Photo credit: www.theguardian.com
British Steel is poised for nationalisation, a development that contradicts the government’s intentions. This scenario illustrates a critical clash between ideological beliefs and practical realities. A private entity, overwhelmed by the harsh realities of free-market competition, is now seeking assistance from taxpayers—hinting at shortsighted business strategies that could have lasting repercussions for the nation. The situation in Scunthorpe is emblematic of the broader failures associated with privatisation, suggesting that public ownership could serve as a viable solution if political resolve exists.
Another pertinent case is the privatisation of water. Even Paul Johnson, the City editor of the Financial Times—typically not aligned with radical viewpoints—recently pointed out that the privatisation since 1989 resembles “nothing more than an organised rip-off.” Water companies have accrued over £60 billion in debt since this shift, while consumers face escalating water bills. Meanwhile, environmental issues, such as raw sewage contaminating rivers and seas, persist, alongside staggering statistics revealing that one trillion litres of water were lost through leaks in 2021. In stark contrast, shareholders have reaped more than £85 billion in profit from this essential resource’s sale.
In the discourse surrounding both British Steel and the water sector, Nigel Farage has surprisingly adopted positions typically associated with the left. His call for the nationalisation of British Steel and for Thames Water to be dissolved underscores a growing discontent with privatisation. A recent poll indicates that 82% of the British populace supports the public management of water services, with only 8% advocating for privatisation. Support for nationalising rail and postal services is similarly high, bolstered by over 70% approval for public ownership of energy resources.
Nevertheless, nationalisation continues to be regarded as a reluctant response to crises, rather than a proactive approach. Keir Starmer had previously championed the nationalisation of natural monopolies during his tenure as Labour leader, asserting in a 2020 BBC interview that this commitment would feature in the next Labour manifesto. However, he later contradicted this by stating that he “never made a commitment to nationalisation,” which raises questions about his sincerity and the party’s true stance. Although Labour has pledged to return rail services to public ownership, the recent resignation of Transport Secretary Louise Haigh—who genuinely supported this move—casts doubt on its future implementation, especially in a climate of likely austerity and dwindling investment.
Public ownership should not be seen merely as a fallback option. From the banking sector’s bailouts to various private service providers profiting from government funds, there is a pattern of failure associated with privatisation. To move forward, society needs a renewed vision of how public ownership can work in the contemporary context. Much of the criticism directed at the past models of nationalisation can be traced back to figures such as Herbert Morrison, whose top-down approach yielded little democratic engagement, removing industry from the public sphere. The National Coal Board, for instance, was initially led by individuals sourced from prior private enterprises, failing to catalyse genuine reform or responsiveness to public needs.
A historical observation made in 1946 by a Liberal politician highlights the continuity of management in newly nationalised industries, emphasizing the lack of real change in workers’ experiences. The essence of privatisation did not resonate with the public; rather, Margaret Thatcher’s rhetoric exploited the failures of an undemocratic nationalisation model to garner passive acceptance for her policies.
What is essential is the establishment of a democratic public ownership model, where workers and consumers actively influence operational decisions. An enlightening case is found in Paris, where the privatisation of the water supply led to surging prices. Following its re-nationalisation, established governance structures included elected representatives from trade unions and environmental groups, creating accountability that improved service outcomes, like reducing water bills and leakage rates. This model demonstrates that public ownership can be compatible with democratic principles while effectively managing vital resources.
Instead of relegating control to faceless bureaucracies, public ownership could serve as a platform for revitalising democratic engagement and counteracting the widespread disenchantment with governance. The failure of privatisation to deliver a thriving popular capitalism has resulted in stark inequities, where a dwindling percentage of individuals hold shares in UK companies. This trend contradicts the very notion of spreading wealth and power among the populace.
The growing sentiment for a redistribution of power from elite circles resonates profoundly in an era characterized by widespread disillusionment with democratic institutions. Unfortunately, Labour’s retreat from advocating for these changes has allowed figures like Farage to position themselves as economic reformers. This shift is troubling, as it signals a broader discomfort with the status quo. As the manifestations of this failing order become increasingly apparent, the pressing need for visionary leadership capable of instituting meaningful change has never been greater.
Source
www.theguardian.com