I don't see privatisation as a bad thing. Would we be better with Leyland and British Rail? I don't think so. Oddly, I used to be fiercely anti-Europe, rabidly so. I changed my mind as I've seen what good it's done: for the economy, for our culture and for peace on a continent that in my parents' generation was a basket-case with a major war every twenty or thirty years. Vin
Part of the fault with British Leyland was the entire structure of its workforce, the shopfloor, management, design product, marketing, technology. I used to work for Royal Mail where anyone wanting to become a manager was sent on a two week course. I discovered it was very similar to the management training at SWT. If we look at police training it is 12 or 13 weeks, but please corrct me if I am wrong. The Government are even trying to fast track people into the teaching profession with the minimal of input. So if we continue to underfund training, the outcome is likely to be disastrous as illustrated in the eventual closure of Leyland, the poor industrial relations at Royal Mail, the poor quality of policing and the lowering of standards in education.
A resounding yes on British Rail. We currently operate a fragmented railway service run by franchises answerable to shareholders, but with the government forced to underwrite the financial risk. It's the worst of both worlds and a bloody disaster frankly. I could write volumes on the subject, but I'll resist the temptation to bore you rigid, and just say that the railways really was a privitisation too far.
It sometimes depresses me slightly how the average European railway manages to be well run and reasonably cheap, when compared to British railways. One thing the best of them did that we didn't was they made the move to electric far sooner than Britain, and maintained their infrastructure better, while we stuck with inefficient steam. We eventually went to diesel-electric, which were very unreliable in the early years.
They might be better run now than in the past, but that's because of public sector mismanagement. As Archer said it's gone private but actually there is so much government funding which is far higher than in the past. There isn't really ANY free market there and all that happens is shareholder get richer and with the re-bid of the franchises the cost is passed to the passenger in my opinion. I'm not against privatisation per se but i think key government infrastructure should be held within the state, mainly rail, land registry which the tories look to be privatising, NHS which is already working with the private sector, maybe even energy. Not so sure i agree about the culture for peace on the continent, it's unlikely in this day and age of nuclear powers that there would ever be a war between the bigger european country even if we weren't part of a European Union. I guess Yugoslavia was a breakup for a country and there was civil war, but because of the EU we are seeing civil war in Ukraine.
Public sector will almost always mismanage because there's always someone at the back of it all who is, for political reasons, prepared to tolerate lower returns or quality of service than a private company. I used to travel in the days of British Rail and it was bloody awful. I commuted for years on SWT and it was generally a pleasure. Ref NHS. In Southampton the Royal South Hants hospital is run by a private company on behalf of the NHS. I don't know a single person who thinks their service is anything less than excellent. They communicate, they are prompt on appointments and they deal with you as though you're the important one, not them. I'm told (no idea where to look for confirmation) that they are run at a lower cost then the NHS used to run the hospital. If that's privatisation of the NHS, I'm content. I don't know that people would have been so sanguine about peace in Europe in the 1950s. Seventy years of peace is truly unique in the history of the continent. Ukraine is not in the throes of a civil war for any reason apart from the domestic political needs of Vladimir Putin. Vin
I was taught by a group of excellent teachers. Out of all of them, I suspect about a quarter or a third had been teacher trained but I received an excellent education. Many of them had left the forces in 1945 and drifted into teaching. My brother has just moved into primary school teaching (from being an ambassador, no less). He's had what you would call "minimal input" but he is making an excellent teacher - he has knowledge of life outside the classroom unlike my niece, whose life has been nursery, primary school, secondary school, degree, teacher training degree, school. She's got the qualifications but nothing else. Vin
A mix of the two is ideal. Working outside the profession but I also think a full fledged 3/4 year course to have the philosophy, methodology and practice is very important. Teachers who have followed this route have to go through rigorous study, and are observed regularly before entering the profession on a full-time basis. I admit there are others who may have a degree in their chosen profession who then embark on a PGCE which gives them the principles and practice of education. You brother has an educated mind and, being a former ambassador has the ability to get the children to question, to find out for themselves and to inform without being a demagogue.
What about the police? I think it is important that they are trained In human management and should be intellectually as well as rigorously demanding.
Would agree with you, re British Rail. The Eastern Railway line ( I believe) was returned to the government a few years back, as the private company couldn't turn a profit. In government hands, it not only turned a profit, AND paid it's fair share of taxes, it also received top customer satisfaction compared to other rail companies. Sad to say, instead of continuing to reap the benefits and possibly looking to extend government control to other rail companies, when franchises come up for renewal, the Eastern Railway has been re-privatised. It will be interesting to see if the new owner contributes as much to the country's coffers, as the previously nationalised company did.
I'm a little too young for old British Rail, but I do remember all the jokes about it. As demonstrated with Eastern Rail, I would be in favour of re-nationalising the railways, but that nationalisation has to be protected from the chancellor. I don't know for a fact, but I imagine the failings of British Rail would have been down to under investment for a number of years, because politically it's easier to cut a transport budget than it is to cut health & education. So it's my belief that a nationalised rail service would still need to be managed with a profit in mind, it's just that profit goes back into the infrastructure and not into executives and shareholder pockets.
Many people do. Partly because of the British public's love of a moan and a laugh, the myth of BR's supposed failures persist to this day, but the old publicly owned behemoth did a lot of things right. British Rail Engineering Ltd's Class 2 & 3 carriages built at York in the 1970s are still in use today; unfortunately BREL were not able to tender for the contact to build replacements because privatisation has led to the almost complete collapse of the UK's rolling stock manufacturing capacity.
Totally agree with this. Personally I would like to see the government take over a small utility company, to run at a profit, whilst undercutting the prices of the "big boys" that are systematically bleeding the public dry, by persistent overcharging, and what appears to be price fixing. This would force the big companies to come into line, over prices, or risk losing a lot of their business, as a result of customers changing supplier. If everyone wanted to move to the nationalised company, and the private ones went out of business, even better, in my opinion. When you look at the billions of profit these companies are making, (and their unwillingness to pay a decent rate of tax), it makes my heart bleed that this profit is going to the few and not being used to prop up our own economy. Likewise with the telecommunications industry.
I would add a pharmaceutical company as well. The NHS spends billions on drugs every year and patients in certain areas are denied the drugs that would help them because of the so-called postcode lottery. If there were a state-run research and manufacturing pharmaceutical firm it would benefit everyone, and make the giant multinationals cut their prices too.
I've seen a report stating that the doctors will call off next week's strikes, if Hunt agrees to a trial of his new proposed contract. In short, some NHS areas will work to his new proposals over an agreed period of time, so that it can be shown, either way, the impact on patient care and workforce. This call is being supported across all parties, so over to Jeremy.
Money is toxic. One need only look at the bonus culture in the City of London to see that privatisation is seldom the panacea it is presented to be.
