Nationalising utilities, rail, post office etc

BigMonka

I know it's a bit last minute before the election, but tell me, how viable are labour's plans to nationalise the utilities, railway, post office?
Is it possible to get them back without huge payouts to the current companies? And then what will stop them just being giant bloated public sector organisations? Didn't the Post office get sold off (badly!? because it was unprofitable?

jpfamps

Rail could be "nationalised" by simply not renewing the rail franchises when the expire at no cost.

Utilities and Post Office would cost a lot, most likely several 10s of billions of pounds.

digitalscream

I can support it with the railways, but...putting utilities back under government control when the economy's not so hot isn't really a good idea IMO. Apart from anything...what happens to the utilities when the government's coffers inevitably hit the skids, or the unions strike?

I also really don't want the government getting their hands on BT's infrastructure. Having full control over the entire country's Internet infrastructure basically removes all roadblocks in terms of the removal of privacy. Privatising the PO and splitting the telecom infrastructure out was - totally accidentally - the best thing that could've happened from that perspective.

Modulus_Amps

would these changes need parliament approval?
Even if Corbyn does win he probably won't get the parliament support to push through these changes, people seem to have forgotten how little support he had from other labour MP's, never mind the rest of parliament.

57Deluxe

Bring back BOAC

digitalscream

Modulus_Amps said:

would these changes need parliament approval?
Even if Corbyn does win he probably won't get the parliament support to push through these changes, people seem to have forgotten how little support he had from other labour MP's, never mind the rest of parliament.

That's his saving grace, in my eyes - I'm reasonably confident that if Labour win, they won't have the money or the support to be able to follow through with some of his more loony ideas ("loony" as in "might've worked 30 years ago, but not in the modern world and the circumstance we're in right now").

Nitefly

As far as rail is concerned, the various TOC's have literally hundreds of new trains on order (from a number of manufacturers at home and abroad), due for delivery between 2017 and 2020.  

Page 56 of the Railway Magazine for May 2017 lists them all.  For example, Scotrail have 46 3-car and 24 4-car units due for delivery this year and next, with an option for a further 10 3-car units if needed.  

I couldn't see a state-owned operation committing to such an investment.

quarky

57Deluxe said:

Bring back BOAC

And British Leyland.

monquixote

digitalscream said:

I also really don't want the government getting their hands on BT's infrastructure. Having full control over the entire country's Internet infrastructure basically removes all roadblocks in terms of the removal of privacy. Privatising the PO and splitting the telecom infrastructure out was - totally accidentally - the best thing that could've happened from that perspective.

There is no roadblock. 

Everything routed through BT is completely accessible to GCHQ. There are whole departments of BT dedicated to helping them in this endeavour.

jpttaylor

Waterworks and the electric company only cost about £200 in Monopoly, don't they? Cheap as chips!

digitalscream

monquixote said:

digitalscream said:

I also really don't want the government getting their hands on BT's infrastructure. Having full control over the entire country's Internet infrastructure basically removes all roadblocks in terms of the removal of privacy. Privatising the PO and splitting the telecom infrastructure out was - totally accidentally - the best thing that could've happened from that perspective.

There is no roadblock. 

Everything routed through BT is completely accessible to GCHQ. There are whole departments of BT dedicated to helping them in this endeavour.

There is - the law. They have to obey the law and make certain parts of their interference public, and they do so because there are so many moving parts and other organisations involved, which means it'd get out eventually. When it's all in-house, there's no need for that...even the rest of the government won't know what they're doing.

ICBM

It can certainly be done, but it will take time. The amounts of money are not vast in the grand scheme of things - if they were, then selling them off would have allowed the Tories to fix their deficit problems. Tens of billions isn't peanuts, but it's not impossible either - especially if they can get the deficit under control first. Just servicing the debt is costing fifty billion a year at the moment.

Fretwired

OMG. The railways are in public ownership. The franchises are just a licence to run a service. Corbyn can't nationalise the railways.

capo4th

Modulus_Amps said:

would these changes need parliament approval?
Even if Corbyn does win he probably won't get the parliament support to push through these changes, people seem to have forgotten how little support he had from other labour MP's, never mind the rest of parliament.

