Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jazzyboy)
    x
    Im very much a more traditional one nation conservative.

    The modern tory party are a little more liberal than id like.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Supporting 'free markets' is almost by definition not 'conservative' as it requires radical change to our public services.
    In fact thatcher was arguably the least 'conservative' prime minister we've had.
    You're viewing change as only having one degree. Change does not necessarily need to be drastic.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    What do this current lot of Consevatives actually want to 'conserve'? They've made radical changes to education, to health, to our Royal Mail and tried to change all schools into academies.
    You're simply viewing the Tory party as the beacon of conservatism, which it isn't. As mentioned earlier, conservatives are made up of a variety of different views on the same subject. The historical (Edmund Burke, for example) view of conservatism is not necessarily how conservatives view themselves today.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    If anything, labour are the more conservative party as they actually want to conserve our public services and institutions.

    I suggest you read Edmund Burke, a true conservative who was a fierce anti-capitalist.
    I'll let you read my previous comment. Your view of conservatism is shaped by what conservatives such as Burke said. And yet, the movement has undergone significant change and now incorporates a variety of right-leaning policies. You cannot, and should not, try and define an ideology by a single definition.

    As for Labour, nothing about Corbyn's Labour is about 'free markets'.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    You're viewing change as only having one degree. Change does not necessarily need to be drastic.



    You're simply viewing the Tory party as the beacon of conservatism, which it isn't. As mentioned earlier, conservatives are made up of a variety of different views on the same subject. The historical (Edmund Burke, for example) view of conservatism is not necessarily how conservatives view themselves today.



    I'll let you read my previous comment. Your view of conservatism is shaped by what conservatives such as Burke said. And yet, the movement has undergone significant change and now incorporates a variety of right-leaning policies. You cannot, and should not, try and define an ideology by a single definition.

    As for Labour, nothing about Corbyn's Labour is about 'free markets'.
    I get what you're saying. Point im making is that the current Tory party are not conservative by any means.

    I read the question as small c conservative. The ordinary meaning is simply to conserve.

    I actually have far more admiration for Burke who saw the value in preserving institutions and public services rather than handing them over to the 'free market'.

    I can't really see how anyone who has small c conservative values sees the Tory party as their home. They're far more economically libertarian than conservative.

    I say labour are more conservative as they seem to want to conserve our institutions and public services while the Tories want to hand them over to the free market.

    I think this country is lacking a genuine Conservative party though.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I get what you're saying. Point im making is that the current Tory party are not conservative by any means.

    I read the question as small c conservative. The ordinary meaning is simply to conserve.

    I actually have far more admiration for Burke who saw the value in preserving institutions and public services rather than handing them over to the 'free market'.

    I can't really see how anyone who has small c conservative values sees the Tory party as their home. They're far more economically libertarian than conservative.

    I say labour are more conservative as they seem to want to conserve our institutions and public services while the Tories want to hand them over to the free market.

    I think this country is lacking a genuine Conservative party though.
    You're absolutely right. There isn't much in Cameron's party that is truly conservative. But my point is that conservatism has evolved significantly since Burke's time, to incorporate ideas that may conflict with historical principles within the ideology. Free markets, although in conflict with Burke, have come to be associated with conservatism as many of its proponents just simply do not find any support for it in Labour or left-wing parties and by default swing for the other party, which although not ideal is the closest they're getting to a major party supporting them.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    You're absolutely right. There isn't much in Cameron's party that is truly conservative. But my point is that conservatism has evolved significantly since Burke's time, to incorporate ideas that may conflict with historical principles within the ideology. Free markets, although in conflict with Burke, have come to be associated with conservatism as many of its proponents just simply do not find any support for it in Labour or left-wing parties and by default swing for the other party, which although not ideal is the closest they're getting to a major party supporting them.
    The idea of free markets is an interesting one. I see it as being as different from and incompatible with conservatism as it is with socialism.

    I see socialism and free market-ism being fundamentally ideological whereas small c conservatism is about pragmatism gradual change, conserving what you have and slowly improving it through experience ie not privatising them all.

    As someone who strongly dislikes the Conservative party I was expecting to disagree a lot with Burke yet I was surprised to see just how reasonable he appeared and the fact that despite him being seen as the father of the conservative movement, that the current Tory party share very little in commone with him.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Kaiju)
    mostly because i hate poor people and the young
    Same
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    What is conservatism:
    http://www.simplepolitics.co.uk/issu...s-conservatism

    What is socialism:
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8KQQtbBYvDs

    What is liberalism:
    http://www.simplepolitics.co.uk/issu...-is-liberalism
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Many conservatives on here are going to take an immediate disliking to me, this is because I believe in making social reforms, but I think we should tax imports or land not income. At the same time, I am thoroughly opposed to class warfare and believe some inequality and hierarchy necessary, and that socialism is trivial.

    I should like to think that many ills of this country are due to falling out of society, the decimation of the old manufacturing jobs has caused an underclass who have a lot of time and relative wealth but nothing to do with it.

    I'm a strong believer in responsible local government capitalism, protecting industry and jobs, and promoting mutually beneficial relationships, hard work, discipline, prudence.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Hope this helps/give opinions
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)

    I say labour are more conservative as they seem to want to conserve our institutions and public services while the Tories want to hand them over to the free market.

    I think this country is lacking a genuine Conservative party though.
    Three reasons you're wrong.

    a) land reform
    b) union reform
    c) lords reform

    Labour are quite interesting in the sense they don't really represent the people they were supposed to, the decline of the trade unions has actually led to a lacking of a genuine Labour party, not just a genuine Conservative one

    The original Labour supported the slogan 'three acres and a cow' (for land reform), was sceptical of Britain's involvement in world affairs (Little Englanders) or were free traders, and wanted to abolish institutions like the Lords (or at least limit their powers like the Parliament Act 1911)

    Just recently Mr.Blair reformed hereditary peers and created a supreme court.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by George VI)
    Three reasons you're wrong.

    a) land reform
    b) union reform
    c) lords reform

    Labour are quite interesting in the sense they don't really represent the people they were supposed to, the decline of the trade unions has actually led to a lacking of a genuine Labour party, not just a genuine Conservative one

    The original Labour supported the slogan 'three acres and a cow' (for land reform), was sceptical of Britain's involvement in world affairs (Little Englanders) or were free traders, and wanted to abolish institutions like the Lords (or at least limit their powers like the Parliament Act 1911)

    Just recently Mr.Blair reformed hereditary peers and created a supreme court.
    I would say they were gradual not radical changes which is part and parcel of Burkean Conservatism.

    The Supreme Court was pretty much the same as the House of Lords Appellate Committee, it just went by a different name. The powers and processes are pretty much the same.

    im not saying that labour are the true conservative party but rather that the Tories aren't.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I would say they were gradual not radical changes which is part and parcel of Burkean Conservatism.

    The Supreme Court was pretty much the same as the House of Lords Appellate Committee, it just went by a different name. The powers and processes are pretty much the same.

    im not saying that labour are the true conservative party but rather that the Tories aren't.
    Is a gradual change to socialism of a conservative nature? I think gradualism is not the only principle required for Burke's conservativism. He would likely have argued that not preserving the House of Lords against unnecessary institutions like the Supreme Court was an insult to tradition, another key principle.

    The Tories are Liberals, Thatcher herself said that if Gladstone were alive he would have joined the Tory party.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by George VI)
    Is a gradual change to socialism of a conservative nature? I think gradualism is not the only principle required for Burke's conservativism. He would likely have argued that not preserving the House of Lords against unnecessary institutions like the Supreme Court was an insult to tradition, another key principle.

    The Tories are Liberals, Thatcher herself said that if Gladstone were alive he would have joined the Tory party.
    I disagree re Supreme Court. Supreme Court was nothing to do with socialism. It was simply separating officially the judiciary and legislature when they already were in reality (the law lords never voted in the Lords out of principle)

    The Supreme Court is just the House of Lords appellate committee by another name.
    It doesn't insult tradition.

    Removing hereditary peers is quite gradual change and not to socialism either. It wasn't radical as existing peers were allowed to sit. Radical change would be abolishing it altogether.

    Thatcher was no liberal, she was very authoritarian. For point see here stance on homosexuality.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I disagree re Supreme Court. Supreme Court was nothing to do with socialism. It was simply separating officially the judiciary and legislature when they already were in reality (the law lords never voted in the Lords out of principle)

    The Supreme Court is just the House of Lords appellate committee by another name.
    It doesn't insult tradition.

    Removing hereditary peers is quite gradual change and not to socialism either. It wasn't radical as existing peers were allowed to sit. Radical change would be abolishing it altogether.

    Thatcher was no liberal, she was very authoritarian. For point see here stance on homosexuality.
    It transferred the powers of the Lords to a third party, it may not be 'socialist' but it is a constitutional amendment, of an unnecessary and abstract nature which Burke likely would have opposed. If it were true that all it did was rename then why have you said it separated the the branches of government?

    The abolition of hereditary peers is a measure I would call socialist, again it's an attempt to reduce the previous power and prestige of the Lords.

    Thatcher is what's called an 'Old Liberal' or subscribing to members of the old Liberal Party, before you say they weren't Liberal they supported the abolition of slavery, catholic emancipation and many other measures. Most of them believed rights were of a negative nature.

    Disliking homosexuality is not actually authoritarian, and has been an attitude held even by liberals mostly throughout history, it has nothing to do with government intervention that's a recent intervention which has also been used to justify legalisation of drugs, and permissive society in general.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    the Tory party are the party of Manliness.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by George VI)
    It transferred the powers of the Lords to a third party, it may not be 'socialist' but it is a constitutional amendment, of an unnecessary and abstract nature which Burke likely would have opposed. If it were true that all it did was rename then why have you said it separated the the branches of government?
    It didn't transform powers or increase them. It was pretty much rebranding. It wasn't really a constitutional amendment because in reality nothing changed greatly. Burke didn't oppose change, he opposed radical change and this was not. This was simply calling a court by a different name. It's powers and members remained the same.

    Don't look at the label, look at the substance.


    The abolition of hereditary peers is a measure I would call socialist, again it's an attempt to reduce the previous power and prestige of the Lords.
    It's not socialist, it's democratic. It's neither capitalist not socialist.
    Again though it was very gradual. It allowed remaining hereditary peers to sit for the rest of their life. It's exactly the type of gradual change that Burke woul approve of.

    Also bear in mind the current Tory government are actually trying to reduce the power of the lords.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    It didn't transform powers or increase them. It was pretty much rebranding. It wasn't really a constitutional amendment because in reality nothing changed greatly. Burke didn't oppose change, he opposed radical change and this was not. This was simply calling a court by a different name. It's powers and members remained the same.

    Don't look at the label, look at the substance.

    It's not socialist, it's democratic. It's neither capitalist not socialist.
    Again though it was very gradual. It allowed remaining hereditary peers to sit for the rest of their life. It's exactly the type of gradual change that Burke woul approve of.

    Also bear in mind the current Tory government are actually trying to reduce the power of the lords.
    If it was just rebranding why would Burke have approved of it? What an unnecessary waste of time and energy.

    The term socialism as applied in the sense today is usually just refereed to as an economic theory, but this isn't a very good definition, because it is not so much the economics that is opposed but the change of power and wealth it causes, in this sense it is possible to call amendments to the Lords socialist in nature, and if you check the Hansard many criticisms were made in such terms with the Parliament Act 1911.

    The Tory government isn't socialist in an economic sense, that would be absurd, it is quite the contrary in many ways a supporter of (unregulated) liberal capitalism or free trade capitalism (should rather be called free imports because no one denies free trade some people would just like imports to be restricted). The Tory government would definitely be considered liberal in the old sense of the term, which is the one I use since the modern ones have been so distorted they have lost a lot of distinction.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    the Tory party are the party of Manliness.
    The current party consists of fools, pacifists, free traders, liberals, the old party would never have let Britain decline in prestige to such an extent. We should have retained eminence in the middle east by retaining the Suez canal instead of cowardly retreating, abandoned free trade to prevent manufacturing decline and retained the old Victorian etiquette.

    This is the price we pay, poor powerless England populated by rude and aggressive people.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by George VI)
    If it was just rebranding why would Burke have approved of it? What an unnecessary waste of time and energy.
    It wasn't entirely unnecessary but the effects were far more to do with formalities and procedures than anything substantial.
    It gave the court a more modern appearance, and separated it formally (although it already was in reality) from the legislature and executive.

    It was a very gradual evolvement, exactly what Burke supported. Radical change for example would be allowing the court to overrule parliament which it cannot do.


    The term socialism as applied in the sense today is usually just refereed to as an economic theory, but this isn't a very good definition, because it is not so much the economics that is opposed but the change of power and wealth it causes, in this sense it is possible to call amendments to the Lords socialist in nature, and if you check the Hansard many criticisms were made in such terms with the Parliament Act 1911.
    I disagree. Socialism like capitalism is just an economic theory although it is often misrepresented.

    Things such as democracy have nothing to do with it. Both left and right wing parties have proposed making the lords more democratic.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by George VI)
    The current party consists of fools, pacifists, free traders, liberals, the old party would never have let Britain decline in prestige to such an extent. We should have retained eminence in the middle east by retaining the Suez canal instead of cowardly retreating, abandoned free trade to prevent manufacturing decline and retained the old Victorian etiquette.

    This is the price we pay, poor powerless England populated by rude and aggressive people.
    Throwing away our dear Empire was unforgivable.
 
 
 
Poll
Are you going to a festival?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.