27 minutes ago, Doctor Tom said:

I think in two cases  it went too far (water, electricity) or was ill thought out ( Railways, Post Office).  Some were a success, (airports and airlines), some inevitable (coal, steel). The trouble is not the actual philosophy of privatization, it's the feckless, inefficient, entitled workforces in the various sectors, managed by the second rate, on behalf of the people.  

Of course, blame the workers.

 

 

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Of course, blame the workers.

 

 

Why not, it's often their fault . A feckless, WFH obsessed and entitled workforce, who want more money for less work, added to incompetent, ill trained, over promoted  management is a very toxic mix.  The UK has this in spades. 

9 minutes ago, Doctor Tom said:

Why not, it's often their fault . A feckless, WFH obsessed and entitled workforce, who want more money for less work, added to incompetent, ill trained, over promoted  management is a very toxic mix.  The UK has this in spades. 

Tell us what you do/did for living.

 

 

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Tell us what you do/did for living.

 

 

Its in my profile 

1 minute ago, Doctor Tom said:

Its in my profile 

so shall we take that you have zero experience working in any of the industries you are discussing?

39 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

so shall we take that you have zero experience working in any of the industries you are discussing?

I worked and managed in both the chemical industry and in aviation transport. 

1 hour ago, Doctor Tom said:

Agreed, not when the electorate are ignorant, ill educated  and can't see past their own noses.  Democracy in that background, is unworkable.  Unfortunately, any alternative is infinitely worse   

 

1 hour ago, Doctor Tom said:

I think in two cases  it went too far (water, electricity) or was ill thought out ( Railways, Post Office).  Some were a success, (airports and airlines), some inevitable (coal, steel). The trouble is not the actual philosophy of privatization, it's the feckless, inefficient, entitled workforces in the various sectors, managed by the second rate, on behalf of the people.  

 

You don't appear to have a very high opinion of the general public.

 

Imo the problem WAS the 'philosophy' of privatisation (capitalism) - at least as practiced by Thatcher - which seemingly centred on the idea that all regulation was bad and that private sector monopolies were more efficient than their public counterparts.

 

As I said previously, evidence over the last 40 years suggests otherwise and that public goods e.g. water, gas, electricity, telecomms, etc, which are natural monopolies and require large capital investment, are better off being centrally managed by the state.

3 minutes ago, RayC said:

You don't appear to have a very high opinion of the general public.

I don't have a high opinion of humanity,  period. We are a savage, nasty, destructive, criminal species,  that nature and the Universe can well do without.  Fortunately, we will inevitably be the architect of our own destruction and extinction. The Universe will not miss us. 

3 minutes ago, Doctor Tom said:

I don't have a high opinion of humanity,  period. We are a savage, nasty, destructive, criminal species,  that nature and the Universe can well do without.  Fortunately, we will inevitably be the architect of our own destruction and extinction. The Universe will not miss us. 

 

Well, that's pretty definite and final. All I offer in reply is, 'Have a nice day'😉

2 hours ago, RayC said:

would suggest that 40 years is more than enough elapsed time to start drawing conclusions regarding the costs and benefits of privatisation.

Using what alternative as proof? There is no way of comparing. Would nationalised utilities have performed better? Would energy prices be cheaper? Would the consumer have been better off, possible higher taxes to pay for improvements and research?

 

We'll never know.

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

so shall we take that you have zero experience working in any of the industries you are discussing?

Why?

 

PhD gives you the right to be called Doctor.

2 hours ago, Doctor Tom said:

I worked and managed in both the chemical industry and in aviation transport. 

Never on the shop floor then.

1 hour ago, youreavinalaff said:

Why?

 

PhD gives you the right to be called Doctor.

Who said it doesn’t?

 

 

All these low life scum being thrown in prison must be why there seems to be fewer troll posts on here lately.

2 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

Using what alternative as proof? There is no way of comparing. Would nationalised utilities have performed better? Would energy prices be cheaper? Would the consumer have been better off, possible higher taxes to pay for improvements and research?

 

We'll never know.

 

It's a 'sliding doors' argument. Using your rationale few, if any, government policies or decisions can ever be judged as we can't know what would happened if the alternative(s) had been enacted.

 

I have already supplied links about the  effects of the privatisation of some utilities e.g. water in the 1980s. Imo this evidence suggests that the negative effects outweigh the positive.

 

As for a direct point of comparison. What about Railtrack? The privatised company went into administration. Without government intervention, the UK would have had no functioning rail service. There cannot be any doubt that would have been a negative outcome.

54 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Who said it doesn’t?

 

 

Then why did you say what you said. Why suggest the poster had no experience working inbsaid industries when it's perfectly plausible he could have. In fact, he's confirmed he did.

2 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

It's a 'sliding doors' argument. Using your rationale few, if any, government policies or decisions can ever be judged as we can't know what would happened if the alternative(s) had been enacted.

 

I have already supplied links about the  effects of the privatisation of some utilities e.g. water in the 1980s. Imo this evidence suggests that the negative effects outweigh the positive.

