Forum menu
I think its more just Starmer isnt doing anything noticeable. What we need is someone to come up with a hilarious gag that they repeat everytime Starmer is invisible. Maybe he is busy down the allotments? Bonus points for a few crap photos as well.
As Napoleon once said never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake, the press and opposition are desperate to get soundbites they can use to quieten anything about partygate, displaced Ukrainians, etc.
History has shown us that once in office Labour leaders become much more right-wing. There is nothing to suggest that in the extremely unlikely event of Labour winning the next general election Starmer will behave any different.
Has history shown us that, which specific examples do you have and how far back are you going.
As Labour have only been in power a few times it is difficult to draw the conclusion you have.
The only things that matter are that Labour has been consistently ahead in the polls for months now
Just a reminder that this hasnt been reflected in actual results. You know the thing that actually matters in the real world? The results have, been to put it politely, shit.
Try and be honest with yourself for once. If it was Corbyn in charge now you would be blowing your mind ranting and raving and regurgitating whatever shite the hard right press had dreamt up today.
The vote-repelling idealogical purity of ‘The Left’ put paid to that
And voila we have the mindless regurgitation of the hard right attack lines.
Expand on that and give examples. Not just moronic soundbites.
Has history shown us that?
Blair and Brown will never been forgiven for their treachery in winning elections
And in reply to any question regarding 13 years in power...
IRAQ!!
🙄
And voila we have the mindless regurgitation of the hard right attack lines.
Ah yes... and we're back to the usual
Anyone who doesn't believe in the great socialist dawn that was so unfairly snatched away from the anointed one in 2017 is a fascist?
The 2017 election was a nightmare scenario for the tories due to Brexit and everything else, and they still won enough to keep going, even worse, it brought us Boris as the PM.
You do realise that the Tories had absolutely no need whatsoever to call a general election in 2017, don't you?
There had been a general election just 2 years earlier and they had a very comfortable working majority.
Just to remind you.
I get the feeling a few on here hark back to the 70s
Nope. I don't know about anyone else but I'm looking forward. Forward at a looming climate catastrophe and economic collapse fuelled by resource depletion and the collapse of life support systems across the planet. In the meantime we get to enjoy ever greater reduction in living standards while the rich accumulate more wealth that they can never spend. This is all the direct result of neoliberal market capitalism and barely disguised kleptocratic politics. It needs to change, and change fast or we're headed into oblivion within our lifetimes.
Anyone who doesn’t believe in the great socialist dawn that was so unfairly snatched away from the anointed one in 2017 is a fascist?
Ermm no that is not what I said. Maybe go and ask one of those sixth formers for some help in basic political comprehension. Actually scratch that probably best to start with the primary school kids since shouldnt aim to high to soon.
There had been a general election just 2 years earlier and they had a very comfortable working majority.
It is amusing to see how history has been rewritten isnt it? How the situation going into the election was immediately erased from history.
They lost! FFS!! Thats the only thing that matters!
I see. So when you said "all things are relative" you didn't mean it. Gotcha.
Nope. I don’t know about anyone else but I’m looking forward. Forward at a looming climate catastrophe and economic collapse fuelled by resource depletion and the collapse of life support systems across the planet.
Mate, we've got a party in power who has a rump of Faragist MP's who hold an enormous amount of influence, and are climate change deniers. They're presently gearing up to wage a re-run of the Brexit campaign to put paid to existing (and clearly inadequate) net zero targets.
So we need a party in power that doesn't contain a big rump of climate change denying fruitloops. Right now, thats the labour party. The one you say you can't/won't vote for
So you can vote Green and the party of climate denial can get on with its business unperturbed
They’re presently gearing up to wage a re-run of the Brexit campaign to put paid to existing (and clearly inadequate) net zero targets.
I know. And what should labour be doing about that?
Are they proposing policies to reduce carbon emissions by helping working people to transition to renewable energy, carbon free transport and other things which will reduce emissions? No.
Are they proposing policies to address the massive carbon inequality where the rich create most of the emissions due to their ridiculous lifestyles? No.
Are they proposing to bring the energy industry back in to public ownership so that they can invest in more offshore wind and other renewables without losing money to private shareholders and punishing consumers? No.
Other than the usual greenwash virtue signalling what are they going to do? I have no idea quite frankly. The only difference between them and the tories on climate policy is that the tories have given up pretending they want to do something about it.
Are they proposing policies to reduce carbon emissions by helping working people to transition to renewable energy, carbon free transport and other things which will reduce emissions? No.
Mate... laudable though all that is, I can guarantee you that right now the question on the lips of people at the local elections is 'will you make my gas bill cheaper'?
Thats just the reality
What more do you want him to do? Bearing in mind that the Tories intend to do pretty much nothing. They've always been hostile to renewables and we know why, given who's been funding them
No Labour leader would have pulled through the Brexit period. It was improssible to reconcile.
Which is why now it's extremely terrible polling for Starmer as he just doesn't have the baggage that Corbyn had.
Starmer is unlikely to win an election - so let's currently run with that thought.
You’re all insane!
What's actually insane is vile ****s like Ian Austin - John Mann etc derailling the Labour party to deliver all this sewage that has thus followed and put people through hell.
And yet Starmer has done nothing of any substance whatsoever to rebalance that. And he's still polling badly.
What more do you want him to do?
Tax breaks for people on lower incomes to buy electric cars. Massively subsidise the cost of public transport. Tax private jets and yachts out of existence. Increase tax on people who take more than one or two flights per year. Introduce tradeable carbon credits so those on lower incomes who emit less carbon can sell them to those who want to emit more. I could go on, there’s tons of stuff he could do to make net zero a progressive policy.
get the feeling a few on here hark back to the 70s and would love nothing more than a trade unionist to be at the helm of the party again, but the UK have repeatedly shown that they wouldn’t vote far left, the UK is more of a centrist country,
You are not looking at the evidence.
We have right-wing free-market set of deceitful ****s.
And the Lib-dems "The Centrists" died at the last election.
There is nothing 'centrist' about the Tories.
The country will eventually be begging for a left-wing Government because that's the only way things will ever stop declining.
Also - it's not far left - things have been screwed so much that people term far left policies as extreme. This very much a smoke screen from the lame stream media.
Change Far-left for "Good for the majority of people."
The only things that matter are that Labour has been consistently ahead in the polls for months
There's nothing consistent about a declining lead.
So we need a party in power that.....
You do realise all the opinion polls of the last couple of months show that Labour wouldn't win a general election, don't you?
They all show Labour very significantly short of a majority.....about 40 odd seats short of a majority.
How do you expect them to govern under those conditions?
Who are you going to rely on helping Starmer? The SNP? The Tories abstaining?
I know that you set the bar exceptionally low for Labour under Starmer binners but to achieve the goals which you purport to have in mind you are going to have to aim a tad higher.
Mate… laudable though all that is, I can guarantee you that right now the question on the lips of people at the local elections is ‘will you make my gas bill cheaper’?
So what are Labour offering up? Apart from the rehashed Green New Deal that was orginated by Richard Murphy/Clive Lewis/Caroline Lucas & co in 2008?
Because the Neoliberal constraints that Labour currently operate under will not let them finance it.
Mate… laudable though all that is, I can guarantee you that right now the question on the lips of people at the local elections is ‘will you make my gas bill cheaper’
And, on top of that 'Forensic' could - could suggest subsidising energy bills.
So why not - what is there to lose? Instant vote winner. Anyone who argues against it was not paying attention during the Pandemic.
Also Tax the **** out of these millionaires sucking up all the resources and commodities. That would help stem inflation.
You are not looking at the evidence.
We have right-wing free-market set of deceitful ****.
And the Lib-dems “The Centrists” died at the last election.
There is nothing ‘centrist’ about the Tories.
The country will eventually be begging for a left-wing Government because that’s the only way things will ever stop declining.
Also – it’s not far left – things have been screwed so much that people term far left policies as extreme. This very much a smoke screen from the lame stream media.
Change Far-left for “Good for the majority of people.”
