Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: @Ketara, a well thought out post as always, but this is what gets my goat:
The Tories are opposed to state owned rail and utilities.
But we have this absurd, and utterly fething ridiculous situation of state owned companies from abroad, snapping up our rail and utilities, with the end result that money flows out the nation.
British state owning electricity company = bad. Foreign state owning Brtish electricity company = good.
I cannot understand this contradiction.
I agree. If we're not going to have British nationalisation, then State owned foreign companies should be banned from owning British utilities too. We shouldn't have a double standard.
Ideally you want some sort of system where you have state owned utilities, but there is also the option for private companies to be involved as a way of keeping things vaguely competitive.
Utilities should be owned by the British state if anything, not foreign states.
If the 70's prove anything the state can be utterly incompant just as much as private sector.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
If the 70's prove anything the state can be utterly incompant just as much as private sector.
While I'm all for nationalising services when it is a national strategic concern or where it can be shown a lack of competition in a sector is detrimental to the consumer (energy and transport are the big ones here), there is truth in jhe90's statement.
One need only look at the ongoing farce that is TFL, with its bullet proof pensions and inability to sack anyone no matter how incompetent. Or the Fire Service with pensions that would make an MEP blush.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
TFL staff have all the favourable things they do because RMT is one of the strongest unions. The rest have been broken and have very little influence.
The government use the right wing press to undermine the unions and drive support for laws that stifle strike action. The 50% turnout rule for strike action to be legal would be interesting if it applied to forming a government or council elections. Government think tanks made up of business advisors always suggest that restricting unions and workers rights would be good for the UK. The media paint unions as trying to undermine the economy and paradoxically being against the public, despite representing normal working people.
As a teacher I've noticed that should we go on strike the press coverage becomes about the dreadful inconvenience to parents, and there's little appreciation for the wider picture that education and quality of teaching their children get long term is under constant threat. The profession hemmorages teachers, the budget cuts make it difficult to buy resources and hire support staff. But we're the enemy if we strike. A lot of that has to do with the way the government, business and media collude to paint unions as a bad thing, trying to make the majority of people in this country forget that most of their working rights were won through strike action, because industry and government don't volunteer anything.
If the 70's prove anything the state can be utterly incompant just as much as private sector.
While I'm all for nationalising services when it is a national strategic concern or where it can be shown a lack of competition in a sector is detrimental to the consumer (energy and transport are the big ones here), there is truth in jhe90's statement.
One need only look at the ongoing farce that is TFL, with its bullet proof pensions and inability to sack anyone no matter how incompetent. Or the Fire Service with pensions that would make an MEP blush.
Yeah. Exactly. The TFL, services run with no compatition to force then innovate. Nothing to make them have to create or force new ideas.
If there was no competition we would have no mobile ride hailing apps etc. Much as they caused fault the broke the status que.
Amthere needs to be a balence of the two, but alone government run become fat, stale, lazy and backwards.
They have no compatition, no will to change he and union type dinosours linger, and linger decades past there relavence.
We need national services but we also need the cut and thrust, the challenges and innovation of private sector. There should be room for the underlings or others with better ideas and thinking to take over. To remove the stale old leadership if they are not improving, innovating and evolving to fit the times and changing nation.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
reds8n wrote: [
Which empires was it who built those sewer systems, aqueducts, roads etc etc etc again ?
That's infrastructure as opposed to services. Infrastructure is a physical item with a set cost that usually only requires minimal maintenance expenditure after being constructed. I'm referring more to the concept of government departments running public services, things such as transport networks, the NHS, power networks, telegraphy systems, and so on. Unlike a road (which just requires the resurfacing team to go past every so often), a post office requires a constant physical presence, interaction with the public, balancing of regular budgets, and so on. There is a certain small degree of overlap (railways need tracks laying, etc), but building infrastructure has long been an established facet of the state. Even castles technically qualify for that.
