Labour’s public-private plans are just a return to the dreaded PFI era

Spread the love

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/labours-public-private-plans-are-just-return-dreaded-pfi-era

Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves in the shadow of Tony Bliar.

SOLOMON HUGHES warns Reeves’s proposed national wealth fund hands City financiers control over billions in public money for big business — and we get… to pay!

HOW will Keir Starmer’s Labour try to “grow the economy?” The short answer is it is going to try to use public money to persuade international investors to put cash into “growth” industries.

It’s the return of the public-private partnership. The big danger is that, like Labour’s last public-private partnership, the private corporations will get all the growth, while the public sector gets ripped off.

The main economy-grower Starmer is promoting is Rachel Reeves’s proposed national wealth fund. It will invest in key industries like “green energy” and other modern manufacturing sectors.

There is a strong Labour case to run a national bank investing in key industries: the 1945 Labour government set up two such banks, the Industrial and Commercial Finance Corporation and the Finance Corporation for Industry, which lent growth capital to small- and medium-sized industries or larger manufacturing firms respectively.

Labour argued that the City avoided investing in these crucial sectors, exacerbating the 1930s Depression. Both government-founded investment funds were very successful. Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour proposed similar publicly owned national investment banks.

But Reeves’s plan makes public money subordinate to private investment. She told the last Labour conference: “For every pound of investment we put in, we will leverage in three times as much private investment.”

Labour plans to invest £7.3 billion in the fund, and so attract around £22bn private “co-investment.” Reeves says private money will be attracted because the government cash will be “encouraging and derisking investment” from international finance: investors will assume that if the government has a stake in, say, a car battery factory, that it is a “sure thing” and won’t be allowed to go bust or lose money for shareholders.

But what happens if the publicly backed investments hit trouble? Say the car batteries come out too expensive, reducing profits, or need extra investment to fix production problems — will the private investors insist that the public investor take the losses? And if the profits are bigger than expected, will both parties benefit equally?

There are some major signs Reeves’s deals will favour the big private investors. First, because it is putting in more of the money, they can call more of the shots. This is not really a national wealth fund because most of the money will not be national.

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/labours-public-private-plans-are-just-return-dreaded-pfi-era

Continue ReadingLabour’s public-private plans are just a return to the dreaded PFI era

Our NHS can’t afford privatisation – why MPs must back the NHS Bill this Friday

Spread the love
Continue ReadingOur NHS can’t afford privatisation – why MPs must back the NHS Bill this Friday

DRAFT, to be expanded: Charlie Hebdo false-flag in Paris

Spread the love
In some ways she was far more acute than Winston, and far less susceptible to Party propaganda. Once when he happened in some connection to mention the war against Eurasia, she startled him by saying casually that in her opinion the war was not happening. The rocket bombs which fell daily on London were probably fired by the Government of Oceania itself, ‘just to keep people frightened’. This was an idea that had literally never occurred to him. She also stirred a sort of envy in him by telling him that during the Two Minutes Hate her great difficulty was to avoid bursting out laughing.” George Orwell, 1984

 

As it’s becoming increasingly clear that the Charlie Hebdo attack on cartoonists in Paris was fake, manufactured terrorism I need to point some things out. I apologise this is basically in note form at the moment.

Repeated false-flag events. 9/11 was clearly not the first, [?Madrid? NB days after 911], London, Paris [most likely Mumbai too]

The joke they play – killing their own people. Warning given.

Surprised at the French people being taken in – are they or just some?

Police, politicians, journalists permit this to happen. For example, police, politicians and journalists conspired in the murder of an unsuspecting foreign national by a foreign national gang (on the tube).

A Fascist state – not democracy. A small, organised criminal cabal in charge with state institutions subservient to it. Similar to P2 in Italy. Neo-Con scum. Deception as per teachings of Levi Strauss. That Muslims are being demonised as Jews were.

Political parties beholden to them – relate to TTIP i.e. totally contrary to public interest, democracy but for the benefit of the small wealthy elite.

Labour Party just as bad as the Conservatives / Conservative Lib-Dems. Ed Balls & Mandy Mandelson (although New Labour, current LP no discernible difference to Tories) at Bilderberg. Did Blair attend? Blair did attend and lied to parliament about attending. Tiny filthy rich minority getting filthy richer.

Conveniently-timed deaths and suicidings. For Blair John Smith, David Kelly, Robin Cook (who was a challenge, on tour).

Relate to paedophilia – that paedophilia is a way to control politicians, Blair’s cabinet [There may be an assumption that the Blair minister involved in exerting influence so that a convicted paedo child care home supervisor in South London could adopt children is mandy. I don’t assume that and my working hypothesis is that there were many paedos in Blair’s cabinet – as is the case in previous cabinets.], Kitty, Blair’s entertainment in Washington.

People have to stand up to them & they should be held accountable under the law. They are organised criminals.

Continue ReadingDRAFT, to be expanded: Charlie Hebdo false-flag in Paris