I argued on Sunday that:

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 infrastructure does also need to be publicly owned.

Some on the Right have said I did not make my case: I merely asserted it.

The case is simply stated: when there isn’t sufficient capacity within an economy to create a market in a good or service then to permit the market to supply that facility is to grant a monopoly which is likely to lead to abuse. Part of that abuse will be denial of the facility to some who have need of it, and in the case of a utility access to that facility has reached the point where that access is now considered a basic pre-condition for a decent life.

In my opinion we do not have the capacity within our economy to build duplicate and universally available utilities to support and supply:

  1. Water
  2. Clean air
  3. Roads
  4. Railways
  5. Airports
  6. Ports
  7. International transport
  8. Education
  9. Health
  10. Law and order
  11. Post
  12. Telecoms
  13. Energy
  14. The means of exchange

You can add a few more to taste.

The point is that each of these requires an infrastructure that cannot be duplicated and its cost is such that local monopoly is inevitable. In that case any overlay of market provision is to impose a cost of regulation and pretence that is hopelessly inefficient and adds simple bureaucratic burden that makes no sense: take the NHS structure as clear example.

So, honest state ownership and regulation is better for all, and more efficient in lowering the cost of supply by eliminating duplication and the payment of a ‚Äòprofit’ when none is appropriate.

  5 Responses to “Why utilities need to be in public ownership”

  1. What about the railways? Here companies compete by bidding to run the trains, and seem to get their fingers burnt in doing so.

  2. I think to make your case you need to demonstrate your point about lack of capacity rather than simply assert it!!! Don’t think you can do that with such a long and diverse list. All that does is to highlight your political leanings.

    Perhaps at the same time you might like to provide some examples of where state ownership has reduced the cost of supply. I ask only because I don’t think there are any.

  3. :neutral: Why leave out of your list the 3 essentials:
    Food, Clothing and Housing?

  4. International transport? A nationalized BA only? What a nonsense

  5. I theory I am in favour of public ownership, in practice the public sector often ends up being run by incompetents who cannot be got rid of. The problem often is not so much at the top but in the middle levels of management where a culture of mutual protection of the incompetent too often operates.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.