Nationalisation - re-nationalisation

[Workingman]

Labour has a policy popular with Labour voters, and many others; a programme of nationalisation that would bring back into public ownership:

the Royal Mail
rail-operating companies and rolling stock
energy supply networks
water and sewerage companies

The cost of all this, according to the CBI, is a one-off £196bn or 9% of the UK's annual economic output. However, that figure does not take into account the assets which will be purchased. Once they are taken off the top line nobody knows how much lower the real cost will be.

I will remain only mildly supportive of this until more details are known about their management structures and how these businesses will be run. If they are to be run like schools, GP surgeries, NHS Trusts, the BBC, Council departments, NGOs and the likes where those managing (or mismanaging) them are paid more than the PM and can never be removed then no thanks. However, if they are run in a way that those at the top can be hired, or fired, based on performance and at the same time the companies make a profit for the country then it's a definite maybe.

[Suff]

In Argentina there was a popular view that the Kristina government, when the people were unhappy or about to vote, would give the poor 100 peso$ and a bus trip.

I'm wondering if the Labour party could do the same and offer a week in Spain and £1,000.

Probably not. I think I've got more chance of becoming a Billionaire than Corbyn has of being PM after this next election. Maybe, Maybe not.

However with Corbyn's chances so low, his promise to bankrupt the country to buy out essential services and "run them better" for the government coffers will remain a moot point.

After all there are, still, sufficient people alive, who recognise that "British public utilities" and "Efficiency" are an oxymoron.

[Workingman]

Well there is nationalisation, where the company is 100% government owned, and there are forms of public ownership 'nationalisation', where the government owns 51% or more of the shares. I guess that one type of the second option would gather the most support from individuals and institutions.

Taking back the railways would only mean waiting for various franchises to run out and that could take a number of years, but at very little cost. When it comes to water utilities there are 12 major water and sewage companies and a further 20 or so mainly local water only companies of varying size. They could be picked off one by one over a number of years rather than taking them all at the same time under one huge payment. The value of the Royal Mail is based mainly on its physical assets so that the only things being 'bought' are its profits and profit potential.

The energy sector is the biggest of problems, both logistically, legally and cost wise. There are the Big Six we all know about and another 35+ smaller energy suppliers, many offering green energy. The smaller independents have little in the way of asset value so should not cost too much to bring in-house - the Big Six are another matter. Their operations and assets, even individually, are truly massive and their ownership and finances would be a minefield to untangle - a longer term project, methinks.

After all there are, still, sufficient people alive, who recognise that "British public utilities" and "Efficiency" are an oxymoron.

True. I am one, but we are slowly dying out and newer generations, many of whom are on the cusp of being anti globalst capitalists / anti big business, are coming through. They have nothing to remember, but they are well aware of the 'absolutely fabulous' efficiencies of modern private companies and how well served they are as customers when compared to the shareholders and the fat cat bosses. I am minded to think that they will be more open to some sort of public ownership. The Big Six mentioned above have an average approval rating of 39%. The railways, stations and trains are much better... 76%.

Another thing to note is that it is not a Corbyn policy but a Labour party one and although Corbyn will never be PM, we agree on that, there will be a future Labour government. I think that the idea has got legs, the interest from the media also seems to say so.

[TheOstrich]

After all there are, still, sufficient people alive, who recognise that "British public utilities" and "Efficiency" are an oxymoron.

Indeed, and British Railways were always a prime example.

But at the end of the day, (speaking as one of the older generation), they were "our" railways, and "our" electricity companies, and "our" water boards, and "our" postal service, and once the euphoria of buying a personal stake in them under Maggie Thatcher's schemes (which turned us all into a nation of Del Boys), and the eventual realisation that all our national assets were performing just as badly as before, (only now with seriously fat cat bosses and swathes of furrin' owners), had kicked in, I think many people would be delighted to see a return to public ownership. All part and parcel of Taking Back Control, and the cost be beggared. They'll still be as inefficient as before, but at least they'll be "ours" again.

I support the re-nationalisation policy in general terms, and whilst I'd like to vote for it, there are way too many other issues with Labour regrettably, not least anti-semitism, for them to get a cross on my ballot paper.

[cromwell]

Trouble is, it will cost too much.
Some of the industries should not have been privatised imo, like water. The reservoirs and the network were mostly provided by the state (?) and they have been milked imo by the private sector.
When Mrs Thatcher's privatisations of the 1980's went ahead it wasn't stressed enough that "our" utility industries could be bought up by foreign companies, which is exactly what happened. So instead of potential profit staying here, it went abroad.
Having worked in the public sector for a long time I don't knw if I'd back wholesale nationalisation though. The standard of public sector management is dire and politicised now to the nth degree so on balance I'd be agin it.

[Workingman]

The cost is a moot point depending upon how it is calculated, it could be lower, a lot lower, some say. But even at the higher figure many, like me, will say "look what we're getting back in comparison to the rising cost of the useless HS2!".

Where management is concerned I do agree, that is why I put a list of some current basket cases in my OP. However, it can work as was evidenced when the East Coast Main Line, now LNER, was taken back under public ownership following the collapse of its franchise. It will also be interesting to see how the Northern Rail franchise works if, as is being suggested, if it is taken back or run by an operator of last resort (OLR). It cannot possibly be worse than it is under Arriva.