Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lizzie_Zoom]

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-)

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

[MikeDundee]

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-)

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

[Varche]

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-)

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. 

[Dishevelled Den]

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-)

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.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

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-)

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!!

[Dishevelled Den]

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.

[MikeDundee]

Innovation, investment and research in specific industries are lacking and have been in all governments past and present.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

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.

[cem_devecioglu]

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.


who said that.. if you look into world from capitalist glasses all you will see is wrong examples 

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  


Happy new year

[miked]

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

[Nickbat]

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.

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.  

[Nickbat]

!   

* ok then , tell me the reason why all those capitalist countries having crysis again and again  


Happy new year

And to you, Cem.

But give me an example of a socialist country that hasn't seen a crisis or two.

[cem_devecioglu]

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.

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 

[Nickbat]

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.

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!!!! 

[cem_devecioglu]

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.

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..