Britain is broken

[lambrini]

Quite right Vespa but it's just not efficient as Tory girl with a "small c" says.

'Tory girl' – Oh, bore off, Ant. I'm not far right or even right wing. Why are you trolling and resorting to personal insults? Sad. I thought you were better than that. I was obviously mistaken.

[lambrini]

I'm struggling to understand your logic, Tick. How does wanting an efficient and prosperous society equate to 'harking back to the glory days of old'? Efficiency and prosperity are ideals for any healthy country.

You're advocating a " have your cake and eat it" approach to economics and society. Public services need public funding. Simply trusting everything to a cartel of companies to run things "efficiently" hasn't done the trick.

Right, so... aiming for efficiency isn't a good idea then. Why? You haven’t answered my previous question.

[The Tick]

I'm struggling to understand your logic, Tick. How does wanting an efficient and prosperous society equate to 'harking back to the glory days of old'? Efficiency and prosperity are ideals for any healthy country.

You're advocating a " have your cake and eat it" approach to economics and society. Public services need public funding. Simply trusting everything to a cartel of companies to run things "efficiently" hasn't done the trick.

Right, so... aiming for efficiency isn't a good idea then. Why? You haven’t answered my previous question.

Your idea of what constitutes "efficiency" is flawed. It's become a buzzword for people to use so they vaguely sound like they know what they're talking about.

[lambrini]

I'm struggling to understand your logic, Tick. How does wanting an efficient and prosperous society equate to 'harking back to the glory days of old'? Efficiency and prosperity are ideals for any healthy country.

You're advocating a " have your cake and eat it" approach to economics and society. Public services need public funding. Simply trusting everything to a cartel of companies to run things "efficiently" hasn't done the trick.

Right, so... aiming for efficiency isn't a good idea then. Why? You haven’t answered my previous question.

Your idea of what constitutes "efficiency" is flawed. It's become a buzzword for people to use so they vaguely sound like they know what they're talking about.

Ahhh! Here comes Tick's classic deflection move. Okay, buddy. Sure. That's fine, don't answer my questions.

[The Tick]

Ask a sensible question and you might get somewhere.

[lambrini]

Ask a sensible question and you might get somewhere.

It is a sensible question given Labour will most likely become the next ruling party. Okay, if that simple question is too complicated for you, let's try this: if private railway ownership isn't working, what's the answer? How would nationalisation solve all our problems? I'm genuinely interested.

[lambrini]

I won't hold my breath

[The Tick]

Ask a sensible question and you might get somewhere.

It is a sensible question given Labour will most likely become the next ruling party. Okay, if that simple question is too complicated for you, let's try this: if private railway ownership isn't working, what's the answer? How would nationalisation solve all our problems? I'm genuinely interested.

Having a railway system that lies mainly in state ownership will have the benefit of rail tracks, rolling stock, signalling systems, stations under one umbrella, unlike the fragmented state of different companies owning different components of the rail network. It would also make for a truly nationwide service.

Private investment is welcome but not to the point where it's the controlling partner in any arrangement.

Staff will be better treated and the state as an employer would be held to better scrutiny in how it treats/pays them.

A serious plan to modernise rail technology would not have to be subject to too many third parties e.g consultancy firms being paid too much for their involvement.

Service and financial performances are answerable to a public body rather than a small cabal of private investors. Therefore customer and staff interests are better cared for.

The following link elaborates further on the benefits of public owned railways.

https://weownit.org.uk/our-public-services/railways

[Sunbeam Alpine]

The railways mirror the disaster that was water privatisation.

I don't recall which franchise they had but the Souter family, which owns Stagecoach, in one year took £80m in dividends out. Which was, coincidentally, the amount the taxpayer gave them as subsidy.

It's interesting how we still don't seem to have grasped that a good, integrated, low-cost transport system is fundamental to our society. The deregulations ( eg of buses, now being rescinded) and privatisations of the Thatcher and Major governments went in exactly the opposite direction.

