This Country has gone too far to the right

Like an uninhabited desert island, perhaps, aprilrose?

The alt-right does seem to have a unique ability to produce absolute codswallop.

Maizie WUM = wind up merchant

aprilrose, if 'equality, diversity and multiculturalism' are 'political impositions' and left wing (to you) it makes me wonder what you'd have instead?

This is just my opinion from personal experience. Equality is an ideal. You cannot have it because people are not equal. Some have better brains, some have great athletic ability, time are good at maths and others languages. Some people have more wealth than others , better jobs etc. We are not all equal.

We could try and treat all people equally but that doesnt work either mainly because of the factors I mentioned above. Some have better access to legal authorities than others. Some have better homes than others. Some have better brains and can think their way through things than others. That creates more inequality. All societies have always had inequalities.

If you want to apply the ideal then you need to have us all living in identical apartments on uniform streets, all earning the same no matter what our job ( or no job) etc. You could do that. In fact that is the socialist dream. That we are all the same whether a doctor or a call centre operative. We all earn the same, get the same welfare benefits and live exactly the same lives. In fact we could all be allocated work according to the needs of society and no choices at all. They did that in China at one point. That would be equal but dull and not very pleasant if you are a skilled doctor and are asked to work in the sewage works whilst the person in the sewage works gets to practice surgery.

But I cannot see any motivation or incentive for living in a life like that. If we will all get the same , why bother to work at all. But I wouldn't have a choice. In socialism you do as you are told. In fact where I live I know many people on benefits who will say precisely that and have said it to me. That poor economic foresight on their parts because someone has to make the money that keeps them. But they have a point I think at times. That time is usually at 5:00 am when I am going out of the house and wont be back for twelve hours and I know that my wages are little higher than their benefits. Equality is an ideal but not very workable. There will always be people who can work the system whatever the system.

Diversity seems to me to be the opposite of equality. It seems to be a mechanism where people can trade their difference to gain advantage in society or the workplace. I know where I live those who come from minority groups often get better treatment or are pushed up the lists one way or another. I suppose it is no different to the old way of working where nepotism was rife. When my father started work for example, his brothers and father got him in where they worked. Today we dont do that. Instead we fill quota's with people who fit the bill by being from certain groups. Its not about ability , or how well you do the job, just are you one of the protected groups we need to give special consideration to. There is no equality in giving special consideration to others because they have some characteristic the majority do not have. I am not against people getting jobs regardless of colour, creed , race, gender or disability or whatever I have missed out there, if they can prove they are the best for the job. Otherwise it seems to leave many people feeling they have not been treated fairly ( let alone equally). I believe in a place where people get jobs, houses or anything else according to their abilities and needs, not some arbitrary characteristic.

Multiculturalism is a big thing with me. It has created so many divides where I live. There are no go areas around me. There are ghettos and enclaves of people who belong to one culture or sub culture. They live their own lives and I am supposed to accept it, yet, when I want to go and live somewhere with people like me I get told that is worng and I have to accept other cultures. I seem to have to be the one who has to change my ways for others. I know lots of people who have become very angry at this . That seems to be another inequality. It has been flash-point time most weekends with different groups meeting on the street and bust ups. A lot of it is fueled by the perception ( right or wrong and I know some would say it is wrong) that some groups are getting treated better than they are because those groups are given special treatment, better treatment, they are allowed to have their culture where others are not and so it goes on and on and people get angry with each other. Its all fueled by allowing too many differences and a victim culture. There seems to be nothing we share.

When there is a lot of competition and not very much to be had, people start to look closely at who is getting what. Equality is a fine ideal when there is a lot to go around. However, diversity and multi - culturalism are counterproductive to it when there is little. That's why it doesn't work for many communities, including where I live.

Equality, diversity and multiculturalism are fine media and political soundbites but they do not work.

What would I like instead? A world where despite all inequalities I could live, bring up my family and not have to be bombarded by the ineffective soundbites and politics. Somewhere I can be free. Free to do as I want ( as long as I do not commit murder) and to say what I think and not have to watch my words all the time.

Thank you for reading.

Well aprilrose all I can say is that if you regard the human rights declaration made in 1948 as a political decision to be condemned I can only assume that the events which caused it in some way meet with your approval..
The 1944 act may have made secondary education compulsory for all *growstuff but it was only up to the age of 15.
I don't think I have argued that our education system is not selective in many ways, simply that the establishment of comprehensive schools was as radical in its day as introducing secondary education had been. How those schools choose to adminster their internal working has always been individual choice. It has always been a feature of the English education system that there is a degree of choice.
There was limited secondary education for poorer children before 1944 but it was selective and dependant on scholarships. Comprehensive education existed before Crosland but it was not widespread or general. Both measures changed education drastically but in my opinion providing a comprehensive education is more relevant today than a system which no longer exists in most of the country.

What's a 'WUM' box, growstuff? Is it similar to a WPB?

I think you're making the rather strange assumption, aprilrose, that 'politics' has nothing to do with the way we wish to treat our fellow citizens, or, be treated by our fellow citizens.

Trisher, your references to human rights in the United Nations and to the US constitution only support my comment that these are political constructions as both those documents have political origins. Thanks for the support there.

No growstuff , I am not Abbey, but I remember Abbey. Funny how some people have to bring up other posters in the way you have. Isn't there a rule about mentioning posters who have left the site? Thats not nice.

Did you used to have the username abbey by any chance aprilrose?

aprilrose I can assure that I do not know what "cultural Marxism" is. When I've tried to find out, I've just found a load of rambling mumbo jumbo. It would be helpful if you could explain.

However, you are the one who doesn't want to discuss with me, presumably because you are in your own mind censoring my opinions. Maybe you don't think they're worth anything . As it is, I'm putting you and your posts in the WUM box.

Baker Days have been renamed trisher but they still exist, as does much that the 1988 ERA introduced.

For all its failings, the 1944 Education Act had a more profound effect on education than anything else ever has because it made secondary education compulsory for all. Before then, most children had no more than what was called an "elementary" education - the 3Rs, Religious Instruction and some practical skills, but not much else. That's why so many people of that generation still hold on to some idea that grammar schools are wonderful. They certainly were wonderful for those, who wouldn't have previously had a chance to go to such a school.

England does not have a uniform comprehensive system. Even in counties where there are no grammar schools, many comprehensives operate covert selection and are still, in effect, selective.

The education system is about much more than the way secondary schools are organised and, at its core, England still has a selective, elitist system. Crosland was going along with changes which were already occurring. Comprehensive schools (for good or bad) weren't a Labour initiative and the first comprehensives were pale imitations of the public and grammar schools with streaming, houses, gown-wearing teachers, etc. I taught in one of those schools in the 1980s. It still had two separate streams and staff who specialised in academic or non-academic pupils. We had to wear gowns for assemblies.

aprilrose, if 'equality, diversity and multiculturalism' are 'political impositions' and left wing (to you) it makes me wonder what you'd have instead?

How is the church left wing? How is same sex marriage left wing?

aprilrose if you fail to actually name the "institutions" you regard as being more left wing you can't blame me if I speculate what they might be. As it is I remain totally baffled.
I think equality and human rights are basic requirements of any civilised society. They were defined by the UN in 1948, www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
been part of the USA constitution since 1787 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States
The UN date is particularly important as it marked the end of a period in history when human rights were completely under threat. If that is the sort of time you think was better I couldn't disagree more.

If they are things like the NHS this was a socialist creation. If the state education system this was a socialist creation. The pity is the other institutions such as rail and water are no longer under socialist control and ownership. And essentially that is what socialism is people controlling and running things and the profits being ploughed back not lining some fat cat's pocket

Interesting, I have been accused of not understanding the difference between human rights and freedom, yet this shows a distinct lack of understanding of the term "institution"

Institutions are not things like the railways ( which were orginally built for profit and are not socialist at all. It was a post war Labour government that turned them into that.

Indeed the Welfare State, of which the NHS was a part, together with a new free education system and a social security system were a political construct, not an institution.

Institutions have a longer history. They might be seen as the glue that holds a society together. Things like family might just make it into institution. Although the things you lump together they might be reflected in things like health care they are really more a set of norms and values around which a society forms and agrees.

They are cultural in terms of being the mores and ways of the people and they grow naturally.

They are not political impositions like modern day "equality", "diversity" and "multiculturalism". I think those three things have been the biggest divider of people in this country that we have ever known. If you really want to see where many of the divisions and problems arise - look no further than those three ideas. All are politically left wing.
All are ideas which stem from the view that culture and society must be engineered.

What I do fail to understand is how you can assert these freedoms are left wing but at the same time decree that the left wing are controlling and fascist.

Human rights are not freedoms. They are political constructs and as such become controlling of freedom - certainly of freedom of speech. That is the right to say what you want . Now if you speak a fact that infringes someones "Human Rights" you can end up in prison or at the least losing your job.

Well, that is me told then growstuff. I dont agree with you.

I dont believe that "human rights" actually exist beyond being political constructs.

As for the established church not accepting same sex marriage. They are on the road to changing toward that very soon.

