RugbyRebels

May replaces Patel with Mordor, something about darkness and binding, might have been Mordaunt

Sandydragon wrote:

Stom wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: Blair was a moderate that most British people would see as occupying the centre ground. To you he probably looked right wing.

He didn't look it (right wing) at the time. But that was because we'd had Thatcher framing the debate for as long as I'd lived. Which kind of moves the goalposts somewhat

My opinion is that you cannot be truly considered moderate if you're economically neo-liberal. It's a rather important point. Economic neo-liberalism is about as right wing, economically, as you can get without getting into bloody libertarianism.

So without getting into social policy or defense or anything else, I wouldn't consider David Milliband as a moderate, simply because his economic policy is neo-liberal.

Considerations of whether someone is right, left or centre are based on more than just economics.

Left, right, centre, moderate, radical, all a bit pointless. Better to talk about policy instead of plastering people with insufficient labels.

There are clearly dipoles of political opinion though...
Nationalist vs internationalist
Authoritarian vs libertarian
Individualist vs collectivist
Anarchist vs statist
Economic liberalism vs socialism
Protectionism vs Free trade

Difficult to talk policy when neither major party can build a consensus behind a manifesto within their own parliamentary party. Though outside Brexit we get some assistance from Brexit as they'll have very little time to look at anything but Brexit, and so naturally they'd gravitate toward doing very little, and doing very little makes sense when you've sparse political support (and actually it'd often be a better policy even when you do have support)

Zhivago wrote:
There are clearly dipoles of political opinion though...
Nationalist vs internationalist
Authoritarian vs libertarian
Individualist vs collectivist
Anarchist vs statist
Economic liberalism vs socialism
Protectionism vs Free trade

Who would represent some of those positions?

For instance I've no idea who in the political arena is advocating anarchy, or for another query a lot of people who warble on about free trade are in many ways staunch protectionists so is the thinking there many individuals withing whatever party are divided by their own opinions?

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Stom wrote:
He didn't look it (right wing) at the time. But that was because we'd had Thatcher framing the debate for as long as I'd lived. Which kind of moves the goalposts somewhat

My opinion is that you cannot be truly considered moderate if you're economically neo-liberal. It's a rather important point. Economic neo-liberalism is about as right wing, economically, as you can get without getting into bloody libertarianism.

So without getting into social policy or defense or anything else, I wouldn't consider David Milliband as a moderate, simply because his economic policy is neo-liberal.

Considerations of whether someone is right, left or centre are based on more than just economics.

Left, right, centre, moderate, radical, all a bit pointless. Better to talk about policy instead of plastering people with insufficient labels.

There are clearly dipoles of political opinion though...
Nationalist vs internationalist
Authoritarian vs libertarian
Individualist vs collectivist
Anarchist vs statist
Economic liberalism vs socialism
Protectionism vs Free trade

In my opinion, those "dipoles of political opinion" are at least as pointless as the other labels you describe as pointless.

Stones of granite wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Considerations of whether someone is right, left or centre are based on more than just economics.

Left, right, centre, moderate, radical, all a bit pointless. Better to talk about policy instead of plastering people with insufficient labels.

There are clearly dipoles of political opinion though...
Nationalist vs internationalist
Authoritarian vs libertarian
Individualist vs collectivist
Anarchist vs statist
Economic liberalism vs socialism
Protectionism vs Free trade

In my opinion, those "dipoles of political opinion" are at least as pointless as the other labels you describe as pointless.

In what way?

Stom wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Left, right, centre, moderate, radical, all a bit pointless. Better to talk about policy instead of plastering people with insufficient labels.

There are clearly dipoles of political opinion though...
Nationalist vs internationalist
Authoritarian vs libertarian
Individualist vs collectivist
Anarchist vs statist
Economic liberalism vs socialism
Protectionism vs Free trade

In my opinion, those "dipoles of political opinion" are at least as pointless as the other labels you describe as pointless.

In what way?

Well, for a start, none of them represent true dipoles. Take Authoritarian and Libertarian as examples. Simplified, there is a sliding scale between an extreme Authoritarian and an extreme Libertarian. In truth, I don't even believe it's that simple - most people will hold views which tend towards authoritarian in some aspects of life and those which tend towards libertarian in others.
So, these labels are no more useful then left, right, centre etc.

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
There are clearly dipoles of political opinion though...
Nationalist vs internationalist
Authoritarian vs libertarian
Individualist vs collectivist
Anarchist vs statist
Economic liberalism vs socialism
Protectionism vs Free trade

Who would represent some of those positions?

For instance I've no idea who in the political arena is advocating anarchy, or for another query a lot of people who warble on about free trade are in many ways staunch protectionists so is the thinking there many individuals withing whatever party are divided by their own opinions?

These are dipoles of political thought, although for some of these the Overton window is clearly narrower than for others. In terms of an anarchist proponent, the most prominent person in this area is Noam Chomsky, whose views can be broadly described as anarcho-syndicalist. There are of course also sections of the American right that also tend to be quite anti-statist to de extent that they are close to advocating anarcho-capitalism...

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
There are clearly dipoles of political opinion though...
Nationalist vs internationalist
Authoritarian vs libertarian
Individualist vs collectivist
Anarchist vs statist
Economic liberalism vs socialism
Protectionism vs Free trade

Who would represent some of those positions?

For instance I've no idea who in the political arena is advocating anarchy, or for another query a lot of people who warble on about free trade are in many ways staunch protectionists so is the thinking there many individuals withing whatever party are divided by their own opinions?

These are dipoles of political thought, although for some of these the Overton window is clearly narrower than for others. In terms of an anarchist proponent, the most prominent person in this area is Noam Chomsky, whose views can be broadly described as anarcho-syndicalist. There are of course also sections of the American right that also tend to be quite anti-statist to de extent that they are close to advocating anarcho-capitalism...

Chomsky is more than a little irrelevant, though I've never been of the impression he's an anarchist either for what it's worth. An anarchist in my estimation seeks the absence of authority be it governmental or whatever, whereas Chomsky for all he talks of anarchy is actually seeking the removal of what he sees as an unfair system and the establishment of what he considers a fair system, and then he's more than a little vague on what a fair system is. Point being he's not really an anarchist, he just doesn't like a lot of what's happening.

And when you say there are many anti-statists in the USA does that simply mean those in favour of statehood and against the federal government? I can't say I make any attempt to search out anti-statists, but my impression is there can't be many of them, not even in groups who do little but bemoan the 'damn government'

Stones of granite wrote:

Stom wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:
In my opinion, those "dipoles of political opinion" are at least as pointless as the other labels you describe as pointless.

In what way?

Well, for a start, none of them represent true dipoles. Take Authoritarian and Libertarian as examples. Simplified, there is a sliding scale between an extreme Authoritarian and an extreme Libertarian. In truth, I don't even believe it's that simple - most people will hold views which tend towards authoritarian in some aspects of life and those which tend towards libertarian in others.
So, these labels are no more useful then left, right, centre etc.

Gotcha.

Which is where labeling "Politics" as one thing or another doesn't work. So perhaps we should judge based upon policy...

The Conservatives are authoritarian on personal freedom, but libertarian on corporate freedom. They're Protectionist on military and police, but free on corporate freedom...

Stom wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Stom wrote:
In what way?

Well, for a start, none of them represent true dipoles. Take Authoritarian and Libertarian as examples. Simplified, there is a sliding scale between an extreme Authoritarian and an extreme Libertarian. In truth, I don't even believe it's that simple - most people will hold views which tend towards authoritarian in some aspects of life and those which tend towards libertarian in others.
So, these labels are no more useful then left, right, centre etc.

Gotcha.

Which is where labeling "Politics" as one thing or another doesn't work. So perhaps we should judge based upon policy...

The Conservatives are authoritarian on personal freedom, but libertarian on corporate freedom. They're Protectionist on military and police, but free on corporate freedom...

I tend to agree, but I think your straying into generalisations again. For example, which Government passed the Identity Cards Act (hint: 2006) and which Government repealed it?
If you want to label according to policy, then do it by policy.

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:
Who would represent some of those positions?

