NationStates Jolt Archive

Thatcherites-

You Thatcherites by name, lend an ear, lend an ear
You Thatcherites by name lend an ear
You Thatcherites by name, your faults I will proclaim,
Your doctrines I must blame, you will hear, you will hear
Your doctrines I must blame, you will hear

You privatise away what is ours, what is ours
You privatise away what is ours
You privatise away and then you make us pay
We'll take it back some day, mark my words, mark my words
We'll take it back some day, mark my words

The scabs they hide their faces in shame, yes in shame
The scabs they hide their faces in shame
They hide away in shame but we recall their names
And they know they'll share the blame for it all, for it all
They know they'll share the blame for it all

Your leader she has gone to the Lords, to the Lords
Your leader, she has gone to the Lords
Your Leader she has gone, but she's left us Little John
And he's barely hanging on by his nails, by his nails
He's barely hanging on by his nails

Billy Bragg



I just heard this song again for the first time in ages, it's to the tune of 'Jacobites', an old English folk song. It gets me angry just to hear it. The railways were OURS!!!

Pathetic

Yeh and two faced Tony has not tried to follow on with more of the same?
Passport office
Prisons
Patent office
Hosiptal catering
PFI (whooooohao what a bloody great idea, not storing long term problems up there then).
They all lie.
Lets have a jojnt governement, Anne Whidicom (spelling) and Tony Ben, two people who say what they mean and mean what they say. Even if I agree with niether.

God forbid people pay for things themselves instead of getting the taxman to steal the money from their neighbours :roll:

God forbid people pay for things themselves instead of getting the taxman to steal the money from their neighbours :roll:
Hmm.
This is all very well if people can afford the basics. Or if by paying for it themselves it doesn't cost more than if the tax man paid. Or if by paying for it themselves the service disappeared all together.
Not as simple as state control bad (Good) private good (bad).

God forbid people pay for things themselves instead of getting the taxman to steal the money from their neighbours :roll:
Hmm.
This is all very well if people can afford the basics. Or if by paying for it themselves it doesn't cost more than if the tax man paid. Or if by paying for it themselves the service disappeared all together.
Not as simple as state control bad (Good) private good (bad).
Basics=cup of soup, blanket, sheltered doorway.

You could make enough for that by whistling in the street.

I just heard this song again for the first time in ages, it's to the tune of 'Jacobites', an old English folk song. It gets me angry just to hear it. The railways were OURS!!!

:lol:

Thanks, I hadn't heard that in ages either!

God forbid people pay for things themselves instead of getting the taxman to steal the money from their neighbours :roll:

Privatisation=theft. We all used to own BP, British Gas, Telecom, the national grid and the rest; then along came the Tories (for brevity's sake let's just admit that Blair is a Thatcherite, and that we still have a Tory government) and sold them all to the rich, at knock-down prices. Then they used the money to... give tax cuts to the rich. So the rich now own our essential services. Obviously, since we can't do without our essential services, there is no possible way that these privatised essentials can be allowed to fail. So no matter how badly they perform, the taxpayers -- that's all of us, you, me, everybody -- have to bail them out. Essentially, we all have to pay more taxes in order to... give the money to the rich. Is it any wonder the rich get richer, when all you have to do to get more money is to be rich in the first place? God forbid they should ever have to get out there and earn their bloody keep like the rest of us.

The idea behind privatisation is to create competition and get lower prices for the 'common man'.

The idea behind privatisation is to create competition and get lower prices for the 'common man'.

In many case it has lowered the level of service provided aswell :(

The idea behind privatisation is to create competition and get lower prices for the 'common man'.
Hence the success of our railways v's state run systems, becuase ours are so cheep.
When they privatize the police and tax collection that's when you will know the end is nigh.
Oh sorry Tony already wants to do that!
Yes two faced Tory Tony

The idea behind privatisation is to create competition and get lower prices for the 'common man'.
Hence the success of our railways v's state run systems, becuase ours are so cheep.
When they privatize the police and tax collection that's when you will know the end is nigh.
Oh sorry Tony already wants to do that!
Yes two faced Tory Tony

Tony is NOT Tory.

He has made a complete mess of privatisation, but for example the buses, when Thatcher did it she did it well, and she knew what needed privatising and what shouldn't be.

The idea behind privatisation is to create competition and get lower prices for the 'common man'.

No, that's the ideology. Some people who support privatisation believe it (against all evidence), Others just use it as an excuse to loot the taxpayers.

