Postman Pep
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 10 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 5,692
Buyers remorse
The Labour Government
- Thread starter SkyBlueFlux
- Start date
Do tell me more about how much more efficiently and effectively things are run when under public sector control.
Literally just a drop in the ocean in terms of local government waste, incompetence and inefficiency but I think you get my point...
Mr Kobayashi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2020
- Messages
- 17,873
Did you know that most mergers aren't successful?
So why do big companies still persist with it?
Seems wasteful.
Why are you using an example of a privately owned company leasing a depot to a council?
hilts
Well-Known Member
Which one? The only one I read was pretty straightforward and didn't conflict with my posts at all .
It was the council that identified the building as required for their needs and signed off on the very long lease.
I hope that explains it and clears up your confusion.
Alan Harper's Tash
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 69,615
There were two together, the second of which broke down how it’s not even Sharia law being practised here.
Anyway, the whole thing is moot to me. I’ve spent enough time saying the same things. It won’t come in. The radicalised anti-Muslims will see to that, with or without civil war. If it is war, I won’t be involved in it anyway.
hilts
Well-Known Member
No point going round in circles with you posting what the future uk won't look like and me saying you can't predict the future because well no one can.
If you give me the winning lottery numbers I will concede that you are indeed the New Doctor Who:-)
Alan Harper's Tash
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 69,615
Dull.
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
It depends whether you believe that privatisation is in itself the problem. I strongly suggest that it is not. When done right, it can work extremely well.
There is an argument is that there is an inherent conflict between the provision of a public service and at the same time, being a commercial organization with a profit motive. I think demonstrably, this view is wrong.
Do Marks & Spencer provide excellent customer service? Do Sainsbury's or Amazon? Do they want to generate profits? Yes, yes, yes, and YES. So why do they aim to provide good service even when doing so, costs them? It's because they know it is good for business. If they offer no quibble returns, you are more likely to buy from them again. if they hold loads of stock at huge costs, they know you are more likely to buy from them. If they do not do these things, they know customers will buy elsewhere.
They do strive to reduce costs and to be as efficient as possible... to maximise their profits. This is a GOOD THING. We want our public services run like that, to be efficient with their spending of our money. But private businesses know they cannot reduce costs to the extent that it damages the customer service, or they will lose business.
And therein lies the rub. "Or they will lose business".
The problem is too often, privatisation has been done wrong. If you allow a private company to maximise profits, at the expense of the quality or service it delivers, then cynically, many will do just that if they can get away with it. So you have to have a framework where they cannot get away with it. Ideally, you need proper competiion - so that consumers have a choice and will vote with their feet. Or, as a last resort alternative, you need a proper regulator with real teeth, that will demand high service levels or else inflict severe penalties. If you have neither, you are screwed.
Let's look at the telecomms market in the UK where we have proper competition and we can switch easily. We have multiple mobile phone operators and sim-only deal prices have fallen and fallen and fallen so you can now get an unlimited calls, unlimited texts plan for only a few pounds a month. This competition working well to deliver excellent service for all of us, and low costs.
Compare this to the train companies. You want a train from Bristol to London. There is no competition. And the regulator is incompetent, having allowed above inflation increases for 30 years. So now a train ticket costs an absolute fortune and the service and reliability is diabolical (not that it was any good under British Rail, but at least it was cheap then).
So where am I going with this? The point is that all of this is actually quite easily fixed. It does not need everything to be renationalised, which actually would not only cost everyone a fortune in taxes to pay for it, it would make things worse. Nationalised companies don't give a shit about effeciency since they don't give a shit about making profit. And they don't give a shit about service because its no skin off their nose if you go elsewhere, even if you can. And often you cannot of course. So they run shoddy operations with piss poor service. When did you last get a hospital appointment on a Sunday? But you can visit Sainsburys on a Sunday, right? Costs Sainsburys more to be open on a Sunday but they are. Hospitals? No, they don't give a shit.
All we need to do is to ensure that proper competition is established with people being easily able to switch provider. And if that is NOT possible, then we need to make sure the regulators do not allow poor performance, something they have far too often failed to do thus far. They have let companies get away with it for far too long.
BrianW
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 Mar 2006
- Messages
- 6,561
- Team supported
- There's Only One City
I'm sorry, but my experiences with 'Cross-Country Trains' (shit) have put me off privatised trains for life. Although BR had its faults, it was cheap to travel on, the trains were rarely packed and you could buy a ticket on the day of travel without taking out a personal loan. It also had far less subsidy than the present system enjoys.
Regulators simply do not work in this country. They might work in other countries, but here they might as well be scrapped for all the good they do.
My view of rail privatisation was this. If Richard Branson wanted to run trains between London and Manchester he could have spent a few billions reopening the Great Central route and we could have enjoyed the competition. What we had instead was a farce, where public monopolies (bad enough) were changed into private monopolies (far worse) at vastly increased cost to the mugs.
Regulators simply do not work in this country. They might work in other countries, but here they might as well be scrapped for all the good they do.
My view of rail privatisation was this. If Richard Branson wanted to run trains between London and Manchester he could have spent a few billions reopening the Great Central route and we could have enjoyed the competition. What we had instead was a farce, where public monopolies (bad enough) were changed into private monopolies (far worse) at vastly increased cost to the mugs.
The perfect fumble
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 25,986
Postman Pep
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 10 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 5,692
Clearly. This fella thought he was getting something else. Experts eh who needs em ;-)
The perfect fumble
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 25,986
Blanchflower has forgotten more about economics than I'll ever know, but if he thought Starmer and Reeves were going to do something radically different, then his political antennae is stuck up his arse.
Last edited:
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
Agree with all of that. The privatisation of the rail network has been a lesson in how NOT to do it.
First, award contracts over like 10 years, giving companies a total monopoly on the line the service being offered. Then establish a regulator that allows them inflation price increases every year for 30 years. And finally, reduce the subsidy you give them.
Honestly it would be a miracle if after all of that, the service was NOT an expensive shit rip off. What on earth do people expect?
What they SHOULD have done IMO was to allow different train companies to offer different competiing services on the same tracks. So you could think, shall I get the 08:30 Virgin train from Manchester to Euston, because they have the great comfy seats and free snacks. Or shall I go on the Cross Country 07:50 which is cheaper. Or if i go on the 08:45 I can go for free with First Group by using my loyalty points.
Look at how this has worked with airfares. Used to cost £700 to fly to Paris with BA and now you can go with Easyjet for £29, and 30 years later the BA prices have actually come down. In real terms they have dropped by 70%.
Had they done this with trains, we'd have seen services get better and better and prices come down as the companies fought for your business.
Anyway they didn't and it's shite, I agree. First step to put it right should not be to nationalise them, it should be to sack the regulator and establish a new one that demands year on year price reduction, not increases.
Postman Pep
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 10 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 5,692
A bit like the original Danny Blanchflower ...great player shit manager.
Well, Reeves has said she wanted to be radical.
It's also interesting that the headline quote for that clip is "just like Margaret Thatcher".
I didn't watch all of it, but early on he says that she needs to make fundamental changes that will be unpopular, as with Thatcher, and I think that's probably fair. Reeves has suggested the same herself, and got a lot of criticism for mentioning the 1980s Tory government as an example of how it was possible to change the country. Of course, it wasn't highlighted quite so much, that she was hugely critical of what they actually did.
Her Mais lecture suggests she does have a very strong idea of what she wants Labour to do, and she's pretty clear that she wants to transform the country, not just steady the ship. She mentions inequality half a dozen times, criticising both the Tories, and to a lesser degree the New Labour government.
Read and watch Rachel Reeves full speech: New Labour left UK economic weakness 'exposed' - LabourList
This is a copy of the full text of Rachel Reeves' annual Mais lecture as written.
labourlist.org
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
You keep saying this but just because it hasn't happened previously, no-one should draw any comfort from that and assume it cannot happen in the future.
At the moment, the Muslim population is a minority. What happens when they become a majority? What happens when an Islamist party in the UK wins a General Election and votes to introduce Sharia Law? Then what?
Your answer seems to be don't worry this can never happen. Why not?
I'll tell you why not. Because when it becomes an imminent threat, thank God, wiser heads will decide we must act to stop it before it is too late. The progressive shift from a Christian to Muslim majority is happening, day by day, voter by voter. It is inexorable. A car crash in slow motion. Unless we do something about it.
"Don't worry it will never happen" will result in it happening.
The Future’s Blue!
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 Dec 2019
- Messages
- 13,394
- Team supported
- City
Absolute lunatic on here at the moment.
If we go Sharia law, you’ll be dead and your kids/grandkids have made their choice.
No wonder I do drive past on here these days, not much to debate so probably won’t even give it a click in the future.
See you in 5 years.
If we go Sharia law, you’ll be dead and your kids/grandkids have made their choice.
No wonder I do drive past on here these days, not much to debate so probably won’t even give it a click in the future.
See you in 5 years.
hampshireblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 10 Dec 2014
- Messages
- 2,883
Nice idea but capacity is the problem. And a comparison with the London- Paris air route is not comparing like with like as they are going from/to different airports. Competition is indeed good and hopefully should drive down prices. However there are some services and utilities that just should not be "for profit".
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
Sure there are. Police for example. But there are not many, IMO. I think the main reason when it does not work is because it has not been implemented correctly.
The fundamental issue I have with state-owned operations is that there is often enough desire or motivation or urgency in those organizations. I struggle to think of or to remember a state-owned anything which runs efficiently and which provides excellent service at low taxpayer cost. Can you think of one? For example, the NHS is actually relatively cheap compared to some European alternatives, but in terms of availability, wait times, clinical outcomes, it is pretty dire.
If someone could persuade me how a state-run organization would be better, then I am all for it. My negativity about them is empirical, not ideological!