What else can Britain sell off

[jeremyp]

Have you not noticed, do you not read the papers, the benefit system is in tatters, Tory tatters, people with jobs are queuing at foodbanks, forget the channel four documentaries about benefit street, this is a small minority, there is a majority of people who do want to work but not on zero hour contracts, they also want access to higher education so they can go on and improve their lot, the Tories have all but destroyed this.

Are you claiming that things that currently do not work cannot be fixed? Because, if you are, you might as well give up on the utilities and railways too.

it was not a failed model but a model run very badly, Corbyn may not be the great hope, but he is a thousand time better than the shit we have now or any of the Torylite wankers he has in his cabinet just now.

Gonnagle.

You seem to be very selective about what you consider failed and what you consider merely being "run badly". In fact, it seems to me that, if it is a private contractor screwing up, it is failed but if it is the government screwing up, it is merely being run badly. I sense confirmation bias.

[Sassy]

It is time to reclaim the Electric and the Gas too.
That is the National Grid needs to be reclaimed instead of being owned by several companies who are foreign ones at best.
Our Government have closed down hospitals and schools. Our Government are not bothered they all have private health care.
Private schools for their children. Do you ever wonder what would happen if they made it law that all serving Members of Parliament and Councils had to use NHS medical care and State Schools?

Do you think so many hospitals would have been closed or so many schools?

[Gonnagle]

Dear Jeremyp,

Are you claiming that things that currently do not work cannot be fixed? Because, if you are, you might as well give up on the utilities and railways too.

And are you now admitting that thing need to be fixed.

Funny thing is I have following the story in the news about Thames water now building a new sewer system, very timely considering they had just been hit with a heavy fine for polluting the old Thames and they are now admitting that this happens on a regular basis.

Now as far as I can see, Thames water have been going for decades ( privately ) so if I lived in London I would be asking, Where the hell has all the profits gone.

Further ( I like a little bit of further ) Scottish water, who oor Jim has pointed out is publicly owned have been a little more proactive than Thames water and been actively trying to not pollute but bring back life to our national waterways.

http://www.engineerlive.com/content/23652

Improving the water quality in the Clyde is not solely Scottish Water’s responsibility, but they are taking a lead in tackling the issue because of the potential benefits to the environment and customers.

They are accountable to us, not to shareholders.

You seem to be very selective about what you consider failed and what you consider merely being "run badly". In fact, it seems to me that, if it is a private contractor screwing up, it is failed but if it is the government screwing up, it is merely being run badly. I sense confirmation bias.

We all suffer from confirmation bias, and I see you did not answer my little simple question, who should be in charge of the very basics of life.

Gonnagle.

[Udayana]

Dear Udayana,

Sounds like a very defeatist attitude, where is your British Bulldog spirit

I tell you what! Lets take Mr Corbyn out of the picture ( oh! there are some who would love that, the media led some ) lets concentrate on the problem, and let me ask you a simple yes or no question.

Do you think it is okay for a select few to say, we need to up the price of your gas and electricity? ( and please remember, you, we the British public have no say in this matter ).

A simple yes or no.

Gonnagle.

Whether private or nationalised prices will be set by some small group. The issue is about the factors that are taken into account or influence the price. On what basis are you deciding how much is too much or too little? How would you set the price? Is it to be set by country or worldwide?  The current system is crap, but you need to be able to propose a workable alternative - that should also account, imo, for the costs of cleaning up the pollution it generates.

You could have the government set the price and the providers compete for profit at providing it at the set price through efficiency savings of their own making. But the economy doesn't really work that way, and I expect you would just end up with shortages and power cuts, with subsequent damage in other sectors.

Probably the best approach is to make the Of-what quangos more accountable democratically, with more teeth.


 

[jakswan]

Dear Jakswan,

How are you old son

Good trust you are well I do not frequent these parts that much these days, a quick preview of your reply makes me think this isn't going to change.

Criteria, you want criteria, sure me old friend, lets see, building that won't fall down around our children, no cost cutting at all, the best of the best for our future, not some children, all children, oh and fuck the cost, we are talking about our children.

So all business should be nationalised subject to 'someone think of the children', its not exactly got much substance to it really, want to have another go?

Is that enough criteria for you, I have lots of criteria for you, what about the NHS being bleed dry by private firms who see the NHS as some kind of cash cow.

Oh there is more how refreshing, I'm confused though I asked for criteria and you've not given me any, another try perhaps?

What about buses to rural spots, does the wee granny not have the right to shop at Tesco like the rest of us, no who cares about the wee granny, the criteria should be, access to public transport for all, not just the route which make a profit.

So public transport that being nationalised because wee granny. So does that apply to everything that wee granny wants, my mum, a granny wants to go on a cruise every year is the Gonzo Raving Party going to spend our tax money on that as well?

What about the millions who use the train ( I nearly said our trains haha haha ) the millions who keep our country running, the criteria should be, they should be able to travel to work in a safe and comfortable condition, oh and that the train is on time everytime, and be affordable.

I'm on a train, its safe, quite comfy and my ticket from Swansea to Norwich cost me £32.50.

And to end, no not nationalise everything, I am all for private enterprise but not at the expense of the ordinary working man.

Again what does that mean, I'm a working man, Gopogle charge my company to advertise, at my expense in effect, will the Ministry of Search Engines be taken over when you get your hands on power.

Now your turn, give me an example of privatisation that works, and you can't use the mob who run Londons water, they have just been fined big time ( not big enough in my opinion ) for polluting the Thames.

My GP, Dentist and local chemist all provide their services as a private sector businesses, I have no complaints. My sister who works for NHS in Wales (very little privatisation) has a few horror stories about terrific waste at the hands of a bureaucracy that simply will never compete with private enterprise. 

[ProfessorDavey]

My GP, Dentist and local chemist all provide their services as a private sector businesses, I have no complaints. My sister who works for NHS in Wales (very little privatisation) has a few horror stories about terrific waste at the hands of a bureaucracy that simply will never compete with private enterprise.

I don't want to get into the broader argument about the balance of private and public sector provision, but I do want to take issue with your motion that the public sector can never compete with the private on efficiency. I think that is simply non-sense and there have been many studies that demonstrate that the NHS is one of the most efficient health services in the world, providing treatments at a cost that the private sector cannot compete with. The issue is, of course, overall resource provision rather than efficiency.

In my experience I think most public sector organisations are very efficient, simply because money is always so tight and because money isn't diverted to profit. I also speak as a small business owner - I think we run a tight ship but undoubtedly were we a 'not for profit' we'd be able to deliver services more efficiently.

Actually I think the biggest wasters in terms of efficiency are the big private sector organisations - I'm constantly astonished at the profligacy that seems to be the accepted norm in such organisations that would be completely unimaginably in the public sector, from company funded jollies for not just the employees, but often partners as well (in the public sector it is common that you pay for your own Christmas do, perhaps with some subsidised drink) through to unking perfectly good equipment etc.

On the latter I have a friend who used to work for a multi-national construction company and they were moving their company HQ from one side of a car park to the other side - literally 100M. They made the decision to buy entirely new office furniture and give away all their existing furniture to anyone who wanted it. We benefited to the tune of a few office chairs and filing cabinets. And no, these weren't old and tired pieces coming towards the end of their usable life - they were simply throwing away (or rather giving away to anyone who wanted) brand new furniture still in its wrapping - never used. Astonishing.

[floo]

Whilst waiting to be seen in A&E yesterday, after falling and damaging my right arm, I noted the number of people who were called but had gone home, fed up with the wait. Obviously they didn't need emergency treatment, which is what A&E is set for. 

[jakswan]

I don't want to get into the broader argument about the balance of private and public sector provision, but I do want to take issue with your motion that the public sector can never compete with the private on efficiency. I think that is simply non-sense and there have been many studies that demonstrate that the NHS is one of the most efficient health services in the world, providing treatments at a cost that the private sector cannot compete with. The issue is, of course, overall resource provision rather than efficiency.

In my experience I think most public sector organisations are very efficient, simply because money is always so tight and because money isn't diverted to profit. I also speak as a small business owner - I think we run a tight ship but undoubtedly were we a 'not for profit' we'd be able to deliver services more efficiently.

Actually I think the biggest wasters in terms of efficiency are the big private sector organisations - I'm constantly astonished at the profligacy that seems to be the accepted norm in such organisations that would be completely unimaginably in the public sector, from company funded jollies for not just the employees, but often partners as well (in the public sector it is common that you pay for your own Christmas do, perhaps with some subsidised drink) through to unking perfectly good equipment etc.

On the latter I have a friend who used to work for a multi-national construction company and they were moving their company HQ from one side of a car park to the other side - literally 100M. They made the decision to buy entirely new office furniture and give away all their existing furniture to anyone who wanted it. We benefited to the tune of a few office chairs and filing cabinets. And no, these weren't old and tired pieces coming towards the end of their usable life - they were simply throwing away (or rather giving away to anyone who wanted) brand new furniture still in its wrapping - never used. Astonishing.

I'll accept that it was too sweeping a statement on my part, blimey I think I've agreed with you twice in the last six monthes now.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'll accept that it was too sweeping a statement on my part, blimey I think I've agreed with you twice in the last six monthes now.

It gets to be a habit

[jeremyp]

Dear Jeremyp,

And are you now admitting that thing need to be fixed.

Of course there are issues. There always are with large complex organisations. Nobody could look at Southern Railways and argue that the rail privatisation was an unqualified success, but bits of it are. We need to fix the bits that are broken, not go back to the years of bad management and underinvestment that characterised the nationalised era.

Funny thing is I have following the story in the news about Thames water now building a new sewer system, very timely considering they had just been hit with a heavy fine for polluting the old Thames and they are now admitting that this happens on a regular basis.

So regulation of privatised industry is a model that works.

They are accountable to us, not to shareholders.

No they aren't.  They are accountable to government ministers, who are theoretically accountable to us - or rather you as a Scottish voter - but how well they've managed a utility company tends to come very low down the list. Nobody's going to vote against the SNP just because one of the companies under their control bodged things up.

A government owned company not operating as efficiently as possible within a framework of regulation and incentives is pissing taxpayers' money up the wall.

We all suffer from confirmation bias, and I see you did not answer my little simple question, who should be in charge of the very basics of life.

The people who should be in charge are the people who would do the best job. Ultimately the government should set objectives and regulations but the government generally has a bad record of overseeing operations that should be run commercially.

In some cases the government has to run services. Fore example, I cannot see any way to allow our health or education services to be turned over to the commercial sector without healthcare and education suffering, but I see no reason not to let commercial organisations run utilities within a proper regulatory framework. You, however, seem to think the answer to everything is nationalise. It's not.

[Bubbles]

One of the effects of privatisation on public transport was to trim unprofitable routes, which meant people in the countryside found it harder to get about when they wanted to. When they were nationalised they were supported by the more profitable routes.

With nationalisation you tended to get a better service in how things were co ordinated , which made it better for longer  journeys.

i'd prefer nationalised trains and buses.

Also makes it easier to get on every bus with a season ticket.

[Robbie]

You're right there Rose. I would prefer nationalised public transport for same reasons.

[ProfessorDavey]

You're right there Rose. I would prefer nationalised public transport for same reasons.

And we currently have the bizarre situation that the government pumps high amounts of money into subsidising a notionally privatised rail system which includes train operating companies owned by the state nationalised rail operators in other European companies. So our government cannot run its own railways, but the governments of Germany, France and the Netherland can run ours via their nationalised rail operators.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Jakswan,

So all business should be nationalised subject to 'someone think of the children', its not exactly got much substance to it really, want to have another go?

Once again, no not all business, just the basics of life and yes, could someone please think of the children.

So public transport that being nationalised because wee granny. So does that apply to everything that wee granny wants, my mum, a granny wants to go on a cruise every year is the Gonzo Raving Party going to spend our tax money on that as well?

Gonzo Raving Party has a nice ring to it, which I am sure you would vote for considering you think yer wee Ma going on a cruise is a basic of life.

I'm on a train, its safe, quite comfy and my ticket from Swansea to Norwich cost me £32.50.

That is very, very cheap, could you pass on to the rest of the forum where we find this marvelous bargain.

Dear Jeremyp,

No they aren't.  They are accountable to government ministers, who are theoretically accountable to us - or rather you as a Scottish voter - but how well they've managed a utility company tends to come very low down the list. Nobody's going to vote against the SNP just because one of the companies under their control bodged things up.

Theoretically!! Well yes that is the theory, but at least they theoretically are accountable to us not shareholders.

In some cases the government has to run services. Fore example, I cannot see any way to allow our health or education services to be turned over to the commercial sector without healthcare and education suffering, but I see no reason not to let commercial organisations run utilities within a proper regulatory framework. You, however, seem to think the answer to everything is nationalise. It's not.

No Not the answer to everything, just the very basics and nice to see you do not want our health and education in private hands, parents who have a new child in neonatal can have a nice room in the Ronald McDonald so they can be near their child.

Gonnagle.

[Harrowby Hall]

That is very, very cheap, could you pass on to the rest of the forum where we find this marvelous bargain.

Plan your journeys well in advance and use websites like RedSpottedHanky to buy your tickets.

[ProfessorDavey]

Plan your journeys well in advance and use websites like RedSpottedHanky to buy your tickets.

And you'll still end up paying a fortune unless you are able to travel during off-peak times. So if you rely on the train to commute to work, as millions of us do, expect to pay through the nose. Just to note, my season ticket for a journey of less than 20 miles costs over £3000 per year. Ouch. For that money, you'd expect a comfortable and reliable service - but what do you get. Trains where you never get a seat and are usually so ram packed that you can hardly move. A service that regularly falls apart, with even minor problems meaning you end up having to take a completely different line to a station miles from your home (as happened to me, yet again, last week).

By contrast, in most European countries (recently involving France, Netherlands, Denmark, Germany and Switzerland) you can buy a just before boarding at a fraction of the per mile cost you'd pay in the UK and get a much more reliable service.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Prof,

Three grand a year forgive my french but F*** me, something is way out of order here, I just had a quick calculation, and even factoring in my tax, insurance and money spent keeping my car in reasonable shape I am a fraction of your cost.

Excrement Given that our kids can expect to have a working life ( on average ) of 40 years, that is £120,000 and that is if prices remain at that level.

No wonder this country is suffering, all that wasted income going to private investors.

Gonnagle.

[ProfessorDavey]

Dear Prof,

Three grand a year forgive my french but F*** me, something is way out of order here, I just had a quick calculation, and even factoring in my tax, insurance and money spent keeping my car in reasonable shape I am a fraction of your cost.

Excrement Given that our kids can expect to have a working life ( on average ) of 40 years, that is £120,000 and that is if prices remain at that level.

No wonder this country is suffering, all that wasted income going to private investors.

Gonnagle.

£3288 to be precise - standard class. And that doesn't include the tube, which would be necessary if I took public transport all the way to my work. Instead I have a folding bike, so I cycle across London for the last part of my journey.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Prof,

Using your good self as an example, I have given up on calculating the profit made by these private companies ( I was using a piece in the Mirror which quoted 1.3 billion train journeys in just one year ).

The investment they are putting into up dating our trains is a drop in the ocean compared to the profit.

Gonnagle.

[ProfessorDavey]

Using your good self as an example, I have given up on calculating the profit made by these private companies

In many cases these aren't really private companies at all, but the state owned train companies in other european countries.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Prof,

Which only heaps insult upon insult, but thank you, I am now fully convinced that we should reclaim our transport, run properly and reinvesting all profit, you at least can look forward to a comfortable and reliable train service, plus, government run would think twice about increasing prices.

Now you have sorted that out, how do we get rid of a Tory government, just been listening to a Labour supporter on the Jeremy Vine show, he is going to vote Tory this time, why? Brexit.

Gonnagle.

[Udayana]

Great. We could reclaim government in the same way: have a proper government that runs the country nicely and makes sure everyone is comfortable, works to the best of their ability and has fun.

Everything sorted now!

[jeremyp]

One of the effects of privatisation on public transport was to trim unprofitable routes

Public ownership is no guarantee of protection of unprofitable routes.

[jeremyp]

And you'll still end up paying a fortune unless you are able to travel during off-peak times. So if you rely on the train to commute to work, as millions of us do, expect to pay through the nose. Just to note, my season ticket for a journey of less than 20 miles costs over £3000 per year. Ouch. For that money, you'd expect a comfortable and reliable service - but what do you get. Trains where you never get a seat and are usually so ram packed that you can hardly move.

On the assumption that you travel to work 200 days in the year, that's 37p per mile to travel into and out of London at the busiest times. Seems like a bargain to me, unless you have the misfortune to be in Southern Rail's area, in which case you are probably being robbed.

By contrast, in most European countries (recently involving France, Netherlands, Denmark, Germany and Switzerland) you can buy a just before boarding at a fraction of the per mile cost you'd pay in the UK and get a much more reliable service.

But their rail services are all subsidised by tax payers to a much greater extent than ours.

[Udayana]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_subsidies#Europe