6 most common political ‘tribes’ in the UK

Sure.

Social Democrats - Government economic policy should be engineered towards greater economic equality across the board, including across sectional/identity boundaries (i.e. equality across ethnic groups, genders, nationalities, etc) provide for all in need, etc. Votes: Labour, though could be tempted by Green, Lib Dem, or SNP/Plaid.

Liberal Meritocrats - Government economic policy should be engineered towards giving everyone an equal chance and opportunity, so they can compete on merit within that structure. This requires a decent bit of intervention, but includes the need for specific attention to the disadvantages of minority groups. Free trade and international economic integration are great. Economic inequality needs to be restrained from getting too great, but equality not an end in itself. Votes: Lib Dem, Blairite Labour, occasionally other Lab, Con, or SNP/Plaid if they have particular policies.

Paternalist Meritocrats - Similar to the Liberals, but don't think as much intervention is required to produce the desired meritocracy. Also, don't particularly see much need to pay specific attention to minority groups - only identity disadvantage that might need specifically addressing is class, to ensure talented poor kids don't fall by the wayside. Government should encourage the "tried and tested" rather than promoting greater pluralism like the Liberals. Economic inequality a motivator rather than a problem. Less enthusiastic about Free Trade and Internationalism due to being more patriotic. Votes: Tory, very occasionally Lib Dem or UKIP for specific reasons.

Firm Lefties - Anti-capitalist. View Social Democrats' attempt to build economic equality within capitalism as either futile or not good enough. Disadvantages of minority groups within capitalism cannot be fixed - they are proof of capitalism's failure. Economic policy geared towards transformation of economic system, rather than a specific wealth distribution outcome. Ambiguous about EU and other International initiatives - like the idea in principle, but also see them too much as capitalists' clubs. Votes: Corbynite Labour, or no-one. Maybe Green or SNP/Plaid in rare, specific circumstances, and some will vote other Lab out of habit or misplaced hope.

Petty Reactionaries - Less concerned about economics, largely bothered about social/cultural issues, including those that have little to no impact on their own daily lives. Unlike the paternalists' moderately conservatives' "tried and tested" attitude, they favour things as they were at some point in the (not necessarily specific) past, when policy coincided with their personal aesthetic tastes. Nationalist and strongly opposed to Free Trade, EU, Internationalism, etc. Votes: UKIP or Tory, that latter sometimes based on seeing the former as unrealistic.

Sure.


Firm Lefties - Anti-capitalist. View Social Democrats' attempt to build economic equality within capitalism as either futile or not good enough. Disadvantages of minority groups within capitalism cannot be fixed - they are proof of capitalism's failure. Economic policy geared towards transformation of economic system, rather than a specific wealth distribution outcome. Ambiguous about EU and other International initiatives - like the idea in principle, but also see them too much as capitalists' clubs. Votes: Corbynite Labour, or no-one. Maybe Green or SNP/Plaid in rare, specific circumstances, and some will vote other Lab out of habit or misplaced hope.

Socialism means the economy goes to ****. The main benefit/theory of capitalism is that the economy should thrive, with little government intervention.

Do you want a much worse economy?

We are among the world's largest economies, why would you want to change that?

Capitalism and laissez-faire are so ****ing overrated. Government intervention is the only thing that keeps everything going. Patents for example are a government intervention.

I can agree that Laissez-faire (Libertarianism) is overrated but capitalism. If we didn't have capitalism we would have something much worse such as socialism. Capitalism is the reason for our success. I also agree that some government intervention is necessary and good for the country. That's why I said so earlier. If there was no government intervention, we would have a laissez-faire country, which I agree is not good.

Depends how you look at it. Morally, socialism is vastly superior to capitalism.

At a glance, maybe. However, capitalism should produce a much stronger economy than socialism. A strong economy equates to higher living standards (generally). A weak economy equates to lower living standards.

Morally, socialism is vastly superior to capitalism.

Depends on how you measure morality.

Politicians can determine broad outlines for sure, but the day to day running and workings are carried out by people far more experienced and skilled in such areas. Our politicians do not run the BBC, for example.

As for the BBC though, the reason for its success is not down just to its funding but rather it's culture and ability to nurture talent and experiment with new ideas and proposals. It provides a really good service and produces shows such as Bake Off and Strictly Come Dancing which are not only watched by millions but also generate profit through selling the rights and merchandise to foreign stations.

