Although of course Dafyd if it is your assessment that Cummings and Johnson are NOT conservatives at all, what label would you attach to them politically?
Although of course Dafyd if it is your assessment that Cummings and Johnson are NOT conservatives at all, what label would you attach to them politically?
Radical reactionaries? Right-wing populists? Nativists? Johnson could probably be termed a Groucho Marxist. Certainly a fair few of Johnson's cabinet might be considered Hayekists.
Although of course Dafyd if it is your assessment that Cummings and Johnson are NOT conservatives at all, what label would you attach to them politically?
Radical reactionaries? Right-wing populists? Nativists? Johnson could probably be termed a Groucho Marxist. Certainly a fair few of Johnson's cabinet might be considered Hayekists.
And part of the issue there would be that mystical vision of the market expounded by Hayek is very corrosive to the kinds of values 'values conservatives' seek to conserve, let alone sorts of things the most revanchist Tory voters hope to re-introduce.
Although of course Dafyd if it is your assessment that Cummings and Johnson are NOT conservatives at all, what label would you attach to them politically?
Radical reactionaries? Right-wing populists? Nativists? Johnson could probably be termed a Groucho Marxist. Certainly a fair few of Johnson's cabinet might be considered Hayekists.
Is their position "popularist" or "reactionary"? Or even nativist. I guess it then depends on your definition of those terms, or better still what a broad agreed definition is.
And where better than wiki eh, (for broad generalisations):
Popularism: Populism refers to a range of political stances that emphasise the idea of "the people" and often juxtapose this group against "the elite".
So, for "the people", ok, I'm good with that.
Reactionary: In political science, a reactionary or reactionist can be defined as a person or entity holding political views that favour a return to a previous political state of society that they believe possessed characteristics that are negatively absent from the contemporary status quo of a society. As an adjective, the word reactionary describes points of view and policies meant to restore a past status quo.
Mmm. Jury out on that one. I'm not sure Johnson or Cummings are in favour of a return but an evolution but of course I guess you will disagree. (Assumed)
Nativism: The political policy of promoting the interests of native inhabitants against those of immigrants, including by supporting immigration-restriction measures.
I'd go with half of that, it's clear that the present govt favours immigration restriction measures.
So maybe pro-people, evolutionary and in favour of immigration restrictions. I'd settle for that and say cool. Sounds a good way forward.
Just as an aside (and I genuinely don't want to start a tangent here), might a US/Europe difference be a significant factor here? For ISTM that the political "centre" in Europe is further to the left than it is in the States. So someone articulating a centrist position from a European point of view would be regarded as a "leftie" by an American; conversely someone arguing from a centrist US position would be regarded as as right-wing by a European (and someone speaking from a right-wing position might get branded as a Fascist). None of this is conducive to good discussion.
It's also a Canada/US difference. During the days of Obama I was once at a bbq in Florida attended by a mix of Canadian snowbirds of varying stripes on one side, and US country club types on the other. One of the US academics asked one of the Canadian academics how we viewed Obama ideologically. The policy wonks conferred, slugged back some more rum punch, and agreed that looking at health, foreign policy, and justice issues, in Canada he would be rated as a moderate Conservative. Heads exploded and strange noises as they searched for snorts of derision.
One of the Canadian wonks walked them through his reasoning and it was understood, if a source of bewilderment. The US, being a large and fairly self-contained society, is not always aware of the inclination of discourse elsewhere.
Although of course Dafyd if it is your assessment that Cummings and Johnson are NOT conservatives at all, what label would you attach to them politically?
Radical reactionaries? Right-wing populists? Nativists? Johnson could probably be termed a Groucho Marxist. Certainly a fair few of Johnson's cabinet might be considered Hayekists.
Is their position "popularist" or "reactionary"? Or even nativist. I guess it then depends on your definition of those terms, or better still what a broad agreed definition is.
And where better than wiki eh, (for broad generalisations):
Popularism: Populism refers to a range of political stances that emphasise the idea of "the people" and often juxtapose this group against "the elite".
So, for "the people", ok, I'm good with that.
Reactionary: In political science, a reactionary or reactionist can be defined as a person or entity holding political views that favour a return to a previous political state of society that they believe possessed characteristics that are negatively absent from the contemporary status quo of a society. As an adjective, the word reactionary describes points of view and policies meant to restore a past status quo.
Mmm. Jury out on that one. I'm not sure Johnson or Cummings are in favour of a return but an evolution but of course I guess you will disagree. (Assumed)
Nativism: The political policy of promoting the interests of native inhabitants against those of immigrants, including by supporting immigration-restriction measures.
I'd go with half of that, it's clear that the present govt favours immigration restriction measures.
So maybe pro-people, evolutionary and in favour of immigration restrictions. I'd settle for that and say cool. Sounds a good way forward.
If you think Johnson is evolutionary, you are a naiveist
Although of course Dafyd if it is your assessment that Cummings and Johnson are NOT conservatives at all, what label would you attach to them politically?
