The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[Jareth]

Trains have put their prices up, yet put on less carriages - no nationalisation. 

Energy prices are set to go back up, yet they pay far less wholesale - no nationalisation. 

Water companies chuck shit in the rivers and sea - no nationalisation. 

What do they all have in common? Shareholders. And what do Labour propose to change? Nothing.

No thanks.  

[chrisp65]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

I know. It’s depressing. And we’re not gonna get any for another, I dunno, 6 months. And when we do, it’ll immediately be attacked from all sides and by the media and you wonder if they’ll then back track on some of it.

I think he (Starmer) is a very lucky boy. Sunak has been an absolute flop. Had Sunak been half the competent calming influence the machine had been hoping for I believe Starmer would now be in trouble and be forced to show some sort of variance from the tory manifesto.

 

[ml1dch]

3 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

I can’t cope with all this hope and vision and this fresh new thinking.

Trouble is, the "vision and fresh new thinking" all needs to happen in really boring areas. Nearly every major aspect of public policy needs fresh new thinking. Otherwise they'll collapse.

@blandy's post is completely correct. When people angry at the current Labour position say they want "fresh new thinking" they normally mean either renationalising the thing that's currently in the news, committing to rejoining the EU or just taxing rich people more. And while I'm not anti- any of those things, none of them are hope and vision. 

The country voted in huge numbers for hope and vision and fresh new thinking in 2019. Pretty much every party was promising it in one form or another. Problem is, "fresh new thinking" from a bunch of charlatans and morons makes things worse not better.

The next Labour term is going to have to be propping up the load-bearing walls of the country, following eight years of people hitting them with sledgehammers. That's not inspiring. But it's a million times better than a bunch of doofuses being inspired by Take Back Control.

[Jareth]

11 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

 

When people angry at the current Labour position say they want "fresh new thinking" they normally mean either renationalising the thing that's currently in the news, committing to rejoining the EU or just taxing rich people more. 

So you're happy with the state of the railways, energy, water, and the supreme inequality in society? 

[ml1dch]

Just now, Jareth said:

So you're happy with the state of the railways, energy, water, and the supreme inequality in society? 

You'll have to quote where I suggest such a thing.

[chrisp65]

3 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Trouble is, the "vision and fresh new thinking" all needs to happen in really boring areas. Nearly every major aspect of public policy needs fresh new thinking. Otherwise they'll collapse.

@blandy's post is completely correct. When people angry at the current Labour position say they want "fresh new thinking" they normally mean either renationalising the thing that's currently in the news, committing to rejoining the EU or just taxing rich people more. And while I'm not anti- any of those things, none of them are hope and vision. 

The country voted in huge numbers for hope and vision and fresh new thinking in 2019. Pretty much every party was promising it in one form or another. Problem is, "fresh new thinking" from a bunch of charlatans and morons makes things worse not better.

The next Labour term is going to have to be propping up the load-bearing walls of the country, following eight years of people hitting them with sledgehammers. That's not inspiring. But it's a million times better than a bunch of doofuses being inspired by Take Back Control.

Or just not rowing back on every single last pledge, promise, or idea they’ve previously made. I don’t mean some crazy leftie promises, I mean Starmer era promises.

Workers rights this week. Their recent promises on enhancing worker protections? Nah, now we need a period of consultation to make sure business is ok with it. Still says ‘on day 1’ on their website, they’ll need to update that. 

This Labour Party would have spent 1946 and 1947 telling us all about the NHS and in 1948 they’d have told us we obviously couldn’t afford it, now isn’t the time, its still an aspiration, and obviously they needed to consult with private healthcare before they could promise to re look at the idea some time in the future.

 

 

 

[Jareth]

1 minute ago, ml1dch said:

You'll have to quote where I suggest such a thing.

But you dismiss a common response to these problems - what's your solution? Do privatisation better?

[Demitri_C]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

I know. It’s depressing. And we’re not gonna get any for another, I dunno, 6 months. And when we do, it’ll immediately be attacked from all sides and by the media and you wonder if they’ll then back track on some of it.

The mirror wont attack them. They are a left wing labour paper.

[ml1dch]

2 minutes ago, Jareth said:

But you dismiss a common response to these problems - what's your solution? Do privatisation better?

I haven't dismissed it. I have no issue with it as a policy at all. Nationalise the lot of them. I just take issue with the lazy "nationalise it and the problems are solved" simplism.

The structural problems with all those industries run far deeper than whether the decisions are being taken and the money being spent by the state or the private sector. 

I'm very comfortable with nationalisation being the means to improve things. But it's hard to find people in favour of it who don't consider it to just be the improvement all by itself. 

[Jareth]

6 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

The structural problems with all those industries run far deeper than whether the decisions are being taken and the money being spent by the state or the private sector. 

The problem is the money being extracted, for shareholders. Give every penny to a group of people who want to put that money back into the service - and you get a better service. 

[bickster]

11 hours ago, Jareth said:

The problem is the money being extracted, for shareholders. Give every penny to a group of people who want to put that money back into the service - and you get a better service. 

Who are the shareholders? A large proportion of them will be people with pensions. It's never as simple as the shareholders are the enemy. Most of us are the shareholders

[Xann]

This is the nature of the idiot trap.

The future is invested in fail.

I wonder if a future AI driven ancestry tracker will be able to attribute surviving online discussions to individuals?

They'll be pissing on Grandad's grave.

Edited August 31, 2023 by Xann

[Jareth]

2 hours ago, bickster said:

Who are the shareholders? A large proportion of them will be people with pensions. It's never as simple as the shareholders are the enemy. Most of us are the shareholders

I'm talking about rail, water and energy - the pension funds will need to find alternative investments. What other country has this state of services and this much money being extracted? They'll have pension funds too. 

[magnkarl]

7 minutes ago, Jareth said:

I'm talking about rail, water and energy - the pension funds will need to find alternative investments. What other country has this state of services and this much money being extracted? They'll have pension funds too. 

To name a few, Norway, Sweden, Germany, France, Austria +++. In fact the beacon of light that most lefties think of (Norway) has some of the most ridiculous wealth driving machines in their privately owned energy companies which essentially drain the population of money by selling everyone's assets (water energy) to us and Germany and speculating on holding back water when prices in Europe are low.

Denmark is the one country within the group of countries we should be aiming at trying to copy that isn't fully privatised in most areas. I'm not a fan of privatised railways or water myself, but the solution isn't just to kill off the companies and index funds that own these (they're most often invested in by Joe Bloggs) but rather a period where you inch back ownership over a longer period like countries like Sweden and Germany are now trying to do.

My pension is invested heavily in for example UK water companies, it isn't my choice that they are but rather the company I work for. I've opted to stop it and invest in index funds abroad instead but these are likely doing the exact same thing just in another country.

[Jareth]

6 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Denmark is the one country within the group of countries we should be aiming at trying to copy that isn't fully privatised in most areas. I'm not a fan of privatised railways or water myself, but the solution isn't just to kill off the companies and index funds that own these (they're most often invested in by Joe Bloggs) but rather a period where you inch back ownership over a longer period like countries like Sweden and Germany are now trying to do.

I'm all for that

[OutByEaster?]

Is there a more damning indictment of Starmer's Labour than that people have to come on telling us how stupid 'lefties' are and that serving corporate interest is the right way forward in order to defend it?

 

 

 

[peterw]

15 hours ago, Jareth said:

So you're happy with the state of the railways, energy, water, and the supreme inequality in society? 

But your suggestion - from what i can see - is to just renationalise? Although I get where you're coming from it is not just possible for a government to take over contracts that are own by industry, as the markets would frown and there would be financial penalties for doing so, both in real terms and in terms of the UK seen as a place to invest. Where there have been examples of govt intervention it is usually the result of catastrophic failure or operators becoming financially incapable of honouring the existing contract.  There is also the problem of fragmentation. There are roughly 25-30 water companies in the UK, and not all of whom are polluting waterways, so it wouldn't be practicable to nationalise the water industry, nor would it be practicable to part nationalise. Something needs to be done, yes, but to suggest nationalising is just as simply as saying it without acknowledging the associated costs of trying to do it, is where the argument for it weakens.

[Jareth]

11 minutes ago, peterw said:

But your suggestion - from what i can see - is to just renationalise? Although I get where you're coming from it is not just possible for a government to take over contracts that are own by industry, as the markets would frown and there would be financial penalties for doing so, both in real terms and in terms of the UK seen as a place to invest. Where there have been examples of govt intervention it is usually the result of catastrophic failure or operators becoming financially incapable of honouring the existing contract.  There is also the problem of fragmentation. There are roughly 25-30 water companies in the UK, and not all of whom are polluting waterways, so it wouldn't be practicable to nationalise the water industry, nor would it be practicable to part nationalise. Something needs to be done, yes, but to suggest nationalising is just as simply as saying it without acknowledging the associated costs of trying to do it, is where the argument for it weakens.

Welsh Water is an example of a heavily indebted business that was sold off and converted to a not for profit status, a company limited by guarantee with no shareholders. It reinvests all its profit into its service. Why not see how many of the polluting companies out there can follow a similar path? I'm no expert, just a punter on the street like anybody else - but in order for anything to change for the better there has to be a will to do so - currently we're in the crapper because there's always a terrific number of reasons not to change a thing - which obviously benefits those looking to make a profit. Labour are offering more of the same - they don't want to be associated with change. 

[bickster]

2 minutes ago, Jareth said:

Welsh Water is an example of a heavily indebted business that was sold off and converted to a not for profit status, a company limited by guarantee with no shareholders. It reinvests all its profit into its service. Why not see how many of the polluting companies out there can follow a similar path? I'm no expert, just a punter on the street like anybody else - but in order for anything to change for the better there has to be a will to do so - currently we're in the crapper because there's always a terrific number of reasons not to change a thing - which obviously benefits those looking to make a profit. Labour are offering more of the same - they don't want to be associated with change. 

This Welsh Water?

Quote

Water company Welsh Water released sewage into rivers, lakes and the sea around Wales for almost 600,000 hours last year, data shows.

This accounts for more than 25% of all hours of discharges into waterways across Wales and England.

Latest figures also show more than 83,000 spills in 2022 - 77,000 of which were "significant".

The not-for-profit company said removing combined storm overflows (CSOs) was too expensive.

BBC

Your solution clearly isn't working

[magnkarl]

2 minutes ago, Jareth said:

Welsh Water is an example of a heavily indebted business that was sold off and converted to a not for profit status, a company limited by guarantee with no shareholders. It reinvests all its profit into its service. Why not see how many of the polluting companies out there can follow a similar path? I'm no expert, just a punter on the street like anybody else - but in order for anything to change for the better there has to be a will to do so - currently we're in the crapper because there's always a terrific number of reasons not to change a thing - which obviously benefits those looking to make a profit. Labour are offering more of the same - they don't want to be associated with change. 

In this particular example one should avoid both labour and conservative who are both not really that into saving nature, and rather vote green. They're all for controlling (and thereby reducing profits) of polluters and people ruining the planet like many water companies are.

You're looking in the wrong place if you think our two ruling parties are going to use pollution to strip profits off of water companies.

Starmer and many before him are just trying to seem slightly more eco friendly than the toffs, it doesn't really bother them all that much that our rivers are cesspools except for the odd MP here and there.