Privatisation

dynamicbrick

British Industry, to be fair to both the management and the unions, suffered from more than just arrogant management and militant tradesman; the massive over-capacity immediately post-war, post-war austerity, and the rather abrupt loss of the massive captive Imperial market.

At the same time, the Germans and Japanese - who would ultimately be the biggest challengers to British industrial dominance - were getting massive assistance in rebuilding their industries. The West Germans especially; Volkswagen, for example, was basically restarted with the help of the British Army.

Meanwhile, in the defence sector, the second world war effectively created the American export defence sector at the same time we were repaying lend-lease, having lost Imperial revenue, fight the cold war, and pay for the emergence of the welfare state.

If you really look at it, it's a marvel it clung on for as long as it did.

Jez mon

tiredofwhiners wrote:

VTech wrote:

Its just so hard to accept that flights are the cheaper option, it cant be morally right in these days

A number of reasons;

For London to Edinburgh, the only bits of infrastructure to be paid for are at each end - the bit in the middle is free.
There are no 'extra' taxes for using the train
When defining a safety case, the numbers used for the cost-benefit saving of a human life are such that the railways will spend orders of magnitudes more than the airlines are legally required to do, because its practically impossible to fly and remove the major safety risks.
Aircraft are 'customised' whereas trains tend not to be these days.
Aircraft are very cheap compared to trains
Airline are permitted to reduce their capacity so they only fly when profitable - trains are required to run to a schedule even if nobody is on them, and so the losses have to paid for by the other routes.
There are a dozen airports in the UK which require staffing and infrastructure whereas railways ...........
The unions on railways still have a lot of sway and so salary no longer links to abilities, whereas in airports, most unions are under control (not all though). You can however fly any aircraft type once licenced, not so with trains which are driver licensed 'per route'.

Basically its economies of scale - few small hub network which is cheap, vs a system which covers everywhere, even the bits with one man and a chicken using it (the dog having flown Easyjet)

I want to see some figures here...not that I don't believe you or anything. I just don't see how the cost of a train would be more than a plane?

tiredofwhiners

Jez mon wrote:

I want to see some figures here...not that I don't believe you or anything. I just don't see how the cost of a train would be more than a plane?

Mass market aircraft vs custom built rolling stock ? Aircraft have a much higher utilisation rate (90%+ in the air, full, carrying passengers) whereas most trains run part empty, not at all between midnight and 0600, less at weekends and so are used only marginally). The cost has to be recovered over less journeys for traisn basically, before you consider cost.

Have a read of this if you can and appreciate the mess that is the UK rolling stock market, and then compare with the UK airlines who buy 'off the shelf' aircraft, with the seat configuration they require. Second hard aircraft are very easy to hire and cost very very little indeed. Singalling in the UK is only marginally improved. Until about 2000, there were only two approved suppliers in the UK.

http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docume ... ar2011.pdf

I worked with Alstom for about 8 years and was amazed at how complex, heavily built, over-engineered, overpriced and safety conscious the rolling stock is. Its designed to survive pretty much anything 'normal' so has a huge amount of structural system built in, proven and tested, so its pretty expensive. Anything 'new' is frowned upon for safety reasons.

Apart from the engines, aircraft are cheap tin tubes because if anything structural goes wrong, you're toast no matter what, as practically no safety features can be built in. Trains are designed to survive low impact crashes so have lot of built in features, whereas aircraft have none at all.

I know what you mean though - you always imagine an aircraft is expensive because of what it does, but most aircraft have a residual life and value so can be leased very cheaply indeed. Engines are interchangeable and largely disposable. Trains are built to run on a single route, or a few at a push, so they are custom built jobs. If you want to see another way, go for a ride in a light aircraft - they are really really basic and quite scary.