Services though? Not so much. If you go back to feudal times, you had your tax collector (to shake down the peasants), your soldiers (to defend the tax collector and yourself), and that was about it in terms of government 'departments'. Establishing set institutions with funding to run in the name of the public good was the quite Victorian concept in this country for the most part. Even the Royal mail, which predates the rest back to the sixteenth century, was effectively run as a personal fiefdom/business half the time and was explicitly intended for facilitating governance than for the public good. The Penny Post in 1840 was what opened it up to the public.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/22 15:03:31
(1) Care of the city: the repair and preservation of temples, sewers and aqueducts; street cleansing and paving; regulations regarding traffic, dangerous animals and dilapidated buildings; precautions against fire; superintendence of baths and taverns; enforcement of sumptuary laws; punishment of gamblers and usurers; the care of public morals generally, including the prevention of foreign superstitions and the registration of meretrices. They also punished those who had too large a share of the ager publicus, or kept too many cattle on the state pastures.
(2) Care of provisions: investigation of the quality of the articles supplied and the correctness of weights and measures; the purchase of grain for disposal at a low price in case of necessity.
(3) Care of the games: superintendence and organization of the public games, as well as of those given by themselves and private individuals (e.g. at funerals) at their own expense. Ambitious persons often spent enormous sums in this manner to win the popular favor with a view to official advancement.[3]
Later emperors all used free or greatly subsidized grain to keep the populace fed. The political use of the grain supply along with gladiatorial games and other entertainments gave rise to the saying "Bread and circuses".[10] As the empire continued, the annona became more complex. During the reign of Septimius Severus, olive oil was added to the distribution. During the reign of Aurelian, however, a major reorganization of the alimenta took place. It appears that he ceased to distribute free grain; instead, he issued free bread, and added salt, pork and wine to the dole, which was provided free or at a reduced cost. These measures were continued by successive emperors.[11]
The Romans did not only demand cheap basic food but also subsidized culture. The emperors assumed the responsibility of providing the citizens with publicly funded entertainment and arts.
I've read various claims about the amount for this , up to and around the equivalent of $100M pe annum spent by the Govt. on these sort of things.
They also has various public parks/open spaces for the citizenry as well.
... although TBF if you've got actual slaves then one supposes it probably quite a bit cheaper to maintain such things.
well predated the Royal Mail in any way, shape or form.
But , of course, that's not a utility run for the people as such.
They also constructed public libraries for the use of regular citizens too.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
I'm still waiting for high speed fibre in central Henley-on-Thames, a town with half a dozen internet companies of various types and sizes sitting on the edge of the M4/Thames high tech corridor. BT installed the roadside cabinets several years ago, but they failed to plumb in the fibre to all the houses. The bad bit is that they said they did.
The irony of this situation is that the broadband companies offer fibre in my area because BT have told them incorrectly that it is available. Only it isn't, so I am restricted to average about 17mbps download and 1mbps upload. However, I am not allowed to speak directly to BT and get the situation fixed. I have to complain about the slow speed to my provider, who advises me to upgrade to fibre, and when I do I get the same speed because there isn't any fibre there.
At my house in Japan I had 100mbps up and down in 2009.
Fibre doesn't actually run to your house. Your house is still connected using good old copper. Fibre is only plumbed into the exchanges which make use of the extra bandwidth to process a lot more information.
If BT have upgraded the exchanges you should have access to it. Your house doesn't need new cabling. There is something fishy going on if you don't have it.
(My place is connected to the Rowstock exchange, not a great way from you, and we had fibre speeds the same day it was announced)
Yes, I know that. The problem is that BT haven't plumbed all the fibre into the cabinet. This was confirmed to me (unofficially) by a BT engineer they sent to investigate the cabinet.
Note that I had fibre all the way to the home in Japan 9 years ago.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/22 16:12:49
reds8n wrote: The Romans did not only demand cheap basic food but also subsidized culture. The emperors assumed the responsibility of providing the citizens with publicly funded entertainment and arts.
All right, but ... what have the Romans ever done for us?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/22 16:16:51
Kilkrazy wrote: Yes, I know that. The problem is that BT haven't plumbed all the fibre into the cabinet. This was confirmed to me (unofficially) by a BT engineer they sent to investigate the cabinet.
Note that I had fibre all the way to the home in Japan 9 years ago.
I have fibre all the way to my house in my 25.000-ish Spanish town. Only one company installed the actual fibre, but you can take your pick of a half-dozen companies for the contract, up to 300mbps symmetric IIRC (I took just 60, because that was the cheapest package).
Ketara wrote: That's infrastructure as opposed to services. Infrastructure is a physical item with a set cost that usually only requires minimal maintenance expenditure after being constructed. I'm referring more to the concept of government departments running public services, things such as transport networks, the NHS, power networks, telegraphy systems, and so on. Unlike a road (which just requires the resurfacing team to go past every so often), a post office requires a constant physical presence, interaction with the public, balancing of regular budgets, and so on. There is a certain small degree of overlap (railways need tracks laying, etc), but building infrastructure has long been an established facet of the state. Even castles technically qualify for that.
Services though? Not so much. If you go back to feudal times, you had your tax collector (to shake down the peasants), your soldiers (to defend the tax collector and yourself), and that was about it in terms of government 'departments'. Establishing set institutions with funding to run in the name of the public good was the quite Victorian concept in this country for the most part. Even the Royal mail, which predates the rest back to the sixteenth century, was effectively run as a personal fiefdom/business half the time and was explicitly intended for facilitating governance than for the public good. The Penny Post in 1840 was what opened it up to the public.
Infrastructure maintenance can't be just dismissed as 'minimal maintenance'. Most infrastructure projects will have maintenance costs in excess of the original construction within either 10 or 20 years. Almost all projects over their lives will end up costing more in maintenance than the original construction. This is even more true for older, lower tech infrastructure, for instance unsealed. Its always been the case that a nation built around large infrastructure projects will also have large maintenance teams.
And while it's true that there were very few national services, but this wasn't because there was no understanding of government playing that role, but more because there were no nationwide services. There was no nationwide postal system for the same reason there was no nationwide fast food chains. Low levels of communications technology, economic immaturity and organisational limitations prevented running nationwide operations.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Thanks for those links. The Romans are waaaaay beyond my specialty, and it's nice to learn something new about them. I'd certainly agree that the Aediles would qualify as a service department/providers, given that they both are involved with the government and the maintenance of the city. At the same time however, it is notable that they did not receive any sort of government funding for their provision of those services. It all had to come from their own pockets. So they're both of the government and not at the same time. It's an interesting juxtaposition really, and I'm not aware of any later Western equivalent. I know that Roman culture was massively obsessed with status, and the provision of these services by the Aediles appears to have been undertaken for rewards of personal credit/eminence. Without a similar set of cultural priorities, I doubt that any sort of formalised institution of that type could arise elsewhere. The samurai of the Tokugawa period would be the closest I could think of, but even they still took funding from the local Daimyo.
The Cursus Publicus however, would appear to more akin to the earliest form of British postal service, namely a personal sinecure with a minor veil of governmental supervision. The link you gave actually specifies;
Despite evidence that the government did supervise the functioning of the network of stations, and presumably its development over the centuries, the service was not supplied by a department of state in the same way as (say) the modern Royal Mail in the UK. As Altay Coskun notes in a review of Anne Kolb’s work done in German,[4] the system “simply provided an infrastructure for magistrates and messengers who traveled through the empire. It consisted of thousands of stations placed along the main roads; these had to supply fresh horses, mules, donkeys, and oxen, as well as carts, food, fodder, and accommodation.” Thus, there was no “department of postal service” with employees paid by the emperor. The one sending a missive would have to supply the courier, and the stations had to be supplied out of the resources of the local areas through which the roads passed. As seen in several rescripts and in the correspondence of Trajan and Pliny, the emperor will sometimes pay for the cost of sending an ambassador to Rome along the cursus publicus, particularly in cases where the cause is just.
