Support NeoGAF

[Dark Machine]

I'm struggling to think of a single privatised industry that was better run when it was state-owned. Privatisation brought increased efficiency, less bureaucracy and generally improved services.

Train services? BT? The Energy company cartels? Yeah Privitisation has really improved all those public services. It's not led to profiteering over customer care, or co-ordinated pricing to rip off the public. Look at the other EU countries, all of them have successful Train services, phone companies and energy companies, and guess what? They're all backed by the government having a controlling of majority shareholding within them. Hell most of OUR train services are now owned by the part-nationalised companies from France, Germany and the Netherlands. EDF is nearly completely owned by the French Government and is the most successful energy company on earth.

Privitisation was the selling off of our national assets by Thatcher, whose worship of the City gods has proven to be crippling for us all. Was Blair complicit and Brown similarly a market worshipper? Absolutely, that's why I'm voting Lib Dem.

 

[avaya]

I'm struggling to think of a single privatised industry that was better run when it was state-owned. Privatisation brought increased efficiency, less bureaucracy and generally improved services.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh wait you are serious?!?!?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[blazinglord]

Train services? BT? The Energy company cartels? Yeah Privitisation has really improved all those public services. It's not led to profiteering over customer care, or co-ordinated pricing to rip off the public. Look at the other EU countries, all of them have successful Train services, phone companies and energy companies, and guess what? They're all backed by the government having a controlling of majority shareholding within them. Hell most of OUR train services are now owned by the part-nationalised companies from France, Germany and the Netherlands. EDF is nearly completely owned by the French Government and is the most successful energy company on earth.

Privitisation was the selling off of our national assets by Thatcher, whose worship of the City gods has proven to be crippling for us all. Was Blair complicit and Brown similarly a market worshipper? Absolutely, that's why I'm voting Lib Dem.

For someone who extols the benefits of the EU - you seem quite against European companies buying shares in UK companies.

I was not aware by the way, that the Lib Dems were advocating renationalisation.

 

[Stinkles]

the digital economy prior to BT's privatisation was roaring and unparalleled in the Western world?

Many of the things you have said are not ludicrous. This however, is not one of them.

 

[Dark Machine]

I don't think fair to take the views of one MP and off the hoof suggest that she is going to be making national policy.

She is making most of the Tories policy though. She's a key policymaker in team Cameron.

And yeah, mobility decreased under Labour, because the cabinet, Blair and Brown followed the Thatcherite policies as you pointed out earlier. That's why again, I'm not voting for them. I have no problem with the rich getting richer or people getting rich, as long as they're taxed to help the state which benefits them according to their means. The Tories want to lower taxes for the rich. The national insurance rise is not unique to Labour in a time of crisis, the Tories also did it, it's a natural response to a need to raise funds, the Lib Dems 10grand tax break will take a good few out of tax altogether which will balance things out.

Again I say, the Tories are by the rich, for the rich, and sod everyone else. Always have been and always will be, I'm going to be massively depressed if they get elected.

For someone who extols the benefits of the EU - you seem quite against European companies buying shares in UK companies.

I was not aware by the way, that the Lib Dems were advocating renationalisation.

OK you've gotten the wrong end of the stick there, I wasn't being negative about those companies owning ours, but simply demonstrating their success in comparison to our own services. You know as well as I the country cannot afford to renationalise services right now, when shareholders would demand a massive payoff. That wasn't the argument, the argument was whether Thatcher was right to privatise in the first place. And judging by what has happened since, she wasn't.

 

[freethought]

For someone who extols the benefits of the EU - you seem quite against European companies buying shares in UK companies.

I was not aware by the way, that the Lib Dems were advocating renationalisation.

Wow, you really are a dullard. He was pointing out that the state backed European energy market is so successful it owns large chunks of our private energy market,

That's the problem people have with your view, it's completely uninformed.

 

[Sage00]

What's done is done, there's no point retracing the arguments over de/nationalisation. For every market success/consumer failure story (eg BT), there's a counter in an industry that would've dragged the government even further into the shit than it already was had they not be privatised (British Steel, British Leyland).

The problem isn't really what Thatcher did, it's the manner in which she did it. There's no doubt that several industries being propped up by the government had to go, but not at the speed they did and not in the middle of a recession to score some points on short-term inflation targets. Norman Tebbit told the unemployed workers to "get on their bikes and find a new job". Sorry Norman, but they're miners/steel workers/shipbuilers, if you take away the mines/steelworks/shipyards then they don't have another job to go to. How about you train them to work in another industry before you close the only job they have?

