RENATIONALISATION . . . it's not exactly a catchy term but one which nonetheless raises a terrifying, Communist-style spectre of state-owned industry and government control, particularly among those not yet eligible for membership of SAGA.
The fear is understandable. Faced with a government incapable of claiming legitimate expenses for everything from bath plugs to barbecue sets, one can only wonder what havoc they could achieve if they were in charge of keeping the lights on. No, much
better to leave them running the little things such as foreign policy, wars and the economy . . . I can see that point of view.
But renationalisation is a possibility for the East Coast rail line at least, now that National Express has begun waving the white flag saying, in essence, it never expected things to get so bad. Amid speculation that it will simply walk away from the franchise, calls have been made to bring the line back into state ownership.
And my point is . . . would renationalisation be such a bad thing?
Pre-privatisation, the world was a simpler, some would say happier, place. You wanted electricity, you went to the Electricity Board. Gas came from the Gas Board. There was the Coal Board. British Telecom did phones, lines and calls. We had British Steel, The British Oil Corporation, British Airways and British Rail.
We had no problems changing suppliers or looking for the best deal, no anguish at discovering we were paying three times as much as someone else, no pestering phone calls and door-steppers urging us to try them instead. There were no other suppliers.
Privatisation was meant to make things more efficient, more competitive. Prices would fall at a stroke. In theory, everyone would be a winner.
But that wasn't the real driver. What actually happened was that telecommunications required massive investment in 1982 to begin to go digital but the government had strict limits on borrowing. (See how sensible we were then?) Privatising 51 per cent of BT was the answer.
Then came the spin about efficiency, competition and pricing, not to mention how handy extending the idea was to break up the immensely powerful public sector unions who could bring the country to a standstill in the time it took to shout "Everybody out!" and get them off the government's back.
Naturally the investors were queuing up. What could be more solid than oil, gas, electricity and trains, none of which we could do without?
Well, as it turns out, they weren't so solid. And customers didn't see any great benefits in efficiency and pricing. Instead it became a free-for-all with the poor punter screaming in frustration at call centre operators and bewildered by a zillion different contracts offering conflicting terms and conditions.
One main difference between a private and a nationalised industry is that private industry demands a profit pay-out while a national industry just has to wipe its own bottom and invest in its own future.
That in itself is guaranteed to put prices up, for where else is the extra profit to come from but the paying customer?
It is fair to say that efficiencies of a sort were made. Within the two decades that followed, staff were shed by the bucketful. Coal down 95 per cent, steel down 75 per cent, railway employees down two-thirds, water and electricity cut by half. Not surprisingly, the benefits bill suddenly became a huge issue.
It's an interesting fact that when managers are asked to trim the workforce by such and such a per cent, they can always achieve it.
Now we have so few staff we can't maintain train lines and avoid accidents, or recall and repair planes which we know to have faults, or keep up with the work necessary to replace old water and sewage lines. And that's efficiency?
Yes there were faults in the old nationalised monster organisations. But at least they belonged to us.
We didn't harbour resentment that any poor service we endured for the prices we paid were lining someone else's pocket. There is one obstacle to renationalisation, the same being faced over the banking industry today. If we can't trust private industry and we can't trust the government, who's going to run the show?
Trouble on the cardsAS if there wasn't enough opposition to the introduction of ID cards which will cost £1.3billion, we are now getting down to the nitty-gritty.
These vital, confidential documents designed to fight terrorism and keep us all safe, require fingerprints and facial scans which will be carried out by staff in . . . supermarkets, post offices and photo shops.
Well, that's going to sort out al-Qaeda. They might be primed to storm Edinburgh Castle but they'll think twice before taking on the sub postmaster or the girl in KwikSnap, both of whom are of course, entirely to be trusted, have signed the Official Secrets Act and been given SAS interrogation training and cyanide pills.
