Re: ot: Postal Strike

On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 10:51:34 -0000, Cane <CaneUKRM@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 8 Oct, 10:23, ogden <og...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

You seem to have a short memory about nationalised industries.

So which utilities did you have a problem with before privatisation? Has
the quality of your tap water gone down? The electricity more liable to
brownouts? Gas just not smelling as nice? Or do you think the rail
network is somehow cheaper or more reliable than it was under BR?

Nationalised industries make little sense, but public utilities and
transport? Common sense, more like.

The government couldn't run a fucking tap and putting a business in
their hands is sheer lunacy.

Funny we expect them to provide our police and defence forces and your
beloved road network - they seem to do pretty OK with that. I don't see
anyone, apart from nutter Redwood, screaming for the privatisation of
the road network.

The problem here is that people expect universal service provision from
utilities and all of the "privatised" industries have had to have state
regulators to ensure market controls, fair practice, proper investment
and to prevent monopoly power abuse or else simulate a form of
competition. Are we really better off with this approach or would you
really be content with people in villages having no water, no gas, no
electricity, no postal service? Perhaps you'd like to deprive them of
national defence and the health service at the same time?

The Post Office or GPO used to be an inefficient mess that answered to
no one. Wild cat strikes lasting for months at a time and who can
forget the "Consignia" debacle.

It used to have regular deliveries, cheaper postal rates and shock,
horror post offices where people live and work. Consignia was a private
sector "innovation" that was a pile of Ratner like crap. Private
businesses do this all the time but no one criticises them for ludicrous
rebranding exercises and the costs incurred. It's seen as being
"normal" and "free" - except that it is neither.

The joke about British gas used to be that at least the IRA used to
phone you up and warn you there was going to be an explosion. Once
again it was a massive, inefficient dinosaur that answered to no one.
At least with the 97 demerger service improved and investment
increased.

What investment has increased? Why do we need multiple gas companies
that required state imposed regulation in order to control the excesses
of the market place? Does anyone actually get decent service from their
gas company? Does anyone really save any real amount of money from
switching? Has competition prevented pseudo monopolistic behaviour from
the gas companies the second that there is a slight possible twitch in
wholesale gas prices?

Although I'm not a regular rail user I do remember the massive cuts
made to the service in the 70s and 80s. Lines were closed all over the
place and the levels of investment were horrific [Beeching Axe?] .
There are still accidents but nothing on the scale of previous years.
I personally [as an observer] believe it's a better service.

Others have done this one to death but next time get your decades
correct.

The main problem here is that British Rail was ridiculously efficient in
managing to run and improve the national network on next to no subsidy
compared to today. They were repeatedly given tighter and tighter
targets on costs and met them year after year. They did not do stupid
things that caused mass hysteria like the speed restrictions post the
Hatfield derailment. Private Railtrack did that because they did not
know their assets having allowed the knowledge to walk out the door and
then imposing maintenance "holidays". Sounds horribly like what BP did
when they took over Amoco and how many people died in refinery
explosions and how much environmental damage from pipeline failures have
there been?

Everyone has to take their share in the rail industry chain but few, if
any, take any real commercial risk. It's all a huge money go round and
everything is priced to ensure a rake off at all stages of the game or
else to insulate against risk of abatements from the performance regime.
I help to run the LU version of this regime so I know exactly what I'm
talking about and know exactly what games are played. It's just done on
a vastly inflated scale on the National Network and costs are now so
high that many schemes cannot be afforded as costs are so
disproportionate to benefits. If BR had had access to the sorts of
annual subsidies that the Notwork Rail and the TOCs get hold of we would
have main line electrification on all main routes, fleet renewal and
probably a number of very important lines reopened. Instead we are faced
with crush conditions and little national strategy for rail improvement
outside of London - I'll concede we've done well to get Thameslink and
Crossrail approved over the last couple of months.

Not sure about water. I think our rivers are less polluted but we seem
to have more of a leak problem these days. Can't say I've noticed a
difference in my tap water over the last 42 years but then I drink
lager mostly :)

Funny I thought you'd notice the vastly higher water bills, the constant
trading and selling of water businesses, fines from the water regulators
and the constant roadworks from all the water leaks. Odd that the water
companies have done so well that they have to be required by Ofwat to
increase their investment programmes because their investment levels are
disproportionately low.

I might be alright for private businesses to provide plastic dinosaurs
but I remain to be convinced that we are really better off with mass
privatisation that was foisted on us in the 1980s and 1990s. British
Telecom is perhaps the one exception because the state could not have
properly dealt with the huge technological changes in telephony.
--
Paul C - "the big camp ***" (tm d.a.r.s.y)
VFR800 | ZX6R | R1150GS
BOD#5, two#4, BOTAFOT#23, BOTAFOF#4, URMSBC#09, COFF#09
Admits to working for London Underground!
.

Loading