should everything be privatised?

ART6

Reading the thread started here by hellboy99 about ESB charges started a thought. The EU wants competition in everything other than the EU Commission. Competition is the Holy Grail that leads to better public services and lower prices. But does it?

I run a business, and our sole purpose is to make money. Any business that doesn't have that aim will not last five minutes. Point one!

Point two. There are some services that are essential to the functioning of society. Those are energy supply, water, drainage, public transport etc.

In the UK many years ago now they de-regulated the water industry (for example) with the result that water and drainage charges went through the roof without doing anything identifiable to improve the service. The new water companies had a profit target that had nothing to do with any public service. It was to make money for their shareholders, as they are obliged to do.

Trouble is, that if we leave those "utilities" in the hands of government and the civil service, then they are stifled by bureaucracy and red tape to the extent that they are wasteful beyond imagination.

Could we not try another way? Set up government departments to run power, water, etc, but bring in a top level industrialist to run each one. Pay him a salary of at least the level that we pay our ineffectual ministers and heads of quangos, and tell him to make each efficient, cost effective, and supplying its services at the lowest possible cost to the community and business without seeking to make a profit out of it. That is essentially a company limited by guarantee, the guarantee being that of the government.

Establish a shareholder's committees for each utility, those shareholders being TDs, not ministers, and representing the electorate (the stakeholders). They then attend AGMs and question the executives as they do in any company. If the department makes a mess of it's budget (see HSA) then heads roll at the AGM, TDs being more agressive beasts that ministers.

Maybe then we might have an infrastructure that worked efficiently at acceptable cost?

FlutterinBantam

You have a point.

Esb employees are amongst the best paid/have security of employment/have all the benefits of a semi-state organisation/highly unionised.

Is it any wonder that ESB costs are going up????


Go figure.

AckwelFoley

id lean toward privitisation sometimes.. HOWEVER...


If privitisation were the case in the ESB 30 years ago.. most of rural Irleand would be without electricity and telephones because of the capital costs of the initial infrastructure. State bodies were obliged to supply all homes with electricity..

So therefore in some situations the best interests of all people is not with privitisation...

Having said that private companies are far and away more cost efficent than any public run body.

SimpleSam06

Either that or we'd have corners cut left, right and centre in an effort to reduce costs. Problems might only become apparent years down the road when fixing them might cost many multiples of the original budget. And in some cases efficiency and cheapness aren't even the primary goals, social goals must be attained (a good example is elections).

I think it might be better to apply austerity measures to current government departments, streamline them and trim off the fat. Making public sector employees more accountable would be a big step towards reducing costs. Also we need forward looking intelligent leadership, something sadly lacking in the current crop of mouth breathers.

Doctor DooM

Having discovered what over charging really means on public transport in Yorkshire, I would say no.

Privatisation leads to companies getting the maximum money for minimum service.

El Weirdo

snyper wrote: »

id lean toward privitisation sometimes.. HOWEVER...


If privitisation were the case in the ESB 30 years ago.. most of rural Irleand would be without electricity and telephones because of the capital costs of the initial infrastructure. State bodies were obliged to supply all homes with electricity..

So therefore in some situations the best interests of all people is not with privitisation...

Having said that private companies are far and away more cost efficent than any public run body.

Change ESB to Eircom and electricity to broadband... and you've got something similar to what's happening at this very moment...

funk-you

ART6 wrote: »

Reading the thread started here by hellboy99 about ESB charges started a thought. The EU wants competition in everything other than the EU Commission. Competition is the Holy Grail that leads to better public services and lower prices. But does it?

I run a business, and our sole purpose is to make money. Any business that doesn't have that aim will not last five minutes. Point one!

Point two. There are some services that are essential to the functioning of society. Those are energy supply, water, drainage, public transport etc.

In the UK many years ago now they de-regulated the water industry (for example) with the result that water and drainage charges went through the roof without doing anything identifiable to improve the service. The new water companies had a profit target that had nothing to do with any public service. It was to make money for their shareholders, as they are obliged to do.

Trouble is, that if we leave those "utilities" in the hands of government and the civil service, then they are stifled by bureaucracy and red tape to the extent that they are wasteful beyond imagination.

Could we not try another way? Set up government departments to run power, water, etc, but bring in a top level industrialist to run each one. Pay him a salary of at least the level that we pay our ineffectual ministers and heads of quangos, and tell him to make each efficient, cost effective, and supplying its services at the lowest possible cost to the community and business without seeking to make a profit out of it. That is essentially a company limited by guarantee, the guarantee being that of the government.

Establish a shareholder's committees for each utility, those shareholders being TDs, not ministers, and representing the electorate (the stakeholders). They then attend AGMs and question the executives as they do in any company. If the department makes a mess of it's budget (see HSA) then heads roll at the AGM, TDs being more agressive beasts that ministers.

Maybe then we might have an infrastructure that worked efficiently at acceptable cost?

Newsletter,subscribe etc...

-Funk

FlutterinBantam

Having read the thread title "Should everything be privatised"

Answer no

You would have cherry picking and asset stripping and the essential public utilities would be ignored.
Profit would be the end game and service ignored, so no.


But the ESB is a different kettle of fish,time for them to come out into the open and compete, and stop sheltering under the state umbrella.

Caoimhín

The semi-states work well. Im told the biggest problem is the unions dragging their feet on work practices.
I could tell you a story about "wet time" but it would have you in a home for the bewildered.

FlutterinBantam

caoibhin wrote: »

The semi-states work well.

No one denies that... but what's the cost???:rolleyes:

kmart6

Nah....we'd end up with armies like in MGS!

xOxSinéadxOx

the ESB doesn't need to up prices they could do with letting go a lot of their staff and a lot of them are overpaid for what they do

Black Swan

ART6 wrote: »

Competition is the Holy Grail that leads to better public services and lower prices. But does it?

Everything should not be privatized. For example, would you privatize prisons? They did this in the USA and now trade stock issues on the NYSE. But how do prisons make money? They don't, but rather depend upon the monies from taxpayers. Using the corporate business model and applying it to prisons, how do you increase stockholder equity? Buy increasing the number of prisoners and therefore the amount of tax monies received by the private sector for-profit prisons? If you are running a for-profit prison, the last thing you want to do is rehabilitate criminals and potentially reduce the number that return to prison?

Bush's Texas is a USA leader in for-profit prisons, not only housing prisoners from Texas, but also from surrounding states, too. Because growth in stockholder equity often relies on business growth, and the supply of prisoners was not an endless source, the for-profit prisons started to look for other sources of prisoners, besides ones with criminal convictions. And guess who they now house behind bars? Families (men, women, and children) caught crossing the boarder into the USA seeking a better life. And the longer they detain them, the more tax monies they get, continuing the growth in stock holder equity and improving the stock price on the NYSE. So these families are not sent immediately back to Mexico or other countries of origin, but detained in for-profit prisons as long as possible. The American Civil Liberties Union is challenging this in the courts, but with a Republican big business Bush administration overseeing what goes on in the States (like asking the fox to look after the chickens), the delays in obtaining the release of these families make for great stock holder return on equity. Another Great American success story?:rolleyes:

No! Everything should not be privatized!

stepbar

In fairness to the ESB they're one of the better semi state companies. They've got really ambitious plans for the future. And to be fair they've became very customer focused in the last number of years (yes, because of competition).

As long as you have strong unions you won't see too many public bodies privatised. Take a look at the VHI, prime example. If there was ever a company that needed to be privatised it's the VHI. Shower of wasters :rolleyes:

nyarlothothep

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Everything should not be privatized. For example, would you privatize prisons? They did this in the USA and now trade stock issues on the NYSE. But how do prisons make money? They don't, but rather depend upon the monies from taxpayers. Using the corporate business model and applying it to prisons, how do you increase stockholder equity? Buy increasing the number of prisoners and therefore the amount of tax monies received by the private sector for-profit prisons? If you are running a for-profit prison, the last thing you want to do is rehabilitate criminals and potentially reduce the number that return to prison?

Bush's Texas is a USA leader in for-profit prisons, not only housing prisoners from Texas, but also from surrounding states, too. Because growth in stockholder equity often relies on business growth, and the supply of prisoners was not an endless source, the for-profit prisons started to look for other sources of prisoners, besides ones with criminal convictions. And guess who they now house behind bars? Families (men, women, and children) caught crossing the boarder into the USA seeking a better life. And the longer they detain them, the more tax monies they get, continuing the growth in stock holder equity and improving the stock price on the NYSE. So these families are not sent immediately back to Mexico or other countries of origin, but detained in for-profit prisons as long as possible. The American Civil Liberties Union is challenging this in the courts, but with a Republican big business Bush administration overseeing what goes on in the States (like asking the fox to look after the chickens), the delays in obtaining the release of these families make for great stock holder return on equity. Another Great American success story?:rolleyes:

No! Everything should not be privatized!

wow, learn something new everyday. Not surprised but disgusted nonetheless at this.

Earthhorse

ART6 wrote: »

Trouble is, that if we leave those "utilities" in the hands of government and the civil service, then they are stifled by bureaucracy and red tape to the extent that they are wasteful beyond imagination.

ART6 wrote: »

Could we not try another way? Set up government departments to run power, water, etc, but bring in a top level industrialist to run each one. Pay him a salary of at least the level that we pay our ineffectual ministers and heads of quangos, and tell him to make each efficient, cost effective, and supplying its services at the lowest possible cost to the community and business without seeking to make a profit out of it. That is essentially a company limited by guarantee, the guarantee being that of the government.

Establish a shareholder's committees for each utility, those shareholders being TDs, not ministers, and representing the electorate (the stakeholders). They then attend AGMs and question the executives as they do in any company. If the department makes a mess of it's budget (see HSA) then heads roll at the AGM, TDs being more agressive beasts that ministers.

Yes, but that sounds like it would be...

ART6 wrote: »

stifled by bureaucracy and red tape to the extent that they are wasteful beyond imagination.

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

*slam dunk*

You're gonna have to stop posting intelligent, well thought out arguments in AH.

We fear change.

ankles

the problem in eircom is we gave away the network. same problem woulod be if we privatised ESb (the supplier of homes) as well as the ESB network. The State should hold onto networks as a public utility and then rent out usage to the private sector in competition, putting the money back into maintqaining/upgrading the network. Giving the network away in Eircom was MADNESS. I predict another westlink style buyback of the network if we can, especially as Babcock and Brown (current Eircom owners (did you know that?)) are in trouble. But get the government/State out of running as much as possible

kraggy

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

You have a point.

Esb employees are amongst the best paid/have security of employment/have all the benefits of a semi-state organisation/highly unionised.

Is it any wonder that ESB costs are going up????


Go figure.

Not so sure about that Flutter.

My uncle is in the ESB over 30 years and he earns a little more than what a teacher starts off on.

And he's in networks, where the bulk of the staff work.

ScumLord

When it comes to the essentials we should definitely have the state supplying them in a competitive market. Having both would keep both sides honest. Any company that has shareholders ensure the customer comes second but state owned companies become fat and lazy if they don't have competition.

kowloon

There needs to be an incentive to run a quality service aswell as just the money.
If the companies running the services were under scrutiny of a higher non-privatised body and could lose their contracts when they start messing about it would be a good system, in theory.
Of course I doubt any regulatory body can be trusted to be free from corruption when the penalties are so insignificant.

Pride Fighter

Health and justice should never be privatised IMO.
I think that the national grid and phone lines should be run by state but companies can set up private phone/power companies making a competitive market and in theory lowering prices.

Steve

ART6 wrote: »

Could we not try another way? Set up government departments to run power, water, etc, but bring in a top level industrialist to run each one. Pay him a salary of at least the level that we pay our ineffectual ministers and heads of quangos, and tell him to make each efficient, cost effective, and supplying its services at the lowest possible cost to the community and business without seeking to make a profit out of it. That is essentially a company limited by guarantee, the guarantee being that of the government.

I agree with what you're trying to say however there is a flaw.
The problem is a 'top level industrialist' will not be motavated by a salary. A proven 'top level industrialist' will already have more money than he can spend and will only be interested in poker game business, not the betterment of the gereral public.
Michael O'Leary would be an example that springs to mind - he revolutionised air travel in europe, what was his motivation? I don't think it was bringing cheap fares to the masses.

I've often wondered what would happen if our politicians were only given subsistance salaries - i.e. they had to do the job because they actually cared about the country rather than cared about the salary / perks / backhanders that come with the job.

ART6

stevec wrote: »

I agree with what you're trying to say however there is a flaw.
The problem is a 'top level industrialist' will not be motavated by a salary. A proven 'top level industrialist' will already have more money than he can spend and will only be interested in poker game business, not the betterment of the gereral public.
Michael O'Leary would be an example that springs to mind - he revolutionised air travel in europe, what was his motivation? I don't think it was bringing cheap fares to the masses.

I've often wondered what would happen if our politicians were only given subsistance salaries - i.e. they had to do the job because they actually cared about the country rather than cared about the salary / perks / backhanders that come with the job.

I wonder if you're right about that? There seems some evidence from around the world that such people often enjoy the challenge of turning a poor quality state enterprise into an efficient and effective one. Michael O'Leary is currently in the business of making money and nothing else, because that's what the shareholders of Ryanair expect. He is answerable to them. If he was (say) made CEO of the ESB, answerable to a "holding in trust" shareholder group of TDs, and given free hand by government to do whatever necessary to make the operation as efficient as possible including cutting out red tape, then the profit motive would not exist. It would be replaced by the efficiency and cost minimisation motive.

I'm not suggesting that he or a number of others of the same class would take it on. I don't know them that well. But perhaps someone in government might ask them?

I agree with your comment about politicians though. Looking at the history of the UK where government goes back much further than here, in the 19th century that was how government there worked. The MPs were in the main people who had made or inherited their money and weren't in it for the loot. At that time, apparently, the total civil service work force was less than that of their MoD now, and then they were controlling an empire that covered a lot of the world. They were, however, ruthless bastards for whom "human rights" held little importance because that's how it was then. Maybe nowadays, tempered with a little sprinkling of humanity, what you are suggesting might just work. If we could ever lever the current crop of politicians out of the trough

Lockstep

Privatize everything?

Nah.


ANyone read this?

jester77

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Privatize everything?

Nah.


ANyone read this?

Excellent book!

Privatise everything is not the way. Look at the way Milton Friedman tried to influence foreign governments into privatising everything and what happened, particularly in Chile!