"Is there no limit to what and how this coalition government will privatise?”

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The US and its financially efficient healthcare system!! Actually,I think I might have been daydreaming the last part.

[TheAnimus]

I agree with that example, but I think I cited two examples (bin collection and road repair), both of which here are outsourced at considerable cost. Wondered your view on those two?

Worked well in some places. Just because something has been badly privatised, doesn't mean that giving the inept muppet who did that more power will make things better.

Road repair is an odd one, as I live in London, so some are TFL others my local council. Both are truly terrible. The one that pisses me off, is we let people dig up the road for cable (I want broadband as much as the next man!) but then let them do a dodgy repair that lasts 1 year at most. There should be better fines for peoples work. They should have to post bonds or collateral of some kind, to ensure the value of the repair. If it is carried out by a 3rd party or council owned doesn't matter.

[phil4]

Agree with the digging up.

And to balance my statements, I've no faith in anyone from local council to government ministers actually being able to do a good job.

So dilemma on my example is either pay shed loads to some shareholders or pay almost as much for a shoddy job that costs so much due to ineptness.

Hmmmm.

[pp05]

It started under last Tory government under Major, carried on under Blair and now back to Tory to take it further. They tried to assuage doubters fear of privatization by capping the amount of private activity allowed within NHS (I think 10-15%) but the damage is done.

Reality the government - any government- faces with the NHS in its present form will swallow up the whole sum of nations tax revenue within next two decades if things are left as is, at a time of declining tax receipts.

[Pob255]

The only problem with that is that when the road is dug up to repair some pipe, it's not the council that does it, it's the private firms (gas/water/electric) they sub contract the actual work out as cheaply as possible because unless it's planned work, as there's actually rules about the number of times a road can be dug up for planned work, you'll generally find it's with 6 months of it being resurfaced, unless it's emergency repairs which actually carries a fee chargeable to the council.

Sorry but privatisation is a massively mixed bag, because it depends on the company saying all private companies can do a better job cheaper is just a great example I know about here (because my mother used to work for them) is thames water, she joined them in the early 90's a few year after they where privatised,one of the big reasons for the privatisation of the water companies was that they needed large scale investment to modernise.
At first it was good, a lot of work was done on the storage and pumping side, but the pipe network was a major issue, a lot of the minor pipes that where thought to have another 10 years where failing and needed major work, a lot more investment was needed so it was sold off by the major stock holders to RWE (a german utility company)
The company was "restructured", read massive lay off's and voluntary redundancies, especially in the work crews who where replaced by subcontracted cheap inexperienced labour, some investment was done but mainly in piping to new housing developments not replacement to old failing pipes.
Profits where up, emergency leaks got patched, tons of water was still being lost to a growing myriad of minor leaks, But who cares? the improved storage and pumping systems could cope.
They were only forced to really start addressing the issue when the fines on the leaks was increased and they started losing money.
More rounds of layoff's and voluntary redundancies followed (this is when my mother took early retirement)
Eventually it was so bad RWE sold it to Kemble who have had to sink billions into it but who have got it out of the red.

I'm not saying privatisation or all private companies are bad, just that it's not always a good thing ether.

One thing I do like is the way, in this blood example, a 20% stake is being kept public, so the public purse will get a cut, that's suspiciously long term thinking for government.

[flearider]

if we stopped the lobbying the pay off's little brown packets do you think this would still happen ??
for one side it's about greed for the other it's about control ...

[badass]

Not quite, many of the "too big to fail" where just that, the bank are a great example, if they did collapse our entire social and economic structure would of gone with it, we would of gone through a period of anarchy before a new system arose.

I keep hearing that kind of line but I haven't heard anyone explain how that was the only option, now how total collapse would occur as a result of the gov't letting them collapse.

I disagree. I believe they would have gone into administration like any other company. Since they are so big, no one could have bought them. Thus they would have been broken up and the parts auctioned off. Of course, investors in the shares directly would have lost money to which I say "the price of your investment may go down as well as up" but one of the real big concerns would be pension funds, creditors and savers. These are examples of stakeholders that should have had government bailouts. Of course, finer detail would be needed for any plan but I believe that whilst the initial downturn would have been worse, by the time the downturn was 3-4 years old, the removal of the parasitic leeches from the economy would be complete enough that it would be a lot healthier.
House prices would have completely collapsed but the government could have had a scheme where any losses to individuals for their primary residence from house price collapse are 90% covered by the government. So far the bank of england has spent £375 billion inflating the price of government bonds, effectively giving money to bondholders. That money could have been used to finance the bailouts of more appropriate parties.

[jim]

I have no issue with privatisation as a concept, but I don't understand how it makes sense when the market precludes competition.

So for British Airways, I get it. There's nothing to prevent new airlines taking over part of their business, and competition drives the industry. Fine.

But electricity? We've still only got one supplier - the National Grid. And there's a whole bunch of pointless middle-men who fritter away millions on referral fees, dividends, salesmen, and advertising. Gas and water are much the same.

Telecommunications is not much better - we've gone from having one in BT, to two in BT and Virgin Media. There are a whole bunch of middlemen again, but they're just piggybacking off BT in the most part. And they always will, because we simply can't have endless numbers of cables running into houses for each supplier, and it would never be economical.

Railways are even more stupid in my eyes, since services are usually restricted to a single operator.

I struggle to see the benefits. And if the only excuse is that government is rubbish at running these things in an economical manner, then that's what needs fixing - not just taking everything out of their hands.

[Saracen]

I keep hearing that kind of line but I haven't heard anyone explain how that was the only option, now how total collapse would occur as a result of the gov't letting them collapse.

I disagree. I believe they would have gone into administration like any other company. Since they are so big, no one could have bought them. Thus they would have been broken up and the parts auctioned off. Of course, investors in the shares directly would have lost money to which I say "the price of your investment may go down as well as up" but one of the real big concerns would be pension funds, creditors and savers. These are examples of stakeholders that should have had government bailouts. Of course, finer detail would be needed for any plan but I believe that whilst the initial downturn would have been worse, by the time the downturn was 3-4 years old, the removal of the parasitic leeches from the economy would be complete enough that it would be a lot healthier.
House prices would have completely collapsed but the government could have had a scheme where any losses to individuals for their primary residence from house price collapse are 90% covered by the government. So far the bank of england has spent £375 billion inflating the price of government bonds, effectively giving money to bondholders. That money could have been used to finance the bailouts of more appropriate parties.

Because banking is the grease that keeps the wheeks turning, and because about the only thing that keeps money worth anything is confidence that it is.

Think bank to the days of the queues outside Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley. People, not surprisingly, panic at the notion of a luquidity crisis, let alone a solvency crisis, and that's just two banks, one of which was relatively tiny. But, start that with Halifax or NatWest, etc, and you're staring at a bank meltdown, and very likely, not just of one bank but ALL of them.

Remember the situation. Banks didn't even trust each other enough to lend between themselves.

It's inherent in the way modern banks work, with hugely leveraged balanced sheets. None of them, probably now but certainly back then, can survive a massive call on deposits to be repaid, now, in cash, UNLESS they can borrow to do it because they just don't have the liquidity.

And bank runs, once started, take on a life of their own. Even if they are fundamentally sound, TV pictures of queues causes more queues, because people won't take the risk of being the one left standing when the music stops. That collapse of confidence results in even sound banks having to close their doors if they cannot cover cash demands.

And the whole point of the crisis, and why banks wouldn't lend to banks, was that the sub-prime disaster, and "securitisation" of assets, is that nobody, including the banks, knew what their own assets were actually worth .... and to a fair degree, still don't. Hence, banks not lending to other banks, or doing so at very high rates.

So, banks close. Not just one, but several, maybe all. Any money you have deposited could be lost, any bonds you have becone worthless, companies with deposits lose them, companies with cash on overnight markets lose it, so investment ceases, payrolls can't be met because the funds on deposit cease to exist, unemployment rockets. No business will supply goods to any other company on credit, because too many are failing, and as the government didn't step in to protect money, we could well lose all faith in money and end up with a barter economy, or only gold, or dollars, become acceptable 'money'. Oh, and rampant inflation, too.

And forget pensions, because a lot of the assets pension funds consist of ceased to exist.

And if Halifax BoS had closed it's doors, that may have been the result. Economic meltdown, because the trust and confidence that underlies just about all aspects of a modern economy were exposed as the Emperor's new clothes.

The fact is, if a bank like HBoS had gone down, it's unknowable how far the damage would have spread, but that doomsday scenario, while not certain, was certainly plausible. And we came within a few hours away from finding out. By which I mean, 5 or 6 hours.

[chuckskull]

Related; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23401074

David Cameron faces fresh questions about his election strategist Lynton Crosby after it emerged his lobbying firm advised private health companies at the time of NHS reforms.

Mr Crosby's company told a group of private healthcare providers how to exploit perceived "failings" in the NHS, the Guardian reported.

Labour frontbencher Andy Burnham called it a "shocking conflict of interest".

A Conservative spokesman said Mr Crosby had never lobbied the prime minister.

Love to know how many of the companies he advised how to exploit the NHS got contracts.

Sure, blood is emotive, but it is a commodity, the same way saline is privatised or the needles or the tubing.

If it's a commodity I'd like to know what Bain Capital will paying per pint for my next visit. Currently all blood is provided as a charitable donation, you'll excuse me if I get offended by my charitable donations being used for private profit rather than the benefit of those I donated to.

[wasabi]

Related; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23401074



Love to know how many of the companies he advised how to exploit the NHS got contracts.



If it's a commodity I'd like to know what Bain Capital will paying per pint for my next visit. Currently all blood is provided as a charitable donation, you'll excuse me if I get offended by my charitable donations being used for private profit rather than the benefit of those I donated to.

Perhaps if people were paid for blood, there would be more of it readily available?

Win-Win.

[Agent]

Perhaps if people were paid for blood, there would be more of it readily available?

Win-Win.

It's an interesting area - there are several papers on the subject. A quick search brings up: http://www.voxeu.org/article/blood-m...blood-donation

Importantly, we find that a monetary reward reduced the probability of donation consistent with the crowding out hypothesis, whilst a non-monetary reward consistently with a normal supply curve suggests a positive and significant effect on the donation probability.

Interestingly, paying people doesn't get the increases most people expect.

[pp05]

Interestingly, paying people doesn't get the increases most people expect.

Doesn't surprise me because donating blood is as personal you can get. It would come under social. Doing something for a cause bigger than yourself, money would cheapen it.

[pp05]

I have no issue with privatisation as a concept, but I don't understand how it makes sense when the market precludes competition.

So for British Airways, I get it. There's nothing to prevent new airlines taking over part of their business, and competition drives the industry. Fine.

But electricity? We've still only got one supplier - the National Grid. And there's a whole bunch of pointless middle-men who fritter away millions on referral fees, dividends, salesmen, and advertising. Gas and water are much the same.



I struggle to see the benefits. And if the only excuse is that government is rubbish at running these things in an economical manner, then that's what needs fixing - not just taking everything out of their hands.

I agree.

There are some areas where it would be better under the government particularly energy.

When you have a monopoly the only thing left to do is sell your wares under individuals personal branding. It is still BT, they still get paid but it allows more people doing their legwork locally.

Water should never have been privatized. Thames Water - they haven't invested at all. Just been sitting counting the money. Same with student loans - it is a govt asset in the long-term but they want to sell it off to banks for short-term gain under the 'times are tough' mantra in the near future.

[TheAnimus]

If it's a commodity I'd like to know what Bain Capital will paying per pint for my next visit. Currently all blood is provided as a charitable donation, you'll excuse me if I get offended by my charitable donations being used for private profit rather than the benefit of those I donated to.

It probably already is, my understanding is that people who need it for private procedures, including say cosmetic, buy it from the same market.

Not to mention the people who profit from the needle (disposable!) that is used, the bag, the tubing. They all profit from your charity and damned decency (they won't take my blood as I often take an Asthma drug they dislike). However you also get some useful help, free screening, and certain markers are checked as standard.

For the main body of your post, you might want to have a shifty over here:
http://order-order.com/2013/07/23/th...comment-about/
It appears someone might have miss-understood who one of the lobbying firms were.

[wasabi]

Handing over a natural monopoly to the private sector seems foolhardy (water / power). You need a degree of real competition to make it work.

I've worked in the Quango sector for years, I have seen massive benefits to the public where our resource allocation people were able to outsource work to contractors rather than rely on in-house staff. Flexibility to deal with peaks and troughs of demand, and sheer value for money labour compared to bureacratically encumbered public sector staff.