 

As for a direct point of comparison. What about Railtrack? The privatised company went into administration. Without government intervention, the UK would have had no functioning rail service. There cannot be any doubt that would have been a negative outcome.

You've supplied link, I agree.

 

Now, supply a link of what would have happened had no utilities been privatised. 

 

It will then be possible to see what would have been the best way forward.

46 minutes ago, shdmn said:

All these low life scum being thrown in prison must be why there seems to be fewer troll posts on here lately.

But I see the keyboard warriors are still alive and kicking.

12 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Then why did you say what you said. Why suggest the poster had no experience working inbsaid industries when it's perfectly plausible he could have. In fact, he's confirmed he did.

Actually he hasn’t confirmed he was working in the previously nationalized industries under discussion.

 

 

12 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

You've supplied link, I agree.

 

Now, supply a link of what would have happened had no utilities been privatised. 

 

It will then be possible to see what would have been the best way forward.

Nationalization wasn’t about ‘the best way forward’, it was wholesale asset stripping.

 

The Tories were not interested in how the businesses were run, they were interested in selling off the assets to their chums in the city.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Actually he hasn’t confirmed he was working in the previously nationalized industries under discussion.

 

 

He has. The industries under discussion are privatised industries. 

 

I believe there have been privatisations within aviation.

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Nationalization wasn’t about ‘the best way forward’, it was wholesale asset stripping.

 

The Tories were not interested in how the businesses were run, they were interested in selling off the assets to their chums in the city.

 

 

Actually, no. They were publicly listed. Anyone could buy shares in the floatation. No need to be anyone's chum.

 

I won't comment on the first incorrect part of your post. I'll let you go back and modify it.

 

 

9 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

You've supplied link, I agree.

 

Now, supply a link of what would have happened had no utilities been privatised. 

 

It will then be possible to see what would have been the best way forward.

 

Alternatively, you could supply a link(s) detailing how the '80s privatisations benefitted the UK and then we could have a discussion about the relative merits of our cases.

 

There are most probably studies which considered alternative scenarios to the mass privatisations of the '80s. 

 

I note that you ignore the evidence I put forward about Railtrack.

Just now, RayC said:

 

Alternatively, you could supply a link(s) detailing how the '80s privatisations benefitted the UK and then we could have a discussion about the relative merits of our cases.

 

There are most probably studies which considered alternative scenarios to the mass privatisations of the '80s. 

 

I note that you ignore the evidence I put forward about Railtrack.

Exactly my point. A futile discussion.

 

No one can say what would gave happened in comparison had utilities not been privatised.

 

Not ignoring any evidence, by the way.

14 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Exactly my point. A futile discussion.

 

No one can say what would gave happened in comparison had utilities not been privatised.

 

Not ignoring any evidence, by the way.

 

As I said previously, you are employing  a 'sliding doors' type argument. This renders any discussion meaninglessness.

 

What would have happened if the IRA had succeeded in assassinating Thatcher? What if Gordon Brown - not Tony Blair - had succeeded John Smith? No doubt scenarios can be modelled, but there are an almost infinite number of permutations and underlining assumptions, so imo it is a meaningless exercise.

 

Very few, if any, government policy decisions can be definitely categorised as 'good' or 'bad'. What we should do is make an 'informed' opinion based on the evidence. In the case of the privatisation of public goods in the '80s - and at the risk of over-generalising - I would contend that the evidence suggests that it did more harm than good.

1 minute ago, RayC said:

 

As I said previously, you are employing  a 'sliding doors' type argument. This renders any discussion meaninglessness.

 

What would have happened if the IRA had succeeded in assassinating Thatcher? What if Gordon Brown - not Tony Blair - had succeeded John Smith? No doubt scenarios can be modelled, but there are an almost infinite number of permutations and underlining assumptions, so imo it is a meaningless exercise.

 

Very few, if any, government policy decisions can be definitely categorised as 'good' or 'bad'. What we should do is make an 'informed' opinion based on the evidence. In the case of the privatisation of public goods in the '80s - and at the risk of over-generalising - I would contend that the evidence suggests that it did more harm than good.

I suggested a while ago that this discussion is meaning less.  

 

It's taken you this long to agree.

24 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Actually, no. They were publicly listed. Anyone could buy shares in the floatation. No need to be anyone's chum.

 

I won't comment on the first incorrect part of your post. I'll let you go back and modify it.

 

 

OK you are aware that the assets were stripped before the companies where sold to the public.

 

British Rail being a prime example; BR city/town center real estate and hotels where sold privately by the Government before what was left of BR was sold as shares.

 

Likewise British Steel, likewise the nationalized water companies.

 

Daylight plunder of the nation’s assets.

 

 

 

 

40 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

He has. The industries under discussion are privatised industries. 

 

I believe there have been privatisations within aviation.

The industries he says he worked in are not.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The industries he says he worked in are not.

 

 

He said he worked in Aviation. You must have a short memory.

3 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

He said he worked in Aviation. You must have a short memory.

Pin your hopes on that then.