute to their nation, than the selfish, exploitative policies of Capitalism".

.

ben@31

But if you want to live in a capitalist system where you work harder for less. While the cost of living goes up. Then thats your choice, each to their own.

Stevo_666

ben@31 wrote:

How about socialism working elsewhere ?

http://blog.peerform.com/top-ten-most-socialist-countries-in-the-world/

That came up second on my google search on 'socialism' as well, although christ knows why.

Let's step back a little and define socialism (Wiki ref):
"Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy"

Then let's see how many of these countries list in your link above are truly socialist:
China - politially socialist but economically very capitalist
Denmark/Denmark/Finland/Norway - Nope, see my post on Norway above. Same applies for the other 'Scandies'.
Netherlands/Belgium - no, just moderately left of centre capitalist countries
Ireland - no more socialist than the UK
Canada/New Zealand - you're kidding, right?

Listing countries that are not socialist and then claiming that they are socialist to demonstrate that socialism works hasn't really held up to light scrutiny, has it?

Let's get the Wiki list and look for all those successful, nice to live in countries. OK, the list is defined by whether a state regards itself as socialist, so it probably produces a longer list than using the definition above. (And for some reason it doesn't have Venezuala which clearly is socialist based on how it runs things but that's Wiki for you - possibly down to them calling themselves revolutionary communists or something similar).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states
Pick a current one you'd like to live in rather than this dreadful place we call the UK.

It's also worth noting the length of the list of former socialist countries is rather large - clearly pointing to the socialist model being unsustainable. Unfortunately lefties never seem to learn.

Finally, consider how many of these socialist states would chop your nuts off rather let you get away with whingeing about how awful it is to live in their country - if you lived there . Honestly, consider yourself lucky that you live in the UK.

ben@31 wrote:

Socialism in its purest form is egalitarian, fairer and provides the best chance for all citizens to participate in and contribute to their nation, than the selfish, exploitative policies of Capitalism".

Sounds nice in theory but as demonstrated above - doesn't work. If it did, there would be loads of countries successfully using the socialist model. But there aren't.

slowmart

ben@31 wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ve.html



You know when people have lost an argument when they use Venezuela as an example.

And when does a snap shot in time of the so called majority reinforce an argument for nationalisation? Its sounds great, as does communism but given that both aspects have been mostly been extinguished suggests the argument has already been comprehensively lost

Slowmart, you're using a CIA website as an example. Do you think it could be biased at all? Because does the CIA really love South American revolutionaries who say no to the USA ?

How about Human Rights Watch

http://www.hrw.org/americas/venezuela

Human Rights in Venezuela
The April 2013 presidential election, held weeks after the death of President Hugo Chávez, resulted in a narrow victory for Chávez’s hand-picked successor, Nicolás Maduro, according to Venezuelan electoral authorities. The Supreme Court and the National Electoral Council rejected appeals filed by the opposition candidate, Henrique Capriles Radonski, challenging the results. The controversy over the results touched off street demonstrations and counterdemonstrations, which led to at least nine deaths and dozens of injured, as well as excessive use of force and arbitrary detentions by security forces.

no doubt the protesters are American agents who deserve to be beaten, shot and detained without charge?

How about that bastion of right wing views, The Guardian?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/m ... hts-abuses


Now you mentioned petrol prices? mmmmmmmm :roll:


And I'm not saying capitalism is 100% right, it's clearly not but its outlasted the ideology of socialism which was even more disjointed and simply wrong on so many levels.

tangled_metal

Did you just bring up Pinochet in Chile? Died 2006, dictator up to 1990, commander in chief of their army until 1998. IIRC he was seriously ill, infirm and a political irrelevance in Chile a long time before his death in 2006.
Interestingly I saw a documentary on modern Chile that puts the current economy as one of the biggest success stories in south America. Something about it being considered a rich country and a good model for good governance in south America. Capitalist of course like Brazil one of the brick countries.
Didn't read your link Ben, couldn't be bothered If it's anything that supports your post mentioning long passed dictators. Steve mentioned Canada in that list. Interesting thing about Canada it was supposed to be the first country to get over the 2008 financial disaster. Reason was its excellent financial regulation framework. Capitalist country, G20 and a serious economy. Interesting fact is the guy who played the biggest part in Canadian financial regulation and it's economic success was a guy called Carney. Isn't he the new governor of the bank of England now? Excellent.appointment I reckon.

finchy

Stevo 666 wrote:

Finchy - see my comment above about the cost of nationalising just the enrgy industry. It is unaffordable and so won't work. You quote polls and sure enough people are protesting because they think that nationalisation might bring the prices down, without thinking about how the subsidy is funded - via tax. Lots of people vote UKIP and we all sit here and call them idiots - but the moment people call for something that fits in with you ideaology they're not idiots....

I don't think that I've ever called UKIP voters idiots on here. And stop trying to sidestep the issue. You were trying to claim some sort of majority support for your position, but I have provided you with links showing that I actually share my support with the majority of supporters of all the major political parties.

And yes, the subsidy for rail fares is paid for by tax, but guess what... the subsidies that we pay to private operators also comes out of our taxes!

Stevo 666 wrote:

It's not like this is pie in the sky theory - we have endured large scale nationalisation in this country before and it just did not work. It also coincided with a period of significant industrial and financial problems for this country - look at the mess the country was in when Labour got kicked out in '79. Nationalised industries are the experiment that failed. Let's not make the same mistakes again.

Of course the country was in a mess, the whole world was in a mess. The world had just gone through an oil crisis. The fact that many industries were nationalised (which didn't prevent strong economic growth in preceding years) had absolutely zero effect whatsoever on OPEC policies.

