"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 22:24:21 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"

wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 21:22:35 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"

wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
snip


Which is an inevitable consequence of nationalisation.


Whilst dividens before investment is a consequence of
privitisation.


That's a circular argument.

However, there is nothing wrong with dividends. They encourage
shareholder investment....



Whilst there is nothing wrong with nationalising a 'safety
critical'
service industry were the private company operating it has failed
in
the delivery of that vital service, witness F... Railtrack!


That makes no sense. Why do you imagine that nationalising
something
safety critical will make it better? The reality is that the
failings of the railways come as a result of decades of lack of
investment while in both the public and the private sector.


No, the failing were caused by putting profit before safety, corners
were being cut to save money, even though the money was (indirectly)
being supplied by HMG via subsidises to improve and modernise the
network.

There was not a lot wrong with the track / signalling infrastructure
when Railtrack took over, by the time they went bankrupt it took
another two years to sort out the resultant mess, never mind the
lives that had been lost.