Margaret Thatcher dies of a stroke.

[LondonLax]

 

 

As for privatisation, its entire purpose is to direct part of the profits of an enterprise into private hands where previously there had been no profit distributed. The rhetoric is that this comes from "efficiency gains", but in fact it comes from price increases. Right now we are all paying more for our energy than we would have had it not been privatised.

 

Whilst the rhetoric of this statement might sound 'right on' there is absolutely nothing to support this notion. Your use of quotations marks around efficiency gains detracts from the reality that the nationalised industries were, in the main, remarkably inefficient, operating at a loss and propped up by premiums added to bills and the tax payer. The fact is in 1975 the UK consumer was paying more for their electricity and gas than any other Western European country, today it pays the least.

 

 

Yep. Privatisation massively improves efficiency. Once an industry actually has to stand on its own two feet or risk going bust all the waste is quickly cut.

 

I have worked in private companies and am now in a government organisation and the difference in culture is massive. There is no risk of being fired or made redundant in the public company even now during supposed government cuts. Employees continue to receive above inflation pay rises every year regardless. Meanwhile staff still leave the office at 4 in the afternoon and there are long group tea breaks during the day that you just couldn’t afford to take in my old company. There is even a guy who regularly has a nap at his desk after lunch!

 

I think the best way to structure services is to have a range of private options running for profit and then a public company running not for profit and without subsidies. That way they both systems keep each other in check. The private companies can’t collude and screw people down and the public company is kept on its toes as well.   

 

I would love to know what Government body that is. I have worked for two large public sector institutions, Westminster City Council, and now the MPS. I can can assure you with both of those organisations (in recent times) there have been no above inflation pay rises and both organisations have made significant number of people redundant.

 I probably shouldn't say now I've been criticising the work culture over the internet

[snowychap]

Very much like Doug Ellis this for me.

Are you really being serious?

[peterms]

Privatising the electricity and gas boards for one . Have you looked at your bills lately

We've no real idea of the counterfactual (i.e. what your bills would look like now if it were still the gas board and the MEB), though, so I don't think that argument is going to get us too far.

 

Au contraire, Snowy, we do have an idea of the counterfactual.

A counterfactual price analysis of British electricity privatisation

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to challenge the widely held view that electricity privatisation in Great Britain (comprised of the markets

of England and Wales, and Scotland) was beneficial simply because the price of electricity has subsequently fallen in real terms.

This is carried out by comparing the electricity prices actually observed with those that might have been charged had the industry

remained in public ownership. In order to do this the paper develops a counterfactual scenario for the likely decisions and effects

of a publicly owned industry. This leads the paper to conclude that observed prices are indeed significantly higher than they would

have been had privatisation not occurred.

 

When electricity was privatised, the assets were sold at a small fraction of their value. This allowed the generation (sorry) of excess profits. It also created a barrier to entry for new firms, who had not been gifted public assets in this way.

Following excessive profiteering, we had the windfall tax (anyone remember that?). We also had even ten years ago, companies competing for new customers by lying, misselling, and using aggressive and intrusive methods. I see they are still being fined for carrying on these practices.

The mythology of privatisation enthusiasts is always "efficiency". The reality is wasteful competition, attempts to prevent new entrants to the market, price-fixing, and a poorer deal for the consumer. Electricity in the UK is no different.

[LondonLax]

She was before my time but Thatcher doesn't sound like a politician I could have voted for.

I prefer my politicians to be far more inclusive and liberal, not decisive and down right nasty.

That doesn't mean I am going to denounce free market economics just because she was also a fan though.

[markavfc40]

I have worked in private companies and am now in a government organisation and the difference in culture is massive. There is no risk of being fired or made redundant in the public company even now during supposed government cuts. Employees continue to receive above inflation pay rises every year regardless.

 

Public sector workers had a pay freeze from 2010 till 2013. This year 2013/14 they will receive a 1% pay rise and I believe that will also be the case in 2014/15. A pay freeze and a 1% rise over a 5 year period is not above inflation pay increases.

[snowychap]

Au contraire, Snowy, we do have an idea of the counterfactual.

A counterfactual price analysis of British electricity privatisation

Interesting find. I'll have a read of it in a bit, Peter, but something I'd say immediately is that piece of work was done in 2000 and only on the electricity market.

Edit: Perhaps 'real idea of' was not well put - I should have said that we can't be sure of the (implied) counterfactual that would have supported CI's comment.

Edited April 10, 2013 by snowychap

[Jon]

.

I prefer my politicians to be ... not decisive .

You'd have liked John major then

[LondonLax]

 

Privatising the electricity and gas boards for one . Have you looked at your bills lately

We've no real idea of the counterfactual (i.e. what your bills would look like now if it were still the gas board and the MEB), though, so I don't think that argument is going to get us too far.

 

Au contraire, Snowy, we do have an idea of the counterfactual.

A counterfactual price analysis of British electricity privatisation

>Abstract

The aim of this paper is to challenge the widely held view that electricity privatisation in Great Britain (comprised of the markets

of England and Wales, and Scotland) was beneficial simply because the price of electricity has subsequently fallen in real terms.

This is carried out by comparing the electricity prices actually observed with those that might have been charged had the industry

remained in public ownership. In order to do this the paper develops a counterfactual scenario for the likely decisions and effects

of a publicly owned industry. This leads the paper to conclude that observed prices are indeed significantly higher than they would

have been had privatisation not occurred.

 

When electricity was privatised, the assets were sold at a small fraction of their value. This allowed the generation (sorry) of excess profits. It also created a barrier to entry for new firms, who had not been gifted public assets in this way.

Following excessive profiteering, we had the windfall tax (anyone remember that?). We also had even ten years ago, companies competing for new customers by lying, misselling, and using aggressive and intrusive methods. I see they are still being fined for carrying on these practices.

The mythology of privatisation enthusiasts is always "efficiency". The reality is wasteful competition, attempts to prevent new entrants to the market, price-fixing, and a poorer deal for the consumer. Electricity in the UK is no different.

 

 The countries in western europe with the highest electricity prices are countries like Germany, Denmark and Sweden, not the UK. Doesn't that go against the idea that UK privatisation has been a disaster?

[peterms]

 

please humour me and help me understand why:

 

1) Emasculating the trade unions was a bad thing.

 

2) Privatisation is an entirely bad thing.

 

Reducing the power of the unions has played a big part in wages slipping back and income distribution becoming more unequal. Where decades ago it was common for the average family to have one wage-earner, now most families need two wage earners to have a roughly comparable position. (Leave aside advances in technology driving the cost of things down, I mean to remain in a roughly comparable position in relation to other people).

 

 

That is a result of feminism not privatisation.

 

 

 

Once women joined the work force then households with two incomes are always going to have more buying power than single earning households. This drives up the prices of houses as now mortgages are based on a duel income instead of a single income. You can put that genie back into the bottle and roll back to the 50s.

 

 

 

Things like cars, furniture, TVs etc however have come down massively relative to income.

 

 

As for pensions, Australia's superanuation system is a fantastic example of privatised pensions working much better than the old public system.

 

Love the idea of a duel income.  Is that where the couple fight over it? 

 

Women were in the workforce long before mortgages exploded.  The question is why, when technological advances meant ever easier access to better and cheaper goods, it became necessary for households to work longer hours.  It was supposed to be the opposite, wasn't it?  Technology freeing us from long hours?  The leisure society?

 

The answer lies in the need to get people to spend more and more in order to continue to create further profits.  So as well as extracting more hours of work, there was a massive expansion of debt.  House prices in this country and some others, but by no means all, are one way of effecting a transfer of wealth from one group of people to another.

 

As for Australian pensions, it sounds to me like the same old story - money being taken at excessive rates by fund managers for doing not very much at all.  Something here which references and comments on a more detailed piece.

[LondonLax]

.

I prefer my politicians to be ... not decisive .

You'd have liked John major then

 

 

That should have said "not divisive"

 

Stupid auto correct

[LondonLax]

 

 

please humour me and help me understand why:

 

1) Emasculating the trade unions was a bad thing.

 

2) Privatisation is an entirely bad thing.

 

Reducing the power of the unions has played a big part in wages slipping back and income distribution becoming more unequal. Where decades ago it was common for the average family to have one wage-earner, now most families need two wage earners to have a roughly comparable position. (Leave aside advances in technology driving the cost of things down, I mean to remain in a roughly comparable position in relation to other people).

 

 

That is a result of feminism not privatisation.

 

 

 

Once women joined the work force then households with two incomes are always going to have more buying power than single earning households. This drives up the prices of houses as now mortgages are based on a duel income instead of a single income. You can put that genie back into the bottle and roll back to the 50s.

 

 

 

Things like cars, furniture, TVs etc however have come down massively relative to income.

 

 

As for pensions, Australia's superanuation system is a fantastic example of privatised pensions working much better than the old public system.

 

Love the idea of a duel income.  Is that where the couple fight over it? 

 

Women were in the workforce long before mortgages exploded.  The question is why, when technological advances meant ever easier access to better and cheaper goods, it became necessary for households to work longer hours.  It was supposed to be the opposite, wasn't it?  Technology freeing us from long hours?  The leisure society?

 

The answer lies in the need to get people to spend more and more in order to continue to create further profits.  So as well as extracting more hours of work, there was a massive expansion of debt.  House prices in this country and some others, but by no means all, are one way of effecting a transfer of wealth from one group of people to another.

 

As for Australian pensions, it sounds to me like the same old story - money being taken at excessive rates by fund managers for doing not very much at all.  Something here which references and comments on a more detailed piece.

Yeah, we can go back and forth all day about the different economic ideologies as many many people have before.

 

I can respect your side of the debate even if I ultimately disagree.

 

The thing I find frustrating though is when people try and paint one side (i.e. their side) as having the moral high ground.  

[Xann]

For me the moral high ground belongs to those that prioritise the needs of the many, rather than the needs of the money.

[LondonLax]

For me the moral high ground belongs to those that prioritise the needs of the many, rather than the needs of the money.

 

No doubt.

[markavfc40]

William Hague has got some **** neck hasn't he. Waffling on about some rebate we secured back in 1984 and linking that to us almost having a duty to contribute to Thatcher's funeral and how that rebate put money into perspective.

 

This Government constantly rams it down our throats that the pot is empty and there is no money. But hey ho we can find a few million to bury an ex-Prime Minister who much of the tax paying public despise , who was a multi-millionaire and whose immediate family are also multi-millionaires. All this whilst at the same time taking a few quid a week off soemone with a spare bedroom already living on the bread line. I'd say that certainly puts money into perspective.

Edited April 10, 2013 by markavfc40

[peterms]

On electricity privatisation, this piece is superb.

[Richard]

Very much like Doug Ellis this for me.

Are you really being serious?

 

 

Yes.

 

In terms of the level of revulsion and expressions of hatred for the character and the reactions to their death.  I very much see the possibility that some will celebrate the death of that person in a similarly undignified and crass way.

 

As I have said previously whatever one feels that a person may or may not have done,  may or may not have been responsible for surely there is a right way and a wrong way to act upon their death?  Surely it does not excuse dancing on their picture or wishing that their family members die?

 

So yes the reactions to the death of Baroness Thatcher and that of Doug Ellis I would feel would be very much the same from a section of those posting on this site.  Obviously their level of influence and what they did would e different,  I am not commenting on this.  I am commenting upon the reaction to their death as I feel ones own dignity should remain regardless of our feelings for the person.

[Eames]

 

.

I prefer my politicians to be ... not decisive .

You'd have liked John major then

 

That should have said "not divisive"

 

Stupid auto correct

 

Thats an interesting concept for me. I would far rather todays politicians be like Thatcher than the current crop.

 

Thatcher said what she believed in, what she was going to do, and then did it and don't forget people voted for her - she won 3 general elections (greatly aided by the fortuitous invasion of the Falklands - but again, she was clear with what she wanted and then achieved it.)

 

The current crop regardless of colour are far more obsessed with style over substance, with presentation and perception as opposed to policy - and in most circumstances will say anything to get elected. How many "cast iron" political promises get broken today? and least with Thatcher for all her obvious faults actually did what she said she would do.  

[CI]

So all MPs are being paid £3750 in expenses to turn up today to wank furiously over thatcher

Another disgrace and waste of taxpayers money

[LondonLax]

 

 

.

I prefer my politicians to be ... not decisive .

You'd have liked John major then

 

That should have said "not divisive"

 

Stupid auto correct

 

Thats an interesting concept for me. I would far rather todays politicians be like Thatcher than the current crop.

 

Thatcher said what she believed in, what she was going to do, and then did it and don't forget people voted for her - she won 3 general elections (greatly aided by the fortuitous invasion of the Falklands - but again, she was clear with what she wanted and then achieved it.)

 

The current crop regardless of colour are far more obsessed with style over substance, with presentation and perception as opposed to policy - and in most circumstances will say anything to get elected. How many "cast iron" political promises get broken today? and least with Thatcher for all her obvious faults actually did what she said she would do.  

 

You can be honest, forthright and have conviction without dividing people into battle lines though.

[AshVilla]

So all MPs are being paid £3750 in expenses to turn up today to wank furiously over thatcher

Another disgrace and waste of taxpayers money

 

Relax

 

Were all in this together