Corbyn effect! Re-nationalising! At last some sense!!!

michaels

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Why is that a good thing?

How many people can afford to live permanently in the London area on a salary that low (even with free travel)?

Fairly obviously people can afford to live on those wages otherwise there would be no bus services in London.

Where as if bus drivers were paid double either many other workers would struggle because their bus fare would double or everyone would suffer (including those on low wages in the countryside miles from a bus route) through higher taxes to subisdise bus fares further.

Oh and of course if buses hadn't been deregulated presumably there wouldn't be any night buses.....

angrypirate

michaels wrote: »

Fairly obviously people can afford to live on those wages otherwise there would be no bus services in London.

Where as if bus drivers were paid double either many other workers would struggle because their bus fare would double or everyone would suffer (including those on low wages in the countryside miles from a bus route) through higher taxes to subisdise bus fares further.

Oh and of course if buses hadn't been deregulated presumably there wouldn't be any night buses.....

In my opinion it should be the bus drivers on 50k and the tube drivers on 23k. The bus drivers have a much much much more stressful time than the tube drivers and so much more to contend with. Half the tubes are now automated which means the tube "drivers" literally only open and close the doors.

cells

stator wrote: »

Instead of nationalising, the government should put money into building houses with large scale schemes organised by the local councils. Selling off half the houses in the private sector would make the schemes self funding after the initial capital investment.

Why not do that but sell off all the homes and use the profits to cut council tax or hire your mates and pay them a lot o money to build £500k houses and make no profits

princeofpounds

For those interested in privatisation, this is quite an interesting and very light article about some of the history - Worstall generally an interesting writer on competition and markets generally.




http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/28/why_did_we_privatise_everything/

ukcarper

gadgetmind wrote: »

I remember the days when gas came from the "Gas Board" and the only telecomms supplier was the Post Office, and it was rubbish. No real investment, lousy service, a telephone system decades behind the rest of the world, and high prices.

Privatisation certainly needs handling with care, but it transformed these utilities and services in ways that could never have happened under public ownership.

The telecoms system was being modernised well before Its privatisation and whether it's better is open to debat and there is no real compition unless you live in a area with Virgin.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

The telecoms system was being modernised well before Its privatisation and whether it's better is open to debat and there is no real compition unless you live in a area with Virgin.

you of course are indifferent to price, but price competition is available from several suppliers which some of us feel helps our budget.

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

you of course are indifferent to price, but price competition is available from several suppliers which some of us feel helps our budget.

But those prices are dictated by OFTEL and BT are not allowed to charge what they like so hardly a free market.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

But those prices are dictated by OFTEL and BT are not allowed to charge what they like so hardly a free market.

there is price competition.
it may not be perfect but isn't better than a state monopoly.

princeofpounds

it may not be perfect but isn't better than a state monopoly.

Indeed the article I posted earlier points out that there are two major benefits from privatisation.


We often spend a lot of time discussing the first, which is competition. That is something which works very well in an 'ordinary' market but in natural monopolies does not work as well.


But the second it also very important, and often under-appreciated. That is the separation of the roles of the regulator and owner. When government owns and regulates it become super-tempting to use the monopoly to fund and implement (directly or indirectly) political objectives rather than provide a service.


That could be anything from employing more people and paying them more than is economically justified in some crazy left-wing job creation scheme, to directing sweet contracts to your right wing crony capitalists.


The latter is a major reason why public companies are often reasonably good at managing privatised services abroad whilst continuing the leech their own state and population at home. There are less vested interests and they view it as a commercial operation with commercial aims, whilst the foreign regulator isn't afraid to put them right when they start misbehaving.

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

there is price competition.
it may not be perfect but isn't better than a state monopoly.

You don't know what a state telecoms company would be charging its costs would be a fraction of what they were pre nationalisation and they would not be subsidising the compition.