Joined
·
6,857 Posts
For the first four quarters following the 2008 debacle, the UK economy was in credit, with government spending being less than its income. By 2010 things had turned down financially and borrowing was necessary to close the gap between revenue and spending, so that when we received a new government that believed in reducing public debt to zero, we became committed to "austerity". (That, of course, meant "austerity" in terms of government spending on those public services that did not impact directly on Parliament or parliamentarians, who voted themselves increases in salary and expenses).
In order to help pay back the borrowing as quickly as possible, the government chose to raise money by selling off publicly-owned assets, especially those assets that had largely been public service monopolies - public utilities such as Royal Mail and the supply of energy and water. Since then, in private hands the consequence for the users of those utilities has largely been a reduction in quality of service and higher costs.
This is in conflict with the claimed improvements that would be derived from using the higher efficiency and innovation that the politicians professed to be the advantages of private industry. In practice, any savings achieved have been transferred to private shareholders, who have been largely based outside the UK, rather than passed to the public purse. Losses, on the other hand, have been passed back to the UK taxpayer whenever the venture has not proven beneficial to the shareholders and the company has either folded or been bailed out, as happened with Carillion and the East Coast railway line.
So is it time to reconsider whether or not the mantra of "private good, public bad" should be discarded and a new start be made? The politicians were only able to take such major sell-offs because for the previous 3 or 4 decades they had been following a policy of centralisation of power in Westminster, removing control of affairs from local authorities. Should we now be reconsidering returning control to local level in the interests of democracy and the economy.
Brexit was posited as essential to return decision-making from Brussels to the UK. If local decision-making is so desirable, why would it stop at Westminster and not be passed on to local level?
And if austerity was so essential and beneficial, now that it is over (according to Theresa May's recent pronouncements), how have you and yours benefited?
Have a look at this and see if you recognise any of the elements involved.
In order to help pay back the borrowing as quickly as possible, the government chose to raise money by selling off publicly-owned assets, especially those assets that had largely been public service monopolies - public utilities such as Royal Mail and the supply of energy and water. Since then, in private hands the consequence for the users of those utilities has largely been a reduction in quality of service and higher costs.
This is in conflict with the claimed improvements that would be derived from using the higher efficiency and innovation that the politicians professed to be the advantages of private industry. In practice, any savings achieved have been transferred to private shareholders, who have been largely based outside the UK, rather than passed to the public purse. Losses, on the other hand, have been passed back to the UK taxpayer whenever the venture has not proven beneficial to the shareholders and the company has either folded or been bailed out, as happened with Carillion and the East Coast railway line.
So is it time to reconsider whether or not the mantra of "private good, public bad" should be discarded and a new start be made? The politicians were only able to take such major sell-offs because for the previous 3 or 4 decades they had been following a policy of centralisation of power in Westminster, removing control of affairs from local authorities. Should we now be reconsidering returning control to local level in the interests of democracy and the economy.
Brexit was posited as essential to return decision-making from Brussels to the UK. If local decision-making is so desirable, why would it stop at Westminster and not be passed on to local level?
And if austerity was so essential and beneficial, now that it is over (according to Theresa May's recent pronouncements), how have you and yours benefited?
Have a look at this and see if you recognise any of the elements involved.
