Give privatised utilities back to the public

Give privatised utilities back to the public

Give privatised utilities back to the public

First published in Readers' Letters

IT appears that what Alec Samuels (Letters, January 9) doesn’t say is more pertinent than what he does.

During Labour’s term in office rail fares were still exorbitant, as is normal with privatisation, but at least in touch with inflation.

Under the Tories the last proposed increase raised such a storm of public outrage that Cameron was forced to take action. The cap still leaves some increases nearing four times the inflation rate, so there’s nothing commendable about that.

He previously stated it is only privatisation that keeps prices reasonable and makes a profit.

So what? I wonder, in common with many others, why, if the railways are supposed to be privately owned, do they receive so much support from the Exchequer, whilst shareholders make huge profits?

According to Mr Samuels, nationalised industries are not efficient, yet paradoxically the line classed as most profitable and best run is the East Coast Line, which is publicly owned. In its last yearly returns it made a £400m profit for the Exchequer and the public.

Ironically, it was only taken back into public ownership because the present Government made such a monumental mess of the refranchising.

The public are realising more and more that privatisation was a con and a rip-off, in regard to all the public utilities.

It was supposed to give the small investor a stake in them, but it was always intended that the ownership would end up in the hands of the few wealthy speculators.

The monumental profits made by these utilities and the disproportionate charges to the public are scandalous. The latest being the Royal Mail, which has announced a 4.5 per cent increase in business mail, after five minutes of privatisation.

The cost of posting a letter will no doubt soon be such that it is conceivable there will soon be a return to the pigeon post!

So I say, renationalise all the public utilities, and compensate the shareholders at the same price per share as the original issue price.

They would still have made a killing from all the inflated dividends they have had. If the railways stay privately owned let the shareholders pay for improvements to them and the provision of HS2, not the public.

All the public require really is the assurance they are being treated fairly. But ‘fairly’ is anathema to capitalists; I doubt it even appears in their dictionary.

D R Smith, Southampton

Comments (14)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:42pm Wed 22 Jan 14

loosehead says...

yes lets remove all subsidies from the rail way. lets see car volumes go up on our highways & pollution escalate,
when Maggie came to power the railways were so undependable next to no one used them the tracks weren't modernised & the amount of strikes was crippling the rail network she said why subsidise this industry to the amount we are let it go out to private tender to live or die.
This was curtailed to a subsidy which was suppose to go down each year but with rising fuel & power costs the rise in the fares to cover this & modernise the dilapidated network left from the Nationalised industry would have seen no trains so the subsidy remained until the end of modernisation.
can you really remember the strikes over nothing in the Nationalised Industries or did you forget about power cuts?
yes lets remove all subsidies from the rail way. lets see car volumes go up on our highways & pollution escalate, when Maggie came to power the railways were so undependable next to no one used them the tracks weren't modernised & the amount of strikes was crippling the rail network she said why subsidise this industry to the amount we are let it go out to private tender to live or die. This was curtailed to a subsidy which was suppose to go down each year but with rising fuel & power costs the rise in the fares to cover this & modernise the dilapidated network left from the Nationalised industry would have seen no trains so the subsidy remained until the end of modernisation. can you really remember the strikes over nothing in the Nationalised Industries or did you forget about power cuts? loosehead
  • Score: -5

7:43pm Wed 22 Jan 14

Lone Ranger. says...

With the arrogance of the power companies re the recent storms and their continual screwing of the British public i think that D R Smith has got it just about right.
.
But can you ever see some Tory like slippery Dave or useless George agreeing to that !!
With the arrogance of the power companies re the recent storms and their continual screwing of the British public i think that D R Smith has got it just about right. . But can you ever see some Tory like slippery Dave or useless George agreeing to that !! Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 1

9:27pm Wed 22 Jan 14

loosehead says...

So please answer this why in all the years of a Labour Government didn't they renationalise all the services & utility companies & yes the railways if this was the best way?
oh! before the crash?
So please answer this why in all the years of a Labour Government didn't they renationalise all the services & utility companies & yes the railways if this was the best way? oh! before the crash? loosehead
  • Score: -4

11:48am Fri 24 Jan 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
So please answer this why in all the years of a Labour Government didn't they renationalise all the services & utility companies & yes the railways if this was the best way?
oh! before the crash?
With regard the railways, they were not renationalised because of the way that they were fragmented by the Thatcher regime when they were sold off.

The rail track was sold separately from rolling stock.

