Private Island: Why Britian Now Belongs to Someone Else
Page 1
Also by James Meek
NOVELS
McFarlane Boils the Sea
Drivetime
The People’s Act of Love
We Are Now Beginning Our Descent
The Heart Broke In
SHORT STORIES
Last Orders and Other Stories
The Museum of Doubt
First published by Verso 2014
© James Meek 2014
Earlier versions of the following chapters originally appeared in the
London Review of Books: Chapter 1 in vol. 33, no. 9; Chapter 3 in vol. 30, no. 15; Chapter 4 in vol. 34, no. 17; Chapter 5 in vol. 33, no. 18; Chapter 6 in vol. 36, no. 1. An earlier version of Chapter 2 appeared in the Guardian under the headline ‘The £10bn Rail Crash’
All rights reserved
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
Verso
UK: 6 Meard Street, London W1F 0EG
US: 20 Jay Street, Suite 1010, Brooklyn, NY 11201
www.versobooks.com
Verso is the imprint of New Left Books
ISBN-13: 978-1-78168-290-6
eISBN-13: 978-1-78168-695-9 (UK)
eISBN-13: 978-1-78168-291-3 (US)
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Meek, James, 1962–
Private island : why Britain now belongs to someone else / James Meek. – First Edition.
pages cm
ISBN 978-1-78168-290-6 (paperback) – ISBN 978-1-78168-291-3 (ebook) – ISBN 978-1-78168-291-3
1. Privatization–Great Britain. 2. Great Britain–Economic conditions–21st century. 3. Great Britain–Social conditions–21st century. I. Title.
HD4145.M44 2014
338.941’05–dc23
2014012255
v3.1
This book is dedicated to Sophy, and to the
memory of Chris Geering, master builder.
Contents
Cover
Other Books by This Author
Title Page
Copyright
Dedication
Introduction
1. IN THE SORTING OFFICE
Privatised mail
2. SIGNAL FAILURE
Privatised railways
3. NOT A DROP TO DRINK
Privatised water
4. TAKING POWER
Privatised electricity
5. MULTIPLE FRACTURES
Privatised health
6. NO VACANCIES
Privatised homes
Acknowledgements
Introduction
One winter’s morning in 1991 I loaded a guitar, a condensed edition of the Oxford English Dictionary and a Teach Yourself Russian course into an old Volkswagen, left the house near Edinburgh where I’d been staying and drove to Kiev. Five days passed on the road. I left the familiarity, order and prosperity of Britain, the island where I’d grown up, and travelled east to wait for the Soviet Union to dissolve. I didn’t have to wait long. A few weeks after I arrived, it ceased to be. Russia and Ukraine went their separate ways. The Kiev traffic policeman waving down my foreign-plated car had time to utter the words, ‘What are you doing in the Soviet Union?’ before the colour left his face, his mouth went dry, and he turned away, lost, a bully orphaned of his corporate father. A seventy-year experiment to test whether the ethos of the commune could be imposed on a transcontinental empire of hundreds of millions of people was over, long after the answer was in (it couldn’t). I wasn’t sorry to see Soviet communism go. Despite all that’s happened since, I still don’t mourn it. There was hope in the beginning that something fine would grow in the gap that was left. It was a while before I realised the cynical, grasping figures who moved in to take possession of the ruins were not, as I’d hoped, transitional symptoms of change, but the essence of that change.
This book about Britain started there, in Ukraine and Russia. Watching the vultures come to feast on the carcass of the world’s largest state-owned, planned economy, I began to find the terms to question what had been done by politicians, economic theorists, lobbyists and business people in my own country. I had thought, when I left Scotland, in the unconscious way certainties are stowed in one’s mind, that I knew Britain; that some essential way of being would be resilient to Margaret Thatcher’s rearrangements, which must, as transient policies, be superficial. I had to go home by way of Kiev and Moscow to see that I was wrong, to begin to see how, and how deeply, she and her followers altered Britain.
With hindsight, 1991 was a pivotal year. When it began, the free market economic belief system, with its lead proselytisers Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, had been pushing back for more than a decade against various attempts to impose levelling communitarianism around the world. The Berlin Wall had fallen, as had communist regimes in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria. The market belief system, which holds that government is incompetent by default, that state taxation is oppressive, that the desire for wealth is the right and principal motivator of achievement and that virtually all human wants can best be met by competing private firms, was becoming entrenched in the non-communist world, from Chile to New Zealand. Made bold by a popular public perception that government overspending and selfish organised labour was to blame for economic stagnation and high inflation in the 1970s, Thatcher and Reagan had taken on powerful trades unions, and won. Barriers to the international movement of goods and money had fallen; the European Union was, on paper, a single marketplace. In Britain, restrictions on how much ordinary people could borrow to finance their everyday needs had been scrapped, and millions had acquired credit cards. Volumes of regulations controlling how banks were allowed to use people’s deposits had been torn up, and unimaginably vast sums were being moved privately from country to country. Government spending had been cut, as had income tax and corporation tax. Sales tax and fees for everyday services had been raised. Council houses and big state enterprises had been privatised, with more on the way, leading to hundreds of thousands of redundancies. Thatcher’s programme in Britain was an inspiration for the IMF and the World Bank as they experimented with the conditions they attached to bail-out loans to developing countries.*
But at the end of 1990, the triumph of marketism seemed to hang in the balance. Reagan and Thatcher had relinquished the stage to less fervent, less charismatic successors. The man who’d introduced the market economy to China, Deng Xiaoping, had been blamed by traditional communists for fostering the Tiananmen Square protests, and was in disgrace. In the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev, the great hope of free marketeers, was facing a similar backlash from hardliners, and the Baltic countries’ hopes of escape from the USSR looked bleak. Saddam Hussein, dictator of semi-socialist Iraq, had invaded semi-capitalist Kuwait.
Yet the following year conviction began to grow among the marketeers that the final defeat of centrally planned, communitarian government was at hand, the sense that seemed to confirm such ideas as America having ‘won’ the Cold War, and the ‘end of history’. Early in 1991 it became clear that the Soviet leadership had lost the necessary unanimity and ruthlessness to keep Lithuania within the USSR. The humiliating collapse of the coup against Gorbachev that summer presaged recognition of Baltic independence, Ukraine’s vote to go the same way, and the end of the Soviet Union. In Kuwait at the beginning of the year I saw experienced British war correspondents squabble for reporting billets among the frontline troops with the ferocity of those who believe something is being offered f
or the last time; we thought British and American armies might never fight another war. Few doubted Saddam would be beaten, and he was. That November, as I drove off the ferry at Ostend, heading east, it seemed a racing, expanding tide of victorious free marketism flickered at my wheels, a tide that has gone by many names – consumer capitalism, Reaganism, Thatcherism, neoliberalism, the Washington Consensus. Though the watchtowers still stood at the old border between two Germanys, the border was gone. In eastern Germany, the narrow cobbled streets of medieval towns had jammed solid with second hand cars. I passed a field where an impatient western German DIY chain, unwilling to wait for steel and breeze blocks, had erected a vast, circular retail marquee, blazing with lights. The canvas superstore seemed to have landed, like a spacecraft from a flashier civilisation, come down to offer shrink-wrapped packs of rawl plugs and a choice of bathroom fittings. In Poland, I got lost in fog near Wroclaw, and saw how small shops had sprung up everywhere, even in the tiniest villages. In the middle of the night, in the middle of nowhere, in damp, coal-scented murk so thick I wasn’t sure which way my car was pointing, I came across an entrepreneur hawking coffee from a roadside kiosk; the best coffee I ever tasted. He was like a champion of Thatcherite values, the small businessman standing ready to serve at all hours, in all weathers, making up for lost time under communism, silently mocking the market-questioning scepticisms I’d brought with me from Scotland. Then I crossed the border into Ukraine, where the USSR had a month left to run.
The effect on me of witnessing the unplanned collapse of a planned economy, where there’d been virtually no private property or private enterprise, was a series of viscerally direct lessons in economics. I saw how badly the Soviet communist system had failed on economic grounds alone, quite apart from its denial of personal freedoms. Long before the end, there was a hopeless housing shortage. Multiple households were sharing two-roomed flats; families were living in dormitories. Apartments seized from their bourgeois owners after the 1917 revolution were still unrepaired more than seventy years later. The infrastructure was rotten; there were cities and suburbs built around factories in the 1960s and 1970s where homes only had mains water for a few hours a day. Surpluses of goods nobody wanted (copies of the complete works of Soviet politicians, busts of Lenin) prevailed beside shortages of goods everybody wanted (cheese, coffee, sausage) because the element sticking together demand for a thing and the amount of trouble it took to produce and deliver it – the price – had been scraped out of transactions and replaced with a made-up figure concocted by planners in Moscow. Inequality was rampant, reflected not just in monetary wealth or property but in the degree to which you actually had access to the cheap goods everyone was supposed to have access to. One consequence of food and drink being allocated by civil servants according to central decrees, rather than by price, was that the restaurant business became an incubator for the black market and organised crime. Airports and railway stations looked like refugee camps because tickets cost virtually nothing, yet there weren’t enough flights or trains to move the people who wanted to take them. The first response of the Russian and Ukrainian authorities after independence was to massively increase the production of a single essential item that people were chronically short of: money. Hyperinflation resulted, and millions of people had their savings wiped out.
The other side of the collapse of communism, along with the post-Soviet boons of freedom of movement, freedom of expression and freedom of initiative, was the flourishing of enterprise. Armies of tough middle-aged women made epic journeys to the bazaars of Poland, Turkey and China and returned to Ukraine and Russia with clothes to dress a handsome people as they’d yearned to dress, in jeans, leather and gold. Shops, restaurants, bars, cafés and night clubs opened up; book and music stalls were everywhere. Foreign firms brought wonders: a tampon factory, international direct dialling. Kiev went from a place where you couldn’t buy anything to a place where you could buy anything, if you had the means.
Contempt for the planned economy, a new appreciation of the danger of printing excess money, gratitude to the entrepreneurs – there were times, in those early months in Kiev, that I asked myself whether I was becoming a Thatcherite. I can’t pinpoint the moment when it soured for me. It might have been the sight of a solid rank of impoverished pensioners, some several hundred respectable old ladies, standing shoulder to shoulder in the freezing winter darkness outside Belarus Station in Moscow, each holding a single sausage for sale – the free market as desperation. Or a visit to the Arctic mining city of Vorkuta, where miners were being paid in sandwiches while their bosses pocketed the money from the coal they were earning free market prices for. Or meeting Roger Gale, head of the Moscow mission of the International Finance Corporation, a branch of the World Bank, where he’d been talking up Russia’s programme to privatise businesses by issuing vouchers to all its citizens which they could use – and must only use – to buy shares. I left his office, went to a kiosk selling foreign chocolate, nuts and fizzy drinks, and, non-Russian that I was, bought a voucher for thirteen pounds cash, no ID required. One government estimate was that each supposedly one-off voucher was used, on average, between two and three times.
Or was it the time in 1995 I visited a privatised factory in Volgograd, the former Stalingrad, which once employed ten thousand, whose boss was in jail awaiting trial on embezzlement charges, where the few remaining workers hadn’t been paid for several months? One of the plant’s former party officials showed me round. I met her in her office, where the busts of revolutionary communist heroes and yellowing mountains of old Pravdas were thick with dust, and the complete works of Marx and Lenin languished untouched in locked glass cabinets behind her. At one point I asked an old worker, who’d been waiting for a council flat for twenty years and got to second place in the queue when perestroika happened, why, if he wasn’t being paid, he didn’t go on strike. ‘If I’d known you were going to ask that kind of question,’ the party woman, heir to Lenin, hissed at me, ‘I never would have let you come in here.’
In the first stages of disillusionment, it didn’t seem obvious to me to make connections between the extremes of marketisation and privatisation in the former Soviet Union and the partial privatisation of a British economy which had always been mainly private anyway. I still assumed some fundamental distinction between two worlds. After all, where Britain had a series of regulators to set rules for the privatised industries – Ofcom, Ofwat and so on – the principal regulator of privatisation in Ukraine and Russia, at least in the early days, was murder. In Russia in particular, a small number of individuals quickly became fantastically rich when they took private control of state producers of petrochemicals and metals. They were grotesquely rewarded, or grotesquely undertaxed, and money which should have gone to rebuild roads or hospitals or schools went instead towards yachts, property in London and foreign football teams. But that had nothing in common with privatisation in Britain – did it?
I began to notice something odd about the British and American business people and financial advisers I met in Ukraine and Russia in the 1990s. It was no surprise, I suppose, that they cared more about businesses being overtaxed than undertaxed, more about protection of private property than about protection of pensioners; that they didn’t care how weak and bullied the local trades unions were. Besides, their Russian interlocutors kept being assassinated. What was revealing was how many of these emissaries of the capitalist way seemed to believe the myth that all that was good in the British and American economies had been constructed by the free market. They seemed to believe, or talked, made speeches, wrote papers as if they believed, that the entire structure of their own wealthy modern societies – the roads, the electricity grids, the railways, the water and sewage systems, the universal postal services, the telecoms networks, housing, education and health care – had been brought into being by individual entrepreneurs driven by desire for gain, with the occasional lump of charity thrown in, and that a bloated, parasitical state had
come shambling onto the scene, seizing assets and demanding free stuff for its shirker buddies. I don’t want to absolve the Russians or Ukrainians of responsibility for their handling of the aftermath of communism, but the template they were handed by the fraternity of the Washington Consensus was based on fake history. If this is what the triumphalists of Wall Street and the City of London told the Russians about the way of the capitalist world, I thought when I moved back to Britain in 1999, what have they been telling us? And what came of it?
When Margaret Thatcher’s Conservatives came to power in Britain in 1979, much of the economy, and almost all its infrastructure, was in state hands. Exactly what gloss you put on ‘in state hands’ depends on your political point of view. For traditional socialists, it meant ‘the people’s hands’. For traditional Tories, it meant ‘in British hands’. For Thatcher and her allies, it meant ‘in the hands of meddling bureaucrats and selfish, greedy trades unionists’. How much of the economy? A third of all homes were rented from the state. The health service, most schools, the armed forces, prisons, roads, bridges and streets, water, sewers, the National Grid, power stations, the phone and postal system, gas supply, coal mines, the railways, refuse collection, the airports, many of the ports, local and long-distance buses, freight lorries, nuclear fuel reprocessing, air traffic control, much of the car-, ship- and aircraft-building industry, most of the steel factories, British Airways, oil companies, Cable & Wireless, the aircraft engine makers Rolls-Royce, the arms makers Royal Ordnance, the ferry company Sealink, the Trustee Savings Bank, Girobank, technology companies Ferranti and Inmos, medical technology firm Amersham International and many others.
In the past thirty-five years, this commonly owned economy, this people’s portion of the island, has to a greater or lesser degree become private. Millions of council houses have been sold to their owners or to housing associations. Most roads and streets are still under public control, but privatisation has reached deep into the NHS, state schools, the prison service and the military. The remainder was privatised by Thatcher and her successors. By the time she left office, she boasted, 60 per cent of the old state industries had private owners – and that was before the railways and electricity system went under the hammer.