Victory should feel more satisfying than it does. Just a few years ago, arguing that globalisation had been a great policy error by the West’s political class was still viewed as a heretical position, its adherents fighting in vain against an unstoppable and desirable force of history. To say that placing the West in a relationship of dependency on Russia and China’s autocracies was a profound security risk, a wilful act of negligence bordering on treason, was still seen by the liberal commentariat as eccentrically misguided at best, and Trumpian nativism at worst. The postliberal assertion that the nation’s security as well as prosperity relied on a secure domestic industrial base, fostered and defended by an activist state, was still viewed as a backwards nostalgia for a vanished world.
But all these arguments have now been decisively won, so swiftly and totally that it is apparently difficult for liberals to remember that they ever held different views, let alone denounced the ones they now profess.
Yet while the world has moved beyond economic liberalism, leftover liberals still run the West. Like a post-Communist state where the old nomenklatura, having hurriedly adopted the mantle of liberal capitalists, still run the show, a great, historic revolution has occurred but the same people remain in charge, having suffered no retribution for the catastrophic mistakes their failed idealism brought in tow. A massive clear-out is long overdue: and no more absurd an illustration can be found of the immovable fatberg blocking our political future, the sheer ideological inertia preventing reform, than Britain’s failing water companies.
The failed status quo our politicians contort themselves to defend, like some ancient pillar of our constitution, was itself a bold act of political change. Thatcher’s privatisation of the national water supply was a course of action so daringly radical, so intuitively wrongheaded that only one other nation on earth, Pinochet’s Chile, took the same path. As in so many other aspects of national life, Britain carried out a reckless experiment on itself which failed. Like so much else of Westminster’s tinkering with a country which in retrospect seems to have functioned perfectly well, the failure was so disastrous that the error cannot be admitted, let alone rectified.
The results fulfilled none of the stated aims of privatisation: competition among providers did not lower costs or improve services, as instead the spoils were portioned out among regional monopolies; no new infrastructure was built, as profits were extracted as dividends, with crippling new debt added on top; precious national resources, whether the public’s wealth or Britain’s famously over-abundant supply of water, were squandered. Yet if the water supply systems of every other country in the world provide insufficient comparison, we possess a control group within our own borders, studiously ignored by London commentators. In both Scotland and Northern Ireland, water remained under state control: bills are lower (in Northern Ireland, non-existent for domestic users), infrastructure is not notably worse, and taxpayers have not been saddled with extravagant debt purely to pay out dividends.
In this sense, the oft-made liberal claim that Britain urgently needs to decolonise itself may be correct, though not in the way its adherents think. Exploiting a country’s resources and extracting the wealth of its people solely for the purpose of enriching foreign shareholders is how you run an unloved colony, not a nation. It is striking that it is only England, the submerged nation where Westminster’s writ runs unchallenged, with no viable nationalist independence movement to force the central government to keep voters relatively happy, that has been forced to submit itself to looting by the water companies. That it is Thames Water, whose turbid assets flow past the Palace of Westminster itself, which appears closest to collapse is surely no accident: it is the richest portion of the colony that was latched onto first and most tightly, and was thus the first to be sucked dry. In Britain, just as all distances are measured from Charing Cross, dysfunction radiates out from the centre. The aim of any form of radical politics must surely be, while preserving the Union, to find a way to liberate Britain from Westminster, and from the reliably servile comprador class that scurries along its endless corridors, looking for unguarded family silver to sell.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeGovernment spending accounts for 45% of UK GDP, one of the highest rates in the world. Public debt is over 100% of GDP, a ratio which is certain to rise as the impact of Net Zero policies and the pensions crisis converge. Productivity – and particularly public sector productivity – is stagnant or worse, so the economy is increasingly uncompetitive in global markets. Failing utilities were tightly regulated by the state for decades, which dictated how much they could invest, and how much revenue they could earn. Yet there appears to be nothing which Aris Roussinos doesn’t think should be run by this same state, presumably funded by gargantuan tax revenues happily paid by contended and newly prosperous UK citizens, or perhaps from a third party willing to fund England on a Barnett Formula basis, as Scotland and Northern Ireland current are. This is why I have given up on Aris Roussinos.
Much like the excuses around the failings of communism, it’s not the systems fault, it just hasn’t been tried properly yet. I’m sure if we just deregulate that little bit further then neoliberalism will deliver the utopia we were promised.
Countries don’t build, or retain, an industry base because governments wish it so. They do so because they are competitive in global markets – the ease of doing business, the cost of investment, the tax burden, the efficiency and predictability of legal process, the quality of the education system, the productivity of its workers, and so on – make it cost competitive relative to other countries. Aris Roussinos seems to think that an activist state can skip all that boring stuff and just direct that the country shall have an industrial base through an act of political will.
Deregulation isn’t a system. It’s more like clearing deadwood.
In reality it means hollowing out the capacity of the state to do basic tasks which are then farmed out to the private sector who charge the earth and have little accountability.
After 40 years of this system we now have a generation being priced out of homeownership, stagnant productivity and wages falling behind the rate of inflation, no manufacturing, precarious work in the gig economy, expensive and poorly performing public services that are extracting billions for their foreign owners and full time workers in need of government handouts simply to keep the wolves from the door. And yet people still defend the system
Private businesses are accountable to their customers, which is as it should be.
State-run businesses inevitably fall to staff capture and the users of their service are viewed as mere nuisances.
The state has failed to produce an education system which develops ingenuity and fortitude and a public sector which promotes these qualities.
Why do you assume market failure instead of policy failure? Where do you get your certainty from?
Inflation and a generation priced out of home ownership? Nothing to do with loose monetary policy and strict planning regulations then? Stagnant productivity? Planned economies have a terrible record for productivity. Precarious work in the gig economy? Better than being unemployed and dependent on the state.
Expensive public services? Nothing to do with the unions demanding pay above market rates then? Utilities owned by foreigners? Nothing to do with Blair and Brown’s regulations for pension funds preventing them holding equities and their tax raid on dividends? Equity ownership among UK citizens has been in massive decline since the early 2000s.
Defend the system? What system is that and what alternative system might you have in mind? Over the last 25 years, the system has given us more state intervention, more regulation, higher taxes, more money printing.
The only people defending that system are you and Roussinos.
Private businesses are accountable to their customers, which is as it should be.
State-run businesses inevitably fall to staff capture and the users of their service are viewed as mere nuisances.
The state has failed to produce an education system which develops ingenuity and fortitude and a public sector which promotes these qualities.
Why do you assume market failure instead of policy failure? Where do you get your certainty from?
Inflation and a generation priced out of home ownership? Nothing to do with loose monetary policy and strict planning regulations then? Stagnant productivity? Planned economies have a terrible record for productivity. Precarious work in the gig economy? Better than being unemployed and dependent on the state.
Expensive public services? Nothing to do with the unions demanding pay above market rates then? Utilities owned by foreigners? Nothing to do with Blair and Brown’s regulations for pension funds preventing them holding equities and their tax raid on dividends? Equity ownership among UK citizens has been in massive decline since the early 2000s.
Defend the system? What system is that and what alternative system might you have in mind? Over the last 25 years, the system has given us more state intervention, more regulation, higher taxes, more money printing.
The only people defending that system are you and Roussinos.
In reality it means hollowing out the capacity of the state to do basic tasks which are then farmed out to the private sector who charge the earth and have little accountability.
