Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Labour leadership: Owen Smith wants 'new industrial revolution' watch

    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    I looked it up and I calculate the medieval state (1320s, Edward II) was around 1% of GDP. The only services it really provided was the exchequer, the courts and the sheriffs.

    Would you advocate still smaller?
    You think Bannockburn paid for itself?

    The king also had expensive tastes in boyfriends.

    The regular royal revenue was somewhere around 1% of GDP but the king was running a regular budget deficit of over 100% which he was funding through extraordinary taxation and forfeitures. A tenth, an extraordinary tax, could raise around 3% of GDP.

    If one looks at the monetary income of the country, so ignoring both the corn grown and consumed by the peasants who grew it and their lords and also the corn grown on the royal demesne and consumed by the royal court as it was passing, the royal share was much greater.

    That is before we look at the payments to the European superstate based in Avignon and its English officials
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Why can't we do the same with defense and allow private contractors?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    This would require the motivation to be driven by profit.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Owen Smith definitely has my support.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    No it doesn't. The government as the client gives the orders, the contractors obey. You could even enact a law putting the private armies contracted to provide defence services under a form of chain of command.

    So why not do it? Or do you accept that this (like other areas) is something that really only government can do, and that only the state can really be trusted to do it?
    Using contractors to be involved in defense does not mean the free market is driving the decision-making process. You're simply outsourcing the execution of a task to a third-party.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    It's a valid comparison insofar as the only "services" the medieval state provided was the court system and the sheriffs. I'm guessing we could provide that now with a comparable proportion of GDP (less than 1%).

    Would you approve of that level of government spending and service provision?
    That still does not justify a valid comparison. In order for it to be so, the two variables being compared need to be somewhat identical and in this case they are not.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zayn008)
    No, he wouldn't be able to run anything. That's the bottom line. His intentions may be in a good place but what's the point in that when you can't do anything or get anywhere. You're actually delusional it's unbelievable. Do you know why Gordon brown lost in 2010? Becuase people thought he was going left, do you know why Miliband lost even more seats? Becuase he went even more left. Corbyn's extreme left clearly won't satisfy the majority of the electorate who are right wing and centrists. He can't even gain support from the centre-left or the left. His only support is from the militant left. I can't see the point in a person who says he'll act for the people if he can't even get into office.
    Gordon Brown lost because he was an unpopular chancellor. Milliband lost because he looked weak and had wishy washy policies. The SNP had a left manifesto, but more importantly they offered change. Corbyn offers change, so we'll hopefully get to find out how unelectable he is. What is the point in fighting the Tories with Toriy policies. We would just wind up with Tories by another name.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    This would require the motivation to be driven by profit.
    You can have a profit motive for defense just as you can for the NHS and rail service. In the latter services the government contracts out services to the free market.

    Why can we not do the same with defence.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i dont trust labour
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    Gordon Brown lost because he was an unpopular chancellor. Milliband lost because he looked weak and had wishy washy policies. The SNP had a left manifesto, but more importantly they offered change. Corbyn offers change, so we'll hopefully get to find out how unelectable he is. What is the point in fighting the Tories with Toriy policies. We would just wind up with Tories by another name.
    Not true. When Gordon came in he was polled to win a snap election, but he stayed on and the financial crisis happened. He made some bad choices but people still respected him as chancellor, do you not remember Osbourne being forced to match his budget spending to a Labour Government? That's how far he made them reach. I do sort of agree with you on Miliband, his image did seem to play a big part.

    I don't understand this right, would the tories before Blair introduce a national national minimum wage? No. Only until they saw its success. Would they fund and expand public services? Would they bring NHS waiting times to an all time low? Would they reduce poverty and tackle child poverty? Would they reform and fund education so that the disadvantaged are given a chance? I could honestly go on. These are not Tory policies although a lot of what New Labour did was slightly Tory, they now take the concept and on top of that pursue social justice which is smart because any hopeful labour candidate will be called a Tory by people like you unless they are on the radical left. Which is great for the tories because a radical left will get nothing done, a soft left might not be as radical but will get a lot more done because it can gain power and work in government not just being a useless opposition holding rally's.

    You cannot win a general election without England and England is mainly Tory, that doesn't mean you have to hate poor people it means you need economic policy that works for everyone and doesn't involve bringing back the disastrous British rail, if he said he'd buy a majority stake in the franchises like most countries have I'd be with him on that but he wants a whole government take over.

    Also Corbyn doesn't seem popular in Scotland, that should be a key focus to him, as you pointed out they want a leftist movement and he'll need there full support if he is to get in government, without 80% of Scottish seats he won't be getting anywhere and I haven't even heard the name Scotland come out of his mouth.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I can't get over how cretinous the original industrial revolution remark was.

    Does this man really think that he, or the government, or anyone he knows is capable of increasing living standards ten fold by developing completely new science, technology, and economic organisation?

    That their champions say things like this, and their cheerleaders don't call them out on it, shows that our elite's cognitive skills are dropping rapidly.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    That still does not justify a valid comparison. In order for it to be so, the two variables being compared need to be somewhat identical and in this case they are not.
    Why are they not comparable? If you'd be so kind as to explain your position
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    Using contractors to be involved in defense does not mean the free market is driving the decision-making process. You're simply outsourcing the execution of a task to a third-party.
    Yes, that's exactly what I just said... in response to you claiming that outsourcing defence would require decision-making to be done by the private sector entity
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    He is actually a full retard.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ladbants)
    He is actually a full retard.
    I used to support him over Corbyn, but he is seriously acting like a wacko now

    That ISIS negotiation channel thing did it for me
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    You think Bannockburn paid for itself?

    The king also had expensive tastes in boyfriends.
    Iirc, that Scottish campaign was paid for by moneys advanced by the Bardi syndicate on security of assignment of future customs revenue. I've kept military operations out of my consideration of "medieval government / proportion of GDP" for two reasons; first, such operations were usually financed by borrowing or by parliamentary subsidy and in many ways exceptional. Second, there doesn't seem to have been an attempt to use borrowing or parliamentary subsidy to fund the normal operations of the king's household and of his servants (including the machinery of government)

    The king's demesne and customs revenue would pay for those parts of the medieval state that could, in some sense, be considered "services" or part of the state machinery (i.e. the exchequer secretariat, the chancery secretariat, the courts of kings bench, chancery and common pleas, the circuits and the sheriffs and diplomatic operations). They were the parts of the state that continued year in, year out and didn't relate to the purely private elements of the king's household.

    Basically, in the 1320 and 1330s (whether Edward II or III) the king's income stayed fairly steady at around £15,000 to £20,000 in demesne revenues, and £12,000 in customs revenues. Also remember that obviously the crown held the Gaveston and Despencer property in reversion and so once they were gotten rid of, demesne revenues would go back up (also, Edward II also did a lot of confiscations that somewhat made up for his liberality in granting various feoffs)

    Based on the above, and the fact the king's household, the judges, courts and sheriffs basically were the medieval state, I think my exclusion of the wars and massive loans/parliamentary subsidies is valid; I'm trying to determine the underlying, year-on-year size of the medieval state.

    Having said that, your figure is closer to being correct according to later figures as when I made that post I hadn't included customs revenue (and the best figure I have for medieval GDP in 1320, non-inflation adjusted, is £4.7 million). (Demesne revenue + customs revenue) / £4700000 is closer to 0.6% than 0.4%). There is, though, an argument for using some kind of further inflator for the numerator figure given the value of purveyance (the right to buy goods below normal prices, and pay late) to the king's household.

    The regular royal revenue was somewhere around 1% of GDP but the king was running a regular budget deficit of over 100% which he was funding through extraordinary taxation and forfeitures. A tenth, an extraordinary tax, could raise around 3% of GDP.
    I'd be very keen to see any figures you have for a tenth subsidy from parliament being equivalent to 3% of GDP, and for the others. Overall they sound broadly correct, and I take your point entirely about the debts (of course when you look at the Bardi, Frescobaldi and Pessagno loans and the parliamentary tenths, they were often a few hundred thousand pounds so many multiples of the king's underlying demesne+customs income). But I do think excluding warfare (and thus loans and parliamentary subsidies used to fund them) does give a figure that better compares to what we would understand a "modern government as proportion of GDP" figure represents

    That is before we look at the payments to the European superstate based in Avignon and its English officials
    I was sure (as I've just read about it in Powell's House of Lords in the Middle Ages and Sumption's Vol 1 of the 100 Years War) that the church had its own parallel taxation system? (and the fact they had to remit money to Rome was given as a justification for why the clerics contribution should be a fifteenth rather than a tenth, for quite a few of the 1330s subsidies)
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Why are they not comparable? If you'd be so kind as to explain your position
    I think the position has just been explained quite succinctly for you there. HINT: try reading.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    You can have a profit motive for defense just as you can for the NHS and rail service. In the latter services the government contracts out services to the free market.
    You have not shown how.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Why are they not comparable? If you'd be so kind as to explain your position
    I have explained why they cannot. You are comparing two states, which are very different, both internally and externally (e.g. globalisation and macroeconomic conditions, for example).
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Yes, that's exactly what I just said... in response to you claiming that outsourcing defence would require decision-making to be done by the private sector entity
    You're implying in your response that outsourcing a task results in defense being privatised. My response stated that this is not the case.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    You're implying in your response that outsourcing a task results in defense being privatised. My response stated that this is not the case.
    But you prefer the 'free market' so why not give them some control by outsourcing tasks to them? Alternatively why don't we privatise the whole thing? Let competing groups offer defense services with the public free to choose which one to pay for?


    Or wait, perhaps the state is better for some things than the free market. You won't admit that though.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.