Saying there has been a resurgence under re-privatisation is fine if it is the market that has found its own feet and operated efficiently to improve and invest, without significant government or regulatory cap or interference, resulting in a vastly improved product or, in this case, service. The manifest evidence is that it has not. As per usual, the lazy free-marketeers – one of which appears to be your goodself – seem to forget that this has far more been a nice easy way of fast/vast shareholder profit. No, I'm afraid you're far wide of the mark if you think that privatisation has sincerely helped. In fact if anything privatisation as was has largely failed, and it is the *increase* in government control – hidden and upfront – that has seen improvement. Indeed, most of the bad ideas and failures have tended to be privately initiated. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatisation_of_Bri…

What the Tories did appeared to be nothing more than spiteful and ideologically driven – almost leaving boobytraps before they knew they were going to have to leave government in 1997, and definitely not in the best interests of the country. The cynics might even say that it was, in fact, in the best interests of their dear friends in the city, but I couldn't possibly comment.

The fact is that for inrastructure such as transport networks, you must have appropriate statutory controls, otherwise you get situations like the chaos in the 1990's developing – don't you remember the idea of 're-timing' services?

And to use video-conferencing as a comparison shows a remarkable lack of understanding in the difference between telecoms and vital transport networks. Back to school for you!

Reply: What nonsense. Even Mr Prescott pointed out that the railway started taking more passengers and freight once we privatised it whilst subsidy was cut.

Railways declined under nationalisation.

There has been a resurgence under re-privatisation.

Some railway capacity is good, but it does not follow that more is better. Some increase in capacity by better exploitation of the network is probably sensible, but building more tracks, especially more lines, is difficult and expensive. There is only so much land in Britain, and a policy to increase capacity to meet demand, irrespective of why the demand is increasing, is narrow, naive and dangerous to quality of life.

If demand exceed supply, then there is the option of achieving balance by reducing demand. Video conferencing is one such way.

Finally, I'd also challenge your definition of what 'UK transport' actually means, as I would the actual measure of the level investment itself, because I would be surprised if they aren't both questionable.

Reply: Railways attracted more passengers and freight and became more efficient when they were fully privatised.

Reply We did a lot more investing in UK transport than this government has managed.

Clearly that dose of reality would not sit well with the logic circuits of those convinced, despite the facts staring them in the face, that the free market always works and public ownership is always bad. Sadly for the market ideologists, this is demonstrably untrue. Markets can and do fail frequently.

Reply: Markets have never been allowed to work in transport, with nationalised roads and railways. The UK has far less road and rail capacity than the continent as government has kept us short of capacity.

And meetings. MEETINGS. Who needs em.

Well am big fan as well but I cannot help but notice that Mr. Redwood is awfully quiet about his stern market views about mortgage lending. Perhaps a defence or clarification of his position might be of interest after all we don`t want the banks run by politicians do we …or do we ?

Or is Mr. Redwood maintaining a judicious silence on the subject ?…Could be ….