What is so wrong with governments cutting spending, and using the savings to pay down debt?

I ask myself the same question.

Please show how water can be more efficiently provided as a market than as a nationalised resource. Feel free to use examples of countries with a privatised water system and show how much cheaper it is and how maintenence is better and how compettion works.

Nothing, assuming that doesn't mean a drop in services. And given how wasteful governments are, that should not be a problem. Look at the hundreds of quangos recently axed in the UK, to no net loss of function.

But cuting spending by privatising is just shifting spending from consumer -> govt -> utility to consumer -> utility and the lack of competition combined with lack of government control causes that to be inefficient.

Water privatisation worked effectively under Margaret Thatcher and Conservative governments. Water was sold off and private companies competed and delivered water to private consumers effectively. Water has a price and the free market system can deliver water. Water prices are determined by supply and demand. 

Privatisation is always more efficient than any Government monopoly. More competition, more choice for consumers and freedom. Private corporations make lots of profits out of selling water to consumers. Most people are better off with privatisation and that is a simple fact. 

Telephone services and electricity are better in the hands of private companies delivering services to consumers at the market price. Same applies to water: supply and demand determines water prices on a free market system. Producers/suppliers are happy and consumers are happy when they buy water from private enterprises.

So what the Socialists/Communists complained about water being privatised. There is no such thing as a free lunch. The same principle applies to water supplies. Everything has a price and is up for sale. Economics is basic logic, it is not rocket science.

What I am saying is logical and right. The emphasis is on you to disprove my economic explanation that is based on logic. 

Let's say a bottle of coke at the supermarket. You pay the price at the check out and the coke is now yours to consume. The same principle should apply to all water supplies. If you want water you must pay for it. The free market should determine the price of water. Supplier sends you a bill for water and you pay your water bill.  That sounds like a fair deal. 

Cutting spending is one way off reducing government spending by cutting inefficient public sector jobs and privatising public services for short term funds to pay back debt. Transport, utilities, national parks and government housing can be sold off to the highest bidder. Reduce public sector, increase the private sector and everyone is better off. 

Public assets can be sold off by governments as well to multi-national companies for the highest bidder. Privatisation offers freedom and choice to consumers. More competition can be encouraged by selling off public assets to multiple competing multi-national companies. Multiple companies can compete freely against each supplying water to consumers on a free market. 

Why is everybody assuming that private ownership = higher price? As long as the Government does things properly, it can work out right for the consumer.

I'm thinking a private ownership model based on temporary contracts. If a firm is found to be doing "evil" things (to put it shortly), like hiking prices, or spiking the water, or something, they won't be able to renew their contract in the future. Firms acting in the interest of the people will keep winning future contracts.

Perhaps even allowing public participation in the contract awarding process.

And, yes, whilst it is unethical for people to be "priced out" of drinking water, it is also unethical for water to be handed out for free. Consuming water has a negative effect on other people, and the environment, these costs need to be taken into account, as well as the cost of purifying and delivering the water to you. If water is free, people will over-consume, and that will lead to disruptions in the water cycle.

Didn't you know? People believe that it is their right to live above their means.

If water was free: people would waste it and consume too much of it. Water wasted on gardens, backwashing and refilling swimming pools, 2 hour showers, taps left on and never turned off. 

Industries/commercial businesses and  government councils waste lots of water. 

Commercial banks need to keep interest rates low and consumers can take more credit cards and debt to finance spending. Governments should spend less so consumers can enjoy lower  interest rates and more easy credit to borrow from private banks. 

Commercial banks need to loosen credit borrowing terms and governments stop spending money. Banks loan to private consumers increases private sector. Private sector spending increases and government reduces public spending.