However, I did vote Blue, and I agree with the principal of small Government and that more should be privatised. Can't have my cake and eat it I suppose.
I used to think much as you do, until I saw behind the veil and came to realise that while I agree with privatisation in principle, the practice actually comprises a land grab by vested interests who do have their cake and eat it too, as they usually not only get to keep their profits from their monopolies but get government subsidies and grants to boot. If anything, it's "champagne socialism", where the state lines private pockets - which is also known as fascism.
I don't believe technocratic centralised socialistic management is the solution - rather, government by those who do not wish to govern and cannot abuse their position to foster their private interests (sortition holds appeal), and strong regulation of private industry with real teeth.
You see this problem in the energy market. The system is owned by private companies, but the government still have all the control. They get to set the rules and then blame evil big business when prices go up. The effect is to shut out smaller producers and lock in the bulk suppliers.
Ironically state monopolies can be very good for small business. The land registry support an ecosystem of companies that help people navigate the arcane system. A private company could just absorb a lot of this and kill variety and competition.
> I agree with the principal of small Government and that more should be privatised
You should review this position if you think the Land Registry should not be privatised. Mostly there isn't much left to privatise that isn't an administrative function or health or education.
>'[Home Sec. Theresa May] added: "It is right that forces up and down the country are now looking... at bringing in the private sector to their forces where they feel there are functions that can be done more cost-effectively by the private sector."'
Well it makes it better for the rich people that now exclusively have control of the prior state run functions; they make more money and that's what's important to the Cons as they're who pays for the Tory party and provide the "consultancy" jobs for MPs.
Why make things cheaper for everyone by running national functions from taxation when you can make them more expensive and share - perhaps at a distance - in the profits? /pure-cynicism which I hope is misplaced.
There are a lot of things that are sensible to privatize, but this seems entirely political and ideological. I did think the Conservatives were more reasonable than this.
I used to think much as you do, until I saw behind the veil and came to realise that while I agree with privatisation in principle, the practice actually comprises a land grab by vested interests who do have their cake and eat it too, as they usually not only get to keep their profits from their monopolies but get government subsidies and grants to boot. If anything, it's "champagne socialism", where the state lines private pockets - which is also known as fascism.
I don't believe technocratic centralised socialistic management is the solution - rather, government by those who do not wish to govern and cannot abuse their position to foster their private interests (sortition holds appeal), and strong regulation of private industry with real teeth.