economic situation is dire

[snowychap]

How do you arrivae at either '100% success' or '100% fail'? :?

How did you arrive at the following:

Electricity - 90% success (the fail was the regulators becoming too soft)

Britsh Gas - 100% success

Surely, if you were to be consistent then you'd have mentioned the regulators in regard to gas?

[ender4]

How do you arrivae at either '100% success' or '100% fail'? :?

its my subjective opinion....

mainly based on cost to taxpayer before vs cost to customer once privatised.

followed by Efficiency of business before and after.

Choice to consumer as well.

any in particular stand out that you agree?

and any stand out that you disagree with?

[drat01]

Thomas Cook? Privatised in 1972 and then purchased by Midland Bank. Rumours abound that they are in a lot of problems and may even go under.

Buses a success? I would beg to differ a great deal there

Council Houses a success? - Not sure how you classify that as a privatisation, but many would argue that the lack of state controlled housing is now a major issue

BA - aka London Airways - a success? Many many business travellers would beg to differ

Water? again questionable. The cost cutting they use to satisfy shareholders mean that many leaks etc are not fixed

[ender4]

How did you arrive at the following:

Electricity - 90% success (the fail was the regulators becoming too soft)

Britsh Gas - 100% success

Surely, if you were to be consistent then you'd have mentioned the regulators in regard to gas?

true. yes.

i kind of changed my thought process as i worked my way down the list. :?

i started by thinking the regulators taking their eye of the ball was a failure of privatisation.

By the time i got down to Gas, i decided that it was a failure of whichever government is in power when the regulator becomes too soft, rather than a failure of the privatisation of that industry.

[snowychap]

any in particular stand out that you agree?

I think I'd pretty much disagree with every assessment that says 100% anything and that is without getting into an idealogical debate on running utilities or vital infrastructure services on a profit-led, shareholder-first basis.

By the time i got down to Gas, i decided that it was a failure of whichever government is in power when the regulator becomes too soft, rather than a failure of the privatisation of that industry.

It is both.

[ender4]

Thomas Cook? Privatised in 1972 and then purchased by Midland Bank. Rumours abound that they are in a lot of problems and may even go under.

Buses a success? I would beg to differ a great deal there

Council Houses a success? - Not sure how you classify that as a privatisation, but many would argue that the lack of state controlled housing is now a major issue

BA - aka London Airways - a success? Many many business travellers would beg to differ

Water? again questionable. The cost cutting they use to satisfy shareholders mean that many leaks etc are not fixed

Thomas Cook going under - how is that bad? thats a good point of free-market, that rubbish inefficient businesses improve or die. There's enough other better travel agents to take its place. At least it won't die using up taxpayers cash.

Buses - i called that a FAIL, not a success.

Council Houses - i'd say the issue is not enough housing being built over the past 25 years. Its an issue of rubbish planning permission. If te government let private compnies build enough houses over the past 3 decades, housing would be a lot cheaper, and so social housing wouldn't be needed so much.

BA - very much a success. Government gets money. taxpayer doesn't lose any money. Business class customer can choose whichever airline they want, which is good customer choice.

Water - yet the leaks are much less than they used to be, our water is the cleanest its ever been, our bills are cheap (inflation adjusted), and so much of the sewers & pipes are being replaced after 100 years of not doing anything.

[snowychap]

Water - 95% success

Is the 5% failure, Severn Trent continually lying to customers, regulators and the stock market over leaks, customer satisfaction statistics (I doubt they dumbed them down so perhaps their customers aren't exactly satisfied) and bad-debt data - some of which was in order to convince the regulator to allow them to put up their bills as a £300 million pound profit is obviously not sufficient?

[ender4]

any in particular stand out that you agree?

I think I'd pretty much disagree with every assessment that says 100% anything and that is without getting into an idealogical debate on running utilities or vital infrastructure services on a profit-led, shareholder-first basis.

By the time i got down to Gas, i decided that it was a failure of whichever government is in power when the regulator becomes too soft, rather than a failure of the privatisation of that industry.

It is both.

fair point - lets call it "generally successful" or "generally failed". ignore the 100%'s.

Gas - maybe it is. i was in two minds which is why i started with one assessment on Electricity & moved to another assessment on Gas.

Lets just call them both "generally successful". unless you think they "generally failed"?

[drat01]

BA - very much a success. Government gets money. taxpayer doesn't lose any money. Business class customer can choose whichever airline they want, which is good customer choice.

Again I would disagree. They are no longer a UK based airline. Consequently other companies now fill the void left by London airways which results in monies going to "foreign" companies (using your arguments). Business class customers always had choice anyway, privatisation has resulted in BA London just catering for the capital based populace and the shareholders.

Awful company

[ender4]

Is the 5% failure, Severn Trent continually lying to customers, regulatrs and the stock market over leaks, customer satisfaction statistics (I doubt they dumbed them down so perhaps their customers aren't exactly satisfied) and bad-debt data - some of which was in order to convince the regulator to allow them to put up their bills as a £300 million pound profit is obviously not sufficient?

is it any worse than it was before it was privatised?

yes lying about leaks, yet the leaks are less than they would be under government control.

also:

yet the leaks are much less than they used to be, our water is the cleanest its ever been, our bills are cheap (inflation adjusted), and so much of the sewers & pipes are being replaced after 100 years of not doing anything.

[ender4]

BA - very much a success. Government gets money. taxpayer doesn't lose any money. Business class customer can choose whichever airline they want, which is good customer choice.

Again I would disagree. They are no longer a UK based airline. Consequently other companies now fill the void left by London airways which results in monies going to "foreign" companies (using your arguments). Business class customers always had choice anyway, privatisation has resulted in BA London just catering for the capital based populace and the shareholders.

Awful company

isn't that my point :?

they are no longer a UK airline, they are an international firm. we don't need to care about it, if it goes bump, it doesn't affect the taxpayers or the government.

Uk passengers should just use Emirates, etc instead. The best airline wins, and rubbish like BA disappears. result.

much better than the UK government propping up their losses, and BA continuing with their shambolic service forever.

[drat01]

isn't that my point

It depends on what you accept from the public infrastructure as responsibility to the people.

[ender4]

isn't that my point

It depends on what you accept from the public infrastructure as responsibility to the people.

true.

which is why i put buses as Fail.

i don't look at flights as public infrastructure, its a private service with a choice to use it or not. and when you do choose to use it, each person should just go with their best choice of airline based on what they want (cheapness, service, speed, etc).

I guess Health & Education are the big public infrastructures which i believe need to be paid for out of general taxation.

I can see private services working well in the Health industry (like France & Germany do) as long as its still free at point of use.

Education it cannot work because learning is intangible, so its hard to quantify SLA's (service level agreements) to a private firm.

[snowychap]

yes lying about leaks, yet the leaks are less than they would be under government control

Are they?

The leaks are less than they were before water privatisation (though leaks peaked under privatisation).

our water is the cleanest its ever been, our bills are cheap (inflation adjusted), and so much of the sewers & pipes are being replaced after 100 years of not doing anything.

Is the increase in the cleanliness of the water to do with privatisation or to do with improved techniques?

Bills - you say they are cheap but how is that measured? Have bills reduced in real terms? Has their rate of increase slowed? Are the annual increases above or below the rate of inflation?

100 years? Should they have been replacing them on a constant basis soon after they were installed (I think that is rather the method at the moment)?

Lets just call them both "generally successful". unless you think they "generally failed"?

I don't think they have been a general success (apart from for the companies making a bucketload of money), no.

Without getting into the absolute mess that the unbundling of metering services has caused with respect to billing problems, the appalling inefficiencies of major utility companies in respect of their IT systems (again the biggest sufferer has been the customer), the ridiculous complexities of the gas and electricity regulation (regulation which is very necessary with so many players and types of players in these markets), privatisation has left the consumer at the whim of suppliers in regard to thir bills.

It is true that bills are generally less than they were before privatisation but consumers, now, tend to carry the burden of the majority of the risk inherent in the volatility of the wholesale costs. Also, as utilities are essential universal services, those who tend to suffer most in the context of volatile prices are those on fixed, low incomes - something about which a privatised industry doesn't really care (unless they affect their bad debt figures).

[snowychap]

Education it cannot work because learning is intangible, so its hard to quantify

I'd tend to agree with you, the government (report cards, grades for schools, etc.) doesn't seem to agree.

[ender4]

Without getting into the absolute mess that the unbundling of metering services has caused with respect to billing problems,

the appalling inefficiencies of major utility companies in respect of their IT systems (again the biggest sufferer has been the customer),

the ridiculous complexities of the gas and electricity regulation (regulation which is very necessary with so many players and types of players in these markets),

privatisation has left the consumer at the whim of suppliers in regard to thir bills.

It is true that bills are generally less than they were before privatisation but consumers, now, tend to carry the burden of the majority of the risk inherent in the volatility of the wholesale costs.

Also, as utilities are essential universal services, those who tend to suffer most in the context of volatile prices are those on fixed, low incomes - something about which a privatised industry doesn't really care (unless they affect their bad debt figures).

you make some good points. i'll split them up in my reply:

unbundling - surely this is just a one-off inefficiency of privatisation. Once unbundled once, it should be smooth thereafter.

IT systems - no worse than any major IT system brought in by the government. I don't think you can use that as a reason not to privatise.

complexities of regulation - well maybe the regulation needs to be tidied up a bit, or maybe its complex so as to protect the consumers? Will this regulation not settle down over time? and is it more complex than the inefficiencies the government had when they owned them.

whim of suppliers - the complex regulations means its not totally at the whim of suppliers. there are rules to follow, and these can be tightened/loosened by any government at any time. surely thats just a failure of the current government not tightening the rules (assuming they need tightening).

Bills less but more risk - well, thats a trade-off. at least the risk being with the customer is better than being with the tax-payer. Surely the lower bills make up for the increased risk to each individual.

Low incomes - fair point, people on low incomes need to be protected. i thought the government already do that through winter payments for elderly and special tariffs for those 'vunerable'. maybe the government needs to tweak this is if its felt some people are slipping the net.

overall, i don't think those are reasons for not privatising though. It sounds like a few tweaks are needed around the edges, rather than a wholesale nationalisation.

[snowychap]

unbundling - surely this is just a one-off inefficiency of privatisation. Once unbundled once, it should be smooth thereafter.

You might have thought so.

However, as with the regulation comment lower down, it tends to be a case of too many cooks.

IT systems - no worse than any major IT system brought in by the government. I don't think you can use that as a reason not to privatise.

Why not?

In fact, it is necessarily an argument against privatisation if, as we keep on hearing, privatisation is about improvement.

complexities of regulation - well maybe the regulation needs to be tidied up a bit, or maybe its complex so as to protect the consumers? Will this regulation not settle down over time? and is it more complex than the inefficiencies the government had when they owned them.

The regulation has to be complex to deal with the proliferation of actors within the drama. Previously, this was not a problem.

whim of suppliers - the complex regulations means its not totally at the whim of suppliers. there are rules to follow, and these can be tightened/loosened by any government at any time. surely thats just a failure of the current government not tightening the rules (assuming they need tightening).

It is back to my previous point. It is both government (in the form of regulators) and the (apparent) market at the heart of the privatised industry.

Bills less but more risk - well, thats a trade-off. at least the risk being with the customer is better than being with the tax-payer. Surely the lower bills make up for the increased risk to each individual.

It's a trade-off with which most, if not all, people can cope when they are not subject to the precipitous price rises that this increased exposure inevitably, at some point, brings.

Unfortunately those time periods when cost increases come flooding through cause immense problems even to the average person (and almost insurmountable problems to those most vulnerable).

Low incomes - fair point, people on low incomes need to be protected. i thought the government already do that through winter payments for elderly and special tariffs for those 'vunerable'. maybe the government needs to tweak this is if its felt some people are slipping the net.

Winter payments do not have much of an effect upon the elderly and their attitude to their use of fuel in order to keep themselves warm.

As for others on low incomes, because they tend to be those more likely to default or those who are even just deemed to be more a risk of being defaulters, a large number are on prepayment meters. There has been a lot of analysis saying that this is more costly per unit than those not on prepayment meters.

overall, i don't think those are reasons for not privatising though. It sounds like a few tweaks are needed around the edges, rather than a wholesale nationalisation.

It's hardly surprising that you think that because your posts have, largely, been '100%' in support of privatisation so I doubt any points which I make critical of it either idealogically (which I haven't done yet) or practically, would sew any seeds of doubt.

[Gringo]

I've always voted labour in every general election, but even i can see that privatisation is beneficial in most (not all) industries.

You're anti-union

You're pro-privatisation

and you vote labour

I don't geddit.

[ender4]

I've always voted labour in every general election, but even i can see that privatisation is beneficial in most (not all) industries.

You're anti-union

You're pro-privatisation

and you vote labour

I don't geddit.

i'm also:

1) pro high taxes

2) pro good public services (health & education) paid out of general taxation

3) pro looking after the vunerable in society

4) I believe in the free-market with proper regulation, rather than total free-market like the Tories.

i guess you could say i'm New Labour, rather than Old Labour.

i was a big supporter of Tony Blair, and i am anti-Cameron.

basically, i guess i have opinions on all aspects of politics, and then i see which party meets the most important of my opinions. To date, that has always been Labour.

Gordon Brown is pushing Labour a bit too left for my liking, but Tories are still way too right for me to vote for them.

[ender4]

You're anti-union

That may be due to circumstance actually.

I'm in management in a large company, where the unions are always threatening to go on strike. In fact, they have just announced another strike ballot today :evil:

and yet we're trying to keep the company afloat, we really aren't trying to screw the workers. I've had my pay frozen just like the rest of the workers, and i lost around £6k in my annual bonus which the workers haven't lost. Yet the union doesn't see that, or the fact that we are currently making a loss.