Starmer reneges on nationalisation plans

[Nano]

It's mad that some people on here think that policies/ pledges/ manifesto's won't change due to pandemics, wars, extreme inflation, energy poverty etc, etc, etc, and then go on to criticise someone who is not even in power, or even had a vote on that yet, about having not enacted their pledges (which is impossible). Then they even further double down, banging on about 2015-2019, when they guy there enacted zero pledges, because he lost twice. The times then are even further detached from the reality of 2020, never mind now or 2025, draw a line under it and move on.

Times change, the situation changes, sometimes much quicker than others (now is the best example I've ever seen), so pledges, policies and priorities have to change, JC would have changed his list of pledges/ priorities too, and if he hadn't I'd have been asking why he's ignoring the key problems now.

It would be insane to talk about trying to fix old potholes when you've just had a meteor strike, followed by an earthquake. It would also be unwise to release a new list every month, as this would be easy for the Tories to attack.

It's absolutely critical that Labour aim to talk about how to tackle the key problems we're facing now, and hopefully the Tories enact some of them for the good of the UK. In some areas the Tories may even go one better, that's great, just take it and move on, and go after them for where they fall very short (there should be loads of chances).

We need to also keep an eye on what Labour could be dealing with, if/ when they take over in 2025, and it's likely that the situation will have changed considerably from now, so what they're talking about now may not even be a priority then, which is fine.

It's also likely that when the energy price settles (if it settles a lot lower), the Tories will get a bump in votes, the same as when the new leader comes in, they will probably also get a bump in votes, don't cry about it. I wasn't crying in Feb 21 when the Tories peaked high, due to the vaccine rollout, in fact I said that peak would soon wear off, and it did. The same people on here were crying back then about the predicted vote share, yet won't acknowledge the recent gains (highest share in 8 years I think), strange.

I can understand a little bit of in fighting in some circumstances (if you're in power and doing crap, if it's looking likely you won't win an election, if you lose an election, if you get battered in one, or if you're ignoring current major problems), but I just don't get it, when not in power, when polling so far ahead and especially after being so far behind.

Do people of sound mind whinge at Boro when we're 2-0 up at half time? Do they ask us to stick with the same team and tactics when we're 2-0 down with 10 minutes to go?

That's wrong though unless your pledges/policies/promises aren't very good. If we can't afford to do them now then we couldn't afford to them when he made them because it means they lose money. The whole point is that these are profit-making industries and nationalisation means in the long term it will increase income to the treasury or we can reduce costs for customers. We don't want to nationalise them if it's going to cost us all more so they obviously think they can do it better. All you have to do is produce a simple ROI calculation and you can show that to people. Then there can be no arguments from the press/opposition that you are wasting money or promising things that aren't possible. Borrowing money that will make a profit is a good thing. It's how every single business operates. It's called investment.

Even if you think that you can't implement a policy on day 1 then you don't abandon it, you just adjust the time-frame or make it conditional on certain circumstances (inflation reducing, interest rates stable, tax receipts at x etc.). The policies are broad enough that you don't have to be held to doing things on day 1 of government.

Chasing what is "priority at the time" is called populism. It is something that Johnson/Trump etc. are heavily criticised for. Have an ideology (helping people improve their lives) and have policies that achieve that. Don't go trying to win points on fad of the week. Don't oppose every policy that the opposition suggest. Demand a costing or cost it up yourself and show why it isn't a good idea. If it is a good idea, agree, accept and include it in your manifesto. It doesn't matter who comes up with an idea if it is a good one.

 

[Pembroke]

It's mad that some people on here think that policies/ pledges/ manifesto's won't change due to pandemics, wars, extreme inflation, energy poverty etc, etc, etc, ?

You have just made a why utilities should be under state control point. The things that are truly important should not be left to markets to control.

There is no Stammer on this.

 

[SuperStu]

I can understand a little bit of in fighting in some circumstances (if you're in power and doing crap, if it's looking likely you won't win an election, if you lose an election, if you get battered in one, or if you're ignoring current major problems), but I just don't get it, when not in power, when polling so far ahead and especially after being so far behind.

I agree, you don't get it. I'm not sure if you're a Labour member or not, but if you are take a look at your membership card. You'll see it says Labour is a 'Democratic Socialist Party'. It really shouldn't come as such a bewildering shock that some members are socialists and want the economy socialised.

Do people of sound mind whinge at Boro when we're 2-0 up at half time? Do they ask us to stick with the same team and tactics when we're 2-0 down with 10 minutes to go?

Exactly. It's not a football team. It's not just support the red team and who cares about the formation if we get three points.

