Liberal Democrat conference/manifesto

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Adding costs and taxes to businesses, adds to inflation.

You didn't say tax businesses in your original post. It's also not the only macroeconomic lever that can be used to control inflation.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

The 2017 one will do.

I’ll stop you there. No it won’t.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Damien

Well Marxism is, again correct me if I am wrong since I am not an expert, essentially communism. The abolishment of private property with the nations resources spread out to 'ensure equality'.

I think it's a bit of a leap to say nationalising the railway is therefore Marxist. You could argue any government ownership if Marxist if that was the case and the term would be useless as a result.

The railways is not a good example of anything. After WW2 the different companies were seriously struggling to keep going due to the continuous problems and damage to the system in the early 40's. In 1945 the railways were on their knees, it wasn't a case of being run into the ground but keep it running at any cost for the war effort and the companies more or less did that. They were owed millions and were on the brink of bankruptcy which made nationalisation a good solution.

After that lack of Government investment by all parties have left the railways in the state they are now.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I’ll stop you there. No it won’t.

So Old Boy's entire premise in this thread is flawed.

Thanks for helping me get there.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by pip08456

The railways is not a good example of anything. After WW2 the different companies were seriously struggling to keep going due to the continuous problems and damage to the system in the early 40's. In 1945 the railways were on their knees, it wasn't a case of being run into the ground but keep it running at any cost for the war effort and the companies more or less did that. They were owed millions and were on the brink of bankruptcy which made nationalisation a good solution.

After that lack of Government investment by all parties have left the railways in the state they are now.

That just about sums it up perfectly as before the war they were known as the Big Four and then after the war they all merged into British Railways in 1948.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Damien

Well Marxism is, again correct me if I am wrong since I am not an expert, essentially communism. The abolishment of private property with the nations resources spread out to 'ensure equality'.

I think it's a bit of a leap to say nationalising the railway is therefore Marxist. You could argue any government ownership if Marxist if that was the case and the term would be useless as a result.

Like anything it’s a spectrum. Marxism one end - total free market economy the other.

There are lots of models inbetween.

Even the USA has state controlled enterprises, very few granted.

China is essentially still a communist state..........

However, I would still describe that nationalisation of companies in what is, in the main, a free market economy as a Marxist policy. You could legitimately challenge that statement and I could legitimately argue it.

You can always argue some things should either be owned by the state or very closely regulated by the state, we generally go for the latter.

There is no compelling reason for Railway carriers, for example, to be state owned.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by denphone

That just about sums it up perfectly as before the war they were known as the Big Four and then after the war they all merged into British Railways in 1948.

Thank you, a lot of people forget about where the railways problems began and concentrate on the political aspect.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by pip08456

Thank you, a lot of people forget about where the railways problems began and concentrate on the political aspect.

Not a expert on much but l have a lot of books on Railways.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by denphone

Not a expert on much but l have a lot of books on Railways.

After the war, the Transport Act 1947 provided for nationalizing the four major railways. On January 1, 1948, the railways were nationalized and British Railways was created, under the overall management of the British Transport Commission, later the British Railways Board.

Originally Posted by Pierre

There is no compelling reason for Railway carriers, for example, to be state owned.

I would say there is which is why a lot of countries don't privatise the railways. The main one being there is no real mechinism for competition. You as a consumer can rarely choose which provider to take because you need to get somewhere and there are rarely multiple lines for that.

The tender process is a flawed attempt to bring competition into it because to make any investment worthwhile companies need to be given long contracts which, once given, are hard to take away for poor service. Seen how bad Southern Rail have been.

Even longer term investment such as HS2 needs to be driven by the government anyway because of the length of time involved to build and then to turn a profit.

Then there is the fact they're a key part of our infrastructure whose success shouldn't only be measured by profit but the economic benefits of the areas which they serve. This is largely useless for private companies that need to make a profit, if the government want them to serve some minor station for a handful of people in a rural area then they need to provide incentives for that. So we have to underwrite it anyway.

I would argue there are few candidates better for nationalisation than the rail network.

---------- Post added at 21:54 ---------- Previous post was at 21:46 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

Like anything it’s a spectrum. Marxism one end - total free market economy the other.

There are lots of models inbetween.

Even the USA has state controlled enterprises, very few granted.

China is essentially still a communist state..........

However, I would still describe that nationalisation of companies in what is, in the main, a free market economy as a Marxist policy. You could legitimately challenge that statement and I could legitimately argue it.

I think you can only describe it as a Marxist policy if it's part of a broader attempt to bring about Marxism in practise, i.e prepping the country to become communist. Even a socialist government couldn't be described as Marxist without that intent. Just as some policies such as increasing police/security apparatus or putting more power in the executive cannot be described as facist without a border context suggesting it to be so.

The formation of the NHS for example was not a Marxist policy because Attlee was not a Marxist.

[nomadking]

The problems with Southern Rail and others, exemplify the problems that will arise with giving the Trade Unions more power.

[nashville]

I agree with one thing she said. she does not want Scotland to be independent . But to try and cancel Brexit is going against democracy ,

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

So Old Boy's entire premise in this thread is flawed.

Thanks for helping me get there.

Not really. The railways was just an example. They will also nationalise the power suppliers and the list goes on. Where will they find the money? They will just print it. Simples.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Not really. The railways was just an example. They will also nationalise the power suppliers and the list goes on. Where will they find the money? They will just print it. Simples.

They don’t have a manifesto yet, as has been pointed out to me so you are just speculating.

Simples is your understanding of macroeconomic theory, as I’ve been pointing all round this forum for months now.

Actually nationalising the railway can be done quite cheaply - the most costly chunk is already state owned - Network Rail.

The franchises can be replaced by state run TOCs as and when they come up for renewal. Saves the risk of the state bailing them out anyway and could reduce costs in the long run with a joined up approach to rolling stock. We could even build the trains here and pay British workers!

Of course your simplistic understanding of socialism vs capitalism wouldn’t comprehend this!

Originally Posted by jfman

They don’t have a manifesto yet, as has been pointed out to me so you are just speculating.

Simples is your understanding of macroeconomic theory, as I’ve been pointing all round this forum for months now.

Actually nationalising the railway can be done quite cheaply - the most costly chunk is already state owned - Network Rail.

The franchises can be replaced by state run TOCs as and when they come up for renewal. Saves the risk of the state bailing them out anyway and could reduce costs in the long run with a joined up approach to rolling stock. We could even build the trains here and pay British workers!

Of course your simplistic understanding of socialism vs capitalism wouldn’t comprehend this!

The only part of the national railway network that remains fully privately owned is the rolling stock. Nationalising that wouldn’t be cheap. The information is hard to come by, but the combined value of the three big rolling stock leasing companies seems to be in the region of £8-9bn. Government could simply stop placing new rolling stock orders through the ROSCOs and in recent years has indeed placed some orders direct with manufacturers. But when you consider how much ex-BR stock is still on the network, it’s clear that privately-owned and leased stock is going to be part of our railway for many years. The stuff isn’t going to wear out any time soon and it would be a work of ideological folly to compulsorily purchase it. How many hospitals can you build for £9 billion?