The case for public ownership of public services

[The Left Back]

I was going to post this under the UK/Bojo thread but wondered if it merited its own debate.  I was listening yesterday to a podcast on city transport services and how bringing them back into public ownership was helping with investment and preservation of service levels.

Below is a link to an 8 minute monologue by Eddie Dempsey, assistant general secretary of the RMT.  The last 2 minutes in particular makes the case for a massive rethink of the way the economy is run.  Put simply, moving public services back into public ownership and using current dividends as investment in services and wages. If it hadn't already been coined you might call it 'taking back control'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vOD3L7v-q8

Apologies I don't know how to embed the link so if someone could help with that I'd be grateful.

I have a lot of sympathy with what is being put forward and know I'm regarded by friends as a bit of a soppy, naive, idealistic socialist.  So I'm genuinely interested in the thoughts of others on here.  My only request is to try and make the conversation about the merits and shortcomings of the idea rather than getting stuck in some of the normal personal attacks (i.e. play the ball not the man).

 

[badgerx16]

Don't the Department of Transport run 3 passengerfranchises at the moment anyway ? Shows that the franchise system doesn't work.

[whelk]

You’ll be fighting against the fallacy argument that private ownership makes it all more efficient. No one actually believes railway and utility companies make it more efficient but there are powerful ruling classes whose friends will all be v senior in these companies and will lobby against it. 

[whelk]

And of course the subservient working class who love to do as Rees-Mogg et al direct. 

Edited 28 July, 2022 by whelk
Removed ‘thick’

[saint1977]

Loads of examples. Take the East Coast Mainline, financially works far better as public owned. There’s a reason Maggie didn’t privatise the railways https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/04/east-coast-mainline-fury-reprivatisation-plan then https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/east-coast-main-line-renationalised-public-ownership-rail-virgin-trains-franchise-failure-lner-department-transport-a8414056.html

Failure of the Conservative Barnet ‘Easy Council’ https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jul/21/former-tory-council-barnet-votes-to-end-mass-outsourcing-of-services

This is a more balanced article talking about the Carillion and Interserve failures but also some examples of where outsourcing can be more effective https://www.publicfinance.co.uk/feature/2019/02/coming-home-local-government-insourcing

My conclusion - public or private should be an objective and business-led decision on best provision of service delivery, not opinion based, which unfortunately most politicians are. The last article makes a good point about why more local and regional organisations aren’t outsourced to so there’s more accountability and money kept in the local economy rather than a faceless corporation where an MP’s wife is on the board. 

Edited 28 July, 2022 by saint1977
Localism added

[Manuel]

I never understood the assumption that it's impossible for a publicly owned organisation to be run efficiently.  If privatised train companies can manage to provide some sort of a service and cream off profits to shareholders each and every year, I see no reason why the same service can't be run by the government, and what would have been the profits get invested into decent staff pay and conditions, trains in less profitable parts of the country, upgrading of facilites etc. 

Of course the buying of it all back will be the expensive part.  But even if the day to day running of it ends up costing the taxpayer something, along the lines of SNCF, but the service is decent and reliable, it would probably be worth it and we might even see a more productive country as a knock on effect of a decent public transport service. 

Edited 28 July, 2022 by Manuel

[Sheaf Saint]

This is about the strongest case for public ownership of public services you'll ever see...

Centrica - the parent company of British Gas (which was sold off by Thatcher's govt) has posted a record profit of £1.34bn for the 6 months to the end of June - a 5-fold increase on the same time last year.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/centrica-profits-gas-energy-bills-b2132932.html

[Sheaf Saint]

2 minutes ago, Manuel said:

I never understood the assumption that it's impossible for a publicly owned organisation to be run efficiently.  If privatised train companies can manage to provide some sort of a service and cream off profits to shareholders each and every year, I see no reason why the same service can't be run by the government, and what would have been the profits get invested into decent staff pay and conditions, trains in less profitable parts of the country, upgrading of facilites etc. 

Of course the buying of it all back will be the expensive part.  But even if the day to day running of it ends up costing the taxpayer something, along the lines of SNCF, but the service is decent and reliable, it would probably be worth it and we might even see a more productive country as a knock on effect of a decent public transport service. 

They don't need to 'buy' it back. They just don't renew the franchise when it expires.

[Manuel]

Thanks. Even better then.  

[revolution saint]

I think you could make an argument for some areas if genuine competition exists. Things like railways and water there’s no competition so market forces don’t really work and you’re left with an argument based on the inherent efficiency of private enterprise which is an argument I don’t really believe in.

[Whitey Grandad]

The water companies are prime examples of the need for nationalisation. Too focused on generating profits and not in fixing leaks.

[buctootim]

3 hours ago, The Left Back said:

 

 

Turns out I can't embed either!

Edited 28 July, 2022 by buctootim

[whelk]

52 minutes ago, buctootim said:

 

Turns out I can't embed either!

 

[buctootim]

2 minutes ago, whelk said:

 

Whippersnapper 

[The Left Back]

26 minutes ago, whelk said:

 

Thanks @whelk

I'd never heard of this fella prior to finding this and found him to be a pretty impressive speaker.  The interviewer was clearly a like-minded colleague but nonetheless I though he made a coherent case.

The thing I listened to was telling the story of the generations-long failed integrated transport system in Leeds.  Private company ownership wasn't the only issue offered, but it was cited as a factor, with Reading given as an example of a place that has taken transport back into public ownership with good effect.

[farawaysaint]

Public companies are subject to cronyism and inefficiencies (just take a look at historical trends in the airline sector). Certain essential industries like the post office and rail there is a strong public service argument as to why they should not be in private hands though. It’s a huge balancing act and difficult to manage.

[saint1977]

2 hours ago, revolution saint said:

I think you could make an argument for some areas if genuine competition exists. Things like railways and water there’s no competition so market forces don’t really work and you’re left with an argument based on the inherent efficiency of private enterprise which is an argument I don’t really believe in.

Very much my thinking as well. I’m fine with things being private if the expertise is there to deliver the services more effectively and where customers have choice. Even the most ardent Thatcherites admit utilities has been a disaster and even before Ukraine was a disaster for individual households. Our core infrastructure should not be subject to free market gambling and in funding the pension schemes of other nations’ eg France and Netherlands.

The railways can be renationalised bit by bit as franchises end. The people who believe there is material difference between sectors efficiency are MPs and media barons with limited multi sector experience. Effectiveness is down to individual organisations, sometimes different within organisations. Public pensions are a bit more expensive but that’s more sustainable for the economy and health services longer-term than a few executives skimming off huge bonuses to tax havens.

The Cameron and May governments tried to make more public listed firms more transparent and to put shareholder breaks on boardroom behaviour but found that their party donors weren’t keen so it never really went anywhere. That and with Brexit, the elites driving it had a dream of a Singapore on Thames, which was never going to happen as it’s not what the Midlands and North voted for.