Meter readings

[ahinton]

At least it was a society, and not the one destroyed by Thatcher's Tory government, ("There's no such thing as society").

As I ruefully mentioned to someone some time ago, Margaret Thatcher no more actually said "who cares if you listen?" than Milton Friedman I mean Babbitt actually said "there's no such thing as society", but we'll let that one pass(!)...

You're overlooking the fact that renationalisation to create a state monopoly in energy supply would itself determine the government's own negotiating position on suppliers and prices in the market you seem to predicate everying on continuing as it does now forever.

Really? I'm not so sure about that. To begin with, there's no guarantee that the suppliers from which said government might find itself having to source supplies and services will be UK based and fall under its jurisdiction; secondly, no UK government can compel a private company, UK based or otherwise, to sell such supplies and services to it under contract to it, especially at prices that it wishes to determine. In any case, where else could a private energy firm or government procure their services and supplies other than in that market?

Another thing is the model of nationalisation used. Top-down ones (whether of the Fabian or Stalinist you-leave-it-to-us types), by paying executive salary rates and creating internal "empires", favour reinforcement of those aspects of "human nature" you see as inimical to successful operation and needs-meeting.

I would certainly see this type as doing far too little to discourage such conduct.

In the past you've dismissed bottom-up decision-making accountability on the grounds of not wanting to know, because, you've said, you're no more an owner of a nationalised industry or service than of one in private ownership

That's correct up to a point. I am not suggesting that bottom-up decision making has no place whatsoever in such structures; what I do say, however - as indeed you note here - is that I cannot - and should therefore not be expected to - participate in that bottom (if you'll pardon the expression!) because I have neither the desire nor the training and expertise to do so and I accordingly do not expect to own a slice of a cake that I do not know how to eat. If I've been insufficiently clear about that in the past, I apologise.

but you can't go on having it both ways while the present multiply duplicatory desicion-making set-up,with its false premise of consumer "choice" (which all consumers know to be false, they're just too exhausted to waste their lives perpetually chopping and changing between shysters), glibly carries on gobbling up the earth's resources in raw materials and ecological sustainability while fragmenting us all into individualised islands of unrealised creative potential substituting the fulfilments of involvement with dumbed down culture.

There has to be consumer choice of some kind in the energy supply industry, even if less of it is offered directly to the customer by government when it owns and manages that industry (and what makes you think - if indeed you do - that governments will never be shysters wheras private firms always will?); government itself has to make choices within its management and operation of "nationalised" industries (as and where and how and when and to what extent it's allowed to do so by those firms with whom it seeks to enter into supply contracts) about the sourcing of the supplies and services that it then distributes to its customer base.

That said, the fact that there is far too much abstruse and obfuscatory complexity on the part of energy suppliers today is as evident as it is with train operators and, in each case, it is fraudulently (I don't think that it's too much to describe it thus) paraded as "consumer choice" which is marketed as a "good thing". Such complexities always cost money and it's pretty obvious that those costs are passed on the the consumer as part of the supply charges, albeit not transparently, of course. It's the same with taxation, as I've probably bored the underwear off people here by mentioning previously, the only difference being that power suppliers and train operators are presently private firms and HM Treasury is not one. Simplify and streamline all of these operations and charging structures and the customer, be it of the power suppliers, train operators or taxman/woman, should be able to benefit financially as well as being far better able to see when there is - and when there is not - genuine consumer choice than is the case now. It's not consumer choice per se that's a bad thing; it's the misleading and confusing plethora of information purporting to be such that's a bad thing.

I'm at least as vehemently opposed to "gobbling up the earth's resources in raw materials and ecological sustainability" as you are but don't see that as inherently compatible, let alone synonymous, with the notion of "fragmenting us all into individualised islands of unrealised creative potential substituting the fulfilments of involvement with dumbed down culture", nor do I see the latter as necessarily being a direct outcome of the former (not that you've suggested that it is such - I say this purely because the latter directly follows the former in your sentence).

The more that individuals are encouraged to become more self-sufficient in energy requirements, the less they will find themselves strapped to the demands of large corporate suppliers, private or "nationalised"; there are obvious practical limits to the extent to which this can happen, of course, but the availability of alternative energy sources can and indeed already does make some difference in that regard and will, I suspect, continue to do so at least until such time as one of those large corporate suppliers begins to offer such sustainable power supplies, a situation of which there seems not to be the remotest likelihood at present - and even then, customers won't be inclined to swap their cheap sustainable energy for more expensive ditto supplied by such large corporate suppliers, so the latter would have to compete successfully with (i.e. undercut) the consumers if it wants to secure them as their customers.

[Frances_iom]

currently resident in one part of British Isles with a nationalised Electricity + Water industry and a private Gas monopoly supplier I can report that the latter is viewed as a typical gouging monopolist with extremely high bills - the water supplier has had years of excellent supply within their allocated budget and sees very little criticism - the Electricity supplier has over the last 15 years considerably improved reliability (at least to this part) but managed due to the complete lack of oversight + some probably illegal (but later retrospectively accepted) financial jiggery pokery involving a now ex director, amanged to get a £100M debt which needed increased standing charges + a hike in rates to pay off (+ another 30yrs!) - recently the highy reputable + profitable water company (rates based pricing with no local metering) has been merged with the Electricity supllier (whose shops were closed) in hope that the combination will have some staff savings + the better behaviour of one rub off on other.

The moral is that nationalised concerns can provide a technically excellent service but need v good oversight to prevent rogue directors - private concerns in a monopoly merely thumb their nose at customers and waste money on VIP tents + sponsoring bikes given that their allowed rates of return (over 10%) are based on the supposed capital invested

[ahinton]

At least it was a society, and not the one destroyed by Thatcher's Tory government, ("There's no such thing as society").

You're overlooking the fact that renationalisation to create a state monopoly in energy supply would itself determine the government's own negotiating position on suppliers and prices in the market you seem to predicate everying on continuing as it does now forever.

Another thing is the model of nationalisation used. Top-down ones (whether of the Fabian or Stalinist you-leave-it-to-us types), by paying executive salary rates and creating internal "empires", favour reinforcement of those aspects of "human nature" you see as inimical to successful operation and needs-meeting.

In the past you've dismissed bottom-up decision-making accountability on the grounds of not wanting to know, because, you've said, you're no more an owner of a nationalised industry or service than of one in private ownership; but you can't go on having it both ways while the present multiply duplicatory desicion-making set-up,with its false premise of consumer "choice" (which all consumers know to be false, they're just too exhausted to waste their lives perpetually chopping and changing between shysters), glibly carries on gobbling up the earth's resources in raw materials and ecological sustainability while fragmenting us all into individualised islands of unrealised creative potential substituting the fulfilments of involvement with dumbed down culture.

I thought that you'd provided a detaled response to my post #76 to which I sadly hadn't time to respond when I saw it (or even time to read it properly) but now it seems to have disappeared; quoi?...

[Serial_Apologist]

I thought that you'd provided a detaled response to my post #76 to which I sadly hadn't time to respond when I saw it (or even time to read it properly) but now it seems to have disappeared; quoi?...

Yes, sorry Alistair - I wasn't too happy with what I'd written. I'll have another go tomorrow, maybe.

[ahinton]

Yes, sorry Alistair - I wasn't too happy with what I'd written. I'll have another go tomorrow, maybe.

OK - all in good time, then!

[antongould]

Even if that were true and demonstrable, I still question whether "these days" it would be possible - even assuming that it were desirable (which I don't) broadly to replicate the manner and matter of these industries' managements and day-to-day operations from four decades ago in what was then a very different society in so many pertinent ways.


So are you suggesting that all current (sorry!) electricity suppliers are equally guilty of the perpetration of such inefficiencies?

I think we are all falling into the trap of suggesting that all nationalised companies / boards and specifically their managements were the same - they weren't. What I'm trying to demonstrate, obviously not very successfully, is that on the privatisation of electricity the wonderful babies of meter control and localised meter reading were thrown out with the bath water.
If you don't keep central records of all meters issued that follow them through to on circuit and into billing then hundreds of thousands of customers won't get billed as is now the case. Without that belt and the braces of one meter reader reading ALL the premises in a street/estate/village and reporting any not in his /her records the losses will continue and indeed grow.

On the present big 6 suppliers they all obviously suffer from this lack of national/regional control and all write off millions in unbilled and uncollected revenue ..... Some are better at billing and customer service than others but none can hold a candle to an electricity board I may have mentioned ........

[Serial_Apologist]

Really? I'm not so sure about that. To begin with, there's no guarantee that the suppliers from which said government might find itself having to source supplies and services will be UK based and fall under its jurisdiction; secondly, no UK government can compel a private company, UK based or otherwise, to sell such supplies and services to it under contract to it, especially at prices that it wishes to determine. In any case, where else could a private energy firm or government procure their services and supplies other than in that market?

The "evolution" of the market favours size, and therefore oligopoly.

I am not suggesting that bottom-up decision making has no place whatsoever in such structures; what I do say, however - as indeed you note here - is that I cannot - and should therefore not be expected to - participate in that bottom (if you'll pardon the expression!) because I have neither the desire nor the training and expertise to do so and I accordingly do not expect to own a slice of a cake that I do not know how to eat. If I've been insufficiently clear about that in the past, I apologise.

What's to apologise for?? If you're not employed in a nationalised industry it is unlikely that you will be interested in employee involvement in decision-making over the running of the company.

There has to be consumer choice of some kind in the energy supply industry, even if less of it is offered directly to the customer by government when it owns and manages that industry (and what makes you think - if indeed you do - that governments will never be shysters wheras private firms always will?); government itself has to make choices within its management and operation of "nationalised" industries (as and where and how and when and to what extent it's allowed to do so by those firms with whom it seeks to enter into supply contracts) about the sourcing of the supplies and services that it then distributes to its customer base.

The utopian share ownership democracy has proved less amenable to change than elections because under the existing system shareholders have more of an interest in maintaining the managerial status quo than electorates. My own belief is that Keith Joseph and Mrs Thatcher knew this would turn out to be the case all along.

That said, the fact that there is far too much abstruse and obfuscatory complexity on the part of energy suppliers today is as evident as it is with train operators and, in each case, it is fraudulently (I don't think that it's too much to describe it thus) paraded as "consumer choice" which is marketed as a "good thing". Such complexities always cost money and it's pretty obvious that those costs are passed on the the consumer as part of the supply charges, albeit not transparently, of course. It's the same with taxation, as I've probably bored the underwear off people here by mentioning previously, the only difference being that power suppliers and train operators are presently private firms and HM Treasury is not one. Simplify and streamline all of these operations and charging structures and the customer, be it of the power suppliers, train operators or taxman/woman, should be able to benefit financially as well as being far better able to see when there is - and when there is not - genuine consumer choice than is the case now. It's not consumer choice per se that's a bad thing; it's the misleading and confusing plethora of information purporting to be such that's a bad thing.

Growing complexity is in-built, and in consequence nobody, even making use of, or deferring decisions to, the most advanced computerised systems yet available, can oversee operations within de-regulated networks. This way "blame" can be forever deferred.

I'm at least as vehemently opposed to "gobbling up the earth's resources in raw materials and ecological sustainability" as you are but don't see that as inherently compatible, let alone synonymous, with the notion of "fragmenting us all into individualised islands of unrealised creative potential substituting the fulfilments of involvement with dumbed down culture", nor do I see the latter as necessarily being a direct outcome of the former (not that you've suggested that it is such - I say this purely because the latter directly follows the former in your sentence).

Psychologically we are products of circumstances brought about by under-utilised human potential; a huge amount of effort in terms of propaganda concerning human nature" is put at the service of those who benefit by keeping things as they are by being in charge as society's overseers. The admittedly over-simplified generalisation of that statement is nevertheless open to more exemplifications than the mass media as presently constituted allow, unfortunately. That's a reflection of the political balance of forces in society at present and lies outwith this thread's topic, but at least gets discussed in fragmentary ways elsewhere when french frank's looking the other way!

The more that individuals are encouraged to become more self-sufficient in energy requirements, the less they will find themselves strapped to the demands of large corporate suppliers, private or "nationalised"; there are obvious practical limits to the extent to which this can happen, of course, but the availability of alternative energy sources can and indeed already does make some difference in that regard and will, I suspect, continue to do so at least until such time as one of those large corporate suppliers begins to offer such sustainable power supplies, a situation of which there seems not to be the remotest likelihood at present - and even then, customers won't be inclined to swap their cheap sustainable energy for more expensive ditto supplied by such large corporate suppliers, so the latter would have to compete successfully with (i.e. undercut) the consumers if it wants to secure them as their customers.

One of the limits being that consumer input to the grid will probably never be allowed to exceed the money energy companies make from consumption exceeding input, in part as much due to the practicalities of implementation in cities, where live the majority, as the needs of income generating.

[ahinton]

The "evolution" of the market favours size, and therefore oligopoly.

It can do so and has indeed done so from time to time, but I fail to see quite how that fact addressed the question of what a government with a "nationalised" industry on its hands can and/or should do to procure supplies and services from the market-place (since there's nowhere else from which to do this) in order to manage them and distribute them to its customers.

What's to apologise for?? If you're not employed in a nationalised industry it is unlikely that you will be interested in employee involvement in decision-making over the running of the company.

I apologised in case what I'd previous written on the subject concerned had been expressed with insufficient clarity - no more, no less. I agree with what you write here, but whilst the involvement of "nationalised" businesses' employees in decision making and the like might reasonably assume at least some knowledge and expertise on the part of those employees, what's therefore to be said about those who are not employees of such businesses when the very notion of "nationalisation" appears to seek to presume that every taxpaying citizen will or shold harbour such an interest and that this is why it is supposedly established in the notion of their so-called "ownership" of such businesses (shared ownership, of course, but still ownership just like shareholders' "ownerships" except for the absence of citizens' direct investment in those businesses as confirmed by their ownership of share certificates).

The utopian share ownership democracy has proved less amenable to change than elections because under the existing system shareholders have more of an interest in maintaining the managerial status quo than electorates. My own belief is that Keith Joseph and Mrs Thatcher knew this would turn out to be the case all along.

In not happening to share your belief I am by no means suggesting that it is unfounded - merely that I do not know for certain and, as neither of them is still around to ask, I guess that I never will. Share ownership has to be divided into the corporate and the individual of which your reference here is clearly to the latter. I wonder if one issue about this concerns the differences in levels of individual investors' interest in the businesses and their decision making, rather as there is with individuals voters' interest in the avowed policies and manifestos of the various political parties that put themsevles up for election.

Growing complexity is in-built, and in consequence nobody, even making use of, or deferring decisions to, the most advanced computerised systems yet available, can oversee operations within de-regulated networks. This way "blame" can be forever deferred.

But your assertion here, whatever its value and pertinence, appears to neglect to take due account of the fact that this is often the case whether such systems and their functions are used by private or state owned businesses, so I don't quite see how this puts forward an argument in favour of the latter, not least because state owned industries have demonstrably fallen foul of such complexities of their own devising and systems that they have ordered, at enormous expense and precious little benefit to the taxpayer who has funded them and is supposedly served by them.

Psychologically we are products of circumstances brought about by under-utilised human potential; a huge amount of effort in terms of propaganda concerning human nature" is put at the service of those who benefit by keeping things as they are by being in charge as society's overseers. The admittedly over-simplified generalisation of that statement is nevertheless open to more exemplifications than the mass media as presently constituted allow, unfortunately. That's a reflection of the political balance of forces in society at present and lies outwith this thread's topic, but at least gets discussed in fragmentary ways elsewhere when french frank's looking the other way!

!!! Yes, that's undoubtedly true, but not, I think, unversally so, otherwise what you refer to is lack of - and reluctance to embrace - certain change would be all-pervading rather than merely unduly common in society. That said, change is not always for the better, any more than is the lack of it or reluctance to embrace it.

One of the limits being that consumer input to the grid will probably never be allowed to exceed the money energy companies make from consumption exceeding input, in part as much due to the practicalities of implementation in cities, where live the majority, as the needs of income generating.

I'm not quite sure what you mean to put forward here, but the possibility that individual consumers can take at least some charge of their energy supply destinies is an attractive one at least in principle to the extent that such consumers thereby become less dependent upon large corporate suppliers, be they private or state owned and they also as a consequence become less of a drain on the grid; of couse this is far less possible in the cities that you mention and for the reasons that you mention, but its advocay and implementation whedrever and to whatever extent possible would at least help.

[Serial_Apologist]

It can do so and has indeed done so from time to time, but I fail to see quite how that fact addressed the question of what a government with a "nationalised" industry on its hands can and/or should do to procure supplies and services from the market-place (since there's nowhere else from which to do this) in order to manage them and distribute them to its customers.

What I meant was that size automatically confers greater power of control over markets merely by virtue of itself, and this can be wielded to the really large firms' advantage: accept my offer and its terms or lose out. This adds extra meaning to the term "monopoly"! Pretty obvious, I would have thought!

I apologised in case what I'd previous written on the subject concerned had been expressed with insufficient clarity - no more, no less. I agree with what you write here, but whilst the involvement of "nationalised" businesses' employees in decision making and the like might reasonably assume at least some knowledge and expertise on the part of those employees, what's therefore to be said about those who are not employees of such businesses when the very notion of "nationalisation" appears to seek to presume that every taxpaying citizen will or should harbour such an interest and that this is why it is supposedly established in the notion of their so-called "ownership" of such businesses (shared ownership, of course, but still ownership just like shareholders' "ownerships" except for the absence of citizens' direct investment in those businesses as confirmed by their ownership of share certificates).

See following reply...

In not happening to share your belief I am by no means suggesting that it is unfounded - merely that I do not know for certain and, as neither of them is still around to ask, I guess that I never will. Share ownership has to be divided into the corporate and the individual of which your reference here is clearly to the latter. I wonder if one issue about this concerns the differences in levels of individual investors' interest in the businesses and their decision making, rather as there is with individuals voters' interest in the avowed policies and manifestos of the various political parties that put themsevles up for election.

I think the whole business of apathy rests on a question of credibility, whether this is as now, in politics, where everyone seems to be crowding around some bloated supposed middle as the imaginary demographic that has to be appealed to in order to achieve a Commons majority, or in companies in which a spurious idea of involvement is promulgated by sending out glossy pre-shareholder meeting brochures that give a simplified account of the company's activities and prospects. Making money is a very loaded term. Those with enough money to be able to afford shares and who by regularly scanning the FT or the back page of the Torygraph have or think they have market knowledge don't really have guilty consciences about this, so long as the returns come in, and can claim to constitute the moral backbone while the hoi polloi fritter away their ill-gained earnings on whatever is their favourite consumer item of abuse of the moment.

But your assertion here, whatever its value and pertinence, appears to neglect to take due account of the fact that this is often the case whether such systems and their functions are used by private or state owned businesses, so I don't quite see how this puts forward an argument in favour of the latter, not least because state owned industries have demonstrably fallen foul of such complexities of their own devising and systems that they have ordered, at enormous expense and precious little benefit to the taxpayer who has funded them and is supposedly served by them.

It depends on structures, circumstances of operation, and what society deems nationalisation to be for. If it is just as "infrastructure", a prop for otherwise failing private enterprise, as it was designed to be after WW2, it will fail on its own terms, thereafter to be lambasted by the ruling orders on false premises. Complexity is always a given in a populous world. That privatisation has increased complexity and lack of transparency, often under the guise of commercial secrecy, was nevertheless a given, and one which has proved remarkably useful when it comes to ascribing blame when things have gone as wrong as they have. Nobody can claim to know how to solve all the world's problems, all of which (I would go so far as to claim) have flowed from this fact.

I'm not quite sure what you mean to put forward here, but the possibility that individual consumers can take at least some charge of their energy supply destinies is an attractive one at least in principle to the extent that such consumers thereby become less dependent upon large corporate suppliers, be they private or state owned and they also as a consequence become less of a drain on the grid; of course this is far less possible in the cities that you mention and for the reasons that you mention, but its advocay and implementation whedrever and to whatever extent possible would at least help.

Yes but by virtue of it's being impracticable in cities takes on added significance - albeit ineluctably - when one considers the voting demographic in rural areas was what I was trying to get at.

[ahinton]

What I meant was that size automatically confers greater power of control over markets merely by virtue of itself, and this can be wielded to the really large firms' advantage: accept my offer and its terms or lose out. This adds extra meaning to the term "monopoly"! Pretty obvious, I would have thought!

Indeed - but it matters not to the consumer in the long run whether it's the large size state or the large size private corporation; the customer all too often finds him/herself at the mercy of either or both.

I think the whole business of apathy rests on a question of credibility

That's certainly true.

whether this is as now, in politics, where everyone seems to be crowding around some bloated supposed middle as the imaginary demographic that has to be appealed to in order to achieve a Commons majority, or in companies in which a spurious idea of involvement is promulgated by sending out glossy pre-shareholder meeting brochures that give a simplified account of the company's activities and prospects. Making money is a very loaded term. Those with enough money to be able to afford shares and who by regularly scanning the FT or the back page of the Torygraph have or think they have market knowledge don't really have guilty consciences about this, so long as the returns come in, and can claim to constitute the moral backbone while the hoi polloi fritter away their ill-gained earnings on whatever is their favourite consumer item of abuse of the moment.

Sure, but how can this be changed right across the board without trying to change the behaviour not only of said hoi polloi but also that of the voters and the shareholders. Making money is indeed a very loaded term, with more ways to do it than there are people to do it.

It depends on structures, circumstances of operation, and what society deems nationalisation to be for. If it is just as "infrastructure", a prop for otherwise failing private enterprise, as it was designed to be after WW2, it will fail on its own terms, thereafter to be lambasted by the ruling orders on false premises.

But as what else could it be or might you envisage it as capable of being? All "nationalised" industries were taken from private ownership and operation into what's quality (and misleadingly) termed "public ownership" and operation.

Complexity is always a given in a populous world. That privatisation has increased complexity and lack of transparency, often under the guise of commercial secrecy, was nevertheless a given, and one which has proved remarkably useful when it comes to ascribing blame when things have gone as wrong as they have.

But, since you mention monopolies (be they state or private), private industry does not have and has never had a monopoly on the development and promotion of "increased complexity and lack of transparency" - one has only to consider, for example, the armed services procurement messes, the failed NHS and other computer systems, the complexity of taxation infrastructure, all of which are part of the state mechanism, to realise that.

Yes but by virtue of it's being impracticable in cities takes on added significance - albeit ineluctably - when one considers the voting demographic in rural areas was what I was trying to get at.

That's true, of course, but even there it's not entirely impossible, given sufficient will.

[Serial_Apologist]

Indeed - but it matters not to the consumer in the long run whether it's the large size state or the large size private corporation; the customer all too often finds him/herself at the mercy of either or both.

I've mostly covered that: transparency; employee participation/involvement rather than top-down ordinance; no overhanging threat of privatisation to disincentivise workforce morale. I would also add management from the ranks as opposed to brought in from outside, with top positions elected by the workforce (why not??) and not paid private executive salary rates, but manage on a basis of social conscience as much as experience and expertise.

Sure, but how can this be changed right across the board without trying to change the behaviour not only of said hoi polloi but also that of the voters and the shareholders. Making money is indeed a very loaded term, with more ways to do it than there are people to do it.

The same way other progressive issues are won, e.g. women's emancipation; fair trade; environmental protection; health & safety; cycling lanes; no more dumbing down of radio 3, etc etc: by campaigning and winning people over!

But as what else could it be or might you envisage it as capable of being? All "nationalised" industries were taken from private ownership and operation into what's quality (and misleadingly) termed "public ownership" and operation.

OK common ownership, since you're hung up on definitions, though the idea of something belonging to society in common is a binding rather than divisive factor.

But, since you mention monopolies (be they state or private), private industry does not have and has never had a monopoly on the development and promotion of "increased complexity and lack of transparency" - one has only to consider, for example, the armed services procurement messes, the failed NHS and other computer systems, the complexity of taxation infrastructure, all of which are part of the state mechanism, to realise that.

Whatever makes you say that??!! I shouild mention that I have worked in a privatised industry, and it was choc full of needless complexity not previously there. Unfortunately I'm covered by the Official Secrets Act for life or I would have tales to tell!

That's true, of course, but even there it's not entirely impossible, given sufficient will.

Collective social provision of energy in cities is practised around the world, using sustainable sources such as biomass, and I guess this gets us back on topic - but there are others here who know much more about this than I.

[ahinton]

I've mostly covered that: transparency; employee participation/involvement rather than top-down ordinance; no overhanging threat of privatisation to disincentivise workforce morale.

But what about the threat of "nationalisation" against those who work in the private sector?

I would also add management from the ranks as opposed to brought in from outside, with top positions elected by the workforce (why not??) and not paid private executive salary rates, but manage on a basis of social conscience as much as experience and expertise.

Provided that you could always rely on getting them and discouraging them from leaving to work in similar better paid positions elsewhere.

The same way other progressive issues are won, e.g. women's emancipation; fair trade; environmental protection; health & safety; cycling lanes; no more dumbing down of radio 3, etc etc: by campaigning and winning people over!

That can of course be done but the guarantee and extent of success are up for grabs, inevitably.

But as what else could it be or might you envisage it as capable of being? All "nationalised" industries were taken from pricate ownership and operation into what's quality (and misleadingly) termed "public ownership" and operation.

Whatever makes you say that??!! I shouild mention that I have worked in a privatised industry, and it was choc full of needless complexity. Unfortunately I'm covered by the Official Secrets Act for life or I would have tales to tell!

Sure, but my point was that both state and private industry are riddled with these issues.

Collective social provision of energy in cities is practised around the world, using sustainable sources such as biomass, and I guess this gets us back on topic - but there are others here who know much more about this than I.

It's perfectly possible to do this kind of thing, given the will, but that of itself does not and cannot guarantee that the state (which would assume responsbility for its management and provision) would make a better job of it than anyone else or any other organisation.

[Serial_Apologist]

But what about the threat of "nationalisation" against those who work in the private sector?

What threat would that be?

Provided that you could always rely on getting them and discouraging them from leaving to work in similar better paid positions elsewhere.

As happens in the NHS - I agree: none of this can come about without a change in thinking throughout society, which would probably only come about through the lessons of resisting the sorts of changes that have brought about so much of the mess that is around us, and which Cameron now wants to pursue further along the same misguided lines.

That can of course be done but the guarantee and extent of success are up for grabs, inevitably.

As with anything, surely?

Sure, but my point was that both state and private industry are riddled with these issues.

Sure, but we've gone some way towards suggesting possible remedies.

It's perfectly possible to do this kind of thing, given the will, but that of itself does not and cannot guarantee that the state (which would assume responsbility for its management and provision) would make a better job of it than anyone else or any other organisation.

Famous last words - nothing is ever guaranteed in life.

[ahinton]

What threat would that be?

The same; if public sector employees might feel under threat from possible privatisation, logic suggests that private sector ones might feel the same about the possuible threat of "nationalisation".

As with anything, surely?

Indeed.

Sure, but we've gone some way towards suggesting possible remedies.

Only to the extent of drawing attention to the need for fundamental cultural change in both public and private sectors, which is some distance from actually making some kind of motivation of both work in practice!

Famous last words - nothing is ever guaranteed in life.

Nope - it sure ain't!

[Serial_Apologist]

The same; if public sector employees might feel under threat from possible privatisation, logic suggests that private sector ones might feel the same about the possuible threat of "nationalisation".

The threat (to jobs security or career prospects I presume you mean) from nationalisation always existed to the extent that the nationalised sector always operated subject to terms of operation being subordinated to the same "laws" of competitiveness as applied in the private sector, so until privatisation came along employees saw little difference between the two modes of production in how each affected their livelihoods. Then, with the gloves of mixed economics which had to some extent mitigated the effects of bare knuckle competition removed, the real meaning of rationalisation, namely export of capital and transfer of operations to sources of cheaper ununionised labour in dictatorship-ruled countries, was brought home in one salutary lesson about limiting trade unionism to wages and conditions that had come too late to resist. Now we have the spectacle of Jeremy Corbyn being excoriated by the Right for daring to raise even the idea of a discussion - a discussion only, mind, about the way forward - because he no longer has a base from which to throw even theoretical challenges at the system, and they can kick him while he is down.

Only to the extent of drawing attention to the need for fundamental cultural change in both public and private sectors, which is some distance from actually making some kind of motivation of both work in practice!

Well now you're talking, but motivation can't come out of thin air.