Voters believe that privatisation of public services has deepened regional inequality and “left behind” parts of Britain in the name of profit, new research has found.  

Polling conducted by Survation asked members of the public why they supported the renationalisation of public services such as public transport, utilities and the Royal Mail.

The most popular reason given by supporters of public ownership was that extra funds should go back into services rather than to shareholders, with 41 per cent citing this as the reason for their support.

A roughly equal number, 40 per cent, also said they believe that “privately owned companies prioritise profitable areas over providing a good service to everyone”.

The finding comes after a torrid few years for railway services in the north of England that cumulated with the government taking the Northern rail franchise back into public ownership on a temporary basis. 

The number of people in the public sector’s largest pension schemes retiring on incomes of more than £100,000 has more than tripled in the past seven years, according to figures obtained by a charity promoting intergenerational fairness.

Pensions schemes covering the NHS, the civil service and the teaching profession were paying six-figure incomes last year to 375 retirees, up from 117 in 2010. 

Those in receipt of pensions higher than the UK’s average annual salary of about £28,600 also increased by 46% – up from 78,000 in 2010/11 to 115,000 in 2017/18.

The Intergenerational Foundation said the figures, which it obtained through freedom of information requests, illustrated a growing divide between the generations.

Angus Hanton, the co-founder of IF, said the figures excluded the state pension, which adds another £8,767 to the incomes of new retirees and would likely push the pensions of thousands more public sector workers above the average wage.

He said successive governments had sought to protect those close to retirement at the expense of a younger generation whose pensions would be much less generous.

This article reveals – “The study by a variety of universities analysed the details of children from the 1920s to old age. They found people whose school reports rated them “highly cheerful” died younger than their more reserved classmates.”

I clearly need another stint in the public sector to bring me down to earth and give me a longer, if grumpier, innings. I oughtn’t to be too flippant as this is quite a serious article when you read it all – it was just the start that made me laugh – oops there I go again!

Do the assets sell themselves? or do nationally funded representatives in countries like Mexico and Thailand have a major role in driving tourism visits to places like Stonehenge?

It is all too easy in these hard financial times to be seduced by simplistically criticising the overseas work of organisations like Visit Britain. But when we all have to take a hair-cut (including those like me with no hair!) these are legitimate questions.

Downstream from the sad news that 13 overseas offices are to shut as part of efficiencies at Visit Britain I still have a debate about why the public sector “does” tourism.

I am not saying it is bad thing per se, but as local authorities are concerned with economic development across all sectors I have often wondered why they choose to engage directly in tourism on a commercial basis when they don’t choose to get involved directly in mainstream manufacturing or commercial financial services.

Not that I am advocating the latter! I am sure the roots of this are historic in the context of the inheritance of tourism assets by councils and I am sure that where market failure predominates, particularly in view of the new general power of competence proposed for local authorities in the Localism Bill there is no reason why councils shouldn’t be more entrepreneurial.

Everything is up for grabs in these strange times. I am sure you will have views.