Active discussions

Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Politics
Original poster

Spending cuts causing public backlash against coalition, says opinion poll

53 replies

ttosca · 24/09/2011 00:07

? Guardian/ICM poll: 62% say austerity measures harm economy
? Half of voters unimpressed by coalition's record
? Only half Labour voters think Ed Miliband would be good PM

The tide of public opinion has turned against coalition spending cuts, according to a Guardian/ICM poll which shows a majority of voters now believe excessive austerity is doing more harm than good to the economy.

The research ? carried out this week before Labour's annual conference ? finds overwhelming public concern about the speed and pace of cuts in the face of the return to economic crisis and fears of a double-dip recession. Only 32% agree with the statement "the government's tax increases and public spending cuts are essential to protect Britain's economy".

Almost twice as many, 62%, now agree 'the cuts are too deep and too fast, they will harm Britain's economy more than they help it". Among voters only Conservatives are largely in favour of the coalition's programme - with 67% of definite Lib Dem and 87% of Labour supporters opposed.

www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/sep/23/public-opinion-turns-against-cuts?newsfeed=true

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Original poster
ttosca · 29/09/2011 01:08

MrPants-

ttosca, one of the major arguments against communism (or fascism for that matter - they're both more or less the same) is the tendency to create an inconveniently large pile of dead bodies in a worryingly short time.

You probably mean State Capitalism, where there is a dictatorship, like China does and Russia had. The people fighting for a better world who are on the streets now are not fighting for authoritarian State Capitalism.

At least with libertarianism (or any small state 'minarchism') there is no centralised powerbase to create such systematic havoc.

There doesn't need to be. Who says there needs to be centralisation in order for mass murder and oppression and exploitation to occur?

Free Market Capitalism, meanwhile, has lifted more people out of poverty in a shorter time frame, and feeds more of the world?s poor, than any other method of government that has been tried to date.

This is simply wrong by virtue of the fact that there has never been free market Capitalism anywhere. It simply cannot exist. The state is needed, at the very least, to enforce contracts, to print money, the create and and enforce laws. Furthermore 'unregulated' Capitalism can't exist either, because you need the state to bring in anti-monopoly or anti-cartel laws in order for markets to function minimally.

Secondly, for a long period of time when there was Capitalism before social-democracy, it was not Capitalism which brought wealth and security to the masses. Capitalism before labour fought back with socialism through trade unions and social struggles benefited only a very tiny tiny minority of the population - kind of like what we're seeing more and more today. It was socialism which created the middle-classes, not Capitalism per se.

OP posts:
MrPants · 28/09/2011 23:23

ttosca, one of the major arguments against communism (or fascism for that matter - they're both more or less the same) is the tendency to create an inconveniently large pile of dead bodies in a worryingly short time. At least with libertarianism (or any small state 'minarchism') there is no centralised powerbase to create such systematic havoc.

Free Market Capitalism, meanwhile, has lifted more people out of poverty in a shorter time frame, and feeds more of the world?s poor, than any other method of government that has been tried to date.

Original poster
ttosca · 28/09/2011 22:56

jack-

Ttosca - I think you'll find the USSR was run by a grand plan

Not really, no. There was no blueprint for Communist USSR. The details were worked out as it went along. The idea was a good one "To each according to their need, from each according to their ability". However, for various reasons, not least of which the Soviets were under attack, a deeply centralised state was formed. From the moment you have unaccountable centralised power and lose democracy, you no longer have a socialism.

I'm not convinced by the idea that an economy can be run by people acting for social good.

It's not about charity. It's about producing things which are needed and that the majority of people want. At the moment, you could have thousands of workers working in a factory for an expensive car which none of them can afford. This occurs because production occurs to profit, and it is still sometimes profitable to produce cars which 1/10,000th of the population can afford for a high price, than it is to produce a car which everyone can afford for a lower price.

Assuming that you can 'persuade' everybody that acting for 'social good' is the thing to do - how does each individual know what action to take?

Who does what work can be determined by local democratic councils. The community decides what is needed and people work out how it is to be made.

I struggle with ethical shopping choices & I really do try. Balancing organic, local, free-trade etc. is a head-ache. Imagine if every action was based on perceived 'social good'. Which job to take? how many children to have? Whether to be a working mother?

I agree there is a difficulty there. That's because Capitalism is necessarily amoral. You can try to shop 'ethically', but then you're also likely to pay more for your goods. Sometimes it's not feasible to act 'ethically' when you simply can't afford it. It's more 'ethical' to take the train and pollute less and free cities from cars to make them friendlier to pedestrians. A poor person can't make that choice, though, if driving a car to work is three times cheaper than taking the train because a privitised rail system extracts maximum profit from what is an essential public service and exploits its monopoly.

So I don't think 'ethical Capitalism' is a long term solution, as well intentioned as it is.

As for businesses - how will they decide - how much to pay staff? how much to charge customers? What products to design? Where to manufacture?

The staff are the business - or at least they will be when the public own the means of production. There is no split between the two, that is the point. They will be paid as much as everyone agrees they should be paid. Since there is no need to make profit, they can be paid, in theory, as much as the value they produce. However, they may be paid less in order so that the company can invest in order to expand or research. Alternatively, there may be a different system altogether where people aren't paid a money wage.

BTW - You can kinda factor 'social good' into capitalism by charging for externalities. Whilst consumer power can often be a force for social good (helped now by the Internet).

I'm sort of familiar with that theory, but I don't know much about it. AFAIK, you'll need heavy state intervention in order to impose taxation and penalties to influence demand and prices. The problem is that the state has been considerably weakened in the past few decades and is set to be further weakened. Furthermore, Capitalists will always fight for 'free-market' libertarianism - at least until they need to be bailed out by the public.

OP posts:
jackstarb · 28/09/2011 22:28

Ttosca - I think you'll find the USSR was run by a grand plan Hmm.

I'm not convinced by the idea that an economy can be run by people acting for social good.

Assuming that you can 'persuade' everybody that acting for 'social good' is the thing to do - how does each individual know what action to take?

I struggle with ethical shopping choices & I really do try. Balancing organic, local, free-trade etc. is a head-ache. Imagine if every action was based on perceived 'social good'. Which job to take? how many children to have? Whether to be a working mother?

As for businesses - how will they decide - how much to pay staff? how much to charge customers? What products to design? Where to manufacture?

BTW - You can kinda factor 'social good' into capitalism by charging for externalities. Whilst consumer power can often be a force for social good (helped now by the Internet).

Original poster
ttosca · 28/09/2011 21:12

Please. It's not about Capitalism vs. Communism.

The people fighting every day in the streets, occupying wall street, occupying Syntagma Square in Greece, and people about to occupy the Westminster Bridge on Oct 9th against the privitisation of the NHS aren't fighting to authoritarian Communism.

In fact, one of the key characteristics that the global protests against Capitalism have in common is that they are decentralised, and anti-authoritarian - to a fault.

The fight against Capitalism isn't about 'providing a better alternative' - alternatives are presented and enacted every day when people choose to act according to social good rather than for private gain.

This isn't about a battle of ideas. It's a battle for power. When Capitalism came in to being (not all at once) about 400 years ago, there was no 'grand plan'. There were no big blueprints for the 'new economic plan' of Capitalism. It wasn't like that at all.

Likewise, people who ask for a 'grand plan' for an alternative are asking the impossible. No economic system in the history of mankind has every been devised like that.

Capitalism is not only wasteful, but we're reaching a point now where it threatens the environment, political stability, and the economic wellbeing, not just those who are exploited in the third world, but the middle-class in wealthy Western countries. When the middle-class is being screwed, you know something is up, and cannot last.

At that point, you either have a revolution, or a dictatorship.

What's it going to be?

OP posts:
niceguy2 · 28/09/2011 20:58

In times of hardship people tend to yearn for the security of what they know best. In your example Bread, I suspect that's what is happening.

Anyway, we're getting somewhat off the point. This thread isn't about about capitalism vs communism, it's about spending cuts causing a backlash.

And on that one I'm not really seeing a big backlash. In fact given the scale of the cuts, its damning that Labour are not the runaway favourites. Surely that fear was one of the main reasons one of the first thing the coalition did was fix the election times to 5 years. Because they expected the next few years to be as popular as turd.

But given all that is happening, Labour can't seem to manage to gain confidence. I think that in itself says volumes about what the majority of people really think about the cuts. And that is whilst we don't like it, we accept it has to happen.

jackstarb · 28/09/2011 19:51

Bread - Western-style democracies seem to manage to provide a roof over the head for the vast majority and offer a wide selection of consumer goods.

Of course some people were materially better off in Soviet times. To be fair my friends are a somewhat biased sample. They are youngish, highly skilled and have chosen to live in the UK.

But I think most people would be reluctant to trade their basic freedoms for a minimum financial security.

breadandbutterfly · 28/09/2011 17:40

Interesting - how would you explain the huge popularity of communists in the former East Germany then? I have lots of relatives in East Germany - we visited them under Communism. They had no freedom, no choice re food etc BUT they did all have secure homes, jobs, pensions.

Hence the nostalgia there now.

Visit Russia say, now, and see the old ladies whose secure old age was stolen from them by the collapse of communism, who now make a living by sweeping the streets free of snow in the bitterest weather - would you like to be doing this in your old age?

Communism limited freedom, choice etc - all bad. But to regard untramelled capitalism as some sort of utopia is equally laughable.

Would I rather have a wide range of fruit in the shops or a secure roof over my head? Obviously, I'd rather have both. But given the choice, I'm not sure everyone would plump for the fruit. I suspect it's easy to go for the fruit IF you know that your house is already secure, your job guaranteed etc. For others, the choice is rather less clear cut.

jackstarb · 28/09/2011 12:56

NG2 - I find it fascinating talking to people who grew up in communist countries. The absence of 'consumer choice' had a profound effect on their quality of life. Sometimes it's seemingly trivial things such as all restaurants offering the same [bland] food - so people rarely bothered to eat out. Or having to live in identical flats [badly] designed by some central planner.

