Water should be nationalised

DaisyAnne

^Not sure how you can separate the two?^

Separate the two what, Whitewave?

Well when talking about communism, you are talking about a whole economic system, based on the state ownership of the means of production.

So what I meant was that if you talk about nationalising say E.g. a utility as communism, I sort of think that is using the wrong term. I think you may describe state ownership of say the water supply as at a stretch a mixed economy, but even that is pushing it a tad imo. I would rather see it as a widening of the state control over a vital and necessary resource.

As an aside - excellent podcast with James O’Brian and Professor Brian Cox. Uplifting.

senedd.wales/senedd-now/news/over-105-000-incidents-of-untreated-sewage-being-dumped-into-welsh-rivers

Unfortunately, Wales still has a way to go

Casdon

Says it all really.

The problem is that rivers often flow through more than one water board area or are on borders.

Not sure how you can separate the two?

Separate the two what, Whitewave?

Casdon

Says it all really.

What does it mean Casdon when it says the data for Dwr Cymru is for operations in England only?

DaisyAnne

Whitewavemark2

DaisyAnne

I wouldn't see Not for Profit as akin to Nationalising a company. Although, I imagine some would think that to be splitting hairs. I think 'Not for Profit' could be a good model for the future of natural monopolies. I wouldn't want to return to state-owned Nationalisation. But then I see Nationalisation as pretty much the communist end of Socialism. Once again, I understand that others wouldn't.

Norway is the richest country in Europe. It thrives on a capitalist highly regulated economy with a large area of the economy owned by the government as well as the government investing in various private companies.

You wouldn’t describe Norway as a communist country?

I don't think I described any country as a communist country, did !? I certainly didn't intend to. I'm sure I said that I did not expect everyone would agree with my views.

I see nationalisation as old-fashioned as the intended outcomes of the "pure" capitalism that we have had thrust on us. That doesn't mean I have any answers. I like many of the choices Norway makes. I certainly would not want to disrespect what they do.

I wonder how lucky those who know what they believe is right are. I hope to continue questioning it all for a long time yet. When I stop, I will stop being interested in politics.

Not sure how you can separate the two?

My description would be that of a mixed economy. Most European countries have a mixture to a lessor or greater extent.

It is only dogma in the U.K. that prevents it from following a sensible path, as it prevents so much so much else.

Says it all really.

We should, after more than forty years, be able to assess the result of Thatcher's key policy of privitisation, which Harold MacMillan described as "selling off the family silver"

Let's just look at the privitisation of water. The water companies may have distributed profits to their shareholders but we all pay more, we have leaks everywhere and untreated sewage being routinely discharged into our rivers.

What should be the verdict on water privitisation?

Whitewavemark2

DaisyAnne

I wouldn't see Not for Profit as akin to Nationalising a company. Although, I imagine some would think that to be splitting hairs. I think 'Not for Profit' could be a good model for the future of natural monopolies. I wouldn't want to return to state-owned Nationalisation. But then I see Nationalisation as pretty much the communist end of Socialism. Once again, I understand that others wouldn't.

Norway is the richest country in Europe. It thrives on a capitalist highly regulated economy with a large area of the economy owned by the government as well as the government investing in various private companies.

You wouldn’t describe Norway as a communist country?

I don't think I described any country as a communist country, did !? I certainly didn't intend to. I'm sure I said that I did not expect everyone would agree with my views.

I see nationalisation as old-fashioned as the intended outcomes of the "pure" capitalism that we have had thrust on us. That doesn't mean I have any answers. I like many of the choices Norway makes. I certainly would not want to disrespect what they do.

I wonder how lucky those who know what they believe is right are. I hope to continue questioning it all for a long time yet. When I stop, I will stop being interested in politics.

The Māori is right imo, you cannot separate it.

When Europeans first arrived in NZ in the early 1800s, they bought land from the Maori people for tiny amounts of money.
The Maori thought it was a good deal because they had no concept of land ownership at that time. Land was the earth along with the water and the air! Nature's bounty.

I think I must belong to their culture because, although I have become used to land being bought and sold, I am still not sure about water and certainly not air.

Now, rich Americans, Chinese (and others) are buying up whole tracts of land and islands in NZ presumably so they can survive there when the rest of the planet is too contaminated to support life.

DaisyAnne

I wouldn't see Not for Profit as akin to Nationalising a company. Although, I imagine some would think that to be splitting hairs. I think 'Not for Profit' could be a good model for the future of natural monopolies. I wouldn't want to return to state-owned Nationalisation. But then I see Nationalisation as pretty much the communist end of Socialism. Once again, I understand that others wouldn't.

Norway is the richest country in Europe. It thrives on a capitalist highly regulated economy with a large area of the economy owned by the government as well as the government investing in various private companies.

You wouldn’t describe Norway as a communist country?

The good thing about not for profit to my mind is that they can be held to account more readily than a nationalised service. They are also self sustaining, so because there are no shareholders they don’t overcharge, but they do charge the rate they need to be able to maintain and improve services. It’s not a perfect model, but it does have advantages.

I wouldn't see Not for Profit as akin to Nationalising a company. Although, I imagine some would think that to be splitting hairs. I think 'Not for Profit' could be a good model for the future of natural monopolies. I wouldn't want to return to state-owned Nationalisation. But then I see Nationalisation as pretty much the communist end of Socialism. Once again, I understand that others wouldn't.

My displeasure at my water provider’s behaviour cannot be registered.

The CEOs and shareholders benefit to the tune of untold millions from their captured customers payments.

Especially when Share Holders come before maintenance and improvements- and even more so when it allows said companies to pour tons and tons of raw sewage into waterways.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Water

The three water companies, North, South and East were amalgamated into Scottish Water in 2005. It goes against my grain to have utility companies run for profit.

New Labour did consider privatisation of the Royal Mail. Changed their minds later.

NfkDumpling

Is it in the Labour manifesto to re-nationalise anything? Water and the rail network?

Here’s Labours latest position NfkDumpling
www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/25/starmer-says-he-wont-be-ideological-labour-renationalisation-row

I know, MaizieD but it was not too late to reverse the privatisation of the water industry.

That's a different matter from what you originally claimed.

Is it in the Labour manifesto to re-nationalise anything? Water and the rail network?

In one turbulent decade, the Tories sold off most of Britain’s public utilities: water systems in England and Wales in 1989; electricity utilities in 1990; the natural gas network in 1995; British Rail in 1996

They also dramatically replaced public employees with private contractors. In 1997, when Tony Blair and the Labour Party regained power, they embraced outsourcing with surprising ardor. Blair has no regrets. Indeed, in 2015 he warned the Labour Party not to regress. “So let me make my position clear: I wouldn’t want to win on an old-fashioned leftist platform. Even if I thought it was the route to victory, I wouldn’t take it. ”

I know, MaizieD but it was not too late to reverse the privatisation of the water industry.

Daisymae

Interview in Radio 4 this morning and apparently they are thinking of new reservoirs. When you consider the house building going on in all parts of the country.........

I don't see much point in building more reservoirs while the water companies are still wasting 25% of their supply through leakages.

Of course, all essential utilites should be. And selling them to foreign businesses is even worse. As we can see now, when those foreign concerns are in conflict with us, and even at risk of war and politcal, even nuclear, blackmail.

Callistemon21

paddyann even when we voted in a Labour Government, the privatisation of utilities carried on down its relentless path regardless.

Which utilities did Labour privatise, Callistomen?

This is talking of privatisation in the 1970s - 1990s

The major privatisations in the UK during that period were Rolls Royce motors (1973) BP (stakes sold off between 1977 and 1987), BA (1987), Steel (1988) and Coal (1994), and the utilities: gas (1986), electricity (1990-1995), telecoms (1984-1993) and water (1989).

I'm hard put to think of any other utilities remaining to be sold 1997 -2009. Which ones did you have in mind?