Should I vote Conservative

There's little wrong with Marxism if one genuinely wants a fairer society, but Marx said little about how the theories should be implemented.

But but but we already have nationalised fuel, post and transport systems in the UK. The only problem is that they belong to other nations, eg EDF and DHL.

We are consumers of other nations' nationalised industries, which means we have no control over pricing and quality control via our own government and the profits go overseas.

I used 'hard left' Labour to differentiate the current offering from the Labour of Blair but it is also probably left of Callaghan and Wilson. John McDonnell advertises himself as an old Marxist and I suspect, in power, he would demonstrate the fact even more than he does now.

I first encountered Marxists at university in the 1960's. Mostly middle class, they spoke of a class war that, as a working class lad, I had not encountered. They lauded the system in the Soviet Union, notwithstanding it was failing economically and brutal politically. Now, I read comments that would paint anyone voting Conservative as an old-fashioned Capitalists, self-centred and uncaring. It is not my experience. It is my experience that nationalisation does not imply better management or fighting a class war through the tax system ultimately raises more tax.

In what way is the Labour Manifesto hard-left? Compared with Germany and Nordic countries, it's very middle-of-the road.

Just shows how much the UK has shifted towards the right and has swallowed the so-called austerity mantra.

Two things:

1) Personal debt is running at about £1.5 trillion at the moment (under the Tories). Many commentators are very worried about this and think that the bubble has to burst.

2) Labour's spending plans are not particularly extreme and they make sense to Keynesians. Growing the economy by investing in infrastructure has a 'return' on investment by increased tax take from wages,and purchase of equipment and materials. It benefits both business who supply the latter and workers whose increased wages lead to increased consumer spending as well as an increased tax take. And, with regard to increased wpay, from a sociological point of view it serves to attach people more firmly to their 'society' by making them feel secure and valued.

Government isn't just a case of balancing the books. It's also a case of keeping enough people happy with the 'system' to avoid civil unrest (governments through the ages have been scared of this, especially when they have examples of it leading to revolution in front of them). They have a huge interest in keeping people attached to the system which keeps the ruling elite in power...

I've copied an extract from the 'far left' thread. It's very relevant and I would hope that some people might be willing to reflect on it:

" Marx explained that “each new class which puts itself in the place of the one ruling before it, is compelled, simply in order to achieve its aims, to represent its interest as the common interest of all members of society i.e. ..to give its ideas the form of universality and to represent them as the only rational and universally valid ones. Ideas become presented as if they are universal, neutral, common sense. However, more subtly, we find concepts such as freedom, democracy, liberty or phrases such as “a fair days work for a fair days pay” being banded around by opinion makers as if they were not contentious. They are, in Marxist terms, ideological constructs, in so far as they are ideas serving as weapons for social interests. They are put forward for people to accept in order to prop up the system. "

Ignore the fact that it derives from Marx. It is good solid sociological analysis.

As I have said before, it is easier to manage an economy in a rampant credit boom than in a massive credit squeeze whoever is in power. The Governor of the Bank of England was becoming increasingly uncomfortable about credit growth before 2008 but the banking supervisory weaknesses at the FSA were discovered too late by everyone, including the government.

It clearly interests people to compare government performance from a partisan point of view, regardless of the economic background. Even if it were true, however, that 'Labour' had performed better by some yardstick, it was not 'this' hard-left Labour. It's plans are likely to benefit a few and hurt many through higher inflation, higher taxes and slower,if any, growth.

Mortgage lending rising rapidly, mortgagors offering larger and larger multiples of income in mortgages. Mortgages of over 100% of house value (this is what scuppered Northern Rock) The rise of self-certification mortgages, again with incomes not checked properly. Rapidly rising personal borrowing.

The growth of financial 'products', derivatives and the like, the rise and rapid growth of hedge funds. Quite a few articles in the financial press, including financial pages of tabloid newspapers warning that the economy was overheating.

What were the warning signs monica?

I gave them credit for the good management of the economyin the early years and I actually said so in my last post, but they cocked it up in the last few years.

This still does not get rid of the fact that like the Conservatives before them they liberalised and/or lived very comfortably with liberalised the financial markets and did not impose, even the very lax, controls that they kept.

There were plenty of warning signs of an impending crisis, but they ignored them.

monica The myth that Labour left the economy exposed to a crash is I am afraid just that.

Spending to GDP was no more or less than the average, and the Labour Government ran a surplus for quite a few years it was in power - something the Tories have only ever been able to dream about.

The Tories are not particularly good at managing the economy - past history makes that quite clear.

That is not entirely true Trisher. Certainly for most of the time Gordon Brown was Chancellor he managed the economy extremely well and I was actually reaching stage where I had enough confidence in their economic management to vote for them.

But in the last few years leading up to the crash, they let lending get out of hand and while the financial crash of 2008 was undoubtedly caused by the banking crisis, that in its turn was caused by the US and UK (Labour and Conservative) governments liberalising the financial rules that had previously monitored the conduct of banks closely and replacing them with monitoring systems that were weak and ineffective and appointing to them individuals that were not up to the job.

It was clear for several years before 2008 that the economy was dangerously overheating.There were articles about it generally in the media, but as far as the Treasury was concerned the last thing they were going to do was kill the goose that was laying the golden eggs, even though it was growing clearer by the day that the amount of base metal in the eggs was beginning to be greater than the gold.

Both parties were responsible for the changing rules, but Labour was at the helm for 11 years leading up to the crash. Banking financial crises like that in 2008 have been part of the scene for hundreds of years and governments of all hues, should be prepared for them.

The economy thrived under the last labour gov Cunco until a world wide crash caused major problems. When are people going to stop blaming Labour for something that they couldn't have prevented? In fact the Conservative Gov have failed in the last 7 years to turn things around, but never mind it's that nice Mrs May isn't it?
The question should be if May gets a massive majority how many years has the NHS got left? oh and How many more people will be sleeping on the streets and starving to death before the public realises it has been conned?

May has done u turns .

Corbyn hasn't?

The question remains about the scenario if Corbyn wins. Would he deliver a fairer society in an economy that was faltering? I suspect it would be worse for many, better perhaps for a few and more unstable.

Whitewave: Absolutely. For me, Brexit was a reasoned decision about the long term future of the EU and the UK within the integrated Eurozone.

Voting Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister would stretch my belief in the common sense of the great British public but I would have to accept its judgement. I guess I would grin and bear it and not wave placards saying nasty things about Labour voters. I wonder if the same will be true of Corbynites if Teresa May wins.

Oh let's hope so rar then they won't swallow "strong and stable" from a woman who has done more u-turns than Top Gear, or "One Nation" from the party that has left the homeless, the disabled and the ill to rot whilst the richest have prospered.

The British electorate as not as stupid as some would have us believe.

Fortunately Cunco the awful scenario with Corbyn in power will not actually happen!

cunco like Brexit?

I recognise that plenty of people from all corners of the political compass are sceptical, if not downright hostile, to Teresa May. I too have some unease but let's look at the alternative, a Labour victory or Labour-led Coalition under Jeremy Corbyn.

Day 1 would see the Pound and stock markets fall, inflation expectations take another upward step and the prospect of higher interest rates move nearer. This might look like a re-run of the initial Brexit 'shock' but, with Labour, higher personal and corporate taxation, re-regulation and nationalisation would also be a factor. The Labour Manifesto would also be seen as 'the thin end of the wedge' for such policies while the insertion of an inexperienced and divided government would unsettle confidence further. For some, Brexit together with a Labour government would be reason to pack their bags, as companies and individuals.

Would management of the economy and organisations like NHS improve? I can't see why. I think we would have more volatility, higher inflation and slower long term growth, conditions which make government more difficult for any party. In my 70 years, I don't recall management within the public sector being better than the private sector, too often sadly a pretty low standard. Even in banking, the Co-op managed to exceed a very low standard on the downside.

Would Corby remain leader? Some would have us believe that 'newish' Labour would install one of their own. Personally, I don't see it. If Corbyn were to be replaced after a victory, John McDonnell is the more likely to take over.

So, what's the upside? Well, in the mess that followed, I would be able to blame rather that be blamed, the fate of the hapless Leaver. Sadly, it would be precious little consolation. I hope the great British public will again come to a reasoned, common sense decision but we shall have to wait and see.

Cartoon this morning in the Guardian

"Workers of the world unite!
You have nothing to lose but a years pay caring for your dying loved ones after we've flogged off the NHS""

This way to the food bank

Yes Damien Green was not impressive was he. Emily was giving him an incredulous scare and not helping him at all (by nodding or any of he normal ways people show they are listening).

I never knew that about Hebden Bridge, GracesGran.
Mind, being from much further north than the northern powerhouse, I tend to ignore anything about it. It will not reach my part of the world.
Does Hebden Bridge appreciate its position?

How many people do you know who can take a year off work, unpaid, to look after someone?
Tories live in a different world from most workers.

I see Damien Green is today's sacrificial lamb.
Emily Maitlis is running rings round him on Newsnight.

I agree about Hebden Bridge, Iam and Maggiemay - lovely place. I have often looked at houses there as it has lots of crafters, sewists, etc.

It is also, I have been led to believe, the most central place in the Northern Powerhouse triangle so a good place to campaign I would have thought.