[Politics]"Not for the true-born Englishman the bony, angular knee of the so-called intellectual"

[davywavy]

I was having a conversation about politics the other day. You might have noticed that I do this quite a lot, largely because it's a safe outlet for frustrations which otherwise might manifest themselves in the acquisition of a rifle and a clock tower. As political chats seem to do quite a lot at the moment, this one came back to the BNP. Mainly because they're a bunch of fat oafs and are an easy target.
I'm not one for indulging in the rabid hatred that some direct towards the BNP myself; I'm always leery of people who hate anything with a passion, as I feel that implies they see something of themselves in the thing they are rejecting - in the same way that the most rabid homophobes tend to be closeted homosexuals themselves. I'd rather see the BNP given an open, free speaking forum as public debate - and loud, loud laughter - are the most effective weapons against the small minded. Anyway, on with the point of this post.

"Bloody right-wingers", complained my pal.
"Right wing? The BNP?" I said. "Where did you get that from?"
"Well, they are, aren't they?"
Now, as I'm quite a fan of political debate and the like I've actually read the BNP manifesto - I find it's easier to argue with people when I understand their position - and I have to say that I found saying the BNP were right wing confusing, to say the least.
"Hang on", I said. "I've read the BNP's manifesto, and they're in favour of high taxes on the rich, protectionism, workers co-operatives, a large state, regulation, unionisation and nationalising major industries, utilities and, wierdly, the RNLI. None of those thngs strike me as very...right wing?"
"Ah", was the reply. "It's their immigration policy which makes them right wing."
"Ooooh-kay", I said, taking this in. "So they're right wing. How about me, then? I'm in favour of low taxes, privatisation, deregulation, a small state, free enterprise, free trade and it's essential adjunct of open borders. Does that make me left wing?"
"No. You're right wing."
"Okay, I'm lost. On the one hand regulation, nationalisation, high taxes, protectionism and immigration controls make them right wing, but on the other hand deregulation, free enterprise, low taxes, free trade and open borders make me...right wing. You'll understand my confusion."
"I don't want to have this conversation any more."

I have to say this was a disappointing end to things, as I ended up none the wiser on how two people who hold mutually contradictory political opinions could be described as the same thing. I went off and checked the normally impartial Political compass which, as I suspected, described the BNP as authoritarian lefties (the position of the LibDems as semi-anarchists would also explain why I find myself increasingly considering them as an option):


But anyway; given that the evidence would certainly suggest that the BNP are to the left of Michael Foot, why do people insist on describing them as right wing? And what do you think?

[Poll #1417983]

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Oo are we still going on this one? Right, I'm changing sides. One does not have to be a Socialist to believe that Her Majesty has a duty to her Subjects; for them to feel that they have a stake in our benign Feudal System, we need the People fed, healthy and as middle class as possible.

I'll give you Telecoms, it's all twitter anyway. Though God knows what they think they are doing making us, making us! take 400 channels of Murdovision instead of good embourgeoisement with David Attenborough, Blue Peter and Doctor Who.

Water though, I mean we have all seen Chinatown. Augustus was a bright chap, first thing the State must do is provide clean water. (Present spending 1.1 bn).

Power? Churchill nationalised the Mines when we needed them. How on Earth are we going to have a proper Nuclear Powered Grid like the French unless the State runs it? You do realise we will be buying what that nice Mr Putin decides to give us, like the leafy Central Europeans, if we don't? (Present spending 1.6 bn)

Since you kindly dissolved the Monasteries, the Church is no longer in a position to teach the Poor how to read and write. So somebody else has to stand up in front of a bunch of Bolshy 15 year olds to be hated. Siralan is only going to want a small proportion of them and the Fleet abolished the Grog ration in the '70s. State "Education" is the only way we can keep 'em under surveillance for a few years. Free the Universities obviously. (Present Spending 96.5 bn)

Da Nashnul Helf: Babies and Grannies dying of Cold leads to Revolution, 'nuff said. Add more starch and keep the hospitals clean. Smart uniforms also. (Present Spending 110.5 bn)

Welfare....ah well, whatever (Present Spending 96.5 bn...note the unemployed only cost 4.9 bn)

I do beg you to check out

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_year2009_0.html#ukgs30280

for that WTF moment

(My particular favourite is "Protection": 33.6bn. Police? Fire? The Criminal Justice System? Peanuts. Biggest expense is "Public order and safety n.e.c. 17.9bn"; know what that is? Me neither).

BTW for "Accounting adjustments" (27.2bn) we could have an actual Navy.

D

[(Anonymous)]

Am I to understand you assert it is the proper business of the water industry to provide potable water,and to remove effluent? of the power industry to generate & distribute power? and the education industry to... er... keep kids off the streest as we aren't allowed to shove them up chimneys anymore?

And that you are perhaps half way down your second bottle of red?

I wasn't discussing the merits, or otherwise, of state trusteeship of enterprise, but rather, the proper purpose of those enterprises. What is the proper goal of a telecoms business? To provide telecoms, or something else?

[(Anonymous)]

In this weather, a decent Sancerre actually, however:

Since, between ourselves, we can dispense with that outdated 20th century notion that the State needs to control the Production, Distributon and Exchange of goods & services as a preconditon to the creation of the Socialist Utopia; we are left with the question of why we manipulate the bits of mud available to us.

If the proper goal of mucking about with water is to ensure it is potable, it seems to me that profit really has no place.

Telecoms is, on the face of it, a pretty clear case of bread & circues. Open communication full stop. But if I were Mr Twitter, a large wodge of Banknotes might cause me to find that Iran had suddenly gone off line. Whereas some of us might want the decent people of Persia to be able to tell the World what is going on in that ancient and civilised Nation (a damn sight better educated bunch than your average Yank it would appear, if the Daily Show is any thing to go by).

Yes I know, pictures of nice middle class Persians being killed may well be our preparation for the attack.


D

[(Anonymous)]

Am I correct in understanding that in your opinion, the business of a telecoms organisation should be to facillitate open communication? To provide the shovels for the gold rush, as it were? To provide a channel through which people at locations remote from one another can converse and otherwise engage in teh discourse?

I would add that they must 'pay' for serices they use also, such as the 'right' to operate in a civil society (police) with an eductated workforce to draw upon, and so forth.

I wonder if this is what Grim was thinking about what they 'should do' - I hope he tells us soon.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

I hope he tells us soon

I don't know why you bother continuing to try debating with him, you know. He's a big man behind a keyboard when he finds someone he can bully pr browbeat, but stand up to him or expose his arguments and he runs like cheap paint.

[(Anonymous)]

That's scarcely fair, and I wasn't even aiming to engage him in debate, simply asking him to clarify a statement which I didn't understand.

He also makes a sweeping statement on the inefficiency of competition. Whilst this is readily apparent, I'm at a loss to propose anything which would deliver progress without occaisional failure, and wondered where he was going with it.

I hope he replies soon.

Are you a betting man?

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

If he gives a meaningful response to your question then your curry at the weekend is on me. If he doesn't by then, then you're buying.

I reckon I'm on for a free feed if you take this one.

Re: Are you a betting man?

[(Anonymous)]

I am indeed. I think he'll step up to the plate just to see you out of pocket. You're on!

Come on Grim! This one's for the team!

Re: Are you a betting man?

[(Anonymous)]

Oooh 'eck, looks like working class solidarity has broken down and I, a factory worker, will be buying David, a bloated plutocrat, supper. Unless working class hero Grim intervenes to save me with a quick description of the correct actions of telecoms companies, that is.

I never thought this day would come, it's enough to make a fellow vote BNP. Now they care about us workers.

Re: Are you a betting man?

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

And so the rich just get richer through the apathy of the champions of the workers.

Re: Are you a betting man?

[(Anonymous)]

So it would seem.

Quis Fruor?

[(Anonymous)]

The Defendant having failed to step up to the mark, some Cicero might be prepared to argue the case for the State ownership of Telecoms. So long, that is, that he is not thereafter traduced in any ensuing mini-series.

One's fee would be you picking up the tab at l'Abbaye de la Celle in August and protection from the proscriptions that would undoubtedly follow Davy-Wavy's Triumvirate.

D

Re: Quis Fruor?

[(Anonymous)]

Let me think... er... No.

Argue with a professional arguer with a £600 lunch (probably 800 now teh pound has tanked) on the table?

I'm cutting my losses and abandoning the folly of working class solidarity in the face of opposition. It's every man for himself now.

Bah, pwned by teh David. The humiliation.

[(Anonymous)]

I made the witless blunder of making a bet with teh David, in which I stupidly assumed teh Grim would actually step up to teh plate & explain his suggestion that telecoms companies don't do what they're meant to do, which I didn't understand, as my phone seems to work fine & the bill isn't too onerous once I consider £4 a month goes to pay of the money they stupidly wasted on a 3G license which they don't use.

Needless to say, teh David won.

Blarst!

Re: Bah, pwned by teh David. The humiliation.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

It was there you made your bloomer. You heard the cries of 'Heil Grim!', and thought it was the voice of the people, when it was simply a gramophone record he plays in the background to add credence to his frothings.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Slight error in your figures, I hear - the news had it that the cost of 'welfare' (i.e benefits) has tipped over £150bn and rising - and now exceeds the total revenues of income tax and NI. In other words, the non-productive population now costs more to keep than the productive population actually generates.

[(Anonymous)]

"the non-productive population now costs more to keep than the productive population actually generates."

This is true at any time the national debt is growing. The government can just steal your savings by printing money to pay for it though, so nothing to worry about.

[(Anonymous)]

You mean the Government's declared spending figures are unreliable? I am SHOCKED.

I didn't bother including the Pensions total in the "Welfare" figure, that's 110 bn. I'm guessing not a lot of that is the basic state pension.

D

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

You're right, I'd forgotten. The welfare liability is £260bn, against income tax revenues of about £150bn. One suspects this might not prove to be a viable long-term solution.