British Steel isheading for nationalisation– against the will of the government. This is an important point, because it speaks to dogma colliding with practical reality. Here is a private company defeated by the “sink or swim” laws of the free market ideology that produced it, demanding instead that taxpayers come to its rescue – by threatening to make shortsighted business decisions with damaging consequences for the country’s future. What happened in Scunthorpe is not an outlier in the failed experiment of privatisation, and the government’s emergency takeover tells us that public ownership is a realistic solution if there is a political will.Here’s another example: water. Even the City editor of the Financial Times – hardly a bastion of radical socialism –concluded that its privatisationlooked like “little more than an organised rip-off”. Since privatisation in 1989, water companies have piled up more than £60bn in debt, while our water bills have continued to rise. Yet despite rivers and seas being blighted with raw sewage, and the loss of1tn litresof water from leaky pipes in 2021 alone, shareholdersraked in more than £85bnsince this most basic of human necessities was flogged off.On both British Steel and water, Nigel Farage outflanked Labour – from the left. That this Thatcherite former City trader demanded British Steel’s nationalisation as he posed with steelworkers, and called for Thames Water to go bust, is testament to how unpopular privatisation is.A poll last yearfound that 82% of Britons thought water should be publicly run – compared with 8% who believed in privatisation, which is half as many as those who think themoon landings were staged. Three-quarters believe rail and mail should be publicly run, with more than seven in 10 backing nationalised energy.But as with the banks in 2008, nationalisation is treated as a reluctant emergency measure. Starmer backed nationalisation of the natural monopolies during his leadership campaign. Indeed, he told the BBC’s Andrew Neil in 2020 thatnationalisation of those industrieswas a pledge that would appear in Labour’s next manifesto. But the following year, he told theBBC’s Laura Kuenssbergthat he “never made a commitment to nationalisation”, itself testament to his pathological dishonesty. It’s true that Labour hascommitted to nationalising rail, but after the resignation of transport secretary, Louise Haigh – who genuinely believed in public ownership – what that will mean in practice is highly questionable, especially if an increasingly austerity-driven government starves it of investment.Public ownership shouldn’t be a last resort. From the banks to the myriad private contractors feeding off state largesse – such as Serco, which wasfined more than £19mafter billing taxpayers for tagging prisoners who were dead – private ownership has repeatedly failed. What’s now missing is a positive vision of what public ownership could look like in the 21st century. A lot of the blame needs to be directed at Peter Mandelson’s grandfather – a chap named Herbert Morrison, who developed Labour’s form of nationalisation after the second world war. That model was top-down and undemocratic. Most of the board members of the newly nationalised industries were just brought over from their privately run predecessors. The first chair of the National Coal Board, for example, was a former coal baron named the 1st Viscount Hyndley. These industries were kept at arm’s length and run on a commercial basis.In 1946, one Liberal politician had a pointwhen he saidthat a miner who went to work in this newly nationalised industry “will see the same manager, the same deputy, the old roadway, the same coalface and, on Friday, he will probably be paid by the same man”. There was never any genuine public enthusiasm for privatisation, but this undemocratic system meant that Margaret Thatcher won passive acquiescence by arguing: “What earthly sense is it that families should have a millionth share in some nationalised industry which is indifferent to their needs and wishes?”Labour has done right by British Steel – now it must speed up a radical strategy for all industry | Polly ToynbeeRead moreA democratic alternative is surely possible, where representatives of workers and consumers play a key role in running industries. In French cities such as Paris, for example, the water supply was privatised from the mid-1980s onwards, and prices soared. When it was taken back under public ownership, a board of directors was installed that included elected city councillors, trade union representatives and members of environmental non-government organisations. The Observatoire parisien de l’eau is an assembly representing civil society that oversees the board’s decisions. Not only have water billsfallen by 8%andleakage levels halved, but the cityoffers taps with sparkling water.Rather than handing power to unaccountable bureaucrats, public ownership could be part of a new vision of democratising society – taking back control, if you will. The disillusionment with democracy, after all, has so much to do with governments hiving off their functions to markets, and then claiming impotence in the face of change. Privatisation never forged the popular capitalism promised by the “Tell Sid” British Gas advertising campaigns of the 1980s: by 2022,just 10.8%of UK shares were owned by individuals, down from28.2% in 1981. Rather than handing wealth and power to the people, privatisation helped forge a model defined by low growth whose diminished proceeds disproportionately swell the bank accounts of a tiny few.Handing power to the people away from the elites is a message that will resonate in an age of mass disillusionment. Alas, Labour has vacated so much space that even Farage can posture as an economic radical by comparison. That is a travesty. But asBritish Steeland flailing water profiteers underline, the old order is dying; its morbid symptoms are everywhere. What is needed now are politicians with the imagination and determination to build something else.Owen Jones is a Guardian columnist
While Starmer’s hand was forced on British Steel, it’s time to forge ahead with more nationalisations | Owen Jones
TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:
"Nationalisation of British Steel Highlights Shift in Attitudes Towards Public Ownership"
The Guardian
6.2
TruthLens AI Summary
The imminent nationalisation of British Steel underscores a significant clash between ideological dogma and practical necessity in the context of the UK’s economic landscape. The company, once a private entity, is now seeking taxpayer assistance to avoid making detrimental business decisions that could adversely affect the nation’s future. This situation is emblematic of the broader failures associated with privatisation, as seen in the water industry where companies have accrued substantial debt while customer bills have soared. Despite the evident shortcomings of privatisation, including environmental degradation and infrastructure neglect, public sentiment appears to be shifting towards a preference for public ownership. Polls indicate overwhelming support for nationalising utilities such as water and rail, suggesting a growing discontent with the status quo of privatised industries, which has been notably exploited by politicians across the spectrum, including those traditionally associated with right-wing politics, like Nigel Farage.
