The politics of the left in the UK

[ahinton]

Whereas now I suspect that a majority of people would be in favour of getting rid of the stupid "competition" in things like water, gas and electricity and replacing it with something owned by us all and with ONE price.

BUT
no-one is going to suggest that as a political idea are they?

I don't know about "no-one", but I'm not about to; it's bad enough being told to own part of a bank because, vanishingly small though tht ownership is for each British taxpayer, some of us do not want to own a bank because we wouldn't know what to do with it. I accept how and why the part-taxpayer-ownership of RBS and Lloyds TSB came about, of course, but that doesn't make it a good idea. I'd be all for simplification of tarriffs for water and energy, but having to own bits of its providers in order to secure that would have no appeal for me. Owning such a facility is not unlike being a shareholder in a private or public company to the extent of its conferring of some kind of say in how things get done by those providers, but the extent to which I feel that I merit any entitlement to have such a say is - and I believe should be - proportional to my professional understanding of the procurement, import/export, research, distribution/supply and all the other factors that make up these industries and their operation; I'm not uninterested, of course, but I'm simply not qualified to do this. AS to "competition" in these areas, some might well argue that there's not enought competition in electricity supply because the "big six" almost have a monopoly of this between them.

[Serial_Apologist]

I don't know about "no-one", but I'm not about to; it's bad enough being told to own part of a bank because, vanishingly small though tht ownership is for each British taxpayer, some of us do not want to own a bank because we wouldn't know what to do with it. I accept how and why the part-taxpayer-ownership of RBS and Lloyds TSB came about, of course, but that doesn't make it a good idea. I'd be all for simplification of tarriffs for water and energy, but having to own bits of its providers in order to secure that would have no appeal for me. Owning such a facility is not unlike being a shareholder in a private or public company to the extent of its conferring of some kind of say in how things get done by those providers, but the extent to which I feel that I merit any entitlement to have such a say is - and I believe should be - proportional to my professional understanding of the procurement, import/export, research, distribution/supply and all the other factors that make up these industries and their operation; I'm not uninterested, of course, but I'm simply not qualified to do this.

One possible reason why popular ownership and control, as opposed to the Fabian top-down form of social ownership in the pre-Thatcher mixed economy we once had, is that the latter's management was left to "experts", often ex-private sector bosses who expected salaries commensurate with what they were used to, whereas the former could, just posibly could, involve subjecting management to accountability through periodic election and recallability, invoking Tony Ben's principle of being able to remove as well as put people into positions of power. The difficulties arise from the inculcation of the idea that "ordinary people" are incapable of finding out all about how the companies that produce the goods and services which determine our wellbeing and that of the planet are run, and how they could be run better if there were some popular say.

AS to "competition" in these areas, some might well argue that there's not enought competition in electricity supply because the "big six" almost have a monopoly of this between them.

This being the natural tendency of firms that come to dominate markets. There is constant inability to check the process because no one can decide where to draw the line on monopoly control, because all countries are at it, namely granting favourable conditions. Managements rarely listen to their workforces because to do so could undermine their own positions and huge salary differentials; workforces rarely if ever listened to for advice and suggestions understandably resort to cynicism and interest only in pay, differentials and status.

[ahinton]

One possible reason why popular ownership and control, as opposed to the Fabian top-down form of social ownership in the pre-Thatcher mixed economy we once had, is that the latter's management was left to "experts", often ex-private sector bosses who expected salaries commensurate with what they were used to, whereas the former could, just posibly could, involve subjecting management to accountability through periodic election and recallability, invoking Tony Ben's principle of being able to remove as well as put people into positions of power. The difficulties arise from the inculcation of the idea that "ordinary people" are incapable of finding out all about how the companies that produce the goods and services which determine our wellbeing and that of the planet are run, and how they could be run better if there were some popular say.

I take your point but would at the same time not want to be told too often how much to invest in what industry, as I'm sure would be the case with many others.

This being the natural tendency of firms that come to dominate markets. There is constant inability to check the process because no one can decide where to draw the line on monopoly control, because all countries are at it, namely granting favourable conditions. Managements rarely listen to their workforces because to do so could undermine their own positions and huge salary differentials; workforces rarely if ever listened to for advice and suggestions understandably resort to cynicism and interest only in pay, differentials and status.

Again, points taken, but nationalised firms can dominate markets too, if they're allowed to! They have to procure from at home and abroad and in many instances also export goods and services as well as supplying them at home, so they're in the same competitive market place as non-state-owned businesses.

[jean]

...Benn and Militant had reached similar conclusions in this regard, seeing change as to be effected by electing a Labour government committed to a left wing programme...

One of the big differences between Benn and Militant was that, although neither of them managed to impose their programme on the Labour party at national level, Militant did show us at a local level what their idea of a socialist society might look like.

And it was dreadful.

[jean]

One possible reason why popular ownership and control, as opposed to the Fabian top-down form of social ownership in the pre-Thatcher mixed economy we once had, is that the latter's management was left to "experts", often ex-private sector bosses who expected salaries commensurate with what they were used to, whereas the former could, just posibly could, involve subjecting management to accountability through periodic election and recallability, invoking Tony Ben's principle of being able to remove as well as put people into positions of power. The difficulties arise from the inculcation of the idea that "ordinary people" are incapable of finding out all about how the companies that produce the goods and services which determine our wellbeing and that of the planet are run, and how they could be run better if there were some popular say.

The ordinary people who were supposed to be scrutinising the Co-Op don't seem to hasve made a very good fist of it, do they?

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/mar/14/extent-co-op-shambles-laid-bare-by-lord-myners

On the other hand:

http://theconversation.com/euan-sutherlands-attempt-to-seize-the-soul-of-the-co-op-has-ended-in-revolt-24255

I don't know which account more accurately reflects the situation.

[french frank]

The ordinary people who were supposed to be scrutinising the Co-Op don't seem to hasve made a very good fist of it, do they?

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/mar/14/extent-co-op-shambles-laid-bare-by-lord-myners

On the other hand:

http://theconversation.com/euan-sutherlands-attempt-to-seize-the-soul-of-the-co-op-has-ended-in-revolt-24255

I don't know which account more accurately reflects the situation.

On the one hand, it's hard to understand how someone like Sutherland was ever appointed, on the other, oh, dear, I have to admit, I'm a 'member' and don't really know what that means except that I get my card swiped when I buy things at the supermarket (with divis and/or bonuses) and I 'Have My Say' on such things as ethical and charitable policies. I wouldn't want the farms to be sold off and I wish they would use less black plastic packaging which can't be recycled. I don't vote for my local representatives because I wouldn't know who they were. I'd never heard of Paul Flowers.

Is there a problem when the business ('democracy', I mean) is on such a large (and competitive) scale? Athenian democracy worked because it was 'local' - like parish pump politics.

[MrGongGong]

One of the big differences between Benn and Militant was that, although neither of them managed to impose their programme on the Labour party at national level, Militant did show us at a local level what their idea of a socialist society might look like.

And it was dreadful.

I think the key words might be "their idea"
which doesn't mean that what we have instead is the only alternative to Derek Hattons Liverpool

[Flosshilde]

One of the big differences between Benn and Militant was that, although neither of them managed to impose their programme on the Labour party at national level, Militant did show us at a local level what their idea of a socialist society might look like.

And it was dreadful.

Butr Ken Livingstone did manage to 'impose' his idea on London (after being elected it should be noted, as was Derek Hatton) & it was pretty good.

In what way did Hatton 'impose' anything on Liverpool, whereas Kinnock didn't?

[MrGongGong]

Butr Ken Livingstone did manage to 'impose' his idea on London (after being elected it should be noted, as was Derek Hatton) & it was pretty good.

In what way did Hatton 'impose' anything on Liverpool, whereas Kinnock didn't?

Stick to the script wont you :wink:
It was ALL terrible
wasn't it ?

[Serial_Apologist]

Stick to the script wont you :wink:
It was ALL terrible
wasn't it ?

That looks like a typical beef oven reply!

Jean was presumably in Liverpool at the time of the Hatton regime, and therefore knows what went on. I neither personally hold nor held a brief for the Militant Tendancy at the time, having myself then been with Tariq Ali's lot, (to oversimplify by a familar name reference). Militant didn't like us at all. We used to sell our respective red rags at the same pitch where I lived (not Liverpool), and I remember going over to one of their salespersons and proposing a swap, and another of their comrades saying to him, "Don't talk to them, they're sectarians"! I dont recall a Panorama or for that matter any TV or radio documentary dealing with Militant or the situation in Liverpool in depth, only news soundbites and vox populi, though I do recall shots of some of the council housing Hatton ordered, which to me looked fine - from the outside.

[jean]

Jean was presumably in Liverpool at the time of the Hatton regime...

I wasn't, as a matter of fact. I'd left the city in 1961 and didn't come back to live here until 1998. I watched from afar, with mounting horror.

I contrasted Militant with Benn's brand of socialism in the post that became the OP of this thread because they'd already been contrasted on the Benn thread.

And I suppose the question I'm really asking is how I can be sure, if I commit myself to some version of socialist politics, that it won't come with a whole lot of baggage that I don't want at all.

But before I go into detail about what was wrong with Militant from my point of view, I'd be interested to hear anyone out there prepared to defend them - for anything except their building of council housing (which was too suburban for an urban context, and even worse, they presided over the destruction of fine Georgian houses because they had a doctrinare refusal to allow anything over two storeys high).

Here's a review of a recent attempt at rehabilitation, though it isn't much of a review as it hardly mentions the book. .

[jean]

Butr Ken Livingstone did manage to 'impose' his idea on London (after being elected it should be noted, as was Derek Hatton) & it was pretty good.

One (over)simple answer to that is that London was, and is, awash with money and no London mayor has to make choices as difficult as the Northern cities whose government support was drastically cut in Militant's day, and is being even m ore drastically cut again now.

(Though Derek Hatton has long left the political stage, Tony Mulhearn is still around, and advocating setting an illegal budget...)

In what way did Hatton 'impose' anything on Liverpool, whereas Kinnock didn't?

I am not sure people really knew what they were getting when they voted for Hatton.

In the circumstances, Kinnock's imposition was no bad thing.

[MrGongGong]

And I suppose the question I'm really asking is how I can be sure, if I commit myself to some version of socialist politics, that it won't come with a whole lot of baggage that I don't want at all.

Surely that's true of ALL politics ?

You might vote for nice mr Cameron because he seems sensible and "businesslike" and then you get ATOS , Gove and all the rest of the corrupt bastards with no ethics (but that's capitalism for you !)

I am not sure people really knew what they were getting when they voted for Hatton.

Voting FOR someone usually means you get something else
as of now !
The people who voted LibDem in the last election got the Tories when they voted for something else entirely
and so on

The false dichotomy of left/right is just that FALSE

[Flosshilde]

And I suppose the question I'm really asking is how I can be sure, if I commit myself to some version of socialist politics, that it won't come with a whole lot of baggage that I don't want at all.

You can't, of course. Any more than you can with any other party/brand of politics (barring capitalism, I suppose, since that's the system we've been living under since whenever - & did we know what would come with the super-capitalism we have at the moment?)

[jean]

...You might vote for nice mr Cameron because he seems sensible and "businesslike" and then you get ATOS , Gove and all the rest of the corrupt bastards with no ethics (but that's capitalism for you !)...

If I voted for nice Mr Cameron hoping that he would promote equality and show concern for the disadvantaged, I would be a fool.

And if I had noticed that capitalism inevitably involved corruption and a lack of ethics, I might want an alternative that could best be described as of the left.

But I was really hoping to hear from people who had not entirely given up on politics.