Labour Party plots overthrow of capitalism

[pp05]

This is what the "nationalise everything" brigade do not understand. Often, the private sector can provide a better service and make a profit because it is generally more efficient.

For the public sector we want effectiveness.

[atemporal]

Omg, the land registry was self-sustaining and making a net profit for the treasury. it was well run as a public service, there was no need to sell if off.
Ditto the British Geological Society, Ordnance Survey, Environment Agency and half the others the tories have meddled with recently. Sometimes private companies are not the best thing. Take power generation - no company is planning long-term strategic power generation for the UK. Not one, with a holistic view. And when Blair called them all in to ask what they were doing about impending brown outs they all said it was the government's job! (Thatcher or Major abolished the gov dept that was supposed to be doing that IIRC). So yeah, private efficiency. Not needed and not necessarily true. Bottom line in public service does not always give the best value for money. Some things need a sensible approach, as a SERVICE than profit driven "is it worth it" mentality.

[wazzickle]

Even the economist thinks that capitalism is broken:

https://www.economist.com/leaders/20...ist-revolution

[Lanky123]

Omg, the land registry was self-sustaining and making a net profit for the treasury. it was well run as a public service, there was no need to sell if off.
Ditto the British Geological Society, Ordnance Survey, Environment Agency and half the others the tories have meddled with recently. Sometimes private companies are not the best thing. Take power generation - no company is planning long-term strategic power generation for the UK. Not one, with a holistic view. And when Blair called them all in to ask what they were doing about impending brown outs they all said it was the government's job! (Thatcher or Major abolished the gov dept that was supposed to be doing that IIRC). So yeah, private efficiency. Not needed and not necessarily true. Bottom line in public service does not always give the best value for money. Some things need a sensible approach, as a SERVICE than profit driven "is it worth it" mentality.

This is generally what comes of two party political systems with effectively 'winner takes all' elections every few years. A massive rush to bulldoze as many dogmatic policy changes through as possible before the other lot get a chance to undo any of it.

Heaven forbid we ever end up with a PR electoral system where coalitions are common and actual negotiation has to take place to find some sensible middle ground.

[spacein_vader]

This is generally what comes of two party political systems with effectively 'winner takes all' elections every few years. A massive rush to bulldoze as many dogmatic policy changes through as possible before the other lot get a chance to undo any of it.

Heaven forbid we ever end up with a PR electoral system where coalitions are common and actual negotiation has to take place to find some sensible middle ground.

Cannot happen soon enough. Sadly the vested interests of the red & blue parties will probably ensure it doesn't happen, unless brexit forces one/both to splinter.

It would actually help them, there is no reason you couldn't for example have a tory-brexit party & a Tory-remain party (not with those names obviously,) and labour equivalents. They'd vote together on things they agree on like economic policy and separately on things like the EU. It would mean an end to MPs with radically different views ending up in the same catch all party and give each party a more closely defined and meaningful indentity.

The fact that Corbyn and Blair were both labour MPs at the same time is a good example. They have very little in common.

[Corky34]

Didn't we have a chance to change it a while back, i can't remember much about it other than the slating it received at the hands of the media and being fairly sure people wouldn't vote for it because they were told no one understood it.

[spacein_vader]

Didn't we have a chance to change it a while back, i can't remember much about it other than the slating it received at the hands of the media and being fairly sure people wouldn't vote for it because they were told no one understood it.

Yes. The Lib Dems made it a condition of the coalition for there to be a referendum. The Tories cleverly killed it by only allowing a system nobody really wanted (single transferable vote iirc,) on the ballot and publicising it as little as possible.

[peterb]

I hope you've enjoyed your Conservative Government!

Probably more than you are enjoying your Trump/Republican Government!

[Zak33]

Probably more than you are enjoying your Trump/Republican Government!

that...with bells on

[Ttaskmaster]

Omg, the land registry was self-sustaining and making a net profit for the treasury. it was well run as a public service, there was no need to sell if off. Ditto the British Geological Society, Ordnance Survey, Environment Agency and half the others the tories have meddled with recently.

Technically, so were many other entities that were publicly funded (including most under-funded ones), but that was still public-sector borrowing. Privatisation was intended to raise revenues in already profitable sectors and so reduce public borrowing.

For the most part, it did well enough and many of teh services you now enjoy would never have been possible under nationalisation. It would have been much better too, had Labour not widely implemented Private Finance Initiative, an enterprise the Tories had already decided was a bad idea...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-good-bad-ugly

Take power generation - no company is planning long-term strategic power generation for the UK. Not one, with a holistic view.

