I don't know if this classifies as serious but it certainly is politics: lo and behold, the Labservative Party (http://www.techeye.net/internet/lib-dems-blast-rivals-in-new-online-campaign):
[youtube=625,350]weWe-bsZDQY[/youtube]
:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
I think it counts as Serious. Unfortunately.
Was there a Graham Chapman face for a moment? :mrgreen:
Quote from: GriffinI think it counts as Serious. Unfortunately.
'Fraid so.
I won't be voting for any of them, I'll go UKIP and register my protest against the EU. In North Herefordshire the official Tory Candidate would win by 12 - 14,000 votes even if it was a stuffed baboon.
Quote from: DavidH on March 31, 2010, 12:29:10 PM
Quote from: GriffinI think it counts as Serious. Unfortunately.
'Fraid so.
I won't be voting for any of them, I'll go UKIP and register my protest against the EU. In North Herefordshire the official Tory Candidate would win by 12 - 14,000 votes even if it was a stuffed baboon.
Me too, and Cambridgeshire likewise as regards the effect. I've always voted Tory in generals back to the Blessed Margaret, but Brown and Cameron (and Clegg) are interchangeable as far as I'm concerned after the Lisbon lies, so it's UKIP in all now.
Quote from: beagleMe too, and Cambridgeshire likewise as regards the effect. I've always voted Tory in generals back to the Blessed Margaret, but Brown and Cameron (and Clegg) are interchangeable as far as I'm concerned after the Lisbon lies, so it's UKIP in all now.
Hoorah, a man after my own heart.
In my case, I would be in favour of a
good European Union which really did further friendship and understanding between nations. But that's not what we have: this corrupt, bureaucratic and unaccountable EU causes much more strife than harmony and is a vast waste of resources. I've said it before here - how can you call the UK democratic when no major party will give a voice to the majority who want out of the EU? UKIP is not much use, but by voting for it I add one to the hard statistics.
I don't know what I'll vote. I could never vote UKIP. I feel disenfranchised but it is a bad sin not to vote at all.
There really ought to be a tick-box for none of the above. :-\
I've voted for that - we had a No candidate in my riding in one provincial election. No real party, just a stand-in for the 'none of the above' vote. They stated that should they win (acknowledged to be impossible) they'd just keep holding elections until the other parties started to actually provide what the public wanted to see.
You mean there's hope?
Where's my fainting couch...
Ahhh... isn't democracy great? ;)
For a few years now I've been painfully aware that while single governments can do lots of damage (dubya anyone?) parties rarely differ while in power. What is currently passed as "democracy" this days is just a collection of interests with access to power trying to steer a tanker, kicking and screaming, while navigating a mine field. Because of that it is impossible to have drastic changes in any direction; as a result we have this:
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/enParties.gif)
http://www.politicalcompass.org/extremeright
(sadly they haven't made a graph for this years elections and UKIP doesn't show up).
Note how Labour and Tories are very close to each other, an equivalent graph could be made for Democrats and Republicans in the US*, because a significant part of the funds for each party come from the same pockets, that is, corporate pockets, which makes their interests a priority (which will be significantly worse after the recent SCOTUS ruling for those of us living in the US).
There is obviously a caveat, if we had something closer to a true democracy, the mob would rule and given the lack of education and common sense from your average citizen we would frequently confront a number of controversial if not plain evil measures**.
*a few weeks ago my feelings about the Democratic party were sinking rapidly as the healthcare bill seemed to tank as congresscritters talked one thing and acted a different one. If the difference between parties is rhetoric what's the point? Apparently I wasn't alone in my feelings and they decided to save the bill in the 11th hour. It reminded me the attributed quote from Churchill claiming that the US would do the right thing when all other alternatives were extinguished.
** Switzerland is a good example, in general it works because the education level is relatively high, nevertheless laws to prevent the construction of islamic buildings or preventing immigrants from citizenship for years show the inherent problems of that method.
Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)
(sadly they haven't made a graph for this years elections and UKIP doesn't show up).
The media like to portray UKIP as off-the-scale right. However they're not the ones using lies, deception, tried and tested 1930s ratcheting techniques, and rigged or ignored referenda to try and build an unaccountable empire from the Urals to the Atlantic.
Last time I checked the Greens weren't too keen on the EU either, and they're not usually considered *very* far right. It's sort of interesting how the EU has been sold as a liberal project, despite ignoring or bypassing public opinion at every turn. Goebbels could take lessons...
The bigger the entity, the bigger the bureaucracy, the bigger (quantitatively) the corruption, that much is true, the question is one of influence and negotiating leverage, do you believe that it's easier to negotiate with China for the UK or for Europe as an aggregate?
Obviously I don't live there so my views are likely biased, but I do see an advantage for a bigger weight coming from a part of the world where local pettiness overrules the common good everyday (IMO the Spanish speaking countries would be far better of if we were one country instead of 18). Certainly you lose some things but you also gain others.
(not that I'm going to convince you anyway... ;) :mrgreen:)
Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on March 31, 2010, 07:36:20 PM
... that much is true, the question is one of influence and negotiating leverage, do you believe that it's easier to negotiate with China for the UK or for Europe as an aggregate?
I've no problem with the EU as a trade body (the EEC), indeed that was what the UK was sold the last and only time we got a vote on it. Ever since it's become apparent that was just one of the many deceptions.
Quote
(not that I'm going to convince you anyway... )
I think the West Country (DavidH-land) and Cambridgeshire are two of the more Eurosceptic regions. You see big UKIP banners in fields here, and UKIP easily beat Labour and the Liberals in the Euro elections. Even if they get nowhere in the general election I'll still have the satisfaction of not voting for parties which blatantly broke their promises of a vote on the constitution/treaty (i.e. all of the big three).
Quote from: Zononot that I'm going to convince you anyway
But I am convinced! I really wish we had a decent European Union. The point is that on balance I think the drawbacks of the present arrangement far outweigh its undoubted benefits.
But what are the big objections, the regulations imposed by the central authority, or are more related to the obvious drawbacks of a large bureaucracy?
Simply that the obvious objective is, and has always been, to impose political union by stealth. This will not bring harmony, already it is causing a lot of dissent, suspicion and bad feeling. Hatred of the French and the Germans is very real here, and IMO is growing.
So many Europeans don't want an undemocratic political union imposed on them. A good EU would grow gradually by persuasion and the demonstration of real benefits. OK, nations like the Irish loved it as long as they were being showered with money, but look how they voted on the treaty. Like Denmark before them they were forced to vote again and come up with the 'right' answer. This kind of stuff is scary.
In the USA the sudden union of very disparate states led to a bitter war in 1861; the bad feeling is not fully erased even now. I believe that there is a real danger that that could happen in the EU if public feeling in a state or states were to rise to fever-pitch.
Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on April 01, 2010, 02:29:40 PM
But what are the big objections, the regulations imposed by the central authority, or are more related to the obvious drawbacks of a large bureaucracy?
Exactly what DavidH says. Imposition by deceit has always been at the heart of the project. Underlying that is the scary Jacobin view that the "intelligentsia" know best, and the electorate are there to follow.
Let me be the devil's advocate for a moment.
The main problem here is globalization, and by that I don't mean that evil corporations are trying to take over the world*, but the fact that for about a months salary a person can go to the other side of the world and back, that shipping merchandise from the other side of the world is cheap enough to be done massively, and that communication with any part of the world is incredibly cheap for almost everyone. Those conditions allow manufacturing in China, India, Thailand, Perú, etc, to be cheaper than that of the 1st world, and then the realities of the world kick in; when the majority of the world is poor and willing to work for a small salary, companies move to those places because it is cheaper to have things done there even with the inherent problems of doing business in the 3rd world. The end result is that jobs are lost in the 1st world and moved to the 3rd and precious little can be done to ameliorate that. Only a devastating pandemic/nuclear war big enough to set us back 200+ years would be able to stop it.
More to the point, when the world is global the only way to play is to have enough leverage. One of the things that has been painfully obvious is the lack of influence of Europe in the world scene, from trade, to human rights, to war, to the last failure at Copenhagen the current EU has been more a collection of small interests than a unified power broker, and I'm positive that the views of those in the higher echelons in London, Paris and Berlin would love to represent the interests of 500+ million, rather than 60+ from a "small" country in the world arena. The EADS, Daimlers and BAEs of the world can obviously see the benefits of one set of regulation instead of 30 and the politicians can see the benefits of standing together against the US, Russia, China and India. In general terms they do see the necessity of a large federation with a single head moving forward.
