Are people expecting Labour to still be pushing for the nationalisation that they were in 2019?

Whyever not?

I’m sure you can answer that yourself.

Because 8% of voters now strongly oppose nationalisation of the utilities?

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/utilities/trackers/support-for-bringing-energy-companies-back-into-public-ownership

Because 4% of voters now strongly oppose nationalisation of the railways?

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/should-train-operating-companise-be-brought-back-into-public-ownership

Because nationalisation is still simply too popular?

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/more-than-half-public-support-renationalising-energy-companies-polling-reveals-1218090/amp

I’m sure you can answer that yourself.

Because he’s increasingly in thrall to the right-wing Blairites and/or he was just pretending to believe all that stuff when he thought he needed to?

Take any single nationalisation plan, and it polls well. Tell people that Labour are going to privatise a whole series of infrastructure sectors (all of which I happen to think should be returned to the public sector) and they vote against Labour. They don’t trust Labour to deliver all that. Promise a few nationalisations (or other forms of common ownership), prove that you can deliver them… then the public will trust you when you propose more. Taking the 2019 manifesto to the public again at the next election would be madness.

Taking the 2019 manifesto to the public again at the next election would be madness.

Of course it would be, it included vote losing stuff like calling for a second referendum.

But that has nothing to do with your claim that Labour shouldn’t be “pushing for the nationalisation that they were in 2019”.

No one has mentioned the 2019 manifesto apart from you.

You haven’t provided any proof that nationalisation of the utilities/ public services doesn’t enjoy huge public support, even among Tory voters.

You haven’t provided any proof that nationalisation of the utilities/ public services doesn’t enjoy huge public support, even among Tory voters.

Why would I? I said that people support those nationalisations. They just don’t trust Labour when they propose carrying them all out.

They just don’t trust Labour when they propose carrying them all out.

So now you are claiming that voters don’t trust Labour to carry out nationalisation of public services. Your claims are getting more and more bizarre Kelvin.

But okay if that really is the case then all the more reason why Starmer should be convincing voters of his commitment, instead of claiming that he’s not in favour of nationalisation, contrary to his own website.

Idealogically opposed to nationalisation without any sensible explanation – which is the only route to decarbonisation I can see.

All his words about common ownership etc are just skirting around a different name for shareholders.

(And let’s not say wait and see because whenever we wait and see with Starmer he pops something up so uninspiring and useless – green recovery bonds. FFS)

Where does this utter shite idea of pushing a sector for the benefit of shareholders ever get us?

It’s insane.

Ideological purity blah blah blah.

Now more than ever we just need the political will, and the investment.

This is a missed opportunity to talk up a Left approach to rebuild.

Starmer is so obsessed with parties and wallpaper he’s forgotten about inspiring and mobilising people.

Labour might be storming in the polls but they are heading into a Tory trap that they can’t do anything about.

All his words about common ownership etc are just skirting around a different name for shareholders.

Did you look at the scottish water example Iinked to?

Also I don’t think Starmer knows what he means by decentralised common ownership.

It does however say public services in public hands in his top ten failed pledges. And he did support nationalisation in the leadership campaign.

The status quo is broken and yet he seeks to follow the status quo.

Did you look at the scottish water example?  its state or public ownership but not nationalisation as we know it.

Why would I? I said that people support those nationalisations. They just don’t trust Labour when they propose carrying them all out.

They don’t trust Labour to do it because they think it will be the 1970’s all over again. A very high number of people who vote were around in the 70’s.

You don’t actually need to nationalise if you govern properly, i.e. set out exactly what a private supplier has to do, what they can charge etc,. while still having an element of competition.
If would take a lot of continued governance and effort which is never there and why it never works well.

You don’t actually need to nationalise

It’s not really the issue here is it. Whether nationalisation is a good thing or not is completely irrelevant in the context of Starmer’s interview yesterday.

When he stood to be Leader of the Labour Party he made a “pledge” that he was committed to the public ownership of public services, indeed his website still makes that pledge. Yesterday in an interview he claimed he wasn’t in favour.

The British people deserve better. There is no point focusing on the Leader of the Tory Party being a liar if the Leader of the Labour Party feels he has a god-given right to lie as much as he feels is necessary.

The majority of British voters, including Tory voters, might be wrong for supporting the public ownership of public services, but they don’t deserve liars.

Yesterday in an interview he claimed he wasn’t in favour.

No he did not.  He said he did not favour one particular model of public ownership.  There are many others such as the model used in Scottish water.

come on Ernie – I know it does not suit your narrative but you are usually very accurate with claims you make

The British people deserve better.

Not sure, a bit of get what you deserve isn’t it. These MPs and governments are voted for by the British people. The British people where I live have voted in Desmond Swayne for 25 years with a vote share around 60-70%. Surely they are getting what they want otherwise they would stop voting for him and the tory party wouldn’t they?

If you can’t see that the British people deserve better than a choice between two different liars, then that is precisely the sort of apathy which has created the depressing situation which we have in British politics today.

https://youtu.be/jTLR8R9JXz4

The problem is Ernie the statement you are basing Starmer as lying on is innacurate

Its perfectly possible to be in favour of some form of public ownership without being in favour of what Starmer called ” top down nationalisation”

Did you look at the Scottish Water example?  its clearly public ownership, the structure is clearly not what we think of as “nationalisation”

Why will none of you address this point?

Not a fan but worth a listen

Listeners have branded this James O'Brien’s best monologue yet as he explains every twist and turn of the deceit and dishonesty engulfing the government.@mrjamesob pic.twitter.com/qajUhyoQhL

— LBC (@LBC) January 18, 2022

The problem is Ernie the statement you are basing Starmer as lying on is innacurate

Of course he’s lying. Starmer’s commitment to nationalisation couldn’t be clearer and less ambiguous on his website, why doesn’t he simply repeat what it says instead of claiming that he isn’t in favour of nationalisation?

Or has the renowned forensic lawyer found weasel words to hide the clear and unambiguous pledge he made during an election?

Despite kerley’s claim that the British people deserve no more than a choice between 2 liars because voters down his way apparently keep voting incorrectly, I expect more from the leader of the Labour Party.

And I’m frankly shocked that some people appear to set the bar so low for a Labour Leader especially when they keep whining about the Tories being liars.

Just to remind you again what according to Starmer’s website his clear and unambiguous pledge is :

Common ownership
Public services should be in public hands, not making profits for shareholders. Support common ownership of rail, mail, energy and water; end outsourcing in our NHS, local government and justice system.

No mention of not being in favour of nationalisation in there.

Yes – and he wants a different model of public ownership.  You keep missing the words “top down” which totally changes the meaning

Now look at scottish water – its in public ownership and not “top down nationalised” would that model suit you?

The problem here is not what Starmer has said – its that nothing he says will satisfy folk on the left,  They want ideological purity .so they distort and partially quote him to reverse the meaning of what he says

there are many ways of having public ownership that are not “top down nationalisation”  Scottish water is one model.  there are others.

nothing he says will satisfy folk on the left

That is simply untrue.

Many people on left were hugely satisfied by what Starmer said in his 10 socialist pledges.

Which is of course precisely why he said it.

The geezer is a charlatan and a fraud. So much in common with Tony Blair. It remains to be seen if Labour voters still feel that they have no alternative but to vote Labour, whoever the leader is.

Ernie – have you looked at scottish water?  Its in public ownership but not “top down nationalised”

Why are you unable to see that “in public ownership” does not mean ” top down nationalised?

Its unusual for yo to be so inaccurate and to take a deliberate distortion of what he said as the truth

there is no lie here.  You can both be in favour of public ownership without being in favour of top down nationalisation

The problem here is not what Starmer has said – its that nothing he says will satisfy folk on the left, They want ideological purity

When did TJ’s account get hijacked by binners?

Damn – I posted from the wrong log in – rumbled 🙂

When did TJ’s account get hijacked by binners?

I don’t bother posting on this thread any more after belatedly reaching the sad conclusion that TJ stated. There is simply nothing he could ever conceivably do that our resident brothers in arms of the left would deem to be acceptable.

So theres not much point discussing it really, when the conclusion is always the same

Idealogical purity trumps everything. Particularly electability.

NO SURRENDER, COMRADES!!!

Carry on…. 😀

I don’t bother posting on this thread any more after belatedly reaching the sad conclusion that TJ stated. There is simply nothing he could ever conceivably do that our resident brothers in arms of the left would deem to be acceptable.

So theres not much point discussing it really, when the conclusion is always the same

Idealogical purity trumps everything. Particularly electability.

NO SURRENDER, COMRADES!!!

And yet last week you posted on this thread on several occasions.

Among the stuff you posted last week you slagged off Starmer for apparently being incapable of taking on Johnson. According to you that appears to be partly because he isn’t working-class, presumably unlike you, bruv.

This what you wrote :

Boris clearly absolutely hates having to face Angela Rayner. She’s everything he can’t cope with… working class and female.

With Starmer he juts bats away any questions, ignores what he asked and then rambles on about vaccinations, whereas Rayner seems to completely scramble his radar. She looks like she knows this full well and is enjoying every second of his obvious discomfort

So according to you a working-class lass does a better job of challenging and holding to account a Tory Prime Minister than a privately educated forensic lawyer.

But if anyone else says it you get into a rant about lefties and class warriors??

I agree that you post less than you previously did on this thread binners, but I think that has more to do with the fact that some muppet keeps reminding you what you previously said. Which must be really annoying as it invariably seems to be a complete contradiction.

Shame really as I have always enjoyed your illustrious rants.

Someone get the fire extinguisher!

Can this football cliches podcast appearance win over the doubters?

https://www.podchaser.com/podcasts/football-cliches-a-show-about-990009/episodes/sir-keir-starmer-on-his-matchd-125639676

“I ask Starmer, a former shadow Brexit secretary and ardent remainer, whether Brexit is done and dusted. “Yes,” he says. “Look, we’ve left the EU. There’s no case for rejoining, so we have to make it work. We are out and we’re staying out.” So that rules out a return to the single market or customs union under a Labour government? “Yes, it does. We’ve got to make Brexit work from the outside and not reopen old wounds.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jan/19/stop-talking-about-the-problem-fix-the-bloody-thing-keir-starmer-on-boris-johnsons-parties-and-his-plan-to-win-power?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

Starmerdroid rules out a customs union.

That is more to one side than Corbyn’s fence position for sure.

This guy is ruthless.

Idealogical purity trumps everything. Particularly electability.

You do hang on to this.

You have a government in power with a strong ideology. Electable and ideological.

Why you think Labour should give up on ideology to reverse damage done by the Tories is totally self-defeating.

(Btw there is no such thing these days as ideologically pure.)

You have a government in power with a strong ideology. Electable and ideological.

Strong ideology? Is ‘opportunism’ an ideology? Surely, this weeks ‘making it up on the hoof’ certainly isn’t? Boris can change a policy position, mid-sentence.

Labour went into the last two elections on a strong idealogical platform and was defeated twice absolutely walloped the second time, yet you want to go into the next election with all those same policies in place because St Jeremy had them engraved by some socialist god on tablets of stone?

but I think that has more to do with the fact that some muppet keeps reminding you what you previously said.

Ernie… mate… I didn’t bother replying to a post of mine on a previous page that you’d trawled up from, by my estimate, 6 years ago? It’s not lockdown any more, comrade. You are allowed out of the house. When you’re trawling back 5-6 years through the absolute horseshit that some northern nobhead posts on an internet forum, its surely time to take a long, hard look at your life, bruv, yeah? 😀

Anyway… back to 2022… In response to your Angela Rayner point, she always gets the better of Johnson at PMQ’s, but I thought Starmer absolutely demolished Johnson last week. It was exactly the situation where that kind of lawyerly attention to detail works. I expect there will be more of the same today. He’s already laid out which way he’ll go: that Johnson is now on his third defence, with the first two blown out of the water

If Boris turns up, that is? I’m sure he’s getting his excuses in already. He must know what awaits and he clearly doesn’t have any answers

So according to you a working-class lass does a better job of challenging and holding to account a Tory Prime Minister than a privately educated forensic lawyer.

