Bringing back Clause 4, Whats in it for us? Options

[On the edge]

You don't have to go back too far and Labour were the opposition party round here. Who says they can't do it again?

There are hints (shock / horror) that a good few would like to reinstate a revised Clause 4! Would that actually help? Well, on this very forum there have been calls to take the railways back into public ownership; simply because the bogus markets don't seem capable of delivering the service we want at costs we can afford. Then take utilities, we might actually be better off with the distribution networks at least being in public hands. Rural broadband might then be more than a dream.

It all depends on the model. In my view, the mistake last time was to equate public ownership with centralisation. This time there are suggestions it should be localised. So far so good. The only hesitation I'd have is our very own local 'public management' experience. Step,forward NTC! However, if words like cooperative and agency were added to the mix - who knows, a brighter future?

Anyway, right or wrong, at least Labour are trying to come up with a real and different vision; not just a different shade of blue and a mine is bigger than yours approach to policy!

[GMR]

Just a matter of interest; I wouldn’t trust Andy Burnham. He seems to be all over the place. First he criticises Corbyn, then he praises him and says that he would have Corbyn in his shadow cabinet (he is saying this to get some of his votes). How can that be if he has condemned all his policies. If they worked together then one or the other would have to compromise their views to a great extent. It makes you wonder what is views are, or are they just about power at any cost?

[On the edge]

Just a matter of interest; I wouldn’t trust Andy Burnham. He seems to be all over the place. First he criticises Corbyn, then he praises him and says that he would have Corbyn in his shadow cabinet (he is saying this to get some of his votes). How can that be if he has condemned all his policies. If they worked together then one or the other would have to compromise their views to a great extent. It makes you wonder what is views are, or are they just about power at any cost?

Oh come on!! You weren't supposed to notice! He's the top table choice; a clockwork Toni Blair. The trouble with the Labour Party today is that it's being infiltrated by too many socialists.

[GMR]

Oh come on!! You weren't supposed to notice! He's the top table choice; a clockwork Toni Blair. The trouble with the Labour Party today is that it's being infiltrated by too many socialists.

The trouble with socialists is that they are idealists, living in a world that they wish it to be, rather than what it is. Politics is about being pragmatic, and working from there.

I wouldn’t call him a clock work Tony Blair. Right or wrong Blair stuck with what he believed in, Burnham sticks with or changes to whatever will get him elected. That is why the other two candidates have attacked him; a man of no principle other than the principle of winning at all costs. He will sup with the devil if necessary. At one time I would have preferred him over Yvette Cooper. Now I would rather see her win over Burnham and Corbyn. But I would prefer Liz Kendall. However, and saying all, that I don’t think none of them has got what it takes to lead the Labour party to victory. But Kendall would come the closest.

[Andy Capp]

The trouble with socialists is that they are idealists, living in a world that they wish it to be, rather than what it is. Politics is about being pragmatic, and working from there.

I wouldn’t call him a clock work Tony Blair. Right or wrong Blair stuck with what he believed in, Burnham sticks with or changes to whatever will get him elected. That is why the other two candidates have attacked him; a man of no principle other than the principle of winning at all costs. He will sup with the devil if necessary. At one time I would have preferred him over Yvette Cooper. Now I would rather see her win over Burnham and Corbyn. But I would prefer Liz Kendall. However, and saying all, that I don’t think none of them has got what it takes to lead the Labour party to victory. But Kendall would come the closest.

I saw Blair differently. I saw that he wanted power before his beliefs. While socialism is an ideology, I believe capitalism, liberalism, monetarism, minarchism, etc, are too, and all have problems achieving their aim.

[GMR]

I saw Blair differently. I saw that he wanted power before his beliefs. While socialism is an ideology, I believe capitalism, liberalism, monetarism, minarchism, etc, are too, and all have problems achieving their aim.

Isn’t that what I said; his beliefs, which equals power!

The trouble is that at heart we are all capitalists and that is why they win in the end. Those that can’t get it, or know they will never get it, become socialists’ to get what they haven’t got; redistribution of wealth it is also called.

[On the edge]

Isn’t that what I said; his beliefs, which equals power!

The trouble is that at heart we are all capitalists and that is why they win in the end. Those that can’t get it, or know they will never get it, become socialists’ to get what they haven’t got; redistribution of wealth it is also called.

It depends on what type of capitalism you are talking about. The American model; where it's seen as a horse race, winner takes all, is the one we appear to be following. It's not nice and supposes everyone is out to stuff everyone else. There are a few big winners but most end up losers. Example; we used to have lots of little convenience stores, now, in reality, it's just Tesco.

There is the other model, where it's more a marathon, there is room for everyone which then provides choice. Ironically, this is more the continental model, and supposes that for a market to work you need participants on both sides of the counter. So, just because I make candles, it doesn't mean I want to take over the candle maker down the street, I just want to make a living. Actually, if there is more than just me in the street, we are likely to attract more buyers. Example, it takes more than one shirt shop to make Saville Row.

Which capitalism do you prefer?

[GMR]

It depends on what type of capitalism you are talking about. The American model; where it's seen as a horse race, winner takes all, is the one we appear to be following. It's not nice and supposes everyone is out to stuff everyone else. There are a few big winners but most end up losers. Example; we used to have lots of little convenience stores, now, in reality, it's just Tesco.

There is the other model, where it's more a marathon, there is room for everyone which then provides choice. Ironically, this is more the continental model, and supposes that for a market to work you need participants on both sides of the counter. So, just because I make candles, it doesn't mean I want to take over the candle maker down the street, I just want to make a living. Actually, if there is more than just me in the street, we are likely to attract more buyers. Example, it takes more than one shirt shop to make Saville Row.

Which capitalism do you prefer?

It is not about what I/ we prefer, but in a free society the survival of the fittest. Free market brings all sorts of problems (granted), but the choice of now, or do you prefer a more controlled society where Government laws dictate how one lives? The other problem in today's society is the European Union, where you would have to give a nod towards them before putting such laws into place.

The continental model you are talking about is starting to change. In some cases, slowly, but changing it will do.

Another point; is your model just a past model and like all old folks they fear change? I am not saying all change is good, but change is created by an influx of new blood and the young, along with innovated old.

Accept fact; we are the generation of the flower power, the seeds of which have cultivate the ground so a new dawn of people will raise their ugly heads and take over what we put into place. All we can do is moan on places like this while we watch the world go by.



　

　

[On the edge]

It is not about what I/ we prefer, but in a free society the survival of the fittest. Free market brings all sorts of problems (granted), but the choice of now, or do you prefer a more controlled society where Government laws dictate how one lives? The other problem in today's society is the European Union, where you would have to give a nod towards them before putting such laws into place.

The continental model you are talking about is starting to change. In some cases, slowly, but changing it will do.

Another point; is your model just a past model and like all old folks they fear change? I am not saying all change is good, but change is created by an influx of new blood and the young, along with innovated old.

Accept fact; we are the generation of the flower power, the seeds of which have cultivate the ground so a new dawn of people will raise their ugly heads and take over what we put into place. All we can do is moan on places like this while we watch the world go by.



　

　

The supreme irony of this 'survival of the fittest' that is the American horse race model of capitalism is that you end up with just one. For instance, just one Supermarket which is exactly the end result of socialism ! Arguably, socialism delivers your desired state sooner

Yeah, I'm old and I'll admit to decrepit as well, but lived long enough to appreciate the truths in saying like 'what goes round, comes round' or 'he who forgets history is condemned to re live it'.

I was never a 'flower person' though, Dad didn't earn enough to keep me to that lifestyle. Then, like many others, we just stood idly by and watched whilst the tubbier piggies got stuck in! As I saw on someone's t shirt recently. 1984 was supposed to be a warning not a handbook!

[GMR]

The supreme irony of this 'survival of the fittest' that is the American horse race model of capitalism is that you end up with just one. For instance, just one Supermarket which is exactly the end result of socialism ! Arguably, socialism delivers your desired state sooner

But they haven’t got just one supermarket.

Yeah, I'm old and I'll admit to decrepit as well, but lived long enough to appreciate the truths in saying like 'what goes round, comes round' or 'he who forgets history is condemned to re live it'.

But what ‘truths’? People interpret ‘truths’ in different ways. People learn from history in different ways. Who says your idea is right (or even wrong)? And haven’t we got to try different things out before we know what is right and what is wrong? Isn’t going through history learning different approaches, different ways so eventually we get to a point where we will stand still and put down our roots. They say that this planet has a few billions years left in it. So a lot more to learn and a very long path to travel. What you are suggesting is that we learn from the past and now make our mind up and settle down. Human nature, and what we learn from human nature is; no.

I was never a 'flower person' though, Dad didn't earn enough to keep me to that lifestyle. Then, like many others, we just stood idly by and watched whilst the tubbier piggies got stuck in! As I saw on someone's t shirt recently. 1984 was supposed to be a warning not a handbook!

1984 was a warning for what? As I said in the previous paragraph, nothing stands still. 1984 will come and go; man learns, moves on and creates something else. Remember the Luddites? Well, probably not personally, but you’ve read about them. They were against the Industrial revolution and fought against it. Nobody in today’s society is now condemning it.

[Andy Capp]

Nobody in today’s society is now condemning it.

I do!

[GMR]

I do!

As On the Edge said "what comes around, goes around" so there might still be a chance that we end up with a pre industrial revolution society. More so if somebody lets off a nuclear bomb. Then all our dreams will come true at once!