But what's wrong with being properly spoken, polite and considerate? Yes, James blunt has a somewhat privileged background, but his hard work and talent got him where he was. We do need to stop rewarding people for being lazy feckless chavs though..
The irony of all this is that a great number of Labour MP's also come from a privileged, public school background, and yet still see fit to slag off "posh" people...
You see, that makes them all the more genuine. It isn't the politics of envy - they hate their own kind!
Two excellent posts. The Labour Front Bench wear their hearts on their sleeves to show how deeply committed they are to the little people, whilst maintaining that smug superiority that sets them apart from the little people. It is patronising top down drivel that keeps their target population poor and dependent upon the State for their survival.
You see, this is the point in the plot where my attention wanders. The Labour Party here, and the Democrat Party in the US, they all have an interest in creating and maintaining an under-class. We see this demonstrated by immigration policies, welfare constructs and the like. A section of the population utterly dependent upon the largesse provided by the Government - built-in votes. Turning to the Right, what do they want? An entirely free-market economy and society, where essentially money talks and, uh, well, that's about it, really. "The one who dies with the most toys, wins". " I'm all right Jack, it's my pie and I'm keeping all of it". Why should I maintain a workforce on a decent living wage, when I can have cheaper alternatives? Unemployment is good, because I have a ready-made pool of desperate people who will work for peanuts. A section of the population utterly dependent upon the largesse provided by Business - built-in slave labour. I have to say, my range of choice here just impresses the fuck out of me. Carry on.
What you've described as the opposite of state-controlled leftism is not conservatism but corporatism. The two are not the same. Corporatism is not the inverse of centralised state leftism. In fact they are natural bedfellows and combined they produce a sort of socially polarising economic imperialism.
Interesting point. Your take on conservatism? Is Cameron a conservative (little 'c')? Was Thatch a conservative? I can see how state-controlled leftism, as you've termed it, and corporatism can peacefully co-exist. I would have thought that any two forms of Government can peacefully co-exist as log as they are both getting what they want. I'm unconvinced though that you can take my description of Right wing politics and dismiss it as some off-shoot of the "true path" of capitalism. It's entirely possible that conservatives are simply corporatists who haven't yet considered the ramifications of their own end-game.
Actually, as Pete1950 has correctly pointed out on the Charlie Hebdo thread, the labels Left and Right are vague and inconclusive. They are helpful only as a reference point but from there on they often mean what people want them to mean. Personally I loathe authoritarianism. It can be either political or economic but what I mean by it is the concentration of power and decision making in the hands of an elite, whether they be politicians of corporate bosses, and erosion of self-determination and the ability of ordinary people to control their own lives. The balance to be aimed for surely, is where no one entity becomes over-mighty. Small c conservatism for me means devolved not concentrated political and economic power (neither big business nor big state) and the pursuit of self-reliance. I've no idea what Mr Cameron is and I doubt if he does. I think he may be just another professional politician who requires a dependent population in order to ply his trade. Mrs Thatcher, I don't know. In her bones she was a small c conservative but she left a corporate legacy. But then I've never been entirely sure whether she was the author of the events of her time or merely the product of them.
The problem with any "Small Government" ideology is that it leaves a power vacuum. If your elected officials aren't making the decisions, the policies, then you can be completely sure that someone or something else is. If it isn't a public official, it's a private citizen, or group of them. What is it in a society that creates "authority" if it isn't its government? Hint - begins with 'm' and ends with '-oney'. I'm not making a value judgement here - who is to say that CEO's of multi-nationals are less qualified to rule than politicians? I will say though that, in a tiny, globalised modern world like this one, someone is going to make the decisions that affect your life on many levels. Who do you want running the show?
Politicians are voted into office where they exercise whatever power their office holds for a few years. They are supposed to exercise power in the national interest and are accountable to the people. They are always liable to be sacked or forced to resign at short notice, or to lose an election, and always go out of office after a few years. They often have to hand over office to their opponents. The super-rich (like the Murdochs of this world) have never been voted into anything as they exercise whatever power their wealth gives them. They exercise power purely in their own interests and are accountable to no-one. They are immune from sacking, and resign only if they choose. They remain in office indefinitely. They hand over their wealth and power to their own relatives. That's the difference. Rule by the wealthy has become an ancien regime.
