Privatising the tote.

The difference now is that private companies in the UK are highly-regulated in ways that weren't in force in the era Walsy is thinking of (late Victorian to the mid-1970s). With the advent of H&S, working conditions are very much safer; with endless EU edicts about the environment, that's much more protected, and as for corner-cutting, name me any nationalised organisation which didn't do that, as well as sit on its arse having endless tea-breaks at the taxpayers' expense? There are well-documented disasters in terms of human loss under nationalisation, so I think it's all rather irrelevant to argue the toss on such emotive terms, unless we want to take a close look at Councils which have wrecked greenfield areas forever, to allow private builders to erect hideous 'estates' on them, instead of regenerating their Council-degraded brownfield ones, and so on and on? Surely not a case of taking a bung here and there? Of course not!

I see this has ended up in Chit-Chat and has been removed from Racing topics. Bit of a shame, but understandable as it's wandered off-course into a debate of private vs national ownership, Left/Right, toffs vs plebs, etc., etc.
 
Last edited:
Two serious accidents in 20 years or so isn't bad going Walsworth - particularly given the various incidents during the Nationalised service we had prior to that.
 
I think whether a company faces competition or not is a lot more important than whether it is public or private sector.
 
Irish Stamp said:
Two serious accidents in 20 years or so isn't bad going Walsworth - particularly given the various incidents during the Nationalised service we had prior to that.
Click to expand...
Where and when were these incidents you speak of and what were the causes? The simple cause of both that I quoted is cost cutting.
 
Last edited:
Hatfield - Balfour Beatty guilty of poor maintenance (laziness/ineptitude). Potters Bar - staff sent to check the wrong line (idiocy). I'm not sure either incident could be called as due to cost-cutting, Walsy. Nor do I think nationalised services preclude laziness, incompetency, recklessness, corruption, or idiotic behaviour. I don't think the private sector singularly has cornered the market in those.
 
Last edited:
It certainly is caused by cost cutting because they were using unskilled and possibly unscrupulous sub contractors to do the jobs that were previously done by permanent staff who knew every inch of their line.
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
Absolute rubbish. It was a wait of 12 weeks for a phone under the nationlised BT. What is it now? 12 hours given how competitive it is i would say

Nationlised Steel was a massive inefficeint drain on the tax payer. Totally uncompetitive and did little more than provide non-jobs in certain constituencies

Water hasnt been a success or rail (mostly) but the idea that a grossly overstaffed, heavily subsidised (which drains resources from the rest of the economy) loss making shambles is "efficient" is bizarre. Simple fact is that private companies have to deliver. Nationalised ones dont

Right...shall we analyse British leyland now
Click to expand...
Sometimes I wonder what planet you live on Clivex.

BT was privatised in 1985. I was married in 1981. I recall phoning them (for free) to enquire about a phone for our new house. It was installed the next day. When I moved to this house in 1996, there was a fault with the phone. It took them a week to fix it, and they only did so when I threatened to go to another provider. It took them 3 months to sort my daughter's broadband and when I reported it on here at the time plenty others added to the thread with their tales of similar woe about BT. They are also way down the table of satisfaction in Which? magazine.

The same could be said for British Gas. Never a bother under nationalisation. Nothing but hassle since.

Rail service? You could set your watch by the trains. Now you know you're taking a gamble when you buy a ticket. Will it be on time? Will I get a seat?

Nationalised steel was a drain but it was fixable. Same with so many other industries. Nationalisation wasn't necessarily the answer. Evolution of company practices - just as huge improvements in teaching methodologies and learning skills in schools have evolved - would have sorted things.
Click to expand...
 
12 week waiting lists DO. Often quoted and never denied and certainly experienced in my part of the world. i know that for a fact. Next day? Never

Steel was 2fixable" was it?

Evolution of company practices - just as huge improvements in teaching methodologies and learning skills in schools have evolved - would have sorted things.
Click to expand...

???? what? A new HR policy would have turned British steel into profit? That is all that was needed?

have you ever heard of the market? Cost of labour ? economics? Maths?
 
Last edited:
Rail service? You could set your watch by the trains. Now you know you're taking a gamble when you buy a ticket. Will it be on time? Will I get a seat?
Click to expand...

You are being serious? You genuinely believe that the old BR was as punctual as the swiss railway system?
 
Last edited:
walsworth said:
Where and when were these incidents you speak of and what were the causes? The simple cause of both that I quoted is cost cutting.
Click to expand...
Lewisham 1957
Stechford 1967
Lockington 1986
Harrow And Wealdstone 1952
Hither Green 1967
Clapham Junction 1988

All of the above had higher fatality rates than at Hatfield (4 killed) and a number had higher fatality rates than at Potter's Bar (7 killed) - most notably the accident at Clapham Junction crash in 1988 in which 35 were killed.
 
