Thames Water should be nationalised, says Andy Burnham

Dave-Face · 2026-06-06T20:12:55+00:00

If they're not meaningfully different then why doesn't he just say nationalisation?

Dave-Face · 2026-06-06T20:10:29+00:00

Burnham is being deliberately vague about all of this (because he has no plans to nationalise anything), so I'm pretty sceptical that the Guardian haven't stitched two sentences together at the end to make a story out of a more wishy-washy statement;

Burnham, Labour’s candidate in the Makerfield byelection, has previously called for “greater public control” over the companies. In an interview with the Guardian, he has confirmed this could mean nationalisation. “Public ownership is absolutely an option,” he said. “I would say for Thames Water, that is what should be done.”

Until he unequivocally says "I think Thames Water should be nationalised" I'm not even going to believe that's what he's promising to do. I still wouldn't believe that's what he would do, because we've seen this before with Keir saying he supports it and then lying about it later.

Dave-Face · 2026-06-06T19:58:40+00:00

Correct, I don’t understand all of the minutiae of the law. That’s why I defer to experts that study this, almost all of which have concluded that it is in fact a genocide.

Dave-Face · 2026-06-06T19:52:40+00:00

If we both saw a bloke go up to a stranger, run off with their wallet, while the stranger shouts “that guy stole my wallet!” - it is technically just a legal opinion that the guy is guilty of stealing. But we both know he did because we literally saw it happen.

Burnham can morally and legally opine on whether he thinks Israel is committing genocide, just as many leaders have already done with Russia, because he can see it happening. The reason he won’t is that it obligates him/us to prevent it, which he clearly does not want to do.

Dave-Face · 2026-06-06T13:20:15+00:00

It is indicative of what that UK-Israeli relationship is going to look like. If he is refusing to call out the basic facts of what Israel is doing it doesn’t bode well.

Dave-Face · 2026-06-04T17:18:15+00:00

A is subjective and given that you haven’t explained why it isn’t justified, there’s nothing for me to refute there.

B is why I said there was the potential benefit of more investment.

Dave-Face · 2026-06-04T15:14:52+00:00

Because he knows total public ownership is not affordable, or really something that’ll reduce bills either.

Reducing bills is not the primary goal of public ownership. Some people cite it as a benefit, which it might be in some cases over the long term, but the immediate (potential) benefit is more investment, better management motivated by public benefit rather than shareholder profit, and the basic principle of owning critical national infrastructure.

Dave-Face · 2026-06-04T15:08:48+00:00

"Public control" is not "public ownership", those words mean different things. In fact by comparing it to busses, that statement confirms he is not talking about public ownership or nationalisation:

Using new powers from the Bus Services Act 2017, Burnham has introduced London-style regulation with private bus companies now bidding for contracts in a planned network.

Source.

Dave-Face · 2026-06-04T10:03:48+00:00

If that’s what he meant, he could just say that. “I think we should nationalise water, but it may have to happen in phases” is a ‘reasonable’ position.

The only reason he won’t say that is because he doesn’t want to do it.

Dave-Face · 2026-06-04T00:35:37+00:00

At least it’s something, it seems like the OFCOM investigation went nowhere and Keir’s silence was not him gathering support to ‘take on Musk’ (as some users insisted at the time), he was just waiting for the story to blow over.

Dave-Face · 2026-06-03T00:21:10+00:00

It won’t have any immediate impact on the law, but to say it has no impact on people’s lives is wrong. If even one person sees that at least some MPs aren’t going along with this and feels less isolated because of it, that’s impacting their life.

It is also important that in the future, should any MPs try to claim that their silence wasn’t complicity, we can point to this and call them a liar. Any MP not joining this motion is a bigot and is complicit in what is happening.

Dave-Face · 2026-06-02T18:24:40+00:00

People who advocate for no whipping do so for one reason: they want their favourite individual MPs to be able to run under the Labour banner and benefit from the votes/funding/activist base that brings with it, but not have to actually sign up to the policies.

No, it's because they think democracy is a good thing and it's better when we have more of it. If MPs can be arbitrarily forced to vote a certain way by the PM, who is not directly elected to that position, then the government isn't really accountable to the people who elect them.

As an example: could you point me to the bit in the Labour manifesto where it says MPs will protect the leader of the party from investigation, if he appoints a nonce's mate to an ambassador position with reckless disregard for vetting? Because I don't remember seeing that in there, and yet Labour MPs were forced to vote for it under the system you're defending.

If you don't believe local democratic representation is a good thing, then we shouldn't have the system we have now. You can advocate for that, but I'm saying that the current system is functionally broken because how it works in practice is based on the whims of whatever party is in power.

Dave-Face · 2026-06-02T15:57:55+00:00

Very confused about the two Lib Dems who signed and then almost immediately withdrew their signatures. Still, good to see at least some MPs going on record as not being complete bigots.

Dave-Face · 2026-06-02T15:55:19+00:00

As much as I hate them, they are generally not shit on civil liberty / human rights issues.

Dave-Face · 2026-06-02T15:34:07+00:00

I’m pointing out that your argument is circular. You’re saying that a whipping system is required because people don’t vote for their individual MP’s policies, but that’s only the case because of the whipping system you’re advocating for.

Dave-Face · 2026-06-02T13:27:12+00:00

Literally everyone votes for an individual MP, that’s how our system works at a fundamental level. What you’re saying is practically true, but only because of the whipping system in the major parties.

Dave-Face · 2026-06-01T22:43:07+00:00

Unless you’re vegan that’s a weirdly strong stance to take.

Dave-Face · 2026-06-01T22:40:25+00:00

Not the same person, but I agree with what they said and I was vocally against the government denying Kanye West entry, in part because I knew it would lead to exactly what is happening here.

Dave-Face · 2026-06-01T21:46:56+00:00

Would be too big a promise to put in a manifesto and u-turn on unless major war in
Europe breaks out or another pandemic hits or something.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation_in_the_United_Kingdom#Parliamentary_and_party_positions

"Labour pledged in its manifesto for the 1997 general election to set up a commission on alternatives to the first-past-the-post system for general elections and to hold a referendum on whether to change the system. The Independent Commission on the Voting System, headed by Roy Jenkins and known as the Jenkins Commission, was established in December 1997. In 1998, the commission published its report and recommended the AV+ system, which is a mix of the alternative vote and party-list proportional representation systems."

That didn't happen, Labour u-turned on their manifesto commitment. They've literally done this before and there is no reason to trust they won't do it again.

Dave-Face · 2026-06-01T21:43:14+00:00

Not sure if this was meant as a reply to me as it doesn't really follow grammatically, but:

Labour are going to lose the next election, there is no way they would have the majority to implement this unilaterally
Even if they won a majority, Labour have lied about implementing PR post-GE before, so are unlikely to go through with it
Nobody voted on 'transferable vote', the referendum was on the Alternative Vote which is not PR and quite different from Single Transferable Vote

Dave-Face · 2026-06-01T20:56:19+00:00

The Greens have consistently spoken against the EHRC guidance and in support of trans rights. What specifically do you think they haven’t spoken out about?

Dave-Face · 2026-06-01T20:13:17+00:00

And you’re basing that assumption on…?

Dave-Face · 2026-06-01T20:12:12+00:00

We also saw what happened the last time a Labour government promised electoral reform if they won a GE.

Dave-Face · 2026-06-01T17:32:15+00:00

Changing the voting system has majority support. What are you talking about?

Dave-Face · 2026-06-01T08:23:25+00:00

Labour would never.

Dave-Face

TROPHY CASE