Topic: Do you support the strikes?

[reddebs]

Thats due to having 12 years of Tories more than leaving the EU.

But it's the millions of immigrant workers that's stopping us from having access to healthcare, jobs and housing which is something that leaving the EU 7yrs ago was going to stop 🤷

[Kenny's Jacket]

But it's the millions of immigrant workers that's stopping us from having access to healthcare, jobs and housing which is something that leaving the EU 7yrs ago was going to stop 🤷

Yeah I get your point now Debs

[Yorkykopite]

Just hoping MIck doesn't have an opinion on the Islamist murder attempt on Sir Salman Rushdie. I have a feeling it will be another horrible right-wing one.

[oldfordie]

Just hoping MIck doesn't have an opinion on the Islamist murder attempt on Sir Salman Rushdie. I have a feeling it will be another horrible right-wing one.

Am trying to figure out why he's changed tactics. I think most of us already knew the RMT history on Brexit, I also knew Mick was pro Brexit but he was shying away from going political when asked about it 2 months back. he came out with some stuff about Irish Roots, nothing that could be classed as Left wing, never swallowed it and I didn't knock him for it, actually thought this is someone different who knows how to play the game so he won't hand the right the ammo to attack him and therefore weaken his Unions arguments. I don't know why he's suddenly gone off course. maybe been listening to the wrong people.

[Kenny's Jacket]

Well at least some of his members work for nationalised railway companies. They just happen to French and Dutch. And for some reason Mick thinks that being a EU member prevents a state from nationalising parts of its economy.

Here is a good article from The Independent.

It suggests the EU doesnt prevent nationalisation, but in terms of the railways it does make it harder to do so.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-railways-eu-rules-nationalise-single-market-restrictions-labour-a8968691.html

Im not sure if the below rule has been altered, it comes from EU Directive 91/440 in 1991
Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure
that as regards management, administration and internal
control over administrative , economic and accounting
matters railway undertakings have independent status in
accordance with which they will hold, in particular, assets,
budgets and accounts which are separate from those of the
State.


The article posted goes onto say that subsidised routers have to go to tender, however The government may award itself smaller packages under certain circumstances.

Unfortunately the podcast doesnt really question Lynch when he said that about nationalised railways.

It seems Mick isnt completely wrong or right on this issue.

[Red-Soldier]

It's perfectly OK (and normal) to be right on one thing, but wrong on another.  RAWKverse seems to have an issue with this though.

Lynch seems to be a fair representation of much of the working-class is this country.  Genuine concerns about some things, with skewed, bigoted ideas on others.

[reddebs]

It's perfectly OK (and normal) to be right on one thing, but wrong on another.  RAWKverse seems to have an issue with this though.

Lynch seems to be a fair representation of much of the working-class is this country.  Genuine concerns about some things, with skewed, bigoted ideas on others.

Bingo!

[Yorkykopite]

It's perfectly OK (and normal) to be right on one thing, but wrong on another.  RAWKverse seems to have an issue with this though.

Does it? If there is a consensus it seems to be that Lynch is right about the strike, but wrong about Brexit and Ukraine.

[Elmo!]

It's perfectly OK (and normal) to be right on one thing, but wrong on another.  RAWKverse seems to have an issue with this though.

Lynch seems to be a fair representation of much of the working-class is this country.  Genuine concerns about some things, with skewed, bigoted ideas on others.

Pretty sure almost everyone on here has acknowledged how good he is as a trade union leader, and just suggested he stick to that.

[Jiminy Cricket]

Pretty sure almost everyone on here has acknowledged how good he is as a trade union leader, and just suggested he stick to that.

Exactly.

[oldfordie]

Here is a good article from The Independent.

It suggests the EU doesnt prevent nationalisation, but in terms of the railways it does make it harder to do so.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-railways-eu-rules-nationalise-single-market-restrictions-labour-a8968691.html

Im not sure if the below rule has been altered, it comes from EU Directive 91/440 in 1991
Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure
that as regards management, administration and internal
control over administrative , economic and accounting
matters railway undertakings have independent status in
accordance with which they will hold, in particular, assets,
budgets and accounts which are separate from those of the
State.