Last year (2011) at the Annual IET Railways Lecture, a well known railway person posed two issues on why the industry is so expensive. He said that they spend billions on signalling systems which never fail (nor have they) and then spend billions more on rolling stock which assumes that the signalling systems actually fail. Logic suggest you would do one or the other and not both. He also said that the 1970 Ford Mexico ultimately became the Ford Fiesta. In those 40 years, the car is massively lighter, much safer, more comfortable and much more economical to run, pleasant to travel in and of course, much much cheaper. He then suggested that if he had asked his rolling stock colleagues to guide the development of the Ford Mexico, then the car would weight 2.5 tonnes, would only do 14mpg, would still be uncomfortable and would cost £30,000. He got a good laugh and full agreement from the audience.

The above study by Arup just shows how dreadful the UK rail market is - mainly because of the legacy left by British Rail and its employes.

mamba80

tiredofwhiners wrote:

Before 1970, most industries were public sector owned and controlled, as a consequence of the war. The roots started off badly, and got worse, with a few notable bright spots in the middle. Sure, its not all black or white, but the public sector never has, nor ever will be the best at anything because it never has to compete and improve to survive. If it fails, it always gets bailed out by the public purse, nobody loses their jobs and the public pays more for the job to be re-done. There are no consequences for the public sector employee and thats why it will always be poor and second best. And why it should not attract high pay or benefits.

im sorry but im not going to let you get away with this! talk to me about factually inaccurate statements :shock:

How about the banks? moral hazard anyone! too big to fail ? so they all went bust didnt they....not!
and they are fighting tooth an nail to prevent any meaningful regulation - least they all go "off-shore" ha ha!

Privatised utilities, like water or 'lecy surely cant fail to turn a profit, they do and reward them selves very well, thankyou.
Say the NHS could charge what it liked for its services, outside of emg care, how much profit do you think it would make? by their very nature the public sector cant charge corporate rates for its services.

100,000's of public sector empolyees have lost their jobs, they have paid the price of private companies that were bailed out by the public purse, mean while, the bankers walk off with huge pay off's

One i will give though, is that Brown did indeed spend beyond what was wise, with no thought to the future but then again, no one predicted sub prime did they? well, thats not quite true but no one listened to the doom mongers.

markos1963

tiredofwhiners wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

I want to see some figures here...not that I don't believe you or anything. I just don't see how the cost of a train would be more than a plane?

Mass market aircraft vs custom built rolling stock ? Aircraft have a much higher utilisation rate (90%+ in the air, full, carrying passengers) whereas most trains run part empty, not at all between midnight and 0600, less at weekends and so are used only marginally). The cost has to be recovered over less journeys for traisn basically, before you consider cost.

Have a read of this if you can and appreciate the mess that is the UK rolling stock market, and then compare with the UK airlines who buy 'off the shelf' aircraft, with the seat configuration they require. Second hard aircraft are very easy to hire and cost very very little indeed. Singalling in the UK is only marginally improved. Until about 2000, there were only two approved suppliers in the UK.

http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docume ... ar2011.pdf

I worked with Alstom for about 8 years and was amazed at how complex, heavily built, over-engineered, overpriced and safety conscious the rolling stock is. Its designed to survive pretty much anything 'normal' so has a huge amount of structural system built in, proven and tested, so its pretty expensive. Anything 'new' is frowned upon for safety reasons.

Apart from the engines, aircraft are cheap tin tubes because if anything structural goes wrong, you're toast no matter what, as practically no safety features can be built in. Trains are designed to survive low impact crashes so have lot of built in features, whereas aircraft have none at all.

I know what you mean though - you always imagine an aircraft is expensive because of what it does, but most aircraft have a residual life and value so can be leased very cheaply indeed. Engines are interchangeable and largely disposable. Trains are built to run on a single route, or a few at a push, so they are custom built jobs. If you want to see another way, go for a ride in a light aircraft - they are really really basic and quite scary.

