Is Privatisation A Good Thing?
Poll: Is Privatisation A Good Thing?
Total Members Polled: 121
Discussion
nikaiyo2 said:
The water companies and poop in the sea, whilst I agree it is terrible, when the water was a state owned monopoly was it better? When I was a little boy in the mid 80s, my grand parents lived in an old farm house in rural Northumberland, idyllic, the river that ran through their land was on the face of it beautiful. We were not allowed to swim in it the pollution was so bad. It’s not like that now.
I believe the Thames was as bad in places. No,one in their right mind in the 80s or 90s would have gone swimming in most rivers in the U.K.
Since privatisation rivers and the sea seem vastly cleaner than they were, I don’t mean a bit but vastly.
Utter drivel!I believe the Thames was as bad in places. No,one in their right mind in the 80s or 90s would have gone swimming in most rivers in the U.K.
Since privatisation rivers and the sea seem vastly cleaner than they were, I don’t mean a bit but vastly.
Pollution has not reduced because water was privatised, it has reduced because environmental legislation has forced, for instance, your local chemical works to cease pumping cyanide, mercury, VOCs and other nasties into watercourses, FFS!
Member of my family worked for TFL.
Prior to the PPP if you saw, for instance, a broken sign you would report to engineering and they would send someone to look at it and most likely fix it then and there.
After the ‘partnership’ you would report the sign, someone from engineering would come to assess it, submit a report that would trigger someone from the partnership company to come and look and decide on the next step which was usually to get someone to fix it.
On the flip side the tube drivers had all sorts of things going on. Some shifts meant they could do a couple of hours driving sit around drink tea and play pool then get a taxi home because it was after 00:00 or some such.
Ask them to do anything other than drive and there would be a meltdown. Mop up a spill, do any maintenance - forget it.
Prior to the PPP if you saw, for instance, a broken sign you would report to engineering and they would send someone to look at it and most likely fix it then and there.
After the ‘partnership’ you would report the sign, someone from engineering would come to assess it, submit a report that would trigger someone from the partnership company to come and look and decide on the next step which was usually to get someone to fix it.
On the flip side the tube drivers had all sorts of things going on. Some shifts meant they could do a couple of hours driving sit around drink tea and play pool then get a taxi home because it was after 00:00 or some such.
Ask them to do anything other than drive and there would be a meltdown. Mop up a spill, do any maintenance - forget it.
To take the Amazon vs RM delivery comparison a bit further…How many Amazon vans do you see racing around the streets pretty recklessly? Most with multiple dings, often driven by people desperate for money and with little training. Packages often just vaguely chucked at houses, damaged, wet etc.
This is not a good thing imo.
This is not a good thing imo.
six wheels said:
Critical infrastructure, utilities, health and security should not be run for profit.
But it’s complicated.
Very much my view. But it’s complicated.
However, there is nothing wrong by using private companies to provide some of those services.
For example cleaners. Occasionally it is cheaper to use a private company to provide cleaning services. When a local government or nationalised service employ someone, they have to include expensive pensions and six months sick pay. I once did a costing exercise and it worked out cheaper to outsource. Mostly because a couple of the cleaners were off sick long term. Plus the person responsible for organising the cleaning rota was no longer required.
jdw100 said:
Member of my family worked for TFL.
Prior to the PPP if you saw, for instance, a broken sign you would report to engineering and they would send someone to look at it and most likely fix it then and there.
After the ‘partnership’ you would report the sign, someone from engineering would come to assess it, submit a report that would trigger someone from the partnership company to come and look and decide on the next step which was usually to get someone to fix it.
On the flip side the tube drivers had all sorts of things going on. Some shifts meant they could do a couple of hours driving sit around drink tea and play pool then get a taxi home because it was after 00:00 or some such.
Ask them to do anything other than drive and there would be a meltdown. Mop up a spill, do any maintenance - forget it.
I work for TfL and on the tube and whilst you’re correct about pre and post PPP, it’s changed a bit since they all collapsed and everything was brought back in house. Nowadays, it’s pretty much contacted out to approved suppliers so you report the fault to a central office and they allocate the necessary contractor to fix. Some jobs will require a site visit first as the job is estimated to go beyond what would be described as ‘small works’ but that’s pretty normal with any large company with multiple sites.Prior to the PPP if you saw, for instance, a broken sign you would report to engineering and they would send someone to look at it and most likely fix it then and there.
After the ‘partnership’ you would report the sign, someone from engineering would come to assess it, submit a report that would trigger someone from the partnership company to come and look and decide on the next step which was usually to get someone to fix it.
On the flip side the tube drivers had all sorts of things going on. Some shifts meant they could do a couple of hours driving sit around drink tea and play pool then get a taxi home because it was after 00:00 or some such.
Ask them to do anything other than drive and there would be a meltdown. Mop up a spill, do any maintenance - forget it.
As for the tube driver bit? Well, I let that go as this is not the thread but it shows what you see may not be what is actually going on and shows a misunderstanding on how rotas work within.
As for maintenance and cleaning, why would they? They are not electricians or plumbers and are not trained as such and would more than likely cause huge risk factors in attempting to ‘have a go’ that the company simply wouldn’t expect. If the aircon failed in your office, would you attempt to fix it with no knowledge or call a suitably trained engineer?
As a general principle, it is the right thing to do, but there are some fundamental requirements and safeguards that should be met;
National security should not be compromised
There should be a genuine competitive market with consumer and investor choice
There should be no protection from market failure for consumers or investors
State regulation should be minimised as far as possible to enable investors to drive capital to the highest possible point of return
State actors (foreign or domestic) should be prohibited from participation in UK capital markets
These rules, if rigorously applied, would prevent a number of entities being privatised. I would much prefer a rules-based approach for assessing suitability for privatisation than all the sensationalist, sentimental guff we get now
National security should not be compromised
There should be a genuine competitive market with consumer and investor choice
There should be no protection from market failure for consumers or investors
State regulation should be minimised as far as possible to enable investors to drive capital to the highest possible point of return
State actors (foreign or domestic) should be prohibited from participation in UK capital markets
These rules, if rigorously applied, would prevent a number of entities being privatised. I would much prefer a rules-based approach for assessing suitability for privatisation than all the sensationalist, sentimental guff we get now
Edited by ClaphamGT3 on Saturday 18th May 10:24
valiant said:
I work for TfL and on the tube and whilst you’re correct about pre and post PPP, it’s changed a bit since they all collapsed and everything was brought back in house. Nowadays, it’s pretty much contacted out to approved suppliers so you report the fault to a central office and they allocate the necessary contractor to fix. Some jobs will require a site visit first as the job is estimated to go beyond what would be described as ‘small works’ but that’s pretty normal with any large company with multiple sites.
As for the tube driver bit? Well, I let that go as this is not the thread but it shows what you see may not be what is actually going on and shows a misunderstanding on how rotas work within.
As for maintenance and cleaning, why would they? They are not electricians or plumbers and are not trained as such and would more than likely cause huge risk factors in attempting to ‘have a go’ that the company simply wouldn’t expect. If the aircon failed in your office, would you attempt to fix it with no knowledge or call a suitably trained engineer?
The last point; in an office with the AC: no. A spillage, yes I might.As for the tube driver bit? Well, I let that go as this is not the thread but it shows what you see may not be what is actually going on and shows a misunderstanding on how rotas work within.
As for maintenance and cleaning, why would they? They are not electricians or plumbers and are not trained as such and would more than likely cause huge risk factors in attempting to ‘have a go’ that the company simply wouldn’t expect. If the aircon failed in your office, would you attempt to fix it with no knowledge or call a suitably trained engineer?
When i worked in Manufacturing we always had people keen to learn new areas: operators to learn some engineering as one example.
If I asked someone from QC to help me with a piece of production kit they wouldn’t throw a hissy fit and say ‘not my job’. We had cleaners all away on holiday plus the rest off sick once - we all mucked in. I went round every office in the morning emptying waste paper baskets,
I’m going to suggest that tube train drivers wouldn't mop platforms if cleaning staff were short staffed.
The problem with privatisation or nationalisation isn't the concept, both are sound. Private business should run more efficiently especially if competition exists as with most services, and removes load from the government coffers. Nationalisation keeps the hand on the control that needs to be there, can keep all decisions in house to allow quicker responses to a changing market, if a new railway line is needed for instance then the rail company, planning departments and land purchase side of the problem along with the construction of the line would all be more or less under the same roof.
But the problem is when you get people involved. Nationalised industries tend to be fat and slow, bloated staffing, people sat around on substantial pay often 3 or 4 people doing one person's job. Despite everything being under one roof no department talks to one another and nothing gets done (quickly at least). Privatisation though is another evil entirely, the bottom end gets much leaner, with staff getting pushed harder for less and less pay, all so bloated executives and usually foreign owners can strip every penny they can out of the deal before it collapses.
So the issue isn't socialism Vs capitalism. It's the fact people are gits. A socialist state should be an idyllic utopia to live in, but it's not. Capitalism is probably more honest about where most people will end up unless they work hard and in the right direction. Mix the two up and you get what we have, a veneer of socialism on top of a capitalist society, take that to the extreme you get China which for all its claims of socialism is super capitalist.
I'm generally pro nationalised industries, I didn't used to be. But how you stop the wastage and make it streamlined I don't know. Because I know what the governments answer would be, to appoint a wastage Tsar on a bloated wage who would ultimately achieve little and cost a lot. See every other comparable position ever.
But the problem is when you get people involved. Nationalised industries tend to be fat and slow, bloated staffing, people sat around on substantial pay often 3 or 4 people doing one person's job. Despite everything being under one roof no department talks to one another and nothing gets done (quickly at least). Privatisation though is another evil entirely, the bottom end gets much leaner, with staff getting pushed harder for less and less pay, all so bloated executives and usually foreign owners can strip every penny they can out of the deal before it collapses.
So the issue isn't socialism Vs capitalism. It's the fact people are gits. A socialist state should be an idyllic utopia to live in, but it's not. Capitalism is probably more honest about where most people will end up unless they work hard and in the right direction. Mix the two up and you get what we have, a veneer of socialism on top of a capitalist society, take that to the extreme you get China which for all its claims of socialism is super capitalist.
I'm generally pro nationalised industries, I didn't used to be. But how you stop the wastage and make it streamlined I don't know. Because I know what the governments answer would be, to appoint a wastage Tsar on a bloated wage who would ultimately achieve little and cost a lot. See every other comparable position ever.
For me it's all about choice. If a supplier of something I want is crap, I want to be able to go elsewhere. This works fine in the NHS - I can shop around for GP practices and be referred to my choice of hospital.
It absolutely doesn't work with, eg, sorting out any issues with a driving licence.
It absolutely doesn't work with, eg, sorting out any issues with a driving licence.
Slowboathome said:
For me it's all about choice. If a supplier of something I want is crap, I want to be able to go elsewhere. This works fine in the NHS - I can shop around for GP practices and be referred to my choice of hospital.
It absolutely doesn't work with, eg, sorting out any issues with a driving licence.
If ever there was an example of a gov dept I'd like an alternative to it's the DVLA. It absolutely doesn't work with, eg, sorting out any issues with a driving licence.
Absolutely fine when dealing with bread and butter jobs, updating driving licences, change of ownership on cars. Doddle. As soon as you go in to the rough though, complete nightmare as people become involved in the system and paperwork sits on desks, jobs that should take days take weeks and often peoples livelihoods are at stake. Anyone considering being a professional driver should also consider if they can afford a 6 month sabbatical should they have a medical episode that needs DVLA involvement but doesn't need to result in a suspension of licence beyond the initial pull and evaluate. I saw this frequently in a previous job managing professional drivers and it was soul destroying watching members of staff, willing and able to come back to work but unable to due to DVLA dragging their feet. All the while surviving on a generous but ultimately finite amount of sick pay.
Don't even get me started on why the change of ownership cuts off after 7pm either. I still can't believe a person has to press a button to ok every single one.
