Join the Labour Party and save your country!

bompington

Shortfall wrote:

The unions supported Blair because they still got more of what they wanted than they would have done under the Tories. State spending increased significantly under New Labour and the NHS in particular saw vast increases in spending.

And don't forget the lure of actually getting into power. But yes, although most union activists are well to the left of Blair, the unions are biased towards the public sector (numerically by a fair bit, but massively in terms of influence and political activity) and therefore very happy with the statist solutions (more public expenditure! more! more!) that are the common thread from Blairism through wotsisname to today's Corbynites.

pblakeney

rjsterry wrote:

That you are referring to them as closet Tories says a lot. We're not talking about local members having a say, but deselecting standing MPs. Apparently party members are more equal than the electorate itself.

With the current system of Party Politics that we have, the cabinet is more powerful than the electorate. Party politics can mean an MP voting against their own constituents interests.

mamba80

Shortfall wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

[quote="mamba80"



i dont dispute that the unions do all you suggest, i do not believe their influence is as much as you think/quote]

Really? I've got this bridge I want to sell you then. What do you think would happen to Labour without union money? Why do you think the unions give them it?

yeah well your argument falls down because the unions carried on supporting Labour even in the Blair years, as i said earlier, they ve really no choice, its in their DNA.... if May defected to Labour (not an impossibility) Unite would still send in their millions....

do you mean the Millau bridge? a fine example of capitalist and socialist co-op.

[/quote][/quote]

The unions supported Blair because they still got more of what they wanted than they would have done under the Tories. State spending increased significantly under New Labour and the NHS in particular saw vast increases in spending.

Back to 2017. The union Barons now have a real stranglehold on Labour and the reason that Corbyn and McDonnel are at the head of the party is directly as a result of union campaigning and pressure through their own structures and via Momentum. Once again, this is entirely reasonable, after all the unions created the Labour Party and they keep it alive with donations and campaigning. There's also a very real chance that they will win power in the near future so to play down their importance seems to me to ignore what is glaringly obvious. I am no fan of the Conservatives and didnt vote for them but to pretend the Marxist policies espoused by Corbyn are the answer to our ills is frankly dangerous in my opinion. Unfortunately there's every chance that soon we're about to discover how damaging they will be.[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

i ve read Labours Manifesto and its in no way "Marxist" thats total BS....

What Labour policies are Marxist then?

mamba80

rjsterry wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

[
As for JC, no he wont fix the UKs problems, however, if we keep doing the same thing, we ll get the same results, the tories are offering nothing more than back stabbing mayhem, JC is different and deserves a chance.

That seems a little optimistic given the pressure from Momentum to change MP selection rules, the better to remove those not of what they perceive to be pure socialist thought.

No point having closet tories in the Labour party!!!

Seriously, so a small section of the labour party membership want local members to have a bigger say in MP selection at the next GE? ...why not? why should labour lib or Tory central drop in a well known leadership supporting candidate?

Unless there is clear blue water water parties, then what exactly is the point of changing your vote? its the convergence of Lib and Tory policies that has led to the decline of the libdems and did for Miliband too.... people want want change, they are fcuked off with the same tired policies, that have totally failed this countries young people esp.

That you are referring to them as closet Tories says a lot. We're not talking about local members having a say, but deselecting standing MPs. Apparently party members are more equal than the electorate itself.

that ll never happen and as far as i m aware, the leadership has said so too.

if they deselected at a GE, which can happen with any party, well, its down to the electorate to decide either way isn't it.

my remark "No point having closet tories in the Labour party!!!" was tongue in cheek.

shortfall

mamba80 wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

[quote="mamba80"



i dont dispute that the unions do all you suggest, i do not believe their influence is as much as you think/quote]

Really? I've got this bridge I want to sell you then. What do you think would happen to Labour without union money? Why do you think the unions give them it?

yeah well your argument falls down because the unions carried on supporting Labour even in the Blair years, as i said earlier, they ve really no choice, its in their DNA.... if May defected to Labour (not an impossibility) Unite would still send in their millions....

do you mean the Millau bridge? a fine example of capitalist and socialist co-op.

