Jump to content

Labour's leaked manifesto


Violet1956

Recommended Posts

I can’t make my mind up. Should we re-nationalise the railways and energy companies? Not keen on nationalising mail services but I think we are being ripped off wholesale as far as rail and energy provision is concerned. Yes, they were inefficient and under-resourced back in the day when they were state controlled but has privatisation served Joe public any better? I don't pretend to understand all of the issues. When I see that other European states run nationalised rail services and they also have bought stakes in our privatised system I do wonder whether we are being completely daft in letting them cream off the profits to re-invest in their own transport infrastructure at our expense.

 

I remain at a loss in terms of understanding what is going on but I know that our rail services in particular are not serving our needs and that can only be damaging to our economy. Is there anyone on here who has the inside track (pardon the pun) and who could help me decide whether the leaked Labour policy is a good idea?

 

Veronica

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fear the Tories will get more votes from their populist stunt promising to curtail energy bills. Which would be disastrous because the energy companies wouldn't invest in sufficient infrastructure and the lights would go out when the sun stops shining and wind stops blowing.

They've got us - which is why no other country in the world has sold its power and water supplies to foreign corporations.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think re-nationalisation is an irrelevant red herring. So far as I know (and I'm happy to be corrected), the state still owns all of the rail infrastructure (track, stations, rolling stock) and all the train operating companies do is, in effect, lease rolling stock and track and station access. This has become increasingly evident on Southern, where GOVIA appear to have been used as a vehicle by government to force the use of driver only operated trains through the unions resistance. GOVIA seems to be contractually committed to pursue this policy, thousands are having their travel, and in some cases their livelihoods, seriously disrupted, and the minister "responsible" refuses to intervene in any way, merely reiterating that it is a matter between unions and management. Total abrogation of duty IMO, and a complete disgrace. Add to this that the logic underlying the move is unclear and the minister refuses to clarify any of the issues relating to the contract, pleading that they are "commercial in confidence". Total rubbish!

 

So, all that would be necessary to return the railways to public ownership is to take the operation contracts into state operation as they expire. Would this improve anything? Doubtful, as the main reason the railways were in such a dire state before being "privatised", was a legacy of government underinvestment to bring them back to proper condition after the ravages of WW2. Making government responsible for their funding again, would doubtless result in a similar situation being reached at some future date, when a future government had its eyes on a new "battleship" and decided, in order to keep taxes down, to "stretch" rail funding over a longer period than originally programmed. And so we go on.

 

IMO we need a radical re-think on all these vital services, what nature of organisation should own them, whether foreign operators (especially state owned operators) should be allowed to participate, and if so on what accounting basis, and on whether we should legislate that any such company should operate on a "not for profit" basis, with complete public transparency of its accounts including all public subsidy where relevant. Won't happen, though, will it. Too much vested interest, and too many political shibboleths, would get in the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, re-nationalise Gas and Electric plus Rail and Telecomunication. Everyone on the same tarifs for power and phone (with broadband) Everyone on the same pricing structure for Rail, especialy Rail. I use to pay the same fare to Manchester from home whether it was 7am, 3pm or 9pm. Now you have to spend ages looking on the internet just to see if a bloody train is running and if it is how much will it cost, an arm, a leg or both.

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Violet1956 - 2017-05-11 5:44 PM

 

I can’t make my mind up. Should we re-nationalise the railways and energy companies? Not keen on nationalising mail services but I think we are being ripped off wholesale as far as rail and energy provision is concerned. Yes, they were inefficient and under-resourced back in the day when they were state controlled but has privatisation served Joe public any better? I don't pretend to understand all of the issues. When I see that other European states run nationalised rail services and they also have bought stakes in our privatised system I do wonder whether we are being completely daft in letting them cream off the profits to re-invest in their own transport infrastructure at our expense.

 

I remain at a loss in terms of understanding what is going on but I know that our rail services in particular are not serving our needs and that can only be damaging to our economy. Is there anyone on here who has the inside track (pardon the pun) and who could help me decide whether the leaked Labour policy is a good idea?

 

Veronica

By far the best example of state owned railways i've experienced is Switzerlands SBB, but they pump billions into running and maintaining it. Our problems began back in Beeching days when the network was virtually dismantled, then in later years when it was sold off, privatised and carved up into a multitude of companies.

 

Traveling by train in Switzerland makes it easy to understand why many living there don't even own a car....they don't need one. Their network infrastucture means you can get anywhere by public service, even to the top of the Jungfrau if so inclined!

 

Ownership by EU countries shows how we will always be linked to Europe.....unless of course the taxpaying Brexiter (the few that are paying tax) are prepared to dig deeper and cough up more tax to the Gov. I see MTR have got the £1.4bn contract to run Crossrail......MTR is a Chinese company! (lol)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even Norman Tebbitt said rail privatisation wouldn't work. But the privatisation maniacs in the Tory party rushed it through before they were ousted. I think public anger over that, and Tory sleaze, was what kept Blair in power for so long.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman

Some interesting stuff on the effects of manifesto's ;-) .......

 

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/

 

Last night we got a leaked version of the Labour manifesto. Over the next week it will be joined by the manifestos from all the other parties too. Lots of people will write articles about their impact. We will see polls asking about those policies and whether people approve of them. Lots of people will ask what impact they will have on voting intention or the result. The answer is probably not much. Specific policies make very little difference to voting intention.

 

This is counter-intuitive to many. Surely in an election on who is going to run the country, what they’ll say they’ll do will matter? One might very well well think it is what elections SHOULD be about. The thing is, it’s not really how people work.

 

First, most people don’t know what the policies are, so they can’t be influenced by them. One of the most difficult things for people who follow politics closely (which probably includes most people reading this) to grasp is how different they are from the vast majority who don’t pay much attention to politics. For example, in the first few weeks of the campaign Theresa May was the subject of mockery from people who follow politics for continually using the soundbite “strong and stable leadership”. While it sounded absurd to those of us who heard it a thousand times, when YouGov asked a representative sample of the public if they could recall any slogans or messages she had said only 15% remembered it. Most policies make no difference because most people have no knowledge of them.

Even if people were more aware of policies, it’s not really the sort of thing they vote upon. There is a huge body of academic research around elections and voter choice, and the general consensus is that the important factors in deciding how people vote are which party they normally identify with, what their perceptions are of the leaders are and which party they think would most competently handle the big issues of the day.

 

As human beings we don’t tend to be particularly good judges of what leads to our decisions (we all tend to overestimate how thoughtful and rational we are, when in reality our decisions are normally based on a jumble of bias, instinct and rules-of-thumb, which we rationalise afterwards). However, if you ask voters directly we don’t even think that policies are why we vote the way we do – most people say that it’s the broad values and priorities of a party that matter, or how good their leader is, not the specific policies they offer.

 

Of course that doesn’t mean policies aren’t part of the mix. When it comes to whether the public think that a party is competent, whether or not they have policies that seem sensible and well-thought through is probably a factor. What sort of policies a party puts forward will make a contribution to what people make of a party’s values and principles. They are not irrelevant, but they are only a small part of a much bigger mix. What this all means is that one can’t look at the popularity of individual policies and conclude a party will gain support. Any party can put together a shopping list of superficially attractive sounding policies – it’s whether collectively those policies, the people putting them forward, the values they represent, how competently they come across, how all these things come together to create a party that people identify with and think would offer a competent government.

 

In short, in the absence of other other big events in the coming week, don’t be surprised if the polls carried out after the manifestos appear are much the same as the polls carried out before they were published.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
Brian Kirby - 2017-05-12 9:24 AM

 

Latest news. Dave Pelmet quotes expert opinion!

 

Extra! Expert opinion says most people don't understand why they vote as they do!

 

Referendum anyone? :-D

 

Yep he confirms what I've always thought ;-) .........People tend to go with their gut instinct :D .......

 

So those with lemming guts will always vote for the same old same old.......and those who have had a gut full will try something else.......ergo BREXIT B-) ........

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep. People juggling 3 zero hours contracts to pay inflated rents for their slave box to the likes of the Duke of Westminster who inherits £10bn wort of property tax free, don't seem to understand how they are being cheated by the Establishment, and think voting for Brexit will help
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
John52 - 2017-05-12 11:55 AM

 

Yep. People juggling 3 zero hours contracts to pay inflated rents for their slave box to the likes of the Duke of Westminster who inherits £10bn wort of property tax free, don't seem to understand how they are being cheated by the Establishment, and think voting for Brexit will help

 

I guess these victims of the establishment could always get themselves a decent job, and buy their own slave box ;-) ........

 

That's how we did it *-) ........

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pelmetman - 2017-05-12 12:22 PM

 

John52 - 2017-05-12 11:55 AM

 

Yep. People juggling 3 zero hours contracts to pay inflated rents for their slave box to the likes of the Duke of Westminster who inherits £10bn wort of property tax free, don't seem to understand how they are being cheated by the Establishment, and think voting for Brexit will help

 

I guess these victims of the establishment could always get themselves a decent job, and buy their own slave box ;-) ........

 

That's how we did it *-) ........

 

 

So did I, but that was before Governmen't intervention in the housing market inflated housing costs out of proportion to wages. And sold off all our council houses,forcing people into overpriced slums. Which the Brexiteers seem to blame on the EU/ Immigrants

The million Brit immigrants in Spain hasn't inflated housing costs because the Spanish Government didn't restrict the housing supply so much..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couple of points on nationalisation.

Around here the main problem with rail is the infrastructure, and that's already nationlised.

Then there's the other transport infrastructure controlled by national and local government, the road system, anybody want to praise that?

For anyone thinking that a nationlised service might somehow be more customer friendly, I'd suggest they read up about Aberfan, just remember when things go wrong you're not dealing with a company that will have half an eye out to not get prosecuted, you are dealing with a government department that won't think twice about spending large amounts of tax payers money to protect it's own back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...