The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[Clint Planet]

All policy can be changed by those in power, if they want to. The reason nothing has changed, some 25 years after she left office, 25 years ffs, is because all the following PM's agreed with it.......

Dude, it really isn't as simple as that, though, as someone who is much more left wing than the major parties, I'll agree that they all need to shoulder their share of the blame. The notion of Thatcherism as some sort of economic miracle is long-exploded, though, no matter which way you look at it and I get the feeling that you're avoiding that core issue in all of this.

The Blessed Margaret and her ideology have been thoroughly discredited.

 

[Jib in lad]

She must have been really good to get the WHOLE world to follow her doctrines, or maybe it didn't actually happen.......

The ruling elite and the high flyers gained massively from it therein lies the answer to your question.

 

[toffee matt]

Dude, it really isn't as simple as that though, as someone who is much more left wing than the major paerties, I'll agree that they all need to shoulder their share of the blame. The notion of Thatcherism as some sort of economic miracle is long-exploded, though, no matter which way you look at it and I get the feeling that you're avoiding that core issue in all of this.

The Blessed Margaret and her ideology have been thoroughly discredited.

Discredited Yes. But every major economy ( even china to a small extent) follows free market principles to a varying degree

 

[Clint Planet]

Discredited Yes. But every major economy ( even china to a small extent) follows free market principles to a varying degree

Sorry, mate, but your statement is so broad as to be pretty meaningless - to me, at least. There never have been "free market" principles in any modern economy (nor a totally managed "communist" one). It has all been degrees of "mixed economy" and Thatcherism was ultimately revealed to be an unsuccessful experiment within that framework.

 

[Seanjd]

Quick warning when debating with Peteblue; he lived through Thatcherism, just in case you didn't know, which totally validates everything he has to say on the matter as fact. If you didn't live through it you have no understanding on the issue at all.

This ignorance is why it is pointless.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Dude, it really isn't as simple as that, though, as someone who is much more left wing than the major parties, I'll agree that they all need to shoulder their share of the blame. The notion of Thatcherism as some sort of economic miracle is long-exploded, though, no matter which way you look at it and I get the feeling that you're avoiding that core issue in all of this.

The Blessed Margaret and her ideology have been thoroughly discredited.

I was reading the fascinating memoirs of Ivan Klima whilst on holiday this week (a fascinating life and no mistake), and to be honest it still baffles me how Marxism still has any credibility whatsoever given the frankly scandalous track record it has in every single country that has tried to implement it.

If it wasn't enough that Lenin's centrally planned agricultural strategy ended up killing millions when the Bolshevik's first took over Russia, they then managed to imprison half of a continent and shackle half of the world in their addled ideology.

It's quite telling that Klima talks about being branded a parasite by the state for not working (despite the fact that they had banned him from working), or how the hospitals had state sponsored euthanasia programs for those deemed not able to recover, or how his children were refused entry into schools and universities (and of course certain professions) on account of his reputation as anti-socialist. Comradely stuff I'm sure you'll agree.

There may be a whole lot wrong with liberal capitalism, but by goodness, on pretty much everything you care about it has done a whole lot better than every instance of full-on socialism that has been tried around the world over the past 100 years.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Quick warning when debating with Peteblue; he lived through Thatcherism, just in case you didn't know, which totally validates everything he has to say on the matter as fact. If you didn't live through it you have no understanding on the issue at all.

This ignorance is why it is pointless.

No, why it's pointless is that people are 'debating' positions that are already staunchly decided upon. If people were here to learn rather than to defend or persuade, then it would have a point, but really it's just a case of 'my thing is better than your thing', which is the epitome of pointless in my opinion.

I mean just listen to the politicians talk about the economy, it's absurd the amount of hubris on display. Labour bragged about doing away with boom and bust, as though they were controlling the economy (and of course ignoring enormous global shifts such as the emergence of the Internet and the rise of China as an economic and manufacturing superpower). Suffice to say, they were happy to admit their marginal influence when the global economy tanked on account of too much borrowing, but now we have the Tories following their hubris by claiming that they (personally) have 'created' all these jobs. It's absurd. We're not playing Sim City here.

