General Chat

Exactly, Hayley!

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

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....

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.

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.

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?

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!

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. ;)

pro is the opposite of anti.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

Well, Cynthia ... I guess that means you're a bit of an authoritarian, but at least you aren't a right-winger! (sitting on the left-right line, to the left of the up-down line, is it? The numbers, woman, the numbers!)

So which will it be for you -- Greens (green square) or BNP (red square)??

Bwahahaha.

And....back to the thread subject

x

Cheers *Teresa*

I think if Hayley were offended in any way by Janey's post she would have said so by now,....'connie'..

Very interesting website Janey, little bit pro socialism in the questioning. and a little bit condescending to Hayley on your first posting I thought.

Con x

Okay, I am not particularly interested in politics but I had a reluctant go.

Looks like I am a cross between Nelson Mandela and Pope Benedict! as I hovered 'twixt green and red!

Now, none of you will speak to me ever again. sob.

Cx.