Labour party manifesto pledges to renationalise energy, rail and Royal Mail

[muriel_volestrangler]

Jeremy Corbyn will lay out plans to take parts of Britain’s energy industry back into public ownership alongside the railways and Royal Mail in a radical manifesto that will also promise an annual injection of £6bn for the NHS and £1.6bn for social care.

A draft document drawn up by the leadership will also pledge a phased abolition of tuition fees, a dramatic boost in finance for childcare, and scrapping the bedroom tax, the Guardian has learned.

Sources say that Corbyn wants to promise a “transformational programme” with a package covering the NHS, education, housing and jobs as well as industrial intervention and sweeping nationalisation.

One central promise will be to build 100,000 new council houses a year and alongside a policy to ban fracking.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/10/labour-party-manifesto-pledges-to-end-tuition-fees-and-nationalise-railways

"Renationalise energy, rail and Royal Mail" seems a broadbrush description - in the article it's "parts", and later "it includes plans for a public owned energy company in every region of the UK"; which seems a more realistic idea, since taking control of all energy companies couldn't be done without making it a compulsory purchase at huge cost.

I suspect the "plans to borrow £250bn to invest in infrastructure" will be attacked as ruining the economy, and that will be the main way the Tories hope to bury this. I think I'd be up for these proposals by now, but whether the average voter will be tempted, I'm not so sure.

[guillaumeb]

1. Socialism.

The clear solution, but it interferes with profits.

[renegade000]

2. Worth a shot...

I actually really like the idea of a pubically owned utility option in vital sectors. Pushes private companies to actually reinvest profits into improving service. Worst case scenario is all the private companies pull out and you just have the public company. Certainly better than a private monopoly.

[mwooldri]

3. Re-nationalise Royal Mail. Good idea, if they learn some service from USPS.

When it comes to the core of delivering the mail, the United States Postal Service is top notch. My dad (in UK) ordered some stuff online from over here in US and sent to him. Except he didn't get it. USPS tracking told him exactly where the package was, whereas Royal Mail couldn't find it and swore the package was still in the USA.

Now the USPS could learn something from Post Office Counters and diversify a lot of what it does... and hey... banking anyone?

[T_i_B]

4. Banking is a very important issue....

...because of the current drive by banks to shut local branches and make everything automated.

It's been driven by how the banks got stung over mis-selling PPI. The thinking being that if people mis-sold payment protection insurance in a bid to hit sales targets then the solution is to cut out the people.

This approach does cause problems for the customer. Many people, especially the elderly much prefer dealing with a member of staff face to face and don't trust online banking very much. A lot of people still don't have access to online banking.

Another issue here is financial advice. What happens when you need it? In times past you would have simply gone to your local bank manager. Now you are more likely to end up with independent financial advisers, who are not cheap, or in some cases going towards services such as payday loans that people would otherwise be dissuaded from using.

[LeftishBrit]

7. Oh, I do so agree.

I think PPI is the excuse; the biggest reason is the unfortunate concept that efficiency means employing as few staff as possible.

Although I do use online banking, if I go to a bank, it's because I want assistance or advice from a person. If it's something I can readily do online, I'll do it at home; in a bank, I want to deal with people.

[Ghost Dog]

5. Intelligent investment in modern infrastructure

designed and implemented using the latest techniques (including AI) and technologies, taking into account inevitable climate change and all 'externalities' where inputs into socio-economic systems come from limited resources in the planetary environment and where outputs from those systems contaminate that environment with waste, including excess heat, can help achieve:

- Keynesian stimulus
- Enable an 'industrial policy' to guide the overall economy
- Good quality jobs
- Social cohesion and stability
- Social and technological progress
- Environmental sustainability

In the energy sector, state-owned 'competitors' to the corps in each region would be a vital part of such future-focused infrastructure development.

I've gleaned a summary of the rest of the apparently leaked draft manifesto here:

Policies on housing, education, lift public sector pay cap, more police officers. Sure Start, early years funding, A&E waiting time targets. End the bedroom tax, work capability and PIP assessments; repeal of the Health and Social Care Act; no repeal of the Human Rights Act; suspension of arms sales to Saudi Arabia. Women “at least 50%” cabinet representation; extend abortion rights to Northern Ireland. Trident would be renewed; university tuition fees would go; no second Scottish referendum. £6bn a year for the NHS; £8bn over five years for social care; £250bn over 10 years on infrastructure.

On Brexit: "We will scrap the Conservatives’ Brexit white paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the single market and the customs union … immediately guarantee existing rights for all EU nationals living in Britain … reject ‘no deal’ as a viable … ensure there is no return to a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and that there is no change in the status or sovereignty of Gibraltar."

On immigration, it says Labour “will not make false promises on immigration numbers”.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/11/the-snap-labour-leaked-manifesto-what-does-it-tell-us

[LeftishBrit]

6. I agree if done properly

As you say, taking control of all energy companies wouldn't be realistic at this stage, but including publicly owned companies wouldn't be a bad idea.

Unfortunately, apart from the cost issue (somewhat more achievable if we scrapped the ridiculous and expensive Brexit!), many people have been persuaded that 'publicly owned' invariably means 'worse for the customer than the private sector'. Not in my experience, but it's a common view.