Labour want to bring back Syndicalism?
Labour's proposal to bring services such as water, energy and rail into public ownership would be "cost free", John McDonnell has said.
The shadow chancellor says he wants to put public services "irreversibly in the hands of workers" so they can "never again be taken away".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43014861
The shadow chancellor says he wants to put public services "irreversibly in the hands of workers" so they can "never again be taken away".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43014861
Scroll to see replies
Of course they do, why wouldn't they? Increasing the number of civil servants means an expanding ground for influence and revenue and it is perfectly consequential for their political wing to push for it. The Chancellor would like to nationalise a few things and ultimately just about everything because he is a Soviet at heart, has been all his life and what would be shocking would be for him not to want to. Of course they would like to regain the power to hold the country at ransom, why wouldn't they?
A bit like with the Soviet experiment, we've been here before. After the war and under Labour, this country went on a spree of nationalisations with a view to making it a better place and the rest is history, isn't it?
A bit like with the Soviet experiment, we've been here before. After the war and under Labour, this country went on a spree of nationalisations with a view to making it a better place and the rest is history, isn't it?
Except it would cost a lot for the state to gain complete ownership of each sector, and seeing how it calls for complete nationalisation, would need to shut down the possibility of other companies having any hold on the industry. Surely there’s a reason why we’ve yet to keep the state with full control over these industries and surely there’s a reason why it doesn’t benefit many people. I don’t know perhaps there’s a reason why we allow for competition in many sectors and perhaps there is a reason why some of the primary state funded sectors are failing, no matter how much money the government has to fork our to keep them running? 🤔
Original post by CountBrandenburg
Except it would cost a lot for the state to gain complete ownership of each sector, and seeing how it calls for complete nationalisation, would need to shut down the possibility of other companies having any hold on the industry. Surely there’s a reason why we’ve yet to keep the state with full control over these industries and surely there’s a reason why it doesn’t benefit many people. I don’t know perhaps there’s a reason why we allow for competition in many sectors and perhaps there is a reason why some of the primary state funded sectors are failing, no matter how much money the government has to fork our to keep them running? 🤔
nationalisation without compensation
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
nationalisation without compensation
Because that’s so fair on them mate... give up a successful company without too much state influence and embrace a model where they answer mostly and directly to the State...
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
nationalisation without compensation
I wonder how that will go down with the millions of people who's private pensions have invested in these companies?
Original post by CountBrandenburg
Because that’s so fair on them mate... give up a successful company without too much state influence and embrace a model where they answer mostly and directly to the State...
How is the current system fair to the millions of working class commuters hit by rising ticket prices of up to 20%.
At least the company owners have m,millions of pounds in the back pocket these people don't.
If you were to ask me who I would favour, millions of people or a few rich people, it would be always be the former. For the Conservatives it is obviously the few rich people.
Original post by The PoliticalGuy
How is the current system fair to the millions of working class commuters hit by rising ticket prices of up to 20%.
At least the company owners have m,millions of pounds in the back pocket these people don't.
If you were to ask me who I would favour, millions of people or a few rich people, it would be always be the former. For the Conservatives it is obviously the few rich people.
At least the company owners have m,millions of pounds in the back pocket these people don't.
If you were to ask me who I would favour, millions of people or a few rich people, it would be always be the former. For the Conservatives it is obviously the few rich people.
Now now, I don’t think that the current system is exactly successful ( might I remind you that Network Rail is a state owned entity) though prices, if there is limited to no interference from government in those sectors, will naturally fluctuate to prices that promote competition and in the long run offer options that are cheaper for your Everyman.
Yes Company owners will have more money, their just reward for managing a large company and ensuring that it remains successful ( do you see any problem with that)
With the privatisation of rail system coming into place by Major, people pay less taxes towards the system and allows for more investment in developing the overall sector. It’s not a system that benefits a few people but overall attempts to make things more affordable (ergo allows for more prosperous business)
(edited 6 years ago)
My favourite bit was McDonnell saying "It would be cost free. You borrow to buy an asset and when that asset is producing profits like the water industry does, that will cover your borrowing cost". It's a tried and tested system, used by companies such as Carillion. How well did that work out?
You realise that they're limited to making profits of 2% don't you? If your season ticket costs £3,000 the train company only sees £60 profit which hardly seems excessive. Staff costs are one of the biggest elements of the ticket price but look at the fuss the unions kick up if the train companies attempt to bring those costs down.
Original post by The PoliticalGuy
How is the current system fair to the millions of working class commuters hit by rising ticket prices of up to 20%.
At least the company owners have m,millions of pounds in the back pocket these people
At least the company owners have m,millions of pounds in the back pocket these people
You realise that they're limited to making profits of 2% don't you? If your season ticket costs £3,000 the train company only sees £60 profit which hardly seems excessive. Staff costs are one of the biggest elements of the ticket price but look at the fuss the unions kick up if the train companies attempt to bring those costs down.
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
nationalisation without compensation
And people wonder why socialism only works at the point of a gun.
How do you get forced nationalisation past any court?
Original post by CurlyBen
You realise that they're limited to making profits of 2% don't you? If your season ticket costs £3,000 the train company only sees £60 profit which hardly seems excessive. Staff costs are one of the biggest elements of the ticket price but look at the fuss the unions kick up if the train companies attempt to bring those costs down.
You realise that they're limited to making profits of 2% don't you? If your season ticket costs £3,000 the train company only sees £60 profit which hardly seems excessive. Staff costs are one of the biggest elements of the ticket price but look at the fuss the unions kick up if the train companies attempt to bring those costs down.
No they don't you must be talking about the regulated fares cap at 1.9% which doesn't have anything to do with profit.
Fake news! Link it if it's true.
I agree with you 28.5% pay rise for driving a train is farcical.
Original post by The PoliticalGuy
No they don't you must be talking about the regulated fares cap at 1.9% which doesn't have anything to do with profit.
Fake news! Link it if it's true.
I agree with you 28.5% pay rise for driving a train is farcical.
Fake news! Link it if it's true.
I agree with you 28.5% pay rise for driving a train is farcical.
It's a private company, they can give out whatever pay rises they like. I don't see how it is farcical,
If we wanted to get of said union strikes, the key would be to consider railway an "essential service"
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by The PoliticalGuy
No they don't you must be talking about the regulated fares cap at 1.9% which doesn't have anything to do with profit.
Fake news! Link it if it's true.
I agree with you 28.5% pay rise for driving a train is farcical.
Fake news! Link it if it's true.
I agree with you 28.5% pay rise for driving a train is farcical.
I was sure I read they were limited to 2% in a BBC article, but I can't find it now. I must have been mistaken. This link (http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/ticket_types/83871.aspx) indicates profit is 3%, but isn't a limit. Still, even 3% profit hardly seems excessive!
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by ugaaa5
It's a private company, they can give out whatever pay rises they like. I don't see how it is farcical,
If we wanted to get of said union strikes, the key would be to consider railway an "essential service"
If we wanted to get of said union strikes, the key would be to consider railway an "essential service"
The fact is that the private company did not want to give them this pay rise but the unions and train drivers pressured them threatened more strikes and they were forced into making this decision.
The train drivers value themselves too much all they do is drive a train and it is farcical.
Original post by The PoliticalGuy
The fact is that the private company did not want to give them this pay rise but the unions and train drivers pressured them threatened more strikes and they were forced into making this decision.
The train drivers value themselves too much all they do is drive a train and it is farcical.
The train drivers value themselves too much all they do is drive a train and it is farcical.
I realise that, hence my second sentence. What would you do in order to prevent this?
Original post by ugaaa5
If we wanted to get of said union strikes, the key would be to consider railway an "essential service"
No, I completely disagree turning the railway into an essential service and disallow strikes would be a massive blow to freedom and all the liberal value that the UK stands for.
There isn't really anything you can do the Conservatives have already taken chunks out of the Workers Unions influence.
Original post by The PoliticalGuy
No, I completely disagree turning the railway into an essential service and disallow strikes would be a massive blow to freedom and all the liberal value that the UK stands for.
There isn't really anything you can do the Conservatives have already taken chunks out of the Workers Unions influence.
There isn't really anything you can do the Conservatives have already taken chunks out of the Workers Unions influence.
Exactly my point.
Original post by The PoliticalGuy
The fact is that the private company did not want to give them this pay rise but the unions and train drivers pressured them threatened more strikes and they were forced into making this decision.
The train drivers value themselves too much all they do is drive a train and it is farcical.
The train drivers value themselves too much all they do is drive a train and it is farcical.
Without the train drivers / conductors / support staff they have no business at all.
Most train companies are still making big profits (if they don't the losses are covered by the government).If they are making profits then they have money to pay those who generate that cash more.
I fail to see how this policy is in any way Syndacilist though..
Some things are better run by the state, and some things are better run by the private sector. That is a fact.
Sadly it seems as though some groups are intent on doing one to everything.
Interestingly enough, the hard left Trotskyists I have met in life I can count on one hand and were in the same room... at an isolated society on a university campus.
Yet right-wing zealots who want everything to be privatised seem to be a lot more common.
Privatisation does not work for industries where there is no competition incentive. It merely creates inefficiencies as the middleman is always looking for his cut and to cut costs everywhere else... meaning a decline in services for the consumer.
Most of the privatised utilities cost the taxpayer billions as when they (inevitably) fail, the owners are running cap in hand to the state begging for more money. See Virgin East Cost, Carillion, etc. All at the taxpayers cost. Nationalise the losses and privatise the profits, a ridiculous model. Especially when bonuses are being handed out when the company is tanking.
Tighten up the privatisation model where it works to tie bonuses and remuneration to success. Nationalise essential services.
Of course neither is going to happen under a neoliberal government because the model is utterly corrupt and based on discredited bogus economics and Objectivist thinking.
Sadly it seems as though some groups are intent on doing one to everything.
Interestingly enough, the hard left Trotskyists I have met in life I can count on one hand and were in the same room... at an isolated society on a university campus.
Yet right-wing zealots who want everything to be privatised seem to be a lot more common.
Privatisation does not work for industries where there is no competition incentive. It merely creates inefficiencies as the middleman is always looking for his cut and to cut costs everywhere else... meaning a decline in services for the consumer.
Most of the privatised utilities cost the taxpayer billions as when they (inevitably) fail, the owners are running cap in hand to the state begging for more money. See Virgin East Cost, Carillion, etc. All at the taxpayers cost. Nationalise the losses and privatise the profits, a ridiculous model. Especially when bonuses are being handed out when the company is tanking.
Tighten up the privatisation model where it works to tie bonuses and remuneration to success. Nationalise essential services.
Of course neither is going to happen under a neoliberal government because the model is utterly corrupt and based on discredited bogus economics and Objectivist thinking.
Original post by Moosferatu
Some things are better run by the state, and some things are better run by the private sector. That is a fact.
Sadly it seems as though some groups are intent on doing one to everything.
Interestingly enough, the hard left Trotskyists I have met in life I can count on one hand and were in the same room... at an isolated society on a university campus.
Yet right-wing zealots who want everything to be privatised seem to be a lot more common.
Privatisation does not work for industries where there is no competition incentive. It merely creates inefficiencies as the middleman is always looking for his cut and to cut costs everywhere else... meaning a decline in services for the consumer.
Most of the privatised utilities cost the taxpayer billions as when they (inevitably) fail, the owners are running cap in hand to the state begging for more money. See Virgin East Cost, Carillion, etc. All at the taxpayers cost. Nationalise the losses and privatise the profits, a ridiculous model. Especially when bonuses are being handed out when the company is tanking.
Tighten up the privatisation model where it works to tie bonuses and remuneration to success. Nationalise essential services.
Of course neither is going to happen under a neoliberal government because the model is utterly corrupt and based on discredited bogus economics and Objectivist thinking.
Sadly it seems as though some groups are intent on doing one to everything.
Interestingly enough, the hard left Trotskyists I have met in life I can count on one hand and were in the same room... at an isolated society on a university campus.
Yet right-wing zealots who want everything to be privatised seem to be a lot more common.
Privatisation does not work for industries where there is no competition incentive. It merely creates inefficiencies as the middleman is always looking for his cut and to cut costs everywhere else... meaning a decline in services for the consumer.
Most of the privatised utilities cost the taxpayer billions as when they (inevitably) fail, the owners are running cap in hand to the state begging for more money. See Virgin East Cost, Carillion, etc. All at the taxpayers cost. Nationalise the losses and privatise the profits, a ridiculous model. Especially when bonuses are being handed out when the company is tanking.
Tighten up the privatisation model where it works to tie bonuses and remuneration to success. Nationalise essential services.
Of course neither is going to happen under a neoliberal government because the model is utterly corrupt and based on discredited bogus economics and Objectivist thinking.
You're acting as if everything you just said isn't discredited and bogus.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- A possible solution to the dumming down of US news
- Rethinking the nation state - what a Labour Government could do
- Lottery syndicate
- Lottery syndicate
- 2023–24 by-elections thread
- Is a labourer a good career
- History OCR GCSE monarchy and democracy in Britain paper 2 !!
- Do you play the lottery?
- I struggle writing essays for english
- Why do women still give birth on their backs?
- I struggle to write english essays in class.
- No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targets
- Was Jeremy Corbyn a Better Labour leader than Kier Starmer
- Would it be alright to email a uni about this?
- My Cyber Security Journey at De Montfort University
- Best Video Game of All Time
- PLEASE HELP❗️❗️What would this GCSE AQA inspector calls answer get out of 30?
- Econ 15 mark essay
- Reshuffle: David Cameron is back and Braverman sacked
- Do you wish Johnson to return?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
