The Labour Party. All discussion here please

[Anna B]

36 minutes ago, Longcol said:

Article in the Guardian here;

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/20/labour-renationalisation-rail-water-energy-cost-benefits

 

Shall we say that they were sceptical.

It would have to be a gradual process. 

 

However it depends on whether you want Corporations running your lives and able to hold you to ransome, for shareholder's profit, or a democratically elected government who have the best interests of the country and its people at heart.

 

These things should never have been sold off in the first place. What happened to the money?

[Longcol]

2 minutes ago, Anna B said:

It would have to be a gradual process. 

 

However it depends on whether you want Corporations running your lives and able to hold you to ransome, for shareholder's profit, or a democratically elected government who have the best interests of the country and its people at heart.

 

These things should never have been sold off in the first place. What happened to the money?

You have a touching faith in what governments  prioritise.

 

The money from the privatisations from the 80's onward went to the Exchequer - some would argue they were used to offset tax cuts.

[Robin-H]

10 hours ago, Anna B said:

It would have to be a gradual process. 

 

However it depends on whether you want Corporations running your lives and able to hold you to ransome, for shareholder's profit, or a democratically elected government who have the best interests of the country and its people at heart.

 

These things should never have been sold off in the first place. What happened to the money?

I’m happy with my water. I’m happy with my energy. I’m happy with Royal Mail. I’m reletively happy with my trains. 

 

I dont want the government ruining that, and borrowing billions upon billions, damaging our economy,  in the process.. 

[andyofborg]

26 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

I’m happy with my water. I’m happy with my energy. I’m happy with Royal Mail. I’m reletively happy with my trains. 

 

I dont want the government ruining that, and borrowing billions upon billions, damaging our economy,  in the process.. 

but you might be even happier with them back under state control. 

 

depending how it's done then it might not involve borrowing billions upon billions, or damaging the economy. 

[Robin-H]

25 minutes ago, andyofborg said:

but you might be even happier with them back under state control. 

 

depending how it's done then it might not involve borrowing billions upon billions, or damaging the economy. 

Why would I risk that? 

 

The government does not have a good track record managing anything, there is absolutely no evidence that things would magically be better under state control, indeed the only evidence we have (past experience) suggests things would be worse. 

 

How could it be done without borrowing billions and billions? Perhaps you could tell Labour, as they intend to borrow.. 

[andyofborg]

18 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

Why would I risk that? 

 

The government does not have a good track record managing anything, there is absolutely no evidence that things would magically be better under state control, indeed the only evidence we have (past experience) suggests things would be worse. 

 

How could it be done without borrowing billions and billions? Perhaps you could tell Labour, as they intend to borrow.. 

what's life without risk

 

rail could be taken back into state control as an when the franchises end and so would cost next to nothing.

 

51 percent of royal mail could be bought for a couple of billion, which is petty cash in government terms.

 

the rest, might need a bit of borrowing or a lot of borrowing depending on whether you but 100% back or 51% back or replace shares with bonds. 

 

far more important than the money is what is the plan once they are back in state ownership.

 

how will the utilities be managed? 

will the management be largely free of government interference?

what will be the strategy for investment, how will it be funded?

will profits be returned to consumers in terms of lower prices or taken by the Treasury or both?

 

[ANGELFIRE1]

1 hour ago, andyofborg said:

what's life without risk

 

rail could be taken back into state control as an when the franchises end and so would cost next to nothing.

 

51 percent of royal mail could be bought for a couple of billion, which is petty cash in government terms.

 

the rest, might need a bit of borrowing or a lot of borrowing depending on whether you but 100% back or 51% back or replace shares with bonds. 

 

far more important than the money is what is the plan once they are back in state ownership.

 

how will the utilities be managed? 

will the management be largely free of government interference?

what will be the strategy for investment, how will it be funded?

will profits be returned to consumers in terms of lower prices or taken by the Treasury or both?

 

If Liebour was the Government of the day and were going to implement the Nationalisation of the Utilities,  the Railways and whatever else they could lay hands on, the solution to the monetary problem would be quite simple, step forward Diane Abbott the doyen of the abacus. 

 

Angel1.

[the_bloke]

6 hours ago, andyofborg said:

rail could be taken back into state control as an when the franchises end and so would cost next to nothing.

The only thing the government would own in that situation is the right to run trains on a particular set of routes. They won't own any trains or have any employees. The cost of rehiring employees and buying back trains from the outgoing franchise holder isn't going to cost next to nothing.

 

As an example, all the station staff at Sheffield are EMT employees. If EMT franchise is allowed to expire, the state will have to re-employ them all. That's not free. The EMT trains that service the station will need to be purchased by the Government, if they are able to do so. I can't imagine EMT doing any sort of favourable deal when selling their own trains to the very Government that's forcing them to sell them can you? 

[andyofborg]

25 minutes ago, the_bloke said:

The only thing the government would own in that situation is the right to run trains on a particular set of routes. They won't own any trains or have any employees. The cost of rehiring employees and buying back trains from the outgoing franchise holder isn't going to cost next to nothing.

 

As an example, all the station staff at Sheffield are EMT employees. If EMT franchise is allowed to expire, the state will have to re-employ them all. That's not free. The EMT trains that service the station will need to be purchased by the Government, if they are able to do so. I can't imagine EMT doing any sort of favourable deal when selling their own trains to the very Government that's forcing them to sell them can you? 

employeed would most likely be transferred under the TUPE regulations. 

 

the trains are mostly leased by the franchisees, on privatisation in 1994 the existing passenger rolling stock was split up between three companies since then a number of smaller companies have sprung up and some rolling stock is still owed by the government. 

 

I imagine either the government would either continue to lease the trains or privatise the rolling stock companies.

 

everything else is already owned by the state in the guise of Network Rail.

[tinfoilhat]

Why do we need to spend billions on renationalising Royal Mail? It’s going to need a big chunk of money to get it up to scratch.  Letters are becoming less and less and parcels can be done better by half a dozen other companies (and just as badly by a few others). Waste of time and money.

 

Railways, I’m not sure about. Unless they’re going to pump umpteen billions into that after buying it, we’re still running on old tracks with a lot of old rolling stock that I, and millions of others just don’t use. And if they do invest in stuff, where’s that money going to go to - crossrail 6 or electrifying midland main line. Answers on a used train ticket.....