Go to first unread
Back
to top
How would you describe your politics?
Watch
Announcements
Poll: How would you describe your politics
Far right - fascist/militarist
(0)
0%
Right - traditionalist conservative
(4)
18.18%
Right - one nation conservative
(2)
9.09%
Centre-right free-market conservative
(4)
18.18%
Centre-right libertarian
(1)
4.55%
Centre - neoliberal
(2)
9.09%
Centre - third way social democrat
(2)
9.09%
Centre-left - old fashioned social democrat
(4)
18.18%
Centre-left - democratic socialist/reformist
(1)
4.55%
Left - revolutionary socialist
(0)
0%
Far left - anarchist
(1)
4.55%
Far left - communist
(1)
4.55%
Far right – fascist/militarist
Right - traditionalist/conservative/one nation conservative
Centre-right - free-market conservative or libertarian
Centre – neoliberal or third way social democrat
Centre-left traditional social democrat or reformist socialist
Left – radical socialist or democratic socialist
Far left – revolutionary socialist or anarchist or communist
Right - traditionalist/conservative/one nation conservative
Centre-right - free-market conservative or libertarian
Centre – neoliberal or third way social democrat
Centre-left traditional social democrat or reformist socialist
Left – radical socialist or democratic socialist
Far left – revolutionary socialist or anarchist or communist
0
reply
Report
#2
'Traditionalist Conservative' (Paleo-conservative)
That said I'm pretty radical and think most if not all institutions are too corrupted to be worth preserving as they are now. Hence I support scrapping the monarchy, house of lords, BBC and Church of England.
That said I'm pretty radical and think most if not all institutions are too corrupted to be worth preserving as they are now. Hence I support scrapping the monarchy, house of lords, BBC and Church of England.
0
reply
Report
#3
I describe myself as a moderately socially conservative and fiscally conservative orange bookers and nationalist so you'd call me an actual one nation conservative or center right free market capitalist on your options (note that in modern parlance all wets have been termed one nation which is not the case, actual one nation conservatism is based around moral/parental conservatism enspouced by Disraeli-Heath.
Last edited by Rakas21; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
'Traditionalist Conservative' (Paleo-conservative)
That said I'm pretty radical and think most if not all institutions are too corrupted to be worth preserving as they are now. Hence I support scrapping the monarchy, house of lords, BBC and Church of England.
'Traditionalist Conservative' (Paleo-conservative)
That said I'm pretty radical and think most if not all institutions are too corrupted to be worth preserving as they are now. Hence I support scrapping the monarchy, house of lords, BBC and Church of England.
1
reply
Report
#5
(Original post by Krisis)
I love how the BBC is grouped with the Church and the monarchy as a traditional British institution
I love how the BBC is grouped with the Church and the monarchy as a traditional British institution
Now it's a way to subsidise Woke Garbage like Dr Who and the Mash Report.
1
reply
Report
#7
Mostly centre-right freemarket conservative, with some neo-liberal and traditionalist leanings.
Heavily eurosceptic, very firm on criminal justice and immigration, support low rates of welfare spending & taxation.
Heavily eurosceptic, very firm on criminal justice and immigration, support low rates of welfare spending & taxation.
1
reply
Report
#8
Centre-right libertarian.
Generally, I believe in capitalist acts between consenting adults. If such acts happen to impose a cost on third parties (pollution, infectious diseases, etc), then they must be regulated/taxed/etc. But no other reason to interfere in voluntary contracts, associations, etc. If I sign a contract to be someone's slave for life, I should be free to do so provided I'm a sane person and know what I'm doing. This goes for all contracts.
If someone agrees to working 15 hours a day, it shouldn't be illegal. If someone wants to overdose on cocaine, they must be free to do so but they can not of course endanger the lives of others. So drinking at home - legal. Drinking whilst driving - no. Shooting heroin in ur own bedroom, legal. Shooting heroin while piloting - illegal (even if it's a private plane and all passengers have agreed to having a pilot piloting under the influence of heroin - it still poses a risk to third parties who did not sign up to have a plane crash on their front yard and the costs associated with cleaning the mess up). Etc.
Generally, I believe in capitalist acts between consenting adults. If such acts happen to impose a cost on third parties (pollution, infectious diseases, etc), then they must be regulated/taxed/etc. But no other reason to interfere in voluntary contracts, associations, etc. If I sign a contract to be someone's slave for life, I should be free to do so provided I'm a sane person and know what I'm doing. This goes for all contracts.
If someone agrees to working 15 hours a day, it shouldn't be illegal. If someone wants to overdose on cocaine, they must be free to do so but they can not of course endanger the lives of others. So drinking at home - legal. Drinking whilst driving - no. Shooting heroin in ur own bedroom, legal. Shooting heroin while piloting - illegal (even if it's a private plane and all passengers have agreed to having a pilot piloting under the influence of heroin - it still poses a risk to third parties who did not sign up to have a plane crash on their front yard and the costs associated with cleaning the mess up). Etc.
2
reply
Report
#9
I'd say social democrat, though I'm not sure if I am a 'old fashioned' or a 'third way' one.
I believe in public services, the welfare state, worker rights and regulation of the market. I support having a properly representative democracy and believe in equal rights and opportunites. I probably edge towards being a democratic socialist as I believe that some industries should be nationalised.
I believe in public services, the welfare state, worker rights and regulation of the market. I support having a properly representative democracy and believe in equal rights and opportunites. I probably edge towards being a democratic socialist as I believe that some industries should be nationalised.
0
reply
Report
#10
None of the above. I lean to the right no doubt, and in some issues most certainly lean towards the extreme right, however at the same time I parse myself across the political spectrum, I’m pro-EU for example.
1
reply
Report
#11
(Original post by imlikeahermit)
None of the above. I lean to the right no doubt, and in some issues most certainly lean towards the extreme right, however at the same time I parse myself across the political spectrum, I’m pro-EU for example.
None of the above. I lean to the right no doubt, and in some issues most certainly lean towards the extreme right, however at the same time I parse myself across the political spectrum, I’m pro-EU for example.
0
reply
Report
#12
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Sounds about right, I believe you once told me that you support the nationalisation of utilities...?
Sounds about right, I believe you once told me that you support the nationalisation of utilities...?
0
reply
Report
#13
(Original post by imlikeahermit)
Must have been a different poster, certainly not one of my beliefs that one...
Must have been a different poster, certainly not one of my beliefs that one...
0
reply
Report
#14
(Original post by imlikeahermit)
None of the above. I lean to the right no doubt, and in some issues most certainly lean towards the extreme right, however at the same time I parse myself across the political spectrum, I’m pro-EU for example.
None of the above. I lean to the right no doubt, and in some issues most certainly lean towards the extreme right, however at the same time I parse myself across the political spectrum, I’m pro-EU for example.
0
reply
Report
#15
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Sounds about right, I believe you once told me that you support the nationalisation of utilities...?
Sounds about right, I believe you once told me that you support the nationalisation of utilities...?
In broadband, air and water for example I would model the structure on the energy market so that you'd have a 51% owned state body for infrastructure (think the National Grid but not a licensed monopoly for a corporate) and then the retail and supply aspects would be a largely free market.
That's not because I believe the private sector can't provide the service (we see in broadband they can in cities) or out of any socialist notion about owning the means of production but rather because its simply more efficient to have a central infrastructure body, especially in a country where we seek to dictate renewable over cheap coal or want 5g to every corner of the country ect.. the remaining 49% rather than being fully floated in each utility I'd be tempted to allocate to the largest players in each sector (say 5% for the top 5) so that they still have a stake in the infrastructure development and are encouraged to use their expertise.
0
reply
Report
#16
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Hmm, curious. 🤔🤔🤔🤔
Hmm, curious. 🤔🤔🤔🤔
2
reply
Report
#17
(Original post by londonmyst)
Mostly centre-right freemarket conservative, with some neo-liberal and traditionalist leanings.
Heavily eurosceptic, very firm on criminal justice and immigration, support low rates of welfare spending & taxation.
Mostly centre-right freemarket conservative, with some neo-liberal and traditionalist leanings.
Heavily eurosceptic, very firm on criminal justice and immigration, support low rates of welfare spending & taxation.
3
reply
Report
#18
(Original post by imlikeahermit)
We clash on many things and I can assure you that nationalisation of utilities would be one of them.
We clash on many things and I can assure you that nationalisation of utilities would be one of them.
0
reply
Report
#19
(Original post by Rakas21)
You could be remembering myself or Napp possibly albeit probably for different reasons to you and probably with more nuance.
In broadband, air and water for example I would model the structure on the energy market so that you'd have a 51% owned state body for infrastructure (think the National Grid but not a licensed monopoly for a corporate) and then the retail and supply aspects would be a largely free market.
That's not because I believe the private sector can't provide the service (we see in broadband they can in cities) or out of any socialist notion about owning the means of production but rather because its simply more efficient to have a central infrastructure body, especially in a country where we seek to dictate renewable over cheap coal or want 5g to every corner of the country ect.. the remaining 49% rather than being fully floated in each utility I'd be tempted to allocate to the largest players in each sector (say 5% for the top 5) so that they still have a stake in the infrastructure development and are encouraged to use their expertise.
You could be remembering myself or Napp possibly albeit probably for different reasons to you and probably with more nuance.
In broadband, air and water for example I would model the structure on the energy market so that you'd have a 51% owned state body for infrastructure (think the National Grid but not a licensed monopoly for a corporate) and then the retail and supply aspects would be a largely free market.
That's not because I believe the private sector can't provide the service (we see in broadband they can in cities) or out of any socialist notion about owning the means of production but rather because its simply more efficient to have a central infrastructure body, especially in a country where we seek to dictate renewable over cheap coal or want 5g to every corner of the country ect.. the remaining 49% rather than being fully floated in each utility I'd be tempted to allocate to the largest players in each sector (say 5% for the top 5) so that they still have a stake in the infrastructure development and are encouraged to use their expertise.
I'm keen on having water companies renationalised as there is essentially no benefit of leaving them solely in the hands of the free market. The benefit of the free market is that we, as consumers, have a degree of choice over what we can buy. This choice allows us to stop buying from a company if they provide a poor service or are too expensive, which gives said company the incentive to either improve their services or charge less. This doesn't apply with water companies, though, since they have a monopoly over the area they cover.
I can understand the value of not having the water industry 100% owned by the public, since there clearly needs to be some incentive to keep costs down, keep things running efficiently, etc.
0
reply
Report
#20
(Original post by SHallowvale)
I don't believe it was either yourself or Napp. It was someone else for sure. 🤔
I'm keen on having water companies renationalised as there is essentially no benefit of leaving them solely in the hands of the free market. The benefit of the free market is that we, as consumers, have a degree of choice over what we can buy. This choice allows us to stop buying from a company if they provide a poor service or are too expensive, which gives said company the incentive to either improve their services or charge less. This doesn't apply with water companies, though, since they have a monopoly over the area they cover.
I can understand the value of not having the water industry 100% owned by the public, since there clearly needs to be some incentive to keep costs down, keep things running efficiently, etc.
I don't believe it was either yourself or Napp. It was someone else for sure. 🤔
I'm keen on having water companies renationalised as there is essentially no benefit of leaving them solely in the hands of the free market. The benefit of the free market is that we, as consumers, have a degree of choice over what we can buy. This choice allows us to stop buying from a company if they provide a poor service or are too expensive, which gives said company the incentive to either improve their services or charge less. This doesn't apply with water companies, though, since they have a monopoly over the area they cover.
I can understand the value of not having the water industry 100% owned by the public, since there clearly needs to be some incentive to keep costs down, keep things running efficiently, etc.
0
reply
X
Quick Reply
