Correct. From what has been said NI water has invested less than privatised companies here. Anglian Water, my area, have been renewing miles of water pipe from metal to plastic, less prone to bursts.
My water company has been doing the same, ripping out Victorian era pipework (IIRC that's what their advertising bumpf said) and replacing it with new.
But my water company is also notorious for charging the highest rates in the country. At least their network is up to scratch, I guess.
We also haven't had any Thames Water style hosepipe bans due to a network that approaches a colander in effiency.
I think it's a bit more difficult to tell how good privatised utilities are compared to nationalised.
For British Rail to the current companies on the network there are some comparisons that can be made by passengers using the services, cost, time of travel, etc. These are identifiable things.
For water, of course we have quality and constant supply but beyond that there's not much visibility right?
So I find it hard to be sure what is happening in NI would have happened any differently if it wasn't privatised.
But if the service to the comsumer is no good what is the point?
Or doesn't the consumer matter? - well come to think of it, remebering back to the days of mass nationalisation, no the consumer didn't matter
Apparently not. Southern Water were fined £20.3m for overcharging and deception in 2007. No refunds to deceived and overcharged customers were forthcoming and it was customers who paid the fine through water charges.
BTW, I remember the pre-nationalisation days and the customer did matter back then too. OK you might have had to hang on a bit longer on the phone, but at least the call would have been free. You also didn't get people calling at your door trying to miss-sell you their services.
The main problems with the privatisations of the 80s was that they were sold below their real value and then some of the privatised companies (e.g. Thames Water) made donations to the Tory party in return. Corruption in everything but name!
After working taking calls for a private housing association I can confirm with that private sector is as bad and incompetent as the public sector.
Unfortunately, few organisations seem to take pride in the quality of their service. They give us the service they can get away with, and that's true of both public and private.
That's not to say that some individuals within organisations don't try their best.
As to the premise of the OP, it might just work if he shows that the Scottish water system - publicly owned - had also collapsed so badly.
As I was able to shower & have a cup of tea today, I suspect it didn't - especially as the Socialised Publicly Owned Scottish Water is sending water to NI - which is more than the private sector is able to do.
Therefore it must be true that Public Water is superior to Private Water? Or does this prove that Scottish Water is wasteful for having that much excess capacity
Or is it more likely that NI water has been run, like most water companies by a bunch of fools who won't spend a penny (heh heh) on maintenance unless the government uses a figurative cattle prod on their collective genitalia
Scottish Water is benchmarked against English water companies so is subject to a degree of competition. But the big problem for Scottish Water is capital for investment. Any borrowing by a nationalised industry is counted as public sector borrowing - which is always for difficult, not just in the current circumstances. Hence it has been mooted up here that Scottish Water will be privatised to an extent or possibly mutualised - because the Scottish Government simply cannot afford the investment the company requires by itself. Privatisation does not automatically mean for-profit (as Network Rail or Glas Cymru, the welsh water provider).
There's bad private control of utilities and bad state control.
Bad management is bad management whoever does it.
And this:
Quite.
The problem with privatization is that usually still 1 only 1 company on the job so a monopoly prone to going stale without competition. There aren't many businesses that no competition works.
if your going to privatize utilities you need at least 2 company's in the running and the contract is always up for renewal every few years. That way you have company's trying to offer you a proper level of service or an improved level of service as efficiently as possible.
The big problem with nationalised industries (including the utilities) was that the government would or could not stump up the cash to invest in those industries. Which is why much of the water system became so dilapidated.
Since privatisation the utility companies have been investing large amount of money to upgrade their networks. Unfortunately for the water companies large amounts of the infrastructure is over 100 years old so it is going to take a long time for this all to be done.
If the utilities had not been privatised you can guarantee that only a fraction of the work would have been done.
I find it odd that, with so many "businessmen / businesswomen" in Parliament (on both sides), and throughout history, that they are universally a-bit-rubbish at running nationalised industries
I find it odd that, with so many "businessmen / businesswomen" in Parliament (on both sides), and throughout history, that they are universally a-bit-rubbish at running nationalised industries
I don't think it's anything to do with them, but all to do with the monopoly they hold and the unions that brings.
