Welcome to the Community

Please choose one of the options below to log in and get stuck in!

Login with PPUK

Public oversight of nationalised services

Put a stop once and for all on any governments ability to sell off parts of a national service (like the NHS) without proper public approval


  • Define "proper public approval".
  • proper public approval = not hiding these sell-offs behind the scenes, these are important systems to the welfare of the nation and the public should have a say in their future
  • Dear jblanchard,
    Please note that when Nye Bevan 'invented' [copied from the south Wales coalmines] the NHS in 1948, there was always provision for private healthcare within the NHS. However, he'd only estimated that the NHS would be needed for a limited timespan [due to the Nation's improved health!], no one could have envisaged the Goliath is created 68 years on! It has been Labour's Nemesis, just as the Common Market / EEC / EC / EU has been for the Conservatives!
  • ThyPirateDaveThyPirateDave South Wales
    edited March 2016
    Nye Bevan wanted the NHS to be at first a means to immediately help and treat in a reactionary capacity with the future goal of having a deeply embded function of improving our health in a pro-active fashion. Naturally that includes large expansion.

    The Tories have always tried to privatise everything regardless of it being loss or profit making... so I think it's safe to say if you vote Tory you're giving public approval to privatise the NHS.

    I mean we can't hold a referendum each time someone wants to privatise something.
  • Agreed Drowz0r. Britain was desperately in need of change after WW2, and the NHS was Nye's beautiful legacy! Yes, we're all well aware of the Tories...And no, we can't hold a ballot every PMQ!
  • edited March 2016
    Be that as it may, in this age of the internet we can and should have a much more participatory decision making process, where those who are interested enough can track a bill or other notable business of the Commons online and submit real time polling data on their opinions on the bill/whatever, based on the information they have on it. To facilitate this, the full text of any proposal should be made available for the public as long before the actual debate on its approval and ratification as is feasible (i.e. no more TTIP/TPP/TISA/CISA secret deals), with a minimum time limit of a week (maybe a bit longer?) for normal legislation, or (something like) 2 days for emergency legislation, if such a thing as emergency legislation is really even a thing we should need.
  • Bumping a dead thread here, but I actually think its perfectly possible for us to hold referendums via e-democracy on nationalisation/privatisation, complete with multiple choices available for what exactly should be done. I.E. Continue current system, total renationalisation, total privatisation, etc. Imagine a referendum on the rails! Almost the whole country wants them renationalised, including Conservative voters: https://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/11/04/nationalise-energy-and-rail-companies-say-public/
  • I disagree. If you ask the public if it wants a referendum on _anything_ it always says yes even if it doesn't want change. Referendums are a tool of democracy that doesn't fit everything. I think we should learn from the trouble the Swedish Pirates have had and know when to - and when not to utilise democracy.

    Referendums should be for big deals like changing the voting system or Scotland leaving the UK - a move of powers not a company changing hands. We cannot hold referendums every time there is a change like privatisation of a company - surely that is something between the company owners and the workforce having an effective union.
  • I have worked in education at primary, secondary and tertiary level and whether or not the English education system should be effectively sold off is not what I care about (I do, but not here). Taking parents off the boards of governors at the same time is obscene. As someone working inside the system, and there are many of us at all levels INSIDE the system, I can't understand why we couldn't know about these changes 10, 20 even 50 years in advance. As we work in the chaotic but (once) very well-established education system we would be only too happy to change our practices, invest in infrastructure and so forth in a manner that would enable us to deliver a better product and adapt to our new economic environment at the time when it is decided by the public. We can still aim now to 'balance the books', and balance them well, but no one is coming to the UK right now to say, damn you, give me money. And they will wait 50 years if we have a 50 year plan. I'm sure this is similar across many public sectors. And even very conservative ppl can easier imagine things being different later on. The problem with traditional party governance is actions need to be taken and completed before the public get a chance to stop it, before some scandal rocks the party, before an opposition gets a louder message out. PPUK message on these sorts of changes should be, "we are against HACK AND SLASH governance, we are for a well-thought out plan to move in a cost-effective direction, back by the will of the people". This doesn't have to mean a national referendum, but it can involve elected officials and others, drawn from whatever areas of society are deemed necessary (in the case of accademisation, perhaps heads, governors, staff, parents, and maybe a sample of the public).

    My thoughts on this are easy: Appeal to the widest range of voters, from left to right, and advocate direct governance. Advocate public participation in the discussion over these topics that the public are too easily becoming disenfranchised from. If they like traditional Tory family values (which I argue are not Tory values anymore), they can vote for us. If they're conservative but don't want their garden fracked, they can vote for us. If they like worker's rights, but love trident missiles, they can vote for us. Actually the last one is tricky - I think the Tridents need paying for soon. And it goes without saying that if the majority of the people want your garden to get fracked, and if it's legal, well your garden's getting fracked (but there will be a law which compensates you because we are not animals). If we vote for these things in something like a referendum, then we can make changes over a long period of time and the mechanisms of society can respond. This is the kind of governance I want anyway. I know most people couldn't give a toss about politics, but then they can't moan when things don't go their way. Their vote is theirs for taking, possibly from the couch in front of Eastenders. And possibly only if they're in the sample.
  • oh, you can also vote to have scotland build a wall between england and scotland if you want.
  • I thought we were against Trident.
  • I was talking to the voter. I am against Trident (even though that and Typhoons are the only thing keeping me in my current job right now) and I would imagine PPUK are against it, and I can happily say that to the voters and give good reasons why (I only need one).

    But look at Icelandic PP website. Two top points right there on the front of their website - Direct Democracy and Transparency. I know we are not the Icelandic Pirate Party, but these are MY strongest personal requirements for me to accept governance by a third-party. http://www.piratar.is/policies/?lang=en

    I respect the fact that these might not be our ideologies here at PPUK, and I will fall in line with what we do at the appropriate times because I believe we are right on the points we raise (that i am aware of), and we can be the best party to talk about possibilities of governance in the future without necessarily promoting direct-democracy and transparency as our message de jour. (do let me know if I should talk more in line with our policy in this thread - I'm new and clumsy like a toddler. I would like to know though where/how we discuss our differences. I hope it doesn't seem like I'm here to rock the pirate boat).

    Anyway, my message to the voter is, "If you (the voter, not pirates) love tridents, vote for them. But vote for them based on these well researched and thought out pieces by X, and these criticisms by Y and these positive testimonies by Z. And also this set of publicly available data released by the government that indicates job losses/growth, prosperity/economic loss. And I'm sorry we couldn't release that bit due to national security".

    I did see a couple of videos posted here somewhere about the dangers/unworkability of direct-democracy and e-voting. I will review, but I'm keen to hear why this won't work, in the eyes of clever pirates here. The biggest problem I hear is the problem of allowing privacy AND verification to take place simultaneously. Well I came looking for PPUK because that is now possible. I do want to hear the other arguments though.
  • ThyPirateDaveThyPirateDave South Wales
    edited April 2016
    PPUK has a policy against Trident though I think the crowd-sourcing and wording of the vote and arguments for/against weren't amazing. It was VERY rushed. It was a vote done at a time where it was very popular to be anti-nuclear too.

    We really missed the argument that we are currently contributing to three nuclear deterrents - Trident, the EU one and the NATO one. We also didn't argue that once Ukraine gave up their nuclear rights, Russia invaded.

    I would prefer us to have the policy that we stop funding the EU and NATO nukes and just have our own. You can bet your bottom dollar that if we were in the situation where we wanted to fire nuclear weapons from the EU, we would have to seek approval from all the other EU member states and they would look to their own interests before ours - same with NATO.

    Completely trashing all nuclear deterrents immediately is going to upset a lot of people who want it but reducing it by 66%, saving money and retaining an "independent" deterrent seems the most sensible policy to me. Once we're down to _just_ trident, I think it would be a suitable situation to debate if we also wanted to scrap trident or keep it.

    We should probably have a big old debate on that and a member vote.


    Direct Democracy and Transparency are big ones for us. I win a lot of people over on Transparency and Openness and it's a policy that we can broadly apply to any election we win. We can push for more transparency and openness at EU, UK, AM... Local or Community council... or whatever. It's probably one of our strongest policies that is hard to argue against.

    As for Direct Democracy - we make it sexy by saying "we've crowd-sourced our consultation/manifesto" but in it's simplest form, it is simply gathering data from your constituents. A lot of policy, especially at lower-level government is run on anecdotes (by incumbents - if you're lucky, some just ignore the residents) . If you put a survey out or talk to enough people and notice a trend like "need more bins" then you've crowd-sourced your bin policy. It completely relieves us of having to make our own policies... that's a lot of man-hours saved. Its simplicity doesn't detract from how exciting the whole thing is mind you.
  • edited April 2016
    We might not get a lot of choice on funding the EU and NATO deterrents if we as a country want to stay in those organisations. We might also want to see how the EU referendum pans out.

    Direct democracy 'by survey' sounds annoying. Direct democracy 'by participation in crowdsourcing' doesn't. Think Galaxy Zoo and similar crowdsourced platforms and how they get people involved. It is all about how it's presented and how you get people excited. Most of all, it's about WHY you are doing it, and you need to tell people why you are here and why you think this or that is important to everyone.
  • At a first look I would agree with you on not having a choice with EU/NATO nuke funding... however we were also told we must adopt the Euro when being in Europe and we said no to that too.

    I take the attitude that we should never make a deal so good we cannot walk away from it. We should TELL the EU we won't be funding the joint nuclear programme any more. Their option would be to accept it or kick us out.

    I'll be voting to stay in, btw.

    I agree on Direct Democracy - but currently we are kind of patching our Representative Democracy to include some Direct Democracy. This means the policies we have to represent the constituents when we get someone elected just need to be plastic to our constituency. Ultimately the much bigger goal is engagement and all those other wonderful things you said - but, at least here, I just don't have the resources to fully commit to that. Yet anyway.
Sign In or Register to comment.