Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[cem_devecioglu]

may be simplicity is better..

privatisation in the long term  practicality shows tendency to uplift personal/group/cartels profits more than the societys needs ..   causing the prices to go up.. which then later you need to balance with making extra laws where the community and the senate will face numerous problems ..

history and examples prooved that a million times so I'll cut here..

I'm minded to agree with you cem - there may be a fair old capitalist streak running through me but there's also a bit of a socialist in there as well.

 

[cem_devecioglu]

interestingly just finished watching Robin Hood DVD on pc for the second time

  Splendid.

thanks Zulu

[albitz]

I should also point out I am very much against HS2 - and not just because it passes my front door (its too far from me to affect me).

Ah, but that is in the National interest, so that may be one of those exceptions.  Private money will no doubt be invested in it though

Why is it in the National interest? Only a limited few will ever be able to make use of it.

Well the Northerners will be able to come down to the Southerners easily, and visa versa!  We will no longer be a divided nation.  Have we not got closer to the French since the  Chunnel and HS1 was built?    ;D

Two very good reasons to strangle the project at birth.

(only joking about the first one)

[albitz]

Zulu - do you have any idea how the level of rates in Norn Irn would compare with a combination of council tax and water bills on the mainland ?
I have the impression that they are paying a lot less over there at present, but I could be wrong. :-/

[Dishevelled Den]

Zulu - do you have any idea how the level of rates in Norn Irn would compare with a combination of council tax and water bills on the mainland ?
I have the impression that they are paying a lot less over there at present, but I could be wrong. :-/

This is another one that caused some rancour when it was rolled out.

There was a subsequent revaluation along the lines originally envisaged that did in fact raise the valuations on more than a few properties which, at the time, was painful given the runaway price hikes in the housing market.

Although prices have now dropped back to a point where they are almost, but quite, moribund another revaluation is due in the near future.

Have a look at the following and you'll get a feel for what had been happening there and what may happen here on the mainland should the single capital valuation scheme eventually come into force.



http://www.fairratescampaign.co.uk/rates_reform.html

[albitz]

I think whichever system they use will probably be cack, but I believe that there should be a single UK system.

[Banjax]

We still have Scottish Water up here Liz, which is still, rightly, a public authority and works on the basis of providing water at the lowest reasonable cost - highly regulated and closely monitored as Zulu says - it seems to work well enough - its a cheaper and more efficient service than that provided by our southern neighbours 

NI's problems stem from chronic under investment in infrastructure, which i believe a report by the Institute of Civil Engineers highlighted about 10 years ago would lead to severe water shortages....seems no one listened 

[Dishevelled Den]

I think whichever system they use will probably be cack, but I believe that there should be a single UK system.

Well as you know anything to do with Northern Ireland will in most cases carry a heavy political burden.

There were shameful tactics used by direct rule ministers at various points in the recent past to 'encourage' the local elders to smoke the peace-pipe in a slightly more civilised way and fall into line with Westminster’s chosen path.

The ratings system and water charges were but two of them but in the end it was, and will continue to be, a stunted process as the main protagonists are too dissimilar to eventually coalesce into an homogenised group with a clear plan to reinvigorate what is an essentially stagnant country.

It's the natural consequence of putting people into government at any cost and hoping that it will work.

The main problem of course is that the war is far from over.

[albitz]

Very wise words uncle Z.

[MikeDundee]

I think whichever system they use will probably be cack, but I believe that there should be a single UK system.

Well as you know anything to do with Northern Ireland will in most cases carry a heavy political burden.

There were shameful tactics used by direct rule ministers at various points in the recent past to 'encourage' the local elders to smoke the peace-pipe in a slightly more civilised way and fall into line with Westminster’s chosen path.

The ratings system and water charges were but two of them but in the end it was, and will continue to be, a stunted process as the main protagonists are too dissimilar to eventually coalesce into an homogenised group with a clear plan to reinvigorate what is an essentially stagnant country.

It's the natural consequence of putting people into government at any cost and hoping that it will work.

The main problem of course is that the war is far from over.

Potentially hit the nail on the head there Zulu, and in terms of Lizzie's original query regarding privatisation, I disagree with it. As in effect it is off-book accounting for the government, as they will still hold shares to an extent within the company, and will still cost the government and us as taxpayers money in the long run.

The current government's plans are to privatise as much as they possibly can within local authorities, but funding the changes in the short term. However, there is no guarantee that this will improve the services currently being provided that they are looking at changing. have a read of the Governments comprehensive spending reveiw, where it is all spelled out.   

