Tory - The caring conservatives

[El Presidente]

Well, I think Corbyn and the unions have largely called it right so far, with concerns about creeping privatisation and the safeguarding of corporate interests against those of democratically elected governments; see the link with details of the unions concerns.

Then again this is the modus operandi of the EU...........great for capitalists, shit for workers.

I'm broadly in agreement with you in relation to TTIP.

As for workers, there are winners and losers. It shouldn't, for example, cause too many problems for skilled workers, those unskilled face more of a challenge.

 

[glasfryn]

Ding Ding Ding, you win the bankers bingo first prize, going to the first person that mentioned bailing the bankers out!

well I thank you
see getting into the thread is much more invigorating that a thumbs down

 

[cunning fergus]

I'm broadly in agreement with you in relation to TTIP.

As for workers, there are winners and losers. It shouldn't, for example, cause too many problems for skilled workers, those unskilled face more of a challenge.

That attitude sounds distinctly Tory to me, the whole point of socialism is to dispossess the rich and powerful because they are usually acting in their own interests, which are usually diametrically opposed to the interests of the poor.

TTIP is just another example of this dynamic in action, Corbyn and the unions would not be opposed to it otherwise.

Whether or not Corbyn will stick to his guns is an interesting question, last week's position on trident showed he is willing to oppose the unions.

 

[El Presidente]

That attitude sounds distinctly Tory to me, the whole point of socialism is to dispossess the rich and powerful because they are usually acting in their own interests, which are usually diametrically opposed to the interests of the poor.

TTIP is just another example of this dynamic in action, Corbyn and the unions would not be opposed to it otherwise.

Whether or not Corbyn will stick to his guns is an interesting question, last week's position on trident showed he is willing to oppose the unions.

Most people act broadly in their own interests.

Scrapping Trident will be not in the interests of some unions who represent those who work in one industry, but if the money saved goes on another infrastructure or defence project then other working class union members will be celebrating.

I'm a member of two unions, they act in self interest too, and I'm happy to benefit as a result. They also do support those who are bullied and exploited by management.........sometimes.

 

[beorhthelm]

That attitude sounds distinctly Tory to me, the whole point of socialism is to dispossess the rich and powerful because they are usually acting in their own interests, which are usually diametrically opposed to the interests of the poor.

i think this is probably why socialism fails, because it starts with a false position. while the rich may be acting in their own interests, this is not opposed to the interests of others, especially the poor. it serves no purpose to have people poor, they dont buy things, dont contribute much to growth and progress of the economy. so arguably its in the interest of the rich to improve the situation of everyone else (rising tide and all that). i dont know where the misconception comes from (probably need to read Marx)

 

[Mackenzie]

The problem is that Conservatives can act with impunity all the while Corbyn is leader of the "opposition".

Our only hope is that the Liberals can seriously get their act together prior to the next general election.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

i think this is probably why socialism fails, because it starts with a false position. while the rich may be acting in their own interests, this is not opposed to the interests of others, especially the poor. it serves no purpose to have people poor, they dont buy things, dont contribute much to growth and progress of the economy. so arguably its in the interest of the rich to improve the situation of everyone else (rising tide and all that). i dont know where the misconception comes from (probably need to read Marx)

The poor and unemployed serve a very useful purpose within capitalism. That is to keep wages low.
If there are no poor, then those gainfully employed in low skilled jobs would feel exploited for working hard yet being on the bottom of the pile.

 

[cunning fergus]

Most people act broadly in their own interests.

Scrapping Trident will be not in the interests of some unions who represent those who work in one industry, but if the money saved goes on another infrastructure or defence project then other working class union members will be celebrating.

I'm a member of two unions, they act in self interest too, and I'm happy to benefit as a result. They also do support those who are bullied and exploited by management.........sometimes.

I accept that about people generally, however this is about a political party.

The Tories will generally act for the interests of the corporatists which is not always to the benefit of the workers, or the state more generally. The eternal debate about capitalism and socialism.

The interest of big business in particular are like a sacred cow these days, and their demands seem to trump the interests of anything else. TTIP is just another case in point, and the unions are right to be concerned.

As for unions more generally they will act in the interests of their members, which I would expect for reasons of solidarity would mean different unions would not oppose each other. In theory anyway.

 

[El Presidente]

I accept that about people generally, however this is about a political party.

The Tories will generally act for the interests of the corporatists which is not always to the benefit of the workers, or the state more generally. The eternal debate about capitalism and socialism.

The interest of big business in particular are like a sacred cow these days, and their demands seem to trump the interests of anything else. TTIP is just another case in point, and the unions are right to be concerned.

As for unions more generally they will act in the interests of their members, which I would expect for reasons of solidarity would mean different unions would not oppose each other. In theory anyway.

Agreed.

Although my experience of unions in practice is that they fight like cats and dogs.............or Jewish Labour MPs and Jeremy Corbyn.

 

[cunning fergus]

i think this is probably why socialism fails, because it starts with a false position. while the rich may be acting in their own interests, this is not opposed to the interests of others, especially the poor. it serves no purpose to have people poor, they dont buy things, dont contribute much to growth and progress of the economy. so arguably its in the interest of the rich to improve the situation of everyone else (rising tide and all that). i dont know where the misconception comes from (probably need to read Marx)

The theoretical answer comes down to ownership, and whether by common ownership you lift the poor upwards and by restricting the generation of profit for personal gain you narrow the wealth gap between the rich and poor.

That said I accept there has not been a successful example of this in practice, greed is a difficult mistress to tame.

 

[Stato]

i think this is probably why socialism fails, because it starts with a false position. while the rich may be acting in their own interests, this is not opposed to the interests of others, especially the poor. it serves no purpose to have people poor, they dont buy things, dont contribute much to growth and progress of the economy. so arguably its in the interest of the rich to improve the situation of everyone else (rising tide and all that). i dont know where the misconception comes from (probably need to read Marx)

Historically, attempts at socialism have failed because those in positions of power have taken the opportunity to keep power and feather their own nests. Read 'Animal Farm' rather than Marx for an understanding of what has happened after 'socialist' revolutions. Capitalism fails for the same reason. If your logic that the rich have motivation to share was true, half of the world's wealth would not currently be owned by 1% of the world's population.

Brian Eno's recent John Peel Lecture discussed the things that could be achieved should the surplus created by technology be shared more equally. Fascinating to imagine our potential, but history suggests to me that the rich will not share without bloodshed and that bloodshed just leads to Townshend's 'Meet the new boss....'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06f17dw/bbc-music-john-peel-lecture-2-2015-brian-eno

 

[beorhthelm]

Capitalism fails for the same reason. If your logic that the rich have motivation to share was true, half of the world's wealth would not currently be owned by 1% of the world's population.

capitalism doesnt "fail", it has no end objective, though it has flaws no doubt. your example of the wealth accumulation has to be set against the philanthropy exhibited by the rich, the notable difference to socialism being they decide the causes and beneficaries rather than the state. anyway my point was that the rich's interests are not diametrically opposed to the poor's, and i rather think that the history you note is part of the problem. too many are raging against a long gone system of pre-capitialist protectionism and monopolist economies run on along nationalist interests.

 

[Bry Nylon]

Vintage Boris conference speech today, talking about Labour:

"...Trots and Commies with their vested interests...and their interest in vests."

 

[Stato]

capitalism doesnt "fail", it has no end objective, though it has flaws no doubt. your example of the wealth accumulation has to be set against the philanthropy exhibited by the rich, the notable difference to socialism being they decide the causes and beneficaries rather than the state. anyway my point was that the rich's interests are not diametrically opposed to the poor's, and i rather think that the history you note is part of the problem. too many are raging against a long gone system of pre-capitialist protectionism and monopolist economies run on along nationalist interests.

Capitalism has failed the massive majority of people in an internationalist world: http://www.theguardian.com/business...-inequality-davos-economic-summit-switzerland
This is nothing to do with pre-capitalism. Marxism was a criticism of capitalist economics, not pre-capitalism. Certainly many things have changed since the 19th century, but the limitless wealth accumulation of international capital continues untrammeled. This is accompanied, as it always was, by some philanthropy, but this is miniscule in comparison with the amount of inequality. Capitalism is a system based upon a competition for resources. Eno's lecture gives a couple of pointers as to people who are writing about why it is outmoded.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Thanks.

Whose side are you on Margaret, the EU or the unions?

I support both, as you well know. The EU is a big big deal for me, and the real test of my beliefs will be if Corbyn wants out as I believe he is best for the UK.

 

[Butch Willykins]

Can't wait to see the Big Man in action at 1130am this morning.

Come on Dave, do the 11million hard working winners who voted for you in May proud.

Up the Blues. Oink Oink.

 

[Simster]

Vintage Boris conference speech today, talking about Labour:

"...Trots and Commies with their vested interests...and their interest in vests."

He really is such a nob.

His speech where he talked about hookers and the rugby scrum was shockingly crap too. In fact, you've really got to question just how out-of-touch a bloke must be when he chooses to use his experience playing rugby at an expensive public school as some sort of life metaphor in a speech to a national televised audience.

 

[Man of Harveys]

He really is such a nob.

His speech where he talked about hookers and the rugby scrum was shockingly crap too. In fact, you've really got to question just how out-of-touch a bloke must be when he chooses to use his experience playing rugby at an expensive public school as some sort of life metaphor in a speech to a national televised audience.

Well said. But he's just so FUNNY isn't he, with his messy blond hair and all that. Lummy oh dearie me etc etc.

I've said it before: Boris Johnson's ongoing political career is a sad illustration of how a form of undiluted forelock-tugging class deference continues to play something of a role in British politics.

 

[MattBackHome]

Well said. But he's just so FUNNY isn't he, with his messy blond hair and all that. Lummy oh dearie me etc etc.

I've said it before: Boris Johnson's ongoing political career is a sad illustration of how a form of undiluted forelock-tugging class deference continues to play something of a role in British politics.

Bang on.

 

[alfredmizen]

He really is such a nob.

His speech where he talked about hookers and the rugby scrum was shockingly crap too. In fact, you've really got to question just how out-of-touch a bloke must be when he chooses to use his experience playing rugby at an expensive public school as some sort of life metaphor in a speech to a national televised audience.

I really could not vote to be represented on the world stage by a bloke with such a shockingly BAD BARNET .