Forum menu
Oh, “creeping” towards nationalisation is nailed on. Isn’t it? Propose it by bit to deal with a whole series of crisis on their way for the UK. Easier when in a position to enable this, not just talk about it.
I did listen to Brown talking and although his sentiment was there he barely scratched the surface of what to do.
Agree but he at least appeared to grasp the scale of the crisis, comparing it to 2008, which is exactly what it is, or probably worse. The thing with energy though is there’s no real reason to re-privatise after nationalisation like there was with the banks. I mean the bank re-privatisation should have been on the condition of fundamental reform, but that didn’t happen but hey-ho.
Even the commentariat don’t seem to get it, including the usual lefty suspects. Richard Murphy and to a lesser extent Martin Lewis seem to stand alone on recognising the enormity of it all.
The thing with energy though is there’s no real reason to re-privatise after nationalisation like there was with the banks. I mean the bank re-privatisation should have been on the condition of fundamental reform, but that didn’t happen but hey-ho.
Dead on.
Even the commentariat don’t seem to get it, including the usual lefty suspects. Richard Murphy and to a lesser extent Martin Lewis seem to stand alone on recognising the enormity of it all.
Yeah I guess we've had this system for so long people assume it just carries on.
To fair I thought everything was going to totally fall apart in 2010 and I was wrong then.
Temporary nationalisation can last a long time, see Network Rail (are they still called that?)
A thought… if we’re only talking about energy retail companies… why not cap prices, let them all fail, start a new public owned retailer, and allow us all to swap to them as a supplier…? Why nationalise any existing energy retailer?
Agree but he at least appeared to grasp the scale of the crisis, comparing it to 2008, which is exactly what it is, or probably worse
Yeah and as much as I don't really like him that much - people who go on about him selling all the gold FFS (not really a problem derisking government assets) want their heads banging when he did so much to support the economy.
Why nationalise any existing energy retailer?
I'm guessing they've got continuation on the billing systems but I really don't know.
And besides aren't you nationalising the market rather than the suppliers?
I don't know.
I need to read the TUC paper in full. Have you seen it?
I didn’t vote Labour when Brown was PM… hard to argue that the UK economy and society would not be in a better place if we’d voted him back into Downing Street. I was wrong then.
EDIT: Consider carefully about who might be wrong now… those critical of Labour not being radical enough, or those comparing them to the alternative government the Tories will offer and the damage they will do. Get the Tories out, even if it feels too small a step to you (or for me)… it’ll be a huge step in the right direction for the country as a whole.
Agreed.
The way he came to power never seemed right to me but that's by the by.
The thing with energy though is there’s no real reason to re-privatise after nationalisation like there was with the banks.
You would think. But they did with British energy.
They've also done it with the East Coast Main Line. Several times.
I realise the latter isn't the point you were making but thought it relevant nonetheless.
If we were still building nuclear as national infrastructure we could have had stations coming online if not up and running before now. No, I know its not everyone's cup of tea but again, still worth saying. We could be derisked by about 11+GW and have something to replace the 8+GW we'll be losing in the next few years (in the last 8 months we've lost just over 2GW with the shutting down of Hunterston B and Hinkley Point B).
To fair I thought everything was going to totally fall apart in 2010
I thought economic collapse and depression were nailed on in autumn 2008. But then they nationalised the banks at the cost of about a trillion. I thought the same in 2020 when covid hit, and they spent 500 billion propping up businesses and paying peoples wages.
Now we have a similar existential threat to the economy and they’re talking about spending 30 billion or less! Maybe I’m being alarmist (I hope) but this seems like a crisis on the same scale, but with none of the political urgency we saw in 2008 and 2020.
I think the clock started ticking for the Tories on Monday, the polls that were mentioned reflect how the country felt last week but I bet they look different by the end of this week.
The timing of the next energy price hike is the 26th August. The new leader won't be announced until the 3rd September. What a week that's going to be for the Government.
Sticking my neck out here but given that most people are expecting some form of unrest or protest it could coalesce around demands for a general election during the period between those two dates.
The country could down tools for the whole week and turn out to protest like Craig David, (Friday Saturday and Sunday, Monday Tuesday etc etc.)
Better than waiting for the riots to kick off in a few months time.
Just a thought...
Notting Hill Carnival starts on the 27th of August...
Anyone remember that scene from 'The Death of Stalin' where Kruschev says to Zukov; "Why tomorrow?" and Zukov replies "You mean when the whole ****in army's in town?
Also reminds me of when Cameron called an EU membership referendum smack bang in the middle of the European Football Championships.
Speaking as an ex events promoter, I always tried to avoid potential clashes when doing the scheduling.
Now we have a similar existential threat to the economy and they’re talking about spending 30 billion or less! Maybe I’m being alarmist (I hope) but this seems like a crisis on the same scale, but with none of the political urgency we saw in 2008 and 2020.
I guess at some point someone has to do something solid or it will become part of a huge chain reaction.
There's almost certainly a tipping point, and with summer behind us we will reach that very soon.
Again the fact the neoliberal framework has appeared to deliver the goods (the debt and poverty) means everyone is clinging to it and not seeing the big picture.
The USA are sticking some support packages in and Japan is doing okay on Q/E (Japan didn't stop on the support straight after COVID) and have got their economy growing. No whinging about public debt & they appear to be using the tools better than us.
No suprises.
I'm a trustee of a charity whose electricity bill will rise from
£8k in 2019
to
£50k in 2023.
That sounded so remarkable that I doubted that it was even true.
I have just discovered that the Ofgem cap doesn't apply to non-domestic customers (I didn't know that) so the energy suppliers are making up for the shortfall caused by the Ofgem cap by passing it on the non-domestic users.
Therefore Starmer's very limited proposal of freezing energy bills at 54% more than they were last winter for 6 months won't help public service providers just hospitals and schools in any way at all.
Truly grim.
Businesses, hospitals, schools need a Labour government to hugely increase our supply of renewables. And they all need to be freed from the damaging policies of this Tory government. Oh, all except the likes of BP and Shell... they need us to keep letting the Tories win...
Labour's energy policy isn't just this short term freeze for households this winter. Come the next general election, the choice as regards our energy generation and conservation will be stark.
I have just discovered that the Ofgem cap doesn’t apply to non-domestic customers
I don’t think you’re the only one. I didn’t realise the impact until I saw that chippy energy bill for 10k (up from 1200) doing the rounds. Then the penny dropped that all small businesses which use lots of energy are screwed. Restaurants, pubs, cafes, takeaways, workshops, micro-breweries, bakeries etc will all be shutting up shop very soon either temporarily or permanently and dumping millions on the dole. I’m beginning to think it’s a deliberate policy to solve the workforce crisis. Grim isn’t the word, it’s nothing short of cataclysmic.
Uk data centres too considering how much energy they will use. Which means online retailers and other online services will push up prices 😔
Restaurants, pubs, cafes, takeaways, workshops, micro-breweries, bakeries etc will all be shutting up shop very soon either temporarily or permanently and dumping millions on the dole. I’m beginning to think it’s a deliberate policy to solve the workforce crisis. Grim isn’t the word, it’s nothing short of cataclysmic.
Lets have a think about it after the summer holidays- no rush
I have just discovered that the Ofgem cap doesn’t apply to non-domestic customers (I didn’t know that)
It also doesn't apply to schools, hospitals and communal domestic heating systems. So people in council flats with a boiler in the basement are being completely screwed.
By far the most important argument put forward at the time of privatisation was that the private sector tends to run businesses more efficiently because of the profit motive, resulting in cheaper prices for consumers.
35 years on electricity prices have increased by a third in real terms and gas by half (pre-present crises)
Privatisation has therefore failed in its main primary stated aim of reducing prices for consumers. Although the incalculable £billions in profits obviously means that the profit motive bit of the argument has turned out to be entirely true.
At what point do the right-wing Blairites in the Labour Party stop supporting a failed policy which they themselves opposed when it was introduced 35 years ago?
We know that Labour Party members overwhelmingly support the common ownership of energy which is why when Starmer stood to be Leader of the Party he felt obliged to publicly declare :
"Public services should be in public hands, not making profits for shareholders. Support common ownership of rail, mail, energy and water"
And we know that the UK public, including Tory voters, support the nationalisation of gas and electricity, even before the current crisis.
