Why can the private sector afford to provide these services and upgrade infrastructure and a publicly owned enterprise not? Why would it magically be more expensive for the taxpayer if they take on the rewards as well as the risk?

The dogma of private is always best should be consigned to the dustbin of history.

The truth behind nationalisation is that it can be done at low costs as and when current contracts expire. It would actually save money as the taxpayer wouldn't have to pay for the tendering process and compensation for unsuccessful tenders.

Do you know what percentage of government services are outsourced? It’s 15% of the total.

The left’s argument that the right state dogmatically that ‘private is best’ is well overblown.

Nationalisation will always end in disaster in this country. The reason is because a Corbyn Labour government will use nationalised indicutries to further their social aims, rather than running the business for the benefit of the population at large. Coupled with the fact that the likes of McDonnell have no experience of running industry, no concept of the enormity of running energy business in the UK and refuse to contemplate any scenario where the private sector could participate in, what they class as, public services, means that the union controlled, underinvested, piss poorly managed clusterf*** they would produce would diminish Britain’s ability to compete in a globalised market.

The fact is that energy business needs both private and public sector involvement to operate is off message. Plus, a lot of people want less government in their life, not more.

Suck up the leftish dogma if you will but deep down, I believe you know that such a nationalisation programme would end in recrimination, disaster and probably three day week’s.

Do you know what percentage of government services are outsourced? It’s 15% of the total.

The left’s argument that the right state dogmatically that ‘private is best’ is well overblown.

Nationalisation will always end in disaster in this country. The reason is because a Corbyn Labour government will use nationalised indicutries to further their social aims, rather than running the business for the benefit of the population at large. Coupled with the fact that the likes of McDonnell have no experience of running industry, no concept of the enormity of running energy business in the UK and refuse to contemplate any scenario where the private sector could participate in, what they class as, public services, means that the union controlled, underinvested, piss poorly managed clusterf*** they would produce would diminish Britain’s ability to compete in a globalised market.

The fact is that energy business needs both private and public sector involvement to operate is off message. Plus, a lot of people want less government in their life, not more.

Suck up the leftish dogma if you will but deep down, I believe you know that such a nationalisation programme would end in recrimination, disaster and probably three day week’s.

You clearly have no understanding of the way nationalisation is going to work when it does happen. You seem to think it will just be the same model as in the past.

It's delusions such as this that are a barrier to change and to enable the public to retake control of our own services and infrastructure.

How is that 15% calculated? That sounds like quite a high number. 15% of all of our public services.

It's interesting to note that the majority of rail and bus franchises are owned by the state, just not our own state. The Dutch state own make a profit from our railways to invest in their own through Abelio.

I'm not suggesting you get the same company to operate both the railways and utilities. I'd Suggest perhaps having different groups of people, some experts in running railways running the railways, and others experts in utilities running those. The concept is more that the companies run those services for the benefit of the British public and profits are reinvested not distributed.

As you haven’t got it, or have chosen not to get it, I believe that the complexities of producing & distributing energy in the UK, and the sheer scale of it, means that nationalisation is not the answer.

Why do I think that infrastructure will not be invested in in the event of nationalisation? History is one reason. Secondly, Corbyn’s government will be led by social issues rather than pragmatism, meaning that they will be told by their party to invest taxpayers money in the NHS rather than utilities, as pursuit of their social programme will be paramount. Finally, given that they will have excluded all you private sector involvement in he energy sector, when they realise that they need involvement from the private sector, which will happen, whom in their right minds would work with them?

It will be a clusterf***.