The time has come for a Labour revolution

Major shifts, go in 30-year cycles. Food and house prices experience bumps and rises, but go up generally with inflation over 30 years. The balance of world powers shifts around every 30 years or so: China and India will be major powers within the next 10 years or so. 20 years ago, USA was strengthened, and 30-40 years before that the European empires started collapsing. Major political acts take around 30 years to show their benefits: HeadStart was denounced as a failure in the US; after around 20-30 years every $1 spent had saved $7. But after 30-40 years every $1 spent had saved $40. I'm sure SureStart will have similar beneits.

And, in correlation to these models, political concencus' shift around every 30 years. The Peelite concencus lived on from 1850's-1880's, and then to the 1910's, it was the Gladstone/Disraeli concencus. After that, the Lloyd George concencus until 1945, when the Keynesian Attlee concencus lived on until 1979, when the Thatcher concencus started.

Now, it is 29 years afterwards. A new concencus will come around shortly, and we cannot let it be the Cameron concencus. Labour still has much to fix.

It is time to end the "always market=good" concencus. There have been important liberalisations, yes. But lets look at just a few examples of New Labour's obsessions with market politics can go wrong. A few years ago, the nurseries that were found to be failing, were largely private nurseries. The government wants to allow private companies to run failing hospitals, but this failed in Birmingham. Indeed the most marketised part of the NHS, in the cleaning industry, has been a spectacular failure.

We are at a time when polls show an increasing majority of people concerned about female pay, company director bonuses, the uber-rich, private equity firms etc.

We are witnessing an economic crisis which is a belated hangover from Thatcherite reforms. Northern Rock's collapse was caused by the market fundamentalism to Matt Ridley. The sub-prime mortgage market caused a credit crunch. This new market was established out of the slashing of consumers' rights across the Atlantic. Even hard-right Republican congressmen are looking on with admiration to the level of deregulation in the UK. Finally, our data losses are caused by Brown's determination to cut the number of civil servants, as the civil service trade unions warned us would happen.

Instead of heading these warnings though, the cabinet cries in uniform-push harder. Only tax cuts can save us, is what they say. Unfortunately, we can't have American tax rates, and European public services. Brown's demise started when he started slashing at social democracy. When he slated the tax that left-wing, and right-wing economists love, the inheritance tax, he not only looked weak, but he had lost his moral compass. Private equity firms couldn't believe their luck over capital gains.

Unfortunately, Labour seems to think people in Middle England love the rich, and are on 6 figure salaries. In fact, it's a constituency that can be won over in a far more social democratic way then the government realises. The median income of Middle England is around £23,000. They do not earn £150,000. Middle England is increasingly angry about those who avoid tax, because of the bizarre notion that those earning £150,000 are crucial voters. In fact, the 10% of the population who do not officialy fall into the basic rate group (those paying 20% rates on income tax), have always, and will always be in the majority, Tory supporters.

The biggest shame of the Thatcher years, is that her reforms could have been conducted with a left-wing model. The right-to-buy, could have resulted in a massive council house building programme. The inner city areas, and the declining industrial areas could have been reinvigorated with a larger 'New Deal' programme than the one conducted years later, with large social spending from proceeds of North Sea oil.

Non-proliferation in conjunction with the Soviets could have continued detente, and not cutting our budget could have avoided a war in the south atlantic, and the apartheid regime could have fallen quicker.

Decentralisation could have occured through extension of devolution to all regions, councils, and allowing elected mayors. A NI Peace agreement could've been reached faster. Modernisation could've been reached not by mass deregulation of markets, but with a windfall tax that kickstarted a technology revolution, and benefiting our education system.

Trade union modernisation could have been reached through industrial democracy, and the ending of state monopolies through alternative routes of common ownership.


It is time for a new concencus. We must stand up and say that we need higher taxes amongst the rich for European style pubic services. We need to ask hard questions, like to what level of liberalisation in our economy we are comfortable with, as Sweden manages massive private sector involvement in education and pensions, and Denmark has Flexicurity, which doesn't weaken their welfare states.

So here's part of the revolution I propose:

The extension of childcare and care for the elderly into the welfare state. A massive comprehensivisation of education. A model of co-determination in every workplace. Breaking down the council house ghettos, by building council houses into either affluent areas, or middle-class areas. Increased devolution. A New Deal mark II, which would involve reinvigorating inner-cities, and the former industrial towns. An extension of this should be a massive skills training for older workers who have lost their jobs, re-training them, and training the young, and further tackling unemployment. Introduce alternative common ownership schemes: consumers' and workers' interest companies in water, gas, oil and electricity. Regional co-operatives in Post offices and telecommunications (as well as in an industry like NATS). Stron consumer representation in airlines, railways, local transport, LU, buses etc. The socially liberal policies of the Netherlands (even more so with regards to secularisation and drugs). An ethical foreign policy, commited to anti-tyranny. Prison reform. A commitment to multilateral non-proliferation. An end to institutionalised aristocracy (Lords, monarchy, and especially land laws). A consumer and patient's bill of rights. A constitution, including a US style Bill of Rights. Clamping down on the super-rich. A transition to new management structures involving staff, users and even local people in the public services and local amenities. An oil-phase out.

I'm sure you can think of other ideas, as to how we should complete this revolution.




Display: Sort:

Re: The time has come for a Labour revolution (#1)

I agree with your 'Manifesto' entirely jk and I'm right behind you; Its for the next generation to lead the way, not anyone past 50.

Re: The time has come for a Labour revolution (#3)

Yes, lets get rid of all those post-50 year olds.

 

Fuck sake

Re: The time has come for a Labour revolution (#7)

Are you really a Labour Party activist?

Re: The time has come for a Labour revolution (#16)

Free Radical, I think you need some tips on spotting sarcasm.....

Still he has a point. When did it become acceptable to remove someone#s voice and ignore their opinions just because they got "too old"? This isn't "Logan's Run" you know.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074812/ 

Re: The time has come for a Labour revolution (#18)

lol

Re: The time has come for a Labour revolution (#20)

My apologies is Tankist was being sarcastic.

It's an absurd idea to ignore people over 50.

Blair and Cameron were both under 50 when they took over but I haven't found either very inspiring. Tony Benn continues to inspire in his 80s.

Re: The time has come for a Labour revolution (#2)

You forgot to add "all days to be sunny except when we need rain, when it shall fall between the hours of 2 and 4am"

 

It's probably about as politically achievable.

Re: The time has come for a Labour revolution (#4)

That's what they said about Attlee and Thatcher's reforms. People were convinced they would barely be footnotes in history thanks to their radical agendas. Consequently, they have shaped the political concencus of the country we are today.

Re: The time has come for a Labour revolution (#8)

At least he has some sort of progressive vision. If I wanted to engage with a load of Thatcher-apologists I would have joined Consrvativehome. At least they're up front about it.

Re: The time has come for a Labour revolution (#5)

Interesting. I just winced when the "blame thatcher for the bad economy" line though.

It's not Thatcher that's risen buisness taxes, seeing them vanish in droves to Ireland and abroad, taking jobs with them.

It's not Thatcher that's sold off the Gold reserves when the experts were saying the price of gold was about to go astronomical. 

It's not Thatcher that's caused this present economic problem.

That's just not being able to say "Alright, I blame myself" which tends to become categorical around people who've been into power too long, or those who beleive their rule will never end.

 

The extension of childcare and care for the elderly into the welfare state.

So, a literal Nanny-state? How is this going to be paid for? More taxes on the lower down? A higher tax on the super-rich who will just run off to another country? [Not that I wouldn't welcome that]

A massive comprehensivisation of education.

Hasn't that seen us tumble down the league tables since the guts of the Grammar schools were ripped out, this reducing everybody in the state system to "average" ? 

Increased devolution. 

Because the Balkanization of the United Kingdom is working out so well on releiving national tensions and giving people a single coherent identity. 

A New Deal mark II, which would involve reinvigorating inner-cities, and the former industrial towns. An extension of this should be a massive skills training for older workers who have lost their jobs, re-training them, and training the young, and further tackling unemployment.

The first bits are already being done, they also have Connections and the Job Centre for the rest.

The socially liberal policies of the Netherlands (even more so with regards to secularisation and drugs).

Secularisation has to have some strong religion behind it though, even the "secular" Turkish Republic has a strong Moderate Muslim Church behind it. There has to be balance.

The Drugs thing though... definately not, no, sorry. Here in the UK a lot of the studies with even casual/semi regular drug use of stuff such as Weed and Skunk saw the test subjects reduced to states of paranoia, people are already scared as it is these days, do we really need to make them all think the shadows are after them also? 

An end to institutionalised aristocracy (Lords, monarchy, and especially land laws). 

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought this was actually a serious post.

Would you like to try to sneak that through and see yourselves survive as a political party ever again?

Seriously. Blair said that people didn't care much about the Monarchy any more.

Within 6 months of him saying that 60% of the population went to some sort of physical celebration of Her Majesty's Golden Jubilee.

--------------------

 I'm sorry jkitleft. But I couldn't stomach much of this. I really doubt any of the "big tent" coalition you actually need to win the next GE on this sort of platform. It strikes me far too much as a horrifying lurch to the left with elements of trying to found a British Republic [Which you'd never survive on, that's why the actual REPUBLIC party has like, 12 members and a handful of votes.]

Re: The time has come for a Labour revolution (#9)

You tell me why there are fewer drug users as a percentage of the population in the Netherlands than in Britain then. We could get into the big prohibition/legalisation debate, but to be honest it's already been had - and when you look at actual evidence rather than the Daily Mail you see that prohibition really is a remarkable failure.

Re: The time has come for a Labour revolution (#10)

In all fairness, any centre-left approach is always going to seem extreme for you. You have admitted to being a Tory, where as your blog name connotes a disallusioned voter.

Corporation tax, is lower than in the Thatcher years.
This is a global economic crisis, which objective economists agreed was due to sub-prime mortgages. Hard-right Republican congressmen are proposing the deregulation model that we have in the UK. Northern Rock was a crisis triggered by market fundamentalism. I'm not proposing to nationalise them, but if the Tories are serious about their 'Brown doesn't prepare for the worst', then they would support at least moderate regulations of banks.

The IPPR estimated that it would cost about £1.7 billion to provide universal care for the elderly. If you increased IHT, this would pay for it. Universal childcare would win us the next election. It's an issue effecting genuine Middle England mums (the ones who have a husband earning £25,000 a year), dads and mums on welfare, working-class mums etc. To get European public services, taxes have to rise, yes. But, more female workers enter the economy, parents get off benefits, and as I have pointed out, programmes like HeadStart save more money in the long term. An excellent report by PVC in 2003, found that the NPV of universal childcare over a 65 year period would be , on aneutral estimate, £40 billion. The initial cost estimated would be £2.7 billion. These issues would win us an election.

The problem with comprehensives, is that they are not truely comprehensives at all. Grammer schools simply cream off middle-class kids, of course they do well in league tables. In Kent, because of grammers and private schools, 'comps' are packed with poorer kids: schools are twice as likely to be put under special measure. In Grampian, with the most mixed schools, there are no schools under special measure. In Wake County, North Carolina, when schools could only take a maximum of 40% pupils on free school meals, the pass rate of those on free school meals shot up from 43% to 60.5%.

I believe, that we should devolve more power to councils, Wales, Northern Ireland, London, and provide regional parliaments to English regions. I thought you were a Conservative, who was supposed to believe in smaller central government. In Canada, USA, France, Germany, Australia etc. devolution has worked fine. The problem is, that we have let sole devolution for the nations go on, only increasing animosity because of the 'West Lothian' question. With this model, English citizens would feel more over control of local matters, but, if provided with the model that works in the above 5 countries, it would ensure no one region would get preferential treatment.

First of all, stronger varieties of Marijuana have always been around. The European Monitering Centre on Drugs, found in a long term study that,
"The effective strength of cannabis consumed in Britain has remained stable for the past 30 years."
You have admitted to reading the Mail, which incinuates that one smoke of a spliff makes you a drooling psychotic murderer. But the University of Cologne, and KCL have found that while in rare cases pschosis can be triggered by high levels of THC, that marijuana also contains something else. They found that more effective than any anti-psychotics prescribed by doctors was CBD. If you tax and regulate drugs which, according to the statement tested by the ICM, supported by 61% of the public,
"supply should be regulated by the government",
is is easier to regulate CBD levels. So you could say that prohibition creates these "psychotic murderers".
 
Indeed, I'm very serious. What would you say, if I told you that 0.6% of the population owned over 60% of the land? Would you support ending it? Moreover, when many are just trying to get a house with a small garden, would you maintain that a majority of people would be against a national version of the Scottish Land Reform Act of 2003? This would prove popular in specific areas.

If you are going to maintain that people don't care about the monarchy, then surely the sentence of not being treated as a serious party ever again, is negated. Fair enough, you said that 60% celebrated the Golden Jubilee in some way. That leaves out another 40% though, and 99.9% of monarchists and republicans probably care more about healthcare and education than the monarchy. I am saying, hold a referendum on it: the irony of holding a referendum, on whether there should be future referendums. People care about the first issues I raised: Where's mum going to go? How can I get a job, when I can't afford to send Laura to a nursery?


You have admitted to being a Tory. You are not going to be won over by anything. The 20-25% of Republicans would support Labour, and I'm guessing the vast majority of the rest, would be ambivalent. Seriously, most of the monarchists I've met, don't really care about the issue: they find the Royal Family entertaining etc. Even my family, Labour supporters, are moderately pro-monarchy, but they don't really care. I have Thatcherite friends and family, again, not really bothered, but pro-monarchy.

I think even a moderate platform would strike you as a horrifying lurch to the left. The first two issues strike a chord with our core voters, and the genuine Middle England. People worry about the hundreds of thousands of pensioners, the generation who saved us from fascism, our parents and grandparents, dying in their own filth. People worry about how they are going to be able to bring in extra money to the table, when they can't affor childcare. How about the millions of workers who would get an extra say in determinig their own wages? The fact is, that the country is more left-wing than you, yet not as left-wing as me.

A majority favour increased public spending over tax cuts, redistribution of wealth, and admit that stuffing prisons with criminals doesn't cut crime. I could go on.
Even during the Thatcher years, between 52 and 56% of the population voted for parties who favoured, to what ever level, parties who were commited to tax-and-spend.

I think a change in voting system, would allow parties to play to their core values, and would make 100% of the population, rather than the 10% currently targeted during election time, feel listened to. If it had been done in the '80's, I don't think there would've been a Thatcher government. And if even in the darkest days of our party's history, a majority of the public have voted for parties that ostensibly favour tax and spend policies, I think that in a society that is increasing anxious about higher inequality, and rediculously high pay for those at the top, while cleaners pay more than them, that a manifesto guaranteeing that they do not have to be scared about their parents, or getting a job, would resonate.

If this is a manifesto that proposed tax cuts for the poor, and tax rises for the rich, and increased right for them in their workplace, and in the services they use etc. I think it would guarantee us victory at the next election.



Re: The time has come for a Labour revolution (#12)

I never said that Centre-left would be extreme at all, indeed we've had the country run under the centre-left for the last 11 years. This manifesto of yours though is too filled with stock phrases, large projects that have to be paid for, and an attempt to get rid of what makes us unique in the world nowadays.

You also seem to forget that the Monarchy generates us money. They claimed around £33 million in travel expenses, but put £66 million back into the treasury.

Not to mention the enourmous incoming tourist revenue they generate for us. 

Re: The time has come for a Labour revolution (#17)

Yes, they do have to be paid for. But I don't but the currently typical Conservative response of "but the sky will fall through", if a policy involving public spending is involved. Many say that the super rich would pack their bags, if they are made to pay tax. We need an international effort, yes. But we can close down the tax havens, with a multilateral effort. But we have extraordinary leverage here: the total assets of the world's tax havens is $11.5 trillion. About half of the total assets are in British territories and dependencies. 

On the matter of republicanism, I'm certainly not proposing to smash this argument into people's faces. It is going to take a long time to change people's attitudes, but if we have a constitutional convention, we can debate the issue, and I think after Elizabeth II dies, opinion will change. Currently, a small shift of opinion is predicted, with support for a Republic then rising to 30%. I think it will be higher than that, and then the debate on a Republic will become stronger.

But here's where the "sky will fall through" hypothesis doesn't stack up. Anyone who lives with me in my city, a fellow 8 million of them, will agree that the greatest city in the world is-London. Well, except the right, who now seem to hate Britain: the Littlejohns, the Simon Heffers, the Nick Ferraris etc. It as if they are saying that the only thing that makes London is Buckingham Palace (yes I know Richard Littlejohn is a Republican, but he seems to hate Britain).

The tourism trade wouldn't collapse, people would still come here, in large numbers. While I am a Republican, I find the monarchy fascinating. I would still visit Hampton Court, the Tower of London etc. So would others. But we have other tourist attractions too. Secondly, the unpaid taxes, and the security costs etc. add up to around £100 million, in addition to the £37 million that it claims to cost. Money to the treasury would still be contributed by the ex-Royal family. As citizens, they would hopefully pay their taxes through being in the higher tax band. Who knows, if they go abroad, if there is an international effort to clamp down on tax havens, they may end up contributing more to the Treasury.

Re: The time has come for a Labour revolution (#21)

But Thatcher is to blame for it all, a massive increase in inequality,and the breakdown of society and the beginnings of the mess in the capital markets can all be traced back to the 80's. Thatcher made a mess of the British economy.

On the gold issue, a number of other nations also sold gold at around that time and for a while it looked like the price of gold was going to collapse.


>>A massive comprehensivisation of education.

Hasn't that seen us tumble down the league tables since the guts of the Grammar schools were ripped out, this reducing everybody in the state system to "average" ? 

No, a comparison of areas that still have grammar schools with areas where comprehensive schools are the norm indicate performance is no better.


Re: The time has come for a Labour revolution (#23)

No, a comparison of areas that still have grammar schools with areas where comprehensive schools are the norm indicate performance is no better.

Correct. And statistically similar local authorities perform consistently better overall if they do not have a selective system.

Re: The time has come for a Labour revolution (#6)

as per usual from fantasy-land socialists you put forward a plethora of ideas about HOW to spend money but absolutely not ONE single idea about how to generate it. That ALWAYS leads to an inevitable bankrupt state but you all seem totally oblivious to the financial implications of such policies. That's why people like you lot are very dangerous to the health of our society and our economy. 

Socialism is a bankrupt and discredited ideology with no relevance in real life. It undermines the human person and strengthens the faceless state. Let people live without state interference. 

Equality means nothing. An empty generalisation similar to the phrases 'the poor', 'the rich', 'the dispossessed' etc etc. Meaningless to the end 

Re: The time has come for a Labour revolution (#14)

Err..No

Re: The time has come for a Labour revolution (#19)

I find it best to ignore people with names like 'Keynesisdead'

Re: The time has come for a Labour revolution (#22)

Although we can't deny that John Maynard is no longer amongst us... ;)

I hate to be pedantic...but (#11)

it's "consensus" not "concencus"

Re: The time has come for a Labour revolution (#13)

Cut from the web.

Kondratieff waves(or, for short, K-waves) may be defined as a pattern of regularity characteristic of structural change in the modern world economy. Some 60 years in length, it consists of an alternation of periods of high sectoral growth with others, start-up periods of slower growth. The study of this pattern helps to trace the evolution of the global economy, and aids in politico-economic prediction. Since the onset of the 20th century, students of the world economy have been drawing attention to certain long-term regularities in the behavior of the leading economies. The first to make this argument in a sustained manner was Nikolai Kondratieff (1984), a Russian economist writing in the 1920s. Statistical work on the behavior of prices, and some output series, for the United States and Britain since the 1790s, led him to conclude that the existence of long waves was very probable, and his dating scheme is shown in . He saw the capitalist world economy as evolving and self-correcting and, by implication, he denied the notion of an approaching collapse of capitalism then current among Marxist economists.

In the 1930s, Joseph Schumpeter endorsed this concept, and named the pattern the Kondratieff, a name that has since been attached to this phenomenon, even as its existence remained in contention in the years after 1945. Neo-classical economists have remained wary of it, and it is only in the 1970s, as the post-World War II expansion slowed down once again that attention was drawn to it, and new research especially on innovation moved the subject forward in an important manner.... and apparently we’re on the start of the 19th upswing.

Re: The time has come for a Labour revolution (#15)

Question: What does Labour stand for?

Answer:

a) Top heavy centralized government, massive welfare state, target driven culture, creation of huge numbers of non-jobs, educational snobbery, EU decision making, surpressing individual freedoms, Islington political elite,  profiteering utility companies, stealth taxes, teenagers killing each other fueled with alcoholic, sky high house prices, uncontrolled immigration.

or 

b) Letting the hardworking person on £23K keep as much of that as possbile & giving them and their children the best possible opportunties to achieve what they want with a fair safety net if they fall that will help them back on track again.

 
Answers on a postcard to 10 Downing Street. 

 

 

Re: The time has come for a Labour revolution (#24)

goodish manifesto.  on the point about where the money should come from (which may have come from a tory, but it's a fair point nonetheless), perhaps £40bn from clamping down on tax avoidance would more than cover it?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/mar/13/taxandspending.economy 

Re: The time has come for a Labour revolution (#25)

"which may have come from a tory, but it's a fair point nonetheless"

 

Yes, because it's totally the right thing to run around not paying for things.

 

Totally. Considering the amount of borrowing, the unfunded tax cut on the 10p tax issue and everything else, again, the payment is going to be far too difficult. It's once again time for the state to shrink.

This time permenantly. 

Re: The time has come for a Labour revolution (#26)

This is why I don't support conservatism. I find it too impatient.

Sometimes to get long term savings, we have to pay for things in the short term. Universal childcare while costing £2.7 billion in the short term (and that's just for the first couple of years), makes an NPV of, on a neutral estimate, £40 billion over 65 years. A conservative estimate suggests £6 billion, a liberal esitmate suggests £93 billion. It all depends on how much we encourage people to get into work, and I proposed just that in my manifesto.

I also proposed multilateral disarmament, which again makes savings, and is the best way of stopping nuclear war. Indeed, the 'Japanese option' would see a virtual arsenal, capable of building a nuclear range within 6 months.

Prison reform, not only makes savings, but would cut down on crime. Legalising drugs and prostitution would legalise over 3% of our GDP, and would make savings in policing, so that they can focus on serious crimes.


The point is this. If we want excellent public services, we need large amounts of taxation. Look at Scandanavia: they encourage aspiration, and have thriving companies, especially in telecommunications. But they have heavy amounts of taxation.

This isn't to say I don't support a balanced budget in my Keynesian ways. But I believe that the best way of getting quality public services, is to plan for the long term, and not have shock therapy conservatism. Interestingly, I couldn't help but note you didn't support plans for devolution, but still think the state should shrink, which seems to be only a contradiction only British Thatcherites can make.

One way that Labour can sell taxation to the public, as a great way to boost services, has been proposed by the Fabian society. If we said that fuel tax, was to directly subsidise transport, or a Manhatten project to find alternative, renewable sources, then I don't think there would be protests. If we said that Inheritance tax would pay for universal elderly care, or a Graduate tax instead of top-up fees was to subsidise Universal childcare, then those policies would be popular.

Re: The time has come for a Labour revolution (#27)

JK

I don't think Keynes supported a "balanced budget" unless you mean over the whole economic cycle. I think he supported building a budget deficit during the downturns and a surplus during upturns.

Re: The time has come for a Labour revolution (#28)

Dear angry voter i think you miss my point, which was that we can pay our way for lots of good progressive policies that would really transform this country, with the £40 billion from closing fat cat loopholes.

I think we could win the message on tax and fairness if we were much clearer on the message that the poor pay too much tax, middle england probably about the right amount, but the rich currently get away with paying way too little.

Perhaps a genuinely progressive programme could include both the £40bn from tax avoidance and the £20bn or whatever it is these days from the ID database scheme.  Oh and whilst i'm thinking about it, they could stop paying computer companies billions for projects that will never work properly and deliver no public benefit.  It is a disgrace how much money has gone into the pockets of texas and california based IT companies and to the consultants and lawyers negotiating the huge contracts with these companies, when the Public Accounts Committee said years ago that the govenrment could have delivered its whole multi-billion IT programme better and for a tiny fraction of the cost if it had used open source not proprietary software.

Oh and lastly they could just stop throwing billions at pampered ivory tower mckinseyites telling them how to undermine the whole public sector... (read 'plundering the public sector' and weep...)

in fact there's quite a bit of money sloshing around, when you think about it, even without mentioning the war!!  pity not much of it is delivering a progressive agenda at the moment... 

 

Re: The time has come for a Labour revolution (#29)

Purplemeanie

I very much agree with the points you make here. It is really important to keep this kind of perspective.

New Labour, much like George Bush, has ramped up public spending hugely (with some great benefits to health and education) but at the same time pushed a lot of money into private hands, and as you say wasted it in the process. It's a kind of "three cup trick" that is not always easy to explain - think about the PFI process. It is also about the neo-liberal obsession with the virtue of the market and hatred of public sector delivery.