|
Post by see2 on Feb 25, 2023 18:57:23 GMT
Cable & wireless i.e. telecommunications won the 'Queens Award to industry' in IIRC 1978/79. It was the Crown Jules of the nationalised industries. Not if you consider that a big part of profits go to other countries, as they are now owned by foreign countries, and as I recall, some as part of nationalised industrial companies in other countries. How about that for Irony? The services were much better when these were privatised. I was not disputing that profits went to other countries. The services are as likely to be to do with natural innovation and progress as being down to privatisation. Clearly Cable & Wireless were a very competent industry before privatisation.
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 25, 2023 19:02:41 GMT
The services were much better when these were privatised. I was not disputing that profits went to other countries. The services are as likely to be to do with natural innovation and progress as being down to privatisation. Clearly Cable & Wireless were a very competent industry before privatisation. The ‘natural’ innovation seemed to accelerate at a pretty impressing rate after they became privatised,Possibly because they were privatised . Was the queens award to industry awarded for an impressive rise in service standards?
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 25, 2023 22:19:49 GMT
The services were much better when these were privatised. I was not disputing that profits went to other countries. The services are as likely to be to do with natural innovation and progress as being down to privatisation. Clearly Cable & Wireless were a very competent industry before privatisation. Doesn't matter how competent they were, prior to privatisation they were banned from competing against BT. Privatisation led to competition which led to better services for the customer.
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 27, 2023 11:19:38 GMT
The services are as likely to be to do with natural innovation and progress as being down to privatisation. Clearly Cable & Wireless were a very competent industry before privatisation. The ‘natural’ innovation seemed to accelerate at a pretty impressing rate after they became privatised,Possibly because they were privatised . Was the queens award to industry awarded for an impressive rise in service standards? The reward was for pre-privatisation. Cable and Wireless was the crown in the nationalised industries, it never made a loss since it was nationalised in the 1940s. When it was initially part privatised it was the first of the nationalised industries to have any percentage of it privatised. The income from it should have, at least, been used for the benefit of the country instead it was given to the Stock Market resulting in a flourishing of Top Mark European cars flooding the Stock Exchange's car park, as reported at that time.
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 27, 2023 11:24:15 GMT
The services are as likely to be to do with natural innovation and progress as being down to privatisation. Clearly Cable & Wireless were a very competent industry before privatisation. Doesn't matter how competent they were, prior to privatisation they were banned from competing against BT. Privatisation led to competition which led to better services for the customer. There may be an element of truth in that, but with C&W being such an energetic and competent company we will never know the truth of what would have happened if it had remained Nationalised.
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Feb 27, 2023 11:35:25 GMT
The ‘natural’ innovation seemed to accelerate at a pretty impressing rate after they became privatised,Possibly because they were privatised . Was the queens award to industry awarded for an impressive rise in service standards? The reward was for pre-privatisation. Cable and Wireless was the crown in the nationalised industries, it never made a loss since it was nationalised in the 1940s. When it was initially part privatised it was the first of the nationalised industries to have any percentage of it privatised. The income from it should have, at least, been used for the benefit of the country instead it was given to the Stock Market resulting in a flourishing of Top Mark European cars flooding the Stock Exchange's car park, as reported at that time. Now tell us how well BRS did.
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 27, 2023 12:19:11 GMT
The reward was for pre-privatisation. Cable and Wireless was the crown in the nationalised industries, it never made a loss since it was nationalised in the 1940s. When it was initially part privatised it was the first of the nationalised industries to have any percentage of it privatised. The income from it should have, at least, been used for the benefit of the country instead it was given to the Stock Market resulting in a flourishing of Top Mark European cars flooding the Stock Exchange's car park, as reported at that time. Now tell us how well BRS did. BRS?
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Feb 27, 2023 13:53:09 GMT
Now tell us how well BRS did. BRS? You old fossil, you should know. It was British Road Services, later National Freight Corporation, nationalised by acquiring major hauliers like Carter Paterson. Another fine mess Attlee got us in to.
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 27, 2023 15:45:00 GMT
The services are as likely to be to do with natural innovation and progress as being down to privatisation. Clearly Cable & Wireless were a very competent industry before privatisation. Doesn't matter how competent they were, prior to privatisation they were banned from competing against BT. Privatisation led to competition which led to better services for the customer. The first part is not in dispute. Your second point is speculation.
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 27, 2023 15:50:30 GMT
Doesn't matter how competent they were, prior to privatisation they were banned from competing against BT. Privatisation led to competition which led to better services for the customer. The first part is not in dispute. Your second point is speculation. Well competition does tend to lead to better services See2 as opposed to a monopoly .
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 27, 2023 15:50:31 GMT
You old fossil, you should know. It was British Road Services, later National Freight Corporation, nationalised by acquiring major hauliers like Carter Paterson. Another fine mess Attlee got us in to. Most things that Atlee nationalised were Nationalised because of their poor history under private ownership. Perhaps in many cases Nationalisation laid the foundations for better services to emerge.
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 27, 2023 15:51:31 GMT
The first part is not in dispute. Your second point is speculation. Well competition does tend to lead to better services See2 as opposed to a monopoly . I agree.
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Feb 27, 2023 16:45:12 GMT
You old fossil, you should know. It was British Road Services, later National Freight Corporation, nationalised by acquiring major hauliers like Carter Paterson. Another fine mess Attlee got us in to. Most things that Atlee nationalised were Nationalised because of their poor history under private ownership. Perhaps in many cases Nationalisation laid the foundations for better services to emerge. Nah, because of Labour dogma, resulting in massive wasted parliamentary time and use of money that would have been better spent getting the country on the right course.
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 27, 2023 17:54:17 GMT
Most things that Atlee nationalised were Nationalised because of their poor history under private ownership. Perhaps in many cases Nationalisation laid the foundations for better services to emerge. Nah, because of Labour dogma, resulting in massive wasted parliamentary time and use of money that would have been better spent getting the country on the right course. Money was not the problem in 1945 because British industry was wide awake and efficient at that time, the problem was that the industrialist had no vision, they and their investors would bleed industry dry. The UK had a massive car market in Europe, they produced and sold thousands of rubbish quality cars and lost a market that was wide open to them. Meanwhile Germany were building car plants in different countries and producing better and more reliable cars than the UK. The Captains of UK industry along with those with the wealth and power in the country screwed the country, and as far as I can judge kept on doing just that while keeping themselves and their investors well looked after. I did some in depth research around 30 or 40 years ago. In Hansard is a record of the privately owned railways having to be bailed out on an annual basis. Even Whiston Churchill was in favour of Nationalisation which he believed would create a more integrated Rail system as a major advantage for British industry. Competition between different Railways was none existent, many ran on their own track system using different gaps between the lines. The NHS was pretty much a necessity regardless of who took control. The Steel industry suffered from a British disease in that the finest steel mills built were then run and run almost to a standstill. Ditto Power Stations. Reinvestment was and is is one of the downfalls of British industry. Given that there was expected to be wars roughly around every 25 years, then steel could not have been left in unreliable private ownership. The only thing I recollect from BRS was seeing a Steam Powered wagon with its ash pan under the engine just back a little from the front wheels. That would have been in the early 1950s.
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 27, 2023 18:12:52 GMT
Given that there was expected to be wars roughly around every 25 years, then steel could not have been left in unreliable private ownership. The steel industry was nationalised in 1967 - a successful nationalisation or not?
|
|