What is happening to the Labour Party?

[Owd Codger]

You're missing the point. No-one is saying there would be equal achievement. That's the point there never will be nor should there ever be. Where is the incentive if there is?

There never will be equal opportunity. How can there be? For example how do you ensure that a childs parents confer the same "benefit" onto each and every child? You cannot.

However, there are things that we can do to increase equal opportunity. Classic case is the Grammar school system (which the Socialists in the North decimated).

Under this system bright children were able to competete with publically educated children.

What exactly is wrong with competing for the good jobs? I don't understand why you think this is in any way bad? The key thing is that we should all have the opportunity (as far as this is possible).

I think it is you who is missing the point. You should read what Tristram Hunt says about what Labour should be about and it is all equal opportunity but nothing about the reality of that. Like I said it is a con.

I don't think you understand that basic economics means if there was 100% equal opportunity and 100% achievement by everyone we'd still end up with a small percentage able to earn high wages, some in the middle and lots of people on zero hours contracts with no job security and a similar number of unemployed. The fact we don't have equal opportunity doesn't change that and all it does is hide the myth that if you give people equal opportunity it's job done and we can all be happy.

When bankers are paid millions in bonuses it is not money magic'ed up out of thin air. If they have millions, you have less. That is economics. The more distorted the distribution of wealth becomes the more people will find it simply impossible to rise up regardless of opportunity.

As to incentive there is nothing in socialism that says you can't earn a decent salary or aspire to a good job but they key difference between socialism and "opportunism" is a recognition that not everyone can do that but crucially if they can't and yet add value to society then people are not left in a pit of poverty.

You'd soon moan if the bin men went on strike or the cleaners at the hospital. These people do valuable jobs so just because they can't (for whatever reason) be teachers or lawyers should not mean they have to suffer poor wages and conditions.

It's also not about not competing for good jobs. You can do that but you have to recognise it is impossible for all to have good jobs not because they aren't capable of competing but there simply are not enough good jobs. The economy will not support 25 million software engineers being paid £50K and up!

So you can go one of two ways. You can pay the elite (and I don't just mean CEO's but people in the better jobs) an ever increasing amount of money or you can distribute the money in the economy more evenly by paying those at the bottom a decent wage such as the real living wage (for starters) not Osborne's sham of one.

If you do the former then you must pay those at the bottom less. That is where we have been heading for quite a while and it leads to unrest and the rise of extremism.

As to Grammar schools don't get me started, the last thing they did was create opportunity. I know I went through that system.

All they did was concentrate the better teachers in the Grammar schools and meant an arbitrary number of kids got picked to go each year. If one year 200 kids passed the 11 plus but there were 100 places, then 100 missed out. If the year after only 50 passed , 100 still went!

Selection at 11 was stupid. Far better if you want equal opportunity to give everyone the same chance, not split off an arbitrary number based on a test some kids will be mature enough academically to handle at 11 while others won't be.

The reality of that system was Grammar schools went down an academic path teaching things like Latin and Chemistry where Secondary Modern's didn't even offer some subjects and you were herded toward a vocational path whether you were that way inclined or not. Future decided at age 11! Not a bright idea.

Firstly I am genuinely interested in someone who defends Socialism. For me it doesn't make any sense so I am especially interested in hearing the argument that it does.

However.........

Your argument still doesn't stack up DaveO.

I agree with your point re binmen. Absolutely essential job but surely it's the market that determines wages?

If the market means that lawyers get paid X and binmen Y then surely that is that. Demand and supply.

In terms of wealth, I think you need to re-learn Economics (and I don't mean that in an insulting way). Economics is NOT a zero sum gain as you suggest. Absolutely there are issues with the Capitalist system, but that is not one of them. Are you honestly trying to suggest that the standards of living in 2016 are the same as those in 1960?
On any measure that you care to use the answer surely must be no?

So putting that to one side, your idea of "Socialism" is what? A restriction on pay to close the "gap". Presumably this would extend to Footballers, Cricketers, dare I say RL players? Of course it would have to also cover endorsements, sponsorship or any other "payment in kind".

Or is it a minimum wage to close the gap? Oh hang on we already have one of those. So what? degree? So Socialism vs Capitalism is all about degree is it?

Socialism has failed in the past for many reasons. Jeez half of Eastern Europe couldn't wait to get into the EU to condemn it to the past! You are presumably old enough to remember the power cuts in the 1970's? Imagine that today?!!!

"Good old" British Rail (well it was Old at least I suppose).

Leyland striking at will (whilst those "silly people in Japan" were working hard to develop their industry....now how did that work out for the 2 countries..?

Or would you prefer the country being held to randsom by the miners? Sensible deals offered being turned down by some idiot TU representative (who was doing very nicely out of his lot thank you very much), while the real people who suffered were those he was supposed to represent?


There are a lot of things wrong with Capitalism. I am no fan of the 7 figure salaries being banded around in the city but equally I have not seen a sensible argument for the alternative. Happy to be convinced otherwise.

If you knew anything about left wing politics, you would know that that the 'Socialism' in the former East European Counties was Totalilitarian State control Communism and not Democratic Socialism which is still going strong in the West European Counties, other parts of the world and is far from being a failure as you seem to believe.

In fact, many of the MEP's in the European Parliament are representatives of the various Democratic Socialist Parties including as yet, members of our own Labour Party.

Regarding many of your other comments, you are evidently a person who never had to fight for anything in life and just sit back and enjoy all the benefits that others have struggle to achieve over many years.

[Owd Codger]

I think it is you who is missing the point. You should read what Tristram Hunt says about what Labour should be about and it is all equal opportunity but nothing about the reality of that. Like I said it is a con.

I don't think you understand that basic economics means if there was 100% equal opportunity and 100% achievement by everyone we'd still end up with a small percentage able to earn high wages, some in the middle and lots of people on zero hours contracts with no job security and a similar number of unemployed. The fact we don't have equal opportunity doesn't change that and all it does is hide the myth that if you give people equal opportunity it's job done and we can all be happy.

When bankers are paid millions in bonuses it is not money magic'ed up out of thin air. If they have millions, you have less. That is economics. The more distorted the distribution of wealth becomes the more people will find it simply impossible to rise up regardless of opportunity.

As to incentive there is nothing in socialism that says you can't earn a decent salary or aspire to a good job but they key difference between socialism and "opportunism" is a recognition that not everyone can do that but crucially if they can't and yet add value to society then people are not left in a pit of poverty.

You'd soon moan if the bin men went on strike or the cleaners at the hospital. These people do valuable jobs so just because they can't (for whatever reason) be teachers or lawyers should not mean they have to suffer poor wages and conditions.

It's also not about not competing for good jobs. You can do that but you have to recognise it is impossible for all to have good jobs not because they aren't capable of competing but there simply are not enough good jobs. The economy will not support 25 million software engineers being paid £50K and up!

So you can go one of two ways. You can pay the elite (and I don't just mean CEO's but people in the better jobs) an ever increasing amount of money or you can distribute the money in the economy more evenly by paying those at the bottom a decent wage such as the real living wage (for starters) not Osborne's sham of one.

If you do the former then you must pay those at the bottom less. That is where we have been heading for quite a while and it leads to unrest and the rise of extremism.

As to Grammar schools don't get me started, the last thing they did was create opportunity. I know I went through that system.

All they did was concentrate the better teachers in the Grammar schools and meant an arbitrary number of kids got picked to go each year. If one year 200 kids passed the 11 plus but there were 100 places, then 100 missed out. If the year after only 50 passed , 100 still went!

Selection at 11 was stupid. Far better if you want equal opportunity to give everyone the same chance, not split off an arbitrary number based on a test some kids will be mature enough academically to handle at 11 while others won't be.

The reality of that system was Grammar schools went down an academic path teaching things like Latin and Chemistry where Secondary Modern's didn't even offer some subjects and you were herded toward a vocational path whether you were that way inclined or not. Future decided at age 11! Not a bright idea.

Firstly I am genuinely interested in someone who defends Socialism. For me it doesn't make any sense so I am especially interested in hearing the argument that it does.

However.........

Your argument still doesn't stack up DaveO.

I agree with your point re binmen. Absolutely essential job but surely it's the market that determines wages?

If the market means that lawyers get paid X and binmen Y then surely that is that. Demand and supply.

In terms of wealth, I think you need to re-learn Economics (and I don't mean that in an insulting way). Economics is NOT a zero sum gain as you suggest. Absolutely there are issues with the Capitalist system, but that is not one of them. Are you honestly trying to suggest that the standards of living in 2016 are the same as those in 1960?
On any measure that you care to use the answer surely must be no?

So putting that to one side, your idea of "Socialism" is what? A restriction on pay to close the "gap". Presumably this would extend to Footballers, Cricketers, dare I say RL players? Of course it would have to also cover endorsements, sponsorship or any other "payment in kind".

Or is it a minimum wage to close the gap? Oh hang on we already have one of those. So what? degree? So Socialism vs Capitalism is all about degree is it?

Socialism has failed in the past for many reasons. Jeez half of Eastern Europe couldn't wait to get into the EU to condemn it to the past! You are presumably old enough to remember the power cuts in the 1970's? Imagine that today?!!!

"Good old" British Rail (well it was Old at least I suppose).

Leyland striking at will (whilst those "silly people in Japan" were working hard to develop their industry....now how did that work out for the 2 countries..?

Or would you prefer the country being held to randsom by the miners? Sensible deals offered being turned down by some idiot TU representative (who was doing very nicely out of his lot thank you very much), while the real people who suffered were those he was supposed to represent?


There are a lot of things wrong with Capitalism. I am no fan of the 7 figure salaries being banded around in the city but equally I have not seen a sensible argument for the alternative. Happy to be convinced otherwise.

If you knew anything about left wing politics, you would know that that the 'Socialism' in the former East European Counties was Totalilitarian State control Communism and not Democratic Socialism which is still going strong in the West European Counties, other parts of the world and is far from being a failure as you seem to believe.

In fact, many of the MEP's in the European Parliament are representatives of the various Democratic Socialist Parties including as yet, members of our own Labour Party.

Regarding many of your other comments, you are evidently a person who never had to fight for anything in life and just sit back and enjoy all the benefits that others have struggle to achieve over many years.

And if there is one thing that Grammar school succeeded in, it was giving some of those who went to them, a sense of being better than others.

[cpwigan]

Dang all the copy & paste makes me lose the will to read.

I agree WW re thebenefits of qualifications. Ironically I have always told students (less so recently) that education is the best defence again an unfair/unjust society. Somewhere/ somehow it has gone horribly wrong.

[Wintergreen]

Dang all the copy & paste makes me lose the will to read.

I agree WW re thebenefits of qualifications. Ironically I have always told students (less so recently) that education is the best defence again an unfair/unjust society. Somewhere/ somehow it has gone horribly wrong.

Clearly CPW went to a Grammar School lol

WW you make quite a lot of assumptions about me without actually knowing me.
(Clearly I didn't) ^

Of course I understand the difference between Totalitarianism and "Democratic Socialism" (as you put it), yet some similarities exist between the two. State control of assets being one.


I have still to hear any solutions from the "Socialists", just moaning about the status quo. I genuinely would like to hear their (well made) arguments.

I'm all ears. Go on, tell me what "Democratic Socialism" is.

From what I can gather you believe it to be what exists in other Western European countries now? How exactly is this different from what exists here? Or are we talking about degree? Do you actually know?

[cpwigan]

WG The font on this website is approx 6 or 8 for me. Every other web site is perfect. Pot luck if my posts make even less sense than they noprmally do

[nellywelly]

Dang all the copy & paste makes me lose the will to read.

I agree WW re thebenefits of qualifications. Ironically I have always told students (less so recently) that education is the best defence again an unfair/unjust society. Somewhere/ somehow it has gone horribly wrong.

Clearly CPW went to a Grammar School lol

WW you make quite a lot of assumptions about me without actually knowing me.
(Clearly I didn't) ^

Of course I understand the difference between Totalitarianism and "Democratic Socialism" (as you put it), yet some similarities exist between the two. State control of assets being one.


I have still to hear any solutions from the "Socialists", just moaning about the status quo. I genuinely would like to hear their (well made) arguments.

I'm all ears. Go on, tell me what "Democratic Socialism" is.

From what I can gather you believe it to be what exists in other Western European countries now? How exactly is this different from what exists here? Or are we talking about degree? Do you actually know?

If there never had been a Labour Party do you really think the country would be the same or better. The move this country made towards social equality and paying decent wages have not been given without a hard fight and sacrifice, you talk of schooling I guess history was not your strong point. You need to read up on the hard fight the working class had to fight first to have unions and then the right to vote which would not have happened as quickly without a socialist movement . The Labour Party is still important to this country, but it needs to be electable and an effective opposition to keep the conservatives honest to the new middle of the road policy's they have adopted, if the party splits which I fear the conservatives will soon go back to being the nasty party

[Owd Codger]

Dang all the copy & paste makes me lose the will to read.

I agree WW re thebenefits of qualifications. Ironically I have always told students (less so recently) that education is the best defence again an unfair/unjust society. Somewhere/ somehow it has gone horribly wrong.

Clearly CPW went to a Grammar School lol

WW you make quite a lot of assumptions about me without actually knowing me.
(Clearly I didn't) ^

Of course I understand the difference between Totalitarianism and "Democratic Socialism" (as you put it), yet some similarities exist between the two. State control of assets being one.


I have still to hear any solutions from the "Socialists", just moaning about the status quo. I genuinely would like to hear their (well made) arguments.

I'm all ears. Go on, tell me what "Democratic Socialism" is.

From what I can gather you believe it to be what exists in other Western European countries now? How exactly is this different from what exists here? Or are we talking about degree? Do you actually know?

If it were not for the efforts of the many members of the Labour Party (Social Democrats in some other countries) and their colleagues in the Trade Union movement over the the past century or so, would you be enjoying the standard of living you have today or do you think that it would have been handed to you on a plate by the establishment and the Tory party?

That is what 'Democratic Socialism' is about. That is until Blair and company took the party in our country from its roots as a Democratic Socialist party in order to attract the middle class vote with the result that in the eyes of many, people like Corbyn now look like a hard line left wing extremist and the party now looking like a second Tory party to many traditional Labour voters who like myself, no longer see the present Labour party as a real alternative, especially in Parliament.

[Wintergreen]

Dang all the copy & paste makes me lose the will to read.

I agree WW re thebenefits of qualifications. Ironically I have always told students (less so recently) that education is the best defence again an unfair/unjust society. Somewhere/ somehow it has gone horribly wrong.

Clearly CPW went to a Grammar School lol

WW you make quite a lot of assumptions about me without actually knowing me.
(Clearly I didn't) ^

Of course I understand the difference between Totalitarianism and "Democratic Socialism" (as you put it), yet some similarities exist between the two. State control of assets being one.


I have still to hear any solutions from the "Socialists", just moaning about the status quo. I genuinely would like to hear their (well made) arguments.

I'm all ears. Go on, tell me what "Democratic Socialism" is.

From what I can gather you believe it to be what exists in other Western European countries now? How exactly is this different from what exists here? Or are we talking about degree? Do you actually know?

If there never had been a Labour Party do you really think the country would be the same or better. The move this country made towards social equality and paying decent wages have not been given without a hard fight and sacrifice, you talk of schooling I guess history was not your strong point. You need to read up on the hard fight the working class had to fight first to have unions and then the right to vote which would not have happened as quickly without a socialist movement . The Labour Party is still important to this country, but it needs to be electable and an effective opposition to keep the conservatives honest to the new middle of the road policy's they have adopted, if the party splits which I fear the conservatives will soon go back to being the nasty party

Nope, I think the Labour party was absolutely vital to the country at the time that it was founded.

However, I think it's time has now passed. A bit like the Whigs.

I agree with you that a strong opposition is vital in our country.

That said I hope that the Conservative party becomes more and more a one nation party that can represent everyone in the country.

[Wintergreen]

Dang all the copy & paste makes me lose the will to read.

I agree WW re thebenefits of qualifications. Ironically I have always told students (less so recently) that education is the best defence again an unfair/unjust society. Somewhere/ somehow it has gone horribly wrong.

Clearly CPW went to a Grammar School lol

WW you make quite a lot of assumptions about me without actually knowing me.
(Clearly I didn't) ^

Of course I understand the difference between Totalitarianism and "Democratic Socialism" (as you put it), yet some similarities exist between the two. State control of assets being one.


I have still to hear any solutions from the "Socialists", just moaning about the status quo. I genuinely would like to hear their (well made) arguments.

I'm all ears. Go on, tell me what "Democratic Socialism" is.

From what I can gather you believe it to be what exists in other Western European countries now? How exactly is this different from what exists here? Or are we talking about degree? Do you actually know?

If it were not for the efforts of the many members of the Labour Party (Social Democrats in some other countries) and their colleagues in the Trade Union movement over the the past century or so, would you be enjoying the standard of living you have today or do you think that it would have been handed to you on a plate by the establishment and the Tory party?

That is what 'Democratic Socialism' is about. That is until Blair and company took the party in our country from its roots as a Democratic Socialist party in order to attract the middle class vote with the result that in the eyes of many, people like Corbyn now look like a hard line left wing extremist and the party now looking like a second Tory party to many traditional Labour voters who like myself, no longer see the present Labour party as a real alternative, especially in Parliament.

Out of interest why do you vote Labour? What do they offer you that the Conservatives do not?

[Owd Codger]

Clearly CPW went to a Grammar School lol

WW you make quite a lot of assumptions about me without actually knowing me.
(Clearly I didn't) ^

Of course I understand the difference between Totalitarianism and "Democratic Socialism" (as you put it), yet some similarities exist between the two. State control of assets being one.


I have still to hear any solutions from the "Socialists", just moaning about the status quo. I genuinely would like to hear their (well made) arguments.

I'm all ears. Go on, tell me what "Democratic Socialism" is.

From what I can gather you believe it to be what exists in other Western European countries now? How exactly is this different from what exists here? Or are we talking about degree? Do you actually know?

If it were not for the efforts of the many members of the Labour Party (Social Democrats in some other countries) and their colleagues in the Trade Union movement over the the past century or so, would you be enjoying the standard of living you have today or do you think that it would have been handed to you on a plate by the establishment and the Tory party?

That is what 'Democratic Socialism' is about. That is until Blair and company took the party in our country from its roots as a Democratic Socialist party in order to attract the middle class vote with the result that in the eyes of many, people like Corbyn now look like a hard line left wing extremist and the party now looking like a second Tory party to many traditional Labour voters who like myself, no longer see the present Labour party as a real alternative, especially in Parliament.

Out of interest why do you vote Labour? What do they offer you that the Conservatives do not?

As I have stated, I no longer vote Labour for reasons I have already stated previously and today, they offer nothing as they are now thanks to Blair, no different than than your Tory Party.

Also out of interest, what has the Tories ever offered you to make you vote for them?