Problem with Conservatives

[John Simkin]

I think the idea of conservative and liberal labels is ridiculous.

I have beliefs that range from very conservative (fiscally) to very liberal (socially), and though I KNOW I am a minority in that I may be the only registered Republican (or at least the only one who admits it) on this forum, I never vote party line. I have voted for many independents and the occasional Democrat, especially in local and County elections- maybe the last vestige of real ability to influence the system at a voter level.

Point is, I think anyone with intelligence looks at issues from varying perspectives and tends not to follow one label or another completely.

Then again, people can be such sheep...

That might be true of America but not of Europe. Here people full into the categories of groups going from right to left such as Neo-fascist, conservative, liberal, socialist, communist and anarchist. For example, parties in the UK attempt to represent these different philosophies: BNP, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Labour, Respect, Green, Socialist Worker, etc. The problem in recent years is the old party of the left, has under Blair moved sharply right (New Labour). In recent months, David Cameron has taken the Conservative Party to the left. On many issues, the Conservative Party is to the left of New Labour. In doing so, they are the party of the centre, the place where most elections in the UK are won.

Some people, like myself, do have a political philosophy (socialist) and attempt to support the party that reflects that philosophy. For 25 years that meant being a member of the Labour Party. However, since Blair took over I have had difficulty finding a political party that represents my opinions that has any chance of being elected. I suspect that has been true of the United States for over 100 years.

[Scott Deitche]

I think the idea of conservative and liberal labels is ridiculous.

I have beliefs that range from very conservative (fiscally) to very liberal (socially), and though I KNOW I am a minority in that I may be the only registered Republican (or at least the only one who admits it) on this forum, I never vote party line. I have voted for many independents and the occasional Democrat, especially in local and County elections- maybe the last vestige of real ability to influence the system at a voter level.

Point is, I think anyone with intelligence looks at issues from varying perspectives and tends not to follow one label or another completely.

Then again, people can be such sheep...

That might be true of America but not of Europe. Here people full into the categories of groups going from right to left such as Neo-fascist, conservative, liberal, socialist, communist and anarchist. For example, parties in the UK attempt to represent these different philosophies: BNP, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Labour, Respect, Green, Socialist Worker, etc. The problem in recent years is the old party of the left, has under Blair moved sharply right (New Labour). In recent months, David Cameron has taken the Conservative Party to the left. On many issues, the Conservative Party is to the left of New Labour. In doing so, they are the party of the centre, the place where most elections in the UK are won.

Some people, like myself, do have a political philosophy (socialist) and attempt to support the party that reflects that philosophy. For 25 years that meant being a member of the Labour Party. However, since Blair took over I have had difficulty finding a political party that represents my opinions that has any chance of being elected. I suspect that has been true of the United States for over 100 years.

DO you still vote Labour or have you moved to a different party affiliation?

[John Simkin]

DO you still vote Labour or have you moved to a different party affiliation?

New Labour came under the control of big business 10 years ago. I will not vote for them until that changes. I have voted for the Greens and Liberal Democrats. However, under our undemocratic system, this is just a protest vote, as these parties cannot win.

[Evan Burton]

I'm quite sure you're smarter than you let on, Evan.

No David, in actual fact I might be quite stupider vis a vis financial matter than you think!

[Evan Burton]

After reading your piece, I understand the HOW, not the WHY (per se).

Is it possible to turn the clock back?

[Guest David Guyatt]

After reading your piece, I understand the HOW, not the WHY (per se).

Is it possible to turn the clock back?

Assuming this is directed at me, Evan (?) – then I confess it's a very good question. Can unadulterated greed be moderated and put back in its box?

Yes, I think so, providing there is a will. It is that will which is missing, I believe.

In discussing this we are necessarily discussing human psychology – a subject that leaves most people snoring.

What we are experiencing in the present unrestrained capitalist model of government amounts to a sort of religious fervor cum dogmatic myopia and inertia that typified middle-ages Catholic thinking (the Sun revolved around the earth - not the other way around).

It is this psychology that underpins the present arts (they are not science by a long shot) of political economics, banking, finance and capital accumulation.

It should be plain for all to see that the present excesses of capitalism can only ultimately result in catastrophe... a sort of implosion or self immolation.

Whether good sense will prevail, however, I really don't know. I have my doubts that sagacity and clear judgement is present in a sufficient volume to tip the scales back into balance.

On the other hand, perhaps it is our destiny to absorb all the venom that flows from the gifts Pandora in the expectation that the last remaining “gift” lodged at the bottom of her box will accomplish the task we could not.

[John Dolva]

After reading your piece, I understand the HOW, not the WHY (per se).

Is it possible to turn the clock back?

Assuming this is directed at me, Evan (?) – then I confess it's a very good question. Can unadulterated greed be moderated and put back in its box?

Yes, I think so, providing there is a will. It is that will which is missing, I believe.

In discussing this we are necessarily discussing human psychology – a subject that leaves most people snoring.

(It's fundamental. (ie the MOST interesting and most likely to yield solutions)

Snoring through the process : It can't be helped, it's necessary to confront the stage of denial (whether it's retreating to unconsciousness or seek diversion) and to pass through that to reach awareness.

The realisation that that it is what one tends to do is a good step forward for anyone.

Evan. Great points/answers/comments (IMO),)

What we are experiencing in the present unrestrained capitalist model of government amounts to a sort of religious fervor cum dogmatic myopia and inertia that typified middle-ages Catholic thinking (the Sun revolved around the earth - not the other way around).

It is this psychology that underpins the present arts (they are not science by a long shot) of political economics, banking, finance and capital accumulation.

It should be plain for all to see that the present excesses of capitalism can only ultimately result in catastrophe... a sort of implosion or self immolation.

Whether good sense will prevail, however, I really don't know. I have my doubts that sagacity and clear judgement is present in a sufficient volume to tip the scales back into balance.

On the other hand, perhaps it is our destiny to absorb all the venom that flows from the gifts Pandora in the expectation that the last remaining “gift” lodged at the bottom of her box will accomplish the task we could not.

Edited December 19, 2007 by John Dolva

[John Simkin]

Carrol Quigley in his books (both "Tragedy & Hope" and "The Anglo American Establishment" has made it clear that the British poilitical system was dominated by either the Cecil family or by the Rhodes-Milner Group right up to WWII, when both factions more or less joined together to become a single dominating force. Both factions were by birth and inclination conservatives. They were usually wealthy too and formed part of the British landed gentry Establishment.

The Cecil family continued their tradition of being powerful politicians. The Seventh Marquis of Salisbury, better known to many of us as Lord Cranborne, was a Conservative Junior Minister of Defence and Leader of the House of Lords under John Major. He also worked closely with Tony Blair where he negotiated to retain a small rump of hereditary peers unbder Blair's proposed reform of the House of Lords and reached agreement with Blair on this without consulting his party' s leader, William Hague. A fact that clearly demonstrates the power he still wielded in reality. Hague understandably sacked him, but the agreement he negotaited with Bliar still stood.

In this and other ways the British political system was corrupt from its inception. It was never designed to be truly representative. And it still isn't.

I suppose one could realistically argue that you can't fix something that ain't broke. To be truly democratic the political system would need to be entirely reinvented.

I am not convinced that there are actual families behind this conspiracy. The main way it is organized is via the political parties that run the various countries.

In the UK’s case this conspiracy dates back to English Civil War in the 17th century. In reality, the war was the result of divisions between the ruling-class. However, people like John Lilburne tried to make it a war about democracy. Lilburne and his friends, including John Wildman, Richard Overton and William Walwyn, formed a new political party called the Levellers. The Levellers' political programme included: voting rights for all adult males, annual elections, complete religious freedom, an end to the censorship of books and newspapers, the abolition of the monarchy and the House of Lords, trial by jury, an end to taxation of people earning less than £30 a year and a maximum interest rate of 6%.

