Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[A Red]

Just now, AngryofTuebrook said:

What's your reasoning for coming round to that way of thinking?

Because, i just dont see that the benefit of spending that much money on utilities, which i guess that would have to be printed or borrowed, over spending it on the other things that Labour want to, e.g NHS, homelessness, council houses etc. Why bother when there is so much else to do? 

 

[A Red]

8 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

There are, what, 5 nationalisations on a list of over 120 policies.

But they are among the most expensive

[SasaS]

1 hour ago, moof said:

Who the hell came up with this idiocy?

He did.

https://www.bcg.com/en-gb/about/people/experts/sylvain-duranton.aspx

[moof]

12 minutes ago, A Red said:

Because, i just dont see that the benefit of spending that much money on utilities, which i guess that would have to be printed or borrowed, over spending it on the other things that Labour want to, e.g NHS, homelessness, council houses etc. Why bother when there is so much else to do? 

 

Why not do it all? They want to democratise the economy, that’s one of the core ambitions of the Corbyn movement 

[A Red]

5 minutes ago, moof said:

Why not do it all? They want to democratise the economy, that’s one of the core ambitions of the Corbyn movement 

The answer to that is obviously money, it is not unlimited and therefore has to be prioritised.

 

[moof]

4 minutes ago, A Red said:

The answer to that is obviously money, it is not unlimited and therefore has to be prioritised.

 

We’re fucking loaded, mate. Don’t worry about it

[A Red]

Corbyn wants to nationalise power and transport so that the workforce that will be in Labour supporting unions can be used to combat future non socialist governments.

 

Am I wrong, could this be part of the reason? I'm asking because no-one has said i am and why.

[SasaS]

6 hours ago, Jairzinho said:

https://www.bcg.com/en-gb/publications/2017/transportation-travel-tourism-2017-european-railway-performance-index.aspx 

 

Some context on Stront's graph. 

 

The UK's reasonable score is down purely to the service being safe. Spain's, for example, is lower purely because it isn't utilised as much. Obviously the relative sizes of the country, history of infrastructure spending, overall wealth of a country, etc, etc will contribute towards this. 

 

Anyone who has ever been on a train in the two countries would obviously tell you the service is immeasurably better in Spain. Cheaper, the trains arrive on time, and you actually have a seat.

 

 

How shit is Ireland then, to get the lowest rating on the quality of service and punctuality? What, you fight your way into a boxcar and hope that eventually it will move? On the other hand it's pretty safe.
 

[Rico1304]

He’s in Whaley Bridge now, I think he’s stalking me. 

[Section_31]

49 minutes ago, SasaS said:

 

How shit is Ireland then, to get the lowest rating on the quality of service and punctuality? What, you fight your way into a boxcar and hope that eventually it will move? On the other hand it's pretty safe.
 

Does Ireland have many trains? The Mrs went from Omagh to Dublin last week and it sounded like the Cannonball Run. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 hour ago, A Red said:

Corbyn wants to nationalise power and transport so that the workforce that will be in Labour supporting unions can be used to combat future non socialist governments.

 

Am I wrong, could this be part of the reason? I'm asking because no-one has said i am and why.

Well, before judging this theory, I’d like to hear how this benefits Labour in any real tactical or strategically significant way, considering they already have the support of the unions. I’m struggling to understand what you’re suggesting is the upside for Labour, other than you concluding the workforce will support labour and also somehow combat non-socialist governments, which is a bit of a leap. Are you saying owning the railways and utilities will make those people vote for Labour?

 

I think it’s much much more likely that it is a long held ideologically driven opinion that has lead to the policy. 

[aRdja]

1 hour ago, A Red said:

Because, i just dont see that the benefit of spending that much money on utilities, which i guess that would have to be printed or borrowed, over spending it on the other things that Labour want to, e.g NHS, homelessness, council houses etc. Why bother when there is so much else to do? 

 

Or just don’t go ahead with the tax breaks right?

[A Red]

21 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Well, before judging this theory, I’d like to hear how this benefits Labour in any real tactical or strategically significant way, considering they already have the support of the unions. I’m struggling to understand what you’re suggesting is the upside for Labour, other than you concluding the workforce will support labour and also somehow combat non-socialist governments, which is a bit of a leap. Are you saying owning the railways and utilities will make those people vote for Labour?

 

I think it’s much much more likely that it is a long held ideologically driven opinion that has lead to the policy. 

I'm coming at this as to what the benefits of all these privatisations are and to who.

 

I can see perhaps minimal benefits to services (ok, arguable point) but not to the economy. I then look at how Labour could benefit. If e.g electricity workers can be brought out on strike they can hold the government of the day to ransom, threats of power cuts etc. All it needs for the unions is have a stake in the Labour party and its leadership to be politically motivated. It doesnt matter who the union members vote for politically. This has all happened before. 

[Pureblood]

And it'll happen again!  Mark my words!  Corbyn can not be trusted, vote Tory Scum. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

9 minutes ago, A Red said:

I'm coming at this as to what the benefits of all these privatisations are and to who.

 

I can see perhaps minimal benefits to services (ok, arguable point) but not to the economy. I then look at how Labour could benefit. If e.g electricity workers can be brought out on strike they can hold the government of the day to ransom, threats of power cuts etc. All it needs for the unions is have a stake in the Labour party and its leadership to be politically motivated. It doesnt matter who the union members vote for politically. This has all happened before. 

I agree about relatively minimal benefits. Though, the ownership doesn’t dictate whether or not people can strike, nor does it mean there will be more people joining unions. We have state run police, health, and fire. Labour doesn’t control when they strike now and they wouldn’t if they nationalised other areas. The power would be gained by unions, if anybody. 

 

I don’t see much reason to buy into this as a reason for Labour wanting to nationalise things. 

[moof]

I have no idea how anyone can come to the opinion that the benefits to taking necessary public services out of the hands of corporations are “minimal”. 

[cloggypop]

2 hours ago, SasaS said:

 

How shit is Ireland then, to get the lowest rating on the quality of service and punctuality? What, you fight your way into a boxcar and hope that eventually it will move? On the other hand it's pretty safe.
 

Thing about trains in Ireland is that to get where you want to go, you have to go through Dublin first no matter where you start off. 

[A Red]

46 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

I agree about relatively minimal benefits. Though, the ownership doesn’t dictate whether or not people can strike, nor does it mean there will be more people joining unions. We have state run police, health, and fire. Labour doesn’t control when they strike now and they wouldn’t if they nationalised other areas. The power would be gained by unions, if anybody. 

 

I don’t see much reason to buy into this as a reason for Labour wanting to nationalise things. 

Where you have lots of different utility companies it is difficult for a union to decide to get the employees from each company to strike in unison (yeah I know). One nationalised organisation makes it a lot easier for them, particularly if a Labour government helps with legislation. 

 

Thats my point really, where i see the main benefit being to the labour party rather than utility users.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

3 hours ago, A Red said:

But they are among the most expensive

Are they?

 

Where are you getting your costings?

[A Red]

Just now, AngryofTuebrook said:

Are they?

 

Where are you getting your costings?

Ok, I should imagine they are, you will have a far better idea than me.

 

 

[SasaS]

1 hour ago, TK421 said:

And it'll happen again!  Mark my words!  Corbyn can not be trusted, vote Tory Scum. 

[sir roger]

15 hours ago, Sixtimes Dog said:

 

That's not an answer to the question I asked.

 

According to the Railway Performance Index, Britain's railway is the 8th best out of the 25 measured in Europe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Notable that we are 21st of 25 on ' Quality of service ' which I would imagine would be fairly important.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

3 hours ago, A Red said:

Because, i just dont see that the benefit of spending that much money on utilities, which i guess that would have to be printed or borrowed, over spending it on the other things that Labour want to, e.g NHS, homelessness, council houses etc. Why bother when there is so much else to do? 

 

So, you're assuming that nationalisations are expensive (because privatisation has always been so-o-o efficient!) and you don’t recognise the economic and social benefits of running essential services and utilities for the benefit of the whole country  (rather than running them for the benefit of shareholders).

 

And on the basis of those two flawed premises you've constructed a theory of skullduggery and underhanded shenanigans. 

[A Red]

1 hour ago, TK421 said:

And it'll happen again!  Mark my words!  Corbyn can not be trusted, vote Tory Scum. 

You cant address the point though can you? As usual the likes of NV and AoT engage and the likes of you run to the front, throw snidey remarks then run away

[A Red]

1 minute ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

So, you're assuming that nationalisations are expensive (because privatisation has always been so-o-o efficient!) and you don’t recognise the economic and social benefits of running essential services and utilities for the benefit of the whole country  (rather than running them for the benefit of shareholders).

 

And on the basis of those two flawed premises you've constructed a theory of skullduggery and underhanded shenanigans. 

I think you get more bang for your billion by pumping them into the areas where there are immediate issues than, say, privatising utility companies. 

 

I'm going to assume nationalisations are expensive initially and potentially on-going and really cant see why they are a priority other than the theory I gave.