Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Lizzie_Zoom on 30 December 2010, 18:40:06
-
I am sure everyone has seen the news about the Northern Ireland water supply problems. Some people may not get reconnected until next week!!
Now as a Conservative I have always favoured privatisation.
Can anyone argue why nationalisation is so good, given the poor performance (40% below the private companies in the rest of the UK according to their Irish regulator) of the nationalised water system in NI? ::) ::)
The N. Irish may not at the moment pay water rates, but they apparently soon will to boost investment. ;) ;)
-
sounds more like monopoly, need to go round board and get £200 and buy water board!!(when you land on it)...
-
They jumped on the AGW bandwagon:
...the predicted trends on a global scale and national scale indicate that we will see increases in temperatures, less defined seasons...
http://www.niwater.com/climatechange.asp
So, no preparation for cold winters as the warmists said snow and ice would be a thing of the past. Typical of state services these days, I'm afraid (like ordering in less road grit, for the same reasons). ::) ::)
-
They jumped on the AGW bandwagon:
...the predicted trends on a global scale and national scale indicate that we will see increases in temperatures, less defined seasons...
http://www.niwater.com/climatechange.asp
So, no preparation for cold winters as the warmists said snow and ice would be a thing of the past. Typical of state services these days, I'm afraid (like ordering in less road grit, for the same reasons). ::) ::)
And don't get me started on the retards at my local council, who think its fine not to collect rubbish for a bloody month over the friggin christmas period >:(
-
I am sure everyone has seen the news about the Northern Ireland water supply problems. Some people may not get reconnected until next week!!
Now as a Conservative I have always favoured privatisation.
Can anyone argue why nationalisation is so good, given the poor performance (40% below the private companies in the rest of the UK according to their Irish regulator) of the nationalised water system in NI? ::) ::)
The N. Irish may not at the moment pay water rates, but they apparently soon will to boost investment. ;) ;)
On the final point Lizzie.......
The impression given in some media reports was that there are currently no water charges, which is misleading. Households pay for water as part of their overall domestic rates - there is no council tax in Northern Ireland - which also go towards education, health and transport.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6498983.stm
This has been a vexed question for some time now - especially since the new rate revaluation system introduced by the last Labour government hiking the domestic rates considerably for some.
In general this new company - government owned but operationally independent (quasi private) has made a poor job of managing the resource....
Four NI Water board members have been sacked following an investigation into how the company awards its contracts.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8563672.stm
And so this story has history and will, no doubt, continue to make history.
On the general point of privatisation I have few problems with the general concept - when robust and truly independent regulation is available to contain the excesses of private concerns, but since when in this country has that been seen to really work in the favour of the consumer?.
The untoward effects of the ever present desire for private companies to protect the ‘bottom line’ will be felt, no doubt, next year when the train operators in the UK will attempt to hike fare prices once again on some lines.
January Train Ticket Price Hike 'Outrageous'
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Business/Rail-Tickets-To-Rise-In-Price-By-An-Average-Of-62-From-January-2011/Article/201011415823646
Privatisation - fair enough - but for opps's sake regulate it properly.
-
On the rail price hikes - GOOD!
Rather than everyone subsidise them, make those who use it pay for it!
-
On the rail price hikes - GOOD!
Rather than everyone subsidise them, make those who use it pay for it!
I agree TB! :y :y :y :y
If the railway system to be brought up to 21st century standards massive investment is required. The people who aim to get the most out of the railways should pay for them. :y :y
-
I should also point out I am very much against HS2 - and not just because it passes my front door (its too far from me to affect me).
-
I should also point out I am very much against HS2 - and not just because it passes my front door (its too far from me to affect me).
Ah, but that is in the National interest, so that may be one of those exceptions. Private money will no doubt be invested in it though ;)
-
I should also point out I am very much against HS2 - and not just because it passes my front door (its too far from me to affect me).
Ah, but that is in the National interest, so that may be one of those exceptions. Private money will no doubt be invested in it though ;)
Why is it in the National interest? Only a limited few will ever be able to make use of it.
-
I should also point out I am very much against HS2 - and not just because it passes my front door (its too far from me to affect me).
Ah, but that is in the National interest, so that may be one of those exceptions. Private money will no doubt be invested in it though ;)
Why is it in the National interest? Only a limited few will ever be able to make use of it.
Well the Northerners will be able to come down to the Southerners easily, and visa versa! We will no longer be a divided nation. Have we not got closer to the French since the Chunnel and HS1 was built? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)
-
interestingly just finished watching Robin Hood DVD on pc for the second time ;)
after messing up with some codecs that I dont understand well.. wish if it was not too late so I could write long pages.. ;)
-
may be simplicity is better..
privatisation in the long term practicality shows tendency to uplift personal/group/cartels profits more than the societys needs .. causing the prices to go up.. which then later you need to balance with making extra laws where the community and the senate will face numerous problems ..
history and examples prooved that a million times so I'll cut here.. :y
-
interestingly just finished watching Robin Hood DVD on pc for the second time ;)
;D ;D ;D Splendid. :y
-
may be simplicity is better..
privatisation in the long term practicality shows tendency to uplift personal/group/cartels profits more than the societys needs .. causing the prices to go up.. which then later you need to balance with making extra laws where the community and the senate will face numerous problems ..
history and examples prooved that a million times so I'll cut here.. :y
I'm minded to agree with you cem - there may be a fair old capitalist streak running through me but there's also a bit of a socialist in there as well. :y
-
may be simplicity is better..
privatisation in the long term practicality shows tendency to uplift personal/group/cartels profits more than the societys needs .. causing the prices to go up.. which then later you need to balance with making extra laws where the community and the senate will face numerous problems ..
history and examples prooved that a million times so I'll cut here.. :y
I'm minded to agree with you cem - there may be a fair old capitalist streak running through me but there's also a bit of a socialist in there as well. :y
:y :y
-
interestingly just finished watching Robin Hood DVD on pc for the second time ;)
;D ;D ;D Splendid. :y
thanks Zulu :y
-
I should also point out I am very much against HS2 - and not just because it passes my front door (its too far from me to affect me).
Ah, but that is in the National interest, so that may be one of those exceptions. Private money will no doubt be invested in it though ;)
Why is it in the National interest? Only a limited few will ever be able to make use of it.
Well the Northerners will be able to come down to the Southerners easily, and visa versa! We will no longer be a divided nation. Have we not got closer to the French since the Chunnel and HS1 was built? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)
Two very good reasons to strangle the project at birth. ;) ::) ;D
(only joking about the first one) ;)
-
Zulu - do you have any idea how the level of rates in Norn Irn would compare with a combination of council tax and water bills on the mainland ?
I have the impression that they are paying a lot less over there at present, but I could be wrong. :-/
-
Zulu - do you have any idea how the level of rates in Norn Irn would compare with a combination of council tax and water bills on the mainland ?
I have the impression that they are paying a lot less over there at present, but I could be wrong. :-/
This is another one that caused some rancour when it was rolled out.
There was a subsequent revaluation along the lines originally envisaged that did in fact raise the valuations on more than a few properties which, at the time, was painful given the runaway price hikes in the housing market.
Although prices have now dropped back to a point where they are almost, but quite, moribund another revaluation is due in the near future.
Have a look at the following and you'll get a feel for what had been happening there and what may happen here on the mainland should the single capital valuation scheme eventually come into force.
http://www.fairratescampaign.co.uk/rates_reform.html
-
I think whichever system they use will probably be cack, but I believe that there should be a single UK system.
-
We still have Scottish Water up here Liz, which is still, rightly, a public authority and works on the basis of providing water at the lowest reasonable cost - highly regulated and closely monitored as Zulu says - it seems to work well enough - its a cheaper and more efficient service than that provided by our southern neighbours :y
NI's problems stem from chronic under investment in infrastructure, which i believe a report by the Institute of Civil Engineers highlighted about 10 years ago would lead to severe water shortages....seems no one listened :o
-
I think whichever system they use will probably be cack, but I believe that there should be a single UK system.
Well as you know anything to do with Northern Ireland will in most cases carry a heavy political burden.
There were shameful tactics used by direct rule ministers at various points in the recent past to 'encourage' the local elders to smoke the peace-pipe in a slightly more civilised way and fall into line with Westminster’s chosen path.
The ratings system and water charges were but two of them but in the end it was, and will continue to be, a stunted process as the main protagonists are too dissimilar to eventually coalesce into an homogenised group with a clear plan to reinvigorate what is an essentially stagnant country.
It's the natural consequence of putting people into government at any cost and hoping that it will work.
The main problem of course is that the war is far from over.
-
Very wise words uncle Z. :y
-
I think whichever system they use will probably be cack, but I believe that there should be a single UK system.
Well as you know anything to do with Northern Ireland will in most cases carry a heavy political burden.
There were shameful tactics used by direct rule ministers at various points in the recent past to 'encourage' the local elders to smoke the peace-pipe in a slightly more civilised way and fall into line with Westminster’s chosen path.
The ratings system and water charges were but two of them but in the end it was, and will continue to be, a stunted process as the main protagonists are too dissimilar to eventually coalesce into an homogenised group with a clear plan to reinvigorate what is an essentially stagnant country.
It's the natural consequence of putting people into government at any cost and hoping that it will work.
The main problem of course is that the war is far from over.
Potentially hit the nail on the head there Zulu, and in terms of Lizzie's original query regarding privatisation, I disagree with it. As in effect it is off-book accounting for the government, as they will still hold shares to an extent within the company, and will still cost the government and us as taxpayers money in the long run.
The current government's plans are to privatise as much as they possibly can within local authorities, but funding the changes in the short term. However, there is no guarantee that this will improve the services currently being provided that they are looking at changing. have a read of the Governments comprehensive spending reveiw, where it is all spelled out.
I would'nt mind so much but this government was'nt even voted in. I don't see the current governemnt improving anything for this country at all, stroll on the next election :y
-
Could the answer to Lizzies original question be as simple as " The NI government spent all the money on peace keeping" . That would seem reasonable to me. The Scottish and Welsh governments didn't spend that sort of money on peace keeping.
On the general subject of privatisation. personally I think they are a bad thing. There should be no reason at all why a government run company should be any more or less efficient than a privately run one. In fact you could argue that it doesn't need to make money for its shareholders (Nationwide BS versus Halifax - no contest). The one deciding issue for me is that the people owned the utilities and then they were sold off (often at a discount) and are now owned by Johnny Foreigner! Now that really is the economics of the madhouse. It won't bite us today or tomorrow but one day it will.
-
Potentially hit the nail on the head there Zulu, and in terms of Lizzie's original query regarding privatisation, I disagree with it. As in effect it is off-book accounting for the government, as they will still hold shares to an extent within the company, and will still cost the government and us as taxpayers money in the long run.
The current government's plans are to privatise as much as they possibly can within local authorities, but funding the changes in the short term. However, there is no guarantee that this will improve the services currently being provided that they are looking at changing. have a read of the Governments comprehensive spending reveiw, where it is all spelled out.
I would'nt mind so much but this government was'nt even voted in. I don't see the current governemnt improving anything for this country at all, stroll on the next election :y
That's it Mick - when you start peeling back the layers of the onion you may well find that the centre is rotten.
There's too much ballicking about within government at the moment – although, without doubt, actually trying to govern and talking about it when without responsibility in opposition are entirely different animals so it’s far from easy.
There’s no substitute for strong, capable government working under clear mandate and I more than agree with you that we needn’t hold our breath for the present bunch to do much in the constructive sense for the country any time soon.
Finally on the privatisation note, I don’t really mind if it’s properly regulated but insofar as strategic infrastructure is concerned I can’t really accept that it’s sensible to leave these vital services totally in the hands of private concerns.
Lizzie herself highlighted the basic flaw in the whole notion – citing national importance - when she recognised that the proposed fast rail link (HS2) would never be built using money from entirely private sources. This confirms to me (even though it will be a sizeable project) that the ‘bottom-line’ will always be the prime motivational factor when the private sector considers getting involved in these capital projects.
-
Could the answer to Lizzies original question be as simple as " The NI government spent all the money on peace keeping" . That would seem reasonable to me. The Scottish and Welsh governments didn't spend that sort of money on peace keeping.
For Northern Ireland Government substitute Westminster as the Stormont based elected government in Belfast was prorogued in 1972 and abolished in 1973.
And yes, V, all the chickens have eventually come home to roost as there was a phenomenal amount of resources directed into the security budget - with other services, water included, suffering correspondingly.
-
mmmmmmm 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) A lot of really interesting observations on this topic, which have highlighted the complexities of the private / government involvement in what is in the case of NI water a nationally important resource.
You can do without the trains and buses running when the managerial system collapses with money running out. But with water it is an essential of life, an almost 'right' that the people have this fuel of life in a clean and running condition in a first rate country in the 21st century.
As stated by some bottom line profit is an essential element in a healthy organization, not just to reward those who invest in it, but critically to invest in the best people talent and the infrastructure of the system; in this case the water distribution system. Socialist beliefs in the past in the UK and elsewhere have created large state monoplies, operating for the good of the people, not profit. An admirable aim and theory perhaps, but, sorry to the socialists on here, it just does not work in most cases.
Without that healthy private competition and investment, with profits, the system is neglected, it is controlled by politicians who know little about the industry they control. British Rail as just one example was run almost into the ground by incompetents who knew nothing about railways, who would not invest in it as required, but used it for political means. The result was a decrepit, backward, under funded, railway with the skilled core of the business of old, the staff, gone, that would have suited a third world country.
The NI water fiasco is yet another example of politicians thinking they can run a business, only investing what they think is right. Look at the result. Think also of past socialist government involvement in the British Steel, Coal, and Car industries; they became a national, very expensive, embarrassment along with the rest of the country until the great days of Thatcher of course!! 8-) 8-) ;D ;D ;)
-
Nationalisation could work if there wasn't 1 manager for every worker and all those mp's/councilers with there fingers in multiple pies at any one time.
-
Nationalisation could work if there wasn't 1 manager for every worker and all those mp's/councilers with there fingers in multiple pies at any one time.
You have hit the nail on the head there in just a few words Hi! 8-) 8-) :y :y :y :y :y
That is the inefficiency which causes the state industry to become a non-viable entity. In the USSR of old that was so common in the 'workers co-operatives' and other state industries, but the capitalist system of private enterprise has taught them new tricks and new success, but at the expense of corruption at the moment ;)
-
mmmmmmm 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) A lot of really interesting observations on this topic, which have highlighted the complexities of the private / government involvement in what is in the case of NI water a nationally important resource.
You can do without the trains and buses running when the managerial system collapses with money running out. But with water it is an essential of life, an almost 'right' that the people have this fuel of life in a clean and running condition in a first rate country in the 21st century.
As stated by some bottom line profit is an essential element in a healthy organization, not just to reward those who invest in it, but critically to invest in the best people talent and the infrastructure of the system; in this case the water distribution system. Socialist beliefs in the past in the UK and elsewhere have created large state monoplies, operating for the good of the people, not profit. An admirable aim and theory perhaps, but, sorry to the socialists on here, it just does not work in most cases.
Without that healthy private competition and investment, with profits, the system is neglected, it is controlled by politicians who know little about the industry they control. British Rail as just one example was run almost into the ground by incompetents who knew nothing about railways, who would not invest in it as required, but used it for political means. The result was a decrepit, backward, under funded, railway with the skilled core of the business of old, the staff, gone, that would have suited a third world country.
The NI water fiasco is yet another example of politicians thinking they can run a business, only investing what they think is right. Look at the result. Think also of past socialist government involvement in the British Steel, Coal, and Car industries; they became a national, very expensive, embarrassment along with the rest of the country until the great days of Thatcher of course!! 8-) 8-) ;D ;D ;)
The key aspect here is resourcing eg staff with the correct skills and having realistic strategic approach whether it be in the private or public sector. Yours pints taken on-board Lizzie re - past failures. However, there have been improvements in certain areas/aspects since those days. I go back to my original point of privatisation in that it does cost the taxpayer more in the long run, and the normal Joe Bloggs also pays for the service, whether it be utilities or rail use, so effectively being hit twice eg increased charges:(, and what is the real cost of privatisation, no mention of that :-/, from the current government, whatever happens we are the people that are lumbered with their decisions.
The current government plan on ploughing millions into privitisation, resulting in job losses that the private sector are supposed to pick up, which the government say the job centre will help those that have lost their jobs to get work in the private sector. How much will that cost the taxpayer, well probably not that much given all the benefit cuts pending, nuff said :y
-
mmmmmmm 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) A lot of really interesting observations on this topic, which have highlighted the complexities of the private / government involvement in what is in the case of NI water a nationally important resource.
You can do without the trains and buses running when the managerial system collapses with money running out. But with water it is an essential of life, an almost 'right' that the people have this fuel of life in a clean and running condition in a first rate country in the 21st century.
As stated by some bottom line profit is an essential element in a healthy organization, not just to reward those who invest in it, but critically to invest in the best people talent and the infrastructure of the system; in this case the water distribution system. Socialist beliefs in the past in the UK and elsewhere have created large state monoplies, operating for the good of the people, not profit. An admirable aim and theory perhaps, but, sorry to the socialists on here, it just does not work in most cases.
Without that healthy private competition and investment, with profits, the system is neglected, it is controlled by politicians who know little about the industry they control. British Rail as just one example was run almost into the ground by incompetents who knew nothing about railways, who would not invest in it as required, but used it for political means. The result was a decrepit, backward, under funded, railway with the skilled core of the business of old, the staff, gone, that would have suited a third world country.
The NI water fiasco is yet another example of politicians thinking they can run a business, only investing what they think is right. Look at the result. Think also of past socialist government involvement in the British Steel, Coal, and Car industries; they became a national, very expensive, embarrassment along with the rest of the country until the great days of Thatcher of course!! 8-) 8-) ;D ;D ;)
I would still argue that a)
any company whether state owned or privately owned can be run efficiently given the correct management. Plenty of talented people about.
b) In banking Nationwide (not run for greed) is more efficient- better intertest rates and so on than Halifax etc (run for greed). It stands to reason if you are running a business and have to pay shareholders 55 of profits you are already wrong footed to the tune of .....well five percent.
As to the national good. Take water companies. Plenty of the stuff in North West Britain. Not a lot in the South East. A national pipeline would have solved that BUT which water company would want to pay for that? Answer NONE. But a national company could have. National interest versus Private greed.
-
mmmmmmm 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) A lot of really interesting observations on this topic, which have highlighted the complexities of the private / government involvement in what is in the case of NI water a nationally important resource.
You can do without the trains and buses running when the managerial system collapses with money running out. But with water it is an essential of life, an almost 'right' that the people have this fuel of life in a clean and running condition in a first rate country in the 21st century.
As stated by some bottom line profit is an essential element in a healthy organization, not just to reward those who invest in it, but critically to invest in the best people talent and the infrastructure of the system; in this case the water distribution system. Socialist beliefs in the past in the UK and elsewhere have created large state monoplies, operating for the good of the people, not profit. An admirable aim and theory perhaps, but, sorry to the socialists on here, it just does not work in most cases.
Without that healthy private competition and investment, with profits, the system is neglected, it is controlled by politicians who know little about the industry they control. British Rail as just one example was run almost into the ground by incompetents who knew nothing about railways, who would not invest in it as required, but used it for political means. The result was a decrepit, backward, under funded, railway with the skilled core of the business of old, the staff, gone, that would have suited a third world country.
The NI water fiasco is yet another example of politicians thinking they can run a business, only investing what they think is right. Look at the result. Think also of past socialist government involvement in the British Steel, Coal, and Car industries; they became a national, very expensive, embarrassment along with the rest of the country until the great days of Thatcher of course!! 8-) 8-) ;D ;D ;)
On the point of NI Water Lizzie people who were already in the industry or considered to be capable of running the service were invited to become board members who were then given full operational control of the new entity - there was little, Westminster involvement - if any - in the day to day running of the utility other than a sensible overview of the strategic aims of the new Service given the peculiar political circumstances which always arise when trying to satisfy the demands of a divided community.
In terms of strategic utilities (and I would include the transport system in that) I believe government should have a much more hands-on approach by way of strict regulation where this is concerned.
Private enterprise is fine but the shareholders, directors and the desire to make profit will always come first. That’s fine if you're selling television sets, toys, tools or whatever but less desirable when providing services vital to the wellbeing of the nation and its citizens.
There is no guarantee that any concern will place the 'best talent' as a result of the money made available through profit. We all can see standard of management presently being demonstrated by those in the big utility companies, the airports, the cellular phone and landline companies and the banking and financial service industry to name but some.
It doesn't always follow that money provides the right person for the job because at the end of it the business is there to make money and, in the case of utility and critical service providers, these inclinations will take precedence over the real needs of the people they're serving.
As I said before, privatisation is OK but for opps’s sake regulate it.
-
mmmmmmm 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) A lot of really interesting observations on this topic, which have highlighted the complexities of the private / government involvement in what is in the case of NI water a nationally important resource.
You can do without the trains and buses running when the managerial system collapses with money running out. But with water it is an essential of life, an almost 'right' that the people have this fuel of life in a clean and running condition in a first rate country in the 21st century.
As stated by some bottom line profit is an essential element in a healthy organization, not just to reward those who invest in it, but critically to invest in the best people talent and the infrastructure of the system; in this case the water distribution system. Socialist beliefs in the past in the UK and elsewhere have created large state monoplies, operating for the good of the people, not profit. An admirable aim and theory perhaps, but, sorry to the socialists on here, it just does not work in most cases.
Without that healthy private competition and investment, with profits, the system is neglected, it is controlled by politicians who know little about the industry they control. British Rail as just one example was run almost into the ground by incompetents who knew nothing about railways, who would not invest in it as required, but used it for political means. The result was a decrepit, backward, under funded, railway with the skilled core of the business of old, the staff, gone, that would have suited a third world country.
The NI water fiasco is yet another example of politicians thinking they can run a business, only investing what they think is right. Look at the result. Think also of past socialist government involvement in the British Steel, Coal, and Car industries; they became a national, very expensive, embarrassment along with the rest of the country until the great days of Thatcher of course!! 8-) 8-) ;D ;D ;)
On the point of NI Water Lizzie people who were already in the industry or considered to be capable of running the service were invited to become board members who were then given full operational control of the new entity - there was little, Westminster involvement - if any - in the day to day running of the utility other than a sensible overview of the strategic aims of the new Service given the peculiar political circumstances which always arise when trying to satisfy the demands of a divided community.
Private enterprise is fine but the shareholders, directors and the desire to make profit will always come first. That’s fine if you're selling television sets, toys, tools or whatever but less desirable when providing services vital to the wellbeing of the nation and its citizens.
It doesn't always follow that money provides the right person for the job because at the end of it the business is there to make money and, in the case of utility and critical service providers, these inclinations will take precedence over the real needs of the people they're serving.
As I said before, privatisation is OK but for blank’s sake regulate it.
Indeed Zulu, but typically of state controlled enterprise they lacked the money to back them up, and to bring in the efficiencies required for it to be run successfully, i.e. investment in bringing the system up to date. This is just like all the British government run industries of the past. I previously mentioned BR and a glancing suggestion about British car industry. Well remember British Leyland? It kept on acquiring new 'top line' managers, but the government failed to understand the efficiencies and strong line tactics to take with the unions. Instead public money was chucked in bucket loads after previous bad money because no politician wanted to understand the market economy and the need for a successful business, with PROFITS! Yes, PROFITS, which is the true worth of a successful business or service. ::) ::) ::)
With almost 40 years experience in commercial management and the need for matching investments with profits, and controlling costs to do so, I know fully the difference between a public run company and that of a international plc. People hark on about the great days of British industry, well that was brought about by innovation, investment, and the creation of big profits brought about by strong private management. It worked, and still does in the internationally successful companies of today. Public companies do not generally, as they are starved of innovation, investment, with short sighted management controlled by politicians who are embarrassed by profit, THE essential result for any great company that will grow and employ more people! That applies to public service industries just as much as privately controlled ones. The railways in their great days made profits, and they invested in ever faster engines to pull ever improving trains on more efficient and modern infrastructure, to produce a better service and therefore greater profits by carrying more freight and passengers.
Socialist ideals are fine in theory, but history has proved they do not work. All they do in industry is produce an inferior product or service, as everything is gradually reduced in size and quality due to a lack of investment as the protection of public money takes precedence over the commercial needs to take risks by innovation and the creation of ever increasing profits. A socialist politician runs a business like they do government departments; inefficiently, at great cost, with significant waste, and in the red!! ::) ::) ::)
-
Indeed Zulu, but typically of state controlled enterprise they lacked the money to back them up, and to bring in the efficiencies required for it to be run successfully, i.e. investment in bringing the system up to date. This is just like all the British government run industries of the past. I previously mentioned BR and a glancing suggestion about British car industry. Well remember British Leyland? It kept on acquiring new 'top line' managers, but the government failed to understand the efficiencies and strong line tactics to take with the unions. Instead public money was chucked in bucket loads after previous bad money because no politician wanted to understand the market economy and the need for a successful business, with PROFITS! Yes, PROFITS, which is the true worth of a successful business or service. ::) ::) ::)
With almost 40 years experience in commercial management and the need for matching investments with profits, and controlling costs to do so, I know fully the difference between a public run company and that of a international plc. People hark on about the great days of British industry, well that was brought about by innovation, investment, and the creation of big profits brought about by strong private management. It worked, and still does in the internationally successful companies of today. Public companies do not generally, as they are starved of innovation, investment, with short sighted management controlled by politicians who are embarrassed by profit, THE essential result for any great company that will grow and employ more people! That applies to public service industries just as much as privately controlled ones. The railways in their great days made profits, and they invested in ever faster engines to pull ever improving trains on more efficient and modern infrastructure, to produce a better service and therefore greater profits by carrying more freight and passengers.
Socialist ideals are fine in theory, but history has proved they do not work. All they do in industry is produce an inferior product or service, as everything is gradually reduced in size and quality due to a lack of investment as the protection of public money takes precedence over the commercial needs to take risks by innovation and the creation of ever increasing profits. A socialist politician runs a business like they do government departments; inefficiently, at great cost, with significant waste, and in the red!! ::) ::) ::)
On the NI water point Lizzie the new utility never really got off to a good start not because of lack of money as water and sewerage charges were already envisaged to help fund the capital projects necessary to draw the outdated system into the 21st Century
The failure began when 4 board members were sacked after a formal investigation into how the company was awarding contracts so it really was a failure from within based on the business direction of the company not a lack of funding.
I regret the demise of British industry and you're quite correct it was run into the ground by poor management and militant unions. As that era was effectively brought to a close (thankfully) by Margaret Thatcher we have to ask ourselves what has happened to our industry?
I would say that the imperative of the International PLC has been responsible for the dramatic reduction of a once varied industrial base. Profit has required reduction and relocation - which seems to be sound business practice but in the case of this country it seems to have left us with precious little indigenous industry of any major size.
It doesn't always follow that socialism breeds inefficiency and poorly researched and developed products - in many cases it does when the likes of the Trabant is considered but many great technical strides (of mostly a military flavour) were made within the USSR right up to the time of it's implosion.
There's no clear cut answer to these musings, but when considering whether private enterprise is really more capable than state enterprise (especially where the utility infrastructure is concerned) both are held hostage to the human condition of an individual deciding whether he/she works for the good of the company, for the good of the country, or for their own good.
-
Innovation, investment and research in specific industries are lacking and have been in all governments past and present.
-
Innovation, investment and research in specific industries are lacking and have been in all governments past and present.
Oh yes Mike I would not argue with that, as no government or private company is without it's faults in those areas of business. :y :y :y
-
From Lizzie
"Indeed Zulu, but typically of state controlled enterprise they lacked the money to back them up, "
* show me any company that can compete with the govt budget :) in case govts give importance to..
and to bring in the efficiencies required for it to be run successfully,
* a state can also work with more efficiency in case its not corrupted ..
i.e. investment in bringing the system up to date. This is just like all the British government run industries of the past.
I previously mentioned BR and a glancing suggestion about British car industry. Well remember British Leyland?
It kept on acquiring new 'top line' managers, but the government failed to understand
* its the voters and systems( or models) mistake to elect an incompetent govt..
the efficiencies and strong line tactics to take with the unions. Instead public money was
chucked in bucket loads after previous bad money because no politician wanted to understand
the market economy and the need for a successful business, with PROFITS! Yes, PROFITS,
which is the true worth of a successful business or service.
* there are some services that must be done without profits.. humans or profit..
With almost 40 years experience in commercial management and the need for matching
investments with profits, and controlling costs to do so, I know fully the difference
between a public run company and that of a international plc. People hark on about
the great days of British industry, well that was brought about by innovation, investment,
and the creation of big profits brought about by strong private management.
It worked, and still does in the internationally successful companies of today.
Public companies do not generally, as they are starved of innovation, investment,
with short sighted management controlled by politicians who are embarrassed by profit,
* this example as a starting point is definitely wrong..you cannot choose a state company from a capitalist system thats nearly discarded ..
THE essential result for any great company that will grow and employ more people!
That applies to public service industries just as much as privately controlled ones.
The railways in their great days made profits, and they invested in ever faster engines
to pull ever improving trains on more efficient and modern infrastructure,
to produce a better service and therefore greater profits by carrying more freight and passengers.
Socialist ideals are fine in theory, but history has proved they do not work.
:o who said that.. if you look into world from capitalist glasses all you will see is wrong examples ;D ;D
All they do in industry is produce an inferior product or service, as everything is gradually
reduced in size and quality due to a lack of investment as the protection of public money
takes precedence over the commercial needs to take risks by innovation and the
creation of ever increasing profits. A socialist politician runs a business
like they do government departments; inefficiently, at great cost, with significant waste, and in the red!!
* ok then , tell me the reason why all those capitalist countries having crysis again and again ;D ;D
Happy new year :y :y
-
evening all, not been on for a while (again)
I work in an industry that was privatised in the Conservative era. We are still living off the fat of the over engineering that took place 30 years ago. Our new government are now estimating a required spend of £200 billion pounds in the next 10 years within the electricity industry and private companies are not going to invest that amount of money without subsidies...... which you and I are going to pay for
-
evening all, not been on for a while (again)
I work in an industry that was privatised in the Conservative era. We are still living off the fat of the over engineering that took place 30 years ago. Our new government are now estimating a required spend of £200 billion pounds in the next 10 years within the electricity industry and private companies are not going to invest that amount of money without subsidies...... which you and I are going to pay for
Good evening, Mike and nice to see you here again. :y
I wonder how much of that £200bn is to meet EU Directives? If there was less over-bearing regulation, power companies would find the money, but as in any industrial sector they can't raise the funds just to meet diktats with no prospect of sensible return on investment. :(
-
!
* ok then , tell me the reason why all those capitalist countries having crysis again and again ;D ;D
Happy new year :y :y
And to you, Cem. :y
But give me an example of a socialist country that hasn't seen a crisis or two. ::)
-
evening all, not been on for a while (again)
I work in an industry that was privatised in the Conservative era. We are still living off the fat of the over engineering that took place 30 years ago. Our new government are now estimating a required spend of £200 billion pounds in the next 10 years within the electricity industry and private companies are not going to invest that amount of money without subsidies...... which you and I are going to pay for
Good evening, Mike and nice to see you here again. :y
I wonder how much of that £200bn is to meet EU Directives? If there was less over-bearing regulation, power companies would find the money, but as in any industrial sector they can't raise the funds just to meet diktats with no prospect of sensible return on investment. :(
for some jobs, there are no shortcuts .. either you do the investment or not.. dont blame on the EU regulations.. and even half of that really tall money for biggest companies.. in my country for those big investments required for critical services none of those companies move their arse.. they only expect the ready food given in their mouth >:( >:( >:(
-
evening all, not been on for a while (again)
I work in an industry that was privatised in the Conservative era. We are still living off the fat of the over engineering that took place 30 years ago. Our new government are now estimating a required spend of £200 billion pounds in the next 10 years within the electricity industry and private companies are not going to invest that amount of money without subsidies...... which you and I are going to pay for
Good evening, Mike and nice to see you here again. :y
I wonder how much of that £200bn is to meet EU Directives? If there was less over-bearing regulation, power companies would find the money, but as in any industrial sector they can't raise the funds just to meet diktats with no prospect of sensible return on investment. :(
for some jobs, there are no shortcuts .. either you do the investment or not.. dont blame on the EU regulations.. and even half of that really tall money for biggest companies.. in my country for those big investments required for critical services none of those companies move their arse.. they only expect the ready food given in their mouth >:( >:( >:(
Huh? ::)
It is EU Directives that are forcing us to close down coal-powered stations!!!! ::)
-
evening all, not been on for a while (again)
I work in an industry that was privatised in the Conservative era. We are still living off the fat of the over engineering that took place 30 years ago. Our new government are now estimating a required spend of £200 billion pounds in the next 10 years within the electricity industry and private companies are not going to invest that amount of money without subsidies...... which you and I are going to pay for
Good evening, Mike and nice to see you here again. :y
I wonder how much of that £200bn is to meet EU Directives? If there was less over-bearing regulation, power companies would find the money, but as in any industrial sector they can't raise the funds just to meet diktats with no prospect of sensible return on investment. :(
for some jobs, there are no shortcuts .. either you do the investment or not.. dont blame on the EU regulations.. and even half of that really tall money for biggest companies.. in my country for those big investments required for critical services none of those companies move their arse.. they only expect the ready food given in their mouth >:( >:( >:(
Huh? ::)
It is EU Directives that are forcing us to close down coal-powered stations!!!! ::)
we also have to.. ;D
-
!
* ok then , tell me the reason why all those capitalist countries having crysis again and again ;D ;D
Happy new year :y :y
And to you, Cem. :y
But give me an example of a socialist country that hasn't seen a crisis or two. ::)
imo its better you give me an example of a socialist country who lived a crisis similiar to those capitalist countries ;D
probably you forget, those socialist countries are poor so they are already in crisis from their begining ;D and no chance for them to expoit other countries ;D
but of course , with all that money and richness creating crysis is another state of art ;D :D ::)
-
!
* ok then , tell me the reason why all those capitalist countries having crysis again and again ;D ;D
Happy new year :y :y
And to you, Cem. :y
But give me an example of a socialist country that hasn't seen a crisis or two. ::)
That was going to be my reply to Cem Nick ;D ;D :y
-
!
* ok then , tell me the reason why all those capitalist countries having crysis again and again ;D ;D
Happy new year :y :y
And to you, Cem. :y
But give me an example of a socialist country that hasn't seen a crisis or two. ::)
imo its better you give me an example of a socialist country who lived a crisis similiar to those capitalist countries ;D
probably you forget, those socialist countries are poor so they are already in crisis from their begining ;D and no chance for them to expoit other countries ;D
but of course , with all that money and richness creating crysis is another state of art ;D :D ::)
Any country under a socialist system will remain poor, and any strong country who takes on a socialist government will soon become poor i.e. like the UK, yet again!! >:( >:(
-
From Lizzie
"Indeed Zulu, but typically of state controlled enterprise they lacked the money to back them up, "
* show me any company that can compete with the govt budget :) in case govts give importance to..
and to bring in the efficiencies required for it to be run successfully,
* a state can also work with more efficiency in case its not corrupted ..
i.e. investment in bringing the system up to date. This is just like all the British government run industries of the past.
I previously mentioned BR and a glancing suggestion about British car industry. Well remember British Leyland?
It kept on acquiring new 'top line' managers, but the government failed to understand
* its the voters and systems( or models) mistake to elect an incompetent govt..
the efficiencies and strong line tactics to take with the unions. Instead public money was
chucked in bucket loads after previous bad money because no politician wanted to understand
the market economy and the need for a successful business, with PROFITS! Yes, PROFITS,
which is the true worth of a successful business or service.
* there are some services that must be done without profits.. humans or profit..
With almost 40 years experience in commercial management and the need for matching
investments with profits, and controlling costs to do so, I know fully the difference
between a public run company and that of a international plc. People hark on about
the great days of British industry, well that was brought about by innovation, investment,
and the creation of big profits brought about by strong private management.
It worked, and still does in the internationally successful companies of today.
Public companies do not generally, as they are starved of innovation, investment,
with short sighted management controlled by politicians who are embarrassed by profit,
* this example as a starting point is definitely wrong..you cannot choose a state company from a capitalist system thats nearly discarded ..
THE essential result for any great company that will grow and employ more people!
That applies to public service industries just as much as privately controlled ones.
The railways in their great days made profits, and they invested in ever faster engines
to pull ever improving trains on more efficient and modern infrastructure,
to produce a better service and therefore greater profits by carrying more freight and passengers.
Socialist ideals are fine in theory, but history has proved they do not work.
:o who said that.. if you look into world from capitalist glasses all you will see is wrong examples ;D ;D
All they do in industry is produce an inferior product or service, as everything is gradually
reduced in size and quality due to a lack of investment as the protection of public money
takes precedence over the commercial needs to take risks by innovation and the
creation of ever increasing profits. A socialist politician runs a business
like they do government departments; inefficiently, at great cost, with significant waste, and in the red!!
* ok then , tell me the reason why all those capitalist countries having crysis again and again ;D ;D
Happy new year :y :y
Ok Cem, then show me some right examples ;) ;)
-
!
* ok then , tell me the reason why all those capitalist countries having crysis again and again ;D ;D
Happy new year :y :y
And to you, Cem. :y
But give me an example of a socialist country that hasn't seen a crisis or two. ::)
imo its better you give me an example of a socialist country who lived a crisis similiar to those capitalist countries ;D
probably you forget, those socialist countries are poor so they are already in crisis from their begining ;D and no chance for them to expoit other countries ;D
but of course , with all that money and richness creating crysis is another state of art ;D :D ::)
Any country under a socialist system will remain poor, and any strong country who takes on a socialist government will soon become poor i.e. like the UK, yet again!! >:( >:(
those countries are poor not for the reason of political choice.. they choose socialism (after many events) because they are poor and it was the only way for them to rise up.. :y
-
From Lizzie
"Indeed Zulu, but typically of state controlled enterprise they lacked the money to back them up, "
* show me any company that can compete with the govt budget :) in case govts give importance to..
and to bring in the efficiencies required for it to be run successfully,
* a state can also work with more efficiency in case its not corrupted ..
i.e. investment in bringing the system up to date. This is just like all the British government run industries of the past.
I previously mentioned BR and a glancing suggestion about British car industry. Well remember British Leyland?
It kept on acquiring new 'top line' managers, but the government failed to understand
* its the voters and systems( or models) mistake to elect an incompetent govt..
the efficiencies and strong line tactics to take with the unions. Instead public money was
chucked in bucket loads after previous bad money because no politician wanted to understand
the market economy and the need for a successful business, with PROFITS! Yes, PROFITS,
which is the true worth of a successful business or service.
* there are some services that must be done without profits.. humans or profit..
With almost 40 years experience in commercial management and the need for matching
investments with profits, and controlling costs to do so, I know fully the difference
between a public run company and that of a international plc. People hark on about
the great days of British industry, well that was brought about by innovation, investment,
and the creation of big profits brought about by strong private management.
It worked, and still does in the internationally successful companies of today.
Public companies do not generally, as they are starved of innovation, investment,
with short sighted management controlled by politicians who are embarrassed by profit,
* this example as a starting point is definitely wrong..you cannot choose a state company from a capitalist system thats nearly discarded ..
THE essential result for any great company that will grow and employ more people!
That applies to public service industries just as much as privately controlled ones.
The railways in their great days made profits, and they invested in ever faster engines
to pull ever improving trains on more efficient and modern infrastructure,
to produce a better service and therefore greater profits by carrying more freight and passengers.
Socialist ideals are fine in theory, but history has proved they do not work.
:o who said that.. if you look into world from capitalist glasses all you will see is wrong examples ;D ;D
All they do in industry is produce an inferior product or service, as everything is gradually
reduced in size and quality due to a lack of investment as the protection of public money
takes precedence over the commercial needs to take risks by innovation and the
creation of ever increasing profits. A socialist politician runs a business
like they do government departments; inefficiently, at great cost, with significant waste, and in the red!!
* ok then , tell me the reason why all those capitalist countries having crysis again and again ;D ;D
Happy new year :y :y
Ok Cem, then show me some right examples ;) ;)
Lizzie, I'll prefer to reference our old discussion threads which is not necessary to repeat now..Also you already know those countries.. :y
-
I am sure everyone has seen the news about the Northern Ireland water supply problems. Some people may not get reconnected until next week!!
Now as a Conservative I have always favoured privatisation.
Can anyone argue why nationalisation is so good, given the poor performance (40% below the private companies in the rest of the UK according to their Irish regulator) of the nationalised water system in NI? ::) ::)
The N. Irish may not at the moment pay water rates, but they apparently soon will to boost investment. ;) ;)
:P
-
!
* ok then , tell me the reason why all those capitalist countries having crysis again and again ;D ;D
Happy new year :y :y
And to you, Cem. :y
But give me an example of a socialist country that hasn't seen a crisis or two. ::)
That was going to be my reply to Cem Nick ;D ;D :y
That makes everything OK then!
As for the £200B, the majority is for reducing emissions of oxides of Carbon, Nitrogen and Sulphur, which we have signed up to (Europe). Still, in the cold dark days of winter, I rest assured that the windmills will turn...