FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Privatisation - Success story or Disaster?
Privatisation - Success story or Disaster?
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *oo hot OP Couple
over a year ago
North West |
For the general public, it appears from what I can see that privatisation and the “competitive free market” has not delivered any kind of meaningful dividend.
The general public have been exposed to astronomical energy prices increases, we have the most expensive rail tickets in Europe and outside London, the bus services are broadly not fit for purpose.
What is the point of Privatisation if it doesn’t deliver for ordinary people? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"For the general public, it appears from what I can see that privatisation and the “competitive free market” has not delivered any kind of meaningful dividend.
The general public have been exposed to astronomical energy prices increases, we have the most expensive rail tickets in Europe and outside London, the bus services are broadly not fit for purpose.
What is the point of Privatisation if it doesn’t deliver for ordinary people?"
I don’t not believe we have a truly free market. The blank “public” purse cheque books open it up to mate and mates of mates of those in power so the true free market best idea and business wins is always playing second fiddle to what I would refer to as corporate capitalism which is shit imo |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eavenNhellCouple
over a year ago
carrbrook stalybridge |
"For the general public, it appears from what I can see that privatisation and the “competitive free market” has not delivered any kind of meaningful dividend.
The general public have been exposed to astronomical energy prices increases, we have the most expensive rail tickets in Europe and outside London, the bus services are broadly not fit for purpose.
What is the point of Privatisation if it doesn’t deliver for ordinary people?"
the point ? to line the pockets of city types at the expence of the little people but dont "tell sid "  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *9alMan
over a year ago
Bridgend |
"For the general public, it appears from what I can see that privatisation and the “competitive free market” has not delivered any kind of meaningful dividend.
The general public have been exposed to astronomical energy prices increases, we have the most expensive rail tickets in Europe and outside London, the bus services are broadly not fit for purpose.
What is the point of Privatisation if it doesn’t deliver for ordinary people?"
I work for a division of a privatised utility (water) company it is a bad company to work for , so does not deliver for workers or customers just shareholders |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
energy privatisation has been a complete disaster. capitalist economics has told us for decades that when demand increases prices rise ans visa versa.
energy use has declined over the last 3 decades yet the hyper increase of prices has become stratospheric.
the conservative and unionists little experiment in stealing the family silver and selling it back to the family should be ended and replaced with viable model that actually works.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
As a centrist I believe there are good and bad to draw on from both socialism and capitalism.
I think a country and society that cares about its citizens should ensure that the essentials required for life are owned by the state and by extension the people of the state.
That includes utilities, national infrastructure and healthcare. Creating shareholder value in any of these is an oxymoron as that simply extracts value/capital from the industry/sector that could instead be 100% reinvested. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"... utilities, national infrastructure and healthcare. Creating shareholder value in any of these is an oxymoron as that simply extracts value/capital from the industry/sector that could instead be 100% reinvested."
The problem there is that the only other option is to have the government run them. That means the dead hand of control stifling the ability to make any changes, bloated management structures, unmotivated employees, and no reason to innovate.
It all comes down to which is cheaper in the long run. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
That means the dead hand of control stifling the ability to make any changes, bloated management structures, unmotivated employees, and no reason to innovate.
"
that is just wild conjecture on your part rather than being based on any kind of fact whatsoever. project fear as it were. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"... utilities, national infrastructure and healthcare. Creating shareholder value in any of these is an oxymoron as that simply extracts value/capital from the industry/sector that could instead be 100% reinvested.
The problem there is that the only other option is to have the government run them. That means the dead hand of control stifling the ability to make any changes, bloated management structures, unmotivated employees, and no reason to innovate.
It all comes down to which is cheaper in the long run."
Sorry but that is simply no longer true and is a myth often touted by the pro private ownership cadre. That is a view that stems from the 1970s and fed into the privatisation driven through by Thatcher. Yes some aspects of public sector are still not dynamic (mostly due to interference from politicians with short term goals) but there are plenty of slickly run public sector run organisations. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sorry but that is simply no longer true and is a myth often touted by the pro private ownership cadre. That is a view that stems from the 1970s and fed into the privatisation driven through by Thatcher."
My view doesn't seem from the 70s, it comes from my cynical view of human nature. People are greedy and lazy. Give a lazy man an opportunity to loaf off and he will. Give a greedy man an opportunity to make money and he'll take it.
To make a company lean and efficient, you need a greedy man at the top to squeeze all the costs out so that he makes the most profit. Without the greedy man doing that, the lazy man will loaf around knowing that he'll get paid anyway, leading to inefficiency and wastage.
But let's assume that I am too cynical. You acknowledge that there was a problem in the 70s, and say that it is "no longer true". What do you think has changed since then that will prevent it from happening again? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Sorry but that is simply no longer true and is a myth often touted by the pro private ownership cadre. That is a view that stems from the 1970s and fed into the privatisation driven through by Thatcher.
My view doesn't seem from the 70s, it comes from my cynical view of human nature. People are greedy and lazy. Give a lazy man an opportunity to loaf off and he will. Give a greedy man an opportunity to make money and he'll take it.
To make a company lean and efficient, you need a greedy man at the top to squeeze all the costs out so that he makes the most profit. Without the greedy man doing that, the lazy man will loaf around knowing that he'll get paid anyway, leading to inefficiency and wastage.
But let's assume that I am too cynical. You acknowledge that there was a problem in the 70s, and say that it is "no longer true". What do you think has changed since then that will prevent it from happening again?"
For the most part the progression of technology. My exposure to the Civil Service is that it is far more efficient than historically. The lazyness of public sector workers is a hackneyed trope.
Just a few well run organisations in public ownership - HMPO, VOSA, DVLA, East Coast Mainline, DBS, HM Land Registry.
You won’t agree. I don’t really care. Profit should have no place in organisations necessary for the basic needs in life for citizens. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hot OP Couple
over a year ago
North West |
"... utilities, national infrastructure and healthcare. Creating shareholder value in any of these is an oxymoron as that simply extracts value/capital from the industry/sector that could instead be 100% reinvested.
The problem there is that the only other option is to have the government run them. That means the dead hand of control stifling the ability to make any changes, bloated management structures, unmotivated employees, and no reason to innovate.
It all comes down to which is cheaper in the long run."
State owned does not have to mean Government run. There are examples right across the world where the State owns and delivers services and those entities are not at risk of interference every time there is an election.
It is possibly to modify an opinion that is wholly based on Britains experience in the 1970’s.
Utilities, transport and all essential services in a country should be owned by the people, for the people. The privatisation experiment has not delivered for ordinary people and that surely must be the acid test?
Andy Burnham made the point absolutely perfectly on Twitter with his transport cost tweets and all the numb nuts predictably fell into the trap he laid for them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"My exposure to the Civil Service is that it is far more efficient than historically. The lazyness of public sector workers is a hackneyed trope."
We obviously have different experiences. I regularly have to deal with civil servants, almost always for 'compliance'. I estimate that I spend 2-3 hours a week working on various required documents to demonstrate my company's compliance with obscure regulations. I work in an industry where incompetence is the standard. No one wants to fix it because the government is paying, and the company makes a profit on each person assigned to the project.
I hope that your experience is more representative of how civil servants work nowadays, but it isn't what I see.
Thanks for the examples of well-run departments. I'll look into them.
"Andy Burnham made the point absolutely perfectly on Twitter with his transport cost tweets"
Could you please give me a link to those tweets? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hot OP Couple
over a year ago
North West |
"My exposure to the Civil Service is that it is far more efficient than historically. The lazyness of public sector workers is a hackneyed trope.
We obviously have different experiences. I regularly have to deal with civil servants, almost always for 'compliance'. I estimate that I spend 2-3 hours a week working on various required documents to demonstrate my company's compliance with obscure regulations. I work in an industry where incompetence is the standard. No one wants to fix it because the government is paying, and the company makes a profit on each person assigned to the project.
I hope that your experience is more representative of how civil servants work nowadays, but it isn't what I see.
Thanks for the examples of well-run departments. I'll look into them.
Andy Burnham made the point absolutely perfectly on Twitter with his transport cost tweets
Could you please give me a link to those tweets?"
Just look for Andy Burnham’s Twitter feed. It’s all there. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"My exposure to the Civil Service is that it is far more efficient than historically. The lazyness of public sector workers is a hackneyed trope.
We obviously have different experiences. I regularly have to deal with civil servants, almost always for 'compliance'. I estimate that I spend 2-3 hours a week working on various required documents to demonstrate my company's compliance with obscure regulations. I work in an industry where incompetence is the standard. No one wants to fix it because the government is paying, and the company makes a profit on each person assigned to the project.
I hope that your experience is more representative of how civil servants work nowadays, but it isn't what I see.
Thanks for the examples of well-run departments. I'll look into them.
Andy Burnham made the point absolutely perfectly on Twitter with his transport cost tweets
Could you please give me a link to those tweets?"
Without a shadow of a doubt there is waste in the public sector but for the most part my observations (having worked both sides of the fence) is that the majority of “waste” (often grossly overpaying) is where the public sector has outsourced to the private sector for some aspects of their services.
A perfect example of this is hospitals and schools getting rid of their caretakers (to reduce payroll and pension contributions) and outsourcing to facilities management companies. They them find themselves grossly overcharged for the simplest of activities such as changing lightbulbs. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I can't stand Andy Burnham, but he's right about train fares.
The rail privatisation was a terrible mistake. It was obvious that giving a group of companies a monopoly on their area would be a bad idea. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"I can't stand Andy Burnham, but he's right about train fares.
The rail privatisation was a terrible mistake. It was obvious that giving a group of companies a monopoly on their area would be a bad idea."
Privatisation can work when there are clearly opportunities for competition and the Government can ensure that the creation of a cartel is prevented. The trains are a perfect example of where there could be no competition (only one train can be on a piece of track at a specific moment) so an utter nonsense. The East Coast Mainline failed (twice I think) under private ownership and had to be taken back into state ownership, it then started making a profit! Go figure?
BT can be private because competition for phone and broadband is fierce.
British Gas, Water Companies, Electric Companies not so as they are essential for life (and in most cases the “product” they are selling is generated/produced from the land that is supposedly the state to which we are citizens anyway! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"For the general public, it appears from what I can see that privatisation and the “competitive free market” has not delivered any kind of meaningful dividend.
The general public have been exposed to astronomical energy prices increases, we have the most expensive rail tickets in Europe and outside London, the bus services are broadly not fit for purpose.
What is the point of Privatisation if it doesn’t deliver for ordinary people?"
Definitely pro's and con's for both as far as I see it. Before the energy crisis I would often switch gas and electricity suppliers, sometimes yearly to get the best deal. Also I had a bad experience with a companies so called service so was easy enough to ditch them and find a better company. If they go public, would it still be lots of companies so we can shop around or only one choice |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sorry but that is simply no longer true and is a myth often touted by the pro private ownership cadre. That is a view that stems from the 1970s and fed into the privatisation driven through by Thatcher.
My view doesn't seem from the 70s, it comes from my cynical view of human nature. People are greedy and lazy. Give a lazy man an opportunity to loaf off and he will. Give a greedy man an opportunity to make money and he'll take it.
To make a company lean and efficient, you need a greedy man at the top to squeeze all the costs out so that he makes the most profit. Without the greedy man doing that, the lazy man will loaf around knowing that he'll get paid anyway, leading to inefficiency and wastage.
But let's assume that I am too cynical. You acknowledge that there was a problem in the 70s, and say that it is "no longer true". What do you think has changed since then that will prevent it from happening again?
For the most part the progression of technology. My exposure to the Civil Service is that it is far more efficient than historically. The lazyness of public sector workers is a hackneyed trope.