Seems much more sensible to me to accept that a) we don't know Jack, and b) that our influence is marginal at best. At least then we'd all approach these kind of discussions hoping to learn something rather than believe we already know all we need to know.

 

[Tubey]

I was reading the fascinating memoirs of Ivan Klima whilst on holiday this week (a fascinating life and no mistake), and to be honest it still baffles me how Marxism still has any credibility whatsoever given the frankly scandalous track record it has in every single country that has tried to implement it.

If it wasn't enough that Lenin's centrally planned agricultural strategy ended up killing millions when the Bolshevik's first took over Russia, they then managed to imprison half of a continent and shackle half of the world in their addled ideology.

It's quite telling that Klima talks about being branded a parasite by the state for not working (despite the fact that they had banned him from working), or how the hospitals had state sponsored euthanasia programs for those deemed not able to recover, or how his children were refused entry into schools and universities (and of course certain professions) on account of his reputation as anti-socialist. Comradely stuff I'm sure you'll agree.

There may be a whole lot wrong with liberal capitalism, but by goodness, on pretty much everything you care about it has done a whole lot better than every instance of full-on socialism that has been tried around the world over the past 100 years.

They're not like for like comparisons. Liberal capitalism has been in place in already comparatively developed countries and thus has the advantage from the offset, whilst marxism (silly phrase, socialism is the proper term) has had its' trials in undeveloped countries almost exclusively in Asia, with the exception of obviously Russia (which was a peasant economy after the monarchy), Cuba etc.

Not saying you're wrong, as socialism is inherently flawed if applied "full on", but capitalism has seen massive issues of its own, and in reality a balance between the two is often found in successful economies, where enterprise is allowed to flourish but the gap between top and bottom is not a gaping chasm.

That's why the Tories are detested by many - the class divide which they actively strive for. As long as the top make the money, and as long as the bottom are not starving to death, they're happy. And it's also why Labour are so mistrusted - they try to lessen the gap by punishing the top to feed the bottom. Surely a middle ground is the solution, where you have a reasonable cap on the excesses people can earn at the top and a slightly higher safety net to ensure poverty is rare in the lower classes, not the norm.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

They're not like for like comparisons. Liberal capitalism has been in place in already comparatively developed countries and thus has the advantage from the offset, whilst marxism (silly phrase, socialism is the proper term) has had its' trials in undeveloped countries almost exclusively in Asia, with the exception of obviously Russia (which was a peasant economy after the monarchy), Cuba etc.

Not saying you're wrong, as socialism is inherently flawed if applied "full on", but capitalism has seen massive issues of its own, and in reality a balance between the two is often found in successful economies, where enterprise is allowed to flourish but the gap between top and bottom is not a gaping chasm.

That's why the Tories are detested by many - the class divide which they actively strive for. As long as the top make the money, and as long as the bottom are not starving to death, they're happy. And it's also why Labour are so mistrusted - they try to lessen the gap by punishing the top to feed the bottom. Surely a middle ground is the solution, where you have a reasonable cap on the excesses people can earn at the top and a slightly higher safety net to ensure poverty is rare in the lower classes, not the norm.

To be honest though, although the Mail like to paint them as backwaters, the countries of eastern Europe (such as Czech) that were forced into communism by Russia were far from un-civilised states.

If anything, what the last century would seem to have taught us is that so many of the 'isms are flawed because they paint an excessively simplistic view of how things should be. I can't seem to find a copy online, but Utopias is an essay well worth reading (by Klima). He talks about the way so many politicians paint utopian visions, from Plato through to Farage (ok, he doesn't mention Farage), but all of these so called leaders talk about the happiness of the people, and they all believe that they alone have found the key to achieving this. It's a level of hubris bordering on madness.

 

[Tubey]

To be honest though, although the Mail like to paint them as backwaters, the countries of eastern Europe (such as Czech) that were forced into communism by Russia were far from un-civilised states.

If anything, what the last century would seem to have taught us is that so many of the 'isms are flawed because they paint an excessively simplistic view of how things should be. I can't seem to find a copy online, but Utopias is an essay well worth reading (by Klima). He talks about the way so many politicians paint utopian visions, from Plato through to Farage (ok, he doesn't mention Farage), but all of these so called leaders talk about the happiness of the people, and they all believe that they alone have found the key to achieving this. It's a level of hubris bordering on madness.

Ideology has been dead since the Berlin Wall came down. It's now the application of capitalism that's the battle ground.

Either you have unfettered profitmongering in the strange belief that it "trickles down", which has quite literally never happened ever in any economy to a meaningful degree beyond the natural benefits of a growing economy (it's a weird socialism through capitalism idea that is barmy and, no offence, something you obviously prescribe to!) or you believe the implementation can be done with checks and balances at the very, very top, so as to not limit private enterprise, whilst making sure similar checks and balances are in place at the very bottom, to stop capitalism destroying both extreme ends of the scale, as is its' wont - see the banking crisis and austerity for details.

 

[edge]

Why is one called rebalancing an economy and the other called austerity. Countries, like households, should always be looking to balance the economy. The UK allowed itself to get into too much debt, now we have to find a way to address this......

pete we are actually borrowing more at present,due to lower income tax returns i am all for cutting the debt,overseas aid as an example,

She must have been really good to get the WHOLE world to follow her doctrines, or maybe it didn't actually happen.......

pity the rest of the world , don't get a reminder of how great she was when they get a electricity/gas/ water/ bill, popped through the door by some fella on minimum wage, working for a dutch company get to travel on a bus or train and thank Mrs Thatcher for the rip off prices that fund mostly overseas company s, ironically state owned in many case , yes thanks for the billions she has given to her rich friends at home and abroad that we once owned and should have been getting those billions for all these years.
She did the equivalent of going to the pawn shop selling all the family silver and living the high life till the money ran out, and left the rest of us to pick up the bill in the long run, absolute rat of a human being .
The ones who followed and the current crop are a shambles, but i would take any single one of them over that thing,
Awaits Boris to be the return to thatchers throne, god help us

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Ideology has been dead since the Berlin Wall came down. It's now the application of capitalism that's the battle ground.

Either you have unfettered profitmongering in the strange belief that it "trickles down", which has quite literally never happened ever in any economy to a meaningful degree beyond the natural benefits of a growing economy (it's a weird socialism through capitalism idea that is barmy and, no offence, something you obviously prescribe to!) or you believe the implementation can be done with checks and balances at the very, very top, so as to not limit private enterprise, whilst making sure similar checks and balances are in place at the very bottom, to stop capitalism destroying both extreme ends of the scale, as is its' wont - see the banking crisis and austerity for details.

For what it's worth, my thinking over the years has tended to be underpinned by our current understanding of complex systems and how futile (and counter productive) it has thus far been shown to be to try and control them centrally.

In the sense that this provides people with a freedom to behave how they wish (within the laws of the land), then yes, it probably is more socialist than many of the socialists on this forum.

Of course, that hasn't been tried anywhere, and I don't expect it ever will be tried anywhere, as humanity has shown nothing if not a penchant for an 'elite' preserving a large dollop of power. To be honest, I'm not sure such a vision is even what many people want. As the saying goes, with great freedom comes great responsibility, both to those around you and, of course, to yourself too. I get the impression that many are quite happy to absolve themselves of that responsibility, and therefore have those in power to blame when things go wrong.

 

[peteblue]

For what it's worth, my thinking over the years has tended to be underpinned by our current understanding of complex systems and how futile (and counter productive) it has thus far been shown to be to try and control them centrally.

In the sense that this provides people with a freedom to behave how they wish (within the laws of the land), then yes, it probably is more socialist than many of the socialists on this forum.