It is obvious that privatisation of essential services -- transport, power, fuel, health, communications -- is a bad idea. The reason that private companies can outperform the state sector is because of competition, right? Competition works by eliminating those who don't make the grade. Since we can't allow our essential services to fail, there is no possibility of failure. Since there is no possibility of failure, private ownership confers no benefit on the consumer. You might get a brief drop in prices, as the managing directors go crazy "cutting costs" and laying off thousands of workers, or lowering safety standards, or just downgrading the product.

Meanwhile, the poor sodding customers -- you and me -- are increasingly bombarded with phoney "choice": do you want your gas bill from the electricity company? Do you want your electric bill from a phone company? In return for the possible £50 per year you might just save (until next year, that is), you get to watch the only competition there is in these industries: who can provide the cheapest service? Who in their right minds ever thinks "cheapest" is the same as "best"?

In the hospitals and schools, the standard of food and the standard of cleaning drop to often literally dangerously low levels. But since the law requires local councils to accept the lowest tenders for these contracts -- cheapest, not best -- their hands are tied. So our schools and hospitals are cleaned, badly, by half the number of cleaners, working faster, for less money. In hospitals, this has resulted in MRSA and other infections running rampant on the wards. In short, it has killed people.

From low-level background irritation and shoddiness (Directory Enquiries, doorstepping teenage salesmen on commission-only contracts trying to persuade you to buy electricity from the gas board or vice-versa, with the promise of vague savings), to gross incompetence (railways, water, electricity), to actively life-threatening (MRSA, private security firms releasing murderers), privatisation has been a national disaster and disgrace. It has undermined the fabric of the country, and produced a shoddy, low-wage economy where we are now working our arses off just to pump more money into the pockets of the already-super-rich.

God forbid people pay for things themselves instead of getting the taxman to steal the money from their neighbours :roll:

Privatisation=theft. We all used to own BP, British Gas, Telecom, the national grid and the rest; then along came the Tories (for brevity's sake let's just admit that Blair is a Thatcherite, and that we still have a Tory government) and sold them all to the rich, at knock-down prices. Then they used the money to... give tax cuts to the rich. So the rich now own our essential services. Obviously, since we can't do without our essential services, there is no possible way that these privatised essentials can be allowed to fail. So no matter how badly they perform, the taxpayers -- that's all of us, you, me, everybody -- have to bail them out. Essentially, we all have to pay more taxes in order to... give the money to the rich. Is it any wonder the rich get richer, when all you have to do to get more money is to be rich in the first place? God forbid they should ever have to get out there and earn their bloody keep like the rest of us.
I agree. This form of privatisation is simply lining the pockets of the rich at the taxpayer's expense. But bear in mind the state purchased these resources with money which was stolen via taxation. The moral way to right the situation would be to turn state industries over to the people who work in them. E.g if you've worked in a hospital/school/steel mill for 5 years you get 500 shares in it. If you've worked 10 yrs you get 1000 shares etc.

The idea behind privatisation is to create competition and get lower prices for the 'common man'.

No, that's the ideology. Some people who support privatisation believe it (against all evidence), Others just use it as an excuse to loot the taxpayers.

It is obvious that privatisation of essential services -- transport, power, fuel, health, communications -- is a bad idea. The reason that private companies can outperform the state sector is because of competition, right? Competition works by eliminating those who don't make the grade. Since we can't allow our essential services to fail, there is no possibility of failure. Since there is no possibility of failure, private ownership confers no benefit on the consumer. You might get a brief drop in prices, as the managing directors go crazy "cutting costs" and laying off thousands of workers, or lowering safety standards, or just downgrading the product.

Meanwhile, the poor sodding customers -- you and me -- are increasingly bombarded with phoney "choice": do you want your gas bill from the electricity company? Do you want your electric bill from a phone company? In return for the possible £50 per year you might just save (until next year, that is), you get to watch the only competition there is in these industries: who can provide the cheapest service? Who in their right minds ever thinks "cheapest" is the same as "best"?

In the hospitals and schools, the standard of food and the standard of cleaning drop to often literally dangerously low levels. But since the law requires local councils to accept the lowest tenders for these contracts -- cheapest, not best -- their hands are tied. So our schools and hospitals are cleaned, badly, by half the number of cleaners, working faster, for less money. In hospitals, this has resulted in MRSA and other infections running rampant on the wards. In short, it has killed people.

From low-level background irritation and shoddiness (Directory Enquiries, doorstepping teenage salesmen on commission-only contracts trying to persuade you to buy electricity from the gas board or vice-versa, with the promise of vague savings), to gross incompetence (railways, water, electricity), to actively life-threatening (MRSA, private security firms releasing murderers), privatisation has been a national disaster and disgrace. It has undermined the fabric of the country, and produced a shoddy, low-wage economy where we are now working our arses off just to pump more money into the pockets of the already-super-rich.
The idea behind private property is that taking money from people at gun point (taxation) is immoral, it's called theft, or extortion at best.

