Jeremy Corbyn's conference speech

[Hastings gull]

I feel the re-nationalisation is merely low hanging fruit. It's really about time Labour introduced it.

The problem with privatisation is that it is taking a national resource (something that belongs to all of us) and puts it into private hands (benefitting only people with shares in it). That is fine in markets where genuine competition will drive up service quality and/or drive down consumer prices, but where this is not the case, it is ridiculously unfair on the poor. And what is galling about national rail is that we the taxpayer are *still* subsidising these dreadful companies.

I do understand the point that public ownership doesn't have the incentives to control costs, but is that really a fair trade-off for depriving the country of an asset it owns, and the subsequent benefits this ought to bring - including the ability to make a more coherent national transport policy? I really don't think so.

I am not an expert with regard to the railways -are we subsidising them or Network Rail?
I see what you say in your first para. There is much criticism of the companies, some fair and some just a question of hitting out - but will nationalisation be the solution? Your hope about benefits and a coherent transport policy sounds good, and it is all too easy to trot out these platitudes, but will this be the case, when at the end of the day, who cares - it is the taxpayers's problem.

 

[Man of Harveys]

I also then speculated that nationalising the railways would bring us back to the bad old days of British Rail -or perhaps you felt that they were wonderful?

It's a no brainer: they were literally absolutely wonderful days under BR compared to the present rip-off fiasco. Incredible technical innovations and passenger services delivered far more efficiently. And that's before you even mention a service provided with emphasis on passenger needs rather than the needs of shareholders, plus the ability to plan a much-needed nationwide strategic transport policy and private companies skimping on safety measures etc etc etc.

I honestly thought this particular argument was long dead and buried, esp. so in an area so badly hampered by Southern.

 

[Simster]

Your hope about benefits and a coherent transport policy sounds good, and it is all too easy to trot out these platitudes, but will this be the case, when at the end of the day, who cares - it is the taxpayers's problem.

What does this even mean? Is that the best you can do for the case of leaving things as they are?

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Corbyn set his stall out as a man of the people and a tireless campaigner for social justice.

There is now an alternative to the establishment consensus, people no longer have to accept what they are given if they do not want to. Corbyn has finally given the disaffected a home for their vote.

Corybn's stall may be persuasive if 'the people' have a similar world view to him. Where is the evidence that your average punter is obsessed with bringing down capitalism, United Ireland, Palestinian homeland, large-scale redistribution of wealth, freeing Guantanamo detainees, unilateral nuclear disarmament, taking in unspecified thousands of refugees/migrants. Does the average punter really see social injustice, discrimination everywhere, a burning issue that needs radical solutions.

Agreed the disaffected and usual suspects may now have a home for their vote but attracting the wider public to his cause would mean him addressing the issuesthe people (according to polling evidence) are really concerned about eg immigration.Someone beat him to it.

 

[beorhthelm]

I am not an expert with regard to the railways -are we subsidising them or Network Rail?

we subsidise the rail franchises and Network Rail is already nationalised. frankly the case for private rail companies is weak, but then nationalisation is not going to solve any of the problems. its costs too much and requires substantial subsidy either way. from a PR perspective having subsidy going to shareholders isn't a good story, but on the other hand they have invested in rolling stock over the last decades (at least in the SE, not sure up north). the main advantage of private ROC is keeping a large amount of debt off the government balance sheet.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I am not an expert with regard to the railways -are we subsidising them or Network Rail?.

By about 4bn a year. This in itself isn't the issue though. Any sane developed nation must expect to subsidise if you want a decent service.

 

[Hotchilidog]

Corybn's stall may be persuasive if 'the people' have a similar world view to him. Where is the evidence that your average punter is obsessed with bringing down capitalism, United Ireland, Palestinian homeland, large-scale redistribution of wealth, freeing Guantanamo detainees, unilateral nuclear disarmament, taking in unspecified thousands of refugees/migrants. Does the average punter really see social injustice, discrimination everywhere, a burning issue that needs radical solutions.

Agreed the disaffected and usual suspects may now have a home for their vote but attracting the wider public to his cause would mean him addressing the issuesthe people (according to polling evidence) are really concerned about eg immigration.Someone beat him to it.

How about affordable housing, decent wages that people can afford to actually live off and an economy that is built on something other than property values and white collar gambling? Not to mention protecting the health service and increasing opportunities through education. I think the wider public is interested in all these things and that is where the election will be fought.

