[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/05/daily-mail-calls-rightwingers-stupidThis made me laugh.[/url

I made no attempt to [idefine[/i right wing. I gave a so-rough-the-splinters-hurt explanation of a part of what [isome[/i people consider is the hub of the divide. Others would disagree with every word I said. If you want greater understanding read a book. Read several books. RLFANS is not the best place to get to grips with what is an extremely complex philosophical, political, social and cultural dichotomy.



Most people who bother to understand the world beyond their front door have a broad idea of what these terms mean - but ideas are often extremely difficult to define in clear, precise language.



I mean, it's a bit like happiness. I couldn't begin to spell out precisely what happiness is - but I know it when I see it.

You personally know "[umost[/u" left wingers well enough to assert this, do you? You know what they do; you know the state of their bank accounts; you know what (if any) property they own etc?



Really? Are you absolutely sure about that?



And is that in "the real world" (© Sal Paradise)?







Doesn't the [iDaily Mail[/i count?

To be fair, Mr Paradise was replying to my facetious post where I stated that most right-wingers were greedy and fearful.

So, maybe he thought a goose and gander reply was fair enough.



Therefore I retract my use of the word "most" and invite Mr Paradise to do the same.

My rule of thumb for left-wing/right-wing ...



Right Wing

It's about the individual

People should stand on their own two feet

Low tax (what's mine is mine)

Smaller state to allow freedom of the individual

Civilisation is allowing people to make money

Life is inherently unfair, deal with it



Left Wing

It's about society

People should be helped when they need it

Higher tax (to pay for redistribution and looking after people)

Larger state to ensure fairness

Civilisation is ensuring that enrichment of some doesn't incur the impoverishment of others.

Tackling unfairness is a worthy aim



How's that for a starter?

I'd also add that its quite normal to hold "Right Wing" views as a younger person and yet quite acceptable for those views to change as you get older, swaying more to "the Left" as you find that you need those social supports that you objected to so much as a younger person.



Its when you get older and your once far distant destination comes more into focus that you realise that the dream of being completely self sufficient for the whole of your life was just that, a dream, for no-one can make provision for themselves to cover every eventuality in health, housing and holding a general standard of life.

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.

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. [url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boundary-changes-could-leave-lib-dems-with-11-seats-6677174.htmlLINK[/url



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.