Forum menu
Well not really, as I’ve concluded that I don’t want to vote for him.
But you have concluded that "Not Tory" is a reason. He doesn't care if you "want" to vote for him or not. You either vote for him or first-past-the-post guarantees that whoever else you might vote for won't matter.
He has correctly assumed that you, or at least other pissed-off voters like yourself, won't be voting Tory.
The latest opinion poll gives Labour a 23% lead over the Tories btw, so he is well on course to becoming the next UK prime minister.
We can’t afford it apparently.
Which is why a Labour spokesperson said that while the party would not issue any new licences, it would "continue to use existing fields in the North Sea for decades to come".
And also why.....
The Rosebank oil and gas field west of Shetland is expected to get the go-ahead within weeks, following reassurances from Sir Keir Starmer that he would not block the development if a Labour government comes into power at the next general election.
Yes, the Tories will keep on issuing licences, and giving tax breaks, right up to an election… and beyond if we give them another term. Rolling back on issued licenses isn’t going to be happening, just as I’d hope new renewable projects started if Labour win don’t get pulled if they fail to win a second term. The UK having continuity on long term energy partnerships already committed to, honouring what’s been granted, shouldn’t be controversial.
"The Rosebank oil and gas field west of Shetland is expected to get the go-ahead within weeks, following reassurances from Sir Keir Starmer"
So it would not have got the go-ahead without personal reassurances from Sir Keir Starmer.
If having continuity on long term energy partnerships is the excuse this time what will the excuses be when Labour are in government? Continuity again? Energy security? State of the economy? The energy industry mess left by the Tories?
You’re reading a lot into the wording that Times journalist used.
Anyway, have a good sleep.
Okay how about the wording used by environmentalists?
The emissions from Rosebank’s operations alone – not counting any emissions from burning the oil and gas it is likely to produce – are likely to reach 5.6m tonnes of carbon dioxide, according to analysis by Uplift of the environmental statements provided by Equinor.
“Ministers also know that approving Rosebank will do nothing to lower UK fuel bills and will do very little for UK energy security as most of these reserves will likely be exported. On every level, including legally, Rosebank fails.”
Even Ed Miliband, Labour’s shadow secretary for climate and net zero, is totally against the development of Rosebank. Ed Miliband said:
The evidence is clear: Rosebank will do nothing to cut bills, as the government admit, is no solution to our energy security, and would drive a coach and horses through our climate commitments.”
Obviously Ed Miliband said that a few weeks before Keir Starmer backtracked. Miliband also said:
"the idea that they are about to throw billions at new fossil fuel exploration shows that they will scandalously waste money on climate vandalism"
So he obviously feels very strongly about the issue. Or least he did a few weeks ago.
Miliband can speak for himself…
Yes he can, which is why I provided a link to a Guardian article dated 1st April which quotes him as being extremely opposed to the development of Rosebank. I said:
So he obviously feels very strongly about the issue. Or least he did a few weeks ago.
So you have provided evidence that he has completely backtracked, as expected, and the excuse that he has decided to give for doing so.
Obviously the "billions to oil and gas companies” wasn't an issue at all a few weeks ago when Miliband was talking to the Guardian, and before his boss had backtracked and reassured to the oil company that they could go ahead, otherwise this rather important detail would have been mentioned.
Labour won’t issue licenses. The current government will. Everything else follows from that. A change of government before any more licenses are issued would be great.
He has correctly assumed that you, or at least other pissed-off voters like yourself, won’t be voting Tory.
I wasn't going to vote Tory regardkess of what he says or does, so it's not relevant to me.
That’s not what’s been said, it’s being tapered in over the first few years.
And you believe this because?
I wasn’t going to vote Tory regardkess of what he says or does
Yup, that is what Starmer's strategy is based on - ignore the anti-Tory vote and focus on pleasing Tory voters.
A change of government before any more licenses are issued would be great.
As would not backtracking before even winning an election - politicians generally wait until they have actually won an election before going back on their promises.
"This will not stop drilling on projects that have already been approved, with the exception of the Rosebank and Cambo schemes, which Labour has said previously it would block."
Yup, that is what Starmer’s strategy is based on – ignore the anti-Tory vote and focus on pleasing Tory voters.
Seems to be working. It is assuming that the anti-Tory vote will still vote Labour though and I suppose the majority will as who else are they going to vote for - even more tory like Lib Dems or those losers the Green Party?
Seems to be working.
Only through the blind luck of having the most clueless and incompetent tory govt in history. I get the strategy, and I could accept it if someone could persuade me that Starmer is more progressive and radical than he appears. But let’s be honest with ourselves, he’s not is he?
Also whilst any doubts I had about Corbyn were mitigated by him having McDonnell behind him, with Starmer it’s the opposite. Rachel Reeves is the most rightwing, establishment supporting, unambitious and out of touch shadow chancellor I have ever seen. She will be a disaster. The only hope for a new labour govt is that she somehow screws up and Starmer replaces her.
- A Labour government won’t grant any more licenses
- A Tory government will grant more licenses
- We have a Tory government, so new licenses likely this year
- Labour won’t take away licenses already issued, for reasons gone over already
If you want a stop to new licenses being issued, get the Tories out.
he’s not is he?
No, he isn’t. There won’t be a bait’n’switch… Labour won’t suddenly be revolutionary if they win. It’ll all be very boring for those that want fast results rather than a shift in direction and the long hard graft needed to turn this country around.
were mitigated by him having McDonnell behind him
It’s a real shame McDonnell wasn’t prepared to take over as leader after the 2017 defeat. Understandable that he didn’t, it’s a job that crushes you from all sides, but a shame for the country as a whole.
Even as a Londoner (originally) I can't stand the way she speaks, hectoring and infantilising. You really wouldn't want to be stuck with her getting your ears pianoed at Murdoch's summer party for very long.
'hard graft needed' sounds like LP austerity. Marr said the LP's plans for the economy were little different from the Tories but it will 'feel' different because of the working class background (sic) of the LP front bench.
rather than a shift in direction and the long hard graft needed to turn this country around.
Sounds a bit brexiteer "just wait and it will be fine".
The problem with this "long graft" approach is then the tories get back in and bin off the window dressing good stuff and double down on the stuff which has been normalised.
If you want to undo the damage then you have to be radical to get the changes embedded. The obvious one being electoral reform. Get that done and lower the chances of the tories screwing us in future.
‘hard graft needed’ sounds like LP austerity.
Seems like they haven't learned the lesson of the first Cameron govt. Do the hard stuff first, and do it fast because you won't get the chance later. Instead they're going to spend 4 years telling the country they can't afford to do anything (not even free school meals FFS!) and then they'll get kicked out by a resurgent tory party ready to finish the job they started in 2016. It's all so bloody predictable.
If you want to undo the damage then you have to be radical to get the changes embedded. The obvious one being electoral reform. Get that done and lower the chances of the tories screwing us in future.
Yep, Starmer has lucked into leading in the polls and once in power he could do a lot of radical stuff. The media would scream "That wasn't in the manifesto" but so what if the voters actually see change for the better. They may even vote them in again rather than more likely giving them a chance, not seeing any difference so voting tory again.
They will have served their purpose.
Yep, Starmer has lucked into leading in the polls and once in power he could do a lot of radical stuff.
He could but the evidence for this is rather slim. The only thing he has seemed enthusiastic about is cracking down on anyone vaguely leftwing.
Plus it would be rather undesirable in terms of embedding the "they are all liars" further.
Starmer's plan is a complete con. He is literally clueless about how the economy works and Rachel Reeves is not much better. The missions are meaningless because in the main they can't be delivered and assume capabilities and conditions that don't exist and can't be created quickly. e.g.
Green & Digital Future
Promise: Invest £28B public capital into the green economy.
Reality: Reeves has already backtracked on the promise - it's now something that "may"chappen towards the end of the next parliament "if" the fiscal conditions allow. The return on the £28B investment isn't stated (if there's no net return it's a bad investment) and it's not clear if there's even £28B of investable opportunities without creating hyper inflation in green tech and over paying in the process. It's also not stated what the investment targets are.
Promise: Support the creation of over a million good jobs for people of all regions, ages, genders and socioeconomic groups
Reality: There's no detail on what a good Green job is or any proof that 1m jobs can be created in any realistic time period - let alone ones that make a net contribution to the running of the state. The policy also ignores that a rapid pivot to green by restricting local gas and oil devt. in favour of importing more of it will definitely result in the loss of tens of thousands of well paying (net tax payer) jobs in the oil / gas supply chains - and a huge knock on in the wider economy due to the associated loss of engineering skills. Most wind turbines construction is actually assembly - with high value parts made off shore and imported.
Promise: Cut energy bills for good, saving each UK household hundreds of pounds a year
Reality: A decline in global gas / oil prices is one of the scenarios energy analysts are looking at. So by fixating on a rapid transition to net zero, consumers may actually land up paying more (either to energy Co's or in tax to fund the rapid pivot to green tech) than they would have done.
Promise: Deliver clean electricity by 2030
Reality: There's still no commercially viable scale storage tech for renewables. So for electricity to be "clean" by 2030 we need a complete switch to renewables, the invention of storage tech that doesn't exist yet, scaling that tech / commercialising it and then deploying it right across the national grid. Likely many tens of thousands of new bits of storage infrastructure to be designed, built and which will require planning permission before it can be installed. All in 5 years.
Most people whose main experience is outside politics can see Starmer's missions for what they are - cynical cons designed to fool people and assembled by people who have zero experience of delivering anything.
For balance, Blair's big pitch in 1997 was actually grounded in some sense of reality - the policy elements had been thought through and the implementation was feasible, even if in the end a lot of it failed to meet the original policy objective or cost a lot more than originally stated.
