How Labour could still save the Royal Mail from privatisation

A pledge by Miliband to renationalise the postal service could scare off potential private investors.

It was all quite a shock. On Friday, as the government announced that potential shareholders in the privatised Royal Mail were already lined up, campaigners were pre-occupied with the ballot for an anti-sell off postal workers strike. A strike that will now come after the post has been privatised, if the government has its way.

But there is one last chance to save the post from a privatisation the public do not want. Step forward, Ed Miliband.

In Brighton last week, Labour conference delegates voted unanimously to bring Royal Mail back into public ownership should Labour win the next election. Hurried press briefings that this would not bind the leadership were followed by shadow business secretary Chuka Ummuna yesterday clarifying that such a pledge would be “irresponsible”.

Yet in the past week, the Labour leader has has proved that, occasionally at least, one can govern from opposition. And on this basis, maybe privatisation of the post is not as inevitable as it seems. Miliband’s conference pledge to freeze energy prizes was derided by Tories and pundits as unworkable. But it did much more than bring the issue to the headlines: it led the energy companies themselves to subsequently decide that Miliband, and not David Cameron, was shaping their future. The front page of the NPower website was updated within 24 hours to read: “Why wait for Ed?”, as the power giant offered its customers the chance to set their prices until 2017.

It’s something few opposition leaders have managed – but Ed is no stranger to setting the terms of debate. The scene was set by his early display against News International, when the Labour opposition forced the government to commit to the public, judge-led inquiry that became Leveson. There have since been numerous other areas in which Miliband could have used his acumen and judgment to make the Tories fight on his terms, but instead we have only seen a deafening silence. Labour’s economic arguments still centre around “getting the deficit down”, the line pioneered by Cameron, and vehemently opposed by Labour, before the 2010 election. But the policy pledges in last week’s conference speech were at least encouraging. Now, faced with a privatisation that 67 per cent of the public oppose, it is surely time for Miliband to act again.

The government’s brag that shareholders were waiting in the wings was intended to present the privatisation as a fait accompli. But we forget that no money has changed hands – and potential investors rarely take kindly to hearing their purchases will be snatched away.

Yet despite Miliband’s willingness to challenge the ‘vested interests’ of big business, public ownership remains a toxic phrase among Labour high command. The party’s official history implies that it only regained power in 1997 due to abandoning its policy of nationalisation. But not a single hand went up against the motion at Labour Party conference that called for renationalisation of the post. In the past, Labour leaders from Wilson to Blair ignored party conference decisions on the grounds they would not be popular with the wider public. But as politicians of all parties have drifted away from the realities of ordinary people’s lives, Labour conference now more often proposes policies that could well regain trust and support from voters.

One voice warning against a renationalisation pledge is postal expert David Stubbs. He told the Scotsman that Alex Salmond’s pledge to take the Scottish arm of the post into public ownership in the event of independence would have the “immediate effect… to depress the value even further.” Imagine the effect of a Labour pledge to take it back wholesale. What sort of investor would sign on the dotted line then?

Unfortunately, though Miliband has demonstrated himself well capable of taking on vested interests and winning, he has yet to recognise that sometimes his party's grassroots might just have it right. That he has only just pledged to scrap the bedroom tax – after months of dithering - suggests that the party’s policy process has failed to listen to party members and councillors who have been protesting since the penalty was first mooted.

Time is running out to save Britain from the devastating service that comes with privatised post, with the transfer of stock expected by 15 October. Pledging to re-nationalise would be a risk, but Miliband has taken those before: and if potential investors run scared like the energy companies, it wouldn’t cost a penny.

A worker walks past a row of vans at the Mount Pleasant sorting office on September 12, 2013 in London. Photograph: Getty Images.

 Conrad Landin is the Morning Star's industrial correspondent. Follow him on Twitter @conradlandin.

Joe Raedle/Getty Images
Show Hide image

“Stop treating antibiotics like sweets”: the threat we face from antibioitic resistance

Currently, 700,000 people die per year from the resistance of microbes to medicine, and it is predicted that 10 million people will die per year by 2050.

Got a cold? Take some antibiotics. Feeling under the weather? Penicillin will patch you up. Or so the common advice goes. However, unless we start to rethink our dependency on antibiotics, a death every three seconds is the threat we potentially face from evolving resistance by microorganisms to the drugs. The stark warning was issued following a review which analysed the consequences we could face from needless administering of antibiotics.

The antimicrobial resistance (AMR) review was led by economist Jim O’Neill, who was tasked by the prime minister in 2014 with investigating the impact of growing resistance. Currently, 700,000 people die per year from the resistance of microbes to medicine, and the report predicts that 10 million people will die per year by 2050. An overwhelming global expense of $100trn will be the price to pay unless incisive, collaborative action is taken.

Antimicrobial resistance (as referred to in the title of the report) is an umbrella term for the resistance developed by microorganisms to drugs specifically designed to combat the infections they cause. Microorganisms include things such as bacteria, fungi, viruses and parasites. The report especially focused on the ramifications of increased resistance of microorganisms to anitbiotics.

Many medical procedures are dependent on the effectiveness of drugs such as antibiotics: treatments for cancer patients and antibiotic prophylaxis during surgeries, for example. All could be under threat by increased resistance. The continuing rise of resistant superbugs and the impotence of antibiotics would pose “as big a risk as terrorism”. A post-antibiotic world would spell dystopia.

Bacterial microbes develop resistance through evolutionary-based natural selection. Mutations to their genetic makeup are passed on to other bacteria through an exchange of plasmid DNA. Unnecessary prescriptions by doctors and inappropriate antibiotic usage by patients (such as half-finishing a course) also contribute. Over the years, a number of bacteria and viruses have found a way to counteract antibiotics used against them: E. Coli, malaria, tuberculosis and Staphylococcus aureus, to name a few.

The report employed the consultancy firms KPMG and Rand to undertake the analyses, and O’Neill outlines 10 different measures to tackle the issue. Key areas of focus include: global campaigns to expand public awareness, the upholding of financial and economic measures by pharmaceutical companies in the development of new medicines and vaccines as alternatives, greater sanitation to prevent infections spreading, and the creation of a Global Innovation Fund which will enable collective research.

O’Neill told the BBC:

“We need to inform in different ways, all over the world, why it’s crucial we stop treating our antibiotics like sweets. If we don’t solve the problem we are heading to the dark ages; we will have a lot of people dying. We have made some pretty challenging recommendations which require everybody to get out of the comfort zone, because if we don’t then we aren’t going to be able to solve this problem.”

In the foreword of the report, O’Neill states that over 1 million people have died from developing resistance since 2014. The urgency in tackling this issue is clear, which is why he has offered an incentive to companies to develop new treatments - a reward of more than $1 billion will be given to those who bring a successful new treatment to the market.

According to the report, the cost of successful global action would equate to $40bn over the next decade, which could result in the development of 15 new antibiotics. Small cuts to health budgets and a tax on antibiotics have been proposed as ways of achieving the financial quota for drug research.

Though the report has highlighted the severity of antibiotic resistance, some believe that the full extent of the matter isn’t sufficiently explored. O’Neill mentions that there are some secondary effects which haven’t been taken into account “such as the risks in carrying out caesarean sections, hip replacements, or gut surgery”. This suggests that alternative remedies should be found for non-surgical procedures, so that antibiotics aren’t made redundant in environments where they are most needed.

Since the analysis began in 2014, new types of resistance have surfaced, including a resistance to colistin, a drug which is currently used as a last-resort. Its affordability resulted in increased use, particularly as a component of animal feed, meaning greater opportunity for superbugs to develop resistance to even our most dependable of antibiotics.

Widespread drug resistance would prove to be a big issue for many charities tackling infections around the world. Dr Grania Bridgen from Médecins Sans Frontières told the BBC that the report addresses a “broad market failure”, which is important but isn’t enough.

Despite the mixed response to the report, it has had a seal of approval from the Wellcome Trust and the Department of Health. Speaking earlier this year, Chancellor George Osborne stated this issue “is not just a health problem but an economic one, too. The cost of doing nothing, both in terms of lives lost and money wasted, is too great, and the world needs to come together to agree a common approach.”

If antibiotics are to remain potent antidotes to infectious diseases in the future, we need to put a plan in motion now.