The problem with the privatised 'utilities', is we don't know what state they would be in now, if there were not privatised.
Does anyone actually think government after government would think them a soft target for cuts? I certainly do.
There are no separate water charges here which is partially why its been underfunded... it is funded, along with many other services, through the Rates money. There's been talk about getting a separate water charge based on usage but its met a lot of competition. Maybe this will mean it will be finally introduced
Correct. From what has been said NI water has invested less than privatised companies here. Anglian Water, my area, have been renewing miles of water pipe from metal to plastic, less prone to bursts.
Anglian water had to that.
Ofwat forced them to by capping price increases until they got the leakage rate down to reasonable levels.
Some areas under Anglian Water control had 50% leakage rates; that's epic levels of mismanagement.
I find it odd that, with so many "businessmen / businesswomen" in Parliament (on both sides), and throughout history, that they are universally a-bit-rubbish at running nationalised industries
You do realise that MPs didn't actually run nationalised industry. Maybe it was before your time? They were run by boards (i.e. professional managers) appointed by parliament.
As to the premise of the OP, it might just work if he shows that the Scottish water system - publicly owned - had also collapsed so badly.
Well the premise is that nationalisation is not the nirvana that some people think
Or is it more likely that NI water has been run, like most water companies by a bunch of fools who won't spend a penny (heh heh) on maintenance unless the government uses a figurative cattle prod on their collective genitalia
But how do you solve the problem with a Nationalsied company that is reliant on Government spending?. It's easy to 'prod' a private company to invest more but far harder for a Government to force a Nationalised compnay to spend more if they (the Government) are having to supply the investment.
As we saw with the nationalised industries, it was decades of slow decline due to to underinvestment (by all governments).
It's easy to 'prod' a private company to invest more but far harder for a Government to force a Nationalised compnay to spend more if they (the Government) are having to supply the investment.
Is it harder, I would have thought that setting the same rules for public & private sector would be equally effective - especially if the public sector organisation is run at arms-length like in NI. Scottish Water isn't having these problems so either it's being lucky (unlikely given the weather in the past month) or that it is being run effectively - whether by government or organisation diktat.
You do realise that MPs didn't actually run nationalised industry. Maybe it was before your time? They were run by boards (i.e. professional managers) appointed by parliament.
Thanks for that allafix - not before my time but before I had any interest in politics
You do realise that MPs didn't actually run nationalised industry. Maybe it was before your time? They were run by boards (i.e. professional managers) appointed by parliament.
However, typically they didn't do a very good job (British Leyland?). The management were effectively civil servants who knew their jobs were safe regardless of performance and that there was no incentive to make a profit as it would just be swallowed up by the Treasury.
Well past experience with nationalised undustries would suggest so.
Take the railways - 50 years of decline when they were nationalised. Since privatisation (which was done using the wrong model) the private sector copmpanies have been forced to invest - would the same level of investment have happened if they had remained in the public sector? - experience tells us no.
Ofwat forced them to by capping price increases until they got the leakage rate down to reasonable levels.
Some areas under Anglian Water control had 50% leakage rates; that's epic levels of mismanagement.
Do you know the leakage rates before it was made a private company in 1989? I suspect it was probably high then as the system was an antiquated mess when it was privatised.
However, typically they didn't do a very good job (British Leyland?). The management were effectively civil servants who knew their jobs were safe regardless of performance and that there was no incentive to make a profit as it would just be swallowed up by the Treasury.
Poor example. The companies concerned were failing before they were nationalised (as a last resort to save jobs). Nor was BL run in the same was as the utilities.
I'd say the CEGB did a pretty good job, as did British Gas. If British Rail had been given the funds the privatised companies were given they'd have run a better service too. The problem with nationalised industries was always the dead hand of the Treasury trying to control the purse strings and limiting investment on service improvements. Had BR, for example, been allowed to borrow on the commercial market things might have been very different.
At least when its state run its being run for the benefit of the country Private companies dont invest so that they can f*ck up, lose all their money and lay people off, isnt in foreign hands does that really make SO much of a difference, is accountable to the public who do you think shareholders are? & isnt doling out massive salaries to its top brass lol you dont reckon the council/governemtn top brass dont get paid similar to private? Public sector jobs are coveted for that reason alone! at the expense of the customers.
I dont think ownership makes a crazy huge difference for utillities anymore TBH.
Comments
My water company has been doing the same, ripping out Victorian era pipework (IIRC that's what their advertising bumpf said) and replacing it with new.
But my water company is also notorious for charging the highest rates in the country. At least their network is up to scratch, I guess.
We also haven't had any Thames Water style hosepipe bans due to a network that approaches a colander in effiency.
For British Rail to the current companies on the network there are some comparisons that can be made by passengers using the services, cost, time of travel, etc. These are identifiable things.
For water, of course we have quality and constant supply but beyond that there's not much visibility right?
So I find it hard to be sure what is happening in NI would have happened any differently if it wasn't privatised.
BTW, I remember the pre-nationalisation days and the customer did matter back then too. OK you might have had to hang on a bit longer on the phone, but at least the call would have been free. You also didn't get people calling at your door trying to miss-sell you their services.
Unfortunately, few organisations seem to take pride in the quality of their service. They give us the service they can get away with, and that's true of both public and private.
That's not to say that some individuals within organisations don't try their best.
Quite.
The problem with privatization is that usually still 1 only 1 company on the job so a monopoly prone to going stale without competition. There aren't many businesses that no competition works.
if your going to privatize utilities you need at least 2 company's in the running and the contract is always up for renewal every few years. That way you have company's trying to offer you a proper level of service or an improved level of service as efficiently as possible.
Since privatisation the utility companies have been investing large amount of money to upgrade their networks. Unfortunately for the water companies large amounts of the infrastructure is over 100 years old so it is going to take a long time for this all to be done.
If the utilities had not been privatised you can guarantee that only a fraction of the work would have been done.
I don't think it's anything to do with them, but all to do with the monopoly they hold and the unions that brings.
The problem with the privatised 'utilities', is we don't know what state they would be in now, if there were not privatised.
Does anyone actually think government after government would think them a soft target for cuts? I certainly do.
They would end up overstaffed and underfunded.
Anglian water had to that.
Ofwat forced them to by capping price increases until they got the leakage rate down to reasonable levels.
Some areas under Anglian Water control had 50% leakage rates; that's epic levels of mismanagement.
Well the premise is that nationalisation is not the nirvana that some people think
But how do you solve the problem with a Nationalsied company that is reliant on Government spending?. It's easy to 'prod' a private company to invest more but far harder for a Government to force a Nationalised compnay to spend more if they (the Government) are having to supply the investment.
As we saw with the nationalised industries, it was decades of slow decline due to to underinvestment (by all governments).
Thanks for that allafix - not before my time but before I had any interest in politics
Much appreciated
However, typically they didn't do a very good job (British Leyland?). The management were effectively civil servants who knew their jobs were safe regardless of performance and that there was no incentive to make a profit as it would just be swallowed up by the Treasury.
Well past experience with nationalised undustries would suggest so.
Take the railways - 50 years of decline when they were nationalised. Since privatisation (which was done using the wrong model) the private sector copmpanies have been forced to invest - would the same level of investment have happened if they had remained in the public sector? - experience tells us no.
Do you know the leakage rates before it was made a private company in 1989? I suspect it was probably high then as the system was an antiquated mess when it was privatised.
I'd say the CEGB did a pretty good job, as did British Gas. If British Rail had been given the funds the privatised companies were given they'd have run a better service too. The problem with nationalised industries was always the dead hand of the Treasury trying to control the purse strings and limiting investment on service improvements. Had BR, for example, been allowed to borrow on the commercial market things might have been very different.
I dont think ownership makes a crazy huge difference for utillities anymore TBH.