Jeremy Corbyn, thoughts?

[Quinkla]

Just use subsidies to purchase shares.

 

Are you sure the utility companies were losing money? I don't know either way, but I have been told that at least some aspects were efficient and profitable. Do you have the figures?

 

Back at the time of privatisation, there was a perception that public utilities were inefficient and offered a poor service.

 

British Telecom, for example, would change huge fees for connecting phone lines and line rental; costs of phone calls were very high in the daytime and international calls were strictly for announcing births and deaths. If you had a fault, it took weeks to get repaired and you could use only approved telephones – and anything other than the cream rotary dial one BT rented you would be eye wateringly expensive. Bills were not itemised and were very difficult to challenge. Privatisation allowed competition: prices fell and services improved beyond recognition.

 

Some of the other privatisations were less clear cut, but the principal criticism was that the price for the share offer was set too low, giving mum and dad investors a profit from flipping their shares the next day. Even though nobody made a fortune this way (you could only buy so many shares), it made a lot of people happy for just about long enough to vote Tory at the next election in return for the next windfall. This, coupled with blanket advertising campaigns for products that would have sold themselves anyway (if you see Sid, tell him) made it look political.

 

The later privatisations such as railways were just driven by ideology and made no business sense. The original idea of luxury trains for the managers and basic trains for their secretaries was never going to work because trains all had to share the same infrastructure. Short of building rival rail networks (as in Japan), there was no real scope for innovation – although some companies did improve on-board catering. But basically, the trains carried on being run by the same people on the same business model, still subsidised by the government, but with an extra profit overhead. Oh, and the infrastructure was let to Railtrack using a bad business model that effectively allowed the company to starve the network of investment and just divert the money for the company’s own enrichment.

[akiralx]

He would either have to buy them back at market value, or watch investment flee like water over a water fall from companies scared of what he would do next. Don't forget, when the utility companies were last in public hands, they were costing the tax payers HUGE sums of money to keep going. Money the country simply does not have. The rail maybe a different story as it these are receiving direct subsidy to keep going. Removing the subsidy could simply bring them back and it is probably good that they are.

 

Yes, as far as I know Corbyn has wisely only proposed (re)nationalising the railways - which as you say would cost nothing: every time a regional rail franchise expires just bring it back into public ownership.

 

Don't forget he has said he would scrap Trident, which gives him 90 billion to play with...

[newjez]

The 1982 estimate was gas, electric and BT were costing the tax payers 2 million a week. A lot of money then.

 

As someone that has worked in BT and BG I can say that both were massively inefficient and poorly ran. I worked in one of BG's biggest call centres and probably one of the best jobs for being cushy I have ever had. Everyone had to clock on and off by putting their personal key into their personal little clock on the wall when they start work and remove at end of the shift. This would just count the hours worked. So everyone just left them run overnight and could clock up not just there full weeks work in two days, but also some nice overtime pay. Then take the rest of the week off.

 

That's just poor management. I worked with a girl from sweb several years after privatisation. She clocked on at six, then went and had a two hours breakfast, and clocked off at nine after a two hour tea, and didn't clock off during her two hour lunch. On the same project an IBM contractor went for a four hour drumming lesson three times a week and booked his diary to a meeting, and left his jacket on the back of his chair. Large companies often have bad management and poor practice's.

[newjez]

Back at the time of privatisation, there was a perception that public utilities were inefficient and offered a poor service.

 

British Telecom, for example, would change huge fees for connecting phone lines and line rental; costs of phone calls were very high in the daytime and international calls were strictly for announcing births and deaths. If you had a fault, it took weeks to get repaired and you could use only approved telephones – and anything other than the cream rotary dial one BT rented you would be eye wateringly expensive. Bills were not itemised and were very difficult to challenge. Privatisation allowed competition: prices fell and services improved beyond recognition.

 

Some of the other privatisations were less clear cut, but the principal criticism was that the price for the share offer was set too low, giving mum and dad investors a profit from flipping their shares the next day. Even though nobody made a fortune this way (you could only buy so many shares), it made a lot of people happy for just about long enough to vote Tory at the next election in return for the next windfall. This, coupled with blanket advertising campaigns for products that would have sold themselves anyway (if you see Sid, tell him) made it look political.