Still, very interesting stuff. Thanks again for the links!
sebster wrote:Infrastructure maintenance can't be just dismissed as 'minimal maintenance'. Most infrastructure projects will have maintenance costs in excess of the original construction within either 10 or 20 years. Almost all projects over their lives will end up costing more in maintenance than the original construction. This is even more true for older, lower tech infrastructure, for instance unsealed. Its always been the case that a nation built around large infrastructure projects will also have large maintenance teams.
And while it's true that there were very few national services, but this wasn't because there was no understanding of government playing that role, but more because there were no nationwide services. There was no nationwide postal system for the same reason there was no nationwide fast food chains. Low levels of communications technology, economic immaturity and organisational limitations prevented running nationwide operations.
You have to understand that I wasn't talking about 'national services' but simply differentiating between three things; namely
1. infrastructure erection and maintenance (so castles, bridges, roads, wells, town walls, etc),
2. government organisations established/funded primarily for governmental use (tax collectors, the Royal Dockyards, the early Post Office, etc), and
3. public services (that is to say, a service provided for the general public/people) organised, and subsidised/paid for by the State (See the unified Edwardian railways, the Victorian poorhouses, etc).
Whether a public service is national or not isn't really a factor. With regards to infrastructure, maintenance depends on the item. A well might need a new rope every few years, but that's hardly much of an expense.
As said, you do get overlap between all three areas (a Post Office needs roof can need mending, a herepath lets both civilians and troops move between burhs swiftly, walls shield both citizens and Kings, etc), but we're talking more about where the funding comes from, and the intent as regards to who the service is provided for. Repairing machinery at the Small Arms Factory in the 1860's isn't providing a public service, after all, even if government funding is used.
This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2017/10/23 09:44:38
If the 70's prove anything the state can be utterly incompant just as much as private sector.
While I'm all for nationalising services when it is a national strategic concern or where it can be shown a lack of competition in a sector is detrimental to the consumer (energy and transport are the big ones here), there is truth in jhe90's statement.
One need only look at the ongoing farce that is TFL, with its bullet proof pensions and inability to sack anyone no matter how incompetent. Or the Fire Service with pensions that would make an MEP blush.
We need national services but we also need the cut and thrust, the challenges and innovation of private sector. There should be room for the underlings or others with better ideas and thinking to take over. To remove the stale old leadership if they are not improving, innovating and evolving to fit the times and changing nation.
Bunkum. Utter, utter bunkum.
Look at the London to Hastings line. It's a single line, run by a single operator. They charge whatever they want, because commuters have little alternative. That's a fundamental failure of privatisation. It didn't increase competition. It handed a monopoly to private interests. Slash services, lay off staff, jack up up up up up those prices. Squeeze 'em til the pips squeak, and then charge 'em some more.
Same with water companies. Sod fixing the pipes, just charge your end users more to make up for it. Electricity? Same parent company owns the power station and the distributor. They sell wholesale to themselves at a ridiculous mark up, because we kind of need it.
Buses? Yeah. Only one company in my town. And don't you feel it in the price.
Privatisation has achieved none of the things you just claimed. None of them. It puts profit motive up above service levels. Train companies are the worst. They're subisidised, but still report large profits. We're being ripped off here. But the lie of privatisation keeps people lapping it up.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/23 12:05:06
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
It was a bit strong, but then we are talking about people being (presumably wilfully) ignorant of reality.
Let's consider the railways. They're part of the backbone of the UK. For those of us in the Sarf East, we need them to commute to Nodnol so we can work. And the higher wages we earn up in The Smoke are brought home with us, to be spent in our local economy.
But those Railways are run at a profit. And that profit is funnelled into large companies, alongside their government subsidies.
Why are we subsidising a clearly profitable venture? Where is the sense in that?
Would it not be better to bring it all back in-house, and get it properly contributing to the treasury in a way where no Tax Lawyer can loophole cash away?
Only a few years ago, one of the franchises was handed back. State run for a period, service improved and profits were made. It was then sold off again, taking said profits out of the treasury.
That's insane. It's the exact opposite of fiscal responsibility. It's like me getting someone else to do my job. They charge my employer 20% more, and I get 15% of the earnings as my own income. Why would anyone do that? Why do we allow goverments to do that?
