This is from the Guardian's morning email, which is one of many I subscribe to:
Why note it? Simply because nationalisation is back on the agenda, with Thames Water quite likely to beat either of these into state ownership.
With Labour's total inability to do strategic thinking a factor to take into account in this, I am not confident that we will see all the hoped for benefits from these nationalisations, but we can live in hope. That the state can be seen as an alternative is a welcome start. What we need is to move beyond that being seen as an answer in itself. New business models are also required.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Labour have already said that they are not nationalising the rolling stock leasing companies (ROSCOs).
As the Guardian pointed out “Profits of UK’s private train-leasing firms treble in a year”.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/feb/18/profits-of-uks-private-train-leasing-firms-treble-in-a-year
So money that could have helped fund the railways, is still being siphoned off to the wealthy.
For the many, not the few.
There used to be ‘council houses’. I once met an officer of the Greater London Council who was responsible for demolishing an estate of prefabs that had lasted decades longer than the initial intention. He was supervising their replacement by permanent flats. ‘Houses don’t cost much to build’ he told me.
Was it that construction by a state body worked quite well but the letting and maintenance was complex? Or was it that private providers wanted more profit and Mrs Thatcher wanted them to have it?
Solely private provision does not meet the need for affordable, energy-efficient accommodation. Housing must be an area where ‘new business models are also required’.
I heard our brand new Transport Sec. Heidi Alexander talking about this. All about efficiency and productivity, but nothing about WHAT a public transport network might be for, or even WHO it might be for, or WHY.
Shouldn’t that come first?
If trains are still unaffordably expensive, overcrowded and not available to those who need them, then their “productivity” is irrelevant.
Much to agree with
The Heidi Alexander statement is another example of why the Right is winning the arguments across Europe and the US – telling a story – even if false- which relates to people’s everyday lives and experience, not merely abstract notions like ‘productivity ‘
Why do you think McSweeney engineered the defenestration of Haigh? Not ‘on message’.
Meanwhile on BBC Radio Scotland GMS there is a deeply uninformative discussion (on the one hand, on the other) between the BBC interviewer and a Fraser of Allander spokesperson about the Scottish Budget (yet to be approved in Holyrood), in which the tax problems presented by the UK Government Budget because the public sector is proportionally higher in Scotland, but the funding does not allow for it (for example the NI tax changes will deliberately lead to a loss of £200m funding from the Treasury – equivalent to near £2Bn in UK terms). The real problem here is that the funding of Scotland under the current settlement is for Westminster to pass the difficult political choices to Holyrood, while retaining the capacity for flexibility (particularly to help the lower paid) in the hands of the Treasury. This was illustrated in an inane discussion about tax thresholds in Scotland, without anyone pointing out (notably the economist who raised ‘fiscal drag’ without adequately explaining the implications), that the key personal allowance threshold at the bottom that starts the fiscal drag chain reaction, remains firmly reserved to the Treasury. This just shouldn’t happen – but it does, endlessly.
I will be keeping an eye on things this afternoon.
My comments will be in The National.
Gov ownership of the rail operating companies is one thing, what about the rolling stock?
In the case of steel, questions not asked include:
1) how much primary steel does the Uk need?
2) how much scrap steel per year is available in the Uk
3) how much scrap is exported (gotta fill those contains going back to China with something)
4)what is the UKs elec’ arc furnace (EAF) capacity?
5) if you need primary steel capacity – & move to direct reduction – why located inland? why not – on the coast near off-shore wind?
Facts: EAF produces 1/10th of the CO2 compared to normal primary reduction. SITRA report (2018) suggests that the EU could meet mostof its steel demand via scrap steel (& EAF) with primary production meeting 20% of demand. UK situation is unlikely to be so different. (& primary reduction of iron ore is about 0.5million tonnes/year in Germany – using nat gas – which means the tech is well understood).
The above begs the question: level of awareness within UK gov.
Thanks
And as to your conclusion, as ever
Thank you, Richard.
With regard to the railways, last spring, I chatted with train station employee and wondered about the lack of rolling stock at a time when there was more than usual demand. The youngster explained that 80% of the fare went to the leasing company, 15% to the government and 5% to the train operator. That led to Chiltern Railways returning two dozen carriages to the leasing company around the time.
Yesterday evening, I went to the Christmas reception of one of my professional bodies. The body was also inaugurating new digs. I chatted with the guild’s former mistress, also my former manager and a junior minister at the Treasury in the Major government. She explained how the Treasury has always wanted to scrap the winter fuel allowance, as it opposes universal benefits, long wanted to increase NICs, always presents new ministers with a shopping list in the hope of getting a couple accepted and found it easier to get Labour to accept its proposals.
My former manager, who I last worked with in 2012, but kept in touch with, likes a bit of gossip: The most senior source available at the Bank of England confirmed the veracity of the allegations about Reeves’ career. Said source, now the Bank’s most senior employee, had briefly managed Reeves on her graduate trainee rotation. The new cabinet secretary has always failed upwards. There’s a reason why he got the top job.
The veteran banksters were gloomy about not just the City, but the UK, too. Some, not just the immigrants or children of immigrants, are seeking foreign pastures. Some of the smaller foreign firms are considering leaving the UK. The larger ones are scaling back. It was interesting to observe that this group, many of whom volunteer for charitable initiatives, are more in favour of state participation and a rapprochement with the EU than the lot advising the government.
Interesting
Thanks
I am not sure of the ratios on train tickets though…
Network Rail also get a slug
Thank you, Richard.
I forgot to add that other than a couple of older African and US bankers and some young Indians and Ukrainians, there were no others from overseas. It’s interesting to observe the lack of European and even Asian attendees, whether in finance, media or embassies, at City events since covid / brexit. It really feels that Blighty is sliding into obscurity.
I think it was Brexit
Colonel, are we seeing the tangible results of a century of neglect of our soft power? Actually, ‘neglect’ is understating it… successive Governments have systematically pursued policies seriously damaging to our soft power… cuts to the BBC, privatisation of BSI and BRE, underfunding our science research, hostility to foreign students, and of course Brexit, amongst many other damaging decisions.
Soft power is so much cheaper than military might to maintain, and yet we spend so little on it.
Abandon a 450m population market, and 4% of your GDP, all of it substantive economic activity, and there is a price to pay. It is currently running at £100Bn per year, and rising. Everyone is now becoming nervous about US tariffs; this is almost comical – we effectively raised European tariffs against ourselves, just to show the world how independent we are. That was our idea of being clever. We now think we can manage Trump to our advantage. Based on our decision making process?
People are leaving? I wonder why…………
A good friend who worked for one of the largest French banks took early retirement some time after the Brexit vote. He said that all the important roles were going back to Paris or elsewhere with London having become far less important. I dont doubt that the same will have been true of the other banks. Amsterdam, Paris and Frankfurt have I understand all reported increased business at London’s expense.
Colonel Smithers says:: ……..”how the Treasury has always wanted to scrap the winter fuel allowance, as it opposes universal benefits, long wanted to increase NICs, always presents new ministers with a shopping list in the hope of getting a couple accepted and found it easier to get Labour to accept its proposals”.
This is my reading of it. Reeves is ex-Treasury and they saw their chance to use her to push through their policies and let Labour take the blame. The farmers IHT move is another. Reeves seems to be little more than a puppet for the Treasury.
Thank you, Robert.
My former manager explained how the Treasury makes no distinction between farms and estates.
Thank you, Kim and John S.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/apr/18/whitehall-blueprint-for-thames-water-nationalisation-could-see-state-take-on-bulk-of-15bn-debt?CMP=share_btn_url
It does get the assets….
It looks ominously like another ‘nice little earner’, for a private company making vast profits off of the tax payer.
Comparison of the futures of Britain and Poland.
Interesting if you can stick it through the numerous ads.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oii2zmEqWVU