I would'nt mind so much but this government was'nt even voted in. I don't see the current governemnt improving anything for this country at all, stroll on the next election

[Varche]

Could the answer to Lizzies original question be as simple as " The NI government spent all the money on peace keeping" . That would seem reasonable to me. The Scottish and Welsh governments didn't spend that sort of money on peace keeping.

On the general subject of privatisation. personally I think they are a bad thing. There should be no reason at all why a government run company should be any more or less efficient than a privately run one. In fact you could argue that it doesn't need to make money for its shareholders (Nationwide BS versus Halifax - no contest). The one deciding issue for me is that the people owned the utilities and then they were sold off (often at a discount) and are now owned by Johnny Foreigner! Now that really is the economics of the madhouse. It won't bite us today or tomorrow but one day it will.

[Dishevelled Den]

Potentially hit the nail on the head there Zulu, and in terms of Lizzie's original query regarding privatisation, I disagree with it. As in effect it is off-book accounting for the government, as they will still hold shares to an extent within the company, and will still cost the government and us as taxpayers money in the long run.

The current government's plans are to privatise as much as they possibly can within local authorities, but funding the changes in the short term. However, there is no guarantee that this will improve the services currently being provided that they are looking at changing. have a read of the Governments comprehensive spending reveiw, where it is all spelled out.   

I would'nt mind so much but this government was'nt even voted in. I don't see the current governemnt improving anything for this country at all, stroll on the next election

That's it Mick - when you start peeling back the layers of the onion you may well find that the centre is rotten.

There's too much ballicking about within government at the moment – although, without doubt, actually trying to govern and talking about it when without responsibility in opposition are entirely different animals so it’s far from easy.

There’s no substitute for strong, capable government working under clear mandate and I more than agree with you that we needn’t hold our breath for the present bunch to do much in the constructive sense for the country any time soon.

Finally on the privatisation note, I don’t really mind if it’s properly regulated but insofar as strategic infrastructure is concerned I can’t really accept that it’s sensible to leave these vital services totally in the hands of private concerns.

Lizzie herself highlighted the basic flaw in the whole notion – citing national importance - when she recognised that the proposed fast rail link (HS2) would never be built using money from entirely private sources.  This confirms to me (even though it will be a sizeable project) that the ‘bottom-line’ will always be the prime motivational factor when the private sector considers getting involved in these capital projects.

[Dishevelled Den]

Could the answer to Lizzies original question be as simple as " The NI government spent all the money on peace keeping" . That would seem reasonable to me. The Scottish and Welsh governments didn't spend that sort of money on peace keeping.

For Northern Ireland Government substitute Westminster as the Stormont based elected government in Belfast was prorogued in 1972 and abolished in 1973.

And yes, V, all the chickens have eventually come home to roost as there was a phenomenal amount of resources directed into the security budget - with other services, water included, suffering correspondingly.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

mmmmmmm 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)   A lot of really interesting observations on this topic, which have highlighted the complexities of the private / government involvement in what is in the case of NI water a nationally important resource.

You can do without the trains and buses running when the managerial system collapses with money running out.  But with water it is an essential of life, an almost 'right' that the people have this fuel of life in a clean and running condition in a first rate country in the 21st century.

As stated by some bottom line profit is an essential element in a  healthy organization, not just to reward those who invest in it, but critically to invest in the best people talent and the infrastructure of the system; in this case the water distribution system.  Socialist beliefs in the past in the UK and elsewhere have created large state monoplies, operating for the good of the people, not profit.  An admirable aim and theory perhaps, but, sorry to the socialists on here, it just does not work in most cases.

Without that healthy private competition and investment, with profits, the system is neglected, it is controlled by politicians who know little about the industry they control.  British Rail as just one example was run almost into the ground by incompetents who knew nothing about railways, who would not invest in it as required, but used it for political means.  The result was a decrepit, backward, under funded, railway with the skilled core of the business of old, the staff, gone, that would have suited a third world country.

The NI water fiasco is yet another example of politicians thinking they can run a business, only investing what they think is right.  Look at the result.  Think also of past socialist government involvement in the British Steel, Coal, and Car industries; they became a national, very expensive, embarrassment along with the rest of the country until the great days of Thatcher of course!! 8-) 8-)

[hoofing it]

Nationalisation could work if there wasn't 1 manager for every worker and all those mp's/councilers with there fingers in multiple pies at any one time.