Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Fri Dec 09, 2016 5:00 pm

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Sep 27, 2013 10:42 pm 
Special Retro Guru
Special Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:34 am
Posts: 5663
Location: Don't mess with monkeys, man
technodup wrote:
Neil wrote:
Sure - but hey - you just spout utter bolllocks just to provoke a response and sound edgy.

If I didn't know better, I'd think you were Frankie Boyle. Only problem is, he's actually funny.
I clearly get on your tits.


But you don't - and I'll have you know they're perfectly formed pecs, doncha know.

In a rather platonic, there-has-to-be-somebody-to-say-that I quite like your contributions. Doesn't mean I take them seriously or there's much sense to them - but they are a prescribed response, and also tend to produce a prescribed response.

I'm aiming high in the - perhaps futile - hope that you really realise that it's more about agent provocateur than actually buying into a lot of the things you say.

technodup wrote:
Job done.


Like the best in the private sector, do nowt, charge money for it, and sit back all self-satisfied. That's how the public have been shafted with privatisation.

How's the market and privatisation providing a better deal for the consumer with water utility companies? Who the fvck are they competing with? They're just skimming off a load of profit, investing nowt, then doing the Oliver-Twist thing when people point out the degrading infrastructure and how they'll need to get funds to provide investment for improvement.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 27, 2013 11:13 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 3:58 am
Posts: 743
Location: 钓鱼岛是中国的
technodup wrote:
Neil wrote:
The market knows best and competition will provide the best and competitive value for the consumer
FTFY


How does that work for rail lines then?

If I want to go from lea green to Liverpool lime street, I've got the choice between Northern... Or Northern.

This is the first of three showstoppers. Rail lines are a natural monopoly, you can't say you're bringing "competition" to the market, because it's not possible. Do we expect arriva trains to lay down their own train tracks, and build their own train station right next door to the one that does Northern?

Just how is that meant to work?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 27, 2013 11:32 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:33 pm
Posts: 11106
Location: The Home Of Mountain Biking, And All Great Things.
The fact is there are services we are happy to pay for, and they are not all suitable for the capitalist model.

After all, we are a mix of capitalism and socialism. That is how we like it, and tugging us too far one way is never going to satisfy the majority.

Some things are more important than profitability.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 27, 2013 11:41 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 7:48 pm
Posts: 1666
Location: Glasgow
Neil wrote:
In a rather platonic, there-has-to-be-somebody-to-say-that I quite like your contributions. Doesn't mean I take them seriously or there's much sense to them - but they are a prescribed response, and also tend to produce a prescribed response.
It's the internet. I don't take anything seriously, I say what I like if people like it fine, if they don't fine. Ask me about direct marketing and you would likely get a considered and balanced opinion based on knowledge and experience. On anything else? On the net? f**k it.

Bats wrote:
If I want to go from lea green to Liverpool lime street, I've got the choice between Northern... Or Northern.
Because Northern won the franchise. (Presumably) in competition with other operators. A quick Google suggests the contract is up next year so you might get someone else next time. Don't let it mess with your head, it'll still go to the same place.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 28, 2013 12:33 am 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 3:58 am
Posts: 743
Location: 钓鱼岛是中国的
technodup wrote:
Because Northern won the franchise. (Presumably) in competition with other operators. A quick Google suggests the contract is up next year so you might get someone else next time. Don't let it mess with your head, it'll still go to the same place.


You see that is a problem. It means the competition was just for the contract, and the "consumer" in this scenario is the Government.

Ignoring how dishonest applying the free market white goods metaphor to subsidized, "too big to fail" mass transit is, what does that make the people riding the bloody things?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 28, 2013 12:40 am 
Special Retro Guru
Special Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:34 am
Posts: 5663
Location: Don't mess with monkeys, man
technodup wrote:
Neil wrote:
In a rather platonic, there-has-to-be-somebody-to-say-that I quite like your contributions. Doesn't mean I take them seriously or there's much sense to them - but they are a prescribed response, and also tend to produce a prescribed response.
It's the internet. I don't take anything seriously, I say what I like if people like it fine, if they don't fine. Ask me about direct marketing and you would likely get a considered and balanced opinion based on knowledge and experience. On anything else? On the net? f**k it.


Quite - isn't that what I said? You kinda play a bit fast and loose and perhaps a bit up to 11, but you don't buy all the crackpot nonsense you write - quite right too - nobody else does, either.

technodup wrote:
Bats wrote:
If I want to go from lea green to Liverpool lime street, I've got the choice between Northern... Or Northern.
Because Northern won the franchise. (Presumably) in competition with other operators. A quick Google suggests the contract is up next year so you might get someone else next time. Don't let it mess with your head, it'll still go to the same place.


And be a worse deal for the consumer, as well as not having to actively compete, they can also take a bit off the top to keep investors happy, whilst not improving anything with that money, then think they can smoke it past the wrong guy by smoothly segue-ing into demanding more money off the customers in terms of overheads and service improvements. At the end of the day, the consumer gets the shitty end of the stick, whilst a few select people get to make some money.

Now fair enough, if they actually created the infrastructure in the first place - but they didn't - it was public and sold off, and always at bargain basement prices.

In most of the examples of privatisation, it hasn't been for the good of the consumer - that's just the lie that won't die - it's been for the benefit of a select few, whilst us mugs that are the GP get to pay for it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 28, 2013 12:47 am 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 3:58 am
Posts: 743
Location: 钓鱼岛是中国的
Neil wrote:
Quite - isn't that what I said? You kinda play a bit fast and loose and perhaps a bit up to 11, but you don't buy all the crackpot nonsense you write - quite right too - nobody else does, either.


They call themselves tories


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 28, 2013 9:09 am 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 7:48 pm
Posts: 1666
Location: Glasgow
Neil wrote:
Now fair enough, if they actually created the infrastructure in the first place - but they didn't - it was public and sold off, and always at bargain basement prices.
Railways were private enterprises first so that's not strictly true.

Neil wrote:
In most of the examples of privatisation, it hasn't been for the good of the consumer - that's just the lie that won't die
Vote for Milliband then, he wants to take us back to the 70s.

When you could have a phone, but it had to be black and you might get it fitted in a month or two. When you could get a cooker but you had to get it from the gas board(!). When you could fly Glasgow to London but it was BA or the highway. Easy to slag off the era, but if only we could fast forward and see what the UK would be like if none of these privatisations happened. It wouldn't be anything like today, for sure.

For most major enterprises government has a role in the conception, e.g. funding research or development of a technology. But as for getting a decent product to the consumer at the right price? That's a competitive game all day long. Would we be having this debate here and now, on mobile phones, on broadband, reliably for next to nothing if the government ran these services?

I'd be happy if the government said we'll sell off everything we have except one thing, (inevitably the NHS), and we'll make it the best service in the world. Not just claim it but actually improve outcomes all over it. I can't remember who said it, (Cameron?) but one PM said they would do less, better. If only someone would.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 28, 2013 10:55 am 
Retro Guru

Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 12:12 am
Posts: 680
Location: Anglesey
I know absolutely nothing about the sociopolitical ramifications of privatisation, I'm just a dumbass end-user, but surely if there are already well-established private companies that can deliver packages cheaper than RM, there's not much of an issue? (Yes, I know there are lots of cowboys as well, but I'd still prefer to spend a few minutes checking up on a company if I can save a few pounds as a result).

On the subject of privatisation in general, I once read a quote from someone along the lines that if British Leyland were still going strong, they'd still be trying to sell brand-new face-lifted Morris Itals. Made me LOL quite a lot, just as a mental image.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 28, 2013 12:09 pm 
Special Retro Guru
Special Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:34 am
Posts: 5663
Location: Don't mess with monkeys, man
technodup wrote:
Neil wrote:
Now fair enough, if they actually created the infrastructure in the first place - but they didn't - it was public and sold off, and always at bargain basement prices.
Railways were private enterprises first so that's not strictly true.


So? They were nationalised. They were a public asset - and if there was some private investment at first, no doubt they were paid for their efforts.

technodup wrote:
Neil wrote:
In most of the examples of privatisation, it hasn't been for the good of the consumer - that's just the lie that won't die
Vote for Milliband then, he wants to take us back to the 70s.

When you could have a phone, but it had to be black and you might get it fitted in a month or two. When you could get a cooker but you had to get it from the gas board(!). When you could fly Glasgow to London but it was BA or the highway. Easy to slag off the era, but if only we could fast forward and see what the UK would be like if none of these privatisations happened. It wouldn't be anything like today, for sure.

For most major enterprises government has a role in the conception, e.g. funding research or development of a technology. But as for getting a decent product to the consumer at the right price? That's a competitive game all day long. Would we be having this debate here and now, on mobile phones, on broadband, reliably for next to nothing if the government ran these services?


Strawman - I'm not suggesting that nothing is fair game for privatisation, or that all privatisation has been for the wrong reasons. I think it's been shit-ily implemented, though, the public have been given the shaft, and successive governments have been making hay whilst selling England by the pound.

Products - true products - then no issue, really. The phone situation - albeit leeching off much of the infrastructure that was publicly funded - but all the same, I see the sense.

Water, rail - I think has been a con predicated on political dogma.

Gas and electric - well if I'm honest, I think the public has had a crappy deal out of it all, and whilst I'm not hugely objecting, I'm not getting the benefits, given there's always got to be some regulation anyways.

Health, police, fire - I think much of it is at jeopardy from politico fvckwits that believe that they know better, and that the market and capitalism always knows best. a) for services, it doesn't (not that there can't be lessons learnt, or bits leveraged 2) they don't ever truly do it for the publics' benefit anyways.

technodup wrote:
I'd be happy if the government said we'll sell off everything we have except one thing, (inevitably the NHS), and we'll make it the best service in the world. Not just claim it but actually improve outcomes all over it. I can't remember who said it, (Cameron?) but one PM said they would do less, better. If only someone would.


Any of the politicians in recent times convinced you they have the savvy to make that call?

I'm calling it as bollocks - profiteering bollocks. It's all been done for economy stimulus reasons, than any true benefit, either in service, or cost, to the public.

And I'll repeat, that's not to say there's no merit in any of it - eg phones / BT - that side of things, whilst I have reservations about the way in which it has been done, I do think the public has realised benefit from some aspects of privatisation.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 47 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

About Us

Follow Retrobike

Other cool stuff

All content © 2005-2015 Retrobike unless otherwise stated.
Cookies Policy.
bikedeals - the best bike deals in one place
FatCOGS - Fat Chance Owner's Group

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group