DaisyAnne
Jess20
Yes, essential services should be privatised, especially with severe climate changes on the way. Matter of fairness and survival.
Nationalisation seemed like a good idea after the war. It's easy to understand why. However, we haven't been at war - at least not with another country. How we live has changed so much. We have discovered that different areas have different needs and priorities.
So yes, I think we need to own our utilities. However, I would not want it to work from the state down. I believe we should be looking to work from the community up.
Prior to 1974 there were 198 water supply undertakings of which 33 were private. The remaining 165 were formed into 10 regional water authorities.
"^Sewerage and sewage disposal had been dealt with by more than 1,300 country borough and county district councils.[8][9][10] Daniel A. Okun, an environmental engineer and internationally renowned figure in the field of water supply and water resources management, regarded the RWAs as "pioneers of their era."[9][10] This "trailblazing" concept of a single authority, based on a river basin or watershed, being responsible for water extraction, water supply, sewage treatment and environmental pollution prevention, led to "considerable efficiency gains."[6] Despite these efficiency gains, the RWAs were hampered by chronic underfunding and lack of investment from central government. Underinvestment in infrastructure combined with sustained water pollution by industry contributed to a continued decline of both river and tap water quality.^"
I can just imagine the chaos at a local level in discussions at a local level.
"^Sewerage and sewage disposal had been dealt with by more than 1,300 country borough and county district councils.[8][9][10] Daniel A. Okun, an environmental engineer and internationally renowned figure in the field of water supply and water resources management, regarded the RWAs as "pioneers of their era."[9][10] This "trailblazing" concept of a single authority, based on a river basin or watershed, being responsible for water extraction, water supply, sewage treatment and environmental pollution prevention, led to "considerable efficiency gains."[6] Despite these efficiency gains, the RWAs were hampered by chronic underfunding and lack of investment from central government.[9] Underinvestment in infrastructure combined with sustained water pollution by industry contributed to a continued decline of both river and tap water quality.^"
I can just imagine the problems in getting a group of communities to agree on anything.
You'll see from the following that Thatcher's govt started the gradual decline in investment in water
"^By 1980, investment in the water sector was just one-third of what it had been in 1970. Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government, which had been elected in 1979, had curtailed the RWAs ability to borrow money they deemed necessary for capital projects.[8][9][11] Daniel Okun said: "Before, they could borrow money everywhere easily. They could get money at very good rates. Restrictions on external borrowing prevented the [RWAs] from getting capital. They were considered ineffective because they could not borrow money. Thatcher prevented them from borrowing and then blamed them for not building."[9] When the European Union introduced stricter legislation on river, bathing, coastal, and drinking water quality, the sector was in no position to meet the expenditure requirements and the UK was prosecuted for noncompliance.[12][b] Estimates of the capital expenditure required to achieve EU standards and meet the existing backlog in infrastructure maintenance ranged from £24 to £30 billion.^"
I make no apologies for extracting info from Wikipedia. If you go to the entry there are several source references