After 40 years of this system we now have a generation being priced out of homeownership, stagnant productivity and wages falling behind the rate of inflation, no manufacturing, precarious work in the gig economy, expensive and poorly performing public services that are extracting billions for their foreign owners and full time workers in need of government handouts simply to keep the wolves from the door. And yet people still defend the system
We haven’t been deregulating over the last 30 years though so your premise is false.
States have a terrible record of growing economies and planned economies have always been weak; worse still, they always lead to authoritarian rule for a planned economy needs a planner. Look at Eastern Europe, China, Israel, India, Vietnam… we have living examples of states who had terrible economies until they opened them up to more competition, less regulation and free enterprise. Have we learnt nothing from the 20th Century? It would seem so.
The less regulated economies of the 19th Century led to unprecedented growth for its time.
Your comment is completely upside down.
Countries don’t build, or retain, an industry base because governments wish it so. They do so because they are competitive in global markets – the ease of doing business, the cost of investment, the tax burden, the efficiency and predictability of legal process, the quality of the education system, the productivity of its workers, and so on – make it cost competitive relative to other countries. Aris Roussinos seems to think that an activist state can skip all that boring stuff and just direct that the country shall have an industrial base through an act of political will.
Deregulation isn’t a system. It’s more like clearing deadwood.
We haven’t been deregulating over the last 30 years though so your premise is false.
States have a terrible record of growing economies and planned economies have always been weak; worse still, they always lead to authoritarian rule for a planned economy needs a planner. Look at Eastern Europe, China, Israel, India, Vietnam… we have living examples of states who had terrible economies until they opened them up to more competition, less regulation and free enterprise. Have we learnt nothing from the 20th Century? It would seem so.
The less regulated economies of the 19th Century led to unprecedented growth for its time.
Your comment is completely upside down.
I’ve said it before, but Roussinos just doesn’t understand the UK. He writes about it according to some abstract student political formula that’s as redundant as the Left/Right concepts he peddles. However clever he tries to sound, it just comes across as naive and inauthentic.
Having at least admitted that a previous ‘analysis’ turned out to be “profoundly mistaken”, one might expect him to have taken up something more useful, such as plumbing, to help the future of our water system.
Leaning slightly left financially, slightly right culturally, I’d say Aris is actually quite close to the median voter
Yep. A good sensible place, often forgotten.
The middle ground may seem less controversial but it’s almost always wrong.
Or maybe the question was poorly considered DB ?
Why is it always wrong? The basis of democratic political systems is often a messy argument between various factions followed by a fudged middle ground that all can live with, and these systems are generally much more stable and prosperous than ones that rigidly follow an ideological bent
Or maybe the question was poorly considered DB ?
Why is it always wrong? The basis of democratic political systems is often a messy argument between various factions followed by a fudged middle ground that all can live with, and these systems are generally much more stable and prosperous than ones that rigidly follow an ideological bent
Yep. A good sensible place, often forgotten.
The middle ground may seem less controversial but it’s almost always wrong.
Leaning slightly left financially, slightly right culturally, I’d say Aris is actually quite close to the median voter
I had same reaction!! The glorious UK State to the rescue??? The tyrannical ‘NHS First’ State which demanded that we protect it and locked us in our homes, so shattering our economy, hurting children and destroying the health system? The Technocratic Quangocracy State that stifles all enterprise and growth with its Newt First EU legal inheritance of over regulation and now the utter insanity of Net Zero degrowth, zero energy security and war on the poor? The Bailout Bust Welfarist Socialist State (neoliberal – are you kidding??) which sucks us dry with coercive high taxation to feed a vast failing wfh detached Public sector with its cold eyed entitled young doctors and Leninist teaching unions?? The Tories have not touched this Blairite EU Clone quasi Socialist State (the crass privatisation of monopolies are decades old) . The Blob simply co-opted and devoured them (and good riddance). But to read of a wish for the nasty shallow identitarian party of the work shy Blob – Starmer’s grisly Labour – to wield power and for that State to extend its powers yet further into our lives is a simply astounding naive and horrible way to start the week.
Walter Marvell
1 day ago
Reply to Stephen Walsh
Quote: “I had same reaction!! The glorious UK State to the rescue??? The tyrannical ‘NHS First’ State which demanded that we protect it and locked us in our homes, so shattering our economy, hurting children and destroying the health system? ”
And in respect of which Matt Hancock (the Secretary of State for Health etc in place at the time – though not the one responsible for our pandemic unpreparedness, that seems to have been Hunt!) said we should in future lock down earlier and harder!!
“… taxpayers have [not] been saddled with extravagant debt purely to pay out dividends …”
That about says it all!
Excellent riposte!
Walter Marvell
1 day ago
Reply to Stephen Walsh
Quote: “I had same reaction!! The glorious UK State to the rescue??? The tyrannical ‘NHS First’ State which demanded that we protect it and locked us in our homes, so shattering our economy, hurting children and destroying the health system? ”
And in respect of which Matt Hancock (the Secretary of State for Health etc in place at the time – though not the one responsible for our pandemic unpreparedness, that seems to have been Hunt!) said we should in future lock down earlier and harder!!
“… taxpayers have [not] been saddled with extravagant debt purely to pay out dividends …”
That about says it all!
Excellent riposte!
An excellent synopsis, thank you.
We just need better managers!
This has been the political argument for thirty years. I am not convinced that such is possible.
I think the point with Hayek’s approach was a recognition of this problem and trying to address it by removing the state as far as possible. Clearly, in some cases it was too far but I think this awareness is important and an acceptance that our problems won’t be solved by a better government. All more government does is enrich politicians and bureaucrats
The tax take would be lower if private companies didn’t see public funds as a trough into which they could stick their snouts. The worst example is that of public subsidies for utilities going in one end and dividend payments coming out the other.
We have the biggest state ever with the highest levels of debt, taxation and spending yet people seem to think the solution to our economic problems is more of the same. It’s utter madness.
“Even if the government spends itself into bankruptcy and the economy still does not recover, Keynesians can always say that it would have worked if only the government had spent more.” – Thomas Sowell
Yup. This is an author with no true grasp of his subject. The next Government will need to cut £200bn per annum in spending and, indeed, may have no choice in this matter. Renationalising anything at all is for the birds.
Additionally, the costs of Thames Water, if it does go bust, will be in the shoulders of shareholders and bond holders, just as NPower was. The other utilities (apart from Southern) are basically fine. This stuff is nuts.
Hear! Hear!
Much like the excuses around the failings of communism, it’s not the systems fault, it just hasn’t been tried properly yet. I’m sure if we just deregulate that little bit further then neoliberalism will deliver the utopia we were promised.
I’ve said it before, but Roussinos just doesn’t understand the UK. He writes about it according to some abstract student political formula that’s as redundant as the Left/Right concepts he peddles. However clever he tries to sound, it just comes across as naive and inauthentic.
Having at least admitted that a previous ‘analysis’ turned out to be “profoundly mistaken”, one might expect him to have taken up something more useful, such as plumbing, to help the future of our water system.
I had same reaction!! The glorious UK State to the rescue??? The tyrannical ‘NHS First’ State which demanded that we protect it and locked us in our homes, so shattering our economy, hurting children and destroying the health system? The Technocratic Quangocracy State that stifles all enterprise and growth with its Newt First EU legal inheritance of over regulation and now the utter insanity of Net Zero degrowth, zero energy security and war on the poor? The Bailout Bust Welfarist Socialist State (neoliberal – are you kidding??) which sucks us dry with coercive high taxation to feed a vast failing wfh detached Public sector with its cold eyed entitled young doctors and Leninist teaching unions?? The Tories have not touched this Blairite EU Clone quasi Socialist State (the crass privatisation of monopolies are decades old) . The Blob simply co-opted and devoured them (and good riddance). But to read of a wish for the nasty shallow identitarian party of the work shy Blob – Starmer’s grisly Labour – to wield power and for that State to extend its powers yet further into our lives is a simply astounding naive and horrible way to start the week.