Radical reactionaries? Right-wing populists? Nativists? Johnson could probably be termed a Groucho Marxist. Certainly a fair few of Johnson's cabinet might be considered Hayekists.
Is their position "popularist" or "reactionary"? Or even nativist. I guess it then depends on your definition of those terms, or better still what a broad agreed definition is.
And where better than wiki eh, (for broad generalisations):
Popularism: Populism refers to a range of political stances that emphasise the idea of "the people" and often juxtapose this group against "the elite".
So, for "the people", ok, I'm good with that.
Reactionary: In political science, a reactionary or reactionist can be defined as a person or entity holding political views that favour a return to a previous political state of society that they believe possessed characteristics that are negatively absent from the contemporary status quo of a society. As an adjective, the word reactionary describes points of view and policies meant to restore a past status quo.
Mmm. Jury out on that one. I'm not sure Johnson or Cummings are in favour of a return but an evolution but of course I guess you will disagree. (Assumed)
Nativism: The political policy of promoting the interests of native inhabitants against those of immigrants, including by supporting immigration-restriction measures.
I'd go with half of that, it's clear that the present govt favours immigration restriction measures.
So maybe pro-people, evolutionary and in favour of immigration restrictions. I'd settle for that and say cool. Sounds a good way forward.
If you think Johnson is evolutionary, you are a naiveist
Yer, but you come from a strong anti position, which is heard (again and again) but really bloody boring in the big scale of things.
I think you have to look at the evidence. And I don't see any evidence of Johnson actually having a political philosophy other than he sees being PM as his destiny. I don't think he knows what to do with it now he's got it, and I don't think he's enjoying it much either.
Cummings is a different kettle of fish, and reason why Johnson was always going to endure so much ridicule over Cummings' jaunt north is because Cummings is the one with the ideas. I'm just not sure what they are above "break shit and see what happens".
(eta)
I think ambitious political types are attracted to the Tories because that's where the nation tends to hove to - certainly it's the nexus of historical power and wealth in the country - and they cleave to it without necessary having the same values, or any values at all, other than being in power.
(et further a)
I'm sure that's probably also the case, or at least was, with Labour in northern cities.
Although of course Dafyd if it is your assessment that Cummings and Johnson are NOT conservatives at all, what label would you attach to them politically?
Radical reactionaries? Right-wing populists? Nativists? Johnson could probably be termed a Groucho Marxist. Certainly a fair few of Johnson's cabinet might be considered Hayekists.
Is their position "popularist" or "reactionary"? Or even nativist. I guess it then depends on your definition of those terms, or better still what a broad agreed definition is.
And where better than wiki eh, (for broad generalisations):
Popularism: Populism refers to a range of political stances that emphasise the idea of "the people" and often juxtapose this group against "the elite".
So, for "the people", ok, I'm good with that.
Reactionary: In political science, a reactionary or reactionist can be defined as a person or entity holding political views that favour a return to a previous political state of society that they believe possessed characteristics that are negatively absent from the contemporary status quo of a society. As an adjective, the word reactionary describes points of view and policies meant to restore a past status quo.
Mmm. Jury out on that one. I'm not sure Johnson or Cummings are in favour of a return but an evolution but of course I guess you will disagree. (Assumed)
Nativism: The political policy of promoting the interests of native inhabitants against those of immigrants, including by supporting immigration-restriction measures.
I'd go with half of that, it's clear that the present govt favours immigration restriction measures.
So maybe pro-people, evolutionary and in favour of immigration restrictions. I'd settle for that and say cool. Sounds a good way forward.
If you think Johnson is evolutionary, you are a naiveist
Yer, but you come from a strong anti position, which is heard (again and again) but really bloody boring in the big scale of things.
It has nothing to do with being anti, it is a real evaluation. There is noting evolutionary about steeping backwards in regards to immigration. And couching nationalism and xenophobia in the colours of nativism fools no one. You may have reasons you think those things are good/necessary, but calling them evolutionary or pro-people is ridiculous.
It's also a Canada/US difference. During the days of Obama I was once at a bbq in Florida attended by a mix of Canadian snowbirds of varying stripes on one side, and US country club types on the other.
...
The US, being a large and fairly self-contained society, is not always aware of the inclination of discourse elsewhere.
How exactly did you get from "country club types" in Florida to the entire country? Do you have any idea of how many people in my working-class, left-leaning city talk with envy about how what we consider liberal is just common sense in the rest of the developed world?
...a lot of people's life satisfaction is determined by power structures rather than by the quantity of resources that they have, and power structures are absolutely driven by relative cake share.
Agree with the first half of this. But you could have an income two or three or ten times mine and still have only the same amount of power in the institutions that impact our lives.
I'm wondering if the basic conflict here is between those who think that being rich is morally legitimate (*) and envy is not, and those who have it the other way round.
(*) meaning of course that there are morally legitimate ways to become rich (? Invent a better mousetrap ?). We all know that there are morally illegitimate ways to get rich.
Doc Tor, I think you are confusing patriotism with nationalism. One can love the place where one was born without thinking it, or you, are superior to anywhere or anyone else, or, indeed, without being proud of its current condition.
I'm not convinced that anyone much thinks that envy is morally legitimate. I also tend to think that there are certainly moral ways of becoming extremely wealthy (depending on your definition of extremely), but that once you are extremely wealthy immorality in the use of your money and the power that attaches to it are both more easily achieved and of greater impact. I tend to think, for example, that Mark Zuckerberg committed no great sin in amassing his great wealth, but the power he is able to exercise as a result, both as a wealthy man and as de facto controller of Facebook, makes sins of both omission and commission with huge impacts as easy for him as getting up in the morning.
Doc Tor I think you have to look at the evidence. And I don't see any evidence of Johnson actually having a political philosophy other than he sees being PM as his destiny. I don't think he knows what to do with it now he's got it, and I don't think he's enjoying it much either.
Cummings is a different kettle of fish, and reason why Johnson was always going to endure so much ridicule over Cummings' jaunt north is because Cummings is the one with the ideas. I'm just not sure what they are above "break shit and see what happens
I think ambitious political types are attracted to the Tories because that's where the nation tends to hove to - certainly it's the nexus of historical power and wealth in the country - and they cleave to it without necessary having the same values, or any values at all, other than being in power.
Doc, I've disagreed with you on a number of matters, but on this you eloquently speak for me. Ideologically, of course, the modern Conservative Party has its roots in the merging of the traditional landowning elite with the industrialists of the classical liberal tradition in the 1880s as a defence against the welfarism and land reform policies of Gladstonian Liberalism in response to the franchise extension of 1884/5, later to be consolidated to meet the challenge of Labour post-1918. Its success, ISTM, is due to its adoption of the Whig adage that for things to remain the same things have to change, which has protected in from the dangers of traditional Tory reaction. It's remarkable, though not unexpected, that a Conservative government has seamlessly found not a money tree but a whole forest of the species when Covid-19 demanded, which underlines your observation that the retention of power trumps economic ideology when the chips are down, or is recognised as the sine qua non for the preservation of their material interests. By contrast, members of the Labour Party are divided over the relative importance of ideological objectives and the necessity of obtaining and retaining political power, the image of "Tory Blair", being a more recent manifestation of that dilemma.
Why do those to the right always bring envy into it?
Envy is one of the fuels that capitalism runs on. Lots of advertising works by creating an image of the life other people have that you could be associated with by buying the right product.
The reason the neoliberal right bring envy into the discussion is that their ideology forbids them to recognise creditable and non-selfish motives as economically or politically motivating to any significant degree.
The neoliberal right do complain that you can't change human nature or abolish selfishness, and that one must therefore recognise selfishness as a fact of life; you would think that means that envy is a fact of life one can't abolish in their rhetoric but no.
Liberals cause they want economic activity to be free of government restrictions as far as possible, and because they share that agenda with nineteenth-century progressive reformers; and because they don't think that because something is long-established it should therefore be respected.
Neoliberals because they want to roll back some of the progressive reforms, and because while the liberal tradition has become bound up with a recognition that equal rights means equal rights especially for groups who have less power, the neoliberals regard that as at best a lower priority.
Arguably this is the exact opposite of conservatism.
I think you have to look at the evidence. And I don't see any evidence of Johnson actually having a political philosophy other than he sees being PM as his destiny. I don't think he knows what to do with it now he's got it, and I don't think he's enjoying it much either.
Boris Johnson and the Conservatives routed Labour in the general election and one of the key reasons for this victory was the prime minister’s campaign rhetoric about “one nation” Conservatism. This phrase was coined by Benjamin Disraeli, the 19th-century Conservative prime minister who saved the party from long-term decline by starting the process of reining in the effects of free-market capitalism on British society.
In the modern era, one nation Conservatism means supporting the welfare state and investing in public services, particularly in health, education and social housing. The arch advocate of this was Conservative prime minister Harold Macmillan. In the 1959 election campaign, Macmillan claimed that his one nation policies had ensured that “our people have never had it so good”. Interestingly enough, he won that election with 365 seats, the same number as Johnson captured in 2019. Johnson needs to continue this tradition of moderate Conservatism if he is to sustain the party’s electoral success.
So Boris' political philosophy is as a one nation Conservative.
From a 2010 speech when he was London Mayor Boris said...
I'm a one-nation Tory. There is a duty on the part of the rich to the poor and to the needy, but you are not going to help people express that duty and satisfy it if you punish them fiscally so viciously that they leave this city and this country. I want London to be a competitive, dynamic place to come to work.[
Our voter base is mainly the middle-class. We appeal to their desire for stability, strong on crime, strong open economies and free-markets, we are however unopposed to intervention if we need to. There are more features, but you can look them up yourselves.
Yes, but Johnson said and did anything to get power, and will say or do anything to stay there. If he thought Marxism-Leninism was the path to being party chairman, he'd be first to the Finland Station.
He is almost exactly unprincipled. Some will see that as a strength (pragmatism - will do what is necessary to solve a problem), and that's a reasonable view to take, that someone unwedded to party dogma or ideology is the best leader. But let's not pretend he believes in anything.
Yes, but Johnson said and did anything to get power, and will say or do anything to stay there. If he thought Marxism-Leninism was the path to being party chairman, he'd be first to the Finland Station.
He is almost exactly unprincipled. Some will see that as a strength (pragmatism - will do what is necessary to solve a problem), and that's a reasonable view to take, that someone unwedded to party dogma or ideology is the best leader. But let's not pretend he believes in anything.
He would because it's demonstrably in accordance with the facts. I think the onus is on you, Thatcherite, to show otherwise. We are all ears- and that includes a significant number of Conservatives, not least those who know him best.
Yes, but Johnson said and did anything to get power, and will say or do anything to stay there. If he thought Marxism-Leninism was the path to being party chairman, he'd be first to the Finland Station.
He is almost exactly unprincipled. Some will see that as a strength (pragmatism - will do what is necessary to solve a problem), and that's a reasonable view to take, that someone unwedded to party dogma or ideology is the best leader. But let's not pretend he believes in anything.
In particular his decision to back Leave was driven entirely by personal ambition, a knife edge decision in which he wrote an article backing each side before jumping with both feet into the leave camp. "If you can fake sincerity..."
Why do those to the right always bring envy into it?
The reason the neoliberal right bring envy into the discussion is that their ideology forbids them to recognise creditable and non-selfish motives as economically or politically motivating to any significant degree.
I suspect many conservatives would think a man motivated to work by the desire to provide for his family, and not consider that a discreditable motive.
Whereas the motive of wanting to organise society (i.e. other people) as one feels they ought to be organised, as a motive for political action, seems of dubious merit, whether one leans to the left or the right. The temptation is to consider this creditable if one agrees with their belief and not if one doesn't.
The neoliberal right do complain that you can't change human nature or abolish selfishness, and that one must therefore recognise selfishness as a fact of life; you would think that means that envy is a fact of life one can't abolish in their rhetoric but no.
If you say envy is a fact of life that we can never abolish, I'd tend to agree. What we can do is to try to direct this energy into positive channels ("you can have this too if you...") rather than negative ("they shouldn't be allowed to have this").
I tend to think, for example, that Mark Zuckerberg committed no great sin in amassing his great wealth, but the power he is able to exercise as a result, both as a wealthy man and as de facto controller of Facebook, makes sins of both omission and commission with huge impacts as easy for him as getting up in the morning.
Fair enough to say that he faces temptations to abuse his power that most of us don't face.
Seems to me it would help him resist those temptations if our culture had a stronger positive image of the rich man using his power wisely. (Bill Gates does his best, I suppose).
But that level of wealth is a long way from my experience, and I guess yours too.
Less convinced about the "sins of omission". If he devotes time/energy/resources to a good cause, is it fair to blame him for not spending it on some other good cause that happens to be dearer to your own heart ?
It sounde better, Russ, because it's completely different. But in my experience someone mean-spirited enough to see enormous wealth on the one side and the deprivation of the poor on the other, and ascribe the cries of the latter for justice to envy, thus making them out to be the party in the wrong, is unlikely to have their view shifted by anything.
I've always assumed that the conservative viewpoint is "Things are pretty good as they are, and if they're not good, they need to be changed back to the way they used to be." Prove me wrong.
Less convinced about the "sins of omission". If he devotes time/energy/resources to a good cause, is it fair to blame him for not spending it on some other good cause that happens to be dearer to your own heart ?
I was thinking of the things that he enables via Facebook such as child abuse which haven't been effectively dealt with. We all expect to be held accountable when "we have not done those things which we ought to have done".
Agree with the first half of this. But you could have an income two or three or ten times mine and still have only the same amount of power in the institutions that impact our lives.
When the police go in to a poor council housing estate vs when they go to a wealthy suburb, do they act the same way? (no, they don't.) That's an example of soft power.
Agree with the first half of this. But you could have an income two or three or ten times mine and still have only the same amount of power in the institutions that impact our lives.
When the police go in to a poor council housing estate vs when they go to a wealthy suburb, do they act the same way? (no, they don't.) That's an example of soft power.
Quite. And don't neglect the power granted you by the ability to move house for better schools. Afford private tutors. Afford music lessons, sports clubs, orchestras. Afford career prospect enhancing training from your own pocket. Take a career break and live off savings or one partner's income. Travel further to improve the availability of work. Live closer to well paid work. The list goes on... it's not all about being able to bribe.
He would because it's demonstrably in accordance with the facts. I think the onus is on you, Thatcherite, to show otherwise. We are all ears- and that includes a significant number of Conservatives, not least those who know him best.
Agree with the first half of this. But you could have an income two or three or ten times mine and still have only the same amount of power in the institutions that impact our lives.
When the police go in to a poor council housing estate vs when they go to a wealthy suburb, do they act the same way? (no, they don't.) That's an example of soft power.
Quite. And don't neglect the power granted you by the ability to move house for better schools. Afford private tutors. Afford music lessons, sports clubs, orchestras. Afford career prospect enhancing training from your own pocket. Take a career break and live off savings or one partner's income. Travel further to improve the availability of work. Live closer to well paid work. The list goes on... it's not all about being able to bribe.
Oh, so what the middle-classes have eh?
Hardly the stuff of Pride and Prejudice is it?
But still, it does highlight that the middle-classes are the true target of the left.
You really do hate us don't you? I mean, we know you do which is why we will never vote for a party further left than Blair's Labour Party, which must be frustrating.
He would because it's demonstrably in accordance with the facts. I think the onus is on you, Thatcherite, to show otherwise. We are all ears- and that includes a significant number of Conservatives, not least those who know him best.
Agree with the first half of this. But you could have an income two or three or ten times mine and still have only the same amount of power in the institutions that impact our lives.
When the police go in to a poor council housing estate vs when they go to a wealthy suburb, do they act the same way? (no, they don't.) That's an example of soft power.
Quite. And don't neglect the power granted you by the ability to move house for better schools. Afford private tutors. Afford music lessons, sports clubs, orchestras. Afford career prospect enhancing training from your own pocket. Take a career break and live off savings or one partner's income. Travel further to improve the availability of work. Live closer to well paid work. The list goes on... it's not all about being able to bribe.
Oh, so what the middle-classes have eh?
Hardly the stuff of Pride and Prejudice is it?
But still, it does highlight that the middle-classes are the true target of the left.
You really do hate us don't you? I mean, we know you do which is why we will never vote for a party further left than Blair's Labour Party, which must be frustrating.
If you're actually interested in the demographic and economic breakdown of votes, it's here.
I'm technically middle class, and a shoe-in to be a Tory voter on the basis of age, gender, household income, education. So I don't know who this "we" is of which you speak - as far as the statistics go, it seems to be a figment of your imagination.
Soror Magna: I've always assumed that the conservative viewpoint is "Things are pretty good as they are, and if they're not good, they need to be changed back to the way they used to be." Prove me wrong.
That is a conservative view, but it could be a case of: "rather bear those ills we have
than fly to others that we know not of." For many, conservatism arises from a sceptical view of human nature and the allure of idealism, leading to the position "if it ain't broke don't fix it." This does not, however, necessitate a reactionary approach to political problems, ("going back to the way things used to be"). Conservatives are not inevitably Bourbons, otherwise conservatism could not have survived as a political force. Successful conservatism's attitude to the need for change is to place an emphasis on empirical experience rather than theoretical constructs.
TR - hardly; I'm part of that middle class, which is how I know of many of the advantages a reasonable chunk of discretionary income gives me and my family.
I'm amazed you equate merely observing those advantages as "hate".
What motivates me is the thought that some poor sod just like me but without a pot to piss in is unable to access so many opportunities through poverty.
Thatcherite: You really do hate us don't you? I mean, we know you do which is why we will never vote for a party further left than Blair's Labour Party, which must be frustrating.
I'm not sure who "you" and "us (we)" are. Your post makes a number of unsubstantiated assumptions of a personal nature to which a number of shipmates might object. Regarding my own comments in support of Doc Tor's opinion of Johnson, they had nothing to do with approval or disapproval of Conservative rule but that the assessment of the PM was objectively accurate: an opinion, one might add, widely shared across the political spectrum, including Brexiteers, if the Conservative-leaning press is anything to go by.
lilbuddha Kwesi: Successful conservatism's attitude to the need for change is to place an emphasis on empirical experience rather than theoretical constructs.
lilbuddha: I’m sorry, but that is absolute rubbish.
Two points
(a) I was simply stating a fact.
(b) Is your objection to my observation, or a critique of that conservative position? Either way it would be instructive to know why you consider it "absolute rubbish."
Agree with the first half of this. But you could have an income two or three or ten times mine and still have only the same amount of power in the institutions that impact our lives.
When the police go in to a poor council housing estate vs when they go to a wealthy suburb, do they act the same way? (no, they don't.) That's an example of soft power.
Quite. And don't neglect the power granted you by the ability to move house for better schools. Afford private tutors. Afford music lessons, sports clubs, orchestras. Afford career prospect enhancing training from your own pocket. Take a career break and live off savings or one partner's income. Travel further to improve the availability of work. Live closer to well paid work. The list goes on... it's not all about being able to bribe.
That’s not power in the sense I thought it was being discussed, namely in the context of “access to power structures”. Being able to move house doesn’t give me any extra power in society.
Maybe this would be helped by you saying what you think “power” actually is?
Agree with the first half of this. But you could have an income two or three or ten times mine and still have only the same amount of power in the institutions that impact our lives.
When the police go in to a poor council housing estate vs when they go to a wealthy suburb, do they act the same way? (no, they don't.) That's an example of soft power.
Quite. And don't neglect the power granted you by the ability to move house for better schools. Afford private tutors. Afford music lessons, sports clubs, orchestras. Afford career prospect enhancing training from your own pocket. Take a career break and live off savings or one partner's income. Travel further to improve the availability of work. Live closer to well paid work. The list goes on... it's not all about being able to bribe.
That’s not power in the sense I thought it was being discussed, namely in the context of “access to power structures”. Being able to move house doesn’t give me any extra power in society.
Maybe this would be helped by you saying what you think “power” actually is?
Ability to control the course of one's life.
The items in my list do interface with all sorts of unofficial and official power structures.
That’s not power in the sense I thought it was being discussed, namely in the context of “access to power structures”. Being able to move house doesn’t give me any extra power in society.
Totally does. It impacts quality of life, health, education, income, ability to pursue leisure interests, and brings you a different kind of neighbour/social setting. It means you live longer, at the very least, and therefore allows you to vote more often.
That’s not power in the sense I thought it was being discussed, namely in the context of “access to power structures”. Being able to move house doesn’t give me any extra power in society.
Like KarlLB said, control over your life, and your destiny. Are you forced to live next to crappy people who make your life miserable, or can you move? That's power. Can I choose other than the default option for schooling for my kids? If there's a problem with my kids' education, and I go to the school to talk to a teacher / head teacher, am I listened to?
Most people don't need the sort of power that is "access to power structures" - most people need the sort of power that is "let me make choices about my life".
Marvin the Martian: Being able to move house doesn’t give me any extra power in society.
Martin, I suggest you discuss the matter with the hundreds of thousands who for various reasons do not have that choice, not to mention estate agents and local council housing and social service departments.
Fixed quoting code, after a fashion. BroJames Purgatory Host
lilbuddha Kwesi: Successful conservatism's attitude to the need for change is to place an emphasis on empirical experience rather than theoretical constructs.
lilbuddha: I’m sorry, but that is absolute rubbish.
Two points
(a) I was simply stating a fact.
(b) Is your objection to my observation, or a critique of that conservative position? Either way it would be instructive to know why you consider it "absolute rubbish."
You cannot have empirical evidence of anything new, therefore small c conservatism is about resistance to change, not a reasoned outlook towards change that your definition implies.
Conservatism worships power and convinces people to ignore their experience in favour of simplistic narratives, which seem to comfort but give no practical means of dealing with anything. Hence the 50,000 deaths, hence Brexit with no plan or hope., hence the power with no idea of how to govern.
The left is good at winning arguments; the right is good at winning power by undercutting those arguments with simplistic bullshit.
And at monopolising this board with three gobshites, which is infuriating.
Conservatism worships power and convinces people to ignore their experience in favour of simplistic narratives, which seem to comfort but give no practical means of dealing with anything. Hence the 50,000 deaths, hence Brexit with no plan or hope., hence the power with no idea of how to govern.
The left is good at winning arguments; the right is good at winning power by undercutting those arguments with simplistic bullshit.
And at monopolising this board with three gobshites, which is infuriating.
Do you not think that self-righteous, dogmatic, unreflective ranting and the employment of personal abuse is one of the reasons why the prospect of rule by the left can appear so unattractive?
Conservatism worships power and convinces people to ignore their experience in favour of simplistic narratives, which seem to comfort but give no practical means of dealing with anything. Hence the 50,000 deaths, hence Brexit with no plan or hope., hence the power with no idea of how to govern.
The left is good at winning arguments; the right is good at winning power by undercutting those arguments with simplistic bullshit.
And at monopolising this board with three gobshites, which is infuriating.
Do you not think that self-righteous, dogmatic, unreflective ranting and the employment of personal abuse is one of the reasons why the prospect of rule by the left can appear so unattractive?
Having been described by Michael Gove as "the blob" I've had it up to here with claims that it is the left that is particularly abusive. No, claims that people are put off by the way people on the left speak is cover for the fact that they've already decided to vote tory and are looking for an excuse to disguise their actual views. We've got a tory supporter who endorses murdering children, but it's the left being "self-righteous" that puts people off. Bullshit.
Apologies. This was the wrong place for anything but my last point. The way in which a small number of right wingers have derailed the whole Ship seems to me to give the lie to their argument that they are not welcome. They may be challenged but they are far from being sidelined.
Do you not think that self-righteous, dogmatic, unreflective ranting and the employment of personal abuse is one of the reasons why the prospect of rule by the left can appear so unattractive?
Follow Trump's Twitter account for a few days and then come back and say which folks on the left rival his "self-righteous, dogmatic, unreflective ranting and ... employment of personal abuse." I'll wait.
Comments
Radical reactionaries? Right-wing populists? Nativists? Johnson could probably be termed a Groucho Marxist. Certainly a fair few of Johnson's cabinet might be considered Hayekists.
And part of the issue there would be that mystical vision of the market expounded by Hayek is very corrosive to the kinds of values 'values conservatives' seek to conserve, let alone sorts of things the most revanchist Tory voters hope to re-introduce.
Is their position "popularist" or "reactionary"? Or even nativist. I guess it then depends on your definition of those terms, or better still what a broad agreed definition is.
