MSE Poll: Do you support renationalisation of rail, energy, water and more?

indesisiv

I get the water as I am not sure what you can gain from it being held privately (Its not like you can switch providers)
I don't understand why anyone would want to renationalise directory enquiries, or the post office. Surely they are both sort of dying breeds that if back would just end up costing money.
Leave the DE to die off as the internet takes over. Seriously how many people can afford to use those services anyway!

Phones, you guys with BT don't know what a monopoly is. At least you can change different broadband providers to get a better deal. Some of us that don't have BT lines can't do that.

NaughtiusMaximus

Gillian_Brown wrote: »

I remember the time before rail privitisation. The trains were always filthy both inside and out and the timekeeping was just awful. As there were no profits no one had any interest in improving the service.

That's odd because I remember them as clean and reliable. Fares were also a LOT cheaper even after taking into account inflation and the rail industry received a smaller government subsidy back then too.

Gillian_Brown wrote: »

The unions were supreme so were always on strike.

Of course there are never any rail strikes now

Eric_the_half_a_bee wrote: »

Rose tinted spectacles. Yes it was a world class diesel locomotive, but it was only needed because, unlike most of Western Europe, the state owned BR had failed to invest in the electrification of its network.

BR invested in electrification to a far greater degree than the the privatised rail industry has.

fewgroats

When there was GWR and London & Chatham and so on weren't the railways private?

bigheadxx

Aviation scores over 50% across all the age groups for remaining in private ownership. Could this be that for most people, there is no harking back to a golden age of state ownership, because most people have little experience or knowledge of mass air travel under government ownership? Mass air travel is a reality for most people, certainly wasn't during the era of state ownership, nor during the privatisation era of the 1980's.

We don't know what state the privatised industries would be in had they remained under state ownership but the money raised from privatisation is dwarfed by the money that has been invested since then and the profits that those companies have made, some of which is used to fund many of our pension funds.

Gavin83

donny_jim wrote: »

Just as I do not think public sector bosses should be on more than 100k a year.

Let me guess, you'd still expect a decent level of performance from that for this wage though right?

bigheadxx wrote: »

Aviation scores over 50% across all the age groups for remaining in private ownership. Could this be that for most people, there is no harking back to a golden age of state ownership, because most people have little experience or knowledge of mass air travel under government ownership? Mass air travel is a reality for most people, certainly wasn't during the era of state ownership, nor during the privatisation era of the 1980's.

I was one of those who voted against placing aviation into public ownership. Reason being is that I believe all essential industries/services should offer a state run option and quite simply I don't consider air travel as essential.

[Deleted User]

Too many memories of the 1970s. Anyone who believes that the huge state controlled industries were run for the benefit of the public is, IMO, delusional. They were, and would be again if renationalised, run for the benefit of the employees/ unions.

Added to that, state companies become answerable to ministers/Parliament. There is enough botal tollocks talked about in parliament without nonsense like 'can the Minister explain why the post box opposite Boots on Ecclefechan High Street was out of action for three weeks last month?'

Better regulation, by all means, but renationalisation? Shudder!

Night night!

WR

Lilibeticus

It's not so much privatisation or renationalisation, it's that the same people are often kept on with the same work-shy habits! Saw it myself with council-run services which became privatised. Those easy-going, tea-drinking habits remained and things were unchanged. By the same token, being privatised to being state-run just gives ample cause for laziness. How about pride in the job no matter what?

badmemory

I know it may well no longer be the case, but 25 years ago we were totally dependent on BT for our security services. This was sold off when it was still the main means of contact. "We" no longer own power companies etc. What happens when we seriously p*** off a foreign power? No problem - they just pull the switch.

Anyone doubting their power should look at the foreign ownership of Greece.

lakesider52

I am frankly surprised at the level of support across all age groups for renationalisation of the railways and can only put this down to (a) voting on political rather than common sense grounds, (b) younger people who have never experienced Britain's nationalised rail system and (c) older people who have forgotten just how bad it really was. Never forget that when nationalised, BR used the tactic of pricing people off the railways to reduce crowding but more importantly, we have all seen how irresponsible the rail unions have become lately taking out their grievances with management on the customers and nationalisation will simply hand them the opportunity to bring the entire rail system to a standstill which is clearly their desire.

DiscountofMonteCristo

I'm left-wing and in favour of nationalisation as an alternative to shareholder profiteering as I don't see why people who have not shared in the work should share in the benefits, but re-nationalised industries should work differently to how they did before. I think workers should always be paid fairly and given decent working conditions etc., but what we need to see more of is consumer power. These industries exist because of the needs and wants of consumers, who are the one group who don't have any direct say in how they are run. Instead of allowing the state and unions to increase the spending and decrease the efficiency and quality, a system which empowered customers to make decisions would tend towards greater efficiency and convenience, less waste and discomfort etc. I'm thinking particularly of trains but it would apply to other key public service industries as well.

An industry run in this way would not be grinding profit out for shareholders, raising salaries for executives, or tolerating unproductive staff. It would also not be malleable in the hands of politicians. It would put customer benefit first, as it would in effect be run - or at least overseen - by customers. Of course then different groups of customers would be falling out over what they wanted to do with the service, but we'd have to cross that bridge when we came to it.

If there was any private enterprise element in the system it should be more on a social enterprise model than shareholder profiteering. In this system surplus would be re-invested to improve the service and salaries would never be inflated beyond a certain level. There could be a productivity incentive to greater pay.