Starmer reneges on nationalisation plans

[SuperStu]

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

When you say 1900 do you mean the year, or 7pm last night? Hard to tell with you. "Times change". Okay. So what's changed that now means I should support the failing privatised models we have for utilities and rail? What's changed that I should suddenly not want corporation tax increasing? In reality the answer is f*ck all.

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.

That's fine. But you have to accept that other people who pay closer attention more regularly than you do might have more relevant observations in that case.

Like I keep saying positions change, as they should,

1) that's dumb and 2) it's not an accurate reflection of what's happened.

It's dumb because you shouldn't just want and expect every party policy to constantly be flip flopping around automatically. If there's a good reason why a new policy is somehow more desirable that's one thing. You shouldn't just want policies in and out for the sake of it because time has passed.

It's not accurate because we're not talking about a few amendments here and there. Starmer produced a list of 10 pledges. They were the basis of people voting him as leader of the party. As soon as he got that, he's reversed every single one of them. They're the exact opposite.

 

[Andy_W]

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.



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!

It might be popular, but it might be popular with people who won't ever vote Labour, or might be popular with people who would like to do it but also appreciate we've got bigger problems to solve first. In 2024 energy prices might have reduced so it might be low on the pecking order then?

It might be a crap ROI, and some people might think they would rather use that cash to sort out the NHS backlog or it's many other issues, or many of the countries other issues.

The Tories are nationalising part of the National Grid (mainly the electricity side), I'm not for or against that either. I'd like to know what it's costing and what the ROI on that is, and how they plan to sort out energy security.

No, remaining is not on the list, we've left the EU. Re-joining isn't either, it would need another vote to do that, and it's a 100% guaranteed election loss prior to the next GE if they even tried it, and possibly lead to a revolt in 2030 if they did it between 2025-30 (hard to say now, it's too early). It might be on the Labour list in 15 years, it might even be on the Tory list in 15 years, who knows. I was more on about the list of 10 topics, I'd say most of them are still on the table to some degree, would be in the near future, or the Labour version of those is probably going to be better for those who need it, than what the Tories are proposing for those topics. There's only point 5, nationalisation which I'm not mad on (not now at least), but I'd need to see the numbers/ ROI and what it would be at the expense of (basically need the costed manifesto).

KS website still has point 5 on it, that may come off the table it may come back on, you don't know either way, I'm not all that bothered either way.

 

[Andy_W]

When you say 1900 do you mean the year, or 7pm last night? Hard to tell with you. "Times change". Okay. So what's changed that now means I should support the failing privatised models we have for utilities and rail? What's changed that I should suddenly not want corporation tax increasing? In reality the answer is f*ck all.

That's fine. But you have to accept that other people who pay closer attention more regularly than you do might have more relevant observations in that case.

1) that's dumb and 2) it's not an accurate reflection of what's happened.

It's dumb because you shouldn't just want and expect every party policy to constantly be flip flopping around automatically. If there's a good reason why a new policy is somehow more desirable that's one thing. You shouldn't just want policies in and out for the sake of it because time has passed.

It's not accurate because we're not talking about a few amendments here and there. Starmer produced a list of 10 pledges. They were the basis of people voting him as leader of the party. As soon as he got that, he's reversed every single one of them. They're the exact opposite.

More so 1900 in date, less so 1900 in time. Not much has changed since 7pm last night...I think

I'm not saying support privatised models, I'm saying now might be the wrong time to buy them back.

I don't think raising CT is a great Idea (not for smaller businesses at least) and it would either mean a tiny short term gain in £ or more likely a longer term loss as companies become even further less competitive. I'd be more interested in cutting tax avoidance, or maybe adjusting the CT system to tax larger companies at a higher rate, and smaller at a lower rate.

You pay more attention to things which matter less, I pay more attention to whether it's looking like we're going to win or not, and what goes into the manifesto, how that's costed and how that compares to the Tory version, and if it's possible to win with that manifesto. I also pay attention to what is going on in the world, and wonder how policies could change to suit or deal with that.

Covid/ War/ Inflation/ Energy problems/ Government problems, I'd say they've changed a lot of things, and they would effect decisions on a lot of thing, as would most (on all areas of the political compass).

I don't want flip flopping, but I expect some big changes when big things happen, and expect priorities to change.

He didn't reverse it as soon as he published it on Feb 12, 2020, and you were probably criticising it back then too. The list is still on his website FFS, when he publishes a list of the exact opposites to those 10 then I'll say you were correct, but it's not going to happen. He might withdraw the list he might water it down, who knows, and I'll look forward to seeing it. If anything major happens after, I'll expect it may change.

 

[Nano]

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.

How is making investments that have a positive ROI not fiscally responsible?

How is subsidising private companies to underpay staff and skim off profits while charging high prices to customers fiscally responsible?

These are nonsense arguments. Saying nationalise without backing it up without any data could be hammered. Saying this is how much it would cost to do X, this is how long it would take to be profitable, this is how much it will affect the prices the public pay. You can't argue with that. The media can't claim that is fiscally irresponsible. They might have done hat in the past but the presentation is as important as the content. They can clam what they want if you publish it in a 100 page document and nobody will read it but put the 3 things above in a Graphic on Twitter/Facebook etc and it's easily understood and then any criticism is easily deflected.

 

[SuperStu]

but also appreciate we've got bigger problems to solve first.

Andy all your analysis relies on being a person who doesn't pay attention to the UKs politics day to day. Starmer dropping policies like nationalising utlities isn't because it mattered in 2020 and doesn't now. If anything it matters more now.

Honestly if you genuinely buy in to this idea that Starmers releasing policies based on whats most important you're off your head. Nationalise utilities out, covid savings bonds in. These bigger problems we need to solve first must be that everyone has too much money, following your logic.

 

[Laughing]

I can only assume those with pure ideological aspirations are happy seeing our government enter the people trafficking business and starving our kids.

 

[Chris_Boro]

How is making investments that have a positive ROI not fiscally responsible?

How is subsidising private companies to underpay staff and skim off profits while charging high prices to customers fiscally responsible?

These are nonsense arguments. Saying nationalise without backing it up without any data could be hammered. Saying this is how much it would cost to do X, this is how long it would take to be profitable, this is how much it will affect the prices the public pay. You can't argue with that. The media can't claim that is fiscally irresponsible. They might have done hat in the past but the presentation is as important as the content. They can clam what they want if you publish it in a 100 page document and nobody will read it but put the 3 things above in a Graphic on Twitter/Facebook etc and it's easily understood and then any criticism is easily deflected.

Here's a link to just before the last election which perfectly explains the majority of voters opinions on re nationalisation...

Labour economic policies are popular, so why aren’t Labour? | YouGov

Economic competence, Jeremy Corbyn and Brexit could all be bigger negatives for Labour than their policies are a positive

yougov.co.uk

Labour tried to explain the costs but got hammered as being way too low and couldn't answer how it would effect the value of the pensions tied up in them.

The policies were popular but the majority of voters didn't believe it was possible and they certainly didn't want to pay for it in taxation.

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.

 

[SuperStu]

The list is still on his website FFS, when he publishes a list of the exact opposites to those 10 then I'll say you were correct, but it's not going to happen.

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?

 

[SuperStu]

I can only assume those with pure ideological aspirations are happy seeing our government enter the people trafficking business and starving our kids.

Stupid comment. Works both ways doesn't it?

Why wouldn't Starmer simply keep a couple of the popular, socialist policies that he actually has a mandate for as party leader and give the left something, anything to get on board with? The answer is because of his faction's "pure ideological aspirations".

 

[InglebyUTB]

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.

Name some left wing MPs who told people to vote Tory

Name same left wing MPs given peerages by the Tories

Name some left wing MPs who've screamed at Starmer in the HOC

 

[HolgateCorner]

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.



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!

Nationalisation would cost a fortune, it would be an open goal for the Tories with their thousand and one reasons the country can’t afford a Labour Government. Nationalisation will be popular with the voters until the Tories say it will increase taxation.

It’s a Tory elephant trap, but then you know that already don’t you?

 

[InglebyUTB]

Stupid comment. Works both ways doesn't it?

Why wouldn't Starmer simply keep a couple of the popular, socialist policies that he actually has a mandate for as party leader and give the left something, anything to get on board with? The answer is because of his faction's "pure ideological aspirations".

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.

 

[Chris_Boro]

Nationalisation would cost a fortune, it would be an open goal for the Tories with their thousand and one reasons the country can’t afford a Labour Government. Nationalisation will be popular with the voters until the Tories say it will increase taxation.

It’s a Tory elephant trap, but then you know that already don’t you?

Absolutely this.

Labour promising everything would simply allow the Tories to spend the entire General Election attacking Labour's manifesto costs while ignoring their own and their record in Government.

Which is exactly what happened in 2019.

 

[SuperStu]

Nationalisation would cost a fortune, it would be an open goal for the Tories with their thousand and one reasons the country can’t afford a Labour Government.

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!

 

[InglebyUTB]

Nationalisation would cost a fortune, it would be an open goal for the Tories with their thousand and one reasons the country can’t afford a Labour Government. Nationalisation will be popular with the voters until the Tories say it will increase taxation.

It’s a Tory elephant trap, but then you know that already don’t you?

You've swallowed the Tory lies on economics I'm afraid.

To solve challenges of climate and national infrastructure we're going to have to nationalise many industries sooner or later, corporations will always prioritise profit and shareholder dividends above what's good for the planet and the people of this country, so they don't have the solutions to these challenges.

These companies make hundreds of millions in profits, so this money can instead go to the treasury.

Rail is the easiest one to do and we'd simply just wait for the franchises to expire and take them into public ownership, and those profits and shareholder profits then come to us.

 

[Ziggy]

We live, essentially in a one party state, represented by two parties. So it’s in both their interests that the status quo be maintained. Any chance of an semi radical alternative to what serves both will, and has been strangled at birth.
It didn’t take a political science degree to understand that Corbyn was “never, ever going to be allowed to run the country” The venom which May used at the dispatch box when she uttered that phrase to his face was something.
So everything is now stabilised again. Forget any chance PR, it again threatens the cosy relationships.
Truss if she wins, at the moment looks scary, but she will be pulled back into line.
Starmer, if he wins an election, is proving already he doesn’t want to make waves.
Cynical? moi. Absolutely

 

[SuperStu]

Labour promising everything

give the left something, anything to get on board with?

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.

 

[Andy_W]

How is making investments that have a positive ROI not fiscally responsible?

How is subsidising private companies to underpay staff and skim off profits while charging high prices to customers fiscally responsible?

These are nonsense arguments. Saying nationalise without backing it up without any data could be hammered. Saying this is how much it would cost to do X, this is how long it would take to be profitable, this is how much it will affect the prices the public pay. You can't argue with that. The media can't claim that is fiscally irresponsible. They might have done hat in the past but the presentation is as important as the content. They can clam what they want if you publish it in a 100 page document and nobody will read it but put the 3 things above in a Graphic on Twitter/Facebook etc and it's easily understood and then any criticism is easily deflected.

Depends when you start to get that ROI, what it's costing to finance that initial buy out, whether you could get a better/ quicker ROI elsewhere at the time, or if spending elsewhere might actually save some/ more lives or tackle a bigger problem.

For example, I'll use rail as that's closest to public ownership, so easiest I suppose. Rail fares are like 2% profit, now of course you can increase staff wages, lets call that a 10% raise, but then you're making a 0.5% loss, and the cost of fares also goes up.

Most places with low rail fares are subsidising those fares in general, I'm not saying we can't do this, but most of the public, especially outside London or the South won't get value for money from that. At the minute, with our ticketing system, late ticket buyers who can't buy early are subsidising those who can buy them early (I think the gap on this is too wide).

 

[HolgateCorner]

You've swallowed the Tory lies on economics I'm afraid.

To solve challenges of climate and national infrastructure we're going to have to nationalise many industries sooner or later, corporations will always prioritise profit and shareholder dividends above what's good for the planet and the people of this country, so they don't have the solutions to these challenges.

These companies make hundreds of millions in profits, so this money can instead go to the treasury.

Rail is the easiest one to do and we'd simply just wait for the franchises to expire and take them into public ownership, and those profits and shareholder profits then come to us.

You have to live in the real world of how people perceive and see these things.

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.

 

[WeeGord]

Name some left wing MPs who told people to vote Tory

Name same left wing MPs given peerages by the Tories

Name some left wing MPs who've screamed at Starmer in the HOC

Ronnie Campbell was telling people to vote Tory to get Brexit done.

If you can't see that elements of the left have become toxic its because you're trying hard not to look because there are people amongst their number determined to stop a Labour government.