And where better than wiki eh, (for broad generalisations):
Popularism: Populism refers to a range of political stances that emphasise the idea of "the people" and often juxtapose this group against "the elite".
So, for "the people", ok, I'm good with that.
Reactionary: In political science, a reactionary or reactionist can be defined as a person or entity holding political views that favour a return to a previous political state of society that they believe possessed characteristics that are negatively absent from the contemporary status quo of a society. As an adjective, the word reactionary describes points of view and policies meant to restore a past status quo.
Mmm. Jury out on that one. I'm not sure Johnson or Cummings are in favour of a return but an evolution but of course I guess you will disagree. (Assumed)
Nativism: The political policy of promoting the interests of native inhabitants against those of immigrants, including by supporting immigration-restriction measures.
I'd go with half of that, it's clear that the present govt favours immigration restriction measures.
So maybe pro-people, evolutionary and in favour of immigration restrictions. I'd settle for that and say cool. Sounds a good way forward.
It's also a Canada/US difference. During the days of Obama I was once at a bbq in Florida attended by a mix of Canadian snowbirds of varying stripes on one side, and US country club types on the other. One of the US academics asked one of the Canadian academics how we viewed Obama ideologically. The policy wonks conferred, slugged back some more rum punch, and agreed that looking at health, foreign policy, and justice issues, in Canada he would be rated as a moderate Conservative. Heads exploded and strange noises as they searched for snorts of derision.
One of the Canadian wonks walked them through his reasoning and it was understood, if a source of bewilderment. The US, being a large and fairly self-contained society, is not always aware of the inclination of discourse elsewhere.
What does that even mean?
If you think Johnson is evolutionary, you are a naiveist
Yer, but you come from a strong anti position, which is heard (again and again) but really bloody boring in the big scale of things.
Cummings is a different kettle of fish, and reason why Johnson was always going to endure so much ridicule over Cummings' jaunt north is because Cummings is the one with the ideas. I'm just not sure what they are above "break shit and see what happens".
(eta)
I think ambitious political types are attracted to the Tories because that's where the nation tends to hove to - certainly it's the nexus of historical power and wealth in the country - and they cleave to it without necessary having the same values, or any values at all, other than being in power.
(et further a)
I'm sure that's probably also the case, or at least was, with Labour in northern cities.
Probably related to this.
How exactly did you get from "country club types" in Florida to the entire country? Do you have any idea of how many people in my working-class, left-leaning city talk with envy about how what we consider liberal is just common sense in the rest of the developed world?
Agree with the first half of this. But you could have an income two or three or ten times mine and still have only the same amount of power in the institutions that impact our lives.
I'm wondering if the basic conflict here is between those who think that being rich is morally legitimate (*) and envy is not, and those who have it the other way round.
(*) meaning of course that there are morally legitimate ways to become rich (? Invent a better mousetrap ?). We all know that there are morally illegitimate ways to get rich.
It's not about envy. It's about social justice.
The reason the neoliberal right bring envy into the discussion is that their ideology forbids them to recognise creditable and non-selfish motives as economically or politically motivating to any significant degree.
The neoliberal right do complain that you can't change human nature or abolish selfishness, and that one must therefore recognise selfishness as a fact of life; you would think that means that envy is a fact of life one can't abolish in their rhetoric but no.
Neoliberals because they want to roll back some of the progressive reforms, and because while the liberal tradition has become bound up with a recognition that equal rights means equal rights especially for groups who have less power, the neoliberals regard that as at best a lower priority.
Arguably this is the exact opposite of conservatism.
From Why Boris Johnson should stick to his ‘one nation’ promise and resist the urge to swing to the right
So Boris' political philosophy is as a one nation Conservative.
From a 2010 speech when he was London Mayor Boris said...
Our voter base is mainly the middle-class. We appeal to their desire for stability, strong on crime, strong open economies and free-markets, we are however unopposed to intervention if we need to. There are more features, but you can look them up yourselves.
He is almost exactly unprincipled. Some will see that as a strength (pragmatism - will do what is necessary to solve a problem), and that's a reasonable view to take, that someone unwedded to party dogma or ideology is the best leader. But let's not pretend he believes in anything.
But you would say that, wouldn't you?
He would because it's demonstrably in accordance with the facts. I think the onus is on you, Thatcherite, to show otherwise. We are all ears- and that includes a significant number of Conservatives, not least those who know him best.
In particular his decision to back Leave was driven entirely by personal ambition, a knife edge decision in which he wrote an article backing each side before jumping with both feet into the leave camp. "If you can fake sincerity..."
That sounds so much better.
How would you convince someone that it isn't just another name for the same phenomenon ?
I suspect many conservatives would think a man motivated to work by the desire to provide for his family, and not consider that a discreditable motive.
Whereas the motive of wanting to organise society (i.e. other people) as one feels they ought to be organised, as a motive for political action, seems of dubious merit, whether one leans to the left or the right. The temptation is to consider this creditable if one agrees with their belief and not if one doesn't.
If you say envy is a fact of life that we can never abolish, I'd tend to agree. What we can do is to try to direct this energy into positive channels ("you can have this too if you...") rather than negative ("they shouldn't be allowed to have this").
Fair enough to say that he faces temptations to abuse his power that most of us don't face.
Seems to me it would help him resist those temptations if our culture had a stronger positive image of the rich man using his power wisely. (Bill Gates does his best, I suppose).
But that level of wealth is a long way from my experience, and I guess yours too.
Less convinced about the "sins of omission". If he devotes time/energy/resources to a good cause, is it fair to blame him for not spending it on some other good cause that happens to be dearer to your own heart ?
I was thinking of the things that he enables via Facebook such as child abuse which haven't been effectively dealt with. We all expect to be held accountable when "we have not done those things which we ought to have done".
When the police go in to a poor council housing estate vs when they go to a wealthy suburb, do they act the same way? (no, they don't.) That's an example of soft power.
Quite. And don't neglect the power granted you by the ability to move house for better schools. Afford private tutors. Afford music lessons, sports clubs, orchestras. Afford career prospect enhancing training from your own pocket. Take a career break and live off savings or one partner's income. Travel further to improve the availability of work. Live closer to well paid work. The list goes on... it's not all about being able to bribe.
Oh, so what the middle-classes have eh?
Hardly the stuff of Pride and Prejudice is it?
But still, it does highlight that the middle-classes are the true target of the left.
You really do hate us don't you? I mean, we know you do which is why we will never vote for a party further left than Blair's Labour Party, which must be frustrating.
If you're actually interested in the demographic and economic breakdown of votes, it's here.
I'm technically middle class, and a shoe-in to be a Tory voter on the basis of age, gender, household income, education. So I don't know who this "we" is of which you speak - as far as the statistics go, it seems to be a figment of your imagination.
That is a conservative view, but it could be a case of: "rather bear those ills we have
than fly to others that we know not of." For many, conservatism arises from a sceptical view of human nature and the allure of idealism, leading to the position "if it ain't broke don't fix it." This does not, however, necessitate a reactionary approach to political problems, ("going back to the way things used to be"). Conservatives are not inevitably Bourbons, otherwise conservatism could not have survived as a political force. Successful conservatism's attitude to the need for change is to place an emphasis on empirical experience rather than theoretical constructs.
I'm amazed you equate merely observing those advantages as "hate".
What motivates me is the thought that some poor sod just like me but without a pot to piss in is unable to access so many opportunities through poverty.
I'm not sure who "you" and "us (we)" are. Your post makes a number of unsubstantiated assumptions of a personal nature to which a number of shipmates might object. Regarding my own comments in support of Doc Tor's opinion of Johnson, they had nothing to do with approval or disapproval of Conservative rule but that the assessment of the PM was objectively accurate: an opinion, one might add, widely shared across the political spectrum, including Brexiteers, if the Conservative-leaning press is anything to go by.
Two points
(a) I was simply stating a fact.
(b) Is your objection to my observation, or a critique of that conservative position? Either way it would be instructive to know why you consider it "absolute rubbish."
That’s not power in the sense I thought it was being discussed, namely in the context of “access to power structures”. Being able to move house doesn’t give me any extra power in society.
Maybe this would be helped by you saying what you think “power” actually is?
Ability to control the course of one's life.
The items in my list do interface with all sorts of unofficial and official power structures.
Totally does. It impacts quality of life, health, education, income, ability to pursue leisure interests, and brings you a different kind of neighbour/social setting. It means you live longer, at the very least, and therefore allows you to vote more often.
Like KarlLB said, control over your life, and your destiny. Are you forced to live next to crappy people who make your life miserable, or can you move? That's power. Can I choose other than the default option for schooling for my kids? If there's a problem with my kids' education, and I go to the school to talk to a teacher / head teacher, am I listened to?
Most people don't need the sort of power that is "access to power structures" - most people need the sort of power that is "let me make choices about my life".
Martin, I suggest you discuss the matter with the hundreds of thousands who for various reasons do not have that choice, not to mention estate agents and local council housing and social service departments.
Fixed quoting code, after a fashion. BroJames Purgatory Host
The left is good at winning arguments; the right is good at winning power by undercutting those arguments with simplistic bullshit.
And at monopolising this board with three gobshites, which is infuriating.
Do you not think that self-righteous, dogmatic, unreflective ranting and the employment of personal abuse is one of the reasons why the prospect of rule by the left can appear so unattractive?
Having been described by Michael Gove as "the blob" I've had it up to here with claims that it is the left that is particularly abusive. No, claims that people are put off by the way people on the left speak is cover for the fact that they've already decided to vote tory and are looking for an excuse to disguise their actual views. We've got a tory supporter who endorses murdering children, but it's the left being "self-righteous" that puts people off. Bullshit.
Follow Trump's Twitter account for a few days and then come back and say which folks on the left rival his "self-righteous, dogmatic, unreflective ranting and ... employment of personal abuse." I'll wait.