Hosepipe bans? You couldn’t make it up!

We have tons of the stuff here up north , I will send bucket loads !!!!

our water companies sound as if they couldn’t run a bath

Those in charge just don't care.

I know someone who works for a water company and she tells me how much they try to do to improve the supply of water to homes and businesses. However, when I asked if profits to shareholders were put before the needs of customers, she prevaricated. Probably concerned about her job.

I don't know if this is common to all water companies but mine charges for processing waste water and for water butts.

My last bill increase was way above the rate of inflation but is reassuring to know that share holders are being rewarded even if there is no money for improving the infrastructure.

Was it really a good thing to privatise the water and sewerage industry?

The argument was / is that private companies run such industries more efficiently than the state. Shareholders provide the cash and the industry invests it to provide a first class service resulting in a healthy profit. How has that worked out in reality?

A regulatory body was set up in 1989 to ensure that consumers received high standards of service at a fair price. Do you think it's been successful?

Why is it not possible for the state to invest in and provide a first class service run by similarly ambitious individuals employing the same people who are now employed privately - with a similar regulatory framework?

Look at the care 'industry' - it's the same story.

Any company in any industry wanting to make a healthy profit will have to look at its costs, any investment in equipment, property, or staff, has to be paid for either by the company or the customer.

Is this really the best way to manage our essential services - water, energy, and care?

I'm not against Capitalism - companies competing to make a profit, but I believe that some services simply should not be run for profit - not those that are fundamental to the survival and wellbeing of a nation's people.

Nothings changed really, multiple leaks and a lack of reservoirs, OFWAT have today announced refunds to customers from most water companies.
We have three water butts Indigo bought by us for collecting rain water, we’re not charged, I doubt Souther water even know we have them.

We had ten years of this in the 1980s droughts and we were not allowed to water from taps at all so many of us put water tanks in. They didn’t manage to ban those.

Was it really a good thing to privatise the water and sewerage industry?

No, I don’t think it was.
However, look at the NHS. Could the state really have done any better?

companies competing to make a profit,

That's the problem with privatising a monopoly. Buying a water company was a licence to make money as there is no competition among the companies. I live in the NE. I can't choose to change my water services provider. I'm stuck with Northumbria Water because it's the monopoly provider.

The theory that privatisation would lead to competition which would lead to cheaper, more efficient services completely crumbles in the face of a monopoly provision.

Privatisation has also failed badly because of the imperative to make profits for distribution to shareholders.

Yes, that’s correct MaizieD.

maddyfour

^Was it really a good thing to privatise the water and sewerage industry?^

No, I don’t think it was.
However, look at the NHS. Could the state really have done any better?

State water provision was fine before privatisation.

I really don't understand how anyone who has experienced both public sector and private sector provision can still think that private provision is in any way superior in every case.

Sorry, Maddy4 I shouldn't be snippy but your reference to the NHS confused me.

I meant that our NHS, which is publicly owned/funded, is not performing well. It is in fact, struggling. That doesn’t mean I think the NHS should be privatised because I absolutely don’t. So I was saying that public services don’t necessarily perform well.

I don’t know how well the the water services performed pre privatisation because it’s a long time ago. I do remember standpipes in the streets during the 1976 heatwave. What I’m saying is that water may not have performed better under public ownership, or it may, we don’t know. It would depend on how well it was funded and how much profit may have been creamed off by any government. We cannot assume that public ownership will necessarily lead to better services for the public.

My gut feeling is that water services should be in public ownership, but whether that would mean better services would remain to be seen.

Jaxjacky

Nothings changed really, multiple leaks and a lack of reservoirs, OFWAT have today announced refunds to customers from most water companies.
We have three water butts Indigo bought by us for collecting rain water, we’re not charged, I doubt Souther water even know we have them.

... refunds which will be in the region of under £10 per customer, according to the BBC.

Not a huge amount, but it will go towards the proposed increase of £19 per year (average) 2025 - 2030.

maddyfour

^Was it really a good thing to privatise the water and sewerage industry?^

No, I don’t think it was.
However, look at the NHS. Could the state really have done any better?

The NHS doesn’t have shareholders to keep happy though.

maddyfour

I meant that our NHS, which is publicly owned/funded, is not performing well. It is in fact, struggling. That doesn’t mean I think the NHS should be privatised because I absolutely don’t. So I was saying that public services don’t necessarily perform well.

I don’t know how well the the water services performed pre privatisation because it’s a long time ago. I do remember standpipes in the streets during the 1976 heatwave. What I’m saying is that water may not have performed better under public ownership, or it may, we don’t know. It would depend on how well it was funded and how much profit may have been creamed off by any government. We cannot assume that public ownership will necessarily lead to better services for the public.

My gut feeling is that water services should be in public ownership, but whether that would mean better services would remain to be seen.

My gut feeling is that water services should be in public ownership, but whether that would mean better services would remain to be seen.

Probably quite a few people think the same.

However, there is no logical reason why state provision should be inferior to private provision, in principle.

It requires the integrity of the organisation and the individuals running it, the funding, and the harvesting of those with the knowledge and experience in the field.

I cannot believe that these desirable traits are only available in the private sector.

Of course, if you think that personal economic gain - and in some instances, greed, are the motivators that compel people to work efficiently, then you won't be convinced.

But then who are the individuals that work hard and efficiently, both professionally and menially for only an adequate, or even little reward - and sometimes, charitably? They exist, they underpin often our crumbling public services?

Behavioural Science has challenged the notion that big financial rewards lead to people 'trying harder'.

In the 70s, a psychologist at New York's Rochester University carried out a test - he offered some students cash prizes for puzzle-solving - others, nothing. The students working for money worked hard, until they achieved their reward, and then mostly lost interest. Those puzzle-solving for nothing generally continued on the project because they were fulfilling a basic intrinsic need.

Probably doesn't work exactly, but an interesting study nonetheless.

I guess it depends on your ideology.

maddyfour

I meant that our NHS, which is publicly owned/funded, is not performing well. It is in fact, struggling. That doesn’t mean I think the NHS should be privatised because I absolutely don’t. So I was saying that public services don’t necessarily perform well.

I think the underperforming, struggling NHS' problems are complex and that there is no single reason why.

Structure, the 'business' modelling, political interference, funding, public 'expectation'... etc, etc. Are these the reasons?

Or is it doomed to failure unless we privatise it all?

They’ve more or less got the proverbial licence to print money, it seems to me.

On the other hand….there are more homes, people use so much more water than in the past and we don’t need to use treated clean water to water the garden! Just playing devil’s advocate…. Privatisation was/is a disaster in my opinion.

Water boards, as they were called then, worked perfectly well before the bonkers decision to privatise them. There can’t be competition as there’s only one provider. Thatcher government went power crazy with a basic necessity of life.

nanna8

We had ten years of this in the 1980s droughts and we were not allowed to water from taps at all so many of us put water tanks in. They didn’t manage to ban those.

This is far more understandable as you are in Australia, but here in the UK, we normally have plenty of rain and in the last twelve months we have had only a handful of dry days. Recently, we have had rain of biblical proportions and we hardly had any summer at all - perhaps two or three decent weeks worth in total. This is why the idea of hosepipe bans because of drought - what drought? - is a sick joke at best and scandalous at worst. It isn't even as if we don't pay a not so small fortune to our utilities companies, either.

Yes I notice one week without rain is called a ‘drought’ . I think it would have to be at least 5 or 6 weeks here. Some places it rains once every few years. Now that’s drought!

Shizam, I agree with you absolutely. Privatisation surely implies that the consumer has a choice of suppliers ?
Supermarkets are ( mostly) privately owned, so I choose where to spend my money.
I wouldn't choose Southern Water, but I must.