What I would say though is that you seem to be suggesting that the default position is that something should be in the private sector. You correctly state that the public sector is not perfect, but neither so is the private sector.

Why can the default position not be that something should be publicly run unless there is strong evidence to suggest the private sector could do it better?

Not really.

Ok so how do you measure morality?

At least some sort of component of empathy and selflessness should be involved. Something capitalism lacks in comparison to socialism.

Ok cool. Those are seen as virtues which individuals not government entities possess.

Socialism would be a system where the state ‘forces’ virtue (so it’s not really virtue) and then decides what is the best way of using that virtue.


Some people think that Christians should be socialists because Jesus said we should help the poor. And so we should. What Jesus did not say is we should help the poor by having the state take a chunk of your income and spend it on a variety of welfare programs who’s effectiveness is up for debate. It could well be a moral way of doing things but I would argue that a society where people are free to help the poor is more moral than one where they are forced to.

For instance: Nobody on welfare would give a **** if the government overpaid them. Bit of it was a family member or a church or friend then they would probably be more likely to.

Ok cool. Those are seen as virtues which individuals not government entities possess.

Socialism would be a system where the state ‘forces’ virtue (so it’s not really virtue) and then decides what is the best way of using that virtue.


Some people think that Christians should be socialists because Jesus said we should help the poor. And so we should. What Jesus did not say is we should help the poor by having the state take a chunk of your income and spend it on a variety of welfare programs who’s effectiveness is up for debate. It could well be a moral way of doing things but I would argue that a society where people are free to help the poor is more moral than one where they are forced to.

For instance: Nobody on welfare would give a **** if the government overpaid them. Bit of it was a family member or a church or friend then they would probably be more likely to.

So basically Victorian England in which those at the bottom had to rely on charity from the wealthy?

Is that really what you aspire to?

Is that more moral?

In terms of morality yes.

In terms of effectiveness no.

Morality is a complicated construct that’s rarely as simple as X is bad Y is good. State intervention may be more effective at alleviating the immieidiate suffering of poor people- but it comes with its own set of problems that are more damaging in the long term, eg people who have been in receipt of benefits for three generations and are unwilling to work.

In terms of morality Victorian England is superior to us now?

That is simply laughable. And it's wholly based on your idea that somehow if people do something good voluntarily it is more moral than if they have to do it.

That is a very individualistic view, which I would argue in and of itself is already less moral. As a society as a whole we have moral values, that evolve over time, it doesn't matter if individuals are more or less so, what matters is the outcome for society.

The means justify the end. Humans are *****y creatures. If however as a collective one can be moral, one can overcome this. Your point of "it's not really virtue" is almost irrelevant. Your point about it being more moral if people freely choose it is an interesting one, but again, if people could freely choose we would be in a very immoral world.

In a lot of ways yes. We are only really more technologically advanced- and socially less racist and homophobic, other than that we’ve degraded our culture for the most part.

How is basing morality on character laughable? Or more selfish? Genuinely don’t see how you can think there’s no difference between two citizens- 1 who wants rob, rape and kill everyone but is too scared of the consequences and the other who wouldn’t dream of doing such things.

When we tell children to be good we mean for them to be a good person to want to do good deeds and not only to do good deeds because we are threatened or rewarded

Now as for your argument that the only basis for morality should be the outcome for the collective (‘for the greater good’) is hugely problematic as a number Of thought experiments have shown - not to mention where thinking of this sort has been used to justify or excuse every conceivable human sin from the Khmer Rouge to the covering up of child grooming in Rochdale.

The wider you cast a unit for the purpose of calculating morality the more likely you are to include ‘bad eggs’ who game the system, that’s why moral conservatives are pro family as it’s the ideal medium between egoism and collectivism.

The idea of virtue is the basis for western society and long may that last.

But you simply assume in a society where no moral rules are enforcers that miraculously people will be "good". The guy who wants to rape and kill will want to rape and kill in either scenario, but st least in one he is prevented from doing it.

It's not that I disagree with you. A society where everyone was selfless and caring from their own volition would be amazing, but that's never gonna happen. Even if you try to teach people from infant onward to be like that.