The House of Lords is one of the few checks and balances that can restrain to some degree a government with a large Commons majority from doing whatever it likes. Most of the time they are diligent in holding the government to account, but a chamber of hereditaries and appointees doesn't really cut it in a modern society. Most other countries have a reviewing/revising chamber, but it is a good deal more democratic.
Yes, that's why I'd be instantly opposed if the idea was to just get rid of the reviewing/revising chamber aspect of our system. Reforming it, even if that means abolishing and replacing I'm very in favour of however. Though, personally, the traditionalist in me would prefer if the replacement was still called the House of Lords and the members within called Lords and Ladies even though the actual arrangements bore no relation to the original chamber! But the main thing is proper reform to create a chamber which is more fit for purpose and less open to the abuses of recent decades.
Which is good that Labour recognise it has a place its just how its being populated that is the issue. Personally i reckon this will resonate with the majority of the population as despite the good work the Lords do the majority of them have been voted in by Cameron, May and Johnson. Then you have the heredity peers majority are reasonable people despite political affiliation but ultimately they are only there by birth right because they sucked up to some monarch in the past or did there dirty work. Then you have the bishops who are there because the church was involved right from its inception but the country was a different place then.
I believe it should be split with majority voted in by PR but it does benefit from individuals from specialist backgrounds being involved in scrutinising legislation so maybe learned institutions should be allowed to nominate individuals for a set term.
He supported Corbyn when the latter was Labour leader, but Starmer has now very much thrown Corbyn under the bus by removing the whip and saying he doesn't see Corbyn regaining it.
This does assume that the people who are likely to vote Labour actually want Socialist policies, i.e. Clause 4's: "common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service".
Other than the cases of private companies entering bankruptcy, I am not aware of private companies being nationalised without the shareholders being compensated, I do recall the failing Bradford & Bingley Builiding Society being nationalised, the shares were worthless
I don't think it's happened in this country, but certainly some governments in other countries have nationalised companies without compensating the owners. Usually local subsidiaries of multinationals, e.g. Iran and Anglo-Iranian or Venezuela and an offshoot of Exxon Mobil. It tends to make people wary of investing in that country.
People do want much much more than the points about pay and conditions you raise, and many basic needs are socialist in principle, socialist principles such as universal access to health care independent of means, the right to be subject to universal treatment by Law and the Courts irrespective of wealth and privilege, equality of opportunities to self-progress and advance, especially their children, in education and employment , the right to vote and elect accountable governments
I would be interested to see how a party with similar traits to Corbyn's would fare this time around.
That's something that our current capitalist society fails to recognise as we force people further away from the communities in which they grew up in order to find work. The result is villages full of old people and second home owners, with traditional family bonds broken, high house prices and poor services for those who are left behind.
I think Labour are more committed to devolution than you think remember in 1997 even though they did not achieve much for England they did manage to devolve power to Scotland, Wales and to a lesser extent the London mayor and the Greater London Authority yes I do think they should have gone further for England and I think that the creation of the Metro Mayors and Mayoral Combined Authorities are a good start that Labour can build up on it provides a tier that you can devolve new powers too
True, but you've just summed up probably why, at the most basal level, I detest almost everything the Tories have done since 2016!
All those new people jumping on the gravy train of local authorities with 6 figure salaries for hardly any work.
Public ownership does not necessarily mean state ownership.
I'd dispute that unbridled capitalism has ever provided these things. Victorian England was very luxurious if you were a mill owner, but squalid if you weren't.
Yes, but the provision of health care of individuals or groups of citizens of a country is too important to be the dictat of employers.
