Pondering, and while slightly more optimistic than we once were, still really quite unhappy Lefty thread

[Hassled]

Where had we got to? We'd agreed that we all love Cameron, right?

Unfortunately I am old enough to remember the two elections of 1974 - Feb and October.(took numbers at a polling station for Labour). The entire year was a permanent campaign, which didn't result in clearing up much, other than removing Ted Heath, and making way for Margaret Thatcher. We should be careful what we wish for..

policy - I am trying to acheive the free-thinking ground you, and your mum, occupy, but decades of socialism bound me in a too rigid style. I even have had heretical thoughts about PR....

Well keep trying Pan, I'm sure you'll get there

What does socialism mean these days? That the workers should own the means of production? I can go for that - but it hasn't been Labour policy for what, 16/17 years now?

Labour is better than the rest on redistribution and equality, but it should have been better. That's why I don't feel I necessarily owe it my vote (particularly in a true blue constituency where the Libs come second).

Completely agree with you Policy. I left Labour over Clause 4 in 1994, and I believe that ever since then they've failed to meet their commitments on social justice because of their lack of commitment to economic justice. One follows the other, IMHO.

'they've failed to meet their commitments on social justice because of their lack of commitment to economic justice' - yes. Not to underplay what they have achieved, but their pant-wetting adherance to free market economics was a serious downer.

I like to think of myself as a pragmatist though (mind you, does anyone like to think of themselves as non-pragmatic ) - I'm happy to vote tactically; any vote so long as it's an anti-Tory/extreme right vote. If we do get PR, I hope I'll be able to vote Green in the comfortable knowledge that Green MPs would be part of a broad left alliance that would keep the country out of rightwingers' hands. (Assuming that the Greens would have sorted out their kerrrazy science policy by then.)

Difficult isn't it?
What galls MOST of all is the fact that Labour had a massive landslide victory in 1997, could have done anything they wished to alleviate poverty, redistribute wealth, reform HoL, lift more children out of poverty, repeal some anti-union legislation, promote education like they said they would, lead an intervention on Palastine and the Middle East, etc ad infinitum...and just didn't do any of it.

The ideas floated in "A Very British Coup" were within their grasp ( no-one goes second class on trains - we all go first class!), but discarded as, similar today, the "markets" wouldn't like it.

Ho hum.

Workers owning the means of production - could we not sell that to the middle classes as simply meaning everything runs like John Lewis?

I have been thinking about theyoungvisitors post, here:

'It's classic right wing tactics - protect your own feathered nest by scaremongering about the consequences of any altruistic action.'

The real issue I had with the Labour party is that they pursued good altruistic actions without having any idea how to pay for it, and simply borrowed more and more.

Because good altruistic actions have to be paid for and paid for sustainably. It's not scaremongering to ask how these policies should be funded, it's responsible.

Well, no, that's true, Quattro - same as asking how people can fund tax cuts, I guess?

And actually, the rw shouting about "how are YOU going to fund this" - if the action is a good altruistic one, surely the thing to say is "how are WE going to fund this"?

yup I'm definitely a pragmatist - and I am left rather than doggedly labour.

Labour is closest to my personal ideology but I disagree with much of what they've done (or not done).

Do you think pragmatic lefties are the labour version of compassionate conservatives?

Yes absolutely re. 1997 Pan. I read Alastair Campbell's diaries recently and it's depressing how utterly opposed to left-wing thinking Blair was in private - not even willing to countenance it, just dismissing it as laughable.

Quatt, absolutely we should have saved more in the good times like good Keynesians. But you know this argument that plenty of people make about not taxing people more because they'll all leave the country - they manage it in France and Scandinavia, don't they?

But Quattro that wasn't what I really meant.

I wasn't saying that altruistic actions should be pursued at all costs.

I was saying that right RW's response to altruistic actions is frequently not to dissect the pros and cons to society as a whole and decide whether the cost is worth the benefit, but rather to ignore any wider discussion by citing the market every single time.

To me, it feels like it's the political version of saying "don't do that dear, Daddy will be cross".

and even if we had saved more in the good times, it would have made bugger all difference to the hole we're in now.

Our debt level was fine, and yes we ran a deficit for a few years and with hind-sight maybe that wasn't such a good idea, but the effect was miniscule compared to the spending required to prop up the banks.

The thing that bothers me most about talk of "the market" is that it seems to me to be incredibly volatile and panicky, and much like having many decisions made depending on just how much of a tantrum a toddler will have if she's about to drop her ice-cream. It just doesn't seem a sensible way to work as a grown-up.

Ham, Simon Hoggart wrote y'day that it's like an elderly granny trying to go to sleep and being jerked awake by creaking floorboards.

The market thrives on instability, doesn't it? That's how people make large sums in short periods of time.

And also atruistic actions don't necessarily have a cost - not to the treasury.

The minimum wage for eg - is there any evidence that that cost anything at all? Yet there were widespread predictions that it would cause havoc in the labour market and small businesses would go down like nine-pins.

That was the kind of thing I meant in my original post - objections to the minimum wage weren't really about cost to the treasury/country, it was about rightwing lobby groups not liking the bill for personal/business reasons.

LordPanofthePeaks- I think Labour did achieve some of the things you mentioned above eg reduce child poverty, redistribute wealth -the better off pay more taxes now and I think they were right to do the latter in moderation. It would have been silly to chase the City overseas when it continues to be a massive revenue earner and will continue to be. Many other countries would love to earn the revenue that we do for being the cashiers of the capitalist world.

Nah - think my panicky toddler analogy is better - or it's more like a granny not hearing the damn floorboards at all, but listening out and imagining she's hearing them instead.

HamShine - dont worry about the markets. It is just a liitle threat to force political unuion. Both sterling and FTSE were due falls anyway. Guvnor of BoE spent last year trying to talk down sterling: i believe that some think that we need to devalue/inflate our way out of the debts.

We now have income tax rates that are amongst the highest in the world. The same as France's, and just below the Nordics (who have the highest income tax rates in the world). But we don't have equivalent services - in terms of healthcare or social welfare or education. The fundamental issues of efficiency and value for money in the public sector have simply not been addressed.

Okay, I see what you meant, TYV, but still, you know, we've not addressed on this thread how things are going to be paid for.

On the issue of the banks, that was the best decision GB ever made. Financial Services have generated more taxation revenue than any other sector. The banks will yield more in tax in the future. The monies paid to support the banks will actually be repaid with a bonus - it's actually been an investment that made sense.

policywonk - yes volaitility means that the market can charge more for risk premia. Like insurance companies jacking up their premia just after an earthquake even though the long term risk of earthquakes might haven't changed by much.