Make it private and save the state some money...

PeakOutput

NapoleonInRags wrote: »

On another part of this site there is a megathread dealing with unhappy customers who have paid good money in return for an appalling service (vodafone broadband).

The service provider has more or less ignored the comments and concerns of the customers involved and continues to provide an inefficient and ineffective service.

The scenario above is replicated time and time again in all aspects of commerce and trade. It amazes me therefore that so many people assume that Private Sector service provision automatically represents greater efficiency than the public sector.

the mobile phone market is restricted by the goverment which in turn restricts competition so the big players dont have to have great customer service

Eliot Rosewater

NapoleonInRags wrote: »

It amazes me therefore that so many people assume that Private Sector service provision automatically represents greater efficiency than the public sector.

Unlike Government services, people can choose between private sector services. If one is unhappy with one's broadband service one can change provider (from Vodafone to O2, for example). In such a situation bad companies naturally lose revenue. They can either improve their service, or face eventual closure. In either scenario the presence of competition has made for a better overall service.

Also, any loss of efficiency in the private sphere is ideally shouldered by the specific risk takers alone. (Ideally, because sometimes the Government will step in and disperse the risk to every citizen in the country such as with NAMA.) As a result:

1. The general populace does not have to pay for others' mistakes. Contrast this with road building, where cost overruns are shouldered by taxpayers who had nothing to do with the overrun.
2. Because of 1, there is a large incentive for entrepreneurs to create the most cost effective and efficient service possible because they are the ones who pay for any lack of either.

This are some of the reasons why privatization is proposed. And remember the current state of the market is not a true representation of the free market due to Government regulation, as PeakOutput said.

NapoleonInRags

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Unlike Government services, people can choose between private sector services. If one is unhappy with one's broadband service one can change provider (from Vodafone to O2, for example). In such a situation bad companies naturally lose revenue. They can either improve their service, or face eventual closure. In either scenario the presence of competition has made for a better overall service.

Also, any loss of efficiency in the private sphere is ideally shouldered by the specific risk takers alone. (Ideally, because sometimes the Government will step in and disperse the risk to every citizen in the country such as with NAMA.) As a result:

1. The general populace does not have to pay for others' mistakes. Contrast this with road building, where cost overruns are shouldered by taxpayers who had nothing to do with the overrun.
2. Because of 1, there is a large incentive for entrepreneurs to create the most cost effective and efficient service possible because they are the ones who pay for any lack of either.

This are some of the reasons why privatization is proposed. And remember the current state of the market is not a true representation of the free market due to Government regulation, as PeakOutput said.

My point was that bad and inefficient service is not simply a product of public or private ownership. Come on, we've all experienced dreadful services at the hands of both.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Welease

Neither public sector or private sector will bother to do a good job unless their are consequence for failing.

In the Private sector the consequence is usually loss of contracts/business. In the Public sector there is as of now, no consequence.

Both sectors are well capable of delivering excellence, but we as customers must demand it, and be willing to hold them accountable when we don't receive it.

Joey the lips

I agree... privatisation has worked so well in england and the us..... There is just the small matter of the billions that mr tax payer has to pay to upgrade the electrical and gas networks due to years of neglect.


On that note.... I reckon mary harneys ars@ should be privatised... after all we have already had a sizable chunk of it the last few years and its still not making a profit...

NapoleonInRags

Welease wrote: »

Neither public sector or private sector will bother to do a good job unless their are consequence for failing.

In the Private sector the consequence is usually loss of contracts/business. In the Public sector there is as of now, no consequence.

Both sectors are well capable of delivering excellence, but we as customers must demand it, and be willing to hold them accountable when we don't receive it.

A very fair point. However the flip side is that the rewards for doing a good job are present in the private sector but missing in public sector orgs.

There are may examples of excellent and improving services provided publicly (revenue springs to mind). However it is my experience that while the desire for efficiency and improvement is present in much of the public sector, the intransigence and obstructionist approach of the unions is a major obstacle to change.

Joey the lips

Welease wrote: »

Neither public sector or private sector will bother to do a good job unless their are consequence for failing.

In the Private sector the consequence is usually loss of contracts/business. In the Public sector there is as of now, no consequence.

Both sectors are well capable of delivering excellence, but we as customers must demand it, and be willing to hold them accountable when we don't receive it.

There is another flip side to this... The private sector is designed to make a profit so generall speaking it makes a limited number of products available at an expensive price then increases the products over time and lowers the price to get the remaining market. Its why poor paddy is last to have the playstation with the old games.

However the public service is designed to allow the poorer paddy benefit from the same products as the must have kids first.

Where the problems arise is these services cannot be delievered to many at a cheap price without being poor.

Its like macdonalds...

If you want it cheap and fast its not going to be good.
If you want it good and fast its not going to be cheap
If you good and cheap its not going to be fast.


Our public service due to volume which is increasing suffers from all 3 at times.

silverharp

Joey the lips wrote: »

However the public service is designed to allow the poorer paddy benefit from the same products as the must have kids first.

effectively its designed to waste money/scarce resources and be inefficient. Politics and economics make bad bedfellows. The irony is that a fully private health system for instance would provide more medical services at a cheaper cost then the current system. Think Aer Lingus 1970's v Ryanair 90's onwards.

P. Breathnach

Silverharp2 wrote: »

effectively its designed to waste money/scarce resources and be inefficient.

No. It's designed to deliver services. There may be flaws in the design or the implementation, but the intent is to deliver services.

Politics and economics make bad bedfellows.

That's no more than sloganeering. Like all aspects of life, there is a need to work out accommodations. And it's not necessarily the best thing that political needs or objectives should be wholly subordinated to profit imperatives.

The irony is that a fully private health system for instance would provide more medical services at a cheaper cost then the current system.

Maybe, maybe not. I would need to be convinced.

Think Aer Lingus 1970's v Ryanair 90's onwards.

I'm thinking Ryanair-style healthcare. It's a frightening prospect.

ntlbell

Cool Mo D wrote: »

You can buy a FAKE passport on the black market. If you could get a genuine one under false pretenses, that would be a lot more dangerous.

no, you can buy a real genuine straight from the passport office passport, the same as driving license et al, to think otherwise is daftly niave

cypharius

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Ok, the purpose of this thread is state which part of the public service could be sold off and run by a private company.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

1) Passport office.

Passports are something that we need, privatising this will mean only the uber-rich can get passports, as private companies only care about profit, why would we privatise it?

Tim Robbins wrote: »

2) HSE Wedding Ceremonisers. They won't work Saturday so everyone going to a state wedding has to take a day off work because one person won't work on a Saturday.

When we finaly get Gay-Marriage pushed passed the bigots and fundies the private company might not provide marriage to them. "And oh no, a day off... how dare they? Those lazy bastards!"
We're not talking about a single saturday, we're talking about every saturday, these people are entitled to a social life, what do you suggest? Should they go clubbing on a sunday? We need people to have lives, otherwise there isn't as much cash flowing around.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

3) RTE 2. See no reason why we need this station.

Why not get rid of them both?

Tim Robbins wrote: »

4) 2FM same as above.

Again, why not both?

Tim Robbins wrote: »

5) Add your's here...

All art gallaries.

But I will say that simply privatising everything won't help, we need to cut funding to things that aren't public, eg:Catholic Schools, not all students can go to them, so why should we fund them? The Catholic Church aint exactely short on cash, and we need to have a more secular society.

PeakOutput

cypharius wrote: »

Passports are something that we need, privatising this will mean only the uber-rich can get passports, as private companies only care about profit, why would we privatise it?

what are you talking about privatising it wouldnt change who had access to passports in the slightest

Joey the lips

I imagine a privatised service like the passport service would not be in the interest of national security....

Just look at what happened lately

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

silverharp

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I'm thinking Ryanair-style healthcare. It's a frightening prospect.

I know, its distusting the way Ryanair and companies like it made easier for working class immigrants and others to keep in touch with their families back home.