Plans for police privatisation (other privatisation)

[Captain...]

Just because it hasn't been reported in the Guardian doesn't mean there hasn't been massive investment in water and rail infrastructure. Standards have been raised by legislation and that has cost money to enforce,

As for energy prices have gone up around the world due to higher demand from developing nations, a lessening of resources and all this carbon reduction crap.

I wouldn't mind if we'd got rid of efficient, world beating services but British Rail? Really?

That doesn't mean that if it hadn't been privatised those wouldn't have happened, the fact that we need legislation and regulatory bodies to manage the private companies and enforce them to do an honest job and actually be competitive in the market rather than collude on price fixing and over charge the consumers is reason enough not to privatise utilities. The fact that energy companies are posting profits in the billions shows that it is not just the high energy prices that mean that energy prices are so high.

The other defence that British Rail and other public services were not very good just goes to show the government that was responsible for running these services couldn't do it very well, it has been argued deliberately so as to allow the sale of these companies without much protest.

The rail service at the moment is no better than it was before, just more expensive, we are still suffering from droughts more severe than hotter countries with less rainfall, do you know they have never had a hosepipe ban in Spain.

Then there is the simple fact that there is no cometition, I can't choose which company I use if I am getting the train from Leicester to London, I can't choose where the energy or water comes from just which company badly handles my overinflated payment for it.

When all said and done this money could be being made by the government and not by private companies.

[Daggers]

Perfect opportunity here for you to try and show that you have even the slightest clue what you are talking about, so go ahead and disprove it. You can't, because it's correct and as per usual, you're wrong.

You know nothing at all about this subject. Why do you even bother trying to sound like you do? It just makes you look like a fool.

You made the statement I laughed at, there again there's not much new there, you provided zero evidence to support the hysterical notion that something like our rail network infrastructure is the best in the world.

I'm guessing you don't get much respect in your day to day job upsizing orders which must be the reason why, despite your protestations about not thinking my posts are worth reading, you simply keep on reading and commenting upon them.

You're just one more ignorant bigot troll who relies on dogma rather than debate and I tire of you.

*ignore*

[Daggers]

I don't feel you've taken my constructive criticism in the spirit it was intended.

It was never directed at you mate, just the chump troll and his moronic protestations.

[dave the caveman]

You made the statement I laughed at, there again there's not much new there, you provided zero evidence to support the hysterical notion that something like our rail network infrastructure is the best in the world.

I'm guessing you don't get much respect in your day to day job upsizing orders which must be the reason why, despite your protestations about not thinking my posts are worth reading, you simply keep on reading and commenting upon them.

You're just one more ignorant bigot troll who relies on dogma rather than debate and I tire of you.

*ignore*

Did you miss the bit where I said "energy and utilities" infrastructure then?

Even so, you're making judgements about the rail network with no evidence at all, judgements which i suspect are probably based on nothing more than the fact that Bristish people and the media like to have a bit of a whinge about it from time to time. You don't actually know how our rail network compares to other countries, so why are you pretending that you do?

Until you can provide some evidence that what I said is incorrect then you will go on making yourself look like a fool.

[Jon the Hat]

Water

Has privatisation fixed the leaks or organised a constant flow of high quality water to all homes? No.

Has privatisation led to competition keeping down prices thanks to market competition? No.

Has privatisation benefited the weakest within society? Absolutely not.

Rail

Has privatisation improved the quality of the infrastructure? No.

Has privatisation improved the quality of service? No.

Has privatisation improved safety? Fvck off.

Has privatisation improved the cost? Sorry...I'm too busy laughing at this one to just type 'no'.

Energy

Has privatisation driven down prices due to market competition? Absolutely not.

We have all ended up paying more for the services directly to the suppliers PLUS indirectly in the form of ongoing government grants. Privatisation has been an unmitigated failure. You can broaden this out and look and the dramatic rise in the cost the the individual for care-home provision coupled with the nosedive in care-home standards and quality of staff or any number of aspects of health or social provision which has been dicked over by Thatcherite/New Labour/Thatcherlite thinking.

Even if the level of service had been improved, which it hasn't, that still doesn't justify the excessive profits and bonuses going to private executives instead of being directed back into the exchequer. It, like Osborne's & Lansley's brains, doesn't work.

Bonuses aside, you are ignoring the fact that capital investment in the private sector is partly paid for via equity and hence dividends to shareholders, whereas in the public sector it is paid for by Government debt. So comparing profits in the private sector to fully funded public sector is nonsense becuase it completely ignores the cost of funding things in the public sector.

[Webbo]

The other defence that British Rail and other public services were not very good just goes to show the government that was responsible for running these services couldn't do it very well, it has been argued deliberately so as to allow the sale of these companies without much protest.

The rail service at the moment is no better than it was before, just more expensive, we are still suffering from droughts more severe than hotter countries with less rainfall, do you know they have never had a hosepipe ban in Spain.

Government are always awful at running companies, that's why they should always be privatised. We had hosepipe bans in the 70s and British Rail was always shit.

[NeilyBoy]

Water

Has privatisation fixed the leaks or organised a constant flow of high quality water to all homes? No.

Has privatisation led to competition keeping down prices thanks to market competition? No.

Has privatisation benefited the weakest within society? Absolutely not.

Rail

Has privatisation improved the quality of the infrastructure? No.

Has privatisation improved the quality of service? No.

Has privatisation improved safety? Fvck off.

Has privatisation improved the cost? Sorry...I'm too busy laughing at this one to just type 'no'.

Energy

Has privatisation driven down prices due to market competition? Absolutely not.

We have all ended up paying more for the services directly to the suppliers PLUS indirectly in the form of ongoing government grants. Privatisation has been an unmitigated failure. You can broaden this out and look and the dramatic rise in the cost the the individual for care-home provision coupled with the nosedive in care-home standards and quality of staff or any number of aspects of health or social provision which has been dicked over by Thatcherite/New Labour/Thatcherlite thinking.

Even if the level of service had been improved, which it hasn't, that still doesn't justify the excessive profits and bonuses going to private executives instead of being directed back into the exchequer. It, like Osborne's & Lansley's brains, doesn't work.

When I was growing up it would often take me at least half an hour to make the 5 minute train journey to Guildford, in fact I rarely showed up on time and yet always caught the train.

Nowadays if a train's due at x o'clock it will arrive within a minute or two of that time in most cases. I can count on one hand the number of cancellations and massively late trains I've caught this past year. So yes, the service has improved massively. Unfortunately I can't say the same of the cost...

[Zingari]

Government are always awful at running companies, that's why they should always be privatised. We had hosepipe bans in the 70s and British Rail was always shit.

Maybe things were just as bad back then , but that's not the point really .

Where's the evidence that things are better now under private ownership ?

What has been the benefit of selling off the family silver?

Being "just as bad or no worse" is not really a recommendation for the massive change , considering we don't actually own them anymore and any profits made go to private individuals not back into the public purse.

The theory was that selling them off would lead to massive savings and increased productivity , better quality of service , less waste etc etc

If it's any consolation , I fell for this shite too , but I think it's time to admit we were wrong .

Any improvement in services ( if any ) has been marginal at best

[Webbo]

Maybe things were just as bad back then , but that's not the point really .

Where's the evidence that things are better now under private ownership ?

What has been the benefit of selling off the family silver?

Being "just as bad or no worse" is not really a recommendation for the massive change , considering we don't actually own them anymore and any profits made go to private individuals not back into the public purse.

The theory was that selling them off would lead to massive savings and increased productivity , better quality of service , less waste etc etc

If it's any consolation , I fell for this shite too , but I think it's time to admit we were wrong .

Any improvement in services ( if any ) has been marginal at best

There has been massive investment in infrastructure. During the mid 90s we had loads of road works while Severn Trent built a new sewer system to replace the old Victorian system.The quality of water has had to been improved under EU regulations, our beaches and seawater have improved.

The West Coast main line cost billions in the last decade, a new braking system to stop trains going through signals cost a couple of billion, all paid for by the private sector. The numbers of people using the railways has increased too and anecdotally it seems to me that we have far fewer train crashes than we had when I was a kid.

The govt couldn't or wouldn't be prepared to spend the kind of money needed to pay for these improvements.It also seems to be more demanding, standards wise, of these industries than it was when they were responsible.

[davieG]

If I remember correctly there was very little investment in the railways for years before it was "privatised" we've been pumping millions into it and now it's administration.

I really don't understand it's structure but it seems to be a subsidised private company and is costing the tax payer considerable more than the old British Rail..

If anyone is able to explain it's existence in a simple many i'd like to know it.

Daily Mail

A total of £300 million of taxpayers' money is going into a bid to buy-out collapsed rail infrastructure company Railtrack, it was announced today.

But Transport Secretary Stephen Byers stressed payment of the cash bail out would only be made if Railtrack came out of administration early.

The £300 million, together with £200 million to be borrowed from the City, is part of a financial proposal to take over Railtrack outlined today by Network Rail, the newly-named not-for-profit company limited by guarantee (CLG) bidding for Railtrack.

Added to assets within in the Railtrack Group, the £500 million will enable Railtrack's shareholders to get around £2.50 per share.

Shares, which were at one time as high as £17, were suspended at £2.80 when Mr Byers took steps to place Railtrack in administration last October.

Mr Byers has repeatedly said since then that no taxpayers' money would go to help Railtrack shareholders.

Today, he said the £300 million grant reflected "the value and benefits of an early exit from administration" and was "self-financing from savings that will be made by the CLG".

But while the Rail Passengers Council welcomed the fact that Railtrack could now be out of administration as early as July, shadow transport secretary Theresa May accused Mr Byers of a "humiliating U-turn" and urged him to consider a rival bid.

Railtrack has about 250,000 shareholders who own a total of around 520 million shares.

The Network Rail proposal today would provide about 1p a share, while the group's assets - which includes its share of the Channel Tunnel high-speed rail link - would be worth around another £1.50 a share.

Railtrack Group, which unlike Railtrack Plc is NOT in administration, said: "We welcome today's approach by Network Rail and will be studying it carefully. It will be up to the shareholders to have the final say."

The proposal by Network Rail has come ahead of planned legal action against Mr Byers over Railtrack shares and fears that the company could have been in administration until at least November.

The £300 million Government grant, together with the £200 million bank loan, represent an "early exit" payment.

Network Rail chairman Ian McAllister said that trying to reach a July target for ending the administration period would be "quite challenging". Network Rail added that Brussels would have to approve the Government grant.

The newly-named company will borrow up to £9 billion, with the Strategic Rail Authority providing standby loans.

This would enable Network Rail to raise enough funds to acquire Railtrack Plc and to refinance its existing debt of around £6.5 billion.

Mr McAllister promised that the "robust and comprehensive" deal would end conflict in the rail industry and improve safety.

He said: "It is time for a fresh start for the rail industry. Network Rail's proposal marks a watershed for Britain's railway.

"It is an opportunity to endorse a better way of working, bringing the industry together for the benefit of all rail users.

"We will end the confrontation that has all too often characterised this fragmented industry and establish new management structures and incentives to deliver system-wide performance and safety improvements.

"We will build on the pride and passion in Railtrack's people, elevating engineering excellence to where it belongs, at the heart of the rail network.

"We are committed to continually improving safety standards on Britain's railways."

Mr McAllister said an "immense amount of preparation work" had gone into the proposal and the new company had undertaken extensive consultation with the industry.

He added: "I believe that this approach is the best way to ensure that Railtrack plc does not remain in administration for a great many months to come.

"The 'early exit' payment is the only realistic option for Railtrack Group Plc to realise value in the short-term.

"Network Rail was created to solve the accumulated problems of Britain's rail infrastructure.

"This cannot happen overnight, but Network Rail will deliver investment funded at a very low cost of capital and avoid any suggestion of putting profit before safety.

"Network Rail has the structure and the vision to deliver a rail network which meets the expectations of the travelling public."

Mr Byers said: "I welcome the bid for Railtrack tabled today by Network Rail A company limited by guarantee will be able to put the interests of the travelling public first.

"There will be no shareholders, so any operating surplus will be used for the benefit of the railway system."

Mr Byers added: "Network Rail is committed to engineering excellence. Their bid has the potential to bring the rail industry together and overcome the confrontation that has all too often characterised it in the past.

"The Government has always said that Railtrack shareholders should get the value in the company to which they are entitled, but that there would be no additional taxpayers' money to compensate the shareholders.

"Network Rail's bid is consistent with this approach. It includes, as part of its offer, a Government grant of £300 million to reflect the value and benefits of an early exit from administration.

"For the Government, it will be self-financing from savings that will be made by the company limited by guarantee.

"It therefore follows that if there is not an early exit, then the savings will not be made. In such circumstances the £300 million will not be made available."

Ms May said: "It is clear the Government has been panicked into doing this because they are worried about the threat of being taken to court and having to reveal the truth of their decision on Railtrack, which was a political decision and not a financial one," she told the Today programme.

"And, of course, they are worried about the damage that Stephen Byers has done to the relationship between the Government and the private sector."

She went on: "But the real question for Stephen Byers this morning is that it is now clear there is an offer on the table which would compensate the shareholders, put the company on an even keel, bring it out of administration early and not use taxpayers money.

"Why is he not looking at the offer? Why has he been panicked?"

Anthony Smith, national director of the Rail Passengers Council, said the bid was "good news for passengers because it ends the long term uncertainty about Railtrack's position".

He added: "The fact that the Government money is not coming from railway investment is encouraging and overall it will help Railtrack to quickly be re-established at the centre of the railway industry, but in a shape that can deliver what passengers want and with better accountability."

Read more:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-106630/Taxpayers-money-bail-Railtrack.html#ixzz1oC1iBej1

[Bellend Sebastian]

I bloody love you. Fancy a gay marriage?

Well of course I do.

Sorry for the slow reply, I was so excited I've been out ever since looking for suitable venues. To my surprise I discovered that there's a lot of prejudice against this sort of thing!

You live and learn

[Daggers]

When I was growing up it would often take me at least half an hour to make the 5 minute train journey to Guildford, in fact I rarely showed up on time and yet always caught the train.

Nowadays if a train's due at x o'clock it will arrive within a minute or two of that time in most cases. I can count on one hand the number of cancellations and massively late trains I've caught this past year. So yes, the service has improved massively. Unfortunately I can't say the same of the cost...

The stats say no they haven't - and no more than they would have done under continued public ownership...whereas you've highlighted the cost which outstrips common sense which has to be factored into any reasonable analysis of "improvement".

The response of the Condom government? To remove the ticket price rise cap so this year averages 8% and next year will see 13% rises.

Government are always awful at running companies, that's why they should always be privatised. We had hosepipe bans in the 70s and British Rail was always shit.

We did have hosepipe bans in the 70s. And the 80s. And the 90s. And the 00s. And fvck me if we aren't having them this decade too. Massive advances? Meanwhile, I don't remember large numbers of people suffering from heavy metal poisoning back then though...

Network Rail is shit, Railtrack was shit, Network South-East/LTS/Connex are shit, Virgin East-coast was shit, Crosscountry are frequently shit, I can't remember the last time I actually got a seat on Virgin...but let's not be anecdotal - let's deal in facts.

Bonuses aside, you are ignoring the fact that capital investment in the private sector is partly paid for via equity and hence dividends to shareholders, whereas in the public sector it is paid for by Government debt. So comparing profits in the private sector to fully funded public sector is nonsense becuase it completely ignores the cost of funding things in the public sector.

I'd answer this Jon if I understood what your point was, but it's either me being thick or you not being clear - take your pick

===============================================

Electricity

Private ownership drives down production costs but end user quality is higher with public ownership – a US electric utility study which mirrors those carried out into other utilities and other countries.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3696050

Considering that I'm happy for electricity production to be carried out by competing firms is fine (apart from within the nuclear industry where driven down costs hardly lends confidence in safety) - where I have a problem is end-user delivery and there is no way anybody can claim the current situation of competing energy supply companies is working. They carry out price fixing, operate confusing billing policies to confound the buyer and to place barriers in comparing like with like.

Fair? An improvement? Nah.

Evidence to show it being fair or offering improvements? Nah.

===============================================

Water

The introduction from The relative efficiency of public and private sector water by David Hall and Emanuele Lobina, PSIRU, Business School, University of Greenwich states that:

It is widely assumed that the private sector is ‘obviously’ more efficient than the public sector. It is supposed that private companies have demonstrated their superiority in performance, and that this reflects the theoretically expected superiority of markets over bureaucracies under political control. On the basis of these assumptions, much current debate about policy in infrastructure and services assumes that achieving private sector operation is an objective in itself, and is always a desirable result.

However, the empirical evidence and the theoretical debates do not support this assumption. There is a consistent stream of empirical evidence consistently and repeatedly showing that there is no systematic significant difference between public and private operators in terms of efficiency or other performance measures. The theory behind the assumption of private sector superiority is also being shown to have serious flaws.

This evidence is of great importance for policy discussion. Due to the unsupported assumption, policies have become seriously imbalanced, with various forms of privatisation being introduced, while public sector options which could be much better are being ignored. This is a costly form of policy failure which causes economic, social and political damage.

The conclusion goes on to state that the "evidence points strongly to the conclusion that there is no systematic intrinsic advantage to private sector operation in terms of efficiency. Equally, there is no evidence to assume that a public sector operator is intrinsically less efficient and effective."

The entire report is downloadable from the given link but I strongly recommend the larger and more in-depth study of pre and post-privatisation of the UK water industry: UK Water privatisation – a briefing by Emanuele Lobina, Research fellow, PSIRU, University of Greenwich; and Consultant in Globalisation, Water Supply and Sanitation, Arezzo, Italy & David Hall, Senior Research Fellow, PSIRU, University of Greenwich.

Not only does this second report clearly demonstrate that the regional water boards were already improving their services in a clear and demonstrable fashion but that Thatcher blocked access to the data and the RWB meetings so she could present lies that:

• the private sector would be more efficient
  
• private companies would be better able to finance the large investments needed
  
• privatisation would create competition
  

It goes on to blow holes in all three of them. What she did was create regional monopolies with no desire or compulsion to improve service. But they had to be seen as a success so:

The Thatcher government took a number of steps which were all calculated to boost the profitability of the privatised water companies, at the expense of either the taxpayer or the consumer.

· The government wrote off all the debts of the water companies before privatisation, worth over £5 billion pounds (about 8 billion Euros/US dollars). In addition, it gave the companies a ‘green dowry’ of £1.6 billion pounds (about 2.6 billion Euros/US dollars).

The government also offered the companies for sale at a substantial discount, which has been assessed as equal to 22% of the undertakings’ market value, measured as the difference between the issue price of the water companies’ shares and the share price after the first week of trading.

The initial price regime, set as a political act before OFWAT was established, was also extremely generous. As a result the pre-tax profits of the ten sewerage and water companies rose by 147% between 1990/91 to 1997/98 with sewerage and water prices rising respectively by 42% and 36%. [ii].

The companies were given special exemption from paying profits taxes.

Jenkinson et al., 1994: 294

[ii] Green, p. 7

But hey, the privatisation wasn't about ownership and money was it? It was about making sure we have an infrastructure that is the envy of the world! ...and I'm still pissing myself at that notion coming from absolutely no data at all

Yep, since privatisation these little monopoles have poisoned us and the environment time and time again. OFWAT has proved itself to be consistently impotent so thankfully the Environmental Agency has been able to be pressurised into taking up some of the slack in obtaining successful prosecutions against:

Anglian (31)

Dwr Cymru (41)

N.West (30)

Northumbrian (13)

Severn Trent (44)

S.West (10)

Southern (20)

Thames (31)

Wessex (10)

Yorkshire (30)

But this still compares pathetically with the sheer volume of pollution incidents:

Company

Pollution incidents in 1999

Dwr Cymru

213

Severn Trent

494

Anglian

283

Southern

155

Thames

233

There is no desire or legal obligation on the part of water companies to attend to the pipe network and stop the number of underground leaks which contribute to more that the combined usage of water in this country.

OFWAT set reduction targets but these are not enforced. There would be no water shortage or hose-pipe ban if they did - but the companies won't attend to them as their primary aim due entirely to their profit motive.

===============================================

Rail

The number of fatalities in train collisions under private ownership has outstripped the rate under public ownership

http://www.cts.cv.ic.ac.uk/documents/publications/iccts00410.pdf

But let's skip the fact that privatised rail companies kill more people, looking at RAIL SAFETY AND RAIL PRIVATISATION IN BRITAIN by Andrew W Evans, Lloyds Register Professor of Transport Risk Management , Imperial College London we can see the excellent management of funds:

In 2001, Railtrack announced pre-tax profits before exceptional expenses of £199,000,000 which became a loss of a loss of £534,000,000 after paying compensation for the deaths during the Hatfield disaster (another wonderful example of privatization working).

It appealed to the government for additional funding (just like all well-run private companies get?!).

What did it do with its windfall?

It used it to pay a £137,000,000 dividend to shareholders! Pigs – snouts – troughs comes to mind.

In a study of the Canadian public/private parallel market by Jonathan Cowie, Dept of Economics, Glasgow, (http://www.bath.ac.uk/e-journals) he states there is very limited evidence for the benefits of private ownership and that it offered no benefits over public ownership in Canada…findings confirmed by Trethway et al seventeen years later.

He went on to look at a similar parallel system in Switzerland where he concluded that private ownership drove down operating costs but took profits and thereby offered no end-user benefits – and that profiteering was held in check by the presence of a public service, something we don’t have here hence the outrageous price rises but mirroring the evidence I have demonstrated against Electricity privatisation.

The French system? Far superior network and rolling stock, like the Dutch and most of Europe. The French leased networks with the government taking 2/3s of all profit above pre-agreed limits, the system was geared towards getting the best from both worlds rather than sticking to political dogma and ignoring evidence - which is just the kind of thing it seems Caveman was spouting until I put him on block for being a cockend.

So finally, today's privatised railways offer a superior service now compared to BR?

I remember that once upon a time I used to be able to sit down on a train that sold tickets at affordable prices.

Anyone travel on the Network South-East misery line? You want to tell me services run on time there and don’t suffer from frequent cancellations? Lolz! How about the Birmingham to Warwick line I travelled on for a year and rarely managed to be delivered the train I wanted at the time promised.

This has been born out by the Mann Witney test which demonstrates that under private ownership the spread between very good and very bad operators are more marked, hence anecdotal evidence of punctual services compared to my experience – and those travelling in the South West or on the 90s Virgin East-coast line (I do not know if this has improved now). The Mann Witney test goes on to demonstrate that public owned lines tend to be average in service operation and delivery, thereby not offering reduced costs but not seeking ridiculous profits and lending themselves more useable through actually providing more of what the travelling public wants – like a seat!

This has to constitute the longest post I've ever written. In short: up yours everyone, I was right in my original post on the matter.

[Saxondale]

This has to constitute the longest post I've ever written. In short: up yours everyone, I was right in my original post on the matter.

That is an impressively long post!

Regarding the Hatfield disaster specifically - this was caused by fatigue in the track.

Investment in renewing infrastructure has been accelerated massively post privatisation. So, if anything, you could argue that this disaster was due to lack of investment in British Rail days.

In terms of the success of rail privatisation, how do you measure success?

The most obvious barometer for me is utilisation - both passenger numbers and railfreight traffic are dramatically up post privatisation (see Exhibit A, your honour: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rail_transport_in_Great_Britain_1995_to_date).

[Daggers]

In terms of the success of rail privatisation, how do you measure success?

The Hatfield thing was a cheap shot at right-wing privatiser fans I agree, it was entirely due to fatigue. Doesn't quite make it alright to pay out such dividends afterwards though.

For success measures I think that balancing indicators at dual provision locations like Canada and Switzerland offered an ideal opportunity to compare like with like. And the conclusions prove there is no benefit unless you wish to focus on one key indicator in particular - which your Tory would wish to do whereas I've offered the balanced summary.

Increased usage, I'd argue, doesn't indicate success. Population increase, increase road usage, increased rail usage - everything is increasing. Home prices have sent many to live outside of cities and commute in to work so I'd say increased use of rail is mainly a result of the combined effects of a road network that is creaking and fuel prices bordering on the mental rather than a glowing recommendation for modern rail networks.

[Daggers]

With the frequent complaints about lack of seats and the cost of travel into London, I'm sure they would opt for a different, more comfortable form of transport if it was on offer at the speed.

[Saxondale]

The Hatfield thing was a cheap shot at right-wing privatiser fans I agree, it was entirely due to fatigue. Doesn't quite make it alright to pay out such dividends afterwards though.

For success measures I think that balancing indicators at dual provision locations like Canada and Switzerland offered an ideal opportunity to compare like with like. And the conclusions prove there is no benefit unless you wish to focus on one key indicator in particular - which your Tory would wish to do whereas I've offered the balanced summary.

Increased usage, I'd argue, doesn't indicate success. Population increase, increase road usage, increased rail usage - everything is increasing. Home prices have sent many to live outside of cities and commute in to work so I'd say increased use of rail is mainly a result of the combined effects of a road network that is creaking and fuel prices bordering on the mental rather than a glowing recommendation for modern rail networks.

Regarding Canada (I had no idea they had such a system), I think this is indirectly an argument in favour of privatisation, because a duel system forces the public-owned service to be competitive.

Regarding Switzerland, if we were even 50% as good as Switzerland at running public services, then I'd probably be in favour of keeping everything state-run. But we're not. Their world-leading system of direct Federal and Cantonal democracy lends itself to state-efficiency because if any part of their government was not running to the public's satisfaction, there would be a referendum and it would be changed.

I fvcking love Switzerland!

[Daggers]

Regarding Canada (I had no idea they had such a system), I think this is indirectly an argument in favour of privatisation, because a duel system forces the public-owned service to be competitive.

Conversely it is an argument for renationalising of at least 50% of the British network as it places direct pressure on service and prices in the private sector, a point made by the reports as they point to the incredibly limited benefits of privatised services...especially when you factor in that the UK public purse is still being raided annually by these under-performing "private" companies.

I take the argument you make in favour of Swiss accountability fully - and we should operate a similar local government system. So, it's still not an argument against public ownership, just for improving the management of local and national public services. I agree

[Saxondale]

Conversely it is an argument for renationalising of at least 50% of the British network as it places direct pressure on service and prices in the private sector, a point made by the reports as they point to the incredibly limited benefits of privatised services...especially when you factor in that the UK public purse is still being raided annually by these under-performing "private" companies.

I take the argument you make in favour of Swiss accountability fully - and we should operate a similar local government system. So, it's still not an argument against public ownership, just for improving the management of local and national public services. I agree

We have the answer then, job done!

[Daggers]

[Captain...]

So now Daggers (top post that) and Bornblue have settled the private vs public services debate.

Lets get it back on topic, the police force, how on earth is this going to be privatised, even in the ways that are being suggested, more admin roles, there is no money to be made in policing, so this will and can only make any sort of financial sense by the government paying for the people to come in and do these roles. So how is it going to save money? By paying them less than a fully trained police officer. But we won't be paying them directly we will be paying the security companies to act as like a temp agency, but anyone who has ever employed a temp through an agency knows that they are actually quite expensive, much more so than the temp realises because they normally only get a fraction of the money charged out for them and no work benefits.

Ok, so now we have the existing police force of fully trained officers, plus this extra outlay on "temp" security/admin staff, surely that now is more expenditure than we are currently on?

So we are either increasing the policing budget (I don't think so) or we are going to be recouping that money by making some of the fully trained police officers redundant and replacing it with cheap labour that we are paying through the nose for and lining the pockets of private security firms.

Can anyone explain where I might be going wrong here?

[Saxondale]

So now Daggers (top post that) and Bornblue have settled the private vs public services debate.

Lets get it back on topic, the police force, how on earth is this going to be privatised, even in the ways that are being suggested, more admin roles, there is no money to be made in policing, so this will and can only make any sort of financial sense by the government paying for the people to come in and do these roles. So how is it going to save money? By paying them less than a fully trained police officer. But we won't be paying them directly we will be paying the security companies to act as like a temp agency, but anyone who has ever employed a temp through an agency knows that they are actually quite expensive, much more so than the temp realises because they normally only get a fraction of the money charged out for them and no work benefits.

Ok, so now we have the existing police force of fully trained officers, plus this extra outlay on "temp" security/admin staff, surely that now is more expenditure than we are currently on?

So we are either increasing the policing budget (I don't think so) or we are going to be recouping that money by making some of the fully trained police officers redundant and replacing it with cheap labour that we are paying through the nose for and lining the pockets of private security firms.

Can anyone explain where I might be going wrong here?

Understand what you're saying but they wouldn't be proposing it if it wasn't going to work out a lot cheaper.

[Daggers]

Understand what you're saying but they wouldn't be proposing it if it wasn't going to work out a lot cheaper.

No.

As I demonstrated in my links to research for both Water and Rail privatisations, the claimed cost savings were never made. The sell-offs were carried out for ideological reasons and them alone. In two of the reports I cited the benefits of privatisation are always over-exaggerated without any substance to back it up - the idea that they can improve services is simply not true. They will reduce costs by employing fewer staff and placing them on minimum wages so that they can rip as much profit from that £1.5billion as possible. I've produced evidence that private firms do not offer any running benefits over public ownership.

Remember the imbecilic running of prisoner-transport by Group 4? "On the first day of its contract a prisoner sprinted out of a court in Hull and ran off. The following day another man kicked open a hatch in a van to make his escape. And two days later a remand prisoner kicked open a van window and ran off." On and on it went, ineptitude, profiteering and salting away those profits in the Dutch Antilles rather than pay any corporation tax on them.

The only thing I'm happy about with the proposals is that they are not handing over powers of arrest - but that doesn't rule it out in the future.

As it stands, the CPS is staffed with muppets of men. If evidence gathering is going to be handed on to minimum wage monkeys it puts the whole judicial process at risk of becoming a laughing stock.

[Captain...]

Understand what you're saying but they wouldn't be proposing it if it wasn't going to work out a lot cheaper.

But how can it be cheaper, without laying off staff and replacing them with cheaper and less qualified staff?

[skinnydipper]

Even I have to concede that was an impressive post Daggers but you've clearly got too much time on your hands.

I hope that your situation isn't increasing the strain on the public purse.

[Daggers]

Group 4

Corruption

Group 4 was at the centre of a corruption scandal at the European Commission in Brussels. It was alleged that Group 4 beat the 12 other companies competing for the contract to run the Commission’s security because it was allowed to change its bid after the submissions deadline. The investigation into the matter by the commission found that there was ‘strong circumstantial evidence’ that the bid had been manipulated.66 After Group 4 had secured the contract, it changed the terms and conditions of it so that they increased its profits. It later admitted to overcharging inadvertently.

The Group 4 spokesperson tried to blame the managers of the security services at the commission, saying they were a bunch ‘nasty and very right-wing Belgians’. For example, they made Group 4 put ghost workers on its payroll (something Group 4 does not deny). In this way retired Belgian police officers were given second careers in the European security services. In response to these allegations a Group 4 spokesperson stated that 'we were told to hire these people by the managers of the security service, so we did.'67

Spying on the world

Group 4 Falck is part of consortium of three firms who got a 30 year contract to build and run the new £300 million GCHQ building (Britain’s spy centre to monitor communications worldwide).68

Facilitating environmental destruction

Group 4 guards the oil and gas fields for various companies, including Exxon Mobil and British Gas in Kazakhstan, in the Caspian Region.69 The exploitation of these fields has already caused massive environmental damage70. Wackenhut is responsible for guarding the Nevada nuclear bomb test site71.

Activist Bashing

In September 1994 Group 4 agreed not to use excessive force at the Stanworth Valley protest camp after an injunction application made by Chris Maile, and son Philip, from the local Green Party. In October of the same year, Philip Mail was hospitalised after a Group 4 security guard illegally used a pressure point hold to the back of his head. He spent three weeks in a neck collar.72

More, and reference citations