Stagecoach calls for vertical integration

[Moog_1984]

Moggie
A quick check on history will prove that Privatisation was introduced under the Major Government and continued at breakneck speed by Labour.

Both Mrs Thatcher and Norman Ridley, as Transport Minister and later as a man with great influence over policy, were clear in their view that to quote "Privatisation of the Railways would be a Privatisation too far".
:

Having lived through the thatcher years, this quote must be from your imagination, because "sectorisation" in the mid nineteen eightees was very clearly a firm step towards privatising those elements of operation which could be attractive to private investors.

The true modernisation developments in railways have come under left wing governments in the UK , france, scandinavia, Italy, Spain and to centre parties in germany and where you live in the netherlands.

It was the wilson government of the late 60s which committed to finally electrifying the most costly parts of the WCML and to developing the APT ( technology sold off and used in pendolinos) and the IC125, which private companies can't raise enough cash to replace now!

Rail infrastructure has always been a nightmare for private investors since the first bankruptcies and failed projects of the 19th centruy through to the failure of private sector to run network rail and the collapse of private finance in the channel tunnel project.

What britain needs is more privatised roads, then drivers would soon start to feel the real costs of that infrastructure and rail would be more attractive to users and investors alke!

Vertical integration would be restrictive to competition - the days of the big 4 when most everytthing and everyone moved by rail are gone. Railways need to compete with your boeing 737 and bmw 316, whilst operators owning track would be a counter incentive to both improvement of services and allowing other operators to provide competing services on those routes. If as a vertically integrated PLC they have to put in 12% RO I to the LSE, and that means slower trains or squeezing out the competition by being sly with diagrams, then they are going to do it in order to make their "number".

The key issue of the tory privatisation was that the franchise periods were too short and there was not enough competition on profitable routes.

 

[Mojo]

The true modernisation developments in railways have come under left wing governments in the UK , france, scandinavia, Italy, Spain and to centre parties in germany and where you live in the netherlands.

Oh give over! If it wasn't for the extremely laissez faire approach of the government in the 19th century then our railways would not have been as comprehensive as they were (or even now) and I doubt we would have been a world leader on the issue.

Modernisation is about efficiency and savings, which is at the core of the centre-right approach to looking at things. Remind me of the light rail systems started by the government 1979-1997 (hint: all bar two of the ones currently in operation were started in this period, and even part of one of them got given the go-ahead in that time) and not to mention the reopening of numerous stations and lines.

 

[defitzi]

let them....

 

[Old Timer]

God, there is always someone...:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Having lived through the thatcher years, this quote must be from your imagination, because "sectorisation" in the mid nineteen eightees was very clearly a firm step towards privatising those elements of operation which could be attractive to private investors..

You may have lived through the 1980s but you were either asleep or at school. Your post is completely contrary to fact.

Here are some quotes from 1993.

'I do not believe it is possible to privatise the railways. . . . Last year the railways lost pounds 763m, of which the London area accounted for pounds 182m. No one would want to take on a loss of that size . . . unlike roads, rail tracks go from A to B and you cannot change the routes. Further, each train is tailor-made to its track. You cannot change the nature, speed and method of traction. . . .' Lord Ridley, former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. (Evening Standard, 30 Nov 1992)

'I begin to wonder if we aren't trying to privatise some things which basically can't or shouldn't be privatised . . . whether we should be thinking about privatising coal or the railways.' Lord Young of Graffham, former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. (Jan 1993)

'Am I absolutely sure it will be a success? No, I'm not.' Lord Whitelaw, former Home Secretary. (Panorama, 14 Dec 1992)

Here is an article from the Independent at that time.

THERE IS no worse job in British politics at present than Secretary of State for Transport. The publication on Friday of the rail privatisation Bill has set John MacGregor on a course that Lord Ridley, the high priest of privatisation, has warned cannot work. Even Margaret Thatcher shrank from British Rail privatisation because of its potential unpopularity.

Source http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...-a-success-of-rail-privatisation-1480608.html


As for Sectorisation that was driven NOT from Privatsiation plans (see above) but from an attempt to bring about a change from the "cost centre" approach of accounting to "Profit Centre" accounting, where each part of the Infrastructure had an owner responsible for its management.

I should know all about this as I was one of those managers who was heavily involved during the Sectorisation process, but please feel free to argue if you must.

