General Chat

I think, Connie, you might not be aware that Hayley had, just a little earlier, posted a thread talking about her confusion about voting.

And just this morning I was musing about how many people at this site seem so eager to talk about things they know nothing about ...

"Pro-socialism". Yes, if you have the option of saying you strongly disagree with the statement that private ownership of land should be prohibited, I guess that makes the quiz "pro-socialism" ...

((shrugs))

Connie, Ruth, Hope, Kim ... it doesn't matter how many names, it's still only one voting share in the fan club, you know.

I'm on the line but green not BNP!! (Can't remember the numbers - sorry)


I think so many factors go into making us the people we are and how we view life and, therefore, possibly how we vote. Upbringing, social conditions, hereditary factors, religious (or none) outlook, life experience etc.


My 'authoritarian' side is partly hereditary as both my parents showed a natural inclination to 'lead' within their vocation and I seem to have inherited that instinct. I have thrived on organising conferences and meetings and people have responded to me with good humour and an acceptance that I like 'things done properly'. I hope I have learned to curb my leanings towards sarcastic wit and teasing of folk!!


I was brought up in a stable (if slightly oppressive) family life - being an only child brings its own problems of over protection. The 'social conditions' I lived in varied, depending on where we lived. My parents were Salvation Army officers and were moved to wherever it was thought my father could lead and inspire a rundown Corps. To be moved on to do the same thing with different people in a different place every 18 months was exhausting and took its toll on him. I understand that things are different today. I also inherited my father's strong inclination to fight for the underdog, the disabled and the disadvantaged and, sometimes, those fights turn into battles.


On my 'green' side, I am definitely a 'people' person and have laughed with those who laughed and wept with those who wept for over 40 years. I have sat with the sick and dying and I have nursed the newborn. I have formed lasting friendships with people from all walks of life. I always try and see where the other person is coming from before I form conclusions on how to deal with a situation. Having members of my family with disabilities such as MS and autism has brought responsibilities I would rather have not faced given the choice.


I would rather hug people than trees - but only when it is appropriate and comfortable for them.

I do have a strong Christian faith and am very aware of my weaknesses.


Despite my love of people and their lives, I have to confess that I have never felt called to enter the political arena.


Don't know what you make of all that Janey.....but it's me.
Right, off to get some work done!


Cx.

What about this for a 'Politician'...............

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/02/19/fury-at-arrogant-tory-sir-nicholas-winterton-s-refusal-to-travel-standard-class-on-trains-115875-22053797/


http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/MPs-Expenses-Nicholas-Winterton-Infuriated-At-Ban-On-First-Class-Rail-Travel/Article/201002315552055?lpos=Politics_First_Home_Article_Teaser_Region_6&lid=ARTICLE_15552055_MPs_Expenses%3A_Nicholas_Winterton_Infuriated_At_Ban_On_First_Class_Rail_Travel

What a complete 'D#ck

x

Ginny, they were taking about that on Question Time last night,

I agree with one view given, if he wants to travel first class, for whatever reason, then so be it....but he pays. If he doesn't want to pay, then he joins the riff raff like the rest of us. Either way, he should not depend on us, the tax-payer to cough up for his snobbery.

The bloke is an absolute a**e....and it's a bl**dy good job he's not standing at the next election else I'm sure the electorate would give him a bashing for his idiot comments....xx

Can some please explain the meaning of the term pro-socialism" thanks,

pro is the opposite of anti.

Socialism is left wing...ie old labour...but not as far left as communism.

On the MP in question -- I do get tired of the focus on such petty things when children are being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, myself ... but ...

Corruption. Corruption is the one thing that people the world over, through all of history and geography, cannot abide.

It's what Robin Hood was about. It's what Baby Doc Duvalier was about. People in power using that power for their personal benefit and the benefit of their friends and associates.

It's what revolutions are fought over!

It applies to monarchies and democracies and everything in between and outside the lines.

People in tribal societies in Africa expect their hereditary chiefs to use their power for their people's benefit -- not to keep the money and property that come with their position for themselves, but to help their people.

People in advanced democracies in the North expect their elected representatives to do the same -- not to organize the tax system to benefit their rich supporters, not to use tax dollars to pay off their voters, but to run the country for the benefit of everyone to the extent possible.

So all the outrage at things like this is understandable. Corruption is the one thing that will stir just about everyone.

But there's corruption and there's corruption.

Undermining the national health system by starving it of money ... and then allowing people to buy private insurance, which they soon find they need to do if they want decent health care -- that puts money in the pockets of big corporations who profit from people's sickness.

That is corruption. On a big scale. That is government arranging things so their rich supporters get richer, and ordinary people get poorer, and sicker.

Those things bother me a lot more than some doofus riding first class on the taxpayer's dime. Or shilling. ;)

Hayley, I think the suggestion was that the questions were designed to get "socialist" kinds of answers.

We may be a bunch of pinkos here, but obviously there are people who manage to disagree with all those socialistic statements -- just as I and others disagreed with some or all ofl the capitalistic statements. ;)

Some people do agree that "the freer the markets, the freer the people". And I don't think that's a socialist kinda statement!

Its all this politcal lingo Janey I am finding hard to grasp when I said I was ignorant in these matters I wasnt playing the dumb blonde I am , I gather socialist dont agree with making a proffit to line your own ends?

Cynthia, on that "authoritarian" business.

I'm a bit that way in that I think there's a right way of doing things and a wrong way of doing things, and people should %$#@ well do them the right way!

But when it comes to things that are simply none of anyone else's business -- drug use, pregnancy (including who may get pregnant and what they may do if they are, for instance), reading material, what goes on in the bedroom -- no matter what I may think is the "right way", the basic rule for me is that it's none of my business.

So when it comes to laws and public policy, which is what this quiz is about, I strongly agree with every option that amounts to: people may do what they like. Marry whom they like, smoke what they like, etc. Unless and until some good reason can be shown to prohibit it -- some harm that will be done to someone else or to society.

So I'm a rather extreme "libertarian" on that quiz. I do not wish to poke my nose into other people's lives to the extent of prohibiting them from doing things that I may not like, but that don't concern me or anyone else.

But like you -- my attitudes come to a significant degree from the Christianity of my youth. The attitudes of my mother and father and other family were of course the main influence; my mum's were associated with the church, and my dad was an atheist, but the values were the same: tolerance, equality, fairness.

My church was (still is) a leader in the social gospel tradition: it has always been deeply involved in the struggle for social justice. Women's rights, combatting poverty, all of that. It was one of the first to ordain both women and gay/lesbian clergy, for instance, and to marry same-sex couples, in Canada.

The Salvation Army does good works, but its attitudes are very different. It takes very much an "our way or the highway" approach to other people's choices. As do many other churches, of course.

That is the "authoritarian" end of the values line. That rules should be made and enforced to stop other people from acting on their own choices, where "we" disapprove, even if no one else is harmed by them, just because "we" find them offensive or immoral.

I'm all for making and enforcing laws against spitting on the pavement -- but not to tell people what they must wear when they walk on it, or whom they may walk on it with, or what they may read or say as they walk, as long as no harm is likely to come to anyone else or to society as a result.

Ah, Hayley, the bottom line then. ;)

There are different sorts of socialist, poor you.

It ranges from

- all "means of production" (think: factories, shops ...) and public services (hospitals, schools ...) should be owned by the public, in the form of "the state", which is operated, you could say, by the government
-- that's the extreme sometimes called communism

to

- essential social services like pensions, healthcare, schools, public utilities, should be under public ownership and control, and other businesses and industries should be tightly regulated in the public interest
-- that's democratic socialism

In fact, every society, even the US, is "socialist" to a very large extent!

The police and fire services are owned and operated by the public. The schools. The roads and highways. Those things stopped being private a long time ago, even in the most "capitalist" societies.

It's all a matter of degree -- that's why the Political Compass puts everybody at a spot on a line from one extreme to the other.

I have enjoyed this thread albeit some parts I dont understand but really try too..

In short I am sure there are hundreds of people out there who like me cant make head nor tail of politics, so I would suggest a leaflet...

Hello we are party 1 our values are

A B C and D.... so if you agree with the following : then vote for us...explains in ways folks like me can undrestand

Hello we are party 2 our values are E Fand G we strongly oppose B and C but amidly agree with A....

Exactly, Hayley!

Make the candidates and parties do the Political Compass quiz and publish all their answers and their scores!

Yep, and why are people being killed in Afghanistan...oh is it caus we care about the Afghans!

Nope, it's because of corrupt politicians and money grabbing, narcissistic, prejudice d#cks like 'Sir' Winterton

His wife is a 'racist' and he slaps female colleague’s bottoms for a laugh..... where does he get his money from.....corruption I guess, but then I could be being cynical!

Ginny
x

Ha - that's the train guy?!

It all does tend to go hand in hand, doesn't it?

One of our political icons is Stanley Knowles (now deceased), a founding member of my party, the NDP (the one in the green square). He was a tireless, selfless politician working for ordinary people.

And the story goes that although he had access to the posh and cheap Parliamentary Restaurant like every other MP, and did dine there to meet with constituents and other MPs, no one ever saw him consume anything but soda crackers and water. ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Knowles
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/Infoparl/english/issue.asp?param=132&art=848

All the time he was an MP he boarded with a family in Ottawa.

We can't expect every politician to be a Stanley Knowles, but a little restraint is not unreasonable.

JC, we need more Stanley Knowles

x

The principle that a person's private life should be their own concern, providing they are not harming anyone else is brilliantly illustrated in this little scandal.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/04/2810025.htm

That I am perpetuating the rumour mongering causes me concern. However the media have been in a feeding frenzy over these tasty tidbits for the last few months.

Don't ask me who is telling the truth. The media wish me to decide whether a man's action in someone elses bedroom stops him from being a "good policitian". Now that in itself is an oxymoron. There will be voters who will decide this proves he is not to be trusted. If you can't trust a politician why vote for him. Is this something new?? Are politicians on the whole trustworthy? Where is the line drawn between the public and private life.

Ah, AuntyS, but that is a different kettle of fish ... and blackened pot. ;)

The principle in the libertarian/authoritarian divide is that people should not be prohibited from doing, or punished for doing, things that are nobody's business. By laws that criminalize conduct, or by public policy that discriminates against people who do or don't do things that are purely private matters. (Like make some private behaviours, if you'll forgive me for weasel words, illegal. Or like give tax breaks to married or opposite-sex couples, but not to common-law or same-sex couples.)

The question of whether the public has a "right to know" about someone's private behaviour -- that's a whole nother thing.

Voting against somebody isn't the same as putting somebody in jail, or denying them a tax break.

If I want to vote against somebody who commits adultery, that's purely *my* private business. ;) Same as if I want to vote against somebody because of their skin colour or religion or sex or age or occupation.

Am I entitled to know whether somebody has committed adultery, so I can decide whether to vote for or against them? (I'm saying "commit adultery" but we can read it to cover a variety of private behaviours.)

That's the question, eh?

And there are different questions.

Did the person commit adultery with an employee or subordinate?
That might really might make it a matter of public interest, in the case of a politician.

Did the person claim to be devoted to "family values" and try to pass laws to punish other people for committing adultery, or deny tax breaks to adulterers?
That too might make it a matter of public interest.

"There will be voters who will decide this proves he is not to be trusted. If you can't trust a politician why vote for him."

Exactly. Don't we have a "right to know" things that tell us facts that are generally considered to be important about a politician -- like whether they're honest??

Elliott Spitzer, the former Governor of New York, was a huge personal disappointment to me. I'd followed his career from when he was Attorney General and did things I found brave and honourable and progressive and I had high hopes for him. And then what? Caught in a sting, carrying on at great length with a prostitute. One of the things I admired him for was his defence of women's rights. Kind of a disconnect there. I would never have trusted him again. So he didn't just shoot himself in the foot, he shot the public in the foot. He removed himself from public life, and that's bad for everybody.

Would I vote for somebody who uses prostitutes? Not on your nelly. Ever. Not unless I had to, to try to prevent something horrible happening. And I would resent that in the extreme.

It's really simple. You want my/our vote, you behave like a minimally decent human being. You don't commit adultery with people under your authority, you don't put your lovers on the payroll, you don't use prostitutes. You don't use your position to make a profit on stock deals. Just the really easy stuff. How hard is it *not* to do those things??

There are aspects beyond the "moral" to them, too. Because committing adultery with subordinates is kind of universally frowned on (not just the adultery part, but the abuse of power part), people who do it want to hide it. And that makes them vulnerable to blackmail. And that is bad for everybody. If you're gonna do it, do it in the open.


I can beat your story. ;) A recent (Conservative) Foreign Affairs Minister of ours had a liaison with a woman whose previous boyfriends were biker gang associates. He flaunted her around town in low-cut outfits. And he left a top secret file at her house and didn't bother retrieving it. The PM called the opposition leaders "gossipy old busybodies" for raising questions!

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/05/08/bernier-couillard.html

Me, I think I was entitled to know that a Cabinet minister was dating somebody associated with the criminals who had terrorized Quebec for a decade, and not keeping, er, his files in his briefcase. ;)

The point you make exactly mirrors the media's take on this subject.

There is another tangent to pursue. Apart from the fact her partner took to giving the pollie a biff over the head in a public place. If she had not opened her mouth on the subject to the media no-one would ever have known. What was private, would have remained so. However she felt it was her beholden duty to come clean on the matter.

A bit of forethought on his part might have saved him lots of angst. Using the brain to work out, now if this goes wrong, how will it affect my public standing and my very high profile career. But obviously not happening in the brain area.

By the way not my cup of tea in the ten top politicians I would have govern me. Will be very interested to see the results in the election next month.