AndrewJB wrote: ↑
Wed Sep 09, 2020 9:10 am
A statement like "nationalisation is the worst idea ever" is just ideological nonsense. You won't find me saying "privatisation is always wrong" And I note you amended this to say some things are better nationally owned - so we could begin by agreeing some things are better nationally owned, and others privately owned.
I believe nationalisation in the context of how labour's vision portrays this is the worst idea ever... sorry you don't agree with it.
I don't think we really have a truly nationalised entity any more here in this country in the way that they operate which is probably a testament that the learns of full state ownership is not sustainable.
The NHS has private companies supplying services and existence of PFIs etc as an example have meant that private and public are truly interwoven within this gem of ours.
I believe nationalisation is accepted that its not something that works for inifinte period. Bloating, underperformance, lack of accountability etc all mean that eventually there is a point where you end up with underinvestment, inefficient, outdated, non-functioning industries. I have explained why this happens - tax payers having to cover this rather than shareholders or private individuals etc.
The area i would probably agree where nationalisation does work - where it is short term and an industry themselves are in trouble - like the banks for example (which wasn't labours fault). That needed government support to weather the storm and that was an example of that hybrid model existing.
In the context of nationalising broadband, offering it free and decimating the competition - Im still shaking my head at that now in terms of how anyone thought that was a good idea is beyond me.
You claim that nationalised industries aren't run as well as privatised ones, but that is only if you take the industry out of the context of the whole economy. The US healthcare system is hugely profitable, but nobody would swap it for ours because it leaves tens of millions Americans uncovered, and leads to tens of millions more losing their cover if they develop a long term health issue. Nobody wants to have to fight cancer with one eye on their wallet. The US system is the most expensive in the world, and delivers the worst outcomes out of the first world in terms of mortality, child mortality, etc. But it's hugely profitable. Decades ago, Bolivia privatised its water utility. The French company who took this on managed to wrangle into the contract that they own all the water - even puddles, and lakes, and rain. Taken solely from a business perspective, this was good news for profits, because no Bolivian could avoid coughing up. Water butts became illegal. The company made lots of money - the business was successful, but the new rules led to civil unrest, and the country returned to a nationalised utility instead. The train companies here in the UK. As Richard Branson boasted in his autobiography, Virgin Trains was a license to print money.
I can't even begin to unpick this fully as the UK/US/Bolivia are constitutionally run differently. State laws/federal laws etc. The history of those countries etc all have influence on how things have happened/built etc.
You talk about broadband being better under private ownership, then why not roads? It's really the same thing. You could pay per mile of road you use (which will vary according to the company that owns the road, and whether or not it's a motorway, etc), or you could just pay a monthly fee with a surcharge for motorway use, or perhaps a premium to allow you to use any road at any time. This would be very profitable for the companies fortunate enough to win the contract - and then it would be a matter of driving the costs down as much as possible to maximise profits, adhering as much as possible to the minimum terms of service. The real benefit would be for those who don't drive, because they could avoid paying anything.
There are areas that the profit motive just has no place, and introducing it just drives up costs and inefficiencies for everything else.
I think what you have suggested about the roads will come in from the government.
Taxes raised from VED and fuel duty are on the decline and with he move to banning of ICE cars and the drive towards EV's then this is only going to accelerate. I would favour a PPM way of paying for the use of roads and generating tax.
Currently I pay no road tax and I pay no fuel duty to drive my car so I am enjoying the benefits of this with more cost effective motoring. I expect that if a PPM charge came into driving, it would be a fair methodology of paying for things and seems to be one theory that people are consistent in believing that this is one of the few options the government have.
I appreciate you are a believer of big government and that that your socialist values can only be delivered through nationalisation and having more control on the supply and cost of things to ensure more people get access to things. If it was that simple, I would probably share similar views but it's not that simple unfortunately.