Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

David Herdson @davidherdson.bsky.social · 17h

True. Although you try getting the equivalent figures out of Scotland. You can't. Because far more goes unreported as there's less focus on the problem - perhaps because the buck stops with a politician there rather than an executive.

But yes, Ofwat and the EA are too close to the industry.

David Herdson @davidherdson.bsky.social · 18h

You could, if the state was temperamentally inclined to do sustained investment aimed at improvement and customer service.

Unfortunately, the post-war record of the British government was the opposite, and Treasury persnickety spreadsheet mindset persists.

David Herdson @davidherdson.bsky.social · 20h

But with water, investment has still been routinely higher than pre-privatisation (hence all the debt) - and water quality did improve for much of the period.

It's not a coincidence that bills were allowed to rise more after privatisation. Ministers cut taxes and fund it by restricting investment.

1

David Herdson @davidherdson.bsky.social · 20h

A lot comes down to regulation. With natural monopolies, the state *has* to get regulation right for privatisation to work. It has to be tough enough to prevent abuses while being loose enough to enable innovation and new ideas to work. It often hasn't been.

But the state gets things wrong too.

2

David Herdson @davidherdson.bsky.social · 20h

Arguably rail isn't a natural monopoly as you can take other forms of transport - and the privatised rail network has been *very* far from perfect.

Even so, passenger numbers, investment, safety, customer experience, even reliability until recently (IIRC): all better. The chart below is striking.

2

David Herdson @davidherdson.bsky.social · 22h

That's all very well but the UN doesn't have any troops of its own. So:

- whose troops?
- what authority do they have to engage with Israel / Hamas forces breaking the agreement?
- under whose command do they operate?

David Herdson @davidherdson.bsky.social · 23h

Politicians, when directly responsible for something, will try to keep charges low, which keeps investment low. Privatise it and even though the same politicians may be responsible for oversight of regulating the same thing, they'll tolerate higher bills while the Treasury will tolerate borrowing.

1

David Herdson @davidherdson.bsky.social · 23h

BT was very definitely a monopoly and telecoms was seen as one pre-mobile (indeed, the same arguments would have been used *for* mobile: why on earth would you build x networks rather than just one?).

'Efficient' is hard to measure but by amount the private companies have routinely invested more.

2 1

David Herdson @davidherdson.bsky.social · 1d

Indeed. By far the best argument for privatisation of natural monopolies was their ability to invest without the Treasury applying a dead hand.

Can you imagine what the UK's mobile phone coverage would be like if a nationalised BT was building it?

2

David Herdson @davidherdson.bsky.social · 1d

They are. But are fairly quiet about it.

The policies are there (though 'dilute Brexit' is weak compared with Rejoin - though still better than Labour, never mind the Tories), but the Lib Dems are not getting much policy coverage in the media, and focus on local issues in their own campaigning.

1 1

David Herdson @davidherdson.bsky.social · 2d

Which probably answers the question. Even if things are going badly for Trump, it's unlikely anyone else comes forward *and wins*.

While Trump's approval is poor overall, it's still sky-high with Republican voters - and particularly those who would vote in a primary.

1

David Herdson @davidherdson.bsky.social · 2d

Yes, I agree. He's won't retire so it's down to a coup or a revolution, of whatever nature.

Which - per the earlier examples - is what did for Nero, George III, Caucescu and Gaddaffi.

1

David Herdson @davidherdson.bsky.social · 2d

Her definition of 'being useful in life' was getting involved in the Labour Party of the early 1980s, and in CND.

I imagine were she in the same situation today she'd be going on Gaza marches and supporting Extinction Rebellion.

It's a distinction between 'active in politics' and 'useful'.

2

David Herdson @davidherdson.bsky.social · 2d

But we're talking about winning outright here rather than the nomination.

One simple question: if Trump wants to stand for a third term, which Republican/s is/are going to oppose him by seeking the nomination themself/ves?

1

David Herdson @davidherdson.bsky.social · 2d

That's the key question.

Although Trump's approval ratings on the economy are dipping and Trump is playing with fire re the Fed (not to mention the inflationary effect of many of his other policies, particularly tariffs).

In the end, it could be back to the populist failing on bread and butter.

2

David Herdson @davidherdson.bsky.social · 2d

I agree. And the arguments are there to be made at every stage as to why the 22A shouldn't apply *then*, and the SCOTUS could toss the final one of counting and verifying the Electoral College votes to Congress and for them to assess what's a valid vote or not.

1 1

David Herdson @davidherdson.bsky.social · 2d

Yes, I agree. We have to consider the possibility but once you stick someone else in the big chair they can act independently. Keeping your grip on the wider movement becomes harder if your successor starts doing popular stuff.

I don't see it as likely either - as you say, it'd be out of character.

1

David Herdson @davidherdson.bsky.social · 2d

I don't think there is a Republican 'elite' outside of Trump now. That which was is now absorbed, subdued or sidelined.

Besides, Trump will be 82 by the 2028 election; they can take an actuaries bet on getting Vance anyway.

David Herdson @davidherdson.bsky.social · 2d

5/5 Tying all that up makes me think 12/1 is very attractive, for all the obvious chances for his path to fail.

It could look very different tomorrow or in six months time but we known that uncertainty. That widens greatly the potential outcomes but we can still crunch the numbers.

1

David Herdson @davidherdson.bsky.social · 2d

4/n I think he's so embedded in the system, and has done so many illegal and unconstitutional actions he knows instinctively that to retire or lose risks everything for him and his legacy, including his family. So he will try to stay in control. But he also enjoys the power and publicity.

1

David Herdson @davidherdson.bsky.social · 2d

3/n Would he rather run a proxy, either as a skirt round the 22nd Amendment (relying on the distinction between 'elected' in that and 'ineligible' in the 12th), or longer term, pulling the strings in the background per Putin/Medvedev?

No, he'd rather not but might conclude it's a less risky option.

2

David Herdson @davidherdson.bsky.social · 2d

2/n But Trump has to get to 2028 first. He's a fat old man of declining physical and mental capacity. Two years could be a long time. Plus the risk of violent intervention - a risk he himself stokes.

He also needs to keep his movement under his control against a lot of economic risk.

2

David Herdson @davidherdson.bsky.social · 2d

1/n Honestly, I find it a really difficult call.

Will Trump be deterred from standing for a third term by the constitution? No. Will SCOTUS give him a pass to do so? Quite possibly (arguments: primaries aren't binding, Congress can certify what's valid or not etc).

So he could run.

2

David Herdson @davidherdson.bsky.social · 4d

First paragraph, good. Second paragraph, not so good.

Europe shouldn't be giving the US a brake on policy and support. Just get on and do it.

David Herdson @davidherdson.bsky.social · 4d

Surely their point is to ingest blood - which doesn't sound very vegan to me?