Are Cameron's Conservatives now opposed to privatisation?

I've just received a press release from CCHQ with the following headline:

"Government plan to privatise Sellafield ‘neither wise nor honest’."

The release continues:

"Commenting on newspaper reports today that the government are set to announce tomorrow that control of Britain’s most controversial nuclear site, Sellafield, will move into the private sector through the sale of its state-owned operator, British Nuclear Group, Shadow Trade & Industry Secretary Alan Duncan said:

"Making this statement on the day the House rises for Easter is typical of Labour's sneaky practices.  'This announcement is being made in the middle of the Government's Energy Review, in which the crucial question of how the nuclear sector might work with Government is being examined.  Making this announcement now is neither wise nor honest.  'Gordon Brown did not mention the disposal of British Nuclear Group in the budget statement last week.  To dump fifty years of dubious waste onto the private sector with none of the guarantees that only Government can offer needs serious public debate before they should think of going ahead."

Alan Duncan's charge of sneakiness is spot on.  Labour probably wanted to avoid criticism from those anti-capitalists who think that the private sector can't be trusted with sensitive assets like prisons and nuclear power.   It's a bit rich, however, when those sentiments are being expressed by the party that gave privatisation to the world.

Comments

[Buxtehude]

Ah yes, Alan Duncan. The same Alan Duncan who was quoted in last week’s Spectator saying, of Peter Mandelson, “I think he’s the right man in the right job”.

Peter Mandelson? The man who has made so many mistakes in this very job? The man who, for the public, is the embodiment of everything they hate about politics? Why would our own dear Mr Duncan waste his sweet breath supporting Mandelson?

Because Mr Duncan hasn’t got any idea of what ordinary voters think. He’s the very definition of out-of-touch, however much he masquerades as being au courant and de nos jours.

Mind you, he probably hasn’t personally initiated this particular policy madness. It’s part of the wider “reverse everything” rebranding experience. Whatever we thought before, we now think the opposite. And out of the confusion, the Phoenix will arise.

[Selsdon Man]

"To dump fifty years of dubious waste onto the private sector with none of the guarantees that only Government can offer needs serious public debate before they should think of going ahead".

The historical risk can still remain with the government even if the company is privatised. There are several ways that this can be done. I hope Mr Duncan has done his homework or he will make a fool of himself.....

[Peter]

From writing the fiercely libertarian Saturn's Children to ... complaining about privatising Sellafield? I think Alan Duncan was right the first time.

[Real Market]

My understanding is that the NDA will retain ownership of the "assets" (i.e. the 50 years of highly dubious waste) on behalf of the government. Therefore, it would seem an odd position for the Conservatives to adopt.

However, not as odd as the Government's selling the 'project' (presumably) to the same management team that have (thus far) failed to clear up the mess.

[kingbongo]

I met Alan Duncan when I lived in Rutland and he was out canvassing for the 2001 election. I nearly trod on him but he was very nice and certainly not 'out of touch'. I really liked him and he had no great need to canvass in Rutland most people there don't realise it's legal to vote for other parties.

I am hoping the point he is making is that the government are performing a secretive 'cash for our mates' privatisation a la Qinetiq and that value won't be extracted. I think we're all anti-nuclear now as well, despite it being the patently sane way to provide large scale energy production which I trust is what the policy review will show.

[Henry Whitmarsh]

I thought the whole problem was that everyone knew that nuclear was uneconomic because no private company would bid for the contract without having the government underwrite all the hidden (and not so hidden) costs of cleaning up and storing the waste. Obviously that snag has been overcome. Somehow. Anyway, at least it shows that we have a viable nuclear industry, which is essential if we are to rely less on fossil fuels. I agree with Alan Duncan, it is sneaky. After all, since the group was publicly owned, they might have allowed the tax payers elected representatives to ask a few questions about it.

[Henry Whitmarsh]

Sorry to multiple post, but anyone who has read "Saturns Children" knowns that Alan Duncan is *not* someone opposed to the privatisation of industry or the utilities.

[Richard]

"He’s the very definition of out-of-touch, however much he masquerades as being au courant and de nos jours. "

If he's opposing privatisation then I fear he may be in touch. Privatisation was fairly popular in the early 1980s (about 40% supported it in a poll the Economist mentioned years ago). Since then public opinion has tended to be against.

[matt wright]

I think he is right in that what he is saying is there needs to be a debate not sneaked out at a time when it can't be scrutinised,

Matt

[Buxtehude]

"I think we're all anti-nuclear now as well, despite it being the patently sane way to provide large scale energy production which I trust is what the policy review will show." KB, I don't understand this. Isn't it self-contradictory? Or am I being simple?

"Sorry to multiple post, but anyone who has read "Saturns Children" knowns that Alan Duncan is *not* someone opposed to the privatisation of industry or the utilities." But that's the point: Saturn's Children was then, this is now. AD will say anything he thinks is 'of the moment'. That in itself is being 'out of touch'.

[Mark Fulford]

Sellafield is a very special case and it’s a bit much to go from this story to Tories now being opposed to privatisation.

With the backdrop of rail accidents and the subsequent TV dramas, many people are ready to believe that a private company would put profit above safety. There’s no public appetite for this and the media certainly will not fall into line. I’m pleased that, unlike the Iraq war, on this issue we’re not stuck in a particular mindset and we are able to see and highlight New Labour's error.

[kingbongo]

KB, I don't understand this. Isn't it self-contradictory? Or am I being simple?

you're not being simple. I was just making the point that in order for DC to get the environmental message over a lot of anti-nuclear mood music has been forthcoming from the party.

As a loyal footsoldier I am signed up to this, despite thinking that the only realistic way of being environmentally sound and sane at the same time is to build more nuclear capacity.

[Editor]

Alan Duncan didn't say we would support privatisation if appropriate guarantees could we made - a perfectly sensible position. The press release appeared to suggest Tories were opposed to privatisation, too. That makes us look opportunistic. Every voters knows we are the party of privatisation and the smaller state. We look foolish opposing Labour on this on any grounds of principle.

[AlexW]

No, we're opposed to the privatisation of Sellafield. It is a very specific instance of us opposing privatisation, and as sceptical as I am of David Cameron, it seems unreasonable to infer that we are now against privatisation per se.

The arguments against privatisation in respect of Sellafield are fairly convincing. The principal benefits of privatisation is that they allow competition in the market and consumer pressure to lead to innovative thought and new incentives. Where privatisation has worked well is in those industries where new competition has indeed entered the market - telecommmunications and gas - for instance. Privatising a natural monopoly is always a headache (such as the railways) and usually requires extensive regulation. Concerns about safety in nuclear waste facilities and the reluctance of investors to take on such a high-risk investment are also legitimate. Moreover, the conflation of privatisation with lower safety standards in the public mind means that privatisation of elements of the nuclear industry might undermine support for nuclear power.

[Account Deleted]

The only real arguments about privatising Sellafield are safety based, but then again, Chernobyl was owned by the Soviet State...

The tone of the press release implies that privatisation in this area is wrong wrong wrong, rather than something that needs to be considered carefully and then rejected or accepted.

Personally I think there might be good reasons to reject the selling off of Sellafield on the grounds of safety, (after all, it is such a big thing if a mistake is made, much bigger than a train crash, and the Government would never allow itself to be blamed for such an error, and hence would have very rigorous measures against such accidents), but I would preface this by saying that privatisation is generally a good thing and we think that the government is making a technical mistake, and they should reconsider. Not making it sound like we oppose the idea per se and someone from the Guardian is now writing our press releases...

[True Blue]

Great. A Tory with a knee-jerk opposition to privatisation. Has the world turned back-to-front?

Are we really suggesting that private companies have a worse safety record than
governments? Why would the government be inherently better at looking after a nuclear power station than a private company? After all, it is in their interest to ensure that safety is rigorously maintained. As 1AM points out, the only nuclear accidents that have ever happened have happened under the aegis of the state.

Everyone gets wildly overexcited about the safety record on the railway, but railways were and always have been an extraordinarily safe way to travel in private or public hands. British Rail wasn't around for that long, you know. I can't believe that so many people have bought into this socialist propaganda. If you are actually interested in the real statistics, take a look here:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/railways/howsafe.htm

[Richard]

http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/econn/econn091.pdf - why rail privatisation didn't work