The Labour Party

ab, Try and rise above it. Eloethan's posts haven't been aggressive - nor have yours.

Every political thread has become 'Socialists R Us'

No, Grandma Daphne , I haven't, thank you all the same. But you head off there if you are feeling tired by all your sarcasm hmm?

Good grief! Grandma? Is there something my children haven't told me?

My sarcasm is gentler than my criticism.

Just a little hint, rosesarered. If you have a valid argument, try expressing it in rational language. Sniping just gives you a certain reputation.

Perhaps you could send me another ofyour nasty little PM's? that will certainly get you a reputation.

Btw you may not actually be a Gran yet ( or ever) but this is Gransnet after all.We are all Grans on here.

Any chance of getting back to the OP?

Daphne, Rosesarered doesn't bother or interest me , sadly she only posts to stir up disagreements but doesn't contribute anything of interest on the topic, well not quite true, she did contribute a lot to Corbyn 's vest discussion which was held some months ago.

Your wit is up to the usual standard I see ab

Some of us have to give another point of view now and then, otherwise it really does become a cosy little club ( I realise that is what some of you prefer.)

Which is why Anya's thread was doomed from the start.

Why? Because your agenda has always been to smear?

<Sigh> It would be good to have a proper discussion. Unfortunately that's not possible when people with no intellectual contribution join in!

Have you thought of joining a knitting circle, roses_sont_roses? You might find that the intellectual level is about the same as your own?

Good post @ daphnedill Wed 20-Apr-16 23:05:20

i have no need to justify or elaborate on my socialist principles for the sake of those who would inevitably pick holes in them. But they include the right for others to hold opposing views without being the subject of vitriolic comment or persecution. Or ridicule.

Obviously the persecution does not refer to GN, but to wider global issue.

My principles have nothing to do with religion. I have no belief in a god and have little experience of religion being a force for good, historically or in the present day, though I acknowledge a few religious individuals who sought to improve life for others.

Getting back to the Labour Party, I think the coming local elections will be interesting. I wonder if there will be a swing back in favour of the LibDems as people realise that they did exert some sort of restraint on the Tories?

Re Corbyn, I have said several times in GN I have no objection to the man, in fact I admire many of his qualities and deeply held principles. But he is not strong or savvy enough to hold the party together. He reminds me of Old Major.

One of two things will happen, depending on how Labour does in the May elections.

Just catching up with this debate.

So pleased to see that the moderate right (I wouldn't dare call them anything else) contributed with such intellectual and challenging ideas.

People like economists such as Freedman describe Capitalism with its raw pursuit of profit, as the driver of individual happiness. In order to achieve this utopian state, there should be little or no interference in this pursuit of profit from the state. The state should be as small as possible. The idea is that left entirely to its own devices every individual will benefit from it -someone once described it as the trickle down effect. The individual is the key - remember -there is no such thing as society? Within this very traditional philosophy, it is accepted that some individuals will do well and some will lose big time. But the the state should not interfer, it is accepted as the natural way of being. Nothing should interfer with the market.
This is what the Tory party accepts as its world view. It is the utopian model that it constantly aims towards.

Now I have outlined the above because the Labour movement grew as a reaction to the result of the raw pursuit of profit and all its resultant effects.

That is true Whitewave

The so called socialist principles and intellectual argument has an extremely long and varied history. We can go back to movements like the levellers or Quakers and many others. But what we have today, whilst built on so many of the ideas conceived throughout the centuries, is as a result of attempting to mitigate the effects of the pursuit of profit.

To mitigate the effects of the pursuit of profit by the few, at tne expense of those who make that profit possible by their labour.

Interestingly, Friedman was also a proponent of negative income tax and a basic living wage.

So for example during the 19th century, we can see capitalism in its most "efficient" state. Profit was accumulated and constantly pursued. In order to achieve this worker's wages were kept as low as possible without actually starving the workforce to death, children were put to work for even less. Capitalism needed the raw materials and so expanded the market throughout the world but paying as little as possible for the materials. Democracy did not exist, the only voice heard - with a few altruistic exceptions -was that of those pursuing profit.

I shall stop now as I'm going on too much!

Is there a case for saying that any system that abuses the rights of some people in order to increase the wealth of others is not "efficient". I suppose it's efficient in making some people rich but it's not efficient at improving the general lot of the majority in society. I think this is why the second half of the nineteenth century saw so much social reform (I'm thinking of the Gladstone and Disraeli governments) and later the emergence of the trades unions and Labour Party.

I think a society based on the benefits of capitalism and on justice for everyone is what I'd call efficient.

Solely in order to increase the wealth of a few, I should say.

Capitalism is not going to go away. But if those in society who provide the means, by their labour, for others to profit are not part of the equation then that is abuse certainly.

So the 'profit' has to be less for those at the top and more evenly distributed to those who work. Yet, at the same time there has to be consideration given to the fact that, with modern technology, less people might be needed to produce the service or the 'goods'. This is especially difficult when our manufacturing industries are collapsing at the same time as technology is reducing the numbers of workers needed.

This is not a new problem

So sufficent monies need to be made available, through taxation, to run public services which return no profit such as the NHS and education, and to pay those workers.

Then there arises the question of those who cannot or will not find work and how to meet their needs.