Water Privatisation

AmDaMan

AmDaMan

AmDaMan

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
4,023
Location
Wellington, NZ
After wathching Panorama yesterday (i know i'm sad) it was talking about water privatisation and the way company's are handling service compared to their profits. Just got some questions:

How many water companies are still nationalised compared to publicly owned?

Would you rather services become nationalised again or not, and why?

Personally I wouldn't know as I don't pay bills but some privatised company's seem to relate to consumers more and adjust services to suit. Others seem to ignore major factors such as water leaks while charging high prices and still taking huge sums out in dividends to shareholders :confused: I'm confused.

thanks.
 
@if ®afiq said:
I think things such as water, elec and gas should also be nationalised. These are basic comodoties and sickly profits should not be made out of them.
Click to expand...
nicely summed up, agree 100%
 
@if ®afiq said:
I think things such as water, elec and gas should also be nationalised. These are basic comodoties and sickly profits should not be made out of them.
Click to expand...

I would rather trust a company with energy policy and maintainance than a UK government.
 
I think everyone agrees that we should aim to supply people with water in the most efficient fashion. The crux of the matter is whether cost of National water is cheaper than cost of private water + profit. There's a lot of room for either method to fail, so it seems (to me, at least) extraordinarily naive to think that either solution is necessarily better than the other, or that switching will make anything better.

EDIT: I do, however, disagree that there is anything wrong with making a profit on the sale of water if privatization means that people can get water more cheaply.
 
Last edited:
Seft said:
I think everyone agrees that we should aim to supply people with water in the most efficient fashion. The crux of the matter is whether cost of National water is cheaper than cost of private water + profit. There's a lot of room for either method to fail, so it seems (to me, at least) extraordinarily naive to think that either solution is necessarily better than the other, or that switching will make anything better.
Click to expand...

The sole purpose of a corporation is to make money, nothing more, nothing less.

The government's sole purpose should be to look after it's citizens.

I know which I would rather have in control.
 
Seft said:
EDIT: I do, however, disagree that there is anything wrong with making a profit on the sale of water if privatization means that people can get water more cheaply.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't nationalisation mean that we could get it at an even cheaper (subsidised) rate, even at a loss to the government?
 
That is an idealistic view though, to assume that a government would provide water to its citizens at cost is absurd. They would hike up the price to what people will pay, lie that it costs that much and put the profit into the treasury as a stealth tax.

At least a company is under the constraints of a market economy.
 
William said:
At least a company is under the constraints of a market economy.
Click to expand...

Isn't the government under constraints of the people? Or should they be free to do whatever they want?

If we are not happy with what the government is doing there are ways to correct this either by using votes or other ways.

If we are not happy with the water prices and the absurd profits - can we do anything to stop that?
 
AmDaMan said:
How many water companies are still nationalised compared to publicly owned?

Would you rather services become nationalised again or not, and why?
Click to expand...

1) There are 2 nationalised companies left in the water industry. Scottish Water and the Water Service in Northern Ireland. For the record, Scottish Water has the worst leakage rate in the UK.

2) Nationalisation isn't nessecarily the answer, compulsory water meters would be a better option.
 
dirtydog said:
Really? I currently am supplied by Anglian Water. Can I shop around for a cheaper water supplier then?
Click to expand...

I believe you can have water delivered by tanker into a storage tank. But as to mains supply, not often.

Aif said:
Isn't the government under constraints of the people? Or should they be free to do whatever they want?

If we are not happy with what the government is doing there are ways to correct this either by using votes or other ways.

If we are not happy with the water prices and the absurd profits - can we do anything to stop that?
Click to expand...

The government is constrained to an extent, however methods to control it are slow and clumsy and could take many years to even get a response and a solution. As to absurd water prices by companies, there is little we can do at all, the consumer is at the arse end of it. I believe that companies are specialised, more direct, more efficient and therefore possibly cheaper at supplying utilities than a nationalised system would.
 
Allowing private companies to provide our water is fine providing there is competition. At the moment there isn't because you can't migrate like you can with gas and electricity.

I've been dealing Ofwat and the Water Consumer Concil for over a year because of the appauling customer service that Thames Water give. It's not their fault though, they have no incentive to improve things because they can't lose customers.
 
Last edited:
[DOD]Asprilla said:
Allowing private companies to provide our water is fine providing there is competition. At the moment there isn't because you can't migrate like you can with gas and electricity.

I've been dealing Ofwat and the Water Consumer Concil for over a year because of the appauling customer service that Thames Water give. It's not there fault though, they have no incentive to improve things because they can't lose customers.
Click to expand...

Very true.
 
Windle said:
2) Nationalisation isn't nessecarily the answer, compulsory water meters would be a better option.
Click to expand...

Water meters are compulsory for all new property owners within Thames and Three Valleys as far as I'm aware. (That's people who buy any house, not just new houses).
 
Last edited:
William said:
I believe you can have water delivered by tanker into a storage tank. But as to mains supply, not often.
Click to expand...

So to all intents and purposes, the free market is not operating re water supplies. Each supplier has a monopoly in its own region.

Incidentally water is the most expensive bill I pay, after council tax.
 
Private companies focus on profit whereas the government should focus on more matters like wastage, environmental damage etc. I know I would rather pay a bit more and have a water supply which doesn't solely concentrate on maximising profits. Of course this assumes the government are up to the task which they probably aren't
 
dirtydog said:
So to all intents and purposes, the free market is not operating re water supplies. Each supplier has a monopoly in its own region.

Incidentally water is the most expensive bill I pay, after council tax.
Click to expand...

I suppose this is due to the fact that a supplier owns or is responsible the infrastructure in its region rather than eletricity where energy is supplied via the infrastructure of the national grid?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom