I don't prefer the private model, i prefer a blend of the two. We must keep healthcare free at the point of delivery, but if you can afford to go private then yeah go for it. There's no point waiting in a system which isn't as good as other countries. But i do hear your point on staff shortages and i honestly don't know what the solution is, how do you motivate people to work in the system? It can't be pay as then you completely devalue the whole argument that its not about the money when you use that as a motivator for people. Sometimes using a private service helps the NHS, especially if the level of the care is the same, as it streamlines costs and enables more to go into front line care. I point i keep making but nobody seems to take notice of, but nobody can accept that sometimes a private firm can do the same job and in some places better. It can and does happen, you just don't hear about it as it doesn't fit the private is bad narrative...

Eyeopener indeed, although i was disappointed how one sided it was. I know for a fact the APG has never discussed any potential trade deal with government officials. Using the case of biosimilars to talk about patented medicine prices is completely out of context and not comparable. The lawyer on the programme works for an organisation which looks to undermine patent protection so he's already being paid to be anti-pharma, not exactly an independent voice. It was an obvious stitch up, just exactly like what panorama is to be fair on BBC1, but it fits the agenda of what channel 4 want to achieve i guess. Pick your side of the argument, present all the stuff to support that, ignore everything else and not show any of the material that was sent to them from the other side of the argument and there you go, investigational TV programme. We're not the USA and shouldn't have such bias reporting like Fox etc on our TV, but does explain why the UK is not in the top 30 nations for a free press when these narratives exist behind our news outlets. Daily Mail, so right wing. The Mirror, basically the publication of the Labour Party. We just have to be careful how we judge what we see and where we see it...

In theory privatisation can make things better because a smaller, responsive, lean organisation that has to respond to market forces can do a better job than a bloated national organisation that has stagnated over the years.

In practice:

Privatisation of power - worse for consumers, very expensive, excessive profits.

Privatisation of BT. Worse for consumers, huge profits for early shareholders.

Privatisation of British Rail -total disaster for consumers, expensive and shite.

Privatisation of bus services - essentially the closure of extensive local services and replacement with limited hours on very few routes.

The list goes on and on because the real motive for privatisation is to allow profiteering from what were public services. The fact that you can find well-meaning individuals who really believe they can improve things by privatising doesn't change that. It always starts with the thin end of the wedge, the argument that it can work in some areas, before being cranked up. Why would the NHS be any different?

I have to disagree with you born toulouse. Privatisation has unlocked more investment into infrastructure. One good example of where privatisation has really helped is the power industry in contrary to what you say, and this i know as a family member is an electrical engineer working for a distribution network operator and we talk frequently about the set up. They are really suffering with trying to fix infrastructure which is up to 50 years old in some places and put in place newer parts, limits have to be put on what they can do and when, especially if immediate faults happen. Only one problem, like some of the industries cited above i guess, they're profit capped by government, so that limits just how much can be put back into infrastructure. A huigh number of people who work for these engineering companies think renationalisation is a crazy idea and would be damaging. While you may argue that profit capping means that nobody gets huge salaries and bonus payout, which is true, it also affects the amount that can be reinvested into the infrastructure too. Equally, they are set target by government which each year get harder and harder, and if they are missed, they are fined. Things such as customer amount of hours without power, number of green initiatives, faults, building within regulation and inspecting ICPs buildings too. Again this takes money away from vital infrastructure. Power generation is not a cheap operation, as you'll see from the CBI's estimation of how much it'll cost to re nationalise and how much it costs to build power stations. Generating and building infrastructure isn't cheap, now with people putting in greener technologies and demand for car charging points etc this all costs serious money to build and an extra pressure being put on these right now to catch up. So yeah it has to be expensive, as generating power is. Although, the cost of it now in real terms to the consumer is much cheaper than it was when it was last in nationalisation. So i can't see how it'll be made cheaper when you have the power generator (national grid) profit capped and actually doesn't make that much anyway. Local network operators (such as Northern power Grid) again, profit capped i belive to about 2-3% and operate in an environment where it has to be anti competitive and every new supply has to be tendered by ICPs. Power suppliers (EDF etc) again starting to be profit capped and have to automatically switch customers to best deal. So sorry, i can't agree with you on that point on this one, there is no room for saving that much money in the energy sector so can you explain where these excessive profits come from? Or are you just thinking energy supplier charging big bills every year and forgetting the rest of the system that gets energy to that point? Also where are the funds going to be found to buy all this back and then keep investing in it?

I can't comment on BT, British Rail or busses as i know absolutely sod all about how they are run and the regulations set upon them, so not sure if privatisation or nationalisation is best for these industries.

I'd rather hear the opinion of someone who either works in it, is involved of the running of the service or close to someone who is like some of the other posters here have been kind enough to share their thoughts based on that. We may not all agree and have different views but i'd rather debate and learn from others on topics i think i know something about rather than dredging google to support a pre bias on something just for the sake of flying the flag for one side or the other. Especially from a source which is always going to be anti-privatisation anyway.

Another excellent one Valiant. Water could be added to the list as well.

On power prices look at this:



Price rises way in excess of inflation and accumulating year on year. The excuse about infrastructure is trotted out by the rail, water and power companies again and again. The fact remains that people pay more than they used to in real terms.

That's a great example of another failure of markets. Economists call such 'costs' externalities; they're costs from the process (often social costs) that are not factored into the price of the 'product', but have real social implications. Because externalities are not factored into the cost of the product, they don't fall on the economic actors, but on others. Non market solutions can take these into account, but it's very difficult to regulate private markets to do so.

[quote="J

I'd rather hear the opinion of someone who either works in it, is involved of the running of the service or close to someone who is like some of the other posters here have been kind enough to share their thoughts based on that. We may not all agree and have different views but i'd rather debate and learn from others on topics i think i know something about rather than dredging google to support a pre bias on something just for the sake of flying the flag for one side or the other. Especially from a source which is always going to be anti-privatisation anyway.[/quote]

The academic research on this is clear, it was a disaster. The privatisation of the probation service was a shambles for exactly the reasons I stated above. The outcomes desired (reducing offending) cannot be easily measured, so all the contracts were based on outputs, which can be measured. The private providers, as a result, focused upon the 'low hanging fruit' (the easy wins) and avoided difficult cases. Indeed, the whole system was set up so all the really difficult cases remained in the public sector; what does that say about the confidence of the Government in the process? It was clearly all about cost cutting; it was of no surprise that the contractors who were successful did not have sufficient resources to actually do the job properly. It really was a disaster, in what is a core public service - the criminal justice system.

problem is the choice you get is between privatisation where profit is the key to everything. then nationalisation that seems to spawn loads of backroom staff and office workers with no extra ones on the front line. the latter would do me as long as lessons from the past are made with a more streamlined workforce therefore a nationalised industry run like a private one.