Viewing 40 posts - 15,521 through 15,560 (of 16,027 total)
  • Sir! Keir! Starmer!
  • kelvin
    Full Member

    I think he means are you sure that no politician is aware of the mess we’re heading for? Why do you think that you know this and they don’t? What you really mean (I suspect) is that their word and actions aren’t yet what you think is required given what is coming. They can see what’s coming, we were already predicted to have week wage growth and fast rising costs on the path we were on as a country before the pandemic and Russia’s war in Europe. Politicians know what is likely to be coming in the UK.

    rone
    Full Member

    She is bad so it obviously does not mean that she is good.

    I mean we all thinks she’s so bad that she’s doing well in the polls.

    Took that one literally yoof.

    dazh
    Full Member

    Politicians know what is likely to be coming in the UK.

    So why the conspiracy of silence? How does that serve them if they know they’re going to have to do a screeching u-turn? We can only go off what they say and do. So far none of them* are saying or doing anything. They either know and are doing nothing, or they don’t. Both scenarios are just as bad.

    *Apart from Gordon Brown

    rone
    Full Member

    yeah, grab the rare polls that make Truss look better if it fits the narrative. They won’t last. Roll on a general election. It’s going to be a close one.

    If she is so bad then it ought to be reflected.

    It’s a redfield wilton poll.

    kelvin
    Full Member

    They either know and are doing nothing

    There’s very little any Labour politician (outside Wales) can do right now.

    If she is so bad then it ought to be reflected.

    I’ve said she’d get a bounce. But all other polling suggests that even with that bounce Labour are staying ahead… which I find surprising. I mean we all pick polls to make a point, but wider polling has a Starmer led Labour still just about ahead right now (for now).

    rone
    Full Member

    No point in having big ideas if you can’t enact them.

    The big ideas come first.

    Then sell them.

    Otherway around is utter shite and losing Labour ground.

    Point is Starmer will never do big ideas if he’s scared of losing an election. Because he will also be scared of getting hammered in power too.

    rone
    Full Member

    I’ve said she’d get a bounce. But all other polling suggests that even with that bounce Labour are staying ahead… which I find surprising

    Eventually things will crack but I think the left commentariat are making the same mistake again and underestimating the ability to put another dozy Tory leader in power.

    Same outrage, same hysteria and same vivid descriptions of incompetence.

    Truss will do better at holding on than people think. All she has to do is come up with the financial goods and that will piss Starmer all over the floor.

    That said, the COLC could sink them irrespective.

    rone
    Full Member

    I mean we all pick polls to make a point, but wider polling has a Starmer led Labour still just about ahead right now (for now).

    6pts down from 10.

    All to play for I guess.

    rone
    Full Member

    What’s the redwall view on Truss?

    I might nip down the street and do a snap poll.

    I’d imagine they’d put the Tory brand first.

    rone
    Full Member

    Apart from Gordon Brown

    I did listen to Brown talking and although his sentiment was there he barely scratched the surface of what to do.

    Politicians should get better economic advisors.

    Classical economics is part the reason for the shit here – they’ve served their masters with endless growth nonsense.

    Fred Milliband is avoiding the nationalisation issue on telly – he was responsible for half-baked thinking on Labour’s approach to energy prices way back.

    Always thought he was crap.

    The left are so desperate to keep the market ticking over – properly depressing.

    kelvin
    Full Member

    What’s the redwall view on Truss?

    Plenty to post on this… I’ll do it in the thread on the Tory leadership campaign…

    rone
    Full Member

    Plenty to post on this… I’ll do it in the thread on the Tory leadership campaign…

    Lol you got secret comms to them?

    Drop by Bassetlaw I will make you a coffee.

    ernielynch
    Free Member

    Took that one literally yoof.

    Yeah I think you missed my point too. I was trying to emphasise that the poor quality of opposition was probably the deciding factor when it came to Truss being the preferred PM choice among voters.

    The Tories themselves are not particularly popular among voters – although the Labour lead is currently averaging only about 5% Labour have maintained a lead over the Tories since last December.

    If more voters feel that Truss would make a better PM than Starmer it isn’t because the Tories are more popular. It is presumably because voters are unconvinced by Starmer’s prime ministerial qualities.

    Considering that the issue of energy prices and the cost of living has been a headline issue for several months now, and that it took Starmer all that time to come up with a proposal that energy bills should be frozen at 54% higher than they were last year, for six months, with as yet no longer term solution, it isn’t entirely surprising.

    rone
    Full Member

    I’m predicating a U-turn towards temporary nationalisation from Labour eventually.

    Happy to put it out there. And be wrong.

    Just got a feeling.

    kelvin
    Full Member

    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.

    dazh
    Full Member

    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.

    rone
    Full Member

    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.

    rone
    Full Member

    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.

    kelvin
    Full Member

    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?

    rone
    Full Member

    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.

    rone
    Full Member

    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?

    kelvin
    Full Member

    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.

    rone
    Full Member

    Agreed.

    The way he came to power never seemed right to me but that’s by the by.

    squirrelking
    Free Member

    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).

    dazh
    Full Member

    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.

    inkster
    Free Member

    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.

    inkster
    Free Member

    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 fookin 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.

    rone
    Full Member

    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.

    rone
    Full Member

    ernielynch
    Free Member

    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.

    kelvin
    Full Member

    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…

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/16/labour-freeze-bills-britain-energy-supply-government-conservatives

    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.

    dazh
    Full Member

    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.

    wooksterbo
    Full Member

    Uk data centres too considering how much energy they will use. Which means online retailers and other online services will push up prices 😔

    ctk
    Full Member

    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

    ransos
    Free Member

    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.

    ernielynch
    Free Member

    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:

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/apr/06/national-grid-to-be-partially-nationalised-to-help-reach-net-zero-targets

    rone
    Full Member

    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.

    nickc
    Full Member

    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.

    rone
    Full Member

    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.

    rone
    Full Member

    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.

Viewing 40 posts - 15,521 through 15,560 (of 16,027 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Thanks for popping by - why not stay a while?IT'S FREE

Sign up as a Singletrack Member and you can leave comments on stories, use the classified ads, and post in our forums, do quizzes and more.

Join us, join in, it’s free, and fun.