Ta ta Tata. Hello re-nationalisation?

The chickens have come home to roost for the conservative Party with the news that Tata Steel said it could not give an "open ended" commitment to keep their UK plants open while a buyer was sought. The UK Business Minister, Anna Soubry, told the BBC that she wants the company to take enough time to find a buyer for the plant. Failing that, other options being considered include 'government support'.

After the slump of the 1920s and the depression of the 1930s, the iron and steel industry was nationalised by Labour in 1949. Privatised by the Conservatives in 1950, it was re-nationalised by Labour under the leadership of Harold Wilson in 1967. Mrs Thatcher sold off British steel along with Gas, Electricity, Telecoms, Water and dozens of other companies as part of her political ideology. "Selling off the family silver" as Macmillan put it. 

In his book "The Slow Death of British Industry: a 60-Year Suicide, 1952-2012" Nicholas Comfort wrote that Britain has shrunk from an industrial giant to an industrial pygmy: "Manufacturing was industry’s bedrock. In 1952, it produced a third of the national output, employed 40 per cent of the workforce and made up a quarter of world manufacturing exports. Today, manufacturing in this country accounts for just 11 per cent of GDP, employs only 8 per cent of the workforce and sells 2 per cent of the world’s manufacturing exports. The iconic names of industrial Britain are history; in their place are the service economy and supermarkets selling mainly imported goods."

Already at the mercy of foreign countries for essential supplies the only protected species in Great Britain are Bankers who, after being bailed out by the State to the tune of a staggering  £850 billion, do their best to ruin small businesses with extortionate charges as they continue to line their own pockets handsomely before awarding themselves bonuses often well beyond the average wage.

The 'British' steel industry must be protected. As Ministers return from holidaying abroad to consider their options, British workers have been waiting anxiously to hear their fate. It is unlikely that human misery will occupy too much of Ministers' time but hopefully they will look at the broader implications of the cost of tens of thousands of workers becoming unemployed with the consequent implications for supporting business and dependent small traders, plus the cost of land reclamation before trying to attract other industries.

The Business Secretary says he is prepared to consider all options, except nationalisation. If re-nationalisation is the only answer so be it. Thatcher is dead. Her political ideology should have died with her. It is time to back Britain.

Cameron accepts Thatcher's advice

Not the grocer's but a grocer's daughter, the then plain Mrs Thatcher offered some advice to her opponents, "You turn if you want to, the lady is not for turning".

Mr Cameron clearly took that hilariously received advice to heart. Today we have yet another U-turn as the Government reprieves the BBC World Service. And sensibly so!

FOR SALE

Back in 1985 Harold Macmillan likened Margaret Thatcher's policy of privatisation to selling the family silver. Much of Britain's infrastructure is already in foreign ownership and in 2010 the Office of Fair Trading set up its first UK stock-take to see who owns Britain. Now our ancient woodlands are under threat.

We are assured that protective measures will be put in place to protect woodland trees and guarantee public access leaving one to wonder why anyone would want to buy the woodlands if they are unable to profit from their investment. A YouGov poll found that 84% of people agreed the woods and forests should be kept in public ownership for future generations, while only 2% disagreed. The Big Society has spoken. Is the Government listening?  

MPs Expenses - she was warned!

"Thatcher warned over MPs expenses scandal"

Well there's a surprise!

Bedroom Farce

Pity poor David Laws, the latest victim of British stone throwing.

He sacrificed a lucrative career as a city banker for public service. In doing so has become the latest victim of the Thatcher government’s MPs Expenses scheme. The rules were open to interpretation and many MPs have already paid the price. In a statement Laws said "At no point did I consider myself to be in breach of the rules which in 2009 defined partner as "one of a couple ... who although not married to each-other or civil partners are living together and treat each-other as spouses".

Those with the great British gift of hindsight are already screaming for his scalp but here is a man with a Cambridge double first in economics and top level experience in the financial sector who was admired on both sides of the House for the mastery of his brief in the Queen’s Speech debate. In a time of severe national crisis should we sacrifice a highly competent Chief Secretary in response to another journalistic scoop by The Telegraph over a technicality? If the same attitude had prevailed during the war no doubt Churchill would have been ousted.

Any doubt over the interpretation of the rules could have been sorted out by having a quiet word to resolve the matter without its sensationalist accompaniment. In their exposure The Daily Telegraph claimed that there was no intention to disclose Mr Laws' sexuality, but in a statement issued in response to questions from this newspaper, the minister chose to disclose this fact”. How very noble of them.

The wolves are now in full cry. From Times Online: “David Laws ‘should step aside as minister’ after claiming for rent paid to lover”. The innuendo is clear when in fact David Laws is paying the price for being the model of discretion in his private life. Contrast that with the overt lifestyles of US Bps Gene Robinson and Mary Glasspool who have rocked the Anglican Communion by the open celebration of their sexuality. What people do in the bedroom is a private matter. Leviticus and feminism are no substitute for the Gospel. If the church and the media grasped that message many would be spared unnecessary heartache.

Postscript

So David Laws has resigned with honour and humility, a lesson not just for the Telegraph but for us all:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/10191673.stm

The Resurrection of TINA

It is time for the old Thatcherite mantra ‘There is no alternative’ to be resurrected given its relevance to the new Lib Con coalition Government, what the new Prime Minister likes to call a new form of politics.

The coalition is not what one would have expected given the divide between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats but what was the alternative? The other permutations had little if any chance of success and with the benefit of hindsight (now the most widespread of British attributes) the Labour party appears to be comfortable in opposition taking a rest from the burden of government.

Many Lib Dems have been angered, some even joining or re-joining the Labour party putting principle above pragmatism but politics is about power and making the right judgement at the right time. In doing so concessions have been made by the Conservatives allowing them to ditch some of the promises they probably wish they had not made and the Lib Dems have been given the opportunity put some of their policies into practice. Added to which, the cherished dream of a change in the voting system is much closer with Nick Clegg in charge of making arrangements for the promised referendum. It would be absurd if their party were to fragment now with the possibility of change on the horizon.

More important though is the urgent need to sort out the country’s economic difficulties without causing public anger. The best options for achieving this were explored and a deal done with apparent good will on both sides. In checking reactions to the deal I noticed that Dick Littlejohn of the Mail Online with his usual lack of grace accuses Gordon Brown of dragging British Politics into the sewer. Since he spends most of his time swimming in it he must be best placed though with something large in his eye obscuring natural vision. God forbid that I should have anything in common with the odious little man or his newspaper but even he agrees that everyone has a vested interest in making the coalition work.

There is no alternative.

Former Archbishop Prophesises Doom

The former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, has warned that Judges risk sparking riots by making ‘disturbing and dangerous’ rulings in religious discrimination cases. What? Christians causing civil unrest in Great Britain!

Other religions perhaps but surely not Christians, especially Anglicans, a significant minority of whom are used to being walked over even within their own church by their so-called brothers and sisters in Christ. To be fair, if it had not been for Mrs Thatcher and her strict Methodist upbringing we would never have heard of George Carey but after she plucked him out of relative obscurity in Bath and Wells he managed to upset just about everyone including his own evangelical friends. So should we take the retired Archbishop seriously?

Gary McFarlane, a relationship counsellor, challenged his sacking by Relate in 2008 for refusing to give sex therapy to gay couples because the service had refused to accommodate his Christian beliefs. In another case last year it was ruled that Lillian Ladele, a Christian registrar, was breaking discrimination laws by refusing to conduct civil partnerships ceremonies. More recently there was the case where B&B owners wanted to turn away gay couples.

The 2001 census for England and Wales in which people were invited to indicate their religious beliefs resulted in 167 religions being recorded including 390,127 Jedi Knights. No system can make exemptions to take account of the huge variety of beliefs people say they hold. Even if it were possible there would be problems dealing with the significant differences that exist just within Christianity, particularly on the subject of homosexuality.

Some would argue that the Established Church should have special privileges, a view many will have sympathy with after the judgements against the wearing of Christian crosses in a Christian country but to allow people to opt out of professional obligations on religious grounds is not in the same league and would result in chaos.

Sorry Lord Carey, I fear that civil unrest would be more likely if people were permitted to refuse to perform their duties because of their religious beliefs.