Labour admits the Tories were right all along

[Webbo]

It is hard to call it the best when it is one of only a few to be fully tested by many countries over many years without external factors such as wars and anti-communists imposing trade embargoes. You could also use China as an example of success without capitalism.

But you're right maybe successful isn't the right term for capitalism, it is an economic philosophy, success and failure is down to implementation, you can adopt the most successful tactics in football, ie try and play like Barcelona, but if you put Pulis in charge and Andy Carroll up front it is not going to be successful.

I think that's highly debatable.

[Guest MattP]

It is hard to call it the best when it is one of only a few to be fully tested by many countries over many years without external factors such as wars and anti-communists imposing trade embargoes. You could also use China as an example of success without capitalism.

But you're right maybe successful isn't the right term for capitalism, it is an economic philosophy, success and failure is down to implementation, you can adopt the most successful tactics in football, ie try and play like Barcelona, but if you put Pulis in charge and Andy Carroll up front it is not going to be successful.

Doesn't mean the tactics are unsuccessful.

 

Come on Captain, we've both been there and seen the place.

 

It's a capitalist society in everything but name.

[Father Ted]

It doesn't take a genius to work out that Labour's economic policies are unsustainable and were the real reason for the recessions.

[MooseBreath]

at China being an example of success without capitalism. Absurd comment displaying a fundamental lack of understanding.

[Alf Bentley]

Come on Captain, we've both been there and seen the place.

 

It's a capitalist society in everything but name.

 

 

at China being an example of success without capitalism. Absurd comment displaying a fundamental lack of understanding.

 

Agree with the reactionaries for once, here. China = Anti-democratic state-defined rampant capitalism....the free economy and the unfree society....Thatcher would have loved it!

 

It's probably the model for the future, too, being cynical...when food and fuel start to be in short supply but the rich corporations and their dependents still want to keep the same-sized slice of a shrinking pie, I expect those of us fortunate (?) enough to survive will live in societies like China, economically ultra-liberal (for those with the capital) but politically ultra-conservative, with resources ever harder to procure...the precise opposite of what the world needs!

 

I'll probably be dead by then, so the Mooses, Wolfs and Matts of the world will have to take charge! 

[Alf Bentley]

It doesn't take a genius to work out that Labour's economic policies are unsustainable and were the real reason for the recessions.

 

What, the British Labour Party was the reason for the recessions in Europe, the USA and most of the world, too?! Bloody powerful organisation, eh!

 

....and for the 1980s and early 1990s recessions when there was a Tory government, I suppose? Bloody good job there was a Tory government in power 1997-2007 to oversee that 10-year boom, eh?

 

What it doesn't take a genius to work out is that it is the nature and management of global capitalism that largely decides whether  there'll be booms or recessions - even in an economy as big as the USA, to a large extent, never mind small fry like the UK.

 

The actions of the UK government do matter to us, both in terms of social/political priorities within the economic straitjacket (what Miliband is on about) and in terms of economic competence (a matter of political preference and opinion)....but it's still a bit like the importance of how well you build your sea walls...it matters, but not too much if a capitalist tsunami sweeps in.

[Webbo]

What, the British Labour Party was the reason for the recessions in Europe, the USA and most of the world, too?! Bloody powerful organisation, eh!

 

....and for the 1980s and early 1990s recessions when there was a Tory government, I suppose? Bloody good job there was a Tory government in power 1997-2007 to oversee that 10-year boom, eh?

 

 

But that was an artificial boom based on increased public spending, personal debt and cheap imports. Our manufacturing base actually shrank during that boom. We had 15 years of growth with virtually nothing to show for it.

[Captain...]

Come on Captain, we've both been there and seen the place.

It's a capitalist society in everything but name.

Very badly worded on my part, of course it isn't success without capitalism, it was opening up their markets to private enterprise that started their economic boom. What meant was that there are examples of economic success without following the western model of capitalism, and arguably China is the most economically successful country of modern times.

The point really is that the model we subscribe to is not the only way, we are not trapped in this cycle of boom and bust forever, we can change it, others have, we just choose not to, and I'm not suggesting we try to copy China, but I just don't understand this blind acceptance of a clearly flawed system.

[MooseBreath]

A "clearly flawed system" which has delivered rapid improvements in the quality of life of people across the globe. It is not "blind acceptance", it is acceptance that this is by far the best system we have both theoretically and in terms of practical results delivered.

[Rincewind]

:chant:

[leicsmac]

A "clearly flawed system" which has delivered rapid improvements in the quality of life of people across the globe. It is not "blind acceptance", it is acceptance that this is by far the best system we have both theoretically and in terms of practical results delivered.

 

Very true. Doesn't mean however, that it is optimal nor that we should follow it blindly and not consider new systems.

[MooseBreath]

:chant:

A magnificent 'ken'tribution

[Parafox]

A magnificent 'ken'tribution

 

Yeah I don't know what he's applauding.

[MooseBreath]

Yeah I don't know what he's applauding.

He continues to labour under the impression that he can assert superiority by feigning indifference. Why he bothers, I don't know.

[Guest MattP]

Personally think Jonathon is losing his marbles.

[Parafox]

He continues to labour under the impression that he can assert superiority by feigning indifference. Why he bothers, I don't know.

 

He has opinions. Maybe it was ironic applause?

[MooseBreath]

He has opinions. Maybe it was ironic applause?

That's what he wants you to think, of course. He wants you to think he is capable of coming up with a respectable counter argument but just can't be bothered, when in reality he isn't capable of producing anything like a respectable counter argument so he goes straight to indifference and hopes no-one notices. Let us not forget, Jonathon is a grown man.

[Rincewind]

I doubt I am superior to Moose. He is all knowing.

[Alf Bentley]

But that was an artificial boom based on increased public spending, personal debt and cheap imports. Our manufacturing base actually shrank during that boom. We had 15 years of growth with virtually nothing to show for it.

 

 I'd dispute that it was "artificial" as the growth was perfectly real and we did have something to show for it, albeit temporarily (improving living standards, lower unemployment, better public services, limited redistribution to the poorest).

 

I accept that it was unsustainable long-term, running even a small deficit during a boom and allowing too much private debt to accrue through excessive financial deregulation (though the banks must take their share of the blame for that). However, public infrastructure and services like education desperately needed investment - and sometimes you need to spend in the short-term to earn more in the long-term. That said, they should have increased tax revenues (in my view) or cut more (in yours, I assume).

 

However...

- The Tories would have liked even more financial deregulation, and Cameron committed himself to matching Labour's spending plans before the financial crash changed everything;

- Labour ran a surplus 1998-2001 and a deficit smaller than Major's 2002-2007; the deficit only ballooned with the 2008 financial crash, which accounted for about 75% of it: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/deficit-debt-government-borrowing-data#zoomed-picture

- Our shrinking manufacturing base and cheap imports are largely structural: the UK is in advanced/late stage capitalism so is dominated by the service sector, unlike growing China, never mind low-cost Bangladesh; we also have an economy dominated by a financial sector that prefers high gains in the short-term to investment for sustained development (the German preference)

- There's nothing inherently efficient or inefficient about either public or private spending. The mix of the two is a matter of political preference. What does matter is whether the spending is well-directed and well-controlled...and Labour has a lot to answer for on that last point, with billions pissed up the wall on PFI schemes to avoid scaring the Daily Mail with tax rises

- Redistribution is an interesting one: Labour redistributed limited amounts from the rich to the poor, which would actually be a good idea now, in a recession, as the poor have a higher propensity to spend, boosting demand. The Tories are doing the opposite, presumably based on the theory that rich entrepreneurs will invest, kick-start the economy, trickle-down effect etc.

 

As for capitalism being the best system available, until recent years I'd have agreed, subject to there being more democratic regulation of that system, preferably internationally.

 

However, climate change and the depletion of resources may well change that judgment - though, of course, technological or political advances may put global capitalism back on track. If some dire but realistic predictions are correct, resource wars and population movements could lead to economic meltdown and bloody mayhem within 100 years, leaving billions dead and ending the whole of human civilisation. If that is the outcome, then capitalism won't look like such a great system.... 

 

Somehow we need a shift from "standard of living" to "quality of life", but how, when material growth/increased profits is the motive force of the all-powerful capitalist system?

[Webbo]

 I'd dispute that it was "artificial" as the growth was perfectly real and we did have something to show for it, albeit temporarily (improving living standards, lower unemployment, better public services, limited redistribution to the poorest).

 

Very small improvement in service compared to the increase in funding

 

I accept that it was unsustainable long-term, running even a small deficit during a boom and allowing too much private debt to accrue through excessive financial deregulation (though the banks must take their share of the blame for that). However, public infrastructure and services like education desperately needed investment - and sometimes you need to spend in the short-term to earn more in the long-term. That said, they should have increased tax revenues (in my view) or cut more (in yours, I assume).

 

Or not increase spending in the first place.

 

However...

- The Tories would have liked even more financial deregulation, and Cameron committed himself to matching Labour's spending plans before the financial crash changed everything;

 

Saying the Tories would have been worse is a pathetic argument. They didn't because they weren't power, Labour did it's their fault.

 

- Labour ran a surplus 1998-2001 and a deficit smaller than Major's 2002-2007; the deficit only ballooned with the 2008 financial crash, which accounted for about 75% of it: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/deficit-debt-government-borrowing-data#zoomed-picture

- Our shrinking manufacturing base and cheap imports are largely structural:

 

So unemployment is unavoidable no matter who is in power, is that what you're saying?

 

the UK is in advanced/late stage capitalism so is dominated by the service sector, unlike growing China, never mind low-cost Bangladesh; we also have an economy dominated by a financial sector that prefers high gains in the short-term to investment for sustained development (the German preference)

- There's nothing inherently efficient or inefficient about either public or private spending. The mix of the two is a matter of political preference. What does matter is whether the spending is well-directed and well-controlled...and Labour has a lot to answer for on that last point, with billions pissed up the wall on PFI schemes to avoid scaring the Daily Mail with tax rises

 

Scare the Daily Mail or the voters, the majority of which don't read the Mail?

 

- Redistribution is an interesting one: Labour redistributed limited amounts from the rich to the poor, which would actually be a good idea now, in a recession, as the poor have a higher propensity to spend, boosting demand. The Tories are doing the opposite, presumably based on the theory that rich entrepreneurs will invest, kick-start the economy, trickle-down effect etc.

 

That is simply not true.Also I'm sure I read although I can't be bothered to look for the figures, that the gap between rich and poor grew under Labour.

 

As for capitalism being the best system available, until recent years I'd have agreed, subject to there being more democratic regulation of that system, preferably internationally.

 

However, climate change and the depletion of resources may well change that judgment - though, of course, technological or political advances may put global capitalism back on track. If some dire but realistic predictions are correct, resource wars and population movements could lead to economic meltdown and bloody mayhem within 100 years, leaving billions dead and ending the whole of human civilisation. If that is the outcome, then capitalism won't look like such a great system.... 

 

You can't live your life on a maybe.

 

Somehow we need a shift from "standard of living" to "quality of life", but how, when material growth/increased profits is the motive force of the all-powerful capitalist system?

[Rincewind]

I have heard that someone is being questioned tomorrow on Radio Leicester about the  council budget cuts to services. Should be interesting. On before 7.30 though and will be on news bullitins throughout the morning.

 

That is all I can say as I don't want to put anyone off from listening.

[Guest MattP]

Let's hope they are far more severe and we actually start seeing some REAL cuts rather than the compassionate conservative nonsense that we have seen over the last three years that keeps our debt going higher.

[Rincewind]

Let's hope they are far more severe and we actually start seeing some REAL cuts rather than the compassionate conservative nonsense that we have seen over the last three years that keeps our debt going higher.

 

True. It will certainly solve the problem of homeless people when the hostels are closed and a few die off when forced onto the streets during the freezing winter. But it's their own fault so have no one to blame but themselves. I'm sure they will explain it all in the interview.

[Guest MattP]

True. It will certainly solve the problem of homeless people when the hostels are closed and a few die off when forced onto the streets during the freezing winter. But it's their own fault so have no one to blame but themselves. I'm sure they will explain it all in the interview.

Maybe we should just pay for hostels in the winter. You might be onto something there. Wouls save a fortune.

It's a call someone has to make. Either choose what to cut now or be forced to cut everything in 20 years and start seeing people die in the street when they can't get a basic operation.

Ever visited a country where there is no welfare state at all? You might find it interesting.

You would be amazed at the effort previously incapable people suddenly find when they don't get a penny in handouts.

[MooseBreath]

What's the point in organising hostels for the homeless? These are people who can't even be bothered to sign up for their own free flat and spending money courtesy of the hand outs system. You organise them a place in a hostel and they probably won't even turn up. Sometimes you just got to let people die.