Quote Originally Posted by TISS View Post
there is some good policies and some not so good. it really is a mixed bag.

My take on nationalisation is that exponents of it suggest it allows profits to be brought back to public use, but if we have to borrow, say £80bn to nationalise the water industry, that borrowing will come at an annual cost of say £3bn on long dated bonds, so any profits made will end up in the private sector anyway.

However, even Len McClusky has come out this am and started the damage limitation exercise by saying if Labour have 200 MPs elected (down on their current 229) then that must be seen as a success. I can't see how losing your influence in Parliament can be considered a success. We need strong, capable opposition to hold government to account, not a party in decline chasing a dream that only the minority want.

I would rather a strong centrist Labour party than a weak left wing Labour party.
So you are in favour of nationalisation if there is no upfront cost? I feel roughly the same. Buying things back at inflated rates seems to make no sense.

Damage limitation? I don't see the point with where they currently are. It is like when you see a team 2-0 down to Barca with 20 minutes left and they still have 9 at the back so they don't let 6 in. Labour might as well have a go because the material difference between 150 and 200 is nothing.