- Joined
- 7 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 13,110
- Reaction score
- 3,072
- Country
Last edited:
Anyone in favour of Nationalisation of utilities?
- Thread starter Ihavenojob
- Start date
Sponsored Links
It doesn't have to be a significant burden, trains for example can just be taken in house when the contact expires.
And let's not forget that at present these firms make profits. Given long enough they can either be run with cheaper services for people or to generate a profit for government.
Id say yes, privatisation for the sake of it has been a failure in many public services.
And let's not forget that at present these firms make profits. Given long enough they can either be run with cheaper services for people or to generate a profit for government.
Id say yes, privatisation for the sake of it has been a failure in many public services.
It seemed like a good idea of Thatcher's to give people a stake in British companies like electricity companies. However, it has backfired spectacularly as foreign, often EU countries, now own our vital utilities. Their priorities are profit - investment and service are way down the list. Hence part of the reason for the malaise we now find ourselves in.
Naturally, a service like public transport, rail, etc should be run as a service - not for profit. Unfortunately this means nationalisation and politicians running things. As we've seen with Doris and co, the quality of politicians has never been lower and shouldn't be trusted to run a bath.
Naturally, a service like public transport, rail, etc should be run as a service - not for profit. Unfortunately this means nationalisation and politicians running things. As we've seen with Doris and co, the quality of politicians has never been lower and shouldn't be trusted to run a bath.
Also, with water, the taxpayer would be taking on a seriously broken infrastructure. Now, not much is getting fixed on that at the mo, but at least it's not the taxpayers' problem directly. (Watch this space).
Sponsored Links
since you ask, most of the population of the UK oppose it
especially water and trains
they are already privatised. Did you mean "taking back into public ownership?"
Good spot!
One question, by the way.
what use is giving your name and email to "Change.org is a worldwide petition website, based in California, US, operated by the San Francisco-based company of the same name"
this is not a petition to the UK Parliament.
what use is giving your name and email to "Change.org is a worldwide petition website, based in California, US, operated by the San Francisco-based company of the same name"
this is not a petition to the UK Parliament.
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2006
- Messages
- 5,392
- Reaction score
- 603
- Country
Heard a detailed analysis of privatisation versus state ownership in relation to a couple of industries, on Radio 4 on a car journey. Upshot was that it didn't make much difference, in many ways!
My gut says privatise, and make it all British owned. Unfortunately that leads to operatives who have and use too much political leverage.
E.G.Train drivers do a low-skilled job . The requirement is 2 GCSEs, grade C. Only about 15-20% of the population doesn't achieve that.
So you can be well below average. Training can be 1 year, then you're qualified, earning about £60k pa.
That's all wrong - compare with many other jobs.
Any monopoly needs governing by a competent overseer which sets pay, terms and operational standards (hard!). If you do earn a grand a week and you go on strike, you lose pay and have to pay an admin fee plus a grand a week to employ someone to replace you.
I know that's not a "utility", but it's topical and close.
Same for buses, ports, roads, water, power, leccy, schools, NHS, emergency services, maybe others. Most of the Civil Service I guess.
Some like medics, schooling, needn't be exclusively state.
My gut says privatise, and make it all British owned. Unfortunately that leads to operatives who have and use too much political leverage.
E.G.Train drivers do a low-skilled job . The requirement is 2 GCSEs, grade C. Only about 15-20% of the population doesn't achieve that.
So you can be well below average. Training can be 1 year, then you're qualified, earning about £60k pa.
That's all wrong - compare with many other jobs.
Any monopoly needs governing by a competent overseer which sets pay, terms and operational standards (hard!). If you do earn a grand a week and you go on strike, you lose pay and have to pay an admin fee plus a grand a week to employ someone to replace you.
I know that's not a "utility", but it's topical and close.
Same for buses, ports, roads, water, power, leccy, schools, NHS, emergency services, maybe others. Most of the Civil Service I guess.
Some like medics, schooling, needn't be exclusively state.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 21 Aug 2022
- Messages
- 30
- Reaction score
- 7
- Country
I'm more concerned about -
1) The additional taxation placed on sales of gas, electricity and petrol which makes up a large percentage of the price
2) What must be a broken market, where excess profits can be made by a few suppliers. Anti-trust investigation needed
3) A regulator, Ofgem, which appears to have been 'captured' by the industry it regulates and become overly sympathetic to the supplier
4) Failing to stand-up to the 'green' lobbyists which has blocked fracking for shale gas in the UK
5) Multi-decade strategic failure to invest in commercial nuclear, as France has done
Public ownership gives the politicians too much opportunity for wheezes, such as Brown 'reducing' unemployment by adding 300,000 non-jobs in the NHS/civil-service which we're all paying taxes to bankroll.
1) The additional taxation placed on sales of gas, electricity and petrol which makes up a large percentage of the price
2) What must be a broken market, where excess profits can be made by a few suppliers. Anti-trust investigation needed
3) A regulator, Ofgem, which appears to have been 'captured' by the industry it regulates and become overly sympathetic to the supplier
4) Failing to stand-up to the 'green' lobbyists which has blocked fracking for shale gas in the UK
5) Multi-decade strategic failure to invest in commercial nuclear, as France has done
Public ownership gives the politicians too much opportunity for wheezes, such as Brown 'reducing' unemployment by adding 300,000 non-jobs in the NHS/civil-service which we're all paying taxes to bankroll.
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 13,110
- Reaction score
- 3,072
- Country
D
Deleted member 18243
Nationalisation as in taking them all out of foreign ownership YES
Nationalisation as in being run by the government NO
Nationalisation as in being run by the government NO
The way the world might be going in coming decades there should be a cross (UK) nation strategy put in place that ensures, as quickly as possible, our utilities and core services can be serviced internally. Ownership should be 100% UK.
I'm on the fence re nationalisation however it bugs me when they keep trotting out the line 'look what happened in the 70s!' we're 40 years down the line. Would it be perfect? No. Are these companies running perfectly under private ownership? No. I'm pretty sure we've learnt quite a lot in the past 40 years that means even we could make a go of it without it being 70's esque in nature!
I'm on the fence re nationalisation however it bugs me when they keep trotting out the line 'look what happened in the 70s!' we're 40 years down the line. Would it be perfect? No. Are these companies running perfectly under private ownership? No. I'm pretty sure we've learnt quite a lot in the past 40 years that means even we could make a go of it without it being 70's esque in nature!
my concern with nationalised industries is they are subject to govt cuts.
the other danger is governments are always constrained in their budgetary and capital expenditure by parliament terms
I wonder if they were privately owned companies where the govt is the only shareholder, that would by a good solution.
the other danger is governments are always constrained in their budgetary and capital expenditure by parliament terms
I wonder if they were privately owned companies where the govt is the only shareholder, that would by a good solution.
Agree totally with number 1
Agree that being run by government may not be the best, but being privately owned for the benefit of shareholders is the worst option
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
