Will there ever be a credible non-Social Democratic party?

[speedy_thrills]

It's hard to tell if the Conservatives should back themselves on moving towards a more market driven model or continue towards state services. The problem is no one in the party has the faith to say for certain that the rising economy will raise all (or even most) real incomes.

In the big picture the old right wing ideas of citizens as opportunistic Randian heroes in a low tax country with a prosperous economy and minimal intervention is now dead.

Most people have come to realise that their station in life is now set no matter how hard they work, there isn't any optimism left that capitalism can deliver more wealth to ordinary people. The rewards have become too concentrated amongst too few and ordinary people are losing their desire to continue in that direction. In place of capitalism they are, by default, choosing socialism.

Any government that wants to advocate on behalf of unimpeded capitalism must first find a way to invent and demonstrate a balance that ensures all incomes can rise on capitalism and it won't always be those on highest wages that benefit most.

[Halb]

Utopia.

[Derek Smith]

speedy_thrills said:

It's hard to tell if the Conservatives should back themselves on moving towards a more market driven model or continue towards state services. The problem is no one in the party has the faith to say for certain that the rising economy will raise all (or even most) real incomes.

In the big picture the old right wing ideas of citizens as opportunistic Randian heroes in a low tax country with a prosperous economy and minimal intervention is now dead.

Most people have come to realise that their station in life is now set no matter how hard they work, there isn't any optimism left that capitalism can deliver more wealth to ordinary people. The rewards have become too concentrated amongst too few and ordinary people are losing their desire to continue in that direction. In place of capitalism they are, by default, choosing socialism.

Any government that wants to advocate on behalf of unimpeded capitalism must first find a way to invent and demonstrate a balance that ensures all incomes can rise on capitalism and it won't always be those on highest wages that benefit most.

You do not have to go that far back to see examples of uncontrolled, or 'unimpeded', capitalism. It left a majority on starvation wages or less. What killed unimpeded capitalism was democracy, or at least the vote for a substantial number of those who wanted a bigger slice of the cake.

Pre the 3rd reform act more or less the government wasn't really anything like it is now with parties. What they had were pressure groups, lobbyists if you will, all arguing amongst themselves and fighting for a bigger say in the way things were going. But they did not disagree as to the like of government they wanted: no intereference in making money, and that is what they got.

The 'no taxation without representation' was not so much asking for individual votes and having the inteests of their particular situation representated in government. The poor smuck at the bottom, or at least 2/3rds of the bottom, didn't get any say whatsoever. That's when capitalism ran rampant.

This country has a history of riots against the state. The British civil wars left an imprint on the mind of government - incouding the kings/queens - which was reinforced by the French some time later. There is no going back.

If you give power to a group they will abuse it. There is ample evidence to support this. It is not only government but religions and such. Corn laws anyone? How about a monopoly or two. Or more.

There were a number of the rich and powerful who saw the results of the way this country was governed and were moved to push for reform. This included looking after the destitute, passing laws which considered their needs, emacipation for the upper middle class and eventually everyone.

Now we have a democracy. We now get people voting for their own sectional interests just like the voting public did in the old days only now there are considerably more.

The history of a repressed populations is easy enough to find on the internet. If capitalism was allowed to run riot then there is little doubt what would happen. This country would revert to its norm of riots and disobedience and the government would revert to killing the population.

[Halb]

Utopia.


"Discontent did not purely centre on short-term economic demands, but also resulted from dissatisfaction with the very structure of society. A report presented to the National Industrial Conference by trade unionists in April 1919 stated that: "With increasing vehemence Labour is challenging the whole structure of capitalist industry as it now exists", rather than simply protesting the "more special and small grievances which come to the surface at any particular time".8 Furthermore, following the sacrifices of millions of British workers, labour expected to reap the rewards: "It must be remembered that throughout the war the workers have been led to expect that the conclusions of hostilities would be followed by a profound revolution in the economic structure of society."
http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Latest/Poli...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1919_Battle_of_George...

[Derek Smith]

Halb said:

Utopia.

Thanks for the link to the Marxist Journal. An interesting article.

Tyranny is not discipline is a great quote. As is the one of the Met superintendents who concluded that there was nothing to worry about two days before 12,000, then the vast majority, of Met PCs went on strike. Nothing changes it would appear.

'Slips of girls' earning more than experienced police officers - that must have hurt. When I was in the City police, one of the highest paid in the country, and working all but three days every four weeks, my wife, albeit as what would not be called a PA to an editor of a quality magazine, earned about half as much again as me for a 36-hr week. And she got a free magazine each month.

The Mets, as ever, are the key. Every other force can do what it likes but if the Mets throw their toys out of the muster room then things will become tasty. Further, it is the only force in the country according to most MPs. All it took in the 70s was for them to delay patrolling for an hour and a half every day.

I don't things will come to a head but then the worrying thing is that I bet a meeting of superintendents will come to the same conclusion. It doesn't do to demend on supers' appreciation of the situation.

[Mark Benson]

speedy_thrills said:

Most people have come to realise that their station in life is now set no matter how hard they work, there isn't any optimism left that capitalism can deliver more wealth to ordinary people. The rewards have become too concentrated amongst too few and ordinary people are losing their desire to continue in that direction. In place of capitalism they are, by default, choosing socialism.

Any government that wants to advocate on behalf of unimpeded capitalism must first find a way to invent and demonstrate a balance that ensures all incomes can rise on capitalism and it won't always be those on highest wages that benefit most.

The politicians have failed their electorate, those at the top too busy chasing re-election while trying to keep donors happy by taking with one hand and appearing to give back with another, while all the while borrowing to fund projects that serve to disguise the truth - that we have too many people and not enough (meaningful, productive) work for them to do.
But politics is still presenting itself as the answer, while making capitalism and the beneficiaries of capitalism the bogeymen for a generation of people for whom 'Greedy Bankers'(tm) epitomise what went wrong.

Why do people do the Lottery? Because they feel that a windfall is the only way they will ever be rich. Working hard and prospering is beyond their reach.

Success from capitalism is seen as the preserve of very few, the rest can only wait under the high table for crumbs. It's easy to see how disaffection with capitalism can be propagated in the population;
Every opportunity is made by fewer and fewer companies to make money from the average Joe - booking fees, high interest rates on loans and virtually no interest on savings, price fixing among supermarkets and above inflation price rises by energy suppliers, the list is endless.
Meanwhile they don't even relieve us of our money with a smile - cynical companies put us through to foreign call-centres while telling us our call is important - want to make a complaint about our service? Call this premium rate number and wait on hold for 20 minutes.

People choose socialism because they're starting to feel that capitalism hasn't actually delivered them anything - especially the young for whom job prospects are low and poorly paid - the politicians are cynically exploiting the feeling that 'Rip Off Britain' not only exists, but exists because of faceless corporate bosses who are only interested in the next Lear Jet they can buy.

Any yet nobody questions how and why the state can keep expanding while fewer and fewer of us are actually working to pay taxes because 'government money' is not 'our money' any more.

[Tyre Smoke]

If a few more people were on starvation benefits, you would see far less Kappa wearing L'Oreal generation claiming from Ambulance chasing claims firms for non existing accidents.

You would see a bit more of what Norman Tebbit rightly said in the 80's. If there wasn't a job in my area, I got on my bike and went and found a job.

The work ethic has all but disappeared because nobody is hard up and needs to work. If you can still buy your cheap booze and still afford your ciggies and Sky Sports, why bother working? It's for mugs innit?

Small Government with more freedom for employers to fix wages and conditions (obviously within reason, we don't want to put small boys up chimneys) is what is needed.

[Sparta VAG]

Derek Smith said:

I don't things will come to a head but then the worrying thing is that I bet a meeting of superintendents will come to the same conclusion. It doesn't do to demend on supers' appreciation of the situation.

Going O/T but it all depends on 10th May and the subsequent negotiations on Winsor 2. If the Federated ranks get the shafting that is anticipated then it's a whole new ball game for Police & Government relationships.