[/quote]

The unions supported Blair because they still got more of what they wanted than they would have done under the Tories. State spending increased significantly under New Labour and the NHS in particular saw vast increases in spending.

Back to 2017. The union Barons now have a real stranglehold on Labour and the reason that Corbyn and McDonnel are at the head of the party is directly as a result of union campaigning and pressure through their own structures and via Momentum. Once again, this is entirely reasonable, after all the unions created the Labour Party and they keep it alive with donations and campaigning. There's also a very real chance that they will win power in the near future so to play down their importance seems to me to ignore what is glaringly obvious. I am no fan of the Conservatives and didnt vote for them but to pretend the Marxist policies espoused by Corbyn are the answer to our ills is frankly dangerous in my opinion. Unfortunately there's every chance that soon we're about to discover how damaging they will be.[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

i ve read Labours Manifesto and its in no way "Marxist" thats total BS....

What Labour policies are Marxist then?[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

How about the reanatioialisation of key industries like Water, Energy, Rail finances by increasing taxes on wealth creating sectors like the City and Companies? How about the proposals to introduce capital controls when the inevitable run on the pound comes following a Labour victory? You will no doubt say that such things are just socialist policies and nothing to do with Marxism but do you expect Labour to get elected by promising a Marxist revolution the day after the election? No it will be incremental. Don't forget that John McDonnell is a self confessed Marxist who said "There is a lot to learn from reading Das Kapital" and once threw Mao's little red book at the former chancellor.

mamba80

Actually, i would nt argue they are Socialist policies at all, privatisation has nt worked to benefit the hapless punter, roll out of super slow broadband, super slow railways, de investment in train electrification, where exactly is the competition in water? we still pour rare sewage onto our beaches.
Privatisation of Uni loans ..... great success there.... other countries with state controlled sectors have better railways, cleaner environment and faster BB.
Caps on 'lecki prices? that well known Marxist TMay is proposing that!

Labour are not proposing to do all this over night in any case.

But you hit the nail on the head... these are key industries and should nt be in the hands of overseas companies and thats where (a proportion of) the profits go too.

bompington

mamba80 wrote:

Actually, i would nt argue they are Socialist policies at all, privatisation has nt worked to benefit the hapless punter, roll out of super slow broadband, super slow railways, de investment in train electrification, where exactly is the competition in water? we still pour rare sewage onto our beaches.

Talk about flying in the face of the evidence. Are you old enough to remember how long it took to get a phone installed in the 70s?

But never mind that. With the unerring Mamba strike you have, with your claim that "de-privatisation" isn't a socialist policy, once again managed to claim the diametric opposite of the truth: socialism is public ownership of industry, and that's pretty much it.

shortfall

mamba80 wrote:

Actually, i would nt argue they are Socialist policies at all, privatisation has nt worked to benefit the hapless punter, roll out of super slow broadband, super slow railways, de investment in train electrification, where exactly is the competition in water? we still pour rare sewage onto our beaches.
Privatisation of Uni loans ..... great success there.... other countries with state controlled sectors have better railways, cleaner environment and faster BB.
Caps on 'lecki prices? that well known Marxist TMay is proposing that!

Labour are not proposing to do all this over night in any case.

But you hit the nail on the head... these are key industries and should nt be in the hands of overseas companies and thats where (a proportion of) the profits go too.

Well Bompington has dealt with your confusion above but on energy caps you are quite correct, it's not something a conservative government should be touching with a ten foot barge poll. Once again you confuse my criticism of Labour with support for the Tories. I don't vote Tory.

john80

bompington wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Actually, i would nt argue they are Socialist policies at all, privatisation has nt worked to benefit the hapless punter, roll out of super slow broadband, super slow railways, de investment in train electrification, where exactly is the competition in water? we still pour rare sewage onto our beaches.

