tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1983805140748093260.post5416848307224355396..comments2023-08-21T16:33:00.101+01:00Comments on the orange party: Smith Used Sex To Sway Votersthe orange partyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08550469255117014370noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1983805140748093260.post-27322364660052212362008-11-24T17:47:00.000+00:002008-11-24T17:47:00.000+00:00Couldn't agree more. We've got the worst of both ...Couldn't agree more. We've got the worst of both worlds right now. A decade (give or take) of actively encouraging excessive welfare dependence at the expense of skills development and productive employment (which *everyone* could have benefited from) for no better reason than flawed doctrine, vote chasing and cowardice - followed by a very nasty (perhaps evil) Blairite bi-polar swing to the right at a time when the employment market is in the worst shape in living memory. On top of this, an education system that comprehensively fails (a slightly ironic play on words) to impart the skills that would give the most vulnerable a chance of bettering themselves through well paid work.<BR/><BR/>My problem with Socialism, as practiced by the Socialist "movement" (which I despise, present company excepted), is that, like all political parties, it seeks to expand it's "base" of core voters. In practice, this has lead to Labour as some kind of metaphorical pimp/dealer who gets his charges hooked on a quick fix just to have them under his spell. Totally and utterly sickening.<BR/><BR/>Compasion can only be measured by outcome, not by the scale of air-headed proselytising by people without the political or administrative skills to achieve their stated goals. I am very troubled by Gordon Brown's growing madness (and it is madness, in the very real sense of a pathologically disfunctional personality), in the face of his abject failures. Meeting setback and failure with ever more potent forms of delusion and deceit is a runaway positive feedback loop of extremism. It's always "someone elses" fault for not playing along or for spoiling the party. Success could have been assured, if only they had been *more* radical from the start - it's proto-fascism is what it is, pure and simple. It makes not a jot of difference that they themselves do not see the truth of their situation. I look at Gordo, as I did with Blair, and all I can see is a creapy autocratic liar suffering from increasingly serious mental illness.<BR/><BR/>I agree wholeheartedly with the ideal of a compassionate state, with the idea that the weak should not be exploited by the strong and even with the idea that the poor should most definitely pay less tax than the better off - to the point of paying no tax at all if that's what it takes. The current tax regime is designed to keep the poor exactly where they are. VAT on everything, a TV license that isn't even worth the cost of collection because it's just a coercive tax and should be funded out of the other tax receipts. The poor pay an appalling percentage of their income right back to the state simply by spending enough to stay alive. <BR/><BR/>I consider myself to be right wing (in the sense of putting a much higher emphasis on self reliance then most) and even I find the whole dishonest sham too much to stomach. This Labour government are not what they claim to be. Not by a long shot. They are either stupid (that's certainly true in some cases) or just cynical (also true in some cases). The decent eggs are too few to require more than five fingers to count (Bob Marshall Andrews and Frank Field come to mind. Tony Ben only woke up in time to retire - and don't even get me started on his son) - not much of a recommendation.<BR/><BR/>I could never vote Labour as things stand, but, likewise, I would only vote Conservative with reservations. Previously, for all it's flaws, Labour served as some kind of balance to Tory excesses but that balance is now a distant memory. Labour have tried to play the business friendly game and been shown up as nothing but cheap, inexperienced whores.<BR/><BR/>I'm going to stop now because I'm getting angry.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1983805140748093260.post-77438911971691686002008-11-23T19:30:00.000+00:002008-11-23T19:30:00.000+00:00Thanks for the comments. As you say socialist - wi...Thanks for the comments. As you say socialist - with that small 's'. <BR/><BR/>As for that 'moral hazard' - that's a difficult call. <BR/><BR/>There's too much dependency on state benefit and welfare reforms are much needed. <BR/><BR/>But such reforms need to be brought in with a caring heart and compassion.<BR/><BR/>Just forcing the weak and vulnerable into work rips the heart out of the welfare state, as suggested here.<BR/><BR/>http://theorangepartyblog.blogspot.com/2008/11/ripping-soul-out-of-welfare-state.htmlthe orange partyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08550469255117014370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1983805140748093260.post-19702583767505656712008-11-23T19:01:00.000+00:002008-11-23T19:01:00.000+00:00I am almost completely lost for words. This blog ...I am almost completely lost for words. This blog is honest, reasonable AND socialist (with a small s).<BR/><BR/>It'd got to the point where I automatically assumed that the last characteristic would immediately preclude the first two. I stand corrected!<BR/><BR/>Out of interest, where do you stand on the "moral hazard" (a slightly naff term which is probably destined to become the "not fit for purpose" of tomorrow, but you know what I mean) of welfare being an incentive for the poor to become dependent on the state, and all that is thus implied?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com