How will Corbyn fund nationalising the Railways, higher taxes?

Minty y .... You seem to have all the answers op, I can't see the point of this thread.

The point is that having lived through Labour's policies in the 1970's in by twenties, saw the polices damage the last Labour government did in the the 2000's that Corbyn and co were MPs within - I HAVE some answers to this rollocks that Corbynism are NEW politics/ideas - as I not only have the tee shirt, I wore it on the train when the State ran railways and other taxpayer funded industries that no longer exist.

i.e. Corbyn's current view there should be NO limit on benefits, STILL has not worked out that the basic requirement of getting benefits, welfare, and tax credits under Labour was having a pulse, was always going to be unsustainable - so would replicate the same policies, but on further leftie steroids.

The benefits of a nationalised service though is greater co ordination, and greater public pressure (I would hope) for more lines, faster trains etc. You would pay the same but get a better service.

Alyosha .... can you please give me ONE Labour major services government department, that despite for several years the largest 'real terms' increase in annual spending in Europe, invested that money commercially/wisely (hopefully in something tangable) - and was NOT passed to the coalition in a condition 'not fit for purpose'?

Re 'low government investment' I reiterate my previous point, governments will always have higher spending priorities than worrying about how cramped THOSE WITH JOBS are, travelling to work during the rush hours.

Want2bSuperman .... I have no idea of the enormity of the then Swedish railway problems compared with the British Rail state ownership days, or if he had the government of the day with him or against him, but he soulds a remarkable man.

Re your His facility was in Sweden where unions remain strong but are driving out manual labour to Poland.

We had a similar situation in the high inflation/interest rate 1970's with coal.

Where the trade union claimed and got from Wilson I believe, over a 30% pay rise amongst others for a dangerous job admittedly few of us would want to do, BUT (cause an effect) it made our coal with strike/supply uncertainty, more expensive within a global market place - and I believe our power stations had to start importing cheaper coal from POLAND - or pass the increased prices of erratic production, on to us.

GiddyOnZackHunt …. Re your Mmm. And who operates our contracts? SNCF (or whatever it's called) the French operator. Nowt to stop them milking our commuters to pay their debts....

Clearly you would not make that statement unless you could qualify it, are there not general increases in line with each other?

Are there no government/watchdog controls – as I thought over the past few years there price rise are ceilings?

What is to stop a Corbyn government using the railways or any other State service to pay off what he calls ‘austerity reductions by NEW politics’, which can only ever be by government spending cuts and/or more taxes?

Want2bSupermum .... the point is that the less than moderate trade unions finally worked out that private sector companies/factories close, the public sector services can not - like the London Tube, bringing London to a halt as the train unions decided that ticket offices closing was 'unsafe'.

It wasn't a members thing, most ticket office workers wanted redundancy or to be found new jobs, but the trade unions clearly thought travellers could fall from the ticket machines floor, onto the lines on the floor below.

In Grangemouth Scotland recently didn't the trade unions make all sorts of threats but had to back down as the company announced closure plans?

Well a left wing government, appointed by left wing trade unions, asked to set left wing policies policies - can only result in a nationalised British Rail financial train crash.

Want2bSupermum .... The senior management at British rail ran scared of the unions,

While I not quite sure of your comment re State industry bosses appointed for political reasons rather than experience, I very much agree with the rest of your post.

There is no doubt that the trade unions up to the mid 1980's (when legislation was passed to stop it) ready to strike at the drop of a cloth cap, not only intimidated company management with their threats, they thought that they ran the private sector companies - right up until the factories closed.

For an insight of a time when trade unions thought they ran the UK, not just factories, read this link below;

news.bbc.co.uk/local/liverpool/hi/people_and_places/history/newsid_8401000/8401200.stm

“British Leyland's Speke factory symbolised all that was wrong with UK car manufacturing in the dark days of the 1970s, a million miles away from the high performing plants of today at Ellesmere Port and Halewood.”

“In 1978 British Leyland's Speke Number Two plant was under threat of closure, afflicted by a series of crippling strikes, low sales of the TR7 it manufactured, and a history of poor industrial relations coupled with inefficiencies.”

“In 1970 British Leyland, who had taken over Triumph, spent £10.5 million building Speke Number Two plant, it was one of the most modern and best equipped plants in Europe designed to build 100,000 vehicles a year all under one roof.”

“When BBC Nationwide visited in February 1978 the plant only had a few months of life left.”

Which underlines your Corbyn point, put in place by the trade unions/hard left, and just 'told' by the trade unions that they want Trident so back down - so a Trident nuclear deterrent (thank god) remains a Labour policy.

How many more Corbyn promises to the Labour Movement to get elected, will get neutered by the trade unions in the next few days?

In conclusion; allow the private sector to make the investment, run it, take the risks, but have the 'profits' monitored - rather than have the government go into a risky business they will have to pump how many £billions into, on top of the £1.6 trillion national debt - and then compound those trading losses with higher interest rate servicing that debt, losses.

Maybe one day people will realise that not all profit can be bad as NO private sector company (with the likes of pension funds as shareholders) is ever going to risk a PENNY of investment, if they don't see the potential of a return.

Governments running commercial businesses will ALWAYS have the voter pressure of increasing non business spending on departments running services/benefits/welfare, rather than running loss making companies in a lack of investment-trade union demands-economic conditions, downward spiral.

Governments cannot always make 'popular' decisions based on what the people 'think', especially as rumour has it, they can be fickle.

This years 'we want not profit making railways', can in a few years time become 'why are we spending money propping up a loss making business we shouldn't be in, when cutting/not increasing spending on services?'

Just look at one of the threads on here, suggesting 'no investment in HS2 could mean free school dinners' - nuff said?

Governments are in the business of running taxes, pensions, welfare, benefits and services - but they can spread themselves too thin in businesses they have bad records in as not their sole focus/priority - especially ones with £1.6 tril of national debt and the Base Rate/interest rates funding it, at a near 300-years low, so can only really go one way from here.

'the fact is .......

GiddyOnZackHunt ... with yours, oh yes.

The facts, as the OP suggested, EVERY Corbyn spun policy is likely to be the road to higher taxes; any privatization, unlimited benefits, balancing the UK budget etc etc etc.