Why can't Corbyn connect with public?

[3point14]

Some evidence of where you think the problems are?

I'll do what I can when I have a moment.

Might it be your contention that my perception is awry with respect to the effectiveness of the private sector in delivering public services?

 

[Aber]

Oh, and this whole conversation seems to be a superb demonstration that vested interest, through lobbying and ownership of media, move the Overton window ever rightwards.

Except for things like the minimum wage, devolution, gay marriage...

I know this is a politics thread, but I wouldn't automatically describe as "extreme" promising to undo something the other party did when they were last in government.

 

[3point14]

Except for things like the minimum wage, devolution, gay marriage...

Does that list go on? Is there anything else fiscal on there other than the ludicrously low minimum wage?

I know this is a politics thread, but I wouldn't automatically describe as "extreme" promising to undo something the other party did when they were last in government.

 

[Aber]

So how about:

This is money....UK fares ten times higher than Continents.

BBC........fares ten times higher than Continent

London commuter fares

These are regulated and linked to RPI. Since privatisation 10 years have been RPI+1%, 5 years have been RPI-1%.

And the "anecdotal" evidence you dismissed is from a knowledgeable railway blogger.

 

[Aber]

Might it be your contention that my perception is awry with respect to the effectiveness of the private sector in delivering public services?

On a lot of points, press reports and public perception do not always align with reality, especially on politically contentious issues.

 

[3point14]

On a lot of points, press reports and public perception do not always align with reality, especially on politically contentious issues.

I'll try to provide you with what I think is evidence for my position a little later today, when and if I have the time to be as thorough as I will probably need to be.

 

[MikeG]

........And the "anecdotal" evidence you dismissed is from a knowledgeable railway blogger.

I didn't dismiss it. I pointed out its limitations. He has chosen an extremely limited range of journeys (<fingers of one hand) on which to base his assessment.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Interestingly I'm relatively right wing and think Corbyn is a useless pillock but I have some sympathy with his nationalisation plans.

Much like yourself it really depends for me what 'key industries' you are talking about.

I don't support nationalisation of the car industry or steel industry or mining simply to protect jobs that would otherwise be lost. (although there is an argument that this is basically what happened with the banks but lets put that aside)

I have no issue with public transport, utilities, etc and other public services being in public ownership and run for the benefit of the country rather than for commercial benefit.

Of course I also have grave reservations about public ownership and the ability of public companies to remain effective and efficient but it seems that other countries manage to run eg the trains fairly well publicly.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Why would nationalisation be better than the current situation of private ownership with robust regulation?

The risks with nationalisation are producer capture, ministers with grand plans, and government funding of capital expenditure; most of these are minimised under the current structure, although of course regulatory capture is still an issue.

Bolded mine. This is where we're going to differ I expect. Do you really believe the various watchdogs are acting robustly.

Also, whilst I have absolutely nothing against the profit motive as a way of driving / rewarding good business, it has no place in the provision of utilities that form the very basis of a civilised society. Of course a measured amount of over-recovery of costs for re-investment is fine but not the obscene profits we're seeing - including from some companies whose infrastructure sorely needs that re-investment eg the amount of water lost by leaking pipes and then hosepipe bans brought in.

I'm not saying the utilities were perfect when under national control - far from it - they definitely needed a shake-up and better management. That does not mean they needed to be privatised to achieve that.

And any idea that there's effective competition to drive down costs and improve services is a joke. They basically got split into cosy mini-monopolies / cartels. The fact that many of our utilities are now part or wholly owned by foreign utility companies (some with a measure of state ownership) should be a matter of shame for us.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

I'm with you to an extent, ETA. It was water privatisation that became the step-too-far for me in Thatcher's time. She'd sorted out a few things that needed sorting out, sold off some things that governments should never own in a month of Sundays, but then privatised the water board. Too much.

BR was awful. The rolling stock was decrepid. It was overstaffed, unionised, strike-ridden, unpunctual, unreliable. Nonetheless, rail tickets were affordable. There has to be a better system than going back to BR, but it certainly isn't what we have at the moment. It's particularly galling that so many of the franchisees are state railways from other countries.

My biggest gripe (well it isn't that as there is no prospect of Labour having the chance of implementing the policy) is that Labour would have to borrow billions and billions to even start such a programme of renationalisation. We simply don't have the money to do it. Living within your means seems such a fundamental notion at any level, and this is just symptomatic of Labour's age-old spend-spend-spend mentality. Tax and spend..........someone else will sort out the economic mess afterwards. This is fundamentally why no Labour government until Tony Blair's ever won re-election.

Not much to disagree with there...

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

does the bolded actually happen?

I am deeply sceptical of the fabled efficiency of the private sector. (ETA: and I work in it)

Given your background, can you show me major building projects undertaken by the private sector on behalf of the public that came in on time and on budget?

I really didn't think anything that major came in as predicted, but I admit it's not something I know a great deal about.

In my experience (and I work with both models) there is little difference in actual delivery. Private Sector makes bold claims about what they'll achieve and it's not in their interests to advertise when they fail. Public Sector has to publicly flog itself when it gets something wrong, runs over time / cost etc.

Of course the argument is private sector foots the bill when it gets something wrong so they won't do it but as large projects are often for the public sector that's not always the case - it's rare that contracts will be waved about and taken to court etc and private sector companies are skilled at clawing their money back in other ways (over-charging for minor changes to recoup losses, finding ways to show it's not their fault etc).

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Profits.

Water companies are taking billions and billions in profits and shareholder dividends. This is money which should be used for the general good, rather than the enrichement of shareholders. It should be entirely, 100%, ploughed back into infrastructure and maintenance.

Nail, head.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Much like yourself it really depends for me what 'key industries' you are talking about.

I don't support nationalisation of the car industry or steel industry or mining simply to protect jobs that would otherwise be lost. (although there is an argument that this is basically what happened with the banks but lets put that aside)

I have no issue with public transport, utilities, etc and other public services being in public ownership and run for the benefit of the country rather than for commercial benefit.

Of course I also have grave reservations about public ownership and the ability of public companies to remain effective and efficient but it seems that other countries manage to run eg the trains fairly well publicly.

Sounds like we're pretty much aligned. I'm slightly torn on public transport (buses) - would probably go for a mix there.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

The problem for me with privatisation is that it was done rather smartly by the private companies and stupidly by the government. The government seem so keen to make it attractive and look successful that they bend over backwards to make it a good deal for the new owners by either lowering standards or continuing to end up on the hook for the unattractive bits.

 

[The Don]

I'm sure you have ample evidence for this claim, specifically with respect to "doing" as opposed to "saying". In particular I'd be looking for unilateral May actions that run counter to Conservative Party policy.

Well she committed to a Hard Brexit after supporting Remain.
She called an election despite saying she wouldn't.
She U-turned on the NI increase that was in the budget.

And Scotland is still waiting for the Tories to fulfil their 'promise' from Indyref.

I don't think that the examples given fit the bill....

Going hard Brexit after supporting remain was just her supporting the "will of the British people" and the vast majority of Conservative voters. If anything fighting Brexit (although IMO the right thing to do) would have been an example of unilateral May action against the will or policy of the party.

I'm not clear how calling an election is an example of unilateral May action when many have been calling for it since the Brexit vote.

The U-turn on NI is an example of May taking action to ensure that a manifesto pledge is maintained, not broken.

I don't think the failure of two Tory prime ministers to make good on post-referendum promises to Scotland is a good example of unilateral May action. I can see it as a reason to dislike May, but it's not comparable to Corbyn's continual voting against party policy.

 

[The Don]

Interestingly I'm relatively right wing and think Corbyn is a useless pillock but I have some sympathy with his nationalisation plans.

I agree that there industries that IMO should never have been privatised in the first place. From my perspective they include the water, gas, electricity and rail industries.

The difficulty I have is with re-nationalising them. Where is the money going to come from ? How will the existing shareholders (many of whom are regular folks with pension plans) be compensated ? How can we ensure that the necessary investment continues (having been involved the electricity, water and rail industries post-privatisation I'm painfully aware of the lack of investment when in public hands) ?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I don't think that the examples given fit the bill....

Going hard Brexit after supporting remain was just her supporting the "will of the British people" and the vast majority of Conservative voters. If anything fighting Brexit (although IMO the right thing to do) would have been an example of unilateral May action against the will or policy of the party.

I'm not clear how calling an election is an example of unilateral May action when many have been calling for it since the Brexit vote.

The U-turn on NI is an example of May taking action to ensure that a manifesto pledge is maintained, not broken.

I don't think the failure of two Tory prime ministers to make good on post-referendum promises to Scotland is a good example of unilateral May action. I can see it as a reason to dislike May, but it's not comparable to Corbyn's continual voting against party policy.

I don't think you will find what you are looking for because I specifically said they are different to begin with. May doesn't need to oppose her party unilaterally when they all get behind her to do what she wants.

Hard Brexit was never the will of the people. It was a con pitched on the people by Mays government because she is obsessed with immigrants above all else. It wasn't ever the policy of the Tories to enact that prior to May deciding it was. Then everyone fell into line.

 

[The Don]

I don't think you will find what you are looking for because I specifically said they are different to begin with. May doesn't need to oppose her party unilaterally when they all get behind her to do what she wants.

Hard Brexit was never the will of the people. It was a con pitched on the people by Mays government because she is obsessed with immigrants above all else. It wasn't ever the policy of the Tories to enact that prior to May deciding it was. Then everyone fell into line.

You're right there is a big difference. Theresa May either delivers the will/manifesto of the party (immigration, the U-turn on NI) or manages to convince the party to support her.

OTOH Corbyn appears to do neither. He regularly runs counter to party policy (but exactly in line with his 1970's issue 6th form common room socialist dogma) but is unable to convince the Parliamentary Party to follow him.

W.r.t that single point, May is a less worse leader and would make less of a hash of being P.M.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

You're right there is a big difference. Theresa May either delivers the will/manifesto of the party (immigration, the U-turn on NI) or manages to convince the party to support her.

OTOH Corbyn appears to do neither. He regularly runs counter to party policy (but exactly in line with his 1970's issue 6th form common room socialist dogma) but is unable to convince the Parliamentary Party to follow him.

W.r.t that single point, May is a less worse leader and would make less of a hash of being P.M.

yeah but that wasn't the point. The point was whether you could better trust May or Corbyn to implement what they promise after the election. Your concern was that Corbyn might abandon the manifesto and do his own thing. It seems patently obvious that this is equally a risk with May as she and her party have shown that is exactly what they will do AND May is clearly able to get the party/public to go along with her.

I think you are, somewhat understandably, holding Corbyn to a closer standard of scrutiny than you are May and the Tories and noticeably applying different measures to both.

To be honest I'm getting tired of talking about Corbyn. May is the problem here.

 

[Tolls]

Of course the argument is private sector foots the bill when it gets something wrong so they won't do it but as large projects are often for the public sector that's not always the case - it's rare that contracts will be waved about and taken to court etc and private sector companies are skilled at clawing their money back in other ways (over-charging for minor changes to recoup losses, finding ways to show it's not their fault etc).

Someone I know who was in the area of government IT contracts for a company that'll be unnamed likened the whole thing to dodgy builders putting one over an OAP.