| by Victor Cherubim
( June 11, 2013, London, Sri Lanka Guardian) “We’re the crab that walks forwards,” reads the billboard ad of a modern bank in U.K.
But, as President Mahinda Rajapaksa stated at Shaanxi Province in X’ian recently:
“Economic programmes had to arrive at the right balance between industrial progress and preservation of the environment.” What was perhaps implied was that going forward was not at any cost. The celebrity and consumer culture that prevails is grossly indulgent with what
has been endowed and man’s trusteeship is under scrutiny.
Governments may come, governments may go, but human nature remains. Destruction of the environment is seen everywhere. Call it anarchy, call it by any name. Take the case in Turkey, Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan has made a defiant address to supporters in Ankara, as thousands of protesters in Taksim Square continue their standoff. Some political analysts have compared it to the Tahir Square revolution in Cairo, Egypt. Is this a sign of the times or a blip in our historical evolution?
There is a different “revolution” of sorts taking place in U.K. What on earth is it in aid of?
It is boosting confidence, by making people “think” that they are rich. With taxpayers holding stakes in two of the Big Five Banks in U.K. pressure is mounting on the government to embark on a new round of privatisations. “Partly because of the size of the debt and deficit crisis, partly that many in the Conservative party are determined to reduce the size of the state still further,” but possibly to inject a new feel good factor, which spawns the way we live and work.
Under one plan voters in UK would be able to buy shares in the Government’s stake in Banks at a discount, thus kick-starting a multi billion pound recovery, a pre election windfall, years in advance of the 2015 election.
While many labour under the delusion that this charade contains an inkling of social justice, the trouble with privatisations is that whatever share bargains you have acquired, the Government always wins. Asset sales have always had an appeal to the public.
A history of privatisations can be enumerated:
1981 – British Aerospace; 1983 – Associated British Ports; 1984 – British Telecom; 1986 – British Gas; 1987 – British Airways; 1987 –British Airports Authority; 1989 – English and Welsh Regional Water Companies; 1990 – English Electricity companies; 1993 – British Rail.
Even if the privatisation agenda does not go beyond Royal Bank of Scotland, Lloyds Bank, Royal Mail envisaged at present, the possible sell off might include BBC Worldwide, Channel 4, Scottish Water, Network Rail, the remaining state owned Shipping Ports, Commonwealth Development Corporation, and possibly Road Privatisation.
The privatisation of Royal Mail with a reported operating profit of £144 m on revenue of £4.4 billion is expected to see staff given a 10% ownership stake. This is due sometime after Christmas 2013. The other desirable privatisations would be the government’s stakes in banks, RBS and Lloyds, which cost £66 billion to rescue. The public sector net debt was £1,162 billion at end of February 2013, thus privatisation in essence is returning state ownership to the public.
In the 1980’s under the tenants’ right to buy former Council homes legislation introduced by the Thatcher government, one in three homes is now owned by private landlords. Right to buy purchasers bought the leasehold of flats, with the Council retaining freehold ownership.
What on earth is dreamed up in selling the State’s properties, back to the people?
What are the chances of the share offers improving the financial prospects in years to come when the family silver has already been sold?
The value of shares and the income from them we are always warned can go down as well as up. But does this cautionary note always ring a bell among the wide eyed public.
“When you are keen to go further, there is no end to what can be done.” This is the fallacy of immediate reward at the expense of trusteeship of the environment. Is this compatible with sustainable development?