nationalisation - time for a rethink?

[gun ainm]

its 20 years since the railways were sold off and i think you'd be hard pushed to find many who believe its been a success? In the UK we pay one of the highest public subsidies for rail, but also pay some of the highest fares! and even with this investment we have one of the worst rail services in Europe - farcical really eh? Since the East Coast mainline was taken into state ownership from the crisis it was left in by National Express, public ownership has led to a massively improved service for customers as well as over 200 million paid to the treasury (rather than the shareholders). surely it offers a decent model for our other rail networks and potentially for other industries - energy anyone? surely its success would be built upon by government? no we're again trying to sell it off....

Models of public ownership have moved on from the 1970s model of large, centralised industries remote from their customers. That model was as out of date then as the free market model with its inefficiencies is now. There are many extremely positive examples from around Europe of publicly-owned enterprises and these should be part of a future Scotland....what do you reckon?

 

[egb_hibs]

its 20 years since the railways were sold off and i think you'd be hard pushed to find many who believe its been a success? In the UK we pay one of the highest public subsidies for rail, but also pay some of the highest fares! and even with this investment we have one of the worst rail services in Europe - farcical really eh? Since the East Coast mainline was taken into state ownership from the crisis it was left in by National Express, public ownership has led to a massively improved service for customers as well as over 200 million paid to the treasury (rather than the shareholders). surely it offers a decent model for our other rail networks and potentially for other industries - energy anyone? surely its success would be built upon by government? no we're again trying to sell it off....

Models of public ownership have moved on from the 1970s model of large, centralised industries remote from their customers. That model was as out of date then as the free market model with its inefficiencies is now. There are many extremely positive examples from around Europe of publicly-owned enterprises and these should be part of a future Scotland....what do you reckon?

i fear the trams project is indicative of what a Scottish state railway would be all about.

 

[Jack]

i fear the trams project is indicative of what a Scottish state railway would be all about.

The tram was fucked up by the council and rescued by the Scottish Government.

A look at the new Forth Road Bridge, also under the Scottish Government, and you will see it is currently ahead of schedule and below budget.

As in the OP just because the government is running it doesn't mean it has to be a bad thing. There are other, albeit much smaller projects, where the Scottish Government are doing well.

I really don't understand why, when the likes of the Post Office and the East Coast Line were/are returning 100s of millions to the Exchequer there's a big rush to be flogging them off [on the cheap and to foreign investors].

 

[Kurt]

its 20 years since the railways were sold off and i think you'd be hard pushed to find many who believe its been a success? In the UK we pay one of the highest public subsidies for rail, but also pay some of the highest fares! and even with this investment we have one of the worst rail services in Europe - farcical really eh? Since the East Coast mainline was taken into state ownership from the crisis it was left in by National Express, public ownership has led to a massively improved service for customers as well as over 200 million paid to the treasury (rather than the shareholders). surely it offers a decent model for our other rail networks and potentially for other industries - energy anyone? surely its success would be built upon by government? no we're again trying to sell it off....

Models of public ownership have moved on from the 1970s model of large, centralised industries remote from their customers. That model was as out of date then as the free market model with its inefficiencies is now. There are many extremely positive examples from around Europe of publicly-owned enterprises and these should be part of a future Scotland....what do you reckon?

Where exactly would the Country get the money from to buy these private companies back into state ownership?

 

[egb_hibs]

The tram was $#@!ed up by the council and rescued by the Scottish Government.

A look at the new Forth Road Bridge, also under the Scottish Government, and you will see it is currently ahead of schedule and below budget.

As in the OP just because the government is running it doesn't mean it has to be a bad thing. There are other, albeit much smaller projects, where the Scottish Government are doing well.

I really don't understand why, when the likes of the Post Office and the East Coast Line were/are returning 100s of millions to the Exchequer there's a big rush to be flogging them off [on the cheap and to foreign investors].

I agree, at least partly. The demand for Royal Mail shares illustrates the point; clearly a lot of people believe thee is a very viable business there. The flip side is that if that is so, it seems the state can't run it effectively

 

[Smurf]

Where exactly would the Country get the money from to buy these private companies back into state ownership?

It's a false argument. We don't need to own them we just need to regulate them.

