Civilised Debate - Left Vs. Right

[XswampyX]

We all know the left can't pay for their grand plans of slavery for the masses and gulags for all. We were just looking into alternative funding mechanisms where they could thrive.

[XswampyX]

....

People can come here, work for what to us is peanuts money but to them is a decent salary, and send the money 'home' where it buys more. Enough years of that and they may opt to return home and buy a decent place to live outright. This is one of the reasons why the EU's immigration policies undermine people, especially certain groups: contributors to what might be called "society" here: society basically vanishes in their eyes. Standards of living are not equal in the EU States. This creates a "race to the bottom" effect in certain groups of people.

I've often wondered about that, and maybe should start a new thread. How does this help the government with trade balances? Is somebody 'sending money home' just the same as if they had imported some goods or services from GB?.... So it's a net gain for the government, but a total loss to us?

[Riedquat]

Ah, but - would you rather wait 28 days for delivery (the 1980s) or order from Amazon, have your small item picked by a mechanised assembly, and be guaranteed to have it tomorrow?

That analogy, extended far enough, would see ten year old children cleaning chimneys again with heating and sewerage being things that only the rich enjoy.

Why do you say it as if it must be an all-or-nothing thing? Every time this comes up someone seems to pipe up with a similar reply, which is very black and white thinking. A dislike of some "progress" ("change" would be more accurate) doesn't imply a dislike for all and there's nothing at all inconcsistent or hypocritical about taking the bits you like and rejecting the ones you don't. It's common sense.

That said if having to wait 28 days for delivery was the price to pay for a whole lot of unpleasant changes since the 80s then bring it on. Quick delivery is nice but hardly a fundamental improvement. I'm not impatient. If I had the choice between now and the 80s I'd take the 80s (although I'd find the hair hard going).

Edited May 11, 2015 by Riedquat

[DTMark]

I've often wondered about that, and maybe should start a new thread. How does this help the government with trade balances? Is somebody 'sending money home' just the same as if they had imported some goods or services from GB?.... So it's a net gain for the government, but a total loss to us?

Trust you to ask a difficult question It's probably more one for the really expert people in the main forum.

The cheap employment makes profits for the employer. Those roll up into GDP which is all that matters economically (that aspect is at the heart of all of this).

The balance of trade deficit was something we used to pay close attention to in previous decades. Now, it's glossed over and barely reported on as an important metric.

[thecrashingisles]

Nah, get rid of income tax. It's awful!

We want you to work, encourage it. But you will be penalised for it! Tax the land, tax the buildings, tax the products. Don't tax the effort to make it all work.

Earned income is taxed more heavily that unearned income, thanks to National Insurance. There was some talk during the last parliament that the Tories wanted to phase out NI and I wouldn't be surprised to see them do something on this now they have a majority.

[thecrashingisles]

That said if having to wait 28 days for delivery was the price to pay for a whole lot of unpleasant changes since the 80s then bring it on. Quick delivery is nice but hardly a fundamental improvement. I'm not impatient.

That's one of the most wrong-headed things I've read recently.

[winkie]

One has what you could call a chip on their shoulder and feel entitled....the other extreme feel entitled because they were brought up to think they are.

[thecrashingisles]

But then we wouldn't have here to come and whinge We'd all be stuck in some smoky pub, that called itself a wine bar

P

And we'd be carrying six-inch phones. Oh, hang on... We seem to have come full circle on that front.

[StainlessSteelCat]

Some of you really should check out Political Compass as there is some very confused mixing up of economics and social freedom on this thread at times. Seriously, it helped me out a lot when trying to work out why I thought Ayn Rand was both a nutter and ahead of her time:

https://www.politicalcompass.org/uk2015

All of the major parties are right wing economically, and pretty authoritarian too. None of them want small government, for example - and there is ample evidence of that. All of them are committed to a neoliberal approach to economics and willingly offer up themselves to corporate capture.

And this whole "Left = thick/violent" is no doubt as insulting as "Right = heartless/selfish" archetype - and that's why no-one from either "side" bothers to talk to each other - even when in reality there is not that much difference between them. At least not if you are Conservative/Labour supporter.

[Guest_northshore_*]

Some of you really should check out Political Compass as there is some very confused mixing up of economics and social freedom on this thread at times. Seriously, it helped me out a lot when trying to work out why I thought Ayn Rand was both a nutter and ahead of her time:

https://www.politicalcompass.org/uk2015

All of the major parties are right wing economically, and pretty authoritarian too. None of them want small government, for example - and there is ample evidence of that. All of them are committed to a neoliberal approach to economics and willingly offer up themselves to corporate capture.

And this whole "Left = thick/violent" is no doubt as insulting as "Right = heartless/selfish" archetype - and that's why no-one from either "side" bothers to talk to each other - even when in reality there is not that much difference between them. At least not if you are Conservative/Labour supporter.

Perhaps in relative terms, but there's also almost nothing right wing among actual mainstream policies rather than theory.

