|
|
Post by Merseymike on Aug 22, 2017 10:34:17 GMT
But when the two parties appeared to be converging to such a great extent some of those issues appeared to be more clearly 'political'
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Aug 22, 2017 11:49:24 GMT
Well, they did have the coherent ideology of being a bunch of crooks and charlatans, and of grabbing total power so that they could rob with impunity. Ideological coherence is not the same thing as blindly following an authoritarian leader. Tongue in cheek,@trident. Nevertheless I wouldn't be the first to spot the resemblance of the Nazi Party to a mafia gang. Goering in particular strikes me as an unprincipled crook. I think that quite genuinely one of main features of Nazism, and a contributory factor to its success, was that it provided massive opportunities for theft, starting with the robbing of the Jews of all their property. For others whose taste for crime ran to violence there were opportunities too. (In Paddy Leigh-Fermor's books there's an interesting encounter with a likeable enough Brown Shirt who had previously been a member of the Communist equivalent, and simply enjoyed getting into fights. In 70s Britain he'd have been in a football firm.) For quite a few of them, even at the higher levels, the actual ideology seems to have been secondary. I'd say that you see the same phenomenon in Soviet communism by the Brezhnev era and Putin demonstrates how you can carry on the process without even pretending to have an ideology. |
|
slon
Non-Aligned
Posts: 13,322 
|
Post by slon on Aug 22, 2017 12:52:31 GMT
But when the two parties appeared to be converging to such a great extent some of those issues appeared to be more clearly 'political' I don't think they ever did. With Blair the idea free market economics bring greater overall wealth was harnessed to improve infrastructure in the poorer areas .... a departure from classic tax the rich egalitarianism, but egalitarianism non the less. For the likes of Thatcher or Cameron, free markets, the liberalisation of regulation, and increased opportunity was always skewed somewhat to those of wealth and influence. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Aug 22, 2017 17:34:58 GMT
I think there has been a measure of ideological coherence in the UK at least for the two main parties. - The Conservative party has always been the guardian of the established social order, meaning the continued prosperity and power of the wealthy and influential by policies favoring the rich to the actual disadvantage to the rest. I'd argue that both Thatcherism and May's Hard Brexitism are about tearing down significant chunks of the established social order. The only thing that has been consistent about the Conservative Party's ideology throughout history is the desire to be the party of power (with an arguable exception during the Blair years). Though I guess you could argue that in both cases the rich would be the ones who benefited from the changes to the social order. Blairite Labour had no interest at all on reducing the prosperity and power of the wealthy. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Aug 22, 2017 17:37:08 GMT
I think there has been a measure of ideological coherence in the UK at least for the two main parties. - The Conservative party has always been the guardian of the established social order, meaning the continued prosperity and power of the wealthy and influential by policies favoring the rich to the actual disadvantage to the rest.- The Labour party is the other way round "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" so aimed at policy to reduce prosperity and power of the wealthy and in doing so theoretically improve the lot of the rest. Neither policy actually works when take to the extreme as both lead to a sort of feudal system (one of inherited wealth, the other of leftist sycophants) so both water it down a bit. Things like gay rights, fox hunting, foreign policy are really peripheral issues not to be confused with core ideology. The highlighted part is a bit unfair, even allowing for your comment about "watering it down". That may or may not be the effect, but the declared aim is that maintaining the existence of the current social order will be to the benefit of all, since it allows the "middling" and "getting by" to continue to get by without the risk of outright poverty that might result from revolutionary change; and also (at least in theory) allows individuals to join the ranks of the wealthy and influential if they are hard-working/clever/lucky enough. A lot of the difference depends on whether you think the established social order is basically OK for most people, subject to a bit of tinkering ("watering down") (in which case you may accept the existence of the privileged) or think it is irredeemably flawed and needs systematic intervention to fix it. |
|
|
|
Post by jigger on Aug 22, 2017 18:07:35 GMT
I think there has been a measure of ideological coherence in the UK at least for the two main parties. - The Conservative party has always been the guardian of the established social order, meaning the continued prosperity and power of the wealthy and influential by policies favoring the rich to the actual disadvantage to the rest. I'd argue that both Thatcherism and May's Hard Brexitism are about tearing down significant chunks of the established social order. The only thing that has been consistent about the Conservative Party's ideology throughout history is the desire to be the party of power (with an arguable exception during the Blair years). Though I guess you could argue that in both cases the rich would be the ones who benefited from the changes to the social order. Blairite Labour had no interest at all on reducing the prosperity and power of the wealthy. The Conservative Party certainly wanted to be in power during the Blair years. It was just that the electorate, as is their prerogative, decided not to entrust the Conservative Party with it. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Aug 22, 2017 18:31:53 GMT
I'd argue that both Thatcherism and May's Hard Brexitism are about tearing down significant chunks of the established social order. The only thing that has been consistent about the Conservative Party's ideology throughout history is the desire to be the party of power (with an arguable exception during the Blair years). Though I guess you could argue that in both cases the rich would be the ones who benefited from the changes to the social order. Blairite Labour had no interest at all on reducing the prosperity and power of the wealthy. The Conservative Party certainly wanted to be in power during the Blair years. It was just that the electorate, as is their prerogative, decided not to entrust the Conservative Party with it. There was plenty of reason to believe that the party during that era was more concerned with ideological purity than with electoral appeal. Why else would they have chosen Iain Duncan Smith as leader over Ken Clarke? During her time in power, Margaret Thatcher permanently replaced the pragmatic One Nation Conservative approach with the ideological Thatcherite one. Cameron was the first Tory leader since 1992 to seriously try to bring in voters who weren't already with them ideologically or tribally. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2017 20:01:30 GMT
I think there has been a measure of ideological coherence in the UK at least for the two main parties. - The Conservative party has always been the guardian of the established social order, meaning the continued prosperity and power of the wealthy and influential by policies favoring the rich to the actual disadvantage to the rest. - The Labour party is the other way round "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" so aimed at policy to reduce prosperity and power of the wealthy and in doing so theoretically improve the lot of the rest. Neither policy actually works when take to the extreme as both lead to a sort of feudal system (one of inherited wealth, the other of leftist sycophants) so both water it down a bit. Things like gay rights, fox hunting, foreign policy are really peripheral issues not to be confused with core ideology. "Things like gay rights... foreign policy are really peripheral issues " Really?
|
|
albion
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,270
|
Post by albion on Aug 22, 2017 20:30:42 GMT
I think there has been a measure of ideological coherence in the UK at least for the two main parties. - The Conservative party has always been the guardian of the established social order, meaning the continued prosperity and power of the wealthy and influential by policies favoring the rich to the actual disadvantage to the rest. - The Labour party is the other way round "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" so aimed at policy to reduce prosperity and power of the wealthy and in doing so theoretically improve the lot of the rest. Neither policy actually works when take to the extreme as both lead to a sort of feudal system (one of inherited wealth, the other of leftist sycophants) so both water it down a bit. Things like gay rights, fox hunting, foreign policy are really peripheral issues not to be confused with core ideology. I believe that Fox hunting is currently the main (if not only) preoccupation of David Davis and Boris the Buffoon. |
|
slon
Non-Aligned
Posts: 13,322
|
Post by slon on Aug 23, 2017 8:38:13 GMT
I think there has been a measure of ideological coherence in the UK at least for the two main parties. - The Conservative party has always been the guardian of the established social order, meaning the continued prosperity and power of the wealthy and influential by policies favoring the rich to the actual disadvantage to the rest. - The Labour party is the other way round "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" so aimed at policy to reduce prosperity and power of the wealthy and in doing so theoretically improve the lot of the rest. Neither policy actually works when take to the extreme as both lead to a sort of feudal system (one of inherited wealth, the other of leftist sycophants) so both water it down a bit. Things like gay rights, fox hunting, foreign policy are really peripheral issues not to be confused with core ideology. "Things like gay rights... foreign policy are really peripheral issues " Really?
yes really |
|
slon
Non-Aligned
Posts: 13,322
|
Post by slon on Aug 23, 2017 8:52:52 GMT
The Conservative Party certainly wanted to be in power during the Blair years. It was just that the electorate, as is their prerogative, decided not to entrust the Conservative Party with it. There was plenty of reason to believe that the party during that era was more concerned with ideological purity than with electoral appeal. Why else would they have chosen Iain Duncan Smith as leader over Ken Clarke? During her time in power, Margaret Thatcher permanently replaced the pragmatic One Nation Conservative approach with the ideological Thatcherite one. Cameron was the first Tory leader since 1992 to seriously try to bring in voters who weren't already with them ideologically or tribally. You are mixing up the projected public image and the core ideology ... People will promote their party as all things to everyone (one nation Conservative, etc), the reality is different. Thatcher and Cameron were Tories their concern was the continued prosperity of the wealthy (they were by no means champions of egalitarianism) Blairite Labour had no interest at all on reducing the prosperity of the wealthy, they had learned the lesson that you do not make the poor rich by making the rich poor. They did however spend a lot of money on urban renovation to try to bring some prosperity to the more depressed areas of the country (so had some egalitarian credentials) |
|
polupolu
Lib Dem
Liberal (Democrat). Socially Liberal, Economically Keynesian.
Posts: 1,261
|
Post by polupolu on Aug 23, 2017 13:43:03 GMT
FPTP certainly has tended to result in two baggy broad-church parties - although recent Canadian politics is interesting in this regard. Conversely Malta is historically the most extreme two party system that I am aware of, and it doesn't use FPTP (but it is rather a special case). Whether you think baggy two parties are the best arrangement for governing a country is a matter of taste I suppose. How is Malta's two party system more extreme than the American one? Sorry not to reply before.. The US is a very two-party country, but to back up my statement about Malta being more extreme, consider the following: * In Malta in the past 50 years, the combined vote of all minor parties has never gone above about 1.9% of the vote in a general election. * In the last general election the two big party groups 1 won a combined total of just over 98.7% of the vote. In contrast, the Libertarian presidential candidate in the last US election got about 3% and the Green about 1%. In 1992 Ross Perot got > 18% and >8% in 1996. At a lower level, there have been US Senators, and State Governors elected as Independents. 1 Strictly speaking the 2017 Nationalists vote in the last election includes the votes for the new Democratic Party; but they only discriminated themselves from the Nationalists by adding "tal-oranġjo" as a suffix to the normal Nationalist tag. The vote for PD candidates was 1.6%. If you count them as a seperate minor party that reduces the two party total to a mere 97.1% |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Aug 29, 2017 10:40:12 GMT
I think there has been a measure of ideological coherence in the UK at least for the two main parties. - The Conservative party has always been the guardian of the established social order, meaning the continued prosperity and power of the wealthy and influential by policies favoring the rich to the actual disadvantage to the rest. - The Labour party is the other way round "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" so aimed at policy to reduce prosperity and power of the wealthy and in doing so theoretically improve the lot of the rest. Neither policy actually works when take to the extreme as both lead to a sort of feudal system (one of inherited wealth, the other of leftist sycophants) so both water it down a bit. Things like gay rights, fox hunting, foreign policy are really peripheral issues not to be confused with core ideology. "Things like gay rights... foreign policy are really peripheral issues " Really?
If we're talking ideological coherence, yes. They aren't central things, unless you're the Gay Rights Party or the Consistent Foreign Policy Party. |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,780
|
Post by john07 on Sept 23, 2017 17:35:31 GMT
You can suggest it but it won't do. The Nazis were ideologically all over the place. Read up on Gregor Strasser. Strasser wasn't on the scene after 1934, and AH rejected his ideas so I think they were pretty faithful to the party programme and what AH wrote in Mein Kampf after that. If not the Nazis how about the Spanish Falange party of Franco or Oswald Moseley's New Party? The Falange Party were effectively taken over by Franco so they could be neutralised because he didn't like their ideas. The Brownshirts weren't around because Hitler wiped them out in the night of the long knives. This was to placate the Nazi supporters within the business sector. The Brownshirts were rather too keen on the 'socialist' thread within National Socialism. Some parties were even less coherent especially the 'movement' style parties such as the Gaullist RPF and the SNP. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2017 20:37:57 GMT
Strasser wasn't on the scene after 1934, and AH rejected his ideas so I think they were pretty faithful to the party programme and what AH wrote in Mein Kampf after that. If not the Nazis how about the Spanish Falange party of Franco or Oswald Moseley's New Party? The Falange Party were effectively taken over by Franco so they could be neutralised because he didn't like their ideas. The Brownshirts weren't around because Hitler wiped them out in the night of the long knives. This was to placate the Nazi supporters within the business sector. The Brownshirts were rather too keen on the 'socialist' thread within National Socialism. Some parties were even less coherent especially the 'movement' style parties such as the Gaullist RPF and the SNP. hmm...not sure I would class the SNP as incoherent, they have always been true to their primary objective.
The SA on the other hand were street thugs who thought that the Nazis could be brought to power just by kicking heads in, though ironically Adolf was the one kicking their heads in on the Night of the Long Knives. I would class them as incoherent.
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,780
|
Post by john07 on Sept 24, 2017 13:25:51 GMT
The Falange Party were effectively taken over by Franco so they could be neutralised because he didn't like their ideas. The Brownshirts weren't around because Hitler wiped them out in the night of the long knives. This was to placate the Nazi supporters within the business sector. The Brownshirts were rather too keen on the 'socialist' thread within National Socialism. Some parties were even less coherent especially the 'movement' style parties such as the Gaullist RPF and the SNP. hmm...not sure I would class the SNP as incoherent, they have always been true to their primary objective.
The SA on the other hand were street thugs who thought that the Nazis could be brought to power just by kicking heads in, though ironically Adolf was the one kicking their heads in on the Night of the Long Knives. I would class them as incoherent.
The SNP and its predecessors historically have been all over the place ideologically ranging from Scottish Fascists through to pro-independence Communists. And that was just Hugh MacDiarmid! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2017 15:27:11 GMT
hmm...not sure I would class the SNP as incoherent, they have always been true to their primary objective.
The SA on the other hand were street thugs who thought that the Nazis could be brought to power just by kicking heads in, though ironically Adolf was the one kicking their heads in on the Night of the Long Knives. I would class them as incoherent.
The SNP and its predecessors historically have been all over the place ideologically ranging from Scottish Fascists through to pro-independence Communists. And that was just Hugh MacDiarmid! Re SNP, all parties go through that phase, Its what matters at the moment which is important. At which point I think this is another opportunity to bring up the incoherent nature of the current Tory party vis-à-vis Europe..... |
|
johnloony
Conservative
Posts: 24,536
Member is Online
|
Post by johnloony on Oct 18, 2017 0:21:12 GMT
I once read a spoof article about a fictional mid-European country in which there was a permanent coalition between the two main parties, the Christian Opportunists and the Social Opportunists (the main function of government was to thrive on EU subsidies). In a different version, there could be a country where a vague generic word could be used for all the parties, but with different endings. For example, the People's Party, the People's Rally, the People's Front, the People's Movement, the People's Union etc.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,135
|
Post by Foggy on Oct 18, 2017 0:29:47 GMT
I once read a spoof article about a fictional mid-European country in which there was a permanent coalition between the two main parties, the Christian Opportunists and the Social Opportunists (the main function of government was to thrive on EU subsidies). Austria isn't fictional. |
|
|
|
Post by freefair on Oct 18, 2017 19:56:10 GMT
Actually, I don't think a permanent Social Democrat-One Nation Tory coalition would be the outcome of all PR elections, there could be coalition s with parties further from the centre, as long as they would recognise that being a junior partner doesn't mean getting everything they would theoretically want.
|
|