Talk about flying in the face of the evidence. Are you old enough to remember how long it took to get a phone installed in the 70s?

But never mind that. With the unerring Mamba strike you have, with your claim that "de-privatisation" isn't a socialist policy, once again managed to claim the diametric opposite of the truth: socialism is public ownership of industry, and that's pretty much it.

This is a bit simplistic. Some industries should be in the public sector and some should not. Generally industries with consumer choice and low infrastructure costs should be private. The other way should be public. Sure you can still own an asset and let contracts for them to manage it if you want as a middle ground. Selling a water network with all the existing pipes put in the ground by others to a private entity was stupid. We now have a private entity owning pipes in the ground and to put it bluntly we can't buy it back as its worth has grown in line with markets and not inflation which is what capitalism inherently seeks to do. This is just one example of the many daft privatisations put in place over the last 20-30 years.

rjsterry

john80 wrote:

bompington wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Actually, i would nt argue they are Socialist policies at all, privatisation has nt worked to benefit the hapless punter, roll out of super slow broadband, super slow railways, de investment in train electrification, where exactly is the competition in water? we still pour rare sewage onto our beaches.

Talk about flying in the face of the evidence. Are you old enough to remember how long it took to get a phone installed in the 70s?

But never mind that. With the unerring Mamba strike you have, with your claim that "de-privatisation" isn't a socialist policy, once again managed to claim the diametric opposite of the truth: socialism is public ownership of industry, and that's pretty much it.

This is a bit simplistic. Some industries should be in the public sector and some should not. Generally industries with consumer choice and low infrastructure costs should be private. The other way should be public. Sure you can still own an asset and let contracts for them to manage it if you want as a middle ground. Selling a water network with all the existing pipes put in the ground by others to a private entity was stupid. We now have a private entity owning pipes in the ground and to put it bluntly we can't buy it back as its worth has grown in line with markets and not inflation which is what capitalism inherently seeks to do. This is just one example of the many daft privatisations put in place over the last 20-30 years.

We are all aware that most of these utilities and infrastructure started out as private companies?

mamba80

bompington wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Actually, i would nt argue they are Socialist policies at all, privatisation has nt worked to benefit the hapless punter, roll out of super slow broadband, super slow railways, de investment in train electrification, where exactly is the competition in water? we still pour rare sewage onto our beaches.

Talk about flying in the face of the evidence. Are you old enough to remember how long it took to get a phone installed in the 70s?

But never mind that. With the unerring Mamba strike you have, with your claim that "de-privatisation" isn't a socialist policy, once again managed to claim the diametric opposite of the truth: socialism is public ownership of industry, and that's pretty much it.

i used to work for BT... and i ve spent the last 26 years in private companies involved in telecoms and and IT, if you think privatisation is a panacea you re very much mistaken, p1ss poor competition, new instals, rural BB speeds all shockingly slow, yet been privatised since the mid 80s....

socialism... which you clearly have no idea about.
"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole"

if Labour were taking back Jaguar Land Rover perhaps you d have a point but you ve not, most of europe has some form of state ownership over public utilities.

mamba80

rjsterry wrote:

john80 wrote:

bompington wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Actually, i would nt argue they are Socialist policies at all, privatisation has nt worked to benefit the hapless punter, roll out of super slow broadband, super slow railways, de investment in train electrification, where exactly is the competition in water? we still pour rare sewage onto our beaches.

Talk about flying in the face of the evidence. Are you old enough to remember how long it took to get a phone installed in the 70s?

But never mind that. With the unerring Mamba strike you have, with your claim that "de-privatisation" isn't a socialist policy, once again managed to claim the diametric opposite of the truth: socialism is public ownership of industry, and that's pretty much it.

This is a bit simplistic. Some industries should be in the public sector and some should not. Generally industries with consumer choice and low infrastructure costs should be private. The other way should be public. Sure you can still own an asset and let contracts for them to manage it if you want as a middle ground. Selling a water network with all the existing pipes put in the ground by others to a private entity was stupid. We now have a private entity owning pipes in the ground and to put it bluntly we can't buy it back as its worth has grown in line with markets and not inflation which is what capitalism inherently seeks to do. This is just one example of the many daft privatisations put in place over the last 20-30 years.

We are all aware that most of these utilities and infrastructure started out as private companies?

Good point, which is why they were taken into state control in the first place... it didnt work, as we are finding out with the railways.

rjsterry

mamba80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

john80 wrote:

bompington wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Actually, i would nt argue they are Socialist policies at all, privatisation has nt worked to benefit the hapless punter, roll out of super slow broadband, super slow railways, de investment in train electrification, where exactly is the competition in water? we still pour rare sewage onto our beaches.

Talk about flying in the face of the evidence. Are you old enough to remember how long it took to get a phone installed in the 70s?

But never mind that. With the unerring Mamba strike you have, with your claim that "de-privatisation" isn't a socialist policy, once again managed to claim the diametric opposite of the truth: socialism is public ownership of industry, and that's pretty much it.

This is a bit simplistic. Some industries should be in the public sector and some should not. Generally industries with consumer choice and low infrastructure costs should be private. The other way should be public. Sure you can still own an asset and let contracts for them to manage it if you want as a middle ground. Selling a water network with all the existing pipes put in the ground by others to a private entity was stupid. We now have a private entity owning pipes in the ground and to put it bluntly we can't buy it back as its worth has grown in line with markets and not inflation which is what capitalism inherently seeks to do. This is just one example of the many daft privatisations put in place over the last 20-30 years.

We are all aware that most of these utilities and infrastructure started out as private companies?

Good point, which is why they were taken into state control in the first place... it didnt work, as we are finding out with the railways.

Are you sure about that? The railways were nationalised in 1948, and privatised in 1997, so only 50 years in public ownership versus over 100 years in private ownership. The main reason they were nationalised was that the Big Four were broke after WWII.

shortfall

mamba80 wrote:

bompington wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Actually, i would nt argue they are Socialist policies at all, privatisation has nt worked to benefit the hapless punter, roll out of super slow broadband, super slow railways, de investment in train electrification, where exactly is the competition in water? we still pour rare sewage onto our beaches.

Talk about flying in the face of the evidence. Are you old enough to remember how long it took to get a phone installed in the 70s?

But never mind that. With the unerring Mamba strike you have, with your claim that "de-privatisation" isn't a socialist policy, once again managed to claim the diametric opposite of the truth: socialism is public ownership of industry, and that's pretty much it.

i used to work for BT... and i ve spent the last 26 years in private companies involved in telecoms and and IT, if you think privatisation is a panacea you re very much mistaken, p1ss poor competition, new instals, rural BB speeds all shockingly slow, yet been privatised since the mid 80s....

socialism... which you clearly have no idea about.
"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole"

if Labour were taking back Jaguar Land Rover perhaps you d have a point but you ve not, most of europe has some form of state ownership over public utilities.

Do you remember what it was like under the GPO?

mamba80

Shortfall wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

bompington wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Actually, i would nt argue they are Socialist policies at all, privatisation has nt worked to benefit the hapless punter, roll out of super slow broadband, super slow railways, de investment in train electrification, where exactly is the competition in water? we still pour rare sewage onto our beaches.

Talk about flying in the face of the evidence. Are you old enough to remember how long it took to get a phone installed in the 70s?

But never mind that. With the unerring Mamba strike you have, with your claim that "de-privatisation" isn't a socialist policy, once again managed to claim the diametric opposite of the truth: socialism is public ownership of industry, and that's pretty much it.

i used to work for BT... and i ve spent the last 26 years in private companies involved in telecoms and and IT, if you think privatisation is a panacea you re very much mistaken, p1ss poor competition, new instals, rural BB speeds all shockingly slow, yet been privatised since the mid 80s....

socialism... which you clearly have no idea about.
"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole"

if Labour were taking back Jaguar Land Rover perhaps you d have a point but you ve not, most of europe has some form of state ownership over public utilities.

Do you remember what it was like under the GPO?

You d have to be in your 60s to remember that, can just about remember party lines but that was a capacity issue, there simply wasnt enough cable and fiber was was nt about then..... also analogue exchanges couldnt keep up with demand, it wasnt until TXE and then System X and Y exchanges that bought in digital comms.

Phone lines arent an essential, certainly not back then, so nothing wrong with privatization but even so, its an incredibly regulated industry, BT Openreach cannot behave as a private company should because they are forced to hand over vast parts of their network to other companies at knock down prices.

Aside, if you re so against public ownership, then you d support privatizing the education system, fire, ambulance and the NHS... oh

Also, why have we had 10 years of austerity? a private banking system allowed to behave as it likes, goes belly up and in this country alone 100s of millions of state money spent propping it up, yep socialism alright but only when it suits.

shortfall

mamba80 wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

bompington wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Actually, i would nt argue they are Socialist policies at all, privatisation has nt worked to benefit the hapless punter, roll out of super slow broadband, super slow railways, de investment in train electrification, where exactly is the competition in water? we still pour rare sewage onto our beaches.

Talk about flying in the face of the evidence. Are you old enough to remember how long it took to get a phone installed in the 70s?

But never mind that. With the unerring Mamba strike you have, with your claim that "de-privatisation" isn't a socialist policy, once again managed to claim the diametric opposite of the truth: socialism is public ownership of industry, and that's pretty much it.

i used to work for BT... and i ve spent the last 26 years in private companies involved in telecoms and and IT, if you think privatisation is a panacea you re very much mistaken, p1ss poor competition, new instals, rural BB speeds all shockingly slow, yet been privatised since the mid 80s....

socialism... which you clearly have no idea about.
"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole"

if Labour were taking back Jaguar Land Rover perhaps you d have a point but you ve not, most of europe has some form of state ownership over public utilities.

Do you remember what it was like under the GPO?

You d have to be in your 60s to remember that, can just about remember party lines but that was a capacity issue, there simply wasnt enough cable and fiber was was nt about then..... also analogue exchanges couldnt keep up with demand, it wasnt until TXE and then System X and Y exchanges that bought in digital comms.

Phone lines arent an essential, certainly not back then, so nothing wrong with privatization but even so, its an incredibly regulated industry, BT Openreach cannot behave as a private company should because they are forced to hand over vast parts of their network to other companies at knock down prices.

Aside, if you re so against public ownership, then you d support privatizing the education system, fire, ambulance and the NHS... oh

Also, why have we had 10 years of austerity? a private banking system allowed to behave as it likes, goes belly up and in this country alone 100s of millions of state money spent propping it up, yep socialism alright but only when it suits.

I think you must be confusing me with another poster. I'm not always against public ownership and if the public sector can provide a better service than the private then I'm all for it. I wouldn't be adverse to a nationalised rail system for instance. I don't favour the sort of wholesale reanatioialisation that Corbyn is proposing though. For one thing we can't afford it and for another it probably wouldn't achieve the desired outcome.

mamba80

Shortfall wrote:

[

I think you must be confusing me with another poster. I'm not always against public ownership and if the public sector can provide a better service than the private then I'm all for it. I wouldn't be adverse to a nationalised rail system for instance. I don't favour the sort of wholesale reanatioialisation that Corbyn is proposing though. For one thing we can't afford it and for another it probably wouldn't achieve the desired outcome.

your line of questioning is that you dis approve of public ownership, thats all.

fwiw i agree with you and i think effective regulation can go along way to providing the benefits of both, privatisation of the railways appear have have failed though.

Labour will quickly realise they havent the money to do ALL they ve promised but a start would be great!

bompington

mamba80 wrote:

bompington wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Actually, i would nt argue they are Socialist policies at all, privatisation has nt worked to benefit the hapless punter, roll out of super slow broadband, super slow railways, de investment in train electrification, where exactly is the competition in water? we still pour rare sewage onto our beaches.

Talk about flying in the face of the evidence. Are you old enough to remember how long it took to get a phone installed in the 70s?

But never mind that. With the unerring Mamba strike you have, with your claim that "de-privatisation" isn't a socialist policy, once again managed to claim the diametric opposite of the truth: socialism is public ownership of industry, and that's pretty much it.

i used to work for BT... and i ve spent the last 26 years in private companies involved in telecoms and and IT, if you think privatisation is a panacea you re very much mistaken, p1ss poor competition, new instals, rural BB speeds all shockingly slow, yet been privatised since the mid 80s....

socialism... which you clearly have no idea about.
"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole"

if Labour were taking back Jaguar Land Rover perhaps you d have a point but you ve not, most of europe has some form of state ownership over public utilities.

You're missing my point (as usual).
I was trying to point out that nationalisation is what socialism is about. And you come back to correct what I "have no idea about" by telling me:
the means of production, distribution, and exchange i.e. businesses
should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole i.e. nationalised
:? :?:

mamba80

bompington wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

bompington wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Actually, i would nt argue they are Socialist policies at all, privatisation has nt worked to benefit the hapless punter, roll out of super slow broadband, super slow railways, de investment in train electrification, where exactly is the competition in water? we still pour rare sewage onto our beaches.

Talk about flying in the face of the evidence. Are you old enough to remember how long it took to get a phone installed in the 70s?

But never mind that. With the unerring Mamba strike you have, with your claim that "de-privatisation" isn't a socialist policy, once again managed to claim the diametric opposite of the truth: socialism is public ownership of industry, and that's pretty much it.

i used to work for BT... and i ve spent the last 26 years in private companies involved in telecoms and and IT, if you think privatisation is a panacea you re very much mistaken, p1ss poor competition, new instals, rural BB speeds all shockingly slow, yet been privatised since the mid 80s....

socialism... which you clearly have no idea about.
"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole"

if Labour were taking back Jaguar Land Rover perhaps you d have a point but you ve not, most of europe has some form of state ownership over public utilities.

You're missing my point (as usual).
I was trying to point out that nationalisation is what socialism is about. And you come back to correct what I "have no idea about" by telling me:
the means of production, distribution, and exchange i.e. businesses
should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole i.e. nationalised
:? :?:

not agreeing with you is not the same as missing the point.... socialism is not about the state running a few public services.

why should vital services eg clean water and effective sewage treatment for all be a "business" were the overriding pri is to make money for shareholders AND where there is no competition?

For me its not either or, so where a case can be made for private involvement, say in procurement, fair enough.

tangled_metal

I thought socialism was owning and running all the means of production this controlling all aspects of the state. Britain has never had anything close to a socialist state. The 70s were not a socialist period only an attempt at producing one. It failed. I don't know why but it did. Corbyn and allies are not planning a socialist state. I doubt Britain as a whole would put up with it. They are planning something closer to b the 70s I think. Or at least some union supporters might be.

I don't fear a return to the situation of the 70s. I think the UK is too different to allow it. I fear a new problem at a result of their getting into power. A crash or severe weakening of our economy and the welfare of the majority. Rich can flee, poor and middle earners can't. They're the majority and I doubt Corbyn will cater for them in the end.

rolf_f

rjsterry wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

john80 wrote:

bompington wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Actually, i would nt argue they are Socialist policies at all, privatisation has nt worked to benefit the hapless punter, roll out of super slow broadband, super slow railways, de investment in train electrification, where exactly is the competition in water? we still pour rare sewage onto our beaches.

Talk about flying in the face of the evidence. Are you old enough to remember how long it took to get a phone installed in the 70s?

But never mind that. With the unerring Mamba strike you have, with your claim that "de-privatisation" isn't a socialist policy, once again managed to claim the diametric opposite of the truth: socialism is public ownership of industry, and that's pretty much it.

This is a bit simplistic. Some industries should be in the public sector and some should not. Generally industries with consumer choice and low infrastructure costs should be private. The other way should be public. Sure you can still own an asset and let contracts for them to manage it if you want as a middle ground. Selling a water network with all the existing pipes put in the ground by others to a private entity was stupid. We now have a private entity owning pipes in the ground and to put it bluntly we can't buy it back as its worth has grown in line with markets and not inflation which is what capitalism inherently seeks to do. This is just one example of the many daft privatisations put in place over the last 20-30 years.

We are all aware that most of these utilities and infrastructure started out as private companies?

Good point, which is why they were taken into state control in the first place... it didnt work, as we are finding out with the railways.

Are you sure about that? The railways were nationalised in 1948, and privatised in 1997, so only 50 years in public ownership versus over 100 years in private ownership. The main reason they were nationalised was that the Big Four were broke after WWII.

They were broke after WW1 - the Grouping of 1923 to create the big four was effectively a precursor to Nationalisation. So far, the Govt doesn't seem to be realising that effectively it has taken us back 100 years and slowly (but more disorganisedly than back then) it is grouping the train operating companies before presumably one day someone realises it will be a lot more effective if there is just one such company running the trains.

pblakeney

Rolf F wrote:

... it is grouping the train operating companies before presumably one day someone realises it will be a lot more effective if there is just one such company running the trains.

Very, very true. Trouble being that results in a monopoly. Which people then say should be nationalised for the good of the customers instead of shareholders.

rjsterry

Rolf F wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

john80 wrote:

bompington wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Actually, i would nt argue they are Socialist policies at all, privatisation has nt worked to benefit the hapless punter, roll out of super slow broadband, super slow railways, de investment in train electrification, where exactly is the competition in water? we still pour rare sewage onto our beaches.

Talk about flying in the face of the evidence. Are you old enough to remember how long it took to get a phone installed in the 70s?

But never mind that. With the unerring Mamba strike you have, with your claim that "de-privatisation" isn't a socialist policy, once again managed to claim the diametric opposite of the truth: socialism is public ownership of industry, and that's pretty much it.

This is a bit simplistic. Some industries should be in the public sector and some should not. Generally industries with consumer choice and low infrastructure costs should be private. The other way should be public. Sure you can still own an asset and let contracts for them to manage it if you want as a middle ground. Selling a water network with all the existing pipes put in the ground by others to a private entity was stupid. We now have a private entity owning pipes in the ground and to put it bluntly we can't buy it back as its worth has grown in line with markets and not inflation which is what capitalism inherently seeks to do. This is just one example of the many daft privatisations put in place over the last 20-30 years.

We are all aware that most of these utilities and infrastructure started out as private companies?

Good point, which is why they were taken into state control in the first place... it didnt work, as we are finding out with the railways.

Are you sure about that? The railways were nationalised in 1948, and privatised in 1997, so only 50 years in public ownership versus over 100 years in private ownership. The main reason they were nationalised was that the Big Four were broke after WWII.

They were broke after WW1 - the Grouping of 1923 to create the big four was effectively a precursor to Nationalisation. So far, the Govt doesn't seem to be realising that effectively it has taken us back 100 years and slowly (but more disorganisedly than back then) it is grouping the train operating companies before presumably one day someone realises it will be a lot more effective if there is just one such company running the trains.

