Current Affairs The General Election

[dannyboy]

In reality though, that's much easier said than done because to have equality of service you need the same quality of people working in each of those places, and it's sadly a reality that some places are far more attractive to live in than others.

They are but teachers can and do commute into more deprived areas. I think the problem is recruitment itself. If you do extremely well at university and are ambitious, do you consider a career in teaching as a credible, rewarding option for the money on offer? You pay average wages, you miss out on a lot of talent.

 

[The binman chronicles]

Well, no. If we are talking about basic economic principles, I'd have thought the most basic one is that if you own a thing then you can make money out of it (either over time or by selling it); build a house for instance and someone will probably pay you to either live in it or buy it and if that is more than it cost you to build, you are making money.

What Labour are planning to do is to buy up (or create) assets, which is a far more sensible policy than paying other people to use theirs. This is after all why privatization of things the government needs has resulted in government spending going up, not down, and why every adult in the entire country knows that buying a house makes far more economic sense than renting.

Quite agree with houses, there is obviously good spending and bad spending that is non recoverable but obviously required in terms of social care. We'll have to see the full details to see what they intend to do but given the scale of what they have indicated and what was promised before it is going to be hard to balance the books. I could leverage myself with as many assets as possible but if I buy at the wrong point and then I'm forced to sell later from a point of weakness then it is still easy to be down overall.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Well, no. If we are talking about basic economic principles, I'd have thought the most basic one is that if you own a thing then you can make money out of it (either over time or by selling it); build a house for instance and someone will probably pay you to either live in it or buy it and if that is more than it cost you to build, you are making money.

What Labour are planning to do is to buy up (or create) assets, which is a far more sensible policy than paying other people to use theirs. This is after all why privatization of things the government needs has resulted in government spending going up, not down, and why every adult in the entire country knows that buying a house makes far more economic sense than renting.

History suggests that isn't what happens though, and nationalisation is often a political move to prop up what is a failing and loss-making enterprise. Indeed, the argument from supporters is that those losses are a burden the tax payer can bare because the alternative is various people being out of work.

That was the whole narrative from the 80s, with the Tories adopting a 'no lame duck' approach, and the Labour the opposite. You can, of course, argue that the Tories didn't do this well, and left many communities in a terrible state, but the notion that businesses are nationalised so the tax payer can reap the profits doesn't seem to have much evidence to support it.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

They are but teachers can and do commute into more deprived areas. I think the problem is recruitment itself. If you do extremely well at university and are ambitious, do you consider a career in teaching as a credible, rewarding option for the money on offer? You pay average wages, you miss out on a lot of talent.

Ditto nurses, which is perhaps why the Tories announced a special 'nhs visa' this week. The job is horrendously stressful, often involves unsociable hours, and the pay is rubbish. Having lived with the missus and her travails in the NHS over the past decade, it's not a profession I'd recommend to anyone.

 

[Jebus_lives]

Just think, in five years time we might be unlucky enough to hear Pete decry that the 1.3 trillion that Boris has cost the country is cheap compared to what Corbyn would have cost it.

'i only agree with economic estimates when they're made up by the daily mail'.

 

[tsubaki]

History suggests that isn't what happens though, and nationalisation is often a political move to prop up what is a failing and loss-making enterprise. Indeed, the argument from supporters is that those losses are a burden the tax payer can bare because the alternative is various people being out of work.

That was the whole narrative from the 80s, with the Tories adopting a 'no lame duck' approach, and the Labour the opposite. You can, of course, argue that the Tories didn't do this well, and left many communities in a terrible state, but the notion that businesses are nationalised so the tax payer can reap the profits doesn't seem to have much evidence to support it.

That is a bit backwards, Bruce. As you say, firms were loss making before nationalisation, often as the direct or indirect result of government policy (ie: shipbuilding or the railway) or managerial incompetence (cars or the steel industry).

Then the government comes along and invests / rationalizes (as King did for BA, or as British Steel did), resulting in a firm which is now not loss-making - however because it was then sold off, usually cheaply, the government didn't see much benefit from it.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

That is a bit backwards, Bruce. As you say, firms were loss making before nationalisation, often as the direct or indirect result of government policy (ie: shipbuilding or the railway) or managerial incompetence (cars or the steel industry).

Then the government comes along and invests / rationalizes (as King did for BA, or as British Steel did), resulting in a firm which is now not loss-making - however because it was then sold off, usually cheaply, the government didn't see much benefit from it.

That's one way of looking at it.

 

[tsubaki]

That's one way of looking at it.

It is the CBI way of looking at it; its the one bit of Labour policy they heartily agree with (probably because they think they would be able to do the 80s all over again further down the line).

 

[Bruce Wayne]

It is the CBI way of looking at it; its the one bit of Labour policy they heartily agree with (probably because they think they would be able to do the 80s all over again further down the line).

Are we supposed to agree with the CBI now or not? I forget.

 

[tsubaki]

Are we supposed to agree with the CBI now or not? I forget.

only when they confess

 

[Jebus_lives]

History suggests that isn't what happens though, and nationalisation is often a political move to prop up what is a failing and loss-making enterprise. Indeed, the argument from supporters is that those losses are a burden the tax payer can bare because the alternative is various people being out of work.

That was the whole narrative from the 80s, with the Tories adopting a 'no lame duck' approach, and the Labour the opposite. You can, of course, argue that the Tories didn't do this well, and left many communities in a terrible state, but the notion that businesses are nationalised so the tax payer can reap the profits doesn't seem to have much evidence to support it.

It's often used as a political tool, which I think is where the problems arise from - on both sides.

Regardless of whether services are in public or private ownership, they still need the same requirements to work successfully: long-term sensible asset management and investment, sensible constructive regulation, high quality governance, accountability etc

Objectively, there seems to be some sense in nationalisation of some services, rail for example, whereas less sense for nationalisation of others like water where although currently the government would be buying a profit making asset the longer term investment is more complicated.

 

[summerisle]

Stuff like this will hurt Labour much more than any faux scandal and is the reason why you can't promise to do too much inside a term or two.

View attachment 71129

Mind you the Tories aren't a lot better with their spend to win amongst a backdrop of brexit wrecking the economy but still. You don't need to hand your enemies knives to inflict you more pain.

Stuff like this will hurt Labour much more than any faux scandal and is the reason why you can't promise to do too much inside a term or two.

View attachment 71129

Mind you the Tories aren't a lot better with their spend to win amongst a backdrop of brexit wrecking the economy but still. You don't need to hand your enemies knives to inflict you more pain.

 

[tsubaki]

It's often used as a political tool, which I think is where the problems arise from - on both sides.

Regardless of whether services are in public or private ownership, they still need the same requirements to work successfully: long-term sensible asset management and investment, sensible constructive regulation, high quality governance, accountability etc

Objectively, there seems to be some sense in nationalisation of some services, rail for example, whereas less sense for nationalisation of others like water where although currently the government would be buying a profit making asset the longer term investment is more complicated.

With regards to the utilities, the taxpayer is usually the one on the end of it even with the firms in the private sector.

 

[Jebus_lives]

With regards to the utilities, the taxpayer is usually the one on the end of it even with the firms in the private sector.

Sorry I don't follow this. On the end of what?

 

[scratchnsurf]

As the Finnish will tell ya, it's the teachers that often make the difference, especially in working class communities that haven't always valued education a great deal.

That's because the Finnish properly train and reward their teachers (and other education professionals) throughout their careers and - wait for it - they trust them to lead the education system forwards instead of having politicians constantly interfering according to whatever their latest whim is.