UK Politics: Post-May Edition

[Philokles]

Certainly news to me that I'm on the hard left.

[Lyanna Stark]

16 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Yes I would definitely call moving core industries into the public sector and advocating high taxation big state policies as an extreme left position. It's the furthest left labour has been for decades, maybe any party has been. 

Maybe I am mistaken here, but from what I understood the "core industries" you are referring to here are rail, energy and post, yes? I am unsure how re-nationalising these, which were to my understanding previously national assets and more functional while being so, is an extreme left position. To me, it seems these wishes for what very clearly are services needed for the common good to be re-nationalised is about going back to a more sensible position. 

The tax increases also don't seem like something extreme; in fact, I found them rather modest. The suggestions I have seen are in other words run of the mill socialdemocratic policies. The fact that Labour under Tony Blair wasn't like this is a sign that socialdemocratic parties moved rightwards for 20 years, without actual support to do so from the public. Generally, when asked, people like nationalised rail, post services, and energy providers, along with things like the NHS and a robust public school system.

Further, a properly maintained national rail system is a huge cost saving measure for industry. Both for transportation of goods and people, it is vital infrastructure.

EDIT: there is also a very good reason why direct rail maintenance responsibility has already been moved back under Network rail.

[Isis]

1 hour ago, Lyanna Stark said:

The tax increases also don't seem like something extreme; in fact, I found them rather modest. The suggestions I have seen are in other words run of the mill socialdemocratic policies. The fact that Labour under Tony Blair wasn't like this is a sign that socialdemocratic parties moved rightwards for 20 years, without actual support to do so from the public. Generally, when asked, people like nationalised rail, post services, and energy providers, along with things like the NHS and a robust public school system.

Pretty much this. What short memories people have.

[Egalitarianism Always]

BT has got the government to pay for broadband infrastructure from the start, the most recent being the rural broadband upgrade.  BT is meant to be a privatized company, yet it charges other broadband companies to use an infrastructure built with public purse money.  So public money in and private profit out.

North sea oil and gas, Norway nationalized this natural resource in 1972, while the UK privatized BP.   Norway has annual oil revenues of around £30 billion, and boasts a vibrant and diversified economy that spreads prosperity widely within the society.  While the UK gave an average of £5.9bn worth of subsidies a year to fossil-fuel firms such as BP and Shell in 2013 and 2014 for pipe production and tax breaks.

[mormont]

One year on from Jo Cox being murdered in the street.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-40293045

As a moment to reflect on politics in the UK over the last year, it's depressing. We have learned nothing, and the political situation now is, incredibly, much worse.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

3 hours ago, Lyanna Stark said:

Maybe I am mistaken here, but from what I understood the "core industries" you are referring to here are rail, energy and post, yes? I am unsure how re-nationalising these, which were to my understanding previously national assets and more functional while being so, is an extreme left position. To me, it seems these wishes for what very clearly are services needed for the common good to be re-nationalised is about going back to a more sensible position. 

 

Yes in comparison to anything the main parties have proposed in decades its a very heavy left position. I find it odd you don't consider it so to be honest, seeing as how a big public sector, large government is very much a socialist position. 

As to whether those industries were more functional when nationalised, well there is a lot that could be written about that, and much debate. Personally I am old enough to remember a time when these things were far more in the public sector than they are now and I can tell you they were FAR from functional, in fact privatisation has improved most of these services massively in many ways. Of course these services are far from perfect now as well, but partly that is down to HOW privatisation occurred, which I think was handled very badly at the time and hasn't really been fixed since.

Having National Rail as a public entity in control of the infrastructure hasn't really worked, and they are responsible for many of the delays we are seeing now as well. 


 

 

3 hours ago, Lyanna Stark said:

The tax increases also don't seem like something extreme; in fact, I found them rather modest. The suggestions I have seen are in other words run of the mill socialdemocratic policies. The fact that Labour under Tony Blair wasn't like this is a sign that socialdemocratic parties moved rightwards for 20 years, without actual support to do so from the public. Generally, when asked, people like nationalised rail, post services, and energy providers, along with things like the NHS and a robust public school system.

True the tax rises don't seem that extreme right now, although I'd suggest the corp tax increase is a pretty bad idea for any number of reasons. I don't think they would however stop there, there is clearly an urge to create a higher tax society and to make the rich pay for it, which of course sounds great to most people, but in reality probably won't actually happen and won't work.

Just because a lot of people want something, doesn't mean its the right thing to do. A lot of people wanted to bring back hanging for a while, we got Brexit.. we got Trump. If recent events have taught us anything its that the general public are easily manipulated and don't put a great deal of thought into what they believe. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Isis said:

Pretty much this. What short memories people have.

New Labour were very much centrist, which is what got them elected and kept them in power. Towards the end they had actually become a bit more left of centre and had in some ways created a bossy nanny state, but still it was the practical centrist position they took which mean that many people would vote for them. 

[Isis]

16 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

 
Just because a lot of people want something, doesn't mean its the right thing to do. A lot of people wanted to bring back hanging for a while, we got Brexit.. we got Trump. If recent events have taught us anything its that the general public are easily manipulated and don't put a great deal of thought into what they believe.

While I absolutely agree with your initial statement there, I don't think it is really fair to compare hanging with wanting a nationalised rail service. The latter is about doing something which is intended to have benefits for everyone in the country, the former is about the appropriate way in  which to punish someone for a particular crime.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

2 minutes ago, Isis said:

While I absolutely agree with your initial statement there, I don't think it is really fair to compare hanging with wanting a nationalised rail service. The latter is about doing something which is intended to have benefits for everyone in the country, the former is about the appropriate way in  which to punish someone for a particular crime.

well both I would consider to heavily based on emotions rather than anything else for most people, which is why I'd group them together. 

[mormont]

32 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

As to whether those industries were more functional when nationalised, well there is a lot that could be written about that, and much debate. Personally I am old enough to remember a time when these things were far more in the public sector than they are now and I can tell you they were FAR from functional, in fact privatisation has improved most of these services massively in many ways.

I'm old enough to remember when rail, energy and mail were in public ownership too, and this assertion just baffles me. How - specifically in what ways - has privatisation improved the railways? How is the post better now than it was? Energy is arguable, at best, but at least it is arguable. The other two? I can think of no objective measure by which those privatisations have improved service to the public. No, they weren't perfect when they were publicly owned. But how are they better now?

 

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

9 minutes ago, mormont said:

I'm old enough to remember when rail, energy and mail were in public ownership too, and this assertion just baffles me. How - specifically in what ways - has privatisation improved the railways? How is the post better now than it was? Energy is arguable, at best, but at least it is arguable. The other two? I can think of no objective measure by which those privatisations have improved service to the public. No, they weren't perfect when they were publicly owned. But how are they better now?

 

Well I rememeber a time when there were barely any services in many areas, there were constant rail strikes, dirty trains in poor condition and poor quality rolling stock. Now the sheer amount of rail journeys is up massively, even compared to other countries with comparable growth rates.

Of course I still think trains in this country are hugely over priced and not great, but I don't believe it was better in the 70's or early 80's at all (though obviously cheaper) , and I'd say nationalising it again is a backwards step

[Jo498]

This might be simplifying a lot but a main problem with privatizations is that companies get handed (often natural) monopolies where in addition there is not all that much one can improve in terms of efficiency or innovation. (E.g. the fastest practical trains seem to be the TGV and the Shinkansen and this tech is >30 years old and since then there has been no breakthrough that would make them faster or cheaper.) But if the service is run by a nationalized company there is no pressure to earn a lot of money, so the the service can be offered more cheaply. There can also be plausible considerations of justice (in a broad sense) because the service is financed and run publicly. E.g. one can keep some little towns connected to the railway system although this particular station costs more than it would be worth if someone wanted to make money with the railway.

The main presupposition for privatization to improve things is that despite having to make a profit, there will be such huge gains in efficiency that the service improves and/or becomes cheaper. I think the overwhelming experience in many countries has proved this wrong.

[mormont]

34 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Well I rememeber a time when there were barely any services in many areas

I remember that time too, it's now.

34 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

, there were constant rail strikes

This has nothing to do with privatisation.

34 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

, dirty trains in poor condition and poor quality rolling stock.

Again, now.

These things have not improved because of privatisation. None of them relate to the mail service, or even energy, only rail. I assume you have nothing to say about mail services, so we can drop that one from the list?

34 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Of course I still think trains in this country are hugely over priced and not great, but I don't believe it was better in the 70's or early 80's at all (though obviously cheaper) , and I'd say nationalising it again is a backwards step

But your case was not that things haven't changed. It was that they've got 'massively' better.

Quote

in fact privatisation has improved most of these services massively in many ways.

 

[Lyanna Stark]

46 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Well I rememeber a time when there were barely any services in many areas, there were constant rail strikes, dirty trains in poor condition and poor quality rolling stock. Now the sheer amount of rail journeys is up massively, even compared to other countries with comparable growth rates.

Of course I still think trains in this country are hugely over priced and not great, but I don't believe it was better in the 70's or early 80's at all (though obviously cheaper) , and I'd say nationalising it again is a backwards step

This seems to be to be a very difficult thing to compare straight up, and rather like apples and oranges, since the amount of rail journeys will be dependent on factors like how the job market is working, how hard/easy it is to reach destinations by car, petrol prices, capacity of the rail network, population density and a number of other factors which can vary a lot across different countries and areas. Growth rate vs rail journeys must be seen as a poor measurement on whether or not the rail services in a country are well functioning.

Further, privatisation in itself will not solve problems with a service, that is generally where regulation and development come in. (Both of which can be successfully executed by public sector, too. Often more so, in my experience of having spent the last 6-7 years working public sector.)

I'm unsure why you think re-nationalising the railways again would be a backwards step when you at the same time agree the privatisation was poorly done. Further, you also agree prices have gone up, which to most people is a very important factor.

(For the record, I used to commute into London on Southern and it was certainly an...interesting experience.)

 

Re: Tax question

If I am understanding you correctly here, you sort of agree that the tax hikes suggested aren't that steep, but that some slippery slope function of this hike will mean further tax increases down the road? Don't you think this may be somewhat premature to worry about?

I'm also confused why you label this type of politics "socialist", since that seems to indicate we're looking at the very left flank of the left. In my mind, and from history, this is pretty standard socialdemocratic policy. What makes you label it "socialist" instead of "socialdemocratic"?

 

 

[Hereward]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

I'm old enough to remember when rail, energy and mail were in public ownership too, and this assertion just baffles me. How - specifically in what ways - has privatisation improved the railways? 

More trains, more routes, more passengers, more punctual, better customer service, fewer accidents, less drain on the Treasury. And actually, the ticket price rises are less now than they were it was nationalised. Is that enough to be going on with?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/15/nostalgia-british-rail-trains-better

 

 

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

32 minutes ago, Hereward said:

More trains, more routes, more passengers, more punctual, better customer service, fewer accidents, less drain on the Treasury. And actually, the ticket price rises are less now than they were it was nationalised. Is that enough to be going on with?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/15/nostalgia-british-rail-trains-better

 

 

Thanks. A good article, and its on the Guardian! I agree with its premise, that privatisation was poorly implemented but the idea of putting the rail industry into the private sector was essentially a good idea. I mean the first rail companies in the UK were all private enterprises, but were bought up by the government. 

Jo makes a very good point about some of the main problems here, is that these industries often are natural monopolies and it can be hard to nurture competition when only one company owns all rail lines in one area. That doesn't make it impossible however. 

 

46 minutes ago, mormont said:

 

These things have not improved because of privatisation. None of them relate to the mail service, or even energy, only rail. I assume you have nothing to say about mail services, so we can drop that one from the list?

 

 

I'll ignore most of your post as we basically have differing experiences of the past which means we will not agree. On the Royal Mail issue, again I think the way it was privatised was poorly handled, which says a lot about those who implement these changes. But a similar trend is that Royal Mail was not in good shape prior to privatisation either, there were numerous complaints about the service and it was held in low regard by many. I saw many tv shows in the 2000's exposing the terrible practices staff were caught doing. 
But we are now in 2017, and mail is becoming less and less relevant. We now have numerous private firms providing excellent delivery services for parcels. There is no reason we couldn't privatise the whole thing.
 

43 minutes ago, Lyanna Stark said:

 

Further, privatisation in itself will not solve problems with a service, that is generally where regulation and development come in. (Both of which can be successfully executed by public sector, too. Often more so, in my experience of having spent the last 6-7 years working public sector.)

 

We have different experiences then. I too have worked with the public sector and I am often flabbergasted by the lack of efficiency and the motivations behind decisions. Instead of a concern about saving money, often managers are concerned that they spend all of their budget so they will get the same level next year. I've seen it time and again with different areas. Not to mention the inflexible structures and rigid bureaucracy I encountered.  I mostly have very little confidence in the public sector to get most things done. 

But yes I do believe that a privatisation done well would work far better than giving up and just shoving it all back into the public sector. We actually haven't fulled privatised the whole thing, we still have National Rail under public control and its the cause of many issues on its own. 

[Lyanna Stark]

5 minutes ago, Hereward said:

More trains, more routes, more passengers, more punctual, better customer service, fewer accidents, less drain on the Treasury. And actually, the ticket price rises are less now than they were it was nationalised. Is that enough to be going on with?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/15/nostalgia-british-rail-trains-better

 

 

That is an interesting opinion piece, and he makes some good points, but then he shoots himself in the foot, too. He says " It was crippled by decades of under-investment, driving up fares and driving away freight". This is, however, not something that is automatically solved by privatisation. That the national rail systems in the UK and elsewhere haven't been kept in good repair or developed is the fault of politicians and leadership,  and is not a public sector/private sector issue.

This linked article (which I interestingly had read before for some reason, and it is also an opinion piece) points to a different type of measurement to get at whether rail services have improved or not. He points out that prices compared to wage increase paints a very different picture than comparing to GDP increase or inflation, and to issues of inflated hidden subsidiaries to the train operating companies.

I'd say none of them gets at the whole truth, but it certainly seems to me putting the entire success down as "due to privatisation" is an oversimplification. (Similarly blaming everything on privatisation is also an oversimplification). Measuring the complex effects of infrastructure functionality, its construction and maintenance, in a geographical area is a very difficult task. Neither of the opinion pieces take into account technical development, strides in regulation and the effects of digitalisation, which are all major factors to take into account when asking why fewer accidents happen, why trains are more punctual etc. Clearly we have far superior technology now to track every train set across complex geometrical networks that was not available 25 years ago, enabling far better logistics and planning, and which also helps preventing accidents. Not to mention that the trains themselves today are far more technically advanced than a couple of decades ago.

 

[Hereward]

8 minutes ago, Lyanna Stark said:

That is an interesting opinion piece, and he makes some good points, but then he shoots himself in the foot, too. He says " It was crippled by decades of under-investment, driving up fares and driving away freight". This is, however, not something that is automatically solved by privatisation. That the national rail systems in the UK and elsewhere haven't been kept in good repair or developed is the fault of politicians and leadership,  and is not a public sector/private sector issue.

 

I think it is a public/private issue, at least in the UK. Private sector companies cannot afford not to invest. The public sector always cuts investment when the economy or the public finances are under pressure, because the saving is available now, but the impact won't be felt until someone else is in charge. 

Edit: If the opinion piece isn't enough, try this one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_the_privatisation_of_British_Rail

[Lyanna Stark]

5 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

We have different experiences then. I too have worked with the public sector and I am often flabbergasted by the lack of efficiency and the motivations behind decisions. Instead of a concern about saving money, often managers are concerned that they spend all of their budget so they will get the same level next year. I've seen it time and again with different areas. Not to mention the inflexible structures and rigid bureaucracy I encountered.  I mostly have very little confidence in the public sector to get most things done. 

But yes I do believe that a privatisation done well would work far better than giving up and just shoving it all back into the public sector. We actually haven't fulled privatised the whole thing, we still have National Rail under public control and its the cause of many issues on its own. 

Yes, of course, this initially flabbergasted me too. But then once you think about it, this is not the fault of public sector, but how it is managed, since you often get penalised for running your department efficiently. It's silly and stupid, and the fault of the higher up management that this is the case. Of course, once you swap leadership this issue can go away (I saw it go away, as a matter of fact. Competent leadership is a wonderful thing.)

I might add here I work *in* public sector. Technical/construction sector, so infrastructure development is close to my heart and something I come in contact with daily. Spent the bulk of my time before in private sector, however.

What issues have National Rail caused that would have been better handled in private sector? My experience moving from the UK to Sweden and its no holds barred view on employing subcontractors who hire subcontractors who hire subcontractors is that in the end, nobody wants to take responsibility for anything, our rail maintenance is in shambles, and National Rail, for its flaws, looks like a far better model (a *better* one, mind you, not an *ideal* one).

[Lyanna Stark]

1 hour ago, Hereward said:

I think it is a public/private issue, at least in the UK. Private sector companies cannot afford not to invest. The public sector always cuts investment when the economy or the public finances are under pressure, because the saving is available now, but the impact won't be felt until someone else is in charge. 

Edit: If the opinion piece isn't enough, try this one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_the_privatisation_of_British_Rail

Yes, I read the wiki article, which I think is ok, but misses some issues and doesn't take the full complexity of economic and technical factors into account. Also one of their main references used for the fare increase calculations is Stagecoach group (who runs South West Trains, among others), a large international transport company. They also list that fares are calculated against RPI, and not wage growth.

Regarding public sector cuts, unfortunately that is often the case, while perhaps the leadership should consider something more Keynesian with regards to infrastructure projects, especially in an economy with the powerful underpinnings of the British one. (This is also, by the by, why I find austerity such a doomed policy. Also I find infrastructure projects more exciting than tractors even. )

 

EDIT: Ah yes, finally had some time to find what I was looking for, the European Railway Performance index. Note that state run Switzerland is top tier and from what I have read, no 1 performer. It also lays out some of the underlying factors in calculating railway performance. This report counters that privatisation in and of itself is to blame/to laud for railway performance. In general it is far more a function of political will to invest in infrastructure.

[Egalitarianism Always]

4 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Well I rememeber a time when there were barely any services in many areas, there were constant rail strikes, dirty trains in poor condition and poor quality rolling stock. Now the sheer amount of rail journeys is up massively, even compared to other countries with comparable growth rates.

Of course I still think trains in this country are hugely over priced and not great, but I don't believe it was better in the 70's or early 80's at all (though obviously cheaper) , and I'd say nationalising it again is a backwards step

The rolling stock in the 70s included more cutting edge stock compared to now, Britain's rail system now is derided unilaterally around the world.  I have never heard in my life an argument saying rolling stock now is better than it was in the 70s like for like.  

If you actually did remember that time you'd know the Beeching cuts closed almost a third of the network, huge public finance was being spent on motorway building, the State was shrinking a mode of transport from orders by the car companies, someone buys a new car sometimes every year, old cars become junk very quickly, trains have a much much lower negative environmental impact.

You weren't even alive back in the 70s, for the above reasons but also because Southern Rail and Northern rail strikes have been happening for years now, as bad as the 70s, the 70s strikes had the national  motorway building reason the shrinking of the rail system because of car companies, what reason do the strikes have now?  Privatized rail companies squeezing as much money out while spending as little as possible, workers forced to work for free etc, patrons feel the results in strikes.