While I don’t disagree with most of the sentiment, this does assume that the government could do a better job. British Rail, for example, was awful when it was a government run service. The problem is state owned organisations are often run for the benefit of their employees whilst private companies are run for the benefit of their share holders. Neither run them for the benefit of their customers.
Same in the US for deregulation --look at the failures in infrastructure in Texas and California from underinvestment in maintenance. Deregulation of the trucking industry has put countless more semis on the interstates, tearing up the roads faster with no concomitant taxes to repair them (not to mention more trucks slows traffic and can get a bit hazardous in rain).
That said, while regulations are a good thing up to a point we need to not make them chains. Some of the environmental regulations in the US are just plain unreasonable and add countless delays and expenses to moving ahead with vital projects. In my old home town of Laguna Beach, CA building regulations and delays have become legendary and that's even before dealing with the state Coastal Commission and federal laws. Complete absurdity. So there is a balance--we need simple reasonable regulations to cover most of the issues.
The USA is also more centralised today and less deregulated than for example Sweden. Do you really see California as a more deregulated state? Also, are you sure that energy problems as in Calli and Texas are because of to little government intervention? Why not make it easier for people to produce their own energy
Having experienced the publicly run services as a consumer and an employee, I'm pretty sure that the profit motive is a good way to improve the services, and, on the whole had a good start in UK.
To take the energy storage example, the early opportunities in the gas market arose from the lack of storage and poor (manual) systems to measure/manage demand. Planning was a day ahead.
What's missing is the 'free market' - ie competent regulation aimed at encouraging competition. I'm sure that there were some senior Tories who saw the opportunity for supply-side capture, but that doesn't mean that it makes sense to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I understand your experiences, but do you have any valid and rational evidence for your claims? The UK is still, when it comes to governance and spending, one of the most centralised, regulated and bureaucratic states in Europe. Despite being one of the more liberalised and open economies.
What are alternatives to privatisation and who is going to pay for that as regarding housing and railways?
Also, Panama papers is more about politicians, including the British and Ukrainian ones, that "the rich"
Totally agree. Balance required, rather than blind faith in the market. U.K. is an example of how not to privatise.
Fair comment. And in fact foreign state owned utilities are typically doing a dreadful job running U.K. utilities.
While I don’t disagree with most of the sentiment, this does assume that the government could do a better job. British Rail, for example, was awful when it was a government run service. The problem is state owned organisations are often run for the benefit of their employees whilst private companies are run for the benefit of their share holders. Neither run them for the benefit of their customers.
Same in the US for deregulation --look at the failures in infrastructure in Texas and California from underinvestment in maintenance. Deregulation of the trucking industry has put countless more semis on the interstates, tearing up the roads faster with no concomitant taxes to repair them (not to mention more trucks slows traffic and can get a bit hazardous in rain).
That said, while regulations are a good thing up to a point we need to not make them chains. Some of the environmental regulations in the US are just plain unreasonable and add countless delays and expenses to moving ahead with vital projects. In my old home town of Laguna Beach, CA building regulations and delays have become legendary and that's even before dealing with the state Coastal Commission and federal laws. Complete absurdity. So there is a balance--we need simple reasonable regulations to cover most of the issues.
The USA is also more centralised today and less deregulated than for example Sweden. Do you really see California as a more deregulated state? Also, are you sure that energy problems as in Calli and Texas are because of to little government intervention? Why not make it easier for people to produce their own energy
Having experienced the publicly run services as a consumer and an employee, I'm pretty sure that the profit motive is a good way to improve the services, and, on the whole had a good start in UK.
To take the energy storage example, the early opportunities in the gas market arose from the lack of storage and poor (manual) systems to measure/manage demand. Planning was a day ahead.
What's missing is the 'free market' - ie competent regulation aimed at encouraging competition. I'm sure that there were some senior Tories who saw the opportunity for supply-side capture, but that doesn't mean that it makes sense to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I understand your experiences, but do you have any valid and rational evidence for your claims? The UK is still, when it comes to governance and spending, one of the most centralised, regulated and bureaucratic states in Europe. Despite being one of the more liberalised and open economies.
What are alternatives to privatisation and who is going to pay for that as regarding housing and railways?
Also, Panama papers is more about politicians, including the British and Ukrainian ones, that "the rich"