The article posted goes onto say that subsidised routers have to go to tender, however The government may award itself smaller packages under certain circumstances.

Unfortunately the podcast doesnt really question Lynch when he said that about nationalised railways.

It seems Mick isnt completely wrong or right on this issue.

Well as you say this all came up in 2016 and the EU stops us from Nationalizing the railways was made long before 2016.
It's also about whether these arguments are made in good faith, the EU are against workers rights certainly wasn't.
It's easy to assume this is just more proof of the EU being in the pockets of the Capitalist system but it's more about creating a safe cheap efficient rail service run by highly trained people that serves National and local needs. am struggling to see why anyone would oppose this. I would of thought these are the aims of the RMT as well.


EU explains the logic behind the 4th Railway Package.

In detail
Proposals under the 4th railway package have four main aims:

Standards and approvals that work
The changes aim to cut the administrative costs for rail companies and make it easier for new operators to enter the market. The European Railway Agency (ERA) would become the single place of issue for vehicle authorisations and safety certificates for operators.
A structure that delivers
The proposed changes would strengthen the role of infrastructure managers - the people responsible for running tracks - ensuring they have complete operational and financial independence from train operators. Infrastructure managers would also control all areas at the heart of the rail network, such as infrastructure planning, timetabling, and daily operations and maintenance.
Opening domestic passenger markets
The 4th railway package includes the proposal to open up domestic passenger railways to new entrants and services from December 2019. Companies would be able either to offer competing services, such as a new train service on a particular route, or to bid for public service rail contracts through tendering. The proposed changes would make competitive tendering mandatory for public service rail contracts in the EU.
Maintaining a skilled rail workforce
The proposals recognise the importance of attracting skilled and motivated staff to the rail sector. In particular, the changes would allow member states to better protect workers when public service contracts are transferred to new contractors.

 https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/4th-railway-package/

[Kenny's Jacket]

It's also about whether these arguments are made in good faith, the EU are against workers rights certainly wasn't.

Ive not heard Lynch criticise the EU on these grounds. Have you?

it's more about creating a safe cheap efficient rail service run by highly trained people that serves National and local needs. am struggling to see why anyone would oppose this. I would of thought these are the aims of the RMT as well. 

Im sure they are, but Im also sure they think this can be achieved alongside nationalisation.

I am looking at this purely within the microcosm of Rail trade unionists voting for Brexit.

[oldfordie]

Ive not heard Lynch criticise the EU on these grounds. Have you?

Im sure they are, but Im also sure they think this can be achieved alongside nationalisation.

I am looking at this purely within the microcosm of Rail trade unionists voting for Brexit.

I never said Lynch did make these arguments but we know these arguments were made before 2016. I actually praised Lynch for steering clear of the EU political arguments made by the RMT even though I knew he was pro Brexit and his replies on why he was pro Brexit were way off anything you could describe as left wing and didn't convince me.

It's the attack on the EUs aims that annoys me most. I wouldn't call it ideology as that's the smear people try to argue when they say they are body who fights for the interests of the big corporations and the Capitalist system.
Looking at it from the RMTs point of view I would have thought they would be right behind a EU law that enforced highly skilled training and safety regulations. enforced the railways to provide better services Nationally and locally.

[Yorkykopite]

Ive not heard Lynch criticise the EU on these grounds. Have you?

His union certainly did when it came to explaining why it supported Brexit:

https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-sets-out-six-key-reasons-for-leaving-the-eu/

Point 3 says:

Leave the EU to end attacks on workers’ rights

It’s a myth that the EU is in favour of workers. In fact the EU is developing a new policy framework to attack trade union rights, collective bargaining, job protections and wages. This is already being enforced in countries which have received EU “bailouts”.

[Kenny's Jacket]

1  I never said Lynch did make these arguments but we know these arguments were made before 2016. I actually praised Lynch for steering clear of the EU political arguments made by the RMT even though I knew he was pro Brexit and his replies on why he was pro Brexit were2 way off anything you could describe as left wing and didn't convince me.

