Do they provide an explanation for this? East Asian and European nations tend to have the highest IQ. Mongolians apparently have the same average IQ as the Swiss.
But how much of the shitness was BR specific, and how much due to its being in the 1970s when everything was shit (or at least all large public enterprises and all forms of transport)?
That's a fair point, the UK pre-Thatcher and the vastly better UK post-Thatcher account for a large part of the difference. Even so, I was a BR commuter in the 1990s and it was still absolutely dire. No 'Delay repay' in those days of course - you just had to lump it.
The oil price shock had a lot to do with it.
No, it was the toxic combination of out-of-control unions and management which was focused only on getting subsidies out the government, and couldn't therefore care less about customers. In a sense you can't blame the managers: it was just so much easier to say 'give us another billion or we'll have to sack thousands of workers and that will cause sympathy strikes all round the economy' than to actually do the hard work of improving things.
While I would hesitate to argue with you on economics, that’s not how I remember it, and during the late 60’s and 70’s I was a director of a group of six pharmacies. The 1983 oil price hike, with the concurrent stock market crash shook the system to its foundations, and people worked hard to defend their positions. Understandably. As I recall it, too, we were developing the customer culture during the 70’s; the take it or leave it conditions of the previous two decades were well and truly over.
It is just staggering that we can even be thinking of discussing renationalisation and repeating all the old mistakes. This is all known stuff: so successful were Thatcher's privatisations in improving service, stimulating innovation, boosting the economy, and reducing costs that they were subsequently copied in almost every country in the world to varying degrees, except in North Korea and Cuba. Admittedly there has been some back-sliding in a few places, notably Venezuela, but that should merely serve to remind us of the consequences. Why on earth is anyone advocating it?
Honestly, before I started posting on PB, it had never even occurred to me that people would think the current railways set-up is better than the British Rail days. I used to think the only dispute was whether it was affordable to renationalise them, not whether it would be desirable in itself, since that seemed blindingly obvious.
By returning franchises to
It's more challenging to .
I can see the attraction in theory of re-nationalisation. The utilities all come out of the same pipe/cables so why do we have to haggle with different private companies to get a better deal? As a nation, we're all confused by different tariffs and perhaps think that if the state took over, it'd be cheaper and profit could be ploughed back into the infrastructure. Corbyn's Labour are trying to surf that wave of populism. I get that in reality it isn't that easy to take them back from the private companies that now run them, but it does have a simplistic beauty to it. Whether the state could actually runi them any better is obviously open to question!
" ... and perhaps think that if the state took over, it'd be cheaper and profit could be ploughed back into the infrastructure."
That's where the thinking goes awry. Nationalised utilities may not prove cheaper, innovation might be stifled, and governments would covetously eye any profits and demolish ringfences to grab them, destroying investment.
At least, that's prior experience here in the UK. Even the nationalised BT, which I can say many good things about in the technical field, gave a rather poor customer experience.
The nationalised British Gas did a huge amount of technical innovation. This included strategic research programmes looking to address issues that were thought to be several decades away. Post privatisation, it all started to wither away.
Details, please.
Conversion of the entire network from towns gas to natural gas.
Pioneers in LNG transportation, storage and revaporisation.
Development of CRG and HYCOM processes for synthetic natural gas production from liquid feedstock.
Development of BGL gasifier and coal hydrogenation technology for synthetic natural gas production from coal.
Development of adsorption technology for natural gas purification.
Honestly, before I started posting on PB, it had never even occurred to me that people would think the current railways set-up is better than the British Rail days. I used to think the only dispute was whether it was affordable to renationalise them, not whether it would be desirable in itself, since that seemed blindingly obvious.
By returning franchises to
It's more challenging to .
I can see the attraction in theory of re-nationalisation. The utilities all come out of the same pipe/cables so why do we have to haggle with different private companies to get a better deal? As a nation, we're all confused by different tariffs and perhaps think that if the state took over, it'd be cheaper and profit could be ploughed back into the infrastructure. Corbyn's Labour are trying to surf that wave of populism. I get that in reality it isn't that easy to take them back from the private companies that now run them, but it does have a simplistic beauty to it. Whether the state could actually runi them any better is obviously open to question!
" ... and perhaps think that if the state took over, it'd be cheaper and profit could be ploughed back into the infrastructure."
That's where the thinking goes awry. Nationalised utilities may not prove cheaper, innovation might be stifled, and governments would covetously eye any profits and demolish ringfences to grab them, destroying investment.
At least, that's prior experience here in the UK. Even the nationalised BT, which I can say many good things about in the technical field, gave a rather poor customer experience.
The nationalised British Gas did a huge amount of technical innovation. This included strategic research programmes looking to address issues that were thought to be several decades away. Post privatisation, it all started to wither away.
Details, please.
Conversion of the entire network from towns gas to natural gas.
Pioneers in LNG transportation, storage and revaporisation.
Development of CRG and HYCOM processes for synthetic natural gas production from liquid feedstock.
Development of BGL gasifier and coal hydrogenation technology for synthetic natural gas production from coal.
Development of adsorption technology for natural gas purification.
Etc.
Much of that driven by the discovery of North Sea Gas ...
Honestly, before I started posting on PB, it had never even occurred to me that people would think the current railways set-up is better than the British Rail days. I used to think the only dispute was whether it was affordable to renationalise them, not whether it would be desirable in itself, since that seemed blindingly obvious.
By returning franchises to the public sector only when they expire, the cost is reduced to ~£0.00. An important part of putting it back together again is vertically integrating it again into a body like the Swiss Federal Railways, i.e. one body has control of trains and tracks and indeed owns the trains, thus avoiding rip-off lease payments.
" ... and perhaps think that if the state took over, it'd be cheaper and profit could be ploughed back into the infrastructure."
That's where the thinking goes awry. Nationalised utilities may not prove cheaper, innovation might be stifled, and governments would covetously eye any profits and demolish ringfences to grab them, destroying investment.
At least, that's prior experience here in the UK. Even the nationalised BT, which I can say many good things about in the technical field, gave a rather poor customer experience.
The nationalised British Gas did a huge amount of technical innovation. This included strategic research programmes looking to address issues that were thought to be several decades away. Post privatisation, it all started to wither away.
Details, please.
I started my career in Operational Research (mathematical modelling of business processes) for ICI in 1965. British Gas was a leader in OR at the time, developing innovative optimisation, forecasting and scheduling techniques. It used evidence based analysis rather than the seat-of-the-pants latest management fad which became popular in the eighties.
Honestly, before I started posting on PB, it had never even occurred to me that people would think the current railways set-up is better than the British Rail days. I used to think the only dispute was whether it was affordable to renationalise them, not whether it would be desirable in itself, since that seemed blindingly obvious.
By returning franchises to
It's more challenging to .
" ... and perhaps think that if the state took over, it'd be cheaper and profit could be ploughed back into the infrastructure."
That's where the thinking goes awry. Nationalised utilities may not prove cheaper, innovation might be stifled, and governments would covetously eye any profits and demolish ringfences to grab them, destroying investment.
At least, that's prior experience here in the UK. Even the nationalised BT, which I can say many good things about in the technical field, gave a rather poor customer experience.
The nationalised British Gas did a huge amount of technical innovation. This included strategic research programmes looking to address issues that were thought to be several decades away. Post privatisation, it all started to wither away.
Details, please.
Conversion of the entire network from towns gas to natural gas.
Pioneers in LNG transportation, storage and revaporisation.
Development of CRG and HYCOM processes for synthetic natural gas production from liquid feedstock.
Development of BGL gasifier and coal hydrogenation technology for synthetic natural gas production from coal.
Development of adsorption technology for natural gas purification.
Etc.
Much of that driven by the discovery of North Sea Gas ...
and your point is caller, he was correct was he not.
It is just staggering that we can even be thinking of discussing renationalisation and repeating all the old mistakes. This is all known stuff: so successful were Thatcher's privatisations in improving service, stimulating innovation, boosting the economy, and reducing costs that they were subsequently copied in almost every country in the world to varying degrees, except in North Korea and Cuba. Admittedly there has been some back-sliding in a few places, notably Venezuela, but that should merely serve to remind us of the consequences. Why on earth is anyone advocating it?
and your point is caller, he was correct was he not.
Eliza, I;m unsure your programming would allow you to understand the point if it stood in front of you, unwrapped it's seductive gown and said: "Here I am."...
The point is that innovation when given a gift-horse to look into the mouth of is easy, as was the case when North Sea gas became available.
Innovation is also only part of the story. Take BR. They innovated massively in the 1960s and 1970s: not just things like the HST or APT, but they were world-leaders in trying to understand wheel-rail dynamics research which we then gave away). Yet despite all this world-beating innovation, BR was pretty much a basketcase in that period, as the whole APT story shows.
Honestly, before I started posting on PB, it had never even occurred to me that people would think the current railways set-up is better than the British Rail days. I used to think the only dispute was whether it was affordable to renationalise them, not whether it would be desirable in itself, since that seemed blindingly obvious.
By returning franchises to the public sector only when they expire, the cost is reduced to ~£0.00. An important part of putting it back together again is vertically integrating it again into a body like the Swiss Federal Railways, i.e. one body has control of trains and tracks and indeed owns the trains, thus avoiding rip-off lease payments.
" ... and perhaps think that if the state took over, it'd be cheaper and profit could be ploughed back into the infrastructure."
That's where the thinking goes awry. Nationalised utilities may not prove cheaper, innovation might be stifled, and governments would covetously eye any profits and demolish ringfences to grab them, destroying investment.
At least, that's prior experience here in the UK. Even the nationalised BT, which I can say many good things about in the technical field, gave a rather poor customer experience.
The nationalised British Gas did a huge amount of technical innovation. This included strategic research programmes looking to address issues that were thought to be several decades away. Post privatisation, it all started to wither away.
Details, please.
I started my career in Operational Research (mathematical modelling of business processes) for ICI in 1965. British Gas was a leader in OR at the time, developing innovative optimisation, forecasting and scheduling techniques. It used evidence based analysis rather than the seat-of-the-pants latest management fad which became popular in the eighties.
A lot of the strategic research we were doing was looking ahead to a time when we could not rely on North Sea gas - hence LNG, gasification, etc.
There was also a lot of safety related stuff - blowing things up at Spadeadam for example to get data on blast waves in congested areas or spilling a load of LNG onto water to see what happens.
It is just staggering that we can even be thinking of discussing renationalisation and repeating all the old mistakes. This is all known stuff: so successful were Thatcher's privatisations in improving service, stimulating innovation, boosting the economy, and reducing costs that they were subsequently copied in almost every country in the world to varying degrees, except in North Korea and Cuba. Admittedly there has been some back-sliding in a few places, notably Venezuela, but that should merely serve to remind us of the consequences. Why on earth is anyone advocating it?
It is a natural consequence of man-on-the-street voter thinking when times are hard. The "JAMS" as Miliband put it.
People see things like gas and electricity, the Royal Mail, or the trains, as being essentials - nobody spontaneously thinks "ooh, I'll go out and buy a few more stamps today! and maybe a little extra gas..." ...nor do they generally wander up and down the railways for fun (Sunil - an execption).
Everybody knows that capitalism = profit. Even as an arch capitalist, I'll admit that's how the system works. And while you can argue "profits provide incentives to make services better" until you're blue in the face, the trouble is when people are feeling the pinch, they feel as if those profits are being gouged directly from them.
People feel as if they are being overcharged for the necessities of life - whereas a government "for the people" would provide it at cost price.
Utility bills carry on rising, the cost of your travelcard to get to work goes up, while your wages remain the same. And so you blame "profit" - others doing well out of gouging you for more and more of the bare necessitiesyou need to keep a roof over your head and heat it.
People feel, fairly or unfairly, as if they are being exploited. As if every rise in the cost of their train fare or their gas bill goes directly into the pocket of a CEO who got a pay rise this year - when you didn't.
It may not be the expert view, or the economist's view but it is certainly the one of the man on the street who sees the cost of his utility bill and season ticket go up while his wages stagnate, and it is the kind of thinking that could easily propel Corbyn to power.
and your point is caller, he was correct was he not.
Eliza, I;m unsure your programming would allow you to understand the point if it stood in front of you, unwrapped it's seductive gown and said: "Here I am."...
The point is that innovation when given a gift-horse to look into the mouth of is easy, as was the case when North Sea gas became available.
Innovation is also only part of the story. Take BR. They innovated massively in the 1960s and 1970s: not just things like the HST or APT, but they were world-leaders in trying to understand wheel-rail dynamics research which we then gave away). Yet despite all this world-beating innovation, BR was pretty much a basketcase in that period, as the whole APT story shows.
So you prefer the rapacious fill the Execs boots methods of today, aided and abetted by their chums the Tories.
I see another poster has shown you are clueless on what British Gas did pre privatisation.
and your point is caller, he was correct was he not.
Eliza, I;m unsure your programming would allow you to understand the point if it stood in front of you, unwrapped it's seductive gown and said: "Here I am."...
The point is that innovation when given a gift-horse to look into the mouth of is easy, as was the case when North Sea gas became available.
Innovation is also only part of the story. Take BR. They innovated massively in the 1960s and 1970s: not just things like the HST or APT, but they were world-leaders in trying to understand wheel-rail dynamics research which we then gave away). Yet despite all this world-beating innovation, BR was pretty much a basketcase in that period, as the whole APT story shows.
The HSTs are still in squadron service 40 years later and still (IIRC) hold the speed record for a diesel train.
The APT had to be developed on a shoestring budget and was close to commercialisation when the plug was pulled. The tilt technology developed here was taken forward overseas and then of course re-exported back to the UK in the form of the Pendolinos on the WCML.
It is just staggering that we can even be thinking of discussing renationalisation and repeating all the old mistakes. This is all known stuff: so successful were Thatcher's privatisations in improving service, stimulating innovation, boosting the economy, and reducing costs that they were subsequently copied in almost every country in the world to varying degrees, except in North Korea and Cuba. Admittedly there has been some back-sliding in a few places, notably Venezuela, but that should merely serve to remind us of the consequences. Why on earth is anyone advocating it?
It is a natural consequence of man-on-the-street voter thinking when times are hard. The "JAMS" as Miliband put it.
People see things like gas and electricity, the Royal Mail, or the trains, as being essentials - nobody spontaneously thinks "ooh, I'll go out and buy a few more stamps today! and maybe a little extra gas..." ...nor do they generally wander up and down the railways for fun (Sunil - an execption).
Everybody knows that capitalism = profit. Even as an arch capitalist, I'll admit that's how the system works. And while you can argue "profits provide incentives to make services better" until you're blue in the face, the trouble is when people are feeling the pinch, they feel as if those profits are being gouged directly from them.
People feel as if they are being overcharged for the necessities of life - whereas a government "for the people" would provide it at cost price.
Utility bills carry on rising, the cost of your travelcard to get to work goes up, while your wages remain the same. And so you blame "profit" - others doing well out of gouging you for more and more of the bare necessitiesyou need to keep a roof over your head and heat it.
People feel, fairly or unfairly, as if they are being exploited. As if every rise in the cost of their train fare or their gas bill goes directly into the pocket of a CEO who got a pay rise this year - when you didn't.
It may not be the expert view, or the economist's view but it is certainly the one of the man on the street who sees the cost of his utility bill and season ticket go up while his wages stagnate, and it is the kind of thinking that could easily propel Corbyn to power.
Rich Tory toffs like Nabavi would have the plebs eat cake
and your point is caller, he was correct was he not.
Eliza, I;m unsure your programming would allow you to understand the point if it stood in front of you, unwrapped it's seductive gown and said: "Here I am."...
The point is that innovation when given a gift-horse to look into the mouth of is easy, as was the case when North Sea gas became available.
Innovation is also only part of the story. Take BR. They innovated massively in the 1960s and 1970s: not just things like the HST or APT, but they were world-leaders in trying to understand wheel-rail dynamics research which we then gave away). Yet despite all this world-beating innovation, BR was pretty much a basketcase in that period, as the whole APT story shows.
So you prefer the rapacious fill the Execs boots methods of today, aided and abetted by their chums the Tories.
I prefer what works; that might be nationalised, privatised or some other system depending on the industry and the period. I'm also wary of change being forced because a certain ideology is currently in vogue, whether that be nationalisation, privatisation or a.n. other.
It is just staggering that we can even be thinking of discussing renationalisation and repeating all the old mistakes. This is all known stuff: so successful were Thatcher's privatisations in improving service, stimulating innovation, boosting the economy, and reducing costs that they were subsequently copied in almost every country in the world to varying degrees, except in North Korea and Cuba. Admittedly there has been some back-sliding in a few places, notably Venezuela, but that should merely serve to remind us of the consequences. Why on earth is anyone advocating it?
It is a natural consequence of man-on-the-street voter thinking when times are hard. The "JAMS" as Miliband put it.
People see things like gas and electricity, the Royal Mail, or the trains, as being essentials - nobody spontaneously thinks "ooh, I'll go out and buy a few more stamps today! and maybe a little extra gas..." ...nor do they generally wander up and down the railways for fun (Sunil - an execption).
Everybody knows that capitalism = profit. Even as an arch capitalist, I'll admit that's how the system works. And while you can argue "profits provide incentives to make services better" until you're blue in the face, the trouble is when people are feeling the pinch, they feel as if those profits are being gouged directly from them.
People feel as if they are being overcharged for the necessities of life - whereas a government "for the people" would provide it at cost price.
Utility bills carry on rising, the cost of your travelcard to get to work goes up, while your wages remain the same. And so you blame "profit" - others doing well out of gouging you for more and more of the bare necessitiesyou need to keep a roof over your head and heat it.
People feel, fairly or unfairly, as if they are being exploited. As if every rise in the cost of their train fare or their gas bill goes directly into the pocket of a CEO who got a pay rise this year - when you didn't.
It may not be the expert view, or the economist's view but it is certainly the one of the man on the street who sees the cost of his utility bill and season ticket go up while his wages stagnate, and it is the kind of thinking that could easily propel Corbyn to power.
That's an excellent post, and says exactly how I feel about re nationalisation. It probably wouldn't work- as Josias points out, you just couldn't trust the government not to milk it to death, but people see the utilities as a basic human right nowadays, and paying some French company to give you a so-so service and rinse you for the privilege is starting to stick in the craw. Corbyn will ride that wave all the way in.
and your point is caller, he was correct was he not.
Eliza, I;m unsure your programming would allow you to understand the point if it stood in front of you, unwrapped it's seductive gown and said: "Here I am."...
The point is that innovation when given a gift-horse to look into the mouth of is easy, as was the case when North Sea gas became available.
Innovation is also only part of the story. Take BR. They innovated massively in the 1960s and 1970s: not just things like the HST or APT, but they were world-leaders in trying to understand wheel-rail dynamics research which we then gave away). Yet despite all this world-beating innovation, BR was pretty much a basketcase in that period, as the whole APT story shows.
So you prefer the rapacious fill the Execs boots methods of today, aided and abetted by their chums the Tories.
I prefer what works; that might be nationalised, privatised or some other system depending on the industry and the period. I'm also wary of change being forced because a certain ideology is currently in vogue, whether that be nationalisation, privatisation or a.n. other.
It should be forced if the privatised monopolies continue to pillage the captive audiences. We have higher prices and less innovation, only profits count.
and your point is caller, he was correct was he not.
Eliza, I;m unsure your programming would allow you to understand the point if it stood in front of you, unwrapped it's seductive gown and said: "Here I am."...
The point is that innovation when given a gift-horse to look into the mouth of is easy, as was the case when North Sea gas became available.
Innovation is also only part of the story. Take BR. They innovated massively in the 1960s and 1970s: not just things like the HST or APT, but they were world-leaders in trying to understand wheel-rail dynamics research which we then gave away). Yet despite all this world-beating innovation, BR was pretty much a basketcase in that period, as the whole APT story shows.
The HSTs are still in squadron service 40 years later and still (IIRC) hold the speed record for a diesel train.
The APT had to be developed on a shoestring budget and was close to commercialisation when the plug was pulled. The tilt technology developed here was taken forward overseas and then of course re-exported back to the UK in the form of the Pendolinos on the WCML.
Yep. The HST are a glorious hing of which we, as a country, should be proud (and were exported in a form to Australia). Yet that was the 'safe' option.
The APT is a slightly different story. It was exceptionally ahead of its time: just the use of aluminium and aerospace techniques had many in Derby scratching their heads, yet alone any of the really interesting stuff.
But despite all this innovation, the railways still were not doing very well: although the HST could be said to have helped make Intercity profitable in the 1980s. I mean, BREL at Derby was a basketcase right up to the end, with terrible outdated working practices and waste on an industrial scale.
Innovation is pointless if you are unwilling to embrace the advantages.
As an example, the APT-E did not run for a year after its first run due to stupid action by ASLEF, causing a one-day strike that cost more than the entire project!
It is just staggering that we can even be thinking of discussing renationalisation and repeating all the old mistakes. This is all known stuff: so successful were Thatcher's privatisations in improving service, stimulating innovation, boosting the economy, and reducing costs that they were subsequently copied in almost every country in the world to varying degrees, except in North Korea and Cuba. Admittedly there has been some back-sliding in a few places, notably Venezuela, but that should merely serve to remind us of the consequences. Why on earth is anyone advocating it?
That's an excellent post, and says exactly how I feel about re nationalisation. It probably wouldn't work- as Josias points out, you just couldn't trust the government not to milk it to death, but people see the utilities as a basic human right nowadays, and paying some French company to give you a so-so service and rinse you for the privilege is starting to stick in the craw. Corbyn will ride that wave all the way in.
Exactly.
Did you see this? A Momentum video (hard to find the original link, this is a copy) that was I think the second or third most viewed video of the GE2017 campaign.
This is the mood of the country - "we are being ripped off and somebody somewhere is drinking champagne with the proceeds of my season ticket, while I haven't had a pay rise in three ****ing years."
Arguments about there being more trains or the service being more efficient since privatisation don't have any effect on people who see the cost of their ticket rise above inflation again and again for the privilege of being crammed into a sardine tin at rush hour.
That's an excellent post, and says exactly how I feel about re nationalisation. It probably wouldn't work- as Josias points out, you just couldn't trust the government not to milk it to death, but people see the utilities as a basic human right nowadays, and paying some French company to give you a so-so service and rinse you for the privilege is starting to stick in the craw. Corbyn will ride that wave all the way in.
People do not see monopolies as a basic human right, and that's what they'd be getting. Just wait until they're told that they cannot use the new Apple XXX on the one mobile network as the nationalised operator has done a deal with Nokia and Microsoft. And that's the sort of choice you got with BT ...
Having said that, I've never seen the point in water privatisation.
It is just staggering that we can even be thinking of discussing renationalisation and repeating all the old mistakes. This is all known stuff: so successful were Thatcher's privatisations in improving service, stimulating innovation, boosting the economy, and reducing costs that they were subsequently copied in almost every country in the world to varying degrees, except in North Korea and Cuba. Admittedly there has been some back-sliding in a few places, notably Venezuela, but that should merely serve to remind us of the consequences. Why on earth is anyone advocating it?
Consequence of Labour’s education policies
I get that it's unlikely to be a success, but it is such a tantalising "What If?". Utilities for the people, not the multinationals. No adverts on the telly with wanky penquins in, just power for the people! It's never gonna work, I know, but you can't blame people for being drawn to Corbyn because of it.
That's an excellent post, and says exactly how I feel about re nationalisation. It probably wouldn't work- as Josias points out, you just couldn't trust the government not to milk it to death, but people see the utilities as a basic human right nowadays, and paying some French company to give you a so-so service and rinse you for the privilege is starting to stick in the craw. Corbyn will ride that wave all the way in.
People do not see monopolies as a basic human right, and that's what they'd be getting. Just wait until they're told that they cannot use the new Apple XXX on the one mobile network as the nationalised operator has done a deal with Nokia and Microsoft. And that's the sort of choice you got with BT ...
Having said that, I've never seen the point in water privatisation.
Forget mobile networks, it's power and water that get people wound up. Those 2 basic human rights are what people feel cheated on.
That's an excellent post, and says exactly how I feel about re nationalisation. It probably wouldn't work- as Josias points out, you just couldn't trust the government not to milk it to death, but people see the utilities as a basic human right nowadays, and paying some French company to give you a so-so service and rinse you for the privilege is starting to stick in the craw. Corbyn will ride that wave all the way in.
There were probably four main reasons for privatisations
1 ideology 2 trebles all round for merchant banks which did the share issues, etc 3 executives could raise their pay 5-10x 4 govt cash flow improved, which some people considered crucial, but the profit and loss account worsened, because future profits now went to shareholders (nationalised and privatised gas made a huge profit).
Maybe some people thought entrepeneurs would unlock hidden savings. It hasn't happened. It was hardly likely to happen with natural monopolies like telephone wires or buried electric cables and gas or water pipes.
Disraeli nationalised the telegraph wires in 1868 because a privatised 'entrepeneurial' setup didn't deliver the Victorians what they wanted, which was working internet, a.k.a. the telegraph. It's been known for 100 years that even privately-owned utilities, like many in the USA, are best regarded as boring, safe, low-risk, low-return with very little excitement in them.
The best way to do it would be via central or local govt-owned limited company/ies which operate at relative arms length, like the British Railways Board did shortly before privatisation. Northern Ireland and Scotland already have more state-owned operations than England, e.g. rail, water, so there are examples of it working in the 21st.C.
That's an excellent post, and says exactly how I feel about re nationalisation. It probably wouldn't work- as Josias points out, you just couldn't trust the government not to milk it to death, but people see the utilities as a basic human right nowadays, and paying some French company to give you a so-so service and rinse you for the privilege is starting to stick in the craw. Corbyn will ride that wave all the way in.
People do not see monopolies as a basic human right, and that's what they'd be getting. Just wait until they're told that they cannot use the new Apple XXX on the one mobile network as the nationalised operator has done a deal with Nokia and Microsoft. And that's the sort of choice you got with BT ...
Having said that, I've never seen the point in water privatisation.
Forget mobile networks, it's power and water that get people wound up. Those 2 basic human rights are what people feel cheated on.
I think Owen Jones did a piece on nationalising mobile networks but otherwise I’ve not heard anyone suggest it. The obvious factor is whether there can be meaningful competition in the industry. With water and power distribution at least I think it’s clear there can’t be.
It is just staggering that we can even be thinking of discussing renationalisation and repeating all the old mistakes. This is all known stuff: so successful were Thatcher's privatisations in improving service, stimulating innovation, boosting the economy, and reducing costs that they were subsequently copied in almost every country in the world to varying degrees, except in North Korea and Cuba. Admittedly there has been some back-sliding in a few places, notably Venezuela, but that should merely serve to remind us of the consequences. Why on earth is anyone advocating it?
Consequence of Labour’s education policies
I get that it's unlikely to be a success, but it is such a tantalising "What If?". Utilities for the people, not the multinationals. No adverts on the telly with wanky penquins in, just power for the people! It's never gonna work, I know, but you can't blame people for being drawn to Corbyn because of it.
Nationalised utilities seem to work fine in Europe/rest of the world.
That's an excellent post, and says exactly how I feel about re nationalisation. It probably wouldn't work- as Josias points out, you just couldn't trust the government not to milk it to death, but people see the utilities as a basic human right nowadays, and paying some French company to give you a so-so service and rinse you for the privilege is starting to stick in the craw. Corbyn will ride that wave all the way in.
Exactly.
Did you see this? A Momentum video (hard to find the original link, this is a copy) that was I think the second or third most viewed video of the GE2017 campaign.
This is the mood of the country - "we are being ripped off and somebody somewhere is drinking champagne with the proceeds of my season ticket, while I haven't had a pay rise in three ****ing years."
Arguments about there being more trains or the service being more efficient since privatisation don't have any effect on people who see the cost of their ticket rise above inflation again and again for the privilege of being crammed into a sardine tin at rush hour.
Train travel is subsidised for the traveller through general taxation of the population (including of those who do not travel by train).
Profits from the train operator are attrributable to the train owners who include those people who have pension investments.
It is just staggering that we can even be thinking of discussing renationalisation and repeating all the old mistakes. This is all known stuff: so successful were Thatcher's privatisations in improving service, stimulating innovation, boosting the economy, and reducing costs that they were subsequently copied in almost every country in the world to varying degrees, except in North Korea and Cuba. Admittedly there has been some back-sliding in a few places, notably Venezuela, but that should merely serve to remind us of the consequences. Why on earth is anyone advocating it?
Consequence of Labour’s education policies
I get that it's unlikely to be a success, but it is such a tantalising "What If?". Utilities for the people, not the multinationals. No adverts on the telly with wanky penquins in, just power for the people! It's never gonna work, I know, but you can't blame people for being drawn to Corbyn because of it.
