Personal political/economic philosophy doesnt have to be all or nothing manifesto stuff you know.

Whilst I would agree that it is possible for the "have nots" to take a middle stance politically, its virtually impossible for the "haves" to do so. Quite simply free market means the survival of the fittest. Regretably those who argue for that system are rarely prepared to take that fight on an equal footing. If they were I might be tempted to go along with the concept rather more. In essence what I mean by that is along the lines of pass nothing on to your kids, ensure that they receive the same standard of education as everyone else, and stand back and wait for the free market to help them find their own level.

Odds on he's been sacked for excessive use of the internet for forum use.

I disklike unions because they distort the market under the cover of protection that they have in law. If that legal protection wasnt there, then the market would sort it out by firing the strikers in the interest of keeping the economic corporate entity alive and efficient even if smaller. Too many times the unions see the scale of employment as a right or due and they strike for it. That kills companies by not allowing them to adapt to market changes.

Sorry stoner but I'm going to have to take you to task on this one. Without trade unions acting the interests of the work force the market would force progressively worse working conditions. Wages, benefits, and worker safety would all be sacrificed in the interests of business. Unions provide an essential stop on the worst excesses of free market economics. I'm not suggesting from one minute that they are perfect, but then neither is the market.

Do we know what happened this is dead exciting!

If unions are so terrible, why is it that countries with high employee protection and high levels of unionisation, are also more productive countries than us?

And if anyone thinks that unions are a problem because they distort the market, I suggest you move to DR Congo, where the market is completely free.

Wages, benefits, and worker safety would all be sacrificed in the interests of business

all of which are protected in law.

The only argument for unions on those subjects is the extension of "worker's rights". Taken to extremis much greater expansion of protected matters would slowly kill all unionised business. Oh look… Royal Mail arent too clever right now, are they? I wonder why not?

For those who trot out the "unions sought and won workers rights" argument, I agree – to a point – but now tell us whether you think the strength of current protected rights (which is all of those stated above) is sufficient or whether they should be extended?

I applaud the protection of workers' rights, and now they are in law, they are very much protected. From here on in though, unless those pro-unionists amongst you are appealing for an extention to those rights in either scale or breadth, then all you now do is support the unions as a belligerent beast demanding more for less, no? Hardly the stuff of the Tolpuddle martyrs anymore is it?

And where's Bushwacked – this is gettign worrying…

What I abhor is interference in active markets by the government for the sake of it.

Originally what we did/had in the early days of the industrial revolution was no regulation. Not of working hours, health care, education, unemployment benefit etc. At the time the mill owners and those who were making the money * were not exactly noticed for beneficence to their fellow man. Rather they worked people and children for 12 hours a day, paid them in tokens to be spent at their own shops, deducted damages to machines from their wages, let them live in unsanitary overcrowded housing near the mills …in general treated them very badly. We introduced regulation in response to the effects of an unregulated free market and the Unions sprung from the uprisings of the workers against the free market forces that were hitting them. Ironically I assume they were created by the market forces of the masses who were unregulated in their ability to organise themselves?

* with some obvious exceptions like the Bourneville village

From here on in though, unless those pro-unionists amongst you are appealing for an extention to those rights in either scale or breadth, then all you now do is support the unions as a belligerent beast demanding more for less, no?

You may as well argue that we have good H & S now so we don’t need to inspect premises anymore or we have good clean water so we can just stop checking that, we have excellent consumer protection now so no need for Trading standards etc . You assume the employers/businesses would not go back to their bad all ways , the ones we had to legislate to stop them doing in the first place, if we no longer checked them. Legislation has always responded to what they did when they were not regulated.

the absence of unions, Junkyard, does not imply turning a blind eye.

The basic mechanisms of protection are now statutory – they're not going anywhere. The protection of these rights is not a continued argument for unionism.

The only viable argument for unionism is collective bargaining on wage, hours for a wage, and benefits. None of which, IMO, need any union involvment to keep them above/below mandatory floors/ceilings for the protection of workers conditions. The union cause is now solely to maximise the gains of the collective unit regardless of productivity, worth, efficiency or merit.

Pretty much agree with most of what Stoner says. I'm sick of the politcally moribund dogmatists (made up word but I like it) telling me what I do and don't believe when more often than not their the ones with a limited view of the world.

Like Stoner I believe in a free market approach with subtle and appropriate government regulation to unsure the less well off don't get trampled. Governments can't control societys or economys, at best they can guide them. They certainly can't have a very significant or positive impact with all the headline, knee jerk initiatives that the main two parties keep rehashing.

Right, Unions, have their place, particularly useful for defending the rights of a specific individual in specific circumstances, not so useful when it comes to group barganing. All depends on the type of union rep you've got, politician type in it for their own glory – tends to equal group barganing, supportive type – tends to be positive, sorts bullying and other individual problems.

As I said before I think some of you have a rather one sided view of redundancies, in some cases there will be lots of consultation etc. but in many cases it's your jobs at risk, two days later it's confirmed, here's a bung above statutory redundancy now b*gger off. Yes it may not be legal or morally right but from a practical stand point do you want to keep working for a company that behaves like that, that treats you like that. Take them to tribunal by all means, you may even win, but the pay out will be low and you'd generally have been better off diverting your energies into finding a new job. Not right but practical.

OP – hope it's not as bad as you think. Just try and keep the moral high ground even if the employer is down in the dirt, I've been there, twice and the only positive thing to come out of it was at least I stayed professional. Probably was best in the long run too as I moved on rather than let some amoral git trash my life.

What Stoner and Stumpy are actually saying here is that freemarkets are OK as long as they can write the rules for them to suit themselves. Sorry guys you can't have it both ways. Either the market is free or it isn't….that also includeds the freedom for other people to have an input surely?

Either the market is free or it isn't

and that is just dogmatic. But it's very you.

There are shades of freedom in markets as I explained earlier.

write the rules for them to suit themselves.

Hmmm. I think you might have missed the bit where I mentioned the need to manipulate markets for social good.

Fair points Stoner, and once upon a time I would have agreed wholeheartedly with you.

But, my experience made me see things differently.
I was tupe'd to a new employer, who wanted to tear up our existing redundancy agreeement on the grounds that they were a young, expanding company and had no intention of making us redundant. Without union intervention the agreement would not have been incorporated into the sale.

Two years later this company was sold. The original employees made redundant received statutory. Those of us that had come in as part of the previous purchase received our enhanced terms. To me this was the equivalent of 9 months nett salary, rather than the 5.5 weeks I would have otherwise received.

Because of this I'll always support collective representation, and I defy anybody to think of a reason I'd have been better off without it.

Anyway moving away from political differences, where is the boy, what has happened to him ?

where is the boy, what has happened to him ?

I've been wondering the same – maybe it's a really long meeting! Come on bushwhacked, what's happened?!

Like Stoner I believe in a free market approach with subtle and appropriate government regulation to unsure the less well off don't get trampled. Governments can't control societys or economys, at best they can guide them. They certainly can't have a very significant or positive impact with all the headline, knee jerk initiatives that the main two parties keep rehashing.

This is "motherhood and apple pie" as well as a contradiction in terms. You admit (as does Stoner) that intervention is required to limit the extremes that a "free" market would create.
Once you agree this then the rest is politics. Politics determines where these boundaries lie and attempts to overcome these extremes via intervention.
You and I may disagree about where these boundaries are set and that is a political argument.
By saying you want a "free market" then saying you want some regulation is like being a "little bit pregnant"

where is the boy, what has happened to him ?

Maybe he has more important things to attend to?

By saying you want a "free market" then saying you want some regulation is like being a "little bit pregnant"

semantically you are correct. And I have argued with gus over the use of the word "free", but I was trying to simplify my economic ideology for the hard of thinking. We all know perfectly well that there is no such thing as a "free" market – what do we think taxes are? But, there comes a point where the state has so much control over the market that it utterly stiffles economic activity. Ultimately it comes down to a political/economic view of: would you prefer to see a GDP of £100bn distributed evenly, or one of £200bn distributed unevenly?

Leftist dogma would rather cut off the economy's nose to spite it's face rather than encourage economic growth to deliver the greatest benefit to the greatest number.

Leftist dogma would rather cut off the economy's nose to spite it's face rather than encourage economic growth to deliver the greatest benefit to the greatest number.

And this is where you are wrong. Your stating that is right wing dogma. That simply is not the position of the moderate left nor is it a part of any leftist philosophy.

I thought you were a right wing ideologue. My view has changed – its a mix of ignorance, fear, jealousy and ideology.

beware the leftist bogyman!

You need to look to the German economy – moderate left concesus – social democratic with high union member ship and a partnership model between the boardroom and the shop floor

100! (Sorry!)

That simply is not the position of the moderate left nor is it a part of any leftist philosophy.

tell me by what mechanism the left believe growth can be encouraged?

Economic liberals would say reduction in taxation, reduction in state expenditure, de-regulation and worker mobility.

ignorance, fear, jealousy

where on earth do you get that from?

my economic ideology for the hard of thinking

Then maybe I fall into this category as your logic is not clear.

Ignorance – you are clearly ignorant of political philosophy

Fear – look at the language you use to describe the current government

Jealousy – were you not on the side of removing pension rights from the public sector?

I ain't going to argue with you any further. I am not the only one on this thread to see the ridiculousness of your position.

Ultimately it comes down to a political/economic view of: would you prefer to see a GDP of £100bn distributed evenly, or one of £200bn distributed unevenly[1]?
Leftist dogma would rather cut off the economy's nose to spite it's face [2]rather than encourage economic growth[3] to deliver the greatest benefit[4] to the greatest number[5].

You make a number of unsubstantiated claims and assumptions in your model of economic nirvana.

Ignorance – you are clearly ignorant of political philosophy

Fear – look at the language you use to describe the current government

Jealousy – were you not on the side of removing pension rights from the public sector?

just because you say it, doesnt make it so, TJ.

I certainly dont need to make any defence against that ridiculous post you've just bundled out.

Equally, there are others that agree with me. Your point of view is not "right" TJ. It is your opinion. As is mine. You have the arrogance of the pious Left in you.

and that is just dogmatic. But it's very you.

Pot kettle and black to you sexy butt!

Actually, lets dance the dance if you're going to be like that. So please tell me exactly what is so great about the free market and consumerism Stones… please

ok right wingers exposed for caring about profit rather than people

moving on, what happened with the HR meeting??

ok right wingers exposed for caring about profit rather than people

and just where did I say anything of the sort?

Your point of view is not "right" TJ. It is your opinion. As is mine

Correct

You have the arrogance of the pious Left in you.

Pot kettle black

All through this thread I have made comments about what I think should change to encourage prosperity in the UK for all.

What has anyone on the "left" (if I'm to be accused of being on the "right" – but we're talking economically here, not politically IMO) proposed? more of the same? greater regulation? higher wages and shorter working hours for all unionised industries? The left sees only progress in terms of legislation and regulation, not economic freedom and economic growth. You cant legislate to increase employment for example. As I said on another thread about the waste of undergraduates in further education, a liberal economist would remove NI contributions and allow tax deductibility for apprenticeships. What would the left propose? TJ?

What happened to the guy who was wrongfully sacked for inappropriate Internet use? This thread reminded me of it but I can't find the thread myself.

I am further from the left than you are from the right. Ernies your man for that. I am a dark green anarchist. I believe in the no growth society.

Robdob – that was zedsdead – IIRC after getting advice and support from here and other places he was reinstated but the final outcome was never clear.

I believe in the no growth society.

WTF? Shall we just stay in our caves, then?

I believe in the no growth society.

And Id agree with you there, right after we've licked the birth rate> death rate thing.

I was hoping zedsdead would come back in here with a full story one day. Daft employer getting a shoeing fo it. And amazingly he managed it without any union membership. Wonders will never cease.

All through this thread I have made comments about what I think should change to encourage prosperity in the UK for all.

You indicated you preferred £200bn distributed unevenly to £100bn distributed evenly. I dont want to misquote you however this only leads to greater wealth nor equity of distribution, unless you are a believer in the "trickle down" affect?

surfer- no you havent mis-quoted me. That is correct – id prefer to see a net wealthier economy than a poorer but more equitable one. Ultimately redistribution does occur (as you say, a kind of trickle down effect) but people get hung up on the long tails – those mega rich at one end, rather than the far greater effect of raising the wealth of many, many more people in the more average ranges of wealth.

Deluded

like it.

very good deluded!
trickle down doesnt work, while the economy has boomed inequality has also risen

minimum wage helped to offset this to start with but its never gonna be enough

my firends in the city go to great length to ensure that the large amounts of money they make are safe from the greedy taxman and im sure that they are not alone

but people get hung up on the long tails – those mega rich at one end, rather than the far greater effect of rainsing the wealth of many, many more people in the more average ranges of wealth.

Aggregate wealth is something we would all welcome but you choose not to mention the "mega poor" at the other end. I am not a great believer in the apparent disincentive effect of higher taxation at the margins as I suspect you are.
Rather than relying on a fictitious method of wealth distribution I would rather rely on an interventionist government to minimize the losers in your "tail"