3 It's the attack on the EUs aims that annoys me most. I wouldn't call it ideology as that's the smear people try to argue when they say they are body who fights for the interests of the big corporations and the Capitalist system.
Looking at it from the RMTs point of view I would have thought they would be right behind a EU law that enforced highly skilled training and safety regulations. enforced the railways to provide better services Nationally and locally.

Sorry OF, Im too hot and lazy to do quotes

1.  As I said later in my post Im only looking at it from the point of view of the Rail Trade Unionists and have not heard him mention workers rights, however it seems Yorkie is about to enlighten me on that

2 Nationalising is left wing though. Right?

3. Ive litteraly only heard one podcast he did with Miatta Fabbullah. where he discusses the EU.  So cant comment

[Kenny's Jacket]

His union certainly did when it came to explaining why it supported Brexit:

https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-sets-out-six-key-reasons-for-leaving-the-eu/

Point 3 says:

Leave the EU to end attacks on workers’ rights

It’s a myth that the EU is in favour of workers. In fact the EU is developing a new policy framework to attack trade union rights, collective bargaining, job protections and wages. This is already being enforced in countries which have received EU “bailouts”.

Thanks Yorkie. Its quite annoying that when he brings up Brexit he doesnt get challenged more so he can offer a better explanation.
Im sure he has them.

[Yorkykopite]

I think the idiocy of the RMT's line on Brexit was that it took the worst case scenario of what the European Union might conceivably be and claimed that was representative of what it is (ie a capitalist club). It then took the best case scenario of what Brexit might entail and claimed that was likely to materialise if the UK left Europe (ie a socialist paradise). Then it asked its members to choose the paradise option.

It was so unworldly. Kind of insane really given the current balance of class forces in the UK.

[oldfordie]

Sorry OF, Im too hot and lazy to do quotes

1.  As I said later in my post Im only looking at it from the point of view of the Rail Trade Unionists and have not heard him mention workers rights, however it seems Yorkie is about to enlighten me on that

2 Nationalising is left wing though. Right?

3. Ive litteraly only heard one podcast he did with Miatta Fabbullah. where he discusses the EU.  So cant comment

Ive always supported the Nationalisation of services and never looked at Nationalisation as a Ideological left wing argument. it's about who makes the argument and the argument they make for Nationalisation that's done so much harm that needs to be acknowledged.
The left wing Nationalisation argument is about the means of production, you've lost before you start, they can only mean State ownership of company's who produce so yes many people will look at Nationalisation as a left wing aim when the far left make the argument.
I know this contradicts polls and views but people do this all the time. it all boils down to how it's sold.
EDIT.
I should add. Lynch has been in a different league to anyone else when it comes to making Nationalisation arguments. been superb and he needs praising for it. I just hope he hasn't given people the ammo to attack him as a extreme left winger. it's not about him it's about undermining his union and his members as well as the argument for Nationalisation.

[Yorkykopite]

Ive always supported the Nationalisation of services and never looked at Nationalisation as a Ideological left wing argument. it's about who makes the argument and the argument they make for Nationalisation that's done so much harm that needs to be acknowledged.
The left wing Nationalisation argument is about the means of production, you've lost before you start, they can only mean State ownership of company's who produce so yes many people will look at Nationalisation as a left wing aim when the far left make the argument.
I know this contradicts polls and views but people do this all the time. it all boils down to how it's sold.

I agree.

When Labour makes a case for public ownership on purely pragmatic grounds  - as it did in 1945 - it invariably persuades people to support nationalisation. But when it argues the point on ideological grounds - as the Bennite programme did when it aimed to nationalise "the top 200 companies" - it freaks people out.

[oldfordie]

I agree.

When Labour makes a case for public ownership on purely pragmatic grounds  - as it did in 1945 - it invariably persuades people to support nationalisation. But when it argues the point on ideological grounds - as the Bennite programme did when it aimed to nationalise "the top 200 companies" - it freaks people out.

