this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2023
70 points (100.0% liked)

UK Politics

3103 readers
313 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The shadow business secretary Jonathan Reynolds told the BBC: "We're not going to nationalise the energy system."

Asked if they would follow the vote, he said: "No."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] leaskovski@kbin.social 26 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What's the point of asking the party members then?

[–] OhNoMoreLemmy@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Unite set up the vote to embarrass the party leaders. It succeed in this.

The actual point left out is that this not needed and would involve buying out companies, and needlessly paying them money.

Instead Labour's plan is to set up their own energy company. This will either succeed and force existing companies to set prices fairly or to go out of business, or it will fail without damaging the market. Either way it's cheaper and safer than forcefully nationalising existing firms.

I've always thought this would be the best option for essential services. Then it's there as a service provider of last resort in case a private provider fails. And if the private sector can indeed provide the service more efficiently even after paying it's shareholders, great, have at it in competition with the state offering. We even have this in places (see NS&I).

[–] Jackthelad@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Just so they can get something for their membership fee.

[–] rynzcycle@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Paying £50 for a millionaire to spit on you is one hell of a kink, but to each their own.

[–] Jackthelad@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I've never understood why anyone would pay to be a member of a political party tbh.