Rayner does better than Starmer against Johnson for sure, though I’m not sure for how much longer this interpersonal dynamic will be relevant. I really like Rayner. Maybe the time will come to start a thread where you can be disappointed by her too?

You could make a case for Starmer being working class, as the son of a toolmaker and a nurse, whose parents were fiercely labour and did not pay for his education, though he went to a selective school after passing the 11 plus (we made difft choices for our kids fwiw, not necessarily to their advantage). Though he’s somewhat less working class than my wife, also a lawyer and try telling her she’s not working class (something I have done for very risky thrills when feeling brave and seeing a clear path to the exit).

A “forensic lawyer” btw is generally one with expertise in forensic science.

Strong ideology? Is ‘opportunism’ an ideology? Surely, this weeks ‘making it up on the hoof’ certainly isn’t? Boris can change a policy position, mid-sentence

The Tories are free-marketeers and reductionists; the techniques used to arrive at the position are definitely fluid.

Mostly keeping the wealthy and the asset class happy is their driving force.

It’s a strong ideology. It hasn’t moved for 40+ years.

Labour went into the last two elections on a strong idealogical platform and was defeated twice absolutely walloped the second time, yet you want to go into the next election with all those same policies in place because St Jeremy had them engraved by some socialist god on tablets of stone?

The framing of Brexit created a no win situation. Boris was always happy to expell politicians to make it happen. Corbyn was not ruthless enough.

That doesn’t mean drastic policies are not needed to correct what the Tories have done.

The previous manifestos were hardly that drastic or ideologically pure.

Basically you’re saying society can never have what it needs because you’re terrified of selling progressive policies to the electorate.

I mean at least JC had some stuff on a stone. I’ve no idea at all what Starmer’s Labour is other than the cut and paste of Tory past.

But at least Labour do have the ace Wes Streeting talking up the private sector partnerships with the NHS in the face of the last two years 100% success rate of private contracts within the NHS.

Green bonds are go!

When you’re trawling back 5-6 years through the absolute horseshit that some northern nobhead posts on an internet forum, its surely time to take a long, hard look at your life, bruv, yeah?

You would have thought…… luckily it only takes about 30 seconds, 30 seconds well spent if only for the entertainment value!

All you need to do is to go to the Jeremy Corbyn thread and look at the first 3 pages to find posts from you claiming that all of Labour’s problems are due to Tony Blair and how Jeremy Corbyn provides a breath of fresh air to British politics.

Have a go yourself, see how quickly you can find your old posts, I bet you could do in a matter of seconds, although I guess you would probably rather not.

You slagging off Starmer and focusing on the fact that he is not working-class was only 6 days ago, so pretty straightforward.

The thing binners is that I find your posts so fascinating and enjoyable that I read them with great diligence and I remember what you wrote long after you have completely forgotten, which I suspect in some cases is probably about an hour.

A “forensic lawyer” btw is generally one with expertise in forensic science.

And yet Keir Starmer proudly flaunts his alleged forensic skills on his own website.

He pledges, quote :

“Forensic, effective opposition to the Tories in Parliament”

Although binners has his doubts. Apparently it would help if the forensic lawyer was more working-class.

Check out Starmer’s claim to possessing forensic skills for yourself :

10 Pledges

It’s pledge number 10 btw

Let the Tories in please.

https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1483768328107827201?s=20

Shoutout to Christian Wakefield for enduring years of mess, terrible policies and well over a hundred thousand deaths making the brave decision to defect to Labour the moment they’re ahead in the polls

— James Felton (@JimMFelton) January 19, 2022