Sorry was responding to a post that basically said everyone was narrow minded - which was clearly idiotic.
Tories whose dads are well off.
- Thread starter Vespasian777
- Start date
Sorry was responding to a post that basically said everyone was narrow minded - which was clearly idiotic.
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 553
- Location
- Bora Bora
Yeah, I thought that.
What? That's a very specific crisis about one country in one union at a specific time. I mean it's chose that because some people are being narrow minded about it all over the press / internet / etc.
I last voted Conservative and my family is very poor. My Dad works as a gardener and my mum as a caterer.
I don't see the relevance of ones parent's financial situation on your voting tendencies.
I voted for a party I believed would be handle the economic issues affecting the UK and generally I believe in in efficient governments and balanced finances.
So you saying "i don't know what will happen to Greece" means you don't have a narrow world view?
no it's just means you know **** all about the situation but have the sense to know that you know **** all about.
Perhaps I merged your intentions a little too much with mr_stat's post but your OP does insinuate that people vote labour to get back at the rich and people vote tory to keep the poor down.
That's a terrible way to portray a nation.
I accept that the money argument fits with the current state of politics but I don't agree that money is the cause of the current state of politics. Peer pressure and the Collateral damage from the war between thatcher and the unions are more to blame imo.
Media barons don't really have any political allegiance, they have personal and/or commercial interests which they have temporarily aligned with a political party for their own advantage.
As such I will always talk about the un-due influence they are allowed to exert on the population (why is television news supposed to show both sides but print news not?).
Tefal, your argument is that people are narrow minded, my view of the Greek situation is just as strong as most people's view of our internal politics. In fact my view of Greece is probably much stronger. What I'm saying is it's hard to predict thus I think there's no clear answer (I.e. being open minded). I seriously can't see your point on this.
I'm not a liberal, and I mean that in the classical sense. Socially liberal meaning what? Really liberal, or the Liberal Democrat's brand of socially liberal? I'm an advocate of minimum government, I believe that the government should be involved in the economy, for example. On social issues, you would have to be more specific. Anti-abortion, but pro-choice, anti-gun liberalisation, pro-decriminalising of drugs, sending people to prison just to punish them is stupid, and, urrr... I am a staunch secularist.
I guess I'm sort of a Wilsonian liberal idealist of sorts, when it comes to the question of free trade. I won't bore you with the Chomskyite debate on what 'trade' actually is, but I'm broadly in favour, and I buy into it as a means of promoting peace.
Protectionism is not a good thing, I don't like the fact that governments resort to it at the slightest hint of economic crisis, thus making it worse. And then there's the disproportionate effect it has on poorer countries and economies, etc.
I am an interventionalist, when I believe the cause is just (and that's not something I say lightly). Military intervention should always take place within the rule of law, though the state of international law is not what it should be. For example, the idea that Iraq could even pretend to be a sovereign state, under Saddam Hussein, should have been completely laughable to anybody, but it wasn't (and if you want me to expand on that, I will do, happily). I do not think that the sovereign nation-state can remain the most important actor within International Relations. Not a particularly liberal position.
On the question of the EU, I am a staunch supporter of our membership. And having just completed a year studying it at one of the most prestigious universities for political science in France, I am probably more clued up about it than most on here. For the record, I think our government's record within the EU has been laughably pathetic, simultaneously abandoning British influence in key areas, whilst not achieving much, at all.
You'll note that these are incredibly general answers to your questions, but I didn't really want to get onto specific issues and muddy the waters.
EDIT: For the record, I'm not a communist, but I definitely get off on Marx.
I would also happily concede being an ignorant, narrow minded young man of average intelligence. Nothing to see here, move along sir, move along.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 553
- Location
- Bora Bora
Because it's a terrible way to portray a nation, doesn't make it any less valid. With regard to media barons, I was referring to the current shambles with Rupert Murdoch and the tories. Could you please stop hijacking the thread, and simply answer the 2 questions.
Last edited:
Naffa - Pretty compatible with classic liberal. Not a libertarian, not a neo-liberal. Pro-EU? I understand the benefits, but the anti-democratic notions of it, and the mask being off about full fiscal and political union... I'd be for a union within Europe, but what's there now is a protectionist club, and I don't see the benefit in joining one when the rest of the world is a more important trading partner. However I do see points on both sides so I don't think being pro-EU is a nutter stance.
Probably if you were more specific you'd sound SDP - that's pretty typical of things, broadly speaking everybody is a liberal until they have a list of exclusions so long it's better to say they're a social democrat, conservative or other.
