Starmer reneges on nationalisation plans

SuperStu said:
Oh come on. Its reasonable to judge people by their actions isn't it? You can't seriously be telling me Starmer has to go on telly and announce himself a lying con artist before you'll entertain the idea?

Do you believe Woodgate was a great manager who got us playing exciting, attacking football? That's how he described himself. Or did you observe how it actually panned out and judge him on that?
Click to expand...
Yeah, of course it is, and I'd expect their actions to be consistent if the world was, but it's not been anywhere near that. I'll judge them on their results more than their words.

The Woodgate analogy is quite a good one (not for Starmer mind, as he's actually getting good results/ polling v the Tories). I paid little attention to Woodgate's words as he didn't sound like he had a clue what he was going on about, and I didn't think he was going to get many wins. Ultimately I judged him by his results, and I realised beforehand he was going to lose more than he was going to win.
I was still a Boro fan though, for all managers, but just wished Woodgate would go so we could get someone in who had a better grasp on what you need to do to win.
 
SuperStu said:
I'm certainly not claiming the tories will support it, who would expect them to? Labour's leadership and MPs would have to get out there, earn their crust, and explain the benefits of such policies! The tories have renationalised the East Coast mainline twice in the last ten years. They've proven themselves it's affordable!
Click to expand...

Great. Let's put it out there and let the majority of the media & the Tories rip it apart. The electorate who have been conditioned over the last 12 years to only understand 3 word slogans won't have a scooby doo about the practicalities of it all. They will only see that it costs money to do these things and it's same old labour trying to bankrupt the country again.

Labour don't need to give the opposition golden bullets to shoot them down with.

Manifestos that are over complicated won't help Labour win. They need to have a few big issues and sell those well, maybe something like: (also added some nice 3 word slogans for everyone to understand)

NHS - funding boost, reduce waiting times, bring back nurse bursary to bring up numbers (Fund the NHS)
Fixing Brexit - align UK standards to EU to reduce trade friction and reduce Brexit red tape (End Red Tape)
Cost of Living - sort inflation, proper cap on energy prices, aid for the poorest in society (Proper Energy Cap)
Climate - onshore wind, no fracking, decrease gas, grants for insulating homes, grants for EVs back etc (Insulate Homes Now)
Renationalise Railways - when franchises are up they come back to the Gov (Bring Back Rail)

Cost everything - fund it though fair taxation on big business (like Amazon), reduce tax avoidance, get rid of Non Dom status, excess profit tax, profit from rail franchises, excess profit tax etc

Something in there for everyone hopefully. Then when in power bring forward other plans in the Queens Speech and crack on.
 
MolteniArcore said:
Great. Let's put it out there and let the majority of the media & the Tories rip it apart. The electorate who have been conditioned over the last 12 years to only understand 3 word slogans won't have a scooby doo about the practicalities of it all. They will only see that it costs money to do these things and it's same old labour trying to bankrupt the country again.

Labour don't need to give the opposition golden bullets to shoot them down with.

Manifestos that are over complicated won't help Labour win. They need to have a few big issues and sell those well, maybe something like: (also added some nice 3 word slogans for everyone to understand)

NHS - funding boost, reduce waiting times, bring back nurse bursary to bring up numbers (Fund the NHS)
Fixing Brexit - align UK standards to EU to reduce trade friction and reduce Brexit red tape (End Red Tape)
Cost of Living - sort inflation, proper cap on energy prices, aid for the poorest in society (Proper Energy Cap)
Climate - onshore wind, no fracking, decrease gas, grants for insulating homes, grants for EVs back etc (Insulate Homes Now)
Renationalise Railways - when franchises are up they come back to the Gov (Bring Back Rail)

Cost everything - fund it though fair taxation on big business (like Amazon), reduce tax avoidance, get rid of Non Dom status, excess profit tax, profit from rail franchises, excess profit tax etc

Something in there for everyone hopefully. Then when in power bring forward other plans in the Queens Speech and crack on.
Click to expand...

And we're back here again. An imaginary version of Starmer. I wish I could vote for the version in your heads chaps. I genuinely do.
 
SuperStu said:
Yes Chris fair enough. Maybe you're right and maybe there was too much in the 2017 and 2019 manifestos? But Labour tried offering nothing at all in 2010 and 2015 and that was no better.
Click to expand...

That's why something in the middle might just work.

If the Tories can't attack the Labour manifesto then they have to focus on their own, which they can't do.
 
“Almost three quarters of England's water industry is currently owned from overseas. At least 71% of shares in England's nine privatised water companies are owned by organisations from overseas including the super-rich, banks, hedge funds, foreign governments and businesses based in tax havens.”

Private water utilities have racked up debt £48bn since privatisation, with an annual interest cost of £1.3bn. Despite this debt, in the same period they’ve paid out £57bl in shareholder dividends.

The government have issued an appeal that we try and use less water. Meanwhile the water companies are still pouring billions litres of water, they won’t or can’t treat into our Rivers and sea.
 
