tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30194186.post115137115877815234..comments2024-02-02T10:29:34.789+00:00Comments on A Conservative's blog: OK Ben - howcome you ended up a Tory as a '68-born person?Benedict Whitehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01382732288664789210noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30194186.post-1152226505802807262006-07-06T23:55:00.000+01:002006-07-06T23:55:00.000+01:00Anonymous, I am what I am, i am no mans pawn in an...Anonymous, I am what I am, i am no mans pawn in any game but my own.<BR/><BR/>I would point out that wealth for a large number of people increased unde conservative governments because they got to buy their houses. <BR/><BR/>I have the right to buy mine. <BR/><BR/>I would ask you who in the public is being screwed?<BR/><BR/>Now, obviuosly you were off on some class warfare champaigne socialist polemic, but then you gibbered:<BR/><BR/>"Blair is the best PM to date"<BR/><BR/>Compared to who exactly?<BR/><BR/>"articulate, knowlegable,"<BR/><BR/>Ys he is articulate but is ignorant beyond beliefe about things like history, the constitution, warfare, Islam. The list is endless. Frankley I think the man is a very well finished public school boy twit.<BR/><BR/>Vain? Surely not?<BR/><BR/>So appart from being an ignorant authoratarian public school boy twit who is vain, he is the best primeminister since he got elected?<BR/><BR/>I am sorry about teh spelling mistakes, but I have been to the pub.Benedict Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01382732288664789210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30194186.post-1152211631136811992006-07-06T19:47:00.000+01:002006-07-06T19:47:00.000+01:00benedict appears to think its aceptable to be a to...benedict appears to think its aceptable to be a tory pawn so long as that party can continue its wealth by stealth tactics via screwing the public.<BR/><BR/>Blair is the best PM to date, articulate, knowlegable, VAIN yes! (I hate saying that but its true),..he has made a cockup of his majority and is now a tory in maggies clothing.<BR/>He must reverse his vain, bossy, arrogant streak or lose big timeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30194186.post-1151493860255534212006-06-28T12:24:00.000+01:002006-06-28T12:24:00.000+01:00Where Labour and Conservative values overlap are o...Where Labour and Conservative values overlap are on the authoritarian/social conservative axis.<BR/><BR/>Think of a Venn diagram, and add in the overlap boxes what are common values between two of the three or all three. It would be an interesting exercise.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30194186.post-1151488095144657802006-06-28T10:48:00.000+01:002006-06-28T10:48:00.000+01:00Again an interesting article, but I reject the id...Again an interesting article, but I reject the idea of "progressive" politics because it does not<BR/>seem very progressive, and rather more importantly it seems virtually hell bent on destroying<BR/>institutions which give social cohesion.<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that a large number of liberals are so enamoured of their ideology that it is like<BR/>a child with a new toy, and they can only think inside the "liberal" box.<BR/><BR/>Most Conservatives instinctively are a little liberal. We do not like the state breathing down<BR/>our neck, do not like ID cards etc.<BR/><BR/>What I found most interesting about the Hayak article was the idea that Liberals could ever<BR/>associate themselves with Labour. It seems that labour's values are further away from Liberal<BR/>values than they are from Conservative ones.Benedict Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01382732288664789210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30194186.post-1151486678397004462006-06-28T10:24:00.000+01:002006-06-28T10:24:00.000+01:00http://liberalism2010.blogspot.com/2005/07/second-...http://liberalism2010.blogspot.com/2005/07/second-time-around-repairing-liberal.html<BR/><BR/>Indeed. This was written by one of the Apollo collective last year.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30194186.post-1151447816230681922006-06-27T23:36:00.000+01:002006-06-27T23:36:00.000+01:00Yes, thank you Tabman that was worth a read, by F....Yes, thank you Tabman that was worth a read, by F.A Hayek indeed. You could add to the wikipedia entry cited by Anonymous by adding the final required citation where they seem to lack Hayek saying why he was not a conservative.<BR/><BR/>I can definatley describe the Conservative party as pragmatic liberals who have read and understood history. In particular the rise and rather more importantly fall of civilisations. <BR/><BR/>It seems rather appropriate that we are having this conversation now, as it seems that Dave is embarking on a way to bring Conservative values forward in a "liberal" way.<BR/><BR/>We live in interesting times.Benedict Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01382732288664789210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30194186.post-1151444427772543142006-06-27T22:40:00.000+01:002006-06-27T22:40:00.000+01:00http://www.geocities.com/ecocorner/intelarea/fah1....http://www.geocities.com/ecocorner/intelarea/fah1.html<BR/><BR/>Worth a read.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30194186.post-1151439943522864842006-06-27T21:25:00.000+01:002006-06-27T21:25:00.000+01:00Benedict - we set upa forum to discuss issues such...Benedict - we set upa forum to discuss issues such as this:<BR/><BR/>http://www.liberalism2010.tsohost.co.uk/liberalviews/<BR/><BR/>It hasn't seen much action as of late, but it strikes me that this conversation could well be carried on there.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30194186.post-1151434156048294392006-06-27T19:49:00.000+01:002006-06-27T19:49:00.000+01:00Economic Liberalism: see http://en.wikipedia.org/w...Economic Liberalism: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_theory_of_economicsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30194186.post-1151432564680074072006-06-27T19:22:00.000+01:002006-06-27T19:22:00.000+01:00Well, maybe I will have to look up the corner ston...Well, maybe I will have to look up the corner stone group and see if they belive anything I don't. I will let you know..<BR/><BR/>"And AFAIK its only Socialism that's an ideology."<BR/><BR/>Umm.. Tabman did you not quote this at me:<BR/>"Liberalism is an ideology, philosophical view, and political tradition which holds that liberty is the primary political value."<BR/><BR/>to argue that I was a liberal?<BR/><BR/>Interetsing comment on political groupings.The reason why is that we would split on some issues of principle such as support for married families. Where would you stand on that?Benedict Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01382732288664789210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30194186.post-1151432078274352842006-06-27T19:14:00.000+01:002006-06-27T19:14:00.000+01:00Well, the main difference is that Cornerstone repr...Well, the main difference is that Cornerstone represent a quarter of your parliamentary party, and a rather larger proportion of your membership, I would imagne.<BR/><BR/>And AFAIK its only Socialism that's an ideology. Not that that gets much of a look-in these days.<BR/><BR/>The biggest problem is a system that encourages those of convergent opinions to seek divergent coalitions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30194186.post-1151426235608710212006-06-27T17:37:00.000+01:002006-06-27T17:37:00.000+01:00Yes you are right about striking a balance, and on...Yes you are right about striking a balance, and one of teh good things about the conservative party is that we have values rather than ideologies and thus find it easier to find balances.<BR/><BR/>I must admit to being amused at your comment of the company one keeps!<BR/><BR/>Anyone fancy shooting a dog?<BR/><BR/>Whilst I may walk with some right wing loons, you have your own too who, for example believe in legalising 16 year olds appearing in pornography! I could go own, but the comment does work both ways!Benedict Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01382732288664789210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30194186.post-1151423873956673702006-06-27T16:57:00.000+01:002006-06-27T16:57:00.000+01:00Like all things there is a balance to be struck. ...Like all things there is a balance to be struck. I suspect that we are probably closer in our views than we are to some in our own parties, but, as I've said to many other Conservatives, part of the issue is "the company one keeps"!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30194186.post-1151423122340619852006-06-27T16:45:00.000+01:002006-06-27T16:45:00.000+01:00“OK - but even if this were true, and I am highly...“OK - but even if this were true, and I am highly sceptical of so-called "technical fixes", all<BR/>you do is replace "diktat of the boss" with "diktat of the" customer.”<BR/><BR/>To some extent true but it does depend on how many customers he has. However the fix is<BR/>also technological in that I no longer need to be somewhere to work there.<BR/><BR/>“Similarly the miner's strike is a side issue. What I am referring to is the sturctural changes to<BR/>the economy re interest rates, exchange rates and the like undertaken in the late 70s/early 80s<BR/>that had profound effects on employment.”<BR/><BR/>I do have sympathy for that point of view the issue is however what would you have done?<BR/>How do you release pay restraint slowly?<BR/>How do you bring in money control slowly?<BR/>How do you bring public spending under control slowly when you are having to borrow hand<BR/>over fist in the markets?<BR/><BR/>“Unemployed people are human beings with families, aspirations and emotions. Taking jobs<BR/>away swiftly without giving them the means to seek alternative employment (which means<BR/>re-training and education) is both heartless and short-sighted, as the fact that so much Oil<BR/>Wealth was squandered on unemployment payments rather than investment.”<BR/><BR/>Well, I tell you what, what policy would you have brought in and when?<BR/><BR/>On your other post:<BR/>“Ben - how does Economic Liberalism work? By competition. how do you succeed in<BR/>competition? By innovation/ How do you innovate? By "thinking outside the box".<BR/><BR/>Socially-Conservative societies ultimately stifle creative thinking which puts them at a<BR/>competitive disadvantage over enlightened societies.”<BR/><BR/>The implication is that all social conservatism is stifling, which I do not believe to be the case.<BR/>Witness for example the technological rise of Iran. (No, please don’t laugh at the back there)<BR/><BR/>There is repressive and stifling social conservatism and then there is social conservatism. I take<BR/>the view that a little social conservatism helps keep societies going where as a complete lack<BR/>of it leads to a societies ultimate demise.Benedict Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01382732288664789210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30194186.post-1151420338461249712006-06-27T15:58:00.000+01:002006-06-27T15:58:00.000+01:00"Firstly I disagree that Liberal economics and so..."Firstly I disagree that Liberal economics and social conservatism are incompatible, in reality<BR/>there has only ever been so much that you could tell people to do or not to do. The question is<BR/>what do you encourage and what mood music you set. Go look at the USA for example."<BR/><BR/>Ben - how does Economic Liberalism work? By competition. how do you succeed in competition? By innovation/ How do you innovate? By "thinking outside the box".<BR/><BR/>Socially-Conservative societies ultimately stifle creative thinking which puts them at a competitive disadvantage over enlightened societies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30194186.post-1151420117882506792006-06-27T15:55:00.000+01:002006-06-27T15:55:00.000+01:00"As the economy moves forward enabling people to m..."As the economy moves forward enabling people to make their own work rather than work for<BR/>some one else will make that whole process much easier."<BR/><BR/>OK - but even if this were true, and I am highly sceptical of so-called "technical fixes", all you do is replace "diktat of the boss" with "diktat of the" customer. <BR/><BR/>Similarly the miner's strike is a side issue. What I am referring to is the sturctural changes to the economy re interest rates, exchange rates and the like undertaken in the late 70s/early 80s that had profound effects on employment.<BR/><BR/>Unemployed people are human beings with families, aspirations and emotions. Taking jobs away swfitly without giving them the means to seek alternative employment (which means re-training and education) is both heartless and short-sighted, as the fact that so much Oil Wealth was squandered on unemployment payments rather than investment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30194186.post-1151415651595995752006-06-27T14:40:00.000+01:002006-06-27T14:40:00.000+01:00Firstly I disagree that Liberal economics and soc...Firstly I disagree that Liberal economics and social conservatism are incompatible, in reality<BR/>there has only ever been so much that you could tell people to do or not to do. The question is<BR/>what do you encourage and what mood music you set. Go look at the USA for example.<BR/><BR/>As for economic liberalism meaning the free movement of labour and the inevitable break up<BR/>of the extended family I see that as only inevitable if it is the liberal factory owners we are<BR/>talking about, rather than the conservative view which is to make everyone their own master.<BR/>As the economy moves forward enabling people to make their own work rather than work for<BR/>some one else will make that whole process much easier.<BR/><BR/>In part this is what Cameron’s mood music is about as well. Why earn wads of cash just to be<BR/>miserable?<BR/><BR/>On the " false dichotomies" issue, I did not say you were pro Scargill, or that you had to<BR/>support one or the other. you clearly agreed with the need to do something. What I was<BR/>trying to point out was that we were not dealing with a reasonable rational democratically<BR/>minded law abiding individual, we were dealing with someone who would not allow any pit<BR/>closures on any grounds bar exhaustion or major geological problems. How much the pit had<BR/>to be subsidised was neither here nor there, and he did not move an inch through out the<BR/>strike. He felt he should run the country. <BR/><BR/>Whilst I take your point about the best way of dealing with people there is frequently only one<BR/>way to deal with a bully, and it is not reason.<BR/><BR/>Had Scargill been democratically elected for a fixed term, and followed the law we could have<BR/>dealt with it without breaking so many eggs. We did what we had to do.Benedict Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01382732288664789210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30194186.post-1151413555671884432006-06-27T14:05:00.000+01:002006-06-27T14:05:00.000+01:00I think we're getting to the crux of the issue her...I think we're getting to the crux of the issue here.<BR/><BR/>Social Conservatism and Economic Liberalism are incompatible. Hence my comment about Thatcher knowing not what she did. If you introduce an unfettered marketplace there are consequences that flow from this. Choice cannot be regulated solely to the economic sphere. People want to have choices about their lifestyles <I>in toto</I>; if they have the freedom to choose what sort of car they buy, they don't want someone else telling them that they can't have a relationship with another man.<BR/><BR/>Similarly, if you require labour force mobility then a consequence of this is the breakdown of the extended family. People working harder, longer hours, have less time to give to voluntary activities.<BR/><BR/>This is why I find it ironic that the cheerleaders for economic liberalisation lament its consequences.<BR/><BR/>But mostly you are setting up false dichotomies. To be against Thatcher was not to support Scargill. In my business career I note that the most successful people are the ones who engage and persuade, bring everyone along. Brute Force can give the illusion of success ini the short term, but its long term result is always failure.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30194186.post-1151412183803444232006-06-27T13:43:00.000+01:002006-06-27T13:43:00.000+01:00Tabman, when you say "Far better to bring people w...Tabman, when you say "Far better to bring people with you than kick them in the slats" could I point out that the South Derbyshire miners were with us, Nottinghamshire followed, and the TUC were against the strike also. <BR/><BR/>So who were we not bringing along? The NUS who are pretty much always anti government until the join it, the Soviet Union and Arthur Scargill.<BR/><BR/>AS for vindictive, are we talking about the same miners strike? Not the one involving some mad hard nosed b*tch from hell, and the very nice fluffy wuffy Mr Scargill and his very law abiding democracy respecting union representatives, or the one between the democraticaly elected Prime minister, and the Marxist not democraticaly elected leader of the miners with an avowed aim of "rolling back the years of Thatcherism"? (I.E. of overthrowing the democraticly elected government)<BR/><BR/>You see in the former case Mrs nasty did some terrible things to our heroic miners, but in the latter they were beating people up, intimidating people, and basicly trying to subvert democracy. <BR/><BR/>As for your point (ii), Conservatives have generaly been pragmatic. You can't have a completly free market, because "freedom is slavery" so you have to moderate things with laws. <BR/><BR/>I do not see Cameron as comming up with rafts of new laws, but I do see him leading consumer presure which is a very good thing because if you vote with your wallet you get to vote early and very often.<BR/><BR/>Regarding your third point, I am a social conservative, I do not think anything goes, but being a pragmatist I can take from liberalism what I feel like, so i can pick and mix.<BR/><BR/>On the poll tax, I did point out that this was her two stops on from Barking stage, when all leaders become convinced of their own imortality. <BR/><BR/>The answer to the question, are you a Thatcherite may well be that you have the vision to see what needs doing but not the stomach for it. But then maybe I am being a bit harsh. :)Benedict Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01382732288664789210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30194186.post-1151408028865423862006-06-27T12:33:00.000+01:002006-06-27T12:33:00.000+01:00I forgot to mention the Poll Tax. Again, "badly t...I forgot to mention the Poll Tax. Again, "badly thought out". In other words - regressive.<BR/><BR/>Now, I am not against the idea that everyone should contribute to society - those with a financial stake in it are more likely to engage with it. Yet to impose a one-size rather than progressive or even flat (rate) tax is perverse and hits those least able to pay. The poorest already pay disproportionately when you factor in other taxes such as VAT.<BR/><BR/>And to go to your point - am I a Thatcherite?<BR/><BR/>The accurate answer is this: Thatcher was (partly) a Liberal, but "knew not what she begat".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30194186.post-1151407730816167052006-06-27T12:28:00.000+01:002006-06-27T12:28:00.000+01:00Hello Ben,I think you've answered your own questio...Hello Ben,<BR/><BR/>I think you've answered your own question, really. I don't deny that many of the reforms undertaken were necessary, but:<BR/><BR/>(i) the spirit in which they were undertaken was vindictive. Far better to bring people with you than kick them in the slats<BR/>(ii) historically, Thatcher has been an aberation. Market Liberalism has not always been a Tory creed, and the way Cameron is going, may no longer be<BR/>(iii) Liberalism is not "pick and mix"; market Liberalism flies counter to, and sits uneasily with, the sort of social conservatism that is a core value of the Conservative PartyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com