You are reading a single comment by @aggi and its replies. Click here to read the full conversation.
  • 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;

    1. 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.
    2. 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.

  • I think there's also camp 3, which is probably the one that's being targeted most:

    1. Don't really care who runs it but the current service is shit and maybe nationalisation will fix it.
  • True.

    The good old Brexit School of creating solid national infrastructure systems.

About

Avatar for aggi @aggi started