plan for collapse of Thames Water

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

But we konw that in private hands the operators will continually be looking to find loopholes to, let's be frank, degrade the service and increase the cost to bill payers.

That's what private sector does. The motivation for private companies is always profits. It's like fighting against nature itself.

In the hands of the public sector the only real limiting factor is penny-pinching politicians who choose to under-fund. But by all accounts the people (read engineers) who ran our public water companies were not lazy or incompetent, they just couldn't work miracles with years of zero investment.

The "solution" to the lack of investment was to sell the assets to the private sector, because the government still didn't want to fund them properly. The private sector were thus handed a monopoly, and began to do with the private sector always does: maximise profits. With entirely predictable outcomes. Providing a service is secondary, and you only provide a better service when that will improve profits. Otherwise you milk those assets for all they're worth, doing as little as possible. Your only concern is your shareholders.

It's like we've got evidence of all of this, but continue to draw the wrong conclusions time after time. The private sector only cares about profits. That is literally all.

Lol we had evidence of how bad they were pre privatisation
They wernt better than now basically

You missing the main issue, they were generally labour supporting and there was a reason why...

How old are you, were you actually alive when all these businesses were public?

 

[FoxEye]

Lol we had evidence of how bad they were pre privatisation
They wernt better than now basically

You missing the main issue, they were generally labour supporting and there was a reason why...

How old are you, were you actually alive when all these businesses were public?

It is known that the cause for their poor performance in state control was a lack of investment. The government did not want to spend money on them.

In the hands of the private sector they now have £billions of debt, and remakably their debt is very similar to the amount they've paid out in dividends since privatisation.

Tell me that that's better? Billions in debt, leaks all over the shop, record high bills, and still pumping sewage into rivers and seas. Good job private sector?

Again, the East Coast Mainline. Private sector said it couldn't be run profitably. Two franchisees failed. In public ownership they did really well and returned money to the treasury. Tell me how the public sector can only do things worse than the private sector...

 

[Dis86]

It is known that the cause for their poor performance in state control was a lack of investment. The government did not want to spend money on them.

In the hands of the private sector they now have £billions of debt, and remakably their debt is very similar to the amount they've paid out in dividends since privatisation.

Tell me that that's better? Billions in debt, leaks all over the shop, record high bills, and still pumping sewage into rivers and seas. Good job private sector?

Again, the East Coast Mainline. Private sector said it couldn't be run profitably. Two franchisees failed. In public ownership they did really well and returned money to the treasury. Tell me how the public sector can only do things worse than the private sector...

Again...where are the state regulators? We're paying for them through taxation and they are doing nothing.

 

[FoxEye]

Again...where are the state regulators? We're paying for them through taxation and they are doing nothing.

Why isn't the private sector delivering the utopia you said they would without state interference? If the regulators are doing nothing, then the private water companies have had plenty of time and all the freedom they needed to make things better.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

It is known that the cause for their poor performance in state control was a lack of investment. The government did not want to spend money on them.

In the hands of the private sector they now have £billions of debt, and remakably their debt is very similar to the amount they've paid out in dividends since privatisation.

Tell me that that's better? Billions in debt, leaks all over the shop, record high bills, and still pumping sewage into rivers and seas. Good job private sector?

Again, the East Coast Mainline. Private sector said it couldn't be run profitably. Two franchisees failed. In public ownership they did really well and returned money to the treasury. Tell me how the public sector can only do things worse than the private sector...

East coast was far more complicated than your making out, they were made to invest as part of tendering, yet the government handed over a load of poo. many of us remember how bad they were, the modern railway is MUCH better, that should tell you how bad it was!
It was an utter mess when taken over, it was hit badly by the 2008 crash but it was improving
The main issue really being the bidding to run the franchises meant that the government was taking money that they wouldn't have had before.

Yes the water companies paid it out, its what I said, asset stripping.

FWIW my position having seen pre and post privatisation is that these sorts of monopoly infra companies should be state owned and privately run
When privately run they should have a balanced scorecard type situation that means they need to be well run (scorecard would vary by sector of course) and would return profit to those running them based on running them well.
Government would put up money required since they would remain state assets, profits would be the states less the amount that would go to the private companies for performing well. Perform better (on the balanced scorecard) and services will be better and hence they will get "paid" more.

 

[FoxEye]

I think for the sake of fairness we need to see a modern, well-funded state owned and run company.

Other countries have managed this. There can be no reason why Britain alone is unique in not being able to properly run critical infrastructure.

This requires a governing party not tied to the ideology of privatisation. This requires a willingness to spend what is needed.

I don't think we can point to any state run enterprise in the last few decades and say, "They were well funded." Because the prevailing ideology has been "privatisation is best", even under Blair.

Things have changed and we need to give it another go. It's really unfair to point to a time when everything was chronically underfunded, and say that public sector can't do a good job. Really unfair.

 

[danlightbulb]

FWIW my position having seen pre and post privatisation is that these sorts of monopoly infra companies should be state owned and privately run
When privately run they should have a balanced scorecard type situation that means they need to be well run (scorecard would vary by sector of course) and would return profit to those running them based on running them well.
Government would put up money required since they would remain state assets, profits would be the states less the amount that would go to the private companies for performing well. Perform better (on the balanced scorecard) and services will be better and hence they will get "paid" more.

What would be the point of having a state owned company making a profit to return to the state? May as well have it charge less, make no profit (but cover it's running costs) and we all pay less in the first place.

Also that is how Welsh Water works who head for head have a much greater issue with sewerage overflow pollution. Scottish Water is publicly owned and also has a significant sewerage overflow problem same as England does. The issue there was weak enforcement UK wide, not who owns the companies.