The other side of the coin is not only the how (as you guys have clearly pointed out) but the why the backlash against the EU project, which is where I do see things differently. I haven't heard a really good reason to stop the project beyond the emotional backlash against a pushy elite. Elements like unemployment or a cultural dilution seem to be closer to the root of the anxiety but those aren't so much the EU's fault but the effect of globalization on Europe. In fact I would go so far to make the analogy with the current backlash against Obama in the US which seems utterly irrational given the current conditions and the IMO reasonable form of government employed. People are angry because unemployment is high, and because the government has been useless to protect them. On this side of the Atlantic the narrative has been hijacked by the extreme right, and no too surprisingly, a number of nationalistic parties have used the same dissatisfaction in Europe making the EU a perfect target.
Mind you, I'm not trying to minimize the feelings against a common Europe nation, and you are perfectly right that not only the way it has been implemented has many things to be desired much less the speed of the integration, but it's my perception that the pushy elites have perfectly valid reasons to be pushy. There is a sense of urgency, not only due to looming energy and environmental crisis but because there is a feeling of a lost opportunity and that arriving late to the party will be detrimental for Europe as a whole. Of course they (and I in my interpretation) may be wrong but I do see a logic behind it.
Edit: There is one more thing that I believe should be said, and it's my selfish reason for the EU: it is my belief that a united Europe is better for the world than the alternative. All the other power brokers in the world including the US are more authoritarian, and less willing to work with others. A united Europe would be a counterweight to the late unilateralism, and a better example to follow.
*well, they are trying, but that's not the issue in question.
Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on April 01, 2010, 11:01:21 PM
The other side of the coin is not only the how (as you guys have clearly pointed out) but the why the backlash against the EU project, which is where I do see things differently. I haven't heard a really good reason to stop the project beyond the emotional backlash against a pushy elite.
Because a "goverment" that mandates directives from an unelected commission, and ignores constitutional referenda is a throwback to divine rule. A unified Europe does not justify the means, any more than for a Hitler or Stalin. And this is how it behaves before it has absolute power.
Because an organisation whose auditors have refused to sign off the accounts for more than a decade is terminally corrupt.
Because the disparate economies are likely to fragment and people suffer real hardship under inappropriate interest rates.
Because government by the unelected from several countries distance went out of fashion a hundred years ago. Your big is beautiful argument would work just as well for resurrecting the British Empire. and you guys didn't like that, despite the trade and defence advantages. ;D
Quote from: beagle on April 01, 2010, 11:58:46 PM
Because the disparate economies are likely to fragment and people suffer real hardship under inappropriate interest rates.
That is something I don't understand well, the UK is not part of the Euro zone which means that is free to manage it's currency as fit as necessary, if the Greeks cry foul to the Germans (or viceversa) how does it affect the UK? Apart from some Polish construction workers (going back home for lack of work IIRC) what is the big practical downside for the UK?
As for the Imperial Europe, while there is always a risk, it think there is a bit of hyperbole right now. There is an EU parliament already, so there is representation although the level of participation from voters has been lacking according to the articles I read. Ironically it would seem that precisely the euroskeptics are more keen to vote, which would bring some balance, all things considered.
Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on April 02, 2010, 12:42:26 AM
Quote from: beagle on April 01, 2010, 11:58:46 PM
Because the disparate economies are likely to fragment and people suffer real hardship under inappropriate interest rates.
That is something I don't understand well, the UK is not part of the Euro zone which means that is free to manage it's currency as fit as necessary, if the Greeks cry foul to the Germans (or viceversa) how does it affect the UK? Apart from some Polish construction workers (going back home for lack of work IIRC) what is the big practical downside for the UK?
It wouldn't directly, if the status quo was preserved. However the EU works by acquiring ever more control, and never ceding powers back. The suspicion is that ultimately it will find a way to force to the UK into the Eurozone.
