Starmer is not toxic in the way Corbyn was, complete opposite really, Mr invisible. It wasn't a bad result for Labour, and what did you expect him to say, it was really close and we scraped in. As for Galloway, it's all about Galloway end of.
Mr invisible.
This.
Mr forgettable.
A good candidate won though, which looking at much of the make up of parliament at the moment, is very much to be welcomed.
Yeah Starmer isn't exactly setting out a vision for voters to identify but he isn't imo Mr invisible in the way the LibDem leader is.
Both Galloway and the Tories focused heavily on Starmer with Galloway's 'curtains for Starmer' and the Tories only refering to Kim Leadbeater as 'Starmer's candidate' which suggests they saw Starmer as Labour's greatest weakness.
Between them they got over 50% of the vote so presumably it struck a chord with many of their voters.
Time will tell if hanging on to a Labour seat midterm marks a change in Labour's fortunes.
https://unherd.com/2021/07/batley-wont-save-labour/
SKS needs to build a coherent team with something to say ASAP. Otherwise the risk is that the LibDem collapse pales against the the Labour collapse
I don't think he has the team or the skillset to get basic messages out there in a way that will make an impact. He is too managerial and his rhetorical style that of a lawyer.
First thing I've heard that I'm into.
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1411626397647376385?s=19
Global markets have lots of problems associated with them, and taken a big knock. We've become too reliant on imported goods.
I like this - it will speak to the working class and makes a lot of sense post-Brexit and pandemic.
Tories will bloody hate it as it splits the nationalism right down the middle in the face of cheap global markets that they love to exploit. As consumers we might have to spend a bit more but that ought to be considered a good thing.
This was very much a Corbyn position.
Yeah, saw that earlier. The ‘details’ of the policy, such as they are, seem sound… public sector procurement to be more biased towards using UK based companies… but the top line message is weak in my opinion (and easily misinterpreted in the way you have to be a more general protectionist policy and an apologist’s approach to higher costs and less choice for consumers because of the costs and barriers that are rising due to the B word).
Anyway, my flippant reply an hour ago…
https://twitter.com/spittingcat/status/1411649771891216386?s=20
It seems like this is just pragmatism really, no?
I know that a lot in the labour party are deeply uncomfortable with what will inevitably be viewed as 'pandering to nationalists' but the reality is that there is a mood of increased nationalism in this country. To ignore that fact is just going to doom you to permanent opposition.
The Tory's nationalism is obvious in it's crass, flag-waving but there's little, if any substance to it. In fact if you look at fishing, farming etc, whole swathes of the British economy is being sold down the river in favour of cheap imports in the desperation for trade deals
So, having read this this morning, it seems like its an acceptance that Brexit is now a done deal, its irreversible, but now the labour party has to offer a better future in a Britain out of the EU.
Whether it'll work or not is anybodies guess. Its a big gamble, but it at least now Labour are stopping hiding from the subject in the 'don't mention the war' fashion that has existed up until now, thus just leaving the Tory's free to occupy the area totally unopposed
Add in a more local or regional aspect to this “public procurement focussed on homegrown companies” policy and you basically have the 1990s onwards German strategy. It also has medium to long term benefits, so even if Labour did get into power, it would be hard for them to trumpet the success of such an approach when trying to get re-elected. Still, it is the right approach.
It’s also designed to prepare the Labour Party for a reversal of policies on public ownership… by focussing on what can be done by changing how things are procured from the private sector, rather than whether they should be provided by the public sector instead. The first real hint of a return of Blairism, if you like.
It’s not really about being against “global markets” as regards what the public see on the shelves though, although I agree that would be popular with a certain section of voters they need to win back.
Binners shouldnt you be sticking up a picture of an Austin Princess or something?
Good policy, more like this and a comeback is on. It exposes the Tories Nationalism as paper thin.
Binners shouldnt you be sticking up a picture of an Austin Princess or something?
I can if you want. Nobody is talking about nationalising anything here though, are they?
That was the point of posting up pictures like this is because they were the product of the basket-case that was British Leyland, surely the tombstone of nationalised industries
And rightly or wrongly, when people looked at the labour party under the last leadership, with the spectre of Red Len in the background, a lot of people immediately thought 'Austin Allegro'
I can if you want. Nobody is talking about nationalising anything here though, are they?
Quite the opposite. Which, in terms of electability, is probably the right move. Sadly.
It's just one of those things though, isn't it?
Anyone with half a brain knows that utilities etc should be publicly owned and not handed as private monopolies to profiteers, but as soon as you mention the the 'N' word people automatically picture a broken down, poo-brown Austin Allegro, then Len McCluskey laughing like a Bond Villain as he calls the workforce out on strike for the third time that week
Getting elected promising one thing and doing another when elected is fine though as the Tories prove over and over.
& For me subsidising Nissan etc to be here is fine, even better if these subsidies could be replaced with the promise to buy x amount of cars for the police.
BUT imo there are votes to be won in nationalising water/rail/energy infrastructure. Maybe just start with one of the above though.
lot of people immediately thought ‘Austin Allegro’
That's thanks to people like you who deliberately mislead with false statements.
British Leyland was part-nationalised in 1975 for a relatively short period of time. The part-nationalisation was prompted by the disastrous failure of the private sector and the catastrophic loss of jobs doing nothing would have entailed.
The Austin Allegro was designed pre-nationalisation and therefore the product of the private sector.
Indeed it was the lack of new designs to replace outdated ones, whilst BL was fully privately owned, which was later to have such a crippling effect BL. It takes several years to design and start production of a new model.
The Austin Allegro was the tombstone of the basket case that was the privately owned car manufacturers.
And btw
Anyone with half a brain knows....
Is that what it's about?
That all may well be true Ernie (its classic British short-termism - creaming off profits and putting nothing back in to product development), but it's certainly not what the perception is.
And thats the only thing that matters really, isn't it?
If you ask most people what they think of nationlised industries I bet 90%+ immediately think of what I described and a tiny minority what you've just stated.
The 3 day week happened under the Tory's, but the common perception is that it was Labours fault
That’s thanks to people like you who deliberately mislead with false statements.
I think thats unfair Ernie, more of a useful idiot. 😉
In an ideal world utilities would be run as not for profit for the people. In reality we tried that and created hulking great beaucracies which were union riddled, poorly managed, poor value for money and still provided a terrible level of service, yet alone invested for the future.
I'll grant you today's system is hardly perfect but there is some regulation and future provisioning, when the water industry was privatised they were forced to upgrade large elements of a basically a Victorian system. If you want to take a pop art privatised services start with the incompetents that set the contracts and regulate the industry. That would be government again, you know the public sector.
That all may well be true Ernie
It is true. The Austin Allegro was designed before BL was part-nationalised, unless someone with half a brain can explain it to me I can't understand why you have brought it up.
EDIT : Sorry mate I was being disingenuous you've explained why. Apparently it's because it's a well-known myth peddled by right-wingers and therefore it's okay to repeat it even though it's not true.
I know that a lot in the labour party are deeply uncomfortable with what will inevitably be viewed as ‘pandering to nationalists’
It's not really, it's just good economic sense overall.
The global economy does have a lot to answer for generally and no one says we can't have both.
It's hardly protectionism either really.
However let's not kid ourselves this was very much front and centre of Corbyn's 2019 programme which boiled the piss of many a centrist commentator.
https://twitter.com/johnmcdonnellMP/status/1411606027448029191?s=19
It's good that they are coming up with something useful. I've got common ground here and there has to be something post-Brexit other than cheap meat deals.
Quite the opposite. Which, in terms of electability, is probably the right move. Sadly.
Might not be Nationalised in name but plenty of institutions get money from the government via the slightly dodgy back door.
State-corporatism.
Nationalisation makes a lot of sense these days and will certainly.be making a come back at some point.
The Tory’s nationalism is obvious in it’s crass, flag-waving but there’s little, if any substance to it.
This.
And leaves a nice opening for Labour to exploit with real meat on the bones.
If you want to “build it in Britain”, you either need to free up manufacturers from the red tape and cost put in place by Brexit, or subsidise them, or both.
But this ‘new’ policy isn’t about that, it is just adopting the policy that most national governments put in place over the last 30 years… to heavily prioritise local private contractors and providers in state run and funded projects.
The problem with anything that is nationalised is that it becomes political.
I agree that critical infrastructure shouldn't be run for profit though. The problem with much investment is that the return is slow. Governments are interested in the next election, not 20 years down the road. But it is this type of planning and investment that is needed.
