UK's Labour starts to reverse Blair's changes to nationalization policy

[snoop1130]

UK's Labour starts to reverse Blair's changes to nationalization policy

 

FILE PHOTO: Britain's Opposition Labour Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn (R) and former Prime Minister Tony Blair take part in the Remembrance Sunday ceremony at the Cenotaph in Westminster, central London, Britain November 13, 2016. REUTERS/Toby Melville

 

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain’s opposition Labour Party has started a process that could reverse former leader Tony Blair’s move away from a commitment for common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, The Times reported.

 

Blair ditched Labour’s commitment to widespread nationalization in 1995 by changing Clause 4 of the party’s constitution.

 

Labour’s national executive committee (NEC), controlled by supporters of current leader Jeremy Corbyn, agreed on Tuesday to set up a working group to examine changing the document.

 

The original 1917 wording of the clause, drafted by socialists Sidney and Beatrice Webb, committed Labour to “common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange”.

 

Blair changed it to support “a dynamic economy, serving the public interest, in which the enterprise of the market and the rigor of competition are joined with the forces of partnership and co-operation to produce the wealth the nation needs”.

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-09-19

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[Baerboxer]

Of course. He wants the state to control and own everything. Apart from the wealth "socialist' politicians are allowed to accumulate and flaunt as they're more equal citizens.

 

This <deleted> will create a Venezuela type socialist economy, scrap the UK's nuclear deterrent, neuter it's armed forces, conspire with terrorists, indulge his racist views, and promote implementation of polices shown to fail over and over again. When it all goes <deleted>-up he won't be affected because his millionaire ex banker wife will look after him.

 

But many young voters 18-34 ish, including quite a few teachers, that I know believe he's the messiah. They have never lived through periods of a Labor government! But all somehow think they're "entitled" to whatever they want which should be provided by the state.

[dunroaming]

This is a very risky move by Corbyn.  Blair swept to power with "New Labour" based on moving away from nationalisation.  There will be young voters who like the idea (most of us did in the day) but they are wrong.  I think it will lose more votes than it gains and will split the Labour Party even further.  It would simply hand the Tories a general election win, hands down!

[Sir Dude]

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, it's inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

 

Sadly, the little kiddies have never experienced it with their comforts and rights to many things that will simply disappear ... not to mention the unemployment as business will flee pronto. Blair's New Labour was just about palatable and got enough support but Corbyn is peddling hardcore failure 70s communism/socialism pretty much and that will doom the UK for decades with the damage he would do. 

[Bluespunk]

21 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

Britain’s opposition Labour Party has started a process that could reverse former leader Tony Blair’s move away from a commitment for common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, The Times reported.

Good. 

[dunroaming]

5 minutes ago, Sir Dude said:

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, it's inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Not sitting on the fence with this one are you? ????

 

Socialism is a big word and covers a lot of ground.  For some countries it works well but I don't think it does for the UK.  The despicable Blair tore up the Labour rule book and became more right wing than Thatcher (well almost). Many of us small business owners had our bags packed and were ready to leave when he was elected but then stood there open mouthed as he transformed into Tory Boy on acid!

 

With Miliband Labour settled for the middle ground and became somewhat wishy washy as a consequence.  I can understand that Corbyn appealed to many, especially the idealistic young voters.  But in doing so the Labour Party fractured and that is where we are today.  There is an opportunity now for Labour to seize the moment and even win a general election but not with Corbyn at the helm.

[Chomper Higgot]

4 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

Of course. He wants the state to control and own everything. Apart from the wealth "socialist' politicians are allowed to accumulate and flaunt as they're more equal citizens.

 

This <deleted> will create a Venezuela type socialist economy, scrap the UK's nuclear deterrent, neuter it's armed forces, conspire with terrorists, indulge his racist views, and promote implementation of polices shown to fail over and over again. When it all goes <deleted>-up he won't be affected because his millionaire ex banker wife will look after him.

 

But many young voters 18-34 ish, including quite a few teachers, that I know believe he's the messiah. They have never lived through periods of a Labor government! But all somehow think they're "entitled" to whatever they want which should be provided by the state.

Putting aside your unsubstantiated claims and off topic hyperbole reference to Venuzuela, the facts are the Labour Party are aligned with the general public regarding the wish that essential utilities and the railways are returned to public ownership.

 

The 18-34 year olds you refer to have lived through almost a decade of Try Austerity, they've had  enough of it already.

 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, Sir Dude said:

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, it's inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

 

Sadly, the little kiddies have never experienced it with their comforts and rights to many things that will simply disappear ... not to mention the unemployment as business will flee pronto. Blair's New Labour was just about palatable and got enough support but Corbyn is peddling hardcore failure 70s communism/socialism pretty much and that will doom the UK for decades with the damage he would do. 

Pure strawman.

[rickudon]

Selling off the water companies worked well, and trains and buses. Now we have hedge funds asset stripping our water companies, and private rail operators demanding above inflation ticket prices every year.

 

Bus companies? During the recession 10 years ago, half the rural bus routes were scrapped and no service evenings or weekends. TRY WALKING 10 MILES WITH A SUITCASE ...…. Now they complain they have too few users and want more subsidies - well they forced people to buy cars or be prisoners in their small towns and villages, now they complain.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, rickudon said:

Selling off the water companies worked well, and trains and buses. Now we have hedge funds asset stripping our water companies, and private rail operators demanding above inflation ticket prices every year.

 

Bus companies? During the recession 10 years ago, half the rural bus routes were scrapped and no service evenings or weekends. TRY WALKING 10 MILES WITH A SUITCASE ...…. Now they complain they have too few users and want more subsidies - well they forced people to buy cars or be prisoners in their small towns and villages, now they complain.

I’m not sure how you figure selling off the water companies worked well.

 

I moved from Edinburgh where I paid municipal water and sewage rates of £27 a quarter to Oxford where the Thames water charges where more than double this rate per month.

 

 

[rickudon]

19 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’m not sure how you figure selling off the water companies worked well.

 

I moved from Edinburgh where I paid municipal water and sewage rates of £27 a quarter to Oxford where the Thames water charges where more than double this rate per month.

 

 

Sorry, my sarcasm was a bit to subtle. It was a disaster. Thames water and Southern Water were really milked by the owners. All about profits, sold off all the fixed assets not actually essential to the delivery of water, and paid themselves big dividends. Those assets could have been used to develop better water supply services. They are local monopolies, but regulation has been poor. Monopoly services should be run by the government, local or national. Then you can show your displeasure with a vote. Gas and Electricity are not so bad, as at least you can change your supplier.