Are Governments Badly Structured?

[Ban-jani]

Absolutely correct. Which is why it is so ludicrous that the lefties would have the government run more and more. Utterly bonkers.

I genuinely think its out of a despising of rich people and a hatred of seeing other people profit, so they'd rather a bunch of incompetent idiots ran things instead, who at least won't profit from their actions. What other explanation could there be?

I understand arguments from both sides to be honest mate.

I get the arguments for people to be looked after and how greed can often be at the detriment of workers and the poor but I also agree with your views that people should be able to succeed and be rewarded for their work.

It’s why I’m a centrist/social democrat

I’ve worked by arse off to get where I am and I’ll be fucked if some **** tries to take 75% of my earnings off me.

 

[Rascal]

I’ve worked by arse off to get where I am and I’ll be fucked if some **** tries to take 75% of my earnings off me.

This always amazes me, you work for less than you deserve anyway. That is the nature of capitalism, it makes profit on your labour. People don't seem to mind that a Boss can earn 100 times a worker but they get annoyed when they have to pay tax. Its strange world we live in.

 

[117 M34]

It would be interesting to see how the government/country would be if we didn't have party politics.
MPs could be voted in as normal then they could vote for a PM/leader in the same way parties vote in their own leader.
The MPs would then genuinely be doing things for the right reasons and not because it was party policy.
The best person for the MP job would also be more likely to get in rather than people just voting for an MP because he/she is their party MP.

 

[Ban-jani]

This always amazes me, you work for less than you deserve anyway. That is the nature of capitalism, it makes profit on your labour. People don't seem to mind that a Boss can earn 100 times a worker but they get annoyed when they have to pay tax. Its strange world we live in.

It’s true that the company does make a profit on me in absolute terms of what I make them to what I cost, in pay and support/infrastructure. That said it’s a deal between myself and my employer. I am equipped with the tools necessary to do my job and make money (I get 10% commission of everything I bill) and without my employer I couldn’t afford the tools, I have large clients in place with a need for me to deliver into and without my employer I wouldn’t have them and I also have the training and guidance in place to improve me as as individual.

Both my employer and I get something out of it and I’m happy with the agreement.

I appreciate this isn’t always the case - and what you could say is the left wing side of me - believes in regulations to stop organisations earning too much profit without giving wage increases and opportunities to progress for individuals.

The right wing side of me says that people who reach CEO of large companies haven’t fallen into it or got lucky, they’ve had to work harder than everyone else, smarter than everyone else and now have more responsibility than anyone else. Our CEO started 15 years ago and just used to fax documents through, on an entry level salary. Her story is pretty impressive and a small insight into her day-to-day will show you how hard she works even still. The notion that those at the top just sit around counting money and laughing to themselves is nonsense.

I don’t believe taking the vast majority of their hard earned cash from them is fair or just or motivating for anyone else to do well.

The right balance is allowing people to succeed and for companies to strive to do better, taxing those at the top more than those at the bottom obviously, supporting those at the bottom with opportunities to develop and with proper wage increases and finally having a whopping safety net for those that lose their jobs or can’t work.

I know most of this sounds pretty basic stuff but I think people over complicate things quite often and a fair society isn’t communist nor is it neoliberal... it’s in between.

 

[Rascal]

Absolutely correct. Which is why it is so ludicrous that the lefties would have the government run more and more. Utterly bonkers.

I genuinely think its out of a despising of rich people and a hatred of seeing other people profit, so they'd rather a bunch of incompetent idiots ran things instead, who at least won't profit from their actions. What other explanation could there be?

As a leftie I genuinely do not despise anybody getting rich or doing well for themselves and as I have pointed out previously even Lenin was in favour of small forms of capitalism. It is reverse politics of envy you are employing with that statement as you assume jealousy and visceral hatred is the motivator which in my case it certainly is not. I admit there are some on the extreme left and extreme right that would agree with your point I do not.

I see state ownership as necessary in certain areas where monopoly is the obvious answer. A private monopoly serves only the interests of the owners of the monopoly whereas a state monopoly serves the interests of the people. Infrastructure, power, water and even things like Air Traffic control simply do not lend themselves to private competition and should be run by the state for the benefit of the people. Whilst I accept competition is the answer in some sectors it is not the answer in all sectors and what is bonkers is thinking that competition can be introduced into areas such as those that lend themselves to monopoly.

To me that is not overt leftism it is simple common sense, take Prisons for instance, why on earth would private provision of prisons be an area that should be exploited for profit. They are there for crime against the state sanctioned law. They should not be "competing" for prisoners, they should be making sure that those in society who break the law pay the penalty for their actions. If the responsibility for law lies with the state, the sanctions for breaking the law should also lie with the state. For a private prison to work then it makes sense to have private law, which would not be democratic and it would end in private prisons introducing new laws in order to profit from more prisoners. That inevitably would lead to a more authoritarian stance.

If the argument for private provision was to take its full course, then inevitably it must end up with private police forces, private armed forces and yes a private monarchy. You could compete for being monarch. Imagine how ludicrous that sounds in a country based on constitutional monarchy.

The problems in the past with public ownership were always laid at the feet of the Unions, never at the feet of the management or the government who employed the managers. Therefore in a public owned company you pick the best person for the job just as in the public run Navy you pick the best Admiral and to prove that lefties do not despise wealth or success you pay those chosen their market value not a pittance.

 

[BrianW]

The problem in the UK is we have a system where bungling, incompetent, pompous oafs can be propelled into power on the basis of who they know, what school they went to, and who their father was.

This is not a party political point. It is possible to have conservative views and still be a highly intelligent, highly educated technocrat. In other countries in Europe to get to the top you have very high qualifications (doctorate being common) or to have achieved something very significant in your previous life.

We have this cult of the "amateur" which is basically a hangover from the 18th Century and says that the ruling class need to know ancient Greek, or some equally irrelevant shite, how to debate and make speeches, and basically be "gentlemen". And if they're that, it's all they need to run - whatever. This doctrine dominates educational thought and culture to a surprising degree. If you doubt this, ask yourself when was the last time a real, genuine expert was in charge of a field in which they had relevant expertise?

 

[Rascal]

The problem in the UK is we have a system where bungling, incompetent, pompous oafs can be propelled into power on the basis of who they know, what school they went to, and who their father was.

This is not a party political point. It is possible to have conservative views and still be a highly intelligent, highly educated technocrat. In other countries in Europe to get to the top you have very high qualifications (doctorate being common) or to have achieved something very significant in your previous life.

We have this cult of the "amateur" which is basically a hangover from the 18th Century and says that the ruling class need to know ancient Greek, or some equally irrelevant shite, how to debate and make speeches, and basically be "gentlemen". And if they're that, it's all they need to run - whatever. This doctrine dominates educational thought and culture to a surprising degree. If you doubt this, ask yourself when was the last time a real, genuine expert was in charge of a field in which they had relevant expertise?

This is a great post. The class system gets in the way of good government. As long as we remain a nation of cap doffers things will not change either.

I have often mused over the idea that to be in public office you must have attended a state school, as I find it truly astonishing we have had so many PMs who attended Eton. If you are not part of the system used by the majority from an early age how on earth can you possibly know how the majority live.

Power should not be an entitlement, it should be earned by being better than anybody else.

 

[urban genie]

I would expect, seeing as most of government is actulally managed by the ministries civil servants ( who are originally structured from a coprorate company model) they do work closely together.

The pantomime we see in parliament is a frction of how government works, and it is removing the self interested elite wankers in that building that probably meeds looking at move than how the government mechanisms are structured

 

[bluethrunthru]

Of course they are. As are opposition parties. Forget FPTP you have to look at the make up of the parties first off. "Politics is rock and roll for ugly people " is one way it is dismissed. However as long as its seen as something "not for me" or something " I don't listen to" then no government will ever be representative.

If you can engage our population into involvement with politics ( from what I see on twitter the Lib Dems are very active at the moment ) then you have the chance to shake up the established order.

Mention Tory and people think Jonson and Rees-Mogg. Why would that be? Could it be the massive tradition of huntin' shootin' fishin' land owning gentry that were/are the Tories? Go Labour and nowadays people think of New Labour - old Labour - guys from the rank and file like Prescott ( trades unionist and working class ) Alan Johnson ( trades unionist and working class ) and Dennis Skinner ( trades unionist and working class ) are dinosaurs - now its all Oxbridge educated lawyers and so on. Fact is a lot of people see the "political class " as a class apart - which is wrong because disengagement allows extremists in from the fringe and into the main stream.

How do we fix it? Fuck knows. Problem is the effects of the above is that the people who can effect change that is acceptable to the masses are kept out by the fact that the masses don't indicate they care enough and so the circle perpetuates itself.