New Labours next leader?

[InsaneApache]

It just got a lot more interesting. Now that Abbott has got the required 33 nominations it spices up the contest no end. All the others looks more or less the same suits but with different heads on, Abbott on the other hand is like breath of fresh air. Now I admit, I like Diane. Of course I don't really know her but I like her forthrightness on This Week with El Portillo and Brillo.

I don't agree with virtually anything she stands for but at least she has convictions, albeit flexible ones when it comes to her immediate family but convictions nevertheless.

Now if I had the chance to finally nail the liebour party once and for all I would root for Balls! He's such a charming bloke. However on this one I'm plumping for Diane.

Diane to be the next Great Leader.

Waddyafink? :inquisitive:

[Rhyfelwyr]

Abbott on the other hand is like breath of fresh air. Now I admit, I like Diane. Of course I don't really know her but I like her forthrightness on This Week with El Portillo and Brillo.

That's exactly what I thought when I first heard she was running. She seems like a nice person, not such a sleazy scumbag like a lot of the rest look like.

[Furunculus]

interesting that balls has labelled himself as euro-sceptic and less pro-immigration.

[Subotan]

Maybe Balls is trying to outflank the Coalition from the Right. God, what a disaster that would be.

[Furunculus]

you mean it would be a disaster for labour to elect a leader who reflected the view of the majority of its electorate, i.e. that immigration should be limited, and europe should be held at arms length.

i can see that labour would really suffer for adopting that position as policy!

[Idaho]

She used to be my MP years ago. I don't like her. I think she is New Labour to the core.

[InsaneApache]

She used to be my MP years ago. I don't like her. I think she is New Labour to the core.

Did you vote for her? :inquisitive:

[JAG]

The only people I see wanting Abbott are Tories and other people who are hostile to the Labour party - she does not have a strong following inside the party, at least thats what I see.

Balls is doing what every candidate is doing, trying to talk to the 'values' of the skilled working class who deserted Labour at the last election, the theory goes if you get them back, we win. It isn't that easy and it is also bad form to think talking tough on immigration is the only thing the semi skilled working class go for.

I think I will probably vote for Ed Miliband when my ballot comes - I wasn't sure at first if he was good enough at presenting a vision and policy before camera and was leaning in his brothers direction - but the more I see of him the more I like him. His policies are both thought through and good and I think we will be able to win the next election with him. We shall see, the unions are the next big movers of opinion, I have a feeling a lot of them might plump for Balls, which might make it interesting - his performance on the daily politics today was very good I thought, even if I can't really stand the guy.

[Furunculus]

interesting JAG, cheers.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, if Harriet Harmen had gone in that would have been the Party finished for about another decade. To be honest, the others all look the same, being varying mixes of Blair and Brown. At least Diane Abbott is somewhat individual, even if she did only get on to the ballot because Harmen bullied people.

[rory_20_uk]

I'm all for Abbott. That'd probably help Labour to implode.

Convictions? Those born of a poor grasp of issues - oh, and of course not for her or her family. Merely good enough for others.

Second place would be Balls: "myopic fanatic? Think with your Balls"

~:smoking:

[Idaho]

Did you vote for her? :inquisitive:

No I didn't. I don't generally vote as a rule.

[KukriKhan]

...the skilled working class who deserted Labour at the last election

So that is what happened, in a nutshell?

[Beskar]

I love this quote "he echoed David Miliband’s sentiment that the new Labour leader had to construct 'a wider movement', thus opening the door to the left and trade unions", they outright admitted that Labour are not left-wing. :laugh4:

Source: http://www.businesswings.co.uk/articles/Labour-leadership-debate-the-verdict

[Beskar]

No I didn't. I don't generally vote as a rule.

Bad boy. :no: Then you can't really complain then.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Keep Milliband out of the leadership position. There is something deeply unsettling about him. He will kill us all.

[JAG]

So that is what happened, in a nutshell?

Yes, pretty much. A lot of the big tent, coalition of support Blair got in 1997 and 2001 had already deserted Labour by 2005, but we won that election because on the whole women and the skilled working class - mechanics, plumbers etc etc - voted for Labour. The reason Thatcher got such large majorities back in the 80's was because the left were completely, hopelessly divided but also more importantly she successfully appealed to the aspirational, skilled working class - with buy your own council home etc etc... This is the group which, if it swings by 15-20% to the Tories is disasterous for Labour - and that is who we need to win back. I think in 1997 Labour won 60% of this groups vote but it was down to around 35% at the last election. Anyway, interesting times.

[tibilicus]

Abbot-Seen as a self righteous hypocrite from many within her party and plenty of the "chattering classes". Mainly relating to her views on education, I'm not sure of the specifics.

Balls- Comes across as very light weight in debates and is probably too attached to Brown. His recent attempt to rebuke the Iraq War, like many of his other fellow leadership contenders is both laughable and a flat out lie. Honestly please people, most of you were at the heart of it and sat round the Cabinet table when it was agreed. Or have we forgotten collective Cabinet responsibility? As far as train wrecks go, Balls would be just that. Mind you, it would be hilarious to see him in the leadership role due to his sheer detachment from reality. Him and his wife can also claim the title as the most arrogant couple in politics, bar none.

Andy Burnham- Looks like a small child and doesn't have the balls (no pun intended) to be a proper leader. Then again, a break from the authoritarian style leadership we have seen recently might be just what we need.

David Milliband- He's probably been planning this leadership campaign since about August last year and along with his brother, has the support and leadership credentials required to win it.

Ed Milliband- Think David except a bit more personable. Doubt there that radically different ideology wise, both New Labour through and through. Although David's meant to be more "Blairite" and Ed more "Brownite". Also find it laughable we have a "Brownite" ideology. Suspect it involves tanking the economy as a core economic view.

My personal view is that David or Ed would be best suited for the job, probably Ed as opposed to David. They both sound exactly the same though so its a choice between Ketchup and Catsup. The rest aren't really serious contenders although Balls could be counted as one but unfortunately his inflated ego is so big, he probably wouldn't be able to fit through the portcullis if he became leader. Despite who wins, I probably wont be voting New Labour within the near future as non offer genuine policy changes. Nearly all seem committed to the neo-Stalinist spend spend spend approach of New Labour and I feel nearly all of them are detached from the public and don't known what the public want.

[Furunculus]

spite who wins, I probably wont be voting New Labour within the near future as non offer genuine policy changes. Nearly all seem committed to the neo-Stalinist spend spend spend approach of New Labour and I feel nearly all of them are detached from the public and don't known what the public want.

agreed, the big state ideology is dead (some of us got there a lot sooner than others), and it's about time labour caught up.

[Beskar]

We should have a Libertarian Socialist party. Now that would be a good one, especially if it follows my idea of how it should look like. I think the success of my ideas would even convert Furunculus.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

We should have a Libertarian Socialist party. Now that would be a good one, especially if it follows my idea of how it should look like. I think the success of my ideas would even convert Furunculus.

We already have a Libertarian party, and a Liberal party. However, a Libertarian Socialist party is an oxymoron.

[InsaneApache]

We already have a Libertarian party, and a Liberal party. However, a Libertarian Socialist party is an oxymoron.

Indeed. It's a bit like having a cuddly, caring serial killer. :laugh4:

I reckon that 'banana' Milliband will probably walk it. Diane is only the token really. Shame, at least she's entertaining.

[Furunculus]

We should have a Libertarian Socialist party. Now that would be a good one, especially if it follows my idea of how it should look like. I think the success of my ideas would even convert Furunculus.

a fairly contradictory and hopeless ideology in my opinion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

[Idaho]

Bad boy. :no: Then you can't really complain then.

Not this bollocks again.

You don't have to make bets and shout and jump around in the grandstand to be interested in horse racing.

You don't have to buy newspapers or subscribe to Sky in order to be interested/concerned about the quality of the media.

etc, etc.

[JAG]

We already have a Libertarian party, and a Liberal party. However, a Libertarian Socialist party is an oxymoron.

Of course it isn't. That kind of comment is made by those who really don't understand or cannot grasp the whole idea of ideology, especially the historical strands of the left. Maybe before making such ignorant statements people should try and educate themselves first. Makes certain people look a little foolish.


agreed, the big state ideology is dead (some of us got there a lot sooner than others), and it's about time labour caught up.

Bill Clinton in the 90's was forced to say ' the era of big government is over', it is nothing new to think that government is all wrong and unhelpful, it is just amusing to see people think it is. It is quite easy to bash government and forget how much we need government. What is brilliant currently is seeing the Tories and those on the right use the failure of PRIVATE industry and the rescue of our whole way of life by GOVERNMENT, be used as an excuse to bash the public sector and government. It is quite astounding and also quite sad, without government we would be nowhere. Private industry always comes crawling back to the state for help when it fails.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Of course it isn't. That kind of comment is made by those who really don't understand or cannot grasp the whole idea of ideology, especially the historical strands of the left. Maybe before making such ignorant statements people should try and educate themselves first. Makes certain people look a little foolish.

I really don't see how you can reconcile the collectivist approach to the economy of socialism, with the individualistic approach of libertarianism. I think the problem is people conflate social and economic libertarianism. I'm sure more people who indentify as 'libertarian socialists' are libertarian on social issues, but they are quite clearly not libertarian when it comes to the economy. When you have a collectivist approach to the means of the production, that clearly places society as a whole above the individual, hence it is not libertarian.

I think the whole concept of 'libertarian socialism' simply stems from the fact that todays leftists want to appear 'progressive', despite the fact that their fundamental ideology is rooted in the class structures of the nineteenth century. Times have changed, they need to deal with it.


Bill Clinton in the 90's was forced to say ' the era of big government is over', it is nothing new to think that government is all wrong and unhelpful, it is just amusing to see people think it is. It is quite easy to bash government and forget how much we need government. What is brilliant currently is seeing the Tories and those on the right use the failure of PRIVATE industry and the rescue of our whole way of life by GOVERNMENT, be used as an excuse to bash the public sector and government. It is quite astounding and also quite sad, without government we would be nowhere. Private industry always comes crawling back to the state for help when it fails.

All that could just as easily be an argument against 'big government'. For the government to take the taxpayers money to bail out private businesses is hardly in the spirit of capitalism, and only encourages carlessness on the part of the business owners, knowing that no matter how much they mess up the government will step in and save them. In much the same way that people can sit all their lives without working knowing that the government will fund their lifestyles.

[Louis VI the Fat]

What is brilliant currently is seeing the Tories and those on the right use the failure of PRIVATE industry and the rescue of our whole way of life by GOVERNMENT, be used as an excuse to bash the public sector and government. It is quite astounding and also quite sadI feel like Bruce Willis in the Sixth Sense, or Jim Carrey in the Truman Show, or something. What seems perfectly obvious to me is not at all shared by other people, who seem to go about their daily business completely oblivious to all of this. This reversal of cause and effect. Not the banks, rating agencies, hedge funds or any of the like are reigned in by the voters, but their governments are. Rather than demand their tax money back, they issue an apology to the financial markets for having made such a mess of it all themselves, dismantle their states, and throw all of their tax money at the financial institutes.
It installs a completely regressive tax system, with a private sector that managed to privatise all profit, and socialise all risk. Sheer socialism, reversed: private enterprise protected by the state, and income redistributed from the poor to the rich by taxes.

Everywhere in European elections, the right is winning big, on a platform of austerity measures and doomsday scenarios of 'living beyond our means'. In effect, the welfare states are dismantled to use the tax funds to pay the world's financial institutions.

Every day I wake up, hoping that this day, in some large public place, suddenly all people will turn towards me and shout in unison 'just kidding! If you look up, there's the camera!'
Failing that, I hope I died and am living in some sort of limbo right now, punished for sins by having to witness this madness.

[Furunculus]

ain't it just swell! :sultan:

[rory_20_uk]

I feel like Bruce Willis in the Sixth Sense, or Jim Carrey in the Truman Show, or something. What seems perfectly obvious to me is not at all shared by other people, who seem to go about their daily business completely oblivious to all of this. This reversal of cause and effect. Not the banks, rating agencies, hedge funds or any of the like are reigned in by the voters, but their governments are. Rather than demand their tax money back, they issue an apology to the financial markets for having made such a mess of it all themselves, dismantle their states, and throw all of their tax money at the financial institutes.
It installs a completely regressive tax system, with a private sector that managed to privatise all profit, and socialise all risk. Sheer socialism, reversed: private enterprise protected by the state, and income redistributed from the poor to the rich by taxes.

Everywhere in European elections, the right is winning big, on a platform of austerity measures and doomsday scenarios of 'living beyond our means'. In effect, the welfare states are dismantled to use the tax funds to pay the world's financial institutions.

Every day I wake up, hoping that this day, in some large public place, suddenly all people will turn towards me and shout in unison 'just kidding! If you look up, there's the camera!'
Failing that, I hope I died and am living in some sort of limbo right now, punished for sins by having to witness this madness.

Louis, Goverments took massive stakes in the banks. The net result was the exiting shareholders lost c. 90% of their money - it's over 80% owned by the government and dividends have been stopped. IMO the governments did exactly what they should do - they bought at the bottom of the market, propped up the banks and charged for services that the banks had to accept. It's one of the few things Labour has done well (compare to selling gold at a market low)

The government can soon sell their share for a profit. That's ignoring the cost of providing a safety net, and interest on lending.

You make it sound that the banks were given free money to go on as before.

The only ones that truly gained were the senior employees who made vast profits in the good times and merely great profits now.

~:smoking:

[Louis VI the Fat]

ain't it just swell! :sultan:Well I'm fine with charity itself. But if I want to hand out my hard-earned money, I'd rather give the money myself as charity than being forced to do so through taxes used for social engineering.

All these bankers on the dole make them lazy. They need some good capitalist incentives to get them to work for their money. Such as risk instead of government safety nets.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Louis, Goverments took massive stakes in the banks. The net result was the exiting shareholders lost c. 90% of their money - it's over 80% owned by the government and dividends have been stopped. IMO the governments did exactly what they should do - they bought at the bottom of the market, propped up the banks and charged for services that the banks had to accept. It's one of the few things Labour has done well (compare to selling gold at a market low)

The government can soon sell their share for a profit. That's ignoring the cost of providing a safety net, and interest on lending.

You make it sound that the banks were given free money to go on as before.

The only ones that truly gained were the senior employees who made vast profits in the good times are merely great profits now.

~:smoking:I don't disagree with most of the bailouts.

I do think the tax money that was used for it (rather, the money that has been borrowed for it) should be collected where it has been used: banks and their shareholders. Rather than collecting it from the poor, by maintaining tax levels at the same level while dismantling the welfare state. That amounts to a regressive tax system, to stealing from the poor (rather, the honest tax-paying midlle class) to give it to rich crooks.

[al Roumi]

Well I'm fine with charity itself. But if I want to hand out my hard-earned money, I'd rather give the money myself as charity than being forced to do so through taxes used for social engineering.

I see. The uncharitable (ha) could accuse you of wishing to either make smaller donations to preserve the status quo of your interests (i.e. have some charity my good man. ah -now that you are flush again good man, perhaps you can pay me your debts?), or that you'd rather carry out your own social engineering in accordance to a peicemeal, privately organised personal agenda.

[rory_20_uk]

I don't disagree with most of the bailouts.

I do think the tax money that was used for it (rather, the money that has been borrowed for it) should be collected where it has been used: banks and their shareholders. Rather than collecting it from the poor, by maintaining tax levels at the same level while dismantling the welfare state. That amounts to a regressive tax system, to stealing from the poor (rather, the honest tax-paying midlle class) to give it to rich crooks.

Shareholders lost all their money, or as I say over 80% and no dividends. Bad people saving for retirement or having private pensions - they deserved to loose it all. Public sector workers are of course not affected.

Sadly the costs are merely passed on in charges / reduced interest in bank accounts. I don't have any solutions to this.

~:smoking:

[Beskar]

Not this bollocks again.

You don't have to make bets and shout and jump around in the grandstand to be interested in horse racing.

You don't have to buy newspapers or subscribe to Sky in order to be interested/concerned about the quality of the media.


You can't complain when you don't read any news at all, may it be on TV or in Newspaper. (afterall, how would you even know of the quality even if you read none at all?)

Also, you don't have a right to complain about politics if you take no part at all, not even via voting. If you voted and your candidate didn't get in, you can easily say your candidate should have got in, or comment on the candidate you elected is not representing the voters. If you took no active part, then you can't really complain, because if you did, your candidate could have been elected, if all those others just like you, bothered to get off the sofa and vote. You forfieted your obligation rights in not voting, in otherwords, you actively demonstrated you don't give a monkey about the elections or the politics or the governance of the country, thus complaining about it demonstrates hypocrisy as your vote could have been used to change the system or make it better in the first place.

[Beskar]

We already have a Libertarian party, and a Liberal party. However, a Libertarian Socialist party is an oxymoron.

No it isn't.


a fairly contradictory and hopeless ideology in my opinion:

How so?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Of course it isn't. That kind of comment is made by those who really don't understand or cannot grasp the whole idea of ideology, especially the historical strands of the left. Maybe before making such ignorant statements people should try and educate themselves first. Makes certain people look a little foolish.


I'm not talking about ideology, I'm talking about goernment. A Socialist government socialises responsibility, places social functions in the hands of the state and increases governmental responsibility. A Libertarian government individualises responsibility (even social responsibility), places social functions in the hands of the individual and reduces government responsibility.

So the two are incompatable.

HOWEVER, if you are talking about upholding certain "liberties" such as free speecj, freedom of religion, etc. that is a different issue. Such a political philosophy might be possible to construct, but it would likely try to preserve liberties by defining them and legislating for them; at which point they cease to be liberties and become state-granted privilages.

Or, to put it another way, don't call me ignorant, uneducated and foolish instead of responding to my point. Lack of engagement usually comes from reluctance to face one's opponent.

Oh, and I see Rhy, studying history and politics right now I believe, agrees with me.

[Beskar]

Oh, and I see Rhy, studying history and politics right now I believe, agrees with me.

He calls himself a "born again communist" which implies a communist convert, when he clearly isn't.

Also, he is incorrect in his post, Libertarian in practise is the minimised of authority, namely being government authority, which has opinions ranging from minisation or even abolition of the state. However, this is fundamentally flawed, as they leaves you being governed by Walmart, Microsoft and McDonalds, as they have the economical power and influence to control you. Libertarian Socialist on the otherhand has the aims to minimise all aspects of authority, if it is 'government', economics or social.

He also defined Libertarian wrong, it is "Libertarianism is a political theory that advocates the maximization of individual liberty in thought and action", in a Libertarian Socialist environment, you would have greater individual liberty in thought and action than under just a minimised state, as people would be almost equal economically, one can not use his economical might to exploit another person who remove others liberties.

What is also interesting that you (PVC) just commented that a Bill of Rights is the removal of liberties and "repackaged" as state-granted privilages. That is just simply nonsense, as they are actually "state-protected liberties" not "state-granted privilages". Your comment is just pure political rhetoric where you are trying to make a point where it doesn't actually exist.

[Subotan]

So what's the difference between Liberal Socialism and Libertarian Socialism?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Ugh, I wrote a big reply, then the internet decided to close itself. :furious3:

Anyway, Beskar, I think you are contradicting yourself even in your own post.


Libertarian in practise is the minimised of authority, namely being government authority, which has opinions ranging from minisation or even abolition of the state.


in a Libertarian Socialist environment, you would have greater individual liberty in thought and action than under just a minimised state, as people would be almost equal economically, one can not use his economical might to exploit another person who remove others liberties.

So in the first quote above, you are saying libertarianism promises as minimised state as the means of achieving individual liberty. Then in the second quote, you go on to say that a minimised state will not allow for individual liberty, yet still calling yourself a libertarian!

And that is the fundamental problem with libertarian socialism. Libertarianism is based on the idea that without political authority to oppress people, the economy itselfs allows for economic freedom. Of course, with the socialist belief in the oppression of class structures, some other sort of authority is needed to abolish/reduce the extent of these class divides. In practise, this actor has always been 'big government', although even with your other theoretical ideas such as more grassroots collectives or whatever, you are still ultimately submitting the independence of the individual to power structures. You could even argue this allows more freedom than the capitalistic alternative, but it's still not the libertarian view of individual liberty.


Also, he is incorrect in his post, Libertarian in practise is the minimised of authority, namely being government authority, which has opinions ranging from minisation or even abolition of the state. However, this is fundamentally flawed, as they leaves you being governed by Walmart, Microsoft and McDonalds, as they have the economical power and influence to control you. Libertarian Socialist on the otherhand has the aims to minimise all aspects of authority, if it is 'government', economics or social.

Hmm, you just said what I said about libertarianism was incorrect, then in the first line there, gave the same definition I did! What you then on to do though, in the next sentence, is attack the assumptions that lie behind this idea of libertarianism (that the absence of a powerful state brings economic freedom), which is a whole different matter to disputing over definitions. So are you disagreeing with what I believe libertarianism to mean, or just whether this idea of libertarianism is a realistic way of viewing things?

[Beskar]

So in the first quote above, you are saying libertarianism promises as minimised state as the means of achieving individual liberty. Then in the second quote, you go on to say that a minimised state will not allow for individual liberty, yet still calling yourself a libertarian!

No, that is called "not reading correctly". There is no contradiction. I said "Not just a minimised state" therefore, there is more to be done.


And that is the fundamental problem with libertarian socialism. Libertarianism is based on the idea that without political authority to oppress people, the economy itselfs allows for economic freedom. Of course, with the socialist belief in the oppression of class structures, some other sort of authority is needed to abolish/reduce the extent of these class divides. In practise, this actor has always been 'big government', although even with your other theoretical ideas such as more grassroots collectives or whatever, you are still ultimately submitting the independence of the individual to power structures. You could even argue this allows more freedom than the capitalistic alternative, but it's still not the libertarian view of individual liberty.

No, because you would have more individual liberty then under a free market, so it isn't a contradiction as it opposes hierarchical structures which exist in a free-market environment. Also the term is actually correct, because Libertarian refers to the government, not the economics, which is where the "socialist" part comes from, as it is addressing the economics. You can just read the wikipedia page and it goes into it all in details.


Hmm, you just said what I said about libertarianism was incorrect, then in the first line there, gave the same definition I did! What you then on to do though, in the next sentence, is attack the assumptions that lie behind this idea of libertarianism (that the absence of a powerful state brings economic freedom), which is a whole different matter to disputing over definitions. So are you disagreeing with what I believe libertarianism to mean, or just whether this idea of libertarianism is a realistic way of viewing things?

Libertarian Socialism is the one that provides the most individual liberty in both political, economical and social freedom. The ideas which have economical heirarchy are bad as they trying to replace one evil with another evil, then get rid of the evil altogether.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What is also interesting that you (PVC) just commented that a Bill of Rights is the removal of liberties and "repackaged" as state-granted privilages. That is just simply nonsense, as they are actually "state-protected liberties" not "state-granted privilages". Your comment is just pure political rhetoric where you are trying to make a point where it doesn't actually exist.

There's a famous quote we use in EB's loading screens, from Plutarch irrc. When faced with captivity or death at the hands of Julius Caesar one Gallic Chieften, after the utter political and military subjugation of his people declared, "I am a free man in a free state".

The point?

It is for you to say you are free, not for someone to tell you it is so.

If the state protects some freedoms then, in practicality, it restricts others. So those freedoms you have under a Bill of Rights are those that the state grants, not those you choose for yourself. That makes them privilages granted by the state, not freedoms.

A true freedom can never be legitimately restricted.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Well you are now talking mostly semantics (if not interpretation). For instance you are free to go wherever you want to (that's one of the most basic liberties most western societies seem to uphold). Except of course that you aren't because countless restrictions impede truly free movement:

“Maar doodslaan deed hij niet, want tussen droom en daad
staan wetten in den weg en praktische bezwaren
en ook weemoedigheid, die niemand kan verklaren,
en die des avonds komt, wanneer men slapen gaat”

And the quote you cited probably meant something rather different (“I do not recognize you as my overlord[s]”) anyway.

[Beskar]

If the state protects some freedoms then, in practicality, it restricts others. So those freedoms you have under a Bill of Rights are those that the state grants, not those you choose for yourself. That makes them privilages granted by the state, not freedoms.

Freedom is a double-edged sword. It largely depends on what is freedom, especially, as lets say a state will protect others from not allowing you the freedom to remove anyone elses freedom away from them, In the terms of exploition, slavery, etc.

So unless you want to argue you want to freedom to possess slaves, there isn't anything restrictive about it.

Also, since the people are the state in a modern democracy, there isn't any difference between citizen and state, it would be the respective freedoms and rights the citizens have agreed upon for themselves.

[Rhyfelwyr]

No, that is called "not reading correctly". There is no contradiction. I said "Not just a minimised state" therefore, there is more to be done.

But the libertarian would believe that limiting the state is what brings indiivdual freedom, they see is as the only source of oppression. You admitted as much when you said "Libertarian in practise is the minimised of authority, namely being government authority". The belief that the state is the only source of authority/oppression of the individual is what libertarianism is all about, it is implied in the very definition which you gave above.

However, you then go on to advocate the use of other forms of authority beside the state, which are a result of your socialist belief in the oppressiveness of the free-market economy, and so "just a minimised state" is not sufficient to bring individual liberty. This belief in the need for authority contradicts the whole idea of libertarianism, where the individual is free from any power to constrain them. You need to introduce a new source of authority which is greater than the individual.


No, because you would have more individual liberty then under a free market, so it isn't a contradiction as it opposes hierarchical structures which exist in a free-market environment. Also the term is actually correct, because Libertarian refers to the government, not the economics, which is where the "socialist" part comes from, as it is addressing the economics. You can just read the wikipedia page and it goes into it all in details.

The bolded bit is an assumption for our purposes here. It is because libertarians do not share your beliefs in this respect that they believe minimising the role of the government will bring economic freedom with the free-market. As to whoever is right, that's a whole other debate, but libertarianism is based on certain assumptions about the economy, which are very different from yours.

Also, both libertarianism and socialism are concerned with the relationship of the economy with the state, you can't say the libertarian bit is purely political, and the socialist bit purely economic. From Marxism to socialism to the welfare state, the traditional left has always believed in using the state to regulate the economy.


Libertarian Socialism is the one that provides the most individual liberty in both political, economical and social freedom. The ideas which have economical heirarchy are bad as they trying to replace one evil with another evil, then get rid of the evil altogether.

That's fair enough, I respect the socialist view of things. But just call a spade a spade, a socialist a socialist etc...

While you believe that some form of regulation (state or otherwise) brings more economic freedom, the fact you believe in some form of authority/power which constrains the economic pursuits of the individual clearly differs from the idea of libertarianism, where the average joe should in theory be able to do whatever it takes, all by himself, to make it to the big time.

The libertarian would say that without the government taxing and oppressing people, anybody could become an entrepreneur, and live the whole rags to riches American dream idea. You on the other hand believe that it is impossible/very difficult to espace from poverty, hence regulation is needed to curb the excesses of the free-market, and prevent an economic power (the bourgeoisie) oppressing all those below them.

Now, I think your view is more realistic, but you are admitting that some sort of authority is needed. Saying you are a libertarian socialist, in that you believe that regulation brings more individual freedom than a lack of it, is kind of like calling yourself a pro-government anarchist*, in that you believe political regulations would give you more freedom than you would have in the state of nature. Both the libertarian socialist and the pro-government anarchist would achieve the goal of individual liberty that libertarianism/anarchism desires, but through the means of a completely different ideology.

* a broad term I know, I mean the more individualistic, anarcho-capitalist idea, rather than the left-wing strains

[Beskar]

The bolded bit is an assumption for our purposes here. It is because libertarians do not share your beliefs in this respect that they believe minimising the role of the government will bring economic freedom with the free-market. As to whoever is right, that's a whole other debate, but libertarianism is based on certain assumptions about the economy, which are very different from yours.

Also, both libertarianism and socialism are concerned with the relationship of the economy with the state, you can't say the libertarian bit is purely political, and the socialist bit purely economic. From Marxism to socialism to the welfare state, the traditional left has always believed in using the state to regulate the economy.

There are different strains of Libertarianism, just like there are different strains of anarchism, communism, conservatism, etc. Then there other ideologies which are similar but different such as Anarcho-syndicatism, Isocracy and Autarchism. Some of your comments would fall under such other definitions.

However, I would hate to have hypercapitalist society as defined by Anarcho-capitalism, as their owns goals is a contradictio in terminis as I said earlier, they simply replace one form of authority with another. So we end up with a world ruled by unbridled for-profit greed with no consequence to human life or morality.

[InsaneApache]

Not wanting to de-rail the thread.

To me Libertarianism is about personal freedom, personal responsibility, as small a govenment as is practicable and fewer oppressive laws.

To paraphrase Old Holborn.


I'm not an anarchist, a rabid "right winger", a nationalist or a Marxist. I choose to live my life with as little forced intereference from others as possible. That means I will make the choices that affect my life and I will take the responsibility for those decisions. I am not a victim or a subject. I am a sentient being with the reasoning to know what is best for me. I do not possess the arrogance to impose my beliefs on others nor do I aspire a position of power over others. Just my own life.

[Furunculus]

Not wanting to de-rail the thread.

To me Libertarianism is about personal freedom, personal responsibility, as small a govenment as is practicable and fewer oppressive laws.

To paraphrase Old Holborn.

I'm not an anarchist, a rabid "right winger", a nationalist or a Marxist. I choose to live my life with as little forced intereference from others as possible. That means I will make the choices that affect my life and I will take the responsibility for those decisions. I am not a victim or a subject. I am a sentient being with the reasoning to know what is best for me. I do not possess the arrogance to impose my beliefs on others nor do I aspire a position of power over others. Just my own life.

while all the political philosphy above is very interesting, the deifinition you provide is the one that is actually important as far as the average Brit is concerned, and it should be a serious concern to aspiring labour leaders too.

[InsaneApache]

OMG, it's the one with the brain melting eyes wot won it!

We're Labour's doomed. :skull:

:laugh4:

[tibilicus]

A victory for Red Ed with the trade unions delivering victory for him. Red Ed has already said he's in favour of higher taxis and the "death tax" so when you knock off, your children can't look forward to the money as the state can claim a significant amount.

Due to the fact D-Milli won both the membership and parliamentary votes, but Ed was handed victory by Unite and co, he is essentially forced into joining the unions during their new winter of discontent this winter. The government aren't going to forget who gave him the victory and neither should the British people. Perhaps we can use this opportunity to confine socialism to the true fringes of British politics for good.

Pretty desperate stuff. Labour rejected the sensible choice and put in place a trade union stooge. Let's just hope the middle-class don't suddenly gain a hunger for left wing policies..

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

OMG, it's the one with the brain melting eyes wot won it!

We're Labour's doomed. :skull:

:laugh4:

No doubt this will please the Liberals.

[bobbin]

A victory for Red Ed with the trade unions delivering victory for him. Red Ed has already said he's in favour of higher taxis and the "death tax" so when you knock off, your children can't look forward to the money as the state can claim a significant amount.

If by "death tax" you mean Inheritance Tax then we already have it and have had it for over 200 years, it also doesn't apply to the overwelming majority of the population (94%) as they fall below the threshold (currently £325000), I also have no problem with higher taxes as it is preferable to the wrecking of public sevices the current government is doing.



Due to the fact D-Milli won both the membership and parliamentary votes, but Ed was handed victory by Unite and co, he is essentially forced into joining the unions during their new winter of discontent this winter. The government aren't going to forget who gave him the victory and neither should the British people. Perhaps we can use this opportunity to confine socialism to the true fringes of British politics for good.
So whats wrong with union votes? They are still people who vote out of their own free will, which gives them just as much worth as any of the others.

If anything I hope it brings socialism more into mainstream politics, this is what the Labour party is supposed to be for. I don't get why people think socialism is a bad thing, it's no secret that most of the countries rated as having the best quality of life for their citizens have strong traditions of socialist and centre-left politics.

[Beskar]

it's no secret that most of the countries rated as having the best quality of life for their citizens have strong traditions of socialist and centre-left politics.

It is because of American influence and America uses Socialism as a swear word.

[bobbin]

It is because of American influence and America uses Socialism as a swear word.

What? So the reason that countries the like of Norway have such a great quality of life is because of American influence? Me thinks you overestimate the US' reach.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So whats wrong with union votes? They are still people who vote out of their own free will, which gives them just as much worth as any

Most of the unionists are Labour voters, so if you win by the Union vote it is effectively because your supporters are allowed to vote twice.

Ergo Labour is corrupt and Ed won because of a reprehensible voting system.

[Beskar]

What? So the reason that countries the like of Norway have such a great quality of life is because of American influence? Me thinks you overestimate the US' reach.

You completely misread my statement. I was saying people dislike Socialism because of American influence.

[bobbin]

Most of the unionists are Labour voters, so if you win by the Union vote it is effectively because your supporters are allowed to vote twice.

Ergo Labour is corrupt and Ed won because of a reprehensible voting system.

If you want to point out flaws with the voting system I think the more obvious one would be that a MP's vote is worth nearly 800 times that of a affiliate voter, besides David's supporters could do exactly the same thing.

It's no where near a perfect system (the Conservative party's is pretty dire too) but I do believe it represents the choice of the majority of Labour supporters, many of whom have been rather disheartened by the drive towards the right that Blair started.




You completely misread my statement. I was saying people dislike Socialism because of American influence.

Sorry I got confused, I think it was because you quoted the wrong part of my post.

This makes sense with what you were saying.

I don't get why people think socialism is a bad thing

This doesn't.

it's no secret that most of the countries rated as having the best quality of life for their citizens have strong traditions of socialist and centre-left politics.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Don't mind Beskar, he's a bit of a wingnut, in his mind there's no problem that unregulated capitalism can't solve. I try to reason with him but what can you do? :shrug:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Don't mind Beskar, he's a bit of a wingnut, in his mind there's no problem that unregulated capitalism can't solve. I try to reason with him but what can you do? :shrug:

It's almost as disturbing as his religious fundamentalism, isn't it?

[tibilicus]

So whats wrong with union votes? They are still people who vote out of their own free will, which gives them just as much worth as any of the others.

If anything I hope it brings socialism more into mainstream politics, this is what the Labour party is supposed to be for. I don't get why people think socialism is a bad thing, it's no secret that most of the countries rated as having the best quality of life for their citizens have strong traditions of socialist and centre-left politics.

I wouldn't have a problem with Union votes if they weren't run by thugs in flat caps. For all this talk of "modernised unions", Charlie Whelan, Unite and co still represent an organisation which wields a disproportionate amount of power and is heavily partisan in nearly all political matters. The unions also seem to have this view that the public services are somehow untouchable and that any forum of cuts (yes, the unions effectively oppose ANY cut in public sector spending) should be met with hostility. Why should the people in the public sector get preferential treatment over those in the private sector just because their pay check comes from the tax payer? If a private business went bust, we wouldn't expect to invest public money in to that business. We can't afford the public sector in its current state (which is regrettable) so why should the British tax payer continuing paying? The unions seem to think we should, that's my problem.

[Brenus]

“If a private business went bust, we wouldn't expect to invest public money in to that business”
Are we living in the same UK than me or are you from a Parallel World? The Banks, all of them Private, were bailed out by Public Money… The Railways in UK are saved every year by Public Money which made them more expensive to run than if they were National…
In fact Businesses expect Public Money to recover from loses but are against taxes when profits and even taxes evade as much as possible. That is their “support the Troops” for you.

[rory_20_uk]

“If a private business went bust, we wouldn't expect to invest public money in to that business”
Are we living in the same UK than me or are you from a Parallel World? The Banks, all of them Private, were bailed out by Public Money… The Railways in UK are saved every year by Public Money which made them more expensive to run than if they were National…
In fact Businesses expect Public Money to recover from loses but are against taxes when profits and even taxes evade as much as possible. That is their “support the Troops” for you.

The banks were bought using public money. They weren't soft loans - they bought new shares. They weren't free - they charged for insurance that cost billions that looks like won't be required.

Which businesses expect these bail outs? Oh yes - we had loads of those in the 1970's under... oh yes, Labour.

~:smoking:

[bobbin]

I wouldn't have a problem with Union votes if they weren't run by thugs in flat caps. For all this talk of "modernised unions", Charlie Whelan, Unite and co still represent an organisation which wields a disproportionate amount of power and is heavily partisan in nearly all political matters. The unions also seem to have this view that the public services are somehow untouchable and that any forum of cuts (yes, the unions effectively oppose ANY cut in public sector spending) should be met with hostility.
Of course they are partisan, they have been part and parcel of the whole Labour movement from the start. Not that I don't agree with you on their attitude to any form of cuts though but they wouldn't be serving their membership if they didn't fight such things, it's just a shame that people in general think on a short term small scale basis.


Why should the people in the public sector get preferential treatment over those in the private sector just because their pay check comes from the tax payer?
Because most public sector workers are providing the basic universal services that make up the "safety net" for everyone, they define the bare minimum you can expect to recieve, any reduction or loss in those services not only affects the poor who have no choice in the matter but also any wealthier people who find themselves force to use them due to unforseen circumstances.
Lots of private sector stuff is superflous, it's great to have but it's not absolutely necessary, the icing on the cake if you will.

[rory_20_uk]

Because most public sector workers are providing the basic universal services that make up the "safety net" for everyone, they define the bare minimum you can expect to recieve, any reduction or loss in those services not only affects the poor who have no choice in the matter but also any wealthier people who find themselves force to use them due to unforseen circumstances.
Lots of private sector stuff is superflous, it's great to have but it's not absolutely necessary, the icing on the cake if you will.

Cobblers.

A small percentage of what the Civil service does is absolutely necessary. A lot of it is bloat over the years.
The private sector provides firstly all the materials that the Public service requires - from the equipment and drugs in hospitals to the arms, munitions and kit for the army, equipment for the police and so on. Most infrastructure from the railways to power, water gas is private.

~:smoking:

[bobbin]

Cobblers.

A small percentage of what the Civil service does is absolutely necessary. A lot of it is bloat over the years.

NHS, Police, Emergency Services, Military, Social Services, Rail, Roads, numerous regulatory bodies and practically the entire education system to name just a few. These are vital major services that make up the majority of the public sector, not a "small percentage"

[rory_20_uk]

NHS has a vast army of backroom staff which are NOT required. They create paper that gets passed around, often so poorly that another army of staff is required to question the numbers and send them back to the first ones. Not to mention the DoH
Ditto police
Social Services? Don't make me laugh. Vast amounts of waste. Proceedures has long ago overtaken results - as altering results is almost impossible.
Military. Hmm. That there are almost as many civilians in the DoD as in the Army leads me to believe there is some bloat. 20,000 in equipment purchase for the army...
Education system. Forms required to be filled in from children from the age of 2 years old. Exams every year or so (with a vast army of markers etc). Educational consultant... of how the lost goes on.

Rail? Mostly private

And you call this "vital"?

~:smoking:

[bobbin]

Are you actually saying that education, law, health, defence and social services are not? Because if you are, god knows what you think is vital:dizzy2:

Oh don't go down the route of that old Murdoch/Tory myth that the public sector is rife with waste and can run perfectly fine on a shoestring budget.
There is definitely plenty of waste that can be eliminated from the public sector. From talks with my some of my friends who work there it always comes down to one universal complaint: too many managers (one I know who works in town planning is the only guy assigned to his manager!). In the end though the waste isn't as significant as the likes of the Tories would have us believe, they just spew hyperbole so they can justify privatising everything which despite all previous evidence, they claim will improve things.

Other teachers usually mark exams btw, so no extra waste there. Also Railtrack looks after the Rail system and while technically a quasi-private company, is wholly own by the government so they are as good as in public sector these days.

[rory_20_uk]

I've worked in the NHS for several years and there is a significant amount of waste. So much, in fact, that it's often difficult to get anything done as there is so much bureaucracy.

If teachers are marking, they're doing nothing else. If nurses are holding daily breach meetings for a couple of hours they aren't doing anything else (patients breach for loads of reasons. I've never seen one idea come off these daily meetings). Managers on call throughout the night for no apparent reason cost a lot of money. Cost lists from the PCT that are so full of errors they're not usable and staff are employed to sort out the work by other staff... Managers in the NHS outstrip clinical staff rises year on year - and that is merely numbers, not the salaries. And on it goes.

The waste is a lot greater than your apparent estimation. I don't think that privatising everything is the panacea to all the problems.

~:smoking:

[Beskar]

I like how the government is sacking all the firefighters and forcing them to sign new contracts completely changing the terms and conditions and working hours. Blackmailing them to either accept these new contracts or forcing them to strike. It is these backroom gunpoint situations is causing problems across the country.

On another note:

Privatization always causes more problems than solves them. I really don't get why people actively promote it, because all that happens is that all the low-profit and non-profit areas all get the chop, depriving significant amounts of people of their essentials while they maximize on the profit-runs and milk them dry of money. This gets even worse when it involves "contracting out" of public services, as they all have a bidding war for this contract, to provide substandard services and what the councils do, is pass on the accountability to these service providers, to misdirect the public. It is basic economics, how is it cheaper to pay for a middle man to do something for you, who would want a significant amount of the cash themselves, to hire the employees and get the equipment on your behalf than how tt would be to go direct yourself? It is mind boggling.

It boils down to what I said during that, accountability. Government is far more accountable then the private sector. If a government doesn't do a job right, the population deals with this, by moving their vote some where else. This is different with 'contracting out' as the public don't have a say in the matter, which just causes people to moan and direct their anger at the companies who do not care as they are getting an easy buck. Then with private sector of key infrastructure, the same happens again, people have to use these services, they cannot just chose not to simply not use them because it would significantly hamper their lifestyles. The private sector loves these areas as they just grab consumers where it hurts.

[InsaneApache]

Are you actually saying that education, law, health, defence and social services are not? Because if you are, god knows what you think is vital:dizzy2:

Oh don't go down the route of that old Murdoch/Tory myth that the public sector is rife with waste and can run perfectly fine on a shoestring budget.
There is definitely plenty of waste that can be eliminated from the public sector. From talks with my some of my friends who work there it always comes down to one universal complaint: too many managers (one I know who works in town planning is the only guy assigned to his manager!). In the end though the waste isn't as significant as the likes of the Tories would have us believe, they just spew hyperbole so they can justify privatising everything which despite all previous evidence, they claim will improve things.

Other teachers usually mark exams btw, so no extra waste there. Also Railtrack looks after the Rail system and while technically a quasi-private company, is wholly own by the government so they are as good as in public sector these days.

OK I'll bite. In a previous life I worked in local government. Since that time I've run my own businesses. When I was an officer in local government everything we did, memos, requisitions, holiday requests etc. was done in quadruplicate.

It took months or years to get anything constructive done. In fact most of the time we were busy doing 'reorganizations'. Usually within 18 months of the last one.

Talking of waste, here's one for you.

In 1973/4 all local government was reorganized. (sound familiar?) At that time it was decided that the city council would no longer require the services of it in house architects.

Scroll on 18 years.

An external audit was commissioned by the city council as a way of finding savings. Guess what? They found an architect team ensconced in city hall. Seventeen of them. Not one of them had any work to do for nearly two decades. Mind you they were pretty sharp at crosswords. :book:

[bobbin]

Wow! that's a doozy right there, 18 years of employment in a redundant role and no one noticed! What scares me is that if they took the best part of two decades to notice something as big as that, there will be plenty more they didn't get.:no:

[InsaneApache]

Wow! that's a doozy right there, 18 years of employment in a redundant role and no one noticed! What scares me is that if they took the best part of two decades to notice something as big as that, there will be plenty more they didn't get.:no:

Indeed.

[rory_20_uk]

I like how the government is sacking all the firefighters and forcing them to sign new contracts completely changing the terms and conditions and working hours. Blackmailing them to either accept these new contracts or forcing them to strike. It is these backroom gunpoint situations is causing problems across the country.

On another note:

Privatization always causes more problems than solves them. I really don't get why people actively promote it, because all that happens is that all the low-profit and non-profit areas all get the chop, depriving significant amounts of people of their essentials while they maximize on the profit-runs and milk them dry of money. This gets even worse when it involves "contracting out" of public services, as they all have a bidding war for this contract, to provide substandard services and what the councils do, is pass on the accountability to these service providers, to misdirect the public. It is basic economics, how is it cheaper to pay for a middle man to do something for you, who would want a significant amount of the cash themselves, to hire the employees and get the equipment on your behalf than how tt would be to go direct yourself? It is mind boggling.

It boils down to what I said during that, accountability. Government is far more accountable then the private sector. If a government doesn't do a job right, the population deals with this, by moving their vote some where else. This is different with 'contracting out' as the public don't have a say in the matter, which just causes people to moan and direct their anger at the companies who do not care as they are getting an easy buck. Then with private sector of key infrastructure, the same happens again, people have to use these services, they cannot just chose not to simply not use them because it would significantly hamper their lifestyles. The private sector loves these areas as they just grab consumers where it hurts.

Do the Co-op model with it being a mutual. Yes, the private sector has its issues, but it's choosing the lesser of two evils:

When patients were discharged from hispital a list of illnesses was compiled on a discharge summary to the GP, also supposedly to assess cost of the admission. As it was a clinical document, most of the detail wasn't put on it by the clinicians as the GP knows the chronic history. To make things worse, the document was done in quadruplicate (a popular trend) so was almost illegible by the time it came to work out the cost of the admission (yes, it was done in pen - computers? What are they?)

So, vast waste.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

Oh don't go down the route of that old Murdoch/Tory myth that the public sector is rife with waste and can run perfectly fine on a shoestring budget.

as someone who loathes murdoch i'm sorry to tell you that i do believe we are wasting too much private money on poorly run and superfluos public services.

there is plenty of evidence that spending more than forty percent of GDP on public spending is damaging to long term growth, there has in fact been a recent report that claimed that anything above 35% has the same effect.

if i was going to be ideological about this i would say that it should be the aspiration of every british government to reduce public spending to one third of GDP, but i could simplify that by declaring the band between 35% and 40% as moral activity and anything outside of that immoral activity.

[Beskar]

While I agree that the current public service model is inadequate, especially with copying the trends of the private sector by bringing in a hundred and one managers. If I was at the reins of power, I would completely change how the system is run. For a start, I would make the system accountable, so if people do a rubbish job, they get sacked. I would change the structure and hierarchy which would significantly reduce the number of pen-pushers and the heads of departments are democratically accountable to the public, so it is lead by people who want to do the job and have the support of the local communities.

Fundamentally, public service should be superior bang-for-buck than the private sector. As Rory said, the private sector is currently lesser than the two evils, and that is a very bad thing, due to the amount of horse manure which defines the standard they set. There needs to be a serious change, and not only in the civil service, but in government itself.

As for Furunculus's point about the GDP, only thing we would most likely disagree on is the fixed number side of things. The amount of GDP spent by the government doesn't fundamentally hinder growth, as it does the opposite in a lot of cases, such as heavy subs into high-tech research and development. I know Furunculus is also in favour of wise-decisions such as this like myself. Another thing is the definitions, in America, the Healthcare system is classified as "Major Growth Economy", over in the UK, where it is government ran, it is classified as a "Major Waste of the Economy". Just because the fact the government runs it, fundamentally makes it bad, even though it does a far better service than the American counterpart, at a lot lower cost-ratio. It actually costs the British citizen far less to have the NHS than an American counterpart, in terms of quality of care for everyone. This is where me and Furunculus start disagreeing as we see things in a different light. As because of the NHS example, because of the higher standards at a cheaper cost, I would argue that consumers have far more money to spend in the economy, and that workers are generally far more healthier, thus providing superior economical output.

I understand Furunculus's point, he is basically wanting the tax money to be used wisely, in order to promote growth and for the country to get better. While I don't set an arbitrary standard like he does, lets say, only 33% of GDP as taxes, we both want the same end goal. Just different ways and thinking behind attempting to reach it. Also, this is why I like arguing with Furunculus in many ways, as we simply want similar end goals and I feel I can understand his points because of that.

[tibilicus]

Apparently it looks like David Milliband could announce his retirement from front-line politics. With it, Labour loses its best chance at re-election and looses a key voice from the "reasonable" Labour camp which includes Darling, Straw and others. Instead, we're left with Ed Milliband and Ed Balls. Two people who try and distance themselves from New Labour despite being key allies of Brown and both being "deficit deniers".

It's amazing that Labour really doesn't get it still.

[Ironside]

as someone who loathes murdoch i'm sorry to tell you that i do believe we are wasting too much private money on poorly run and superfluos public services.

there is plenty of evidence that spending more than forty percent of GDP on public spending is damaging to long term growth, there has in fact been a recent report that claimed that anything above 35% has the same effect.

if i was going to be ideological about this i would say that it should be the aspiration of every british government to reduce public spending to one third of GDP, but i could simplify that by declaring the band between 35% and 40% as moral activity and anything outside of that immoral activity.

Tax burden in Sweden has been above 40% since 1974... The UK? Never.

[rory_20_uk]

Not so. (http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn25.pdf) "...But during the 1973 reform, the very top rate of income tax on earnings was left at 75 per cent. In 1974, the top rate on earnings was actually increased, to 83 per cent."

Oh, and on unearned income the tax rate was at its peak 98%. Good old Labour.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

Tax burden in Sweden has been above 40% since 1974... The UK? Never.

one begs to differ:

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downchart_ukgs.php?year=1950_2011&units=p&chart=F0-total&state=UK

[Tellos Athenaios]

Long term growth is all well and good, Furunculus, but that doesn't exactly buy you lunch (now). Which is why developing countries tend to spend the money injected into them from 3rd parties by and large (if it doesn't disappear into corruption) in Quality of Life, i.e. health care, schools, infrastructure. Rather than a national bank to light a fire under the national economy.

And that is not necessarily a bad or irresponsible thing. Health care, schools, sanitation etc. lie a foundation for a modern economy which certainly may be more expensive to fund collectively than if any individual were to pay for herself privately; but you do amortize these costs. This results in a situation where this inflated but amortized cost per person is relatively affordable for a larger number of people compared to a few individuals paying for what they need by themselves. It also creates a few extra jobs in the process. :shrug:

[Furunculus]

Long term growth is all well and good, Furunculus, but that doesn't exactly buy you lunch (now). Which is why developing countries tend to spend the money injected into them from 3rd parties by and large (if it doesn't disappear into corruption) in Quality of Life, i.e. health care, schools, infrastructure. Rather than a national bank to light a fire under the national economy.

And that is not necessarily a bad or irresponsible thing. Health care, schools, sanitation etc. lie a foundation for a modern economy which certainly may be more expensive to fund collectively than if any individual were to pay for herself privately; but you do amortize these costs. This results in a situation where this inflated but amortized cost per person is relatively affordable for a larger number of people compared to a few individuals paying for what they need by themselves. It also creates a few extra jobs in the process. :shrug:

sorry, i must have missed the part where we became a developiing country, in fact, i was pretty much sure that we were the archtype of a developed country!

where does this fit into that?

[Ironside]

Tax burden of the total GDP. Not taxes on rich people, nor GDP spending (since you can overspend, which usually is stupid). If i get the diagram on page 6 correctly, it's about 80% of total income.

Linky, English version got less info unfortunatly (http://www.ekonomifakta.se/sv/Fakta/Skatter/Skattetryck/Internationellt-skattetryck-fran-1965/?from1461=&to1461=&columns1461=,1,21,24,)

Anyway, my point being that all Nordic countries have higher taxes and higher GDP spending than the UK, yet aren't exactly suffering.