Exactly. people understand the difference between Nationalizing a Service, they are vital to life. we have no choice on whether we use these services so people suffer badly when they aren't being provided or too expensive to use. that's were the Pragmatic argument for the state being responsible for providing these services and at a cost people can afford sounds decent not ideological. can't make those arguments for the Top 200 so you take a hammering and the decent fight to Nationalise services is lost.

[Sangria]

Ive always supported the Nationalisation of services and never looked at Nationalisation as a Ideological left wing argument. it's about who makes the argument and the argument they make for Nationalisation that's done so much harm that needs to be acknowledged.
The left wing Nationalisation argument is about the means of production, you've lost before you start, they can only mean State ownership of company's who produce so yes many people will look at Nationalisation as a left wing aim when the far left make the argument.
I know this contradicts polls and views but people do this all the time. it all boils down to how it's sold.
EDIT.
I should add. Lynch has been in a different league to anyone else when it comes to making Nationalisation arguments. been superb and he needs praising for it. I just hope he hasn't given people the ammo to attack him as a extreme left winger. it's not about him it's about undermining his union and his members as well as the argument for Nationalisation.

Nationalisation shouldn't be about ownership of the means of production. It should be about guaranteeing the delivery of essential services. No one other than the ideological left gives a toss about the former. The latter is the argument that most people can identify with.

[John C]

Ive always supported the Nationalisation of services and never looked at Nationalisation as a Ideological left wing argument. ....................................

You bring some fantastic wisdom to this forum fordie mate, I really appreciate it, I'm sure many do.

[oldfordie]

You bring some fantastic wisdom to this forum fordie mate, I really appreciate it, I'm sure many do.

Thanks John. credit to the forum members for challenging bullshit, that's the most important thing this forum brings for me. challenging opinions rather just accepting meaningless claims stated as fact, ive never had a problem with someone convincing me ive got something wrong which has happened a few times as none of us has sussed out all the political arguments etc spot on all the time.
 

[Jiminy Cricket]

You bring some fantastic wisdom to this forum fordie mate, I really appreciate it, I'm sure many do.

Indeed he does! A few weeks ago, I was shocked to find myself disagreeing with OF about a Kay Burley interview with Mick Lynch. I can only conclude it was me who was wrong!

[hide5seek]

People at the bottom are no longer competing with millions of migrant workers for jobs and services, don’t you get how that works?

So, you've missed the Tory cost of living crisis?

[oldfordie]

Indeed he does! A few weeks ago, I was shocked to find myself disagreeing with OF about a Kay Burley interview with Mick Lynch. I can only conclude it was me who was wrong!

He crossed a line when he messed with Kay. 
Enjoyed the Richard Madeley interview though, Madeley going from sitting in arrogant judgement throwing shit to spluttering trying to gain some credibility back for asking the question. hilarious.

[Red-Soldier]

People at the bottom are no longer competing with millions of migrant workers for jobs and services, don’t you get how that works?

The 'benefits' of ending Freedom of Movement:

Revealed: Indonesian workers on UK farm ‘at risk of debt bondage’

As farms look further afield for labour, investigation finds Kent pickers saying they struggle to pay fees charged by unlicensed brokers

Indonesian labourers picking berries on a farm that supplies Marks & Spencer, Waitrose, Sainsbury’s and Tesco say they have been saddled with debts of up to Ł5,000 by unlicensed foreign brokers to work in Britain for a single season.

Pickers at the farm in Kent were initially given zero-hours contracts, and at least one was paid less than Ł300 a week after the cost of using a caravan was deducted, according to payslips and other documents seen as part of a Guardian investigation.

The fees they pay to secure work include flights and visas, but multiple labourers said they also faced thousands of pounds in extra charges from Indonesian brokers who promised substantial earnings. Under UK employment law, it is illegal to charge workers fees for finding them jobs.

One worker described how he staked his family home in Bali as surety on the debt and fears losing it. “Now I’m working hard only to pay back that money,” he said. “I cannot sleep sometimes. I have a family who need my support to eat and meanwhile, I think about the debt.”

Brexit and the war in Ukraine have created chronic labour shortages in the UK agricultural sector, pushing desperate farms and recruitment agencies to look further afield than Europe, where it can be harder to track the methods local brokers use to find workers.

The revelations raise the prospect of fruit pickers being trapped in debt bondage, preventing them from leaving work without risking financial ruin. Migrant rights experts say the situation puts workers at risk of what is essentially forced labour.

The Home Office and the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority (GLAA) are looking into the allegations, and the supermarkets have launched an urgent investigation into the issues raised by the Guardian.

Hundreds of Indonesian farm workers have been recruited to work in Britain this summer on seasonal worker visas, the immigration route created to tackle a shortage of farm workers after Brexit.

Scores of pickers were sent to Clock House farm near Maidstone in Kent, which supplies berries to most major supermarkets and has appeared in an M&S advert.

Clock House said it was “deeply concerned” by the allegations and would “not have entered into an agreement with, or taken workers from, any entity that was involved in such activity [the charging of fees]”. It said it was working with the authorities to investigate the claims.

The Indonesian workers were supplied by AG Recruitment, one of four UK agencies licensed to recruit using seasonal worker visas. AG denied any wrongdoing and said it knew nothing about Indonesian brokers charging money.

AG was originally planning to recruit from Ukraine and Russia but changed its plans when war broke out in February, weeks before the picking season was due to start. Last year almost 20,000 Ukrainians came to Britain on seasonal worker visas, making up two-thirds of all those arriving through the scheme.

AG had no previous experience in Indonesia and sought help from Jakarta-based Al Zubara Manpower, who in turn went to brokers on other islands who charged exorbitant fees to the people they introduced, according to one Al Zubara agent.

Invoices seen by the Guardian show workers at Clock House with debts of between Ł4,400 and Ł5,000 to a broker in Bali who supplied workers to Al Zubara Manpower.

While flights and visa fees are included in these debts, other charges included compulsory language training not required by farms, and hundreds of pounds for accommodation in Jakarta while awaiting visas. The debts have to be repaid by bank transfer in monthly instalments of up to Ł800, according to documents seen by the Guardian.

Sukiasa Ketut, a freelance agent managing Al Zubara’s recruitment in Bali, said they used “many, many” freelance brokers who did not stick to the rules. He acknowledged that brokers pocketed money from charges and said he felt “really sorry” about the situation.

He added: “We didn’t prepare well regarding the rules of how to recruit people, so we [went] to the recruiters and they just did this in their own way. We were surprised as some charged more and others charged less.”

Even those workers who did not go through a third party were billed Ł2,500 by Al Zubara, with charges including a Ł560 training fee and a Ł362 visa fee, despite the Home Office listed fee being Ł259. Aside from Ł1,478 for the flight and the visa, there are not supposed to be unnecessary supplementary fees under the seasonal worker scheme.

The managing director of AG Recruitment, Douglas Amesz, said he was unaware of brokers charging money, and there is no suggestion that he knew of the fees. He said he personally recruited candidates in Jakarta and that applications and visas were only processed by AG.

Workers from Bali met Amesz in Jakarta and remember him telling them they should not pay any fees for jobs and that it was illegal. But they said local brokers told them not to disclose what they paid.

Clock House farm uses 1,200 workers on average every season to pick raspberries, strawberries, blackberries and plums.

It issued some Indonesian arrivals with a zero-hours contract, seen by the Guardian, despite this having been against the rules for those on seasonal worker visas since April 2022. After the Guardian approached it for comment in late July, the contracts were changed to guarantee a minimum of 20 hours.

Payslips seen by the Guardian show labourers sometimes worked far fewer hours and can make less than Ł300 a week, leaving them concerned about their ability to repay debts. Clock House said it conducted an audit of its payroll and found workers picked for an average of more than 48 hours a week, meaning an income of more than Ł2,000 a month.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/14/uk-farm-workers-kent-debt-indonesian-brokers


Also, the issues with supply chains, including labour, is helping to increase inflation.

[Kenny's Jacket]

 

his replies on why he was pro Brexit were way off anything you could describe as left wing and didn't convince me.

Ive always supported the Nationalisation of services and never looked at Nationalisation as a Ideological left wing argument. it's about who makes the argument and the argument they make for Nationalisation that's done so much harm that needs to be acknowledged.
The left wing Nationalisation argument is about the means of production, you've lost before you start, they can only mean State ownership of company's who produce so yes many people will look at Nationalisation as a left wing aim when the far left make the argument.

Thanks for the replies and I appreciate its a small point, so sorry if I'm being pedantic but I don't get how Nationalisation can be considered anything but left wing.
The closest I can think about was Blair and Brown with RBS, but wouldn't consider that proper Nationalisation. Maybe I'm being thick

 

[Yorkykopite]

Thanks for the replies and I appreciate its a small point, so sorry if I'm being pedantic but I don't get how Nationalisation can be considered anything but left wing.

Nationalisation has been used by extreme right-wing regimes too, especially where energy is concerned. Saudi Aramco isn't a socialist company for example. And let's not forget that Winston Churchill was an early nationaliser of oil.

[Red-Soldier]

Nationalisation has been used by extreme right-wing regimes too, especially where energy is concerned. Saudi Aramco isn't a socialist company for example. And let's not forget that Winston Churchill was an early nationaliser of oil.

I'm taking a bit of a guess here without doing any searching, but were most things nationalised under the Nazis too?

[Yorkykopite]

I'm taking a bit of a guess here without doing any searching, but were most things nationalised under the Nazis too?

Certain parts of the economy were, yes. And Mussolini's Italy too.

[Elmo!]

Selling off the countries assets does seem to be a particularly Tory thing, compared to other equivalent parties around the world, though I'm just basing that off limited knowlege, just my impression.

[oldfordie]

Thanks for the replies and I appreciate its a small point, so sorry if I'm being pedantic but I don't get how Nationalisation can be considered anything but left wing.
The closest I can think about was Blair and Brown with RBS, but wouldn't consider that proper Nationalisation. Maybe I'm being thick

I don't think it's a small point, it's what it's all about really, I think we've lost our way when funding to feed kids and education comes into the economic arguments as though we should debate these sort of issues. the funding needed should be provided and we start from their, I don't think that's being left wing or pig headed that's where am coming from. Somethings are not up for debate for me.
As I said in previous post Nationalisation it has nothing to do with ideology so left or right wing doesn't come into it. it's the point Yorky touched on about the arguments made by Labour to get Nationalization in the first place+ the massive change for the good for us all from 1940 onwards. these all could have been classed as left wing as they were all about creating a decent caring society but that's not how they were sold and that lesson seems to have been lost these days,
I know politics is complicated and what is fair to someone might feel unfair to someone else but as I say we've lost our way when people start thinking anyone who wants to fight for something decent like providing and protecting a vital services like Water. electricity and Gas at a affordable price is left wing, it's common sense as well as decency, none of these things should be in private hands, it is actually crazy for us to believe it's ok for these vital services to be in private hands to charge us whatever they like take it or leave it.
Bailing out banks wasn't about decency so am not getting into whether it was the right thing to do as I don't consider it relevant to the Nationalization of services argument. it was about economics not decency and the 2 shouldn't be lumped together.

[Sangria]

I don't think it's a small point, it's what it's all about really, I think we've lost our way when funding to feed kids and education comes into the economic arguments as though we should debate these sort of issues. the funding needed should be provided and we start from their, I don't think that's being left wing or pig headed that's where am coming from. Somethings are not up for debate for me.
As I said in previous post Nationalisation it has nothing to do with ideology so left or right wing doesn't come into it. it's the point Yorky touched on about the arguments made by Labour to get Nationalization in the first place+ the massive change for the good for us all from 1940 onwards. these all could have been classed as left wing as they were all about creating a decent caring society but that's not how they were sold and that lesson seems to have been lost these days,
I know politics is complicated and what is fair to someone might feel unfair to someone else but as I say we've lost our way when people start thinking anyone who wants to fight for something decent like providing and protecting a vital services like Water. electricity and Gas at a affordable price is left wing, it's common sense as well as decency, none of these things should be in private hands, it is actually crazy for us to believe it's ok for these vital services to be in private hands to charge us whatever they like take it or leave it.
Bailing out banks wasn't about decency so am not getting into whether it was the right thing to do as I don't consider it relevant to the Nationalization of services argument. it was about economics not decency and the 2 shouldn't be lumped together.

