YouGov Poll - 33 Point lead!

Scrote said:
Changing the system is possible as we've done it a different way before. It just needs political will. No one said it would be easy.
Click to expand...

That's what I see as the difficult thing. We know now that any attempts towards socialising the economy will be ruthlessly opposed by the press (even supposedly left wing mouthpieces), industry, big donors, party backbenchers, and the more easily influenced members of the public. To the point that there'll be attempted terror attacks against the party leader making those efforts.

You say it just needs political will, but it needs a person who's absolutely nails and rock solid in their beliefs.
 
SuperStu said:
That's what I see as the difficult thing. We know now that any attempts towards socialising the economy will be ruthlessly opposed by the press (even supposedly left wing mouthpieces), industry, big donors, party backbenchers, and the more easily influenced members of the public. To the point that there'll be attempted terror attacks against the party leader making those efforts.

You say it just needs political will, but it needs a person who's absolutely nails and rock solid in their beliefs.
Click to expand...
It also requires recalibration of our press stu.

Whether we like it or not there is some stuff that Labour cannot include in a manifesto.
 
Scrote said:
But that is exacerbated by Labour MPs going along with the lies about Magic Money Trees, household debt and all the money being gone.

If they won't tell the truth then the press aren't going to do it for them.
Click to expand...
They do have to service a very large debt though and there is no way around that. Whilst borrowing to invest is generally a good thing it is difficult for labour to escape the notion that they borrow too much.

In the court of public opinion that matters and no amount of explaining how a Fiat economy works will change that perception. And this assumes that everyone listens to the explanation and doesn't just read the report in the express
 
Laughing said:
It also requires recalibration of our press stu.

Whether we like it or not there is some stuff that Labour cannot include in a manifesto.
Click to expand...

I see where you're coming from but for me the recalibration only happens if someone has the cojones to actually talk about a policy. We saw it in the Scottish and EU referendums. MPs and campaigners talking about an issue consistently over a couple of years can push public support in a big way. And they both had much lower starting points than nationalisation would.
 
HolgateCorner said:
Putting the pending u turn to one side, I think the reason it won’t work as you suggest is that the original developers regard the intellectual property of the idea as theirs and if they are not allowed to profit from it they will just turn to something else instead where they can make the profit.

Labour are right in that there will be scope for government to help with marginal generating technologies and then retain some of the ownership for the benefit of the state and the people.

I don’t disagree with your underlying view that the power industry in this country should be run for the people rather than shareholders, I was just trying to point out why that, in my opinion, is so difficult to achieve.
Click to expand...
I think they can do something with directly owning suppliers pricing rates, as for the network there is to many companies that own the intellectual rights, design patents and the remedial contracts that have to be complied with, there is a lot to factor in to renationalise it. And could we afford to do it?. Then there's the investment in developing newer technology for the future infrastructure (National Grid but the same with a lot our infrastructure)
The idea that Labour get in and try to gradually improve a lot of the social aspects and problems we have instead of the long time Tory neglect, must be appealing to everybody.

The world has changed massively in the last 14 years, to steer away from the concept of making money to keep our house working and in good order is going to take a lot of time and effort with ideas.
 
One fcukeit replaces another fcukwit. A strong like for like replacement if that’s what you feel the Conservative Party needed
 
mercury_redstone7 said:
I think they can do something with directly owning suppliers pricing rates, as for the network there is to many companies that own the intellectual rights, design patents and the remedial contracts that have to be complied with, there is a lot to factor in to renationalise it. And could we afford to do it?. Then there's the investment in developing newer technology for the future infrastructure (National Grid but the same with a lot our infrastructure)
The idea that Labour get in and try to gradually improve a lot of the social aspects and problems we have instead of the long time Tory neglect, must be appealing to everybody.

The world has changed massively in the last 14 years, to steer away from the concept of making money to keep our house working and in good order is going to take a lot of time and effort with ideas.
Click to expand...
You are spot on, and it is harder to nationalise an emerging and developing green generation and grid system than an established network. To get to 2050 with the lights still on is going to take every bit of resource, engineering talent and finance this country can muster.

I honestly don’t think people appreciate the scale of the task ahead.
 
SCG said:
Two Tory ministers gone today

www.bbc.co.uk

Ministers Robert Halfon and James Heappey quit government in mini-reshuffle

Education minister Robert Halfon and armed forces minister James Heappey are also standing down as MPs.
www.bbc.co.uk

And another one who thinks he can do what he wants

www.bbc.co.uk

Afghanistan: Veterans minister told to hand over names to inquiry

Johnny Mercer has been ordered to provide names to the Afghanistan inquiry by 5 April.
www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
How many ministers are there now, every Tory seems to be one.
 
HolgateCorner said:
You are spot on, and it is harder to nationalise an emerging and developing green generation and grid system than an established network. To get to 2050 with the lights still on is going to take every bit of resource, engineering talent and finance this country can muster.


I honestly don’t think people appreciate the scale of the task ahead.
Click to expand...
If we directly control the pricing that will do, we can always subsidise it when it hits problems. Thing is they upped the fuel costs a lot and some more, using Ukraine as the top excuse, this purely to pay back the debt created by furlough using vat. Its had a big knock on effect on all items sold with vat on.
 
mercury_redstone7 said:
If we directly control the pricing that will do, we can always subsidise it when it hits problems. Thing is they upped the fuel costs a lot and some more, using Ukraine as the top excuse, this purely to pay back the debt created by furlough using vat. Its had a big knock on effect on all items sold with vat on.
Click to expand...
Yes and there are plenty of ways of controlling the pricing as the present shambolic incumbents have shown.
Scrote said:
It's why there never was a National Health Service. The scale of the task was too great. Imagine if a previous Labour government had just tried though...
Click to expand...
You make a good point but don’t you think everything is just ridiculously complex these days and this makes any major system change extremely difficult?
 
mercury_redstone7 said:
The idea that Labour get in and try to gradually improve a lot of the social aspects and problems we have instead of the long time Tory neglect, must be appealing to everybody.
Click to expand...

Sure, its appealing. But its been tried before and ultimately we know it doesn't work. If Labour always try to rebuild the country slowly when they get in power, and the tories ruin everything as quickly as they can when they get in power, and we end up having tory governments about twice as often as Labour ones, then the end result is the "managed decline" we've had for the last 50 years.

As @Scrote is alluding to, the policies that have had a more lasting benefit to people are the ones where Labour have been big and ambitious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top