Leaving folk to just get on with things might have the occasional gap in it, we agree. It’s possible to think of having some organisation that sits down, considers the future, then sorts out those problems that pure markets might not, for some reason, really take care of.

We do grasp the concept:

After decades of neglect, Britain scrambles to keep the lights on this winter….Yet the bleak reality is this new generation of nuclear power plants will arrive far too late …. a string of existing plants are approaching retirement, putting UK nuclear power generation on course to fall to the lowest levels seen since the 1960s over the next few years. …..One worst case scenario by Whitehall predicts six million homes will be left without power this winter….Under current plans, the fleet will be reduced to less than 4 gigawatts of capacity in two years’ time…..Following talks with the ONR, EDF recently ruled out keeping Hinkley Point B open, saying it would have taken too long to put the safety case together and that time had “run out”.,,,,,and on and on.

This is not a problem that has crept up upon anyone. Reactors last for decades, take decades to build.

It’s possible that the incentives of democratic politics simply do not support long term decision making of the kind needed here. It’s also possible that the British state is simply incompetent. But what is obvious is that if we are to consider the desirability of state planning then we’ve got to consider the outcomes of what plannings the state does or does not currently do.

They’re no good at it, are they?

So, whatever the theoretic joys of having that government planning the tough stuff for us it’s not a system that actually works in practice. Ho Hum, lovely theories destroyed by ugly facts again.