Stevo 666 wrote:

You give me an example of a country that is actively nationalising at present. The only recent one I can think of recently is Hogo Chavez/Venezuela - hardly a model of economic sensibility. Even supposedly socialist Norway is undergoing a privatisation programme.

The fact that countries are privatising doesn't actually mean that it's a sensible policy. It can just mean that companies who run public services have got a lot of influence in government.

Stevo 666 wrote:

If you think that subbing the railways by raising tax will put tens of thousands of cars on the road in London then you're wrong. It still makes more sense to take public transport vs driving in London by a long way.

As I have already said, private train (and bus operators) are already subsidised by the taxpayer.

Stevo 666 wrote:

Government monopolies with a total lack of competition and so no real incentive to be efficient of deliver a good service will cost us more money in the end. A private oligoply isn't perfect but it's better than a state monoply as the knowledge that franchises can be lost is always an end result.

Governments do have an incentive to improve services - it's called elections. People don't want crap public services. Unfortunately the mentality in Britain is often "we want good public services but we don't want to pay taxes", but to say that government can't run a good service is to ignore the successes that governments do have. Probably the best example of a world-beating service that we have in the UK is the Royal Mail. When you go and live in a foreign country (or use one of our private delivery companies) you can really appreciate what a good service they offer.

In terms of infrastructure, though, I don't expect too much in Britain because our country is dominated by the type of short-termist bean counters who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. And that goes for public and private sectors. That's why we end up buying back from other countries technology that was developed in Britain, such as active tilting, which we are now importing from the Italians.

Stevo 666 wrote:

So, let's put some money down on the next UK industry to be nationalised

I don't expect any to be nationalised. In the meantime, if I want to go into town by bus I'll have to pay £3.20 return on one of our wonderful, efficient, privatised bus services. The town centre is 1 mile away.

Stevo_666

Slowmart wrote:

Now you mentioned petrol prices? mmmmmmmm :roll:


And I'm not saying capitalism is 100% right, it's clearly not but its outlasted the ideology of socialism which was even more disjointed and simply wrong on so many levels.

Now you mention petrol prices, here's your answer, but even that little bribe to the citizens of Venezuela is unravelling (source: The Guradian):
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/27/venezuela-petrol-subsidies-cheap-gas

However as you say they have bigger fish to fry in that particular socialist uptopia:
"Many drivers say gas prices are so low that even a large hike wouldn't register in their wallets. They know that their cheap gas fosters pollution, traffic, contraband fuel smuggling across the Colombian border, and a wider culture of waste and inefficiency. Far more worrisome is the eroding public safety and sky-high murder rate in this country of about 30 million.

Maria Osorio, the owner of a fuel-efficient hatchback, said that the extra mileage is nice but that she has another reason for preferring a modest car. "I have an SUV at home, but I'm too afraid to take it out because I might get carjacked," she said, explaining that she has been robbed at gunpoint five times in the past two years."

tangled_metal

France is an interesting country. Highly ranked in GDP per hour worked, 6th IIRC compared to UK 13, Canada 14 and US 3rd. If French workers actually modernised work practises such as more hours per week, fewer holidays, etc they'd be a lot better off economically. Also very high unemployment for18-24 year old. A major problem. They're real contradiction economically if you ask me.

Chavez used oil and gas to buy political power in his country but also sold it off cheap to neighboring countries with socialist government. That use of oil to gain, hold onto and buy political support or power was verging on criminal really. Selling his nation's resources off so cheaply. Of course Chavez, dead now, is highly regarded in neighboring countries especially among the poorer sections of society.

tangled_metal

johnfinch wrote:

I don't expect any to be nationalised. In the meantime, if I want to go into town by bus I'll have to pay £3.20 return on one of our wonderful, efficient, privatised bus services. The town centre is 1 mile away.

Here's a random idea...if town is 1 mile away and you don't like bus price how about getting a bike and cycle into town? Can I recommend checking the forum out on Bikeradar for advice on cycling and cycles?

I understand that part of the ticket price increase complained about in the media is down to the government instituting a policy of reducing the percentage of the cost of running those routes to come from government subsidy. Basically they're making the users of public transport pay directly for more of their own ticket rather than from general taxation. IIRC some very high rates.of subsidies used to apply.

finchy

Venezuela is pretty much irrelevant when talking about the UK's economy because they started off far poorer than us.

As for France, unless a lot has changed since I lived there, I think the biggest problem is bureaucracy. You need to provide six forms of ID just to be allowed to blow your nose.

finchy

Tangled Metal wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

I don't expect any to be nationalised. In the meantime, if I want to go into town by bus I'll have to pay £3.20 return on one of our wonderful, efficient, privatised bus services. The town centre is 1 mile away.

Here's a random idea...if town is 1 mile away and you don't like bus price how about getting a bike and cycle into town? Can I recommend checking the forum out on Bikeradar for advice on cycling and cycles?

I said IF I want to go to town by bus. It's a very rare occurrence, usually it's bike or feet for me.

tangled_metal

That's good, i know using a bus is better environmentally.than using your car by yourself but at 1 mile I'd hope most posters on here would use a bike or walk.

finchy

It's only when I want to take my little boy into town in bad weather that I'll take the bus.

tangled_metal

If you think bureaucracy is bad in France you really should try doing business with Russian businesses. Contracts signed on every page by representatives of all participants, 4 copies and if all that back and forth isn't enough you then need to get things officially stamped by British / Russian chamber of commerce or other Russian authorised body. that's just the easy jobs and isn't all you have to do neither. Only got involved in that once and our company never dealt with Russia again. That contract went on numerous courier journeys from Russia to UK to USA and back again before the final version was signed off. Never really made money on the job because of the massive beaurocracy costs that was beyond what could be considered reasonable.