Sir! Keir! Starmer!

As stated before, polls are a bit pointless just now, there is nothing to gauge against, they’re asking a hypothetical question which only one party has actually done, for all the moaning about government, only the tories have done it in the last decade, and it’s boris who is shaking hands with world leaders and in the news daily for

I think they're a useful way to gauge sentiment especially when the incumbent is so useless.

So I don't agree.

Or the other alternative is that it’s all Starmers fault for not being left wing enough

Don't call left wing if you like - call it pushing back against the Tories.

For those wondering if Labour spectacularly losing a safe Labour council last week was all due the total incompetence of the blairite clique that controlled it, here is a comment which highlights another reason that should concern the party nationally :

In Croydon’s last remaining ‘Spoons pub, a newly re-elected councillor, who is from the Steve Reed OBE right of Labour, was complaining bitterly about the party’s lacklustre manifesto and its uninspiring campaign. Having just spent eight years giving the residents of the borough 200million reasons not to vote for him and his party, the Blairite was moaning into his beer that there had been too few Labour door knockers out canvassing.

Just as they did in Croydon, core Labour voters may in future prefer to stay at home rather than offer themselves to be shat on by the egoists of the local political class.

Labour's against the odds defeat in Croydon last Thursday should be a salutary lesson of things to come, and the consequences of having a rudderless and demoralised party with no vision to offer.

But of course nothing will be learnt and to the Tories undoubted delight the current leader will continue to attack members of his party in the vague and desperate hope that it will somehow placate and satisfy the Daily Mail.

Here's the full article that the quote comes from:

Inside Croydon: Croydon May 2022 is writing on the wall for Starmer’s Labour.
https://insidecroydon.com/2022/05/13/croydon-may-2022-is-writing-on-the-wall-for-starmers-labour/

Not being picky, but could issues like the fact Croydon council went bankrupt between 2019 and now, had huge corruption issues and trials, and of course the internal labour battles between the likes of momentum and the croydon councillors have been contributing factors, more than just they lost 7 councillors because people don't like Starmer or Rayner as much as they liked Corbyn and McDonnell in that area?

Croydon also appears to be a bit of an outlier compared to most other voting areas in London and the UK in terms of the way they've voted over the last few years, so trying to map out the issues they've had across the country doesn't really seem to work.

Well you have obviously completely missed the point being made argee, maybe you didn't read it properly. It had nothing to do with the popularity or lack of popularity of party leaders.

It is generally assumed that the scandal riddled Labour's group appalling incompetence was the reason that Croydon went against the tide in London and swung to the Tories. The article however suggests that expulsions had further demoralised the party and left it severely short of committed activists to do the heavy footwork which is always necessary in election campaigns.

Still never mind, as I said, I don't expect lessons to be learnt and understood, it goes against the preferred narrative.

I have to admit, I didn’t read past “comrades”.

Anyway, Labour do seem to be an absolute mess in Croydon. Just one more reason to be glad of not living there.

And btw argee another important significance of Croydon is that the blairite Labour group is very much David Evans's creation - he personally moulded and shaped it to what it is today.

David Evans is the Labour Party General Secretary who today has Starmer's ear. Expect what he has done locally in Croydon to be repeated nationally on a grand scale. Remember it was initially Evans who personally suspended Corbyn from the party, until it was overturned by the NEC. But his influence on Starmer is clearly obvious.

Just dropped in to see if the quality of discourse had improved.
It hasn't.
An ever decreasing number of contributors, increasingly dominated by free members; all spouting in their own personal echo chambers.
Waste of time.

Try the Boris Johnson thread?

An ever decreasing number of contributors, increasingly dominated by free members; all spouting in their own personal echo chambers.

But they are having fun. Why do you hate people having fun so much?

Surely it's a reflection of his popularity?

Without us few keeping it going it would die.

Also, Labour incredibly quiet when they should be smashing number 10 down with ideas.

I quite like the debate in here. There are good passionate minds trying to reconcile a difficult situation.

Well you have obviously completely missed the point being made argee, maybe you didn’t read it properly. It had nothing to do with the popularity or lack of popularity of party leaders.

To be honest i haven't a clue what the article was trying to tell, it was a bit all over the place, going from a 2019 local election joy to 2022 misery and just referencing John McDonnell and then Angela Rayner and the popularity of both against their campaigning, so more implying rather than any facts, no mention of all the disasters since 2019, such as being the first council ever to go bankrupt in 2020, huge fraud cases, battles and fallouts within the party and so on.

All i could take from the article, which is title 'is writing on the wall for Starmer’s Labour' is that there is no real way of extrapolating Croydon out wider, it's a very bespoke area that has a large hard left following, that's not a bad thing, but it doesn't compare across the country.

Anyway, as always, i would ask Momentum/Inside Croydon/etc to provide solutions instead of just endless criticism of the problem, there seems to be loads of people admiring the problem instead of offering solutions.

Without us few keeping it going it would die.

But surely that's the point - a few people would like this thread to die because they are embarrassed by Starmer's obvious ineptitude as party leader.

Much better to take it in turns to post on the Boris Johnson thread to express your disgust and hatred of the Tory leader, than make any comments about the alternative.

And to be fair that appears to be Starmer's only strategy.

He's certainly making an impact in Wakefield, resignations galore over imposing candidates.

Starmer is the most popular politician south of the border (I don’t understand that, but it’s what the polling shows). This thread only has a few posters because it has been made toxic and dull by the regular posters (I don’t exclude myself from that). It’s the bit of the pub you avoid because of the ranting regular drunks. Nothing to do with the beer, the chairs, the light… people just know to avoid it so as not to get pulled into the same boring rants (not really conversations) from the regulars that sit there. This post is much more a reflection of Starmer’s biggest detractors than it is of the man himself.

Maybe most of us we should pull out of it and just check back now and again to see how Ernie is getting on 🙂

I ironically I've checked in to see if there has been any useful and interesting contributions 😉

BillMC Full Member
He’s certainly making an impact in Wakefield, resignations galore over imposing candidates.

Which reminds me of this warning :

The NEC source said: “Keir urged NEC members to vote for David Evans. If Evans now takes us back to the toxic culture in HQ, purges of left-wing members and stitch ups of parliamentary selections exposed in the leaked report, his appointment will be the worst mistake of Keir’s leadership.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/starmer-david-evans-new-labour-general-secretary_uk_5ecd26cec5b6086f7e6f3abf

The man who created the Croydon Labour Party in his image and likeness is now doing the same to the party nationally.

Expect the Labour Party nationally to be as unfit to govern as the local Croydon Labour Party clearly is.

History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.

All I can say thank god a few posters actually bother otherwise it would drop off the radar.

I really don't ascribe to the use of the word toxic when it comes to tricky politics.

Just strong opinions. Easy to avoid insults.

When someone pops in the thread to call it toxic and not add anything to the debate - then that's their choice.

Besides the thousands upon thousands of comments and constant lame mockery about Corbyn - we on the left ultimately had to suck it up.

It's like with the one recent smear for Starmer - centrist hell breaks loose.

In fact Binners jumped in here the other day with a lefty insult. He did delete it though. And I still slept that night just fine.

Oohh the newspapers..

Anyway has Starmer said anything positive recently? Anything about the civil servants? Anything about that drip Sunak claiming he can't change the computer program for benefits?

frankconway
Full Member
Just dropped in to see if the quality of discourse had improved.
It hasn’t.
An ever decreasing number of contributors, increasingly dominated by free members; all spouting in their own personal echo chambers.
Waste of time.

Posted 16 hours ago

@frankconway & your post helps how? Tedious thread police are the worst posters of all!

& your post helps how?

it allows them to feel superior so thats a win.
On the upside Blair seems upset with him so cant be all bad.
I do find it interesting how Blair went for that entire woke rubbish. As far as I can tell Starmers interest in those issues is pretty low hence the fairly vague and washy statements on several "woke" subjects and yet he still gets accused of getting involved in "woke" issues.

Anyway has Starmer said anything positive recently?

He did make some lukewarm noises about the recent bout of Israeli thuggery. No doubt the Board of Deputies will be calling for his head.

If you don't like it you can call it a rant, sanctimoneous, tedious, toxic and comrade. You have a choice.

He did make some lukewarm noises about the recent bout of Israeli thuggery. No doubt the Board of Deputies will be calling for his head.