If you do not understand the term cultural Marxist, I suggest you look up Gramsci. I am sure actually from other things of yours I have read that you do know what the term means and how it is currently being played out politically. But if you choose to say you do not, then there is little more we can say to each other.

growstuff although the 1944 Education Act did introduce schooling for all, the system has moved on so much from then. There are now few seperate Infants and Junior schools they have become Primaries. There are a few places where the grammar system still operates but most children will have a comprehensive education. Although a few comprehensives existed after 1944 their real beginnings are in the 1965 Labour government The largest expansion of comprehensive schools resulted from a policy decision taken in 1965 by Anthony Crosland, Secretary of State for Education in the 1964–1970 Labour government, a fervent supporter of comprehensive education. This had been the party's policy for some time. The policy decision was implemented by Circular 10/65, an instruction to local education authorities to plan for conversion.
As for the 1988 act even Baker Days have now been renamed

trisher The most important education acts of the last 70 years were the 1944 Education Act and the 1988 Education Reform Act. Both still have a huge influence on the education system today and both were the responsibility of Conservatives (Rab Butler and Ken Baker).

Ironically, comprehensive schools were first introduced in the Tory shires because there weren't enough grammar school places for the growing middle class, who hated the idea of their offspring going to secondary moderns.

The education system in England is still very conservative (with a small "c") with a focus on the highest achievers - more is the pity. A levels are considered to be the gold standard and grammar schools are still an aspiration where they exist. I'm trying quite hard to think of any major influence the Labour Party has had.

To be honest, I think you're the one who is slightly confused (certainly confusing) aprilrose.

You seem to be somewhat paranoid about expressing an opinion. Of course, Gransnet has rules, which it's entitled to have because it doesn't want to oversee a bitchfest, but you have the right to say why you think the country has lurched to the left.

Do you have any other examples rather than those relating to the church and same sex marriage? AFAIK the established church in England still doesn't allow same sex marriages.

As for organ donation, is that really a political issue? To be perfectly honest, I'm happy for anybody to benefit from any bits of me when I'm dead (not that I think any of me is in very good shape).

I really don't think those are good examples of the country lurching to the left politically.

BTW What the heck is a cultural Marxist? I've seen it written on loony right-wing message boards and never understand what it was all about.

Ah now I understand aprilrose you are mistaking the freedoms and human rights recently introduced into society as left wing policies. What I do fail to understand is how you can assert these freedoms are left wing but at the same time decree that the left wing are controlling and fascist. No one is saying you have to be gay and get married, no one is saying your organs will be removed if you like it or not.
It is amusing that you think Conservatism has always held as its premise the philosophy that people have the right to make their own decisions and that government should not interfere. Socialism tends toward the opposite another way of putting that might be that people are free to die in the gutter and the state shouldn't interfere.
growstuff comprehensive schools were mostly introduced because it was a Labour Govs policy. Unfortunately so were Academies.

I might well end up being banned for giving examples, such is the way in which freedom of speech is curtailed. But a couple which I think are fairly innocuous but demonstrate the point.

I need to make it clear as a starting point that Conservatism has always held as its premise the philosophy that people have the right to make their own decisions and that government should not interfere. Socialism tends toward the opposite.

Two small ways in which Conservatism has lurched to the left in the last few years - the re definition of marriage to allow same sex partnerships and changes in organ donation laws ( due in next year) where opt out becomes the norm rather than opt in systems. In the past, Conservatives would never have dreamed of telling people they will be deemed to donate organs by default. Neither would they, by definition of being the guardians of older standards, have changed the law to allow same sex marriages .

Many policies now being held by the Conservative Party are essentially secular progressive and highly cultural marxist ( which makes them left wing)

Now, I know those examples will be contentious enough amongst the liberal left here but they are at least areas where I am allowed to speak (still).

I also think some people are getting confused about fascism. It is generally a political system under one leader ( a dictator) which allows no other parties or views and state control. Most fascist states have started out from socialist roots - for example Pol Pot in Cambodia, North Korea, Germany ( under the national socialists) , USSR and China.

I agree with you Labaik, especially about Scotland. I honestly can't see Labour winning a GE with the current leadership. The current Conservative government should be a gift to the opposition.

Totally agree. The number of independent academic studies that have shown the bias of the media are of course totally ignored.
Corbyn gets fairer coverage from independent US media, like Michael Brooks, Sam Seder, Jimmy Dore etc. than he does from any UK media.
The similarities to McCarthyism are very stark. There are some good articles online questioning why supposedly left wing publications didn't challenge it which are very interesting. One problem was that even when they did they always bought in to the basic premise of their being a problem that had to be dealt with.