Skip to main content

BAA Monopoly may not be a good thing. No... Really??

The Privatisation model adopted by the Conservatives was, well, conservative. Although they talked a lot about the value of the free market, in practice they tended to privatise monopolies intact. British Gas for example was privatised as a single business despite the very obvious conflicts of being a supplier, a distributor and a maintenance company in one. This was certainly noticed at the time- indeed the then Alliance spokesman on energy is mentioned by name in the enabling bill as advocating the break up of the business- which is, I think unique in the annals of British legislation.

In the end, what the government chose not to do, the market forced on the company, and eventually the sheer unwieldiness of the integrated gas business forced its break up into separate entities for each of the basic underlying businesses: transit, end-user supplier, maintenance etc.

Another monopoly that was privatised intact was the British Airports Authority: privatised as BAA PLC. Why anyone could have failed to notice that keeping Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted under common ownership was hardly likely to foster competition and better services is beyond me. The fact that BAA can not set prices for slots at the airports in an economic fashion has led to each airport becoming a giant shopping mall with a runway attached- but the airports increasingly lack the kind of infrastructure that other airports offer as standard- easy transit between terminals for example.

So this morning we have the news that a Commission has suggested that common ownership of both London and regional airports "may not be in the best interests of the consumer" - You don't say?

Next week- news that the Pope may be a Catholic and more revelations on the excretory habits of bears.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Post Truth and Justice

The past decade has seen the rise of so-called "post truth" politics.  Instead of mere misrepresentation of facts to serve an argument, political figures began to put forward arguments which denied easily provable facts, and then blustered and browbeat those who pointed out the lie.  The political class was able to get away with "post truth" positions because the infrastructure that reported their activity has been suborned directly into the process. In short, the media abandoned long-cherished traditions of objectivity and began a slow slide into undeclared bias and partisanship.  The "fourth estate" was always a key piece of how democratic societies worked, since the press, and later the broadcast media could shape opinion by the way they reported on the political process. As a result there has never been a golden age of objective media, but nevertheless individual reporters acquired better or worse reputations for the quality of their reporting and

We need to talk about UK corruption

After a long hiatus, mostly to do with indolence and partly to do with the general election campaign, I feel compelled to take up the metaphorical pen and make a few comments on where I see the situation of the UK in the aftermath of the "Brexit election". OK, so we lost.  We can blame many reasons, though fundamentally the Conservatives refused to make the mistakes of 2017 and Labour and especially the Liberal Democrats made every mistake that could be made.  Indeed the biggest mistake of all was allowing Johnson to hold the election at all, when another six months would probably have eaten the Conservative Party alive.  It was Jo Swinson's first, but perhaps most critical, mistake to make, and from it came all the others.  The flow of defectors and money persuaded the Liberal Democrat bunker that an election could only be better for the Lib Dems, and as far as votes were concerned, the party did indeed increase its vote by 1.3 million.   BUT, and it really is the bi

Media misdirection

In the small print of the UK budget we find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer (the British Finance Minister) has allocated a further 15 billion Pounds to the funding for the UK track and trace system. This means that the cost of the UK´s track and trace system is now 37 billion Pounds.  That is approximately €43 billion or US$51 billion, which is to say that it is amount of money greater than the national GDP of over 110 countries, or if you prefer, it is roughly the same number as the combined GDP of the 34 smallest economies of the planet.  As at December 2020, 70% of the contracts for the track and trace system were awarded by the Conservative government without a competitive tender being made . The program is overseen by Dido Harding , who is not only a Conservative Life Peer, but the wife of a Conservative MP, John Penrose, and a contemporary of David Cameron and Boris Johnson at Oxford. Many of these untendered contracts have been given to companies that seem to have no notewo