Needs to be devolved.
My purchasing guide is:
Union Jack - put it back.
Welsh dragon - get in mun
In an ideal world utilities would be run as not for profit for the people. In reality we tried that and created hulking great beaucracies which were union riddled, poorly managed, poor value for money and still provided a terrible level of service, yet alone invested for the future.
Working in a power station that was built by the SSEB that is definitely not the case. All the problems that manifested themselves over the years were a result of privatisation.
I'm not sure what your problem with unionisation is, I'd certainly have preferred it if they weren't just there in name only when we got ****ed over on our pensions. Another legacy of a successful nationalised company sold to the private sector.
We also never privatised our water industry and it seems to be doing okay.
I don't disagree with the concept but it's rather underwhelming if this is the big idea he's been working on.
Oh, and for those who claim the 'war on the left' is a myth, have a look at some of the quotes in this article.(maybe done already, I don't keep up):
In an ideal world utilities would be run as not for profit for the people. In reality we tried that and created hulking great beaucracies which were union riddled, poorly managed, poor value for money and still provided a terrible level of service, yet alone invested for the future.
This is utter bollox - its the right wing propaganda!
Nationalised utilities were cheaper and performed better than private ones. always.
The other issue being missed here is that in times of national crisis the party in power always gets a huge poll boost.
Anyone know of an example where economic autarchy worked? It's a bit like 'I'm Backing Britain', doing unpaid overtime and paying over the odds due to lost comparative advantage. Why aren't the shelves filling up with shellfish?
Nationalised utilities were cheaper and performed better than private ones. always.
Had the nationalised utilities been given the level of investment privatised ones have (often at public expense), then it's pretty obvious we'd have much better services all round. It's the neoliberal plan, to run down public services, drive down public satisfaction and trust in them, push loads of propaganda about how much better privatised services are, and then sell everything off at a discount rate. Preferably to your mates. Managed decline. Demonising unions was part of that plan, and as evident here, that propaganda was extremely effective. So we're now in a situation where the profits from some of our privatised utilities and services, actually help subsidise other nations' state run counterparts. Yet we still end up paying to subsidise our privatised ones. Great.
Nationalised utilities were cheaper and performed better than private ones. always
Northern Ireland nearly went dry a few years ago
Glasgow used to get crypto boil water notices remarkably frequently recently
The water industry has more than one model of ownership, some have worked better than others, they also have different regulators, different issues and priorities
The average age of the infrastructure of all these companies is getting older, pipes and sewers aren't being replaced or rehabbed at anywhere near the pace we need, the can is getting kicked down the road again and again
But that's an argument for investment in maintaining existing infrastructure and replacing when necessary. The reason water companies are having to fix old Victorian plumbing etc, is because it should have been done decades ago. Nationalised industries didn't 'fail' because they were nationalised. They failed because of a lack of investment. Because successive governments preferred to spend public money on things like wars and tax breaks for their rich chums instead. If you see public utilities only in economic terms, then you are missing their true value to society. So a bus service is 'unprofitable'; it's still of great value to those who rely on it. This is why society needs to have control of such services. This is why nationalisation is crucial.
. Nationalised industries didn’t ‘fail’ because they were nationalised. They failed because of a lack of investment.
because you are competing with all the other spending priorities, health, pensions, etc The costs in E&W were essentially outsourced to the new water companies who then "taxed" people through their water bills with a regulator charged with managing the investments, outputs and customer bills. The regulation has evolved and could have been stronger and will need to be stronger still. For example most water companies drought plans are built on assets that don't work and which the regulator turns a blind eye to
publicly owned NI didn't invest and almost went dry
publicly owned Scotland is like E&W twenty years ago relying on plenty of water resource and a very long coastline and a complicit regulatory regime. Water consumption per head in Scotland is higher than E&W as is leakage
Because successive governments preferred to spend public money on things like wars and tax breaks for their rich chums instead
and because until 1976 water was not seen as important and until we had to implement the water framework directive in the eighties sewage wasn't important
because you are competing with all the other spending priorities, health, pensions, etc The costs in E&W were essentially outsourced to the new water companies
And guess what - they don't need to.
The government doesn't have a finite amount of pounds limited by spending quantity (it may make political decisions on the priority of what to spend. But it's not becaue of lack of money.)
So much rubbish we have swallowed over the last 40 years.
This idea of Government spending being limited by not enough £££ is causing so much unnecessary pain to society.
We need to crack it wide open.
(The water companies don't really offer much competition do they?)
The water companies don’t really offer much competition do they?
The problem with water is that people drink it and industry manufactures with it, so providing competition in terms of core product is hard due to the need to manage quality as well as taste and odour issues. Sewerage is even harder although on site treatment works for some. Add in SEMD and it gets even more difficult. Retail is really thin margins the Cave report view was that household competition would add £50 to everyone's bill for no service improvement, the non household market in E&W is failing due to lack of margin and financial risk. In Scotland it's a lot easier due to a higher tariff starting point and therefore higher margin.
The industry has a diverse ownership model and that needs to be used more to show what works and what doesn't and then apply regulation around the best in class pushing the others to step up. However the metrics are complex and gaming has happened. There are also historical issues with the state of the assets or lack thereof
Cost of debt was traditionally where water companies outperformed to get shareholder returns, that's now a lot tighter. The ODI mechanism is still clunky.
One Day International?
Some kinds of bigotry are more important than others eh. Imagine if JC had said anything similar to some of Phillips' statements about Muslims. And yet...
But Muslims are not Jews. Muslims seems to be fair play (see Tories and a lot of people in this country)
Nationalised utilities were cheaper and performed better than private ones. always
Not sure any data would back that up and the data would no doubt be very hard to compare anyway.
Privatisation can work but it has to be heavily governed and controlled (which it never is)
The competition can bring more innovation and efficiency because it is necessary to survive versus a nationalised company that doesn't really need to think about it as money will still come in.
Not when its a natural monopoly kerley like utilities. There is no competition
Well there is as two different operations could vie for it. I am very into nationalisation but I do see failings in it that need to be and can be fixed.
Some kinds of bigotry are more important than others eh. Imagine if JC had said anything similar to some of Phillips’ statements about Muslims. And yet…
Two Muslim Labour MPs have expressed concern over these offensive comments, yet Starmer has remained silent. Which kind of makes a mockery of Labour's anti-racism pledges.
"Zarah Sultana, the Labour MP for Coventry South, said many of Phillips’ comments “should be unequivocally condemned”. She added: “Before readmittance, the party must at the very least require a full retraction and apology. Anything less makes a mockery of the idea that the party takes Islamophobia seriously and signals contempt for our Muslim supporters.”"
I like Zarah. One of the few Labour MPs who do actually seem sincere and genuinely concerned about actual people. But Zarah has been outspoken in support for ordinary Palestinian people, so we can probably expect her to be labelled an 'anti-Semite' at some stage. Labour are being played by the divide and rule politics of the right, and seem ignorant/oblivious to this, which is deeply worrying. The less thoughtful will seize on this as an opportunity to 'prove' that Jews/Zionists/Israel 'control' the Labour party, and this will only help to deepen already chasmic divisions. In north London, people have been arrested over shouting anti-Semitic abuse from cars, in areas with Jewish communities. The polarisation of such politics is something the Labour leader needs to address, alongside the dog-whistle racism of the likes of Hodge and Burnham.
Meanwhile, Diane Abbott writes something meaningful, and it gets ignored:
https://labourlist.org/2021/06/the-government-assault-on-refugee-rights-must-not-go-unchallenged/
Where's Sir Keith on this? Oh, silent, as usual. Funny, that, for a former Human Rights lawyer...
It's almost as if, given that we're still in the grip of a pandemic, the labour leadership think that there are more important things to be talking about, of far more relevance to your average voter than impotently banging on about Palestine yet again, and instigating another round of pointless blood-letting about antisemitism
That's a pretty mad concept to get your head around, I know.
I thought you were concerned about the rise in fascism, Binners? Do you not think that a Labour party committed to fighting fascism, as is the Labour tradition, after all, should be challenging fascistic regimes such as Israel, India's Modi government, Saudi Arabia, etc? Why is it only the (lefty) backbenchers that are making any kind of noise about this?
Palestine is obviously an important issue for a lot of British Muslims. There are nearly 3 million of them, apparently. 3 million is a sizeable number. The kind of number you might need, to win a parliamentary majority. Do you not think it important that Labour try to win voters, rather than losing them?
