Current Affairs The Conservative Party

[orchard]

What are the 'many' things you think should be run by the state?

Indeed. Many things should never be put into the private domain and should remain in the public sector, but that is partly due to the fact that ‘the service’ may be impossible to do competitively.......

 

[Black Belt Jones]

The company has been short-selling its own stock since 2013 (according to the Financial Times). This is when an investor borrows shares and immediately sells them, hoping he or she can scoop them up later at a lower price, return them to the lender and pocket the difference, an extremely risky and dubious practice.

According to @FT, Carillion have been shorting own stock since 2013. While their boss was advising gov on business responsibility. Mind boggles

— Andrew Baisley (@andrewbaisley) January 15, 2018

This person just sounds confused tbh. In the unlikely event they know what they are talking about, where the company directors involved in some shady executive hedge schemes? They do exist, but it seems more like garden variety trousering of huge salaries that has gone on here.

 

[orchard]

I agree, that passage is somewhat confused, however they do seem to link to an ft analysis of the allegation, and no, there is objectively more substance to this that can not just be dismissed by 'fat cat salary' alone.

This person just sounds confused tbh. In the unlikely event they know what they are talking about, where the company directors involved in some shady executive hedge schemes? They do exist, but it seems more like garden variety trousering of huge salaries that has gone on here.

 

[peteblue]

What are the 'many' things you think should be run by the state?

The railways for one.....

 

[tsubaki]

I agree, that passage is somewhat confused, however they do seem to link to an ft analysis of the allegation, and no, there is objectively more substance to this that can not just be dismissed by 'fat cat salary' alone.

There were a lot of people shorting Carillion's stock, but if they were doing it themselves (and its a big if) then they can expect to see the inside of a prison cell - its insider trading, even under our own almost-unenforceable law.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

The railways for one.....

I'm curious about this one to be honest, as I'm not sure exactly what people expect would change. We have an imperfect environment whereby service providers largely have a monopoly over their particular route. So normal market forces don't really apply, so the question then becomes whether the people managing the services are competent or not.

Now you might say that those in charge at the moment aren't competent, but who would replace them were their routes to be nationalised? Is there a stock of more competent people waiting in the wings for the return of the railways to public ownership? Were a big bunch of British Rail folk shunted out when things were privatised that could now return like white knights to save things?

I suspect most would regard that as silly, so it seems to come down largely to money, and specifically the belief that under public ownership more money would be spent on the railways, thus resulting in better service at a lower cost to the consumer (assuming that as it's likely to be the same managers that inefficiencies are still going to remain regardless of who owns the railway).

Now it's possible that more money would be invested, but I have a couple of reservations about that. Firstly, there isn't really any evidence to that effect, as during British Rail days, investment was nowhere near as high as it is now, so it seems a bit of a leap of faith to suggest otherwise. Secondly, it would result in a shift away from those who use the system contributing most (via their ticket) to those that don't use the system contributing (via taxation). I'm not sure that's especially right, especially as most rail passengers are middle class commuters who scarcely need the subsidy.

 

[Big_nev]

Spoken like a true idiot.......

Truth hurts, how anybody can sit there with a clear conscience after voting against the least privileged in our society is beyond me. Not only that but Theresa May is an absolute wretch.

Scum bags the lot of them. Letting the likes of that bad nobhead Esther McVey decide what is best for our most vulnerable. Shameless the lot of you.

 

[abelard]

What are the 'many' things you think should be run by the state?

As of this week, I endorse Corbyn nationalising all Letting Agencies. @Bruce Wayne can no doubt give a thoughtful summation from the Intro to Economics textbook chapter that explains how this would result in a horrifying populist hellscape of Diminishing Margainal Returns, and I don't even care so long as they all still suffer. 30 quid to check a single reference? Do Britains not realise how backwards and useless this is? Sort of poetic I suppose that those seeking to pay rent suffer the most blatant rent-seeking...

I thought I'd seen it all trying to rent a flat in Manhattan, but y'all do still have some tricks to teach us ingenuous colonials.

 

[tsubaki]

I'm curious about this one to be honest, as I'm not sure exactly what people expect would change. We have an imperfect environment whereby service providers largely have a monopoly over their particular route. So normal market forces don't really apply, so the question then becomes whether the people managing the services are competent or not.

Now you might say that those in charge at the moment aren't competent, but who would replace them were their routes to be nationalised? Is there a stock of more competent people waiting in the wings for the return of the railways to public ownership? Were a big bunch of British Rail folk shunted out when things were privatised that could now return like white knights to save things?

I suspect most would regard that as silly, so it seems to come down largely to money, and specifically the belief that under public ownership more money would be spent on the railways, thus resulting in better service at a lower cost to the consumer (assuming that as it's likely to be the same managers that inefficiencies are still going to remain regardless of who owns the railway).

Now it's possible that more money would be invested, but I have a couple of reservations about that. Firstly, there isn't really any evidence to that effect, as during British Rail days, investment was nowhere near as high as it is now, so it seems a bit of a leap of faith to suggest otherwise. Secondly, it would result in a shift away from those who use the system contributing most (via their ticket) to those that don't use the system contributing (via taxation). I'm not sure that's especially right, especially as most rail passengers are middle class commuters who scarcely need the subsidy.