Nationalised utilities seem to work fine in Europe/rest of the world.
Indeed foreign nationalised utilities own much of our "privatised" utilities...
It is just staggering that we can even be thinking of discussing renationalisation and repeating all the old mistakes. This is all known stuff: so successful were Thatcher's privatisations in improving service, stimulating innovation, boosting the economy, and reducing costs that they were subsequently copied in almost every country in the world to varying degrees, except in North Korea and Cuba. Admittedly there has been some back-sliding in a few places, notably Venezuela, but that should merely serve to remind us of the consequences. Why on earth is anyone advocating it?
Consequence of Labour’s education policies
I get that it's unlikely to be a success, but it is such a tantalising "What If?". Utilities for the people, not the multinationals. No adverts on the telly with wanky penquins in, just power for the people! It's never gonna work, I know, but you can't blame people for being drawn to Corbyn because of it.
Nationalised utilities seem to work fine in Europe/rest of the world.
I know, but ours are now privately owned, so I don't know how it can be bought back into public ownership. Plus, would you trust recent governments to run it without using it as a cash cow?
That's an excellent post, and says exactly how I feel about re nationalisation. It probably wouldn't work- as Josias points out, you just couldn't trust the government not to milk it to death, but people see the utilities as a basic human right nowadays, and paying some French company to give you a so-so service and rinse you for the privilege is starting to stick in the craw. Corbyn will ride that wave all the way in.
Exactly.
Did you see this? A Momentum video (hard to find the original link, this is a copy) that was I think the second or third most viewed video of the GE2017 campaign.
This is the mood of the country - "we are being ripped off and somebody somewhere is drinking champagne with the proceeds of my season ticket, while I haven't had a pay rise in three ****ing years."
Arguments about there being more trains or the service being more efficient since privatisation don't have any effect on people who see the cost of their ticket rise above inflation again and again for the privilege of being crammed into a sardine tin at rush hour.
Train travel is subsidised for the traveller through general taxation of the population (including of those who do not travel by train).
Profits from the train operator are attrributable to the train owners who include those people who have pension investments.
As I said previously, appeals to logic, to economics, to statistics, and so forth, will have no effect on the average JAM who sees his or her wages falling in real terms year on year while the cost of the bare necessities - utilities bills, season tickets etc, continue to rise.
That's an excellent post, and says exactly how I feel about re nationalisation. It probably wouldn't work- as Josias points out, you just couldn't trust the government not to milk it to death, but people see the utilities as a basic human right nowadays, and paying some French company to give you a so-so service and rinse you for the privilege is starting to stick in the craw. Corbyn will ride that wave all the way in.
There were probably four main reasons for privatisations
1 ideology 2 trebles all round for merchant banks which did the share issues, etc 3 executives could raise their pay 5-10x 4 govt cash flow improved, which some people considered crucial, but the profit and loss account worsened, because future profits now went to shareholders (nationalised and privatised gas made a huge profit).
Maybe some people thought entrepeneurs would unlock hidden savings. It hasn't happened. It was hardly likely to happen with natural monopolies like telephone wires or buried electric cables and gas or water pipes.
Disraeli nationalised the telegraph wires in 1868 because a privatised 'entrepeneurial' setup didn't deliver the Victorians what they wanted, which was working internet, a.k.a. the telegraph. It's been known for 100 years that even privately-owned utilities, like many in the USA, are best regarded as boring, safe, low-risk, low-return with very little excitement in them.
The best way to do it would be via central or local govt-owned limited company/ies which operate at relative arms length, like the British Railways Board did shortly before privatisation. Northern Ireland and Scotland already have more state-owned operations than England, e.g. rail, water, so there are examples of it working in the 21st.C.
Honestly, before I started posting on PB, it had never even occurred to me that people would think the current railways set-up is better than the British Rail days. I used to think the only dispute was whether it was affordable to renationalise them, not whether it would be desirable in itself, since that seemed blindingly obvious.
By returning franchises to the public sector only when they expire, the cost is reduced to ~£0.00. An important part of putting it back together again is vertically integrating it again into a body like the Swiss Federal Railways, i.e. one body has control of trains and tracks and indeed owns the trains, thus avoiding rip-off lease payments.
" ... and perhaps think that if the state took over, it'd be cheaper and profit could be ploughed back into the infrastructure."
That's where the thinking goes awry. Nationalised utilities may not prove cheaper, innovation might be stifled, and governments would covetously eye any profits and demolish ringfences to grab them, destroying investment.
At least, that's prior experience here in the UK. Even the nationalised BT, which I can say many good things about in the technical field, gave a rather poor customer experience.
The nationalised British Gas did a huge amount of technical innovation. This included strategic research programmes looking to address issues that were thought to be several decades away. Post privatisation, it all started to wither away.
Details, please.
I started my career in Operational Research (mathematical modelling of business processes) for ICI in 1965. British Gas was a leader in OR at the time, developing innovative optimisation, forecasting and scheduling techniques. It used evidence based analysis rather than the seat-of-the-pants latest management fad which became popular in the eighties.
In 1965 I was also working at ICI (Mond Division) on a University vacation scholarship whilst studying engineering at University.
However, moved into the more lucrative; warmer; and less smelly management consultancy after university.
That's an excellent post, and says exactly how I feel about re nationalisation. It probably wouldn't work- as Josias points out, you just couldn't trust the government not to milk it to death, but people see the utilities as a basic human right nowadays, and paying some French company to give you a so-so service and rinse you for the privilege is starting to stick in the craw. Corbyn will ride that wave all the way in.
People do not see monopolies as a basic human right, and that's what they'd be getting. Just wait until they're told that they cannot use the new Apple XXX on the one mobile network as the nationalised operator has done a deal with Nokia and Microsoft. And that's the sort of choice you got with BT ...
Having said that, I've never seen the point in water privatisation.
Forget mobile networks, it's power and water that get people wound up. Those 2 basic human rights are what people feel cheated on.
I think Owen Jones did a piece on nationalising mobile networks but otherwise I’ve not heard anyone suggest it. The obvious factor is whether there can be meaningful competition in the industry. With water and power distribution at least I think it’s clear there can’t be.
In BTs heyday there was little prospect, publically anyway, of mobile phones. Too often in this sort of discussion we tend to look backwards. In the 60s there were quite a few people, like my father-in-law, who didn’t see the need for a phone at home. And he had a managerial job! And, it was becoming easier to get a landline.
That's an excellent post, and says exactly how I feel about re nationalisation. It probably wouldn't work- as Josias points out, you just couldn't trust the government not to milk it to death, but people see the utilities as a basic human right nowadays, and paying some French company to give you a so-so service and rinse you for the privilege is starting to stick in the craw. Corbyn will ride that wave all the way in.
Exactly.
Did you see this? A Momentum video (hard to find the original link, this is a copy) that was I think the second or third most viewed video of the GE2017 campaign.
This is the mood of the country - "we are being ripped off and somebody somewhere is drinking champagne with the proceeds of my season ticket, while I haven't had a pay rise in three ****ing years."
Arguments about there being more trains or the service being more efficient since privatisation don't have any effect on people who see the cost of their ticket rise above inflation again and again for the privilege of being crammed into a sardine tin at rush hour.
Train travel is subsidised for the traveller through general taxation of the population (including of those who do not travel by train).
Profits from the train operator are attrributable to the train owners who include those people who have pension investments.
As I said previously, appeals to logic, to economics, to statistics, and so forth, will have no effect on the average JAM who sees his or her wages falling in real terms year on year while the cost of the bare necessities - utilities bills, season tickets etc, continue to rise.
It is just staggering that we can even be thinking of discussing renationalisation and repeating all the old mistakes. This is all known stuff: so successful were Thatcher's privatisations in improving service, stimulating innovation, boosting the economy, and reducing costs that they were subsequently copied in almost every country in the world to varying degrees, except in North Korea and Cuba. Admittedly there has been some back-sliding in a few places, notably Venezuela, but that should merely serve to remind us of the consequences. Why on earth is anyone advocating it?
Consequence of Labour’s education policies
I get that it's unlikely to be a success, but it is such a tantalising "What If?". Utilities for the people, not the multinationals. No adverts on the telly with wanky penquins in, just power for the people! It's never gonna work, I know, but you can't blame people for being drawn to Corbyn because of it.
Nationalised utilities seem to work fine in Europe/rest of the world.
Labour have never got 'clever' right. That extends to almost everything. They're small world politicians to a man. Their principle problem though is that this narrow-minded view completely obscures their thinking about economic issues. Economics is a ludicrous guesswork at best, but if you're going to try to make sense of it then imposing some sort of unthinking dogmatism will probably not go so well. Oh look, it hasn't gone so well!
It is just staggering that we can even be thinking of discussing renationalisation and repeating all the old mistakes. This is all known stuff: so successful were Thatcher's privatisations in improving service, stimulating innovation, boosting the economy, and reducing costs that they were subsequently copied in almost every country in the world to varying degrees, except in North Korea and Cuba. Admittedly there has been some back-sliding in a few places, notably Venezuela, but that should merely serve to remind us of the consequences. Why on earth is anyone advocating it?
It is a natural consequence of man-on-the-street voter thinking when times are hard. The "JAMS" as Miliband put it.
People see things like gas and electricity, the Royal Mail, or the trains, as being essentials - nobody spontaneously thinks "ooh, I'll go out and buy a few more stamps today! and maybe a little extra gas..." ...nor do they generally wander up and down the railways for fun (Sunil - an execption).
Everybody knows that capitalism = profit. Even as an arch capitalist, I'll admit that's how the system works. And while you can argue "profits provide incentives to make services better" until you're blue in the face, the trouble is when people are feeling the pinch, they feel as if those profits are being gouged directly from them.
People feel as if they are being overcharged for the necessities of life - whereas a government "for the people" would provide it at cost price.
Utility bills carry on rising, the cost of your travelcard to get to work goes up, while your wages remain the same. And so you blame "profit" - others doing well out of gouging you for more and more of the bare necessitiesyou need to keep a roof over your head and heat it.
People feel, fairly or unfairly, as if they are being exploited. As if every rise in the cost of their train fare or their gas bill goes directly into the pocket of a CEO who got a pay rise this year - when you didn't.
It may not be the expert view, or the economist's view but it is certainly the one of the man on the street who sees the cost of his utility bill and season ticket go up while his wages stagnate, and it is the kind of thinking that could easily propel Corbyn to power.
That's an excellent post, and says exactly how I feel about re nationalisation. It probably wouldn't work- as Josias points out, you just couldn't trust the government not to milk it to death, but people see the utilities as a basic human right nowadays, and paying some French company to give you a so-so service and rinse you for the privilege is starting to stick in the craw. Corbyn will ride that wave all the way in.
That's an excellent post, and says exactly how I feel about re nationalisation. It probably wouldn't work- as Josias points out, you just couldn't trust the government not to milk it to death, but people see the utilities as a basic human right nowadays, and paying some French company to give you a so-so service and rinse you for the privilege is starting to stick in the craw. Corbyn will ride that wave all the way in.
Exactly.
Did you see this? A Momentum video (hard to find the original link, this is a copy) that was I think the second or third most viewed video of the GE2017 campaign.
This is the mood of the country - "we are being ripped off and somebody somewhere is drinking champagne with the proceeds of my season ticket, while I haven't had a pay rise in three ****ing years."
Arguments about there being more trains or the service being more efficient since privatisation don't have any effect on people who see the cost of their ticket rise above inflation again and again for the privilege of being crammed into a sardine tin at rush hour.
Train travel is subsidised for the traveller through general taxation of the population (including of those who do not travel by train).
Profits from the train operator are attrributable to the train owners who include those people who have pension investments.
As I said previously, appeals to logic, to economics, to statistics, and so forth, will have no effect on the average JAM who sees his or her wages falling in real terms year on year while the cost of the bare necessities - utilities bills, season tickets etc, continue to rise.
The average JAM needs to wise up.
And so the argument goes that the current generation - who never experienced a six to twelve week wait to have a rotary phone hard-wired into their living room (not that BT Openreach are much better) or chomped down on a BR sandwich (or used the grit that they laughingly called toilet paper) need to learn first hand.
However the grass is always greener. And the prevailing mood at the moment seems to be "why should Branson and his ilk be profiting from services that are basic needs, things I have to purchase in order to survive and put a roof over my head, when I can barely afford life's luxuries and haven't had a pay rise in years?"
It is just staggering that we can even be thinking of discussing renationalisation and repeating all the old mistakes. This is all known stuff: so successful were Thatcher's privatisations in improving service, stimulating innovation, boosting the economy, and reducing costs that they were subsequently copied in almost every country in the world to varying degrees, except in North Korea and Cuba. Admittedly there has been some back-sliding in a few places, notably Venezuela, but that should merely serve to remind us of the consequences. Why on earth is anyone advocating it?
Consequence of Labour’s education policies
I get that it's unlikely to be a success, but it is such a tantalising "What If?". Utilities for the people, not the multinationals. No adverts on the telly with wanky penquins in, just power for the people! It's never gonna work, I know, but you can't blame people for being drawn to Corbyn because of it.
Nationalised utilities seem to work fine in Europe/rest of the world.
I know, but ours are now privately owned, so I don't know how it can be bought back into public ownership. Plus, would you trust recent governments to run it without using it as a cash cow?
I don’t see the danger. Voters are not backing nationalisation so they can pay higher train prices or more for water. Any govt that tried to raise rates significantly and run it as a secret tax generation machine would very quickly be unpopular.
As for how you do it - trains you could let it happen naturally as franchises expire. For water companies I guess some version of compulsory purchase at the average share price of the past two years and borrow the money. Even if you changed nothing you could charge a bit less for water and still service the debt.
That's an excellent post, and says exactly how I feel about re nationalisation. It probably wouldn't work- as Josias points out, you just couldn't trust the government not to milk it to death, but people see the utilities as a basic human right nowadays, and paying some French company to give you a so-so service and rinse you for the privilege is starting to stick in the craw. Corbyn will ride that wave all the way in.
Exactly.
Did you see this? A Momentum video (hard to find the original link, this is a copy) that was I think the second or third most viewed video of the GE2017 campaign.
This is the mood of the country - "we are being ripped off and somebody somewhere is drinking champagne with the proceeds of my season ticket, while I haven't had a pay rise in three ****ing years."
Arguments about there being more trains or the service being more efficient since privatisation don't have any effect on people who see the cost of their ticket rise above inflation again and again for the privilege of being crammed into a sardine tin at rush hour.
Train travel is subsidised for the traveller through general taxation of the population (including of those who do not travel by train).
Profits from the train operator are attrributable to the train owners who include those people who have pension investments.
As I said previously, appeals to logic, to economics, to statistics, and so forth, will have no effect on the average JAM who sees his or her wages falling in real terms year on year while the cost of the bare necessities - utilities bills, season tickets etc, continue to rise.
The average JAM needs to wise up.
And so the argument goes that the current generation - who never experienced a six to twelve week wait to have a rotary phone hard-wired into their living room (not that BT Openreach are much better) or chomped down on a BR sandwich (or used the grit that they laughingly called toilet paper) need to learn first hand.
However the grass is always greener. And the prevailing mood at the moment seems to be "why should Branson and his ilk be profiting from services that are basic needs, things I have to purchase in order to survive and put a roof over my head, when I can barely afford life's luxuries and haven't had a pay rise in years?"
Tell the JAMs to improve their skills, get promoted and/or move to another job with better prospects.
That's an excellent post, and says exactly how I feel about re nationalisation. It probably wouldn't work- as Josias points out, you just couldn't trust the government not to milk it to death, but people see the utilities as a basic human right nowadays, and paying some French company to give you a so-so service and rinse you for the privilege is starting to stick in the craw. Corbyn will ride that wave all the way in.
People do not see monopolies as a basic human right, and that's what they'd be getting. Just wait until they're told that they cannot use the new Apple XXX on the one mobile network as the nationalised operator has done a deal with Nokia and Microsoft. And that's the sort of choice you got with BT ...
Having said that, I've never seen the point in water privatisation.
Forget mobile networks, it's power and water that get people wound up. Those 2 basic human rights are what people feel cheated on.
I think Owen Jones did a piece on nationalising mobile networks but otherwise I’ve not heard anyone suggest it. The obvious factor is whether there can be meaningful competition in the industry. With water and power distribution at least I think it’s clear there can’t be.
In BTs heyday there was little prospect, publically anyway, of mobile phones. Too often in this sort of discussion we tend to look backwards. In the 60s there were quite a few people, like my father-in-law, who didn’t see the need for a phone at home. And he had a managerial job! And, it was becoming easier to get a landline.
Nationalisation is still a bit taboo in this country and gets a lot of ideological opposition. The public are supportive or at least open minded - I think Corbyn is smart to advocate for sectors where the case is strongest and in my view overwhelming.
It is just staggering that we can even be thinking of discussing renationalisation and repeating all the old mistakes. This is all known stuff: so successful were Thatcher's privatisations in improving service, stimulating innovation, boosting the economy, and reducing costs that they were subsequently copied in almost every country in the world to varying degrees, except in North Korea and Cuba. Admittedly there has been some back-sliding in a few places, notably Venezuela, but that should merely serve to remind us of the consequences. Why on earth is anyone advocating it?
Consequence of Labour’s education policies
I get that it's unlikely to be a success, but it is such a tantalising "What If?". Utilities for the people, not the multinationals. No adverts on the telly with wanky penquins in, just power for the people! It's never gonna work, I know, but you can't blame people for being drawn to Corbyn because of it.
Nationalised utilities seem to work fine in Europe/rest of the world.
I know, but ours are now privately owned, so I don't know how it can be bought back into public ownership. Plus, would you trust recent governments to run it without using it as a cash cow?
I don’t see the danger. Voters are not backing nationalisation so they can pay higher train prices or more for water. Any govt that tried to raise rates significantly and run it as a secret tax generation machine would very quickly be unpopular.
As for how you do it - trains you could let it happen naturally as franchises expire. For water companies I guess some version of compulsory purchase at the average share price of the past two years and borrow the money. Even if you changed nothing you could charge a bit less for water and still service the debt.
The government would need to take on the companies existing debt and buy the equity using borrowing (provided the government could still sell gilts into the market with that level of national debt).
Train travel is subsidised for the traveller through general taxation of the population (including of those who do not travel by train).
Profits from the train operator are attrributable to the train owners who include those people who have pension investments.
As I said previously, appeals to logic, to economics, to statistics, and so forth, will have no effect on the average JAM who sees his or her wages falling in real terms year on year while the cost of the bare necessities - utilities bills, season tickets etc, continue to rise.
The average JAM needs to wise up.
And so the argument goes that the current generation - who never experienced a six to twelve week wait to have a rotary phone hard-wired into their living room (not that BT Openreach are much better) or chomped down on a BR sandwich (or used the grit that they laughingly called toilet paper) need to learn first hand.
However the grass is always greener. And the prevailing mood at the moment seems to be "why should Branson and his ilk be profiting from services that are basic needs, things I have to purchase in order to survive and put a roof over my head, when I can barely afford life's luxuries and haven't had a pay rise in years?"
Tell the JAMs to improve their skills, get promoted and/or move to another job with better prospects.
Stick that in the Con Manifesto 2022 and you may have just found a bigger loser than the dementia tax.
I'm not talking here about what is or isn't right from an economic, analytical point of view. I'm talking about what appeals to the electorate.
The fact is that "unsuccessful" people in your world, who have been failed by our crap education system, aren't savvy enough to get promoted, or are unable to move to places where there are better job prospects (have you tried buying or renting a family sized home in or near London lately?) have just as many votes as the successful ones.
People are being left behind and they are angry about it - see also Brexit, Trump, etc.
Train travel is subsidised for the traveller through general taxation of the population (including of those who do not travel by train).
Profits from the train operator are attrributable to the train owners who include those people who have pension investments.
As I said previously, appeals to logic, to economics, to statistics, and so forth, will have no effect on the average JAM who sees his or her wages falling in real terms year on year while the cost of the bare necessities - utilities bills, season tickets etc, continue to rise.
The average JAM needs to wise up.
And so the argument goes that the current generation - who never experienced a six to twelve week wait to have a rotary phone hard-wired into their living room (not that BT Openreach are much better) or chomped down on a BR sandwich (or used the grit that they laughingly called toilet paper) need to learn first hand.
However the grass is always greener. And the prevailing mood at the moment seems to be "why should Branson and his ilk be profiting from services that are basic needs, things I have to purchase in order to survive and put a roof over my head, when I can barely afford life's luxuries and haven't had a pay rise in years?"
Tell the JAMs to improve their skills, get promoted and/or move to another job with better prospects.
Stick that in the Con Manifesto 2022 and you may have just found a bigger loser than the dementia tax.
I'm not talking here about what is or isn't right from an economic, analytical point of view. I'm talking about what appeals to the electorate.
The fact is that "unsuccessful" people in your world, who have been failed by our crap education system, aren't savvy enough to get promoted, or are unable to move to places where there are better job prospects (have you tried buying or renting a family sized home in or near London lately?) have just as many votes as the successful ones.
People are being left behind and they are angry about it - see also Brexit, Trump, etc.
With the current free movement of Labour acrossthe EU I would have expected such dissatisfied people to have already moved to their favoured EU country with nationalised utilities and rail.
On topic - hard for me to see that TM is strong enough for a reshuffle. The various resignations so far have seen her try to replace like for like as far as possible. I’d expect her then to only move the smaller political beasts. On the other hand - at some point she will have to resolve the contradictions in her Brexit and that may mean getting rid of some Cabinet members...
It is just staggering that we can even be thinking of discussing renationalisation and repeating all the old mistakes. This is all known stuff: so successful were Thatcher's privatisations in improving service, stimulating innovation, boosting the economy, and reducing costs that they were subsequently copied in almost every country in the world to varying degrees, except in North Korea and Cuba. Admittedly there has been some back-sliding in a few places, notably Venezuela, but that should merely serve to remind us of the consequences. Why on earth is anyone advocating it?
Consequence of Labour’s education policies
I get that it's unlikely to be a success, but it is such a tantalising "What If?". Utilities for the people, not the multinationals. No adverts on the telly with wanky penquins in, just power for the people! It's never gonna work, I know, but you can't blame people for being drawn to Corbyn because of it.
Nationalised utilities seem to work fine in Europe/rest of the world.
I know, but ours are now privately owned, so I don't know how it can be bought back into public ownership. Plus, would you trust recent governments to run it without using it as a cash cow?
I don’t see the danger. Voters are not backing nationalisation so they can pay higher train prices or more for water. Any govt that tried to raise rates significantly and run it as a secret tax generation machine would very quickly be unpopular.
As for how you do it - trains you could let it happen naturally as franchises expire. For water companies I guess some version of compulsory purchase at the average share price of the past two years and borrow the money. Even if you changed nothing you could charge a bit less for water and still service the debt.
It's not that simple. As an example, what do you do about ROSCO's? Or the Open Access operators? What happens with railfreight?
Governments would not raise rates when it is politically problematic. Instead, they'd just pay any losses from general taxation. By stealth.
That's an excellent post, and says exactly how I feel about re nationalisation. It probably wouldn't work- as Josias points out, you just couldn't trust the government not to milk it to death, but people see the utilities as a basic human right nowadays, and paying some French company to give you a so-so service and rinse you for the privilege is starting to stick in the craw. Corbyn will ride that wave all the way in.
People do not see monopolies as a basic human right, and that's what they'd be getting. Just wait until they're told that they cannot use the new Apple XXX on the one mobile network as the nationalised operator has done a deal with Nokia and Microsoft. And that's the sort of choice you got with BT ...
Having said that, I've never seen the point in water privatisation.
Forget mobile networks, it's power and water that get people wound up. Those 2 basic human rights are what people feel cheated on.
I think Owen Jones did a piece on nationalising mobile networks but otherwise I’ve not heard anyone suggest it. The obvious factor is whether there can be meaningful competition in the industry. With water and power distribution at least I think it’s clear there can’t be.
In BTs heyday there was little prospect, publically anyway, of mobile phones. Too often in this sort of discussion we tend to look backwards. In the 60s there were quite a few people, like my father-in-law, who didn’t see the need for a phone at home. And he had a managerial job! And, it was becoming easier to get a landline.
Nationalisation is still a bit taboo in this country and gets a lot of ideological opposition. The public are supportive or at least open minded - I think Corbyn is smart to advocate for sectors where the case is strongest and in my view overwhelming.
Why is the case for rail overwhelming? Do you think privatisation has been a failure?
Isn't the question really just a cipher for "would you like cheaper rail fares"?
Which they will undoubtedly get when BR comes back as the government of the day will unleash a mighty cataract of subsidies.
I doubt we'd need a huge swathe of extra subsidy. Ending the contractual madness that is the Modern Dynamic Thrusting Railway would free up large wedges of cash.
For example, these new Hitachi trains on Great Western (leasing cost +100% vs the old trains, use by the franchisee is mandatory paid for by the taxpayer). Due to the failure of Network Rail to wire the route up properly and then the government pulling on the plug on anything thats not the core route to Cardiff, these trains will need to operate on diesel power for a significant proportion of the time.
The DfT's exacting spec wasn't for trains capable of keeping up with 40 year old trains under diesel power. DfT is now paying for the engines to be run at an uprated mode which will lead to increased wear and breakdown. As this happens GWR have to pay delay fees which is will then try to recoup from Hitachi who in turn will try and recoup it from MTU (the engine manufacturer) who in turn will try and recoup it from the DfT for running their engines above contracted specifications.
There are contracts layered upon contracts managing this mess. All of which negates the fact that the new trains are slower than the old trains, that the electric wires will have gaps along the route where wiring has been pronounced too expensive by the DfT, and in one notable place the new trains will have to coast under the wires which Network Rail put up to DfT contract standards only to have DfT change the standards so that the new trains are banned from collecting power from them.
It is just staggering that we can even be thinking of discussing renationalisation and repeating all the old mistakes. This is all known stuff: so successful were Thatcher's privatisations in improving service, stimulating innovation, boosting the economy, and reducing costs that they were subsequently copied in almost every country in the world to varying degrees, except in North Korea and Cuba. Admittedly there has been some back-sliding in a few places, notably Venezuela, but that should merely serve to remind us of the consequences. Why on earth is anyone advocating it?
Consequence of Labour’s education policies
I get that it's unlikely to be a success, but it is such a tantalising "What If?". Utilities for the people, not the multinationals. No adverts on the telly with wanky penquins in, just power for the people! It's never gonna work, I know, but you can't blame people for being drawn to Corbyn because of it.
Nationalised utilities seem to work fine in Europe/rest of the world.
I know, but ours are now privately owned, so I don't know how it can be bought back into public ownership. Plus, would you trust recent governments to run it without using it as a cash cow?
I don’t see the danger. Voters are not backing nationalisation so they can pay higher train prices or more for water. Any govt that tried to raise rates significantly and run it as a secret tax generation machine would very quickly be unpopular.
As for how you do it - trains you could let it happen naturally as franchises expire. For water companies I guess some version of compulsory purchase at the average share price of the past two years and borrow the money. Even if you changed nothing you could charge a bit less for water and still service the debt.
The government would need to take on the companies existing debt and buy the equity using borrowing (provided the government could still sell gilts into the market with that level of national debt).
Nationalising water, Royal Mail and transmission would be around £110bn and would add something like 7% to the national debt. I don’t see why that would be so hard to buy an income generating asset.
It is just staggering that we can even be thinking of discussing renationalisation and repeating all the old mistakes. This is all known stuff: so successful were Thatcher's privatisations in improving service, stimulating innovation, boosting the economy, and reducing costs that they were subsequently copied in almost every country in the world to varying degrees, except in North Korea and Cuba. Admittedly there has been some back-sliding in a few places, notably Venezuela, but that should merely serve to remind us of the consequences. Why on earth is anyone advocating it?
Consequence of Labour’s education policies
I get that it's unlikely to be a success, but it is such a tantalising "What If?". Utilities for the people, not the multinationals. No adverts on the telly with wanky penquins in, just power for the people! It's never gonna work, I know, but you can't blame people for being drawn to Corbyn because of it.
Nationalised utilities seem to work fine in Europe/rest of the world.
I know, but ours are now privately owned, so I don't know how it can be bought back into public ownership. Plus, would you trust recent governments to run it without using it as a cash cow?
I don’t see the danger. Voters are not backing nationalisation so they can pay higher train prices or more for water. Any govt that tried to raise rates significantly and run it as a secret tax generation machine would very quickly be unpopular.
As for how you do it - trains you could let it happen naturally as franchises expire. For water companies I guess some version of compulsory purchase at the average share price of the past two years and borrow the money. Even if you changed nothing you could charge a bit less for water and still service the debt.
Once nationalised: 1) every decision becomes a millstone round ministerial necks, so they avoid making them. 2) every pound spent becomes a pound less for other ministerial budgets, so spending gets constrained by other departments. 3) the Treasury try to minimise infrastructure spending that has a rate of return longer than an election cycle. Overall this strangles the business. If governments were better at providing goods and services than private companies then communism would have triumphed.
And so the argument goes that the current generation - who never experienced a six to twelve week wait to have a rotary phone hard-wired into their living room (not that BT Openreach are much better) or chomped down on a BR sandwich (or used the grit that they laughingly called toilet paper) need to learn first hand.
However the grass is always greener. And the prevailing mood at the moment seems to be "why should Branson and his ilk be profiting from services that are basic needs, things I have to purchase in order to survive and put a roof over my head, when I can barely afford life's luxuries and haven't had a pay rise in years?"
Tell the JAMs to improve their skills, get promoted and/or move to another job with better prospects.
Stick that in the Con Manifesto 2022 and you may have just found a bigger loser than the dementia tax.
I'm not talking here about what is or isn't right from an economic, analytical point of view. I'm talking about what appeals to the electorate.
The fact is that "unsuccessful" people in your world, who have been failed by our crap education system, aren't savvy enough to get promoted, or are unable to move to places where there are better job prospects (have you tried buying or renting a family sized home in or near London lately?) have just as many votes as the successful ones.
People are being left behind and they are angry about it - see also Brexit, Trump, etc.
With the current free movement of Labour acrossthe EU I would have expected such dissatisfied people to have already moved to their favoured EU country with nationalised utilities and rail.
75% of Brits can't speak a second language. Another product of our dire education system.
Sadly "no job? on your bike" is not the kind of policy that wins elections. Corbyn may be promising free jam for the JAMs, but the fact is the Conservatives have to be seen to be doing something to fix the widening gap between rich and poor in our society, or else people will turn to hard left socialism in their droves.
The thing that turned both Blair and Thatcher into election-winning machines is that they spoke the language of opportunity - they made people believe it was possible to work hard and get on in life. That belief is starkly absent from the electorate today. The Corbyn surge and Brexit are both symptomatic of that.
The simple fact is that the experience of the vast majority of people over the last decade has been one of declining living standards while a select few seem to be making money hand over fist. Bailouts for the bankers, wage freezes for the nurses, etc.
That's an excellent post, and says exactly how I feel about re nationalisation. It probably wouldn't work- as Josias points out, you just couldn't trust the government not to milk it to death, but people see the utilities as a basic human right nowadays, and paying some French company to give you a so-so service and rinse you for the privilege is starting to stick in the craw. Corbyn will ride that wave all the way in.
There were probably four main reasons for privatisations
1 ideology 2 trebles all round for merchant banks which did the share issues, etc 3 executives could raise their pay 5-10x 4 govt cash flow improved, which some people considered crucial, but the profit and loss account worsened, because future profits now went to shareholders (nationalised and privatised gas made a huge profit).
Maybe some people thought entrepeneurs would unlock hidden savings. It hasn't happened. It was hardly likely to happen with natural monopolies like telephone wires or buried electric cables and gas or water pipes.
Disraeli nationalised the telegraph wires in 1868 because a privatised 'entrepeneurial' setup didn't deliver the Victorians what they wanted, which was working internet, a.k.a. the telegraph. It's been known for 100 years that even privately-owned utilities, like many in the USA, are best regarded as boring, safe, low-risk, low-return with very little excitement in them.
The best way to do it would be via central or local govt-owned limited company/ies which operate at relative arms length, like the British Railways Board did shortly before privatisation. Northern Ireland and Scotland already have more state-owned operations than England, e.g. rail, water, so there are examples of it working in the 21st.C.
I’d be more inclined to look at alternative structures like mutual vs government ownership
That's an excellent post, and says exactly how I feel about re nationalisation. It probably wouldn't work- as Josias points out, you just couldn't trust the government not to milk it to death, but people see the utilities as a basic human right nowadays, and paying some French company to give you a so-so service and rinse you for the privilege is starting to stick in the craw. Corbyn will ride that wave all the way in.
People do not see monopolies as a basic human right, and that's what they'd be getting. Just wait until they're told that they cannot use the new Apple XXX on the one mobile network as the nationalised operator has done a deal with Nokia and Microsoft. And that's the sort of choice you got with BT ...
Having said that, I've never seen the point in water privatisation.
Forget mobile networks, it's power and water that get people wound up. Those 2 basic human rights are what people feel cheated on.
I think Owen Jones did a piece on nationalising mobile networks but otherwise I’ve not heard anyone suggest it. The obvious factor is whether there can be meaningful competition in the industry. With water and power distribution at least I think it’s clear there can’t be.
In BTs heyday there was little prospect, publically anyway, of mobile phones. Too often in this sort of discussion we tend to look backwards. In the 60s there were quite a few people, like my father-in-law, who didn’t see the need for a phone at home. And he had a managerial job! And, it was becoming easier to get a landline.
Nationalisation is still a bit taboo in this country and gets a lot of ideological opposition. The public are supportive or at least open minded - I think Corbyn is smart to advocate for sectors where the case is strongest and in my view overwhelming.
Why is the case for rail overwhelming? Do you think privatisation has been a failure?
We have discussed this before. We are paying foreign state owned companies too much and could do a better job ourselves. There is a strong public interest in railways. Nationalised railways work fine in the rest of the world.
It is just staggering that we can even be thinking of discussing renationalisation and repeating all the old mistakes. This is all known stuff: so successful were Thatcher's privatisations in improving service, stimulating innovation, boosting the economy, and reducing costs that they were subsequently copied in almost every country in the world to varying degrees, except in North Korea and Cuba. Admittedly there has been some back-sliding in a few places, notably Venezuela, but that should merely serve to remind us of the consequences. Why on earth is anyone advocating it?
Consequence of Labour’s education policies
I get that it's unlikely to be a success, but it is such a tantalising "What If?". Utilities for the people, not the multinationals. No adverts on the telly with wanky penquins in, just power for the people! It's never gonna work, I know, but you can't blame people for being drawn to Corbyn because of it.
Nationalised utilities seem to work fine in Europe/rest of the world.
I know, but ours are now privately owned, so I don't know how it can be bought back into public ownership. Plus, would you trust recent governments to run it without using it as a cash cow?
I don’t see the danger. Voters are not backing nationalisation so they can pay higher train prices or more for water. Any govt that tried to raise rates significantly and run it as a secret tax generation machine would very quickly be unpopular.
As for how you do it - trains you could let it happen naturally as franchises expire. For water companies I guess some version of compulsory purchase at the average share price of the past two years and borrow the money. Even if you changed nothing you could charge a bit less for water and still service the debt.
Once nationalised: 1) every decision becomes a millstone round ministerial necks, so they avoid making them. 2) every pound spent becomes a pound less for other ministerial budgets, so spending gets constrained by other departments. 3) the Treasury try to minimise infrastructure spending that has a rate of return longer than an election cycle. Overall this strangles the business. If governments were better at providing goods and services than private companies then communism would have triumphed.
This is a nice example of that ideological opposition you often see. The rest of the world seems to manage to fund its infrastructure and manage with nationalised utilities. Perhaps the UK is an exception where it’s impossible but I’m not convinced at all.
Isn't the question really just a cipher for "would you like cheaper rail fares"?
Which they will undoubtedly get when BR comes back as the government of the day will unleash a mighty cataract of subsidies.
I doubt we'd need a huge swathe of extra subsidy. Ending the contractual madness that is the Modern Dynamic Thrusting Railway would free up large wedges of cash.
For example, these new Hitachi trains on Great Western (leasing cost +100% vs the old trains, use by the franchisee is mandatory paid for by the taxpayer). Due to the failure of Network Rail to wire the route up properly and then the government pulling on the plug on anything thats not the core route to Cardiff, these trains will need to operate on diesel power for a significant proportion of the time.
The DfT's exacting spec wasn't for trains capable of keeping up with 40 year old trains under diesel power. DfT is now paying for the engines to be run at an uprated mode which will lead to increased wear and breakdown. As this happens GWR have to pay delay fees which is will then try to recoup from Hitachi who in turn will try and recoup it from MTU (the engine manufacturer) who in turn will try and recoup it from the DfT for running their engines above contracted specifications.
There are contracts layered upon contracts managing this mess. All of which negates the fact that the new trains are slower than the old trains, that the electric wires will have gaps along the route where wiring has been pronounced too expensive by the DfT, and in one notable place the new trains will have to coast under the wires which Network Rail put up to DfT contract standards only to have DfT change the standards so that the new trains are banned from collecting power from them.
The IEP is not a good example. Firstly, the failure you mention in wiring the GW is down to the nationalised Network Rail, which is hardly a good sign for a fully nationalised railway.
Secondly, the TOCs used to talk to the ROSCOs about the trains they wanted and their capabilities. However with the IEP, Lord Adonis decided that (as you say) the DfT would specify the trains and force TOCs to use them. Hence the TOCs are getting a terrible train that is expensive and not ideal for their purposes.
The problem is therefore one of governmental interference, not of privatisation. Again, not a good sign for nationalisation ...
(The IEP debacle is going to be a disaster for the passenger and the taxpayer).
That's an excellent post, and says exactly how I feel about re nationalisation. It probably wouldn't work- as Josias points out, you just couldn't trust the government not to milk it to death, but people see the utilities as a basic human right nowadays, and paying some French company to give you a so-so service and rinse you for the privilege is starting to stick in the craw. Corbyn will ride that wave all the way in.
There were probably four main reasons for privatisations
1 ideology 2 trebles all round for merchant banks which did the share issues, etc 3 executives could raise their pay 5-10x 4 govt cash flow improved, which some people considered crucial, but the profit and loss account worsened, because future profits now went to shareholders (nationalised and privatised gas made a huge profit).
Maybe some people thought entrepeneurs would unlock hidden savings. It hasn't happened. It was hardly likely to happen with natural monopolies like telephone wires or buried electric cables and gas or water pipes.
Disraeli nationalised the telegraph wires in 1868 because a privatised 'entrepeneurial' setup didn't deliver the Victorians what they wanted, which was working internet, a.k.a. the telegraph. It's been known for 100 years that even privately-owned utilities, like many in the USA, are best regarded as boring, safe, low-risk, low-return with very little excitement in them.
The best way to do it would be via central or local govt-owned limited company/ies which operate at relative arms length, like the British Railways Board did shortly before privatisation. Northern Ireland and Scotland already have more state-owned operations than England, e.g. rail, water, so there are examples of it working in the 21st.C.
I’d be more inclined to look at alternative structures like mutual vs government ownership
I’m sure a well organised mutual ownership could be an improvement on the current system. Ultimately though for something like water or transmission - the govt will never let these service fail and will always step in.
That's an excellent post, and says exactly how I feel about re nationalisation. It probably wouldn't work- as Josias points out, you just couldn't trust the government not to milk it to death, but people see the utilities as a basic human right nowadays, and paying some French company to give you a so-so service and rinse you for the privilege is starting to stick in the craw. Corbyn will ride that wave all the way in.
People do not see monopolies as a basic human right, and that's what they'd be getting. Just wait until they're told that they cannot use the new Apple XXX on the one mobile network as the nationalised operator has done a deal with Nokia and Microsoft. And that's the sort of choice you got with BT ...
Having said that, I've never seen the point in water privatisation.
Forget mobile networks, it's power and water that get people wound up. Those 2 basic human rights are what people feel cheated on.
I think Owen Jones did a piece on nationalising mobile networks but otherwise I’ve not heard anyone suggest it. The obvious factor is whether there can be meaningful competition in the industry. With water and power distribution at least I think it’s clear there can’t be.
In BTs heyday there was little prospect, publically anyway, of mobile phones. Too often in this sort of discussion we tend to look backwards. In the 60s there were quite a few people, like my father-in-law, who didn’t see the need for a phone at home. And he had a managerial job! And, it was becoming easier to get a landline.
Nationalisation is still a bit taboo in this country and gets a lot of ideological opposition. The public are supportive or at least open minded - I think Corbyn is smart to advocate for sectors where the case is strongest and in my view overwhelming.
Why is the case for rail overwhelming? Do you think privatisation has been a failure?
We have discussed this before. We are paying foreign state owned companies too much and could do a better job ourselves. There is a strong public interest in railways. Nationalised railways work fine in the rest of the world.
LOL. No, they do not. The much greater costs of (say) germany's railways were discussed earlier today, and that's not even starting on the safety issues ...
And so the argument goes that the current generation - who never experienced a six to twelve week wait to have a rotary phone hard-wired into their living room (not that BT Openreach are much better) or chomped down on a BR sandwich (or used the grit that they laughingly called toilet paper) need to learn first hand.
However the grass is always greener. And the prevailing mood at the moment seems to be "why should Branson and his ilk be profiting from services that are basic needs, things I have to purchase in order to survive and put a roof over my head, when I can barely afford life's luxuries and haven't had a pay rise in years?"
Tell the JAMs to improve their skills, get promoted and/or move to another job with better prospects.
Stick that in the Con Manifesto .
With the current free movement of Labour acrossthe EU I would have expected such dissatisfied people to have already moved to their favoured EU country with nationalised utilities and rail.
75% of Brits can't speak a second language. Another product of our dire education system.
Sadly "no job? on your bike" is not the kind of policy that wins elections. Corbyn may be promising free jam for the JAMs, but the fact is the Conservatives have to be seen to be doing something to fix the widening gap between rich and poor in our society, or else people will turn to hard left socialism in their droves.
The thing that turned both Blair and Thatcher into election-winning machines is that they spoke the language of opportunity - they made people believe it was possible to work hard and get on in life. That belief is starkly absent from the electorate today. The Corbyn surge and Brexit are both symptomatic of that.
The simple fact is that the experience of the vast majority of people over the last decade has been one of declining living standards while a select few seem to be making money hand over fist. Bailouts for the bankers, wage freezes for the nurses, etc.
On form tonight, I couldn't agree more.
Populism triumphs, but it is a shortlived triumph that rapidly turns into ashes in the mouth. That said, the rebalancing of a term of Corbynism wouldn't be all bad. It takes a while to knacker an economy.
and your point is caller, he was correct was he not.
Eliza, I;m unsure your programming would allow you to understand the point if it stood in front of you, unwrapped it's seductive gown and said: "Here I am."...
The point is that innovation when given a gift-horse to look into the mouth of is easy, as was the case when North Sea gas became available.
Innovation is also only part of the story. Take BR. They innovated massively in the 1960s and 1970s: not just things like the HST or APT, but they were world-leaders in trying to understand wheel-rail dynamics research which we then gave away). Yet despite all this world-beating innovation, BR was pretty much a basketcase in that period, as the whole APT story shows.
The HSTs are still in squadron service 40 years later and still (IIRC) hold the speed record for a diesel train.
The APT had to be developed on a shoestring budget and was close to commercialisation when the plug was pulled. The tilt technology developed here was taken forward overseas and then of course re-exported back to the UK in the form of the Pendolinos on the WCML.
The APT was not close to commercialisation. If it was unusable on BR tracks, it was completely unusable elsewhere.
Tilting trains became viable with modern sensors, and cheap computing power, which meant that the train could be appropriately tilted 1000s of times per second. The APT was built before any of that technology was available. It was a marvel, but not one (sadly) that was suitable for passengers.
Do they provide an explanation for this? East Asian and European nations tend to have the highest IQ. Mongolians apparently have the same average IQ as the Swiss.
and your point is caller, he was correct was he not.
Eliza, I;m unsure your programming would allow you to understand the point if it stood in front of you, unwrapped it's seductive gown and said: "Here I am."...
The point is that innovation when given a gift-horse to look into the mouth of is easy, as was the case when North Sea gas became available.
Innovation is also only part of the story. Take BR. They innovated massively in the 1960s and 1970s: not just things like the HST or APT, but they were world-leaders in trying to understand wheel-rail dynamics research which we then gave away). Yet despite all this world-beating innovation, BR was pretty much a basketcase in that period, as the whole APT story shows.
The HSTs are still in squadron service 40 years later and still (IIRC) hold the speed record for a diesel train.
The APT had to be developed on a shoestring budget and was close to commercialisation when the plug was pulled. The tilt technology developed here was taken forward overseas and then of course re-exported back to the UK in the form of the Pendolinos on the WCML.
The APT was not close to commercialisation. If it was unusable on BR tracks, it was completely unusable elsewhere.
Tilting trains became viable with modern sensors, and cheap computing power, which meant that the train could be appropriately tilted 1000s of times per second. The APT was built before any of that technology was available. It was a marvel, but not one (sadly) that was suitable for passengers.
"The APT was not close to commercialisation. If it was unusable on BR tracks, it was completely unusable elsewhere."
Citations required.
It's unusual for me to say this to one of your posts, but I fear that's absolute rubbish. They got the APT-P's working well before they were scrapped, and they were often used illicitly on passenger services. They just didn't get funding to build the Squadron trains.
Also, the Italians had the tech working in their trains just a few years later (in full service in 1988).
The biggest problem with the APT-P's was the location of the power car in the middle, essentially making it into two separate trains. And this was mandated not by technology, but by health and safety.
The HSTs are still in squadron service 40 years later and still (IIRC) hold the speed record for a diesel train.
The APT had to be developed on a shoestring budget and was close to commercialisation when the plug was pulled. The tilt technology developed here was taken forward overseas and then of course re-exported back to the UK in the form of the Pendolinos on the WCML.
The APT was not close to commercialisation. If it was unusable on BR tracks, it was completely unusable elsewhere.
Tilting trains became viable with modern sensors, and cheap computing power, which meant that the train could be appropriately tilted 1000s of times per second. The APT was built before any of that technology was available. It was a marvel, but not one (sadly) that was suitable for passengers.
"The APT was not close to commercialisation. If it was unusable on BR tracks, it was completely unusable elsewhere."
Citations required.
It's unusual for me to say this to one of your posts, but I fear that's absolute rubbish. They got the APT-P's working well before they were scrapped, and they were often used illicitly on passenger services. They just didn't get funding to build the Squadron trains.
Also, the Italians had the tech working in their trains just a few years later (in full service in 1988).
The biggest problem with the APT-P's was the location of the power car in the middle, essentially making it into two separate trains. And this was mandated not by technology, but by health and safety.
It is, of course, entirely possible that I'm wrong.
My knowledge comes entirely from a documentary I saw which basically said the APTs were unusable because they were unstable in corners and drinks got spilled everywhere. It said that a decade later, modern technology had improved to a level where trains could be constantly adjusted and therefore the tilting motion was much smoother.
Said documentary is probably on YouTube, but I accept that you are far more likely to know what is correct in this case than either me, or the documentary maker.
The set was sufficiently complete by late 1971 for an official naming ceremony, where it became the APT-E (for Experimental). It made its first low-speed run from Derby to Duffield on 25 July 1972. Upon reaching Duffield, the ASLEF union immediately "blacked" it, forbidding their members from doing any work involving the train. Their complaint was that the APT-E had a single operator's chair, which they took as evidence that BR was moving to single operator trains. A friendly inspector helped the team move the train back to Derby at night. This resulted in a one-day national strike that cost more than the entire APT-E project.[4]
And so the argument goes that the current generation - who never experienced a six to twelve week wait to have a rotary phone hard-wired into their living room (not that BT Openreach are much better) or chomped down on a BR sandwich (or used the grit that they laughingly called toilet paper) need to learn first hand.
However the grass is always greener. And the prevailing mood at the moment seems to be "why should Branson and his ilk be profiting from services that are basic needs, things I have to purchase in order to survive and put a roof over my head, when I can barely afford life's luxuries and haven't had a pay rise in years?"
Tell the JAMs to improve their skills, get promoted and/or move to another job with better prospects.
Stick that in the Con Manifesto 2022 and you may have just found a bigger loser than the dementia tax.
I'm not talking here about what is or isn't right from an economic, analytical point of view. I'm talking about what appeals to the electorate.
The fact is that "unsuccessful" people in your world, who have been failed by our crap education system, aren't savvy enough to get promoted, or are unable to move to places where there are better job prospects (have you tried buying or renting a family sized home in or near London lately?) have just as many votes as the successful ones.
People are being left behind and they are angry about it - see also Brexit, Trump, etc.
With the current free movement of Labour acrossthe EU I would have expected such dissatisfied people to have already moved to their favoured EU country with nationalised utilities and rail.
75% of Brits can't speak a second language. Another product of our dire education system.
Fortunately, English is the best language in the world!
In the 10 years to 2015 the average number of days lost to disputes in the private sector per 1000 employees was just over 3. The average in the public sector was just over 95, roughly 32 times more.
The reasons are obvious. Public sector employees know that their employer cannot go bust, is subject to political pressures and public opinion. Private sector employers may have vulnerabilities in one or more of these areas but very rarely in all 3.
This is why British Rail was a disaster as was the publically owned postal service. The attitude was wrong. The focus was wrong and the results were catastrophic for the customer and the public purse. It would be crazy to go back to that again.
That's an excellent post, and says exactly how I feel about re nationalisation. It probably wouldn't work- as Josias points out, you just couldn't trust the government not to milk it to death, but people see the utilities as a basic human right nowadays, and paying some French company to give you a so-so service and rinse you for the privilege is starting to stick in the craw. Corbyn will ride that wave all the way in.
People do not see monopolies as a basic human right, and that's what they'd be getting. Just wait until they're told that they cannot use the new Apple XXX on the one mobile network as the nationalised operator has done a deal with Nokia and Microsoft. And that's the sort of choice you got with BT ...
Having said that, I've never seen the point in water privatisation.
Forget mobile networks, it's power and water that get people wound up. Those 2 basic human rights are what people feel cheated on.
I think Owen Jones did a piece on nationalising mobile networks but otherwise I’ve not heard anyone suggest it. The obvious factor is whether there can be meaningful competition in the industry. With water and power distribution at least I think it’s clear there can’t be.
In BTs heyday there was little prospect, publically anyway, of mobile phones. Too often in this sort of discussion we tend to look backwards. In the 60s there were quite a few people, like my father-in-law, who didn’t see the need for a phone at home. And he had a managerial job! And, it was becoming easier to get a landline.
Nationalisation is still a bit taboo in this country and gets a lot of ideological opposition. The public are supportive or at least open minded - I think Corbyn is smart to advocate for sectors where the case is strongest and in my view overwhelming.
Why is the case for rail overwhelming? Do you think privatisation has been a failure?
It was the private sector wot built the first main line railways and Tube lines.
And so the argument goes that the current generation - who never experienced a six to twelve week wait to have a rotary phone hard-wired into their living room (not that BT Openreach are much better) or chomped down on a BR sandwich (or used the grit that they laughingly called toilet paper) need to learn first hand.
However the grass is always greener. And the prevailing mood at the moment seems to be "why should Branson and his ilk be profiting from services that are basic needs, things I have to purchase in order to survive and put a roof over my head, when I can barely afford life's luxuries and haven't had a pay rise in years?"
Tell the JAMs to improve their skills, get promoted and/or move to another job with better prospects.
Stick that in the Con Manifesto 2022 and you may have just found a bigger loser than the dementia tax.
I'm not talking here about what is or isn't right from an economic, analytical point of view. I'm talking about what appeals to the electorate.
The fact is that "unsuccessful" people in your world, who have been failed by our crap education system, aren't savvy enough to get promoted, or are unable to move to places where there are better job prospects (have you tried buying or renting a family sized home in or near London lately?) have just as many votes as the successful ones.
People are being left behind and they are angry about it - see also Brexit, Trump, etc.
With the current free movement of Labour acrossthe EU I would have expected such dissatisfied people to have already moved to their favoured EU country with nationalised utilities and rail.
75% of Brits can't speak a second language. Another product of our dire education system.
Fortunately, English is the best language in the world!
I dare say our eduction system could use improvement, but it is tough trying to learn another language when everyone speaks yours. I booked into an hotel in Brussels for a conference and tried to use my modest French. The receptionist switched to English immediately. I told a French friend about this during the conference itself, and he said that she did the same with him.
It is just staggering that we can even be thinking of discussing renationalisation and repeating all the old mistakes. This is all known stuff: so successful were Thatcher's privatisations in improving service, stimulating innovation, boosting the economy, and reducing costs that they were subsequently copied in almost every country in the world to varying degrees, except in North Korea and Cuba. Admittedly there has been some back-sliding in a few places, notably Venezuela, but that should merely serve to remind us of the consequences. Why on earth is anyone advocating it?
It is a natural consequence of man-on-the-street voter thinking when times are hard. The "JAMS" as Miliband put it.
People see things like gas and electricity, the Royal Mail, or the trains, as being essentials - nobody spontaneously thinks "ooh, I'll go out and buy a few more stamps today! and maybe a little extra gas..." ...nor do they generally wander up and down the railways for fun (Sunil - an execption).
Everyind of thinking that could easily propel Corbyn to power.
That's an excellent post, and says exactly how I feel about re nationalisation. It probably wouldn't work- as Josias points out, you just couldn't trust the government not to milk it to death, but people see the utilities as a basic human right nowadays, and paying some French company to give you a so-so service and rinse you for the privilege is starting to stick in the craw. Corbyn will ride that wave all the way in.
Honestly, before I started posting on PB, it had never even occurred to me that people would think the current railways set-up is better than the British Rail days. I used to think the only dispute was whether it was affordable to renationalise them, not whether it would be desirable in itself, since that seemed blindingly obvious.
"British Rail" still exists at Greenford tube station, and in Lewisham shopping centre - there are probably other locations
In the 10 years to 2015 the average number of days lost to disputes in the private sector per 1000 employees was just over 3. The average in the public sector was just over 95, roughly 32 times more.
The reasons are obvious. Public sector employees know that their employer cannot go bust, is subject to political pressures and public opinion. Private sector employers may have vulnerabilities in one or more of these areas but very rarely in all 3.
This is why British Rail was a disaster as was the publically owned postal service. The attitude was wrong. The focus was wrong and the results were catastrophic for the customer and the public purse. It would be crazy to go back to that again.
You mean like Southern Rail?
Perhaps JJs survey didn't cover their satisfaction adequately either.
It is, of course, entirely possible that I'm wrong.
My knowledge comes entirely from a documentary I saw which basically said the APTs were unusable because they were unstable in corners and drinks got spilled everywhere. It said that a decade later, modern technology had improved to a level where trains could be constantly adjusted and therefore the tilting motion was much smoother.
Said documentary is probably on YouTube, but I accept that you are far more likely to know what is correct in this case than either me, or the documentary maker.
Perversely, AIUI it's actually the other way around. On an early press trip, journalists complained of nausea. This was excused on them having over-indulged on the free drinks.
Whilst there may have been some truth in that, there were other reasons. The tilt system kept the train too level laterally, inducing nausea in some. This was fixed by not quite tilting perfectly, from memory just a degree off would cure it. Also, at first it would tilt too rapidly; a smoother transition also helped; again, this was a relatively simple change. Neither of these reduced the maximum speed.
A former treasury minister has launched an extraordinary attack on Theresa May's pro-Brexit cabinet members, branding them "clueless" about the economy, "mad" and "ludicrous," as he accused the prime minister of dragging her heels in trade talks with China.
Lord O'Neill, who pushed for stronger trade ties with Beijing while he served in the Treasury under George Osborne, dismissed Theresa May's Brexit strategy as "fantasy" and described Boris Johnson as "our ludicrous foreign minister."
In the 10 years to 2015 the average number of days lost to disputes in the private sector per 1000 employees was just over 3. The average in the public sector was just over 95, roughly 32 times more.
The reasons are obvious. Public sector employees know that their employer cannot go bust, is subject to political pressures and public opinion. Private sector employers may have vulnerabilities in one or more of these areas but very rarely in all 3.
This is why British Rail was a disaster as was the publically owned postal service. The attitude was wrong. The focus was wrong and the results were catastrophic for the customer and the public purse. It would be crazy to go back to that again.
You mean like Southern Rail?
Perhaps JJs survey didn't cover their satisfaction adequately either.
What I think you will find is that even amongst the small number of strikes in the private sector most are within companies or industries that are formerly state controlled and where old attitudes prevail (in fairness the very low quality of management in former public sector bodies may also be a trigger). But these are the figures, even including Southern Rail.
In the 1970s pre Thatcher this country almost destroyed itself between recalcitrant and politicised unions and incompetent management. Thatcher changed that in many important ways and privatisation was an important part of that. Of course, as Joff would immediately point out, our management could still do with much improvement!
