Twenty More Years?

Neil Clark writes:

It's exactly 20 years ago this month that Margaret Thatcher, the longest-serving British prime minister of the 20th century, left Downing Street. Thatcher's negative impact can be seen in many areas. But arguably the most toxic legacy was her privatisation programme. Thatcher broke with the policy of previous post-war Conservative governments which had accepted the mixed economy post-war consensus, instead embarking on a major series of sell-offs when she first came to power in 1979. British Telecom, British Gas and British Airways were three of the biggest state-owned companies that Thatcher flogged off. She also broke up the National Bus Company and Sealink - the highly-profitable publicly owned ferry company.

But the great tragedy was that privatisation did not end with Thatcher's eviction from Number 10 in November 1990. John Major's government took privatisation even further than the Iron Lady dared to go - embarking on the disastrous sell-off of Britain's railways. To its credit, the Labour Party opposed the Tory sell-offs of the 1980s and '90s. But, to its great shame, when finally returned to government in 1997, it not only did nothing to bring privatised industries back into public ownership, it actually extended the process still further. Now, after this year's election and despite the fact that privatisation has never been so unpopular, we have the most pro-privatisation government in our history.

The Royal Mail, in state hands since 1516, is next up for sale. The Tote, a state-owned bookmaker set up by that well known socialist revolutionary Winston Churchill in 1928 and whose profits are ploughed back into racing, is also under threat. As are Britain's publicly owned forests. The government's NHS reforms mean the effective end of the state-run health system in all but name. It's interesting to note how the arguments for privatisation have changed down the years. Back in the 1980s, we were told by the Thatcherites that privatisation would improve efficiency and give customers a better deal. But the fact is that the nationalised industries of the '60s and '70s were far more efficient - and customer friendly - than their private successors.

Our railways are by far and away the most expensive in Europe with more big price rises to come in the New Year. Our privately-owned buses are the most expensive in the continent too, while in 2008 Britain saw the highest energy price rises in Europe - almost four times higher than Belgium, the next country on the list. The serial privatisers, therefore, have had to come up with a new excuse to continue with their policy. Today's Thatcherites don't say we need to privatise because it will be good for consumers, but because the government urgently needs to raise money to deal with the "deficit crisis." But it's an argument as bogus as the old ones that we were given back in the 1980s. As John Pilger pointed out in the Morning Star earlier this month, "a deficit of 10 per cent is not remotely a crisis. When Britain was officially bankrupt at the end of the second world war, the government built its greatest public institutions, such as the National Health Service and the arts edifices of London's South Bank."

In truth, it's privatisation and not public ownership that Britain can't afford. Bringing the railways, buses and utilities back into public ownership would actually save the country money in the long term. Not only would it mean that there would no longer be any need to pay subsidies to profiteering, privately owned transport companies but, in the case of the utilities, it would enable the new state-owned energy companies to reduce prices to consumers and businesses thereby aiding economic recovery. Any truly progressive - and economically literate - British political party would put public ownership right at the heart of its manifesto. Will new Labour leader Ed Miliband be bold enough to end his party's support for privatisation and revert back to the policy his party followed for much of the post-war era? Or will Margaret Thatcher, 20 years after leaving Downing Street, still be allowed to set the political agenda?