The reason I and others want those socialist economic policies is that we think they'll improve quality of life for most people in this country. It's as simple as that. If you take away the policies, then you're taking away the improvement and you end up where we are now. With a bunch of people asking "what's the point?"

 

[Warwickboro]

And yet Streeting is up front that he doesn't plan to change any of that.

Labour would use private providers to cut NHS waiting lists, says Streeting

Wes Streeting tells the BBC he would reluctantly make use of private providers, as health secretary.

www.bbc.co.uk

At best, a Starmer led Labour government just delays the tories agenda. Is it really so awful of some of us to want an opposition with plans to actually reverse the agenda instead?

People don't vote for the things that weno this board want to happen though pal, they just don't. Surely the first thing to donos get in power, then you can try to win the battle for hearts and minds. You can't do that if you don't get there.

 

[SuperStu]

People don't vote for the things that weno this board want to happen though pal, they just don't. Surely the first thing to donos get in power, then you can try to win the battle for hearts and minds. You can't do that if you don't get there.

It's a nice idea but it simply doesn't happen that way. The overwhelming force of gravity in our politics is to the right. I said it earlier in the thread - we've never had a government move to the left once they're in power or move left the longer they're in power.

The reality is whatever Starmer says he'd do while he's in opposition, you should expect a more right wing version if he gets in to government. So if he's already shifted quite solidly centre right now, the likelihood is he'll be even more right wing in power.

 

[Andy_W]

Most of those pledges aren't impacted by any of that, and many are solutions to those problems.

Let's take economic justice, the first one. They refused to back an increase in taxes on those earning over £80,000, then they were to the right of the Tories on corporation tax rises, when they refused to back their increase.

These pledges are ones that he made, nobody forced him to do it. It's the only way we have to know what he stands for because he won't tell us any policies, so this is all we have to go on. Now he's withdrawn them and replaced them with word salad platitudes.

He promised to unite the party which was a total lie, he has overseen a purge of left wing members of the party and overridden many local branches by parachuting in preferred candidates against their wishes.

The left of the party and local branches have been spat in the face by Starmer, and these are the people who are expected to campaign for him and vote for him for no other reason than he's not a Tory (not officially anyway).

If he doesn't back nationalising rail franchises I personally won't vote for him. Which apparently shouldn't be a problem as he backs that, after his shadow chancellor said he didn't, and he said he didn't, then he said he did.

There are, have been and will continue to be much bigger problems than most of that list, that's the point I'm getting at. I'm not saying they're not still problems, as they are, and I'm sure on most or all of those things mentioned they will be far better for those who need it, than the Tory offering.

I'm not saying they get deleted, I'm saying they fall down the pecking order, may come later down the line or are not key vote winners to be highlighting now, and they may get highlighted again later.

If the economy takes a further massive load of kicking's from various angles since then, then some things will need to change to encourage that bouncing back. If you start banging the tax drum too much, then some will get concerned that you're doing that at the wrong time (ie a period of recovery, not during a period of growth). Things might still change, the tax talk might change, and so it probably should over the course of 2.5 years, never mind 5 years. I've not seen any position set in stone, and don't expect to, it's different to Truss/ Sunak as they're going to be in power for the next 2.5 years.
I don't think there's much point hiking corporation tax if companies are struggling. It provides 5% of tax, increasing it by +2% will change that figure to 5.5, but we won't get any of that 0.5% increase if it means companies become less competitive than they already are (and they're already screwed). I'd be up for an income tax hike on earners over 80k regardless, as it probably won't lose votes and will gain more than it did lose, I expect they might be saving that for the manifesto.

The party is impossible to unite when people are banging a 5 year old drum, which wasn't in tune enough to win. I'd rather win than unite the party if I had to pick one. A united party which loses is almost completely pointless.

You have to say something during a leadership campaign, otherwise you don't win, normally the things you talk about are what win your voters and are key things in the news at the time. For me that's the Economy, Inflation, NHS, Energy Poverty and being self-sufficient on energy.

Nationalising rail is your line in the sand? Wow.
Why do you want to spend money nationalising rail?
Have you ever worked for or with any of the aspects of rail which are already nationalised, like Network Rail or HS2 etc?

 

[SuperStu]

It's mad that some people on here think that policies/ pledges/ manifesto's won't change due to pandemics, wars, extreme inflation, energy poverty etc, etc, etc, and then go on to criticise someone who is not even in power, or even had a vote on that yet, about having not enacted their pledges (which is impossible).

Oway Andy get serious. Nobodys criticising Starmer for not enacting policies from opposition. All the criticism is based on what he's saying he'd do if he gets the chance.

