I don't 100% agree with the nationalisation of industries, but I do think certain industries have to be nationally run - Rail being one of them. FWIW I also think telecoms is another.
The irony is that the railways in the UK are almost all state-owned. The problem is the that the states are EU countries, not the UK.
I think public services should be in public hands, and that includes transport, utilities, education and health. Beyond that, a properly regulated free market may be the most efficient way to create wealth - though that latter point, which has been uncontested for decades, may not always be the case. The railways are a classic case of a public service which has been at it’s least efficient when privatised and run for profit. The East Coast Mainline, having failed twice in private hands, in now back in profit operating for the dept of transport under the LNER banner. The last private owners were Virgin Trains, who had their debts written off by the taxpayer when the franchise failed.
Exactly this. With Rail it is easy to make a profit and provide trains from say Bournemouth to Waterloo, but to have to provide a train from one village to another isn't profitable, but as necessary to the people of that village. Put it in state control and they will provide the service.
This is also the case with buses in rural areas. Now that practically all rural areas are “served” by private bus companies the level of service varies from inadequate to non-existent. My own village, a so-called “primary village”, has one bus per hour running in each direction along a north-south route, which stops at 7:30pm, with no buses at all on Sundays. There is no east-west route any longer. When I used to commute to Bath, a distance of 15 miles, I would have to get the 7am bus to reach the hospital by 9am. So, naturally, like the vast majority of commuters, I drove, which took a fraction of the time at a fraction of the cost, If governments of any political persuasion are serious about tackling climate change there simply has to be a major drive to get people back on public transport. If that involves throwing taxpayers money at subsiding routes, it will be worth the money.
The nationalising important services argument is always difficult for me. Having worked inside nationalised companies, Nationalised/government run companies truly struggle to thrive without proper market incentives. I think a free market leads to more profitable and better run businesses in almost all cases - leading to better output for consumers But on the other hand in the case of important services the government is definitely needed to ensure that profits are redistributed instead of milking the country dry. The problem is, we currently have the worst of all worlds. It’s run poorly but there aren’t any alternatives, and it’s all done at our expense. Basically just glorified money laundering/fraudulent monopoly
The criminal law barristers are also striking. Are they being too greedy? https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...e-as-strike-begins?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
Who's next on the picket lines. https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/industries-next-strike-union-boss-teachers-nhs-1694642
The ****ingTories have asked for Starmer to be investigated over a bottle of beer and Prince Charles over donations to his charities all designed to get the lying bastard off the front pages. Who will it be next, the ****ing Pope?
We should all be. There should be riots and protests goobally against fuel, oil and food prices already IMO.
It is intriguing to read some of these comments regarding which elements of commerce should be either privately owned or be in the owenrship of the state having just returned from a holiday in Qatar. You would have to be a cynic not to be impressed by the buildings being constructed and how attitudes as to what is possible can be challenged and pushed to the limits. In many respects, I felt like it was a peep in to the future but, setting aside any reservations about social issues, it did feel to me that this is the kind of two-tier system we could end up with under Tory rule. Effectively, it is a cashless society for the affluent and extremely modern yet, if you have a low income, you cannot get access to a credit card so have little avenue to improve yourself. The immigrant labour are effectivdly isolated with the poorest earning less than the hourly minimum wage in UK for a day's work. Labour is prevented from organising itself and is indeed drawn from countries which are themselves not heavily unionised. I feel it would be really difficult to escape poverty in a country such as this. It is very much an architect's playground and, coming from construction, I found the buildings to be incredible. By the same token, the clash of modernism built on cheap labour also put me in mind with Fritz Lang's film "Metropolis." Reading the comments about industrial action, it is salutorary that the British public as a whole has no sympathy with the unions. Their reputation fo militancy in the 1970s has never really be shrugged off. By the same token, I often wonder how people would react themselves if the pay cut taken during the pandemic was not reinstated. Like many people, my pay was adjusted for a period before being reinstated. In the case of the rail unions, I feel that Joe Public has a short memory and think people are selfish for not really getting behind the workers whose experiences they much have shared during th pandemic. I belong to a professional organisation and not a union but still feel that worker's rights should be protected. People like the rail network kept the country running in 2020/ 21 and I think these poeple should be rewarded. It is not a matter of politics and more an issue of common decency and resepct. There was a comment in this thread about the public perception of unions and how industrial action is always misonstrued. I strongly agree with this and feel that if the arguments were presented properly, the general population would get behind industrial action. There is a belief that the action is often for enhanced pay and it always strikes me that the percentages sought are never really extravagant. Of course, the whole issue boils down to who runs industry and just how much restraint is put on the "free market" model. I believe that the economy should serve the people and not the other way around as is the case with capitalism. I think the free market has now been shown not to be the ultimate "solution" and has some deep-routed flaws. My experience in Qatar was fascinating. i believe that crime is minimal, graffiti and litter non existent and the system there has encouraged innovation and creativity. There are things to admire yet you can also see this an an example of capitalism at it's most rampant and maybe a warning as to how society could end up in the UK in the future. We have to get our priorities right given thart the consequencies of a "laissez faire" policy akin to that which stimulated the Industrial Revolution 200-250 years ago is probably wholly inappropriate in a contemporary society. I do not feel that the free market has the answers or that it is indeed a credible option in 2022. Chasing profit at the expense of people that are supposed to be served by the economy does not work and I did wonder whether Qatar demonstrated the ultimate model for capitalism. Probably going to have to ask Prince Charles for his advice on this....