I saw that. He will need to tread carefully now that he is clearly an anti-semite.

https://twitter.com/LabourList/status/1525793233518964736?t=qCZPVZ1cMrBeWrKVM5IvvA&s=19

When will it be a priority?

Miliband re-enforcing again why Labour are clueless and vague about their response to fixing the way utilities operate.

The Tories effectively stole his useless price-cap.

I take back what I said about Miliband. Totally f***** spineless and disengenuous. And they wonder why they struggle to get people to vote for them.

https://twitter.com/georgeaylett/status/1525793155551043585?s=21&t=fSG26F4DeHYHJHzrFTjEMA

We’ve had two recent chances to vote for large scale nationalisation, with energy at the heart of that programme. I voted for it, you voted for it… yet we have a Conservative government set to run down services and privatise more and more… what should Labour propose next time? The same… and hope the voters get it right this time? Or clear the decks, and propose something different in the next manifesto? We’re in wait and see territory. I honestly don’t know which path they will, or should, take. The crunch point to decide could be years away.

I doubt it's a priority at present when Labour aren't in power, and the next election is 2024, honestly, he's just said the cost of living issue is the priority, and that is what requires focus just now, in May 2022, not sure why there's widespread condemnation about it, he's not said it's not part of the labour manifesto, christ any nationalisation of energy companies will be an absolute legal nightmare that'll take years to get through, which is what it was designed to be when they broke it up a generation ago, and kept adding complexity to it since!

They are bereft of ideas unfortunately. 😐

Behold Keir Starmer’s Labour Party. What a c***!

https://twitter.com/schneiderhome/status/1525968413767655424?s=21&t=YJQPmzQaBu7W3gZCnSkklA

He could have turned that debate around on Neil about the current mess instead of talking about his lack of support for Corbyn.

The centre of Labour has a messed up idealogical thought process - in that it has none. So it doesn't know what to defend or attack.

Neil makes my blood boil though.

for large scale nationalisation, with energy at the heart of that programme. I voted for it, you voted for it… yet we have a Conservative government set to run down services and privatise more and more… what should Labour propose next time?

The country - as expected is in a huge mess now with energy. Citing previous elections as a case against current problems doesn't make sense.

The previous manifesto was ahead of the game. With all the will in the world the electorate are only going to see what's in front of them at the time.

Let the country collapse then before it becomes an absolute necessity?

I doubt it’s a priority at present when Labour aren’t in power, and the next election is 2024, honestly, he’s just said the cost of living issue is the priority, and that is what requires focus just now, in May 2022, not sure why there’s widespread condemnation about it, he’s not said it’s not part of the labour manifesto, christ any nationalisation of energy companies will be an absolute legal nightmare that’ll take years to get through, which is what it was designed to be when they broke it up a generation ago, and kept adding complexity to it since!

I dare bet things will be worse by 2024.

Let's have some foresight shall we?

In the meantime let the market get away with what it wants.

The middle ground of politics makes no sense at all as it's just about letting the current administration continue the wrong policies but with a spell checker attached.

christ any nationalisation of energy companies will be an absolute legal nightmare that’ll take years to get through,

So when some of the banks were nationalised and part nationalised - you think that wasn't done very quickly because of necessity?

I'm not saying we are at that stage yet but that's because they're currently happy for the consumer to prop up the market.

Just wait until people stop paying.

It is ridiculous to pretend that the energy sector can operate without hands on government involvement. It has never been the case, and never will be. Personally, I see any option short of full nationalisation as just a stepping stone towards the inevitable and desirable... but that is probably what Labour need to propose at the next election... a compromise that falls short. Call it "spell checking" if you want to be disparaging. Unfortunately a radical nationalising proposal for government isn't supported by enough of the public, is it. Maybe we can get there eventually. But pressing reprint on the 2019 manifesto simply isn't going to happen, whoever is leader at the next election.

As for Jon Ashworth (who I don't rate, or agree with on much) like many other MPs who took posts under Corbyn... they'll get attacked for working with him just as much as those MPs that took to the back benches... or left parliament to become Mayors or whatever... no matter what you did while Corbyn was leader, as an MP, you'll be damned for it from certain quarters...

So when some of the banks were nationalised and part nationalised – you think that wasn’t done very quickly because of necessity?