Why therefore doesn't Starmer? It genuinely puzzles me. I accept that he is timid and doesn't want to be labelled a communist by the Daily Mail or the Sun but surely it must be more than just that? He is rejecting a policy which is more than ever both popular with voters and actually makes sense.
The only reason the Tories won't nationalise gas and electricity is obviously for idealogical reasons** and the need to satisfy greedy privateers.
So bearing in mind that Starmer doesn't have any ideological commitments and only the commitment he actually has is to get himself into Number 10 what is his reasons?
** Although even the Tories, at least under Johnson, accept that sometimes they have limited choices:
Therefore Starmer’s very limited proposal of freezing energy bills at 54% more than they were last winter for 6 months won’t help public service providers just hospitals and schools in any way at all.
Massive oversight - especially the state element of energy users.
By far the most important argument put forward at the time of privatisation
My recollection of it at the time was that it would create a "shareholding nation" ("Tell Sid when you see him" the marketing campaign for gas/electric was more or less a catchphrase used even by schoolkids at the time) in the same vein that council home sell off created a "house-owning nation" The efficiency argument was secondary to that. It was sold to people that they'd have a direct stake that would earn them an actual return rather than a nominal stake in a nationalised industry that they "owned" as a citizen and was a cost as a tax rather than a benefit of a shareholder.
Price rises (certainly the ones we're seeing now) are largely effected by events without our borders and have less to do with whether they're efficient or inefficient, private or nationalised.
Why therefore doesn’t Starmer? It genuinely puzzles me. I accept that he is timid and doesn’t want to be labelled a communist by the Daily Mail or the Sun but surely it must be more than just that? He is rejecting a policy which is more than ever both popular with voters and actually makes sense.
Classical economics is wedded to the current market system. And the main political parties are advised by classical economists that believe the private sector generates wealth on its own, and corrects its own problems.
The fact is the Tory government did so well with neoliberalism (for the asset class) because they had so much to strip and privatise back in the 1980s.
Reverse Robin Hood!
That's the countries wealth being taken apart and served up to the few.
That tap is now running dry (along with scarcity) and the morons in charge have not realised you have to have a source of wealth in the first place. That source is the state.
So it's a simple case you have to turn the tap on to redirect the water to where the garden needs it the most.
Starmer and co daren't turn that tap up - only meddle with the hose.
Corbyn's base economics would have made the difference here and been ahead of the curve. (Despite tax and spend fully costed nonsense.)
My only thoughts are how bad does it have to get?
I think winter will be interesting from an economic point of view. Again you put stuff in place before it happens.
Price rises (certainly the ones we’re seeing now) are largely effected by events without our borders and have less to do with whether they’re efficient or inefficient, private or nationalised.
Starmer wants to spend more on propping them up in the short-term than nationalisation would cost.
That in itself is grossly inefficient.
Yes and he spouts the bollocks about "every penny going to reduce bills rather than compensating the shareholders"
It's dishonest.
did listen to Brown talking and although his sentiment was there he barely scratched the surface of what to do
He has history...
1997-Abolished ACT and took another chunk out of the UK pensions system (TBF Lamont took a chunk in 1993)
2001-Changed vehicle taxation to promote diesel/diesel cars to protect the environment by lowering CO2 emissions, but harmed humans by increasing NO2, N2O and plain NO as well as particulates
"Light-touch" banking regulation in the run up to the 2008 crisis
Failure of his Chancellorship and later PM-ship to push to renew nuclear energy
But the sentiment was there...
Efficiency differences are nonsense as the same set of people are doing the same jobs (i.e. a finite group of people at all levels within org with the skills/knowledge/training)
It is all about the money and who gets it and how much is spent with profit as the main objective when privatised and direct cost to the consumer as the main objective when nationalised.
Starmer wants to spend more on propping them up in the short-term than nationalisation would cost.
Yeah, and he's also had the energy shadow say that they've pretty much ruled out privatization as too expensive* I can see the political problem he faces. If Labour Privatize: Spend the public's money, and U-turn on previous statements. He's stuck
*I know it's popular as a policy, but the cost is largely undiscussed in those sorts of polls, and I think will be the thing that will sway the public either way, especially in the current climate.
