What has any Conservative Government ever done for the Working Classes?

RE: Underclass.

But will vote in their self interest which means teh party that will give them more benefits

i.e. labour.

But also many are ill educated biggots so will actually vote BNP.

If they can be arsed to get away from their sky tv to go and vote.

 

Social/political analysis in terms of class

is completely out of date as a method of analysing society. Society is too pluralistic with too many differing diverse interest groups to reduce things simply to "class".

I used to be a socialist until about ten years ago but the Marxist analysis it's based on is completely out of date and ultimately in the battle of ideas between capitalist liberal democracies and socialist planned economies at the end of the 20th century it was blatantly clear which idea was triumphant: liberal democracy and markets.

Socialism is an economic theory, and suffers from a lack of political theory to go with it. If you want to argue that in the interests of "the workers" (or whoever), all economic activity should be run by the state, what happens to those with economic interests who don't want to be controlled by the state? You either let them carry on in a free economy or override them and do not allow them to have an economic interest independent of the state and stifle them. It's why socialist countries so easily turned into one-party autocracies: they don't readily accomodate people whose interests don't coincide with that of the state.

Tories don't have a monopoly on selfishness either. Some socialists seem to share in the Tory sense of entitlement - why does the state or "the workers" have any right whatsoever to confiscate or "nationalise" what is someone else's private property/business/idea/money? Language about the "common good" is usually nothing more than dressing up what is basically theft. Whenever people use that term (like the "public interest" or "national security") you can guarantee that someone somewhere is being sacrificed for someone else's benefit.

In a nutshell, that's why I'll never be voting for a left wing party ever again.

20 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall and people are still wanting us to turn socialist. Madness.

 

Do you think a Conservative Council would buy a Football Club

to prevent it going out of business ?

 

ill educated whats?

Irony.

 

I know....

I almost made the comment myself but thought I'd tee it up for Redstar.....

 

Why does there need to be a "market" for everything?

There is no need for a "competitive" market when it comes to gas, water, electricity and transport.

The consumer doesn't have a "choice" in this respect as all they have the option of is the logo on their over inflated bill every quarter. The day I believe the consumer has benefited from this is the day I believe that there is no price fixing going on.

 

And who would have thought

A labour council would restrict and manipulate a deal on a football club to ensure a labour member of that council could take control of it and try and make massive amounts of money from the land associated with the club.

 

I think your confusing socialism with communism nt

 

RE: I know....

I think he is making reference to the fact that you have spelt "bigot" incorrectly?!

 

Holgate ceased to be a Grammar school in 1974

at the end of four years of conservative government.

 

But others would argue that...

workers (regardless of their perceived position in society) have their lives stolen from them and will continue to follow a path of conditions that get harder to sustain whilst the super rich become untouchable.

As far as I am concerned, for example, most land owners "stole" land using the Enclosure Act as their tool and from that came ownership of the means of production. The problem with the perfect liberal democracy and markets that you describe is that quite often people are used as fodder to enable others to make obscene amounts of money.

When you get key industries like Steel, Rail and Coal the nation can and did benefit from having them in common ownership and to say that they were someones private property is a very simplistic view IMHO. The former owners ran them for their benefit and not for the benefit of the nation or the workers.

 

What's your view on

Salt, and Rowntree?

And others like them.

Surely not every capitalist is Bradley Hardacre.

 

I know a few who did it. If we all know one, or a few, then there are surely a hell of a lot out there who did it. Haven't a clue who they vote for, but they were given a large chunk of capital (eventually money) for doing **** all, while the rest of us who struggle, but work and don't claim anything, got nowt, again.

 

RE: Why does there need to be a "market" for everything?

I agree. Companies like you mention are providing a 'public service', so profit/competition etc shouldn't come into it.

 

Transport?

Really?

Infrastructure like roads, bridges, maybe railways, bus stations and airports.

But Road Haulage and Taxi's.

You sure?

 

RE: Transport?

Sorry, I should be more specific, I assumed James G was meaning public transport.

 

RE: Transport?

I was indeed

 

Thought so

 

Because

as long as there is variation in supply and demand for a product, there will be a market that determines what a product is worth.

Markets are an imperfect solution but they are the best method of deciding prices. E.g. how to decide whether a gas bill should be £5, £500, or £5000 a month? The price is relative to how much gas is available to be sold, how many customers there are who want to buy, and what price customers are prepared to pay relative to other gas companies who are offering the same product at other prices.

I also think there's a case to be made for making profits from utilities. Sticking with gas - it is only delivered to our homes because someone somewhere has devised an advanced and complicated system of taking gas from deep underground, processing it and then distributing it over thousands of miles of pipes in a safe and efficient manner. Why aren't the individuals who make this system possible entitled to make a profit from their ideas and inventions? If they decided to rip up the pipelines and drilling rigs tomorrow we would be screwed - they are entitled to make profit from their activity the same as any one else. If they cannot make a profit, they will go under altogether.

I think for some reason we think "profit" is a dirty word when in fact it represents a significant achievement of effort and skill, whether your a self-employed plumber or a large oil company.

 

RE: Because

Can't agree with that in terms of the utilities.

We know how many customers there are for gas in this country - just about everyone. If you're not reliant on gas, you're reliant on electricity so the same principle applies. The price of gas (or electricity or water) should cover the cost to supply it and make any necessary improvements or repairs to the service. The demand will generally be higher in the winter. I don't see why we need more than one gas company to do this and I don't believe there is any real competition.

The individuals who make this system "possible" don't deserve to make a profit - they haven't done anything. They haven't discovered North Sea gas, they haven't built the pipes to my house or anyone else's and they haven't put the infrastructure in place - that was all done by the nationalised company. The might have searched for gas since privatisation but they haven't done anything revolutionary. They just stumped up the cash to fund Thatcher's income tax cuts and make obscene profits providing something that people generally can't live without.