Is privatisation all it's cracked up to be?

Voyager2002

wotsthat wrote: »

It's more basic than that. Do you think politicians are capable of running businesses more profitably, with better service levels and in the best interests of the taxpayer?

As with government departments, politicians do not "run" things. They set the overall direction, but professional managers are actually in charge. So the question has to be: who is better placed to run an enterprise to deliver value to its users, civil servants or business people? And after remembering the behaviour of the banks; the utility companies... very few people would prefer business people to be in charge of any service that mattered to them.

timbo58

BR was a national joke because it was so starved of funding particularly by the time it was being prepped for privatisation.
The biggest joke of all was the fact the trains which had been built using taxpayers money were flogged off at scrap value only to be rehired out (and in many cases still operating even today) at millions per year by the clever/lucky few that own the ROSCOs (rolling stock companies).

Imagine have a car hire company that buys a 2nd hand mini for £100, charges you £10,000 a year just to hire it and you also being responsible for maintaining it, repainting and repairing it and then handing it back in tip top condition after all that.

A lot of interest in the TOC (train operating companies) also ebbed away when they realised it wasn't a simple matter of going into a nationalised industry and getting rid of 1/2 the staff who were superfluous, since BR/Intercity had done this donkeys years previously and in fact it was grossly understaffed by the time the privateers got their hands on it.

purch

shortchanged wrote: »

Can I win this argument

It would be a totally unique event. :eek:

Generali

shortchanged wrote: »

But would it have to be this way these days? Things have moved on, technology has improved things. Things generally are much more efficient these days.

They are more efficient because they were privatised!

You couldn't change provider because they were lousy or more expensive.

People forget that for many years, more than a decade in the case of telephones, price rises were mandated to remain below inflation. I think most have forgotten how utterly dreadful Britain's economic life was in the 1970s, mostly because of Nationalisation; it almost destroyed the economy.

shortchanged wrote: »

Are utility companies that great today? Isn't it funny how so many people are with British Gas these days because they trust the name, even though they are one of the most expensive and their customer service isn't great.

So much better than they were and now you have a choice. Imagine being forced to use the same company forever no matter how badly you were treated.

Generali

purch wrote: »

It would be a totally unique event. :eek:

I think if there's one thing we learn from the 'Scottish people being mental about smashing the Union' thread it's that nobody ever wins an argument on the Interwebs, you just grind round in ever decreasing circles throwing off more heat than light.

shortchanged_2

Generali wrote: »

They are more efficient because they were privatised!

You couldn't change provider because they were lousy or more expensive.

People forget that for many years, more than a decade in the case of telephones, price rises were mandated to remain below inflation. I think most have forgotten how utterly dreadful Britain's economic life was in the 1970s, mostly because of Nationalisation; it almost destroyed the economy.



So much better than they were and now you have a choice. Imagine being forced to use the same company forever no matter how badly you were treated.

But as others have stated Gen there is still a great deal of government subsidisation of these companies.

For what its worth I wouldn't put the telecoms industry back into state hands but I think there is a case for some of the other industries.

What competition is there in the water industry? It is a totally closed and uncompetitive market.

mayonnaise

shortchanged wrote: »

Can I win this argument wotsthat?

purch wrote: »

It would be a totally unique event. :eek:

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Yet you think the same politicians that decided this is the best way forward are somehow sufficiently qualified to run a nationalised railway system.

Most of those politicians are likely now dead.

And in any case, politicians would not be running it. Secondly, your point assumes that nothing can ever change or no lessons can ever be learn't. Or in other words, assumes nothing can ever change.

This is why I envy the Scots and they choice they have. A lot of them seem to see things can change and are willing to give it a go. They are not neccesarily stuck rigid by fear of upsetting the status quo.

shortchanged_2

mayonnaise wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Anything useful to add mayo?

And my comment to wotshat was basically he had put me in a dammed if I do and damned if I don't situation. Classic wotsthat really.

Conrad

I’ve always been anti nationalisation, but lately my view is being tempered.

I’ve enjoyed watching various documentaries about post war Britain’s military industrial complex such as our magnificent jet industry until Tony Ben pulled the plug (not Thatcher!).

These industries spawned masses of firms and prosperity. The Gov’t has a greater ability to take risks in technological advancement and in the long run the nation benefits.

Similar dynamic can be seen from the military complex the US spawned, albeit with added layers of cost due to unnecessary military campaigns.

The BBC is another example where incalculable business benefits have accrued to the nation although many folk won’t see this point, never will.

I’m impressed with some of what Le Pen has to say about state control and ways of raising state funds by ignoring the Bankers and the markets (usually a recipe for disaster, her ideas differ from the normal lefty rabble rousing clap trap).

One word of caution though is that the UK public sector is prone to being abused by it's own manipulative staff that know their employer is a soft target. Sickening payouts to MET police officers winging about bullying, only for them to use this theft of tax payer funds to aquire B2Ls - I've seen this in the raw. Fat bloke I know just got pensioned off for life from the DWP, he's mid 40's. He is the most manipulative sneaky person I've met and he's planned this all along, tied his employer in knots over bullying claims. The British always fall over themselves to keep the right side of the PC imperative (think Rochdale as but one example), and workers exploit this weakness.