Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 81 to 95 of 95

Thread: Nationalisation

  1. #81
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    81
    Time Online
    2 d 14 h 30 m
    To run a successful nationalised rail network, surely you need to have passionate bright staff who are happy to work as a committed team together to do the job. The rail industry isn't known for behaving as a team and pulling together to get the job done. We as a country seem quite keen on dissing successful people so we can't claim to be a fantastic workplace for new aspiring achievers.

    We don't seem to be agreed on how much to spend and where to spend it on the rail network, so there is controversy there ....which will just be another delay in getting a great rail network. You're a bit stuffed if you don't have the necessary funding to do the job properly.

    You also need to have agreed budgets for the long term so that you can invest long term. But there is no continuity really, in our country's economic path.... one moment it's a Conservative government and the next it's a Labour government both with massively different views and opinions on how things ought to be.

    It's a shame we as a nation can't all get behind things to work as a team.

  2. #82
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Cumbria
    Posts
    392
    Time Online
    3 d 4 h 56 m
    Quote Originally Posted by BadAttitude View Post
    The problem with some British trade unions is they are run by people with hard left political agendas.

    The miners had a real grievance in 1984 but Arthur Scargill started the national strike without having a national ballot because he knew he wouldn't get the backing he needed to take on Thatcher. Being a tough politician the moment Thatcher knew it was a political strike she was never going to give in. The victims of Scargill's political ambitions were the coal industry and those who depended on it to put food on the table, his members.

    No responsible private or public company would let an Arthur Scargill on the board and anyone who suggested they did clearly knows nothing about what makes an industry successful.
    Sad thing is while the miners lost their jobs after the strike, Scargill kept enriching himself as president for life of the NUM and then decided to set up his own political party, awarding himself a huge salary for a party that attracted almost no support, and then retired a rich man. Sorry, I think union leaders are just as bad as the people they oppose and line their own pockets.

  3. #83
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Lancashire
    Posts
    257
    Time Online
    6 d 19 h 9 m
    Quote Originally Posted by Therapist View Post
    So is leaving it in the ground, closing mines after huge modernisation investment, paying miners twice the average house price in redundancy payments - then more on benefits, coppers who made enough in overtime payments in the miners strike to buy a house.. etc.
    I have seen the changes in pit villages. Youths might not have wanted to go down the pit, but they saw others do it and get money...cars..girls so they went down the pit too. Now the pit has gone it isn't mining .... its drugs We have the coal and don't have to import it leading to our unsustainable trade deficit and debt - but all that is simply ignored when you only look at the cost per unit generated.
    I agree that the closure of the pits was - in its full context - political mismanagement of a significant scale, and bar the individual workers themselves no-one comes out of any purely social analysis of it looking like a hero. That doesn't mean however that it shouldn't have, or didn't need to happen, the politics of it can and must be separated from the efficacy of it if you want to argue the validity of coal as a fuel source, which was my original point.

    Yes, its removal as an industry could - and in my opinion should - have been handled very differently; that much we can obviously agree on. That it needed to be snuffed out as a national fuel source for powering our country is I'm afraid a rather separate question and one in which my answer is resoundingly affirmative. If your answer is in the negative then please elucidate on how we make coal an economically viable and clean system of energy.

    Also... as a male of Northern stock, can I just point out that I've never sold drugs in my life and nor have any of the other men in my family, despite our (now historic) connections to the coal industry... thanks for the disgustingly insulting equivalency though!

    Quote Originally Posted by Therapist View Post
    PS Renewable power is pretty inefficient too when you consider the cold winter nights you need it most and it stops because you have with no wind and no sun. So you still have to have other sources of power fired up and ready to go - which can be nearly as expensive as relying on it all the time.
    If we are going to have a chat about the politics of energy, then please do remind me... when was the last time Britain suffered rolling blackouts old boy?



    Clovis.
    Think how many blameless lives are brightened by the blazing indiscretions of other people. - H.H Munro.

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Cornwall
    Posts
    4,642
    Time Online
    23 d 17 h 49 m
    Here's quite a good summary of the pros and cons

    https://www.economicshelp.org/macroe...tionalisation/

  5. #85
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    703
    Time Online
    9 d 5 h 16 m
    In the past when utilities were nationalised the country was regularly held to ransom by irresponsible trade union leaders. This happened under both Labour & Tory administrations.

  6. #86
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    no fixed abode
    Posts
    6,927
    Time Online
    53 d 10 h 23 m
    Quote Originally Posted by BadAttitude View Post
    In the past when utilities were nationalised the country was regularly held to ransom by irresponsible trade union leaders.
    ......... or by bad management depending on your point of view.
    But how many people didn't really understand the issues, but were swept along by a right wing press into blaming the trade union side?
    Now the boardrooms of the privatised industries have shown avariciousness and abuse of power far more than the trade unions.
    At my fingertips I have a device that can access all the knowledge that mankind has amassed over the millennia.
    I use it to look at pictures of bottoms and have pointless arguments with complete strangers

  7. #87
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    703
    Time Online
    9 d 5 h 16 m
    Quote Originally Posted by Therapist View Post
    ......... or by bad management depending on your point of view.
    So neither Tory nor Labour governments were capable of appointing good managements. That's not surprising since very few people in parliament have ever had a proper job for more than 5 minutes and it sounds like a very good reason to oppose nationalisation.


    Quote Originally Posted by Therapist View Post
    But how many people didn't really understand the issues, but were swept along by a right wing press into blaming the trade union side?
    When there is an angry mob at the gates of a power station and you have no power who would most people blame?


    Quote Originally Posted by Therapist View Post
    Now the boardrooms of the privatised industries have shown avariciousness and abuse of power far more than the trade unions.
    Any industry which is of national importance should be regulated so that it delivers vfm services for the public and a fair return for the shareholder's investment. If those regulators are failing to get vfm for the public then they need to be held to account - sacked - but that never happens as they all went to the same school/uni, they are all part of an establishment and they always look after each other.

  8. #88
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    2,596
    Time Online
    9 d 22 h 45 m
    Quote Originally Posted by Therapist View Post
    ......... or by bad management depending on your point of view.
    But how many people didn't really understand the issues, but were swept along by a right wing press into blaming the trade union side?
    Now the boardrooms of the privatised industries have shown avariciousness and abuse of power far more than the trade unions.
    You make valid points. Interesting that at post #85 our "old fashioned, northern socialist" has the standard right wing view about the subject.
    Alice

  9. #89
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    The internet
    Posts
    2,392
    Time Online
    118 d 11 h 32 m
    My issue with your point to the extent I have one is to look at local authorities and the NHS. How efficent are they.
    I know someone as I have said who works for the NHS normally in six month blocks between different trusts. She basically fires people like nurses and support staff to help them keep inbudget. but her normal day rate is 1200 plus Vat. So well over 209k a year to sack nurses and porters.

    Such utter waste.

    who will run the train service other than the same people who are nowdoing it and why won’t they just pay themselves the same one way or another. In fact it's cushy. Public sector employer with no targets. 499 k a year salary and a nice car etc.

    Shame I am nearly retired.
    =mortinuk;1252344]katiebug said:




    I’m somewhat perturbed and perplexed and it may be that I’m missing something. But, isn’t Anglia Ruskin the former Cambridge School of Art that subsequently, after a number of name changes, became a Polytechnic and since 1992 became known as Anglia University? Aren’t we really referring to two separate institutions? Please enlighten me how, and in what ways Anglia Ruskin is part of ‘Oxbridge’?

    The only connection with the University of Cambridge appears to be that Anglia Ruskin students have reading access to University of Cambridge library but are unable to borrow books. It seems to me that although Anglia Ruskin University has a campus in Cambridge that they are two separate institutions. In a sense its like Oxford Brookes is in Oxford but isn’t Oxford University, or Birmingham City University is in Birmingham but isn’t the University of Birmingham

    Perhaps someone is able to clarify any misunderstanding I may have.[/QUOTE]

    Quote Originally Posted by Therapist View Post
    ......... or by bad management depending on your point of view.
    But how many people didn't really understand the issues, but were swept along by a right wing press into blaming the trade union side?
    Now the boardrooms of the privatised industries have shown avariciousness and abuse of power far more than the trade unions.