And that's completely avoiding the other issues, like the poll tax, which the current inheritance tax cut plan seems like a backdoor means to the same end.

 

[avaya]

Wow, you really are a dullard. He was pointing out that the state backed European energy market is so successful it owns large chunks of our private energy market,

That's the problem people have with your view, it's completely uninformed.

When prostrating yourself at the alter of the free market the witches of supply-side demand you reject all reality.

 

[Dark Machine]

The problem isn't really what Thatcher did, it's the manner in which she did it. There's no doubt that several industries being propped up by the government had to go, but not at the speed they did and not in the middle of a recession to score some points on short-term inflation targets. Norman Tebbit told the unemployed workers to "get on their bikes and find a new job". Sorry Norman, but they're miners/steel workers/shipbuilers, if you take away the mines/steelworks/shipyards then they don't have another job to go to. How about you train them to work in another industry before you close the only job they have?

And that's completely avoiding the other issues, like the poll tax, which the current inheritance tax cut plan seems like a backdoor means to the same end.

This. Really. I mean I'm not against Privatisation, it can be beneficial, but the success seems to come with the state having a majority or controlling shareholding in order to preserve the morality of the company being 'for the people', at least in the Euro examples. Also Sage00 is completely right about the manner of the privatisation, my Grandfather was a Liverpool Docker of 59 years of age, he hadn't done much else in his life, suddenly his job goes and what's he supposed to do with himself? No re-training etc was offered, business dried up and jobs became scarce in the North.

Also on another subject, here's another example of the misinformation the Right has spread during this election: Back-door immigration amnesty has been in place for 20 years

Official site: UK Immigration - Long Residence

 

[blazinglord]

Many of the things you have said are not ludicrous. This however, is not one of them.

That is a bit of a weird long-winded way of putting it. But anyway, maybe I'm confused about what is meant by digital economy. In my mind, the mentions of digital economy and BT is in reference to broadband. The increased amount of broadband providers in the market has undoubtedly kept broadband costs at competitive prices. I doubt if BT still had a monopoly, the prices would be as competitive as they are at the moment. Ergo, market competition is good - it benefits everyone.

And yeah, mobility decreased under Labour, because the cabinet, Blair and Brown followed the Thatcherite policies as you pointed out earlier. That's why again, I'm not voting for them. I have no problem with the rich getting richer or people getting rich, as long as they're taxed to help the state which benefits them according to their means. The Tories want to lower taxes for the rich. The national insurance rise is not unique to Labour in a time of crisis, the Tories also did it, it's a natural response to a need to raise funds, the Lib Dems 10grand tax break will take a good few out of tax altogether which will balance things out.

What tax policies are the Tories advocating that would directly benefit the rich? Aside from the inheritance tax which will still apply to homes over £1 million and would not be a priority for an incoming Tory government.

As for the NI, it doesn't really matter what they did in the past. What really matters is what's happening now and at the moment the Tories are the only party committing to stopping the NI increase which will affect the low-paid. Also I am under the impression that the coming NI increase will remain for those earning 40 or 50k a year - hardly the act of a party solely protecting the rich.

OK you've gotten the wrong end of the stick there, I wasn't being negative about those companies owning ours, but simply demonstrating their success in comparison to our own services. You know as well as I the country cannot afford to renationalise services right now, when shareholders would demand a massive payoff. That wasn't the argument, the argument was whether Thatcher was right to privatise in the first place. And judging by what has happened since, she wasn't.

Look, you're entitled to your view. Personally I think privatisation was the right thing, but if you don't then that's entirely your right.

Wow, you really are a dullard. He was pointing out that the state backed European energy market is so successful it owns large chunks of our private energy market,

That's the problem people have with your view, it's completely uninformed.

Personally I don't have a problem with foreign ownership of energy companies. Neither do I think its the state's role to start nationalising profitable companies and creating state monopolies.

When prostrating yourself at the alter of the free market the witches of supply-side demand you reject all reality.

The free market makes society freer, I don't think it is a bad ideology to subscribe to myself.

---

By the way, can we lay off the personal attacks. I don't really think it achieves anything in political discussions. Yes passions and feelings are running high - but that is what politics and democracy is all about. Relaaaaax, keep calm.

 

[phisheep]

Anyone who lived through the Thatcher and Major years remembers how unpleasant things got for the middle and working class.

I lived through them, and through the Wilson/Callaghan years before that. I know which I prefer.

Sure it was unpleasant. There was a lot of unpleasant stuff to do to sort things out.

On the whole, certainly in the early years, it was unpleasant for pretty nearly everybody.

But on the whole, what really needed doing got done.