Starmer wants to spend more on propping them up in the short-term than nationalisation would cost.
And? The cost of keeping bills down is still there if you nationalise. Nationalisation would be an additional cost, not instead of the cost of fixing prices for this winter.
That in itself is grossly inefficient.
The comparison is a dud. I’m all for full nationalisation of energy supply, distribution and generation, but claiming you can buy just the energy retailers on the cheap now, and that would in itself solve this winter’s energy crisis, is a false hope. There are just the shop front, not the means of production.
And? The cost of keeping bills down is still there if you nationalise. Nationalisation would be an additional cost, not instead of the cost of fixing prices for this winter
You're simply not thinking long term then.
1) One monopoly purchaser could secure a better price from the wholesaler.
2) You can subsidise bills more effectively without the issues associated with privatisation when in state hands.
3) state gains an asset with nationalisation so real cost is nominal.
4) efficiency gains by having one supplier has got to be better than several that can't stay solvent. There's nothing efficient about using government money keeping a private organisation afloat because it's got a profit demand on it.
The propping up method is a dud but just about better than nothing.
The comparison is a dud. I’m all for full nationalisation of energy supply, distribution and generation, but claiming you can buy just the energy retailers on the cheap now, and that would in itself solve this winter’s energy crisis, is a false hope. There are just the shop front, not the means of production.
You can do both - subsidise bills and demand a better rate with one state supplier
The short term approach offers no answer beyond this winter.
The scope of Starmer's plan is too small and *expensive* relative to a long term solution.
If Labour Privatize: Spend the public’s money, and U-turn on previous statements. He’s stuck
Take the U-turn.
There are good ones and bad ones.
This is a good one.
You can subsidise bills more effectively without the issues associated with privatisation when in state hands.
Isn't EDF - more or less wholly owned by the French Govt, currently suing the French govt for E8.9B?
Isn’t EDF – more or less wholly owned by the French Govt, currently suing the French govt for E8.9B?
Yes, though good luck with that I guess - in the meantime the public enjoy reasonable bills, and a state asset.
Price rises (certainly the ones we’re seeing now) are largely effected by events without our borders and have less to do with whether they’re efficient or inefficient, private or nationalised.
I was specifically referring to the last 35 years before the current crises:
"35 years on electricity prices have increased by a third in real terms and gas by half (pre-present crises)"
Have we had 35 years of unfortunate events? To be fair there was a slight drop in electricity and gas prices in the first 5 years after privatisation.
Although I wouldn't be surprised if that was connected to massive pre-privatisation government investment which the Tories like to oversee - it is unlikely to be because privatisation is so efficient that within months prices fell.
Or the even more likely the government deliberately put up prices prior to privatisation to make the whole package more juicy and attractive.
I agree that the virtues of being a “shareholding nation" were sold at the time by the Tories**, but I still maintain the principal benefit of privatisation was claimed to be that it would lead to greater efficiency and therefore lower prices for consumers.
What has actually happened is the reverse. Unsurprisingly.
** And they certainly didn't tout the virtues of millions of consumers paying their electricity bills to a state-owned foreign company. Unsurprisingly.
Also the government are paying 2 billion to bulb currently for what exactly?
I don't see the gain here.
No, electricity produced by burning coal 35 years ago was cheaper than production methods now but unacceptably polluting
There was an article a couple of days ago in the Guardian about the Water privatization by Jonathan Portes
In it he argues that: We knew what was going on, because water privatisation was never really about efficiency. In the short term, the overriding political priority was a “successful” sale – one where demand for shares was high – and where those who applied and who had, from previous privatisations, already come to expect a large premium.
He even says that while it was overwhelmingly unpopular at the time, it was also oversubscribed by 6 times.
You’re simply not thinking long term then.
I'm all for long term fixes. We need a Labour government to get on with them. A 2019 win would have started us down the right path sooner, but hey. But the energy cap fix is just a short term measure to deal with the here and now. We need that short term stopgap as well, and it needs to happen while the Tories are in government. It can't wait.
The short term approach offers no answer beyond this winter.
Correct. That is what it is for. No more than that. It is not all that Labour are saying on energy though, just the current focus, because people are worried about heating their homes this winter and the government need bouncing into doing something fast.
No, electricity produced by burning coal 35 years ago was cheaper than production methods now but unacceptably polluting
I'm not sure that is entirely true.
"Renewables are by far the cheapest form of power today."
https://electrek.co/2022/07/14/renewables-cheaper-than-coal/
"Renewables are cheaper than ever – so why are household energy bills only going up?"
Coal was cheaper then than gas is now (pre-crisis).
Gas was cheaper then than gas is now (pre-crisis).
Comparing old coal prices to new gas prices doesn't tell us anything.
We need to be going all in on renewables, storage and reducing energy use.
Ramping up on-land renewables is the big thing missing right now.
Coal was cheaper then than gas is now (pre-crisis).
So are renewables according to those two links. And yet despite ever increasing amount of energy from renewables prices are still going up in real terms. Privatisation has not resulted in cheaper prices for consumers.
"Competition" in former state-owned monopolies has resulted in the most expensive source of energy, in this case gas, setting the price for all the others.
People were sold a lie, and voters, including Tory voters, now recognise this. So why does Starmer persist in supporting the lie?
The Guardian this morning:
Barnby was an enthusiast for water privatisation in 1980s. “I thought yippee, we’ll have some efficiency now. But the efficiency has changed to pure greed.”
She added: “I have mostly voted Conservative, but I won’t do it again.” Asked whether the water crisis had changed her vote, she said: “Water and the energy companies – the profits they make are a joke.”
Labour shadow chancellor less than 4 weeks ago:
"Labour will not nationalise rail, water or energy, Rachel Reeves says"
What a great time for Starmer to abandon his pledge of two years ago to nationalise energy and water.
Perfect timing in front of a captive audience to miss a huge open goal. From the man who has touted his alleged "forensic skills".
Poor Mary Barnby might as well carry on voting Tory as both Labour and the LibDems are now committed, despite public opinion and staggering failures, to persist with the failed Thatcherite legacy.
Starmer's excuse is that, according to him, "the pandemic has changed everything". Although the casual observer might be forgiven for thinking that the present energy/water crisis has changed things even more.
“Water and the energy companies – the profits they make are a joke.”
That could be justification for clawing back those profits via a backdated windfall tax, as well as for removing the possibility for removing profits in future in some way (nationalisation or arms length not for profit, etc). It supports both policies.
Renewables are cheaper NOW
https://energypost.eu/5-charts-show-the-rapid-fall-in-costs-of-renewable-energy/
Anyway **** it. Kier Starmer privatised everything and lied to us while he did it, that OK?
Anyway **** it. Kier Starmer privatised everything and lied to us while he did it, that OK?
I'm sorry is this what this is all about......you don't like criticism of Starmer for not supporting a policy which he himself made as one of his "pledges" in his bid to become Labour Leader, and which voters, including Tory voters, support?
Why? Do you think it really is too much to ask of Starmer?
Edit: Btw my emphasis has been to ask why Starmer has totally reversed his position on nationalisation of rail, energy, and water, rather than criticise him for it.
I am genuinely puzzled as it appears to make no sense at all, especially under the present conditions. And I can't see how it will help him get into Number 10 - his stated aim.
No, just that you were wrong about energy costs.
If your only point was that I am wrong about energy costs, which was based on the couple of articles which I linked rather than my personal view, then this makes even less sense as it has nothing to do with energy costs:
Anyway **** it. Kier Starmer privatised everything and lied to us while he did it, that OK?
Cos you were using that false assertion to attack Starmer. There's plenty to go at without making shit up.
Saying that in the last 35 years since privatisation electricity has gone up a third in real terms and gas by a half isn't "making shit up". It isn't even an attack on Starmer.
Yeah but one of the main drivers for that has been a policy decision to shift from coal to gas and renewable sources. Not just that the energy co's are trousering the difference and that Starmers fine with that. Which was your point.
No my point is that Starmer appears to be supporting a failed strategy which does not have widespread public support. And that I can understand that from the Tories for various reasons but I can't understand it from the leader of the Labour Party.
the main drivers for that has been a policy decision to shift from coal to gas and renewable sources.
Yeah I can understand that but you haven't provided any evidence that it has had such a significant effect on the cost of electricity and gas.
Has gas really gone up by more than half in real term because we use less coal?
There was a very significant drop in the dependency on coal in the first 5 years or so after privatisation, however this coincides with the only period in the last 35 years when energy costs actually fell in real terms.
The next approximately 20 years UK coal dependency remained more or less fairly stable, during this period energy costs increased significantly in real terms.
In the last 10 years or so coal dependency has completed collapsed and has been replaced by renewables to the point that they are now the dominant source. Despite renewables being considerably cheaper than either coal or gas energy prices have still continued to significantly increase in real terms - even before the current crises.
I am happy to accept that moving away from coal has had an effect on energy costs but I am sceptical that it has been so significant as to explain the third increase in real terms in electricity prices and the even higher increases in gas prices.
Gas prices have increased since privatisation for several reasons:
1) We weren't allowed to use gas for power generation under an EC directive that was only repealed around 1992, once that was repealed we had the so-called 'dash for gas'.
2) Initial fuel stock was taken from the North Sea, as I understand it those reserves are seriously depleted and must be supplemented with imports.
3) Storage capacity has dropped over the years going from [url= https://www.carbonbrief.org/is-the-uks-limited-gas-storage-capacity-a-problem/ ]14 days worth in 2013[/url] to [url= https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/sep/24/how-uk-energy-policies-have-left-britain-exposed-to-winter-gas-price-hikes ]4 days worth last year[/url]. When was the last time you saw a gasometer? There used to be one in every town, now they're all but extinct, I don't think there's any left at Provan in Glasgow, they were the last ones I saw. This means we need to buy it as we go rather than building up reserves when it's cheap.
****ing hell, repeating myself. Renewables are cheaper NOW. They were very expensive early doors and we're still paying for a lot of the high tariffs on earlier sources
There was a very significant drop in the dependency on coal in the first 5 years or so after privatisation, however this coincides with the only period in the last 35 years when energy costs actually fell in real terms.
Dash for gas. Then gas went up steadily until the banking crash.
In the last 10 years or so coal dependency has completed collapsed and has been replaced by renewables to the point that they are now the dominant source
Gas is still ~50%, so even including nuclear - which the grid dont; no
Plus other stuff in bills, mostly network costs, CCL, and yes profit
I thought gasometers had become a thing of the past because natural gas is piped at much lower pressure than coal gas and also because coal gas can't be produced on demand?
It does still appear that the real term increase in gas prices is linked to cost cutting and "efficiency" in the privatised industry according to the linked article:
The Rough storage facility, owned by Centrica, the parent company of British Gas, provided 70% of the UK gas storage capacity for more than 30 years before it shut in 2017 following a government decision not to subsidise the costly maintenance and upgrades needed to keep the site going.
The government claimed that it would save £750 million over 10 years, which presumably wasn't a cost that Centrica was prepared to pay.
And according to the FT:
https://www.ft.com/content/c88039ce-96e5-4eed-b6e8-58a01623987e
Investment in the North Sea by energy companies has fallen 90 per cent since 2014, according to OEUK, the trade body for Britain’s offshore oil and gas industry, and capital spending is expected to at most plateau in the coming years.
I consider that to be a failure of the privately owned industry. Although I do understand that less investment might well be needed with considerably cheaper renewables now being the dominant source.
But all this lack of investment whilst explaining the possible reasons for high energy prices it doesn't justify it, nor does it make the case for privatisation, quite the contrary.
So the answer to over reliance on catastrophically expensive gas is to go and look for it in hard to exploit unproven reserves? OK.
Also it's one thing to nationalise generation and transmission/distribution but exploration too?
**** hell, repeating myself
You are not really, you are saying different things to justify how much energy prices have increased since privatisation 35 years ago.
Initially it was because the UK moved away from cheap coal, although that started well before the privatisation of gas and electricity so it should have been predictable before privatisation. Voters were told that privatisation would result in cheaper consumer prices.
No, I just pointed out that you were wrong to attribute 100% of that increase on privatisation/profiteering. All the subsequent thrashing about youve been doing has been you trying to deflect from that.
you were wrong to attribute 100% of that increase on privatisation/profiteering.
No, you have completely made that up. I have not made any claim concerning what is 100% responsible for the real term increases in electricity and gas prices.
I said that privatisation has not resulted in lower prices for consumers as it was claimed it would. For reasons which I can only assume are idealogical you have decided to have an argument over that undeniable fact.
I am perfectly prepared to accept that multiple factors are responsible for the failure of privatisation to lower electricity and gas prices.
Including that the whole premise of lower consumer prices was based on the lie that privatisation would result in greater efficiency which would be passed on to customers.
Oh. I see. Because you can't be wrong I must be ideologically impure. All makes sense now.
He's crap but he's going to win the next election.
Oh. I see. Because you can’t be wrong I must be ideologically impure. All makes sense now.
Yeah that's what I said. ffs
Yeah that’s what I said. ffs
Yes, it is.
For reasons which I can only assume are idealogical
He’s crap but he’s going to win the next election.
I don't like to predict anything in politics but I will be surprised if Starmer wins the next general election.
Especially if Liz Truss chooses to do what the last two PMs who were chosen midterm did and calls an early general election.
The Labour lead in the opinion polls is currently surprisingly small, it hasn't been in double figures for quite some time. With a honeymoon period Truss is very likely to wipe out that Labour lead I would have thought. I am less sure that she would have a working majority though.
Because you can’t be wrong I must be ideologically impure.
FFS what does that even mean? Are you suggesting that people having consistent principles which they don’t break is a bad thing? On the other thread I’m being called a hypocrite for not wanting to pay tax on small building jobs. A good example of ideological ‘flexibility’ if only a small one, and yet here Ernie is being accused of the opposite. What the hell is it that you people want?
Oh. I see. Because you can’t be wrong I must be ideologically impure. All makes sense now.
Don't get this idealogically pure / impure label.
It's a an ill-thought out smear that James O'Brien likes to throw around whilst looking like he's demolishing the Tories.
You people?
Are you suggesting that people having consistent principles which they don’t break is a bad thing?
if ever there was a sentence written in haste.
if ever there was a sentence written in haste.
Not really. He was accusing Ernie of ideological purity as if that’s a bad thing. Agree with him or not, but Ernie is probably the most ideologically consistent poster on here. Call that purity if you like but in my book that’s something to be admired rather than the opposite.
in my book that’s something to be admired
But it's for that reason (consistent principles from which they will not deviate) that neither Truss or Sunak would ever consider re-nationalisation of the monopoly industries, you think that's to be admired?
Politics is compromise. Ideological purity is rarely accommodating of dissenting opinions
Truss and Sunak would consider nationalisation if it benefitted them/ their mates financially.
Yes @ctk you're probably right. It's one of the ways that the Tory party has been so successful over the years, they have a very loose set of principles, over which they are very flexible.
And why Communism falls to totalitarianism and dictatorship so easily
This term 'ideology' or sometimes 'idealogy'(!) gets banded about and its meaning is lost. Do people mean 'ideology as opposed to science' (as with 60s US sociology) or ideology as a perspective or ideology is something I disagree with? What does 'ideological purity' mean? These discussions sadly do get derailed with 'grown up, cock sucking, cult, idealogy' word salads, it seems to suggest an inability to understand or stick to arguments and evidence and therefore a resort to contumely.
they have a very loose set of principles, over which they are very flexible.
Whilst the position has moved over time its more the emphasis on which key principles are foremost which has changed. Plus a lot of PR work to pretend other factors are considered when in reality they arent. This is, of course, leaving Johnson to one side who was principleless although its worth remembering when he deviated too far he was shown the door.
I am really not sure where you are going with the communism one. Its a bizarre comparison against the tories. You might as well say the right wing falls to dictatorship easily by looking at those new states emerging at about the same time communism did.
Personally I would rate communism as unworkable for the same reason libertarianism is (unsurprising since the intended outcome is effectively the same) but thats a separate area.
‘ideology as opposed to science’
No space in the discussion for scientism then?
Its a bizarre comparison against the tories.
It' wasn't, it was the most extreme version of Ideological thought that came immediately to mind, you could equally apply it to Fascism
All the sewerage pumped into the sea is surely a vote winner for Labour? Assuming they still want to nationalise water.
It needs massive investment, including new reservoirs. Private water companies are never going to do it.
Re nationalising water is the easiest nationalisation to sell imo.