Well, for a start, the best-run, best-performing franchise on the network was set up and run by ex-BR managers - though most of them have since sold up or retired.

Secondly, the problem with the railway network in this country isn't so much that its privatized, its that it is broken up in a way which is inefficient and there is a lot of money wasted as a result. If the network was brought back together, costs would go down for everyone - taxpayers and those who use the system - because you would no longer be spending money on consultants, lawyers and a system by which the franchises can be awarded (just to bid for a contract costs between £5 and £10 million).

Finally, we have no need of hypothetical examples or guesswork as to what it would be like if it was renationalized - we have an example of it, on one of the busiest routes. East Coast performed better in terms of punctuality and returned more money to the Government than VTEC did, and didn't bail on its contract.

 

[orchard]

Pretty much. Plus economy of scale and sharing resource.

Well, for a start, the best-run, best-performing franchise on the network was set up and run by ex-BR managers - though most of them have since sold up or retired.

Secondly, the problem with the railway network in this country isn't so much that its privatized, its that it is broken up in a way which is inefficient and there is a lot of money wasted as a result. If the network was brought back together, costs would go down for everyone - taxpayers and those who use the system - because you would no longer be spending money on consultants, lawyers and a system by which the franchises can be awarded (just to bid for a contract costs between £5 and £10 million).

Finally, we have no need of hypothetical examples or guesswork as to what it would be like if it was renationalized - we have an example of it, on one of the busiest routes. East Coast performed better in terms of punctuality and returned more money to the Government than VTEC did, and didn't bail on its contract.

 

[Huyton Layne]

Oh my

 

[Bruce Wayne]

As of this week, I endorse Corbyn nationalising all Letting Agencies. @Bruce Wayne can no doubt give a thoughtful summation from the Intro to Economics textbook chapter that explains how this would result in a horrifying populist hellscape of Diminishing Margainal Returns, and I don't even care so long as they all still suffer. 30 quid to check a single reference? Do Britains not realise how backwards and useless this is? Sort of poetic I suppose that those seeking to pay rent suffer the most blatant rent-seeking...

I thought I'd seen it all trying to rent a flat in Manhattan, but y'all do still have some tricks to teach us ingenuous colonials.

Poor regulation needs better regulation, not a tearing up of the entire system. I mean you might notice that each year the NHS is in various states of crisis. Does that mean it should be scrapped? You can't criticize elementary answers by giving one yourself.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Well, for a start, the best-run, best-performing franchise on the network was set up and run by ex-BR managers - though most of them have since sold up or retired.

Secondly, the problem with the railway network in this country isn't so much that its privatized, its that it is broken up in a way which is inefficient and there is a lot of money wasted as a result. If the network was brought back together, costs would go down for everyone - taxpayers and those who use the system - because you would no longer be spending money on consultants, lawyers and a system by which the franchises can be awarded (just to bid for a contract costs between £5 and £10 million).

Finally, we have no need of hypothetical examples or guesswork as to what it would be like if it was renationalized - we have an example of it, on one of the busiest routes. East Coast performed better in terms of punctuality and returned more money to the Government than VTEC did, and didn't bail on its contract.

That's a lot of hypotheticals that weren't supported by the evidence from the old BR days, when things were considerably worse across the board. As I say, the key is good management. Private or public is irrelevant.

Pretty much. Plus economy of scale and sharing resource.

Sadly that doesn't seem to apply in health and education?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Oh my

Utterly useless. Baffles me why you'd want such people in charge of a raffle, let alone vital services.

 

[peteblue]

I'm curious about this one to be honest, as I'm not sure exactly what people expect would change. We have an imperfect environment whereby service providers largely have a monopoly over their particular route. So normal market forces don't really apply, so the question then becomes whether the people managing the services are competent or not.

Now you might say that those in charge at the moment aren't competent, but who would replace them were their routes to be nationalised? Is there a stock of more competent people waiting in the wings for the return of the railways to public ownership? Were a big bunch of British Rail folk shunted out when things were privatised that could now return like white knights to save things?

I suspect most would regard that as silly, so it seems to come down largely to money, and specifically the belief that under public ownership more money would be spent on the railways, thus resulting in better service at a lower cost to the consumer (assuming that as it's likely to be the same managers that inefficiencies are still going to remain regardless of who owns the railway).

Now it's possible that more money would be invested, but I have a couple of reservations about that. Firstly, there isn't really any evidence to that effect, as during British Rail days, investment was nowhere near as high as it is now, so it seems a bit of a leap of faith to suggest otherwise. Secondly, it would result in a shift away from those who use the system contributing most (via their ticket) to those that don't use the system contributing (via taxation). I'm not sure that's especially right, especially as most rail passengers are middle class commuters who scarcely need the subsidy.

I tend to think that where competition needs to exist then the service should be provided by private companies who know how to compete. Where no real competition needs to exists then the public sector should control.....simplistic I know, but as a general rule of thumb......