weegie01 wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 1:03 pm
Torquemada 1420 wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 12:18 pm
You see, I just don't get this. These f**kers are all meant to be privatised and yet receive somewhere between £5-7bn (try getting the truth from the Govt) a year in subsidies.
Subsidies in the right circumstances are fine. If there is a situation where it is deemed that, for the greater good prices will be held below cost, it is reasonable for the Govt to subsidise the firms doing the work else they will go out of business.
What is not reasonable is the Govt subsidising firms to the extent that they are not exposed to commercial risk, or the results of their own incompetence. It is the impression that this is happening that is so distasteful.
I am ignoring the argument about nationalisation.
These aren't true privitisations. They're companies run ing a government service under contract. Sole reason is so various PMs could say they cut the number of govt employees. There are ways this kind of public private partnership can be very useful, for example in raising investment where you get very good terms by being a company backed by the state, but these were deli eratrly set up not to look like that. So now we subsidise other countries state companies instead of our own. At least in rail we have the option to renationalise and then put a better system in. With water and electricity we could renationalise as companies fail but not with the current govt. I can see a potentially worthwhile model where generation is a mix of public, private, domestic and even not for profit with the reseller being government owned (potentially that could be under contract but I'd need to think further on that). Water is more difficult but I haven't thought much on that because ours is still state owned. Operator licenses for other utilities e.g. broadband or mobile phone should have a stricter condition attached to near universal provision of service imo - that doesn't mean you have to run cables everywhere, it means you need to provide the service, so if that's putting satellite broadband into remote villages and using local WiFi to provide mobile calls over IP then that's what it needs, and sharing between suppliers should be a part of that service provision.
Oh, and the other thing I'd do for public service is split the BBC news service entirely away from all its other provision. TV license goes to the non news bit. State subsidy for the news bit out of general taxation. Channel four stats public with no subsidy.