Viewing 34 posts - 41 through 74 (of 74 total)
  • Name a successful privatisation
  • ourmaninthenorth
    Full Member

    It was this level of ‘care’ provided that has allowed the industrial scale of child sexual abuse we’ve seen in various places around the country.

    Bloody hell binners. As often as I agree with your many points in lots of threads, this is a level of whataboutism too far!

    As someone who believes in the free market I’m not sure what we have in the UK is proper privatisation as there isn’t true competition in many of the privatised services ie: if the supplier doesn’t meet my needs, I can’t take my business elsewhere.

    This is the challenge with viewing public services with an individual lens As we all do). The flip side is that when BR ran it, the service was worse and there was still only one provider you could use.

    Of course, there are many political reasons for the service being worse at the time (major underinvestment apparently being one), so it’s too hard to judge on a fair basis.

    As someone who works in a private industry that grew out of a nationalised business (I work for a telecoms company), I find my views are often conflicted: I too want the panacea of public services to be in the hands of the public, but can’t help but think how much better telecoms is than if it was solely under the control of BT. Though it’s bad nough that the effective monopoly of Openreach is allowed to continue (leaving aside the issues of equivalence).

    Moses
    Full Member

    But telecoms ( I think) is a special case, as it’s the domain in which the technology has changed most. BT was copper landlines only, now they are competing with fibre cable, satellite, and other digital communications.
    Yes, we get better service on the whole, but look how sporadic mobile reception is in rural areas: there is no mandate for total coverage so those providers are delivering worse coverage than BT did.

    lunge
    Full Member

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

    Rail as well, better trains, quicker and more punctual service. Prices are a bit hit and miss but compared to the other options (cars in may case) it is still cheaper.

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    olddog
    Full Member

    As with everyone above you have to define what you mean by success and use that as a yard stick. But also as above, you can’t know what the counter factual would have been with the same investment over the same period.

    To say trains are privatised is pushing it a bit – rail track is a state owned enterprise and massively subsidised (£14billion a year I think?. The train franchises are also subsidised, the always blame govt for cutting subsidises for price rises. Basically I don’t think it’s possible to run a train service on purely private income. In that respect for the semi-privatisation to be a success you have to make the case that for any given standard of quality the presumed efficiencies of having a private organisation running the franchise are greater than the level of profit the company extracts and the extra administrative costs of rolling franchising and multi-operators. That is the fundamental logic of all private involved in monopolies, like PFI in NHS and education.

    Similarly other privatisations like utilities, there is some competition, but ultimately all buy of the same wholesale market so prices will converge – ultimately its whether you think the small amount of competition holds prices down and private sector efficiency more than compensates for profit taking.

    I am somewhat sceptical about this and it was the failure of will of Government to properly run state industries than caused problems

    PimpmasterJazz
    Free Member

    We have some niche manufacturers Aston, Land Rover and the Mini.

    Joke, yes?

    Water has been a success. Inflation adjusted prices are significantly lower, investment in infrastructure much improved, no low pressure issues. This is helped in part by the success of Ofwat.

    Isn’t water privatised in a competition-free environment? I’m still struggling to see how that works.

    Another point: if privatisation is making out lives better, why is the gap between the rich and poor getting larger (when a lot of the rich have fingers in the privatisation pie)?
    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/03/24/uk-inequality-pay-gap_n_5020036.html

    olddog
    Full Member

    … 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.

    cfinnimore
    Free Member

    Freedom.

    Northwind
    Full Member

    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

    uponthedowns
    Free Member

    British Airways seems to have done quite well

    binners
    Full Member

    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.

    molgrips
    Free Member

    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.

    ourmaninthenorth
    Full Member

    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.

    olddog
    Full Member

    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

    binners
    Full Member

    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.

    ninfan
    Free Member

    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’

    El-bent
    Free Member

    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.

    igm
    Full Member

    Rob2 – not quite but not a million miles away.

    rob2
    Free Member

    Svt?

    brooess
    Free Member

    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…

    molgrips
    Free Member

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

    igm
    Full Member

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

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

    philjunior
    Free Member

    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).

    olddog
    Full Member

    … 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…

    molgrips
    Free Member

    It just ain’t that simple

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

    aracer
    Free Member

    Personally I found the Royal Mail the most successful yet 😉

    aracer
    Free Member

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


    Ferranti

    Really? 😯

    konabunny
    Free Member

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

    I agree entirely. the state shouldn’t be doing stuff that the private sector can do perfectly well – ferry services, removals, travel agents. it should do the things that the private sector won’t do well but ought to be done – healthcare, social services, civil defence.

    El-bent
    Free Member

    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.

    aracer
    Free Member

    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.

    konabunny
    Free Member

    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.

    you can’t just say “EU countries are ahead of the UK and this proves that government ownership works”. you have to identify the countries and how they’re ahead, and explain why that advantage results from government ownership.

    Coyote
    Free Member

    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.

    mudshark
    Free Member

    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.

    mikewsmith
    Free Member

    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

    molgrips
    Free Member

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

    They do that. Just not everywhere 🙂

Viewing 34 posts - 41 through 74 (of 74 total)

The topic ‘Name a successful privatisation’ is closed to new replies.