Chris_Boro said:
That's why something in the middle might just work.

If the Tories can't attack the Labour manifesto then they have to focus on their own, which they can't do.
Click to expand...

Right! Exactly. But we're not getting something in the middle is the whole point. It's where this thread started. Starmer started off saying he'd nationalise energy, water, trains and mail. Now he's saying he wouldn't do any of those.
 
Ziggy said:
“Almost three quarters of England's water industry is currently owned from overseas. At least 71% of shares in England's nine privatised water companies are owned by organisations from overseas including the super-rich, banks, hedge funds, foreign governments and businesses based in tax havens.”

Private water utilities have racked up debt £48bn since privatisation, with an annual interest cost of £1.3bn. Despite this debt, in the same period they’ve paid out £57bl in shareholder dividends.

The government have issued an appeal that we try and use less water. Meanwhile the water companies are still pouring billions litres of water, they won’t or can’t treat into our Rivers and sea.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone in this thread believes that re nationalising these companies would be a bad idea in principle, it's just a case of how much it would cost and that cost on top of everything else at a time of unprecedented uncertainties.

Just taking over their debt is an enormous sum of money, let alone buying all of the companies and then the massive operating costs and modernisation of it's infrastructure.

I would in the short term legislate taxation against these companies if they fail to meet strict targets on waste processing and modernisation.
 
SuperStu said:
Right! Exactly. But we're not getting something in the middle is the whole point. It's where this thread started. Starmer started off saying he'd nationalise energy, water, trains and mail. Now he's saying he wouldn't do any of those.
Click to expand...

Because it would just be the 2019 election all over again, re nationalisation isn't simply offering something to the left. It's literally an entire manifestos worth of commitments.
 
Chris_Boro said:
It's simply not possible for Labour to promise to rebuild what the Tories have destroyed, return to strong growth and also nationalise the utilities at the same time. It's completely pie in the sky stuff and the voters will see it that way.
Click to expand...

This is fine but there's two problems with it.

First if you decide there's broadly 3 areas a Labour gov might be interested in - fixing tory problems, grow the economy and advance socialism - and you think this is too much, somethings got to give, and the part you cut is the socialism, you surely have to expect some negative reaction from socialists. Especially if you're the leader of an explicitly democratic socialist party.

Second if your interpretation of "grow the economy" is stuff like keeping industries privatised, keeping corporation tax low, i.e. tory policies, you're reinforcing the idea that the tories are better with the economy. It just makes it harder to advance the cause of socialism in the future. Again, you really can't do this and then act all po faced and surprised at losing support from socialists.
 
You have to live in the real world of how people perceive and see these things.
HolgateCorner said:
I‘m old enough to remember how nationalised industries were savagely portrayed by the Tory media as inefficient, costly and overmanned. Look at their current treatment of the NHS.

Labour even got blamed in 2008 for bailing out the banks when in reality Brown had no other option.

Believe me, in a country where millions upon millions crave and value an extra fiver in their own pocket compared to sustaining whole industries, it’s a Tory Elephant Trap - we have seen it all before.

That’s why the current Tories are obsessed with taxation.
Click to expand...
Corbyn’s 2017 result with a manifesto around nationalisation that was achieved despite the toxic centrist, soft Tories in his party and the media showed many people were ready for such policies.

There was then a key switch from the media between 2017 and 2019. The policies when polled were popular, and still are. They lost the argument. So instead they switched to vilifying and attacking the man behind them.

The appetite for nationalisation seems higher than ever. So many people asking the question “why are France’s energy bills going up by such a small amount?” because they have a nationalised system, “why don’t we have that” because people voted against it.

Water companies making £3 billion in profits whilst dumping raw sewage into our rivers.

BT making over a £ 1 billion in profits, paying executives ridiculous money whilst having food banks for their staff who they’ve offered 3% pay rises to.

The conditions are there, it just requires the political will to go out there an win the argument.

The approach of “well let’s just be slightly less s*** than the Tories” requires the Tories to get ridiculously s*** for enough people to vote Labour in order to form a majority.
 
Chris_Boro said:
Because it would just be the 2019 election all over again, re nationalisation isn't simply offering something to the left. It's literally an entire manifestos worth of commitments.
Click to expand...

So your "something in the middle" of 2017/2019 and 2010/2015 is... 2010/2015. 🤷‍♂️

Once again, you simply can't be surprised when folk who were invested in the policies of 2017/2019 aren't enthused by this.

I'm sure Starmer isn't surprised. It'll all be priced in. Andy keeps mentioning the good polling results must mean the party are doing something right. Behind closed doors it's much more likely to be the other way around. The better the party does in the polls the more political capital Starmer feels he has to ditch pledges and policies and tie himself to the status quo.
 
SuperStu said:
This is fine but there's two problems with it.

First if you decide there's broadly 3 areas a Labour gov might be interested in - fixing tory problems, grow the economy and advance socialism - and you think this is too much, somethings got to give, and the part you cut is the socialism, you surely have to expect some negative reaction from socialists. Especially if you're the leader of an explicitly democratic socialist party.

Second if your interpretation of "grow the economy" is stuff like keeping industries privatised, keeping corporation tax low, i.e. tory policies, you're reinforcing the idea that the tories are better with the economy. It just makes it harder to advance the cause of socialism in the future. Again, you really can't do this and then act all po faced and surprised at losing support from socialists.
Click to expand...

To do all these things would be impossible over the short term and I simply wouldn't believe any government that claims it could.

I supported the 2019 manifesto but I can't support it now as times have changed and the Johnson government has brought our critical services to breaking point faster than the 10 years of Tory rule before it.

It might not be a socialists dream, but fixing the NHS, education, unbalanced economy and infrastructure has to now be the absolute priority and this is what I want now from a Labour government.
 
InglebyUTB said:
Exactly this.

The centrist soft Tories in the party are only interested in power for power's sake, they don't actually have any plans to make the country a better place with that power.

If they were interested in uniting the party they would give the left some of their key policies so at least they can say "well even if you don't like us, if you hold your nose and vote for us you can get this".

But instead they want compliance.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if you've ever realised this, but you actually need some "centrist soft Tories" as you call them, to actually win an election, and if you keep losing over and and over again you end up with the worst bunch of far right Tories that we've had in recent times. Loads of Tories were ex labour voters for decades, who later jumped ship as they got older and earned more.

I just want polices which are better than the Tory ones, for those worse off, but I'm realistic we need to appeal to the centre to some degree, otherwise the only policies you get are Tory ones. I'm sure the Labour policies will be better, once the manifesto is released, and they would get better the longer they're in power. Then eventually they will probably push it too far and lose.

You're not going to change the distribution of the UK population on the political compass, the sooner you realise that the sooner your supposed party would win another election. They've not won power from the Tories since 97, and lost the last 4 elections on the bounce, at some point you must agree that the old tactics did not work.
 
Last edited:
SuperStu said:
Right! Exactly. But we're not getting something in the middle is the whole point. It's where this thread started. Starmer started off saying he'd nationalise energy, water, trains and mail. Now he's saying he wouldn't do any of those.
Click to expand...

No he is not. We are back to your imaginary view of Starmer.

He stated on TV yesterday that he will be renationalising rail. He also said that that he will take a pragmatic view renationalising energy & water.

'Pragmatic - dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations'

Do you think it would be a sensible policy to come out and say "We know there is a cost of living crisis, rampant inflation, increased national debt and the NHS needs a massive funding boost to the tune of many billions but we are going to spend £196 billion (CBI 2019) on nationalising the energy market"

£196,000,000,000 would cost every household in Britain (27,800,000 ONS 2021) £7050. That is just energy. Water, mail... god knows what it would cost.

It would be a disastrous election campaign to promise a spend of that size post Covid.

At least with rail you can take it back into public ownership when the franchises end with little cost and more money going into the hands of private businesses.
 
Chris_Boro said:
I don't think anyone in this thread believes that re nationalising these companies would be a bad idea in principle, it's just a case of how much it would cost and that cost on top of everything else at a time of unprecedented uncertainties.

Just taking over their debt is an enormous sum of money, let alone buying all of the companies and then the massive operating costs and modernisation of it's infrastructure.

I would in the short term legislate taxation against these companies if they fail to meet strict targets on waste processing and modernisation.
Click to expand...

Surely it’s time Ofwat was given the power to impose the kind of meaningful financial penalties that would actually make them take notice and begin to rectify their non action.
 
The 2017 manifesto was massively popular. It gained Labour way more than had been expected. May went to the polls expecting an increased majority remember and they were blown away by the Labour manifesto. Corbyn scared off too many voters to get near a majority but at that point Labour were at the lowest they've ever been. In 2019 the manifesto was irrelevant but the policies were still well received. They only got ridiculed when they suddenly announced free internet for everyone.

They had no chance of winning in 2019 because it was a single issue election and they were on the wrong side (or no side) of that single issue. Throwing away all the popular policies from 2017 and 2019 is madness. They lost the election because of Brexit. I think 2017s manifesto with a less divisive leader than Corbyn, one with a clean history, could win a majority comfortably. Instead Starmer is acting like nobody wanted to vote for Labour and it was the policies that were the problem. It was his fault that Labour performed so dreadfully in 2019 with his Brexit stance and behaviours and now he's sleep walking into the next election with a Tory t-shirt on under his suit.

As I've said, he'll still get my vote because he's the least worst option but I hold no hope for him making any significant difference to the country. He might halt the slide but their will be no climb.
 
Ziggy said:
Surely it’s time Ofwat was given the power to impose the kind of meaningful financial penalties that would actually make them take notice and begin to rectify their non action.
Click to expand...

Definitely, no raw sewage should be entering our waters, ever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top