Labour leadership contest 2020

people on 12 december: vote Labour

people on 13 december: OMG HERE'S ALL OF THE OBVIOUS, FATAL FLAWS WITH LABOUR OVER THE PAST FOUR YEARS

Yes I think there's lots of people in this position. I was holding out hope for a hung parliament, but found the result depressingly unsurprising given Corbyn and his followers' ineptitude. Milne is particularly to blame. So much useful data was ignored, in particular polling data compiled by remain group Best for Britain.

Hopefully who ever they appoints will be able to listen to the data as well:
https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1208503645584666626

I am up in scotland, the rail services are a joke! constant delays and cancellations. 1 hour journey from Perth to glasgow will set you back 18 quid.

Milne is particularly to blame

Which is why everyone around him is being let go while he’s moved to a permanent contract.... Compare with Timothy and Hill’s treatment after TMs election disaster!

privatisation has demonstrably failed repeatedly unless your aim is to make money for rich people.

Or if your aim is to provide a quality service in a market capable of genuine competition. See telecoms, commercial transport/freight.

Yeah I agree. But that's still not an argument against State run internet as a policy or from an optics POV.

Also for all the people concerned about the slippery slope aspect to a JC/JMcD (me included) the fact that even under a center left government the State immediately started infringing civil liberties doesn't give much confidence.

This is a very sensible post.

Really good article.

Labour has always been a coalition between workerist and progressive elements, liberals and conservatives, mediated by socialism. It was held together by the belief that we are social beings who resist the domination of capital through democracy; and by the refusal to accept that human beings are a commodity or that our inheritance is exclusively monetary.

And this... I don’t think I’ve seen this articulated before and it seems vital for the times:

Without Labour, right-wing populism will grow and become the alternative to the status-quo. That is the danger. Like capitalism, nationalism needs to be domesticated through an engagement with and not a rejection of its existence.

More good analysis from Maurice Glasman

https://unherd.com/2019/12/all-hail-king-boris/

Great - more experts

Nationising all the stuff that's been sold privatised is definitely good

It’s arguable. Some cases better than others.

It’s probably not a good idea to campaign on privatising all the things if you’d like to win the popular vote. Pick the best case, campaign on that.

Do you think the changes you'd like to see would make the party more popular in the eyes of the electorate or you personally? And if the former, why do you think that?

nationalise spectacles !

Specsavers is a huge supplier to the NHS- deeply enmeshed with their processes apparently.

Just coming back to the "hard left" thing again - the way this seems to go is that the current labour leadership is described as hard left, to which the response is something along the lines of "which policies are hard left? They are all moderate socialist policies as in place in france/germany/some other european country"

An issue with labour's policies is not just what's in there, but what was lacking.

For example, Germany has worker representation on the boards of large companies, but they also have a government that actively supports German industry at home and abroad. While I could imagine Corbyn et al standing up for the workers against the bosses, I find it hard to envisage him standing shoulder to shoulder with the same bosses on an international stage promoting privately owned british companies. For the "workers on boards" policy to be acceptable, there needs to be a belief that a labour government would actually support private enterprises and industry generally - not just at the level of workers rights against the companies.

The same goes for public vs private provisioning and the nationalisation/privatisation debate: France, Germany, etc. all have examples of successful nationalised services or companies with some level of government ownership. So that in itself is not exceptional. However nationalisation is not the default setting of these larger European companies and there is no sense that they see private enterprise as "bad" and government provisioning as "good". Yet, this is exactly the sense I, at least, get from the McCluskys and others surrounding Corbyn.

For a policy of nationalising private services to be acceptable, there has to be a belief that it is being carried out as a sensible practical response to improve failing services (answering the question, exactly how is this specific nationalisation actually going to help?) not just an idealogical reaction to 1979. As above, I can see Corbyn et al nationalising stuff, but I'm struggling to imagine them privatising or making use of privately provided services, even if it was a practical, sensible thing to do.

Rinse and repeat for defence - a draw back from internationalism needs to be balanced by a belief that the leadership will defend british interests.

To me, this is why the "hard left" label sticks - because alongside the history of the leadership, there is little in the way of balance.

Well how have other countries done things so well with nationalised systems?.

The commercial transport/freight is not a great example for the UK.

Did you read the Labour manifesto?

Well how have other countries done things so well with nationalised systems?.

Idk. How have they? I assume something along the lines of the points made by cookiemonster. Either way I'm not sure how it makes the case against successful examples of privatisation in the UK, or why tax money should be used in respect of goods or services that can perfectly well be picked up by the private sector.

The commercial transport/freight is not a great example for the UK.

Why because it was a shit-heap of relentless theft, corruption, laziness and inefficiency before it was privatized, and so doesn't fit the neat narrative that everything publicly owned is great? As much as I love slagging off Yodl my stories aren't a patch on anyone I've met who had to move goods across the country back in the day.

For example, Germany has worker representation on the boards of large companies, but they also have a government that actively supports German industry at home and abroad.

And one of the ways they do this is completely support training costs and education. Something that UK Government has actively dispersed from public funding.

Either way I'm not sure how it makes the case against successful examples of privatisation in the UK, or why tax money should be used in respect of goods or services that can perfectly well be picked up by the private sector.

I'd be surprised if you can quote one successful privatisation that is without it critics

Isn't it down to you to tell me why the UK system is better. It is not a free market tho is it, it is an oligopoly at best. Also the gov give alot of tax payer money to the rail companies and the infrastructure, yet companies make profits so is that a free market? Why did the Gov nationalise rail track?

Are you old enough to remember the trains pre privatisation? Do you remember red star parcels? The issue is that happens with road transport is not paying for use of the provided services that tax revenue pays for like roads, hospitals education etc.

I agree. It's best to start thinking about what should be run by the state rather than by markets by thinking about which should be universal. Then pragmatism. By this measure I think universal broadband has an ok case.

However, in a poll of 13k non-labour voters only 6% said economic policy was the reason they voted elsewhere.

Nationalise the banks!

I'm starting to think my preference as next leader of the Labour party is Gary Neville and I'm not even joking.

With Carra as deputy.