What did we think of Martin Durkin's documentary last night?

Agree very much with Takver and Claig on this

Takver - if you're looking at the Livng Marxism references in that link, here's another facet:

"Political affiliations
Critics and supporters of Durkin's programmes have claimed he is closely involved with the Revolutionary Communist Party and its later offshoots Living Marxism (or LM magazine) and Spiked, a magazine and associated political network that promotes libertarian views.[19][20][21] [22][23]

Durkin has denied this, asserting that The Guardian newspaper has accused him of being on the far right, the far left and of being a 'classic liberal'.[citation needed]. RCP member Brendan O'Neill of Spiked has defended him, stating:

In fact, a few people who contributed articles to LM appeared as talking heads on Against Nature. That?s all. Not as exciting as the crazed and wide-eyed web conspiracy theories make it sound, I know. Sorry.[24]" from wiki

Interesting suggestions, claig. I'd be keen to see lots more employee controlled businesses, my feeling being that it is only when employees are in control rather than shareholders that there is a genuine incentive to deal with inefficiencies. Not necessarily meaning that the employees should run the business themselves directly, in lots of cases of course they would choose to employ professional managers to do it (though I suspect high level pay packages would be looked at a lot more closely).

PlentyofPockets - you (and others) might be interested in this piece about Martin Durkin. Despite the greengrocers' apostrophes it is worth a read.

'I didn't agree with a lot of what was said on the programme but I wouldn't complain to OFCOM about it.'

Don't then. I wasn't suggesting everybody should, just providing a link for those who might want to.

WRT party politics - I can't find anything on the Ofcom site that partiality only refers to this. Plenty of people complained on these grounds about the Great Global Warming Swindle, which wasn't a party political issue. The complaints weren't upheld, but only because global warning was no longer considered a controversial issue. We'll see though - either they'll uphold it or not. I've made a complaint and am now happy for Ofcom to do their job and investigate. Either way, nothing bad will happen and I don't think I've done anything wrong.

Takver, I agree with you on the economy. You know much more about it than me.

I would try to change our reliance on the City. I would nationalise many of the failing banks and make sure that they prioritised investment in British industry. I would increase taxes on speculation and on foreign investment and give tax breaks and grants for investment in British industry. I would improve our education system and increase standards. I would commission lots of TV programmes about science and industry. I would have the fabulous Royal Institution Christmas Lectures all year round. I think what Harold Wilson did was great when he created the Open University and created an investment bank for investment in new technology. I would give extra money for universities that taught science and business. I would try to change the climate so that our brightest students choose industry rather than finance, law and media.

I would try to roll back some of globalisation and try to build up new nationalised industries to supply the basics for the country.

I would commission studies on how the Germans do it and why they are in the top tier of world exporters.

'why do we always get the damned incompetent ones in power, whether from the right or left'

I think we get them, because we get the ones that the bankers like.

Plenty- I didn't agree with a lot of what was said on the programme but I wouldn't complain to OFCOM about it. It didn't endorse or show any bias towards any particular political party so I would be surprised if OFCOM did anything at all. It provided an alternative view of events and did make a few interesting points as well as some highly dubious ones.

They have to state it up-front at the beginning - they didn't.

I bet at least one complaint is upheld against this prog on the grounds of partiality.

trice, had it been clearly labelled as biased polemic, I'd agree. When I see people saying that they don't really understand politics but that this programme makes it all much clearer, I worry. I think plenty of people won't recognise this for what it is. There are stacks of people who will happily swallow whatever the Daily Fail or the Grauniad tell them.

I think you might struggle on "The programme was not signalled as a personal or authored view" - I recall a section in the middle where he said something like "I'm MArtin Durkin and this is my film about the psychotically enormous debt we are in.."(not a direct quote obv.).

I bet there is a similar rebuttal to each of the sections you have referred to.

Glad to bring a little joy to the world

It sounds pompous because it's using exactly the same language as the broadcasting code - it helps them if you can point directly to the bits of the code the programme contravenes. It's a bit like legal stuff - you have to use their language.

If somebody complains to Ofcom, they have to take it seriously but it's not the viewer's job to persuade Ofcom that the complaint is valid, it's up to them to investigate.

I doubt very much that mine will be the only complaint. C4 has plenty of form (upheld complaints) about other 'documentaries' this guy has made.

pop - you know even "less politically literate" people can recognised biased polemic. We get so much of the other end of the spectrum broadcast all the time from the bbc that I think it is good for us all to see some raving right wing propaganda. I think its great to see politics in prime time. Even if it's not my politics.

Claig, I think it is fascinating that despite pretty strong differences of political opinion, we seem have a rather similar view of the economic/industrial landscape.

What would you do to improve matters, given a totally free hand (say you were given a 5 year dictatorship)?

The other question that I would like to know the answer to, is, given that there are lots of sensible intelligent right wing people on here - even though I might disagree with them on political principles - as well as sensible intelligent left wing ones (though I may be predisposed to consider them so ) why do we always get the damned incompetent ones in power, whether from the right or left . . . .

Sorry PoP, that comes across as so pompous I laughed out loud.

Admittedly I sort of read it in my head in a high pitched hoity toity voice.

I hope someone at Ofcom takes you seriously.

Actually, I've just put in my first ever Ofcom complaint about this programme. If anybody else feels like doing so, go here

Do read the broadcasting code first and make sure your complaint relates directly to the rules. Here's what I wrote ...

Failure to preserve due impartiality

This programme was heavily biased in favour of one particular political position. It was not part of a series or cluster of programmes which could have provided a balance of different viewpoints. It dealt with highly controversial matters of current political and industrial policy. The programme was not signalled as a personal or authored view. The simplistic style of this programme's presentation was designed to appeal to a less politically literate audience and it was broadcast in a prime timeslot between River Cottage (general family audience) and True Blood (teen/young adult audience).

'Haven't seen a documentary with so few female "characters" since that ridiculous "great climate change swindle" C4 documentary, which ONLY had women in bikinis on beaches in it.'

Ziptoes - that documentary was made by the same bloke

I thought it was dangerous and simplistic right-wing propaganda by somebody who already has form for distorting the views of environmental scientists. If I didn't know better, I'd have come away with the impression that public sector employees paid no tax, that private businesses pay 100% of their profits in tax (yet simultaneously manage to reinvest all of their profits - no mention of shareholders) and that income tax is the only source of govt. income, that the industrial revolution didn't depend on child labour and exploitation in the far east and that Hong Kong was heaven on earth, when it's an environmental disaster with higher inequality levels than the US. Oh, and that perpetual growth is somehow sustainable.

I also thought it somewhat ironic that this was broadcast by a channel that's currently dependent on government bail-outs.

I know the public sector is massively inefficient and Something Needs To Be Done. This is not it.

Sorry, I think maybe it is five trillion? (I told you I find those sort of figures incomprehensible!) :o

Why isn't the level of National Debt common household knowledge? If we were updated even once a year on where we stand, this would make us feel we live in a democracy. I don't like having found out recently that I 'owe' £70+thousand pounds, like every other man, woman and child in the UK, and I'd want to know if 'my' share of the debt was coming down or going up further.

Fifty something trillion pounds of debt is such a mindblowingly incomprehensible figure that whittling it down to the actual debt owed per individual makes the situation one I and probably most people can understand.

Regular widespread, loud and clear 'bulletins' about the share of the national debt per person, so that everyone understands the mess we're in, will help people appreciate the need for spending cuts (even if some areas, like tuition fees cuts, just cannot be accepted.)

'The key lesson from that (and other examples) is that in practice it is not whether an organisation is public or private that is important, but how it is run.'

yes it is management and investment that count. Good points by Takver. Of course state run industries can succeed if they have good management and adequate investment. Look at the success of France, with its TGV and Arianespace projects.

Privatisation was ideological and did not necessarily benefit the country. The difference between us and Germany and France, is our overreliance on the financial sector. Our brightest students often choose the rewards of finance rather than entering management in our manufacturing sector. It is different in Germany, the education, respect, rewards and priorities are different and that is why they are such an economic powerhouse and one of the top exporters in the world. They also don't have our Anglo-Saxon model of finance, and as Takver said, their Landesbanks invest for the longterm in their industries. They didn't have the merger and acquisition corporate raiding culture that we have.

The French still have partial state ownership for some of their large industries. They believe in protecting their industries and national interest. Whereas we believe in globalisation and free markets, the French have always been more protectionist.

Much of our energy sector is now in foreign hands. Globalists and the EU think that is OK. I wonder if France and Germany would think that was OK.

For reference, here is a record from Hansard relevant to the BA privatisation. I thought this was an interesting quote

"Over the last two years, however, decisiveness on the part of management and determined cooperation from the workforce have sharply improved British Airways' productivity"

a rather different story, sadly, to what we see now.

Another interesting example, going back to the 1980s. At that point of course privatisation was the big thing - taking public owned businesses that were stagnant and unprofitable, and privatising them so that they would be revitalised and become profitable.

British Airways is a fascinating case study. If you remember, Sir John King was appointed to prepare the company for privatisation. He turned it around, from a serious loss maker, to one of the most profitable airlines in the world. Note, this was BEFORE it was privatised, while it was still publicly owned. It was then, of course, sold off.

The key lesson from that (and other examples) is that in practice it is not whether an organisation is public or private that is important, but how it is run.

Another unfortunate example, of course, is the contrast between the United States medical system (widely acknowledged to be vastly expensive for what it achieves), and the UK NHS, which has its failings but generally achieves a reasonable outcome with a relatively low cost.

Where are you getting your figures that only 2 million are front line staff?

Frankly, while there is definitely waste in the public sector, my experience of larger private sector companies is that they are often extremely efficient. The worst organisation I have known for pointless waste was a large pharmaceutical company.

I don't know where you are getting the idea that the public sector can 'just hire more staff' - they have limited budgets, and have done for many years (if it was ever the case that they didn't).

My personal feeling is that on the average, small businesses are very much the most efficient, as everyone involved in the organisation has a strong incentive to keep things working well.

Large organisations, whether public or private, have far more scope to accumulate inefficiency.

Takver - even 6 million public sector works seems like a lot to me especially when (I think) only 2 million are actually front life staff. What are the other 4 million doing? If my business is inefficent the profits suffer, if the public sector is inefficent they hire more staff and increase my tax bill. I then think twice about exbanding the business and hiring more staff.

intelligentsia or no, channel 4 ought to have thought that there were a few women economists or politicians worth interviewing.

And FFS - none the other "characters" were in patronising semi-soft porn outfits, not even the "manual worker" with the dungarees and dirty face (verging on YMCA).