What do you think?
Rate this book
Private Island: Why Britain Now Belongs to Someone Else
“The essential public good that Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair and now Cameron sell is not power stations, or trains, or hospitals. It’s the public itself. it’s us.”
In a little over a generation the bones and sinews of the British economy – rail, energy, water, postal services, municipal housing – have been sold to remote, unaccountable private owners, often from overseas. In a series of brilliant portraits the award-winning novelist and journalist James Meek shows how Britain’s common wealth became private, and the impact it has had on us from the growing shortage of housing to spiralling energy bills.
Meek explores the human stories behind the incremental privatization of the nation over the last three decades. He shows how, as our national assets are sold, ordinary citizens are handed over to private tax-gatherers, and the greatest burden of taxes shifts to the poorest. In the end, it is not only public enterprises that have become private property, but we ourselves.
Urgent, powerfully written and deeply moving, this is a passionate anatomy of the state of the of what we have lost and what losing it cost us – the rent we must pay to exist on this private island.
In a little over a generation the bones and sinews of the British economy – rail, energy, water, postal services, municipal housing – have been sold to remote, unaccountable private owners, often from overseas. In a series of brilliant portraits the award-winning novelist and journalist James Meek shows how Britain’s common wealth became private, and the impact it has had on us from the growing shortage of housing to spiralling energy bills.
Meek explores the human stories behind the incremental privatization of the nation over the last three decades. He shows how, as our national assets are sold, ordinary citizens are handed over to private tax-gatherers, and the greatest burden of taxes shifts to the poorest. In the end, it is not only public enterprises that have become private property, but we ourselves.
Urgent, powerfully written and deeply moving, this is a passionate anatomy of the state of the of what we have lost and what losing it cost us – the rent we must pay to exist on this private island.
261 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2014
28 people are currently reading
1150 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 64 reviews
June 18, 2020
I had to stop reading this after a while as it is too harrowing. Watching what's been happening to the UK since the early eighties or thereabouts has been very distressing. Since the UK is largely owned by foreign money now, I guess it shouldn't really be surprising that the poor of the UK are suffering in a way that's like watching their own colonial possessions in the past.
No wonder Professor Alston said that the Republicans would pee in their pants to be able to do to their poor what the Tories are doing to theirs. Only slightly paraphrased, and it goes to show how bad it is.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48354692
No wonder Professor Alston said that the Republicans would pee in their pants to be able to do to their poor what the Tories are doing to theirs. Only slightly paraphrased, and it goes to show how bad it is.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48354692
July 8, 2018
There is a lot about this book to be applauded. The research is excellent, the prose lively, and parts manage to be genuinely funny - not something you necessarily expect in a book like this. If in some ways the book suffers from its indebtedness to Meek's articles (there's a fair degree of repetition, a few passages which make less sense outside the LRB, etc), it does retain from them a certain energy and the sense of a journalist on their rounds.
Although likely to be useful for reference, I would not recommend the book to someone looking for a deeper argument about privatisation. It makes a number of correct points about the way privatisation continued under New Labour, and I was impressed by the way Meek distinguishes between privatisations rather than flatly comparing them. But there are many points which seem to trail off inconclusively (and Meek happily admits to not really having answers), and the division of the book into chapters based on industry can serve to disguise some topics that probably should have been given emphasis. The most serious of these, in my opinion, is the pension system - which is mentioned throughout but never definitively tackled, and which clearly underpins the process of privatisation - but it's also worth noting which industries are not considered: car manufacture, steel production, air travel, British Sugar, or the buses.
This is probably because, at root, this is a very conservative book. Meek would happily admit a swathe of industries that he doesn't think should be publicly owned, because Meek is happy to celebrate the price mechanism and entrepreneurship. He defends public ownership because he distrusts private monopolies and feels ripped off - not because of a commitment to socialism, worker control, workplace democracy, yadda yadda. He acknowledges problems with the old nationalised systems, but doesn't really discuss the socialist opposition to them - indeed, in places he pretends it didn't exist. He isn't a simple cardboard-cutout protectionist, but he does dwell excessively on the fact that many owners aren't British; he makes the correct point that the problem is transnational companies being unaccountable, rather than being of a different nationality, but it often seems to be lost. There's a few points where a journalistic commitment to description goes a bit dog-whistle. Playing down the pensions system means that other countries' pension schemes are treated as foreign, rather than wrapped up in a financial system centred in the City of London. He edges towards a distinction between French companies and French people, but doesn't truly pursue it. He is happy to put privatisations down to bad policy decisions rather than bad intentions. He regrets mistakes, foolishness, idiocy - he wishes we could be ruled by an enlightened stable of civil servants, with a narrow understanding of expertise. Indeed, there are points where it seems like Meek would be just as happy with nineteenth-century privatisations (because entrepreneurs back then just had a bit more class and made better decisions) as with something like the nationalisations of the 1945 government.
Although likely to be useful for reference, I would not recommend the book to someone looking for a deeper argument about privatisation. It makes a number of correct points about the way privatisation continued under New Labour, and I was impressed by the way Meek distinguishes between privatisations rather than flatly comparing them. But there are many points which seem to trail off inconclusively (and Meek happily admits to not really having answers), and the division of the book into chapters based on industry can serve to disguise some topics that probably should have been given emphasis. The most serious of these, in my opinion, is the pension system - which is mentioned throughout but never definitively tackled, and which clearly underpins the process of privatisation - but it's also worth noting which industries are not considered: car manufacture, steel production, air travel, British Sugar, or the buses.
This is probably because, at root, this is a very conservative book. Meek would happily admit a swathe of industries that he doesn't think should be publicly owned, because Meek is happy to celebrate the price mechanism and entrepreneurship. He defends public ownership because he distrusts private monopolies and feels ripped off - not because of a commitment to socialism, worker control, workplace democracy, yadda yadda. He acknowledges problems with the old nationalised systems, but doesn't really discuss the socialist opposition to them - indeed, in places he pretends it didn't exist. He isn't a simple cardboard-cutout protectionist, but he does dwell excessively on the fact that many owners aren't British; he makes the correct point that the problem is transnational companies being unaccountable, rather than being of a different nationality, but it often seems to be lost. There's a few points where a journalistic commitment to description goes a bit dog-whistle. Playing down the pensions system means that other countries' pension schemes are treated as foreign, rather than wrapped up in a financial system centred in the City of London. He edges towards a distinction between French companies and French people, but doesn't truly pursue it. He is happy to put privatisations down to bad policy decisions rather than bad intentions. He regrets mistakes, foolishness, idiocy - he wishes we could be ruled by an enlightened stable of civil servants, with a narrow understanding of expertise. Indeed, there are points where it seems like Meek would be just as happy with nineteenth-century privatisations (because entrepreneurs back then just had a bit more class and made better decisions) as with something like the nationalisations of the 1945 government.
January 30, 2016
Britain is fucked. I think that's the Executive Summary on this report from the Coalition years. It's probably got worse since it was published, but my top recommendation is that we hide our copies of this behind the microwave, along with all those bills we're ignoring, go back to bed and hide under the sheets. Apologies if I'm revealing my privileged status as someone who still has a bed and access to a kitchen.
April 25, 2015
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book which highlights the effect of privatisation in Britain over the last 30 years or so. One of the things I found particularly interesting was just how relevant each chapter was today with what is happening politically and socially in the UK right now.
Each chapter focuses on a particular element of privatisation - the book doesn't cover every industry and doesn't go into depth of the history for every privatised industry. What it does is present case studies of the failures post privatisation and the impact it has on people today.
The chapter on the privatisation of Royal Mail is the first chapter and is of some professional interest to me as I have worked in the postal sector for 15 years and my organisation accesses downstream access providers (companies which collect and sort post then forward to Royal Mail for final mile delivery). I've seen significant changes in the postal industry and it's impact on society. The postal industry in the UK is designed for large business user mailers who can access the cheapest discounts by presorting their mail and optimising the mail piece formatting and addressing. Small businesses and the public consequently pay significantly higher costs. What happened in the UK is that the postal market was deregulated before Royal Mail was privatised. Effectively many small players quickly entered then left the market and what we've got left are the behemoths of the Dutch postal industry cherry picking large customers whilst Royal Mail have to maintain the Universal Service Obligation (deliver for the same price anywhere in the country and deliver to every address six days a week).
Traditionally high volume business mail subsidised personal mail which the whole country accesses. The end result will be the public will pay more for accessing postal services as Royal Mail no longer have custom from high volume mailers.
It's true that mail volumes have come down and Royal Mail have changed from a letter delivery company which delivered the odd parcel to a parcel delivery company which delivers the odd letter. However I recall a year or two ago when George Osbourne hailed TNT Post (now Whistl) for creating 2,000 jobs in Manchester. Meek makes a great point - mail volumes are dropping so this is not 'new' work. These 2,000 jobs are effectively going to put Royal Mail postal workers out of work. Working in Royal Mail today is relatively paid appropriately, has a reasonable pension and a strong trade union. It's a good job that serves a function and deserves to be paid.
Royal Mail do make a profit on downstream access mail so how are companies like Whistl making any money on mail they hand over - they don't have the technological advantage - it's simple, they cherry pick big customers and create efficiencies through minimum wage, limited unionisation and zero hours contracts. The 2,000 jobs hailed as job creation and evidence of the economy improving is little more than promoting a race to the bottom for the sector and devaluing the people who work in this industry.
Royal Mail was ridiculously undervalued when floated and cost the Treasury billions whilst the hedge fund managers made a killing. The future for the postal sector will be significant price rises, fewer deliveries per week and restrictions of service in rural and remote areas.
I read the chapter about Railtrack - the privatisation of the nations railway infrastructure one morning sat on a park near work, overlooking the train station which is a major stopping point on the West Coast main line. The West Coast mail line was in need of significant modernisation. When Railtrack was due to be privatised, due to desiring to be appealing to investors the cost of the work was significantly undervalued. Technology for signalling was recommended which would have reduced in significant staff reductions - of course it had not even been developed and their was no evidence it would work. They worked on a 'repair when faulty' maintenance program which suggested that no repairs would be required for 20 years! They signed contracts with rail providers guaranteeing speeds without any consideration of other users of the line. In effect the total cost was 1,000%+ over budget and required tax payer bailout, instead of taking 'two years' it took fifteen and the aims still have not been achieved. An extraordinary story of foolishness, dangerous group think and incompetence. Fascinating.
The next chapter relates to the privatisation of water and highlights Meek's position that anything that is 'necessary' is effectively a tax whether it is collected by the government or private business. Meek is consistent with this and actually makes a good point time and time again that the burden of tax hasn't gone, it's just passing from public to private hands. The story relates to Severn Water and how it failed to invest in critical flood defences which left a whole county without water for 10 days whilst making massive profits. Of course, since the flood was an 'act of God' of course the company didn't pay any compensation to customers. What is interesting is that people think privatisation creates competition which improves customer service, quality and reduces prices. In the UK your water is supplied by regional water companies and you have no choice on who to get water from. Of course, all the companies are now in foreign hands and dividends are going into pension pots of people around the world. This chapter reminds me of my younger days when annoyed at rising water prices I sent the Chief Executive of my water company for the air he was using. Water and Oxygen are essential for human survival so if a water company can be formed and charge me for the service why can't I charge them for air. They own water no more than I own air. Of course in the UK now we have seen the introduction of water meters that can lead to peoples water supplies being cut off.
The chapter on the electricity industry was decent. It highlights how the entire industry was dismantled and sold off piece by piece which created an unusual situation where the operation of the National Grid was a different company from the regional energy suppliers which were different companies from the suppliers of cables and infrastructure which were different from the owners of gas, nuclear and coal power stations.
Meek clearly joins the dots which shows how instead of creating competition to improve prices for customers we have companies who now own both the means of production (the power stations) and the suppliers which creates a situation where organisations can set the price of energy artificially and sell it back to us whilst reaping massive profits. Furthermore, the industry is effectively owned by massive European and Chinese companies. Indeed, the French nationalised energy industry owns swathes of the UK's industry and profits accordingly. Of course, the suppliers primary concern is profit which leads us to a situation where 30 years later we have power stations requiring to be replaced, investment in green technology is limited and we potentially could be heading to an energy crisis. Ultimately the nations energy supply and capacity is a government and long term planning responsibility, not to be at the whims of the shareholders. In the UK today, we no longer have the capability to build and manage power stations and no longer have the technical expertise to manage our own energy requirements.
The chapter on the back door privatisation of the NHS is again enlightening. I think it's important to recognise just a few weeks before a General Election that although the Tories will decimate the NHS it was Labour who ran with this ball. Who do you trust to run the NHS? None of the big two in my book. Much of the article focuses on replacement hips, the cost of them, the marketing of them and the devastating impact of market forces rather than care on patients. Interestingly I'm aware of the hospital mentioned. I have a good friend who had a knee replacement at the hospital and received exemplary care. Within the NHS it's true that an ageing population has created more demands on the NHS. Furthermore as medical expertise progresses procedures and treatments once considered a luxury are now expected. Ultimately we need to invest more in our Health Service if we want it to provide what we expect. We spend less per person on healthcare than 'better' systems like the French and US so it perhaps isn't as wasteful as suggested.
The final chapter on the sell off of Council Housing was great and an area of interest for me (and once again the Tories are touting 'Right to Buy'). There is a housing crisis in Britain. Many are living in overcrowded, poorly maintained properties. We have a chronic shortage of single bedroom homes as the demographics of our nation has changed. We have a chronic shortage of social housing and a market which makes it exceptionally difficult for first time buyers to get on the property ladder. What happened is the state gave generous discounts to people to buy social who then eventually sold to private investors forcing up rents. Councils then sold off their stock to housing associations which has created more insecurity for tenants. This has all led to a massive drop in the availability of affordable housing. Add to this the landlord class who buy up all the 'first time buyer' homes and we've created a situation where we once could house anyone and now we simply can't.
Each chapter focuses on a particular element of privatisation - the book doesn't cover every industry and doesn't go into depth of the history for every privatised industry. What it does is present case studies of the failures post privatisation and the impact it has on people today.
The chapter on the privatisation of Royal Mail is the first chapter and is of some professional interest to me as I have worked in the postal sector for 15 years and my organisation accesses downstream access providers (companies which collect and sort post then forward to Royal Mail for final mile delivery). I've seen significant changes in the postal industry and it's impact on society. The postal industry in the UK is designed for large business user mailers who can access the cheapest discounts by presorting their mail and optimising the mail piece formatting and addressing. Small businesses and the public consequently pay significantly higher costs. What happened in the UK is that the postal market was deregulated before Royal Mail was privatised. Effectively many small players quickly entered then left the market and what we've got left are the behemoths of the Dutch postal industry cherry picking large customers whilst Royal Mail have to maintain the Universal Service Obligation (deliver for the same price anywhere in the country and deliver to every address six days a week).
Traditionally high volume business mail subsidised personal mail which the whole country accesses. The end result will be the public will pay more for accessing postal services as Royal Mail no longer have custom from high volume mailers.
It's true that mail volumes have come down and Royal Mail have changed from a letter delivery company which delivered the odd parcel to a parcel delivery company which delivers the odd letter. However I recall a year or two ago when George Osbourne hailed TNT Post (now Whistl) for creating 2,000 jobs in Manchester. Meek makes a great point - mail volumes are dropping so this is not 'new' work. These 2,000 jobs are effectively going to put Royal Mail postal workers out of work. Working in Royal Mail today is relatively paid appropriately, has a reasonable pension and a strong trade union. It's a good job that serves a function and deserves to be paid.
Royal Mail do make a profit on downstream access mail so how are companies like Whistl making any money on mail they hand over - they don't have the technological advantage - it's simple, they cherry pick big customers and create efficiencies through minimum wage, limited unionisation and zero hours contracts. The 2,000 jobs hailed as job creation and evidence of the economy improving is little more than promoting a race to the bottom for the sector and devaluing the people who work in this industry.
Royal Mail was ridiculously undervalued when floated and cost the Treasury billions whilst the hedge fund managers made a killing. The future for the postal sector will be significant price rises, fewer deliveries per week and restrictions of service in rural and remote areas.
I read the chapter about Railtrack - the privatisation of the nations railway infrastructure one morning sat on a park near work, overlooking the train station which is a major stopping point on the West Coast main line. The West Coast mail line was in need of significant modernisation. When Railtrack was due to be privatised, due to desiring to be appealing to investors the cost of the work was significantly undervalued. Technology for signalling was recommended which would have reduced in significant staff reductions - of course it had not even been developed and their was no evidence it would work. They worked on a 'repair when faulty' maintenance program which suggested that no repairs would be required for 20 years! They signed contracts with rail providers guaranteeing speeds without any consideration of other users of the line. In effect the total cost was 1,000%+ over budget and required tax payer bailout, instead of taking 'two years' it took fifteen and the aims still have not been achieved. An extraordinary story of foolishness, dangerous group think and incompetence. Fascinating.
The next chapter relates to the privatisation of water and highlights Meek's position that anything that is 'necessary' is effectively a tax whether it is collected by the government or private business. Meek is consistent with this and actually makes a good point time and time again that the burden of tax hasn't gone, it's just passing from public to private hands. The story relates to Severn Water and how it failed to invest in critical flood defences which left a whole county without water for 10 days whilst making massive profits. Of course, since the flood was an 'act of God' of course the company didn't pay any compensation to customers. What is interesting is that people think privatisation creates competition which improves customer service, quality and reduces prices. In the UK your water is supplied by regional water companies and you have no choice on who to get water from. Of course, all the companies are now in foreign hands and dividends are going into pension pots of people around the world. This chapter reminds me of my younger days when annoyed at rising water prices I sent the Chief Executive of my water company for the air he was using. Water and Oxygen are essential for human survival so if a water company can be formed and charge me for the service why can't I charge them for air. They own water no more than I own air. Of course in the UK now we have seen the introduction of water meters that can lead to peoples water supplies being cut off.
The chapter on the electricity industry was decent. It highlights how the entire industry was dismantled and sold off piece by piece which created an unusual situation where the operation of the National Grid was a different company from the regional energy suppliers which were different companies from the suppliers of cables and infrastructure which were different from the owners of gas, nuclear and coal power stations.
Meek clearly joins the dots which shows how instead of creating competition to improve prices for customers we have companies who now own both the means of production (the power stations) and the suppliers which creates a situation where organisations can set the price of energy artificially and sell it back to us whilst reaping massive profits. Furthermore, the industry is effectively owned by massive European and Chinese companies. Indeed, the French nationalised energy industry owns swathes of the UK's industry and profits accordingly. Of course, the suppliers primary concern is profit which leads us to a situation where 30 years later we have power stations requiring to be replaced, investment in green technology is limited and we potentially could be heading to an energy crisis. Ultimately the nations energy supply and capacity is a government and long term planning responsibility, not to be at the whims of the shareholders. In the UK today, we no longer have the capability to build and manage power stations and no longer have the technical expertise to manage our own energy requirements.
The chapter on the back door privatisation of the NHS is again enlightening. I think it's important to recognise just a few weeks before a General Election that although the Tories will decimate the NHS it was Labour who ran with this ball. Who do you trust to run the NHS? None of the big two in my book. Much of the article focuses on replacement hips, the cost of them, the marketing of them and the devastating impact of market forces rather than care on patients. Interestingly I'm aware of the hospital mentioned. I have a good friend who had a knee replacement at the hospital and received exemplary care. Within the NHS it's true that an ageing population has created more demands on the NHS. Furthermore as medical expertise progresses procedures and treatments once considered a luxury are now expected. Ultimately we need to invest more in our Health Service if we want it to provide what we expect. We spend less per person on healthcare than 'better' systems like the French and US so it perhaps isn't as wasteful as suggested.
The final chapter on the sell off of Council Housing was great and an area of interest for me (and once again the Tories are touting 'Right to Buy'). There is a housing crisis in Britain. Many are living in overcrowded, poorly maintained properties. We have a chronic shortage of single bedroom homes as the demographics of our nation has changed. We have a chronic shortage of social housing and a market which makes it exceptionally difficult for first time buyers to get on the property ladder. What happened is the state gave generous discounts to people to buy social who then eventually sold to private investors forcing up rents. Councils then sold off their stock to housing associations which has created more insecurity for tenants. This has all led to a massive drop in the availability of affordable housing. Add to this the landlord class who buy up all the 'first time buyer' homes and we've created a situation where we once could house anyone and now we simply can't.
November 8, 2017
I could be here all day extolling the virtues of this excellent account of the corporatisation of public services (of course, as Meek proves, in reality, the idea of "public" and "private" spheres are of course false dichotomies), only, I know how annoying long reviews on goodreads can be so will keep it short and succinct.
First of all: EVERY single British citizen should read this (in fact, I'd go as far as to say that it should be mandatory reading on all sixth form politics syllabuses).
Meek is an excellent journalist and writer, deftly navigates the murky legacy of corporate greed and how this has impacted and still impacts the society we live in. I can only say that despite my own long-running interest in politics and the economic snd social life of the UK, Meek really makes what would otherwise be an extremely tawdry affair an engaging and incredibly insightful reading experience. Meek constitutes that all too rare occurrence of a writer who clearly cares deeply enough to investigate and expose the excesses of privatisation (he interviews both the victims of unrestricted privatisation and its acolytes) without sentimentalising the Attlee years and employing the usual "lefty" didacticism and Owen Jonesesque hand-wringing we see all too often (FYI I don't particularly dislike Owen, as far as social democrats go he's clearly well intentioned despite his flaws).
I genuinely can't recommend this book enough. It opened my politically attuned eyes to just how deep-seated and insidious the neoliberal agenda is in the UK. Ignore its contents at your own peril.
First of all: EVERY single British citizen should read this (in fact, I'd go as far as to say that it should be mandatory reading on all sixth form politics syllabuses).
Meek is an excellent journalist and writer, deftly navigates the murky legacy of corporate greed and how this has impacted and still impacts the society we live in. I can only say that despite my own long-running interest in politics and the economic snd social life of the UK, Meek really makes what would otherwise be an extremely tawdry affair an engaging and incredibly insightful reading experience. Meek constitutes that all too rare occurrence of a writer who clearly cares deeply enough to investigate and expose the excesses of privatisation (he interviews both the victims of unrestricted privatisation and its acolytes) without sentimentalising the Attlee years and employing the usual "lefty" didacticism and Owen Jonesesque hand-wringing we see all too often (FYI I don't particularly dislike Owen, as far as social democrats go he's clearly well intentioned despite his flaws).
I genuinely can't recommend this book enough. It opened my politically attuned eyes to just how deep-seated and insidious the neoliberal agenda is in the UK. Ignore its contents at your own peril.
October 17, 2018
Interesting article on privatization in the light of the IMF report on public balance sheets: Britain fell for a neoliberal con trick – even the IMF says so
November 5, 2020
Ha! The typical example of a very good book, sabotaged by the political bias of its author. It's a pity, because James Meek does make strong points against the mishandling of the privatisations he is dealing with here, while, although a leftist, not calling for renationalisation as a solution fit-for-all. It's a welcome outlook.
The beginning is a point in itself, seeing the author remembering a journey of his across the collapsing side of what was then the Iron Curtain. It's a nice take to introduce the subject, because, putting things back into the context of the time it shows how privatisations, back in the eighties, well, kind of made sense. When opposed to Communism, the Thatcherism that was then engulfing Britain takes a new perspective indeed; and whose supporting 'the more State the better' when it comes to successful economics (let alone basic liberties) should take the hint!
As he acknowledges himself, privatisations for Thatcher were above all a way to empower the people while boosting British economy. It was a stark contrast to the totalitarian model defining the other side across the Wall, a model she rightfully despised! As he doesn't acknowledges, though, to a certain extend she succeeded -e.g. from commercial aviation to telecommunications, there are whole sectors whose reforms clearly benefited us all as consumers as opposed to being State-controlled. James Meek doesn't acknowledge those, because he choose here to be engrossed in bashing only against the sectors where such reforms turned complete failures. I get what he is doing (it makes for a juicy read) but, as I previously stated, such approach is a pity -not because it betrays his Leftist political bias, but, because it creates an imbalance undermining an argument which, bottom line, is not entirely wrong.
There is the obvious:
'Privatisation failed to turn Britain into a nation of shareholders.'
It's quite clear indeed that Thatcher's intents have been betrayed by ultimately disempowering citizens-consumers, while having British assets sold off and scattered across the globe! More to the point, contrary to the dogma we have been brain-fed ever since the eighties, privatisations are not a guarantee of efficiency, they're not necessarily embodying a free-market ideal (this is especially true when it comes to energies and natural resources like water), and, in the cases dealt here, they have not empowered the British people. Quite the contrary, citizens have been disempowered to the point of being turned into the cash cows of, more often than not, foreign holders with next to zero accountability. Such portrayal might seem disparaging and severe. Yet, the examples he is coming up with, each having a whole dedicated chapter, all are telling tales.
There's the privatised railways, with his focus on the disgraceful collapse of Railtrack following its 'modernisation' of the West Coast Main Line ('a tale of incompetence, greed and delusion' indeed). There's the privatisation of water, with, not only the doubtful benefits this had on the pockets of bill-paying taxpayers (it doesn't fare very well when compared to Scottish Water or Cymru Welsh Water...) but, also, its expose of some shabby companies' disastrous impact upon the environment and people's lives (remember the Gloucestershire's floods of 2007...). There's the privatised electricity, an occasion for the author to, in a fascinating chapter, compare the British system with the French one in a very relevant criticism partisans of re-nationalisations should read (yes, France did renationalised EDF, yet it doesn't mean the consumer across the Channel benefits from it, far from that...). There's the privatised housing, an enlightening chapter showing the negative impact of Thatcher's 'Right to Buy' policy upon the housing market, and, personally, perhaps my favourite chapter in this whole book...
Privatised housing is my favourite chapter because, here the author does what, to me, he should have done all along: clearly demonstrating the failures of private companies (caring more about profits than sheltering people) but, also, of State-controlled apparatus (Councils' inadequacies are clearly exposed). Focusing here on Housing Associations, while not being naïve as to their actual power, abilities, functioning and deeds, he nevertheless shows there is a middle way in between privately-owned and the public sector which I personally find more appealing than his otherwise constant bashing against what hasn't worked, a bashing where Thatcher and her heirs (read: the Conservatives) are the only ones being hit. Here's why I was disappointed with most of the book: instead of doing the same in every chapter (expanding upon possible other models) he sadly gives way to playing party politics.
We're back to his political bias, but I found his relentless attacks on the Right -when Thatcher's heirs are also found within the Labour- are frankly tiring besides being unfair, if not uncalled for. Just one example, thrown in as an Afterword:
'There are, without doubt, some -mainly to be found among the ranks of the Conservative party, Ukip and the wealthy-... for whom Georgian Britain is an idyll to aspire to...'
See? The book is packed with such little darts anti-Tory here and there, and it's quite bad faith. Georgian Britain? Really?! One could argue: in Georgian Britain the masses were dying of treatable diseases while being mostly illiterate. When it comes to our recent privatisations, guess who thrashed the NHS even more so than the Tories (which he does recognises in his chapter on the privatised NHS; it's hard to escape the fact, after all...) or introduced academies within our declining educational system (although education is not addressed here)? Well... Labour surely deserved a good trashing too, yet it doesn't get it. *Sigh*
Mind you, just to make things clear I am not defending Thatcherism! In fact, I want to defend the author: I find sad and somehow counterproductive that his uncritical political allegiance to Labour (or so I felt) blinded him with a bias in reporting (or so I felt). It dilutes his point (or so I felt), he who seems to be in support of a middle way and far, far away, from the socialist model which had led to the Thatcher counter-reaction. He is blunt:
'This book is not a call for wholesale renationalisation along mid-twentieth-century lines.'
He also regrets:
'One of the oddest things about the privatisations of water, the railways, electricity and the rest is that they were framed as binary possibilities... Other forms of organisations weren't considered. If there were proposals for another way that was neither the nationalised status quo nor stock market flotation, they went unheard.'
As I stated above, it's too bad he doesn't delve more upon such other ways and models; his argument would have been more powerful. As it is, the sad thing is that this binary thinking is still pretty much prevalent. When the looneys governing us are not brainwashed into a free-market ideology inherited from Thatcher (Labour included) they seem to have completely forgotten how it was back in the seventies. This book is therefore a must read for everyone. Sure, if you're more on the Right side of the political spectrum (I loosely define myself as centre-Right) his darts anti-Tory may annoy you! Sure too, if you think renationalisation of whole sectors is the solution to the mess we're in, his middle way may leave you doubtful. But, either way, it shouldn't dilute his argument: privatisation, mostly, did not empower the people, and Britain has indeed been sold out. Stay angry!
The beginning is a point in itself, seeing the author remembering a journey of his across the collapsing side of what was then the Iron Curtain. It's a nice take to introduce the subject, because, putting things back into the context of the time it shows how privatisations, back in the eighties, well, kind of made sense. When opposed to Communism, the Thatcherism that was then engulfing Britain takes a new perspective indeed; and whose supporting 'the more State the better' when it comes to successful economics (let alone basic liberties) should take the hint!
As he acknowledges himself, privatisations for Thatcher were above all a way to empower the people while boosting British economy. It was a stark contrast to the totalitarian model defining the other side across the Wall, a model she rightfully despised! As he doesn't acknowledges, though, to a certain extend she succeeded -e.g. from commercial aviation to telecommunications, there are whole sectors whose reforms clearly benefited us all as consumers as opposed to being State-controlled. James Meek doesn't acknowledge those, because he choose here to be engrossed in bashing only against the sectors where such reforms turned complete failures. I get what he is doing (it makes for a juicy read) but, as I previously stated, such approach is a pity -not because it betrays his Leftist political bias, but, because it creates an imbalance undermining an argument which, bottom line, is not entirely wrong.
There is the obvious:
'Privatisation failed to turn Britain into a nation of shareholders.'
It's quite clear indeed that Thatcher's intents have been betrayed by ultimately disempowering citizens-consumers, while having British assets sold off and scattered across the globe! More to the point, contrary to the dogma we have been brain-fed ever since the eighties, privatisations are not a guarantee of efficiency, they're not necessarily embodying a free-market ideal (this is especially true when it comes to energies and natural resources like water), and, in the cases dealt here, they have not empowered the British people. Quite the contrary, citizens have been disempowered to the point of being turned into the cash cows of, more often than not, foreign holders with next to zero accountability. Such portrayal might seem disparaging and severe. Yet, the examples he is coming up with, each having a whole dedicated chapter, all are telling tales.
There's the privatised railways, with his focus on the disgraceful collapse of Railtrack following its 'modernisation' of the West Coast Main Line ('a tale of incompetence, greed and delusion' indeed). There's the privatisation of water, with, not only the doubtful benefits this had on the pockets of bill-paying taxpayers (it doesn't fare very well when compared to Scottish Water or Cymru Welsh Water...) but, also, its expose of some shabby companies' disastrous impact upon the environment and people's lives (remember the Gloucestershire's floods of 2007...). There's the privatised electricity, an occasion for the author to, in a fascinating chapter, compare the British system with the French one in a very relevant criticism partisans of re-nationalisations should read (yes, France did renationalised EDF, yet it doesn't mean the consumer across the Channel benefits from it, far from that...). There's the privatised housing, an enlightening chapter showing the negative impact of Thatcher's 'Right to Buy' policy upon the housing market, and, personally, perhaps my favourite chapter in this whole book...
Privatised housing is my favourite chapter because, here the author does what, to me, he should have done all along: clearly demonstrating the failures of private companies (caring more about profits than sheltering people) but, also, of State-controlled apparatus (Councils' inadequacies are clearly exposed). Focusing here on Housing Associations, while not being naïve as to their actual power, abilities, functioning and deeds, he nevertheless shows there is a middle way in between privately-owned and the public sector which I personally find more appealing than his otherwise constant bashing against what hasn't worked, a bashing where Thatcher and her heirs (read: the Conservatives) are the only ones being hit. Here's why I was disappointed with most of the book: instead of doing the same in every chapter (expanding upon possible other models) he sadly gives way to playing party politics.
We're back to his political bias, but I found his relentless attacks on the Right -when Thatcher's heirs are also found within the Labour- are frankly tiring besides being unfair, if not uncalled for. Just one example, thrown in as an Afterword:
'There are, without doubt, some -mainly to be found among the ranks of the Conservative party, Ukip and the wealthy-... for whom Georgian Britain is an idyll to aspire to...'
See? The book is packed with such little darts anti-Tory here and there, and it's quite bad faith. Georgian Britain? Really?! One could argue: in Georgian Britain the masses were dying of treatable diseases while being mostly illiterate. When it comes to our recent privatisations, guess who thrashed the NHS even more so than the Tories (which he does recognises in his chapter on the privatised NHS; it's hard to escape the fact, after all...) or introduced academies within our declining educational system (although education is not addressed here)? Well... Labour surely deserved a good trashing too, yet it doesn't get it. *Sigh*
Mind you, just to make things clear I am not defending Thatcherism! In fact, I want to defend the author: I find sad and somehow counterproductive that his uncritical political allegiance to Labour (or so I felt) blinded him with a bias in reporting (or so I felt). It dilutes his point (or so I felt), he who seems to be in support of a middle way and far, far away, from the socialist model which had led to the Thatcher counter-reaction. He is blunt:
'This book is not a call for wholesale renationalisation along mid-twentieth-century lines.'
He also regrets:
'One of the oddest things about the privatisations of water, the railways, electricity and the rest is that they were framed as binary possibilities... Other forms of organisations weren't considered. If there were proposals for another way that was neither the nationalised status quo nor stock market flotation, they went unheard.'
As I stated above, it's too bad he doesn't delve more upon such other ways and models; his argument would have been more powerful. As it is, the sad thing is that this binary thinking is still pretty much prevalent. When the looneys governing us are not brainwashed into a free-market ideology inherited from Thatcher (Labour included) they seem to have completely forgotten how it was back in the seventies. This book is therefore a must read for everyone. Sure, if you're more on the Right side of the political spectrum (I loosely define myself as centre-Right) his darts anti-Tory may annoy you! Sure too, if you think renationalisation of whole sectors is the solution to the mess we're in, his middle way may leave you doubtful. But, either way, it shouldn't dilute his argument: privatisation, mostly, did not empower the people, and Britain has indeed been sold out. Stay angry!
November 22, 2014
Another book to keep me angry. Good read documenting the sell off of UK public services. mostly it seems to other parts of the world. Especially frustrating is New Labour's involvement in the selling off the NHS & state education which is why the party is hemorrhaging voters to the likes of those with socialist leanings like the Greens.
Want to read
January 18, 2023Coming to the U.S. Trump will release his Postal Service privatization plan after the 2018 elections. If he released it before, we might vote some Republicans out. https://savethepostoffice.com/postal-...
April 10, 2023
Very accessible and does a good job challenging the logic and processes behind privatisation of public utilities and services in the UK. Nice central point describing paying for utilities etc as a tax which instead of being paid to the government is now paid to various foreign hedge funds, banks and pension funds that own our utilities post privatisation
June 14, 2015
Well here we are, with over twenty years' experience of privatisation, and it seems a reasonable thing to enquire if the outcomes resemble what was promised. In many respects, they do indeed, but only in so far as dire warnings have been vindicated. Take the railway network for example. A House of Common select committee examined the proposed privatisation and predicted it would be irresponsibly risky, and in particular that it depended irrationally on a technology that promised to revolutionise signalling, eliminating the need to spend tens of billions of pounds replacing century old track, signals and infrastructure, but which did not yet exist and would have to be field tested on the world's most complicated railway. Sure enough, the technology was never delivered and after costly chaos, including several fatal train crashes, the network was taken back into public ownership. With electricity generation, the prediction was simpler: to quote a union leader: "There's only one country that's stupid enough to sell off its electricity industry and that's Britain." But he also observed that things have improved now with the system back in public sector control - except that it is the French electricity generating authority that now owns and operates Britain's entire nuclear power industry (surely that has to be astonishing) and much more besides.
The recent privatisation of the postal service turned out to be seriously under priced, because the financial sector understood what the government did not wish to admit, which is the profits to be gained by eliminating decent, secure and properly paid employment terms for postal workers and substituting casual, low paid home workers on zero hours contracts. The model exists and is probably inevitable, because British postal workers cannot hope for the government protection they were given in Holland when the same process was in train. The British do not protect their workers any more than they protect their major industries.
We must go on, I can't go on, I'll go on. The water supply industry has been transformed into a licence to tax English customers for the benefit of foreign investors. The largest privatisation of all (worth over £40bn in twenty years) was the sale of council housing at massive discounts to better off tenants, much of the stock ending up in the hands of property companies renting to low income tenants at inflated rents which are subsidised or fully paid by the state through Housing Benefit. The government will be losing money on this transaction forever. I refuse to mention the National Health Service as I am still too upset. It is no longer a service, having been reduced to a brand name. The slow motion disaster is unfolding and some of it is described here. As Meek observes, it is perfectly possible to praise and admire the NHS and even to promise to spend more money on it - while destroying it. If the electorate chooses to be confused, it is not for want of warning.
Actually, the insanity seems beyond description, yet James Meek provides a very calmly stated, rational and even amusing description of the consequences of privatisation after twenty years and demonstrates that privatisation has delivered none (none at all) of the benefits promised by Thatcher and other advocates and instead imposed worse than the worst case predictions of its opponents. None of this seems to have altered the attitudes of either the political class, or the media or indeed the electorate. He looks for explanations of this absurdity in a number of places, but one small hint may, I think, merit more attention. It is a suggestion that Britain's policies and approach are rooted in pure theory, while leaving British industry and services open to predators who are practical minded and politically astute. In simpler terms - they really do not know what they are doing but think it sounds fine.
The emperor has no clothes. The idea that these people (and that includes New Labour with the Conservatives and their recent Liberal allies) can be trusted to manage our economy beggars belief. Shame there is no opposition to point this out in simple terms. Neoliberalism is not just bad economics - it is sadistic and stupid beyond belief. After twenty years, privatisation is a policy that has been fully tested and failed every test, so where is the accountability? There is none it seems.
How James Meek wrote this calm and reasonable book without having a complete and total nervous breakdown defeats me. I recommend not reading more than one chapter in a day if you wish to stay sane and don't read any of it at night before trying to sleep. Yet as many people as possible must read it if we are not to continue with this madness. We are in a terrible bind.
The recent privatisation of the postal service turned out to be seriously under priced, because the financial sector understood what the government did not wish to admit, which is the profits to be gained by eliminating decent, secure and properly paid employment terms for postal workers and substituting casual, low paid home workers on zero hours contracts. The model exists and is probably inevitable, because British postal workers cannot hope for the government protection they were given in Holland when the same process was in train. The British do not protect their workers any more than they protect their major industries.
We must go on, I can't go on, I'll go on. The water supply industry has been transformed into a licence to tax English customers for the benefit of foreign investors. The largest privatisation of all (worth over £40bn in twenty years) was the sale of council housing at massive discounts to better off tenants, much of the stock ending up in the hands of property companies renting to low income tenants at inflated rents which are subsidised or fully paid by the state through Housing Benefit. The government will be losing money on this transaction forever. I refuse to mention the National Health Service as I am still too upset. It is no longer a service, having been reduced to a brand name. The slow motion disaster is unfolding and some of it is described here. As Meek observes, it is perfectly possible to praise and admire the NHS and even to promise to spend more money on it - while destroying it. If the electorate chooses to be confused, it is not for want of warning.
Actually, the insanity seems beyond description, yet James Meek provides a very calmly stated, rational and even amusing description of the consequences of privatisation after twenty years and demonstrates that privatisation has delivered none (none at all) of the benefits promised by Thatcher and other advocates and instead imposed worse than the worst case predictions of its opponents. None of this seems to have altered the attitudes of either the political class, or the media or indeed the electorate. He looks for explanations of this absurdity in a number of places, but one small hint may, I think, merit more attention. It is a suggestion that Britain's policies and approach are rooted in pure theory, while leaving British industry and services open to predators who are practical minded and politically astute. In simpler terms - they really do not know what they are doing but think it sounds fine.
The emperor has no clothes. The idea that these people (and that includes New Labour with the Conservatives and their recent Liberal allies) can be trusted to manage our economy beggars belief. Shame there is no opposition to point this out in simple terms. Neoliberalism is not just bad economics - it is sadistic and stupid beyond belief. After twenty years, privatisation is a policy that has been fully tested and failed every test, so where is the accountability? There is none it seems.
How James Meek wrote this calm and reasonable book without having a complete and total nervous breakdown defeats me. I recommend not reading more than one chapter in a day if you wish to stay sane and don't read any of it at night before trying to sleep. Yet as many people as possible must read it if we are not to continue with this madness. We are in a terrible bind.
April 6, 2016
A depressing read but a book which everyone who cares about public services like health and education should read. We've had to suffer 40 years of the neo-liberal mantra of private enterprise good, state provided public services bad that it's about time we woke up to the truth of what has been happening. Meek does this by not blinding us with complex facts and statistics but allowing ordinary people, both consumers and managers of the services, to tell their stories. The ludicrousness of the situation we are now in is best summed up by the fact that successive governments can't seem to see the absurdity of taking our railways out of British state ownership so that they can be run by the Chinese and French state-owned railway companies instead. But the real tragedy is the total mess that has been made of such an essential to life as housing. And the disaster of selling off council housing (half of which has ended up in the hands of rapacious private landlords) is now to be compounded by the government selling off housing association properties!
March 26, 2018
An excellent account of the privatization of the British state under Thatcher and subsequent governments. No one could read this scrupulously researched book and come away with any other conclusion than that it has been a national catastrophe which has lead to an enormous transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. Essential reading
Read
August 27, 2015Well that was as bleak as it was depressing. great book. five stars.
September 19, 2018
Depressing but essential reading, especially for anyone still in doubt as to whether privatisation is a good thing or not.
August 5, 2017
Why do so many people have issues with privatisation? What is the legacy of Thatcher, and to what extent did New Labour further the Thatcherite credo? These are, effectively, the questions that Meek's book sets out to answer.
Taking a set of utilities (mail, rail, water, energy, health and housing) the book ends up in Thanet, and looking at the rise of UKIP. What becomes apparent, to the uninitiated, is that privatisation has done a lot of damage, and has never delivered on the promises that Thatcher had stated it would deliver on.
By increasing "competition" in basic public services that we all need, all that has happened is a progressive hike in costs for these services. Since we all rely on them, we may characterise these as taxes that we pay. Except, the profits do not come to the public via the Treasury, instead they line the pockets of the shareholders and investors who now own Britain's infrastructure.
However, this doesn't give the private sector an incentive to provide better working conditions, or even better services. Meek shows how national postal services keep working conditions good in home countries, whilst seeking to depress wages abroad (DHL and their activities in the Netherlands), he shows how rails are privatised and subject to state bailout if the over optimistic contracts signed cannot be delivered. We learn of how electricity is now generated by the French State, in a bureaucracy that is apparently so "inefficient", we destroyed our own version. We learn of how waterworks are consistently underfunded and subject to flooding. Finally, the housing crisis is dealt with.
These all show how we are now in thrall to the public services of other nations and multinationals. Which since the vote to leave the EU takes on greater significance. If we wanted "to take back control", there is no doubt that Brexiteers are eager to ensure that the country becomes yet more appealing to pension funds and banks. So that we pay to consume essential services and in turn ensure that the beneficiaries are either public service companies abroad, or pension funds for distant and aloof multinationals.
This is a prime example of how atomisation functions on a social and corporate scale, without romanticising the nature of state run bureaucracies. Meek is not advocating a set of 20th Century solutions to 21st Century problems, and this is perhaps what makes this book such a wonderful piece of investigative reportage on the scale of how our infrastructure was stolen from us based on a set of unproven lies, which have now been exposed as the full suit of the emperor's new clothes.
Taking a set of utilities (mail, rail, water, energy, health and housing) the book ends up in Thanet, and looking at the rise of UKIP. What becomes apparent, to the uninitiated, is that privatisation has done a lot of damage, and has never delivered on the promises that Thatcher had stated it would deliver on.
By increasing "competition" in basic public services that we all need, all that has happened is a progressive hike in costs for these services. Since we all rely on them, we may characterise these as taxes that we pay. Except, the profits do not come to the public via the Treasury, instead they line the pockets of the shareholders and investors who now own Britain's infrastructure.
However, this doesn't give the private sector an incentive to provide better working conditions, or even better services. Meek shows how national postal services keep working conditions good in home countries, whilst seeking to depress wages abroad (DHL and their activities in the Netherlands), he shows how rails are privatised and subject to state bailout if the over optimistic contracts signed cannot be delivered. We learn of how electricity is now generated by the French State, in a bureaucracy that is apparently so "inefficient", we destroyed our own version. We learn of how waterworks are consistently underfunded and subject to flooding. Finally, the housing crisis is dealt with.
These all show how we are now in thrall to the public services of other nations and multinationals. Which since the vote to leave the EU takes on greater significance. If we wanted "to take back control", there is no doubt that Brexiteers are eager to ensure that the country becomes yet more appealing to pension funds and banks. So that we pay to consume essential services and in turn ensure that the beneficiaries are either public service companies abroad, or pension funds for distant and aloof multinationals.
This is a prime example of how atomisation functions on a social and corporate scale, without romanticising the nature of state run bureaucracies. Meek is not advocating a set of 20th Century solutions to 21st Century problems, and this is perhaps what makes this book such a wonderful piece of investigative reportage on the scale of how our infrastructure was stolen from us based on a set of unproven lies, which have now been exposed as the full suit of the emperor's new clothes.
January 9, 2016
LRB journalist James Meek looks at what the great experiment in privatisation has meant for the industries it covered. The Royal Mail, railways, water, electricity, the health service and homes are the areas he directs his analysis at, testing the idea that private ownership means greater inefficiency, more innovation and better services.
He commands massive amounts of detail in each of these chapters and gives the impression of huge expertise. There is very little jumping to easy conclusions about things being so much worse than they were before, but instead a picture is built up of the way in which markets work to produce outcomes which are quite different from public provision. The dynamics of a society that is skidding evermore in the direction of gross inequality become clearer from this work, and of how the better off are able to escape the burden of taxation to the point that this falls more heavily on the poorest.
He commands massive amounts of detail in each of these chapters and gives the impression of huge expertise. There is very little jumping to easy conclusions about things being so much worse than they were before, but instead a picture is built up of the way in which markets work to produce outcomes which are quite different from public provision. The dynamics of a society that is skidding evermore in the direction of gross inequality become clearer from this work, and of how the better off are able to escape the burden of taxation to the point that this falls more heavily on the poorest.
February 3, 2017
Kinda fascinating, biased, kinda dull, kinda shallow. Exhibits the weirdness of British journalistic language (sometimes I had trouble parsing the sentences, go figure). Characteristically punny titles (puns stop there, thank god, and they're actually quite good puns). Also suffers from all the problems book-length journalistic works usually do.
But it's always nice to read about very real problems distant to you in time and space.
Or are they distant? We had the same privatization of public works and housing in Hungary after the fall of socialism, after all, if in a less well-planned and more rushed way. I never really gave that much thought, I always figured it was an historical neccessity. If anything, Private Island showed me alternatives, giving me insight and a new perspective. It was interesting to realize the same processes are at work here in our country.
Also succeeds nicely at calling attention to problems.
But it's always nice to read about very real problems distant to you in time and space.
Or are they distant? We had the same privatization of public works and housing in Hungary after the fall of socialism, after all, if in a less well-planned and more rushed way. I never really gave that much thought, I always figured it was an historical neccessity. If anything, Private Island showed me alternatives, giving me insight and a new perspective. It was interesting to realize the same processes are at work here in our country.
Also succeeds nicely at calling attention to problems.
January 1, 2015
A sad tale that has been recounted in other books, newspapers and magazines. Here in the UK a vast amount of effort has been expended in the name of privatisation. The end result is to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. Meek is right to see water, energy, health and transport more like taxes. I remember years ago I played rugby in a team with a serving Tory MP, although I didn't know it at the time. I just took the piss out of this guy who thought I could buy my electricity from any supplier and then have it sent down the wire. I thought then as I still think this is ludicrous. It is just the same electricity, just a different paymaster. HI remember also, he didn't pass the ball. Says it all really.