Just like now, the unpleasantness is going to be needed whichever party gets in. Now, who would you prefer to do it? A party you can happily demonise for it afterwards, or a party that, if it does the unpleasant stuff that you hope (wrongly) can be avoided will destroy all your pet illusions about them being on your side?

Vote Conservative.

 

[xbhaskarx]

By the way, can we lay off the personal attacks.

Sorry but if you support the Conservatives you are an uneducated (yet wealthy) idiot who probably gets his news from trashy tabloids like The Economist.

 

[jas0nuk]

I don't buy newspapers. I'm a mathematics and physics student. I'm from a poor family from Manchester.

Screw you and your idiotic stereotypes.

 

[Sage00]

By the way, can we lay off the personal attacks. I don't really think it achieves anything in political discussions. Yes passions and feelings are running high - but that is what politics and democracy is all about. Relaaaaax, keep calm.

I apologise for my comment directed at you earlier, but I think what gets to everyone (or at least me) is when the same old arguments are repeated in this thread which we've went through ad nauseum, or misleading figures and empty phrases are introduced to further these arguments. It seems no matter how many times they're in effect 'debunked' through objective fact (a favourite of mine is 'Eastern Europeans stealing jobs'), they seem to come back up with new supporting phrases like "People have a right to complain about what they're seeing". It's frustrating, if anything.

Edit: I mean look at the post a few up, there's a good example. "Vote Conservative because we're going to have to cut the deficit but we don't want to see Labour's good name ruined by the cuts that have to be made"? What is that all about? Come on.

 

[phisheep]

Sorry but if you support the Conservatives you are an uneducated (yet wealthy) idiot who probably gets his news from trashy tabloids like The Economist.

34% of the voters uneducated and wealthy? Doesn't sound very likely.

These stereotypes don't really help any.

 

[avaya]

The free market makes society freer, I don't think it is a bad ideology to subscribe to myself.

To a limit.

No personal attacks from me, just ridicule aimed at ideologically driven free-marketeers.

 

[Mr. Sam]

34% of the voters uneducated?

I'd say 80-90%. Fortunately, some of them manage to stumble into an intelligent choice.

 

[avaya]

I'd say 80-90%. Fortunately, some of them manage to stumble into an intelligent choice.

too low.

 

[xbhaskarx]

34% of the voters uneducated and wealthy? Doesn't sound very likely.

These stereotypes don't really help any.

Well in your case maybe the stereotypes fit. The sarcasm wasn't obvious enough for you?

There is a strong correlation between wealth and education.*
Also, The Economist is not a trashy tabloid.


*The same stereotypes exist here in the US: Voters who favor Republicans are supposedly idiots who get all their news from the Fox News Channel, but 2008 was the first election in decades in which the Democratic candidate won a majority of the college-educated vote (and even then not really as it was by 2% even though the overall margin was over 7%).

 

[blazinglord]

Sorry but if you support the Conservatives you are an uneducated (yet wealthy) idiot who probably gets his news from trashy tabloids like The Economist.

I do read The Economist, but my daily newspaper is The Guardian actually. :lol The Guardian's news coverage is probably the most neutral and in depth coverage of all the papers except for The Times. Plus I like The Guardian review section and its comprehensive focus on foreign news. Sorry to burst your stereotype bubble.

I am a History graduate though - I think history graduates tend to be more politically conservative than graduates of other subjects.

I apologise for my comment directed at you earlier, but I think what gets to everyone (or at least me) is when the same old arguments are repeated in this thread which we've went through ad nauseum, or misleading figures and empty phrases are introduced to further these arguments. It seems no matter how many times they're in effect 'debunked' through objective fact (a favourite of mine is 'Eastern Europeans stealing jobs'), they seem to come back up with new supporting phrases like "People have a right to complain about what they're seeing". It's frustrating, if anything.

Edit: I mean look at the post a few up, there's a good example. "Vote Conservative because we're going to have to cut the deficit but we don't want to see Labour's good name ruined by the cuts that have to be made"? What is that all about? Come on.

No problem, and yeah I know same old arguments do get repeated ad infinitum but I suppose we all believe that we will eventually persuade others to our line of thinking. To be honest, I have moderated my Euroscepticism somewhat since reading/being involved with this thread due to an earlier poster who responded with incredibly informed answers that made my previous position untenable.

 

[Subliminal]

jeeeeez guys. stop being so horrible.

you're being elitist and snobbish.

 

[Mr. Sam]

jeeeeez guys. stop being so horrible.

you're being elitist and snobbish.

Until The Sun ceases to be the UK's best-selling newspaper, I'll feel justified.

 

[blazinglord]

Well in your case maybe the stereotypes fit. The sarcasm wasn't obvious enough for you?

There is a strong correlation between wealth and education.*
Also, The Economist is not a trashy tabloid.


*The same stereotypes exist here in the US: Voters who favor Republicans are supposedly idiots who get all their news from the Fox News Channel, but 2008 was the first election in decades in which the Democratic candidate won a majority of the college-educated vote (and even then not really as it was by 2% even though the overall margin was over 7%).

To be honest, the sarcasm wasn't obvious to me either. I just assumed you were joining the others in attacking my character for supporting the Tories. Plus someone railed at The Economist earlier on in this thread.

 

[avaya]

Group hug guys. Group hug.

At least we're not talking about BS issues like what religion the party leaders subscribe to. It could be worse...a lot worse.

 

[sohois]

Until The Sun ceases to be the UK's best-selling newspaper, I'll feel justified.

How is it that people can act both elitist towards the 'proles' who read the Sun, as well as despising the toffs that supposedly make up the Conservatives?

 

[Chinner]

say what you want about the sun, but the actual quality of writing in the paper is actually pretty good, in terms of journalist writing.

 

[phisheep]

The sarcasm wasn't obvious enough for you?

Not in this thread it wasn't!

Sorry I took it the wrong way.

 

[Maleficence]

How is it that people can act both elitist towards the 'proles' who read the Sun, as well as despising the toffs that supposedly make up the Conservatives?

Because people don't like either extreme?

 

[avaya]

How is it that people can act both elitist towards the 'proles' who read the Sun, as well as despising the toffs that supposedly make up the Conservatives?

toff =/= intelligent

 

[amitaiwinehouse]

34% of the voters uneducated and wealthy? Doesn't sound very likely.

By suggesting that 34% of the voters can't be wrong, that's actually an argumentum ad populum. But that's beyond the point. I think most people are not really aware of the policies of the party they are voting for. I think political education is the issue, not general stupidity.

 

[Sage00]

Rearranged our earlier paper-support list by circulation numbers.

The Sun - Conservative - 3,006,565
News of the World - Conservative - 2,984,469
Mail on Sunday - Conservative - 2,322,423
Daily Mail - Leans Anti-Labour - 2,120,347
Daily Mirror - Labour - 1,218,425
Daily Star - Leans Conservative - 779,376
Daily Telegraph - Leans Conservative - 691,128
Daily Express - Leans Conservative - 674,640
The People - Favours Coalition - 532,975
Sunday Telegraph - Conservative - 527,742
The Times - Conservative - 508,250
Financial Times - Leans Anti-Labour - 390,315
The Observer - Liberal Democrats - 354,565
Daily Record - Labour - 323,831
The Guardian - Liberal Democrats - 302,285
Evening Standard - ? - 237,403
The Independent - Leans Liberal? - 185,815

 

[phisheep]

By suggesting that 34% of the voters can't be wrong, that's actually an argumentum ad populum. But that's beyond the point. I think most people are not really aware of the policies of the party they are voting for. I think political education is the issue, not general stupidity.

I think maybe we're drifting off topic a bit since this was a result of me misinterpreting xbhaskarx's sarcasm.

But since you mention it - surely arguments ad populum are what democratic politics is all about?

Sure, it's a fallacy in logical argument when you're trying to prove a truth. But - and I mean this at a much deeper level than the trite 'all politicians lie' stuff - politics isn't about truth, it is about choice, and it isn't necessarily logical either.

 

[Subliminal]

toff =/= intelligent

define intelligence.

 

[Sage00]

I think maybe we're drifting off topic a bit since this was a result of me misinterpreting xbhaskarx's sarcasm.

But since you mention it - surely arguments ad populum are what democratic politics is all about?

Sure, it's a fallacy in logical argument when you're trying to prove a truth. But - and I mean this at a much deeper level than the trite 'all politicians lie' stuff - politics isn't about truth, it is about choice, and it isn't necessarily logical either.

No, democratic politics is about everyone being able to have their say and have their view represented proportionally.

Argumentum ad populum is certainly what First Past The Post is about, yes. Not democracy.

 

[phisheep]

define intelligence.

We can approach it easier than that by finding a counter-example. I would suggest the old Duke of Manchester.

That should settle it.

 

[avaya]

define intelligence.

 

[Sage00]

define intelligence.

http://www.sis.gov.uk/output/sis-home-welcome.html

 

[phisheep]

No, democratic politics is about everyone being able to have their say and have their view represented proportionally.

