3 ms·

If we hadn't privatised industries like British Leyland, British Steel, etc etc etc, we would be bankrupt and in the grips of unions. Maybe you weren't born wh

If we hadn't privatised industries like British Leyland, British Steel, etc etc etc, we would be bankrupt and in the grips of unions. Maybe you weren't born when this was going on, but "prices were cheap" is idiotic. British leyland, British steel, etc etc were some of the most loss making, unproductive industries. If by "prices were cheap" you mean "were massively subsidized by the government so we were paying through the nose for them anyway", then agreed. Look at the 1970s. Strikes. Union action. Rubbish piling up on the streets, and power cuts. That is what nationalization means. Since privatization, how many times has your water supply or energy supply failed? Even the worst privatization (British Rail) is arguably far better than it was before privatization. One of Thatchers biggest achievements was to take on the millitant socialist unions, and she won. Overwhelmingly. She set us free from their grip. "Profit" shouldn't be a dirty word. I love companies to make profits when they provide a good service. What I dislike are millitant unions striking for endless pay and pension increases, whilst at the same time providing a horrible service. I hate to descend into politics, but you are presenting as "fact" what is actually a very biased and extreme left wing view, which thankfully is pretty outdated in the UK now.

toyg 14y ago
>> If by "prices were cheap" you mean "were massively subsidized by the government so we were paying through the nose for them anyway" Correction: higher-band taxpayers might have been paying through the nose. People paying less tax (i.e. the less well-off) were paying less. >> Even the worst privatization (British Rail) is arguably far better than it was before privatization. {{POV}} Besides, the privatized UK rail network is shambolic when compared to (officially or de-facto) nationalized companies on the Continent. >> One of Thatchers biggest achievements was to take on the millitant socialist unions, and she won. Overwhelmingly. She set us free from their grip. {{POV}} I hate to descend into politics, but you are presenting as "fact" what is actually a very biased and extreme right-wing view, which thankfully is getting less and less popular in the UK now.
- mibbitier 14y ago
  > Correction: higher-band taxpayers might have been paying through the nose. People paying less tax (i.e. the less well-off) were paying less. Ah yes, because as long as it's those nasty greedy rich people overpaying for inefficient state monopolies, that's fine?!! If it's considered "extremely right-wing" to believe in the freedom for individuals to own property, free enterprise free market, and smaller government without state monopolies locking out competition, then I guess I'm a right wing extremist.
  - icelancer 14y ago
    In Europe, it is.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
    > "extremely right-wing" to believe in the freedom for individuals to own property You are conflating removing "the freedom for individuals to own property" with state-run railways and healthcare? Seriously? You just lost all credibility with me.
    - mibbitier 14y ago
      If you nationalize everything, and run everything as a state owned monopoly, then individuals can no longer own companies. That was the extreme position of the Labour party. Obviously some things need to be state owned. I would say that health care, just like the police service would be one of them. Railways are debatable.
      - SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
        So clause 4 goes further than I thought: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clause_IV http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clause_IV But there are several positions here: a) The actual behaviour of the UK Labour in most of the second half of the 20th century. i.e. Essential services nationalised, state players in strategic industries, and private enterprise for the rest. Wanting to nationalise the corner shop would be an extreme position. b) The stated goals of clause 4. c) State ownwership of all businesses. To see how this is different from b, I refer you to the abovelinked article. d) removing "the freedom for individuals to own property" (your phrase). I have lots of property that isn't corporations. I'm sure you do too. People own houses, cars, laptops, clothes, teaspoons, etc. to conflate b with d as you have done is a cartoonish strawman.
stuaxo 14y ago
Good god, if I am ever unelected dictator those that run the railways will be first against the wall - if we had given the British Rail the same level of subsidy the companies get now we'd have a much better rail system and without the ridiculous fares. It's sad that the only way the government will put decent money into things is when it's owned by their friends so profits go straight into their pockets.

toyg 14y ago

>> If by "prices were cheap" you mean "were massively subsidized by the government so we were paying through the nose for them anyway" Correction: higher-band taxpayers might have been paying through the nose. People paying less tax (i.e. the less well-off) were paying less. >> Even the worst privatization (British Rail) is arguably far better than it was before privatization. {{POV}} Besides, the privatized UK rail network is shambolic when compared to (officially or de-facto) nationalized companies on the Continent. >> One of Thatchers biggest achievements was to take on the millitant socialist unions, and she won. Overwhelmingly. She set us free from their grip. {{POV}} I hate to descend into politics, but you are presenting as "fact" what is actually a very biased and extreme right-wing view, which thankfully is getting less and less popular in the UK now.

mibbitier 14y ago
> Correction: higher-band taxpayers might have been paying through the nose. People paying less tax (i.e. the less well-off) were paying less. Ah yes, because as long as it's those nasty greedy rich people overpaying for inefficient state monopolies, that's fine?!! If it's considered "extremely right-wing" to believe in the freedom for individuals to own property, free enterprise free market, and smaller government without state monopolies locking out competition, then I guess I'm a right wing extremist.
- icelancer 14y ago
  In Europe, it is.
- SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
  > "extremely right-wing" to believe in the freedom for individuals to own property You are conflating removing "the freedom for individuals to own property" with state-run railways and healthcare? Seriously? You just lost all credibility with me.
  - mibbitier 14y ago
    If you nationalize everything, and run everything as a state owned monopoly, then individuals can no longer own companies. That was the extreme position of the Labour party. Obviously some things need to be state owned. I would say that health care, just like the police service would be one of them. Railways are debatable.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
      So clause 4 goes further than I thought: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clause_IV http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clause_IV But there are several positions here: a) The actual behaviour of the UK Labour in most of the second half of the 20th century. i.e. Essential services nationalised, state players in strategic industries, and private enterprise for the rest. Wanting to nationalise the corner shop would be an extreme position. b) The stated goals of clause 4. c) State ownwership of all businesses. To see how this is different from b, I refer you to the abovelinked article. d) removing "the freedom for individuals to own property" (your phrase). I have lots of property that isn't corporations. I'm sure you do too. People own houses, cars, laptops, clothes, teaspoons, etc. to conflate b with d as you have done is a cartoonish strawman.

stuaxo 14y ago

Good god, if I am ever unelected dictator those that run the railways will be first against the wall - if we had given the British Rail the same level of subsidy the companies get now we'd have a much better rail system and without the ridiculous fares. It's sad that the only way the government will put decent money into things is when it's owned by their friends so profits go straight into their pockets.