The "demand" for nationalisation of liquidated and bankrupt businesses can be financed from the existing unemployed training budget.


It has been demonstrated, in principle, that nationalisation is a fair strategy (Northern Rock) even with World Trade Organisation constraints. To fail to allow a failed business to be nationalised would give banks an unfair advantage. To allow the temporary nationalisation of a bank but not of a business would end the "level playing field" that politicians suppose to be a sacred cow.

The liquidation or bankruptcy requires receivership. The Administrator or Reciever has a duty of care to obtain the best deal for "the business". This duty can be fulfilled by appealing to the exchequer to nationalise the business. This keeps the business in existence. The Receiver or Adminstrator can then propose that the Employees are notional assets of the business on the basis that unemployment would entitle them to some benefits. The difference between all of the business's employees prior remuneration and benefits would be the amount of investment that they bring to rescuing the business.

It would be fair to argue, given the employees have an interest, that the employees have a fair collective claim to the balance of assets and the interests of both government and oppostion policy - as outlined from 2003 onwards - would be served by recognising that interest. Even if the business were to subsequently fail - and nobody expects every business to magically succeed by being owned by workers - it would be cheaper to the Exchequer to simply ring-fence the entire Unemployment Training budget for this purpose.

Put simply, even if you take every single business that fails into workers ownership, supported by government, then the long term benefit is greater than training the unemployed on existing training programs. The businesses given a stay of execution would support the economy far more effectively than training courses that deliver no training. Even if the business subsequently failed - and there is only reason in Accounting to rescue a business for 18 months to two years - then, quite simply, the scheme would save the Exchequer billions in lost taxes and saved benefits.

And some of those businesses would succeed. Even those who argue for permanent national ownership can recognise the value of this. Those businesses that do succeed would all demonstrate that the scheme of temporary national ownership places the interest of the Exchequer, Workers and National Economy and incubating new businesses over handouts - either to the rich or to the poor. £1.7Bn has been put aside for supporting the New Deal - not to mention the Billions in actual benefits, fraud investigations, training provider bidding and so on.

The finance would be better spent investing in start up businesses. If Vestas were to have all of the financial backing of not putting people on the dole and investing in its future that would strengthen the UK economy more than making people apply for three jobs a day and fiddling travel expenses. Nationalisation is a strategy that reduces pointless handouts.

Nationalisation is, in fact, a strategy that obtains a return for the Exchequer, that reduces the benefits bill but, also - potentially - creates thriving businesses. Most people who are unemployed wish to have some kind of work. Those who have no desire to work whatsoever (and they are a tiny minority) have been the focus of policy since the Elizabethan Workhouse. Criminalising the Unemployed is a failed strategy. Those who wish to carve a niche of alternative economic existence are also served by such a strategy. Even the Tories can have no great objection to this strategy - because even if one nationalised business succeeds that leaves the economy with more jobs, more tax income, fewere unemployed and a whole load of the policy buzzwords they all love so much.