Any UK Independence Party Voters?

[Napster]

Quote[/b] (The 4th man @ July 23 2004,12:56)]Proportional representation time i think !

And the media are still people (well just ;-) )

If your talking Charisma , well Churchill would really have walked it even in this day and age , and that little mustahichoud austrian as well. Not having the global 2 hour media representation , they had to literaly sell themselfs by themselfs.

As for Japan , its not a presedential election its just a revolving door !

And re the defenition, i thought thats for the Economic polices of the poltical ideologey isnt it ? Dont they have different ideas re social managment and education polecy etc ?

Hmm. I disagree totally with PR, for the reason that minority parties with extreme views have a bigger share of seats than strictly necessary.

Hahaha. Good point- I suppose the media are ultimately controlled by one man...

Yeah, I guess Churchill would have done it. Might have to have worked on his waistline a tad though to be TV friendly

The basic economic distinction underlies the whole political ideology though, doesn't it? tax- no tax; public spending- no public spending.

education policies/social management etc are really just byproducts of the economic model. Although I see what you mean- I guess the Right would educate the kids in different ways to the Left.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

The Falklands conflict was a cynically manipulated political ploy by Thatcher to ensure election victory.

In the early 80s, despite repeated promises, unemployment had rocketed and inflation had nudged the 20% mark again. The natives were getting restless.

A year before the Argentine invasion, ITV screened a documentary concerntrating on the lives of the Falklanders. The message was loud and clear: there is an imminent threat of invasion and that help was needed immediately to defend the British colony. The Government's response was to say that the one navy frigate patrolling their shores was to be taken out of commission.

Later that year Cecil Parkinson made a trip to Buenos Aires and announced in a public address to the junta "We are on your side." If ever there was a green light for a nation to go ahead and invade, these actions were it.

As Thatcher exorted the nation to "rejoice rejoice", whilst hundreds of young Argentines and British were being killed, maimed and injured, the Government sat back, knowing an election in such jingoistic times would assure victory. So what if people were killed? That's politics.

Above all the things so wholly untenable about Thatcher's Britain - the complete polarisation of the nation, meltdown of the manufacturing industries, the encouragement of the "greed is good" factor - the fact she was happy to see hundreds die so that her and her party would stay in office was unforgiveable.

When she eventually shuffles off her mortal coil, I won't be the only one raising a glass and singing "Ding, dong, the witch is dead." I genuinely hate her and everything she stood for and nobody will ever be able to convince me that living under Thatcher's Britain was anything other than a dark, depressing, despairing period of mine and millions of other's lives.

 

[* ORM *]

Quote[/b] (Devil's Advocate @ July 24 2004,12:45)]nobody will ever be able to convince me that living under Thatcher's Britain was anything other than a dark, depressing, despairing period of mine and millions of other's lives.

Funny that's precisely how I feel about Britain today under Tony B Liar and his cronies

 

[Hong Kong Blue]

Quote[/b] (Napster @ July 23 2004,12:23)]BTW, the way I understand it is: far-right is market economics, pay your own way, no Nanny state, our country's the best in the world, we don't need no imports (but exports are great- they prove our superiority), taxes are low, yet the underlying patriotism belies racism, anti-immigration, Xenophobia. This leads to fascism. Not the right-wing model.

Left-wing is of course happy happy Nanny state, but your high taxes pay for it all. And you can't guarantee that you get what you pay for. By the State for the State.

I'm always wary of the left/right wing label. IMHO a linear system is an overly simplistic way of representing political ideology as it fails to take into account the cross-cutting cleavages which invariably occur.

The Nazi party is normally held out as being the archetypal far right grouping, but you only have to look at its full name (the National Socialist German Workers' Party) to realise that its ideology is far more complicated than a simple left-right analysis can reveal.

For me Nazism is far closer to its supposed polar opposite Stalinism, than it is to anything in between on the political spectrum.

To be right wing could mean being a staunch protectionist or an Adam Smith free-market disciple, two views which are ideologically incompatible. A market economy believes it can compete with all-comers, not necessarily because of its current strength, but because the way the market operates: competition encourages efficiency, a sort of economic darwinism.

The NSDAP whilst operating a kind of social darwinism, did not extend this line of thought to economic policy where its nationalistic policies prevailed. Economically it operated an essentially Keynesian policy to stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment, first through public works and later through re-armament, combined with protectionist policies. Yet the same nationalistic policies would be considered right wing and therefore bracketed alongside the contradictory ideology of Hayek (Friedrich, rather than Salma) which IMHO renders the term right-wing meaningless unless used in the context of what position Michael Husbands should play in this season.

 

[Napster]

Quote[/b] (Hong Kong Blue @ July 26 2004,07:45)]

Quote[/b] (Napster @ July 23 2004,12:23)]BTW, the way I understand it is: far-right is market economics, pay your own way, no Nanny state, our country's the best in the world, we don't need no imports (but exports are great- they prove our superiority), taxes are low, yet the underlying patriotism belies racism, anti-immigration, Xenophobia. This leads to fascism. Not the right-wing model.

Left-wing is of course happy happy Nanny state, but your high taxes pay for it all. And you can't guarantee that you get what you pay for. By the State for the State.

I'm always wary of the left/right wing label. IMHO a linear system is an overly simplistic way of representing political ideology as it fails to take into account the cross-cutting cleavages which invariably occur.

The Nazi party is normally held out as being the archetypal far right grouping, but you only have to look at its full name (the National Socialist German Workers' Party) to realise that its ideology is far more complicated than a simple left-right analysis can reveal.

For me Nazism is far closer to its supposed polar opposite Stalinism, than it is to anything in between on the political spectrum.

To be right wing could mean being a staunch protectionist or an Adam Smith free-market disciple, two views which are ideologically incompatible. A market economy believes it can compete with all-comers, not necessarily because of its current strength, but because the way the market operates: competition encourages efficiency, a sort of economic darwinism.

The NSDAP whilst operating a kind of social darwinism, did not extend this line of thought to economic policy where its nationalistic policies prevailed. Economically it operated an essentially Keynesian policy to stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment, first through public works and later through re-armament, combined with protectionist policies. Yet the same nationalistic policies would be considered right wing and therefore bracketed alongside the contradictory ideology of Hayek (Friedrich, rather than Salma) which IMHO renders the term right-wing meaningless unless used in the context of what position Michael Husbands should play in this season.

Well, quite.

BTW, I thought Salma Hayek was quite brilliant in her assertion that the lumpen proletariet were essentially a given in any political society.

 

[Napster]

RE a couple of points DA made about Thatcherism.

Yes, fair enough, popularity by winning wars is a good way to win elections. (Incredibly, though, the best war we've won led to a loss for Churchill in the General Elections.)

But it was on Argentina's mind as well- Argentina were going through massive difficulties (inflation was 600%), and there were riots in Buenos Aires. An attack on las Malvinas would divert the pressure. Accordingly, the EEC, the US and the UN all supported us.

The point about manufacturing is moot, I think. Other countries can do it cheaper and more efficiently- in a global economy, prices matter, so the UK economy moved towards a more service-oriented one. That is the natural course of the developed economy with limited resources like us.

 

[Guest]

Have to agree with HKB . I got caught in that naughty little polarization that some how defined our politics from the 1930's (where did that come from ??).

Its like any ideologey, in theory their all workable , just get humans involved and it all goes to pot !

For any of us to progress , we have to seperate the methods from the person. Intent is the key issue here, even the most beginin of social concepts is open to misuse. A utopia can quickly become a facist distopian nightmare .

Its a refelction of an imposed will by a person who wishies to have their socitey as they wish it to be. However they seem not to have the basic politness to ask if the rest of was wih to join them !!


Re teh manufaturing point. Its not that skills an quality of manufacture has been emulated at a cheaper cost. Its they've found a way to preduce cheap goods that last half as long. What manufatuer these days wants their product to last more then 5 years

 

[BluePartridge]

Quote[/b] (Napster @ July 23 2004,12:23)]

Quote[/b] (The 4th man @ July 23 2004,11:45)]Actually more then likley the fault of us voters. The individual does make a differnce we just forget it at times.

Titles are confered and empowered by the people again.
Far-right from what i understand is dictatorial based on the priniciples of almost absolute social order as imosed by the minority on the majoritey... oh wait a second i see your point  

. Maybe its then just the abuse of any social-economic system on the part of a willful individual (theres a pattern here :-D). Ah hell its all Nietzsche fault:D


By the founding fathers maybe , but after 1896 , they got a bit more active then that !!  http://www.fff.org/freedom/0295c.asp

Nail on head. It's the voters' fault. Unfortunately once someone is elected they forget what they were voted in for.

It's also about choice. Lack of choice leads to poor quality people beeing voted in. Do you stay away from the booths in protest or spoil your vote?

If it was up to me, I'd get rid of the £500 deposit and make it easy for anyone to get voted. The political parties mean nothing to the man on the street, it's all about personalities anyway. (First lesson in global politics- who do you vote for: Hague or Blair? Kinnock or Major?- the more charismatic wins every time). Labour were the first to really utilise this when they pushed for Blair. The effect is magnified exponentially in the TV age...leaders have to appealing, charismatic, likeable. Before, radio and the papers were the only way to gauge a leader. Now, it's mainly the TV. Would Churchill have become leader in the TV age? Hard to tell.

I could give you a list of people voted in on their cult of personality. Clinton was another one, Yeltsin another. Then there's the Japanese PM.

Titles are conferred by the media, not the people. That's a distinction useful to make. The media make a leader even more appealing. Everyone remembers the Sun headline re: Kinnock about would the last person to leave the UK turn the lights out? Yet the pro-Tory paper changed allegiance to Blair. Why? Because it knew he had the best chance of winning. Side with the favourite and all that. The Sun's support of Blair was another factor in the 97 victory

BTW, the way I understand it is: far-right is market economics, pay your own way, no Nanny state, our country's the best in the world, we don't need no imports (but exports are great- they prove our superiority), taxes are low, yet the underlying patriotism belies racism, anti-immigration, Xenophobia. This leads to fascism. Not the right-wing model.

Left-wing is of course happy happy Nanny state, but your high taxes pay for it all. And you can't guarantee that you get what you pay for. By the State for the State.

Any wilful individual can wreck a socio-economic system. That's why countries try and impose a mass model of debate leadership, i.e. House of Congress, House of Commons, and if not, rely on the monarchy to stabilise.

ps Yeah, I agree re the US, but one of their priniciples has always been that the President is not the highest in the land, and is reportable to Congress. And the two parties have a duality which cancels each other out- one's pro-abortion, one's not. One's supporters are mainly from the South and so on...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did Churchill actually ever get voted in. Didn't he just replace Halifax and after the war he was voted out?

 

[BluePartridge]

Quote[/b] (Vange Shrimper @ July 23 2004,13:02)]You've also got the argument about Zimbabwe, when Mugabe was driving out all the whites. Isn't that a form of Ethnic cleansing in a way? What did the Uk do? Ban them from the Commonwealth. What is that going to do? Nowt. The Americans did feck all as well. Now with the opposition leader was, or still is on a treason charge, and with the votes being rigged so Mugabe gets into power everytime there's an election. He's one person in this world that needs sorting out, because he is a disgrace.....

The arguement there was that diplomacy would be the best way to deal with Mugabe a bit like Libya. Also I don't think that South Africa would approve of us wading in, as they were sorting it out along with Zimbabwe's other neighbours. I think the US and Britain should stop trying to police the world and let the UN do it. We should worry about ourselves IMO.

 

[The 4th man]

Im sure he was actually elected after the war . In his not so great 2nd term. But as had been discussed it may have been peoples desire to move away from the memory of the war , rather then what he did in his term of office.

Isnt he also the oldest Prime minister ?

Re the Zimbabwe issue i was speaking to a young italian woman who was brought up in Zimbabwe and only recently left , and she was explaining that the farms were taken not just from White farmers but Black as well. It was almost entirly a case of an old boys and pals gifts back from Mugabe.

The elections do need to be sorted out, however it is a UN issue .

 

[Birri]

Mugabe, is the same african dictator that has appeared time after time after time. He has sorted out his cronies from his tribe & shafted his tribes old enemys while spirting away his countrys wealth and buying a villa in france to hide in if he has to flee. Successive governments have down sized our forces & wasted millions on crap equipment. The same equipment has taken years to come into service only to be found faulty or out dated. So having to have more money thrown at it to patch it up. As a result we are in no position to be able to get rid of Mugabe and help both zimbabwe and africa . This only leaves the yanks who dont care because there is nothing to benefit them for doing so.

 

[The 4th man]

Quote[/b] (Birri @ July 26 2004,20:24)]Mugabe, is the same african dictator that has appeared time after time after time. He has sorted out his cronies from his tribe & shafted his tribes old enemys while spirting away his countrys wealth and buying a villa in france to hide in if he has to flee. Successive governments have down sized our forces & wasted millions on crap equipment. The same equipment has taken years to come into service only to be found faulty or out dated. So having to have more money thrown at it to patch it up. As a result we are in no position to be able to get rid of Mugabe and help both zimbabwe and africa . This only leaves the yanks who dont care because there is nothing to benefit them for doing so.

Hmm 1) You just described a lot of goverment officals of the free world and what theyve been doing and sometimes caught doing for the past few centuries . (even though Mugabe is a dictatorial UK trained t**t)

2) We both know thats twaddle , as our boys are never dependant apon technologey like the yanks. Any way the future of warefare is small , highly skilled mobile units with the power to take down their enemys, which comes from teh newer technologey (which if you remember we do very well at developing and then sell to the rest of the world (or designers leave and go to the states !).

The millitary cutbacks this time appaer to be obsolite units (not men on the ground (less then 1% cuts are from the army personel)).

And theatre of wars we no longer need to fight in.