Interesting comment piece by Tony Woodley, General Secretary of the TGWU, in today's Guardian.

Referring to the closure of Longbridge, which I've blogged about before on this site, he asks, '...why was it plausible for trade unionists to campaign for what would in effect have been a takeover of the Longbridge factory by the Chinese state when it would be treated as lunacy to call for intervention by the British state?'

In many ways this question reveals how much the political landscape in the UK (and indeed the world) has changed over the last two and a half decades. 'Public-private' partnerships are now the norm but, as this piece points out, always involve leveraging private sector involvement into what were previously directly delivered public services - never the other way around.

While I wouldn't overstate the point, I think the use of language plays an important role in how these political issues are framed. Instead of public 'investment' , 'stake' or 'ownership' any government attempt to invest in MG Rover would have been characterised as a return to the 'bad old days' of 'nationalisation' - and all of the baggage associated with it.

But public ownership needn't be synonymous with poor or inefficient management. Indeed, a cursory glance at the state of our privatised rail system proves the point that the public sector doesn't have a monopoly on poor management, inefficiency and waste!