The Conservative Party

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I am wholly prepared to be believe that in Thatcher's case she didn't factor in the way the financial markets and actors within them would evolve. Did she envisage the rise and business model of a Macquarie Group? I suspect not or if she did she probably though she could 'sort them out'. In this I would give her the benefit of the doubt, though I absolutely would not to some of those advising her. Her zeal came with a degree of gullibility.

This I think is at the heart of our challenge, people bang on about the efficiency of the private sector versus the public which having work extensively with both I think is mostly bollocks. Where the private sector really runs rings around the public domain is in the ability of their leaders to pursue their own respective agendas. The version of capitalism we see in many countries now is one increasingly decided upon and controlled by oligarchy, imo we are sliding or maybe have slid into a slightly more subtlely presented version of this.

All really well observed, and having too worked with, inside and alongside both public and private sector organisations for many years the notion that the latter has the right to pontificate to the former about being efficient is comical. Many companies I have dealt with are an inefficient mess, although the market doesn’t seem to especially punish them for this.

I think you are right about Thatcher. For all her drive and intelligence I think she lacked a lot of ‘street‘ which made her susceptible to being somewhat gullible. Her lower middle class, provincial and doubtless tediously straight upbringing would have played a huge part in that.

I agree that capitalism has evolved, of course it has, and technology will have played a huge role in that. Human history is marked with those who have power and wealth seeking ways to retain both - why would modern capitalism make any difference to that metric?

Perhaps the difference now is the ability of the elite to manipulate the system to that end. I think they need to be careful though. Things could unravel quite quickly for them if enough people get sufficiently disillusioned - and there is no doubt that number is increasing.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

In short, capitalism has run rogue. This is sowing the seeds of revolution. It will lead, at some point, to the fall of capitalism.

There used to be an unspoken bargain. (Most people are not all that greedy.) The bargain was, to work (reasonably) hard. In return, you will have a house and the stuff that goes with it, a small car, and a holiday once a year. (Maybe twice.) Your children will be educated and all your health needs will be cared for. (We recognise these latter things are in our mutual interest anyway.) You will have a reasonable pension in old age. You will be secure until you die. You might even have a few shares or something like that.

The majority were happy with this. Well happy.

This bargain has been broken for an increasing proportion of society. Even getting a house, whether buying or renting, is becoming a stretch for many. So they no longer have a stake in society. Naturally, they are starting to say 'fuck it'. They can see that almost all the wealth is being concentrated in the hands of a tiny minority. At least, the educated ones can. The less educated are led to believe (by the Daily Mail and similar outlets) that it's all the fault of immigrants, the EU and lefties. Herein lies the danger, and I would not underestimate that danger.

Great post that mate and pretty much sums up my thinking. There was some sort of social contract before which the rich and powerful understood was in their self-interest to maintain. They no longer appear to appreciate this. Throw in the impact consumption is having on the environment and if things continue along the same lines then a revolution of sorts is entirely plausible.

 

[kaz7]

A year already since we lost him , time flies alarmingly fast

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

All really well observed, and having too worked with, inside and alongside both public and private sector organisations for many years the notion that the latter has the right to pontificate to the former about being efficient is comical. Many companies I have dealt with are an inefficient mess, although the market doesn’t seem to especially punish them for this.

I think you are right about Thatcher. For all her drive and intelligence I think she lacked a lot of ‘street‘ which made her susceptible to being somewhat gullible. Her lower middle class, provincial and doubtless tediously straight upbringing would have played a huge part in that.

I agree that capitalism has evolved, of course it has, and technology will have played a huge role in that. Human history is marked with those who have power and wealth seeking ways to retain both - why would modern capitalism make any difference to that metric?

Perhaps the difference now is the ability of the elite to manipulate the system to that end. I think they need to be careful though. Things could unravel quite quickly for them if enough people get sufficiently disillusioned - and there is no doubt that number is increasing.

As a dastardly centrist, this aligns well with my view. In fact, broader than this, I often wonder if the progenitors of political and economic systems were still around, whether they would see their flaws, offered modifications or thought differently. That goes for Thatcher, but it also goes for people like Keynes and even Marx. These were all erudite but perhaps naively idealistic people who never really saw the end-game of their theory and I would wager if they were alive today they may have views that surprise us.

I simply can’t see somebody like Thatcher looking at what the water companies have become today and thinking this was what she had in mind. She was a lot of things and much of what I think of her is unflattering, but she was principled and capable - she had 100% conviction in what she was trying to achieve for society. This Tory government could not be more different in that respect. They have no principles and are not guided by any political compass other than being in power for the sake of being in power. And that’s why they need to go. Among many other reasons.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

As a dastardly centrist, this aligns well with my view. In fact, broader than this, I often wonder if the progenitors of political and economic systems were still around, whether they would see their flaws, offered modifications or thought differently. That goes for Thatcher, but it also goes for people like Keynes and even Marx. These were all erudite but perhaps naively idealistic people who never really saw the end-game of their theory and I would wager if they were alive today they may have views that surprise us.

I simply can’t see somebody like Thatcher looking at what the water companies have become today and thinking this was what she had in mind. She was a lot of things and much of what I think of her is unflattering, but she was principled and capable - she had 100% conviction in what she was trying to achieve for society. This Tory government could not be more different in that respect. They have no principles and are not guided by any political compass other than being in power for the sake of being in power. And that’s why they need to go. Among many other reasons.

Spot on mate. I’m pretty sure Marx would have looked at Stalin’s Russia or the Kims’ North Korea with undiluted disappointment. I think he grossly underestimated what cunts humans are when they have too much power, irrespective of the system.

And Thatcher was certainly far more capable than the last three clowns we’ve had as PM.

Another brilliantly observed post. We’re all on fire today! Let’s hope City can emulate tomorrow…

 

[Postman Pep]

 

[Vic]

I am wholly prepared to be believe that in Thatcher's case she didn't factor in the way the financial markets and actors within them would evolve. Did she envisage the rise and business model of a Macquarie Group? I suspect not or if she did she probably though she could 'sort them out'. In this I would give her the benefit of the doubt, though I absolutely would not to some of those advising her. Her zeal came with a degree of gullibility.

This I think is at the heart of our challenge, people bang on about the efficiency of the private sector versus the public which having work extensively with both I think is mostly bollocks. Where the private sector really runs rings around the public domain is in the ability of their leaders to pursue their own respective agendas. The version of capitalism we see in many countries now is one increasingly decided upon and controlled by oligarchy, imo we are sliding or maybe have slid into a slightly more subtlely presented version of this.

Oligarchy? It's a plutocracy.

 

[Vic]

As a dastardly centrist, this aligns well with my view. In fact, broader than this, I often wonder if the progenitors of political and economic systems were still around, whether they would see their flaws, offered modifications or thought differently. That goes for Thatcher, but it also goes for people like Keynes and even Marx. These were all erudite but perhaps naively idealistic people who never really saw the end-game of their theory and I would wager if they were alive today they may have views that surprise us.

I simply can’t see somebody like Thatcher looking at what the water companies have become today and thinking this was what she had in mind. She was a lot of things and much of what I think of her is unflattering, but she was principled and capable - she had 100% conviction in what she was trying to achieve for society. This Tory government could not be more different in that respect. They have no principles and are not guided by any political compass other than being in power for the sake of being in power. And that’s why they need to go. Among many other reasons.

Nice try, but don't pretend that Thatcher didn't "have in mind" what the water companies have become when lots of people told her what monopoly private companies might become.

 

[threespires]

Oligarchy? It's a plutocracy.

You're absolutely right, that's more accurate a reflection of where we are.

 

[meltonblue]

In short, capitalism has run rogue. This is sowing the seeds of revolution. It will lead, at some point, to the fall of capitalism.

There used to be an unspoken bargain. (Most people are not all that greedy.) The bargain was, to work (reasonably) hard. In return, you will have a house and the stuff that goes with it, a small car, and a holiday once a year. (Maybe twice.) Your children will be educated and all your health needs will be cared for. (We recognise these latter things are in our mutual interest anyway.) You will have a reasonable pension in old age. You will be secure until you die. You might even have a few shares or something like that.

The majority were happy with this. Well happy.

This bargain has been broken for an increasing proportion of society. Even getting a house, whether buying or renting, is becoming a stretch for many. So they no longer have a stake in society. Naturally, they are starting to say 'fuck it'. They can see that almost all the wealth is being concentrated in the hands of a tiny minority. At least, the educated ones can. The less educated are led to believe (by the Daily Mail and similar outlets) that it's all the fault of immigrants, the EU and lefties. Herein lies the danger, and I would not underestimate that danger.

Completely agree with this, the social contract has been broken. The issue we have now is we’ve changed what’s actually rewarded. Whereas previously it would be predominately professions, it’s now wealth and the creation of it itself.