Privatisation

[johnofgwent]

Well maggies massive con trick was trumpeting the great utility sell off enabled ordinary folk become shareholders when we already were.

Indeed. I admit utter ignorance of my millionaire aunt and uncle's jubilation at the British Telecom share launch price. 

I was utterly unaware the enormous celebrations were down to the fact the issue was vastly oversubscribed and as a result the part paid shares were trading at prices way in excess of the full price, guaranteeing 100-150% markups for the lucky stags that actually acquired shares.

Many others followed of course.

I recall actually making about a tenner on British Gas.

Then the bills quadrupled

[srb7677]

It was the ultimate con. Something we all already owned was sold mostly to the wealthy dudes or soon ended up in their hands. And the proceeds from the sale of what was ours were mostly handed out to the rich dudes who bought it all, in the form of tax cuts.

So what was ours ended up sold to the wealthy few, the proceeds of which sale were handed mostly to those same wealthy few. Who thus got most of their money back whilst the rest of us got ripped off.

If you sold your car and the proceeds of the sale were handed to the guy who bought it, you'd feel well and truly screwed over, wouldn't you? Well that's what privatisation of publicly owned assets did.

[cromwell]

That's false. The public/state/government was the nominal stakeholder. Individuals were not...

No it's not

[patman post]

That's false. The public/state/government was the nominal stakeholder. Individuals were not...

[cromwell]

And state owned.

Some state enterprises have been forced into competitive tendering. OK if the adjudicators are fit for purpose. But selection of the cheapest is unlikely to be the best deciding factor...

Well maggies massive con trick was trumpeting the great utility sell off enabled ordinary folk become shareholders when we already were.

[patman post]

...cheap compared to other options, is not the same as value for money, and all to often this is the hole that privatisation falls into.

And state owned.

Some state enterprises have been forced into competitive tendering. OK if the adjudicators are fit for purpose. But selection of the cheapest is unlikely to be the best deciding factor...

[Good old]

Privatisation is only a bad idea if it fails to supply the required service. It has to remain a governments duty to ensure national services such as Bus transport,  energy , the NHS, the railways , Prison officers, remain  fit for purpose if found to be not so in private hands. The fact that a private tender is cheap compared to other options, is not the same as value for money, and all to often this is the hole that privatisation falls into.

[patman post]

Barry had a good idea,and it wouldn't mean compensating any shareholders

He may well have done. But I've lost it among the discussions of Nazis being socialists and other childish arguments.

For the record, I'm only for compensating those who deserve compensation. For the rest either a sympathetic nod might do, or the finger if they protest too much...

[cromwell]

I think my answer to the current debate would be to have a real and sensible business enquiry into the provision and operation of all utilities — including telecommunications and transport.

The aim should be to ultimately ensure efficiency and value for money while providing countrywide access. Go for public ownership where shown to be best, and private ownership and operation if better.

It should set up scrutinising bodies with teeth for all utilities, have the power to replace failing utility providers, and be able to subsidise to keep costs to users down. Although we're told we have all this in theory, today's models don't appear to have the required clout...

Barry had a good idea,and it wouldn't mean compensating any shareholders

[patman post]

I think my answer to the current debate would be to have a real and sensible business enquiry into the provision and operation of all utilities — including telecommunications and transport. 

The aim should be to ultimately ensure efficiency and value for money while providing countrywide access. Go for public ownership where shown to be best, and private ownership and operation if better.

It should set up scrutinising bodies with teeth for all utilities, have the power to replace failing utility providers, and be able to subsidise to keep costs to users down. Although we're told we have all this in theory, today's models don't appear to have the required clout...

[patman post]

Well turning from nazism and the daily mail which has nowt to do with privatisation here's another good example of why privatisation is a bad idea.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sse-energy-broke-home-changed-27353102

That's one organisation's bad practice and cock-up. Neither public nor private enterprises are immune from employing idiots and scoundrels. One of the biggest and most important public sector activities, the Met Police, has had to be taken into "special measures" because of some officers' criminality and other failings...

[cromwell]

Well turning from nazism and the daily mail which has nowt to do with privatisation here's another good example of why privatisation is a bad idea.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sse-energy-broke-home-changed-27353102

[Thomas]

Following the 1930 German federal election, in which the Nazis won 107 out of 577 seats, Rothermere wrote in the Mail that Hitler's party "represent the birth of Germany as a nation". This was at a time when Hitler had made clear his hatred of Jews and belief in racial supremacy in his book Mein Kampf.

The Mail was rewarded with exclusive access, publishing several interviews with Hitler throughout the 1930s.
In March 1933, Hitler's party won 288 seats and 44 per cent of the vote.

Welcoming the result in an editorial the Daily Mail wrote that if Hitler used his majority "prudently and peacefully, no one here will shed any tears for the disappearance of German democracy".
After the June 1934 "Night of the Long Knives" in which Hitler murdered more than 100 political opponents, the Daily Mail report began: "Herr Adolf Hitler, the German Chancellor, has saved his country". In December that year Rothermere and his son Esmond were the guests of honour at a dinner party hosted by Hitler.
The Mail also welcomed Hitler's remilitarisation of the Rhineland, in contravention of the Treaty of Versailles.

https://pressgazette.co.uk/hitler-the-daily-mail-and-how-lord-rothermere-showed-he-has-learned-the-lessons-of-history/

[Thomas]

It is a well known fact that that right wing paragon of virtue - the Daily Mail - was throughout most of the 1930s a strong supporter of Hitler and the Nazis.

aye i read that here in this article on tim bouveries book.....

Some elements of the British politico-social elite were worse than appeasers. There were Nazi apologists and sympathisers among the aristocracy. The aptly named Unity Valkyrie Mitford liked to shock people by greeting them with a raised arm and a cry of "Heil Hitler!" What the author calls the "noxious glamour" of Nazism seduced students at St Andrews University who passed the motion: "This House approves of the Nazi Party, and congratulates it on its splendid work in the reformation of Germany." Much of the British press disgraced itself.

The Daily Mail drooled over Nazism. The editor of the Times was a fanatical appeaser. The editor of the Observer admired Mussolini.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/apr/14/appeasing-hitler-chamberlain-churchill-road-to-war-tim-bouverie-review

[srb7677]

He also points out the british elite ( and those in other countries ) looked more favourably and sympathised with fascism across europe than they did communism at the time for obvious reasons.

It is a well known fact that that right wing paragon of virtue - the Daily Mail - was throughout most of the 1930s a strong supporter of Hitler and the Nazis.