Royal Mail. Privatised. Prices up, services slashed. Golf Clap anyone?
If someone could point me to a single example of privatisation actually delivering on it's promises, and not simply handing cartels to private venture capitalists, I'd love to see it.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
If the 70's prove anything the state can be utterly incompant just as much as private sector.
While I'm all for nationalising services when it is a national strategic concern or where it can be shown a lack of competition in a sector is detrimental to the consumer (energy and transport are the big ones here), there is truth in jhe90's statement.
One need only look at the ongoing farce that is TFL, with its bullet proof pensions and inability to sack anyone no matter how incompetent. Or the Fire Service with pensions that would make an MEP blush.
We need national services but we also need the cut and thrust, the challenges and innovation of private sector. There should be room for the underlings or others with better ideas and thinking to take over. To remove the stale old leadership if they are not improving, innovating and evolving to fit the times and changing nation.
Bunkum. Utter, utter bunkum.
Look at the London to Hastings line. It's a single line, run by a single operator. They charge whatever they want, because commuters have little alternative. That's a fundamental failure of privatisation. It didn't increase competition. It handed a monopoly to private interests. Slash services, lay off staff, jack up up up up up those prices. Squeeze 'em til the pips squeak, and then charge 'em some more.
Same with water companies. Sod fixing the pipes, just charge your end users more to make up for it. Electricity? Same parent company owns the power station and the distributor. They sell wholesale to themselves at a ridiculous mark up, because we kind of need it.
Buses? Yeah. Only one company in my town. And don't you feel it in the price.
Privatisation has achieved none of the things you just claimed. None of them. It puts profit motive up above service levels. Train companies are the worst. They're subisidised, but still report large profits. We're being ripped off here. But the lie of privatisation keeps idiots lapping it up.
This. I don't understand this idea that privatizing suddenly fixes everything. The only time public companies are an issue is where you have protective legislation barring entry or state subsidization preventing competition. In most cases it is the monopoly that is at issue rather than who owns the monopoly, and a state monopoly in a market with high barriers to entry is better than a private monopoly. Some of those barriers are integral to the product. You also have the issue that the private sector is primarily interested in high profit low risk. Look at healthcare in the US, where those who are high risk and need medical care the most struggle to get it, or what has happened to the postal sector in the UK where vary careful legislation and restrictive contracts had to be drawn up to ensure operators did not just cherry pick valuable routes and parcel post.
insaniak wrote: Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
If someone could point me to a single example of privatisation actually delivering on it's promises, and not simply handing cartels to private venture capitalists, I'd love to see it.
A Swedish example, admittedly, but when we dropped the state monopoly on pharmacies and made the state-run pharmacies into a profit-driven, state-owned company people, especially in Norrland (the north of Sweden) where pharmacies were few and far between, actually got an easier time to obtain medicine and pharmaceuticals.
Of course, there's also a very compelling argument that none of this was actually due to the deregulation at all. After the deregulation a quadrillion different pharmaceuticals popped up within a few hundred meters of each other in the major cities while Norrland got nothing of the sort, since there's no profit in opening a pharmacy in such a sparsely populated area. Indeed many pharmacies of the now-profit-driven state company in Norrland shut down, as there was no profit for them there. What ended up saving this reform from becoming an example of the clusterfeth you've described in the rail industry is the fact that it became possible to use the internet in order to have your medicines delivered to a local drop-off point, which ended up increasing the availability of these drugs. There's still the problem with trained, licenced pharmacists no longer being available locally for consultation, so even this reform didn't end up completely successful, but at least it's something, eh?
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
UK rail ticket prices are set according to a formula designed by the government. This allows operating companies to increase prices by an average of CPI (in August) + x% from the next January.
There is regulation, therefore, however it allows the railway company to increase commuting tickets more by increasing the price of super-advance apex fares less. This is because it is current policy to make rail users pay more for upgrades and the overall cost of operating the service.
Naturally, since the rail companies are private (or PLC) companies, they want to make a profit, so the cost of tickets needs to be increased more than the actual cost of running the service.
This in theory could be avoided by the government re-nationalising the entire system and running it at cost. Since the government currently pays quite substantial subsidies to the rail operating companies, there might be a good saving to the public purse as well as the public's purses.
Japan, well known for its excellent railway system used to have a mixture of publicly owned lines (Japan Rail) and private lines. Japan Rail was denationalised a couple of decades ago without any loss of service, OTOH the private lines have always been very well run, reliable and not notably more expensive than the public lines.
This I think is because Japanese railway companies see their job as enabling people to move around, get to work, go shopping and do other activities that often benefit the rail company owners in a different way. For example, along the Odakyu Line into Kanagawa, a lot of the department stores near the stations are owned by the Odakyu "keiretsu", so passengers on that line not only pay Odakyu for travelling, they tend to travel to places where they will spend more money in Odakyu stores.
I recently visited Germany, and was interested to find that the standard fare for travel in the Rhein-Main public transport area is 1 Euro for any journey. There are also season tickets that make it even cheaper. One effect of this policy is that there are no ticket gates and inspectors, which is a significant saving to the company.
However I think the Germans like the Japanese see the public transport system as being a means to an end, rather than an end in itself.
Sweden, unfortunately, looked to Britain as a model of rail privatization, with predictable results (i.e. exactly the same clusterfeth). While it doesn't necessarily prove that the model itself is flawed, we haven't managed to make it work any better than you guys.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Sweden, unfortunately, looked to Britain as a model of rail privatization, with predictable results (i.e. exactly the same clusterfeth). While it doesn't necessarily prove that the model itself is flawed, we haven't managed to make it work any better than you guys.
Keep natural monopolies in government hands seems to be the conclusion. For a Spanish perspective, ever since rail transport was open to compatition no private operator has dared to enter the passenger market. Catalan regional lines were transfered to the regional Catalan government, but that's it.
There are a few private freight operators, though.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/23 13:01:56
Well it appears that May degraded herself even further last week by taking the begging bowl to the EU just to try and keep herself in power for a bit longer.
Apparently the discussions went something like this (with Homer = Theresa May)
More seriously it appears that Juncker is actually supporting her on this. Given previous information I think the question we must ask is "What backroom deal has she made". We know from the DUP that she will sacrifice whatever she can to stay in power. I would suspect that in the fullness of time it will become apparent what she has done here...
Of course I support the EU so this almost certainly benefits them so all is good. On the other hand May will be found out and hopefully just another nail in the coffin for the Tories.
This. I don't understand this idea that privatizing suddenly fixes everything. The only time public companies are an issue is where you have protective legislation barring entry or state subsidization preventing competition. In most cases it is the monopoly that is at issue rather than who owns the monopoly, and a state monopoly in a market with high barriers to entry is better than a private monopoly. Some of those barriers are integral to the product. You also have the issue that the private sector is primarily interested in high profit low risk. Look at healthcare in the US, where those who are high risk and need medical care the most struggle to get it, or what has happened to the postal sector in the UK where vary careful legislation and restrictive contracts had to be drawn up to ensure operators did not just cherry pick valuable routes and parcel post.
Privatisation can work but it requires sufficient competition to drive both innovation and to benefit the populace. As soon as you get a monopoly (or in some ways worse effectively a cartel, e.g. energy and housing) then in effect it becomes a licence to print money for the companies as there isn't alternative viable options. Any new start up company quickly gets crushed or bought out; these companies also have a harder time because they do not get the efficiency of scale or the tax break benefits multinational companies can get by moving money to the country with the lowest taxes (e.g. Apple, Amazon etc). This results in a few large companies that then have a huge lobbying power in government because there is no one else to argue against what they are saying. In these cases there is an advantage of having Government led services as that can result in more honest competition. Of course the lobbying group will state they are inefficient and embroiled by union arguments, but the reality is there are more strikes with private organisations than there is the public. These organisations are scared of what a government backed scheme could do because they simply do not need to make the same level of profit to be viable (they don't have share holders to pacify). The other advantage is that a state run organisation has more control in emergency circumstances (lets say huge flooding issues in an area) - in those cases the government can use it's own resources to meet a need (lets say transporting soldiers to the flood hit areas by rail); whereas a company would start with "how much are you going to pay us?". This both slows the response and likely results in a more inefficient roll out.
The disadvantage with government backed operations is that MPs and Councillors have a habit of sticking their fingers in when it isn't needed. A few people complain in the Daily Fail and all of a sudden every rail line has to follow a new inefficient process because of those complaints (rather than looking at the wider scientific evidence e.g. the Badger cull). This can make them less efficient over time. A government business that is allowed to operate as a business however should always out perform a private business where there is limited competition.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/23 18:06:10
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
If someone could point me to a single example of privatisation actually delivering on it's promises, and not simply handing cartels to private venture capitalists, I'd love to see it.
Alas, I can only offer examples from the Netherlands (where almost everything has been privatised now and it is bad, especially on the railways) and Russia, where privatisation made the entire country collapse in a decade of extreme poverty and mafia rule. The privatisation was mostly reversed and now things run somewhat better again. At least Britain is not that bad...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/10/23 18:31:54
If someone could point me to a single example of privatisation actually delivering on it's promises, and not simply handing cartels to private venture capitalists, I'd love to see it.
Alas, I can only offer examples from the Netherlands (where almost everything has been privatised now and it is bad, especially on the railways) and Russia, where privatisation made the entire country collapse in a decade of extreme poverty and mafia rule. At least Britain is not that bad...
I think there needs to be a balence of sorts.
The public sector needs somthing to force it to keep innovating, changing, moving, evolving.
Private sector is bad on its own. We need some kind of hybrid system.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
Genuine innovation is difficult and requires skill and vision. Something lacking in a lot of people running this country and managing public services. Problem with a lot of 'innovating' popular with various leaders and management is that it's mostly the short term sort that involves everyone lower down the pecking order working a lot more for less and making cuts to things in the name of efficiency. Always looks good on the balance sheet and pleases shareholders, does little for the long term - and public services have to look long term, longer than the current government or the tenure of their managers. I'm very skeptical of the argument for private involvement bringing in innovation, privatisation is all about squeezing the most out of something for the least investment.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Genuine innovation is difficult and requires skill and vision. Something lacking in a lot of people running this country and managing public services. Problem with a lot of 'innovating' popular with various leaders and management is that it's mostly the short term sort that involves everyone lower down the pecking order working a lot more for less and making cuts to things in the name of efficiency. Always looks good on the balance sheet and pleases shareholders, does little for the long term - and public services have to look long term, longer than the current government or the tenure of their managers. I'm very skeptical of the argument for private involvement bringing in innovation, privatisation is all about squeezing the most out of something for the least investment.
True... But the public sector is a bloated, fat sloth in this country. It's so bloated it can barely move its over sized girth.
It innovates at glacial pace. It's staid. It never changes. If it was up to some we would still be running steam trains becyof the engineers union or some rubbish.
Like the above. Deciding to use copper over fibre.
When they held all the phones. And gas supply of devices and services we had rotary phones forever. Our devices where practically relics vs say America.
Our public sector needs a solid kick up the arse at times to do things. Why we need some hybrid. We need the give Ment control on cost, making sure things are deployed nation wise.
But the kick up arse to innovate. To depevelop as monoloaply incorages sloth. It's glacial progress.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
If someone could point me to a single example of privatisation actually delivering on it's promises, and not simply handing cartels to private venture capitalists, I'd love to see it.
Alas, I can only offer examples from the Netherlands (where almost everything has been privatised now and it is bad, especially on the railways) and Russia, where privatisation made the entire country collapse in a decade of extreme poverty and mafia rule. The privatisation was mostly reversed and now things run somewhat better again. At least Britain is not that bad...
Clearly you don't commute from Henley to London on the 07:38 train.
The joke being that no-one does any more, since GWR cancelled this service a few months ago, leaving only one direct train in either direction all day.
