Bye Bye Boris!

User avatar
DeskJockey
Posts: 4627
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2018 8:58 am

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Post by DeskJockey »

As I see it, the problem with privatisation of national assets is that it takes money and control out of the nation's hands. Look at the cost of train fares compared to other countries, or the rollout of broadband, etc. I'm not advocating for Venezuela style politics, but certain assets should be kept for the people, not for profit. It won't be easy or simple, but I think the potential warrants exploring.

As Brexit was all about taking back control, surely this would ring true? And as for laws, they can be changed or negotiated, right?
---
Driving a Galaxy far far away
User avatar
duncs500
Posts: 4568
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 8:59 pm

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Post by duncs500 »

I would love cheaper trains and better public services for less money. Unfortunately, to get this the organisation in question needs to be motivated by generating efficiency and delivering good customer service. As it is public sector organisations just aren't.
User avatar
DeskJockey
Posts: 4627
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2018 8:58 am

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Post by DeskJockey »

duncs500 wrote: Mon Oct 21, 2019 1:57 pm I would love cheaper trains and better public services for less money. Unfortunately, to get this the organisation in question needs to be motivated by generating efficiency and delivering good customer service. As it is public sector organisations just aren't.
But change is possible.
---
Driving a Galaxy far far away
User avatar
dinny_g
Posts: 5251
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 4:31 pm

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Post by dinny_g »

Since recent governments can't seem to run a government, I'm not sure I'd want them running our Nuclear Energy Business... :lol:
JLv3.0 wrote: Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:26 pm I say this rarely Dave, but listen to Dinny because he's right.
Rich B wrote: Thu Jun 02, 2022 1:57 pm but Dinny was right…
User avatar
Gavin
Posts: 1817
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 4:27 pm
Currently Driving: Skoda Superb, R56 Cooper S

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Post by Gavin »

GG. wrote: Mon Oct 21, 2019 12:40 pm Yes, there is, and the argument is easier to make for utilities and even the above suggestion on empty commercial properties (though of course much less easily justified for residential). Even so, the financial outlay would be ruinous - an estimated 200bn and a 10% increase in the total national debt just for the upfront cost and that doesn't take into account ongoing capex on infrastructure (SSE alone have put in 100bn since privatisation for example), the effect to pension funds who hold shares in theses business, etc. etc..
Would that be this £299Bn?

"A few days ago the BBC produced a fear-mongering headline claiming that Labour's renationalisation plans would "cost £196 billion", based on what can only loosely be described as 'research' by the CBI business lobby.

The figure soon started to look incredibly shady, because the calculation clearly failed to factor in numerous things, like the incomes generated for the state by nationalised utilities and services, and the direct savings to consumers once they're freed from paying the lavish dividends and bloated executive salaries of corporate profiteers.

This conceit of treating all government spending and investment as if it's essentially just "waste" with no returns on investments isn't new, in fact the assumption that all government spending is essentially waste is the flaw at the heart of austerity fanaticism which resulted in the slowest post-crisis economic recovery in centuries, the worst wage collapse since records began, soaring rates of poverty, a crippling UK productivity crisis, and the eventual Brexit backlash.

Then it turned out that beyond the CBI's absurd characterisation of state investment as nothing more than waste, it turns out that they simply falsified their figures to make Labour's rail renationalisation plan look vastly more expensive than it actually was.

When challenged on their false figures the CBI responded by admitting their error in the most mealy-mouthed way possible, implying that it was OK to brief the press with false figures because they "assumed" what Labour's policy would be rather than actually bothering to check!

And to make matters worse they're now outright refusing to show how they calculated their £196 billion total because ... and you'll like this ... "unfortunately we are unable to provide a breakdown of the £196bn figure as our members do not feel comfortable doing this"!

So their members feel 'comfortable' priming the press with inaccurate figures to feed to the public, but they 'do not feel comfortable' offering any explanation whatever of how these figures were compiled.

This inflated and utterly unjustified £196 billion figure was obviously uncritically regurgitated by all of the typical hard-right propaganda outlets like the Daily Mail, Express, and S*n.

You wouldn't expect lazy hard-right propaganda hacks to actually fact check the anti-Labour propaganda they're hand delivered, but if the BBC is to be considered the impartial source it pretends to be, the minimum you'd expect would have been for them to have fact-checked the claims, and at the absolute minimum made clear in their headline that the £196 billion figure is not a fact established by independent experts, but rather a misleading estimate drawn up on the back of an envelope, via a secret methodology, by a hyper-partisan right-wing business lobby group.

But this failure of due diligence by the BBC looks even more awful when we look back to their outrageous decision not to cover the British Medical Journal estimate that Tory austerity fanaticism in the health and social care system caused 120,000 excess deaths, citing supposed methodological doubts about the study as their reason to completely ignore the report and its devastating findings.

It turns out that when one of the most respected medical journals in the world criticises Tory policy, the BBC pore through the methodology in order to find literally any excuse to completely ignore it, but when a clearly biased business lobby group produce a profoundly misleading piece of anti-Labour propaganda, the BBC blare it out in their headlines, and don't even ask to see the methodology, which remains absolutely shrouded in secrecy to this day!

You couldn't ask for a more glaring example of double-standards from our supposedly 'impartial' national broadcaster."

I think the post where you said "I would immediately pay thousands more in tax" is the real reason you fear a Labour Government. I am not slamming you for that, I would likely be similarly unenthusiastic about being taxed a lot mire.
User avatar
Gavin
Posts: 1817
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 4:27 pm
Currently Driving: Skoda Superb, R56 Cooper S

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Post by Gavin »

duncs500 wrote: Mon Oct 21, 2019 1:57 pm I would love cheaper trains and better public services for less money. Unfortunately, to get this the organisation in question needs to be motivated by generating efficiency and delivering good customer service. As it is public sector organisations just aren't.
At the moment we have shareholders, most of whom bought cheap shares and have had many years of dividends or sold them on for vast profit yet when these private firms struggle we seem to have to subsidise them.

I would also question anyone who is suggesting that the now private utilities are a paragon of efficiency and any customer service.

I don't think Corbyn's policies will all necessarily work and I would hope any that are proven to be daft will be halted by parliament.

On balance though, I would rather have a Labour Government at the moment because the direction the current fuckwits are driving us is not benefiting many people at all.
User avatar
duncs500
Posts: 4568
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 8:59 pm

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Post by duncs500 »

Gavin wrote: Mon Oct 21, 2019 2:33 pm
duncs500 wrote: Mon Oct 21, 2019 1:57 pm I would love cheaper trains and better public services for less money. Unfortunately, to get this the organisation in question needs to be motivated by generating efficiency and delivering good customer service. As it is public sector organisations just aren't.
At the moment we have shareholders, most of whom bought cheap shares and have had many years of dividends or sold them on for vast profit yet when these private firms struggle we seem to have to subsidise them.

I would also question anyone who is suggesting that the now private utilities are a paragon of efficiency and any customer service.
As I'm sure I've banged on about many times before, I have worked with public sector organisations and private sector companies. The one thing that rings true time and again is the lack of interest in working efficiently from the public sector, it is simply not a factor in the way the organisation manages spend at a senior level.

Private organisations are always more efficient and you're a bit naive if you think that money released to shareholders in anyway negates that.

Change in how an organisation opperates is possible, but people who want this would never allow it because the main solution is to pay competitive salaries for senior people who have worked in the private sector to come over and sort it out. That would just make someone insanely jealous... which would never do. :)
User avatar
NotoriousREV
Posts: 6437
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 4:14 pm

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Post by NotoriousREV »

Gavin wrote: Mon Oct 21, 2019 2:33 pm At the moment we have shareholders, most of whom bought cheap shares and have had many years of dividends or sold them on for vast profit yet when these private firms struggle we seem to have to subsidise them.
Name one company we’ve subsidised outside of a couple of banks. And we’ve only done that because the economic damage of allowing them to fail outweighed the cost of the rescue.
Middle-aged Dirtbag
User avatar
DeskJockey
Posts: 4627
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2018 8:58 am

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Post by DeskJockey »

Don't kid yourself large corporate are any better. I've worked with and for some of the largest companies in the world and they're just as bad. With possibly a few exceptions they're just as slow, cumbersome and inefficient as any government org, they're just better at spin and PR, and under no obligation to be transparent or under scrutiny.
---
Driving a Galaxy far far away
DaveE
Posts: 1421
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 7:19 pm

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Post by DaveE »

For the past few years I've worked for an SME that does work with/for the NHS.

I love the NHS (free at the point of delivery, they've done amazing things for me and my wonky heart etc) - but it can be fucking mental.

I oscillate between "We must ensure we keep the NHS" and "It deserves to fucking die."

It tends to focus on "doing things" rather than "did the things we do have any benefits?"

Constant stream of new initiatives, "trials" etc - most of which go nowhere, aren't given enough time/space to prove/disprove their worth, get superseded etc.

The number of times I have meetings about "new things" and when I ask "what is your definition of success? what will you be measuring?" and I just get blank looks.

Sometimes massive/expensive projects with no clue as to what they're actually trying to achieve - other than being able to say "We did a thing"

Delivery = success. Not the benefits.
User avatar
duncs500
Posts: 4568
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 8:59 pm

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Post by duncs500 »

DeskJockey wrote: Mon Oct 21, 2019 3:28 pm Don't kid yourself large corporate are any better. I've worked with and for some of the largest companies in the world and they're just as bad. With possibly a few exceptions they're just as slow, cumbersome and inefficient as any government org, they're just better at spin and PR, and under no obligation to be transparent or under scrutiny.
There are exceptions to any rule, but most private organisations that carry on like that will eventually come up against a rival that works more efficiently who puts them out of business.

Nobody in the public sector has, or indeed is allowed to have, any incentive to save money. So long as JC thinks there's an endless money tree to spend on public services I can't vote for him. TBH I'm still waiting for someone to give me a compelling argument that spending more than you make is a good thing in the long term.
User avatar
DeskJockey
Posts: 4627
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2018 8:58 am

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Post by DeskJockey »

duncs500 wrote: Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:18 pm
DeskJockey wrote: Mon Oct 21, 2019 3:28 pm Don't kid yourself large corporate are any better. I've worked with and for some of the largest companies in the world and they're just as bad. With possibly a few exceptions they're just as slow, cumbersome and inefficient as any government org, they're just better at spin and PR, and under no obligation to be transparent or under scrutiny.
There are exceptions to any rule, but most private organisations that carry on like that will eventually come up against a rival that works more efficiently who puts them out of business.

Nobody in the public sector has, or indeed is allowed to have, any incentive to save money.
Rubbish. I can assure you that budget cuts and constraints are both real and felt.
---
Driving a Galaxy far far away
User avatar
duncs500
Posts: 4568
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 8:59 pm

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Post by duncs500 »

DeskJockey wrote: Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:24 pm
duncs500 wrote: Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:18 pm
DeskJockey wrote: Mon Oct 21, 2019 3:28 pm Don't kid yourself large corporate are any better. I've worked with and for some of the largest companies in the world and they're just as bad. With possibly a few exceptions they're just as slow, cumbersome and inefficient as any government org, they're just better at spin and PR, and under no obligation to be transparent or under scrutiny.
There are exceptions to any rule, but most private organisations that carry on like that will eventually come up against a rival that works more efficiently who puts them out of business.

Nobody in the public sector has, or indeed is allowed to have, any incentive to save money.
Rubbish. I can assure you that budget cuts and constraints are both real and felt.
That's not an incentive to save money, that's an incentive to maintain the same budget / avoid cuts. How they do that usually is to try to spend all of the last one even if they don't need to. That's IME of course.
User avatar
DeskJockey
Posts: 4627
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2018 8:58 am

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Post by DeskJockey »

That's very different to say nobody has an incentive to save. In my experience they try to save to make the funds stretch further. If they can maintain the budget they can do more again.
---
Driving a Galaxy far far away
User avatar
duncs500
Posts: 4568
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 8:59 pm

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Post by duncs500 »

DeskJockey wrote: Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:03 pm That's very different to say nobody has an incentive to save. In my experience they try to save to make the funds stretch further. If they can maintain the budget they can do more again.
Well not all departments and organisations are created equal I suppose, but I've sat in meetings where they're forecasting a year end under spend, and their main focus is to spend money as quickly as possible irrespective of whether there is any benefit.

DaveE above seems to see similar waste.
User avatar
DeskJockey
Posts: 4627
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2018 8:58 am

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Post by DeskJockey »

Indeed. Hence why the sweeping generalisations are unhelpful. Suffice it to say no org is perfect and privatisation is no panacea. There are contexts in which one is the better option than the other and vice versa.
---
Driving a Galaxy far far away
User avatar
Gavin
Posts: 1817
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 4:27 pm
Currently Driving: Skoda Superb, R56 Cooper S

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Post by Gavin »

NotoriousREV wrote: Mon Oct 21, 2019 3:25 pm
Gavin wrote: Mon Oct 21, 2019 2:33 pm At the moment we have shareholders, most of whom bought cheap shares and have had many years of dividends or sold them on for vast profit yet when these private firms struggle we seem to have to subsidise them.
Name one company we’ve subsidised outside of a couple of banks. And we’ve only done that because the economic damage of allowing them to fail outweighed the cost of the rescue.
Well the banks count rather a lot, you cannot take an industry that has taken trillions from the public purse while paying insane bonuses and say name another as if the banks don't count.

I was under the impression that some of the rail franchises were occasionally helped out with subsidies, I may have been misinformed though.
User avatar
GG.
Posts: 4606
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 4:16 pm

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Post by GG. »

Gavin wrote: Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:51 pm
NotoriousREV wrote: Mon Oct 21, 2019 3:25 pm
Gavin wrote: Mon Oct 21, 2019 2:33 pm At the moment we have shareholders, most of whom bought cheap shares and have had many years of dividends or sold them on for vast profit yet when these private firms struggle we seem to have to subsidise them.
Name one company we’ve subsidised outside of a couple of banks. And we’ve only done that because the economic damage of allowing them to fail outweighed the cost of the rescue.
Well the banks count rather a lot, you cannot take an industry that has taken trillions from the public purse while paying insane bonuses and say name another as if the banks don't count.

I was under the impression that some of the rail franchises were occasionally helped out with subsidies, I may have been misinformed though.
The banks were bailed out to a tune of £137bn of which all but £27bn has been repaid by the sale of the shares held by UK Investments, etc. I think your "trillions from the public purse" may need to be revised slightly :lol:

It does - despite the protest above over how much Corbyn's nationalisation plan would actually cost - really show how shocking the proposed spend on nationalising industries would be (assuming the 200bn figure to be broadly accurate - no rebuttal or alternative costing was quoted above and there are two other independent estimates which come in at a comparable figure (or over 300bn if the energy sector renationalisation went further than transmission and distribution)).

I wonder how people would take it if you said the upfront cost was near double the cost of bailing out the banks on a gross basis but in reality 10x the net cost (as the money will never come back save for a future govt re-privatising) and perhaps further multiples of that in the long term once you factor in the continuing investment that will be needed.
User avatar
Gavin
Posts: 1817
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 4:27 pm
Currently Driving: Skoda Superb, R56 Cooper S

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Post by Gavin »

I may have gotten the trillions figure from worldwide bail out figures, apologies for that.

I did say that it was unlikely they would get all policies though parliament, if re-nationalisation isn't viable, perhaps it won't happen and that is fine. I am not that fussed either way.

I do like the idea of a nationally owned drug making company to supply the NHS though, I like the idea that the mega rich who hide money offshore will have to pay tax somewhere.

I would love to see a Parliament where the best ideas from all sides are sensibly discussed and the best solution is then instigated to the benefit of the many. I don't really think that is what we have got.

If a Labour idea is crap, great, but I would like to see facts, not opinion and nuanced statistics and there does seem to be a pronounced right wing bias across a large swathe of the media which many hard of thinking people then regurgitate (I am not aiming that at you).

As a country, and on here as well in microcosm, we seem to be falling in to two tribes and Brexit really brings it in to focus. It has brought the worst out in many and I actually fear where we are being dragged against our will (speaking as a Scot).
User avatar
Swervin_Mervin
Posts: 4709
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 8:58 pm

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Post by Swervin_Mervin »

DeskJockey wrote: Mon Oct 21, 2019 11:30 am
speedingfine wrote: Mon Oct 21, 2019 11:27 am
Swervin_Mervin wrote: Mon Oct 21, 2019 11:13 am

Pmsl. Good one. Seizing privately owned assets is definitely centrist. Oh yes
I'm pretty left of centre and agree with Swerv here. How do you propose it works lefty folks? Genuine question.
If they can sell it, they can buy it back. Not suggesting it will be simple or easy, though.
Reappropriating private schools? That were never in public ownership? Or how about land deemed too big for one ownership?
Post Reply