What does it mean to be "left" politically?

[unbeliever]

Thanks for posting it but it can't be defined in a single sentence.

 

You missed the point. I can't identify with the socialist's own definition of socialism because I simply don't agree with it. I don't agree with it because it's Trotskyist nonsense. My politics are centre left and that means modern socialism offers nothing for me.

 

It doesn't have ownership of policies that are mainstream. It can't own those policies because socialist parties in the UK attract a small fraction of 1% of the total vote.

 

I'm expect you also can't identify with what the radical left defines as "left".

You're a moderate. That's a good thing. So am I.

 

You only fail to identify with traditional or radical socialism. The modern meaning is not so strict.

[Mister M]

See: supporters.

 

The poll has a fair amount of time left to run. Maybe the results will change substantially, but I doubt it.

 

Socialist in the modern context means inclined to support a bigger role for government. After all if the state regulates something enough, it becomes effectively an arm of government. Part-nationalisation plus regulation, or sometimes just very strict regulation. The railways are a good example.

 

The consensus on the poll, which I really can't see how I could have phrased more neutrally, just reinforces what I already understood from many conversations on the subject with a wide variety of people over many years.

 

The reality is that in modern UK politics, more "left" and more "socialist" are essentially synonymous. The "left" want higher taxes and a bigger role for government either locally, centrally, or both; more redistribution of wealth and more spent on public services.

I honestly don't see what's wrong with this. It's a perfectly legitimate viewpoint that no shame is associated with and that I just happen to disagree with.

 

For myself - I would like to see taxation as more progressive, and more of a redistribution of wealth, but not necessarily more spent on public services. As I said before, all people in all parties have their own definition of 'fair'.

I personally would like to see power devolved to a lower level as possible. For me this means local government taking more responsibility than national government. I'm suspicious of an ever increasing role of the private sector in delivering healthcare; but support the third sector in providing services as, in many cases, they have shown themselves, in areas like mental health and learning disabilities, to be pioneers of good working practices and innovation.

 

With regards to nationalisation, there appears to be a wide consensus across people who support all parties that rail nationalisation would be a good idea. The relative success of the East Coast mainline in public ownership is often quoted as an example.

 

However I don't support 'big' government when it comes to issues like the national curriculum, or national government setting targets. Some Conservatives (and some on the left) think those are a good idea, I disagree.

I disagree with 'big government' in the context of things like section 28, stigmatising gay people; or stigmatising single parent families. Some Conservatives support 'big' government in that context. However I support some Conservatives who claim that Sunday trading laws should not be relaxed, as family life, and a work life balance is important.

 

On Europe I'm sceptical, but pragmatic. I would like to see the democratic deficit filled - the European Parliament needs to hold the Commission much more to account; and decisions need to be taken at a lower national level - rather than a supranational level.

 

I'd like to see more regulation of the financial services industry. And with regards to the workplace, I'd like to see more enforcement of health and safety rules, and the minimum wage. I'd like to see a rebalancing of industrial relations, so that there can be a check on gross examples of exploitation.

 

I would baulk at calling myself a socialist. I would class myself as a social democrat. I'm not especially interested in ideology, as many on the hard right about 'private always better than public'.

 

To me Jeremy Corbyn in the larger scale is not as left wing as the press try to demonise him. Many of the things that he espouses, like Rail Nationalisation, are supported by many Tory and UKIP supporters.

 

If pushed, that's the only way I can define myself.

 

But as indicated above - some on the 'right' politically (not all), believe in big government. Some (not all) favour redistributing wealth to the wealthiest so that it can 'trickle down'. Certainly, if you didn't know it, if you heard a politician say "Economics are the method, the objective is to change the soul", you'd ascribe that to someone on the far left. Not Mrs Thatcher!

Edited November 16, 2015 by Mister M

[unbeliever]

For myself - I would like to see taxation as more progressive, and more of a redistribution of wealth, but not necessarily more spent on public services. As I said before, all people in all parties have their own definition of 'fair'.

I personally would like to see power devolved to a lower level as possible. For me this means local government taking more responsibility than national government. I'm suspicious of an ever increasing role of the private sector in delivering healthcare; but support the third sector in providing services as, in many cases, they have shown themselves, in areas like mental health and learning disabilities, to be pioneers of good working practices and innovation.

 

With regards to nationalisation, there appears to be a wide consensus across people who support all parties that rail nationalisation would be a good idea. The relative success of the East Coast mainline in public ownership is often quoted as an example.

 

However I don't support 'big' government when it comes to issues like the national curriculum, or national government setting targets. Some Conservatives (and some on the left) think those are a good idea, I disagree.

I disagree with 'big government' in the context of things like section 28, stigmatising gay people; or stigmatising single parent families. Some Conservatives support 'big' government in that context. However I support some Conservatives who claim that Sunday trading laws should not be relaxed, as family life, and a work life balance is important.

 

On Europe I'm sceptical, but pragmatic. I would like to see the democratic deficit filled - the European Parliament needs to hold the Commission much more to account; and decisions need to be taken at a lower national level - rather than a supranational level.

 

I'd like to see more regulation of the financial services industry. And with regards to the workplace, I'd like to see more enforcement of health and safety rules, and the minimum wage. I'd like to see a rebalancing of industrial relations, so that there can be a check on gross examples of exploitation.

 

I would baulk at calling myself a socialist. I would class myself as a social democrat. I'm not especially interested in ideology, as many on the hard right about 'private always better than public'.

 

To me Jeremy Corbyn in the larger scale is not as left wing as the press try to demonise him. Many of the things that he espouses, like Rail Nationalisation, are supported by many Tory and UKIP supporters.

 

If pushed, that's the only way I can define myself.

 

But as indicated above - some on the 'right' politically (not all), believe in big government. Some (not all) favour redistributing wealth to the wealthiest so that it can 'trickle down'. Certainly, if you didn't know it, if you heard a politician say "Economics are the method, the objective is to change the soul", you'd ascribe that to someone on the far left. Not Mrs Thatcher!

 

The fact that "right wing" governments sometimes make laws that you don't like, doesn't make them "big government" overall.

Nobody redistributes wealth toward the top. Some redistribute downwards to a lesser extent. That's not the same thing.

 

You're in support of higher taxes, more redistribution, and more nationalisation. That makes you, by modern standards, a moderate socialist.

 

You also seem to be in support of artificially strengthening unions through legislation. Still more socialist.

 

As I keep saying, there's nothing wrong with that. If that's what you honestly believe is best for the people, then you should support it and I respect that.

Edited November 16, 2015 by unbeliever

[Mister M]

The fact that "right wing" governments sometimes make laws that you don't like, doesn't make them "big government" overall.

Nobody redistributes wealth toward the top. Some redistribute downwards to a lesser extent. That's not the same thing.

 

You're in support of higher taxes, more redistribution, and more nationalisation. That makes you, by modern standards, a moderate socialist.

 

You also seem to be in support of artificially strengthening unions through legislation. Still more socialist.

 

As I keep saying, there's nothing wrong with that. If that's what you honestly believe is best for the people, then you should support it and I respect that.

 

But to me 'big' government is one that centralises power, and prescribes certain behaviours. It's not about them passing laws I don't like. It's Government assuming a bigger role in private life, not just public life.

So for example, a Government, as the one in the 1980s, that passes a law prohibiting the promotion of gay lifestyles as normal and acceptable, and rules out lowering the age of consent and civil partnerships is prescribing behaviour. To me that's contrary to their stated aim of 'getting the government off people's backs'.

I didn't say that I'd like more taxation. I said that I'd like to see a progressive tax system.

More nationalisation than we have now, sure. But where's the centre of political gravity? - to me by Western European standards it isn't in the centre, it's on the right.

Wanting a fair balance between capital and labour, once again, I wouldn't have necessarily said that was left wing, but if that's how I'm being pigeon holed - I prefer social democrat, as that label feels more akin to my beliefs.

[unbeliever]

But to me 'big' government is one that centralises power, and prescribes certain behaviours. It's not about them passing laws I don't like. It's Government assuming a bigger role in private life, not just public life.

So for example, a Government, as the one in the 1980s, that passes a law prohibiting the promotion of gay lifestyles as normal and acceptable, and rules out lowering the age of consent and civil partnerships is prescribing behaviour. To me that's contrary to their stated aim of 'getting the government off people's backs'.

I didn't say that I'd like more taxation. I said that I'd like to see a progressive tax system.

More nationalisation than we have now, sure. But where's the centre of political gravity? - to me by Western European standards it isn't in the centre, it's on the right.

Wanting a fair balance between capital and labour, once again, I wouldn't have necessarily said that was left wing, but if that's how I'm being pigeon holed - I prefer social democrat, as that label feels more akin to my beliefs.

 

You realise that the current conservative PM legalised gay marriage. Long overdue, and scandalous really that the previous Labour government didn't have the courage to get it done.

 

Anyway, what you're describing is not what I understand by the term "big government", but I don't like it when the state interferes in peoples' private lives either so I sympathise.

 

You're probably also right that the UK is not as socialist as the continent. It's all relative. We're probably a lot more socialist than north america.

On the other hand nationalised healthcare is not standard even on the continent.

 

Still according to the OED, "social democrat" is, in modern parlance, a subset of socialist. I think that's how most people understand the term, and only moderates (mostly social democrats) under that umbrella, really have an issue with that.

I think you'd be better of embracing the label, with qualifications. "Pure socialism has failed, but the government can be and should be a source for good in our lives. Too much under-regulated capitalism creates an unfair society and allows exploitation of the many by the few. Good government, mindful of the prosperity that capitalism brings to society, can see that honest effort is rewarded and not just success."

I used to believe this myself, and when I did I was happy to be referred to as a moderate socialist. But it's failed too many times in my view.

 

Also: I used to say the same as you about Europe. That I'd be happy with it if it was more democratic. There should be an alliance of parties across the nations putting forward a collective manifesto, getting a majority and then forming a government as there is in national parliaments.

Unfortunately, I've given up on that happening. I also think that the EU is forever committed to centralising power despite the noises it makes about devolution. I think the only reason they support devolution is to weaken national governments and thereby make them more compliant with their centralising agenda. I think the time has come to write it off as a nice idea that for whatever reason hasn't worked out and isn't going to.

Edited November 17, 2015 by unbeliever

[El Cid]

I didnt realise that thinking more about the reasons for war was a right/left thing. But it seems that the more right leaning you are the more you are in favour of solving a problem via going to war, and dropping bombs.

[Manlinose]

I really can't be bothered with labels. Some of my views would be what is politically considered left of centre and some would be right of centre.

 

But I don't view myself as exclusively one or the other and I'm not into pigeon holing

 

The only ism I believe matters is individual

 

If anyone feels more comfortable attaching themselves to a grouping, good luck to them, but it isn't for anyone else to prescribe