Fortunately so far even our maddest chancellors realize that it would be a recipe for economic impotence and home electoral disaster.
So see what I mean look at the case of Ireland. During the Celtic tiger years it desperately needed higher interest rates to contain the property boom, but was stuck with the rates needed by France and Germany. The Irish government tried every other trick they could think of to contain the damage, but ultimately they had handed over the control of the only usable mechanism to another country, with resulting financial disaster.
Even without the Euro though, the UK is a huge net contributor to the EU (after Germany). France has always benefited hugely
because the Common Agricultural policy subsidises its inefficient small farmers. Mrs T got rebate to correct for that but Bliar/Brown traded it away in return for nebulous promises about CAP reform that France had no intention of keeping.
I've never seen an adequate explanation of why a Glasgow high rise flat dweller's taxes should be funding an inefficient French farmers bucolic rural idyll.
Quote
As for the Imperial Europe, while there is always a risk, it think there is a bit of hyperbole right now. There is an EU parliament already, so there is representation although the level of participation from voters has been lacking according to the articles I read. Ironically it would seem that precisely the euroskeptics are more keen to vote, which would bring some balance, all things considered.
The European Parliament is a bad joke; everything of consequence that happens in the name of the EU is decided by the commission or by leaders behind closed doors. It is the definition of that joke that starts "If voting could change anything...".
What happens if GB does not call an election?
Fortunately there's a teensy weensy constitutional safeguard in the armed forces being loyal to the Crown. It would brighten my declining years to see his premiership terminated by a 15" naval gun.
mmmm I thought there'd be some solution but isn't armed force OTT? Couldn't they try persuasion first; like getting HM to have a quiet word.............. it would liven things up.
Question from across the pond, on actual verbal language usage:
Do all y'all call her 'Her Maj' or 'HRH' or what?
Thank you.
(Over here, I'm profoundly enjoying saying 'Preznit' again, in place of 'Dubya'.)
We generally say 'The Queen', I think. Formally, 'Her Majesty The Queen'. When you meet her, you have to say 'Your Majesty' once, then 'Ma'am' is OK after that. So they say.
What happens if Broon doesn't call the election? I suspect the answer is that he'll get put in a straitjacket and locked up. Not before time. But indeed, the process will be intersting.
Can he do the same/similar dirty tricks like Harper in Canada?
Quote from: pieces o nine on April 05, 2010, 05:11:30 AM
Question from across the pond, on actual verbal language usage:
Do all y'all call her 'Her Maj' or 'HRH' or what?
Generally called Her Madge ;)
When I met her I didn't call her anything. Just did the curtsey thing. We had a list of "what to do and what not to do" sent to us beforehand, of which the not going to the Ladies toilets** in case she did was the most difficult to follow.
We are about to enter a period of silly language of which one of the first things to happen is Parliament being prorogued*. I think it means clearing out those who cheated on expenses ;D
*
ought to be in the Word Definition game**
note for Beagle.... this was probably the only time in history that the ADC toilets got painted
Quote from: Griffin NoName on April 05, 2010, 01:59:15 AM
mmmm I thought there'd be some solution but isn't armed force OTT? Couldn't they try persuasion first; like getting HM to have a quiet word.............. it would liven things up.
Well she does have the whip hand (an image to conjure with). She can dissolve Parliament, take the mace back to the Tower (not an anti-mugging device, for our colonial cousins) and refuse to sign any new laws. Presumably if she invited someone else to form a government until a new election, then had the Household Cavalry escort them to Downing Street it would be case of "Good choice Ma'am".
Years ago there was a TV series called "Knights of God" on where military allegiance would ultimately go if the government went mad(der).
Actually there is an apparent danger we might be lumbered with GB if there is a hung parliament, while the parties squabble as to who might be in a coalition.
Quote from: beagle on April 05, 2010, 06:06:50 PMActually there is an apparent danger we might be lumbered with GB if there is a hung parliament, while the parties squabble as to who might be in a coalition.
Yes it is a real and present danger. Although HM could ask anyone. I can think of worse.
I am getting nervous. What happens if HM is out when GB calls. She ain't there yet !