Thanks to the overturn of Roe v. Wade, doctors are unable to treat ectopic pregnancies (which are completely nonviable) until a woman is near-death. Note that they can still be prosecuted for saving the woman's life: it's just that they'd have a defense at trial. The burden of proof, per that law, falls on the defense. Other states do not even have such an allowance at current. 1 in 50 pregnancies are ectopic. None of them are viable, and most/all are fatal if not treated, and now in many states doctors cannot treat them. And some doctors are ceasing to provide drugs whose side-effects include possible risks of miscarriage to women who are not pregnant, because they could be prosecuted in the event of an unexpected pregnancy: But small government or something.
I think that the prospect of a second Scottish referendum on independence looks certain. It is difficult to deny that Scotland should have the tight to determine the future of the country , especially as the Westminster government is so clearly working in a direction that is wholly unacceptable to this country and one that , as a more progressive country, it would be wholly unwilling to take. I totally agree with their right to hold a second referendum and think that this time the result will be resoundingly in favour. I would also argue that the UK has little relevance and would perhaps prefer a situation where it was dissolved as opposted to having indepednence referendums in each country. However, I do see that the whole scenario is ripe for mischief. Scottish Independent does through up some interesting questions, though. I believe that Scottish people living in England will be prevented from voting and therefore will be denied a say in the matter. I assume that the majprity of these people wlill be against this move albeit I am not convinced that this will be as certain as anticipated. I would be curious as to how this leaves their nationality. Will they be allowed to become "English" or will the status quo be maintained and the fact that they are "Scottish" will have no bearing on their rights within England? ( i.e. Akin to the situation with citizens from the Republic of Ireland.) I do not think that preventing Scottish people living in England from voting would be democratic but it begs the question just how "Scottish" would you need to be in order to be allowed to vote. (I.e. Born in Scotland, Scottish parentage, ginger hair, fan of Bay City Rollers as a child, etc, etc.) Would this right also be stretched to Scottish people living in Canada, for example? This leads on to the question of immigration. Will Scottish people be afforded greater rights to live in the UK than immigrants crossing the Channel ? If Scottish people have greater rights to live in England, does this mean that an English immigration policy could be deemed to be racist and discriminatory? Favouring Scottish nationals ahead of those individuals from Africa and Asia would surely be racist ? I hope we do not end up discriminating against immigrants because "white" Scots are deemed preferable to other races. There must be parity. Additionally, would England have to grant someone like J K Rowling political assylum to live south of the border ? I concur with the fact that Scottish people are entitled to all monies paid in to any state pension pot up until the point of independence. I remain to be convinced that an independent Scotland will be unable to stand on it's own two feet from a financial point of view and that it will have to rely on services and things like education to sustain itself. Scottish students will have to get in the back of the queue when it comes to studyng in English universities just as is the case with restricted places for English students in Scotland. Scottish students will need to be treated no differently from those of other nationalities. If I was in Scotland, I would vote for Nicola Sturgeon who, along with Jacinda Ahern, really represents what a "modern" politician should be like. It will be facinating because , although they are more than capable of governing themselves, they will find themselves in a weaker position democratically as Westminster will almost certainly work against the interests of Scotland. Nicola has a lot to due to make independence work and I am not convinced that the benefits will be quite as imagined - just as Brexit has been a disaster. My support is based entirely on the fact that the people in Scotland are demonstrably worse off being governed from Westminster - especially with the current government.
