Progressive Conservatism??

[edgray]

What I would see as a blatant contradiction in terms is a driving force behind the Tories election campaign. They've got some damned interesting ideas, have a read:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/31/cameron-big-society-conservative-party

 

[edgray]

This idea, the big society, is both incredibly ambitious, but also refreshingly modest. Ambitious because its aims are sweeping – building a fairer, richer, safer Britain, where opportunity is more equal and poverty is abolished. But modest too – because it's not about some magic new plan dreamed up in Whitehall and imposed from on high. It's about enabling and encouraging people to come together to solve their problems and make life better.

It gets better the more I read it.

 

[Meirionnydd]

Like you said earlier, I find both the terms to be some what of a contradiction of each other.

Conservatives don't tend to advocate for social change. I find this new policy approach from the Tories as quite unusual. Especially since conservatives are generally most harshly criticized for turning a blind eye to poverty and promoting policies that are of determent to the poor and working classes.

But hey, if it helps reduce poverty, I'm all for it. I just hope it's not a hollow election 'promise'.

 

[edgray]

Like you said earlier, I find both the terms to be some what of a contradiction of each other.

Conservatives don't tend to advocate for social change. I find this new policy approach from the Tories as quite unusual. Especially since conservatives are generally most harshly criticized for turning a blind eye to poverty and promoting policies that are of determent to the poor and working classes.

But hey, if it helps reduce poverty, I'm all for it. I just hope it's not a hollow election 'promise'.

Well Iain Duncan-Smith has been researching and looking into poverty and so forth over the past few years and has really come up with some great ideas on how to tackle it.

I have to say, I was totally gobsmacked when I read this. This is perhaps one of the most radical attempts at change in the UK ever, and it's the first at bringing some power back to the people.

Ordinarily I'd hate the tories, their policies are usually all about taking from the poor to give to the rich, but this Compassionate Conservatism of David Camerons is brilliant, and could really change the way people view the party. Thatcher's conservatism nearly destroyed the country. Cameron's looks set to heal it.

 

[Minor Axis]

How about promoting social change with fiscal responsibility? How about acknowledging that some society based spending is worth paying for- possible? The real problem is the conservative mind-set tends to view any programs designed to help those in need as not affordable if it's going to "cost me money". Compounded by the view that the best way to help those in need is to let them sort out their own problems and leave me and my money alone. My impression is that typically, conservatism's primary motivation seems to be hanging on to their loot.

I apologize to any compassionate conservatives out there who are fiscally responsible but see a need for some social spending. I don't mean to be guilty of painting all conservatives with the same brush.

 

[edgray]

How about promoting social change with fiscal responsibility? How about acknowledging that some society based spending is worth paying for- possible? The real problem is the conservative mind-set tends to view any programs designed to help those in need as not affordable if it's going to "cost me money". Compounded by the view that the best way to help those in need is to let them sort out their own problems and leave me and my money alone. My impression is that typically, conservatism's primary motivation seems to be hanging on to their loot.

I apologize to any compassionate conservatives out there who are fiscally responsible but see a need for some social spending. I don't mean to be guilty of painting all conservatives with the same brush.

Well that's pretty much what they're advocating: massive social change and cutting in govt spending. I agree with you assessment of previous Tory policy, especially from the bloody Thatcherites, but this Conservative govt will bear little resemblance to the Tories of old.

Let me repeat that first point, because I'm really surprised about the lack of controversy over this:

THE TORIES ARE PLANNING TO INSTIGATE MASSIVE SOCIAL CHANGE AND REDUCE THE BLOATED GOVT.

What they're planning is this:

• Create an army of 5,000 full-time professional community organisers – modelled on the work of Barack Obama in Chicago in the 1980s – who would encourage the creation of community groups involving every adult in Britain.
• Target neighbourhood grants towards poorest areas to encourage social entrepreneurs and charities in deprived areas.
• Transform the civil service into a "civic service" by making community service a key part of staff appraisals.

Rather than increasing social spending like Labour has done, which has had some success but failed to improve life for many in the country, the Conservatives are planning on using money that's essentially going to waste to start funding community projects and getting every member of each community involved in grassroots developments that will improve the lives of the local population as well as helping to fund local enterprise.

What this means is that the Tories want social and societal change to come from THE BOTTOM UP. A complete reversal of the heavily statist direction Labour have taken the country in.

Imagine how this could change the country!!

In my mind, including and encouraging every community member to get involved could not only improve life for the average Brit, but it could also cut crime as well as reduce the number on benefits, whilst giving the average Brit a lot more say in the running of the country. Essentially it's a step towards direct democracy. This is exciting for me as direct democracy, grass roots movements and the like, are the foundation of anarchist and other beliefs in the restructuring of society.

Seriously, I never thought I'd say this, but I'm seriously considering voting Conservative at the next election. A great idea is a great idea, no matter who it's from, and these guys are having great ideas.

 

[Alien Allen]

Exactly how is it taking from the poor and giving it to the rich

It was the riches money to begin with. Confiscated by the govt. Only to be redistributed.

I know of nobody that is rich that is being given money.

You liberals have some goofy ideas of things

 

[edgray]

Exactly how is it taking from the poor and giving it to the rich

It was the riches money to begin with. Confiscated by the govt. Only to be redistributed.

I know of nobody that is rich that is being given money.

You liberals have some goofy ideas of things

And you conservative reactionaries love to react without a) reading and b) understanding what's at hand.

No one has said that this new policy is taking from the poor to give to the rich, far from it, this is all about empowering the poor, and I think it's the first sensible policy ANY party has come up with for the last 20 odd years.

I'm all for this, and unless Labour pull something out of the hat, will be happy to vote Conservative at the next general election.

 

[Alien Allen]

And you conservative reactionaries love to react without a) reading and b) understanding what's at hand.

No one has said that this new policy is taking from the poor to give to the rich, far from it, this is all about empowering the poor, and I think it's the first sensible policy ANY party has come up with for the last 20 odd years.

I'm all for this, and unless Labour pull something out of the hat, will be happy to vote Conservative at the next general election.

I was not talking about this policy but you made the comment that the torries give to the rich and take from the poor as a general policy.

 

[edgray]

I was not talking about this policy but you made the comment that the torries give to the rich and take from the poor as a general policy.

Ok the first line you used sounds like it could be applied to general policy:

Exactly how is it taking from the poor and giving it to the rich

It was the riches money to begin with. Confiscated by the govt. Only to be redistributed.

But that second line talks about this policy specifically.

 

[Meirionnydd]

And you conservative reactionaries love to react without a) reading and b) understanding what's at hand.

No one has said that this new policy is taking from the poor to give to the rich, far from it, this is all about empowering the poor, and I think it's the first sensible policy ANY party has come up with for the last 20 odd years.

I'm all for this, and unless Labour pull something out of the hat, will be happy to vote Conservative at the next general election.

'Empowering the poor' is Conservative lingo for "We don't want to give any of those poor lazy fuckers any money. If they want to get anywhere, they're going to have to do it themselves".

I wonder if their slogan would be something like this: "Undoing the damage from the Thatcher era".

I can't trust any conservative government to reduce poverty rates. Primarily because they propose policies that promote social and economic inequality in the first place.

 

[Accountable]

You guys seem to have so little faith in your fellow citizens. Even though you guys are doing okay "on your own" you seem to think you are the exceptions to the rule, making you exceptional ... meaning everyone else must be inferior. I mean, how else can it be, since no one else is capable of doing what you obviously are?

 

[edgray]

'Empowering the poor' is Conservative lingo for "We don't want to give any of those poor lazy fuckers any money. If they want to get anywhere, they're going to have to do it themselves".

I wonder if their slogan would be something like this: "Undoing the damage from the Thatcher era".

I can't trust any conservative government to reduce poverty rates. Primarily because they propose policies that promote social and economic inequality in the first place.

I really do believe that David Cameron's conservatism is quite different from Thatcher's: He's using the phrase "big Society" as a direct counter to Thatcher's ridiculous statement that there's no such thing as society.

it might as well translate into "Undoing the damage from the Thatcher era" as that seems to be the direction the party is going.

What really surprises me is that I'm the only person that seems to be getting excited by this prospect. What they're suggesting is radical and constructive, their new policies could actually change society for the better: a society based on inclusion rather than exclusion.

Ordinarily the Tories do propose policy that promote social and economic inequality, but this is a totally new direction. Labour have spent the past decade handing out money left right and centre and sure, they've had some successes, but they haven't really tackled the root of the problems in the UK - they've been throwing expensive band aids on a broken system. This new direction is geared towards helping people help themselves, including, motivating and raising people's expectations of their community.

Whilst I'm sure they'll do their usual tax-breaks for the rich, this proposition is light years ahead of New Labour's ideas and I honestly think could radically change the country for the better.

You guys seem to have so little faith in your fellow citizens. Even though you guys are doing okay "on your own" you seem to think you are the exceptions to the rule, making you exceptional ... meaning everyone else must be inferior. I mean, how else can it be, since no one else is capable of doing what you obviously are?

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, Accountable.

 

[Accountable]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, Accountable.

The message you send is stark and clear. Most of your countrymen, with you as exceptional, are incapable of surviving on their own. The must rely on the benevolent hand of the government or die. Since you buck under any hint that some of the poor might be poor from lack of effort, the only option is that they are poor from lack of intelligence or talent.

 

[edgray]

The message you send is stark and clear. Most of your countrymen, with you as exceptional, are incapable of surviving on their own. The must rely on the benevolent hand of the government or die. Since you buck under any hint that some of the poor might be poor from lack of effort, the only option is that they are poor from lack of intelligence or talent.

Nothing could be further from the truth, Accountable, and I'm really not sure where you got that impressions from. It also doesn't really have much to do with the thread. And you do surprise me, here I am, putting my full-weight behind a conservative policy, a policy of creating opportunity in a free-market fashion, a policy which you I would've thought you'd be in full support of, and yet you find a rather random criticism of that's seemingly pulled from thin-air.

My fellow countrymen are a varied bunch. The UK ranks 9th in the world in the IQ stakes, (yes, on average we are smarter than Americans, and Canadians too) and is a nation responsible for the far majority of the world's important inventions. It's not brains nor talent we lack: it's opportunity and motivation. As I'm sure you must be aware, Britain is a severely stratified country. It's also a country that has many policies based on exclusion. The voting populace in the UK, known to us as Middle England, is the only portion of society the govt normally cares about. This initiative is set to redress those imbalances: not through handouts, as you suggest, but through clever use of wasted funds not put in pocket but put into action.

Britain has the lowest social-mobility in the western world. What this means is that if you're born poor, you die poor. Simple as that. This policy is aimed at targeting not only the seriously impoverished areas (you must remember that one third of Britain's children are raised in poverty), but every area and every man and woman. Including everyone in the running of their local communities, putting the power into their hands rather than them being dictated to from Downing Street, which has been the case for the whole of my life, and for most generations before I imagine too.

Have you visited the UK? Have you been to the vast tracts of suburbia where people cannot escape? In these ares, the education is poor, the environment totally un-encouraging, and the chance of escape very limited. This policy is the boost those areas need, but it's not just going to help them, it's going to every single area in the country.

I don't see how my agreeing with this outstanding new policy is me, or anyone else, saying anyone is incapable of surviving on their own. Everyone in Blighty is surviving ok. This policy is giving everyone a better chance to live.

 

[Alien Allen]

Britain has the lowest social-mobility in the western world. What this means is that if you're born poor, you die poor.

Would you state the same about the US?

 

[edgray]

Would you state the same about the US?

One of the main reasons the US is so successful as a country is that it's social mobility is excellent: the idea of anyone in your country being able to achieve whatever they work hard to do is admirable and something that hasn't been possible in the UK. So no, the US is quite different in that area.

 

[Accountable]

And yet you criticize us for our freedom of mobility, and for people taking advantage of that freedom. Your answer to government oppression-created immobility is yet another government-sponsored program. Any good manager or businessman will tell you that to improve in a given area, find someone that's already excelling and copy them. Community organizers are not government employees here. They would have a definite conflict of interest and would have to deal with great political pressure to guide their charges toward government programs that would reflect beneficially on the politician who applied the pressure.

 

[edgray]

No I don't criticise the US for your freedom of mobility, nor for people taking advantage of that freedom. Social mobility is one of the US's strong points.

This policy isn't the usual govt sponsored program, and it's certainly not oppressive. The Community Organisers the Conservatives are proposing aren't going to be govt employees - it's a private enterprise program.

Whether it works in giving power to the average person on the street will remain to be seen, I believe this policy is a big change from the current govt's tactics of big spending, decisions from the top down. Political influence shouldn't be a problem in this case as the Organisers are just there to trigger new projects off - what projects are carried through will be dependent on the members of the community, rather than some govt board.

 

[Accountable]

Freedom of mobility is what capitalism is all about, in direct contrast to your prejudices. The article talks about gov't backing out and letting charities take a larger role. The Brits I've talked to on the subject (leftists, to be sure) think that having to rely on charities is humiliating - that gov't should take that role. My limited exposure to British political thought tells me that more people think like Meirionnydd than Cameron and wouldn't support such a move to reduce gov't.

Btw, to answer an earlier question, I was stationed at RAF Greenham Common 1990-93, lived in Swindon, Reading, and Newbury, and loved every minute of it.