Robin May wrote...

Jonathan Marten ... wrote...

"Tim" writes:

As long as NPOs are properly regulated with strict employment
rules (i.e. prevent the workers going on strike every six
seconds), contractual arrangements and performance monitoring
then public services can be run cheaply and effectively in this
manner. The problem here is the

This has never been the case for any "public service" or
nationalised industry at any time in the past or at present. Do
you have any credible evidence that it would be possible (out in
the real world, not in your imagination)?

Do you have any credible evidence that it makes sense to transfer loss
making industries to the private sector, where businesses must make a
profit?

*Apart* from stemming the losses and allowing taxes to be either reduced or
used for productive purposes, you mean?







[x-p NGs trimmed; Freeserve will not permit more than a handful]

"JNugent" wrote the following
in:

Robin May wrote...

Do you have any credible evidence that it makes sense to transfer
loss making industries to the private sector, where businesses
must make a profit?

*Apart* from stemming the losses and allowing taxes to be either
reduced or used for productive purposes, you mean?

But that's not what happens is it? What happens is that the business
continues to make losses, possibly together with providing a lower
quality service. The government then has to keep propping it up with
handouts and the taxpayers' money that used to be used for productive
purposes is instead used for the number one priority of private
companies, i.e. lining its shareholders pockets. (And the number one
priority is always making profit, not improving service.)

--
message by Robin May, but you can call me Mr Smith.
Hello. I'm one of those "roaring fascists of the left wing".

Then and than are different words!

wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:

Robin May wrote...

Do you have any credible evidence that it makes sense to transfer
loss making industries to the private sector, where businesses
must make a profit?

*Apart* from stemming the losses and allowing taxes to be either
reduced or used for productive purposes, you mean?

But that's not what happens is it?

Yes, it is.

What happens is that the business
continues to make losses, possibly together with providing a lower
quality service. The government then has to keep propping it up with
handouts and the taxpayers' money that used to be used for productive
purposes is instead used for the number one priority of private
companies, i.e. lining its shareholders pockets.

Is that what happened with British Gas? Or the electricity generating
industry? Or RJB Mining?

(And the number one priority is always making profit,
not improving service.)

You say that as though the two were incompatible, whereas a glance at the
improvements in services offered by (say) British Telecom in the last
fifteen years proves you wrong.

One can only provide a service if it is paid for - somehow or other. Free
lunches don't exist.

Then and than are different words!

My most common typo, I fear, but not made in the post to which you are
responding.

"JNugent" wrote the following
in:

wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:

Robin May wrote...

Do you have any credible evidence that it makes sense to
transfer loss making industries to the private sector, where
businesses must make a profit?

*Apart* from stemming the losses and allowing taxes to be either
reduced or used for productive purposes, you mean?

But that's not what happens is it?

Yes, it is.

What happens is that the business
continues to make losses, possibly together with providing a
lower quality service. The government then has to keep propping
it up with handouts and the taxpayers' money that used to be used
for productive purposes is instead used for the number one
priority of private companies, i.e. lining its shareholders
pockets.

Is that what happened with British Gas? Or the electricity
generating industry? Or RJB Mining?

Unlike public transport, those aren't loss making industries. Public
transport often doesn't make a profit not because it's badly run but
because it's just not a profitable industry. The tube was nationalised
in the first place because it wasn't making enough money.

(And the number one priority is always making profit,
not improving service.)

You say that as though the two were incompatible, whereas a glance
at the improvements in services offered by (say) British Telecom
in the last fifteen years proves you wrong.

But BT operate in an industry where it's possible to make a profit.
Where the industry is going to make a loss it's a lot more likely that
they'll reduce the quality of the service to make savings and increase
their profits.

One can only provide a service if it is paid for - somehow or
other. Free lunches don't exist.

Yes, but surely when an industry is necessary but loss making, it makes
more sense to keep it in the private sector than to hand it over to the
public sector and put government money in the hands of shareholders.

Then and than are different words!

My most common typo, I fear, but not made in the post to which you
are responding.

It's just part of my signature, not directed at anyone in particular.
Not enough people seem to be aware of the difference.

--
message by Robin May, but you can call me Mr Smith.
Hello. I'm one of those "roaring fascists of the left wing".

Then and than are different words!

wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:

[ ... ]

What happens is that the business continues to make losses...

Is that what happened with British Gas? Or the electricity
generating industry? Or RJB Mining?

Unlike public transport, those aren't loss making industries.

Of course they aren't.

Not now, anyway.

"JNugent" wrote the following in:


wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:

[ ... ]

What happens is that the business continues to make losses...

Is that what happened with British Gas? Or the electricity
generating industry? Or RJB Mining?

Unlike public transport, those aren't loss making industries.

Of course they aren't.

Not now, anyway.

Has privatisation turned any railway into a profit making business?

--
message by Robin May, but you can call me Mr Smith.
Hello. I'm one of those "roaring fascists of the left wing".

Then and than are different words!

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
Robin May wrote...


Do you have any credible evidence that it makes sense to transfer loss
making industries to the private sector, where businesses must make a
profit?

*Apart* from stemming the losses and allowing taxes to be either reduced
or
used for productive purposes, you mean?



There's a difference between a business and a service though. Laying and
maintaining electricity lines to some remote locations must be a loss-making
business, if there are only three men and a dog living at the end of the
line; but the lines are there because in this day and age it would be pretty
ridiculous to expect them to get by without electricity.

The same applies to public transport. People need it to live. Not every
can - or can afford - to drive. (And some of us fall into both
categories...)

Jonn

Jonn Elledge wrote:

The same applies to public transport. People need it to live. Not
every
can - or can afford - to drive. (And some of us fall into both
categories...)

People manage to get by in many of the more remote areas of the UK where
there is little or no public transport. It *may* in many circumstances
provide a useful service, but to say that people need it to live is
ludicrous.

--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk
"If laws are to be respected, they must be worthy of respect."

wrote:

Jonn Elledge wrote:

The same applies to public transport. People need it to live. Not
every can - or can afford - to drive. (And some of us fall into
both categories...)

People manage to get by in many of the more remote areas of the UK
where there is little or no public transport.

And we are all descended from people who were alive (not so many generations
back) before there was ever any concept of public transport run by the
state, at a time when the only form of PT was the stagecoach.

It *may* in many circumstances provide a useful service,
but to say that people need it to live is ludicrous.

Well, hyperbole, anyway.

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
wrote:

Jonn Elledge wrote:

The same applies to public transport. People need it to live. Not
every can - or can afford - to drive. (And some of us fall into
both categories...)

People manage to get by in many of the more remote areas of the UK
where there is little or no public transport.

And we are all descended from people who were alive (not so many
generations
back) before there was ever any concept of public transport run by the
state, at a time when the only form of PT was the stagecoach.

It *may* in many circumstances provide a useful service,
but to say that people need it to live is ludicrous.

Well, hyperbole, anyway.


True, I was being a bit over the top for effect, but my point remains. Sure,
two hundred years ago people could and did get by with no other transport
than their own feet. But the way the economy works these days it just
wouldn't be possible for a lot of people - jobs aren't near enough to homes.
Unless that changes, we need PT - and we need it to work.

Jonn