You've sadly misunderstood the nature of competion in the market.

You have choice. You can use any company you want or no company whatsoever. Previously you were forced to pay for the shoddy state service whether you used it or not. This results in redistribution from poor to rich as often as it went the other way. Cheapest doesn't always win, you can judge the quality and price of your purchase according to your means.

The govt schools and hospitals are crap and this is the fault of private enterprise. If you look at the major problems in society - schools, hospitals, crime, high tax, roads, railways etc - you see the "red thread" running through them.

The industries you cite as incompetent are by no means provided by a free market. They are still run by whitehall via regulations except now the govt can blame someone else when they screw up. The private security released a couple of murders and this made headlines. When you read the small print you find the corresponding govt agency makes the same mistake about 50 times a year. And anyway, the govt is still responsible for being the idiots who hired them.

You've sadly misunderstood the nature of competion in the market.

You have choice. You can use any company you want or no company whatsoever.

No, I really can't. OK, in theory, I could choose to do without electricity, but it's not much of a choice, is it? I can choose to do without gas. I had the same "choice" when it was all in the state sector. If I want to travel by train, I have to go with whoever runs the route. If I want to use the phone, then OK, I have some limited choice. Big deal. For the tiny amount of money I might save year on year, I'd prefer not to have to bother.

Previously you were forced to pay for the shoddy state service whether you used it or not. This results in redistribution from poor to rich as often as it went the other way. Cheapest doesn't always win, you can judge the quality and price of your purchase according to your means.

Oh, great. So we can offer a cheap service to the poor and reserve the deluxe options for the rich. That's really egalitarian. So much better than one half-way decent level of service that everyone pays their share towards. And let's face it, the private sector has given us a whole new definition of "shoddy". British Rail had its problems, but it never managed to kill as many of its passangers as the privatised companies have done in their short lives. Ten thousand homes without power in East Anglia for two weeks, because the private electricity companies had laid off the engineering safetly margin and had to import engineers at vast expense from France. Does this phoney "competition" allow customers to take their business elsewhere? Does it arse. The same bunch of nitwits run the bloody grid, regardless of who you pick to send you your bill.

The govt schools and hospitals are crap and this is the fault of private enterprise. If you look at the major problems in society - schools, hospitals, crime, high tax, roads, railways etc - you see the "red thread" running through them.

Are you agreeing with me here? It sounds like you are, but... anyhow, I agree with your statement that "The govt schools and hospitals are crap and this is the fault of private enterprise", with the additional reminder that it's also the fault of successive Tory governments (blatant or disguised) in failing to provide adequate funding, being too busy with pushing money towards the rich.

The industries you cite as incompetent are by no means provided by a free market. They are still run by whitehall via regulations except now the govt can blame someone else when they screw up. The private security released a couple of murders and this made headlines. When you read the small print you find the corresponding govt agency makes the same mistake about 50 times a year. And anyway, the govt is still responsible for being the idiots who hired them.

Then what is the point in privatising them, other than -- as I said -- to perpetrate a scam on the general public and enrich the already-rich?

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against private enterprise, when there is actually some enterprise involved. But putting private corporations in charge of essential services is just giving them a gravy train for life. The only bloody train that will run on time, too.

When I said "The govt schools and hospitals are crap and this is the fault of private enterprise" I was being sarcastic. I meant to put "? :roll: " afterwards.

I already explained that railways and power are still run by govt via regulation despite being privately owned. If you have a problem with mercantilist economic fascism we can agree, but state run is just as fascist. Don't judge the free market by looking at a very un-free market.

Egalitarianism is unegalitarian. How can you have equality when some are forced to pay for other's goods? Besides, if the govt provided clothes or food to everyone would it do as well as even the cheapest clothes and food on the free market? Hint, remember the bread queues in the USSR. Why would it be different with schools and hospitals? I could give a high school kid a better education with 2 days tuition a week than most govt high schools could with 5. Besides, the current system is more unequal than a free market. At the moment most of us use shoddy govt schools and hospitals while only the rich can afford high taxes AND private schools/hospitals. It is easily seen that even govt schools and hospitals in poor areas are far inferior to those in rich areas at present

You can't say it's the fault of private enterprise because of the tory govt. The tories are a political party, as bad as any other. I'm not a tory, or a thatcherite for that matter.

