And even being that bad they are still better than they were when nationalised...
Milly Dowler's voicemail was hacked by News of the Screws
- Thread starter stockhausen
- Start date
And even being that bad they are still better than they were when nationalised...
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
Do you have any proof of that? And if so, do you have anything that could suggest that such an improvement would be down to the privatization, not simply the natural improvement over time due to technological development and refinement of the model?
Anyone that had anything to do with pre privatised BT (including many that used to work for them) would be able to tell you about the improvement. As far as it being about technology, nah it is more about the fact you can now say "You are rubbish, I am off to someone else." Do you honestly think BT would be investing in the technology if it didn't have competition to spur it on? Captive audience with no choice? Charge what you like for a poor service...
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
Except, most people can't 'not use' BT, can they?
I would ask what possible reason they would have for not investing in new technology? They would get money from the government and goals to achieve, what else are they going to do?
Most people can leave BT. LLU covers most urban exchanges, cable in the denser populated areas. Pretty much the only people that can't leave BT are those attached to rural exchanges. Oddly enough it is those self same rural exchanges that offer the worst service. It seems where BT has little competition they have poorer service...
It's not just a matter of privatisation vs public ownership though, privatisation without appropriate minimum standard setting and oversight is as much a recipe for disaster as public ownership without any clear goals or ignorance of market properties etc - each type of ownership has it's own risks and therefore need their own tailored approaches to negate the inherent downsides - hence why some privatisations are horrifically bad and some work out pretty well, and some public services work very well and others are horrifically bad.
Do you have any proof that "Privatisation is nothing but bad!"
From my own experiences of the railways, they have improved since british rail days. I know I'll get shot to pieces for that, but personally I think it's a lot cleaner, pleasant, and reliable.
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 1,950
- Location
- Cornwall
Actually, lets not divert another thread hey Dolph.
I like the way I get accused for responding to an off topic post by another poster
Maybe, but that's nothing to do with competition is it? It's thanks to investment. You don't need privatisation for investment either (though it is an easy way of doing it) - British Rail did suffer from chronic underinvestment but other countries that did ensure investment reached their state-owned rail monopolies had a much better service as a result. Remember that Network Rail is a state owned monopoly too, so part of the improvement to the rail service in this country is down to them.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
This is beyond face-palm.
I think it's everything to do with competition. I had the choice of several service providers to get to Hull the other week.
I must have been.
I must have asked the question then as to why it didn't continue, because I can remember the reply. I think I was 5 or 6 mind you.
5-6 isn't that the time you leave nursery?
So presumably wouldn't get nursery milk any more >.<
What do you expect with Ed Miliband at the helm. If there was an error of judgement it was him opening his mouth.
Very true. I haven't heard him speak yet today (is he there today?), it seems he's given the order to only ask questions about him. Even from my original post, there have been another 5-6 Labour MPs with the same name mentioned again and again! You know as soon as it says on screen who it is, that magic name will slip in again.
Could a mod please change the retarded title of this thread? Makes me cringe every time it's dragged to the top of the page
Agreed. Change it to "Lolpert Murdoch and Friends".
I'll stick my neck out here. As someone who used to use British Rail in the early 90s to get to college I can tell you it was awful, really bad. Trains hardly ever on time, dirty and generally bad service. I would *never* have got a job in London and relied on trains back then. I moved to Germany in the late 90s and was greeted with a fantastic rail service which I used every day to go to work on. Fast forward to 2004 and I move back to the UK and I really see a big improvement in train services. Cleaner, on time, decent facilities. The difference was night and day and surprisingly comparable to Germany.
If you really think rail services were better pre-privatisation then you probably never used trains regularly back when it was publicly owned.