SHORT SIGHTED EUROSTAR SELL OFF

The news that the UK Government plans to sell its stake in Eurostar should not surprise anyone. The records of various Westminster Governments since 1979 when it comes to selling off of state assets leave a great deal to be desired. A few year ago Royal Mail was privatised on the cheap and the public have been left short-changed. It has to be unacceptable that state assets, particularly those which are so vital to infrastructure are being auctioned by a Westminster government that is simply ideologically opposed to state ownership.

This proposal reflects the lop-sided nature of UK economic policy. Increasingly desperate attempts by Westminster governments to balance the books have been based on painful austerity rather than investment and growth. Now they are desperately attempting to fill the hole in public finances by selling-off important assets. This is a short-sighted attempt to make a fast buck at the expense of the future of the UK’s infrastructure and economic prospects.

This process may well end with ‘external nationalisation’ where former UK state assets are owned by foreign governments who pursue their own interests, at our expense leaving UK citizens powerless. There has to be a wider discussion on this particular proposal with the devolved bodies in Wales and Scotland. The Eurostar is an international link, particularly important to our joint participation in the EU and the single market. Businesses here in Wales will be affected in the long-term by the decision to sell-off and there will undoubtedly be an impact on our economy in Wales.

IF WISHES WERE HORSES...

There is an old saying; if wishes were horses then beggars would ride. And if the Labour in Wales Government was capable of any original thought then it might consider purchasing the Welsh share of the Post Office and running it on a not for dividend model as per Dwr Cymru. The problem is that that their masters, Labour in Westminster remain ideologically comfortable with the idea of privatising the post office. When Labour in Westminster were last in Government, Lord Mandelson tried to privatise the post office and failed due to a combination of union discontent and public unhappiness with the idea.  When Labour in Westminster were in power they presided over the largest Post Office closure programme in history, following a policy begun and continued by successive conservative governments. Labour in Westminster, if they care to remember publically stated that they would have privatised the railways once elected, if they had not already been privatised. The Con Dems have pretty much continued in the same vein pursuing a programme of privatisation that even Mrs Thatcher would have thought twice about including the forensic science laboratories (something that may yet out the cold case archive at risk) and the air sea rescue service. 

SIMPLY A BAD IDEA...

Even the news that the Post Office profit rose from £ 152 million pounds to £ 403 million pounds (in the 12 months up until the end of March) made little difference; the Lib Dems (notorious locally for campaign to keep open local Post Offices that were not under threat of closure) have with their Conservative collation partners decided to privatise the Post Office. Labour in Westminster has been busy crying crocodile tears, as they tried and failed (under Peter Mandelson) to privatise the Post Office themselves during their largely wasted 13 years in government.

Privatisation of the Post Office - simply a bad idea...

Don't get me wrong, I have absolutely no problem with the Post Office being given the maximum amount of commercial freedom to go out and diversify and to make money (as happens in the Netherlands) but firmly believe that this is an ideologically driven and unnecessary privatisation  A major concern should be about the longevity of the unprofitable rural postal operations – how long will it be before they are dropped because they don’t make enough profit?

The Post Office, rather than be simply sold off to a private company will be floated on the stock market, with shares being sold off. The business has been valued at something between £ 2 billion and £ 3 billion pounds with up to 10% of shares being set aside for postal workers. Not surprisingly, probably along with most people, the members of the Communication Workers Union are understandably firmly opposed to the privatisation of the Post Office.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson on Royal Mail, Jonathan Edwards MP, said:

“Plaid Cymru is wholly opposed to the privatisation of Royal Mail. 

"When the last Labour Government thought that part-privatisation was a good idea, Plaid Cymru fought to defend Royal Mail in the House of Commons, and will do so again against this Tory – Lib Dem decision.

“Plaid Cymru is very concerned about the Government’s decision to press ahead with privatisation of the postal service that threatens to put jobs and services at risk.

“The reasons for keeping Royal Mail in public ownership are numerous, and the Government has not been able to give sufficient reasons for privatising it.

“In May this year, it was announced that Royal Mail had posted a profit of over £400 million in the preceding year and lays to waste the Coalition Government’s claim that it must be sold off to survive.”

‘THEM’ AND ‘US’

A few days ago David Cameron managed to sum up the Thatcher era in a few words; he said that something along the lines of Mrs T being ‘an inspiration to some of us’. ‘US’ is the key word, to have an ‘US’ you have to have a ‘THEM’ and that was the harsh reality of Thatcherism and its consequences. Speaking as one of the ‘THEM’ while offering condolences to her family and friends, I won’t as a fellow human being wish her any ill will at all.

I have no doubt that yard upon yard of column inches will be expended on flawless eulogies. Other bloggers have eloquently covered the main issues that impacted directly on those of us living west of the Severn Bridge including the wilful destruction of much of our manufacturing base and the shameful destruction of the mining industry.  I would focus on other issues where Mrs T had a significant and lasting impact.

No doubt much will be said about the Falklands War and how Mrs T put the ‘Great’ back in Britain. Like most things this is subjective. Yes, Mrs T was PM when a floundering brutal military Dictatorship invaded the Falklands and yes she was PM when a task force was sent to liberate the islands from military occupation. Ironically that defeat was to put the skids under the Argentine dictatorship which soon collapsed resulting in the restoration of democracy in Argentina.

I wonder how many column inches will be expended amongst the background to the Falklands war and how the Argentinean invasion came about. In 1979 the Conservatives were elected with an electoral pledge to maintain the Royal Navy with a surface strength of 90 vessels, by the time the Falklands had come around the RN was down to 46 surface vessels and the two large carrier units had just been sold to Australia and India (before any of the smaller replacement ski jump carriers were in-service).

Amongst the very public cuts was an announcement to withdraw HMS Endurance the patrol vessel that protected the Falkland Islands and the British Antarctic territories.  The Argentinean military dictatorship rightly or wrongly aware of the defence cuts saw the opportunity for a short and victorious war of conquest which would distract the long suffering Argentinean people from the economic woes of a collapsing economy. The rest as they say is history.

Much will also no doubt be made of MRs T’s role in bringing about the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War.  This again is subjective, the West (MRs T) included got, to coin a phrase ‘Got Russia wrong”. In the run up to the failed Soviet coup the Western powers were backing Gorbachev to keep the Soviet Union intact – so much for democracy and self determination.

In the run up to the collapse of the Soviet Union it is worth remembering that a virtual parade of Western Leaders (including Mitterrand and George Bush Senior (as VP)) roundly condemned any secessionist tendencies on the part of the suppressed nations inside the USSR. Only after the fact did Western leaders (with the honourable exception of Canada) reposition themselves to recognise the defacto independence of Russia and the republics.

The West (MRs T included) failed to adequately support the young Russian democracy (let alone provide anything like reasonable amounts of support to the emerging states of Central Asia) merely lumbering them with a bloody series of privatisations. This disorganised asset stripping event did Russia and Russian democracy long lasting if not permanent damage and gave birth to the oligarchs and led us to Putin’s Russia.

While when it comes to Europe, Mrs T walked the walk and talked the talk about standing up for Britain in Europe, famously hand bagging various European leaders. All good PR no doubt but it is worth remembering that it was under her premiership the UK signed up to Maastricht, and unlike most of the rest of Europe UK voters were denied a say in the matter. This lack of trust or faith in the UK’s ordinary citizens indirectly gave birth to UKIP, something that is ironically currently causing David Cameron some sleepless nights.

The right, understandably, like to crow about the fact that Mrs T curbed the excesses of the old Trade Unions and brought in strike ballots, interestingly enough New Labour quietly retained all of the Conservative Trade Union related legislation.  There are some things that the old style left old style left still fails to accept. Firstly that the old style Trade Unions were pretty undemocratic and secondly they appear to have regularly seem to have traded in better working conditions for their male members and opportunities to bring in equal pay for female members with the employers to preserve their own differentials.

In Place of Strife: A missed opportunity

The old style Trade Unions from the 1960’s onwards failed or choose not to grasp technological change, something that could have actually retained their members jobs. The Labour Party bottled it when it came to reforming strike procedures and the way terms and conditions could be negotiated when Harold Wilson and Barbara Castle failed to push through ‘In Place of Strife’ White Paper (in 1968).

In the end what was then ‘Old’ Labour put Party interest before national interest (something that Labour ‘Old’, ‘New’ or ‘Post New’ continues to do so well in Westminster and the Senedd) and dropped this modest measure. This effectively setting the scene for what followed in 1970, 1973-4 and 1979 – 86 as fired up with their power and influence the Trade Unions locked horns with successive Conservative Governments and pretty much wrecked the economy and delivered Mr’s T to 10 Downing Street.

What followed amongst other things was a well organised looting of state assets and as the Americans would say a giant fire sale took place and badly run state industries were sold for a cheap price the only medium to long term beneficiaries being the City money men. While the Conservative governments made much of reducing regulation on the City the real ‘light (non-existent) touch’ was brought in by Gordon Brown,  who pretty much laid the groundwork for the financial crash that was to follow.

The 1980’s and the 1990’s in the UK were an incredibly destructive and divisive period, which saw the reckless pursuit of some seriously socially divisive policies. From where I was sat (mostly in Newport, Llanbedr PS and South London) save for the right to buy legislation (the profits of which should have been ring fenced and used to build and rebuild modern social housing) very little of lasting good was accomplished.

The old nationalised industries needed modernisation not an organised session of asset stripping, the wilful destruction of profitable pits (with significant coal reserves) was criminal as was the waste of the North Sea oil revenues on tax cuts for the rich. The privatisation of the energy utilities has result in hundreds of thousands of people living in an energy rich country living in fuel poverty.  Our Building Societies became banks and were rapidly absorbed by predatory financial intuitions laying the groundwork for what was to follow under New Labour.

The Conservative’s fantasy of rolling back the state was actually just that, pure fantasy. There was a growth of a largely unelectable and unaccountable tier of quango’s something that particularly affected us her in Wales. Getting rid of the quangocracy was yet another election promise that New Labour failed to deliver, as it proved too useful and too convenient and worked just as well stuffed with Labour cronies as it did with Conservative ones.

One price we have all paid for the 1980’s and the 1990’s in Wales is that we live in a fractured and partially broken society. We have to face that reality and to try and do something different, by creatively using the limited powers of the Senedd to do something different rather than following the old flawed development models. That said we can no longer live in the past and throwing heaps of blame at any one particular individual (who had many willing helpers) is wrong; we need to create a better future for all our communities rather than the one that many of our communities are currently still enduring.

A PERFECT STORM...

The Conservative dominated Westminster government is running the risk of creating a perfect storm within our police service by cutting starting salaries for new police officers.  This comes on top of budget cuts that have forced many forces to freeze recruitment, and reduce officer and civilian support staff numbers with redundancies. There will be consequences including a shortage of younger and older officers and a reduction in front line services as civilian support staff are also reduced in number.

Many police forces across the UK are already under severe pressure, as they attempt to balance budget cuts and a drop in personnel while simultaneously trying to maintain a high standard of policing and ensuring public safety. On Tuesday the Home Secretary announced that police officers' starting salary will be cut by 17% to £19,000. This is the latest of series of assaults on funding for public services which are ill thought out and ill-timed.

The Con Dem government’s unsustainable budget cuts and proposed changes in working practices will threaten to undermine the morale of hard-working officers in every force in England and Wales.  Our police do a superb and difficult job but both the reputation of our police services and the safety of communities may be put at risk. The Con Dem London government’s priorities are clearly driven by ideology, rather than principle.

We have reached a historic low when it comes to this Westminster Government’s absolute lack of respect for the police service and a complete lack of understanding for the important role our police play in our communities and society. The short term decisions made by this Westminster government will have far-reaching and potentially long lasting consequences by making it more difficult for the police to ensure that they are able to deal with crime and public order.

One unforeseen consequence of Police budget cuts may be a boost to the not so secret Conservative privatisation agenda – back in February (2012) G4S a private security company signed a deal to design, build and run a police station in Lincolnshire. This agreement between G4S and Lincolnshire Police was the first of its kind in the UK and may hint at the future of policing as it is envisaged by Cameron’s Conservatives.

As part of the deal, around two-thirds of civilian support staff employed by the force is to be transferred across to the private sector. This contract might possibly save Lincolnshire Constabulary around £20 million pounds but at what cost over the medium term to support staff terms and condition and the provision of services to the public.

This probably a step too far for most people, but, despite any mutterings to the contrary from Labour in Wales’s representatives in Westminster our Police forces here in Wales are in my opinion acutely vulnerable to back door privatisation and further potential cuts in funding and services. The sooner Policing and Criminal Justice are devolved to Wales the better for all of us as this would strengthen the democratic process and protect our police services and our communities.

RAIL FRANCHISE FARCE

U-turn if you want too? 

Having been away for the best part of a week – it is easy to lose track of things – so I missed out on one of those decisive Cameron U-turn moments – when the rail franchise bids got derailed. This is one of those moments when political comedy drama and actual politics / governance almost seamlessly blend into one. The Omnishambles that the English West Coast Main Line bid seems to have become suggests to me that it’s time to rethink of the whole privatised rail industry structure. This Whitehall shambles brings into question the competence of a private franchise being responsible for the electrification of the Great Western line from Swansea to London. The whole process has been discredited, we would be better off with a publicly owned rail industry, something that would widely supported by the electorate and would be far better able to meet commuter and economic needs than private firms.

A PRIVATISATION TOO FAR...

Perhaps the Con Dems think that height of Olympic-mania is a good time to bury bad news, and that few will notice yet another questionable privatisation, in this case the tendering of contracts for the UK’s air sea search and rescue helicopter service. Three companies are competing for contracts to provide search and rescue helicopter services throughout the UK.

The contract winner, or contract winners, would take over from Royal Navy and RAF and operate from sites across the UK. Three companies, Bond Offshore Helicopters, Bristow Helicopters and CHC Helicopter are on the shortlist published by the Department of Transport. The UK Westminster government hopes to reveal the winners early next year.

The business, has been broken up into three lots, which include covering coastguard duties.

• Lot one is to deliver the service at, or near, Sumburgh, Stornoway, Culdrose, Leconfield and Valley using helicopters with a minimum rescue capacity of eight casualties per aircraft.
• Lot two is to deliver the service from Lee-on-the-Solent and at, or near, Chivenor, Prestwick, Lossiemouth and Wattisham using helicopters with a minimum rescue capacity per aircraft of four casualties per aircraft.
• Lot three is a contract covering the requirements of both lots one and two.

This is in my opinion a privatisation too far and reveals the full extent of this Governments slightly crazed ideologically driven desire to privatise almost everything, what’s next the privatisation of the Police Service?

TIME FOR SOME CONSEQUENCES?

Back in March I noted with interest that the trial of Iceland's former Prime Minister Geir Haarde, who was accused of negligence in his handling of the 2008 financial crisis that severely undermined the Icelandic economy, had begun in the capital, Reykjavik. A sizeable part of me thinks that it is quite refreshing for elected politicians to face real consequences for their actions? I mention this again because of the ongoing consequences of the embarrassing childlike spat between Osborne and Balls, which has served to provide a degree of distraction from New Labour and the Conservative party’s cosy relationship with the bankers and the City.

Now as most people know Iceland fell into recession when the country's major banks, including on-line bank Icesave's parent company Landsbanki, crashed in the autumn of 2008. Icelanders awoke to find that they owed six times the island's total gross domestic product (GDP), the world's credit markets promptly dried up, they were left high and dry unable to refinance loans. Iceland’s big three banks, who's business web stretched across Europe (with customers that included Welsh local authorities), collapsed under billions of dollars of debt.

Iceland’s economy had largely been based on and around fishing, but in the 1990s, the banks boomed and expanded abroad and Icelanders got cheap credit (just like the rest of us) with next to no regulation. After the crash, the unemployment rate and inflation sky-rocketed, and on the domestic political front all hell broke loose. A huge wave of angry public protests followed and the then Prime Minister Geir Haarde’s government fell in 2009.

The ex Prime Minster was accused of negligence because he had not ensured financial safeguards were in place. He has denied the accusation, saying he was only doing what he thought was best for the country at the time. The ex PM could face up to two years in the slammer if convicted. Ironically he was one of four politicians blamed in a 2010 parliament-commissioned report for contributing to the country's financial collapse, yet is the only one on trial.

In September 2010, the Icelandic Parliament decided that only the ex Pm should be tried on charges relating to the financial crisis, the trial began in March (2012) and ended with a guilty verdict (in April 2012). From here it certainly looks like the former PM was left carrying the can as two current ministers (Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir and Foreign Minister Ossur Skarphedinsson) were not referred to the court, along with some of his former colleagues including the former foreign, finance and business ministers.

In the March 2010, Icelandic voters rejected overwhelmingly via a referendum the proposal to pay the UK and the Netherlands 4 billion euros (£3.4 billion) they lost when the Icesave bank collapsed. The Icelandic citizens view was that they should not be made to pay so much for their banks' bad decisions. Now this is a feeling that I suspect is shared by most of us, save for our elite who are busy making the rest of us pay off their mistakes and the mistakes of their friends at length.

Now where, save in Iceland have the ordinary people had a direct opportunity to pass judgement on any of the deals done to bail out the banks. Back in December 2010, Iceland the UK and the Netherlands agreed a new repayment deal. Iceland's parliament (in February 2011) voted yes to a plan to repay the UK and the Netherlands for reimbursing 400,000 citizens who lost their savings in the collapse of Icesave's parent bank, Landsbanki. Iceland's president, Olafur Grimsson, then put the deal to a public vote. In April 2011, the voters of Iceland once again rejected the repayment deal in a referendum. I wonder how the voters would have voted if we had been given a choice on bailing out the banks?

Anyway while Iceland fell into one of the most severe recessions anywhere in the world when the markets crashed in 2008 and economic output fell by around 12 per cent in two years. Yet despite this Iceland did not fall, an International Monetary Fund reports show that growth has resumed. GDP is expected to increase by a relatively healthy 2.5 per cent in 2011. The Icelandic public finances are on a sustainable path too with government debt projected to fall to 80 per cent of GDP in 2016.

Iceland's output is still more than 10 per cent down when compared to pre-crisis levels. The country's unemployment level is around 6.7 per cent, this is considerably higher than it was pre 2007. The Icelandic standard of living is also well down and there is limited access to foreign currency. The risks to recovery still remain and Icelandic Central bank interest rates are currently going up in order to curb inflation, something that could have an impact on growth. Yet despite all of this the outlook for the Icelandic economy looks much healthier than some other distressed economies in Greece, Ireland and Portugal.

Plaid Cymru believes that only a full public inquiry can offer an adequate response to a scandal on such a scale. A parliamentary inquiry could bring senior figures from the last New Labour administration to the dock under oath. Surely Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling, and Ed Balls and Ed Miliband, their former economic advisers, would relish a chance to clear their names by being called to account for their actions.

Both New Labour and the Conservatives have been (and still are) entirely fixated with putting the market before people regardless of the cost. A parliamentary inquiry could at least shine a light on the City’s murky dealings. Sadly both New Labour and the Conservatives are still entirely hooked on high finance and dazzled by the City’s dodgy money men, so we may have a long wait before we start to see politicians giving evidence in the dock.

CUTS AND CONSEQUENCES

Gwent Police and South Wales Police forces have merged their forensics operations in a bid to save £1 million in public money, at a time when both forces are facing serious budget cuts, this is a sensible decision. The Westminster government announced a 20% cut in police budgets back in October 2010.

Gwent Police has to make some £34 million pounds worth of budget cuts (savings), and South Wales Police has to achieve some £47 million pounds worth of budget savings (cuts) by 2016. The new Joint Scientific Investigation Unit, which will be made up of staff from both forces, will employ 160 staff - 110 from South Wales Police and 50 from Gwent. The fact that no redundancies have been made in either force in creating the unit, should also be welcomed.

Our Police services are facing, much like the rest of us, difficult times financially, Gwent Police is planning to close 17 stations to the public as part of cost-cutting measure, changes which would save around £500,000. Despite the spin and the talk of ‘redesigning the way people accessed its services’, when the dust settles a cut is still and cut and a closure is still a closure. What this means is that from July front counter services won’t be available at:

• Abertillery
• Alway
• Bargoed
• Bedwas
• Bettws
• Brynmawr
• Caerphilly
• Caldicot
• Chepstow
• Rhymney
• Risca
• Maindee
• Monmouth
• Pill
• Pontypool
• Tredegar
• Ystrad Mynach

Gwent Police will retain the Police stations as bases for police officers, specialist departments or office accommodation. Newport’s Central Police station will remain open to the public 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Police Stations at Abergavenny, Ebbw Vale, Cwmbran and Blackwood will also remain open to the public from 08:00 to 20:00 GMT, seven days a week. Similar cost cutting measures are being undertaken by South Wales Police and North Wales Police forces.

The Police budget cuts have already lead to a reduction in Police numbers in Wales and England. There were 135,838 police officers in September 2011 - 6,012 (4.2%) fewer than the 141,850 of a year earlier. Only Surrey Police out of the 43 forces in England and Wales actually increased police officer numbers. The figures also show that police numbers have been cut further in Wales and England than they have been in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

One possibly unforeseen consequence of Police budget cuts may be a boost to the Conservative privatisation agenda – G4S a private security company has signed a deal to design, build and run a police station in Lincolnshire. This agreement between G4S and Lincolnshire Police is first of its kind in the UK. As part of the deal, around two-thirds of civilian support staff employed by the force are to be transferred across to the private sector. This contract may will save Lincolnshire Constabulary around £20 million pounds but we may well ask at what cost over the medium term to support staff terms and condition and the provision of services to the public.

While this is probably a step too far for most people, until Policing and Criminal Justice are devolved to the National Assembly. Despite any mutterings to the contrary from Labour in Wales’s elected representatives in Westminster our Police forces here in Wales are in my opinion acutely vulnerable to back door privatisation and further cuts in services. The sooner Policing and Criminal Justice are devolved the better for all of us here in Wales.

TRUE TO THEIR ROOTS...

Despite the thin layer of ‘caring Conservatism’ and the ‘green wash’ Cameron’s Conservative Party and its government are true heirs to Thatcher, being as ideologically committed to ‘privatisation and dismantling the structures of the state government as she ever was. David Cameron’s Conservative Government is now considering private investment in England's road network . The PM in a speech today will amongst other things call for tolls for new roads as a way of attracting more money from pension funds and other investors for infrastructure investment and development.

Cameron has noted that more work is needed to relieve gridlock by widening "pinch points" and allowing traffic to use the hard shoulder on motorways. His call for an innovative approaches to finance road improvements, and road tolls are only one option. In plain english what we are talking about is the privatisation of the major highways. Cameron’s speech comes as a poll suggests that only 2% of people think he is living up to his "greenest government ever" pledge.

A YouGov poll commissioned by Greenpeace and the RSPB, suggests that the coalition has not persuaded people that it is living up to Mr Cameron's pledge to be the "greenest government ever". The opinion poll with a sample of more than 1,700 adults across the UK found shows that barely 2% of people asked (and incidentally no Lib Dem voters) thought that the government was meeting the promise, and only 4% believed current rules and regulations protecting the environment were too strong. A majority of people - 53% - believed its green credentials were about average, while 7% believed it was the least green government ever.

The news that Cameron’s government may also be planning to take over the liability for the Post Office pensions, potentially a first step to a further privatisation of the Post Office, along with Cameron’s NHS England reforms; may alarm some. It may also bring a comfortable warm glow to members of Labour in Wales who are more than happy for Cameron to push ahead with his privatisation agenda, so they can make hay by verbally opposing it.

Public sector regional pay variations may be just around the corner, something which could result in nurses, teachers, police officers and civil servants being paid less because they live and work in Wales. The real danger here is that this could damage the Welsh economy, it could bed in the already pretty rampant inequality that exists between Wales and the south-east of England. This is something that Mr’s T contemplated but never actually did, it should come as no real surprise though as ideologically the current government is being driven by David Cameron and George Osborne the masterminds of Michael Howard’s failed Westminster campaign in 2005.

This is perhaps part of some bizarre public manifestation of an ideological battle between the different but fundamentally economically interdependent sectors of the economy. As for trying to unravel the interlinked public and private sectors of the economy... let me know how that one goes. As for pitting private and public sector workers against each other – it is pretty pointless, as it is a game that no one can win. When it comes to supplying services to local government private sector employers (and their workers) may end up being the ones who bite the bullet as the full impact of public sector cuts roll on through

The problem with basing you positions and your decisions on and around ideology is that you tend to get trapped in the past. I have no doubt Labour in Wales will moan, groan and cry crocodile tears, the reality is that if New Labour was in power in Westminster they probably would have privatised the Post Office by now and be well on their way to expanding competition with the NHS in England (and probably Wales). I have little doubt that any changes would have been happily voted through by the Labour in Wales lobby fodder with scant if any thought on their part.

UNFORESEEN CONSEQUENCES...

Its no secret, but, I have never been one for elites, whether they be elective, self-selective, cultural, social or sporting (something which may explain a slight dislike of Manchester United on my part). I noted with interest that the trial of Iceland's former Prime Minister Geir Haarde, who is accused of negligence in his handling of the 2008 financial crisis that severely undermined the Icelandic economy, has begun in the capital, Reykjavik. How refreshing for an elected politician to face real consequences for his actions?

Iceland fell into recession when the country's major banks, including on-line bank Icesave's parent company Landsbanki, crashed in the autumn of 2008. The Icelanders woke up to find that they owed six times the island's total gross domestic product (GDP), the world's credit markets promptly dried up, they were left high and dry unable to refinance loans. The county’s three big banks, who's business web stretched across Europe (with customers that included some of our local authorities), collapsed under billions of dollars of debt.

The country's economy had largely been based on and around fishing, but through the 1990s, the country's banks boomed and expanded abroad and Icelanders benefited from cheap credit just like the rest of us. In the immediate aftermath of the crash, the country's unemployment rate and inflation in Iceland sky-rocketed, and on the domestic political front all hell broke loose. A huge wave of angry public protests followed and the then Prime Minister Geir Haarde’s government fell in 2009.

The ex Prime Minster has been accused of negligence because he had not ensured financial safeguards were in place. He has denied the accusation, saying he was only doing what he thought was best for the country at the time. The ex PM could face up to two years in the slammer if convicted. Ironically he was one of four politicians blamed in a 2010 parliament-commissioned report for contributing to the country's financial collapse, yet is the only one on trial.

In September 2010, the Icelandic Parliament decided that only the ex Pm should be tried on charges relating to the financial crisis, the trial is expected to last until 15th March. The former PM was left carrying the can as two current ministers (Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir and Foreign Minister Ossur Skarphedinsson) were not referred to the court, along with some of his former colleagues including the former foreign, finance and business ministers.

In the March 2010, Icelandic voters rejected overwhelmingly via a referendum the proposal to pay the UK and the Netherlands 4 billion euros (£3.4 billion) they lost when the Icesave bank collapsed. The Icelandic citizens view was that they should not be made to pay so much for their banks' bad decisions. Now this is a feeling that I suspect is shared by most of us, save for our elite who are busy making the rest of us pay off their mistakes and the mistakes of their friends.

Back in December 2010, Iceland the UK and the Netherlands agreed a new repayment deal. The country's parliament (in February 2011) voted yes to a new plan to repay the UK and the Netherlands for reimbursing 400,000 citizens who lost their savings in the collapse of Icesave's parent bank, Landsbanki. Iceland's president, Olafur Grimsson, put the deal to a public vote. Back in April 2011, the voters of Iceland once again rejected the repayment deal in a referendum.

Now Iceland has been through one of the most severe recessions anywhere in the world when the markets crashed in 2008. The country's economic output fell by about 12 per cent in two years. Yet the latest report on Iceland by the International Monetary Fund shows that growth is resuming. GDP is expected to increase by a relatively healthy 2.5 per cent in 2011. The Icelandic public finances are on a sustainable path too with government debt projected to fall to 80 per cent of GDP in 2016.

Iceland's output is still more than 10 per cent down when compared to pre-crisis levels. The country's unemployment level is around 6.7 per cent, this is considerably higher than it was pre 2007. The Icelandic standard of living is also well down and there is limited access to foreign currency. The risks to recovery still remain and Icelandic Central bank interest rates are currently going up in order to curb inflation, something that could have an impact on growth. Yet despite all of this the outlook for the Icelandic economy looks much healthier than other distressed economies across the water in Greece, Ireland and Portugal.

Closer to home, there are plenty of people across the Celtic Sea who are less than happy with the choices made by the Irish elite and the fact that they have largely got away without punishment for their crimes, misdemeanour's and bad decisions. Some have called for a fresh start and new republic literally writing off the past (and the debt). In recent history in Ireland (and elsewhere on the European mainland) referenda have produced the wrong result, at least as far as the elite are concerned.

Peadar Kirby and Mary Murphy exposed the winners and losers from the current Irish model of development and related the distributional outcomes of the use of power by Irish elites, in their book Towards a Second Republic. The authors analysis of Ireland's economics, politics and society, and draws some important lessons from its cycles of boom and bust. They also look at the role of the EU and compare Ireland's crisis and responses to those of other states. The book includes a proposal to construct new and more effective institutions for the economy and society, I suspect that it won't be on the summer reading list of any elite near here any-time soon.

Even closer to home there have been no real consequences (or punishments for that matter) for the banking crash for the inhabitants of the Westminster village or the bankers (other than the loss of the odd bonus). The Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) intended to reward its chief executive Stephen Hester a bonus of £1.4 million despite a fall in share prices. The announcement came days after RBS effectively pulled the plug on profit-making fashion retailer Peacocks who went into administration leaving thousands of livelihoods at risk, only serious public criticism led to the rejection of the bonus.

RBS was bailed out with billions of pounds of taxpayers' money during the financial crisis, but showed a marked reluctance to lend to a profitable business during its time of need. The UK financial sector, on the back of Thatcher's plundering of state assets, created a culture of rewarding failure and neglecting responsibility, encouraged by the hands off approach of New Labour. The Conservative dominated Westminster government, shows a marked reluctance to regulate the excesses of the banking sector, perhaps it might cause a few awkward moments in the club...

A BIT OF GIVE AND TAKE (MOSTLY TAKE)

A nice little earner...

The news that the members of the energy cartel plan to cut our domestic energy charges will be warmly welcomed by hard pressed customers. EDF Energy started the ball rolling announcing plans to cut a typical gas bill for UK domestic customers by £38, or around 5%, from 7th February. This move, which affected around 1.4 million customers, followed a sharp fall in the price of wholesale gas over the winter period due to the (so far) relatively mild weather. What was not mentioned was that that EDF ramped up its gas bills by 15.4% last November in response to rising wholesale gas prices. The move was rapidly followed by the others members of the energy cartel (British Gas, Scottish and Southern Electric, etc) fell over each other in their haste to announce pending cuts to domestic gas bills. Oddly enough not all of the energy cartel members (who control over 90% of the domestic market) have yet to mention of any intention to reduce the cost of its domestic electricity bills, the cost of which increased rose by 4.5% last November. As welcome as the promised cuts are it is worth remembering that barely six months ago had the Big Six energy suppliers ramped up their prices by an average of 17% for gas and 10% for electricity.

ABSOLUTE CERTAINTIES...

As one year passes and another one beckons there are some certainties in modern life, one of which is the post-Christmas train fare rises. As of January 1st train fares will rise by an average of 5.9%. For what it's worth, in his Autumn Statement last month, the Con Dem Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne capped fare increases at 6%, instead of the expected 8%. Since privatisation, rail fare rises have been linked to inflation, currently 5.2% as measured by the Retail Prices Index.

The Association of train Operating Companies, has said that fare increase would be used to pay for "new trains, faster services and better stations". Verbally at least this makes a pleasant change from simply using the increases in fares to maximise the dividend for shareholders. At the moment, passengers make a contribution of around £6.5 billion to the running of the railways, with taxpayers picking up the remaining £4 billion.

Let's be honest, the sooner our railways are run as not for profit organisations, with the profits being reinvested back into the railways the better. The public have tolerated what has become on occasion an often shoddy minimalist unconnected service. Most reasonably minded people would concede that historically the Department of Transport’s interest in Wales has been peripheral at best.

We need to prioritise investment in our railways and provide a decent affordable and reliable service for the passengers. We should get in a few years time a single rail franchise that directly answers to and works for Wales, rather than boosting company profits. A not for profit railway company that serves Wales could break up the cosy financial relationship that exists between the political establishment and the franchise holders – which would be no bad thing.

ANNIVERSARIES...

Yet another anniversary, this time the twentieth anniversary of the failed Soviet Coup attempt which brought about the final demise of the Soviet Union. At the time I watched most of it live on TV in my office in South London with my colleagues, the defining moment was, at least from where I was sat was the moment when Boris Yeltsin walked boldly out of the White House, and climbed up onto the tank, shook hands with the tank crew and turned to speak to the crowd and the world, declaiming to the assembled Moscow residents and representatives of the worlds media, saying:

Boris Yeltsin outside the White House

 "The clouds of terror and dictatorship are gathering over the whole country. They must not be allowed to bring eternal night." and “You can make a throne of bayonets, but you can't sit on it for long.”

Twenty years down the line, and with the benefit of hindsight it's pretty clear the botched coup merely speeded up the demise of the Soviet Union. With the people on the streets (the defiance was not just confined to Moscow for example 10,000 protesters flooded the square in provincial Sverdlovsk and there were no arrests) the forces of reaction stalled, blinked, drank and crumbled.

Soviet communism was finally exposed live on TV as the repressive force it was, it ended up discredited in the eyes of the Russian people and proved itself unequal to their hopes and aspirations. A one party tyranny based state that emerged from the chaos of the first world war, two revolutions and a bloody civil war some 74 years previously, quietly rolled over and died as Russia was reborn.



People and Tank in Moscow 

 Yeltsin and the democrats were helped by the fact that the Soviet Coup plotters might well have had Stalinist impulses, but they thankfully lacked both the competence and the cruelty of their predecessors. The fact that the generals and the soldiers on the ground lacked the will to bathe Moscow in blood, write it up in orwellian newspeak as a victory for soviet socialism. The KGB leaders on the ground (it emerged afterwards) point blank refused to storm the White House (in St Petersburg the KGB apparently supported the Russian democrats), they were unwilling to spill so much blood, and two Generals threatened to bomb the Kremlin in retaliation if the White House was stormed.

By the time Gorbachev came back to Moscow he was literally coming back to another country. Boris Yeltsin, was now running the show and the state, Russia was back. I remember the live defining theatrical moment, when Yeltsin forced the then Soviet leader to sign the all-powerful Soviet Communist Party out of existence. The reality was that after more than 70 years the Soviet Union was rapidly dissolving day by day and moment by moment, as the various republics declared their independence and their independence was recognised by Russia and the Western powers.

What followed was a high speed and shockingly chaotic transfer of the old institutions of Soviet state to the new Russian state. On the 8th December, Russia, Ukraine and Belarus renounced the (1922) treaty that had created the Russian dominated Soviet Union. On the 25th December (our Christmas Day), Gorbachev duly resigned in a tv broadcast and accepted the dissolution of the world's second superpower, the Russian flag was duly raised over the Kremlin and the party was well and truly over, but, one mother of a hangover was to follow.

Sadly the fledgling Russian democracy was in no condition to deliver on peoples hopes and aspirations, the democrats found themselves rapidly pushed out of the corridors of power and the era of the oligarchs began. The much trumpeted privatisations brought in millions for the privatisers (and some of the former state officials) but brought in a flood tide of chaos, corruption, poverty and misery to millions of ordinary Russians. All of this may go some way to explaining why there so much disillusionment and cynicism in modern Russia today.

The Russia that emerged was quite different from its new independent neighbours, and not just in scale, but in historical experience and character. The country had suffered waves of emigration (some voluntary, some not) with the departure of aristocracy, the business and educated and professional classes. Stalin's terror, the great patriotic war and the inertia of the late 1960's, the 1970's and the 1980's all left their mark in memory, attitude and expectation.

If we are being honest, some of this is our fault, certainly in the early 1990's there was a marked failure in the West, to accept that Russia, was not the old Soviet Union. The West never reached out to Russia either economically or politically. Russia by way of comparison with the largess that was handed our to the old Soviet-bloc countries waiting to join the EU, did rather badly. The Western leaders desire to create 'a new Europe' oddly enough did not stretch to include Russia.

Instead of support and help to build democratic intuitions all Russia got was an ill-thought out hurried crash course in free-market economics not to mention a degree of criticism over Russia's failure to meet Western democratic and judicial standards. It was consummate arrogance on the part of the West to think that the western European trans-atlantic model of 'free market' capitalism would work in Russia, one size does not (and did not) fit all. When the Russian democratic system belatedly began to throw up popular choices that the West did not like then help to tweak the election results in favour of Boris Yeltsin was duly forthcoming.

The combination of institutional corruption, selective intolerance of democratic opponents, extra judicial murder of journalists (and critics of the regime), suspicious deaths in custody and occasional bouts of hyper inflation (which eradicated ordinary peoples savings), border wars and terrorism have left modern Russia and different and a depressing pseudo democratic state. Throw in the activities of the pro Kremlin media moguls (who would make News International look like a bunch of cack handed woolly headed amateurs) buying up or closing down opposition news organisations and is it any wonder that democracy in Russia stalled.

Perhaps if the Soviet Union had lingered longer and gone through more of transition to representative democracy then things might have been different. Russia was half-way through its own revolution when the Soviet Union collapsed around it. Things were different in middle and eastern Europe where the Baltic peoples and the East and Central Europeans literally overthrew the old system and started things with a reasonably clean slate. Poor old Russia was left to muddle through and to attempt to sort out several things at once.

The welcome exposure of communist ideology as the empty shell it was helped to bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, it's important to remember that the overthrow of communism and the dissolution of the Soviet Union were two different but intertwined processes. The events of 1990 and 1991 were as as much a clash between Russia and the Soviet Union, as visibly portrayed by the personal struggle between Yeltsin and Gorbachev, as they were any meaningful argument about any form of ideology.

In middle and eastern Europe the former Soviet client states were able to start anew, with new institutions and (in most countries) new people, Russia's revolution focused on a recovery and restoration of it's lost sovereignty. Russia has, amongst other things been over the last twenty years recovering its history, borders, statehood, and its historic mission. All this took place while Russia was also attempting to find its place in the new neighbourhood (near abroad) and the new world (far abroad).

With Russian statehood came a wave of re-branding and re-imaging as former Soviet institutions emerged as all Russian institutions. The old KGB for example was reborn and re-branded as the Federal Security Service (FSB), the same process took place in a host of other organisations. Yet old Soviet habits died hard and old Soviet mind sets lingered on, if not clawed back some of their previous prestige and power. Despite everything that has happened Russia has not turned into Upper Volta with nuclear weapons and no gunboats have appeared on the Volga as was predicted by some commentators in the 1990's.

Russia has not gone backwards, things are different both significantly and more subtly, modern Russia is not the former Soviet Union, we are all somewhere different. Any half baked partial restoration of the Soviet past will not work as every year that passes a new generation who have no memory of the CCCP comes through the school system. Putin, despite his faults and the work of the Kremlin spin doctors, is no Stalin, no Yeltsin, yet may be more of a Brezhnev. Personally he is one of the generation that crosses the great divide - the latter years of Soviet Union, the turbulent years of the economic and political transition from 1989 to 1992, and the free market chaos of the mid-1990s.



Prime Minister Putin

 Putin as president and prime minister may, when the dust settles and we look back in hindsight from another twenty years in the future, have provided Russia and the Russian people with some hard earned breathing space and settled things down, but at what cost? The last twenty years have been rough for the Russian people, who have lived through a lot since 1914, war, revolutions, Stalin's terror, the great patriotic war and the gulags, not to mention Kruschev, Brezhnev and the demise of the Soviet Union. There is also the loss of Soviet Empire to consider, a Russian acquaintance once told me that the British had sixty years to get the loss of their Empire (and some have not got over the loss), while the the Russians had a fortnight - ouch!

The West and the Europeans have clearly missed opportunities (some of which were loudly pointed out at the time) to help Russia. Russia should have been offered the hand of friendship, not to mention NATO membership and in my opinion some sort of most favoured nation trading status within the European Union. There should have been real support (financial and otherwise) for the transition of Russia's economy and institutions towards a fully fledged democracy. Had this been more forthcoming than not only might modern Russia have been different and more democratic but the European Union might well have been different as well.

As for Russia, the ball is firmly in their court, perhaps the children and grandchildren of the people who courageously stood up to the attempted coup in August 1991 will finally reap the full benefits of a fully democratic and free Russia rather than the fragile democracy that exists now. Some terribly grim things were done in the name of Soviet state Socialism, but, not everything the Soviet Union did (as least domestically) was bad. That said, a rose tinted nostalgia for the past won't butter bread or fill your petrol tank or keep a roof over your head.

And here in the West, as well as in Russia, there are those who have also not adjusted to our new common realities, the fall of the wall and the demise of the Soviet Union should have led to the loss of those tired old (and now pointless) labels of 'left' and 'right.' The new game is called globalisation, and people, communities and nations are mere commodities and as it's largely bereft of ideology - it's now about how we deal with the worst of its social and economic consequences.

AN INTERESTING BUSINESS PLAN?

Some two years ago what was then the New Labour Government stepped in to take over a failing private rail franchise (the East Coast Rail Service), when National Express (who also currently run the Stanstead Express, East Anglia and c2c) effectively walked away from running the East Coast Service (which it operated as stand alone company, NXEC) and carried on running those bits of the network that it could squeeze a profit out of at our expense. Here we are some two years down the line MPs have criticised the Department for Transport (DfT) for letting National Express "terminate its East Coast rail franchise in 2009 with next to no penalty.

Apparently the DfT rejected an offer of £150m from the company to quit the loss-making franchise by mutual consent. The DfT then terminated the contract, and received £120m from the company. The House of Commons Public Accounts Committee report noted that the DfT judged giving up the extra cash would reduce the risk of other companies with loss-making franchises seeking similar deals. And also noted that the DfT "undermined its position" by telling National Express any future franchise bids would be unaffected.

This unhappy saga should by now have confirmed in most people minds that rail privasation (something that New Labour publicly stated they would have undertaken if it had not already been done by the Conservatives) has been pretty much an unmitigated disaster. While going back to British Rail may not be an option, now is clearly the time to implement Plaid's idea of rail franchises being run on a not for profit basis, reinvesting their profits in their services and infrastructure rather than merely squeezing profits for the shareholders at our expense.

A CROWDED HOUSE (COMMITTEE)

The Kiwi rock band, Crowded House, have a track talks about 4 seasons in one day, David ("Call me Prime Minister") Cameron is facing a possible Tory revolt as he faces the distinct prospect of 4 U Turns in one day, a result of having to appease / keep on board the somewhat junior Liberal Dem half of the Con Dem government (Clegg Minor, etc). The increasingly battered PM has ordered a time-out on pushing reform (privatisation) within the Health Service (in England) so the views of doctors and nurses could be heard(unpalatable) not to mention a strategic withdrawal (why not call it a retreat) on Tory plans to cap state welfare handouts at £26,000 a year; along with the collapse of the plan to bring back weekly bin collections (unaffordable); and a failure to reduce in the number of foreign students which will be half the figure previously indicated (unworkable). From a right wing home counties Tory perspective things can only get better (oh no that was the other lot) or perhaps worse... either way being a fly on the wall at the next Conservative (backbench MP's) 1922 Committee would be rather interesting I suspect.

A PRIVATISATION TOO FAR

News that the process of privatising the UK's search and rescue helicopters has been suspended after "irregularities" emerged in the bidding process to find a supplier, should not be a surprise. New Labour have twice tried (and failed) to privatise this service, and the Tories and Lib Dems were following them until the news of this leaked information, compromised the privatisation process.

An admission by the preferred supplier, Soteria, admitted it had access to commercially sensitive information, has derailed the privatisation process for the moment. The Department for Transport and Ministry of Defence (MOD) have now stated the preferred supplier would not be used and MoD Police are now investigating how commercially sensitive information came to be in the possession of the bidder.

The real question is not whether to privatise SAR or not (and my answer would be NOT) but what questionable idiot ever considered this option in the first place. Most people view the Search and Rescue services as the fourth emergency service. I have seen them flying round Snowdonia enough times (in fair and foul weather), to recognise their skill, dedication and bravery. The seas around Wales can be treacherous enough at times and there is little doubt that the military-trained helicopter patrols have helped to save many lives and strive to maintain the highest possible rescue standards.

The Conservative (sorry Con Dem) Government's decision to try to sell off (cheaply no doubt) the the Search and Rescue Service now thankfully hangs in the balance. Many people are very concerned that this is a privatisation too far - I would go further, this reckless plan to sell off the Search and Rescue services was dangerous to begin with and should be scrapped.

Our search and rescue service needs the most modern equipment and effective helicopters to carry out operations safely – privatisation of this essential service could lead to corners will be cut in order to make a profit and cost lives. The UK Westminster Government must now abandon its plans to sell off this vital life-saving service or risk selling it off on the cheap in order to make a quick saving, one that may put the lives of our service personnel and civilians at risk, which would be absolutely unacceptable.

HOW BLUE CAN YOU GET?

Just before the election, Nick Clegg (the Lib Dem leader) described himself as a revolutionary and a pragmatist. Privatisation of the postal service is neither. It merely shows that the Lib Dems to be just another Tory party in drag. Perhaps the the students in Whitehall last week got it right when they sang ‘Shame on you for turning blue'.

Now the Lib Dem's as part of the ConDem coalition which is on the verge of overseeing a privatisation of the Post Office. A recent YouGov poll put the support for privatisation at just 15%, while 60% believe that it should remain in public hands - When will these Westminster politicians learn that privatisation of the postal service is not popular and just not wanted?. That poll sends out a pretty strong message it's just a pity that no one in the current Westminster Government appears to be listening.

When the previous New Labour government thought that part-privatisation was a good idea, Plaid Cymru fought to defend the Royal Mail in the House of Commons – once again it will be Plaid who steps up to the plate to fight yet another Tory and Liberal proposal (the third in the least decade) that puts jobs and services at risk. Plaid has regularly raised concerns that there will be a widespread programme of Post Offices closures - cutting back even further on those closed by the last government.

Plaid has warned too that privatisation will jeopardise the uniform tariff and universal service for letters which is so important for customers, especially small businesses and those in our rural and not so rural areas. The ConDem changes to the Postal Service will lead to a deterioration of services, particularly for small businesses, domestic customers, vulnerable groups (especially the elderly) and badly effect all of our smaller communities.

This must not happen, it is important that we maintain public support for our public services and fight the cuts wherever we can and wherever it makes sense to do so - and that means keeping our Post Office publicly owned.

MAXIMISING THE PROFITS...

News that Southern Railway (one of the privatised rail franchise holders) has opted to forget the facilities on its latest trains running on the Portsmouth to Brighton service should not come as a surprise. The company said trains would run in areas with short journeys where most people travel for less than half an hour. For the record (on a good day) a journey from Portsmouth to Brighton can take up to an hour-and-a-half. Southern Railways said the new trains, which should be introduced in December, have been designed to create more space for passengers (and boost profits).

Oddly enough this news has not gone down particularly well, with the Independent rail passenger watchdog Passenger Focus saying that the decision was a blow for passengers who were elderly, had medical conditions and travelled with children. The Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers' union (RMT) said on a journey of that length it was "unacceptable". Once we abandoned control of key elements of the public transport infrastructure to the whims of the market then this is part of the price that we all will begin to pay. Watch this space for future developments...

STAYING WARM THIS WINTER?

Even though many of us will be enjoying the summer, some of us will also be faintly wondering about what our winter fuel bills will be like if we have a bad winter. Some of us may be thinking about making a stark choice between heating or eating this winter. Energy supply wise, we are now in the situation where we are now even more dependent upon imported gas from either unstable regions or dubious suppliers than ever before, and we the customers face unnecessarily expensive bills.

As a matter of urgency the Westminster Government, the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly should work with the Irish Government to make these islands entirely self sufficient via renewable non market driven energy resources rather than pursing the dubious and costly (potentially in more ways than one) nuclear alternative that is particularly favoured by Whitehall civil servants.

The renewable energy sector can and should play a major role in creating more sustainable green energy jobs in Wales and elsewhere in the UK. If we can develop a flexible self-sufficient energy development strategy that actually encourages decentralised microgeneration schemes and then actually implement it then we have a fighting chance of creating jobs, useful new skills and will be able to bootstrap the economy out of the recession, as helping consumers and securing a stable safe energy supply.

As part of this process, we need to create a decentralised power generation system, which will create sustainable long-term jobs for local people, not damage the environment and contribute to providing our local communities with a long-term sustainable economic future. We can create more sustainable green jobs with exportable technology e.g. plumbers can install solar water heating and other professionals can install solar panels, micro-generation, biomass systems, green sanitation and water use can all contribute to the sustainable growth of our economy.

However, When it comes to energy supply in these isles, we are subject to the less than tender mercies of the so called 'free market', I say that because what we have is a virtual monopoly on energy supply in the UK. This is a direct result over the last eleven years of so or the departure from the commercial scene of a significant number of the energy supply companies - they fell from twenty two in number to six.

Now we have been told don't worry about it, that's the way the market works, and besides everybody took advantage to buy cheap shares in all the privatised utilities didn't they? Many people might have done so, but, how many people still have them or shares in their successor companies. By way of experiment at one of the Westminster election hustings (in Trelech) I asked that very question - out of well over 100+ people present only one person raised their hand. The only real beneficiary in the medium term was the City. Now the free marketeers will tell us that this was a good thing - I beg to differ the only real end result of the privatisations was that the ever richer minority in the City (and some of their friends in the Palace of Westminster) got richer at our expense.

Anyway, as I said, Free market, I think not, what we have is less than a £30 differential between all of the energy supply companies, which works out to be no more than a few pence a week difference in bills. We are all paying the price, and future generations will continue to pay the price of the economic consequences of an energy cartel which brings minimal benefit to hard pressed energy customers and maximises it's profits and which feeds the UK government impressive amounts of tax.

The Energy companies who have reaped vast profits over (500% between 2003 and 2008) were pretty quick to blame rising oil and gas prices, and even quicker to rake in the profits, as the average annual dual fuel bill rose from £662 a year in 2005 to 1,048 in 2007. The New Labour Government was pretty happy to rake in the extra tax revenues and ignore repeated calls for a windfall tax on excessive profits and the Energy companies were equally slow to pass on any reductions in energy costs to their customers – the only real losers in this pretty picture was us, the unhappy energy customers.

The then New Labour Government ignored repeated warnings that it was setting the UK on a path towards higher prices and blackouts. Over the next six years almost all of our old nuclear reactors, along with nine major coal and oil-fired power stations, will be closed, with nothing ready to replace them - now that is something to think about.

Now it's not all New Labours fault, that would be too easy and too simple. This mess has been along time coming, the real culprits are the Conservatives. Conservative complicity in the headlong dash to gas in the 1980’s was bad enough, but, things were compounded by a real and basic failure in strategic energy planning something that was made worse by the then New Labour Government's perverse decision to half-heartedly look at developing diverse reliable alternative energy sources.

Back in October 2009, the Tory Energy Spokesman, Greg Clark has said that the "cartel" of the big 6 energy firms would be referred to the Competition Commission by an incoming Conservative Government. He also condemned the unacceptable lag between the cost of wholesale gas prices and household energy bills - noting that customers were on average being charged some £74 pound too much for their energy per year.

Many people, at the time, could see the benefits of an 'independent' investigation into the Energy companies refusal to pass on reductions in wholesale energy prices to customers and welcomed the promise of a long overdue 'Energy Revolution' to overhaul the energy sector billing structure and charges. All good stuff, but, and don't get me wrong here, this all sounded great, but, it does seem to have gone awfully quiet over there (in Government).

Also if my memory serves me correctly wasn't it a Conservative Government that was responsible for starting the whole sorry mess in the first place by privatising the energy market in the first place, throwing any rational energy pricing structure upon the questionable whims of the 'market' by allowing the newly privatised energy companies to price gouge customers in the first place? One reason why it may have gone quiet is that the energy cartel helps to feed the fat wallets of their Tory chums in the City?

By the look of it and energy prices are set to rise once again and while no one is disputing that the six main energy suppliers have been ever so slowly (in most cases) reducing their prices since the beginning of this year, energy bills are still too high. Consumer Focus research suggests (in October 2009) that current gas bills should have been at least 7.4% cheaper (some £60.10 annually) and electricity bills should have been at least 3.1% cheaper (£13.80 annually). I suspect that the energy companies will move pretty swiftly to raise our bills if energy prices go up again.

Now the reality is that little has changed, vast profits are still being made by the energy companies. Customer Focus's research showed the reality, that the energy companies are pocketing £1.6bn extra, despite the belated passing on of some energy cost reduction to households, little has changed and if energy prices continue to fluctuate then once again millions of households may yet struggle to make ends meet this winter.