[Closed] A question for the lefties (that's politics)

If you legalised drugs the criminals would just undercut you on price

Like they do now with alcohol, tobacco, and Lemsip?

pushing down house prices to any large degree is not going to be popular or get you elected

This thread isn't about getting elected.

How about industry acknowledging that a job needs more people than claimed and not expecting appalling overtime hours or work spent on laptops AF home to get the job done...t

A reduction in wages because of immigrants doing jobs that don't exist? Are you ok Jamba?

pushing down house prices to any large degree is not going to be popular or get you elected

It won't, if you assume that everyone owns a house.....

pushing down house prices to any large degree is not going to be popular or get you elected

I'm a home-owner, and I'd be happy to see a massive crash in house prices.

( I'd like a slightly bigger house with a garage, right now that'd cost me an extra £100k)

If you legalised drugs the criminals would just undercut you on price

Seems more likely to me that the government would be able to undercut all the crims, but it's an interesting point.

I'd go for a German style level of taxation, with if being more graduated, it'd be more complicated, but it'd spare people the sudden jump from one band to the next.

My labour party would look something like this..

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant_tendency

The thing that's always bugged me about house prices is this:
(all figures are completely made up to illustrate the point, it doesn't matter what the real pay increase/house price inflation rate is)

Let's say I buy a house for £100k in year x, when I'm earning £25k.

House price rises are good, says the Daily Mail, and 5 years later, my wages have gone up a bit too to, say, £27.5k (up 10%) and house prices have risen by 50% in the same period. So my house is now worth £150k. Wahey, I'm up 50 grand, I'll use that extra money to buy a new, better, house.

So I look at a house that would have cost £150k when mine cost £100k. When I bought my house I was 2 times my annual salary short of being able to buy this nicer house (the £100k I had, plus 2*£25k). But now I've got £150k of house to sell, and I'm earning a bit more.

But the new house cost £150k 5 years ago. Its price, just like every other house, has gone up by 50%, so now it's worth £225k. So if I sell my house for cash, I'm even further away from affording the nicer house than I was 5 years ago (near enough 3x my salary, rather than 2x my salary).

The longer house prices increase by more than wages, the bigger the problem gets.

If (like most people) I'm selling my house so that I can buy another house, a house price rise means nothing because the thing I'm buying is worth more too. Obviously I want MY house to get more valuable, but I want every other house to stay the same/get cheaper so I can upgrade.

@bails 68% of people in the UK own their own home (can't recall where I saw that stat). House prices more than just a function of wages, you have factors like cost of loans (interest rate level), availability of mortgages, availability of houses, demand (immigration, inward investment etc). The UK has a huge stock of cheap housing its just in places where there is little work, hence its cheap.

@TimothyD - with VAT on food at 8% ?

[i]If you legalised drugs the criminals would just undercut you on price[/i]

You can already buy dodgy ciggies and booze, and yet overwhelmingly folk don't. They buy them legit. Why? Would you interact with Crims if you don't need to, just 'cause it's a few quid cheaper?

makes no sense

I agree with molgrips.

We all know how this ends, we have 1 year of molgrip-mania, he enters coalition with Captain Flashheart and before you know it he's been strung up and nailed to a cross as a class traitor.....

jambalaya:
I know that house prices rise due to demand, and that affordability isn't just related to interest rates. But it doesn't really matter (in this, admittedly simplified, discussion). Prices go up because demand is greater than supply. If we're looking at "is a price rise a good thing" I don't really think it matters too much whether demand is up, supply is down, or it's a mix of both.

So if I own my home, and it increases in value by 50% against an inflation rate and pay increase over the same period of 15%, why is that A Good Thing? Especially when the thing I'm buying with it has gone up by the same amount, so my purchasing power hasn't changed at all.

but it'd spare people the sudden jump from one band to the next.

There isn't a sudden jump in the tax you actually pay, just the rate. A lot of people seem to think that if you go from just under the 40% threshold to just over it, you suddenly lose a lot of money. You don't.

So if I own my home, and it increases in value by 50% against an inflation rate and pay increase over the same period of 15%, why is that A Good Thing? Especially when the thing I'm buying with it has gone up by the same amount, so my purchasing power hasn't changed at all.

It's a good thing if you own multiple properties like most of the Tory government and the rich 😉

For the average person who owns their own house, it is a mirage.

Woohoo my house has gone up in value x amount, I am richer! Vote tory they are doing a great job!

The naivety of the masses is amusing.

I'd go a bit further than some.

- Free childcare
- Free higher education
- Abolition of private schools and private health industry
- Massively subsidised nationalised integrated public transport system.
- Nationalise the renewable portion of the energy industry, leave carbon based private and tax it via carbon pricing
- Legalised drugs and nationalised production (a la Uruguay)

I'm not even going to attempt to work out how to pay for all that but if we can find the billions/trillions to spend on wars and weapons we can find the money for this sort of thing.

The thing is, if you move too far left, like comrade dazh and his abolition of private schools, you'll never get voted in.

Although I do think it would be brilliant!

Since when were we ever talking about getting voted in?

Seriously though, if we're ever going to have a truly meritocratic society, then people should not be able to buy an advantage via things like private schools. Also it would improve the state school system as the govt would be held to account by high achieving parents who want the same for their kids. Same goes for health services.

Prohibition works just fine - it's just the case that we're not in the club benefiting from it ..

I agree it'd be nice, but there are problems with that idea. What if the state schools are no good? You're effectively then enforcing your values and ideas on everyone. Which is pretty way out communist type left.

The thing is, if you move too far left, like comrade dazh and his abolition of private schools, you'll never get voted in.

Don't put it in the manifesto then.

(Slightly Devil's Advocate)

On free childcare: shouldn't we be encouraging more parents to stay off work and look after their kids?

The thing is, if you move too far left, like comrade dazh and his abolition of private schools, you'll never get voted in.

Other countries don't have them.

There's always the option to remove the benefits that private schools get (like charity status and not paying VAT) in order to make them unworkable?

How about we give the Peoples Republic of Sturgikistan full fiscal autonomy and then cut the Barnett formula? Would be a rather interesting social experiment to see how much a sample of what appears to be some of the most left leaning in the British population like paying Scandinavian levels of taxes for Scandinavian levels of benefit. You never know if they like it and it works it might catch on south of the border.

An alternative to free childcare/parenting issues (because your point is very valid mikeactually re. Stay at home parents) is to ensure workplaces/organisations offer maximum variety of work patterns to allow for parental issues/livea e.g. school runs, both parents wanting to work AND raise their children

This happens quite a lot in other countries and is seen as a very positive attribute to society. I'm not sure why the UK has been so slow to embrace it...

On free childcare: shouldn't we be encouraging more parents to stay off work and look after their kids?

No. We shouldn't encourage them to do anything. They should be given the choice. Free childcare would allow them the choice of staying home if they want, or either or both parents staying at work.

blimey at the previous page.

what dazh forgot to mention was the law prescribing the acceptable 17 regulation haircuts for men, and 11 regulation hairstyles for women, and that manufacturing would be "factory 17 - mens size 10 shoes, left"...

and while some tried anything to cross the fence/river/wall, others found that a utopia, and even in Germany today there are those who strive to return to those days.

You wouldn't need to abolish private schools Dazb, they would all close down cos no one could afford them due to the amount of tax they will be paying. That would put even more demand on the state who would need to raise taxes even more to pay for it. Then all the higher earners would give up trying or emigrate and the tax burden would fall on the low earners, so instead of getting £10k tax free you'd probably get £5k at most etc etc

edit: and since the left are generally anti-monarchy they'd be more than happy to exchange a head of state inherited by birth for one that is passed down from father to son 😉

as already mentioned... "who said anything about being elected" 😉

The rich wouldn't emmigrate. We'd confiscate their passports, so they'd have to holiday in the UK too instead of taking all their money to St Tropez or wherever they go.

Everyone will be so chilled out from legally blazing up big ass bags of weed that the NHS can close all their mental health units, freeing up more money to pay all the tripping mashed off their tits immigrants working to keep all our bogs clean and roads open, bring on the benefits!!

The op said aspirations; within the current feudal capitalist system, for me there's nothing really aspirational, the best we can hope for is damage limitation. So I just hope for the best damage limitation we can have.

The main thing for me is support for the vulnerable. Out of work, disabled, unemployable, addicted, mentally ill and so on. They deserve help, and not handouts, of course, but that costs possibly even more money than handouts.

I also think free childcare for all would be a huge benefit. It seems like a lot of 'benefit scroungers' are there because they are either unemployable without some sort of help, they can't arrange childcare, or it's just not worth their while financially.

Then we should invest in things that people in a developed country should have a right to. Like healthcare and education, up to degree level.

If the Tories can pull off this 'blue collar conservatism' thing then I'll be a hell of a lot happier about their government.

Abolition of private schools and private health industry

Abolition of private schools and private health industry

I have never really understood what this would achieve, surely it is a good thing if people pay privately as this takes the strain off the state sector

The kids who go to private schools wouldn't be a strain on private sector education, and private healthcare doesn't cover the really expensive stuff that the NHS provides.

Plus, equality.

And already the STW leftie party is showing signs of internal division. As leader I have some difficult decisions to make about the direction of the party.

This is what the Tories say they are doing isn't it?

What they say and what they do are two completely different things.

For example, changing the law to require 2 years of employment to allow the possibility of access to an employment tribunal. That doesn't unburden companies who treat their employees with respect, it is a charter for the companies who abuse employees.

And it also doesn't match the frequently stated need for a flexible work force, where it now not uncommon to change jobs every few years. It is a policy that leaves employees vulnerable, unprotected and open to abuse for large chunks of their working lives.

They can spout all the rhetoric they like about ruling the country for the benefit of all, but they need to match it with real actions, and on that they have so far failed miserably.

As leader I have some difficult decisions to make about the direction of the party.

If you don't get them right, just resign. And we'll not accept the resignation.

what dazh forgot to mention was the law prescribing the acceptable 17 regulation haircuts for men, and 11 regulation hairstyles for women, and that manufacturing would be "factory 17 - mens size 10 shoes, left"...

Don't be silly. One of the reasons I've never described myself as a socialist is because I have a burning hatred for the tendency of most socialist or letwing parties for authoritarianism. I'm not anti-private sector either, and don't have much problem with some people earning more than others (within certain limits, I see no purpose in allowing billionaires to hoard cash). I do however believe in equality of opportunity and social mobility. Those measures I list might seem radical in today's lopsided world, but really they're not that extreme. The schools and health policies ensure a level playing field, the childcare, public transport and energy policies will help boost the economy whilst protecting the environment. Legalising drugs is just common sense.

Green Party, which is why I joined them, although I agree with dazh in his last post too. I just wish that people could see past 'stuff' and the whole aspirational 'good job*/nice house/new car' thing as a measure of happiness.

* ie work loads of hours for loads of cash but have no free time to enjoy anything.

I do however believe in equality of opportunity and social mobility

Then you have to make sure state schools are as good or better than private schools.

Rich people currently have a lot of choices that they can make. Money is always going to give them great power. And education for their kids is very important to them just as it is for the rest of us. If you ban people from doing something they are currently free to do this would be seen as hugely restrictive and the removal of liberties.

I totally understand your point in principle, but I don't think it would work in practice at all.

If you ban people from doing something they are currently free to do this would be seen as hugely restrictive and the removal of liberties.

Buying an unfair advantage is not a right or 'liberty' which the state should guarantee. You can't defend something this unfair just because it's the current situation and would be difficult to remove. I can think of many other things that would be unfair that don't happen, such as selling jobs to the highest bidder, selling university places, selling priority access to public services etc. If equality of opportunity and social mobility are the aim, then private schools are indefensible.

I think my philosophy is this. If you want to be rich then fine, but the only thing your money will buy you is goods, and not advantage.

Private schools don't need to be banned, we just have to make it illegal for them to charge fees.

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/jul/01/education-michael-gove-finland-gcse ]There's almost no private education in Finland and their education system is widely considered to be among the best in the world.[/url]

Then you have to make sure state schools are as good or better than private schools.

Then they need funding at the same level as private school fees.

Buying an unfair advantage is not a right or 'liberty' which the state should guarantee.

So you have to ban private tutors then too. And you'd have to ban educational holidays or trips to museums and inspirational things.

Re Finland, Finnish society is totally different to ours. It's a small country with far fewer really rich people, and always has been, because the overall economy is much smaller. There has never been large amounts of money so the government hasn't had to forcibly redistribute it. As an illustration, in northern Finland the Iron Age lasted until the 17th century. A time when London was accumulating mindboggling amounts of cash from the New World.

I'll do a selfie tomorrow morning.

Have you started breaking your promises already?! 😆

So you have to ban private tutors then too. And you'd have to ban educational holidays or trips to museums and inspirational things.

I'd agree with tutors, but educational trips and holidays don't make half the difference that middle class parents would like to think they do.

Re Finland, Finnish society is totally different to ours. It's a small country with far fewer really rich people, and always has been, because the overall economy is much smaller. There has never been large amounts of money so the government hasn't had to forcibly redistribute it. As an illustration, in northern Finland the Iron Age lasted until the 17th century. A time when London was accumulating mindboggling amounts of cash from the New World.

The difference in Finland's society is dealt with in that article. Making our society more equal, through redistributive policies, would be the single best thing we could do as a society.

So you have to ban private tutors then too. And you'd have to ban educational holidays or trips to museums and inspirational things.

What parents do in their own time is up to them. Having a private tutor for a few hours a week is vastly different to buying a full-time education. Why would you have to ban holidays and trips? I'm arguing for a level playing field not a one-size fits all homogenous curriculum. Schools would have the same per capita funding, and wouldn't be shackled by a restrictive state curriculum. Core subjects would be obligatory, then the schools could choose specialisms. The parent choice element is difficult. Not sure I'd go back to strict catchment areas but there would have to be something in place to avoid richer parents moving to where the good schools are. Maybe the lowest achieving schools getting more funding and being allowed to pay teachers more? I'm sure there are plenty of solutions to these probblems.

The parent choice element is difficult.

The whole choice agenda is ridiculous, as there generally (school-wise) isn't actually a choice, unless it's choosing to not apply to the local popular school and instead applying to a worse one.

I was just referred for a [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/on-my-way-to-get-the-snip ]minor medical procedure[/url]. In the Bad Old Days before patient choice, I'd have been given a date at my local hospital which is 2 miles from home. Thanks to the wonders of Choice I now have four choices: 11, 18, 24 and 25 miles away from home.

I think my philosophy is this. If you want to be rich then fine, but the only thing your money will buy you is goods, and not advantage.

While I agree with the sentiment, I think it would very hard or impossible to to achieve this. As Molgrips says you'd have to stop holidays or trips to anything you might learn from.

In my opinion, it is the states responsibility to ensure high quality, free education for everyone. You don't need a private education to get a decent job you just need a good education and I think this is a very realistic goal that the state can achieve if it wants to.

I also don't think higher education should be free otherwise it just encourages everyone to get a degree for the hell of it costing the country money for little gain.

I think the current system of borrowing money and paying back through taxes is correct. But the interest rate should absolutely fixed to inflation and the rate you pay back the loan should be more progressive so that important lower paid jobs such as nurses pay less than higher paid jobs such as lawyers and finance industry jobs.

I also think we need to give better support for vocational education to give people real knowledge and skills that they will actually use. I don't know too much about this but from what I have read I think there is much room for improvement.

*** edit:

I'm arguing for a level playing field not a one-size fits all homogenous curriculum

ah fair enough, I mis-understood you, sounds like we're thinking pretty much the same thing.

NHS should be protected, by law - it's budget set and increased inline with inflation and removed from the control of the Commons - yes that could mean it loses some over-sight, but the greater good is removing it as a political pawn. Dentistry should return to the NHS.

This sounds good but would actually be a complete disaster on three counts:

1. Demand is rising faster than inflation due to an ageing obese alcoholic population
2. A guaranteed inflationary rise would undermine the conditions that need to be present in order for the NHS to continuously improve - most organisations manage 2-3% efficiency improvements year on year... contrast that with the 10 years of falling productivity in the NHS in the 2000s when money was being poured in faster than the NHS could spend it
3. Something that costs more than any other public service and around 20% of the entire budget can't be separated from political reality, not least as politicians will always be seen to be accountable for the levels of income tax required to fund it.

1. Demand is rising faster than inflation due to an ageing obese alcoholic population

And this can't be changed? It's not inevitable that people will continue to eat sh*t and drink lots. It's all connected. Obesity and drug dependence are closely related to poverty, income levels, class and education. Reduce poverty, and you'll see the health services demand reduce.

The lack of imagination and ambition displayed on this thread is somewhat depressing. Seems like the view of the realists/pragmatists is 'things are sh*t, the problems are too hard to solve, so there's not point trying'. Like I said, if we can find billions/trillions to fight wars, we can provide decent schools, health services and reduce poverty.

I don't think it is problems are too hard to solve simply that government can't possibly solve them. The state interfere in our lives the world over more than at any point in time and yet parties of all sides totally overstate how much it can do. Ultimately it up to you to make the most of your education, get a job etc. governments of all colours can only do so much.

I've already debunked the Finland education system, they are falling down the league tables rapidly.

The lack of imagination and ambition displayed on this thread is somewhat depressing

Believe me, I am not short of imagination. The problem is that a government has to take into account the wishes of the whole country not just it's leader. And some of those things, such as banning private education, will never fly.

A better plan would be to make state education so good that no-one WANTS private education. Carrots, not sticks.

[i]1. Demand is rising faster than inflation due to an ageing obese alcoholic population
[/i][b]

And this can't be changed? It's not inevitable that people will continue to eat sh*t and drink lots. It's all connected. Obesity and drug dependence are closely related to poverty, income levels, class and education. Reduce poverty, and you'll see the health services demand reduce.

It can be changed but only if we / society are ready for change, and it's fair to say that we're not. The link between alcohol misuse and income is not consistent - many of those drinking the most are not in deprived wards, they are people in the 50s and 60s with good incomes drinking several bottles of wine a week. Obesity appears to be spread across all levels of society with the highest growth in the young. Income and extent of obesity is also not directly linked - it's perfectly possible (and in many cases cheaper) to eat food prepared at home that processed rubbish from the high street.

A better plan would be to make state education so good that no-one WANTS private education.

Well yes, you're talking about an implementation strategy, I was talking about the principle. I agree that if the abolition of private schools were the aim, this is probably the best way to achieve it, along with removing some preferential benefits the private school industry enjoys as Miketually said.

The state interfere in our lives the world over more than at any point in time

Really? So the state is more interfering now than in the 60s/70s? Don't be silly. The power of the state has been vastly reduced in the past 30 years. It's plain fact that in many areas the market has failed. Wealth has not 'trickled down', opportunity is not available to all, and open competition is the exception rather than the norm. If ever there was a time for more state intervention to correct the failures of the market it's now.

Agree with just5mintues, I think the obesity problems we have are more to do with society and our culture. We want quick convenience food and have lost our love for quality and instead prefer quantity.

My mum is a great cook and have been bought up with freshly made food with little processed ingredients. I also have a keen interest in cooking and also try to make food from fresh ingredients rather than the processed alternative. I'm always surprised when I go shopping and occasionally decide to be lazy and go for a few of the convenience options, how much extra the total is at the end.

But then you might argue, who has the time to regularly cook food from scratch while holding a job and looking after a family etc.. Well if some of the social changes that Molgrips was talking about were implemented eg free / cheaper child care. Flexibility to work from home or local office. We might all have a bit less stress and more time for some of the other things in life?

abolition of private education is what I class as "authoritarian", so if you wanted that policy to be not authoritarian, you'd have no choice but to make state education so good that private becomes ever diminishing returns. a negligible minority would ship themselves overseas. if prevented from doing so, then it's authoritarian again.

ah do love ideology. nice idea, won't happen.

Well if some of the social changes that Molgrips was talking about were implemented eg free / cheaper child care. Flexibility to work from home or local office. We might all have a bit less stress and more time for some of the other things in life?

Absolutely. A large part of the need for convenience food IMO is probably due to pepole coming home exhausted at 7pm and needing something quick. If you'd finished work at 4 or earlier, and you'd been out to the shops to pick up some ingredients in your now-rejuvenated village for a mid morning walk, you'd be in a far better frame of mind to cook.

Well yes, you're talking about an implementation strategy, I was talking about the principle.

Fair enough, but you have to appreciate that actually banning something is a completely different thing to simply encouraging the alternative!

Incidentally - why aren't we being asked what we'd like, by the current or previous governments?

Were any of you asked?

but educational trips and holidays don't make half the difference that middle class parents would like to think they do

you need to save that for the "I want to take little jonny skiing in term time thread"

Fair enough, but you have to appreciate that actually banning something is a completely different thing to simply encouraging the alternative!

Well ok, maybe 'abolition' implied the overnight destruction of the private school industry. Tempting as it would be it's not what I would want. Some sort of phasing out approach would be the best one. You could start with nationalisation, then over time remove fees in exchange for govt funding. If we're saying important national infrastructure should be under state ownership such as energy, public transport, health, then it follows that education should be too.

Quite like molgrips original answer, not far off my thinking.

In addition, I'd like to add "children" to his list of people to protect under molgrips first principle.

molgrips - Member
The main thing for me is support for the vulnerable. [b][u]Children,[/u][/b] Out of work, disabled, unemployable, addicted, mentally ill and so on. They deserve help, and not handouts, of course, but that costs possibly even more money than handouts.

Sad that some of the other comments from others demonstrate Nasty Politics isn't just restricted to the right.

Abolition of private schools is just jealousy and ideology ahead of pragmatism and what's best for the children involved.
I'm all in favour of improving state education, but at the moment it's not perfect for everyone, so I'm also all in favour of having other options available. They're there because people need them.
Even within state education, there's massive variability in educational standards, quality, and results.
It's this inequality that needs action from the state: not the private schools. And that means making the poorer performing schools better, not dragging the better schools down to "a level playing field".

For me, a left, or socialist, party needs to focus on what's best for the people of the country, not what fits with the ideology of a few middle aged sixth formers.

I do prefer the political compass idea, with a authoritarian/libertarian scale added, to the traditional straight left-right political line.
IMO, a left sided party should be able to function without rising up the autoritarian scale towards totalitarianism.
Once you start adding policies of abolition and compulsion, particularly on the vulnerable like children, then that's where I worry it's going.

Incidentally - why aren't we being asked what we'd like, by the current or previous governments?

Because you didn't vote Tory, Tory voters have all got a survey and wishlist, I am getting breakfast in bed tomorrow,

I'm all in favour of improving state education, but at the moment it's not perfect for everyone, so I'm also all in favour of having other options available. They're there because people need them.
Even within state education, there's massive variability in educational standards, quality, and results.

So rich kids need private schools? Is that really what you're saying? This is exactly what I'm talking about. As long as some people can buy an unfair advantage, the people at the bottom have less chance of achieving their ambitions and improving their life situation. I really don't see what's so radical or extreme about that.

Of course government interferes more than ever before, think cigarettes sold in covered counters, minimum pricing of alcohol, 'green' taxes on petrol and energy bills, congestion charging, etc. Then there are over 800 quangos and check out the following list of Regulatory bodies in the UK

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regulators_in_the_United_Kingdom ]Regulators[/url]

It is all layers and layers of regulation and tax all intended to drive behavior in certain ways. Some of it has worked well, some of it has had unintended consequences, but all of it is the state interfering in markets and hence, peoples lives.

Molgrips - the reason citizens are not asked what they want is because we are not a homogenous group. Look at the journey this thread has gone on and the difference of opinion...I'm not saying it's right - I think that's just one answer to your question

I would say that regulators largely give the illusion of oversight while actually being industry lapdogs. I would like to see regulators with real powers actively defending people from, and punishing the abuses of the sectors they oversee.

The main thing for me is support for the vulnerable. Out of work, disabled, unemployable, addicted, mentally ill and so on. They deserve help, and not handouts, of course, but that costs possibly even more money than handouts.

I also think free childcare for all would be a huge benefit. It seems like a lot of 'benefit scroungers' are there because they are either unemployable without some sort of help, they can't arrange childcare, or it's just not worth their while financially.

Then we should invest in things that people in a developed country should have a right to. Like healthcare and education, up to degree level.

Then I would also like to see certain key industries nationalised. Transport and infrastructure like power, telecommunications and so on are all essential, and shouldn't have people pocketing the profits, they should be reinvested. Of course, national industries were badly run in the past but privatisation is not the answer. At least, for essential utilities. I perhaps think things like nationalised car manufacturers is taking things a bit far.

+ another

Actually, that sounds like Sweden.

but all of it is the state interfering in markets and hence, peoples lives.

Markets and people go hand in hand, you can't separate one from the other. We all interact with them all the time whether it be looking for a new phone contract or trying to move job. A failure to understand them is the Lefts biggest problem. (To be fair it's not like the right always get it correct either).

Transport and infrastructure like power, telecommunications and so on are all essential, and shouldn't have people pocketing the profits, they should be reinvested.

Shame on those profit making companies who despite being greedy money obsessed corrupt organisations have still managed to:

[url= http://www.cbronline.com/news/telecoms/carrier/uk-mobile-prices-among-cheapest-in-western-europe-4567095 ]Give us the cheapest mobile costs in Europe[/url]

[url= http://media.ofcom.org.uk/news/2014/european-broadband-scorecard/ ]Give the widest access to superfast broadband in Europe[/url]

[url= http://www.netindex.com/download/allcountries/ ]Give us broadband speeds faster than the EU average[/url]

[url= http://telecoms.com/397952/ee-announces-three-year-1-5-billion-network-investment-plan/ ]Re-invest billions into network modernisation - fancy that![/url]

By contrast, many of these conditions are not present where deregulation has been limited by government inertia. So we can have the above, or choose to have more expensive and worse services where profit gets reinvested.

You put markets before people , i never said we dont interact with markets*, and you did not discuss that point whilst "defeating" something i never said.

* as daft as claiming the markets dont interact with the public sector in a mixed economy]

A failure to understand them is the Lefts biggest problem.

The left understands markets perfectly. They just don't agree that they have the power to solve all the world's problems if left unregulated. Centuries of evidence would seem to support this.

[img] [/img]

Markets and people go hand in hand, you can't separate one from the other. We all interact with them all the time whether it be looking for a new phone contract or trying to move job.

Hmm. Yes and no.

They allow us to have a big TV and whatever, but they can also have negative consequences. For example you could lose your nice local job to an outsourcing company, and then you are obliged to travel 90 mins each way to another job, so you've got bugger all time to spend at home. Huge detrimental impact on life.

But this mythical free market for jobs doesn't apply everywhere. For example, you might be tied to a particular place for other reasons (parents, kids, ex, inability to drive etc), or you might be a public sector worker. Not much market forces acting on you there apart from your consumer decisions.

The market is NOT everything, despite what Tories would have you believe. And it's definitely not always good. In fact, where human resources are concerned, it can be quite negative.

Re-invest billions into network modernisation - fancy that!

For a minute I thought you meant the rail network.

😆

or you might be a public sector worker.

I always love this mindset that if a public sector worker lost their job they'd never get another, the underlying message is a they are utter useless (and makes you wonder why the tax payer is employing them!). Clearly this tripe, if you are good then you won't have much problem getting a job in the private sector.

Markets aren't inherently bad or good but they are important and most on the Left don't understand them hence their failure to deliver improvements.

A better plan would be to make state education so good that no-one WANTS private education. Carrots, not sticks.

State education already outperforms the private sector, if you adjust of other factors such as home finances, parental education, etc. The advantage of private schooling is in who you meet while you're there, rather than what you learn. But that's probably a discussion for a more specific thread.

Private schools embed, reinforce and amplify the divisions/advantages that are already in place.

I always love this mindset that if a public sector worker lost their job they'd never get another, the underlying message is a they are utter useless (and makes you wonder why the tax payer is employing them!)

Are you having some sort of bet to get the most straw man attacks in on one page or on the same thread?
He never said that did he 🙄