Energy is a good one to mention! Prices have gone up by £100s. They'll go up again this winter. The private model is failing before our eyes. What sort of imbecile party leader would choose now as his moment to drop the policy of nationalising energy and swing behind the failing private model?

Again, as the yougov figures posted earlier in the thread show, nationalising energy is a popular policy across the political spectrum, across the country geographically, among men and women, among old and young. So dropping the policy isn't about getting elected or being pragmatic. It's ideological.

 

[SuperStu]

I'm not saying they get deleted, I'm saying they fall down the pecking order, may come later down the line or are not key vote winners to be highlighting now, and they may get highlighted again later.

Sounds great. What a shame you're not party leader.

The problem is none of that's what the actual IRL party leader Starmer is saying. When he gets asked about nationalising energy his answer isn't "ooh err, maybe, well, perhaps, possibly, one day, depending..." its a no.

This is the trouble with these threads. Eventually they always boil down to one side saying Starmers not very good because of the things he's actually said and done, and the other side saying he's great in their imaginations.

 

[Andy_W]

That's wrong though unless your pledges/policies/promises aren't very good. If we can't afford to do them now then we couldn't afford to them when he made them because it means they lose money. The whole point is that these are profit-making industries and nationalisation means in the long term it will increase income to the treasury or we can reduce costs for customers. We don't want to nationalise them if it's going to cost us all more so they obviously think they can do it better. All you have to do is produce a simple ROI calculation and you can show that to people. Then there can be no arguments from the press/opposition that you are wasting money or promising things that aren't possible. Borrowing money that will make a profit is a good thing. It's how every single business operates. It's called investment.

Even if you think that you can't implement a policy on day 1 then you don't abandon it, you just adjust the time-frame or make it conditional on certain circumstances (inflation reducing, interest rates stable, tax receipts at x etc.). The policies are broad enough that you don't have to be held to doing things on day 1 of government.

Chasing what is "priority at the time" is called populism. It is something that Johnson/Trump etc. are heavily criticised for. Have an ideology (helping people improve their lives) and have policies that achieve that. Don't go trying to win points on fad of the week. Don't oppose every policy that the opposition suggest. Demand a costing or cost it up yourself and show why it isn't a good idea. If it is a good idea, agree, accept and include it in your manifesto. It doesn't matter who comes up with an idea if it is a good one.

Doesn't mean they were not good, they might have been for then, like I say, times change, quite a lot and quite quickly evidently.

Nationalising anything does not guarantee profit increases or actually making a profit based on the same prices, and nor is it a guarantee that it's the best return on investment for that time. I'm not for or against this yet, but it's extremely low priority, to me anyway.

I'm not saying anything is abandoned, as there's nothing to abandon as they're not in power to enact it anyway. To me they're just talking points/ ideals for that time, and should be taken with a pinch of salt. To me, what is most important is what goes in the manifesto in 2024, and what they talk about between now and then, and more importantly actually being able to win the election with that manifesto without giving up too much. It's still early days.

Depends what your populism is favouring, how does that work in a 50/50 split, or if the split is three ways 25/50/25? If there's populism 50% one way and populism 50% the opposite then they're not pushing the same thing. If everyone wants the same thing, then we're getting that either way. If we're outnumbered 75/25 then we're going to lose no matter what.

You have to win though, and win in the right areas. I'd take any win over a loss to be honest, as to me, the loss will always be far worse overall. In fact even a massive win can actually be a problem for what I would like, as it would mean we've given up too much to the Tories (as they're unlikely to shift where they sit on the political compass all that much).

I agree that a good policy is a good policy, always have always will, and I largely don't care who is saying it (unless I think they're lying).

 

[SuperStu]

Depends what your populism is favouring, how does that work in a 50/50 split, or if the split is three ways 25/50/25? If there's populism 50% one way and populism 50% the opposite then they're not pushing the same thing. If everyone wants the same thing, then we're getting that either way. If we're outnumbered 75/25 then we're going to lose no matter what.

It's all just garbled nonsense.

 

[SuperStu]

I'm not saying anything is abandoned

You or I or anyone on here doesn't get to decide this Andy. Starmer is the party leader. He will determine what goes in a manifesto. He got his position claiming he'd stand by a certain set of policies. Within months he'd revealed they were all abandoned (or worse really - that he was lying about them all along!). Whether you want them to be abandoned or postponed or anything else, that's the reality.

 

[Chris_Boro]

No way can Labour fight a General Election in 2 years time promising to invest £billions in the NHS that is on its knees, the public sector that has been gutted and our schools that running out of teachers.

Our infrastructure is a mess, massive levels of poverty/food Bank use and largest income divide in a generation with towns and cities in the North being left to fend for themselves. To name but a few.

