The thing is, rail and energy are to a great extent bogus choices. For many journeys there's only one possible operator. On short haul services, there's no seat reservation either. So the only possible variable is how far in advance you buy your ticket and what railcards you present.

Electricity is even more bogus: the company you pay is neither the company that owns the generators nor the company that owns the transmission lines. It's a pure middleman. You're locked in a pure struggle with a set of billing systems, which you have to "game" in order to get the best deal.

To be honest, I get anxious when choosing a company to buy my rail ticket. Not to mention the whole horrible process of trying to find a suitable ticket. Splitting journey's etc, trying to work out the cheapest route etc. That's in the UK.

And I have a feeling of dread each year when it's time for broadband renewel. I can waste a couple of hours going through the options. Then present choices to my partner, who will most likely do the same.

Agree it's an article about decision paralysis/fatigue, with some tenuous examples/zeitgeist links.

The idea of re-nationalising the rail network is actually quite popular:

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/05/11/why-do-people-support-r...

NB I just learned about this yesterday - and was quite surprised. In that respect Corbyn might actually be tapping into a genuine change in public opinion.

As a Brit, then yes I think most people would rather a renationalisation, even the Tories. But it's weirdly complex, because Network Rail is back under public ownership. So the infrastructure is backed and bailed out by the tax payer.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/aug/28/network-rail...

As a user it's a shambles. The network hit capacity back in the Blair years, and there has been a drive to get people off of trains as a result.

A little ingenuity wouldn't go amiss. Like cheap, and cheaper tickets for off peak travelling etc. I know using the trains on the Brighton main line, isn't much fun.

The only people who are _for_ privatisation of railways are those wealthy enough that they don't need to use rail travel.

Privatising public infrastructure is absurd, especially when you exactly build an adjacent railway line to compete.

Privatizing public infrastructure is not absurd. They just get the management from government's hands with the promise that they can do it with more efficiently. Even if it is far from perfect, they do a better job. Just anecdotal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatisation_of_British_Rail#...

Did you read the link you posted? Because it covered the major mismanagement which killed four people and directly resulted in renationalisation of UK rail infrastructure.

It's also worth noting that, for the UK rail system, most passenger operators are actually owned by public operators from other countries (like DB with their Arriva brand, NS with Abellio, etc.).

Unfortunately accidents happen, there are much bigger accidents happened in complete public rails. But if you check the measures , overall safety has been increased a great deal, actually it is considered as the safest in Europe, And for most accounts there are improvements (Customer satisfaction is up, Level of traffic is up, Fare increases are lower than before, Average train age unchanged, Punctuality unchanged, Safety is increased, Efficiency is up) ).

If it would be a real privatization, chances that it would be better.