Skip to main content

Jeremy Corbyn is wrong about nationalisation

Jeremy Corbyn is wrong about nationalisation.  He is carried away by the reception he gets in the bubble of left wing politics.  It was a mistake made by Michael Foot as leader of the party.  He convinced himself that the public mood was swinging his way because of the rapturous reception he received at rallies up and down the country.  The faithful cheered, but voters turned away and Labour became unelectable.

Nationalisation isn't socialism.  There is more socialism in 'wider share ownership' than in nationalising major companies.   In that sense Mrs Thatcher was more socialist than any party wishing to nationalise major companies. Jeremy Corbyn seems intent on taking the Labour party backwards whilst what the country needs is a forward looking party that recognises and understands the changed economic and social landscape, and has real answers to the problems we face.  Nationalisation isn't the answer.  What people need is enhanced opportunities for education, for work, for housing and social and health care.  Reverting to the politics of the 1970s doesn't offer that.  It fights old battles with old and tired ideas.

Labour can do nothing if it reverts to being a party of opposition and protest.  It needs to reach out to voters who are not 'socialist'.  It demonstrated it could do this and win in 1997.  Jeremy Corbyn is critical of New Labour, but New Labour introduced the minimum wage,  reduced pensioner poverty, increased spending on the NHS and brought waiting lists and times down.  Labour could not have achieved that by sitting on the opposition benches remaining 'pure'.   Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters regard New Labour as a 'cancer' or 'virus' in the Labour party.  Symbolic of this was the change in Clause 4 section 4 of the Labour party constitution.

Clause 4 was itself symbolic.  No modern Labour government had any intention to nationalise banks and major companies.  The problem with Jeremy Corbyn is that he would have such intention. He makes nationalisation an objective rather than a means.

State ownership of the means of production and exchange isn't 'public ownership'.  True public ownership involves more than that.  John Lewis Partnership has more socialisms in it than does nationalisation.  If Jeremy Corbyn had ideas about how to promote such approaches to business structure and ownership he would do well.

Jeremy Corbyn appealed to my heart, but my head told me different.  Now his position on nationalisation has lost my heart.  I won't be voting for him.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As