quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
Socialism in my view needs to be built on the scaffold of capitalism, not on its ashes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
Its politics are sketchy, based on the idea that something to the left of labour needs to exist, rather than anything more definitive than that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
Its politics are sketchy, based on the idea that something to the left of labour needs to exist, rather than anything more definitive than that.

---

Seems pretty much like a reboot of the British Communist Party to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:

I’ve often liked the idea of the left, with its focus on democratisation, equality, and welfare. But the reality of the left has always put me off, through its tribalism, partisanship, utopianism, and politics of negativity, declaring strongly what they’re against but never being as vocal about providing solid alternative solutions apart from protest and dissent. The narrow tribal lobbying of the trade unions annoy me, striking and making everyone else suffer so they can lobby for their own interests.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
There's a wide sea of clear red water between the current Labour Party and communism; a wider sea perhaps than there's ever been.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
As the UK digs deeper into austerity

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
The general neo-thatcherite politics of the government is largely shared by the opposition.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
just like UKIP is a pull to the right of the Tories,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
I’ve often liked the idea of the left, with its focus on democratisation, equality, and welfare.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
But the reality of the left has always put me off, through its tribalism, partisanship, utopianism, and politics of negativity, declaring strongly what they’re against but never being as vocal about providing solid alternative solutions apart from protest and dissent. The narrow tribal lobbying of the trade unions annoy me, striking and making everyone else suffer so they can lobby for their own interests.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
I’m also put off by the antipathy towards capitalism shown by some of the left, a lack of compromise or sense of reality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
And other left groups still talk in the outmoded and divisive words of class struggle.

---

It's their favourite game of divide and rule. You can ask Diane Abbott about that one...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
What interests me more is the post-war social welfare building of Beveridge and Bevan, but this seems to have vanished from current politics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
So I was interested to hear that Ken Loach and others have come together to build a broad coalition of the left called ‘Left Unity’.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
Its politics are sketchy,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
But I was wondering what people thought about this as a concept?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
Is this finally a return to a workable left opposition in the UK, or will it be just more of the same - never coming close to any real influence on the political landscape?

---

By definition the opposition never come close to any real influence on the political landscape.

And this sort of politics is a good way of ensuring that you remain in opposition. Whenever anything left-of-Labour gains any definition beyond "Oh, aren't those Tory scum mean?", it immediately conjures up pictures of the era that the left look back to rosily, and everyone else looks back to with horror. Just look at those geniuses from Unite, who took time off from their Falkirking activities to mob Boris Johnson at that new container port on the Thames Estuary. To the left, this looks like a return to a workable left opposition; to everyone else, they would far rather simply return to work, and they see a bunch of complete loonies standing in their way. Appealing to the era this is so reminiscent of as some sort of golden age is not even going to result in your being despised. No, the reaction will be laughter, and then pity.
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
But communism was completely corrupted and hollowed out by its obeisance to the Soviet Union. This came to a crisis in 1956, when many intellectuals left the party over the Hungarian invasion. Subsequently, communists became notorious on the left for their craven and unprincipled positions.

But is was visible before the war - see Orwell, for example, in 'Homage to Catalonia', where he cites communists being more interested in bumping off other members of the left than the fascists.
This included members of POUM, of which Orwell was a member (I think).

In fact, I think communism (of the Soviet variety) had a terrible effect on left politics, as for many decades, being left-wing seemed to be linked with such opportunism and thuggery.
 

---

Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :
 
There are few things that cause evil to flourish as much as a weak opposition.

We certainly seem to be seeing that at the present, with nothing in mainstream UK politics standing up to the Tory-led government. The key word there is 'mainstream'. The barriers to entry into politics are incredibly high. Even given the wide-spread and growing support for UKIP, they look unlikely to win any seats at the next general election; yet they've been around for ages.

So there seems little hope for a left-wing equivalent of UKIP (please don't take that the wrong way!) to make any inroads into the political scene.

Ultimately, we stick with one of the devils we know, rather than the devils we don't, even though we only know them by the colour of their ribbons.
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
TheAlethiophile

Yes, agree with that. We have 3 centre-right parties now, not good for politics.

And yes, it's easy to be a fringe party, but very difficult to go beyond that.

[ 11. September 2013, 12:19: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
As the UK digs deeper into austerity there is a significant dearth of opposition to the status quo. There is a parliamentary consensus across the parties on austerity measures, ....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
TheAlethiophile

Yes, agree with that. We have 3 centre-right parties now, not good for politics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
TheAlethiophile

Yes, agree with that. We have 3 centre-right parties now, not good for politics.

And yes, it's easy to be a fringe party, but very difficult to go beyond that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
... But the reality of the left has always put me off, through its tribalism, partisanship, utopianism, and politics of negativity, declaring strongly what they’re against but never being as vocal about providing solid alternative solutions apart from protest and dissent. The narrow tribal lobbying of the trade unions annoy me, striking and making everyone else suffer so they can lobby for their own interests....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Three liberal parties from my perspective (I don't know what exactly that means in terms of the right-centre-left spectrum).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
As the UK digs deeper into austerity there is a significant dearth of opposition to the status quo. There is a parliamentary consensus across the parties on austerity measures, ....

---

You don't think the rest of us not believing the left has any credible alternative medicine to offer might have anything to do with it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Have you all seen the Political Compass site? There's a test which aims to show where you are on two spectrums, a left-right economic spectrum and a libertarian-authoritarian social spectrum.

---

Yes. I come out just to the left of Gandhi. He's not a bad bloke to have as your right-hand man.
 

---

Posted by Cedd007 (# 16180) on :
 
Our church-run food bank opened today in our patch of semi-rural Essex. I was disgusted by a government minister's recent comment in Parliament that the plight of people going to food banks was "often as a result of decisions taken by those families" (as my daughter has just opined “yeah, because they just don't want to starve to death”). Apart from the insensitivity of his remark, and the fact that MP's enjoy particularly pleasant dining arrangements themselves, it wilfully ignores the fact that our underlying economic problems were not caused by poor families making mistakes. The spin that the powers-that-be put on problems that have actually arisen out of decisions taken by the rich and powerful beggars belief.

Press and Television companies, and their editorial staffs, probably need to have a long hard look at the lengths they sometimes go to sell their products, and all the people concerned need to look a little harder at the mirror each morning. I recently started reading the book “Tombstone” by Yang Jisheng, about how the Chinese government managed, by its own policies, to starve 36 million people to death between 1958 and 1962. People were left unburied because, according to the official line, the government's policies were working and therefore what people were witnessing with their own eyes wasn't happening. At the moment the stakes in our own country are not so high, but as individuals we still have a moral duty to challenge what are essentially lies.

So although a Left-Wing party might be a good idea (or a new Left-Wing party if you prefer) I think the real problem is the lack of robust debate, and, to put it bluntly, a lack of willingness to share our collective wealth more collectively.
The Old Testament is quite clear that the poor are not to be exploited, and that families should not be allowed to enter a cycle of deprivation. They certainly shouldn't be stigmatised for being without work or without food or occupying too much of the country's housing stock.

I think we need to change the nature of the debate, and that the political parties will then discover that the economists have, after all, got a solution.
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Have you all seen the Political Compass site? There's a test which aims to show where you are on two spectrums, a left-right economic spectrum and a libertarian-authoritarian social spectrum.

---

Yes. I come out just to the left of Gandhi. He's not a bad bloke to have as your right-hand man.

---

quote:

---

I think the real problem is the lack of robust debate, and, to put it bluntly, a lack of willingness to share our collective wealth more collectively.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pererin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
What interests me more is the post-war social welfare building of Beveridge and Bevan, but this seems to have vanished from current politics.

