Rudeboy, yak yak thacha thacha. vote left vote murder, you’d defend Stalin.

What has Stalin got to do with owt?

Did he play left-back for Leyton Orient?

Chill. Stoner gave first, I gave it back.

The difference being that Stoner has something useful to add to this thread.

If actually giving a toss about all other people is being ‘Lefty’, then better Red, than wetting the bed.

The trouble is, “lefty” in the context I was using means you don’t even rise to the level of not giving a toss about anybody else – far more important to you is dragging down other more successful people, even if that means you’re worse off.

You really jolly well have not a clue, have you?

far more important to you is dragging down other more successful people, even if that means you’re worse off.

No it does not in any way. You just made that up, to suit your own ends. You behave yourself an’ all.

I’m off to watch Allan Whicker.

Night.

You did forget tho that the oil money was wasted thru the 80s paying for people not to work.

LOL ! Yes TJ – I’m sure I’ve left out plenty of stuff ! 😉 …..I have to confess that I was trying to concentrate on just a couple of things which I could remember that the tory plonker had mentioned in his world class youtube chart topping speech.

But yeah, Michael Foot, the former leader of the Labour Party (who was accused of writing ‘the longest suicide note in history’ for daring to suggest in a Labour Party manifesto that the banks should be nationalised – something which conservative governments across the globe are now doing with impressive zeal) did describe it as “pouring North Sea oil down the gutters of unemployment”

.

I will bring you up on one point now:

If you dont have communism, or indeed advanced socialism …….. how is the country supposed to fund its welfare requirements

LOL ! just a ‘little’ question then ? ! I confess to not watching the video that intently, did Hannan bring it up ?

Anyway, the first and most important priority imo, is for social democracy to be re-established on the political agenda. Something for which unfortunately I do not see any evidence to suggest is likely to happen in Britain in the foreseeable future. ‘Social democracy’ has two defining qualities for me – a mixed economy, and a universal welfare state. BTW, I am not a ‘social democrat’ any more than I’m a ‘socialist’ – these are just imperfect solutions, to existing problems. In the same way as I would be a ‘capitalist’ if I lived in a feudal society.

The emphasis is on welfare being “universal”, as was the concept when the welfare state was founded in the post-war years. Universal welfare has many benefits over welfare for the poor, amongst them a tendency to maintain much higher standards. It also reduces the importance of how money is sourced ie, money spent ‘here’, is money saved ‘there’ – it’s money which needs to be spent anyway.

Take the example of health care provisions. If a society needs to spend ‘X’ amount of money on providing the necessary health care for it citizens, that ‘X’ figure will be the same whether the provider is the state or whether it’s private companies – is that not so ?

Well actually in the case of health care, it’s not so at all. The figure ‘X’ is highly variable and dependent on whether the health care provider is the state or private firms. It is a fact that state provided health care throughout the world, is incomparably better value for money than privately provided health care. The private health care system in the US gives extraordinarily poor value for money. If the US provided health care through the state, it would be able to treat more people for less money.

What I’m trying to say is that, money for welfare shouldn’t be seen as ‘extra’ money which needs to be found. It’s simply money would need to be spent anyway – the only issue is how it’s directed.

Sadly New Labour has moved away from a ‘universal’ welfare state. More and more welfare is seen as a safety net for the poor, much in the same way as it’s seen in the US. This helps to cloud the issues by suggesting that it’s one section of society that is paying for another section of society. Then the question is asked, “how is all this going to be paid for, if we’re not allowed to get rich”. If everyone thought they were paying for provisions which they themselves were using, that question would never be asked. And of course everyone would be better off if they didn’t have to pay for the state health service and private health care. Obviously company provided health care could be replaced with higher wages.

Anyway, getting back to Hannan and the “increasing the size of the public sector in ratio to the private sector”. Yes, state intervention requires more ….. erm ……. state intervention !

And of course as we all know, public spending generally, and welfare state spending in particular, expanded under the conservative governments of the 1980s and 90s. As indeed did the tax burden. Some more simple and straight forward facts, which Hannan chose to ‘forget’.

.

I do love

(who has apparently found the Tory Party clitoris)

That, I have to confess, is not original. Michael Heseltine that darling of the Tory Party, and a conservative for whom I have a tad more respect** than the Hannan plonker, was said to have the ability to find the Tory Party clitoris, such was his seductive powers to induce orgasmic delight from delegates at Tory Party conferences. I thought that accolade could perhaps be temporarily transferred to Hannan following his speech last week, which undoubtedly induced much pant wetting, mouth frothing, and squealing of delight, from tory-boys up and down the country.

**Michael Heseltine, who promised to intervene on behalf of business “before breakfast, lunch and dinner” was very much an old school tory, who’s natural social democratic tendencies, were stifled and repressed by a certain tory (who’s name I am not allowed to use on here) leader imo.

Wow. Seeing the length of that GG post, I was expecting to find a lot to disagree with, but quite the contrary (I suppose it helps that I don’t have private health care, shan’t be sending my kids to private schools etc. – partly because I’m too poor, partly because my political views aren’t that right of centre, except maybe on here where it sometimes feels like a SWP meeting!) Unlike his previous, but I just can’t be bothered to go over the same old ground of arguing over how far we should go back in blaming who, for the mess the next lot solved by doing something else which eventually resulted by domino effect in where we are now.

Would just quibble with a couple of points: you glibly make the case for more public spending, and suggest that’s fine, as the last Conservative gov. also increased public spending (a point you seem all to happy to ignore when it suits!) However given the current gov. has continued to increase the relative size of the public sector, there does come a time when this has to stop – otherwise as Tory Boy says, there will be nobody to pay for all the public sector workers.

The other issue being that as you say, the Conservatives pumped money into welfare, and NuLab have simply ratcheted that up – and for what? It seems money disappears down a black hole with no apparent improvement. Would harnessing all the private health money really result in a wonderful all-singing NHS? (genuinely interested in comments – would be really nice if it would – I am sceptical rather than totally disbelieving).

Aracer – we still spend far less on healthcare than most other similar countries.

From memory in 1997 it was 7.8% of GDP, its now up to 9.something % of GDP.

Germany pays 14%, france 12% and USA an amazing 20% of GDP on healthcare to cover 70% of the population.

So yes the NHS needs either more money or needs to stop doing expensive things such as prescribing heceptin, transplant surgery and so on. Bring us up to the European average of 12% of GDP would mean we could actually have the healthcare we want.

The NHS needs to be taken out of political control, we need to have more and better paid and trained managers ( NHS management costs are far less than most other systems – altho of course funding is less complex so costs less to administer) We need more and better trained workforce.

Constantly changing goalposts, constant reorganisation and poor quality management are the basic problems.

we need to have more and better paid and trained managers

The perception as an outsider is that a lot of the money has been swallowed in more managers, for no real benefit. Is this a completely false perception? The other perception is of course the one you mention of paying for more and more increasingly expensive treatments, with all the press led emotional blackmail involved with them.

The problem of course with suggesting spending more of our GDP on anything right now is where exactly is the money coming from, given we’re already virtually bankrupt as a country?

you glibly make the case for more public spending, and suggest that’s fine, as the last Conservative gov. also increased public spending (a point you seem all to happy to ignore when it suits!)

I’m not sure that I made the point for more public spending. Stoner asked me where funding for welfare requirements should come from, so I answered that question as I saw appropriate. Personally I think a lot less should be spent on funding unemployment. I did after all, quote Michael Foot’s comment about “pouring North Sea oil down the gutters of unemployment”.

Furthermore, I see the benefit system on this country subsidising employers who won’t pay a living wage. If they paid a reasonable wage, the state wouldn’t have to step in and hand cash over to their employees, or provide them with whatever other benefits. Why should the state subsidise a firm’s profits ?

If an employer can’t afford to pay a decent living wage, then they should be declared bankrupt. After all, If they can’t afford to pay the bills to their suppliers they would be expected to go bankrupt, why should their wages bill be treated any different ?

The fact that they ‘can’ get away with paying low wages, doesn’t mean that they ‘should’ get away with it. No, I’m all in favour of cutting back on our economy’s dependency on the benefits system.

Of course the other way of making up for insufficient wages, is to provide easy available credit. Now, that sounds like a good idea, doesn’t it ?

On the question of general welfare provisions, the state in a mixed economy, can recieve much in the way of funding from profits generated from economic activity of industries such as the utilities industries. For example, telecommunications used to generate vast profits for the UK government, and today EDF electricity in the UK, provides huge profits for the French government to spend as it so chooses.

Yeah I forgot to add (it’s late and I’m tired), the reason welfare state spending went up under the tories is that unemployment and the amount of low paid jobs went up. So I’m hardly going to argue and, “make the case for more public spending, and suggest that’s fine, as the last Conservative gov. also increased public spending”, as you suggest.

Oh yeah, and my example of US health care shows that public spending can be much better value for money than private alternatives.

‘Keep welfare spending down’ I say !

I was drafting a long response thinking it the least your efforts deserved GG, but actually, I think your very good arguments require too much work on my part to take down properly, and the sun is out, so shall leave them un-abused, in memoriam if you like 🙂

have enjoyed reading them.

I obvously disagree with bits and pieces of your ideology, none moreso than your dismissal of service sector industry over manufacturing industry which you condemn almost simply because of the nature of cyclical markets which are an inherent feature of almost ALL commerce, not just finance. On a longer timescale the development of the UK industry from agriculture to raw goods, processed goods, manufacturing, engineering and services is not just desireable but inevitable in a world of differential resource distribution, development and populations and free(ish) trade.

One thing we certainly do agree on is the “most important priority imo, is for social democracy to be re-established on the political agenda.” I dont believe that market based capitalism neccesarily prevents that although fully free markets as favoured by Hannan probably does though. Ive always maintained that social good can almost never be served by unfettered competitive pricing.

aracer – Member

The perception as an outsider is that a lot of the money has been swallowed in more managers, for no real benefit. Is this a completely false perception?

The NHS spends far less on management than other countries and the quality of that management is poor, add in chasing spurious targets and you get poor management. One issue is the consultants still have too much power – some use it wisely but some don’t. Its a Tory tactic t call for less management and the return of Matron – completely bogus in modern healthcare. What is needed is well trained and highly skilled managers

The other perception is of course the one you mention of paying for more and more increasingly expensive treatments, with all the press led emotional blackmail involved with them.

A major issue. If you don’t want to pay for a complete healthcare package thru taxation then there must be rationing of some sort. Unfortunatly at the moment it is covert not overt s groups who don’t shout loudly get shafted. think the elderly, learning difficulties, the poor.

The problem of course with suggesting spending more of our GDP on anything right now is where exactly is the money coming from, given we’re already virtually bankrupt as a country?

Increased taxes or reduced spending in other areas. For example PFI hospitals waste huge amounts of money. The amount spent on foreign wars would easily pay for it. If you want a decent NHS it has to be paid for from somewhere

Would harnessing all the private health money really result in a wonderful all-singing NHS?

Needs its own thread… Dan Hannan did actually co-author something a while back on the need for improved “localism” in the NHS – a sentiment most of us would agree with. However he then started wibbling on about the need for a mixed economy in healthcare, without ever really stopping to explain how market forces “work” in, say, mental health provision, paediatric ITU or major trauma. It’s an easy mantra to chant, of course – especially if you aim to make profits by, say, creaming off routine elective surgery, and leaving the messy stuff for… guess who?

Gus: mighty, mighty post. Best STW thread in a while. 😀

the reason welfare state spending went up under the tories is that unemployment and the amount of low paid jobs went up

Far from the only reason – NHS spending also went up.

Personally I think a lot less should be spent on funding unemployment.

Easy to say – do you think that’s a part of spending they should be cutting to plug the hole at the moment? 😯

your dismissal of service sector industry over manufacturing industry which you condemn almost simply because of the nature of cyclical markets which are an inherent feature of almost ALL commerce, not just finance

I’m sorry if I gave the impression that I didn’t recognise the important role of the finance sector in an economy, if that is what you are suggesting ? Of course it has a vital role to play. I was simply suggesting that the idea an economy could be disproportionately reliant on the finance sector at the expense of manufacturing was deeply flawed. And not least, because at you quite rightly point out, finance is no less susceptible to the cyclical nature of the markets than other sectors.

Plus of course, at the end of the day, someone, somewhere, has to produce something. So to throw your question back at you, how is society supposed to pay it’s non-productive service sector if no one is actually producing anything ?

