Margaret Thatcher

[ducati]

Buses aren't a utility. Gas, electricity, water are utilities.

I pay for water combined with my (very reasonable) poll tax. In fact, I don't recall getting a bill for years.

[theone]

Name one utility, just one, that is cheaper for the consumer since they were privatised.

You cannot blame privatisation on the rising price of utilities. The price of the resources that make our electricity, for example, are based upon global markets over which we have very little control. Gas and oil, as raw resources, are so much higher than 30 years ago.

Public transport? I have no doubt that is much more expensive than before, but again there's more than one reason for this, it's not all privatisation. Historic lack of investment (when state owned) is one.

But, in real response to your question, I would argue that the "cost to the consumer" is not about the price of a railway ticket. It is about the cost to the country as a whole. As a higher rate taxpayer, I would rather pay £10 for a ticket that used to cost £5, than still pay £5 and see my tax money ploughed into inefficent public owned companies being held to ransom by the unions.

How many years were labour in power after Thatcher without trying to change her policies? Their inaction tells the story............

[Flynn]

Neither is rail travel yet you brought that subject into play

Two separate sentences. One a request, the other a statement. Do keep up.

[Flynn]

You cannot blame privatisation on the rising price of utilities. The price of the resources that make our electricity, for example, are based upon global markets over which we have very little control. Gas and oil, as raw resources, are so much higher than 30 years ago.

Public transport? I have no doubt that is much more expensive than before, but again there's more than one reason for this, it's not all privatisation. Historic lack of investment (when state owned) is one.

But, in real response to your question, I would argue that the "cost to the consumer" is not about the price of a railway ticket. It is about the cost to the country as a whole. As a higher rate taxpayer, I would rather pay £10 for a ticket that used to cost £5, than still pay £5 and see my tax money ploughed into inefficent public owned companies being held to ransom by the unions.

How many years were labour in power after Thatcher without trying to change her policies? Their inaction tells the story............

Your tax money IS still ploughed into the railways. In fact the railways are more heavily subsidised by the taxpayer now than they ever were when they were state run.

[golach]

whats the cost of a Prescription these days Flynn?? I am sure they cost less now, but I am owld and slow so you tell me, you may need to remind me.

[JimH]

The unions didn't destroy British industry, Thatcher did, by her wholesale privatisations. Nearly ALL our industry is now foreign owned, our utilities are foreign owned, our public transport is foreign owned. And Thatcher did that. Go to France and Germany, they still own their industries, utilities, and transport. They also own ours, thanks to Thatcher.

She will be pleased you credit her with this. I am old enough to have witnessed the likes of Red Robbo, and Scargil and co destroy their industries by Strike after strike for more and more pay for less and less work. Nationalised industries used 25 union members to do in a week, a job that one man could do in a day. I was there, I did not like it then, and I would'nt like it now. As i said before Margaret Thatcher will not be forgotten - like her or loathe her - She was a mountain of belief and strength until sold down the river by a bunch of wimps.

[Flynn]

whats the cost of a Prescription these days Flynn?? I am sure they cost less now, but I am owld and slow so you tell me, you may need to remind me.

Prescriptions are not a utility. In England they are now about £7.60 an item I believe, in Scotland I understand prescriptions are a state benefit subsidised by the taxpayer and therefore 'free'.

[JimH]

Your tax money IS still ploughed into the railways. In fact the railways are more heavily subsidised by the taxpayer now than they ever were when they were state run.

If they are State run, they are payed for by the State - I wonder who pays the State, could it be the tax payers by chance??????????????

[theone]

Your tax money IS still ploughed into the railways. In fact the railways are more heavily subsidised by the taxpayer now than they ever were when they were state run.

Indeed it is. As it SHOULD be. Because a railway service is needed by the country as a basic element of infrastructure.

But the difference is that subsidy (and therefore cost) is being spent on maintenance and upgrades. Necessary expenditure. It is not being spent on ridiculously inflated wages, terms and conditions, a 2 man/1 job culture or massive final salary pension schemes that taxpayers in the private sector can only dream of.



Believe it or not, I've got no alliance with any political party. I haven't voted the same way twice in a row and I've probably missed more elections than I've voted in. But I've got more than one personal experience that has convinced me that the nationalised business and trade union models simply do not work. That's personal experience, not blinded by childhood indorctrination or political stance.

The fact that nobody has tried to change Thatcher's policies is evidence to me that, although perhaps unpopular, the were necessary. It's been 23 years since she was in power.

[theone]

She will be pleased you credit her with this. I am old enough to have witnessed the likes of Red Robbo, and Scargil and co destroy their industries by Strike after strike for more and more pay for less and less work. Nationalised industries used 25 union members to do in a week, a job that one man could do in a day.

That, among others, is my personal experience.

And history has proven it true.

British industry was helped towards ruin by a union mentality. Not the only reason, but a significant one.

[Flynn]

If they are State run, they are payed for by the State - I wonder who pays the State, could it be the tax payers by chance??????????????

'theone' said; "I would rather pay £10 for a ticket that used to cost £5, than still pay £5 and see my tax money ploughed into inefficent public owned companies" in relation to the cost of rail tickets. I pointed out that even though they are now privatised the railways are now more heavily subsidised by the taxpayer than they were when they were state owned. The point being that when they were state owned all profit was ploughed back into the railways, so they were mostly self-funding and requiring less subsidy. Now they are privately owned only a percentage of profit goes back into the rail companies, the rest going to shareholders and owners, and government subsidy for the rail companies is now almost four times what it was before privatisation.



Do keep up.

[Flynn]

Indeed it is. As it SHOULD be. Because a railway service is needed by the country as a basic element of infrastructure.

But the difference is that subsidy (and therefore cost) is being spent on maintenance and upgrades. Necessary expenditure. It is not being spent on ridiculously inflated wages, terms and conditions, a 2 man/1 job culture or massive final salary pension schemes that taxpayers in the private sector can only dream of.



Believe it or not, I've got no alliance with any political party. I haven't voted the same way twice in a row and I've probably missed more elections than I've voted in. But I've got more than one personal experience that has convinced me that the nationalised business and trade union models simply do not work. That's personal experience, not blinded by childhood indorctrination or political stance.

The fact that nobody has tried to change Thatcher's policies is evidence to me that, although perhaps unpopular, the were necessary. It's been 23 years since she was in power.

That's odd because the rail companies keep telling us their above inflation fare increases every year are to cover investment in network improvements. Yet they still take a bigger subsidy from government than British Rail ever did.

I used the rail network for twenty years before privatisation. They were cheaper and easier to use than now. You could go to any station and buy a ticket to any station. You knew how much it would cost.

Now it's like buying airline tickets, there are hidden fares, differently priced fares for the same journey, and fares are extortionately high.

[theone]

'theone' said; "I would rather pay £10 for a ticket that used to cost £5, than still pay £5 and see my tax money ploughed into inefficent public owned companies" in relation to the cost of rail tickets. I pointed out that even though they are now privatised the railways are now more heavily subsidised by the taxpayer than they were when they were state owned. The point being that when they were state owned all profit was ploughed back into the railways, so they were mostly self-funding and requiring less subsidy. Now they are privately owned only a percentage of profit goes back into the rail companies, the rest going to shareholders and owners, and government subsidy for the rail companies is now almost four times what it was before privatisation.

NO NO NO!

The profit was NOT ploughed back into the railways. It was ploughed into the pockets of workers who demanded 2 or 3 times the realistic wage for what they were doing, taking liberties because of the protection being a government employee allowed.

They were NEVER self funding. They went for years without the required investment, maintenance, upgrades etc, hence why so much money needs to be spent now.

[theone]

That's odd because the rail companies keep telling us their above inflation fare increases every year are to cover investment in network improvements. Yet they still take a bigger subsidy from government than British Rail ever did.

I've offered reaons for this elsewhere in this thread.

I used the rail network for twenty years before privatisation. They were cheaper and easier to use than now. You could go to any station and buy a ticket to any station. You knew how much it would cost.

Now it's like buying airline tickets, there are hidden fares, differently priced fares for the same journey, and fares are extortionately high.

I agree that the pricing system is confusing, but we can't blame that on Thatcher. Can we?

As for "extortionately high", fair enough, the face value is up, but as highlighted above, the real "cost" is now being paid. There's no such thing as "free money" and whether the rail users pays, or the taxpayer subsides him, someone pays.

[Flynn]

http://fullfact.org/factchecks/taxpa...alisation-3391

[Alrock]

You cannot blame privatisation on the rising price of utilities. The price of the resources that make our electricity, for example, are based upon global markets over which we have very little control. Gas and oil, as raw resources, are so much higher than 30 years ago............

30 years ago we had access to plenty of coal, a commodity that at the time was not profitable enough compared to the relative cheapness of oil & gas.....
If all the mines were not closed & decommissioned then now that oil & gas are needing to be imported at great expense all that coal would be a handy thing to have....
It's called having an insurance policy against a possible future energy crisis (what we are having right now).

[theone]

http://fullfact.org/factchecks/taxpa...alisation-3391

Very good.

It seems to prove my argument is true.

Subsidy has increased to fund the required investment that was lacking in the past. But this should reduce once the spending on the railtrack collapse is complete.

[Flynn]

This has been fun but now I must leave, I have an early start and long drive tomorrow.


I'm really looking forward to seeing the number one in the music charts next week. I'll now leave you all to your apoplexy.

[Flynn]

Very good.

It seems to prove my argument is true.

Subsidy has increased to fund the required investment that was lacking in the past. But this should reduce once the spending on the railtrack collapse is complete.

'May' have increased is what it says. The reason is not conclusive.

And goodnight.

[theone]

30 years ago we had access to plenty of coal, a commodity that at the time was not profitable enough compared to the relative cheapness of oil & gas.....
If all the mines were not closed & decommissioned then now that oil & gas are needing to be imported at great expense all that coal would be a handy thing to have....
It's called having an insurance policy against a possible future energy crisis (what we are having right now).

The good thing about fossil fuel resources is that they don't disappear with new governments.

The mines may well be shut down. If they weren't, then in that 30 years would have used the coal, now that they have been, we still have it. Catch 22. I have no doubt we'll be back to coal as a nation before too long. But using miner's who get remunerated and compensated like the rest of us.

The fact is, although we are an oil producing nation, we consume more oil than we produce. We are therefore reliant on imports from foreign, unsecure sources. Not a nice position, but would we rather have been on 3 day weeks, without electricity as the unions held us to ransom during the miners strikes?