Signalling is owned by another.

More than one company using the same route, with numerous companies using sections of the same track.

Parking at the stations owned by yet another company.

A ticketing system that was confusing.

This fragmentation of British Rail was done, not for efficiency, but to make it difficult, if not impossible to renationalise.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: So please answer this why in all the years of a Labour Government didn't they renationalise all the services & utility companies & yes the railways if this was the best way? oh! before the crash?[/p][/quote]With regard the railways, they were not renationalised because of the way that they were fragmented by the Thatcher regime when they were sold off. The rail track was sold separately from rolling stock. Signalling is owned by another. More than one company using the same route, with numerous companies using sections of the same track. Parking at the stations owned by yet another company. A ticketing system that was confusing. This fragmentation of British Rail was done, not for efficiency, but to make it difficult, if not impossible to renationalise. Linesman
  • Score: 3

11:59am Fri 24 Jan 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
yes lets remove all subsidies from the rail way. lets see car volumes go up on our highways & pollution escalate,
when Maggie came to power the railways were so undependable next to no one used them the tracks weren't modernised & the amount of strikes was crippling the rail network she said why subsidise this industry to the amount we are let it go out to private tender to live or die.
This was curtailed to a subsidy which was suppose to go down each year but with rising fuel & power costs the rise in the fares to cover this & modernise the dilapidated network left from the Nationalised industry would have seen no trains so the subsidy remained until the end of modernisation.
can you really remember the strikes over nothing in the Nationalised Industries or did you forget about power cuts?
"yes lets remove all subsidies from the railways. Lets see car volumes go up on our highways & pollution escalate."

Are you claiming that there has been a decrease in the use of cars by commuters since the railways were privatised?

Undependable? Since privatisation, I have experienced no improvement in their reliability, nor have I seen any improvement in the provision of more seats for commuters, many of whom invariably face having to stand for journeys both to and from work.

There is now More freight being moved on our roads now than ever before, with certainly no corresponding increase in freight being moved by rail. Perhaps you have an explanation for that - but I doubt it because, as per usual, you will prefer to ignore the question.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: yes lets remove all subsidies from the rail way. lets see car volumes go up on our highways & pollution escalate, when Maggie came to power the railways were so undependable next to no one used them the tracks weren't modernised & the amount of strikes was crippling the rail network she said why subsidise this industry to the amount we are let it go out to private tender to live or die. This was curtailed to a subsidy which was suppose to go down each year but with rising fuel & power costs the rise in the fares to cover this & modernise the dilapidated network left from the Nationalised industry would have seen no trains so the subsidy remained until the end of modernisation. can you really remember the strikes over nothing in the Nationalised Industries or did you forget about power cuts?[/p][/quote]"yes lets remove all subsidies from the railways. Lets see car volumes go up on our highways & pollution escalate." Are you claiming that there has been a decrease in the use of cars by commuters since the railways were privatised? Undependable? Since privatisation, I have experienced no improvement in their reliability, nor have I seen any improvement in the provision of more seats for commuters, many of whom invariably face having to stand for journeys both to and from work. There is now More freight being moved on our roads now than ever before, with certainly no corresponding increase in freight being moved by rail. Perhaps you have an explanation for that - but I doubt it because, as per usual, you will prefer to ignore the question. Linesman
  • Score: 3

12:13pm Fri 24 Jan 14

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
yes lets remove all subsidies from the rail way. lets see car volumes go up on our highways & pollution escalate,
when Maggie came to power the railways were so undependable next to no one used them the tracks weren't modernised & the amount of strikes was crippling the rail network she said why subsidise this industry to the amount we are let it go out to private tender to live or die.
This was curtailed to a subsidy which was suppose to go down each year but with rising fuel & power costs the rise in the fares to cover this & modernise the dilapidated network left from the Nationalised industry would have seen no trains so the subsidy remained until the end of modernisation.
can you really remember the strikes over nothing in the Nationalised Industries or did you forget about power cuts?
"yes lets remove all subsidies from the railways. Lets see car volumes go up on our highways & pollution escalate."

Are you claiming that there has been a decrease in the use of cars by commuters since the railways were privatised?

Undependable? Since privatisation, I have experienced no improvement in their reliability, nor have I seen any improvement in the provision of more seats for commuters, many of whom invariably face having to stand for journeys both to and from work.

There is now More freight being moved on our roads now than ever before, with certainly no corresponding increase in freight being moved by rail. Perhaps you have an explanation for that - but I doubt it because, as per usual, you will prefer to ignore the question.
why don't you put forward all the facts?
How many using trains paying good money & standing up would have been driving a car now if the trains were as unreliable as they were when nationalised?
You ignore the facts you stick to the same argument no matter how many times answers are given & you then ask for answers that's why I suggest you see a doctor as I'm concerned for your well being
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: yes lets remove all subsidies from the rail way. lets see car volumes go up on our highways & pollution escalate, when Maggie came to power the railways were so undependable next to no one used them the tracks weren't modernised & the amount of strikes was crippling the rail network she said why subsidise this industry to the amount we are let it go out to private tender to live or die. This was curtailed to a subsidy which was suppose to go down each year but with rising fuel & power costs the rise in the fares to cover this & modernise the dilapidated network left from the Nationalised industry would have seen no trains so the subsidy remained until the end of modernisation. can you really remember the strikes over nothing in the Nationalised Industries or did you forget about power cuts?[/p][/quote]"yes lets remove all subsidies from the railways. Lets see car volumes go up on our highways & pollution escalate." Are you claiming that there has been a decrease in the use of cars by commuters since the railways were privatised? Undependable? Since privatisation, I have experienced no improvement in their reliability, nor have I seen any improvement in the provision of more seats for commuters, many of whom invariably face having to stand for journeys both to and from work. There is now More freight being moved on our roads now than ever before, with certainly no corresponding increase in freight being moved by rail. Perhaps you have an explanation for that - but I doubt it because, as per usual, you will prefer to ignore the question.[/p][/quote]why don't you put forward all the facts? How many using trains paying good money & standing up would have been driving a car now if the trains were as unreliable as they were when nationalised? You ignore the facts you stick to the same argument no matter how many times answers are given & you then ask for answers that's why I suggest you see a doctor as I'm concerned for your well being loosehead
  • Score: -3

1:50pm Fri 24 Jan 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
yes lets remove all subsidies from the rail way. lets see car volumes go up on our highways & pollution escalate,
when Maggie came to power the railways were so undependable next to no one used them the tracks weren't modernised & the amount of strikes was crippling the rail network she said why subsidise this industry to the amount we are let it go out to private tender to live or die.
This was curtailed to a subsidy which was suppose to go down each year but with rising fuel & power costs the rise in the fares to cover this & modernise the dilapidated network left from the Nationalised industry would have seen no trains so the subsidy remained until the end of modernisation.
can you really remember the strikes over nothing in the Nationalised Industries or did you forget about power cuts?
"yes lets remove all subsidies from the railways. Lets see car volumes go up on our highways & pollution escalate."

Are you claiming that there has been a decrease in the use of cars by commuters since the railways were privatised?

Undependable? Since privatisation, I have experienced no improvement in their reliability, nor have I seen any improvement in the provision of more seats for commuters, many of whom invariably face having to stand for journeys both to and from work.

There is now More freight being moved on our roads now than ever before, with certainly no corresponding increase in freight being moved by rail. Perhaps you have an explanation for that - but I doubt it because, as per usual, you will prefer to ignore the question.
why don't you put forward all the facts?
How many using trains paying good money & standing up would have been driving a car now if the trains were as unreliable as they were when nationalised?
You ignore the facts you stick to the same argument no matter how many times answers are given & you then ask for answers that's why I suggest you see a doctor as I'm concerned for your well being
How many have been forced on to trains because they have no alternative?

How many have been forced back on to trains because of a restriction in parking spaces, increase in parking charges or the introduction of zonal charges?

How much of the fares that they pay, plus the income tax that they pay, finds its way into shareholders pockets, that did not get paid to shareholders when railways were nationalised?

Yes! I can remember strikes when railways were nationalised, and those strikes resulted in improved safety for both passengers and staff, and improvement in working conditions.

I know that you are anti-union, but perhaps you could give me a few examples where workers' conditions and pay have been improved out of the goodness of the heart of their employers?
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: yes lets remove all subsidies from the rail way. lets see car volumes go up on our highways & pollution escalate, when Maggie came to power the railways were so undependable next to no one used them the tracks weren't modernised & the amount of strikes was crippling the rail network she said why subsidise this industry to the amount we are let it go out to private tender to live or die. This was curtailed to a subsidy which was suppose to go down each year but with rising fuel & power costs the rise in the fares to cover this & modernise the dilapidated network left from the Nationalised industry would have seen no trains so the subsidy remained until the end of modernisation. can you really remember the strikes over nothing in the Nationalised Industries or did you forget about power cuts?[/p][/quote]"yes lets remove all subsidies from the railways. Lets see car volumes go up on our highways & pollution escalate." Are you claiming that there has been a decrease in the use of cars by commuters since the railways were privatised? Undependable? Since privatisation, I have experienced no improvement in their reliability, nor have I seen any improvement in the provision of more seats for commuters, many of whom invariably face having to stand for journeys both to and from work. There is now More freight being moved on our roads now than ever before, with certainly no corresponding increase in freight being moved by rail. Perhaps you have an explanation for that - but I doubt it because, as per usual, you will prefer to ignore the question.[/p][/quote]why don't you put forward all the facts? How many using trains paying good money & standing up would have been driving a car now if the trains were as unreliable as they were when nationalised? You ignore the facts you stick to the same argument no matter how many times answers are given & you then ask for answers that's why I suggest you see a doctor as I'm concerned for your well being[/p][/quote]How many have been forced on to trains because they have no alternative? How many have been forced back on to trains because of a restriction in parking spaces, increase in parking charges or the introduction of zonal charges? How much of the fares that they pay, plus the income tax that they pay, finds its way into shareholders pockets, that did not get paid to shareholders when railways were nationalised? Yes! I can remember strikes when railways were nationalised, and those strikes resulted in improved safety for both passengers and staff, and improvement in working conditions. I know that you are anti-union, but perhaps you could give me a few examples where workers' conditions and pay have been improved out of the goodness of the heart of their employers? Linesman
  • Score: 1

3:45pm Fri 24 Jan 14

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
yes lets remove all subsidies from the rail way. lets see car volumes go up on our highways & pollution escalate,
when Maggie came to power the railways were so undependable next to no one used them the tracks weren't modernised & the amount of strikes was crippling the rail network she said why subsidise this industry to the amount we are let it go out to private tender to live or die.
This was curtailed to a subsidy which was suppose to go down each year but with rising fuel & power costs the rise in the fares to cover this & modernise the dilapidated network left from the Nationalised industry would have seen no trains so the subsidy remained until the end of modernisation.
can you really remember the strikes over nothing in the Nationalised Industries or did you forget about power cuts?
"yes lets remove all subsidies from the railways. Lets see car volumes go up on our highways & pollution escalate."

Are you claiming that there has been a decrease in the use of cars by commuters since the railways were privatised?

Undependable? Since privatisation, I have experienced no improvement in their reliability, nor have I seen any improvement in the provision of more seats for commuters, many of whom invariably face having to stand for journeys both to and from work.

There is now More freight being moved on our roads now than ever before, with certainly no corresponding increase in freight being moved by rail. Perhaps you have an explanation for that - but I doubt it because, as per usual, you will prefer to ignore the question.
why don't you put forward all the facts?
How many using trains paying good money & standing up would have been driving a car now if the trains were as unreliable as they were when nationalised?
You ignore the facts you stick to the same argument no matter how many times answers are given & you then ask for answers that's why I suggest you see a doctor as I'm concerned for your well being
How many have been forced on to trains because they have no alternative?

How many have been forced back on to trains because of a restriction in parking spaces, increase in parking charges or the introduction of zonal charges?

How much of the fares that they pay, plus the income tax that they pay, finds its way into shareholders pockets, that did not get paid to shareholders when railways were nationalised?

Yes! I can remember strikes when railways were nationalised, and those strikes resulted in improved safety for both passengers and staff, and improvement in working conditions.

