Political Stance

[Guest]

Fortunatly for me, i ain't here to win an election. I do find it rather hard to put my own opinions through though because even when i say the slightest thing on it i get shot down by a certain few people.

Ever consider the possibility that you are so easily shot down is because your views are blinkered and heavily flawed, perhaps if you were to look at the views of, what you would consider, the opposition and managed to argue successfully against them then your opinions would be looked at in a better light? A lot of your posts and arguements seem to deteriorate into swearing and anger which seems to be a trait of socialists and communists, "if you can't win them over with reason then shout and scream until they listen" this attitude gets my back up.

I think that in a truly democratic society party politics should be done away with, when I give my vote to someone due to liking his/her personal stance on certain issues I do not expect to have them turn their back on those issues because some party "whip" declares that they have to vote in a certain way when they get to parliament, nothing wrong with a group of like minded people getting together to discuss issues but to have a parliamentarian forced to vote against a policy which won him his seat is wholly undemocratic IMHO.

[DornochCaley]

Fortunatly for me, i ain't here to win an election. I do find it rather hard to put my own opinions through though because even when i say the slightest thing on it i get shot down by a certain few people.

Ever consider the possibility that you are so easily shot down is because your views are blinkered and heavily flawed, perhaps if you were to look at the views of, what you would consider, the opposition and managed to argue successfully against them then your opinions would be looked at in a better light? A lot of your posts and arguements seem to deteriorate into swearing and anger which seems to be a trait of socialists and communists, "if you can't win them over with reason then shout and scream until they listen" this attitude gets my back up.

I think that in a truly democratic society party politics should be done away with, when I give my vote to someone due to liking his/her personal stance on certain issues I do not expect to have them turn their back on those issues because some party "whip" declares that they have to vote in a certain way when they get to parliament, nothing wrong with a group of like minded people getting together to discuss issues but to have a parliamentarian forced to vote against a policy which won him his seat is wholly undemocratic IMHO.

Well when i started this thread, i did not respond to certain people by swearing, the only reason i got worked up was because someone was just really pissing me off. I am easily agitated.

At the end of the day, i don't really care if im not amazingly good at writing down my points, as when i speak of them, everyone seems to understand.

[Guest]

Well when i started this thread, i did not respond to certain people by swearing, the only reason i got worked up was because someone was just really pissing me off. I am easily agitated.

At the end of the day, i don't really care if im not amazingly good at writing down my points, as when i speak of them, everyone seems to understand.

There are points which could be raised with this post, firstly if you truly can communicate your point of view as well as you say through the spoken word then with considered writing you should be more than capable of doing so through that medium, take your time proof read your posts and think about them. Secondly, your audience here is bound to be very different from the social circle you discuss these issues with on a face to face basis, this forum is made up of a large cross section of the community with one basic interest (ICT) and as such the political opinions will be very wide ranging. Thirdly and perhaps a large consideration is that if indeed you are easily agitated and get wound up then people who you do talk to about politics (an intimate subject) will know this and will want to avoid such confrontation making them think that it is easier to agree with you rather than have you shout and swear at them.

[DornochCaley]

Well when i started this thread, i did not respond to certain people by swearing, the only reason i got worked up was because someone was just really pissing me off. I am easily agitated.

At the end of the day, i don't really care if im not amazingly good at writing down my points, as when i speak of them, everyone seems to understand.

There are points which could be raised with this post, firstly if you truly can communicate your point of view as well as you say through the spoken word then with considered writing you should be more than capable of doing so through that medium, take your time proof read your posts and think about them. Secondly, your audience here is bound to be very different from the social circle you discuss these issues with on a face to face basis, this forum is made up of a large cross section of the community with one basic interest (ICT) and as such the political opinions will be very wide ranging. Thirdly and perhaps a large consideration is that if indeed you are easily agitated and get wound up then people who you do talk to about politics (an intimate subject) will know this and will want to avoid such confrontation making them think that it is easier to agree with you rather than have you shout and swear at them.

I get what you're saying. Though i don't talk to my freinds about politics. They think it is rediculous that someone so young even cares about it all It is usually teachers i talk about them too. And i don't usually get so wound up with them. Fact is, this is the internet, and you can do whatever you want on the net. You can be pissed off with someone over it because it can have next to no consiquences. Face-to-Face is completely different.

In relation to proof reading my posts, its something which i should do. Though i am much better a communicating Face-to-Face as i am the type that uses my hands when i find something hard to explain and that helps a lot.

[Renegade]

And although i am not a fan of homosexuals, people should have the freedom to choose who they love and who they are with. No Government should choose that for them. That is moving into the realm of totalitarianism.

I don't really think it's a case of choice, more something that they are genetically born with. And anyway, blond Swedish lesbians - how can anyone not approve of that!

[Yngwie]

Getting back on topic, you're into feminism then?

[+DoofersDad]

And although i am not a fan of homosexuals, people should have the freedom to choose who they love and who they are with. No Government should choose that for them. That is moving into the realm of totalitarianism.

I don't really think it's a case of choice, more something that they are genetically born with. And anyway, blond Swedish lesbians - how can anyone not approve of that!

I think (hope) you mean blonde otherwise it just gets too complicated for the likes of me.

[Renegade]

Getting back on topic, you're into feminism then?

It's okay I suppose.

I think (hope) you mean blonde otherwise it just gets too complicated for the likes of me.

Aye, that's what I meant.

[ictchris]

One of Hilter's policies was to do with marrage and increase the population. He gave extra money to those who got married, stayed married and those who had kids.

And although i am not a fan of homosexuals, people should have the freedom to choose who they love and who they are with. No Government should choose that for them. That is moving into the realm of totalitarianism.

In the ideological side of me, i am an Anarchist. I believe that the wealth should be shaired equally and the only people really fit to rule the working class are themselves. So really, there should be no centrelised government. Thats all a dream though.

The Realpolotik side of me reaslises that Communism will never, ever work. Socialism can though. Shortening the gap between the highest and lowest paid is something that can be acheived so that we live in a fairer society. Socialism will have its downsides. But so does the current system we are in. The banks being closed down. Many people out of the job. Banks being Nationalised yet the people, who's money bailed them out, get no say. Socialism is not perfect. But it is definately not worse than the current system we see ourselves under.

Taking control of people's reproductive rights is hardly the preserve of the National Socialists - the Romanian socialist state under Ceacescu banned abortion and rewarded couples for bearing children, many countries in the former Eastern Bloc forcibly sterilised undersirables (usually dissidents or gypsies).

The usually childish refrain of 'I'm an anarchist, no central government, everyone should be equal, share wealth'. Sharing wealth requires that capital be distributed equally - who distributes it if not a centralised state? You cannot have any form of socialism without centralising authority to a Politburo, a Central Committee. It just can't happen, never has, never will. What usually happens, as in Venezuela, is a massive bureacracy is set up to give the illusion of workers co-operatives, local control but all this does is swell the state even further.

A fairer society is a crock. What poor people need is not more company, it's more money and the best way to increase the wealth of a society is by free market capitalism. It's the proven method to improve people's lives, the world over. During Chairman Mao's reign, when he turned China into a very equal society (equally desperate) people queued up to try and sneak into Hong Kong, which is the most capitalist society in the world. I don't think many Hong Kong Chinese tried to jump the fence the other way.

[starchief]

A fairer society is a crock. What poor people need is not more company, it's more money and the best way to increase the wealth of a society is by free market capitalism. It's the proven method to improve people's lives, the world over. During Chairman Mao's reign, when he turned China into a very equal society (equally desperate) people queued up to try and sneak into Hong Kong, which is the most capitalist society in the world. I don't think many Hong Kong Chinese tried to jump the fence the other way.

Nah, disagree with that. What the poor want is control over their own destiny. Free market capitalism is ok for the developed nations (to an extent) but hugely damaging to most of the world. Thinking that one dogma has all the answers is something most people thankfully grow out of. The same economic structure for China, Canada, Chad, Venezuela and Switzerland would be a disaster (even more than it currently is).

There's also the definition of socialism. In the US, that's just another word for hardline communism, whereas for most of Europe, it's the kind of government that's been around for most of the time in post-war Germany and France, plus the UK for a large part of the time.

Redistribution of wealth is a nice phrase but what does it mean? Everyone gets an equal share? Nah, most democratic socialists would probably go along the lines of 'a fair day's wage for a fair day's work', plus certain things like education, health and the law being equal, rather than money-based.

I wouldn't say capitalism has proven anything yet. Still a pretty young theory that really only took off post-WWII. Almost collapsed overnight recently too. What has improved the West has been military conflict (including with each other - necessity being the mother of invention), scientific advancement, exploitation of other countries (who do you think set the exchange rates?), democracy and climate.

And what people always forget is, it wasn't always this way and it won't be forever this way either. It wouldn't be that much of a surprise to see, in 100 years time, that the West had collapsed and India, China or Brazil was the great power. After all, the biggest power for the last thousand years was probably Turkey (Ottoman Empire) - who remembers that?

As for the anti-gay rights: mind your own business, rather than the continual obsession with what other people get up to. What the hell's it got to do with you?

Oh and almost forgot: capitalism (uncontrolled that is) = overconsumption. Unsustainable in the short, medium and long-term, depending on where and how you live. The rich cause it, the poor suffer and have to pay. Most of the world make almost zero contribution to climate change, yet it's consistently peddled out that reducing population is the solution, rather than reducing consumption of the few, which is the real problem.

Edited January 21, 2010 by starchief

[Yngwie]

I think Chris has got is spot on.

Scientific advancement has indeed played a huge part in improving the west, and the world. What makes it happen? Capitalism. Companies, even universities, develop things in order to make money. If there was no profit potential they simply wouldn't do it.

Starchief is right though that over time the balance of power will change, and it will swing towards the far east. Again, it will happen because of the increased adoption of capitalism by the likes of China.

[Sorted]

Reflecting on the posts since my last visit, I find myself in a state of shock.

A seventeen year old boy from the Highlands in a free and frank public admission of membership of the Conservative and Unionist Party. What is the world coming to?

By nature, the vast majority of us tend to become more right wing with age. Where this will leave our Black Isle friend in thirty years time is interesting. Does he become more "Adolfic" than "Camoreonesque" or does he go the whole hog become a "Blairite"? Only time will tell, but those out with the mainstream in Rosemarkie should be on their guard!

Not sure Tom will feel as much at home long term as he thinks he will with Cameron and the Oxbridge gang. His clearly stated homophobic views are now not the public utterings of the higher reaches of all things conservative. They even give some of "them" important jobs now! Tom's support and encouragement for the sanctity of marriage is very much "new David". He will get top marks for pushing this one just as long as the couple involved are heterosexual, of arian ethnic background, never eaten curry and admit to at one stage having had secret admiration for Nick Griffin.

Thinking further, maybe Tom really does fit it with rest of the gang. There is something very conservative and unionist (Iris Robinson anyone?) in decrying all thinks homosexual, pledging loyalty and love to your darling wife/husband whilst at the same time beasting the secret boyfriend/girlfriend/animal, in the privacy of your own second/third home whilst wearing an attire of right wing imperialism (Chelsea/Rangers strip or SS General suit are mainstream I understand). All of course, allegedly.

Anyway, good luck in your voyage of discovery Tom. Liberty and freedom of expression will help you on your way.

Edited January 22, 2010 by Sorted

[starchief]

I think Chris has got is spot on.

Scientific advancement has indeed played a huge part in improving the west, and the world. What makes it happen? Capitalism. Companies, even universities, develop things in order to make money. If there was no profit potential they simply wouldn't do it.

Starchief is right though that over time the balance of power will change, and it will swing towards the far east. Again, it will happen because of the increased adoption of capitalism by the likes of China.

Evolution, string theory, climate change, relativity, gravity, quantum mechanics - just some examples of scientific discovery of a non-making money nature.

Is China really capitalist? A one-party state that employs virtual and real slaves to make gains for the country, whilst cracking down on free speech. Just because they trade on the world market doesn't mean they are capitalists at heart. Sounds to me closer to national socialism.

Will capitalism drive the next superpower? Or could it be climate change, investing in cyber-crime, state terrorism on a mass scale, a drive by fundamentalists in America and the Middle East, either engulfing the world or leaving it open to a new power, collapse of the building blocks of capitalism, such as banks, even democracy meaning the super-rich are slimmed down and consumerism ceasing? Only the past fifty years have seen an economic empire. Prior to that, it was usually military invasion, religious persuasion or/and natural disasters. We can't always assume the same thing will happen. Whoever thought slavery would be abolished by the UK 50 years before it was?

[Snow]

There is something very conservative and unionist (Iris Robinson anyone?) in decrying all thinks homosexual, pledging loyalty and love to your darling wife/husband whilst at the same time beasting the secret boyfriend/girlfriend/animal, in the privacy of your own second/third home whilst wearing an attire of right wing imperialism (Chelsea/Rangers strip or SS General suit are mainstream I understand). All of course, allegedly.

[Yngwie]

By nature, the vast majority of us tend to become more right wing with age.

I've always thought that people tend to start out with ideologies and strong views from either wing, and then gravitate towards the middle as life experience shows them the downsides of their earlier principles.

I remember at Tom's age putting forward the view that euthanasia should be not just optional, but mandatory, once a specified age is reached (I think 80 was the arbitrary point I deemed people to cease to be useful).

It seems ridiculous now, but in centuries to come in Starchief's scenario of a changing world, who knows. Global overpopulation, rising sea levels, not enough food etc.

[Sorted]

By nature, the vast majority of us tend to become more right wing with age.

I've always thought that people tend to start out with ideologies and strong views from either wing, and then gravitate towards the middle as life experience shows them the downsides of their earlier principles.

I remember at Tom's age putting forward the view that euthanasia should be not just optional, but mandatory, once a specified age is reached (I think 80 was the arbitrary point I deemed people to cease to be useful).

It seems ridiculous now, but in centuries to come in Starchief's scenario of a changing world, who knows. Global overpopulation, rising sea levels, not enough food etc.

Probably saying much the same thing as the majority of us, in Scotland, tend to start of with left of centre views as our voting history over the past 40-50 years shows.

At Tom's age all I thought about were women, drink, football, Nelson Mandela and drink in that order.

[TomCaleyJag]

Reflecting on the posts since my last visit, I find myself in a state of shock.

A seventeen year old boy from the Highlands in a free and frank public admission of membership of the Conservative and Unionist Party. What is the world coming to?

By nature, the vast majority of us tend to become more right wing with age. Where this will leave our Black Isle friend in thirty years time is interesting. Does he become more "Adolfic" than "Camoreonesque" or does he go the whole hog become a "Blairite"? Only time will tell, but those out with the mainstream in Rosemarkie should be on their guard!

Not sure Tom will feel as much at home long term as he thinks he will with Cameron and the Oxbridge gang. His clearly stated homophobic views are now not the public utterings of the higher reaches of all things conservative. They even give some of "them" important jobs now! Tom's support and encouragement for the sanctity of marriage is very much "new David". He will get top marks for pushing this one just as long as the couple involved are heterosexual, of arian ethnic background, never eaten curry and admit to at one stage having had secret admiration for Nick Griffin.

Thinking further, maybe Tom really does fit it with rest of the gang. There is something very conservative and unionist (Iris Robinson anyone?) in decrying all thinks homosexual, pledging loyalty and love to your darling wife/husband whilst at the same time beasting the secret boyfriend/girlfriend/animal, in the privacy of your own second/third home whilst wearing an attire of right wing imperialism (Chelsea/Rangers strip or SS General suit are mainstream I understand). All of course, allegedly.

Anyway, good luck in your voyage of discovery Tom. Liberty and freedom of expression will help you on your way.

A phobia is something one has an irrational fear of - I am not homophobic as I do not fear homosexuals. Infact I know some people who are homosexual and they are perfectly pleasant people. What I object to is the teaching of homosexuality in schools or the public declaration of homosexuality as a normal way of life. However I agree with those posters who say it is not for the government to choose such things for people - as far as I'm concerned, what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is no business of the state. Where it becomes unacceptable is when it is taught to schoolchildren as normal and acceptable, and when these people try to take it out onto the streets, parading or demanding more rights for it.

And regarding my support for marriage being for, to paraphrase "heterosexuals, whites and Nick Griffin supporters" - of course they must be heterosexual, as homosexual relationships are not recognised as having the same legal status as marriage. As for race, that is completely irrelevant, I deplore racism and racial hatred in any form. And people, as long as they don't committ any illegal act or express desire to do so, can support whoever they like - that is the workings of a democracy.

[ictchris]

Where it becomes unacceptable is when it is taught to schoolchildren as normal and acceptable, and when these people try to take it out onto the streets, parading or demanding more rights for it.

And regarding my support for marriage being for, to paraphrase "heterosexuals, whites and Nick Griffin supporters" - of course they must be heterosexual, as homosexual relationships are not recognised as having the same legal status as marriage. As for race, that is completely irrelevant, I deplore racism and racial hatred in any form. And people, as long as they don't committ any illegal act or express desire to do so, can support whoever they like - that is the workings of a democracy.

Homosexuality is normal and acceptable. Why should gay people not have the right to 'parade' or demand more rights? Freedom of speech and freedom of association are more important than offending some made up notion of faith, flag and family.

[Caley Stan]

By nature, the vast majority of us tend to become more right wing with age.

I've always thought that people tend to start out with ideologies and strong views from either wing, and then gravitate towards the middle as life experience shows them the downsides of their earlier principles.

.......or people get their idealism beaten out of them the moment they have to start having to consider getting a job, a process that often involves compromising political principles. As`Mantis pointed out earlier in the thread, the nature of someones employment can often be a good predictor of their politics. Applying this logic, i've concluded that ICTChris is either an investment banker on a seven figure bonus or David Sutherland in disguise.

Fundamentally, you both believe that the state should take powers from individual citizens to puruse a 'greater good', which is the thinking that drives tyrannies from Tsarist Russia to Democratic Kampuchea.

It's also what every state in the world does when it taxes us. Providing these extreme examples of authoritarianism isn't really helpful. While i accept that free market capitalism has brought more prosperity to more people than any previous system, it still has to be regulated to prevent it from doing harm. You've stated that "people should be able to do whatever they want provided they do not demonstrably harm other people in doing it", and i agree with that to some extent, but i think that the same logic has to apply to the system as a whole. If private nursing homes are leaving old people sitting in their own sh!t all day because they can make more money by employing less staff, then don't you think we should to take away the individual freedom that allows them to do so?

Of course, deregulated capitalism has the potential to cause much greater damage than the abuse of old people.

Oh and almost forgot: capitalism (uncontrolled that is) = overconsumption. Unsustainable in the short, medium and long-term, depending on where and how you live. The rich cause it, the poor suffer and have to pay. Most of the world make almost zero contribution to climate change, yet it's consistently peddled out that reducing population is the solution, rather than reducing consumption of the few, which is the real problem.

Surely a few personal freedoms will have to be sacrificed to sort this mess out.

Edited January 22, 2010 by Caley Stan

[ictchris]

Fundamentally, you both believe that the state should take powers from individual citizens to puruse a 'greater good', which is the thinking that drives tyrannies from Tsarist Russia to Democratic Kampuchea.

It's also what every state in the world does when it taxes us. Providing these extreme examples of authoritarianism isn't really helpful. While i accept that free market capitalism has brought more prosperity to more people than any previous system, it still has to be regulated to prevent it from doing harm. You've stated that "people should be able to do whatever they want provided they do not demonstrably harm other people in doing it", and i agree with that to some extent, but i think that the same logic has to apply to the system as a whole. If private nursing homes are leaving old people sitting in their own sh!t all day because they can make more money by employing less staff, then don't you think we should to take away the individual freedom that allows them to do so?

Of course, deregulated capitalism has the potential to cause much greater damage than the abuse of old people.

In the real world there can't be a political, economic nation state with no government, no state sector. I don't think any libertarian would seriously argue that this would be the case - in his work Hayek argues in favour of the state taking responsibility for some areas, as does Milton Friedman. If you live in the real world, which sadly most of us have to do, then a state will have to collect taxes and carry out various functions. The real debate in politics and economics is to what extent the state should intervene.

The example you provide is an interesting one. When an elederly person enters into an old folks home (is it ageist to call it that?) they enter into a contract with the home which would stipulate what level of care has to be provided. The enforcement of contracts is an important part of law - one of the areas that most mainstream economists would agree should be the preserve of the courts. If this contract was broken then the home would face sanctions. If the home's treatment of it's elderly charges ammounted to violence or denial of rights to the patients then they would face criminal charges. The difficulty with this is how to enforce these contracts - ideally in the example you have provided the families of the elderly would have arranged for care for them but this isn't possible in all cases as not everyone has a family or keeps in contact with them.

I do think that the problem with government intervention is that their intervention spreads like Bobby Mann's gut.

.......or people get their idealism beaten out of them the moment they have to start having to consider getting a job, a process that often involves compromising political principles. As`Mantis pointed out earlier in the thread, the nature of someones employment can often be a good predictor of their politics. Applying this logic, i've concluded that ICTChris is either an investment banker on a seven figure bonus or David Sutherland in disguise.

Exposure to the real world is a good antidote to idealism :P As for my bonus, sadly seven figures are a long way off, as is a career in investment banking. :angry:

[DornochCaley]

One of Hilter's policies was to do with marrage and increase the population. He gave extra money to those who got married, stayed married and those who had kids.

And although i am not a fan of homosexuals, people should have the freedom to choose who they love and who they are with. No Government should choose that for them. That is moving into the realm of totalitarianism.

In the ideological side of me, i am an Anarchist. I believe that the wealth should be shaired equally and the only people really fit to rule the working class are themselves. So really, there should be no centrelised government. Thats all a dream though.

The Realpolotik side of me reaslises that Communism will never, ever work. Socialism can though. Shortening the gap between the highest and lowest paid is something that can be acheived so that we live in a fairer society. Socialism will have its downsides. But so does the current system we are in. The banks being closed down. Many people out of the job. Banks being Nationalised yet the people, who's money bailed them out, get no say. Socialism is not perfect. But it is definately not worse than the current system we see ourselves under.

Taking control of people's reproductive rights is hardly the preserve of the National Socialists - the Romanian socialist state under Ceacescu banned abortion and rewarded couples for bearing children, many countries in the former Eastern Bloc forcibly sterilised undersirables (usually dissidents or gypsies).

The usually childish refrain of 'I'm an anarchist, no central government, everyone should be equal, share wealth'. :angry: Sharing wealth requires that capital be distributed equally - who distributes it if not a centralised state? You cannot have any form of socialism without centralising authority to a Politburo, a Central Committee. It just can't happen, never has, never will. What usually happens, as in Venezuela, is a massive bureacracy is set up to give the illusion of workers co-operatives, local control but all this does is swell the state even further.

A fairer society is a crock. What poor people need is not more company, it's more money and the best way to increase the wealth of a society is by free market capitalism. It's the proven method to improve people's lives, the world over. During Chairman Mao's reign, when he turned China into a very equal society (equally desperate) people queued up to try and sneak into Hong Kong, which is the most capitalist society in the world. I don't think many Hong Kong Chinese tried to jump the fence the other way.

Hence the reason i said it is a dream. It will never happen and can never happen. Socialism is something that can happen. Just because power hungry people fecked it up does not mean it does not work. Fascism is something that will not work. We know that oppression and totalitarianism does not work.

But Capitalism has just as many faults if not more than Socialism. So why not give it a try under a decent leadership?

[Yngwie]

Hence the reason i said it is a dream. It will never happen and can never happen. Socialism is something that can happen. Just because power hungry people fecked it up does not mean it does not work. Fascism is something that will not work. We know that oppression and totalitarianism does not work.

Maybe they would work if they just had the right leaders? :angry:

[starchief]

Sweet moderation - heart of this nation...

[ictchris]

Hence the reason i said it is a dream. It will never happen and can never happen. Socialism is something that can happen. Just because power hungry people fecked it up does not mean it does not work. Fascism is something that will not work. We know that oppression and totalitarianism does not work.

But Capitalism has just as many faults if not more than Socialism. So why not give it a try under a decent leadership?

So the ideology you profess to support is 'a dream' that can never happen. Why bother with it then? Socialism is based on the concept that by centralising power into the hands of the state a more efficientdistribution of wealth will occur. However, what's been demonstrated when this has been tried is that this does not increase wealth and actually decreases it making people worse off. Also, the concentration of power and the removal of economic freedom have a tendency to reduce civil rights and political freedom - it's telling that in capitalist countries people are free to join socialist movements but in countries like Cuba opposition politics is forbidden.

Fascism is historically linked to socialist policies. Most governments described as fascist are economically in favour of interventionism and of an increased state role in the economy. Even the BNP has an economic policy that wouldn't look out of place in a Labour manifesto in the 1980s.

[TopSix]

Hayek's Road to Serfdom is a book I read a while ago - I now own a copy. While I may not like what Hayek believes, I must admit that it pretty much hits the nail on the head.

To talk of the working class is inaccurate. Many working class people perceive themselves as middle class, while we have a burgeoning underclass who care for little or next to nothing - let alone politics. The mainstay in many people's lives are programmes such as x factor and the like. Political ideals have no place. In this situation, there is so much apathy, many people don't care about politics and what's going on around them. In terms of people in Scotland being leftward leaning and therefore the electorate being 'to the left', I disagree. Many voted for the SNP. I don't count the SNP as a party. I view it as a politcal movement with the sole aim of destroying the United Kingdom. (I'm on the wind-up before you start!) The SNP are disparate group with voters electing representatives of all political persuasions. Fergus Ewing being one. I heard of him being referred to as being a 'tartan tory'.

Edited January 26, 2010 by Top Six Next Year