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.
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.