The Labour Party

[Chippy_boy]

Of course.

Long may the fools fail to learn.

Incidentally, here's the fortunes of the rag you waste your time on believing. They (and you) can spend as long as they like preaching to their "believers" but it's still bollocks and won't win them diddly. 150,000 readers and 500,000 Labour Party members? Hurrah!!!

Shame about the other 34m voters, most of whom think Corbyn is a twat.

 

[The perfect fumble]

Long may the fools fail to learn.

Incidentally, here's the fortunes of the rag you waste your time on believing. They (and you) can spend as long as they like preaching to their "believers" but it's still bollocks and won't win them diddly. 150,000 readers and 500,000 Labour Party members? Hurrah!!!

Shame about the other 34m voters, most of whom think Corbyn is a twat.

Calm down, calm down.

 

[Vic]

Why do you have to cite the worst possible examples to try to make state run, underperforming alternatives seem more attractive?

No-one would ever, ever want to see the introduction of the American health care system over here. It's the very worst possible system, but it's the only one you lot opposed to any sort of NHS reform ever bother to compare us with. Why not compare us with Australia, or Singapore, or the Netherlands or France or Denmark. I am sick of hearing about the ****ing US healthcare system as if the only two alternatives on offer are the NHS as is, or the American system as is. You're better than this Vic.

Ditto the railways. Privatisation of the railways has been an absolute shambles because they did it wrong. Giving companies 10 year franchises with no competition and only a pathetic regulator which allows year on year increases, was always a shit idea. How about you comment the dismal state or our railways before privatization? Or perhaps you'd care to comment on how another comparable industry - airlines - has seen the cost of fares fall *dramatically* over the past few decades, and yet that is another asset-intensive business which required billions in investment. How come such privatised industries manage when the rail companies cannot?

Obviously the US system as it's probably the most privatised system in the world. I don't get the point about the others you cite as they are mostly public systems (unless you mean public systems can be more efficient than the NHS but that would ruin your argument about the inherent efficiency of private firms).

I'm not sure airlines are comparable with rail. You can run one plane a week on a route of your choice and make a profit. If you had to run an hourly service, full and standing at the peak and half-empty at other times, it's a different beast.

I'm not sure what you mean by the dismal state of the railways before nationalisation. Unless you mean they had 12 year old Pacers rather than the 35 year old Pacers we have now.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Obviously the US system as it's probably the most privatised system in the world. I don't get the point about the others you cite as they are mostly public systems (unless you mean public systems can be more efficient than the NHS but that would ruin your argument about the inherent efficiency of private firms).

I'm not sure airlines are comparable with rail. You can run one plane a week on a route of your choice and make a profit. If you had to run an hourly service, full and standing at the peak and half-empty at other times, it's a different beast.

I'm not sure what you mean by the dismal state of the railways before nationalisation. Unless you mean they had 12 year old Pacers rather than the 35 year old Pacers we have now.

I'm not hell bent on the full privatisation of the NHS (although I am not dead set against that either). I merely want the best possible care, and service and outcomes at the best possible value for money. Note, not necessarily the lowest cost. And I am pretty certain a 100% nationalised service is not the way to achieve that.

It just irks a bit that the only alternative ever cited in the US one, which no-one would foist on their worst enemy.

And regards the railways, you must be quite young. If you were my age, you'd remember how utterly shit they were before privatisation. The service - I use the term in the loosest possible sense - was absolutely terrible. It's better now, much better, if not staggeringly expensive due to the franchisees ripping us all off for the past 20 years.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Calm down, calm down.

I'm perfectly calm thank-you fumble. In fact feeling rather smug whilst I reflect on what an unelectable buffoon you have at the helm of your party. The Tories just have a buffoon.

 

[The perfect fumble]

I'm perfectly calm thank-you

All evidence to the contrary.

 

[Damocles]

I'm not hell bent on the full privatisation of the NHS (although I am not dead set against that either). I merely want the best possible care, and service and outcomes at the best possible value for money. Note, not necessarily the lowest cost. And I am pretty certain a 100% nationalised service is not the way to achieve that.

I suppose the question to ask here then is what value you put on this best value for money?

Let's say we could treat 10 million people but only save 3 million.
Or we could treat 20 million people but only save 4 million.