Privatisation of the final business units that emerged from Sectorisation was the basis upon which John Major (against all good advice and much resistance within the Conservatives) was to ultimately be persuaded by the Treasury Civil Servants to proceed with.

Major's original thoughts had been to proceed along the lines of the Big Four, but this would have meant yet another organisation and in effect a return to the former Regions, which would have been costly and would have taken time as well as being incredibly disorganisational at a time when everything was chaotic.

 

[Moog_1984]

Funnily enough old caudger, all your quotes are from the 1990s where as sectorisation including the planned sale of BREL and the RTC were about 5 years before.

All this was a very clear indication to the unions, the public and not least BR management that some areas of operations could move towards private ownership.

Your quotes of course show what happened: despite the wishful thinking and dogma that all private is better, the rail industry was hugely unattractive for the post 80s investement environment and to be attractive it took the wholesale discounted sale of stock ( 225s , 125s and the whole 2nd generation DMU/EMU fleets) and the amount of property British Rail owned which could be sold as real estate once objections to planning permission disappeared: game keeper became poacher.

Rather than selling off assets we had all paid for in taxes and rail fares at a knock down price to small fifedoms of virtual monopoly, the Major government should have listened to their own free market principles. Railway operations should have been tendered based on diagrams, allowing competition on routes and then providing subsidy ( or better yet, state owned) for those diagrams which were not attractive to investors but which there was support or a laid down PSR. The diagrams could have been sold on much longer leases, like mobile frequencies, which would have allowed for patient private companies with institutional investors to implement further modernisation: something virgin had got closest to acheiving.

Now there is talk of 22 year contracts!

Operators owning track would be a larger conflict of interest than the current situation. It would stifle competition and that always results in a poorer deal for the consumer.

 

[Zoe]

Major's original thoughts had been to proceed along the lines of the Big Four, but this would have meant yet another organisation and in effect a return to the former Regions, which would have been costly and would have taken time as well as being incredibly disorganisational at a time when everything was chaotic.

It would also have run up against the EU directive that required track and trains to be separate at least for accounts.

At the start of the 1990s you had the business sectors running the trains and the infrastructure remained the responsibility of the regions. What is very strange is that in 1992 under "Organizing for quality" the business sectors gained responsibility for the infrastructure and the regions were wound up. This created the vertically integrated railway, with privatization on the horizon and the above EU directive known about, what was the point of creating a structure that would last 2 years?

Would anyone care to defend the model of privatization selected in the end? Personally I would have preferred it to remain nationalized but I won't get into that argument here. There are however several other models that may well have been better than the one selected:

1. Sold as one company or a separate company for track and trains if needed.

2. A return to the "Big 4" system again possibility with a separate company owning the infrastructure.

3. Sell of the business sectors created in the 1980s.

Does anyone think that the current franchise based system is best way?

 

[Old Timer]

Rather than selling off assets we had all paid for in taxes and rail fares at a knock down price to small fifedoms of virtual monopoly, the Major government should have listened to their own free market principles. .

The value of BR's assets was calculated by the Treasury in conjunction with independent accountants, and the advice of the City.

Labour's continual statements about re-nationalisation without compensation, as uttered by messers Bliar, Prescott, Cook, and a ragbag variety of assorted bag carriers and adventurers, put off some very large and responsible Companies, and were directly responsible for the severe downvaluing of the assets at the time of sale.

Of course we all know now that Labour's private position was very different, and that promises and committments to re-nationalise the Railway were simply cynical lies, mistruths and distortions intended to keep the gullible Trade Unions on-side in the run up to the General Election. The fact that the larger more responsible Companies decided to back off, and a ragbag of adventurers and speculators got hold of the assets at bargan basement prices, and then become millionaires overnight when Labour took office is something yet to be investigated, especially as so many were later to turn out to have been Labour Party donors. I am sure that large stone will have some very unpleasant creatures underneath it when hopefully it is lifted.

So for any issues about asset price, I should refer to Labour, old boy.

The condition of the Railways after years of neglect and cutbacks under previous Labour administrations in the 1970s but particularly from about 1974 onwards resulted in a Railway that needed massive investment, at a time when that money could not be found through the Treasury. Indeed even today all the money funding infrastructure investment is coming from private sources by way of loans. Upgrading the WCML alone could never hav ehappened when in Nationalisation because of the demands on various other public sectors.

The sooner peope start to realise that and take off the rose coloured spectacles the better. The UK has the Railways it deserves because whilst Joe Public wants them on tap and running whenever he wants them, but he is never prepared to pay the price of that. This is what has dogged the Railways since 1948, together with Civil Service interference, Political point scoring and HM Treasury parsimony.

Had Labour been allowed to shut down whole sections of the Railways in the mid and late 1970s as it wanted to (whilst denying publicly that was the case - No change there then !) you would have had very little to Privatise at all.

Historically the former Railway Companies owned the infrastructure and operated the trains for considerably longer than they were nationalised, indeed the golden age of Railways occurred under private not public ownership.

The Railways and their engineering and research operations were ultimately Privatised en-masse under Labour dont forget.

 

[Moog_1984]

As for Sectorisation that was driven NOT from Privatsiation plans (see above) but from an attempt to bring about a change from the "cost centre" approach of accounting to "Profit Centre" accounting, where each part of the Infrastructure had an owner responsible for its management.

I should know all about this as I was one of those managers who was heavily involved during the Sectorisation process, but please feel free to argue if you must.

.

Give a man enough rope....


Now there is the rub: the funny thing about "institutional memory" as far as BR goes is that it has been

Stubborn

Remembers information and misinformation

As you say the sectors were organised to make costs and income more apparent: hence profitability could be assessed at least on some notion of operational costs.

What possible reason would a tory government have in not using this information towards a consideration of privatisation? Why was it clear to employees and the railway press that this signalled the first move to privatisation?

Hook line and sinker you were taken for....they couldn't have managemetn beleiveing there was going to be privatisation ....What did you manage? Buffet and trolleys for Western Region?

a bit like that guy in vicker of dibely "privitisation? ....oh no, no , no , no , no, yes!"

Now it has happened, dogma and potential savings in public spending moved privatisation forward eventually, and as union and other commentators pointed out, stock was sold a t highly depreciated price and some of the orders paid for near to privatisation were dubious. It dependended how you saw depreciation and how the figures between very old locos and stock ( which were in use until 2009) were balanced with the newer fleets. The price had to be attractive so the owner-leasers could make any profit, let alone enough margin to invest in replacement stock.

But I like many others do not believe in general renationalisation: even if the WCML operates barely faster than 1980 and in some cases / time points slower, we do see a chance for competition to give cheaper services or better trains...maybe both!

The cited benefit of vertical integration is that the operators would be able to implement changes and repairs they need, when they need them.

However imagine the conflict of interests between allocation of resources and the balance sheet, when your most profitable service routes require diversion of resource from those routes with subsidy and a PSR (stipulated service requirement) ? Or if you fix point X your Bognor to Barrow in Furnace will run on time, while if you reduce maintenance and put a temp speed restriction on point Y your competitors running over your route will ALSO run slowly. Or at the extremeties of your routes you choose to relax inspection until the HSE actually threaten you or worse , something comes "off the road" when the track fails.

At the end of the day, such conflicts will end up being resolved by a future rail regulator or in the courts at cost to the passenger and the tax payer.

The national railway did a great job in managing the development of the new ECML, the purchase and life-cycle of the IC125, the pioneering of 140mph + trains and the move to 2nd generation MUs'.

Why would a public body with government and industry support and funding do such a poor job compared to operators with little or no experience of track maintenance and redevelopment?

 

[Old Timer]

Give a man enough rope....

Yes I have done haven't I

I actually have a copy of the original Sectorisation briefing notes. You don't so please do not try to tell me about something you know nothing about.

I was there you were not, and from the reading of your post it is just the regurgitation of the usual collective thoughts trotted out from the Left.

Your post also shows a lack of understanding as to how vertical Franchise operations work elsewhere in the World.

Your comments about the HSE becoming involved are prescient, but only of the state that Network Rail (a Government owned Company) have allowed the track and infrastructure to descend to through reduced maintenance periods, extended maintenance, renewals "holidays", and the deferrment of renewals.

Rather shoots your arguments down wouldn't you say ?

 

[CarterUSM]

Old Timer, where would one be able to get a hold of, or just peruse sectorisation briefing notes? Just for my own interest of course.

 

[Aictos]

Old Timer, where would one be able to get a hold of, or just peruse sectorisation briefing notes? Just for my own interest of course.

Seconded.

 

[metrocammel]

The true modernisation developments in railways have come under left wing governments in the UK

I wasn't going to engage in this debate, as it seemed like the usual Tory v Labour never-ending thread.....

