To think that being Tory doesn't make you thick?

[RainbowSheep]

Ok, my family are all very liberal (I mean my parents, aunts & uncles, who incidently have all had lots of money & opportunities throughout their lives). Their parents (who were poor working class) were more conservative as are me and my brother, who are both pretty poor. We recently had a family get together where I was told by my uncle (university lecturer) that Tories were unitelligent and I was beginning to sound like an idiot for having conservative views... I don't think I am particularly right wing.

No he didn't believe what today's liberals believe.

But a liberal is not a socialist. Even the Labour party are no longer socialist.

But GrendelsMum - just because those policies mentioned by Deck may be found in other manifestos that does not mean the ideaology is the same. To look at the bigger picture of what the BNP is all about you have to consider all of the policies in their manifesto not just some which appear to fit with another party.

Their beliefs about how criminals or indeed anyone should be treated are key to this.

Yes I agree the Labour party are no longer socialist.

Pretty much every nation has bought into the idea of globalised capitalism. The only differences come in terms of the system of governance that's chosen to sit on top of it.

Arguably China has figured out an unbeatable combination: vigorous, export-driven capitalism, with an authoritarian command-and-control system of government on top to keep the population in line. That way, you get all the nice money coming into the country from capitalist enterprise, but without any of the inconveniences of free speech, political debate or the pesky business of elections.

Right-wing or left-wing? You decide

A major difference in politics is really between a right wing Thatcherite small state freedom/individualism and a left wing big state authoritarian control

I think I'll settle for describing China as Just Plain Scary.

Could be a new political spectrum.

The difference is very obvious in terms of civil liberties, where the Tories and LibDems scrapped Labour's ID cards and reversed their assault on civil liberties

BIWI - We don't all pay for it though. Those who use the most services don't pay enough in to cover what they get out. Put very simplistically the economic top half subsidise the bottom half.

Perception - I definitely see your thinking (at least, as I understand it you're arguing that these are nice policies plastered on top of an ideology which is nothing other than racism), but I think that if we don't recognise the way in which the BNP is shifting its policies and its presentation, we're missing something dangerous. And moreover, it may well be from within the BNP mindset, a dislike of foreigners goes absolutely hand in hand with what would externally be seen as left-wing policies such as more council housing and nationalised railways.

(I can actually see why you could link racism and council houses, but racism and nationalised railways seems rather odd. Damn foreigners coming over here, privatising our railways and throwing leaves on the line??)

GrendelsMum, teh reason the BNP is for nationalised railways is because it is a nationalist party. Nationalisation is socialisation.

Except that in China, at least, Thatcher-style deregulation seems to be working alongside big-state authoritarian control.

Which in turn harks back to my (and ihatebabyjake's) earlier point about how all this Spurs/Arsenal chanting across the barricades between self-identified 'right' and 'left' types is massively lacking in perspective, unless it takes into account the changes taking place across the world and particularly in terms of the emerging economies.

Neither 'little Britain' type Tories still pining for the Empire nor lefty advocates of gold-plated benefits are paying much attention to the fact that the Empire is gone, the entire West is now utterly in hock to China, and the residual economic power that lingered after the Empire and which helped to pay for those gold-plated benefits is fast fading as well. Both the Little Britainers and the 'compassion trumps prudence' crews are in for a big disappointment in the 21st century, I think, as are most people of my generation (30s) and younger.

In that context, as the certainties that underpinned them crumble, the idea that there is something coherently either 'right-wing' or 'left-wing' is becoming increasingly meaningless.

grendelsmum -

"On another note, I read an interesting article in the Economist a few months back that argued (IIRC) that the poor get their benefits from the state in the form of money, and so it was extremely noticeable and quantifiable, whereas the rich get their benefits in the form of railways, motorways, education, hospitals, police, etc etc etc - far less noticeable at the point of delivery, and so encouraging wealthy people to feel that they genuinely aren't receiving much benefit from their taxes."

But that doesn't reflect that the poor (your words) get all of the less quantifiable benefits as well as the money from the state.

'Except that in China, at least, Thatcher-style deregulation seems to be working alongside big-state authoritarian control.'

