YouGov Poll - 33 Point lead!

HolgateCorner said:
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?
Click to expand...

Yeah fair enough, any socialist policies are likely to be complex and difficult, and just tinkering around with tory policies is likely to be simple and easy.

But when people are expecting a 300+ seat majority, a 5 year term, and Starmers selling point was meant to be how forensic and capable and lawyerly he is, shouldn't we expect him to take on some complex and difficult (and better) policies?
 
festa5 said:
The ones we have in the cabinet office certainly act as if they're prize winners.

Definitely bottom of the barrel time now, utterly F***ing clueless. And some of the inane stuff they're bothered about.......

GE can't come soon enough.
Click to expand...
Hard to tell whether a GE or just byelections will replace them first.
 
SuperStu said:
Yeah fair enough, any socialist policies are likely to be complex and difficult, and just tinkering around with tory policies is likely to be simple and easy.

But when people are expecting a 300+ seat majority, a 5 year term, and Starmers selling point was meant to be how forensic and capable and lawyerly he is, shouldn't we expect him to take on some complex and difficult (and better) policies?
Click to expand...
I think tinkering around with Tory policies is complex and difficult as well, just ask Liz Truss and the pension funds….
 
HolgateCorner said:
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?
Click to expand...
Not really no. Corporations seem to manage quite well despite all the ridiculous complexity so there's no reason why any policy with strict regulation and tight legislation can't be introduced with an expectation of completion.

There needs to be honesty around cost but the government shouldn't let itself be held to ransom.

Labour seem to be in a position that they'll struggle to find themselves in for another 30 years so they really need to make the most of it. There are plenty of relatively easy wins in terms of regulation - water companies as a prime example. Fix it or have it taken back into public ownership should be the clear message - and no extra funding. If shareholders get cold feet then the government shouldn't be bailing them out.
 
Scrote said:
Not really no. Corporations seem to manage quite well despite all the ridiculous complexity so there's no reason why any policy with strict regulation and tight legislation can't be introduced with an expectation of completion.

There needs to be honesty around cost but the government shouldn't let itself be held to ransom.

Labour seem to be in a position that they'll struggle to find themselves in for another 30 years so they really need to make the most of it. There are plenty of relatively easy wins in terms of regulation - water companies as a prime example. Fix it or have it taken back into public ownership should be the clear message - and no extra funding. If shareholders get cold feet then the government shouldn't be bailing them out.
Click to expand...
Yeah it’s easy, I’ll vote for you 👍
 
Scrote said:
I didn't say it was easy. I said it wasn't "ridiculously complex" to the point we should just expect Labour to shrug their shoulders and do nothing.

You seem to be trying to find an excuse to maintain the status-quo. Newsflash - it isn't working.
Click to expand...
It is ridiculously complex though whether you realise/like it or not, particularly the energy system and market which is European at the least if not global.

The days of the U.K. being powered by a dozen big coal power stations served by local coal mines are long gone.

The world has moved on, there is no status quo any more.
 
HolgateCorner said:
It is ridiculously complex though whether you realise/like it or not, particularly the energy system and market which is European at the least if not global.

The days of the U.K. being powered by a dozen big coal power stations served by local coal mines are long gone.

The world has moved on, there is no status quo any more.
Click to expand...
The UK energy supply system is vey simple. An unnecessary cartel pretending to compete and defrauding the public. They are leeches, like landlords. They serve no useful societal function.
 
Scrote said:
Not really no. Corporations seem to manage quite well despite all the ridiculous complexity so there's no reason why any policy with strict regulation and tight legislation can't be introduced with an expectation of completion.

There needs to be honesty around cost but the government shouldn't let itself be held to ransom.

Labour seem to be in a position that they'll struggle to find themselves in for another 30 years so they really need to make the most of it. There are plenty of relatively easy wins in terms of regulation - water companies as a prime example. Fix it or have it taken back into public ownership should be the clear message - and no extra funding. If shareholders get cold feet then the government shouldn't be bailing them out.
Click to expand...
I agree with water. It's not hard to point out the absurdity of it being privately owned - we're the only country in the world to have a fully privatised water system - and signal that it's the government's preferred option is that it be back under public ownership. Not only that, large-scale investment is needed at national level as a strategic priority - same with the grid - to meet the needs of new housebuilding. I remember Will Hutton writing this a decade or more ago. What was needed was a pipeline from the wet north-west to the dry south-east, but that's the sort of large-scale project that would never be taken on under a fragmented system focused on short-term profit extraction.

The problem for Labour is - as the Truss budget showed - is carrying the markets. Come over all Venezuela in your first few months, you get a run on the pound and the cost of debt goes even higher.

Two Hutton articles on water privatisation (from a time - we failed to exploit -when public debt was cheap):

www.theguardian.com

Thames Water – a private equity plaything that takes us for fools | Will Hutton

Will Hutton: When the water company was privatised we were promised a utopia of private sector efficiency
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

www.theguardian.com

We can undo privatisation. And it won’t cost us a penny | Will Hutton

Three-quarters of British voters want our rail, gas and water renationalised but it’s expensive, says Observer columnist Will Hutton
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
Last edited:
HolgateCorner said:
It is ridiculously complex though whether you realise/like it or not, particularly the energy system and market which is European at the least if not global.
Click to expand...

I'm still not really getting your view HC.

Are you saying the energy system is too complicated for Labours current policy to work? They won't be able to identify projects and they won't be able to fund them?

Or are you saying its too complicated for anything past Labours policy? So actually they will be able to find projects to invest in, they'll find the money, it'd just be beyond them to maintain any sort of profit making stake in that infrastructure afterwards?
 
SuperStu said:
I'm still not really getting your view HC.

Are you saying the energy system is too complicated for Labours current policy to work? They won't be able to identify projects and they won't be able to fund them?

Or are you saying its too complicated for anything past Labours policy? So actually they will be able to find projects to invest in, they'll find the money, it'd just be beyond them to maintain any sort of profit making stake in that infrastructure afterwards?
Click to expand...
No, sorry I am not being clear my point is that Labours policy as I understand it will not make a huge impact as good as it sounds. The reason being the rest of the energy industry has become so complex, mainly because of all the renewable and associated technologies.
 
"The aim would be to combine the best of both the public and private sectors. If companies do not deliver what they have promised, there should be a well-defined system of escalating penalties, starting with the right to sue companies and ending with taking all the assets into public ownership if a company persistently neglected its obligations. But the cost would be very much lower, because the share price would fall as it became clear it was operating illegally."

We should have always had the right to do this, there should be a map of progression for the infrastructure and network decided and adhered to that cant be undone by any Govt without legal challenges. Thames Water wanted to put up consumer costs by 40% over 5 years that still wouldn't improve things that much.
There's a big task ahead to improve, streamline and invest in the NHS, look at renationalising the Water and the Railways to begin with. But we will still need outside and private investment for a lot of improvements.
 
N
equaliser said:
What was needed was a pipeline from the wet north-west to the dry south-east,
Click to expand...

Los Angeles imports 85% of its water. Majority from using CRA (Colorado River Aqueduct)
“ The 242-mile aqueduct begins at Parker Dam, straddling the border between California and Arizona, and terminates at Lake Mathews in Riverside County. Capable of moving more than 1 billion gallons of water each day, the CRA provides water for 19 million California residents.”

It was built in 1941.

NW to the SE? Fat chance. This lot can’t even keep S**T out of our sea, rivers and waterways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top