Current Affairs The Labour Party

[davek]

The choice right now is simple. Starmer's Labour or Johnson's Tories.

On a wider note, in what way do you think the market has failed?

The market is a failure because without massive state handouts they cant deliver. They are parasitic. Local state and national state contracts to the private sector keep them afloat. Then they produce as businesses poor services across key industries, and we end up with the utter catastrophe of a Covid19 virus because they are set up for profit and are atomised, uncoordinated and incapable of a coherent national effort to defeat the virus...more especially the care home sector underlines that.

 

[Hickson9]

The market is a failure because without massive state handouts they cant deliver. They are parasitic. Local state and national state contracts to the private sector keep them afloat. Then they produce as businesses poor services across key industries, and we end up with the utter catastrophe of a Covid19 virus because they are set up for profit and are atomised, uncoordinated and incapable of a coherent national effort to defeat the virus...more especially the care home sector underlines that.

So to narrow down, you are an advocate of a minimal interventionist role of the state? And presumably you think businesses should stand or fail on their merits?

 

[davek]

So to narrow down, you are an advocate of a minimal interventionist role of the state? And presumably you think businesses should stand or fail on their merits?

If they are to be called capitalists and entrepreneurs then they should be able to stand alone and make a profit. Anything short of that means they are subsidised and not really part of the market.

Many in the banking crisis made that very point (even those on the right) that if they are private concerns, then there should have been a shake out of that industry and those that failed left to perish.

 

[Tubey]

If they are to be called capitalists and entrepreneurs then they should be able to stand alone and make a profit. Anything short of that means they are subsidised and not really part of the market.

Many in the banking crisis made that very point (even those on the right) that if they are private concerns, then there should have been a shake out of that industry and those that failed left to perish.

Very much laissez faire capitalist of you dave - I'm surprised!

 

[davek]

Very much laissez faire capitalist of you dave - I'm surprised!

Ilm not an advocate of private enterprise. I'm saying that if they espouse the profit motive for their own ends then they should use their own means to make a profit.

I have no idea how you interpreted what I stated as an affirmation of the market.

 

[Tubey]

Ilm not an advocate of private enterprise. I'm saying that if they espouse the profit motive for their own ends then they should use their own means to make a profit.

I have no idea how you interpreted what I stated as an affirmation of the market.

I agree with you entirely. Well, apart from the first bit, but as for the fact they should stand or fail on their own merit, absolutely that's correct. Bailing out the banks, while necessary probably, simply underlined the failure of the system where they'd need to be bailed out in any circumstance.

 

[tsubaki]

I agree with you entirely. Well, apart from the first bit, but as for the fact they should stand or fail on their own merit, absolutely that's correct. Bailing out the banks, while necessary probably, simply underlined the failure of the system where they'd need to be bailed out in any circumstance.

Certainly the way they were bailed out. I’d have liked to see them get that only in exchange for most / all of their home mortgage books.

 

[Tubey]

Certainly the way they were bailed out. I’d have liked to see them get that only in exchange for most / all of their home mortgage books.

Well, only if that could be definitively seen as a fair exchange and there's no chance of taxpayers subsidising it at a loss over, say, five years.

But even then, for me, they should have been allowed to fail, like any business. The market would have rebounded and covered any gaps. The only reason they weren't allowed to fail was because a mechanism was in place to do it, when there shouldn't have been, and a lot of rich people had influence.

 

[Hickson9]

If they are to be called capitalists and entrepreneurs then they should be able to stand alone and make a profit. Anything short of that means they are subsidised and not really part of the market.

Many in the banking crisis made that very point (even those on the right) that if they are private concerns, then there should have been a shake out of that industry and those that failed left to perish.

I am reading this as advocacy of a more regulated private sector and a more constrained form of capitalism, to lower the risk of market failures and the resulting possible impact on employment and living standards.

Or, unrealistically, Government accepts market failures and the resulting impacts upon citizens.

 

[davek]

I am reading this as advocacy of a more regulated private sector and a more constrained form of capitalism, to lower the risk of market failures and the resulting possible impact on employment and living standards.

Or, unrealistically, Government accepts market failures and the resulting impacts upon citizens.

A mixed economy where essential services like the utilities are taken out of the market and nationalised. That would be a start, and it's right in line with public thinking for the last decade, as the market staggered from rip off to crisis and back again.

 

[Hickson9]

A mixed economy where essential services like the utilities are taken out of the market and nationalised. That would be a start, and it's right in line with public thinking for the last decade, as the market staggered from rip off to crisis and back again.

Don't you think Starmer's Labour is the only way that will ever happen?

 

[davek]

Don't you think Starmer's Labour is the only way that will ever happen?

As I said, I'm waiting to see how much he deviates from the last two LP manifestos, something he said when he was contesting the leadership he wouldn't do.

If he does deviate a lot from it, what is the point of supporting his version of the LP?

 

[Hickson9]

As I said, I'm waiting to see how much he deviates from the last two LP manifestos, something he said when he was contesting the leadership he wouldn't do.

If he does deviate a lot from it, what is the point of supporting his version of the LP?

It would still be much the lesser of two evils.

 

[davek]

It would still be much the lesser of two evils.

It'd have only one virtue: turfing the Tories out of office. But that's not good enough if the vision of the incoming LP is so stunted it barley makes a difference.

We need transformation not a bunch of LP careerists keeping the player spinning.

 

[Hickson9]

It'd have only one virtue: turfing the Tories out of office. But that's not good enough if the vision of the incoming LP is so stunted it barley makes a difference.

We need transformation not a bunch of LP careerists keeping the player spinning.

There is a rather large difference in the Tory Party and the Labour party, as they stand. It is strange to think otherwise.

The only transformation of the kind you want happens if Starmer's Labour get in power. That is the bottom line.