 

The later privatisations such as railways were just driven by ideology and made no business sense. The original idea of luxury trains for the managers and basic trains for their secretaries was never going to work because trains all had to share the same infrastructure. Short of building rival rail networks (as in Japan), there was no real scope for innovation – although some companies did improve on-board catering. But basically, the trains carried on being run by the same people on the same business model, still subsidised by the government, but with an extra profit overhead. Oh, and the infrastructure was let to Railtrack using a bad business model that effectively allowed the company to starve the network of investment and just divert the money for the company’s own enrichment.

 

 

BG stills controls a large % of the gas market.

[JockinTas]

That's just poor management. I worked with a girl from sweb several years after privatisation. She clocked on at six, then went and had a two hours breakfast, and clocked off at nine after a two hour tea, and didn't clock off during her two hour lunch. On the same project an IBM contractor went for a four hour drumming lesson three times a week and booked his diary to a meeting, and left his jacket on the back of his chair. Large companies often have bad management and poor practice. 's.

 

WHAT!! So what was the manager doing when all this was going on? I know when my sister joined the British Civil Service she couldn't believe the amount of slacking that went on. Over the years there was a vast improvement in decent management. I've never had a job like that :no: In fact when I was doing my vet nursing diploma, I worked a 6.5 day week. Yes a half day off a week and a weekend off a month. Happily I didn't care because I loved the work. I did that for 3 years.

[Guest51810]

Oh so he would scrap trident? Well that's him got most of scotlands support then!

[VERYSTORMY]

Yes, as far as I know Corbyn has wisely only proposed (re)nationalising the railways - which as you say would cost nothing: every time a regional rail franchise expires just bring it back into public ownership.

 

Don't forget he has said he would scrap Trident, which gives him 90 billion to play with...

 

In the Observer last Sunday he stated that he would nationalise all of the utilities as well as rail. I agree with the rail - which by the way would eat most of the 90 bill. But not the rest.

 

As for Trident, the guy is just another nutter. I am all for nuclear disarmament - if all of the other countries are happy to, including the rogue states. But, as that is never going to happen and more rogue states than ever are likely to acquire them, then I don't see that happening. Also, we are living in very uncertain times and nobody knows what the future will hold. Can you imagine for example if NATO countries abandoned nuclear - do you seriously think Russia would have only annexed Crimea?

[VERYSTORMY]

That's just poor management. I worked with a girl from sweb several years after privatisation. She clocked on at six, then went and had a two hours breakfast, and clocked off at nine after a two hour tea, and didn't clock off during her two hour lunch. On the same project an IBM contractor went for a four hour drumming lesson three times a week and booked his diary to a meeting, and left his jacket on the back of his chair. Large companies often have bad management and poor practice's.

 

Yes, poor management. When these services were nationalised, they were notorious for giving atrocious service - I too remember the shambles that was BT. At the same time, they reported constantly that they could not run without massive financial support from government. Yet as soon as they were privatised.

 

The funny thing is, even those who support the stupid idea of re-nationalising would be the first to start complaining when there pensions are suddenly worth a lot less because it is these companies that there pension funds are invested in.

[Thom]

Corbyn also keeps some very dubious company.

 

 

Between 2004 and 2008, the Iranian-backed Mahdi Army militia, led by Muqtada al-Sadr, killed at least 70 British soldiers, not to mention thousands of Iraqi civilians. Last February, the man who might become the next leader of the Labour Party shared a platform with al-Sadr’s British representative.

Jeremy Corbyn was helping Sayyed Hassan al-Sadr celebrate “the all-encompassing revolution,” the 35th anniversary of the ayatollahs’ takeover in Iran. In his talk, entitled “The Case for Iran,” he called for the immediate scrapping of sanctions on the country, which had not then promised to restrict its nuclear programme, attacked its colonial exploitation by British business and called for an end to its “demonisation” by the West.

[Quinkla]

Well, I have never met Gerry Adams but I have met Martin McGuinness, had lunch with the IRA Intelligence Director, had lunch sat next to David Irvine, been to a seminar at the Falls Road Information Centre, attended a meeting with Billy Hutchinson and went to listen to the Iraqi Ambassador when Saddam Hussein was in power. So what? I'm not a terrorist but I believe in dialogue.

 

If you are going to condemn people for meeting terrorists you'd have pretty much the whole of the UK Government, UK Opposition and half the Royal Family in the doghouse.

[newjez]

Corbyn also keeps some very dubious company.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]30752[/ATTACH]

 

 

Don't we all

 

 

[Skyba]

He gets my vote. Also makes me laugh when the right talk about a Center right coalition being kicked out for a right wing party. Yes with around 30% of the vote and the rest left over are either Center left or the left who have become fed up with the right and further right options we've had. A labour leader who is truely standing up for the average joe and one who doesn't take liberties will be a breath of fresh air. He has the lowest expenses claims of all MP's, he uses the local bus in order to get around and I think he's the type of guy who could push through some changes everyone would be happy with. First and foremost sorting out piss taking MP's and their second homes paid for by us and the tax dodging millionaires who leave the average joe footing the bill for their cock ups.

 

Think with a guy like corbyn in you'll see a huge amount of non voters bothering and a lot of the left wing protest votes that went to the greens will come back to labour. If he gets the job it will be very interesting and I think it will ignite a flame under the pissed off and forgotten youth in this country. Right wing politics do night line up with the vast majority of 18-35 year olds but neither did the views of new labour.

[Skyba]

Yes, as far as I know Corbyn has wisely only proposed (re)nationalising the railways - which as you say would cost nothing: every time a regional rail franchise expires just bring it back into public ownership.

 

Don't forget he has said he would scrap Trident, which gives him 90 billion to play with...

 

 

he stated that he would make the utility deals work in the favour of the tax payer, at the moment they get public money and give next to nothing back. I don't think other than the greedy right could be against the idea of the utilities making money for the country rather than share holders.

 

Heard kn the radio the other day one of the utility companies making something like £500m profit in the first part of this year, now that's a huge chunk of money that could go towards better terror prices and infrastructure, they could use it for government grants to small businesses or manufacturers. We've got to get away from the situation we're in where we make nothing, our entire economy can't be dictated by London and fictitious libor rates.

 

Should never have let BMW have rover just so they could take the Diesel engine, it should have been sold to someone who was going to invest and use the site for manufacturing cars, it's sad to see, my grandad worked there when it was Austin and generations of families worked at that factory and it's just been knocked down and turned into houses.

[newjez]

In the Observer last Sunday he stated that he would nationalise all of the utilities as well as rail. I agree with the rail - which by the way would eat most of the 90 bill. But not the rest.

 

As for Trident, the guy is just another nutter. I am all for nuclear disarmament - if all of the other countries are happy to, including the rogue states. But, as that is never going to happen and more rogue states than ever are likely to acquire them, then I don't see that happening. Also, we are living in very uncertain times and nobody knows what the future will hold. Can you imagine for example if NATO countries abandoned nuclear - do you seriously think Russia would have only annexed Crimea?

 

 

Do you think australia should get some nukes to keep an eye on China then?

[newjez]

He gets my vote. Also makes me laugh when the right talk about a Center right coalition being kicked out for a right wing party. Yes with around 30% of the vote and the rest left over are either Center left or the left who have become fed up with the right and further right options we've had. A labour leader who is truely standing up for the average joe and one who doesn't take liberties will be a breath of fresh air. He has the lowest expenses claims of all MP's, he uses the local bus in order to get around and I think he's the type of guy who could push through some changes everyone would be happy with. First and foremost sorting out piss taking MP's and their second homes paid for by us and the tax dodging millionaires who leave the average joe footing the bill for their cock ups.

 

Think with a guy like corbyn in you'll see a huge amount of non voters bothering and a lot of the left wing protest votes that went to the greens will come back to labour. If he gets the job it will be very interesting and I think it will ignite a flame under the pissed off and forgotten youth in this country. Right wing politics do night line up with the vast majority of 18-35 year olds but neither did the views of new labour.

 

 

Ken seemed to do a pretty good job with London. Not bad for a leftwing nutjob.

[flag of convenience]

Ken seemed to do a pretty good job with London. Not bad for a leftwing nutjob.

 

Ken done a great job in London, especially the first time around. A constant thorn in the side of Thatcher, so much so that she shut him (GLC) down in the 80's. A very humble man with true principles. More left wing nut jobs please.

Edited August 4, 2015 by flag of convenience

[flag of convenience]

WHAT!! So what was the manager doing when all this was going on? I know when my sister joined the British Civil Service she couldn't believe the amount of slacking that went on. Over the years there was a vast improvement in decent management. I've never had a job like that :no: In fact when I was doing my vet nursing diploma, I worked a 6.5 day week. Yes a half day off a week and a weekend off a month. Happily I didn't care because I loved the work. I did that for 3 years.

 

Having worked some years in the civil/public service I generally found the management thoroughly decent unlike some in later years in the private area. A fairly relaxed environment is hardly bad. Nothing great about doing all hours of a week IMO. Work is the means to an end not the end in itself.

Edited August 4, 2015 by flag of convenience

[flag of convenience]

In the Observer last Sunday he stated that he would nationalise all of the utilities as well as rail. I agree with the rail - which by the way would eat most of the 90 bill. But not the rest.

 

As for Trident, the guy is just another nutter. I am all for nuclear disarmament - if all of the other countries are happy to, including the rogue states. But, as that is never going to happen and more rogue states than ever are likely to acquire them, then I don't see that happening. Also, we are living in very uncertain times and nobody knows what the future will hold. Can you imagine for example if NATO countries abandoned nuclear - do you seriously think Russia would have only annexed Crimea?

 

Britain's so called nuclear deterrent is neither here nor there with Russian thinking in annexing areas at its borders.(not forgetting most the population being Russian speakers that were annexed) So yes I do. America is the only real deterrent, in that both cancel out one another.

[Quinkla]

Work is the means to an end not the end in itself.

This is so true - I wish managers in Australia shared this belief.

 

For what it is worth, I have often found that once people start working more than about 8 hours a day in an office job, their performance deteriorates very badly. A person working 9 hours a day on an ongoing basis delivers less than someone working 8 hours a day; and someone working 10 hours a day on an ongoing basis is almost impossible to rely upon. Of course, that's not the same as working extra at busy times - which can be done with no detriment - I'm talking about the ones who do it habitually. And once they start doing it, it is very difficult for them to stop without the intervention of some kind of breakdown. I should add thar at more senior levels where the work is more varied and desk work is interspersed with meetings, it seems to be possible to work longer hours without so much detriment. Maybe people switch off their brains in meetings and recharge.

Edited August 4, 2015 by Quinkla

[JockinTas]

Having worked some years in the civil/public service I generally found the management thoroughly decent unlike some in later years in the private area. A fairly relaxed environment is hardly bad. Nothing great about doing all hours of a week IMO. Work is the means to an end not the end in itself.

 

I would have hated working in an office when I was young. I loved the outdoors and didn't mind the hours at all. Even when I was working in a large office environment in Sydney, I used to feel claustrophobic and took off to the country most weekends.

[Quinkla]

I would have hated working in an office when I was young.

It's not a job that suits everyone, but plenty of us like it. But, whereas working on a building site or on a farm may be physically demanding, office work can leave you mentally and emotionally fatigued. I suspect staring at a computer screen all day exacerbates this.

[Quinkla]

For what it is worth, I have often found that once people start working more than about 8 hours a day in an office job, their performance deteriorates very badly.

As if by magic - this has just popped up on my Facebook feed: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/jul/31/work-less-produce-more

[Guest]

You get some people who just sit there to be seen as hard workers. I work as quickly as possible so I go home on time, I value my evenings. If you can't prove your worth by the quality of work done then you aren't going far anyway.

[newjez]

WHAT!! So what was the manager doing when all this was going on? I know when my sister joined the British Civil Service she couldn't believe the amount of slacking that went on. Over the years there was a vast improvement in decent management. I've never had a job like that :no: In fact when I was doing my vet nursing diploma, I worked a 6.5 day week. Yes a half day off a week and a weekend off a month. Happily I didn't care because I loved the work. I did that for 3 years.

 

The management were busy playing with planning spreadsheets and moving people round from one project to another in a vain effort to get them completed on time. They didn't seem concerned with addressing any of the real problems.

[flag of convenience]

You get some people who just sit there to be seen as hard workers. I work as quickly as possible so I go home on time, I value my evenings. If you can't prove your worth by the quality of work done then you aren't going far anyway.

 

Sadly untrue. I've seen ever so many go ahead through manipulation practices, brown nosing and outright deceit.