Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Conservatives must again make the case for private enterpr

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited May 2018 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Conservatives must again make the case for private enterprise, profit, choice and competition

1929 Conservative poster

Read the full story here


«134567

Comments

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165
    First.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,088
    Second. A lot to read this early in the morning.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165
    An excellent piece Mr Herdson. We've said in the past that Labour doesn't know what it's for and that if the Tories didn't exist, they'd have to invent them. Right now, I think the opposite is true.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    edited May 2018
    OT (Sorry). The graphic at the end is well worth looking at. Where the bullets hit and how many.

    (The only two countries voting against a UN investigation Australia and the US).

    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/05/votes-send-war-crimes-investigators-gaza-180518142752946.html
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    A very good piece. Thank you Mr H.

  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    Excellent piece - I suspect the country may opt for a dose of socialism soon. A great pity as the variant on offer from the current Labour party is particularly unpleasant in so many ways - it's not only Jews who should be nervous.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    The reason is that both parties have venerated markets without understanding them -- what they are, how they work, and what can go wrong. Markets are seen as magical. Utilities are classically seen as needing more regulation because they tend naturally to monopolies, but our politicians tend to think all regulation is harmful. DH's OP lists more than three-quarters of the public backed state ownership of water, electricity, gas and railways. That’s no doubt partially a consequence of some obvious problems in each of those markets. and it is noticeable that is more-or-less a list of formerly state-run utilities.

    Often this magical thinking is compounded by the issue of public versus private ownership, and Mrs Thatcher used to rail against the dead hand of the state, yet as we discussed earlier in the week, many privatisations have eventually led to state ownership by foreign countries.

    Well-run markets need management and regulation rather than a free-for-all but enthusiasts in both parties forget that, or never knew it.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Good morning, everyone.

    Indeed.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    PBers wondering whether I might comment on seeing the thread picture of the 1929 Conservative Poster first hand as I went to vote in another general election will be disappointed ....

    Jack W is somewhat aged ....
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    Fantastic article!

    Sadly, I don’t think the Tories have it in them to defend private enterprise, and to anyone under the age of 45 it appears the market is broken, since it cannot provide home ownership.

    Most Tories are unable to do anything but mouth “private food, public bad” but as @DecrepitJohnL points out, it’s much more complicated than that.

    You mention Carillion unrepresentative - but is it, really? Aren’t we now inured to grotesque inequality and payment for failure? We can all of us name a long string of corporate scandals: WPP, BHS, and Persimmon are the first into my head this early in the morning...
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    What was wrong with the water industry, the electricity industry and even the railways before they were privatised?

    I would suggest several things.
    Firstly they were run for the benefit of their staff. Service levels were absolutely chronic.
    Secondly, and aggravating the first, they were used to create employment whether there was work or not resulting in gross over manning, absurd costs and very poor productivity.
    Thirdly, particularly in hard times, they were starved of capital. There is absolutely no way that we would have seen the investment that has occurred since 2010 if these enterprises had been state controlled.
    Fourthly, both the capital spending and the level of charge were political. So businesses would not be allowed to increase prices near elections and investment would be driven by pork like considerations.
    Fifthly, strikes were endemic because staff knew political pressure could be applied and that their enterprise could not go bust.

    David is right that fewer and fewer people remember the consequences of this. The Consensus since Blair did not make this necessary. He is also right that the case needs to be made now.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    I always read DH on a Saturday, his piece is ALWAYS on the money.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    Fantastic article!

    Sadly, I don’t think the Tories have it in them to defend private enterprise, and to anyone under the age of 45 it appears the market is broken, since it cannot provide home ownership.

    Most Tories are unable to do anything but mouth “private food, public bad” but as @DecrepitJohnL points out, it’s much more complicated than that.

    You mention Carillion unrepresentative - but is it, really? Aren’t we now inured to grotesque inequality and payment for failure? We can all of us name a long string of corporate scandals: WPP, BHS, and Persimmon are the first into my head this early in the morning...

    Well said - "private food, public bad"

    Let them eat cake !! .... wedding cake today .... :smiley:
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    Roger said:

    OT (Sorry). The graphic at the end is well worth looking at. Where the bullets hit and how many.

    (The only two countries voting against a UN investigation Australia and the US).

    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/05/votes-send-war-crimes-investigators-gaza-180518142752946.html

    Pretty shameful that we abstained on this.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,576

    The reason is that both parties have venerated markets without understanding them -- what they are, how they work, and what can go wrong. Markets are seen as magical. Utilities are classically seen as needing more regulation because they tend naturally to monopolies, but our politicians tend to think all regulation is harmful. DH's OP lists more than three-quarters of the public backed state ownership of water, electricity, gas and railways. That’s no doubt partially a consequence of some obvious problems in each of those markets. and it is noticeable that is more-or-less a list of formerly state-run utilities.

    Often this magical thinking is compounded by the issue of public versus private ownership, and Mrs Thatcher used to rail against the dead hand of the state, yet as we discussed earlier in the week, many privatisations have eventually led to state ownership by foreign countries.

    Well-run markets need management and regulation rather than a free-for-all but enthusiasts in both parties forget that, or never knew it.

    Which is astonishing really, given that it was a recurrent theme of the first serious writer about markets.
    Mind you, Smith’s dictum - "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public” - applies equally to state and private businesses....
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,520
    Off-topic:

    My three-year old son is currently having an early-morning strop because he can't go to the royal wedding, and watching it on TV is not enough.

    Much to the amusement of his republican mother.

    (Neither of us have mentioned it to him at all. He's got it from school.nursery...)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,576
    They have four years to turn that round.
    This government ?
    No chance, I fear.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    DavidL said:

    What was wrong with the water industry, the electricity industry and even the railways before they were privatised?

    I would suggest several things.
    Firstly they were run for the benefit of their staff. Service levels were absolutely chronic.
    Secondly, and aggravating the first, they were used to create employment whether there was work or not resulting in gross over manning, absurd costs and very poor productivity.
    Thirdly, particularly in hard times, they were starved of capital. There is absolutely no way that we would have seen the investment that has occurred since 2010 if these enterprises had been state controlled.
    Fourthly, both the capital spending and the level of charge were political. So businesses would not be allowed to increase prices near elections and investment would be driven by pork like considerations.
    Fifthly, strikes were endemic because staff knew political pressure could be applied and that their enterprise could not go bust.

    David is right that fewer and fewer people remember the consequences of this. The Consensus since Blair did not make this necessary. He is also right that the case needs to be made now.

    You mention investment since 2010 but surely the privatisations were two or three decades earlier. You say it would not have happened under state control but some of these utilities are now state-owned by foreign countries.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    Nigelb said:

    They have four years to turn that round.
    This government ?
    No chance, I fear.

    It is an opportunity if they seize it. Corbyn’s old style socialism is wide open to ridicule and innumerable examples of failure both in our own history and in other countries. It was an attack that could not be used in the Blair years or even after during Miliband. But it is open now.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,072

    Fantastic article!

    Sadly, I don’t think the Tories have it in them to defend private enterprise, and to anyone under the age of 45 it appears the market is broken, since it cannot provide home ownership.

    Most Tories are unable to do anything but mouth “private food, public bad” but as @DecrepitJohnL points out, it’s much more complicated than that.

    You mention Carillion unrepresentative - but is it, really? Aren’t we now inured to grotesque inequality and payment for failure? We can all of us name a long string of corporate scandals: WPP, BHS, and Persimmon are the first into my head this early in the morning...

    What has brought Capitalism into disrepute is its headlong drive for globalisation, with well paid jobs being off shored along with the profits. Capitalists need to remember that their workers are also the consumers that keep the whole system functional.

    I am no advocate of renationalisation of industry or utilities, but there is little love out there for the companies that have fed on the carrion of British Industry.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,072

    Off-topic:

    My three-year old son is currently having an early-morning strop because he can't go to the royal wedding, and watching it on TV is not enough.

