The Labour Party

'Non-profit' organisations often pay ludicrous salaries to their 'executives'. I fail to see how this model is better than public ownership. I think it just plays to the notorious falsehood that 'private' is always more efficient. A curse that has fallen on us this last 40-odd years and why we have rivers full of shite and trains with seats like ironing boards and inadequate legroom for anyone over 5' 6".
 
BrianW said:
'Non-profit' organisations often pay ludicrous salaries to their 'executives'. I fail to see how this model is better than public ownership. I think it just plays to the notorious falsehood that 'private' is always more efficient. A curse that has fallen on us this last 40-odd years and why we have rivers full of shite and trains with seats like ironing boards and inadequate legroom for anyone over 5' 6".
Click to expand...

You still have to pay people to run the “companies” even if in full public ownership. It then becomes a question of do you want to attract the type of people you want to attract to run them.

However the main problem is structure. Network rails is a publicly owned company that is probably a great example of how not to do it.
 
metalblue said:
Would you be happy with it being in private ownership if it was non-profit? Ie it’s not the ownership model that bothers you but rather the profit factor.
Click to expand...
Its more the excessive profit factor.

I see it in my industry then they plead poverty when investing in staff or basic station maintenance.

Our utilities have been fucked by greed over maintaining a standard service.
 
Privatisation has never worked for any industry in this country. Transport, utilities, you name it... have all failed. Provides a one-off payment to the (usually) Tory Government, enriches their friends and families and does the nation no favours whatsoever.

An then, when it inevitably goes wrong, the directors go cap-in-hand for a bail-out from the taxpayer.

Ask yourself why Thames Water are still planning on paying their directors a dividend.
 
BTH said:
Privatisation has never worked for any industry in this country. Transport, utilities, you name it... have all failed. Provides a one-off payment to the (usually) Tory Government, enriches their friends and families and does the nation no favours whatsoever.

An then, when it inevitably goes wrong, the directors go cap-in-hand for a bail-out from the taxpayer.

Ask yourself why Thames Water are still planning on paying their directors a dividend.
Click to expand...
I'm with Iain Hislop when he says Labour should charge these companies with theft of public funds when they are elected.
 
metalblue said:
A non profit is explicitly used for public or collective good.

Decisions would be commercially made. Any profit generated is ploughed back in to the service not distributed to shareholders.
Click to expand...
I understand that but ultimately any investor/business isn't going to want to run an organisation as large as a public rail service without the prospect of making money, why would they? It's not comparable to a charity organisation; running public transport, the costs would be far greater. It's why private ownership of public service is doomed to gradual failure because making profit will be of more importance than the quality of the service itself.

The rail service is a different kettle of fish to commercial flights/ferry. I don't know the exact figures, obviously, but I'd wager ~90% of people that use trains do so to get to work in the morning/return in the evening. Those taxpayers deserve a service that is reliable and cheap, not one that's going to force prohibitive travel cost on them.

It would be interesting to get a poll going on this, because I reckon the vast majority would be happy to see rail nationalised.
 
BTH said:
Privatisation has never worked for any industry in this country. Transport, utilities, you name it... have all failed. Provides a one-off payment to the (usually) Tory Government, enriches their friends and families and does the nation no favours whatsoever.

An then, when it inevitably goes wrong, the directors go cap-in-hand for a bail-out from the taxpayer.

Ask yourself why Thames Water are still planning on paying their directors a dividend.
Click to expand...

I’d offer BT is an example of where it has worked. Which is probably why the government decided to do the same elsewhere. The issue is certainly one of profit motive and investor returns - captive markets are rarely conducive to value for customers.
 
Blue and true said:
I understand that but ultimately any investor/business isn't going to want to run an organisation as large as a public rail service without the prospect of making money, why would they? It's not comparable to a charity organisation; running public transport, the costs would be far greater. It's why private ownership of public service is doomed to gradual failure because making profit will be of more importance than the quality of the service itself.

The rail service is a different kettle of fish to commercial flights/ferry. I don't know the exact figures, obviously, but I'd wager ~90% of people that use trains do so to get to work in the morning/return in the evening. Those taxpayers deserve a service that is reliable and cheap, not one that's going to force prohibitive travel cost on them.