The set was sufficiently complete by late 1971 for an official naming ceremony, where it became the APT-E (for Experimental). It made its first low-speed run from Derby to Duffield on 25 July 1972. Upon reaching Duffield, the ASLEF union immediately "blacked" it, forbidding their members from doing any work involving the train. Their complaint was that the APT-E had a single operator's chair, which they took as evidence that BR was moving to single operator trains. A friendly inspector helped the team move the train back to Derby at night. This resulted in a one-day national strike that cost more than the entire APT-E project.[4]
Blimey!
Yep. More details from Dr Alan Wicken (search for 'blacked')
In the 10 years to 2015 the average number of days lost to disputes in the private sector per 1000 employees was just over 3. The average in the public sector was just over 95, roughly 32 times more.
The reasons are obvious. Public sector employees know that their employer cannot go bust, is subject to political pressures and public opinion. Private sector employers may have vulnerabilities in one or more of these areas but very rarely in all 3.
This is why British Rail was a disaster as was the publically owned postal service. The attitude was wrong. The focus was wrong and the results were catastrophic for the customer and the public purse. It would be crazy to go back to that again.
You mean like Southern Rail?
Perhaps JJs survey didn't cover their satisfaction adequately either.
Southern satisfaction was at 72% in the last published survey (spring 2017). Surprisingly high. Hull trains was at 97%, and even Virgin 92%.
Perhaps lefties should stop talking our railways down!
I just don't see how the politics of spending £100 billion on renationalising begins to work.
As soon as Labour proposes this, then their opponents say "well, if there is £100 billion going spare, we'd rather spend it on the NHS...."
After an awkward pause, Labour then pipes up "well, OF COURSE we'd spend that on the NHS too...." And such tiny scintilla of economic credibility they have built up goes up in a puff of smoke.
Not that McDonnell and Corbyn would actually borrow the money to implement their plan. They'd give shareholders some crappy bit of paper with an "IOU - maybe, someday...." And stuff everybody with a pension. Because what we have done with privatisation is transfer these industries to our pension funds.
In the 10 years to 2015 the average number of days lost to disputes in the private sector per 1000 employees was just over 3. The average in the public sector was just over 95, roughly 32 times more.
The reasons are obvious. Public sector employees know that their employer cannot go bust, is subject to political pressures and public opinion. Private sector employers may have vulnerabilities in one or more of these areas but very rarely in all 3.
This is why British Rail was a disaster as was the publically owned postal service. The attitude was wrong. The focus was wrong and the results were catastrophic for the customer and the public purse. It would be crazy to go back to that again.
You mean like Southern Rail?
Perhaps JJs survey didn't cover their satisfaction adequately either.
What I think you will find is that even amongst the small number of strikes in the private sector most are within companies or industries that are formerly state controlled and where old attitudes prevail (in fairness the very low quality of management in former public sector bodies may also be a trigger). But these are the figures, even including Southern Rail.
In the 1970s pre Thatcher this country almost destroyed itself between recalcitrant and politicised unions and incompetent management. Thatcher changed that in many important ways and privatisation was an important part of that. Of course, as Joff would immediately point out, our management could still do with much improvement!
I remember the Seventies well, but Trade Unionism was not all bad. It was the Trade Unions that pushed for higher wages, job security, pension schemes, paid holiday, reasonable working hours etc etc. As a result, unionised workers were very well off by the late Seventies, and our Gini coefficient at its lowest level.
What the gig economy and ZHC needs most is unionisation to reverse the current exploitation of the workers. Waiting for trickledown from tax dodging billionaires and corporations is a mugs game.
It is just staggering that we can even be thinking of discussing renationalisation and repeating all the old mistakes. This is all known stuff: so successful were Thatcher's privatisations in improving service, stimulating innovation, boosting the economy, and reducing costs that they were subsequently copied in almost every country in the world to varying degrees, except in North Korea and Cuba. Admittedly there has been some back-sliding in a few places, notably Venezuela, but that should merely serve to remind us of the consequences. Why on earth is anyone advocating it?
It is a natural consequence of man-on-the-street voter thinking when times are hard. The "JAMS" as Miliband put it.
People see things like gas and electricity, the Royal Mail, or the trains, as being essentials - nobody spontaneously thinks "ooh, I'll go out and buy a few more stamps today! and maybe a little extra gas..." ...nor do they generally wander up and down the railways for fun (Sunil - an execption).
Everyind of thinking that could easily propel Corbyn to power.
That's an excellent post, and says exactly how I feel about re nationalisation. It probably wouldn't work- as Josias points out, you just couldn't trust the government not to milk it to death, but people see the utilities as a basic human right nowadays, and paying some French company to give you a so-so service and rinse you for the privilege is starting to stick in the craw. Corbyn will ride that wave all the way in.
Usually a state owned French company.
Which UK rail routes are run by French companies?
SouthEastern, Southern, Thameslink, Great Northern
In the 10 years to 2015 the average number of days lost to disputes in the private sector per 1000 employees was just over 3. The average in the public sector was just over 95, roughly 32 times more.
The reasons are obvious. Public sector employees know that their employer cannot go bust, is subject to political pressures and public opinion. Private sector employers may have vulnerabilities in one or more of these areas but very rarely in all 3.
This is why British Rail was a disaster as was the publically owned postal service. The attitude was wrong. The focus was wrong and the results were catastrophic for the customer and the public purse. It would be crazy to go back to that again.
You mean like Southern Rail?
Perhaps JJs survey didn't cover their satisfaction adequately either.
Southern satisfaction was at 72% in the last published survey (spring 2017). Surprisingly high. Hull trains was at 97%, and even Virgin 92%.
Perhaps lefties should stop talking our railways down!
Perhaps JJs survey didn't cover their satisfaction adequately either.
What I think you will find is that even amongst the small number of strikes in the private sector most are within companies or industries that are formerly state controlled and where old attitudes prevail (in fairness the very low quality of management in former public sector bodies may also be a trigger). But these are the figures, even including Southern Rail.
In the 1970s pre Thatcher this country almost destroyed itself between recalcitrant and politicised unions and incompetent management. Thatcher changed that in many important ways and privatisation was an important part of that. Of course, as Joff would immediately point out, our management could still do with much improvement!
I remember the Seventies well, but Trade Unionism was not all bad. It was the Trade Unions that pushed for higher wages, job security, pension schemes, paid holiday, reasonable working hours etc etc. As a result, unionised workers were very well off by the late Seventies, and our Gini coefficient at its lowest level.
What the gig economy and ZHC needs most is unionisation to reverse the current exploitation of the workers. Waiting for trickledown from tax dodging billionaires and corporations is a mugs game.
I don't disagree although our Gini co-efficient has been relatively stable for the last 25 years and improved slightly recently.
Unions that stick to their knitting can be very useful and can even defuse potential problems. Unlike the 1970s the unions in the car industry are a good example of that. But that didn't happen when BL was a nationalised company. The mind set was wrong. Nationalisation=sense of entitlement= self indulgent work force and management= very poor service and value for the tax payer.
It is just staggering that we can even be thinking of discussing renationalisation and repeating all the old mistakes. This is all known stuff: so successful were Thatcher's privatisations in improving service, stimulating innovation, boosting the economy, and reducing costs that they were subsequently copied in almost every country in the world to varying degrees, except in North Korea and Cuba. Admittedly there has been some back-sliding in a few places, notably Venezuela, but that should merely serve to remind us of the consequences. Why on earth is anyone advocating it?
It is a natural consequence of man-on-the-street voter thinking when times are hard. The "JAMS" as Miliband put it.
People see things like gas and electricity, the Royal Mail, or the trains, as being essentials - nobody spontaneously thinks "ooh, I'll go out and buy a few more stamps today! and maybe a little extra gas..." ...nor do they generally wander up and down the railways for fun (Sunil - an execption).
Everyind of thinking that could easily propel Corbyn to power.
That's an excellent post, and says exactly how I feel about re nationalisation. It probably wouldn't work- as Josias points out, you just couldn't trust the government not to milk it to death, but people see the utilities as a basic human right nowadays, and paying some French company to give you a so-so service and rinse you for the privilege is starting to stick in the craw. Corbyn will ride that wave all the way in.
Usually a state owned French company.
Which UK rail routes are run by French companies?
SouthEastern, Southern, Thameslink, Great Northern
Govia is 65% UK owned and 35% French owned. And Keolis, who owns that 35% is a private company albeit with a majority state owned shareholder.
I see all elective surgery is being cancelled for this month. Single sex accommodation waived too. My surgical colleagues won't know what to do with themselves:
This is 10 times the number of operations than were cancelled in the junior doctor strikes, but methinks there will not be 10 times the outrage from PB Tories...
It is just staggering that we can even be thinking of discussing renationalisation and repeating all the old mistakes. This is all known stuff: so successful were Thatcher's privatisations in improving service, stimulating innovation, boosting the economy, and reducing costs that they were subsequently copied in almost every country in the world to varying degrees, except in North Korea and Cuba. Admittedly there has been some back-sliding in a few places, notably Venezuela, but that should merely serve to remind us of the consequences. Why on earth is anyone advocating it?
You sound a bit on the defensive.
I'm entirely on the defensive. It beggars belief that the country, or at least a large chunk of it, seems intent on repeating the same old mistakes, on something which has been sorted and well understood for decades. It's as though the US was about to reintroduce prohibition or something equally daft.
It is, of course, entirely possible that I'm wrong.
My knowledge comes entirely from a documentary I saw which basically said the APTs were unusable because they were unstable in corners and drinks got spilled everywhere. It said that a decade later, modern technology had improved to a level where trains could be constantly adjusted and therefore the tilting motion was much smoother.
Said documentary is probably on YouTube, but I accept that you are far more likely to know what is correct in this case than either me, or the documentary maker.
Perversely, AIUI it's actually the other way around. On an early press trip, journalists complained of nausea. This was excused on them having over-indulged on the free drinks.
Whilst there may have been some truth in that, there were other reasons. The tilt system kept the train too level laterally, inducing nausea in some. This was fixed by not quite tilting perfectly, from memory just a degree off would cure it. Also, at first it would tilt too rapidly; a smoother transition also helped; again, this was a relatively simple change. Neither of these reduced the maximum speed.
It is just staggering that we can even be thinking of discussing renationalisation and repeating all the old mistakes. This is all known stuff: so successful were Thatcher's privatisations in improving service, stimulating innovation, boosting the economy, and reducing costs that they were subsequently copied in almost every country in the world to varying degrees, except in North Korea and Cuba. Admittedly there has been some back-sliding in a few places, notably Venezuela, but that should merely serve to remind us of the consequences. Why on earth is anyone advocating it?
It is a natural consequence of man-on-the-street voter thinking when times are hard. The "JAMS" as Miliband put it.
People see things like gas and electricity, the Royal Mail, or the trains, as being essentials - nobody spontaneously thinks "ooh, I'll go out and buy a few more stamps today! and maybe a little extra gas..." ...nor do they generally wander up and down the railways for fun (Sunil - an execption).
Everyind of thinking that could easily propel Corbyn to power.
That's an excellent post, and says exactly how I feel about re nationalisation. It probably wouldn't work- as Josias points out, you just couldn't trust the government not to milk it to death, but people see the utilities as a basic human right nowadays, and paying some French company to give you a so-so service and rinse you for the privilege is starting to stick in the craw. Corbyn will ride that wave all the way in.
Usually a state owned French company.
Which UK rail routes are run by French companies?
SouthEastern, Southern, Thameslink, Great Northern
Eurostar... well, along with the Belgians, Canadians and post office engineers’ pension fund
It is just staggering that we can even be thinking of discussing renationalisation and repeating all the old mistakes. This is all known stuff: so successful were Thatcher's privatisations in improving service, stimulating innovation, boosting the economy, and reducing costs that they were subsequently copied in almost every country in the world to varying degrees, except in North Korea and Cuba. Admittedly there has been some back-sliding in a few places, notably Venezuela, but that should merely serve to remind us of the consequences. Why on earth is anyone advocating it?
You sound a bit on the defensive.
I'm entirely on the defensive. It beggars belief that the country, or at least a large chunk of it, seems intent on repeating the same old mistakes, on something which has been sorted and well understood for decades. It's as though the US was about to reintroduce prohibition or something equally daft.
It is just staggering that we can even be thinking of discussing renationalisation and repeating all the old mistakes. This is all known stuff: so successful were Thatcher's privatisations in improving service, stimulating innovation, boosting the economy, and reducing costs that they were subsequently copied in almost every country in the world to varying degrees, except in North Korea and Cuba. Admittedly there has been some back-sliding in a few places, notably Venezuela, but that should merely serve to remind us of the consequences. Why on earth is anyone advocating it?
You sound a bit on the defensive.
I'm entirely on the defensive. It beggars belief that the country, or at least a large chunk of it, seems intent on repeating the same old mistakes, on something which has been sorted and well understood for decades. It's as though the US was about to reintroduce prohibition or something equally daft.
It is just staggering that we can even be thinking of discussing renationalisation and repeating all the old mistakes. This is all known stuff: so successful were Thatcher's privatisations in improving service, stimulating innovation, boosting the economy, and reducing costs that they were subsequently copied in almost every country in the world to varying degrees, except in North Korea and Cuba. Admittedly there has been some back-sliding in a few places, notably Venezuela, but that should merely serve to remind us of the consequences. Why on earth is anyone advocating it?
It is a natural consequence of man-on-the-street voter thinking when times are hard. The "JAMS" as Miliband put it.
People see things like gas and electricity, the Royal Mail, or the trains, as being essentials - nobody spontaneously thinks "ooh, I'll go out and buy a few more stamps today! and maybe a little extra gas..." ...nor do they generally wander up and down the railways for fun (Sunil - an execption).
Everyind of thinking that could easily propel Corbyn to power.
That's an excellent post, and says exactly how I feel about re nationalisation. It probably wouldn't work- as Josias points out, you just couldn't trust the government not to milk it to death, but people see the utilities as a basic human right nowadays, and paying some French company to give you a so-so service and rinse you for the privilege is starting to stick in the craw. Corbyn will ride that wave all the way in.
Usually a state owned French company.
Which UK rail routes are run by French companies?
SouthEastern, Southern, Thameslink, Great Northern
Govia is 65% UK owned and 35% French owned. And Keolis, who owns that 35% is a private company albeit with a majority state owned shareholder.
A foreign state owned enterprise running UK rail routes. But I accept they are only 35%. So how about c2c 100% operated by Trenitalia. Children, Crosscountry, Northern, Wales, London Overground all 100% operated by a division of Deutche Bahn. Anglia, Scotrail both 100% operated by a division of NedRail.
We know nationalised rail works in the UK because the majority of franchises are run by the state railways of foreign governments
Comments
Pioneers in LNG transportation, storage and revaporisation.
Development of CRG and HYCOM processes for synthetic natural gas production from liquid feedstock.
Development of BGL gasifier and coal hydrogenation technology for synthetic natural gas production from coal.
Development of adsorption technology for natural gas purification.
Etc.
The point is that innovation when given a gift-horse to look into the mouth of is easy, as was the case when North Sea gas became available.
Innovation is also only part of the story. Take BR. They innovated massively in the 1960s and 1970s: not just things like the HST or APT, but they were world-leaders in trying to understand wheel-rail dynamics research which we then gave away). Yet despite all this world-beating innovation, BR was pretty much a basketcase in that period, as the whole APT story shows.
There was also a lot of safety related stuff - blowing things up at Spadeadam for example to get data on blast waves in congested areas or spilling a load of LNG onto water to see what happens.
People see things like gas and electricity, the Royal Mail, or the trains, as being essentials - nobody spontaneously thinks "ooh, I'll go out and buy a few more stamps today! and maybe a little extra gas..." ...nor do they generally wander up and down the railways for fun (Sunil - an execption).
Everybody knows that capitalism = profit. Even as an arch capitalist, I'll admit that's how the system works. And while you can argue "profits provide incentives to make services better" until you're blue in the face, the trouble is when people are feeling the pinch, they feel as if those profits are being gouged directly from them.
People feel as if they are being overcharged for the necessities of life - whereas a government "for the people" would provide it at cost price.
Utility bills carry on rising, the cost of your travelcard to get to work goes up, while your wages remain the same. And so you blame "profit" - others doing well out of gouging you for more and more of the bare necessitiesyou need to keep a roof over your head and heat it.
People feel, fairly or unfairly, as if they are being exploited. As if every rise in the cost of their train fare or their gas bill goes directly into the pocket of a CEO who got a pay rise this year - when you didn't.
It may not be the expert view, or the economist's view but it is certainly the one of the man on the street who sees the cost of his utility bill and season ticket go up while his wages stagnate, and it is the kind of thinking that could easily propel Corbyn to power.
I see another poster has shown you are clueless on what British Gas did pre privatisation.
The APT had to be developed on a shoestring budget and was close to commercialisation when the plug was pulled. The tilt technology developed here was taken forward overseas and then of course re-exported back to the UK in the form of the Pendolinos on the WCML.
The APT is a slightly different story. It was exceptionally ahead of its time: just the use of aluminium and aerospace techniques had many in Derby scratching their heads, yet alone any of the really interesting stuff.
But despite all this innovation, the railways still were not doing very well: although the HST could be said to have helped make Intercity profitable in the 1980s. I mean, BREL at Derby was a basketcase right up to the end, with terrible outdated working practices and waste on an industrial scale.
Innovation is pointless if you are unwilling to embrace the advantages.
As an example, the APT-E did not run for a year after its first run due to stupid action by ASLEF, causing a one-day strike that cost more than the entire project!
Did you see this? A Momentum video (hard to find the original link, this is a copy) that was I think the second or third most viewed video of the GE2017 campaign.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzZUg578tgg
This is the mood of the country - "we are being ripped off and somebody somewhere is drinking champagne with the proceeds of my season ticket, while I haven't had a pay rise in three ****ing years."
Arguments about there being more trains or the service being more efficient since privatisation don't have any effect on people who see the cost of their ticket rise above inflation again and again for the privilege of being crammed into a sardine tin at rush hour.
Having said that, I've never seen the point in water privatisation.
It's never gonna work, I know, but you can't blame people for being drawn to Corbyn because of it.
1 ideology
2 trebles all round for merchant banks which did the share issues, etc
3 executives could raise their pay 5-10x
4 govt cash flow improved, which some people considered crucial, but the profit and loss account worsened, because future profits now went to shareholders (nationalised and privatised gas made a huge profit).
Maybe some people thought entrepeneurs would unlock hidden savings. It hasn't happened. It was hardly likely to happen with natural monopolies like telephone wires or buried electric cables and gas or water pipes.
Disraeli nationalised the telegraph wires in 1868 because a privatised 'entrepeneurial' setup didn't deliver the Victorians what they wanted, which was working internet, a.k.a. the telegraph. It's been known for 100 years that even privately-owned utilities, like many in the USA, are best regarded as boring, safe, low-risk, low-return with very little excitement in them.
The best way to do it would be via central or local govt-owned limited company/ies which operate at relative arms length, like the British Railways Board did shortly before privatisation. Northern Ireland and Scotland already have more state-owned operations than England, e.g. rail, water, so there are examples of it working in the 21st.C.
Profits from the train operator are attrributable to the train owners who include those people who have pension investments.
http://www.scottishwater.co.uk/You-And-Your-Home/Your-Charges/2017-18-Charges
However, moved into the more lucrative; warmer; and less smelly management consultancy after university.
And, it was becoming easier to get a landline.
However the grass is always greener. And the prevailing mood at the moment seems to be "why should Branson and his ilk be profiting from services that are basic needs, things I have to purchase in order to survive and put a roof over my head, when I can barely afford life's luxuries and haven't had a pay rise in years?"
As for how you do it - trains you could let it happen naturally as franchises expire. For water companies I guess some version of compulsory purchase at the average share price of the past two years and borrow the money. Even if you changed nothing you could charge a bit less for water and still service the debt.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/11/nationalise-mobile-phone-companies
Nationalisation is still a bit taboo in this country and gets a lot of ideological opposition. The public are supportive or at least open minded - I think Corbyn is smart to advocate for sectors where the case is strongest and in my view overwhelming.
I'm not talking here about what is or isn't right from an economic, analytical point of view. I'm talking about what appeals to the electorate.
The fact is that "unsuccessful" people in your world, who have been failed by our crap education system, aren't savvy enough to get promoted, or are unable to move to places where there are better job prospects (have you tried buying or renting a family sized home in or near London lately?) have just as many votes as the successful ones.
People are being left behind and they are angry about it - see also Brexit, Trump, etc.
Governments would not raise rates when it is politically problematic. Instead, they'd just pay any losses from general taxation. By stealth.
For example, these new Hitachi trains on Great Western (leasing cost +100% vs the old trains, use by the franchisee is mandatory paid for by the taxpayer). Due to the failure of Network Rail to wire the route up properly and then the government pulling on the plug on anything thats not the core route to Cardiff, these trains will need to operate on diesel power for a significant proportion of the time.
The DfT's exacting spec wasn't for trains capable of keeping up with 40 year old trains under diesel power. DfT is now paying for the engines to be run at an uprated mode which will lead to increased wear and breakdown. As this happens GWR have to pay delay fees which is will then try to recoup from Hitachi who in turn will try and recoup it from MTU (the engine manufacturer) who in turn will try and recoup it from the DfT for running their engines above contracted specifications.
There are contracts layered upon contracts managing this mess. All of which negates the fact that the new trains are slower than the old trains, that the electric wires will have gaps along the route where wiring has been pronounced too expensive by the DfT, and in one notable place the new trains will have to coast under the wires which Network Rail put up to DfT contract standards only to have DfT change the standards so that the new trains are banned from collecting power from them.
1) every decision becomes a millstone round ministerial necks, so they avoid making them.
2) every pound spent becomes a pound less for other ministerial budgets, so spending gets constrained by other departments.
3) the Treasury try to minimise infrastructure spending that has a rate of return longer than an election cycle.
Overall this strangles the business. If governments were better at providing goods and services than private companies then communism would have triumphed.
Sadly "no job? on your bike" is not the kind of policy that wins elections. Corbyn may be promising free jam for the JAMs, but the fact is the Conservatives have to be seen to be doing something to fix the widening gap between rich and poor in our society, or else people will turn to hard left socialism in their droves.
The thing that turned both Blair and Thatcher into election-winning machines is that they spoke the language of opportunity - they made people believe it was possible to work hard and get on in life. That belief is starkly absent from the electorate today. The Corbyn surge and Brexit are both symptomatic of that.
The simple fact is that the experience of the vast majority of people over the last decade has been one of declining living standards while a select few seem to be making money hand over fist. Bailouts for the bankers, wage freezes for the nurses, etc.
https://twitter.com/MediaGuido/status/948235153998049280
We are paying foreign state owned companies too much and could do a better job ourselves. There is a strong public interest in railways. Nationalised railways work fine in the rest of the world.
The rest of the world seems to manage to fund its infrastructure and manage with nationalised utilities. Perhaps the UK is an exception where it’s impossible but I’m not convinced at all.
Secondly, the TOCs used to talk to the ROSCOs about the trains they wanted and their capabilities. However with the IEP, Lord Adonis decided that (as you say) the DfT would specify the trains and force TOCs to use them. Hence the TOCs are getting a terrible train that is expensive and not ideal for their purposes.
The problem is therefore one of governmental interference, not of privatisation. Again, not a good sign for nationalisation ...
(The IEP debacle is going to be a disaster for the passenger and the taxpayer).
Ultimately though for something like water or transmission - the govt will never let these service fail and will always step in.
http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/flash/fl_382a_en.pdf
Second in satisfaction behind Finland!
Populism triumphs, but it is a shortlived triumph that rapidly turns into ashes in the mouth. That said, the rebalancing of a term of Corbynism wouldn't be all bad. It takes a while to knacker an economy.
Tilting trains became viable with modern sensors, and cheap computing power, which meant that the train could be appropriately tilted 1000s of times per second. The APT was built before any of that technology was available. It was a marvel, but not one (sadly) that was suitable for passengers.
Oh, my coat?
Citations required.
It's unusual for me to say this to one of your posts, but I fear that's absolute rubbish. They got the APT-P's working well before they were scrapped, and they were often used illicitly on passenger services. They just didn't get funding to build the Squadron trains.
Also, the Italians had the tech working in their trains just a few years later (in full service in 1988).
The biggest problem with the APT-P's was the location of the power car in the middle, essentially making it into two separate trains. And this was mandated not by technology, but by health and safety.
My knowledge comes entirely from a documentary I saw which basically said the APTs were unusable because they were unstable in corners and drinks got spilled everywhere. It said that a decade later, modern technology had improved to a level where trains could be constantly adjusted and therefore the tilting motion was much smoother.
Said documentary is probably on YouTube, but I accept that you are far more likely to know what is correct in this case than either me, or the documentary maker.
The set was sufficiently complete by late 1971 for an official naming ceremony, where it became the APT-E (for Experimental). It made its first low-speed run from Derby to Duffield on 25 July 1972. Upon reaching Duffield, the ASLEF union immediately "blacked" it, forbidding their members from doing any work involving the train. Their complaint was that the APT-E had a single operator's chair, which they took as evidence that BR was moving to single operator trains. A friendly inspector helped the team move the train back to Derby at night. This resulted in a one-day national strike that cost more than the entire APT-E project.[4]
Blimey!
In the 10 years to 2015 the average number of days lost to disputes in the private sector per 1000 employees was just over 3. The average in the public sector was just over 95, roughly 32 times more.
The reasons are obvious. Public sector employees know that their employer cannot go bust, is subject to political pressures and public opinion. Private sector employers may have vulnerabilities in one or more of these areas but very rarely in all 3.
This is why British Rail was a disaster as was the publically owned postal service. The attitude was wrong. The focus was wrong and the results were catastrophic for the customer and the public purse. It would be crazy to go back to that again.
Perhaps JJs survey didn't cover their satisfaction adequately either.
Whilst there may have been some truth in that, there were other reasons. The tilt system kept the train too level laterally, inducing nausea in some. This was fixed by not quite tilting perfectly, from memory just a degree off would cure it. Also, at first it would tilt too rapidly; a smoother transition also helped; again, this was a relatively simple change. Neither of these reduced the maximum speed.
If you're bored, read the following:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3205836/
It was a classic case of engineers coming up with a brilliant solution and forgetting the human factors.
Years ago I was lucky enough to talk to an engineer or two who worked on the project, and it was a Derby project, so I'm biased .
A former treasury minister has launched an extraordinary attack on Theresa May's pro-Brexit cabinet members, branding them "clueless" about the economy, "mad" and "ludicrous," as he accused the prime minister of dragging her heels in trade talks with China.
Lord O'Neill, who pushed for stronger trade ties with Beijing while he served in the Treasury under George Osborne, dismissed Theresa May's Brexit strategy as "fantasy" and described Boris Johnson as "our ludicrous foreign minister."
In the 1970s pre Thatcher this country almost destroyed itself between recalcitrant and politicised unions and incompetent management. Thatcher changed that in many important ways and privatisation was an important part of that. Of course, as Joff would immediately point out, our management could still do with much improvement!
http://www.nrm.org.uk/railwaystories/railwayvoices/dralanwicken
Incidentally, one of my dad's men almost caused a strike at Derby's BREL works by trying to be helpful ...
It really was crazy to hear what the unions got up to in that place.
Perhaps lefties should stop talking our railways down!
http://d3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/25120605/National-Rail-Passenger-Survey-–-NRPS-–-Spring-2017-–-Main-report.pdf
As soon as Labour proposes this, then their opponents say "well, if there is £100 billion going spare, we'd rather spend it on the NHS...."
After an awkward pause, Labour then pipes up "well, OF COURSE we'd spend that on the NHS too...." And such tiny scintilla of economic credibility they have built up goes up in a puff of smoke.
Not that McDonnell and Corbyn would actually borrow the money to implement their plan. They'd give shareholders some crappy bit of paper with an "IOU - maybe, someday...." And stuff everybody with a pension. Because what we have done with privatisation is transfer these industries to our pension funds.
What the gig economy and ZHC needs most is unionisation to reverse the current exploitation of the workers. Waiting for trickledown from tax dodging billionaires and corporations is a mugs game.
In any case the grievance is mostly price and overcrowding.
Unions that stick to their knitting can be very useful and can even defuse potential problems. Unlike the 1970s the unions in the car industry are a good example of that. But that didn't happen when BL was a nationalised company. The mind set was wrong. Nationalisation=sense of entitlement= self indulgent work force and management= very poor service and value for the tax payer.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/02/nhs-hospitals-ordered-cancel-routine-operations-january/amp/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_tw&__twitter_impression=true
This is 10 times the number of operations than were cancelled in the junior doctor strikes, but methinks there will not be 10 times the outrage from PB Tories...
We know nationalised rail works in the UK because the majority of franchises are run by the state railways of foreign governments