It's why a mixed economy is what works best, not a planned economy, or a market economy. Despite the hatred some have for the idea, capitalism does work best for some things, where the subject and conditions are right for the market. And despite the ideology of the Tories, planned is the only way for many of the essentials to work. It's a matter of picking the right way of doing things, not one or the other.

[oldfordie]

It's why a mixed economy is what works best, not a planned economy, or a market economy. Despite the hatred some have for the idea, capitalism does work best for some things, where the subject and conditions are right for the market. And despite the ideology of the Tories, planned is the only way for many of the essentials to work. It's a matter of picking the right way of doing things, not one or the other.

I agree, leaving the banks out of it, it's not Capitalism that f,, us up, it's allowing people to exploit that does the damage and I wouldn't mind but that's exactly what we handed them on a plate in many ways a few years back.

[TipTopKop]

At the risk of being too generic, human greed drowns even the most noble intentioned ideology.

That's the problem with anything; some people at the top will eventually like it where they are and will do anything to stay there, common folk or hard workers be damned.

There is no doubt elements of Capitalism and Communism can/should work. Almost always though when implemented in real life, you factor human greed and the abuse then starts.

[Sangria]

At the risk of being too generic, human greed drowns even the most noble intentioned ideology.

That's the problem with anything; some people at the top will eventually like it where they are and will do anything to stay there, common folk or hard workers be damned.

There is no doubt elements of Capitalism and Communism can/should work. Almost always though when implemented in real life, you factor human greed and the abuse then starts.

That's why the market system in many sectors works well when you factor in human greed and abuse, and regulate for it. A planned economy when you need market tends towards inertia. A market economy when you need planned tends towards abuse.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

I don't think it's a small point, it's what it's all about really, I think we've lost our way when funding to feed kids and education comes into the economic arguments as though we should debate these sort of issues. the funding needed should be provided and we start from their, I don't think that's being left wing or pig headed that's where am coming from. Somethings are not up for debate for me.
As I said in previous post Nationalisation it has nothing to do with ideology so left or right wing doesn't come into it. it's the point Yorky touched on about the arguments made by Labour to get Nationalization in the first place+ the massive change for the good for us all from 1940 onwards. these all could have been classed as left wing as they were all about creating a decent caring society but that's not how they were sold and that lesson seems to have been lost these days,
I know politics is complicated and what is fair to someone might feel unfair to someone else but as I say we've lost our way when people start thinking anyone who wants to fight for something decent like providing and protecting a vital services like Water. electricity and Gas at a affordable price is left wing, it's common sense as well as decency, none of these things should be in private hands, it is actually crazy for us to believe it's ok for these vital services to be in private hands to charge us whatever they like take it or leave it.
Bailing out banks wasn't about decency so am not getting into whether it was the right thing to do as I don't consider it relevant to the Nationalization of services argument. it was about economics not decency and the 2 shouldn't be lumped together.

If the banks were allowed to fail, how wouldn't that affect the people that used their services, and the country as a whole?

[oldfordie]

If the banks were allowed to fail, how wouldn't that affect the people that used their services, and the country as a whole?

A economic crash would mean less money for services and the country as a whole and yeah that's one way of looking at it. saving the banks from collapsing prevented misery for millions so it was a decent thing to do but that was a short term solution to solve a serious problem rather than a argument for Nationalizing services.

[reddebs]

At the risk of being too generic, human greed drowns even the most noble intentioned ideology.

That's the problem with anything; some people at the top will eventually like it where they are and will do anything to stay there, common folk or hard workers be damned.

There is no doubt elements of Capitalism and Communism can/should work. Almost always though when implemented in real life, you factor human greed and the abuse then starts.

My dad used to explain it as "if you give 2 people an apple each, one will eat it and discard the core, the other will pick up the core and put it with their core to grow trees to sell the fruit".

Not exactly greed, although they could give away the fruit instead but it's still an example of how differently humans react to situations.