Britain outside the EU

[Sephiroth]

... yet all I'm trying to do is winkle a definition out of those going on about the 'right wing' this and the 'right wing'. They don't go on about the 'left wing' - clearly because it needs no defining in this forum.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

... yet all I'm trying to do is winkle a definition out of those going on about the 'right wing' this and the 'right wing'. They don't go on about the 'left wing' - clearly because it needs no defining in this forum.

Or probably because it doesn’t meaningfully exist in UK politics.

It only exists as a relative point in the centre (to the left of the right and the far right).

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

You keep stating that it’s ‘well understood" but never actually support that statement with any definition…

Or, to put it in your terms

I do think that 'right’ is well understood in this forum But a lot of people seem to have trouble defining 'leftie’' yet freely chuck the term around when expounding their credo.

The 'left' is well understood. Everyone knows it, including you.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

The 'left' is well understood. Everyone knows it, including you.

Give us an explanation then? When you say it, what do you mean and know it to mean in Pierre/Pip/OBs heads?

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

Give us an explanation then? When you say it, what do you mean and know it to mean in Pierre/Pip/OBs heads?

John, please - don't you go Hugh on me!

Originally Posted by jfman

Give us an explanation then? When you say it, what do you mean and know it to mean in Pierre/Pip/OBs heads?

It means what he wants it to mean, and by keeping it undefined, doesn’t allow contradiction.

But no one else can do the same with "right wing", because, you know, "reasons"…

The 'right’ is well understood. Everyone knows it, including you.

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

John, please - don't you go Hugh on me!

So you don't really know. Thanks for clearing that up, you can only dodge for so long before you look foolish.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

John, please - don't you go Hugh on me!

I don't think it's necessarily useful to benchmark the features of one side but not the other. So I'll have a go from left to right, but essentially in my head (economically) it's a sliding scale of the role of the state from full control of almost everything (Soviet model) to controlling the bare minimum (defence spending, basic infrastructure) with all previous functions of the state privatised or simply not done. In absolute terms on the extreme right economically, this probably isn't seen anywhere as even the most 'small state' right wing politicians recognise the value of education as babysitting, or a basic level of social security for pensioners/disabled).

On the sliding scale there's debate about the role of the state in carrying out a vast range of economic activity as a direct supplier/consumer and employer with the ability to influence markets significantly by, or declining to, spend. Left wing more often correlates with higher spending, citing the value in the outputs that the state can achieve with economies of scale that the private sector simply cannot.

On the right it's lower tax, less public services with the private sector filling (and charging for) the void. Even where the state has to intervene in the market it's often through regulating the private sector, or subsidising it, rather than taking direct control.

Few people view these as absolutes with a one size fits all approach across the board. However, a non-exhaustive list would be the role of the state (if any) in funding or regulating private companies in healthcare, social care, housing, higher/further education, public transport services and infrastructure, energy, telecommunications, water infrastructure. Without taking the time to weight them if someone thinks the state should be extremely active as an economic actor in all of those that would place them further to the left and none of those other than light touch (or no) regulation that would be further to the right.

Socially I think it get's more complex than portrayed - I think some on the right when they are losing the economic argument like to weaponise social issues whereas. Others on the right would be absolute in their view of a person's right to a private life and what they do (and who they do it with) within the law isn't anything to do with the state. The trans issue is more complex given the amounts of public money seemingly going to charities to push the message and ultimately medication/surgery on the NHS is a cost which brings in the question of whether it's a lifestyle choice or a medical need.

Nationalism is more frequently associated with the right socially, as is anti-immigration. That's not to say everyone on the right (and no-one on the left) holds those views. Right wing economics relies the world over upon immigration to drive down costs (or up efficiencies in the private sector.

[Pierre]

Sorry, it’s Friday and I’ve had a drink, no way I’m reading all that………..

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Sorry, it’s Friday and I’ve had a drink, no way I’m reading all that………..

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Sorry, it’s Friday and I’ve had a drink, no way I’m reading all that………..

That reminds me of the two drunks on a train.

1: "Is this Wembley?"
2: "No, it's Thursday."
1: "So am I - let's have another.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I do think that 'left' is well understood in this forum But a lot of people seem to have trouble defining 'right wing' yet freely chuck the term around when expounding their credo.

If ‘left’ is well understood, that means people know what it is (according to you), and the corollary of that is that since the ‘left’ is what the right isn’t, if you know what the ‘left’ is, then the ‘right’ is what’s left (so to speak), and is thus defined.

hope this helps…

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by Hugh

If ‘left’ is well understood, that means people know what it is (according to you), and the corollary of that is that since the ‘left’ is what the right isn’t, if you know what the ‘left’ is, then the ‘right’ is what’s left (so to speak), and is thus defined.

hope this helps…

Ffs, Hugh, confused.com....

[ianch99]

Really good analysis of the new fiction of 'woke capitalism' and its relation to Brexit:

https://twitter.com/chrisgreybrexit/...60220420743174

Though this attack on 'woke capitalism' isn't new, and is riding on the back of the Farage-Coutts thing, it's gaining traction because of the failure of the Brexit promises. Brexit, remember, was going to boost the UK economically & in every way by unshackling it from the EU.

Except to the unpersuadable diehards, that's now been shown to be nonsense, and even the unpersuadables know they're no longer persuasive. So now they're singing the same old song to new words: without 'wokeness', yes, there'd be a new era of freedom and prosperity.

Once again, the Brexiters (or anti-wokers - they're mainly the same people) can pour out endless garbled anecdotes, the new 'bendy bananas', about woke businesses, public sector organizations and charities to make unprovable, tho highly unlikely, claims of a wonderful future. So it is back to their comfort zone of grievance campaigning, rather than policy delivery, and back to nostalgic fantasies rather than awkward facts. It's both an extension and a reprise of the same old Brexit story, shamelessly repurposed in the wake of Brexit's failure

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Really good analysis of the new fiction of 'woke capitalism' and its relation to Brexit:

https://twitter.com/chrisgreybrexit/...60220420743174

Believe harder and it'll be alright