Leftists vs Rightists

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Patrick Stevens

...for a start, you're not going to be able to change the government.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">You think voting in this country (just for an example) changes anything fundamental?

How charmingly naive.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by NickM

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Patrick Stevens

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by NickM

Why is the opportunity to elect your local Party delegate in a one-party state any less "democratic" than to be offered the choice between various mutually indistinguishable parties?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Well, for a start, you're not going to be able to change the government.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">You think voting in this country changes anything fundamental?

So you voted, and now you've got a government. I just hope YOU like it.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Well, it would do if enough people voted for the extreme parties. Fortunately, the extremists always seem to get a sound drubbing at the polls.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Patrick Stevens

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by NickM

You think voting in this country changes anything fundamental?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Well, it would do if enough people voted for the extreme parties...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Talk about clutching at straws...

I'll try again: how is a state in which the only political parties with any prospect of forming a government are indistinguishable one from another any different from a one-party state?

So you voted, and now you've got a government. I just hope YOU like it.

Gary Askwith · June 2007

Whether you have a one party choice or a 100 party choice its all the same if none of them offer you a viable choice( such as saving the planet & humanity from itself) [xx(]

Economic Growth; as dead as a Yangtze River dolphin....

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by NickM

I'll try again: how is a state in which the only political parties with any prospect of forming a government are indistinguishable one from another any different from a one-party state?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

There are different political parties for a start. In a one party state they've usually been banned and their leaders locked up or executed.

spire · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Gary Askwith

Whether you have a one party choice or a 100 party choice its all the same if none of them offer you a viable choice( such as saving the planet & humanity from itself) [xx(]

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The Greens had their moment a few years back after doing quite well in the European elections but failed to build on it due to lack of sustained interest. Frankly, most people don't see saving the planet and humanity as a priority.

Joe Sacco · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by NickM

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Patrick Stevens

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by NickM

You think voting in this country changes anything fundamental?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Well, it would do if enough people voted for the extreme parties...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Talk about clutching at straws...

I'll try again: how is a state in which the only political parties with any prospect of forming a government are indistinguishable one from another any different from a one-party state?

So you voted, and now you've got a government. I just hope YOU like it.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The parties are similar because that is what most people want. There is a choice though and if everyone got fed up with that choice and wanted to vote green they could. That is the difference.

ankev1 · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by NickM

[
I'll try again: how is a state in which the only political parties with any prospect of forming a government are indistinguishable one from another any different from a one-party state?

So you voted, and now you've got a government. I just hope YOU like it.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I find it staggering that anybody who has been exposed to Western European ideals (and I presume you have) can utter anything which even implies that a one party state might be morally admissable. The undeniable fact that there is currently little to choose between the leading UK parties constitutes no argument against pluralism. If people want something away from the centre ground (and why shouldn't they) all they have to do is form a party, convince enough people to vote for them and we've got a new form of society. It's probable a useful acid test to think that if an idea can't prosper in a democracy, it's probably not much of an idea or at least not well argued. BTW I'm not for one minute suggesting that all ideas which do prosper in democracies are necessarily good ones.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ankev1

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by NickM

[
I'll try again: how is a state in which the only political parties with any prospect of forming a government are indistinguishable one from another any different from a one-party state?

So you voted, and now you've got a government. I just hope YOU like it.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I find it staggering that anybody who has been exposed to Western European ideals (and I presume you have) can utter anything which even implies that a one party state might be morally admissable. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Or to have failed to grasp that any party which wants to get elected has to have policies that appeal to the majority of the electorate. This inevitably means that all such parties will have common elements to their programs.

Gary Askwith · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ankev1

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by NickM

[
I'll try again: how is a state in which the only political parties with any prospect of forming a government are indistinguishable one from another any different from a one-party state?

So you voted, and now you've got a government. I just hope YOU like it.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I find it staggering that anybody who has been exposed to Western European ideals (and I presume you have) can utter anything which even implies that a one party state might be morally admissable. The undeniable fact that there is currently little to choose between the leading UK parties constitutes no argument against pluralism. If people want something away from the centre ground (and why shouldn't they) all they have to do is form a party, convince enough people to vote for them and we've got a new form of society. It's probable a useful acid test to think that if an idea can't prosper in a democracy, it's probably not much of an idea or at least not well argued. BTW I'm not for one minute suggesting that all ideas which do prosper in democracies are necessarily good ones.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

..... absence of evidence..... evidence of absence..?

Economic Growth; as dead as a Yangtze River dolphin....

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ankev1

...It's probable a useful acid test to think that if an idea can't prosper in a democracy, it's probably not much of an idea...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">That might be the case if the majority of the electorate in this democracy had more than two brain cells to rub together.

So you voted, and now you've got a government. I just hope YOU like it.

ankev1 · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Gary Askwith

[
I find it staggering that anybody who has been exposed to Western European ideals (and I presume you have) can utter anything which even implies that a one party state might be morally admissable. The undeniable fact that there is currently little to choose between the leading UK parties constitutes no argument against pluralism. If people want something away from the centre ground (and why shouldn't they) all they have to do is form a party, convince enough people to vote for them and we've got a new form of society. It's probable a useful acid test to think that if an idea can't prosper in a democracy, it's probably not much of an idea or at least not well argued. BTW I'm not for one minute suggesting that all ideas which do prosper in democracies are necessarily good ones.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

..... absence of evidence..... evidence of absence..?

Economic Growth; as dead as a Yangtze River dolphin....

[/quote]

Gary,

I don't quite understand your appeal for evidence as I am not trying to prove that something factual has happened, I am rather arguing a principle. Let me put it another way; although I support some of the ideas you have posted on here, if you insisted that the only way to implement them was via a one party state, I would never back you up in your attempt to get them realised.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by NickM

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ankev1

...It's probable a useful acid test to think that if an idea can't prosper in a democracy, it's probably not much of an idea...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">That might be the case if the majority of the electorate in this democracy had more than two brain cells to rub together.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

One of the strengths of a democracy is the everyone gets to vote - not just those of the right sex, party membership, ethnic origin etc.

ankev1 · June 2007

That is a valid point. I'll cough to being a bit of an arrogant git some of the time (Soapbox is my rehab) and have occasionally thought that anybody who can't pass an exam showing basic knowledge of the political process should not be allowed to vote. This is wrong because it does of course represent an attempt to skew the electorate in favour of people who think like me. Yep everbody has to have a say, two-brain-celled or not.

bof · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by NickM

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ankev1

...It's probable a useful acid test to think that if an idea can't prosper in a democracy, it's probably not much of an idea...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">That might be the case if the majority of the electorate in this democracy had more than two brain cells to rub together.

So you voted, and now you've got a government. I just hope YOU like it.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
So are you a fascist or an authoritarian communist? Your politics show a clear contempt for others.

Tourist Tony · June 2007

The one-party state idea is often a dream of extremist parties. Elections stop once the "correct" party has won one.
A bit like referenda in the EU....

If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick

mjones · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by NickM
...

I'll try again: how is a state in which the only political parties with any prospect of forming a government are indistinguishable one from another any different from a one-party state?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Well for a start, the main parties aren't indistinguishable from each other. This is rather like the silly 'Blair is the same as Thatcher' argument that ignores minor matters like the minimum wage and massively increased spending on health and education.

There are all sorts of differences in both the strategic priorities and implementation of policy that make a big difference to the quality of our lives. These can't necessarily be broken down into a simplistic left-right axis, but that is a good thing. The fact that our main parties have progressed beyond the 19th century class war that some of you pine for is a sign of political maturity, not a failure of democracy.

If our main parties appear to be similar in broad ideology, which is probably true, that is because that is what reflects public opinion. If there was significant public support for radical policies on the left, or the right, or on another issue like the environment then that would be reflected in opinion polls and any party wanting to get elected would have to respond to it. It is the same as the reason why the big supermarkets all offer similar products at similar prices in similar looking shops- if there was widespread demand for something radically different then someone would provide it, but there isn't.

Just like the shops, competition forces the political parties to take account of public opinion, so not surprisingly they have to respond by converging on what the mainstream of public opinion wants. Nick's one party state is the same as the monopoly state-run shops of the soviet union: they provide what the managers can be bothered to provide, without having to worry about what people actually want.

Nick, I think you misunderstand the most important benefit of multi-party politics. It may not give us a menu of radical (and probably unworkable) policies to choose from at every election, but it does protect our freedom. Just as competition gives shops an incentive not to mistreat their customers, democratic competition between parties gives governments an incentive not to mistreat the electorate.

And in the case of governments, mistreatment isn't just charging too much for bad quality services; it can extend to repression, torture and mass murder. So I think I'd prefer to stick with bland multi-party politics if that is OK, and try to get my preferred policies for a sustainable future implemented through the democratic process.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by bof

So are you a fascist or an authoritarian communist? Your politics show a clear contempt for others.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Are you happy being governed by the dictatorship of the stupid?

So you voted, and now you've got a government. I just hope YOU like it.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones

...the main parties aren't indistinguishable from each other...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Oh, but they are. Show me a party in any Western democracy which has a chance of a role in government and is not in favour of the continuation of economic growth.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones

...I think I'd prefer to stick with bland multi-party politics if that is OK, and try to get my preferred policies for a sustainable future implemented through the democratic process.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Well, as long as you can accept that in this scenario, a sustainable future ain't gonna happen - fine. I'm not bothered; I'll be dead by then, and have no descendants to worry about.

So you voted, and now you've got a government. I just hope YOU like it.

mjones · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Chris James
...

Going back to your otiginal question though, the comments I view as being right wing on this forum tend not to be about economics as such. They tend to be about society rejection or demonising others, whereas I would consider myself and the left (although not necessarily new Labour!)to have a more inclusive approach. So for example, the people who dogmatically blame the dead at Hillsborough for their own deaths, people who reject all evidence for the existence of climate change, people who blmae the current Government for absolutely everything ...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

These issues don't necessarily fall into a left-right classification do they though? Climate change scepticism isn't a monopoly of the far right- the loony left are prominant amongst the deniers, Martin Durkin, producer of the ludicrous Channel 4 documentary, for example is linked to 'living marxists' or whatever they are currently called. Concern for the environment more generally isn't a left/ right issue either- the former communist countries had an appalling environmental record for example. Similarly, even though it is the loony right that is most vocally linked to anti-immigrant policies, as has been discussed elsewhere, attitudes to immigrants don't necessarily fit on a left-right axis amongst the mainstream parties.

On your last point, many of those who attack the Government on this forum are attacking it for being too right wing, with the silly 'Blair is the same as Thatcher' complaints I've referred to earlier.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

But more to the point, you said that there are more far left wingers on her than far right wingers. Who do you believe to be from the far left? And how much support do they get for their ideas from the rest of the posters? I can only think of redcogs!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Well one test of how extreme someone's political views are is the extent to which they want to make radical changes to how our democratic processes work and to impose restrictions on what individuals can do. A few posts up from this one you will find NickM and Gary Asquith advocating single party rule! [xx(]

ankev1 · June 2007

Nick,

You're right about economic growth. By definition it stops when the resources run out and it is probably destructive. You're thinking ahead of the mainstream. It was the same with climate change and now notice is beginning to be taken. What is needed is for people to keep banging on about it in order to get it on the agenda. Doing away with multi-party politics won't make a blind bit of difference.

mjones · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ankev1

Nick,

You're right about economic growth. By definition it stops when the resources run out and it is probably destructive. You're thinking ahead of the mainstream. It was the same with climate change and now notice is beginning to be taken. What is needed is for people to keep banging on about it in order to get it on the agenda. Doing away with multi-party politics won't make a blind bit of difference.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
No, economic growth is a red herring. It measures economic activity of all kinds, not simply the consumption of resources. As technology and industrial patterns change consumption of some things rises, others fall. Even though we use more of it now, energy is used more efficiently that it used to be. With sufficient improvements we could still have a better standard of living while using less energy.

Ending economic growth won't necessarily lead to sustainable reductions in long term consumption- where are we going to fund energy efficient housing or the development of new low carbon energy sources if we are in an economic recession? Energy was certainly not used more efficiently in the failing economies of the Soviet Union. Nor will getting rid of economic growth do much for poverty and inequality!

For homework I suggest a read of the Stern review- no mention of having to get rid of wicked economic growth there![;)]

mjones · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by NickM

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by bof

So are you a fascist or an authoritarian communist? Your politics show a clear contempt for others.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Are you happy being governed by the dictatorship of the stupid?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Well it isn't dicatorship, it is democracy. Furthermore, the stupid are usually less of a threat to liberty than the misguided idealist.[xx(]

bof · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by NickM

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by bof

So are you a fascist or an authoritarian communist? Your politics show a clear contempt for others.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Are you happy being governed by the dictatorship of the stupid?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

A member of a master race, are we?

Gary Askwith · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ankev1

Nick,

You're right about economic growth. By definition it stops when the resources run out and it is probably destructive. You're thinking ahead of the mainstream. It was the same with climate change and now notice is beginning to be taken. What is needed is for people to keep banging on about it in order to get it on the agenda. Doing away with multi-party politics won't make a blind bit of difference.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
No, economic growth is a red herring. It measures economic activity of all kinds, not simply the consumption of resources. As technology and industrial patterns change consumption of some things rises, others fall. Even though we use more of it now,( ehm 4 x in the last decade globally) energy is used more efficiently that it used to be. With sufficient improvements we could still have a better standard of living while using less energy.

Ending economic growth won't necessarily lead to sustainable reductions in long term consumption- where are we going to fund energy efficient housing or the development of new low carbon energy sources if we are in an economic recession? Energy was certainly not used more efficiently in the failing economies of the Soviet Union. Nor will getting rid of economic growth do much for poverty and inequality!

For homework I suggest a read of the Stern review- no mention of having to get rid of wicked economic growth there![;)]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

With due respect( and I wish I had more time) this is patronising simple minded drivel
In the global Capitalist world we inhabit economic growth IS resource consumption.....technological growth of electronic culture in the developed west is far less consumptive but current global growth is hideously resourse heavy...how could it be otherwise for developing countries?
Mjones a simple question: do you believe the world is heading for ecological catastrophy yes or no
If no sorry, but 95% are scientists against you
The sacred cows of Capitalism democracy and pluralism have and are therefore contributing to the decay and fall of global industrial human society are they not?
Ever thought well., hmmmmm its not working maybe we should start thinking where it went wrong and what about considering a few radical alternatives?

Economic Growth; as dead as a Yangtze River dolphin....

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones

...A few posts up from this one you will find NickM and Gary Asquith advocating single party rule! [xx(]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Show me where I have advocated single party rule.

ankev1 · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Gary Askwith

[Mjones a simple question: do you believe the world is heading for ecological catastrophy yes or no
If no sorry, but 95% are scientists against you
The sacred cows of Capitalism democracy and pluralism have and are therefore contributing to the decay and fall of global industrial human society are they not?
Ever thought well., hmmmmm its not working maybe we should start thinking where it went wrong and what about considering a few radical alternatives?

Economic Growth; as dead as a Yangtze River dolphin....

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Gary,

This is where I think you're getting sidetracked. The damage done by costant growth has largely taken place under capitalist systems but the phenomenon is not a capitalist one, it's just that captitalism has harnessed growth more efficiently than under other economic models. For instance the evidence indicates that the old Sov Union and modern China are doing far more harm to the world. Capitalism, adaptable and amoral (in a truly neutral sense) as ever seems to maybe turning the corner in the West as the penny may have dropped that it will eventually kill itself (the USA doesn't seem to have realised this yet). I reckon the answer is to forget the -isms and just get on with problem solving. The problems are massive, are no place for political ideology and will require a lot of input from all over the place in order to get solutions i.e. the need for pluralism is writ very large indeed. In any event one party systems are always morally wrong as those who don't subscribe to the regime usually end up dead. That cannot be allowed to happen.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by bof

A member of a master race, are we?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">I have no desire to be anybody's master, thank you; nor do I see why the elected representatives of the thick majority should be mine.

If you're happy as a sheep, that's up to you.

So you voted, and now you've got a government. I just hope YOU like it.

spire · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by NickM

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by bof

A member of a master race, are we?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">I have no desire to be anybody's master, thank you; nor do I see why the elected representatives of the thick majority should be mine.

If you're happy as a sheep, that's up to you.

So you voted, and now you've got a government. I just hope YOU like it.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You are claiming superiority over the masses, ergo you purport to be part of some superior class.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by NickM

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by bof

A member of a master race, are we?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">I have no desire to be anybody's master, thank you; nor do I see why the elected representatives of the thick majority should be mine.

If you're happy as a sheep, that's up to you.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

So, how would you propose that we be governed by an intellectual elite? Would they appoint themselves, or would they be elected by special people who would be allowed a vote? How would these special people be chosen ? Would it by party membership, knowledge of English or 'A' level results?

Leftists vs Rightists

Comments

Categories