[Dissent-bristol-info] RE: Info 4 Action day updates / action

John Mayford john at avoncda.coop
Thu Feb 17 13:05:22 GMT 2005


HI All

Good News re CSC and sounds encouraging re No Borders. Nice One

Re Developing Nation Debt:

- Im meeting African Iniatives next wedenesday to confirm: so thats looking
good
- sent a reminder to Justin today- he's not in the country explaining

Cheers All
John


-----Original Message-----
From: william morris [mailto:i.resist at gmail.com]
Sent: 17 February 2005 12:36
To: Bristol Dissent Research & Info
Subject: Re: [Dissent-bristol-info] RE: Info 4 Action day updates /
action


hi all

sorry it's been a while

1. 
this is from the colombia solidarity list: "I am pleased to confirm
that Josh will take part in the workshop for the Dissent group on the
9th of April. He will talk about what happened [re: lina and miguel],
how the campaign was set up and run, and answer any questions people
might have."

further, at the last meeting geoff, who is doing a PhD on the theme,
said he would be happy to run the workshop based around the 'No
Borders' theme. I am waiting for a confirmed reply, but should be
fine.

2.
i'm happy to do the 9th march - anarchist606: i'm happy to do it on my
own if you've got a lot of commitments, else happy to team it. let me
know off-list

3.
below is first draft of 'privatisation' (1050 words) -  will be
reediting today to post final draft in next 24 hours

4.
got 50 gmail invites if anyone wants a gmail account.

Match of the Day Century: public v private
ONLY ONE CAN WIN!

What are public or private entities?
Private entities are owned by individuals or groups, whereas public
ones are owned by the government. Public entities are popularly linked
to communism and socialism as systems of governance that were based
around an ideal of a fully publicly owned economy. Neo-liberalist
governments in the 1970s, spearheaded by Reagan in the US and Thatcher
in the UK, started to aim towards an ideal of a fully private economy
not just at home but for the world.

The move from public to private
Popular political economic discourse in Britain and the US has been
based around recognising faults in a fully publicly owned economy and
hence aiming for the opposite, a fully private economy. In the UK,
starting with British Coal, Steel, Sugar to name a few, also
privatised (sold to companies owned by shareholders) were British
Telecom, Water, Rail and Power. These industries changed from acting
in the interests of the majority (as they do when owned and run by the
government) to acting in the interests of shareholders (as they own
the company).

What about somewhere in the middle?
What is not recognised is the possibility of operating a mixed economy
successfully. The theory behind total privatisation is that the 'free
hand' of the markets will make each industry more competitive, based
on economic models, and hence lead to lower prices and better products
(has this happened?). Included in these models is the key assumption
that private companies will act in the interests of the majority (if
the majority own a share of the company) rather than the minority
(that actually own most of the shares).

What is the Private Finance Initiative
The next phase of privatisation in the UK involves education and
health. This has been off the agenda for discussion and contrary to
popular belief the Labour government has actually accelerated the
Private Finance Initiative, the start to privatising our entire
country. Virtually none of this has been discussed either in
parliament or in the media.

Under the Private Finance Initiave, our schools and hospitals are
being sold off bit by bit to private companies that act in the
interests of their shareholders. Contracts for building work are
awarded to building firms that have the closest links to Labour Party
members that DO NOT act in the interests of the majority, let alone
the end-users of their services. Local rural hospitals are closed to
build 'super-hospitals', making people travel further, using taxpayers
money to fund the profits of the building contractors at a much
greater cost to us taxpayers than a simple total refurbishment would
have cost.

How does it work?
It is sort of like buying a sofa on hire purchase. Private firms bid
for contracts to run a service for a certain number of years. For
example, a firm like Jervis bids for a contract to build a new wing of
a school and maintain it for say 20 years. The government gets the new
school wing, and pays Jervis off slowly over 20 years, essentially
buying now, paying later. However, when the contractors standards do
not meet all of the requirements, or the deal becomes not profitable
enough, the contractor can pull out of the deal, leaving its mess
behind it. The government (taxpayers) are left to pay for it to be
refinanced and meanwhile the school/uni/hospital carries on.

Refinancing is the deal offered to firms after others have walked out,
because the deal is not profitable enough. The government (taxpayers)
essentially carries this refinacing cost, to make it more profitable.
Yes, that's right, taxpayers bear the cost of making building a school
more profitable for a firm such as Jervis.

Like hire purchase, the government ends up paying several times the
original bill. This government is now building up debt for future
governments to carry. Firms can walk out at any point if they decide
on their own grounds, if they want to. Furthermore, the new services
are only designed to last for the contract period - expecting that in
20 years time, another contract must be made. The full effect of the
PFI will not be felt until 20 years time - when it will be FAR TOO
LATE to do anything except regret mistakes.

Well documented are the mishaps of Private Finance, and are beginning
to emerge onto our newsscreens. Business elites cite the many
successes of PFI as a reason to continue with the sell-off of our
country to private firms. They take for granted a certain proportion
that goes wrong. But when people's health and education are at stake,
can we afford for a few projects to go wrong?

And where does the G8 fit into this? The crucial thing to consider is
WHOSE INTERESTS ARE THE GOVERNMENT ACTING IN. Are they acting in the
interests of the people, as they have a democratic mandate to do, or
do they act in the interests of business? Are they acting in your
interests? Is the government making it easier or harder for private
firms to get hold of OUR (taxpayers) money? These are questions we
must never stop to ask ourselves.

We must think about how far the UK is willing to go along with the
Project for a New American Century. This forms the stated aims of
neoliberalism - private ownership of everything. Stop to consider how
far this can go if pursued to death, and whether we want anything and
everything to have an 'owner'. This goes from material goods to ideas.
Where will this stop? Who is going to stop it?

But surely, this privatisation has nothing to do with G8 because
they're not talking about it? EXACTLY. It OFF the agenda. WE do not
feature in any part of the decision making process on key issues such
as this. It all happens behind closed doors. They set the agenda to
talk about issues we have been TALKING about for years. When the
leaders talk at G8, think about what assumptions they have made, what
they are NOT talking about but is implicit in their rhetoric.

We all have the power to do something. Use your voice, your brain,
your body, your wallet and your vote wisely. And let them know at
Gleneagles!
_______________________________________________
Dissent-bristol-info mailing list
Dissent-bristol-info at lists.aktivix.org
http://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/dissent-bristol-info




More information about the Dissent-bristol-info mailing list