Water nationalisation.

[georgenorman]

I'm not sure why you revert to such low-level tropes when you get lost in an exchange.

I haven't said 'nationalisation is so great' nor have I suggested anything like 'outlawing all private businesses' - those are straw mans and things a teenager might debate. I've clearly already said nationalisation is not a guarantee of success and certainly not appropriate across all sectors.

But we've already agreed that it is appropriate in some.

I've provided real-world examples of a nationalised water models which produce far better outcomes than our privatised ones - you continue to ignore the point.

What are we arguing about exactly? I have agreed that water should be nationalised, I just don't think it would be run much better than it is now.
What do you think the drawbacks of nationalisation are? Why is it not appropriate across all sectors?
Teenagers have the vote - more of them soon - you shouldn't generalise about them.
I'm sure we could both provide examples of good and bad private and public services - how is North Korea's water industry?

 

[Putitout]

Top 10 countries where public ownership is totally normal | We Own It

Public ownership is flourishing across Europe!

weownit.org.uk

No sign of North Korea,. Nationalisation not a dirty word but a very sensible way of stopping speculators becoming the biggest beneficiaries of the marketing of ,water , Power, and in some cases public services.
Privatisation has its place, but it has to earn its place, by giving high levels of service, most modern societies apply this model without any comparisons to communism.

 

[georgenorman]

Top 10 countries where public ownership is totally normal | We Own It

Public ownership is flourishing across Europe!

weownit.org.uk

No sign of North Korea,. Nationalisation not a dirty word but a very sensible way of stopping speculators becoming the biggest beneficiaries of the marketing of ,water , Power, and in some cases public services.
Privatisation has its place, but it has to earn its place, by giving high levels of service, most modern societies apply this model without any comparisons to communism.

It's rather that Nationalisation has its place. Capitalism is the lifeblood of a successful, free democracy.

 

[steeleye20]

I'm not sure why you revert to such low-level tropes when you get lost in an exchange.

I haven't said 'nationalisation is so great' nor have I suggested anything like 'outlawing all private businesses' - those are straw mans and things a teenager might debate. I've clearly already said nationalisation is not a guarantee of success and certainly not appropriate across all sectors.

But we've already agreed that it is appropriate in some.

I've provided real-world examples of a nationalised water models which produce far better outcomes than our privatised ones - you continue to ignore the point.

Scottish water is not polluted more than ours, the enironment secretary is a wally.

And ours is the only 100% privatised water and sewage country in the world, it is a racket.

Really its licensed banditry, and governments just line up for more.

Why do they trust the water companies we want all our money back, stick them in clink.

😎

 

[grumpymort]

Lets say we nationalize this what will happen they will just contract it out to the same people who are running it now.

The govt are terrible at managing anything.

What we need is competition and people to be punished when they do wrong our so called bodies which are suppose to be about consumers are puppets.

 

[Putitout]

It's rather that Nationalisation has its place. Capitalism is the lifeblood of a successful, free democracy.

A little over 70% of all shares in our water industry are owned by foreign interests, that means 70% of dividends have gone to foreign ,banks, off shore accounts, other governments etc, etc.
Capitalism in this instance can hardly be seen purely in the context of the life blood of our democracy.

 

[cryrst]

Ok, we agree on water and utilities (I think).

Most strikes are in the public sector because a) most private workers don't belong to a union or have any collective bargaining power and b) public sector pay has generally stagnated more than private sector wages.

If I want a pay rise, I can ask my boss or I can apply for other jobs in my field - public sector workers generally don't have that luxury.

They are able to apply for other jobs though. If you don’t like your job get a different one. Or just maybe the end of the employment is why they are civil servants !

 

[georgenorman]

A little over 70% of all shares in our water industry are owned by foreign interests, that means 70% of dividends have gone to foreign ,banks, off shore accounts, other governments etc, etc.
Capitalism in this instance can hardly be seen purely in the context of the life blood of our democracy.

My point was that Capitalism generates the wealth that funds services in a free, successful democracy. The attempts in the past, and still in a few countries, to do without Capitalism have resulted in the impoverishment (and worse) of the very people that are supposed to benefit from Socialism/Communism.