Labour Party/government Watch

[Little John]

That argument applies to any sector of the economy.

I am a regular rail user. I don't see chaos. What is true is that as a rule a private sector organisation provides a service at lower cost than a public sector organisation even though the shareholders get a dividend.

That is because politicians are not that good at running things.

Now you may think politicians in general are better managers than managers under pressure from shareholders. I don't. The politicians, in any event, don't have much time for the detail.

There is a role for different types of organisation including producer mutuals, consumer mutuals and private sector organisations.

Certain services must be provided by the state (police, judiciary). Others are better as public trusts, but I don't think nationalising the railways (again) will help.

Provide a single shred of evidence to show that the privatisation of the railways has proved more cost effective to run and cheaper to use than before it was privatised. The extent to which it has financially rewarded shareholders does not count, by the way. Nor does simply repeating the mindless mantra of "private good-public bad"

[johnhemming2]

Why don't you try to get evidence for your position rather than always ask me to find the evidence?

[Little John]

Why don't you try to get evidence for your position rather than always ask me to find the evidence?

Oh I can provide evidence since the numbers are widely available and am more than happy to provide it here. However, since you have claimed that the current set-up is so efficient compared to the state run system and, since I asked first, I will ask again; provide a single shred of evidence for the railways being either more cost efficient to run and cheaper for passengers than pre privatisation. I'll give you a hint to help you in this regard; there isn't any.

[kenneal - lagger]

EU regulations preclude the railways being in single ownership which is why there are operating companies and Railtrack. Whether or not that would preclude the railways being renationalised I'm not sure. Most pro Europeans don't wish to acknowledge that the EU is interfering in the running of a British industry so you won't hear this from a LibDem politician.

[kenneal - lagger]

Please provide a single shred of evidence to show that the nationalisation of the railways would prove more cost effective to run and cheaper to use than before it was nationalised?

Many people have personal experience of a nationalised railway and remember it as not at all good. Recent behaviour of the rail unions gives me no cause to think that they would be any better this time either. The way that politicians have been running the country over the last fifteen years gives me no more confidence either that they could engineer a system any better financed than the last nationalised one was. So that is both sides who would cock up the running of the system again!

[clv101]

Railways are carrying something like twice as many passengers now since privatisation, on similar infrastructure. That's pretty impressive. Also there doesn't seem to be much spare capacity, so lower prices would result in further overcrowding or simply tickets being sold out.

[johnhemming2]

I rely on the points above. It is, of course, possible to get the figures on the levels of railway subsidy etc over the past 40 years or so. However, that will take time and I have other things to do.

It is important to remember that governments are normally rational. Hence if rail privatisation is bring brought in across Europe it is because it provides a better service at a lower subsidy.

Governments are not good at running things.

[3rdRock]

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015 ... emy-corbyn

Tony Blair could face trial over 'illegal' Iraq war, says Jeremy Corbyn

Corbyn, the Labour leadership frontrunner, claims Chilcot report may lead to ‘consequences’ for former PM over decisions made during 2003 invasion

This will ruffle a few feathers.

[biffvernon]

It is going to take massive reform of media laws to constrain the corporatist message.

Why is it that legislation to restrict freedom of speech is needed in respect of a debate about the future of society etc?

'Freedom of speech.' Now that's an interesting phrase. Our trouble is that speech, or at least the ability to communicate via the mass media to millions of people at a time, is not free. It costs so much that only a handful of billionaires can afford to do it. If we actually had free speech the poor would have the same voice as the Murdochs.

[biffvernon]

It is important to remember that governments are normally rational.

Governments are not good at running things.

Let's just juxtapose those two sentences.

[johnhemming2]

It is important to remember that governments are normally rational.

Governments are not good at running things.

Let's just juxtapose those two sentences.

Governments are not always rational, but normally recognise their limits and that some things are best not controlled by the state directly (although there is a role for setting standards).

[johnhemming2]

'Freedom of speech.' Now that's an interesting phrase. Our trouble is that speech, or at least the ability to communicate via the mass media to millions of people at a time, is not free. It costs so much that only a handful of billionaires can afford to do it. If we actually had free speech the poor would have the same voice as the Murdochs.

The media are generally demand led. People watch/read what they want to watch/read. Some people have built up large audiences merely putting videos on youtube. They may make money now, but did not require capital to get things going.

We have much more open media today than we had say in 1960.

The danger in this actually is that people read/watch things that confirm their prejudices. We can see this in the debates on this forum where some members are asking for others to be silent rather than to present challenging arguments.

Within the media market Guardian readers are likely not to want to read the Daily Mail and vice versa. Fox News is I think a good example of a media outlet that plays to its own audience. That, however, is driven by the need to keep its audience happy rather than any conspiracy.

[UndercoverElephant]

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015 ... emy-corbyn

Tony Blair could face trial over 'illegal' Iraq war, says Jeremy Corbyn

Corbyn, the Labour leadership frontrunner, claims Chilcot report may lead to ‘consequences’ for former PM over decisions made during 2003 invasion

This will ruffle a few feathers.

Might gain Corbyn a few more votes too.

[UndercoverElephant]

Fox News is I think a good example of a media outlet that plays to its own audience.

What you see is what you get
You've made your bed, you'd better lie in it
You choose your leaders and place your trust
As their lies wash you down and their promises rust
You'll see kidney machines replaced by rockets and guns
And the public wants what the public gets

The Jam - Going Underground

[emordnilap]

If we actually had free speech the poor would have the same voice as the Murdochs.

The difference would be (as now) that the Murdochs and the Skys can afford effective language manipulators.