[Closed] Name a successful privatisation

... oh I was just thinking a bit more about the counter factual.

The NHS is massively improved since the 80s and 90s - in terms of quality and speed of treatment, but still very much public sector. Who is to say trains wouldn't have been the same in public hands, given the right investment - and don't fool yourselves that there hasn't been massive public investment in the railways during the privatised era.

I think health and safety on the railways was mentioned post privatisation - hasn't that also happened in the building trade too - which has always been private sector. Isn't improved H&S something that has just happened with tighter rules and inspection regimes.

Ultimately, I think you end up with ideological arguments because there is so much else going on that muddies up the water

Basically - I'm just saying you can't say a privatisation is a success because certain good thinks have happened - you need to demonstrate that the same or better wouldn't have happened under public ownership - the good stuff may have happened anyway.

Freedom.

olddog - Member

To say trains are privatised is pushing it a bit

As with all the best privatisations, the profit is privatised, the taxpayer has to worry about everything else

British Airways seems to have done quite well

I don't really think my point was whataboutery. Privatisation encompasses much more than telecoms, railways and utilities. It now reaches into all aspects of life that in the past were the responsibility of the state. And in this case a system that failed so spectacularly, and continues to do so, with such devastating consequences for such a large number of the most vulnerable in society, is still generating huge profits for the people responsible for this systemic failure.

If you look into the whole structure of privately run children's homes, it's an absolute disgrace. But it's a very profitable disgrace. And I personally think that's an obscene state of affairs. But this represents the change in priorities and culture dictated by privatisation. Which doesn't bode well for the increase in the use of private companies within the NHS and other areas (ie: the probation service - a recent bonkers privatisation proposal) where providing dividends to shareholders should be pretty far from the highest priority objective, which experience has shown us it inevitably becomes.

Coms has been a success, there is no way it would have pushed on in the way it has under national management.

Why do you say that? I thought BT was a pretty big innovator in its day.

I don't really think my point was whataboutery. Privatisation encompasses much more than telecoms, railways and utilities. It now reaches into all aspects of life that in the past were the responsibility of the state.

That I do agree with. There is a line that a lot of people don't want to be crossed which, when taken as a whole is being crossed - but individuals don't see it that way as they only come into contact with limited parts of the whole.

In my eyes, care is something the state - as the formalised representation of our social order - ought to be directly responsible for.

Binners - I agree. But I also think it worth arguing against the illogic of - sector x is better than the 1970s/80s therefore privatisation = good.

Ultimately, it is ideologically driven, based on a belief that any amount of market is better than the best run public services. Now the obvious candidates have gone it's time to move onto the direct delivery of public services - already been partly done with prisons as well.

The model is state commissioned often state fronted, but with the delivery outsourced - stealth privatisation

Then we're pretty much in agreement fella. I think the States ownership of areas like manufacturing cars, etc, which rely on constant innovation, is absolutely bonkers! As it proved. But there are certain areas that should remain free of the demand to make a profit.

Privatisation encompasses much more than telecoms, railways and utilities. It now reaches into all aspects of life that in the past were the responsibility of the state.

Removal companies for example...

Serious question here, where do you stop?

NHS is a very good example, Which of the following should be reserved for public sector, and which is it acceptable to purchase from/contract to the private sector:

Paper tissues (eg kimberly clark type stuff)?
Medicines?
Laundry services?
Catering?
Cleaning?
Generator servicing and repair?
Ambulance servicing and repair?
CAT scanner servicing and repair?

Once upon a time, a good few of them would have been done through in house staff, others wouldn't - I'd say that some of them are hard to categorise as 'should be'

I wouldn't call that a success eg BT were incredible slow to bring broadband to the UK as investing in new technology would hit short term profitability. As a result the UK was laggard in BB for many years, which probably affected overall productivity.

Other EU countries are well ahead of us because the state invested in these services. It is a level of strategic thinking the UK currently lacks because utilities and transport are private entities, whose aim is short term profit.This is currently coming home to roost in our electricity industry.

Privatisation for the sake of privatisation is lunacy, based on an idealogical dogma that Governments of all flavours over the last 30 years or so have stuck to, chanting the mantra of "small government."

Electricity, Water, Gas, and transport should be brought back under state control, not because they technically can't be competitive, But for their strategic significance. You have to think about a long term national strategy for infrastructure, and invest accordingly, because it is amongst the things businesses need so they can be competitive both nationally and internationally.

I also believe that privatisation should be kept out of social care and the like, but stuff like airlines, car manufacturers, Rolls royce etc, should stay privatised.

Rob2 - not quite but not a million miles away.

Svt?

Re=privatising services would mean taxes go up to fund them. Whichever government did that, you can expect them to be voted straight out again...

However the profits AND dividends would come back into the public purse - assuming there are any.

And the interest payments on the borrowing to invest, Molgrips.

It just ain't that simple, even for a champagne socialist like me.

I think success in this context could be described as bringing a better value and level of service to the end customer and country as a whole than remaining nationalised would have.

It's pretty much impossible to tell, although undoubtedly a lot of improvements in trains, communications etc. are down to advances in technology, and may have come at a lower cost in terms of subsidy and costs to the customer had the industries not been privatised.

However one thing I would say I do see as a benefit of the private sector is that jobs/pay/benefits are no longer a political football. Seeing the way public sector workers have been treated since "austerity" started, I'm glad I work in the private sector.

Apart from the political aspect to public sector jobs, however, I can't see any advantage to privatisation - the issue with public sector inefficiencies is poor management and large sluggish organisations, which are just as possible in the private sector (until the firm goes bankrupt at least).

... Oh yeah, thanks for reminding me. Government can raise capital at a much lower rate than the private sector, so that's another margin that has to be delivered through private sector efficiency...

It just ain't that simple

I know, that's why I added the caveat 🙂

Personally I found the Royal Mail the most successful yet 😉

Ignoring the ones that have been successful but people quibble about. Loads

...
Ferranti

Really? 😯

Plenty of businesses that government should never have been owners of.

Re=privatising services would mean taxes go up to fund them. Whichever government did that, you can expect them to be voted straight out again...

I suppose if you put short term gain ahead of strategic planning that your Children would benefit from, then I suppose a government could be voted out.

It is no longer guaranteed that the population sees Privatisation=good,Nationalisation=bad any more, Unless you are in London/south east of course.

I suppose if you put short term gain ahead of strategic planning that your Children would benefit from, then I suppose a government could be voted out.

Unfortunately that seems to be the way our democracy works.

I suppose if you put short term gain ahead of strategic planning that your Children would benefit from, then I suppose a government could be voted out.

BT? A success? Oh sweet baby jelly babies!!!

How exactly are you measuring success? On a business level would it be the complete inability to get bills right for two consecutive months? Or the ability to provide data links just over old dial up speeds in rural locations? If we are factoring in the mighty Open Reach, maybe it their inability to attend a visit within a month of booking? Maybe their use of sub-contractors? Sub in this context meaning below par. Below par meaning shit. Or maybe it their SLA system which is so heavily skewed in their favour that it is practically impossible for them to fail.

Or the ability to provide data links just over old dial up speeds in rural locations?

Well that's a pretty expensive thing to do so I suppose should be paid by the Gov't.

Power? Over in Oz I'm moving house so the sole monopoly state run power company is charging me £30 to close the account at the old house and £30to start one at a new place, won't take owner readings and charges what they like

Or the ability to provide data links just over old dial up speeds in rural locations?

They do that. Just not everywhere 🙂