As long as the shareholders don't suffer.

[Stevo 666]

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.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why a public monopoly is better than a private one.

 

[Psamathe]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why a public monopoly is better than a private one.

Because Government can borrow money for investment cheaper than private companies (security)
Because if there is money that can be taken out money taken out makes the public purse healthier rather than private investors wealthier.
Because there can be public accountability.
Because the company can be run in the interests of the public rather than the interests of private investors.
Because prices can be set to ensure those struggling can still afford the bills (nature of taxation where those with "broader shoulders" those with higher disposable incomes bear more of the burden. Water/sweage is a requirement for survival.
etc.
etc.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

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.

You remind me of my kids when they were about four and didn't get their own way, which they then deemed to be very unfair.
Anyhow @Psamathe has answered your question, so crack on with your reply to the questions being asked of you.
Or throw in some more diversionary sh*te, whichever is your preference.

 

[BoldonLad]

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.

In the area in which I live, investment to clean up the river (Tyne) began in 1965, ie whilst Water was publicly owned, but, subsequent investment, since privatisation has continued (2005 for example). I am not defending the Water Companies, but I think that ill judged property development may have just a little bit to do with the problems in our rivers, not to mention agriculture.

 

[BoldonLad]

Because Government can borrow money for investment cheaper than private companies (security)
Because if there is money that can be taken out money taken out makes the public purse healthier rather than private investors wealthier.
Because there can be public accountability.
Because the company can be run in the interests of the public rather than the interests of private investors.
Because prices can be set to ensure those struggling can still afford the bills (nature of taxation where those with "broader shoulders" those with higher disposable incomes bear more of the burden. Water/sweage is a requirement for survival.
etc.
etc.

But, will all of the "ifs" and "cans", actually happen, or, will waste and different pigs at the trough soak up the money?

The existing privatised Water Companies DO make provision for assistance for those "struggling", more pertinent perhaps is that the charging system for water (during past public, and current private ownership) is archaic and unfair.

 

[Stevo 666]

You remind me of my kids when they were about four and didn't get their own way, which they then deemed to be very unfair.
Anyhow @Psamathe has answered your question, so crack on with your reply to the questions being asked of you.
Or throw in some more diversionary sh*te, whichever is your preference.

OK, keep dodging the question. I thought you might be interested in a decent debate but you've taken your ball home

 

[presta]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why a public monopoly is better than a private one.

Because the government can't then argue that the failure to make the necessary investment isn't their fault.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why a public monopoly is better than a private one.

in an ideal world we wouldn't have or need monopoly's however private monopoly almost always only benefit those with the biggest shares. Where as an public monopoly servers directly or indirectly the people who also pay for it.
As the name implies funded with public money for a public cause. In addition if the government is involved in founding and funding they can also be involved in policies like a salary cap. That is an important detail because if you look at where it goes wrong(with Thames water and others) then it's not the cashflow/general running of the company it's how the money is spend. Currently it's used for rewarding shareholders, do you think that's an good public caise?

However we do not live in an ideal world so we need way to ensure public money is used for public causes, i heard you say something about regulations earlier, well they failed, in both the Netherlands and the Uk, so maybe it's just isn't the way to go. The main problem in my view is any private company will sooner or later start with making unreasonable growth prospects and that's usally how the spiral off attracting external money starts, who in turn want that money back and that money not spend on public causes all the while the growth prospects are an lie.


However for things like clean water supply and also waste water and more utilities i think a government monopoly isn't, i think the government should at least own the network, we seen when the electricity prices where going to the roof a few years back that France was'nt impacted that much as they own their infrastructure. (and didn't close all their nuclear plants without thinking like Germany did.)
So that's an clear example of the control the government has if these things are kept in some sort of monopoly. although politically i believe the government should have less duties rather then more, i also think control over utilities is important. Netherlands roads would be just as crappy as here and the whole country would be flooding if the road and water management wasn't government owned, because the government based water and road company sits on a pile of cash, that is now only used for road maintenance and water projects or better said it's use but in private hands that would go the the shareholders and said project postponed or financed.

 

[icowden]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why a public monopoly is better than a private one.

In the case of the Water companies they were worth vast amounts of money. Privatisation was carried out but done badly. The water companies weren't / aren't really in competition with each other. It's not as if I can decide I don't want my water from Affinity. They get a fixed revenue from their customer base. In return for this the companies who bought the water companies just stripped the assets to benefit their shareholders. Hence Thames Water has gone from being profitable to having 16 billion of debt.

If you prefer to have them privatised they should move to the same model used by the electricity companies. That could actually drive some of the green energy requirements - people may prefer to buy their water from companies that fix leaks, don't dump shoot into the rivers and invest in hydroelectic power for example.

But as it stands it would make most sense for the Govt to force purchase the companies for their actual value and leave the debt for the companies they are buying from and who have enjoyed our cash for so many years.

 

[BoldonLad]

In the case of the Water companies they were worth vast amounts of money. Privatisation was carried out but done badly. The water companies weren't / aren't really in competition with each other. It's not as if I can decide I don't want my water from Affinity. They get a fixed revenue from their customer base. In return for this the companies who bought the water companies just stripped the assets to benefit their shareholders. Hence Thames Water has gone from being profitable to having 16 billion of debt.

If you prefer to have them privatised they should move to the same model used by the electricity companies. That could actually drive some of the green energy requirements - people may prefer to buy their water from companies that fix leaks, don't dump shoot into the rivers and invest in hydroelectic power for example.

But as it stands it would make most sense for the Govt to force purchase the companies for their actual value and leave the debt for the companies they are buying from and who have enjoyed our cash for so many years.

To have an electricity or gas type model for water (and sewerage) we would have to have a “grid” type system for water and sewerage.

Not saying we shouldn’t have such a system (it may be a good idea climate change wise), but, at present, we don’t

 

[Stevo 666]

Because Government can borrow money for investment cheaper than private companies (security)
Because if there is money that can be taken out money taken out makes the public purse healthier rather than private investors wealthier.
Because there can be public accountability.
Because the company can be run in the interests of the public rather than the interests of private investors.
Because prices can be set to ensure those struggling can still afford the bills (nature of taxation where those with "broader shoulders" those with higher disposable incomes bear more of the burden. Water/sweage is a requirement for survival.
etc.
etc.

A few problems with that.

- The borrowing rate depends on the borrower and UK borrowing costs are rising. That also assumes debt funding rather than equity funding.
- In the case of Thames Water it looks like there is money that needs to go in, not come out - so the public purse would suffer.
- There can be accountability of privately owned companies with sensible legislation.
- As mentioned before, using taxpayer money to prop up an ailing business is arguably not in the public interest.
- Disagree that 'the wealthy' should subsidise other peoples utility bills. They already pay plenty tax (look at the stats for the top 10%, top 1% and the tax take for the largest corporates).
- Food is a requirement for survival and other things like electricity are pretty essential. Nobody is proposing to nationalise them.

Etc Etc.

 

[Stevo 666]

in an ideal world we wouldn't have or need monopoly's however private monopoly almost always only benefit those with the biggest shares. Where as an public monopoly servers directly or indirectly the people who also pay for it.
As the name implies funded with public money for a public cause. In addition if the government is involved in founding and funding they can also be involved in policies like a salary cap. That is an important detail because if you look at where it goes wrong(with Thames water and others) then it's not the cashflow/general running of the company it's how the money is spend. Currently it's used for rewarding shareholders, do you think that's an good public caise?

However we do not live in an ideal world so we need way to ensure public money is used for public causes, i heard you say something about regulations earlier, well they failed, in both the Netherlands and the Uk, so maybe it's just isn't the way to go. The main problem in my view is any private company will sooner or later start with making unreasonable growth prospects and that's usally how the spiral off attracting external money starts, who in turn want that money back and that money not spend on public causes all the while the growth prospects are an lie.


However for things like clean water supply and also waste water and more utilities i think a government monopoly isn't, i think the government should at least own the network, we seen when the electricity prices where going to the roof a few years back that France was'nt impacted that much as they own their infrastructure. (and didn't close all their nuclear plants without thinking like Germany did.)
So that's an clear example of the control the government has if these things are kept in some sort of monopoly. although politically i believe the government should have less duties rather then more, i also think control over utilities is important. Netherlands roads would be just as crappy as here and the whole country would be flooding if the road and water management wasn't government owned, because the government based water and road company sits on a pile of cash, that is now only used for road maintenance and water projects or better said it's use but in private hands that would go the the shareholders and said project postponed or financed.

While it sounds like there is a case for more controls on this particular water company, does it mean all water companies should be under public control? People seem to using the worst example as 'proof' that the current model is worse that nationalisation. Some people here will be old enough to remeber what a sh!t show it was with nationalised industries in the UK.

As mentioned before, a public monopoly is not necessarily better than a private monopoly (on a regional basis). See come of my points in my reply to Psamathe above.

As I see it the problems can be addressed without state ownership.

 

[Stevo 666]

In the case of the Water companies they were worth vast amounts of money. Privatisation was carried out but done badly. The water companies weren't / aren't really in competition with each other. It's not as if I can decide I don't want my water from Affinity. They get a fixed revenue from their customer base. In return for this the companies who bought the water companies just stripped the assets to benefit their shareholders. Hence Thames Water has gone from being profitable to having 16 billion of debt.

If you prefer to have them privatised they should move to the same model used by the electricity companies. That could actually drive some of the green energy requirements - people may prefer to buy their water from companies that fix leaks, don't dump shoot into the rivers and invest in hydroelectic power for example.

But as it stands it would make most sense for the Govt to force purchase the companies for their actual value and leave the debt for the companies they are buying from and who have enjoyed our cash for so many years.

Not sure your idea about compulsory purchase without the debt would work - if you buy something debt free then the value is going to be higher than if you buy it with the debt. Certainly based on my experience of being involved in acquisition of companies with debt.

See also my comments to Dutch Guy about taking the worst case as a reason for treating the whole sector the same way,

Boldon Lad has already commented on the issues re a 'network'.

 

[Psamathe]

A few problems with that.

- The borrowing rate depends on the borrower and UK borrowing costs are rising. That also assumes debt funding rather than equity funding.

governemnt can borrow cheaper and easier than Thames Water.

- In the case of Thames Water it looks like there is money that needs to go in, not come out - so the public purse would suffer.

The only money that can "go in" is coming from us (bill payers). Investors lend but take far more out than they put in.

- There can be accountability of privately owned companies with sensible legislation.

There can but with the water utilities this doesn't seem to happen. So change things and make it happen. eg Southern Water salaries/"bonuses"

- Disagree that 'the wealthy' should subsidise other peoples utility bills. They already pay plenty tax (look at the stats for the top 10%, top 1% and the tax take for the largest corporates).
- Food is a requirement for survival and other things like electricity are pretty essential. Nobody is proposing to nationalise them.

With nationalising eg other urtilities it becomes a question of priority ef rail providers are being nationalised (in effect). Water is the biggest failure right now so sort than then look at other failing systems.

 

[Stevo 666]

governemnt can borrow cheaper and easier than Thames Water.


The only money that can "go in" is coming from us (bill payers). Investors lend but take far more out than they put in.


There can but with the water utilities this doesn't seem to happen. So change things and make it happen. eg Southern Water salaries/"bonuses"


With nationalising eg other urtilities it becomes a question of priority ef rail providers are being nationalised (in effect). Water is the biggest failure right now so sort than then look at other failing systems.

Your statement about borrowing rate is an implicit acceptance that public money would need to go into the company. See above about whether this is in the public interest.

It pretty clear that things need to change in TW - no company can have more taken out than the sum of what it generates and has put in on a long term basis otherwise it becomes insolvent. There is no reason why it cannot change and that seems a lot more practical a solution than nationalisation and taking what would likely be a financial liability onto the public books.

Also, you are using the worst example to try to justify a blanket approach for the whole sector.