A Labour government won’t grant any more licenses
– A Tory government will grant more licenses
– We have a Tory government, so new licenses likely this year
– Labour won’t take away licenses already issued, for reasons gone over alreadyIf you want a stop to new licenses being issued, get the Tories out.
You keep repeating the same thing over and over again as if whatever Starmer says now, and whatever pledges he makes, won't change.
Where is the evidence for that? Starmer has already backtracked on every pledge he made to become leader and now he is backtracking on his more recent pledges, including his £28 billion green pledge and his pledge to block Rosebank.
No one expects the opposition to break their promises before they even get into government but Starmer has managed to do that. I guess it is a reflection of how confident he is on winning the next general election - he is already beginning to behave as if he has won.
To suggest that whatever Starmer says is set in stone is as daft as Ed Miliband's infamous "Ed Stones"
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ed-miliband-stone-election-pledges-b2088683.html
To your credit Kelvin you have remained composed about all of this, and all of the u-turns.
I don't know why you don't carry a similar cynicism as a few of us do about Labour but fair play to you - I've not even had the faith with Starmer from the begining. It's panned out worse than I expected in terms of hope.
Also - speaking to a few people they've fallen out with politics generally as they don't believe there is a positive outcome - that sits squarely at Starmer's door as he's simply not wielded anti-Tory sentiment into something better.
To your credit ....
I am not sure why anyone should deserve credit for being in denial of Starmer's dishonesty and ever growing list of u-turns and backtracking.
Yet another dishonest and untrustworthy Prime Minister is not what the British people need.
I am not sure why anyone should deserve credit for being in denial of Starmer’s dishonesty and ever growing list of u-turns and backtracking.
I mean he hasn't resorted to screeching or attacking the Starmer thread that's all.
once in power he could do a lot of radical stuff. The media would scream “That wasn’t in the manifesto” but so what
There is 0% chance Starmer is going to rip the mask off and reveal he is the reincarnation of Nye Bevan once he crosses the threshold of No.10. It's not in his character or ideology.
To pursue a platform that is totally different from the election manifesto would eat away at a constitutional principle, undermine public trust and precipitate another civil war in Labour.
The cynicism is baked in Rone. Getting a government with a full policy platform and appetite for change that matches my own ideals isn't possible in the UK. I feel I finally have an understanding of where England sits politically... and it's not 100% aligned with me, to put it mildly. But neither is it with this current government, and the damage they wreak. I campaigned and voted against New Labour at every opportunity. Against Blair, against Brown, against Miliband... the result of me and millions of others doing that, and the Tories winning power on the back of that split in the opposition to them, is a wrecked NHS, wrecked education system, relatively poorer workers, more in work poverty, neutered unions, poor trading conditions for SMEs, worsening environmental conditions, empowering of and enrichment of fossil fuel companies at the expense of both localised and global pollution... on and on it goes. I accept my responsibility in that for my past wasted votes. I'm not doing it again in a Tory/Labour marginal, because Labour isn't a left wing as I'd like. Play politics like a game with no consequences if you want, but I'll be voting with the aim to change who is our MP, and hopefully who is in government. I, and many others, will also be a talking to that candidate directly to make it clear when and where they fall short, if/once elected.
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1674021034599538689?s=20
And again.
@Kelvin I see where you're coming from. But there is lots of blind faith involved in what Labour may or may not do.
Just being 'Labour' in name is not good enough for me currently.
I have one bunch of scumbags that won't build on the green belt and one bunch of scumbags that can't wait to build on it.
Think I'll vote green.
Just being ‘Labour’ in name is not good enough for me currently.
Nor me. I never used to vote for them, remember. It's not the label, it's the chance to change things. We're in a right mess right now, to put it mildly, and most of that mess is in my opinion down to political choices made in the UK, even if it is hard to discern that through the noise of Covid and Russia. We need to try a change of government ASAP.
The current Labour policy platform (see the link I posted on the previous page for what I think that may be come an election, although we're not there yet) is a far better match to my own hopes than what the Conservatives are offering. It also isn't scaring off voters up here that need to vote Labour (even if it wouldn't be their first choice vote under a different system) for there to be any chance of any change to happen.
Who knows were I'd be if in a different seat. I think that in a LibDem/Tory marginal seat I'd vote LibDem, but their own policy offering isn't exactly complete at this point. I've asked myself what I'd do in a LibDem/Labour marginal... and I think the answer is vote Labour. I asked myself that question before joining the Labour party. The Green party? How many parliamentary seats is a vote for them the best move in terms of who is returned to parliament... 4 or 5? More than 1 MP would be a great result for them at the next election, and I want more Green MPs, but they won't be forming the next government... and if their vote share ends up being higher in enough seats where they are only ever coming third... well, we know where that might leave us... still right here... digging deeper into the shit of the last decade.
I understand the "none of the above" sentiment of many who feel let down by politics as a whole. And some of the votes for smaller parties are as much about that, or single issue awareness and exposure raising, as they are about those parties having a clear platform for government. That's all fine. But who becomes your MP, and who then goes to make up the government, really does matter beyond all that.
