"After years of faux competition, the customer is starting to see some real bargains. And it makes us realise quite what a cartel we've had all these years.
It's not just supermarkets, either. It’s much the same with energy providers and retail banks. Cliques of providers provide on their, not necessarily the punters, terms.
Part of the problem is that the barriers to entry are high. It's hard to start a supermarket, retail bank or energy company from scratch"
-----------------------------------------
Yes but the most outrageous and damaging cartel is in Westminster.
The first past the post electoral system is a massively high barrier to entry, deliberately maintained by the ruling cartel. Which is why Cameron would clearly much prefer the next government be a Labour one, wholly within the cartel, on 30% of the vote, than a deal between UKIP & the Tories, with 55%.
If it is useful that we get a choice in supermarkets it is vital that we get one in who runs the country. I simply do not think any democrat can disagree. Our current electoral system is obviously and undeniably corrupt.
Note that the entire argument of politicians of all parties that the "energy producers" rather than them depends on their being such an oligopoly there (their comparatively low profit margins say there isn't or at least they don't use such power) caused by a "market failure" (the reduction in power suppliers is because of government pressure and the prevention of new nuclear players entering is because of a government veto) and that barriers to entry are a bad thing (correct). Except they enthusiastically support such barriers in Westminster, even implying that supporting electoral reform is unpatriotic.
I could also have mentioned how the state broadcasting monopoly, or at least the way it is used in despite of the legal requirement that it be balanced, to censor dissent is equally destructive but I believe I have made that point before.
It's not just supermarkets, either. It’s much the same with energy providers and retail banks. Cliques of providers provide on their, not necessarily the punters, terms.
Part of the problem is that the barriers to entry are high. It's hard to start a supermarket, retail bank or energy company from scratch"
-----------------------------------------
Yes but the most outrageous and damaging cartel is in Westminster.
The first past the post electoral system is a massively high barrier to entry, deliberately maintained by the ruling cartel. Which is why Cameron would clearly much prefer the next government be a Labour one, wholly within the cartel, on 30% of the vote, than a deal between UKIP & the Tories, with 55%.
If it is useful that we get a choice in supermarkets it is vital that we get one in who runs the country. I simply do not think any democrat can disagree. Our current electoral system is obviously and undeniably corrupt.
Note that the entire argument of politicians of all parties that the "energy producers" rather than them depends on their being such an oligopoly there (their comparatively low profit margins say there isn't or at least they don't use such power) caused by a "market failure" (the reduction in power suppliers is because of government pressure and the prevention of new nuclear players entering is because of a government veto) and that barriers to entry are a bad thing (correct). Except they enthusiastically support such barriers in Westminster, even implying that supporting electoral reform is unpatriotic.
I could also have mentioned how the state broadcasting monopoly, or at least the way it is used in despite of the legal requirement that it be balanced, to censor dissent is equally destructive but I believe I have made that point before.
