Obviously far too late for a reply to this thread... might gaz you...
But yeah, those are the ideals trotted out to justify a privitisation every time...but how often does the govt end up paying 2/3 of what it did for the service?
Our trains are a case worth noting. When they were public, they cost, iirc, 2Bil/year. 10 years after privitisation, they cost 5Bil. That is 5Bil subsidy. Inflation should put it at 3Bil, and the fairs have increased ahead of inflation, too.
But is the service better? I was offered more "choice". Yes, I have a lot more "choice" now - extremely confusing fairs and massive penalties for the wrong one, and all the train cos fighting about who's fault any particular problem is, and a collapsed Railtrack which had to be run publically again (No directors or shareholders out of pocket, mind) but they are thinking of again selling off.
Imagine if running that service well was life-or-death?
(, Tue 17 Jul 2012, 7:40, Reply)
And, of course, if one is privitising a public "monopoly",
that 20% "profit" the "subsidy" the public is paying for is, essentially, paying for the stockmarket. We are subsidising our own stockmarket. This is surely not "capitalist". And they have the gall to make the argument about "ideals"...
(, Tue 17 Jul 2012, 8:18, Reply)