Twart.



Good word.





I shall bear in mind the Guinea Pigs, we have one lurking behind the door as I type.





And thanks for the advice on the Foe bin, off to use it now. Not as much as I could, I need Robinson and Dally for my daily hate.

Using terms like 'ripping off' shows a lack of understanding as to how monopoly businesses are regulated. The regulations are highly formulaic and based on agreed allowances for operating costs and acceptable rates of return for investent in capital. These rules in turn enable the company to raise both equity and debt finance.



Increased capital spend leads to higher prices - otherwise the investment simply won't happen. Delaying necessary investment simply leads to a more significant price shock further down the track. Would you rather a 30% increase in three years time than 8% today (together with deteriorating services in the meantime)? That tends to be what happens when you delay investment in asset-intensive industries.



That's even before you get to the multiplier effect of the investments being made (especially important in times of recession when investment elsewhere is subdued) and the fact that anyone with a pension fund indirectly owns shares in a number of such utlities.

Indeed. Water was sold off at a reduced price in recognition of the investment in infrastructure that would be needed. That was around 23 years ago. So yes, it's quite clear what happens when a private monopoly decides to delay investment – we get to foot the bill. Just as we all face above-inflation price hikes for other utilities (and transport etc). Because they are no longer run as important services, but as ways of making as much profit as possible.

The government spent over £20,000,000 to advertise the water privatisation over a 3 month period. That is a massive amount in any budget for 3 months nearly 23 years ago. but similar in budget to the electricity one and there was one other that escapes me. It might have been the railways, but I really can't recall.



They spent £20m of taxpayers' money to sell off something the taxpayer didn't want selling off in the first place.

The cost of ideology, eh?



It's rather amusing, in a dry sort of fashion, reading the forums at the [iTelegraph[/i of late, where there are increasing numbers of contributors posting things such as: 'I never thought I'd say so, but we should never have privatised X, Y and Z.'

I know, i have the live video feed from Chief Pig HQ







Oh, you wouldn't bin off anyone like that. Just the very rarest of beasts with not even a molecule of point to their existence, where on reading their posts, the answer to the question, "Do I begrudge the wear and tear on my optic nerves for having to transmit this to my brain" is a clear "Yes". I give you Captain Capslock, for example.

With a water board that we all own, we rightly accept that we really are all in it together when there's a water shortage.



But, in the same drought, having to pay a water bill to a profit-making company that doesn't actually supply you with any water is completely different.

What no one can ever adequately explain to me is given we pay for this capital investment with higher prices anyway is why those prices would not be lower if a profit was not being taken.



If people really do believe privatised companies are more efficient than nationalised ones why not run them along the exact same lines but minus the shareholders and use the profit to keep the prices down?



The idea we need these companies as they are because our pensions invest in them is a no reason for privatisation either. Our pension funds would simply invest in something else.

And indeed, in the case of the train companies, the government (so us, in effect) pays for new rolling stock for the private rail companies – and then pays the private rail companies a subsidy to run it.

Or, how about one of Branson's greatest wheezes?

He persuaded the fat controller that the West Coast line needed to be upgraded for his new trains to run on it.

This was agreed and we (yes we) paid for it to be upgraded.

But the upgrade caused disruption and ... you've guessed it ... Virgin were compensated for the consequent delays to their trains.

All the while receiving eye-watering subsidies to run the trains in the first place.



East Coast trains (used to be National Express and before that was GNER) is nowadays owned by the Dept of Transport.

And it's around 50 quid cheaper to go from Leeds to London (open return) via publicly-owned East Coast than it is from Manchester to London via the efficient and privatised West Coast mainline.

Now remind me again why privatisation was such a great idea?