The Political Thread

[ZenArcade]

Great debate....remember our Shark did create this thread. Z

[Professor Bear]

It's worth remembering that "trickle down" isn't actually a specific economic strategy thought up by Milton Friedman in the 1980s and repackaged as "Reagonomics", but an already-discredited economic approach from the 19th century known as "Horse and Sparrow Theory" - after the notion that if the horse eats all the oats it wants, some will end up being shit into the street for the sparrow.

[ZenArcade]

Aaah the nineteenth century or as us natives call it: the early 21st century. If we're patient in the next few months we'll get an enhanced revisitation of the aftermath that 18th charmer: the South Sea Bubble. Again,  yippee!!  Z

[CrazyFoxMachine]

Should perhaps clarify that I do not hold the beliefs expressed in my previous post- but I can see how they are noble, attractive and even rational. I just don't ever see them working in practice, due to people and their weaknesses...

See, that's almost eerily similar to how I feel about many Left ideals.

This interview between Hitchens and Jones of the left and right had me thinking about the fundamental personal viewpoint differences between the so-called left and right and it seems to me (OVERSIMPLIFICATION ISN'T GOOD) that political affiliation is more than anything just about positivity, realism, negativity and our very personal experiences with those subjects. If you see people and the world as fundamentally straightforward then you'll tend toward the right I imagine - systems work the way they do and people are the way they are. If you see the world as complicated and changeable you'll tend towards the left - people aren't so bad really, systems are flawed etc. That will depend quite heavily on your own life, how you see other people and how (most importantly) you feel you've come out of experiences with other people and that will vary heavily as the world and people are indeed neither lovely nor horrible but both at the same time. Chock full of monstrosities and unspeakable horrors as well as lovely things and happy times. According to your depiction of both. You may not see both in your own lifetime, you may see neither of one at all or feel you've felt the entirety of only one. That's what makes you who you are.

Therefore - I suppose, I think the most logical position politically - as life in a society of many people with myriad experiences must be one of balance and as Bear correctly says the narrative since the mid-eighties has been a predominantly selfish one where the 'left' (so called) are on the back footing and the savage corporate thing is in full dominance. There's a logic to this view, but it's a harsh one that really clearly doesn't function properly in isolation (evidence = reality). So I'm deeply glad that there seems to be actual opposition growing and I'll chuck my weight there as it is. However the mistake of anyone in belief of the current dominant dogma is that those "opposed" to it want to usurp their own utter dominance and (as in the Hitchens interview) create an all-consuming glorious utopia where everyone hugs and isn't an arse. However - that's madness. I don't think anyone who can form sentences believes that could ever happen.

I'm currently a serious Green supporter (contradiction in terms AHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA SELF AWARENESS) and someone recently told me emphatically that parts of their manifesto are bollocks and therefore the whole party was a joke and weren't worth the effort. I thought - yeah - some of the manifesto is bollocks but I've met a lot of them and they're quite nice reasonable people that weren't cruel or disrespectful to their opponents and listened to the people around them. Including those that said their manifesto was bollocks and they were a joke. Things get changed if enough folk agree. And I thought... well that seems fairly good really. I like 'em for that. At no point did I think that the greens would ever get majority government and implement their entire manifesto on everyone. There'd be like... homoeopathy on the curriculum or some other shite. whut. I voted for them because locally they had a shot (more green councillors than other city, nearly got us an MP) and I'd met those people and they were nice. That's it. No conspiracy, no grand plan.

WHAT I AM SAYING IS:

Nobility, attractiveness, rationality, practicality and weakness - are ALL subjective things and vary from person to person according to their wordview and experiences. From TB to Jimbo to me and onward - the point I imagine is the framework. I say think more locally - meet your local candidates - make it a person to person thing. That's what politics is really - on very basic fundamental level. They REPRESENT YOU. Your experiences, your ambitions, your life-plan, your area. It's no crime to take an interest and there's no ideal final vision or actual winner.

[Steven Denton]

Owen, where do you get off being so considered and reasonable?

The thing about the people who say this (or these) few policies are insane so all their policies must be insane is it's basically the Argument from fallacy (or fallacy fallacy) and one of the most popular media/sound bite arguments.

It's also important to separate crazy from disagree. I disagree with a lot of stuff but that doesn't make it crazy it just means that my idea of a successful outcome is not the same as that of the person proposing the policy I disagree with. 

[Dark Jimbo]

I say think more locally - meet your local candidates - make it a person to person thing. That's what politics is really - on very basic fundamental level. They REPRESENT YOU. Your experiences, your ambitions, your life-plan, your area. It's no crime to take an interest and there's no ideal final vision or actual winner.

Funnily enough I voted Lib Dem, for the first time ever, at the last election (obviously that worked out AMAZINGLY). Never thought I would, but although I didn't care overly for the party the Lib Dem candidate genuinely seemed the best one for our town.

[IndigoPrime]

someone recently told me emphatically that parts of their manifesto are bollocks and therefore the whole party was a joke and weren't worth the effort

I read every one of the major party manifestos (Con; Lab; LD; UKIP; SNP; PC; Green) cover to cover. The Green one was one of the best, I thought. It was frequently radical, but only very rarely strayed into 'bollocks' through the odd bit of dubious reasoning regarding policy. I also felt they believed it, unlike, say, the Lib Dems, who had a generally very impressive manifesto that I trusted about as far as I could throw the entire party.

[Ghastly McNasty]

It's this fallacy nonsense that really gets me back up, and probably a lot of other left leaning people too.

The right and the media readily dismiss sensible left-wing ideas based on the principle that the socialist utopia is unachievable, therefore all left ideas are a joke. Using the extreme views of a small splattering of hard-lefters to discredit the moderate left is just bollocks. Grrrrr. Really make me loony!

[IndigoPrime]

What's more galling is that moderate socialist ideas are rapidly falling by the wayside, and even moderate centrist ideas are under threat. If this Conservative government continues the way it is, the NHS will at best become a service of last resort (i.e. a literal emergency service alone) in areas where no private companies want to work, or where they cannot profit enough. It will elsewhere be a shield brand. Naturally, these private companies will expect the 'actual' NHS to take over when they quit in a hissy fit, and will also be subsidised by taxation, much like the current train system.

What worries me at least equally is when you see Conservatives talking about offloading other services and infrastructure from government. There've already been rumblings about privatising not just new but also existing roads and motorways. Beyond that, lots of talk around education is pretty scary, putting the building blocks in place to free all schools from government, and enabling privatisation there. Conservative education policy is, at best, extremely troubling and hugely misunderstands the world we exist in, but the notion of offloading schools (under the guise of local control, but in reality corporate control) seems like something from a hideous dystopian novel rather than a reality that could conceivably happen.

And ultimately, it all comes down to money—what people believe we have, and what politicians can convince people we should do with it. The Greens are laughed at for their idea of a citizen's income. The idea there is to essentially eradicate the benefits system alongside radically overhauling taxation, and just pay everyone a 'living wage'. Those who earn would obviously enjoy a better quality of life, and once you're some way up the ladder, your living wage would be taxed back out of you.

This is the kind of thing that sends Daily Mail readers into apoplectic fury, because SCROUNGERS and WORKSHY LAYABOUTS. But it's just a simplification of what we have combined with a safety net, and with an eye on the future where it's pretty damn clear there will be far fewer jobs available. Most importantly, it's also a system that has been tried, albeit only on city scales. Under such circumstances, it was usually a success, but also bulldozed out of existence by people on the right. (See also: just building houses for the homeless rather than trying to deal with people without housing in other ways.)

I think my hope with Corbyn is that he makes more people think about the wider situations. He's clearly not nearly as radical as the Greens, but he has a sense of social justice, and his policies on the whole look to be beneficial for the country as a whole. If that means I take a personal hit myself, in order to assist a few people who have far less, so be it. I'd sooner that than end up with an extra few hundred quid at the end of the year, knowing that many millions of people are now worse off and facing even tougher struggles to survive.

[Professor Bear]

The right and the media readily dismiss sensible left-wing ideas based on the principle that the socialist utopia is unachievable, therefore all left ideas are a joke.

A guy on the CBR forum responded to my criticism of the monarchy by saying if I loved communism so much I should go live in a communist country.

[Richmond Clements]

The right and the media readily dismiss sensible left-wing ideas based on the principle that the socialist utopia is unachievable, therefore all left ideas are a joke.

A guy on the CBR forum responded to my criticism of the monarchy by saying if I loved communism so much I should go live in a communist country.

Gosh. I didn't realise they were the only two choices...

[Dandontdare]

What worries me at least equally is when you see Conservatives talking about offloading other services and infrastructure from government.

Osborne is desperate to meet his deficit promises so he's selling off every national asset he an get away with - it's like selling your fridge and cooker because you're a bit short on the mortgage that month.

wrt various party manifestos, I always find that website useful at elections (can't remember for the moment what its called) - it basically quotes each party's line on various topics like defence, immigration health etc, but without identifying the party to remove any tribal prejudices. You tick the ones that you most approve of, and then at the end it tells you which party's manifesto most closely matches your opinions - it usually tells me Green, which has been true for the last decade or so - it'l be interesting to see if it guides me back to labour next time.

[CrazyFoxMachine]

https://voteforpolicies.org.uk/ <-- a good one this, and can highlight surprising elements of some parties manifestos that you may not have considered!

[IndigoPrime]

Those sites always show a huge disconnect. The majority of people THINK they are for social justice and equality. The reality is a great number vote for something that is far more about selfishness or, at best, in theory about 'them'. What always strikes me is how few people see the bigger picture. I'm sure we'll head to 2020 with the Conservatives promising income-tax breaks, and deftly ignoring spiralling energy costs (and a lack of UK investment in renewables), employment issues, underinvestment in key services, education being reduced to churning out drones rather than children and teenagers with balanced skills, and so on.

Not that Labour will necessarily have the answers. I just have hope now that there's a chance we'll head into the next election with genuine choice among the two largest parties, and the sense Labour actually stands for something again.

[Leigh S]

OWen makes many good points - on that topic, I think the appeal of the Right is that it talks about tangible, experienced things... that is, it is much easier to get someone het up about the guy sitting on his arse falsely claiming beneifts that they know lives at number 32, than it is to talk about hidden crimes of a ridiculously higher magnitude.  Look at the photo of that poor refugee child - personalise and issue and bring it home and you see FB friends who had the previous week been sharing Britain First stuff start talking about teh difference between Migrants and refugees and (whilst still trying to hold on to their previous ratehr nasty worldview), accommodate something else because they have been touched by having to confront the reality of somehting, and not the "let them all drown" 'funz' of the Hopkinites...