Tony Benn dies at 88

[ICTChris]

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2000/mar/30/tvandradio.television?view=mobile#opt-in-message

Edited March 14, 2014 by ICTChris

[pandarilla]

Can't say in a fan of inequality, but IMO the most important things you said there are class sizes coming down, more people owning their own home, economic growth and record investment in public services. I'm all for equality, but improving the life chances and public services etc for those at the bottom is more important than just everyone being equal. It would be brilliant if everyone was equal and everyone had a high standard of living, but realistically that isn't going to happen.

Blair and Brown would both do 'anything' that would win votes - and followed short-term policies which only helped create the economic mess we have now. Yes they increased funding in both health and education but how did they pay for it? They didn't - and the debt rose during a time of economic growth. More people owning their own homes and striving for the unattainable next rung on the ladder - saddling themselves with more debt to do so. Consumer society.

Class sizes are not coming down. There was some movement in those areas but due to the economic collapse (when Labour were in office) the cutbacks in education and health are starting to really hit hard.

Changing the wallpaper to cover up the cracks is about spot on.

Benn saw through all this. He wasn't alone of course, but there wasn't enough voices like his.

[invergowrie arab]

Can't say in a fan of inequality, but IMO the most important things you said there are class sizes coming down, more people owning their own home, economic growth and record investment in public services. I'm all for equality, but improving the life chances and public services etc for those at the bottom is more important than just everyone being equal. It would be brilliant if everyone was equal and everyone had a high standard of living, but realistically that isn't going to happen.

Yeah but life chances haven't been improved for those at the bottom. I'm going to say it again how do you address the so what question?

You can put up these measures of a successful capitalist society but so what? How are people better off for this record investment in public services or smaller class sizes? Despite what politicians want you to think and what they want to be measured on its bullshit if it isn't actually changing anything.

[BerwickMad]

Schools improved, hospitals improved and less children lived in poverty than in 1997. That might be a 'so what' to you, but it isn't to me.

I'm not saying everything improved btw. Inequality isn't the be all and end all though.

[pandarilla]

Schools improved, hospitals improved and less children lived in poverty than in 1997. That might be a 'so what' to you, but it isn't to me.

I'm not saying everything improved btw. Inequality isn't the be all and end all though.

I would doubt those claims.

Don't get me wrong I am convinced that there will be a some figures that 'prove' this, but that's because all the emphasis was put on those figures to prove that they git results. Folk play this game all the time and its infuriating.

You also can't be fine with the fact that the investment was basically just borrowed. And we know how that worked out.

[invergowrie arab]

Schools improved, hospitals improved and less children lived in poverty than in 1997. That might be a 'so what' to you, but it isn't to me.

You keep saying this improved and that improved. By what measures? by whose measures?

Health - hospitals improved. What does that mean? What did it cost? How did we source the money? What parts of the nhs are now in private hands compared to before 1997? What are the health outcomes for people in our poorest communities now compared to 1997? You do realise the nhs is about more than acute care in hospital?

Education - what did the school build programme costs? Who built and owns our schools,? When will we have paid off the mortgage and what will it have cost? What are the educational outcomes for the poorest in society?

By what measure are less children in poverty than 1997? Do those children who were in poverty then have better health, employment and educational outcomes now or did we change the measure of what child poverty is?

For sure there are a few new schools and hospitals and community regeneration projects now compared to the mid 90s. But people's life outcomes are no different and we are drowning in debt. Cheers Gordon.

[peteeatsthemeat]

Drinking champagne in hell with Bob Crow

Laced with some other stuff...

[Fotbawmad]

Or.......

Blair and Brown tinkered round the edges of the capitalist system making cosmetic changes which changed f**k all for anyone and to this day the inequality gap to continues to grow.

Benn was right when he said that for years Labour governments tried to reform through compassionate capitalism and they failed because the capitalist system itself relies on inequality and injustice.

There is so much bollocks in politics with the focus on targets and outputs and nobody says"so what?"

Class sizes came down, more people own their home, economic growth, record investment blah blah blah. We still live in an unequal society,not unequal because we live in a meritocracy but because of who you are, where are your born, where you go to school,gender etc.

A couple of things, inequality is not caused because of capitalism. It's caused by the debt money system we live in. Essentially, the only way for citizens and governments to get new money is by borrowing it from private banks, and they charge us interest on it which doesn't exist in the economy, It's only because it's done on a macro scale that most people don't see the scam. What you get is the top 10% of society who are not in debt. Getting compound interest on their savings and assets, while the people who are in debt. Have to pay compound interest on their debts. Over time this forces the population and governments to get deeper into debt every year. This guarantees wealth transfer to the few people at the top, but it always ends like it will by the end of the decade, because it's a zero sum game.

As for injustice, the reason we have it is not because we live in a capitalist society, but because we live in a crony capitalist society. Essentially, man gets rich, and then decides he wants to protect his wealth for himself and his future descendants. The way he can do it is by getting into bed with the government. He can do this by getting governments to increase regulations, which hurt smaller rivals and stop emerging competition. He can also get grants i.e. subsidies and special tax breaks which give him an unfair advantage over everyone else. Best of all he can get the government to act as a guarantor in-case one of his big bets goes wrong i.e. bailouts. The whole point of capitalism is that there is no too big too fail. When something fails it transfers wealth from the less capable to the more capable, but when governments start to interfere it keeps the incompetent at the top of the financial food chain. Which ends up leading to some kind of popular uprising, people leaving, or extreme form of dictatorship.

Edited March 15, 2014 by Fotbawmad

[vikingTON]

Care to cite a capitalist society that hasn't resulted in significant inequality? I'm afraid your Reynard-lite libertarianism doesn't stack up with the facts.

[dillinger]

Inequality is caused more by Man's greed.

True Socialism will never work because of that.

[Fotbawmad]

Care to cite a capitalist society that hasn't resulted in significant inequality? I'm afraid your Reynard-lite libertarianism doesn't stack up with the facts.

The early part of the Roman era didn't have much in the way of inequality. Societies tend to collapse over a long period of time because governments get too big. I was horrified the other day to hear Miliband saying that we need more government. Socialism relies on vulturing off capitalism, but it just ends up disincentivizing people, and making them lazy. Which is the situation we have in the Western world now.

Edited March 15, 2014 by Fotbawmad

[invergowrie arab]

The early part of the Roman era didn't have much in the way of inequality. Societies tend to collapse over a long period of time because governments get too big. I was horrified the other day to hear Miliband saying that we need more government. Socialism relies on vulturing off capitalism, but it just ends up disincentivizing people, and making them lazy. Which is the situation we have in the Western world now.

I hate being that dick but can you cite your sources because some of those assertions are fucking ridiculous. For example I'm hugely interested in the economic model that was pursued in early Rome and how they were able to create an egalitarian society.

I love how if you tell a lie often enough it gets regurgitated. For 99% of human history humans lived in collectives with common ownership of materials and the fruits of their labour and yet apparently we are hard wired to pursue individualist agendas. Even if you accept the idea that we are predisposed to greed and consumption how does it make any sense to pursue those goals individually?

[dorlomin]

I hate being that dick but can you cite your sources because some of those assertions are fucking ridiculous. For example I'm hugely interested in the economic model that was pursued in early Rome and how they were able to create an egalitarian society.

I love how if you tell a lie often enough it gets regurgitated. For 99% of human history humans lived in collectives with common ownership of materials and the fruits of their labour and yet apparently we are hard wired to pursue individualist agendas. Even if you accept the idea that we are predisposed to greed and consumption how does it make any sense to pursue those goals individually?

He is making a hash of Tainters Complex Societies theory.

[shiltrum]

Spent some time in his company a few years ago true gentleman and man of the people. RIP Tony.

[dorlomin]

[Broccoli Dog]

The early part of the Roman era didn't have much in the way of inequality.

apart from the fact that it was built upon slave ownership

Edited March 15, 2014 by Broccoli Dog

[Dunning1874]

The early part of the Roman era didn't have much in the way of inequality. Societies tend to collapse over a long period of time because governments get too big. I was horrified the other day to hear Miliband saying that we need more government. Socialism relies on vulturing off capitalism, but it just ends up disincentivizing people, and making them lazy. Which is the situation we have in the Western world now.

Congratulations, that's up there with the most magnificent pieces of bullshit ever seen on this forum.

[jmothecat]

Can't say in a fan of inequality, but IMO the most important things you said there are class sizes coming down, more people owning their own home, economic growth and record investment in public services. I'm all for equality, but improving the life chances and public services etc for those at the bottom is more important than just everyone being equal. It would be brilliant if everyone was equal and everyone had a high standard of living, but realistically that isn't going to happen.

That's pretty much my philosophy. Helping the worse off in society is more important than reducing inequality.

Whilst I would never claim that the Labour governments under Brown and Blair were perfect, in my opinion they were considerably better than under Thatcher or Major, or the government we have now. For Labour supporters/people on the left, from a pragmatic point of view the choice is between modernisers like Brown, Blair, Miliband (despite the way he is portrayed in the media he is New Labour) etc who accept realities and try to make the best of it with a realistic chance of government, or people trying to fight battles long since finished like Benn and allow the Tories a free reign.

[jagfox]

That's pretty much my philosophy. Helping the worse off in society is more important than reducing inequality.

I hate that shit. The haves would rather throw a few crumbs to the have feck alls that makes them feel good.

People should have the right to earn a decent living wage and if they are unable to have a benefit system that doesn't make them feel like criminals or freeloaders.

Most of the rich give to charity to make themselves feel better or for a tax break*.

* this may or may not be true, but it wouldn't surprise me.

[Gaz]

That's pretty much my philosophy. Helping the worse off in society is more important than reducing inequality.

Completely disagree. Reducing inequality and ensuring that everyone has a fair crack of the whip should be the priority of everyone, not just Governments.