Just a few well run organisations in public ownership - HMPO, VOSA, DVLA, East Coast Mainline, DBS, HM Land Registry.
You won’t agree. I don’t really care. Profit should have no place in organisations necessary for the basic needs in life for citizens."
. Drivers waiting for their licences are unlikely to regard the DVLA as being a well run organisation. Staff continue to work from home and show little concern for those whose livlihood is at risk due to the failure of the DVLA to process their applications promptly. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hot OP Couple
over a year ago
North West |
"Sorry but that is simply no longer true and is a myth often touted by the pro private ownership cadre. That is a view that stems from the 1970s and fed into the privatisation driven through by Thatcher.
My view doesn't seem from the 70s, it comes from my cynical view of human nature. People are greedy and lazy. Give a lazy man an opportunity to loaf off and he will. Give a greedy man an opportunity to make money and he'll take it.
To make a company lean and efficient, you need a greedy man at the top to squeeze all the costs out so that he makes the most profit. Without the greedy man doing that, the lazy man will loaf around knowing that he'll get paid anyway, leading to inefficiency and wastage.
But let's assume that I am too cynical. You acknowledge that there was a problem in the 70s, and say that it is "no longer true". What do you think has changed since then that will prevent it from happening again?
For the most part the progression of technology. My exposure to the Civil Service is that it is far more efficient than historically. The lazyness of public sector workers is a hackneyed trope.
Just a few well run organisations in public ownership - HMPO, VOSA, DVLA, East Coast Mainline, DBS, HM Land Registry.
You won’t agree. I don’t really care. Profit should have no place in organisations necessary for the basic needs in life for citizens. . Drivers waiting for their licences are unlikely to regard the DVLA as being a well run organisation. Staff continue to work from home and show little concern for those whose livlihood is at risk due to the failure of the DVLA to process their applications promptly. "
Working from home is more productive than senselessly commuting. Who are you really Pat? JRM? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sorry but that is simply no longer true and is a myth often touted by the pro private ownership cadre. That is a view that stems from the 1970s and fed into the privatisation driven through by Thatcher.
My view doesn't seem from the 70s, it comes from my cynical view of human nature. People are greedy and lazy. Give a lazy man an opportunity to loaf off and he will. Give a greedy man an opportunity to make money and he'll take it.
To make a company lean and efficient, you need a greedy man at the top to squeeze all the costs out so that he makes the most profit. Without the greedy man doing that, the lazy man will loaf around knowing that he'll get paid anyway, leading to inefficiency and wastage.
But let's assume that I am too cynical. You acknowledge that there was a problem in the 70s, and say that it is "no longer true". What do you think has changed since then that will prevent it from happening again?
For the most part the progression of technology. My exposure to the Civil Service is that it is far more efficient than historically. The lazyness of public sector workers is a hackneyed trope.
Just a few well run organisations in public ownership - HMPO, VOSA, DVLA, East Coast Mainline, DBS, HM Land Registry.
You won’t agree. I don’t really care. Profit should have no place in organisations necessary for the basic needs in life for citizens."
. In the East Coast mainline I do not think many members of the public had any complaints about how the train operating companies ran the service. The main issue was how the tender process was set and commitments to make unrealistic payments to the government which were not justified by revenues collected . National Express are an exceptionally successfull bus company as are Stagecoach . I doubt any public company would provide such a service on a stand alone basis.
You only have to look at the salaries paid to tube drivers and other staff by TFL. The salaries are totally unjustified and the working public subject to disruptive actions and intimidation by striking tube staff . Their strikes have prevented members of the public being able to travel to work . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"My exposure to the Civil Service is that it is far more efficient than historically. The lazyness of public sector workers is a hackneyed trope.
We obviously have different experiences. I regularly have to deal with civil servants, almost always for 'compliance'. I estimate that I spend 2-3 hours a week working on various required documents to demonstrate my company's compliance with obscure regulations. I work in an industry where incompetence is the standard. No one wants to fix it because the government is paying, and the company makes a profit on each person assigned to the project.
I hope that your experience is more representative of how civil servants work nowadays, but it isn't what I see.
Thanks for the examples of well-run departments. I'll look into them.
Andy Burnham made the point absolutely perfectly on Twitter with his transport cost tweets
Could you please give me a link to those tweets?
Without a shadow of a doubt there is waste in the public sector but for the most part my observations (having worked both sides of the fence) is that the majority of “waste” (often grossly overpaying) is where the public sector has outsourced to the private sector for some aspects of their services.
A perfect example of this is hospitals and schools getting rid of their caretakers (to reduce payroll and pension contributions) and outsourcing to facilities management companies. They them find themselves grossly overcharged for the simplest of activities such as changing lightbulbs. "
Another perfect example is defence procurement.
Capitalism can and does work, though.
It's just that, lately, it's stopped working for too many people, in terms of enabling them to make a decent living.
Rather, they work to survive, with very little chance of their circumstances improving; no matter how hard they work.
If you've got people working more than one job and still needing to use food banks - and the UK does - then the version of capitalism in use needs to be abandoned, in favour of a better one. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sorry but that is simply no longer true and is a myth often touted by the pro private ownership cadre. That is a view that stems from the 1970s and fed into the privatisation driven through by Thatcher.
My view doesn't seem from the 70s, it comes from my cynical view of human nature. People are greedy and lazy. Give a lazy man an opportunity to loaf off and he will. Give a greedy man an opportunity to make money and he'll take it.
To make a company lean and efficient, you need a greedy man at the top to squeeze all the costs out so that he makes the most profit. Without the greedy man doing that, the lazy man will loaf around knowing that he'll get paid anyway, leading to inefficiency and wastage.
But let's assume that I am too cynical. You acknowledge that there was a problem in the 70s, and say that it is "no longer true". What do you think has changed since then that will prevent it from happening again?
For the most part the progression of technology. My exposure to the Civil Service is that it is far more efficient than historically. The lazyness of public sector workers is a hackneyed trope.
Just a few well run organisations in public ownership - HMPO, VOSA, DVLA, East Coast Mainline, DBS, HM Land Registry.
You won’t agree. I don’t really care. Profit should have no place in organisations necessary for the basic needs in life for citizens.. In the East Coast mainline I do not think many members of the public had any complaints about how the train operating companies ran the service. The main issue was how the tender process was set and commitments to make unrealistic payments to the government which were not justified by revenues collected . National Express are an exceptionally successfull bus company as are Stagecoach . I doubt any public company would provide such a service on a stand alone basis.
You only have to look at the salaries paid to tube drivers and other staff by TFL. The salaries are totally unjustified and the working public subject to disruptive actions and intimidation by striking tube staff . Their strikes have prevented members of the public being able to travel to work . "
You should start a pro Tory satirical on line news paper like The Onion. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"For the general public, it appears from what I can see that privatisation and the “competitive free market” has not delivered any kind of meaningful dividend.
The general public have been exposed to astronomical energy prices increases, we have the most expensive rail tickets in Europe and outside London, the bus services are broadly not fit for purpose.
What is the point of Privatisation if it doesn’t deliver for ordinary people?"
Privatisation is done to give the consumer more choice and to stop having one company hold a monopoly. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"For the general public, it appears from what I can see that privatisation and the “competitive free market” has not delivered any kind of meaningful dividend.
The general public have been exposed to astronomical energy prices increases, we have the most expensive rail tickets in Europe and outside London, the bus services are broadly not fit for purpose.
What is the point of Privatisation if it doesn’t deliver for ordinary people?
Privatisation is done to give the consumer more choice and to stop having one company hold a monopoly. "
Supposedly but the reality is that the Government sells off the state assets that we the people already own at discounted prices to create opportunities to enrich future shareholders by having private ownership over services that the citizen has no choice but to consume in order to live! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
