Will there ever be a credible non-Social Democratic party?
Discussion
There was a time when the Conservative Party took a good stab at delivering what I'll call optimistic government.
Pro-capitalist, pro-choice, small government. Everything life's pessimists hate.
Even though I was on the libertarian periphery, I saw the benefit of allegiance with an established party, but cancelled my membership after 1992.
It struck me today that I have been politically disaffected now for twenty years. For twenty years I have been unable to place a vote with a major party at a general election. And I really don't consider myself to be a maverick (you may, of course, disagree).
Sometimes I wonder if I'm just living in the wrong country? Perhaps the British don't like small government. But then I think back to the way people grasped the opportunities the 80s offered and I can't believe that they wouldn't want an optimistic laissez-faire situation returned to them.
I am shocked - and surprised! - at how our contemporary Conservative Party has turned out. And I don't believe that their approach or performance or ethos or policies have anything to do with their having to take power in cahoots with the Lib Dems.
I know that nothing lasts forever and that, of course, the political scene always changes over time. But my own clock seems to tick a lot faster than the political one and I want to see change now. Do you think there's any chance of a proper move away from social democratism over the next, say, fifteen years?
Pro-capitalist, pro-choice, small government. Everything life's pessimists hate.
Even though I was on the libertarian periphery, I saw the benefit of allegiance with an established party, but cancelled my membership after 1992.
It struck me today that I have been politically disaffected now for twenty years. For twenty years I have been unable to place a vote with a major party at a general election. And I really don't consider myself to be a maverick (you may, of course, disagree).
Sometimes I wonder if I'm just living in the wrong country? Perhaps the British don't like small government. But then I think back to the way people grasped the opportunities the 80s offered and I can't believe that they wouldn't want an optimistic laissez-faire situation returned to them.
I am shocked - and surprised! - at how our contemporary Conservative Party has turned out. And I don't believe that their approach or performance or ethos or policies have anything to do with their having to take power in cahoots with the Lib Dems.
I know that nothing lasts forever and that, of course, the political scene always changes over time. But my own clock seems to tick a lot faster than the political one and I want to see change now. Do you think there's any chance of a proper move away from social democratism over the next, say, fifteen years?
V8mate said:
There was a time when the Conservative Party took a good stab at delivering what I'll call optimistic government.
Pro-capitalist, pro-choice, small government.
Completely disagree that has been the focus of the Conservatives. Pro-capitalist, pro-choice, small government.
Has David Cameron ever made a speech where he's stated that the cut's taking place are a good thing because they reduce the size of the state?
Pro-capitalist? More pro-business than pro-market.
Fittster said:
V8mate said:
There was a time when the Conservative Party took a good stab at delivering what I'll call optimistic government.
Pro-capitalist, pro-choice, small government.
Completely disagree that has been the focus of the Conservatives. Pro-capitalist, pro-choice, small government.
Has David Cameron ever made a speech where he's stated that the cut's taking place are a good thing because they reduce the size of the state?
Pro-capitalist? More pro-business than pro-market.
"There was a time when..." ties in with the 'more than twenty years ago' bit.
V8mate said:
Fittster said:
V8mate said:
There was a time when the Conservative Party took a good stab at delivering what I'll call optimistic government.
Pro-capitalist, pro-choice, small government.
Completely disagree that has been the focus of the Conservatives. Pro-capitalist, pro-choice, small government.
Has David Cameron ever made a speech where he's stated that the cut's taking place are a good thing because they reduce the size of the state?
Pro-capitalist? More pro-business than pro-market.
"There was a time when..." ties in with the 'more than twenty years ago' bit.
Knicked from elsewhere: "Despite a good deal of anti-state talk, under Thatcher there were strong elements of the enterprise state. Mrs Thatcher famously "batted for Britain" in winning overseas contracts. And the Government gave temporary shelter to troubled companies until they were ready to face the full force of competition. British Steel, for example, was restructured by the Government and not privatised until 1988. Rolls Royce remained a nationalised company until 1987. Free enterprise sometimes requires an active state."
On the welfare side of things, what aspects of the welfare state did Thatcher dismantel?
I read an interesting book called "the end of work".
In a nutshell, it tracks population growth (call me Hitler) with unemployment, then follows that through a growing public sector to take up the slack, then borrowing to fund the ballooning public sector, then financial collapse.
The book was written in 96 and has been bang on with this present crisis. Very interesting indeed.
So, the question is, "What happens next?"
There are too many people who need to have "a half decent standard of living" (probably as metered out by "these" rights).
It appears to me that those in charge are reluctant to take a step back from their massive political unemployment sponge. How this shapes up is very interesting.....
But a post-democratic federal dictatorship could probably meter out the medicine (take your money) very well.
What needed to happen was managing the population in order to maintain a quality of life for all, rather than leave it to an ultimately unsustainable ponzi scheme.
As with us, the politicians are aware this is going to get nasty and are acting in their own interests first.
You can call me mental if you like, but there are other bubbles waiting to pop, including the totally and utterly mental university buildings surplus and huge amount of graduates expecting jobs on a plate.
This is clearly not going to end in a nice way.
So, social democracy will see you have a big telly and a nice cheap house BUT it will do this by whacking it on the credit card.
Libertarians advocate getting on your own feet, cutting your own path to success. There are still too many people and misery is assured for a lot of them.
So, I have a feeling that as a combination of feelgood, self-indulgent huggy politics by ignorant romantics and people who have a clue and are attempting to manage the situation for "the greater good", we are stuck with managing this epic change via social democracy.
There is a very big hazard of client state here, which frightens me. Sadly, as self employed, still trying to cut it in this difficult climate, it only leaves doing it the Greek way.
I wonder when everyone will be issued a state sponsored Card Terminal and transactions will be done on HMRC monitored cards and HMRC will have masks and automatic weapons and probably uniforms with no numbers
I'd say that in response to this unsolvable financial inevitability, we are being slid sideways into a different mode of working/living/bing paid and our relationship with the state.
Very interesting times indeed.
I suppose a lot of us are in what is effectively a libertarian minority.
You can't squeeze people to leave the country as it's probably against their uman rahts.
I don't think there is hope voting for anyone at all. If UKIP show any signs of being serious, a farce will erupt, like Kilroy and turn it into a joke.
The practical solution to this is to distance yourself as far from the reaches of the state as possible by understanding and management.
One thing is certain, it is going to get interesting, how, I'm not sure. Most people will be plugged into the rotbox and not notice their lives are being fundamentally altered.....
A consequence of this is the whole thing becomes a lot more unstable.....
In a nutshell, it tracks population growth (call me Hitler) with unemployment, then follows that through a growing public sector to take up the slack, then borrowing to fund the ballooning public sector, then financial collapse.
The book was written in 96 and has been bang on with this present crisis. Very interesting indeed.
So, the question is, "What happens next?"
There are too many people who need to have "a half decent standard of living" (probably as metered out by "these" rights).
It appears to me that those in charge are reluctant to take a step back from their massive political unemployment sponge. How this shapes up is very interesting.....
But a post-democratic federal dictatorship could probably meter out the medicine (take your money) very well.
What needed to happen was managing the population in order to maintain a quality of life for all, rather than leave it to an ultimately unsustainable ponzi scheme.
As with us, the politicians are aware this is going to get nasty and are acting in their own interests first.
You can call me mental if you like, but there are other bubbles waiting to pop, including the totally and utterly mental university buildings surplus and huge amount of graduates expecting jobs on a plate.
This is clearly not going to end in a nice way.
So, social democracy will see you have a big telly and a nice cheap house BUT it will do this by whacking it on the credit card.
Libertarians advocate getting on your own feet, cutting your own path to success. There are still too many people and misery is assured for a lot of them.
So, I have a feeling that as a combination of feelgood, self-indulgent huggy politics by ignorant romantics and people who have a clue and are attempting to manage the situation for "the greater good", we are stuck with managing this epic change via social democracy.
There is a very big hazard of client state here, which frightens me. Sadly, as self employed, still trying to cut it in this difficult climate, it only leaves doing it the Greek way.
I wonder when everyone will be issued a state sponsored Card Terminal and transactions will be done on HMRC monitored cards and HMRC will have masks and automatic weapons and probably uniforms with no numbers
I'd say that in response to this unsolvable financial inevitability, we are being slid sideways into a different mode of working/living/bing paid and our relationship with the state.
Very interesting times indeed.
I suppose a lot of us are in what is effectively a libertarian minority.
You can't squeeze people to leave the country as it's probably against their uman rahts.
I don't think there is hope voting for anyone at all. If UKIP show any signs of being serious, a farce will erupt, like Kilroy and turn it into a joke.
The practical solution to this is to distance yourself as far from the reaches of the state as possible by understanding and management.
One thing is certain, it is going to get interesting, how, I'm not sure. Most people will be plugged into the rotbox and not notice their lives are being fundamentally altered.....
A consequence of this is the whole thing becomes a lot more unstable.....
I'm not saying that the Thatcher era was perfect and deliberately didn't mention her name or her -ism in my OP. You need to bear in mind what her period in office came on the back of; there's only so many miracles which can be pulled off!
So, I'm not comparing, I'm simply commenting on the lack of political choice and wondering why that is. Are all parties still convinced that Blairite centre-ground grabbing is the only way forward?
So, I'm not comparing, I'm simply commenting on the lack of political choice and wondering why that is. Are all parties still convinced that Blairite centre-ground grabbing is the only way forward?
I firmly believe that the main parties get to fiddle with non-important issues whilst the big ones are decided at higher level.
This has to be the reason why there is no important debate/discussion allowed about all these elephants in the room.
Politics and what the man on the street wants are poles apart, this is possibly an aid to allowing a slide into a non-democratic structure...
This has to be the reason why there is no important debate/discussion allowed about all these elephants in the room.
Politics and what the man on the street wants are poles apart, this is possibly an aid to allowing a slide into a non-democratic structure...
V8mate said:
I'm not saying that the Thatcher era was perfect and deliberately didn't mention her name or her -ism in my OP. You need to bear in mind what her period in office came on the back of; there's only so many miracles which can be pulled off!
So, I'm not comparing, I'm simply commenting on the lack of political choice and wondering why that is. Are all parties still convinced that Blairite centre-ground grabbing is the only way forward?
I think what you hark back to is Thatcher's style of governance though. Before her was Ted Heath and his 'wets'. You would probably have to go back as far as McMillan before Thatcher for anything similar. I agree with you. We need a libertarian small Govt.So, I'm not comparing, I'm simply commenting on the lack of political choice and wondering why that is. Are all parties still convinced that Blairite centre-ground grabbing is the only way forward?
We need to outlaw this 'LOreal' generation who think because they trip over a kerb they can claim tens of thousands. We need to instil pride again. Pride in a job well done, pride in the flag, pride in UK Plc.
We need another Falklands War! ElvisPenhaligon said:
So, the question is, "What happens next?"
Stop ALL immigration immediately. we are full.If that means leaving the EU, then so be it.
Cancel ALL visas for current immigrants and deport them unless their work is deemed " in the public interest" (Doctors etc).
Massive crack down on all Illegal immigrants. Do not pass go, do not collect £200 do not claim "human rights". GONE!
Stop paying the habitually unemployed, lifestyle claimants and make it worth while to work.
One new law making it a requirement of any company with a vacancy to register that vacancy with the job center.
When I have been made redundant in the past, the hardest thing is finding where prospective employers actually advertise their vacancies.
If the job center knew about every one it would reduce the time of any claim as well as allowing the Job center to use the "Liar, Liar" clause when claimants say that there are no jobs.
Re nationalise vital infrastructure, like Nuclear Power, Gas, etc to ensure their security.
Stop pissing money away on
Wars
Global Warming/ Eco crap/ Windmills
Aid to foreign countries
anything with "Outreach","Community" or "equality/diversity" in the title
The EU
Dish out Proper sentences to Crims. If that means building more prisons, then so be it.
just a start
ETA
Stop paying for things like this
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1071/did_you...
Edited by odyssey2200 on Thursday 5th April 12:12
odyssey2200 said:
Stuff
The things is, I align a lot of youre list with socialist-style parties: protectionism, closed doors, government compulsion.Frankly, as an example, I don't give a hoot who comes to the UK.
Why? Because when they arrive, I want them to find a country where people work hard because they feel motivated to do and achieve the best they can. For themselves. Because the State is neither unnecessarily limiting their access to professions nor excessively taxing them for the benefit of those who feel motivated to do nothing.
Theer should be no sign on the door suggesting that this country is in any way 'closed'. It's the freedom to share ideas which breeds prosperity.
And why should employers have to register vacancies with the State? Or, indeed, exclude candidates for those vacancies by virtue of their sex, colour or any other random consideration? The only real loser, in narrowing the market for candidates is the company. So just let them.
V8mate said:
And why should employers have to register vacancies with the State? Or, indeed, exclude candidates for those vacancies by virtue of their sex, colour or any other random consideration? The only real loser, in narrowing the market for candidates is the company. So just let them.
If all jobs vacancies were recorded in one central place, it would really help genuine job seekers, like myself to find a new employer and not be a burden on the state.If you go to sing on at the moment and tell nthe person in the job center that there weren't any jobs you could apply for, they will just sign you on for another 2 weeks.
They have no clue as to the reality of the situation.
Ifthat had a data base they would and could stop lifestyle claimants from getting away with doing FA at the states expense.
I mentioned nothing about "sex, colour or any other random consideration".
Also
How can someone be held accountable to unemployment figures (regardless of tie colour) when they have no idea of how many jobs are actually available.
We need a Gov't that will stop all the pandering to PC ness, get a grip and put Britain and Britist before all else.
V8, do you not think it a strange coincidence that your disillusionment with the Tories pretty much coincided with the end of the Thatcher era?
She pretty much nurtured the utopia you describe. I think you may have unwittingly realised that her form of governance is what we need now.
Trouble is, not one person at Westminster is even close. No Maggie, no Norman Tebbit, not strong character prepared to come out and actually say what they will do and stick to it. Call me Dave might privately think like you, but he is terrified of upsetting sections of the voting community by saying so. Anyone who comes out and says they are going to half all benefits, with no exceptions is going to alienate themselves from far more voters than they will gain.
Get into power and then do it. Trouble with that is, you then get riots and civil unrest which the depleted and demoralised police and army are unable to cope with. And by then, you are staring down the barrels of a Dictatorship, which is the polar opposite to what you intend.
She pretty much nurtured the utopia you describe. I think you may have unwittingly realised that her form of governance is what we need now.
Trouble is, not one person at Westminster is even close. No Maggie, no Norman Tebbit, not strong character prepared to come out and actually say what they will do and stick to it. Call me Dave might privately think like you, but he is terrified of upsetting sections of the voting community by saying so. Anyone who comes out and says they are going to half all benefits, with no exceptions is going to alienate themselves from far more voters than they will gain.
Get into power and then do it. Trouble with that is, you then get riots and civil unrest which the depleted and demoralised police and army are unable to cope with. And by then, you are staring down the barrels of a Dictatorship, which is the polar opposite to what you intend.
I have no allegiance to any party.
IMHO most politicians are self serving liars.
All I want in an end to the madness.
If anyone ran a company on the same lines as our Governments have run this country, of late, it would have given all its money and assets away and borrowed more money so it could give that away too and gone belly up.
Blue/yellow or Red = Same s
t, different tie.
IMHO most politicians are self serving liars.
All I want in an end to the madness.
If anyone ran a company on the same lines as our Governments have run this country, of late, it would have given all its money and assets away and borrowed more money so it could give that away too and gone belly up.
Blue/yellow or Red = Same s
t, different tie.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff