Off Topic Political Debate

People always say they want to tax the rich - but they don't vote for it; and I do not believe there is any genuine desire for any Nationalisation - it was firmly rejected in the seventies and will win no votes. Anti nuclear IS a very left wing policy. From Greenham Common and CND onwards it is supported by your Benns,Foots and now JC. No Tory Brigadiers will ever vote to end Trident. He was lambasted because his party had a policy and because he does not like it he gave a free vote - seen for what it was - a self centred decision to enable him to not vote for party policy.
Why do you feel so strongly (and Yorkie) not to accept that there is nothing wrong with having left wing views? It is a political viewpoint and held by some very good, genuine and honourable people over the years. Denying what the man on the Clapham Omnibus knows all too well smacks of believing the cause is somehow dirty or tainted. Gays learnt tobe proud of what they are - the Left should be strong and proud. If they are not it suggests they do not believe the people can be won to their side and so they have to pretend not to be what they are.

 

I know that I can be confusing on issues like this - this is because of a traditional rift in left wing ideology. In it's contemporary usage it can be referred to as being between economic left and social left. There are many people who believe in eg. public ownership on the one hand, but are against the concept of eg. multi culti on the other. However, we can no longer differentiate one from the other, so we cannot really say how 'left' society may be. In it's original use 'left wing' was only an economic term, but has changed as a result of 2 things. Firstly the need to differentiate itself from the 'National Socialism' of Hitler, and secondly in response to mass immigration - worthwhile here saying that the Union's initial reaction to immigration to the UK. in the 50s and 60s was along the lines of 'we don't like them being here but if they are then they need to be unionized'. The left has no clear position on immigration. In fact continuous immigration mostly prevents the development of the sort of class consciousness which is necessary for socialist revolution - the failure of eg. the development of a 'workers' party in the USA. is often put down to this. I am 'for immigration', because I like diversity (and also for religious reasons), but not because I am on the left. I know that immigration only helps the cogs of capitalism to keep on turning (so should I be against it ?). The left also has no clear position on nuclear power - some socialist states have it and some very right wing ones don't. Maybe we need to define the terms left and right more systematically - is eg. Israel a left wing state or a right wing one ?

 

I am a simple soul - the left for me represents the origins of the Labour Party amongst other things - not only economic but very much a pro working man and social movement. I see no point in trying to go around the world to see if there is concensus on terminology - we are talking about the UK and perhaps the EU so my views are expressed in that regard - I will leave the likes of Japan and Israel to experts in their politics. People who believe in public ownership of the means of production etc emanate from a left wing stance. That does not mean that some on the right will not favour a degree of public ownership where they see private enterprise failing. Railways at the moment are in that category - but anyone who remembers British Rail at their best (or worst) is not going to hold their breath for an upside if it is re-nationalised. Unions like public ownership and are opposed to private enterprise - a left wing stance. Hitler's National Socialism was a misnomer - they were a right wing fascist movement like Franco's Spain. I would hazard a guess that most non Communist dictatorships are right wing and often connected with the army.
Anti nuclear weapons is very much a left wing ideology - although in humanitarian terms it does also attract people from a wider spectrum. People like myself - a pacifist - opposed to killing - and not on the left right scale.
Immigration I agree is not a left or right wing issue. Over different eras you will find support for or hatred of immigation on both the right and the left for differing reasons. At present UKIP are the most outspoken anti immigration group (although they deny it) and they started on the right but have moved ever closer to the left where they see themselves able to pick up disenchanted Labour supporters.
You will never find a communally agreed definition of left and right. It is just a convenient and sometimes not very accurate way to shortcut and pigeon hole positions. Broadly I see the left as pro the working man, pro public ownership, pro social reform, anti nuclear, pro taxes on wealth and high income, pro taxes on inherited wealth and pro a more equal fair society. Not a lot wrong with that. The right I see as pro individual effort and performance, pro business, pro lower taxes all round, pro growth of an economy to increase overall wealth, pro limited benefits and welfare for those really requiring help and pro a society where people strive for the betterment of themselves and their family first whilst acknowledging that those who cannot, for genuine reasons (never laziness or lifestyle choice), provide for themselves need limited help but cannot expect to live as well as those who can. Some are attracted to this ideal.

 

I agree that it is best to confine ourselves to a British context Leo, because the expressions 'left' and 'right' can have different meanings in different countries, and in different periods. They also differ according to the person actually using the description. The history of British Socialism is unique in that it has as much to do with religion as with Marx - the Labour Party originated out of a combination of the radicals from the Whig Party of the 19th Century, the emerging trade unions, and social reformers of Methodist (sometimes Quaker) origins. In fact just over a third of the first Labour members in the Commons were of Methodist origins - so how they came to be members of the third international, and to have the famous clause 4 is a mystery. There had also been a radical rural traditon in England dating back to Winstanley and the diggers of the 17th century, so it was no surprise that the first people to ever try to form a union were farm workers in Dorset. Such a history is very different to the left in other countries, which was much more Marxist in nature. For me being left wing means collective ownership of the means of production (either from the state or - better- in the form of worker's cooperatives), it means decentralization of all powers, both economic and political, downwards, it means the extension of the democratic principle to all walks of life, and it involves a large measure of self sufficiency. It also means being an internationalist in my thinking but not necessarily in my actions (which are as local as possible). So you see our definitions are different - but I will accept yours as more relevent for Britain.

 

Not really so different are they? collective ownership is akin to public ownership. The democratic principle is stressing the importance of "the working man" (the majority of people after all). Self sufficiiency perhaps less recognised as left wing. Internationalist - very much in accord with British Union tradition. I would happily recognise someone with those views as being left wing - thankfully now the board is less confrontational we can applaud the good in both sides.

 

If you really want to see how the meanings of things change, just take a look at liberté, égalité, fraternité the French motto. Over the years it has changed for different groups, yet today it is widely understood, although many would say it is used by the elite in Paris for their own purpose. As an ideal many in these rural parts of the country feel it is something worthwhile to aim for, which is maybe why political parties of whatever hue are so disliked. Our socialist government has been a disaster no matter what your viewpoint, even despised by the people who voted for it four years ago.

Of course public ownership already exists in the UK. The difference is that it is not owned by the people of the UK, but by the people of France through EDF. Seeing as that company is on the verge of collapse, it is not a good advert for state ownership.

 

We are all products of our backgrounds and cultures. I know that is a truism but it is often forgotten. Both left and right, or at least the better individuals who align themselves to those philosophies, want what they believe is best for all. As you may remember, I grew up in a radical, anti-apartheid family in South Africa - not a comfortable or safe place to be. My mother was left-liberal, whilst my father was right wing in the Thatcherite sense. My mother opposed apartheid because it was morally wrong. My father opposed it because it was economically and socially wrong. His view was that a vibrant society could only exist if there was equal opportunity for all, irrespective of race. They were both viewed as not only being enemies of the state but also enemies of the race.

My point is that the difference between left and right is often only a matter of means, not ends. What is dangerous is charismatic leaders, for whom power is the goal, or, at the very least, the inflation of ego. People like Farage frighten me. Whilst I suspect that he doesn't have the intelligence or cunning to ever get power he could open the way for others. The masses seem to like strong leaders. Strong leaders can be very dangerous and once they get power they can be very difficult to shift. Note that there is a big difference between decisive leadership and 'strong' leadership.

The problem with revolutions is that they usually require 'strong' leaders to succeed, which is why revolutions of the left or right tend to end in dictatorships. It is also why they are economically and sccially inefficient.

I believe that certain services are better run by the state because they provide a more vibrant society, even if the company is not as efficient as it could be in the private sector. It is not efficient for the state to pay for major surgery for an 80 year old but I would hate to live in a society that let old people die who can't afford surgery. For one thing it distorts the economy because people end up spending far too much on health insurance. That view may be classed as left wing. I may also be wrong but, of course, I don't think I am. Many Americans would disagree with me.

Sorry I have gone on so long.

 

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/05/11/why-do-people-support-rail-nationalisation/

I think the electorate believe firmly in favour of rail nationalisation. Electricity, gas, water would also be vote winners, too, I think.

 

Excellent post. I don't agree about Farage in his "lack of cunning" - who would've thought that corporal with the funny moustache would be elected? Media-friendly 'common sense', snappy one-liners, simplistic answers to complex political problems will win the day. Blaming foreigners, particularly those of different colour/religion, is an all too easily understood panacea for a public who frankly can't be arsed to give any real time or thought to their problems. We get what we collectively deserve. I go back to a previous post I made - we don't deserve Corbyn, like we didn't deserve Foot. Thatcher offered easily understood answers, often unfounded but they appealed to uneducated or uncaring masses. Our democratic 'free' press and other media (Lord save our 'free press' from Leveson ) will see off Corbyn and we will end up with a Tory "I'm all right, Jack" society. Easy to understand that (although under Tories we pay more far more tax because of indirect taxation - a sneaky way to tax the poor more through indirect regressive taxes) as long as my basic Income Tax rate is lower I'm paying less tax, right? I'll vote for them, then.

 

and while we are about how about going back to one phone service........ most of these utilities all use the same infrastructure and all out to make money out of us....

I have three land lines into my house and each with a different provider.... as in one case my office number was 'owned' by Virgin and whne I changed provided to standardise it was only 4 weeks in without a number that someone told me... and I had to go back to Virgin and 'ask' for the number... and it was still 'available' ....crazy

 

I remember how you had to put your name down on a waiting list to get a phone installed in your house, and three months later the Post Office would tell you that they could provide you with a shared line, meaning that if your neighbour was using their phone you had to wait for them to finish. The competition between companies for your business has brought down the cost and provided a better service, but you do have to be ready to change when your current provider thinks he has you captive. A lot less simple these days, but a better service until something goes wrong with the line.

 

It makes no sense for this not to be in public hands.
There are more, it seems radical (only because it's not that common an idea) but I believe sales of gasoline and diesel have no place in private hands. There is no added value due to competition and they are of critical national importance.
What about the Post Office?
I would nationalise all schools, colleges and universities. Also all hospitals. Then I would take them out of the government hands so they cannot be a political tool. The government through taxation provides the money to give equal access and opportunity to health and education. Is this really so crazy an idea? Let us have due pride again in our NHS and schools (neither of which should have been continually ****ed up as many times as they have by government or market interference).

 

What an excellent, interesting and thought provoking post.

 

I agree Farage is cleverer than his buffoon image makes him appear - Boris uses the same trick. Farage effectively took over and won Brexit in the last few weeks.
Ultimately taxation is one way (as opposed to borrowing) to pay for what the state spends. Whether it comes from earnings or from spending taxes affects who pays how much - excluding inheritance the only progressive taxation is a tiered income tax. The battle is over how much the state spends and then where does it get it from. Tories prefer to spend less and so take less tax and they think that indirect taxes are fair because you are not obliged to buy things other than essentials. Fine if you want to live without enjoying any "nice" things. Labour want to help every good cause and so need more money to do that - they pretend they can take it from fat cats, bankers etc but in reality they take it from average earners - we all know that and it is why people are wary of parties who set out large spending budgets. It is a question of balance - how much does the average wage earner want to pay for causes which they may or may not believe are "good"?

 

Yes,, and of course with modern technology and a new approach I don't see why it shouldn't be a low cost efficient public service....

Memories of course of the old days of unionised inefficient bureaucracy.... but it doesn't have to be like that in the modern era...

Agreed... we are in a different era so the Union argument should really have no place....
let the vital services be controlled by experts not politicians
.

 

I agree polls show support for it in theory- but see what happens when someone actually proposes it and gets into the detail of cost. I wonder how much support would still be there if it casues tax inceases.
I am opposed to nationalisation not in principle but because I think government bodies are useless at running things. ONce the state runs something bureaucracy takes over and costs soar. Councils are dreadfully wasteful; most government agencies likewise and I am afraid that railways and the post office provided poor service at high cots under public ownership and are not the solution thatmany people think it is.

 

Unions are in hiding - just biding their time to re-emerge. You only have to look at their collective support for Corbyn to realise they want to repeal a load of Thatcher legislation

 

..... Some of the Scandinavian countries they seem to make it work well.

The NHS and Education sectors are completely unionised and they actually work well .

As do most Local Authorities in relation to Unions

I don't buy the wasteful argument...... My sister in law is a head of service in Devon and in the past few years they have cut back and back to the bone... libraries closed, youth service decimated, care homes and day services whittled down to nothing. I have said previously things were so bad with the cuts they had to devise a strategy for potential civil disobedience....

You will always get idlers as people need motivation.... the same will be true in any organisation

I think we need to move forward.... if you isolate and scapegoat people or groups they are bound to respond. Look at the junior doctors recently.

If we use the union argument we will stay in a divisive them and us society.

 

I agree about state waste. But this problem can't be insurmountable. I remember a council office "having to" spend the rest of its budget before end of tax year, so it replaced perfectly good office furniture costing thousands of pounds - but it meant they kept their budget for the next year. This should action disciplinary proceedings IMHO. Another time the same council, which had simply massive debt, bought every person of moderate standing within the council, a new £20 stapler (20 years ago £20 too ). Irrespective of need. We need proper auditing of practice and spending within public bodies. It has to be possible, doesn't it?

 

Tories use this argument but of course it is not fair because poor pay more of these indirect taxes as a proportion of their disposable income. It is sly but immediately understandable in terms of 'pub politics'. It's the same level of argument as when TV broadcasts unsuitable viewing and the pub politician says "You've got an off button!". Simple answers for simple people.
I agree Labour often pretend that the money will be found exclusively from 'fat cats'. I always had a sneaking respect for Lib Dems (and previous guises) for being open and honest about this; e.g.Libraries are a good thing for the state, so we all need to pay for them. This is a solid argument. Yes, there are many things that are not as easy as this, but we have to be straightforward and explain that tax is not a bad thing. I am proud that my tax helps people in need. I am proud that my country allowed me to make the decision to go to the doctor for chest pains a practical decision, not a financial one. People would be reluctant to pay a doctor £30 (?) to get something investigated, the, "it's probably nothing" thought, but that is not in the public (or personal) interest. People are reluctant anyway - those of us who are blokes here are particularly guilty of this.
It shouldn't be a question of 'fat cats' providing all the cash for this (which they couldn't anyway), it's a question of us having a fair taxation system, ability to pay etc. And I've got to raise this now, while we have an absolute responsibility to help those in need, there are people who leech from society (at both ends, Daily Mail/ Daily Express/ Channel 5, you shower of utter ****wits) and it is imperative that this is resolved as part of a fairer tax system.
(While I digress, could we nationalise the Mail and Express - surely the country needs only one paper for twats? . And we could find Messrs Dacre, Desmond and Rothermere gainful employment too. I suggest the mop and bucket end of the sewage industry, in reparation of their pumping **** into the nation's homes for so many years.)