Forum menu
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.
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.
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.....
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.
Stating they will go into a coalition with the SNP will cost labour votes. Probably enough to make the whole point moot. I expect the SNP would support labour on most issues even outside a coalition anyway.
Stating they will go into a coalition with the SNP will cost labour votes.
Why though? Especially as
the SNP would support labour on most issues even outside a coalition anyway.
I was thinking about this last weekend, while looking at all the George, Union (and Ukraine) flags flying in the more affordable areas in the North East. Labour should seriously consider splitting (formally or informally) into “Scottish Labour” (already exists) and “English Labour” (no, I haven’t forgotten Wales)… on a ticket of a referendum on a federal UK. Also offering NI more independence from Westminster without having to grasp the Irish Unification nettle. Decentralising in a way truly that changes but keeps the Union. Has to appeal in all the nations though… including in the “Red Wall”… hence “English Labour”.
Actually, I think I've worked it out ...
I'd always questioned why anyone at all left-leaning would rather have a Tory government over a Lab/SNP one but that was missing an obvious point. It's the right-leaning Labour voters that are driving the decision.
ex-red wall voters in the south
It is strange just how quickly the definitions of political metaphors can change, which can make it hard to keep up.
Here is the original comment by the man who coined the phrase only 3 years ago:
The first is a huge "red wall" stretching from N Wales into Merseyside, Warrington, Wigan, Manchester, Oldham, Barnsley, Nottingham and Doncaster. When you talk about cultural barriers to voting Tory – this is where it is.
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.
Bulb was given loan to run the company.
The biggest effective bail-out. But not ownership.
It's the usual thing, don't go anywhere near nationalisation but chuck money at it.
It's a ridiculous clash of ideology.
Effectively the market should collapse if it can't do its job.
But I think Bulb were one of the biggest if not the biggest to 'survive.'
Too big to fail. But it looked like it was on borrowed time to me.
It's not complex here in the heart of the red wall. They're socially conservative and economically liberal.
It maybe isn't that clean cut - but I dare bet if you raise the state of the economy up here you might loosen the attitude socially too.
Wallers got conned though. That's the sad truth - they were buying into levelling up as well as Brexit. (And a misdirected anti-Corbyn sentiment from the likes of their own John Mann.)
They thought loads of money was coming back.
This is why it's important for Labour to rewire their fiscal prudence policy and take on board that a government doesn't need to balance the books. Balanced books are of no use to an economy or deprived areas.
It's actually not that difficult to correct but Labour have gone in the totally wrong direction.
It is strange just how quickly the definitions of political metaphors can change
No, the definition hasn’t changed, it’s just that we’re not all in London. Someone in Scotland would describe “the Red Wall” as being in the south, especially when comparing it with seats in Scotland.
It’s the right-leaning Labour voters that are driving the decision.
It’s the “Union before all else” voters driving that decision. Whether they are right-leaning is debatable… in the main they may well be, but not exclusively. A federal solution really needs pushing by Labour… otherwise Scottish independence will come. It’ll be when, not if… unless a major party south of the border can push an alternative that isn’t just “shut up and keep the Union as it is”.
100% agree.
A new federal Britain should be Labour's number one policy. It would keep the Union together and give more power to the regions who have been ****ed over for decades. A vote winner I reckon?
Stating they will go into a coalition with the SNP will cost labour votes. Probably enough to make the whole point moot. I expect the SNP would support labour on most issues even outside a coalition anyway.
Think there's mixed reports going on, which may stem from the Scottish issues, more than national, from most sources, after a UK election Labour haven't said yay or nay to a coalition, as it's not really something to plan yet, the rest comes from the previous coalition in a Scottish government, which isn't happening anyway.
As Scotroutes says, the SNP naturally back against the tories, without the need to give the tories more fuel to burn labour with, like the way they lambasted Milliband with potential links to the SNP back in 2015.
Personally, i think the SNP have enough to work out and plan without thinking of a UK coalition as well, there's a lot going on up in Scotland and a lot of fighting ahead for them as well, they're getting tarred as much as Labour are just now!
"I'm told that hindsight is a wonderful thing"
👏🏼
Concentrating on the cost of living crisis, while setting out the immediate measures the government could and should be taking, while also pricking at the empty phrases of the PM at PMQs.
"he said that fears about inflation were unfounded"
The part time PM has been asleep at the wheel all along. Repeated charges of "doing the country down" and "captain hindsight" thrown at the LotO to deflect away from questions about poor governance by a floundering government could be about to hit the end of the line at last.
"He talks about doing this country down, he is running this country down"
👏🏼
Johnson is back on "got Brexit done"... very obviously on the back foot. All noise.
“I’m told that hindsight is a wonderful thing”
Nice to see Starmer indulging in jocular knockabout and looking very pleased with himself while millions suffer. He's laughing and joking when he should be raging with anger. He just doesn't get it.
He just doesn’t get it.
Yes, he does. That he puts forward measures to help people, now, and clearly makes the case why Johnson is a poor PM, without getting red faced and loud, is the foil to Johnson's fake passion and empty noise.
Here comes Blackford to land the next blow...
That he puts forward measures to help people, and clearly makes the case why Johnson is poor PM, without getting red faced and loud
The measures Labour are proposing don't go anywhere near to redressing the increases in energy bills and the cost of living. He was laughing when delivering that line about hindsight. To the watching voters paying double what they were last year for their utility bills it looks like nothing more than another westminster debating contest which will do nothing to actually help them.
They help get people through the next twelve months. That is all. They are what the government could and should do RIGHT NOW. They are not a manifesto for a future Labour government, or a roadmap for how energy supply should be handled long term. Using the windfall tax to offset energy prices is just part of a short term fix. That the government should apply, or rather should have already applied. Along with increasing benefits already aimed at those that most need help.