The end of the New Lie?

[Bagpuss]

The thing I hate about politics is the inability to see bad in the party you support

If you look at the arguments from a (Tory) partisan perspective:

Labour didn't save us from the 3-day week (forget about Ted Heath)

The conservatives saved us from a winter of discontent (probably true)

It was harsh medicine but had to be done.(massive job losses)

It wasn't the conservatives’ fault when the economy went into recession in the late 80s early nineties and interest rates hit 14% and people lost their homes (it was the world economy to blame)

Labour inherited the golden conservative legacy (which was all Tory work)

The economy is about to collapse (since 1997 it hasn't, maybe boom and bust are better controlled?)


How many years was the country in economic decline under the Tories? (a rather large proportion of the Thatcher Major years). The first few years may have been a result of Labour, the late 80s early 90s may have been a worldwide depression, Norman Lamont ERM type meddling excused. But having excused the failings how can they completely take the plaudits for the successes?

It seems to me the country is run by big business, all government has to do is keep out of the way(Labour only have a problem with small business).


I am not a Labour supporter, nor do I wave a blue flag. Just see the feck ups evident in both of these parties, past and present. I couldn't really say who would feck up more.

[Dundeegeorge]

The thing I hate about politics is

political parties.

[Fleetwood]

We tend to favour stabbing on this board, in a Xoggothesque stabitty-stab-stab sort of a way.

[wonderwaif]

I see, then it's the Tories it's the workers fault, When it's Labour it's the Governments fault. How do people get to think like this?

Is it cause I is black?

[Phoenix]

The thing I hate about politics is the inability to see bad in the party you support

If you look at the arguments from a (Tory) partisan perspective:

Labour didn't save us from the 3-day week (forget about Ted Heath)

The conservatives saved us from a winter of discontent (probably true)

It was harsh medicine but had to be done.(massive job losses)

It wasn't the conservatives’ fault when the economy went into recession in the late 80s early nineties and interest rates hit 14% and people lost their homes (it was the world economy to blame)

Labour inherited the golden conservative legacy (which was all Tory work)

The economy is about to collapse (since 1997 it hasn't, maybe boom and bust are better controlled?)


How many years was the country in economic decline under the Tories? (a rather large proportion of the Thatcher Major years). The first few years may have been a result of Labour, the late 80s early 90s may have been a worldwide depression, Norman Lamont ERM type meddling excused. But having excused the failings how can they completely take the plaudits for the successes?

It seems to me the country is run by big business, all government has to do is keep out of the way(Labour only have a problem with small business).


I am not a Labour supporter, nor do I wave a blue flag. Just see the feck ups evident in both of these parties, past and present. I couldn't really say who would feck up more.

At last....Someone that understands this countries political makeup.

Crap! Your not a politician are you?

[Bagpuss]

The best thing that could be done is to introduce a two-term policy, that way ego-mania is controlled, the first term they stick to the principals the second term they are cautious not to hand over the batton to the opposition. The next time we get something new. I think the Tories had to go in 97, like Blair has to go now! But I don't think it's as simple as the old days when people voted Labour because that was expected of them and vice-versa, people make diverse choices in their lifes today, they do not stay with a loyal to any 'brand' (well few do). The electorate are more sophisticated now, and will make choices based on what is best for them at that time. Clearly in 1997 people made a new choice, now the Conservatives must offer a new choice, an anti bullsh1t choice. The opinion polls suggest the population like Cameron's refusal to play the party game (or at least appear not to). Say what you like about this guy, he is the best hope of a change of government. We can trot out the traditional reasons why A is better than B all day long, I'm sure the politicians find it funny as feck that people swallow it! while they wallow in their nice little pig pens.

[snaw]

This particular stereotype is how many of us see socialism.
Don't get me wrong here, I am all for supporting those in need but I see your politics as taking this beyond what I want.

It is not about working hard, it is about working at all.
Why should the workers support the work shy?
Your politics appears to be jealous and disapproves of those who do well because it wants to redistribute that wealth and essentialy discourages the doers from creating that wealth.
Your politics seems to say that wealth comes at the expense of the poor. Why else would you want to take money and property from the rich and give it to the poor. Particularly if it wasnt taken from them in the first place?

I want to be able to enjoy the fruits of my labour without having to guard it from those who would take it and give to those who are not willing to generate their own.

Fair enough, time to correct these stereotypes:

It is not about working hard, it is about working at all.

Not true at all, all for working hard and encouraging people to work hard.

Why should the workers support the work shy?

They shouldn't, I'm all for enouraging people to work, and not encentivising (sp?) people not too. I'm also not for blanket measures which catch the innocent out and most defineitly fr some safety net so no one starves (i/e/ always some form of aid).

Your politics appears to be jealous and disapproves of those who do well because it wants to redistribute that wealth and essentialy discourages the doers from creating that wealth.

No way - nothing makes me happier than seeing people I know do well for themselves, this is for me the biggest assumption that's completely wrong. I'd say people who're obsessed with money are the one's who're jealous if anything. The second statement appears to be communism as far as I can make out, why would I want to discourage people form making wealth? Even the redistribution of wealth thing is slightly off, making the poor help themselves to get wealthier I'm all in favour of and wealth redistribution yeah but not in some draconian way - raise the bar at the bottom, not bring it down from the top.

Your politics seems to say that wealth comes at the expense of the poor. Why else would you want to take money and property from the rich and give it to the poor. Particularly if it wasnt taken from them in the first place?

Same old sh!t as before, who say's this - where but in the most extreme brand of left politics (Communism/marxism etc) do you find people with believing this crap? Who say's people like me want to take money form the rich and give to the poor - I'm all for helping people to help themselves, make sure no one starves and everyone get's a fair go (To use an aussie term) in life. That doesn't have to come at the expense of the rich, but equally everyone in society has a responsibility to contribute overall IMO, tough if you're rich and have to pay a wee bit more in tax, that in itself implies you can probably afford it (And I doubt anyone on this board falls under the catagory of rich).

[The Lone Gunman]

Snaw: I accept what you say above and thank you for taking the time to explain.

That puts you well outside what I see as socialist. Maybe you could educate me and others as to what socialism involves. It is very hard to distinguish how far left policy has to be to go from being simply "left wing" to socialism or communism or marxism.

A capitalist economy with a social conscience could achive what you are looking for.

[snaw]

Dunno about educting the masses here ... I think socialism is a pretty broad catchesim which people who's politics are too the left fall under. I'd consider myself socialist in most areas of my politics, to me the most simple definition is having a social conscious and a belief that society has a responsibility to provide for all it's members - where that provision lies lies and how it's achieved are open to debate, and probably where it's evolved.

Histrorically socialism is all about state ownership of industries and some form of welfare state, but I don't know many people who'd you'd call socialist these days who advocating a return to state ownership (Alhtough personally I'd be all for re-nationlalising some of the railways), or who think the welfare system as we have it isn't in need of major rehaul or that capatalism is somehow bad (Though I would argue and say that occasionally it needs some checks and balances, America is a great example of a country for me that's just a touch too far in the other direction).

[Andyw]

snaw and gunman, why dont you get a room ?