Left vs right - the unfillable gulf

[OwlHoot]

It largely boils down to collectivism versus individualism, both (according to their adherents) for the common good.

But as everyone knows, or should do, the left to right spectrum as conventionally understood is a circle where the extremes meet.

That explains why right wingers are more likely to dislike the EU, and why clerics tend to be left wing. The EU and established churches are both different manifestations of collectivism.

[Old Hack]

Agree with all that, but who started the reliance in the service sector?
Labour were intellectually and morally bankrupt, after years in opposition they figured that any interference in the economy would be a bad thing (remember how Blair sucked up to the City).
Plus they figured that they could use the proceeds of the City to spend, spend spend.
Thing is if the Big Bang wouldn't have happened, Labour crapness in oversight wouldn't have mattered.
I'm not defending Labour they were tulipe compared to Maggie, but Maggie was no God either - and she was a bit naive, she though people in the City would act in the country's interests as she would have.

Can't really argue with much of that. I agree Maggies destiny with killing off unions ultimately led to the demise of the manufacturing sector and an over reliance on the service sector, but remain quite confident that it would not have been left alone, un-supervised, on a Conservative watch. I guess that's just a subjective opinion, but I maintain greed on both sides, and the ease with which the money could be used to fuel their political ideology and the bloating of the state caused the really big bang. I think, ideologically, we can state clearly that the money from the services sector would not have been used to bloat the state if Labour had not been in power, so you have to query what would have been done with the money and I simply cannot see how 2008 would have happened under a conservative watch, for obvious reasons.

[vetran]

Agree with all that, but who started the reliance in the service sector?
Labour were intellectually and morally bankrupt, after years in opposition they figured that any interference in the economy would be a bad thing (remember how Blair sucked up to the City).
Plus they figured that they could use the proceeds of the City to spend, spend spend.
Thing is if the Big Bang wouldn't have happened, Labour crapness in oversight wouldn't have mattered.
I'm not defending Labour they were tulipe compared to Maggie, but Maggie was no God either - and she was a bit naive, she though people in the City would act in the country's interests as she would have.

If big bang hadn't happened we would be like Spain or Greece.

Thatcher left 20+ years ago.

New Lie were in power for 13 years and in opposition for many years, apart from complaining
Maggie destroyed manufacturing (something Labour did far faster when they were in power),
Maggie destroyed mining (something Labour did far faster when they were in power),
Maggie failed to regulate the city (something Labour did far faster when they were in power)

etc.

they did sod all.

[MyUserName]

Please disperse, nothing to see here.

[EternalOptimist]

It largely boils down to collectivism versus individualism, both (according to their adherents) for the common good.

But as everyone knows, or should do, the left to right spectrum as conventionally understood is a circle where the extremes meet.

That explains why right wingers are more likely to dislike the EU, and why clerics tend to be left wing. The EU and established churches are both different manifestations of collectivism.

mostly.
but left wingers want equality by dragging people down to a common level, right wingers want to see people dragging themselves up

[Old Hack]

mostly.
but left wingers want equality by dragging people down to a common level, right wingers want to see people dragging themselves up

It's actually a very interesting point, for this is what I believe too. I believe the view that everyone deserves a university education was deeply flawed and was rooted in the above.

It seemed, under the labour government, that if fewer people were getting into universities, then they lowered the bar for entry. It's them who created the benefits underclass.

An awful lot of the countries ills can be placed at Labours doorstep.

The other day, someone told me that Birmingham city council was Europe's 3rd highest employer. I guess you can work out under whose watch this happened.

[Spacecadet]

It's actually a very interesting point, for this is what I believe too. I believe the view that everyone deserves a university education was deeply flawed and was rooted in the above.

There is a difference between "everyone deserves a university education" and "everyone should get a university education" which got blurred somewhere.
Labour managed to equate the two

[mudskipper]

The other day, someone told me that Birmingham city council was Europe's 3rd highest employer. I guess you can work out under whose watch this happened.

It didn't happen on anyone's watch. Birmingham City Council is not Europe's 3rd highest employer.

[sasguru]

There is a difference between "everyone deserves a university education" and "everyone should get a university education" which got blurred somewhere.
Labour managed to equate the two

Aye. I believe in the old system: grants for the top 8-10% of students who got the best (rigorous) A-levels regardless of background. This pays for itself (1) in that the best people get an education for the benefit of the country and (2) the grant is easily paid off by the extra taxes good graduates would pay over their lifetime.
That combined with grammar schools was the escalator for social mobility which is healthy in any country.
Where's the escalator for poor, motivated, people nowadays?

[Mich the Tester]

Left argument
The poor of Africa need government supplied aid and we should bankrupt the rich to pay for it.

Right Argument
The poor of Africa need help, however Aid will go to the corrupt rulers so we should encourage a more direct approach , by encouraging capitalism and big society style initiatives soon Africa will be an MEDC.

The left argument here contains a little bit of truth, in that some poor areas of Africa need western government aid to get a kick start; I can immediately think of things like microcredit, universal education, clean water provision and basic medical facilities (especially for maternity and for STDs) that can be very helpful, and of course the emergency aid when loads of people are threatened with starvation (which doesn't seem to happen so much since the Cold War ended). But of course, punitive taxes against 'the rich' is a ridiculous concept and always results in proving Mrs Thatcher's adage that 'socialists always run out of other people's money'. It's also rather patronising (and incorrect, IMO) to assume that poor Africans can't help themselves if they have the freedom to do so.

The right argument here has some value, but is also hypocritical. Right now, a very direct approach is happening, run by Africans themselves; African migrants in industrialised societies, working or trading, send twice as much money home in remittances as the whole world sends to Africa in aid, and it works, because corrupt governments are bypassed and the money goes to families who tend to spend it wisely on saving for the kids to study and investing in their small but growing businesses. At the same time, the migrants' businesses grow as they have international connections. Great, so where's the hypocrisy? Well, it seems to me it's usually the right who propose this kind of free market 'trade not aid' ideal, but then call for border fences and regulations to be put up all over the place and immigration to be stopped. Many on the 'right' seem to be unable to connect the idea of free markets for goods and services with a free market principle for people. If companies are allowed to stroll around the world searching for the cheapest or best workers (suppliers of labour), then why shouldn't those suppliers of labour be allowed to stroll around the world searching for the best paying or most friendly buyers of labour (employers)? Until I hear a coherent explanation for this that doesn't negate the right's ideas about market economics or free competition I can only conclude that many on the right are either suffering from cognitive dissonance or are very selfish hypocrites. By the way, I'm, saying that even though I consider myself a tory and am in fact a member of the Conservatives Abroad.