Doing Nothing Is An Option

His point rather made by the fact that this statement of the views of most Conservative voters can only now appear in the organ of those who used to denounce these things as shoring up the old order and putting off the revolution (they were right, of course, but that is another story), Neil Clark writes:

Have you noticed how neocons and neoliberals love to tell us that "doing nothing" on such and such an issue is not an option? Back in 2003, we were told that "doing nothing" about Saddam Hussein and the fearsome threat from his weapons of mass destruction which - let's not forget - could be assembled within 45 minutes, was simply not an option. Yet doing nothing - save lifting the genocidal sanctions on Iraq - was not only an option, it was the best option. If Iraq had not been illegally invaded at least a million people, who are now dead, would be alive.

A month ago, the same crowd was at it again, telling us that "doing nothing" about Libya and Colonel Gadaffi was not an option. But, with Libya now facing a protracted civil war and Britain embroiled in another open-ended and very costly military adventure, "doing nothing" looks far more sensible. There's a similar contrived, neurotic urgency about the coalition's NHS reform. According to David Cameron "the risk" to the NHS is "doing nothing." The status quo is simply not an option, the government tells us. Yeah, right, Dave. How many people have you seen marching for radical reform of the NHS?

Everyone I have met who has had treatment on the NHS in recent years has been very satisfied with the way they were treated. When I had to have a minor operation a few years back, I not only received exemplary care and attention in hospital but I received a text the day from the NHS to check if I was all right. What terrible service from an organisation which free-market fanatics like to label a "Stalinist bureaucracy"! Because most people are happy with the NHS the way it is, the neoliberals have to hype up its failings.

Yet when things do go wrong they are invariably caused by the introduction of so-called "market principles" and privatisation into our health-care system. The worst scandal to hit any hospital in recent years was the Mid-Staffordshire scandal, which occurred in an NHS foundation trust. The MRSA bug has been linked to falling hygiene standards, which many believe have been caused by the outsourcing of hospital cleaning. And hospital food has also deteriorated since catering was privatised.

If the coalition genuinely wanted to improve the NHS further it'd be kicking profiteering private companies out of it altogether, yet the government is arguing that we need even more private-sector involvement. What's going on? When the political elite tells us that "doing nothing" is no option, what it is really saying is that the status quo is not in the economic interest of those who bankroll them. Doing nothing about Saddam in 2003 would have kept in power a regime which kept large swathes of the economy in state ownership - meaning no chance of mega-big profits for international capital. Doing nothing about Libya would have meant the main oil producing areas of the country staying under control of its national government - one which had friendly links with Venezuela and whose leader, back in 2009, had proposed nationalising its oil industry.

And "doing nothing" about the NHS, means no bonanza for private health firms, which are desperate to take over the running of hospitals and doctors' surgeries. Private companies are already making money in the NHS - but it's not enough. The system itself must be transferred from the state to the private sector. So next time you hear a neoliberal or neoconservative tell you that doing nothing is not an option, remember that while doing nothing is not in their interest, it's probably best for the likes of you and me.

Conversely, when the elite are happy with the status quo, you can be pretty damn sure that it's ordinary people who are getting a raw deal. There's probably nothing in need of more urgent "reform" or change in Britain than our appalling privatised public transport system. We have the most expensive local bus and train fares in Europe. Around 70 per cent of people, disgusted by the poor service and the blatant profiteering of our transport companies, want to see our railways returned to public ownership. People are far more dissatisfied with public transport in Britain than they are with the NHS. Yet I haven't heard Cameron say once say that doing nothing on the railways is not an option. I wonder why?

While most readers will be convinced of the need for a state-owned health-care system and for the state to run public transport and our utilities, some will no doubt feel that having state ownership of a leading bookmaker is not so important.
But while the imminent privatisation of the Tote won't cost as many lives as the privatisation of the NHS, it needs to be opposed all the same. The Tote, in public ownership since its establishment by Winston Churchill in 1928, is no ordinary bookmaker. Its profits are ploughed back into racing - the Tote gave around £19 million to racing last year - providing a huge boost for a sport which employs, directly and indirectly, nearly 100,000 people.

The last Labour government kept changing its mind on privatising the Tote, but the new hardcore neoliberal coalition seems determined to flog it off to the private sector as quickly as possible. Leading racing figures, concerned about the sale, set up a Tote Charitable Foundation to join the bidding process. But when British Horseracing Authority chairman Paul Roy warned that racing and racecourses could refuse to co-operate with a future private owner of the Tote, he was angrily rebuked by Tory MP Philip Davies, who said: "The Tote Foundation is an unlikely winner of this contest" and accused racing of "backing the wrong horse."

Sure enough, the Tote Charitable Foundation has seen its bid dismissed with the field now narrowed down to two - Sports Investment Partners, a private equity consortium and the private bookmaker Betfred. I wonder what Churchill would think of the way that his Conservative successors are hell-bent on destroying his wonderful creation, which has done so much to make horse racing the great sport it is today in Britain?