The money was never invested in the rail services. Have you seen Ryanair and Easyjets payable books? Hundreds of billions in investment was needed to get the airlines to where they are now, an awful lot of it state aid to Airbus and Boeing.Why do you have to cite the worst possible examples to try to make state run, underperforming alternatives seem more attractive?
No-one would ever, ever want to see the introduction of the American health care system over here. It's the very worst possible system, but it's the only one you lot opposed to any sort of NHS reform ever bother to compare us with. Why not compare us with Australia, or Singapore, or the Netherlands or France or Denmark. I am sick of hearing about the ****ing US healthcare system as if the only two alternatives on offer are the NHS as is, or the American system as is. You're better than this Vic.
Ditto the railways. Privatisation of the railways has been an absolute shambles because they did it wrong. Giving companies 10 year franchises with no competition and only a pathetic regulator which allows year on year increases, was always a shit idea. How about you comment the dismal state or our railways before privatization? Or perhaps you'd care to comment on how another comparable industry - airlines - has seen the cost of fares fall *dramatically* over the past few decades, and yet that is another asset-intensive business which required billions in investment. How come such privatised industries manage when the rail companies cannot?
I honestly can't think of any privatisation that has been a success in this country in terms of the service we recieve and cost to the consumer.
True, but I'd argue it's a different level of motivation. A public sector manager under performing might miss out on a promotion,a company owner under performing might lose his company,house, or retirementThat's not entirely true.
Companies are motivated to maximise profit, that's true, but there are a number of ways they can do that other than efficiency.
As for public sector managers, show me one that's not target driven and I'll show you an angel dancing on the head of a pin.
In a (very) roundabout way, this reminds me of a gag my (East) German teacher told us, as a reminder of the vagaries of nationalised industries:I honestly can't think of any privatisation that has been a success in this country in terms of the service we recieve and cost to the consumer.
True, build argue it's a different level of motivation. A public sector manager under performing might miss out on a promotion,a company owner under performing might lose his company,house, or retirement
I remember being told at the time of the telephone privatisation that competition would drive down prices and more choice would make things simpler. To which the answer was, "Directory enquiries. I ring one number. And it's free."I honestly can't think of any privatisation that has been a success in this country in terms of the service we recieve and cost to the consumer.
Doubtful. That's not how limited companies operate, shareholders are only liable for the value of their investment so unless they leveraged their house or retirement fund to further invest in the business they wouldn't be at risk.True, but I'd argue it's a different level of motivation. A public sector manager under performing might miss out on a promotion,a company owner under performing might lose his company,house, or retirement
My experience with contracted out public services is that the contractor wins said contract by promising to do something they can't deliver for less money than the realistic bids. This results in cutting corners and all round shitness, but drives down on- paper costs in the short term.Don't misunderstand me, I've spent the best part of fifteen years working with SMEs, I've a lot of time for small business owners, for them efficiency is paramount, for corporate managers? Not so much.
Your take on public sector managers though is behind the times, private companies now deliver so much of our public services, that a public sector manager is as likely to work for the private sector as not, and they can lose their job for under performance just the same.
That's why the bidding structure is a failure.My experience with contracted out public services is that the contractor wins said contract by promising to do something they can't deliver for less money than the realistic bids. This results in cutting corners and all round shitness, but drives down on- paper costs in the short term.
I worked in the electricity industry for a few years either side of privatisation and there was a huge improvement in customer service following privatisation. In fact the concept of customer service didn’t exist prior to privatisation. And there were significant cost reductions for customers which certainly wouldn’t have occurred without privatisation.I honestly can't think of any privatisation that has been a success in this country in terms of the service we recieve and cost to the consumer.
Not old enough, or rather not old enough to have been paying bills to the old electricity board,but it seems to me that instead of the intended competition among utility companies we have in fact created cosy cartels.I worked in the electricity industry for a few years either side of privatisation and there was a huge improvement in customer service following privatisation. In fact the concept of customer service didn’t exist prior to privatisation. And there were significant cost reductions for customers which certainly wouldn’t have occurred without privatisation.
That was a long time ago so I’ve no idea what the current situation is. It’s always seemed to me that it was a huge mistake to try to introduce competition instead of price controls. Competition in electricity and gas was a always going to be imperfect and it seems to have been a massive failure. But privatisation itself was definitely a spur towards improved service.
That's funny because GWR have been charging above inflation fare increases every year for the past 20 years and when I've repeatedly complained to my MP about it, the reply I get back is that it's because of the sustained investment needed.The money was never invested in the rail services. Have you seen Ryanair and Easyjets payable books? Hundreds of billions in investment was needed to get the airlines to where they are now, an awful lot of it state aid to Airbus and Boeing.
What a naive response. I'd wager that half of all small business owners have their homes at risk if their business goes under.Doubtful. That's not how limited companies operate, shareholders are only liable for the value of their investment so unless they leveraged their house or retirement fund to further invest in the business they wouldn't be at risk.
Most of the utilities are natural monopolies, so the attempt to introduce competition was always flawed. But the initial approach of reducing prices through price controls did deliver significant benefits for customers, and customer service was improving.Not old enough, or rather not old enough to have been paying bills to the old electricity board,but it seems to me that instead of the intended competition among utility companies we have in fact created cosy cartels.
Wouldn't call it investment, more patch and hide. It needed big capital investment, instead they tried to gouge revenue and do it on an as needed basis. This is the problem with privatising these industries on contracts, the companies that take them over have zero investment in the infrastructure bar the length of their contract.That's funny because GWR have been charging above inflation fare increases every year for the past 20 years and when I've repeatedly complained to my MP about it, the reply I get back is that it's because of the sustained investment needed.
Have I been lied to for the past 20 years?
Funny, I've yet to see a provision in law that bars a small or medium business owner from seeking work if their company goes under. I also know that financiers don't like lending out above the value of a business against that business so that kind of leverage is heavily frowned upon.What a naive response. I'd wager that half of all small business owners have their homes at risk if their business goes under.
Putting aside the issue that if their business goes under, they don't actually have a job anymore, which kindof makes the mortgage payments a bit tricky.
What a bizarre article which only a deluded lefty rag could print.Well worth a read.....
If you can’t abide Jeremy Corbyn, learn from the moral of Ed Miliband....
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/20/jeremy-corbyn-moral-ed-miliband
What a bizarre article which only a deluded lefty rag could print.
The actual moral - which they spectacularly failed to acknowledge, or even realise - is that you don't win elections by choosing leaders who are too left wing and who are deeply unappealing outside the narrow base of lefty supporters who selected them.