It would cost double to treat the 20 million but you'd save a million more. But the price for that million would be 100% of the cost for the 3 million.

What do we do then? Pay the extra cost and save the million or not?

This is where the efficiency argue falls down, because at some point somewhere you then have to put a financial figure on the lives of other people.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I suppose the question to ask here then is what value you put on this best value for money?

Let's say we could treat 10 million people but only save 3 million.
Or we could treat 20 million people but only save 4 million.

It would cost double to treat the 20 million but you'd save a million more. But the price for that million would be 100% of the cost for the 3 million.

What do we do then? Pay the extra cost and save the million or not?

This is where the efficiency argue falls down, because at some point somewhere you then have to put a financial figure on the lives of other people.

Without replying line by line, all healthcare systems put a financial figure on the lives of other people. The NHS does every day. NICE do every day. As does - as far as I am aware - every other healthcare system in the world, since I know of none which are not in some way constrained by a budget. Constrained meaning, not able to afford everything and every possible drug they could ever want.

More generally, my reply is simply that I want really good healthcare which is not costing us an absolute bloody fortune. I can't answer it better than that really. The healthcare in the US for most adult professionals is superb. It's lightyears better than we get on the NHS. There is simply no comparison in terms of availability of the latest treatments and technologies, waiting times, thoroughness of tests, the hospitals, and most importantly the clinical outcomes.

But it fails my test because it costs an absolute bloody fortune. And as a result, not everyone can afford it and the ones who can find the costs objectionable. Other systems such as in Singapore are excellent however. Much, much more efficient and cost effective whilst also producing superb clinical outcomes.

 

[Vic]

I'm not hell bent on the full privatisation of the NHS (although I am not dead set against that either). I merely want the best possible care, and service and outcomes at the best possible value for money. Note, not necessarily the lowest cost. And I am pretty certain a 100% nationalised service is not the way to achieve that.

It just irks a bit that the only alternative ever cited in the US one, which no-one would foist on their worst enemy.

And regards the railways, you must be quite young. If you were my age, you'd remember how utterly shit they were before privatisation. The service - I use the term in the loosest possible sense - was absolutely terrible. It's better now, much better, if not staggeringly expensive due to the franchisees ripping us all off for the past 20 years.

Utterly shit? You must be so old your memory is going.

Tell me what service then was shit never mind utterly shit.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Utterly shit? You must be so old your memory is going.

Tell me what service then was shit never mind utterly shit.

The state of the trains
The state of the food on the trains
The punctuality of the trains
The frequency of the services
The reliability of the trains
The attitude of the staff
The stations and the station facilities

It was all absolute garbage mate. You've clearly forgotten. Do you not remember the jokes about British Rail catering and utterly fucking awful it was. Do you not remember the jokes about the late running of the trains? They were a total laughing stock. Take your rose coloured glasses off.

Not with a little irony, I'll link you a Guardian (of all newspapers) article, "Forget the nostalgia for British Rail – our trains are better than ever". When even a lefty rag says a privatised service is better than ever, maybe people should reflect upon it.

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

 

[inbetween]

The state of the trains

The state of the food on the trains

The punctuality of the trains

The frequency of the services

The reliability of the trains

The attitude of the staff

The stations and the station facilities

It was all absolute garbage mate. You've clearly forgotten. Do you not remember the jokes about British Rail catering and utterly fucking awful it was. Do you not remember the jokes about the late running of the trains? They were a total laughing stock. Take your rose coloured glasses off.

Not with a little irony, I'll link you a Guardian (of all newspapers) article, "Forget the nostalgia for British Rail – our trains are better than ever". When even a lefty rag says a privatised service is better than ever, maybe people should reflect upon it.

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

This is where it shows that there is no benefit to neither a private nor a nationalised model. It all depends on many factors beyond the fact of whether it is nationally owned or not.

The only nationalised system that will work well is one that is very well funded, well managed and well run.

Which government department is the shining example of this...? The NHS is mostly nationally run and in many places it is on its knees.

In reality it will be starved of money, poorly managed and that means we get a far worse service. At least it will be cheap though eh?

 

[Vic]

The state of the trains
The state of the food on the trains
The punctuality of the trains
The frequency of the services
The reliability of the trains
The attitude of the staff
The stations and the station facilities

It was all absolute garbage mate. You've clearly forgotten. Do you not remember the jokes about British Rail catering and utterly fucking awful it was. Do you not remember the jokes about the late running of the trains? They were a total laughing stock. Take your rose coloured glasses off.

Not with a little irony, I'll link you a Guardian (of all newspapers) article, "Forget the nostalgia for British Rail – our trains are better than ever". When even a lefty rag says a privatised service is better than ever, maybe people should reflect upon it.

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

Actually I nearly quoted from that. It wasn't privatisation that got 37 mins off Euston to Liverpool, it was a vastly overspent £9bn of public money via privatised Railtrack. No private company would have financed that.

After 23 years he reckons "slick modern trains with Wi-Fi" are better. I'm old enough to remember the rolling stock BR took over in 1948. Compare that with inter city stock after 50 years of BR - e.g. 125s - are these the "modern trains" you mean? 40 years old, still running - but with added Wifi! And developed by engineers doing their job without a profit motive (except for the common good).

 

[hilts]

Long may the fools fail to learn.

Incidentally, here's the fortunes of the rag you waste your time on believing. They (and you) can spend as long as they like preaching to their "believers" but it's still bollocks and won't win them diddly. 150,000 readers and 500,000 Labour Party members? Hurrah!!!

Shame about the other 34m voters, most of whom think Corbyn is a twat.

I’d like to know why people actually buy the sun, mail or mirror anymore

 

[Chippy_boy]

Actually I nearly quoted from that. It wasn't privatisation that got 37 mins off Euston to Liverpool, it was a vastly overspent £9bn of public money via privatised Railtrack. No private company would have financed that.

After 23 years he reckons "slick modern trains with Wi-Fi" are better. I'm old enough to remember the rolling stock BR took over in 1948. Compare that with inter city stock after 50 years of BR - e.g. 125s - are these the "modern trains" you mean? 40 years old, still running - but with added Wifi! And developed by engineers doing their job without a profit motive (except for the common good).

If you think 1970's BR was better than today mate, you're in cloud cuckoo land. That's all that can be said really.

And I am NO defender of the current shambles by the way. Merely that it was much, much worse before.

 

[Chippy_boy]

This is where it shows that there is no benefit to neither a private nor a nationalised model. It all depends on many factors beyond the fact of whether it is nationally owned or not.

The only nationalised system that will work well is one that is very well funded, well managed and well run.

Which government department is the shining example of this...? The NHS is mostly nationally run and in many places it is on its knees.

In reality it will be starved of money, poorly managed and that means we get a far worse service. At least it will be cheap though eh?

If the staff give a shit, then that's an improvement and unfortunately, all too often in the public sector that is not the case.

 

[Vic]

If you think 1970's BR was better than today mate, you're in cloud cuckoo land. That's all that can be said really.

And I am NO defender of the current shambles by the way. Merely that it was much, much worse before.

1970s BR was better than 1947 Big Four companies. 1990s BR was better was 1970s BR. 2019 new trains are better than 1990s BR stock - but a lot of that is still running (but admittedly with Wifi - I'm surprised no-one at BR thought of that in the 1990s). And the new stuff has to be rebooted after a power cut! Punctuality is no better than in BR days. Gosh, they even got Prue Leith on the Board to improve the catering. And don't tell me that Pendolinos are better than the Manchester Pullman (or even the Midland Pullman when they were electrifying the West Coast Main Line and remodelling London Road). Oh wait, was it privatised companies that built Piccadilly?

 

[mackenzie]

If the staff give a shit, then that's an improvement and unfortunately, all too often in the public sector that is not the case.

That's bollocks

 

[Damocles]

That's bollocks

Yeah but what do you know about staff in the public sector huh?

Nothing.

That's what I thought.

Bet you're an investment banker on £9m a year.

 

[mackenzie]

Yeah but what do you know about staff in the public sector huh?

Nothing.

That's what I thought.

Bet you're an investment banker on £9m a year.

9 million and a bit I'll have you know. Got a 0.25 percent pay rise for the 4th year in a row, whilst not giving a shit

 

[Vic]

Yeah but what do you know about staff in the public sector huh?

Nothing.

That's what I thought.

Bet you're an investment banker on £9m a year.

What's your beef with the public sector (what's left of it)? Had a bad experience with a librarian? A firefighter forgot to call? Park keeper punctured your ball?