Nationalise the water companies

[sprunt]

This post brought to you by the Kafaesque nightmare that is Thames Water's house move process. Filling in their online move form was completely ignored, ages spent on hold with hold music blasting out at a much higher volume than the staff I finally got to talk to so that on each of the numerous times I was put on hold I was almost deafened, being cut off - it was without a doubt the worst customer service experience I've experienced for years. And what can I do about it? Absolutely nothing. I can't, as with all the other privatised utilities choose to take my business elsewhere because there is no choice of water supplier. And for this, I get price increases above the rate of inflation every year without fail.

What is the supposed benefit of water supply being in the private sector? I've tried, but I can't think of a single one. I don't agree that some of the other formerly nationalised industries should have been privatised, but with all the others I can at least see that there are potential benefits even where I believe that the drawbacks outweigh them. With water, I've drawn a complete blank.

 

[Busaholic]

You do realise that a water company is not allowed in law to cut supplies to any property where people are known to be living, regardless of whether a bill is paid, or indeed if anything has been paid? Just saying, not intending to put ideas into your head.

 

[Will.M]

Probably moving them from private to public now though would cost huge amounts. It's horrible to feel that powerless though when you can't get through to the people you need to.

 

[underbank]

It's horrible to feel that powerless though when you can't get through to the people you need to.

You mean like trying to contact all the nationalised utility firms before they were privatised. I vividly remember trying to get Post Office Telephones to install a telephone - it went on months and months. That's the trouble with the passage of time - older people tend to forget how bad things were and younger people never experienced it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You mean like trying to contact all the nationalised utility firms before they were privatised. I vividly remember trying to get Post Office Telephones to install a telephone - it went on months and months. That's the trouble with the passage of time - older people tend to forget how bad things were and younger people never experienced it.

I remember it with Deutsche Telekom in the late 1990s. You want a phone? Natuerlich, Herr Williams...that'll be a month!

 

[plugwash]

I have seen complaints about long delays in getting phone lines here in the UK in recent years, sure there are multiple competing phone providers but almost all of them depend on BT openreach to actually deliver a phone line to you.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

You mean like trying to contact all the nationalised utility firms before they were privatised. I vividly remember trying to get Post Office Telephones to install a telephone - it went on months and months. That's the trouble with the passage of time - older people tend to forget how bad things were and younger people never experienced it.

Speaking as an old-timer of 74, I was pleased to see such a posting as this, as many of the website members are too young to have experienced what life was like under nationalised bodies.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I have seen complaints about long delays in getting phone lines here in the UK in recent years, sure there are multiple competing phone providers but almost all of them depend on BT openreach to actually deliver a phone line to you.

The point there is that monopolies can do what they like and competition improves service, I suppose, rather than whether nationalised or privatised is better?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If the water companies were nationalised, how much finance would be needed to be budgeted by any Government in power to both run the existing service and to allow for both new and upgraded water supplies and a national programme of leakage repairs?

 

[ainsworth74]

What is the supposed benefit of water supply being in the private sector? I've tried, but I can't think of a single one. I don't agree that some of the other formerly nationalised industries should have been privatised, but with all the others I can at least see that there are potential benefits even where I believe that the drawbacks outweigh them. With water, I've drawn a complete blank.

I must admit that's where I fall on the issue of water supply. I can't really think how it's actually been a positive in anyway for the consumer. You're still stuck with the one monolithic choice of water company and you better hope that they're a good one otherwise that's it you just have to lump it. I suppose businesses have a small advantage in that they can change water supplier but for the majority of residential properties there's nothing you can do. So just what is the advantage to the consumer of private involvement in this industry?!

You do realise that a water company is not allowed in law to cut supplies to any property where people are known to be living, regardless of whether a bill is paid, or indeed if anything has been paid? Just saying, not intending to put ideas into your head.

Quite. That was always good fun explaining to someone that we'll just put your water arrears to the side for now because they can't cut you off unlike your gas or electricity supplier. Plus my experience with Northumbrian Water (my local water company) was that often they weren't too fussed as long as the customer was engaging with them.

You mean like trying to contact all the nationalised utility firms before they were privatised. I vividly remember trying to get Post Office Telephones to install a telephone - it went on months and months. That's the trouble with the passage of time - older people tend to forget how bad things were and younger people never experienced it.

Yes and this is why I'm hesitant to just jump on the "NATIONALISE ALL THE UTILITIES!" bandwagon. In telecoms I'd say privatisation has been a very positive move overall for the consumer generally. If I get fed up with the customer service of my provider then I can tell them to do one and go to a different one. Of course there is a small issue if the problem is with the underlying infrastructure as there often isn't much competition there (as most of it is BT Openreach). But I can at least see some sense.

Similarly with gas and electric if I get fed up with Npower treating me like I can tell them to go where the sun don't shine and sign up with some like Ovo instead. That being said personally I'm not convinced that privatising the CEGB (i.e. generation and long distance transmission) was sensible as that feels like the sort of thing where the state should be directing things because it's of such national importance (or perhaps it should have been a Network Rail style privatisation where it's at arms length from Government). Similarly I'm not convinced that privatising the distribution companies (i.e. the ones that take it from the grid and put it into your home) was a sensible idea for similar reasons.

But looping back around to water the big difference between water and all the other utilities (of any stripe) is that you are just stuck with whichever water company supplies your area. Which leads me back to questioning what is the point of having them as private companies because for many people it seems that they're no better than that example of the old Post Office Telephone network!

 

[SteveP29]

Plus my experience with Northumbrian Water

Used to work for them.
Apart from a couple of handfuls of people there, I hate every damned person that works for them, even 13 years after I left them.
There is a quote that was used earlier this year.... 'There's a special place in hell' etc

 

[ainsworth74]

Used to work for them.
Apart from a couple of handfuls of people there, I hate every damned person that works for them, even 13 years after I left them.
There is a quote that was used earlier this year.... 'There's a special place in hell' etc

Huh interesting. I only ever dealt with people answering the phones to deal with those in arrears and they all seemed very friendly and helpful!!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Thinking on, as it's a natural monopoly (like a TOC or council bin collection) it might work better were the operations tendered?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Huh interesting. I only ever dealt with people answering the phones to deal with those in arrears and they all seemed very friendly and helpful!!

Likewise, that's my experience with their contact centre.

Although Northumbrian Water do have a penchant for using High Court Enforcement Officers and Charging Orders- both far more aggressive than even the gas/electricity companies- so clearly not everyone there is fluffy and nice.

As for the OP, nationalising would stop profits leaking (pun intended) out of the system. I don't think much else would change, but at least it wouldn't be a fat cat banker screwing you over.

 

[sprunt]

Speaking as an old-timer of 74, I was pleased to see such a posting as this, as many of the website members are too young to have experienced what life was like under nationalised bodies.

So perhaps you can explain to me, a younger person who has never paid water rates to a nationalised body, what was worse about the water supply industry when it was in the public sector? You know, that being the question I asked in the OP.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

So perhaps you can explain to me, a younger person who has never paid water rates to a nationalised body, what was worse about the water supply industry when it was in the public sector? You know, that being the question I asked in the OP.

Since my posting was made in relation to posting # 4 on the thread as being in agreements with the sentiments expressed therein, it is to that posting I so direct you.

You may then decide to offer your comments on my views expressed in posting # 9 on this thread.

 

[sprunt]

Since my posting was made in relation to posting # 4 on the thread as being in agreements with the sentiments expressed therein, it is to that posting I so direct you.

You may then decide to offer your comments on my views expressed in posting # 9 on this thread.

Those posts are on the subject of telecommunications companies. This thread - and my question to you - is on the subject of water companies. Do you have anything to contribute on that subject, or was your last post just a long winded way of saying no?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Those posts are on the subject of telecommunications companies. This thread - and my question to you - is on the subject of water companies. Do you have anything to contribute on that subject, or was your last post just a long winded way of saying no?

You obviously have not read my posting # 9 as I requested, that commences with the wording "If the water companies were nationalised".

How on earth can you confuse that wording with anything that relates to a telecommunications company?

 

[sprunt]

You obviously have not read my posting # 9 as I requested, that commences with the wording "If the water companies were nationalised".

How on earth can you confuse that wording with anything that relates to a telecommunications company?

Forgive me, I mixed up post #9 with post #7 - probably becaue you mentioned #4 which #7 is a reply to.

However, in reply to #9 I'll answer your question as follows: zero. You seem to be under the impression that water supply is a cost centre, when it is in fact a profit centre. Perhaps the billions of pounds paid annually to shareholders in the water companies would be better invested in leak prevention.

I note that you still haven't answered the question I asked in relation to your post #7 so I'll repeat it: how do you believe the water supply industry has improved the service it offers to consumers, who have no option not to be customers of their allocated private company, since privatisation?

 

[GusB]

Sir Humphrey is alive and well

 

[Raul_Duke]

Perhaps the billions of pounds paid annually to shareholders in the water companies would be better invested in leak prevention.

Would it be used for that in a nationalised industry?

Doubtful. It would be swallowed up by the NHS (without any noticeable effect) and state pensions.

Obviously this isn’t a bad thing in itself, but nationalisation isn’t the panacea it’s often touted as being.

 

[SteveP29]

So perhaps you can explain to me, a younger person who has never paid water rates to a nationalised body, what was worse about the water supply industry when it was in the public sector? You know, that being the question I asked in the OP.

Water wasn't privatised in Scotland.
But they did change the situation where you paid your water rates and your rates (forerunner to Poll Tax and Council Tax) in separate payments.
We pay our water and sewerage charges in one amount (payable over 10 or 12 months) with Council Tax.
Our water & sewerage come in at approximately a quarter of what my parents pay in England, yet we both get water from taps when we want it and our waste is taken away for us

 

[Tetchytyke]

Would it be used for that in a nationalised industry?

Doubtful. It would be swallowed up by the NHS (without any noticeable effect) and state pensions.

Which, in turn, either increases the amount available for those services, or reduces the taxpayer burden.

Either way, it's an improvement on Thames Water's profits trundling off to China, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait and Canada!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Either way, it's an improvement on Thames Water's profits trundling off to China, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait and Canada!

Can I pose a query, noting what was said above. If by some chance, all investment monies from any country external to this country was immediately repaid to them, how would the water companies' balance sheets be affected?

 

[furnessvale]

Which, in turn, either increases the amount available for those services, or reduces the taxpayer burden.

Either way, it's an improvement on Thames Water's profits trundling off to China, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait and Canada!

Which still leaves a basic question open.

Would a nationalised water company be as efficient as a private owned one? Without an answer to that question there is no way of knowing if there was any profit left within the nationalised version to either reduce charges or pay into the Treasury.

 

[sprunt]

Which still leaves a basic question open.

Would a nationalised water company be as efficient as a private owned one? Without an answer to that question there is no way of knowing if there was any profit left within the nationalised version to either reduce charges or pay into the Treasury.

Why wouldn't it be? What about the privately owned water companies do you think makes them intrinsically more efficient, given that they have none of the drivers - specifically customers being able to take their business elsewhere - that would normally drive efficiency in a private company? Private companies aren't magically more efficient than public ones. The people working in the offices at Thames Water are waiting for it to be five o'clock so they can go home just as much as the people working in the town hall are.

 

[sprunt]

Can I pose a query

Can you answer mine?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Would a nationalised water company be as efficient as a private owned one?

I'd hope they'd be a bit more efficient than Thames "uncontrollable leaks" Water! It's not as if the private companies set a high bar.

(Interesting you make the assumption private=efficient though!)

If by some chance, all investment monies from any country external to this country was immediately repaid to them, how would the water companies' balance sheets be affected?

The £2.57 of private investment can easily be repaid in full.

What, you think private ownership means private investment?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Can you answer mine?

It would appear that your various postings have already received posting answers from a number of other thread contributors, so I have no need to add to their excellent responses.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The £2.57 of private investment can easily be repaid in full. What, you think private ownership means private investment?

Posting # 23 talks of Thames Water's profits "trundling off" to China, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait and Canada. How much profit would come of a total overseas investment of £2.57..