Whoever is in political power makes no difference to the country.

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

17 years 6 months

Posts: 9,739

When 'New Labour' came to power there were 5,221,000 public sector employees. By 2009, there were 6,070,000.

I'll take you word for that but I can well believe it...

...it was the fundamental flaw in the economic 'boom' policy of 'New Labour'!

It was obvious to anybody that it was economically unsustainable, particularly when it came to the already overburdened public-pension 'time-bomb'. That and the expansion of the existing reliance on PFI schemes to fund essential investment that the country 'could not afford'. Anyway, that was 'New Labour'...

...'socialism' built on capitalism!

Member for

19 years 1 month

Posts: 6,043

The idea that whoever in charge has no real bearing on the future is a convenient lie. It's a way of abstaining from blame when it all goes wrong.

No, they are not equal, or even close. Fundamentally, the Tories believe in the power of the individual. The Labour Party believes in the power of the state. Much stems from that simple difference, but regardless of their specific policies, that is what it comes down to.

Very nicely put Bruce - added to which Labour stopped being the 'working class' party many years ago.

I do not have much time for many politicians but given the choice of Dave or Millipede - I would have to choose Dave as the lesser of two evils.

Millipede and Balls do not have a clue - and they know it LOL

But the puppet operator will be Broon - he doesn't have a clue either - but he thinks he does and he thinks he is clever !! As I have said before him and 'mandy' should have been locked up for their financial shenanigans !

Member for

14 years 5 months

Posts: 3,447

I've never heard it put as simply as that but how does that 'fundamental' difference manifest itself?

I'll wager that 99% of government spending and taxation will remain completely unchanged whoever ends up in power after the general election so how big really is this fundamental difference?

Probably true. But there is a fundamental confusion (this relates to the other thread about critical thinking etc) put about by some neo-liberal elements, particularly in the USA, that the 'opposite' individual is 'state'. In fact, the opposite of 'individual' is 'collective', and this is what traditional Labour believed in.

It is much more 'big society' than 'high tax' in its original incarnation, and was very much the party of the working person, once upon a time. That there are elements of this collectivist thinking still within the Labour party is often held against it (usually by those who are told to by the press), but without much critical thinking applied as to why/whether it's a bad thing in itself.

Without that moral compass, that commitment to the good of society as a whole (the 'collective', whether this is one's own philosophy or not), one gets New Labour, Blair, Brown, and a bit of a mess - 'Socialism' built on Capitalism indeed, where taxes are raised and spending kept higher as a political principal with no real clue as to why except 'it's the opposite of what the Tories are doing, so it's what we do'. Lack of critical thinking writ large.

Having said that, having a large public sector is surely a neutral thing, not a negative. Public sector workers pay tax, buy stuff, pay for services. The money doesn't disappear.

Why is gainful taxpaying employment for private sector companies where the money gets accrued by individuals (who do their best not to pay tax on this money) and shareholders/traders a GOOD thing, and yet somehow gainful taxpaying employment in the public sector a BAD thing? Should we not look instead at what is being produced / made better for everyone and why rather than whether it is done by an organisation with a private profit function?

But back to the question - while the Labour party itself has a mistaken belief that it is the party of state over individuals (because that was what Tony Blair grew up being told) rather than the socially progressive party of the collective (or 'the community', or 'the big society' or whatever the currently fashionable term for the concept is) then there will be identity issues and a blind following of capital that makes the only distinction from the right slightly higher taxes.

Rant over! :-)

Member for

14 years 5 months

Posts: 3,447

*opposite OF individual. (won't let me edit).

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 8,464

Yes, well said - and a good analysis. My remark was an oversimplification, but deliberately so.

The argument for job creation outside of the state is that the state forms organisations who do not have to make a profit, and can thus undercut private business. If the work is outsourced to private business, it is more likely to be run in a more efficient manner, as it does make a profit. There is also a competition element, whereby private companies can bid against one another. Of course, that comes undone when the owner or supporter of the private business uses political connections to get the work. There is also an element of 'useless job creation' within the public sector, whereby unnecessary jobs are created for no good reason except to create employment.

I wholly agree with your analysis of the current labour party. Blair moved to the right in order to get elected once he accepted that socialism alone could not do the job. However, he failed to understand, or rather, he failed to properly communicate with the rest of the party, what it was he was doing. Labour do not historically understand business, and when they try to interact with it, there is often a problem.

The don't understand the tax system either. Rachel Reeves is apparently planning to scrap the 'Bedroom Tax', and then spend the money saved on supporting Labour in Scotland. Err, hang on, you don't make savings by scrapping a tax!

Regardless of all this, the difference is still there. I await the party manifesto's with interest.

Member for

17 years 6 months

Posts: 9,739

Having said that, having a large public sector is surely a neutral thing, not a negative...

No, no, no, no, no! You are falling into exactly the trap that 'New Labour' fell into!

Every penny of a public sector worker's pay, pension and employment costs have to be met by the taxpayer! They are absolutely (as Moggy says) 'non-productive' although the preferred term is 'essential worker'. And most of them are essential (nobody disputing that).

No matter how much tax any Doctor, Nurse, Teacher, Soldier or Policeman pays they will never pay more into the exchequer than their employment costs! And not just their wages. Think about that! That is a fact!

So the burden of employing these people, essential though most of them are, will fall on taxpayers not employed by the public-sector; and I also mean only those not employed indirectly by the public-sector!

For example, if you're a self-employed plumber and 75% of your income before tax comes from working on plumbing in schools and hospitals, then you are 75% a public-sector employee!

Public sector workers pay tax, buy stuff, pay for services. The money doesn't disappear.

Yes, but for the reasons that I've explained above ALL of that money has to come from taxation of somebody who is NOT employed by the state, even indirectly!

This is not well-understood by voters and it is even not well-understood by many politicians!

Member for

14 years 5 months

Posts: 3,447

Point taken - I get that about it being a net tax take rather than a contribution on the part of the public sector worker.

The counterpoint is that all money paid to anyone comes from somewhere (someone) else. Public sector employees wages come from us the taxpayer, yes. So do the wages of the plumber whether they work for you privately and personally or your local state school.

That the pot of money paid to the school through taxation pays the plumber to ensure our (or, crucially, other peoples') kids have fresh water and don't get botulism is a simplistic expression of the collectivist principle. Take out the 'state'. Now, if our kids were privately educated you'd still be paying the school's plumber through fees. If you couldn't afford to privately educate your kids, then you wouldn't be. BUT there'd be fewer schools, and less work for school plumbers! How can that be a good thing all round?

In other words your 75% public-sector employee plumber would loose that 75%, Not sure what would be gained, other than an even more ignorant population.

Member for

17 years 6 months

Posts: 9,739

Nobody, NOBODY, is saying that there should not be some form of 'state', or collectivism, call it what you will...

...the argument, the only real political argument, is how much of this 'state' we can (collectively) afford!

Notice afford.....not, how much of this 'state' do we want.

And it is not reasonable to say that 'all money comes from somebody else', this is true, but you must differentiate between money that is earned through 'production' and money that is derived from somebody else's taxes; if this were not true there would be no such thing as unemployment or poverty...

...we could just raise unemployment benefit and 'pay' people £35,000 a year to stay in bed!

Member for

14 years 5 months

Posts: 3,447

True, true. I agree entirely about the necessity of 'production' (actually a term used in Marxist theory) or 'wealth creation' (the Thatcherite equivalent) or call it what you will, essentially the same thing - adding value to the economy in a way that is shared fairly, adding to our collective comfort, security and quality of life.

Neither moving money around a 'money market' nor paying people to stay in bed (which are NOT ideological opposites, though the Mail would like you to think so) will do this, though some cannot see that. Both these activities net a big fat zero.

Member for

17 years 6 months

Posts: 9,739

Neither moving money around a 'money market' nor paying people to stay in bed (which are NOT ideological opposites, though the Mail would like you to think so) will do this, though some cannot see that. Both these activities net a big fat zero.

There is nothing wrong with 'financial production' in a 'money market', nothing at all, this vilifying of the financial sector is just a misguided attempt by politicians to win votes by reinforcing existing class divisions. (Listen to me; now I sound like a Marxist!) Pushing against an open door, pathetic! It is exactly what UKIP are doing with immigration.

What is important is not how the money is made but where (or who) the money is made from!

What is the most successful economy, by miles, in Europe? Germany. Why? Because they make stuff and sell it!

Why is no political party talking about Britain's balance of payments in this election? Probably because it is so appallingly bad and they have no remedy for it they dare not mention it. We're all so bloody obsessed with money in this country, or more correctly obsessed with how little we've got and how much others have got, but we don't seem to have the most basic skills to assess what affects the economy the most; where the money comes from and where it is going to.

Even if a British worker digs clay out of his garden and makes a flowerpot and sells that flowerpot it matters who he sells it to; because if he sells it to a doctor it becomes a 'public-sector' flowerpot! And even though the worker is involved in 'production' he is still involved in the public-sector to a degree.

And that's a flowerpot; work out what happens when he buys an iPhone made in China!

Member for

14 years 5 months

Posts: 3,447

I feel we are working to a consensus! (Though the 'public sector flower pot' nearly lost me :-) ). Completely agree about needing to understand where the money comes from and where it is going to. Can you explain (not facetious) where it comes from/goes to with 'financial production'?

Member for

17 years 6 months

Posts: 9,739

Now I'm no financial expert but some of it is fairly self-explanatory; as for the rest.....anybody?

Lending and borrowing money is a fact of life. Making money from lending money isn't immoral; sure, it isn't exactly 'production' but very little of United Kingdom commerce is. But again if our doctor gets a mortgage to buy a house then a proportion of the mortgage provider's business is 'public-sector' too!

Yes, there were enormous problems during the financial crash but 'banking' is extremely important to the British economy and the 'City' (of London) is the envy of Europe.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 8,464

This has turned into a great discussion. Might need to add the taxation analogy from the other thread!

Member for

14 years 5 months

Posts: 3,447

Via Google, I had a look at how the bank of England define the financial sector's productivity and oddly it seems that uniquely in the case of this sector 'output' is seen as the same thing as profit. This really is a looking glass world..

OK, I can see how creaming money from transactions involving foreign funds can make the UK wealthier, but how much of this goes on?

Member for

17 years 6 months

Posts: 9,739

Not sure what you're driving at here; are you saying that 'banking' is a bad thing for Britain?

I know 'the bankers' have become a universal whipping-boy for all our woes following the financial-crisis but the banking-sector is vital to our economy; even if it weren't the country couldn't function without them.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 8,464

How about buying in mortgages from other countries...?

An awful lot of that went on. The good old 'sub prime'.

Member for

17 years 6 months

Posts: 9,739

Buying debt? Sounds crazy doesn't it but that's the business that banks are in; of course, debt is only worth owning if the debtor can afford to pay it back with interest!

'Sub prime' was bad debt from the very start but then everybody was buying it and selling it; it was just when the 'music stopped' and you were left holding it that it became a problem!

Even then it wouldn't have been a problem if it wasn't our high-street banks that were dabbling in this high-risk (but high-profit) market; a stand-alone commercial bank could have been allowed to go-to-the-wall but not a high-street bank. I cannot remember if the high-street banks have now been forced to separate the two sides of this banking business; risk-taking by one bank doesn't then endanger the other.

Member for

14 years 5 months

Posts: 3,447

Not banker bashing at all, rather I see banking (in the non risk-dabbling sense) as an 'essential service'.. ironically much like police or teachers - as you say, CD, the country wouldn't function without it. Envy of the world? Well, it is possible for an institution to be that without being a net 'producer' - the NHS was that once.

My point was that intuitively at least I cannot understand why net value - production, the thing we both agree is needed to remain a viable economy - is generated by moneylending / investing any more than it is by staying in bed all day. Sure, it oils the wheels in an essential way, but that is not the same thing.

So no, not bashing banking or saying it is 'bad' for our economy, any more than nurses or plumbers who work for schools are. It's just that banking is not where any 'production' comes from in itself. If your sole output is money, unless you are the Royal Mint you are not conjuring it from nowhere when it appears on your balance sheets, it has (sorry) come from somewhere else. Any actual value behind the profit is generated by those it lends to / invests in, not the bank itself. This is the massive trumpeting, sh*tting, elephant in the room that the 'banking is what makes Britain great' lobby choose to ignore.

That is not a banker-bash, any more than saying the NHS isn't a net producer is a nurse-bash.

Member for

17 years 6 months

Posts: 9,739

I see what you're saying about the bank not actually 'making' the money or profit but how is that any different from what 'Tesco' do, or any other retail outlet? Tesco don't 'make' anything either do they?

The banking sector is more than just lending money; London is one of the most important centres in the world for insurance. Is there something 'false' or immoral about insurance? Is it not just a legitimate business?

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 8,464

OK, lets see where this goes.

In an ideal world, production leads to profit, which is the manifestation of the initial investment. Some of that profit is further invested and assuming the company is well led, will generate more profit in succeeding periods.

Why is there a difference between profit generated by material production, and that generated by financial investment? Setting aside that we need to ensure that it is generated by appropriate behaviour, do we need to worry where it actually comes from?