Is it worth joining the Labour Party?

[r00fie1]

Join the "Tufty Club" to make our roads safer.

[Those on here of a certain vintage will remember "Tufty"

 

[Scrote]

The problem is it's funded, which basically allows it to be controlled. Usually anyone chipping in money to anything wants control. I'm not saying this has happened, but I'll eat my hat if it didn't. But being private does not remove your specs/ regulation and knot tying, which is where all the real problem lies from what I see. It's funded as it's a black hole of mess, if it wasn't nobody would take it on. It needs starting from scratch from the bottom up, not top down.

On rail the ransom doesn't come from the main contractors or subbies, it comes from the companies taking on the contracts effectively being signed up to being a hostage. Because that comes at major risk, most of them want major reward. On some contracts you'll make a killing, and on others you lose money, even with a crazy margin in place. It's as crazy as it sounds and I can understand why you might struggle to understand. Anyone working in rial or pricing rail work understands though, very quickly. The main risk is time, always is. The funny thing is they try and penalise you with LD's when a project becomes late, until you point out they're the reason why it's late, then you hand them your delay damages bill.

No, it's not a good thing, as instead of 10 companies tendering the £1m it should cost, all 10 tender £3m as they know the job will take three times longer than it should. Keeps people in a job I suppose, but inefficiency is the wrong way to keep jobs.

The fleecing comes internally, it's self fleecing due to how backwards it operates. For example, we had a job a couple of years back where we were installing 18 national grid installations under a set of tracks, this could have easily been done one a day, with the trains in operation as the calculations and and controls could have made it risk 0. Instead some clown said the project had to be done on nights, in a 2 hour window, so took 5x longer than it should have done. Bare in mind this was a project which had zero track interface. Basically in a 12 hour shift you get 10 hours working time, in a 4 hour shift you get two hours, as it takes time to set up/ get back to where you once were etc. In the end there ended up being more risk as everyone was working in the dark, and no amount of lights can replicate daylight, people were falling over and walking into things every night. Even if it was possible to get more lights/ replicate daylight, it wouldn't be allowed as the lights (not pointing towards the track) would apparently be shinning in the hypothetical train drivers eyes, when there are not even any trains running, bar the odd 10mph freight train.

Other scenarios are, for some check which make take 10 minutes, they don't let you do it in the 20 minute window between trains, with controls, you have to take what is known as a possession, this basically stops all trains for hours and gives you ownership of the track and costs a fortune. Basically you're stopping trains which you don't want to stop, to work at a time when you don't want to be working. These are often over Christmas and bank holidays too, so to get people to actually work those shifts costs a lot more.

Then there's things like service diversions for HS2, say where the new track is crossing a 90mm gas line for the 50m easement width, instead of diverting 50m of 90mm, they divert 200m, of 2 x 200mm. So now that one service crossing costs 10x more, as it's 10x more complex (also 10x more risk too), and there is no usable gain. The gas company gets a pipe larger than it needs (that it doesn't use) and an over engineered spare that by the time it actually needs the spare it's degraded more than the one it's mean to be a spare for. When I've mentioned about 100 times this could all be done much cheaper with less risk, the answer is always "tender as per the docs, so the price is compliant", it's nuts.

You're right, public safety is important. But is bleeding money on waste safe, when that money can be spent on things which could make other things much more noticeably safer? The biggest risk to public and rail workers is time, the longer a project is taking the more the risk adds up. Doing something at 20% risk for 1 man hour is "safer" than 10% risk for a 10 man hours etc.

The deliverables are known, that's the easy bit, they're always way OTT, also known. But the problem is forecasting durations, as you have to basically guess how much you're going to be ****ed around. You have to go fixed price, as this is the only price they want. They don't see the waste though, as it's not as obvious as sending them a £10,000 bill for a meeting for 20 people, which is discussing something which 19 of them don't understand.

But none of that explains why nationalisation of NR, or the entire rail system, is a bad thing. You've highlighted issues with management and efficiency (and that's assuming you have 100% of the information that drives decisions). The private sector has similar issues - it's a function of using people to do things.

A simple test. If the entire rail system was nationalised would you, personally, be out of a job?

The water bills are cheap, it was ~£1 per cubic metre of drinkable (debatable now I know) water when I last looked, it cost more than that for a 500ml bottle of something which is unnoticeably different. I think my bill is <£30 for a 5 bed house and that also includes separate foul and SW systems for the estate, and the FW runs on a rising main (basically it gets pumped up hill, but takes electric, a pump station, and a tank to enable it, so not the cheapest way). This bill is cheaper than my mobile phone bill, far cheaper than broadband (which is far simpler to install), cheaper than electric, gas, and anything else. Water is by far the most complicated and expensive service to install (actually three services including FW and SW) and they bill it at the lowest price. I think they make about 10% "profit", which is fine, but they need to pay out that profit to investors otherwise they would have not invested what they did or bought the shares etc. Sure, they could have invested more and renewed 100 years worth of pipes, but who would invest in that, when the return period would be decades, if ever? The finance charges alone on that would be horrific. One of the few ways they actually make money and improve infrastructure is basically adopting pipe networks which housebuilders and homeowners pay to get installed, these basically get handed over to the water companies for free, and if they didn't all water companies would have gone broke.

I buy white cabbage, carrots, onions etc. and make my own coleslaw. It's far cheaper than the coleslaw you can buy at Tesco. It's not nearly as convenient when I want to grab a coleslaw over lunch when I'm out in the middle of nowhere. Comparing tap water with bottled water is pointless. They serve different purposes.

And again, nothing you've mentioned above says anything about nationalising the industry being bad - for reason x - if anything it shows why privatisation doesn't work on these types of monopolies.

I totally get the point of making water public, but thinking bills will stay the same and we will get all the infrastructure upgrades is a complete pipe dream, literally. One of the main reasons these companies pay out dividends is because they have to, as these companies offer practically zero share price growth, and lots of them have lost loads of share value. Same as with a lot of FTSE stocks etc.

How much infrastructure could have been replaced with the estimated £85.2bn that has been taken out in dividends etc. since privatisation. How does a water company offer share price growth? The whole concept of privatised water is insane and yet people, like yourself, seem blind to that fact. Is it just ideological or do you have any actual examples to show why nationalisation wouldn't work?

100% agree that not controlling the privatisation is the problem, could have been so much better if we retained ownership and tendered it all out against performance targets and actually managed to manage that well. I've not seen much evidence that we have a good track record with his though.

Evidence from what? Are the privatised industries performing better than their nationalised counterparts?

 

[Andy_W]

But none of that explains why nationalisation of NR, or the entire rail system, is a bad thing. You've highlighted issues with management and efficiency (and that's assuming you have 100% of the information that drives decisions). The private sector has similar issues - it's a function of using people to do things.

A simple test. If the entire rail system was nationalised would you, personally, be out of a job?


I buy white cabbage, carrots, onions etc. and make my own coleslaw. It's far cheaper than the coleslaw you can buy at Tesco. It's not nearly as convenient when I want to grab a coleslaw over lunch when I'm out in the middle of nowhere. Comparing tap water with bottled water is pointless. They serve different purposes.

And again, nothing you've mentioned above says anything about nationalising the industry being bad - for reason x - if anything it shows why privatisation doesn't work on these types of monopolies.


How much infrastructure could have been replaced with the estimated £85.2bn that has been taken out in dividends etc. since privatisation. How does a water company offer share price growth? The whole concept of privatised water is insane and yet people, like yourself, seem blind to that fact. Is it just ideological or do you have any actual examples to show why nationalisation wouldn't work?


Evidence from what? Are the privatised industries performing better than their nationalised counterparts?

There's correlation in the already nationalised things being bad and having gotten worse, considerably worse, when everything on the sub contractor and contractor side has gotten more efficient and more experienced. They should correlate for the better, but they're inverse.

No, my work wouldn't really change if it was nationalised, I would probably end up making more money, if I wanted to, as I would be working for people who understand even less (or their clients would know even less), so inevitably things would take longer/ get drawn out more. There's as much work for me to take on with rail as a I want, as nobody wants to do it or can deal with the endless paperwork now, or has an understanding of what is likely going to be required. Understanding how much rail are going to **** you about with some accuracy, is actually a niche in itself. I actively chose to avoid it most of the year as it's just ran so poorly and inefficiently, it drives me mad. There's only so much time you can work like that, no matter how good (but variable) the money is, before you go back to other sectors which do things the right way for the right cost.

Yes, I make my own coleslaw sometimes as a healthier variant. Sure, you/ I might save 50% on your home made coleslaw which is probably worse and you have to manually make it, so have you really saved anything? My homemade one ends up costing more because of time, but I save on calories I suppose, which saves me an hour in the gym haha!
Tap water is 1/1000th of the price and comes out of 50 million taps. It was just an example anyway, juts to prove a point how ludicrously cheap water is. £30 for all the water you want and sewerage you create is good value, no matter what anyone says.

85bn out in dividends, in 30 years, that's ~3bn per year, split over ~10 companies or ~65m people they service. It's not even 300m per company per year (TW paid out ~50m the last decade), and TW lost more than a billion off their share price in the last few years, and added billions in debt. If the dividends were not there everyone would have jumped ship and it would have went broke needing a bailout. We would not be making something public which makes money, it would be more like bailing out the banks in 2010. The dividends now for TW are less than they were 30 years ago, in actual values, not even factoring for inflation either. Those dividends are more like servicing debt, to people and companies who have borrowed them money which they might not even get back if they go bankrupt (which is possible).

Sure, the way the Tories privatised it was absolutely stupid, selling off something so crucial without enforcing maintenance and upgrade targets was completely ludicrous. But buying it back thinking it makes money is even more stupid, especially the water companies who look after water in densely populated areas who have an impossible upgrade task on their hands. The daft thing is we might not even have a choice but to bail it out, it might even go broke and we just take over ownership, the funds which own it get pennies on the pound, and we get a massive chunk of debt to clear. The clearing of that will come from peoples water bills being increased and then even more again when they realise they have to renew 100 years worth of infrastructure as it's 50 years beyond life.

Making it public in one fell swoop would probably be a bad idea, especially now when we're skint. I think the Northern ones could almost be made legitimately profitable, but the southern ones like TW are likely fighting a losing battle, only a matter of time before TW goes under, it's not sustainable. A way to solve some of the industry problems may be to end the monopolies the companies have, force them to take connections from third party suppliers and connection companies, this would also help with planning and new builds etc

Public/ private depends whose doing the controlling, if we keep picking Tory governments 2/3rds of the time, then neither is going to work.

 

[Scrote]

There's correlation in the already nationalised things being bad and having gotten worse, considerably worse, when everything on the sub contractor and contractor side has gotten more efficient and more experienced. They should correlate for the better, but they're inverse.

Make your mind up. Either the contractor side is efficient and experienced or they're so incompetent they make no money from their contracts but keep bidding for them anyway...

No, my work wouldn't really change if it was nationalised,

Exactly. The people who are involved now would be involved after any nationalisation project. The work still exists.

Yes, I make my own coleslaw sometimes as a healthier variant. Sure, you/ I might save 50% on your home made coleslaw which is probably worse and you have to manually make it, so have you really saved anything? My homemade one ends up costing more because of time, but I save on calories I suppose, which saves me an hour in the gym haha!

So you understand why bottled water is more expensive then?

85bn out in dividends, in 30 years, that's ~3bn per year, split over ~10 companies or ~65m people they service. It's not even 300m per company per year (TW paid out ~50m the last decade), and TW lost more than a billion off their share price in the last few years, and added billions in debt. If the dividends were not there everyone would have jumped ship and it would have went broke needing a bailout. We would not be making something public which makes money, it would be more like bailing out the banks in 2010. The dividends now for TW are less than they were 30 years ago, in actual values, not even factoring for inflation either. Those dividends are more like servicing debt, to people and companies who have borrowed them money which they might not even get back if they go bankrupt (which is possible).

The value of your shares can go down as well as up. Please speak to a financial advisor.

The Billions of pounds in dividends was meant to be used for the maintenance and upgrade of infrastructure. It has all been 'stolen'. No-one has invested the amounts of money required to run a national water/sewage service.

But buying it back thinking it makes money is even more stupid

Water wouldn't need buying back. It's essentially bust without government subsidies. They could nationalise it the same way they did with NR but leaving out the share payout as there is no value.

No one thinks it will make money - again that's the point. It will cost a lot less though.