Nationalised industry question

[motorbiking]

I think the railways, utilities and the airports should never have been privatised. Having said that I used to do a lot of work with energy firms and the ex-national owned are the least efficient and the most useless. Literally thousands of people adding zero value to their employer or customer. Negative workers: their contribution is worth less than if they stayed at home.

 

[EFLImpudence]

That's bad management.

 

[Brigadier]

And who were these bad managers?
Promoted bad workers?

 

[SirGalahad]

There's a big assumption that private organisations have good management. If that was the case Mckinsey would never be able to charge what they do.

 

[SirGalahad]

Industries where competition has to be artificially created like the horrible mess that was the Railway privatisation goes to show some industries are more efficient if they remain public. What matters is the cost of entry and exit and substitutes and complimentary services.

When Adam Smith wrote about free markets he meant FREEDOM FROM RENT SEEKERS not freedom from regulation as it's now understood.

 

[ellal]

Just out of interest, can anyone name a public service that has improved under privatisation for the customer in terms of value for money?

 

[motorbiking]

Energy Services - We now have competition.
Building Control - we now have choice.

If competition is introduced then bad management is usually addressed by corporate darwinism. Where privatisation doesn't introduce competition then its bad. Its also bad where it gives foreign state controlled firms unfair access to acquire, while safe in the knowledge that they themselves can't be acquired due to different rules. For example BAA Plc, who were a acquired by Ferrovial (a Spanish firm) who's debt ratio at the time would have made them acquisition targets. However, under Spanish Critical National Infrastructure legislation they were protected. BAA was not.

 

[ellal]

Energy Services - We now have competition.
Building Control - we now have choice.

If competition is introduced then bad management is usually addressed by corporate darwinism. Where privatisation doesn't introduce competition then its bad. Its also bad where it gives foreign state controlled firms unfair access to acquire, while safe in the knowledge that they themselves can't be acquired due to different rules. For example BAA Plc, who were a acquired by Ferrovial (a Spanish firm) who's debt ratio at the time would have made them acquisition targets. However, under Spanish Critical National Infrastructure legislation they were protected. BAA was not.

Privatised public services have seen prices rise above inflation, and what does the customer get in return?

Choice doesn't equal value - it just means more private profits!

And when the privatised service fails, then what happens? - the taxpayer picks up the tab!

So does competition increase value for money for the customer?

 

[motorbiking]

What drives innovation in companies? Competition. The need to be better than the next firm. State ownership removes the need to compete which stifles innovation. Change or die or stay the same with secured income. If your customers cannot switch to get a better service, then you don't need to change.

Where there is a natural monopoly - water for example, then it drives pure profiteering as you can't switch supplier due to poor service.

 

[Yafo]

Energy Services - We now have competition.
Building Control - we now have choice.

.

Interesting comments.

Do you think we have competition on energy services? I know we have lots of chouces of suppliers, but has anybody found a real saving chopping and changing suppliers? I always change, but the actual saving is minimal? Prices didn't fall, there were just more choices!

Building control, ask Grenfell etc ?

 

[Yafo]

What drives innovation in companies? Competition. The need to be better than the next firm. State ownership removes the need to compete which stifles innovation. Change or die or stay the same with secured income. If your customers cannot switch to get a better service, then you don't need to change.

Where there is a natural monopoly - water for example, then it drives pure profiteering as you can't switch supplier due to poor service.

So water supplies are cheaper than they would be? Are you sure ? Or the service is better? Are you sure?

 

[EFLImpudence]

And who were these bad managers?
Promoted bad workers?

Do you not remember?

They were often people with no previous knowledge of the industry.

Rather like ministers taking over a different department and changing policy every couple of years.
That's a system guaranteed to achieve success, isn't it?

 

[motorbiking]

So water supplies are cheaper than they would be? Are you sure ? Or the service is better? Are you sure?

you do realise I said - Not water supplies

Where there is a natural monopoly - water for example, then it drives pure profiteering as you can't switch supplier due to poor service.

 

[motorbiking]

There's a big assumption that private organisations have good management. If that was the case Mckinsey would never be able to charge what they do.

Don't they just go and ask the workers what to do and type it up?

Thats what we used to do

 

[Yafo]

you do realise I said - Not water supplies

A misquote sorry.

But jnsert elec,gas,phone and answer the same questions?