Thedelldays Posted 13 January, 2011 Share Posted 13 January, 2011 shame...as the military have vast experience and rather good at it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 13 January, 2011 Share Posted 13 January, 2011 Where's the competition? Privatisation is great where there is a genuine market. Where a market has to be 'created', it's never worked out to be successful. Are multiple search and rescue operators going to cover the same streach of coast and race each other to the customers? And when the customers are reached, who will foot the bill? "Yer not being rescued untill you show proof of funds or a valid insurance policy" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 13 January, 2011 Share Posted 13 January, 2011 Where's the competition? Privatisation is great where there is a genuine market. Where a market has to be 'created', it's never worked out to be successful. [/i] Bingo! Currently the military get to hone the skills of their aircrew by flying regular real missions whilst providing economies of scale to staffing and servicing of equipment. Now we have to pay for private aircrew, servcing facilities, a profit for the company and then pay again for RAF / RN training missions. Genius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMike Posted 13 January, 2011 Share Posted 13 January, 2011 Bingo! Currently the military get to hone the skills of their aircrew by flying regular real missions whilst providing economies of scale to staffing and servicing of equipment. Now we have to pay for private aircrew, servcing facilities, a profit for the company and then pay again for RAF / RN training missions. Genius. wonder who thought of this bright idea! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 13 January, 2011 Share Posted 13 January, 2011 Privatisation is as much about installing a lean efficient management structure as it about making profits (although the two often go hand in hand) If the industry is well regulated and the companies retain franchises on performance based measures then it can be a win win for all concerned. I'm not saying privatisation is perfect but if regulated and monitored properly it is an effective way of running a service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 13 January, 2011 Author Share Posted 13 January, 2011 wonder who thought of this bright idea! who..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
latter day saint Posted 13 January, 2011 Share Posted 13 January, 2011 wonder what Prince William will do if it goes through? least he was making himself useful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 13 January, 2011 Share Posted 13 January, 2011 I don't see the logic behind this privatisation. I don't think the coastguard should be run as a business for profit, it's just wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 13 January, 2011 Share Posted 13 January, 2011 Where's the competition? Privatisation is great where there is a genuine market. Where a market has to be 'created', it's never worked out to be successful. Are multiple search and rescue operators going to cover the same streach of coast and race each other to the customers? And when the customers are reached, who will foot the bill? "Yer not being rescued untill you show proof of funds or a valid insurance policy" Ah, it could work if the one to reach the 'customer' first, was the one that got paid. This would speed up response times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corky morris Posted 13 January, 2011 Share Posted 13 January, 2011 Just like the railways - great idea!!!! NOT.......Tories should be ashamed of themselves! Privatisation is as much about installing a lean efficient management structure as it about making profits (although the two often go hand in hand) If the industry is well regulated and the companies retain franchises on performance based measures then it can be a win win for all concerned. I'm not saying privatisation is perfect but if regulated and monitored properly it is an effective way of running a service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 13 January, 2011 Share Posted 13 January, 2011 Privatisation is as much about installing a lean efficient management structure as it about making profits (although the two often go hand in hand) If the industry is well regulated and the companies retain franchises on performance based measures then it can be a win win for all concerned. I'm not saying privatisation is perfect but if regulated and monitored properly it is an effective way of running a service. a big "if". Struggling to think of many examples where the subsequent privatised monopoly have been effectively regulated and monitored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 13 January, 2011 Share Posted 13 January, 2011 Ah, it could work if the one to reach the 'customer' first, was the one that got paid. This would speed up response times. Who does the paying? The government? The rescued person? An insurance company? Surely to make this turn a profit each rescue would need to be charged in the thousands of pounds. What happens if you can't afford to pay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 13 January, 2011 Share Posted 13 January, 2011 (edited) Who does the paying? The government? The rescued person? An insurance company? Surely to make this turn a profit each rescue would need to be charged in the thousands of pounds. What happens if you can't afford to pay? I was being a tad silly. I am not for privatisation for privatisation's sake. Some situations lend themselves to privatisation, whilst others don't. I personally don't think that S&R is an ideal candidate. What next? Ambulance? Fire? Police? Although I am for less government and a smaller state, even I recognise that some services are better provided by the state, despite the inefficiencies and attitudes of the public sector. I also find it a little distasteful that someone will make a profit out of rescuing someone, or even worse, not rescuing someone. The postal services bill went through parliament today, which will ultimately result in the sell off of the Royal Mail (a far better candidate for privatisation). http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/content/view/full/99784 Edited 13 January, 2011 by Johnny Bognor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 13 January, 2011 Share Posted 13 January, 2011 a big "if". Struggling to think of many examples where the subsequent privatised monopoly have been effectively regulated and monitored. Which in itself adds another layer of cost - the government regulator and contract managers dealing with the commercial company's contract team. For these kind of privatisations there are no savings and no efficiency gains - just items shifted off balance sheets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 13 January, 2011 Share Posted 13 January, 2011 Ah, it could work if the one to reach the 'customer' first, was the one that got paid. This would speed up response times. What about the ones who were drowning after midnight or 'out of my area guv' ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 13 January, 2011 Share Posted 13 January, 2011 JB -Looks like we agree... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 13 January, 2011 Share Posted 13 January, 2011 (edited) Why not go one step further and include long range reconnaissance, and then get the winning bidder to keep the Nimrods flying, thus also preserving private sector jobs in BAe. Edited 13 January, 2011 by badgerx16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 13 January, 2011 Share Posted 13 January, 2011 JB -Looks like we agree... Can I quote you on that? Great being in the middle isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 13 January, 2011 Share Posted 13 January, 2011 What about the ones who were drowning after midnight or 'out of my area guv' ? I refer the honourable buctootim to the answer I gave some moments ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 13 January, 2011 Share Posted 13 January, 2011 I refer the honourable buctootim to the answer I gave some moments ago I know. I was being a tad silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumuah Posted 13 January, 2011 Share Posted 13 January, 2011 We already have a part privatised service. The coastguard helicopters are not run by the coastguard - it used to be Bristow, and now I think it is Bond. The result is more modern helicopters - faster and more efficient. Having actually been a SAR dope on a rope, I can say the Sea Kings were knackered when I was flying on them, and they've had another 10 years since. They are past it. The new contracts will still have military aircrew in civilian owned aircraft, so skills will be retained. The current Sea King force (I think with the exception of Culdrose, although I could be wrong) is maintained by civilian contractors. So apart from losing a few backseat military crew, it is likely that we will get a more modern SAR force, with a good sikorski airframe which is already working well in Stornoway, to replace our vintage sea kings. The only thing that will probably be wrong about the whole contract is the amount we will end up paying for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 13 January, 2011 Share Posted 13 January, 2011 Can I quote you on that? Great being in the middle isn't it? Feel free! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumuah Posted 13 January, 2011 Share Posted 13 January, 2011 Who does the paying? The government? The rescued person? An insurance company? Surely to make this turn a profit each rescue would need to be charged in the thousands of pounds. What happens if you can't afford to pay? Some people really don't know facts before getting on their soap box. The cost will be picked up by the home office, the same as it is now, and the same as it will always be. Sometimes I don't think it should be - like the drug addict I once got called to, who just wanted a fix - at a cost of about £100k to the taxpayer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 13 January, 2011 Share Posted 13 January, 2011 Some people really don't know facts before getting on their soap box. The cost will be picked up by the home office, the same as it is now, and the same as it will always be. Sometimes I don't think it should be - like the drug addict I once got called to, who just wanted a fix - at a cost of about £100k to the taxpayer. No soapbox here... just questions. So if the Home Office is picking up the costs, how are they planning to create a 'real' market? Or is the plan to fake a market - which has proved everso successful with the train operators I'm sure you'll agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuengirola Saint Posted 13 January, 2011 Share Posted 13 January, 2011 Privatisation is as much about installing a lean efficient management structure as it about making profits (although the two often go hand in hand) If the industry is well regulated and the companies retain franchises on performance based measures then it can be a win win for all concerned. I'm not saying privatisation is perfect but if regulated and monitored properly it is an effective way of running a service. What like railway privatisation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 13 January, 2011 Share Posted 13 January, 2011 We already have a part privatised service. The coastguard helicopters are not run by the coastguard - it used to be Bristow, and now I think it is Bond. The result is more modern helicopters - faster and more efficient. Having actually been a SAR dope on a rope, I can say the Sea Kings were knackered when I was flying on them, and they've had another 10 years since. They are past it. The new contracts will still have military aircrew in civilian owned aircraft, so skills will be retained. The current Sea King force (I think with the exception of Culdrose, although I could be wrong) is maintained by civilian contractors. So apart from losing a few backseat military crew, it is likely that we will get a more modern SAR force, with a good sikorski airframe which is already working well in Stornoway, to replace our vintage sea kings. The only thing that will probably be wrong about the whole contract is the amount we will end up paying for it. Hmmm So why didn't they think of that in the whole Defence Review..... HMS Tesco Fleet Air Arm could have kept the Harriers sponsored by those meerkats The Axa Insurance fleet of Ambulances The Range Rover Kevlar armoured Light tanks & Troop carriers that we need out in Afghanistan Inflight Refuelling sponsored by Esso Coastguard sponsored by Directline Nautical Insurance Jockey, The Kevlar underpants of choice for the Marines Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 13 January, 2011 Share Posted 13 January, 2011 (edited) **** it. Why dont we just drop the pretence, ditch the military completely and pay an insurance premium to the US? £10bn a year fee, they come and rescue us if anyone turns nasty. Hopefully we could build up a nice no claims discount if we dont go round upsetting anyone. Edited 13 January, 2011 by buctootim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 13 January, 2011 Author Share Posted 13 January, 2011 Just like the railways - great idea!!!! NOT.......Tories should be ashamed of themselves! You do realise that this is another left over from labour.. They signed up for this in 2006 and pushed the final stages through before the election last year Too late for the tories to stop it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deppo Posted 13 January, 2011 Share Posted 13 January, 2011 The private sector are what make this country tick. More people will get rescued than when those lazy public service rescuers did it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 13 January, 2011 Share Posted 13 January, 2011 What like railway privatisation? Yes. Exactly like that. I've commuted to London for 25 years now so speak from a fairly experienced vantage point. My train service today is exponentially better than it was when I first started commuting in 1986. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 13 January, 2011 Share Posted 13 January, 2011 Just like the railways - great idea!!!! NOT.......Tories should be ashamed of themselves! Why? This is a Labour procurement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 13 January, 2011 Share Posted 13 January, 2011 Has this survived the CSR then? Has there been an announcement? This has been on ice for ages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGTL Posted 14 January, 2011 Share Posted 14 January, 2011 Yes. Exactly like that. I've commuted to London for 25 years now so speak from a fairly experienced vantage point. My train service today is exponentially better than it was when I first started commuting in 1986. I've seen you mention that a couple of times. Do you not just think it's because we have modernised by 25 years? I dount people have the same cars or haircuts anymore either. There isnt much evidence to suggest that privatisation brought about better trains, unless the type of Trains SWT's use these days were around in 1986? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadgerBadger Posted 14 January, 2011 Share Posted 14 January, 2011 It's all the fault off the bankers, if they hadn't fuked it up then we wouldn't be chasing pennies as the government is doing. Effin disgrace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 14 January, 2011 Share Posted 14 January, 2011 I've seen you mention that a couple of times. Do you not just think it's because we have modernised by 25 years? I dount people have the same cars or haircuts anymore either. There isnt much evidence to suggest that privatisation brought about better trains, unless the type of Trains SWT's use these days were around in 1986? You could well be right. I concur that my 'evidence' that the train service has got better as a result of privatisation is somewhat circumstantial. I guess we could compare my train service to another service that hasn't been privatised over the same period of time and see how that has fared. The Post Office perhaps? Privatisation isn't always the answer but often it is (in my experience). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 14 January, 2011 Share Posted 14 January, 2011 It's all the fault off the bankers, if they hadn't fuked it up then we wouldn't be chasing pennies as the government is doing. Effin disgrace. And who in power was keeping an eye on what the bankers were doing at the time they "f***ed up" per chance....? If a parent leaves a 5 year old kid alone in the lounge with a box of matches and the house burns down, who's to blame...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 14 January, 2011 Share Posted 14 January, 2011 I'm all for privatisation, but will await further details before commenting further on this particular one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franny Posted 14 January, 2011 Share Posted 14 January, 2011 What about the ones who were drowning after midnight or 'out of my area guv' ? That also applies to the ambulance service today, a recent case I believe in Scotland where an ambulance crew did not respond because they were "on a break" even though the incidents was less than half a mile away. The person invovled was picked up by another ambulance that started several miles away but the person did not make it. The crew who did not respend habe been sent for retraining. The issue very often is how well peope are motivated to do their job not whether it is private or public sector. Despite what some people seem to imply on here it is not always that "private equals bad" and "public equals good" or vice versa it is all about good managemnet, good traiing and well motivated staff and that can happen in private or public sector. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumuah Posted 14 January, 2011 Share Posted 14 January, 2011 Hmmm So why didn't they think of that in the whole Defence Review..... HMS Tesco /QUOTE] Strangely, when NAAFI stopped trading as a retailer, Sainsbury's was one of the companies that wanted to take over the MoD food contracts, instead we ended up with a load of ****e from Booker/3663. So you weren't too far wrong with HMS Tesco! As for the air refuelling, it is actually another civilianisation story. The new RAF tankers will be privately owned - by the AirTanker consortium, and operated by, and crewed by the RAF (alongside civilian crews for some taskings). Same story as with the Sea Kings - our current aircraft are too old and unreliable/inefficient and we don't have enough money to be able to buy new ones. The only way to MoD can afford them is to lease them, even though it will possibly be less cost effective in the long run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 14 January, 2011 Share Posted 14 January, 2011 You could well be right. I concur that my 'evidence' that the train service has got better as a result of privatisation is somewhat circumstantial. I guess we could compare my train service to another service that hasn't been privatised over the same period of time and see how that has fared. The Post Office perhaps? Privatisation isn't always the answer but often it is (in my experience). Sorry this is an aside from the thread... but I can't understand why you can possibly think rail privatisation has been in any way successful. Government spending on trains has gone up (more than tripled in real terms), service punctunality hasn't improved (e.g. Southeastern have just clocked up a lovely 82.04%), and fare prices have shot through the roof (unless you book at midnight on a tuesday months in advance with no comeback if you miss your booked train). The only improvements I can see are flashy new rolling stock which insist upon talking to you, in an annoying, endless, patronising whine, and the long overdue replacement of accident-prone stretches of Victorian tracks which had degraded due to underfunding in the 80's and early 90's. I'm fairly sure that had BR been given half as much money that the incumbents have been given, we'd have seen both the tracks, and the rolling stock upgraded in a similar manner, but without the negative financial impact that both the taxpayer and the ticket purchaser have witnessed in the last 15 years. The only downside I can see is that some shareholders would now be less well off. I'm not against Privatisation. It can work very well in a true market economy. However, privatisation will never work when you grant companies contracts to run a monopoly. This is not a real market, as the government's forced invervention when GNER went bust shows. Were BR still in place instead of the current privatised mess, we would have a better overall service, and be saving enough cash to buy, say, a new aircraft carrier every year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 14 January, 2011 Share Posted 14 January, 2011 (edited) Sorry this is an aside from the thread... but I can't understand why you can possibly think rail privatisation has been in any way successful. Government spending on trains has gone up (more than tripled in real terms), service punctunality hasn't improved (e.g. Southeastern have just clocked up a lovely 82.04%), and fare prices have shot through the roof (unless you book at midnight on a tuesday months in advance with no comeback if you miss your booked train). The only improvements I can see are flashy new rolling stock which insist upon talking to you, in an annoying, endless, patronising whine, and the long overdue replacement of accident-prone stretches of Victorian tracks which had degraded due to underfunding in the 80's and early 90's. I'm fairly sure that had BR been given half as much money that the incumbents have been given, we'd have seen both the tracks, and the rolling stock upgraded in a similar manner, but without the negative financial impact that both the taxpayer and the ticket purchaser have witnessed in the last 15 years. The only downside I can see is that some shareholders would now be less well off. I'm not against Privatisation. It can work very well in a true market economy. However, privatisation will never work when you grant companies contracts to run a monopoly. This is not a real market, as the government's forced invervention when GNER went bust shows. Were BR still in place instead of the current privatised mess, we would have a better overall service, and be saving enough cash to buy, say, a new aircraft carrier every year. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm simplying sharing my 25 years experience of commuting on the Waterloo - Basingstoke service. I'm not forcing anyone to take it into account when forming their opinions. I can say hand-on-heart that it is now a much more reliable service and my gut feel is that privatisation has had a part to play in that outcome. We'll never know whether it would have been better, the same or worse had it stayed nationalised. I have my hunches but that's all they are. I'll concede on the South Eastern observation though - their punctuality is still pretty poor - I use their service from Waterloo East to London Bridge (btw, any idea how their current 80.04% compares with previous years, pre and post privatisation?). But again, neither of us have any tangible evidence to say it would be better or worse if was still nationalised. Edited 14 January, 2011 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 14 January, 2011 Share Posted 14 January, 2011 (edited) You could well be right. I concur that my 'evidence' that the train service has got better as a result of privatisation is somewhat circumstantial. I guess we could compare my train service to another service that hasn't been privatised over the same period of time and see how that has fared. The Post Office perhaps? Privatisation isn't always the answer but often it is (in my experience). Or you could compare it to a train network in another country which is state owned? Deutsche Bahn perhaps? I think any user of both netwroks would readily conculde that the German railways are quicker, cheaper and more reliable. I'd wager that the any improvement in train services in this country are inextricably linked to levels of consistent investment. The advantage held by the German railway is that there is no leakage in profit. Edited 14 January, 2011 by anothersaintinsouthsea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 14 January, 2011 Share Posted 14 January, 2011 It's out of date, and Liddle is criticised by both sides of the policial divide... but this still makes for an interesting read: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3136505.ece Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 14 January, 2011 Share Posted 14 January, 2011 Or you could compare it to a train network in another country which is state owned? Deutsche Bahn perhaps? I think any user of both netwroks would readily conculde that the German railways are quicker, cheaper and more reliable. I'd wager that the any improvement in train services in this country are inextricably linked to levels of consistent investment. The advantage held by the German railway is that there is no leakage in profit. The efficiency of train services in any country is down to the quality of their management and their staff. Their ain't much wrong with the staff at ex BR but the Management? Hmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuengirola Saint Posted 14 January, 2011 Share Posted 14 January, 2011 Yes. Exactly like that. I've commuted to London for 25 years now so speak from a fairly experienced vantage point. My train service today is exponentially better than it was when I first started commuting in 1986. And it's probably exponentially more expensive as well, in 1986 you had had 7 years of Thatcher and her cohorts wreaking havoc on the railway system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesaint sfc Posted 14 January, 2011 Share Posted 14 January, 2011 Works well with people who for example cut our grass and hedges, but not so much for something like this! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now