mandryka
pfm Member
nationalisation meant that - indirectly - everyone already had a stake;
Can you say a bit more about what stake means for you here? Do I now have a stake in grant maintained schools? If so, I’d like to cash it in please.
nationalisation meant that - indirectly - everyone already had a stake;
An indirect stake. The state owns and runs the utility on our behalf. It's like the local park - something held in common for the benefit of the community.Can you say a bit more about what stake means for you here? Do I now have a stake in grant maintained schools? If so, I’d like to cash it in please.
The way Redwood tells it in the programme I linked above, when he arrived in Conservative Policy in 1983, he proposed a much wider set of privatisations than they had in mind. He says that Thatcher was sold on the idea of a wider ownership culture. She liked the idea of the little man having a stake. Of course, the irony is that nationalisation meant that - indirectly - everyone already had a stake; so any privatisation by definition would concentrate wealth and dispossess the little man who couldn't afford to subscribe for shares. A share-owning democracy, where the demos is restricted to the 1.5 million individuals (2.7% of the population) who bought shares.
Our own privatisations are seen as democratic and enabling, but when the same thing happened in Russia in the 1990’s it was a ‘rape’ of national assets.At the time I was struggling like many to keep up with a mortgage etc and, although I was ideologically opposed to flogging off all OUR assets on the cheap, hypocritically would have bought shares in gas, BT etc as they were so clearly a slam dunk. Except I couldn't afford to. As you say a tiny percentage was able to profit from what belonged to all.
Our own privatisations are seen as democratic and enabling, but when the same thing happened in Russia in the 1990’s it was a ‘rape’ of national assets.
Same thing, different sales pitch.