The great twentieth century nationalisations of steel,coal, rail, electricity, telecoms, gas, and vehicle manufacture were meant to modernise these industries, invest large sums of public capital and loans,  and make a profit for the state. They were meant to be better employers. Instead together they sent huge bills to taxpayers, spent investment money on plenty of projects that went wrong, had many bad strikes. Most of them sacked many employees, ran up big losses for taxpayers to pay and offered a bad deal to customers.

Steel for example were treated to major new steel works capable of producing    more steel than they could ever sell. Years under both Labour and Conservative governments were spent driving through closures.

The government portfolio of the 1970 s and early 1980 s was vast and very costly. The government needed to prevent the nationalised industries taking too much money which would have out more of a squeeze on the NHS, benefits, pensions and schools.

Given shortage of money the government felt forced to allocate more  cash to the loss making   parts of the portfolio than to the potential fast growing areas. Steel absorbed huge sums to pay losses and to try to slow the pace  of plant closures and job losses. The railways  losing passenger numbers and market share every year needed ever bigger subsidies to keep running loss making and underused trains. That left telecoms struggling with old technology and limited capacity when telecoms was taking off to handle more data as well as calls. The state gave more money to decline and failure and starved their growth businesses of new money to expand. The state was a dreadful investor, trying to reverse the momentum of the market and changing demands.

If you were the employee of a nationalised industry you were likely to face tge sack,given the large redundancy and closure programmes. If you were a customer you faced high and rising  prices for poor service, often linked to rationing. As a taxpayer you were sent huge bills to pay for losses and “ investment”

Given the enthusiasm of some here I ask why are you in love with nationalisation?

Is it the way the nationalised Post Office  treated many of its key staff, sending them to prison on false charges?

Is it the way nationalised HS2 has not  controlled costs, extended its delays and more than halved the amount of  railway  it will deliver?

Is it the way the Bank of England ( Nationalised 1946) has run its activities to send a bill to taxpayers for an OBR forecast of  £257 bn for losses on bonds from end 2022 to final liquidation of the portfolio?

Is it the way the state has paid remuneration packages  of more than  £500,000 a year to the Heads of HS 2, Post Office and Bank for all their losses  and mistakes?

Is it the way Network Rail and the Transport department have run timetables, created delays and cancellations  and regulated fares for  the last two decades of nationalised Network Rail?

Is it the way the Highways Authority handled allowing motorway hard shoulder use as a new lane and their repairs schedules with slow running and lane closures?

Is it the way a nationalised Scunthorpe steel works will probably close both blast furnaces and sack a lot of staff?

Is it the way the government road monopoly keeps us short of road space and delights in restricting its use?

 

 

I have given up on BBC tv news. I do still sometimes  listen to BBC radio to keep in touch with all  the latest wokery and distortions of the economic, environmental and migration debates they go in for. Here is my take on their current leftish establishment propaganda which is losing them a big chunk of potential audience.

They believe most of what the Climate Change Committee puts out and undertake daily pieties in their net zero religion. They refuse to interview people who point out the world continues to use more fossil fuel, the UK is being deindustrialised by idiotic net zero policies, the UK  has very dear energy thanks to renewables and the need for a duplicate back up system, and current heat pumps and battery cars are not the answer for most people.  They buy the myth  that the UK has dear energy because it prices electricity from gas.

They refuse to criticise the huge losses and bad inflation record this decade of the Bank of England. They believe the Bank is independent when it has needed Chancellor sign off and Treasury indemnity for its main monetary policies of QE and QT. They believe the lie that the Ukraine  war caused our inflation when it reached 3 times target before the invasion.

They under report the mass migration and large number of illegals coming into our country, and decline to examine independently the impact that is having on public spending, housing, planning and utility provision. They seem more interested in any extremist infiltration of peaceful protests against illegal migration than in the good reasons people have to be angry about government failure.

They give plenty of interviews to pro EU people but rarely to anyone who thinks Brexit is a success and wants to use more Brexit freedoms. They buy the government’s line that we need  to be closer to the EU that has a lower GDP per head  than us and grows slowly, rather than closer to US policy which is delivering much higher GDP per head and faster growth. They give  plenty of airtime to the 4% loss  of GDP fallacy re Brexit.

The interviewers often  seem to think there is a government  answer to every problem. They usually fall for the idea that more public money solves problems and we only have bad public services owing to under funding. All my life UK public spending has gone up in cash and real terms ( save the Labour IMF year)  and all the time the BBC reports cuts. They will not interview people who could explain why there has been a productivity collapse in the public sector and what should be done about it.

