Social Capitalism according to Gove and which party really does represent the UK?

growstuff

Maybe I should start a thread on "social capital" because we seem to be discussing a number of different issues. I actually think the idea of social capital is an interesting one.

We are discussing the different issues to get to the bottom of the use of "social capital" growstuff. So much is not as cut and dried as some would like it and this sort of discussion allows us all to help one another learn - rather than battling over minute differences of opinion. We may not reach a conclusion but for me, as I hope for others, it allows us to expand our learning.

Whitewavemark2

growstuff

There's a lengthy Wiki article on social capital theory. There are various interpretations, but in essence it's about putting "people" rather than traditional capital (and "growth") at the centre of government decision making.

There are also some disadvantages because it can lead to tribalism (communities competing with other) and narrow-mindedness.

Oh I’ll have a look.

In some definitions I noticed it had to be a "top down" system. A description of the Nordic form of capitalism perhaps. I find that odd but maybe I would.

It does seem that some are describing a capitalist system where the social system picks up the pieces and some a social system that helps to run the capitalist system. (Although I am still not sure about that). It does seem to have a double meaning,

I never said anywhere that anything is "cut and dried" - that's a strawman argument - but it does seem that there isn't a universal understanding of "social capital". I'm not even suggesting that people should come to the same conclusion, but it would be useful to know what people think they're discussing.

Unfortunately, I can't see this article Growstuff,

She posted it, or most of it at 10.56

growstuff

I never said anywhere that anything is "cut and dried" - that's a strawman argument - but it does seem that there isn't a universal understanding of "social capital". I'm not even suggesting that people should come to the same conclusion, but it would be useful to know what people think they're discussing.

It wasn't an argument or intended as an argument at all growstuff. It was an explanation. Why does it always need to be an argument for some people!

MaizieD

^Unfortunately, I can't see this article Growstuff,^

She posted it, or most of it at 10.56

I saw it after I posted Maizie, thanks. Unfortunately, that often happens.

From the bit I’ve read so far, it is a description of the forms of mitigation used to counter the effects of exploitation that occurs as a result of the pursuit of profit.

Does anyone agree with that?

This is not me arguing with you Whitewave, just saying. It is how others are using, and possibly misusing the phrase that I am interested in. There are already at least two ways of defining it and I don't feel ready to agree to another one. But some/many may be.

Well in order to move the conversation forward, we have to agree on something or there is no point.

I also think that my tentative description covers both definitions.

If we go back to basics.

I assume that we all agree that the economic system we are operating under is a capitalist economy?

An unwelcome view here ,the UK is not a country so there is not one solution available or acceptable to every part of it .
The SNP are social democrats in the manner of the French .
Policies to help those at the bottom of the ladder like the rent freeze and eviction ban would probably be difficult to get through WM ,yet it sailed through Holyrood .As did most of the other socially aware policies like free bus travel for under 22's the Scottish child payment and even the much criticised Baby box....not criticised by many here but by many south of the border online .
Plus many more things like councils being responsible for using funding meant to build social housing OR having those funds removed and given to councils who were meeting housing targets
The two party system didn't work for us,maybe because both parties had their strings pulled by WM /English masters with no experience of knowlegde of Scotland
We have historically been much more socialist than any other country on these islands ,right back to the 12th century and before .Keir Hardie was a Scot and HIS labour party would be turning in their graves at what it has become .
The people who believe the DIS united kingdom is one country have a problem ,its not and never was .Its England and 3 very different countries aquired in different ways and they cant be expected to all believe in or accept the same policies from a foreign government.

Whitewavemark2

Well in order to move the conversation forward, we have to agree on something or there is no point.

I also think that my tentative description covers both definitions.

No, we don't. We can flesh out our thinking, discuss what others say. Please tell me you don't only think we can argue, come to a conclusion and someone is always right.

We can agree that Gove has used a phrase in one way but there are other definitions and just discuss why he is doing that, what happens elsewhere and what we think individually. We might come to some sort of consensus, or we may not. That would not be the end of the world if we feel we have added to our personal knowledge.

I didn't ask the question in the OP, just to produce a dictionary meaning Whitewave. There are people who do that as a job. But it isn't up to one person. If that is what you want out of this, that's okay.

Oh dear, it isn’t a dictionary definition. It is a fact.

So we could do a Trump and look at alternative facts I suppose, but that isn’t my way. So I’ll bow out of this I think, as I can’t deal with this confrontational way of going about threads.

That's okay then WWM. You have your fact.

Whitewavemark2

Oh dear, it isn’t a dictionary definition. It is a fact.

So we could do a Trump and look at alternative facts I suppose, but that isn’t my way. So I’ll bow out of this I think, as I can’t deal with this confrontational way of going about threads.

I haven't had chance to come back to this over the weekend, but I wonder why you feel what I suggested was confrontational. I suggested it would be good to discuss rather than argue. That seems less confrontational to me, not more so.

No one said anything about this country having a form of capitalism. What we were discussing was Gove's use of "social capitalism". Perhaps you could explain what outcome you hoped to achieve by pointing out that ours is a form of capitalist economy?

It seemed to me we are going through a phase where people not only feel entitled to their own opinions but also their own truths. Gove seems to be someone who manufactures these. The thread was about Social Capital and Gove's use of the phrase. The introduction of Capitalism may have confused more than just me. It certainly seems to have killed the thread stone dead.

I remember watching Oprah Winfrey's interview with Harry and Meghan and being struck by Oprah asking Meghan about (in her words) "your truth"

I'd never thought before then that there were different truths.

OK I do know that history was always written by the victors so some of what we were taught at school about amazing British victories might not actually be the truth.

However, I may at my advanced age be still a tad naive, but I do believe that there is such a thing as objective truth.

I also believe that we should try to shine a light on that truth whenever "alternative facts" are presented as if they were true.

Agreed varian.

MaizieD

^How Gove thinks charities and volunteers are going to help economic growth I have no idea, does he.^

Wasn't that Cameron's Big Idea all those years ago?

I can see a glimmer of the concept that I believe DaisyAnne favours, that of far more community involvement in making decisions and implementing them, but I don't think it's based on expecting charities and volunteers to fill the yawning gaps left by cutting public expenditure in services to ensure the health and wellbeing of the population. There is always a place for charities and volunteers, but not as a second welfare state.

I think it was his sneaky way of getting everyone pick up the slack caused by years and years of austerity cuts… The thing about Cameron is he got away with nasty things because he came across as a nice bloke. Even I found it difficult to dislike him at the time. He was a family man with a lovely wife and went to Cornwall for his holidays.