privatising roads

S

simon44

Suspended / Banned
Messages
709
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
Yes
excellent news. :cuckoo:

from now on to travel, we are lining the pockets of fat cats and shareholders.

The trains have worked so well!!!

Water is sooooo cheap and plentiful!!!!

:razz:
 
Last edited:
Waters not cheap, especially when my annual water rate lands on my doormat!
 
"But we now need to be more ambitious. Why is it that other infrastructure - for example water - is funded by private sector capital through privately owned, independently regulated, utilities... but roads in Britain call on the public finances for funding? - David Cameron, BBC News

Because the tory privatisation wrecking ball didn't reach that far last time :bonk:

Now we can add the NHS and road network to the list of rail, gas, water, steel, telecoms, and so many more that have all been privatised.
 
Last edited:
it is an abomination to make money from a commodity that I am 90% of (water)

Now the south east is on the verge of a water shortage.This is because they allowed reservoirs to be closed to make privatisation sweeter.

My thread so i can go off topic :D
 
It's only new roads not existing roads.
 
At least the government have realised the fact that we NEED new roads, and that public transport is expensive, unreliable, unworkable, unpleasant, crowded (for London commuters at least) and inconvenient.

And with more environmentally friendly commuter vehicles available, and soon next gen fully electric and hopefully hydrogen powered vehicles we can feel less guilty about it.
 
Everyone uses the roads therefore the entire country's taxation should pay for them. Water should have never been privatised. Ditto electricity and gas. Rail is different as not everyone uses trains and the minority of journeys are done by rail.

The roads will not be better for long. If there is a profit element then that is removed from the budget for upkeep. Look how far the tolls have risen on the only toll road? Usage levels have dropped way back. What happens when those private companies go bust?

Another stupid idea that needs stopping right now before the coalition think they've got a chance of ruining things even more than Labour managed.

Bearing in mind the amount of tax dodging that goes on by major corporations I think they should *give* the money needed to avoid being investigated. Vodafone's 6 billion would deal with quite a few potholes.
 
srichards said:
Another stupid idea that needs stopping right now before the coalition think they've got a chance of ruining things even more than Labour managed./QUOTE]

Well Cameron is the one mooting it. That means they will try and forge it before 2015.
Click to expand...
 
srichards said:
Look how far the tolls have risen on the only toll road? Usage levels have dropped way back. What happens when those private companies go bust?
Click to expand...

Only Toll road???

There are loads in the UK, including one in London that's been in existence since 1619.

Tolls are not new in this country, they've just dropped out of fashion here since the 1920s road acts.

Personally I don't see anything wrong with them, especially if they improve the road network. It's not as if you are forced to use them- there are always alternate routes.
 
Last edited:
DemiLion said:
Only Toll road???

There are loads in the UK, including one in London that's been in existence since 1619.

Tolls are not new in this country, they've just dropped out of fashion here since the 1920s road acts.

Personally I don't see anything wrong with them, especially if they improve the road network. It's not as if you are forced to use them- there are always alternate routes.
Click to expand...

Mark,

The point is they will be making a profit out of your using the roads, plus the fact (which is the icing on the cake) they will be giving sweeteners to the companies from the road tax. So it's not just making money from the road tolls which i'm ok with.

It's happened with the water. You will be on standpipes mid summer. That stems from sweeteners to the companies. Are you happy with that?
 
Last edited:
DemiLion said:
Only Toll road???

There are loads in the UK, including one in London that's been in existence since 1619.

Tolls are not new in this country, they've just dropped out of fashion here since the 1920s road acts.

Personally I don't see anything wrong with them, especially if they improve the road network. It's not as if you are forced to use them- there are always alternate routes.
Click to expand...

In fact the whole of central London is now effectively a toll road! And lets not forget our toll bridges, of which there are a few.
 
Last edited:
simon44 said:
Mark,

The point is they will be making a profit out of your using the roads, plus the fact (which is the icing on the cake) they will be giving sweeteners to the companies from the road tax. So it's not just making money from the road tolls which i'm ok with.

It's happened with the water. You will be on standpipes mid summer. That stems from sweeteners to the companies. Are you happy with that?
Click to expand...

There's no such thing as "road tax". Its called vehicle excise duty, its your vehicle that gets taxed and its based on things such as weight, emissions etc etc which is why the costing is different, and for some vehicles its free.

And the upcoming water shortage is simply due to the driest winter in years
 
Last edited:
Why do they think it will save any money?
Governments only spend our money anyway.
Some one is going to have to pay for the roads and a profit element.
It will cost every person and business much more to the detriment of UK(plc)
Talk about frightening away investors.
 
odd jim said:
There's no such thing as "road tax". Its called vehicle excise duty, its your vehicle that gets taxed and its based on things such as weight, emissions etc etc which is why the costing is different, and for some vehicles its free.

And the upcoming water shortage is simply due to the driest winter in years
Click to expand...

Wrong.

The back-up reservoirs before privatisation were closed as a sweetener for the companies, so they didn't have to maintain them. We are now paying for that now.
 
simon44 said:
Wrong.

The back-up reservoirs before privatisation were closed as a sweetener for the companies, so they didn't have to maintain them. We are now paying for that now.
Click to expand...

Really? I don't think this is the case.

I've seen two reservoirs over the last month where the water is only half filling each one, its a simple fact that volume wise, there isn't enough usable water. Ergo - the main reservoirs arnt being filled, let alone any 'back up' reservoirs (not heard of the back up reservoir issue you've described though?).
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
Really? I don't think this is the case.

I've seen two reservoirs over the last month where the water is only half filling each one, its a simple fact that volume wise, there isn't enough usable water. Ergo - the main reservoirs arnt being filled, let alone any 'back up' reservoirs (not heard of the back up reservoir issue you've described though?).
Click to expand...

If they actually cared sufficiently to maintain their pipework then we wouldn't see billions of gallons of water wasted every year... But then they wouldn't be able to hike prices up as result of 'shortage' and impose fines for breaching hosepipe bans would they?!

"Ofwat figures show that in 2010-2011 Southern Water lost 96 million litres of water per day"

"Anglian Water missed its target on reducing leaks by eight per cent. The firm – whose slogan is “love every drop” – lost 230 million litres per day last year, just under 20 per cent of its total."
-Telegraph article.

"Every day more than 3.3 billion litres of treated water – 20 per cent of the nation's supply and 234 million litres a day more than a decade ago – are lost through leaking pipes in England and Wales. The water lost would meet the daily needs of 21.5 million people."
-Independent article.

And therein lies the problem with privatisation of essential services. They're motivated by profits and not by the quality/efficiency of the services they provide. You think potholes will reduce? Of course they won't, it'll be just the same except you'll have to pay additional fees for the privilege of driving over them!
 
Last edited:
TriggerHappy said:
If they actually cared sufficiently to maintain their pipework then we wouldn't see billions of gallons of water wasted every year... But then they wouldn't be able to hike prices up as result of 'shortage' and impose fines for breaching hosepipe bans would they?!

"Ofwat figures show that in 2010-2011 Southern Water lost 96 million litres of water per day"

"Anglian Water missed its target on reducing leaks by eight per cent. The firm – whose slogan is “love every drop” – lost 230 million litres per day last year, just under 20 per cent of its total."
-Telegraph article.

"Every day more than 3.3 billion litres of treated water – 20 per cent of the nation's supply and 234 million litres a day more than a decade ago – are lost through leaking pipes in England and Wales. The water lost would meet the daily needs of 21.5 million people."
-Independent article.

And therein lies the problem with privatisation of essential services. They're motivated by profits and not by the quality/efficiency of the services they provide. You think potholes will reduce? Of course they won't, it'll be just the same except you'll have to pay additional fees for the privilege of driving over them!
Click to expand...

I agree. But if you look at the figures pre privatisation and post privatisation, you'll see a massive improvement.

"leakage has been reduced from 5,112 megaliters per day in 1994-95 to less than 3,281 megaliters per day in 2009-10 (the measuring method of two companies has changed over the period, so the actual reduction is even higher)" - from Wiki. These figures are both post privatisation (which was in 1989) but those figures are even higher!

Leakages are a constant anyway so they dont have anything to do with this particular shortage over and above what levels are normally expected this time of the year.

Didn't mean to take this off topic!
 
Last edited:
simon44 said:
We will have to agree to differ. :D
Click to expand...

I'm just curious where you came across this info, thats all :)

You cant argue with the physical facts that the water simply isnt in the reservoir was my point!
 
odd jim said:
I'm just curious where you came across this info, thats all :)

You cant argue with the physical facts that the water simply isnt in the reservoir was my point!
Click to expand...

I'm trying to find it for you tbh :)

i can't sadly, but i did read it somewhere. I mean thatcher was on a privatisation crusade at the time. She had massive amounts of oil money and chose not to spend it on infrastructure of the country. Thats why we are paying for it now.
 
I agree on the whole privatisation is not a good thing.

I think we have to ask, how come we managed before, but are struggling now? It cant all be to do with profiteering surely?

Lol we'll be discussing communism next! :coat:
 
TriggerHappy said:
And therein lies the problem with privatisation of essential services. They're motivated by profits and not by the quality/efficiency of the services they provide. You think potholes will reduce? Of course they won't, it'll be just the same except you'll have to pay additional fees for the privilege of driving over them!
Click to expand...

Absolutely bang on.
 
:lol:

Thing is privatisation is about profit. They will build the roads, take money out of the public purse. Charge a shed load of money and give out their dividends to their shareholders. So i'm paying for their dividends, build toll roads by all means, but to subsidise it is a slap across the tax payers face again.
 
odd jim said:
I agree. But if you look at the figures pre privatisation and post privatisation, you'll see a massive improvement.

"leakage has been reduced from 5,112 megaliters per day in 1994-95 to less than 3,281 megaliters per day in 2009-10 (the measuring method of two companies has changed over the period, so the actual reduction is even higher)" - from Wiki. These figures are both post privatisation (which was in 1989) but those figures are even higher!

Leakages are a constant anyway so they dont have anything to do with this particular shortage over and above what levels are normally expected this time of the year.

Didn't mean to take this off topic!
Click to expand...

True, but if we make comparison to Scotland - who still have their water publicly managed by Scottish Water - they managed to reduce their water leaks by 40% in the last six years and it continues to be their priority. They've done this whilst providing the service at an average of £15 an annum less per household.

Just because leakages are constant until resolved doesn't mean it doesn't affect the shortage; if anything it makes them more relevant. That link I provided to the Independent said that daily leaks are equal to the daily consumption of 21.5 million homes. Fix those and then suddenly the demands on the reservoirs are reduced massively. Of course, if the excess consumption demands in times of shortage is greater than 21.5m homes then there's still a short fall but that has to ease a huge amount of burden on the system.

Unfortunately resolving that waste would increase supply whilst demands remain constant so logically price should fall and it also removes their ability to impose fines during hosepipe bans. All this whilst they have to spend money from their £354.5m profits (March 2011) to achieve the result.

It doesn't make sense for a profit driven private company to resolve these issues.

The case in favour of privatisation is that competition forces companies to maximise their efficiencies in order to remain competitive in the market but in instances such as water (and rail, and many more) it's just not feasible to expect many companies to develop the infrastructure to compete with each and so one company is allowed to continue on practising inefficiently without consequence because they are sole suppliers of a necessity so they're guaranteed profits regardless.

The case for the road network is exactly the same. We're not going to see several roads running side by side each owned by a different company with a different quality of surface and a price to match the quality they offer. It's going to be one road, one price, use it and deal with or drive a huge distance to circumvent the sensible route.
 
Last edited:
simon44 said:
Mark,

The point is they will be making a profit out of your using the roads, plus the fact (which is the icing on the cake) they will be giving sweeteners to the companies from the road tax. So it's not just making money from the road tolls which i'm ok with.
Click to expand...

If the government gives the Highways Agency £x each year to look after the roads and they do a poor job, then the following year gives "Shanghai pension fund and road building" (made up name) the same £x and they do a good job AND still manage to pay a dividend to their shareholders, what is your argument against?

Do you have a philosophical objection to the provision of services by the state being done by anything other than people directly employed by the state, or is it specific to road maintenance?
 
TriggerHappy said:
True, but if we make comparison to Scotland - who still have their water publicly managed by Scottish Water - they managed to reduce their water leaks by 40% in the last six years and it continues to be their priority. They've done this whilst providing the service at an average of £15 an annum less per household.

Just because leakages are constant until resolved doesn't mean it doesn't affect the shortage; if anything it makes them more relevant. That link I provided to the Independent said that daily leaks are equal to the daily consumption of 21.5 million homes. Fix those and then suddenly the demands on the reservoirs are reduced massively. Of course, if the excess consumption demands in times of shortage is greater than 21.5m homes then there's still a short fall but that has to ease a huge amount of burden on the system.

Unfortunately resolving that waste would increase supply whilst demands remain constant so logically price should fall and it also removes their ability to impose fines during hosepipe bans. All this whilst they have to spend money from their £354.5m profits (March 2011) to achieve the result.

It doesn't make sense for a profit driven private company to resolve these issues.

The case in favour of privatisation is that competition forces companies to maximise their efficiencies in order to remain competitive in the market but in instances such as water (and rail, and many more) it's just not feasible to expect many companies to develop the infrastructure to compete with each and so one company is allowed to continue on practising inefficiently without consequence because they are sole suppliers of a necessity so they're guaranteed profits regardless.

The case for the road network is exactly the same. We're not going to see several roads running side by side each owned by a different company with a different quality of surface and a price to match the quality they offer. It's going to be one road, one price, use it and deal with or drive a huge distance to circumvent the sensible route.
Click to expand...

Bloody hell your'e good :D
 
Privatisation is all too often just a way of taking the responsibility away from government and reducing the quality and efficiency of the service - Think Group 4 for prisoner transport etc and Jarvis for essential safety maintenance on the rail network...

And sometimes, it seems to a poor ignorant fool like me to be just plain fraud. We used to have a flawed but very useful HMG-run Skillcentre scheme, where people learned basic skills in things like engineering, plumbing, electrics, building and many more. That was 'sold' to a private Company (well, actually it wasn't, the Government of the day pay them many millions to take it away) and they promptly closed it down, and made untold millions from the sale of the real estate. And as a direct result, there is now a real skills shortage...
 
There was a plan up here a few years back to levy a charge for use of the mototorways, but it proved a tad on the unpopular side, so it was quietly dropped.....
 
Having worked with the North West's utilities company, Water is cheap compared to what actually goes into delivering and removing water from your property.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top