[martin84]

Tyre Smoke said:

If a few more people were on starvation benefits, you would see far less Kappa wearing L'Oreal generation claiming from Ambulance chasing claims firms for non existing accidents.

Thanks for bringing down the tone of the thread with ranting nonsense. It was doing well until that.

Tyre Smoke said:

You would see a bit more of what Norman Tebbit rightly said in the 80's. If there wasn't a job in my area, I got on my bike and went and found a job.

Ah Norman Tebbit doing his bit for social engineering and the entrenchment of the North-South divide.

Tyre Smoke said:

The work ethic has all but disappeared because nobody is hard up and needs to work.

The only way to bring back 'true capitalism' is to make people so hard up and starving they have to slave away to make other people rich? Its hard to see why the World is falling out of love with such ideals

speedy thrills said:

Most people have come to realise that their station in life is now set no matter how hard they work, there isn't any optimism left that capitalism can deliver more wealth to ordinary people.

They're not wrong either. Capitalism doesn't provide more wealth to ordinary people, it delivers as much as those at the top want it to.

Mark Benson said:

Why do people do the Lottery? Because they feel that a windfall is the only way they will ever be rich. Working hard and prospering is beyond their reach.

They're right as well, unfortunately. For every 100 people who work hard, only 1 will get any reward for it. If getting rich was as simple as just working hard there'd be less of a gap between the bottom and top. Economics dictates for people to be able to afford things you need a large glut of people who cannot afford things. If we were all rich we wouldn't be rich anymore. Society is structured and engineered to make the rich richer but give just enough of a carrot to everybody lower down to work hard and make them rich. Most people who become rich have a large slice of luck somewhere down the line. The lottery is the ordinary persons chance of becoming a millionaire and if you beat odds of 12 million to 1 you deserve to keep your money.

Mark Benson said:

Success from capitalism is seen as the preserve of very few

Its not 'seen as' it actually is. 20% of people having 80% of the money isn't made up or accidental. Theres a reason its hard to force your way into that 20% - they dont want you there.

Mark Benson said:

People choose socialism because they're starting to feel that capitalism hasn't actually delivered them anything

As Derek Smith says, unregulated capitalism has never delivered anything for the ordinary person. Capitalism in its rawest form hasnt existed for a very long time because social democracy came along which recognises everybody as equals. Capitalism has therefore had to adapt and remould itself but still delivers riches for few and mediocrity for most, the ordinary person would have even less if we left capitalism to its own devices.

[speedy_thrills]

Mark Benson said:

<Good stuff>

[bosscerbera]

speedy_thrills said:

Mark Benson said:

<Good stuff>

+1

[V8mate]

martin84 said:

speedy thrills said:

Most people have come to realise that their station in life is now set no matter how hard they work, there isn't any optimism left that capitalism can deliver more wealth to ordinary people.

They're not wrong either. Capitalism doesn't provide more wealth to ordinary people, it delivers as much as those at the top want it to.

Not sure I agree with that. Real capitalism affords people the opportunity to trade, to enter markets without unnecessary, bureaucratic licences or barriers to entry. It allows the free flow of capital towards ideas and markets.
I can see more and more of the familial 'haves' from the last two centuries becoming increasingly irrelevant over the next 100 years.

[speedy_thrills]

V8mate said:

martin84 said:

speedy thrills said:

Most people have come to realise that their station in life is now set no matter how hard they work, there isn't any optimism left that capitalism can deliver more wealth to ordinary people.

They're not wrong either. Capitalism doesn't provide more wealth to ordinary people, it delivers as much as those at the top want it to.

Not sure I agree with that. Real capitalism affords people the opportunity to trade, to enter markets without unnecessary, bureaucratic licences or barriers to entry. It allows the free flow of capital towards ideas and markets.
I can see more and more of the familial 'haves' from the last two centuries becoming increasingly irrelevant over the next 100 years.

The problem is that this isn't really how capitalism works any more. There where upsides and downsides to global free trade, the problem is we have endeavoured to aid the free movement of goods...at least since the 70's but we never really redressed the balances when it came to shifting employment. Companies shifted production to low wage areas and offices to low tax areas which increased profitability but there was little or no consideration paid to the holes left behind. Government having to increase taxation as companies registered offshore and workers without jobs today.

I don't advocate trade barriers but we do need to recognise that there is a social contract both ways between employees and employers. Free trade can't just be an endless race to the bottom for most workers, it isn't a sustainable or productive system.

[Mark Benson]

V8mate said:

Not sure I agree with that. Real capitalism affords people the opportunity to trade, to enter markets without unnecessary, bureaucratic licences or barriers to entry. It allows the free flow of capital towards ideas and markets.

In human terms, 'real' captialism affords people opportunity - The American Dream if you like - this shonky form of capitalism we have at the moment delivers nothing but red tape and reasons not to succeed.

[bosscerbera]

Mark Benson said:

V8mate said:

Not sure I agree with that. Real capitalism affords people the opportunity to trade, to enter markets without unnecessary, bureaucratic licences or barriers to entry. It allows the free flow of capital towards ideas and markets.

In human terms, 'real' captialism affords people opportunity - The American Dream if you like - this shonky form of capitalism we have at the moment delivers nothing but red tape and reasons not to succeed.

The American Dream is an unsustainable mirage - a, erm, dream in fact.

The basis of unfettered competition (laissez-faire) is that it converges on monopoly, which drives the wealth and earnings gaps. Furthermore, all innovation and technology for business is justified on the basis of its contribution to efficiency. 'Efficiency' is a euphemism for reducing head count ...increasing unemployment. That is true from the plough in agriculture through to automated telecoms in tertiary industries.

However: To be a wealthy producer requires that you have a lot of consumers as customers. If you withdraw work from consumers they cannot afford what you produce.

[martin84]

Mark Benson said:

In human terms, 'real' captialism affords people opportunity - The American Dream if you like - this shonky form of capitalism we have at the moment delivers nothing but red tape and reasons not to succeed.

It affords rich people opportunity. Capitalism much like the car industry has had to be dragged kicking and screaming into progression it doesnt like. Capitalism detested the idea of workers rights, sick pay and maternity leave just as the car industry didn't want seatbelts or airbags.

The American Dream, much like other nonsense soundbites like 'the land of opportunity' is just one of those things which people say which doesnt mean anything nor exist. The American Dream is just as much a load of st as the idea of London's streets being paved with gold.

[Mark Benson]

bosscerbera said:

Mark Benson said:

V8mate said:

Not sure I agree with that. Real capitalism affords people the opportunity to trade, to enter markets without unnecessary, bureaucratic licences or barriers to entry. It allows the free flow of capital towards ideas and markets.

In human terms, 'real' captialism affords people opportunity - The American Dream if you like - this shonky form of capitalism we have at the moment delivers nothing but red tape and reasons not to succeed.

The American Dream is an unsustainable mirage - a, erm, dream in fact.

The basis of unfettered competition (laissez-faire) is that it converges on monopoly, which drives the wealth and earnings gaps. Furthermore, all innovation and technology for business is justified on the basis of its contribution to efficiency. 'Efficiency' is a euphemism for reducing head count ...increasing unemployment. That is true from the plough in agriculture through to automated telecoms in tertiary industries.

However: To be a wealthy producer requires that you have a lot of consumers as customers. If you withdraw work from consumers they cannot afford what you produce.

And there's the rub.
If you continually drive efficiency by reducing workforce, at some point you'll be a very efficient economy with no consumers - whether it's at local or global level, the result is the same in the end.

We can argue what 'real' capitalism is until we're blue in the face, no two people will have the same vision I suspect.

Perhaps I ought to have qualified what I posted more, in my ideal world, my idea of 'real' capitalism would allow people to start a business and give them the opportunity to succeed - the form of capitalism we've ended up with do not (or at least makes it difficult).

At least laissez-faire capitalism would have allowed the failures in the banking system which would have happened had governments not stepped in (and continue to do so), which might, in the long run be better for us all. Not that I'm advocating it.

Edited by Mark Benson on Wednesday 18th April 17:13