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

A time for every purpose

All life moves. Or, more precisely, all life moves purposefully.  This is true even for trees and plants.  Movement is essential for maintaining life.  Animals migrate; plants disperse.  Some form of migration is an ingredient of all life.  For many organisms, it is a key function of reproduction.  We don't reproduce merely to create a new organism, but also to disperse the population - finding new fertile ground, or resources. Reproduction is a form of migration. Reproduction isn't merely to replicate. Reproduction produces change and diversity.  While we may have strong resemblences in families, we also have differences.  Creating a difference is how evolution works.  In this sense, nature is a continuous exploratory process, finding what works best.  Nature senses change and responds.  Some of this is immediate and physiological or behavioural; some of it is over generations.  If we look at a forest over long periods of time, we would see that it shifts. There is a movement

A weaver's tail - the harvest mouse

Living in the grass is a tiny mouse: the tiny harvest mouse, with a wonderful scientific name that sounds like the title of a Charles Dickens Novel,  Micromys minutus.   It is the only British mammal with a prehensile tail. It uses its tail to hold on to the slender grass stems, at the tops of which it builds a nest. Photo: Nick Fewing These tiny mammals (just around 5 cm long) build a spherical nest of tightly woven grass at the top of tall grasses, in which the female will give birth to about six young.  In the fields, we see cows and horses brushing away flies with their tails; often they will stand side-by-side and end-to-end, and help each other.  Two tails are better than one!  In nature, tails are put to good use.  Just as a tight-rope walker uses his pole for balance, so for some species, a tail provides balance. When running, a squirrel uses its tail as a counterbalance to help the squirrel steer and turn quickly, and the tail is used aerodynamically in flight.  But many anima