Last week's Queen's Speech represents the beginning of the last year of Conservative Party led government for this parliamentary cycle. The Conservatives, through the traditional and rather odd mechanism of getting the queen to read them aloud to the country's gathered parliamentarians, for the last time took the chance to lay out formally the legislation they plan to pursue between now and the next election.
The bills announced in the Queen's Speech included, in particular,
policies regarding privatisation, cutbacks to public sector
redundancy payouts, and attempts to push private pensions (Clark &
Mason, 2014; BBC, 2014). In isolation, these seem like limited
measures, taken to tighten the public purse strings in response to a broader economic crisis.
However, these announcements do not exist in isolation. The Conservative led plans are being announced against a background of public sector services, awarded as contracts to private firms, being exploited to generate massive private profits (Armitage & Holmes, 2014). When seen properly in that context, some of the bills announced represent a struggle that will be central to this coming year, and an essential matter that the next election must address.
The privatisation friendly proposals are each extensions of previous moves on the part of the government, aimed at reducing the public sector and passing services and their responsibilities over to the private sector - for example the wrestling with public sector workers over cutting back their benefits (The Telegraph, 2011), to wanting to rearrange the European Union in order to repatriate powers over the workplace and minimum wage regulations (O'Grady, 2014).
With an election coming up in a years time, and at the behest of the Liberal Democrats, some extra securities were included for workers, like promises to further enforce the minimum wage and to take action for fairer contracts (Clark & Mason, 2014; BBC, 2014).
Yet, standing in stark contrast to the hyper-capitalist doctrines espoused by the Conservatives over the past few years, these concessions are accompanied by yet more anti-public sector policies, along with promises of deregulation for business, that make clear that they are but small deviations from the main Conservative aims. They seem to be pursuing, from healthcare to education, a complete privatisation of service provision in the UK. While Lib Dem influence seems to be trying to stem the flow, by pushing for a fairer workplace, they ultimately appear to lack the power, or perhaps the will, to oppose the ongoing public to private shift.
Yet, standing in stark contrast to the hyper-capitalist doctrines espoused by the Conservatives over the past few years, these concessions are accompanied by yet more anti-public sector policies, along with promises of deregulation for business, that make clear that they are but small deviations from the main Conservative aims. They seem to be pursuing, from healthcare to education, a complete privatisation of service provision in the UK. While Lib Dem influence seems to be trying to stem the flow, by pushing for a fairer workplace, they ultimately appear to lack the power, or perhaps the will, to oppose the ongoing public to private shift.
The arguments over this shift from the public to private sectors should really be a subject of major debate at the next election. However, before the Conservatives came to power, many of these policies had already been started under Labour. So it seems that it will be avoided at all cost, since the indications are that no major party has a problem with the capitalist privatisation of services.
The reason for the absence of dissent appears to be simple: money. Privatisation, and the selling of public contracts to private firms, is too great a source of investment for many to turn down. And many others are persuaded by the promise of cheaper but more lucrative, that is profitable, services. But at what cost?
The point of public services had never been to turn a profit. Their role had been to provide an independent and impartial service. If we continue down this road into privatisation, what will their role become? As some profit greatly from the change, what might the rest of us lose?
The reason for the absence of dissent appears to be simple: money. Privatisation, and the selling of public contracts to private firms, is too great a source of investment for many to turn down. And many others are persuaded by the promise of cheaper but more lucrative, that is profitable, services. But at what cost?
The point of public services had never been to turn a profit. Their role had been to provide an independent and impartial service. If we continue down this road into privatisation, what will their role become? As some profit greatly from the change, what might the rest of us lose?
==========
References:
==========
+ Tom Clark & Rowena Mason's 'Queen's speech: bills in brief'; in The Guardian; 4 June 2014.
+ The BBC's 'Bill-by-bill guide to Queen's Speech'; 4 June 2014.
+ Jim Armitage & Richard Holmes' 'Exclusive: How private firms make quick killing from PFI'; in The Independent; 4 June 2014.
+ The Telegraph's 'George Osborne: "no need for strikes over pensions"'; 28 July 2011.
+ Frances O'Grady's 'Merkel won't give Cameron what he wants most – an EU referendum'; in The Guardian; 27 February 2014.
No comments:
Post a Comment