As I see it, the argument around nationalisation vs privatisation is pretty straightforward, and perhaps the most fundamental point is that it makes no sense to privatise an industry where competition does not actually exist. Railways spring to mind, water of course, gas supplies, telecommunications infrastructure, too. 

As a country, we have - courtesy of the Conservative party - been involved in a forty-year project to demonstrate how none of those industries work better or more cost effectively for being privatised.

But we could have simply looked to history, both at the rail network nationally, and, to serve today's Blip, the Underground system specifically. Both were built up by private companies in competition with one another, which led to farcical inefficiencies. Both networks were only sorted out when they were taken over nationally.

Some of that history is still evident, such as the tiling on Gloucester Road station, which references the merging of the District Railway and the Metropolitan Railway.

As a post script and final point, to complete the major couplet of my argument, the other key consideration should be to look at whether an organisation *should* be profit driven. Two examples of those that should not are health and education: that's what we pay our taxes for (albeit not exclusively!).