kernow

Although I am against Nationalisation in general, ( Remember the Railways?) I now think it would be a good idea to have life's essentials, light , heat and water in public ownership. Here in the Southwest 3% of the Countrys population pay 30% of the Countrys Water Bill. No private company, especialy "Johny Foreigner" should be able to hold our Country to ransom over any of life'e essentials.

Tom Collier

I concur. Public utilities should be, er, public.

mkpdavies

I think we should look at all models used around the world and use the ones that work best, whether that be national, private or a bit of both.

Certainly we should make sure that Britain is totally self suficient on in these vital areas.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Paul Birch

But what do you mean by "public" ownership? If you mean control by (a) politicians, (b) governmental or quasi-governmental bureaucrats, or (c) public sector unions, backed by subsidies exacted from taxpayers under threat of force, or the regulatory exclusion of competition, then that is a recipe for gross inefficiency, appalling service and long-term oppression. Almost anything is better than that - especially for life's essentials.

The solution is always a free market, with no regulatory barriers to competition, and no special subsidies or taxes. If not-for-profit trusts, state or municipal ownership, or any other "public sector" arrangement, can cut it on the proverbial level playing field, that's fine. It really doesn't matter who owns the firms - in a free market they will end up providing essentially the same services at the same price whoever owns them, because if they didn't they'd lose business and get taken over or go bust.

If the infrastructure is physically in this country, he can't.

kernow

[quote="Paul Birch"]But what do you mean by "public" ownership?

I might be looked upon as naive, but in my opinion life's essentials should be be provided through taxes by the Country you live in and not by a profit making private company, especialy a foreign company.

FireHorse

Actually that's not true. The French for example, own a least 1 water company, and they brought over many French nationals to run the facilities, so they could easy 'arrange' things if they saw fit. And in any case, why should the money from our utilities go abroad?

Paul Birch

Was that supposed to answer my question? It doesn't, you know.

Naive? Yes, extremely. If that's what you believe, why don't you go and live with your comrades in the Soviet Union? Oh, wait. You can't. It collapsed.

I presume you also want food shops abolished and replaced by state rationing? After all, what's more essential than food? Well, I've good news for you there - that's still the way they do it in North Korea. Of course, they are starving, but it must be worth it knowing that no foreigners could ever - gasp! - make a profit out of serving you.

Alex McKee

But will you agree, Paul, that it is probably a better idea to source food from the UK where it is produced to our standard, we have control over it's production and can ensure it is safe.

Will you also agree that it is inheritantly foolish to be reliant upon other nations for some 60%-70% of all food consumed in the UK today?

Paul Birch

How? If they ever threatened to deprive British people of water, the army would take control of the facilities, or the company's shares would be compulsorily sold off, or its franchises cancelled, etc. And in a free market competitors would rapidly take over its market share. But it's all silly, anyhow. These are commercial enterprises, in it mostly for the money; they're not going to cut their own throats by what would in effect be an act of war.

Why shouldn't it? They're not "our" utilities if someone else has paid good money to buy them from us (or from whoever invested the capital that built them) - except in the very limited sense that the pub you happen to drink in is "your" pub.

Paul Birch

No, not really (except insofar as this would happen in a free market anyway). There is no reason to suppose that UK food will be better or safer than foreign food, and very strong reason to suppose that it will be worse and less safe if there is no free competition to keep it up to scratch. Government regulation is worse than useless.

I would if such a situation existed. But it doesn't, and in a free market almost certainly never would. We would only be "reliant" if we were physically incapable of producing enough food in time to keep us from starving if all food imports suddenly ceased. That is very far from being the case.