Competition is not the key here. It's just a happy consequence. The key idea is that tax is stealing while paying a private company is completely voluntary. You don't have to use electricity or trains but if you do you are limited to choosing between those who non-coercively provide these services.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against private enterprise, when there is actually some enterprise involved. But putting private corporations in charge of essential services is just giving them a gravy train for life. The only bloody train that will run on time, too.
So I assume you want to socialise the essential services of food and clothing. Welcome to the USSR. Please take your place at the end of the queue and we'll try and feed you this year.

The idea behind privatisation is to create competition and get lower prices for the 'common man'.

the term "natural monoply" that for the industry to be most efficient it should be a monopoly. Monopolies are inefficient and for vital services like waterm far too powerful. Hence privatisation was a bad idea.

Tony Blair is probably from the centre politicallym sometimes he leans a little left sometimes a bit to the right.

Trains are another natural monopoly. I hate connex, the arrangement with privatised utilities and essential services is that they are vital. If they turn a loss they cant fold, so the government props them up, while they pay the shareholders. And if they turn a profit, they pay the shareholders. Basically our taxes fund shareholders if the comapny fails and we dont geta nything but rubbish service when they become efficient.

Most serices are best left to the free market but osme things have to be government run.

Communism is rubbish, but it is worth noting that the country with highest standard of living in the world is Norway, it has about a 50/50 mix of government and free market. I think that says it all. Especially considering that half the population gets seasonal depression when the sun goes away. It still beats the other countries. Thats impressive!

The idea behind privatisation is to create competition and get lower prices for the 'common man'.

the term "natural monoply" that for the industry to be most efficient it should be a monopoly. Monopolies are inefficient and for vital services like waterm far too powerful. Hence privatisation was a bad idea.

Tony Blair is probably from the centre politicallym sometimes he leans a little left sometimes a bit to the right.

Trains are another natural monopoly. I hate connex, the arrangement with privatised utilities and essential services is that they are vital. If they turn a loss they cant fold, so the government props them up, while they pay the shareholders. And if they turn a profit, they pay the shareholders. Basically our taxes fund shareholders if the comapny fails and we dont geta nything but rubbish service when they become efficient.

Most serices are best left to the free market but osme things have to be government run.

Communism is rubbish, but it is worth noting that the country with highest standard of living in the world is Norway, it has about a 50/50 mix of government and free market. I think that says it all. Especially considering that half the population gets seasonal depression when the sun goes away. It still beats the other countries. Thats impressive!

What do you mean? Privatisation gets rid of monopolies, it is part of the free market ideal that their should be no monopolies. It is in a command, government run, economy that you get monopolies, and I agree they are inefficient.

"Trains are another natural monopoly" --- Even Thatcher didn't want to privatise train lines, it would be as mad as privatising the roads.

Blair is so socialist it is frightening, but he does it by stealth.

The idea behind privatisation is to create competition and get lower prices for the 'common man'.

the term "natural monoply" that for the industry to be most efficient it should be a monopoly. Monopolies are inefficient and for vital services like waterm far too powerful. Hence privatisation was a bad idea.

Tony Blair is probably from the centre politicallym sometimes he leans a little left sometimes a bit to the right.

Trains are another natural monopoly. I hate connex, the arrangement with privatised utilities and essential services is that they are vital. If they turn a loss they cant fold, so the government props them up, while they pay the shareholders. And if they turn a profit, they pay the shareholders. Basically our taxes fund shareholders if the comapny fails and we dont geta nything but rubbish service when they become efficient.

Most serices are best left to the free market but osme things have to be government run.

Communism is rubbish, but it is worth noting that the country with highest standard of living in the world is Norway, it has about a 50/50 mix of government and free market. I think that says it all. Especially considering that half the population gets seasonal depression when the sun goes away. It still beats the other countries. Thats impressive!
Natural monopolies are very rare. Further, although in private hands monopoly is bad, govt monopolies or regulations are usually worse so even then free markets are the least bad solution. Private monopolies still have "potential competition" where if they take the piss too much someone else can open up a rival service and displace them.

Water services are still regulated with disasterous consequences. Piped water isn't a monopoly in so far as it has to compete with other products like bottled water. There is still "potential competition" too, someone could in theory build a parallel system if the company took the piss. Similarly with the railways who are regulated badly and have to compete with road, air, river, canal and sea transport. The solution is deregulation.

Norway is stagnating. It is only well off because they avoid wars and used to be very free market. They're living off past wealth generation and oil money. Ever since they became very socialist they've started to lag. Norway will not have such a prominent position in a few decades time. How do you measure standard of living? It is completely arbitrary based on what the judge thinks constitutes a good standard of living. E.g. does low tax count as a blessing, or freedom to bear arms, or freedom to take narcotics?

As for some things having to be govt run, I don't agree.

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp