Thread: What motivates the left/the right Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029029
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
In the 'gay bakery' thread in the 'Dead Horse' section there has been the following exchanges
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I think what people are talking about when they speak about the "illiberal left" is exactly the attitude that you are displaying here.
Okay, well that's probably not surprising, because I'm probably one of the people who constitute the "illiberal left" insofar as that designation makes any sense. I suggest the "moral left" would be a better term, as what drives the "illiberalism" (and the "left" part of it, for that matter) is a strong moral code and strong sense of moral outrage at the evils the religious right has been perpetrating. I'm not prepared to stand by and give evil a free pass, and so in that sense I'm "intolerant" and "illiberal".
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Oh Please! What would the left know about strong moral codes?
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
What did you think motivated people on the left?
Pride, envy, wrath, amongst other things
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
The entire concept of human rights, the basic modern political paradigm, utilitarianism, the social gospel, universal healthcare, etc are all products of liberalism or the left.
So various things the left likes are products of the left. Your point being?
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
What did you think motivated people on the left?
Pride, envy, wrath, amongst other things
As Mousethief has pointed out, those things seem to often be what motivates the right.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
The entire concept of human rights, the basic modern political paradigm, utilitarianism, the social gospel, universal healthcare, etc are all products of liberalism or the left.
So various things the left likes are products of the left. Your point being?
You asked "What would the left know about strong moral codes?" So let's take human rights. Over a couple of centuries, liberals basically created the concept of human rights out of nothing, enshrined it into international law, and proceeded to enforce it globally. Does globally enforcing a moral code sound to you like a group that knows nothing "about strong moral codes"?
In reply to the final two points I would say that yes these things are found on the right but more commonly they are found on the left and crucially they are frequently what motivates the left.
On the second point I would say that inventing and enforcing legal codes is not the same thing as living by moral codes, as the entire history of communism demonstrates.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
How do you know what motivates people?
Do you have a window into men's souls?
Why do we have to take a dualistic and binary view of these things? There are jerks on the left and there are jerks on the right.
There are also jerks in the middle.
Being 'on the left' is no more congruent with Communism than being 'on the right' necessarily equates to fascism.
I tend to be reasonably centre left, but it all depends on where you're standing in the first place. I'd probably look very lefty to a lot of right-wing Americans but not very lefty at all to people who are on the 'hard left' as it were.
There are gradations and nuances. Haven't you noticed?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Is there such a thing as 'the left'? I'm not sure how you are going to subsume everybody from Tony Blair to Mao into one big Gladstone bag, but I'm interested in how this can be demonstrated, (rather than speculated).
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Can someone please explain what this is doing in Hell. It doesn't currently look Hellish to me.
Your Dead Horses host only directed you here to have it out with people/post diatribes. Are you having it out with people, or discussing general principles? Currently it looks like the latter.
orfeo
Hellhost
[ 11. July 2015, 09:32: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Can someone please explain what this is doing in Hell. It doesn't currently look Hellish to me.
Your Dead Horses host only directed you here to have it out with individuals. Are you having it out with individuals, or discussing general principles? Currently it looks like the latter.
orfeo
Hellhost
I obviously misunderstood the hosting. I've really got no interest in trading insults with individuals. If anyone wants to continue this discussion they can start a new thread in the Purgatory section.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I'm from the left. What motivates me are communes with lots of weed and free sex. I thought this was obvious.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Left and right really has little meaning. Liberal and conservative has a little more but it's still rather vague. What are you if economically you're fairly socialist but when it comes to morals conservative (the would be me btw)? My motivations are many.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
My local left-wing group usually start off Saturday night robbing a bank, then buy some drugs, then cruise the local villages, terrorizing people, and looking for virgins. Damn, there aren't any.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
[/QB][/QUOTE] I've really got no interest in trading insults with individuals. If anyone wants to continue this discussion they can start a new thread in the Purgatory section. [/QB][/QUOTE]
So, what are you doing here then?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
Old-fashioned lefty checking in. Motivation, you ask? Here's a little bit of my motivation, and there's plenty more where it came from:
This:
quote:
Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.
This:
quote:
He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honours God.
This:
quote:
Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people
This:
quote:
Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke? Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter — when you see the naked, to clothe him, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?
This:
quote:
Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.
This:
quote:
Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
This:
quote:
he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts; he has brought down the mighty from their thrones and exalted those of humble estate; he has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he has sent away empty.
This:
quote:
woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort.
This:
quote:
Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
This:
quote:
The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter.
This:
quote:
If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?
And then of course there's a ton of stuff like this:
quote:
How can I make you realize the misery of the poor? How can I make you understand that your wealth comes from their weeping? (Basil of Caesaraea)
The rich are in possession of the goods of the poor, even if they have acquired them honestly or inherited them legally. (John Chrysostom)
The bread in your cupboard belongs to the hungry man; the coat hanging in your closet belongs to the man who needs it; the shoes rotting in your closet belong to the man who has no shoes; the money which you put into the bank belongs to the poor. (Basil of Caesaraea)
I haven't provided citations for Bible verses, because of course every Bible-believing Christian will have these texts written on their heart. Non-biblical quotes are from here, but generally available.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
This lefty is motivated by a desire to see dignity for all people, irrespective of their origins.
The basic necessities of shelter and sustenance come at the top of the list and health and opportunities just behind. These need to be secure provisions too, which are usually achieved through decent jobs or adequate welfare.
I'm not really interested in lining the rich up against a wall and shooting them; they just need to recognise the responsibilities, as well as the rights, that come with economic power in this society.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'm not really interested in lining the rich up against a wall and shooting them
The stupid, on the other hand, are prime candidates for the wall. Especially people who come and post crap on the internet motivate by pride, envy, wrath, amongst other things
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'm not really interested in lining the rich up against a wall and shooting them
The stupid, on the other hand, are prime candidates for the wall. Especially people who come and post crap on the internet motivate by pride, envy, wrath, amongst other things
Ignoring the "other things" for a moment, but if one takes away everything motivated by pride, envy and especially wrath doesn't that leave this board empty?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Not to mention most of the actions of the human race, left OR right.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I obviously misunderstood the hosting. I've really got no interest in trading insults with individuals. If anyone wants to continue this discussion they can start a new thread in the Purgatory section.
Coward. No really, you are a coward. Not for wishing to avoid trading insults, but for your posting style on the other boards.
You post in such a manner as to generate ire without ever truly addressing the rejoinders.
It is probably pointless to mention this as you will continue the style down here as well.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'm not really interested in lining the rich up against a wall and shooting them
The stupid, on the other hand, are prime candidates for the wall. Especially people who come and post crap on the internet motivate by pride, envy, wrath, amongst other things
Ignoring the "other things" for a moment, but if one takes away everything motivated by pride, envy and especially wrath doesn't that leave this board empty?
WTF?! (Including you to, LC) You've no motivation from concern, love, curiosity or pleasure?
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Is there such a thing as 'the left'? I'm not sure how you are going to subsume everybody from Tony Blair to Mao into one big Gladstone bag, but I'm interested in how this can be demonstrated, (rather than speculated).
Ahhh...the no true pinko fallacy. There is also no such thing as the right. There is only the far right.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
quote:
quote:
I've really got no interest in trading insults with individuals. If anyone wants to continue this discussion they can start a new thread in the Purgatory section.
So, what are you doing here then?
Good question. A topic like this is bound to get personal so on reflection I'll leave it, I've said what I've said.
[ 11. July 2015, 16:32: Message edited by: Bibliophile ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Not sure my point neede underlining, but thank you just the same.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
Asking what motivates the left or the right seems to me to be one of those questions that is essentially meaningless and generates more heat than light. Perhaps that's the intent?
Asking what motivates people on the left or the right might be closer to the mark, but then you have to deal with people as individuals and not just assume some monolithic understanding.
I tend to assume that most people on the left, the right and in-between are motivated by what they think will make a better, more just society. I am enough of a Calvinist, though, to expect that even the most noble and well-intentioned of motives will be mixed with self-interest, biases and prejudices, misunderstanding and, of course, ignorance. A wise person questions his or her own motivations for that reason.
To me, the more relevant question is why are so many people, regardless of their position on the political (or theological, or whatever) spectrum, quick to assume that people who occupy a different place on that spectrum are motivated by rejection of all that is good and holy, while those with whom they agree are motivated solely by goodness and light.
[ 11. July 2015, 16:53: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I obviously misunderstood the hosting. I've really got no interest in trading insults with individuals. If anyone wants to continue this discussion they can start a new thread in the Purgatory section.
Coward. No really, you are a coward. Not for wishing to avoid trading insults, but for your posting style on the other boards.
You post in such a manner as to generate ire without ever truly addressing the rejoinders.
It is probably pointless to mention this as you will continue the style down here as well.
The guy is a fucking WUM. He's not here for honest open discussion, but just to needle and provoke, and inflame.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Is there such a thing as 'the left'? I'm not sure how you are going to subsume everybody from Tony Blair to Mao into one big Gladstone bag, but I'm interested in how this can be demonstrated, (rather than speculated).
Ahhh...the no true pinko fallacy. There is also no such thing as the right. There is only the far right.
I don't understand what the fallacy is. I'd like someone to describe what 'the left' is, as I can't really see any general description here that would be useful.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I obviously misunderstood the hosting. I've really got no interest in trading insults with individuals. If anyone wants to continue this discussion they can start a new thread in the Purgatory section.
Coward. No really, you are a coward. Not for wishing to avoid trading insults, but for your posting style on the other boards.
You post in such a manner as to generate ire without ever truly addressing the rejoinders.
It is probably pointless to mention this as you will continue the style down here as well.
I don't have the time or the inclination to reply to every single rejoinder that is addressed to me but I do address plenty of them. Please tell me of any rejoinder I've missed that you would particularly like addressed.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'm not really interested in lining the rich up against a wall and shooting them
The stupid, on the other hand, are prime candidates for the wall. Especially people who come and post crap on the internet motivate by pride, envy, wrath, amongst other things
Ignoring the "other things" for a moment, but if one takes away everything motivated by pride, envy and especially wrath doesn't that leave this board empty?
WTF?! (Including you to, LC) You've no motivation from concern, love, curiosity or pleasure?
I was referring to the Hell board alone.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I'm from the left. What motivates me are communes with lots of weed and free sex. I thought this was obvious.
That's just life, not left or right politics.
I did a facebook quiz the other day that was this same very bipolar left or right. I came out 97% left, but most of the questions I was nothing like so simple in my answer. OK, this is pop-quiz, but I think it shows that the dichotomy is not that simple.
What motivates the left? Concern for others? A bleeding-heart liberal concern that the state should take care of the poor and unfortunate? A feeling that people abusing others is wrong?
Of late, it has also been that Cameron is a smarmy, privileged, arrogant, deceitful, manipulative piece of shit. Osborne is worse, because blinding incompetence is also added. IDS is all of these, and a loathing, hate-filled bastard as well.
Need I go on? Those who seem to be the leading right-wing politicians, and one would consider the exemplars of right-wing politics, make me want to vomit. So I develop in reaction to them.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I was referring to the Hell board alone.
I was referring to SOF in its entirety, but that, IMO, does not exclude Hell. Though I will admit that wrath has been a motivation for many of my OPs down here, that wrath was often born of concern for others. IOW, I became angry at people's treatment of other people.
Not saying that I do not suffer from pride, envy or wrath, just that they are not my sole motivation, even down here. And Hell in general appears to be a mix of leave me be and leave them be.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I don't have the time or the inclination to reply to every single rejoinder that is addressed to me but I do address plenty of them.
Replying to a post is not the same as addressing the comment within.
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Please tell me of any rejoinder I've missed that you would particularly like addressed.
You've been told multiple times on multiple threads. You just dance around it up there, so why would you address anything properly down here?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
WTF?! (Including you to, LC) You've no motivation from concern, love, curiosity or pleasure?
Read more carefully. I didn't say "everything," I said "most" actions. Plus there is such a thing as hyperbole!
In all seriousness, though, pride and envy contaminate way more actions than IMHO most people realize.
Or are you just a better person than I?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Or are you just a better person than I?
I hope not, because I am not a good person at all. If I've any saving grace it is that I would like to be.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Don't we all. All of the sane people, anyway. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Which brings us right back to the insane ones who give everybody a bad (bad-der) name...
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I obviously misunderstood the hosting. I've really got no interest in trading insults with individuals. If anyone wants to continue this discussion they can start a new thread in the Purgatory section.
Coward. No really, you are a coward. Not for wishing to avoid trading insults, but for your posting style on the other boards.
You post in such a manner as to generate ire without ever truly addressing the rejoinders.
It is probably pointless to mention this as you will continue the style down here as well.
I don't have the time or the inclination to reply to every single rejoinder that is addressed to me but I do address plenty of them. Please tell me of any rejoinder I've missed that you would particularly like addressed.
Adeodatus' excellent list would be a good place for you to start.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Looking at your pathetic little attempt to know exactly what motivates people despite their explanations as to what their real motivations are:
Pride
Funny thing is it's the Right who often quite explicitly see Pride as a virtue. "Have you no pride?" they say as people claim benefits.
envy
...is often the name given to those with little pointing out the injustice of their situation to those with much.
wrath
at injustice is no bad thing. Isn't God meant to be like that as well?
You'll have to do much, much better than that to paint the left as the scum of the earth, chummy.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
envy
...is often the name given to those with little pointing out the injustice of their situation to those with much.
People on the right often refer to the "politics of envy", usually directed at low paid workers on the left complaining about those who earn more than they do. It's the same people in the right who seem to object to working class people like tube drivers and plumbers earning a decent wage.
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on
:
I'm left wing because I believe that all people have inherent value over and above their ability to economically contribute to society.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
To me, the more relevant question is why are so many people, regardless of their position on the political (or theological, or whatever) spectrum, quick to assume that people who occupy a different place on that spectrum are motivated by rejection of all that is good and holy, while those with whom they agree are motivated solely by goodness and light.
Zing.
And I am so tired of witnessing - more off-Ship than on, it must be said - the mindset that immediately jumps to the conclusion that if a person disagrees with you, they MUST be on the other side of this great big political divide in all things.
It's as if swinging voters don't exist any more in the minds of these people.
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And I am so tired of witnessing - more off-Ship than on, it must be said - the mindset that immediately jumps to the conclusion that if a person disagrees with you, they MUST be on the other side of this great big political divide in all things.
It's as if swinging voters don't exist any more in the minds of these people.
Weeeeell... actually the idea of there being different paradigms has a fair amount of applicability when it comes to morality and politics. If people subscribe to certain key elements within one of those paradigms, then that is going to shape their views on many political issues.
For example, the primary and core value of moral and political paradigm in which I operate is the well-being of all people. Experience tells me that anyone else who espouses that as their primary and core value (as opposed to it being a "nice-to-have" somewhere down their list of values, or simply one value among many to them) is going to hold near-identical positions to me on a whole host of moral, political, and social topics, and on any issues where we do disagree the discussion will be extremely interesting and productive and highly likely to lead to either or both or us shifting our position slightly.
Jonathan Haidt has done some really nifty research (paper / TED talk) showing that the difference between 'conservatives' and 'liberals' comes down to the fact that liberals hold the moral principle of maximizing the well-being of all people at the core of their political views (Haidt splits it into 2 (and in his later work 3): Minimize harm, maximize fairness, (maximize liberty)... I prefer to roll it into one and just say maximize well-being). Whereas conservatives have a much lengthier list of (potentially competing) values that informs their moral and political views (liberals don't tend to particularly approve of any of their additional values).
In a society where basically everyone is agreed over what the core values are, then everyone is essentially sitting at the same table having a discussion about edge-cases, and it means people's personal opinions are not going to fall very clearly down "party" lines and you're going to get a huge number of swing voters. But when there is widespread disagreement over what the core values actually are, you're going to get increasingly polarized political debate and increasingly entrenched party positions because you get competing paradigms in play. I suggest this largely explains why political parties have overlapped in some eras and been poles-apart in others.
The gay marriage debate perfectly highlighted this current liberal/conservative divide and the underlying difference in moral values. From the point of view of liberal morality (ie maximizing well-being for all) the notion of giving equal rights to a minority group is an axiomatic no-brainer. Whereas the conservative position has been all over the place, because they view maximizing well-being as only one consideration among many, and other core values they held were telling them to take the exact opposite view (the bible, tradition, disgust).
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Asking what motivates the left or the right seems to me to be one of those questions that is essentially meaningless and generates more heat than light.
I 100% disagree. I think it's one of the most important political issues of all.
A lot of people who don't follow politics much tend to assume "well, they're all basically good people right, who just disagree over some complicated stuff that I don't really understand?" This sort of approach wrongly assumes that disagreements between political parties are some sort of arcane intellectual differences over complex issues rather than basic and fundamental differences in values and morals and in particular who is being valued and why.
Particularly, to be blunt about it, right-wing politics in most countries in the Western world is currently dominated by politicians who intentionally serve the interests of a tiny minority of big-business-owners in order to line their own pockets and those of their mates, and who write every single law with an eye to how it can help line the pockets of their business mates. Their business mates in turn supplied numerous lobbyists to make sure their friends do the right thing and given financial donations to the party to help it win. To the maximum extent that they feel they can get away with it, the politicians intentionally tilt the employer/employee power-balance in favor of employers in order to make sure their rich mates can screw-over their employees for maximum profit. The right-wing politicians likewise cut taxes on their rich mates, and cut benefits for the poor, and maximize the environmental destruction their rich business mates are allowed to get away with. Basically this corrupt right-wing political machine intentionally favors the few who are already wealthy to the maximum extent possible and this is their major goal, and they do this by intentionally trampling on the less wealthy minority and the environment to the maximum extent they feel they can get away with. To sell all of this they just trot out the various lies that their well-funded PR departments have come up with about them being 'better' at 'the economy', about them upholding religious values, about growth being better for everyone, etc and if they are ever pushed into a corner then they smear everyone else with the same mud by claiming all politicians are dishonest.
So who people are valuing matters greatly in politics. There's a world of difference between the laws a politician will vote for if they're in it to give more money to their rich mates, compared to if they're in it because they're genuinely concerned about the well-being of everyone.
quote:
I am enough of a Calvinist, though,
I hope you've been lucky enough to pre-draw the lucky number in the cosmic lottery. But I guess you can never be sure.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
For example, the primary and core value of moral and political paradigm in which I operate is the well-being of all people. Experience tells me that anyone else who espouses that as their primary and core value (as opposed to it being a "nice-to-have" somewhere down their list of values, or simply one value among many to them) is going to hold near-identical positions to me on a whole host of moral, political, and social topics, and on any issues where we do disagree the discussion will be extremely interesting and productive and highly likely to lead to either or both or us shifting our position slightly.
But experience tells me that a lot of the time, the difference between "left" and "right" is about how you believe the most well-being can be achieved.
I rather like the final paragraph of the Wikipedia article on left-right politics. I think this guy is onto something:
quote:
Libertarian writer David Boaz argued that terms left and right are used to spin a particular point of view rather than as simple descriptors, with those on the "left" typically emphasizing their support for working people and accusing the right of supporting the interests of the upper class, and those on the "right" usually emphasizing their support for individualism and accusing the Left of supporting collectivism. Boaz asserts that arguments about the way the words should be used often displaces arguments about policy by raising emotional prejudice against a preconceived notion of what the terms mean.
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But experience tells me that a lot of the time, the difference between "left" and "right" is about how you believe the most well-being can be achieved.
That certainly does happen. It's particularly aided and abetted by the ongoing PR campaign sponsored by big-business to try to convince people that giving them more money is the best way to make everyone happiest / improve the economy / create growth, so the well-intentioned vote gets divided through deception.
quote:
I think this guy is onto something:
Libertarian writer David Boaz argued
Ah Libertarians... ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:
that terms left and right are used to spin a particular point of view rather than as simple descriptors,
False in my experience. They are extremely useful terms that help understand and categorize views.
quote:
with those on the "left" typically emphasizing their support for working people and accusing the right of supporting the interests of the upper class,
Obviously.
quote:
and those on the "right" usually emphasizing their support for individualism and accusing the Left of supporting collectivism.
That barely even makes sense, and isn't really at all true. The only example I can at all think of to support this, is various crazies on the right in the US get wound up about what they perceive as "socialism" (which is a bad word to them). But when he says that the right is far "individualism" in a way the left isn't, that's code for "not giving a fuck about other people and being happy for the government to let the poor die in the gutter if it means being able to make more profit and pay less taxes yourself".
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
Ah Libertarians...
Ugh. Way to prove the point. This is the whole fucking problem with politics today, that it matters more where an idea comes from than whether the idea has merit.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But experience tells me that a lot of the time, the difference between "left" and "right" is about how you believe the most well-being can be achieved.
That certainly does happen. It's particularly aided and abetted by the ongoing PR campaign sponsored by big-business to try to convince people that giving them more money is the best way to make everyone happiest / improve the economy / create growth, so the well-intentioned vote gets divided through deception.
Without wanting to get back into personal remarks about what motivates lefties/righties I would make this point. Don't be naive to think that big business sponsored PR is just happening on the right of the political spectrum. For example big business is often portrayed as being against government regulation but the reality is it often loves such regulation as those regulations are used to protect it. However how to sell such regulations to the public? Saying that such regulations are designed to be protectionist to certain businesses wouldn't sell well. The right can't be used because the right is supposed to be against government regulation. However the left can be used to sell such regulation as a 'curb on big business' when in reality its meant to help them.
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
Ah Libertarians...
Ugh. Way to prove the point. This is the whole fucking problem with politics today, that it matters more where an idea comes from than whether the idea has merit.
Well not exactly, because Libertarians are a special case. Replace "Libertarians" with "IngoB" to understand my attitude...
Let's just say, after years of engaging with a certain type of person, you know exactly how they'll go wrong and in exactly what ways they'll spout complete nonsense. Libertarians are the IngoBs of the political world: They bask in what they perceive to be their own rigorous and perfect logic, which doubtless would make sense to someone who's had a lobotomy and refrains from testing anything they say against the real world.
Just as IngoB's not your normal religious defender, and is instead super-rational in a utterly bizarre and totally demented way, so too libertarians are not part of the normal political spectrum and have the same type of severe brain malfunction as IngoB.
I never discard ideas out of hand based on their source though. And especially within the mainstream political spectrum itself I definitely listen to all sides. I have however, learned from experience, that the general questions to ask whenever the Right suggests something is "how is that going to make rich people even richer? And which group of poor people will it screw over to achieve that?"
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Don't be naive to think that big business sponsored PR is just happening on the right of the political spectrum.
Certainly in the US corruption has reached even to the left end of the political spectrum, and sure it's an order of magnitude less strong at that end than it is on the right end of the spectrum, but it's still significant. However the US is a lot more corrupt than other Western countries in this regard.
quote:
For example big business is often portrayed as being against government regulation but the reality is it often loves such regulation as those regulations are used to protect it.
Sure, we see that today in the various free-trade agreements. For the most part, protectionist regulations went the way of the Dodo about 30 years ago. But they're being reintroduced today under the rubric of "free trade" agreements, that basically boil down to entrenched multinationals telling the governments of the world (via the thoroughly corrupted US officials) what the multinationals would like the laws to be.
quote:
However how to sell such regulations to the public? Saying that such regulations are designed to be protectionist to certain businesses wouldn't sell well. The right can't be used because the right is supposed to be against government regulation. However the left can be used to sell such regulation as a 'curb on big business' when in reality its meant to help them.
No, they get sold as "free trade agreements", which the left pretty consistently opposes and the right pretty consistently endorses. The current Transpacific Partnership Agreement is a pertinent example.
I can't think of a single recent case that matches the process you describe of the left being misused to create fake-regulation. That's just not really a thing that happens. Instead the right says "trade is good!" and signs an agreement they claim is about trade but which conveniently entrenches into law a combination of every multinational corporation's wet dream.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I had a bit of an illumination on the road to - no, not Damascus, Sarf Lunnon - last night. I have, as most of us here have, been interpreting "left" as the sort of people we are, following those Bible teachings, seeking to maximise well-being. I had forgotten Militant, Rank and File, and certain cadres of the London Wildlife Trust at the time when Nature Conservation was renamed and taken over.
For non-UK people, Militant was a hard-left group seeking to influence Labour into more extreme positions. Rank and File was its sister organisation within the National Union of Teachers. The divisions of the Wildlife lot which were problematical were active in the same boroughs as those which, in the NUT, were hotbeds of R&F, and had some of the same personnel.
These groups were driven by I know not what. They may have claimed to be wanting to maximise well-being for all, I suppose, but they were marked by pride, which led them to believe they were absolutely correct in their beliefs, and that those who opposed them knew that they were correct, and were only opposing them for personal gain. Envy - I'm not sure about. They didn't seem to want much for themselves. Wrath - they certainly got wound up into states at demonstrations, and in speeches when opposing those people who disagreed with them - see above. But they also had a deep ingrained deviousness and cunning, honed in meetings held in pubs before the meetings they planned to disrupt.
If Bibliophile has come across that sort of lefty, I can quite understand his interpretation. He would obviously discount all our careful arguments as being evidence for the deviousness of lefty behaviour. It doesn't make him correct, of course.
Fairness - not a helpful word when dealing with the issue of left/right. Each side uses it, each feels its meaning is obvious. To the right, it means that each person has the right to hold on to what is theirs, regardless of how they obtained it, or how much the guy on the street has.
Something else struck me on the Sarf Circular last night, but I can't remember it now!
I'm still on the left.
[ 12. July 2015, 09:22: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I have to add a disclaimer. The Wildlife Trusts as currently constituted do not have anything dubious going on, and the people involved back in the day have moved to other places. Lovely people now.
[ 12. July 2015, 09:31: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I remember some ghastly left-wing groups, ranting, lack of compassion, dogmatic, totally in their heads. So what? Does that become a generalization about 'the left'? Bad logic.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
There are, and have been, some very nasty groups on the right as well. Anyone come across any nasty groups in the centre? (I'm assuming it's axiomatic that there are nasty and unpleasant individuals in each and every group of people - human nature being what it is)
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
Extremism tends to be unpleasant when viewed from the outside. Extreme evangelicals/Liberals/ACs in the church are unpleasant, but that doesn't mean everyone is the same, or that their take on faith is automatically wrong. Just because WBC and Don Cuppitt both talk garbage doesn't mean that their generic expressions of faith (evangelical and liberal) are wrong, just that an extremist position tends to be, erm, extreme.
So just because both the left and the right wings of politics have had their more hateful extreme views, doesn't mean that either side is definitively wrong. It does mean that, if you see a party moving to the more extreme end, you should be worried.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There are, and have been, some very nasty groups on the right as well. Anyone come across any nasty groups in the centre? (I'm assuming it's axiomatic that there are nasty and unpleasant individuals in each and every group of people - human nature being what it is)
Rather depends where you place the centre, but there's the Conservative and Unionist Party. And, in fairness, the SNP have some fellow travellers who can be a little caustic.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I remember some ghastly left-wing groups, ranting, lack of compassion, dogmatic, totally in their heads. So what? Does that become a generalization about 'the left'? Bad logic.
All I was saying was that if Bibliophile had only come across that sort of group on the left, that would explain his attitude.
And of course there have been horrendous right wing groups.
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
All I was saying was that if Bibliophile had only come across that sort of group on the left, that would explain his attitude.
His various comments on political issues lead me to conclude he's American. America has a batshit insane political media environment in which the right-wing has built for itself a massive media-bubble the likes of which are probably unimaginable to people who haven't followed US politics.
The right-wing media bubble there is truly amazing to behold. Fox News tells outright lies on a daily basis to a viewership largely comprising the under-educated elderly. Conspiracy-theorist frothing-at-the-mouth conservative bloggers fill the online conservative 'news' sites with opinion pieces of quality similar to alien abduction accounts. Any information from outside sources is rejected because it's not "conservative" in origin. That utterly insane media machine convinced a massive number of Americans that the prospect of Obama passing universal healthcare would be the worst thing that ever happened to America (worse than slavery), and was going to utterly and totally destroy America.
So your average non-thinking person in certain parts of America gets over-exposed to the anti-knowledge lobotomizer that is the right-wing media-bubble there, and ends up thinking the sorts of things that Bibliophile thinks: That liberals/left are fundamentally out to destroy America and are motivated by thoroughly evil intentions (pride, envy, wrath etc). You're giving him far too much credit when you assume he's basing that view on his personal experiences of meeting some particularly unusual left-leaning group. His views will be based on what he has been told to believe about the left, which are lies manufactured out of whole cloth by the media there.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
No, they get sold as "free trade agreements", which the left pretty consistently opposes and the right pretty consistently endorses. The current Transpacific Partnership Agreement is a pertinent example.
Its not true to say that the whole of the right supports FTAs and the whole of the left opposes them. In the US the likes of Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul oppose them and in Europe they are opposed by the likes of the Front National and UKIP. The mainstream left Democrat Party in the US and Social Democratic Parties in Europe tend to support them. So its more an issue of mainstream vs non mainstream rather than left vs right.
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
I can't think of a single recent case that matches the process you describe of the left being misused to create fake-regulation. That's just not really a thing that happens. Instead the right says "trade is good!" and signs an agreement they claim is about trade but which conveniently entrenches into law a combination of every multinational corporation's wet dream.
Of course you can't think of any cases. The whole point of propaganda is to trick people, people like you. If you could think of cases then you wouldn't be getting tricked! I know you think you're not getting tricked because you can see through propaganda aimed at the right. Well of course you can, that propaganda isn't aimed at you.
In general the left isn't used to create fake regulation to help big business, its used to create real regulation to help big business. In general any level of regulation will raise costs in a way that disproportionately hurts smaller business, thereby limiting competition for the larger companies. If the regulation can be said to have some kind of environmental or humanitarian benefit that makes it much easier to sell. If it really does have such a benefit so much the better but that isn't essential. There are many many examples of this (see articles here and here ).
One major example is foreign aid. Foreign aid is sold by the left as a way of helping poor people in poor countries. The main purpose however is to give money to friendly governments to buy goods from companies in the donor countries, a kind of double subsidy. If some of the money is spent in ways that are of net benefit to some poor people that's a bonus but isn't essential.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I remember some ghastly left-wing groups, ranting, lack of compassion, dogmatic, totally in their heads. So what? Does that become a generalization about 'the left'? Bad logic.
All I was saying was that if Bibliophile had only come across that sort of group on the left, that would explain his attitude.
And of course there have been horrendous right wing groups.
I think there's more too it than that but I appreciate that there are faults on both sides, so not wanting to get into personal insults about individuals and bearing in mind motes and beams I won't go on with this argument.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Those on the Right are motivated by self interest, those on the Left are motivated by care and concern for others.
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Its not true to say that the whole of the right supports FTAs and the whole of the left opposes them.
That's why I said "the left pretty consistently opposes and the right pretty consistently endorses". The passage of the recent trade-promotion authority bill in the US senate passed with a vote of 90% support from the right, and 70% against from the left. That's pretty typical on this issue. Here in NZ, the major right-wing party have said they support the TPP, the major center-party have been indecisive, and the major left-wing party have opposed it.
quote:
In the US the likes of Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul oppose them and in Europe they are opposed by the likes of the Front National and UKIP.
Those people/groups are all outside of the mainstream and do not represent the majority view within their area of the political spectrum.
quote:
The mainstream left Democrat Party in the US and Social Democratic Parties in Europe tend to support them.
The Democrats in the US Senate voted 70% against them just last month, despite the fact that their own leader was lobbying them to vote for it. You don't get 70% of a party standing against their own leader unless they really do actually have their own clear position on the subject.
quote:
Of course you can't think of any cases. The whole point of propaganda is to trick people, people like you.
The point of propaganda is to trick the casual observer, who doesn't follow politics too closely, or isn't very well educated, or who doesn't get a diversity or opinion and hears only the propaganda, or doesn't dig too far and look into the fact for themselves. ie people not like me.
quote:
If you could think of cases then you wouldn't be getting tricked!
If I could think of cases then it might be because they actually existed. Instead of just being a product of your imagination / propaganda you've swallowed.
quote:
In general any level of regulation will raise costs in a way that disproportionately hurts smaller business, thereby limiting competition for the larger companies. If the regulation can be said to have some kind of environmental or humanitarian benefit that makes it much easier to sell. If it really does have such a benefit so much the better but that isn't essential. There are many many examples of this (see articles here and here ).
And you accuse me of believing propaganda... do you realize your links are to US media sites that are literally funded by the owners of some of the biggest corporations in America who would love for people to believe the sort of stuff they have managed to convince you of? They literally fund entire think-tanks to do nothing but publish this bullshit propaganda all day, everyday, about how terrible it is for the government to regulate large companies. Gee, I wonder why the owners of large companies would fund websites advocating that the government regulate large companies less... I guess they've just got hearts of gold and are concerned about all the little businesses out there that their company is crushing. That must be why they employ people to tell the public how bad it is for the government to regulate their business.
And what of their arguments (not that I have time to debunk every single argument that the dozens of right-wing propaganda think-tanks in the US can produce)? Your first link says:
quote:
The history books say that during the Progressive era, government trustbusters reined in business. Nonsense. Progressive "reforms" -- railroad regulation, meat inspection, drug certification and the rest -- were done at the behest of big companies that wanted competition managed.
Well, cool, so the history books literally say that his view is wrong. But he thinks differently to them. We should believe him over everyone else why exactly? The article provides no reasons.
Now, don't get me wrong: It's certainly theoretically possible to create regulations in a way that are intentionally designed to help big businesses over small ones. But what seems to actually happen in the US, is that a combination of right-wing politicians, lobbyists, and corruption ensure that loopholes are added to existing laws in order to create numerous carefully crafted exemptions that basically attempt to annul the regulation via a process of death by 1000 cuts. In rare cases this might have a side-effect of favoring big businesses over small ones, but that's almost always secondary to the basic goal of undermining the effectiveness of the regulation itself.
And in some sense I do agree with the argument that once the politics has got so completely and utterly corrupted, as America's political system has, almost absolutely everything the government ever does will be the result of that corruption. And at that point, the government doing less potentially sounds appealing... until you realize that the government doing less is exactly what the owners of big businesses who are the ones corrupting the government set out to achieve in the first place. The correct solution is actually decorrupt the government: Get money out of politics and actually have government by the people and for the people instead of the corrupt cesspool of oligarchy that American politics has become. Amend the Constitution to to allow campaign finance reform and abolish corporate personhood, get some public funding of elections, set some strict limits of campaign donations... basically be like every other Western democracy... and you'll find it makes a massive massive difference.
quote:
One major example is foreign aid. Foreign aid is sold by the left as a way of helping poor people in poor countries. The main purpose however is to give money to friendly governments to buy goods from companies in the donor countries, a kind of double subsidy. If some of the money is spent in ways that are of net benefit to some poor people that's a bonus but isn't essential.
Yes, the way the US does foreign aid is thoroughly corrupt through and through. It is done in a way that is good for everyone except the citizens of the country being aided.
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Those on the Right are motivated by self interest, those on the Left are motivated by care and concern for others.
Agreed. But also there is a secondary group on the right who are motivated by care and concern for others but who partially or wholly believe the propaganda of the self-interested group about how their economic theories that conveniently help them are really what is best for everyone.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Asking what motivates the left or the right seems to me to be one of those questions that is essentially meaningless and generates more heat than light.
I 100% disagree. I think it's one of the most important political issues of all.
A lot of people who don't follow politics much tend to assume "well, they're all basically good people right, who just disagree over some complicated stuff that I don't really understand?" This sort of approach wrongly assumes that disagreements between political parties are some sort of arcane intellectual differences over complex issues rather than basic and fundamental differences in values and morals and in particular who is being valued and why.
You seem to have missed my point completely. I never said I differences in values weren't an issue; I said I think it's more fruitful to talk about what motivates people than about what motivates "the left" or "the right"—which concepts may overlap with political parties or may not. As for the terms "the left" or the "the right" ( or "left wing" and "right wing"), in my experience in the U.S., they are regularly used as loaded terms. Any useful purpose they may serve is outweighed by the baggage they carry.
You also seem to have made assumptions, such whether I follow politics. I deal with politics on a daily basis. I do not minimize or dismiss the differences. But I stand by my earlier comments.
Your posts, however, do illustrate well my point about the too-common tendency to dismiss those with whom we disagree as "unthinking" or predictable in how they'll "spout nonsense."
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
You seem to have missed my point completely.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Oh please, I understood your point perfectly well, and disagreed. For example you said:
quote:
I tend to assume that most people on the left, the right and in-between are motivated by what they think will make a better, more just society.
With which I could not disagree more, and I think the key forces on the right are largely motivated by selfishness.
quote:
You also seem to have made assumptions, such whether I follow politics.
No. You're reading far too much into my statements that were not about you.
quote:
Your posts, however, do illustrate well my point about the too-common tendency to dismiss those with whom we disagree as "unthinking" or predictable in how they'll "spout nonsense."
Sure, you draw those generalizations from that totally scientific sample of things one annoyed poster has written within one 24 hour period who's unleashing simply because this is the hell board. I bet that totally validly confirms every single theory you've ever had about anything in your entire life.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Those on the Right are motivated by self interest, those on the Left are motivated by care and concern for others.
Agreed. But also there is a secondary group on the right who are motivated by care and concern for others but who partially or wholly believe the propaganda of the self-interested group about how their economic theories that conveniently help them are really what is best for everyone.
I think this group could be pretty large, to be fair.
The Right often lauds 'market forces'. Well, there are only two market forces - fear and greed.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I remember some ghastly left-wing groups, ranting, lack of compassion, dogmatic, totally in their heads. So what? Does that become a generalization about 'the left'? Bad logic.
All I was saying was that if Bibliophile had only come across that sort of group on the left, that would explain his attitude.
And of course there have been horrendous right wing groups.
Well, I wasn't criticizing you. I am just curious as to how the thread-setter arrives at his generalizations about 'the left'. Has he done much historical and political study? Or was he in a left-wing group(s)?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Those on the Right are motivated by self interest, those on the Left are motivated by care and concern for others.
I've known a lot of left-wing people who struck me as total narcissists, and full of hubris, there are quite a lot in the Labour Party. Yes, there are also some who have concern, but I just think these generalizations are wonky.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
Yes, as a teenager during the Thatcher period I thought I knew who the enemy were, so it was an eye-opener for me the first time I was savaged by Guardian-toting social workers.
In professional politics I would say (but stand to be corrected) that of those good-old eight thoughts, Vanity, Pride and Greed probably find the most fertile soil in foetid little corners of the psyche, to get going.
I think Labour and Tory versions smell different and yield different fruit...but just like there's only 12 notes, folks, there's only 8 thoughts. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I notice that Labour are currently supporting Osborne's benefit cap, and the two-child limit to tax credits. Yes, very caring, these lefties.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Its not true to say that the whole of the right supports FTAs and the whole of the left opposes them.
That's why I said "the left pretty consistently opposes and the right pretty consistently endorses". The passage of the recent trade-promotion authority bill in the US senate passed with a vote of 90% support from the right, and 70% against from the left. That's pretty typical on this issue.
However the bill did pass with the support of the key Democrat, the President. Just because some Dem senators were allowed to make a stand for appearance sake doesn't mean the Democratic party doesn't support TPP or TTIP. I'm sure that more Democrats would have voted in favour if their votes had actually been needed. The European Parliament had a vote on TTIP this week and most Social Democrats voted in favour.
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
Here in NZ the major left-wing party have opposed [TTP].
I looked at the Labour Party website and thy seem pretty ambiguous about TTP. If you're referring to the Greens I would remind you of what you said about parties that are "outside the mainstream and do not represent the majority view within their area of the political spectrum"
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
Of course you can't think of any cases. The whole point of propaganda is to trick people, people like you.
The point of propaganda is to trick the casual observer, who doesn't follow politics too closely, or isn't very well educated, or who doesn't get a diversity or opinion and hears only the propaganda, or doesn't dig too far and look into the fact for themselves. ie people not like me.
Why on earth do you think that the Government/corporate establishment would only aim propaganda at that segment of the population. Why wouldn't it use multiple layers of propaganda to try to trick people like you who follow news and views much more closely. Do you have any idea how clueless the statement you made there is?
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
Gee, I wonder why the owners of large companies would fund websites advocating that the government regulate large companies less
And why would owners of large companies give money to 'Democracy Now'? Sometimes they will need propaganda from different parts of the political spectrum. Big companies may borrow libertarian arguments for specific purposes sometimes but in general they don't like libertarianism. Much more money is spent on direct lobbying for regulations that suit them, not for general deregulation.
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
Now, don't get me wrong: It's certainly theoretically possible to create regulations in a way that are intentionally designed to help big businesses over small ones.
Well then why don't you think they'd do it? You think that these very smart people very rich people would only get a system that suits them by accident? In many cases it wouldn't be too difficult. Economies of scale will mean that many regulations will be more burdonsome for small businesses than for big.
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
Yes, the way the US does foreign aid is thoroughly corrupt through and through. It is done in a way that is good for everyone except the citizens of the country being aided.
Doesn't that give you a clue to the real purpose of foreign aid?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Those on the Right are motivated by self interest, those on the Left are motivated by care and concern for others.
I've known a lot of left-wing people who struck me as total narcissists, and full of hubris, there are quite a lot in the Labour Party. Yes, there are also some who have concern, but I just think these generalizations are wonky.
Yes, of course they are.
But, to be honest, it's my gut feeling that there is far more self interest in the money making business world/ moneyed/ well off right wing of politics than the left. But we don't have a left wing party to vote for in England anyway. When will the SNP, or her offspring, come down here for us?
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
But we don't have a left wing party to vote for in England anyway.
You've got the Labour Party to vote for. If you don't think a center left dominated party is left wing enough for you there's always the Greens on the far left.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Those on the Right are motivated by self interest, those on the Left are motivated by care and concern for others.
What passes for the left these days is pretty much those who think "radical" is putting full fat milk into a skinny latte.
Sadly - with a few honourable exceptions - the "left" sold out with Blair.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Boogie, well, OK, you can define the Labour Party as not left, I guess. I think it has been full of people out for themselves. But this illustrates the problem with such a title - as soon as we find an exception to an apparent rule, (the left are compassionate), we can invoke the No True Scotsman, or in this case, No True Left-winger. So X isn't really left-wing as he a cold callous bastard.
[ 12. July 2015, 14:09: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
But we don't have a left wing party to vote for in England anyway.
You've got the Labour Party to vote for. If you don't think a center left dominated party is left wing enough for you there's always the Greens on the far left.
I would call Labour centre-right, or alternatively, neo-liberal.
[ 12. July 2015, 14:12: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
But we don't have a left wing party to vote for in England anyway.
You've got the Labour Party to vote for. If you don't think a center left dominated party is left wing enough for you there's always the Greens on the far left.
I would call Labour centre-right, or alternatively, neo-liberal.
In terms of English politics I would say
Greens - Hard Left to left
Labour - Center left to left
Liberal Democrats - Center left to center right
Conservatives - Center Right to Right
UKIP - Right to hard right.
If you think that's out of balance I would point out that the Conservatives and UKIP got 55% of the English vote between them at the recent election.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
But we don't have a left wing party to vote for in England anyway.
You've got the Labour Party to vote for. If you don't think a center left dominated party is left wing enough for you there's always the Greens on the far left.
I would call Labour centre-right, or alternatively, neo-liberal.
In terms of English politics I would say
Greens - Hard Left to left
Labour - Center left to left
Liberal Democrats - Center left to center right
Conservatives - Center Right to Right
UKIP - Right to hard right.
If you think that's out of balance I would point out that the Conservatives and UKIP got 55% of the English vote between them at the recent election.
I don't understand what you mean by 'left' then. Labour support a benefit cap, a ban on tax credits for more than two kids, they support private firms in the NHS, they started PFIs (private finance initiatives), deregulation of banks, outsourcing, privatisation, and so on. How is this left?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Labour support a benefit cap, a ban on tax credits for more than two kids, they support private firms in the NHS, they started PFIs (private finance initiatives), deregulation of banks, outsourcing, privatisation, and so on. How is this left?
It isn't.
They continued where Thatcher left off. I remember well the elation in 1997, followed very quickly by the let-down of 'more of the same'.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
I think you're being a little harsh in retrospect. I remember something the Blessed ken once said on these boards to the effect that 'Tony Blair led one of the great reforming governments of the twentieth century ' (emphasis added but implied in the original). But then they lost it.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
Sorry Boogie, that's not quite right.
Thatcher moved the Conservatives right. New Labour moved to fill the moderate tight vacuum where Conservatism used to be under Heath.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I think you're being a little harsh in retrospect. I remember something the Blessed ken once said on these boards to the effect that 'Tony Blair led one of the great reforming governments of the twentieth century ' (emphasis added but implied in the original). But then they lost it.
What were these reforms? A lot of Tory measures which are now criticized, were actually started by Labour, e.g. outsourcing in the NHS, academy schools, private prisons, etc. Blair is Thatcher-lite, surely? I think Labour have now just given up. In fact, on benefits, I think in the election Labour were boasting that they would be tougher than the Tories.
[ 12. July 2015, 15:09: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
New Labour under Blair/Brown endorsed market economics. Just how left wing is that?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Isn't this partly what led to the debacle (for Labour) in Scotland? In England, why bother voting Tory-lite, when you can have the real thing?
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
But we don't have a left wing party to vote for in England anyway.
You've got the Labour Party to vote for. If you don't think a center left dominated party is left wing enough for you there's always the Greens on the far left.
I would call Labour centre-right, or alternatively, neo-liberal.
In terms of English politics I would say
Greens - Hard Left to left
Labour - Center left to left
Liberal Democrats - Center left to center right
Conservatives - Center Right to Right
UKIP - Right to hard right.
If you think that's out of balance I would point out that the Conservatives and UKIP got 55% of the English vote between them at the recent election.
I don't understand what you mean by 'left' then. Labour support a benefit cap, a ban on tax credits for more than two kids, they support private firms in the NHS, they started PFIs (private finance initiatives), deregulation of banks, outsourcing, privatisation, and so on. How is this left?
OK then lets go through a few of Labour's left wing policies whilst in office 1997-2010.
Introducing the minimum wage
Introducing Tax credits
School Standards and Framework Act 1998
Equalities Act 2010
Scottish and Welsh devolution
and so on
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Well, the Tories have enhanced the minimum wage, now called the living wage; tax credits help low-wage employers by a subsidy; I don't see how devolution is left-wing.
If you are saying that on the basis of that, that Labour is left-wing, I would steer clear of studying politics or history, if I were you, or you will have David Cameron down as a left-wing extremist.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, the Tories have enhanced the minimum wage, now called the living wage;
Well just like centre left governments have some right wing policies centre right ones sometimes have some left wing policies, such as that one. More typical is when they don't support the introduction of left wing policies (e.g. School Standards and Framework Act 1998 Equalities Act 2010) but then do nothing to repeal them once in office.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
tax credits help low-wage employers by a subsidy;
And? Doesn't stop it being a left wing policy
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't see how devolution is left-wing.
In the UK nationalism is considered left wing and unionism is considered right wing. Devolution is a pro nationalist policy.
[ 12. July 2015, 16:06: Message edited by: Bibliophile ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Bibliophile is clearly auditioning for the position of UK political correspondence for Fox News.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
In the UK nationalism is considered left wing and unionism is considered right wing.
Except in the south.
(Hint: UKIP are English nationalists)
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
But surely, Bibliophile has declared by fiat that it is so, and so it shall be so. Labour are left-wing, and probably the NHS is the purest form of Bolshevik tyranny, amen, for ever and for ever, unto the seventh generation.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
In the UK nationalism is considered left wing and unionism is considered right wing. Devolution is a pro nationalist policy.
To take nationalism, in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales it is very much left-of-centre, eg the SNP, Sinn Fein and Plaid Cymru. In England it is right wing as in the BNP and UKIP. One has to remember that UKIP's appeal in England differs from the line it peddles less successfully in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
In the UK nationalism is considered left wing and unionism is considered right wing.
Except in the south.
Yep. Scottish, Welsh and Irish nationalism are considered left wing. English nationalism is considered right wing. Unionism is also considered right wing. Labour in office had devolution for Wales and Scotland, power sharing for Northern Ireland and no devolution for England. So that's consistently left wing on all fronts.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
In the UK nationalism is considered left wing and unionism is considered right wing.
Except in the south.
Yep. Scottish, Welsh and Irish nationalism are considered left wing. English nationalism is considered right wing. Unionism is also considered right wing. Labour in office had devolution for Wales and Scotland, power sharing for Northern Ireland and no devolution for England. So that's consistently left wing on all fronts.
Oh for Pete's sake, Labour hasn't been left-wing, even comparatively, since the days of Michael Foot, when it wasn't even in government. No left-wing government would have joined in Gulf II. It would have been treated in the same way as LBJ's pleas that the UK got involved in Vietnam.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
In the UK nationalism is considered left wing and unionism is considered right wing.
Except in the south.
Yep. Scottish, Welsh and Irish nationalism are considered left wing. English nationalism is considered right wing. Unionism is also considered right wing. Labour in office had devolution for Wales and Scotland, power sharing for Northern Ireland and no devolution for England. So that's consistently left wing on all fronts.
But of course. I grew up in Northern Ireland, with a ringside seat from which to observe the Stormont administration, the DUP, UUP, SDLP, Sinn Fein, the IRA, Provisional IRA, INLA, UVF, UDA, UFF et al. (Wisely) moving to Scotland I was eventually part of the team tasked with setting up the Scottish Parliament. As well as being for some decades an activist in my Party of choice. What could I possibly know about the nitty-gritty of regional politics in Britain in the last 40 years compared to you?
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
In the UK nationalism is considered left wing and unionism is considered right wing.
Except in the south.
Yep. Scottish, Welsh and Irish nationalism are considered left wing. English nationalism is considered right wing. Unionism is also considered right wing. Labour in office had devolution for Wales and Scotland, power sharing for Northern Ireland and no devolution for England. So that's consistently left wing on all fronts.
There's a perfectly simple and rational explanation for this. Devolution has supported self-determination for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. There is no evidence that the Westminster parliament has significantly prevented self-determination for the English. The weight of population in favour of England within the UK makes sure of this.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
In the UK nationalism is considered left wing and unionism is considered right wing.
Except in the south.
Yep. Scottish, Welsh and Irish nationalism are considered left wing. English nationalism is considered right wing. Unionism is also considered right wing. Labour in office had devolution for Wales and Scotland, power sharing for Northern Ireland and no devolution for England. So that's consistently left wing on all fronts.
But of course. I grew up in Northern Ireland, with a ringside seat from which to observe the Stormont administration, the DUP, UUP, SDLP, Sinn Fein, the IRA, Provisional IRA, INLA, UVF, UDA, UFF et al. (Wisely) moving to Scotland I was eventually part of the team tasked with setting up the Scottish Parliament. As well as being for some decades an activist in my Party of choice. What could I possibly know about the nitty-gritty of regional politics in Britain in the last 40 years compared to you?
well you just said that English nationalism isn't considered left wing and I just agreed with you. Did you think I was saying you were wrong?
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
I was endeavouring to indicate that you know so little about the actuality of what you pontificate about, that whether you 'agree' with me or anyone has as much meaning as our cat agreeing with the Special Theory of Relativity.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
I was endeavouring to indicate that you know so little about the actuality of what you pontificate about, that whether you 'agree' with me or anyone has as much meaning as our cat agreeing with the Special Theory of Relativity.
LOL. So you're saying that you wanted to make a point about disagreeing with me, so when I agreed with you you found a way of saying that you disagreed with me agreeing with you.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Clearly your knowledge of politics is not exceeded by your reading comprehension abilities.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
Your posts, however, do illustrate well my point about the too-common tendency to dismiss those with whom we disagree as "unthinking" or predictable in how they'll "spout nonsense."
Sure, you draw those generalizations from that totally scientific sample of things one annoyed poster has written within one 24 hour period who's unleashing simply because this is the hell board. I bet that totally validly confirms every single theory you've ever had about anything in your entire life.
Oh please, yourself. You'd lose the bet.
[ 12. July 2015, 17:52: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Clearly your knowledge of politics is not exceeded by your reading comprehension abilities.
My reading comprehension is just fine. Firenze said English nationaism is not considered left wing. I said 'yep I agree', she replied 'I know far more about it than you' ie criticising me for agreeing with her. I find that amusing.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
God and Mary.
Ah well, better and more patient folk than I have and continue to point out your callowness, folly, conceit and stupidity. Having no immediate need of a headache, I will leave them to it.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
God and Mary.
Ah well, better and more patient folk than I have and continue to point out your callowness, folly, conceit and stupidity. Having no immediate need of a headache, I will leave them to it.
Do you think that there's sometimes a connection between someone being a nationalist and having a chip on their shoulder?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Seriously, people? Left and right and center and all are human, and have human motivations good and bad. None of us are the devil incarnate. Get over it.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
But we don't have a left wing party to vote for in England anyway.
You've got the Labour Party to vote for. If you don't think a center left dominated party is left wing enough for you there's always the Greens on the far left.
It's just been pointed out that they're actually supporting Osborne's kicking the poor in the bollocks. What makes you think we lefties think of Labour as being in the slightest left wing? Haven't been for years. Labour is centre right at most. Totally sold out to free market capitalism.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Seriously, people? Left and right and center and all are human, and have human motivations good and bad. None of us are the devil incarnate. Get over it.
Some people are more human than others.
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on
:
Boogie is right. Some of what is spouted by the hard right is less than humane.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Seriously, people? Left and right and center and all are human, and have human motivations good and bad. None of us are the devil incarnate. Get over it.
Fair comment. I was annoyed with one poster suggesting that leftism is motivated by pure good motives so I brought up the various bad motives that are there. However that's not the whole story either and on reflection its not the best subject for finger pointing as you say.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Seriously, people? Left and right and center and all are human, and have human motivations good and bad. None of us are the devil incarnate. Get over it.
Really? Devil incarnate is pushing it, but that bastard Osborne has impoverished people I care about who've not got much by around 1-3 grand a year by this budget. Meanwhile he's cut the tax for people who are not struggling. Devil incarnate, no, evil? Hard to say, but I find it hard to see people struggling made to struggle a whole lot more and call it "good".
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
Boogie is right. Some of what is spouted by the hard right is less than humane.
It isn't the "right" that is inhumane, but the "hard". There are hard-left governments and governments that can't be termed left or right that enforce some hard and/or inhumane policies, backed by a battery of lies.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
But we don't have a left wing party to vote for in England anyway.
You've got the Labour Party to vote for. If you don't think a center left dominated party is left wing enough for you there's always the Greens on the far left.
It's just been pointed out that they're actually supporting Osborne's kicking the poor in the bollocks. What makes you think we lefties think of Labour as being in the slightest left wing? Haven't been for years. Labour is centre right at most. Totally sold out to free market capitalism.
Yes I know there are lefties who think Labour are centre right. There are also UKIP supporters who think that the Conservative Party is centre left. Its a matter of perspective. At this years UK election UKIP Conservative Liberal Democrat
and Labour got nearly 90% of the vote between them so if you're placing the centre to the left of that you're placing it quite far to the left.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
You're assuming that people are no more left wing than the party they voted for. I know I and a lot of other left wingers held our noses and voted Labour - in my case the sitting MP is Denis Skinner, the Beast of Bolsover, who actually is left wing. There was no Green candidate, and anyway a lot of us naively thought that Labour was at least a better sort of Tory than the actual Tory party itself. Now we're given to wonder.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You're assuming that people are no more left wing than the party they voted for. I know I and a lot of other left wingers held our noses and voted Labour - in my case the sitting MP is Denis Skinner, the Beast of Bolsover, who actually is left wing. There was no Green candidate, and anyway a lot of us naively thought that Labour was at least a better sort of Tory than the actual Tory party itself. Now we're given to wonder.
That will be a chunk of Labour voters but it won't be a majority. You'd still be left with placing over 3/4 of UK voters on the right.
As for wanting Labour to be more left wing than it is perhaps you could provide me with a list of all the Labour Party leaders of the last 40 years who have actually won a general election.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
Boogie is right. Some of what is spouted by the hard right is less than humane.
I'd say this of the hard any-direction.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You're assuming that people are no more left wing than the party they voted for. I know I and a lot of other left wingers held our noses and voted Labour - in my case the sitting MP is Denis Skinner, the Beast of Bolsover, who actually is left wing. There was no Green candidate, and anyway a lot of us naively thought that Labour was at least a better sort of Tory than the actual Tory party itself. Now we're given to wonder.
That will be a chunk of Labour voters but it won't be a majority. You'd still be left with placing over 3/4 of UK voters on the right.
As for wanting Labour to be more left wing than it is perhaps you could provide me with a list of all the Labour Party leaders of the last 40 years who have actually won a general election.
I don't pretend that the left is in the centre. I fully expect that 75% of UK voters are to the right of the centre-left. It rather makes sense, doesn't it? That is what we on the left should work to change - we need to sell left-wing ideas and policies, not abandon them in order to get people to vote Labour. We've already got one Tory party, God have mercy on us. The last thing we need is another one to screw us over.
I don't want Labour to be more left wing to win elections. I want it to be more left wing because I believe in left wing politics and want a party I can vote for. The role of the Labour party, a true left wing one, would be to win the war of ideas and persuade people to vote for a truly left wing party, rather than be Tory-lite just to get in power.
And Greens - far left? I missed that before, but for goodness' sake - have you any idea what real far left is?
Last thought on Libertarianism, speaking of the (real) far left - I consider it to be the opposite to Communism. Like Communism, it looks plausible on paper, even attractive in some ways, but in reality, when you add people and all their messiness into it, it simply doesn't, and can't, work.
[ 12. July 2015, 22:17: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Seriously, people? Left and right and center and all are human, and have human motivations good and bad. None of us are the devil incarnate. Get over it.
Some people are more human than others.
Damn, I miss Erin. The reek of self-righteousness that hangs around this thread is ghastly. And it's coming from multiple directions.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Seriously, people? Left and right and center and all are human, and have human motivations good and bad. None of us are the devil incarnate. Get over it.
Some people are more human than others.
Damn, I miss Erin. The reek of self-righteousness that hangs around this thread is ghastly. And it's coming from multiple directions.
Well to you and anyone else offended by my own self-righteousness I am sorry. To respond to self-righteousness with self-righteousness of my own is an example of hypocritical judgement, which we are warned not to do.
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Just because some Dem senators were allowed to make a stand for appearance sake doesn't mean the Democratic party doesn't support TPP or TTIP. I'm sure that more Democrats would have voted in favour if their votes had actually been needed.
For fuck's sake, your conspiracy theories are ridiculously half-baked. 70% of Democrats vote against something and your theory is that really they support it.
Try actually paying attention to reality and basing your views on evidence.
quote:
I looked at the Labour Party website and thy seem pretty ambiguous about TTP. If you're referring to the Greens I would remind you of what you said about parties that are "outside the mainstream and do not represent the majority view within their area of the political spectrum"
Of the ~7 parties here, the 3 main ones are National (right-wing), Labour (centrist), and the Greens (left-wing). With all the other parties there is uncertainty every election over whether those parties will successfully get any MPs into parliament or not.
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
And Greens - far left? I missed that before, but for goodness' sake - have you any idea what real far left is?
Of course he doesn't. As Alan brilliantly pointed out: "Bibliophile is clearly auditioning for the position of UK political correspondence for Fox News." In the minds of a lot of people in the US, there's very little distance in the political spectrum between giving the poor a few food stamps and full-on communism. A lot of the population really believes (probably Bibliophile included) that universal healthcare is basically communism.
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
Since we've got a lot of thoughtful left-leaning people in this thread, who have been lamenting the right-shift of Labour etc, I have a question:
Do you foresee a future leftward movement in the political spectrum? Or are we doomed to be stuck with a choice of political variations of right-wing parties, with 'centrist' governments being the most left-wing we can ever hope for, and with just token left-wing parties existing to appease the few remaining 'radicals'?
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Just because some Dem senators were allowed to make a stand for appearance sake doesn't mean the Democratic party doesn't support TPP or TTIP. I'm sure that more Democrats would have voted in favour if their votes had actually been needed.
For fuck's sake, your conspiracy theories are ridiculously half-baked. 70% of Democrats vote against something and your theory is that really they support it.
I'm sure many of them have no real strong principles on this (or anything else). 'Taking a principled stand' on issues like this when they know their votes aren't needed isn't any kind of 'conspiracy theory'. Its just a normal part of mainstream politics
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
I looked at the Labour Party website and thy seem pretty ambiguous about TTP. If you're referring to the Greens I would remind you of what you said about parties that are "outside the mainstream and do not represent the majority view within their area of the political spectrum"
Of the ~7 parties here, the 3 main ones are National (right-wing), Labour (centrist), and the Greens (left-wing). With all the other parties there is uncertainty every election over whether those parties will successfully get any MPs into parliament or not.
I had a look at recent NZ election results. The Greens were in third place (for the third time) but they only got a slightly higher percentage of the vote than New Zealand First. There is still a big gap between them and Labour, Labour is clearly still the dominant party on the left of New Zealand politics. The 10 or so percent the Greens got is less than UKIP got in the last UK election and less than the Front National got in the first rounds of the last set of French National elections. So if you're going to say that opposition to FTAs from those parties doesn't represent the right because they are "outside the mainstream and do not represent the majority view within their area of the political spectrum" then exactly the same is true of parties like the Greens on the left.
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I'm sure many of them have no real strong principles on this (or anything else).
quote:
I had a look at recent NZ election results.
The recent NZ election was unusual and featured quite a number of last-minute personality-based issues, and as a result the vote went unexpectedly strongly to the right. I wouldn't recommend looking at the results of the most recent election as a good beginner's guide to NZ politics.
quote:
The Greens were in third place (for the third time) but they only got a slightly higher percentage of the vote than New Zealand First.
Yes, the vote swung heavily to the right and the Greens did much worse than expected. And NZ First, which is a minor party based around its charismatic leader who excels at exploiting scandals, was 50/50 on whether it would get any MPs in the polling before the election, but due to some last-minute scandals the leader successfully muck-raked his way to quite a successful election for his party.
quote:
Labour is clearly still the dominant party on the left of New Zealand politics.
Calling New Zealand Labour "left" is a matter of opinion, and exactly like the situation in the UK with Labour there. Calling it "center" is truer. The Labour parties in both countries were historically left-wing, but have generally both embraced neo-liberalism and free-market reforms to such an extent that they are no longer the 'left' party of either country, unless you mean "the most left of the two largest parties".
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
Starlight, in my opinion your post is an accurate description if what happened in the last election here and where Labour now stands. I only gave my electorate vote to Labour because our MP works well in the electorate, but she is retiring at the end of this term, so I am not sure who I will vote for,
I wish the McGillicuddy Serious Party* was still in existence .
*MSP was one of those parties that put the Party back in elections. Their one policy I remember was the Great Leap Backwards.
Huia
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Seriously, people? Left and right and center and all are human, and have human motivations good and bad. None of us are the devil incarnate. Get over it.
Really? Devil incarnate is pushing it, but that bastard Osborne has impoverished people I care about who've not got much by around 1-3 grand a year by this budget. Meanwhile he's cut the tax for people who are not struggling. Devil incarnate, no, evil? Hard to say, but I find it hard to see people struggling made to struggle a whole lot more and call it "good".
I think I would go so far as to say that Osborne might be evil. There's a cyncial callousness and a willing to disregard the effects on others in order to secure his own ends, which does have- I mean this absolutely seriously- a whiff of brimstone about it.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
Do you foresee a future leftward movement in the political spectrum? Or are we doomed to be stuck with a choice of political variations of right-wing parties, with 'centrist' governments being the most left-wing we can ever hope for, and with just token left-wing parties existing to appease the few remaining 'radicals'?
I would like to see the Greens organise themselves better and get a leader who is votable for.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
Since we've got a lot of thoughtful left-leaning people in this thread, who have been lamenting the right-shift of Labour etc, I have a question:
Do you foresee a future leftward movement in the political spectrum? Or are we doomed to be stuck with a choice of political variations of right-wing parties, with 'centrist' governments being the most left-wing we can ever hope for, and with just token left-wing parties existing to appease the few remaining 'radicals'?
I think there will be increasing anti-austerity protests and anti-poverty campaigns. This may affect the Labour party to an extent, but I see it as a centre right party now. I doubt if this will change.
Let's face it, England is a conservative place. I envy the Scots, at least there are some political shifts going on there, although who knows how that will pan out.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
I think there is a political vacuum in England, with little in the way of genuine left-leaning parties, excluding the various far-left fringe groups. The LibDems are, on most issues, further left than Labour but need to regain a lot of credibility after failing to moderate the Tories while in coalition. The Greens are also to the left on most issues, but need to make gains in presenting the whole of their policies to the public, as they are so often seen as a single issue party. It is always possible that the left-leaning parts of the Labour party (which, in many places, are much stronger than the represented in the national leadership) might manage to pull the party back towards the left - or splinter off and form a new party. I do think that the dominance of parties positioned towards the right on many issues in Westmonster is an anomaly that doesn't actually represent the views of the majority of the population.
Which, of course, raises an interesting question of why the representatives of English voters aren't representative of English voters.
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
Shock! Bibliophile is actually right about something! That it’s a matter of perspective. Unfortunately he’s missing some of the major ramifications thereof.
So - meh. The UK Labour party are a centre party at most.
For some genuine leftiness you need to come to mainland Europe. Our President is from a party called the Socialists, which is not a dirty word here, and actually has proper socialist policies like making us pay eye-watering amounts of tax. (I reckon he’s out on his ear next election, but that’s by the by and mostly a comment on François Hollande’s utter lack of personality and failure to noticeably do anything for the last three years rather than on Socialism per se. BTW, have you ever noticed how much François Hollande looks like a sloth?)
We have also a bona fide Communist party and people actually vote for it.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Shock! Bibliophile is actually right about something! That it’s a matter of perspective. Unfortunately he’s missing some of the major ramifications thereof.
It's not just perspective. He's also missing, for want of a better word, the dimensionality of politics. In the UK at least, the terms "left" and "right" apply to a range of issues - and in very few cases would a party be either left or right on all of them. Which basically means there isn't a valid sense in which you can refer to "the left" or "the right" in anything other than the most general sense, and that general sense is going to almost always fail in any particular example.
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
Do you foresee a future leftward movement in the political spectrum? Or are we doomed to be stuck with a choice of political variations of right-wing parties, with 'centrist' governments being the most left-wing we can ever hope for, and with just token left-wing parties existing to appease the few remaining 'radicals'?
As an evangelical whose politics are definitely of the 'soft leftie' variety, and who is pro-welfare state, I'm very worried about the current political situation in the UK, especially given Labour's craven cowardice in not tackling the Tories over their plans to turn Britain back to the Downton Abbey era. The level of cheer-leading in our right-wing media is genuinely horrifying to me. Of course the media will have its biases, absolutely everybody has a bias, but this degree of sycophancy in the national media is anti-democratic. You need a credible opposition to provide checks and balances.
I'm not a fan of the hard Left though, and don't trust them for solutions. Somebody needs to name me a hard Left party, past or present, that is actually good with finances. The track record is not ... good.
I still think that the Scandinavian model is about as good as it gets.
But, yeah ... I'm not feeling optimistic. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
The present UK government is THE most anti-Christian one we've ever had, because of their merciless war on the poor. Good job the churches are stepping up to the plate on the food-bank front, eh?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The LibDems are, on most issues, further left than Labour but need to regain a lot of credibility after failing to moderate the Tories while in coalition.
After Osborne's latest budget I don't think we can doubt that the LibDems moderated the Tories considerably. We'll see more evidence of this over the next few years.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
The left in the Netherlands is a bit of a mixed bag. The Partij van de Arbeid ("Party for Labour") is just about as neo-liberalist as British Labour, I also consider them centre-right.
I normally vote GroenLinks ("GreenLeft") in the national elections. My image of them is that I agree with many of their ideals, but they have been rather incompetent all around. They have a new front man, Jesse Klaver, that everyone is rather excited about. We'll see if he'll be able to make a difference.
The Socialistische Partij is making some headwaves, but in spite of good election results, the other parties have still been successful in keeping them out of government. I had some concerns on their earlier leader, Jan Marijnissen, who seemed to rule the party with an iron hand, but things seem to have improved since then.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
There's a cyncial callousness and a willing to disregard the effects on others in order to secure his own ends...
...that is shared by virtually every political party in history, be they of the left, the centre or the right.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
Do you foresee a future leftward movement in the political spectrum? Or are we doomed to be stuck with a choice of political variations of right-wing parties, with 'centrist' governments being the most left-wing we can ever hope for, and with just token left-wing parties existing to appease the few remaining 'radicals'?
I would like to see the Greens organise themselves better and get a leader who is votable for.
One of their policies is the abolition of the armed forces. Will people note for that in today's volatile climate?
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
There's a cyncial callousness and a willing to disregard the effects on others in order to secure his own ends...
...that is shared by virtually every political party in history, be they of the left, the centre or the right.
No. Actually I think that very few parties, and no mainstream party in this country, consistently and insitutionally displays these traits. Note that it is of Mr Osborne specifically, rather than his party, that I am speaking. I do not rule out the possibility that there may be others, in any party, who might behave in the same way. But there are very many in all parties who would not.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
Do you foresee a future leftward movement in the political spectrum? Or are we doomed to be stuck with a choice of political variations of right-wing parties, with 'centrist' governments being the most left-wing we can ever hope for, and with just token left-wing parties existing to appease the few remaining 'radicals'?
I would like to see the Greens organise themselves better and get a leader who is votable for.
One of their policies is the abolition of the armed forces. Will people note for that in today's volatile climate?
The Tory plan is no better. It emphasizes procurement of shiny kit (Trident replacement, F-35s and the aircraft carriers sans aircraft) at the expense of operational troops such that on-the-ground operations become impossible and sailors get moved from ship-to-ship with minimal leave in between. Couple that with worsening pay and conditions and is it a surprise that experienced personnel leave as soon as an opportunity presents itself?
If the Tory policy is designed to do anything it appears to be to give taxpayers money to major defence contractors.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If the Tory policy is designed to do anything it appears to be to give taxpayers money to major defence contractors.
Since Tory policy seems to be almost entirely to give taxpayers money to bankers, and other of their chums, this should not be a surprise.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
Do you foresee a future leftward movement in the political spectrum? Or are we doomed to be stuck with a choice of political variations of right-wing parties, with 'centrist' governments being the most left-wing we can ever hope for, and with just token left-wing parties existing to appease the few remaining 'radicals'?
I would like to see the Greens organise themselves better and get a leader who is votable for.
One of their policies is the abolition of the armed forces. Will people note for that in today's volatile climate?
The Tory plan is no better. It emphasizes procurement of shiny kit (Trident replacement, F-35s and the aircraft carriers sans aircraft) at the expense of operational troops such that on-the-ground operations become impossible and sailors get moved from ship-to-ship with minimal leave in between. Couple that with worsening pay and conditions and is it a surprise that experienced personnel leave as soon as an opportunity presents itself?
If the Tory policy is designed to do anything it appears to be to give taxpayers money to major defence contractors.
Just a small point of order, from one who doesn't work for a major defence contractor but who did once go down to the sea in ships to do my business in great waters, the F35s *are* the aircraft for the aircraft carriers, so unless you're suggesting that they should be built into the deck or something I think you need to modify that to aircraft carriers comme aircraft.
I don't disagree with your analysis that people are voting with their feet (after all, I did) but ironically I think you've got it a*se about face.
We've just been through an utterly abnormal period of landlocked land war (which has happened precisely not-remotely-often before this in UK military history) where the RAF and RN (RN in particular) have been beggared precisely to focus all the spending on the operational troops.
Consequently, we're now in a period where this is being rebalanced and that noise you can hear from the vicinity of Whitehall is the sound of an army which has been spared most of the cost cutting since 2001 bleating that it's now being judged on it's deeply unimpressive performance* since 2003 and having its cloth cut accordingly.**
*At a strategic rather than operational level, for the most part. Although not entirely.
**Apparently this is going to be the first defence review in living memory where the RN and RAF trounce the army. Allegedly, when the services were asked for strategic plans of what they existed to do, and therefore what they needed in order to do them in the 21st century, the RN and RAF had already done their thinking and replied with copious closely argued staffwork. The army hadn't, didn't, and apparently still hasn't.... If you believe the gossip doing the rounds on Arrse.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If the Tory policy is designed to do anything it appears to be to give taxpayers money to major defence contractors.
Since Tory policy seems to be almost entirely to give taxpayers money to bankers, and other of their chums, this should not be a surprise.
I was always led to believe the defence industrial base tends to do better under Labour because it's mass manufacturing in often deprived areas. Particularly given the MoD's preference for buying British. The Tories on the other hand find it easier to cut defence than Labour because they expect to get most of the uniform votes regardless and defence manufacturing happens in safe Red seats anyway.
[ 13. July 2015, 12:10: Message edited by: betjemaniac ]
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If the Tory policy is designed to do anything it appears to be to give taxpayers money to major defence contractors.
The US seems to have exactly the same problem. And they go one step further - their defence contractor lobbyists are constantly encouraging them to go to war. So you get US politicians variously trying to sabotage peace efforts, advocating for invading all sorts of countries, and literally advocating for never-ending war.
Corruption that means funneling tax-payer money into private industry like the right aims to do is one thing, but actually actively looking to foment war in order to do so is a whole other level of wrong.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
Betjemaniac, you are quite right that some the F-35s are intended to go to sea, but the decision about the kind of F-35 was changed (twice I believe) and hence a good deal of redesign, delay and additional expenditure has taken place regarding the "bomb magnets".
I suppose with two of them we might manage to put one to sea, with a full support group, some of the time.
And as far as the Army is concerned the number "on the ground" has only been maintained by use of reservists in place of regulars.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If the Tory policy is designed to do anything it appears to be to give taxpayers money to major defence contractors.
The US seems to have exactly the same problem. And they go one step further - their defence contractor lobbyists are constantly encouraging them to go to war. So you get US politicians variously trying to sabotage peace efforts, advocating for invading all sorts of countries, and literally advocating for never-ending war.
Corruption that means funneling tax-payer money into private industry like the right aims to do is one thing, but actually actively looking to foment war in order to do so is a whole other level of wrong.
I can't speak for the US, but the situation in the UK is more complicated than that. Almost all defence manufacturing has historically been in safe Labour seats (although some of them went blue the other month).
Labour certainly has a strand that would advocate disarmament and turning them into ploughshare factories, but they have another one that wants to stand up for the working man and keep people in work.
Given that all sales from the industry go to the government (or friendly foreign governments) and there's pretty well only one UK armaments company of any scale left, they're essentially a self-running part of the public sector, providing 1950s style unionised mass employment.
Basically, the profits may well go to the corporate oligarchy, but it becomes a vested interest of the UK left to keep the plants open and manufacturing. If it weren't crude (and inaccurate given the sheer number of wars the last Labour administration launched us into) you could almost sum up the UK arms industry as a closed circle where the left build the weapons for the right to use.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
And as far as the Army is concerned the number "on the ground" has only been maintained by use of reservists in place of regulars.
Indeed - although that's another bone of contention between the services. If the army was on 660 days separation from base port over 3 years like the navy then fewer reserves would have been needed...
For a start tours could have been at least 8 months rather than six as the norm - or even 12 months like the US. Army roulement is still set up to punch x battalions through Northern Ireland at a steady drumbeat rather than fight an ongoing war.
After the best part of 14 years of ongoing war, that's unbelievable.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
The US seems to have exactly the same problem. And they go one step further - their defence contractor lobbyists are constantly encouraging them to go to war. So you get US politicians variously trying to sabotage peace efforts, advocating for invading all sorts of countries, and literally advocating for never-ending war.
Corruption that means funneling tax-payer money into private industry like the right aims to do is one thing, but actually actively looking to foment war in order to do so is a whole other level of wrong.
This is why we desperately need a strong space program. These giant companies are going to suck the government teat (dry if we let them) anyway. So instead of making munitions, give them incentive to make space toys. Same employment, same profit, just making something that doesn't require running generations of young people through the meat grinder and bombing the shit out of foreign nations.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I think mousethief's is actually a good idea.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This is why we desperately need a strong space program. These giant companies are going to suck the government teat (dry if we let them) anyway. So instead of making munitions, give them incentive to make space toys. Same employment, same profit, just making something that doesn't require running generations of young people through the meat grinder and bombing the shit out of foreign nations.
That and massive renewable investment. A lot of the shipyard and missile construction capability, and a lot of the aerospace expertise, could be retooled and redirected to implementing wind and wave power.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
The US seems to have exactly the same problem. And they go one step further - their defence contractor lobbyists are constantly encouraging them to go to war. So you get US politicians variously trying to sabotage peace efforts, advocating for invading all sorts of countries, and literally advocating for never-ending war.
Corruption that means funneling tax-payer money into private industry like the right aims to do is one thing, but actually actively looking to foment war in order to do so is a whole other level of wrong.
This is why we desperately need a strong space program. These giant companies are going to suck the government teat (dry if we let them) anyway. So instead of making munitions, give them incentive to make space toys. Same employment, same profit, just making something that doesn't require running generations of young people through the meat grinder and bombing the shit out of foreign nations.
Reprt from Iron Mountain, anybody?
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on
:
If you own shiny toys you want to play with them.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
Of course you can't think of any cases. The whole point of propaganda is to trick people, people like you.
The point of propaganda is to trick the casual observer, who doesn't follow politics too closely, or isn't very well educated, or who doesn't get a diversity or opinion and hears only the propaganda, or doesn't dig too far and look into the fact for themselves. ie people not like me.
Starlight
Have a look at my comments on the 'Iran Deal' thread in the Purgatory section for an explanation of an example of propaganda aimed exactly at people like you.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I think mousethief's is actually a good idea.
Yes, especially if we don't the attention of the Borg or bring back organisms that will bring about the zombie apocalypse. I suspect, though, that whatever is done, there will be folks who have the job of looking at what is accomplished and come up with ways to use it to beat the shit out of folks.
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on
:
Oh, I do miss ken at times like this... As he often said, the left is motivated by liberty, equality and fraternity; the right by stability, hierarchy, and personal responsibility (i.e., "I'm all right Jack...")
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
No no no. For proper Conservatives 'personal responsibility' is absolutely not 'I'm all right Jack'. It's a strong sense of being responsible for what you do, morally as well as in practical terms.
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
the right by stability, hierarchy, and personal responsibility (i.e., "I'm all right Jack...")
The left only ever abolish old kinds of hierarchy to replace them with new hierarchies. As for stability and personal responsibility is being against disorder and irresponsibility 'I'm alright Jack'?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
No no no. For proper Conservatives 'personal responsibility' is absolutely not 'I'm all right Jack'. It's a strong sense of being responsible for what you do, morally as well as in practical terms.
That's as maybe, but it is most often invoked as a reason for not giving a shit for people who are down on their luck.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
It is, and actually I am at fault here in conflating 'the right' with 'Conservatives'. At the risk of bringing that Scotsman onto the stage, I'd say that the 'I'm all right Jack' position is more characteristic of Liberals of the right. Conservatives will be more ready than (many) people on the Left to identify personal behaviour as a factor in disadvantage, but there's also a Conservative tradition of social reciprocity- a paternalistic and hierarchical one, perhaps, but nonetheless it's there. If you dig out, for example, the Commons debates on the reformed Poor Law in the 1830s (big ones in about 1837- online Hansard through the Parliament website) you'll see there was actually quite a lot of criticism of the harshness of the new regime and this came both from radicals and from old-fashioned Tories like Colonel Sibthorp (arguing from different bases, of course).
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
It's true that old fashioned tory paternalism was rather more helpful to the poor than the whiggish policies of laissez-faire and utilitarianism. What's not reasonable is to conflate the modern conservative movement, and particularly not the British conservative party, with the toryism of Joseph Chamberlain. It owes a lot more to Jeremy Bentham, bastard that he was, at times.
[ 25. July 2015, 14:12: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Agreed. So perhaps the kind of conservatism that I am thinking of doesn't really fit into the contemporary language of 'left' and 'right' at all. I've been wasting your time and mine!
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
I think you'll actually find it exists but it is hidden in plain sight. A lot of what you seek is actually contained in Blairism. No interest in changing the social order, just a sort of noblesse oblige to ensure that the little people don't get left too far behind. It's odd to think that ideologically we're pretty much back to the end of the 19th century, with unions seen as this sort of dangerous 5th column to be corralled and hemmed in by regulation and prohibition, and any talk of socialism is treated as tantamount to treason.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
No, Blairism is meritocratic liberalism.
I think we're in a worse position now than we were at the end of the C19. Then things were moving forward: there was a huge interest in social improvement, although there were sometimes fairly substantial disagreements about how to achieve it. Now almost nobody seems to give much of a toss, even really on much of the so-called left - that's bloody post-materialism for you (don't let me get started on that one).
Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think you'll actually find it exists but it is hidden in plain sight. A lot of what you seek is actually contained in Blairism.
Just to remind you of some of the actions of the last Labour government
School Standards and Framework Act 1998
House of Lords Act 1999
Equalities Act 2010
Scottish and Welsh Devolution
and these were absolutely typical of the Blair/Brown government. Its attitudes were pro constitutional reform and devolution, pro political correctness, pro comprehensive schooling and pro mass immigration. Does any of that sound like traditional conservatism?
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
Providing and improving state education was very much in the remit of the old tory paternalists, as was some degree of protection for workers and consumers (which is all the equalities act really amounts to, please do take your "political correctness" and shove it where the sun shineth not), so long as they didn't get uppity and start wanting to run the country or anything. I don't know much about 19th century patterns of immigration so can't comment on that, though my recollection is that most of the old tories good work was done at the local level (you have to recall that most of what we would now consider public services were dealt with at municipal level in the 19th century). A measure to stack the Lords with your own cronies isn't realistically reformist. I'll accept that devolution was more in the old school Liberals line of thinking (as per Irish home rule).
[ 27. July 2015, 06:43: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
I'd disagree with your analysis of the Equality Act. It combines liberalism- removing barriers to the efficient workings of markets in labour and so on - with a certain amount of genuine egalitarianism- e.g. the duty of public bodies to address socio-economic inequality (not implemented by the incoming Coalition in 2010 and so sttill not in force, but there in the Act nonetheless). On the whole I think the Equality Act is a good thing, but it's not a conservative statute.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I was listening to Vicky Pryce on Matthew Parris' Great Lives today - her choice was Melina Mercouri. She spoke about the day the Colonels lost control of Greece - the control they had acquired with outside help (unnamed, but there has been a pattern of who supported that sort of government). The power, Mercouri had said, had come back to the people.
And then I read, a couple of weeks late, a piece in the Radio Times in which Michael Buerk interviewed Katie Hopkins. Who clearly wants to control society in her own way, even to having compulsory euthanasia vans to remove inconvenient old people. No consideration for their families, or anyone's feelings.
And I found myself listening to an inadvertent recording of "The Handmaid's Tale" which followed on from the recording of "Journey into Space" which I have been following - and where it was too easy for Charles Chilton to suppose a controlling and dehumanising society on Mars, the planet of war.
And I found myself singing internally the words of a hymn my mother would have liked for her funeral, except that she would not have wanted to offend her non-left wing friends who had not spent their lives with a Social Service section in their hymn books (or if they had one, had never gone there). When wilt Thou save the people, written in the mid 19th century by Ebenezer Elliott.
I suspect that the motivations of the left have been a concern for the welfare* of "the people", who have not been seen as the people at the top, and those of the right for an ordered and well structured society - for whose benefit I don't know.
*I use the word in its original meaning - we probably need a new one now that it has been Newspeakly trashed like asylum and refugee and correct.
[ 11. August 2015, 23:54: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on
:
All the lefties I know wish to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
All the lefties I know wish to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.
If by "afflict" you mean "tax", you have a point. Otherwise to regard taxation as an affliction is cryin' poor.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
All the lefties I know wish to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.
Odd. Almost all the lefties I know want complete and utter control over the thoughts, feelings, and behavior of the great unwashed in order to maintain their arbitrary elite position in society.
They want power without knowing why they want it, as well as the forced dependence of their "inferiors."
Must know different lefties.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
I know a lot of left-leaning folks who are poor. Not certain how they fit into your definition, saysay.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Funny, saysays' lefties' characteristics seem to fit the present Conservative cabinet.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
saysay offers a caricature of a certain kind of lefty- what in the UK we would recognise as the Fabian tradition (intellectual, technocratic)- except that the Fabians did know why they wanted power- they believed that they knew what was best for people.
But there is a whole and strong lefty tradition, verging on the anarchist, of which saysay seems to be (wilfully?) unaware. This is about equality as the precondition for responsible but joyful self-fulfilment and abundant living- the creation of a society in which, as IIRC RH Tawney said, 'anyone could tell anyone else to go to hell, but nobody would want to'. In Britain, apart from Tawney you'll find different versions of this in people like William Morris and Oscar Wilde, as well as, to come into the C20, Tony Crisland, and then to come up to date, Frank Field and some of the 'Blue Labour' people - Jon Cruddas, Maurice Glasman.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Sorry Crosland of course not Crisland.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Odd. Almost all the lefties I know want complete and utter control over the thoughts, feelings, and behavior of the great unwashed in order to maintain their arbitrary elite position in society.
You obviously don't know many lefties.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I suppose I could say that some of the hard left I have met wanted complete control over, not the unwashed, but those who considered themselves their betters, or who they thought considered themselves their betters, than whom they really knew better.
They also suffered the fault of assuming that those who disagreed with them did not do so because they thought they (the HL) were wrong, but because they knew that they (the HL) were right, and wanted to maintain their power over everyone else, which allowing the HL to have their way would take from them. This assumption was wrong. Everyone knew that they (the HL) were wrong.
These people popped up in the Labour Party as Militant Tendency, the NUT (National Union of Teachers) as Rank and File, and, just for a change, in the Nature charity which became the Wildlife Trusts, which, for a while, in certain boroughs of London, was neither concerned much with wildlife, or very trustworthy. Perfectly OK now, though.
They were very effective at disrupting organised debate and making people afraid to attend meetings, even to the extent of bullying nice little old ladies in public. (X wouldn't have done that, she's a socialist! Genuine comment.*) But totally useless in running anything they got control of.
However, they were only very few, and were moved around a lot by whoever controlled them, and were by no means the true expression of left wing thinking and behaviour in the UK. I never knew what motivated them.
These people defined themselves as being of the left. They probably considered all the rest of the left as not being true lefties. They probably formed the model for the Python's Palestinian groups in "Life of Brian". They should no more be taken as the model of what lefties are that the WBC should be taken as a model of what either Baptists or Christians are.
*Said little old lady had pointed out that the work they were undertaking was destroying bird nests during the nesting season, which is illegal as well as not very wildlife supportive, and was shouted at by one of the women in the group, who denied the evidence of broken eggs and contents.
[ 13. August 2015, 14:10: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
Seems to me that someone who wants the government to:
- Be efficient and not wasteful
- Perform effectively the historic functions of government - defence of the realm, preserve law and order, maintain a sound currency
- focus on facilitating the creation of wealth
would tend to be thought of as right-leaning.
Someone who wants government to focus on redistributing wealth is left-leaning.
This is motivation.
In a two-party system, whichever side captures the centre ground gets power. So intelligent governments of left and right try to do just enough of what the other side approves of to not lose the support of centrist voters who want a bit of both agendas. For this reason, looking at what particular governments have done isn't always a good guide to the underlying differences of motivation.
And it really pisses off the party activists of both sides that the politicians are more interested in courting the centre than in pleasing the people who worked to get them elected...
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Someone who wants government to focus on redistributing wealth is left-leaning.
I don't know anybody who wants the government to focus on redistributing wealth. It is a means to an end, not an end in itself.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
Guess which way I lean:
- I'm not abjectly afraid of everything such that I'm willing to give up my rights, or the rights of other people.
- I believe in both meritocracy and flatter-rate contribution instead of social classes and loopholes.
- I tend to believe experts - especially in the realms of science, economy, and diplomacy. Experts being people actually educated in the relevant field, with experience, and quantitative facts they can reference and share.
- I prefer for citizens to electing representative government instead of a few wealthy individuals and companies buying special access and privileges.
- I believe that investing in key infrastructure, education, and science/technology/medicine/art is invaluable and helps everyone become more prosperous.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Seems to me that someone who wants the government to:
- Be efficient and not wasteful
- Perform effectively the historic functions of government - defence of the realm, preserve law and order, maintain a sound currency
- focus on facilitating the creation of wealth
would tend to be thought of as right-leaning.
The size of government has precisely nothing to do with the efficiency of government. Efficiency has to do with doing whatever it is you're doing as efficiently as possible, which is an entirely different issue from the more left/right question of which things government should be involved in in the first place.
And indeed, one of the big problems is that the decision about what government should be involved in is usually driven by ideology, not by asking "who can do this task more efficiently, the government or private enterprise?"
The public service here has been living under "efficiency dividends" for years. These basically cut money from agencies and then tell the agencies to go figure out what to do about it. These dividends in fact punish efficient agencies (who can only cope by genuinely cutting services) as opposed to inefficient agencies (who can, if they choose to do so, absorb the cut by becoming more efficient in doing the same thing, or can stay inefficient while cutting out certain services).
[ 25. August 2015, 09:10: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Guess which way I lean:
- I'm not abjectly afraid of everything such that I'm willing to give up my rights, or the rights of other people.
- I believe in both meritocracy and flatter-rate contribution instead of social classes and loopholes.
- I tend to believe experts - especially in the realms of science, economy, and diplomacy. Experts being people actually educated in the relevant field, with experience, and quantitative facts they can reference and share.
- I prefer for citizens to electing representative government instead of a few wealthy individuals and companies buying special access and privileges.
- I believe that investing in key infrastructure, education, and science/technology/medicine/art is invaluable and helps everyone become more prosperous.
Stinking pinko crypto-Muslim antichrist!
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Bloody Liberal.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
...
- Perform effectively the historic functions of government - defence of the realm, preserve law and order, maintain a sound currency ....
Well, it's the year 2015, so it's probably a good idea for governments to take on some more modern functions. The "historic functions of government" is a stupid expression, along with that crap about "governing the least".
Seriously, is there a place in your historic government for e.g. child labour laws, public health, dealing with a nuclear meltdown, putting out house fires, stopping ordinary folks from owning rocket launchers or pet tigers, family law, public education, regulating financial institutions, registering companies and businesses, establishing weights and measures, building roads and deciding which side to drive on .... and collecting the revenues to do all this. Or are you one of those Ayn Rand anarchists who think we can all get along just fine doing whatever we want and neighbours will cooperate to build their own sewer systems and the "free market" will sort everything out?
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
...
- Perform effectively the historic functions of government - defence of the realm, preserve law and order, maintain a sound currency ....
Well, it's the year 2015, so it's probably a good idea for governments to take on some more modern functions. The "historic functions of government" is a stupid expression, along with that crap about "governing the least".
Seriously, is there a place in your historic government for e.g. child labour laws, public health, dealing with a nuclear meltdown, putting out house fires, stopping ordinary folks from owning rocket launchers or pet tigers, family law, public education, regulating financial institutions, registering companies and businesses, establishing weights and measures, building roads and deciding which side to drive on .... and collecting the revenues to do all this. Or are you one of those Ayn Rand anarchists who think we can all get along just fine doing whatever we want and neighbours will cooperate to build their own sewer systems and the "free market" will sort everything out?
Be fair, he would probably put some of those under "preserve law and order".
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
...
- Perform effectively the historic functions of government - defence of the realm, preserve law and order, maintain a sound currency ....
Well, it's the year 2015, so it's probably a good idea for governments to take on some more modern functions. The "historic functions of government" is a stupid expression, along with that crap about "governing the least".
Seriously, is there a place in your historic government for e.g. child labour laws, public health, dealing with a nuclear meltdown, putting out house fires, stopping ordinary folks from owning rocket launchers or pet tigers, family law, public education, regulating financial institutions, registering companies and businesses, establishing weights and measures, building roads and deciding which side to drive on .... and collecting the revenues to do all this. Or are you one of those Ayn Rand anarchists who think we can all get along just fine doing whatever we want and neighbours will cooperate to build their own sewer systems and the "free market" will sort everything out?
Be fair, he would probably put some of those under "preserve law and order".
I can't see any of the above that hasn't either been done in the private sector (putting out fires and building and operating roads) or can be termed creeping welfarism (eg; child labour & public education), hamstringing business (eg; regulating financial institutions) or limiting the rights of the individual (eg; forbidding the ownership of tigers and rocket launchers).
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I think there was a problem with the fire putting out situation under private enterprise - fires in buildings without the right plaque on them wouldn't be extinguished, and would then be a hazard to neighbours.
Even in Ancient Rome the fire service was a public service.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I think there was a problem with the fire putting out situation under private enterprise - fires in buildings without the right plaque on them wouldn't be extinguished, and would then be a hazard to neighbours.
Even in Ancient Rome the fire service was a public service.
I didn't say the private sector solutions were a good idea! As for Rome, many functions were provided by the state, panem etc circenses as a "dole" to the poor but a vast amount of infrastructure besides. All that war loot helped.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
And the slaves.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
is there a place in your historic government for e.g. child labour laws, public health, dealing with a nuclear meltdown, putting out house fires, stopping ordinary folks from owning rocket launchers or pet tigers, family law, public education, regulating financial institutions, registering companies and businesses, establishing weights and measures, building roads and deciding which side to drive on
Interesting mix.
Unfortunately, there are people who think that which side of the road to drive on is an important question that deserves to be kept under continuing review by a government committee with secretarial and research support, all occupying plush offices in the capital city...
Does your reaction mean that you agree with me that the scope of government is one of the basic issues that divides left and right ? Sounds like you agree the principle and are just trying to draw the line that marks "the centre" in a different place from where you think I was drawing it. So as to put the right-leaning people further out on the wing and the left-leaning people closer to the middle...
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Scope of government is something that divides people along all political axes. The platform for any political party, regardless of where it falls on the various different positions of a multi-dimensional compass, is effectively "we believe government should be doing ... and if you elect us that is what we will do as your government".
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
...Does your reaction mean that you agree with me that the scope of government is one of the basic issues that divides left and right ? ...
No. I believe that many on the "right" have never actually given any serious, systematic thought to what government should do and how. They're just content to repeat the "govern least" mantra and put cynical anti-gummint bumper stickers on their cars and continue voting against their own interests. But as soon as their neighbour does something idiotic like building a Ferris wheel in the front yard, they luuuurve big government. And any time there's a teacher's strike, the much-maligned public school system suddenly becomes an "essential service". So, yes, I agree that there is always going to be a live debate over the scope of government, but the argument is usually between responsible, thoughtful citizens and mouth-breathing troglodytes, left or right.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Comment to small government concept.
If one truly wants a small government, start by killing billions of people so that we may go back to a truly agrarian, small tribe economy.
Anything else is bullshit. We have large amounts of people attempting to live together, government is going to be massive.
"Small" government is either ignorant ranting or code for government which stays out of my business, but gets into yours.
Comment to efficiency.
Effiency is a blade which is sharpened on both edges.
A bit of inefficiency can act as a sheath and reduce casualty numbers.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Unfortunately, there are people who think that which side of the road to drive on is an important question that deserves to be kept under continuing review by a government committee with secretarial and research support, all occupying plush offices in the capital city...
Prove it. I call bullshit for the simple reason that hardly any country has ever switched or shown any sign of switching. There's only a handful of cases in the last century.
[ 26. August 2015, 23:30: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
The people occupying the plush offices and having endless discussions are often elected officials, not the people who do the actual work of government. Behind each cabinet minister's profligate travel spending are thousands of employees desperately trying to do more and more with less and less, while enduring constant insults and cynicism from the citizens they serve. A couple of generations ago, there was a tacit understanding that government jobs paid less than the private sector, but had better security and benefits. Now it's about "competing" with the private sector for "talent" at the top of the org chart, and stagnant wages and downsizing for everybody below. The result is that a few people are making out like bandits while the rest are being pushed to the point of burnout.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Unfortunately, there are people who think that which side of the road to drive on is an important question that deserves to be kept under continuing review by a government committee with secretarial and research support, all occupying plush offices in the capital city...
Prove it. I call bullshit for the simple reason that hardly any country has ever switched or shown any sign of switching. There's only a handful of cases in the last century.
I don't think that Russ quite meant to be taken literally on that particular subject. But yes, he need to prove it- I think this is just the kind of lazy pseudo-Chicago/Virginia public choice bollocks that is trotted out by people who know fuck-all about how government actually works, or who take one or two egregious examples and extrapolate from them, as if the climate was the same thing as the weather, as it were.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Unfortunately, there are people who think that which side of the road to drive on is an important question that deserves to be kept under continuing review by a government committee with secretarial and research support, all occupying plush offices in the capital city...
Prove it. I call bullshit for the simple reason that hardly any country has ever switched or shown any sign of switching. There's only a handful of cases in the last century.
I don't think that Russ quite meant to be taken literally on that particular subject. But yes, he need to prove it- I think this is just the kind of lazy pseudo-Chicago/Virginia public choice bollocks that is trotted out by people who know fuck-all about how government actually works, or who take one or two egregious examples and extrapolate from them, as if the climate was the same thing as the weather, as it were.
Exactly. I don't think he meant to be taken literally on it either, but it's the typical response of anyone who thinks that someone else's job is either easy or valueless.
The public service isn't above criticism by any means, but I have no patience for people who think that there is no value in it.
Nor do I have any patience for people who dismiss the value of stepping back and thinking about things and researching and reviewing them and who only see value in "concrete" activity. Any professional course on project planning or on the skills that an organisation needs will rapidly show how that's simply bullshit.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Agreed!
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0