King Boonen wrote:Not sure why anyone would worry about costings, renationalising things does very little to the budget deficit, especially considering subsidies already being paid. It's more about whether the state can effectively run the industries and provide benefit. I think mail has flown the coup and should be left but power and rail absolutely should come back under state control.
The costing problem isn't with renationalisation but the other spending pledges which go up to between 60-95 billion depending who you ask (IFS said 60 (I think) and Daily Mail said 95 - basically it's 60). I agree with all of the spending pledges and think they are both good and necessary, however there is a problem with where the money will come from.
I agree with the neoliberal consensus (but also Keynesian) that in the modern world it is necessary to have a 3% deficit or less so that investors aren't scared off. That's probably the main reason why it isn't a good idea to have a larger one. Labour have committed to a surplus, and I will wait to see their actual manifesto to see how it's achievable.
Corbyn's policy on energy could be very good. It isn't total nationalisation, but allows smaller regional companies to keep the private ones in check. A centrally planned energy company wouldn't be successful and hasn't been successful in the past due to the UK's apparent inadequacy at running anything, so much so that even now when everything is privatised, it's usually foreign comapnies running them. Trains and mail makes perfect sense.
Labour's main problem now is convincing the electorate Corbyn will make a good PM. And it's a big problem.
t.
