 Poster: A snowHead
|
@Handy Turnip, it varied depending on utility. The CEGB was a model of how a national electric power supply should be managed IMV.
We are OT.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
@Handy Turnip, as regards water I think the publicy owned water boards gave good value for money for what they provided. Sure, since privatisation the water industry has invested £billions for improvements and replacing old Victorian infrastucture, but at the cost of a 40% rise in water bills above inflation. I wonder why the publicly owned water boards weren't able to make the same £billions of investment. Perhaps they didn't because of public resistance to increased bills, or possibly the Government objected to increasing the Government debt figure; private companies can raise loans on the commercial market*, but seeing as Government can raise debt at considerably cheaper rates than the commercial market it remains a moot point as to whether if the publicly owned water boards had spent the same investment £billions it would have worked out cheaper than getting private companies to raise the money.
*The ability to use the commercial loan market was of course a prime reason for the introduction of PFI contracts (under both Labour and Conservative administrations) as a way to move debt from the Government National debt figure to allow the books to look better; this always struck me as a sleight of hand book-keeping exercise as the debt still exists and still has to be paid off, as the onging costs of the PFI contracts demonstrate, or arguably the 40% increase in water bills since privatisation.
Last edited by Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person on Mon 8-02-21 19:04; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| Alastair Pink wrote: |
| Timmycb5 wrote: |
| At the risk of sounding like a communist hippy, it's a disgrace that national infrastructure isn't wholly owned and run by the public sector (albeit probably with bought in experience from the private sector if needed). That's the commy bit. |
At the risk of sounding like a fellow communist comrade  I'd just observe that certain items such as water supply are natural monopolies. The rationale for private ownership of business to be able to provide more benefits to the general public than public ownership is that there is competition between different private companies to provide the service, thus driving efficiency improvements, but with a natural monopoly there can be no competitors. So with natural monopolies you either have the infrastructure in public ownership (most of the UK's water supply was developed from the Victorian era by munipical authorities e.g Joseph Chamberlain's Birmingham city corporation constructing the Elan reservoir in Wales to supply drinking water to the city), or you have a private company owning the infrastructure but subject to a regulator who can set prices. The benefits of the latter arrangement seem to me to be marginal if they exist at all... |
Can I see your working on how you calculate that the private water companies have delivered poor value for money vs their public sector predecessors?
Some people seem to think that because bills have gone up, water companies have delivered poor VFM. They miss the point that the water companies have invested massively since privatisation and have to paid a return on that. In the public sector our water assets had been underinvested in for decades and we were facing a huge bill to upgrade (we'd been living off Victorian investments). The Thatcher government concluded that the state would never commit the steady flow of cash that would be required to invest efficiently (other more headline grabbing areas of govt spending would win out) and also the public sector would spend the money poorly. Every 4 years the regulator cuts the operating costs allowed and the water companies try to do even better that that target to earn profits for their shareholders. At the end of that period the regulator works from the new lower cost base and cuts it again. This means that the management of these companies have a strong incentive to keep driving efficiency.
What incentive for improved efficiency would their be for a public sector company?
The privatized water companies have managed a massive investment programme while driving down costs. Do you honestly believe a state-owned company would have achieved that. Care to give me an example of one that has?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| achilles wrote: |
@Handy Turnip, it varied depending on utility. The CEGB was a model of how a national electric power supply should be managed IMV.
We are OT. |
CEGB did a good job of keeping the lights on but it did so by keeping big reserve margins and spending on some very over priced projects. UK nuclear programme was hardly a big success.
Not the CEGB but the distribution companies - I was sponsored through university by a company that made power meters. After privatisation the market for our products collapsed because it turned out that most of the distribution companies had warehouses full of meters which the privatised management set about reducing to an efficient level. When they were state owned they didn't care...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@Alastair Pink,
Our welsh water is supposed to be not for profit, but water boards was left with ageing infrastructure, that was broken, cracked and various leaks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| jedster wrote: |
| achilles wrote: |
@Handy Turnip, it varied depending on utility. The CEGB was a model of how a national electric power supply should be managed IMV.
We are OT. |
CEGB did a good job of keeping the lights on but it did so by keeping big reserve margins and spending on some very over priced projects. UK nuclear programme was hardly a big success.
Not the CEGB but the distribution companies - I was sponsored through university by a company that made power meters. After privatisation the market for our products collapsed because it turned out that most of the distribution companies had warehouses full of meters which the privatised management set about reducing to an efficient level. When they were state owned they didn't care... |
The CEGB and the national grid
| Quote: |
The birth of National Grid
The CEGB controlled a National and numerous other District control rooms across England to anticipate demand and generation supply. This was the first incarnation of what is now the National Grid.The CEGB also operated significant research and development operations to maintain the technological progress of the industry. |
That conforms with my memory.
We remain OT.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