 

[alfredmizen]

By about 4bn a year. This in itself isn't the issue though. Any sane developed nation must expect to subsidise if you want a decent service.

This is true, it's virtually impossible to run a decent service unsubsidised , even the yanks subsidise their railways.

 

[Hastings gull]

It's a no brainer: they were literally absolutely wonderful days under BR compared to the present rip-off fiasco. Incredible technical innovations and passenger services delivered far more efficiently. And that's before you even mention a service provided with emphasis on passenger needs rather than the needs of shareholders, plus the ability to plan a much-needed nationwide strategic transport policy and private companies skimping on safety measures etc etc etc.

I honestly thought this particular argument was long dead and buried, esp. so in an area so badly hampered by Southern.

I strongly suspect that there might be some considerable exaggeration here. I can recall Seagull Specials sitting in North London for ages whilst they tried to find a driver for the rest of the journey back to Brighton. I also recall thousands of Albion fans going to Luton in the very late 60s, and queues down Queens Road, as they were writing out the tickets as the machine was not working. Whilst the exodus from Brighton was well known in advance, no one at Brighton Station had given the issue any prior thought.
Yes, they may be silly examples, and minor in the grand scheme of things, but it highlights the issue when there is no real profit at stake, other than for a distant state coffer. This is what the communists found in Eastern Europe, that huge nationalised organisations tend to be very inefficient, because there is less accountability and the average worker shows little real interest. OK, you might object to shareholders getting the profits, but before we change, will a nationalised concern really provide a better service. That is the issue, not the dogma.Don't forget the vast majority of folk who currently work on the railways will be the same ones, as will the same RMT.

 

[Moshe Gariani]

How about affordable housing, decent wages that people can afford to actually live off and an economy that is built on something other than property values and white collar gambling? Not to mention protecting the health service and increasing opportunities through education. I think the wider public is interested in all these things and that is where the election will be fought.

Exactly. A lot has happened in a couple of weeks but things will settle down. Given a little time Labour will have a full and wide-ranging set of transparently costed and coherent policies on tax and spending to put before the electorate.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

All very well, if that is how you feel, though I suspect that life is not as simple as you claim. However, this is all largely irrelevant, as I had questioned not whether Corbyn has got into the public domain, which he clearly has, but whether the public will take to him. I also then speculated that nationalising the railways would bring us back to the bad old days of British Rail -or perhaps you felt that they were wonderful? - and your response is simply to say how bad the Tories are.

I have no idea whether the public will take to Corbyn or not. Currently it is clear that he comes over as a decent sort of bloke, not a polished performer and a bit old school. This is playing well for him at present. If he can keep this in his back pocket he stands a chance of winning over a fair percentage of the truly undecided voters.

The gamble he and the labour party are taking is that he will win over the dis-enfranchised, they will vote labour and this will be enough to win an election.
That's quite a big ask. However the last election proved that New Labour has lost the centre ground to the tories, so it seems like a decent alternative strategy to me.
We'll have to wait and see.

With regards to the bad old days of British Rail..... My point is nothing has changed. Many industries have benefitted from privatisation, the railways have not.

IMO the service is no better now than it was; the cost is certainly no better and there is no competition to drive efficiencies or bring benefits for the consumer.

Referring to the bad old days implies things are now much better. I don't see it and I have been commuting by rail for the past 30 years.
What do you see as the main improvements in the rail industry, since privatisation?

 

[Questions]

Totally agree with a state run subsidised railway system. The pace it is taken back into public hands will be a discussion point though.

 

[beorhthelm]

It's a no brainer: they were literally absolutely wonderful days under BR compared to the present rip-off fiasco. Incredible technical innovations and passenger services delivered far more efficiently. And that's before you even mention a service provided with emphasis on passenger needs rather than the needs of shareholders, plus the ability to plan a much-needed nationwide strategic transport policy and private companies skimping on safety measures etc etc etc.

I honestly thought this particular argument was long dead and buried, esp. so in an area so badly hampered by Southern.

i had a chuckle at that, then from the last line and the up votes wonder if you might be serious...

