Although there is potentially a cash benefit (profits available to re invest in public services etc), There is a potentially much darker side to the "Big Government"

With Labours grand plan to take all of the major utilities back into state ownership, in terms of Union power and any future threat of strike action, what risk is there of a return to the 1970's with national strikes.
There is no doubt that the Unions would actually be the people in charge with the ability to stop the country in it's tracks at the first sign of discord.

The whole Labour plan is for the unions to rise in importance - they want collective bargaining run by the unions, McDonald has also said secondary picketing will be back on under Labour.

Those of us who lived through the seventies know what happens when you give the unions carte blanche - the NUM brought the country to a near standstill and a three day week. It reached it zenith under Callaghan.

The problem with public ownership you can't simply close down the entity so if the unions go on strike how do you stop it? In private ownership you can do an Ineos which pushed McClusky back in his 5 star hotel. I remember as a youngster in Bradford Baird had a huge factory in the city. Pat Wall was the union boss at the factory and he was going to bring Baird's to heel - sadly for the workers Baird's simply said up yours and 2/3,000 people lost their jobs. Wall was OK though he went on to be the local MP.

Be careful what you wish for.

Complete rubbish, nationalised industry is common throughout Europe and the rest of the World. It makes complete sense when the industry is a monopoly as is the case with Electricity, Gas, Water, Healthcare, Education and the Railways. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.inde ... html%3famp

Complete rubbish, nationalised industry is common throughout Europe and the rest of the World. It makes complete sense when the industry is a monopoly as is the case with Electricity, Gas, Water, Healthcare, Education and the Railways. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.inde ... html%3famp

Quote ="Sir Kevin Sinfield"Complete rubbish, nationalised industry is common throughout Europe and the rest of the World. It makes complete sense when the industry is a monopoly as is the case with Electricity, Gas, Water, Healthcare, Education and the Railways. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.inde ... html%3famp'" Nobody is suggesting there shouldn't be an element of the economy that is nationalised but with it comes risks, it is obvious to everyone the power the unions hold within the Labour party and if the got into power that is effectively power over the government. Are you saying the antics in the 70s are a figment of imagination, that Baird's didn't close down a factory in Bradford, that Ineos weren't prepared to close down its operation, that we had a 3-day week were electricity was rationed?

Quote ="Sir Kevin Sinfield"Complete rubbish, nationalised industry is common throughout Europe and the rest of the World. It makes complete sense when the industry is a monopoly as is the case with Electricity, Gas, Water, Healthcare, Education and the Railways. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.inde ... html%3famp'" Nobody is suggesting there shouldn't be an element of the economy that is nationalised but with it comes risks, it is obvious to everyone the power the unions hold within the Labour party and if the got into power that is effectively power over the government. Are you saying the antics in the 70s are a figment of imagination, that Baird's didn't close down a factory in Bradford, that Ineos weren't prepared to close down its operation, that we had a 3-day week were electricity was rationed?

I was associated with one of the privatised water companies throughout one of the 5 year Amp periods.

Total farce,

The water company made 10% profit
The water company solutions consultant made 10% profit
Each of the 3 delivery design consultants made 10% profit.
Each of the 3 delivery contractors made 10% profit.

Folk were told in briefings not to admit to the water company of the profit levels being trousered.

That was just in the Capital Delivery side of things, not including operations and maintenance outsourcing.

And a lot of the equipment installed was crap, from preferred suppliers, with automated systems never working and switched to hand controls, all to reduce manpower and jobs.

And a lot of this cash leaving the country.

So multiply that up by the number of privatised utilities, shafted isn’t the word.

Add natural government inefficiency and all you so called profits will disappear - its really simple and there is a host of evidence to back up the additional costs by public ownership.

Are you saying the private sector is more efficient than the public? From what I've seen that is debatable in lots of organisations, particularly those like the big utilities where they aren't operating in genuinely competitive markets. Operations like the NHS and the old British Rail are/were profoundly lean setups squeezing a lot out of inadequate budgets.

NHS, lean?

You need a doctor, the NHS is massively financed, and incredibly wasteful.

