The May election

[Serial_Apologist]

I really think you should ALL STOP NOW

I'm sure FF is getting a terrible sense of DeJa Vu

Hmmm... OK then, if you think that's best; I was keeping clear of party politics in any... realistic sense, mind, just talking in, um... generalities, like

[french frank]

As for the imbecile idea of having Emily Matliss jog her way around the country because we're facing an election 'marathon' (Gedditt!!): can no one at Newsnight count?!

Presumably why it's a marathon. If they'd waited a few months it would have had to have been a sprint.

[teamsaint]

I am supposed to be with politics, but I hold the rather unpopular view that Nick Clegg and his small party have been a brilliant brake on he worst excesses of The Right, and they would have been ditto with The Left had things gone the other way. I hope we get another coalition of whatever stripe. Meanwhile, I'm hoping not to think about it too much.

I wonder what the worst excesses of the "left" might have been under the current Labour front bench ? presumably a massive lurch even further to the right ?

[Serial_Apologist]

I wonder what the worst excesses of the "left" might have been under the current Labour front bench ? presumably a massive lurch even further to the right ?

I did post a message asking this very question earlier, TS, then deleted it for fear of being accused of "stirring".

Nevertheless, to my mind it has become noticeable that the so-called "differences" that are being claimed to make this general election different from the 1980s are all well to the right of what they once would have been. I may be wrong here but I think Labour would sell off the profitable E Coast Main Line rather than being "saddled" with their own inexpertise in running nationalised industries; whatever happened to the idea of worker's control, worker's self-management, worker's co-operatives, once promulgated as potentially exemplary alternatives to top-down, showing "ordinary people" (Cooley: there's no such thing as an ordinary person) as capable of running concerns under the existing order?

[ahinton]

Nevertheless, to my mind it has become noticeable that the so-called "differences" that are being claimed to make this general election different from the 1980s are all well to the right of what they once would have been.

Be that as it may or may not, what is noticeable is that the differences between the parties are smaller than they once were.

I may be wrong here but I think Labour would sell off the profitable E Coast Main Line rather than being "saddled" with their own inexpertise in running nationalised industries; whatever happened to the idea of worker's control, worker's self-management, worker's co-operatives, once promulgated as potentially exemplary alternatives to top-down, showing "ordinary people" (Cooley: there's no such thing as an ordinary person) as capable of running concerns under the existing order?

I'm not sure that those "workers'" this and that are necessarily any more benefical and effective than the top-down stuff. Yes, workers in certain industries do indeed know more about their work than those who don't, but not all workers want to "control" - or see themselves as good at being in "control" of - everything within their employers' operations, worker self-management can risk being isolationist to the detriment of the workplace as a whole, worker's co-operatives can't always work because the workers don't always own - or even want to own - the business for which they work (and in this I include public sector workers).

Whilst I have no doubt that there's a place for a certain degree of all three of these things, the larger the employing organisation, the greater the territory in which it operates and the higher the level of investment required in it, the less possibility there is likely to be for any of them to bear fruit. Is the average train driver, for example, likely to want to "own" / part-"own" or to manage the entire rail network over which he/she is contracted to drive trains? and can he/she be expected to be fully conversant with the entire workings of that network, including maintenance, marketing, rolling stock design, public relations and all the rest? regardless of whether the rail network concerned or any part of it is nationalised or privatised?

It's this entire notion of "public ownership" and the ways in which it's been portrayed that rankle with me. If a nation's government decides to nationalise its healthcare provision, airlines, water service provision et al (and in so saying I'm not seeking to suggest whether or not it should), how would or could this make me, as one of its citizens, any more qualified to play a realistic participatory rôle in its operations? I didn't "own" shares in British Rail when it existed as a nationalised organisation and I had no contractual or moral duties towards it at that time except to pay the going fares for any journey that I took on it, which is just as well because I don't profess to know fact number one about how to run a rail business! Likewise, I didn't ask to "own" a piece of RBS when government bailed it out and I've never "owned" or wanted to "own" any part of it since, which is likewise just as well becasue I don't want to be thought of as having direct involvement of any kind in an incompetent and greedy bank!

All that said, there can be no doubt that, as you write, "there's no such thing as an ordinary person"; I've sometimes wondered why the "ordinary man in the street" has always to be in the street in order to be so described - oh and, while on such threadbare clichés, I'm not a "hard working family" either...

[Nick Armstrong]

Last night's 'Newsnight' was quite desperate

'Newsnight' is now generally quite desperate. Never gets watched now, used to be a fixture...

Gloria feeling unwell in her Transit on Monday again

[teamsaint]

for some reason, the last part of post #50 has put into my mind the thought of an export drive, of the kind so beloved of 1970's governments, led boldly by chamber music sales to and commissions from foreign countries.
What a lovely thing that would be.

[MrGongGong]

It's so comforting to have someone watching over you.

Swift move FF

[french frank]

Well, the updated T&C/House Rules currently state: "Anything that amounts, formally or informally, to party political campaigning (for or against) is currently disallowed." I think that post would fall foul of that rule . I'm doing my best to keep the thread OPEN ...

It's so comforting to have someone watching over you.

Swift move FF

[Serial_Apologist]

Be that as it may or may not, what is noticeable is that the diffeences between the parties are smaller than they once were.


I'm not sure that those "workers'" this and that are necessarily any more benefical and effective than the top-down stuff. Yes, workers in certain industries do indeed know more about their work than those who don't, but not all workers want to "control" - or see themselves as good at being in "control" of - everything within their employers' operations, worker self-management can risk being isolationist to the detriment of the workplace as a whole, worker's co-operatives can't always work because the workers don't always own - or even want to own - the business for which they work (and in this I include public sector workers).

Whilst I have no doubt that there's a place for a certain degree of all three of these things, the larger the employing organisation, the greater the territory in which it operates and the higher the level of investment required in it, the less possibility there is likely to be for any of them to bear fruit. Is the average train driver, for example, likely to want to "own" / part-"own" or to manage the entire rail network over which he/she is contracted to drive trains? and can he/she be expected to be fully conversant with the entire workings of that network, including maintenance, marketing, rolling stock design, public relations and all the rest? regardless of whether the rail network concerned or any part of it is nationalised or privatised?

It's this entire notion of "public ownership" and the ways in which it's been portrayed that rankle with me. If a nation's government decides to nationalise its healthcare provision, airlines, water service provision et al (and in so saying I'm not seeking to suggest whether or not it should), how would or could this make me, as one of its citizens, any more qualified to play a realistic participatory rôle in its operations? I didn't "own" shares in British Rail when it existed as a nationalised organisation and I had no contractual or moral duties towards it at that time except to pay the going fares for any journey that I took on it, which is just as well because I don't profess to know fact number one about how to run a rail business! Likewise, I didn't ask to "own" a piece of RBS when government bailed it out and I've never "owned" or wanted to "own" any part of it since, which is likewise just as well becasue I don't want to be thought of as having direct involvement of any kind in an incompetent and greedy bank!

All that said, there can be no doubt that, as you write, "there's no such thing as an ordinary person"; I've sometimes wondered why the "ordinary man in the street" has always to be in the street in order to be so described - oh and, while on such threadbare clichés, I'm not a "hard working family" either...

I see.

Well for what it's worth, the idea of workers' control was once central to the notion of the socialist planned economy, before it was misrepresented and trampled to the point at which it became impossible to voice without being shouted down. The idea was one of extending democratic choice beyond mere putting a cross on a ballot paper every 4 or 5 years, to having the kind of say in running of society from which most people are excluded in the pecking order, starting with the fruits of labour. The detached view leaves those exercising power as convenient targets for criticism, about whom little can be done, but nevertheless enjoying disproportionate wealth and authority. In contradistinction we posed the idea that the more engaged in everyday life people are, the more skilled and fulfilled in an authentic as opposed to confected sense of belonging, the greater the social rewards, and the fewer the costs in terms of envy, crime, and mental disorder. And of course the more shared out and circulated the responsibilities and duties, the more hands making light work!

Workers control would be just one aspect of all this. In the 1950 Boulting Brothers film "Last Chance", the domineering boss of a small agricultural machinery manufacturer, fed up with the demands of his workforce for higher wages and better conditions, hands the running of it over to them. The plot outlines the practical difficulties and deliberate externally imposed obstacles to their success, and in the end they invite their chastened boss back. This was the weak end-point of the otherwise rather good movie of its time, when such ideas were't treated as fancifully as in today's cynical age.

[LeMartinPecheur]

I see.

The idea of workers' control was central to the notion of a socialist planned economy before such ideals were misrepresented and trampled by Stalinism in particular to the point at which it became effectively impossible to voice them without being shouted down. At its basis is the idea of extending democratic choice beyond that of putting a cross on a ballot paper every 4 or 5 years to actually having the kind of say in the running of society from which the vast majority are excluded, not by individual choice as much as their place in a pecking order that in itself reproduces the detached kind of let someone else bother about these things which keeps others inefficiently exercising power, useful as targets for criticism when not much can be done about them, and to themselves in having the power and material benefits associated. In contradistinction we pose the idea that the more engaged in everyday life people are, the more skilled and fulfilled in that they really belong, and in a very different sense from belonging by virtue of following whatever is the current thinking or opinionations of the trend setters so vital to keeping the ethos of everyday capitalism going.

Workers control would be just one aspect of all this. The 1950 Boulting Brothers film "Last Chance", in which the boss of a small agricultural machinery manufacturer, fed up with the demands of his workforce, hands the running of it over to them. The plot outlines the practical difficulties and deliberate externally imposed obstacles to their success, and in the end they invite their chastened boss back, which was the weak end-point of the otherwise rather good movie of its time, when such ideas were't treated as fancifully as in today's cynical age.

Will it be possible to vote in the John Lewis Partnership in this election? Not a runaway path to riches for everyone in the co, but it does seem to have been successful, stable and relatively happy for upwards of a century, which is more than any of the obvious contenders can claim

[french frank]

Will it be possible to vote in the John Lewis Partnership in this election? Not a runaway path to riches for everyone in the co, but it does seem to have been successful, stable and relatively happy for upwards of a century

With Wai'rose, the working man's discount store

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

nah Lidl

[Serial_Apologist]

Will it be possible to vote in the John Lewis Partnership in this election? Not a runaway path to riches for everyone in the co, but it does seem to have been successful, stable and relatively happy for upwards of a century, which is more than any of the obvious contenders can claim

It's a good starting point; one of the problems for worker co-operatives is the cut-throat competitiveness of the system in which they are forced to operate, periodically outpacing itself and overflooding the market with goods surplus to requirements, when what is needed is a bottom-up planned and integrated network of production, geared in the first instance to meeting primary needs.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Will it be possible to vote in the John Lewis Partnership in this election? Not a runaway path to riches for everyone in the co, but it does seem to have been successful, stable and relatively happy for upwards of a century, which is more than any of the obvious contenders can claim

It's interesting that the Co-op continues to go downhill (I blame the piped music) while John Lewis/Waitrose is on the up and up (I attribute this to the lack of piped music and so do many of their employees).