[Vespa]

I don’t understand why Brits have accepted mediocrity. Migration reaching a record high? No problem. The looming literacy crisis? No worries. Waiting several hours for an ambulance? Normal. Being advised by an operator with no medical experience to visit A&E because the doctors are "extremely busy"? Okay then. Unable to find a dentist despite your teeth falling out? Just the way it is. Paying two and a half grand each year (and rising) for abysmal train services? Nevermind. Police refusing to deal with genuine crimes such as assaults and robberies while arresting those for hurty words? Oh well, what can you do? Knife crime in the capital soars by over 20% in one year? It is what it is! And so it goes on.

Because various UK governments pretend lower taxation and also include better public services.

If your boss told you they were lowering your wages so you became more efficient you'd think they were mad.

Better public services need better funding, that doesn't mean throwing money away but investing for better public outcomes.

You mention immergration. In the last four years, migrant workers have quadrupled. If you ask a government minister about this they'll talk about boats but they real question is why are they being imported? Do we not have the skills, are we not paying enough or are we not training people to do the jobs?

I look at health and wonder why the UK doesn't have a joined-up policy to support making the community healthier. in other parts of Europe they have so-called feet and wheels zones. Essentially the assumption is most everyday travel is only a few kilometres, say 2 to 3km. So they provide safe cycle zones, cheaper public transport, LTNs and encourage the development of communities where everything you need for day-to-day needs - shops, schools, sports centres and GPs. Often they also add costs to unhealthy food.

Try to do that in the UK and it's just murder.

[Zambo]

Privatisation in this country has been a disaster. It is supposed to benefit the customer, and provide healthy competition, so beneficial choices can be made. The customer doesn't matter, it's just profit and dividends to shareholders. Moreover, these companies just act like a cartel, so the customer doesn't really have the opportunity to make a choice which makes much of a difference.

Problem with renationalisation, who pays for it. To renationalise the energy companies would cost around 3b alone.

[The Tick]

Taxpayers already payout billions in Government support to existing utility and transport private firms.

Renationalising would in the long term reduce public expenditure compared to current trends.

[Vespa]

Privatisation in this country has been a disaster. It is supposed to benefit the customer, and provide healthy competition, so beneficial choices can be made. The customer doesn't matter, it's just profit and dividends to shareholders. Moreover, these companies just act like a cartel, so the customer doesn't really have the opportunity to make a choice which makes much of a difference.

Problem with renationalisation, who pays for it. To renationalise the energy companies would cost around 3b alone.

I think things like energy and telecoms are fine. Rail is a bit weird because privatisation of the stations isn't an issue but last rail year cost £11bn in taxpayers money and goes up £2bn each year. Last year the rolling stock companies took £400m in dividends. Water appears to be a train wreck.

[subsub]

Yep, it's hilarious how they automatically assume I'm a 'Tory' when, in reality, the Tory party and being a small-c conservative, which I am, are two different things. Besides, money doesn’t necessarily equate to efficiency. Why would anyone believe that pouring more cash, especially funds from the EU, into Britain's railways would make everything better?

None of them commented on my previous post about the absolute shit-show state of the country. Everyone, including them, knows Britain is beyond repair. I have mixed feelings about Labour. Keir Starmer will literally need a magic wand and decades to fix it all. And how will he he do it? Answer: he doesn’t know. In the past, Labour's answer to everything was money, borrowing, and encouraging people to be dependent on the state. That won't work this time.

I don't agree with that at all. I'm not overly negative about the future of the UK. I think there's an awful lot that needs to be fixed, but none of it is insurmountable.

[lambrini]

I echo Zambo's post. While nationalisation seems promising on paper, history has shown it time and time again to be unsustainable in the long run. Why? Because, as Thatcher put it, socialist strategies eventually "run out of other people's money." Zambo rightly points out who will pay for it and at what cost? Resentful types shout "tax the rich!" but, as we all know, the wealthy find loopholes like offshore tax havens or move aboard, as many did in the '70s. So, the burden falls on ordinary men and women, taxed at ridiculously high rates. Additionally, nationalised industries become heavily unionised; unions organise continuous strikes and hold nations to ransom, hindering progress.

To my mind, nationalisation isn’t a realistic solution for Britain, now or ever. Prove me wrong in twenty years time!