I would agree that a large degree of torries vote for their own protection of whealth and way of life. IMO this is a selfish thing to do and these people should be grateful of the wealth they have recieved. However I do think there are also many tories that just think right of centre politics and especially economics is better for the country. They may for example have more traditional ideas on what society should look like ie the family unit and wish to protect these ideas. Again Im playing devils advocate and Im not saying I agree with these people.
I'm delighted Ireland are in Poland so easy to get too as opposed to Ukraine and they haven't hiked up the half as much....We'll hopefully only need to worry about the Ukrainian hooligans when we're playing England in the quarters!
Those studies have been shown to be rubbish. Personally, I think being a left-winger isn't inherently much better than being a right-winger (although nowadays it's very much seen as being so). At the end of day, left and right wing distinctions are a load of rubbish anyway. People with any sense can see that both the right and left have their advantages and disadvantages. Governmental policies should be those don't necessary correspond to a party's ideological leanings (i.e. left wing policies by Labour, right wing policies by Conservatives) but rather reflect the best policy for a particular situation regardless of whether it's 'right' or 'left' wing or some combination of the two. I guess you could call me a centralist.
Why? It's just a convenient way of summarising particular doctrines and placing them on the political spectrum. The whole point of this is that there isn't a commonly recognised "best policy" for any particular situation. Obviously every ideology has both advantages and disadvantages, but that doesn't mean they all have them in the same measure, and what seems like a disadvantage to you might seem like an advantage to someone else. It all depends on what your vision is for a perfect society. Your comment is a very simplistic way of looking at things, and I believe it is that kind of attitude which allows this country's political parties to perpetually bullshit us and sway all the moderates in their favour by simply saying what they think they want to hear. I'd like to see some evidence that those studies have been shown to be rubbish as well, as they seem to be based on some pretty solid facts.
Where are the left and right wingers now? From the past we had the likes of Michael Foot, Tony Benn and Enoch Powell. Along came Heath and he all but obliterated the hard right in the Conservative Party, whilst Neil Kinnock started the process that TB took even further by "cleansing" the Labour Pary of its left wing. Both parties now adhere to the Party line (Labour probably more so than the blue rinse brigade). This lack of left and right wingers in politics is reflected in football. I remember Terry Paine surging down the right, giving the fullback the slip and planting the ball on Ron Davies's head for a goal. As for outstanding leftwingers I am struggling - John Barnes, definitely! From the 60s and 70s I am struggling.
The distinctions left and right wing is a load of rubbish because right wing is seen as being synonymous with authoritarianism and social conservatism while left wing is seen as being synonymous with social liberalism and libertarism. That is completely NOT the case. Left and right wing refer to economic systems with socialism being left wing and neo-liberalism on the right. My point was either extreme neo-liberalism or extreme socialism (i.e. communism) are both equally as bad but in moderation both can be potentially advantageous. For example neo-liberalism has caused a lot of problems, but some aspects of the principles of neo-liberalism (in theory) are I think good ideas. I may have been thinking of the study linking internet browser usage and IQ which was shown to be rubbish. Even still, it does fall down as it's using the terms left and right wing to refer to social liberalism and social conservatism, but think of it this way.
Good point, I remember the BBC desperately defining the hard-line Communist generals, who confronted Yeltsin, as "Right-wingers" Lazy, or deliberately misleading, journalism has tended to apply "right-wing" to all extreme regimes. Those left-wingers,well they just love everyone. Cuddly people like Mao, and good old Uncle Joe Stalin. Who was the target of that good socialist, George Orwell's satire in Animal Farm? Both extremes have their nutters.
Stalinism and Maoism may have derived from Leninism/Trotskyism, but they deviated significantly from those ideologies. Stalin was totalitarian, and Mao was very nationalist. These are far from being left-wing. I personally believe that these madmen cannot be defined as left or right wing. They were off the political spectrum.
Hi one of my best nights (this will make me sound sad) was being an extra during the making of the film 1984. It was at a fire destroyed Alexander Palace in London. I played an inner party member - great book, interesting film but an amazing night. Any way Godders I went to public school but it wasn't one of the select ones like Harrow, Etonian or Rugby. My Dad was in services so the services paid for me to go, like 95 percent of the school my father wasn't an officer so please refrain from your untrue generalisations about all public school pupils being from the landed gentry
Unfortunately, we don't have many successful "far-left" examples to judge them by. All the extreme nutters are "off message" apparently. Of course Trotsky seem to understand what was needed at Kronstadt- was it 2000 executions of local citizens? Just as well he wasn't extreme like Stalin. I get your point about madmen as political figures. All tyrants must have a strain of insanity, or amoral zeal, in order to suppress their populations so completely. However, this is not restricted to one side of the political spectrum. Why is "far-right" an apparently acceptable term for communist generals? If pushed, "far-left, gone wrong" would do.
Has anyone ever seen it when they get those little monkeys to ride around on tricycles? It's so funny, I want one!!
Communism = a total flaming disaster, wherever it has been attempted. Lenin, Trotsky, Mao and their successors were all butchers. Castro may have started as an idealist, but his regime has criminalised all dissent, and locked up thousands of artists, writers, trade unionists and anyone else perceived as a threat.
None of those are true examples of communism, but it is true that, even in a properly functioning communist state (something we have never seen), there would be very little art, literature or music. Not because of censorship, but because there would be no incentive for creativity.
Cuba is a pretty good country really.Yes,they haven't got the same amount of freedom as western countries,but it's opening up more and more with the influx of tourism.At least Castro's ideal of free healthcare came to fruition and Cuba has one of the best healthcare system in the world.
Have you been to Cuba Adam? Whilst it's not as unremittingly grim as the former Soviet Bloc countries, the prisons are full, there is no internet access (I wonder why?), nothing works, and the natives are frightened to talk to foreigners.
I consider myself idealistic but I can see that high taxation is not necessarily a good idea. Especially corporation tax for example as reducing corporation tax provides an incentive for businesses to invest and create jobs which are critical to overall economic growth, it increases profit margins meaning they may be able to sustain greater growth. Even with high net-worth individuals (to borrow the term from the Portsmouth supporters trust), setting high tax rates isn't necessarily a good idea either as they are simply going to emigrate to somewhere with a higher tax rate. Therefore, the key is to get a balance between having a reasonably high tax rate, but not encouraging these people to emigrate. For example iirc Hollande has said he'll put the top rate of tax to 75%, yet surely that'll lead to France's richest emigrating and then they'll be getting no tax from them at all. Of course, if they closed the loopholes that make tax avoidance so common, that would help quite a bit.
This very grumpy old git is escaping the country for a while to avoid witnessing all those over the top deferrent celebrations of something or other to do with some old lady that lives in a big house in London. I will also be spared the constant stream of ridiculous transfer speculation. The very lovely Mrs Godders is packing my case as I write. The only problem is that in order to escape the country I have to go to Portsmouth to catch an overnight cross channel ferry later this evening. I shall hold my breath from when we reach the top of Portsdown Hill and try and hold it until we are out of sight of the Spinnaker Tower. So farewell my friends for a little while at least.
