The Labour Government

[The perfect fumble]

Buyers remorse

Not really.

What was on offer was eating shit or eating dirt.

 

[Postman Pep]

Not really.

What was on offer was eating shit or eating dirt.

Clearly. This fella thought he was getting something else. Experts eh who needs em ;-)

 

[The perfect fumble]

Clearly. This fella thought he was getting something else. Experts eh who needs em ;-)

Blanchflower has forgotten more about economics than I'll ever know, but if he thought Starmer and Reeves were going to do something radically different, then his political antennae is stuck up his arse.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I'm sorry, but my experiences with 'Cross-Country Trains' (shit) have put me off privatised trains for life. Although BR had its faults, it was cheap to travel on, the trains were rarely packed and you could buy a ticket on the day of travel without taking out a personal loan. It also had far less subsidy than the present system enjoys.

Regulators simply do not work in this country. They might work in other countries, but here they might as well be scrapped for all the good they do.

My view of rail privatisation was this. If Richard Branson wanted to run trains between London and Manchester he could have spent a few billions reopening the Great Central route and we could have enjoyed the competition. What we had instead was a farce, where public monopolies (bad enough) were changed into private monopolies (far worse) at vastly increased cost to the mugs.

Agree with all of that. The privatisation of the rail network has been a lesson in how NOT to do it.

First, award contracts over like 10 years, giving companies a total monopoly on the line the service being offered. Then establish a regulator that allows them inflation price increases every year for 30 years. And finally, reduce the subsidy you give them.

Honestly it would be a miracle if after all of that, the service was NOT an expensive shit rip off. What on earth do people expect?

What they SHOULD have done IMO was to allow different train companies to offer different competiing services on the same tracks. So you could think, shall I get the 08:30 Virgin train from Manchester to Euston, because they have the great comfy seats and free snacks. Or shall I go on the Cross Country 07:50 which is cheaper. Or if i go on the 08:45 I can go for free with First Group by using my loyalty points.

Look at how this has worked with airfares. Used to cost £700 to fly to Paris with BA and now you can go with Easyjet for £29, and 30 years later the BA prices have actually come down. In real terms they have dropped by 70%.

Had they done this with trains, we'd have seen services get better and better and prices come down as the companies fought for your business.

Anyway they didn't and it's shite, I agree. First step to put it right should not be to nationalise them, it should be to sack the regulator and establish a new one that demands year on year price reduction, not increases.

 

[Postman Pep]

Blanchflower has forgotten more about economics than I'll ever know, but if he thought Starmer and Reeves were going to do something radically different, then his political antennae is stuck up his arse.

A bit like the original Danny Blanchflower ...great player shit manager.

 

[bluenova]

Blanchflower has forgotten more about economics than I'll ever know, but if he thought Starmer and Reeves were going to do something radically different, then his political antennae is stuck up his arse.

Well, Reeves has said she wanted to be radical.

It's also interesting that the headline quote for that clip is "just like Margaret Thatcher".

I didn't watch all of it, but early on he says that she needs to make fundamental changes that will be unpopular, as with Thatcher, and I think that's probably fair. Reeves has suggested the same herself, and got a lot of criticism for mentioning the 1980s Tory government as an example of how it was possible to change the country. Of course, it wasn't highlighted quite so much, that she was hugely critical of what they actually did.

Her Mais lecture suggests she does have a very strong idea of what she wants Labour to do, and she's pretty clear that she wants to transform the country, not just steady the ship. She mentions inequality half a dozen times, criticising both the Tories, and to a lesser degree the New Labour government.

Read and watch Rachel Reeves full speech: New Labour left UK economic weakness 'exposed' - LabourList

This is a copy of the full text of Rachel Reeves' annual Mais lecture as written.

labourlist.org

 

[Chippy_boy]

There are countries with far higher levels of immigration and none have introduced Sharia Law into their legal system.

You keep saying this but just because it hasn't happened previously, no-one should draw any comfort from that and assume it cannot happen in the future.

At the moment, the Muslim population is a minority. What happens when they become a majority? What happens when an Islamist party in the UK wins a General Election and votes to introduce Sharia Law? Then what?

Your answer seems to be don't worry this can never happen. Why not?

I'll tell you why not. Because when it becomes an imminent threat, thank God, wiser heads will decide we must act to stop it before it is too late. The progressive shift from a Christian to Muslim majority is happening, day by day, voter by voter. It is inexorable. A car crash in slow motion. Unless we do something about it.

"Don't worry it will never happen" will result in it happening.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Absolute lunatic on here at the moment.

If we go Sharia law, you’ll be dead and your kids/grandkids have made their choice.

No wonder I do drive past on here these days, not much to debate so probably won’t even give it a click in the future.

See you in 5 years.

 

[hampshireblue]

Agree with all of that. The privatisation of the rail network has been a lesson in how NOT to do it.

First, award contracts over like 10 years, giving companies a total monopoly on the line the service being offered. Then establish a regulator that allows them inflation price increases every year for 30 years. And finally, reduce the subsidy you give them.

Honestly it would be a miracle if after all of that, the service was NOT an expensive shit rip off. What on earth do people expect?

What they SHOULD have done IMO was to allow different train companies to offer different competiing services on the same tracks. So you could think, shall I get the 08:30 Virgin train from Manchester to Euston, because they have the great comfy seats and free snacks. Or shall I go on the Cross Country 07:50 which is cheaper. Or if i go on the 08:45 I can go for free with First Group by using my loyalty points.

Look at how this has worked with airfares. Used to cost £700 to fly to Paris with BA and now you can go with Easyjet for £29, and 30 years later the BA prices have actually come down. In real terms they have dropped by 70%.

Had they done this with trains, we'd have seen services get better and better and prices come down as the companies fought for your business.

Anyway they didn't and it's shite, I agree. First step to put it right should not be to nationalise them, it should be to sack the regulator and establish a new one that demands year on year price reduction, not increases.

Nice idea but capacity is the problem. And a comparison with the London- Paris air route is not comparing like with like as they are going from/to different airports. Competition is indeed good and hopefully should drive down prices. However there are some services and utilities that just should not be "for profit".

 

[Chippy_boy]

However there are some services and utilities that just should not be "for profit".

Sure there are. Police for example. But there are not many, IMO. I think the main reason when it does not work is because it has not been implemented correctly.

The fundamental issue I have with state-owned operations is that there is often enough desire or motivation or urgency in those organizations. I struggle to think of or to remember a state-owned anything which runs efficiently and which provides excellent service at low taxpayer cost. Can you think of one? For example, the NHS is actually relatively cheap compared to some European alternatives, but in terms of availability, wait times, clinical outcomes, it is pretty dire.

If someone could persuade me how a state-run organization would be better, then I am all for it. My negativity about them is empirical, not ideological!