Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    So TSR what is your opinoin on state ownership? Do you think it is not needed and all business/services should be privatized? Health/education ect.

    Or should the government have control of certain services as they are so important to the public interest?

    Personally I have been thinking Education and health should be owned by the state. And I have been thinking about whether transport should be government controlled.

    Your thoughts?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I think that both state and private ownership have their merits. Whilst I'd like to see the NHS broken up (although a public option would be maintained) so that private companies can compete, there is a case for renationalising the water or gas and electricity suppliers. Certainly, with water suppliers you have no choice as to what company supplies you, it's dictated by where you live, and that's silly.

    As for transport? I'm not sure. It depends on the type of transport. I'm definitely for buses being kept in private operation - no tangible benefit from nationalisation, really. Planes and most ferries (obviously not those serving the Scottish Isles) should be kept private, but whilst I think that independent airports that compete with each other are a good thing (and I welcome the breakup of BAA to accomplish this) I'm not so sure that selling off the port of dover is a very wise idea. Most other ports in the UK are private because they deal mainly with cargo or because they're small, but Dover sees tens of millions of passengers per year and selling it could be a national security and immigration risk.

    I think that trains should either be renationalised or completely liberalised, but anything is better than the system of state-funded monopolies that we have now. There's no real competition because only one company can operate each franchise at a time.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    So TSR what is your opinoin on state ownership? Do you think it is not needed and all business/services should be privatized? Health/education ect.

    Or should the government have control of certain services as they are so important to the public interest?

    Personally I have been thinking Education and health should be owned by the state. And I have been thinking about whether transport should be government controlled.

    Your thoughts?
    nationalise (under democratic control rather than being presided over by some government beurocrat) the biggest companies - banks, health, transport, education, prisons, housing etc. and then integrate them so that all business co-operate together for the good of the economy. Keep small and medium business private. Nationalised banks could offer good loans to small and new businesses.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Nationalise everything! From gas to dildos! Benefit the public, not the fat cat captain of the dildo industry.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I think that public services such as the NHS and public transport should definitely be run by the state. This is because, whilst in certain sectors, the desire to make a profit can boost the consumer experience, I believe that this is not the case in public service.

    For example, I don't see that a decent health service will necessarily ever be able to make a profit - nor will a decent bus service in a rural community. We have to accept that these are services and not profitable ventures and therefore they are best run by the state who will be more likely to be motivated by a political desire to get a good service than a desire to feed shareholders. However, I do think that private operators should be able to exist in the bus market, as it is one of the only transport markets where privatisation can (but normally doesn't) work.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I think education, health, transport and policing should be nationalised.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aphotic Cosmos)
    As for transport? I'm not sure. It depends on the type of transport. I'm definitely for buses being kept in private operation
    What about bus routes that are not commercially viable?
    Do you agree with the government / councils subsidising these services, or do you think the people living there should just be stranded?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    What about bus routes that are not commercially viable?
    Do you agree with the government / councils subsidising these services, or do you think the people living there should just be stranded?
    Usually such routes can be made viable through running fewer services. The government doesn't owe you a cheaper bus ride out of your nice village.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The courts, police and army should be run by the state. Everything else should be privatised. Charities will provide for people who can't afford to pay for themselves or their family.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aphotic Cosmos)
    there is a case for renationalising the water
    Nope, when North Ireland's water pipes (the water companies are nationalised) froze over, the Government/managers were very slow to respond and bottled water had to be delivered to the people. There really is no case for nationalising the water company over here.

    (Original post by badtothebone)
    nationalise (under democratic control rather than being presided over by some government beurocrat) the biggest companies - banks, health, transport, education, prisons, housing
    That would be a disaster.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think we have a good balance at the moment. Health and Education are a must for me, however Transport is one area where I think the competition really is beneficial, so I'd be a bit more sceptical about that, and I see few other areas where public ownership is a must.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Usually such routes can be made viable through running fewer services. The government doesn't owe you a cheaper bus ride out of your nice village.
    Errr no. Such routes are not viable because they do not make money.
    It isn't about having a cheaper bus ride. Its about having a bus ride at all.
    The situation we have now is that some people in rural areas may have to give up their jobs, or hope their employer can give them flexible hours.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    Errr no. Such routes are not viable because they do not make money.
    It isn't about having a cheaper bus ride. Its about having a bus ride at all.
    What do you say to the point that I shouldn't have to pay for your bus ride though?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by arabcnesbit)
    What do you say to the point that I shouldn't have to pay for your bus ride though?
    You can make that argument about anything if you really want to though.
    Why should I have to pay for your kids education.
    Why should i have to pay for your cancer treatment.
    Why should I have to pay for the road on your street to be fixed.
    Etc Etc.
    And at that point society starts to break down.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    It isn't about having a cheaper bus ride. Its about having a bus ride at all.
    Why oh why can't the private sector handle bus service?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    You can make that argument about anything if you really want to though.
    Why should I have to pay for your kids education.
    Why should i have to pay for your cancer treatment.
    Why should I have to pay for the road on your street to be fixed.
    Etc Etc.
    Why indeed?

    And at that point society starts to break down.
    Yes, because the private sector has never been able to manage things more efficiently or cost effective than the government.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    You can make that argument about anything if you really want to though.
    Why should I have to pay for your kids education.
    Why should i have to pay for your cancer treatment.
    Why should I have to pay for the road on your street to be fixed.
    Etc Etc.
    And at that point society starts to break down.
    Exactly.

    Glad you're finally catching on.

    By society you mean forcing people to pay for others by the threat of force I take it?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    Errr no. Such routes are not viable because they do not make money.
    It isn't about having a cheaper bus ride. Its about having a bus ride at all.
    The situation we have now is that some people in rural areas may have to give up their jobs, or hope their employer can give them flexible hours.
    Ah right, so you think it's cost effective to spend thousands of pounds running a bus so that those people can pay their hundreds of pounds of tax a year do you? Are these people tethered to their houses or what? I've moved 3 times in the last 4 years.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by arabcnesbit)
    What do you say to the point that I shouldn't have to pay for your bus ride though?
    Ignoring the fact that I "pay for your bus ride" as well?

    Even if private companies operated buses without subsidy, more profitable routes would be used to fund upgrades and maintenance on less profitable ones, either in a bid to make them more profitable or to maintain basic standards.

    In answer to your point WelshBluebird, yes - I think that there should be subsidies for important loss-making routes to keep them going. Access to rural areas in particular should not be dictated by car ownership. Routes which are profitable are not always the routes that are necessary; creating a loss-making but important bus route can be a good way of revitalising an area by allowing it's inhabitants to access the city centre and out-of-town jobs, but there's no short-term profit incentive to create that route in the first place.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Why indeed?
    (Original post by arabcnesbit)
    Exactly.

    Glad you're finally catching on.

    By society you mean forcing people to pay for others by the threat of force I take it?
    So you both think there should be no state funding of ANYTHING?

    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Ah right, so you think it's cost effective to spend thousands of pounds running a bus so that those people can pay their hundreds of pounds of tax a year do you? Are these people tethered to their houses or what? I've moved 3 times in the last 4 years.
    Accomodation isn't that easy to get in some places. So living in the next village or whatever is the only option.

    What about if the person has other responsibilities? A family, or perhaps an elderly relative they are looking after?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.