The Unknown Ideal
Discussion
Following on from this thread where I correctly pointed out that Cameron has no real case to make for conservatism as a political ideology, I would love to hear PHers moral, intellectual and ideological arguments for a conservative-libertarian government.
Don't feel the need to chime in with our pressing need to cut the deficit - we all know that. Nor need you feel obliged to point out the obvious reality that having lower taxes than our neighbours attracts investment. It's obvious. In fact no need for "not", no need for negatives at all. No need even for pragmatism.
What is the ideal? What is the positive case for a right leaning government, such as many seem to desire but no-one seems able to express in a vernacular that appeals to the voter? What is your vision for Britain?
Don't feel the need to chime in with our pressing need to cut the deficit - we all know that. Nor need you feel obliged to point out the obvious reality that having lower taxes than our neighbours attracts investment. It's obvious. In fact no need for "not", no need for negatives at all. No need even for pragmatism.
What is the ideal? What is the positive case for a right leaning government, such as many seem to desire but no-one seems able to express in a vernacular that appeals to the voter? What is your vision for Britain?
AJS- said:
Following on from this thread where I correctly pointed out that Cameron has no real case to make for conservatism as a political ideology, I would love to hear PHers moral, intellectual and ideological arguments for a conservative-libertarian government.
Don't feel the need to chime in with our pressing need to cut the deficit - we all know that. Nor need you feel obliged to point out the obvious reality that having lower taxes than our neighbours attracts investment. It's obvious. In fact no need for "not", no need for negatives at all. No need even for pragmatism.
What is the ideal? What is the positive case for a right leaning government, such as many seem to desire but no-one seems able to express in a vernacular that appeals to the voter? What is your vision for Britain?
I can do it in one word.Don't feel the need to chime in with our pressing need to cut the deficit - we all know that. Nor need you feel obliged to point out the obvious reality that having lower taxes than our neighbours attracts investment. It's obvious. In fact no need for "not", no need for negatives at all. No need even for pragmatism.
What is the ideal? What is the positive case for a right leaning government, such as many seem to desire but no-one seems able to express in a vernacular that appeals to the voter? What is your vision for Britain?
Responsibility.
I think the ideal is where we can balance the needs of the many and not penalise the few - I think I just bastardised Spock! Hell I am a geek sometimes...
However that is where I think we need to be, we need to stop rewarding fecklessness and lambasting success. Above that I think we just need to be the nation we have always shown we are capable of being which is fundamentally a sound people with a good work ethic and the ability to adapt when the need arises without apportioning blame.
However I am perhaps in an idealistic mood - must be the VERY good Burgundy!
However that is where I think we need to be, we need to stop rewarding fecklessness and lambasting success. Above that I think we just need to be the nation we have always shown we are capable of being which is fundamentally a sound people with a good work ethic and the ability to adapt when the need arises without apportioning blame.
However I am perhaps in an idealistic mood - must be the VERY good Burgundy!
davepoth said:
I can do it in one word.
Responsibility.
Not enough. Responsibility.
It can be argued that we have a responsibility to pay taxes, to look after the sick, the elderly and the infirm and that the best way to do this is through the tax system and the welfare state. We have a responsibility to ensure that Afghani women have the vote and that the climate doesn't change due to our industrial output.
Responsibility is a necessary headache, but it is not a motivating ideology.
heppers75 said:
I think the ideal is where we can balance the needs of the many and not penalise the few - I think I just bastardised Spock! Hell I am a geek sometimes...
However that is where I think we need to be, we need to stop rewarding fecklessness and lambasting success. Above that I think we just need to be the nation we have always shown we are capable of being which is fundamentally a sound people with a good work ethic and the ability to adapt when the need arises without apportioning blame.
However I am perhaps in an idealistic mood - must be the VERY good Burgundy!
It's balance, it's negatives and pragmatism. However that is where I think we need to be, we need to stop rewarding fecklessness and lambasting success. Above that I think we just need to be the nation we have always shown we are capable of being which is fundamentally a sound people with a good work ethic and the ability to adapt when the need arises without apportioning blame.
However I am perhaps in an idealistic mood - must be the VERY good Burgundy!
What does this country look like?
Put it this way - socialism offers the society where the average Joe can be King. Socialism tells the average working man that if you produce a thousand pounds worth of goods then you have the right to one thousand pounds. It posits the society where you, the ordinary working individual, are the social, moral and fiscal equal of the landed aristocrat, the tycoon and the bishop.