Of course, not being able to travel abroad (where one may be corrupted by capitalism) was a more sinister effect.

niceguy2 · 28/09/2011 09:28

JackStar. I agree. Thats why I say that whilst I think Capitalism is wasteful, at the moment there just isn't a credible alternative. When there is, I'll happy push for it.

Right now I'd rather have the choice and let competition improve things than some central government diktat tell me what I can/cannot have. My GF is from a former communist country and from the sounds of things it wasn't much fun.

Capitalism isn't efficient but it's a damn site better than the alternatives.

CogitoErgoSometimes · 28/09/2011 07:48

Agree with edam. Foot and Kinnock found it wasn't enough to be leader of the opposition when the government was unpopular. Milliband will find the same thing if his biggest selling point is 'I'm not Tony Blair'. Reminded me of IDS's 'quiet man' speech. (Not good) His front bench at the conference yesterday with their glassily fixed grins said it all.... 'how quickly can we get the bugger out?'.

jackstarb · 27/09/2011 23:31

"We're wasting Earth's valuable resources making millions of widgets which will end up being thrown away. Or worse, a downright waste of resources like rubber dog shit"

NG2 - In your opinion [and to be honest mine] these are a waste of resources. But obviously not to the people who buy them. And that's the point - who gets to decide?

Ideally, production costs need to include externalities (the real cost to the environment etc.) But if people want to buy plastic dog pooh - then they can. Who's to say it adds less to their life than, for example, NG2's evening tipple (a G&T - perhaps?),

edam · 27/09/2011 22:50

Yeah, public distrust of/opposition to the government doesn't automatically translate into support for the other side. Labour has to work hard to attract the votes of the disillusioned. Not convinced Ed looks like a future PM, tbh - too wet. And image does matter.

Not that being a PR man was enough for Cameron - all that Murdoch muscle, all those ill-gotten tax dodging Ashcroft billlions funding his election campaign and he still didn't manage to win, bless him.

claig · 27/09/2011 13:09

'Agreed. It will be full of Bull!'

If you mean 'Bull', as in bulldog spirit, then I wholeheartedly agree.
If you mean 'Bull' as in (Ed) Bulls, then you are sorely mistaken. Wink

niceguy2 · 27/09/2011 09:25

Again, please read what I've said rather than respond on what you thought I said.

I actually said I wasn't trying to argue the rich shouldn't pay less tax. Just making an economic statement. As it happens I don't think trickle down economics has been perfect. I think its been pretty inefficient. BUT so far i don't see a viable alternative. If you have one then I am all ears.

Like capitalism, personally i find it incredibly inefficient. We're wasting Earth's valuable resources making millions of widgets which will end up being thrown away. Or worse, a downright waste of resources like rubber dog shit or novelty kiss me quick hats. But again what's the alternative? Communism, socialism? They've all been tried and none have been successful. The only thing that seemed to have happened with those regimes is practically everyone was poor except the political elite.

You're right, the battle must be fought internationally, but I don't see you arguing for that at all. You seem to only promote regressive policies.

Brilliant. So despite me saying that we must act internationally and you agreeing, somehow I've not argued for it and am somehow promoting regressive policies??? Again, i haven't argued here for a drop in corporation tax. In fact the only time I can remember doing so was as a suggestion for attracting investment on a temporary basis. I've not said we have to have a race to the bottom. That's your sentence which you keep repeating. I just merely state that if you want to tax companies more then we have to be aligned with our competition and that any rate increase needs to be done as part of a coordinated effort.

At the end of the day the answer isn't cuts alone. We can only balance our deficit in tandem with tax increases. But cuts are a necessary part.

Given the dire state of the economy, the scale of the cuts and proposed tax increases, it's telling really that despite all this, Labour are not higher in the polls than they are.

CogitoErgoSometimes · 27/09/2011 08:01

"You seem to only promote regressive policies."

And yet you only promote 'abandon capitalism'.... which is pure fantasy, totally impractical and therefore neither progressive nor regressive

crazynanna · 27/09/2011 07:48

The beef will be Gove's speech at Conservative Conference.

Agreed. It will be full of Bull! Wink

claig · 26/09/2011 23:51

Precisely, "where's the beef?"
The beef will be Gove's speech at Conservative Conference.

crazynanna · 26/09/2011 23:42

ooohhh Grin
One man's meat....and all that,Claig Wink

claig · 26/09/2011 23:40

'That no chin plank Gove'

I'm not sure which Gove you are referring to? That bears no resemblance to Michael.

crazynanna · 26/09/2011 23:37

That no chin plank Gove getting the boot...now there's something to clap about! Wink

claig · 26/09/2011 23:35

''

They were doing the same at Labour Conference today, particularly when they read the latest message 'fulfilling the promise of Britain'. I think they would even clap 'Freedom is Slavery'.

crazynanna · 26/09/2011 23:28
edam · 26/09/2011 23:26

well said, ttosca.