This applies to 95% of the Labour manifesto

Clarky

digitalscream said:

monquixote said:

digitalscream said:

I also really don't want the government getting their hands on BT's infrastructure. Having full control over the entire country's Internet infrastructure basically removes all roadblocks in terms of the removal of privacy. Privatising the PO and splitting the telecom infrastructure out was - totally accidentally - the best thing that could've happened from that perspective.

There is no roadblock. 

Everything routed through BT is completely accessible to GCHQ. There are whole departments of BT dedicated to helping them in this endeavour.

There is - the law. They have to obey the law and make certain parts of their interference public, and they do so because there are so many moving parts and other organisations involved, which means it'd get out eventually. When it's all in-house, there's no need for that...even the rest of the government won't know what they're doing.

all telecoms companies have regulations to abide by..
GCHQ cannot tap and monitor anyone at will..
they must have a warrant from a judge

Heartfeltdawn

BigMonka said:

I know it's a bit last minute before the election, but tell me, how viable are labour's plans to nationalise the utilities, railway, post office?
Is it possible to get them back without huge payouts to the current companies? And then what will stop them just being giant bloated public sector organisations? Didn't the Post office get sold off (badly!? because it was unprofitable?

RM wasn't unprofitable. 

https://fullfact.org/sites/fullfact.org/files/RoyalMail.png

The biggest slide in profits came after the disaster of the Horizon IT system. Labour fucked up with NHS IT: the Conservatives fucked up with Horizon. 

https://fullfact.org/news/royal-mail-privatisation-whats-happening/

The pension issue was a major factor. 

http://www.if.org.uk/2013/09/25/the-privatisation-of-royal-mail-what-about-the-pension-scheme/

monquixote

Clarky said:

digitalscream said:

monquixote said:

digitalscream said:

I also really don't want the government getting their hands on BT's infrastructure. Having full control over the entire country's Internet infrastructure basically removes all roadblocks in terms of the removal of privacy. Privatising the PO and splitting the telecom infrastructure out was - totally accidentally - the best thing that could've happened from that perspective.

There is no roadblock. 

Everything routed through BT is completely accessible to GCHQ. There are whole departments of BT dedicated to helping them in this endeavour.

There is - the law. They have to obey the law and make certain parts of their interference public, and they do so because there are so many moving parts and other organisations involved, which means it'd get out eventually. When it's all in-house, there's no need for that...even the rest of the government won't know what they're doing.

all telecoms companies have regulations to abide by..
GCHQ cannot tap and monitor anyone at will..
they must have a warrant from a judge

They tap everything 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempora

Lawyers for GCHQ said it would be impossible to list the total number of people targeted by Tempora because "this would be an infinite list which we couldn't manage"

thomasw88

Heartfeltdawn said:

BigMonka said:

I know it's a bit last minute before the election, but tell me, how viable are labour's plans to nationalise the utilities, railway, post office?
Is it possible to get them back without huge payouts to the current companies? And then what will stop them just being giant bloated public sector organisations? Didn't the Post office get sold off (badly!? because it was unprofitable?

RM wasn't unprofitable. 

https://fullfact.org/sites/fullfact.org/files/RoyalMail.png

The biggest slide in profits came after the disaster of the Horizon IT system. Labour fucked up with NHS IT: the Conservatives fucked up with Horizon. 

https://fullfact.org/news/royal-mail-privatisation-whats-happening/

The pension issue was a major factor. 

http://www.if.org.uk/2013/09/25/the-privatisation-of-royal-mail-what-about-the-pension-scheme/

wow that pension thing is a bit of an eye opener.  I knew that the state had taken over the pensions but didn't realise that it was that bad. 

notanon

I'm not sure people here understand the nature of money. Promise to pay the bearer, . . . a faith currency and nothing more. Nationalising anything will cost money! What money? The money we can magic out of thin air to support the banks who had created 'profit' in the form of 'money' and said we were in debt? Careful folks - soon will you believe that is air you are breathing ;-)

mike_l

jpttaylor said:

Waterworks and the electric company only cost about £200 in Monopoly, don't they? Cheap as chips!

You are Diane Abbott, ICM £5.....

richardhomer

Given that the state is struggling to invest in schools and the NHS, taking on other services which will require on-going investment seems like madness to me....

But actually, it's not about making things 'better' is it? It's about having a bigger public sector, with a captive audience who will vote Labour through thick and thin, because they'll be looked after, regardless of the strength or weakness of the real economy....