The tory answer to the labour ruin.

[britboy4321]

It is simply common knowledge that the right-wing is after smaller government, worse public service, smaller taxes (sales-pitch -- in effect rewarding the hard-working individual).

Left wing = more government, higher taxes, better public service (sales-pitch - in effect -- helping the needy).

As they say in the states, this is politics 101! It's almost the definition of right-wing or left-wing.


Both sides of course have to claim to be the messiah of all -- because 30% of the voters are so thick they don't even understand the fundermental concepts of right-wing and left-wing

 

[Sankari]

Substitute the government for the state

*snip*

Wow, a classic politician's answer! "I'm glad you asked that question. Now let me tell you about something entirely different." LOL!

Dolph, I didn't say "state." I said "government." You've argued for "state" (and you may or may not be correct) but you haven't proved "government." I asked for an example of the Tories reducing the size of government when they've been in power. Do you have any?

 

[Biohazard]

^Evangelion hang on i'll find some latin that encompasses that!

Labour have passed many laws that have no evidential backing as to providing a benefit but were popular. The handgun ban, fox hunting ban, continued prohibition of drugs, regrading of cannabis to class B, 50% tax rate, bank bonus tax, etc etc.

Again, the people did not take those descisions though. regardless of the reasoning or feeling behind them. The people can not be held to account for descisions that were made by politicians for reasons of popularity.

 

[Naffa]

It is simply common knowledge that the right-wing is after smaller government, worse public service, smaller taxes.

Left wing = more government, higher taxes, better public service.

As they say in the states, this is politics 101! It's almost the definition of right-wing or left-wing.


Both sides of course have to claim to be the messiah of all -- because 30% of the voters are so thick they don't even understand the fundermental concepts of right-wing and left-wing

When you think about it in such a way, black and white as you were, then it is indeed that simple. The problem is, our two main political parties are not so clear cut. Neither one can be so clearly plotted on the political scale, and thus, it would be impossible to determine their policies solely from looking at their position on the scale.

 

[Chimerical]

Not really. You could argue (quite successfully) that the country now is a result of the political choices of previous generations combined with the law of unintended consequences, but the reason it won't change now is because people are both selfish and irrational.

But everyone wants change from the status quo which is why it never happens (I know that's not really the type of change you were talking about).

Who is actually happy with everything staying the same? Everyone wants progression or regression in one area or another, all pulling in a different direction of 'change' and nothing ever happens.

How can you not blame the people for the government, they are the ones that keep voting them in and keep making demands of them.

I blame the people for the Government to a degree which is why I now won't vote.

 

[Dolph]

Dolph, leaving aside your bizarre assumption that everyone who votes under the current system only does so on the basis of popularity instead of a rational, evidence based approach to state activities, can you please give us your idea of the best political model? One in which everyone will always vote purely on the basis of a rational, evidence based approach to state activities?

Thanks.

One in which the impact of popularity on lawmaking is dramatically reduced through constitutional protection, and where decision making and taxation processes are clear, transparent and treat everyone equally, and where the government is minimised.

The issue is not about how people vote, but about minimising the impact the opinions on other citizens. The state should not legislate because people want them to, but because the legislation is needed to protect, balance or uphold rights, either collectively or individually.

 

[britboy4321]

When you think about it in such a way, black and white as you were, then it is indeed that simple. The problem is, our two main political parties are not so clear cut. Neither one can be so clearly plotted on the political scale, and thus, it would be impossible to determine their policies solely from looking at their position on the scale.

That is right. It just annoys me when people moan that

'Labour introduce stealth/other taxes'
'Labour invent new 'arts council for the blind' and up our council taxes by £9 a year each'

or

'Long-term sick benefit cut under tories'
'NHS waiting lists up 2 months as 16000 doctors quit over tory pay conditions'

Because these are things that fundermentally each party pretty unashamedly states it's going to do. It's their corner-stone party policy.. yet people feel like the party has somehow abandoned all reason when they do it!

People should know what they're voting for .. and top of their mind should really be these corner-stone principles of the 2 main parties ..

 

[Dolph]

*snip*

Wow, a classic politician's answer! "I'm glad you asked that question. Now let me tell you about something entirely different." LOL!

Dolph, I didn't say "state." I said "government." You've argued for "state" (and you may or may not be correct) but you haven't proved "government." I asked for an example of the Tories reducing the size of government when they've been in power. Do you have any?

And that was why I clarified where I was coming from first. The question is, what do you define as government? Labour have created a lot of additional NGOs, quangos and so on, but are they government?

I will admit, using a stringent definition of government, there is little between them. Labour usually expand the government more than the tories, but the tories don't generally reduce them.

This is why I believe such reduction in government has to come from constitutional roots, rather than parliamentary ones.

 

[Dolph]

^Evangelion hang on i'll find some latin that encompasses that!



Again, the people did not take those descisions though. regardless of the reasoning or feeling behind them. The people can not be held to account for descisions that were made by politicians for reasons of popularity.

Yes they can, when your entire success is judged on popularity, then you cannot be faulted for chasing popularity, the fault belongs in those who are making the popular position irrational and nonsensical.

 

[Biohazard]

I will admit, using a stringent definition of government, there is little between them. Labour usually expand the government more than the tories, but the tories don't generally reduce them.

That is what we were saying to start with!!!!

I'm glad you agree, and can't quite believe what I am reading

there isn't that much difference at all between labours fat government and tories skinny.

 

[Dolph]

It is simply common knowledge that the right-wing is after smaller government, worse public service, smaller taxes (sales-pitch -- in effect rewarding the hard-working individual).

Left wing = more government, higher taxes, better public service (sales-pitch - in effect -- helping the needy).

As they say in the states, this is politics 101! It's almost the definition of right-wing or left-wing.


Both sides of course have to claim to be the messiah of all -- because 30% of the voters are so thick they don't even understand the fundermental concepts of right-wing and left-wing

That doesn't work, the economics and the social side are split, the more government involvement in the populaces lives, the less free the people. Both left and right economic positions can be paired with social authoritarianism, but left wing economic positions and social freedom don't really go together in a world of finite resources, it is why all strongly state controlled economy states have fallen into authoritarianism...

You also use the fallacy that the state using it's monopoly on force to provide public service monopolies is somehow a good thing...

 

[Chimerical]

Yes they can, when your entire success is judged on popularity, then you cannot be faulted for chasing popularity, the fault belongs in those who are making the popular position irrational and nonsensical.

Did Labour chase popular opinion when it when to war in Iraq?

Admittedly, not enough protesting was done in my mind but the decision sounds like it was cast in stone irregardless of what people wanted.

 

[Vonhelmet]

Did Labour chase popular opinion when it when to war in Iraq?

They weren't trying to win an election when they made that decision.

 

[Biohazard]

Admittedly, not enough protesting was done in my mind but the decision sounds like it was cast in stone irregardless of what people wanted.

What more can you expect from a working population?

did you want them to storm in V for vendetta style?

I think it was clear enough to anyone with ears or eyes distain had been displayed publically for the idea.

 

[Chimerical]

What more can you expect from a working population?

did you want them to storm in V for vendetta style?

I think it was clear enough to anyone with ears or eyes distain had been displayed publically for the idea.

I dunno, its what does Dolph expect that's more interesting. I think politicians appealing to a majority view is a problem but I also think they ignore them a lot elsewhere too, or at least ignore the voices of a significant amount of people. It's not like Labour listened to anyone about immigration for example.

 

[weescott]

Can you imagine a government where at the hint of the public disagreeing with decisions on national security it held a referendum? They might have WMD's but we don't really know, here is the evidence, what should we do? We elected them to make these decisions for us. Let them deal with it.

We have the elected dictatorship in the system we sheepishly go along with as shepherded by the media. If you don't like it vote for another party to change things.

 

[Barks]

No political parties can make the right economic decisions because the majority of voters are far too ignorant to understand them. They are forced to do what is perceived to be right and what will win votes. Prime example, Brown knew the 50% rate of income tax would be popular with voters but wouldn't actually raise government revenue. He didn't ignore the thousands of Economists warning the government it was a futile move that wouldn't work. There is now actually evidence coming forward from independent financial groups to suggest that the 50% will bring in no extra government tax revenue, and perhaps in fact reduce government revenue from tax simply because the people it was designed to target are so mobile they will move elsewhere to avoid paying it. It was a great way to satisfy voters though. "Lets go and rob those ****** bankers and the rich!!" Yes, the same bankers that pay so much tax in bonuses as it is, they actually enable the government to keep tax rates down for everyone.

The government are in an almost impossible position because of this. They cut taxes they upset those obsessed with public spending. They increase taxes they upset virtually everyone. I don't see how they can possibly do what's right for the economy if they're always worried about how their decisions will be perceived by the public. Sometimes I think the economy should be managed by a separate entity, just like the MPC set interest rates to meet the government's target rate of inflation.

Based on this, I think the best idea is to prevent increases in tax and STOP the increase in spending. The Tories are far more likely to implement this, on winning the election, than Labour. I also don't believe Labour will create the necessary environment in the long run to attract foreign investment and keep London as a hub of international finance. We almost want a government and society that will embrace or support bankers in the city, ultimately everyone benefits because the sheer scale of the financial industry is quite frightening. We don't want to drive them all away just because of public jealousy.

 

[moremoney]

Can you imagine a government where at the hint of the public disagreeing with decisions on national security it held a referendum? They might have WMD's but we don't really know, here is the evidence, what should we do? We elected them to make these decisions for us. Let them deal with it.

We have the elected dictatorship in the system we sheepishly go along with as shepherded by the media. If you don't like it vote for another party to change things.

This excellent and well said.

But as usual who do you vote for as change? Tory, Lib, etc,

I would rather vote for Napoleon at least i would actually get change.

 

[Dolph]

Did Labour chase popular opinion when it when to war in Iraq?

Labour attempted to influence both public opinion and the opinion of parliament (with more success in the latter than the former) through the publishing of the 'dodgy dossier'. Given how well they had influence public opinion previously with dodgy/no evidence, it was a sound tactic, but it failed.

Having said that, failure to honour popular opinion one time is not an argument that they do it all the time, especially with something that, generally, is always unpopular but sometimes necessary.

Admittedly, not enough protesting was done in my mind but the decision sounds like it was cast in stone irregardless of what people wanted.

Indeed it was, the determination to win over parliament and the public is shown by the lies, the made up evidence, exaggerated claims and so on. Blair wanted the war regardless, but he certainly tried to influence opinion, both in parliament and with the public, in order to get it.