---

With whose money?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cedd007:
Our church-run food bank opened today in our patch of semi-rural Essex. I was disgusted by a government minister's recent comment in Parliament that the plight of people going to food banks was "often as a result of decisions taken by those families" (as my daughter has just opined “yeah, because they just don't want to starve to death”).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Why should it be a "smear" to call UKIP "right wing"? The duck walks and quacks. Of course they are right wing and I imagine most of them would be proud of it, and not feel besmeared at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pererin:
Of course the reality-based community is talking about austerity, because we had 13 years of Gordon Brown and his pals pissing money we didn't have up the wall. It doesn't mean that either side has the competence to deliver on this though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lord Jestocost:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cedd007:
Our church-run food bank opened today in our patch of semi-rural Essex. I was disgusted by a government minister's recent comment in Parliament that the plight of people going to food banks was "often as a result of decisions taken by those families" (as my daughter has just opined “yeah, because they just don't want to starve to death”).

---

I've also heard food banks cited as evidence that the Big Society is working - people are starving but, see, there are nice people who take care of them!

Which kind of misses the point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, there was a postwar consensus on a Welfare State, NHS, low unemployment, and so on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
At heart I agree, a homogeny between political parties is no good (strikes of Communism - vote for any candidate as long as they are the party candidate) but it is a situation which has been brought about by the electorate in the UK. ....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
That's because a lot more people were a lot poorer back then, what with the country having been bombed halfway to hell and half a generation's worth of men dead. There wasn't much to lose by voting for socialism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, there was a postwar consensus on a Welfare State, NHS, low unemployment, and so on.

---

That's because a lot more people were a lot poorer back then, what with the country having been bombed halfway to hell and half a generation's worth of men dead. There wasn't much to lose by voting for socialism.

These days a lot more of us are doing a lot better, and we do have plenty to lose by voting for socialism. That's why the consensus has well and truly gone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by pererin:

With whose money?

---

Whose money set up the NHS and other aspects of the Welfare State when the country was virtually bankrupt after the Second World War? It can be done.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
I don't know how far the new left wing is likely to get, though. Most of the current fringe parties, with the possible exception of the Greens, are to the right of the mainstream; and as several other people have pointed out, the barriers to entry into Parliament are high. The people already on the gravy train have no interest in making it easier for others to climb aboard.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cedd007 emphasis supplied :
The Old Testament is quite clear that the poor are not to be exploited, and that families should not be allowed to enter a cycle of deprivation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
So we carry on allowing the wealth gap to grow and grow until Britain becomes as lawless and ungovernable as a corrupt South American regime? Then the rich will start squealing about spiralling crime rates and so on, and eventually it will dawn on people that the only solution will be a more equal society. But it will take some considerable time and probably a lot of bloodshed before that happens.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
It may not be a perfect test, but there's no better measure of whether a team of politicians and the programme they advocate should be allowed anywhere near the helm of state than whether they can persuade people to vote for them.

---

quote:

---

People voted Labour in 1945 because they thought it was time for a change and they would be better off.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
So we carry on allowing the wealth gap to grow and grow until Britain becomes as lawless and ungovernable as a corrupt South American regime?

---

quote:

---

By 'barriers to entry' are we talking about the electoral system or money? I can see that the First Past The Post system for Westminster makes it difficult for smaller parties, or new parties, to get on. But there are other ways to get on. The European elections use PR and smaller parties can and do win council seats.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by pererin:
Of course the reality-based community is talking about austerity, because we had 13 years of Gordon Brown and his pals pissing money we didn't have up the wall. It doesn't mean that either side has the competence to deliver on this though.

---

Brown had the money. What he didn't have was proper regulation of the banks. That was because he'd drunk the right-wing idea that the banks if left unregulated would make money and wouldn't piss away money they didn't have, hold the economy to ransom unless the taxpayers bailed them out, and then have the barefaced cheek to claim it was the taxpayers' fault all along.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by pererin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
What interests me more is the post-war social welfare building of Beveridge and Bevan, but this seems to have vanished from current politics.

---

With whose money?

---

Whose money set up the NHS and other aspects of the Welfare State when the country was virtually bankrupt after the Second World War? It can be done.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, there was a postwar consensus on a Welfare State, NHS, low unemployment, and so on.

---

That's because a lot more people were a lot poorer back then, what with the country having been bombed halfway to hell and half a generation's worth of men dead. There wasn't much to lose by voting for socialism.

These days a lot more of us are doing a lot better, and we do have plenty to lose by voting for socialism. That's why the consensus has well and truly gone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by pererin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
What interests me more is the post-war social welfare building of Beveridge and Bevan, but this seems to have vanished from current politics.

---

With whose money?

---

Whose money set up the NHS and other aspects of the Welfare State when the country was virtually bankrupt after the Second World War? It can be done.

---

Largely the Americans'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

Largely the Americans'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
Anglican't:

quote:

---

By 'barriers to entry' are we talking about the electoral system or money? I can see that the First Past The Post system for Westminster makes it difficult for smaller parties, or new parties, to get on. But there are other ways to get on. The European elections use PR and smaller parties can and do win council seats.

---

Both. You need a certain amount of money to run for Parliament; if you don't get the minimum number of votes you will lose your deposit; running an election campaign is expensive. If you're not famous already and/or backed by a mainstream party you are likely to lose the election.

Yes, it's easier for the fringe parties to win seats on councils and in the European elections. But most of the political power in this country is in Parliament; if you want to change things significantly you need to win seats there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
What a cynical view! My memory is that there was a mood of coming together, not just because people were poor. It was partly out of a sense that people had made sacrifices, therefore we should ensure that everyone had housing, employment, and decent conditions.

---

quote:

---

For some reason, we have now gone into a position whereby selfishness and mercenary attitudes are seen as ideal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
I guess you missed the memo that the wealth gap is now at its narrowest in some 30 years

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cedd007 emphasis supplied :
The Old Testament is quite clear that the poor are not to be exploited, and that families should not be allowed to enter a cycle of deprivation.

---

If this is correct, then presumably Iain Duncan Smith is on the right track...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
What a cynical view! My memory is that there was a mood of coming together, not just because people were poor. It was partly out of a sense that people had made sacrifices, therefore we should ensure that everyone had housing, employment, and decent conditions.

---

Maybe, but there aren't many people who have made sacrifices and left behind dependents who need to be looked after any more. Back then the welfare state would have primarily been looking after the widows and children of dead soldiers, nowadays that's not true.

quote:

---

For some reason, we have now gone into a position whereby selfishness and mercenary attitudes are seen as ideal.

---

People look after their own interests - always have, always will. With a few exceptions, poor people vote for high welfare and rich people vote for low taxes. As more people become rich enough to be stung by the higher tax rates they will fall into the second category - and £32,000 really isn't that high an income these days. There are a lot of people who are suddenly "rich" enough to be adversely affected by socialist policies, while not actually being rich at all. It's one thing to rail against the CEOs, but it's quite another to try to persuade middle-income folk like me that we should sacrifice our meagre yet hard-earned salaries in the name of your social ideals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
...or by trying to end the cycle of welfare dependency?

[cp with Karl]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
...or by trying to end the cycle of welfare dependency?

[cp with Karl]

---

This is the kind of thing I had in mind. The left wing 'alternative' seems to be 'let's tax the rich some more and spend some more money on welfare and everything will be ok'. I don't think many people buy that any more.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

By which we mean real jobs

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
...or by trying to end the cycle of welfare dependency?

[cp with Karl]

---

This is the kind of thing I had in mind. The left wing 'alternative' seems to be 'let's tax the rich some more and spend some more money on welfare and everything will be ok'. I don't think many people buy that any more.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

By which we mean real jobs

---

Then why why do left wing politicians talk about 'creating jobs' as if passing primary legislation can make jobs suddenly appear?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

By which we mean real jobs

---

Then why why do left wing politicians talk about 'creating jobs' as if passing primary legislation can make jobs suddenly appear?

---

Do they? There was me thinking that there was this bit I said before "create jobs" that was "stimulate the economy".

No-one's expecting magic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
I don't believe massive tax and spend programmes do. I think dear old Mrs Thatcher had it spot on when she said 'Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yet government spending is currently going up, isn't it? Presumably, this is part of the reason for the economic upturn.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think it's just possible that govt spending is going up, though, is it? It is going up. So the govt is saying 'keep on with austerity', while coyly doing what they accuse Labour of always doing, a bit of pump priming! Politicians, eh?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think it's just possible that govt spending is going up, though, is it? It is going up. So the govt is saying 'keep on with austerity', while coyly doing what they accuse Labour of always doing, a bit of pump priming! Politicians, eh?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
...or by trying to end the cycle of welfare dependency?

[cp with Karl]

---

This is the kind of thing I had in mind. The left wing 'alternative' seems to be 'let's tax the rich some more and spend some more money on welfare and everything will be ok'. I don't think many people buy that any more.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think it's just possible that govt spending is going up, though, is it? It is going up. So the govt is saying 'keep on with austerity', while coyly doing what they accuse Labour of always doing, a bit of pump priming! Politicians, eh?

---

The spending can vary by quite a lot without any explicit pump priming.

There is obviously the effect of one off payments - but in times like this what will be driving increased spending will be automatic stabilizers kicking in.

Marginally more people are unemployed and claiming housing benefit, much more people are now on very low wages and so claiming government subsidies of one sort or another. During this sort of time more people will chose to enter retirement earlier as they can't re-enter the job market, and so will be drawing on other benifits and so on.

Rather than trying to get spending under control over the mid to long term, they insist on selling the cargo cult idea that a government is like a household, which is why they are now so focused on benefit cuts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The left-wing alternative actually results in less spending on welfare - investment = more jobs = less unemployment = lower welfare bill.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The left-wing alternative actually results in less spending on welfare - investment = more jobs = less unemployment = lower welfare bill.

---

Are there any real-life examples where this has worked?

Edited to add: would you accept that for this to work there have to be restrictions placed on immigration, particularly at the lower end of the job market?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Especially if we scrap HS2( the train to nowhere), Trident(the non-independent deterrent with no one to deter) and the aircraft carriers with no aircraft.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The left-wing alternative actually results in less spending on welfare - investment = more jobs = less unemployment = lower welfare bill.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think it's just possible that govt spending is going up, though, is it? It is going up. So the govt is saying 'keep on with austerity', while coyly doing what they accuse Labour of always doing, a bit of pump priming! Politicians, eh?

---

There isn't a million miles of difference between what Osborne is doing now and what Alastair Darling said he would do at the 2010 election.

But this does make the far-left sound even more hysterical when they talk about anti-cuts coalitions and marches against austerity and the like.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The left-wing alternative actually results in less spending on welfare - investment = more jobs = less unemployment = lower welfare bill.

---

Yes, but if those extra jobs are all in government departments then the amount of tax required to fund them will be higher than if they were all on welfare.

The point isn't to reduce the welfare bill, it's to reduce the amount of tax the government needs to take from us in the first place. Padding out government departments with extra staff may achieve the first, but it doesn't achieve the second.

---

The extra jobs wouldn't be in government departments at all I just pointed out the stupidity of the government increasing unemployment by cutting spending. I absolutely support cutting EXCESS spending, the problem is that plenty of non-excess and important spending is being cut too. FWIW I fully support HS2 and similar investments in infrastructure, housing etc - I oppose Trident but that's due to pacifism, not economics.
 

---

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
By penalising people for having spare bedrooms

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
practicing eugenics via the welfare state.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think it's just possible that govt spending is going up, though, is it? It is going up. So the govt is saying 'keep on with austerity', while coyly doing what they accuse Labour of always doing, a bit of pump priming! Politicians, eh?

---

There isn't a million miles of difference between what Osborne is doing now and what Alastair Darling said he would do at the 2010 election.

But this does make the far-left sound even more hysterical when they talk about anti-cuts coalitions and marches against austerity and the like.

---

Maybe we just don't like four in 10 disabled people with chronic, progressive illnesses like Parkinsons and Multiple Sclerosis being told they can recover well enough to work. This government is targeting the 'workshy' and disabled and practicing eugenics via the welfare state. It is disgusting that any Christian could support such a thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
By penalising people for having spare bedrooms

---

Well it's a system which has worked well in the UK since the last Labour government... Not entirely sure I remember this much fuss when the spare room subsidy was first removed...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
That's a completely different scheme though?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
I guess you missed the memo that the wealth gap is now at its narrowest in some 30 years

---

??? Evidence?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Especially if we scrap HS2( the train to nowhere), Trident(the non-independent deterrent with no one to deter) and the aircraft carriers with no aircraft.

---

It's weird. People say "the government needs to spend more to create jobs and stimulate the economy", but then when the government announces massive infrastructure investments that will create jobs and stimulate the economy they shout about what a waste of taxpayer money those things are.

Make your minds up, please!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
I guess you missed the memo that the wealth gap is now at its narrowest in some 30 years

---

??? Evidence?

---

I've just found this which appears to contradict your optimism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
These three are examples of (quite, ultra and very) high-tech projects. Two of them are military and I'm not opposed to military spending but military projects deliver late, over budget and usually fall short. Rail projects are gravy trains (sic) for construction companies, who have been friends of the Conservatives since Marples had them building the motorways 50+ years ago.

---

quote:

---

As usual, I'm for some lower-tech projects, that need a mix of skilled, semi-skilled and unslikked labour

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
[U]nlike the article you linked to which is from one of those left-wing think tanks isn't it...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Yes, but if those extra jobs are all in government departments then the amount of tax required to fund them will be higher than if they were all on welfare.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Contrary to received opinion people working for government departments are actually doing meaningful work that provides goods and services.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

Unfortunately this more recent report (it is the news report from the Guardian for those who do not like to connect to such disgusting pieces of left-wing ideology that tax dodges etc. and also so that you can't dismiss it as 'right-wing' propaganda, unlike the article you linked to which is from one of those left-wing think tanks isn't it...) which presents the gap at its narrowest...

---

quote:

---

comparing the top fifth of income earners to the bottom fifth isn't a good indicator of the gap between the richest and the poorest. The top fifth includes people who many of us wouldn't think of as especially wealthy although they may be much better off than we are.
Better to measure the gap between the very richest and the very poorest and I'd bet my bottom dollar that has widened. In addition, income doesn't give a full picture by any means. Land and property wealth are at least as important.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cedd007 emphasis supplied :
The Old Testament is quite clear that the poor are not to be exploited, and that families should not be allowed to enter a cycle of deprivation.

---

If this is correct, then presumably Iain Duncan Smith is on the right track...

---

By penalising people for having spare bedrooms and labelling terminally ill people as being fit to work?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cedd007:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cedd007 emphasis supplied :
The Old Testament is quite clear that the poor are not to be exploited, and that families should not be allowed to enter a cycle of deprivation.

---

If this is correct, then presumably Iain Duncan Smith is on the right track...

---

By penalising people for having spare bedrooms and labelling terminally ill people as being fit to work?

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cedd007:
If you are happy, Anglican't, that IDS is doing justice to the Biblical principle exemplified here, I am pleased, but I must say I agree with Jade Constable's interpretation on the effect of his policies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I was just browsing through the 'Left Unity' website, and there is a certain amount of the usual squabbling always found on the left, but two things stood out for me. One, that Labour is dead and buried. Whereas some left elements used to burble on about Labour being a 'workers' party' which could be resurrected, I think this has gone the way of the dodo. It is finished as any kind of left-wing party; in fact, it probably has been since Harold Wilson, no hang on, since Clem Attlee. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Contrary to received opinion people working for government departments are actually doing meaningful work that provides goods and services.

---

Some are. The surgeon operating on the patient and the lollipop lady helping children cross the road are doing useful things, obviously. But it doesn't follow that they all are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I was just browsing through the 'Left Unity' website, and there is a certain amount of the usual squabbling always found on the left, but two things stood out for me. One, that Labour is dead and buried. Whereas some left elements used to burble on about Labour being a 'workers' party' which could be resurrected, I think this has gone the way of the dodo. It is finished as any kind of left-wing party; in fact, it probably has been since Harold Wilson, no hang on, since Clem Attlee. ...

---

Strange, isn't it then, that throughout my lifetime, this so called 'dead and buried' party has persuaded lots of people to vote for it, has won elections and formed governments, whereas none of these various other groupings have got anywhere.

What is more, it was when the Labour Party did look as though it might be going off in the direction of socialist purity that it lost voters on a large scale. In 1983 it only managed to persuade 26% of them to vote for it. It was only the fact that a lot of its vote was concentrated in safe seats that prevented it going the way of the Liberals in the late 1920s.


Perhaps part of the problem is that so many on the left have seen the world financial crisis as their fantastic opportunity to advocate the same nostra they've always believed in, irrespective of whether they would improve anything. Perhaps they might have more to offer the rest of us, if they genuinely had thought out answers that appeared to be designed to solve the actual problems.

Saying that the answer to the world's crises must be one's own particular version of true socialism, is another version of 'if I have a hammer, the problem must be a nail'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
... Perhaps you're right, and we just have to accept that capitalism is the most workable solution that is available. Then it's a question of who you want to manage capitalism. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally quoted by Angloid:

quote:

---

comparing the top fifth of income earners to the bottom fifth isn't a good indicator of the gap between the richest and the poorest. The top fifth includes people who many of us wouldn't think of as especially wealthy although they may be much better off than we are.
Better to measure the gap between the very richest and the very poorest and I'd bet my bottom dollar that has widened. In addition, income doesn't give a full picture by any means. Land and property wealth are at least as important.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
... Perhaps you're right, and we just have to accept that capitalism is the most workable solution that is available. Then it's a question of who you want to manage capitalism. ...

---

Starting question. Is 'capitalism' really an 'ism', a complete philosophical, economic and political system in the sense that, say, Marxism is? Or was it something just given a name as an 'ism' so that other people had something to accuse 'just doing things' of being?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What's the acceptable level of wealth inequality that you're aiming for?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Or even, according to their need?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What's the acceptable level of wealth inequality that you're aiming for?

---

How about 'in accordance with their contribution to society'?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Starting question. Is 'capitalism' really an 'ism', a complete philosophical, economic and political system in the sense that, say, Marxism is? Or was it something just given a name as an 'ism' so that other people had something to accuse 'just doing things' of being?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Or even, according to their need?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What's the acceptable level of wealth inequality that you're aiming for?

---

How about 'in accordance with their contribution to society'?

---

Defined by whom, using what criteria?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Or even, according to their need?

---

Doesn't work, even in theory. How much I "need" is utterly independent of my contribution to society, therefore if that is the deciding factor then I will receive the same amount whether I work 60 hours a week or play on the Xbox all day. In which case why should I bother working?

And how would I be able to increase my wealth under such a system? The only way would be to increase my "need", which however it's defined can't be a good thing for society as a whole.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yet surely the state already does assess need, since low-wage workers have their wages topped up by various benefits. This has the benefit for some (greedy) needy employers, I suppose, that the state subsidizes their wage structure!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
What motivates many on the left isn't (really) class warfare, but a feeling deep down that the economy ought to serve man, rather than man serve the economy and that within what is described as a democratic society governments should be able to ensure that business acts in the interests of man. What 'class warfare' there is, is usually a consequence of a privileged group using means other than the ballot box to achieve and maintain an advantage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose 'greed is good' works for some people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose 'greed is good' works for some people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
... As soon as they run out of arguments - which is generally pretty quickly - they resort to insulting the other side instead.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Or even, according to their need?

---

Doesn't work, even in theory. How much I "need" is utterly independent of my contribution to society, therefore if that is the deciding factor then I will receive the same amount whether I work 60 hours a week or play on the Xbox all day. In which case why should I bother working?

And how would I be able to increase my wealth under such a system? The only way would be to increase my "need", which however it's defined can't be a good thing for society as a whole.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
Under those circumstances, if they could ever be brought about, why would you want to increase your wealth? How many toilets can you shit in at once? How many holidays can you take simultaneously? Why would you be concerned with leaving wealth to your children if you could be assured that even without your doing so they could enjoy the same standard of living as you had done?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
On your second point, let us suppose that, however unlikely it may be, we could identify a rather generous definition of need which allowed, not only for mere subsistence, but for a reasonable degree of leisure, comfort, and participation in cultural life in its widest sense

---

quote:

---

Under those circumstances, if they could ever be brought about, why would you want to increase your wealth?

---

quote:

---

How many toilets can you shit in at once?

---

quote:

---

How many holidays can you take simultaneously?

---

quote:

---

Why would you be concerned with leaving wealth to your children if you could be assured that even without your doing so they could enjoy the same standard of living as you had done?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose 'greed is good' works for some people.

---

This is another reason why the left wing has died in the UK. As soon as they run out of arguments - which is generally pretty quickly - they resort to insulting the other side instead.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose 'greed is good' works for some people.

---

This is another reason why the left wing has died in the UK. As soon as they run out of arguments - which is generally pretty quickly - they resort to insulting the other side instead.

---

How is that an insult? It's taken from a film, 'Wall Street', which was seen as a symbol of a certain attitude to wealth. I guess that Gekko was a caricature, but surely he articulated a kind of thinking among some - that there is no upper limit really to one's possible wealth, and that this actually has a moral force in society. As Gekko says, 'I am not a destroyer of companies. I am a liberator of them.'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Wouldn't being rich enough to never have to work again be awesome? As far as I can see, anyone who has achieved that has won the game of life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Wouldn't being rich enough to never have to work again be awesome? As far as I can see, anyone who has achieved that has won the game of life.

---

Serious question: how many other people would you be willing to destroy in order to win?

---

quote:

---

All the "best people" from the gentlemen's clubs, and all the frantic fascist captains, united in common hatred of Socialism and bestial horror at the rising tide of the mass revolutionary movement, have turned to acts of provocation, to foul incendiarism, to medieval legends of poisoned wells, to legalize their own destruction of proletarian organizations, and rouse the agitated petty-bourgeoise to chauvinistic fervor on behalf of the fight against the revolutionary way out of the crisis.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Wouldn't being rich enough to never have to work again be awesome? As far as I can see, anyone who has achieved that has won the game of life.

---

Serious question: how many other people would you be willing to destroy in order to win?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
They are extreme examples and inaccurate ones.

---

quote:

---

Meanwhile, the Washington–Wall Street axis were gorging themselves on the fruits of massive and newly unregulated financial speculation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by S. Bacchus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
They are extreme examples and inaccurate ones.

---

I will except that they are extreme, and possibly even a bit dated (although I don't see how they can considered 'inaccurate'), but as I said, Orwell's example was probably pretty extreme as well.

---

quote:

---

.

And it's not just the case that only a few extremists write in this way: I was prompted to mention this peculiar left-wing diction when I came accross the following sentence in a book for a well-known radical publishing house:

quote:

---

Meanwhile, the Washington–Wall Street axis were gorging themselves on the fruits of massive and newly unregulated financial speculation.

---

This sentence, no worse than many, is guilty of many of the same flaws that Orwell mocked in communist writing of his own era. If we were being charitable, we might say that it reads like a particularly literal ekphrasis on a political cartoon.

If we updated Orwell's sentence by removing the somewhat dated reference to 'gentlemen's clubs' (replace it with a reference to 'Oxbridge') and the reference 'to medieval legends of poisoned wells' (a clear reference to Fascist anti-semitism), and tweaked a very few specific pieces of dated vocabulary, then it's not hard to imagine Orwell's sentence in any of the radical pamphlets that are distributed in England today. If you don't know the ones I mean, they can generally be found in London around Bloomsbury, particularly just outside SOAS. Doubtless such pamphlets are distributed elsewhere in the country, although they've mercifully not yet penetrated our rural idyll.

---

quote:

---

Of course, that's not the totality of leftwing popular writing. The New Left Review isn't written in that style, nor are the Guardian or the New Statesman, and Orwell himself certainly didn't write like that, nor did other great left-leaning writers like E.P. Thompson or Eric Hobsbawm; but on the radical fringes of the British left, the same style has clearly survived since Orwell's time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Wouldn't being rich enough to never have to work again be awesome? As far as I can see, anyone who has achieved that has won the game of life.

---

Serious question: how many other people would you be willing to destroy in order to win?

---

I'm not destroying anybody. I may not be protecting everyone else from hardship, but that's not the same thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
The narrow tribal lobbying of the trade unions annoy me, striking and making everyone else suffer so they can lobby for their own interests.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anoesis:
I haven't read through all the replies, as I'm a bit short of time at the moment, but it seems like no-one else has addressed this on the first page...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
The narrow tribal lobbying of the trade unions annoy me, striking and making everyone else suffer so they can lobby for their own interests.

---

As I understand it, it hasn't always been like this. One has a sense of the labour movement being very unified in the beginning, with printers coming out in support of boilermakers, tram drivers in support of wharfies*, and so on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Put it like this: there are a few people - outside of lottery winners - who've ended up so rich they never have to work again without them breaking others on the way up. And even if you can convince yourself you haven't done that, "I may not be protecting everyone else from hardship" shows that you're pragmatic about exposing them to harm. If they slip and fall under your wheels as you drive by, so what?

---

quote:

---

I appreciate you find altruism to others frankly boggling, but your selfishness is the least intelligent thing about you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Put it like this: there are a few people - outside of lottery winners - who've ended up so rich they never have to work again without them breaking others on the way up. And even if you can convince yourself you haven't done that, "I may not be protecting everyone else from hardship" shows that you're pragmatic about exposing them to harm. If they slip and fall under your wheels as you drive by, so what?

---

Well, I guess everyone who did it through crime hurt people. The ones who do it through business, not so much.

---

quote:

---

And I don't agree that hurting others is an inevitable part of success. But then, I don't subscribe to a worldview that says being considerably richer than someone is inherently harmful to them.

---

quote:

---

Yeah, yeah. Everyone who disagrees with the left wing is either evil or stupid. I've heard that before...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk
Socialism in my view needs to be built on the scaffold of capitalism, not on its ashes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by OddJob:
Even the Christian Socialist Movement these days on its website seems too wimpish to mention The Bible, Jesus or God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by OddJob:
Even the Christian Socialist Movement these days on its website seems too wimpish to mention The Bible, Jesus or God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by OddJob:

I wonder why? Is it the paucity of Christians on the political left these days?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
it's not so much that I've gone right-wing but that I find the current left-wing political movement in the UK to be somewhat removed from reality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
This sentence, no worse than many, is guilty of many of the same flaws that Orwell mocked in communist writing of his own era. If we were being charitable, we might say that it reads like a particularly literal ekphrasis on a political cartoon.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
I think there are seasons and phases in history. The left wing is always trying to imagine a different way of doing things, and sometimes it gets hold of some potent ideas and pulls hard and gathers support. At other times, like now, it's very difficult to come up with new policies that appeal and look likely to work.

It's the nature of the left wing that it has a perpetual credibility problem. It is forever wanting to do the new and untested, unfamiliar and risky. When it's proposing small changes it's less controversial, but less interesting and inspiring. When it's proposing more systemic change it can be characterised as reckless and fanatical.

So I don't think something has gone wrong right now. I just think we're in a lull. It's not clear what the next step is, or even whether it's a large one or many small ones. No one knows what to get excited and shout about.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
One of the things that is sometimes lumped in with the profit motive and competition as part of capitalism, is really nothing more than fashion. There's a sort of herd instinct that has huge market impacts, from Dutch tulip bulbs to various bubbles, including the bizarre market in repackaged debts, CEO wages and British property prices. That seems to me to be a big part of the current crisis.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:

It's the nature of the left wing that it has a perpetual credibility problem. It is forever wanting to do the new and untested, unfamiliar and risky. When it's proposing small changes it's less controversial, but less interesting and inspiring. When it's proposing more systemic change it can be characterised as reckless and fanatical.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:

I suspect a large part of the current lack of ideas on the left is the result of the New Labour experiment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
privatize the gains, and socialize the losses

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
Actually, this was neither right nor left-wing. It was a simple, pragmatic step to stop the British economy from melting down.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
However, I don't see anyone on the left advocating ideas about how to bring it about that don't to to some degree draw on the failed experiments of the 1950s through to the 1970s.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by OddJob:
Although I personally consider Christianity to carry a strong correlation to a left of centre approach (ie do what is right rather than what is popular, look after the weak, put justice before prosperity, etc), I've been deeply unimpressed by the political left from a Christian perspective in the last 20-30 years.

Back in Thatcher and Reagan's heyday, a whisper of support for the duo would have been met with derision or concern in most Christian circles (at least where I lived,in comfortable parts of northern and Midlands England). Now, though, Christians I know seem to be veering back to the 1950s 'Tory party at prayer' mindset as the default.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
Which socialist ideals, experiments and policies worked well and which ones failed? And could the experiment have suceeded through the 70's if things had been different. Is it worth trying again, with a few tweaks, or has such socialism been discredited in its entirety?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
Quick summary - anywhere there is practical choice at a consumer level (i.e. manufacturing of consumer goods whether steel or cars), it's found that letting more people have a go is an improvement. Anywhere there is no practical choice (roads, hospitals) the socialist methods flatten the capitalist ones.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
The privatised utilities are a case in point: where you have an effective monopoly supplied eg: water, there is no competition and arguably therefore not really capitalism. Even when you have theoretical competition eg: electricity, gas, telephones, rail services, etc, there is always going to be an oligopolistic cartel element to the set-up, so again I would question whether this is really capitalistic. Given that, I would therefore question whether any of these utilities should be outside of public ownership...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
Quick summary - anywhere there is practical choice at a consumer level (i.e. manufacturing of consumer goods whether steel or cars), it's found that letting more people have a go is an improvement. Anywhere there is no practical choice (roads, hospitals) the socialist methods flatten the capitalist ones.

---

That's not capitalist vs socialist, that's autonomous vs state enterprises, or just large scale vs small scale. Either kind could be capitalist or socialist.

You can have supposedly private organisations under capitalist ownership that are so large and powerful they effectively become part of government. And you can have large numbers of small-scale co-operatives or collectives that compete against each other in a sort of socialist free market.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
there is always going to be an oligopolistic cartel element to the set-up, so again I would question whether this is really capitalistic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
The privatised utilities are a case in point: where you have an effective monopoly supplied eg: water, there is no competition and arguably therefore not really capitalism. Even when you have theoretical competition eg: electricity, gas, telephones, rail services, etc, there is always going to be an oligopolistic cartel element to the set-up, so again I would question whether this is really capitalistic. Given that, I would therefore question whether any of these utilities should be outside of public ownership...

---

For the record, my answers are:
Electricity: Yes - but the national grid needs to stay nationalised.
Gas: I'm not sure. I don't think so because gas pressure is a thing so proximity matters much more.
Telephones: Mobiles can definitely work in private hands; I'm not half so certain about land lines (and don't own one anyway).
Rail: There can be only one rail service on a line - and lines are limited. The track needs to remain national, but there's no theoretical reason not to privitise the rolling stock (no good one to privitise it either so far as I can tell, based on experience).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The state is perfectly happy to own various enterprises and services, for various reasons. Thus the Post Office has not been privately owned, not because the British state was in a left-wing mood!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
A fascinating view of the comparative benefits of national regulation or deregulation (i.e through free market economics only) is shown very well in this article about the US airlines and the massive problems they currently have since the system was deregulated in the late 70's.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
However, I don't see anyone on the left advocating ideas about how to bring it about that don't to to some degree draw on the failed experiments of the 1950s through to the 1970s.

---

A fascinating topic, which unfortunately I do not know enough about. I think it is vital to understand one's history in order to prevent repeating it. I was hoping that others on the ship would be able to fill in the current state of left politics, the various parties, what they stand for, and why they are so disunited, so small and ineffectual.

The 'failed experiments' of the 1950's to the 1970's is an interesting subject. In a lot of ways the Post-War Consensus did fail. But in a lot of ways it succeeded. The NHS continues for instance, as does much of the welfare state.

Which socialist ideals, experiments and policies worked well and which ones failed? And could the experiment have suceeded through the 70's if things had been different. Is it worth trying again, with a few tweaks, or has such socialism been discredited in its entirety?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
It is this policy that people on the left claim the UK government should now adopt. However, such people need to address what happened in the UK between 1970 and 1974 when Edward Heath's Tory government attempted to stimulate the economy with a mixture of capital injection and price controls.

---

quote:

---

I think this does give rise to an argument that the banks should be taken into public ownership, but that aside,

---

quote:

---

It appears to be working, with the result that even left-leaning ministers like Vince Cable are starting to lose the argument.

---

quote:

---

However, I have heard that damaging habits such as smoking have decreased in Britain more slowly than in other places, such as the Continent. Perhaps this is because smokers etc. know the NHS will treat them, no questions asked.

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, I have heard that damaging habits such as smoking have decreased in Britain more slowly than in other places, such as the Continent. Perhaps this is because smokers etc. know the NHS will treat them, no questions asked.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps. But you can't get a definitive answer for this unless you control for every other variable - so in the meantime speculation is just that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
It is this policy that people on the left claim the UK government should now adopt. However, such people need to address what happened in the UK between 1970 and 1974 when Edward Heath's Tory government attempted to stimulate the economy with a mixture of capital injection and price controls.

---

The two crisis were quite different, in the 70s you had an oil shock causing economic slowdown due to rising costs - what we have now is the end of a series of asset bubbles and an unwillingness on the part of the private sector to invest.

---

quote:

---

Part of the reason for the current malaise is that the banks remain very reluctant to lend to each other.

---

quote:

---

As I have pointed out before in the context of discussing the Latvian experience, we could close down half the economy for a year. The next year economic growth would be fantastic. Only a fool would argue that this showed that closing down half the economy for a year was a great idea."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
It is quite false to suggest that the UK is recovering faster because it fell further.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
It is quite false to suggest that the UK is recovering faster because it fell further.

---

That is not what is being claimed at all, I don't think you understand the argument.

Austerity imposes costs. That the economy is growing again tells us nothing about what those costs may be, you are confusing levels and growth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
I assumed you were making the quite sensible point that 10% of 50 is less than 4% of 200, so to speak. Am I not correct?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
No, not as such. I'll repeat, just because we now have economic growth it doesn't mean that austerity worked. No one was saying that austerity would lead to permanent stagflation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If the economy really is growing then I don't think cutting the deficit can take the credit. The deficit hasn't reduced by very much at all although there has been plenty of austerity, mostly amongst those who were leading pretty austere lives already. That QE has to come from somewhere and I just want to know where it all goes. My suspicion is that it emerges as the economic growth George Osborne talks about, but if that growth is GDP propped up by paper money, how does it differ from 1970's style economic stimulation?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

Furthermore, it wasn't just some mythical 'Left' calling for expansionary government spending, there were plenty of centrist economists who were doing so as well.

---

quote:

---

However, I have heard that damaging habits such as smoking have decreased in Britain more slowly than in other places, such as the Continent. Perhaps this is because smokers etc. know the NHS will treat them, no questions asked.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
One of the many reasons why economic growth is smaller in the UK, and why the recovery will take longer and be more fragile, is that we have a much smaller industrial base than other countries.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
[T]his current government is still throwing money at the city like it's going out of fashion.

Here's a notion: support the sectors of the economy that are actually worth something.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
[T]his current government is still throwing money at the city like it's going out of fashion.

Here's a notion: support the sectors of the economy that are actually worth something.

---

I thought the City contributed around 8% - 10% of Britain's GDP? That's something, isn't it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
[T]his current government is still throwing money at the city like it's going out of fashion.

Here's a notion: support the sectors of the economy that are actually worth something.

---

I thought the City contributed around 8% - 10% of Britain's GDP? That's something, isn't it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
[T]his current government is still throwing money at the city like it's going out of fashion.

Here's a notion: support the sectors of the economy that are actually worth something.

---

I thought the City contributed around 8% - 10% of Britain's GDP? That's something, isn't it?

---

I'd be willing to bet that it's more than literature, movies, video games and art put together, at any rate...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
[T]his current government is still throwing money at the city like it's going out of fashion.

Here's a notion: support the sectors of the economy that are actually worth something.

---

I thought the City contributed around 8% - 10% of Britain's GDP? That's something, isn't it?

---

I'd be willing to bet that it's more than literature, movies, video games and art put together, at any rate...

---

quote:

---

I'd be willing to bet that it's more than literature, movies, video games and art put together, at any rate...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Manufacturing decreased in the UK (as a proportion of GDP) because the emphasis was placed - by successive governments - on the service and financial sectors, as if we could be a profitable and sustainable nation simply by selling shoes made by someone else and stealing money, also made by someone else.

We are, of course, one of the top car exporting countries on the planet, famed for our sophisticated aerospace sector, our tertiary education is second only to the US, our creativity in terms of literature, movies, video games and art unparalleled, our natural renewable resources deep and generous - and this current government is still throwing money at the city like it's going out of fashion.

---

Our manufacturing sector can always be beaten on a free-market world stage, since big industry is driven not by technical excellence (I wish it was) but by quantity and cheapness, which is driven by factors our country doesn't have. A massive and cheap workforce with little employment regulation, cheap and easy transport links to distribute the product and raw materials, and close links to the raw materials themselves.

Apart from a brief enjoyment of big industry in the late 18th and 19th century, Britain's main economy has always been trade, not manufacturing. And the Industrial Revolution only worked because of our monopoly of the seas to bring the iron etc in en masse, usually by shooting anyone who tried to muscle in.

But the City of London has been a trading city and a banking/exchange market since Tudor times at least. It is what we're good at, and it fits our geographical and social situation far better than manufacturing. You pour scorn on the idea that "we could be a profitable and sustainable nation simply by selling shoes made by someone else and stealing money, also made by someone else", but that is how we first became a profitable and sustainable nation! We are a nation of shopkeepers and pirates, and have been so sucessfully for centuries.

If we scorn such profitable enterprise and want to turn away from it, we need another idea, but a sensible one, not just dreams of a better time. We cannot compete with the emerging economies in the manufacturing sector, since they are at the cusp of an industrial revolution of their own. We have to compete in a market we can dominate using natural qualities we already have. We have little raw materials to sell, or national product that the world wants. The only globally competitive thing we really have is the aptitude, experience, reputation and resources to buying, selling and moving other people's stuff around the world to make money out of local differences in supply and demand.

The arts and entertainment industry is a possibility, but there's probably a ceiling on it, and we're competing against America, which are the world leaders, and China and India, which dominate their own massive markets so successfully no one has yet managed to break in. To compete against these giants would involve a massive investment risk, and perhaps the appetite for English-language books, games and films has already been saturated. Cinema total annual attendance figures have been static for decades, despite unprecedented marketing campaign budgets in recent years. Big recent films (i.e Man of Steel) have spent almost half of their production budget again on marketing, and they haven't increased annual attendance at all. The big studios are having to spend more and more millions just to tread water.
 

---

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Rather than arguing about whether or not the "creative" industries bring in more money than "the city" it would be more to the point to see if we can increase the amount - tonnage and value - of goods we make for export.

Doc Tor - you are quite correct about the incompetent management of some of British industry in the 1960s and 70s - and beyond - having a direct effect on how our industrial landscape is today.

But the record of governments is not good in this regard either. Take the British car industry: governments of every hue threw good money after bad, sometimes blaming management, sometimes unions, for the fact that the nationalised car industry made huge losses: but what BOTH sides ignored was that British Leyland (because that is what it boiled down to) made cars that were too expensive, were too complicated, too unreliable and too unattractive (apart from the Mini) for the export market. In short, nobody seemed to get that foreigners didn't buy our cars because they didn't like them.

The contribution of government to decline was further enhanced by stupid decisions: cancellation of the TSR2 project; cancellation of the Maplin Sands airport; giving up the option on hovercraft technology; failure to invest in electricity barrage technology first prototyped in the 1960s - the list is almost endless.

Where the left in particular has been guilty has been in being wedded to propping up industries that have had their day, in their refusal to nudge working practices towards the 21st century, and ALL governments in failing to learn from better practices among our industrial competitors.

As for my comments being a right-wing diatribe - - if you only knew...
 

---

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:


Apart from a brief enjoyment of big industry in the late 18th and 19th century, Britain's main economy has always been trade, not manufacturing. And the Industrial Revolution only worked because of our monopoly of the seas to bring the iron etc in en masse, usually by shooting anyone who tried to muscle in.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
But the City of London has been a trading city and a banking/exchange market since Tudor times at least. It is what we're good at, and it fits our geographical and social situation far better than manufacturing. You pour scorn on the idea that "we could be a profitable and sustainable nation simply by selling shoes made by someone else and stealing money, also made by someone else", but that is how we first became a profitable and sustainable nation! We are a nation of shopkeepers and pirates, and have been so sucessfully for centuries.

---

• research your market;
• design your product;
• make a prototype;
• correct faults; produce fault-free product;
• sell product

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
Absolutely, SS: one of the prime reasons for ongoing financial madness at the MoD has long been recognised as its mirroring of the worst decision-making habits of various British institutions including, dare I say it, the CofE.

As any builder or manufacturer could tell you:

• research your market;
• design your product;
• make a prototype;
• correct faults; produce fault-free product;
• sell product

Where the MoD has always come to grief is that it gets to the third or fourth stage and then goes back to the first in a continuous loop.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:


...You're right about trade being Britain's strength but a good deal of that was within the empire, which was run as a company store for British manufactured goods using Britain's currency...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
The City 'contributes' to the economy by charging fees for moving money around. It doesn't actually create anything new. That is the point Doc Tor is making. And money is not much use unless someone else agrees it is valuable and is willing to exchange it for other things you want; you can't eat it.

---

quote:

---

If you are correct, Anglican't, then a fair chunk of our GDP is earned by usury. Given the Biblical disapproval of usury, doesn't that make you feel at least a little uncomfortable?

---

quote:

---

Another point to remember is that financial services can be provided from anywhere on the planet. They don't *have* to be in the City of London. So if the rest of the world suddenly decides that they don't like us, they could stop using the City and 8-10% of our GDP could vanish overnight. Picking up a factory and moving it would take rather more time and trouble.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
My economics might be a bit off here, but I thought a bank worked like this:

The Ship of Fools Bank opens for business. Albertus, Doc Tor, Sioni Sais, Hawk and L'organist all deposit £100. The bank therefore has £500 in deposits.

I approach the bank asking for a loan. I would like £100, which the bank lends me. That money is taken from Albertus', Doc Tor's et al's accounts to lend to me. The bank takes this risk on the assumption that the depositors won't all ask for all their money back in the time it takes for me to repay the £100 loan.

So having started with £500, the bank now has £600. I can now use my £100 to, say, invest a business which will create jobs or to buy something that creates demand in the economy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Had the MoD been able to bang heads together there could have been a 'Super Buccaneer', with longer range based on the Navy's brilliant attack aircraft which the RAF eventually adopted and used until the 21st century in all the roles envisaged for the TSR2!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
By and large it is in the Guardian that you will read repeated calls for increased government spending. You won't by and large read them in the Economist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
Not so Chris Stiles: The Economist is critical of the government because it fears it will lapse back into the safety of the usual British fudge.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:

If you doubt that look at the pronouncement of Ed M on energy prices and his flat denial that this is likely to lead to disaster

---

quote:

---

One of the biggest problems with energy pricing is the huge premiums

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sighthound:
Funny that, because I distinctly remember the Heath Government bemoaning the lack of investment in the UK and trying, mainly with words, to stimulate it. No one had heard of Arthur Scargill at that time.

If you read Corelli Barnett's excellent series of books about this country, it appears that the main long term problems have been.
1) A lack of investment.
2) Appalling management.
3) Trade Unions still fighting 19th century wars.

Funnily enough we rarely hear much about issues 1 & 2. Everything is laid at the door of the TUs, as if there were still regular demarcation disputes in the shipyards.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
quetzacoatl: Insane in the sense that they haven't been thought through.

If you doubt that look at the pronouncement of Ed M on energy prices and his flat denial that this is likely to lead to disaster: all you have to do is look at what a similar action did to California in the 1990s.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hairy Biker:

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
quetzacoatl: Insane in the sense that they haven't been thought through.

If you doubt that look at the pronouncement of Ed M on energy prices and his flat denial that this is likely to lead to disaster: all you have to do is look at what a similar action did to California in the 1990s.

---

Oh really? I thought those problems were caused by a rouge trading company's fraudulent fixing of the market. Anyone remember Enron?

---

What's insane is the concept of six multinational corporations holding the government and people of the UK to ransom by threatening them with a blackout.

This is a sure sign of two things: firstly, that the big six power companies think they can charge whatever they like and we simply have to put up with it. Secondly, that everyone who's with one of those big six (British Gas, EDF Energy, E.ON Energy, npower, Scottish Power and SSE) should change provider now. There are lots of smaller, nimbler energy companies out there who'd love your business.
 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
And while we're on the subject of fixing prices.

It seems that it is possible after all.
 

---

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
I had a little chuckle at 'Doctor' Eoin Clarke calling other people 'pillocks'.
 

---

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
The City 'contributes' to the economy by charging fees for moving money around. It doesn't actually create anything new.

---

quote:

---

then a fair chunk of our GDP is earned by usury. Given the Biblical disapproval of usury, doesn't that make you feel at least a little uncomfortable?

---

quote:

---

ANother point to remember is that financial services can be provided from anywhere on the planet. They don't *have* to be in the City of London. So if the rest of the world suddenly decides that they don't like us, they could stop using the City and 8-10% of our GDP could vanish overnight. Picking up a factory and moving it would take rather more time and trouble.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
Cod:

quote:

---

However, I have heard that damaging habits such as smoking have decreased in Britain more slowly than in other places, such as the Continent. Perhaps this is because smokers etc. know the NHS will treat them, no questions asked.

---

Have you ever actually been to a doctor in the UK? I can assure you, they ask lots of questions about your personal habits and do their very best to get you to give up bad habits such as smoking and overeating, because they are perfectly well aware that prevention is better and cheaper than cure.

---

quote:

---

I think it is highly unlikely that a teenager sneaking his or her first cigarette behind the bike sheds will pause to consider the cost of medical treatment in twenty years' time. Teenagers' brains don't work like that, and they all think they're immortal at that age anyway. And once you are hooked on cigarettes it is very hard to give them up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
... The City of London has a great deal to answer for. It is the spider at the centre of a web of tax havens, all of them British overseas possessions. It sucks in not just British taxpayer money, but money from all over world, snorts it as cocaine and swills it as Dom Perignon. But lest it be forgotten, real and valuable stuff does go on in the City too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, there was a postwar consensus on a Welfare State, NHS, low unemployment, and so on.

But the right wing don't want this any more, they want a low-wage high-flexibility economy, and Labour sort of bleat and whine a bit and then say, well, OK, then.

And there is little opposition. Quite odd.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But, but, but, surely the Tories were asking for tighter regulation, weren't they? That would be the rational thing to do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose 'greed is good' works for some people.

---

This is another reason why the left wing has died in the UK. As soon as they run out of arguments - which is generally pretty quickly - they resort to insulting the other side instead.

---

How is that an insult? It's taken from a film, 'Wall Street', which was seen as a symbol of a certain attitude to wealth. I guess that Gekko was a caricature, but surely he articulated a kind of thinking among some - that there is no upper limit really to one's possible wealth, and that this actually has a moral force in society. As Gekko says, 'I am not a destroyer of companies. I am a liberator of them.'

---

Marvin's got it bang to rights here. The Left generally doesn't understand that man is a wanting animal. 'Greed is Good' is a simple expression relating to the material aspects and these are the aspects most easily understood.

Man does want other things, such as relationships and a feeling that he is growing but these are difficult to measure and, with an emphasis on 'the market' these are relegated in the interest of material growth for man which is pretty close to economic growth.

If we don't feel we are growing as a person then we may compensate for that by trying to grow in other ways and this emphasis on material growth via economic growth accelerates until we are where we are now in Britain, where the three main political parties, plus some of the others (UKIP and SNP for a start) are all commmitted to 'the economy' above anything else!

There's certainly a gap. Many of the socialist parties emphasize the economy too and while they can't be ignored we ought to be coming to the voter from the man & mankind point of view, not that of the ownership of the means of production in, let's face it, a post-industrial society.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alex Cockell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But, but, but, surely the Tories were asking for tighter regulation, weren't they? That would be the rational thing to do.

---

On the contrary - they were asking for LESS or NO regulation..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alex Cockell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But, but, but, surely the Tories were asking for tighter regulation, weren't they? That would be the rational thing to do.

---

On the contrary - they were asking for LESS or NO regulation..

---

I am assuming that that is not a sarcastic reply to my sarcastic post? Ah well, I obviously need to overhaul my 'sarcastic post signalling equipment'. I am loath to have a 'sarcastic post indicator', as then the whole point of the sarcasm is lost really, i.e. deadpan humour.

If yours is sarcastic, then well done.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Alex, could you give one or two quotes showing what you have in mind? I'm not doubting you, it's just that I'd be interested to see exactly what the Conservatives were saying back then. Was it untempered enthusiasm for reducing regulation, was it targeted at particular aspects of the system back then, or what?

---

quote:

---

I don't know any remotely definitive answer, but I wonder how much of the FSA / Treasury / Bank of England regulatory mess would the opposition have been aware of immediately before the credit crunch.

---

quote:

---

You do not need a regulation to stop chimney sweeps sending small boys up chimneys. The invention of the flexible brush and the vacuum cleaner has made that as unnecessary as it is undesirable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:

Very entertaining but, as is obvious from the cover, it was a report to the Shadow Cabinet that was never adopted.

---

quote:

---

Sorry to spoil your fun but Redwood's report was quietly filed in the usual place for the outpouring from the swivel-eyed ones

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
What it does demonstrate is that the absent the GFC, the Tories would have pushed for further banking deregulation of the sort that played a major role in causing the crisis.

---

quote:

---

We are concerned about the division of responsibility between the FSA and the Bank over banking and market regulation. Fortunately, conditions in the last decade have been benign internationally, with no serious threats to banking liquidity. We think it would be safer if the Bank of England had responsibility for solvency regulation of UK-based banks, as well as having an overall duty to keep the system solvent. Otherwise, there could be dangerous delays if a banking crisis did hit, with information having to be exchanged between the two regulators; and there might be gaps in each regulator’s view of the banking sector at a crucial time, when early regulatory action might have spared a worse problem.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:

The Policy Review Group was not set up by David Cameron to form policy, rather it was set up to look at existing policies of the conservative opposition and to issue recommendations to review, revise, edit or ditch.

---

quote:

---

The final outcome of the Review (NOT the Redwood report) was to say that banking oversight and regulation should be increased and liquidity requirements toughened up...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
The replacement of the FSA with the Bank of England by the coalition government gives you the "proof" you want that the conservatives are aware that banking regulation needs toughening.

---

quote:

---

Historically it has been the case that the NHS cannot refuse to provide a person treatment simply because that person won't make lifestyle adjustments. The person is legally entitled to treatment, and no amount of finger-wagging from the doctor can change that.

Contrast that situation with a person whose ability to obtain medical treatment depends on private insurance, which might decline cover or increase premiums if the person, for example, continues to smoke.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
The replacement of the FSA with the Bank of England by the coalition government gives you the "proof" you want that the conservatives are aware that banking regulation needs toughening.

---

That a different body now regulates the banking industry is not necessarily proof that regulation has been toughened. We can only get definitive proof of this after the next crisis, but that most of the recommendations of the IBC have been shelved doesn't bode well.

Besides, the original question by SCK was about the Tories enthusiasm for further de-regulation back then (before the financial crisis) - and that Osbourne appointed Redwood to 'review, revise, edit and ditch' at the time certainly speaks to that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

I wonder what would have happened if Northern Rock would have been allowed to fail? I think some neo-liberals advocated this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
That's what a public health system does, you know. Are you suggesting the government should be allowed to withhold services from citizens whose "lifestyle choices" they disapprove of? You let them do that for smokers and pretty soon everyone will be paying - most people have one or two bad habits that could affect their health.

---

quote:

---

Contrast this with a privatised health system, where any and every treatment is available to those with the ability to pay and everyone else has to go cap in hand to their insurance company, whose main interest is in turning a profit and therefore denying treatment to as many people as possible.

Are you REALLY saying that the second system is better than the first?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
They're also probably going to die earlier than an average non-smoker, so what you lose on their medical treatment you will gain back by not having to pay old-age pension until they're in their 80s. If money is all you're worried about.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
They're also probably going to die earlier than an average non-smoker, so what you lose on their medical treatment you will gain back by not having to pay old-age pension until they're in their 80s. If money is all you're worried about.

---

They're also paying tax on all those cigarettes so they've already paid more to the government than anyone else. It all evens out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
I daresay I am left-wing compared to you, Cod; according to this quiz I am hated by the Daily Mail. However, as merely being female gets you to 'disliked' on this scale I am not sure what it says about my political views.

---

quote:

---

You certainly seemed to be saying in your previous post that smokers should either be refused NHS treatment or forced to pay for treatment that non-smokers would receive free of charge.

---

quote:

---

That sounds as if you expect NHS staff (who are ultimately paid by the government) to cross-examine people about their lifestyles and impose penalties on those who don't conform to certain standards.

---

quote:

---

Just like the (private) insurance companies do when they ask you to provide details of your medical history before calculating your life insurance premium.

---

quote:

---

I am not sure where you get the idea that I think the NHS is perfect from;

---

quote:

---

I just think it's better than the alternatives that the Tories are trying to foist on us, and certainly better than the American system.

---

quote:

---

I've been trying to work out why I find the idea of denying medical treatment to people with unhealthy lifestyles so disturbing

---

quote:

---

As for the NHS, there is no doubt that it is an example of socialist planning that is preferable to an all-out private model, measurable by the number of procedures it performs and the cost of them. However, I have heard that damaging habits such as smoking have decreased in Britain more slowly than in other places, such as the Continent. Perhaps this is because smokers etc. know the NHS will treat them, no questions asked. It would be interesting to know how public health provision is made in places where health is generally very high, e.g. Sweden, Netherlands, France and so on. My understanding is that they don't operate an open-slather free-at-the-point of-need model like the NHS.

---

quote:

---

posted by Cod
Aren't non-residents expected to pay for NHS services now? I thought the law had changed.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0