Did Davey do the right thing?

[scottycelt]

i have been much persuaded by johnskelton's view that the voice of the people is absent and has no rationale in the midst of all this .... even the Torygraph is acknowledging the need to include the people previously known as 'left' ... ie pointing not only to their absence but their now almost total exclusion from power in the EU ....and speaking as a social democrat i despair of the Orange Book clique in the coalition ...

...what is clearer by the day is the utter irrelevance of the veto and the treaty template dave walked out on ....

Well, I certainly agree with that last part! An obvious case of a veto being vetoed by the vetoed. In my humble opinion, this debacle was arguably the greatest diplomatic humiliation for a British PM since Suez.

I'm not sure there is a 'solution' to this crisis until some world organisation(s) like the IMF temporarily prop up the Euro edifice with overwhelming financial backing in order to convince the markets.That's where I agree with Eurosceptic Dave ... the Big Bazooka idea always seemed the most credible to me, as the issue is one of future confidence as well as current debt. Only when that happens (which surely it must eventually) will it be appropriate for governments 'to consult the people' for mandates but, like it or not, a government of either Right or Left will be subject to huge monetary constraints for a considerable period.

It's all very well for the Left to talk about growth now but where's the money for all this growth supposed to be coming from under present conditions ... ?

I agree with those who say that World Capitalism got us into this mess and only World Capitalism is in any sort of realistic position to get us out of it .

The revolution will just have to wait a bit longer, I'm afraid ...

[amateur51]

It's all very well for the Left to talk about growth now but where's the money for all this growth supposed to be coming from under present conditions ... ?

I

Forgive me, scotty but I thought it was Gideon and his mate Dave who reckoned (as good as promised) that growth was coming from their mates in the private sector

[handsomefortune]

no, that was growths coming from their mates ....etc amateur!

[ahinton]

indeed they are
I'm not suggesting that "democracy" is the best way of deciding everything
we don't use it at all for things we think are really important (surgery, flying aeroplanes, high court judgements, unaccompanied Bach etc )
what I find irksome is politicians pretending that they somehow have a mandate based on the fact that a small percentage of people voted for them, which is why they could do with a bit more humility !

I love the idea that Bach, accompanied or unaccompained, might be part of or exempt from any considerations of "democratic" decisions! Let's not forget Kagel's wonderful remark about some musicians not believing in God but that they all believe in J S Bach!

[MrGongGong]

I love the idea that Bach, accompanied or unaccompained, might be part of or exempt from any considerations of "democratic" decisions! Let's not forget Kagel's wonderful remark about some musicians not believing in God but that they all believe in J S Bach!

well it IS more important than economic policy

[Lateralthinking1]

Or you could always have the poetry of John Clare:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/19/bastardised-libertarianism-makes-freedom-oppression

http://www.poemhunter.com/best-poems/john-clare/the-fallen-elm/

[teamsaint]

But taking that analogy further, is any decision "democratic" if not fully and demonstrably representative of the wishes of more than 50% of the electorate? - in other words, aren't almost all such decisions "undemocratic" when assessed on such a basis?

There is some truth in what you say.
but the banks are running the world in the interests of a very few people indeed. The pretence of democracy is surely close to a breaking point.

Personally, I would have members of parliament chosen by a random ballot,and all banking functions would be put under government control and ownership.

That would be a move towards something more like "democracy".

[MrGongGong]

I think we need to examine what we really mean by "democracy"
If we mean that its acceptable for a simple majority of people to pursue actions that will harm others then it might be "fair" and "democratic" but it certainly isn't ethical
If we have some kind of majority rule then we really will say goodbye to many of the things that we value (just think what we would get if that was applied to music !! though I guess mrP would be happy with Rupe and chums !)

What (IMV) we could do with is a little more humility and much less arrogance from the people who happen to be our leaders at any time , sadly the culture of "strong leadership" mitigates against this.

We have such an anti-intellectual culture in the UK that the chances of us electing someone like Vaclav Havel is impossible, and we are stuck with the same old nonsense over and over regardless of what "party" they profess to belong to. Getting rid of the pretence that they are somehow representatives of locations might be a good thing.

Running the country in the interests of the most vulnerable would probably make us , on average, a bit poorer financially but would do wonders for our well being and ethical standing in the world.

[ahinton]

There is some truth in what you say.
but the banks are running the world in the interests of a very few people indeed. The pretence of democracy is surely close to a breaking point.

Personally, I would have members of parliament chosen by a random ballot,and all banking functions would be put under government control and ownership.

That would be a move towards something more like "democracy".

Only if it worked in practice; the problem that I've always had with "nationalisations" of various kinds is what to me is the bizarre and largely untenable assumption on the part of those favouring it that the people in government will do a more competent job of what's needed to be done that anyone else will. Take the example of the Financial Services Authority (FSA), Britain's financial services regulator; its current status is that of a company limited by guarantee and it is wholly funded by those whom it regulates rather than by the taxpayer via the instrument of government yet, like a real government department, it is not permitted to make a profit like other limited companies and it has no money of its own, depending as it does mainly on the regulatory fees that it charges those whom it regulates, again rather like government which has no money of its own, depending as it does on the generosity of its shareholding taxpayers; were it to be "nationalised", I doubt that anyone would notice the difference or, indeed, that there would even be a material difference.

[ahinton]

[deleted - problems transmitting - see post above]

[Biffo]

Only if it worked in practice; the problem that I've always had with "nationalisations" of various kinds is what to me is the bizarre and largely untenable assumption on the part of those favouring it that the people in government will do a more competent job of what's needed to be done that anyone else will. Take the example of the Financial Services Authority (FSA),....................

The prevailing dogma of the last 30 years has been that the private sector will always and under all cicumstances do anything better than the public sector because it is motivated by profit. The actual experience of the last 30 years has been very different with bail-outs and massive subsidies being the ordewr of the day.

The Financial Services Authority is irrelevant to the argument, it is not an 'industry', it is a regulator, whatever its status as a company. Along with its equally useless predecessor it was set up to be deliberatley toothless by a government that didn't believe in regulation but felt the need to do something cosmetic in response to public unrest in the wake of a series of banking and insurance scandals.

[MrGongGong]

The prevailing dogma of the last 30 years has been that the private sector will always and under all cicumstances do anything better than the public sector because it is motivated by profit. The actual experience of the last 30 years has been very different with bail-outs and massive subsidies being the ordewr of the day..

indeed
having worked in Romania just after the revolution it was obvious that those who had marketable skills, spoke more than one language etc, would flourish in the new situation whereas those at the other end of society who were sick, old , ill or disabled would suffer. This is not to say that leadership like that of Ceausescu was a good thing, far from it, but throwing out public provision and accountability is a huge mistake.

[ahinton]

The prevailing dogma of the last 30 years has been that the private sector will always and under all cicumstances do anything better than the public sector because it is motivated by profit. The actual experience of the last 30 years has been very different with bail-outs and massive subsidies being the order of the day.

The Financial Services Authority is irrelevant to the argument, it is not an 'industry', it is a regulator, whatever its status as a company. Along with its equally useless predecessor it was set up to be deliberatley toothless by a government that didn't believe in regulation but felt the need to do something cosmetic in response to public unrest in the wake of a series of banking and insurance scandals.

But that prevailing dogma is not always correct and, as you say, has on occasion been shown to be far from correct but, if it is removed from the argument altogether, the converse does not automatically apply; who is to say and on what conceivable grounds that a government - especially one of the kind that you correctly say set up FSA - will be more competent to run, for example, banks, the stock exchange, insurance companies and other providers of financial instruments than private firms will? Failures, incompetance, over-zealous risk-taking, fraud and all the rest are just as likely to occur if a gevernment is running the show than if private firms are doing so.

As to FSA, it is not toothless by design and it has exercised its wide-ranging powers to impose fines on financial miscreants of one kind and another; that it has now lain blame at its own door for the failures properly to regulate banks in general and RBS in particular demonstrates beyond all reasonable doubt that FSA could have taken action that it failed to take; there is no evidence to suggest that, had it been an arm of government funded by the taxpayer instead of a private limited company funded by the financial firms that it authorises and regulates, the current situation would have been any different, let alone any better.

[Serial_Apologist]

Yes but the difference would be that were government to run the financial sector rather than the private sector, policies would become "political", something the private sector has always tried to hoodwink the public that it and its activities are not, indeed have strongly argued that political regulation, the very thing hard lessons from the past 2 years have revealed as indispensable, stands in the way of responsiveness, efficiency and so on. How many of the firms operating from Canary Wharf are unionised? I rather doubt if any of them are. Of course the political right has always argued that private sector accountability lies with shareholders who are rarely informed in detail. Annual company reports don't delve far into the operational or decision-making minutiae, and if they did would probably be beyond comprehensibility to most would-be shareholding voters. Thus when it comes to shareholder say the couch potato mentality holds sway. Trade unions already established in the civil service would be in a position to argue a socially responsible role for a nationalised financial sector, and present their interests as being synonymous with those of the public, much as for example trade unions in public transport argue for defending jobs and conditions on grounds of safety. Unlike company AGMs, where the only decision shareholders have apparent resort to in the case of mismanagement is chucking out an entire board of directors, trade unions leaders stand on political platforms and are subject to election. There may indeed be no evidence that an arm of government funded by the taxpayer instead of a private company would have led to the current situation being any different, let alone any better - one rather obvious reason being that it has never been tried under a system with democratic accountability inscribed nominally into its ethos.

S-A

[Lateralthinking1]

This is a bit tangential but I think it is worth bearing in mind that Governments were once pretty good employers to average public sector workers and banks and insurance companies were once extremely good employers to average private sector workers, at least those who could sell. For admin people the latter were lousy as I found out from a year in insurance in 1981-1982 but that is an aside. As soon as Governments started mucking around with everything - Privatisation, PPP etc - it all went to pot.

I think younger people are being brainwashed into thinking (a) they have got things good under this new system - note how the majority feel that they haven't got it good but still somehow sign up to all the "principles" in Maggie's dream and (b) older people who didn't do too badly somehow achieved things by magic. Actually, what they achieved was almost wholly to do with the more civil practice across the sectors. The following examples are two of literally millions that the mainstream culture is hiding.

1. My father. Born late 1930. Left school early 1946. (Age 15). No real qualifications. Urban council house background. Rented flat which still had gaslight with my mother in 1956. (Age 25). One of the poorest streets in the Elephant and Castle in which virtually everyone else was an immigrant. One woman - Greek? - used to stand outside the block catching pigeons to eat for her dinner.

He worked in lowly non-political positions for trade unions until 1960. They were known for being very good to their staff. However, he then moved to local government because it was even better. At that time he started to buy a small house in leafy Surrey. (Age 29). Left local government in 1989. (Age 59). Had always had low to mid-range positions. No mortgage left to pay.

2. His brother. Born 1941. Started off as a skilled manual worker - a toolmaker - in 1957. (Age 16). He with his wife got on the mortgage ladder in leafy Surrey in 1964. (Age 23). He made the leap to insurance sales in the early 1970s. (Age 31). They gave him a stunningly cheap mortgage. He went from bigger house to bigger house. Was never more than an insurance inspector. Retired 1994. (Age 53). Currently living in a five bedroom detached house - call it a mansion - in Sussex. No mortgage.

This then all from a position of no university education, no contacts, no work of huge importance, and ultimately no inheritance. And it also emerged from a country which in 1946 was bankrupt. Once Governments and private companies, while far from ideal, believed in everyone benefiting. By contrast, we have had crooks in charge for 30 odd years and it is getting worse. Whether in the public or private sector, they would have the majority in cardboard boxes if they could get away with it.