You lot should pay road tax!

plowmar

Privatisation hmmm, that's worked well in the past hasn't it with no cost to the original owners - US!!!!

Railways, energy, public transport - buses, water etc. need I say more. Just wait till the NHS goes. Last survey of health care looking at top 20 countries we - despite its failings - came second.

sfichele

Greg T wrote:

I don't know why anyone thinks governments are very good at running large utilities and companies . .
\
If they were that good at it we'd have iPads made by the government of the USA, BMWs made by ze Germans.

Big State monopolies are bad at running thins, BR, Leyland, NCB, Trabant, France, NHS etc etc.

Thinking that just because a government runs it is therefore good and well organised is tosh. Governments are bad at running things. The private sector is also not good at running things it just has an inbuilt Darwinian selection process going that means the really bad at running things ones go bust.

Nationalised industry success story? In your own time make a list.

Yeah you're right, governments are good at making a hash of things as well - but I can't think of a single piece of privatisation/PFI that has truly benefited the tax-payer.

emdeef

The whole pfi thing was a clever accounting wheeze to move public debt off the books, dreamed up by David Willetts I think, and enthusiastically pursued by governments of both colours.

Rail privatisation has been a disaster in money terms. The same number of carriages were delivered in the last 10 years of BR as in the first 10 years of privatisation. As has been said, the subsidy is 3 times what it was under BR after inflation adjusting and the whole system is riddled with the inefficiencies you get with a lack of vertical integration and everything run by contracts - so when the ash cloud stopped aviation the Gatwick Express still ran every 15 minutes because the contract said it must. I think the time keeping is better than under BR, at least on the bits of the system I've used, (because the contracts say they are fined if they are late) and the seats are cleaner. No other benefits.

rick_chasey

Semi-cross posting - how does this privatisation work?

Team4Luke

Toll roads are great, more the better, I won't be using them as my roads will be quieter as a result thereof- go figure ? umm

DonDaddyD

Private companies would get a slice of road maintenance fund to repair/maintain existing roads and be able to charge drivers directly for new roads they build via toll charges/gates like the M6 motorway.

rick_chasey

DonDaddyD wrote:

Private companies would get a slice of road maintenance fund to repair/maintain existing roads and be able to charge drivers directly for new roads they build via toll charges/gates like the M6 motorway.

Right.

In what way is that cheaper than the gov't doing exactly the same and cutting out the middle man?

Why not whack on a ringfenched toll that pays for the road? Can even pay for the construction retrospecitvely, like they do in...wait for it...Norway.

DonDaddyD

Rick Chasey wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Private companies would get a slice of road maintenance fund to repair/maintain existing roads and be able to charge drivers directly for new roads they build via toll charges/gates like the M6 motorway.

Right.

In what way is that cheaper than the gov't doing exactly the same and cutting out the middle man?

Why not whack on a ringfenched toll that pays for the road? Can even pay for the construction retrospecitvely, like they do in...wait for it...Norway.

Staff
Management
PAYE, Insurance, training, materials to actually repair the roads
Building, office, computers, stationary
etc.

All of which the Government won't be paying for if they had it over to a private company (in principle I somewhat agree with this).

(In reality) What we'll likely end up with is something hugely underfunded - like the railway, which the end user will suffer in quality of service and charges - made worse by inhernet private sector greed.

Jay dubbleU

So we're happy to pay 30% higher rail fares and have trains which are 20% more crowded than Germany or Switzerland then ?

cyclingprop

Rick Chasey wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Private companies would get a slice of road maintenance fund to repair/maintain existing roads and be able to charge drivers directly for new roads they build via toll charges/gates like the M6 motorway.

Right.

In what way is that cheaper than the gov't doing exactly the same and cutting out the middle man?

Why not whack on a ringfenched toll that pays for the road? Can even pay for the construction retrospecitvely, like they do in...wait for it...Norway.

I'd presumed the investment for new infrastructure would be private too, then recouped via tolls. So Less debt (and interest) for the Govt to deal with?

daviesee

If they want to privatise road building why not do it like the free enterprise Country that they appear to want to emulate - the good ole US of A.
Companies bid to do the contract to a specific contract including timescales and standards.
Cheapest bid gets the work but timescales and standards must be maintained.
At the contractors cost if future work is required. No add-ons, no extensions.
I believe that bonds may have to be put in place to cover the possibility of future company failure.
Free enterprise at work.

In my experience these roads were of a much higher quality than here with much harsher weather conditions to contend with. It can be done but the Government has to get the contracts right and stand by them.

DonDaddyD

Cameron wants to pay as little as possible so the costs will be passed onto the public.

This would create jobs. There are a lot of roafs that need repairing/widening/building.

Trouble is that rightly or wrongly we have a culture where most dont like paying for public services directly especially when we used to pay for them through taxes. Wide spread toll roads won't be well received as it will feel like paying twice as our taxes (all of them) won't be shrinking.

What we have to remember is America works on the bases that taxes are kept low at the cost of paying for utilities/public services directly.

rjsterry

daviesee wrote:

If they want to privatise road building why not do it like the free enterprise Country that they appear to want to emulate - the good ole US of A.
Companies bid to do the contract to a specific contract including timescales and standards.
Cheapest bid gets the work but timescales and standards must be maintained.
At the contractors cost if future work is required. No add-ons, no extensions.
I believe that bonds may have to be put in place to cover the possibility of future company failure.
Free enterprise at work.

In my experience these roads were of a much higher quality than here with much harsher weather conditions to contend with. It can be done but the Government has to get the contracts right and stand by them.

There's plenty of private involvement already - the Highways Agency has quite a big list of subcontractors and suppliers.
http://www.highways.gov.uk/knowledge_compendium/B10AFD929F3C42C9B59FA2066222B401.aspx
Whether timescales and standards are maintained comes down to how well the contract is written and how good the contractors legal team is at picking holes in it. The contracts for other large PFI projects are not exactly slim volumes.

daviesee

rjsterry wrote:

Whether timescales and standards are maintained comes down to how well the contract is written and how good the contractors legal team is at picking holes in it.

And therein lies the problem with every Government project. :evil:

rjsterry

daviesee wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Whether timescales and standards are maintained comes down to how well the contract is written and how good the contractors legal team is at picking holes in it.

And therein lies the problem with every Government project. :evil:

To be fair to HMG, there's no such thing as a watertight contract, so it does depend to a large degree on the attitude of the parties involved.

rick_chasey

cyclingprop wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Private companies would get a slice of road maintenance fund to repair/maintain existing roads and be able to charge drivers directly for new roads they build via toll charges/gates like the M6 motorway.

Right.

In what way is that cheaper than the gov't doing exactly the same and cutting out the middle man?

Why not whack on a ringfenched toll that pays for the road? Can even pay for the construction retrospecitvely, like they do in...wait for it...Norway.

I'd presumed the investment for new infrastructure would be private too, then recouped via tolls. So Less debt (and interest) for the Govt to deal with?

Surely the gov't would get a cheaper borrowing rate than a private company?

It will be paid for by tax payers/toll payers however it is done.

It just sounds like a way to shift the debt off the balance sheet.

daviesee

rjsterry wrote:

To be fair to HMG, there's no such thing as a watertight contract, so it does depend to a large degree on the attitude of the parties involved.

True.
But they could do better. A lot better.
Some Government projects have given the appearance of a blank cheque.

sfichele

DonDaddyD wrote:

Trouble is that ... we dont like paying for public services directly ... through taxes.

What we have to remember is America works on the bases that taxes are kept low at the cost of paying for utilities/public services directly.

Exactly! But for the last three decades we have been privatising everything left right and centre.
Have our taxes come down? NO
Are we in a massive amount of debt? YES
Anyone actually know how much excess debt is being spent on private subsidy? The government(s) do a good job of hiding that!

Team4Luke

sfichele wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Trouble is that ... we dont like paying for public services directly ... through taxes.

What we have to remember is America works on the bases that taxes are kept low at the cost of paying for utilities/public services directly.

Exactly! But for the last three decades we have been privatising everything left right and centre.
Have our taxes come down? NO
Are we in a massive amount of debt? YES
Anyone actually know how much excess debt is being spent on private subsidy? The government(s) do a good job of hiding that!

indeed !
The general public at large wrongly beleive the public sector is made up of public sector workers that get paid by the general public to do, well not a lot and get big pensions-they would like to think.
Public Sector is actually made up of self funding agencies, private sector partnerships and contracts awarded to private companies to carry out work including infrastructure on behalf of the government and more to come will be further departments fully or partly privatised.

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

Cameron wants to pay as little as possible so the costs will be passed onto the public.

This would create jobs. There are a lot of roafs that need repairing/widening/building.

Trouble is that rightly or wrongly we have a culture where most dont like paying for public services directly especially when we used to pay for them through taxes. Wide spread toll roads won't be well received as it will feel like paying twice as our taxes (all of them) won't be shrinking.

What we have to remember is America works on the bases that taxes are kept low at the cost of paying for utilities/public services directly.

Well the problem is that America doesn't really work very well that way.