Conservatism offers only in return that your wages will rise a bit faster if we hold off on that ideal.
What is the attack? What is the plan? What is our ideal?
AJS- said:
Not enough.
It can be argued that we have a responsibility to pay taxes, to look after the sick, the elderly and the infirm and that the best way to do this is through the tax system and the welfare state. We have a responsibility to ensure that Afghani women have the vote and that the climate doesn't change due to our industrial output.
Responsibility is a necessary headache, but it is not a motivating ideology.
No, responsibility is a motivating ideology. What do we, as individuals have responsibility for?It can be argued that we have a responsibility to pay taxes, to look after the sick, the elderly and the infirm and that the best way to do this is through the tax system and the welfare state. We have a responsibility to ensure that Afghani women have the vote and that the climate doesn't change due to our industrial output.
Responsibility is a necessary headache, but it is not a motivating ideology.
Firstly, and foremost, Ourselves. Secondly, any dependents (children and infirm relatives). Our responsibility goes no further than that.
All of your decisions should be guided by that. For example. You have your salary, and you need to purchase from that a house, food, water, electricity, healthcare, and so on, and so forth. The responsible person insures that they put their money to the best personal use. Now that may mean pooling your money with others for education, healthcare, and security, but again it may not. That's a decision that can (and should) be left to the individual.
The whole point of oxthodox Libertarianism is that it isnt really a 'political' movement. Indeed the idea of politicians having power is contrary to the libertarian ideal. Democracy is simply glorified 'mob rule' - just because the majority are OK with taxes, it doesnt change the fact tax is still theft, for example.
Your vote is in your wallet. You vote is choosing to withold labour, capital and so on, not at the ballot box. In a truly libertarian system there would be no elections for politicians, because politicians, in the modern sense, are law makers, as the americans do indeed call them. In a true libertarian society, no one, not politicians, or anyone else would have the power to make, change or alter laws, but to simply enforce rights. The only elections would most likely be to vote in individuals who can better enforce these rights. Judges, sheriffs and so on, but even they would have no power to change them. There should be no politician's in the modern sense of the word under a libertarian system.
You dont need a 1000 page book to summarize libertarian theory, You can write it on the back of a cigarette paper:
1)Enforcement of personal and property rights
2)Non agression pact.
Repeal everything else!
Nonetheless, if you want a libertarians views on everything, just watch some Walter Block videos on youtube. Some of them are even entertaining for economics.
Your vote is in your wallet. You vote is choosing to withold labour, capital and so on, not at the ballot box. In a truly libertarian system there would be no elections for politicians, because politicians, in the modern sense, are law makers, as the americans do indeed call them. In a true libertarian society, no one, not politicians, or anyone else would have the power to make, change or alter laws, but to simply enforce rights. The only elections would most likely be to vote in individuals who can better enforce these rights. Judges, sheriffs and so on, but even they would have no power to change them. There should be no politician's in the modern sense of the word under a libertarian system.
You dont need a 1000 page book to summarize libertarian theory, You can write it on the back of a cigarette paper:
1)Enforcement of personal and property rights
2)Non agression pact.
Repeal everything else!
Nonetheless, if you want a libertarians views on everything, just watch some Walter Block videos on youtube. Some of them are even entertaining for economics.
AJS- said:
socialism offers the society where the average Joe can be King.
That's the American dream.AJS- said:
Socialism tells the average working man that if you produce a thousand pounds worth of goods then you have the right to one thousand pounds.
That's the American dream.AJS- said:
It posits the society where you, the ordinary working individual, are the social, moral and fiscal equal of the landed aristocrat, the tycoon and the bishop.
That's the American dream.AJS- said:
Following on from this thread where I correctly pointed out that Cameron has no real case to make for conservatism as a political ideology, I would love to hear PHers moral, intellectual and ideological arguments for a conservative-libertarian government.
Don't feel the need to chime in with our pressing need to cut the deficit - we all know that. Nor need you feel obliged to point out the obvious reality that having lower taxes than our neighbours attracts investment. It's obvious. In fact no need for "not", no need for negatives at all. No need even for pragmatism.
What is the ideal? What is the positive case for a right leaning government, such as many seem to desire but no-one seems able to express in a vernacular that appeals to the voter? What is your vision for Britain?
You seem to have tried hard to create a question that can only be answered the way you want or not answered at all.Don't feel the need to chime in with our pressing need to cut the deficit - we all know that. Nor need you feel obliged to point out the obvious reality that having lower taxes than our neighbours attracts investment. It's obvious. In fact no need for "not", no need for negatives at all. No need even for pragmatism.
What is the ideal? What is the positive case for a right leaning government, such as many seem to desire but no-one seems able to express in a vernacular that appeals to the voter? What is your vision for Britain?
The answer of course is choice. This choice is created by the government taking the least possible tax from the people and in return providing the least possible public services. The choice of how to spend your money then relies on the individual rather than the state and simultaneously, so does the responsibility to spend it well.
The real question is whether the current govrenment actually understand this basic Conservative principle.
AJS- said:
It's balance, it's negatives and pragmatism.
What does this country look like?
Put it this way - socialism offers the society where the average Joe can be King. Socialism tells the average working man that if you produce a thousand pounds worth of goods then you have the right to one thousand pounds. It posits the society where you, the ordinary working individual, are the social, moral and fiscal equal of the landed aristocrat, the tycoon and the bishop.
Conservatism offers only in return that your wages will rise a bit faster if we hold off on that ideal.
What is the attack? What is the plan? What is our ideal?
You've got yourself a bit mixed up there. What does this country look like?
Put it this way - socialism offers the society where the average Joe can be King. Socialism tells the average working man that if you produce a thousand pounds worth of goods then you have the right to one thousand pounds. It posits the society where you, the ordinary working individual, are the social, moral and fiscal equal of the landed aristocrat, the tycoon and the bishop.
Conservatism offers only in return that your wages will rise a bit faster if we hold off on that ideal.
What is the attack? What is the plan? What is our ideal?
Socialism is not where the average Joe can be king - it's where wealth is redistributed to ensure the poorest and neediest are cared for. Experience has shown that generally the two are mutually exclusive; If there's no need to strive, if Joe is able to say "f
k it, it's good enough" and still have a roof over his head and food on the table, what incentive does he have?Socialism doesn't tells the average working man that if you produce a thousand pounds' worth of goods then you have the right to one thousand pounds. It tells you that if you produce a thousand pounds' worth of goods then you have the right to roughly five hundred pounds; the rest being taken by the government in tax to pay for various services. If you produce no goods at all, you still have the right to roughly five hundred pounds, since that's only fair.
And while Socialism does aim to make the ordinary working individual the social, moral and fiscal equal of the landed aristocrat, it does that regardless of the character of that individual.
I’m really a socialist so:
- People to be given the access to education/trades to excel to the best of their ability.
- Free at point of use healthcare that comprehensively covers society.
- A social welfare system that insists on able people seeking employment.
More than that though I’d like to have a populous educated in politics, business, sciences and the arts all the way through society.
I believe there is an insatiable hunger in humans for exploration even if it delivers little in the way of immediate practical bread-on-the-table value. We need to set our sights higher, be confident in backing ourselves and have the courage to reach towards more aspirational goals as a society. If this means spending significant chunks of GDP on technology, engineering and research then we should go ahead and do that. We need to rekindle that human optimism and enthusiasm about our capabilities, without some greater goals we risk replacing them only with unfulfilling substitutes. Maybe I’m not explaining myself very well but I want Britons to believe their country will continue to prosper rather than already half way condemned to the page of a history textbook.
- People to be given the access to education/trades to excel to the best of their ability.
- Free at point of use healthcare that comprehensively covers society.
- A social welfare system that insists on able people seeking employment.
More than that though I’d like to have a populous educated in politics, business, sciences and the arts all the way through society.
I believe there is an insatiable hunger in humans for exploration even if it delivers little in the way of immediate practical bread-on-the-table value. We need to set our sights higher, be confident in backing ourselves and have the courage to reach towards more aspirational goals as a society. If this means spending significant chunks of GDP on technology, engineering and research then we should go ahead and do that. We need to rekindle that human optimism and enthusiasm about our capabilities, without some greater goals we risk replacing them only with unfulfilling substitutes. Maybe I’m not explaining myself very well but I want Britons to believe their country will continue to prosper rather than already half way condemned to the page of a history textbook.
12 Gauge
Orthodox libertarianism is a different thing. A great idea, but we don't have a party, or any other method of imposing it on the country as a whole. What we do have, and what prompted my question, is a government calling itself conservative, and a population with a thirst for a different form of government, and yet no real philosophical underpinning for it that is widely known or understood.
Ozzie
They're not a million miles apart. Both born of enlightenment reformist thinking, the difference I would see is that the American revolution, and the subsequent political environment puts a great deal of emphasis on property, self-reliance and the ability to privately accumulate wealth. Socialism in it's purest form has no private property, and in degrees is prepared to over-ride property rights to further it's aims.
Caulkhead
Why is choice good? I know it leads to better and more efficient outcomes in many cases. It can also be argued that it leads to chaos and inefficiencies in other areas.
Regarding the question, I'm trying to put myself back in the 6th form. I'm waking up to the world of political thought, and I'm seeing a clear socialist doctrine that was an heir of the revolutionary movements in France and the US, laid out by Karl Marx. Modern socialists still adhere to some of it's principles, and from reading and understanding them I can think ahead to a socialist utopia where everyone is educated, employed, housed and fed to a high minimum standard. Arts and academia flourish with public funds. True there's no Lear Jets or Ferraris but there's no homelessness or poverty either.
I don't see a similarly coherent British conservative ideal. The "American dream" is the bones of an American version.
As to what answer I was looking for, there's no script - my own ideal would be something like the minimalist libertarianism mentioned by 12 gauge, but I can see some merit in conservatism, both as a step towards these principles and a doctrine in it's own right. I would like to hear from conservatives what, if any their ideal is.
davepoth
That does put it a better way than the average Joe being king - he's the equal of the landed gentry. Everyone is equal by outcome. It's not one I share, but it is an ideal for some. It also empowers the individual, especially in the context of 19th century Europe where the idea sprang from. It empowers the newly urbanised factory worker and the rural labourer alike to say they're the equal of anyone.
speedy thrills
To what end? Or is there no end, and continuous exploration is an end in itself?
Orthodox libertarianism is a different thing. A great idea, but we don't have a party, or any other method of imposing it on the country as a whole. What we do have, and what prompted my question, is a government calling itself conservative, and a population with a thirst for a different form of government, and yet no real philosophical underpinning for it that is widely known or understood.
Ozzie
They're not a million miles apart. Both born of enlightenment reformist thinking, the difference I would see is that the American revolution, and the subsequent political environment puts a great deal of emphasis on property, self-reliance and the ability to privately accumulate wealth. Socialism in it's purest form has no private property, and in degrees is prepared to over-ride property rights to further it's aims.
Caulkhead
Why is choice good? I know it leads to better and more efficient outcomes in many cases. It can also be argued that it leads to chaos and inefficiencies in other areas.
Regarding the question, I'm trying to put myself back in the 6th form. I'm waking up to the world of political thought, and I'm seeing a clear socialist doctrine that was an heir of the revolutionary movements in France and the US, laid out by Karl Marx. Modern socialists still adhere to some of it's principles, and from reading and understanding them I can think ahead to a socialist utopia where everyone is educated, employed, housed and fed to a high minimum standard. Arts and academia flourish with public funds. True there's no Lear Jets or Ferraris but there's no homelessness or poverty either.
I don't see a similarly coherent British conservative ideal. The "American dream" is the bones of an American version.
As to what answer I was looking for, there's no script - my own ideal would be something like the minimalist libertarianism mentioned by 12 gauge, but I can see some merit in conservatism, both as a step towards these principles and a doctrine in it's own right. I would like to hear from conservatives what, if any their ideal is.
davepoth
That does put it a better way than the average Joe being king - he's the equal of the landed gentry. Everyone is equal by outcome. It's not one I share, but it is an ideal for some. It also empowers the individual, especially in the context of 19th century Europe where the idea sprang from. It empowers the newly urbanised factory worker and the rural labourer alike to say they're the equal of anyone.
speedy thrills
To what end? Or is there no end, and continuous exploration is an end in itself?
AJS- said:
davepoth said:
I can do it in one word.
Responsibility.
Not enough. Responsibility.
It can be argued that we have a responsibility to pay taxes, to look after the sick, the elderly and the infirm and that the best way to do this is through the tax system and the welfare state. We have a responsibility to ensure that Afghani women have the vote and that the climate doesn't change due to our industrial output.
Responsibility is a necessary headache, but it is not a motivating ideology.
If more people took personal responsibility for their bad decisions as well as the good ones, admittedly there would be more money for collective responsibility also but that would be a good positition and a choice to make. Today we're engaging in collective responsibility without much of a sense of personal responsibility which in my view is sorely needed.
davepoth said:
No, responsibility is a motivating ideology. What do we, as individuals have responsibility for?
Firstly, and foremost, Ourselves. Secondly, any dependents (children and infirm relatives). Our responsibility goes no further than that.
All of your decisions should be guided by that. For example. You have your salary, and you need to purchase from that a house, food, water, electricity, healthcare, and so on, and so forth. The responsible person insures that they put their money to the best personal use. Now that may mean pooling your money with others for education, healthcare, and security, but again it may not. That's a decision that can (and should) be left to the individual.
In which case the TB Towers crystal ball doesn't need a service just yet.Firstly, and foremost, Ourselves. Secondly, any dependents (children and infirm relatives). Our responsibility goes no further than that.
All of your decisions should be guided by that. For example. You have your salary, and you need to purchase from that a house, food, water, electricity, healthcare, and so on, and so forth. The responsible person insures that they put their money to the best personal use. Now that may mean pooling your money with others for education, healthcare, and security, but again it may not. That's a decision that can (and should) be left to the individual.
Agreed - it is about ideology and it's something a real Conservative government would be shaped by. The present Coalition is shapeless partly due to being spineless and while many of the problems are due to having LibDims in tow, not all are.
speedy_thrills said:
I’m really a socialist so:
- People to be given the access to education/trades to excel to the best of their ability.
- Free at point of use healthcare that comprehensively covers society.
- A social welfare system that insists on able people seeking employment.
More than that though I’d like to have a populous educated in politics, business, sciences and the arts all the way through society.
I believe there is an insatiable hunger in humans for exploration even if it delivers little in the way of immediate practical bread-on-the-table value. We need to set our sights higher, be confident in backing ourselves and have the courage to reach towards more aspirational goals as a society. If this means spending significant chunks of GDP on technology, engineering and research then we should go ahead and do that. We need to rekindle that human optimism and enthusiasm about our capabilities, without some greater goals we risk replacing them only with unfulfilling substitutes. Maybe I’m not explaining myself very well but I want Britons to believe their country will continue to prosper rather than already half way condemned to the page of a history textbook.
It would work great if you could find a way to change human nature and our animal instincts, read animal farm !!that perfectly explains why socilialim always fails....- People to be given the access to education/trades to excel to the best of their ability.
- Free at point of use healthcare that comprehensively covers society.
- A social welfare system that insists on able people seeking employment.
More than that though I’d like to have a populous educated in politics, business, sciences and the arts all the way through society.
I believe there is an insatiable hunger in humans for exploration even if it delivers little in the way of immediate practical bread-on-the-table value. We need to set our sights higher, be confident in backing ourselves and have the courage to reach towards more aspirational goals as a society. If this means spending significant chunks of GDP on technology, engineering and research then we should go ahead and do that. We need to rekindle that human optimism and enthusiasm about our capabilities, without some greater goals we risk replacing them only with unfulfilling substitutes. Maybe I’m not explaining myself very well but I want Britons to believe their country will continue to prosper rather than already half way condemned to the page of a history textbook.
Use Psychology said:
the principle is that government/state should be as small as possible and the set of laws/restrictions on freedoms in any society should also be as small as possible.
Indeed which is only possible when individuals take more personal responsibility. If there are millions of families dependent on benefits and needing to be told or made to do the right things then an army of central and local government public sector workers is needed to manage the process of slowly bankrupting the country.powerstroke said:
It would work great if you could find a way to change human nature and our animal instincts, read animal farm !!that perfectly explains why socialism always fails....
When the Olympics are on and London's Zil Lanes are in use we can toast the 'success' of the soviet politburo and its legacies.
AJS- said:
speedy thrills
To what end? Or is there no end, and continuous exploration is an end in itself?
To what end is materialism or even life itself?To what end? Or is there no end, and continuous exploration is an end in itself?
To quote Carl Sagan on this who put it much better than I ever could:
"The significance of our lives and our fragile planet is then determined only by our own wisdom and courage. We are the custodians of life's meaning. We long for a Parent to care for us, to forgive us our errors, to save us from our childish mistakes. But knowledge is preferable to ignorance. Better by far to embrace the hard truth than a reassuring fable. If we crave some cosmic purpose, then let us find ourselves a worthy goal."
If exploration in the arts, sciences and universe aren't worthy goals for humanity then I have no idea what could energise and fulfil humanity. I don't know many intelligent people who doubt the NASA space missions, the development of aircraft or even slitting of the atom weren't worthy of the effort and foresight needed.
powerstroke said:
It would work great if you could find a way to change human nature and our animal instincts, read animal farm !!that perfectly explains why socilialim always fails....
Animal Farm a book forewarning Communism rather than Socialism. The warnings of the book are really about the sharing of power in a post-Capitalist society, if anything socialism is lauded as the way forward for the animals but the point is about the importance of democratic process in maintaining freedom.Orwell clearly approved of and argued for socialism in The Road to Wigan Peer. It was authoritarianism he deplored in almost all of his major works, particularly the communist brand.
In all seriousness I don't know of many socialists who would advocate for pure socialist values. We have a need for balance between this enforced societal altruism we call socialism and capitalism as a method of motivating individuals.
In a sense the folly of socialism is that it tries to treat individuals as a collective and the folly of capitalism is that it tries to treat a collective as individuals. Both situations mutually coexist in society however, we have the duality of behave as individuals and a collective. Both the situations of absolute collective socialism (in the USSR) and absolute individualist capitalism (such as in some lawless African countries) have been tried and failed.
The real question is where is the balance best struck. Some developed countries that have embraced fierce individualism have succeeded (US and UK for example) and others that embraced collectivism have succeeded (the Nordic countries and Singapore for example). I dislike people who don't fully appreciate the situation and say ridiculous things like "collective socialism inhibits business", well both Singapore and the U.S. both rank well and have different approaches. There is no one right way, it's much too simplistic and when you start to test a hypothesis you see that. We are better off looking at what brings other countries success and asking if we could mimic that system.
Edited by speedy_thrills on Sunday 29th April 11:13
I think the solution is for people to move to a country where they agree with the implemented political philosophy... perhaps we could not divide the world on nationalistic grounds but on political and philosophical grounds. We've run out of space on this planet to create new communities and try new political systems, but in (for example) ancient greece the founding of a new city with new political mechanisms was common. the same was true in the new world (religion was key here too...). Perhaps when (has to be a when) we can explore other solar systems we will see a blossoming in the number of communities and the diversity of their societal structures.
speedy_thrills said:
I’m really a socialist so:
- People to be given the access to education/trades to excel to the best of their ability.
- Free at point of use healthcare that comprehensively covers society.
- A social welfare system that insists on able people seeking employment.
More than that though I’d like to have a populous educated in politics, business, sciences and the arts all the way through society.
I believe there is an insatiable hunger in humans for exploration even if it delivers little in the way of immediate practical bread-on-the-table value. We need to set our sights higher, be confident in backing ourselves and have the courage to reach towards more aspirational goals as a society. If this means spending significant chunks of GDP on technology, engineering and research then we should go ahead and do that. We need to rekindle that human optimism and enthusiasm about our capabilities, without some greater goals we risk replacing them only with unfulfilling substitutes. Maybe I’m not explaining myself very well but I want Britons to believe their country will continue to prosper rather than already half way condemned to the page of a history textbook.
All that for 7 Billion people? Really.- People to be given the access to education/trades to excel to the best of their ability.
- Free at point of use healthcare that comprehensively covers society.
- A social welfare system that insists on able people seeking employment.
More than that though I’d like to have a populous educated in politics, business, sciences and the arts all the way through society.
I believe there is an insatiable hunger in humans for exploration even if it delivers little in the way of immediate practical bread-on-the-table value. We need to set our sights higher, be confident in backing ourselves and have the courage to reach towards more aspirational goals as a society. If this means spending significant chunks of GDP on technology, engineering and research then we should go ahead and do that. We need to rekindle that human optimism and enthusiasm about our capabilities, without some greater goals we risk replacing them only with unfulfilling substitutes. Maybe I’m not explaining myself very well but I want Britons to believe their country will continue to prosper rather than already half way condemned to the page of a history textbook.
Use Psychology said:
I think the solution is for people to move to a country where they agree with the implemented political philosophy...
With respect, not on your nelly! The job of politicians is to serve the people, not vice versa, and definitely not to implement whatever daft but very likely self-serving idea their cooking flueless approach to securing re-election might happen to dream up.That said, there's nothing better than a decent spell away from this increasingly depressing place, it certainly makes whatever time is spent here less disagreeable. There are quite reasonable places which suit such a purpose. Don't ask me where - each to their own and the relevant research only takes a few years including the inevitable trial and error.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff