From:
Mike Smith, Birkby, Huddersfield.
The two adjacent letters from Messrs Howley and Penn (The
Yorkshire Post, October 22) on the topic of who was the best post-war prime
minister provide food for thought on the merits of socialism versus
capitalism.
Firstly, Mr Howley’s letter makes comparisons between Clement
Attlee and Margaret Thatcher with implications of the latter coming from a
comfortable middle class and Attlee having a closer identity with the working
class. Attlee was in fact a public school “toff” and Thatcher was a grammar
school girl. Attlee was a lawyer and Thatcher was the only Prime Minister ever
to have real work experience in industry. The Attlee administration presided over the introduction of the
NHS and also the nationalisation of public utilities and major capital
industries.
To those who questioned the cost at the time, it was argued the
cost of the NHS would progressively reduce as the nation became healthier with
free care. In the case of the nationalised industries, it was further argued
that productivity would increase when the workers effectively became their own
bosses.
The consequence was that the nation was facing economic meltdown
when Thatcher came to power. Not surprisingly with a nation accustomed to living
in the socialist clouds, she was, and still is, demonised for the drastic action
necessary to restore some semblance of reality to the
situation.
That brings us to Mr Penn’s letter and his various thoughts on
growth being reliant on profits, greed, selfishness and self-destructive
capitalism. The population with its needs and expectations is growing all the
time. Profits are the only fuel for growth or otherwise where does the money
come from?
There can be little argument that bankers and senior public
servants walking away with obscene amounts of public or other people’s money is
pure greed. However when it comes to Mr Penn’s point on producing countless
products that no one really needs or wants, we are faced with some dilemmas. It
is the manufacture of products and processed goods which provides employment
with wages and profits that sustains the economy.
On the other hand, this soaks up energy and finite resources
which conflicts with all the “green” policies.
Those around the world with nothing to eat might consider our
insatiable appetite for more and more material affluence makes us all greedy or
selfish, but it will be a very bold Prime Minister who ever dares to tell us
that.
