A lot of woolly thinking indeed. The invisible hand only works when there is competition and choice, which we really don't have and are unlikely to ever get in the energy market. A LNG tanker can be rerouted several times on the high seas as it is sold and resold to the highest bidder, this is the reality of the global energy market. There are also too few companies working too close together to provide a free market. I think there probably is a case to be made for strategic utilities such a power to come under government control beyond the regulation that currently exists. I see that Angela Knight is now Chief Exec of Energy UK, a trade body for the energy companies, doing a similar role for energy to that which she performed for the banks.
I have always thought this. It doesn't alter my belief that governments are piss poor at running things but some things are too important to be left entirely in the hands of private companies. I do believe in the invisible hand but recognise that sometimes, for a variety of reasons, it is tied and cannot operate as it should. An unfortunate aspect of competition is that big fish eat little fish so you end up with only big fish who then dominate the pond.
I think we would all find that there is much more that we agree over than disagree over. And that is even more so when you examine the objectives rather than how we might achieve them.
Good. Now I am glad that we are getting somewhere. There are basic things humans need over which they have no real control to refuse to purchase. Energy and water are two of these. We might also add in elements of transport (seeing as you generally have to move around to get to work). Leaving these things in the hands of private companies gives them too much power to exact whatever they want from consumers. My view is that they should be owned by the State, or if you prefer (and I do) the people. That doesn't mean that the State should run the companies, any more than shareholders actually run most public companies. But the shareholders profit from the enterprise. There is justice in the consumers of basic commodities being the shareholders. If they stump up too much cash for the service or product at one end, at least they get it back at the other. Companies for non-essentials should be able to do pretty much as they like, subject to ethics, and competition rules the day. They should still be held to account for labour practises, pollution and the like, but otherwise, sink or swim. I find it odd that the government wants to get tough with banks, which are private enterprises. What they should do is set up their own State bank with the policies of lending to small business, blah blah, which they seek to encourage. Then people could decide whether they wanted to bank with a bank which is working in their interests and which they own, or whether they'd prefer to be with HSBC et al. I am not anti free market and not anti profit at all. I am anti people being held over a barrel when they have no choice in the matter. And I don't subscribe to the paradigm that as soon as the state is involved, it's got to be crap. There have to be other paradigms about running nationally owned assets. Maybe a bit of out of the box thinking is called for. Incidentally, many people feel that the State run Post Office has been an excellent institution offering a good service at a reasonable price. These people are unhappy to see it sold off. So, the assumption that public ownership = crap doesn't hold. I'd also sooner have the police running law and order than G4, or have the army fight my wars than some shadowy organisation of mercenaries like Blackwater. Privatisation has got completely out of control through government just jacking in the towel and pretending that it is impossible to run things. There are plenty of capable people around to run things - but you'd have to get rid of the absurd culture that seems to pertain in institutions which benefit from public budgets. Nothing remarkable about the UK in this instance. The same culture seems to persist in every country.
A few connundrums to solve there Glidd. As a general principle I would reduce State ownership to an absolute minimum of essential services and strategically important industries. But I also firmly believe that without some degree of competition any business eventually becomes fat and flabby. Also don't forget that a lot of these companies, making in your eyes excessive profits, are owned by us through pension funds etc. So we would come back to the governance of those companies and the disparity between the rewards of those at the top and those at the bottom whether state, publicly or privately owned. For the record it is the Royal Mail that is being sold off not the Post Office.
With regard to Red Ed I think dukesox hits the mark with .... And the same is true for his proposed land grab and promise to build houses on it.
I was interested to see that the Conference voted unanimously to nationalise rail again. In fact, it seemed pretty keen on nationalisation. I am wondering if this will be adopted as official Lab policy, or if they will continue to water things down in the mistaken belief that they are "appealing to voters" in order to get elected, or with the fear that they will upset business and UK plc. Surely the only real point of a conference is to find out what the rank and file members expect from the party they have joined. The Lab conference looked quite radical compared to how Lab looks generally these days. The old Reds who did resurface looked a bit out of touch. Surprised that they haven't split to form their own party as surely Lab no longer really represents them (they are unelectable). The singing of the Red Flag just looked like a hopeless anachronism, but then if they ditched it, they'd have to come clean about not really being socialist any more.
Elections are won in the middle ground and lost on the margins. Red Ed is trying to save his own skin by his shift to the left to appeal to those within the party and the trades unions. Tony Blair said that Labour should not be ashamed to be socialist, then never mentioned the word again, he knew how to win elections.
I too am in favour of the mixed economy. Crucial industries and natural monopolies should be under democratic control, leaving general goods and services to market forces. Sadly we have moved away from that mix over the past 30 years. It is perfectly true that any industry can become stagnant and complacent, but that applies to private corporations just as much as publicly owned ones - there are plenty of examples of both.
I thought Railtrack had already been nationalised. Though fortunately no compensation had to be paid for it, since it was bankrupt & broke at the time and valued at nil. I would be opposed to spending loads of public money to purchase industries as a way of nationalising them, only to have some future right-wing government sell them off again and use the proceeds as bribes. We have done a lap of that track before.
Very well summed up and can I say that despite all my anti government involvement comments I do think you have the blend pretty much spot on.
More vote ''buying'' bullsh1t IMO. In two years time the industry would have carte blanche to hike the prices as they had been frozen for two years. That's without consideration for the fact we import oil and gas from overseas so just how can he freeze the price without consideration for market forces and demand? Idiot. It would be of much greater benefit to ensure that all large companies pay their proper share of tax (without dodging it via legal loopholes and creative accounting, shareholder pay outs etc.) Bare in mind the 20% revenue through VAT that goes back to the treasury on all bills also. He would need to find the short fall from somewhere (us..) Typical glib statement and way of thinking from Labour to try and con the voting public. Give with one hand and then be forced to take away with the other. As to re nationalising, there could be some mileage in that, subject to proper management. All of the so called regulators seem to be a waste of space. FSA anyone? Maybe if our political parties could concentrate on long term planning for the UK instead of short term policies and ''sound bites'' there would be no need to whinge about the price of fuel.
There is no competitive tension in utlities whatsoever. Same with fuel on the forecourt. No surprise that business that is used to competitiveness, and the need to be better, are the ones who drive the occasional fuel price down for a short period. Imagine where we'd be without supermarket fuel stations?!
The current system seems to be a dogs breakfast. As an occasional user of the rail network I buy a ticket at my local station and travel on Virgin, Trans Pennine Express, Scot Rail, East Coast and Great Western trains at a time that is convenient to get to my destination. I do not exercise choice and I have no idea how what I pay for my ticket is divided between those operators. Does anyone know ?
I liked the old days: you rocked up to a station, bought a ticket (there being a choice of about two different prices) got on a train and sat down. Now you faff about on line, confuse yourself with multiple ticket offers, have to book months in advance to afford it, attend station, withdraw ticket from a machine, and then fail to find anywhere to sit down, unless you reserved a seat. I mean, who has time for all this bullshit?
Ed obviously thinks that much of the voting public are completely thick,that's the first that he has got right to date....
