Re-nationalisation of industries - Corbyn

[Outrider]

Dear Outrider,

It's the strangest of feelings.

Step of the train in Waverley, yer wallet no longer belongs to you, you will pay and you will pay dearly, usually for a cheap imitation of Scotland.

Step off the train at Queen St or the Central, you breath a sense of fairness, yes we will have your wallet but only if you are daft enough to walk down a unlit alley at night.

Gonnagle.

As a half-Scot, but with an English accent, I always felt welcome in Edinburgh, Dunfermline, Caithness, Kirkaldy and the like, but never quite as accepted in Glasgow. It's not hatred or venom, it's just they hear the accent and they close off.

Having said that, it's been nearly 20 years now since I was in Glasgow, so maybe things have changed.

O.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Outrider,

Strange, but the east coast for me has always seemed a kind of forced welcome.

But I kind of know where you are coming from, us weggies do have a sharp edge, something in our pysche that we feel we have to be hard, but get past that play acting and you find a deeply compassionate and welcoming people.

Gonnagle.

[jakswan]

Finding out more about this subject, it seems that we/the government are investing heavily in the railway.

Here in Scotland we have a thing called EGIP, Edinburgh to Glasgow improvement ( why anyone would want to travel to Edinbugger  ).

So to my addled way of thinking, why are we forking out so someone else can take the profit.

Well the argument for privatisation is that the private sector is more efficient than the public one. Are you against all privatisation so would even go as far as nationalising opticians, dentists and doctors? Or is just big companies because they are the bogeyman?

Is your 'politics of compassion' a smokescreen for 'politics of envy'? i can tell you I want to deliver the most efficient service to as many people as possible and don't really care if someone is making a buck along the way. 

As to whether this better for the railways is a debatable point which I don't know the answer to, purely anecdotal, comparing the railways nationalised I think Greater Anglia are worse and First Great Western are better.

It seems to me, just like the NHS that moving the population to and from work is vital, it should not be in the hands of private companies.

Last I heard 40% of the healthcare provided by the NHS is done by the private sector.

The Bible tells us,

Might tell you but it sure doesn't tell me sod all.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Jakswan,

Who the hell am I envious of!!

And yes a very old argument, private is not better than public, it is more profitable for private but not more efficient.

That is a old Tory lie to see off the Unions, and by the way, I am anti union, a necessary evil.

I am not against privatisation, I love the fact that a man can rise in this country through his own endeavour.

But not vital services, transport, water, housing and of course the NHS.

Oh and just so you know, about ten years ago I may have been agreeing with you, for a long time I was a young stupid Tory, I think I have grown slightly wiser.

Gonnagle.

[jakswan]

Who the hell am I envious of!!

And yes a very old argument, private is not better than public, it is more profitable for private but not more efficient.

Evidence? So you'll be advocating privatising the healthcare services I mentioned as well then? You are like current politicans avoid answering direct questions.

That is a old Tory lie to see off the Unions

I would suggest its an excuse to avoid defending your position.

I am not against privatisation, I love the fact that a man can rise in this country through his own endeavour.

But not vital services, transport, water, housing and of course the NHS.

So you'll be advocating privatising the healthcare services I mentioned as well then?

Oh and just so you know, about ten years ago I may have been agreeing with you, for a long time I was a young stupid Tory, I think I have grown slightly wiser.

I'm not a tory, I find both the tories and labour deal in idealism, clinging to positions against any evidence hiding from it by trotting out words like compassionate and passages from the Bible. 

[jeremyp]

So season tickets (which workers will have) is actually cheaper than when the railways were nationalised.

You mean "privatised"

[Hope]

So season tickets (which workers will have) is actually cheaper than when the railways were nationalised.

You mean "privatised"

Does he?  Obviously the numeric value of a season ticket today as opposed to the 70s is greater, but is it equivalently more expensive, when inflation is taken into account?

[jeremyp]

So season tickets (which workers will have) is actually cheaper than when the railways were nationalised.

You mean "privatised"

Does he?  Obviously the numeric value of a season ticket today as opposed to the 70s is greater, but is it equivalently more expensive, when inflation is taken into account?

He talked about the price in the 1990's which is when the railways were privatised.  As somebody else pointed out, they were nationalised in the 40's. 

[jeremyp]

Breaking News:  it is Corbyn.

[Shaker]

Breaking News:  it is Corbyn.

As expected.

I'm equally cock-a-hoop to see that the redoubtable Tom Watson has been appointed deputy leader.

[floo]

Breaking News:  it is Corbyn.

With that guy in the driving seat it is likely Labour will be unelectable for the foreseeable future! 

[Shaker]

Breaking News:  it is Corbyn.

With that guy in the driving seat it is likely Labour will be unelectable for the foreseeable future!

You may very well be surprised, and strongly suspect you will be.

[jeremyp]

Breaking News:  it is Corbyn.

With that guy in the driving seat it is likely Labour will be unelectable for the foreseeable future!

Do you want a party that stands by the principles under which it was founded or one that prostitutes itself to the electorate to gain votes?

Personally, I would go with the latter, if only to get the current government out, but the electorate generally seems wise to the ruse and isn't voting Labour in enough numbers for them to get in, so there is nothing to lose by sticking to principles.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Breaking News:  it is Corbyn.

With that guy in the driving seat it is likely Labour will be unelectable for the foreseeable future!

That's the script anyway.
The plot twist is that labour no longer play the role with quiet unassuming irrelevance but are now vocal and active.
Osborne cannot now claim that labour are really with them.

[floo]

Breaking News:  it is Corbyn.

With that guy in the driving seat it is likely Labour will be unelectable for the foreseeable future!

You may very well be surprised, and strongly suspect you will be.

Well I hope not otherwise we might be back to the bad old days when the unions held the country to ransom!

[jeremyp]

Breaking News:  it is Corbyn.

With that guy in the driving seat it is likely Labour will be unelectable for the foreseeable future!

You may very well be surprised, and strongly suspect you will be.

Well I hope not otherwise we might be back to the bad old days when the unions held the country to ransom!

Yes, I much prefer the bad new days where the corporations hold the country to ransom. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Breaking News:  it is Corbyn.

With that guy in the driving seat it is likely Labour will be unelectable for the foreseeable future!

You may very well be surprised, and strongly suspect you will be.

Well I hope not otherwise we might be back to the bad old days when the unions held the country to ransom!

Damn that's feudalism down the drain again.

[Hope]

He talked about the price in the 1990's which is when the railways were privatised.  As somebody else pointed out, they were nationalised in the 40's.

Jeremy, to call the NCB or BR or the NHS a nationalised industry doesn't only refer to the point in time that they changed from being run by the private sphere to the public sphere.  They were known as nationalised industries until they were privatised/re-privatised/done away with.  As regards the railways, who actually sets the ticket prices?  The Government, the companies, the retail price index - or perhaps all three in degrees?

[jeremyp]

He talked about the price in the 1990's which is when the railways were privatised.  As somebody else pointed out, they were nationalised in the 40's.

Jeremy, to call the NCB or BR or the NHS a nationalised industry doesn't only refer to the point in time that they changed from being run by the private sphere to the public sphere.  They were known as nationalised industries until they were privatised/re-privatised.

I was merely correcting the obvious mistake of using the word "nationalised" where the word "privatised" was clearly intended?  So I have to ask:  what point is it you think you are making here? 

[Hope]

Do you want a party that stands by the principles under which it was founded or one that prostitutes itself to the electorate to gain votes?

Personally, I would go with the latter, if only to get the current government out, but the electorate generally seems wise to the ruse and isn't voting Labour in enough numbers for them to get in, so there is nothing to lose by sticking to principles.

Does either 'main' party stand by the principles under which it was founded?  Does Jeremy Corbyn embody the principles by which the Labour Party was founded? In part, perhaps, but in total?

[Hope]

I was merely correcting the obvious mistake of using the word "nationalised" where the word "privatised" was clearly intended?  So I have to ask:  what point is it you think you are making here?

The point I'm making is that jakswan's original post that you have so kindly 'corrected' can equally mean the moment in time that the running of the railways moved from private hands to public, and the period of time during which they were run as public companies - ie between 1948 - 1995.  Exactly which meaning he had in might is not that clear, so the use of the term 'nationalised' isn't necessarily the 'obvious mistake' that you would have us believe.

[jeremyp]

I was merely correcting the obvious mistake of using the word "nationalised" where the word "privatised" was clearly intended?  So I have to ask:  what point is it you think you are making here?

The point I'm making is that jakswan's original post that you have so kindly 'corrected' can equally mean the moment in time that the running of the railways moved from private hands to public, and the period of time during which they were run as public companies - ie between 1948 - 1995.  Exactly which meaning he had in might is not that clear, so the use of the term 'nationalised' isn't necessarily the 'obvious mistake' that you would have us believe.

But the post in which he made the mistake refers specifically to the time between 1995 (the year in which  the railways were privatised) and now.  The figures he gives to back up his point are for that period.

It's absolutely 100% clear that is what he meant.

[jakswan]

He talked about the price in the 1990's which is when the railways were privatised.  As somebody else pointed out, they were nationalised in the 40's.

Jeremy, to call the NCB or BR or the NHS a nationalised industry doesn't only refer to the point in time that they changed from being run by the private sphere to the public sphere.  They were known as nationalised industries until they were privatised/re-privatised.

I was merely correcting the obvious mistake of using the word "nationalised" where the word "privatised" was clearly intended?  So I have to ask:  what point is it you think you are making here?

I took the correction didn't think it was posting it now reads:-

So season tickets (which workers will have) are actually cheaper now than when the railways were nationalised.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Cameron and then Osborne can only look like Flashman now.

[Udayana]

I took the correction didn't think it was posting it now reads:-

So season tickets (which workers will have) are actually cheaper now than when the railways were nationalised.

hmm, I thought I'd understood .. until your lastest post - So you did mean workers will (when?) be able to buy season tickets that are cheaper than they were in 1947?