What does each political group want?

The Tories have used The Adam Smith Institute to advise their policies but what part of their policies are relevant to Adam Smith's own original beliefs.

Problem is, they ignored this bit:

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue but something more than in that proportion

And this:

No society can surely be happy and flourishing of which the far greater part of its members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed and lodged

(I've nicked those quotes from twitter and from a comment on Murphy's article, but I have tried to read Smith and he doesn't support the Thatcherite interpretation..)

Thatcherism is just Thatcherism. It came from her beliefs and those around her.

For this purpose should Thatcherism be put forward separate to Conservatism?

If anyone can say what the political parties stand for in Australia they are doing well. It seems to be me,me and I for all of them. What they say and what they do are not related.

It’s hard not to be cynical about politics in the UK Conservatives and Labour are the only parties likely to get elected, voters will elect the party that seems the most competent. Personalities of the leaders plays a big part, Major v Blair, Miliband v Cameron and Corbyn v Johnson, even within their own parties personality will outrank ability.

To get elected a party has to present a middle of the road manifesto that does not disadvantage anyone too much, what happens after may be different. The Labour Party needs to realize that it’s never going to get elected with a “socialist” agenda.

The Labour Party needs to realize that it’s never going to get elected with a “socialist” agenda.

Here we go with vague and undefined labels again. [eyeroll]

What does 'socialist' mean in the context of your post, Katie59?

Have you missed the purpose of this thread which was, I think, to get a better understanding of terms like that..

Socialism as defined by Pippa because that’s what the left if the Labour Party seem to want, they don’t seem to accept capitalism

That is a small part of the Labour Party and not what they put forward as what they stand for.

We were not debating the rights and wrongs of sections of a party Katie, but what each party says it stands for. Do you think the Labour Party stands on a socialist platform? All the way through I have been asking what, simply, they would say their party stands for.

nanna8

If anyone can say what the political parties stand for in Australia they are doing well. It seems to be me,me and I for all of them. What they say and what they do are not related.

This is the crux of it nanna8 and why I wanted to try and define what each party would say it stands for.

All over the world parties seem to have ceased to have principles they want to offer. We now are asked to feel that this is our "community"; that we "belong" to a party. That it "feels" right.

With politicians offering no principles on which they stand, we are less able to hold them to account - which is why they do it, of course. That, and the way it ensnares voters who would not have voted for them if they had known that party would morph into something quite different under the same name.

Katie59

Socialism as defined by Pippa because that’s what the left if the Labour Party seem to want, they don’t seem to accept capitalism

I don’t think that you have thought the concepts through.

You know that capitalism is the sort of economic system that has been in use in the U.K. since the late 18th century.

You know that socialism as an economic system has with regard to whole countries has never been successfully introduced.

So how does that square with your assertion that Labour are a socialist political party?

I think probably what you mean, and I apologise if I’m wrong, that the Labour believe in state intervention in order to support and defend society against exploitation whilst ensuring a healthy and viable capitalist economy.

I assume that is something you would not support?

pippa I think that in order to define a particular political party, you need to identify the continuous threads that run through their various actions and stated beliefs over the decades.

Looking at a particular party within a very short time span, won’t work as they are here today, gone tomorrow politicians.

I didn't really want to define them, Whitewave. I was trying to work out how they define themselves in simple words.

PippaZ

I didn't really want to define them, Whitewave. I was trying to work out how they define themselves in simple words.

I think that you would get a different definition from every party member you spoke to.

The only way really is to look at the blurb in the manifestos.

Johnson’s definition would differ radically from say May.

Starmer’s definition would differ radically from Abbott.

We can put forward what we think they use as the guiding principles but it is a very fluid concept at any specific time. That is why I think you need to look the principles long term to see what are the common threads.

I think that that, in itself, has been an answer though Whitewave. How can anyone vote for a party that may, as you say, differ radically on it principles, with a change of leader.

It might be worth coming back to the subject in time to come.

Don't bother to look at any party's policies or their candidates. Don't bother to campaign or argue for something better or even vote.

We do not live in a democracy in any true sense of the word. First Past The Post means dictat by a minority who can go unchallenged for years on the basis of gaining a minority of votes cast.

For more that 40 years no UK PM has been elected in a general election without the endorsement of the foreign billionaire Rupert Murdoch.

If one party, or some parties stood on a simple PR platform I would vote for them or one of them. But they can't, can they?

I think politics exists on two axes - libertarian and authoritarian on one, and large state/small state on the other. It is perfectly possible to sit at one extreme on one axis and the other extreme on the other, depending on where your core beliefs lie, so concepts like 'left and right wing' are often not very useful.

Nevertheless, on the whole, Labour would support large state and Conservative small - as broad brush examples Labour would support nationalisation, regulations on wages and public health and education systems, whilst Conservatives would support private profit-making services and no wage controls. The idea of a welfare state does not fit with small state ideals - people should provide for themselves and their families, and 'there is no such thing as society', and in a large state view everyone should pay to support one another by creating a safety net.

On the other axis is how far you think the state should interfere in 'personal freedoms', so Conservatives would be high on the libertarian scale - not wanting to impose lockdowns, few controls on things like how many holidays employers have to offer staff, whereas Labour would be less libertarian and more in favour of protections - so more support for health and safety legislation, laws prohibiting long working hours and so on. Support for things like freedom of expression, sexual freedoms, adherence to prescribed norms of behaviour sit on this axis, too.

As a result of both of these sets of ideas, Conservatives are a party of low taxation, feeling that people should fend for themselves, and Labour's philosophy of state protection of its citizens needs to charge everyone higher taxes to pay for it, whether they need protection or not.

As individuals, though, someone like Johnson (Libertarian, small state) and May (Authoritarian, small state) can share beliefs about how far the state should protect or leave us to our own devices, but otherwise be on different places on the political compass, as can Corbyn and Starmer. None of these people is being untrue to their principles or party, as what counts as being 'Labour' or 'Conservative' shifts all the time, largely depending on the leaders, and explains the factions and need for regular reshuffles of people who don't 'fit' any longer.

Manifestoes are just a set of policies to try to create a society that broadly aligns with the current set of leaders' place on the compass.

You can test your own place on the compass (based roughly on the axes I've outlined above) on this link. It's quite interesting to see which historical figures had views similar to yours.

Interesting post Doodledog.

I didn't see any comparisons with historical figures on the Political Compass. It just placed me about where I think I am...

If you click the button to get a printable certificate, it takes you to a certificate with pictures of historical figures and you are placed there. I just did mine again, and here it is:

Ah yours is the same as mine! I was surprised tbh. I didn’t know I was left wing. I thought of myself as centre? Who knew ?‍♀️

I'm right there with you both

So am I. Perhaps it's the same fir everyone

We need more people to fill it in and come clean ?

I'm in the middle of Caroline Lucas' face

Dinahmo

I'm in the middle of Caroline Lucas' face

We do seem to be clustering somewhat. Someone very obviously not a leftie come and do it?