January 5, 2018
It is almost a tradition now for the new year in Britain to start with a trickle of bad news. Perhaps it suits something gloomy in our constitution to have the worst of our island's weather accompanied by a slow drip of headlines that remind us all that everything is steadily getting worse. The trains are running late and tickets only ever get more expensive. Schools are a bad dream of privilege. We fiddle about with our internet subscriptions and energy suppliers in a big to moderate the insidious price rises that follow regardless. And the housing crisis towers above it all: one huge swollen catastrophe, a bubble of self-interest too noxious to lance.
The Brexit vote might have asked Britons to take back control but even our departure from the EU looks like it won't do much to change the pattern of unelected and barely accountable bodies that shape life in this country. If not slow decline, the feeling is of stagnation, with the government itself presenting perhaps the only public figure of optimism in a society which otherwise seems to have condemned itself to a sort of perpetual doldrums.
I had all of this in mind while reading Private Island, a selection of essays by James Meek which were originally published in the LRB. Each one deals with the effect that privatisation had on industries which were previously public. Rail, gas and electricity, water, and the Royal Mail are all covered; as are housing and the health service, though the status of those is a little more complicated.
For Meek, the heart of the matter is not so much the question of effectiveness – though it doesn't take him long to lampoon the misconception of private sector efficiency – but rather the massive transfer of assets and income from the government to private sector organisations:
'…what is being sold is not infrastructure, but bill-paying citizens, and what is being privatised is not electricity, but taxation.'
Electricity was supposed to be the area in which we would all benefit most from free market competition. In return for an essential service that we can't go without, we're forced into a peculiar charade of choosing between dozens of identical products, priced according to an arbitrary and impenetrable methodology where '…citizens and small businesses have no way of knowing that they aren't being fleeced as egregiously by the cheapest provider as they are by the most expensive.'
The essential, non-transferrable, non-returnable nature of these services is exactly what made them such valuable investments. The inevitable consumer fleecing is worst for those on the lowest incomes, who often have to purchase energy in advance via metered services. The state of the water industry is worse still: we're forced to pay rates to local providers with no choice of switching to another if they fail to meet their obligations. There's no meaningful difference between this and a regressive tax that makes no accounting for income, status, or ability to pay.
It wasn't really supposed to turn out this way. Privatisation was pitched to Britain as allowing citizens to literally buy a stake in their public services: we were supposed to become a nation of shareholders. But, as with the privatisation of the Royal Mail, the vast majority of shares were sucked up by investment banks. Our government stepped away and industries run by foreign governments stepped in: witness the hold exerted by EDF over our power plants, or Thames Water, which is run by a huge international consortium that includes Chinese foreign exchange reserves and Canadian pension funds.
Similar smallholder benefits were promised from the great sell-off of social housing that came in the 'Right to Buy' era. But it wasn't so much the fact that tenants were suddenly able to buy their council houses that caused the problem so much as the fact that councils weren't able to replace the subsequent losses to their stock of homes. The resulting depletion of truly affordable housing amid the skyrocketing price of housing in the private sector presents a problem with no potential solution on the horizon. Governments keep over-promising and under-delivering on housing because they're reliant on a private sector that will drag its heels for as long as it thinks it can squeeze a little more out of every square foot. And so much of British wealth is now tied up in the housing market, with so many citizens over-leveraged in relation to their equity, that any dramatic change in the relentlessly upward trend in house prices could result in economic catastrophe.
These essays are a few years old now. The persistent rise of Jeremy Corbyn has provided something of a counter-narrative to privatisation that isn't fully explored here; Meek's solutions are tentative by comparison, founded on benevolent public-private models more familiar to Britain than anything resembling socialism. Today, ministers now talk openly and confidently about re-nationalising the railway network in a way that would have been impossible a few years ago. But in so many other ways the situation seems entirely intractable. And even if we had the will to take back our public services into state ownership, we've hollowed out the expertise in our manufacturing and service sectors that we'd need to run them again. Increasingly Britain seems a phantom limb of a country: a non-entity convinced of its own prominence even while it is held together by nothing but pain.
The Brexit vote might have asked Britons to take back control but even our departure from the EU looks like it won't do much to change the pattern of unelected and barely accountable bodies that shape life in this country. If not slow decline, the feeling is of stagnation, with the government itself presenting perhaps the only public figure of optimism in a society which otherwise seems to have condemned itself to a sort of perpetual doldrums.
I had all of this in mind while reading Private Island, a selection of essays by James Meek which were originally published in the LRB. Each one deals with the effect that privatisation had on industries which were previously public. Rail, gas and electricity, water, and the Royal Mail are all covered; as are housing and the health service, though the status of those is a little more complicated.
For Meek, the heart of the matter is not so much the question of effectiveness – though it doesn't take him long to lampoon the misconception of private sector efficiency – but rather the massive transfer of assets and income from the government to private sector organisations:
'…what is being sold is not infrastructure, but bill-paying citizens, and what is being privatised is not electricity, but taxation.'
Electricity was supposed to be the area in which we would all benefit most from free market competition. In return for an essential service that we can't go without, we're forced into a peculiar charade of choosing between dozens of identical products, priced according to an arbitrary and impenetrable methodology where '…citizens and small businesses have no way of knowing that they aren't being fleeced as egregiously by the cheapest provider as they are by the most expensive.'
The essential, non-transferrable, non-returnable nature of these services is exactly what made them such valuable investments. The inevitable consumer fleecing is worst for those on the lowest incomes, who often have to purchase energy in advance via metered services. The state of the water industry is worse still: we're forced to pay rates to local providers with no choice of switching to another if they fail to meet their obligations. There's no meaningful difference between this and a regressive tax that makes no accounting for income, status, or ability to pay.
It wasn't really supposed to turn out this way. Privatisation was pitched to Britain as allowing citizens to literally buy a stake in their public services: we were supposed to become a nation of shareholders. But, as with the privatisation of the Royal Mail, the vast majority of shares were sucked up by investment banks. Our government stepped away and industries run by foreign governments stepped in: witness the hold exerted by EDF over our power plants, or Thames Water, which is run by a huge international consortium that includes Chinese foreign exchange reserves and Canadian pension funds.
Similar smallholder benefits were promised from the great sell-off of social housing that came in the 'Right to Buy' era. But it wasn't so much the fact that tenants were suddenly able to buy their council houses that caused the problem so much as the fact that councils weren't able to replace the subsequent losses to their stock of homes. The resulting depletion of truly affordable housing amid the skyrocketing price of housing in the private sector presents a problem with no potential solution on the horizon. Governments keep over-promising and under-delivering on housing because they're reliant on a private sector that will drag its heels for as long as it thinks it can squeeze a little more out of every square foot. And so much of British wealth is now tied up in the housing market, with so many citizens over-leveraged in relation to their equity, that any dramatic change in the relentlessly upward trend in house prices could result in economic catastrophe.
These essays are a few years old now. The persistent rise of Jeremy Corbyn has provided something of a counter-narrative to privatisation that isn't fully explored here; Meek's solutions are tentative by comparison, founded on benevolent public-private models more familiar to Britain than anything resembling socialism. Today, ministers now talk openly and confidently about re-nationalising the railway network in a way that would have been impossible a few years ago. But in so many other ways the situation seems entirely intractable. And even if we had the will to take back our public services into state ownership, we've hollowed out the expertise in our manufacturing and service sectors that we'd need to run them again. Increasingly Britain seems a phantom limb of a country: a non-entity convinced of its own prominence even while it is held together by nothing but pain.
November 1, 2016
This is interesting and powerful.
Meek seems to grind no party political axe but rather takes aim at the policy of uk governments towards their national treasures.
The arguments are clear and concise and the evidence is damning .
Very strong reportage
Meek seems to grind no party political axe but rather takes aim at the policy of uk governments towards their national treasures.
The arguments are clear and concise and the evidence is damning .
Very strong reportage
May 9, 2018
I have long believed that "privatisation" was never about efficiency or increasing consumer choice but about transfering public assets and public money into the hands of unaccountable unscrupulous individuals and organisations for their personal benefit. The degree to which there was intent on the part of the ideologists for this is debatable, that it is essentially what has happened is not as Meek illustrates in this very readable account of the asset stripping of Britain. From nations that owned and produced we have been reduced to nations that are owned and consume. Most of the assets flogged off were monopolies which provided essentials such as power, water, a roof over our head, transport. Most are now owned by foreign companies or are state owned again (just no longer by the British State). Meek takes a depressing sector by sector look at the assets "sold" (for more often than not they were practically given away) and the effective taxation of the public which now flows to support the pensions, states etc of anywhere but here. Not only that but most enterprises in order to boost profit have cut investment, increased prices through carel like practices or held to ransom the UK Government which washed its hands of responsibility and accountability towards the people of these nations. Privatisation was a huge winner for the few and a massive continuing loss for the many, cynically I'd say for that reason it has been a great success for those who planned it. Heads should roll. As Meek says "We have no choice but to pay the price the toll-keepes charge. We are a human revenue stream; we are being made tennants of our own land, defined by the string of private fees we pay to exist here". MUch has been given away already to the money men and the rest is to follow, whatever they say the NHS is being carved up and hived off slice by slice and as Meek suggests it is quite likely we will realise one day soon it has been privatised before our eyes. Few states that have the political strength and financial power to prevent it have allowed neolioberalism and greed to asset strip their countries as brutally as successive British governments have allowed the gang-rape of Britian. James Meek gives us a shocking peep at some of the worst of it.
April 13, 2025
In little over a generation the bones and sinews of the British economy have been sold to remote, unaccountable private owners. Separated into chapters looking at: rail, energy, water, postal services, and housing, James Meek tries to show how Britain's common wealth became private, and the impact it has had on the people of Britain.
It is hard to make policy interesting (and I say this as someone who is really interested in policy and studied it), and at certain points “Private Island: Why Britain Now Belongs To Someone Else” can feel like a standard economic history textbook.
But Meek is successful at exploring the human stories behind the incremental privatization of the nation over the last three decades - which leads to some compelling moments.
It doesn’t prevent the book from feeling more descriptive than it should. It has lengthy details of the problems, but appears to stop shy of offering solutions. One can assume that Meek endorses nationalisation in response, but he stops short of fully endorsing it, which prevents the book from being a real call to arms in the way I imagine he intended.
There is also the issue of the book being a little out of date. Meek attempts to address this by, in this revised edition, a chapter of Nigel Farage and UKIP - a decision that is very random and also rather hilariously leads the book to seem even more dated.
I can see how this book would have once held a lot of appeal, but I think there are better books that address the issues of privatisation today.
It is hard to make policy interesting (and I say this as someone who is really interested in policy and studied it), and at certain points “Private Island: Why Britain Now Belongs To Someone Else” can feel like a standard economic history textbook.
But Meek is successful at exploring the human stories behind the incremental privatization of the nation over the last three decades - which leads to some compelling moments.
It doesn’t prevent the book from feeling more descriptive than it should. It has lengthy details of the problems, but appears to stop shy of offering solutions. One can assume that Meek endorses nationalisation in response, but he stops short of fully endorsing it, which prevents the book from being a real call to arms in the way I imagine he intended.
There is also the issue of the book being a little out of date. Meek attempts to address this by, in this revised edition, a chapter of Nigel Farage and UKIP - a decision that is very random and also rather hilariously leads the book to seem even more dated.
I can see how this book would have once held a lot of appeal, but I think there are better books that address the issues of privatisation today.
May 30, 2019
Somewhat disappointing, it's very well written and the stories are engrossing but it lacks something towards the economics. It's evident from what we read that the management of these privatised companies is either incompetent or negligent towards the operation of the companies, less so in favour of profits; but I think what could have been explored is the class interests that motivated the privatisations. I think this where the fact that the book is adapted from separate articles hits its limitation, as there is no common thread which links all these desparate privatisations, where the transfer of assets from public to private ownership, and guaranteeing the latter an income based on monopoly.
Some good analysis in the afterword which I wish were expanded upon as a more general look at the way these monopoly industries privatisation has not had the adverised effect, and that the privatisation essentially changed the tax recipient, and removes the potential progressive aspect of taxation.
Some good analysis in the afterword which I wish were expanded upon as a more general look at the way these monopoly industries privatisation has not had the adverised effect, and that the privatisation essentially changed the tax recipient, and removes the potential progressive aspect of taxation.
January 16, 2020
This book makes a good case against privatisation but it's not faultless. Its weaknesses came in the first 2 chapters about postal services and rail network maintenence.
In explaining why the Royal Mail was in decline due to electronic mail, the author inadvertently makes a good case in favour of privatisation.
In regards to Network Rail, the author makes a better argument against privatisation but doesn't argue in favour of nationalisation. It was as though he favoured a third option without explaining what that is.
It does improve from chapter 3. This journalistic style of writing helped the reader relate to the subject and the emphasis on privatisation funding foreign state pensions has the desired effect.
Overall there were some really good points made throughout but not always emphasised at the right moments. Using a single case in point for each argument restricted the arguments at times, too.
In explaining why the Royal Mail was in decline due to electronic mail, the author inadvertently makes a good case in favour of privatisation.
In regards to Network Rail, the author makes a better argument against privatisation but doesn't argue in favour of nationalisation. It was as though he favoured a third option without explaining what that is.
It does improve from chapter 3. This journalistic style of writing helped the reader relate to the subject and the emphasis on privatisation funding foreign state pensions has the desired effect.
Overall there were some really good points made throughout but not always emphasised at the right moments. Using a single case in point for each argument restricted the arguments at times, too.
July 9, 2018
The UK subtitle of this book is "Why Britain now belongs to someone else." I like that a lot better thn "How the UK sold" because one of the strengths of this polemic against privatization is the way it unpicks the rhetoric behind privatization vs. the reality. After the introduction (which intersperses a discussion of the politics of privatization with a very brief—too brief—study of privatization after the collapse of the Soviet Union), Meek turns to 5 case studies: the privatization of the postal service, railways, water, electricity, health (which is more commercialization than privatization because most privatization discussions are based on other countries), and housing. All are well done, with the water one being my "favorite." This is very much a book designed to make people angry, and it certainly succeeds on that front. It leaves one with a profound sense of "we are doomed."
April 3, 2020
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book. It is an excellent account of the privatisation and (trans)corporatisation of British public services. All in all a clever yet depressing read considering the reality of what is being narrated.
The book in itself is pretty conservative - with a Meek himself sympathising with the use of market forces in society. However, Meek is an excellent writer and I enjoyed his narration and I’d recommend this highly to anyone who wants to understand the political climate re. public goods and marketisation.
I think the book in itself could have extended its critique of privatisation, but again the book is aimed to explore the privatisation of assets and humanise the transitions rather than a critical analysis.
January 16, 2021
This is a great book. James Meek investigates the increasing degree to which the United Kingdom has adopted privatization as its policy of choice. Obviously there's the history of Thatcher and onward, but what I am impressed with in Meek is the focus on the outcomes of privatization: massive costs, complete lack of implementation, and human confusion, even suffering. It's not an academic study and it is far from complete, but for those interested in the subject and interested to see how deep the rotten roots of Britain's contemporary decay extend, it's critical reading.
March 29, 2019
Astonishing!
Excellent format of the book. Instead of criticising privatisation on the whole, it provides 7 examples of privatised common goods and gives evidence of the outcome. I thoroughly recommend the chapter on Railtrack. Amazing! If anybody told you this story you would think that they were making it up! The evidence is there, for us to see, if we want to. Otherwise carry on thinking that experts are overrated and markets know best.
Excellent format of the book. Instead of criticising privatisation on the whole, it provides 7 examples of privatised common goods and gives evidence of the outcome. I thoroughly recommend the chapter on Railtrack. Amazing! If anybody told you this story you would think that they were making it up! The evidence is there, for us to see, if we want to. Otherwise carry on thinking that experts are overrated and markets know best.
January 16, 2026
Brilliantly worked book. Cannot imagine the amount of research that went into this. So informative, and somewhat mind blowing! Only criticism is the last paragraph “In Farageland” which didn’t really fit into the narrative of the book (interesting though it was). This is the 2014 version with my personal highlight being the “Afterword” written Jan2015 which I have read twice now, and will undoubtedly read again. This book is a keeper, to remain on my shelf for a long, long time.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 64 reviews