|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 19, 2023 23:11:07 GMT
Sid is just following the pattern of gas-lighting. ie "The Conservative party was always the same as the liberal democrats and any objectors are far right extremists pushing the party right."
Once again we are treated to the bizarre spectacle of communists attempting to tell conservatives where the conservative party should sit politically How very wrong can you be ? The Conservative Party was ( WAS ) always a fairly moderate right of centre political party, and some of the leaders I admired, and had respect for, including John Major, Edward Heath and Harold Macmillan. The Conservative Party has never been a far right or radical right political party, though it has always had its right wing sections such as The Monday Club, and in more recent years The European Research Group, and the new "Northern Research Group" who are mostly Populists representing Red Wall seats. The Tories have got a really big problem - lurch to the Populist / Right and they lose hundreds of thousands of votes in middle England and Tory heartlands, revert back to traditional Conservatism and they lose the Red Wall seats and lots of support in the North. There s a civil war going on right now within the Tory Party A jumble of words without real meaning. The Conservative party was a moderate party because conservatism itself is a moderate social philosophy. It isn't (for instance) a hard left progressive / revolutionary philosophy and when it merges with, and concedes to, radical left programs of top down social engineering (as it has done recently), it's clear it has gone a bit off course from the philosophy of conservatismWhen you talk about the lurch to the hard right, what you are actually talking about are policies, aims and values that would have been pretty mainstream merely 20 years ago and then pretending they are upstarts...ie you are gas-lighting. |
|
|
|
Post by dodgydave on Dec 20, 2023 2:36:44 GMT
The Brothers Of Italy political party is not a political party that WAS far right, it is a political party that IS far right. It has not turned into something resembling the UK Conservative Party ( where Populists are now in open warfare with traditional Conservatives ), it was, and still is a far right political party with established links to Neo Nazi organisations. The BBC is 100% correct, and there is no getting away from it, to say otherwise is a clear distortion of both the truth and reality. Yes it is true that some Labour MPs in their younger days were hot Reds, its common in politics, Winston Churchill was a Liberal, but this has absolutely no bearing on the fact that both Italys Prime Minister and the party she belongs to are Far Right. Here is the problem. When you are seeking to attach labels, who decides what is the correct label? Meloni and her leading members (most of which were never in the MSI and are former Christian Democrats) describe the party as a mainstream conservative party. I'm reading the wiki page right now... and the labelling is all over the place depending on who is the source. So no, the BBC is not 100% correct. They are not stupid, they have read what I have just read and opted to go with sources that label them far-right. They are supposed to show no bias, so surely the sensible position would have been to take the middle ground and use "right-wing populist", rather than going with the extremes. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Dec 20, 2023 8:41:12 GMT
The usual bunkum which is one of your favourite false flag hobby horses. The far right are not left wing. Which is why they are called the far right and not the far left. Oh dear, Shrieks. The common denominator of these so called "Far Right" parties is either nationalism and/or an anti-immigration stance, neither of which are the exclusive preserve of the right. And they all share some form of socialist policy. So no, bunkum it isn't. But I agree there is a lot of mislabelling of anyone who is right of centre as far right. Though the reverse is also true. Anyone left of New Labour is often falsely labelled far left. Numerous right wingers on this forum often do this to me. Including sometimes you. But I am no more far left than you are far right. And I'd disagree there,too: Simply being a centrist is sufficient to be labelled "Far right" where the woke left are concerned. As I'm sure Fiddler or SeeNile are about to prove. 1. So Winston Churchill and the rest of the Tories are Communists because they haven't destroyed the NHS. LOL 2. Possibly, but certainly in the seriously senile minds of righties who prove their political position by continually attacking Labour. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Dec 20, 2023 8:46:59 GMT
The Brothers Of Italy political party is not a political party that WAS far right, it is a political party that IS far right. It has not turned into something resembling the UK Conservative Party ( where Populists are now in open warfare with traditional Conservatives ), it was, and still is a far right political party with established links to Neo Nazi organisations. The BBC is 100% correct, and there is no getting away from it, to say otherwise is a clear distortion of both the truth and reality. Yes it is true that some Labour MPs in their younger days were hot Reds, its common in politics, Winston Churchill was a Liberal, but this has absolutely no bearing on the fact that both Italys Prime Minister and the party she belongs to are Far Right. Here is the problem. When you are seeking to attach labels, who decides what is the correct label? Meloni and her leading members (most of which were never in the MSI and are former Christian Democrats) describe the party as a mainstream conservative party. I'm reading the wiki page right now... and the labelling is all over the place depending on who is the source. So no, the BBC is not 100% correct. They are not stupid, they have read what I have just read and opted to go with sources that label them far-right. They are supposed to show no bias, so surely the sensible position would have been to take the middle ground and use "right-wing populist", rather than going with the extremes. Maybe she has changed the party from what it was, maybe the change is nothing more than a cover to enable them to get elected. I suspect only time will tell. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Dec 20, 2023 9:10:28 GMT
