And then Blair was determined to get rid of Clause 4 as quickly as possible.

Yet now there seems to be a growing belief – and more widespread than perhaps expected (see the [iTelegraph[/i forums, for instance) – that privatisation of utilities was really bad for the ordinary Briton and should be reversed.

We've ended up in the fooked up world we now inhabit because of the demonisation of the word. A fairer society for all is wrong after all. Isn't it?

Nope.

Although I think it was more than a demonisation of a word – although that was part of the tactic.

The British populace in general went along with the great project. Many seemed to indeed agree that 'greed is good'. And with the change from 'keeping up with the Jones' being a phrase of scorn to a desirable lifestyle.

I don't think many could foresee the long game back in the 1980s, but it's dangerous, I think, to assume that people didn't understand what they did see and what was clear.

Many fell for privatisation on the basis of making a fast buck themselves. They fell for the home ownership mantra. Much of what was clear was palatable to many.

What people didn't realise, I would suspect, was how much the changes to Sunday trading laws, on the grounds of inconsistencies in the law, would help to pave the way for the retail revolution that has turned shopping into the country's number one hobby, 24/7. And of course that needed to happen if we were ditching manufacturing and switching to banking and retail as the dominant parts of the economy.

I find it alarming now that there is a whole generation behind me in age-pecking order who do not know or understand what a "socialist" government and society actually meant, and by that I mean the good parts (as someone will undoubtably bring up the topic of binmen strikes etc in the 1970s), for most of the local councils in the north were under socialist control for many, many decades.

I fear that there is a demonisation of the word "socialist" and a marrying of the philosophy with "communism" whereas in fact the two are completely different and should never be confused.

I didn't grow up on a council estate or in a strongly socialist area, but my wife did, in a pit village in the north east and I lived there for several years when in my 20s too - and I have to say that the experience was not unpleasant.

Its strange that in less than a generation we have lost the thought process that a person could "have a trade", and that that trade would provide a person with a job for his/her whole working life and often at the same employer.

Its strange that in less than a generation we have come to consider renting council housing as the last resort of the poor, the feckless and the workshy and that anyone in work should automatically buy their own house, this attitude may be changing again for the likes of my daughters generation, and for the better, but still the council tenant is looked down upon.

Its strange to think that in the village that my wife grew up in (and she doesn't have rose tinted specs by the way), her father rented their council house from it being a new build in the early sixties, built by a socialist local authority on a new estate under a socialist government intent on clearing away the older "slum" dwellings that stood there before to provide workers housing, sufficient bedrooms, inside toilets, that sort of thing, yes we're not talking the Victorian era here.

Her father had a trade, worked for the same employer for thirty years, her siblings all worked, there were recessions every ten years (there always are) but there were still jobs and careers with training opportunities in the manufacturing plants that had replaced the pits in the socialist controlled area - you even shopped in a supermarket with a socialist ethos, the Co-oP, and you socialised in an organisation owned and operated by its members - the CIU working mens clubs.

Manufacturing was not a dirty word, people were not ashamed to get their hands dirty or to earn a living wage for a 40 hour week with which to pay the rent, but food, clothe your family, put something aside for a holiday or xmas, and spend the rest on entertainment (sometimes not necessarily in that order), they never had any form of credit in her household, they even paid for their electricity up front with 50p in the meter and there was no shame at all in that - more importantly most people did not expect to be given anything, they expected to have to work for it even though there was a benefits system to catch them during hard times, I'm guessing that the phrase is "working class pride".


And this was the 1960s and 1970s, the years when socialism rebuilt this country's infrastructure and the people who now criticise the regime gained the most benefit from being raised in such an environment because now, as then, unless your parent bequeth you a very generous trust fund to protect you against every possible contingency and all of the crap that life will fling at you, then no-one can truly claim to be NOT socialist at all, we all belong to society, we should all contribute, and we will all benefit from a socially cohesive society - thats what socialism is.

^

^^

Thing is there was a few of us saying that at the time, no one listened.
I don't get any joy out of saying"I told you so".

This description is not unlike modern day Germany in many ways. There was a program on BBC about the Euro crisis and what struck me was not the big issues about why Greece is up the creak but how the German workforce and how German families have an ethos very much as you describe above. They aren't into buying stufff on credit. Home ownership is no the be all and end all. They can have jobs for life and so on, have an organised labour force so their country is far more socialist than ours is, yet is far more successful.

I've always thought an "inclusive" way of working is much better for the bosses as it is for the workers. It may have changed, but SNCF used to be at least part-owned by the workers which is why it was always more efficient than BR. If a company being successful benefits the workers, they'll be more inclined to work for the benefit of the company and everyone's a winner.

Quite what Beecroft thinks is bad about that is beyond me, unless he just wants it all for himself and is planning on a one man "spend your way out of recession" campaign

Ideology, pure and simple, I think, Chris. Get the state out of as much as possible and open it up for private profit. I suspect many of them don't give a toss about who they rip off or how they make that money.

Beecroft, for instance, is one of the owners of wonga.com, so he's little more than glorified loan shark. That's a company that charges interest of over 4,000% on some loans ([iDaily Mail[/i January 2012).

Many of thos eloans to people who have become desparate through not having a job. So his "no-fault" sacking proposal may not have been so daft after all, well in his case anyway

The major problem with introducing mutualisation to national industries, certainly in the mannet the conservatives do it, is no covenants are enshrined to maintain mutuality beyond a relatively short (<10 years) time frame. So what tends to happen is the employees buy into the business and as it grows they then look to turn it public as soon as they can and realise the return on their "investment". If publicly owned entities are mutualised, then it should be on the JLP model with absolutely no option to float the organisation at any time in the future

The BBC's statistics programme "More or Less" have examined the Beecroft "report" www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01hxtmp Unlike most reports to government it contains no annexe, or references, or back-up evidence, what it amounts to is a series of assertions by a Tory party donor. It is only 15 pages long! Tim Harford discusses it on the programme and "more or less" proves that if the country followed Mr Beecroft's recommendations we'd probably as a nation be worse off not better off.

The BBC's statistics programme "More or Less" have examined the Beecroft "report" www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01hxtmp Unlike most reports to government it contains no annexe, or references, or back-up evidence, what it amounts to is a series of assertions by a Tory party donor. It is only 15 pages long! Tim Harford discusses it on the programme and "more or less" proves that if the country followed Mr Beecroft's recommendations we'd probably as a nation be worse off not better off.

Not sure if it's still the case, but back in the Eighties even the managers in most large German companies belonged to a union and they were utterly bewildered by the antagonistic relationship between management and workers in many UK companies.

Quote ="major hound"The BBC's statistics programme "More or Less" have examined the Beecroft "report" www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01hxtmp Unlike most reports to government it contains no annexe, or references, or back-up evidence, what it amounts to is a series of assertions by a Tory party donor. It is only 15 pages long! Tim Harford discusses it on the programme and "more or less" proves that if the country followed Mr Beecroft's recommendations we'd probably as a nation be worse off not better off.'" I know it's been mentioned elsewhere (by Cod'ead, if memory serves), but the main reason that Vauxhall were seriously considering closing the plant on Merseyside was precisely because it's already easier in the UK to get rid of workers, of jobs and move a company elsewhere than it is anywhere else in western Europe. But then, I don't think that sort of logic has much to with this, frankly. All it is is an ideological hatred of the state – ergo any regulation that impinges upon a small number of people making ever increasing money for themselves. I suspect that's really what bemuses people a tad – the difficulty of believing that these people really don't care one iota about anything else.

Quote ="major hound"The BBC's statistics programme "More or Less" have examined the Beecroft "report" www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01hxtmp Unlike most reports to government it contains no annexe, or references, or back-up evidence, what it amounts to is a series of assertions by a Tory party donor. It is only 15 pages long! Tim Harford discusses it on the programme and "more or less" proves that if the country followed Mr Beecroft's recommendations we'd probably as a nation be worse off not better off.'" I know it's been mentioned elsewhere (by Cod'ead, if memory serves), but the main reason that Vauxhall were seriously considering closing the plant on Merseyside was precisely because it's already easier in the UK to get rid of workers, of jobs and move a company elsewhere than it is anywhere else in western Europe. But then, I don't think that sort of logic has much to with this, frankly. All it is is an ideological hatred of the state – ergo any regulation that impinges upon a small number of people making ever increasing money for themselves. I suspect that's really what bemuses people a tad – the difficulty of believing that these people really don't care one iota about anything else.

spot on

One of the things that bemuses me are the non-socialist views of what "socialist" means.
e.g. If you are not on the breadline, you mustn't have left-wing ideals or, if you do, you are a "champagne socialist".

Look on that You-tubey thing for the episode of HIGNFY, when Louise Mensch is literally disassembled by every other person on the panel for whingeing that the Occupy protesters had the audacity to buy coffees from Starbucks

I saw it when it was on the telly.
I loved Hislop's put-down of Mensch when he said that it wasn't worth explaining to her.

But the Tories always need to do this. When I first became interested in politics in the sixties, it was "they live in council houses, but can afford cars" In the seventies it was the same except "they can afford colour TV's"
I went on a coach trip to Tuscany in 1996 and (as Channel 4 have discovered) there's always someone on a coach who gets on everyone elses t!ts. This guy worked for the Tory party at elections and he'd updated to "they can afford Sky TV"
Presumably being able to afford Stabucks rip-off prices for indifferent coffee is the latest Tory bon mot.

It's cigarettes and beer these days...


I think it's actually cheape to be a champagne socialist these days, given the price of beer.

And completely ignoring the point that you'd need to travel a fair way from St Paul's to find a "Jim's Caff", knocking coffees out at 50p a cup

Let me just get a quick capitalist reality check here.

Does 'socialist' equal 'should not like better things in life'? If so, why?

I'm happy to be a Cava socialist - I can't tell the difference so I don't spend the extra money on champagne!

I love beer, sometimes – and I love champagne sometimes.

So goodness knows where that leaves me on the great scale of lazy political stereotypes.



I've always thought 'champagne socialist' was a daft comment. First, there's no 'rule' somewhere that tells socialist: 'thou shalt not drink the fizz'' – and old Fred will certainly have imbed some, while Charlie (who was a bit of a lad) will too, when he had the chance, no doubt.

But second, if you're going down that route, then surely the answer is simple: 'nothing's too good for the workers'? In which case, if the workers want beer, fine. If they want bubbly, equally fine. If they want water, there's nowt wrong with that either.

The idea that one's liking or otherwise for a specific drink is based on your class is idiocy.