I actually worked for BT in the late 1980s. I have wondered whether privatisation played that much of part in updating the network. They had developed System X in the late 1970s and that started to be installed in the early 1980s, replacing the old Strowger exchanges. BT was privatised shortly after.
That may have meant that they could raise finance more easily tofund that, but most of the improvement in the network was down to technological innovation that was already underway, rather than a change in management. Iāve always found the argument that privatisation was the catalyst for that rather spurious.
I donāt think the government of the day, nor the preceding ones, were willing to make most of that investment. BT was moving very slowly to take advantage of the innovation it had in hand, but it was moving.
I would agree though that it was a mixed result. Britain actually early on had a leadership position in fibre optics, in terms of technology, deployment, and production. Most of that was thrown away, the baby in the bathwater of privatization. Much of the technology ended up in the US, many of the engineers ended up in North America, by the mid90s the UK was not producing fibre optics, and the pace of the deployment of the fibre optic network did not really pick up for nearly 20 years. Britain might have had the very first universal fibre optic network with just a little more care in the privatization process.
In the 90s āSilicon Valley Northā tech scene around Ottawa, Imperial College was jokingly referred to as Canadaās best graduate program in electrical engineering.
I just think itās one part of a much bigger story. Process (mentioned above), resources, funding, and these little private elements. Iād even say the whole health board model needs questioning.
The only one that matters immediately is the Chancellor. The reports that the government will alter the BoEās mandate have injected some nerves already
Thereās part of me that thinks a complete fresh start with fresh names and faces might get him off to a better start. Thatās if those people are capable of course.
Theyāre popular within their factions and it wouldnt take much for them to be accepted by voters once some of the reforms start rolling or if the government are able to make headway on the cost of living front.
Easy targets as one is a demonstrably failed leader who has followed ruinous net zero targets at all cost. The other resigned due to avoiding stamp duty - oh sorry, honest mistake just like Sturgeon not seeing a motorhome!
Why open yourself to that? But it just shows how politics recycles people who have failed or erred.
Well aside from the Brexit, he is constantly platformed by the BBC, spreading his lies and deceit. He does a huge amount of damage to the country. I expect that some senior execs at the BBC are shitting themselves now the details of his handlers are seeping through.
Fair comment, but the damage he can influence is reliant on gullible idiots following his lead.
While there are plenty around, there canāt be enough to put him in power.
Can there?