Well, we're water not power (yet, but I am saving up for a Challenger tank and a Lori Petty outfit just in case), but we are already gearing up to massively increase our own power generation plants by 2150...

Thatcher or Major abolished the gov dept that was supposed to be doing that IIRC

You mean Ofgem?
Nope. They might regulate it, but the service providers were responsible for providing service.

So yeah, private efficiency.

Fine, renationalise everything.
You'll get your repairs done in 6-12 months, rather than 15 days.
You'll also be paying more taxes, sit well behind the rest of the world in progress and innovation, and your pension funds (which are so often invested in stable, profitable private service companies) will take a bowel-churning nose-dive.

Enjoy.....

[Corky34]

...but that was still public-sector borrowing.

A sovereign fiat currency issuer can't borrow money so technically neither can the public-sector, at least not at the national government level.

And before anyone jumps down my throat I'm not saying the issuing of loadsamoney doesn't come with consequences.

[Ttaskmaster]

A sovereign fiat currency issuer can't borrow money so technically neither can the public-sector, at least not at the national government level.

You sure?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public...ng_requirement

Just before privatisation, local authorities were responsible for public utilities and the like... mostly, anyway.
Water was split between numerous local authorities, join boards and private companies, funded by government investment and subsidy. Almost 200 separate service undertakers!
This resulted in ten regional authorities taking over, which were later privatised to enable revenue without impacting public funds.

[TeePee]

Probably more than you are enjoying your Trump/Republican Government!

Fair..

What really worries me is that the Democratic Party here in the US is putting all it's effort in to criticizing Trump, and very little into advancing their own party. There's even a suggestion that Hillary might run again in 2020. We could have four more years of Trump. Trump is the result of the same First Past The Post Electoral system, that divides into two parties and pushes both toward the extremes, combined with dishonest media that has become purely political mouthpieces.

[Corky34]

You sure?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public...ng_requirement

Yes, I'm sure.

It's a bit to complex to explain in a single post but a good starting point would be reading the modern monetary theory wiki entry, an article on The Conversation, or the BoE explanation on how money is 'created', it basically boils down to loans creating money and not the other way around, if the governments accounts are in the red to the sum of £1tn that means the whole of the private sector are in the black by the same £1tn.

Just before privatisation, local authorities were responsible for public utilities and the like... mostly, anyway.
Water was split between numerous local authorities, join boards and private companies, funded by government investment and subsidy. Almost 200 separate service undertakers!
This resulted in ten regional authorities taking over, which were later privatised to enable revenue without impacting public funds.

There's no such thing as 'public funds', at least not on the national level. A sovereign fiat currency issuer can always pay for whatever it wants, it's as simple as a typing a few numbers on a computer, it's exactly what they did when they embarked on QE after the 08 crash.

[Ttaskmaster]

[QUOTE=Corky34;4041839]Yes, I'm sure.

It's a bit to complex to explain in a single post but a good starting point would be reading the article on The Conversation

Yeah, which says: "Modern monetary theory is an approach to economic management developed since the 1990s"

I'm talking about pre-privatisation in the early 1970s, not modern economics!!!!!

"PSBR occurs when expenditures for the government activities in the public sector of the economy exceed the income. The resulting deficit is then financed by borrowing funds from the public"
^ This, the difficulty in getting board consensus on government funding and the restrictions on external borrowing, combined with a rise in European standards, is what led to the UK being prosecuted for noncompliance of drinking water quality regs in the European Court of Justice in 1985, and a subsequent backlog of almost £30 billion... which had to be raised through privatised revenue.

There's no such thing as 'public funds', at least not on the national level.

And on the local level?
What about the local level?
Are there any public funds on the local level?
You know, local level, for local people, local government, local services, local stuff?

Once again, this was not national government, at least not on the national level.
This was many layers of LOCAL government, district councils, parishes and whatever, combined with some private companies.

A sovereign fiat currency issuer can always pay for whatever it wants, it's as simple as a typing a few numbers on a computer

We didn't have computers like that in 1973....

[Zak33]

You know, local level, for local people, local government, local services, local stuff?

Once again, this was not national government, at least not on the national level.
This was many layers of LOCAL government, district councils, parishes and whatever, combined with some private companies.


We didn't have computers like that in 1973....

this is quite a good point. Back then it was more local level and it was done in much older systems