I know that you are anti-union, but perhaps you could give me a few examples where workers' conditions and pay have been improved out of the goodness of the heart of their employers?
How about an example of where a shop steward under Nationalisation took British Leyland out on strike for no real reason(Red Ken).
How about a Union that nearly lost thousands of Scottish workers their jobs because a Unite Union official wasn't doing his job at Grangemouth?
How many companies shut down & relocated abroad because Union officials went on strike at the drop of a match?
Bardic Engineering had a union official who needed a pay rise to get a mortgage on the house he wanted so threatened strike action even though he'd seen the books,
this very same Union Official was then told by the company there would be redundancies unless they rescinded the pay rise & to put it to his members so he got his mates ( promising to keep them their jobs) to vote to keep the pay rise so seeing people who'd worked there longer than his friends get made redundant as he sat down & chose the people with a supervisor.
I know because I was one who was made redundant & he was my brother.
I went to senior management & proved my point but would have only had a stay of execution to finish a order only I could do so I left so Anti Union? Yes I suppose I am anti Corrupt union officials or those with a political agenda as our Unite & unison reps in this city had
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: yes lets remove all subsidies from the rail way. lets see car volumes go up on our highways & pollution escalate, when Maggie came to power the railways were so undependable next to no one used them the tracks weren't modernised & the amount of strikes was crippling the rail network she said why subsidise this industry to the amount we are let it go out to private tender to live or die. This was curtailed to a subsidy which was suppose to go down each year but with rising fuel & power costs the rise in the fares to cover this & modernise the dilapidated network left from the Nationalised industry would have seen no trains so the subsidy remained until the end of modernisation. can you really remember the strikes over nothing in the Nationalised Industries or did you forget about power cuts?[/p][/quote]"yes lets remove all subsidies from the railways. Lets see car volumes go up on our highways & pollution escalate." Are you claiming that there has been a decrease in the use of cars by commuters since the railways were privatised? Undependable? Since privatisation, I have experienced no improvement in their reliability, nor have I seen any improvement in the provision of more seats for commuters, many of whom invariably face having to stand for journeys both to and from work. There is now More freight being moved on our roads now than ever before, with certainly no corresponding increase in freight being moved by rail. Perhaps you have an explanation for that - but I doubt it because, as per usual, you will prefer to ignore the question.[/p][/quote]why don't you put forward all the facts? How many using trains paying good money & standing up would have been driving a car now if the trains were as unreliable as they were when nationalised? You ignore the facts you stick to the same argument no matter how many times answers are given & you then ask for answers that's why I suggest you see a doctor as I'm concerned for your well being[/p][/quote]How many have been forced on to trains because they have no alternative? How many have been forced back on to trains because of a restriction in parking spaces, increase in parking charges or the introduction of zonal charges? How much of the fares that they pay, plus the income tax that they pay, finds its way into shareholders pockets, that did not get paid to shareholders when railways were nationalised? Yes! I can remember strikes when railways were nationalised, and those strikes resulted in improved safety for both passengers and staff, and improvement in working conditions. I know that you are anti-union, but perhaps you could give me a few examples where workers' conditions and pay have been improved out of the goodness of the heart of their employers?[/p][/quote]How about an example of where a shop steward under Nationalisation took British Leyland out on strike for no real reason(Red Ken). How about a Union that nearly lost thousands of Scottish workers their jobs because a Unite Union official wasn't doing his job at Grangemouth? How many companies shut down & relocated abroad because Union officials went on strike at the drop of a match? Bardic Engineering had a union official who needed a pay rise to get a mortgage on the house he wanted so threatened strike action even though he'd seen the books, this very same Union Official was then told by the company there would be redundancies unless they rescinded the pay rise & to put it to his members so he got his mates ( promising to keep them their jobs) to vote to keep the pay rise so seeing people who'd worked there longer than his friends get made redundant as he sat down & chose the people with a supervisor. I know because I was one who was made redundant & he was my brother. I went to senior management & proved my point but would have only had a stay of execution to finish a order only I could do so I left so Anti Union? Yes I suppose I am anti Corrupt union officials or those with a political agenda as our Unite & unison reps in this city had loosehead
  • Score: -2

3:56pm Fri 24 Jan 14

aldermoorboy says...

Correct as usual Loosehead, have a good weekend.
Correct as usual Loosehead, have a good weekend. aldermoorboy
  • Score: -1

5:32pm Fri 24 Jan 14

loosehead says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Correct as usual Loosehead, have a good weekend.
I've got to the point with Linesman that I know no matter what proof is put in front of him he'll still stick to his story unless some how you can dig back about 42years to find the proof so I realise there's no point debating with him. Have a nice weekend & isn't it good news that with the tax cuts workers have now had above inflation pay rises?
motor manufacturers are taking on more staff & the unemployment figures have dropped below Labours figure?
Sorry I just had to get those in ENJOY YOURSELF
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Correct as usual Loosehead, have a good weekend.[/p][/quote]I've got to the point with Linesman that I know no matter what proof is put in front of him he'll still stick to his story unless some how you can dig back about 42years to find the proof so I realise there's no point debating with him. Have a nice weekend & isn't it good news that with the tax cuts workers have now had above inflation pay rises? motor manufacturers are taking on more staff & the unemployment figures have dropped below Labours figure? Sorry I just had to get those in ENJOY YOURSELF loosehead
  • Score: -2

12:15pm Sun 26 Jan 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
yes lets remove all subsidies from the rail way. lets see car volumes go up on our highways & pollution escalate,
when Maggie came to power the railways were so undependable next to no one used them the tracks weren't modernised & the amount of strikes was crippling the rail network she said why subsidise this industry to the amount we are let it go out to private tender to live or die.
This was curtailed to a subsidy which was suppose to go down each year but with rising fuel & power costs the rise in the fares to cover this & modernise the dilapidated network left from the Nationalised industry would have seen no trains so the subsidy remained until the end of modernisation.
can you really remember the strikes over nothing in the Nationalised Industries or did you forget about power cuts?
"yes lets remove all subsidies from the railways. Lets see car volumes go up on our highways & pollution escalate."

Are you claiming that there has been a decrease in the use of cars by commuters since the railways were privatised?

Undependable? Since privatisation, I have experienced no improvement in their reliability, nor have I seen any improvement in the provision of more seats for commuters, many of whom invariably face having to stand for journeys both to and from work.

There is now More freight being moved on our roads now than ever before, with certainly no corresponding increase in freight being moved by rail. Perhaps you have an explanation for that - but I doubt it because, as per usual, you will prefer to ignore the question.
why don't you put forward all the facts?
How many using trains paying good money & standing up would have been driving a car now if the trains were as unreliable as they were when nationalised?
You ignore the facts you stick to the same argument no matter how many times answers are given & you then ask for answers that's why I suggest you see a doctor as I'm concerned for your well being
How many have been forced on to trains because they have no alternative?

How many have been forced back on to trains because of a restriction in parking spaces, increase in parking charges or the introduction of zonal charges?

How much of the fares that they pay, plus the income tax that they pay, finds its way into shareholders pockets, that did not get paid to shareholders when railways were nationalised?

Yes! I can remember strikes when railways were nationalised, and those strikes resulted in improved safety for both passengers and staff, and improvement in working conditions.

I know that you are anti-union, but perhaps you could give me a few examples where workers' conditions and pay have been improved out of the goodness of the heart of their employers?
How about an example of where a shop steward under Nationalisation took British Leyland out on strike for no real reason(Red Ken).
How about a Union that nearly lost thousands of Scottish workers their jobs because a Unite Union official wasn't doing his job at Grangemouth?
How many companies shut down & relocated abroad because Union officials went on strike at the drop of a match?
Bardic Engineering had a union official who needed a pay rise to get a mortgage on the house he wanted so threatened strike action even though he'd seen the books,
this very same Union Official was then told by the company there would be redundancies unless they rescinded the pay rise & to put it to his members so he got his mates ( promising to keep them their jobs) to vote to keep the pay rise so seeing people who'd worked there longer than his friends get made redundant as he sat down & chose the people with a supervisor.
I know because I was one who was made redundant & he was my brother.
I went to senior management & proved my point but would have only had a stay of execution to finish a order only I could do so I left so Anti Union? Yes I suppose I am anti Corrupt union officials or those with a political agenda as our Unite & unison reps in this city had
What the hell has Red Ken and motor manufacturing got to do with your claims about John Prescott?

Once again, as in so many posts, where you cannot find the answers to questions, you go off on another tangent.

With the number of red herrings that you use, you could feed a multitude.

If the story about John Prescott that you persist with is true, why can't you find a date and place where it happened?

You claim to have done research into the incident, but have come up empty handed.

Had it never crossed your mind what that is the case?

Had you never considered that maybe one of your many friends had been pulling your leg, and that you accepted it as the gospel truth, and hate to admit that you fell for it?

I did ask you if you could give a few examples of where employers have given a pay rise and improved conditions out the goodness of their heart, but once again you just give another anti-union rant.

Just another instance of you dragging red herrings into the discussion.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: yes lets remove all subsidies from the rail way. lets see car volumes go up on our highways & pollution escalate, when Maggie came to power the railways were so undependable next to no one used them the tracks weren't modernised & the amount of strikes was crippling the rail network she said why subsidise this industry to the amount we are let it go out to private tender to live or die. This was curtailed to a subsidy which was suppose to go down each year but with rising fuel & power costs the rise in the fares to cover this & modernise the dilapidated network left from the Nationalised industry would have seen no trains so the subsidy remained until the end of modernisation. can you really remember the strikes over nothing in the Nationalised Industries or did you forget about power cuts?[/p][/quote]"yes lets remove all subsidies from the railways. Lets see car volumes go up on our highways & pollution escalate." Are you claiming that there has been a decrease in the use of cars by commuters since the railways were privatised? Undependable? Since privatisation, I have experienced no improvement in their reliability, nor have I seen any improvement in the provision of more seats for commuters, many of whom invariably face having to stand for journeys both to and from work. There is now More freight being moved on our roads now than ever before, with certainly no corresponding increase in freight being moved by rail. Perhaps you have an explanation for that - but I doubt it because, as per usual, you will prefer to ignore the question.[/p][/quote]why don't you put forward all the facts? How many using trains paying good money & standing up would have been driving a car now if the trains were as unreliable as they were when nationalised? You ignore the facts you stick to the same argument no matter how many times answers are given & you then ask for answers that's why I suggest you see a doctor as I'm concerned for your well being[/p][/quote]How many have been forced on to trains because they have no alternative? How many have been forced back on to trains because of a restriction in parking spaces, increase in parking charges or the introduction of zonal charges? How much of the fares that they pay, plus the income tax that they pay, finds its way into shareholders pockets, that did not get paid to shareholders when railways were nationalised? Yes! I can remember strikes when railways were nationalised, and those strikes resulted in improved safety for both passengers and staff, and improvement in working conditions. I know that you are anti-union, but perhaps you could give me a few examples where workers' conditions and pay have been improved out of the goodness of the heart of their employers?[/p][/quote]How about an example of where a shop steward under Nationalisation took British Leyland out on strike for no real reason(Red Ken). How about a Union that nearly lost thousands of Scottish workers their jobs because a Unite Union official wasn't doing his job at Grangemouth? How many companies shut down & relocated abroad because Union officials went on strike at the drop of a match? Bardic Engineering had a union official who needed a pay rise to get a mortgage on the house he wanted so threatened strike action even though he'd seen the books, this very same Union Official was then told by the company there would be redundancies unless they rescinded the pay rise & to put it to his members so he got his mates ( promising to keep them their jobs) to vote to keep the pay rise so seeing people who'd worked there longer than his friends get made redundant as he sat down & chose the people with a supervisor. I know because I was one who was made redundant & he was my brother. I went to senior management & proved my point but would have only had a stay of execution to finish a order only I could do so I left so Anti Union? Yes I suppose I am anti Corrupt union officials or those with a political agenda as our Unite & unison reps in this city had[/p][/quote]What the hell has Red Ken and motor manufacturing got to do with your claims about John Prescott? Once again, as in so many posts, where you cannot find the answers to questions, you go off on another tangent. With the number of red herrings that you use, you could feed a multitude. If the story about John Prescott that you persist with is true, why can't you find a date and place where it happened? You claim to have done research into the incident, but have come up empty handed. Had it never crossed your mind what that is the case? Had you never considered that maybe one of your many friends had been pulling your leg, and that you accepted it as the gospel truth, and hate to admit that you fell for it? I did ask you if you could give a few examples of where employers have given a pay rise and improved conditions out the goodness of their heart, but once again you just give another anti-union rant. Just another instance of you dragging red herrings into the discussion. Linesman
  • Score: 1

12:54pm Sun 26 Jan 14

loosehead says...

i was giving examples where Unions have taken the p++s out of us the tax payers when the industry was nationalised in reply to this rubbish.
Yes! I can remember strikes when railways were nationalised, and those strikes resulted in improved safety for both passengers and staff, and improvement in working conditions.
As on another post one of my brothers is as corrupt as a shop steward as Prescott was as a leader of the union yet even he hated Prescott for what he did to the British seamen now if you were alive before the war are you telling me the unions were formed to have the winter of discontent we had under a Labour government?
i was giving examples where Unions have taken the p++s out of us the tax payers when the industry was nationalised in reply to this rubbish. Yes! I can remember strikes when railways were nationalised, and those strikes resulted in improved safety for both passengers and staff, and improvement in working conditions. As on another post one of my brothers is as corrupt as a shop steward as Prescott was as a leader of the union yet even he hated Prescott for what he did to the British seamen now if you were alive before the war are you telling me the unions were formed to have the winter of discontent we had under a Labour government? loosehead
  • Score: -1

7:09pm Sun 26 Jan 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
i was giving examples where Unions have taken the p++s out of us the tax payers when the industry was nationalised in reply to this rubbish.
Yes! I can remember strikes when railways were nationalised, and those strikes resulted in improved safety for both passengers and staff, and improvement in working conditions.
As on another post one of my brothers is as corrupt as a shop steward as Prescott was as a leader of the union yet even he hated Prescott for what he did to the British seamen now if you were alive before the war are you telling me the unions were formed to have the winter of discontent we had under a Labour government?
Very interesting, but that still does not confirm the story about John Prescott.

Perhaps you should consider doing some more research into that, rather than producing more red herrings.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: i was giving examples where Unions have taken the p++s out of us the tax payers when the industry was nationalised in reply to this rubbish. Yes! I can remember strikes when railways were nationalised, and those strikes resulted in improved safety for both passengers and staff, and improvement in working conditions. As on another post one of my brothers is as corrupt as a shop steward as Prescott was as a leader of the union yet even he hated Prescott for what he did to the British seamen now if you were alive before the war are you telling me the unions were formed to have the winter of discontent we had under a Labour government?[/p][/quote]Very interesting, but that still does not confirm the story about John Prescott. Perhaps you should consider doing some more research into that, rather than producing more red herrings. Linesman
  • Score: 0

8:50pm Sun 26 Jan 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
i was giving examples where Unions have taken the p++s out of us the tax payers when the industry was nationalised in reply to this rubbish.
Yes! I can remember strikes when railways were nationalised, and those strikes resulted in improved safety for both passengers and staff, and improvement in working conditions.
As on another post one of my brothers is as corrupt as a shop steward as Prescott was as a leader of the union yet even he hated Prescott for what he did to the British seamen now if you were alive before the war are you telling me the unions were formed to have the winter of discontent we had under a Labour government?
Wrong again loosehead.

General Secretaries of the NUS.

1942 - Charles Jarman
1948 - Tom Yates
1961 - Jim Scott
1962 - Bill Hogarth
1974 - Jim Slater
1986 - Sam McCluskie

Presidents of the NUS
1929 - Post abolished
1986 - Jim Slater

While John Prescott was a member of the NUS, he was an elected Shop Steward.

He was sponsored by the NUS to attend Ruskin College, Oxford, where he gained a diploma in economics in 1965.

He later gained a BSc in Economics and Economic History from the University of hull in 1968.

He then returned as a full-time NUS official before entering parliament as the MP for Hull East in 1970.

That left less than a two year period as a paid Union official, as he would have been electioneering in his constituency prior to the election.

As Hull is also a port in Yorkshire, so presumably there were many members of the NUS in the area, I would imagine that, if he were as unpopular as you appear to be claiming, he would not have been elected to represent them.

So while your brother may have been corrupt as a shop steward, it does not follow that all members of the union are.

You have claimed that Prescott was a leader of the Union. Perhaps you could tell me what position he held, because he was never General Secretary or President.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: i was giving examples where Unions have taken the p++s out of us the tax payers when the industry was nationalised in reply to this rubbish. Yes! I can remember strikes when railways were nationalised, and those strikes resulted in improved safety for both passengers and staff, and improvement in working conditions. As on another post one of my brothers is as corrupt as a shop steward as Prescott was as a leader of the union yet even he hated Prescott for what he did to the British seamen now if you were alive before the war are you telling me the unions were formed to have the winter of discontent we had under a Labour government?[/p][/quote]Wrong again loosehead. General Secretaries of the NUS. 1942 - Charles Jarman 1948 - Tom Yates 1961 - Jim Scott 1962 - Bill Hogarth 1974 - Jim Slater 1986 - Sam McCluskie Presidents of the NUS 1929 - Post abolished 1986 - Jim Slater While John Prescott was a member of the NUS, he was an elected Shop Steward. He was sponsored by the NUS to attend Ruskin College, Oxford, where he gained a diploma in economics in 1965. He later gained a BSc in Economics and Economic History from the University of hull in 1968. He then returned as a full-time NUS official before entering parliament as the MP for Hull East in 1970. That left less than a two year period as a paid Union official, as he would have been electioneering in his constituency prior to the election. As Hull is also a port in Yorkshire, so presumably there were many members of the NUS in the area, I would imagine that, if he were as unpopular as you appear to be claiming, he would not have been elected to represent them. So while your brother may have been corrupt as a shop steward, it does not follow that all members of the union are. You have claimed that Prescott was a leader of the Union. Perhaps you could tell me what position he held, because he was never General Secretary or President. Linesman
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree