Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Newbury Today Forum _ Random Rants _ Bringing back Clause 4
Posted by: On the edge Aug 9 2015, 06:28 PM
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!
Posted by: motormad Aug 9 2015, 06:39 PM
What's clause 4?
Posted by: Exhausted Aug 9 2015, 07:53 PM
Something the labour party thought might be good for their image before they became new labour. All about common ownership.
Posted by: blackdog Aug 9 2015, 10:02 PM
It seems to me that the left wing of the Labour party are looking at the SNP with envy - they are both socialist and popular. Can Labour survive in Scotland without fighting to regain socialist vote that has migrated to the SNP?
Without Scotland can Labour hope to win a UK election?
The big question, of course, is whether a socialist party will ever again be electable in England.
Posted by: On the edge Aug 10 2015, 08:47 AM
Good point! Your final question is exactly that raised in 1959. It all looks good for the Conservatives today, but just like back then I suspect the foundations are faulty. The similarity is also there for the LibDems, or Tory Lite, who seem set fair to follow the self same course. The SNP is really a protest; and sure, it's taken on the socialist mantle. Nonetheless, as we've seen so many times in the past, once the realities of power hit home and they get to see what economic devolution really looks like that majority will melt away.
Labour's success or otherwise will depend on the mood and attitude of the people. Labour traditionally only seem to win elections when it's 'we' rather than 'me'. Labour haven't been elected since Mrs T re-set the mood, so they've been badge engineering at best.
However, there is this little sign that a real vision is emerging; who knows, we might just be a real choice next time.
Posted by: motormad Aug 10 2015, 10:15 AM
Yeah, cos that's a helpful answer.........
Such a political answer. This is why I don't vote.
Posted by: On the edge Aug 10 2015, 12:23 PM
Such a political answer. This is why I don't vote.
If you live in certain areas of say Thatcham, it's not worth voting anyway! It seems counting votes properly becomes too hard if there is more than one election going on at the same time.
Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 10 2015, 12:36 PM
Such a political answer. This is why I don't vote.
It is you right not to vote, but if you don't then that is one vote less likely that anything will change.
You know how to use the Internet, a search for 'Clause 4'. Broadly speaking it is in the Labour Party's constitution and it was the clause that gave birth to public ownership: nationalisation. It was revised in the mid 90s and no-longer supported the imperative to maintain public ownership.
Posted by: On the edge Aug 10 2015, 03:13 PM
That's not saying 'public ownership' us perfect. In some senses, Network Rail (or whatever they call themselves these days) is de facto in public ownership. As are some banks. Trouble is, we've adopted the dumb private sector 'celebrate failure' management model.
For example, fining Network Rail for its abysmal management failure will only hit the operational budgets. I guess the executive won't be repaying bonuses and will be very well rewarded next year too! Real 'public ownership' should have those responsible take an early bath sans any contribution in lieu.
Posted by: motormad Aug 10 2015, 03:54 PM
You know how to use the Internet, a search for 'Clause 4'. Broadly speaking it is in the Labour Party's constitution and it was the clause that gave birth to public ownership: nationalisation. It was revised in the mid 90s and no-longer supported the imperative to maintain public ownership.
Generally anything you search for relating to politics ends you in a long winded trial where everyone blames everything else instead of actually getting any information.
And thank you for explaining.
Posted by: CrackerJack Aug 10 2015, 06:57 PM
Isn't Clause 4 where all Labour Party members, Union Card holders and aspiring political activists at Uni start calling each other "Comrade" again and arrange meetings in smoke filled rooms where they plot how best to return Britain to the Dark Ages?
...ah yes... 70's militant Britain.... that time which very few people look back on fondly and think "The Good Old Days".. wouldn't it be nice to go there again.....
Times have changed and some things will be easier to resurrect than others. They'd have to dig out the old printing plates for the Che Guevara poster for instance, but that's easily done. Working out where to go for a thoroughly miserable holiday in a proper socialist enclave with rationed grey food in grey concrete hotels is more difficult since The Wall came down though.
If you hang around long enough Britain might have a few of those under a Labour Government
Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 10 2015, 07:37 PM
I'm sure you could find a number of people that would say that is their life under a Tory Britain too.
Posted by: CrackerJack Aug 10 2015, 08:12 PM
Of course in an acknowledgement of the more health conscious 2015 Britain those smoke filled rooms would instead be 'vape' filled rooms....
Yes but they are a heavily subsidised socialist experiment which is maintained in a marriage of inconvenience by their 'significant other' south of the border.... If Salmond and his YES campaign had come out on top I dare say that his vision of a Socialist Scotland would become rapidly less popular once the financial fluff came into sharper focus, especially following the downturn in oil prices on which much of their socialist dream was founded and funded. Whilst the nasty Tory Toffs in England are still in charge it's going to be easy for Sturgeon to keep Scottish Saltires flying from every flagpole.
Labour won't stand a chance up there again until devolution happens (which is inevitable at some stage) and once SNP have had a chance to **** it up on their own with nobody else to blame.
Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 10 2015, 08:17 PM
Hitherto, I have been lead to believe that Scotland is a net contributer.
Posted by: CrackerJack Aug 10 2015, 08:28 PM
...pfft... According to the Department of Fisheries (Salmond & Sturgeon Division) School of Economics. Cast them adrift and see how much life north of the border will have to change.
Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 10 2015, 08:41 PM
The point is, Scotland (assuming oil revenue) has been a net contributer.
Posted by: je suis Charlie Aug 10 2015, 09:27 PM
Has been, has been. Most of the wealth has come from the oilfields and with Brent Crude at around $50.00 a barrel you can say goodbye to that.
Posted by: GMR Aug 11 2015, 04:36 PM
A political party should be looking towards the future, not backwards and Clause 4 represents a time that has long gone. If Corbyn achieves anything then it will be on the same lines as Foot in the 80s (“the longest suicide note in history”). He also will make sure that the Tories are in power for generations.
Clause four is an anachronism; Blair was right to remove it from Labour’s constitution and build for the future.
If Corbyn becomes Labour leader then what next? Diana Abbott as shadow Chancellor and Dennis Skinner as Shadow Foreign Minister? It will also be interesting – if he does win – how many of the current labour shadow cabinet become part of his shadow cabinet. If they do it will destroy any credibility for future challengers to the leadership.
We also mustn’t forget that when we have the next election the Tory’s will have a new leader, while Labour could have Corbyn.
Posted by: CrackerJack Aug 11 2015, 05:49 PM
Somewhere deep in the new Labour Party Headquarters there is someone with their finger hovering over the 'Self Destruct' button. Idealist views are fine and dandy whilst sitting on the sideline or whilst holding a placard on some march somewhere, but as a party leader and potentially chief opposition spokesman it's death knell stuff.
His cunning plan to forcibly nationalise the energy companies should be interesting. Especially the one 85% owned by the French state. It would be funny if it wasn't so serious (or is it serious as they will never get elected with him at the helm and Abbott and other loony lefties chanting their support)
Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 11 2015, 06:26 PM
I remember when New Labour last got into power, people had written off the Tories much the same way. All New Old Labour have to do is have a few babysitters to look after things until the public get fed-up with the current Raving Monster Tory Party, then they will be in the running again.
Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 11 2015, 06:35 PM
New Labour abandoned nationalisation; not Clause 4.
Posted by: On the edge Aug 11 2015, 07:46 PM
[size=3]
...but it worked for Mrs Thatcher who in 1979 delivered the 1945 Conservative manifesto!
Posted by: On the edge Aug 11 2015, 07:55 PM
His cunning plan to forcibly nationalise the energy companies should be interesting. Especially the one 85% owned by the French state. It would be funny if it wasn't so serious (or is it serious as they will never get elected with him at the helm and Abbott and other loony lefties chanting their support)
Public ownership isn't nationalisation or centralisation it's simply another way of delivering service particularly where there is no realistic chance of creating a market. No, it isn't idealism either. Several other nation states successfully use various forms of public ownership models, most of the Continental railways are in public ownership, as is energy distribution. Similarly, in that bastion of capitalism, the United States. Even more ironic, the public ownership model in this Country was given life by the Conservatives, with BBC, LPTB, CEB. C & W etc. all arguably quite successful!
Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 11 2015, 08:04 PM
Resurrected again in 2015.
Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 11 2015, 08:12 PM
Sniffs of public ownership to me (albeit another country). And how much has the 'public' had to shell-out to the banks to prop that industry up?
Posted by: GMR Aug 12 2015, 03:37 PM
Yes, but not when Corbyn is in charge and they move to centre ground.
Posted by: GMR Aug 12 2015, 03:39 PM
I should have said they revised clause 4.
Posted by: GMR Aug 12 2015, 03:41 PM
It wasn't exactly the same and the voters would rather move to the right than the left.
Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 12 2015, 05:09 PM
Oops, post error!
Posted by: x2lls Aug 12 2015, 08:21 PM
Well, with a bit of luck they WILL have him as leader. And if as you say they will get nowhere, that will suit me just fine. We haven't yet got the economy in the right state to enable them to throw it all away again!
Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 12 2015, 11:24 PM
It is not healthy for a government not feel threatened.
Posted by: Strafin Aug 13 2015, 09:58 AM
I like the idea. I think the government and opposition should be different not both trying to be popularist. The Labour Party should be the Labour Party, regardless of whether they think they can get elected or not. Work on the policy, and then promote it. They' e got 5 years after all!
Posted by: On the edge Aug 14 2015, 07:22 AM
I think that's quite right. In fact, the biggest issue with politics today is that all parties are saying and selling the same thing. There is no choice; so in effect, the winner is the party which had the most physically attractive leader. It's been quite interesting to hear the really quite vapid comments coming from the main stream Labour leadership contenders - no argument, just negative put downs. Exactly the way all three main parties spin along right now. The market forces model they all slavishly follow today is just as much ideology as Clause 4! A real opposition can only be a good thing; proposals properly tested for once.
Posted by: GMR Aug 14 2015, 04:01 PM
Exactly, and by allowing Corbyn to become leader they won't be threatened for sometime. This will make them arrogant and that will damage the country.
Posted by: GMR Aug 14 2015, 04:08 PM
Yes, but what is the Labour Party in the 21st century? A throwback to the past or a modern working party that deals with today's issues? Blair was right to change the Labour party. He become toxic and hollow. That shouldn't mean that Labour throws the baby out with the bathwater (which they are now doing). The working man has all but gone, now most regard themselves as middleclass. Corbyn and Milliband were/ are just interested in attacking the rich. Nobody gets very far by attacking the rich, what they should have done is concentrate on those that needed help and try to make their lot a bit better. Just offering help to one group, while attacking another only destroyed them and put them out of power for another five years.
Posted by: GMR Aug 14 2015, 04:13 PM
That is the trouble with the Labour party at the present; they've got nobody outstanding. Corbyn won't achieve anything worthwhile for the Labour party, in fact he will send it backwards. The same could be said about the other 3 challengers. Nothing is 100%, but I am pretty certain that the Tories will win in 2020. And don't forgot by then they will have a new leader, while Labour with just have one of their dull faces in charge.
Posted by: On the edge Aug 14 2015, 07:15 PM
Don't write them off completely, they haven't abandoned all their 'Neu Labour' principles. We'll be seeing the next generation soon; the likes of Stephen Kinnock, the Benn sires, Daivd Prescott and even the Blairletts. We are still an aristocracy, and even the people's party know that.
Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 14 2015, 07:38 PM
I think the future is coalition, or at very least ministerial secondment. Running a country is homogenising I feel.
Remember the old adage: elections are not won; they are lost. It just needs the Tory sleaze to come back, or the economy to slip. Good governance also relies on a lot of luck. Labour were unlucky with regards the banking crash (and the Tories lucky it didn't land on their watch). I think Alistair Darling was heading in the right direction before the Monster Raving Tories were handed a go.
Talking of Monster Raving Tories; Petra and the Blue Rinsers have been quiet for a while? Good drying weather?
Posted by: Cognosco Aug 14 2015, 08:34 PM
Remember the old adage: elections are not won; they are lost. It just needs the Tory sleaze to come back, or the economy to slip. Good governance also relies on a lot of luck. Labour were unlucky with regards the banking crash (and the Tories lucky it didn't land on their watch). I think Alistair Darling was heading in the right direction before the Monster Raving Tories were handed a go.
Talking of Monster Raving Tories; Petra and the Blue Rinsers have been quiet for a while? Good drying weather?
They are having some recuperation time...........not too much flack heading our two local authorities way at the moment..............they are awaiting the next major gaff, not too long to wait I suspect though? 😉
Posted by: On the edge Aug 15 2015, 08:16 AM
I suppose that as we already have a coalition of political aims and aspirations a permanent de facto coalition is the next step. Arguably, with our present managerial mode of government, this is probably seen as the best way. All the mainstream parties and politicians are so far from the electorate anyway voting in an election is as productive and useful as voting as a little shareholder in a public company. No point in trying to fight it.
Posted by: GMR Aug 16 2015, 03:50 PM
It might not be about "abandoning" their principles (or at least some of them) but image. Corbyn's image is old labour and that won't appeal to middle England. On top of that their fist priority will be to win back Scotland, and that won't be an easy task. Then we can add boundary changes to that equation, which will make it almost impossible for them to win the next election in 2020, oh, and did I mention that while Labour will have an old face running their show the Tories will be electing a new face for the next election.
Posted by: GMR Aug 16 2015, 03:51 PM
And don't forget Labour's sleaze.
Posted by: On the edge Aug 16 2015, 06:11 PM
Does that have a different fragrance to the LibDem or Tory sleaze? I've always thought the expression 'we are all in it together' referred to this.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 16 2015, 06:20 PM
I couldn't agree more. I hope Corbyn gets elected. I don't share Corbyn's politics, but at least he has some, and the right-wards lurch in British politics desperately needs balancing. Labour should represent Labour values, and if no one wants to vote for that then fine. I would like to see a much greater separation between the Tories and Labour to make some space in the centre ground for Liberal politics and a credible centrist party to emerge.
Posted by: On the edge Aug 16 2015, 06:21 PM
Five years is a long long time. Following what usually happens, the SNP is simply a flash in the pan. Indeed, the cracks are beginning to show even as we speak. Some of the loudest SNP stalwarts were disillusioned Labour supporters; disillusioned with Nu Labor that is. We also have an underlying level,of discontent, right now manifest in the northern conurbations, but also growing in the formerly industrial Midlands. Yes, the Tories have noticed, hence the Northern Powerhouse guff. However, five years out?
Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 16 2015, 08:28 PM
I don't forget it but the electorate are stupid; it is one one of the problems with a democracy.
Posted by: blackdog Aug 16 2015, 08:53 PM
I too have a hankering for a genuine Labour party, but don't really share Simon's optimism that a powerful centrist party will evolve. Corbyn economics will keep Labour out of power until at least 2025, by which time Corbyn will be long gone (I do wonder he will last until 2020).
Posted by: GMR Aug 17 2015, 03:42 PM
But what is Labour's values? Shouldn't a political party evolve and move when society changes? Values change, to stay as one was created is just asking for disintegration and oblivion. Even the term working man has evolved. Most now regard themselves as middleclass.
There is nothing wrong with both parties at the centre ground, it is not just about policies, but application of those policies. The only time parties have won is when they've operated in the centre ground. Labour had to move to Thatcher's territory to be accepted by the public on whole. When Labour has moved left it virtually destroyed itself. Electing Corbyn will only make sure that the Tories are in power for the next 10 years or more.
Posted by: GMR Aug 17 2015, 03:44 PM
The SNP might be a flash in the pan, but that flash will last for a lot more years to come. And even if the do loose some seats in 2020, they won't get wiped out.
Posted by: GMR Aug 17 2015, 03:45 PM
True.
Posted by: GMR Aug 17 2015, 03:48 PM
As I asked Simon, what do you call a genuine Labour party? A party that represented bygone days? Days that have long gone? If Labour wants to regain power and be genuine, then it must be genuine to the present, not the past.
Posted by: blackdog Aug 17 2015, 05:02 PM
A party that represents the working man, supporting him against exploitation by employers. The sort of exploitation that is rife these days - zero hours contracts, the predominance of part time jobs at minimal wages, suppression of union rights, etc.
They lost their way in the determination to win power at all costs - turning into a 1960s Tory party may have served Blair well, but I'm not that sure it helped the working man or woman at all well.
Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 17 2015, 05:17 PM
They lost their way in the determination to win power at all costs - turning into a 1960s Tory party may have served Blair well, but I'm not that sure it helped the working man or woman at all well.
We have to face one fundamental principle: we either have more low pay jobs or fewer jobs with better pay and conditions. The global economy will not permit more jobs with better pay. Automation follows expensive labour.
Posted by: blackdog Aug 17 2015, 05:39 PM
Not in the boardroom.
Posted by: On the edge Aug 17 2015, 05:42 PM
No, but we haven't got so many of those these days; far sighted government has made sure our firms are owned overseas. Good job too eh?
Posted by: GMR Aug 17 2015, 06:13 PM
Who is the working man nowadays? Most are now classified as middleclass. One of the problems with Ed was that he kept banging on about the working classes (which he wasn't) and they said, who are the working classes? If you are talking about low paid employees, that will never change unless one gets a better education. We've had lower paid workers right through the 40s, 50s, 60s and to the present, under all types of governments and colours.
You talk about exploitation, but most of the union leaders are on over £120,000 per year. Those that went on rail strike were on £50,000 per year, hardly poor or working class. As for zero hours contract; that has been around for years, under all types of governments. It suits some, but not others. The problem isn't abolishing it, but making sure that the unemployed are not forced into taking such jobs. In a free country employers can ask what they want. And finally; without power then parties can't represent anybody and when out of power then they surly have lost their way.
Posted by: GMR Aug 17 2015, 06:17 PM
If we want the best, and the best companies in the world to park their bus on our drive then we can't dictate what they earn or what they pay. In the 70s the Labour government targeted the rich, the rich left and we were regarded as the poor man of Europe. It wasn't until Thatcher came to power that we started becoming one of the richest and powerful countries in the world. You are talking as if you want to go back to the days when the Labour government had to go cap in hand to the IMF. Look at every down fall in our history since the second world war and you will find it was caused by a left leaning Labour government.
Posted by: On the edge Aug 17 2015, 07:38 PM
Personally, I don't give a **** if we aren't 'rich and powerful' as a nation, why should I be? I'd be quite content if we were on a par with say Sweden, Denmark, or dare I saw, even France. There is no advantage for Joe Average being as we are, in fact he just gets kicked around rather more.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 17 2015, 07:53 PM
Sure, if it's power you're after then you have to follow the votes, but if it's principles that are important you have to stick to 'em even if no one at all votes for you. Politics isn't football, you don't fill your team with foreign players just because they'll score more goals.
And I'd have no real problem with the Labour party disappearing if its members were deserting it because, like me, they no longer believed that Socialism was an effective means of achieving their social aims. What grieves me is that people have deserted Labour (and for that matter the Liberal party) because they no longer give a chuff for a social conscious and they've gone over to the self-serving and fear-mongering right. That's both miserable and dangerous.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 17 2015, 08:00 PM
Yup, that's me too.
Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 17 2015, 08:57 PM
It is true that we need to attract companies by being 'tax friendly', but that is based on our hierarchical society I suspect. I understand that the 'happiest' countries are those that are the most egalitarian.
Posted by: user23 Aug 17 2015, 09:02 PM
Posted by: GMR Aug 17 2015, 10:15 PM
You should read what I said; I was talking about the 70s when we were the poor man of Europe to Thatcherism.
I am writing on my iPad so will answer the rest tomorrow when I am on a proper computer.
Posted by: blackdog Aug 17 2015, 11:44 PM
I didn't mention class - working men are men (and women) who work for a wage. Most of the working population.
Posted by: GMR Aug 18 2015, 07:54 AM
Principles without power is nothing. If you want to do something, make a better life for others then you can only achieve that through government/ or a position of power.
Actually you do; using a football analogy you do exactly that. If only foreign players can score more goals then get more foreign players. Nobody remembers losers. It is about winning and winning the championship.
As Tony Benn said "Labour was never a socialist party, but a party that had socialist in them." Social conscious comes in many disguises. You can be socially conscious by being a member of the Tory party. Whatever side of the persuasion one is on, they always say the other has no social conscious and that their point of view is the only one that exists.
Posted by: GMR Aug 18 2015, 07:58 AM
If that is the case then we are all working men, even though some men work in big business who earn millions (it is still a wage). I am sure the Labour party and unions would love to treat them as equal to the poorest in society. Yes, you didn't mention class, but that is exactly what you meant.
Posted by: GMR Aug 18 2015, 08:05 AM
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?
Posted by: On the edge Aug 18 2015, 08:44 AM
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.
Posted by: GMR Aug 18 2015, 09:43 AM
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.
Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 18 2015, 11:22 AM
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.
Posted by: GMR Aug 18 2015, 11:45 AM
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.
Posted by: On the edge Aug 18 2015, 12:45 PM
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?
Posted by: Turin Machine Aug 18 2015, 01:51 PM
Tony Blair believes in Tony Blair, and that's about all there is to him.
Posted by: GMR Aug 18 2015, 01:53 PM
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.
Posted by: GMR Aug 18 2015, 01:54 PM
True; and it has made him a lot of money. When he went into politics he wasn't that wealthy, then he became rich and now is a millionaire, along with his darling with Cherie Blair/ Booth.
Posted by: On the edge Aug 18 2015, 03:15 PM
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!
Posted by: GMR Aug 18 2015, 03:34 PM
But they haven’t got just one supermarket.
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.
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.
Posted by: Turin Machine Aug 18 2015, 03:39 PM
Now my eyes hurt! Mr Shoutey.
Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 18 2015, 04:01 PM
I do!
Posted by: GMR Aug 18 2015, 04:08 PM
I didn't plan the font size; this has happened to be on occasions. I have no control over it.
Posted by: GMR Aug 18 2015, 04:10 PM
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!
Posted by: blackdog Aug 18 2015, 06:04 PM
I didn't mention class because it wasn't what I meant. And yes we are all working men - why shouldn't the highly paid be treated as decently as the poorly paid - and vice versa.
What I want to see is fair and decent treatment of people, something Labour used to stand for.
Posted by: Petra Aug 19 2015, 08:54 AM
Dear all,
I’ve read this thread with great interest and I agree with some of what has been said here. The trouble with the Labour party is that it is a mishmash of Thatcherites (like Blair, Kendall etc), champagne socialists, the wealthy, the poor, loony left, poorly educated etc. While the Tories are a more balanced party. That is why they’ve been in power most of the time.
To go for power, or government, you have to be ruthless and bulldoze everything and everyone in front of you down. The Labour can’t work out what it is or where it is going. Should they move to the left, right or centre. After having 13 years of a Thatcherite Blair government, then losing, they thought that, instead of learning the lessons of their success, they would tear themselves apart by electing from the daft left. Forgetting why they were elected for 13 years. The same happened in the 70s. After being defeated by Thatcher one would have thought they would have learnt the lessons of their defeat, but no. They decided to move even further to the left, making themselves unelectable. The resulting outcome was 18 years of Tory rule. It wasn’t until a Tory in sheep’s clothing was elected, and therefore modifying the Labour party to a right thinking machine (well, almost) that they started making themselves acceptable to a wider voting public. The first thing Labour needs to ask themselves is what do they want to achieve. Government or oblivion. At the moment it seems is oblivion.
The Conservatives have stated that they fear Liz Kendall the most, so what do they do, they put Corbyn in their sights in the hope that they get a dreaming idiot, instead of substance. No wonder they are called the barmy left.
Personally I don’t care who they elected as I don’t think any of them has the charisma, intelligence or the wherewithal to unseat the Tory party. And even if they had elected someone that was half decent they would still come up with problems such as Scotland and boundary changes.
In the mean time what do we do as ordinary citizens? We sit back, pick up the popcorn and enjoy the entertainment that is before us, while the Tory party wins election are election. It never ceases to amaze me of the stupidity of some. Do they do it on purpose or is it more their recruitment policy, straight out of the Twilight zone.
What do you good people of Forum life at the Newbury Today think? Your ramblings are a constant amusement to all those that read these pages, so I, along with the viewers, would be interested in your thoughts of Labour’s ability, not only to tear themselves apart - constantly through time - but their other great aptitude in entertaining everybody in what fools can do when they get to the controls of a dangerous and lethal machine (lethal if they get into power that is).
Yours, as always,
Petra
Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 19 2015, 11:56 AM
Labour are unelectable. The Tories are OK so-long as people can keep their homes: elections are lost; not won. However, I wouldn't gloat: the Tories had their catharsis some time ago and it will come again.
Posted by: On the edge Aug 19 2015, 12:24 PM
I’ve read this thread with great interest and I agree with some of what has been said here. The trouble with the Labour party is that it is a mishmash of Thatcherites (like Blair, Kendall etc), champagne socialists, the wealthy, the poor, loony left, poorly educated etc. While the Tories are a more balanced party. That is why they’ve been in power most of the time.
To go for power, or government, you have to be ruthless and bulldoze everything and everyone in front of you down. The Labour can’t work out what it is or where it is going. Should they move to the left, right or centre. After having 13 years of a Thatcherite Blair government, then losing, they thought that, instead of learning the lessons of their success, they would tear themselves apart by electing from the daft left. Forgetting why they were elected for 13 years. The same happened in the 70s. After being defeated by Thatcher one would have thought they would have learnt the lessons of their defeat, but no. They decided to move even further to the left, making themselves unelectable. The resulting outcome was 18 years of Tory rule. It wasn’t until a Tory in sheep’s clothing was elected, and therefore modifying the Labour party to a right thinking machine (well, almost) that they started making themselves acceptable to a wider voting public. The first thing Labour needs to ask themselves is what do they want to achieve. Government or oblivion. At the moment it seems is oblivion.
The Conservatives have stated that they fear Liz Kendall the most, so what do they do, they put Corbyn in their sights in the hope that they get a dreaming idiot, instead of substance. No wonder they are called the barmy left.
Personally I don’t care who they elected as I don’t think any of them has the charisma, intelligence or the wherewithal to unseat the Tory party. And even if they had elected someone that was half decent they would still come up with problems such as Scotland and boundary changes.
In the mean time what do we do as ordinary citizens? We sit back, pick up the popcorn and enjoy the entertainment that is before us, while the Tory party wins election are election. It never ceases to amaze me of the stupidity of some. Do they do it on purpose or is it more their recruitment policy, straight out of the Twilight zone.
What do you good people of Forum life at the Newbury Today think? Your ramblings are a constant amusement to all those that read these pages, so I, along with the viewers, would be interested in your thoughts of Labour’s ability, not only to tear themselves apart - constantly through time - but their other great aptitude in entertaining everybody in what fools can do when they get to the controls of a dangerous and lethal machine (lethal if they get into power that is).
Yours, as always,
Petra
That's a reasonable synopsis! If the Tories do really fear Liz Kendall, it's simply because she aspires to wear their clothes. Labour have always been rumbustious; a bitter left / right fight. As their recent history demonstrated, you can't even trust your own brother. It's simply the age old fight between the control freaks and the intellectuals. What should us everyday Joes do? We'll doubtless do what we always do...nothing! Politicians have actually learned that keeping the great unwashed content is simply a matter of bread and circuses. All they want is a few quid to spend and some telly which doesn't even have to be decent, just loads of channels. As for the politicos themselves, well, they even let John Prescott become deputy PM and like his LibDem counterpart Nick Clegg, wasn't let do any lasting damage; so no need to worry. I don't think your observations apply only to Labour, after all the Tories also have their fair share, but ad you suggest, are perhaps better at managing them
Posted by: GMR Aug 19 2015, 03:20 PM
I agree with a lot you say here. Rather that trying to find the right path back to government they are more intent to tear themselves apart. Politics is a brutal game and the Tory party have mastered it. What Labour have mastered is how to self-destruct. It happened after they lost the election in 1951, again in 1979 and then after 13 years of government they do the same again. They seem unwilling or incapable of learning from the past.
Electing Corbyn will give the Tory party strength, which won't be good for the country.
What the Labour party needs to work out is what are they; a party of the past or the present? Are they just for the working class (a dwindling group) or do they represent everybody, rich and poor?
Posted by: GMR Aug 19 2015, 03:25 PM
Whomever Labour elect out of the four Musketeers it won't make any difference, they will probably be out of government for the next 15 or 20 years. UKIP could be the surprise package. With the plebiscite over Europe coming up, and the stay ins winning, which could benefit UKIP, they could end up being the official challengers to the Tory party.
Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 19 2015, 03:52 PM
Labour are not yet 'tearing themselves apart'; that is an exaggeration. they are simply finding their feet. The Tories did exactly this 18 years ago when they last lost the election. Many commentators back then believed that the Tories had lost their raison d'etre too. After several stupid choices of leader, they eventually regrouped and at the same time the Labour party wobbled with their (Tory supported) war in Iraq and the banking crisis which so easily could have fallen on the Tories watch. People need to realise that the budget deficit at the time of Labour coming into power in '97 was similar to the level when the banking crisis struck.
Posted by: blackdog Aug 19 2015, 04:06 PM
I found David Blunkett's recent comments interesting - in essence he said that Corbyn would provide a good opposition, but never a government.
I know he was really saying don't vote for Corbyn - but it struck me that a good opposition might be far more valuable to the country than a Labour party so desperate for power that it pursues Tory policies - to the extent that it either doesn't make that much difference who is in power or pushes the Tories ever further to the right in order to distinguish themselves from Labour (the current situation).
At least there would be some idea of alternative policies and the Tories might be forced to move towards the centre to avoid being seen as the vicious right wing party and prevent the Lib-Dems capturing the centre ground.
Posted by: GMR Aug 19 2015, 04:57 PM
I heard that on the Today programme. It seems the big guns are coming out to stop Corbyn.
Posted by: GMR Aug 19 2015, 05:01 PM
I think they are in the process of tearing themselves apart. Even if Corbyn doesn't get elected they will either go for Cooper or Burnham. Burnham has said that he will have Corbyn in his shadow cabinet; two conflicting views. It won't work and the public won't accept it. If Cooper wins she will have to first address Scotland and then the boundary changes. Also; of Corbyn doesn't win, then it will leave many dissatisfied members who will do everything to unsettle Cooper. And then there is the unions. A melting pot ready to explode.
Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 19 2015, 05:34 PM
I don't see it like that; this is all just a part of the process. The same thing happened and will happen to the Tories. Don't forget Cameron has vowed to stand down after this term. He will increasingly become a lame-duck president.
Posted by: GMR Aug 19 2015, 06:32 PM
You might not see it that way, but I do. And even if Cameron becomes a lame-duck president he will be against lame-duck opposition. Lame-duck in the sense that they have no chance of forming any sort of government whomever they elect; because of Scotland and boundary changes. None of the contestants have personality/ charisma or even anything new to stay. Milliband lost because of a reason, but listening to the other contestants they haven't learnt from that defeat. Funnily enough - and I don't like her - but going by what Harriet Harman has said she seems to be the only one to have learnt a lesson from their defeat.
Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 19 2015, 06:54 PM
That might be true today, but a week is a long-time in politics. Whose to say that this will still be the case in 5, 10 or 15 years time. The best thing Labour can do is to simply sail the ship. They don't want their best candidate in-charge yet; it'd be a waste. Give the Tories time and they will blow-up like all parties do. Labour were a mess in 84, then 10 years later they had smartened up their act. The Tories were a mess 15 years ago, and if it were not for a bit of bad luck and bad judgement on Labour's behalf, may not have got in 5 years ago.
Posted by: GMR Aug 19 2015, 07:06 PM
It is true that they may sort themselves out in 5 or 10 years time. But I think it is going to take longer to sort out the Scottish issue. Then they have to overcome the boundary changes. I also agree with you about not wanting their best candidate in-charge; that is why I believe Chuka Umunna pulled out. With the Scottish problem he knew that Labour couldn't win in2020. He is waiting his time to show his hand. I also agree with you that oppositions don't win elections, but governments lose them, and they will have to do something really stupid to let this lot in.
I also agree with you that the Tories were in a sort of mess 15 years ago (moving too far right), but that mess was nothing like what Labour had achieved and what they are going through now.
Posted by: blackdog Aug 19 2015, 11:03 PM
Corbyn is the only candidate with a hope of winning back Scotland, where the left wing Labour voted deserted en-masse to the SNP in disgust at Blair and his successors.
Without Scotland can Labour hope to win? By out-Blairing Blair perhaps - but for all his faults Blair was a brilliant salesman - they don't have anyone with half the charisma or ability to convince the electorate to vote for them.
So why not go with Corbyn?
Which brings me to the big question, if Corbyn wins - who will be 2015's Gang of Four?
Posted by: GMR Aug 20 2015, 04:00 PM
I agree with you that Corbyn is probably the best chance of winning back Scotland, however, this will create another problem. His politics is not middle England politics and they would move further away from the Labour party/ him.
I thought Blair was shallow and he had no substance to his policies, but I do agree with you about him being a brilliant salesman. And that is what the current crop of Labour challengers lack. No charisma and no substance to them. Unless the Tory's do something stupid they will win the election in 2020. Afterwards will depend on the Labour party, who they elect, and what direction they move to.
Posted by: On the edge Aug 20 2015, 05:31 PM
Corbin is the only candidate that would offer a chance of change and so choice. The others would simply perpetuate today's yah boo politics. Is Scotland such a worry to Labour? Once real life hits, I suspect the SNP's shelf life gets dramatically shortened. Similarly we haven't seen the real cuts this side of the wall yet. In my view, the real interest isn't Labour, but what happens to the fringe. It would seem that UKIP is a busted flush, but what happens to the LibDems; do they remain an irritating irrelevance or could they really follow their claimed values?
Posted by: GMR Aug 20 2015, 06:36 PM
When you say "real change," do you mean in the sense that where they used to challenge convincingly to be a government, Corbyn's possible election would mean that they would never make even a realistic attempt at challenging the Tories; "real change" that would be.
I doubt that UKIP would be busted flush as they still would be the only party that oppose the EU. Remember, along with the Tories they (Labour) are pro EU. Along with the Greens and Lib-Dems. So long as that doesn't change there will always be a need for a party that represents those that oppose the EU and further integration.
Posted by: blackdog Aug 20 2015, 07:10 PM
A Corbyn-led Labour party could well be anti-EU - the left wingers were never that enamoured of it.
In any case the EU referendum should settle the question for a decade or so - much longer if we vote for an exit!
Posted by: Blake Aug 20 2015, 07:14 PM
I think the problem is this: Private ownership was touted as the panacea for our economic ills in the 1980s and 1990s and this was beneficial in many ways. However, there are both good privatisations and bad ones, just as there are good examples of state ownership and bad ones.
Is there therefore perhaps a third way we can take?
Posted by: On the edge Aug 20 2015, 09:24 PM
Rather more than we imagined got damaged or lost in WW2 and that included a better model for public ownership. An independent public board able to raise funds commercially but where all the shares were owned by the Government. With no centralisation of central control.
Posted by: Spider Aug 23 2015, 10:53 AM
I don't think there is any thing wrong with the modern clause 4. All such constitutions should reflect today's society, not past society's.
Posted by: blackdog Aug 23 2015, 04:23 PM
Surely they should be aspirational and seek to represent a future society?
There is a lot that is very wrong with today's society - not everything is better than it was.
Posted by: On the edge Aug 23 2015, 09:03 PM
There is a lot that is very wrong with today's society - not everything is better than it was.
Indeed. In fact it's quite a refreshing change to hear of a politician enunciate a vision, let alone values. I must admit, I thought Ms Cooper performs particularly badly on that score; she doesn't seem to know what she stands for. For Master Burnham it's a bit easier, just apply Golden Syrup to anything Corbyn spurts out and eat that.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)