But as bad as it is. I'd hate to see the privatised version of it.
Some very interesting & thoughtful posts on here. I'll try not to spoil it !
My water supplier is one of the ones that has always been a private company. I would guess 99 % of customers don't realise that. There is a general assumption that every water company was originally government owned but that is not the case.
They seem to do a decent job, (another company do the waste water/sewerage) and we haven't had a hosepipe ban for decades despite being in a dry part of the country.
Should we, at great expense, nationalise them and potentially make them as bureaucratic & inefficient as the NHS, for example ?
Failing companies are a different matter & they need action especially with regard to the waste water issues, but is nationalisation a magic bullet ? A nationalised industry still needs to make a profit to pay the staff, their pensions, etc. You can make the valid point no shareholders to pay but does that mean that all the surplus profit is invested in the water system ? or does it just vanish into the vacuum of general government funds ?
My water supplier is one of the ones that has always been a private company. I would guess 99 % of customers don't realise that. There is a general assumption that every water company was originally government owned but that is not the case.
They seem to do a decent job, (another company do the waste water/sewerage) and we haven't had a hosepipe ban for decades despite being in a dry part of the country.
Should we, at great expense, nationalise them and potentially make them as bureaucratic & inefficient as the NHS, for example ?
Failing companies are a different matter & they need action especially with regard to the waste water issues, but is nationalisation a magic bullet ? A nationalised industry still needs to make a profit to pay the staff, their pensions, etc. You can make the valid point no shareholders to pay but does that mean that all the surplus profit is invested in the water system ? or does it just vanish into the vacuum of general government funds ?
Edited by gt40steve on Monday 20th May 10:08
wildoliver said:
If ever there was an example of a gov dept I'd like an alternative to it's the DVLA.
Absolutely fine when dealing with bread and butter jobs, updating driving licences, change of ownership on cars. Doddle. As soon as you go in to the rough though, complete nightmare as people become involved in the system and paperwork sits on desks, jobs that should take days take weeks and often peoples livelihoods are at stake. Anyone considering being a professional driver should also consider if they can afford a 6 month sabbatical should they have a medical episode that needs DVLA involvement but doesn't need to result in a suspension of licence beyond the initial pull and evaluate. I saw this frequently in a previous job managing professional drivers and it was soul destroying watching members of staff, willing and able to come back to work but unable to due to DVLA dragging their feet. All the while surviving on a generous but ultimately finite amount of sick pay.
Don't even get me started on why the change of ownership cuts off after 7pm either. I still can't believe a person has to press a button to ok every single one.
But as bad as it is. I'd hate to see the privatised version of it.
That's the problem - privatised monopolies can be just as crap as nationalised ones.Absolutely fine when dealing with bread and butter jobs, updating driving licences, change of ownership on cars. Doddle. As soon as you go in to the rough though, complete nightmare as people become involved in the system and paperwork sits on desks, jobs that should take days take weeks and often peoples livelihoods are at stake. Anyone considering being a professional driver should also consider if they can afford a 6 month sabbatical should they have a medical episode that needs DVLA involvement but doesn't need to result in a suspension of licence beyond the initial pull and evaluate. I saw this frequently in a previous job managing professional drivers and it was soul destroying watching members of staff, willing and able to come back to work but unable to due to DVLA dragging their feet. All the while surviving on a generous but ultimately finite amount of sick pay.
Don't even get me started on why the change of ownership cuts off after 7pm either. I still can't believe a person has to press a button to ok every single one.
But as bad as it is. I'd hate to see the privatised version of it.
I wish there were some kind of model where different companies could deal with driving licences, all working from a central database. I'd happily pay for a decent service.
Ref privatisation, I do think there's a distinction between 1) sme/larger companies perhaps still family owned who generally speaking demonstrate many of the benefits of the free markets that capitalists love, and 2) global corp organisations and equity / venture capital types who are out to load up with debt and squeeze every penny for shareholders and executives.
Unfortunately it seems, unsurprisingly, that it's the latter who have got their claws into "delivering" our public services in the UK and probably around the world.
