I am back on the blog!

Tories are not what they used to be http://uckfieldlabour.blogspot.com/2015/05/tories-are-not-what-they-used-to-be.html

Tories are not what they used to be

Expect more contracting out of what used to be called public services, regardless of ultimate cost to the taxpayer or service level, as the new Government closes down the State as fast and far as it can. Privatisation is only in its infancy when it comes to welfare and health.

The p-word has come to be used as a shorthand for a variety of State-shrinking options, from selling off assets to employing outsource companies to do what was previously seen as within the purview of the Civil Service or Local Authorities, both of which are demonized in the eyes of the neo-liberal oligarchy now in charge.

The reality behind "privatisation" though goes deeper. Think back to Conservative administrations since WW2. In all until Thatcher's, there was a strong public service ethos, with respect for the independence and expertise of those employed. Thatcher believed, wrongly as it proved, that selling off State functions could improve efficiency whilst freeing Government from investment burdens. The resistance to this from the Civil Service led to a more lasting antipathy which the next years will undoubtedly see taken to new depths of ideological asset stripping.

The difference today is that instead of seeking alternative but efficient skilled ownership, the modus operandi is based on treating everything in units of money - monetising. No longer are there concerns for human expertise, motivation or self-esteem. Instead, tasks are broken down into those which can be outsourced via IT to the public, those which can be digitised and those for which a grudging low wage may be paid. It matters not a jot that the service is inadequate and the worker is unable to subsist on the miserly wage. To a plutocratic oligarchy all that matters is GDP as a measure of Government effect; and that as little as possible of that should be diverted from increasing assets of the "haves" into the pockets of mere wage earners or worse, the dependent. They know the cost of everything but value only money. People are mere economic units, either contributing to or draining the exchequer.

So by all means protest against privatisation but remember that it is just one symptom of a society in which only money counts. Old style Tories, aristocrats and business leaders used to govern with a sense of patronage, care and responsibility for those whose work created their wealth. Today's see only dispensible ciphers whom they wish they did not have to bother with nor even pay, if possible. How ironic to look back nostalgically to Conservative governments!

This is why we should oppose privatisation

"I told you so" is always unpopular, especially when justified. Despite Labour's early experiments, progressives have long opposed selling off assets or contracts for public services. We are accused of being doctrinaire in doing so. Now that the evidence is coming to hand of how it has worked, let us examine whether we were correct in our opposition for other reasons.

This month has just provided one example: Hinchingbrooke Hospital. As long ago as the previous Government, this hospital was failing to meet targets and economically. Eventually, the incoming Coalition decided to privatise it, contracting a hedge-funded firm called Circle to turn it round. This process has been under way with some impact for several years but now, under the continuing austerity and inexorable rise in demand, Circle is unable to meet is shareholders' profit expectations and decided to withdraw. Who will pick up the burden is not yet clear but ultimately this will be the tax-payer. Yet again, the State is called on to rescue the private sector from the effects of markets. Familiar? I should think so. You doubt me - want examples? How about the banks?  Who rescued them from their gambling debts? How about public ICT and military procurement? How about Southern Cross care homes? Or East Coast Mainline? Or Olympic Park security (G4S)? Or A4E. Or Serco... the list goes on.

Has not the myth of the excellence in management of the private sector yet been laid to rest? Let us just see how privatisation is flawed:

• it is about making profits for investors from taxes paid by the public;
• it employs lower-skilled workers to replace skilled - and do a worse job, whilst leaving the State less-well prepared to step back in;
• it picks the low-hanging fruit, leaving again the State to deal with the most complex and skill-demanding roles but without economies of scale;
• it is far from infallible, as its proponents would seem to suggest;
• it can [and does, frequently] walk away, leaving the State, which the Right so belittles, to pick up the pieces.

These are why privatisation of NHS is bad for us all. Labour must stop just banging on about privatisation without explaining why it is a bad thing, when the Right and its media buddies say otherwise. You were told.