  10. #90
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    703
    Time Online
    9 d 5 h 16 m
    Quote Originally Posted by alice-in-oz View Post
    You make valid points. Interesting that at post #85 our "old fashioned, northern socialist" has the standard right wing view about the subject.
    You seem to have a problem differentiating fact from opinion.

  11. #91
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    no fixed abode
    Posts
    6,927
    Time Online
    53 d 10 h 23 m
    Quote Originally Posted by Burgundy View Post
    My issue with your point to the extent I have one is to look at local authorities and the NHS. How efficent are they.
    I know someone as I have said who works for the NHS normally in six month blocks between different trusts. She basically fires people like nurses and support staff to help them keep inbudget. but her normal day rate is 1200 plus Vat. So well over 209k a year to sack nurses and porters.

    Such utter waste.
    They seem to be a jumbled up mix of public and private enterprise these days - getting the worst of both worlds.
    Excessive pay for Town Hall / NHS beauraucrats, cutting services, treating motorists as cash cows etc came in with this semi-privatisation.
    It didn't used to be like that when it was wholly public owned.
    For years London parking charges were so cheap the meters were loss making.
    Wheras now they whack the charges up, claim they are more efficient because they are profitable, and pay themselves many times the average salary.
    A private monopoly is worse for consumers than a state monopoly.
    At my fingertips I have a device that can access all the knowledge that mankind has amassed over the millennia.
    I use it to look at pictures of bottoms and have pointless arguments with complete strangers

  12. #92
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    703
    Time Online
    9 d 5 h 16 m
    Quote Originally Posted by Therapist View Post
    They seem to be a jumbled up mix of public and private enterprise these days - getting the worst of both worlds.
    Excessive pay for Town Hall / NHS beauraucrats, cutting services, treating motorists as cash cows etc came in with this semi-privatisation.
    It didn't used to be like that when it was wholly public owned.
    For years London parking charges were so cheap the meters were loss making.
    Wheras now they whack the charges up, claim they are more efficient because they are profitable, and pay themselves many times the average salary.
    A private monopoly is worse for consumers than a state monopoly.
    Parking policy is set by local councils. They decide the charges and they decide on the enforcement. Don't blame the traffic warden blame your local councillor.

  13. #93
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    no fixed abode
    Posts
    6,927
    Time Online
    53 d 10 h 23 m
    Quote Originally Posted by BadAttitude View Post
    Parking policy is set by local councils. They decide the charges and they decide on the enforcement. Don't blame the traffic warden blame your local councillor.

    Local councillors are only answerable to local people - who probably don't pay parking charges, but benefit from those who do because it brings their council tax down.
    At my fingertips I have a device that can access all the knowledge that mankind has amassed over the millennia.
    I use it to look at pictures of bottoms and have pointless arguments with complete strangers

  14. #94
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Tyne & Wear UK
    Posts
    597
    Time Online
    10 d 9 h 52 m
    Quote Originally Posted by J J Dick View Post
    I remember that old British Gas, and I remember the new British Gas too.
    Which one do you think gave estimated bill for years after for a meter they themselves had removed, threatening court action and blocking moving to a new supplier.
    Well it couldn't have been the 'old' British Gas, because there were no 'new suppliers' to turn to. British Gas was a monopoly supplier; you had to take it or leave it, like it or lump it. (Same with electricity & telecoms).
    What is this world if full of care we have no time to spank a rear.

  15. #95
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    2,596
    Time Online
    9 d 22 h 45 m
    It would appear that re-nationalisation is supported in a number of cases by the majority in the UK, including conservative and UKIP members/voters.

    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/11/04...es-say-public/
    Alice

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
 
 
 
[Output: 118.31 Kb. compressed to 113.42 Kb. by saving 4.90 Kb. (4.14%)]