Well, there's room for argument over that. It depends on the existence of political parties and of a sufficiently wide range of views being represented to cover the electorates choices - otherwise it is like having a choice of spam, spam or spam for breakfast.

And also it depends on the constitutional settlement, and on the range of views being common across the whole of the electorate, which isn't currently the case for at least Wales and Scotland in respect of the UK election (I'd happily vote Plaid Cymru if they had a candidate in my English constituency, but they don't).

Argumentum ad populum is certainly what First Past The Post is about, yes. Not democracy.

I'd agree with you to some extent. Trouble is again that it all got hijacked by the party machines over the last 150 years or so, so the usefulness of Parliament got crippled except insofar as its makeup reflected the views of the populace.

I'd prefer that in whatever revised electoral system we come up with that there's a sharper differentiation between Parliament and the Government rather than just tampering with the electoral system on its own - since coalition governments, just the same as massive overall majorities, tend to weaken Parliament as against the Government. It's a pretty sorry state we are in when we are reliant on the House of Lords to safeguard civil liberties.

 

[jas0nuk]

How is it that people can act both elitist towards the 'proles' who read the Sun, as well as despising the toffs that supposedly make up the Conservatives?

NeoGAF is full of angry lefties. :lol

 

[Gary Whitta]

I was alluding to the strikes. It seems everytime I visit France, there is some kind of national strike going on.


I'm talking about the process of deregulation and privatisation started by Thatcher and continued by Labour.


Are you saying that you don't think the digital economy was not benefited by competition and that the digital economy prior to BT's privatisation was roaring and unparalleled in the Western world?


I'm struggling to think of a single privatised industry that was better run when it was state-owned. Privatisation brought increased efficiency, less bureaucracy and generally improved services.

Your comment about privatization may be the most wrong thing ever posted on any forum, ever. Privatization turned the railways, post office and British telecom into under-performing and over-expensive jokes, not
to mention the privatization of the NHS IT records system which may be the worst squandering of public money in a generation.

 

[Mr. Sam]

How is it that people can act both elitist towards the 'proles' who read the Sun, as well as despising the toffs that supposedly make up the Conservatives?

Bloody middle classes.

 

[JonathanEx]

And now, for the less important matters.

BBC's Elections set!



And here's Dimble's point of view of 394 monitors: http://tweetphoto.com/20821428

They also have their VR studio in there too. You can just about see it on the side - and on the other side, on the balcony, the news desk.

 

[phisheep]

BBC's Elections set!

That has settled my schedule for Thursday - breakfast, vote, set alarm for early hours of the morning, sleep.

Your comment about privatization may be the most wrong thing ever posted on any forum, ever. Privatization turned the railways, post office and British telecom into under-performing and over-expensive jokes, not
to mention the privatization of the NHS IT records system which may be the worst squandering of public money in a generation.

Not all of these are as clear-cut as all that.

Railways: massively improved through capital injections from privatisation - it is hard to remember now just how bad they had become. Sure, there is plenty of room for argument over the *way* they were privatised - but I can't see any reasonable way the government would ever have provided enough funding.

Post office: tend to agree with you

BT: I remember when it took 11 weeks to get a telephone line, how Kingston Communications slaughtered BT's performance by years in internet access. Again, the way it was done can be queried - it behaved too much like a natural monopoly for too long - but the capital investment was needed and would never have come from government, or if it had, it would have been squandered (as, indeed much of it was in the early post-privatisation owing to it being done in one lump).

NHS IT: not so much a privatisation as a contract, surely. Still an expensive and unfunny joke, though - I'm with you on that.

 

[JonathanEx]

They're also going to beam the results on to Big Ben.

Here's a mockup.

 

[Reno7728]

It's all about Brooker/Mitchell Channel 4 domination for Thursday

 

[phisheep]

They're also going to beam the results on to Big Ben.

Now that just seems pointless.

 

[Mr. Sam]

It's all about Brooker/Mitchell Channel 4 domination for Thursday

You damn straight. Two of my favourite TV personalities helping to sugar what will surely be a very bitter pill.

 

[RedShift]

I wish I could watch the beeb's coverage as well as Channel 4.

Still haven't decided which. That's the real decision, not which party.

 

[JonathanEx]

I might two-screen, Beeb for results on screen on mute and 4 for the comedy.

 

[Kowak]

And now, for the less important matters.

BBC's Elections set!



And here's Dimble's point of view of 394 monitors: http://tweetphoto.com/20821428

They also have their VR studio in there too. You can just about see it on the side - and on the other side, on the balcony, the news desk.

So glad its gonna be in HD, has stolen me from sky again.