Last night on facebook a friend of mine asked me why I only criticise the Tories, as some of the accusations I make about them are just as valid to make of labour. This is, to be fair, true; but the difference is I don't have a problem with Labour's philosophy. I am what you might call a left winger, and I think this stems from my disability. I believe, firstly, that everyone is equal, regardless of gender, creed, colour or disability. This might lead one to conclude that if we are all equal, we should all be left to our own devices.. the best will rise to the top. This is more or less the Tory stance, and it is wrong. All it means is that wealth will be handed down from generation to generation; only the rich would get a decent education; and society will remain divided.
On the other hand, if we are all equal, shouldn't we all be treated equally? If we are all of equal worth, don't we all deserve equal access to education and healthcare? We all have equal potential to contribute to civilisation, but if some have better access to resources due to their class (or theiir disability), doesn't it mean that some human potential is being wasted? This is why I think we must do away with the class system; tax thee rich to feed the poor. That way, resources can be pooled - a great example is the NHS. Only then can we start off on an equal footing, so we all have the same chance to contribute. I think, personally, that what Marx ssaid about the socioeconomic constraints of class is equally aplicable and transposable to the physical constraints of disability.
As far as I can tell, the Tories want to perpetuate the class system. They see meritocracy as a good thing; but meritocracy often only benefits the greediest rather than the best. The Tories want to keep their money, rather than giving it away to benefit society. This is a philosophy of greed and selfishness which, in the long term, wastes human potential and gets us nowhere. If we value all human life in all it's diversity, we must work together and pool our resources in order to foster everyone's unique talent. The individualism of the right will get us, as a civilisation, nowhere.
[Edited 04/03/2010 at 12:49:56 - added a bit]
[Edited 04/03/2010 at 12:51:16 - spelling]
Matthew, are you channeling Michael Foot? One of the left wings's great orators died yesterday, and you should read some of his speeches (unless of course you already have!) For the sake of balance you might like to read some of Thatcher's speeches which outlined her point of view. You might baulk at that, but you really ought to understand better the Conservative perspective, which comes from a very different world view. For every epithet you throw at them, they have equally strong invective to return at you. They also have the advantage that the Labour government has not done a very good job of improving social mobility or reducing wealth inequality in the UK.
Posted 04/03/2010 at 13:57:05 by Dad
Hi dad. maybe I was indeed channeling michael foot. I forgot to mention in my blog that the news of his death was, in part, why I came to be thinking about this stuff. friom what I have heard of his speeches, by and large I agree with him, excepft he was anti-europe.
As for reading thatcher - maybe. her indevidualist philosophy can be described simply as selfishness. if everyone cared only for themselves, as she wanted, it would lead to a form of social darwinism. the philosophhy reminds me of children not wanting to share; waanting to keep all the toys for themselves. such kids havent yet realised how sharing often leads to greater rewards.
Posted 04/03/2010 at 16:37:41 by
It was myself who made the point on facebook about you and the tories, but my point was more in line with what your dad is saying. The ideals of what Labour supposedly stand for (or used to - this is new labour after all, let's not forget Scargill's Socialist Labour Party which is perhaps more in tune with what labour's ethos historically was) are something I admire and respect.
But sometimes I feel with youself that you see the tories as such a threat or as so bad that this immedietely puts labour above criticism, which it isn't and should never be. You never really mention them in detail, whereas the tories seem to be discussed on a regular basis. As your dad says, Labour haven't improved wealth inequality and the NHS isn't particularly healthy. The legal and justice system is also too lax (which doesn't mean I instantly want to jump to the extreme right end of the justice system - I oppose capital punishment, for example.)
So, my position is one of admiring what labour proposes to stand for and finding them falling short. It would be interesting Matt to hear what you think of Labour's actions as well as their ethos. Also, although you may despise tory doctrine, it may be interesting to read some tory speeches/material (I, I'll admit, haven't done so.) It does strike me that sometimes to truly argue against something you have to understand it from it's own side. Understand doesn't necessarily mean agree.
Posted 04/03/2010 at 19:58:59 by Chris Flackett
I know chris. It's true that I do tend to forgive them their many shortcomings, although I think thhhat it is largely thanks to brown that we haven't done far woorse in the resession. at the same time, I think labour itself is too right-wing sometimes, and it is now clear that there aare masive class devisions up and doown the country. Yet I look at the tories and shudder to think how much wrse they could make things, and labour is forgivven
Posted 05/03/2010 at 10:10:42 by
Due to a spam infestation, commenting has been temporarily disabled. Contact me if you have something intersting/useful to add, and I may add you comment to my entry (giving credit, of course).