Who will win the UK election ?

padington

antrobus wrote: »

And the "hugely undemocratic nature of capital" is at its most evident when the state seeks to monopolise capital for itself.

You are right of course, that is true also. As I clearly said already.

padington wrote: »

Inequality (whether that comes from capitalism or a fascist form of state 'communism' ) is a direct challenge to democracy, it's not a guardian.

Democratic market socialism, is however as close to a healthy democracy as you can get and is clearly a better way of proceeding if only we didn't have a world currently unable to adopt a good idea globally across the board, which sadly makes enforcing things like a global minimum and maximum wage, untenable.

Either way, to not appreciate the hugely undemocratic nature of capital is to be rather foolish.

antrobus

Moby wrote: »

I come from a Welsh mining background. Father, grandfather etc. So the 'stuff I spout' comes from direct personal experience from childhood to the age I am now, 50's. So from that I can inform you that although there is institutionalised corruption and self interest, (as there is everywhere in life), the purpose of unions is to help all workers. It's far more wide ranging than 'wages'. it's about conditions of service etc. I saw the working conditions of my family in the mines improve dramatically through union pressure. The mine owners were forced to improve conditions, health and safety, install showers etc etc. ...

What do you mean, mine owners? If you are now in your 50s, your "direct personal experience from childhood", must refer to the period in time when there was only one mine owner being forced to improve conditions etc.

padington

Generali wrote: »

What does that have to do with anything we're discussing?

Everything. Since when was Apartheid a key driver of democracy ?

Moby

antrobus wrote: »

What do you mean, mine owners? If you are now in your 50s, your "direct personal experience from childhood", must refer to the period in time when there was only one mine owner being forced to improve conditions etc.

I didn't work down the mines myself but my older relatives did.

Generali

padington wrote: »

In regards to the 'what did trade unions ever do for us' rhetoric, they were central to helping bring about the welfare state, the NHS and most of the legislation that makes us a civilised country. Let's not forget.

No they weren't. The BMA, the Doctors' trade union, acted to slow the introduction of the NHS and it was the Liberals, not the unions, that brought in the National Insurance Act, the start of what we'd recognise as the start of the modern welfare state.

27col

Can I assume that I am not the only person that does not believe a single word that has been spouted in the last month. By any of the parties.
Having said that. the Tories are probably the best of a bad lot.

antrobus

padington wrote: »

....Democratic market socialism, ..

Pretty much a classic oxymoron. Either you have the market, or you have socialism, you can't have both.

Once you define socialism as being 'not about how society organises economic activity' then it ceases to have any economic meaning.

Generali

Moby wrote: »

I come from a Welsh mining background. Father, grandfather etc. So the 'stuff I spout' comes from direct personal experience from childhood to the age I am now, 50's. So from that I can inform you that although there is institutionalised corruption and self interest, (as there is everywhere in life), the purpose of unions is to help all workers. It's far more wide ranging than 'wages'. it's about conditions of service etc. I saw the working conditions of my family in the mines improve dramatically through union pressure. The mine owners were forced to improve conditions, health and safety, install showers etc etc. Those changes were brought about by direct action. The mine owners were purely concerned with profit not the working conditions of the men. That's why the mines were nationalised. I am a union activist in my own area of work. Part of my job is to represent workers in grievances or disciplinary matters against management. All sorts of issues are raised, including racism, diversity, health and safety, working conditions etc etc. To talk about unions as simply being motivated by pushing up the wages at the expense of other workers is simplistic in the extreme. Your historical references are also highly selective and fail to mention that reforms took place only because of pressure from the workers, (eg the Chartist movement). Marx was convinced that Britain as the first industrialised country was the state most ripe for revolution. However the theory goes that those in power always gave away just enough to avoid revolution....but never forget the extension of the franchise from landowners only to universal male suffrage, the extension of the vote to women, universal healthcare, insurance etc had to be fought for. None of it was given up willingly. Wellington was an aristocrat who gunned down workers demonstrating in the streets of London. The Reform Act of 1832 was forced on him because he feared revolution as was taking place all over Europe at the time, France, Germany, Italy and finally in Russia.. he didn't give a toss for workers rights, notr did his party.

The fight continues! There is very poor equality of opportunity in this country and the gap between the poor and rich is getting bigger. Different times but same old tories!

Are you cepheus in disguise? Otherwise I didn't say you spouted anything.

The purpose of the unions is to improve the conditions of their members, not of all workers.

Child poverty, a relative measure of poverty, has fallen under the Tories. My personal belief is that by making the country richer you make the poorest richer as well and that's the most important thing. Who gives a damn if the richest few thousand earn a motza? As long as the poorest can still pay the bills it's okay.

As an example, the bottom 10% in the UK earn more than the average salary in China.

ruggedtoast

Generali wrote: »

Utter twaddle from beginning to end. When was the last time the Tories tried to reduce the franchise?

Women were given the vote in 1928 under the Conservative Government led by Stanley Baldwin. The Reform Act of 1832 was passed under the Tory Wellington Government. The third great extension of the franchise was the 1867 Reform Act which was passed under the Earl of Derby. A Conservative of course.

The Thatcher Government, reviled by Socialists as the archetypal Tory Government of modern times, did more than any other to move power from corporations and unions to individuals.

Trades Unions have never had the interests of the workers at heart. They've had the interests of a narrow subset of workers at heart, their members. Who really suffers when a group of workers pushes up their wages? It's not the capitalists, it's the customers of that business; other workers.

It's all very well spouting this stuff that you've got from goodness knows where but there is no truth behind the rhetoric.

The Tories are prize bst@@rds though, you cant argue with that.

At least Milliband's nostrils flare and he emits a nasal squeak when faced with social injustice.

Moby

Generali wrote: »

No they weren't. The BMA, the Doctors' trade union, acted to slow the introduction of the NHS and it was the Liberals, not the unions, that brought in the National Insurance Act, the start of what we'd recognise as the start of the modern welfare state.

Again highly selective, the BMA at the time was hardly a trades union. The real sea change came about after WW2 of course when returning soldiers from the front wanted a better life and dignity as Churchill found out to his cost.Clem Atlee was the man:beer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Prime_Ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom