plan for collapse of Thames Water

EDF would be the perfect example, not because it's some perfect super well run company and not because the French government haven't had to put billions into it or it's some socialist worker paradise. but because it's better than anything we got over the last 40 years for our taxes.
 
Sythe79 said:
EDF would be the perfect example, not because it's some perfect super well run company and not because the French government haven't had to put billions into it or it's some socialist worker paradise. but because it's better than anything we got over the last 40 years for our taxes.
Click to expand...
I don't think really there are any fair comparisons to be made.

If we had a public body that had been in public ownership for the last xxx years, where their direct competitor had been a private company (also for xxx years), then we could (perhaps) have a go at comparing public sector ownership with private.

This hasn't happened to my knowledge, so we're in the awkward position of trying to compare across the decades. I would argue that the modern world being very different to the 80s, that's not really fair on the public sector. You often find people saying, "But but British Rail", but that was literally eons ago. What would a modern British Rail look like? Impossible to answer, isn't it?
 
the point is the French government don't run power generation in France, a normal every day energy company does, the French government just own 80% or whatever it is of them. when times are good the dividends go into the public purse, when it's bad they get government investment. we only get the bad times here.

British rail is the biggest of public purse con jobs going, let's not go there.
 
Should we really be surprised about this? Its what happens with HMRC heads and dodgy accountancy firms.

www.theguardian.com

Exclusive: UK water giants recruit top staff from regulator Ofwat

Demands for an end to the ‘revolving door’ as ex-Ofwat directors are hired by key firms
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...

Two-thirds of England’s biggest water companies employ key executives who had previously worked at the watchdog tasked with regulating them, the Observer can reveal.

Cathryn Ross, the new interim joint chief executive of Thames Water and a former head of watchdog Ofwat, is one of several ex-employees working for water companies in senior roles such as strategy, regulation and infrastructure.

An analysis by the Observer has found 27 former Ofwat directors, managers and consultants working in the industry they helped to regulate, with about half in senior posts.

The findings have raised fresh concerns over a revolving door between the regulator and the industry.

“There is a merry-go-round between the core regulators and the regulated utilities,” said Sir Dieter Helm, a former government adviser and professor of economic policy at Oxford University.

“Regulators are not paid very well, and if there is the potential of future jobs in the firms they regulate, it creates potential conflicts of interest.”
Click to expand...
 
FoxEye said:
I'm not sure how anyone can be so confident that taking core infrastructure into public ownership must be worse than what we've had.
Click to expand...
Because what happened when it previously was in public hands is what led to privatisation.
It's swapping one bunch of corrupt, incompetent money-centric dickheads for another.

Sythe79 said:
the point is the French government don't run power generation in France, a normal every day energy company does, the French government just own 80% or whatever it is of them. when times are good the dividends go into the public purse, when it's bad they get government investment. we only get the bad times here.
Click to expand...
So another example of Public-Private Partnership, which seems to work relatively well?

Tony Edwards said:
“Regulators are not paid very well, and if there is the potential of future jobs in the firms they regulate, it creates potential conflicts of interest.”
Click to expand...
It happens in many industries.
A lot of ex-CAA peeps get jobs in aviation companies, often precidely because they have such a good understanding of the legislation and regulations.
 
ttaskmaster said:
Because what happened when it previously was in public hands is what led to privatisation.
It's swapping one bunch of corrupt, incompetent money-centric dickheads for another.


So another example of Public-Private Partnership, which seems to work relatively well?


It happens in many industries.
A lot of ex-CAA peeps get jobs in aviation companies, often precidely because they have such a good understanding of the legislation and regulations.
Click to expand...
Its because of contacts, it is not about legislation.
I rub your back and later you rub mine.
 
Last edited:
They are about to allow shareholders pump billions into Thames water with money based on agreement to massively increase to your water bills.
 
Last edited:
FoxEye said:
I don't think really there are any fair comparisons to be made.

If we had a public body that had been in public ownership for the last xxx years, where their direct competitor had been a private company (also for xxx years), then we could (perhaps) have a go at comparing public sector ownership with private.

This hasn't happened to my knowledge, so we're in the awkward position of trying to compare across the decades. I would argue that the modern world being very different to the 80s, that's not really fair on the public sector. You often find people saying, "But but British Rail", but that was literally eons ago. What would a modern British Rail look like? Impossible to answer, isn't it?
Click to expand...

The problem with the debate is that it's so polarised there's no room for nuance.

Wanting to nationalise anything doesn't mean a return of British Rail for instance. You can say British Rail was hopeless whilst still advocating public ownership because public ownership doesn't equal British Rail.

I'd argue something like DB or SNF is more like what we'd have now if BR hadn't been privatised - and indeed that was pretty much the structure prior to privatisation. Of course people like to point out that privatisation increased passenger numbers but actually the numbers started increasing prior, when BR was making their reforms. Privatisation of the railways was such a disaster we had two rail crashes and the company went bust. I don't recall that happening under BR. But then BR ran awful, late, old dirty trains. So there are good elements of everything.

I'm in favour of nationalisation because privatisation has failed. And we all acknowledge that these companies will never actually be allowed to fail, so what is the point in saving them and then privatising them again? What could be more ideological than that?
 
Last edited:
As for the politics of it, I find some irony in the idea that we've taken back control yet we're apparently so feckless as a country we trust the French, Chinese and Germans to run our infrastructure despite us having either invented or contributed in a big way to mostly all of it.

It is honestly pathetic, let's run these services properly on a long term basis. There's no reason we cannot do it.
 
Mrwong said:
Its because of contacts, it is not about legislation.
I rub your back and later you rub mine.
Click to expand...
That's how they get the job, yes, but the actual back rubbing is only possible due to the experience and knowledge they bring.

Dialup said:
Wanting to nationalise anything doesn't mean a return of British Rail for instance. You can say British Rail was hopeless whilst still advocating public ownership because public ownership doesn't equal British Rail.
Click to expand...
If the modern government options were competent, I'd agree... but when they blatantly flaunt their own rules while insisting we follow them, do you really think they'll do a good job with utilities... or will they just use it to line their own pockets, as usual?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom