Do people think that there is scope for further privatisation of industries currently in the public sector (eg, Royal Mail)?

On the other hand would you prefer to re-nationalise some or all of the industries privatised in the past?

Or do you think the current balance is about right?

it's not that the current balance is right, so much as nationalisation and privatisation are such wholesale shifts, the only people to really benefit are the bureaucrats, lawyers, change managers, consultancies, accountants etc, etc.

It depends very much on the industry and the overall aims for it. If an integrated system is required (for example an integrated public transport system would be nice) then public ownership (with all it's inherant problems) seems to work better. If on the other hand it's an industry that can be broken up without ill effect then private ownership is fine.

As with most things an intelligent, case by case appraisal is rather better than ideological blinkers.

In general I'm in favour of letting the markets get on with everything and leaving the state to set the framework. State run businesses are not necessarily less efficient, but in practice have been shown to be so. The state should concentrate on its core competencies, and running businesses is not one of them.

The only business that in the UK at present should be nationalised is the rail industry. A temporary renationalisation is needed is sort out the mess that the badly thought out form of privatisation has brought about.

Originally posted by fhain29
The only business that in the UK at present should be nationalised is the rail industry. A temporary renationalisation is needed is sort out the mess that the badly thought out form of privatisation has brought about.
I totally agree with this. Other countries which have great rail networks have government sponsored or owned rail. It is the only way that it can be run without it being run down. Rail transport projects are such expensive, long term and valuable infrastructure, it's almost impossible for a private company to expand or improve. Just look at the Channel tunnel. The most efficient, environmentally friendly way to get to the continent, but crippled by debt because the government is too irresponsible to take it under it's wing [or at least take over the debt, to remove the crippling interest payments]. By the time the high speed rail link is finished it may have gone bust.. :loopy:
In addition the added benefits of a great rail servive give un accountable value to the country, which a private company couldn't benefit from, but a country [and by implication it's government] could.

What gets my goat is when the government sells off public assets usually at a knock down price and then gives governemnt subsidies to them eg Richard Budge and also Railtrack. :loopy:

Don't you mean Failtrack Mo?

I agree there are some services that should not have been privatised; the rail service being one of them, as it will impossible to serve the two Masters of the general public while appeasing shareholders at the same time.

I acknowledge that the winding up of Failtrack could have been handled better (perhaps by the governement buying back shares instead of lining the comapny's pockets), but the company should have been aware that the glory days of being given billions of pounds of tax payers money while killing hundreds of customers each year was not going to last forever.

Fellow Sheffielders; what's the latest on the Governments plan to privatise air traffic control?