I understand the “none of the above” sentiment of many who feel let down by politics as a whole.
Our local labour candidate is on one of my cycling whatsapp groups so that's good enough for me. 😀
Getting a government with a full policy platform and appetite for change that matches my own ideals isn’t possible in the UK. I feel I finally have an understanding of where England sits politically… and it’s not 100% aligned with me, to put it mildly.
I have felt that for a long time. I vote Green because they would be my preference but it doesn't make any difference who I vote for where I live. If there was even a slim chance of someone beating the tory MP I would vote for them as other than something like Reform, I can't imagine a worse government than the tory government.
Yeah, those are some very low expectations.
Anyway water companies all looking shaky now. Mass bail outs or nationalisation on the cards.
We're at the tip of the abyss.
My water is nearly 800 and they want to consider 40%. Thames Water looking shaky.
Like the Carpenters sang - "we've only just begun."
Or the government could simply pay the bill.
I think it's a bit of a mis-read that just because Corbyn couldn't get left-wing ideals through - that it won't happen in the future.
Things will go so far downhill that it will be the only way to correct it - eventually as money dries up.
Well, that's something to look forward to... wait for everything to get worse and worse and then those pesky voters will have to agree with us. Jolly good. Or it might go the other way when a popular right wing nationalist comes along with the "answers". Great.
Or it might go the other way when a popular right wing nationalist comes along with the “answers”. Great.
It might after all thats what happened last time we had the lets be slightly less tory than the tories approach.
Lets just take the water screwup. What did new labour do about that?
Its simple enough if Starmer wants votes he needs to earn them. I mean even his most adoring fans sort of get this when they go on about appealing to the tories and the red wallers.
Well, that’s something to look forward to… wait for everything to get worse and worse and then those pesky voters will have to agree with us. Jolly good. Or it might go the other way when a popular right wing nationalist comes along with the “answers”. Great.
Not because the voters will agree with anyone but because they will need solutions.
By your own logic Starmer has had to turn right to gain popularity - and we have two right leaning options. How is that a solution? I can't pick the crumbs out of it.
I believe a leader should make a strong argument for pushing back against the Tories/RW policy and demonstrate how it will be done as opposed to just leaning right.
Starmer hasn't even attempted the former.
So I'm never going agree with this path. It's just heading towards constantly losing touch with policies that will make a real difference.
Clear as day.
It's really hard to keep up with Labour scrapping pledges at the moment.
This is what I genuinely don't understand....why all this backtracking and u-turns?
With a 23% lead in the polls and no signs that the internal crises in their two main rivals, the Tories and the SNP, are abating, Labour doesn't need to go into panic mode and start ditching the few fairly radical policies that they actually have.
It is frankly impossible for Labour to significantly increase their lead anymore than it is at the present. So why are they trying to appease Tory voters even more?
I can only think that it is either total confidence that they will win the next general election, and therefore it is simply unnecessary to convince voters that they will be radically different to the Tories.
And/or, they never had any intention in to implement their more radical policies in the first place so now confident that they will win the next general election they can start managing expectations in preparation for the disappointment that is surely bound to come.
https://twitter.com/DeltapollUK/status/1673312994690838535
This is what I genuinely don’t understand….why all this backtracking and u-turns
Me too. It's not a good look.
It is frankly impossible for Labour to significantly increase their lead anymore than it is at the present. So why are they trying to appease Tory voters even more
Because they're not a progressive party any longer.
It's just degrees of Conservatism.
I don't think Starmer is interested in changing much at all.
Not because the voters will agree with anyone but because they will need solutions.
They won't even bother asking voters.
From bailing out the banks to pandemic mega-spending, the state intervenes not because voters have agreed but because there is no alternative.
This is what I genuinely don’t understand….why all this backtracking and u-turns?
Good question. All it does it give power to us "I told you so" types as he turns out to be exactly what we are already seeing. He either is showing what he really thinks and wants to do or some other forces are at work (and I don't mean tin foil hat stuff, I just don't know what they are)
It is starting to be a real struggle to keep up with Starmer's backtracking.
Keir Starmer is considering dropping a promise to reinstate the Department for International Development (DfID), prompting anger from senior Labour figures and high-profile names in the international development world.
The Labour leader promised last year to restore the department, which was scrapped in 2020 by Boris Johnson, who called it a “giant cashpoint in the sky”.
Sarah Champion, the Labour chair of the international development committee, said: “If we want credibility going into the general election, we have to be seen to keep to our promises. One we have been consistent is bringing back a new Department for International Development. It has to have that independence.”
So now Keir Starmer wants to back Boris Johnson's policy of making foreign aid conditional on foreign governments showing sufficient gratitude by complying with UK foreign policy goals.
