A last comment on Durkin’s quite mad programme.
We heard two arguments. The first was that only the private sector generates wealth.
Ah, so education is useless.
And so is law and order.
And all that healthcare.
Let alone those roads.
Let alone all those social services for the elderly, the disabled, those with learning difficulties and more
And on and on.
All useless.
Of course.
But then, secondly, the paranoia of the Right came out. Choice is apparently the god they worship (although most people of course are denied it — and that would be much more the case with the divisions in wealth they advocate). But choice ceases to be virtuous when it comes to democracy. And that’s because it is very clear that democracy is in their opinion oh so very dangerous because state employees might make the choice of voting for state supplied services — because that’s what they want — because they know they provide real value, meet real need, service real obligations. But that choice must be denied to them as a consequence. No democracy — the ultimate expression of free choice (I hope) is definitely bad if it results — as it has, time and time and time again — in state spending and services.
Now why is that?
Is it because what Durkin says is wrong — and in fact vast real wealth is created in the state sector — and people know that and choose it?
Or is it because Durkin knows that it is only be denying a universal mandate (as he’d clearly advocate since he wants us to go back to the late 18th and early nineteenth centuries) that he can secure the government he wants (which was how it was also delivered in Hong Kong, of course)?
This was not a programme that just advocates the over throwing of the state as we know it. This was a programme about overthrowing the democratic state and replacing it with the corporate state. And just go search what that means.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
This is what you get if you take Ron Paul and remove his saving grace, that of ditching the central bank and fiat currency. Jingoistic, narrow, dishonest and repetitive, our very own burgeoning Tea Party.
I agree wholeheartedly with your first point, and tweeted to that effect whilst watching it that the public sector can prevent erosion of wealth (e.g. things like police, fire, healthcare, lollypop men and women) and – spent wisely – it can generate the preconditions for wealth creation (e.g. education, transport infrastructure).
However, I think you’ve missed Durkin’s point on your second. I believe his point was that with over 50% (and increasing) of the population employed directly by the state, the possibility of democratic election of a government that believes in a significantly smaller public sector is made difficult if not impossible – because few public sector employees are likely to vote for such parties, *regardless* of whether they consider their job useful to society or not. Durkin’s argument is that public sector employees are effectively bribed or blackmailed to vote indefinitely for “big state” parties. If we look at the geographical unevenness of public spending and the parties those areas tend to vote for, then I believe there’s something to this argument (even if I, as a public sector worker, believe I ignore my own self-interest in my voting behaviour).
I think it’s more likely to be to save their job rather than what they want.
Of course this is how Labour gerrymandered in the past 13 years – it put millions on the public payroll to buy their votes. Which is a quite useful electoral tactic when election time comes round and you can say the opposition wants to remove said jobs.
I thought it was a good programme. Didn’t agree with everything he said but he did make some good points, especially on the overmanning in the public sector.
Whatever you think about the US and Hong Kong, they do appear to me be two of the most exciting, vibrant and fascinating places to visit on the planet. Yes there is poverty in both those countries, but frankly I’ve seen just as bad and widespread in some UK cities, so we shouldn’t be too pious.
And I have to say Brendan Barber’s reponses were pathetic.
@Robert Stimler
But note that there is a history of upheld complaints against Durkin’s editing
So Brendan may have been better than it appeared
The programme fell on its own sword in the first twenty minutes.
It began with an attempt to set in the viewer’s mind a nostalgic view of responsible economics by interviewing supposed sages: Geoffrey Howe, Nigel Lawson, and Norman Lamont. They came up with a few ‘kitchen economics’ platitudes. It then moved on to wealth creation through traditional manufacturing, coal production, and something about Newcastle on Tyne (?) and contrasted to the service sector which, the programme suggested, didn’t create wealth. At this point most presenters would have gone back to the idiots at the start of the programme, who’d implemented the huge shift to the service sector together with regional disparity, for their response. This presenter didn’t do that — so the programme lost its way!
“Of course this is how Labour gerrymandered in the past 13 years – it put millions on the public payroll to buy their votes. Which is a quite useful electoral tactic when election time comes round and you can say the opposition wants to remove said jobs.”
Utter rubbish; one of the myths the right keep repeating. If it’s true, why didn’t New Labour win the last election? And of course, it’s a vicious attack on public sector workers, implying we’re all unskilled inadequates pathetically dependent on the largesse of a few politicans.
In reality, I’m in the public sector and never voted for Labour, I know public sector people who would vote Tory or UKIP, and, and this is the biggest joke of all, the one group of workers whose jobs would now not exist without new Labour’s financial support, are those uber-capitalists, the bankers.
@sickoftaxdodgers
It is intriguing that Labour’s share of the vote in the election roughly corresponds to the % of people who work in the public sector, i.e. 30%. Coincidence?
There is a lot of guff about there being a North/South political divide in this country, which is nonsense. What there is is a public sector/private sector divide with virtually all Labour votes coming from the public sector and whose jobs are paid for by the taxes of the private sector.
A lot of people expressed surprise that Labour’s share of the vote held up so well at the election – and indeed it did. But it didn’t surprise me in the least.
@Tony Cole
You are clearly intent on writing unsubstantiated d nonsense here
Which is why I will be deleting them from now on
@Tony Cole
“It is intriguing that Labour’s share of the vote in the election roughly corresponds to the % of people who work in the public sector, i.e. 30%. Coincidence?”
Yes. Otherwise you are suggesting that all public sector workers voted for Labour and no others did. Nonsense, as Richard says.
@Tony Cole
The Public Sector v. Private Sector argument is, to use your own words, nonsense.
It’s just one way of simple analysis. You might analyse a tool-box, and identify those with wooden handles and those with non-wooden handles.
Or you might separate them by function: those tools that provide support (vice, clamp, measure) and those that carry out an action (screwdriver, chisel, saw). They often work in conjunction with each other, but can sometimes be used on their own.
@ Tony Cole
Hey ho, more right wing idiocy. If, according to Durkin, over 50% of the population are state employees, and according to you, these people are all client voters of New Labour, New Labour would have won a landslide election victory. They didn’t. Secondly, the precentage of those in the public sector isn’t even 30%, let alone Durkin’s ludicrous 50% plus. Thirdly, if it’s true that people voted for Labour because their livelihoods depended on it, then I assume all the City bankers who were bailed out by Labour voted Labour. Does any sane person believe that?
As I pointed out in my original post, life is rather more complicated than that. I know public sector people who are right wing, and there are private sector people who don’t vote Tory. Amazing!
One last point;if Labour’s share of the vote corresponds to the percentage of those who work in the public sector, then by the same principle that means the Tory vote corresponds to the percentage who work in the private sector. It’s news to me that only 36% of the workforce are in the private sector.
Like a lot of the political right, you need to leave your land of myths and fairytales and live in the the real world.
@Alex B
“the public sector can prevent erosion of wealth (e.g. things like police, fire, healthcare, lollypop men and women) and – spent wisely – it can generate the preconditions for wealth creation (e.g. education, transport infrastructure).”
A subtle, insightful and important distinction. The state does not/cannot *create* wealth per se, but it can and does generate the preconditions to wealth generation and prevent its erosion.
Plenty enough to justify an important role for the state (to my mind) while implying distinct boundaries for its role.
So the entire working lives of the miners who were employed by the National Coal Board were spent “not creating wealth per se”? And those who now work for private mining companies “create wealth per se”. I couldn’t have come up with that idea. Thanks – I’ll dine out with that one tonight and spread the good news.
It seems to me that the program suffered the fundamental flaw in this instance of confusing the creation of wealth with the accumulation of wealth. If the distinction is maintained their argument falls. The Hong Kong references were meaningless in comparison to the UK, unless Sark is considered as a UK representative.
I agree with previous respondents that the rolling out of the who’s who of right wing “free market” apologists and thoughtless “think tank” proponents was valuable only to cure insomnia.
I am continually amazed that these so called free market “liberals” were all, from Hayek, Freidman and the Chicago School to the numerous Thatcherite apologists were all virtually to a person, fans of Augusto Pinochet and his military junta. Some freedom fighter, some liberalism.
The old adage of f***ing for virginity comes to mind.
@ Dave Thomas
Dave your writing style has a touch of sarcasm to it which I’m guessing you didn’t really intend. That wouldn’t sit well with a considered discussion.
The role of the state in wealth creation is an important one that Richard Murphy has raised before. Alex B has to my mind articulated an insightful distinction which I agreed with. I think his distinction forms the basis for a strong state. You seem to find that ridicolous enough to dine out on, which is fair enough, but the miners example hardly advances a strong argument for the state as a direct creator of wealth. The central issue with state owned mining was that it generated sustained losses. Not dissimilar to the other state owned business of the time such as British Leyland, BT, BA et al.
Losses are not value creating. I’m not excusing Thatcher’s response, nor am I saying the activities couldn’t have had another social value. Neither am I saying that the only other alternative is some victorian minarchy. What I was agreeing with was that the state does not have to claim to generate wealth in order to justify a central role in a civilised society. The fact that the state enables its creation and minimises its erosion is evidence enough, at least for me.
Over-reaching claims for the capabilities of the state do not help justify an enlarged role for it. On the contrary it makes advocates of the state (of which I am one) look under-confident is the contribution it does make and over-eager to meddle in areas it is not best placed to do so. In the longer run that is to nobodies benefit.
@Gary Taylor
Sorry – that claim on losses can’t be justified
Suppose a business creates £200 million of employment and cash injection tot he economy which results in £80 million of tax paid
But it makes a loss of £1 million
There is no alternative employment in the area
You are saying it is better to lose £80 million of tax and £120 million of surplus for the sake of a £1 million subsidy for the loss – but for which £70 million of benefit might be paid?
That really in very poor economics on your part
This discussion is over intellectualised . There is a role for the state.
But one should not confuse the State with democracy. The State does not
exist- it’s only the class of people in power.
By the way Richard are you going to ban everyone who disagrees with you
e.g. Tony Cole? – that’s not democracy.
The idea that the level of electoral support for the Labour party in UK elections is directly proportional to the number of public sector employees is, frankly, the most preposterous notion I’ve heard in some time.
If that were the case, we’d never have had a Tory election win in 1979 (after a period when public sector employment grew substantially) or a Labour win in 1997 (after a long period where public sector employment fell substantially). Of course there are probably some people who voted Labour in 2010 because they felt their jobs were at risk from Tory cuts (although the planned Labour cuts were already severe) but so what? People vote one way or the other for all sorts of reasons. Margaret Thatcher bribed millions of C2 voters with council house sales in the 1980s – I didn’t see people like Durkin complaining. At the end of the day if people like him really believed in “freedom” they’d believe in democracy. But of course what they really believe in is freedom for a small group of rich and powerful people to oppress the rest of us.
@Stephen Griffiths
Of course the state exists
You can argue democracy does no deliver a representative government
But if you deny the state exists try telling its representatives that next time it wants you to do something and see what happens
If you can’t work with assumptions that have a relationship with reality don’t bother to post is a pretty good motto for getting future contributions posted here
@Richard Murphy
The numbers you use to illustrate your point about losses are ridiculous.
You’ve just plucked them out of thin air and used a ludicrously low figure for the loss.
Just what were you trying to prove when making that point?
@Richard Poston
Sure they’re made up
But they illustrate that for a government to support a loss making business is economically sensible – and could be to the full extent of either its tax lost or alternatively benefits to be paid in some case (although that would be extreme)
Indeed, the point is simply: to not support would be irrational
Now stop the ad hominem approach and show why I am wrong
[…] odd to juxtapose this with those arguing about the dangers of democracy because it threatens their profits in Martin Durkin’s documentary […]