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

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.

Agreed varian.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

If we go back to basics.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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!

Unfortunately, I can't see this article Growstuff,

She posted it, or most of it at 10.56

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.

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,

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.

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.

Whitewavemark2

growstuff

I hope this FT article from 2021 isn't behind a paywall:

www.ft.com/content/9548ceab-84a3-4473-8ede-9749316995e2

It begins to explain what Gove means by "social capitalism".

Behind a paywall.

Unfortunately, I can't see this article Growstuff, but I imagine it is much the same as the description in my OP.

I would suggest Gove's view, at the very least, is a very Victorian view of social capitalism. Gove is bending the phrase to his particular intentions. I'd be interested to know if the article says something different.

I think Gove is trying to appeal to the Socially Conservative and has "borrowed" and reframed the meaning of Social Capitalism. This "bending" is why I brought in the idea that many are socially conservative in the UK while being more socialist economically - including Maizie's Vicar, it seems.

If you google "Social Capitalism meaning", it comes up with descriptions of the Nordic Countries, and one article gives this description.

Social capitalism is any capitalist system that is structured with the ideology of liberty, equality, and justice. Instead of aiming to accumulate only economic forms of capital, it explicitly values all forms of capital, including social capital, human capital, and natural capital.

Maimie's view of France seems to fit this although differently to the Nordic countries.
^

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.

Whitewavemark2

So social capital is about supporting people? I’m muddled now.

Bloody hell if that is Gove talking, what did he expect after years and years of austerity hammering the poor?

To be fair to Gove, he's never been at the centre of the austerity supporters. He's always been a bit of a maverick. For example, he overturned the ban on prisoners having access to books. That's why I'm interested in what he actually said.

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.

So social capital is about supporting people? I’m muddled now.

Bloody hell if that is Gove talking, what did he expect after years and years of austerity hammering the poor?

Mine came out distinctly left which shows what a load of old rubbish it is. Either that or it was biased towards a European/ American standpoint and we are a lot more leftwing over here than you are. I doubt it !