Water nationalisation.

[steeleye20]

Over 90% of the population in the polls cannot be wrong.

I found the environment secretary Steve Reids statement that it would cost over 100 billions incredulous, water was gifted away to the private companies, he is like the rivers, full of s**t.

It's a pity Thatcher is not around for us to bill her for all the damage.

Prof Murphy rescue me with some details:-

😎

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

Nationalisation would be popular. The current situation is a joke.
The government has to pave the way for more reservoirs for a start.

Our water bill went up dramatically this quarter, and then we got a hose pipe ban.

This is England. It rains all the time. Stop paying shareholders and fix the system.

 

[georgenorman]

Certainly utilities such as water should be state owned. They are natural monopolies which is largely why private ownership without competition doesn’t work well. They are essential public services that need to be in this country’s control. However, when in state ownership they will still be run badly and inefficiently and the consumer will pay through the nose. The final irony is that those most in favour of such nationalisations are also those most in favour of rejoicing the EU whose laws make it difficult.

 

[cryrst]

I read or heard somewhere that the uk should have 30 more reservoirs to supply the population. Problem being NIMBYs stopping them being built.

 

[DanH]

Certainly utilities such as water should be state owned. They are natural monopolies which is largely why private ownership without competition doesn’t work well. They are essential public services that need to be in this country’s control. However, when in state ownership they will still be run badly and inefficiently and the consumer will pay through the nose. The final irony is that those most in favour of such nationalisations are also those most in favour of rejoicing the EU whose laws make it difficult.

Hippie.

(You’re right)

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Thames Water and their fragrant theft of public money is one of the biggest political scandals of recent decades, and all the proof we should need of how ridiculous leaving our national infrastructure and resources in the hands of 'the markets' is.

 

[beak]

I cannot see this happening on financial grounds.Jailing the water bosses would assuage public opinion.

 

[Badger11]

I would let Thames Water go bust. The government should then nationalise it without any compensation to the debtors.

As for the other water companies re-nationalising them would be too expensive and a waste of taxpayers money, better to ensure that they do their jobs properly.

 

[georgenorman]

Thames Water and their fragrant theft of public money is one of the biggest political scandals of recent decades, and all the proof we should need of how ridiculous leaving our national infrastructure and resources in the hands of 'the markets' is.

Whereas leaving our national infrastructure and resources in the hands of 'government' works really well.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Whereas leaving our national infrastructure and resources in the hands of 'government' works really well.

Yes, in much of the developed world it does - see France, Germany, Netherlands, Norway etc.

Even in Scotland, public satisfaction and environmental performance are considerably better than we have here.

Just another example where your ideology has failed disastrously in pretty much every metric.

 

[georgenorman]

Yes, in much of the developed world it does - see France, Germany, Netherlands, Norway etc.

Even in Scotland, public satisfaction and environmental performance are considerably better than we have here.

Just another example where your ideology has failed disastrously in pretty much every metric.

Don't know how old you are but I was around in the 1970s when a great deal was nationalised - poor service, poor quality, high prices and loads of strikes.
Do you want full-scale nationalisation? Have you been to Cuba for example? A characteristic of countries with such economies was the large number of people trying to escape from them to go to Capitalist countries.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Don't know how old you are but I was around in the 1970s when a great deal was nationalised - poor service, poor quality, high prices and loads of strikes.
Do you want full-scale nationalisation? Have you been to Cuba for example?

A lot can change in 50 years - nationalisation is not a guarantee of success in itself, it's obviously dependent on decent management, governance and sufficient investment.

But those are achievable things - far more achievable than ever believing than private shareholders and corporate greed are going to prioritise anything other than it's own pockets, as we've watched happen over the last few decades.

Netherlands have full-scale water nationalisation and it's a resounding success.

 

[Badger11]

Privatisation only works when there is competition e.g. BT or BA.

I would love to get my water from anyone but Thames, never going to happen so the customer is stuck.

BA and BT have struggled with privatisation but they have been forced to make hard choices because the public can and do look elsewhere.

I am not a fan of nationalisation but some things should remain state owned.

 

[georgenorman]

A lot can change in 50 years - nationalisation is not a guarantee of success in itself, it's obviously dependent on decent management, governance and sufficient investment.

But those are achievable things - far more achievable than ever believing than private shareholders and corporate greed are going to prioritise anything other than it's own pockets, as we've watched happen over the last few decades.

Netherlands have full-scale water nationalisation and it's a resounding success.

I think water should be nationalised as it is a natural monopoly. Private enterprise works because of competiton and the profit motive. If your product is poor or your price too high, the consumer goes elsewhere - you can't do that with water or other utlilites. That does not of course mean that a nationalised water industry will be any more efficient, of high quality or cost effective. Most strikes are in the public sector because the unions know that they don't risk bankrupting the employer. (What's wrong with shareholders by the way? They help fund companies.)

 

[CPFCSaturn]

I think water should be nationalised as it is a natural monopoly. Private enterprise works because of competiton and the profit motive. If your product is poor or your price too high, the consumer goes elsewhere - you can't do that with water or other utlilites. That does not of course mean that a nationalised water industry will be any more efficient, of high quality or cost effective. Most strikes are in the public sector because the unions know that they don't risk bankrupting the employer. (What's wrong with shareholders by the way? They help fund companies.)

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.

 

[georgenorman]

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.

Certainly more public employees are in unions. They are still responsible for most employment unrest because, as I have said, there are no real consequences for their irresponsibility, eg: Junior Doctors, Birmingham dustmen, teachers etc.
Many public sector jobs have equivalents in the private sector - mediocre people often gravitate to the public sector.
(We 'agree' on water because there is no real alternative - the service will still be pretty awful.)

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Certainly more public employees are in unions. They are still responsible for most employment unrest because, as I have said, there are no real consequences for their irresponsibility, eg: Junior Doctors, Birmingham dustmen, teachers etc.
(We 'agree' on water because there is no real alternative - the service will still be pretty awful.)

Just fundamentally disagree there is anything 'irresponsible' in leveraging the only thing available to you in order to secure decent employment terms, but that's for another day.

No, there absolutely is an alternative on water - I've provided you real-world examples of those alternatives which have been markedly more successful - you just seem hesitant to accept that reality, presumably because it's at odds with your wider ideology.

 

[georgenorman]

Just fundamentally disagree there is anything 'irresponsible' in leveraging the only thing available to you in order to secure decent employment terms, but that's for another day.

No, there absolutely is an alternative on water - I've provided you real-world examples of those alternatives which have been markedly more successful - you just seem hesitant to accept that reality, presumably because it's at odds with your wider ideology.

They are already well paid and have very decent employment terms but are prepared to put peoples' lives at risk to get more. Yet the NHS is a public enterprise, you think it would be great with no such problems wouldn't you?
If nationalisation is so great, why don't we outlaw all private business and have the state run everything? Would there be any drawbacks?

 

[CPFCSaturn]

They are already well paid and have very decent employment terms but are prepared to put peoples' lives at risk to get more. Yet the NHS is a public enterprise, you think it would be great with no such problems wouldn't you?
If nationalisation is so great, why don't we outlaw all private business and have the state run everything? Would there be any drawbacks?

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.

 

[becky]

I think water should be nationalised as it is a natural monopoly. Private enterprise works because of competiton and the profit motive. If your product is poor or your price too high, the consumer goes elsewhere - you can't do that with water or other utlilites. That does not of course mean that a nationalised water industry will be any more efficient, of high quality or cost effective. Most strikes are in the public sector because the unions know that they don't risk bankrupting the employer. (What's wrong with shareholders by the way? They help fund companies.)

Many of them also expect perpetual year-on-year increases in the dividends they receive for doing so. Once upon a time you only got dividends in the 'good' years after ALL the company's responsibilities (provisions for infrastructure update and repairs included) had been met and there was still a surplus profit to distribute.

This was also how the shareholders ensured that the company was well run by its' board, so there were more good than bad years!