The Levellers started publishing their own newspaper, The Moderate (see how much they were before their time). They also organised meetings where they persuaded people to sign a Petition supporting their policies.

This was all too much for Oliver Cromwell and the leaders of the Levellers were arrested. Lilburne was eventually charged with treason. It was claimed that the pamphlets that he had written had encouraged people to rebel against Cromwell's government. However, the jury at Lilburne's trial found him not guilty. Lilburne was rearrested. Once again Lilburne was imprisoned and charged with treason. This result was also the same; the jury found him not guilty. However, this time Cromwell was unwilling to release him.

On 16th March, 1654, Lilburne was transferred to Elizabeth Castle, Guernsey. Colonel Robert Gibbon, the governor of the island, later complained that Lilburne gave him more trouble than "ten cavaliers". In October, 1655, he was moved to Dover Castle. While he was in prison Lilburne continued writing pamphlets including one that explained why he had joined the Quakers.

In 1656 Oliver Cromwell agreed to release Lilburne. John Lilburne's years of struggle with the government had worn him out and on 29th August, 1657, at the age of 43, he died at his home at Eltham.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/STUlilburne.htm

Lilburne was followed by a succession of men and women willing to give their lives for democracy. With the passing of the 1832 Reform Act, an attempt was made to remove the middle-classes from the leadership of this movement. As people are usually motivated by self-interest this was fairly successful.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRparliament.htm

Some members of the middle class with the vote were willing to help the working-class the vote. However, their numbers were always small and it was not too difficult to turn or undermine them. By the middle of the 19th century the main threat from the status quo came from the self-educated working-class leadership.

These were usually from the reasonable paid craft unions. The 1867 Reform Act was an attempt to deal with this problem. By giving the vote to every male adult householder (1,500,000 men) it attempted to isolate this group from the masses.

Again it worked and it was only because of the great sacrifice of the First World War that men and women over the age of 30 who were householders got the vote in 1918. It was another ten years before all people over 21 got the vote. The following year, the people elected its first majority Labour government. This is when the real conspiracy begins. This development meant that the Labour leadership has to be corrupted. Within two years of taking office, Ramsay MacDonald had formed an alliance with the Conservative Party and cut unemployment benefits. When his more honest MPs voted against the proposal, MacDonald formed a National Government and the Labour Party was nearly destroyed.

In many ways, wars pose the biggest problem for the status quo. The British people got the vote at the end of the First World War. (The Russians overthrew their government because it could not cope with the strains of war and the Germans came fairly close to success in 1919.) The end of the Second World War brought in left-wing governments all over Europe, including the UK. (The consequences of war also played a significant role in the Chinese revolution as well - and Vietnam of course.)

We now know that the CIA played a significant role in undermining these left-wing governments by either bribing right-wing elements within left-wing parties or funding right-wing parties. With the help of wealthy businessmen, who now fund and control most so-called “left of centre” parties, this has successfully kept the left from power from most countries since the war.

However, this does not mean we have to give into them. We must continue to fight for a genuine democracy. After all, it does not cost us as much as it did people like John Lilburne.

[Guest David Guyatt]

I appreciate that we differ here. But Quigley has made it abundantly clear that the ruling elite in the UK were the Rhodes-Milner "Group" that collectively held politics and business in its hand. Having published Tragedy & Hope, Quigley paid the price for revealing that which was given him to him under an understading of confidentiality. He said in a later interview that his academic and social ostracisation (he was until then an elite insider) grew out of less than thirty pages (I think it was -- out of almost 1300 pages in total) he wrote in T & H... and all of them were about the Rhodes-Milner Group).

While we can agree that it is not entirely in the gift of great families anymore, we should be able to observe the composition of, say, the Bilderberg Group, to see how elite control is manufactured and focused. Politicians are always represented at Bilderberg gatherings, as are media representatives, banking groups and dynasties as well as a sprinkling of academics.

I'm afraid that pol/political parties don't really have the real power. Even Chomsky makes it clear that they are merely "state managers" who do the bidding of the ruling elites and their business groups.