Presumably "value for money" is the main consideration here.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11875293/boris-foreign-office-aid/
Sir Keir didn’t get his title for being “outstanding in his field”. It’s a customary practice to give the outgoing head of the CPS a gong. He literally just had to stay in the job to keep it. On the way he collected his own piece of pension legislation so he could be treated differently to all of us.
This whole thread is mostly pretty depressing.
Irrespective of their political beliefs I think the leader of any national political party should be:
- honest / consistent
- have broad experience in a number of areas
- have the ability to think systemically i.e. on the issues and the links between issues
- the ability to form a team with the right experience to execute policy
- should be able to articulate policies that they don’t immediately have to renege on because it turned out they didn’t understand the direct or indirect consequence
Starmer has none of these qualities.
It very debatable if he believes anything he says - for a guy that’s criticised the U-turns of others he’s now way ahead of the them.
In his policies he doesn’t seem to grasp the feasibility of achieving them or have the nous to filter out the ones that will have a massive downside.
His personal integrity also appears to be fluid - the paedo attacks on Sunak were abhorrent and completely unfair.
His leadership team are more of the same (at best) and at worst are total fools who would be given little if any responsibility outside politics.
From bailing out the banks to pandemic mega-spending, the state intervenes not because voters have agreed but because there is no alternative
Voters are at the end of the shit storm though.
https://twitter.com/RichardBurgon/status/1673975407920443395?s=19
Can't see Rich lasting with sensible talk like that.
Oh, I don't know, Burgon has shown himself to be pretty adept at denying making comments if they turn out to be awkward, even if there is video evidence: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/richard-burgon-zionism-shadow-minister-jeremy-corbyn-comments-a8872896.html
Things will go so far downhill that it will be the only way to correct it
Disaster socialism. As capitalism contains the seeds of its own destruction, it's always good news when things get worse!
I wonder what Naomi Klein would think to that.
I think Socialism is the default position for water supply really.
Hang on I missed a trick - as adept as Starmer denying his position on everything pre 2022?
I think Socialism is the default position for water supply really.
Have to agree with that.
<p>“<span style="caret-color: #555555; color: #555555; font-family: Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, 'Noto Sans', sans-serif, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji'; font-style: italic; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;"> I think Socialism is the default position for water supply really.”</span></p><p>So buckle up and enjoy the ride as public sector inefficiency makes zero inroads into discharges and the cost of capital doubles or triples annual water bills.</p><p>If we use Scotland as the reference point for water company performance when run by the public sector:</p><p>- around half the water is lost in leaks</p><p>- the per minute leak rate in Scotland is higher than England</p><p>- more than 10,000 sewage discharges in 2022</p><p>Politicians are running to hoodwink the public with their quick fixes but the reality is:</p><p>- huge capex is required to make inroads into leaks or sewage discharges - one report I read suggested over £1000 a year per household for ten years</p><p>- that capex needs to be funded (government debt - currently 5-6% interest) or by shareholders (2-3% dividends)</p><p>- big projects like the Thames Tideway tunnel will be needed in many cities - which will mean a decade of huge civils works in neighbourhood areas - with another 5 years to plan it all then get planning permission.</p><p>I’m all for the above - clean rivers and seas is a no brainier. But everyone needs to recognise they will pay for this - and most people haven’t yet bothered to even try and reduce their own water consumption with simple water saving measures in their homes.</p>
kelvin
Full Member
I think Socialism is the default position for water supply really.Have to agree with that.
I thought you previously agreed with Starmer's claim that water nationalisation would be too expensive and therefore should remain in private hands. Have you changed your mind?
You can agree that something is a default position but have to work with what you have to bring out the best outcome without necessarily going back to that default position of course.
Well if you don't support a policy your "default" position is meaningless and pointless.
Would you believe there would be any point in Rishi Sunak saying that his "default" position was universal free school meals for all school children even if he didn't support the policy?
It would be an interesting development if politicians started going around making commitments to default positions which they have no intention of supporting. Just think how generous they could become. And how impressed people would be.
Isn't Sunak making generous offers he won't be around to make happen eg increasing the number of medical students and giving people a year's grace before being evicted. He's just dropping a pile onto Starmer's premiership.
Starmer’s claim that water nationalisation would be too expensive
A hilarious claim given the govt are now going to have to bail out Thames Water to the tune of 10bn after they've paid out billions to shareholders and are now talking about hiking bills by 40%. Just another example of daylight robbery committed by supposedly efficient 'free' markets.
At what point are Starmer and his cap-doffing cronies going to say enough is enough? Instead of going into the next election with a tsunami of cynicism and apathy in the air, he could have the entire country behind him and a mission to put an end to flagrant and corrupt profiteering. Even most daily heil reading tories would struggle to oppose that.
Indeed. The cost of nationalisation of water needs to be balanced against the increasing costs of not nationalising it. All that ever increasing private sector debt (being at least partly used to extract dividends) will, at some point, be transferred into public debt... because the state can't let water supplies fail, and there's absolutely no market switching possible for water users. Water as a private industry makes no sense whatsoever... you'd never "start from here"... and reverting to public ownership, or at least making companies into not for profits with tighter remits, will *have* to happen at some point. We could have something like that already... if people had voted for it in enough numbers in the right seats at the last election. Delaying it 'till it's inevitable seems an odd approach... but increasingly that's how nationalisation happens... at the point of total failure and not before. Do it once the inevitable becomes unavoidable (just like rail). Once the option is either the state steps in or people go thirsty... there is only one option. Waiting for that to happen is either shortsighted, or cowardice about being labelled profligate for ideological reasons... or both. Being scared of another 5, 10, 15 years of "carping from the sidelines" is a fear that shouldn't be ignored though... plenty of people in this country can't afford yet another Tory government.
I've no skin in the game either way, apart from wanting to see cleaner rivers and seas, but it's not very clear what people think will happen if / when Water goes back into public ownership.
A cursory review of what was happening before privatisation in the 80s suggests that leaks were an issue, capital investment was low and the management of the infrastructure was pretty poor. The same is still true now for Scottish Water - which has been publicly run for quite a while.
Post privatisation we've had a sustained increase in capital investment and a reduction in headcount - so fewer people developing / implementing more assets i.e. it's more efficient.
From a consumer perspective, water charges in many areas are reasonable. We're on Thames Water and the charges are around £28 a month (metred) including waste. That's for a family of 4. The price hasn't risen a huge amount even though one of the biggest operating costs for Thames is energy to move the water round / pressurise it. That said our neighbours (similar properties / numbers of occupants) complain their water bills are double ours. The same is also true for their gas bills as well...
Turning to the ownership structure there seems to be a carte-blanche belief it will be cheaper / better under public ownership but everything points to that not being the case:
- The capex required to make major inroads into discharges is huge - see post above. On capital alone, the estimates point to £1K per household per year for 10 years.
- The financing of that will be by tax (public owned) or via shareholders (privately owned).
- The cost of finance is either tax to fund borrowing (government - currently 5-6% interest) or tax increases.
- Under private ownership, shareholders (of which I'm not one) receive a share of the profit. Current margins by the water companies are in the range of 2-4% so materially different to the political claims of "ripping off consumers".
One of the red herrings is that many of the politicians with a strong view don't seem to have any understanding even in the difference between Capex and Opex.
On LBC last night listening to the "round table" all of the MPs were completely clueless about how projects are funded - the Labour MP kept talking about "asset stripping" in the water companies when it's patently clear there has been none. Likewise the "loading with debt" is mostly borrowing to fund Capex - something the government would also need to do if under public ownership.
If we then turn to the key difference in public vs. private the biggest one is who takes project risk on multi £B capex projects and who is more likely to implement on time / budget. There are many variables in big civil projects but this is generally something the private sector does better than the public sector - and lots of reasons for that including skill, org culture, project discipline etc etc. Even with the budget overrun on Crossrail, the project ultimately delivered within the budget indicated in 2009 before it was "trimmed" for political purposes by the then new Tory govt in 2010/11.
There's also a number of systemic issues that aren't being talked about.
In the Thames region there's now a hosepipe ban - which sounds bad / let's all throw stones at them. Dig under the headlines and the picture is more nuanced:
- Consumers are using record volumes of water
- The population growth has massively outstripped forecasts from public bodies e.g. ONS with the result the infrastructure (long lead time) hasn't kept up with very rapid changes in short term demand.
- The actual population appears to be significantly bigger than the official population figures based on Thames Water's measuring of solid sewage volumes i.e. there's too much for the given number of people.
- Attempts by Thames to build more storage capacity have been consistently rejected by Ofwat for the last 20+ years - most noticeably the proposed storage reservoir in the Chilterns / Oxfordshire.
On the waste side we then have an equally nuanced picture:
- Even with metred water, consumers are happy to waste fresh water (see above on water bills) - with little or no attempts to reduce consumption (flow reducing shower / tap heads, more showers less baths, short flush WCs etc).
- We've also been buying more food that has a massive direct impact in field run off and sewage in rivers - the tens of millions of Chickens now being reared along the River Wye being a good example - households eating 2-3 £2.50 whole chickens a week and the huge number of fried chicken shops has effectively collapsed the river ecosystem all under the watchful gaze of Defra and Ofwat
- Changes in weather systems and the loss of green space in urban settings (car parking instead of front gardens) has resulted in huge increases in run off during storms which overwhelms the planned capacity of sewer systems.
So my view is this:
- We should think more carefully about the outcomes we want and the root cause of the problems before jumping to solutions
- The ownership structure is largely a red herring - it needs to be funded
- We should all expect to pay a lot more tax / water charges to fund the Capex required to fix the problem
- We can all take steps to reduce our own consumption of water now - and do our bit to reducing the size of the problem.
- We all need to think more widely about other choices (food, lifestyle, protecting green space) we make that ultimately contribute to the problem.
plenty of people in this country can’t afford yet another Tory government.
That's unfortunate, because if we continue with the current system they are going to get one.
Perhaps not in the next election, possibly not in the one after that, but there is a Tory government in our future and it'll undo any limited 'progress' Labour might have made because that is simply the nature of our democratic system.
And any progress Labour can make is limited naturally because they are chasing the same handful of swing voters the Tories are.
I understand your motivation. However, voting for Labour may result in some limitation of the pain for a short period but the pain is coming unless there is radical change. Change that Labour has no interest in offering.
If that is a "we need PR" claim, I agree. In the meantime... we don't... and need to vote using the system in front of us, not risk gifting the Tories seats and another term by ignoring the distorting effects of FPTP.
Ordinary folk have a choice, and if they continue to vote Tory they'll soon not have a choice (healthcare, education, freedom, etc etc) unless they're loaded, not just well off, LOADED.
Hold you nose when you vote if you have to, but be fully aware of what you've enabled so far, and be fully aware of where the UK is going if they're allowed in again.
If that is a “we need PR” claim, I agree. In the meantime… we don’t… and need to vote using the system in front of us, not risk gifting the Tories seats and another term by ignoring the distorting effects of FPTP.
No, it's a 'a vote for Labour is simply enabling the Tories to continue on their mission' claim.
A vote for Labour is a vote to say you're OK with the current two party system and you don't mind having another Tory government in 5 or 10 years that is just as hell bent on making the poor suffer and enriching their mates.
the Labour MP kept talking about “asset stripping” in the water companies when it’s patently clear there has been none. Likewise the “loading with debt” is mostly borrowing to fund Capex – something the government would also need to do if under public ownership.
You seem to have forgotten to mention the high level of dividends paid out.
1.4 billion across all the companies in 2022 and something like 55 billion since privatisation.
Whilst Thames water claims it hasnt paid dividends in the last 5 years that is only external and it paid 37 million to its parent company.
Despite being handed over without debt the levels are now up to about 60 billion. Oddly similar to the dividends.
https://www.ft.com/content/ee03d551-8eee-4136-9eeb-7c8b51169a99
The levels of investment are questionable and whilst there is a good argument the state did underinvest thats more an argument against not electing politicians who hate the concept of the state rather than anything else.
Scottish water charges less and has invested more in infrastructure than its private English counterparts.
Despite being handed over without debt the levels are now up to about 60 billion. Oddly similar to the dividends.
Yet another argument for MMT. As a private company they have to borrow from the market to pay for infrastructure improvements etc and then pay interest to their creditors. As a publicly owned entity the govt can fund all that without having to worry about where the money is coming from as they can just spend it as they see fit.
https://www.ft.com/content/8ee5d48a-6103-11e9-a27a-fdd51850994c
If you want to avoid the paywall search for the FT article in Bing
You seem to have forgotten to mention the high level of dividends paid out.
Not really - describing that as "asset stripping" would just be a sign you don't know what you're on about.
All that ever increasing private sector debt (being at least partly used to extract dividends) will, at some point, be transferred into public debt…
I don't think that's true. Thames Water can fail as a company and take its debt with it. The state can still resume operation of the assets, just as it has done with other failed privatisations on the concession/franchise model.
<p style="text-align: left;">This country and it's shit 'take' on failed market economics needs a kick in the balls.
Get the lot back in state ownership. There is no advantage if there ever was to a monopoly private business model that exists to keep the nation alive.</p>
It should operate for public good at a 'cost' to the government not to the public.
There is no other debate for me.
The creaming finance sector and its benefactors are pointlessly swilling government money around in their own pockets instead of your pockets and your infrastructure.
First party that steps up to this gets my support.
(Also we're going to jump through hoops pretending we can't afford it and then some cash will magically appear.)
Share holder dividends on public service companies should be outlawed.
There is no economic evidence for anything good other than the transfer of a state asset to a few rich people.
"1.4 billion across all the companies in 2022 and something like 55 billion since privatisation.
Whilst Thames water claims it hasn't paid dividends in the last 5 years that is only external and it paid 37 million to its parent company."
This is a meaningless statement though.
£1.4B across all companies in 2022 over 31 million households is £45 a year.
So when we're being told about the "rip off" what we're actually talking about is 12p a day per household. Many of those inter company dividends are also subject to corporation tax - most at 25-40% - so the net dividend is c7p a day per household when taking into account the money the Govt gets back through tax.
Likewise the £55B since privatisation figure. That's £55B over a c34 year period - or £52 year / £1 a week per household for the whole of that time.
We then need to consider the alternative model.
Could the state finance the operating costs of same services (cashflow) and fund the £Bs of capex required (working capital finance) for 7p a day? Based on current govt borrowing costs almost certainly not.
And what's the likelihood of that being consistently achieved i.e. across all of the water companies, if the state were running it - would the cost of over runs / lack of productivity negate the saving and actually increase costs to the consumer?
It's very noticeable than particularly on the left, politicians use big numbers to "prove" the supposed rip off. But in most cases the claims are provably false with simple maths. This sort of issue is covered very well on the likes of "more or less" on Radio4.
The same is true of "greedflation" criticisms of Supermarkets. Most of Starmer's team have been trotting this out in recent months but it's a deliberate and massive misrepresentation of the truth which is:
- Supermarket margins are typically 2-4% - so on a regular weekly shop of £103 the supermarket makes £2-4 profit
- Food prices with recent inflation are still lower in Europe
- Corporate Earnings by supermarkets don't show any evidence of huge changes in profit - in many cases their profit forecasts are actually lower
- The margin of 2-4% has actually been eroded as prices have risen i.e. they've gone from 4% on £90 weekly shop to 3% on £103 shop
- The biggest supermarkets have seen huge falls in profit in the last year e.g. Tesco from £2.03B to £1B - Sainsbury's fell by the same %age.
Anyway, I guess these issues ultimately boils down to political viewpoint and whether we're willing to examine the facts and expect politicians to do the same before opining.
Is it right for any politician to wilfully mislead the public solely in order to create a false sense of injustice / drive voting intentions? There are examples of this with Brexit, Prison Reform, Boat Crossings etc etc and from my perspective this is often a cynical abuse of the electorate.
And if our worldview is just everything now is the fault of someone / reflects corporate greed I don't doubt that any contributions like this one will change anyone's viewpoint. That said, my hunch is that the people who contribute to the forum probably don't represent the worldview of all STW subscribers / forum users - it just feels that way.
Could the state finance the operating costs of same services (cashflow) and fund the £Bs of capex required (working capital finance) for 7p a day? Based on current govt borrowing costs almost certainly not.
It absolutely could.
Government borrowing only exists to swap one asset for another. It pays for nothing. The money used to purchase government bonds is previously issued Government money
And if the government borrowing really concerns you then do it with Q/E at net cost of nothing in monetary terms.
Look we're at a tipping point - ultimately just like the pandemic the government will have to pay because it's the only thing between a functioning water supply and illness or death.
So when we’re being told about the “rip off” what we’re actually talking about is 12p a day per household.
Sounds like a lot to me. Why are we paying them that?
Is it just me or do hite-rite's posts resemble those of a certain ex-forum member who also wrote very long posts often defending the corporate point of view?
Simple ruthless corporate behaviour - extract as money as possible and under invest, then hang it out to dry until the government produce a support package, that is probably temporary.
The share holders should not be compensated either. That's the risk of buying a share and enjoying the profit that came before.
Sounds like a lot to me. Why are we paying them that?
12p a day is absolute peanuts. The problem with water is that it's too cheap so that consumers and businesses waste it.
There's no way out of this that doesn't involve using less water and paying more for it. Whether it's to private or public operators - meh, the public operations in Scotland today or in the rest of the UK before privatisation don't have a stellar reputation either.
I agree that water should generally be publicly operated for the public good. I don't see renationalisation as a priority when it's hardly a panacea. But you know maybe we will get lucky, Thames Water (or even better a smaller company) will fail, the state can regain control, and it becomes a model for effective public operation.
There’s no way out of this that doesn’t involve using less water and paying more for it
Agreed. But why are we paying *extra* above the rising costs (to fix/improve the infrastructure) to someone who we have no choice but to deal with, just so that they can extract profit from the situation? Where's the market? Where's the options? Where's the competition? Where's the choice?
I don’t see renationalisation as a priority when it’s hardly a panacea.
Agreed. But it's still likely to happen, priority or not. The choice then becomes between trying to flip it back out into the profit extracting private sector to risk failing again, or keeping it in public hands (or make it a non profit org with a tighter remit). Things get interesting then. Support for re-privatisation is likely to be very thin indeed.
The problem with water is that it’s too cheap so that consumers and businesses waste it.
Maybe they should start charging us for the air we breathe too?
<p style="text-align: left;">I agree that water should generally be publicly operated for the public good. I don’t see renationalisation as a priority when it’s hardly a panacea. But you know maybe we will get lucky, Thames Water (or even better a smaller company) will fail, the state can regain control, and it becomes a model for effective public</p>
No model is perfect.
But we can try and have an accountable water infrastructure paid for by the government that invest and fix at no real terms cost.
Or we can have a seemingly unaccountable private monopoly that exists first and foremost to hive money to shareholders, and under invest.
Seems a pretty clear choice to me.
At some point the government will step in. There will be no other option.
The landscape has been warped by the privatisation model.
Labour talking like baby ****ing weasals and claiming the cost to tax payer, again. What about the cost to us all now as private bill payers?
What a set of pricks.
(Just like energy we have tolerated the 10% discount on an energy increase of 200% plus.)
Thatcher really sold everyone a load of crap.
Maybe they should start charging us for the air we breathe too?
Lol. Total Recall incoming.
Lol. Total Recall incoming.
In fact they should just charge us for existing (they pretty much do anyway). Call it 'existential surchage' or something.