The problem with attempting to change anything in this country is that the stranglehold that the two main parties have upon the electoral systems means that voters have a choice, effectively, of just two packages. These are now so similar as to be largely indistinguishable and neither represents the true wishes of the electorate. Instead, once elected the government of the day embarks upon a programme which benefits only a minority of the electorate � usually those who contribute little.
The problem is compounded by voter apathy. Not so much that people cannot be bothered to vote at all, but there is simply no apparent need to radically change things. So long as they have enough food, can manage a couple of holidays each year and can raise a loan to buy a new jeep or people carrier every couple of years they are happy.
As far as this particular question goes the country�s security of energy provision was compromised mainly by the privatisation of energy supplies. This by itself was not particularly damaging because, generally, businesses are better than governments at running things. However, what has happened with the UK�s energy (and indeed many other) industries is that they are now almost exclusively in the hands of foreign owners. As a result UK consumers are treated less favourably (hence the increasing use of the term �rip-off Britain�).
Major issues such as this will never be properly addressed to the benefit of British people whilst the cosy two party system prevails. There is too much at stake for politicians to jeopardise their comfortable Westminster careers (usually extended after they�ve been thrown out of Parliament by a stint in Europe) by rocking the boat.