It would be interesting to get a poll going on this, because I reckon the vast majority would be happy to see rail nationalised.
Click to expand...

The government has baked in clauses to step in where operators fail. The main issues with railways is they aren’t conducive to competition so quality is not a driving factor and the limited periods to run services isn’t conducive to investment. It’s a catch 22 and the travelling public suffer.

Commuters will always fund the unprofitable services that run throughout the day. The main deliverable of management should be quality of service and value - I’m just not convinced it would be any better simply by moving it to state ownership - BR was hardly a service to be proud of.

I do fundamentally agree with your premise that it should not be profit driven.
 
Passenger services have rarely, if ever, made a profit as such.

Back in the days when railways were commercial entities and Britain had this outdated thing called 'industry', the richest companies were those with substantial goods and mineral traffic. Coal traffic was incredibly important and valuable. Passenger services were, at best, the icing on the cake and were often - get this! - run as a social obligation rather than a pure business.

To give an example, the Cambrian Railways, serving mid and north Wales, a very rural area with little industry, never made a bean, even in the days when railways had a virtual monopoly of both passenger and goods traffic. The Directors ran it on the basis that it served the community (in which they had substantial interests as landowners and quarry owners, etc.) Their objective was to keep it out of receivership as much as anything.

Such a paradigm of capitalism is inconceivable these days. It. Just. Would. Not. Happen.

The railway now operates almost wholly for social reasons. Take away the obsessions of petty accountancy and you can see that it gives wide social benefits - not least of which is keeping road traffic to tolerable levels. It is questionable whether London could function without the railways as the roads would be seized solid for 50 miles around.

To expect 'profit' on top of these social benefits is to really push the model. I believe it is totally unrealistic. It follows, therefore, that is appropriate to run the railways as a social enterprise for the general good, rather than as a business to make money. The only argument for private sector involvement is if you believe it is inherently more 'efficient'. It isn't, and many of the 'efficiencies', like exporting train construction to foreign countries, are undesirable.
 
hilts said:
The Reform Party will be giving the Tories major palpitations. They are losing the general election anyhow but this Reform lot are gonna give them a huge headache, haha dickheads.
Click to expand...

It’s funny of course. But it’s also worrying and confusing that even after years of failure and the country going to shit, there’s still a pool of people in this country who subscribe to the little England Brexit dogma.

And a lot of these people will fold back into the Tory vote come the general election.
 
Johnny Mars Bar said:
It’s funny of course. But it’s also worrying and confusing that even after years of failure and the country going to shit, there’s still a pool of people in this country who subscribe to the little England Brexit dogma.

And a lot of these people will fold back into the Tory vote come the general election.
Click to expand...

That’s the worry and the turnout of just over 32% is desperately low.

What’s wrong with people that they simply can’t be arsed to vote anymore?
 
Johnny Mars Bar said:
It’s funny of course. But it’s also worrying and confusing that even after years of failure and the country going to shit, there’s still a pool of people in this country who subscribe to the little England Brexit dogma.

And a lot of these people will fold back into the Tory vote come the general election.
Click to expand...

You don't change people's beliefs often they are usually programmed in. What this does though is put the Tories in a bit of a pickle(shame) do they go further right which means they cannot win an election? Or do they move right of centre? Unfortunately for them someone is nicking that space.
 
hilts said:
You don't change people's beliefs often they are usually programmed in. What this does though is put the Tories in a bit of a pickle(shame) do they go further right which means they cannot win an election? Or do they move right of centre? Unfortunately for them someone is nicking that space.
Click to expand...

My personal opinion is you have to own the centre to win.

Tony Blair knew this. David Cameron knew this. Kier Starmer knows this.

Sunak *knows* it, but he’s too weak to stand up to the nutters and is clearly being terribly advised.
 
blueinsa said:
That’s the worry and the turnout of just over 32% is desperately low.

What’s wrong with people that they simply can’t be arsed to vote anymore?
Click to expand...

Many reasons I'm guessing, apathy has always been there, low turnout for local elections especially and many young people have better things to think about:-) then there is the real problem you look at what's on offer and decide you don't want to buy any of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top