How very wrong can you be ? The Conservative Party was ( WAS ) always a fairly moderate right of centre political party, and some of the leaders I admired, and had respect for, including John Major, Edward Heath and Harold Macmillan. The Conservative Party has never been a far right or radical right political party, though it has always had its right wing sections such as The Monday Club, and in more recent years The European Research Group, and the new "Northern Research Group" who are mostly Populists representing Red Wall seats. The Tories have got a really big problem - lurch to the Populist / Right and they lose hundreds of thousands of votes in middle England and Tory heartlands, revert back to traditional Conservatism and they lose the Red Wall seats and lots of support in the North. There s a civil war going on right now within the Tory Party A jumble of words without real meaning. The Conservative party was a moderate party because conservatism itself is a moderate social philosophy. It isn't (for instance) a hard left progressive / revolutionary philosophy and when it merges with, and concedes to, radical left programs of top down social engineering (as it has done recently), it's clear it has gone a bit off course from the philosophy of conservatismWhen you talk about the lurch to the hard right, what you are actually talking about are policies, aims and values that would have been pretty mainstream merely 20 years ago and then pretending they are upstarts...ie you are gas-lighting.The Conservative party, formed in the 1830s was a party aimed at conserving the normal functioning of the country, with its Lords and Ladies being a very privileged class. It has, thankfully evolved somewhat since then. In my experience of taking political notice for the last seventy years, the party has always been a "top down socially engineering," party, never having left its privileging traits completely behind. It seems to me that the capitalist system we now live in has been reined in to some extent by either Liberal or Labour governments. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 20, 2023 9:20:05 GMT
A jumble of words without real meaning. The Conservative party was a moderate party because conservatism itself is a moderate social philosophy. It isn't (for instance) a hard left progressive / revolutionary philosophy and when it merges with, and concedes to, radical left programs of top down social engineering (as it has done recently), it's clear it has gone a bit off course from the philosophy of conservatismWhen you talk about the lurch to the hard right, what you are actually talking about are policies, aims and values that would have been pretty mainstream merely 20 years ago and then pretending they are upstarts...ie you are gas-lighting.The Conservative party, formed in the 1830s was a party aimed at conserving the normal functioning of the country, with its Lords and Ladies being a very privileged class. It has, thankfully evolved somewhat since then. In my experience of taking political notice for the last seventy years, the party has always been a "top down socially engineering," party, never having left its privileging traits completely behind. It seems to me that the capitalist system we now live in has been reined in to some extent by either Liberal or Labour governments. I used the term ' radical left programs of top down social engineering' to stop the pedantry. The conservative party has through its history been significantly opposed to such programs. It might help you to see you are talking nonsense if you try to quantify this - what particular values and policies do you feel are pertinent here? What is the so called 'far right' proposing that is not arguably conservative? In my view this is just another symptom of an unfortunate reflex the left have - they don't like it when people are able to make choices they disagree with. It's the one party reflex. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Dec 20, 2023 9:55:17 GMT
The Conservative party, formed in the 1830s was a party aimed at conserving the normal functioning of the country, with its Lords and Ladies being a very privileged class. It has, thankfully evolved somewhat since then. In my experience of taking political notice for the last seventy years, the party has always been a "top down socially engineering," party, never having left its privileging traits completely behind. It seems to me that the capitalist system we now live in has been reined in to some extent by either Liberal or Labour governments. I used the term ' radical left programs of top down social engineering' to stop the pedantry. The conservative party has through its history been significantly opposed to such programs. It might help you to see you are talking nonsense if you try to quantify this - what particular values and policies do you feel are pertinent here? What is the so called 'far right' proposing that is not arguably conservative? In my view this is just another symptom of an unfortunate reflex the left have - they don't like it when people are able to make choices they disagree with. It's the one party reflex. Posting the truth is not "an unfortunate reflex" of my non-left approach. Even if it does appear to be to you in your apparently Rightist approach.I appose the values and policies that culminate in a parties main approach to improving the economy being 'we need to make the the rich richer'. I don't study the "far right" because I do not agree with extremism of the far-right or the far-left. I am aware of some far-right opinions that I would not think of as extreme, the problem is not what they post about themselves, it is their underlying extremist intent that is the problem. And that will only be exposed if they ever get elected. They are referred to as Far-Right because they are extremists. Part of your conundrum is, that if they are not extremists they are not far-right. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 20, 2023 10:12:36 GMT