 

[gun ainm]

Where exactly would the Country get the money from to buy these private companies back into state ownership?

for rail it'd be a cost saving as far as i can work out - give franchises to a state owned not-for-profit company (or companies) when they come up for renewal . seriously look into the East Coast line Directly operated railway and do the (basic) sums

- - - Updated - - -

I agree, at least partly. The demand for Royal Mail shares illustrates the point; clearly a lot of people believe thee is a very viable business there. The flip side is that if that is so, it seems the state can't run it effectively

I'd suggest the state can or rather could run it effectively - if a private bank fails is that the fault of the management or is it the fault of the private model (I exclude the answer Gordon Brown from the list of possibilities as its my thread :approve

look at the good examples of state owned companies (East Coast for example) and its obvious that the mere fact that a company is owned by the state does not instantly mean its inefficient. I say this not as a cheerleader for the state but as a taxpayer that wants better service for my money.

 

[southfieldhibby]

I'd suggest the state can or rather could run it effectively - if a private bank fails is that the fault of the management or is it the fault of the private model (I exclude the answer Gordon Brown from the list of possibilities as its my thread :approve

look at the good examples of state owned companies (East Coast for example) and its obvious that the mere fact that a company is owned by the state does not instantly mean its inefficient. I say this not as a cheerleader for the state but as a taxpayer that wants better service for my money.

In some cases the govt should own things that don't have to make money imo...CalMac being the obvious case.Runs at a loss iirc but offers a service thats essential to people up your way.The postal service in Scotland also.Loss making everywhere except the central belt.Prestwick, loss making but vital to Ayrshire employment.

The govt owning things that makes loses isn't always a bad thing, just like councils owning stuff that doesn't run at profit (leith waterworld I'm looking at you) isn't bad.

 

[Kurt]

It's a false argument. We don't need to own them we just need to regulate them.

Christ help us when politicians and civil servants run private companies through the puppet strings of regulation. Regulation needs to be light touch and simple and the public sector doesn't do commercial at all well because their internal organisational objectives are completely different from companies.

 

[Jack]

Christ help us when politicians and civil servants run private companies through the puppet strings of regulation. Regulation needs to be light touch and simple and the public sector doesn't do commercial at all well because their internal organisational objectives are completely different from companies.

There are many ways a skin a cat!

In years gone by Civil Servants were there, like dinosaur me, for a career. Now many in the civil service chop and change between that, local government type stuff, the NHS AND private companies.

The Scottish Government have a good track record appointing savvy people to senior positions in government led organisations and allowing them to get on with it.

NHS Lothian is a case in point. The Scottish Government instruct the likes of NHS Lothian to run medical services in the area ... 'there's a few millions, get on with it'.

Our own non executive director, Brian Houston, was recently appointed Chair of NHS Lothian. As far as I am aware Brian has no experience, other than being a patient, of the NHS or indeed of government, he doesn't even live in Lothian! He does however have huge private sector experience which he will take into that organisation.

There's no reason to believe such a model wouldn't work in other government organisations, including for profit organisations.

 

[egb_hibs]

I'd suggest the state can or rather could run it effectively - if a private bank fails is that the fault of the management or is it the fault of the private model (I exclude the answer Gordon Brown from the list of possibilities as its my thread :approve

look at the good examples of state owned companies (East Coast for example) and its obvious that the mere fact that a company is owned by the state does not instantly mean its inefficient. I say this not as a cheerleader for the state but as a taxpayer that wants better service for my money.

The state had enough goes and long enough with Royal Mail. The state can certainly run things successfully and private sector running can certainly fuck things up. It's just the former is very rare and the latter is generally easier to fix.

 

[Jack]

The state had enough goes and long enough with Royal Mail. The state can certainly run things successfully and private sector running can certainly fuck things up. It's just the former is very rare and the latter is generally easier to fix.

But when the private sector, and in the case of bankers who continue to play fast and loose with our money while skmming personal millions, it happens its quite spectacularly with no personal repercussions, the public sector sold off and indeed the current government hawking the public to bail them out.

Your logic suggests bankers shouldn't be allowed to run banks!!!

 

[gun ainm]

The state had enough goes and long enough with Royal Mail. The state can certainly run things successfully and private sector running can certainly $#@! things up. It's just the former is very rare and the latter is generally easier to fix.

you did notice the banking crisis right? i know this is obviously challenging to your (and many in Britains) preconceptions having been fed thatcherism at the teat but any full and open appraisal would show that nationalisation should once more be on the table (for certain industries)

 

[egb_hibs]

you did notice the banking crisis right? i know this is obviously challenging to your (and many in Britains) preconceptions having been fed thatcherism at the teat but any full and open appraisal would show that nationalisation should once more be on the table (for certain industries)

Not only did I notice it, I was the one forecasting the collapse of all this nonsense at the top of the boom, while you were iirc celebrating the labour fraud that was built on it.

The bank collapse owes far far more to the centre left than it does to capitalism R. And it is inextricably linked to big statism.

What this has to do with the post you responded to I don't know. As before it is not impossible for nationalised industries to work well, just rare - certainly in countries where the state is as ours is. It's also not unusual for private companies to bollix things up - it's just far less disruptive when they do.

The bank collapse is an illustration of my point, not an argument against it. Their symbiosis with unsustainable late western statism is why it was all inevitable, why it has only just begun whatever 'recovery' is now underway in the short term, and why the effects have been so painful and will ultimately be catastrophic.

Forgive me if I'm unimpressed by your after the fact wisdom, especially if you continue to indulge in the doublethink that implicitly denies the bug picture and demands more of that bankstate provides.

 

[Kurt]

There are many ways a skin a cat!

In years gone by Civil Servants were there, like dinosaur me, for a career. Now many in the civil service chop and change between that, local government type stuff, the NHS AND private companies.

The Scottish Government have a good track record appointing savvy people to senior positions in government led organisations and allowing them to get on with it.

NHS Lothian is a case in point. The Scottish Government instruct the likes of NHS Lothian to run medical services in the area ... 'there's a few millions, get on with it'.

Our own non executive director, Brian Houston, was recently appointed Chair of NHS Lothian. As far as I am aware Brian has no experience, other than being a patient, of the NHS or indeed of government, he doesn't even live in Lothian! He does however have huge private sector experience which he will take into that organisation.

There's no reason to believe such a model wouldn't work in other government organisations, including for profit organisations.

The NHS isn't a good illustration as it clearly sits wholly in the public sector as the optimal means of delivery - some would call it a public good. Private alternative systems turn out to be very much more expensive as well (e.g. USA). Running a train service is quite different and has required investment that the public sector has not been willing to fund (anyone recall the BR days?). The private sector has funded it and needs to be remunerated. Its a matter of faith (or poor arithmetic) whether the public sector could have done it cheaper but more likely it wouldn't have done it at all.

 

[gun ainm]

The NHS isn't a good illustration as it clearly sits wholly in the public sector as the optimal means of delivery - some would call it a public good. Private alternative systems turn out to be very much more expensive as well (e.g. USA). Running a train service is quite different and has required investment that the public sector has not been willing to fund (anyone recall the BR days?). The private sector has funded it and needs to be remunerated. Its a matter of faith (or poor arithmetic) whether the public sector could have done it cheaper but more likely it wouldn't have done it at all.

very little private money invested in the infrastructure - public subsidies amount to billions a year

 

[Jack]

The NHS isn't a good illustration as it clearly sits wholly in the public sector as the optimal means of delivery - some would call it a public good. Private alternative systems turn out to be very much more expensive as well (e.g. USA). Running a train service is quite different and has required investment that the public sector has not been willing to fund (anyone recall the BR days?). The private sector has funded it and needs to be remunerated. Its a matter of faith (or poor arithmetic) whether the public sector could have done it cheaper but more likely it wouldn't have done it at all.

I think you missed just about every point made so far in this thread in just one post.

The East Coast line, in public ownership, has fared better than it had for many years in private ownership. An example of new style public ownership.

The Post Office turned round in public ownership from loss to profit. No greater loss in any year than the loss made as a result of political conviction, when it was sold off.

The NHS example I gave was not operational but an example of the current interchange of personnel between the sectors. There's nothing to suggest people with expertise in private industries shouldn't be just as successful running public sector organisations like railways.

 

[gun ainm]

Not only did I notice it, I was the one forecasting the collapse of all this nonsense at the top of the boom, while you were iirc celebrating the labour fraud that was built on it.

The bank collapse owes far far more to the centre left than it does to capitalism R. And it is inextricably linked to big statism.

What this has to do with the post you responded to I don't know. As before it is not impossible for nationalised industries to work well, just rare - certainly in countries where the state is as ours is. It's also not unusual for private companies to bollix things up - it's just far less disruptive when they do.

The bank collapse is an illustration of my point, not an argument against it. Their symbiosis with unsustainable late western statism is why it was all inevitable, why it has only just begun whatever 'recovery' is now underway in the short term, and why the effects have been so painful and will ultimately be catastrophic.

Forgive me if I'm unimpressed by your after the fact wisdom, especially if you continue to indulge in the doublethink that implicitly denies the bug picture and demands more of that bankstate provides.

your recollections aren't exactly 20:20. to lay the blame for the collapse of the financial sector in the UK at Gordon Brown and Nu Labour is to distort reality as well as history (I am not saying they weren't culpable just that the banks have to take responsibility as well. for you to absolve them to nail the politicians is ideology before actuality.

forgive me if i am not impressed with your analysis tbutchert