In Response To Telegraph Article. Your Political Philosophy Please

[Guest Steve Cook]

Can't have 0 growth with a debt-based monetary system!

Absoloutly correct

[Guest Steve Cook]

I don't care much which system we follow, provided we follow it honestly and without propaganda, so everyone knows where they stand.

Erm....I guess that would be a system that was not populated by humans then?

[Guest Steve Cook]

I suppose, given that I posted this thread in the first place, I should nail my colours to the mast.

All of my left wing, guardian reading buddies think I am some kind of facist, whilst at the same time, whenever I engage in conversation with self stated right-wingers, they all tend to acuse me of being some kind of commie pinko liberal

Go figure!

I guess the only conclusion that I can draw from the above is that my views must be seen as being quite extreme in comparison with the mainstream. But they seem to borrow from both ends of the political spectrum (or neither).

Buggered if I know

Steve

Edited March 30, 2008 by Steve Cook

[bear_or_bull]

Ooh, if we're making lists (I'm a bit of a fan of lists), I can add mine:

- I think society should be based on meritocracy. With that in mind:

(a) education, education, education. A child, no matter where or to whom it is born, should have the very best opportunities. I would suggest a scaling back of adult benefits and transfer of significant sums to education. Education should reflect the competitive world in which we live. It should be streamed, challenging, and aim to create a generation that is capable. They should grow up knowing that they are responsible for their own future. The state will help them do the very best until they are in their early 20s (post Uni or vocational), but after that there would be limited safety nets designed only for those genuinely in need.

( modern capitalism assumes 100% educational mobility. I.e. a laid off employee can retrain to another industry. This may have made sense when the employee was moving from machine fitter to lab assistant, but specialism increases over time. It's not quite so easy for a brain surgeon to become a rocket scientist. It's the elephant in the room of the modern (outsourced/globalised) economy. Our current system does not begin to support it. Lifetime training/education should be fully integrated into society.

© a person's "wealth" should be based on meritocracy, not inheritance or their parent's success. I.e. high house prices, passed on through the generations, are not part of that. Conventional multiples to salary are better. Unfortunately this means relatively high inheritance tax. This is to do what it was originally designed to do: prevent dynasties.

(d) state aid should be only for the genuinely needy, not the work-shy. As it stands those in genuine need get very little, as the cloth is spread very fine. A redistribution is required.

- Society should be secure:

(e) root causes of crime should be addressed. It is my belief (to call it understanding would assume I know more than I do) that sink estates aggravate crime. It is not just poverty, but culture. This starts young. School kids need to learn respect and discipline. There is no easy solution to this, but the post 60s experiment hasn't work.

(f) likewise on crime. It's a touch issue, but if crime's are committed then time must be served. A lack of prison's is no excuse. Rehabilitation should not be assumed to be possible. Choices should be offered, but if not taken, then there should be a system of penalty. Borders should be secure.

(g) all successful societies have a strong law book. Not bloated, just a secure legal framework. We need to keep ours. Some days it feels as if we're on a slippery slope.

- Society should be free:

(h) an orwellian society is not the answer to crime. I would rather suffer higher crime as a price to be paid for freedom than to be a serf in an observational state. I say no to i.d. cards because they don't work. Surveillance is all well and good when you have a "trustworthy" government, but all that power could be mis-used.

- Culture is important:

(i) immigration is not bad, per se. Unchecked immigration is... Immigration should be encouraged where skills are needed. This is not the same as unchecked immigration or encouraging immigration to keep low skilled staff costs down (as now). Think US or AUS rules.

(j) I do not believe we came to be powerful by accident. Cultures are not equal. They have plusses and minuses. Integration should be an aim, and immigrants should stand by British values (whatever they are). You could replace western values of freedom there if you like.

- Energy

(k) A move to renewables, starting now, is needed. R&D funding for this, and tax breaks, are the job of government.

(l) in the meantime we need to secure our fossil supplies. That means LNG terminals, possibly coal mines, possibly nuclear. It means long term contracts (aka China) with suppliers.

- Trade

(m) trade is good, but should not be a smokescreen for slavery. It's a tricky one, but globalisation has plusses and minuses. I'm in the "negative in aggregate" category. But my thoughts aren't clear.

- Sustainability

(n) The ELEPHANT in the room. As mentioned by other posters. Exponential growth isn't possible. We need to plan for the future. That means thinking of how to keep people happy and wealthy in a non-growth environment. A non-trivial question.

Ah, bugger, I've got bored with my off-the-top-of-my-head list. I always get to sustainability and trip up. How on earth are we ever going to achieve that?

[InternationalRockSuperstar]

I don't fall into any of the four categories mentioned in that telegraph article. It seems pretty common sense to me that house are way overpriced based on:

- Rising real interest rates

- Plummeting mortage lending

- House Price/Wage ratio

- House Price/Gold Ratio

- Stupidly Low rental yields

- Rocketing repossions

- New build are smaller and have less land than houses did 15 years ago, so they should be worth less.

- Net immigration now turning into net emmigration

- Rising property taxes

- Deleveraging

Edited March 30, 2008 by InternationalRockSuperstar

[domo]

I'm basically very much libertarian. I used to be interested in socialism when I was younger but couldn't find anything like a decent explanation of how it could work without the government dictating our lives and creating a disincentive to work (profit motive is the best incentive to work IMO).

The things I would like most now would be much much lower taxes with the elimination of money drains like social security and NHS, also a free market monetary system (ie not a government mandated gold one).

[Injin]

There is only one political question and it's this -

Should any product or service be provided at the barrel of a gun?

[oracle]

I voted something else.

In essence I'm a free market,free thought libertarian,with enough backbone to say make the workshy/tax-shy pull their weight.

With enough of a conscience as to say we'll help people in real need of protection/persecution,but only with the basics to exist,if you want lifes luxuries then you have to earn them/work for them...and if you gamble your life away,then you bear the consequences of your irresponsibility....without the fluffy words and spin.

And opportunity to improve ones standard of living should be available to all......so I'm very much against the dumbing down of education to the lowest common denominator,if a kid in a council house has a good brain then he/she should get private schooling paid for/uni bursaries if they can pass the entrance exams......it's an investment in the future.

My doctrine applies as much to entities like corporations as it does to individuals.

I suppose you could mix n match norman tebbit,jose morinho and ron paul and you'll get where I am.....Not exactly left-wing is it???

oh and as an aside,I'm very much pro-family.It's the best place to bring up kids.The state has tried to take over surrogate parent role for the past 30 odd years,and it ain't worked.Behavioural standards are shocking.

so let's go back to the tried and tested,it's worked well for a few thousand years.....as the adage goes,if it ain't broke,don't fix it.

Edited March 30, 2008 by oracle

[Backseat Economist]

bear_or_bull - fantastic post, and I agree with pretty much everything you've said.

Took the test and came back as a mildly left wing libertarian - which was what I suspected.

Was also surprised at the number of questions where I strongly agreed or disagreed.

Clearly being on this site has given me, a bit of a fence sitter at the best of times, some gnashers.

GT.

[Guest Steve Cook]

I've just been on the political compass site and took the test. Apparently I am a left-wing libertarian.

So, I suppose those right wing protagonists were right after all....I'm a left wing liberal pinko

Well, waddaya know....

http://www.politicalcompass.org/index

Steve

Edited March 30, 2008 by Steve Cook

[oracle]

I've just been on the political compass site and took the test. Apparently I am a left-wing libertarian.

So, I suppose those right wing protagonists were right after all....I'm a left wing liberal pinko

Well, waddaya know....

http://www.politicalcompass.org/index

Steve

You should take note of just how many of our illustrious "leaders",from chairman mao,to hitler,to Tony Blair,to dubya...ALL sit on the Authoritarian side.Politics aside,this does seem rather significant as to the psyche of the people that we have the misfortune to elect.

the general doctrine of this group seem to be...I've got this great idea and I'll tell all the rest of you how to live my dream.....anyone that thinks differently better shut up.

no wonder we're in so much crap if the leaders themselves have got blinkers on.

[twatmangle]

I've just been on the political compass site and took the test. Apparently I am a left-wing libertarian.

So, I suppose those right wing protagonists were right after all....I'm a left wing liberal pinko

Well, waddaya know....

http://www.politicalcompass.org/index

Steve

This was posted a while ago. Turns out everyone was in the bottom left corner.

I guess if you have the slightest shred of decency or moraly, this makes you a liberal.

[Sonic the Hedge Fund]

I've just been on the political compass site and took the test. Apparently I am a left-wing libertarian.

So, I suppose those right wing protagonists were right after all....I'm a left wing liberal pinko

Well, waddaya know....

http://www.politicalcompass.org/index

Steve

Its suprising how many people are in this quadrant, with a liberal social view but more conservative on economics.

The obvious outsiders are the politicians, perhaps power has corrupted them? (or they were corrupt enough to want power?) Humanity can be suprisingly adept at coping with litle or no central authority, some interesting social and economic models appear when governments colapse (such as in a warzone).

IMO we need less governement, less authority, more resposibilty with individuals and small groups.

[huw]

No healthcare after the age of 65 would probably do all we need. Wouldn't affect the poor countries much.

Except that's not where the nettle that needs to be grasped is. It would be a one-off 'gain' but would make no difference to actual growth rates, cos the over-65s don't breed.

[huw]

The obvious outsiders are the politicians, perhaps power has corrupted them?

Or it might be that the need to deal with reality concentrated their minds

FWIW I'm a left-wing libertarian like Steve, but I appreciate that, even for the incorruptible, idealism might go out of the window when faced with the task of government.

[Prof]

Oracle`s views are pretty well the same as mine. I want a "competitive" economy, but not to the detriment of the environment, or to the point where the weak/disadvantaged get ignored. I want politicians who look after the population, not after their own re-election.

One of my (controversial ?) ideas is that the environment needs to take a higher priority than economic growth. If this means dis-incentives for population growth, then so be it. One of the most polluting things is to have a child (unless someone gives birth to a human who discovers clean, cheap, unlimited energy). More people = more environmental damage. Taxing environmentally damaging activities will have limited benefits. With 5billion+ humans on this planet, I doubt there is much chance we`ll become extinct any time soon, unless we have a huge war or environmental catastrophe.

Yes, I have no children, but I`m not against the idea. It`s just that allowing the population to grow without any control seems crazy, considering the current situation with limited oil reserves and concrens about environmental change.

[Rightmooove]

Seriously? You're sh****g me, right?

This is extremely far right, no? But then you throw in an alliance with Russia/China? Wow. They're still playing the long- cold-war game you know. They are resolutely not on "our" side.

Anyway, I guess talking politics will get us nowhere. Interesting, but hey.

Far right? Where did that come from? Was it the mention of 'no immigration'?

AFAIK the Russians and Chinese, which you infer to be left wing, aren't too keen on immigrants either.

Or was it the mention of pulling out of the EU? How exactly does that make somebody are 'far right winger'.

I think the majority of the population want out of the EU, does this mean we're all secret members of the gestapo in your world?

[dumb-tabloid reader]

GEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Has anyone actually looked at the comments posted at the bottom of the ToryGraph article???

My god theres far more people than I orginally thought that want prices to come down....

WELL DONE!!! Everybody on here who has contributed..

Thank you. You are helping in creating a more balanced society.

[Questiondog]

Thanks for the post to the politcal compass. I'm apparently a lefty liberal.. which makes me feel rather nice to be honest.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

Cheers

[Guest vicmac64]

I'm neither - I am a Libertarian who believes in small Government (very small government) and guess what liberty and Democracy.

[Guest vicmac64]

I voted something else.

In essence I'm a free market,free thought libertarian,with enough backbone to say make the workshy/tax-shy pull their weight.

With enough of a conscience as to say we'll help people in real need of protection/persecution,but only with the basics to exist,if you want lifes luxuries then you have to earn them/work for them...and if you gamble your life away,then you bear the consequences of your irresponsibility....without the fluffy words and spin.

And opportunity to improve ones standard of living should be available to all......so I'm very much against the dumbing down of education to the lowest common denominator,if a kid in a council house has a good brain then he/she should get private schooling paid for/uni bursaries if they can pass the entrance exams......it's an investment in the future.

My doctrine applies as much to entities like corporations as it does to individuals.

I suppose you could mix n match norman tebbit,jose morinho and ron paul and you'll get where I am.....Not exactly left-wing is it???

oh and as an aside,I'm very much pro-family.It's the best place to bring up kids.The state has tried to take over surrogate parent role for the past 30 odd years,and it ain't worked.Behavioural standards are shocking.

so let's go back to the tried and tested,it's worked well for a few thousand years.....as the adage goes,if it ain't broke,don't fix it.

Yip - sounds like good balanced position Oracle

[Guest mattsta1964]

Ho folks. don't know if you read the article listed in one of the other threads about poor old Phil Spencer and his hurt feelings because people are so angry about his blatent property ramping.

Anyway, the article goes on to make mention of HPC sites (no names mentioned!).

It implies a political philosophy underpinning the contributors of such sites. That being the case, I thought it might be fun to see where the land lies in this regard.

Steve

I think this arguement is philisophically flawed because most people understand that 'left' and 'right' wing are really very badly understood.

We think of fascism as right wing when in fact, Nazism was National Socialism, ie, it was and still is collectivist. The single biggest difference between communism and fascism is that in a communist system, all productive output is owned by the state whereas fascism is an unholy union of state and corporate power. NuLabour is much closer to fascism than democratic socialism.

The real arguement is not whether they are left or right wing, it is whether they want the state to be nanny and control every aspect of their lives.

So the more logical question should be, do you believe in self determination, self responsibility and taking charge of your own destiny, or do you wish government to run your life for you?

The answer is, people should have much greater freedom to run their own lives and government should be much smaller.

The primary objectives of government should be to protect our freedom and civil liberties.

The British people have completely misunderstood what the purpose of the government should be IMO

[Injin]

I think this arguement is philisophically flawed because most people understand that 'left' and 'right' wing are really very badly understood.

We think of fascism as right wing when in fact, Nazism was National Socialism, ie, it was and still is collectivist. The single biggest difference between communism and fascism is that in a communist system, all productive output is owned by the state whereas fascism is an unholy union of state and corporate power. NuLabour is much closer to fascism than democratic socialism.

The real arguement is not whether they are left or right wing, it is whether they want the state to be nanny and control every aspect of their lives.

So the more logical question should be, do you believe in self determination, self responsibility and taking charge of your own destiny, or do you wish government to run your life for you?

The answer is, people should have much greater freedom to run their own lives and government should be much smaller.

The primary objectives of government should be to protect our freedom and civil liberties.

The British people have completely misunderstood what the purpose of the government should be IMO

The purpose of government is to steal, kill, rape, molest, ruin, destroy, vandalise, wreck, annihilate.......it doesn't have a proper purpose. It's evil.

Edited March 30, 2008 by Injin

[A.steve]

I've only relatively recently managed to appreciate the definitions of right and left wing, so - unless I am far more stupid than the average person of my generation - I think many will fail to understand the question... and will answer based upon the stereotypes that they've encountered when growing up.

I can see a place for both right and left wing principles - though I'd prefer to see extremes of neither. I found the mental image of a 2D diagram with left and right being the base axis, and with "liberalism" being the second orthogonal. I think I am, broadly speaking, liberal - though not a fundamentalist liberal... so I wouldn't support either US Libertarianism or it's weady UK cousin the Natural Law party. I am against the imposition of political ideologies and knee-jerk reactions... I am against party politics... I am for electoral reform that would allow my political wishes to be registered - even if they are not enacted. I'd like to be able vote on individual roles within government - so that, for example, I could choose Cameron to smile at dignitaries and Vince Cable as Chancellor. It struck me as especially ironic that our last paymaster general was elected by an area populated by a demographic who (I strongly suspect) couldn't even say what role the paymaster general performed. These roles should be filled by people who have a passion for the job; they should be elected by those who are interested in how they perform - and we should do away with the ridiculous system that allows one MP to be elected because ill-informed voters recognise the name of a party whose leader has nice teeth and isn't "the last lot".

[The Spaniard]

I am a member of GUACAMOLE.

(General Union of Activists and Campaigners Against More Or Less Everything)