"It can't be done because it's too complicated" is a standard response when unable to offer a convincing counterargument.

As Opposition leader Tony Blair committed a Labour government to re-nationalising the railways, with the caveat "if possible", which obviously meant that he had no intention of doing so.

And in fact far from proving too difficult to re-nationalise the railways have proved to be unbelievably difficult to keep privatised - it has been a constant battle with an early casualty being Railtrack and today a quarter of UK rail services are publicly owned, and that doesn't include what is owed by foreign governments.

“It can’t be done because it’s too complicated”

It’s very amusing when people say this. It’s no more complicated than passing a law to make it happen, as they did with the banks in a matter of days. Centrist politicians (and their apologists like agree) don’t seem to understand what their jobs are.

So given that now millions of peoples invested pensions are reliant of the share value of energy companies. What happens when those are valueless?

or what happens if you re-nationise the sector and the the next Tory govt says “oh we can’t afford to invest hard working peoples money in a new power station/ sewerage/ water pipes etc etc.

govts of both stripes have never not failed to break their own spending pledges, whereas investment in repairs and improvements are baked into the current legislation. It’s a shitty position to be in but I’d rather take my chances of getting improvements from a company we can hold to acct rather than a govt that will never be.

I think rather than re-nationalise, I'd prefer a system that forces the current suppliers to publish (say) 5 yearly plans and a govt regulator (with teeth) that holds them to acct to do the things that they say they will do to improve their infrastructure/pricing and so on. I get that people are ideologically happier to own their own power generation, but I genuinely can't see that above that point, you should "automatically" end up with a better provision

So given that now millions of peoples invested pensions are reliant of the share value of energy companies.

Why do you assume they’ll be valueless? No one’s talking about the govt taking them over without compensating shareholders. The CBI estimated that labours 2017 nationalisation policy would cost around 196bn. That’s nothing compared to what was spent on the banks and covid. Is secure and affordable energy any less important to the economy than public health and a functional banking system?

The CBI estimated that labours 2017 nationalisation policy would cost around 196bn

How much would it cost to actually just hold them to their own statements about investing in repairs and future provision improvements?

It’s a shitty position to be in but I’d rather take my chances of getting improvements from a company we can hold to acct rather than a govt that will never be.

When was the last time a corporation has been held to account? The energy companies that have folded over the past 12 months have done so having mined out the rich seam of energy supply for corporate profits, then gone bust without recourse to those who profited, and left the problem for the government and taxpayers to resolve.

As for pensions, iirc pension investment in the stock market hovers around 10-15%, so pretending that the stock market is about normal peoples pensions is just a twisting of reality. In fact the stock market is an incredibly inefficient way to support pensions, with over 85% going to rich investors. And that doesn't even consider the distortion of the actual "pension pot" in the market towards the incredibly wealthy. Of course governemnt support for stock markets under the guise of "supporting hard working families pensions" is incredibly profitable for political sponsors.

Obviously, any legislation that tries to "hold to account" private companies can be changed by a government... so it all relies on the government in the end. Regulatory restraints on the energy sector are guaranteed to change in the next few years, if not the next few months. These things are never "taken out of the government's hands"...

How much would it cost to actually just hold them to their own statements about investing in repairs and future provision improvements?

Once again. Cost is irrelevant for central government. It accounts with essentially a blank cheque book.

When was the last time a corporation has been held to account?

How about the Train Franchise companies that had their franchises removed / were not renewed?

Or the various regulator levied fines on companies across Banking, Insurance, Transport, Telecoms, Retail Energy etc?

It is ridiculous to pretend that the energy sector can operate without hands on government involvement. It has never been the case, and never will be.

As Martin Lewis constantly says - you either have a market or you don't. Operating between the two creates the worst of both worlds as in this particular case.

Look. the Tories are going to look for more marketisation - not less (they might chuck in a bit of state help here and there) but essentially that's their direction of travel until the whole thing crumbles.

Labour have a duty to push back against that - otherwise what is their actual position? To support the Tories encouraging more poverty?

There is no middle ground here. The middle ground (propping the market) only works for a while.

So when some of the banks were nationalised and part nationalised – you think that wasn’t done very quickly because of necessity?

That was done quickly due to the risk that would effect most people in the UK in a very bad way, and it had a strict proviso that the government would sell up due to the problem with nationalising a bank, and the have done, so no nationalised banks, but still some shareholdings.

It’s very amusing when people say this. It’s no more complicated than passing a law to make it happen, as they did with the banks in a matter of days. Centrist politicians (and their apologists like agree) don’t seem to understand what their jobs are.

Ok, so tell me how the 199 sitting Labour MPs will bring in, and vote through a bill to become a new Act of Parliament for this, you keep saying it's not complicated, so tell us in simple terms how they can renationalise the energy companies, and quickly at that?

Once again. Cost is irrelevant for central government. It accounts with essentially a blank cheque book.

If that were the case we'd have everything we ever needed, what party wouldn't throw money at every problem and keep the electorate happy, and solve the UK's spiralling national debt?

How about the Train Franchise companies that had their franchises removed / were not renewed?

The government stepping in to rescue the services, isn't holding the corporations to account.

Or the various regulator levied fines on companies across Banking, Insurance, Transport, Telecoms, Retail Energy etc?

Fines so toothless that the corporations factor them into operating costs rather than change their behaviour.

Ok, so tell me how the 199 sitting Labour MPs will bring in, and vote through a bill to become a new Act of Parliament for this, you keep saying it’s not complicated, so tell us in simple terms how they can renationalise the energy companies, and quickly at that?

They did it in the banking sector (as has been said multiple times), it isn't the technical complexity, it is just getting them to realise the cost of continued corporatising energy supplies is killing the economy, the environment and increasing the cost of living. In fact I suspect they do realise that, but they are so stuck in the free market dogma they are paralysed to act to change it.

The energy sector has failed, we are currently subsidising the corporate profits of failed businesses, that has to stop.

But what problem would Labour's bill even address?

Retail Energy companies are typically low margin - with the returns often failing to cover the cost of capital employed. EDF is often cited - its returns from UK Energy Retail Ops effectively mean that the French public are subsidising British Consumers. The actual retail cost of Energy in the UK (net of levies and tax) have consistently even amongst the lowest in Europe over the last 10-15 years.

So if the bill is to nationalise retail energy sales there will be a significant compensation bill and limited scope for any efficiency savings to reduce consumer bills.

And if the bill is to nationalise Energy Production in the UK, the government will move from allowing the market to raise £tens of billions in finance and take the risk on new schemes (including solar / onshore wind / offshore wind / inter connectors) to having the cost of that sat on the balance sheet with uk consumers paying for the debt finance cost - which would be considerable given interest rates are rising.

Stripping out the energy crisis caused by covid / ukraine, we've consistently benefited from low bills for close to two decades.

So what is the problem that Labour is proposing to solve?

They did it in the banking sector (as has been said multiple times), it isn’t the technical complexity, it is just getting them to realise the cost of continued corporatising energy supplies is killing the economy, the environment and increasing the cost of living. In fact I suspect they do realise that, but they are so stuck in the free market dogma they are paralysed to act to change it.

The energy sector has failed, we are currently subsidising the corporate profits of failed businesses, that has to stop.

The UK nationalised one bank (Northern Rock), and 'part-nationalised' many others (basically buying shares for cash injection), this was at a time of a global financial meltdown, where other countries were doing the same, many governments working together to shore up the holes appearing.

The other side of the argument was the banks being desperate for nationalisation or funding, it was the only option other than going to the wall and sending the finance sector into meltdown.

So i'm struggling to see how this in any way similar to how easy it would be to nationalise the energy companies?

Again, i'm not against nationalisation, just the original argument that Starmer can some how influence this at present, instead of say focusing on the current issues!

Again, i’m not against nationalisation,

Yeah of course you're not.

Tony Blair opposed, without exception, every single privatisation carried out by Tory governments. There wasn't one privatisation which Blair supported.

Once in government Blair decided the Tories hadn't privatised enough and embarked on his own privatisations. Which of course proved easier for him to do than the Tories because unlike the Tories Labour wasn't faced with any opposition.

But yeah, Blair wasn't opposed to nationalation.

Ok, so tell me how the 199 sitting Labour MPs will bring in, and vote through a bill to become a new Act of Parliament for this

well obviously they need to be in government to pass their own bills. 🤔

If that were the case we’d have everything we ever needed

To understand why this isn’t the case all you need to do is look at who benefits and loses out from this ludicrous policy. Austerity is a deliberate choice which enshrines the wealth and power of the rich.

We could organise the economy and society very differently in the interests of the vast majority. The myth of government debt and finite money is the main thing that prevents this from happening.

from the cheap seats, who "owns" a nationalised corporation is completely notional. the idea that "we the people" own the NHS is theoretical; we don't really get a say, and vast parts of it (while free to use) is privately owned and always has been (nearly every GP practice, for example)

While fundamentally any monopoly service is probably best held by the govt for the greater good, in practice that comes with it's own set of issues. Interference at the political level, making people redundant from a public service is traditionally politically difficult, and so on.

personally if the service is well regulated, doesn't price gouge, and is set up with social needs at it's core (reduced or free to pensioners, free to people on benefits, sick etc etc), there's no real fundamental issue why that can't be a service that some-one make a profit from. Is it?

It just seems to me that there are plenty of models in between totally privately owned and totally publicly owned that have more of the benefits and less of the issues inherent in both. (like Channel 4 for instance) Or is that completely daft?

Or is that completely daft?

Not at all. Just needs some of (ie all) the details fleshing out. For example Channel4 works precisely because it is not for profit (although of course the studios it commissions from are profit making businesses, or at least aim to be).

It just seems to me that there are plenty of models in between totally privately owned and totally publicly owned that have more of the benefits and less of the issues inherent in both. (like Channel 4 for instance) Or is that completely daft?

Yeah, unfortunately in the UK we have tended to 'privatise the profit and nationalise the risk', so many cases of that over the years, and business do tend to set up their companies to have that arms length risk model from the parent companies.

It would be nice to have some sort of 'Trading Fund' that allows a little more freedom from government, but the real question is what are the costs, timelines and risks associated with nationalisation, and how do you get it into a fit state to then turn into trading funds, and then monitor and police it so that it is efficient and not being manipulated or used for the benefit of those at the top.

This whole issue started off with 'Starmers Labour' not prioritising nationalisation of energy companies, but i do get the feeling that even if there was a fully fleshed plan, he'd still be getting it for not using the right grammar in his plans 😂

he’d still be getting it for not using the right grammar in his plans

Depends what the plan is. No one is particularly religious about nationalisation, we just want affordable energy bills and an end to monopolistic price fixing and profiteering. I couldn’t care less what they call it, as long as the daylight robbery comes to an end.

I couldn’t care less what they call it, as long as the daylight robbery comes to an end.

Well said Dazh. But some people are wedded to that word, and others dead set against it. And that sums up Starmer’s problem in a nutshell.

Hmm, I've just gone to the daily mail site for balance and thier top two stories are Jonny depp Vs Amber heard, and Coleen Rooney Vs vardy.

Coming in at No.3 is the cost of living crisis with "the bank of England 'helpless' to do anything about inflation... "

I'll go out on a limb here and say that Daylight Robbery will never end. 🙁

Ashcroft is another reason I won't vote Labour. The obvious answer he got nowhere near was "Corbyn would be better than this shit show". Then list everything this govt has done wrong. Disgraceful interview in many ways.

Well said Dazh. But some people are wedded to that word, and others dead set against it. And that sums up Starmer’s problem in a nutshell

Starmer has many problems but calling for nationalised utilities at this current time is unlikely to be one of them.

It's just a question of time for how bad it gets under the current system.

Let's see shall we? Everyone tries to get off a sinking ship at some point.

I think the next round of economic data will be interesting. The Tories are trying to ride things out - they are pretty good at that. Hoping the market corrects itself in all quarters.

if the service is well regulated

This is the key part and the part governments tend to be very bad at, for a variety of reasons. There should be stricter regulations and conditions, including pricing, of any private businesses that are services to the people of the country - the government is there to represent the people after all.
If no private business can tender or work against those criteria then they don't get the business and if the service has to be nationalised and even run at a loss to cover the need then so be it.

On the regulation point it’s probably the introduction of the price cap (originally a policy dreamt up by Ed Milliband) that’s created the current problem.

Wholesale gas prices have fallen rapidly in recent months but the combination of the cap and hedging means consumers will have to pay much higher prices for gas and electricity (60% of which comes from burning gas) next winter.

Going back to an open market pricing model is probably the way to go.

The energy companies will be screaming for 'support' from the government as people will just default on their bills. EDF have today doubled my standing order since December. Switching off the lights won't be popular, I can see the government just handing over piles of money, gratis.

https://www.bigissue.com/news/environment/the-government-has-refused-to-make-water-companies-monitor-how-much-sewage-theyre-dumping-in-rivers/

Isn't the whole point of privatisation that the government doesn't interfere?

Isn’t the whole point of privatisation that the government doesn’t interfere?

No. It has to regulate them. It has to set the standards that the companies meet, and has to make sure that they meet them. You can't dismiss privatisation by pointing at one administration (especially one that shirks it's responsibilities as badly as this one does) and say "See, it doesn't work"

It's like giving a 4 year the ingredients for making pizza and being disappointed that you don't get New York's finest at the end

You can’t have a “hands off” energy sector. The government has to be involved. Might as well be honest about it and include public ownership in the mix.

https://twitter.com/savantacomres/status/1527293893414227970?s=21

There’s just so much more going to happen before the next election, I’m still not confident either boris or keir will be leading their parties at the next election anyway!

https://twitter.com/We_OwnIt/status/1527661449493073922?t=JyIlp6pr2CGorUGDmcKESw&s=19

Who'd have thought it?

And Starmer thinks he needs to lean right to bring back the red wall.

Don't think so.

When your economy fails your pocket people take notice.

Labour need to attack the Tories on this. What are they scared of? Not getting donations from big business?

Also to me it is massively unpatriotic to sell off our infrastructure to foreign countries. The Tories are unpatriotic ffs not Labour.

All this "the Tories might sell the NHS" would cut through more if it was put with "like they sold the water, energy, Royal Mail, railways etc"

Who’d have thought it?

Most political analysts.

I don't think it's ever been a secret that most people have always favoured (re)nationalisation of public utilities /services.

The problem seems to be the disconnect between people admitting that it's what they want and accepting that it's socialism.

It's not just renationalisation.....

Vox Pop

And Starmer thinks he needs to lean right to bring back the red wall.

Starmer's been pro public ownership throughout, as trailmonkey says, not many people in the country think that public ownership isn't a good idea, but how it would be implemented, costed and assessed is all pretty much unknown.

On another note, i do see a lot of companies now offering up savings and specials to help some areas with the cost of living, it's sad that we're still seeing the government fannying about regarding windfall taxes, and having those companies suddenly making record profits due to inflation and price rises having to do stuff just because of public opinion, maybe some through guilt.

State ownership is not socialism, it's state capitalism. Post war nationalisation was not to deliver socialism but to restore capitalism and provide a healthy, literate and numerate workforce. It's not as though if you're a civil servant or local government officer you live in a socialist utopia, often pay and conditions are worse than in the private sector.

That’s a timely reminder Bill, thanks. Labour need to avoid the word “socialism” if they want to win over enough of the public. Many Brits think of Bill’s idea of socialism when they hear the word, the end of capitalism in all its forms, and deeply distrust those using the word… even when the policies offered are in their interest, and taken individually have high levels of support amongst the voting public.

Most political analysts.

Yep. It’s been like that for a long time. The public support public ownership. Not enough of them are prepared to vote for a party that puts nationalisation front and centre in their manifesto though.

Back to energy… is Bulb now a nationalised energy supplier? In some other kind of public ownership? I can’t find anything definitive on it.

According to today’s Observer, Labour not looking to form any sort of coalition with the SNP as this could alienate potential ex-red wall voters in the south. That’s fine, they can continue to cosy up with former Orange Lodge members and Tories in certain areas and look forward to a further term of political impotence north of the border by pandering to flag-shagging Brexiteers. Never has the term “Westminster Branch Office” been more appropriate.

Although a coalition with SNP would be short lived as a Scottish referendum would be part of the deal. Still better than having a tory government for the 5 years though.

OTOH a referendum held while the Tories are out of power might show less support for independence. It's weird that nobody minds the idea of separate political parties, often in coalition, for NI but can't see that as a model for Scotland.