And yet now that we have multiple private companies operating our telecoms the system is still shit. Broadband coverage is shit to middling outside large urban areas.
The floating and subsequent privatization of telecom èigean was a double disaster for the state. TDs tell the public to get on board and the public lose loads of money while the state through Bertie hands over our telecoms network to a private company for fuck all.
How’s private health insurance working out for us? Sure, let’s let the likes of Sean Quinn open insurance companies and run them without actuaries. No worries. He’s a great businessman. Sorry lads. Here’s an insurance levy for the next 20 years.
Even the most probusiness faction of them all FG have suggested that there is a cartel operating amongst insurance companies.
The bottom is simple. People get greedy. Public services are too important to be left to the whim of private companies. So the government has to be involved. And not just as a regulator.
I agree with all of the above but would differ on some of the details I’d imagine.
Again, it is is still far better than it was 30 years ago.
I am not into arguing the merits of every case of privatisation, I did say it isn’t always successful. You can’t hand over tightly controlled and finite resources to private hands and just expect effeciencies.
But the idea that privatisation of public services is a disaster as claimed, is a fallacy.
More buses for the boggers
Eh eircom went bust after privatisation so maybe not the best example
It’s funny because in my view it was the introducing competition that brought things to this point anyway. How do you expect the company to carry on when it’s most profitable routes are hived off? That doesn’t even fit the definition of competition anyway, it just hands a monopoly on certain routes to someone else.
It’s also funny how you see state run companies as inevitably being run to the benefit of employees rather than customers. To whose benefit are private companies run then? Even if it is a straight choice between a state owned company being run for employees benefit or privatisation, which is the better model? Secure reasonably paid jobs for a number of people and their families versus the privatisation of public wealth? Which has a societal benefit?
Of course the whole debate on this being centred around the company’s finances is nonsense anyway. It’s a question of government policy. What services does the government want to ensure are provided and how is it going to go about that? Even the state paying a fair fee for the subvention would change the question massively.
And someone bought them out and restructured them.
As happens in business.
How you privatise is important, there is no doubt there was a fuck up around that. Deregulation and privatisation of all markets without regard to the features of that market can be disastrous. Additionally the post sale feature, like Government continued intervention in the market can help just create private monopolies over public ones.
But the point is pricing. Did consumers benefit? There is no doubt they have. The telecommunications industry is never perfect but is a damned lot better than it was.
The public got burned by a botched IPO but that is the risk of investment, not a PS issue.
We are paying way more for our electricity since deregulation
Incorrect.
The public service routes are fine and the subvention, which I don’t believe people dispute, works.
This is about the routes being loss making as salaries are too high.
You want the State and by extension the tax payer, to continue to fund a service being provided privately anyway.
BE has struggled to compete with private operators on routes as they can’t play downhill. Consumers have voted with their feet and their wallets on these routes. Either BE cuts costs to get them more in line or they go bust.
I don’t think anyone here has actually attacked the subsidy or said that we should just leave rural people stranded.
Finances is the issue. You cannot be paying people 45k before overtime and Sunday allowances and expect to break even.
I think you’re conflating a whole load of issues there:
-
Just because a system can be improved doesn’t mean it’s not better off than if it hadn’t been opened to competition. Telecoms is clearly a case in point - if TE were struggling to fulfil basic services before what leads you to believe that they’d have a better national broadband system now if they were still a state monopoly?
-
The floating/privatision financing etc is a totally separate issue from the actual end-result or philosophy. That was FF doing what FF do …
-
Your health insurance example surely indicates an issue with state regulation? I haven’t seen much consequences for any regulators for not doing their job … In terms of the cost of health insurance, again thats driven by health costs inflation which in Ireland is predominantly spent by Public Sector - even though private health operators have been proven to be more efficient.
Your conclusion doesn’t really conclude anything - “people get greedy ergo the gov needs to be involved” - so you’re happy with my suggestion of more private sector competition with more effective gov regulation and continued improvement in gov spending efficiency?
Things are dearer 20 years later shocker
I don’t expect a company to “carry on” - I expect it to deliver services efficiently and effectively. To be clear, we don’t have bus companies around the country going to the wall here - for some reason it’s just the state one. To my knowledge - the unions (and management) in BE and CIE companies have fought tooth and nail against routes (subsidied or not) being hived off. They’re afraid that when competition begins they won’t be able to match up. Have you addressed @Tim_Riggins point yet about BE already using private operators for some of these routes?
Private companies are run to the benefit of shareholders predominantly. However the main difference is that if the shareholders or Mgmt run the company inefficiently then the company goes bust and another takes it place which minuses the risk of misallocation to any element (shareholders/employees etc). In the public sector if a company is run inefficiently then the default solution is either to seek higher prices (through a monopoly) or further state subsidies. This is clearly the case in BE now.
Your point about societal benefit is pretty weak. Either you believe every job should be public and “reasonably paid” (i.e. above the market rate) and we nationalise everything or its about protecting the few at the cost to the many. Do you think our tax system is not progressive enough currently because surely that’s the way to provide social transfers to all. Of course if the tax is being spent inefficiently to prop up failed organisations …
A “fair fee for subvention” is an interesting concept. How is that determined? Do BE figure out their costs and then tell the government the bill? How about instead they bundle up public service routes and put it out to tender and BE and other Bus Companies submit their proposals. Then we’d understand what a fair fee is…
Evidence?
From last month.
Consumer Satisfaction: Price deregulation of the electricity and gas markets
occurred in Ireland between 2005 and 2014 and there are now eight electricity and
seven gas suppliers. This competition has led to greater product innovation and a
variety of offers available to customers, relative to the period when incumbent
electricity and gas suppliers were price regulated. A broad range of offers are now
available, including level pay, green source products, cash back offers and tie-ins to
other products and services, such as smart pay-as-you-go services.
This innovation has provided real choice and benefits to customers, including
considerable savings on their final bills when they switch suppliers to avail of
discount offers or renegotiate with their current suppliers when they finish their
contract period
…
The private companies want all of these services up for tender.
It isn’t a surprise, public money subventions are a manna from heaven for private operators.
No, generally I try not to read @Tim_Riggins posts.
So you see a bunch of bus companies and see the state one failing as being their fault? Nothing to do with the fact that the profitable routes were taken off them which majorly contributes to their failing?
Despite being such an inefficient organisation they were still able to turn a profit. The reason for this was because they were in a monopoly situation. Private companies have come in and customers have gone for the private operator because they’re cheaper and provide a better service. Bus Eireann drivers want to get rid of private operators purely to maintain their inflated salaries. They believe the organisation exists to meet the needs of the employees rather than service users, much like the HSE.
They should have a word for that
Dearation and increasion are the two generally recognised words for that phenomenon.
That’s fucking horseshit from CER. When the commission was set up it’s first act was to increase the price of electricity to make Wind energy viable. we went from the second cheapest in Europe to the second most expensive in the space of a few years. ESB, a grossly inefficient shower of bastards are awash with money since and throw it out to staff and more so contractors to do the staff’s job for them. A few years back it was reported that the average salary in the ESB is 70K, for a bunch of tradesmen.
I see it as being absolute evidence of a flabby company unable to compete when their monopoly is removed. I’ve no particular wish for increased subsidies for such a company