Privatisation was introduced as a policy in the late 1970s by politicians who saw the benefit to the consumer that would result from competition between the suppliers of goods and services. The naturally regulated ebb and flow of those who seek their own interest in the process of supplying such goods and services to others for personal gain.

Earlier, one of the first movers to challenge nationalised industries was Freddie Laker who took on the national flag-carrier airlines much to their abiding horror. They managed to substantially defeat him personally, but not the move that he had started as can be seen in the proliferation of budget airlines today.

It did not take long for some of those suppliers of the nationalised functions to see that the huge captive market they benefited from as a nationalised goods or service provider was something to be retained if possible.

And of course, anything is possible more or less, if one puts one’s mind to it.

As they saw the great cash cows slipping away perhaps they simply set up “private” corporations to supply the goods or services that had been supplied by the nationalised industries?

This revised privatisation mantra indeed spread around the world during the 1980s and 90s and in some situations the instigators did not even bother to conceal their identity with the state. They simply formed private companies wholly or majority owned by the state. Such as Telkom, in South Africa.

In Britain it seems to have been more subtle in its outworking, but the monopolised or cartellised situation of supply would seem to have been achieved none the less. So much that has tried to pass itself off as privatisation since its earlier days of more honest implementation circa 1979 looks basically like a con game.

It’s not the banker’s bonuses one needs to be looking at so much as the people, who may be bankers or have interests in banks, or in large corporations, companies or global service providers, who may also be in state employment or rather, simply influential in the state structure.

Privatisation as now practised would clearly seem to have been transformed from a policy of throwing open nationalised industries to free enterprise competition, into that of throwing open the nationalised sector to monopolistic cartels.

Effectively, back to business as it was, with the market controlled by suppliers rather than consumers, and in hallmark style of the enemies of freedom, giving freedom a bad name in the process as they have allowed standards to erode.

It was tragic that the Herald of Free Enterprise was sunk.

Original by John B on Outspoken Rabbit

1
Antisthenes
October 3, 2011 at 16:26

Did the legislators do it by accident or design. All those regulations; working time directive, equal opportunities, maternity leave, minimum wage, employment law, licencing and harmonization. Not affordable for small and medium size businesses so putting them out of business and directing production and services into the hands of the few and the large. Now we have corporatism instead of nationalization both equally not fit for purpose. It takes the incentive out of giving products and services of reasonable quality and price and allows indifference to the consumer.

2
Peter Melia
October 3, 2011 at 19:04

None of those those things you mention were in effect at the time of the Herald sinking. The working rule was SOLAS, Safety of Life at Sea, which took as it’s central premise that a ship must at all times be seaworthy. With the bow doors open, it could be argued that the Herald was plainly not seaworthy (otherwise, why bother with bow doors at all?). However the court concluded that in fact the ship was seaworthy, which we all accept, so that’s all right then.