Can someone please explain what right wing and left wing means in politics?

[theholygideons]

  So what is all this right wing and left wing business? I've trying reading wikipedia and it seems complete jargon to me. What does it mean if someone is an extreme right wing? where did this terminology left and right originate from? and why the hell do people always bag out republicans? (I'm not American by the way, so i don't understand your political system)

[pianoplunker]

So what is all this right wing and left wing business? I've trying reading wikipedia and it seems complete jargon to me. What does it mean if someone is an extreme right wing? where did this terminology left and right originate from? and why the hell do people always bag out republicans? (I'm not American by the way, so i don't understand your political system)

Welcome to the
MEDIA

Truthfully , Right wingers have no intelligence, and left wingers have no common sense. None of the above can do sheet on the piano

[theholygideons]

so rachmaninoff is a right winger and schoenberg is a left wing?
.... is feeling so confused.

[thalbergmad]

Left wingers are piss pathetic brain dead imbeciles that like loafers, layabouts, unions, teachers, benefit claimants, immigrants, criminals and assorted scum end of Society.

Right wingers are more intelligent and want to make people who work better off than loafers and want to control immigration to keep the pond life out. They also believe in tougher punishment for criminals.

Lefties are happy to bankrupt a Country to keep their moronic vote base happy and are financially illiterate. Righties want tighter fiscal control.

Lefties usually have a lot of children with silly names like Tarquin. They love windmills & hugging trees and they live off lentil soup.
 
Thal

[theholygideons]

Left wingers are piss pathetic brain dead imbeciles that like loafers, layabouts, unions, teachers, benefit claimants, immigrants, criminals and assorted scum end of Society.

Right wingers are more intelligent and want to make people who work better off than loafers and want to control immigration to keep the pond life out. They also believe in tougher punishment for criminals.

Lefties are happy to bankrupt a Country to keep their moronic vote base happy and are financially illiterate. Righties want tighter fiscal control.

Lefties usually have a lot of children with silly names like Tarquin. They love windmills & hugging trees and they live off lentil soup.
 
Thal

Right.. so lefties are country bogans while righties are more of a strict authoritarian type? rather than analogies, what are the defining philosophies and ideals that define each side?

[mikeowski]

Maybe this infographic will help you!

[iansinclair]

It is really quite dangerous to make sweeping generalisations about what is meant by "right wing" and "left wing" in politics!  The terms have come to mean rather different things in different countries.

That being said, I will be an idiot and try and come up with a few generalisations anyway!

In general, then... left wing politics tends to be oriented towards Marxist economic thinking.  This tends to translate into an orientation towards more centralised, technocratic direction of the economy and of social customs and laws in comparison with right wing politics -- although really pure Marxist thought is oriented towards group decision making; trouble is, of course, that in practice in any larger group that doesn't work awfully well.  Human nature being what it is, leaders will emerge and in many situations will tend to centralise power, on the principle that they and their advisors know what is best for the group.

Right wing politics, on the other hand, tends to be more oriented towards market oriented economic thinking, and an emphasis on individual decision making and enterprise.  It usually -- but by no means always -- tends to have less emphasis on top-down decision making for laws and regulation of social customs.

But... the lines get very blurry, and one can find political viewpoints labelled left wing which are anarchist in tendency, rejecting all central authority, and one can also find political viewpoints which are labelled right wing which are very highly centralised (the unlamented National Socialist -- Nazi -- party of Germany comes to mind).  Indeed, at the extremes of either wing it becomes almost impossible to distinguish the policies regarding how to govern put forth by the far right and by the far left (not necessarily what those parties would do if they gained power, but how they would govern -- the mechanics, if you will).

A further very serious complication is that what passes for centre left or centre right in one country could well be regarded as rather extreme left or right, as the case may be, in some other country.

In countries with one party rule -- of which there are an astonishing number -- the terms are meaningless, of course.

It should also be understood that thinking regarding foreign policy does not neatly follow a left/right distinction; it is nearly as likely for a party regarded as "left" to be quite as nationalistic and xenophobic as one regarded as "right".

A rather simple-minded way of looking at it would be to describe the reaction to the sentence "We're from the government, and we're here to help you".  A left wing orientation would agree heartily, and welcome the speaker with enthusiasm.  A right wing orientation would tend to think that that was the most dangerous sentence in the English language, and offer the speaker a free trip to the next county, to be taken immediately.

[pianoplunker]

Right.. so lefties are country bogans while righties are more of a strict authoritarian type? rather than analogies, what are the defining philosophies and ideals that define each side?

In the basic context - right wing wing values less government and taxes to allow more freedom .
                              left wing values more government and taxes to help everybody via programs
                              right wing wants to shoot a gun without government regulations
                              left wing wants government regulations so guns wont kill people

[iansinclair]

In the basic context - right wing wing values less government and taxes to allow more freedom .
                              left wing values more government and taxes to help everybody via programs
                              right wing wants to shoot a gun without government regulations
                              left wing wants government regulations so guns wont kill people

More or less valid -- but only for the United States.  But the last sentence would be more true if it stated "...left wing wants government regulations so only criminals and government employees can kill people with guns".  Only they won't tell it the way it is...

[theholygideons]

....
                              right wing wants to shoot a gun without government regulations
                              left wing wants government regulations so guns wont kill people

Wouldn't that mean Australia is primarily left wing, with its two parties, labor and liberal?
Either that, or it has a higher IQ than the average American, lol.....

[j_menz]

where did this terminology left and right originate from?

The seating arrangements in the French Parliament.

More generally, one means sane  and reasonable , the other means dangerously lunatic. There is some disagreement as to which is which, though.

[kalirren]

There is no right-wing like the right wing in the US.  I suspect that being on top of the world for 50 years would do that to any nation.  :-(

The terms "left" and "right" appeared during the French Revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king to the president's right and supporters of the revolution to his left.  The terms then grew to mean (in French) that left-leaning parties are the "parties of movement", and right-leaning parties are "parties of order".

The term then got exported to English, and where people stand on "Right/Left" in the US now lines up with a few core sympathies:

Capital/Labor,
Religious/Secular,
Rural/Urban,
old white men/everyone else,

the last one being the most problematic at present.

Americans nowadays bag on Republicans because the Republican constituency has undergone a strange shift over the years.  When it was first formed, the Republican party was the party of the free, working, white man.  Throughout the century between the American Civil War and the Vietnam War, It used to be that the Republican party formed a useful and relatively stable coalition of rich white men, who were in political power all throughout the country.  Because the Republican Party has historically been less supportive of the progress of civil rights (e.g., desegregation, equal pay/abortion, gay rights), the Republican constituency has become more narrow over time. By contrast, the Democratic party has been more successful in keeping up with US demographic changes.

But ever since about the 1990s, demographics have changed and the domestic economy has worsened, and the interests of the rural, the rich, the religious, and the racists have diverged somewhat.  As a result, Republicans, despite enjoying a strong identity, have become as factionalized as the Democratic constituency legendarily was in the latter half of the 20th century, but the Republicans have less practice at the politics of maintaining large coalitions.

This gives rise to the modern embarrassments, where the Republicans, while on paper a majority party in the lower legislative house, are really only a majority coalition.  They can only agree to block what the President from the opposing party does, but not on any coherent agenda beyond that.  Meanwhile, extremists of all four major Republican types are trying to make it clear that their version alone represents the one true Republican party.

[iansinclair]

More generally, one means sane  and reasonable , the other means dangerously lunatic. There is some disagreement as to which is which, though.

Doesn't which one is sane and reasonable depend entirely on which one one agrees with?

[j_menz]

Doesn't which one is sane and reasonable depend entirely on which one one agrees with?

Sometimes. Other times which is dangerous and lunatic depends on which one one disagrees with.

[ted]

The two major parties in New Zealand seem to be much the same, comprising many wealthy members who mostly ignore the wishes of the ordinary people. The "free market" principles written into legislation since 1984, and adopted by both parties, have proved a disappointment. They have made people's lives more difficult if anything, merely tending to increase disparity between rich and poor and thereby creating all sorts of social problems. On the ethical side, the underlying maxim seems to be that the desire to make money competitively is always good regardless of moral consequence. Gambling, booze and prostitution, for example, have been actively encouraged by both major parties since their combined rejection, in 1984, of what was previously a welfare state with a socialist approach.

This is not necessarily connected to "right" or "left" in global terms, or indeed meaningful comment on the original poster's question. It is just what I have observed, having lived half my life under what people called "left", and half under what they call "right".

[outin]

In some countries there's little difference between the major left wing/right wing parties when it comes to the actual politics. The differences are more in the political discourse and come from the different ideological background (somewhat outdated or over-simplified economical theories). The smaller parties with less power tend to be more true to their origins, but have little opportunity to actually put their ideas in practice.

In certain countrie(s) issues that have little to do with the original division have been added to the mix: Guns, death penalty, abortion, gay rights, religion...

[fleetfingers]

There is no right-wing like the right wing in the US.  I suspect that being on top of the world for 50 years would do that to any nation.  :-(

I am not sure what you mean by this. Are you suggesting that America has moved to the right over the past 50 years?

[iansinclair]

I am not sure what you mean by this. Are you suggesting that America has moved to the right over the past 50 years?

First, let me qualify a bit -- I'm a US citizen (and former military) but I and members of my family have lived both in the UK and Canada for some time, and I have lived from before WWII to now.  My views may not be that good a representation -- but for what they are worth.

I don't think the United States has moved right.  If anything, it has moved left; indeed, with the Great Society, considerably left.  The rest of the first world was always somewhat left of the United States and particularly in Western Europe the devastation of WWII and the struggles to recover in the following years made socialist style action and politics almost mandatory for survival, with a tendency to go even farther left for the centre of gravity of political thinking.  There have been the odd episodes of reversal of trend -- consider Baroness Thatcher, for instance -- but it has been the direction (eastern Europe -- former Warsaw pact -- and Asian countries are another story altogether, never mind the middle East).

What has happened in the United States is that, in my view, the shift left has been very uneven.  In the major metropolitan areas -- the "northeast corridor" (Boston to Washington) and the "left coast" (Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego) and in academia the shift is very pronounced; in more rural areas -- which in terms of area are the vast majority of the country -- there has been little change.  However, those areas, though they are the vast majority of the country in terms of area, are a strikingly small minority in terms of population (they weren't, at the beginning of the period) and there is a tendency to feel -- rightly or wrongly -- left out of Federal politics, and in some states, where a major metropolitan area dominates the state -- California, New York, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland being the best examples -- they are very much left out.  When one is left out, or feels that way, one tends to become a bit more strident -- which may account for a feeling that the country has moved right when seen (and heard!) from a distance.

I might point out that one can see similar patterns in Canada and, to a lesser extent, in the United Kingdom. 

[ranniks]

Left wingers are piss pathetic brain dead imbeciles that like loafers, layabouts, unions, teachers, benefit claimants, immigrants, criminals and assorted scum end of Society.

Right wingers are more intelligent and want to make people who work better off than loafers and want to control immigration to keep the pond life out. They also believe in tougher punishment for criminals.

Lefties are happy to bankrupt a Country to keep their moronic vote base happy and are financially illiterate. Righties want tighter fiscal control.

Lefties usually have a lot of children with silly names like Tarquin. They love windmills & hugging trees and they live off lentil soup.
 
Thal

There was a Dutch author that once wrote in one of his novels: 'It is a crime to be intelligent and be a right winger at the same time'.

I'm a left winger, e.g.: against discrimination, against power to the rich who will use that power to become more rich with poorer people suffering from it.

Also, I'm not a genius, but I wouldn't say that I'm brain dead either.....I try to work hard in regards to academics.

I'm not a socialist though!

Edit:

I'm also pro-welfare for people who have come to our western countries because of war/etc. Their children will go to school here and flourish the job market and with that also the economy.

[thalbergmad]

I'm also pro-welfare for people who have come to our western countries because of war/etc. Their children will go to school here and flourish the job market and with that also the economy.

We most certainly differ on this point. Flood the job market would be my choice of words and with it a reduction in wages that consigns another generation of the indigenous population to a life on benefits.

England is now full, so we should only be letting in the most talented of immigrants. The rest should be kept out.

Thal

[ranniks]

We most certainly differ on this point. Flood the job market would be my choice of words and with it a reduction in wages that consigns another generation of the indigenous population to a life on benefits.

England is now full, so we should only be letting in the most talented of immigrants. The rest should be kept out.

Thal

Notice when I said people with reasons of war/etc. I don't think there are that many war-immigrant people to flood the job market. What you're saying is not immigrants with reasons such as war, but other kinds I believe.

Even so, as long as they learn the language, don't cause trouble, what's the problem? As for most talented, what do you mean exactly? Why would a lawyer/doctor immigrate to england when he/she has his/her own clinic in non-war/good-economy country for example? This most talented thing would only be valid for people from war-torn countries, and that is just not fair.

And are you saying England is full because of the idiotic immigrants (who do have an English pasport now!) who cause trouble, or because of some other reason? The first reason I would understand, but then change 'most talented' to 'peaceful and with common sense'. Because the people who are causing trouble on the streets, the immigrant ones, are just idiots and the good immigrants frown upon them to be honest. Hey, I frown upon them!

[thalbergmad]

I don't think there are that many war-immigrant people to flood the job market.

Then you should have been a bank clerk as I was during the Kosovan war & the gulf war. In my part of England, their were countless thousands.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Even so, as long as they learn the language, don't cause trouble, what's the problem?

This rather depends on the capacity to take them and the infastructure to cope. If your schools &  hospitals are bursting at the seams and unable to cope, if you don't have enough doctors/dentists,  if you already have thousands sleeping rough and thousands awaiting housing, if your roads are already crippled with jams, if you already have millions unemployed, what is the value in letting thousands more people in??.

Thal

 

[thalbergmad]

And are you saying England is full because of the idiotic immigrants (who do have an English pasport now!) who cause trouble, or because of some other reason?

England is full because of the idiotic politicians who allowed uncontrolled immigration and woefully underestimated the amount of people who would want to come here.

Thal

[ranniks]

England is full because of the idiotic politicians who allowed uncontrolled immigration and woefully underestimated the amount of people who would want to come here.

Thal

Sir, I thank God that immigration is possible. If it wasn't, I wouldn't be posting here on this computer and might very well be dead somewhere in the country where I was born. I also might not have had the opportunities that I now have.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

England is full because of the idiotic politicians who allowed uncontrolled immigration and woefully underestimated the amount of people who would want to come here.

In truth, I think it has been part of a cynical and calculated attempt to create a low-wage economy, without any concern given to the inevitable social consequences.

I do think that refugees from war zones should be allowed in - in a certain sense it is a perverse form of payback from the fact that our arms industry has profited from, armed and facilitated conflict in many countries.

[j_menz]

in a certain sense it is a perverse form of payback from the fact that our arms industry has profited from, armed and facilitated conflict in many countries.

And of course, let's not forget the whole Empire thingie.

[pianoplunker]

England is full because of the idiotic politicians who allowed uncontrolled immigration and woefully underestimated the amount of people who would want to come here.

Thal

As has been proven in the Unites States, No politicians can ever control immigration, no matter how tough they try to make the circumstances for immigration. Even all out war wont stop it. How many Afghans, Iranians, and Iraqis live in the US freely ? Quite a few , even though we have been at war with their family members. When we have a country that offers just an opportunity for education, job, or both - they will come.   

[thalbergmad]

Sir, I thank God that immigration is possible.

Me too, we would not have an National Health Service if it were not for immigrant workers.

However, as a Country we must exercise control over the numbers and the quality. We want hard workers to come here, but we do not want spongers, criminals and low life crap. We have enough of that as it is.

Over 7% of our prison population was not even born here. This is a statistic immigrant loving lefties tend to ignore.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

No politicians can ever control immigration, no matter how tough they try to make the circumstances for immigration.

Influence perhaps more than control. Arguably, our government stopped a potential flood of immigrants from Romania & Bulgaria by stopping all benefits payments for the first 3 months and then only allowing claims for a maximum of 6 months.

Far too soft in my opinion. Boris Johnson wanted to extend it to a year which is more like it.

Thal

[ahinton]

Influence perhaps more than control. Arguably, our government stopped a potential flood of immigrants from Romania & Bulgaria by stopping all benefits payments for the first 3 months and then only allowing claims for a maximum of 6 months.

Far too soft in my opinion. Boris Johnson wanted to extend it to a year which is more like it.

The warnings of floods of immigrants from two of the poorest EU countries into UK was grossly exaggerated by scaremongers and the benefits arrangements are not what has stemmed that non-existent tide; very few have come over in any case and there was never any realistic expectation of a tidal wave of immigrants from those two places.

Is England too small to take on more than a handful of the most highly qualified immigrants? (and why only England? - do you think that they all want to come to that country rather than to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?). Up to a point, yes and so immigration does indeed have to be controlled in some way and to some degree; however, whilst my scepticism of statistics is likely as great as yours, we receive constant reminders that the net value of immigration is a positive figure and not a negative one (i.e. the value of tax receipts from some of them exceeds that of the benefits paid out to the rest of them - and, in considering that, don't forget that even those on benefits pay some taxes, such as VAT on taxable goods that they purchase), so the right-wing extremist journalists for and readers of the Daily Express and the like would appear to be trying to purvey a story that runs entirely counter to reality for the purpose of pursuing their own agendas.

I quite like the joke about the right-winger in an English city pub braying about his disapproval of "all these Romanians and Bulgarians comin' over 'ere taking all those jobs away from the Poles".

If Scotland goes independent later this year, I will have immigration status thrust upon me, not least because I was not born in England; why should I not be considered for deportation as an illegal immigrant thereafter? The only answer to that is that my residence in England was legal until the law changed.

Any serious consideration of immigration rights in England / Britain must of necessity take due account of a number of factors, not least of which being the right of (a) EU citizens freely to move from one EU state to another and (b) all those with British passports who are classified as British Citizens or British Subjects who live outside Britain to return to Britain; if even as many as 1 in 10 of the latter all decided to come here (and they could not be stopped by law without first being stripped of their British citizenship), the question of the extent to which Britain could hope to accommodate them would be a vastly greater one than any that might be put forward about non-British immigrants from EU countries or from elsewhere in the world.

Anyway, views on immigration is only one subject that might define what makes a left- or right-wing sympathiser.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

The warnings of floods of immigrants from two of the poorest EU countries into UK was grossly exaggerated by scaremongers and the benefits arrangements are not what has stemmed that non-existent tide; very few have come over in any case and there was never any realistic expectation of a tidal wave of immigrants from those two places.

That is what we were told 10 years ago when the Labour government told us they expected something like 13,000 immigrants from Eastern Europe, whereas the figure ended up being 600,000 and they are only the ones we know about.

Thankfully, history does not appear to be repeating itself and I expect the benefits arrangements play a part in this, along with the fact that England is rapidly becoming a worse place to live than the crapholes of Eastern Europe.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Is England too small to take on more than a handful of the most highly qualified immigrants? (and why only England? - do you think that they all want to come to that country rather than to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?).

The vast majority of immigrants head to London or Southern England which is where what jobs we have are. What would be the point in going to some rundown housing estate in Scotland where there is no work.

Besides, the Scots are not as welcoming or as tolerant as the English. When I was working in Glasgow, a bus load of immigrants were placed in one of those horrid high rise flats. Within a month, they were all gone and one of them was murdered.

Thal

[ahinton]

That is what we were told 10 years ago when the Labour government told us they expected something like 13,000 immigrants from Eastern Europe, whereas the figure ended up being 600,000 and they are only the ones we know about.

Yes, that was indeed a gross underestimation based on inadequate research (or perhaps even none at all), but the proportion of those who did arrive and have found work and pay taxes is not small and, in any case, some of them, nost notiably Poles, have since returned to whence they came.

Thankfully, history does not appear to be repeating itself and I expect the benefits arrangements play a part in this, along with the fact that England is rapidly becoming a worse place to live than the crapholes of Eastern Europe.

I do not think that the benefits arrangements - assuming that they're all legal (which may be something of a leap of faith in itself, I suspect) - have acted as much of a disincentive to would-be immigrants from eastern European EU states. Whatever you may think about living in England today, you would not compare it unfavourably to living in Romania or Bulgaria if you'd ever actually lived for any length of time in either country yourself.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

The vast majority of immigrants head to London or Southern England which is where what jobs we have are. What would be the point in going to some rundown housing estate in Scotland where there is no work.

But then the vast majority of non-immigrants do the same when they're seeking work, yet you would presumably not argue that they shouldn't do it!

Besides, the Scots are not as welcoming or as tolerant as the English. When I was working in Glasgow, a bus load of immigrants were placed in one of those horrid high rise flats. Within a month, they were all gone and one of them was murdered.

Habitual sweeping generalisations born of overly simplistic knee-jerk reactions do you no favours whatsoever and the kind of thing that you're referring to here is at least as likely to occur in some of the more run-down parts of England or Wales

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Yes, that was indeed a gross underestimation based on inadequate research (or perhaps even none at all), but the proportion of those who did arrive and have found work and pay taxes is not small and, in any case, some of them, nost notiably Poles, have since returned to whence they came.

And the proportion of those who did arrive, found no work and paid no taxes and are still here is not small either.

Perhaps it is time you visited Wisbech, Peterborough or perhaps even Boston. Might be an eye opener for you.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Habitual sweeping generalisations born of overly simplistic knee-jerk reactions do you no favours whatsoever and the kind of thing that you're referring to here is at least as likely to occur in some of the more run-down parts of England or Wales

What are you rambling on about. Perhaps a tour of some Glaswegian pubs and talking to some real people might give you a more rounded view, instead of insane witterings from your comfy remote farmhouse.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

But then the vast majority of non-immigrants do the same when they're seeking work, yet you would presumably not argue that they shouldn't do it!

Indeed, but perhaps they do not move to such locations until they actually have a job and somewhere to live.

Walk down Oxford Street and you would do well to hear the English language. Get to the end of Oxford Street with your wallet still in your pocket and without dozens of immigrants trying to sell you fake perfume and you would have done well.

Alternatively, you could just sit at home and read the newspapers that agree with your liberal stance.

Thal

[ahinton]

And the proportion of those who did arrive, found no work and paid no taxes and are still here is not small either.

Maybe not, but there does appar to be sufficient credible evidence that the net economic effect of immigration has been positive.

Perhaps it is time you visited Wisbech, Peterborough or perhaps even Boston. Might be an eye opener for you.

I don't see why it would be particularly so if indeed the net economic effect of immigration averaged out over the entire country is indeed positive; in any case, none of those places are (at least yet!) part of the London to which you were earlier suggesting that the majority of immigrants go to try to find work.

Best,

Alistair

[awesom_o]

So, how are those piano duets going? 

[ahinton]

What are you rambling on about.

As there's no question mark, I presume that this is not a question, which is just as well, really, since that fact, together with the fact that I'm doing nothing of the kind, saves me the bother of answering it!

Perhaps a tour of some Glaswegian pubs and talking to some real people might give you a more rounded view, instead of insane witterings from your comfy remote farmhouse.

I've been to enough Glasgow pubs, thanks, but am not impressed that the attitude towards immigrants there is any more negative than anywhere else - not even towards the English! Perhaps I go to the wrong pubs, but I doubt it. And I do not have a "farmhouse" of my own, thanks and the one that, for my sins (which must be legion) I'm currently in, whilst admitedly remote, is a good deal less "comfy" than you appear to have led yourself to believe.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

So, how are those piano duets going?

I have no idea but, given that I mentioned earlier that immigration issues are only one part of what might define right- and left-wing people (insofar as such definitions retain any useful meaning at all) and are therefore only a small part of the topic under discussion, I might as well observe that piano duets are entirely off topic!

Best,

Alistair

[awesom_o]

I might as well observe that piano duets are entirely off topic!

Best,

Alistair

Oh well... this topic is going absolutely nowhere, and piano duets are going straight up in the world!

[thalbergmad]

Maybe not, but there does appar to be sufficient credible evidence that the net economic effect of immigration has been positive.

Depends on which paper you read really and we can only construct evidence from the immigrants we know about, not the hundreds of thousands that are here illegally and make no contribution at all.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

I don't see why it would be particularly so if indeed the net economic effect of immigration averaged out over the entire country is indeed positive; in any case, none of those places are (at least yet!) part of the London to which you were earlier suggesting that the majority of immigrants go to try to find work.

I mentioned Southern England as well, which you appear to have forgotten.

Despite your relaxed attitude towards immigration, opinion polls consistently illustrate that a majority of the population want greater control over our borders and the levels of immigration reduced. In a recent poll 76% of people supported David Cameron's aim of reducing net immigration to tens of thousands.

If you are a composer/archivist with a wine cellar and a means of earning a living, you have nothing to fear as the average Eastern European for instance is not going to compete with you. However, for us ordinary working class folk, it is a matter for concern.

Thal

[kalirren]

I am not sure what you mean by this. Are you suggesting that America has moved to the right over the past 50 years?

No, not at all.  50 years ago was 1964.  As a whole, America has certainly moved to the left since then.  But my point was that the US right wing is farther right than most other right wings you might find among well-established republics/democracies.

I find iansinclair's description of events very valuable - not having lived as long, I don't have his perspective, and appreciate it very much.  My own perspective as a young, policy-active scientist still corroborates his point that the US right wing has always been more right-wing, and just hasn't come as far left with time and events than other democracies'.  I also find his point that the unevenness of leftward progress in the discourse has left some constituencies out in the political cold to be very descriptive of the general level of resentment that characterizes modern US politics.

I would add that because the US occupies such an important position in world affairs, and represents such a huge amount of consumer buying power, the opinions of the US populace carry a disproportionately large weight abroad.  Institutions that have interests in controlling transnational affairs thus often come here to do their demagoguery.

This is particularly noticeable in certain science-involved issues.  Often you find broader global consensus in scientific issues of public policy concern when you exclude the US, and more generally, the audience of the English-speaking media, than when you include them.

[ahinton]

Depends on which paper you read really and we can only construct evidence from the immigrants we know about, not the hundreds of thousands that are here illegally and make no contribution at all.

The part of this discussion that centres on immigrants has to be on legal ones; the fact of criminals, including illegal immigrants, are not a factor tht impacts on the thread topic (although in so saying I am not in any sense defending criminal activity of any kind).

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I mentioned Southern England as well, which you appear to have forgotten.

No, I haven't.

Despite your relaxed attitude towards immigration

It's not as relaxed as you appear to think; I did agree that it needs to be controlled, did I not?

opinion polls consistently illustrate that a majority of the population want greater control over our borders and the levels of immigration reduced. In a recent poll 76% of people supported David Cameron's aim of reducing net immigration to tens of thousands.

Sure, but then, as I pointed out, some statistics claim that the net economic outcome of immigration is positive, not negative and, if that's wrong, so might be the polls that you mention.

If you are a composer/archivist

No if about it; I am.

with a wine cellar

I don't have one of those.

and a means of earning a living

Like many people, I may have a means of earning one but the pirates of places other than Penzance don't make that at all easy to exercise it, as I'm sure that you know as well as I do!

you have nothing to fear as the average Eastern European for instance is not going to compete with you.

Who knows? Some of those eastern Europeans might be among the pirates, although they do not have to be in my locality or even in Britain in order to commit their acts of piracy.

However, for us ordinary working class folk, it is a matter for concern.

I'm as much one of those "ordinary working folk" as you are.

All that said, can we return to a sense of due proportionality and get off the subject of immigration in order to address the thread topic in more generalised terms?

Best,

Alistair

[j_menz]

Over 7% of our prison population was not even born here.

We started out that way. Perhaps it is part of the ECB's master plan to get a decent cricket team together.

[thalbergmad]

The part of this discussion that centres on immigrants has to be on legal ones;

That is the way that the typical lefty likes it. The illegal ones do not appear on their radar.

Thal