I think the "accidents are caused by privitisation" points are a bit on the sick side myself. But either way, perhaps some would like to comment on the comparative safety records of pre private Aeroflot and the commercial airlines in the west?

thought not.....
 
Last edited:
most notably the accident at Clapham Junction crash in 1988 in which 35 were killed.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Friend of mine was actually on that train. He walked (well probably ran) away ok
 
clivex said:
???? what? A new HR policy would have turned British steel into profit? That is all that was needed?

have you ever heard of the market? Cost of labour ? economics? Maths?
Click to expand...
I studied Political Economy at university so indeed I have.

I didn't say anythng about a new HR policy. Clearly you don't understand much about anything.

But I've had enough of your clueless sniping. You're an ignoramus so you're on on ignore. Don't bother trying to come back at me.
 
Last edited:
Think what you like but

Nationalised steel was a drain but it was fixable. Same with so many other industries. Nationalisation wasn't necessarily the answer. Evolution of company practices - just as huge improvements in teaching methodologies and learning skills in schools have evolved - would have sorted things
Click to expand...

is one of the most bizarre things ive read on here, not least for the arrogant view that you knew the solution all along and that this extremely fringe issue was all that was wrong with BS

BS's problems were down to overcapacity, uncompetitiveness and (maybe worst of all) ludicrous overexpansion (for political reasons...Ravenscraig being prime example) at a time of falling demand. Also, like all nationlised industries, there was no accountability and no incentive to correct what was effectively a bankrupt organisation. Not one of these factors would have been resolved by "company practices"

As ever you get personal when backed into a corner....as if im bothered
 
Last edited:
I've got to be honest and say I speak from a position of Higher Ignorance here, but wasn't steel's problem that (nationalised or not) because of our higher labour and overhead costs (not least to meet stringent H&S regulations not blessed by other countries) we just outpriced ourselves? I thought that was the same with our shipbuilding (hence Korea nicking that number) and coal? I'm happy to be told I'm wrong, but I thought most - if not all - of the loss of our industrial base was down to us not being able to compete financially?

If our steelworkers were earning 10x the Koreans workers' salaries, if the Koreans worked longer hours without mandatory tea breaks, overheads were lower overseas, and H&S - which is costly to implement - was barely in place, if at all (viz the constantly-sinking "Panamanian/Liberian-registered" ships in the 1970s!), then surely we scored an own goal - nothing to do with being nationalised? Our workers wanted cars, their own, not the Council's, home, bigger tvs and holidays in Spain. The Koreans et al just wanted to eat!
 
Last edited:
krizon said:
I've got to be honest and say I speak from a position of Higher Ignorance here, but wasn't steel's problem that (nationalised or not) because of our higher labour and overhead costs (not least to meet stringent H&S regulations not blessed by other countries) we just outpriced ourselves? I thought that was the same with our shipbuilding (hence Korea nicking that number) and coal? I'm happy to be told I'm wrong, but I thought most - if not all - of the loss of our industrial base was down to us not being able to compete financially?

If our steelworkers were earning 10x the Koreans workers' salaries, if the Koreans worked longer hours without mandatory tea breaks, overheads were lower overseas, and H&S - which is costly to implement - was barely in place, if at all (viz the constantly-sinking "Panamanian/Liberian-registered" ships in the 1970s!), then surely we scored an own goal - nothing to do with being nationalised? Our workers wanted cars, their own, not the Council's, home, bigger tvs and holidays in Spain. The Koreans et al just wanted to eat!
Click to expand...
Costs were indeed the main issue with the collapse of our manufacturing and mining industries - it's a good job we shut up shop with the coal in the 1980's, if we hadn't we'd have experienced this recession but 10,000 times worse with higher unemployment due to the lack of jobs in the tertiary industries which came as a result of the closing of the coal mines etc.

As one business official for a firm with a factory in the North East put it "If everyone in our Sunderland factory worked for free, it would still be cheaper to produce the goods in Korea". We priced ourselves out of the market (or rather East Asia priced itself into the market).
 
Last edited:
I'd love to see ministers on performance-based bonuses! Cut out the expenses lark and the second homes, or perhaps have them earn those as privileges based on annual points for efficiency? I think you've got a brilliant idea there, mrussell!
 
Thank, you, Krizon.

One does one's best. Circumstances are difficult at times, though.
I'm sure we all find that.

Amazing that people have the strength to go on promoting their somewhat forthright views. Must be in the breeding, do you think?

Not so much of the Arab, more Barb -- have I remembered rightly?

:)
 
What on Earth is a "tertiary industry"?

I remember a story from long ago about Henry Ford and a Union official. Mr. Ford was explaing how these new fangled automatic machine tools would not need to take a break, go to the toilet and could work 24 hours of the day. The Union official replied "They don't buy motor cars, do they?"
 
Back
Top