5 ms·

"Only the lunatic fringe on the extreme right would advocate ripping up something that works, to replace it with something 4x more expensive. " Most European h

"Only the lunatic fringe on the extreme right would advocate ripping up something that works, to replace it with something 4x more expensive. " Most European healthcare systems are a blend of private/public, some err a little more towards private, and they work just fine, and they are not '4x more expensive'. To suggest that the UK could model themselves after Germany or Switzerland or the Netherlands is not remotely 'lunatic'. The FT doesn't 'serve' anyone - they just make financial commentary but will never 'rock the boat' on any issue.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago
> lamenting socialized medicine in Europe (maybe 15% of the entire European economy is socialized just in that area alone) Which I take to mean replacing with or discussing a fully private model, losing the public/social aspect. The NHS is a blend of private/public too. Adopting the German or Dutch model wouldn't be the end of socialised medicine but more a different variation on the theme. Some work better than others. Adopting a US model would end the socialised aspect. The FT, like all businesses, attempts to serve their customers - in this case the business owning readership. They have surprised on occasion, and not just via their pro Europe stance. Which has at least been consistent.
- sonnyblarney 7y ago
  "Which I take to mean replacing with or discussing a fully private model," Why would anyone make that conclusion? "They have surprised on occasion, and not just via their pro Europe stance. " ??? I think you might be misinterpreting what 'neoliberal' is. The EU is their project. The EU started as a business cartel (for reference on that, ironically see Yanis Varoufakis interview on FT podcast), i.e. the 'European Coal and Steel' community. It was a 'Common Market' for decades before any material political integration. It has a 'social' side, but mostly it has business interests: single market economy, single currency, standardized regulatory environment, EU level commercial law, no tariffs, no trade barriers, full capital and labour mobility, a Central Bank, a central 'investment bank' (i.e. EIF). ... now throw in a very weak and unrepresentative democracy, and weakened local governments as a nice bonus. This is a neoliberal wet dream. The Lib Dems, as the closest political body to represent FT types, has always been 'pro EU' because it's their thing. Look at Macron's candidacy for example - this guy came out of thin air to basically take over the Republic with full support of most major papers, and tons of glowing coverage even outside France? Where did this guy magically appear from? The centre of French business community - they tapped him, and worked even with their would-be opponents on many issues (classical leftist press) to go 'full in' on 'anyone but Le Pen'. Now he's the head of the LibDem group in the EU Parliament, which will have the most weight in deciding the EU Presidency. 'Big business' almost always wants 'more EU' for very obvious reasons, unless it grinds them on a particular cause (i.e. some entities in The City may be opposed to losing rights, some fisheries etc.)
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    I'm hardly going to lament - to passionately regret or complain about - something I wish to keep. If I lament socialised medicine it's very unlikely I have socialised medicine as the solution to my passionate complaints and weeping... If I just want to fix clear problem areas I'm not going to lament the whole concept... Not really misinterpreting - the EU was very much a political integration project in 1974 when the UK joined the "common market", it just wasn't marketed to the public as such. For instance a common foreign policy was already mostly in place, as was "ever closer union", which would later become the problem phrase for the Tory party. Heath knew that. It was in all the documents from the very beginning. Many of the restraints of trade and labour focused measures were there from the very start too. Even the preceding Coal and Steel Community was built around merging the democracies.[1] One of the founding aims in the very first signed treaty was to transform Europe step by step to a unified single state. It also had those developing business interests - though the central bank isn't a real central bank of course. So in summary some has been clearly in favour of business, some has clearly not, and it's always been so. I'm not sure how you categorise it as weak democracy either - it has the problems with lobbying that every form of modern democracy has, but that's not uniquely EU. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Coal_and_Steel_Community https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Coal_and_Steel_Commun...
ddingus 7y ago
Not rocking the boat means they are serving establishment, status quo interests. Every media org has bias. This is not a negative statement in general, nor FT. It is just real. Well informed people tend to sample from a range of perspectives. In that sense, FT is a good value add to ones list.
- sonnyblarney 7y ago
  I agree but 'avoiding conflict' is in many ways a much better bias than 'creating narrative'. So, FT supports Liberal Democrat narratives by virtue of their existence, but they definition are not bandwagon anything, they don't have to be. It's dry and boring, which has it's merits.
  - ddingus 7y ago
    Those merits, in the context of diverse perspective, are not debatable. Sans that perspective? It's just as bad as any singular perspective. People end up partially informed, and that has clear impact on society. Now, I was not going to mention political parties. That was not germane to my argument. Since you opened the door: FT, specifically supports neoliberal economics, which has had a sustained, and negative impact on labor. And that is a clear bandwagon. Thus, my comment on diverse perspective. Dry and boring, frankly, is ignoring the state of the nation, and world, and that's a general disservice to a majority who inhabit it. NOBODY in media today is above the fray. Nobody.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

> lamenting socialized medicine in Europe (maybe 15% of the entire European economy is socialized just in that area alone) Which I take to mean replacing with or discussing a fully private model, losing the public/social aspect. The NHS is a blend of private/public too. Adopting the German or Dutch model wouldn't be the end of socialised medicine but more a different variation on the theme. Some work better than others. Adopting a US model would end the socialised aspect. The FT, like all businesses, attempts to serve their customers - in this case the business owning readership. They have surprised on occasion, and not just via their pro Europe stance. Which has at least been consistent.

sonnyblarney 7y ago
"Which I take to mean replacing with or discussing a fully private model," Why would anyone make that conclusion? "They have surprised on occasion, and not just via their pro Europe stance. " ??? I think you might be misinterpreting what 'neoliberal' is. The EU is their project. The EU started as a business cartel (for reference on that, ironically see Yanis Varoufakis interview on FT podcast), i.e. the 'European Coal and Steel' community. It was a 'Common Market' for decades before any material political integration. It has a 'social' side, but mostly it has business interests: single market economy, single currency, standardized regulatory environment, EU level commercial law, no tariffs, no trade barriers, full capital and labour mobility, a Central Bank, a central 'investment bank' (i.e. EIF). ... now throw in a very weak and unrepresentative democracy, and weakened local governments as a nice bonus. This is a neoliberal wet dream. The Lib Dems, as the closest political body to represent FT types, has always been 'pro EU' because it's their thing. Look at Macron's candidacy for example - this guy came out of thin air to basically take over the Republic with full support of most major papers, and tons of glowing coverage even outside France? Where did this guy magically appear from? The centre of French business community - they tapped him, and worked even with their would-be opponents on many issues (classical leftist press) to go 'full in' on 'anyone but Le Pen'. Now he's the head of the LibDem group in the EU Parliament, which will have the most weight in deciding the EU Presidency. 'Big business' almost always wants 'more EU' for very obvious reasons, unless it grinds them on a particular cause (i.e. some entities in The City may be opposed to losing rights, some fisheries etc.)
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  I'm hardly going to lament - to passionately regret or complain about - something I wish to keep. If I lament socialised medicine it's very unlikely I have socialised medicine as the solution to my passionate complaints and weeping... If I just want to fix clear problem areas I'm not going to lament the whole concept... Not really misinterpreting - the EU was very much a political integration project in 1974 when the UK joined the "common market", it just wasn't marketed to the public as such. For instance a common foreign policy was already mostly in place, as was "ever closer union", which would later become the problem phrase for the Tory party. Heath knew that. It was in all the documents from the very beginning. Many of the restraints of trade and labour focused measures were there from the very start too. Even the preceding Coal and Steel Community was built around merging the democracies.[1] One of the founding aims in the very first signed treaty was to transform Europe step by step to a unified single state. It also had those developing business interests - though the central bank isn't a real central bank of course. So in summary some has been clearly in favour of business, some has clearly not, and it's always been so. I'm not sure how you categorise it as weak democracy either - it has the problems with lobbying that every form of modern democracy has, but that's not uniquely EU. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Coal_and_Steel_Community https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Coal_and_Steel_Commun...

ddingus 7y ago

Not rocking the boat means they are serving establishment, status quo interests. Every media org has bias. This is not a negative statement in general, nor FT. It is just real. Well informed people tend to sample from a range of perspectives. In that sense, FT is a good value add to ones list.

sonnyblarney 7y ago
I agree but 'avoiding conflict' is in many ways a much better bias than 'creating narrative'. So, FT supports Liberal Democrat narratives by virtue of their existence, but they definition are not bandwagon anything, they don't have to be. It's dry and boring, which has it's merits.
- ddingus 7y ago
  Those merits, in the context of diverse perspective, are not debatable. Sans that perspective? It's just as bad as any singular perspective. People end up partially informed, and that has clear impact on society. Now, I was not going to mention political parties. That was not germane to my argument. Since you opened the door: FT, specifically supports neoliberal economics, which has had a sustained, and negative impact on labor. And that is a clear bandwagon. Thus, my comment on diverse perspective. Dry and boring, frankly, is ignoring the state of the nation, and world, and that's a general disservice to a majority who inhabit it. NOBODY in media today is above the fray. Nobody.