Current Affairs The Far Left

[Bruce Wayne]

That is clearly not the point of the original post.

You solve the problems it describes, however, by reforming and above all by properly funding the health and education services, by rebuilding local communities and their instutions, and by treating inequality as a problem rather than an objective.

Nationalising industries, on the other hand, is a response to this and this and this and this and above all this - in other words, to the fact that the status quo is corrupt, parasitic, inefficient, and often deadly, and minor tweaks to the formula are neither going to improve anything nor attract the political support that is required to do so.

I find the logic difficult to get my head around. The government are clearly so clueless as to both enter into a terrible agreement with Carillion in the first place, and then have insufficient nous to manage that relationship at all well BUT if they were in charge of everything, they would somehow magic such nous out of thing air and all would be well?

The government is such a hefty buyer that it has (or should have) the whip hand in any commercial arrangement. When the buyer has so much power in the relationship, then surely some blame for the failure of the agreement has to rest with them?

 

[Number_25]

I'm finding it genuinely difficult to understand why some nationalisation is deemed as being of the "far left".

I'm also finding it genuinely difficult, given the fact that earlier this week a far-right lunatic was put into a mental asylum because he wanted to murder innocent individuals on the basis of their sexual preference, that those of the left are being unfairly targeted as being the violent oppressors of free speech.

Go onto YouTube, all you see is right-wing rhetoric being pushed through the "related" videos section. If you start talking about wealth apartheid, or (any form of) sexism - you're immediately shut down as being a SJW. If you comment on the murder of occupied Palestinians, you're immediately called an anti-Semite.

What the hell is happening?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

One that's properly run, adequately funded, and accountable to the people - yes.

And on what basis do you believe they will be properly run? I mean half of the rail franchises are already run by the government, they're just run by the government of other countries. Is there any data on rail performance, usage and cost from the British Rail days compared to now?

 

[Number_25]

And on what basis do you believe they will be properly run? I mean half of the rail franchises are already run by the government, they're just run by the government of other countries. Is there any data on rail performance, usage and cost from the British Rail days compared to now?

If you compare prices (against total % of average wage) for privately vs publicly owned train services, you'll find that - on the most part - they tend to be far cheaper per customer.

Moreover, apart from the monetary concerns, through nationalising a number of vital services - you are giving back the power to the working man. As things stand, we the people own very little as far as property is concerned. We need to take back control of what's rightfully ours ~ and only then can be begin targetting the reasons as to why hate is able to proliferate.

 

[abelard]

I find the logic difficult to get my head around. The government are clearly so clueless as to both enter into a terrible agreement with Carillion in the first place, and then have insufficient nous to manage that relationship at all well BUT if they were in charge of everything, they would somehow magic such nous out of thing air and all would be well?

The government is not a static monolith.

The whole point of a democracy is that you can change the government, in this case so that it is no longer run by incel Ayn Rand cultists, senile gin-soaked shire dinosaurs, openly racist Home Office petty-tyrants, and corrupt servile reptiles like Blair or Osbourne, hoping for no more than to ingratiate themselves to the world's most avaricious criminals and despots.

Instead, as even the financial press is beginning to realise, it should run by people who recognise that the country has been driven into the ground and desperately needs reform. It is precisely because Labour now represents the spectre of actual change that the former are trying so frantically to discredit it.

The government is such a hefty buyer that it has (or should have) the whip hand in any commercial arrangement. When the buyer has so much power in the relationship, then surely some blame for the failure of the agreement has to rest with them?

^Obviously. This is why we have a thread called "Scummy Tories".

 

[Bruce Wayne]

If you compare prices (against total % of average wage) for privately vs publicly owned train services, you'll find that - on the most part - they tend to be far cheaper per customer.

Moreover, apart from the monetary concerns, through nationalising a number of vital services - you are giving back the power to the working man. As things stand, we the people own very little as far as property is concerned. We need to take back control of what's rightfully ours ~ and only then can be begin targetting the reasons as to why hate is able to proliferate.

Have you got a source for that? I had a look and couldn't find anything so would be interested in checking it out.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

The government is not a static monolith.

The whole point of a democracy is that you can change the government, in this case so that it is no longer run by incel Ayn Rand cultists, senile gin-soaked shire dinosaurs, openly racist Home Office petty-tyrants, and corrupt servile reptiles like Blair or Osbourne, hoping for no more than to ingratiate themselves to the world's most avaricious criminals and despots.

Instead, as even the financial press is beginning to realise, it should run by people who recognise that the country has been driven into the ground and desperately needs reform. It is precisely because Labour now represents the spectre of actual change that the former are trying so frantically to discredit it.

I get the point of a democracy (kind of), I just don't ascribe as much power and influence to government ministers as you seem to. I mean even with probably the biggest idiot in American history in the White House, the US seems to be ticking along reasonably well. It hasn't ground to a half in a way you might imagine with such an idiot in charge.

Politicians just aren't 'that' influential. Jeremy Hunt gets a lot of stick, but whilst he will have a say in the budget given to the NHS, operationally it's run by Simon Stevens, with each trust run by their individual CEO. Indeed, the King's Fund recently suggested earlier this year that those Trust CEOs don't seem to have a great deal of influence either.

If it was as simple as it's being made out, all parts of the UK would perform roughly the same in terms of the NHS, but they don't. There is tremendous variance, both within England and between the four devolved administrations. In many ways that is my main beef with populists (apart from the obvious racism many of them exhibit). They nearly all project the problems their societies face as being incredibly easy to solve. All we need to do is elect them into office. It's about as believable as your average fairy tale.

It's also worth remembering that it's perfectly rational for politicians to a) over-inflate the problems they feel exist in society, b) over-inflate their power to fix whatever those problems are, and c) to completely discount external factors that contribute to their success, and pass the blame completely onto them for their failures. It's rational for politicians to do that, but I'm not sure it's rational for intelligent voters to believe them.

 

[Number_25]

Have you got a source for that? I had a look and couldn't find anything so would be interested in checking it out.

I'd recommend looking at the Action for Rail campaign groups website for material concerning ticket prices as I'm without decent internet connectivity at the moment.

 

[abelard]

I get the point of a democracy (kind of), I just don't ascribe as much power and influence to government ministers as you seem to. I mean even with probably the biggest idiot in American history in the White House, the US seems to be ticking along reasonably well. It hasn't ground to a half in a way you might imagine with such an idiot in charge.

Politicians just aren't 'that' influential. Jeremy Hunt gets a lot of stick, but whilst he will have a say in the budget given to the NHS, operationally it's run by Simon Stevens, with each trust run by their individual CEO. Indeed, the King's Fund recently suggested earlier this year that those Trust CEOs don't seem to have a great deal of influence either.

If it was as simple as it's being made out, all parts of the UK would perform roughly the same in terms of the NHS, but they don't. There is tremendous variance, both within England and between the four devolved administrations. In many ways that is my main beef with populists (apart from the obvious racism many of them exhibit). They nearly all project the problems their societies face as being incredibly easy to solve. All we need to do is elect them into office. It's about as believable as your average fairy tale.

It's also worth remembering that it's perfectly rational for politicians to a) over-inflate the problems they feel exist in society, b) over-inflate their power to fix whatever those problems are, and c) to completely discount external factors that contribute to their success, and pass the blame completely onto them for their failures. It's rational for politicians to do that, but I'm not sure it's rational for intelligent voters to believe them.

All fair points. It is not simply a matter of waiting in line for 15 minutes to cast a ballot every five years in order to make everything okay either. Policians can only acheive within the confines of whatever active support their constituencies bestow on upon them.

On the other hand, you only need to look at the damage the Tories have wrought in eight years to see how quick and substantial the impact can be.

The first benefit of a change in government here will along the lines of "first do no harm". No more awarding monopolies to often corrupt and certainly incompetent firms like Carillion, Capita, Virgin, ThamesWater - and so, so much more. Truly fixing the schools and hospitals will take clever policy reforms, and will require trial-and-error, and patience - but at the very least, we can provide them very quickly with the basic funding they require. That would be a start, and would go some distance toward giving more root-and-branch structural reforms a prayer of succeeding.

The rest will be more gradual. It will take some time to right the ship, and if you look beyond the panicky clickbait, it's clear that Labour understands this. I think you tend to confuse Labour's longterm vision with its short-term to-do list. They are not so much describing their five-month or even five-year plan, but rather, their idea of what a better society could and should look like, because as Hillary Clinton or the French Socialists (should have) learned, without a positive, inspiring vision, nobody bothers to turn out for you in the first place.

 

[peteblue]

If you compare prices (against total % of average wage) for privately vs publicly owned train services, you'll find that - on the most part - they tend to be far cheaper per customer.

Moreover, apart from the monetary concerns, through nationalising a number of vital services - you are giving back the power to the working man. As things stand, we the people own very little as far as property is concerned. We need to take back control of what's rightfully ours ~ and only then can be begin targetting the reasons as to why hate is able to proliferate.

Exactly what does that mean......

 

[magicjuan]

Exactly what does that mean......

It means a necessary, vital part of the nations infrastructure would operate for the benefit of that national infrastructure and not for minority profiteering.
There are profits to be made from supplying companies that provide components so it isn't totally anti capital.
It changes the immediate purpose.

 

[peteblue]

It means a necessary, vital part of the nations infrastructure would operate for the benefit of that national infrastructure and not for minority profiteering.
There are profits to be made from supplying companies that provide components so it isn't totally anti capital.
It changes the immediate purpose.

He didn’t say give the profits back to the common man, he said give the power back to the common man. The power to do what ?....

 

[magicjuan]

He didn’t say give the profits back to the common man, he said give the power back to the common man. The power to do what ?....

Reinvest the profits. It isn't that big a stretch for you. It creates employment, serves commerce, relieves benefit burdens, would have thought a conservative would welcome that, no?

 

[zzr45]

All fair points. It is not simply a matter of waiting in line for 15 minutes to cast a ballot every five years in order to make everything okay either. Policians can only acheive within the confines of whatever active support their constituencies bestow on upon them.

On the other hand, you only need to look at the damage the Tories have wrought in eight years to see how quick and substantial the impact can be.

The first benefit of a change in government here will along the lines of "first do no harm". No more awarding monopolies to often corrupt and certainly incompetent firms like Carillion, Capita, Virgin, ThamesWater - and so, so much more. Truly fixing the schools and hospitals will take clever policy reforms, and will require trial-and-error, and patience - but at the very least, we can provide them very quickly with the basic funding they require. That would be a start, and would go some distance toward giving more root-and-branch structural reforms a prayer of succeeding.

The rest will be more gradual. It will take some time to right the ship, and if you look beyond the panicky clickbait, it's clear that Labour understands this. I think you tend to confuse Labour's longterm vision with its short-term to-do list. They are not so much describing their five-month or even five-year plan, but rather, their idea of what a better society could and should look like, because as Hillary Clinton or the French Socialists (should have) learned, without a positive, inspiring vision, nobody bothers to turn out for you in the first place.

Question- why does ‘nationalisation’ always mean that we will escape terrible management and corruption exactly? These are sadly human conditions that will exist in any situation regardless of any overriding perceived political ‘good.’

There was just as much corruption, nepotism and shabbiness with nationalised companies as there is today In privatised firms. A friend of the family was made a manager of a British Steel plant back in the 70’s, in his own words he had exactly zero right to hold such a position, but knew the bloke who was doing the hiring from school so got the job. The fact that BS was used as a way for the governments of their day to artificially inflate employment figures (keeping perpetually loss making plants open to prevent mass unemployment in areas) is just as corrupt and arguably did more harm long term.

That said, I do actually support nationalising the railways. The European model has shown us the way forward in that respect. However, that enthusiasm is tempered in the knowledge that it would be subject to the same human nature issues as the current model and I’d probably have less say as a service user than I do currently.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Question- why does ‘nationalisation’ always mean that we will escape terrible management and corruption exactly? These are sadly human conditions that will exist in any situation regardless of any overriding perceived political ‘good.’

There was just as much corruption, nepotism and shabbiness with nationalised companies as there is today In privatised firms. A friend of the family was made a manager of a British Steel plant back in the 70’s, in his own words he had exactly zero right to hold such a position, but knew the bloke who was doing the hiring from school so got the job. The fact that BS was used as a way for the governments of their day to artificially inflate employment figures (keeping perpetually loss making plants open to prevent mass unemployment in areas) is just as corrupt and arguably did more harm long term.

That said, I do actually support nationalising the railways. The European model has shown us the way forward in that respect. However, that enthusiasm is tempered in the knowledge that it would be subject to the same human nature issues as the current model and I’d probably have less say as a service user than I do currently.

There does seem to be a huge amount of polarisation around the issue. Events like Mid-Staffs would be discounted as a lack of resources rather than poor management, whereas a Carillion is an example of a blood sucking parasite. The reality, as you say, is that there are sadly examples of poor management in both public and private organisations, and it isn't the fact that they're public or private that causes it.

It reminds me a bit of debates around welfare, with those on the right believing all/most welfare recipients are lazy sods who should get on their bike and pull themselves up by their bootstraps, whereas those on the left believe all/most are plucky strivers who would thrive if only they were given a chance and the system wasn't stacked against them. The reality is surely somewhere between the two and there will be individuals who fit into both camps, but a majority who are neither.