In message , at 09:56:49 on
Fri, 19 Aug 2011, Recliner remarked:
Second, privatisation has not been a total failure. The railways
are now doing more business than previously including freight. I
doubt if that increase would have occured under public ownership.

The low price was probably to ensure that the sale succeeded.

As is always the case with such privatisations. My recollection is
that there was considerable doubt that anyone would want to buy what
was a run-down network with falling passenger numbers.

Indeed, and if such a sale had succeeded, there would now be much
wailing and gnashing of teeth at the low price that was paid for
something now deemed to be much more valuable.

It's a shame that people who think it was sold too cheap didn't join in
the "making a killing" at the time.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote:
[snip]
It's a shame that people who think it was sold too cheap didn't join in
the "making a killing" at the time.

Some people actually have beliefs about public ownership - it's not all just
about trying to rake it in.

In message , at 10:27:59 on Fri, 19 Aug
2011, Mizter T remarked:
It's a shame that people who think it was sold too cheap didn't join
in the "making a killing" at the time.

Some people actually have beliefs about public ownership - it's not all
just about trying to rake it in.

It's interesting how the "too cheap" and "but public ownership is
better" viewpoints often co-incide in self selecting groups such as
this! Maybe they should have bought it and run as a CoOp, but it would
probably have been as successful as the Meriden Motorcycle works.
--
Roland Perry

In message , Roland Perry
writes

Maybe they should have bought it and run as a CoOp, but it would
probably have been as successful as the Meriden Motorcycle works.

The John Lewis partnership might be a better model.
--
Paul Terry

In message , at 16:06:20 on Fri, 19
Aug 2011, Paul Terry remarked:
Maybe they should have bought it and run as a CoOp, but it would
probably have been as successful as the Meriden Motorcycle works.

The John Lewis partnership might be a better model.

I wonder how "never knowingly undersold" would apply to split ticketing?
--
Roland Perry

On 19/08/2011 10:27, Mizter T wrote:

"Roland Perry" wrote:
[snip]
It's a shame that people who think it was sold too cheap didn't join
in the "making a killing" at the time.

Some people actually have beliefs about public ownership - it's not all
just about trying to rake it in.

Do many people believe enough to be keen to turn down a chance to get
rich quick?

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On Aug 20, 8:09*am, Martin Edwards wrote:
On 19/08/2011 08:46, 1506 wrote:
. . . . .*I do not mean
that he should be hanged,

Why not? And by what part of his anatomy?

On Aug 20, 12:34*am, 82045 wrote:
On Aug 20, 8:09*am, Martin Edwards wrote:

On 19/08/2011 08:46, 1506 wrote:
. . . . .*I do not mean
that he should be hanged,

Why not? And by what part of his anatomy?

Correction: You attributed that comment to me. It is not mine.

On Aug 19, 3:24*am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:27:59 on Fri, 19 Aug
2011, Mizter T remarked:

It's a shame that people who think it was sold too cheap didn't join
in *the "making a killing" at the time.

Some people actually have beliefs about public ownership - it's not all
just about trying to rake it in.

It's interesting how the "too cheap" and "but public ownership is
better" viewpoints often co-incide in self selecting groups such as
this! Maybe they should have bought it and run as a CoOp, but it would
probably have been as successful as the Meriden Motorcycle works.

Meriden Motorcycles, one of Viscount Stansgate's many failed
ventures. Somehow, a view prevails that only left wingers have
beliefs and a conscience. One can equally argue the morality of the
1948 acquisition of the big Four. Having nobly served the UK through
the ravages of WWII, they were relieved of their assets. Justice
would have been better served had they been given grants in order to
repair their battered networks. That done, negotiations could have
ensued with regard to what un-remunerative services should be return
with taxpayer support.

"1506" wrote

One can equally argue the morality of the
1948 acquisition of the big Four. Having nobly served the UK through
the ravages of WWII, they were relieved of their assets. Justice
would have been better served had they been given grants in order to
repair their battered networks. That done, negotiations could have
ensued with regard to what un-remunerative services should be return
with taxpayer support.

It was a matter of politics, not morality. You will have noticed that the
British electorate in 1945 chose a Labour Government which had a programme
of extensive nationalisation (just as, from 1979 to 1992 they chose
Conservative Governments with a programme of privatisation).

Peter