Is Gransnet leaning more to the left?

Dickens

... I should add that, had we - like Norway - built a wealth-fund from the oil and gas revenues it would - if no withdrawals had been made on it - be worth roughly £1trillion today.

Basically, we treated the revenue as a temporary cash-flow... but, there were reasons for that. Norway, on the other hand regarded theirs as a national asset for future generations. Not to mention that whilst we allowed private corporations to extract the wealth from the N Sea, Norway chose State ownership.

I think most people of our generation know the 'whys' and 'wherefores'

How else was Thatcher going to pay that massive social security and unemployment bill that she created without the revenue from North Sea gas.
It all came together for her and her henchmen, didn’t it 🤷‍♀️

I found corbyn often aggressive with female interviewers dickens.

I don’t think he was aggressive, but I think he was often impatient and irritated when he failed to communicate his point. He wasn’t a leader.

How though does placing constraints on capital help the workers?

I believe you are thinking about 'capital' as money, whereas I am using it mostly as a short hand for businesses and their activities. Though it will include money to a certain extent. We do, after all talk of wealthy people looking to 'invest their capital'.

The most obvious constraints are those imposed over the past 2 hundred years or so as the more charitable and philanthropic members of elite society (because they were the only ones who sat in Parliament, both in the Commons and the Lords) became concerned about the working conditions in manufactories and mines and tried to legislate to improve them. If you have read social history and contemporary accounts of parliamentary debates you'll find that the owners of the businesses they were trying to legislate for generally fought tooth and nail to against improvements to hours of work and safety standards. Not to mention limits on the ages at which children could be employed. Now we have a huge range of legislation which supposedly regulates health and safety at work, working hours, employment ages and minimum wages. All these put a financial constraint on the business owner which lessens their profits. there could also be requirements for training of some workers to certain standards, such as the well known CORGI gas certification. Then there are standards for the safe production and sale of of foods and for for the safety of manufactured goods. the list is long, but they are all designed to ensure the safety of workers and consumers. There is much more than this which could fill pages... Business is not the free for all it could be if unregulated. Legislation protects workers and consumers in many ways.

Despite all this the acquisition and protection of wealth is relatively easy because it is protected by the economic policies governments practise, but really that asks different questions, such as why should the wealthy be able to acquire so much of the country's money while millions live in poverty, and is a different topic to explore.

I believe it's structurally quite possible. In fact, if you think about it, our post-war Conservative government wasn't that much different. The "One-Nation-Conservatism" is quite close to the Nordic model.

Don't forget that it was Labour who really initiated the 'mixed economy' of private and public provision. The conservatives went along with it on the whole.

I'm not sure about One Nation; I think there was element of paternalism, conservative governments being mostly drawn from the historic ruling elite. But post war governments were, of course, a mix of conservative and Labour.

I do wonder if the conservatives would have implemented the Beveridge report had they been the immediate post war government 🤔

Galaxy

I found corbyn often aggressive with female interviewers dickens.

I didn't really follow the reporting on him or his conversations and interviews, I read about him more often, so if that's how you saw/see him, fair enough.

I've not thought of him as a misogynist, or sexist either, but who knows he might be. Though he'd have to go some to measure up to Lee Anderson, Reform Party Chairman, who was heard to tell a woman - or it might have been more than one - to "keep out of big-boy politics".

But at least he was 'honest' about his contempt for women in politics and didn't try to hide it, so there is that I suppose.

Do you use a mental magnifying glass to discredit everything anyone says about those on the Left if it's even faintly positive?

Just a matter of balance isn’t it? Anyone not permanently on the left cops it so it is only fair . Much better than all being echo chambers, at least .

No I just dont and never have liked corbyn. I always found his behaviour petulant. When I was in the labour party those supporting him were fairly aggressive in their approach, it was one of the reasons I supported Starmer!

To compare UK and Norway is dreaming, they have a fraction of our population and massive resources most of which is exported. Despite this they are highly taxed and much of their domestic energy is from Hydro Electric, the also do not have the population growth that affects the UK

We would love to be Norway but dream on we are not.

nanna8

Just a matter of balance isn’t it? Anyone not permanently on the left cops it so it is only fair . Much better than all being echo chambers, at least .

Anyone not permanently on the left cops it so it is only fair .

That, IMO, is simply not true.

I have argued and debated with posters whose voting preferences are unknown to me, at the same time, disagreed with those who, like me, are left-leaning whilst also, on some issues, agreed with the sentiments of those on the right.

Both the Left and the Right are a broad church, which is why people on here will often disagree with each other even tho' they might both vote for the same party; this reflects the same divisions you will find in the House when Party Members will also disagree over certain matters.

Each poster on here has their own debating style and some are more aggressive or robust than others, but this trait is not one that is peculiar only to the left. Neither is it one that only applies to GN.

Challenging a comment or opinion of someone on the right does not by default make them a victim of the left anymore than it does when the left challenges the views of the left.

David49

To compare UK and Norway is dreaming, they have a fraction of our population and massive resources most of which is exported. Despite this they are highly taxed and much of their domestic energy is from Hydro Electric, the also do not have the population growth that affects the UK

We would love to be Norway but dream on we are not.

We can dream!

Dickens 7:51

Well said, I would point out that left leaning people are also called-names, “leftie”, “bleeding heart”, “loony liberal”, “do gooders” and so on and particularly around Asylum Seekers, “why are are you not housing one in your spare one”, then utterly ridiculed if they dare to explain “why they are not housing Asylum Seekers”.

Posters and people are guilty of this on every side of the political spectrum.

On GNs, tbf, most posters on every side are not aggressive, but pop over to Facebook and X and Instagram and you’ll read and hear the most awful insults lobbied at anyone who dares to challenge the most ardent Reform supporters, their favourites being “leftie nonce”, this is the most polite phrase I can repeat on here! 😱😱

Galaxy

No I just dont and never have liked corbyn. I always found his behaviour petulant. When I was in the labour party those supporting him were fairly aggressive in their approach, it was one of the reasons I supported Starmer!

I have to admit I found Corbyn 'tetchy', he reminds me too much of a teacher I once had who, when approached - on any matter - always seemed to be in exasperated mode.

However, Corbyn was put under the sustained spotlight by a largely right-wing and hostile press who were looking for anything that could be used to trip him up and discredit him, so he could have developed that trait - or it was just his natural disposition, who knows. Either way, it weighed against him as a leader.

But, I never saw him as a misogynist.

Cossy

David49

To compare UK and Norway is dreaming, they have a fraction of our population and massive resources most of which is exported. Despite this they are highly taxed and much of their domestic energy is from Hydro Electric, the also do not have the population growth that affects the UK

We would love to be Norway but dream on we are not.

We can dream!

There is no need to dream, you just need to understand how money is created and how it can be used in an economy.

Oreo

Could we be like the Nordic model as we have such a big population?

Why should a bigger population make any difference?

David49

To compare UK and Norway is dreaming, they have a fraction of our population and massive resources most of which is exported. Despite this they are highly taxed and much of their domestic energy is from Hydro Electric, the also do not have the population growth that affects the UK

We would love to be Norway but dream on we are not.

Yes David49 we know all about the population numbers, the high taxes, etc, etc.

But the principle - of investing in your workforce, still applies, regardless. And that's what's being discussed by those who are interested in what economic models we can adopt - or adapt - in order to have a more equitable society.

MaizieD

^I believe it's structurally quite possible. In fact, if you think about it, our post-war Conservative government wasn't that much different. The "One-Nation-Conservatism" is quite close to the Nordic model.^

Don't forget that it was Labour who really initiated the 'mixed economy' of private and public provision. The conservatives went along with it on the whole.

I'm not sure about One Nation; I think there was element of paternalism, conservative governments being mostly drawn from the historic ruling elite. But post war governments were, of course, a mix of conservative and Labour.

I do wonder if the conservatives would have implemented the Beveridge report had they been the immediate post war government 🤔

Just dipping in here because I’ve not had time to keep up with this interesting chat.

Wasn’t the concept of a welfare state begun in the 30s as a result of the poor state of the men in the services during WW1. My maternal grandfather was only 5’4” serving in the navy.

So perhaps some sort of welfare state was always on the cards, but I think however we were very luck to have had a labour government post war as Churchill simply did not have the imagination or desire to introduce the NHS.

Looking at what has been alluded to as an interventionist state - I am very persuaded by Isabella Weber and her arguments about inflation and market intervention. I do believe that given the potential ahead of the world of food and energy insecurity her arguments are important.

Wasn’t the concept of a welfare state begun in the 30s as a result of the poor state of the men in the services during WW1. My maternal grandfather was only 5’4” serving in the navy

I think it’s very difficult to pin down a start date for the implementation of social welfare. I was told various things by various lecturers at uni. Was it recruiting for the Boer war when the ‘establishment’ was horrified at the poor physical state of the recruits. Or, was it the move to mutual aid societies initiated by the working classes in some industries where everyone paid into a fund which would support workers who were unable to work because of work related injuries and families of workers killed in workplace accidents? Or was it the introduction of an old age pension, an idea taken from the Prussians who recognised that a pension for the old would add to economic activity in the domestic economy?

I think the seeds had been there for a long time, it just needed drawing together.

I still wonder whether the tories would have done it.

I wonder if there will be a return to some sort of barter system? In the 80s they seemed to have a resurgence, but maybe the prosperity of the 90s killed them off? I remember signing up to one here, but it never really got off the ground. It seems like a good idea to bypass money and trade time and skills - not as the basis for the economy, but on a local level.

Doodledog

I wonder if there will be a return to some sort of barter system? In the 80s they seemed to have a resurgence, but maybe the prosperity of the 90s killed them off? I remember signing up to one here, but it never really got off the ground. It seems like a good idea to bypass money and trade time and skills - not as the basis for the economy, but on a local level.

Bartering at a very local rural level is possible to answer a minimum of needs, (and it would be a very poor level) but certainly not at an urban or nationwide level.

Cossy

On GNs, tbf, most posters on every side are not aggressive, but pop over to Facebook and X and Instagram and you’ll read and hear the most awful insults lobbied at anyone who dares to challenge the most ardent Reform supporters, their favourites being “leftie nonce”, this is the most polite phrase I can repeat on here!

Oh I've given up on FB, Insta and X.

Those platforms are seldom the right ones for a serious discussion. A perfectly reasonable and anodyne comment will more than likely get a juvenile insult as a response followed by umpteen emojis - usually those depicting 'poop' or the clown-face.

Life's too short for this utterly childish nonsense.

Any person who happens to believe that screening people before entry into our country for safety, medical and a host of other reasons get labelled as Racist unfeeling Nazi type people. Any party like Reform seem a desperate vote for those who have had enough of the way this country is going/ gone down the tubes for so so long. They have to rout out the extremists. The Left extremists seem to have the bigger voice (Ann Widdecombe) etc.. We are/were a Liberal country in every sense and our softness exploited. I'm afraid the remedy is going to take a painful route for some if not too late.

Whitewavemark2

Looking at what has been alluded to as an interventionist state - I am very persuaded by Isabella Weber and her arguments about inflation and market intervention. I do believe that given the potential ahead of the world of food and energy insecurity her arguments are important.

I'm glad you mentioned Isabella Weber. Here is her recent Guardian interview, people might be interested to read it

‘People’s dignity, and democracy, is at stake’: meet the economist ditching ideology for reality

www.theguardian.com/business/2026/oct/16/isabella-weber-anti-fascist-economics

Doodledog

I wonder if there will be a return to some sort of barter system? In the 80s they seemed to have a resurgence, but maybe the prosperity of the 90s killed them off? I remember signing up to one here, but it never really got off the ground. It seems like a good idea to bypass money and trade time and skills - not as the basis for the economy, but on a local level.

What makes you think that?

Of course, it would not be a 'return' because a bartering system has never been the basis of an economy.

The problem with those attempts at local 'currencies' ( and from what I recall they always seemed to involve some form of 'currency', points or tokens which could be 'earned' and were used to 'value' tasks) and with any attempt to explain a 'barter system', is that they need a 'coincidence of needs'. What happens to people who need something which can't be supplied by anyone in the system or if people only have something to offer which no-one needs?