Benefits of privatisation?

[lines]

Are you sure? Not owned by politicians and their cronies?

 

I did think that too actually, just depends on the bidding process, but if recent history is anything to go by, then yes you're right.

[sgtkate]

Publicly owned = For the benefit of the customers.

 

Privatised = For the benefit of the shareholders.

 

Says it all really....

 

In the main, however, it is perfectly possible for a highly competitive private industry to provide a better level of service at a lower cost than a public monopoly. Not in all cases however. I would say that our gas and electric companies are cheaper and better than when it was government owned and run. Because there is massive competition which in turn will almost always result in better service and low prices. Basic economics 101.

 

But any industry that is either hard to change supplier, is difficult for new entrants to join or has minimal competition will likely be better for customers under a non-profit making state owned or managed entity.

 

In short, it's not as simple as you put.

[jfish1936]

It should be obvious that to have, say, one electricity authority owning all the generating capacity and all the distribution (transformers, wires, etc) with one overall boss must be more costly than breaking it up into small organisations, each with its own CEO looking to maximise his personal return.

 

Or am I looking at it upside down, from t'other side of t'world?

[Eric Arthur]

In the main, however, it is perfectly possible for a highly competitive private industry to provide a better level of service at a lower cost than a public monopoly. Not in all cases however. I would say that our gas and electric companies are cheaper and better than when it was government owned and run. Because there is massive competition which in turn will almost always result in better service and low prices. Basic economics 101.

 

But any industry that is either hard to change supplier, is difficult for new entrants to join or has minimal competition will likely be better for customers under a non-profit making state owned or managed entity.

 

In short, it's not as simple as you put.

Well put. Monopolies are nearly always bad. Public monopolies are the very worst and to add insult to injury they generate almost no financial benefit to UK PLC.

[sgtkate]

Well put. Monopolies are nearly always bad. Public monopolies are the very worst and to add insult to injury they generate almost no financial benefit to UK PLC.

 

Blimey Eric do we agree on something political!

[Eric Arthur]

Blimey Eric do we agree on something political!

 

I think you might have misunderstood my politics but I can see why. I basically don't have any political preference apart from thinking that politicians, and companies for that matter, should butt out of our lives at every possible opportunity and as soon as possible if it's inevitable.

 

That usually puts me at odds with the left leaners who seem to want state interference in every aspect of life, and it completely mystifies me why they think like that except when they stand to gain financially or professionally, then the hypocrisy annoys me. It doesn't so much put me at odds with right leaners who prefer a small state and for business to lead, and of course business tends to do what it's there to do and not much more. I'm a big believer in people and trust most people to do the right thing if they have the tools. All this makes me a personal and societal rights believer, so quite liberal in attitude and happy to let people do what they want so long as it doesn't have a negative effect on others.

Edited January 14, 2016 by Eric Arthur

[Mister M]

Aren't there EU rules that make it difficult to re-nationalise? I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.

 

I used to work in the public sector too. The problem is that the quality of management in the public sector is generally dire; I mean, really bad. The quality of the people actually doing the work is about the same as the private sector, but managers.. You can get some good ones, but they are the exception.

 

But, I do have a problem with our publicly owned companies being sold off especially to foreign firms who then proceed to take us to the cleaners; and the water companies are the worst. Their product falls from the sky free, it's not like they have to go and drill for it in the North Sea.

 

Plus Yorkshire Water are massive tax dodgers.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2350686/Water-power-firms-avoid-1billion-tax-Tory-MP-demands-rebate-hard-pressed-customers.html

 

Yes that's my experience of public sector managers. Where I work it is stuffed full of 'managers' who are paid a fortune for doing very little - just writing reports to each other, and have no specialism in the area that they're managing.

They croak about the need for 'efficiencies', but not in their wages! They make sure that those who have the misfortune to work under them do more for less.

[sgtkate]

I think you might have misunderstood my politics but I can see why. I basically don't have any political preference apart from thinking that politicians, and companies for that matter, should butt out of our lives at every possible opportunity and as soon as possible if it's inevitable.

 

That usually puts me at odds with the left leaners who seem to want state interference in every aspect of life, and it completely mystifies me why they think like that except when they stand to gain financially or professionally, then the hypocrisy annoys me. It doesn't so much put me at odds with right leaners who prefer a small state and for business to lead, and of course business tends to do what it's there to do and not much more. I'm a big believer in people and trust most people to do the right thing if they have the tools. All this makes me a personal and societal rights believer, so quite liberal in attitude and happy to let people do what they want so long as it doesn't have a negative effect on others.

 

I just think it's all far too easy to say 'companies are bad as they make money' and 'public entities are good as they don't make money'. It's all about value for money of the majority. For example, I do not think that an private company could make the NHS better value for money for the majority therefore I don't support it, however, there may be parts of the NHS that would be better off privately run (can't think of a specific example, just saying it's not unbelievable that this would be the case!), offering a better standard of care at a lower price. Extrapolate across the entirety of business and you have some areas that need far, far better regulation or government ownership (trains spring to mind!) and many other areas that have benefitted customers that have been deregulated (gas and electric).

 

Ultimately if a company can come in and run the NHS better than present for the customers (patients), at a lower or equal cost point, then I'd fully support privatisation. However, looking at other models around the world there aren't any that demonstrate that this can happen so I'm anti-privatisation for the timebeing. If they make profit at the end of it all, then good for them.

 

I doubt many people are completely in one camp or another, we all flit between 'left' and 'right' policies I'd suggest.

Edited January 14, 2016 by sgtkate

[lines]

I just think it's all far too easy to say 'companies are bad as they make money' and 'public entities are good as they don't make money'. It's all about value for money of the majority. For example, I do not think that an private company could make the NHS better value for money for the majority therefore I don't support it, however, there may be parts of the NHS that would be better off privately run (can't think of a specific example, just saying it's not unbelievable that this would be the case!), offering a better standard of care at a lower price. Extrapolate across the entirety of business and you have some areas that need far, far better regulation or government ownership (trains spring to mind!) and many other areas that have benefitted customers that have been deregulated (gas and electric).

 

Ultimately if a company can come in and run the NHS better than present for the customers (patients), at a lower or equal cost point, then I'd fully support privatisation. However, looking at other models around the world there aren't any that demonstrate that this can happen so I'm anti-privatisation for the timebeing. If they make profit at the end of it all, then good for them.

 

I doubt many people are completely in one camp or another, we all flit between 'left' and 'right' policies I'd suggest.

 

There's quite a bit of the NHS which is already privatised. Mainly started under Labour, less so under Conservative but they are still finding these cost savings by using private companies.

[Eric Arthur]

I just think it's all far too easy to say 'companies are bad as they make money' and 'public entities are good as they don't make money'. It's all about value for money of the majority. For example, I do not think that an private company could make the NHS better value for money for the majority therefore I don't support it, however, there may be parts of the NHS that would be better off privately run (can't think of a specific example, just saying it's not unbelievable that this would be the case!), offering a better standard of care at a lower price. Extrapolate across the entirety of business and you have some areas that need far, far better regulation or government ownership (trains spring to mind!) and many other areas that have benefitted customers that have been deregulated (gas and electric).

 

I doubt many people are completely in one camp or another, we all flit between 'left' and 'right' policies I'd suggest.

 

I'd agree, though the NHS is packed full of private providers and always has been. GP's are the obvious example that everyone uses but thinks is part of the NHS, whereas they are nearly all privately owned NHS contractors. Huge numbers of operations are handled privately with great success for lower costs.

 

Profits are where every tax pound comes from. Anyone who wants companies to make smaller profits needs to be taken outside for a stiff talking to. Anyone who wants public bodies to do the work of companies for no profit and most likely at a higher cost is just a simpleton who needs some mathematics for beginners lessons.

 

I have no time for ideology but there are one or two exceptions I'd be happy to remain public as a matter of principle such as the fighting part of the military so long as all the guns, aircraft, tanks, ships, and other equipment is leased, and err, no that's probably it.

Edited January 14, 2016 by Eric Arthur