An excellent synopsis, thank you.
We just need better managers!
This has been the political argument for thirty years. I am not convinced that such is possible.
I think the point with Hayek’s approach was a recognition of this problem and trying to address it by removing the state as far as possible. Clearly, in some cases it was too far but I think this awareness is important and an acceptance that our problems won’t be solved by a better government. All more government does is enrich politicians and bureaucrats
The tax take would be lower if private companies didn’t see public funds as a trough into which they could stick their snouts. The worst example is that of public subsidies for utilities going in one end and dividend payments coming out the other.
We have the biggest state ever with the highest levels of debt, taxation and spending yet people seem to think the solution to our economic problems is more of the same. It’s utter madness.
“Even if the government spends itself into bankruptcy and the economy still does not recover, Keynesians can always say that it would have worked if only the government had spent more.” – Thomas Sowell
Yup. This is an author with no true grasp of his subject. The next Government will need to cut £200bn per annum in spending and, indeed, may have no choice in this matter. Renationalising anything at all is for the birds.
Additionally, the costs of Thames Water, if it does go bust, will be in the shoulders of shareholders and bond holders, just as NPower was. The other utilities (apart from Southern) are basically fine. This stuff is nuts.
Hear! Hear!
Government spending accounts for 45% of UK GDP, one of the highest rates in the world. Public debt is over 100% of GDP, a ratio which is certain to rise as the impact of Net Zero policies and the pensions crisis converge. Productivity – and particularly public sector productivity – is stagnant or worse, so the economy is increasingly uncompetitive in global markets. Failing utilities were tightly regulated by the state for decades, which dictated how much they could invest, and how much revenue they could earn. Yet there appears to be nothing which Aris Roussinos doesn’t think should be run by this same state, presumably funded by gargantuan tax revenues happily paid by contended and newly prosperous UK citizens, or perhaps from a third party willing to fund England on a Barnett Formula basis, as Scotland and Northern Ireland current are. This is why I have given up on Aris Roussinos.
I don’t get the logic of this. In Canada, our water utilities are run by municipalities. But power and natural gas are privately run. They all seem to run fine here. They all invest in infrastructure. They are all regulated at both the provincial and federal level. This shouldn’t be so difficult.
I don’t get the author’s love affair with nationalization or foreign investment. The last people in charge of running the economy is the govt. This has ended in failure everywhere it has been tried.
And net zero will be the biggest failure of all. The govt is planning energy policy directly, by forcing producers into specific activities, and the early results are higher prices and less reliable service. It’s going to get much, much worse. Next up is forcing car manufacturers to produce certain products – products that consumers clearly don’t want. The impact on the economy will be devastating. Manufacturing will shift to new locations and consumers will be forced to pay higher prices for all vehicles, EVs and ICE.
Govt needs to grow up and get out of the way.
There’s the clue. In Britain now, pretty well everything – the Civil Service, both political parties, the entire media – is run by 50 or so Oxford graduates none of whom have any experience of life as it’s lived by the majority of the population.
This level of centralisation creates a kind of hopelessness in the general population: why even try to participate when power is so remote? That is how democracy is destroyed and replaced by incompetent oligarchies like ours.
Give us back our municipalities.
What he doesn’t mention is that many municipalities contract out water supply to private companies. There is competition for that business and they must perform or lose their contracts.
What he doesn’t mention is that many municipalities contract out water supply to private companies. There is competition for that business and they must perform or lose their contracts.
Wait till you see what both the Canadian Federal and Ontario Governments are doing with surplus milk produced by Ontarian farms:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw9pUE7hcXs&list=LL&index=198&t=51s
Canada has amongst the highest dairy prices in the world because of – take a whopping huge guess – ridiculous govt intervention. The feds have basically created a dairy cartel by regulating who can and can’t enter the industry and how much they can produce. If you produce too much, you have to dump it.
Canada has amongst the highest dairy prices in the world because of – take a whopping huge guess – ridiculous govt intervention. The feds have basically created a dairy cartel by regulating who can and can’t enter the industry and how much they can produce. If you produce too much, you have to dump it.
Interesting. The Ontario Teachers’ Retirement Fund owns 27% of Northumbrian Water Group, and seems to be doing very well out of its investment. Not such a good deal for English customers.
There’s the clue. In Britain now, pretty well everything – the Civil Service, both political parties, the entire media – is run by 50 or so Oxford graduates none of whom have any experience of life as it’s lived by the majority of the population.
This level of centralisation creates a kind of hopelessness in the general population: why even try to participate when power is so remote? That is how democracy is destroyed and replaced by incompetent oligarchies like ours.
Give us back our municipalities.
Wait till you see what both the Canadian Federal and Ontario Governments are doing with surplus milk produced by Ontarian farms:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw9pUE7hcXs&list=LL&index=198&t=51s
Interesting. The Ontario Teachers’ Retirement Fund owns 27% of Northumbrian Water Group, and seems to be doing very well out of its investment. Not such a good deal for English customers.
I don’t get the logic of this. In Canada, our water utilities are run by municipalities. But power and natural gas are privately run. They all seem to run fine here. They all invest in infrastructure. They are all regulated at both the provincial and federal level. This shouldn’t be so difficult.
I don’t get the author’s love affair with nationalization or foreign investment. The last people in charge of running the economy is the govt. This has ended in failure everywhere it has been tried.
And net zero will be the biggest failure of all. The govt is planning energy policy directly, by forcing producers into specific activities, and the early results are higher prices and less reliable service. It’s going to get much, much worse. Next up is forcing car manufacturers to produce certain products – products that consumers clearly don’t want. The impact on the economy will be devastating. Manufacturing will shift to new locations and consumers will be forced to pay higher prices for all vehicles, EVs and ICE.
Govt needs to grow up and get out of the way.
“As Labour’s exiled king Jeremy Corbyn observes with all the piercing clarity of the simple-minded, “It’s really not that complicated: stop bailing out private companies and bring our water into public ownership instead.”
Very amusing. Sometimes the clarity of the simple-minded trumps the sophistication of a frightfully well-educated ruling class. I have noticed that the higher up the ladder of educational attainment we climb, the more stupidity we encounter: But still, we must admire the emperor’s new clothes.
And then sit back and watch what happens when private capital is no longer available to bail out publicly owned water infrastructure.
As opposed to what happens currently, when public money is used to cover the negligence of those private companies who have let the infrastructure fall to pieces while paying the shareholders healthy dividends?
Anyone who cites Northern Ireland Water as an example of the benefits of state vs private ownership literally doesn’t know what they are talking about.
I don’t support nationalisation willy-nilly, but water, like defence and the railways, are natural monopolies and I see no argument for leaving them in private hands, particularly when some of those private hands are themselves foreign owned nationalised organisations (Couldn’t make it up could you).
PS: Privatised defence? I offer you The Wagner Group as a splendid example!
I agree that it is a very significant point that privatised water companies should be owned by private British citizens. Having them owned by foreigners let alone foreign state owned companies is madness. No essential British monopoly (or near) service should be allowed to have anything like majority foreign ownership.
A connected issue is that companies need to be owned by individuals and not other corporations let alone huge, unaccountable financial firms such as Blackrock or StateStreet etc.
I agree that it is a very significant point that privatised water companies should be owned by private British citizens. Having them owned by foreigners let alone foreign state owned companies is madness. No essential British monopoly (or near) service should be allowed to have anything like majority foreign ownership.
A connected issue is that companies need to be owned by individuals and not other corporations let alone huge, unaccountable financial firms such as Blackrock or StateStreet etc.
I don’t support nationalisation willy-nilly, but water, like defence and the railways, are natural monopolies and I see no argument for leaving them in private hands, particularly when some of those private hands are themselves foreign owned nationalised organisations (Couldn’t make it up could you).
PS: Privatised defence? I offer you The Wagner Group as a splendid example!
Anyone who cites Northern Ireland Water as an example of the benefits of state vs private ownership literally doesn’t know what they are talking about.
Yes. The clickbait in Aris article is not just the headline (who cares about the Fake Net Zero Pro Lockdown Magic Money Johnsonian Tories??). It is picking on water privatisation – a decades old utterly botched job – to sing the praises and need for a yet more ‘active’ interventionist State!! Plus a pop at the West’s deluded appeasement of China (I seem to recall a noisy Orange Man in America being derided for calling out the perils of globalism!). Cheap easy targets… Just observe the nature of our collapsing proto Socialist Welfarist Net Zero!!! It has triggered a doom loop! It is a failed system NOW. And you want more?
Maxwell.
A newspaper boss caught with his hands in the pension pot. He broke the law that said Thou shalt not steal.
From whom flowed a generation of regulations on how our pensions who should be run. Saying you can’t invest in “risky” shares or copporate bonds, but must buy “safe” government bonds paying the square root of b*****all interest.
Ergo, British pension funds which hold the lion’s share of British savings, can’t invest in British business.
And so, British businesses get bought out by foreign investors.
Which are our new colonial rulers.
As opposed to what happens currently, when public money is used to cover the negligence of those private companies who have let the infrastructure fall to pieces while paying the shareholders healthy dividends?
Yes. The clickbait in Aris article is not just the headline (who cares about the Fake Net Zero Pro Lockdown Magic Money Johnsonian Tories??). It is picking on water privatisation – a decades old utterly botched job – to sing the praises and need for a yet more ‘active’ interventionist State!! Plus a pop at the West’s deluded appeasement of China (I seem to recall a noisy Orange Man in America being derided for calling out the perils of globalism!). Cheap easy targets… Just observe the nature of our collapsing proto Socialist Welfarist Net Zero!!! It has triggered a doom loop! It is a failed system NOW. And you want more?
Maxwell.
A newspaper boss caught with his hands in the pension pot. He broke the law that said Thou shalt not steal.
From whom flowed a generation of regulations on how our pensions who should be run. Saying you can’t invest in “risky” shares or copporate bonds, but must buy “safe” government bonds paying the square root of b*****all interest.
Ergo, British pension funds which hold the lion’s share of British savings, can’t invest in British business.
And so, British businesses get bought out by foreign investors.
Which are our new colonial rulers.
“The piercing clarity of the simple-minded”. Sounds more like Occam’s razor to me.
And then sit back and watch what happens when private capital is no longer available to bail out publicly owned water infrastructure.
“The piercing clarity of the simple-minded”. Sounds more like Occam’s razor to me.
“As Labour’s exiled king Jeremy Corbyn observes with all the piercing clarity of the simple-minded, “It’s really not that complicated: stop bailing out private companies and bring our water into public ownership instead.”
Very amusing. Sometimes the clarity of the simple-minded trumps the sophistication of a frightfully well-educated ruling class. I have noticed that the higher up the ladder of educational attainment we climb, the more stupidity we encounter: But still, we must admire the emperor’s new clothes.
I see no evidence whatsoever that anyone in the Labour ruling tier, has any inclination to grab the moment and deliver what the UK population wants. Exactly like the Conservatives, they can either offer up candidates from the technocratic cabal, ‘Spreadsheet Phils’, of whom Sunak is a high functionary and Starmer and Reeves look to be exactly the same, or they offer up oddballs with some good points but also damaging baggage, like Corbyn or Johnson. Well, I don’t want any of that. Can someone, somewhere *please* offer up a group of governors who understand what we the majority populace want and actually want to deliver it, and are not batso to boot. For the avoidance of doubt, if that entails some low key grifting on their part, I can put up with that (I am, or rather was, a Tory after all so I don’t care about Carrie’s taste in gold wallpaper etc), as long as they deliver what we want. The problem with Johnson was that we got the minor misdemeanors but in fact he did not appear to want to deliver what we wanted, he just wanted to be king while he handed off actual admin to more sinister censorious evil wazir types like Hancock and Hunt (it’s just that Hancock was a bit cartoonish while Hunt is not and so a lot more damaging). And Labour is chock full of these types in all sorts of arenas including cultural.
I see no evidence whatsoever that anyone in the Labour ruling tier, has any inclination to grab the moment and deliver what the UK population wants. Exactly like the Conservatives, they can either offer up candidates from the technocratic cabal, ‘Spreadsheet Phils’, of whom Sunak is a high functionary and Starmer and Reeves look to be exactly the same, or they offer up oddballs with some good points but also damaging baggage, like Corbyn or Johnson. Well, I don’t want any of that. Can someone, somewhere *please* offer up a group of governors who understand what we the majority populace want and actually want to deliver it, and are not batso to boot. For the avoidance of doubt, if that entails some low key grifting on their part, I can put up with that (I am, or rather was, a Tory after all so I don’t care about Carrie’s taste in gold wallpaper etc), as long as they deliver what we want. The problem with Johnson was that we got the minor misdemeanors but in fact he did not appear to want to deliver what we wanted, he just wanted to be king while he handed off actual admin to more sinister censorious evil wazir types like Hancock and Hunt (it’s just that Hancock was a bit cartoonish while Hunt is not and so a lot more damaging). And Labour is chock full of these types in all sorts of arenas including cultural.
The clear out needs to include senior civil servants for whom our nominal elected leaders are merely their front.
The clear out needs to include senior civil servants for whom our nominal elected leaders are merely their front.
Can’t disagree with any of this – but, that said, you don’t get much more neo-liberal elitist than Keir Starmer, so it’s hard to see how he represents any kind of solution.
Sooner or later someone has to recognise that, whilst immigration is often a good thing when manageable numbers are involved, the flood we’re experiencing now is destroying the economy and the entire social fabric of this country. When essential workers (as distinct from bankers and lawyers) can no longer find decent accommodation the system has utterly failed and needs urgent reform. All Labour will do is make things worse. Everyone knows this.
Can’t disagree with any of this – but, that said, you don’t get much more neo-liberal elitist than Keir Starmer, so it’s hard to see how he represents any kind of solution.
Sooner or later someone has to recognise that, whilst immigration is often a good thing when manageable numbers are involved, the flood we’re experiencing now is destroying the economy and the entire social fabric of this country. When essential workers (as distinct from bankers and lawyers) can no longer find decent accommodation the system has utterly failed and needs urgent reform. All Labour will do is make things worse. Everyone knows this.
There are some good points in this article. Many privatisations were botched, and we clearly shouldn’t rely on foreign countries for anything essential, or allow foreigners to extract wealth from the U.K. We also clearly need to build more houses.
But the world isn’t nearly as simple as Aris would like it to be. Creeping authoritarianism and demographic changes don’t get a mention, nor does rampant money printing and our unsustainable Ponzi-style social security model.
Post-war, pre-Thatcher Britain was not “a country which in retrospect seems to have functioned perfectly well”. It was rife with socialist dysfunction, which ultimately let the lights go out, left bodies unburied, and took us to the brink of bankruptcy.
Meanwhile, Aris would cripple us by worrying about non-problems. There is no “looming need to replace fossil fuels“. It’s important only to the extent that we care about local air quality and reliance on foreign energy suppliers. But air quality is better than it’s been in decades, and sensible stockpiling combined with diverse sourcing and domestic extraction can keep us supplied with oil & gas (and coal for emergencies).
Long term, we should look to nuclear and electrified rail, not turbines, panels and batteries (which are just as reliant on foreign resources as internal combustion engines are).
An “active” state can’t conjure a functioning industrial base when energy is expensive.
Carbon Cult Socialism won’t solve the problems of Carbon Cult Corporatism.
There are some good points in this article. Many privatisations were botched, and we clearly shouldn’t rely on foreign countries for anything essential, or allow foreigners to extract wealth from the U.K. We also clearly need to build more houses.
But the world isn’t nearly as simple as Aris would like it to be. Creeping authoritarianism and demographic changes don’t get a mention, nor does rampant money printing and our unsustainable Ponzi-style social security model.
Post-war, pre-Thatcher Britain was not “a country which in retrospect seems to have functioned perfectly well”. It was rife with socialist dysfunction, which ultimately let the lights go out, left bodies unburied, and took us to the brink of bankruptcy.
Meanwhile, Aris would cripple us by worrying about non-problems. There is no “looming need to replace fossil fuels“. It’s important only to the extent that we care about local air quality and reliance on foreign energy suppliers. But air quality is better than it’s been in decades, and sensible stockpiling combined with diverse sourcing and domestic extraction can keep us supplied with oil & gas (and coal for emergencies).
Long term, we should look to nuclear and electrified rail, not turbines, panels and batteries (which are just as reliant on foreign resources as internal combustion engines are).
An “active” state can’t conjure a functioning industrial base when energy is expensive.
Carbon Cult Socialism won’t solve the problems of Carbon Cult Corporatism.
I think I’d rather have dodgy water and polluted rivers than a generation of kids being raised by a Labour state on the idea that some women have a p***s and white people are evil. The culture wars aren’t a distraction, they are tomorrow’s problems being decided today.
I think I’d rather have dodgy water and polluted rivers than a generation of kids being raised by a Labour state on the idea that some women have a p***s and white people are evil. The culture wars aren’t a distraction, they are tomorrow’s problems being decided today.
And here they come. During COVID, the state failed miserably but finally showed us that it is transforming itself, rather rapidly, into a fascist metastatic cancer, crushing any resistance through fear mongering, censorship, propaganda and force if necessary. Now, the same state is to take full control of economy with obvious consequences to property rights, control of currency, fully enslaving the population in the process. We will just happily march, together of course, to save the planet or whatever and anyone who would want to live as a sovereign individual will crushed. It is not often in life that we have a chance of a full preview of the future, but COVID gave us this unusual opportunity. But apparently it did not matter. The statist shills are out in full force again.
And here they come. During COVID, the state failed miserably but finally showed us that it is transforming itself, rather rapidly, into a fascist metastatic cancer, crushing any resistance through fear mongering, censorship, propaganda and force if necessary. Now, the same state is to take full control of economy with obvious consequences to property rights, control of currency, fully enslaving the population in the process. We will just happily march, together of course, to save the planet or whatever and anyone who would want to live as a sovereign individual will crushed. It is not often in life that we have a chance of a full preview of the future, but COVID gave us this unusual opportunity. But apparently it did not matter. The statist shills are out in full force again.
Um, to whom is Roussinos as “our tribe”?
Anyway, he’s missing the point. The struggle isn’t between “liberals” (whatever that means) and “conservatives”. It’s between people alert to the bloodsucking vampire of corporate power and willing to do try and do something about it, and those who are not. You’ll find people across the old, defunct, political spectrum on both sides.
Nationalising stuff only creates more opportunities for corporations to extract more value through contracting. Just look at the NHS. Regulated monopolies are a licence for corporate profiteering, and in many cases lack of regulation allows corporations to tend towards monopoly.
So perhaps what is needed is radical reform to the laws of incorporation themselves, with the aim of empowering the individual *natural person* over the body corporate?
Here’s some ideas to knock around. No more unlimited liability, except in strictly defined circumstances, for corporations exceeding a small size. A supercharged, properly and ferociously independent competition authority willing to step in and prevent, for example, Google dominating in the way it does – even if it means short term inconvenience for some. Laser focus on closing tax loopholes, and a strict limitation on the extent foreign incorporated bodies can do business in the UK (bye bye Amazon S.à r.l). Tax tending towards 100% for corporate returns on equity exceeding a certain level for larger corporates. No more tax relief on corporate debt servicing costs, to reduce the value of leverage (if homeowners can no longer tax deduct mortgage interest payments, why can corporates deduct their debt costs?). Stricter rules on purpose of incorporation – make them state a specific well-defined purpose and make them stick to it (that would help curb egregious wokery, too).
The above need debating, refinement, and finessing to get the detail right. But something along these lines would surely win massive popular support if articulated and presented properly. Why does no-one do it? Because whether you’re Labour, Conservative, Green, or Reform, you don’t bite the hand that feeds you.
Yes, let’s destroy all productive activity and investment altogether. After all, we don’t need it – we have the property market to make us rich, eh?
Yes, let’s destroy all productive activity and investment altogether. After all, we don’t need it – we have the property market to make us rich, eh?
Um, to whom is Roussinos as “our tribe”?
Anyway, he’s missing the point. The struggle isn’t between “liberals” (whatever that means) and “conservatives”. It’s between people alert to the bloodsucking vampire of corporate power and willing to do try and do something about it, and those who are not. You’ll find people across the old, defunct, political spectrum on both sides.
Nationalising stuff only creates more opportunities for corporations to extract more value through contracting. Just look at the NHS. Regulated monopolies are a licence for corporate profiteering, and in many cases lack of regulation allows corporations to tend towards monopoly.
So perhaps what is needed is radical reform to the laws of incorporation themselves, with the aim of empowering the individual *natural person* over the body corporate?
Here’s some ideas to knock around. No more unlimited liability, except in strictly defined circumstances, for corporations exceeding a small size. A supercharged, properly and ferociously independent competition authority willing to step in and prevent, for example, Google dominating in the way it does – even if it means short term inconvenience for some. Laser focus on closing tax loopholes, and a strict limitation on the extent foreign incorporated bodies can do business in the UK (bye bye Amazon S.à r.l). Tax tending towards 100% for corporate returns on equity exceeding a certain level for larger corporates. No more tax relief on corporate debt servicing costs, to reduce the value of leverage (if homeowners can no longer tax deduct mortgage interest payments, why can corporates deduct their debt costs?). Stricter rules on purpose of incorporation – make them state a specific well-defined purpose and make them stick to it (that would help curb egregious wokery, too).
The above need debating, refinement, and finessing to get the detail right. But something along these lines would surely win massive popular support if articulated and presented properly. Why does no-one do it? Because whether you’re Labour, Conservative, Green, or Reform, you don’t bite the hand that feeds you.
Have the civil service and a bunch of second rate town councillors make all the investment decisions. What could possibly go wrong? This is not a useful contribution to the debate about where we go from here.
Because the current system run by self proclaimed experts has worked a treat hasn’t it!
Because the current system run by self proclaimed experts has worked a treat hasn’t it!
Have the civil service and a bunch of second rate town councillors make all the investment decisions. What could possibly go wrong? This is not a useful contribution to the debate about where we go from here.
Socialist are never short of promises about how much better the state is than private enterprise and astonishingly they get away with it because people think that socialism is not the same as communism.
Socialism isn’t the same as communism. Socialist societies are still largely capitalist, however parts that are used by everybody in it (healthcare, infrastructure, utilities etc) are generally under public ownership as are some key industries such as the Norwegian oil and gas industry. They generally have higher taxes on the wealthy to pay for these things, most of Scandinavia fits under the socialist model.
Communist countries have no private enterprise, everything from shops to factories is owned by the state, with any profits divided between the population in the form of wages, at least in theory. Of course we all know that this doesn’t work in practice
People forget the was a waiting list to have a phone installed in your home and even then you had to pay rent for it
That was due to the infrastructure not yet being there. Is it any different now with the broadband? The UK lags most developed nations with its fibre coverage, most of my family don’t yet have fibre installed up to their houses after all, the last leg still comes down the old copper cable. I’ve had it in NZ for years.
That was due to the infrastructure not yet being there. Is it any different now with the broadband? The UK lags most developed nations with its fibre coverage, most of my family don’t yet have fibre installed up to their houses after all, the last leg still comes down the old copper cable. I’ve had it in NZ for years.
Socialism isn’t the same as communism. Socialist societies are still largely capitalist, however parts that are used by everybody in it (healthcare, infrastructure, utilities etc) are generally under public ownership as are some key industries such as the Norwegian oil and gas industry. They generally have higher taxes on the wealthy to pay for these things, most of Scandinavia fits under the socialist model.
Communist countries have no private enterprise, everything from shops to factories is owned by the state, with any profits divided between the population in the form of wages, at least in theory. Of course we all know that this doesn’t work in practice
People forget the was a waiting list to have a phone installed in your home and even then you had to pay rent for it
Socialist are never short of promises about how much better the state is than private enterprise and astonishingly they get away with it because people think that socialism is not the same as communism.
Genuine question.
Why would it cost billions to nationalise a company on the brink of financial collapse?
For the companies to continue, they would need to service their debts and make sufficient investment in their creaking infrastructure that they would stop polluting every river and beach in the country.
Put those together and I don’t see that the companies could be worth anything at all. If Thames ends up in administration, then the shareholders would be wiped out and the debt holders would surely take a massive haircut. That, after all, is the entire point of administration.
What then emerges is a much less indebted company which the Government could nationalise for very little.
Now, you could argue that forcing the banks to write off tens of billions in debts would have a chilling effect on investment. And perhaps that’s true but, at a time where the Government is so keen to tamp down the money supply that it is letting the BoE use interest rates to quell rampant inflation, maybe that isn’t a bad thing…
Genuinely confused by all of this.
Genuine question.
Why would it cost billions to nationalise a company on the brink of financial collapse?
For the companies to continue, they would need to service their debts and make sufficient investment in their creaking infrastructure that they would stop polluting every river and beach in the country.
Put those together and I don’t see that the companies could be worth anything at all. If Thames ends up in administration, then the shareholders would be wiped out and the debt holders would surely take a massive haircut. That, after all, is the entire point of administration.
What then emerges is a much less indebted company which the Government could nationalise for very little.
Now, you could argue that forcing the banks to write off tens of billions in debts would have a chilling effect on investment. And perhaps that’s true but, at a time where the Government is so keen to tamp down the money supply that it is letting the BoE use interest rates to quell rampant inflation, maybe that isn’t a bad thing…
Genuinely confused by all of this.
Thames water should go bankrupt. It’s assets sold off and creditors given whatever proceeds come of that. The shareholders, not the British taxpayers, should take the losses.
Can I please have the erstwhile CEO cry on my shoulder?… pleeeeeease?
Can I please have the erstwhile CEO cry on my shoulder?… pleeeeeease?
Thames water should go bankrupt. It’s assets sold off and creditors given whatever proceeds come of that. The shareholders, not the British taxpayers, should take the losses.
“Northern Ireland water system so bad it risks economic recovery, Minister warns”. Belfast Live, 4th October 2021.
“Northern Ireland water system so bad it risks economic recovery, Minister warns”. Belfast Live, 4th October 2021.
The Conservative Party does not exist to serve the British people. As the coup that replaced Truss shows it does not even serve to reflect the views of Conservative Party members. The Conservative Party exists to serve the interests of its funders, be they foreign criminals or not, and the interests of the organisations and companies with which top Conservative politicians hope to find employment. .
The Conservative Party does not exist to serve the British people. As the coup that replaced Truss shows it does not even serve to reflect the views of Conservative Party members. The Conservative Party exists to serve the interests of its funders, be they foreign criminals or not, and the interests of the organisations and companies with which top Conservative politicians hope to find employment. .
We have a shining example of the benefits that State ownership and control brings to an industry and proves that nationalisation is a guarantee of success – the National Health Service.
Oh Dear!!!
Seems remiss to use the NHS as an example of public ownership being bad when you’ve got the privately run American system to compare it to
Seems remiss to use the NHS as an example of public ownership being bad when you’ve got the privately run American system to compare it to
We have a shining example of the benefits that State ownership and control brings to an industry and proves that nationalisation is a guarantee of success – the National Health Service.
Oh Dear!!!
I do wonder if the author isn’t making a category error in assuming that the results of [YouGov] surveys represent the real opinions and priorities of people more than they way they vote in actual elections.
It is well known that responses to opinion surveys are “consequence free” as participants are aware that no change will actually result. Also that they may include a large amount of transient emotion.
Do the majority of people in the UK really believe that nationalised railways would be better ? I’m sceptical.
The real challenges here are more with the regulation, planning and management of these businesses (railways, water, etc) than the actual ownership. And the fundamental errors in these domains are at least as much on the government/civil service/quango side as with the private companies. Can you really blame private companies for taking advantage of regulatory opportunities that happen to come their way through lack of competence or adequate thought by the regulators ?
Given the quality of the government and civil service over the past decade, I wouldn’t be betting on the assumption that they’re part of the solution.Do less and do it better. Only give them more to do once they’ve proved they can do the basics.
I do wonder if the author isn’t making a category error in assuming that the results of [YouGov] surveys represent the real opinions and priorities of people more than they way they vote in actual elections.
It is well known that responses to opinion surveys are “consequence free” as participants are aware that no change will actually result. Also that they may include a large amount of transient emotion.
Do the majority of people in the UK really believe that nationalised railways would be better ? I’m sceptical.
The real challenges here are more with the regulation, planning and management of these businesses (railways, water, etc) than the actual ownership. And the fundamental errors in these domains are at least as much on the government/civil service/quango side as with the private companies. Can you really blame private companies for taking advantage of regulatory opportunities that happen to come their way through lack of competence or adequate thought by the regulators ?
Given the quality of the government and civil service over the past decade, I wouldn’t be betting on the assumption that they’re part of the solution.Do less and do it better. Only give them more to do once they’ve proved they can do the basics.
The Thames Water predicament a microcosm of what is potentially wrong with the neo-liberal capitalism consensus. £72b removed in shareholder divided whilst failing to invest in basics. Now this does not mean no dividend should be paid. It’s about the balance and that feels completely wrong given where we are now.
Picked up over weekend that potentially Thames Water has also borrowed from Shareholders. Can anyone confirm? This would mean some shareholders both get a dividend and then interest on what they’ve loaned. And all the time know the Govt (i.e us) cannot let this company implode. What a racket.
How we address such fundamentals, whilst maintaining appropriate incentives and vibrant private sector, is perhaps what we need Left and Right to really engage with. How we’ve set up fiduciary responsibility is arguably too limited and warrants some balancing responsibility. We must tread carefully of course, but some fundamentals of our form of capitalism do not work for the majority.
“Free movement of labour and capital” being the most salient example (as well as, in itself, a straightforward lie: there’s no such thing as ‘free movement of labour’)
Obviously slightly off the point on privatised utilities, but remember Margaret Thatcher instrumental in the Single Market which always included free movement. Now I suspect you had no problem with that until post Lisbon. There is a debate about whether UK should have taken up the limitation options at that point. Nonetheless as we have found even when no longer subject to EU rules we’ve granted almost 3 times the legal right to come and work here.
I think you’re confusing me with someone else – as old folks often do. Never mind. I was too young to have an opinion on this when Thatcher was in power.
You put your finger on the extraordinary socio-economic convulsions and contradictions within the UK economy experienced over the past 40 years. First we had Thatchers rampant global capitalism, purging the over unionized sick man of Europe. But then came the twin shocks of Blairism. He embraced both capitalism (its job was to fund his social engineering project) and the EU’s Super Capitalist Single Market (which – gee thanks Tony – utterly shattered our national labour market) right up to the 2008 Crash. But he had also let the EU’s crushing bureaucratic precautionary anti innovation laws, codes and technocratic order seep into our bloodstream, so chokimg enterprise and generally poisoning our society with welfarism & a grievance/entitlement culture. So we have two or three conflicting systems spinning madly in a blender. Guess which has prevailed? The Blairite Blob and Technocratic Order has simply suffocated the old enterprise culture (hello lockdown, hello punishing taxes). Thatch is buried. It is a joke to see us as some neo liberal Reaganite state!! We look and have behaved since 97 more like a grubby East German GDR. And Aris wants more State still!!!
Another remarkable treatise WM where you seem to inhabit some parallel Universe where in fact Labour has been in power the last 13yrs rather the Tories and especially 7years of Brexiteer leadership. As I say remarkable.
I do appreciate it is deeply painful to have witnessed and been party too such abject failure of ideas and practical government. Unherd certainly though makes me aware this convulsion for many on the Right generates hallucinations for them where somehow they aren’t to blame at all.
You can’t answer his points, so – yet again and tiresomely as usual – you rely on a blend of insult and shallow debating points for your rejoinder – a thoroughly devious and disreputable recourse. You bleat that “the Tories” have been in power all this time. You pretend that it has been seven years of Brexit: Such statements are either outright false or seriously misleading. Everyone knows that the left-drifting “Tories” have flinched from properly “neo-liberal” policy for years; and as a result they have botched Brexit – no bonfire of quangos; no bonfire of regulations. Everyone equally knows that most Tory MPs did not want Brexit before it happened and complacently assumed it was beaten until the results filtered through. The truth, then, is that the left and centre-left – sometimes in Tory clothing – has continued in power without serious disruption from 97 on. Until and unless you start to accept these simple facts your contributions will remain worthless.
You can’t answer his points, so – yet again and tiresomely as usual – you rely on a blend of insult and shallow debating points for your rejoinder – a thoroughly devious and disreputable recourse. You bleat that “the Tories” have been in power all this time. You pretend that it has been seven years of Brexit: Such statements are either outright false or seriously misleading. Everyone knows that the left-drifting “Tories” have flinched from properly “neo-liberal” policy for years; and as a result they have botched Brexit – no bonfire of quangos; no bonfire of regulations. Everyone equally knows that most Tory MPs did not want Brexit before it happened and complacently assumed it was beaten until the results filtered through. The truth, then, is that the left and centre-left – sometimes in Tory clothing – has continued in power without serious disruption from 97 on. Until and unless you start to accept these simple facts your contributions will remain worthless.
Well said. Ignore the insult-ridden puerilities of your antagonist. He specialises in mere posturing.
Another remarkable treatise WM where you seem to inhabit some parallel Universe where in fact Labour has been in power the last 13yrs rather the Tories and especially 7years of Brexiteer leadership. As I say remarkable.
I do appreciate it is deeply painful to have witnessed and been party too such abject failure of ideas and practical government. Unherd certainly though makes me aware this convulsion for many on the Right generates hallucinations for them where somehow they aren’t to blame at all.
Well said. Ignore the insult-ridden puerilities of your antagonist. He specialises in mere posturing.
I think you’re confusing me with someone else – as old folks often do. Never mind. I was too young to have an opinion on this when Thatcher was in power.
You put your finger on the extraordinary socio-economic convulsions and contradictions within the UK economy experienced over the past 40 years. First we had Thatchers rampant global capitalism, purging the over unionized sick man of Europe. But then came the twin shocks of Blairism. He embraced both capitalism (its job was to fund his social engineering project) and the EU’s Super Capitalist Single Market (which – gee thanks Tony – utterly shattered our national labour market) right up to the 2008 Crash. But he had also let the EU’s crushing bureaucratic precautionary anti innovation laws, codes and technocratic order seep into our bloodstream, so chokimg enterprise and generally poisoning our society with welfarism & a grievance/entitlement culture. So we have two or three conflicting systems spinning madly in a blender. Guess which has prevailed? The Blairite Blob and Technocratic Order has simply suffocated the old enterprise culture (hello lockdown, hello punishing taxes). Thatch is buried. It is a joke to see us as some neo liberal Reaganite state!! We look and have behaved since 97 more like a grubby East German GDR. And Aris wants more State still!!!
Obviously slightly off the point on privatised utilities, but remember Margaret Thatcher instrumental in the Single Market which always included free movement. Now I suspect you had no problem with that until post Lisbon. There is a debate about whether UK should have taken up the limitation options at that point. Nonetheless as we have found even when no longer subject to EU rules we’ve granted almost 3 times the legal right to come and work here.
“Free movement of labour and capital” being the most salient example (as well as, in itself, a straightforward lie: there’s no such thing as ‘free movement of labour’)
The Thames Water predicament a microcosm of what is potentially wrong with the neo-liberal capitalism consensus. £72b removed in shareholder divided whilst failing to invest in basics. Now this does not mean no dividend should be paid. It’s about the balance and that feels completely wrong given where we are now.
Picked up over weekend that potentially Thames Water has also borrowed from Shareholders. Can anyone confirm? This would mean some shareholders both get a dividend and then interest on what they’ve loaned. And all the time know the Govt (i.e us) cannot let this company implode. What a racket.
How we address such fundamentals, whilst maintaining appropriate incentives and vibrant private sector, is perhaps what we need Left and Right to really engage with. How we’ve set up fiduciary responsibility is arguably too limited and warrants some balancing responsibility. We must tread carefully of course, but some fundamentals of our form of capitalism do not work for the majority.
“Starmer must harness the power of the state”
Yes I know the quote is the sub-head but it is the nub of the argument. Unfortunately the Government (tired Conservatives or fragile Labour) is run by the Bureaucrats who naturally resist anything that might be adventurous or generate criticism.
So, yes, water could be nationalised but that would merely mean that the money extracted by bloated plutocrats would instead be squandered by bloated bureaucrats. The industry would still be starved of capital.
Perhaps the sub-head should have read: “The power of the state must harness Starmer” – although that conjures up a different meaning entirely.
At least the money would stay in the country. If the UK is going to fork out billions for a poorly performing utility surely it’s better that money goes to UK citizens rather than disappearing offshore?
At least the money would stay in the country. If the UK is going to fork out billions for a poorly performing utility surely it’s better that money goes to UK citizens rather than disappearing offshore?
“Starmer must harness the power of the state”
Yes I know the quote is the sub-head but it is the nub of the argument. Unfortunately the Government (tired Conservatives or fragile Labour) is run by the Bureaucrats who naturally resist anything that might be adventurous or generate criticism.
So, yes, water could be nationalised but that would merely mean that the money extracted by bloated plutocrats would instead be squandered by bloated bureaucrats. The industry would still be starved of capital.
Perhaps the sub-head should have read: “The power of the state must harness Starmer” – although that conjures up a different meaning entirely.
A great piece, sabotaged by a headline that would only repel the conservative friends I would like to share it with.
UnHerd seems to unable to resist clickbait cheap-shot titles. They got me again!
UnHerd seems to unable to resist clickbait cheap-shot titles. They got me again!
A great piece, sabotaged by a headline that would only repel the conservative friends I would like to share it with.
We already have a National Socialist government, so the man from the butlers pantry will just make our slide into woke totalitarianism a tad quicker… ” Ah .. Starmer… I think we’ll have the Quinta Noval ’63 tonight”…
We already have a National Socialist government, so the man from the butlers pantry will just make our slide into woke totalitarianism a tad quicker… ” Ah .. Starmer… I think we’ll have the Quinta Noval ’63 tonight”…
The problem is the likes of this author use an example where privatisation went too far (water companies) to push for even more government spending, on areas which don’t need government interference or simply hiring public sector employees, in a country where the government’s share of spending and labour force is already too high.
The problem is the likes of this author use an example where privatisation went too far (water companies) to push for even more government spending, on areas which don’t need government interference or simply hiring public sector employees, in a country where the government’s share of spending and labour force is already too high.
Aris is correct that our political class lacks both courage and vision. However, his choice of the water industry as his lead example merely shows he knows almost nothing about how the water industry operates.
The water companies are essentially sub-contractors to the regulator, who dictates investment, charges, profit margins and leak and sewage release targets. That regulator is, of course, part of the public sector that Aris thinks could run the industry better.
Of course water is cheaper in Scotland. There’s a lot more of it and a lot fewer customers. If things appear to be better in Scotland, that’s simply because they barely monitor storm overflows and the Scottish Government has no interest in encouraging greater scrutiny.
https://capx.co/knee-jerk-nationalisers-have-no-idea-how-the-water-industry-actually-works/
Aris is correct that our political class lacks both courage and vision. However, his choice of the water industry as his lead example merely shows he knows almost nothing about how the water industry operates.
The water companies are essentially sub-contractors to the regulator, who dictates investment, charges, profit margins and leak and sewage release targets. That regulator is, of course, part of the public sector that Aris thinks could run the industry better.
Of course water is cheaper in Scotland. There’s a lot more of it and a lot fewer customers. If things appear to be better in Scotland, that’s simply because they barely monitor storm overflows and the Scottish Government has no interest in encouraging greater scrutiny.
https://capx.co/knee-jerk-nationalisers-have-no-idea-how-the-water-industry-actually-works/
A civilisation declines when the ruling class lacks ingenuity and fortitude and denigrates those who possess them because they are show them to be indequate. Everything I have achieved has been in desopite of experts and not because of them- B Wallis. Success is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration- Edison.
Why are those who influence public opinion so ignorant of history ? Khaldun, Toynbee, Northcote Parkinson and J Glubb have all written about decline of civilisations and J Burke explained how at certain times in history, rapid development has taken place because of the connection between various new technologies.
A civilisation declines when the ruling class lacks ingenuity and fortitude and denigrates those who possess them because they are show them to be indequate. Everything I have achieved has been in desopite of experts and not because of them- B Wallis. Success is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration- Edison.
Why are those who influence public opinion so ignorant of history ? Khaldun, Toynbee, Northcote Parkinson and J Glubb have all written about decline of civilisations and J Burke explained how at certain times in history, rapid development has taken place because of the connection between various new technologies.
In Northern Ireland, water is funded from Westminster’s block grant rather than by water charges. This expenditure means there is less available to fund health, education, and other services. The sums allocated to water in this way are less than the Regulator considers necessary to maintain and enhance the network. As a result, many towns cannot support any commercial or residential development because the water supply or wastewater systems are at or beyond the limits of their capacity. The water company, NI Water, is unable to borrow to fund long-term investment because this would count against public sector borrowing and, under Treasury rules, result in a reduction of NI’s block grant. These arrangements may differ from those elsewhere in the UK but are far from perfect.
In Northern Ireland, water is funded from Westminster’s block grant rather than by water charges. This expenditure means there is less available to fund health, education, and other services. The sums allocated to water in this way are less than the Regulator considers necessary to maintain and enhance the network. As a result, many towns cannot support any commercial or residential development because the water supply or wastewater systems are at or beyond the limits of their capacity. The water company, NI Water, is unable to borrow to fund long-term investment because this would count against public sector borrowing and, under Treasury rules, result in a reduction of NI’s block grant. These arrangements may differ from those elsewhere in the UK but are far from perfect.
Come back to us in five years.
“Must harness the power of the state,” should send a shiver down the spine of any genuine liberal-minded person who values individualism over collectivism.
Harnessing the power of the state to achieve an idealised vision of how society ought to look has been the mindset of collectivists from Mussolini to Stalin to Castro. We, as a freedom-loving people, must resist such threats to our liberty with every nerve and sinew.
The state has never been so big and powerful as it is today, even during the last War. Covid has given us a massive dose of war socialism and as a result we have spending commitments we cannot afford and borrowing at record levels causing inflation, alongside high taxes hindering growth. Anyone who thinks more of the same is the solution is not fit to vote, let alone write a column.
States have a terrible record of growing economies and planned economies have always been weak; worse still, they always lead to authoritarian rule for a planned economy needs a planner. Look at Eastern Europe, China, Israel, India, Vietnam… we have living examples of states who had terrible economies until they opened them up to more competition and free enterprise. Have we learnt nothing from the 20th Century? It would seem so.
“In both Scotland and Northern Ireland, water remained under state control: bills are lower”
But income tax in Scotland is higher.
The analysis doesn’t seem very detail-oriented.
Everything was fine up until 2019 and then the plandemic hit, and WEF launched it global reset and all of a sudden everything they predicted is happening in a few short years. The global families who run everything and have setup the system are extremely intelligent and there is no way they would let governments fail or systems unless they wanted it to be so! This is planned and it’s so easy to see, they are moving us to slavery or communism, with huge potential ramifications for populations. All the conspiracy theories are coming true, therefore I have no reason to doubt the 90% population reduction through agenda 21, the clock has been set by King Charles and sadiq khan, if you think they want us plebs around to ruin there resources good luck on that. Those still not awake yet soon will be! No food and water, limited resources all part of climate change, , you lot are so stupid you will believe anything a journalist or professor writes. Education was setup for the indoctrination of idiots.
Everything was fine up until 2019 and then the plandemic hit, and WEF launched it global reset and all of a sudden everything they predicted is happening in a few short years. The global families who run everything and have setup the system are extremely intelligent and there is no way they would let governments fail or systems unless they wanted it to be so! This is planned and it’s so easy to see, they are moving us to slavery or communism, with huge potential ramifications for populations. All the conspiracy theories are coming true, therefore I have no reason to doubt the 90% population reduction through agenda 21, the clock has been set by King Charles and sadiq khan, if you think they want us plebs around to ruin there resources good luck on that. Those still not awake yet soon will be! No food and water, limited resources all part of climate change, , you lot are so stupid you will believe anything a journalist or professor writes. Education was setup for the indoctrination of idiots.