-
Serious question:
renationalisation
To answer the last question first, it won't.
As to the broader point, imo the challenge with renationalisation will be defining what the aims are and sticking to it.
As I see it you have two broad camps;- those who don't agree that what are ostensibly public services (i.e. water) should be owned by private companies distributing profits to shareholders instead of directly into the public purse.
- those who view certain services as a quasi-right that should be managed in accordance with a set of principles as part of wider social engineering. - i.e. public transport
(camp 2. would also agree with camp 1. but the starting point/objective differs)
One thing likely to be different this time around, vs post war is you would assume renationalisation to be on a European (or Chinese) model of State Capitalism as that has been shown to work, rather than setting up a load of hopeless government run agencies with no experience.
It also depends on what you are talking about renationalising. As I understand it, rail can just be allowed to lapse as each franchise comes up for renewal. A sensible policy would to start by only doing this with the shit ones. But you would still need a State run company to operate it.
- those who don't agree that what are ostensibly public services (i.e. water) should be owned by private companies distributing profits to shareholders instead of directly into the public purse.
Serious question:
renationalisation - what would it work for/how would it work/why would it work?
I mean. it's fairly emotive.
gut instinct is "yes. good move. bring those services back into serving the whole population rather than a board"
but....
I'm not sure how this will solve any energy problems (keeping the lights on as well as making them energy efficient/clean), solving the problems of "late trains" within the course of a parliament or two.