I used the term ' radical left programs of top down social engineering' to stop the pedantry. The conservative party has through its history been significantly opposed to such programs. It might help you to see you are talking nonsense if you try to quantify this - what particular values and policies do you feel are pertinent here? What is the so called 'far right' proposing that is not arguably conservative? In my view this is just another symptom of an unfortunate reflex the left have - they don't like it when people are able to make choices they disagree with. It's the one party reflex. Posting the truth is not "an unfortunate reflex" of my non-left approach. Even if it does appear to be to you in your apparently Rightist approach.I appose the values and policies that culminate in a parties main approach to improving the economy being 'we need to make the the rich richer'. I don't study the "far right" because I do not agree with extremism of the far-right or the far-left. I am aware of some far-right opinions that I would not think of as extreme, the problem is not what they post about themselves, it is their underlying extremist intent that is the problem. And that will only be exposed if they ever get elected. They are referred to as Far-Right because they are extremists. Part of your conundrum is, that if they are not extremists they are not far-right. From your first line, it's reasonably clear you are not a conservative - in that you use a description of policy that is used in opposition to conservative policy. From your second line, it seems you can't identify the actual policies and values at stake here. All you have the label 'far right' and 'extremist'. You explain these terms in a self-referential (even circular) way - ie "they are far right because they are extremist and they are extremist because they are far right". Your third line - this is not a conundrum for me because i am not using these silly, meaningless terms. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Dec 20, 2023 10:20:21 GMT
I appose the values and policies that culminate in a parties main approach to improving the economy being 'we need to make the the rich richer'. I don't study the "far right" because I do not agree with extremism of the far-right or the far-left. I am aware of some far-right opinions that I would not think of as extreme, the problem is not what they post about themselves, it is their underlying extremist intent that is the problem. And that will only be exposed if they ever get elected. They are referred to as Far-Right because they are extremists. Part of your conundrum is, that if they are not extremists they are not far-right. From your first line, it's reasonably clear you are not a conservative - in that you use a description of policy that is used in opposition to conservative policy. From your second line, it seems you can't identify the actual policies and values at stake here. All you have the label 'far right' and 'extremist'. You explain these terms in a self-referential (even circular) way - ie "they are far right because they are extremist and they are extremist because they are far right". Your third line - this is not a conundrum for me because i am not using these silly, meaningless terms. Indeed. So the left's argument runs: "They are far right because we say so" and "They're extremist because we say so".
And, in many cases, these "Far Right" opinions would have been considered mainstream centrist only a few years ago (and still are by most, normal people).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2023 10:48:51 GMT
The equivelant of the UK Conservative Party in Italy is "Forza Italia" who are described in the Oxford Encyclopedia as "Centre Right".
The "Brothers Of Italy" are to the Right of FI and are termed as "far right" and "populist", similar to Reform in the UK.
I fail to understand why posters are attempting to push back on what is the blatantly obvious, all for the sake of attempting ( but failing ) to make out that the BBC is making things up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 20, 2023 11:13:26 GMT
Pillock, you are typically missing the point, and by some margin. The reason Giorgia Meloni is prime minister is because Italians are sick of mass immigration and believe me, the left wing EU are very aware that mass immigration is not only a huge issue in Italy but is driving right wing politics in Europe. People who warned that forced mass immigration would cause social unrest were shouted down as far right and racists. But it's happening, these things take time but for more than a decade thanks to the EU and mass immigration right wing politicians are comming to the fore. You will of course scoff, as you did at UKIP. The immigration / asylum problem is a legal problem Voting Far Right is NEVER a clever thing to do. You think UKIP were far right? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2023 11:18:04 GMT
It used to be just be a racial thing, but today it's anything the Left disagrees with.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Dec 20, 2023 11:37:54 GMT
The immigration / asylum problem is a legal problem Voting Far Right is NEVER a clever thing to do. You think UKIP were far right? He doesn't think Red. He hasn't the ability to do so. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 20, 2023 11:39:33 GMT
It used to be just be a racial thing, but today it's anything the Left disagrees with. It seems to me that lefties, or some lefties anyway, are of the opinion that anyone who is not left wing must be 'far right'. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 20, 2023 11:50:04 GMT
3 pages in and it appears that some posters are unable to articulate a single policy that they believe is 'far right'
Perhaps the 'far-right' are the adult version of the Boogie-man, an imaginary entity to terrorise the gullible?
|
|