Of course, that hasn't been tried anywhere, and I don't expect it ever will be tried anywhere, as humanity has shown nothing if not a penchant for an 'elite' preserving a large dollop of power. To be honest, I'm not sure such a vision is even what many people want. As the saying goes, with great freedom comes great responsibility, both to those around you and, of course, to yourself too. I get the impression that many are quite happy to absolve themselves of that responsibility, and therefore have those in power to blame when things go wrong.

Singapore had a sort of benign dictatorship, as it was described to me by a colleague who was based there. Lots of central control but all focussed on generating wealth in order to provide infrastructure and services to the populace.

I like the comparison with complex systems and chaos theory, as you say no one person or group can totally control events especially when others are involved. An example would be Russia totay where Putin has complete control and is fully supported by the people, but sanctions and the oil price are decimating the economy.....

 

[peteblue]

pete we are actually borrowing more at present,due to lower income tax returns i am all for cutting the debt,overseas aid as an example,but not asystem

pity the rest of the world , don't get a reminder of how great she was when they get a electricity/gas/ water/ bill, popped through the door by some fella on minimum wage, working for a dutch company get to travel on a bus or train and thank Mrs Thatcher for the rip off prices that fund mostly overseas company s, ironically state owned in many case , yes thanks for the billions she has given to her rich friends at home and abroad that we once owned and should have been getting those billions for all these years.
She did the equivalent of going to the pawn shop selling all the family silver and living the high life till the money ran out, and left the rest of us to pick up the bill in the long run, absolute rat of a human being .
The ones who followed and the current crop are a shambles, but i would take any single one of them over that thing,
Awaits Boris to be the return to thatchers throne, god help us

The idea of Boris in charge scares the crap out of me. The world is a dangerous place at the moment and while most of this debate has been internally focused on the economy, defence and International relationships are going to be crucial over the next ten years.

I agree about the borrowing going up, that's what prompted my original remark of 'what austerity'.........

 

[Clint Planet]

I was reading the fascinating memoirs of Ivan Klima whilst on holiday this week (a fascinating life and no mistake), and to be honest it still baffles me how Marxism still has any credibility whatsoever given the frankly scandalous track record it has in every single country that has tried to implement it.

You think Stalin was a Marxist? You need to wise up, mate.

If it wasn't enough that Lenin's centrally planned agricultural strategy ended up killing millions when the Bolshevik's first took over Russia....

As though Capitalism doesn't have the blood of millions on its hands

they then managed to imprison half of a continent and shackle half of the world in their addled ideology.

Try telling that to the peasants who suffered under Somoza in Nicaragua or Batista in Cuba or any number of central and south American nations where "capitalism" and the USA shackled millions. Try asking Jamaican farmers if "capitalism" is working.

It's quite telling that Klima talks about being branded a parasite by the state for not working (despite the fact that they had banned him from working),

Didn't know IDS used to work in Czechoslovakia.

Is it telling? In what way? Are you saying that there are no enemies of the state in the West? That Edward Snowden is not seen an enemy of the state even though he acted in the interests of the people? That the CIA has not assassinated thousands of "enemies of the state" over the decades?

...or how the hospitals had state sponsored euthanasia programs for those deemed not able to recover,

Eugenics is more a Nazi thing, is it not, although state sponsored sterilisation has also taken place in America, Peru, Israel, Sweden and even post velvet revolution Czech Republic. And then there's the treatment of the indiginous populations of the USA, Australia, south America. Wholesale kidnapping of children, mass murder, rape, enslavement, genocide - that sort of nasty business.

or how his children were refused entry into schools and universities (and of course certain professions)

When the Sandinistas overthrew Somoza, half the population was illiterate. Within a few years, 88% could read.

There may be a whole lot wrong with liberal capitalism,

Really? Why don't you point it out, then? You never do.

..but by goodness, on pretty much everything you care about it has done a whole lot better than every instance of full-on socialism that has been tried around the world over the past 100 years.

Even if that were true - and the points I make above cast huge doubt over than assertion - does that mean we can't criticise liberal capitalism? And are you denying it was a liberal capitalist ideology that lead to the economic crash?