Jareth Posted August 31, 2023 Share Posted August 31, 2023 2 minutes ago, bickster said: This Welsh Water? BBC Your solution clearly isn't working So one of the only water companies which reinvests its profits into its services - can't afford to do better. How on earth do companies which are laden in billions of debt, oddly enough having paid out billions in dividends, do better? The answer is clearly just to keep paying those dividends right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterw Posted August 31, 2023 Share Posted August 31, 2023 10 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. Individually it is possible but the costs involved in trying to renationalise all of the companies is so exorbitant to not be practicable as it stands. It doesn't mean that it would be preferable to keep things as they are, but the funds just aren't there to be able to cover those kind of costs. Also, the markets would be absolutely spooked if Labour were to openly say that they were to renationalise and the lack of investment would cause a panic similar to Truss times. I agree that an incremental change would be preferable but that could take many many years. Also, what is in it for Labour (using them as a case study on this thread)? This side of an election the right-wing press would crucify them and knowing the sway they have it would also lead to more 'loony left' 'no idea about the economy' slogans which have been used and stick in the minds of voters. At this point in time people still question Labour and economics despite a decade of Osborne/austerity/Truss , and so with a fragile balancing act it serves Starmer no use to bring this up now. In a second term in power maybe, but not yet. I don't think you'll find (m)any people that would disagree with your thoughts or sentiments but its how you strategize from a Labour perspective. Don't give your opponents any length of rope or try to appeal to their core base? I think the latter doesn't win an election whereas even now the former leads to accusations of weakness but is what Labour need in the long run-up to the General Election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted August 31, 2023 Share Posted August 31, 2023 1 minute ago, peterw said: Individually it is possible but the costs involved in trying to renationalise all of the companies is so exorbitant to not be practicable as it stands. It doesn't mean that it would be preferable to keep things as they are, but the funds just aren't there to be able to cover those kind of costs. Also, the markets would be absolutely spooked if Labour were to openly say that they were to renationalise and the lack of investment would cause a panic similar to Truss times. I agree that an incremental change would be preferable but that could take many many years. Also, what is in it for Labour (using them as a case study on this thread)? This side of an election the right-wing press would crucify them and knowing the sway they have it would also lead to more 'loony left' 'no idea about the economy' slogans which have been used and stick in the minds of voters. At this point in time people still question Labour and economics despite a decade of Osborne/austerity/Truss , and so with a fragile balancing act it serves Starmer no use to bring this up now. In a second term in power maybe, but not yet. I don't think you'll find (m)any people that would disagree with your thoughts or sentiments but its how you strategize from a Labour perspective. Don't give your opponents any length of rope or try to appeal to their core base? I think the latter doesn't win an election whereas even now the former leads to accusations of weakness but is what Labour need in the long run-up to the General Election. Sadly, and frustratingly - I agree - they have to get in. Looking forward to seeing the policies closer to the actual election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterw Posted August 31, 2023 Share Posted August 31, 2023 Again, i doubt you'll see anything in terms of what would appear, or called by the press, 'radical'. That would only appear in a manifesto at the end of a first term of government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted August 31, 2023 Moderator Share Posted August 31, 2023 26 minutes ago, Jareth said: So one of the only water companies which reinvests its profits into its services - can't afford to do better. How on earth do companies which are laden in billions of debt, oddly enough having paid out billions in dividends, do better? The answer is clearly just to keep paying those dividends right? Well that's one way of looking at it, the other is to realise the scale of the problem because the water company that re-invests in it's infrastructure says it can't afford to solve the problem that has lead to it being in the worst six companies named by the regulator The regulator has the power to fine or make the company return money to its customers, guess that's taking money away from solving the problem too... The solution to the problem lies in neither of the approaches as they currently stand and undoubtedly will involve everyone paying much more for their water Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted August 31, 2023 Share Posted August 31, 2023 So, to recap, mad 2019 antisemitic style policies would scare the horses so we need to bin them. 2023 policies are almost universally seen as following the tory policies, and that’s as much as we can hope for? There is nothing that can be done other than be nicer about how the current policies are delivered and more discreet about the theft of a nation’s wealth. We can only have expectations of ‘vision’ on the small mundane affordable stuff. We can only have hope once the bills are paid. The rich and the corporations and the pensioners and the home owners and the landlords and the middling middle cannot be expected to pay those bills that would allow us the space for hope and aspiration. What a **** state. I’ll be voting tory at this rate in the hope it finally tips some peripheral demi nation into actually standing on its own two feet. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted August 31, 2023 Moderator Share Posted August 31, 2023 This sounds very Tory I must admit... Quote Revealed: Full draft policy platform that could form 2024 Labour manifesto Just some highlights, plenty more Tory policies in there apart from these... Quote Reform the energy market Fundamentally reform our system of energy supply, generation and transmission and distribution so that it delivers cheaper bills for consumers and businesses, clean energy and energy security. Create GB Energy: a new home-grown, publicly-owned national champion in clean power generation ... Reform the UK tax system End tax breaks for private equity bosses Remove the non-domiciled tax loophole, putting in place a system for genuinely temporary residents Remove the tax loopholes that private schools enjoy Crack down on tax evasion and tax avoidance Scrap and replace the current system of business rates in England and Wales with a fully-costed and funded system of business property taxation Provide a New Deal for Working People Introduce a range of measures to help improve the world of work and tackle job insecurity, stagnant pay and the growth of in-work poverty…Bring forward legislation to implement it, including an employment rights bill, within 100 days of entering office Plan to start [Fair Pay Agreements] by establishing a new FPA in the adult social care sector…consult widely on the design of the agreement and monitor the implementation and publish a full and transparent review, assessing how and to what extent FPAs could benefit other sectors Look to support and build on existing arrangements in other sectors where labour markets are operating effectively or where existing collective arrangements at employer or sector level are already working well Introduce basic individual rights from day one for all workers Move towards a single status of worker and transition towards a simpler two-part framework for employment status Consult on a simpler framework that differentiates between workers and the genuinely self-employed and evaluate the way flexibility of ‘worker’ status is used and understood across the workforce Consider measures to provide accessible and authoritative information for people on their employment status and what rights they are owed End ‘one sided’ flexibility and ensure all jobs provide a baseline level of security and predictability, banning exploitative zero-hours contracts and ensuring anyone working regular hours for 12 weeks or more has the right to a regular contract Ensure all workers get reasonable notice of any change in shifts or working time, with compensation for any shifts cancelled without appropriate notice Strengthen the law to ensure hospitality workers receive their tips in full and workers decide how tips are allocated Tackle the gender pay gap: large firms will be required to develop and publish action plans, as well as plans detailing how they are supporting their female workers experiencing menopausal symptoms. Introduce rules to permit equal pay comparisons across employers Tackle discrimination in the workplace, introducing ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting for large employers Make flexible working the default from day one for all workers, except where it is not reasonably feasible End ‘fire and rehire’ and ‘fire and replace’, establish a single enforcement body and strengthen the law to enforce workplace rights. Improve and strengthen enforcement via employment tribunals to provide quicker and more effective resolutions Change the Low Pay Commission’s remit so that alongside median wages and economic conditions, the minimum wage will for the first time reflect the need for pay to take into account the cost of living Support trade unions Strengthen and update the rights of working people and empowering workers to organise collectively through trade unions Repeal the Trade Union Act 2016, the Minimum Service Levels (Strikes) Bill and the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (Amendment) Regulations 2022 Update trade union legislation, so it is fit for a modern economy, removing unnecessary restrictions on trade union activity and ensuring industrial relations are based around good faith negotiation and bargaining Allow trade unions to use modern, secure, electronic balloting Simplify the process of union recognition and ensure reasonable access within workplaces Strengthen rights for trade unions to organise, represent and negotiate Ensure workers in precarious and gig-economy sectors have a realistic and meaningful right to organise through trade unions Create new rights and protections for trade unions reps to undertake their work, strengthening protections for trade union representatives against unfair dismissal and union members from intimidation, harassment, threats and blacklisting Ensure there is sufficient facilities time for all trade union reps so that they have capacity to represent and defend workers, negotiate with employers and train as well as create fairer workplaces and tackle gender pay gaps Plenty more Tory Policies in the current policy proposals - Labour List All those are from the first two headings... There are 6 headings in that very extensive article and even Labour List have only picked out a selection. Bloody Tories 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted August 31, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted August 31, 2023 Quote ... Fast forward three-quarters of a century and that spirit has, in many political circles, been forgotten. The UN’s special rapporteur to Britain, Philip Alston, remarked in 2018: “British compassion for those who are suffering has been replaced by a punitive, mean-spirited, and often callous approach.” Policies such as the benefit cap, the two-child limit on child benefits, the bedroom tax and the extensive use of sanctions to punish those already in need of financial support are the embodiment of that approach. One would expect that a party seeking its first electoral victory in 18 years would seek to distance itself from the pain and hardship that has been experienced by so many for too long. And yet, the initial signs from Labour are that the party itself is now trapped, spellbound by an economic argument that is as empty in ethics as it is destructive in impact. Starmer has said the party will maintain the two-child limit on child benefits and the shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves recently ruled out a wealth tax. Like the Conservatives in 2010, they are pursuing a political rather than an economic agenda – believing that by aping Conservative arguments on spending they will march their way to No 10. And then what? Find they have no mandate to introduce the kind of changes this country desperately needs. This period of opposition should be one in which they can influence the public narrative on the economy. They can use it to explain why spending actually benefits everyone and stimulates the economy, rather than holding it back. They can make the moral case for progressive taxation. They can debunk the myths that the national economy is in any way analogous to a household budget. And they can tell voters why our shared humanity dictates that we must increase social security and ensure that everyone can lead a good life. But our letter was about more than just urging Starmer to do better. It’s also an invitation. We know that he has to balance political expediency with economic need. We know that it isn’t easy communicating a fresh vision. We can be an ally to any party that has the courage and wisdom to commit to change. We hope Sir Keir will take our offer seriously. Grauniad Lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted August 31, 2023 Share Posted August 31, 2023 Reckon people need to reacquaint themselves with the water privatisation story from the start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted August 31, 2023 Author Share Posted August 31, 2023 Labour has suspended its entire Leicester East council branch. Wonder what the hells happened there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted August 31, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted August 31, 2023 13 minutes ago, Demitri_C said: Labour has suspended its entire Leicester East council branch. Wonder what the hells happened there? Held a research trip to Auschwitz/ too left wing has to be the front runner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted August 31, 2023 Share Posted August 31, 2023 28 minutes ago, bickster said: This sounds very Tory I must admit... Just some highlights, plenty more Tory policies in there apart from these... Plenty more Tory Policies in the current policy proposals - Labour List All those are from the first two headings... There are 6 headings in that very extensive article and even Labour List have only picked out a selection. Bloody Tories You wait until you see what he’s pledged on his own website, or even the official Labour website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted August 31, 2023 Moderator Share Posted August 31, 2023 3 hours ago, Chindie said: Held a research trip to Auschwitz/ too left wing has to be the front runner. It could be absolutely anything given it’s last two MPs were Keith Vaz and Claudia Webbe Vaz btw is said to be still very active in the constituency and the suspension is essentially because they've been trying to stitch up meetings and elections in favour of one particular faction (likely to be Vaz's favoured one) Theres also the abandoning the directly elected mayor position elephant in Leicester East. It’s been a troubled constituency for some considerable time and it won’t be what you think it is. As an indication one councillor has resigned the Labour whip on the council over it, she's Diane Cank, she no left winger, in local terms she's a Vazite and quite active in organising aid to Ukraine (which is hardly Corbynista territory) and was one of the 600 councillors that called for Corbyn to resign. It really won’t be what you think it is. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted September 1, 2023 Share Posted September 1, 2023 (edited) 16 hours ago, bickster said: It could be absolutely anything given it’s last two MPs were Keith Vaz and Claudia Webbe Vaz btw is said to be still very active in the constituency and the suspension is essentially because they've been trying to stitch up meetings and elections in favour of one particular faction (likely to be Vaz's favoured one) Theres also the abandoning the directly elected mayor position elephant in Leicester East. It’s been a troubled constituency for some considerable time and it won’t be what you think it is. As an indication one councillor has resigned the Labour whip on the council over it, she's Diane Cank, she no left winger, in local terms she's a Vazite and quite active in organising aid to Ukraine (which is hardly Corbynista territory) and was one of the 600 councillors that called for Corbyn to resign. It really won’t be what you think it is. One sees what one wants, I guess. The constant little nibbles about everything being related to AS when it isn't do show that maybe it is the factions in question who have now become what they're claiming everyone else is by pretty reliably mentioning things like someone taking a 'research trip' to a place where millions of people were killed. Self fulfilling prophecies and all that. It's a bit like when Corbyn's lot were up in arms about MPs being suspended by the party for supporting candidates outside of the party who'd they'd been booing and actively trying to get rid of themselves a couple of year earlier. Pot, kettle etc. Edited September 1, 2023 by magnkarl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted September 1, 2023 Share Posted September 1, 2023 13 hours ago, bickster said: This sounds very Tory I must admit... Just some highlights, plenty more Tory policies in there apart from these... Plenty more Tory Policies in the current policy proposals - Labour List All those are from the first two headings... There are 6 headings in that very extensive article and even Labour List have only picked out a selection. Bloody Tories These all sound great, but it's the long list no? There's no indication how many the leadership intend to cull or change - and Labour no longer democratically within the party make decisions on what reaches the manifesto despite what anybody says Starmer's office does that, they maintain full control. So come closer to the election while I am keenly anticipating literally anything he's willing to put his name too, I'm minded from past experience to look for the small print - a single innocuous sentence can mean he reserves the right to do the complete opposite and how very bad form of us not to notice how loudly he had stated that in the first place. We shall see... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted September 1, 2023 Moderator Share Posted September 1, 2023 On 31/08/2023 at 13:27, magnkarl said: 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. I half agree with your full post, but on the bit quoted, not so completely. My perception is that the two parties have a very different take. The Tories, having become some kind of distorted UKIPy, libertarian weird right wing cult are actively intent on unconstrained, sod the environment and the planet "do whatever you want, we couldn't care less" type of approach, whereas Labour is completely different here. My feeling is that the public hates the whole water pollution and crumbling infrastructure thing and Labour knows it and agrees. The question then is what level of importance do they place on fixing it, and then how do you fix it, to most effectively address the problem in the shortest possible time. Some posters on here clearly go with "nationalise water". I'm not sure of what the argument is beyond that - no-one has explained any further, apart from "excess profits", basically. The way I look at it is that in the old days, under Gov'ts of both parties, water was publicly owned, but it was badly run, under-funded, inefficient, the rivers were horribly polluted and all the rest. OF course that doesn't automatically mean that if it was renationalised the same would happen again, but it does mean that there's absolutely no guarantee that nationalisation (alone) would fix anything just by dint of changing ownership. So back, for a moment, to where we are now - the private companies being able to get away with polluting, because there's inadequate monitoring of pollution, lax regulation, reaping large profits instead of re-investing (some of those profits) into the infrastructure. Labour's policy, as we understand it (from Bickster's link) is around Quote Use regulatory powers to keep consumer bills down and ensure that water companies – rather than the public – pay for their failures Set mandatory targets to halve water leaks…Strike off company directors who continually breach and ignore their responsibilities Ensure illegal activity is punished and ensure payments of dividends are linked to key performance metrics Introduce mandatory monitoring of sewage outlets and automatic fines for sewage discharges, with a penalty for outlets that do not have monitoring in place. Set ambitious targets to cut sewage outflow The last 4 of those things need to apply whether water is private or publicly owned - they could be done swiftly and at relatively low cost (beefing up the resourcing and powers for the water monitoring authorities) and wouldn't take up much parliamentary time. The first bullet point is relevant to public/private ownership, because if publicly owned keeping bills down means that the revenue from bills is obviously lower, which means that money spent on infrastructure is lower than if bills are allowed to rise to pay for it (unless general taxation rises to pay for it). So that means either higher taxes, or slower resolution of the pollution and infrastructure problems. It also means that, obviously, they'd have to privatise water. That in itself is a much, much bigger thing to do in terms of time and complexity - parliamentary time, huge expense (though in exchange for an asset). It also means that (as we saw with Truss' mad plans) markets passing judgement - the cash to reimburse shareholders for their shares has to come from somewhere, or be funded by government in some way. There is a strong possibility markets would "punish" the UK for doing it, as they did with Truss. Of course, you could decide to basically just compulsorily grab the water companies at much lower than actual share price value, but that too would have huge implications. It would immediately be a massive disincentive for anyone to invest in the UK, where the government might just grab your assets for next to nothing. It would punish all the pension funds too. And once the government owned water, what's fixed? Nothing yet. There's a whole load of other stuff to put into place - find someone to run it, find a workforce and all the rest - it's be pretty much the same people doing the same jobs, just with a different ultimate owner. Wouldn't it therefore be better to miss out the privatisation part and just regulate to get them to do what they should be doing anyway? and punish them if they don't? Or if that's too complicated to follow, it's like this: If you were starting from scratch then yes, set up a water industry that is publicly owned, well regulated in terms of obligations to customers and the environment and pro-active in planning for a future hotter planet and increased demand for water. But if you're where we are now, then the best fix in terms of time and cost is (assuming Labour will do what they say) pretty close to the things they are proposing. Where the Greens have a less detailed but stronger approach is basically they would (they say) prevent any dividends being paid to shareholders at all until the problems are fixed, which is probably a good thing to do. They'd also maybe* nationalise it, which probably isn't, given where we are. *their manifesto is unclear on this. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted September 1, 2023 Moderator Share Posted September 1, 2023 Uh oh, incoming... Quote Starmer shows new ruthless side as he prepares to purge party of ‘problematic’ MPs The Labour leader is reportedly considering getting rid of up to a dozen MPs Indie Including two Birmingham MPs Doesn't look much like a purge of left wingers though, more a purge of imbeciles who can't be trusted to behave themselves 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted September 1, 2023 Share Posted September 1, 2023 9 hours ago, magnkarl said: The constant little nibbles about everything being related to AS when it isn't do show that maybe it is the factions in question who have now become what they're claiming everyone else is by pretty reliably mentioning things like someone taking a 'research trip' to a place where millions of people were killed. Self fulfilling prophecies and all that. No. It cannot be that only one group is allowed to be the sole self appointed arbiter. People have been accused of anti semitism, it’s a handy shut up for people that won’t shut up. If its going to be discussed, then all in the discussion get to discuss it. That people now reference this like some meme perhaps illustrates how it was abused and diluted by the self appointed AS police. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted September 1, 2023 Share Posted September 1, 2023 On 31/08/2023 at 13:42, peterw said: Individually it is possible but the costs involved in trying to renationalise all of the companies is so exorbitant to not be practicable as it stands The Tories are managing to find about £6m every single day to house migrants rather than actually process the applications. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted September 1, 2023 Administrator Share Posted September 1, 2023 1 hour ago, Genie said: The Tories are managing to find about £6m every single day to house migrants rather than actually process the applications. But that £6m is going straight to the donors that own the hotels. There's always money for that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts