Jump to content

Labour still want to tax and spend the country into bankruptcy


Recommended Posts

It also assumes a production only economy, what about the service sector? When we go to the cinema, does the spotty kid checking my ticket own the cinema? Only own part of it? And which part of it? Do they "sell" "their share" to the next spotty kid when they leave?

 

Public ownership of everything is nothing more than just a Utopian dream without any relationship to reality whatsoever although essential services vital to public well being such as electric power water and gas supply should be under some form of governmental control as if they are in privately owned hands or not at least under the scrutiny of a government appointed commission there could be unreasonable hikes in rates for these services and resulting hardship caused to the poor or lower wage earners

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New Labour certainly aren't Socialist any more, although they contain a wide spectrum of political opinion, as the Tories do.

 

Socialism is most commonly defined as:

 

"The ownership and operation of the means of production and distribution is by society or the community rather than by private individuals, with all members of society or the community sharing in the work and the products."

 

I would defy you to find a single New Labour policy which fits these criteria, never mind the many needed to be able to call the New Labour party 'socialist'. Judge a party by its actions, not by what it calls itself.

 

I think socialism is being confusd with communism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever the pedantic insistances of some left-wingers, Labour was and continues to be a socialist party. It may have softened (a bit) round the edges, but that's what it is, and I think the shower of politicians who make the party's policy have more right to define its purpose than an armchair expert in Sheffield.

 

But you still not defined what makes the (New) Labour Party Socialist, apart from what it calls itself. Sure it grew from the trade unions and certainly has a few socialist members (and perhaps even ex MPs), but I see nothing in it's actions which could possibly lead to it being construed as socialist any more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you still not defined what makes the (New) Labour Party Socialist, apart from what it calls itself. Sure it grew from the trade unions and certainly has a few socialist members (and perhaps even ex MPs), but I see nothing in it's actions which could possibly lead to it being construed as socialist any more.
Maybe if the last government had made a success of things instead of such an abysmal mess,I am sure you would have been glad to have called it a socialist government!.............but it was never going to happen and now we have to pay for 13 years of misguided/misdirected policies as we always have to under labour rule.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.