Thatcher and Sid

The pub juke box was belting out Boy George for the third disk in a row; eyes were fixed on the mechanism as the arm lifted the 45 single, jerkily returned it to it's slot in the fan-array of black plastic ... and then returned back to the same place to lift it out again. There was a soft groan from the bar. The London after work pub crowd was complacent; it had been three years since the IRA's last major mainland bombing and Londoners, who recover quickly anyway, had almost forgotten the threat. This was a workers' pub, which is to say well-frequented by students and the unemployed with a leavening of actual tradesmen - mostly painters, for some reason - having an after-work pint. 

" 'Ere maigh, izzat your Standa'?" Came a voice in my ear. I nodded and passed it across. "See 'ow me shares have done today" the voice explained. It didn't need to explain further. Thatcher's Gas privatisation in December 1986 had made shareholders for the first time of hundreds of thousands of small investors. Though some had taken to buying the FT on the basis of a £250 shareholding, thereby wiping out their dividend, most relied, in London at least, on discarded Standards to keep track of the share price. 

Many preferential small shareholders cashed in immediately, walking away with a fat profit, but no matter; share ownership, once something arcane and foreign to most people, had become commonplace, something of which your neighbour had experience. Those who recall the impact that it had didn't find at all extraordinary Vince Cable's suggestion that the government's bank shares be sold off preferentially to small investors; most folk can find £500, particularly if this represents a real discount on the share market price. Unlike the feeble-minded Osborne, Thatcher could see the scale of social impact such a move would make.    

Come back, Sid

Vince Cable's idea of a popular privatisation of the government's 82% stake in RBS is not that daft. If discounted shares, currently at around the 330 mark, were available to UK taxpayers and pensioners at say 220, limited to 500 shares, offering the prospect of an immediate windfall even if sold straight away, a whole new generation may experience the 'Sid' effect. 

The British gas privatisation had effects far beyond the transfer itself. It brought the experience of share ownership to millions, who for the first time regularly scanned the financial page of the Sun and Mirror; it boosted home ownership, self-employment, investment and business confidence. Those who took their profit straight away and put it straight back into economic circulation also boosted GDP. And it made the government popular. 

Whether it would be worth the 20 seats held as Rotten Boroughs under our corrupt electoral system by Cameron's opponents is the question; and if so, whether a well-timed 'Sid' privatisation in the early Spring of 2015 is now on the cards ....

Jacqui Smith's useful innovation

What do you do when a monopoly service provider has become so inefficient, so detached from customer needs and so expensive as to offer very poor value? When the GPO had a three month waiting list for new telephones, and a phone call cost the price of a pint of beer, introducing competition was viewed with dismay by many traditionalists who held that only the State could or should provide a public telecommunications service. The Copper network was a natural monopoly, they said. Well, as we know now, they were wrong.

Similarly there will be howls of outrage at the suggestion that we should introduce competition to policing. Yet the comments in response to a guest blog post on Iain Dale's site are completely typical of our experience of the police. London has 30,000 police officers; that's about 1,000 per borough. Yet at any time no more than a couple of dozen are available in my borough to respond to calls or patrol the streets. Regulation and targets won't improve this - the only thing that will is competition. The Copper network isn't a natural monopoly.

Forget the specialist units for the moment - Special Branch, the diplomatic protection squad and the like - it's local neighbourhood uniformed policing that can go to tender. Of course, it would have to be on a geographic basis, that of a council ward or parish, and would need a ballot. The 'private' force would have access to the Police National Computer and similar resources in the same way as private telcos can access the BT exchanges.

Jacqui Smith's proposals to allow the police to train and licence private security guards to carry out local policing functions is actually a good thing. This should be expanded to allow individuals to qualify as fully authorised police officers. And legislation brought forward to allow competition at local level for basic police functions - keeping our streets and property safe, pursuing malefactors and answering to the local people that they serve.

Costs would plummet. Efficiency would soar. We would regain local police forces answerable to us and not to the Home Secretary. Where's the catch?