However, this quote made me chuckle..... I have no axe to grind when it comes to political views, however, as Mojo has pointed out, you are seriously mistaken with the above quote. Without the laissez-faire capitalism of the 1800s, the industrial revolution wouldn't have happened, so we wouldn't have the railway infrastructure today to modernise. Moreover, we'd probably be a peripheral island, relying on agriculture still :/

 

[Moog_1984]

Yes I have done haven't I

I actually have a copy of the original Sectorisation briefing notes. You don't so please do not try to tell me about something you know nothing about.



Rather shoots your arguments down wouldn't you say ?

Not at all, the fact you had access to a sanitised document which allowed the government to move the "elephant by an elastic band" towards a position where profitable sectors could be privatised, is meaningless. You took it hook-line-and-sinker.

However you do reveal the danger in allowing people who believe a government body can be replaced successfully by a private monopoly, to have any say in the Railway. In fact you are a self contradiction: being the same management which moved public to private- obviously in your BR days you were just another cog in your own highly inefficeint machine and should have been made redundant upon privatisation.

Your proposal for allowing a regional based operator-infracstucture owned would not work in britain and would lead also to extra costs : for example the cost of tendering and making framework agreements with contractos, and the loss of economies of scale in purchasing:

Also this would inherently shift power to the contractors who could secure those areas with attractive infrasctuctural investment and become "busy builders" for others.

We have already seen the result of privatising the network infrastucture in the UK and it resulted in the WORST case scenario: deaths due to compromises in maintainance and materials because cost was put before proven railway expertise.

Other countries ( and actually, not Norway where I am working at the moment where the privitisation of infrastc' lead to a collapse in skilled labour and resulting quality failures) may have had advantages of various levels of private infrasctucture but not the UK.

I am completely in favour of private contractors in infrastructure where they can deliver to the price and quality , under public owned management.

 

[Zoe]

If privatization in the early 1990s was inevitable then why the organzing for quality initiative in 1992? This restructuring created a vertically integrated railways with the sectors responsible also for the infrastructure. Privatization went ahead 2 years later under a different model.

It could be that Labour seemed certain to win the 1992 election and so privatization was not expected to become a reality then. From nowhere John Major won it and had to go through with the plan in his manifesto. I'm not convinced that privatization was expected by anyone until then.

 

[Old Timer]

However you do reveal the danger in allowing people who believe a government body can be replaced successfully by a private monopoly, to have any say in the Railway. In fact you are a self contradiction: being the same management which moved public to private- obviously in your BR days you were just another cog in your own highly inefficeint machine and should have been made redundant upon privatisation..

As opposed to the Government body we now have and under which the Engineers have bene marginalised in an attempt to satisfy the Treasury by reducing costs ?

As opposed to the Government body we now have who have removed years of experience and replaced them by compliant but ignorant engineers who have had to be "converted" to understand how the railway works, and how the various safety processes and procedures relate. If I had a £1 for every time I have had to lead one of these guys by the hand througn their own processes I would be rich.

If you go to the RAIB website and read the many Reports they issue you will see that this Government body is criticised consistently and continually for failing to meet its own internal standards, and for failing to comply with its own procedures.

There is no doubt that a like for like comparison would clearly prove that the (private) Infrastructure Contractors work to far higher Standards, and that under Maintenance under the former IMC regime was much higher than it is now.

I have no doubt that the many Infrastructure Maintenance staff employed by this Government body will happily confirm this, indeed just reading through the Infrastructure section on this as well as on on other Forums would raise the scales from your eyes.

Your comments remain, as usual, uncorroborated by fact and merely represent your own opinion of how you think things are, whereas mine come from actually having worked within the system. I do not presume to tell you how your business should operate nor do I comment on your competence to undertake your job. I do not expect you to comment on my ability to do my job neither do I welcome snide remarks and throw away comments that seek to denigrate me. Doing so simply damages your credibility with the professionals on here.

The people who really matter on here when it comes to discussing the finer points of the Railway know me and they know my capabilities. Were they to comment as you do, then it would give me cause for concern. They do not.

Just because my comments do not accord with what you personally think or agree with, does not by virtue of that make them wrong, nor make you right.

 

[Zoe]

We had a private company with shareholders owning the infrastructure from 1996 to 2002. We all know what the result of that was.

 

[Old Timer]

We had a private company with shareholders owning the infrastructure from 1996 to 2002. We all know what the result of that was.

Whilst there was much wrong with the Railtrack model, I suggest you go to the RAIB website and start reading some of the various accident and derailment reports.

The current model as implemented by Labour is far from perfect in many ways as even the ORR (in the guise of HMRI) now recognise. The Trade Unions have also woken up to the fact that the Frankensteins Monster they have allowed to be brought to life is turning on them.

 

[moggie]

OT and all - I have stepped back from the discussion to see how it developed. I think we know where one another stands on the politics front so I won't labour the point - OK one last time. What I can say is that while we differ on the historic experience of how politics affected the industry (I too was there at the time) I have to agree with you on the troubles the engineering side is currently facing. It seems to me in may part of the industry (signalling renewal works) that cost cutting on the scale of the way Railtrack behaved is becoming rampant again - albeit on a project by project basis. Now I've no problem with efficiencies - there have been some useful changes in approach, but cost cutting is being driven through with the expectation that 'innovation' (i.e. a ditching of tried and trusted and well understood engineering practice for new untried and therefore unproven processes) is the solution to all their wishes saving time and therefore costs. Fine - until the 'innovation' doesn't quite deliver the over optimistic forecast savings made by their creators (who meanwhile are off to play with another clever idea elsewhere). Meanwhile the reliance on the old hands to pull the rabbit from the hat to achieve deadlines despite the set backs is becoming ever more regular - and mistakes are being made as a consequence. Trouble is as you say - the experience hands are seen increasingly as obstructive / resistent to change by those with little experience of when things go wrong - but in high places.

Which brings me back to the original thread. Bearing in mind that TOC's / FOC's I guess are losing their old hands, how confident would you be that vertical intergration would result in them being able to find knowledgeable and experienced Engineers to form the interface between the commercialy driven operators of today and the infrastructure engineering companies, (also highly geared to a commercial return) to deliver the quality infrastructure we all wish to see - whatever the colour of your election poster? All I see is a battle ground where the goal of acheiving the above gets lost in the fog of contracts and commercial people - engineers once again pushed to the edge - that is until it goes wrong - when they become centre stage. That was my perception of BR Sectorisation for the short time it existed. Unfortunately I also see more and more taking the high road to retirement fed up with what used to be an enjoyable profession. I feel for those left.

 

[Aictos]

If any trial was to take place then the C2C line or Merseyrail would be the best places as they're pretty much self contained, on a larger scale why not let First run the whole lot in Scotland with targets set by Holyrood.

 

[Old Timer]

Moggie
We already see vertically integrated systems operating in both North and South America quite successfully. Similar arrangements exist in the Far East with new systems, and of course everyone lauds how these run so efficiently.

Every metro and suburbam system in Brazil and Argentina for example is operated by means of franchised companies, and thye work quite successfully.

In general the Railways in the UK operated quite successfully under private ownership, indeed they would never have been nationalised had they not been run down under the War Government to the extent where the private owners could not afford to undertake the maintenance of them. It could be argued that it was a cynical Political gesture by Labour to nationalise them for 1948 rather than pay for the deterioration caused by wartime useage. Certainly prior to 1939 there had been no call for nationalisation.

In the modern world we now live in, vertical integration can work easily through the medium of the separation of infrastructure engineering and train operations within an operating company.

Nationally specified standards in the same manner as FRA, AAR, AREMA could be mandated and compliance monitored as it should be now by the ORR.

At the end of the day it is in the best interests of the operator to have their infrastructure in good condition as any blockages will obviously affect revenue.

The existing regime leads to confrontation between Network Rail and the FOCs/TOCs who have no incentive whatsoever to take any interest in infrastructure, other than as a means of claiming compensation.

Network Rail in the meantime operate more as property managers rather than as custodians of the Railway and are more interested in the costs rather than the engineering despite what is said publicly.

They claimed that taking maintenance in-house would be more efficient as well as being cheaper and safer. The converse is of course now the case with labour being obtained from the cheapest source, whilst their own staff are being made redundant. Track defects continue unabated, and derailments contain the same causal factors and recommendations time after time. Maintenance under the IMCs was better and safer, track quality standards were better and pretty much every innovation now in use was developed through the IMC not through Network Rail.

You only have to travel over any secondary route or talk to any infrastructure maintenance person to discover what has been happening, and it is now so obvious that even the ORR can no longer remain blind.

Even the Trade Unions have had to stand up now, whereas previously they were reluctant to criticise an organisation they had lobbied for. They certainly reaped the rewards through the medium of job losses and reductions in pay and conditions of their members, whilst standing cynically by a Politically driven dogma.

The losers have been the staff, passengers, and the poor old taxpayer.

 

[Moog_1984]

If any trial was to take place then the C2C line or Merseyrail would be the best places as they're pretty much self contained, on a larger scale why not let First run the whole lot in Scotland with targets set by Holyrood.

I don't think GNER and virgin would be very enamoured with 1st Blotrail running track bed and signalling, let alone control!

Old Buffer! God Help the Dutch railways, when do you get any work done? Or do they pay you to post on forums? Mind you, you are from the Sir Peter Parker generation : he used to take a nap at 4pm ......then off to his gentlemans club around 5.30 ...not surprised APT didn't egt the right grade of hydraulic oil!

For self contained circuits like Mersey rail and the isle of Wight : well it may be in the interests of the operators and public to have such sensible planning : integrating rolling stock, HSE, timetable , track improvement and regular maintainance but you can bet they would be cap in hand to the government all the time. Or we would just throw away public money paying shareholdser's divi's on a cost base which the public sector could provide.

 

[yorksrob]

Or we would just throw away public money paying shareholdser's divi's

Isn't that what we're doing now anyway? specifically where we're subsidising private companies to run loss-making franchises.

 

[Moog_1984]

Oh give over! If it wasn't for the extremely laissez faire approach of the government in the 19th century then our railways would not have been as comprehensive as they were (or even now) and I doubt we would have been a world leader on the issue.

The railways act's of the 1800s supported a far from laissez faire free market: they produced many regional monopolies on what was the communciations super-highway of the victorian era! All that lobbying and road-rollin over less powerful landowners....fit right in with British politics for the last 20 years

In general the Railways in the UK operated quite successfully under private ownership, indeed they would never have been nationalised had they not been run down under the War Government to the extent where the private owners could not afford to undertake the maintenance of them. It could be argued that it was a cynical Political gesture by Labour to nationalise them for 1948 rather than pay for the deterioration caused by wartime useage. Certainly prior to 1939 there had been no call for nationalisation.

I think the luftwaffe had a bit more to do with that than the glorious Churchill lead command economy. The depression of the 30s too. Even until the late 1950s, the railways had a virtual monopoly on high speed trasnport on an intercity basis, and the profitable commuter routes. Now, as your 737 tag line puts it, they must compete: indeed should compete and there should be competition on main intercity & commuter routes.

Whilst there was much wrong with the Railtrack model, I suggest you go to the RAIB website and start reading some of the various accident and derailment reports.

The current model as implemented by Labour is far from perfect in many ways as even the ORR (in the guise of HMRI) now recognise. The Trade Unions have also woken up to the fact that the Frankensteins Monster they have allowed to be brought to life is turning on them.

Well put. I wholeheartedly agree except it was major government and years of under investment which lead to this situation, poorly rectified, and also the uneccesarry deaths under private NR due to material inadequacies and pressure-on maintainance.

 

[Old Timer]

I think the luftwaffe had a bit more to do with that than the glorious Churchill lead command economy..

Supposition which facts will prove wrong (yet again).

....I wholeheartedly agree except it was major government and years of under investment which lead to this situation, poorly rectified, and also the uneccesarry deaths under private NR due to material inadequacies and pressure-on maintainance.

NR is a government owned Company.

Old Buffer! God Help the Dutch railways, when do you get any work done? Or do they pay you to post on forums? Mind you, you are from the Sir Peter Parker generation : he used to take a nap at 4pm ......then off to his gentlemans club around 5.30 ...not surprised APT didn't egt the right grade of hydraulic oil!.

When you grow up or get to visit the dentist to have a wisdom tooth implanted you will (maybe) understand the difference between managing and physically doing.

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit but if you wish to practice it, at least make it funny ?

...you can bet they would be cap in hand to the government all the time. Or we would just throw away public money paying shareholdser's divi's on a cost base which the public sector could provide.

Really cannot be bothered to respond to that....it just demonstrates your lack of ability to see anything other than a Public Sector model. All you have to do is look at the Public Sector model we now have which clearly doesn't work......