[Closed] The right wing agenda

I wasn't after support.. I don't have a cause 🙂

I'm adjusting to the new right leaning world that I'm part of, trying to understand it.. My thread is opening up the discussion a bit so I'm winning

I'm a pragmatic kind of anarchist enfht

Not sure it is a right-leaning world? It possibly looks that way if we view it through the labels of the 20th century, but as has been said already it's pretty obvious they are no longer that useful.

Looks like it's more a 'me' leaning world...

So mol, do you reckon the nasties are RW by your definition?

The Tories?

Yes, broadly. But not all of them. There are some people who do care and are still right wingers because they think that the best way to help is through building business and jobs through private enterprise (like my sister in law). I think they are naieve though, tbh. Simple fact is - not everyone is equal* and some need more help than others.

What is a government actually for? Is it to ensure basic economic function and law and order? Is it meant to actually make sure everyone's needs are met? Is it to improve the quality of life of everyone?

If the government doesn't do these things, then who does? Perhaps once the church did, but not any more. My sister-in-law thinks that charity should help people and government should stay out - but charity is fickle, and can be handed out or withheld based on the judgements and prejudices of individuals. This isn't right, imo.

* everyone should have equal [i]opportunities[/i] but this means giving more to some than others because some people need more help than others. Everyone has different skills and different aptitude.

the tories are a broad church - some like Ken Clarke and David Willetts have some common decency and objectively think of others in less fortunate positions but there are some at the nutter end that are just in it for themselves and have a mentality that "it's their fault they are poor they should just work a bit harder" and the middle ground seem to believe in trickle down economics

as you can imagine the nutters (of which there are usually one or more in a tory cabinet) are the reason I can never vote for them

(but right now I can't align myself to Labour either and the libdems aren't appealing either really)

one nation tories are decent people who believe we are all made better by a free market and business generating wealth, the do believe in one nation and redressing balance in a "paternal" sense and they believe in society and making it better. At the other extreme you have posh toffs with a massive sense of entitlement [ boris, dave Cameron , Rees Mogg [ entertaining though he is]who think they got where they are by hard work and everyone else is lazy. Basically they won the competition and they want to maintain it to maintain their elite position within it. They dont much think of other folk , they dont know anyone ordinary and they have not a clue how most of us live our lives.

The former i disagree with but admire the later i despise

Good post Junky. The left suffers similar but opposite issues though. The good ones realise how important business is, the bad ones just default to the most left position like it's a competition.
Be nice to have a pragmatic alternative unencumbered by the dogma of left or right wouldn't it?
Be lovely to see a sensible party made up of scientists, engineers, economists and the like just doing what's right (not [i]that[/i] right!) according to logic and the circumstances.
A sensible balance between public and private enterprise, spending in check, help for those that need it whilst maintaining a good balance of good things (like the MHS) and essential things (like defence and policing)
Is it possible?

Guess how many MPs are scientists…

Not enough?

if only we had some data but feel I must point out that Thatcher was a scientist so I am a little less keen pn the idea than you 😉

TBH my own personal agenda is just to make things fairer I dont really care much about how we do it but it does not need to be this unfair either within our country or throughout the world. I am probably at the extreme ed of wanting it fair and see little way of doing it without massive regulation intervention as this is what capitalism* gives us if we dont.
It s further exacerbated by the fact those who win also control so much media and other agenda setting agencies so they are always what is best for them and then feed it to the masses who are largely disinterested in politics as they are all the same and nothing much changes - IMHO this is because no one is that radical
I dont mind how folk want to help but you have to want to as life need not be this unfair. I also think the wealthy west has a duty to the poorer nations in the world and we could all eat and see our kids grow old.

* I know its mixed but you get the point i would move much further the other way, personally yet it would still be mixed though some would view its as positively Leninist.

if only we had some data but feel I must point out that Thatcher was a scientist so I am a little less keen pn the idea than you

I dont mind how folk want to help but you have to want to as life need not be this unfair. I also think the wealthy west has a duty to the poorer nations in the world and we could all eat and see our kids grow old.

You could create and join a supranational body that has social democracy as its central tenet. Ahh ..........