This thread isn't really about left-right, seems to be about variations around a particular 21st century neoliberal/neocon ideal (Conservatism, Labour etc). The only way the left will ever be persuaded on the ideals of the right is if the right can demonstrate the real nature of individualist, and even elements of collectivist, practice that benefits people, opportunity and autonomy over the state through policy and action. And to be right now fair vice versa (because everybody socialism is still ideologically more consistent and practically better than current pot luck special-flower socialism or neoliberalism).

[Riedquat]

That's one of the most wrong-headed things I've read recently.

Why?

edit: Unless you were replying to what I actually said instead of what I meant, now that I re-read it I see that I messed it up a bit, since it seemed to imply that I want the unpleasant changes. Whoops.

Edited May 11, 2015 by Riedquat

[Steppenpig]

Some of you really should check out Political Compass as there is some very confused mixing up of economics and social freedom on this thread at times. Seriously, it helped me out a lot when trying to work out why I thought Ayn Rand was both a nutter and ahead of her time:

https://www.politicalcompass.org/uk2015

All of the major parties are right wing economically, and pretty authoritarian too. None of them want small government, for example - and there is ample evidence of that. All of them are committed to a neoliberal approach to economics and willingly offer up themselves to corporate capture.

I found it interesting but not particularly helpful. I think there must be other factors that need to be considered

Presumably the Greens do well on "libertarian" because of their attitude to personal freedoms (e.g. cannabis, immigration) but they wil be much more authoritarian about controlling companies not to mention pollution including my right to supermarket bags. Why is the SNP more libertarian than th liblabcon ? And I see on the german site, apparently "Die Linke" are the most libertarian - this is the successor party to the East Gernan single state party. Seems a bit odd.

Plus I found a few of the questions a bit unclear, Things like: "Making peace with the establishment is an important aspect of maturity." Well it obviously *is*, in the sense that it happens, but are they really asking if I think this is a good thing?

Edited May 11, 2015 by Steppenpig

[sPinwheel]

Come the revolution you will all be first against the wall.

[thecrashingisles]

Why?

edit: Unless you were replying to what I actually said instead of what I meant, now that I re-read it I see that I messed it up a bit, since it seemed to imply that I want the unpleasant changes. Whoops.

No I think I was replying to what you meant which I took to be that massive improvements in logistics and supply chain management are not a fundamental improvement.

[Riedquat]

No I think I was replying to what you meant which I took to be that massive improvements in logistics and supply chain management are not a fundamental improvement.

Do they really make your life that much better though? Quick deliveries are something that's nice to have but really doesn't make a great deal of difference in the grand scheme of things, so if they come with no downside then great, otherwise I'm not really bothered. Once things reach the point where I've no worries about the basics then the quality of my surroundings - attractive, characterful, not too busy, matters vastly more to me than convenience, so it's hard to find much in anything that affects it.

How does that affect supply chain management? Hard to say since I'm not familar enough with how it works, so it may well be something that doesn't have much in the way of downsides. Just that if it would be something that would have to go to change things more in the direction I'd prefer I'd happily accept it. Better still of course would be a world that has both.

If people haven't got happier then no meaningful change has occured, because really what else matters?

None of that may be the world you want to live in but you cannot say it's objectively wrong, just a different view of what matters.

Edited May 11, 2015 by Riedquat

[Guest TheBlueCat]

The left weren't out demonstrating and causing trouble the other day. Those were just people that were pissed off that their right wing party didn't win.

Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem, they are all right wing to various degrees. The only left wing parties in the UK are the greens, plaid cymru and the SNP (although the SNP are only slightly left wing). There are a few other smaller parties that are left wing too.

I seriously doubt that the majority of the people causing trouble are members or supporters of left wing parties.

I put it to the OP that the whole premise of this thread is incorrect.

The group out demonstrating at the weekend were SWP I think - I deliberately excluded them from the debate as they're the same kind of loons as the EDL etc.

The people I'm talking about are the supporters of mainstream parties and it doesn't take a lot of reading of the comments sections on websites or twitter to see that the threats of violence made by the left far outweigh those made by the right. Even if you go with the ridiculous conspiracy theory stuff about it all being paid for by MI5 or what ever, the imbalance is still too large to write off.

Also, I'm drawing on my own experience on the anti-ID card campaign trail from a few years back. We had pretty good support across the political spectrum but, whereas the Tories who didn't agree with us were generally polite about it, we had a material number of Labour supporters verbally abuse us. I found it pretty strange at the time since, historically at any rate, the Labour movement had been quite strong on civil liberties but, with hindsight, I think it fits into the group think explanation.

[Guest TheBlueCat]

Revolt!

The peasants are revolting! I'll get me coat.

[Guest TheBlueCat]

While I agree with some of your views on benefits I am not sure what that has to do with true left wing politics. For example, Marxist Leninist states such as the USSR or Maoist China did not have welfare systems in any western sense of the term (nor Trade Unions for that matter) .

If you read the speeches written by people such as ex Communist Jimmy Reid who led the Upper Clyde ship builder sit in years ago they are all about the dignity of labour as in doing a working job no matter how humble not bidding up the value of the Brew.

There are no individuals of the status of Keir Hardie , Ben Tillet or Jimmy Reid now.

Wildly off-topic now but, yes, I completely agree with all of that. Attempting to structure the economy in such a way as to provide meaningful employment for everyone that needs it is something genuinely to aspire too, regardless of whether of your view as to how best to achieve it.

[CyberNat]

The group out demonstrating at the weekend were SWP I think - I deliberately excluded them from the debate as they're the same kind of loons as the EDL etc.

The people I'm talking about are the supporters of mainstream parties and it doesn't take a lot of reading of the comments sections on websites or twitter to see that the threats of violence made by the left far outweigh those made by the right. Even if you go with the ridiculous conspiracy theory stuff about it all being paid for by MI5 or what ever, the imbalance is still too large to write off.

Also, I'm drawing on my own experience on the anti-ID card campaign trail from a few years back. We had pretty good support across the political spectrum but, whereas the Tories who didn't agree with us were generally polite about it, we had a material number of Labour supporters verbally abuse us. I found it pretty strange at the time since, historically at any rate, the Labour movement had been quite strong on civil liberties but, with hindsight, I think it fits into the group think explanation.

How can you tell if people leaving comments on websites are from the left or right? It is far more likely that the most pissed off people are going to be disgruntled Labour supporters seeing as they were the second largest party. It just makes statistical sense. Therefore it stands to reason that the most likely people protesting the other day were in fact supporters of the right wing Labour party with a smattering of supporters of the right wing Lib Dems.

[moedo12]

So, here's the question: why are people on the mainstream political left so much more likely to threaten violence to their opponents than the right?

What are you basing this on? My experience tends to be the opposite to be honest. In fact I'm struggling to think of an example. But yes, statements like the above are not a great basis to begin a discussion, they're too presumptuous.

Edit: A similar statement I could make is that forums like this tend to be populated largely by people on the right of the political spectrum, thus, expect the answers to be heavily slanted. It would have been better to ask the question on the UK politics forum as there's likely to be more of a balance of views there, in my opinion.

Edited May 11, 2015 by moedo12

[CyberNat]

And to add a bit more credence to my comment above, Charlotte Church was one of the protesters. She is a supporter of the right wing Labour party.

So I say it again, the premise of this whole thread is nonsense.

[Austin Allegro]

In my experience, leftist arguments tend to be based on emotion, rather than reason.

Take for example last week's Question Time on R4 where Michael Howard gave a very eloquent speech about how a welfare state can only function if it is underpinned by a strong economy and paid for by subsequent taxation.

After he said that, you could hear the tumbleweeds blowing through the hall.

Then, two leftists gave impassioned speeches about caring for the sick, the poor, the 'disadvantaged' etc and got huge applause.

Those further to the right don't need to preach hatred or violence, because they can simply show by reasoned argument how their opponents are wrong. The left generally can't do that because their policies are based on emotion. So if the Tories say they will cut benefits, this is seen by them as 'evil' because they can't grasp the fact that somebody has to pay for the welfare state. If said 'evil' Tories persist with their views, even in the face of sob stories about the suffering poor, it understandably provokes rage and anger in those who can't grasp the rationale behind it.

It's like a teenager stamping her feet and shouting 'I HATE YOU' at her parents when they refuse to give her more pocket money.

[winkie]

People who feel they have little or no power particularly planned, structured, collective power sometimes use miss directed emotions that can turn into frustrated anger, aggression and violence.......People with power and influence that work together have no need to prove a point in an aggressive way they can cleverly manipulate the outcome to suit their agenda/interests.

[CyberNat]

People who feel they have little or no power particularly planned, structured, collective power sometimes use miss directed emotions that can turn into frustrated anger, aggression and violence.......People with power and influence that work together have no need to prove a point in an aggressive way they can cleverly manipulate the outcome to suit their agenda/interests.

This has a lot of truth to it.

The protests weren't to do with left or right wing politics. It was more to do with the poor having been treated like crap for the last 5 years of Tory government. It is hardly surprising that people are going to be angry when faced with 5 more years of the same.

That doesn't make those protesters left wing.

[Guest TheBlueCat]

How can you tell if people leaving comments on websites are from the left or right? It is far more likely that the most pissed off people are going to be disgruntled Labour supporters seeing as they were the second largest party. It just makes statistical sense. Therefore it stands to reason that the most likely people protesting the other day were in fact supporters of the right wing Labour party with a smattering of supporters of the right wing Lib Dems.

It seems pretty easy to me - people writing comment supporting Labour, SNP etc. who then also make violent threats against the Tories, Lib Dems, UKIP etc. I just don't see much of it the opposite way around.