Re: Fings ain't as bad as they say!


On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 21:09:53 +0200 'John of Aix'
posted stuff on uk.politics.misc:

aracari wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:03:36 +0200 'John of Aix'
posted stuff on uk.politics.misc:

aracari wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 21:36:23 +0200 'John of Aix'
posted stuff on uk.politics.misc:

aracari wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 19:43:36 +0200 'John of Aix'
posted stuff on uk.politics.misc:

aracari wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 06:30:13 -0700 'Maria'
posted stuff on uk.politics.misc:

On 11 Sep, 13:15, Mel Rowing <mel.row...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Feckless, dirty, sozzled Britain -it's all a myth

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_li...

http://tinyurl.com/2s4sxw

and the Pocket World in Figures referred to:

http://web.economist.com/markets/rankings/

All of which goes to show that other people's perceptions about
us are probably correct.
Miserable, hard-working, empathy for the underdog, miserly,
tight, unenthusiastic in bed and very conservative!

And interestingly, conservatism (small c) exists across most of
society irrespective of political parties. I wonder why that
is...

Better the devil you know than the devil you don't know?

Yeah I guess that's about it. Age plays a large part too methinks.
It's strange that the political party which has always claimed to
support that social view now struggles to find its way back into
power.

Probably because the world is changing rapidly and people recognise
that, even if they don't always like it. That requires new
approaches if you want to survive and prosper, hiding one's head in
the sand just won't do.

So you think that although people are conservative by nature, they
nevertheless will accept necessary change? That sounds almost too
rational for a lot of people, but I s'pose it might be right.

Perhaps 'accept' isn't always quite the right word for many people
who *submit* to change rather than accepting it positively or
neutrally. They aren't happy about it, though get used to it in the
end. For a lot of change is beyond their control and sometimes
beyond anyone's so there is no choice in the matter.

Yeah I tend to agree with you on that John.
But if people 'submit' to change when it's necessary or justifiable,
that looks more like the Tory philosophy than NuLabour.
I think what I'm getting at is that it should reflect in much better
Tory poll ratings than we see and it was the case in the past when
Tories were the natural party of govt. Nowadays, by voting NuLab
does it mean that people are becoming less resistant to change or
are NuLab's 'terrorism' scare tactics achieving electoral results or
maybe people are just becoming more statist? The level of national
support for ID Cards suggests one of the latter to me.


Well I think the country, and particularly the Labour party, is far less
'statist' than it was in the forties, fifties and sixties. It was very
much so under Labour governments but a fair amount too under
Conservative ones, no doubt a legacy of the war. It was Thatcher who
changed that and Labour followed it. I don't think people are
particularly statist these days but they seem to have accepted the state
as a thing they have very little control over and that they are ready to
leave to 'protect' us in whatever way it thinks fit.

I'm sure people can point to many reasons for saying that but IMV
statism in that era was much more benevolent, far less intrusive
and people understood it was often necessary as we recovered from
war. Today we have CCTV everywhere, growing interference by
jobsworths and unprecedented police powers to prevent or stop
virtually anything which appears to threaten the power of the state
....even public democratic demonstrations. And all in the name of
protecting us. *That* has been the success of NuLab.

Statism grows and marches on as those in power fear the very people
they purport to be elected to govern. Many of Blair's new laws look
suspiciously like laws introduced to protect state power from us,
which points to a growing divide emerging between the governors and
the governed.

I recently saw a few interviews with people on some TV channel asking
their opinion on CCTV cameras and other controls (though nothing was
asked about ID cards). I was surprised at the acceptance of these
things, no questions asked,which seems to point to excellent salemanship
on the part of the government for, looking at the situation from outside
the country, I am horrified.

Indeed. Many people have rolled over and are becoming more accepting
of state power, mainly due IMO because they have lost sight of what
freedom and liberty actually means and now think the state is there
to provide it! ho ho.

As for the Conservatives, well what are they offering and what can they
offer? A large part of their core vote still consists of Colonel Buffy
Frobishers (ret') in the shires and the hang 'em and flog 'em agenda but
it is a diminishing one. The younger non-lab people don't have much
empathy with such attitudes and so many have tended towards the
Lib-Dems, or even Labour which has become middle-of-the-road.
IMO opinion Cameron, the Conservatives, are right to try and move their
stance, they need to offer something other than the Colonel's
recommendations if they want to win a future election. But how do you
regain the centre ground that has already been choped up between tow
other parties and how do you mange to hang on to your hefty bloc vote of
Colonels (ret'd) in the shires?

Sadly for the Tories, however they cut/slice their policies, the
Party will always be the natural home for the very groups you
describe and it will therefore always carry that label, often used
as a stick to beat them with by the opposition.

Personally, I would prefer the Tories to morph into the party of
fiercely upholding freedom and liberty of the individual against
state power but that would take some very very careful attention
to policy detail on their part and would mean making statism a dirty
word... All that's way beyond Cameron methinks.

--
"All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed,
and third, it is accepted as self-evident"
(Arthur Schopenhauer)
.