    Much to the amusement of his republican mother.

    (Neither of us have mentioned it to him at all. He's got it from school.nursery...)

    Missing out on a party matters at that age! Mrs Foxy is off later, Prosecco in hand, to enjoy the televised nuptials. Dr Foxy is just hoping that the party and fine weather keep people away as he trudges off to work...
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    DavidL said:

    Roger said:

    OT (Sorry). The graphic at the end is well worth looking at. Where the bullets hit and how many.

    (The only two countries voting against a UN investigation Australia and the US).

    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/05/votes-send-war-crimes-investigators-gaza-180518142752946.html

    Pretty shameful that we abstained on this.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BzupERMP3w
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,721
    edited May 2018

    DavidL said:

    What was wrong with the water industry, the electricity industry and even the railways before they were privatised?

    I would suggest several things.
    Firstly they were run for the benefit of their staff. Service levels were absolutely chronic.
    Secondly, and aggravating the first, they were used to create employment whether there was work or not resulting in gross over manning, absurd costs and very poor productivity.
    Thirdly, particularly in hard times, they were starved of capital. There is absolutely no way that we would have seen the investment that has occurred since 2010 if these enterprises had been state controlled.
    Fourthly, both the capital spending and the level of charge were political. So businesses would not be allowed to increase prices near elections and investment would be driven by pork like considerations.
    Fifthly, strikes were endemic because staff knew political pressure could be applied and that their enterprise could not go bust.

    David is right that fewer and fewer people remember the consequences of this. The Consensus since Blair did not make this necessary. He is also right that the case needs to be made now.

    You mention investment since 2010 but surely the privatisations were two or three decades earlier. You say it would not have happened under state control but some of these utilities are now state-owned by foreign countries.
    That they were ‘starved of capital’ was partly at least due to political decisions by Conservative Governments. People here sometimes seem to forget that, although the industries cited were nationalised in the 1945-50 Parliament, the Tories were in power from 1951-64 and again from 1970-74.
    Incidentally, swathes of Council houses were built in the 50’s, too!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,576
    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    They have four years to turn that round.
    This government ?
    No chance, I fear.

    It is an opportunity if they seize it. Corbyn’s old style socialism is wide open to ridicule and innumerable examples of failure both in our own history and in other countries. It was an attack that could not be used in the Blair years or even after during Miliband. But it is open now.
    Of course there is - but I repeat, this government ?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Evidently there has been something distracting the Conservatives recently. Anyone got any ideas what that might be?
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    The Tories becoming the anti-business party is probably the biggest story after Brexit.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,760
    Foxy said:

    What has brought Capitalism into disrepute is its headlong drive for globalisation, with well paid jobs being off shored along with the profits. Capitalists need to remember that their workers are also the consumers that keep the whole system functional.

    I am no advocate of renationalisation of industry or utilities, but there is little love out there for the companies that have fed on the carrion of British Industry.

    Actually the key thing that brings capitalism into disrepute is that it is rewarding instead of punishing failure at the moment.

    If some banks had closed when they had gone bust and some bankers fined and jailed good and hard for false accounting then perhaps there would be a feeling at least they were being punished for their failures.

    As it is, the state stepped in to rescue them, so the bankers who had lost our money were bailed out with another pot of our money so they could continue to be rich and successful at our expense. Meanwhile, we get more heavily taxed and our public services are cut to pay for it.

    Now, before anyone tells me that's not exactly what happened, I know that. I know also that the City in particular and banking generally paid a huge share of national tax that paid for those essential services. I also know the consequences of not acting would have been worse. I further know that nobody was guiltless in terms of the age of excess - least of all people who voted in Blair and Brown three times. Above all I know that it's not just banks - we could mention Philip Green, Carillon or the BatshitCrazy woman who ran a pseudo charity in London on what seems to have been much the same basis.

    I do say however that is what is perceived to have happened. And nothing discredits a system supposed to reward success and punish failure than a perception that it is punishing success based on hard work, honesty and thrift while rewarding failure based on greed, profligacy and criminality. That is where Trump, Corbyn, Tsipras, Podema and Beppe Grillo come in.

    It is also where Brexit comes in. With hindsight, however true it may be, was it really wise to have lots of these despised bankers tell us it would be disastrous for the City?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,520

    DavidL said:

    What was wrong with the water industry, the electricity industry and even the railways before they were privatised?

    I would suggest several things.
    Firstly they were run for the benefit of their staff. Service levels were absolutely chronic.
    Secondly, and aggravating the first, they were used to create employment whether there was work or not resulting in gross over manning, absurd costs and very poor productivity.
    Thirdly, particularly in hard times, they were starved of capital. There is absolutely no way that we would have seen the investment that has occurred since 2010 if these enterprises had been state controlled.
    Fourthly, both the capital spending and the level of charge were political. So businesses would not be allowed to increase prices near elections and investment would be driven by pork like considerations.
    Fifthly, strikes were endemic because staff knew political pressure could be applied and that their enterprise could not go bust.

    David is right that fewer and fewer people remember the consequences of this. The Consensus since Blair did not make this necessary. He is also right that the case needs to be made now.

    You mention investment since 2010 but surely the privatisations were two or three decades earlier. You say it would not have happened under state control but some of these utilities are now state-owned by foreign countries.
    That they were ‘starved of capital’ was partly at least due to political decisions by Conservative Governments. People here sometimes seem to forget that, although the industries cited were nationalised in the 1945-50 Parliament, the Tories were in power from 1951-64 and again from 1970-74.
    Incidentally, swathes of Council houses were built in the 50’s, too!
    Yes, both parties starve them of investment. But perhaps instead of pointing and sneering at the Conservatives, you should ask yourself why Labour, the party that believes ideologically and dogmatically in nationalised services, also starved those services of money.

    The reasons are multiufaceted, but a lot of it is to do with priorities. The NHS and education will always be the priority for governments, and less 'sexy' industries are paid, at best, lip service.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    edited May 2018
    Any tech-minded fellows on?

    I've had an occasional problem with flickering black boxes on Chrome for a while now. Few minutes ago the top bar (with the tabs) was affected badly so I closed it, but other programmes (top bar with the title) and the taskbar had become notably paler (though no boxes, thankfully).

    Not sure what it is. Did virus scans and found nothing. Wondering if it's just my computer being old and knackered...

    Edited extra bit: just got a message about low memory and restarting programmes...
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    Evidently there has been something distracting the Conservatives recently. Anyone got any ideas what that might be?

    Jeremy Corbyn defecting to the Tory benches ?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,760

    DavidL said:

    What was wrong with the water industry, the electricity industry and even the railways before they were privatised?

    I would suggest several things.
    Firstly they were run for the benefit of their staff. Service levels were absolutely chronic.
    Secondly, and aggravating the first, they were used to create employment whether there was work or not resulting in gross over manning, absurd costs and very poor productivity.
    Thirdly, particularly in hard times, they were starved of capital. There is absolutely no way that we would have seen the investment that has occurred since 2010 if these enterprises had been state controlled.
    Fourthly, both the capital spending and the level of charge were political. So businesses would not be allowed to increase prices near elections and investment would be driven by pork like considerations.
    Fifthly, strikes were endemic because staff knew political pressure could be applied and that their enterprise could not go bust.

    David is right that fewer and fewer people remember the consequences of this. The Consensus since Blair did not make this necessary. He is also right that the case needs to be made now.

    You mention investment since 2010 but surely the privatisations were two or three decades earlier. You say it would not have happened under state control but some of these utilities are now state-owned by foreign countries.
    That they were ‘starved of capital’ was partly at least due to political decisions by Conservative Governments. People here sometimes seem to forget that, although the industries cited were nationalised in the 1945-50 Parliament, the Tories were in power from 1951-64 and again from 1970-74.
    Incidentally, swathes of Council houses were built in the 50’s, too!
    Famously, 300,000 in the year 1952.

