Support NeoGAF

[zero shift]

France and the Nordic countries got lucky as shit that they didn't elect a right winger during the 80's economic crisis.

 

[rodvik]

I was just saying that Thatcher will be held up as a right wing god like reagan is.

Also The contra thing is never mentioned. Ever wonder why?

Why shouldnt they? We have Bevan. I am happy with our left wing god who did more good in three years than most prime ministers and presidents can hope for in a lifetime.

 

[Karakand]

In fact, the key take-away from all of America's progressive era, or at least from Roosevelt to Roosevelt, was that pressure from the fringe can be extremely useful to get leaders to enact sensible compromise.

This is a rather anaesthetized description of the labor movement from the late 19th through early-middle 20th centuries.

 

[RedSwirl]

Center right with some extreme right tactics on benefits. General policy is continued neo liberalism.

Full on extreme right when they win the next election which they will sadly. Hopefully I'm not part of the union by then.

What about economically? People go on about income inequality in the US but I actually don't really know how Europe compares right now. What is Austerity doing to that whole process and is that what they plan to keep on doing?

 

[Delusibeta]

Center right with some extreme right tactics on benefits. General policy is continued neo liberalism.

Full on extreme right when they win the next election which they will sadly. Hopefully I'm not part of the union by then.

Eh, I'm not so sure. It's pretty much Labour's election to lose right now despite their lame duck leadership, assuming Scotland votes against independence (if Scotland does go independant it'll be Tory government every year, for about 15 to 20 years before reunification due to Scotland going bankrupt).

 

[Stumpokapow]

I was just saying that Thatcher will be held up as a right wing god like reagan is.

It's complicated. Thatcher, Mulroney, Reagan, and to a lesser extent contemporary politicians in Australia and New Zealand all inherited similar societies at around the same time, all espoused the same sort of right-neoliberal-privatization-capitalism-social tradition/Burkean Conservatism, all made bitter and bloody cuts to the scope of government, all--although Reagan succeeded peacefully by his proxy in GHWB, Mulroney retired peacefully paving the way for Campbell, and Thatcher forced out by Major--all had their intellectual legacies replaced by mildly neoliberal slightly right progressives in the 90s (Blair's New Labor, Chretien-Martin's New Liberals, Clinton's DLC Democratic Party) who enjoyed unusual prosperity and public support, and all are evaluated in a similarly divisive way today. All three presided under very significant jolts to the right and reconfigurations of the way society saw the role of business, government, and family. Perhaps more significant than any other individual politicians in any of those countries. They created a model that is followed by the New Right in most of Europe today (although to varying degrees of success, and with varying cultural contexts). All three are the subjects of extensive academic study and criticism from the academic left.

The problem with the American right's reification of Reagan's memory isn't that they're wrong on the issues, although I believe that, it's that they don't even accurately characterize Reagan. He's invoked as an empty husk to lend credence to modern issues that played a vastly different role in those times if they existed at all, and caricatured. It's crass. By all means, invoke Reagan, invoke Kennedy, invoke FDR, invoke Lincoln, invoke Thatcher, invoke Churchill, invoke Trudeau, invoke Diefenbaker, invoke anyone--but make sure you know who they were rather than just making them an anonymous Great (Wo)man like a high school football match invokes God to win.

 

[Acorn]

Eh, I'm not so sure. It's pretty much Labour's election to lose right now despite their lame duck leadership, assuming Scotland votes against independence (if Scotland does go independant it'll be Tory government every year, for about 15 to 20 years before reunification due to Scotland going bankrupt).

Nah, people will view it as 'Well we've started, might aswell finish' plus there will be a tax cut in the last budget as a sweetner.

Also we won't go bankrupt, look at a gers report. We put in more than we take out and we a third most productive region after London and the South East.

EDIT- Even if we did, I'd rather go broke caring about people than rich and caring about noone but yourself.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Hold on, I think you're arguing against a claim that has never been made, i.e. that if you're the son of a miner, your view is informed. What is being argued against here is the rather extreme claim that unless you are of age, you can't have an informed opinion.

I haven't seen anyone say that unless you were there you can't have an opinion, though - it's the extreme, dancing-on-her-grave, street party mentality that seems bizarre in the context of people that were not alive during her premiership. Certainly, all my posts in this thread stemmed from the Daily Mash article, and I think that's the point they are making too.

 

[ElFly]

I am talking about one person, who is celebrating the death of another person, whom they never meet.

I had a Grandfather, who sexually abused two of my female cousins when they were children. So he was about as detested by my family as any human being that we will ever know in my entire life.

While my family didn't mourn his death, we certainly didn't celebrate. As celebrating another person's death is a clear sign of a sick & warped mind

I would have celebrated.

Hell I'd still be celebrating each year the day that grandfather of yours died.

 

[ksan]

Cheers. It is worth remembering that Britain was already divided, for all the anger directed at her later, one of the key reasons she was elected was the bitter internal struggle of the left.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_of_Discontent

Although it seems strange to think of it now she was definitely regarded as the sane and safe choice at the time.

Well, I gotta say that to me it doesn't she would have been regarded as the sane and safe choice if there was any other viable alternative.
I think people forget that context is important (including me A LOT).
I know that I have a hard time making up my mind on what would have been the right thing for Finland to do during the cold war, on one hand I detest the fact that our country's politicians were so Soviet friendly, but on the other what was the option?

and I'll def. read up on that.

France and the Nordic countries got lucky as shit that they didn't elect a right winger during the 80's economic crisis.

Well, Sweden and Finland got their smackdown in the beginning of the 90s instead. And even though there were some economically harsh years, action was taken swift and I don't think there's too much bad blood left from those years.

 

[Acorn]

It's complicated. Thatcher, Mulroney, Reagan, and to a lesser extent contemporary politicians in Australia and New Zealand all inherited similar societies at around the same time, all espoused the same sort of right-neoliberal-privatization-capitalism-social tradition/Burkean Conservatism, all made bitter and bloody cuts to the scope of government, all--although Reagan succeeded peacefully by his proxy in GHWB, Mulroney retired peacefully paving the way for Campbell, and Thatcher forced out by Major--all had their intellectual legacies replaced by mildly neoliberal slightly right progressives in the 90s (Blair's New Labor, Chretien-Martin's New Liberals, Clinton's DLC Democratic Party) who enjoyed unusual prosperity and public support, and all are evaluated in a similarly divisive way today. All three presided under very significant jolts to the right and reconfigurations of the way society saw the role of business, government, and family. Perhaps more significant than any other individual politicians in any of those countries. They created a model that is followed by the New Right in most of Europe today (although to varying degrees of success, and with varying cultural contexts). All three are the subjects of extensive academic study and criticism from the academic left.

The problem with the American right's reification of Reagan isn't that they're wrong on the issues, although I believe that, it's that they don't even accurately characterize Reagan. He's invoked as an empty husk to lend credence to modern issues that played a vastly different role in those times if they existed at all, and caricatured. It's crass. By all means, invoke Reagan, invoke Kennedy, invoke FDR, invoke Lincoln, invoke Thatcher, invoke Churchill, invoke Trudeau, invoke Diefenbaker, invoke anyone--but make sure you know who they were rather than just making them an anonymous Great (Wo)man like a high school football match invokes God to win.

This is a good post. I can see it happening re: Thatcher over the next couple of years. This year alot of Tories will wheel out that it's what maggie would of done.

 

[phisheep]

Hold on, I think you're arguing against a claim that has never been made, i.e. that if you're the son of a miner, your view is informed. What is being argued against here is the rather extreme claim that unless you are of age, you can't have an informed opinion.

I think it was Acorn who first made this explicit (though I suspect partly in jest) ...

I've learned something today.

You can't have a negative view of Thatcher if you weren't old enough.

Also If your view is positive then you can have a view if you weren't old enough.

... but what's really happened here is that a predominantly anti-thatcher thread has become a bit more balanced, and a bit more debateworthy, and a whole lot less about "juvenile" (not as in anything to do with age) ranting. It's nothing to do with age really, it's to do with having an opinion beyond "ding-dong the witch is dead" on the one side or "ave maria" on the other and being able to stand up to challenge without resorting to crudisms.

Heck, I'm all for opinion and discussion, I'm just not all that up for insults - not giving them, not receiving them, not doling them out to persons no longer present.

 

[Ding-Ding]

Eh, I'm not so sure. It's pretty much Labour's election to lose right now despite their lame duck leadership, assuming Scotland votes against independence (if Scotland does go independant it'll be Tory government every year, for about 15 to 20 years before reunification due to Scotland going bankrupt).

You wont be able to tell which way the 2015 election will go till the final year.

Mid term blues always happen, so with polling data and by-elections people usually submit protest votes.

Get closer to a GE, then someones vote will actually mean something to them. Parties like UKIP always get a boost mid-term but alot of them voters will switch back if faced with a possibility that a vote for UKIP will give Labour the win

 

[Stumpokapow]

This is a rather anaesthetized description of the labor movement from the late 19th through early-middle 20th centuries.

In part because I wasn't simply referring to the labour movement, although they were a big part of it. Socialism and the collectivist critiques of stagnant American federalism didn't just manifest through labour, but through many things. It's also left-populist journalism, public intellectuals, and muckraking (I'm thinking of Upton Sinclair leading to the creation of the FDA, Booker Washington's presence at the White House sparking the beginnings of post-reconstruction movement on race politics in America, etc). And those progressive presidents weren't just responding to the left either, but also their own perceptions of tycoon capitalism (think TR and the anthracite strike).

My aim wasn't to exhaustively describe the situation, but rather to point out that FDR is misunderstood by young people today as being a social democrat or a true leftist when in reality he wasn't. He--and the progressive heritage reaching back to TR--were more about responding to the reality that existed in a moderate way. They co-opted the demands of the left in a moderated, liberal way as a way to put out the seeds of revolution that social strain caused by the excesses of capital.

And I didn't mean the term "fringe" to suggest all social democrats were or are, obviously, or that what little nascent left America may have had for a few short decades were "fringe" the way they'd be characterized today, but rather to acknowledge the fact that I think we need intellectual bomb throwers and radicals in order to provide the food that moderates nourish themselves with. Same goes for any period in history. Hell, we can call Debs fringe because of his lack of direct impact and the absurdity of an incarcerated man being an intellectual leader at all, but that doesn't minimize the indirect role he had in shifting the discourse among even non-socialists in the US.

 

[zero shift]

Well, Sweden and Finland got their smackdown in the beginning of the 90s instead. And even though there were some economically harsh years, action was taken swift and I don't think there's too much bad blood left from those years.

Yeah I knew about the early 90s recession. Its why I was going to edit my post but I got too lazy.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

I haven't seen anyone say that unless you were there you can't have an opinion, though - it's the extreme, dancing-on-her-grave, street party mentality that seems bizarre in the context of people that were not alive during her premiership. Certainly, all my posts in this thread stemmed from the Daily Mash article, and I think that's the point they are making too.

Actually yeah, I've just realised that the place I've seen that is my own facebook feed. Man, I really need to get some less bigoted friends.

 

[CyclopsRock]

EDIT- Even if we did, I'd rather go broke caring about people than rich and caring about noone but yourself.

This is the strange mentality that people such as myself find so off-putting about the left in general. The idea that the most important thing is the intention. It doesn't matter if we go broke (whereupon we can no longer fund all the various things we support), as long as we did it whilst trying to help people. The reason most economic right wingers, like myself, support the policies that we do is because we think they're the best way for people - working class, upper class, everyone in between - to live a prosperous life. It's this strange idea that the left seems to have that it's only they who care about the poor and the weak and the vulnerable, and that they must do everything possible to oppose the nasty right with their cruel privatising and nasty cuts to public services - as if a society where we "go broke caring about people" is better than one where we "care" (where "level of care" is defined by how large a government's chequebook is) a bit less but can actually fund it.

 

[TCRS]

The loony left is on the loose I see. Those celebrations are disgusting.

 

[frankie_baby]

You wont be able to tell which way the 2015 election will go till the final year.

Mid term blues always happen, so with polling data and by-elections people usually submit protest votes.

Get closer to a GE, then someones vote will actually mean something to them. Parties like UKIP always get a boost mid-term but alot of them voters will switch back if faced with a possibility that a vote for UKIP will give Labour the win

Short of a second Falklands war (which thankfully the argentians have no military to start) David Cameron is unelectable

 

[phisheep]

Short of a second Falklands war (which thankfully the argentians have no military to start) David Cameron is unelectable

I don't think so. That's what they said about Thatcher's third and about John Major .... mind you they said it about Michael Foot too so they are not always wrong.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Someone unironically using the term "loony left".

If it wasn't now the AM my day would've been complete.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Short of a second Falklands war (which thankfully the argentians have no military to start) David Cameron is unelectable

He's currently the highest polling of the three party leaders. The Tories are struggling and I think they will struggle, but if they fail to get a majority in 2015, I don't think it'll be because of Cameron.

 

[Ding-Ding]

Short of a second Falklands war (which thankfully the argentians have no military to start) David Cameron is unelectable

And yet every piece of polling data puts him well ahead of Miliband.

Its way too early to call.

 

[Acorn]

This is the strange mentality that people such as myself find so off-putting about the left in general. The idea that the most important thing is the intention. It doesn't matter if we go broke (whereupon we can no longer fund all the various things we support), as long as we did it whilst trying to help people. The reason most economic right wingers, like myself, support the policies that we do is because we think they're the best way for people - working class, upper class, everyone in between - to live a prosperous life. It's this strange idea that the left seems to have that it's only they who care about the poor and the weak and the vulnerable, and that they must do everything possible to oppose the nasty right with their cruel privatising and nasty cuts to public services - as if a society where we "go broke caring about people" is better than one where we "care" (where "level of care" is defined by how large a government's chequebook is) a bit less but can actually fund it.

You can have a benefits policy that economically works whilst not being a pitiful or grudged and demonised.

 

[The Librarian]

The reason most economic right wingers, like myself, support the policies that we do is because we think they're the best way for people - working class, upper class, everyone in between - to live a prosperous life.

Except time and again it's been shown that your policies disproportionately benefit the rich, whether by intention or not, and you all never seem to acknowledge this fact.

*Caveat: Speaking from a US-perspective.

 

[demon]

Except time and again it's been shown that your policies disproportionately benefit the rich, whether by intention or not, and you all never seem to acknowledge this fact.

Seriously. How many decades of real world data does it take for you to realize that these right wing economic policies are shit for everyone who isn't rich? At a certain point it just becomes delusion.

 

[Acorn]

He's currently the highest polling of the three party leaders. The Tories are struggling and I think they will struggle, but if they fail to get a majority in 2015, I don't think it'll be because of Cameron.

Cameron will win the next election, he'll be replaced with Boris for the third run. As I said hopefully I'm not within the union by that point.

 

[Ding-Ding]

Cameron will win the next election, he'll be replaced with Boris for the third run. As I said hopefully I'm not within the union by that point.

As a Conservative voter, I dont want to be in the country if Boris every becomes PM.

 

[frankie_baby]

A lot of the problems with our electoral system is its designed around two parties whereas we have had 3 main parties for over a century and the left wing vote has been split, most lib dem voters are inherently left (or at least center left) wing so split the majority left wing vote meaning labour has to fight and often loses elections despite most of the people being working class, the split kept thatcher in power in the 80s and has created the disgusting coalition we have today, everyone I know that voted lib dem (I live in a rural constituency in which labour are a non factor) expected the lib dems to go into a coalition with labour and never even entertained the fact that a coalition with the Tories was a possibility

 

[CyclopsRock]

You can have a benefits policy that economically works whilst not being a pitiful or grudged and demonised.

You certainly can, but that seems at odds with your attestation that "I'd rather go broke caring about people than rich and caring about noone but yourself."

Except time and again it's been shown that your policies disproportionately benefit the rich, whether by intention or not, and you all never seem to acknowledge this fact.

"My" policies very rarely get implemented, so I'm not sure how much data there is on that, but aside from anything, Capitalism has never claimed an equality of output. I care a lot more about social mobility and the poor getting richer than I do about whether the rich are getting disproportionately richer. I see no inherent benefits to ratios, though I do understand that money can breed power in and unto itself.

 

[Acorn]

As a Conservative voter, I dont want to be in the country if Boris every becomes PM.

Why? He is generally well liked by the population (for his oafness but still) and peddles the same right wing medicine they all do.

 

[Acorn]

You certainly can, but that seems at odds with your attestation that "I'd rather go broke caring about people than rich and caring about noone but yourself."

That was to another poster saying we'd go bankrupt.

 

[frankie_baby]

I don't think so. That's what they said about Thatcher's third and about John Major .... mind you they said it about Michael Foot too so they are not always wrong.

Cameron himself has some appeal but it nothing compared to big appealin PMs of the past, the country is completely fucked and no way will it be in a good state (though hopefully recovery will have started) by the next election, he can't win from that level

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Cameron will win the next election, he'll be replaced with Boris for the third run. As I said hopefully I'm not within the union by that point.

Before this thread strays too far, I'd just like to say that you should post in the UK-poligaf thread (while Scotland is still in the UK!).

But frankly, good luck to you. Last time I checked support for independence was in the low 30%s in Scotland. It would take a bit of a sea change to get that above 50% by September next year!

 

[Stumpokapow]

This is the strange mentality that people such as myself find so off-putting about the left in general. The idea that the most important thing is the intention. It doesn't matter if we go broke (whereupon we can no longer fund all the various things we support), as long as we did it whilst trying to help people. The reason most economic right wingers, like myself, support the policies that we do is because we think they're the best way for people - working class, upper class, everyone in between - to live a prosperous life. It's this strange idea that the left seems to have that it's only they who care about the poor and the weak and the vulnerable, and that they must do everything possible to oppose the nasty right with their cruel privatising and nasty cuts to public services - as if a society where we "go broke caring about people" is better than one where we "care" (where "level of care" is defined by large a government's chequebook is) a bit less but can actually fund it.

Given the abject cruelty with which classical liberalism presents itself in a modern context can you blame the left for seeing an empathy gap?

I don't think you're wrong in terms of articulating the values of many on the classical liberal right, and certainly you have strong intellectual heritage going back to Locke, but...

When you hear "Here's a tip: get a real job and stop voting for Obama", when you see classical liberals latch on to philosophical touchstones like Rand who truly do cross the line into "to hell with the average person, the successful are the ones we build the world for" fuck-you-I've-got-mine selfishness, when you hear the demonization of "takers" and "leeches" and "welfare queens", when you see systematic game-rigging by the rich in the political arena through lobbying... when you hear all this stuff, and it's everywhere particularly in the US... can you blame those on the left, particularly those who are the dreamers and the thinkers and the peaceniks, for finding it a little uncaring?

Are the classical liberal right concerned with reducing GINI? With income inequality? With real class mobility? With stagnant personal income growth despite productivity increases? These do not come through in policy. If the aim is to benefit all, if the only difference is the means used to achieve the end, if the maximization of economic liberty is just incidentally the best road to lead to prosperity for all, then the presence of indicators that suggest the end has failed should cause a re-evaluation of the relationship, not a casual shrug and a renewed emphasis to the means.

I mean, look at it this way. The rising tide metaphor. The rising tide lifts all boats, just as a wealthy society benefits everyone, fine, but when the logic stops there and there's even a refusal to consider the weakness of the metaphor in terms of the fact that the rising tide lifts all boats equally while social policy of any nature distributes benefits unequally, and that we have control over how we distribute those benefits, and that choosing not to intervene is as much an artificial choice as choosing to intervene... when classical liberals on the America right refuse to engage with any of those principles, it's hard not to believe their heads are deliberately in the sand.

I'm not sure what your cultural context is here, but what I'm mainly saying is that you reap what you sew. If the left is winning the "caring" argument and the right is misunderstood, then I think the blame should probably not start with the left for winning the argument, but for the right in acting in such a way that the argument is so obviously decided for most observers.

 

[CyclopsRock]

A lot of the problems with our electoral system is its designed around two parties whereas we have had 3 main parties for over a century and the left wing vote has been split, most lib dem voters are inherently left (or at least center left) wing so split the majority left wing vote meaning labour has to fight and often loses elections despite most of the people being working class, the split kept thatcher in power in the 80s and has created the disgusting coalition we have today, everyone I know that voted lib dem (I live in a rural constituency in which labour are a non factor) expected the lib dems to go into a coalition with labour and never even entertained the fact that a coalition with the Tories was a possibility

I don't think it's quite as simple as "labour has to fight and often loses elections despite most of the people being working class" - Not all working class people view Labour's policies as the best way for them to benefit.

 

[The Librarian]

"My" policies very rarely get implemented, so I'm not sure how much data there is on that, but aside from anything, Capitalism has never claimed an equality of output. I care a lot more about social mobility and the poor getting richer than I do about whether the rich are getting disproportionately richer. I see no inherent benefits to ratios, though I do understand that money can breed power in and unto itself.

You're a libertarian, aren't you? Yeah, I'm sure your policies will have profound benefits for the poor.

Edit: And nobody is talking about an "equality of output." That's a cop-out.

 

[phisheep]

Cameron himself has some appeal but it nothing compared to big appealin PMs of the past, the country is completely fucked and no way will it be in a good state (though hopefully recovery will have started) by the next election, he can't win from that level

The question is (as it was with Thatcher) can anyone else win? If they can't, he can.

 

[Ding-Ding]

Seriously. How many decades of real world data does it take for you to realize that these right wing economic policies are shit for everyone who isn't rich? At a certain point it just becomes delusion.

And how many pieces of data does it take for the left to realise that the Rich cant pay for everything?

Example, there are 16k millionaire's in the UK, yet 63 million people.

 

[Acorn]

Before this thread strays too far, I'd just like to say that you should post in the UK-poligaf thread (while Scotland is still in the UK!).

But frankly, good luck to you. Last time I checked support for independence was in the low 30%s in Scotland. It would take a bit of a sea change to get that above 50% by September next year!

Thanks I will do.

Believe it or not I was actually a unionist until this year, campaigned against it. It was the realisation that we will never have a uk govt that represents the make up of this country(quite the opposite) that made me change my mind.

I still hate Salmond though, especially when he blames 'english', it reminds me of people claiming the man is holding them down.

 

[frankie_baby]

I don't think it's quite as simple as "labour has to fight and often loses elections despite most of the people being working class" - Not all working class people view Labour's policies as the best way for them to benefit.

No I admit that was an over simplification, some proportion of working class people for some bizarre reason vote Tory, but that doesn't change the fact the inherent left wing vote is split

 

[PJV3]

And how many pieces of data does it take for the left to realise that the Rich cant pay for everything?

Example, there are 16k millionaire's in the UK, yet 63 million people.

Jesus, you come out with some nonsense.
Is that where you think all the money comes from?

 

[The Librarian]

And how many pieces of data does it take for the left to realise that the Rich cant pay for everything?

Example, there are 16k millionaire's in the UK, yet 63 million people.

Taxing only the rich for social services is stupid policy.

 

[Codeblue]

And how many pieces of data does it take for the left to realise that the Rich cant pay for everything?

Example, there are 16k millionaire's in the UK, yet 63 million people.

The amount of millionaires to non-millionaires is pretty irrelevant. You should be looking at distribution of wealth.

 

[eBay Huckster]

And how many pieces of data does it take for the left to realise that the Rich cant pay for everything?

Okay, I'm actually wondering now: are you legitimately not trying to argue against straw leftists?

 

[Ding-Ding]

Why? He is generally well liked by the population (for his oafness but still) and peddles the same right wing medicine they all do.

I think you hit it with the Oaf reference.

I see him as the daft Uncle that provides shits and giggles. Let him loose with the country though... I doubt I would let him loose with the TV remote

 

[Acorn]

No I admit that was an over simplification, some proportion of working class people for some bizarre reason vote Tory, but that doesn't change the fact the inherent left wing vote is split

The reason they vote Tory can be partly attributed to Murdoch and the Mail. And self class loathing.

 

[radioheadrule83]

This is the strange mentality that people such as myself find so off-putting about the left in general. The idea that the most important thing is the intention. It doesn't matter if we go broke (whereupon we can no longer fund all the various things we support), as long as we did it whilst trying to help people. The reason most economic right wingers, like myself, support the policies that we do is because we think they're the best way for people - working class, upper class, everyone in between - to live a prosperous life. It's this strange idea that the left seems to have that it's only they who care about the poor and the weak and the vulnerable, and that they must do everything possible to oppose the nasty right with their cruel privatising and nasty cuts to public services - as if a society where we "go broke caring about people" is better than one where we "care" (where "level of care" is defined by how large a government's chequebook is) a bit less but can actually fund it.

It's an honourable mentality grounded in decency, and I think you're misrepresenting it. Nobody wants us to spend ourselves in to oblivion, but some people would like a right minded and pragmatic approach to sparing people poverty and indignity, and affording them opportunities based on merit rather than the fortuity of their parentage or place of birth.

Perhaps quite recently we ventured too far protecting a reckless rich elite out of fear we would lose our place in the world. I would rather live in a world where poor economic decisions have consequences for those who made them, and a world where those things affected each of us in a way that was proportional to our ability to sustain it, than live in one where the cost is foisted upon people who had nothing to do with it in the form of debt (state and personal), in loss of services and in joblessness.

Sometimes I wonder if we are quite simply a disgusting, selfish and bigoted nation completely without compassion unless there is a fucking telethon we can text in to.

We can aspire to be sensible with money whilst also lifting each other out of misery. Don't expect people to be able to pull themselves up by their bootstraps if the government is sitting on their heads. Some stuff this government is doing WILL actually help some people, so I am not implying that there is a problem inherent to conservatism or that the government is evil or any such nonsense -- I am simply defending the idea that we can have compassionate government and not be reckless with public spending. The two are not mutually exclusive. The only way the tories will ever escape the nasty party label in hate-strongholds is if they themselves come to terms with the rampant inequality that has taken hold since the 1980s and actually do something about it.

 

[frankie_baby]

The question is (as it was with Thatcher) can anyone else win? If they can't, he can.

Unlike against thatcher as dull as he may be milliband isnt an extreme socialist (foot) or ginger (kinnock) and cameron isnt coming off a war victory or economic boom

 

[Acorn]

I think you hit it with the Oaf reference.

I see him as the daft Uncle that provides shits and giggles. Let him loose with the country though... I doubt I would let him loose with the TV remote

Haha, thats an apt description but he is populist, which gives you alot of power re: controversial policies.