As long as the shareholders don't suffer.

[Stevo 666]

Because it's a public service people cannot live without. Like the NHS, etc. a core public provision.

The issues don't only relate to Thames Water. They might be the worst but most others are failing and should be in public ownership.

More justification water to be public ownership than rail system (both and others should never have been nationalised).

Everyone needs food but nobody talks about nationalising farms and supermarkets.

There is a monopolistic element to water supply due to the nature of the business but that does not mean a state monopoly is the answer.

 

[Stevo 666]

With the water companies that is quite easily explained, it's not a traditional bussiness yet currently companies like Thames water have been overloaded with debts with unreasonable growth prospects.
Goverment ownership could become better run because they can cap salaries. spending etc. etc. There is an clear example in the Netherlands, the water companies are divided into drinking water companies and waste water companies, the drinking water(which is also tap water) is goverment run, has been very stable in price and of high quality,The waste water(not goverment owned same as here) is about the same mess we see here.

Public or private ate, costs could be cut. Unfortunately governments tend not to be great at running businesses.

Regarding your Dutch example, how does splitting them into the constituent parts you mention make things better?

 

[Stevo 666]

There appears to be a contradiction within those two sentences.

How about answering my question? If you can, that is...

 

[bobzmyunkle]

How about answering my question? If you can, that is...

Sorry @Stevo 666 it doesn't work that way. Why should you get to avoid a question, then feel entitled to an answer?

 

[Stevo 666]

Sorry @Stevo 666 it doesn't work that way. Why should you get to avoid a question, then feel entitled to an answer?

I answered your question, if you have a problem with the answer that's just tough.

But I understand it might be tricky for you to answer my question as it does require some understanding of business.

 

[pinkbikini]

Everyone needs food but nobody talks about nationalising farms and supermarkets.

There is a monopolistic element to water supply due to the nature of the business but that does not mean a state monopoly is the answer.

I can’t think of another example of a goods or services provider where the consumer has to accept zero practical choice. That’s more that a monopolistic element isn’t it - it’s the definition of a pure monopoly. Utterly unsuited to privatisation as there’s no competitive element. I’d vote for re-nationalisation as the ‘least-bad’ option.

 

[CXRAndy]

There are multiple options, there isn't one supermarket or just one farmer

 

[bobzmyunkle]

But I understand it might be tricky for you to answer my question as it does require some understanding of business.

So understanding of business?

There are well run companies and badly run companies

After you've explained why Macquarie is a badly run company when they are obviously maximising shareholder value, you can explain how the privatisation failed to safeguard against such a badly run company loading Thames Water with so much debt?

 

[Pross]

I was confused as resident troll hasn't posted to this thread for months. (if ever?).

Unless the forum "ignore" functionality has changed as normally posts still show but with "ignored ..." showing instead of posts yet nothing like that.

You don’t see posts by someone on your ignore list at all unless quoted when, instead of the quoted message, you get the one saying it was by someone you’re ignoring. This is why it’s annoying when people insist on quoting trolls.

You sometimes get a confusing situation where a new page appears to have no posts as it only has posts from someone being ignored.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

Public or private ate, costs could be cut. Unfortunately governments tend not to be great at running businesses.

Regarding your Dutch example, how does splitting them into the constituent parts you mention make things better?

The point is the idea about the private market is that the consumer punishes companies that are merely there to make money and therefore supply bad value for money. at least that has always been the idea. With something like water that's already out of the window, because you can't say ''this water company really really sucks, i switch to a other one.''

With vendor lock-ins and stuff it's also more difficult in other markets but that's an other topic.

The big difference in the dutch example is that the goverment funded and run(technically not run but owned by the goverment, local goverments to be precise, there are multiple of these companies each covering their own part of the country. ) water company is an not for profit company that does exactly what it needs, has all salaries capped and if it has millions to pay to it's non-existent shareholders it goes back to the goverment.


With waste water they went the same route as here in the uk and has also lead to raw sewege dumping, millions of money wasted and high bills., and shareholders getting an pay-out.

 

[BoldonLad]

Everyone needs food but nobody talks about nationalising farms and supermarkets.

There is a monopolistic element to water supply due to the nature of the business but that does not mean a state monopoly is the answer.

Didn’t the USSR and others try that route?

Did it work?

 

[icowden]

Everyone needs food but nobody talks about nationalising farms and supermarkets.

Just run past me how many farm owners and supermarket owners have bought the farm or supermarket then extracted all the value and more as shareholder dividends or loans to parent companies?

 

[Stevo 666]

Didn’t the USSR and others try that route?

Did it work?

I think we know the answer to that.

But some people are keen to give socialism one more try as they're sure it will work for the UK

 

[Stevo 666]

So understanding of business?

After you've explained why Macquarie is a badly run company when they are obviously maximising shareholder value, you can explain how the privatisation failed to safeguard against such a badly run company loading Thames Water with so much debt?

Why should bother answering your questions if you refuse to answer mine? However you seem to be getting confused about privatisation and safeguards. Have a look at water company regulation and the role of OFWAT maybe?

Anyhow if you can have a go at answering what I asked you and you have dodged at least a couple of times: "How does it mean public ownership is the answer?" I thought that a leftie like you would jump at the chance to explain the utopia of public ownership.

Then it's my turn.

 

[Psamathe]

Everyone needs food but nobody talks about nationalising farms and supermarkets.

It has developed as a very different way in that there is a lot of genuine competition, genuine choice. Some suppliers focus of higher end (higher pricing) others focus on own brands and lower pricing and most people have a lot of choice about where they shop.

For water we don't really have that choice and just have to endure them turning most of our rivers into open sewers whilst the money needed for preventing the environmental destruction is instead passed to shareholders.