Labour ?

From this morning 's Times: "Innogy, Germany's largest energy company, has warned that it no longer expects Npower, its British supplier, to turn a profit this year. It reveals that earnings before interest and tax at Npower tumbled 74 per cent to €34 million in the first quarter, "against the backdrop of an increasingly tough market environment". The group added that "further efficiency improving measures . . . are being examined"

Good to see our German masters are doing an excellent job with our power. No explanation of why the numbers tumbled just a tough market. 

Don Atkinson posted:

Labour's manifesto includes nationalizing the railways. Why do they think this is a good idea ? OK, I know it "sounds good" and a lot of voters will applaud it, but............

Network Rail is already a government organisation, managing the spend on operating, maintaining, renewing and enhancing the railway infrastructure ie track, tunnels, bridges stations, signalling, electrification etc) £35 bn over the current five year Control Period.

The Train Operating Companies and Freight Operating Companies have to bid for their franchises at frequent and regular intervals of about 5 years (it does vary). Franchises are awarded to the operator who contracts to deliver the Government's specified time-table (mainly) and to pay the most to the gov for this privilege (or requires the smallest subsidy for difficult franchises). OK East Coast handed their franchise back early and the Gov ran it successfully for a few years, but that's a limited experience.

The rolling stock (trains and carriages) is owned by various private companies (quite a few banks) and would cost the gov billions to buy or replace.

Overall, I'm not entirely convinced re-nationalisation is such a clever move.

Don - I'm a long-suffering "customer" of Southern Rail and I would kick them out and nationalise it in a heart beat. The only thing successful about that franchise is that the company still rakes in the profits and the CEO gets his seven-figure salary.  Running that in the public would at a minimum obviate the need for profits and share-dividends and massively reduce the pay-bill for the top executives.    

The rail system in the U.K. Is ridiculous. The Southern service has been dreadful. The company gets a flat fee, and it's the Government who take the loss when there are strikes and repayments for delays. Whoever dreamt up that franchise arrangement is an idiot. Emsworth is a 'Southern' station yet Havant, two miles away, is a South West' station, and you can only do certain things at each. My son went back to Uni at Loughborough last week and had to plough through dozens of options to get a cheap ticket. Trains don't join up properly, leading to extended waits at stations. Ticketing is over complex. Renationalising it seems a great idea to me. Bring back British Rail. Invest in tbe network, reduce prices, and make the train the first choice for long distance travel. We are travelling on the TGV from Paris to Arles in tbe summer and it's half the price of Emsworth to Loughborough.

The issue isn't with the privatisation as much as with the model used to privatise them in my view

Cdb posted:

dayjay posted:

Clive, no one said anything, or at least I certainly didn't, about public service staff being wasteful, greedy or selfish.  I did say that public services are wasteful and often badly managed by that is not the same thing.  I was a public service member of staff for decades and my wife still is and we have both worked in the NHS so I can vouch for its staff, and for the fact  that it is wasteful and badly run and trying to deliver an impossible task.

I was referring particularly to SKDriver who I quoted - his comment about such staff being more interested in their pensions than efficiency was insulting - and certainly implied they were greedy, selfish and wasteful.

Clive

Nowhere did I say public servants were greedy, selfish or wasteful. I am a public servant myself, as was my other half (an NHS CCG employee as well as local gov't contracts manager).

The simple fact is that is that the NHS, local gov't, military et al are subject to massive inertia and resistance to change, partly due to a stalemate when it comes to employees. The pensions have a huge effect in retaining people that also has a downside of making people comfortable in their job...

SKDriver posted:

Cdb posted:

dayjay posted:

Clive, no one said anything, or at least I certainly didn't, about public service staff being wasteful, greedy or selfish.  I did say that public services are wasteful and often badly managed by that is not the same thing.  I was a public service member of staff for decades and my wife still is and we have both worked in the NHS so I can vouch for its staff, and for the fact  that it is wasteful and badly run and trying to deliver an impossible task.

I was referring particularly to SKDriver who I quoted - his comment about such staff being more interested in their pensions than efficiency was insulting - and certainly implied they were greedy, selfish and wasteful.

Clive

Nowhere did I say public servants were greedy, selfish or wasteful. I am a public servant myself, as was my other half (an NHS CCG employee as well as local gov't contracts manager).

The simple fact is that is that the NHS, local gov't, military et al are subject to massive inertia and resistance to change, partly due to a stalemate when it comes to employees. The pensions have a huge effect in retaining people that also has a downside of making people comfortable in their job...

You described them as workers 'whose eye is on their pension, not necessarily the efficient and effective running of an overcomplicated organisation'. Perhaps I over-interpreted but I took the claimed focus on their pensions to be greedy and selfish, while this focus was implied by you to mean that they didn't care whether their work was efficient or effective and that they were therefore wasteful of resources. To be fair to you, yours was the last of a series of what I saw as ill-informed and prejudiced comments about the public services. As I said above the NHS is in general efficient in what care it offers  to the population in general and this is well established in terms of comparisons with health services in other industrialised western nations. That is not to say that there are not areas of the NHS that couldn't be improved, but I understand that is more about how the NHS adapts to new demands with an ageing population, new expensive treatments, etc etc. But those are large issues and are nothing to do with how many computer mice might be spotted in one cupboard in one institution.

And what exactly is wrong with people being comfortable in their job? 

In general I object to the ideological assumption that has become rife since the free market theories of the late 70s and 80s that the market is the only proper regulator of the economy, services, etc. That theory fails completely with essential services like power, water and transport, and look where it got us with a deregulated banking system. The uncontrolled market rewards greed and selfishness with no thought for the consequences.

Clive

PS it might help the tone in these discussions/debates if people were willing to provide a personal name. 

My experience or more Mrs Strat s of the NHS is of incredibly capable and conscientious staff    However, from talking to them quite often they seem to be grappling with a system that is working against them rather than for them.  Inevitably more money would help but without effective targeting the benefit will be lost. 

Cdb posted:

As I said above the NHS is in general efficient in what care it offers  to the population in general and this is well established in terms of comparisons with health services in other industrialised western nations. 

A few years ago I did a piece of work which involved comparing healthcare provision models in terms of per-patient expenditure and medical outcomes. Partially based on WHO figures from 2010, which were the most recent at the time.

It was remarkable how far ahead the NHS came out compared to many others, most strikingly the US. I was left feeling that any attempt to move towards a US model, eg by increasing the role of health insurance companies in UK healthcare provision, must be exposed for the literally murderous greed it really is, and resisted to the last.

Dave,

But don't some of our EU partners have a mixed economy?

Regards,

Lindsay

Public sector pensions in part make up for lower pay when working. In my view everyone should have a proper defined benefit pension, and Government should legislate for it. There's nothing wrong with a company properly remunerating its workers rather than its directors and shareholders. And I don't believe public sector pensions make people comfortable in their jobs - the small issue of never ending cuts has put paid to job security. 

Can I make the comment that when talking about waste and inefficiency in 'the NHS'  I suspect much of what is being written is about Secondary (ie hospital) Care.

Most GP practices are still run as Partnerships, effectively 'private' contractors with NHS contracts.  My profit as a business therefore is my pay, I don't get a salary. This means that we tend to be extremely efficient and not wasteful.

The merits and otherwise of this traditional independent GP practitioner model are complex, and it is changing. However please don't lump us with secondary care. If I discover a cupboard of unused or out of date kit then that has come out of my personal pocket-so it tends not to happen twice!

GP's also do 90% of the NHS contacts for just under 10% of the budget by the way.

Just standing up for the team!

Bruce

Bruce Woodhouse posted:

Can I make the comment that when talking about waste and inefficiency in 'the NHS'  I suspect much of what is being written is about Secondary (ie hospital) Care.

Most GP practices are still run as Partnerships, effectively 'private' contractors with NHS contracts.  My profit as a business therefore is my pay, I don't get a salary. This means that we tend to be extremely efficient and not wasteful.

The merits and otherwise of this traditional independent GP practitioner model are complex, and it is changing. However please don't lump us with secondary care. If I discover a cupboard of unused or out of date kit then that has come out of my personal pocket-so it tends not to happen twice!

GP's also do 90% of the NHS contacts for just under 10% of the budget by the way.

Just standing up for the team!

Bruce

Bruce,

I am struggling to find the encouraging words to respond to your post.

Let me start by making it clear, that I wholeheartedly support free enterprise, and that includes professional GP partnerships providing contracted services to the NHS. I also endorse other professions, such as engineers (for example) providing professional services to (say) Highways England to plan and design our road systems. My experience (more with the later rather than the former) is that such arrangements require fewer resources, are less costly and produce more effective solutions than Public Bodies.

However,...........

.....you quote two examples where waste is avoided viz:- "my profit as a business is my pay" and "unused or out of date kit". These simply lead (as described above in your post) to more pay for yourself. They do not lead to a reduction in cost to the Secondary Care provider or NHS.

I am certain there are many other example (myself included) where there is little or no "waste", but where any saving from a reduction in waste does not lead to a reduction in cost to the purchaser eg the Government on behalf of the tax-payer.

I might have mis-understood your post, in which case apologies. But I think that to the average man on the Clapham Omnibus, there is little difference between "waste" and "bigger profit", especially when he is required to pay the same amount.

However, I re-iterate, I wholeheartedly support free enterprise, including those such as yours, and IMHO where this is properly managed, it leads to less costly and more effective solutions.

Hungryhalibut posted:

Public sector pensions in part make up for lower pay when working. In my view everyone should have a proper defined benefit pension, and Government should legislate for it. There's nothing wrong with a company properly remunerating its workers rather than its directors and shareholders. And I don't believe public sector pensions make people comfortable in their jobs - the small issue of never ending cuts has put paid to job security. 

Without wishing to re-start another pensions war discussion..........

....I take to task your opening sentence. Public sector pay is on a par with private sector pay, or even slightly higher.

However, I do agree that the government should legislate for defined  benefit pensions, let's say two-thirds Final Salary, just as an example !!

If the Nation can't afford such private sector pensions, then I suggest the public sector should fall into line with a nationally sustainable private sector system in terms of both pay and pensions. existing contracts to be honoured - of course.

Let's also be clear. Whether the railway industry is nationalised or remains in the private sector, c.99% of the work-force is the same. It's only only a few at the top of the tree that change. Same applies to the Highway, Power and Water industries and quite a few others that were privatised under Thatcher and that have changed hands many times since.

Cheers, Don ( who is perfectly content with his mixture of public and private accumulated pensions )

Don

Interesting post. Not sure I fully understand the conclusion.

Maybe I have to explain more about the way we are funded. It is highly complex but in simplest of terms we get money for the work we do fulfilling our NHS contract. That is our income; it varies a bit with performance but basically that is the pot. This has nothing to do with the costs of medicines or treatments by the way. 

That figure is not generous. It requires us to to be efficient running our business. Note that income also gets spent on premises, equipment, clinical and non-clinical staff etc etc. I employ several non partner GPs for example.

My point is that our processes as an organisation are efficient because we are small, flexible, and truly engaged in our business. Make me an employee with a salary and would that be the same? Make my organisation much larger, with layers of management and would that be more efficient?

Surely therefore waste in my business is my waste and my problem? Your post appears to suggest that our partnership profit (i.e. my pay) is NHS waste by definition?

The value if the contract is intended to average out so that GPs have a net intended remuneration in partnerships by the way. This is our 'pay award' for a fictitious typical GP and it is partly calculated from accumulated national data on pay/profit. So if all practices work more efficiently the value of the contract next year will be cut. Thus efficiencies do save the system money, and so we work smarter and so on. Each year the performance targets tend to tighten too, and various other requirements upon us vis a vis quality or innovation. If I was a fixed salary employee would I be so bothered to hit those targets? Being self employed motivates quality improvement therefore. Note that the targets often require me to employ more staff or invest in other ways with the money it may generate; it does not all go into my pocket. I also have no fixed hours, so I work until things are done, not until home time.

That all sounds mercenary of course but I can assure you it is not the only motivation!

way off topic now, sorry

Bruce

Don Atkinson posted:

Without wishing to re-start another pensions war discussion..........

....I take to task your opening sentence. Public sector pay is on a par with private sector pay, or even slightly higher.

The problem is that is a statement that is very difficult to quantify either way ... but I think for two professions where you can compare - nursing and teaching - for similar levels of experience and responsibility the private sector would pay more.  

Bruce Woodhouse posted:

Don

Interesting post. Not sure I fully understand the conclusion. My conclusion was simply that "the man on the clapham omnibus" doesn't differentiate between "waste" and "bigger profit". The two examples that you used in your initial post illustrated that cutting down on waste in your organisation meant that you made a bigger profit. Personally I have no problem with people doing this. This is one of the motivations that helps private enterprise deliver a better product for less money. Your subsequent post now makes it clear that last year's efficiency (bigger profit) results in a reduction to this year's starting price, so that the NHS benefits from a potential year -on-year efficiency drive. Well done. This is precisely the sort of thing that I was alluding to when I said "My experience.... is that such arrangements (private enterprise) require fewer resources, are less costly and produce more effective solutions than Public Bodies". Clearly, I am not "the man on the Clapham Omnibus"

Maybe I have to explain more about the way we are funded. It is highly complex but in simplest of terms we get money for the work we do fulfilling our NHS contract. That is our income; it varies a bit with performance but basically that is the pot. This has nothing to do with the costs of medicines or treatments by the way. No problem with this. It is the same for most professionals who provide a contracted service or product. I have done this many times.

That figure is not generous. It requires us to to be efficient running our business. Note that income also gets spent on premises, equipment, clinical and non-clinical staff etc etc. I employ several non partner GPs for example. No problem with this. It is the same for most professionals who provide a contracted service or product. I have done this many times.

My point is that our processes as an organisation are efficient because we are small, flexible, and truly engaged in our business. Make me an employee with a salary and would that be the same? Make my organisation much larger, with layers of management and would that be more efficient?Again No problem with this. It is the same for most professionals who provide a contracted service or product. I have done this many times.

Surely therefore waste in my business is my waste and my problem? Your post appears to suggest that our partnership profit (i.e. my pay) is NHS waste by definition? My post stated that "the man on the Clapham Omnibus" doesn't differentiate between "waste" and "profit obtained by reducing waste" - he still has to pay. I do differentiate and I am not the man on the bus.

The value if the contract is intended to average out so that GPs have a net intended remuneration in partnerships by the way. This is our 'pay award' for a fictitious typical GP and it is partly calculated from accumulated national data on pay/profit. So if all practices work more efficiently the value of the contract next year will be cut. Thus efficiencies do save the system money, and so we work smarter and so on. Each year the performance targets tend to tighten too, and various other requirements upon us vis a vis quality or innovation. If I was a fixed salary employee would I be so bothered to hit those targets? Being self employed motivates quality improvement therefore. Note that the targets often require me to employ more staff or invest in other ways with the money it may generate; it does not all go into my pocket. I also have no fixed hours, so I work until things are done, not until home time. Yep, that is exactly the same as many other private sector professionals. Been there, done that. It's why I said "My experience.... is that such arrangements (private enterprise) require fewer resources, are less costly and produce more effective solutions than Public Bodies".

That all sounds mercenary of course but I can assure you it is not the only motivation! I know. I agree. Not sure about the man on the bus !!

way off topic now, sorry

Bruce

I kinda knew my initial comment might be misunderstood. I tried to avoid that but somehow failed. Hopefully this time round we know we agree.

As for the man on the Clapham Omnibus......??

Well... given today's events it can be seen that there has been no waste in upgrading the IT systems in the NHS to supported, and therefore patched for vulnerabilities, operating system... 

Eloise, it is a bit more complicated than that.

Don Atkinson posted:

Hungryhalibut posted:

Public sector pensions in part make up for lower pay when working. In my view everyone should have a proper defined benefit pension, and Government should legislate for it. There's nothing wrong with a company properly remunerating its workers rather than its directors and shareholders. And I don't believe public sector pensions make people comfortable in their jobs - the small issue of never ending cuts has put paid to job security. 

Without wishing to re-start another pensions war discussion..........

....I take to task your opening sentence. Public sector pay is on a par with private sector pay, or even slightly higher.

However, I do agree that the government should legislate for defined  benefit pensions, let's say two-thirds Final Salary, just as an example !!

If the Nation can't afford such private sector pensions, then I suggest the public sector should fall into line with a nationally sustainable private sector system in terms of both pay and pensions. existing contracts to be honoured - of course.

Let's also be clear. Whether the railway industry is nationalised or remains in the private sector, c.99% of the work-force is the same. It's only only a few at the top of the tree that change. Same applies to the Highway, Power and Water industries and quite a few others that were privatised under Thatcher and that have changed hands many times since.

Cheers, Don ( who is perfectly content with his mixture of public and private accumulated pensions )

Don - your statement in respect of the rail industry is worthy of greater scrutiny.  Before privatisation on a given shift there would be 5 stand-by drivers at Willesden - there is now 1. 

The Strat (Fender) posted:

 

Let's also be clear. Whether the railway industry is nationalised or remains in the private sector, c.99% of the work-force is the same. It's only only a few at the top of the tree that change. Same applies to the Highway, Power and Water industries and quite a few others that were privatised under Thatcher and that have changed hands many times since.

Cheers, Don ( who is perfectly content with his mixture of public and private accumulated pensions )

Don - your statement in respect of the rail industry is worthy of greater scrutiny.  Before privatisation on a given shift there would be 5 stand-by drivers at Willesden - there is now 1. 

So were five standby drivers really required?

Don Atkinson posted:

Bruce Woodhouse posted:

Don

Interesting post. Not sure I fully understand the conclusion. My conclusion was simply that "the man on the clapham omnibus" doesn't differentiate between "waste" and "bigger profit". The two examples that you used in your initial post illustrated that cutting down on waste in your organisation meant that you made a bigger profit. Personally I have no problem with people doing this. This is one of the motivations that helps private enterprise deliver a better product for less money. Your subsequent post now makes it clear that last year's efficiency (bigger profit) results in a reduction to this year's starting price, so that the NHS benefits from a potential year -on-year efficiency drive. Well done. This is precisely the sort of thing that I was alluding to when I said "My experience.... is that such arrangements (private enterprise) require fewer resources, are less costly and produce more effective solutions than Public Bodies". Clearly, I am not "the man on the Clapham Omnibus"

Maybe I have to explain more about the way we are funded. It is highly complex but in simplest of terms we get money for the work we do fulfilling our NHS contract. That is our income; it varies a bit with performance but basically that is the pot. This has nothing to do with the costs of medicines or treatments by the way. No problem with this. It is the same for most professionals who provide a contracted service or product. I have done this many times.

That figure is not generous. It requires us to to be efficient running our business. Note that income also gets spent on premises, equipment, clinical and non-clinical staff etc etc. I employ several non partner GPs for example. No problem with this. It is the same for most professionals who provide a contracted service or product. I have done this many times.

My point is that our processes as an organisation are efficient because we are small, flexible, and truly engaged in our business. Make me an employee with a salary and would that be the same? Make my organisation much larger, with layers of management and would that be more efficient?Again No problem with this. It is the same for most professionals who provide a contracted service or product. I have done this many times.

Surely therefore waste in my business is my waste and my problem? Your post appears to suggest that our partnership profit (i.e. my pay) is NHS waste by definition? My post stated that "the man on the Clapham Omnibus" doesn't differentiate between "waste" and "profit obtained by reducing waste" - he still has to pay. I do differentiate and I am not the man on the bus.

The value if the contract is intended to average out so that GPs have a net intended remuneration in partnerships by the way. This is our 'pay award' for a fictitious typical GP and it is partly calculated from accumulated national data on pay/profit. So if all practices work more efficiently the value of the contract next year will be cut. Thus efficiencies do save the system money, and so we work smarter and so on. Each year the performance targets tend to tighten too, and various other requirements upon us vis a vis quality or innovation. If I was a fixed salary employee would I be so bothered to hit those targets? Being self employed motivates quality improvement therefore. Note that the targets often require me to employ more staff or invest in other ways with the money it may generate; it does not all go into my pocket. I also have no fixed hours, so I work until things are done, not until home time. Yep, that is exactly the same as many other private sector professionals. Been there, done that. It's why I said "My experience.... is that such arrangements (private enterprise) require fewer resources, are less costly and produce more effective solutions than Public Bodies".

That all sounds mercenary of course but I can assure you it is not the only motivation! I know. I agree. Not sure about the man on the bus !!

way off topic now, sorry

Bruce

I kinda knew my initial comment might be misunderstood. I tried to avoid that but somehow failed. Hopefully this time round we know we agree.

As for the man on the Clapham Omnibus......??

I also generally agree that this type of commercial arrangement generally works well and I'm broadly in favour, assuming that the contracts properly reflect the services to be provided and the monitoring of same is carried out intelligently. Having worked for forty-odd years as a clinician in private organisations contracted to the NHS, we had to become increasingly efficient if we were to compete and survive, but the NHS' expectations of continual reduction in costs cannot be sustained when everything else is going up in price. Value for money has increasingly degenerated into lowest price, and the old NHS Supplies, who understood the needs of businesses, were done away with by the Tories and replaced with the NHS supply Chain, run by DHL, whose sole aim is to save £22 billion by 2020/21 . So now, outsourced services (and there are lots) are procured by outside "consultants" who get a cut of savings made, then walk away from the consequences of their decisions.

I'm convinced that the arrangement whereby services are contracted in the way Bruce has explained has a great deal of merit when it comes to running the NHS. If you went to any hospital department, say physiotherapy, and asked them if they'd like to run their own department with the available funds in this manner, you'd receive a very warm welcome! As it happens, our local physios have set themselves up as a social enterprise, and I can pick up the phone and refer myself directly to them - an appointment takes a couple of weeks at most. 

The Strat (Fender) posted:

Dave,

But don't some of our EU partners have a mixed economy?

Regards,

Lindsay

Yes, they do.  But there are a couple of things to bear in mind with that.  First, the figures don't show that mixed models are necessarily any more efficient or any better in terms of clinical outcomes.  The UK comes out pretty well on both counts.

For example, the WHO figures for health expenditure per capita versus health system performance showed that the US spends the most per capita in the world, whereas the the UK ranks 26th on per capita expenditure.  Yet the US comes nearly 50 places below the UK in terms of 'health level performance' (i.e. clinical outcomes) - 72nd vs 24th.  Germany, France and Italy all have models with approx 77% of funding coming from government.  Germany and France respectively come 3rd and 4th in amount spent (again, UK 26th), and come 41st and 4th in health outcomes.  Italy spends 11th most per capita, with the 3rd best clinical outcomes.  The bottom line is that comparable countries are less efficient in that they spend more per capita, and outcomes vary in a way that breaks any apparent link between funding model and clinical outcomes.  Some are better, some worse.  Maybe a mixed model would put us higher on outcomes, but we already do decently well, and Germany's example shows that there's no guarantee.

The figures are from 2000 btw, not 2010, I mis-remembered.  But they're all here, p. 155 - http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/whr00_en.pdf?ua=1  I'd be very interested to see equivalent figures from say 2012-present, but AFAIK they're not available yet.

Second, putting many other valid arguments to one side, it is well known that many individuals in parliament, Tory or otherwise, have either direct or indirect financial links to private healthcare companies.  It is also clear, in my mind at least, that the current govt is committed to private ownership of national assets in a way that goes beyond mere pragmatism.  So if other EU countries have arrived where they are without corruption or ideological bloody-mindedness, good for them.  I don't trust the UK parliament to do the same.  If nothing else, events over the past couple of years should have taught us that vitally important public debates can be hijacked by powerful interests and that both parliament and public debate can be swayed by those interests.

Finally, there are a number of polls reflecting widespread public support for an NHS-hypothecated tax.  That fact is often wilfully obscured by intentional conflation with non-hypothecated tax increases.  That doesn't meant to say that efficiency shouldn't be a focus in the NHS, but it does show that efficiency in the NHS doesn't have to be, as it usually is nowadays, a euphemism for de-funding.

Huge posted:

Eloise, it is a bit more complicated than that.

Huge, so nothing at all to do with the extensive use of Windows XP?

And I suppose part of my point was that savings can have unintended consequences.  That not spending money on upgrades, can in the long run cost.

As to the point about savings, yes I agree.

But it was also a failure of the heuristic algorithms of the anti-virus package in use (or a failure to use or maintain an anti-virus package).  It also involved a failure to maintain adequate isolation of zones within a network allowing the worm to travel between zones without human initiated transport.  It's not clear from the information so far publicised by our media outlets if the virus has only attacked client PCs (which only need to be re-based and there'll be no data loss) or whether it has attacked servers (when the entire network has to be cleansed before restoring before restoring backups, and some data will be lost).  As I said a bit more complicated that just a problem of using Windows XP on network client devices.

tonym posted:

The Strat (Fender) posted:

 

Let's also be clear. Whether the railway industry is nationalised or remains in the private sector, c.99% of the work-force is the same. It's only only a few at the top of the tree that change. Same applies to the Highway, Power and Water industries and quite a few others that were privatised under Thatcher and that have changed hands many times since.

Cheers, Don ( who is perfectly content with his mixture of public and private accumulated pensions )

Don - your statement in respect of the rail industry is worthy of greater scrutiny.  Before privatisation on a given shift there would be 5 stand-by drivers at Willesden - there is now 1. 

So were five standby drivers really required?

Of course not!