Is privatisation all it's cracked up to be?

ukcarper

Generali wrote: »

Hmm. A return to a 18 month wait for a telephone line and you have to rent your phone off the Post Office? No thanks.

Would it be like that now I doubt it and you might get through to someone who knows what they are doing when you report a fault.

shortchanged_2

Generali wrote: »

Even where privatised companies have been less than brilliant, the Nationalised equivalent was dreadful.

British Rail was a national joke, British Gas was a byword for bad service, electric companies were slow and inefficient.

But would it have to be this way these days? Things have moved on, technology has improved things. Things generally are much more efficient these days.

Are utility companies that great today? Isn't it funny how so many people are with British Gas these days because they trust the name, even though they are one of the most expensive and their customer service isn't great.

JWF

If Utility companies are that bad when they face competition (supposedly) from each other, imagine what service a nationalised monopoly would.

I can hardly wait.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

That's a direct result of recent Ofcom action in July 2014 which was bought on due to the long waits.

Many caveats to it though.

Their KPI was 3 weeks before this. It's 15 days now and it'll be 12 days in 2016.

The stuff of dreams in the '70's. No doubt the exceptions will continue to be used to prove the rule though.

shortchanged_2

wotsthat wrote: »

Why don't you do some research for a change and find out?

Worth pointing out that government could just stop or reduce passenger subsidies. Nationalisation is like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut and, of course, wouldn't mean an end to passenger subsidies in itself.

Here we are.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rail-subsidy-per-passenger-mile

This is what I don't get really in that the government have been subsidising the railways for years to the tune of billions and yet these companies pay out to share holders. Surely this can't be right.

wotsthat

shortchanged wrote: »

But would it have to be this way these days? Things have moved on, technology has improved things. Things generally are much more efficient these days.

It's more basic than that. Do you think politicians are capable of running businesses more profitably, with better service levels and in the best interests of the taxpayer?

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Their KPI was 3 weeks before this. It's 15 days now and it'll be 12 days in 2016.

The stuff of dreams in the '70's. No doubt the exceptions will continue to be used to prove the rule though.

I think the real issue is that there are pros and cons to privatisation.

In this country, the utility companies are privatised for profit purposes, but many receive subsidies and have to put up with interference from the government.

Look at South West Water for example. Each customer receiving a £50 subsidy direct from the government. As widely expected, on average, South West Water bills went up £50 the following year. The profits are swallowed by share holders and more grants are coming from the taxpayer to help with the water distribution network.

I don't see much point in these once nationalised companies turning into private companies where shareholders take the profits, but the government still have to chip in subsidies.

IronWolf

Surely we should have the best of both worlds, private companies competing with public entities for the contracts.

wotsthat

shortchanged wrote: »

Here we are.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rail-subsidy-per-passenger-mile

This is what I don't get really in that the government have been subsidising the railways for years to the tune of billions and yet these companies pay out to share holders. Surely this can't be right.

Yet you think the same politicians that decided this is the best way forward are somehow sufficiently qualified to run a nationalised railway system.

shortchanged_2

wotsthat wrote: »

Yet you think the same politicians that decided this is the best way forward are somehow sufficiently qualified to run a nationalised railway system.

Can I win this argument wotsthat?