Probably if you were more specific you'd sound SDP - that's pretty typical of things, broadly speaking everybody is a liberal until they have a list of exclusions so long it's better to say they're a social democrat, conservative or other.
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 553
- Location
- Bora Bora
Thankyou, for your candid response.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 2,537
- Location
- Norfolk
My parents are fairly well off, but they weren't when I was born. They worked hard to get where they are and had 0 "privileged upbringing" to put them there. (Dad went to grammar school and started his own business. Mum did a company secretarial school at poly and eventually worked her way up to be assistant company secretary of the 3rd largest platinum producer in the world.)
They are both Tory counsellors so of course my upbringing was true blue. I guess I could be too deep down, and I do tend to align with a very liberal form of Conservatism rather than statist socialism but I don't like the Tory government at the moment. I do feel like they are out of touch. Cameron seemed to "get it" when I first heard him speak years ago, but since then he seems to have lost it.
Overall, I don't feel like they, or I, fit into this steretype of "posh tories". As I said, they came from very little and are now very comfortable. It's to do with aspiration, and the idea that anything is possible. no one put them where they are, but to an extent they did put ME where I am I suppose (privately educated, good a levels, good degree) but I worked hard too. My parents are Conservatives because they believe individuals can work together to build something for themselves. They believe that the state should give people the space and opportunity to be the best they can be. They believe working hard should be a path to success and that no one should be able to doubt, deride or dispute that success.
They are both Tory counsellors so of course my upbringing was true blue. I guess I could be too deep down, and I do tend to align with a very liberal form of Conservatism rather than statist socialism but I don't like the Tory government at the moment. I do feel like they are out of touch. Cameron seemed to "get it" when I first heard him speak years ago, but since then he seems to have lost it.
Overall, I don't feel like they, or I, fit into this steretype of "posh tories". As I said, they came from very little and are now very comfortable. It's to do with aspiration, and the idea that anything is possible. no one put them where they are, but to an extent they did put ME where I am I suppose (privately educated, good a levels, good degree) but I worked hard too. My parents are Conservatives because they believe individuals can work together to build something for themselves. They believe that the state should give people the space and opportunity to be the best they can be. They believe working hard should be a path to success and that no one should be able to doubt, deride or dispute that success.
Doesn't make it any more valid either, murdoch was much tigher with labour, I already have.
I just describe myself as a leftist, but I have more arguments with people on the left than I do the right. I'm not a socialist, social democrat, conservative, fascist, communist, anarchist, or any of that. I'm just... Naffa.
My credentials on government regulation of competition and pro-military intervention are literally the antithesis of classical liberalism. I am a strong advocate of equality and freedom, the complete opposite of classical liberalism and libertarianism (yeah, I just said that, but it's another debate).
I don't like labels, they give people ammunition to attack me on positions that I don't hold.
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 553
- Location
- Bora Bora
Great. So there's nothing more to add. Thankyou.
I am a strong advocate of equality and freedom, the complete opposite of classical liberalism and libertarianism (yeah, I just said that, but it's another debate).
Classic liberalism is not neo-liberalism is not libertarianism. Classic liberalism is a moderate position, in favour of free trade, retrenchment and peace (in the non-imperialist sense). I think the debate would be around the definitions of equality and freedom.
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 553
- Location
- Bora Bora
I'll add more if you do first
?
Thanks, but I know what classical liberalism consists of, I have spent enough time studying, and writing about it.
Classic liberalism is not neo-liberalism is not libertarianism. Classic liberalism is a moderate position, in favour of free trade, retrenchment and peace (in the non-imperialist sense). I think the debate would be around the definitions of equality and freedom.
The debate would centre around all of the aforementioned terms. The problem with any social science is that you can continually reduce the debate back, until you are debating the meaning of the words themselves, as there are no definitive definitions in these fields. For instance, compare what the word liberal means in the United States to what it does in Europe.
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 553
- Location
- Bora Bora
Thanks, but I know what classical liberalism consists of, I have spent enough time studying, and writing about it.
The debate would centre around all of the aforementioned terms. The problem with any social science is that you can continually reduce the debate back, until you are debating the meaning of the words themselves, as there are no definitive definitions in these fields. For instance, compare what the word liberal means in the United States to what it does in Europe.
Look Naffa mate, I know where you're coming from and everything, but can we get back to whether or not you're a tory, and how well off your parents are please mate.