I don't think China has Thatcherite deregulation. It is a highly controlled state regulated country. It has socialist nationalised railways under state control. It makes and sells goods to markets worldwide, but it is not really a free capitalist country.

I think the BNP are generally best ignored. A future with them in power would be truly terrifying for every one of us. I probably shouldn't have brought them up but I've read a lot about them and seen what they are about (morbid fascination I guess). What struck me about BNP sympathisers is how stupid all of them seem. I've not met even one who has anything sensible to say.

I do not think that about all people who vote tory - I feel their supporters tend to lack empathy and be unable to put themselves in another's shoes though. I grew up in a tory voting family and as I got older I felt that for me their views were wrong.

londonone - I am not stupid!

"BIWI - We don't all pay for it though. Those who use the most services don't pay enough in to cover what they get out. Put very simplistically the economic top half subsidise the bottom half"

We all pay a proportion of our income (or at least those of us who earn enough do). Of course those at the bottom are paying disproportionately less. But that is why it is the mark of a civilised society -that we pay for each other. Those that have more, pay more.

What is wrong with that?

perceptionreality, when the working classes voted Thatcher in again and again, they did so because they thought that the Tories offered the best solutions for society's problems and for themselves. They believed that eeh Tories would bring econiomic prosperity, would allow them to succeed, would take less of their money off them in taxes and would defend their interests and defend the country and would not unilaterally disarm the nation in the face of a Soviet nuclear threat.

They had sympathy with Tory views and values and believed that they offered the best hope for the future for themselves and teh whole of society. They rejected the empathy of a bleeding heart that they thought would lead to decline and failure and would end up bleeding the nation dry and failing the whole nation.

Nothing is wrong with that, but to me it does suggest that those in receipt should be grateful and not be resentful and angry with those who are funding many of their services.

Deck have been thinking about that point in recent days - I have always voted Tory for a number of reasons;

a) I just want to wend my own sweet way - I think politicised education is a horror.

b) I believe in volition, I strongly believe that given choices, people will make the right choices on the whole.

c) I don't think that a state sponsored economy is healthy, mentally or economically.

d) I think given DC's recent 'veto' we should bow out of Europe, strengthen our trading partnerships within the Commonwealth & the emerging economies - there's no reason why we can't compete with them & soar as a country.

On the other hand there's the Daily Mail attacks on the "liberal intelligentsia" as if intelligence was a bad thing

By the 'liberal intelligentsia' they are referring to a sort of cabal of politically biased left wing opinion formers who are not in tune with the mass of the public - the masses that make teh Daily Maikl the second biggest selling paper in the country and the second biggest news website in the world.

If the Daily Mail operated in China, it would also soon become a topselling newspaper there. Because in a free society, people are the same the world over. But so are the authoritarian controlling opinion formers.

claig - well of course I agree that people vote based upon what they perceive will ensure a better future. But even my dad now says he feels Thatcher is responsible for the selfish attitude that people have increasingly had towards each other since the 80s.

I personally think that the reason the tories didn't get a majority in the last election is because people remember the awful things Thatcher did in the 80s.

Nothing wrong with expecting gratitude, londonone - but it is to the system/state. Why should those of us who pay more in taxes expect the less well off to be grateful to us? That's hugely patronising and elitist.

And the resentment and anger I am reading about is towards the cuts that are being made, and the fact that it's the less well off/privileged who are suffering. Where there is anger and resentment is towards those who can't/won't understand why it's unfair that those people should suffer, as opposed to those who can pay being asked to contribute just a little bit more.

Most people I talk to say they think the Daily Mail is awful.

It's not a paper to be taken seriously. The misogyny and hypocrisy are sickening.

Yes, I think your dad is right; Thatcher did contribute to that. But of course, she also achieved many positive things. It's about the balance.

I think the Tories didn't get a majority because they mishandled their campaign. In the debates, Cameron did not highlight the mistakes that Gordon Brown had made. He didn't even bring up the open goal of Brown calling Mrs Duffy, a lifelong Labour supporter, a bigot.

But I think the objective was to create a Coalition government, in order to unite the parties for the difficult task of implementing the austerity that was to come. If the Tories had won outright then the public may not have swallowed the austerity as easily as if the LibDems were not opposing it.