Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

[SpurMeUp]

"Country isn't as bad as it seems". Apart from education, housing, NHS, core services like water now making people sick, yeh it's all fine and dandy.

Speaking of which, why aren't Labour pushing to nationalise water? Seems such an obvious open goal. Especially with the latest outbreak below.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-69026151

Simple answer: so that us taxpayers don’t have to shell out to the shareholders of these companies. Far better to let them fail before nationalising them. Even when doing this, there are claims from shareholders. Presumably as if a company goes bust it still retains some assets and value that can normally be sold off.

Plus, decades of taking out money from essential services mean there is a black hole in most of the services mentioned. They all need investment as everything that wasn’t nailed down has been stripped, so to speak. So the tax payer would be on the hook again to provide the investment needed to bring up minimum operating standards.

It’s a trap for Labour and not something to rush into yet. Longer time absolutely, essential services should be owned by tax payers (but run like private companies imo).

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

Simple answer: so that us taxpayers don’t have to shell out to the shareholders of these companies. Far better to let them fail before nationalising them. Even when doing this, there are claims from shareholders. Presumably as if a company goes bust it still retains some assets and value that can normally be sold off.

Plus, decades of taking out money from essential services mean there is a black hole in most of the services mentioned. They all need investment as everything that wasn’t nailed down has been stripped, so to speak. So the tax payer would be on the hook again to provide the invested needed to bring up minimum operating standards.

It’s a trap for Labour and not something to rush into yet. Longer time absolutely, essential services should be owned by tax payers (but run like private companies imo).

It's a shame it's 'a trap' as you describe.

As a nation we need to face up to, and agree (regardless of political persuasion), to the things that are essential for the public and the greater good.

Outside of capitalist thinking, neo liberalism and drained, run down and asset stripped as if they were the complete opposite to 'essential'.

We accept they cost, we accept they have to be subsidised if necessary (always with the target they won't need to be), the buck then stops with the government and the sleepwalking ends.

 

[SpurMeUp]

It's a shame it's 'a trap' as you describe.

As a nation we need to face up to, and agree (regardless of political persuasion), to the things that are essential for the public and the greater good.

Outside of capitalist thinking, neo liberalism and drained, run down and asset stripped as if they were the complete opposite to 'essential'.

We accept they cost, we accept they have to be subsidised if necessary (always with the target they won't need to be), the buck then stops with the government and the sleepwalking ends.

Do they need subsidies? There seem to have been several private profiteering companies having their way with Water, Mail etc. They have made millions if not billions.

For me, if you take the private model, but make the shareholders the tax payer, tweak the bonus structure of the CEO/Board/Executive so their mandate is to also provide value to customers (who are also the shareholders). And then pay them and judge them according to both 'profit' and value, with bonuses reflecting this too.

Profit is easier to measure. But quality metrics are possible and attainable too.

More than the money needed is a vision. And there are so many other things to do for the new government. Actively pursuing nationalisation would be costly. Better to try to evolve privitisation, and do so in an opportune way. Evolve because there are elements of efficiency that you want to retain. And Opportune, as you want the government to 'buy' these entities for the lowest possible price. There will be a price unless you like the Castro-Soviet model, where governments grab assets for the proletariat.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

Do they need subsidies? There seem to have been several private profiteering companies having their way with Water, Mail etc. They have made millions if not billions.

For me, if you take the private model, but make the shareholders the tax payer, tweak the bonus structure of the CEO/Board/Executive so their mandate is to also provide value to customers (who are also the shareholders). And then pay them and judge them according to both 'profit' and value, with bonuses reflecting this too.

Profit is easier to measure. But quality metrics are possible and attainable too.

More than the money needed is a vision. And there are so many other things to do for the new government. Actively pursuing nationalisation would be costly. Better to try to evolve privitisation, and do so in an opportune way. Evolve because there are elements of efficiency that you want to retain. And Opportune, as you want the government to 'buy' these entities for the lowest possible price. There will be a price unless you like the Castro-Soviet model, where governments grab assets for the proletariat.

Some companies have made 'profits' and paid dividends at the expense of service and to the detriment of the company by facilitating their actions by loading that company with debt (Thames water being a prime example).

I think any model has to have the buck stopping with the Government. It can sharpen their focus and as we know they will bend to demands if a power loss looks like an outcome.

We also need to attract private sector talent into the public sector (via wages and package etc), at the top levels of the operation, so the culture feels like private enterprise and not the grind and apathy found in the public sector.

As I say if it needs subsidising so be it BUT the aim would be to make a profit or even not for profit if it's all ringfenced and ploughed back in.

And I don't agree it needs to be opportune, ideally yes, but we need to agree the importance of this, and make it a top priority. We waste billions on gawd knows what...if we print (more) money and issue gov bonds so be it, at least we'd have something solid to show for it.

 

[SpurMeUp]

Some companies have made 'profits' and paid dividends at the expense of service and to the detriment of the company by facilitating their actions by loading that company with debt (Thames water being a prime example).

I think any model has to have the buck stopping with the Government. It can sharpen their focus and as we know they will bend to demands if a power loss looks like an outcome.

We also need to attract private sector talent into the public sector (via wages and package etc), at the top levels of the operation, so the culture feels like private enterprise and not the grind and apathy found in the public sector.

As I say if it needs subsidising so be it BUT the aim would be to make a profit or even not for profit if it's all ringfenced and ploughed back in.

And I don't agree it needs to be opportune, ideally yes, but we need to agree the importance of this, and make it a top priority. We waste billions on gawd knows what...if we print (more) money and issue gov bonds so be it, at least we'd have something solid to show for it.

If Thames water etc didn’t take out money in dividends then they’d have much more to invest. And wouldn’t need the tax payer to subsidise them.

It is vital that you keep these entities as separate from government as possible. If part of government they will be just as ineffective as many of the existing government services. Run by civil servants. Who wants an ineffective state mess? That was the reason these monopolies were privatised. They invariably get stale and inefficient when part of government.

 

[Gutter Boy]

If Thames water etc didn’t take out money in dividends then they’d have much more to invest. And wouldn’t need the tax payer to subsidise them.

It is vital that you keep these entities as separate from government as possible. If part of government they will be just as ineffective as many of the existing government services. Run by civil servants. Who wants an ineffective state mess? That was the reason these monopolies were privatised. They invariably get stale and inefficient when part of government.

Every country in the world has public water, with the exception of England and Wales.

The only reason it was privatised was so Thatcher's mates could both cream off the profit from it and asset strip it. And even she came to realise it was a step to far.

 

[Craig_J]

Every country in the world has public water, with the exception of England and Wales.

The only reason it was privatised was so Thatcher's mates could both cream off the profit from it and asset strip it. And even she came to realise it was a step to far.

I’m with GB 100%.

I think the biggest threat to renationalisation would just be the very chance that the Tory’s could yet again sell of the family silver to artificially inflate their own performance (and to conveniently line their buddies pockets and/ or post political employers).

Services are absolutely brick right now. All of them are more expensive than ever. And there’s not much in the way of competition.

Looking to go from Leeds to London for a funeral tomorrow. I checked last week and it’s £220 for a return booking in advance.

£220 for a day journey. Not including underground.

These companies all have a monopoly and they take the absolute tinkle. No guarantee of a seat. Absolutely no guarantee it won’t be late or cancelled.

One of the arguments for privatisation is it created competition and freedom of choice. What rail service other than LNER can get me to London from Leeds? None. So what incentive is there for them to provide me with high quality service? None. They’re making profit either way.

May as well have all this gonads and the money being reabsorbed back into public sector budgets then all this gonads and the money being absorbed into some fat cats bonus.

 

[markysimmo]

BREAKING: Tony Blair has emerged as the leading candidate to replace Klaus Schwab as chairman of the World Economic Forum

 

[Gutter Boy]

BREAKING: Tony Blair has emerged as the leading candidate to replace Klaus Schwab as chairman of the World Economic Forum

Neo-libs gonna neo-lib

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

Simple answer: so that us taxpayers don’t have to shell out to the shareholders of these companies. Far better to let them fail before nationalising them. Even when doing this, there are claims from shareholders. Presumably as if a company goes bust it still retains some assets and value that can normally be sold off.

Plus, decades of taking out money from essential services mean there is a black hole in most of the services mentioned. They all need investment as everything that wasn’t nailed down has been stripped, so to speak. So the tax payer would be on the hook again to provide the investment needed to bring up minimum operating standards.

It’s a trap for Labour and not something to rush into yet. Longer time absolutely, essential services should be owned by tax payers (but run like private companies imo).

I fudge load of people's pension are tied into these companies.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

If Thames water etc didn’t take out money in dividends then they’d have much more to invest. And wouldn’t need the tax payer to subsidise them.

It is vital that you keep these entities as separate from government as possible. If part of government they will be just as ineffective as many of the existing government services. Run by civil servants. Who wants an ineffective state mess? That was the reason these monopolies were privatised. They invariably get stale and inefficient when part of government.

As long as the 'profit motive' is the only thing dictating their behaviour, then privately owned corporations will continue to thumb their noses at the national interest. Water companies will always put profit ahead of good environmental policy. To suggest otherwise is naive in the extreme.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

Yep, let's keep water in private hands...https://youtu.be/wfMk5WwxUxo

 

[SpurMeUp]

As long as the 'profit motive' is the only thing dictationg behaviour, then privately owned corporations will continue to thumb their noses at the national interest. Water companies will always put profit ahead of good environmental policy. To suggest otherwise is naive in the extreme.

Not sure you have understood my point. It’s not too complex. A tax payer owned (publicly owned) entity which isn’t run by government is preferable. You can set the appropriate targets for the CEO and leadership carefully, and incentivise whatever is appropriate.

Governments have a history or running state companies badly. Tax payers tend to suffer huge waste, inefficiency and malaise. Because no one in these state run organisations care too much. Tax payers keep paying their wages even if they sit around all day doing nothing. They get a job for life. Nice benefits. And f all gets done. Look at local councils. Look at communist nations and state run enterprises (I have, and have studied in places like Cuba).

The fundamental problem you and others are coming up against here is…ideology. This isn’t a right vs left thing. This is about strutting state owned organisations effectively. Making things work well for people. If you get caught up in some kind of ideological nonsense you can’t see the wood for the tress. And there are two fundamental historical truths: 1. essential monopoly services should not be privately owned (as younownlined) and 2. state run entities tend to become stale and poorly run over time.

But in France etc they do often use a hybrid model where companies are run like private companies separate to government bureaucracy. Yet they are ultimately state owned (or tax payer owned). DPD who deliver most of our UK parcels for example: owned by the French people, run like a private company.

 

[scaramanga]

Not sure you have understood my point. It’s not too complex. A tax payer owned (publicly owned) entity which isn’t run by government is preferable. You can set the appropriate targets for the CEO and leadership carefully, and incentivise whatever is appropriate.

Governments have a history or running state companies badly. Tax payers tend to suffer huge waste, inefficiency and malaise. Because no one in these state run organisations care too much. Tax payers keep paying their wages even if they sit around all day doing nothing. They get a job for life. Nice benefits. And f all gets done. Look at local councils. Look at communist nations and state run enterprises (I have, and have studied in places like Cuba).

The fundamental problem you and others are coming up against here is…ideology. This isn’t a right vs left thing. This is about strutting state owned organisations effectively. Making things work well for people. If you get caught up in some kind of ideological nonsense you can’t see the wood for the tress. And there are two fundamental historical truths: 1. essential monopoly services should not be privately owned (as younownlined) and 2. state run entities tend to become stale and poorly run over time.

But in France etc they do often use a hybrid model where companies are run like private companies separate to government bureaucracy. Yet they are ultimately state owned (or tax payer owned). DPD who deliver most of our UK parcels for example: owned by the French people, run like a private company.

There's still a problem with the DPD model and that's the fact that governments have to win elections.

So let's say DPD staff become like train staff and believe they deserve 3-4 times the salary that their education and rarity of skills deserves. In the private sector, they can be told to fudge off. If the govt is ultimately in charge of DPD, then there's huge pressure from the public as they want their parcels delivered. A government that does the right thing over striking staff will probably not get elected as the public are not intelligent enough to see past the immediacy of the parcel deliveries.

What happens if DPD senior management start massively overspending? In the private sector, a sensible investor might choose to cut their losses. If a company is a basket case (Royal Mail) then you can't keep throwing your shareholder's money at it. But if taxpayers are the shareholders, any government making that kind of loss would get voted out for a decade at least. Because again, the general public is not like an investor, they don't make good choices, they don't understand short term pain for long term gain and they rarely make sensible financial decisions.

 

[SpurMeUp]

There's still a problem with the DPD model and that's the fact that governments have to win elections.

So let's say DPD staff become like train staff and believe they deserve 3-4 times the salary that their education and rarity of skills deserves. In the private sector, they can be told to fudge off. If the govt is ultimately in charge of DPD, then there's huge pressure from the public as they want their parcels delivered. A government that does the right thing over striking staff will probably not get elected as the public are not intelligent enough to see past the immediacy of the parcel deliveries.

What happens if DPD senior management start massively overspending? In the private sector, a sensible investor might choose to cut their losses. If a company is a basket case (Royal Mail) then you can't keep throwing your shareholder's money at it. But if taxpayers are the shareholders, any government making that kind of loss would get voted out for a decade at least. Because again, the general public is not like an investor, they don't make good choices, they don't understand short term pain for long term gain and they rarely make sensible financial decisions.

To stop the conflicts and drag is why such entities are best kept at arms length from government itself. Set them up to run themselves independently with clear criteria - doesn’t have to be just profit. It works in France and other places. It’s not hard to achieve.

 

[scaramanga]

To stop the conflicts and drag is why such entities are best kept at arms length from government itself. Set them up to run themselves independently with clear criteria - doesn’t have to be just profit. It works in France and other places. It’s not hard to achieve.

That's the problem though - it can never be at arm's length.

There will come a point of failure where the government needs to either bail that failure out or cut losses. Often the correct decision is to cut losses but the public won't allow that.

 

[SpurMeUp]

That's the problem though - it can never be at arm's length.

There will come a point of failure where the government needs to either bail that failure out or cut losses. Often the correct decision is to cut losses but the public won't allow that.

Yet it is at arms length in France, and works. How can that be, doesn’t tally with your logic.

 

[Gutter Boy]

Yet it is in France, and works. How can that be, doesn’t tally with your logic.

And 206/208 other countries in the world. Everywhere but extreme neo-lib England and Wales

 

[P.D.]

The one constant is that the U.K. economy is at the bottom of their forecasts - it’s just by how much.

Actually we aren't this time around, only behind Canada and US over next 5 years.

What I mean is that the IMF predicted growth this year of 0.5% last month, this month they're saying 0.7% (some would spin it as a 40% increase) but again and again their forecasts are incorrect and constantly get updated yet no one ever seems to point out the record of these places.

 

[Diamond Lights]