The Devalued Prime Minister of a Devalued Government

[badgerx16]

 

The great sadness for me, after 12 years of Labour, was that it hasn't proved that socialism doesn't work - they abandoned socialism and moved to the centre. Had they stayed at the left, then once and for all, the argument would have been settled - i.e. Socialism does not and will never work

 

So all we are left with is the politics of greed :mad:

 

Loadsamoney and the yuppies inherit the Earth

[Johnny Bognor]

So all we are left with is the politics of greed :mad:

 

Loadsamoney and the yuppies inherit the Earth

 

The humane side of my character sees where you are coming from, and the disdvantaged should be helped. But ultimately, nature itself is about the survival of the fittest - it is essentially the dynamics of evolution and the basis/foundation of all living beings. Life ultimately is not fair for any species inhabiting this planet. Therefore, it is probably best not to be bitter about it and do the best you can to enjoy it as much as you can.

[OldNick]

I don't discriminate, get shot of the whole rotten bunch, blue, red, or yellow, and start again once WE have set up a new set of rules for them operate by.

 

'Traditional' Labour supporters do feel slightly disenfranchised by Bliar and Brown, they moved to the right to chase the Daily Mail reading middle-Englanders. I am slightly suprised that there don't seem to be many Tories feeling their right-wing agenda isn't being served as Cameron moves his bunch similarly close to the centre to chase the same minority swing voters, leaving them to follow Stanley and consider the UKIP / BNP option.

 

I am all in favour of proportional representation; if only 70% of the elctorate vote, 30% of the seats at Westminster should be left vacant.

I would put myself as right wing on the majority of issues but to left on issues regarding people who really deserve support.I dont mean people who have p####d it up against the wall and then put their hands out though.Cameron is not the best man, Id prefer Hague.

[OldNick]

So all we are left with is the politics of greed :mad:

 

Loadsamoney and the yuppies inherit the Earth

but that has never changed, all that has happened is that more of the traduitional working class has got wealthier and they like it and so wouldnt want a socialist party.If the socialists way was so popular with the working people of GB there would be loads of them gaining seats.

The only way they can ever suceed is to try and use the envy card.forgetting that a lot of the people who get the best life have either taken massive risks or worked their butts off.

[badgerx16]

but that has never changed, all that has happened is that more of the traduitional working class has got wealthier and they like it and so wouldnt want a socialist party.If the socialists way was so popular with the working people of GB there would be loads of them gaining seats.

The only way they can ever suceed is to try and use the envy card.forgetting that a lot of the people who get the best life have either taken massive risks or worked their butts off.

Maybe it's time to remove the word ALTRUISM from the dictionary ?

[badgerx16]

The humane side of my character sees where you are coming from, and the disdvantaged should be helped. But ultimately, nature itself is about the survival of the fittest - it is essentially the dynamics of evolution and the basis/foundation of all living beings. Life ultimately is not fair for any species inhabiting this planet. Therefore, it is probably best not to be bitter about it and do the best you can to enjoy it as much as you can.

So in that case we can forget about charities, foreign aid, and hospices, and start euthanasia for those who might lower the genetic strength of the spcies ? I know that is not what you mean, but it is a logical outcome of that train of thought.

 

( Mind you, why should Shrek Rooney and that harridan Coleen be allowed to breed, surely that is an evolutionary dead-end ? )

[Johnny Bognor]

So in that case we can forget about charities, foreign aid, and hospices, and start euthanasia for those who might lower the genetic strength of the spcies ? I know that is not what you mean, but it is a logical outcome of that train of thought.

 

( Mind you, why should Shrek Rooney and that harridan Coleen be allowed to breed, surely that is an evolutionary dead-end ? )

 

I see where you are coming from on the logical conclusion to that train of thought. Of course I don't think we should forget about foreign aid, hospices, and start euthanasia - compassion is a very human trait, and one that distinguishes us from the other species of the planet but at the end of the day we can't stop the force of nature.

