A Socialist slant !

[Nicensleazy]

Sadly with Thatcher came the selling off of the family silver, British Gas, British Telecom, British Airways and the railways etc etc.

Now, the Railway is used by most if not all, going to work etc. Why does the railways need to be operated by private organisations. Instead it should be run by the people for the people. A modern rail network in state ownership need only make enough money to pay the work force and pay for up-keep of the railway infrastructure. As soon as you sell off these public services to private organisations, we then see the introduction of fat cat share holders! As for the transport system in this country, trains and buses, they should remian under state control!

But, as always, its the public that get shafted!

 

[Nicensleazy]

Right on brother!

 

[alecstilleyedye]

anything that should be run as a public service should be state run, utilities, public transport etc. airlines are not essential services and as such are probably better off in private hands.

there is a straight line with service at one end and profit at the other, so pursuit of one will be at the expense of the other.

 

[Trembler49]

"Now, the Railway is used by most if not all, going to work etc. "

The major flaw in your argument starts here. This is absolutely not the case.

Start again and try harder next time!!

 

[swee'pea99]

anything that should be run as a public service should be state run, utilities, public transport etc. airlines are not essential services and as such are probably better off in private hands.

That sounds about right to me. It's always seemed to me that as a citizen of a modern relatively prosperous country it makes sense to talk of me having a birthright to, say, clean and safe water, or gas to heat it at a reasonable price, but to speak of me having a birthright to holidays abroad would be bonkers.

 

[Trembler49]

I would agree that "It's always seemed to me that as a citizen of a modern relatively prosperous country it makes sense to talk of me having a birthright to, say, clean and safe water, or gas to heat it at a reasonable price", however it does not necessarily make sense that this means that provision of said brithright should be by the state. It can be sub contracted out to the private sector.

 

[beanzontoast]

I kind of agree Nicen. Based on what I've seen happen to industries that have been privatised, I'm not convinced they have fared any better than they would have if they'd remained under state control. And to have more government control over how much the essentials in life cost, if it could be made to work, would get my vote.

 

[alecstilleyedye]

iirc the busses and metro system in newcastle, prior to privatisation, ran in synch so that the busses were timed to arrive at the metro stations in time for the trains. post privatisation, one became the competitor of the other and pursuit of the most profitable routes came at the expense of the routes provided as an essential service.

 

[Arch]

Ah, I should have read this before I started my Royal Mail privatisation thread in Politics...

I agree that state ownership is the way to be for transport (well, certainly the railways), utilities etc. The main cry against this seems to be that it leads to inefficiency. Why? Why can't a state run things like a private company? The basic principles of efficiency, good management and so on are just basic principles. I don't see why it should matter that there isn't a profit to be concerned about.

Is it just a British characteristic? I don't know much about other countries but some of them seem to be able to run state institutions ok...

 

[simoncc]

Sadly with Thatcher came the selling off of the family silver, British Gas, British Telecom, British Airways and the railways etc etc.

Now, the Railway is used by most if not all, going to work etc. Why does the railways need to be operated by private organisations. Instead it should be run by the people for the people. A modern rail network in state ownership need only make enough money to pay the work force and pay for up-keep of the railway infrastructure. As soon as you sell off these public services to private organisations, we then see the introduction of fat cat share holders! As for the transport system in this country, trains and buses, they should remian under state control!

But, as always, its the public that get shafted!

State industries are indeed run by the people for the people, but unforunately they are often primarily run by the people employed by them for those very same people. The customers, ie the rest of the public, come a very poor second. Why bother worrying about the customer if you know your firm is never going to go out of business and has a guaranteed income regardless of how well or poorly it performs nad the chances of getting the sack for inadequte performance are negligible?

 

[Trembler49]

Ah, I should have read this before I started my Royal Mail privatisation thread in Politics...

I agree that state ownership is the way to be for transport (well, certainly the railways), utilities etc. The main cry against this seems to be that it leads to inefficiency. Why? Why can't a state run things like a private company? The basic principles of efficiency, good management and so on are just basic principles. I don't see why it should matter that there isn't a profit to be concerned about.

Is it just a British characteristic? I don't know much about other countries but some of them seem to be able to run state institutions ok...

Arch, in principle you are right. In principle communism is a great idea. Unfortunately people get in the way and they are all awkward b**gers.

See the Customer Relations National Express thread for exmaples of nationalised industry customer service.

 

[Arch]

State industries are indeed run by the people for the people, but unforunately they are often primarily run by the people employed by them for those very same people. The customers, ie the rest of the public, come a very poor second. Why bother worrying about the customer if you know your firm is never going to go out of business and has a guaranteed income regardless of how well or poorly it performs nad the chances of getting the sack for inadequte performance are negligible?

Ok, so you tighten up the management and incentivise the staff better (either with carrot or stick). I know it's not always worked, but the thing is why not? Why can't people do something radical like care about doing a good job?

Not that the private sector does much better, it seems. Plenty of privately employed people seem to get away with being rubbish and as Alec said, it just introduces competition at all the wrong places....

 

[Arch]

Arch, in principle you are right. In principle communism is a great idea. Unfortunately people get in the way and they are all awkward b**gers.

See the Customer Relations National Express thread for exmaples of nationalised industry customer service.

Yes but also see examples of a private company treating customers like sh*t too.

I agree that communism is a great idea, for populations up to about 5. Over that, yes, people get in the way. I'm not advocating full on communism, I'm just saying, some things ought not to be run purely on principles of profit.

 

[jack the lad]

Arch, in principle you are right. In principle communism is a great idea. Unfortunately people get in the way and they are all awkward b**gers.

See the Customer Relations National Express thread for exmaples of nationalised industry customer service.

Which nationalised industry would that be then? This one?

"The de-regulation of the NBC led to a management buy-out of National Express and a new company called National Express Holdings Ltd was formed on 17 March 1988. Over the next few years the new company quickly began acquiring other bus and coach businesses in the UK and eventually grew to become the National Express Group (NEG) during 1991 which was then eventually floated on the London Stock Market in December 1992."
http://www.nationalexpress.com/coach/OurService/about.cfm

 

[Trembler49]

Which nationalised industry would that be then? This one?

"The de-regulation of the NBC led to a management buy-out of National Express and a new company called National Express Holdings Ltd was formed on 17 March 1988. Over the next few years the new company quickly began acquiring other bus and coach businesses in the UK and eventually grew to become the National Express Group (NEG) during 1991 which was then eventually floated on the London Stock Market in December 1992."
http://www.nationalexpress.com/coach/OurService/about.cfm

Personally I would have thread the thread before posting, the content of which diverges from the title fairly early on....