 

[Dis86]

Why isn't the private sector delivering the utopia you said they would without state interference? If the regulators are doing nothing, then the private water companies have had plenty of time and all the freedom they needed to make things better.

I've already explained there is state interference which makes emerging business very difficult due to regulation and taxation. It benefits large corporations.

 

[eddiemcgarrigle]

The public sector does not generate money. Simples.

No, but it does provide all of the services you rely on like the NHS, Fire Service and Police Service.

 

[Dis86]

No, but it does provide all of the services you rely on like the NHS, Fire Service and Police Service.

The police are completely useless and inept. We rely on private security at work. Myself, my colleagues and my staff all have private medical insurance including emergency care. The fire service doesn't work offshore.

Private police forces and fire services have and do exist. We're not far off full privatisation of the NHS in the uk and many other countries have no state health provider.

 

[eddiemcgarrigle]

The police are completely useless and inept. We rely on private security at work. Myself, my colleagues and my staff all have private medical insurance including emergency care. The fire service doesn't work offshore.

Private police forces and fire services have and do exist. We're not far off full privatisation of the NHS in the uk and many other countries have no state health provider.

Who do you think mainly trains and mans your private fire service. Plenty of my former colleagues who retired are doing that very thing.

 

[Dis86]

Who do you think mainly trains and mans your private fire service. Plenty of my former colleagues who retired are doing that very thing.

So they're doing it...privately?

 

[eddiemcgarrigle]

So they're doing it...privately?

After learning and refining their trade in the Public Sector.

I was also a member of the Maritime Incident Response Group (MIRG), where we trained to tackle fires on ships at sea and we would also have been sent to rigs if needed. Public Sector helping Private, who would have thunk it, eh?

 

[Dis86]

After learning and refining their trade in the Public Sector.

Yes but the money doesn't go to the public sector so like I said...

In fact you could argue it highlights yet another flaw. There will have been substantial resource invested in them then they bugger off with that investment to earn money elsewhere.

Currently a major problem in the NHS.

 

[eddiemcgarrigle]

Yes but the money doesn't go to the public sector so like I said...

In fact you could argue it highlights yet another flaw. There will have been substantial resource invested in them then they bugger off with that investment to earn money elsewhere.

Currently a major problem in the NHS.

Eh, no. They had a thirty year contract which they fulfilled and then they retired. They did not jump ship.

 

[Dis86]

Eh, no. They had a thirty year contract which they fulfilled and then they retired. They did not jump ship.

Potentially joined at 18 and retired at 48. Plenty of mileage left in that tank.

Hence why they've gone private! could have stayed on and taught internally.

 

[CapitalOne]

Have you comsidered voting Conservative?

 

[Werewolf]

I'm loving the idea that a private fire service owned and operated by the company is going to have anything like the training, resources, equipment and manpower available to it that say the public fire service has...
My local station has IIRC 2 engines, but can call on dozens/hundreds from the neighbouring towns and counties if needed including specialised stuff that costs and absolute fortune and might only see a handful of active uses a year.

Especially given accountants and management tend to not like the idea of "throwing money away" and typically will cut such things to the bone when they don't understand why you are paying millions a year for something you're not actively using (a lot of companies won't even pay to ensure their basic fire safety is up to scratch and need the threat of action to maintain stuff as simple as fire exits and fire doors).

About the closest thing we've got to real "private" fire services in the UK these days are the airport fire trucks, and they're are there because the insurance companies and government demand them, and a single incident can cost hundreds of millions and dozens of lives.
IIRC even then if there is an actual aircraft fire they still get assistance from the likes of the normal fire and other emergency services, because the airport response teams are primarily about pausing the fire long enough to get people out of the aircraft and to a safe distance, not even getting the injured out of the airport, or dealing with a major fire at the airport buildings.
Basically most of the remaining "private" fire services, at least in the UK tend to be very limited and specialised in scope, and there because it's been required by the government or insurance in some form

IIRC most of the old "private" fire services died out because it was realised it was much cheaper and effective for a communal service paid for by all and operated by a governing body, because it's much better to put out the fire at number 11A before it gets hold and threatens number 15.
Not to mention the old private fire services were often competing against each other, and the more "profitable" ones were fairly often found to have been "encouraging" local businesses and wealthy individuals to sign up because a fire can be really bad and "look at that storehouse it looks really flammable".

One interesting thing I heard the other day on a related note, apparently if you've got an old fire engine and you agree to keep it functional you can get free road tax, apparently the flip side of the coin is that in an emergency the fire service can requisition it if needed. I've not actually checked this one out myself, but it sounds very much like a holdover from the old civil defence plans, where in the event of say war having those old engines available and maintained by private owners would have been far more cost effective than storing and maintaining them at a government facility.

 

[Diddums]

If you'd like to know what happens when you privatize public services, have a look at our public transport. The prices are absolutely ludicrous and the service is far beneath where it should be.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

What would be the point of having a state owned company making a profit to return to the state? May as well have it charge less, make no profit (but cover it's running costs) and we all pay less in the first place.

Also that is how Welsh Water works who head for head have a much greater issue with sewerage overflow pollution. Scottish Water is publicly owned and also has a significant sewerage overflow problem same as England does. The issue there was weak enforcement UK wide, not who owns the companies.

The state has always made a profit on item x as they use it to substitute everything else

We mentioned above, regulators are crap, thats why Welsh etc are no better.

As I said, state run = political interference, always has, always will.
At least when privately run/owned that is minimised.