Progressive Conservatism??

[edgray]

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.

I'm sorry I really don't understand where these criticisms are coming from. Pray tell, what exactly are my prejudices? As we've talked about, I'm opposed to capitalistic models but if they are actually being used for the benefit of society, I'm not prejudiced enough to count them out - far from it. The beauty of being a progressive is that I can get behind a good idea when I see it, as long as it's taking things as a step in the right direction. Empowering local communities, removing their dependence on the govt, and removing the cost of a bloated govt is certainly a step in the right direction.

Compared to most Americans, almost all Brits could be classed as "left" - the conservatives in the UK are closer to the democrats than the republicans. Generally brits view the republican party in the US as a cold, uncaring, selfish, not to mention incredibly stupid party. And yes, relying on charities would of course be humiliating, but charities are a only small part of this new policy and no one is going to be "relying" on them. This is all about empowering people and improving life and increasing the control people have over their environment. The structure of British society is quite different than that of the US, and the reason so many people need empowerment is because of the damage caused by the previous Tory governments policies which created large areas of ignored society.

The reduction of govt is something that's been talked about for a while now. Britain as a country is generally happy with the work the civil service does: things like health care and so forth, but many of the programs Labour implemented to tackle societies problems haven't worked because they are basically charitable handouts and they prove incredibly costly. That's where this scheme differs: whilst there is going to be some monetary assistance, the main point here is involvement.

You also have to remember all of the political scandal that's been rife in the UK over the past couple of years: primarily the MP's expenses scandals. People generally are sick of paying politicians to do very little and hearing about them claiming thousands in expense, paid for by the taxpayer, for things as random as moat cleaning and so forth. The time is ripe for a change, and a reduction in size and an increase in transparency seems to be what the public are after.

The Conservatives currently lead by 9 points in the opinion poles. I think they will win the next general election and I'll be happy if they do.

I'm glad you enjoyed your stay in Blighty. Next time you're there, head on northwards and you'll see a quite different Britain to the one you were exposed to in the much richer south.

 

[Meirionnydd]

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.

Just to quickly butt in here. I don't think that relying on charities is humiliating, I just think that charities would not be able to provide the type of safety net for the poor and working classes that the government can. They simply would not have the resources to do so.

I would also contend that capitalism is not about freedom of mobility. If anything, it promotes social stratification and inequality.

 

[edgray]

I would also contend that capitalism is not about freedom of mobility. If anything, it promotes social stratification and inequality.

Indeed. Capitalism has proved that it drives all the wealth and power to the few, private tyranny, leaving the rest scrabbling around with no power and no say. This cannot be refuted. And, furthermore, this is what this policy in particular is trying to change.

 

[Minor Axis]

He who has no prejudices shall cast the first stone (or something like that...) Even Accountable has prejudices, really!

This may be slightly off point, but regarding capitalism, globalization and a general low moral standard is the culprit for a lot of economic instability. A completely level playing field is what is needed across the world. Unfortunately it is easier said than done and this sounds like the DREADED SOCIALISM or worse a world government. I'm talking about uniform environmental law, manufacturing laws, and labor law. As long as there are wide disparities among countries, you'll have business people moving their manufacturing to the country that offers the best deal while disenfranchising their workers at home, the country they are supposed to be loyal to.

Could this be a reason to fear multi-national corporations who have no loyalties but to themselves?

 

[Alien Allen]

wonder if there was a way where we could insist that any goods brought into this country must meet all our standards. Not just product safety but all the way thru production.

For it to work we would have close the borders and quit giving our tax money to other countries because things would cost more. But it would be worth it. The extra costs could be offset by cuts in the military and controlling what the feds do so money stays local and the constitution is more rigidly followed leaving much more up to the states to decide. If you don't like your state you can move to another but leaving the country is a far more difficult deal

 

[Francis]

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.

Ed I sure would love to see a link on this.. I googled it and could not come up with anything.. Just out of curiosity of course..

Speaking of interesting Progressive Conservatism we have had two shots at it in Canada.. Both times have shown us, in my opinion, the reverse of what the party policy was to have been.

Since party policy takes precedence over the leader's promises, it was like pulling the wool over the voters eyes..

Both version promised Clean, fresh government with less taxes for the small people.. Both brought more corruption and taxes with the middle class losing out the most..

 

[edgray]

Ed I sure would love to see a link on this.. I googled it and could not come up with anything.. Just out of curiosity of course..

It's a highly controversial study shown in 2 books:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations

Turns out I was wrong: we came out 10th and 12th.

Speaking of interesting Progressive Conservatism we have had two shots at it in Canada.. Both times have shown us, in my opinion, the reverse of what the party policy was to have been.

Since party policy takes precedence over the leader's promises, it was like pulling the wool over the voters eyes..

Both version promised Clean, fresh government with less taxes for the small people.. Both brought more corruption and taxes with the middle class losing out the most..

That's really interesting - were there any policies that were implemented that were similar to the one proposed in the articles? Did they have any successes?

I would really like to think that David Cameron and his party are genuine with this: it really does seem that they have learnt a lot since the days of Margaret Thatcher, and they have been quite transparent about their research behind their new policies.

... but then, it wouldn't be the first time a politician would've not followed up on election promises...

I guess only time will tell.

 

[Francis]

It's a highly controversial study shown in 2 books:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations

Turns out I was wrong: we came out 10th and 12th.

Yes this is very interesting.. I can understand the "Controversial" part as well as totally understand why certain Asian countries would fall far ahead of North American / European ones considering how much they have invested in their kids future ( University ) since the early 1980s and I don't blame them..

Much of this of course is driven by culture and cost of education.. Canada has a much lower cost of Education while still having many of our institution reach acclaim. Yet many Canadian kids still cannot afford our own institutions and are filled with out of country students that pay much higher fees to attend. The tuition part is much lower while the cost of living here where I am is atrocious.

What is the cost of University in England for most students today ?

Most come out of classes here with a BSc with a minimum debt load of about £50,000 ( $100,000 ) if on student loans and no debt remorse. I know my ex-wife had her degree in 5 years with £35,000 back 6 years ago.

Now that would push up those countries IQ levels since a major part of the youth have been getting BSc and Phds in the last 30 years..

 

[Francis]

That's really interesting - were there any policies that were implemented that were similar to the one proposed in the articles? Did they have any successes?

I would really like to think that David Cameron and his party are genuine with this: it really does seem that they have learnt a lot since the days of Margaret Thatcher, and they have been quite transparent about their research behind their new policies.

... but then, it wouldn't be the first time a politician would've not followed up on election promises...

I guess only time will tell.

Ed every policy is in tune with the "Election of the day". what I mean by that is that Politicians will adjust the policy to meet what ever is needed to win an election of today.

You can read best about our Progressive Conservatism by reading a quick snap shot about the man himself..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Mulroney

Our present day Conservatives are more right wing but have been ruling like Liberals due to a Minority in the House. They fear falling every time a bill is brought on the floor so they coward to meet other party requirements to pass legislation ( Canada's parliament is identical to the British one ). Not a bad deal as long as it stays that way.

The issue is that our opposition is weak and when they were in power easily corrupted.. Although in my opinion they gave us more bang for our tax dollar in total benefits when you really look at the overall picture..

One thing I learned is that promises aside, political parties always return to party guidelines and agendas..

I have been so disillusioned here that I voted independent.. I don't want to throw away my vote and yet feel it my duty to speak out.. If we keep a minority government here it would be fantastic but I fear those days are numbered..

 

[Alien Allen]

Francis I wish more would vote independently. It does not have to mean one is a wishy washy person with no convictions

I get sick of the left and right saying it is a wasted vote.

People need to think before they vote and hold these clowns in office accountable.

I have voted for Ron Paul and Ross Perot and I am not the least bit unhappy I did. Even if it did get Clinton elected. We need to get these asshats in office afraid of voters for once.

 

[Accountable]

I would also contend that capitalism is not about freedom of mobility. If anything, it promotes social stratification and inequality.

Then where do we get our vaunted social mobility from??

 

[Francis]

Francis I wish more would vote independently. It does not have to mean one is a wishy washy person with no convictions

I get sick of the left and right saying it is a wasted vote.

People need to think before they vote and hold these clowns in office accountable.

I have voted for Ron Paul and Ross Perot and I am not the least bit unhappy I did. Even if it did get Clinton elected. We need to get these asshats in office afraid of voters for once.

I Agree Allen.. Independents are great.. Our problem in the British system is that we will never elect a Leader as an independent as he has to be the leader of the party..

As for Ross Perot, I would have loved to see him give the presidency a try..

Yes we need to have politicians accountable for what they do. The issue with that is that we will never have people running for office if we make them accountable for everything.. I think if we make them accountable for what ordinary people would have to be accountable for, it would be a great step..

 

[Minor Axis]

wonder if there was a way where we could insist that any goods brought into this country must meet all our standards. Not just product safety but all the way thru production.

That my friend is the big lie regarding "free trade" agreements. As they currently exist they are mostly job exportation agreements. Some of the worst excesses come from multi-national corporations turning a blind eye to the poisoning of the environment in 3rd world countries so they can maximize profits on goods to be sold in the U.S. I think we should be feeling guilty about this.

In the U.S. and I presume Canada, and most of Western Europe if you throw heavy waste into the local river, they'd lock you up and throw away the key. In Mexico, no problemo senior. In the past countries have leveled tariffs for a variety of reasons, some of them protectionist, but could also be used to achieve the level playing field. Then stand back and look out as the world erupts in trade wars.

Francis I wish more would vote independently. It does not have to mean one is a wishy washy person with no convictions
I get sick of the left and right saying it is a wasted vote.

There is a solution being experimented with on the local level in the Minneapolis, Mn area called Instant Runoff voting. You categorize your vote into 1,2,& 3. If your number one vote does not win, your vote shifts to the next guy in line. This way you can vote your conscious and not waste your vote. The problem is that the parties on the National Level will never agree to this. And then there are the stupid voters to contend with.

 

[edgray]

Yes this is very interesting.. I can understand the "Controversial" part as well as totally understand why certain Asian countries would fall far ahead of North American / European ones considering how much they have invested in their kids future ( University ) since the early 1980s and I don't blame them..

Much of this of course is driven by culture and cost of education.. Canada has a much lower cost of Education while still having many of our institution reach acclaim. Yet many Canadian kids still cannot afford our own institutions and are filled with out of country students that pay much higher fees to attend. The tuition part is much lower while the cost of living here where I am is atrocious.

What is the cost of University in England for most students today ?

Most come out of classes here with a BSc with a minimum debt load of about £50,000 ( $100,000 ) if on student loans and no debt remorse. I know my ex-wife had her degree in 5 years with £35,000 back 6 years ago.

Now that would push up those countries IQ levels since a major part of the youth have been getting BSc and Phds in the last 30 years..

I'm really not sure the total cost these days - it was free when I went, they introduced the charges just after I finished. I seem to remember someone telling me it worked out at 3,000GBP per year or so. Dependent on the uni you're at. I think the govt still pays a portion of the fees so it still works out reasonably cheap.

Ed every policy is in tune with the "Election of the day". what I mean by that is that Politicians will adjust the policy to meet what ever is needed to win an election of today.

You can read best about our Progressive Conservatism by reading a quick snap shot about the man himself..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Mulroney

Our present day Conservatives are more right wing but have been ruling like Liberals due to a Minority in the House. They fear falling every time a bill is brought on the floor so they coward to meet other party requirements to pass legislation ( Canada's parliament is identical to the British one ). Not a bad deal as long as it stays that way.

The issue is that our opposition is weak and when they were in power easily corrupted.. Although in my opinion they gave us more bang for our tax dollar in total benefits when you really look at the overall picture..

One thing I learned is that promises aside, political parties always return to party guidelines and agendas..

I have been so disillusioned here that I voted independent.. I don't want to throw away my vote and yet feel it my duty to speak out.. If we keep a minority government here it would be fantastic but I fear those days are numbered..

Thanks for the link. It's very true, vote winning policies (the "war on drugs" springs to mind, "tough on crime" also) always get rolled out around election time and we've seen politicians double back on themselves many times before. New Labour, for example, won the student vote whilst I was at uni on the basis they wouldn't make people start paying for their education. Less than 2 years into their first term they introduced university fees...

In spite of that, I'm hopeful about the prospect of this coming Tory govt. They are radically different from the Tories of the past and seem to be much better at reading what the country wants than New Labour. David Cameron seems like a man that has good intentions, and whilst I disagree with the majority of Tory policy, this policy of theirs, should they follow through on their election promises, will give people more say, which is refreshing after New Labour's power-grabbing. If it happens, they might not get the chance to just follow their usual agenda as the people will finally have a chance to speak.

Francis I wish more would vote independently. It does not have to mean one is a wishy washy person with no convictions

I get sick of the left and right saying it is a wasted vote.

People need to think before they vote and hold these clowns in office accountable.

I have voted for Ron Paul and Ross Perot and I am not the least bit unhappy I did. Even if it did get Clinton elected. We need to get these asshats in office afraid of voters for once.

Very true. I think all political systems need people to vote independently to try and make the 2 major parties listen. The problem with the UKs 3 party system is that it reduces the choice. By voting for independents, you make the major parties start to listen to the independent voices. Definitely NOT a wasted vote.