advertisement


Why Conservative?

Sue Pertwee-Tyr

Accuphase all the way down
I posted this in the Scottish Thread (which itself sounds like an euphemism, like ‘the Scottish Play’) but on reflection it’s not well placed there so I thought I’d start another thread on it, see what response it gets. So:

All this left/right stuff. I’d like to ask self-identified conservatives if it is the left wing aspirations (fairer distribution of wealth, decent social provision, a more equitable settlement, basically) that you object to; or could you support that but don’t believe that the left can carry it off?

If it’s the former, why is that? Are you objecting to somebody getting something they haven’t earned or deserved, or helped pay for? Or some other reason?

And if the latter, why not? Is it a pipe dream (and if so, why is it?); or is there something else that prevents you from supporting it?
 
I do not vote.

Over a reasonable period of time, the finances of Joe Average is little different, over all, under either regime. despite what the fanatics will claim.

The right wing tend to be straight-forward about national finances, as near as possible without alienating the whole UK population.

The left wing tend to claim to be able to spend, spend, spend. But can't, won't and don't. Neither do they hit "the wealthy" with debilitating taxes, as they claim they will when in power, because they can't - it would raise peanuts in reality anyway - it is a sop to their died-in-the-wool, rabid supporters.

As for redistribution of wealth..................

I sincerely doubt that anyone here was as poor for as long as my parents, and consequently us kids, but I have no jealousy or avarice or sense of vengence of anything suchlike towards anyone with money, whether earnt, inherited, won or anything else - life is FAR, FAR, FAR too short. There are far, far, far more important things in life to worry about.

Here endeth.
 
I’ve always read ‘conservative’ as an unflinching undying belief in ‘the establishment’; archaic structures, traditions, nationalism, religion, class structures, rules, regulations, privilege, the power of wealth, monarchy and other forms of elite rule where applicable, racism, xenophobia, imperialism, colonialism and slavery. In the UK one can easily trace it back to the crusades etc. Too my mind an entirely backwards-looking ideology. I can see nothing positive here. It is everything one should try to remove from a society.
 
Conservatism et al is all about fear I think, like the way the church was used until recent times (and still is in the US) to maintain power by keeping people under a degree of control for fear of societal ruin, ‘the other’, or burning in hell. I think it’s subconscious - you can think you associate with all sorts of conservative / right wing ideals, but basically you’re scared. And to be fair it’s easy to be scared if you are fed a load of rubbish over a long period of time.
 
I don't know, but people seem to vote for not socialism. So ironically they vote Tory and what do they get?

Levelling up; their money getting spent on places where they don't live.

How many in rural and coastal communities now see themselves being left behind by a policy clearly not designed for them?

I saw an interview recently with Gina Miller whose True and Fair Party appears to have all the right motivation.
Headed up by a woman determined to make a difference for the better, in spite of the danger, and grounded in the discipline of business and banking.

Sounds like an interesting alternative.
 
I posted this in the Scottish Thread (which itself sounds like an euphemism, like ‘the Scottish Play’) but on reflection it’s not well placed there so I thought I’d start another thread on it, see what response it gets. So:

All this left/right stuff. I’d like to ask self-identified conservatives if it is the left wing aspirations (fairer distribution of wealth, decent social provision, a more equitable settlement, basically) that you object to; or could you support that but don’t believe that the left can carry it off?

If it’s the former, why is that? Are you objecting to somebody getting something they haven’t earned or deserved, or helped pay for? Or some other reason?

And if the latter, why not? Is it a pipe dream (and if so, why is it?); or is there something else that prevents you from supporting it?

To redistribute you have to deprive some people of their property in order to give to others. One key question is when that deprivation becomes an improper infringement of a right -- i.e. when it can be justified and when it is arbitrary or otherwise unwarranted.
 
I do not vote.

Over a reasonable period of time, the finances of Joe Average is little different, over all, under either regime. despite what the fanatics will claim.

The right wing tend to be straight-forward about national finances, as near as possible without alienating the whole UK population.

The left wing tend to claim to be able to spend, spend, spend. But can't, won't and don't. Neither do they hit "the wealthy" with debilitating taxes, as they claim they will when in power, because they can't - it would raise peanuts in reality anyway - it is a sop to their died-in-the-wool, rabid supporters.

As for redistribution of wealth..................

I sincerely doubt that anyone here was as poor for as long as my parents, and consequently us kids, but I have no jealousy or avarice or sense of vengence of anything suchlike towards anyone with money, whether earnt, inherited, won or anything else - life is FAR, FAR, FAR too short. There are far, far, far more important things in life to worry about.

Here endeth.

Your thought processes are so bizarre I’m kinda glad you don’t vote.

I can only presume you are so rich that the state of the NHS, local services, social provision and welfare are of no interest to you or your family.
 
To redistribute you have to deprive some people of their property in order to give to others. One key question is when that deprivation becomes an improper infringement of a right -- i.e. when it can be justified and when it is arbitrary or otherwise unwarranted.
Surely nothing that drastic is required. To redistribute you only need to close the gap between the richest and the poorest instead of making the gap bigger. Johnson will never level up because the system he believes in is built on transferring wealth from poor to rich via selling off public assets, cutting back on public expenditure, socialising the consequent debts while privatising the profits.
 
All our politics today is based on faith in the neoliberal economic model that is built on the free market trinity of privatisation, deregulation and cutbacks to public spending.

Conservatives voters vote Tory because they, quite rightly, believe the Tory Party is the natural home of this ideology. But the truth is that all parties worship at the same alter, and voters will only vote for an alternative party in proportion that they show obedience to the same god.
 
The right wing tend to be straight-forward about national finances, as near as possible without alienating the whole UK population.

No, the right wing is central to demonstrable lies about national finances. The Tory Party success is built on getting so many people to believe those lies.
 
Perhaps you would like an answer from inside the party? Here’s a Tony-friendly Amazon link to a pamphlet written by my old school colleague Baron (then David) Willetts.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0140263047/?tag=pinkfishmedia-21

Musical link - I introduced him to ELP and King Crimson, and we both attended the same KC gig (although in different parts of the venue - he was a bit of an arse, even back then) in 1972. Bet you would never have guessed that.
 
This site contains affiliate links for which pink fish media may be compensated.
To redistribute you have to deprive some people of their property in order to give to others. One key question is when that deprivation becomes an improper infringement of a right -- i.e. when it can be justified and when it is arbitrary or otherwise unwarranted.

This may all seem terribly obvious, but:

One could say that those who benefit the most from an orderly society should pay the most to preserve it. It's the cost of having extraordinary privilege. And it's what keeps peasants with pitchforks away from their door.

If the wealthiest were made to dig a little deeper to help fund the public good, they'd still be plenty wealthy. I doubt their lifestyles would be affected much at all.

Instead, somehow they've convinced the masses to vote against their own self interest, to preserve and expand the wealth of the top 0.01%.

And that gets us back to the OP - what attracts those in the bottom 99.09% who vote right wing?
 
One of the frequently cited justifications for right wing economics is that markets are efficient, whereas planned economies are not.

And to a degree, I accept this. Markets are often the best way to deliver cheap goods. They are also often the best way to deliver luxury goods (there are, as far as I am aware, no decent state-owned hi-fi companies).

My point of departure is that perfect, or near-perfect, markets require a whole lot of things that don't exist in the real world (perfect competition, perfect information for consumers, and so on). So, we should be careful how far we accept the answer that markets deliver better outcomes than planned economies. In particular, in each case we should ask the question: what would happen if that market failed? Who would suffer the cost?

In an idealised view of the market, when there is market failure the entrepreneur/investor suffers, we get a short period of 'creative destruction' and, after that, things continue to improve as the market actors vie to replace the failed participants.

In the real world, we see how inadequate markets can be: no-one will insure the life of a terminally-ill person; no-one will provide non-profitable healthcare; no-one will build affordable housing; no-one will educate the poor; when the banking system seizes up because years of systemic bad practice have come to light, no-one will be able to use money, etc.

So in order to have a decent society, we need government - and quite a lot of it - in crucial aspects of our lives. Which seems to be a problem, because - and, note, different strands of conservatism define the problem differently - government is 'inefficient' or because 'taxation is theft' or because a too-large state is 'socialism' or something. But to be a conservative, you should at least be prepared to admit the cases where you prefer the original problem to the governmental solution.
 
I don't know, but people seem to vote for not socialism. So ironically they vote Tory and what do they get?

Levelling up; their money getting spent on places where they don't live.

How many in rural and coastal communities now see themselves being left behind by a policy clearly not designed for them?

I saw an interview recently with Gina Miller whose True and Fair Party appears to have all the right motivation.
Headed up by a woman determined to make a difference for the better, in spite of the danger, and grounded in the discipline of business and banking.

Sounds like an interesting alternative.

A new party to further divide the opposition vote, just what is needed...
 


advertisement


Back
Top