I mean the rank and file rather than the leadership. I hope so anyway.
Keir Starmer Labour Leader
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
Absolutely. Key industries shouldn't be run for profit. It's amazing people still buy the line that things are always run more efficiently privately. Anyone spouting that should be forced to commute to work on Southern Rail for a year.
A combination is best in my opinion, with key industries having a nationalised service, but with private competitors to keep them on their toes. Fully nationalised industries historically tended to get very bloated and inefficient with it becoming a job maker rather than to deliver. I agree It's crazy we don't have any form of a nationalised power and transport system to make sure we have the ability to keep things running.
Can see the argument for mixed, but with prices so regulated in the likes of energy -part of the reason firms are going bust now- there's zero incentive for private firms to invest either.
Our ports are among the worst performing in the world and Heathrow renowned globally as an airport to avoid if possible for that same reason.
All of our key strategic infrastructure has long been sold too.
Price regulation is an issue, it's obviously there to protect us but doesn't work when the cost of buying the resources can fluctuate by hundreds of percent. That's caused by not being able to generate 95% plus of our electricity though, which is due to a massive underinvestment in nuclear / gas to underpin our supply as renewables and electric cars grow over the next few decades - that's what should have been handled by the government decades ago.
That was the spin put on privatisation by the Tories at the time, to hide what was actually a dishonest and very expensive form of borrowing which had to be paid back in costs for ever more, and was close to irreversible.
The problem with your private 'keep on their toes' owners is that they are hugely concerned about next year's profit and share price and have comparatively little incentive to forward plan for ten years time, let alone longer, or to plan for unforeseen or rare events, spending on that is just seen as at todays shareholder expense.
The answer with huge national industries might be to have political control, but break them down into areas or functions and compare best practice, that way there is incentive for their management to deliver, but deliver what is strategically necessary as well.
I agree with you about nuclear, and also think coal plants should have been mothballed for longer, with supplies, ready for the unexpected. Weather. Disaster. Russia playing politics, or worse, with the gas.
Isn't that part of the problem with full nationalisation though? You're reliant on truthful governments and we never get them. I can't remember our national rail system too well, but can remember it being a bit rubbish even then, not that it's improved now. Your idea of splitting it into functions and making sure they operate well is a good idea, but would need to be overseen by independent boards. There definitely needs to be some form of nationalisation for long term infrastructure investment at the least.
There's examples around the world of nationalised industries being used as toys by governments for jobs and no intention of actually making an efficient business. For example Nasa is a pretty ridiculous recent example.
No, but are private companies any more open and honest when their sole purpose is to deliver the next few dividends?
UK poll in 2017 on support for nationalisation of various things. A bit outdated now but I couldn't find a more recent one that included travel agents.
Pity people didn't vote against Thatcher for the 2nd and 3rd time before she privatised it all isn't it? And Major too. I know I did.
UK poll in 2017 on support for nationalisation of various things. A bit outdated now but I couldn't find a more recent one that included travel agents.
The question for many of us isn't whether vital public services should be 'unprivatised', but how, considering many shares are now in foreign hands, and whether the cash it would take could be better spent on other things.
Rail is about the only thing that's easy, as franchises run out, but even then the operating companies are only one part of the railway, the rolling stock for instance was sold off at less than half price (easy money for the Tories) and everything is rented now.
Every now and then one of the big travel agencies goes under. Piece by piece it could be done.
Travel agents, like Thomas Cook? Tory holidays sound awful.
We all get allocated 2 weeks in a caravan park slightly too far from Skegness. William Hague provides evening entertainment and Flora Gill runs wholly inappropriate children's groups.
Not sure when we find out who the new Green leaders are, I voted for Womack and Omond on deadline day which was Thursday I think, but whoever it is they'll have a very good opportunity to take a large chunk of the Labour vote.
Personally I don't think I will vote Green but agree that they could make some gains. The climate stuff from Labour is beyond awful and fails to meet any decent standard of trying to fight against climate change.
Last edited:
I'm not that convinced they'll win many seats. My guess would be a couple (as in literally two more than they have now) but I think they'll stop standing aside for Labour and cost them enough seats that the extent of Starmer's miserable electoral failure will be seen as their doing.
Unless the leadership election produces a very surprising result then the Greens leadership has a clear mandate to get rid of the transphobes from the party, so they can just make a clear pitch to younger voters that we're the ones who actually agree with you on stuff unlike the bigoted climate change denying Starmer. Should be very appealing to the vast majority of those under 30 and Labour hasn't the slightest chance of success without dominating that age group.
Assuming there isn't a leadership change in Labour before the next general election.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
So what is the point to vote Labour?
Are you quite happy with this Tory government?
£15ph minimum wage 
Is that what we've come to?
If not, vote for the great abstainers.
That is a question you should ask Starmer. I know where I stand on the Tories
Absolutely.
No but given my issues with it go beyond its favourite colour I'm not seeing how Starmer is the answer to my problems.
Labour just voted against electoral reform at their conference. Pathetic scum.
I don't see that as a reason to vote for labour. The Tories are appalling at virtually everything they do, but the labour of the last few years has not tried to stop Brexit, has no meaningful eco policies, doesn't seem to want to tax the rich and aren't offering any opposition. Other parties like the Green's have policies that smack of what labour should have been offering for decades so I don't see a reason to vote for a name of a once good party - I'd rather vote for actual policies.
The Brexit decision and the green issues are two of the biggest decisions we will make for generations. Why would I support or trust a party so far away from what I believe should have been done?
If his mission is to keep the Tories in power, he’s doing a tremendous job.
Didn't the report that Andy Mcdonald released this week call for a £10 minimum wage... his own actual report... actually released this week.
Imagine being asked to remain consistent to your own reccomendations for a whole week... he even referenced the green paper in which he recommended the £10 wage in his resignation
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Last edited:
£15 an hour minimum wage? Every full time worker in the UK earning over £30k. Am I even understanding this properly?
The voters they want to win back think Corbyn is Satan. Starmer is happy to make a fool of himself, repudiating everything he has said in the past, to undo Corbyn's policy platform. His people criticise not just Corbyn but his supporters and ordinary party members too. A lot of expulsions and removals without much due process. So far so good.
What I don't get (or missed coverage of) is: why doesn't Starmer himself do it? Denounce Corbyn and every part of his legacy publicly. It can't be hypocrisy since the policy shifts and embarrassing videos show he doesn't care about those optics. Why doesn't he got on BBC or in some big speech and say something like: "I am ashamed he was part of this party. I am ashamed I was in his cabinet. He made me oppose Brexit which I love. Now the era of Corbyn is over. Student politics is over. We want to appeal to the business owner, the self-employed, and the hard worker, not the benefit scrounger, the loony protestor, the coddled criminal".
What I don't get (or missed coverage of) is: why doesn't Starmer himself do it? Denounce Corbyn and every part of his legacy publicly. It can't be hypocrisy since the policy shifts and embarrassing videos show he doesn't care about those optics. Why doesn't he got on BBC or in some big speech and say something like: "I am ashamed he was part of this party. I am ashamed I was in his cabinet. He made me oppose Brexit which I love. Now the era of Corbyn is over. Student politics is over. We want to appeal to the business owner, the self-employed, and the hard worker, not the benefit scrounger, the loony protestor, the coddled criminal".
Because the man is a fecking coward.
I am no expert, but even I can see the issues with that
99p menu gone forever? Yeah feck thatI am no expert, but even I can see the issues with that
Shadow cabinet minister quits after Keir Starmer orders him to oppose higher minimum wage
Andy McDonald says party is ‘more divided than ever’ under Sir Keir
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...mer-andy-macdonald-minimum-wage-b1927881.html
Andy McDonald says party is ‘more divided than ever’ under Sir Keir
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...mer-andy-macdonald-minimum-wage-b1927881.html