The political reality is that Cameron’s speech means nothing when British Gas raises fuel bills by 8%. In the last 6 months British Gas’ parent company received £1.5billion of profit, and a 23% rise in profits made from supplying power and heating to homes. In such circumstances it is fair for the public to ask “what am I paying for?” and “who gains when I lose through the rise in the cost of living?” The more money people have to spend on essentials the less buying power they have – the less ability they have to choose which products deserve their cash.
Capitalism is the best system. It has raised more people out of poverty than any other. It has created more opportunities for social mobility than any other. And it has promoted creativity, satisfaction and discovery better than any other framework. But utility privatisation does not feel like capitalism.
Who benefits from privatisation of the utilities? Can competitive forces exist in each utility sector? If so, how can competition be created? If not, what system is best to have? These questions are worth debating. Every inflation busting price rise chips away at people’s trust in a system that thinks it’s ok for all of us to pay a few hundred quid a year more to secure £3billion profit for a company. The answers to these questions have to be based in creating the society we want to achieve, not prejudged by a certain ideology.
The Conservatives were the dominant political force of the 20th Century because we rejected dogma in favour for what works. We wanted society to be balanced. In the 1980s British battle between right and left Thatcher was the pragmatist and Scargill the fundamentalist. That is why she was politically successful, and that is why she attracted the aspirational across all classes. To quote Peter Lilley: “Thatcher’s approach was that if something was undesirable you should tackle it.” And this included taking on vested interests.
We do a disservice to the public if we refuse to ask questions because we are afraid of potential answers. The Majority Conservative site is right when it says: “Tony Blair employed the language of the Right, promising to be “tough on crime” and pursue “one nation policies”. Successful politicians occupy the whole stage, not just the over-rated centre ground.” Cameron’s words were great at making the moral case for Conservative methods, but we will only occupy the “whole stage” if the public believes our actions match the rhetoric.
Related posts:
- Making the case for “Rape Case Anonymity” of accused defendants case
- The Case Of The Spanish Economy Illustrates The Progressive Case Against The Euro
- How did Conservatives win in 1951, 1970, and 1979?
- Prison works – just not in every case
- The politically Conservative case for employee ownership
Should Conservatives consider the case for nationalising key utilities? Yes. #Costofliving http://t.co/FkX4blbS
Should Conservatives consider the case for nationalising key utilities? @betapolitics asks. http://t.co/n8PzoFnJ
New blogpost: Should Conservatives consider the case for nationalising key utilities? http://t.co/eDUmPf7V
No. ACTUALLY free mkt far better MT “@betapolitics: Should Conservatives consider nationalising key utilities? Yes http://t.co/n8PzoFnJ“
If the civil service were incapable of running a tender process then how on earth could they run a utility?
There is no simple solutions to utilities but to ask a question is one thing, but you need to put a case together that nationalisation will work.
Nick: To return to the conversation we started last night…
EVERYTHING is moving in the direction of smaller, more accountable, more responsive organisations (admittedly often within a bigger framework) eg mutuals within NHS, free schools within DfE, Job Programme within DWP.
Just because it existed in the past doesn’t mean it should in the future. Nationalised communications, water, utilities, rail – they were RUBBISH. Today I wouldn’t say it’s all perfect, but ALL of it is significantly better than they were. And do you know why – it’s because consumers demand it because they directly engage with providers.
I would very much like our public services to be pressured by the demands of their users. Because they are there to serve the public, and because innovation and improvement are driven by demand. Innovation is not driven by governments (even ones which want to be reformist). Yes I’d like more choice, easier portability, greater transparency etc etc but that comes because it’s required by proper regulation and by consumer demand.
Renationalisation is something that sounds superficially attractive (because yes, utilities etc need regulation, and markets need limits) but is just not something we should even be considering. Do we like our nationalised banks? No. Did it work in the past? No.
Is it reasonable to think that there must be an answer to private monopolies/cartels which responds to consumer demand, provides good service, and delivers accountability and transparency? Of course.
The reason I posed the question is that the current system seems to be about squeezing people for profit. The problem with utilities is that you do not tend to have much – if any – choice. Fiona, Like you I favour smaller models, but we shouldn’t be dogmatic about this as the same model will not work in every situation. I favour profit making groups providing state education, because the environment is wide and choice possible. I am not so sure you can have competition with trains, gas and water, and If you can’t have competition then you can’t get the benefits of capitalism.
Something needs to be done because the rising cost of living will hamper our chances of growing as a nation.
Thoughtful argument from @betapolitics about why Conservatives should consider re-nationalising the utilities >>> http://t.co/9V0fs1Xa
RT @Paul_t_abbott: Thoughtful argument from @betapolitics about why Conservatives should consider re-nationalising the utilities >>> http://t.co/9V0fs1Xa
#Newsnight asks what Government should do re riding utility prices. I say Tories should consider all options http://t.co/FkX4blbS