 

My father was born and raised in Bury into a very working class family (my grandfather was a painter & decorator). My father's brother was very active in the labour party movement (every year we now have the JB in the Blue Corner Vs Uncle David in the red corner to debate the merits of politics). But my father worked his backside off, left the northwest in his early twenties in order to better himself and had an outstanding career in the IT industry - you could say "the boy done good". I was fortunate to have the upbringing that I did - some would say lucky - but others would say deserved (off of the back of my fathers hard work).

 

I can draw very simple comparisons between my father and my uncle - one who was happy to sit around whingeing and whining (which he still does to this day), whilst the other took it upon himself to make a better life - so in terms of my inspiration, I look at my father with immense respect and admiration, whilst I pity my uncle - who could have had the same, but preferred to sit back and whinge. For me, that is the difference between the politics of envy / idleness compared to the politics of industrious self help.

[badgerx16]

For me, that is the difference between the politics of envy / idleness compared to the politics of industrious self help.

But you see, I myself, ( and I would have thought Bridge To Far and quite a few others on here ), would similarly classify ourselves as hard-working types who have laboured, ( no pun intended ), to improve our lot, and that of our families, having 'got off our arses', gained qualifications, and worked our way up to senior, comparitively well paid positions. This has not, however, altered our basic view that the core principles of Socialism are intrinsically correct, and form a much better basis for a humane, inclusive, society.

[Johnny Bognor]

This has not, however, altered our basic view that the core principles of Socialism are intrinsically correct, and form a much better basis for a humane, inclusive, society.

 

Again, in an idealistic world, I can see where you are coming from, but the reality of the situation is that it does not, can not or will not work as the very essence of human nature prevents it from doing so. Therefore a system of wealth creation, which can then be distributed (to those who need or deserve it) is far more workable. As distasteful as politics and politiancs are, the middle ground of politics has the best chance of achieving this.

[badgerx16]

As distasteful as politics and politiancs are, the middle ground of politics has the best chance of achieving this.

But would you accept the principle that those who can afford to pay a little more as a contribution to society, ( tax, etc to ensure the welfare system, NHS, etc, can be sustained ), should do so ?

[Gingeletiss]

But you see, I myself, ( and I would have thought Bridge To Far and quite a few others on here ), would similarly classify ourselves as hard-working types who have laboured, ( no pun intended ), to improve our lot, and that of our families, having 'got off our arses', gained qualifications, and worked our way up to senior, comparitively well paid positions. This has not, however, altered our basic view that the core principles of Socialism are intrinsically correct, and form a much better basis for a humane, inclusive, society.

 

Sorry, the socialist principle, like that of Communism, just doesn't work. Put three people on a deserted island, and one will always end up imposing his will on the other two. This forum is a prime example of that principle.

[Johnny Bognor]

But would you accept the principle that those who can afford to pay a little more as a contribution to society, ( tax, etc to ensure the welfare system, NHS, etc, can be sustained ), should do so ?

 

Badger, here is a little history lesson for you..........

 

The general election of 1841 was won by the Conservatives with Sir Robert Peel as Prime Minister. Although he had opposed income tax, an empty Exchequer and a growing deficit gave rise to the surprise return of the tax in his 1842 Budget. Peel sought only to tax those with incomes above £150, and he reduced customs duties on 750 articles out of a total number taxed of 1,200. The less wealthy benefited, and trade revived as a consequence. Source: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/history/taxhis2.htm

 

So the concept of taxing the rich to benefit the poor was in fact invented by the Conservatives, some 60 years before the Labour party was even born. Socialists generally forget about this very important fact, so if you believe in the principle (as I do), then you are very much a traditional Conservative.

 

Labour are often credited with the creation of the NHS and the Welfare state, but for socialists out there, I challenge you to read Winston Churchill's 1945 election manifesto - please read the sections on National Insurance, Health and Education.

 

http://www.conservative-party.net/manifestos/1945/1945-conservative-manifesto.shtml

 

If you can't be bothered to read it, here are the key points:

 

Health

The health services of the country will be made available to all citizens. Everyone will contribute to the cost, and no one will be denied the attention, the treatment or the appliances he requires because he cannot afford them.

We propose to create a comprehensive health service covering the whole range of medical treatment from the general practitioner to the specialist, and from the hospital to convalescence and rehabilitation; and to introduce legislation for this purpose in the new Parliament.

 

Education (note the Education bill hit the statute books in 1944)

The Education Act set forth in the "Four Years' Plan" has already been piloted through Parliament by Mr. Butler. Our task in the coming years will be to remodel our educational system according to the new law, and a vigorous drive will be needed to supply the teachers and the buildings necessary.

 

National Insurance

National well-being is founded on good employment, good housing and good health. But there always remain those personal hazards of fortune, such as illness, accident or toss of a job, or industrial injury, which may leave the individual and his family unexpectedly in distress. In addition, old age, death and child-birth throw heavy burdens upon the family income. One of our most important tasks will be to pass into law and bring into action as soon as we can a nation-wide and compulsory scheme of National Insurance based on the plan announced by the Government of all Parties in 1944.

 

 

 

 

So whilst Labour have taken credit for the implementation for the Welfare State, the Tories were planning to do it anyway. So just because you are a Tory, it doesn't man that you don't care about the less well off. The Welfare State is as much a part of Conservative policy as much as Labour policy - therefore in principle there are no differences. The main issue or divide relates to how it should be funded and how far it goes.

 

 

So to answer your question, Yes I do. The question is, do you?

 

...and if you do, does that not make you a traditional Conservative?

Edited 31 March, 2009 by Johnny Bognor

[badgerx16]

The Labour party nicking Tory policies- where have we seen that before ?

 

So, when the Tory party come up with a manifesto that matches the ideals they seem to have held previously, but now seem to have forsaken, they may well earn my vote

[Mole]

The biggest mistake the Tories ever made was not appointing Lord Halifax as leader.

[Johnny Bognor]

The Labour party nicking Tory policies- where have we seen that before ?

 

So, when the Tory party come up with a manifesto that matches the ideals they seem to have held previously, but now seem to have forsaken, they may well earn my vote

 

I have made a few edits and so you may or may not have avoided my question.

 

 

So to answer your question, Yes I do. The question is, do you?

 

...and if you do, does that not make you a traditional Conservative?

 

I will throw that one out to BTF and the other lefties on here....

[badgerx16]

I have made a few edits and so you may or may not have avoided my question.

 

 

So to answer your question, Yes I do. The question is, do you?

 

...and if you do, does that not make you a traditional Conservative?

 

I will throw that one out to BTF and the other lefties on here....

 

I did not avoid your question, though the fact that the entire posting was replaced between readings did throw me

 

As I hope my response implied, if I am a traditional 'conservative', ( and I deliberately use the lowercase 'c' ), then it is up to the Tories to return to their 'traditional' perspective, at which point they give themselves a chance. I do not, however, believe that either the current Conservative party, nor Labour, can lay claim to the heritage outlined in your epistle.

[Johnny Bognor]

I did not avoid your question, though the fact that the entire posting was replaced between readings did throw me

 

As I hope my response implied, if I am a traditional 'conservative', ( and I deliberately use the lowercase 'c' ), then it is up to the Tories to return to their 'traditional' perspective, at which point they give themselves a chance. I do not, however, believe that either the current Conservative party, nor Labour, can lay claim to the heritage outlined in your epistle.

 

 

You're probably right, and there is little between the two parties. My main point, though, is that many socialist principles were or would have been implemented by Conservatives and so the socialists don't have a monopoly on all things good.

 

......but a little world war that kills millions of people tends to refocus the mind on what is important. Living in this world of consumerism, falling moral standards and obsession with celebrity, is it no surprise?

 

Perhaps humanity needs a plague, war, famine or natural disaster to re-focus the minds.