Left & Right Wing

Buford T Justice

Serious Question:

I find that I'm learning a lot from this forum in the last while, especially with the current goings on, so I do have a question.

Can someone tell me the difference between Left & Right wing politics, and what their beliefs are etc......(also if that goes for the hard left & right) I have a gist of what it is, but only from things I've picked up and I'd like to know what it actually is

Thanks

GarlicBread

Fingers McGee wrote: »

Serious Question:

I find that I'm learning a lot from this forum in the last while, especially with the current goings on, so I do have a question.

Can someone tell me the difference between Left & Right wing politics, and what their beliefs are etc......(also if that goes for the hard left & right) I have a gist of what it is, but only from things I've picked up and I'd like to know what it actually is

Thanks

Off the top of my head.

The right are the guys who have had it their way for the last 3000 years.

The left are the new guys on the scene and have decided they aint gonna take it anymore.

Its a little deeper than that really, but thats the jist of it.

Right = religion, military, police, monitary, status quo etc.

Left = unions, hippies, revolution, liberals, equality, alternative etc.

Its widely debatable and somtimes cris-crosses causing mass confusion.

nesf

You've a few separate concepts.

The simplest model I've found that works to some extent is the bipolar one. One axis is Economic Right to Economic Left. The second axis is Liberal to Authoritarian. The centre, being well the centre and that's where you'll find all the main Irish parties pretty much.

Be extremely wary of any claims of hegemony of one side, or dismissing one side as hippies or conservatives or whatever label.

nesf

GarlicBread wrote: »

Right = religion, military, police, monitary, status quo etc.

Left = unions, hippies, revolution, liberals, equality, alternative etc.

This for example is bull**** basically. One side is obviously holy and good, the other is staid, negative and authoritarian. This is only a valid way at looking at right and left if you're on the left etc.

belacqua_

GarlicBread wrote: »

Off the top of my head ...

I think you mean 'over your head'.

Oh_Noes

nesf wrote: »

This for example is bull**** basically. One side is obviously holy and good, the other is staid, negative and authoritarian. This is only a valid way at looking at right and left if you're on the left etc.

I think of myself as on the left and I would fully agree with your suggestion that the above explanation is bull****. This is the definition of left and right if you were analysing a Vietnam War movie.

southsiderosie

nesf wrote: »

You've a few separate concepts.

The simplest model I've found that works to some extent is the bipolar one. One axis is Economic Right to Economic Left. The second axis is Liberal to Authoritarian. The centre, being well the centre and that's where you'll find all the main Irish parties pretty much.

Be extremely wary of any claims of hegemony of one side, or dismissing one side as hippies or conservatives or whatever label.

I agree. OP, give the political compass a whirl, and it might help you suss this out a bit.

Using the same metrics, here is how the Irish parties pan out.

DiscoStu

A useless tautology. all political systems eventually result in an insulated ruling class occupied entirely in measures to cement their grasp on the said system. How they choose to label themselves or whatever moral absolutes they peddle on the rise to power is irrelevant.

poochiem

Left wing means you care about people, right wing means you hate people.

Lefties will be involved in the community, volunteering, trying to better the lives of those less fortunate and the oppressed while right-wingers will be shouting at people on the internet from their darkened rooms.

You decide.:D

nesf

poochiem wrote: »

the oppressed while right-wingers will be shouting at people on the internet from their darkened rooms.

*glances at one of the many Sinn Fein threads*

*giggles*

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

GarlicBread

nesf wrote: »

This for example is bull**** basically. One side is obviously holy and good, the other is staid, negative and authoritarian. This is only a valid way at looking at right and left if you're on the left etc.

I did not say who is good or bad, you personally assumed it. Theres good and bad guys on all sides, its very subjective.The OP asked a question and i answered it as basically and comprohensively as i could. I merely named things that are inherently associated with either. Of course there is overlapping and things can get complicated, but the general thrust was correct.As a moderator you should have some manners, although thats what one can come to expect from the Right =P.The next time I come across any right wing hippies or left wing churches ill gladly eat my own pants.

Shea O'Meara

Being very broad here...broad!:

Right wing; look after business, business will look after you.

Left wing; look after the everyday folk, business will look after itself.

Of course neither is 100% correct in my view and the lines cross for realities sake.

*ducks flying pie*

belacqua_

GarlicBread wrote: »

.... The next time I come across any right wing hippies or left wing churches ill gladly eat my own pants.

Well, the Unitarian Church and much of the Anglican Communion would conform to your catch-all definition of 'left-wing'. I would also suggest you read about the relationship between the Russian Orthodox Church and the KGB, though the latter's persecution of the adherers to the former (and anyone else who disagreed with the Communist party line) nullifies your argument of a utopian, inherently benevolent Marxist state.

As for right-wing hippies, you have heard of the Manson Family, right? Would you like some salt with those pants? You've enough brown sauce ...

Butch Cassidy

GarlicBread wrote: »

Right = religion, military, police, monitary, status quo etc.

Left = unions, hippies, revolution, liberals, equality, alternative etc.

The term "liberal" has been applied in the last 40years with regards to liberal markets and economic policies etc.

The word revolution is often used erroneously in place of coup or just even genuine social change through popular movement - LGBT rights finally recognised to some degree for instance, women get right to vote etc...

Sean Healy of Social Justice Ireland is an adocate of equality and he's a priest.

Are there "leftist" societies without police?

Status quo applies more to center populist twaddle we get here rather than either side.

NESF's suggestion to check the multi-axis would be a good pointer. Might also want to read up on the French revolution for I think that is where the terms originated.


In Ireland it's particularly muddy as our politics aren't traditionally class based per se. Fianna Fail did command a working class vote and were very much into community action, GAA and so on as well as strongly tied in to the labour movement. But again, who can define working class in Ireland? Vincent Browne claims Fine Gael were once left wing. On policies both were fairly the same in their 2007 manifestos.

Britain had a better definition of left/right in a more progressive sense - Labour built the welfare state& NHS while the Conservatives erm...

Butch Cassidy

GarlicBread wrote: »

The next time I come across any right wing hippies or left wing churches ill gladly eat my own pants.

You're relying on stereotypes to define stereotypes. This sentence makes no sense. Define hippy.

Lockstep

I'll try and sum it up as best I can.

The left generally involves equality of outcome, the need for redistribution of wealth, regulation of business and state control of certain industries.
An extreme left example would be communism; states like North Korea where the state controls industry, healthcare, education, housing and so on with the private sector being extremely limited and mainly consigned to sole traders and extremely small scale operators.
A moderate left ideology would be democratic socialism: where the State believes that socialism is possible but that it needs to be done by State control over key industries, this will cause a spillover effect and persons will realize that socialism is in their best interests.
An example would be post WWII Labour Britain where the State maintained control of key industries like steel, coal and so on as well as things like healthcare and education.
A centre-left ideology is social democracy, which sees the need for capitalism as the most efficient way of distributing resources but that the market failures and inequalities require regulation and a strong welfare state.
Germany and France are good examples, with what is termed the 'social-market economy': a market economy that is regulated for what is perceived to be the good of society. Such a system will still maintain government control over things like healthcare and education but feels that the government has no business or efficiency when dealing with the likes of cars or Skittles.

A centre-right ideology is Christian Democracy. This is mainly a continental phenomenon, with the traditional right wing, Catholic conservative movements being co-opted by leftist Christian trade unions and priests influenced by the essentially centre-left Catholic social teaching and who form a sort of consensus. Such ideologies stress the need for inter-class harmony and the need for a moderate welfare state to help those in need. However, these ideologies can be fairly paternalist at times.
Britain is a good example, of a non-Catholic country with a similar ideology. Benjamin Disraeli formed the foundations for One Nation Conservatism: Conservatism marked by concern for the poor and less well of and opposition to the Two Britains (rich and poor) seeking to instead, harmonise the groups into One Nation. This is still a strong faction with the Conservative Party and who take a centre-right approach to problems. David Cameron falls in this vein.
Christian Democracy/One Nation policies would include the idea of 'hand ups and not hand-outs', Dutch style healthcare (where the government doesn't completely control healthcare but intervenes a lot to ensure that the private sector deals with the issue fairly) and a more liberal economic policy.



A moderate-right ideology is classical-liberalism (although liberalism has splintered off with social liberalism being very close to social democracy). Liberalism holds that the liberty of an individual is very important and that if everyone acts in their own interests (subject to the rights of others), that society will prosper. Classical-liberals believe strongly in the invisible hand of the market, that self-help is a strong virtue and above all, in individual rights (rights can be summed up as "my right to swing my army ends where your face begins)
Gladstonian Britain was a good example of classical liberalism, while the State had a role to play, it was felt that self-help and self-interest could do a better job with limited social protection and state intervention.


An extreme right ideology is minarchism, essentially where the State provides little beyond the courts, cops, military etc. Basically a minimal state with the private sector providing everything else.


Of course, social views are completely different as you can be economically left wing and socially liberal (think of your stereotypical hippie) or be economically right wing and yet support a government that is just small enough to fit in the bedroom (stereotypical American Christian Conservative)

All the above are simplified but I hope, essentially accurate.

ISAW

southsiderosie wrote: »

I agree. OP, give the political compass a whirl, and it might help you suss this out a bit.

Using the same metrics, here is how the Irish parties pan out.

Yeah the compass springs to mind.
The point is about how do we examine or analyse society; does our perspective affect the analysis; and how do we run it?

the left/right idea is a basic way of running it.

One should keep in mind the compass comes from Frankfurt school theorists who were Marxist or left in origin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Theory
Critical social theory is, in contrast, a form of self-reflective knowledge involving both understanding and theoretical explanation to reduce entrapment in systems of domination or dependence, obeying the emancipatory interest in expanding the scope of autonomy and reducing the scope of domination.

...a social theory oriented toward critiquing and changing society as a whole, in contrast to traditional theory oriented only to understanding or explaining it

If i was to put it simply lefties advocate socialist philosophy i.e.
public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources. this in turn suggests market control regulations labour law etc.

Right wingers advocate capitalism e.g. the means of production are privately owned and operated for a private profit; decisions regarding supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are made by private actors in the free market; profit is distributed to owners who invest in businesses, and wages are paid to workers employed by businesses and companies.

Either right or left may be authoritarian having strict leadership to be followed extreme being dictatorship or liberal the extreme being anarchistic ( having no laws or control structures).

ISAW

belacqua_ wrote: »

Well, the Unitarian Church and much of the Anglican Communion would conform to your catch-all definition of 'left-wing'. I would also suggest you read about the relationship between the Russian Orthodox Church and the KGB, though the latter's persecution of the adherers to the former (and anyone else who disagreed with the Communist party line) nullifies your argument of a utopian, inherently benevolent Marxist state.

As for right-wing hippies, you have heard of the Manson Family, right? Would you like some salt with those pants? You've enough brown sauce ...

Indeed I can't get around the idea of a "right wing" Pope. If the Pope is by definition the centre then others are left or right of him! He could only be "right wing" in relation to another earlier pope. It is a misuse of terms which are vague to begin with.

GarlicBread

belacqua_ wrote: »

Well, the Unitarian Church and much of the Anglican Communion would conform to your catch-all definition of 'left-wing'. I would also suggest you read about the relationship between the Russian Orthodox Church and the KGB, though the latter's persecution of the adherers to the former (and anyone else who disagreed with the Communist party line) nullifies your argument of a utopian, inherently benevolent Marxist state.

As for right-wing hippies, you have heard of the Manson Family, right? Would you like some salt with those pants? You've enough brown sauce ...

Quakerism would be a kinda of a left wing church. But since it was originally rooted in christianity, its starting position would have been on the right.

That was the point I was making in the begininng, since the right have been around for so long, the left can only really inherit systems that were allready in place while at best trying to change them. Some things, even if driven politically by the left, will always be fundamentally right wing. Such as the monitary system.

A left wing government may have a a politically driven military, but a military can only ever function in one way regardless of what politics are behind it.

HivemindXX

It's pretty simple. First, randomly pick a word to describe yourself. Eeny Meeny Miney Moe is good. Let's say you pick Orange.

Now everything you like and support can be described as Orange. Everything you dislike can be described as Apple.

So say you like boats and hate planes. You will tell anyone that boats are a fine example of Orange principles at work and the problems with planes are yet more evidence of the fundamental failures of Apple. The problem comes in when another Orange person arrives who likes planes and dislikes boats. They'll contradict you and state that boats are obviously mostly based on the Apple principles and planes are Orange through and through. There will be massive arguments about whether a boat is Apple or Orange. Everyone will enter in to this and the entire world will be defined as either Apple or Orange but nobody will agree on which is which. People will demand to know the exact definition, but they won't be able to get a satisfactory answer because, even if they meant something in the past, those words are totally meaningless now.

amacachi

I'd sum it up as the left being about the government having as big a role as possible in society and the economy while the right would seek to reduce that role as far is possible. How one views the validity of each of those ideas is massively different.

One thing to note though is that labels are misapplied pretty much all the time, including by people themselves. The three main parties in Ireland are neither right nor left and I wouldn't even say they're centrist, they're just purely populist. Each happens to have links to certain sectors of the population and aim mainly towards those.

Butch Cassidy

amacachi wrote: »

I'd sum it up as the left being about the government having as big a role as possible in society and the economy while the right would seek to reduce that role as far is possible. How one views the validity of each of those ideas is massively different.

What say you of strong local decentralised governance?

Count Dooku

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Leader of "centre-right" never will claim that he is "one of the last socialists left in Irish politics"

amacachi

Butch Cassidy wrote: »

What say you of strong local decentralised governance?

Depends again how much power they have and what their function is. Also depends on how it was formed.

ISAW

Butch Cassidy wrote: »

What say you of strong local decentralised governance?

Id probably regard it as left wing. Or at least statist authoritarian. Rampant Capitalism isnt much for local regulation. Unless of course it means free money or grants of property or free already developed land.

ISAW

amacachi wrote: »

I'd sum it up as the left being about the government having as big a role as possible in society and the economy while the right would seek to reduce that role as far is possible. How one views the validity of each of those ideas is massively different.

Right Libertarians might Right Authoritarians wouldn't.

One thing to note though is that labels are misapplied pretty much all the time, including by people themselves. ... in Ireland.

Tell me about it! In the US the "tax is slavery" Libertarians basically took over the Republican party and then wasted more tax dollars then ever in paying off their pals with contracts in various War and changed the State to be more controlling and remove personal freedoms should anyone "unpatriotic" complain about it!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

southsiderosie

ISAW wrote: »

Right Libertarians might Right Authoritarians wouldn't.


Tell me about it! In the US the "tax is slavery" Libertarians basically took over the Republican party and then wasted more tax dollars then ever in paying off their pals with contracts in various War and changed the State to be more controlling and remove personal freedoms should anyone "unpatriotic" complain about it!

I think you have libertarians mixed up with neo-cons. Removing personal freedoms is antithetical to libertarian politics. I'm not a fan of libertarianism, but I'd rather they took over the Republican party than neo-cons or Tea Partiers.

Jimbob1977

poochiem wrote: »

Left wing means you care about people, right wing means you hate people.

Lefties will be involved in the community, volunteering, trying to better the lives of those less fortunate and the oppressed while right-wingers will be shouting at people on the internet from their darkened rooms.

You decide.:D

Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot had their own unique brand of left-wing caring.

nesf

ISAW wrote: »

Id probably regard it as left wing. Or at least statist authoritarian. Rampant Capitalism isnt much for local regulation. Unless of course it means free money or grants of property or free already developed land.

But take the example of Switzerland that is quite heavily capitalist in many way yet has a very strong tradition of strong local governance.

It really isn't as simple as strong local Government is a left wing thing, it's perfectly possible to have an economically right system associated with strong local Government.

Right and Left aren't anywhere close to as limiting as terms as people tend to think.

johnnyskeleton

Economically, it doesn't fit particularly neatly into two groups.

For example, the right is traditionally seen as the low tax low spend small government side and the left high tax high spend big government side. But those who believe in no tax and no government or absolute bare minimum government could often be seen on the left i.e. anarchists, libertarians etc. So there is a point when extreme right wing free market capitalism turns into extreme left wing complete freedom.

A further complicating factor is that the current situation where we have low tax, high spend and crap services for it belongs to neither ideology and is just a byproduct of terrible governance over the last few years. Thus, the left get unfairly accused of supporting the current unsustainable system because they believe in big government. Equally, the right get unfairly accused of causing the mess because of the lack of regulation etc but it is forgotten that bailing out the banks (a move which suits most right wing politicians because they have investments with those banks) is actually contrary to free market principles (it is contrary to left wing thinking too, except that left wing theory is that it should never have gotten to that stage in the first place because of strong governmental regulation).

I think the best way to look at it is this:
Do you believe in (a)the welfare state or (b) should people only get basic standards of health, education and food if they work for it?
Do you think it is better to have (a) government intervention to break up monopolies and provide strong regulation or (b) let markets regulate themselves and if they go wrong they are allowed to fail?
Do you believe that (a) a government should actively redistribute wealth to ensure a level playing pitch or (b) if people can't keep what they earn they have no incentive to work?

The closer you are to (a) above the closer you are to the left wing (although again I don't think left and right can really be applied to economics) and the closer you are to (b) the closer you are to the right wing.

You can be a mix of the two. For example, I would be by and large a social democrat (left wing) but my views on the banks being let fail would be considered an extreme right wing view.

I don't see any inconsistency between the two, but if you adopt a strict left/right divide my views would be contradictory.

nesf

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Do you believe in (a)the welfare state or (b) should people only get basic standards of health, education and food if they work for it?

And even that isn't so simple! Where I stand is, I think we should have generous initial dole for people who just lost their jobs which tapers off quite quickly into a relatively minimal dole for the long term unemployed*. I'm all for supporting the productive citizens who've just hit an unlucky patch of life and are between jobs but I detest that we give the same support to long term moochers that we give to the recently laid off.

Am I right wing? Sure. But that doesn't mean I don't believe in the welfare state, I just believe in a fairer one that has strong incentives for people not to rely on it for extremely long periods of time.


*with of course exceptions for those who have genuine reasons for long term unemployment, i.e. medical issues, injuries etc.


Edit: And I imagine that I'll find many self described left wingers that would agree with my above view on the dole. The idea of ideas either being left wing or right wing exclusively is a fallacy perpetrated by those blinded by ideology for the most part.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Butch Cassidy

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Economically, it doesn't fit particularly neatly into two groups.

For example, the right is traditionally seen as the low tax low spend small government side and the left high tax high spend big government side. But those who believe in no tax and no government or absolute bare minimum government could often be seen on the left i.e. anarchists, libertarians etc. So there is a point when extreme right wing free market capitalism turns into extreme left wing complete freedom.

A further complicating factor is that the current situation where we have low tax, high spend and crap services for it belongs to neither ideology and is just a byproduct of terrible governance over the last few years. Thus, the left get unfairly accused of supporting the current unsustainable system because they believe in big government. Equally, the right get unfairly accused of causing the mess because of the lack of regulation etc but it is forgotten that bailing out the banks (a move which suits most right wing politicians because they have investments with those banks) is actually contrary to free market principles (it is contrary to left wing thinking too, except that left wing theory is that it should never have gotten to that stage in the first place because of strong governmental regulation).

I think the best way to look at it is this:
Do you believe in (a)the welfare state or (b) should people only get basic standards of health, education and food if they work for it?
Do you think it is better to have (a) government intervention to break up monopolies and provide strong regulation or (b) let markets regulate themselves and if they go wrong they are allowed to fail?
Do you believe that (a) a government should actively redistribute wealth to ensure a level playing pitch or (b) if people can't keep what they earn they have no incentive to work?

The closer you are to (a) above the closer you are to the left wing (although again I don't think left and right can really be applied to economics) and the closer you are to (b) the closer you are to the right wing.

You can be a mix of the two. For example, I would be by and large a social democrat (left wing) but my views on the banks being let fail would be considered an extreme right wing view.

I don't see any inconsistency between the two, but if you adopt a strict left/right divide my views would be contradictory.

This is why we need a proper political system with a decent functioning democracy that feckin works away from the gawdy Healy-Raes et al.

kaiser sauze

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

See below.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes, which is why the minimum wage should not have been touched, or it should have even been increased(my preference), and the welfare still cut instead of the exploded poverty trap we are entering.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This is not always true... I really despise silly generalisations like this, not all strong governments have monopolies, for example.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

...yes...The US is a classic example of where loose or non-existent regulations are taken advantage of purely for corporate gain at the expense of the population on a routine basis.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Here you are just making a supposition that a large government presence always equals "wealth transfers" & "public monopolies", more generalisations.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

...no...

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I am all in favour of this, but a system purely based around this is doomed from the start. The inequalities mentioned in the previous quoted part will explode after a time.

People are different, people have different needs, people have different limitations and it is up to society to help those who need it and allow those who can generate wealth to do so in an efficiently regulated system that incentivises risk and reward.

To only incentivise the risk-takers and dump those who cannot survive in this society to the pyres is my main problem with your attitude.

_Nuno_

kaiser sauze wrote: »

People are different, people have different needs, people have different limitations and it is up to society to help those who need it.

Shouldn't it be those who need it and deserve it?

southsiderosie

kaiser sauze wrote: »

People are different, people have different needs, people have different limitations and it is up to society to help those who need it and allow those who can generate wealth to do so in an efficiently regulated system that incentivises risk and reward.

OK, but which people? Even Milton Friedman thought the state should protect children or help, say, the mentally ill.

If your need or limitation is that you have a serious disability or disease that does not allow you to work, then there are very few people who would say you should not get any state assistance. But the "needs help from the state" eligibility pool has become completely out of control in Ireland.

johnnyskeleton

nesf wrote: »

And even that isn't so simple! Where I stand is, I think we should have generous initial dole for people who just lost their jobs which tapers off quite quickly into a relatively minimal dole for the long term unemployed*. I'm all for supporting the productive citizens who've just hit an unlucky patch of life and are between jobs but I detest that we give the same support to long term moochers that we give to the recently laid off.

Am I right wing? Sure. But that doesn't mean I don't believe in the welfare state, I just believe in a fairer one that has strong incentives for people not to rely on it for extremely long periods of time.


*with of course exceptions for those who have genuine reasons for long term unemployment, i.e. medical issues, injuries etc.


Edit: And I imagine that I'll find many self described left wingers that would agree with my above view on the dole. The idea of ideas either being left wing or right wing exclusively is a fallacy perpetrated by those blinded by ideology for the most part.

More proof that economics defies left/right divisions.

But on the specific point, here's another one for you. My view is that the system of people paying mandatory PRSI into a fund that can be topped up centrally is a bit of a mistake. In my view, social insurance should be mandatory, but if you don't want the state's social insurance you can get private insurance.

Just as people find themselves paying lots of tax for a defunct health system and are forced to take out private health insurance too (paying twice for half a service), many people have taken out private mortgage protection insurance or income protection insurance. Those policies ensure that if you are sick or lose your job for up to 12 months they will cover you with a decent bit of money to keep you going.

Obviously my views are shaped by my experience, and while I like the idea of social insurance that would pay me should I become ill or lose my job etc so that I wouldn't be forced to rely on the charity of others, the current system doesn't do that for me. I am self employed and can easily pay more PRSI than someone on the same wage in a PAYE job but if I can't work I get nothing. This ridiculous oversight is very unfair to me, and it almost galls me more to pay 7% PRSI/Health Levy than the 41% higher rate tax or the income levy because it is something I pay for which I get nothing (unlike tax which is something I pay for which I get various levels of poor service).

All this is in the context of being (in my view anyway) a leftie. A common mistake is to think that because left wing people believe in big government that they believe in inefficient big government. Having some level of competition assists greatly in the running of public services.

johnnyskeleton

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Again, one of the views which arguably defies the left/right divide is that we are seeing a very clear example of the difference between workers rights (traditional left) and unemployed rights (also left). In my first few years being self employed I worked about 70+ hours a week (including a part time job in evenings and weekends) and earned a lot less than the minimum wage. During this time the dole overtook my income and so people on benefits were getting a higher income than me. That really copperfastened in my mind the problems with dole being too high. I would look at friends on the dole living fairly well and me breaking my stones for less. Sometimes my friends on the dole would tap me for a loan of a few quid, such is the institutionalisation of the dole that they assumed that someone who was working was earning more than them because they were at what they thought of as the lowest form of income imaginable.

So you can imagine how great I felt about the whole system to find out that my fairly modest income from being self employed was subject to PRSI.

So with views like mine, such as that dole should be cut, PRSI reformed or privatised and minimum wage reduced, you would think I am right wing. But I do not think I am and wouldn't expect other people to think that of me. I suppose I'll put it like this: even the most extreme left wing person understands that we can't pay people on the dole €5k per month and give them a nice house and a good car, so there has to come a point at which the amount paid is too much. To my mind, the amounts paid at the moment are too much.

Further, it is clear from looking at the national accounts that the government is simply spending way too much relative to the income it gathers by tax etc.

However, while you and I both agree that dole is too high and could in certain circumstances be a disincentive to work, my solution is to reduce the levels to a more bearable level, and seek to increase efficiencies in the sector. If that means allowing private competition in this market, that is a solution worth looking at. However, I don't believe people should be left to fend for themselves entirely as you advocate because the problems there are too great. A lot of people simply aren't capable of looking after themselves and would either require a family member to look after them (thus reducing that family members productive capability) or else they would probably die of malnutrition etc. Equally, while the claims by some that cuts in the dole would lead to a massive increase in crime are hysterical claims, a complete removal of all social supports would result in a lot of people being forced into the black market.

I think a level of social support which prevents these things is desireable, and my criticisms of the present system are only limited to the fact that it is unaffordably high at present and causing a distortion at the lower end of the labour market (my view is that worker's rights are more important than the unemployed's rights).

Killer Pigeon

southsiderosie wrote: »

I agree. OP, give the political compass a whirl, and it might help you suss this out a bit.

Using the same metrics, here is how the Irish parties pan out.

I would have expected the Labour Party to be a little but more leftist than the Green Party in fairness, especially in terms of economics.

nesf

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

All this is in the context of being (in my view anyway) a leftie. A common mistake is to think that because left wing people believe in big government that they believe in inefficient big government. Having some level of competition assists greatly in the running of public services.

Almost exactly my thinking on this. I believe that there is quite a lot of common ground between the average leftie and average right winger. On the extremes of both there is a lot of difference, but towards the centre where both you and I trend towards I think, there is quite a bit to agree on.

kaiser sauze

_Nuno_ wrote: »

Shouldn't it be those who need it and deserve it?

Need: yes, absolutely.

You are going to have to expand on what you mean by "deserve it"?

kaiser sauze

southsiderosie wrote: »

OK, but which people? Even Milton Friedman thought the state should protect children or help, say, the mentally ill.

Rosie, I could not possibly list all the people would genuinely be in need of State help, I'm sure that two sensible people like us would agree on who does, and who doesn't.

southsiderosie wrote: »

If your need or limitation is that you have a serious disability or disease that does not allow you to work, then there are very few people who would say you should not get any state assistance. But the "needs help from the state" eligibility pool has become completely out of control in Ireland.

I completely agree with your last sentence, if I did not make that clear in my post, I apologise.

The Corinthian

Trying to ascribe left or right to ideologies is nonsense. Trying to claim that one is good and the other evil is moronic.

Left and right are frankly relative. In one state the right might well be communist or socialist (as was the case in the USSR), in another the left may be Capitalist (as is the case in the USA). Even Vatican politics has it's own left and right wings, even though both would be considered right by most others.

For Ireland the term holds little meaning; thirty years ago, the right wing was essentially nationalist (largely anti-EEC), socialist (supporting heavy state involvement in the economy and high taxation) - although they would have loathed that label - and traditional (in terms of Roman Catholic morality). The left, on the other hand, was a big fan of Europe and of economic and social liberalization. Indeed, Ireland didn't so much have a left and right as Guelfs and Ghibellines.

Ultimately, left and right in any body politic tend to represent the forces of conservatism versus change, and the ideologies are frankly irrelevant. In this regard they are important bulwarks against each other, with one stopping things from changing so rapidly that it destabilizes society and the other forcing change to avoid stagnation.

Both sides are good; do you think any political activist thinks they are working for the side of evil? Both sides are evil; corruption, Machiavellianism and greed is not limited to any ideology. However, they are both necessary to both keep society evolving and stop it from devolving.

dreenman

Ireland has no left wing only right wing ... which is why it keeps going round in circles!

What is often called left wing in a social context should I think be more correctly labelled liberal. Traditionally left wing politics used to descibed the form of ecomonic policy that tended towards socialist or marxist economics e.g. Progressive taxation, state ownership/nationalisation etc.

One effect of membership of the EU is that basically most socialist mechanisms are outlawed e.g. A democratically elected government could not bring a private company into state control without approval of the EU. The nationalisation of the banks has only been approved to get us out of the current crisis.

kaiser sauze

dreenman wrote: »

Ireland has no left wing only right wing ... which is why it keeps going round in circles!

What is often called left wing in a social context should I think be more correctly labelled liberal. Traditionally left wing politics used to descibed the form of ecomonic policy that tended towards socialist or marxist economics e.g. Progressive taxation, state ownership/nationalisation etc.

One effect of membership of the EU is that basically most socialist mechanisms are outlawed e.g. A democratically elected government could not bring a private company into state control without approval of the EU. The nationalisation of the banks has only been approved to get us out of the current crisis.

I, for one, am forever grateful that whimsical nationalisation is done away with.