List your parties in order of preference.

Tom Wilde · 23-04-2008, 09:13 PM

My order of preference:

1) Liberal Party
2) UKIP
3) Libertarians
4) One London
5) Green Party
6) LibDems
7) Conservatives
8) Monster Raving Loonies
......
92) Respect (The Disunity Coalition)
93) Labour Party
94) ZANU (PF)
95) BNP

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

It's called the Matt Davies Appreciation Party. Sorry, but membership is fairly limited and strict.

Now is the time for all good men to gatecrash Matt's party!

Smidgey · 23-04-2008, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by British-Conservatism

Ok some goo points there.
Let me give my opinion on each.

1) National service - very anti-freedom, statist and anti-liberty.

Some thing that has many positives in my opinion.
Increase patriotism.
Instill discipline in our youth.
Create a sense of belonging.
Make our nation war ready.

Apart from huge costs, it might have some of the opposite effects to some of the 'positives' that you list. Namely, if I was forced to join the military, it would most certainly make me hate my country, my government and the society that sat by and caused it to happen. No doubt there would be thousands who felt the same. Not to mention countries such as Finland have had those who refused and are now serving prison terms called prisoners of conscience by Amnesty Internation.

An increase of patriotism is not necessarily a good thing. It really depends what kind of patriotism one wishes to increase. I don't see the militaristic and nationalistic collectivism that this would promote as a good thing.

Conscripts are not the greatest of war fighters. A professional army (as the name would suggest) is far more capable. As for creating discipline in 'our youth' (see the collectivism?), do you really suppose military service would do this? I think personal responsibility is far more potent in this regard. Contrast the youth of Russia or Denmark (Denmark has more youth alcoholism than we do according to my Danish friend).

Quote:

2) Removing the vote of conscientious objectors - anti-liberty and basically amounts to punishing those who disagree with you so that they cannot vote agianst you.

Interesting one it stops the shirkers of duty having a say.

It's absurd. It's like saying that one cannot use a private hospital until one votes in a party that wants to get rid of the NHS. Furthermore, a 'shirker of duty' is the person who willingly goes to military service and passes the massive costs onto other people, whilst shirking his duty to morality and his fellow human. Duty is a moral thing, and the state is not a moral entity. Only individuals can be treated morally.

Quote:

3) Capital punishment - According to a libertarian, the state is not infallible, sorry...

Somthing thats needed for lifers that commit crimes inside and very popular too.

Popularity does not make something right. I'm sure Jesus didn't think this when He was on the cross.

For the record, I could never vote for a party that supported the death penalty.

Quote:

4) They support a 'free' (or so they call it, Ha!), National Health Service - A socialistic leftist policy.

The NHS increases freedom as it provides healthcare for many who otherwise would not be able to afford it.

This is up for debate.

Quote:

5) Control of agriculture and agricultural subsidies - little do they realise that many of these subsidies caused the problems in the first place, not to mention that it is anti-economic freedom.

Essential to make us self-sufficient in food and secure as a nation.

It weakens our nation by weakening our economy. With a stronger economy, the nation as a whole is much stronger. Not to mention the huge problems to farming that it brings.

Quote:

6) Opposition to rail privatisation - This one's a no brainer.

Rail Privatisation has been a disaster.
Our railways are a disgrace compared to many other nations with State owned railways.

Rail privatisation has been a disaster. But that is due to the way it was done, not due to private railways. American railways, before the state got involved, were far better. They have had the opposite problem. So, again, this is up for debate.

Quote:

7) Public schooling - not only do they support it, but they specifically mention that they are angered by the indoctrination of 'our children'. The ironic thing is, they then go on to argue in favour of indoctrination - just their kind this time!

Im shocked that your against state schools.
We need to be realistic here.

I would support a voucher scheme in the maintime, but back the main point - which was about indoctrination. I will also cover the centralisation point here. By centralising the school system, not only do you lower the quality of schooling (it is collectivist to assume that everyone is the same), but you create bureaucracy and increase costs for everyone. A voucher scheme requires decentralisation.

Quote:

8) Increase taxes on companies that outsource.

Great idea.
Want to see goods here then make them here.

How much would you increase the taxes by? Because I have no doubt that even higher taxes will not prevent companies from outsourcing. However, if you make the taxes too great, then companies will stop trading in Britain and move elsewhere entirely. Not only do you have an outsourced company, but a lost company!

Quote:

9) Centralising education.

Well needed to create a united patriotic state.

Partially answered above.

Quote:

10) Require supermarkets to stock British grown food - no doubt at great cost to everyone in Britain. Bastiat would be absolutely appalled.

Another very good popular policy that I covered in at 5

I don't think this was covered in five. Let me point out why I mentioned Bastiat:

What is seen:

1) Farmers earn more money and are better off.

What is not seen:

1) The tax that is used to pay the bureaucracy/subsidies that manage this comes out of the pockets of Brits who can no longer spend that money on some other product, which could have in turn boosted a different part of the British economy.
2) An increase in prices at supermarkets, which in turn would do what point one did.
3) Less goods bought in supermarkets, or, alternatively, less of a price hike in supermarkets. Either way, a loss of jobs.

You are asking us (as Bastiat so cleverly pointed out) to intentionally destroy windows so that the glaziers can stay in business money.

We should block out the sun since it is providing competition to the candlemakers.

Farming is a business, and it is no different from any other business. We should be supporting individuals, not businesses and not the government.

Quote:

11) Introduction of daily Christian assemblies into public schools - no thanks!

Maybe upset British atheists which may be a problem.

Indeed, Britain, even though it is a mostly Christian country, has a strong history of atheist thought as well.

Quote:

12) They wish to abolish university fees - how on earth are they going to pay for this whilst promising to lower taxes? It would seem that when a party has no chance of getting into power they can offer anything they want.

saving 8 billion on foreign aid and 2 and half billion on asylum seeker costs would more than cover it

This is absurd, just because you stop spending money on something doesn't make the problem go away. You will still have to spend billions in creating your utopia of 'Fortress Britain' to keep those nasty illegal immigrants out.

Quote:

13) They support the continued use of council houses.

As do I until people can afford to buy.

Right to buy is of course good, however, I would gradually phase out council housing altogether. The BNP's plans make it harder for new and cheap housing to be built, as well as promising council housing. You cannot have both.

Quote:

14) Invest in maglev trains - why on earth? This is just insanity.

We need the best railways on earth to show the world British greatness amomg other things.

China has maglev trains. I don't feel any resentment at Chinese greatness. To be honest, I feel nothing but contempt for the vile Chinese government. British greatness should be shown to the world as a land of liberty, not as a fortress nation where the state dictates daily life.

British-Conservatism · 23-04-2008, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smidgey

Apart from huge costs, it might have some of the opposite effects to some of the 'positives' that you list. Namely, if I was forced to join the military, it would most certainly make me hate my country, my government and the society that sat by and caused it to happen. No doubt there would be thousands who felt the same. Not to mention countries such as Finland have had those who refused and are now serving prison terms called prisoners of conscience by Amnesty Internation.

An increase of patriotism is not necessarily a good thing. It really depends what kind of patriotism one wishes to increase. I don't see the militaristic and nationalistic collectivism that this would promote as a good thing.

Conscripts are not the greatest of war fighters. A professional army (as the name would suggest) is far more capable. As for creating discipline in 'our youth' (see the collectivism?), do you really suppose military service would do this? I think personal responsibility is far more potent in this regard. Contrast the youth of Russia or Denmark (Denmark has more youth alcoholism than we do according to my Danish friend).

It's absurd. It's like saying that one cannot use a private hospital until one votes in a party that wants to get rid of the NHS. Furthermore, a 'shirker of duty' is the person who willingly goes to military service and passes the massive costs onto other people, whilst shirking his duty to morality and his fellow human. Duty is a moral thing, and the state is not a moral entity. Only individuals can be treated morally.

Popularity does not make something right. I'm sure Jesus didn't think this when He was on the cross.

For the record, I could never vote for a party that supported the death penalty.

This is up for debate.

It weakens our nation by weakening our economy. With a stronger economy, the nation as a whole is much stronger. Not to mention the huge problems to farming that it brings.

Rail privatisation has been a disaster. But that is due to the way it was done, not due to private railways. American railways, before the state got involved, were far better. They have had the opposite problem. So, again, this is up for debate.

I would support a voucher scheme in the maintime, but back the main point - which was about indoctrination. I will also cover the centralisation point here. By centralising the school system, not only do you lower the quality of schooling (it is collectivist to assume that everyone is the same), but you create bureaucracy and increase costs for everyone. A voucher scheme requires decentralisation.

How much would you increase the taxes by? Because I have no doubt that even higher taxes will not prevent companies from outsourcing. However, if you make the taxes too great, then companies will stop trading in Britain and move elsewhere entirely. Not only do you have an outsourced company, but a lost company!

Partially answered above.

I don't think this was covered in five. Let me point out why I mentioned Bastiat:

What is seen:

1) Farmers earn more money and are better off.

What is not seen:

1) The tax that is used to pay the bureaucracy/subsidies that manage this comes out of the pockets of Brits who can no longer spend that money on some other product, which could have in turn boosted a different part of the British economy.
2) An increase in prices at supermarkets, which in turn would do what point one did.
3) Less goods bought in supermarkets, or, alternatively, less of a price hike in supermarkets. Either way, a loss of jobs.

You are asking us (as Bastiat so cleverly pointed out) to intentionally destroy windows so that the glaziers can stay in business money.

We should block out the sun since it is providing competition to the candlemakers.

Farming is a business, and it is no different from any other business. We should be supporting individuals, not businesses and not the government.

Indeed, Britain, even though it is a mostly Christian country, has a strong history of atheist thought as well.

This is absurd, just because you stop spending money on something doesn't make the problem go away. You will still have to spend billions in creating your utopia of 'Fortress Britain' to keep those nasty illegal immigrants out.

Right to buy is of course good, however, I would gradually phase out council housing altogether. The BNP's plans make it harder for new and cheap housing to be built, as well as promising council housing. You cannot have both.

China has maglev trains. I don't feel any resentment at Chinese greatness. To be honest, I feel nothing but contempt for the vile Chinese government. British greatness should be shown to the world as a land of liberty, not as a fortress nation where the state dictates daily life.

Lots of good points of debate there.

A lot to cover in detail so I can leave a few aside right now.

British-Conservatism · 23-04-2008, 09:57 PM

1, 2 and 3 I think they where.

National Service and Hanging we could leave out without harming a Conservative Nationalistic state.

But on your NHS point it's beyond doubt that the NHS increases choice and freedom.

The other points I shall come to one by one in greater detail.

The Bear · 24-04-2008, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by British-Conservatism

I can see it would take a lot to get you to like the BNP.
The Libertarian party is very much for you.
The BNP is a Traditional Conservative part.
Two very different ideologies.
UKIP is trying to mix the two making neither group happy.

The BNP is a traditional Conservative party like a dog is a teapot.

g hall · 24-04-2008, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by British-Conservatism

National Service and Hanging we could leave out without harming a Conservative Nationalistic state.

A National Conservative party now there's a thought could it already exist under the name BNP mind you NACI party with a soft c sounds about right

altogether now "Springtime for Hitler in Germany"

Vortex · 24-04-2008, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by g hall

A National Conservative party now there's a thought could it already exist under the name BNP mind you NACI party with a soft c sounds about right

altogether now "Springtime for Hitler in Germany"

Mind you if we continue to recruit disaffected UKIP members and supporters at the rate we are doing perhaps an alternative ditty could be:-

"Jolly boating weather" - dress optional, but boaters and cravats preferred.

British-Conservatism · 24-04-2008, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bear

The BNP is a traditional Conservative party like a dog is a teapot.

It represents the views almost 100% of people like Churchill, Baldwin, Bonar-Law, Joe Chamberlain etc.
It is 100% a Conservative and Unionist party.

British-Conservatism · 24-04-2008, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by g hall

A National Conservative party now there's a thought could it already exist under the name BNP mind you NACI party with a soft c sounds about right

altogether now "Springtime for Hitler in Germany"

It it was a Nazi party would it have Jewish members and such a pro-Israeli possition?

The Bear · 25-04-2008, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by British-Conservatism

It represents the views almost 100% of people like Churchill, Baldwin, Bonar-Law, Joe Chamberlain etc.
It is 100% a Conservative and Unionist party.

No it does not.

Churchill especially was anti fascist in the extreme.

To take on (or appear to take on) some of the principles of people such as Churchill is absolutely NOT sufficient to claim that the BNP represents almost 100% of their opinions let alone their policies.

In fact it is disingenuous in the extreme.

Would the BNP have Jewish members?

Where’s the proof that it does?

And even if it did who’s to prove that any such member had not simply been fooled by the fleece around the wolf?

As for supporting Israel, that is exactly the same as saying that it supports Australia or Rhodesia or The Maldives.

In fact to use Israel in the context that you do implies that there might be some reason why any right thinking person should not.

23-04-2008, 09:57 PM	#34 (permalink)
British-Conservatism Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 1,326	1, 2 and 3 I think they where. National Service and Hanging we could leave out without harming a Conservative Nationalistic state. But on your NHS point it's beyond doubt that the NHS increases choice and freedom. The other points I shall come to one by one in greater detail. __________________ http://conservativedemocraticalliance.blogspot.com/

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode