The sheer folly of thinking that the Royal Mail could be privatised was always madness. It is a utility. These need to be in public ownership.
And yes, that does mean I think water, gas, electricity, much of public transport, basic banking and the telecoms infrastrcxutrue does also need to be publicly owned.
What\’s missing is any argument as to why a utility should be in public ownership.
I can understand at least the arguments for having public ownership of natural monopolies. Say, the National Grid. But why electricity generation? There\’re no monopoly issues there. I can also understand (and prefer) the arguments that regulation of such natural monopolies is better than public ownership.
But what arguments are there, other than simple assertion, that utilities should be in public ownership?
We can\’t even use the argument that private business would provide socially sub optimal levels of investment in them: investment in the water companies went up after privatisation. Indeed, that was the very reason they were privatised, the government of the day didn\’t want to have to pay.
We can\’t even say that public companies are more efficient….again, with water, the most efficient system is England, privately owned but regulated local monopolies, then Wales, a mutually owned company, then Scotland, a government owned company then NI, with direct government supply. This is measuring "efficient " by less wastage, better environmental results and least cost.
So what is the argument that utilities should be in public ownership?