 

[spring hall convert]

I strongly suspect that there might be some considerable exaggeration here. I can recall Seagull Specials sitting in North London for ages whilst they tried to find a driver for the rest of the journey back to Brighton. I also recall thousands of Albion fans going to Luton in the very late 60s, and queues down Queens Road, as they were writing out the tickets as the machine was not working. Whilst the exodus from Brighton was well known in advance, no one at Brighton Station had given the issue any prior thought.
Yes, they may be silly examples, and minor in the grand scheme of things, but it highlights the issue when there is no real profit at stake, other than for a distant state coffer. This is what the communists found in Eastern Europe, that huge nationalised organisations tend to be very inefficient, because there is less accountability and the average worker shows little real interest. OK, you might object to shareholders getting the profits, but before we change, will a nationalised concern really provide a better service. That is the issue, not the dogma.Don't forget the vast majority of folk who currently work on the railways will be the same ones, as will the same RMT.

Limited sample but the East Coast Mainline had high customer satisfaction scores and turned a profit when it was recently in state hands. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/01/east-coast-rail-line-returns-to-private-hands.

 

[alfredmizen]

I have no idea whether the public will take to Corbyn or not. Currently it is clear that he comes over as a decent sort of bloke, not a polished performer and a bit old school. This is playing well for him at present. If he can keep this in his back pocket he stands a chance of winning over a fair percentage of the truly undecided voters.

The gamble he and the labour party are taking is that he will win over the dis-enfranchised, they will vote labour and this will be enough to win an election.
That's quite a big ask. However the last election proved that New Labour has lost the centre ground to the tories, so it seems like a decent alternative strategy to me.
We'll have to wait and see.

With regards to the bad old days of British Rail..... My point is nothing has changed. Many industries have benefitted from privatisation, the railways have not.

IMO the service is no better now than it was; the cost is certainly no better and there is no competition to drive efficiencies or bring benefits for the consumer.

Referring to the bad old days implies things are now much better. I don't see it and I have been commuting by rail for the past 30 years.
What do you see as the main improvements in the rail industry, since privatisation?

do fvck off mate , he's actively praised and encouraged the murderers of british citizens both civilian and military, it just suits you and all the others for it to be conveniently filed under 'working for peace'.

 

[spring hall convert]

do fvck off mate , he's actively praised and encouraged the murderers of british citizens both civilian and military, it just suits you and all the others for it to be conveniently filed under 'working for peace'.

Still supporting terrorists now. Scumbag.

 

[alfredmizen]

Still supporting terrorists now. Scumbag.

View attachment 68907

Hilarious , im sure it goes down well in the staffroom, sorry 6th form common room.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/o...wash-they-wanted-the-ira-to-win-31550428.html

 

[Hastings gull]

I have no idea whether the public will take to Corbyn or not. Currently it is clear that he comes over as a decent sort of bloke, not a polished performer and a bit old school. This is playing well for him at present. If he can keep this in his back pocket he stands a chance of winning over a fair percentage of the truly undecided voters.

The gamble he and the labour party are taking is that he will win over the dis-enfranchised, they will vote labour and this will be enough to win an election.
That's quite a big ask. However the last election proved that New Labour has lost the centre ground to the tories, so it seems like a decent alternative strategy to me.
We'll have to wait and see.

With regards to the bad old days of British Rail..... My point is nothing has changed. Many industries have benefitted from privatisation, the railways have not.

IMO the service is no better now than it was; the cost is certainly no better and there is no competition to drive efficiencies or bring benefits for the consumer.

Referring to the bad old days implies things are now much better. I don't see it and I have been commuting by rail for the past 30 years.
What do you see as the main improvements in the rail industry, since privatisation?

Thanks. I could not really begin to comment in any great detail on the railways as I do not use them enough, as I think I did say, and if you as a regular user have seen no real improvement, then I am happy to go along with that. I would perhaps add that it is easy to say that, though that is not to say that I don't believe you. If you lament the fact that there is no competition at present, and I don't argue with that, then of course nationalising it, will not bring improvements on that score. I base my impressions on nationalised industries on experience of East Germany hence I am sceptical as to whether this would bring the improvement that we all wish for. For me whatever works best is the answer, and not pure dogma., and from what I read of your posts, you are broadly in agreement with this?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

This is true, it's virtually impossible to run a decent service unsubsidised , even the yanks subsidise their railways.

And if the Americans subsidise something it generally means it needs a subsidy.

 

[spring hall convert]

Hilarious , im sure it goes down well in the staffroom, sorry 6th form common room.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/o...wash-they-wanted-the-ira-to-win-31550428.html

Glad you liked it.