They do not promote one party, but they are far more critical of so called right wing parties whilst treating Green, Lib Dems, SNP, US Democrats  and Labour better. They do not cover EU and continental problems very much at all, and never as critically as they treat Republican USA.Their audiences are left in the dark about the borrowings, cuts, slow growth, low GDP per head,high tariffs and non tariff barriers of the EU.

 

 

 

The IMF expects the EU to carry on underperforming the  US by a big margin, as it has done all this century to date. It expects the UK despite the bad budget, the high taxes and the net zero madness to grow a little  faster than the Eurozone and to beat Germany, France and Italy this year.

The pro EU cheer leaders in the UK wrongly projected a recession, rising unemployment and falling house prices to follow immediately we had voted to leave. The opposite happened.

They then claimed our growth over the first fifteen years of Brexit would be 4% less, or 0.25% lower . They based this on the bizarre assumptions that productivity growth would slow as we lost trade activity with the EU.

They said you can only trade successfully with nearby countries, ignoring the surge in EU and UK trade with  China and India and the fact that the US is our largest national export market.

There is another obvious fallacy in their spin. Our trade with the EU is in heavy deficit. Imports do not add to GDP, and are subtracted in the accounting to work out  GDP. Importing more from the EU will not help us grow or be better off. If instead we embarked on import substitution, growing and making more of the things we need and importing less from the EU, that would boost our GDP well.

The UK  thanks to its crazy net zero policies is busily de industrialising so we have fewer goods to sell. We are however very good at services and are boosting our exports rapidly. These mainly  go to non EU English speaking  and common law countries. We are now signing trade deals which help promote this trade, thanks to Brexit.

Environmental puritans tell us water is scarce and we should ration its use. They should take a look at their local lakes, ponds, streams and rivers. Have  they ever been to the seaside? Have they watched nature deliver  free water onto gardens and fields as rain ? Water is about  the  most common substance on the planet.

It is true some human intervention is needed to store water in convenient places and to clean it up if we want to drink it. Water is not  destroyed by use but returned to the water cycle, often in a dirtier form than before we used it from the tap.

Companies can offer us more water from rivers, from desalinating sea water, from underground water in acquifers  and from collecting more rainwater.We could each collect more of our own as rain from our roof.

If the monopoly was lifted there could be more innovation. Do we need all water to our house to be high drinking water quality? Could there be cheaper less processed water to flush loos and clean cars? Industry often has to take the additives placed  in monopoly drinking water out before using the water for their processes.They might like additive free water.

Would companies intensify  marketing home  systems for collecting and using rainwater for non drinking purposes?

I have accepted the strictures of the water hair shirt environmentalists as they have helped block bigger and growing  water supplies. I would like to be able to buy a sprinkler for my grass , use the hosepipe on my shrubs and wash my car more  often but do not  do so given the ridiculous  restrictions on supply.

What a nonsense that a leading  industry has to lecture its customers to use less of its product when it is all around us. Now there are problems  speeding digital investment in data centres given water shortages limiting potential supply to them. Why does the government of our country not want  us to be better off?

When I first made the case to  Margaret Thatcher in the 1970 s she argued “they won’t let me do that.” She was right that there was  public opposition to privatising a big utility, whipped up by Unions, management, civil servants and academics. They said a privatised BT would close all the street phone boxes still in use, would fail to invest enough, and put the prices up.
In 1982 she started to work on BT and in 1983 she invited me into Downing Street to make the case from the inside and to solve the practical and technical issues. We guaranteed the future of phone boxes , put in a price control requiring price cuts every year and licensed a new competitor who promised a big expansion of business based capacity. This got us through whilst the true answer of competition was gradually introduced.

There were immediate wins.

1. The investment spend of BT was removed from public spending for  good, Investment went up a lot with no cost to taxpayers.

2 The state got a large receipt for sale. As BT grew faster so the state got lots more tax revenue from taxing its profits.  This helped bring the deficit and taxes down whilst supporting higher spend on health and education

3.BT set about narrowing the gap with the more innovative and advanced US telecoms. BT adopted electronic switching in place of its old fashioned electromechanical system.

4. BT and Cable and Wireless  put  in large  capacity increases to power the big City expansion and service sector expansion. Public budgets would have restricted that.

5 When mobiles, then broadband arrived the private sector threw huge sums  at these exciting new products which a nationalised BT would not  have been able to do.

6.Competition brought many different phone and data service providers, often added a new cable connection to each home and greatly increased and modernised capacity.

The privatised water industry has invested £236 bn since 1990. It plans to invest £104 bn over the next five years.Its real investment rate has been double that of the nationalised industry it replaced. This rate of permitted investment has been too low to keep up with all the extra people invited in to the country, and too low to deal with all the worn out and leaking pipes it inherited from the nationalised predecessor. It has been sufficient to prevent collapse and too much rationing.

