New nationalisations every day......

[Papaumau]

I don't know about you good peeps but I find it rather strange how more and more private companies are failing and need to be bailed out by the taxpayers of this country.

The rot started with Railtrack making a complete botchup of running our national rail infrastructure and finished up with the government having to take it over under the auspices of Network Rail. ( A wholly not-for-profit trust as close to nationalisation as one can get without it actually being nationalised ).

Then we saw the privateer banks getting themselves in serious trouble because their top echelons were greedy and reckless in their running of these entities. Again they had to be bailed out by us with Northern Rock being fully nationalised and a few of the others now being wholly in the control of the public sector.

The latest example of this phenomenon is the East-Coast rail franchise - which used to be run by National Express - but because this franchise failed is now fully nationalised once again under the curious name of East Coast Rail.

For a long time many people in this country felt that the only way any large national entity could be run efficiently would be under the auspices of a private company and that the word "nationalisation" had become a word for "failure" and "inefficiency". In fact the word "nationalisation" soon became synonymous with government wastefulness and the cash-starvation of these industries and services.

Now, curiously, this idea has swung full-circle and the opposite has become the case !

This stimulates me to ask...."Were the nationalised industries and services actually better off being run for the nation by experts that knew what they were doing and could call on cash subsidies that would keep them modern and efficient ?".

After all, many of the so-called privatised services - that still survive - that are run in this sector are STILL heavily subsidised by us in order to keep their costs to us at an affordable level and to guarantee the dividends to the shareholders of these companies.

Comments please.......  

[Ivanhoe]

Papaumau, Free market capitalism bailing out free market capitalism, these right wingers are getting the best of both worlds.

Nationalisation is cheaper, but it provides jobs and when jobs are provided people have work, and where people have work, consolidation occurs, , and when consolidation occurs, workers strike, and this is messes with the economy, hence privatisation, and profit before people.

[Papaumau]

I do agree that when  important services and industries are run under the auspices of state control they are often less liable to use people as some form of currency with which to make profits better and such businesses run in the public sector - so long as they are run properly by professional managers and people of vision - can produce goods and services that are much more like what the people want and need.

When the privateers are running ANYTHING all that counts is the bottom line and the shareholder dividends and the people who are employed and those that are served come way down in the importance stakes.

I have always said that if any service needs running it should never be allowed to be run under the profit motive as when it is the bottom line that matters services always suffer. ( That is why many of the franchised services, that are now in the private sector, that used to be in the public sector, are STILL subsidised by us ).

While I think that union power should be carefully curtailled so that it does not go power-crazy and bring down successful services I still feel that the unions are vital if the employers are not to be allowed to abuse their workers in that drive for ever more profits and that dogma-heavy bottom line.

If employers WERE truly altrusitic and really cared about their employees there would be no need for unions but as the human need for greed and ever more profits at the expense of the care and security of employees is what drives the privateers, the unions will always do a valuable job no matter whether the job is in the private or in the public sector.

[Ivanhoe]

Papaumau, Privatisation is about laying off worker to lower inflation and make profits for shareholders and bosses salaries.

And yes, privatisation costs much more of tax payers money to uphold than nationalisation ever did, but nationalisation never made profits.

[Papaumau]

The whole idea behind nationalisation is that profits per-se are NOT made. If services run under the public purse are successful  - and there is no reason why they should not be - then all such "profits" should be ploughed back into making the service better and not sent into the pockets of the fat-cats and the dividends of the shareholders.

Being a New-Socialist I do not stand too strongly against privatisation as privatisation and capitalism is the best way to create wealth for all. What needs to be done in these circumstances is that the workers should be protected from being used as currency in this sector.

[Ivanhoe]

""Being a New-Socialist I do not stand too strongly against privatisation as privatisation and capitalism is the best way to create wealth for all"".

I am staunchly against weath creation because this creates greed in the system, I am also staunchly against privatisations because this creates job losses and sackings, while prices and fairs rocket for the benefit of the few.

Im all for the UK's GNP being used to nationalise all our utilities for the bettermeant of everybody.

[Papaumau]

That's Communism you are spouting there my friend !

All of us that can see the wood AND the trees know that Communism cannot survive where human nature runs as human nature is always driven by greed.

The only way to allow the Capitalists to work is to allow them to generate wealth and then ensure that it is shared around as well as possible. This can be done by fiscal means if the chancellor of the day really wants to.

In other words, the best way to get the best out of both is to support both and to ensure that the powerful captains of industry are not allowed to use their workers as slave labour.

Just like when the banks were allowed to run away with their greedy and carenought practices both the banks and the industries now need to be carefully and precisely regulated if everybody is to get a fair crack of the whip out of their efforts.

[Wrinkles]

Although it could not be said that I am in any way like Ivanhoe the Red and I do not have socialist leanings there should be areas on privatisation that is strictly off limits and these are the basic utilities, Gas, electricity & water. The reasons given for privatising these was to engender competition and in so doing drive down costs and prices. What do we have French and other European countries own our utilities and we are paying through the nose for the privilege.
There was never a valid case for selling these, if efficiency and cost cutting was required then there was no reason not to do this by conventional means.
As for the remainder Business is business and the devil take the hindmost.

[Papaumau]

The hidden reason was simply selling off the family silver and both the Tories and the New-Labourites are guilty of that practice.

There are times when we really have to put our individual political dogmas aside to get the best out of government.

As I agree and have always said....."Essential services run under the private sector NEVER works as they do not actually care about the service itself; all they care about is the bottom line !"

If that utopian idea that all private companies run their businesses in good competition with each-other was true then there would be no problem in the privatisation of the nationalised services. They don't, so it's not a good thing to do to follow that line !

[Ivanhoe]

Wrinkles as proven, the only reason for privatisation of our utilities was greed on behalf of shareholder profits and bosses salaries, hence increases in prices.

Anybody who believes that Tory privatisation was to introduce competition and drive down prices is living in cloud cuckoo land.

[Wrinkles]

Ivanhoe, there you go again prefixing privatisation with "Tory". This would indicate your belief that Labour have NEVER privatised anything. When in fact there have been no small number introduced by Labour.
Oh! silly me, of course these would be by the other Labour not the true Labour so they don't count. 

As for believing that these measures were to engender competition and in so doing drive down costs and prices. Just because these were the reasons given doesn't mean that I or anyone else actually believes them

[Ivanhoe]

Wrinkles "traditional" Labour were the advocates of nationalisation, they never advocated privatisation.

New Labour have taken on board right wing policies since 1997, including privatisation.

[BillB]

Papaumau Ivenhoe, New Socialist that's a new one on me, you both seem to be old fashioned social Democrats.

[Ivanhoe]

BillB, And what's wrong with Social Democracy, paricularly mine, the European kind. ?

[BillB]

Ivenhoe,  What European Social Democrats are not moving to the right as fast as they can, and have adopted neo- liberal policies as New Labour did?