Hmm...
I would suggest that some of the differences in theory and practice between private and nationalised companies need to be better understood. A private company has a simple purpose: it is there to make money for its owners or shareholders. In some rare cases they are intended to deliver to shareholders some other defined aim, for example Cadbury was privately held but had objectives other than just making a profit although, of course, it was only by making a profit that it could fulfil its philanthropic ambitions.
Nationalised companies are very different beasts. Essentially there are four arguments for their existence:
- to make money (the "why give the profits to shareholders when the whole country can have them?" argument)
- to deliver a vital service that otherwise would either not be delivered or would be more expensive
- to reduce the "waste" of competition
- to create or maintain employment (makework)?
The usual claim is a combination of 1, 2 and sometimes 3, but it almost always ends up as 4.
I am not saying that nationalisation is,
per se, bad, but that one should be very clear on what the objectives are and whether there might be other more effective ways of obtaining the same objectives.
Remind me, for how long have the users of Felixstowe harbour been campaigning for the doubling and electrification of the branch line and the removal of bottlenecks at Ely and Haughley Junction by the nationalised Network Rail? So, my response is that if one wants to kill the railfreight industry in this country a certain way is to force shipping transport and logistics companies to deal with a nationalised industry...