    The mid 50s was also a time when huge amounts of money were pumped into the railways. Unfortunately the results were disastrous due to poor management. Just to give the silliest example, some civil servant thought that Diesel engines should share sheds with steam engines, apparently not thinking of the problems the soot would cause in terms of maintenance and air quality by the engine intake. That would have mattered a great deal more if most of the diesels they bought hadn't been so underpowered as to be useless anyway.

    I would say, however, that the key problem is not the principle of private ownership of the railways but the exceptionally dumb model that was seized upon by the Major government and further buggered about with by Mr Cab for Hires Byers. The only sensible model is vertical integration, because the system is already extremely complex and making it more so just increases the number of things that can go wrong.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772

    DavidL said:

    What was wrong with the water industry, the electricity industry and even the railways before they were privatised?

    I would suggest several things.
    Firstly they were run for the benefit of their staff. Service levels were absolutely chronic.
    Secondly, and aggravating the first, they were used to create employment whether there was work or not resulting in gross over manning, absurd costs and very poor productivity.
    Thirdly, particularly in hard times, they were starved of capital. There is absolutely no way that we would have seen the investment that has occurred since 2010 if these enterprises had been state controlled.
    Fourthly, both the capital spending and the level of charge were political. So businesses would not be allowed to increase prices near elections and investment would be driven by pork like considerations.
    Fifthly, strikes were endemic because staff knew political pressure could be applied and that their enterprise could not go bust.

    David is right that fewer and fewer people remember the consequences of this. The Consensus since Blair did not make this necessary. He is also right that the case needs to be made now.

    You mention investment since 2010 but surely the privatisations were two or three decades earlier. You say it would not have happened under state control but some of these utilities are now state-owned by foreign countries.
    Yes but our politicians no longer have to choose between repairing leaks and schools and hospitals. They can impose regulatory requirements for investment and targets without consequence to public spending more generally. The railways were particularly vulnerable to this.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,760

    The NHS and education will always be the priority for governments, and less 'sexy' industries are paid, at best, lip service.

    I profoundly disagree.

    The NHS is the priority. Education doesn't even come a poor second.

    Would it be cynical of me to say this is because children don't vote?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    ydoethur said:

    The NHS and education will always be the priority for governments, and less 'sexy' industries are paid, at best, lip service.

    I profoundly disagree.

    The NHS is the priority. Education doesn't even come a poor second.

    Would it be cynical of me to say this is because children don't vote?
    Or self interested even?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,760
    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    The NHS and education will always be the priority for governments, and less 'sexy' industries are paid, at best, lip service.

    I profoundly disagree.

    The NHS is the priority. Education doesn't even come a poor second.

    Would it be cynical of me to say this is because children don't vote?
    Or self interested even?
    Damn, you called me! :smiley:
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Tennis: backed Sharapova to beat Halep at 2.75. Has a very good record against her.
  • GasmanGasman Posts: 132
    Foxy said:

    Fantastic article!

    Sadly, I don’t think the Tories have it in them to defend private enterprise, and to anyone under the age of 45 it appears the market is broken, since it cannot provide home ownership.

    Most Tories are unable to do anything but mouth “private food, public bad” but as @DecrepitJohnL points out, it’s much more complicated than that.

    You mention Carillion unrepresentative - but is it, really? Aren’t we now inured to grotesque inequality and payment for failure? We can all of us name a long string of corporate scandals: WPP, BHS, and Persimmon are the first into my head this early in the morning...

    What has brought Capitalism into disrepute is its headlong drive for globalisation, with well paid jobs being off shored along with the profits. Capitalists need to remember that their workers are also the consumers that keep the whole system functional.

    I am no advocate of renationalisation of industry or utilities, but there is little love out there for the companies that have fed on the carrion of British Industry.
    And yet globalisation is what has been making really poor people much better off for the last few decades - it has been a definite force for the good, as long as you care about actual poverty.

    The problem with the header is that the current government (or at least May) don't understand/believe that markets and freedom more generally are good. They're busy nannying everyone - any problem can be solved with a new law.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    BBC - Harry becomes Duke of Sussex.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,760
    edited May 2018
    JackW said:

    BBC - Harry becomes Duke of Sussex.

    At least it wasn't Duke of Clarence.

    Edit - I wonder if he will ever be made Duke of York or if this is where his run of titles will end and Louis will take York next. I suppose it may depend on whether Charles outlives the Queen or not.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    What was wrong with the water industry, the electricity industry and even the railways before they were privatised?

    I would suggest several things.
    Firstly they were run for the benefit of their staff. Service levels were absolutely chronic.
    Secondly, and aggravating the first, they were used to create employment whether there was work or not resulting in gross over manning, absurd costs and very poor productivity.
    Thirdly, particularly in hard times, they were starved of capital. There is absolutely no way that we would have seen the investment that has occurred since 2010 if these enterprises had been state controlled.
    Fourthly, both the capital spending and the level of charge were political. So businesses would not be allowed to increase prices near elections and investment would be driven by pork like considerations.
    Fifthly, strikes were endemic because staff knew political pressure could be applied and that their enterprise could not go bust.

    David is right that fewer and fewer people remember the consequences of this. The Consensus since Blair did not make this necessary. He is also right that the case needs to be made now.

    You mention investment since 2010 but surely the privatisations were two or three decades earlier. You say it would not have happened under state control but some of these utilities are now state-owned by foreign countries.
    Yes but our politicians no longer have to choose between repairing leaks and schools and hospitals. They can impose regulatory requirements for investment and targets without consequence to public spending more generally. The railways were particularly vulnerable to this.
    Public ownership and markets are two different issues that politicians are prone to conflate. Many privatised companies are now owned by foreign states, but how can that be if state ownership is the problem?
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    ydoethur said:

    JackW said:

    BBC - Harry becomes Duke of Sussex.

    At least it wasn't Duke of Clarence.
    Who doesn't like a cross-eyed lion with a title ?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,576
    ydoethur said:

    JackW said:

    BBC - Harry becomes Duke of Sussex.

    At least it wasn't Duke of Clarence.

    Edit - I wonder if he will ever be made Duke of York or if this is where his run of titles will end and Louis will take York next. I suppose it may depend on whether Charles outlives the Queen or not.
    Or Gloucester.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,760
    JackW said:

    ydoethur said:

    JackW said:

    BBC - Harry becomes Duke of Sussex.

    At least it wasn't Duke of Clarence.
    Who doesn't like a cross-eyed lion with a title ?
    Who is this lion? Does he spend all his time whining?

    (Sits back and wonders if anyone will spot that pun.)
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Scott_P said:
    Presumably no courtier tried saying "Duchess of Sussex" six times quickly, else they'd have looked for a better title.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,760
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    JackW said:

    BBC - Harry becomes Duke of Sussex.

    At least it wasn't Duke of Clarence.

    Edit - I wonder if he will ever be made Duke of York or if this is where his run of titles will end and Louis will take York next. I suppose it may depend on whether Charles outlives the Queen or not.
    Or Gloucester.
    There's already a Duke of Gloucester!
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    What was wrong with the water industry, the electricity industry and even the railways before they were privatised?

    I would suggest several things.
    Firstly they were run for the benefit of their staff. Service levels were absolutely chronic.
    Secondly, and aggravating the first, they were used to create employment whether there was work or not resulting in gross over manning, absurd costs and very poor productivity.
    Thirdly, particularly in hard times, they were starved of capital. There is absolutely no way that we would have seen the investment that has occurred since 2010 if these enterprises had been state controlled.
    Fourthly, both the capital spending and the level of charge were political. So businesses would not be allowed to increase prices near elections and investment would be driven by pork like considerations.
    Fifthly, strikes were endemic because staff knew political pressure could be applied and that their enterprise could not go bust.

    David is right that fewer and fewer people remember the consequences of this. The Consensus since Blair did not make this necessary. He is also right that the case needs to be made now.

    You mention investment since 2010 but surely the privatisations were two or three decades earlier. You say it would not have happened under state control but some of these utilities are now state-owned by foreign countries.
    Yes but our politicians no longer have to choose between repairing leaks and schools and hospitals. They can impose regulatory requirements for investment and targets without consequence to public spending more generally. The railways were particularly vulnerable to this.
    Public ownership and markets are two different issues that politicians are prone to conflate. Many privatised companies are now owned by foreign states, but how can that be if state ownership is the problem?
    Because the foreign company, even if state-owned, isn’t subject to our politics. See DavidL’s excellent postal 07:18 about what happens when governments control industry in their own country.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,072
    edited May 2018
    Gasman said:

    Foxy said:

    Fantastic article!

    Sadly, I don’t think the Tories have it in them to defend private enterprise, and to anyone under the age of 45 it appears the market is broken, since it cannot provide home ownership.

    Most Tories are unable to do anything but mouth “private food, public bad” but as @DecrepitJohnL points out, it’s much more complicated than that.

    You mention Carillion unrepresentative - but is it, really? Aren’t we now inured to grotesque inequality and payment for failure? We can all of us name a long string of corporate scandals: WPP, BHS, and Persimmon are the first into my head this early in the morning...

    What has brought Capitalism into disrepute is its headlong drive for globalisation, with well paid jobs being off shored along with the profits. Capitalists need to remember that their workers are also the consumers that keep the whole system functional.

    I am no advocate of renationalisation of industry or utilities, but there is little love out there for the companies that have fed on the carrion of British Industry.
    And yet globalisation is what has been making really poor people much better off for the last few decades - it has been a definite force for the good, as long as you care about actual poverty.

    The problem with the header is that the current government (or at least May) don't understand/believe that markets and freedom more generally are good. They're busy nannying everyone - any problem can be solved with a new law.
    I agree, though those very poor people who are getting richer are mostly in Asia. Don't expect the workers of Port Talbot or Ohio to be so understanding, even as they play with their imported Asian electronics.

    May's control freakery combined with indecision is not a good advocate of Free Markets and Trade, indeed her major policy is to worsen our terms of trade with our neighbours. A pro-business Tory party is in hock to the economic protectionists who voted Brexit.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Excellent nod to the Jacobite cause from the Queen. Harry's Scottish title of Earl of Dumbarton has been revived.The father and son of the first creation served King James II and VII in exile.
  • GasmanGasman Posts: 132

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    What was wrong with the water industry, the electricity industry and even the railways before they were privatised?

    I would suggest several things.
    Firstly they were run for the benefit of their staff. Service levels were absolutely chronic.
    Secondly, and aggravating the first, they were used to create employment whether there was work or not resulting in gross over manning, absurd costs and very poor productivity.
    Thirdly, particularly in hard times, they were starved of capital. There is absolutely no way that we would have seen the investment that has occurred since 2010 if these enterprises had been state controlled.
    Fourthly, both the capital spending and the level of charge were political. So businesses would not be allowed to increase prices near elections and investment would be driven by pork like considerations.
    Fifthly, strikes were endemic because staff knew political pressure could be applied and that their enterprise could not go bust.

    David is right that fewer and fewer people remember the consequences of this. The Consensus since Blair did not make this necessary. He is also right that the case needs to be made now.

    You mention investment since 2010 but surely the privatisations were two or three decades earlier. You say it would not have happened under state control but some of these utilities are now state-owned by foreign countries.
    Yes but our politicians no longer have to choose between repairing leaks and schools and hospitals. They can impose regulatory requirements for investment and targets without consequence to public spending more generally. The railways were particularly vulnerable to this.
    Public ownership and markets are two different issues that politicians are prone to conflate. Many privatised companies are now owned by foreign states, but how can that be if state ownership is the problem?
    Because there's a difference between our government owning something and any other organisation owning something, including other governments. If our government owns it then it can be mismanaged to win votes - spending too much, spending to little, etc. Anyone else has to run it in the interests of the users of the services, otherwise their investment disappears.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881
    "advocates of a well-regulated market economy have been on the defensive."

    The Tories veered off towards an unregulated market economy under Cameron.
    His nonsense about "enemies of enterprise" and bonfires of regulations.

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,072
    Gasman said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    What was wrong with the water industry, the electricity industry and even the railways before they were privatised?

    I would suggest several things.
    Firstly they were run for the benefit of their staff. Service levels were absolutely chronic.
    Secondly, and aggravating the first, they were used to create employment whether there was work or not resulting in gross over manning, absurd costs and very poor productivity.
    Thirdly, particularly in hard times, they were starved of capital. There is absolutely no way that we would have seen the investment that has occurred since 2010 if these enterprises had been state controlled.
    Fourthly, both the capital spending and the level of charge were political. So businesses would not be allowed to increase prices near elections and investment would be driven by pork like considerations.
    Fifthly, strikes were endemic because staff knew political pressure could be applied and that their enterprise could not go bust.

    David is right that fewer and fewer people remember the consequences of this. The Consensus since Blair did not make this necessary. He is also right that the case needs to be made now.

    You mention investment since 2010 but surely the privatisations were two or three decades earlier. You say it would not have happened under state control but some of these utilities are now state-owned by foreign countries.
    Yes but our politicians no longer have to choose between repairing leaks and schools and hospitals. They can impose regulatory requirements for investment and targets without consequence to public spending more generally. The railways were particularly vulnerable to this.
    Public ownership and markets are two different issues that politicians are prone to conflate. Many privatised companies are now owned by foreign states, but how can that be if state ownership is the problem?
    Because there's a difference between our government owning something and any other organisation owning something, including other governments. If our government owns it then it can be mismanaged to win votes - spending too much, spending to little, etc. Anyone else has to run it in the interests of the users of the services, otherwise their investment disappears.
    Well, not entirely. The purpose of a business is to extract sustainably the maximum amount of money from the clients. That does not necessarily mean acting in the interests of clients, for example all the complex fares and tarrifs.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,349
    edited May 2018
    Dr Fox,

    "What has brought Capitalism into disrepute is its headlong drive for globalisation, with well paid jobs being off shored along with the profits."

    A few years ago, I watched 'Dragons' Den" and one episode featured one of the Dragons buying an applicant's company, some sort of doll maker. Later on, a spin-off company featured how the Dragon got on.

    She closed down the UK company and started producing the dolls cheaper in China. What a genius this Dragon was, an example of female entrepreneurship at its best. I begged to differ.

    But I'm old enough to remember the nationalised companies at their worst. I was a union rep for many years so I've no illusions about them. They exist for the good of their members, and where there is a political bias, it's not a right wing one. First priority - increase wages, second priority - increase staffing. Not so bad when its a genuine service industry, not so good when it's a competitive environment.

    I'd vote Liberal Democrat if they ever became democratic again.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    What was wrong with the water industry, the electricity industry and even the railways before they were privatised?

    I would suggest several things.
    Firstly they were run for the benefit of their staff. Service levels were absolutely chronic.
    Secondly, and aggravating the first, they were used to create employment whether there was work or not resulting in gross over manning, absurd costs and very poor productivity.
    Thirdly, particularly in hard times, they were starved of capital. There is absolutely no way that we would have seen the investment that has occurred since 2010 if these enterprises had been state controlled.
    Fourthly, both the capital spending and the level of charge were political. So businesses would not be allowed to increase prices near elections and investment would be driven by pork like considerations.
    Fifthly, strikes were endemic because staff knew political pressure could be applied and that their enterprise could not go bust.

    David is right that fewer and fewer people remember the consequences of this. The Consensus since Blair did not make this necessary. He is also right that the case needs to be made now.

    You mention investment since 2010 but surely the privatisations were two or three decades earlier. You say it would not have happened under state control but some of these utilities are now state-owned by foreign countries.
    Yes but our politicians no longer have to choose between repairing leaks and schools and hospitals. They can impose regulatory requirements for investment and targets without consequence to public spending more generally. The railways were particularly vulnerable to this.
    Public ownership and markets are two different issues that politicians are prone to conflate. Many privatised companies are now owned by foreign states, but how can that be if state ownership is the problem?
    Because the foreign company, even if state-owned, isn’t subject to our politics. See DavidL’s excellent postal 07:18 about what happens when governments control industry in their own country.
    There is no choice between Italian orphans and British rolling stock? No, the point is that ownership and markets are different issues. It is only here we conflate them.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    ydoethur said:

    JackW said:

    BBC - Harry becomes Duke of Sussex.

    At least it wasn't Duke of Clarence.

    Edit - I wonder if he will ever be made Duke of York or if this is where his run of titles will end and Louis will take York next. I suppose it may depend on whether Charles outlives the Queen or not.
    The York title is unlikely to be used again in the foreseeable future as both of the Duke of York's daughters derive their dignity from their father and as young women could possibly outlive Prince Harry. Possibly Prince Louise as the second son of a future King William will be next Duke of York.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,760
    Still can't understand why nobody has proposed reviving the Principality of Chester for William.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674
    DavidL said:

    Roger said:

    OT (Sorry). The graphic at the end is well worth looking at. Where the bullets hit and how many.

    (The only two countries voting against a UN investigation Australia and the US).

    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/05/votes-send-war-crimes-investigators-gaza-180518142752946.html

    Pretty shameful that we abstained on this.
    David, exactly and that is how low this current lot have got us to. What a choice , thick uncaring Tories or thick uncaring labour donkeys. Something big has to change in this country, both these lots of parasitic morons need the tumbrils.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    edited May 2018
    The East coast mainline the last couple of times in public ownership is perceived to have worked.
    And the last couple of times in private hands is perceived to have failed. In addition much of our rail franchise system is owned by foreign state enterprise.
    My proposed third way would be to run it by the state (Direct operated railways) invest the surplus it creates back into the line. But also ban any union involvement.....
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,026
    This is a superb article, I fully agree with all of it. Conservatives have become edgy, evasive and defensive about capitalism, and it shows.

    Where are the Tory MPs, yet alone cabinet ministers, making this case?

    In the 1980s you'd have had the likes of Keith Joseph, Norman Tebbit, Nigel Lawson and - in particular - Margaret Thatcher almost continually on the airwaves, explaining this to people.

    Today, the only one I occasionally hear doing it (when he's not talking about Brexit) is Jacob Rees-Mogg.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,760
    JackW said:

    ydoethur said:

    JackW said:

    BBC - Harry becomes Duke of Sussex.

    At least it wasn't Duke of Clarence.

    Edit - I wonder if he will ever be made Duke of York or if this is where his run of titles will end and Louis will take York next. I suppose it may depend on whether Charles outlives the Queen or not.
    The York title is unlikely to be used again in the foreseeable future as both of the Duke of York's daughters derive their dignity from their father and as young women could possibly outlive Prince Harry. Possibly Prince Louise as the second son of a future King William will be next Duke of York.
    Which is what I was saying (and btw I think it's 'Prince Louis').

    Fascinating fact - no Duke of York has directly inherited the title from a parent since 1402, and even if we extend it to uncles the last person to claim it by inheritance was Richard of York (1411-1460) in 1415.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,545
    edited May 2018
    Triumph of hope over experience, Mr Herdson. The East Coast train franchise has failed under private ownership every time it has been tendered and a total of three times.

    It's not necessarily the ownership that is at fault. It's the model itself.
  • GasmanGasman Posts: 132
    Foxy said:


    Well, not entirely. The purpose of a business is to extract sustainably the maximum amount of money from the clients. That does not necessarily mean acting in the interests of clients, for example all the complex fares and tarrifs.

    True. But you can only extract money from clients if you're producing something they want, or if your clients have no other choice.

    My previous statement was certainly lacking in detail, but I don't think it was incorrect.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881
    Pulpstar said:

    The East coast mainline the last couple of times in public ownership is perceived to have worked.
    And the last couple of times in private hands is perceived to have failed. In addition much of our rail franchise system is owned by foreign state enterprise.
    My proposed third way would be to run it by the state (Direct operated railways) invest the surplus it creates back into the line. But also ban any union involvement.....

    Everyone in the UK has the right to join a trade union.
    Why would we want to give that up!?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,760
    rkrkrk said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The East coast mainline the last couple of times in public ownership is perceived to have worked.
    And the last couple of times in private hands is perceived to have failed. In addition much of our rail franchise system is owned by foreign state enterprise.
    My proposed third way would be to run it by the state (Direct operated railways) invest the surplus it creates back into the line. But also ban any union involvement.....

    Everyone in the UK has the right to join a trade union.
    Why would we want to give that up!?
    I thought police officers and prison officers didn't have that right? Or is it only that they don't have a right to strike?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,026

    The reason is that both parties have venerated markets without understanding them -- what they are, how they work, and what can go wrong. Markets are seen as magical. Utilities are classically seen as needing more regulation because they tend naturally to monopolies, but our politicians tend to think all regulation is harmful. DH's OP lists more than three-quarters of the public backed state ownership of water, electricity, gas and railways. That’s no doubt partially a consequence of some obvious problems in each of those markets. and it is noticeable that is more-or-less a list of formerly state-run utilities.

    Often this magical thinking is compounded by the issue of public versus private ownership, and Mrs Thatcher used to rail against the dead hand of the state, yet as we discussed earlier in the week, many privatisations have eventually led to state ownership by foreign countries.

    Well-run markets need management and regulation rather than a free-for-all but enthusiasts in both parties forget that, or never knew it.

    I agree water is marginal. I think most people would agree telecommunications privatisation has been a huge success - think of all the choice of phones, providers and packages we now have - and we would say the same about aviation, and would find nationalising road haulage downright weird.

    I happen to think electricity, gas and the railways work far better as privately run industries, and are much more innovative markets now, and we do get a much better deal. The issue with all of those is a perception of high prices and poor service, particularly British Gas/Centrica, and Southern Railways, which offends our sense of fair play and triggers nostalgia that some Unions are skillful at exploiting.

    In reality, gas and electricity would be likely be more expensive under a nationalised system, slower to fix faults and have poorer service. The railways would start to suffer from under-investment, run older rolling stock, less frequently, be more susceptible to strikes, and be far less innovative at pushing new service innovations.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    ydoethur said:

    Still can't understand why nobody has proposed reviving the Principality of Chester for William.

    The Prince of Wales is Earl of Chester and the confusion in reviving the title of Prince of Chester for his son would seem an unnecessary confusion.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,026
    DavidL said:

    What was wrong with the water industry, the electricity industry and even the railways before they were privatised?

    I would suggest several things.
    Firstly they were run for the benefit of their staff. Service levels were absolutely chronic.
    Secondly, and aggravating the first, they were used to create employment whether there was work or not resulting in gross over manning, absurd costs and very poor productivity.
    Thirdly, particularly in hard times, they were starved of capital. There is absolutely no way that we would have seen the investment that has occurred since 2010 if these enterprises had been state controlled.
    Fourthly, both the capital spending and the level of charge were political. So businesses would not be allowed to increase prices near elections and investment would be driven by pork like considerations.
    Fifthly, strikes were endemic because staff knew political pressure could be applied and that their enterprise could not go bust.

    David is right that fewer and fewer people remember the consequences of this. The Consensus since Blair did not make this necessary. He is also right that the case needs to be made now.

    +1
  • NormNorm Posts: 1,251
    Of course it doesn't help having someone as uninspirational as Theresa May as PM. Someone less suited to taking on the task that David Herdson sets out so well would be harder to find. Removing her is a necessity before any turnaround happens.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,026
    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    What was wrong with the water industry, the electricity industry and even the railways before they were privatised?

    I would suggest several things.
    Firstly they were run for the benefit of their staff. Service levels were absolutely chronic.
    Secondly, and aggravating the first, they were used to create employment whether there was work or not resulting in gross over manning, absurd costs and very poor productivity.
    Thirdly, particularly in hard times, they were starved of capital. There is absolutely no way that we would have seen the investment that has occurred since 2010 if these enterprises had been state controlled.
    Fourthly, both the capital spending and the level of charge were political. So businesses would not be allowed to increase prices near elections and investment would be driven by pork like considerations.
    Fifthly, strikes were endemic because staff knew political pressure could be applied and that their enterprise could not go bust.

    David is right that fewer and fewer people remember the consequences of this. The Consensus since Blair did not make this necessary. He is also right that the case needs to be made now.

    You mention investment since 2010 but surely the privatisations were two or three decades earlier. You say it would not have happened under state control but some of these utilities are now state-owned by foreign countries.
    That they were ‘starved of capital’ was partly at least due to political decisions by Conservative Governments. People here sometimes seem to forget that, although the industries cited were nationalised in the 1945-50 Parliament, the Tories were in power from 1951-64 and again from 1970-74.
    Incidentally, swathes of Council houses were built in the 50’s, too!
    Famously, 300,000 in the year 1952.

    The mid 50s was also a time when huge amounts of money were pumped into the railways. Unfortunately the results were disastrous due to poor management.
    We were still building brand new steam engines - *steam* engines - until 1960 and investing in largescale freight marshalling yards to handle hundreds of pre-WW1 wagons.

    Absolute madness.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881
    ydoethur said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The East coast mainline the last couple of times in public ownership is perceived to have worked.
    And the last couple of times in private hands is perceived to have failed. In addition much of our rail franchise system is owned by foreign state enterprise.
    My proposed third way would be to run it by the state (Direct operated railways) invest the surplus it creates back into the line. But also ban any union involvement.....

    Everyone in the UK has the right to join a trade union.
    Why would we want to give that up!?
    I thought police officers and prison officers didn't have that right? Or is it only that they don't have a right to strike?
    I think technically the police join something that isn't a union but operates like a union. not sure about prison officer.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    ydoethur said:

    JackW said:

    ydoethur said:

    JackW said:

    BBC - Harry becomes Duke of Sussex.

    At least it wasn't Duke of Clarence.

    Edit - I wonder if he will ever be made Duke of York or if this is where his run of titles will end and Louis will take York next. I suppose it may depend on whether Charles outlives the Queen or not.
    The York title is unlikely to be used again in the foreseeable future as both of the Duke of York's daughters derive their dignity from their father and as young women could possibly outlive Prince Harry. Possibly Prince Louise as the second son of a future King William will be next Duke of York.
    Which is what I was saying (and btw I think it's 'Prince Louis').

    Fascinating fact - no Duke of York has directly inherited the title from a parent since 1402, and even if we extend it to uncles the last person to claim it by inheritance was Richard of York (1411-1460) in 1415.
    Oopps ... Titter .... :smile:

    The Queen's father was of course Duke of York before becoming George VI albeit there was the interval of his brother inheriting from their father in January 1936 before abdicating in December.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,760

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    What was wrong with the water industry, the electricity industry and even the railways before they were privatised?

    I would suggest several things.
    Firstly they were run for the benefit of their staff. Service levels were absolutely chronic.
    Secondly, and aggravating the first, they were used to create employment whether there was work or not resulting in gross over manning, absurd costs and very poor productivity.
    Thirdly, particularly in hard times, they were starved of capital. There is absolutely no way that we would have seen the investment that has occurred since 2010 if these enterprises had been state controlled.
    Fourthly, both the capital spending and the level of charge were political. So businesses would not be allowed to increase prices near elections and investment would be driven by pork like considerations.
    Fifthly, strikes were endemic because staff knew political pressure could be applied and that their enterprise could not go bust.

    David is right that fewer and fewer people remember the consequences of this. The Consensus since Blair did not make this necessary. He is also right that the case needs to be made now.

    You mention investment since 2010 but surely the privatisations were two or three decades earlier. You say it would not have happened under state control but some of these utilities are now state-owned by foreign countries.
    That they were ‘starved of capital’ was partly at least due to political decisions by Conservative Governments. People here sometimes seem to forget that, although the industries cited were nationalised in the 1945-50 Parliament, the Tories were in power from 1951-64 and again from 1970-74.
    Incidentally, swathes of Council houses were built in the 50’s, too!
    Famously, 300,000 in the year 1952.

    The mid 50s was also a time when huge amounts of money were pumped into the railways. Unfortunately the results were disastrous due to poor management.
    We were still building brand new steam engines - *steam* engines - until 1960 and investing in largescale freight marshalling yards to handle hundreds of pre-WW1 wagons.

    Absolute madness.
    Indeed yes, and the steam engines in question were in service for only eight years (steam was withdrawn entirely in 1968).

    It is worth pointing out quite a number of pre-WW1 locomotives were still in service at that time as well.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,026
    rkrkrk said:

    "advocates of a well-regulated market economy have been on the defensive."

    The Tories veered off towards an unregulated market economy under Cameron.
    His nonsense about "enemies of enterprise" and bonfires of regulations.

    Exactly. The idea this is all because Brexit is a distraction is a nonsense.

    I was posting on here throughout the coalition years, and post GE2015, about the Cameron/Osborne administrations failure to properly advocate basic Conservative principles.

    Yes, they won an election with long-term economic plan, but that's not the same as winning the philosophical argument, and post GE2015 Osborne started straight away exploring Reddish things in the believe that was the way to show the Tories cared about social justice.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    In more exciting Morris Dancer Hates Technology news, it may be that disabling hardware acceleration will work. Tried it. Will whinge more if it doesn't work.

    Dr. Foxy, May's not good at much in politics. Would've been interesting if Boris or Leadsom had become leader.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,760
    edited May 2018
    JackW said:

    ydoethur said:

    JackW said:

    ydoethur said:

    JackW said:

    BBC - Harry becomes Duke of Sussex.

    At least it wasn't Duke of Clarence.

    Edit - I wonder if he will ever be made Duke of York or if this is where his run of titles will end and Louis will take York next. I suppose it may depend on whether Charles outlives the Queen or not.
    The York title is unlikely to be used again in the foreseeable future as both of the Duke of York's daughters derive their dignity from their father and as young women could possibly outlive Prince Harry. Possibly Prince Louise as the second son of a future King William will be next Duke of York.
    Which is what I was saying (and btw I think it's 'Prince Louis').

    Fascinating fact - no Duke of York has directly inherited the title from a parent since 1402, and even if we extend it to uncles the last person to claim it by inheritance was Richard of York (1411-1460) in 1415.
    Oopps ... Titter .... :smile:

    The Queen's father was of course Duke of York before becoming George VI albeit there was the interval of his brother inheriting from their father in January 1936 before abdicating in December.

    Yes - but the King wasn't Duke of York, although he had been prior to becoming King. The title was created for George VI (Prince Albert as he then was).
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    This is a superb article, I fully agree with all of it. Conservatives have become edgy, evasive and defensive about capitalism, and it shows.

    Where are the Tory MPs, yet alone cabinet ministers, making this case?

    In the 1980s you'd have had the likes of Keith Joseph, Norman Tebbit, Nigel Lawson and - in particular - Margaret Thatcher almost continually on the airwaves, explaining this to people.

    Today, the only one I occasionally hear doing it (when he's not talking about Brexit) is Jacob Rees-Mogg.

    When the "intellectual heavyweights" like Gove torch their reputation with "We have had enough of experts" then there is not much left.

    The Tories are the party of Brexit, and all other political beliefs have been sacrificed on the altar.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    We've realised that a simple X is enough to create a monster that even Shelly in her most fevered imagination couldn't have dreamed up. One that can change the world on a whim and a tweet.

    Civilised values that we've taken for granted are being trashed at the same time as our only effective barricade-membership of the EU -is being dismantled

    Corbyn's might be rubbish but if Trump is the embodyment of capitalist values lets give Corbyn's socialism a chance
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    Meghan Markle's mum doesn't look 61 !
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758



    Often this magical thinking is compounded by the issue of public versus private ownership, and Mrs Thatcher used to rail against the dead hand of the state, yet as we discussed earlier in the week, many privatisations have eventually led to state ownership by foreign countries.

    This canard of "foreign state ownership" often gets rolled out as an argument against privatisation.

    The issue is not with the ownership per se, but with the incentives and dynamics that it creates.

    A successful business is one that provides a great service to clients, at a cost they are prepared to pay, while operating in full compliance with regulations and with due consideration to their other stakeholders.

    That can be delivered independent of ownership.

    The problem is that when a domestic government owns a business these forces get out of whack. As we see in any case where there is a concentrated group (in this case the employees/unions) vs a diffuse group (the customers) the concentrated group benefits disproportionately because of their more focused political weight. Moreover, given other pressures on government resources there is a tendancey to under invest because of the demand for dividends to fund other government spending
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,774
    I blame the Conservatives less than I blame executives who think they can behave like trade unions in the 1960's and 1970's; or those whose business model is based on the short-term rip-off; or insolvency practitioners who loot the companies they're meant to be salvaging. Too many people get away with unethical behaviour, and that undermines faith in the system.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Scott_P said:

    This is a superb article, I fully agree with all of it. Conservatives have become edgy, evasive and defensive about capitalism, and it shows.

    Where are the Tory MPs, yet alone cabinet ministers, making this case?

    In the 1980s you'd have had the likes of Keith Joseph, Norman Tebbit, Nigel Lawson and - in particular - Margaret Thatcher almost continually on the airwaves, explaining this to people.

    Today, the only one I occasionally hear doing it (when he's not talking about Brexit) is Jacob Rees-Mogg.

    When the "intellectual heavyweights" like Gove torch their reputation with "We have had enough of experts" then there is not much left.

    The Tories are the party of Brexit, and all other political beliefs have been sacrificed on the altar.
    The cultists are more interested in Brexit than anything else. Every now and then, like this morning, they idly wonder what happened to free market principles. Then they get back to hurling abuse at anyone who seeks to mitigate the impact of Brexit in any aspect.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    edited May 2018
    That's a very interesting article (I think David should ask the Spectator if they'd like him to contribute for money as a really good Conservative commentator, with some of his columns here as an example) and it deserves a detailed response from a socialist viewpoint. I'll try to be brief.

    1. To defend free enterprise, it's important to choose defensible examples. The classic division was that de facto monopolies should be public, competitive industries should be private. As David recognises, it's a struggle to explain why, say, water should be run by a bunch of private companies with no genuine market at all. Arguably, free market supporters should not try, because it undermines their very strong case where there really is a market.

    2. Conversely, even the most Corbynite of us don't really think that we need state control of vigorous consumer markets - a British Rice Krispies, say. There's a reason why nobody serious is campagning for renewed state ownership of telecomms, because the telecomms market is highly competitive and, let's admit it, works well. A possible exception is delivery of cable to the home, where there is a very small market (BT vs Virgin) and notably that's the part which doesn't work very well - slow service, refusal to provide fast broadband to awkward locations.

    3. Gasman and DavidL have pointed out the risks of state ownership, but Gasman also inadvertently puts the case for it too when he says that the Government might take actions with the industry to win votes. That's the point. If you really hate how a new British Rail is run, you can vote out the incompetent party who run it. If you really hate how your local regional private monopoly run it, there is literally NOTHING you can do about it. That, I suggest, is not a free market. It's a licence to print money and then push off, leaving the problems to the Government to sort out.

    4. Union power in monopoly industries is an issue (actually for the same reason), but applies equally in the private sector (cf Southern Rail). Long-term agreements and workers on the board in exchange for a no-strike deal is a possible solution which has worked in other countries.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    edited May 2018

    rkrkrk said:

    "advocates of a well-regulated market economy have been on the defensive."

    The Tories veered off towards an unregulated market economy under Cameron.
    His nonsense about "enemies of enterprise" and bonfires of regulations.

    Exactly. The idea this is all because Brexit is a distraction is a nonsense.

    I was posting on here throughout the coalition years, and post GE2015, about the Cameron/Osborne administrations failure to properly advocate basic Conservative principles.

    Yes, they won an election with long-term economic plan, but that's not the same as winning the philosophical argument, and post GE2015 Osborne started straight away exploring Reddish things in the believe that was the way to show the Tories cared about social justice.
    The Tories don't dare make the philosophical argument for capitalism in the current climate. It will lose them votes.

    They have to mirror Blair and become Labour-lite to attract swing votes. Then the question will be asked "What are the Tories actually for?".

    The pendulum swings with a very long period - about 30 -40 years.

    1945 - 1979
    1979 - 2017
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,072
    JackW said:

    ydoethur said:

    JackW said:

    ydoethur said:

    JackW said:

    BBC - Harry becomes Duke of Sussex.

    At least it wasn't Duke of Clarence.

    Edit - I wonder if he will ever be made Duke of York or if this is where his run of titles will end and Louis will take York next. I suppose it may depend on whether Charles outlives the Queen or not.
    The York title is unlikely to be used again in the foreseeable future as both of the Duke of York's daughters derive their dignity from their father and as young women could possibly outlive Prince Harry. Possibly Prince Louise as the second son of a future King William will be next Duke of York.
    Which is what I was saying (and btw I think it's 'Prince Louis').

    Fascinating fact - no Duke of York has directly inherited the title from a parent since 1402, and even if we extend it to uncles the last person to claim it by inheritance was Richard of York (1411-1460) in 1415.
    Oopps ... Titter .... :smile:

    The Queen's father was of course Duke of York before becoming George VI albeit there was the interval of his brother inheriting from their father in January 1936 before abdicating in December.

    There's me thinking that we had our first known Transgender Royal. :)
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    edited May 2018
    Great header - thought-provoking and balanced. Thanks David!
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    In more exciting Morris Dancer Hates Technology news, it may be that disabling hardware acceleration will work. Tried it. Will whinge more if it doesn't work.

    If you used the quote function like the rest of us, then the tech nerds would be able to see what you are talking about. Assuming they are not all in Windsor livestreaming the wedding.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281

    In more exciting Morris Dancer Hates Technology news, it may be that disabling hardware acceleration will work. Tried it. Will whinge more if it doesn't work.

    If you used the quote function like the rest of us, then the tech nerds would be able to see what you are talking about. Assuming they are not all in Windsor livestreaming the wedding.
    +1
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    edited May 2018
    ydoethur said:

    JackW said:

    ydoethur said:

    JackW said:

    ydoethur said:

    JackW said:

    BBC - Harry becomes Duke of Sussex.

    At least it wasn't Duke of Clarence.

    Edit - I wonder if he will ever be made Duke of York or if this is where his run of titles will end and Louis will take York next. I suppose it may depend on whether Charles outlives the Queen or not.
    The York title is unlikely to be used again in the foreseeable future as both of the Duke of York's daughters derive their dignity from their father and as young women could possibly outlive Prince Harry. Possibly Prince Louise as the second son of a future King William will be next Duke of York.
    Which is what I was saying (and btw I think it's 'Prince Louis').

    Fascinating fact - no Duke of York has directly inherited the title from a parent since 1402, and even if we extend it to uncles the last person to claim it by inheritance was Richard of York (1411-1460) in 1415.
    Oopps ... Titter .... :smile:

    The Queen's father was of course Duke of York before becoming George VI albeit there was the interval of his brother inheriting from their father in January 1936 before abdicating in December.

    Yes - but the King wasn't Duke of York, although he had been prior to becoming King. The title was created for George VI (Prince Albert as he then was).
    Quite so. The Dukedom of York being a new creation each time as when previous Dukes became King their titles merged into the crown. The present Duke being the eight creation (or more accurately ninth including Henry Benedict - Jacobite Duke of York - second son of King James VIII/III.) :sunglasses:
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    From the other side of the fence, I think it is disastrous for Labour that the party is happy to concede choice, opportunity, competition and enterprise to the Tories. If you believe in wealth redistribution as the best way to create equality of opportunity - as I believe Labour party members do - then you must also believe uncompromisingly in sustainable wealth creation. One side of the equation does not work and is not credible.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    rkrkrk said:

    ydoethur said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The East coast mainline the last couple of times in public ownership is perceived to have worked.
    And the last couple of times in private hands is perceived to have failed. In addition much of our rail franchise system is owned by foreign state enterprise.
    My proposed third way would be to run it by the state (Direct operated railways) invest the surplus it creates back into the line. But also ban any union involvement.....

    Everyone in the UK has the right to join a trade union.
    Why would we want to give that up!?
    I thought police officers and prison officers didn't have that right? Or is it only that they don't have a right to strike?
    I think technically the police join something that isn't a union but operates like a union. not sure about prison officer.
    The Police Federation is a Union, the only difference is that the police are not allowed to strike. The only people who can’t join a union by law are I think the military.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    Pulpstar said:

    Meghan Markle's mum doesn't look 61 !

    I've noticed that there is a royal wedding today and a football final.

    I know who is getting married but I honestly haven't a clue about which teams are playing the football.

    Does that make me a royalist? Hmm.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879

    That's a very interesting article (I think David should ask the Spectator if they'd like him to contribute for money as a really good Conservative commentator, with some of his columns here as an example) and it deserves a detailed response from a socialist viewpoint. I'll try to be brief.

    1. To defend free enterprise, it's important to choose defensible examples. The classic division was that de facto monopolies should be public, competitive industries should be private. As David recognises, it's a struggle to explain why, say, water should be run by a bunch of private companies with no genuine market at all. Arguably, free market supporters should not try, because it undermines their very strong case where there really is a market.

    2. Conversely, even the most Corbynite of us don't really think that we need state control of vigorous consumer markets - a British Rice Krispies, say. There's a reason why nobody serious is campagning for renewed state ownership of telecomms, because the telecomms market is highly competitive and, let's admit it, works well. A possible exception is delivery of cable to the home, where there is a very small market (BT vs Virgin) and notably that's the part which doesn't work very well - slow service, refusal to provide fast broadband to awkward locations.

    3. Gasman and DavidL have pointed out the risks of state ownership, but Gasman also inadvertently puts the case for it too when he says that the Government might take actions with the industry to win votes. That's the point. If you really hate how a new British Rail is run, you can vote out the incompetent party who run it. If you really hate how your local regional private monopoly run it, there is literally NOTHING you can do about it. That, I suggest, is not a free market. It's a licence to print money and then push off, leaving the problems to the Government to sort out.

    4. Union power in monopoly industries is an issue (actually for the same reason), but applies equally in the private sector (cf Southern Rail). Long-term agreements and workers on the board in exchange for a no-strike deal is a possible solution which has worked in other countries.

    The current Labour party has no interest in wealth creation. It just assumes it will happen. That is a profound mistake.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    In more exciting Morris Dancer Hates Technology news, it may be that disabling hardware acceleration will work. Tried it. Will whinge more if it doesn't work.

    Dr. Foxy, May's not good at much in politics. Would've been interesting if Boris or Leadsom had become leader.

    Check what add-ons you have running in Chrome, could be something running in the background doing something obnoxious like mining Bitcoins. Also open Task Manager and see what’s using memory and processor. PM me if you need a hand.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    Sean_F said:

    I blame the Conservatives less than I blame executives who think they can behave like trade unions in the 1960's and 1970's; or those whose business model is based on the short-term rip-off; or insolvency practitioners who loot the companies they're meant to be salvaging. Too many people get away with unethical behaviour, and that undermines faith in the system.

    The Tories have so far had eight years to do something about it.

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    @NickPalmer A stimulating post. On 3, you’re wrong to say that there is nothing you can do in the specific instance you cite. You can get the bus or drive. Few monopolies are as watertight as you suggest (water being the obvious example of one that is).
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    Charles said:



    Often this magical thinking is compounded by the issue of public versus private ownership, and Mrs Thatcher used to rail against the dead hand of the state, yet as we discussed earlier in the week, many privatisations have eventually led to state ownership by foreign countries.

    This canard of "foreign state ownership" often gets rolled out as an argument against privatisation.

    The issue is not with the ownership per se, but with the incentives and dynamics that it creates.

    A successful business is one that provides a great service to clients, at a cost they are prepared to pay, while operating in full compliance with regulations and with due consideration to their other stakeholders.

    That can be delivered independent of ownership.

    The problem is that when a domestic government owns a business these forces get out of whack. As we see in any case where there is a concentrated group (in this case the employees/unions) vs a diffuse group (the customers) the concentrated group benefits disproportionately because of their more focused political weight. Moreover, given other pressures on government resources there is a tendancey to under invest because of the demand for dividends to fund other government spending
    In private ownership, where there is a concentrated group (in this case the senior management) vs a diffuse group (the customers and employees) the concentrated group benefits disproportionately because of their more focused power. Moreover, given other pressures on company resources there is a tendency to under invest because of the demand for dividends to boost bonus payments.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    The public/private debate is pretty sterile. Structures should be a tool to results, not a goal in themselves.

    The poor quality, lack of investment and high prices in key utilities and services is the problem. Neither nationalisation nor privatisation is going to solve that by itself. More money and better regulation is required, and rather more important. Neither side is talking much about what the targets should be and how in detail they are to be achieved.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879

    The reason is that both parties have venerated markets without understanding them -- what they are, how they work, and what can go wrong. Markets are seen as magical. Utilities are classically seen as needing more regulation because they tend naturally to monopolies, but our politicians tend to think all regulation is harmful. DH's OP lists more than three-quarters of the public backed state ownership of water, electricity, gas and railways. That’s no doubt partially a consequence of some obvious problems in each of those markets. and it is noticeable that is more-or-less a list of formerly state-run utilities.

    Often this magical thinking is compounded by the issue of public versus private ownership, and Mrs Thatcher used to rail against the dead hand of the state, yet as we discussed earlier in the week, many privatisations have eventually led to state ownership by foreign countries.

    Well-run markets need management and regulation rather than a free-for-all but enthusiasts in both parties forget that, or never knew it.

    I agree water is marginal. I think most people would agree telecommunications privatisation has been a huge success - think of all the choice of phones, providers and packages we now have - and we would say the same about aviation, and would find nationalising road haulage downright weird.

    I happen to think electricity, gas and the railways work far better as privately run industries, and are much more innovative markets now, and we do get a much better deal. The issue with all of those is a perception of high prices and poor service, particularly British Gas/Centrica, and Southern Railways, which offends our sense of fair play and triggers nostalgia that some Unions are skillful at exploiting.

    In reality, gas and electricity would be likely be more expensive under a nationalised system, slower to fix faults and have poorer service. The railways would start to suffer from under-investment, run older rolling stock, less frequently, be more susceptible to strikes, and be far less innovative at pushing new service innovations.

    Ownership is irrelevant, service and delivery are what count. Being stuck on private or public is so 20th century. Our curse is that politics has been captured by backward-looking nostalgists on the left and right just as the world is undergoing fundamental change. Macron currently seems to be the only leader capable of coherent, strategic, forward-looking thought.

  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,349
    Mr Observer,

    "The current Labour party has no interest in wealth creation. It just assumes it will happen. That is a profound mistake."

    I thought Jezza was a Trot. Surely he believes, like his hero, that the state, which controls everything should be world-wide. Therefore there's no competition to worry about. Everyone has a job making wellingtons - all left-footed and size nine.

    More seriously, he believes capitalism is wrong. A benevolent state will provide all that is required and any nay-sayers are enemies of the people.

    Sorry about that - I think it's an age thing.
This discussion has been closed.