This article caught my eye as another example where profit making should be kept out imo (children in care)
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/...
Unfortunately it seems, unsurprisingly, that it's the latter who have got their claws into "delivering" our public services in the UK and probably around the world.
This article caught my eye as another example where profit making should be kept out imo (children in care)
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/...
Look at Amazon or Tesco. Essentially privately owned utilities that work rather well, as demonstrated through the Covid pandemic.
Look at the contaminated blood scandal. Penny pinching in the public sector.
IMO the real issues aren't around "ownership", they are around "management and funding".
Look at the contaminated blood scandal. Penny pinching in the public sector.
IMO the real issues aren't around "ownership", they are around "management and funding".
I have no choice re electricity or water supplier.
Petrol I pay the same price wherever I am in the country.
With petrol the government can adjust prices as needed. For example - no price rises during COVID.
Quite happy re all of that.
Internet - very competitive but have stuck with ours for a few years as incredibly helpful and responsive. Answer back on WhatsApp app in minutes. We hade an outage last month, within three mins of sending a query I had a photo of guys in a hole fixing a broken cable.
Government operations that I come into contact with, like Immigration for long term visas, have massively upped their game in seven years I’ve been here. Visas could take days - go here, go there, why are you here you should be there, you need this form, not that form, not this office..it was different for different people with staff seeming to have no clue either as to the process. People having no passport for months as held in Immigration offices.
Now is done in a few hours, free coffee in the offices as well, kids play area and a little library. President had said it was a national (international) embarrassment; so got more of it online and booted the civil service up the arse.
The online system still doesn’t really like Apple so I do all mine in paperwork and in person, no bother.
UK government outsource to a company here for UK passports/visas. Got to say they are very efficient considering (I think) they have to send info and old passports to UK. My daughter had her first passport in 10 days. My own renewal one (in 2020) took two weeks.
They text you at different stages. I had one after my visit ‘thanks for coming in today Sir, your application has gone in the courier bag to UK this evening’.
They also do UK and Schengen visas plus Aus, NZ and Canadian passports - a good example of a commercial operation undertaking Government work very efficiently and with excellent customer service.
Other government stuff can be more opaque I think and some extra cash can speed things up…if you are bold enough to try. Plus officials now get busted for corruption a lot more.
Young son of the Head of customs and excise in one region driving round in a Lambo….went viral and his dad got a knock on the door!
Airpot immigration/customs is sometimes a fiasco. We slide through a nearly empty lane on Indo passports and visas. Same for my mum and dad as elderly people or those with young kids get fast tracked.
But coming off an A380 to see three ‘foreigners ’ immigration booths open - I can only imagine the horror. Government can’t get it right and somehow balance staff versus demand. I cannot understand why this is so difficult. They have a schedule of plane arrivals, right?
QR codes that still require hand scanning or are the wrong one as people have used a slightly different form on the website. A tourist tax where the website wasn’t stress tested and you can in fact walk through without paying it.
You can pay tourist tax at your accommodation they said. Hotels: ‘what? No one told us’. Police with puppies (cute Kintamani dog pups) checking on the street if people have paid - doing 20 a day max so dogs don’t get tired but having no ability to take payment…. Really really poor implementation.
Everyone is saying: set it up so you have to pay on exit, you idiots!
Petrol I pay the same price wherever I am in the country.
With petrol the government can adjust prices as needed. For example - no price rises during COVID.
Quite happy re all of that.
Internet - very competitive but have stuck with ours for a few years as incredibly helpful and responsive. Answer back on WhatsApp app in minutes. We hade an outage last month, within three mins of sending a query I had a photo of guys in a hole fixing a broken cable.
Government operations that I come into contact with, like Immigration for long term visas, have massively upped their game in seven years I’ve been here. Visas could take days - go here, go there, why are you here you should be there, you need this form, not that form, not this office..it was different for different people with staff seeming to have no clue either as to the process. People having no passport for months as held in Immigration offices.
Now is done in a few hours, free coffee in the offices as well, kids play area and a little library. President had said it was a national (international) embarrassment; so got more of it online and booted the civil service up the arse.
