(no subject)

[chess]

I've been finding out lately that a disturbing number of you are conservatives/Tory supporters of some stripe or another. Being somewhat of a flaming red socialist myself, I'm interested in how you guys justify the belief that the rich ought to get richer and the poor ought to fend for themselves that seems to be the Tory standpoint to me...

Comments

[ylla.livejournal.com]

To be fair, they might believe that everyone should fend for themselves - it's just that that's easier for the rich...

[atreic.livejournal.com]

I'm further left of centre than Labour (not that that's hard nowadays). But looking towards my future, it would be easier to get a house by doing no work, getting a council house, and using the right to buy in two years time, then it would by trying to slog my way through an academic career and actually trying to earn anything. I think that the idea of helping those who are unlucky sits quite easilly, but the idea of spending your money helping those that are lazy smarts a bit. And does it really help them, if we leave them with no incentive to better themselves because their life is fine as it is?

[beckyc.livejournal.com]

but the idea of spending your money helping those that are lazy smarts a bit.

I know that you know this (but not everyone reading this will) but benefits are available to a much wider range of people than those who are too lazy to work. Whether this is better or worse, I wouldn't like to comment.

I agree that the current system is deeply flawed, though. I spent a summer on Income support* once, and I learnt first hand that if you aren't prepared to play the system, you get almost nothing. Which encourages people to play the system, so they end up dependent on it etc etc.

*For those who don't know, you get IS if you are too ill/injured to work, rather than job seekers.

[beckyc.livejournal.com]

Don't worry, not all of us are. I would personally prefer to know how the labour supporters can support people so blatantly right wing as the current government. For all the reasons you mention.

[leisaie.livejournal.com]

Well, I'm an American and about as liberal as they come, so I wouldn't know at all. But isn't Blair Labour? Surely you can do better than that.

I'm assuming that (coughcough) Margaret Thatcher was a Tory...that'd give me some incentive to dislike the party...

[chess]

Blair is currently the head of the Labour party, who finally managed to get back into power by stealing all the Tory policies. The current main left-wing party is the Liberal Democrats, who used to be the centerists. Thatcher was indeed a Tory.

The Economic Spectrum in British Polotics

[passage.livejournal.com]

It's not as clear cut as Michelle makes out, frankly all of the major British parties are now awfully close on the left-right scale, and who scores the furthest in any direction rather depends on which question you ask (and to which representative of the party you ask it), we don't have anything like the spectrum of economic policies that American politics offers.

Every so often the Coservatives try to persuade Labour to drastically raise taxes so that they'll be a difference between them, but Labour have opted for the slow and steady stealth tax (much of it aimed largely at students actually) which the other parties don't seem to have much objection to.

It's possible the BNP have different economic policies, but I've never succeeded in looking past all their racism nonsense to find out. (By which I mean they're rasist and so have nonsense policies.)

Re: The Economic Spectrum in British Polotics

[senji.livejournal.com]

American politics? Where you have a choice of Far Right or Even Further Right? :)

(you can't plausibly elect anyone other than a Democrat or a Republican for anything...)

[senji.livejournal.com]

That's a fairly loose approximation to Toryism, I feel.

On the other hand I'm sitting here as an anarcho-communist who pragmatises as LibDem at the moment, so...

[lockymclean.livejournal.com]

I don't think you can reduce the essence of Conservatism to "the rich should get richer and the poor should get poorer", or "everyone should be left to fend for themselves". That would be as incorrect as saying that the essence of Socialism is "the rich should be punished for being successful and the poor should be rewarded for being unambitious".

The Conservative Party is as broad a church as the Protestant movement, and there are hardliners and moderates, people with tough outlooks on life and people who have a genuine social concern. My general outlook on the role of government in society is firstly to maintain a social order which reflects the values of the Kingdom of God and those values which people agree are certain peremptory social norms, secondly to provide a safe environment for everyone in which to live, thirdly to provide people with the resources they need to achieve realistic goals in life, whilst acknowledging that for some people those goals will be a lot lower or higher than for others and not trying to maintain the false idea that everyone is equally capable of achieving the same goals, and finally to provide a minimum standard of living for everyone, regardless of their motivation or capability to succeed, because that is the minimum duty of love which we owe to each other, as Jesus exemplified in the parable of the good Samaritan. I believe that people in government should love their neighbours as themselves. All that probably sounds a lot like New Labour, because New Labour ideals occupy the centre ground of politics. The difference is that I actually mean what I say, so I could never vote for this government.

[chess]

I think we have values the other way around, then. I think that the first duty of government is to provide a minimum standard of living for everyone (which includes 'a safe environment'), then resources for realisitic goals, and I'm not sure they have any place at all in 'maintaining a social order' or 'peremptory social norms' except in as far as that is required for the 'safe environment' clause.

Governmental Priorities

[passage.livejournal.com]

Could you justify your values for the function of government? (Your following post doesn't justify, only expound.)

For my part I think that government should be a body that governs, in particular in moderating the interations of humans with one another.

A body that did that, but did nothing to provide the 'minimum standard of living' you seem so keen on would be a government, a group which didn't but did provide that 'minimum standard' would just be a large soup kitchen.

(I am incidently very pleased that our government, and indeed most if not all western governments, do seek to provide for those of their citizens in need, but that's a bonus, not what makes then governments.)

Hypothetical question while we're at it. You have a choice of two ruling groups, one provides food and shelter for the very poor, but randomly imprisons the innocent and releases the guilty according to a justice system based on the judge flipping a coin. The other has strong standards of justice and a sound legal system, but thinks providing for the poor is the responsibility of their families and friends, and so makes no provision for them, which would you put in power?

(Not that I'm putting forward either as particularly good governments, but their failings I think expose the issue).

Slightly more concise definition

[(Anonymous)]

I'd look at it from a broader angle - references to Jesus, for example, are rather specific to Western democracies. The 'purpose' of government can be said to be to continue to govern, in the same way that the 'purpose' of people is to make more people. This is an evolutionary point of view based on the fact that unsustainable governments will die off.

The point I'm trying to make here is that saying "the purpose of government" is rather ludicrous. It's like talking about the purpose of a billiard ball. From your point of view, the purpose of the ball may be to go into an appropriate pocket, but the ball is probably perfectly happy where it is. The purpose of government then is *whatever government does*.

What do we want government to do? That's a better query, and the contrast with the original question explains the difference in people's answers to that question. Someone who's religious will probably want the government to support faith schools and religious establishments. Someone who's atheist or very tolerant (or paranoid about government powers) will probably want the government to behave as if religion didn't exist as a moral force, preferring to treat religions merely as a specialist type of organisation.

Probably the only conclusive way to decide what the purpose of government should be, then, is to poll everyone and take an average. Which, fortuitously, is approximately what we do :)

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think that is the belief, and it's unfair to characterise it as such. It may or may not be the outcome, but that's a different thing.

The social principles of the British Conservative Party from about 1975 onwards seem to me to be based on self-reliance; you work to provide for yourself and for those close to you (family, relatives, community) and pull yourself up by your bootstraps. The welfare system is there to help you with this at the bottom end, but you do have to make an effort yourself as well.

In concert with this comes a belief that a wealthier economy in general brings increased wealth to individuals working in that economy. The Government should decrease regulation and red tape to promote economic growth, and that economic growth will result in the increased availability of jobs, goods, and services. In addition, a wealthy economy means a wealthy Government, which allows more to be spent bringing everybody to a higher level of wealth; it should be a "virtuous circle" of wealth generation for everyone.

(S)

[chess]

Except history, from my perspective, appears to disprove these nice theories; 'economic growth' does not seem to be a useful goal for improving standard of living, according to the statistics I saw in A-level Economics and wandering around the Internet. If you have another set of statistics / facts that show that it does, then I want to see them, because I admit that my research is a bit flaky and biased.

The belief stated in the second paragraph, while I don't share it, is perfectly reasonable; the last paragraph is the one I take issue with as working in the real world. (OTOH, I admit that the ideal socialism that I would like to see also has real-world implementation issues.)

[angelofthenorth.livejournal.com]

Although I'm a paid up libdem, I get fed-up with the benefits system as it presently happens. THe people that need it don't get it and the people that don't deserve it wind up going on 3 holidays a month...

[sath.livejournal.com]

I'm a socialist but I don't understand politics so I do the country a favour by not voting..

[chess]

What is it that you don't understand about politics? Or is it just that you don't feel you have the time to look into what the parties actually stand for, etc?

[requiem-17-23.livejournal.com]

Now there's a controversial point.

First, that's not the belief at all. The belief is that most things aren't the government's business - and that the government should restrain itself to providing those things the market doesn't correctly provide and leave social engineering to the charities and demagogues.

Second, I'd better lay out my political 'affiliation' so that people may more correctly analyse my answer for bias. I'm a liberal Conservative, right-of-centre but not too far, who thinks that Thatcher went too far and despises the US Republican party but stands to the right of even New Labour.

I don't believe that the rich 'ought' to get richer. Merely that they will regardless - and that they earned their money and it's their business how they spend it (remembering that this money will eventually end up in the hands of some worker somewhere as wage). Neither do I believe that the poor ought to fend for themselves - but I don't believe that the way to help them is to penalise the successful.

If everyone is equal, there is no incentive for self-betterment. I know that this sucks. But there it is. Benefit for the poor should be a temporary thing, while said poor person finds work again. Those that cannot work should of course be supported. But long-term unemployment should not happen. Once someone's in work, they can climb the ladder and get richer - all the while contributing to the wealth of the economy. So I believe that the support of the unemployed should be entirely focused on getting them a job and a roof over their head, and supporting them while this happens.

I hope that answers your question without being too biased. :p

[chess]

Let me give you a for-instance, here, to clarify a point or two: assume somebody is a devout Jew, and the only business in the area with jobs is a pork-products factory. Not only will they have to handle unclean things, they will also probably not get enough holiday to make their religious observences, not even being allowed to work extra during the week to not have to work night shift on a Friday, for instance. Should they be forced to 'get a job'?

This is an extreme example, I know, but there are lots of similar examples of people being forced to do morally objectionable or physically overdemanding jobs, not being allowed to take care of their kids because they need to work three jobs to make ends meet, etc etc.

How do you intend to make sure people are fed, clothed and housed, and their children educated and supported so that they grow up into people who can get satisfying jobs, without 'penalising the successful' by making them pay for it?

(Also, actual current conservatives don't seem to be based on the 'isn't the government's business' model; they tend to do lots of things of the 'protecting family values' type, which aren't the government's buisiness much more than 'making sure everyone has access to what they absolutely need' isn't.)

[senji.livejournal.com]

How does your society deal with there being less jobs than jobseekers?

[adamosity.livejournal.com]

I'll take the Tories over the Bush nightmare we have here.

That being said, I'm an devout leftist :-)

Frankly, I think Blair is a traitor to his own party with his actions of war in cohoorts with Bush. Blair walks, talks, and sounds like a Tory, but he's leading Labour? *boggle*

[ilanin.livejournal.com]

It's worth pointing out that Bush won't talk to Michael Howard (the leader of the Conservative Party) at the moment. Oh, and that Blair has avoided contact with Kerry like the plague.

Blair is, to use American terms, essentially a neocon; and he has a few acolytes in the party, but most of allegedly "new" Labour is still leftish. There's been something of a faustian pact between the party and Blair, which can be paraphrased as "Shut up and I'll get you elected."

The thing about neocons in British politics is that no party has a monopoly on this particular brand of dangerously misguded soul:

(notable) Labour neocons: Tony Blair, Jack Straw, David Blunkett, Alan Milburn

(notable) Tory neocons: David Davis, Nicholas Soames

Erm

[dr-vannacutt.livejournal.com]

Well Blair is a useless inbred waste of skin and he should br hung by the neck untill dead for high treson outside buckingham palace along side Red Ken.

I hate them equally.

I personally think the queen should be in power.

[hatter.livejournal.com]

See me, waving my blue flag. It's not the rich that make the rich richer though, it's the poor. If the poor want to give their money to the rich, that is largely their choice. They largely choose the selfish option, making the most of their personal poverty, rather than supporting their peers.

Ultimately, people are selfish (see my 'democracy sucks' rant) and any system to make it better for those at the bottom is doomed by the people within the system, who will make it better for themselves at the expense of (a) those funding the system and (b) those that are supposed to benefit from it. So as it stands, capitalism is the least morally sound choice, but the most practical.

When those at the bottom of the system start supporting each other, rather than themselves, then conservativism will be good for them, as well as for everyone else.


the hatter