For instance I've no idea who in the political arena is advocating anarchy, or for another query a lot of people who warble on about free trade are in many ways staunch protectionists so is the thinking there many individuals withing whatever party are divided by their own opinions?

These are dipoles of political thought, although for some of these the Overton window is clearly narrower than for others. In terms of an anarchist proponent, the most prominent person in this area is Noam Chomsky, whose views can be broadly described as anarcho-syndicalist. There are of course also sections of the American right that also tend to be quite anti-statist to de extent that they are close to advocating anarcho-capitalism...

Chomsky is more than a little irrelevant, though I've never been of the impression he's an anarchist either for what it's worth. An anarchist in my estimation seeks the absence of authority be it governmental or whatever, whereas Chomsky for all he talks of anarchy is actually seeking the removal of what he sees as an unfair system and the establishment of what he considers a fair system, and then he's more than a little vague on what a fair system is. Point being he's not really an anarchist, he just doesn't like a lot of what's happening.

And when you say there are many anti-statists in the USA does that simply mean those in favour of statehood and against the federal government? I can't say I make any attempt to search out anti-statists, but my impression is there can't be many of them, not even in groups who do little but bemoan the 'damn government'

Um...it's my point about it being outside the Overton window. If we were to talk purely about the boundaries of the Overton window then it'd be big state vs small state. But we are taking about how to understand or classify someone by their political beliefs, in which case we should be able to classify everyone pretty much, not just those agreeing to the mainstream.

I find it a bit odd that you say he's not really an anarchist... That's how he identified his own political belief... Perhaps you know better than he does? Hahaha

And if you're looking for proponents of something approximating anarcho-capitalism in the USA, look no further than the Ludwig von Mises Institute...

Zhivago wrote:
I find it a bit odd that you say he's not really an anarchist... That's how he identified his own political belief... Perhaps you know better than he does? Hahaha

His view of anarchy sees an organised society formed on the back of a direct participation of the masses, anarchy to him in this sense is simply a freedom from the current controls of capitalism, government and so on. I think that's nonsensical as the masses are going to be even less informed on any given subject than elected representatives, for instance how many voters in the EU referendum had actually read the various EU treaties and understood them?, and whilst he has an allowable usage of anarchy it's not one which most will infer as being the case as they'd be assuming some greater amount of disorder. Basically in saying anarchy I think he's communicating badly and being a smart alec in the process.

Zhivago wrote:And if you're looking for proponents of something approximating anarcho-capitalism in the USA, look no further than the Ludwig von Mises Institute...

Never heard of them, not tempted to look them up

Sandydragon wrote:

kk67 wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: Surely, that's an advantage....

How would you feel if Amber was Mohamed Al Fahd's Daughter....?.
You cannot run governance on the basis of profit. A teenager doing politics would tell you that method was for morons.

If we judge politicians on what their families get up to there would be no fecker left. Judge them on their own actions.

Experience tells me that when it comes to politics and probity, nurture is more applicable than nature.
But,.....I do see that both JRM and Hilary Benn are far more pernicious than their Fathers.

Stones of granite wrote:

kk67 wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: Surely, that's an advantage....

How would you feel if Amber was Mohamed Al Fahd's Daughter....?.
You cannot run governance on the basis of profit. A teenager doing politics would tell you that method was for morons.

Did you hear a whooshing sound?

No. I understood you were being ironic. The Rudd's just piss me off mightily.

kk67 wrote: But,.....I do see that both JRM and Hilary Benn are far more pernicious than their Fathers.

Don't know about the Rees-Mogg generational battle, though I'm far less alarmed by Hillary than Tony

Digby wrote:

kk67 wrote: But,.....I do see that both JRM and Hilary Benn are far more pernicious than their Fathers.

Don't know about the Rees-Mogg generational battle, though I'm far less alarmed by Hillary than Tony

Hilary is a stooge. His Father was a conviction politician.
At this moment in history, when we are overrun with the former, I'd rather have the latter.

kk67 wrote:

Digby wrote:

kk67 wrote: But,.....I do see that both JRM and Hilary Benn are far more pernicious than their Fathers.

Don't know about the Rees-Mogg generational battle, though I'm far less alarmed by Hillary than Tony

Hilary is a stooge. His Father was a conviction politician.
At this moment in history, when we are overrun with the former, I'd rather have the latter.

His conviction being that no trendy bandwagon should be left un-jumped on.

Stones of granite wrote: His conviction being that no trendy bandwagon should be left un-jumped on.

I find it closer to the Arthur Scargill/Ken Livingstone/Bernie Grant history.
Marked as loonies at the time by the right wing press,....everything they predicted has become true. Even to the extent that Ian MacGregor himself said everything Scargill predicted during the strike was totally accurate.

Stones of granite wrote:

kk67 wrote:

Digby wrote:
Don't know about the Rees-Mogg generational battle, though I'm far less alarmed by Hillary than Tony

Hilary is a stooge. His Father was a conviction politician.
At this moment in history, when we are overrun with the former, I'd rather have the latter.

His conviction being that no trendy bandwagon should be left un-jumped on.

I don't doubt Tony had conviction, sadly he was just very wrong far too often, and he failed over and over to join up his thinking. Also for all Tony was a man of conviction so is Hilary, again I'll say a more extreme position doesn't mean one has more conviction it only means one is more extreme

Stones of granite wrote:

Stom wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: Well, for a start, none of them represent true dipoles. Take Authoritarian and Libertarian as examples. Simplified, there is a sliding scale between an extreme Authoritarian and an extreme Libertarian. In truth, I don't even believe it's that simple - most people will hold views which tend towards authoritarian in some aspects of life and those which tend towards libertarian in others.
So, these labels are no more useful then left, right, centre etc.

Gotcha.

Which is where labeling "Politics" as one thing or another doesn't work. So perhaps we should judge based upon policy...

The Conservatives are authoritarian on personal freedom, but libertarian on corporate freedom. They're Protectionist on military and police, but free on corporate freedom...

I tend to agree, but I think your straying into generalisations again. For example, which Government passed the Identity Cards Act (hint: 2006) and which Government repealed it?
If you want to label according to policy, then do it by policy.

You see, I'm definitely pro-ID cards. And I'm completely pro freedom of movement. But that's where the problem of ID cards becomes one of how they are seen. I see it as a little piece of card that can fit in my wallet that allows me to travel to other EU countries (sigh) without carrying a big passport that needs to be kept separate, therefore increasing the chances of me losing it.

Would you believe, before Brexit, one of my main reasons for wanting Hungarian citizenship was the ID cards (and being able to vote).

Digby wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

kk67 wrote: Hilary is a stooge. His Father was a conviction politician.
At this moment in history, when we are overrun with the former, I'd rather have the latter.

His conviction being that no trendy bandwagon should be left un-jumped on.

I don't doubt Tony had conviction, sadly he was just very wrong far too often, and he failed over and over to join up his thinking. Also for all Tony was a man of conviction so is Hilary, again I'll say a more extreme position doesn't mean one has more conviction it only means one is more extreme

Nope.
Politics had space for decency in them days. Now you have to be a stooge to even be elected.
And the consequence is that now 'conviction politician' is seen as a derogatory classification.

kk67 wrote:

Digby wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: His conviction being that no trendy bandwagon should be left un-jumped on.

I don't doubt Tony had conviction, sadly he was just very wrong far too often, and he failed over and over to join up his thinking. Also for all Tony was a man of conviction so is Hilary, again I'll say a more extreme position doesn't mean one has more conviction it only means one is more extreme

Nope.
Politics had space for decency in them days. Now you have to be a stooge to even be elected.
And the consequence is that now 'conviction politician' is seen as a derogatory classification.

Very weird.

Benn sought to bring control of the Labor party under an undemocratic banner of local and national party institutions, very similar to what we're seeing now actually. He coddled the left, wouldn't speak out on the Soviet Union or Ireland other than in support of supposed left leaning parties, actively supported Castro ignoring it was hardly all good.

I actually met the duffer, though he wasn't talking generally about politics but more specifically concorde, which based on his modest presentation of the facts he designed, raised monies for, tested and built. I've seldom been so struck that someone was so unattached to reality, albeit he was getting on a bit and could well have been suffering from dementia or another mental illness