Worried about privatisation? What to watch out for in Wednesday's budget
On Wednesday it’s thechancellor’s ’emergency budget’.
We don’t know exactly what he’s planning. But we do know he seems to be in a hurry to sell off our public services to the private sector as quickly as possible.
That’s why we’ve launched our Top Trumps campaign to draw attention to some of the great public assets that we believe are on Osborne’s hit list. If it has a proud history of success, provides a vital service and makes a profit – we’ve got to keep a close eye on it. The chancellor is probably about to go in for the kill.
1) In May, Osborne announced that he would be selling off £23 billion of our public assets at a CBI dinner. The government is creating a new company to streamline the privatisation process: UK Government Investments (UKGI). UKGI brings together UK Financial Investments (which includes government shares in Lloyds and RBS) with the shareholder executive. The Shareholder Executive is in charge of a portfolio of government owned or part owned businesses, including the Met Office, Ordnance Survey and the Royal Mint, amongst many others. We don’t know for sure whether all or just some of these assets are up for grabs.
2) Under the coalition government, the Liberal Democrats held back some of George Osborne’s plans to sell off public assets. Vince Cable vetoed plans to privatise Channel 4, the Land Registry and the rest of the student loan book.
3) Mark Russell, the head of the Shareholder Executive, is on the record as saying ‘only one or two companies’ owned by the government will never be privatised and that the government is looking at wholly or partly-privatising Companies House, the Land Registry, the Met Office and Ordnance Survey over the lifetime of this parliament.
“Mr Russell makes clear that, unless there is a policy reason for government to own a business, it should look to divest its shareholding if it can realise value for money,” the FT reported. Meanwhile, private investors are already starting to eye up the potential of our profitable public assets.
4) The chancellor has already said that he is selling off the remaining public shares in RBS, and Lloyds. Business secretary Sajid Javid recently announced plans to privatise the Green Investment Bank, and the press is now reporting that privatisation of Channel 4 is back on the table.
5) We know George Osborne won’t wait for our permission or consult us. He doesn’t seem to mind what the public thinks. This government has already sold off a whole range of our services including Eurostar, the search and rescue service, blood plasma – not to mention opening the doors for wholesale privatisation of the NHS and encouraging councils to outsource as much as possible. We know we’ll be the last to hear about our services being sold off. Did you spot George Osborne selling off 15 per cent of Royal Mail shares overnight to bankers? It’ll happen again.
When Osborne goes in for the kill on Wednesday, let’s be ready. Ready to explain why he’s wrong. Ready to fight back. Let’s tell the positive stories about public institutions working well in our hands, making a profit and doing fantastic work.
Sign the petition to stop the sell off.
Cat Hobbs is the director of We Own It. Follow her on Twitter
28 Responses to “Five reasons not to trust George Osborne with Britain’s national treasures”
Janet T-Tremaine
AGREE Yvonne. They don’t seem to acknowledge that the money to repair the neglect and lack of maintenance, early retirements and benefits handed out like candy, needs to come from somewhere. The institutions that are being sold off can be run by the private sector and if fair and open tenders are the method used to select who should be running them, then it is a good solution. The comments further down this thread by
tangentreality say why Osborne should continue with his plan.
Janet T-Tremaine
Would you have a rule that everyone who runs for Parliament has to be poor, without assets or his own home, when the/she decides to give up many years of their life to go into politics and public service? That would be plain daft. Osborne already had all that you are envious of BEFORE he became chancellor – it was not paid for by the taxpayer. Also, any chancellor residing at No. 11 gets that house to stay in because of its convenience to his daily business and proximity to the hub of running the country, i.e. No. 10. Are you suggesting that because he has this arrangement he should not keep his family home???? Stupid economics to say the least.
Man the Barricades
Dont be silly Janet Hyphen-Hyphen, I just think that 27 millionaires in a government is not exactly representative. I am not envious of Osborne whose moral efficacy I despise. Someone who attacks “aggressive tax avoiders” whilst performing the act himself is of very doubtful honesty and is certainly a hypocrite. Even If I agreed that the total cost of the benefits he receives from the taxpayer, benefits that you and I would be taxed upon if our employer gave such benefits, why do you think he shouldn’t pay tax on the rental income from his house in Notting Hill? Why do you think he shouldn’t pay tax on the income from his £10m trust fund? Why do you think he shouldn’t have to pay tax on his shareholding in Osborne & Little Ltd or the £6m sale just done with a company in a tax haven? Your understanding of his situation is as limited as your apparent knowledge of how the vast majority perceive injustice. There’s a lot to bee learned from the Greeks and I would quote you Plato who said “Wealth
as a social motive is to be mistrusted, and a ruling class which is devoted to
its wealth, and which owes its position and power to wealth, will substitute
exploitation for government.” A Chancellor who didn’t even declare a personal financial interest when dropping Corporation Tax to a level below that of Tax Havens like Jersey is to my mind untrustworthy and selfseeking. You really should read more.