Would Bennism have been better than Thatcherism ?
[Deleted User]
Posts: 12,830
Forum Member
✭✭
They got this programme on the tv which shows Benn's ideas for industry, to nationalise as much as Thatcher privatised. Would we have been better off with Bennism than Thatcherism ?
1
Comments
The industries were nationalized or heavily subsidized before Thatcher came to power and many of them were failing for several reasons. Throwing more and more money at them wouldn't have fixed anything.
Benn was a good man but an idealist.
Now politicians privatise things (or let out contacts to private companies) and then throw money at them. Can't say it's much of an improvement.
Tony Benn basically argued that the Labour Party should stick to its socialist principles so there is really no such thing as Bennism.
But the interesting aspect is that Benn was proposing socialist solutions at a time when the global tide was running against socialism because capital was becoming more and more mobile. What this means in practical terms is that governments feel obliged to indulge capitalists while exploiting labour.
But the victory of the Thatcherites is a pretty hollow one given that it has produced economic stagnation for the majority of the working population over the last thirty years (putting it pretty generously) and the prospect of worse conditions in the future as we are instructed to 'compete with East Asia'. And that of course is the East Asia where working conditions are so atrocious that factories actually fall down on top of the workers.
It's now it has become so clear we need a change of direction that we should be acting, but we have hopeless leaders leading us down a path to ruin, combined with boneheadedness about the perilous situation we're in, and that suits those at the top who make the rules up.
I think that's the truth.
the last labour lot (Blair's shower) left the country bankrupt. labour always leave the country bankrupt. They have the business acumen and nous of the Co-Op, another shambolic socialist organ.
The Labour election manifesto of 1983.
Also known as "The longest suicide note in history" coined by Gerald Kaufman
It I almost unreadable, unless you read it in a "Michael Foot voice" as per Spitting Image.
For me the most appalling part is in the section "How will we pay for it"..
.....Like any other expanding industrial enterprise, we shall borrow to finance our programme of investment. This is better than borrowing, as the Tories are doing, in order to pay for the dole queue or to provide finance for the Argentine government to buy arms. "
This was written just a year after hundreds of British Soldiers and sailors had died fighting the Argentinians. Labour were seriously suggesting that the Thatcher Governemnt was borrowing money to lend to a Military Junta they had just fought a war with, over British Sovereign Territory.
Sheer insanity !!!!
At one point before the 1983 election I do recall Labour discussing having a policy of "Nationalisation without compensation" of not only the newly privatised industries, but also drugs companies - and the manifesto also mentions Nationalising high street banks (Clearing banks)
I remember arguing with a local Labour candidate that "Nationalising without compensating shareholders" would actually contravene the Theft Act, so they would have to amend that first to make the Goverment taking away the shares from their owners, legal.
Of course they had not thought through what would happen to the value of all the pensions funds etc that owned the shares that they proposed to take away.
William Hague did a political slot with Benn some years ago called "Bill and Benn".
I would imagine a lot of Conservatives thought very highly of him, as he would not bother trying to change the mind of a Tory Minister.
To them he was probably a great Elder Statesman, orator, and passionate speaker.
I recall in "Yes Minister", Jim Hacker saying that his "friends" in Parliament were in the Opposing party as he only fought them every 5 years at a general election.
He had to fight with his own party MP's every day.
No - they tried that in Eastern Europe and it was a total failure as one would expect.
The Bill and Benn item which was broadcast many years ago showed both in a good light and I recommend it. The programme last night on the BBC with Huw Edwards was excellent and I have to say I felt "emotional" by the end.
I don't think the Labour manifesto of 1983 was necessarily wrong about Argentina. We currently have 57 defence contracts with Argentina worth £7.5m and are supplying many millions to them in aid. I think Priti Patel MP has mentioned a figure of £225m. On nationalisation, I feel we need to have a thread so some of us can work through the arguments again and consider all of the implications. I have opinions but would like to know more than I do.
However if that did happen (the EU would have helped), then Thatcherism would have not happened and we would not be in this current financial mess or any others since the 70s.
In my view he one one of the better people in politics and despite his hard-left views he was way ahead of his time and he would have had a right to say "I Told You So!" considering the state of this country since WW2
Why you may ask? Well he warned about the power of the politcal and economic elites even in the 70s and he warned how new technolgies and globalisation would benefit those elites at the expence of the majority (in the developed world at least) unless it was not left to the private sector.
He made Labour unelectable and forced the split off of the SDP.
Arguably no one did more than him to further Thatcherism outside the Tory party.
Is it really his fault that the Labour Party split though?
Remember even One Nation Tories refuse to leave a Thatcher-Led Conservative Party during this time?
That's why Thatcher was popular (as a symbol rather than her personality) as she had been born into humble beginnings and "knew" how to fight for survival because she'd done it.
Thatcher wasn't always a likeable woman, however, she was respected because she led the way for many to make something of their lives.
Tony Benn was an extremely likeable man, however, he wasn't respected because he offered theoretical solutions that had been, and were continuing to be, discredited.
You could argue that the SDP failed eventually because the real right-wing of the Labour Party refused to join them and move to their natural social democratic home. By staying in a sinking ship they kept the SDP/Liberal Alliance from achieving victory in 1987.
Had that happened we'd be looking at a very different political landscape now as PR would be in force and UKIP would be looking at gaining a substantial number of seats !
But a Labour Manifesto written by Tony Benn would not have won an election at any point after 1980. And without power.....what can you do.
I am willing to accept that the modern Labour Party will indeed be business friendly. Will cozy up to the City. Will offer a competitive tax rate in periods which do not follow a World Financial Crash.
I will accept those things because when growth enables spending I prefer to see money chucked at the NHS and not the alternative of seeing the Tories chuck money at Premiership Footballers.
The economic problems were caused by following the same policies as the Tories. In other words, letting the financial sector do what it likes.
I don't doubt that Cameron and Osborne would have had a similar policy to the banks as Blair and Brown did, somehow I think Thatcher would have kept the banking industry regulated but that's a debate for another time.
The industry itself changed massively between 1997 and now, policy should have been changed to reflect this.
Thatcherism was all about selling the roof of your house for short term profit, then being shocked when it rains on your head.
But throwing money at failing banks is OK!?
Show me where i said it was.
And "bennism" is standing in the house when it collapses on top of you.
seriously we have seen what happens when the state runs everything, capitalism may be bad but its still better than the alternative.
http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21570842-oil-makes-norway-different-rest-region-only-up-point-rich
Peak Oil
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-13/norway-s-oil-stimulus-nears-tipping-point-as-growth-seen-ending.html
Benn was right. We could have got far more from our own oil with a different industrial structure but the money was squandered in high unemployment and the need to pay benefits. Even with oil at a tipping point, Norway is unlikely to restructure substantially and there are some similarities with China as is stated. Modern China is not a failure.
One of the problems with the Labour left in the 1970s is that it was so often closely associated with militancy. Its more pragmatic socialist approaches could too easily be cast by opponents as threatening. Culturally it was quite remote, particularly when there was the language of class warfare. A key difference was that even old Marxist academic theory was taken seriously in those days. Whether if some of the plans had been applied by a Benn Government they would actually have seemed extreme is more doubtful. The collaborative approach in Norway didn't frighten the horses. That linked the state more closely to capital. But it was very distinct from free markets.
No it isn't.
Not Thatcher's version of capitalism.
Care to extend this? It doesnt really add to the debate.
Thatcher/major eft a country in a far better state than what she started with. The global economy killed of much of industry as goods were either cheaper or better.
Sorry but history proves both you and Benn wrong. When Benn did have power he squandered vast sums of money on vanity projects like Concorde and Triumph, his track record of picking winners was appalling.