The IMF Speaks: The Tories got it wrong with Privatisation

[PH]

I hope I'm wrong but I wonder if the IMF would bail us out if they mess up.

Since the mid 70's the IMF have followed monetarist polices, they only loan money if the lender agrees to those terms, a socialist government borrowing money from them would no longer be a socialist government. This wasn't always the case, but it's what brought down the Callaghan government. The left at the time, in particular Tony Benn wanted to tell them where to stuff it, we'd live in a different world if we had.

[bovlomov]

Privatisation or nationalisation? It's very easy to make convincing arguments for either. Any idiot could, and many idiots have.

The difficulty is making them work in the real world, and that means mitigating the inherent weaknesses. I wish the apostles of each system would spend as much time addressing the weaknesses in their own model as they spend ripping apart the opposing model.

With the private sector in the ascendancy, the left has plenty of current disasters to choose from. But from the right, the most common argument against nationalisation is "Venezuela". That's like shouting "Shipman" at anyone who offers you an aspirin.

[pete75]

I always love how people forget otherParties exist

What about the effects of the Labour Party Economy, PFI etc?

After all, as quoted:

"The other big reason for the UK’s financial precarity is its privatisation programme, described by the IMF as no less than a “fiscal illusion”. British governments have flogged nearly everything in the cupboard, from airports to the Royal Mail – often at giveaway prices – to friends in the City. Such privatisations, judge the fund, “increase revenues and lower deficits but also reduce the government’s asset holdings”."

The overwhelming majority of the privatisations were carried out under the Tories so it's only right they take an overwhelming amount of the blame. PFI was a Tory invention too.

But PFIs were mostly implemented by Labour governments and the worst examples I believe were under a Labour watch when they dropped some of the safeguards originally designed as part of the PFIs under the tories before Labour took the idea over. At least according to some reports of studies on the matter I've been made aware of.

Just out of curiosity, which is worst, PFIs or privatisations?

Just out of curiosity, who cosied up to big business and money men (women) more? Blair / Brown or Major before them?

The IMF report is about privatisation not PFI. That's a minor irritant in dispensing with national assets compared to what was sold off during teh Thatcher/Major years. Under priced shares too - a gift to the Tories friends in the city. It's one thing to sell off stae owned assets but quite another to under price them so the public provide a bonus for investors. The same could be said about council house sales whixh were are really a privatisation of public housing. Why should public assets be sold off for half their value. It's just robbing the taxpayer.

[Cunobelin]

All who work or worked in public services of any kind have known this for 20 years. The PFI scams and related destructions of the public service ethic in favour of the profit motive wreaked havoc and degradation from the very beginning. It's led to not only the fleecing of the public purse and property by greedy fatcats of every ilk - many of them foreign by the way - but the destruction of much of out social fabric, not least in the form of alienation and hopelessness in those who despair of the me-my-I behaviours that now dominate our wider culture.

Is it fixable? Only in theory. The motivation of the 1% to retain and increase their kleptocratic ways is immense. Post Brexit, the path to their total dominance and ownership will be greatly eased. "Inward investment" is more of the same but ramped up to the point where no one but these monsters will own anything We will not even own ourselves. We're already a nation of the indebted and will soon also be a nation of the indentured. Not just wage slaves but actual slaves.

As "the undeserving poor" most will be cast into a mean and deprived (probably also depraved) life not dissimilar to that of the C19th masses. Neoliberalism is, after all, just C19th laissez-faire rewritten for the post-modern age.

Cugel

PFI is classic... in some cases if the organisations concerned had taken an overdraft from a High Street Bank, they would have paid back less!

[Cunobelin]

I think Cunobelin could get a job as a Tory spin doctor.

I could, but it would not be popular as this is about showing that ALL of the Governments oner the last decades have made catastrophic errors financially

Dismissing PFI as an inconvenient contribution is where the spin really lies

(Pun intended)

[Cunobelin]

The overwhelming majority of the privatisations were carried out under the Tories so it's only right they take an overwhelming amount of the blame. PFI was a Tory invention too.

But PFIs were mostly implemented by Labour governments and the worst examples I believe were under a Labour watch when they dropped some of the safeguards originally designed as part of the PFIs under the tories before Labour took the idea over. At least according to some reports of studies on the matter I've been made aware of.

Just out of curiosity, which is worst, PFIs or privatisations?

Just out of curiosity, who cosied up to big business and money men (women) more? Blair / Brown or Major before them?

The IMF report is about privatisation not PFI. That's a minor irritant in dispensing with national assets compared to what was sold off during teh Thatcher/Major years. Under priced shares too - a gift to the Tories friends in the city. It's one thing to sell off stae owned assets but quite another to under price them so the public provide a bonus for investors. The same could be said about council house sales whixh were are really a privatisation of public housing. Why should public assets be sold off for half their value. It's just robbing the taxpayer.

PFI is so similar to privatisation, except that it is an ongoing situation that can be milked for years, as opposed to a one off payment.

It's one thing to sell off state owned assets but quite another to rent them to the public at an overpriced rate in order to provide a bonus for investors. Both involve giving a public asset to private companies at significant loss to the public purse

IIRC the profit for some PFI schemes is as high as 800%. The other thing is that most of this is paid outside the UK tax system so we don't even get back the taxation on this public money.

[Ben@Forest]

"if Labour’s John McDonnell gets into No 11 and renationalises the railways, that would cost tens of billions – but it would also leave the country with assets worth tens of billions that provided a regular income."

Did this ever happen when we had nationalised industries? I recall everything from British Airways thru British Steel to British Leyland and certainly British Rail having to be bailed out or subsidised by government.

There are of course what are effectively subsidies for the rail industry today (and actually I'm in favour of rail nationalisation) but the idea that this would create fantastic income streams for the government isn't borne out by experience.

[kwackers]

There are of course what are effectively subsidies for the rail industry today (and actually I'm in favour of rail nationalisation) but the idea that this would create fantastic income streams for the government isn't borne out by experience.

I think it's an attempt to sell it to the "how are we going to pay for it" crowd.

The problem as always is the problem is nuanced. A good integrated public transport system is expensive (but not as expensive a private car ownership) and your average Tory is taught to look at the number and say "w t f!"
But it ignores all the other cost benefits; reduction in traffic, car ownership, pollution, time wasted in jams as well as the status of being a country with a decent system.

Once again we're back to the 'holistic whole'.
Something this government don't understand as they shuffle costs around because the politics say it's better that twice as much is spent over there than the amount over here.

[PDQ Mobile]

There are of course what are effectively subsidies for the rail industry today (and actually I'm in favour of rail nationalisation) but the idea that this would create fantastic income streams for the government isn't borne out by experience.

I think it's an attempt to sell it to the "how are we going to pay for it" crowd.

The problem as always is the problem is nuanced. A good integrated public transport system is expensive (but not as expensive a private car ownership) and your average Tory is taught to look at the number and say "w t f!"
But it ignores all the other cost benefits; reduction in traffic, car ownership, pollution, time wasted in jams as well as the status of being a country with a decent system.

Once again we're back to the 'holistic whole'.
Something this government don't understand as they shuffle costs around because the politics say it's better that twice as much is spent over there than the amount over here.

Yes quite so.
The present Govt. has shown itself to be incompetent and incapable on so many different levels.

Sometimes I am incredulous at the conflicting, bumbling statements.
We were promised that austerity would help solve the debt crisis. Borrowing remains extremely high. Savings attract no interest or even attract a cost.
Brexit is the fcuk-up that many foresaw it would be.
Poverty and homelessness at all time highs.

The privatization ideology is spent and dead.

[pete75]

But PFIs were mostly implemented by Labour governments and the worst examples I believe were under a Labour watch when they dropped some of the safeguards originally designed as part of the PFIs under the tories before Labour took the idea over. At least according to some reports of studies on the matter I've been made aware of.

Just out of curiosity, which is worst, PFIs or privatisations?

Just out of curiosity, who cosied up to big business and money men (women) more? Blair / Brown or Major before them?

The IMF report is about privatisation not PFI. That's a minor irritant in dispensing with national assets compared to what was sold off during teh Thatcher/Major years. Under priced shares too - a gift to the Tories friends in the city. It's one thing to sell off stae owned assets but quite another to under price them so the public provide a bonus for investors. The same could be said about council house sales whixh were are really a privatisation of public housing. Why should public assets be sold off for half their value. It's just robbing the taxpayer.

PFI is so similar to privatisation, except that it is an ongoing situation that can be milked for years, as opposed to a one off payment.

It's one thing to sell off state owned assets but quite another to rent them to the public at an overpriced rate in order to provide a bonus for investors. Both involve giving a public asset to private companies at significant loss to the public purse

IIRC the profit for some PFI schemes is as high as 800%. The other thing is that most of this is paid outside the UK tax system so we don't even get back the taxation on this public money.

Of course that's why the Tories invented it and why it was carried on by a red Tory government. There was a post war political consensus aimed at full employment, decent public services and a raising of living standards for what used to be called the working classes. The Thatcher government broke this and started a new political consensus of there's no such thing as society, what's good for business is good for the country, private ownership good public ownership bad, greed is good, minimum regulation etc. An unbroken run of Thatcher, Major, Blair son of Thatcher, Cameron self proclaimed heir to Blair.

[PH]

I think Cunobelin could get a job as a Tory spin doctor.

ALL of the Governments oner the last decades have made catastrophic errors financially
(Pun intended)

I don't disagree with that at all, but they're not all the same, they don't all have the same effect, they aren't all done for the same reason and it's not what this report is about.

Dismissing PFI as an inconvenient contribution is where the spin really lies

We'll have to agree to differ, IMO it's like when complaining about speeding motorists they counter with pavement cyclists.

[mercalia]

The overwhelming majority of the privatisations were carried out under the Tories so it's only right they take an overwhelming amount of the blame. PFI was a Tory invention too.

But PFIs were mostly implemented by Labour governments and the worst examples I believe were under a Labour watch when they dropped some of the safeguards originally designed as part of the PFIs under the tories before Labour took the idea over. At least according to some reports of studies on the matter I've been made aware of.

Just out of curiosity, which is worst, PFIs or privatisations?

Just out of curiosity, who cosied up to big business and money men (women) more? Blair / Brown or Major before them?

The IMF report is about privatisation not PFI. That's a minor irritant in dispensing with national assets compared to what was sold off during teh Thatcher/Major years. Under priced shares too - a gift to the Tories friends in the city. It's one thing to sell off stae owned assets but quite another to under price them so the public provide a bonus for investors. The same could be said about council house sales whixh were are really a privatisation of public housing. Why should public assets be sold off for half their value. It's just robbing the taxpayer.

Thatcher was more evil than many know. When Hesaltine was in office all the money from council house sales went to the councils so they could build more homes. When he left/was replaced the guy who followed decided that 2/3 of the money would go to the treasury and also the remaining 1/3 would also if councils didnt use it to build homes with in certain time scale ( how could they, since they only had 1/3 of the money?) Total Evil in my opinion

[horizon]

The privatization ideology is spent and dead.

Until state ownership gets over-heavy, self-serving, sclerotic and dismissive of the customer (remember those telephone boxes?). And no-one is proposing that the cycle industry is nationalised!

I'm in favour of regional rail franchises handed out to a variety of passenger owned (or influenced by) firms and community interest companies with a state holding company running the track (almost as now). Housing got a lot better with housing associations and the National Trust runs well alongside English Heritage. Local council housing departments with their clear away and build-it-high approach were awful. And when energy was privatised and the full costs realised, nuclear quickly bit the dust.

I think it's horses for courses, a mixed economy, the benefits of either or both, localised decision-making, customer involvement, non-profit-making organisations, charities, small private firms and occasionally a well-taxed large corporation with workers on the board. Diversity and scale is what makes it work with the right model applied to the right situation.

[PDQ Mobile]

The privatization ideology is spent and dead.

Until state ownership gets over-heavy, self-serving, sclerotic and dismissive of the customer (remember those telephone boxes?). And no-one is proposing that the cycle industry is nationalised!

I'm in favour of regional rail franchises handed out to a variety of passenger owned (or influenced by) firms and community interest companies with a state holding company running the track (almost as now). Housing got a lot better with housing associations and the National Trust runs well alongside English Heritage. Local council housing departments with their clear away and build-it-high approach were awful. And when energy was privatised and the full costs realised, nuclear quickly bit the dust.

I think it's horses for courses, a mixed economy, the benefits of either or both, localised decision-making, customer involvement, non-profit-making organisations, charities, small private firms and occasionally a well-taxed large corporation with workers on the board. Diversity and scale is what makes it work with the right model applied to the right situation.

Yes I agree with that too.
But I think the ideology that all private will solve every problem IS dead.
Pity the Govt. Is so blinded by old ideas.

[pete75]

Local council housing departments with their clear away and build-it-high approach were awful.

Depends on the housing department. There's a lot of unthinking prejudice against council housing in this country and peopel forget or don't even know that some council's built decent high quality properties.

This is what they were building in urban areas round here post war with the red brick further up being pre war build. Not unpleasant houses and with quite big gardens. The bungalows on the left are for pensioners.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.77180 ... 312!8i6656

This is the sort of thing they built in villages again the bungalows are for the elderly.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.04237 ... 312!8i6656

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.89401 ... 312!8i6656