And then at the same time spend £100's of billions buying out the rail and utilities with countless billions more required to spend on their crumbling infrastructure with no guarantee that money will be returned.

That level of spending at a time of no growth, a cost of living crisis, covid running in the background and a war in Europe sending prices of everything skyrocketing would be economic suicide for Labour.

They would either have to massively increase taxation or dump it on to our already sky high dept burden, either would be destroyed by the Tories and businesses running up to the next election with Labour branded feckless on the economy and they would be right. Voters just don't understand how it all works.

It would be impossible for Labour to make a costed manifesto on those terms with such massive uncertainties in the world, they are right to drop those commitments now.

 

[Andy_W]

Sounds great. What a shame you're not party leader.

The problem is none of that's what the actual IRL party leader Starmer is saying. When he gets asked about nationalising energy his answer isn't "ooh err, maybe, well, perhaps, possibly, one day, depending..." its a no.

This is the trouble with these threads. Eventually they always boil down to one side saying Starmers not very good because of the things he's actually said and done, and the other side saying he's great in their imaginations.

Haha, I just tried to join the Labour party and it doesn't recognise my address

I wouldn't nationalise energy either, not based on the info now, it's a bad time to do it, wouldn't be against it in the future though. I'd want to see what the ROI on that was. I wouldn't want to be buying oil and gas infrastructure which I was aiming to get rid of.
I'd be up for creating more public owned energy generation from Solar/ Wind/ Biomass and backup of Nuclear, effectively I see energy security as more important, but that's a long term goal.

One side is criticising someone who could win, and actually enact some policies and banging on about a guy who got beat by May and then BJ, who had next to no chance of winning to doing anything. It wasn't me he needed to convince, I voted and would have voted for him anyway, but he didn't convince enough of the rest, and unfortunately you need them.
I'm on the side looking at the 162 seat loss in 2019 and the projected 63 seat lead at the minute, it's quite important. Turns out I wasn't imagining the change to a Labour lead during the KS leadership, when the Tories were peaking with the vaccine rollout in Feb 21, after they had just won an election by 162 seats.

 

[Andy_W]

You or I or anyone on here doesn't get to decide this Andy. Starmer is the party leader. He will determine what goes in a manifesto. He got his position claiming he'd stand by a certain set of policies. Within months he'd revealed they were all abandoned (or worse really - that he was lying about them all along!). Whether you want them to be abandoned or postponed or anything else, that's the reality.

So don't assume everything is abandoned then?

If he does abandon some things, then if he needs to do that to win or keep votes, or wants to highlight other policies in the news/ causing major problems, then I'm fine with that. Anything which takes a back seat is still on the labour train if they win, and it's better than being on the Tory bus heading off the cliff.

The pandemic changed quite a few things, the so did what the Tories were doing, then the war, then inflation then energy problems etc. Hardly a lie when the world changes that quickly, moving with the times is zero problem for me, I'd actively encourage it.

 

[SuperStu]

So don't assume everything is abandoned then?

It's not an assumption. It's an observation. Starmer exists Andy. I feel like you don't get that. He's not a figment of your imagination. He's out there in the world. He says stuff. He does stuff. People like me can read or watch or listen to him and see what he's saying and doing. I don't have to assume or guess or imagine what his position is on things like nationalising utilities. He tells us.

 

[WeeGord]

Most of those pledges aren't impacted by any of that, and many are solutions to those problems.

Let's take economic justice, the first one. They refused to back an increase in taxes on those earning over £80,000, then they were to the right of the Tories on corporation tax rises, when they refused to back their increase.

These pledges are ones that he made, nobody forced him to do it. It's the only way we have to know what he stands for because he won't tell us any policies, so this is all we have to go on. Now he's withdrawn them and replaced them with word salad platitudes.

He promised to unite the party which was a total lie, he has overseen a purge of left wing members of the party and overridden many local branches by parachuting in preferred candidates against their wishes.

The left of the party and local branches have been spat in the face by Starmer, and these are the people who are expected to campaign for him and vote for him for no other reason than he's not a Tory (not officially anyway).

If he doesn't back nationalising rail franchises I personally won't vote for him. Which apparently shouldn't be a problem as he backs that, after his shadow chancellor said he didn't, and he said he didn't, then he said he did.

I'm sick to death of reading rubbish like this - there were candidates parachuted into constituencies during the Corbyn era too and I know that fine well as a member of Blyth Valley Labour Party.

I have explained in the past that as a socialist I was very frustrated with the left of our local Labour Party as they were a large part of the reason the Tories won the seat.

Similarly I recall the Labour Party under Corbyn (through Momentum etc) treating the more centrist Labour supporters like vermin. The idea that the splits in the party are solely the responsibility of the centrists are absurd.

My stance as a socialist are well documented on this site along with others, the difference I have to some others are that I don't have tunnel vision around Corbyn and the left being good and everybody else being bad. It's rubbish. There are many MPs, Councillors and members who have displayed horrendously divisive behaviour across the whole spectrum of the party.

 

[SuperStu]

If he does abandon some things, then if he needs to do that to win or keep votes, or wants to highlight other policies in the news/ causing major problems, then I'm fine with that.

As I've pointed out umpteen times now, he's not abandoning nationalisation policies for electoral expediency. This is ideological. Again, look at the figures linked. Instead of imagining or guessing actually look at them. Nationalising energy is popular. It would only be a vote winner.

Anything which takes a back seat is still on the labour train if they win,

You're saying this based on nothing. It is not the case. It never has been. Remaining/rejoining the EU isn't still on the table with the tories this parliament is it?

Starmer isn't going to spend the next 2 years saying no nationalisation and then suddenly become a socialist when he's in office. Don't kid yourself!

 

[Nano]

No way can Labour fight a General Election in 2 years time promising to invest £billions in the NHS that is on its knees, the public sector that has been gutted and our schools that running out of teachers.

Our infrastructure is a mess, massive levels of poverty/food Bank use and largest income divide in a generation with towns and cities in the North being left to fend for themselves. To name but a few.

And then at the same time spend £100's of billions buying out the rail and utilities with countless billions more required to spend on their crumbling infrastructure with no guarantee that money will be returned.

That level of spending at a time of no growth, a cost of living crisis, covid running in the background and a war in Europe sending prices of everything skyrocketing would be economic suicide for Labour.

They would either have to massively increase taxation or dump it on to our already sky high dept burden, either would be destroyed by the Tories and businesses running up to the next with Labour branded feckless on the economy and they would be right. Voters just don't understand how it all works.

It would be impossible for Labour to make a costed manifesto on those terms with such massive uncertainties in the world, they are right to drop those commitments now.

This is the austerity argument which we know is nonsense. We haven't just got a pot of money to decide what to do with and when it's empty there's nothing left to allocate. We can allocate funds to the NHS out of existing commitments, which the Tories are simply choosing not to do, but any capital investments are separate. in You can borrow as much as you want, whenever you want without consequence, as long as it is for something meaningful like an investment with a costed positive ROI.

We all know austerity was nonsense and ideologically driven. The Tories borrowed more than every Labour government put together, even before Covid. There's no such thing as paying down the debt. We owe ourselves the money. Compared to other countries we have quite low debt:

Debt to GDP Ratio:
Japan 236%
USA 109%
France 97%
Spain 96%
Canada 87%
UK 84%

 

[Chris_Boro]

This is the austerity argument which we know is nonsense. We haven't just got a pot of money to decide what to do with and when it's empty there's nothing left to allocate. We can allocate funds to the NHS out of existing commitments, which the Tories are simply choosing not to do, but any capital investments are separate. in You can borrow as much as you want, whenever you want without consequence, as long as it is for something meaningful like an investment with a costed positive ROI.

We all know austerity was nonsense and ideologically driven. The Tories borrowed more than every Labour government put together, even before Covid. There's no such thing as paying down the debt. We owe ourselves the money. Compared to other countries we have quite low debt:

Debt to GDP Ratio:
Japan 236%
USA 109%
France 97%
Spain 96%
Canada 87%
UK 84%

It's utterly irrelevant if you or I know where our money comes from. The majority of voters do not and those are who decide if anything Labour proposes is possible.

Labour will not win a General Election if they can't be shown as fiscally responsible and pledging to spend the sort of sums of money to do everything I mentioned would be destroyed by the Tories client media and big businesses.

 

[Andy_W]

It's not an assumption. It's an observation. Starmer exists Andy. I feel like you don't get that. He's not a figment of your imagination. He's out there in the world. He says stuff. He does stuff. People like me can read or watch or listen to him and see what he's saying and doing. I don't have to assume or guess or imagine what his position is on things like nationalising utilities. He tells us.

I've not seen any new list of pledges or a manifesto, and don't read much into day to day snippets/ nit-picking, the same way I didn't about JC.

Like I keep saying positions change, as they should, and they will change again once the Tories bring in the next leader. That list of pledges was old, there will be a new list (manifesto this time), which will contain more pressing matters, if it doesn't I'll whinge about that in 2024, and I'll eat my hat if the Tory one isn't a billion times worse.

What part of "times change" don't you get, or should we still be enacting policies from 1900?