Private Ownership v Public Ownership - n/g | Vital Football

Private Ownership v Public Ownership - n/g

GillsBluenose

GillsBluenose

Vital Champions League
Case study: The monopoly that calls itself Thames Water:
Privatised in 1989 with no debt, Debt is now £16 billion despite now saying it needs to hike bills by 59% in order to actually invest in its infrastructure, with no guarantee to stop pumping sh*t in to the river at every turn, and pay massive bonuses on top of executive salaries to its "talent".

Good job they don't have anyone who is untalented.

www.bbc.co.uk

Thames Water boss defends bonuses as sewage spills soar

The company saw a 40% increase in pollution incidents in the first half of the year as its debts continued to swell.
www.bbc.co.uk

We keep being told that inflation is coming down but everything still seems to be going up apart from perhaps petrol. How is any homeowner meant to find 59% extra? o_O
 
Last edited:
Good documentary on Panorama (just been on) about scandalous behaviour (and profits) of Severn Trent Water. They are supposed to be the best.

Chief Executive has received millions of pounds for running a monopoly.

I'm 'served' by Thames water. Appalling.

Guaranteed dividends and no risk for 'investors'. Shocking.

So much for Private Sector efficiency.

Locally, the £11m lifts (completed less than a year ago) at my train station frequently break down. Waiting room finally rebuilt after being out of use for a year. Less than 6 months in and the door doesn't open.

All done by private companies. However, I've heard (ignorant) fellow passengers blame the Public sector for it.

Natural monopolies should be run by the State.

I'm old enough to remember British rail. Ok, it was far from perfect but the new system is even more inefficient and expensive. The ticket pricing is a farce.
 
And who ran up the debt? The water companies.
Why? So they could inflate the balance sheet and pay shareholders (which will include the executives) millions.
Pure capitalism at work, where company interests override the consumers'.
This form of capitalism sucks (and I say that as a business owner).
 
South West Water is just as bad.
Their operating methods are scandalous.
I purchased shares in Pennon, who owns them, just to be able to vote against everything their board proposes.
Plus I’m a member of Surfers Against Sewerage pressure group.
It’s a national scandal.
 
Gills 58 said:
Natural monopolies should be run by the State.

I'm old enough to remember British rail. Ok, it was far from perfect but the new system is even more inefficient and expensive. The ticket pricing is a farce.
Click to expand...
Agreed, at the very least, although gas, electricity and telephone have all been privatised, there is plenty of competition to hold them all to account and if one company goes bust, we can just say sod 'em.

If Ofwat don't grow a pair and start standing up to the barely disguised blackmail from these regional monopolies, then Government must step in and nationalise water supply.

If the companies put up water bills at all, it must all be repaid if they can not demonstrate every infrastructure improvement that the ringfenced money is used for. Not a penny unaccounted for.
 
Interesting subject, this. It's not just about private companies having a monopoly - dangerous though that clearly is. It's the fact that inevitably these businesses are huge and massively distanced from the consumer. Much of their finance comes from venture capitalists who almost certainly don't live in the UK and are only interested in the bottom line - not the quality of product or service. Another very good reason to keep our key services in public ownership.
 
Notwithstanding economics, it makes more sense, from a National Security perspective, to have most, if not all, of our major utilities under UK Government ownership.

Edited to add that i`d also like to see UK PLC own and develop Pharmaceutical production - that alone would be enough to fund a huge chunk of the National Health costs, instead of being ripped off by Global Pharma billionaires. (I realise it`ll never happen - but....)
 
GillsBluenose said:
Agreed, at the very least, although gas, electricity and telephone have all been privatised, there is plenty of competition to hold them all to account and if one company goes bust, we can just say sod 'em.

If Ofwat don't grow a pair and start standing up to the barely disguised blackmail from these regional monopolies, then Government must step in and nationalise water supply.

If the companies put up water bills at all, it must all be repaid if they can not demonstrate every infrastructure improvement that the ringfenced money is used for. Not a penny unaccounted for.
Click to expand...
Water is slightly different to the other utilities as they have to apply to the regulator if they want to change their rates. Offwat can simply say no (although regularly fail to do so).

I don’t think essential utilities should be run for profit anyway, but if they are then the regulator should be strict as hell with what the companies do, and what they charge with extremely harsh penalties if they fail to deliver (up to and including losing their license to deliver that service).
 
PuB said:
Water is slightly different to the other utilities as they have to apply to the regulator if they want to change their rates. Offwat can simply say no (although regularly fail to do so).

I don’t think essential utilities should be run for profit anyway, but if they are then the regulator should be strict as hell with what the companies do, and what they charge with extremely harsh penalties if they fail to deliver (up to and including losing their license to deliver that service).
Click to expand...
Like you I firmly believe that essentials like water, electricity and gas should be publicly owned.
We have some weird public private partnership in NZ that to be honest I don't quite understand, resulting in a big hoohaa here over energy prices.
 
I struggle with massive bonuses for what can only be desribed as businesses failing to deliver the required services

Paying out huge divis / bonuses while bumping shit into rivers because you havent invested in facilities is just crazy.

Meet targets pay bonuses.

Pump shit invest that cash into improvements.

Water definitly needs to come back into public ownership before the tax payer rebuilds the infrastructure.
 
People don't like excessive taxation, some don't like tax at all. Much political capital is made from this situation which distracts from another issue. The dominant, current model of taking over companies is to gather together a group of investors with a access to borrowing.

All that borrowing is loaded straight onto the balance sheet of the newly acquired vehicle. Then begins the juicy bit of sell and lease back, or sell altogether and the relentless sweating of assets. Someone pays for all this of course, someone is being taxed.
 
The renationalisation of the rail network will be an interesting test and if successful could be a blueprint for other utilities. ‘If successful’ is the key, I also remember British Rail, the ancient rolling stock and no money for investment. You’d like to think this has been thought through thoroughly with something like a 10 year plan. However this is politicians we are talking about.
 
Step 1: Realise and understand that capitalism only serves the interests of a tiny minority and that it does this by exploiting the overwhelming majority of the people and the result is a society defined by privilege and injustice.

Step 2: Realise and understand that Marxist style communism requires an authoritarian state that reduces and then removes personal freedom and the result is a society defined by brutality and slavery.

Step 3: Realise and understand that there is an alternative to capitalism and communism; a way of organising things differently where nobody is exploited and nobody is controlled, where people work together for the benefit of all not because they are forced to do so but because they choose to and where the result is an equitable and free society defined by mutual-aid and co-operation.
 
timnolongerinbrisban said:
The renationalisation of the rail network will be an interesting test and if successful could be a blueprint for other utilities. ‘If successful’ is the key, I also remember British Rail, the ancient rolling stock and no money for investment. You’d like to think this has been thought through thoroughly with something like a 10 year plan. However this is politicians we are talking about.
Click to expand...
BR was a mess due to lack of investment, not the way it was run. It was actually run very well with the money it had. The whole system is so splintered, that when something goes wrong, more time is spent on who’s culpable than how to put things right. Network Rail is under public ownership, but the track and signalling work is done by contractors. Four workers will turn up for a job, and three will work for different companies. They can’t all travel in the same van, because if it crashes, which company is liable. The whole system need to come in-house, and none of it done by contractors.
 
How do most of these comments match the Headline ?
Many highlight the problems from monopolies - or near monopolies.

How does "public ownership" resolve any of those ?
That is just another monopoly - with even less incentive to cut costs.
(or like the NHS, inflate costs throw hopeless procurement)

The usual socialist answer is "profits" - or absence of them - i.e. a naive assumption that removing the profit incentive will reduce prices for the consumer.

Anyone who has worked in the public sector (and some departments of large corporations) should have seen the lack of cost control i.e. "waste".
So costs rise to meet the income from customers.
i.e. no price reduction for the end user
.
So a private monopoly - by retaining the profit incentive - should always be better than a public (state) monopoly by providing at least a partial incentive to control costs.

What matters are:
1. Regulations to control price rises and bonuses for failure of management....
...which mostly seem lacking.
Along with the threat of transferring the monopoly to others upon failure to meet service standards

2. Political will to police / monitor / sanction failure.
 
Tarian said:
So a private monopoly - by retaining the profit incentive - should always be better than a public (state) monopoly by providing at least a partial incentive to control costs.
Click to expand...

You’ve not given nearly enough evidence to arrive at this conclusion.

Comfortably one of your shorter posts, only one use of bolding, no words underlined and no use of italics.

Piss poor effort.
 
So if incentivising the control of costs results not in profit, but in running up a £16billion debt that didn't exist when it took over, while still not having started updating its infrastructure (in this case, pipework) so it is looking to soak (pardon the pun) the consumer further, that's still better then is it?

Thames Water is not making profits. Just increasing the largesse to their executives and somehow still paying dividends to shareholders. The worst abuse of a capitalist system devoid of any ethics or morals. Rewards for minimum effort and no results. At least the rail franchises are receiving their comeuppance with hopefully more to follow.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.