Quote from: Griffin NoName on April 06, 2010, 09:36:11 AM
I am getting nervous. What happens if HM is out when GB calls. She ain't there yet !
Your call is important to us:
Press 1 to dissolve parliament
Press 2 to start a war
...
Great. A whole month of lies to sit through.
^ :ROFL:
The deed is done now. But IMO he still ought to be locked up.
;D
Quote from: beagle on April 06, 2010, 12:35:07 PM
Great. A whole month of lies to sit through.
Perhaps some will be creative?
BTW, seems like the Digital Economy Bill is moving forward (http://www.techeye.net/internet/tories-push-digital-economy-bill-through-to-second-reading). That thing is so broadly written that -unless I'm misunderstanding it- prevent any tourist and student to access the net (no internet cafes, open networks in restaurants, dorm net nor even hotels).
According to the article the LibDems oppose it as the Labservatives are pushing it.
It's the job of the Lords to stop the Commons rushing through ill thought out laws. Which of course is why they want to abolish reform it.
I hadn't heard any of the consequences you outlined though.
Quote from: beagle on April 07, 2010, 05:44:01 PM
I hadn't heard any of the consequences you outlined though.
Nor had I.
There's quite a bit of nasty legislation that might just squeeze through at present - bit like an unlucky dip - unless blocked by the Lords.
So perogy-ing Parliament there doesn't entail killing off any in-progress bills like it does here?
It hasn't been prorogued yet. For example, they had PM Questions this morning as usual. As I understand it they have until the end of this week to rush stuff through. Strangely it takes a while for a parliament to dissolve.
To my knowledge the lords rushed the bill and now its on commons.
The consequences are in the liability, under the bill a small provider would have to assume the consequences of the actions of those connected, so if an internet cafe is used to download stuff the business can be sued or shut down. IIRC the bill would affect universities too despite a good amount of resistance on their part. For what I read it's quite draconian, to the point of preventing a something like a hotel from offering internet due to the risk of litigation (or at least it has been framed that way).
Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on April 07, 2010, 06:54:55 PM
The consequences are in the liability, under the bill a small provider would have to assume the consequences of the actions of those connected, so if an internet cafe is used to download stuff the business can be sued or shut down. IIRC the bill would affect universities too despite a good amount of resistance on their part. For what I read it's quite draconian, to the point of preventing a something like a hotel from offering internet due to the risk of litigation (or at least it has been framed that way).
They might as well close down the country if this is really so. :-[
From a tourist perspective it would boost the sales of stamps and postcards. ::)
Quote from: AggieSo perogy-ing Parliament there doesn't entail killing off any in-progress bills like it does here?
In the case of the Finance Bill, aka Budget, quite a few measures have been abandoned, including the 10% on cider. ;D ;D ;D When the temporary measure expires at the end of June, the price will go back down unless Labour is in power and pushes the bill through!
This gives us a taste of how the countryside may begin to prosper again under a sane government. It's been a terrible 13 years.
I don't think it has been any worse than the preceding 13 years, or the 13 years preceding that, etc.
Ah, but you live in London. Try living somewhere where all the local hospitals and services are closed and centralised in the nearest city (where the Labour voters are :) ), petrol is taxed though the roof, and they want to congestion charge you for getting to the hospitals they centralised.
Trouble in paradise? I thought everybody was leaving London because it has become impossibly expensive to live in it.
The hospitals that are left are so bad that country folk are lucky they can't get to them. :mrgreen:
They were just different worses in previous 13 years. Although as I remember the NHS was crap then too. Just in a different way.
The election drivel has only just begun and already I can feel my blood boiling as one by one smiling, insincere politicians parade across my screens. Today they were all walking around factory floors "Connecting with the working man" its all so painfully transparent.
The new digital economy bill fills me with terror. Not because I am a prolific internet pirate you understand (Yar!) but rather because of the implications.
I mean how are they going to enforce this new law?
Will service providers be responsible for monitoring all my net access and scrutinising it for illegal activity?
If so its seems only a step away from opening my post.
I also find it very odd indeed that while the DEB is mentioned in the papers it has yet to rear it ugly malformed head on the either the BBC or ITV news.....
I suppose showing me Gordon Browns wife talking to disabled people at a gardening center was more important.
After all my decision on which way to vote will be based on the party leaders wifes interactions with gardeners. Not on the legislation that his party is passing.
Welcome Ageis, you should drop by the Start Here section and introduce yourself. I promise we don't (wont?) bite. ;)
---
As for the bill not showing up in TV, I think politicians and TV casters all over think that this "collection of interconnected tubes" thingy is too nerdy for legislation coverage. Blue may tell us how big is the coverage of the censorship bills in Australia but given the general disdain of politicians talking about it I bet it isn't much. Here in the States I know about the fall of net neutrality but that is because of news on the internet, not TV (nor that I watch any regular TV news here anyway, its all drivel).
In general terms, us regular folks are too stupid to understand what's good for us. ::)
Hi Ageis!
Glad to see that you made it over here! :)
Now, go and introduce yourself in the new members thread, and then tell me what's been happening at the Great Centre for Wish Fulfillment (With Dodgy Roof).com ! :mrgreen:
/The prickly one
Quote from: Ageis on April 08, 2010, 11:53:50 PM
Will service providers be responsible for monitoring all my net access and scrutinising it for illegal activity?
If so its seems only a step away from opening my post.
Labour have been working on that for years. The Lords stopped it in a previous Communications Act but it's back again under the "Intercept Modernisation Programme"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6533107/Every-phone-call-email-and-internet-click-stored-by-state-spying-databases.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6533107/Every-phone-call-email-and-internet-click-stored-by-state-spying-databases.html)
(Welcome, by the way :) )
Welcome Ageis.
Quote from: Ageis on April 08, 2010, 11:53:50 PM
The election drivel has only just begun and already I can feel my blood boiling .........
Mine would be too if it wasn't instead forming sludge at the repetitive nature of the whole farce. I am perfecting the technique of turning my ears (and eyes) off. My over-riding sensation is boredom. And I don't see any choice on who to vote for so not worth listening anyway. Vive la revolution!!
As ti the DEB, the supposed method is that the artists who have their output illegally downloaded have to inform the ISP of the issue (ie. the ISP does not montior but waits for accusations); then the ISP customer gets three warnings before any action is taken. It remains to be seen whether this is actually how it works and whether public pplaces like hotels etc will pre-empt which is the danger. Personally I think it stinks that any legislation is allowed to be rushed through like this. Wash Up is a fundamental flaw.
And so it happened, the DEB passed (http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/feature/1600463/digital-economy-bill-passed-law).
I guess you'll have to make sure all emails will have to be sent from France/other country before or after going to the UK...
Sorry for the double post. Political Compass made a page for the current UK elections:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/ukparties2010
The graph now shows UKIP and other small parties:
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/charts/uk2010.php)
Interesting read.
Dangit.... here I was taught that it was a line....
:ROFL:
Doesn't make sense to me. BNP left of Tory?
Perhaps this graph might bring some light to it:
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/axeswithnames.gif)
They suggest that while extremely authoritarian their economic policies would be center right. The other thing to consider is that there has been a hard shift to the right in the past twenty years:
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/enPartiesTime.gif)
Also their analysis are based more on actual votes and/or detailed policies than on rhetoric.
As before taking the actual test is a good exercise.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/test
Greens are libertarian? Strict environmental policy demands a pretty authoritarian approach, even if your average Green voter isn't necessarily a big supporter of it.
EDIT: Took the quiz, I'm southwest of Green. :mrgreen:
Vereee interesting...
I can see that Hitler (National Socialist German Workers' Party) was nearly centre on the L-R axis, but that the BNP should stand left of the modern Tories is beyond me, however you argue it.
I took the test. I am deeply disappointed with the result. :'( :taz: :hitPC: :snark: Can't be true.
I think it highly depends how the different factors of influence are weighed. The US Right loves to depict Hitler as a leftie, occasionally* quoting 'typically leftist' projects like animal protection, public schools, 'reform' food, state sponsoring of 'The Arts' etc. Also Hitler made the 1st of May a national (workfree) holiday.
Seriously, Nazi Germany differed from the other fascist regimes of the time** in a few 'leftist' ways. There were actual attempts to do away with the class system and furthering upward mobility. And Hitler did not ally/share power with the churches after he took power. His plans for after a won WW2 included a systematic campaign against religion turning churches into science museums and observatories (Volkssternwarten). Privately Hitler seems to have believed only in fate (Vorsehung) in a diffuse way but was otherwise a rationalist. He loved to mock Himmler for his superstitions and belief in pseudoscience (racism of course was still sound science).
Nazism duirng its rule was quite a mishmash that does not fit properly in the left/right scheme. It contained elements from all over the spectrum (even after the night of long knifes). The uniting factor was authoritarianism.
I think Stalin may be a bit too far left on the graph, if we look at the 'real existing Stalinism' and byond the rhetoric.
*most are content to point to the nationalSOCIALISM label
**in most cases clerical fascism with the state church being a significant part of the power system usually controlling education.
Quote from: Aggie on April 22, 2010, 05:46:49 AM
Greens are libertarian? Strict environmental policy demands a pretty authoritarian approach, even if your average Green voter isn't necessarily a big supporter of it.
I think they make a distinction between what they consider libertarianism (civil liberties, habeas corpus, anti profiling, etc) and what in the US (perhaps Canada?) is considered libertarianism, which at times borderlines anarchism (ie: I'm free do to whatever I please) particularly within the confines of the individual's property. Certainly a green party would curb down such "freedoms" specifically when it deals with pollution and things like animal cruelty, but you can't say that a green party would transform a country into a police state*.
Quote from: DavidH on April 22, 2010, 08:57:12 AM
I took the test. I am deeply disappointed with the result. :'( :taz: :hitPC: :snark: Can't be true.
Perchance you found yourself far more lefty than you would ever think possible? ;)
The test measures certain attitudes and parties usually target those but rarely
act on those, IOW, they say they'll do one thing but usually do something quite different.
Also is important to understand that certain stances seem far more radical than what those really are/mean. Personally I consider myself a center, center-left kind of person but the test places me on the very left. In practice I don't want to tax every corporation into extinction nor over-regulate, but I do see the need for regulations and I see a reason for the state to exist in more than a military/police kind of way. On the same token, most self-proclaimed right/center right** people don't want to abolish all taxes and regulations but think that as exist today, those create an unnecessary burden that doesn't benefit society as a whole.
The point here is that Labour in the UK (as the Democrats in the US) claim to be on the left but they consistently vote on the right end of the spectrum, and as such they appear in that upper right quadrant. Smaller parties haven't had the chance to vote hence their estimated position is based on their stated policy, which may or may not be what they would vote for once in power.
*regardless of what the extreme right usually claims on the subject.
**we're excluding the fundies and fanatics here, they
do claim that the state should only exist to protect private property.
Btw, I come out as -6;-5.38 but some of the questions are to Anglo/US-specific and/or would require more than an agree/disagree answer.
E.g. in Germany I am a strict opponent of homeschooling (except in extraordinary circumstances) but in the US I would at least consider it given the low quality of the public school system in general and things like the Texas Board of Education in particular. Also the 'spanking' of children is such a broad field that a simple yes/no does not cover it. It should never be a standard tool of education but I find it absurd to send parents to jail for single slap.
Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on April 22, 2010, 05:52:49 PM
The point here is that Labour in the UK (as the Democrats in the US) claim to be on the left but they consistently vote on the right end of the spectrum, and as such they appear in that upper right quadrant.
This is NEW Labour which has ditched it's links to socialism. And right is now called "centre". Which means that NEW Labour is a centre party in theory. As are all the others apart from the weird ones and the fascists. IMO.
We don't have a Labour party any more :o
I keep hoping that some bright spark will come up with OLD Labour, returning it to its roots, but there's no likely candidates.
I can say this without fear of reprisals as we lack the scrutiny of Beagle, sad to say
Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on April 22, 2010, 05:52:49 PM
I think they make a distinction between what they consider libertarianism (civil liberties, habeas corpus, anti profiling, etc) and what in the US (perhaps Canada?) is considered libertarianism, which at times borderlines anarchism (ie: I'm free do to whatever I please) particularly within the confines of the individual's property. Certainly a green party would curb down such "freedoms" specifically when it deals with pollution and things like animal cruelty, but you can't say that a green party would transform a country into a police state*.
I've never heard the word used up here... we all prefer to have a big, inept government so that we can swear at them. The general Canadian attitude is that people are free to do as they please so long as it doesn't impact anyone else, whereas I get the distinct impression that in America it's more important for ideologies to prove WE IZ TEH CORRECT WAY! and impose that on everyone else. There's so much wilderness up here that if you want to be a libertarian in practice, you can just move further out and nobody with bother you.
I don't want a Tory govt. etc etc but I can put up with DC as PM but George Osborne as Chancellor is truly scary.
Cameron freaks me out.
Theres something vaguely reptilian about him.
I tend to think of him like one of those aliens from V.
I expect that if you walked in on him suddenly you would catch him swallowing live mice whole.
Mark my words one day soon he'll fall off his bike, have a serious spill, loose some skin and reveal his true scaly skin beneath.
I can't help but feel that the man has not a single principle or policy he has which he would not drop at a moments notice if it were to benefit him.
Also Grrr
I think Michael Gove is more reptilian than Cameron. Though I tend to agree with you.
Since my last post they have announced some of the policies in the coalition. I can't imagine what all that bargaining was about as the Lib Dems seem to have totally sold out to the Tories. Double double Grrrrrrrrrrrr as I thought they'd at least keep the Tories from the Very Worst Bad Things. Perhaps Nick Clegg just wanted to be Deputy PM.
The thing that is making me crossest is the <Grrrrrrrrr> Marriage Tax break </Grrrrrrrrrrrr> - how to go back about 2 centuries in one hop. Retards. It's far cheaper to live as a couple than as a single person who has to manage all bills on their own................ and how many single people would just love to be part of a cosy nuclear marriage if they could........... and who are they kidding in taking the moral high ground.......... I know this is a slight over-reacction on my part and stuff like the economy and Trident et al are more important but I never wanted to get divorced............ !
Quote from: Griffin NoName on May 12, 2010, 02:59:53 AMIt's far cheaper to live as a couple than as a single person who has to manage all bills on their own................ and how many single people would just love to be part of a cosy nuclear marriage if they could........... and who are they kidding in taking the moral high ground.......... I know this is a slight over-reacction on my part and stuff like the economy and Trident et al are more important but I never wanted to get divorced............ !
Ayuh, me either, but I will dispute that it's cheaper to live as a couple in practice (in theory I agree). I'll likely put away more savings in the next year than in the last 7 cumulatively (albeit not equal to total year by year).
Slightly more then half the rent, significantly less than half the credit card bills..... ::)
Quote from: Griffin NoName link=topic=2276.msg109675#msg109675I can say this without fear of reprisals as we lack the scrutiny of Beagle, sad to say
Abolition of ID cards, restrictions on the DNA database, and on internet monitoring and CCTV, taking the lowest paid out of taxation altogether (G.B. even taxed those on minimum wage). What's not to like. ;)
Hey Beagle, welcome home!
I agree with Ageis and Griffin that Cameron and co. are none too attractive, but then, they're politicians!
Personally, I'm not getting all excited about this 'new politics', 'good of the nation' and all that bilge. IF they turn out to be a bit better, I'll be pleasantly surprised.
Yes, indeed, welcome back.
Quote from: beagle on May 13, 2010, 06:07:06 PM
Abolition of ID cards, restrictions on the DNA database, and on internet monitoring and CCTV, taking the lowest paid out of taxation altogether (G.B. even taxed those on minimum wage). What's not to like. ;)
You've chosen the good bits. I didn't say there were no good bits. But they are just bits. Wait til the economy collapses (again ok ok) :mrgreen:
They've only been in power a day and already youth unemployment is the highest ever. ruddy Tories :)
Beagle! We missed you!
--
How are you coping with those evil LibDems sharing power? :euflag: ;)
Quote from: beagle on May 13, 2010, 10:17:56 PM
They've only been in power a day and already youth unemployment is the highest ever. ruddy Tories :)
Hey! That's like blaming Gordon Brown for the economic crisis ! :irony:
Gordon Broon is to blame for everything, including Noah's flood and the Chicxulub meteorite. :mrgreen: