2019 General Election Poll and Discussion

[Rick]

Interesting read here; apparently nationalisation of public services could actually save £13bn per year: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/polit...d-save-20951951.amp?__twitter_impression=true

It's an interesting piece, but the logic relies on a nationalised entity operating as efficiently as a private one and I just can't see that happening. I've worked in both the public and private sectors and things operate very differently. Monopolies aren't well known for establishing and maintaining quality products (save for the world's finest board game of the same name), for all its faults, the free market provides an incentive for companies to provide quality at an affordable price, if only because their customers can (and will) go elsewhere.

Just been having a really interesting chat with a guy I don't know, in the hotel restaurant.

To summarise - He's a floating voter, voted for remain, will vote Labour based almost entirely on their Brexit stance. He doesn't like any form of Brexit, but concedes there is a good chance it'll happen and if it's going to do so, the Labour approach is far more sensible and quicker to deliver than the Tory plan. Plus, there's an outside chance a Remain vote would win in the promised referendum.

If people weren't falling over themselves about Corbyn's position, that's actually a pretty sensible view to come to, but I think such things have been lost in the fog.

 

[Dar]

How does the free market idea fit with an inherently monopolistic industry like rail? Companies can't reasonably lay new railways in a profitable way, so commuters are stuck with an overpriced, delayed franchise like Northern

 

[Rick]

@Dar the way our railway system works doesn't necessarily lend itself to taking advantage of the free market in the same way something like utilities, broadband etc do. That said, I snagged Transpennine tickets to Edinburgh nearly a third cheaper than Virgin the other day.

It's almost the worst of both worlds. That said, the recent/current investment in rolling stock is happening due to the ROSCO system, which I guess you could argue only exists due to the disconnect between the lifespan of rolling stock vs the TOCs.

I suffer Northern most days, I share your pain.

 

[Lurker]

https://www.theguardian.com/law/201...be-due-damages-after-court-home-office-ruling

Terrible news of more mistreated people by the home office.

 

[Rose Of Dawn]

How does the free market idea fit with an inherently monopolistic industry like rail? Companies can't reasonably lay new railways in a profitable way, so commuters are stuck with an overpriced, delayed franchise like Northern

Privatisation can work very well with trains; Japan is easily the strongest example, maintaining low prices and high efficiency without relying on public subsidies for decades. The key difference between Japan and the UK is that the railway tracks are publicly owned by Network Rail, but the trains which use it are private entities. In Japan, however, the entire line - the tracks, stations and stock - are owned privately. Splitting up tracks and trains was a mistake in how the UK brought about privatisation.

But more imporatntly the free market would also allow the development of the next bullet train - or better - without the use of public funds or (more importantly) the decisions of the government. All of transport's most significant revolutions come from the private sector - planes, trains, automobiles, even potential future revolutions like the hyperloop. It's much preferable for a private business to attempt these, and cover the costs if they fail, rather than a government attempt it and have the bill footed by the taxpayer.

The free market always finds a way.

 

[Alsty]

Isn't one of the arguments for privatisation that it causes competition? In theory, competing companies will cause a rise in standards and efficiencies as consumer choice means the bad companies get left behind, but in reality it doesn't work for railways. At least, not in this country.

For example, where I live there's only one train operator I can use, so no matter how hopeless they are I can't choose a better company to give my money to. It's still a monopoly, so standards don't improve. There is no competition because the train operators all cover different areas, so there's no incentive for them to be better than each other.

 

[Rose Of Dawn]

Isn't one of the arguments for privatisation that it causes competition? In theory, competing companies will cause a rise in standards and efficiencies as consumer choice means the bad companies get left behind, but in reality it doesn't work for railways. At least, not in this country.

For example, where I live there's only one train operator I can use, so no matter how hopeless they are I can't choose a better company to give my money to. It's still a monopoly, so standards don't improve. There is no competition because the train operators all cover different areas, so there's no incentive for them to be better than each other.

As I mentioned, in the UK it's only the trains themselves that are privatised; the rest is publicly owned, which makes it difficult for any real competition to emerge.

Railways are indeed difficult to run privately if the line itself isn't particularly profitable. For example, living in a remote or small town with little footfall at the station is unlikely to bring in a lot of money so there's little incentive for a private business to invest. But of course, there's no obligation for them to do so either. As such, other modes of transport can be brought in as an alternative way to make a profit.

 

[Alsty]

But then you could argue it's a public service, and the fact it costs money shouldn't be the only factor. It's an oversimplification to think you can run all public services as a business.

Roads and pavements cost money, emptying bins costs money, running streetlights cost money, arresting and prosecuting wrong-uns cost money. None of these things are profitable, but we accept the benefits and choose to pay for them through our taxation anyway.

 

[speedy]

We tried privatising the rail network (Railtrack) but following a deadly crash their imcompetency was exposed, plus they had to ask for money from the government anyway. That's how we ended up with Network Rail today.

I had a look but can't seem to find who funded the Japanese HSR, but I doubt it was entirely private. Sure some public transport can be privatised, but you'll never be able to privatise it all without either loads of subsidies (what we have now) or service cuts.

I want to see the railways nationalised again, but my main reason is because I think British Railways branding would be much nicer than the mix we have just now, and having one organisation running all the trains would make things more traightforward from a customer service perspective. I'm not going to pretend nationalising will fix the problems with our railways - much of the problems have been due to cancellations of projects (thanks, government) and delays at Network Rail. What we need is people running the railways who know how to run the railways. Plus more subsidies.

 

[Plastic Person]

The free market always finds a way.

I'm not against the free market by any means, but I think this is a remarkably naive attitude to live, die or even end a post by. As you say, there's little obligation or incentive for a private company to invest in a railway station that doesn't immediately turn a profit, so they don't do it. In my experience, around where I grew up, public services like buses and trains have been slowly cut over decades. The "alternative transport options" you speak of were either hugely overpriced and run with the same perceived ineptitude of a public service, the careless arrogance of a monopoly, or more likely, were not introduced or replaced by anybody at all! This sort of thing obviously contributes to the growing disparity in the UK between 'city' and 'country' life, amongst other issues.

I don't think that public transport, especially locally, should be seen as a premium living cost, and I think any government sensibly concerned about environmental impact should begin to feel the same way. This is more on a local than national level, but what is occurring in Vienna and is proposed for Berlin is outstanding, and it combines both private and nationalised stock.

 

[Rose Of Dawn]

But then you could argue it's a public service, and the fact it costs money shouldn't be the only factor. It's an oversimplification to think you can run all public services as a business.

Roads and pavements cost money, emptying bins costs money, running streetlights cost money, arresting and prosecuting wrong-uns cost money. None of these things are profitable, but we accept the benefits and choose to pay for them through our taxation anyway.

Every one of those examples can be ran privately. Even roads, the arch-nemesis of the Libertarian, can come from the market rather than the state.

Whether they should come from public or private ownership, whether as a matter of morality or other factors, is a separate issue. For example, running healthcare exclusively as a for-profit business is something I'm not fully comfortable with (and is one of the factors that stops me from being full-on libertarian, instead my ideology is more of a mixture of liberal, conservative and libertarian), nor is running a for-profit prison or police service.

 

[Rose Of Dawn]

I'm not against the free market by any means, but I think this is a remarkably naive attitude to live, die or even end a post by.

Not naive at all. I consider the free market to be more reliable than the state. But if we're to continue having a conversation, I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to patronise me.

 

[speedy]

As I mentioned, in the UK it's only the trains themselves that are privatised; the rest is publicly owned, which makes it difficult for any real competition to emerge.

Railways are indeed difficult to run privately if the line itself isn't particularly profitable. For example, living in a remote or small town with little footfall at the station is unlikely to bring in a lot of money so there's little incentive for a private business to invest. But of course, there's no obligation for them to do so either. As such, other modes of transport can be brought in as an alternative way to make a profit.

Other modes of transport - so slow buses? That was the idea behind Beeching cuts and guess what - buses were soon withdrawn, the bus network was subsequently privatised and bus usage has declined everywhere except London.

What you're asking for is let a private company run the profitable parts and keep the profits, and let the government run unprofitable, slow buses at the taxpayers expense. And again in the pursuit of saving money the disabled and those in remote communities are cut off.

 

[Plastic Person]

Not naive at all. I consider the free market to be more reliable than the state. But if we're to continue having a conversation, I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to patronise me.

Let me correct myself: I personally think the explicit belief that "the free market always finds a way" is problematic and a bit of a basic reading of society and business, although yes, I have moral concerns about this way of operating and the tedious extremes it can lead to. But I didn't mean to patronise you and I'm keen to avoid this thread devolving into an inevitably spiralling back-and-forth concerning Randian values, especially as you've laid out that your beliefs are not exclusively libertarian.

 

[Rose Of Dawn]

What you're asking for is let a private company run the profitable parts and keep the profits, and let the government run unprofitable, slow buses at the taxpayers expense. And again in the pursuit of saving money the disabled and those in remote communities are cut off.

This is actually how trains are ran in Japan; only the unprofitable, remote lines are still state-owned. All others are private.

 

[GaryH]

Report from the IFS this morning shows that both parties are not being honest with their spending plans:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50585818

Main criticisms:

Conservatives would need to spend more than they estimate and make no mention of social care in their manifesto.

Labour would be unable to meet their planned £80bn spending per year without putting up taxes more than they are saying and that taxing the top 5% of earners just wont work ( as I thought ).

However, the Lib Dems have the most financially viable manifesto apparently.

 

[speedy]

Report from the IFS this morning shows that both parties are not being honest with their spending plans:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50585818

Main criticisms:

Conservatives would need to spend more than they estimate and make no mention of social care in their manifesto.

Labour would be unable to meet their planned £80bn spending per year without putting up taxes more than they are saying and that taxing the top 5% of earners just wont work ( as I thought ).

However, the Lib Dems have the most financially viable manifesto apparently.

The Conservatives have also barely mentioned climate change, and haven't fully costed their plans for Brexit.

This is actually how trains are ran in Japan; only the unprofitable, remote lines are still state-owned. All others are private.

So yes. The state makes no money out of the profitable ones and is left to run unprofitable ones. Just like in the UK we subsidise unprofitable bus routes and railway lines. Why not bring the profitable lines back in house? Personally I think a mixture of state owned and private open-access operators to provide competition is the way forward. Much of our TOCs are owned by foreign national railway companies

 

[Lurker]

YouGov have conducted their MRP poll (explained in the article), which last year correctly predicted the Conservatives to lose their majority.

It's not good news for Labour, who appear to be changing their campaigning style based on this data to focus less on seats lost in remain areas, and more on seats lost in leave areas.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-conservatives-on-course-for-68-seat-majority

 

[Rick]

Yeah I am in the high peak. It is so split and it really is only a 2 horse race. I think Labour will get in because the brexit party will split the vote from Conservative

It's all kicking off in High Peak in Derbyshire, says our political reporter Chris Doidge.

Labour candidate Ruth George says her solicitors have referred her Conservative opponent, Robert Largan, to the Director for Public Prosecutions.

In return, Robert Largan says he's referred her to the police.

They're accusing each other of breaching s106 Representation of the People Act.

Ruth George says he's made claims about her being anti-Semitic, which she denies.

Robert Largan says she has accused him of committing a criminal offence, which he denies.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/election-2019-50582197

 

[Rick]

Where do people stand on Boris Johnson's desire to keep secret the number of children he has? Feels pretty pertinent that he continues to do so after his thoughts on single mothers has been rediscovered.

Is that his prerogative for entirely innocent reasons or is it a man who doesn't want the public to know just how complex his private life is because it would perhaps not be politically wise?

(Allegedly, it could potentially compromise some legal settlements too).