Bye Bye Boris!

[NotoriousREV]

You’re responding to an argument no one is making, GG.

All I’m saying is I want to see some reasonable analysis from people who know what they’re talking about as to what the likely range of outcomes are from the nationalisation proposals. It isn’t complex. It isn’t unnecessary detail. I don’t think it should be contentious to want to understand it further.

I know it isn’t fashionable these days to seek out further information before forming an opinion, but I hadn’t realised it had become actively offensive

[Beany]

All I’m saying is I want to see some reasonable analysis from people who know what they’re talking about as to what the likely range of outcomes are from (insert major change here). It isn’t complex. It isn’t unnecessary detail. I don’t think it should be contentious to want to understand it further.

Hmm. Reminds me of something, but I can't quite put my finger on what is....

[GG.]

Yes, well maybe Labour should commission it. In the absence of that, no-one should take them seriously.

[NotoriousREV]

Yes, well maybe Labour should commission it. In the absence of that, no-one should take them seriously.

Maybe they should, but I’d rather see analysis from someone not associated with Labour or the Conservatives. I get that it’s not possible to completely avoid bias but if the general consensus is that nationalisation is a net positive, then great. If not, then at least we can make an informed decision.

Again, I don’t think this should be a particularly contentious stance to take. Or would everyone just be happier if I just plucked an uninformed opinion out of my arse based entirely on ideological preconceptions?

[NotoriousREV]

All I’m saying is I want to see some reasonable analysis from people who know what they’re talking about as to what the likely range of outcomes are from (insert major change here). It isn’t complex. It isn’t unnecessary detail. I don’t think it should be contentious to want to understand it further.

Hmm. Reminds me of something, but I can't quite put my finger on what is....

Quite.

[GG.]

All I’m saying is I want to see some reasonable analysis from people who know what they’re talking about as to what the likely range of outcomes are from (insert major change here). It isn’t complex. It isn’t unnecessary detail. I don’t think it should be contentious to want to understand it further.

Hmm. Reminds me of something, but I can't quite put my finger on what is....

Quite.

Very much harder to work *that* out and produce a result which is helpful. There were estimates on either side and they differ wildly. It also is not a decision that was a pure economic one, Labours nationalisations should be driven by economic considerations, otherwise they're, well - marxist fantasies about owning the means of production.

I do agree with Rev that it should be produced but the Tories aren't going to incur costs doing that for them - the onus is squarely on Labour. If there is no independent analysis then the default option should be to discount its viability.

[ZedLeg]

Yes, well maybe Labour should commission it. In the absence of that, no-one should take them seriously.

Maybe they should, but I’d rather see analysis from someone not associated with Labour or the Conservatives. I get that it’s not possible to completely avoid bias but if the general consensus is that nationalisation is a net positive, then great. If not, then at least we can make an informed decision.

Again, I don’t think this should be a particularly contentious stance to take. Or would everyone just be happier if I just plucked an uninformed opinion out of my arse based entirely on ideological preconceptions?

I get the feeling that GG wouldn't support nationalisation no matter what the evidence showed. Because marxism or something.

Privatisation has gone really well for us so far. Apart from all the many places where it hasn't .

[NotoriousREV]

GG sees it entirely as an ideological attack. Now, there’s no doubt that Labour are doing this from an ideological standpoint, but that doesn’t mean that those of us who don’t buy into that ideology can’t analyse the pros and cons of the proposal.

I’m also amused that GG is proposing that Labour commission the “independent analysis”, and the rest of us should just ignore everything they say until they do so. The sign of the enquiring mind

[GG.]

If you are convinced that the motive is an ideological one (as you note above) and you have no evidence of viability from an economic standpoint, the intelligent response is not to say "ah, well, no evidence is good enough as it hasn't been disproven" - let's go with the experiment and see whether it turns out to be a disaster.

You're trying to justify voting for people that you'd never have dreamed of pre-2016 because Brexit has twisted your political alignment and made you yearn desperately for some way out. I understand why and the emotional response behind it... but its doesn't make any logical sense.

[Swervin_Mervin]

Yes, well maybe Labour should commission it. In the absence of that, no-one should take them seriously.

Maybe they should, but I’d rather see analysis from someone not associated with Labour or the Conservatives. I get that it’s not possible to completely avoid bias but if the general consensus is that nationalisation is a net positive, then great. If not, then at least we can make an informed decision.

Again, I don’t think this should be a particularly contentious stance to take. Or would everyone just be happier if I just plucked an uninformed opinion out of my arse based entirely on ideological preconceptions?

I get the feeling that GG wouldn't support nationalisation no matter what the evidence showed. Because marxism or something.

Privatisation has gone really well for us so far. Apart from all the many places where it hasn't .

The problem is not whether something is privatised or nationalised - the problem is how it's run. Aspects of privatisation have certainly not been successful, but then again, even the merest glance at the nationally run bodies would show you that they are grossly inefficient and costly.

Nationalisation under a Government that would likely be keen to unnecessarily swell the public sector ranks significantly would not go well.

[NotoriousREV]

If you are convinced that the motive is an ideological one (as you note above) and you have no evidence of viability from an economic standpoint, the intelligent response is not to say "ah, well, no evidence is good enough as it hasn't been disproven" - let's go with the experiment and see whether it turns out to be a disaster.

You're trying to justify voting for people that you'd never have dreamed of pre-2016 because Brexit has twisted your political alignment and made you yearn desperately for some way out. I understand why and the emotional response behind it... but its doesn't make any logical sense.

I’ve voted Labour more times in my life than Conservative, so your assessment is plain wrong, for starters. I’m taking EXACTLY the same approach as I took with Brexit: assess the pros and cons as best I can in the available evidence and form an opinion.

You’re suggesting that I’m saying vote for this proposal if no evidence is available, which is the exact opposite of what I’m saying. I’m saying I want to see independent evidence. Not Labour Party assessments, not Conservative assessments. That absolutely is the logical approach to take. It’s called critical thinking. You should give it a go some time.

You’re not stupid, GG, so stop behaving like a closed-minded fool. I’ve already stated: if the evidence suggests it’s a good plan, I’ll vote for it. If not, then I won’t. I simply can’t make it any plainer. If you can’t understand that, the problem lies with you and not me.

[NotoriousREV]

I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone argue so passionately for deliberate ignorance on a subject. I’m actually astonished.

[ZedLeg]

Maybe they should, but I’d rather see analysis from someone not associated with Labour or the Conservatives. I get that it’s not possible to completely avoid bias but if the general consensus is that nationalisation is a net positive, then great. If not, then at least we can make an informed decision.

Again, I don’t think this should be a particularly contentious stance to take. Or would everyone just be happier if I just plucked an uninformed opinion out of my arse based entirely on ideological preconceptions?

I get the feeling that GG wouldn't support nationalisation no matter what the evidence showed. Because marxism or something.

Privatisation has gone really well for us so far. Apart from all the many places where it hasn't .

The problem is not whether something is privatised or nationalised - the problem is how it's run. Aspects of privatisation have certainly not been successful, but then again, even the merest glance at the nationally run bodies would show you that they are grossly inefficient and costly.

Nationalisation under a Government that would likely be keen to unnecessarily swell the public sector ranks significantly would not go well.

This is just my opinion but the issue with privatisation is that most of the things that I think should be run as nationalised entities need to be run in a way that’s antithetical to how most people run a business.

Things like public transport and utilities need heavy and constant investment which (IMO) should be placed ahead of making a profit.

As an example Edinburgh and the lothians has a bus service run by the local councils which is great. Affordable fares, good service and the buses are clean and well maintained. Compared to the service here run by first bus it’s night and day.

Another example that I only learned recently was that BT were working on a fibre infrastructure in the 80s but Thatcher put a stop to it because she felt the market should provide. They sold off BT and the market then didn’t provide.

[Swervin_Mervin]

Don't get me wrong - I don't disagree with that. Public transport, rail especially, is simply not profitable. I watched a fascinating Ian Hislop programme about the history of rail a few years ago and the exorbitant costs of running a rail network have been apparent through history. They need subsidising even when privately run.

In an ideal world I'd rather public transport was nationalised. However, we live in the UK and our public sectors are run far too badly. We're just shit at it and no one wants to be the bad person that sorts them out. Just look what has happened whenever any government in recent history has tried to change things - the protectionism kicks in.

[Beany]

Another example that I only learned recently was that BT were working on a fibre infrastructure in the 80s but Thatcher put a stop to it because she felt the market should provide. They sold off BT and the market then didn’t provide.

The best part about BT (openreach specifically, but anything on the wholesale side in general) is that they have all the downsides of a private business - not investing without ROI so communities left on 512k 'broadband', and general lack of investment that is in the public good (as per Zeds example - we were way ahead of the curve on fast internet access before BT were broken up and decided it wasn't worth putting the money in any more)....

....and they also have all the worst parts of government lackadaisical attitudes - IE I'm currently having a massive fight with them at an interconnect level on the interpretation of Ofcom CLI guidance, because they appear to be being needlessly bloody minded about it - proper Computer Says Nooooo stuff, refusing to answer specific questions, playing for time so they can close faults, etc.

BT is the best example of why privatisation can be a complete nightmare; yeah, you've saved the state some money, but fuck me the unintended consequences end up being a complete shitshow.

[NotoriousREV]

Privatisation of effective monopolies doesn’t really provide the market competitiveness that drives efficiency and keeps prices down. With Broadband, you effectively have a choice of Virgin Media, or a bunch of firms re-selling access to the Openreach network. Openreach is definitely not well run. Most of the rail franchises are not well run.

In the case of rail, yes a franchisee might lose their franchise if they perform badly, but most of the employees remain the same, only the top management layers really change. Ironically, the best run rail franchise appears to be the one that was re-nationalised.

[DeskJockey]

Privatisation of effective monopolies doesn’t really provide the market competitiveness that drives efficiency and keeps prices down. With Broadband, you effectively have a choice of Virgin Media, or a bunch of firms re-selling access to the Openreach network. Openreach is definitely not well run. Most of the rail franchises are not well run.

In the case of rail, yes a franchisee might lose their franchise if they perform badly, but most of the employees remain the same, only the top management layers really change. Ironically, the best run rail franchise appears to be the one that was re-nationalised.

Add to that all the water companies and gas/electricity distribution. There's no competition, all that happens is that profits go elsewhere.

[NotoriousREV]

Privatisation of effective monopolies doesn’t really provide the market competitiveness that drives efficiency and keeps prices down. With Broadband, you effectively have a choice of Virgin Media, or a bunch of firms re-selling access to the Openreach network. Openreach is definitely not well run. Most of the rail franchises are not well run.

In the case of rail, yes a franchisee might lose their franchise if they perform badly, but most of the employees remain the same, only the top management layers really change. Ironically, the best run rail franchise appears to be the one that was re-nationalised.

Add to that all the water companies and gas/electricity distribution. There's no competition, all that happens is that profits go elsewhere.

Nationalised companies in other countries, in some cases.

[DeskJockey]

Privatisation of effective monopolies doesn’t really provide the market competitiveness that drives efficiency and keeps prices down. With Broadband, you effectively have a choice of Virgin Media, or a bunch of firms re-selling access to the Openreach network. Openreach is definitely not well run. Most of the rail franchises are not well run.

In the case of rail, yes a franchisee might lose their franchise if they perform badly, but most of the employees remain the same, only the top management layers really change. Ironically, the best run rail franchise appears to be the one that was re-nationalised.

Add to that all the water companies and gas/electricity distribution. There's no competition, all that happens is that profits go elsewhere.

Nationalised companies in other countries, in some cases.

Yes.

[NotoriousREV]

IFS says neither main party manifesto spending plan is "credible": https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50585818

What a choice we have