Rail Minister Stephen Hammond rests the government's criminal reprivatisation plan for the East Coast mainline on the myth of "giving passengers more."

In reality, the only people receiving more will be the shareholders of whichever one of the three preferred bidders gets its hands on this lucrative franchise.

The brief period of public ownership since privateer National Express walked away from its responsibilities in 2009 after trousering government subsidies will have seen about £1 billion returned to the exchequer by the time this squalid manoeuvre takes place.

That's the pot of gold that these corporate parasites are eyeing up for their future self-enrichment.

Hammond makes clear that investment in the rail network of £35bn over the next five years will be state-funded, claiming that "we need strong private-sector partners who can invest and innovate in ways that deliver a world-class service."

Same old flannel from the same old apologists for private greed who refuse to believe the evidence of their own eyes about what's happening on the railways.

The facts are there for all to see. The public company Directly Operated Railways is more efficient than the privateers.

Unlike National Express, and GNER before it, DOR didn't treat passengers as milch-cows for shareholders.

Its management and staff worked together to provide a good service that delivered dividends for the taxpayer.

All that will be undone by yet another bunch of private-sector cowboys talking big, milking the public purse and offering network users a take-it-or-leave-it service bearing no comparison with that of DOR.

Not even ministers believe the guff they give us about the supposed superiority of the private sector.

But they are ideologically committed to the inalienable right of private companies to fill their boots with profits from exploiting industries built up by common ownership and public investment.

Edinburgh Labour MP Sheila Gilmore is correct to note the improvements achieved under public ownership over the last four years and to insist that this should continue.

Her position would be strengthened if the Labour front bench were to take a tip from the 70 per cent of the people who want the entire rail network returned to public ownership.

It would be bad enough if Ed Miliband and Ed Balls were to imitate the Tories and argue for continued private ownership of our railways, but their Trappist vows on the issue are even more insulting to Labour supporters.

How can the party leadership refuse even to discuss an issue of such vital importance?

Labour conference is on record as supporting rail renationalisation, but the decision is left gathering dust in a cupboard in Brewers Green.

The party should have moved on from the 1990s when politicians and media clamoured in unison, following the Soviet Union's demise, that neoliberalism was the only game in town.

Yet Miliband and company retain a childish belief that market forces - the drive for private profits - are the best guarantee of economic and social progress.

The Labour leader's demand for greater competition in the banking sector is a further example of his refusal to learn from capitalism's record.

His idea that "banks will be serving you" rather than vice versa is a pitiful display of hope over experience.

Private greed is no basis for defending the public interest and natural monopolies cry out for an extension of public ownership in rail, energy, water and banking.