Starmer's vision quest

[bobzmyunkle]

I asked a question and he didn't supply an answer. I appreciate that you're trying to brass neck this one now as he clearly didn't answer my questions.

Are you still wittering on about this @Stevo 666?
£17.6 billion pounds appears to be the latest estimate. You can ignore this if you want.

 

[Dorset Boy]

Are you still wittering on about this @Stevo 666?
£17.6 billion pounds appears to be the latest estimate. You can ignore this if you want.

And you clearly think the water utilities were in great shape at the time of privatisation, and the seas and rivers were clean then?
We had crumbling water infrastructure at the time due to chronic under-investment by all governments over the previous 70+ years.
But ignore that fact if you must.
Nothing was going to improve if left under public ownership.

 

[briantrumpet]

And you clearly think the water utilities were in great shape at the time of privatisation, and the seas and rivers were clean then?
We had crumbling water infrastructure at the time due to chronic under-investment by all governments over the previous 70+ years.
But ignore that fact if you must.
Nothing was going to improve if left under public ownership.

BT was also a mess. Very expensive, and waiting lists for everything, IIRC. And no innovation.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

And you clearly think the water utilities were in great shape at the time of privatisation, and the seas and rivers were clean then?

Glad you put a question mark after that. Now perhaps you can explain why privatisation was such a good solution.

 

[icowden]

We had crumbling water infrastructure at the time due to chronic under-investment by all governments over the previous 70+ years.
But ignore that fact if you must.

I think we entirely agree with you on these points.

Can you now elucidate as to how giving £7bn to shareholders has really helped improve matters rather than, say, spending that money on fixing the infrastructure? Can you also cover the benefits of increasing customer bills to ensure that the CEOs of Australia's Maquarie were kept in the lifestyle to which they had become accustomed?

 

[Dorset Boy]

Glad you put a question mark after that. Now perhaps you can explain why privatisation was such a good solution.

Initially there was a lot of private investment in the infrastructure, sewers were repaired, as were water mains. None of that was happening under public ownership.
As I have explained before, privatisation per se isn't the issue - weak regulation in the last 15+ years is the issue.

What was your solution to fixing the crumbling water infrastructure at the time of privatisation given governments hadn't bothered to maintain the system for 70+ years?

 

[briantrumpet]

I think we entirely agree with you on these points.

Can you now elucidate as to how giving £7bn to shareholders has really helped improve matters rather than, say, spending that money on fixing the infrastructure? Can you also cover the benefits of increasing customer bills to ensure that the CEOs of Australia's Maquarie were kept in the lifestyle to which they had become accustomed?

It's a bit like a GP diagnosing a treatable disease and prescribing a very expensive but useless therapy to get the patient off his books.

 

[Dorset Boy]

I think we entirely agree with you on these points.

Can you now elucidate as to how giving £7bn to shareholders has really helped improve matters rather than, say, spending that money on fixing the infrastructure? Can you also cover the benefits of increasing customer bills to ensure that the CEOs of Australia's Maquarie were kept in the lifestyle to which they had become accustomed?

As I say, that is a total failure of regulation.
We see the same in other industries where service standards have been allowed to plummet by the regulators, and insufficient penalties applied to offenders.
As I have said before, set measurable standards - if a significant number are not being met, there is a ban on paying dividends, and remuneration of the board is suspended. If the standards continue to not be met over a prolonged period, the board members are banned from holding similar positions.
The offending companies will soon sort things out then.

 

[briantrumpet]

Initially there was a lot of private investment in the infrastructure, sewers were repaired, as were water mains. None of that was happening under public ownership.
As I have explained before, privatisation per se isn't the issue - weak regulation in the last 15+ years is the issue.

What was your solution to fixing the crumbling water infrastructure at the time of privatisation given governments hadn't bothered to maintain the system for 70+ years?

Maybe the flaw is capitalism itself, which will always exploit monopolies to the max.

 

[Dorset Boy]

Maybe the flaw is capitalism itself, which will always exploit monopolies to the max.

That is why you have regulations and regulators.

 

[briantrumpet]

That is why you have regulations and regulators.

Genuine question : can you think of any regulators that can genuinely and meaningfully push back against a capitalist onslaught? The threat is that once they've got a monopoly, they can crash the entire market so it doesn't work at all.

 

[Pross]

It doesn't feel beyond the wit of government to have set targets that have to be achieved prior to privatised industries being able to award bonuses and dividends. Do they already exist and are simply being ignored? I really don't see how you can reward investors and senior management for profit being made by failing to spend the necessary amount to improve the service they are providing.

 

[Pross]

BT was also a mess. Very expensive, and waiting lists for everything, IIRC. And no innovation.

Being hard on yourself there

 

[briantrumpet]

Being hard on yourself there

Good job I was privatised.

 

[briantrumpet]

I suppose if you persuade everyone that they are 'left behind', and that immigrants are the reason, then unicorns will be in high demand.