Brown or Cameron?

[Azrael]

But I think the more left-wing you are, the more right-wing you see New Labour. Most people who see themselves as socialist will tell you there is no difference between the two - an assertion I think is patently untrue.

Quite right, Labour is still shot-through with lazy socialist thinking. "The third way" basically involves harnessing private capital to achieve socialist ends. Which is of course utter rot since the two are mutually incompatible, but there we go.

50% of the population in universities in the name of egalitarianism (and they're destroying the universities to achieve it, just as they previously destroyed the grammars); a zealot's belief that government can make you good; money poured into the NHS; the complete ransacking of private pensions; the construction of a soviet-style police state; the ransacking of the British constitution.

Of course they've also abandoned any coherent socialist ideology while they pimp themselves to big business. But right-wing they are not.

Cameron something of a vacuous non-entity, a man who weaseled out of the few promises his spin doctors allowed him to make, but he isn't infested with the collectivist, big government madness Labour suffer from. How sad to see people voting for Brown, quite possibly the worst authoritarian in government since Castlereagh, out of tribalism. "But he's a Tory!" isn't a coherent argument when you look at what Labour's become.

 

[Kenny Vermouth]

Of course they've also abandoned any coherent socialist ideology while they pimp themselves to big business. But right-wing they are not.

Spot on. Labour ditched socialism for one reason: To gain votes and win the election.

Guess what? It worked.

 

[nino_savatte]

Eh? What a brainless comment.

So political parties can only be differntiated by being capitalist, socialist, anarchist etc?

I fucking hate socialism and I'm glad Labour ditched it's commitment to it, but I can't say that I support anything that the party it does.

Whereas I do support Tory commitments to reduce the number of employed people in the public sector doing non-jobs, for example. (I'm talking five a day co-ordinators, lesbian outreach workers etc).

And if the Tories could come out and say they would definitely cut taxes, I'd support that too.

There's nothing "brainless" about my comments...and that's rich coming from one whose speciality on these boards is witlessness.

You'd hate anything that claims to have a social dimension to it. What was the free marketeer's chant? All for one...and all for one.

Like many, you are also seduced by the promise of tax cuts. But it's the less well-off who pay for your beloved tax cuts. If there is one thing that Thatcherism inculcated in the masses, it was selfishness.

 

[Azrael]

Spot on. Labour ditched socialism for one reason: To gain votes and win the election.

Guess what? It worked.

And how.

People seemed to think they were getting a fluffier version of the Tories (same support for business, less sleaze, more caring, less cold-hearted bastards) and got the most radical bunch of wreckers seen in government since the Protectorate. It was widely observed by conservatives that Labour would need two complete terms to bed-in their constitutional vandalism, and how they've been vindicated!

Worst of all was the support of a badly-educated public in the name of "modernism". House of Lords is now packed with placemen (dragging us back to the 18th century, how modern); the Union is effectively broken up; ancient civil liberties are destroyed; ancient army regiments have been merged and broken; and the last vestiges of conservatism in the police eradicated by the MacPherson witch-hunt. With the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act parliamentary government itself is on the verge of being replaced by a bastardised politburo.

And yet still people accuse Labour of being conservatives.

 

[poster342002]

All the "reforms" mentioned in the above posts help the upper middle classes, so I guess nu-Labour is a sort of "socialism for the upper-middle classes". For the poor, it's a form of neo-victorian moralising, patrarchalist conservatism.

 

[Azrael]

All the "reforms" mentioned in the above posts help the upper middle classes, so I guess nu-Labour is a sort of "socialism for the upper-middle classes". For the poor, it's a form of neo-victorian moralising, patrarchalist conservatism.

How does an attack on pensions, a police state and the destruction of the universities help the upper middle classes? For that matter, how does the rise in crime: it's the upper middle classes who present the most tempting targets!

For all its flaws, patriarchal conservatism did not leave the Victorian poor at the mercy of criminal scum in the name of discredited socialist dogma.

 

[Kenny Vermouth]

How does an attack on pensions, a police state and the destruction of the universities help the upper middle classes? For that matter, how does the rise in crime: it's the upper middle classes who present the most tempting targets!

For all its flaws, patriarchal conservatism did not leave the Victorian poor at the mercy of criminal scum in the name of discredited socialist dogma.

Sueprb post.

 

[poster342002]

How does an attack on pensions, a police state and the destruction of the universities help the upper middle classes? For that matter, how does the rise in crime: it's the upper middle classes who present the most tempting targets!

For all its flaws, patriarchal conservatism did not leave the Victorian poor at the mercy of criminal scum in the name of discredited socialist dogma.

All the above help keep the wealthy upper-bourgeoisie in power and the poor in their place. The police state removes accountability of the upper bourgeoisie and the rise of "criminal scum" similarly keeps the poor under control and in their place. If the main worry of the poor is getting mugged in their own area, it helps keep them from tackling wider politics. I don't think Marx was overly keen on criminals, either. It's mainly the daft 1980s crypto-bourgoise "town hall left" in Britain that muddied those waters.

 

[nino_savatte]

How does an attack on pensions, a police state and the destruction of the universities help the upper middle classes? For that matter, how does the rise in crime: it's the upper middle classes who present the most tempting targets!

For all its flaws, patriarchal conservatism did not leave the Victorian poor at the mercy of criminal scum in the name of discredited socialist dogma.

"Destruction of universities"? You're going to have to explain that one. Currently it is mainly the children of the already well-off who can afford to go to university.

The working classes are more likely to be victims of crime than the upper middle classes. That's a fact. You don't live on a sink estate - do you?

As for "police states", we're some way from becoming one. Though, I have to say, your man Whitelaw was rather fond of imprisonment without trial. Reid is simply carrying on in the same statist tradition.

Oh and I should like to know what you mean by "discredited socialist dogma" as the phrase appears to have been lifted from the same lexicon as other right wing reactive expressions...the phrase "loony left" springs to mind.

 

[Kenny Vermouth]

There's nothing "brainless" about my comments...and that's rich coming from one whose speciality on these boards is witlessness.

You'd hate anything that claims to have a social dimension to it. What was the free marketeer's chant? All for one...and all for one.

Like many, you are also seduced by the promise of tax cuts. But it's the less well-off who pay for your beloved tax cuts. If there is one thing that Thatcherism inculcated in the masses, it was selfishness.

Of course it was a brainless remark. Come off it, you're not so big a fool that you Labour and the Conservatives are identical.

And I don't hate everything with a social dimension, but I do think that safety net should be as small as possible, that the state should be as small as possible and that it should interfere in the lives of people as few times as possible. It is not the role of the state, for example, to tell

And tax cuts - for anyone not blind to this - will benefit the less well off more than any section of society. If a guy earning £1,000 a month was allowed to keep £100 more of the money he earns, he will have more money and more disposable income. In other words, he will be better off. And if he has more money to spend, he will put more money back into the economy, creating more wealth and more jobs.

Labour has this idea that Gordon Brown knows how to spend your money better than you do. I don't think he does.

Don't worry, when you grow up, stop playing student politics and start earning money and start having to pay your mortgage, the finance of your car, your council tax and all the other fucking shit thrown at us, you'll see what I'm talking about.

 

[Kenny Vermouth]

All the above help keep the wealthy upper-bourgeoisie in power and the poor in their place. The police state removes accountability of the upper bourgeoisie and the rise of "criminal scum" similarly keeps the poor under control and in their place. If the main worry of the poor is getting mugged in their own area, it helps keep them from tackling wider politics. I don't think Marx was overly keen on criminals, either. It's mainly the daft 1980s crypto-bourgoise "town hall left" in Britain that muddied those waters.

Oh, for fuck's sake, move on. This is 2006 - not 1848, the midst of the rise of industrial European.

 

[nino_savatte]

Of course it was a brainless remark. Come off it, you're not so big a fool that you Labour and the Conservatives are identical.

And I don't hate everything with a social dimension, but I do think that safety net should be as small as possible, that the state should be as small as possible and that it should interfere in the lives of people as few times as possible. It is not the role of the state, for example, to tell

And tax cuts - for anyone not blind to this - will benefit the less well off more than any section of society. If a guy earning £1,000 a month was allowed to keep £100 more of the money he earns, he will have more money and more disposable income. In other words, he will be better off. And if he has more money to spend, he will put more money back into the economy, creating more wealth and more jobs.

Labour has this idea that Gordon Brown knows how to spend your money better than you do. I don't think he does.

Don't worry, when you grow and start earning money and start having to pay your mortgage, the finance of your car, your council tax and all the other fucking shit thrown at us, you'll see what I'm talking about.

Again, my comments were not "brainless" and only one who has taken, as gospel, the nonsense about "democracy" as disseminated by the media would accept that there is a substantial difference between the two parties.

I noticed you never once addressed my point about Nu Labour's commitment to free market policies nor did you address my point about tax cuts. Now why is that, Kenny? Could it be that you have no answer other than the usual crap about [superficial] party political differences?

I suspect you're the sort of person who believes that GDP and growth are things worth fighting for.

I would also like to know how you propose to "shrink" the state because from where I'm standing, it looks like all you want to do is return to the conditions of the 19th century with its workhouses.

 

[Azrael]

All the above help keep the wealthy upper-bourgeoisie in power and the poor in their place. The police state removes accountability of the upper bourgeoisie and the rise of "criminal scum" similarly keeps the poor under control and in their place. If the main worry of the poor is getting mugged in their own area, it helps keep them from tackling wider politics.

Good thumping rhetoric with no place in the reality of human experience. Elites throughout history have felt far too threatened by the criminal to use him as a policy tool.

The "police state" imperils the "upper bourgeoisie's" wealth and power if they're unlucky enough to fall victim to false accusation (civil liberties began amongst the propertied), and if such people want to use criminals as a proxy to "keep the poor in their place", then why did such people try, and succeed, in making late Victorian and Edwardian Britain into a relative oasis of peace and good order?

People of property want an ordered and disciplined society, not a disordered wasteland governed by the wicked and the strong.

I don't think Marx was overly keen on criminals, either. It's mainly the daft 1980s crypto-bourgoise "town hall left" in Britain that muddied those waters.

As I said, their ideology is incoherent. I profoundly disagree with just about everything Messers Marx and Engles ever said, but those two were in another league of ability to the fools who work on half-baked ideas derived from a political theory they've probably never even read.

 

[poster342002]

if such people want to use criminals as a proxy to "keep the poor in their place", then why did such people try, and succeed, in making late Victorian and Edwardian Britain into a relative oasis of peace and good order?

They didn't. Victorian Britain was a crime-ridden shithole. Jack-the-Ripper, for starters, follwed with wife/child beating, "footpad" murderers (robbers who crept up on victims) and so on.

 

[poster342002]

People of property want an ordered and disciplined society,

Like North Korea is? Is that ordered and disciplined enough for them?

 

[Azrael]

"Destruction of universities"? You're going to have to explain that one. Currently it is mainly the children of the already well-off who can afford to go to university.

Matriculation standards are being watered down so children from the sink-comps can burden themselves with thousands of pounds of debt for a degree they neither want nor truly need. Labour attacks an inherently elite institution for elitism! Brain-dead egalitarianism is destroying any hope of genuine meritocracy.

The working classes are more likely to be victims of crime than the upper middle classes. That's a fact. You don't live on a sink estate - do you?

On the edge of one. My area is fast becoming a pikey-infested fleapit, and I've posted many times that it's the poor and vulnerable who suffer most at foolish crime policies that seek to understand and coddle the wrongdoer instead of punish him and deter others with certain, harsh and exemplary punishment.

As for "police states", we're some way from becoming one. Though, I have to say, your man Whitelaw was rather fond of imprisonment without trial. Reid is simply carrying on in the same statist tradition.

My man Whitelaw? What's that supposed to mean? From what little I know of Viscount Whitelaw I get the distinct impression he embodies much of what I despise. Internment of any type is immoral, stupid, and goes against everything I believe in.

Oh and I should like to know what you mean by "discredited socialist dogma" as the phrase appears to have been lifted from the same lexicon as other right wing reactive expressions...the phrase "loony left" springs to mind.

That'll be the phrase I've never actually used on here.

The discredited socialist dogma that poverty causes crime, blown apart by a cursory look at the evidence (100 years ago, when poverty of a sort we can barely comprehend was widespread, crime figures were a fraction of today's). It's used to imply that criminals aren't really responsible for their actions and you can get rid of crime by improving material comfort. It also has a distinctly authoritarian undertone: if money is all that keeps us on the right side of the law, we're all potential criminals, so we must all loose our rights.

 

[tbaldwin]

LOL!!! And Nu Labour is somehow different to the Tories?

Er did you not notice...The huge increase in public spending on health and education,the minimum wage,ema,sure start.....

 

[tbaldwin]

Quite right, Labour is still shot-through with lazy socialist thinking. "The third way" basically involves harnessing private capital to achieve socialist ends. Which is of course utter rot since the two are mutually incompatible, but there we go.

.

That is the whole point of a reformist mixed economy mixing both public and private.....It has been the case since nationalisation with private companies making billions from the nhs and education.

Much as the media would like us to believe that New Labour is very different from Labours roots,the main difference is that they have been economically competent.

 

[Azrael]

They didn't. Victorian Britain was a crime-ridden shithole. Jack-the-Ripper, for starters, follwed with wife/child beating, "footpad" murderers (robbers who crept up on victims) and so on.

At least try troubling the evidence before you mouth off. Jack the Ripper is the sort of demented lunatic that nature inflicts on any society, regardless of its crime policy. (Or are you suggesting he was somehow representative of Victorian policy?) Overall, crime figures at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries were a fraction of today's, and the increase vastly outstrips population growth.

Like North Korea is? Is that ordered and disciplined enough for them?

What on earth are you on about? You're departing further from reality with every post.

 

[poster342002]

Much as the media would like us to believe that New Labour is very different from Labours roots,the main difference is that they have been economically competent.

They've been economically competant for the rich.

 

[Azrael]

Much as the media would like us to believe that New Labour is very different from Labours roots,the main difference is that they have been economically competent.

Even that's an illusion. The spiralling debt-culture is set to explode in a very nasty way.

 

[tbaldwin]

Even that's an illusion. The spiralling debt-culture is set to explode in a very nasty way.

Were all doomed eh.......Cheer up it might never happen.....

 

[Mallard]

Why is there none of the above? I know this board's gone to the right but there should at least be a concession to dissent!

 

[gentlegreen]

But anarchy is sooooo fin de siècle dahhhling


gets coat and roller skates ...

 

[Mallard]

But anarchy is sooooo fin de siècle dahhhling


gets coat and roller skates ...

anarchy? We're discussing the wiberal far right and their apologists maaan!

 

[Azrael]

Were all doomed eh.......Cheer up it might never happen.....

Although precedent suggests it very probably will.

Besides, nowt so enjoyable as hawking doom.

 

[IMHO]

... the same rightwing government we've had for almost 30 years now.

That's because we've had the same rightwing electorate for almost 30 years now.

 

[weltweit]

A choice between Brown and Cameron is that how fundamentally fair and just and great our great democracy has become. It is a wonder that we even think it of value enough to impose on Iraq.

A choice of national leaders between a charisma less dour authoritarian scot who gulps air like a guppy while he drones monotones of dull diatribe at audiences who cannot prevent succumbing to sleep and who wants to win the war on terror but does not realise that he will be the prime instigator of terrorism against a pretty young boy who expects us to vote for him because he has fitted a weather vane to his house and used to work in public relations

.. yes I must make this choice, it is relevant to my life. It will affect me significantly .. I can hardly wait to tick my box I cannot wait for one or other to bring meaning to my shallow little life, to lead me into a future bright with anticipation rich with fairness justice and egalitarianism to the zenith that is a Greater Great Britain ..

I think instead I will vote for myself elect myself as my national leader a dictator of my life in this world where we are no more than caretakers for all that we find around us ... yes that is where I will cast my vote .. tiring this democracy business but finally it all makes sense to me, at last clarity.

 

[In Bloom]

See also - Cat shit or dog shit, which is the least worst sandwhich filling?

Ultimately, there really is no meaningful difference between the two, economically, socially or in terms of foreign policy.

Brown is at least marginally more bearable, since he isn't quite as slimey, but that's not quite enough reason for me to waste the half an hour in the polling station I could otherwise spend doing something fun.

 

[Dhimmi]

Aaargh! I clicked the wrong one. I meant Brown (even though they're both cunts)
<whoops!>

Editor's fascistic leaning revealed
/joke
Should have included Nick Griffin for the moderates...