The online system still doesn’t really like Apple so I do all mine in paperwork and in person, no bother.
UK government outsource to a company here for UK passports/visas. Got to say they are very efficient considering (I think) they have to send info and old passports to UK. My daughter had her first passport in 10 days. My own renewal one (in 2020) took two weeks.
They text you at different stages. I had one after my visit ‘thanks for coming in today Sir, your application has gone in the courier bag to UK this evening’.
They also do UK and Schengen visas plus Aus, NZ and Canadian passports - a good example of a commercial operation undertaking Government work very efficiently and with excellent customer service.
Other government stuff can be more opaque I think and some extra cash can speed things up…if you are bold enough to try. Plus officials now get busted for corruption a lot more.
Young son of the Head of customs and excise in one region driving round in a Lambo….went viral and his dad got a knock on the door!
Airpot immigration/customs is sometimes a fiasco. We slide through a nearly empty lane on Indo passports and visas. Same for my mum and dad as elderly people or those with young kids get fast tracked.
But coming off an A380 to see three ‘foreigners ’ immigration booths open - I can only imagine the horror. Government can’t get it right and somehow balance staff versus demand. I cannot understand why this is so difficult. They have a schedule of plane arrivals, right?
QR codes that still require hand scanning or are the wrong one as people have used a slightly different form on the website. A tourist tax where the website wasn’t stress tested and you can in fact walk through without paying it.
You can pay tourist tax at your accommodation they said. Hotels: ‘what? No one told us’. Police with puppies (cute Kintamani dog pups) checking on the street if people have paid - doing 20 a day max so dogs don’t get tired but having no ability to take payment…. Really really poor implementation.
Everyone is saying: set it up so you have to pay on exit, you idiots!
Fundamentally, I'm against privatisation, because in the UK it's always seemed to be used as a method to make a quick buck for a few at the cost of many.
Royal Mail - Sold for £3.3bn when it was all said and done, about 0.6% of Annual Tax income for the UK. It was worth 140% of the sale value on the first day and JP Morgan valued it at £10bn. So it hardly made a ripple in the bucket of income for the UK and we gave away £6bn to shareholders. For consumers a price of a stamp was 60p in 2013 when we sold it, it's £1.35 now. 2nd class is gone, the service worse.
British Rail, famously bad sandwiches and unreliable trains. Now we've got famously bad sandwiches and unreliable trains, but it costs £300 to go somewhere that £30 is in petrol away.
Gas & Elec, you know that stuff that stops people freezing to death in the dark. If Sid was smart and invested £1000 in 1983, it would be worth £16000 or more now, but in the meantime Energy Companies decided in a fuel crisis to stop competing to instead make £1bn a week in profits, whilst forcing pre-payment metres on the poorest in society and making others have to decide "should I starve or freeze this week?".
I don't think it matters if you're Red or Blue on Polling Day, we've got a terrible habit in the UK of selling things you really shouldn't sell to make a quick buck and paying heavily for it later. Nationalising basic fundamental needs like energy, transport and health is a better idea than not considering both sides of the argument, especially when you may one day be in a War with an enemy that will try to destabilise your economy.
Royal Mail - Sold for £3.3bn when it was all said and done, about 0.6% of Annual Tax income for the UK. It was worth 140% of the sale value on the first day and JP Morgan valued it at £10bn. So it hardly made a ripple in the bucket of income for the UK and we gave away £6bn to shareholders. For consumers a price of a stamp was 60p in 2013 when we sold it, it's £1.35 now. 2nd class is gone, the service worse.
British Rail, famously bad sandwiches and unreliable trains. Now we've got famously bad sandwiches and unreliable trains, but it costs £300 to go somewhere that £30 is in petrol away.
Gas & Elec, you know that stuff that stops people freezing to death in the dark. If Sid was smart and invested £1000 in 1983, it would be worth £16000 or more now, but in the meantime Energy Companies decided in a fuel crisis to stop competing to instead make £1bn a week in profits, whilst forcing pre-payment metres on the poorest in society and making others have to decide "should I starve or freeze this week?".
I don't think it matters if you're Red or Blue on Polling Day, we've got a terrible habit in the UK of selling things you really shouldn't sell to make a quick buck and paying heavily for it later. Nationalising basic fundamental needs like energy, transport and health is a better idea than not considering both sides of the argument, especially when you may one day be in a War with an enemy that will try to destabilise your economy.
Neither privatisation nor public ownership are panaceas. The privatisations of the 80's and early 90's were ideologically driven and have delivered mixed results. Personally, I'd rather that inherently monopolistic utilities were state owned, but I can live with private provision if the regulation is strict enough. If state owned, it needs to be properly funded, accountable, and held to high standards.
Water initially worked well, because previously the people responsible for policing the pollution of waterways were the same people pouring sewage into them, so separating the roles of polluter and regulator improved matters. The river in my home town is full of trout these days, when I was a kid it was full of turds. There has been backsliding over recent years, though, because the government has chosen to defund regulation and private businesses have done what they do when they are not policed. There was also a complete failure to regulate the financial affairs of the privatised water companies, allowing the scandalous debt loading which has happened. This is frog and scorpion stuff.
The various industrial concerns sunk or swum on their own merits.
Telecoms has been largely successful, from a consumer point of view.
The trains are s
t. They're almost de facto nationalised now, and they are st. They were st when they were privatised. They were st under BR. I think the UK is just st at trains.
Water initially worked well, because previously the people responsible for policing the pollution of waterways were the same people pouring sewage into them, so separating the roles of polluter and regulator improved matters. The river in my home town is full of trout these days, when I was a kid it was full of turds. There has been backsliding over recent years, though, because the government has chosen to defund regulation and private businesses have done what they do when they are not policed. There was also a complete failure to regulate the financial affairs of the privatised water companies, allowing the scandalous debt loading which has happened. This is frog and scorpion stuff.
The various industrial concerns sunk or swum on their own merits.
Telecoms has been largely successful, from a consumer point of view.
The trains are s
t. They're almost de facto nationalised now, and they are st. They were st when they were privatised. They were st under BR. I think the UK is just st at trains.In principle yes, but it presents the same problem that nationalised industries have in the first place: being run by politicians. This means that the process becomes politicised, badly managed and corrupt.
The benefit of a market is not just that private companies have better logos. A market evolves a whole structure and ecology which is nothing like how you would design it.
You can't take something like railways and say it's a free market, however there will be separate companies owning track and trains, there will be these service levels, price controls, subsidies and so on, and if it goes wrong we will step back in and take over.
All that ends up doing is attracting companies who cleverly grab the profits while leaving the risks and downsides with the state.
You've got to let it rip. If a train from Newcastle to Glasgow isn't viable, can it. If they want to charge £20,000 for a season ticket, go for it. And if a company wants to build a new railway then have a monopoly on running trains over it then that should be fine. In that way you get the benefits of a free market allocating resources where it deems best. Of course that might also mean a reduction in trains, but that's normal too. There are other modes of transport.
If you want a train (or anything else) as a pure public good or some kind of romantic folly then it's probably better off just being nationalised and accepting that it is not a profitable business.
The benefit of a market is not just that private companies have better logos. A market evolves a whole structure and ecology which is nothing like how you would design it.
You can't take something like railways and say it's a free market, however there will be separate companies owning track and trains, there will be these service levels, price controls, subsidies and so on, and if it goes wrong we will step back in and take over.
All that ends up doing is attracting companies who cleverly grab the profits while leaving the risks and downsides with the state.
You've got to let it rip. If a train from Newcastle to Glasgow isn't viable, can it. If they want to charge £20,000 for a season ticket, go for it. And if a company wants to build a new railway then have a monopoly on running trains over it then that should be fine. In that way you get the benefits of a free market allocating resources where it deems best. Of course that might also mean a reduction in trains, but that's normal too. There are other modes of transport.
If you want a train (or anything else) as a pure public good or some kind of romantic folly then it's probably better off just being nationalised and accepting that it is not a profitable business.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff