Introduction

At the start of the 1970s, the UK state owned or had controlling shares in a large range of companies and activities (Parker, 2009). Many of these had been taken into public ownership after 1945. As both concerns for the UK economy and international discussions about the role of the private sector in running of public business started to mount in the early 1970s, there was a change in attitude towards their retention (Parker, 2009). The links between monetary theorists and the newly established think tanks in the UK such as the Institute of Economic Affairs and the Adam Smith Institute meant that these ideas were starting to cross the Atlantic (Ridley, 1992; Shleifer, 2009). They found a political home that could have some influence on Conservative Party thought about future economic policy for the time that they would next be in government (Selsdon Group, 1973).

While these influences were developing as a prelude to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) Tokyo Round that started in 1973, they did not resonate with Edward Heath, Prime Minister between 1970 and 1974, who primarily focused on the UK's entry to the EU and the consequent institutional reforms associated with this, such as the reorganisation of local government (Campbell, 1994). This focus allowed those in the Conservative Party, who were against EU membership and more Atlanticist in their orientation, to consider how these monetarist approaches could be harnessed and developed in the future in the UK (Overbeek, 1993).

The first moves to implementing the Government Procurement Agreement

The Conservative Party entered a period in Opposition in 1974 and established a review of the future role of the nationalised industries led by Nicholas Ridley, who was expected to take on the job of a junior trade minister in the forthcoming government when elected (Ridley, 1992; Taylor, 1996). Its terms of reference were ‘to consider future policy regarding the existing nationalised industries, the scope of denationalisation and conditions required for the proper management of the industries remaining in a competitive economy’ (1968, quoted in Taylor, 1996, p 143). This report did not recommend that there could be a complete rolling back of the state in the operation of the nationalised industries but concluded that they could be run more effectively if privatised.