Hampster Gull
New member
- Dec 22, 2010
- 13,462
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Tony Blair doubts Labour can be 'taken back by moderates'
- Thread starter Biscuit
- Start date
Indeed my point we have not had a socialist government in the past 30 years as you quite rightly point out its upon the backs of a capitalist economy and the current Labour Party is not that radically different, equally we have not had a true capicalist society from the right of British Politics in the past thirty years if we had then public money would never be used to support private business which is exactly what has happened.
What we have had is a centre leaning set of governments all hugging the centre ground this has squeezed the traditional centre parties virtually out of the frame and it has not worked repeatedly doing the same things using different words has not reduced equality its increased it, thus I go back to my original point change is required and repeating what has not worked over and over is the way to madness
I'm quite interested by your posts and, bizarrely for anything related to politics on this site, you have me seriously questioning the views I hold.
Can I ask how you are measuring "has not worked" over the period you are discussing, covering longstanding governments of both sides (although I concede you are arguing that they were not, in fact, different sides).
Inequality is the measurement that interests me and the Establishments role in maintaining the status quo
In 1776 Adam Smith to many the father of capitalism wrote The Wealth of Nations where he made the point explicitly and repeatedly, that the true measure of a nation’s wealth is not the size of its king’s treasury or the holdings of an affluent few but rather the wages of “the laboring poor.” Smith said that it is a matter of simple “equity” that “they who feed, clothe, and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labor as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed, and lodged
Move forward one hundred years and by the late 1800s Carl Marx was saying society was divided between two basic classes of people the bourgeoisie who own property, factories, wealth, technology and knowledge and those who work for them the proletariat and they own nothing but their own ability to work.
Marx said the bourgeoisie are able to control the proletariat through two mechanisms. These are the direct control through the exercise of power and the indirect control of people's minds through the use of ideology or ideas It is the second means of control, ideology that is the most dangerous, because people come to accept certain ideas as being true or self-evident without really questioning them. We accept that some people are rich and others poor as being part of daily life and so there are very few challenges to the idea that the greed and selfishness of the rich are acceptable and should be copied by the rest of us.
Another hundred years and by the 1980s Louis Althusser professor of philosophy was saying individuals were trained through the simple process of learning roles, so lawyers are trained as part of the political structure of the state. Althusser claimed that in our society a series of institutions exist whose purpose is to train us to accept the ideas of capitalism. He identified these institutions such as the family, the media, the education system and religion as being part of the Ideological State Apparatus. Their purpose is to work together to create obedient citizens. Althusser also noted the role of Repressive State Apparatus. These are the institutions that impose order, such as the justice system, the police, the law and the army. Inequality exists because the state trains people to accept the ideas that make them slaves to the system.
After the First World War the world experienced some social change but the British Establishment rallied and it took a Second World War to really make change happen with huge building of homes Council Estates gave individuals a decent long term affordable home, the NHS gave everyone access to the same Heath care, Social Security provided support to anyone in times of need, Pensions ensured that at the end of anyone's working life they would continue to receive an income. A Great Wall was built that held the Establishment at bay, by the 1970s equality in the UK was at its lowest in recorded history there was also a carefully balanced equilibrium in the Establishment where politicians of different leanings were from set class backgrounds and the Press reflected this.
By the 1980s and the success of the populist Conservative governments of Mrs Thatcher and Mr Major Capitalism seemed unstoppable it was during this period that all the British political parties started moving to inhabit the centre ground and it is also the start of inequalities that we see today with record numbers homeless or in poor over priced rented properties, the NHS and social care systems in constant crisis it's a direct correlation that the financial inequality has directly reflected this period, we now have career Politicians who have become part of the Establishment and a press that to the large part only reflects this.
Meanwhile the ‘Professors’ Lecturers and general academics commentating and advising on social Britain through the decades take a very nice salary thank you very much and lead a comfortable lifestyle!
Hampster Gull
New member
- Dec 22, 2010
- 13,462
I get the sentiment but factually that is not true. There are many measures of inefficiency but the classic one is the Gini coefficient and it did show significant increase in inequality in the 1980s then it levelled off and has reduced a little since the financial crisis. So over 30 years it’s broadly flat to marginally more inequal. But every one is better off which is great, people,forget,what it was like in the 70s.
The U.K. though is more inequal than many other capatilist countries so they could be an arguement for more Scandinavian politics here, but for sure not the Trots
drew
Drew
I would suggest we have never had a Labour government that has moved towards out and out socialism. Yes they have bought in some previous socialist policies such as privatization of some monopolies but that is a far cry from taking over all production!
State controlled production didn't work in the USSR and in China where there remains big divides between the haves and have nots in both. The problem is you have to factor in a very big variable, human nature, which includes the characteristics of greed and envy!
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
How would you define out and out Socialism? It doesn't have a defined system that encapsulates a single ideology. In reality, the USSR resembled State Capitalism as much as it did Socialism.
larus
Well-known member
And there are remainers who now think we should implement Brexit as this was the will of the people, and a second referendum would be bad for the future of democracy, as it would disenfranchise even more voters, through the perception that their votes don’t matter.
Vote the wrong way - don’t worry, we’ll get you to vote again until you get it right. You may disagree, but you can’t say that many won’t feel that way (they will) and the risk is pushing more people to extremist parties. Why do you think ‘populist’ parties are on the rise across the western world? Look around - everywhere, even Sweden where the predictions are of up to 25% for an anti-immigration party.
cunning fergus
Well-known member
- Jan 18, 2009
- 4,745
Erm, privatisation of monopolies is not and has never been a socialist policy.......however I presume by that reference you mean, for example, Labour’s support of the privatisation of the Royal Mail? A Tory manifesto policy initiative supported by Miliband and his cabinet of Tories.
As for your reference to state controlled production in China and Russia, I wonder if you are getting mixed up with collectivisation under communism, to that end you are right it didn’t work, the fatal consequences of Mao and Stalin’s peacetime mistakes on their populations make Hitler look like an amateur.
But communism isn’t socialism.
Moshe Gariani
Well-known member
- Mar 10, 2005
- 12,071
Lazy nonsense. Can we reduce our population to 6m and create massive financial reserves at the same time…?
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
I think it happens around each global downturn. We've had a decade of austerity, the natural tendency is protectionism, minority voices on immigration etc. become popularised. The likes of Trump don't get elected when things are going well and progressing. The right is always likely to get elected after a financial crisis or recession.
Wardy's twin
Well-known member
- Oct 21, 2014
- 8,434
I don't think that middle Britain (70-80% of the population? ) are ready for a socialist government. We generally have it from ok to very good (look at the number of new cars on the streets) and wouldn't want to rock that boat. What people do want (i think) is that the margins are curtailed, the rich pay more tax and that poverty is reduced as wealth is redistributed and that would include marginal tax rises for 'middle Britain'.
An absolute attack on the wealthy individuals is likely to result in chaos and remember wealth is much more easily transportable these days, a quick flick of a switch and it the other side of the world. There is little of value to re-nationalise only a set of utility industries most of our wealth is generated by the less tangible and more fragile service industries which could disappear.
An absolute attack on the wealthy individuals is likely to result in chaos and remember wealth is much more easily transportable these days, a quick flick of a switch and it the other side of the world. There is little of value to re-nationalise only a set of utility industries most of our wealth is generated by the less tangible and more fragile service industries which could disappear.
drew
Drew
Sorry, slip of the tongue, I meant state taking control of monopolies, ie nationalisation!!
Hampster Gull
New member
- Dec 22, 2010
- 13,462
Bit rude but fair enough, why lazy nonsense?
larus
Well-known member
We’re at the end of a 10 year expansionary period. The US economy was on the up before Trump was elected. There are bull markets on all of the stock exchanges and steady world-wide growth, so I would disagree that the effects are from austerity. In most of the west we haven’t really had austerity (look at Greece if you want to see austerity). People bandy about this term here, but in reality, there’s been little real austerity. The country (government) is still spending more than it’s taking in taxes.
The problem is people have been led to believe that they can have whatever they want, right now, today. Too many people have a sense of entitlement and expect too much from the state.
For example, the NHS was created to look after peoples health and keep them well. Hard decisions would have been made by doctors/nurses at all times in its history. But people expect the NHS to provide very expensive drugs and treatments now without accepting that there are finite resources available. If people don’t like the doctors decisions, they will not take them to court to try to force them to keep on treatments. People expect sex change treatments. Look at social care, people want to be able get the state to care for their elderly relatives and object to funding it themselves. I’m not saying this should or should not be done - it’s not what the NHS was originally designed for and we don’t have the tax system to support it.
We need to have a proper debate in this country about what people want/expect and how this will be paid for. A great problem is that the elite manage to avoid paying a reasonable level of taxation by the use of off-shore tax havens. I don’t think the top level of tax should be more than 40%. I also think that we have too many people who have retired from public service on final salary pension which are very generous. Too many promises were by politicians in the past, knowing that their government wouldn’t have to fund this. This is unfair on the younger generation, as their taxes are paying for promises made 30-40 years ago.
Sorry if it seeems a bit of a rant. I get annoyed by the constant left/right arguments. I think most of us want the same things from our society, but the confrontational style of politics leads to ineffective government and petty point scoring rather than really addressing solutions.
What? Have I got this wrong? I looked it up and I am not wrong.
So I assume you think I'm an idiot for objecting to it.
Why?
A flat rate of tax means:
1.The more you earn the more you pay, in exact proportion to what you earn
2. There is no disincentive to earn more
3. If there can be no loopholes (and why not?), everyone must pay it
4. It is inexpensive to opperate
Today the rich pay little or no tax. This is because progressive taxation is inherently unfair so all governments, including lefty ones, allow schemes that let people minimise tax by charity donation, certain types of investments and various other complex weirdness in the business and investment sector. Progressive taxation therefore allows the rich to avoid paying tax
Progressive taxation must also be monitored, checked and managed. Governments invest far too little into this which is why so many people dodge tax. On the other hand we have a massive tax law industry, whereby people are paid to 'do' peoples' tax returns.
This is all feeble needless bollocks. A flat rate of tax with no exceptions would be an absolute wonder in my view, and arguments about fairness are false.
Let me say it again. Ten percent of ten is one. Ten percent of a hundred is ten. The more you earn, the more you pay. Twenty percent of a hundred is twenty, twice as much in percentage terms than ten percent. But ten is more than one. To argue as my brother does that ten per cent of 100 is not more than ten percent of 10 and is therefore 'unfair'and not 'progressive' is absurd. Whenever was ten not more than one? Whenever was penalising people for earning more 'fair'.
'Progressive' taxation, I suspect, is one of those deliberately counterintuitive jargon terms so beloved of political twisters. Ministry of truth. Orwellian.
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
The gap between the rich and poor has widened. People want to blame their own situation on others, hence immigration being such an issue, and Brexit would unlikely happen in the backdrop of a more stable period of the economy.
Why do you say too many people have a sense of entitlement? Seems a strange statement from someone annoyed by constant let/right arguments to state something that is in itself confrontational.
Not sure your synopsis of the NHS is what people are worried about either. More like a reactionary comment to a real minority of cases rather than an overall feeling of being seen in A&E within a reasonable period, and reduced waiting lists for routine treatments. Our spend of GDP on healthcare is below that of other countries in the G7 and the wider world, although it isn't an unhealthy figure either. Does't matter what the NHS was designed for originally, it is what we want for it in the future – why is universal healthcare something to shrink from rather than encourage and embrace?
I also think taxation could be more progressive than simply saying the top rate shouldn't be more than 40%. Our tax take from our GDP is low, some 34% in comparison to similar size economies. We could expect more with a fairer input into our state from our GDP.
Politics has to be about how you go about making all our lives better. There is a fundamental difference if you feel this is a reduction of and privatisation of the state, than if you believe in an accountable state delivering services and infrastructure.
cunning fergus
Well-known member
- Jan 18, 2009
- 4,745
No problem, however which monopolies have been nationalised?
Since the 80s I can’t think of anything that any Govt has nationalised by way of policy, there has of course been nationalisation but only due to the failures and excess of capitalists (e.g. RBOS, Lloyds etc.). We have also very recently had the east coast rail line failure and Carrilion both of which have lead (or will lead) to nationalisation of sorts, but again this is not Govt policy.
Privatisation is rife and has been since capitalism has been the only political show in town, even the venerable old NHS is not immune and those who extol its virtues as being state controlled are seriously deluded. It’s all but privatised or at least in the grip of the likes of Virgin Health or being rinsed by GSK.
Little wonder we are constantly being told it needs more money........