I think the essence is pretty simple - it is a about control,

The people on the left want to have a bigger say in/dictate how society is run through taxation/spending. People on the right want the power moved away from the centre to the individual with the spending power redistributing accordingly, thereby giving greater giving decision making opportunities to those who generate the wealth.

This is very broad brush but not far from the reality.

So in essence, those on the left want society to work for the benefit of all. Those on the right want society to work for the benefit of themselves.

Personally I hate the football supporter style mentality that often crops up when discussing "Left" or "Right" policies, I would say that the above is a fair description but it does run into stormy waters when too much reliance on providing social care is placed on the individual and is moved away from state control, I never thought I'd be pleased to have my parents die but I'm happy that they did quickly and without the need for nursing home care like my father two dementia affected sisters did, one of them having just died three weeks ago after five years of privately funded high dependency care - I'm guessing that my cousin won't be inheriting an awful lot of money from her parents right now and given that their whole family was Conservative with a large bold "C" then I have to admit to a sly, if cruel, chuckle.

There should be an ability to come to a consensus within parliament and drive the country forward to the benefit of all in the same way that a business might be run by a board of directors, unfortunately the football supporter style of politics dominates far too often.

Apart from the odd pejorative word like "dictate" in there, didn't I more-or-less include that in my big-state/larger-state comparison?

Maybe the lefties on here should define left-wing and the righties on here define the right-wing.
If only because whenever Sal tells us what lefties want and what lefties think it never coincides with what I want or think ... and, as a self-confessed leftie, I'm better placed to say what I want and think.

McLaren_Field wrote: There should be an ability to come to a consensus within parliament and drive the country forward to the benefit of all in the same way that a business might be run by a board of directors, unfortunately the football supporter style of politics dominates far too often. I suppose many thought that the LibDems might bring some tempering of traditional tory thinking, to the coalition cabinet table. Now we can all see that if that really was the case, then goodness knows what would have happened if the conservatives had won a working majority. Mind you, it now looks like Cleggy might just have managed to drive his party back to the relative oblivion they enjoyed immediately post-Jeremy Thorpe. Without the proposed boundary changes, polls predict a LibDem total of elected MPs reducing from 57 to 19. When boundary changes are taken into account, that figure further reduces to just 11. LINK Well done Clegg, I'm sure you'll be OK for the future, whatever happens.

McLaren_Field wrote: There should be an ability to come to a consensus within parliament and drive the country forward to the benefit of all in the same way that a business might be run by a board of directors, unfortunately the football supporter style of politics dominates far too often. I suppose many thought that the LibDems might bring some tempering of traditional tory thinking, to the coalition cabinet table. Now we can all see that if that really was the case, then goodness knows what would have happened if the conservatives had won a working majority. Mind you, it now looks like Cleggy might just have managed to drive his party back to the relative oblivion they enjoyed immediately post-Jeremy Thorpe. Without the proposed boundary changes, polls predict a LibDem total of elected MPs reducing from 57 to 19. When boundary changes are taken into account, that figure further reduces to just 11. LINK Well done Clegg, I'm sure you'll be OK for the future, whatever happens.

Cleggster blew it in the first days of office by dropping what he'd said (and promised) in the run-up to the election and suddenly agreeing one afternoon with the tory view that he had opposed for months / years.
Then he wondered why people weren't seeing him as a stabilising influence.
Dipstick.

What do I personally believe?

In essence, in fairness – or at least something fairer.

We chose whether we work for that or not. To those who claim that ‘the world isn’t fair – get over it’, it should be pointed out that, if we’d always had that attitude, we’d probably most of us be slaves.

I believe in a mixed economy – including in a mixed private sector that is not massively dependent on finance and retail. So I believe in entrepreneurialship and businesses. But I also believe that anyone who works (or who cannot work) deserves a decent living.

Should everyone be paid the same? No.

Should everyone live in the same houses? No.

Should everyone have a decent education? Yes.

Should everyone have access to decent health care? Yes!

Should everyone have somewhere decent to live? Yes.

None of this should be rocket science – never mind a matter of some sort of 'faith': just look at the mess wrought by 30 years of neo-liberalism in the UK and elsewhere.

And do some people really, seriously believe that they can just sit happily and watch as more and more people are screwed, ever more, and nothing will happen? People will – should, even – simply accept it, while those who, for whatever reason, are in the tiny number of those doing well can afford to live in nice gated communities, with cars to drive them through the slums and past the rabble, should be applauded?

Y’see, I feel the need to point out such obvious and simple points because I hate labels, and because people use political labels in a derogatory way (generally) and to suggest a very limited and static set of specific beliefs and ideas.

Do I believe in ‘big state’? Depends what you mean. I believe the state, on behalf of those that elect it, should act on their behalf. We’ve seen what happens when deregulation occurs – but what other body will now put in place some much needed regulation on the banks, for instance?

Do I think the state should be involved in every aspect of life? No. But it is a myth to suggest that this is a hallmark of left-wing governments, when conservative governments across the world have sought to legislate on and limit the personal behaviour of their citizens, often right up to what consenting adults can do in the privacy of their own homes.

Indeed, those well-known lefty fans of the big state, the Republicans and the Tea Party, have plenty amongst them who would do exactly that, right now, if elected.

One thing I do hate, though, is the way in which, over the last 30 years, so many people who do work have been demonised for doing work that is somehow not considered ‘worthy’. A lot (not all, but a lot) of this has been to do with a long-term, ideological demonisation of the public services: from teachers to social workers, never mind manual workers, there has been a process of portraying them all as either lousy at their jobs or in non-jobs to start with.

Do I think the state should run things like utilities? Yes. For reasons that should be clear to anyone. They need to be run for the people.

Do I think the state should run every other business? No. Hence my disagreements with tb over whether or not our local council should be involved in running the weekly farmers’ market. My view is not to let them near. There’s no need – it’s a bloody success, after years of stupid council efforts.

Anyway, that's a few thoughts and a bit of a rant – hopefully it might get a few others started.

Thanks Mintball, I am a social democrat too.

Capitalism ain't all bad ... like fire or water, it's a good servant but a bad master.

Labels! Labels!

Many (many!) years ago, I had a phase where I sincerely loved labels. And badges.

I was on a train one day, wearing (as was my wont at the time) a battered old tweed jacket, with three badges on one lapel: a red star, a green star and an echthis.

A young man sitting nearby, with an unopened can of beer, moved over to sit opposite – and started quizzing me about the badges.

'What do they mean?' he asked.

'I thought it would be pretty obvious,' I countered.

The conversation continued for some time. It became clear that he was an ultra-leftist.

He opened his can, but didn't drink.

Eventually: 'Well okay – how do you describe yourself, in as few words as possible?'

So, as though the badges hadn't given away the game, I replied: 'I'm a green, Christian communist.'

We were pulling into a station. He excused himself, handed me the opened but untouched beer, and left.

Perhaps labels have some advantages when you play them right.

I wrote a bit of a diatribe about labels once, must dig it out.
Different labels though.
This was about labelling things, not people or philosophies.
I believe it all started with my Mother's Tea, Coffee and Sugar jars that had me puzzled as a kid.
Tea came in 4 ounce packets, sugar came in big two-pound blue bags and coffee came in its own jar anyway but the jars in the kitchen labelled Tea Coffee and Sugar were all the same size.
Later, you could get baking dishes labelled with a recipe printed inside it ... yes, inside it.

Then later again, you could get a plates with PIZZA written on them ... so that you could find out what you'd just eaten I guess.

It got worse and worse until nowadays you can get jugs with JUG written on them, and Utensils jars with UTENSILS written on them ... like you'd stand looking at it standing there with a balloon whisk and a few wooden spoons sticking out of the top of it, wondering what the contents were until you saw the label "Ah, utensils, that's what they are".

You can get clothes with the label on the outside.
And mandarins with little stickers on saying "Mandarin".

Madness.