'Privatisation' is a red herring. If 'privatisation' required of 'private' interests to actually run a public service, no-one would take one on.
The problem are the idiotic contracts governments sign, including gigantic subsidies and get-out clauses, etc. The (ideological) aim is obviously primarily to siphon off public money into already wealthy hands without adequate value being delivered, but the opposition that people inevitable perceive between 'public' and 'private' (a very strong pair of opposites in English) creates the desired division, even if only a minority are in favour of 'private' (and obviously many people won't be able to see the problems created clearly unless they affect them directly). Division means that it's easy to fudge issues and no clear political will emerges.
Much better not to concentrate on the concept of renationalisation but to clearly state what nonsense terms the government committed to in each case. It's not as simple and sweeping but cuts to the chase.
'Privatisation' is a red herring. If 'privatisation' required of 'private' interests to actually run a public service, no-one would take one on.
The problem are the idiotic contracts governments sign, including gigantic subsidies and get-out clauses, etc. The (ideological) aim is obviously primarily to siphon off public money into already wealthy hands without adequate value being delivered, but the opposition that people inevitable perceive between 'public' and 'private' (a very strong pair of opposites in English) creates the desired division, even if only a minority are in favour of 'private' (and obviously many people won't be able to see the problems created clearly unless they affect them directly). Division means that it's easy to fudge issues and no clear political will emerges.
Much better not to concentrate on the concept of renationalisation but to clearly state what nonsense terms the government committed to in each case. It's not as simple and sweeping but cuts to the chase.