Reply to: Is it the fault of NuLabour or socialism?

[Old Greg]

Your critique burns.

As as for my education, it was second to none, maybe your parents should have spent the same on your education as my parent did on mine. You are obviously deserving of it.

Here is how it should be.

As for my education, it was second to none. Maybe your parents should have spent the same on your education as my parent did on mine. You are obviously deserving of it.

It is all about main clauses. Perhaps you could print this and get your parents to see if they can get a partial refund.

[Bagpuss]

Systems should provide incentives for spending of money as if it were one's own. I.e. Link the organisational sepnding to the salaries, if money is spent unwisely it has an negative effect on personal income levels, conversely efficient spending results in a bonus.

In this country however we are becoming increasing accountable to our elective representivies rather than the other way around.

[Solidec]

This is what I do not understand:

The Public Sector has jobs which are entirely unique to that sector.

Councillors
Civil Servants
Quangocatz

Yet government harps on about being competitive.

These jobs have no private sector equivalent, Cap the salaries across the country and problem solved. I can bet you there are thousands of would be councillors happy to do the job at a fraction of the salary that some of the overpaid current fatcatz get! £250K a year for god sake, some multinational corporate CEO's dont even earn that money!

The main problem we have with the way government is run, is that there is zero incentive and reward to keep puiblic spending in check and efficient.

Ministers just spend because its not "THEIR" money and they have zero fallout when they overspend.

[AlfredJPruffock]

I thought the following captures the throny issue of where the Public Sector went wrong



From council executives to the over-padded ranks of BBC managers, you now find amazing numbers of administrators who earn multiples of the salary of the prime minister.


Nurses and teachers don't need to write to remind me that there are many dedicated public servants doing tough, complex and essential jobs for society on modest salaries. But in the more senior ranks of the public sector, there has been a great inflation in rewards which has not always been matched by commensurate improvements in results. Salaries have raced upwards while pensions have been gold-plated and mink-lined.

This is another legacy of the bubble years. As rewards in the City ballooned to astronomical levels, there was a ripple effect into the higher levels of the public realm. University vice-chancellors, council chief executives, hospital administrators, quango chiefs, agency bosses and BBC managers grabbed a thick slice of the high-rolling action.

The argument was made that you wouldn't get talented people to work in the public sector if it couldn't compete with the juicy rewards on offer from the private.

From council executives to the over-padded ranks of BBC managers, you now find amazing numbers of administrators who earn multiples of the salary of the prime minister.

Transparency is one answer and more of that is coming. Legislation going through parliament will force councils to reveal exactly what they pay to their upper tiers of administrators.

The council tax payers of Rotherham may be cross to discover that their council pays 61 of its bureaucrats a salary which is larger than that of the town's MP.

[Bagpuss]

Yes, he's often seen as the Godfather of Thatherism. I think that's a bit unjust.

[Mich the Tester]

Free market mixed economy Socialism today isn't something my Grandfather would recognise. He lived and worked in a harsher time before the Welfare state. He was all for the Government helping the working class, rather than hindering them as we have now, the 10% tax rate debacle springs to mind, the heavy taxation and fiscal drag. While paying people who have little in common with the ethics of working people, to do nothing. As a younf person my politics were left of centre, but as I get older I see that as an ideal that can never work in practice. We no longer have strong communities where people have a common working ethos. People who think they are socialist have more in common with someone at the right end of the political spectrum (when it comes to looking after no1) then any dogma they might think they are sunscribing too. I used to think unions were a good thing in principle, but i've worked in a unionised enviroment (in the south as it turns out) and I've ssen first hand the corruption and selfism than pervades. As time goes on the more I think Adam Smith had it right, often miss quoted as someone who saw the markets as god, he did actual believe that not only good can come out of self interest, but we should instigate systems that work in such a way, rather than by chance.

People tend to ignore the fact that Adam Smith didn’t only write the ‘Wealth of Nations’, but also the ‘Theory of Moral Sentiments’ in which he set out a rational basis for moral behaviour. A bit more of both would be a good idea.

[Bagpuss]

Free market mixed economy Socialism today isn't something my Grandfather would recognise. He lived and worked in a harsher time before the Welfare state. He was all for the Government helping the working class, rather than hindering them as we have now, the 10% tax rate debacle springs to mind, the heavy taxation and fiscal drag. While paying people who have little in common with the ethics of working people, to do nothing. As a younf person my politics were left of centre, but as I get older I see that as an ideal that can never work in practice. We no longer have strong communities where people have a common working ethos. People who think they are socialist have more in common with someone at the right end of the political spectrum (when it comes to looking after no1) then any dogma they might think they are sunscribing too. I used to think unions were a good thing in principle, but i've worked in a unionised enviroment (in the south as it turns out) and I've ssen first hand the corruption and selfism than pervades. As time goes on the more I think Adam Smith had it right, often miss quoted as someone who saw the markets as god, he did actual believe that not only good can come out of self interest, but we should instigate systems that work in such a way, rather than by chance.

[Ruprect]

You can see socilaism can never work if you ever attended an "all in holiday". Watch the behaviour when everyone has a level playing field and the hot buffet opens. Do they orderly queue and take their fair share or does it turn into a greedy bun fight where everyone piles their plate like food is in short supply?

good point, well made!

[Bagpuss]

Greg, some "workers" will always be more equal than others. Look at the Trade Union movement.

It's just substituting one power struggle for another. It would just never work in practise, it is against all the rules of human nature.

You can see socilaism can never work if you ever attended an "all in holiday". Watch the behaviour when everyone has a level playing field and the hot buffet opens. Do they orderly queue and take their fair share or does it turn into a greedy bun fight where everyone piles their plate like food is in short supply?

[Ruprect]

GG is right OG, its not workable in practice.

[GreenerGrass]

Greg, some "workers" will always be more equal than others. Look at the Trade Union movement.

It's just substituting one power struggle for another. It would just never work in practise, it is against all the rules of human nature.

[Old Greg]

Here is the thing about small state socialism. Most socialists would see state ownership as opposed to private ownership as the lesser of two evils within the context of a capitalist system, as it diminishes the power of capital. However, state ownership is not the same as worker ownership and control, because it depends on the intermediaries of a bureaucracy. This will tend to interfere with liberty.

The desired model of worker ownership will diminish the role of the state.

Anyway, that is where small state socialism is coming from. I offer this as an explanation of the concept, rather than as an attempt at persuasion. I expect we are all too entrenched for that.

As for our expensively semi-literate friend, I will offer a special OG grammar point to anyone who spots his error. If there are no takers, I can explain it on Saturday.

[Cyberman]

It's their idea of Capitalism. The Tories are only planning to cut a bit of public spending. Anything else is imagined

There will be lots of cuts, whether it is Labour or Tory. We are broke thanks to Blair and Brown.

[Foxy Moron]

Where did I say we live under socialism?

I said Labours IDEA of socialism! MASSIVE difference.

It's their idea of Capitalism. The Tories are only planning to cut a bit of public spending. Anything else is imagined

[Cyberman]

We don't live under Socialism, we live in a mixed mainly Capitalist economy. Stop reading stupid journalists who still think the iron curtain exists and there's a red under every bed.

We would all be better off though if benefits were only given to those in dire need. Our benefits system at the moment encourages:

1) Single mothers through offering free housing etc

2) Immigrants to come here for an easy life and to bring multiple wives

3) Worklessness... remember the ' too fat to work' family

4) dissolving of marriages because non-married parents that pretend to live alone are 10K a year better off if one works.