If it had been nationalised that means public sector debt would now be at least £236 bn higher. If borrowed at current rates for 30 years taxpayers would  be paying £13 bn more  debt interest a year. With all that extra  debt the interest rate charged would probably be higher.

All that assumes the industry was nationalised by stealing it from its current owners. The shareholders include UK pension funds like the Universities fund, UK savers, Canadian and Australian pension funds and other overseas investors. Advanced law abiding countries buy out existing owners when nationalising. If a government confiscates assets it leads to a collapse of private investment in that country for obvious reasons.The cost of the nationalisation would be an additional large debt burden on taxpayers.

The present government is right to rule out water nationalisation as too expensive. A nationalised industry would not speed up new reservoirs and sewers and would likely be more restricted  on how much  it could afford to invest by the state of national budgets. Many people commenting seem to ignore the big costs of the investment which would transfer  from private sector shareholders and banks to taxpayers and public borrowing. As they also want lower water bills that would mean less profit  or bigger losses by nationalised companies which would need to be paid for out of extra taxes. .

I am surprised so many of you think competition could not work with water. This  country has invited in an extra 10 m people this  century. There is no shortage of bread supplied by competing free enterprise but there is of water with Ofwat restricting monopolies from investing. There is no shortage of mobile  phones  and broadband cables supplied by competition, but a shortage  of social housing and roadspace supplied by state monopoly.

So what extra investment might be made by competing water companies?

1. More borehole water extracted and cleaned for supply to grid or direct to customers

2 More new reservoirs

3 Possible desalination plants for coastal cities

4. More sewage treatment capacity

5 Modern pipe  networks for new developments

6 Dedicated supply and pipes for  big users like datacentres and drink manufacturers

7 Possible competition to optimise use of river extraction licences

8. Possible use of canals to transport water between river basins to transfer more to drier places

9. Possible household systems to collect rainwater for garden or toilet flushing uses

10. Use of seawater for cooling of industrial plant and equipment

 

 

Making water a Statutory set of regional monopolies leads to high prices, poor service and shortage of supply. Competition is the best regulator. The competitive bread industry has expanded to meet the  demand of 10 m more people living here. Let’s do the same with water.

Too many tell me water is a natural monopoly because you only have one water pipe  into a house. Funny that. Most of us have gas heating or cookers. We only have one gas pipe . We can choose from a variety of gas suppliers competing for our business, using that single pipe.

We used to have just one copper cable into our homes to receive a phone service from a poor monopoly supplier. When the monopoly was removed by Parliament some competitors  offered to put a better quality higher capacity cable in for us to improve the service. We also started buying phones that worked on wifi.

There can be no downside to lifting water monopolies. In the  unlikely event that water is a natural monopoly nothing would happen. In practice as with gas and telecoms lifting the monopoly would give  us choice, more supply and lower prices. It could lead  to bigger better changes to be discussed another day.

 

As I have offered a rare post on the official Opposition I am  offering  a couple of posts on the Lib Dems and Reform. In  the last General election the  Lib Dems got 12% of the vote and 72 seats. Reform got 14% of the vote and 5 seats. In recent polling Reform has surged to 30% and Lib Dems are around 11%.

Both these parties support a big change to our electoral system, favouring some variant of Proportional representation. The Lib Dems made a referendum on the alternative vote system a prime demand before entering Coalition in 2010. The public decisively rejected it. The Lib Dems now argue there are better systems.

I would urge both parties to drop this key demand. The Lib Dems disproved one of their own arguments about themselves  for PR in 2024 . They say  letting the person with most votes win results in unfair representation for smaller parties.Yet  Lib Dems with 12% of the votes  won nearly 12% of the seats. It is true the Reform vote was widely spread so they got nothing like their vote share. Conservatives also got fewer seats than vote share, but as the Lib Dems showed this is not always the outcome. Challenger parties under our system can target and win more seats.

The big reason to drop the policy is PR in a 4-5 party system will usually result in no party having a majority. Any party wanting a share in government has to abandon their Manifesto and promise to hammer out a compromise government programme with others. Voters are ignored as pledges are dumped in the scramble for power.That is less democratic,as the continent shows.

Campaigning for PR by parties that lost the last election can make them look like a bad loser. If by any chance the two parties pro PR did win a combined majority of seats they would be able  to vote through a PR measure given party discipline in the early days.  Some of their MPs might be  concerned that PR would lose them their seats at the next election. If they declined they then appear as more politicians who do not truly believe in the big ideas they propose.

If a party that believed in PR won a majority under our current system they might be tempted to break their promise to introduce PR.