I know it's fashionable to dismiss your arguments but go on then, give us detail and examples, metrics of outcomes vs spend and levels of overhead vs front line activity in public vs private healthcare to support one of your typically simplistic statements. I won't hold my breath.

And there is the nub of the nationalisation question.
Can the utilities be run as efficiently (or more so) under public ownership than they are in the private sector.
There is no doubt that these "monopolies" were sold off on the cheap to generate one off sums of cash for government coffers and there is equally no doubt than, many of the companies now running the "utilities" are making good money on the back of this, which should be pretty straightforward when they have a virtual monopoly.
I believe that the consumer would be the winner her as they would be protected from some of the swingeing increases in energy costs that we have all suffered in recent years and it's equally clear that "the market" hasn't helped keep prices down but, the big question is whether the Utilities would generate the same level of profit/cash surplus under government ownership and whether it's really worth the cost to find out.
Personally, I dont think there would be any massive benefit apart from possibly on rail and possibly royal mail.

I'm minded to agree, these aren't really priorities from my perspective but I can see the appeal ideologically if you are of the left.

The railways are moderately easy, just let the franchises expire and the government assumes control like happened on East Coast when the private sector demonstrated their incompetence.

What I am saying is if a private company runs out of cash it goes under - that is not the same for the public sector. Absence from work is significantly higher in the public sector. Add to that the influence of the unions - Labour want to give 5% increases - and these operations will soon be into a negative.

The idea that the NHS is a lean organisation is surely a joke - it does a good job but its far from being lean or anywhere close.

wow, you managed to read a whole sentence. The NHS is not lean, but keep kidding yourself.

Show us the evidence, I don’t believe there is any because it’s not true.

The NHS (public ownership) spend £2,892 per person, with everyone entitled to free healthcare.

In the USA (private ownership) they spend £7,617 per person, despite millions been entitled to no healthcare and left to die if they become sick.

Great post thanks for sharing your experience.
This just highlights how terrible privatising our utilities has been, they are a monopoly privatising them was only ever going to make us worse off, we can’t afford not to nationalise them.

If you lived in the UK when big chunks were nationalised you would see how inefficient these industries really were. Not just that how stagnated they were. BT is a far better company, more innovative more service driven than it ever was under public ownership.

Most would accept France has the best health care service, the best invested in Europe. Its spend per person is £2,050 - it makes the NHS some 40% less efficient. How often are all the theatres used through the night - seldom, so when you talk lean the NHS is miles of being lean.

BT is a dinosaur.

There is no way that Labour will get anywhere near a majority and will probably lose dozens of seats compared with last time. So talk of nationalisation is purely hypothetical.

Its less of a dinosaur than it was - as a big company it will lack the agility of a smaller more focused firm but its in a different league to what it was.

Agreed - Labour seem to have changed tack on Brexit - they will hiding all the pro-remain cabinet members, they have already hidden Thornberry, Abbott, Buttler, Starmer, etc - see a common thread!!

The NHS will never be lean until all those CEO type levels of jobs for the boys managers are taken out and replaced by nursing professionals.



And just remind me of the annual cost for private supply doctors and nurses at ten times the basic hourly rate?

Completely agree

Again, are there any facts to quote or studies to cite about outcomes and spend?
You right wingers make a lot of unsupported assertions but never seem to back them up with evidence.

They're usually taken from Daily Mail or Telegraph headlines.

Like the Tories stating that on average, every EU immigrant costs around £4500.
However, they neglected to mention the fact that on average they contribute over £7000, making them well worth having over here, how very forgetful of them.



Ironically, the controlled immigration from outside the EU, shows a net deficit, in cash terms, for each immigrant.
Neither of these figures takes account of the effect on overseas students.

I mentioned the failed NHS IT project that Labour awarded to an American firm - yes Labour - than cost 10bn and was never completed - you didn't even bother to comment on that - why because it doesn't suit your argument

I mention the minimal use of operating theatres which are unused more than used - but you still insist the NHS is lean - give us all a break - in a lean organisation this asset would be sweated.

You actually haven't got a clue what you are talking about have you? but you sign off the payroll payments!!