You're quite right on the history. There was a push for nationalisation then, but it was rejected. While there are undoubtedly problems with the current setup - the split between infrastructure and the franchises (ironically the line electrification that Mamba mentioned is centrally funded (or not)) and the seeming inability of government to enforce the required level of service - but I don't recall 1980s BR being any better. What I've read about the introduction of new rolling stock under BR seems pretty chaotic.

tangled_metal

APT anyone? First bit of a hurdle to overcome and it got ditched. Only for rest of Europe to take on board the technology and now most of Europe has fast, tilting trains like pendolinos only faster and made by their own train manufacturers. So the tilting wasn't quite right, it only made passengers feel sick, stuff fall off tables, etc. But it was a good technology in the making. Now we have no complete train making industry left.

rjsterry

Tangled Metal wrote:

APT anyone? First bit of a hurdle to overcome and it got ditched. Only for rest of Europe to take on board the technology and now most of Europe has fast, tilting trains like pendolinos only faster and made by their own train manufacturers. So the tilting wasn't quite right, it only made passengers feel sick, stuff fall off tables, etc. But it was a good technology in the making. Now we have no complete train making industry left.

Yet somehow we managed to get Concorde into the air, even though it didn't really serve a useful purpose. Loved the story about the British harumphing over the extra e in the name.

mamba80

rjsterry wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

APT anyone? First bit of a hurdle to overcome and it got ditched. Only for rest of Europe to take on board the technology and now most of Europe has fast, tilting trains like pendolinos only faster and made by their own train manufacturers. So the tilting wasn't quite right, it only made passengers feel sick, stuff fall off tables, etc. But it was a good technology in the making. Now we have no complete train making industry left.

Yet somehow we managed to get Concorde into the air, even though it didn't really serve a useful purpose. Loved the story about the British harumphing over the extra e in the name.

Co-op is what its all about!

i left school in 1978, when i tell my daughter how easy it was to get a good job, free further education or a well paid apprenticeship, she thinks i m making it up!
I spent a lot of time getting the train to Sutton Coalfield back then, it was fast clean and cheap.

times change of course but i dont think the last 40 years have served certain sections of the population very well, particularly the young, maybe a case for Brexit? im sure Coopster would say yes but i d say our own UK policies are much to blame.

tangled_metal

rjsterry wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

APT anyone? First bit of a hurdle to overcome and it got ditched. Only for rest of Europe to take on board the technology and now most of Europe has fast, tilting trains like pendolinos only faster and made by their own train manufacturers. So the tilting wasn't quite right, it only made passengers feel sick, stuff fall off tables, etc. But it was a good technology in the making. Now we have no complete train making industry left.

Yet somehow we managed to get Concorde into the air, even though it didn't really serve a useful purpose. Loved the story about the British harumphing over the extra e in the name.

With French help I believe. Wouldn't have happened without I suspect.

I watched a documentary about concordsky. The Russian attempt at building the Concorde. They even got the plans for concorde through nefarious spying but couldn't get it to work. They used little adjustable flying surfaces under the cockpit just to get it to fly. It was still very unstable. Not sure it went supersonic neither. I reckon a few engineers but shipped to a gulag for that embarrassing episode.

shortfall

Tangled Metal wrote:

I thought socialism was owning and running all the means of production this controlling all aspects of the state. Britain has never had anything close to a socialist state. The 70s were not a socialist period only an attempt at producing one. It failed. I don't know why but it did. Corbyn and allies are not planning a socialist state. I doubt Britain as a whole would put up with it. They are planning something closer to b the 70s I think. Or at least some union supporters might be.

I don't fear a return to the situation of the 70s. I think the UK is too different to allow it. I fear a new problem at a result of their getting into power. A crash or severe weakening of our economy and the welfare of the majority. Rich can flee, poor and middle earners can't. They're the majority and I doubt Corbyn will cater for them in the end.

Isn't that rather the point? Socialism always seems to end either in failure or tyranny.

tangled_metal

If Britain had become socialist country would it have failed or succeeded?

We don't know that, only that if labour and the unions were trying to create one in the 70s it failed.

It's like religion. You can't prove conclusively the ideology can't work only that there is no example of it working so far. So far you could argue free market capitalism isn't working for all. There isn't even a universal free market due to restrictions and tariffs still being applied at borders. Indeed should there even be borders?

pblakeney

Shortfall wrote:

Isn't that rather the point? Socialism always seems to end either in failure or tyranny.

Can you name any Countries that are/were 100% socialist?
Serious question.