Thatcher to be given a state funeral

[London Calling]

The French still own all their public utilities and still have car companies that make cars in France and are French owned.
What has Britain got?

The French own most of our utilities as well!

 

[London Calling]

Actually back to the question, whilst I really did dispise her and went on many a march againgst her policies.

I will not mourn her lost or glorify over it.

 

[Southover Street Seagull]

I would say it is more like this.

You have a state run business, it is the only one of it's kind in the country, so there is no competition for any customer to go to, therefore the business can offer the most abysmal standards that it wishes without any fear of losing any customers. Because it is abysmal only domestic customers use it, international customers will not touch it with a bargepole. It becomes a huge bloated organisation that has a ridiculous number of employees that just gets filled with staff that many in real terms do nothing, it is also union dominated and they demand ever more unrealistic pay demands for these staff members and so it runs at a greater and greater loss, and you as the governement and the country has to keep on bailing it out.

Do you sit back and watch these type of businesses draining your money??

Or do you privitise it, by doing this you get quite a few benefits. You get the initial injection of cash from the sale as eventhough it runs at a loss it still has assets, thus private investors will believe they can turn it aound. Private investors if they turn it around will eventually have to pay yearly taxes on profits. If they are not succesful the company will fold and you as the government are not obliged to bail it out.

Also and more importantly competition is allowed to compete with it. This means to say that other companies can potentially offer better services at lower prices thus creating competition in that sector. If a customer is not satisfied with his level of service he has a choice to go elsewhere meaning that all potential companies in this industry are compelled to compete for customers.

Think how many phone companies there are now in the Britain vying for your land line/mobile business 30 years ago there would have only been one BT! Surely a customer having a choice between one and many is better.

You forgot to add the bit then when you have been privatised you can transfer call centres to India, great for bRitish business!

 

[Southover Street Seagull]

And hugely subsidised by the State to pay for the cheaper fares.

It this a bad thing?
I'd rather have rail fares subsidised by a nationalised railway that pumps it's profits back into the the railways than what we have got now. Private companies being subsidised by the state and always putting up ticket prices!

 

[Southover Street Seagull]

Anything wrong with it operating as a viable business? Why should it operate at a loss? Why is it operating at a loss? Overstaffing? Excessive pay demands of unions?

If it is always subsidised by the taxpayers why does it need to change any of this?

You just don't get it do you? Some public services like the railways will never make a profit, because it costs more to run them.
Our railways are still subsidised by the government, except now it goes into the hands of a private company instead of British Rail.

 

[Southover Street Seagull]

I know I have, but it is hard not to stop as it is quite funny listenting to all the excuses people make as to what it is other than competition that makes a(ny) product/service better.

It is this very reason that Communism failed. There was no competition within any industries, therefore there was no necessity to improve the end product, therefore the quality of these goods fell further and further behind the West in every sphere, financially, militarily,social services everything, and in the end the communist system to all intense and purposes collapsed.

Take a look at East/West Germany. East Germany had the Trabant, West Germany had Audi/Mercedes/BMW/Volkswagen all competing against each other. Why were West German cars better than the Easts? They were all German engineers working on them, so no excuse there. The plants were in Germany, so no exploitation of cheap third world labour. So whats the excuse going to be this time?

What Audi/Mercedes/BMW/Volkswagen? All companies with trade unions in them?
That can't be right, all unions are evil and prevent and stifle the growth of companies, just like the did in Britain!

 

[simmo]

What Audi/Mercedes/BMW/Volkswagen? All companies with trade unions in them?
That can't be right, all unions are evil and prevent and stifle the growth of companies, just like the did in Britain!

An absolutely brilliant rebutal of my basic premise that... competition, and the more of it the better, causes overall standards in every service/industry etc. to increase.

I have also never said that trade unions were bad. What I will say is that on the whole BRITISH trade unions ruined the manufacturing industries in Britain. Because their leaders had political, mainly Communist, agendas and not the interests of their members at heart. Thatcher did not destroy the mining industry in Britain, Scargill did because he had his own agenda which was to bring down the government, he was on Wogan and even said this!

Also not all train services around this world are state run. Some are privately owned and do fine.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

how does competition wrk for utilities like water ? Where is my choice ?

You can;t apply the same argument to everything. Some industries work fine (although how it was done could have been better) and some industries are best left alone.

 

[London Calling]

"Thatcher did not destroy the mining industry in Britain"

But her plans were to close 60% of the collieries within 5 years.

In fact after the strike they closed 80%. In that time.

I worked in Wakefield at the time, it had 22 pits 1983 by 1987 it had 10 by the end of the 1990 it was 3.

The result of the Governments rationalisation plan.

Scargill was a prize **** but he did not influence the closure of the collieries.

 

[simmo]

how does competition wrk for utilities like water ? Where is my choice ?

You can;t apply the same argument to everything. Some industries work fine (although how it was done could have been better) and some industries are best left alone.

If you have a state run service no one can compete against it.

If the water industry is privatised, competition is allowed to compete against it. The problem is that at present there is no true competition.

People will argue that a privatised run monopoly is worse however, this will happen in the early stages after privitisation because the old state run service inherit the infrastructure that was available so they can hit the ground running. Other companies have to invest in the infrastructure or whatever is required to allow them to compete in the market and this will take time and money.

When BT was first privatised people complained about it being a privately owned monopoly but it was because BT inherited the telephony infrastructure of this country. However, over time other companies have been built up and have now come into this market, now there are numerous telephony businesses competing for your business.

Talk, Talk are offering at present free broadband, all right I know the catches with this etc. etc and I am not interseted in the poor service that they give etc.etc.etc.. but come on do you honestly think this type of thing would have happened if BT was still a publicly owned company and no telephony company was allowed into a closed market. If BT was state owned still, they would not be under any obligation to provide broadband because the people of this country could turn to no-one else. Virgin also compete in the telephony market as well as they do for plane flights, train travel etc.

 

[simmo]

"Thatcher did not destroy the mining industry in Britain"

But her plans were to close 60% of the collieries within 5 years.

In fact after the strike they closed 80%. In that time.

I worked in Wakefield at the time, it had 22 pits 1983 by 1987 it had 10 by the end of the 1990 it was 3.

The result of the Governments rationalisation plan.

Scargill was a prize **** but he did not influence the closure of the collieries.

Britain moved from burning coal to burning oil to provide power in the 70's 80's 90's.

The market for coal was declining, it was only a political decision prior to Thatcher (to placate the NUM) that kept us still burning coal. It was obvious that the market for coal would decrease significantly meaning pits would have to close. A sensible union leader would have realised this and cut his cloth accordingly, accepted certain pit closures and reached a realistic deal with any governement.

Not Scargill though, no pits would close according to King Arthur, he called an indefinite strike without even balloting his members, which immediately caused a schism in the union he run. He went on TV programmes stating that his aim was to bring down the democratically elected government. I pity the poor mining communities that were led by this politically motivated fool. If a more moderate union leader had reached a sensible agreement with the government rather than declaring all out war then maybe members of the NUM would have more of an industry now a days.

 

[Southover Street Seagull]

An absolutely brilliant rebutal of my basic premise that... competition, and the more of it the better, causes overall standards in every service/industry etc. to increase.

I have also never said that trade unions were bad. What I will say is that on the whole BRITISH trade unions ruined the manufacturing industries in Britain. Because their leaders had political, mainly Communist, agendas and not the interests of their members at heart. Thatcher did not destroy the mining industry in Britain, Scargill did because he had his own agenda which was to bring down the government, he was on Wogan and even said this!

Also not all train services around this world are state run. Some are privately owned and do fine.

Well run businesses cause overall standards to rise not necessarily competition, in the German case we have three well run companies Audi/VW, Mercedes and BMW and they all have trade unions running at the heart of them. The difference is that they also have/had far better management than BL did in the 70's, it wasn't all the unions fault that the British car industry failed was it? Do you think they might possibly have had militant unions in Germany in the 70's?
Thatcher did destroy the mining industry by closing down all the pits, Arthur Scargill did not close down any pits. Whilst Thatcher was closing down the pits she imported cheaper coal from Poland, very patriotic of her wasn't it?
I think that there are only two countries in the developed world where the railways are privately owned, here and in Japan. Well Japan's are well run, ours aren't!

 

[Southover Street Seagull]

Britain moved from burning coal to burning oil to provide power in the 70's 80's 90's.

The market for coal was declining, it was only a political decision prior to Thatcher (to placate the NUM) that kept us still burning coal. It was obvious that the market for coal would decrease significantly meaning pits would have to close. A sensible union leader would have realised this and cut his cloth accordingly, accepted certain pit closures and reached a realistic deal with any governement.

Not Scargill though, no pits would close according to King Arthur, he called an indefinite strike without even balloting his members, which immediately caused a schism in the union he run. He went on TV programmes stating that his aim was to bring down the democratically elected government. I pity the poor mining communities that were led by this politically motivated fool. If a more moderate union leader had reached a sensible agreement with the government rather than declaring all out war then maybe members of the NUM would have more of an industry now a days.

Or don't you think the mines were f***ed whoever was in charge of the union, Thatcher wanted to smash the NUM after what went on in the 70's didn't she?

 

[simmo]

Well run businesses cause overall standards to rise not necessarily competition, in the German case we have three well run companies Audi/VW, Mercedes and BMW and they all have trade unions running at the heart of them. The difference is that they also have/had far better management than BL did in the 70's, it wasn't all the unions fault that the British car industry failed was it? Do you think they might possibly have had militant unions in Germany in the 70's?
Thatcher did destroy the mining industry by closing down all the pits, Arthur Scargill did not close down any pits. Whilst Thatcher was closing down the pits she imported cheaper coal from Poland, very patriotic of her wasn't it?
I think that there are only two countries in the developed world where the railways are privately owned, here and in Japan. Well Japan's are well run, ours aren't!

Well run businesses such as you list are the consequences of competition. Well run businesses thrive because there product is desirable to the public, poor business with undesirable products fail and go bust.

In a society with no competition the state run industry can offer any product it desires because there is no competition. It can continue to offer a worse and worse service and it will always be bailed out. Some state run industries can be run well and offer a good service, however this is purely down to the service that they decide to give. There is nothing to oblige them to do this, unlike in a free market, where if they don't they will go bankrupt and fail.

 

[Storer68]

If you have a state run service no one can compete against it.

If the water industry is privatised, competition is allowed to compete against it. The problem is that at present there is no true competition.

People will argue that a privatised run monopoly is worse however, this will happen in the early stages after privitisation because the old state run service inherit the infrastructure that was available so they can hit the ground running. Other companies have to invest in the infrastructure or whatever is required to allow them to compete in the market and this will take time and money.

When BT was first privatised people complained about it being a privately owned monopoly but it was because BT inherited the telephony infrastructure of this country. However, over time other companies have been built up and have now come into this market, now there are numerous telephony businesses competing for your business.

Talk, Talk are offering at present free broadband, all right I know the catches with this etc. etc and I am not interseted in the poor service that they give etc.etc.etc.. but come on do you honestly think this type of thing would have happened if BT was still a publicly owned company and no telephony company was allowed into a closed market. If BT was state owned still, they would not be under any obligation to provide broadband because the people of this country could turn to no-one else. Virgin also compete in the telephony market as well as they do for plane flights, train travel etc.

No one is obliged to offer you broadband.

And who do you think created and built the infrastructure base for Talk Talk and the others to offer their services. Waasn't the cpompanies offereing services

and Virgin do not COMPETE in the market. They are merely alternative supplier. If they were COMPETING in the market they would be establishinga rival infrastructure to that provided by BT. Why don't they? Cos its too f****g expensive for them to do it.

 

[Storer68]

Well run businesses such as you list are the consequences of competition. Well run businesses thrive because there product is desirable to the public, poor business with undesirable products fail and go bust.

In a society with no competition the state run industry can offer any product it desires because there is no competition. It can continue to offer a worse and worse service and it will always be bailed out. Some state run industries can be run well and offer a good service, however this is purely down to the service that they decide to give. There is nothing to oblige them to do this, unlike in a free market, where if they don't they will go bankrupt and fail.

After the war the Big Four railway companies of the grouping era were effectively bankrupt, and the Transport Act was intended to bring about some stability in transport policy. As part of that policy British Railways was set up to run the railways.

Given the fragile national economic situation of the late 1940s, however, an outright government purchase of the railway companies was too expensive to consider. The method chosen by the government was to compensate the shareholders of the former private railway companies, over a period of time, with guaranteed fixed interest payments paid from British Rail's income. The government had based the levels of compensation for former railway shareholders, on the peppercorn valuation of the railway companies in 1946, a time when the railways were in a dilapidated state because of war damage and minimal maintenance.

Despite nationalisation and the creation British Railways (BR), the rail system changed little, and was left in much the same way as it had been before nationalisation

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

After the war the Big Four railway companies of the grouping era were effectively bankrupt, and the Transport Act was intended to bring about some stability in transport policy. As part of that policy British Railways was set up to run the railways.

Given the fragile national economic situation of the late 1940s, however, an outright government purchase of the railway companies was too expensive to consider. The method chosen by the government was to compensate the shareholders of the former private railway companies, over a period of time, with guaranteed fixed interest payments paid from British Rail's income. The government had based the levels of compensation for former railway shareholders, on the peppercorn valuation of the railway companies in 1946, a time when the railways were in a dilapidated state because of war damage and minimal maintenance.

Despite nationalisation and the creation British Railways (BR), the rail system changed little, and was left in much the same way as it had been before nationalisation

The Thatcher regime deliberately starved British Rail of funds year after year. Fact. That's why the Labour government are having to pump billions into the railway infrastructure now. To make good the social vandalism of the discredited Thatcherite ruling junta.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

the elctricity industry was nationalised along with others in 1948 crating the cegb

And before that ... electricity was in municipal ownership (still public sector).

 

[Lord Bracknell]

I have also never said that trade unions were bad. What I will say is that on the whole BRITISH trade unions ruined the manufacturing industries in Britain. Because their leaders had political, mainly Communist, agendas and not the interests of their members at heart.

On the whole, British trade unions have NEVER been controlled by communists.

That's not to say that communists weren't active in some trade unions, but simmo is smearing the whole of the trade union movement in a way that even Thatcher refrained from doing.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I know I have, but it is hard not to stop as it is quite funny listenting to all the excuses people make as to what it is other than competition that makes a(ny) product/service better.

It is this very reason that Communism failed. There was no competition within any industries, therefore there was no necessity to improve the end product, therefore the quality of these goods fell further and further behind the West in every sphere, financially, militarily,social services everything, and in the end the communist system to all intense and purposes collapsed.

Take a look at East/West Germany. East Germany had the Trabant, West Germany had Audi/Mercedes/BMW/Volkswagen all competing against each other. Why were West German cars better than the Easts? They were all German engineers working on them, so no excuse there. The plants were in Germany, so no exploitation of cheap third world labour. So whats the excuse going to be this time?

You are an absolute bell-ender.