As I suggested earlier, the drive away from manufacturing into finance, was imo, more driven by political considerations than anything else. The thought of certain privileged individuals making large amounts of money, was highly attractive to the governing party of the time. As was the growth of a the more naturally pro-tory white-collar sector, over the less naturally pro-tory, blue-collar sector. A little bit of ‘social-engineering’ you could say. Even perhaps, dare I say, the Dame Shirley ‘Westminster plan’ on a grand scale 😯

The problem with the growth of non-productive forces, is that it is not sustainable – people can’t keep taking a tiny slice of the profit for doing nothing. And when things go pear-shaped, there is no slack in the system and the sh1t really hits the fan, as we have seen. You can’t in the name of ‘competitiveness’ keep ‘sub-contracting’ out the work and expect to recieve a profit for producing nothing. This absurd 1980s mentality has filtered through every sector of economic activity. For example, why in the name of common-sense, does a building contractor who has been awarded a contract, then sub-contract it out to another building contractor ? 😯

The line between the one who produces, and the customer, appears to be extending unabated. Stoner, just imagine what the difference is between the amount a carpenter gets for hanging a door, and the final amount the client pays, after everyone has taken their slice of the profit ! How much better it would be if we cut out some of the non-productive individuals, paid the bloke who hung the door more, and charged the client less.

Yes I accept that surveyors, managers, etc, are all part of the equation, but do we really need to involve people who have no intention of contributing in a positive way other then helping themselves to some of the profit ? Do we really need so many people living off the back of one person’s work ?

And it is this same attitude which produced the crises in finance – do the deal and then, pass it on to someone else. As I’ve just said, the fragmentation of the profit through endless ‘sub-contracting’ ends leaving very little slack in the system. So when things get a little tough, because the profit margin is so tight, bankruptcy follows.

.

I dont believe that market based capitalism neccesarily prevents that although fully free markets as favoured by Hannan probably does though

Oh come come stoner ……. you and I both know that there is no such thing as “fully free markets” !

Capitalism not much beyond feudalism, is always ‘state monopoly capitalism’. The primary role of all governments, whether they be neo-liberal “laissez-faire” goverments or not, is to manage the economy. All governments on a day to day basis intensely interfere in a multitude of ways with the economy. Whether it be through taxation, or whether it be through infrastructure provisions. The second most important politician in any country is always the finance minister. Even in liberal free-market economies, the finance minister never has a minor role just watching the economy preforming on auto-pilot. And every president and prime minister in the world, treats the economy as their number one priority.

The only way laissez-faire free-market governments differ, is that they believe that the markets should be allowed unrestricted freedom to make profits. Other than that, they will do everything at their disposal to assist the markets.

That commitment however, does not extend to small businesses. As a punter on here discovered a little while back when he posted a thread asking why a government which was keen to help the banks and yet, was so unconcerned with helping his struggling small business.

It’s a sad fact of life that the petty bourgeoisie, artisans, and self-employed, have always had the mistaken belief that they were somehow benefactors of capitalism just because they were allowed crumbs from the Top Table during the good times. In reality they simply drink in the lounge whilst everyone else drinks in the public bar – the drinking establishment is the same however.

On the question of social democracy being re-established on the political agenda. As I said, I can’t see that being achieved in Britain in the foreseeable future. Sadly just when the world including the US, started to question the wisdom of free-market fundamentalism, the last of the big three the LibDems, decided to turn up late to the free-market fundamentalist party 😯

It’s a shame because given the crises, I believe that a party which puts a strong case for social democracy would have an attentive audience. I reckon that it would have been feasible for the LibDems to build on their 20% or so base vote, and push it up into the 30s, even possibly becoming the largest party ofter the next general election. I know that it would be an unprecedented and extraordinary political achievement, but we are after all, living in ‘extraordinary’ times.

What remains to be seen now is what will happen to the Labour Party after the next general election, given it’s credibility crises, membership crises, and finance crises – all things which whilst they are still is power, are being completely ignored.

BTW, a couple of punters have made positive comments about the contents of my posts, thank you very much but I really don’t deserve credit. What I’m saying is pretty bog-standard stuff – the alternative to ‘TINA’, if you will.

Just as a matter of interest, is there a clip of GB’s response to Tory Boy?

Just as another point of note, there’s now one more hit on the idiot’s YouTube clicker, but it doesn’t mean (although I’m sure he will choose to present it that way) that he has one more person’s support.