Post Match Thread: Election 2017

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Mixed economy is so 70's and is a recipe for economic disaster! It's a good thing no one told the Germans as they been mixing and matching to great success.

Any economy where the state accounts for over 40% of GDP, could readily be described as 'mixed'.

 

[BobKowalski]

There has also been some progressive legislation under Tory governments since the ECHR: TUPE, the DDA and the Same Sex Marriage Couples Act spring immediately to mind.

From Section 28 to the Same Sex Marriage Act. Now that is progress.

 

[The perfect fumble]

Any economy where the state accounts for over 40% of GDP, could readily be described as 'mixed'.

It could, but the devil is in the detail, it would be interesting to see what slice of that percentage is accounted for by the NHS.

 

[depps]

Factory floors , farm fields and computers are generally in the private sector - i agree

Yes they are. Generally speaking the means of production are currently owned by the private sector so that is where you expect production to take place.

However, their is no inherent reason why the means of production must be in private ownership.

 

[goalmole]

Don't fall for the right's bullshit about "wealth creators" and entrepreneurs etc.

Wealth is created by the men and women working their asses off on factory floors/on farm fields/on their computers writing code etc. It is not created by the suits in the boardroom or the accountants, financiers or other consultants that feed of the surplus value of their productive activities.

What we know as "wealth creators" do have a role to play as organisers and innovators and they have a right to be rewarded accordingly. The only question in my mind is how much is "accordingly". Do they have the right to get away with paying the workers the bare minimum of wages that they will work for i.e. a bowl of rice a day, or is it incumbent upon them to ensure the workers too have as decent a standard of living and welfare as can be afforded. More than finance and economics necessarily, it is a question of decent values and morals as against greed and power.

 

[goalmole]

There has also been some progressive legislation under Tory governments since the ECHR: TUPE, the DDA and the Same Sex Marriage Couples Act spring immediately to mind.

Letting same sex couples get married didn't involve them giving anybody any money so I suppose they didn't find it too difficult to do.

 

[depps]

What we know as "wealth creators" do have a role to play as organisers and innovators and they have a right to be rewarded accordingly. The only question in my mind is how much is "accordingly". Do they have the right to get away with paying the workers the bare minimum of wages that they will work for i.e. a bowl of rice a day, or is it incumbent upon them to ensure the workers too have as decent a standard of living and welfare as can be afforded. More than finance and economics necessarily, it is a question of decent values and morals as against greed and power.

Yes I agree with you they have a role to play - I am a suit myself! - what I am against is the kind of attitude that disregards the fact that no wealth can be created without the people that do the actual labour. And to be clear, I am not saying you have this attitude, I am just saying not to buy into the language of the right which raises entrepreneurs and 'wealth creators' up on a pedestal.

As far as the accordingly question goes, I actually do think they have a right to pay the bare minimum of wages if that is what they want to do but that is up to the workers to organise themselves both in the workplace and politically in order to prevent them from doing so. As I see it, it isn't really a question of rights or morality but a question of political power and the nature of the ownership of the means of production which stems from that political power. (Edit: or vice versa, as a good marxist would actually say that the political structure is determined by the ownership of the means of production!)

The workers shouldn't be happy to be in a position where they are dependent on the goodwill or morality of the bosses to have a decent wage. Goodwill and morality can too easily go out the window when times get tough!

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

From Section 28 to the Same Sex Marriage Act. Now that is progress.

The Same Sex Marriage Act to the DUP, discernibly less so.

 

[Chippy_boy]

The public, as an entity, are thick and very easily manipulated by things they don't understand or aren't familiar with. It's basis off which advertising works so the public prove nothing to your points.

Of course it's going to be "oh we're in the shit, it must be the Government's fault, they're the one's responsible for the economy - let's vote for this party that are making all the right noises and are going with the simple, first logical solution that I can't think past because I'm not educated in the field." Austerity has proved to be a good call at the time, but that was stage 1 and the Tories have continued stage 1 over the long-term without proposing anything going forward and whilst commissioning things that suit them, not the people.

(Apologies, long post!)

I'm glad you've decided to take this sort of tone, rather than throwing expletives around. I can see where you're coming from and I am some sympathy for what you are saying.

However, my beef is that the government has a really piss poor track record at running *anything*. We can debate all day long why this is the case, and perhaps we should as another strand, or another thread altogether. But whereas the aspirations of having our government invest in things, own them and run them to all our benefit, is a noble one - the reality is that everything they touch turns to shite. Capitalism, and in particular, proper competition, brings an imperative to do things better, cheaper, quicker, more efficiently and to offer excellent customer service. Perhaps not all of those things at once, but certainly as many of them as possible. Because if you do not, customers vote with their feet. Nationalised businesses, or indeed monopolies - which is effectively what the train companies are... for the term of their franchise at least - do not have these drivers.

Look at the situation with British Airways whilst it was nationalised. When I started flying to various European cities on business, a return from Heathrow to Charles de Gaul was about £500. In real money, I guess that's about £1,000 maybe more today. A return to Vienna cost £900. Today, you can get these sorts of flights for a fraction of that. No-one would have thought it possible back then to fly to Paris on EasyJet for £20. But with ever increased competition and the pure ingenuity of businesses to find ways to do things cheaper more effectively, this is the end result.

This would NEVER have happened if the airlines remained state-owned. They'd continue to charge £500 or more, AND, staggeringly, continue to make a loss every year. So no benefit to the taxpayer and certainly no benefit to the public. Just a bunch of fat bureaucrats sitting fat dumb and happy, drawing their inflated wages for doing fuck all and not giving a shit about the customer.

Incidentally, did you know that until the 90's, in Russian there was no such term as "customer service"? They had no concept of it. People who bought goods and services were "purchasers", and the idea that you actually needed to give them some quality of service, was completely alien. Why should you bother - they have to buy off you anyway.

I digress. The rail privatisations have been a complete balls up, because they did it wrong. Instead of making businesses bid for individual routes and times (like airport time slots) they thought it a good idea to award 10 year contracts for whole lines, effectively giving the company a monopoly and allowing them to do what on earth they liked. So +2%, 3%, 4% per annum increases might seem very reasonable to a naive regulator, but the fact is the businesses have been ripping us off, because they can. 1st class fare are not even regulated at all, FFS.

Imagine the alternative scenario where you'd be thinking of a trip to London and you'd think, hmmmm, should i get the 07:40 Virgin train, because that's only £20 return or I could get the EasyJet 07:55, and that's £55 but got the flat bed seats and table-side service. How marvellous would that be. This would NEVER be realised if the government runs it. NEVER.

Privatisation isn't the be all and end all. Private businesses seek to rip people off wherever and however possible, so long as it doesn't lose them customers and damage their revenues. John Lewis's Never Knowingly Undersold, means "Charging as much as possible, but no more than our competitors". You don't need an army of people to check competitors prices if you want to set your lowest price: you just do it. The army of checkers is to make sure your prices are not lower than they need be!

So if you have privatisation, you need to do it right. Either (ideally) with proper competition and service level agreements. Or with a regulator with actual teeth. "No mr GWR, you are reducing your prices by 8% this year. None of this +3% increase bullshit again.)

Some of the privatizations have been a shambles. When the government runs it, it's ALWAYS a shambles.

 

[urban genie]

Tim Farrons just resigned