Furthermore, the article critiques the Labour Party’s approach to nationalisation, particularly under Keir Starmer’s leadership, which has wavered between commitment and reluctance regarding public ownership. Although Labour had previously pledged to nationalise key industries, the party's current trajectory raises questions about its dedication to this cause, especially in light of recent leadership changes. The piece argues that public ownership should not be seen merely as a contingency plan but rather as a proactive strategy to reclaim democratic control over essential services. Drawing on examples from other nations, such as the successful public management of water in Paris, the article advocates for a new model of public ownership that involves worker and consumer representation. This democratic approach could rejuvenate public trust and address the failures of privatisation, ultimately leading to a more equitable distribution of resources and power within society. The call for a radical vision of public ownership resonates in an era marked by widespread disillusionment with traditional economic systems.
TruthLens AI Analysis
The article addresses the nationalisation of British Steel, highlighting the conflict between ideological beliefs and practical realities. It illustrates how the free market ideology has led to the failure of privatised entities, emphasizing that public ownership could be a viable solution when political will exists. The author critiques the government's response to British Steel's predicament, suggesting that it reflects a broader trend where emergency nationalisation becomes necessary in the face of private sector failures.
Public Sentiment on Privatisation
Public opinion appears to be shifting against privatisation, particularly in essential services like water and rail. The article cites polls indicating overwhelming support for public ownership, suggesting that many citizens see nationalisation as a preferable alternative to privatisation. This sentiment is significant as it reflects a growing discontent with the current market-driven approach to essential services.
Political Implications
The article implies that Labour leader Keir Starmer is in a position to advocate for more nationalisations, especially as public support grows. By highlighting instances where even figures like Nigel Farage, traditionally aligned with right-wing politics, call for nationalisation, it underscores a potential political shift that transcends party lines. This could pressure the Labour Party to adopt more progressive stances.
Economic Considerations
The economic ramifications of this discussion are profound. Nationalisation of failing or essential services may be viewed as a necessary intervention to safeguard jobs and protect public interests. However, critics may argue that such measures could lead to increased government debt or inefficiencies associated with state ownership.
Social and Community Impact
The article seems to resonate with communities affected by privatisation failures, particularly in the manufacturing and utility sectors. By advocating for nationalisation, it appeals to those who have witnessed the decline of local industries and the negative consequences of privatisation on job security and service quality.
Potential Market Reactions
In the context of stock markets and global economic perception, the call for nationalisation could affect investor confidence in sectors that are reliant on privatisation. Companies in utilities, rail, and steel might face volatility as the narrative shifts towards public ownership, potentially impacting their stock prices.
Geopolitical Context
While the article primarily focuses on domestic issues, the implications of nationalisation in the UK could resonate on a larger scale, especially in discussions about economic sovereignty and the role of government in managing essential services. This aligns with a broader global trend of questioning neoliberal economic policies. The article employs a straightforward yet persuasive narrative, appealing to emotions and public sentiment. It emphasizes urgency and necessity, which could be considered manipulative if it oversimplifies complex economic issues. The emphasis on nationalisation as a solution may obscure the nuances of potential challenges associated with state ownership. In summary, the reliability of the article hinges on its presentation of facts and public opinion. While it effectively captures a growing sentiment against privatisation, its framing could potentially lead to a biased understanding of the complexities involved in nationalisation.