Centrist as in policies, Lib Dems are central, but they have nowhere near the core voters Labour and the Conservatives do, both of which flit between the far and soft left/right, and since 1997, hell even before with Major, both parties have been soft right/left, i.e. more centrist in their policies.
As for a right wing free market, we have a free market that is not right or left wing, it's capitalism, same as the rest of the western world, you have people who are right or left, but again, they are dancing to the tune that sells their stuff and makes them profit.
I also doubt far left will ever get near power, because they simply can't provide evidence of how they will make it work, it's the same reason the Lib Dems don't win much, they can promise things they know they'll never have to actually deliver.
I also doubt far left will ever get near power
LOL! Ted Heath was proper "far left" with his revolutionary policies of publicly owned utilities!
And don't get me started on Harold McMillan "the council house builder"!
Tax breaks for people on lower incomes to buy electric cars. Massively subsidise the cost of public transport. Tax private jets and yachts out of existence. Increase tax on people who take more than one or two flights per year. Introduce tradeable carbon credits so those on lower incomes who emit less carbon can sell them to those who want to emit more. I could go on, there’s tons of stuff he could do to make net zero a progressive policy
These are great ideas and what a lot of us here on this forum would like to see. The problem is you need to get out of your bubble and see how that would look to the voting mases. Would they go for it or would they believe the lie fed to them by the RW media that all these tax breaks are for scroungers. Has Labour said they won't do these things?
Can you imagine people voting to increase the price of flights for their holiday to Benidorm?
LOL! Ted Heath was proper “far left” with his revolutionary policies of publicly owned utilities!
And don’t get me started on Harold McMillan “the council house builder”!
Different times, different people and different parties.
Ted Heath was proper “far left” with his revolutionary policies of publicly owned utilities!
And don’t get me started on Harold McMillan “the council house builder”!
If you think that either of them would have a cat in hells chance of being elected in 21st century Britain, you really are absolutely delusional.
The times you are referring to are quite literally another world
Can you imagine people voting to increase the price of flights for their holiday to Benidorm?
No but I can imagine them supporting taxing people who take multiple flights on a rising scale if it was going to subsidise their energy bills, electric cars and train fares. The whole point would be to approach net zero from a progressive standpoint. Make the rich pay for it, and help working people adapt. Currently it's the other way round, we're giving tax breaks to people who can afford a Tesla and raising national insurance.
Different times, different people and different parties.
Well the people are certainly different. The parties aren't.
And if times change what do you mean by "I also doubt far left will ever"?
I think argee the problem is that you are stuck in the 1980s and 90s.
This is the 21st century. The neo-liberal experiment has failed. Public support for nationalisation of the utilities, even among Tory voters, is huge.
you really are absolutely delusional.
Says the man who thinks that Labour can govern satisfactorily with 40 seats short of a majority....
No but I can imagine them supporting taxing people who take multiple flights on a rising scale if it was going to subsidise their energy bills, electric cars and train fares. The whole point would be to approach net zero from a progressive standpoint. Make the rich pay for it, and help working people adapt. Currently it’s the other way round, we’re giving tax breaks to people who can afford a Tesla and raising national insurance.
And this is why we'll never see a left wing government for a long time, this type of policy only has one direction in terms of benefit, and would be destroyed in any type of real debate, you might as well start calling the rich 'bourgeoisie'.
This is the 21st century. The neo-liberal experiment has failed.
In your opinion. Not one that is shared by a majority of voters, clearly. Mainly as its a ludicrous blanket statement and nobody has proposed what a viable alternative would look like that a majority would vote for
Public support for nationalisation of the utilities, even among Tory voters, is huge.
So huge that they've been offered it and rejected it at the last two elections
People may say that when asked on an internet survey, but they've shown repeatedly that when it comes to voting for it, they won't.
Well the people are certainly different. The parties aren’t.
And if times change what do you mean by “I also doubt far left will ever”?
I think argee the problem is that you are stuck in the 1980s and 90s.
This is the 21st century. The neo-liberal experiment has failed. Public support for nationalisation of the utilities, even among Tory voters, is huge.
The labour party of the 60s is completely different, same as the tories.
As for failure of 'neo-liberalism', honestly, show me where this is, we had the worst financial crash ever less than 20 years ago and where are we now, even deeper in.
As for public support for nationalisation, of course they'll support any argument that says we'll make it cheaper, but when the opposition say how much is the bill for this, and who pays it, it all goes a bit quieter. Personally i would love the UK to own it's own infrastructure, from trains to power stations, but we broke it up, sold it off and made it impossible to bring back without bankrupting the nation.
In your opinion
I feel fairly confident that it's the 21st century.
Anyway stop avoiding the question.... How are Labour going to govern with 40 or 50 seats short of a majority?
The times you are referring to are quite literally another world
No, they're a different time. The world is very much the same.
Anyway stop avoiding the question…. How are Labour going to govern with 40 or 50 seats short of a majority?
The next non-tory government will have to be a coalition. There is no alternative. And I find it incredibly frustrating that nobody within any wing of the parliamentary labour party will acknowledge this obvious truism, let alone do anything about it.
I'm hoping that when faced with it, or another Tory government, as the only two choices available, a moment of clarity might occur
Personally i would love the UK to own it’s own infrastructure, from trains to power stations, but we broke it up, sold it off and made it impossible to bring back without bankrupting the nation.
Its difficult thanks to the tories love of handing money to the rich but there are ways to slowly move back.
Trains (as in operating companies) are the easiest to do. Wait till contracts end and operate directly.
Power stations etc would be a longer slower process. Instead of handing cash over as subsidies to build basic infrastructure it can be built out directly.
this type of policy only has one direction in terms of benefit
Yes of course, the rich won't benefit from preventing catastrophic climate change, they'll all be on Mars with Elon Musk. 🙄
Also the rich benefit in other ways from progressive, redistributive policies. For a start they don't have to trip over the homeless on the way to their michelin starred restaurant, they can sleep at night knowing they contribute to the society that makes them rich, they would have a much lower chance of being mugged in the street by desperate plebs etc
and would be destroyed in any type of real debate
So any debate which proposes taxing the rich isn't 'real'? Redistributive policies used to the rule, not the exception. The fact that we've abandoned them doesn't make them any less real or relevant.
The next non-tory government will have to be a coalition.
Who are they going to go into a coalition with? Labour hate the SNP more than they hate the tories, and the Lib Dems have already proved they much prefer the tories to labour. Which, err, leaves a coalition with the tories, which when you compare the policies of the two parties makes complete sense.
The next non-tory government will have to be a coalition. There is no alternative.
Er, yes, there is ......no coalition because the SNP or LibDems won't enter into a coalition with Labour. Or the LibDems don't have enough seats to create a parliamentary majority with Labour.
Starmer could reach an agreement with other parties such as the Tories to abstain or support certain legislation. That would great wouldn't it?
Still, it's not Starmer's fault that Labour aren't more popular, that's Corbyn's fault. Or Johnson, or Putin, or Covid, or the stupid electorate. It's one of those.
Btw the latest opinion poll puts Labour on 37% and the Tories on 35%, according to the 'swingometer' if that was repeated in a general election both parties would have exactly 276 seats.
You are doing the soapbox stuff again regarding the rich, yet haven't defined who the actual 'rich' are, what is your definition, and how much tax can you bring in over and above the current level?
All your above, and previous is basically the same things that were said prior to the Bolshevik revolution, and look how that turned out for everyone over the coming years and generations!
This is the 21st century. The neo-liberal experiment has failed. Public support for nationalisation of the utilities, even among Tory voters, is huge.
The biggest corporations in the world twenty years ago were Exxon Mobile, PetroChina and Commercial bank of China and right now are Apple, Google's parent co Alphabet, Microsoft and Amazon. They couldn't give a flying toss about the collapse (or otherwise) of neo-liberalism they're outwith the neo-liberal realms of laws and markets and have been busily subverting them for years now. Almost all of them give away most of their core products for free in exchange for data or subscriptions in perpetuity, and right now, they are busy creating - or at least trying to create their own currencies. Most government are trying their level best to create very anti neo-liberal laws to try to put the brakes on these giants. Whether that succeeds or not remains to be seen. The days of Govts being the largest actors on the stage economically or socially are ending already. Support for nationalisation may be high, but the rise of giant state corporations just slows down the move away from neo-liberal policies that are already being ignored by organisations that are increasingly wealthy based on the financiation of knowledge and data.
Yep, Wilkinson found that even the rich are happier in more egalitarian societies (less insecure, posh cars not getting tagged, fewer beggars). The current model is unsustainable and the old middle class is rapidly becoming the working class. Apparently Johnson's proclivities are putting a question mark over how sustainable he is long term and Starmer will find it even harder against a less hated PM.
'We're on your side.' Whose side?
All your above, and previous is basically the same things that were said prior to the Bolshevik revolution,
And look at why the revolution happened.
there is ……no coalition because the SNP or LibDems won’t enter into a coalition with Labour.
Starmer could reach an agreement with other parties such as the Tories to abstain or support certain legislation. That would great wouldn’t it?
You rule out the Labour entering a coalition with the SNP, but think they'd happily enter an agreement with the Tories?
Righto, comrade. I can really see that happening
If there was a hung parliament and there was a chance of a non-Tory government with a Labour/SNP coalition then you think that Starmer would reject that to jump into bed with the Tories instead?
Really?
You seriously, genuinely see that happening?
Theres been some utter rubbish spouted on this thread, not least by me, but thats just taken it to another level
The days of Govts being the largest actors on the stage economically or socially are ending already
The power of states have waxed and waned over time. Now is not really any different.
The British East India company had an army twice the size of the British army at its peak.
Nationalisation serves various purposes not least strategic interests.
I want Labour to be: Supporters of small business, and I want them to enact policies that mean that local govt contract to them and buys from them. I want laws that separate Unions from govts (inc labour) and I want reforms to them that demand that they play a part in defending poorly paid, part time workers as opposed to fighting for shorter hours or better wages for current members, and I want Labour to as broadly as possible extend rights and ownership of the wealth of the country We should be fighting for a proliferation of worker and community and local authority ownership of assets as a necessary mechanism for both the redistribution of productive wealth and the creation of a more robust economy
As Ernie says neo-liberalism may be dying, but what might replace it - some forms of authoritarian capitalism based on data ownership are already gaining ground, may be infinitely worse.
yet haven’t defined who the actual ‘rich’ are
I think it's fairly common sense. Given property prices have skyrocketed I think we're talking anyone who is a multimillionaire there or thereabouts. How about as an arbitrary benchmark we define it as the top 1%, which comes out at around 3.6M. I'd have another category for the uber-rich, say >100M.
and how much tax can you bring in over and above the current level?
Are you joking? Many/most of the rich pay less tax as a proportion of their total wealth than most working people. The very rich hardly pay any tax at all. And then there are the corporations who pay next to nothing. If you really think there's not much extra tax to be collected you need to be more imaginative.
Bolshevik revolution
Jesus. It's like an inverse Godwins law. Anyone who suggest the rich should pay a bit more tax is a communist. Yes of course they are. 🙄
You rule out the Labour entering a coalition with the SNP, but think they’d happily enter an agreement with the Tories?
Has the excitement of repeatedly posting nonsense affected your ability to read?
Have a go reading the post again.
Nowhere do I "rule out" a Labour SNP coalition. You on the other hand appear to believe that it is a foregone conclusion.
And nowhere do I claim that Labour would "happily enter an agreement with the Tories". If a Labour minority government has to rely on the Tories to abstain or support key legislation it's pretty damn obvious that the Tories will have the Labour government by the bollocks.
Theres been some utter rubbish spouted on this thread, not least by me
Just once in a while you post something which we can both agree on 😜
dazh
Full Member
yet haven’t defined who the actual ‘rich’ areI think it’s fairly common sense. Given property prices have skyrocketed I think we’re talking anyone who is a multimillionaire there or thereabouts. How about as an arbitrary benchmark we define it as the top 1%, which comes out at around 3.6M. I’d have another category for the uber-rich, say >100M.
and how much tax can you bring in over and above the current level?
Are you joking? Many/most of the rich pay less tax as a proportion of their total wealth than most working people. The very rich hardly pay any tax at all. And then there are the corporations who pay next to nothing. If you really think there’s not much extra tax to be collected you need to be more imaginative.
Bolshevik revolution
Jesus. It’s like an inverse Godwins law. Anyone who suggest the rich should pay a bit more tax is a communist. Yes of course they are. 🙄
So taxing people based on their household, rather than their earnings, you say fairly common sense and state the ONS household wealth?
You then make a blanket statement about the rich barely paying tax at all, but then don't use the same statistics from ONS to show the top 1% pay around 30 or so % of the tax revenue in the UK.
As for Godwin's Law, you've been the one vocal about the rich dining at michelin starred restaurants whilst stepping over the homeless and living in their palaces, you have a clear hatred for the rich, for no other reason than being rich.
you have a clear hatred for the rich, for no other reason than being rich.
No I hate the rich who don't earn their wealth. I hate the rich who don't pay their fair share of tax. I hate the rich who have more money than they can ever spend and do nothing with it. I hate the rich who look down on the poor and think they're better. I hate the rich who think they're entitled by birth to the wealth they have. And I hate the rich who live as if their behaviour and lives have no consequences on the rest of the planet and the people, flora and fauna who they share it with.
In short, if you've earned your wealth, pay your taxes, use your money for productive stuff and don't think you're better than everyone else then crack on and good luck.
Btw the latest opinion poll puts Labour on 37% and the Tories on 35%
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1509547035007098884
Don't you be coming on this thread and be spoiling the mood of spirit-crushingly depressing pessimism
I wouldn't get too optimistic, it would still be a hung parliament I think.
Its still nowhere near doom-laden enough
Now go and have a think about what it is that you've just done
A 7% lead is the best opinion poll lead for Labour in about a month, the recent average lead has been about 3%
According to the swingometer that would give Labour a fantastic, 25 seat short, majority. Time to start celebrating binners...... what better news could there be than the possibility of Labour not quite winning a general election?
And the poll was conducted 28-30 March, a period which covers the news that Downing Street faces unprecedented fines for illegal activities.
Which obviously gave Labour a huge boost and explains the only 25 seat short of a majority prediction.
With increasing reluctance I vote SNP. Not sure I'd vote SNP if it enables a Keir Starmer government.
A solid chunk of lib dem votes are tactical anti labour votes. A 'progressive (sic) alliance' is a chimera and one of the ways the Labour Party dies.
Tax breaks for people on lower incomes to buy electric cars. Massively subsidise the cost of public transport.
Free/ very cheap electric car for every carer who drives for part of their job. We dont pay them enough so...
A 7% lead is the best opinion poll lead for Labour in about a month, the recent average lead has been about 3%
I don't trust polling, they get every election wrong by a margin. With this Tory government being the worst shitshow of a govt I can remember I reckon Labour are further ahead than this. Surely to Christ they are further ahead?!
They are in London. Apparently Labour has a 30% lead over the Tories in London.
That will be the metropolitan Islington trendy leftie politico types that binners despises and rants so much about ....with their allotments and grey beards.
Not like the salt of the earth clog dancing pie-eating northern types.
nickc
Full Member
I wouldn’t get too optimistic, it would still be a hung parliament I think.
I get the feeling that some on here believe that if it's not Angela Rayner and Len McCluskey leading labour at the next election then it might as well be the tories running the country anyway.
I used to live opposite the marble steps in Corbyn's constituency, it does tickle me how the people in that area are ludicrously stereotyped on here but hey, there's no accounting for folk.
I found this interesting. I realise some of you will dismiss it as 2 centrists patting each other on the back. Others will find it worthwhile.
I did listen to it and you were correct how you described it.
I still know nothing more about Starmer's attitude or his vision that might change lives in a meaningful way.
Surely to Christ they are further ahead?!
Proper street language that.
Don’t you be coming on this thread and be spoiling the mood of spirit-crushingly depressing pessimism
'Cos there's isn't anything remotely good to look forward to currently.
Lord Master Starmer is just not offering up anything to be optimistic about.
The very definition of nothing.
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1509575284911136774?t=q4mSsyB-F4JaCqq6tHQIVw&s=19
Centrism - vote for us to send a message.
I still know nothing more about Starmer’s attitude or his vision that might change lives in a meaningful way.
Surely he mentioned that his dad was a toolmaker?
Own up, who is it?
https://twitter.com/fesshole/status/1509627851875704838?s=21&t=qvxEf5_Lp7LMk5LHaOwGTg
That could be so many people on here
What was that derogatory term for STW? Same Ten .......
That's a very lofty thing for you to say.
With reference to my comment earlier :
I think argee the problem is that you are stuck in the 1980s and 90s.
This is the 21st century. The neo-liberal experiment has failed.
I have just learnt that as of tomorrow a quarter of rail operations in the UK will be run by the public sector :
https://www.therailwayhub.co.uk/63009/quarter-of-train-journeys-on-services-run-by-public-sector/
"The current situation is a sharp contrast with four years ago, when no operators were in public hands. Issues with finances or performance have led to a growth in public sector operation."
The railways failed because of the lack of profit the companies could actually make whilst running a poor service, it's one of the biggest failures this country has ever seen, and still dealing with, the liabilities that are now back in the hands of the taxpayer is not good, and probably the only reason these franchises haven't been relet.
As stated earlier, i would love us to own the railways, power, etc, but not in their current state, or at their current cost, the railways have been run into the ground in the last 30 years, they were already in a poor state prior to privatisation, it's even worse when you look at the rest of what we've sold off, how it's been asset stripped, run down or just binned.
Clearly not everything should/can be run at a profit. Run things efficiently of course as better for everyone but trying to actually make a profit make shareholders happy etc,. should not be anywhere near common services.
The railways failed because of the lack of profit the companies could actually make whilst running a poor service
An interesting, and completely wrong analysis on why rail privatisation failed. It didn't fail because the rail companes couldn't make enough money, it failed because applying market ideology to something that is inherently monopolistic is utterly f****** stupid. Same goes for the energy industry, water and a whole host of other things where the consumer doesn't have any real choice but to use these services. Privatisation of strategic infrastructure is a scam operated to enrich shareholders. That is literally it's only purpose.
Clearly not everything should/can be run at a profit. Run things efficiently of course as better for everyone but trying to actually make a profit make shareholders happy etc,. should not be anywhere near common services.
Absolutely this. There is no need.
Efficiency on spending to offer the best services by apparently allocating resources better is a complete myth for the private sector - certainly on the large scale.
And the NHS and the like doesn't need to be efficient. By design the government can afford it.
Everything is wrapped around this idea of spending money wisely because it's finite.
Sure spend well but that shouldn't be the priority - especially when the private sector does such a dismal job with public money.
In lots of ways the pandemic has accelerated the need for public services and both Labour and the Tories have their head in the sand over the future, and the required investment.
Whoever spends big now will win big later.
The future needs to be redefined and both political parties don't have the imagination or competence to take us through.
I can't street enough we are at the turning point for Thatcher's 40 year experiment - which has run its course and done the damage, and shown to be moving in the opposite direction for society's needs.
Someone needs to have the balls to stand up and make this call, and fend off our horrific establishment press.
Surely he mentioned that his dad was a toolmaker?
Yep. Think there was a lot about his mum. Fair enough.
But what are you going to do about anything Starmzy?
Same goes for the energy industry, water and a whole host of other things where the consumer doesn’t have any real choice but to use these services. Privatisation of strategic infrastructure is a scam operated to enrich shareholders. That is literally it’s only purpose.
Water particularly bothers me.
You don't actually get a choice to buy from a different service provider!
There's no market at all as far as I can tell.
Also Friday night rant - if I hear one more liberal politician say windfall tax on energy companies...
They don't need to do that. It would take ages to legislate anyway. You are actually putting a block in the way by asking for a windfall tax..
Bloody Ed Milliband and some Libdemmer going on about it.
See the problem tax is needee to pay for things causes?
Just subsidise the cost.