Last year (2011) at the Annual IET Railways Lecture, a well known railway person posed two issues on why the industry is so expensive. He said that they spend billions on signalling systems which never fail (nor have they) and then spend billions more on rolling stock which assumes that the signalling systems actually fail. Logic suggest you would do one or the other and not both. He also said that the 1970 Ford Mexico ultimately became the Ford Fiesta. In those 40 years, the car is massively lighter, much safer, more comfortable and much more economical to run, pleasant to travel in and of course, much much cheaper. He then suggested that if he had asked his rolling stock colleagues to guide the development of the Ford Mexico, then the car would weight 2.5 tonnes, would only do 14mpg, would still be uncomfortable and would cost £30,000. He got a good laugh and full agreement from the audience.

The above study by Arup just shows how dreadful the UK rail market is - mainly because of the legacy left by British Rail and its employes.

Errrr what you have failed to mention here in your unfair comparison is that trains are designed to be used for up to and over fifty years so your cost comparison falls down there.

VTech

He is referring to like for like prices and we just cant argue with those facts.
If you use sites like skyscanner.net you can find flights far cheaper than trains. Im not sure why but they are.

Jez mon

Nope, he's referring to the hardware.

Thanks for putting some info up, tiredofwiners, I might have a longer reply when I'm back from lectures.

tiredofwhiners

markos1963 wrote:

Errrr what you have failed to mention here in your unfair comparison is that trains are designed to be used for up to and over fifty years so your cost comparison falls down there.

Thats because its not true

Design life of a carriage without a complete strip down to care metal frame is 9 years and the metal will survive 26 years (4 refits at best). So basically every 9 years, you get an entirely next train apart from the chassis. Aircraft last longer but go through the same cycle, but using much cheaper components and engines are interchangeable.

tiredofwhiners

mamba80 wrote:

100,000's of public sector empolyees have lost their jobs, they have paid the price of private companies that were bailed out by the public purse, mean while, the bankers walk off with huge pay off's

Thats one interpretation. Another would be that Broon didn't want a strong private sector as they wouldn't vote for him, so he bloated the public sector with jobs that were neither required nor fundable out of tax revenues - he used debt. So losing a job isn't losing a job if the job wasn't needed in the first place.

They would have had to go even if the banks hadn't screwed up - the money simply isn't and never was there to pay for them. All that has happened is that the change has happened more quickly than through natural contraction. Its funny how many folks complain about the decline of manufacturing (the wealth creating side of the economy) yet insist that the 'sucking the life out of the economy' side of administrators in the public sector must remain.

We need more people putting money in, and less people taking money out and that means a smaller, more efficient public sector - something the Broon and his cronies didn't want as those without dependence upon the state rarely vote for it.

If there were an alternative to bailing out the banks I'd be happy to hear about as nobody has any alternatives and despite all our distaste, they didn't actually do anything illegal so cannot be put in prison. Anyone who suggests nationalising a bank should remember how good HMRC are at doing their job and then just imagine them in charge of your money and pension. And then gasp at how little tax the bank then pays and wonder why there is a big hole to be plugged to fund the welfare state. Much as none of like it, banks pay a huge amount of tax and without their taxes, most of the welfare state would have to stop.

AchillesLeftKnee

tiredofwhiners wrote:

Design life of a carriage without a complete strip down to care metal frame is 9 years and the metal will survive 26 years (4 refits at best).

Fiction.

markos1963

tiredofwhiners wrote:

markos1963 wrote:

Errrr what you have failed to mention here in your unfair comparison is that trains are designed to be used for up to and over fifty years so your cost comparison falls down there.

Thats because its not true

Design life of a carriage without a complete strip down to care metal frame is 9 years and the metal will survive 26 years (4 refits at best). So basically every 9 years, you get an entirely next train apart from the chassis. Aircraft last longer but go through the same cycle, but using much cheaper components and engines are interchangeable.

Bollox our MK3s are nearly 40yrs old and are now life extended to something like 2024 with just a CET and motorised door upgrade. Class 156 is nearly 25yrs old and we have been told they are only at half life. You may have been told at Alstrom that your trains are only going to be used for 26years but that isn't the case out there in the real world. Last night I was driving a near 60yr old train on the network, tell me when Alstrom are going to replace my 08?

Jez mon

tiredofwhiners wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

I want to see some figures here...not that I don't believe you or anything. I just don't see how the cost of a train would be more than a plane?

Mass market aircraft vs custom built rolling stock ? Aircraft have a much higher utilisation rate (90%+ in the air, full, carrying passengers) whereas most trains run part empty, not at all between midnight and 0600, less at weekends and so are used only marginally). The cost has to be recovered over less journeys for traisn basically, before you consider cost.

Have a read of this if you can and appreciate the mess that is the UK rolling stock market, and then compare with the UK airlines who buy 'off the shelf' aircraft, with the seat configuration they require. Second hard aircraft are very easy to hire and cost very very little indeed. Singalling in the UK is only marginally improved. Until about 2000, there were only two approved suppliers in the UK.

http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docume ... ar2011.pdf

I worked with Alstom for about 8 years and was amazed at how complex, heavily built, over-engineered, overpriced and safety conscious the rolling stock is. Its designed to survive pretty much anything 'normal' so has a huge amount of structural system built in, proven and tested, so its pretty expensive. Anything 'new' is frowned upon for safety reasons.

Apart from the engines, aircraft are cheap tin tubes because if anything structural goes wrong, you're toast no matter what, as practically no safety features can be built in. Trains are designed to survive low impact crashes so have lot of built in features, whereas aircraft have none at all.

I know what you mean though - you always imagine an aircraft is expensive because of what it does, but most aircraft have a residual life and value so can be leased very cheaply indeed. Engines are interchangeable and largely disposable. Trains are built to run on a single route, or a few at a push, so they are custom built jobs. If you want to see another way, go for a ride in a light aircraft - they are really really basic and quite scary.

Last year (2011) at the Annual IET Railways Lecture, a well known railway person posed two issues on why the industry is so expensive. He said that they spend billions on signalling systems which never fail (nor have they) and then spend billions more on rolling stock which assumes that the signalling systems actually fail. Logic suggest you would do one or the other and not both. He also said that the 1970 Ford Mexico ultimately became the Ford Fiesta. In those 40 years, the car is massively lighter, much safer, more comfortable and much more economical to run, pleasant to travel in and of course, much much cheaper. He then suggested that if he had asked his rolling stock colleagues to guide the development of the Ford Mexico, then the car would weight 2.5 tonnes, would only do 14mpg, would still be uncomfortable and would cost £30,000. He got a good laugh and full agreement from the audience.

The above study by Arup just shows how dreadful the UK rail market is - mainly because of the legacy left by British Rail and its employes.

OK.

The crux of the point seems to be that UK trains are used and leased by the TOCs. I think you maybe oversimplifying the engineering on a plane though, it precisely because you can do very little on a plane when it does go wrong, that a lot of engineering has to go in to building a safe airframe and as for just chucking a new engine on every so often, the expensive, exotic turbine blades are repaired by laser cladding, rather than just replaced, for example. Plus when it comes to the airframe, everything will be optimised to be light as possible and strong enough, which is a far more arduous engineering task than just making something strong.

Also your point about off the shelf v custom isn't particularly valid in comparing different products, to take it to the extreme, a Veyron is off the shelf, and a custom bike frame is custom built...

Finally, being a bit cheeky, I had a look at reported costs of both, I found it faily hard to find concrete costs for trains, but the cross rail train contract is valued at a billion for 60 trains, if you wanted 60 A319s, you're looking at approximately 4 billion euros.

Having said that its a lot closer than I expected.

tiredofwhiners

markos1963 wrote:

Bollox our MK3s are nearly 40yrs old and are now life extended to something like 2024 with just a CET and motorised door upgrade. Class 156 is nearly 25yrs old and we have been told they are only at half life. You may have been told at Alstrom that your trains are only going to be used for 26years but that isn't the case out there in the real world. Last night I was driving a near 60yr old train on the network, tell me when Alstrom are going to replace my 08?

Sure, you can make anything last if you want to but your maintenance costs are escalating every year. Its nice talking about loco's but passengers don't travel in loco's in 25 or 40 year old carriages do they ?

Your 60 year old train is unlikely to be in everyday use, carrying passengers, with decent reliability, without a full refit at least every 10 years.

AchillesLeftKnee

tiredofwhiners wrote:

Its nice talking about loco's but passengers don't travel in loco's in 25 or 40 year old carriages do they ?

Just to pick on one rather obvious example, how do HSTs fit into this?

-spider-

AchillesLeftKnee wrote:

tiredofwhiners wrote:

Design life of a carriage without a complete strip down to care metal frame is 9 years and the metal will survive 26 years (4 refits at best).

Fiction.

TOW tends to dream up facts to support his whines about the public sector. I choose not to engage with him.

We've got 25 year old 156s round here. They are rubbish, they always were rubbish and are not suitable for anything other than a commuter service. Try sitting in one of those for 2 or 3 hours. "Refurbished every 9 years"! One refit in their life (see http://www.scottishreview.net/DavidMcVey61.shtml for a good read on the state of play on the West Highland line).

Also, note that Denmark is one of the highest taxed countries (see http://www.investopedia.com/financial-e ... z2M6XTy7Uu) with a high level of public service. Denmark recently voted the happiest country to live in (see http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/04/06/whe ... countries/). Coincidence? The Danish economy doesn't appear to be in meltdown either.

markos1963

tiredofwhiners wrote:

markos1963 wrote:

Bollox our MK3s are nearly 40yrs old and are now life extended to something like 2024 with just a CET and motorised door upgrade. Class 156 is nearly 25yrs old and we have been told they are only at half life. You may have been told at Alstrom that your trains are only going to be used for 26years but that isn't the case out there in the real world. Last night I was driving a near 60yr old train on the network, tell me when Alstrom are going to replace my 08?

Sure, you can make anything last if you want to but your maintenance costs are escalating every year. Its nice talking about loco's but passengers don't travel in loco's in 25 or 40 year old carriages do they ?

Your 60 year old train is unlikely to be in everyday use, carrying passengers, with decent reliability, without a full refit at least every 10 years.

Errr yes they do on the Greater Anglia network and will continue to do so for the forceable future.

Team4Luke

tiredofwhiners wrote:

Curates Egg - good in parts. Not good enough in others.

At least its reduced the public sector liability for providing inflation proof pensions to the less capable, who only pay about one quarter of the amount of money needed to fund their pension.

Even if you want to nationalise, who would draw up any agreements - the public sector - who have a less than sterling reputation for doing anything.

at the expense of our very low wages compared to private sector, don't believe the hype :evil:

majority of government depts have moved on along way, we might be PS but we operate like private business, we also bring in new and modern working practices such that we go to the private sector to educate them in new working methods. Again don't beleive the hype :evil:

Team4Luke

VTech wrote:

Privatisation is the best thing for any society, where it falls down is with government intervention.
Check out Singapore, they have a rule of 15% government intervention and things just get done, if companies dont get the work done they pay for it, in the UK there are no real penalties and we have around 80% interference.

no this not neccessarily the case. You mean best for the business, which means a leaner company with ongoing targets of profit. Many publicy owned large businesses abroad provide far better service to the public as they have to be accountable. Private sector can not create as many jobs as the government can slash in blink of an eye. Computerisation is now having an economic effect not just on the UK but in the world economy, it is not just the banking system. We must ensure as many people are in work so as they can recirculate money back into the economy ie to the private companies and tax back to the government. Privatisation just leads to more unemployed which becomes a bill for the goverment (that is You) and less income being spent in the private sector due to being on only benefits.
The balance of slashing jobs and computerisation must slow and cease, I really do fear for the future and the way we are based on money for services rendered, things need to change.

AchillesLeftKnee

-spider- wrote:

TOW tends to dream up facts to support his whines about the public sector.

The Mac vs PC thread was much the same. It's clearly a standard approach.

d87francis

@tiredofwhiners - oh dear some very tired arguments you are trumping out here. Firstly let me put you straight on Greece, despite the codswallop you may have been told of lazy stereotypes that the Greeks are lazy or corrupt, it was corporate tax evasion by private companies that has crippled their economy. The Greeks also have one of the longest average working weeks in Europe.

Your arguments all seem to be based on the false logic that high salaries = hard work. Those cooks, cleaners, care assistants and a whole host of other poorly paid workers whose welfare the wealthy may have to pay more towards, have likely all work a lot harder all of their lives in the face of a society increasingly becoming less socially mobile. When you can predict what someone will earn, their likely educational achievements, whether they will go to prison and the time they will spend unemployed purely from their postcode you know you are living in a plutocracy with almost nonexistent social mobility.

A little historical context would also help free you from your economic brainwashing. Governments have run a deficit many times in the last century and they also happen to coincide with economic growth from public spending. Think post WW2 as an example of when we had a much higher national debt and we were creating the welfare state. The Golden years of the two decades after WW2 produced the greatest economic growth in the last century; growth being such a fascination of neo-liberal orthodox economists.

You contradict yourself again and again, an example "If there were an alternative to bailing out the banks I'd be happy to hear about as nobody has any alternatives". In fact the free market approach which you support would be to let the banks collapse, let the invisible hand of the markets decide; but yet again you and neo-liberalism display one of its great contradictions. The bailing out of the banks is a prime example of how the private sector is reliant on the state. Those bailouts account for a large proportion of our deficit which you are so concerned about. We are now in a ridiculous situation where for the money we have invested, RBS should have been nationalised, but they are allowed to continue operating privately and happen to have more links with tax havens than any other bank.

AchillesLeftKnee

d87francis wrote:

A little historical context would also help free you from your economic brainwashing. Governments have run a deficit many times in the last century and they also happen to coincide with economic growth from public spending. Think post WW2 as an example of when we had a much higher deficit and we were creating the welfare state. The Golden years of the two decades after WW2 produced the greatest economic growth in the last century; growth being such a fascination of neo-liberal orthodox economists.

I think you're confusing deficit with total debt there. The UK deficit during the post-war years you describe was around 2%-3% of GDP http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn26.pdf (See figure 1 for details), and that's considerably less than we see today.

d87francis

You're quite right that second deficit was meant to say national debt, thanks.

VTech

Well, to add to my earlier comment, cost difference on travel is similar here as home. I'm sat at Charleston awaiting a flight to New York and the ticket can be bought for as little as $38 whereas the bus is $71 and the train is $74+$56 so much cheaper by air.
Having said that, I'm delayed 2h50m so would have arrived quicker by train if I had left this morning.
The trains here look like they are from the civil war too

Garry H

VTech wrote:

Well, to add to my earlier comment, cost difference on travel is similar here as home. I'm sat at Charleston awaiting a flight to New York and the ticket can be bought for as little as $38 whereas the bus is $71 and the train is $74+$56 so much cheaper by air.
Having said that, I'm delayed 2h50m so would have arrived quicker by train if I had left this morning.
The trains here look like they are from the civil war too

I would add that they also smell like they've gone through the Civil War!

tiredofwhiners

d87francis wrote:

@tiredofwhiners - oh dear some very tired arguments you are trumping out here. Firstly let me put you straight on Greece, despite the codswallop you may have been told of lazy stereotypes that the Greeks are lazy or corrupt, it was corporate tax evasion by private companies that has crippled their economy. The Greeks also have one of the longest average working weeks in Europe.

They also have some of the highest level of corruption in Europe - and thats every single person - not just the rich. Anyone who has lived there will tell you that (me) as will any Greek. thts why its 99th in the world index for places to do business - behind Yemen and most of the sh*tholes in Africa. Believe what you want - the Greeks bloated their economy with €300 Billion of borrowings, created a huge public sector funded by debt because hardly anyone paid taxes and you defend them ? It was tax evasion by every single Greek that did it. Even when the recession started they boosted public sector pensions by 20% even though they literally had no money to pay for them and now they cry because its getting unwound.

Try reading this - you might learn something http://www.greekdefaultwatch.com/2012/1 ... reece.html

Allowing the banks to collapse would destroy the Uk pensions base apart from guess who ? Your parasitic spongers in the public sector whose pensions are protected by the tax base. You know, us nice folks who pay 75% of your pension and get a shoddy poor service for it. Allowing the banks to collapse was never an option because the 80% of us in the private sector would rather keep our pensions and drag back the public sector bak to the point where you pay for your own 100% - which will come not too soon.

The public sector does not in any way, shape of form, provide value for money. the sooner that stops, the better off the country will be apart all the poor souls in the public sector who might have to actually be efficient and remember who pays the bills.

tiredofwhiners

Team4Luke wrote:

majority of government depts have moved on along way, we might be PS but we operate like private business, we also bring in new and modern working practices such that we go to the private sector to educate them in new working methods. Again don't beleive the hype :evil:

Complete and utter claptrap.

1. We have to use you, and cannot go to someone else so you are nothing like a private company. You cannot be sacked or sued. If there were commercial alternatives to public sctor bodies, then few would use the public sector a sit costs too much and doesn't undertand the concept of customer satisfaction. remember the nice HMRC PS 'leader' who said she would endeavour to answer phones in 20 minutes and actually thought that was acceptable ?
2.You don't get any credit for moving into the 20th century with your 'modern and new' practices as the rest of us are in the 21st century and you're always behind. There is nothing at all in which the public sector leads in any way, apart from absence and sickness levels.

Go on then, tell me what you educate the private sector in new working methods ? How to fill out a tax form ?

markos1963

TOW 'Your parasitic spongers in the public sector whose pensions are protected by the tax base.'

I hope you remember to tell the nurse this if you crash on your bike and are waiting for her to patch you up!

mamba80

TOW - you dont seem to have learnt a thing during this "discussion"
You go on about private enterprise - but then acknowledge the Gov had to bail out the banks - pension mis selling, libor, PPI, BG 600m profits, whilst elderly and many other families freeze, RBS 5billion losses BUT 600m bonus pool ? hardly private business at its best is it?

Union strikes of the 70s ? surely the withdrawl of labour is the ultimate in the free market? but you dont want that do you?
what you do is cherry pick - selecting the best of the free market and highlighting that against some pretty poor work practices of the public sector.

As i said before, the public sector isnt allowed to compete on a level playing field, R/mail - they have to carry their rivals post at just about cost and have their prices fixed by ofcom, same with BT, they ve got to open up the infrastructure to rivals who dont have to maintain or upgrade it.
Councils cant rise their prices ie rates - all they can do is cut services, leading to more pxssed of staff, worse service - private business just charge what the market can stand, so of course they make money and seem more efficient.

Would nhs hospitals be in the financial state they r in IF they could charge what the Nuffield does?

Many if not all of the problems in the public sector have been bought about by bring in private sector practices whilst ham stringing how they can do business.
Take the privatisation of waste collection by Cornwall CC - missed collections, more recycle ending up in landfil and more expensive to run, at the same time the workers have lost their already meager pensions, meaning that we ll be paying them in benefits after they retire.

Frank the tank

When will you lot learn, arguing/discussing such issues with TOW is a total waste of time he/she has an illogical hatred of the public sector,no one on here will change his/her IMHO warped view of the PS.

I've given up even trying to debate the issue as it's like wrestling with a pig in sh1t, totally pointless and after a while you realise the pig is enjoying it.

finchy

Frank the tank wrote:

When will you lot learn, arguing/discussing such issues with TOW is a total waste of time he/she has an illogical hatred of the public sector,no one on here will change his/her IMHO warped view of the PS.

I've given up even trying to debate the issue as it's like wrestling with a pig in sh1t, totally pointless and after a while you realise the pig is enjoying it.

You're right. I'm usually quite happy to talk to people whose views I don't share, even if we never agree on anything, but for the first time since I joined Bikeradar, TOW had me going for the "Ignore" button. Then I found that the forum doesn't have one. :roll: