How it Works0 min ago
Clause 4 Anyone?
24 Answers
http://
I agree with nationalizing some things, eg the railways but I don't agree with a blanket rule. What do you think?
I agree with nationalizing some things, eg the railways but I don't agree with a blanket rule. What do you think?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I would be dead against nationalizing the railways.
Years ago (while still nationalized) I remember waiting at a station near Whitby on a bank holiday for a train and it never turned up.
I had to wait about 2 hours for the next train, and when it arrived I had a moan at the ticket collector on the train about the "missing" previous train.
He said that on bank holidays if there are no customers the train will get to the station earlier than the published time, which is why I missed the previous train.
When I said that was not good enough he just shrugged his shoulders in a sort of "hard luck, but I don't care" sort of attitude.
And that is EXACTLY what is wrong with nationalized industries, mostly they just don't care.
At least (some) of the current train companies do care, and generally provide a decent service. If they are bad they will lose their franchise.
I am old enough to remember when we had nationalized industries like the GPO, the Gas Board, the electricity board and so on.
If you wanted a phone back then you could wait weeks or months for one, now I can walk into a phone shop on my High St. and get one the same day.
It could take days or weeks to get someone out from the Gas Board or Electricity board.
Sorry, but going back to nationalized industries would take us back to the situation as it was in Soviet Russia during the cold war.
But of course some in the Labour party want that, which is why they will never get elected with that sort of leader (which suits me fine).
Years ago (while still nationalized) I remember waiting at a station near Whitby on a bank holiday for a train and it never turned up.
I had to wait about 2 hours for the next train, and when it arrived I had a moan at the ticket collector on the train about the "missing" previous train.
He said that on bank holidays if there are no customers the train will get to the station earlier than the published time, which is why I missed the previous train.
When I said that was not good enough he just shrugged his shoulders in a sort of "hard luck, but I don't care" sort of attitude.
And that is EXACTLY what is wrong with nationalized industries, mostly they just don't care.
At least (some) of the current train companies do care, and generally provide a decent service. If they are bad they will lose their franchise.
I am old enough to remember when we had nationalized industries like the GPO, the Gas Board, the electricity board and so on.
If you wanted a phone back then you could wait weeks or months for one, now I can walk into a phone shop on my High St. and get one the same day.
It could take days or weeks to get someone out from the Gas Board or Electricity board.
Sorry, but going back to nationalized industries would take us back to the situation as it was in Soviet Russia during the cold war.
But of course some in the Labour party want that, which is why they will never get elected with that sort of leader (which suits me fine).
I have posted here before that not everything about Corbyns policies are barking mad, as some would have us think.
I think few tears would be lost for our privatised railways if complete privatisation were be occur. After all, due to the private sectors complete inability to run Railtrack, the business was transferred to Network Rail years ago. So the network is partially back in public ownership already.
If we take water as the next utility, I never understood why the water supply needed to be privatised in the first place. My water here in Wales is supplied by "Welsh Water" which took over when Hyder got into difficulties 15 years ago. The water comes from the same reservoirs that it did 100 years ago, so there still isn't any competition, so what was the point of privatising the industry !
Are we paying less for our Gas and Electricity now than we would have been paying, if the industries hadn't have been hived off all those years ago ? Impossible to tell for sure. Look at all the fraud that went on with the teams roaming around housing estates all over Britain, trying to persuade us to change our suppliers ?
Even now, if I were to swop my gas and electricity supply to another company on Monday morning, there is no guarantee that the companies I had just left wouldn't be cheaper again in the few weeks or months time.
So maybe some turning of the clock wouldn't be such a bad idea after all ?
Discuss !
I think few tears would be lost for our privatised railways if complete privatisation were be occur. After all, due to the private sectors complete inability to run Railtrack, the business was transferred to Network Rail years ago. So the network is partially back in public ownership already.
If we take water as the next utility, I never understood why the water supply needed to be privatised in the first place. My water here in Wales is supplied by "Welsh Water" which took over when Hyder got into difficulties 15 years ago. The water comes from the same reservoirs that it did 100 years ago, so there still isn't any competition, so what was the point of privatising the industry !
Are we paying less for our Gas and Electricity now than we would have been paying, if the industries hadn't have been hived off all those years ago ? Impossible to tell for sure. Look at all the fraud that went on with the teams roaming around housing estates all over Britain, trying to persuade us to change our suppliers ?
Even now, if I were to swop my gas and electricity supply to another company on Monday morning, there is no guarantee that the companies I had just left wouldn't be cheaper again in the few weeks or months time.
So maybe some turning of the clock wouldn't be such a bad idea after all ?
Discuss !
"....what was the point of privatising the industry !"
The question you should ask, Mikey, is why were they run by the State in the first place? Government is usually very inept at running any sort of business or service. In fact, just about the only things I can think of which should remain under State control are defence and the police.
Just about everything the State runs it runs badly. Education and healthcare are two examples. Both those services, with the funds allocated to them, should provide excellent service. But because of the way they are run they do not. The idea of handing over responsibility for State education to local authorities (usually even worse than central government at service provision) has me in stitches.
Privatised rail services run quite well in many places. The reason it runs badly here is because the model used to take it from State ownership was flawed. Probably the finest period for Britain's railways was between 1923 (when numerous smaller private railway companies were grouped into the "Big Four") and the outbreak of WW2. Each of the companies was responsible for all aspects of its service from laying and maintaining the permanent way to issuing the tickets. During the war the railways performed heroically transporting men and materials in support of the war effort as well as running vital services for civilian passengers and goods. But afterwards they were in a parlous state and were virtually broke. Rightly or wrongly the new Labour government saw nationalisation as the only way to remedy this state of affairs. Privatisation should really have been a reversal of this process (or something very similar). Splitting the train operators, the infrastructure providers and the rolling stock agents was a grave mistake.Today the railways are in a very different position to that in 1948. Most of the infrastructure is sound, most of the stock is modern and reliable. All that’s needed is to amalgamate the different strands of the service provision and to remove the ridiculous bureaucracy (designed by civil servants) that exists to keep those strands together.
Mr Corbyn seems to want to revert to times when getting a phone took six months (and then you'd share your line with somebody else); you could only buy a cooker from the "gas board" showrooms; you could only fly with BEA or BOAC (depending how far you were travelling). Of course he will say it will be different now. But it won't.
The question you should ask, Mikey, is why were they run by the State in the first place? Government is usually very inept at running any sort of business or service. In fact, just about the only things I can think of which should remain under State control are defence and the police.
Just about everything the State runs it runs badly. Education and healthcare are two examples. Both those services, with the funds allocated to them, should provide excellent service. But because of the way they are run they do not. The idea of handing over responsibility for State education to local authorities (usually even worse than central government at service provision) has me in stitches.
Privatised rail services run quite well in many places. The reason it runs badly here is because the model used to take it from State ownership was flawed. Probably the finest period for Britain's railways was between 1923 (when numerous smaller private railway companies were grouped into the "Big Four") and the outbreak of WW2. Each of the companies was responsible for all aspects of its service from laying and maintaining the permanent way to issuing the tickets. During the war the railways performed heroically transporting men and materials in support of the war effort as well as running vital services for civilian passengers and goods. But afterwards they were in a parlous state and were virtually broke. Rightly or wrongly the new Labour government saw nationalisation as the only way to remedy this state of affairs. Privatisation should really have been a reversal of this process (or something very similar). Splitting the train operators, the infrastructure providers and the rolling stock agents was a grave mistake.Today the railways are in a very different position to that in 1948. Most of the infrastructure is sound, most of the stock is modern and reliable. All that’s needed is to amalgamate the different strands of the service provision and to remove the ridiculous bureaucracy (designed by civil servants) that exists to keep those strands together.
Mr Corbyn seems to want to revert to times when getting a phone took six months (and then you'd share your line with somebody else); you could only buy a cooker from the "gas board" showrooms; you could only fly with BEA or BOAC (depending how far you were travelling). Of course he will say it will be different now. But it won't.
Of course I know about asset stripping!
Very often the assets were stripped because they were earning no money and had no useful purpose. Under State control they remained in that condition because many State industries then (and indeed now) were considered of greater benefit to their employees than their customers.
Very often the assets were stripped because they were earning no money and had no useful purpose. Under State control they remained in that condition because many State industries then (and indeed now) were considered of greater benefit to their employees than their customers.
NJ;//Very often the assets were stripped because they were earning no money and had no useful purpose.// Maybe, but often they provided a useful service to society and on privatisation, property and real estate was sold off for huge profits and then were closed down with no advantage to society and a big one for the new shareholders.
No reason the government wouldn't want to run such a vital utility as water. Piped to homes, competition is forced. Whoever one pays it's the same water through the same pipes that is so vital to life and hygiene. Seems sensible not to commercialise it but ensure all have what they need through taxation.
As for railways, it's more confusing and less convenient to have a number of operators on the same route, and no completion if they all have their own routes. Common sense to have it in public hands. Buying back the family silver can be expensive though. Present some fool is selling off our banking interest so we're in reverse gear.
As for railways, it's more confusing and less convenient to have a number of operators on the same route, and no completion if they all have their own routes. Common sense to have it in public hands. Buying back the family silver can be expensive though. Present some fool is selling off our banking interest so we're in reverse gear.
// Splitting the train operators, the infrastructure providers and the rolling stock agents was a grave mistake.//
maybe. but the government were mandated to do it.
http://
maybe. but the government were mandated to do it.
http://
Quite so, mushroom. You will also note in the directive:
"Whereas, in order to render railway transport efficient and competitive as compared with other modes of transport, Member States must guarantee that railway undertakings are afforded a status of independent operators behaving in a commercial manner and adapting to market needs;"
It depends on the interpretation of "independent" but I don't see much independent in SNCF. Nor do I in Deutsche Bahn (State owned "private" company). Nor in Rete Ferroviaria Italiana. These organisations are certainly not independent of the State and I don't see anything in their set up that would that would render them "efficient and competitive as compared with other modes of transport". So it seems that other EU nations can cherry pick the bits of legislation they wish to comply with.
And yet another good reason to quit the EU (as if any more were needed).
"Whereas, in order to render railway transport efficient and competitive as compared with other modes of transport, Member States must guarantee that railway undertakings are afforded a status of independent operators behaving in a commercial manner and adapting to market needs;"
It depends on the interpretation of "independent" but I don't see much independent in SNCF. Nor do I in Deutsche Bahn (State owned "private" company). Nor in Rete Ferroviaria Italiana. These organisations are certainly not independent of the State and I don't see anything in their set up that would that would render them "efficient and competitive as compared with other modes of transport". So it seems that other EU nations can cherry pick the bits of legislation they wish to comply with.
And yet another good reason to quit the EU (as if any more were needed).
One swallow doesn't make a summer VHG. I was waiting for a train two weekends ago and Southern had cancelled four or five.
Yes, the TOCs care - about shareholder dividends.
And we now subsidise the Private TOCs to a far greater extent than we did British Railways. So we're robbing the poor (taxpayer) to line the pockets of the rich (shareholders).
And the reason the NHS is going downhill is because more and more of it is being privatised, so once again needing extra money for share dividends. And that's exactly why Cameron has put aside £8bn over the next five years as he privatises more and more of it. All that £8bn will enrich his rich posh shareholding friends.
Yes, the TOCs care - about shareholder dividends.
And we now subsidise the Private TOCs to a far greater extent than we did British Railways. So we're robbing the poor (taxpayer) to line the pockets of the rich (shareholders).
And the reason the NHS is going downhill is because more and more of it is being privatised, so once again needing extra money for share dividends. And that's exactly why Cameron has put aside £8bn over the next five years as he privatises more and more of it. All that £8bn will enrich his rich posh shareholding friends.
Latest Posts
News3 mins ago
Is Anyone Else Having Problems With...
Technology10 mins ago
If An Ordinary American Citizen Faced...
News18 mins ago
The No.1 Swivel-Eyed-Loon Wants To Take...
News20 mins ago
