Most debates about politics revolve around an accepted concept of right and left politics, a bit like a seesaw or pendulum. This concept is easy to understand and visualise, but in reality, this concept is incorrect as it implies that depending upon where you sit on the political spectrum will determine your politics. So, if you are on the left, then you are a Socialist and if on the right, then you are a Conservative and if in the middle then you are a centralist, neither left nor right. But what makes you a Socialist or Conservative. Is it your position on the spectrum or is it your political beliefs and opinions; or is it where you fit into society and how you relate to your surroundings.
A society is made up of the State and its people. Depending upon how much State control there is over your life versus how much individual control you have over your life is, the real determinator as to whether you are left wing or right wing. The more the State controls your life, the more left wing the State is, whereas the more you control your own life, the more right wing the State is.
What determines your personal preference boils down to how much you want the State to control your life. Communists want their lives to be totally controlled by the State, whereas people who do not want any State control at all, are Libertarian.
A Society or State should best be pictured as a right-angle triangle, split into six sections, with the lowest point on the right and the highest point on the left. The left side column of the triangle represents all the people who are all controlled by the State; and as you move right the columns get shorter, representing the decreasing control of the State over the people. With the right-side column of the triangle reducing down to a single individual with no State control. So, the more you want the State to control your life, the further left you go and the less you want the State to control your life, the further right you go.
When politicians or political parties state that they are more centralist or middle of the road, all they mean is, that they want an equal amount of State to individual control, but this does not determine their politics or their policies. Where a party sits on the political spectrum is only indicative of their views, and really only means to indicate the extent that they want the State to control their life.
Policy or political opinion, the actual thing you believe in, could place you anywhere on the political spectrum, it does not determine your political position; as is it possible to have multiple positions spanning the spectrum, depending upon your views or opinions.
Example 1.
Council or social housing is often associated with left wing socialism values, the perception being that socialists build council houses. Whereas Conservatives are associated with home ownership and not social housing. Yet history shows, that the Conservatives have built far more council houses than the Socialists. So, does this fact make Conservatives, left-wing; or is building social housing really a Conservative value and mistakenly attributed to Socialists.
The answer is rather simple. The concept that the State should build social housing is a State based ideal, so naturally it would be deemed left wing. The fact that it is the Conservatives who actually build more council houses, doesn’t alter the left-wing concept of State involvement, nor does it make Conservatives left wing. Building council houses is just a good idea and Conservatives are much better at doing it, albeit via the State.
Example 2.
Cutting taxes is generally associated with right wing Conservative values. The perception being that Conservatives believe in less State control, thus requiring less taxation to run the state, so putting more money in the pockets of individuals. Whereas Socialists like greater State intervention, requiring more taxation to pay for it. And yet Socialist governments have cut taxes, so when they do, does this make them Conservative. The fact that socialists cut taxes, does not alter this right-wing concept, nor does it make Socialists right-wing. Cutting taxes is a good idea, which benefits everyone and the Conservatives are much better at doing it.
It could be argued, in both these examples, that commonsense prevails over political dogma. If social housing is required, then they should be built regardless of the political party in power; and the same goes for tax cuts. Some politicians will argue, that this makes then centralist, providing a bit of both left-wing and right-wing policy. But this assertion is incorrect, for if building council houses puts you on the left and cutting taxes puts you on the right, then how can you be in the centre.
National Conservatives do believe in building council houses, for the simple reason, that they are a necessary part of the housing stock. Unfortunately, not everyone has the means or the ability to own their own home. As a guide Conservatives would ideally want to see the national housing stock made up of 90% home ownership, 5% private rental and 5% council housing. This policy position on housing, would clearly make the housing policy right-wing, even though there is a small element of left-wing ideals, with the State contributing to the housing solution.
As a general guide, Socialists would ideally want a significantly greater share of housing made up of social housing, with no private rental and only a small share for private ownership. As Socialists have a preference for social housing, this makes their housing policy left-wing, despite the fact that they do allow private home ownership.
So, the position of a policy on the political spectrum, is determined by its overarching philosophy and not an individual component of that philosophy. I.e. fixing the problem, for the greater good, no matter what the process.
Example 3.
The military, the Police and the Firemen are all technically civil servants, all 100% controlled, funded and operated by the State. None of them are private enterprises, and the general opinion is, that they should all be State institutions. So, does supporting this status quo of a State military, make you left-wing. As Conservatives share the same view and they are not left-wing, then supporting the State’s military is simply the most practical way for the military to exist and be funded. So, a military policy cannot be measured as either right or left wing, but more as practical or impractical.
So, the terminology that is currently used needs to be changed. It is too easy to brand something left or right, when in fact it has nothing to do being left or right.
Patriotism:
Nationalism:
Patriotism is something that anyone can have, from an individual to a communist. All people can have a love and pride in their country irrespective of their political persuasion. Whereas Nationalism is the belief in one’s Country, that our Country stands for something, that sets us apart from everyone else. This is a concept that can apply to Communists through to right wing Conservatives, but it cannot apply to Libertarians, as this runs contrary to their individual belief ideals, that being the individual is sovereign and his own master and not being subservient to any State. So, by definition, Libertarians cannot be nationalists, but they can be patriots and have a patriotic fervour for their country, which supports their rights to individuality.
It is true that Nationalism is a powerful motivator, which can be used for good and evil deeds, but being a Nationalist does not automatically mean that you are evil, far from it, but it is important that individuals do not allow the State to use your nationalistic beliefs to do the State’s evil bidding. National Socialism is a case in point. The Socialists used the German Nationalistic beliefs to blind the people to the evil truth that was being implemented behind their backs.
Nationalism used for good, can be a powerful motivator and source of national pride by which the people can overcome the most trying obstacles and drive on to achieve great success.
One must never forget that National Socialism, is left wing not right wing. It was, for all intents and purposes, the German Labour Party, by another name. So, it wasn’t even far left, which makes for all the worst, as it proves just how easy it is for ordinary people to be duped. So, it should not be surprising, when it is discovered that anti-Semitism prevails in mainstream left-wing parties because the left attracts these types of people, who hold these opinions.
Things are not helped, when the media keeps maligning Conservatives with the term “Far Right Extremists” What they are doing is incorrectly associating Nazism with right wing politics, when it is nothing of the sought. By doing this, they are actually aiding Neo-Nazism, because it can hide away within the political Left, undetected, whilst everyone is looking for them on the right side of politics. You would think that they would realise this error, bearing in mind that the clue is in the title, National SOCIALISM; or the National SOCIALIST German Workers Party. Furthermore, most of the recent antisemitic rhetoric has emanated from within the UK Labour Party, forcing their Jewish members to quit. The same antisemitic rhetoric is never heard coming from the Conservative Right of politics.
Just for the record and to remove any doubt, National Conservativism is right wing and believes in the rights of the individual, but also believes that the State should serve, protect and work for the greater good and benefit of all the Australian people, regardless of their faith, colour or creed; and this definitely includes those Australians whom are of the Jewish and Islamic faiths. All are welcome in the Conservative movement.
The Politics of Care is a new concept, first suggested by Professor Richard Murphy, who advocates that society should no longer be measured on good or bad economics, but on how a nation treats its people, in particular, the less well off. Austerity has failed, simply because it didn’t work and just put people through a lot of suffering with no positive outcome. This is a new socialist concept of people first, economics second. What’s the point of having a healthy economy if all the people are poor, ill and homeless. A nation that does not care about its people, is no nation at all. It is just an economic machine, that is designed to benefit a minority at the expense of the majority.
The politics of care has some inherent flaws, the first being, that the rich should pay more tax. This is in 2025 and 2026 the new political speak, many people are advocating that the rich should pay more tax. The problem with this theory is, that the rich don’t want to pay more tax and so will take the necessary steps to avoid paying more. As the policy of care is based upon a redistribution of wealth, no matter how noble, the fact remains, that the poor will not get more money from the rich, unless, there is a significant clamp down on tax evasion, tax havens and tax avoidance incentives.
However, despite the inherent flaws, this does not mean that the theory is wrong. If fact, it is possibly the right thing to do, if done properly. Caring is not the prerogative of the left, many people across the political spectrum care and would like to see a better more caring society. The problem is, how do you achieve this.
The first step is to not make “Care” political. Care should be an inherent virtue of any modern society. Sensible policies should be adopted and enacted with care in mind. To achieve this, all you need to do, is measure the care benefit when working out the economic benefit.
Austerity does not work. It has been tried many times and unless you shut down all spending, it is a pointless exercise. It is a failed economic policy, which today, causes more harm than any good that may be achieved. Austerity more often than not directly affects the poorest in society and ultimately does not provide them with any long-term benefit; just years of hardship and misery. This does not mean that you should be economically irresponsible or ignore economic issues, but running a nations budget like a household budget, does not work. Tightening the household budget can achieve the desired results, but on a national scale, this has proven not to be the case.
Instead of austerity you should embark upon a nation building programme to move the country and its economy forward. Conservative Modern Monetary Theory is the answer, where it supports a well-planned policy of building the nation. Part of this policy can incorporate the policy of care. Building council houses serves multiple purposes. Raising finance via Modern Monetary Theory to fund the building of council houses, means, that more people are employed to build the houses, which ultimately will be occupied by people who are homeless. By putting a roof over someone’s head, means, that they can start rebuilding their life, getting a job, earning money and paying for their rent and other things. Having no one homeless has a feel-good factor for the whole nation. Knowing that you will not end up on the streets, if you fall on hard times, makes people feel more confident and positive about their country. Caring about the homeless and doing something about it, will change society for the better. So, the politics of care is about having a positive mindset to tackle societies inequalities. Tackling issues has always been a Conservative philosophy, one that in the 1950s in Britain saw the Conservatives build one million homes, most of which were council houses for the poor.
As care is something that both left and right can agree on, how do you measure it. Again, it is not left or right nor high or low, it is about priority; what is urgent and required now as opposed to what can wait. If money was no object, then you could tackle all the problems simultaneously. Unfortunately, lack of money is the main problem, so you have to prioritise how best to spend what available money there is. Conservative Modern Monetary Theory is all about using a problem to solve a problem, but ensuring that the money spent is ultimately repaid. Investing in housing, business enterprise and government projects, like new cities, will mean that money is injected into the economy for the purpose of building the nation and not increasing inflation or the national debt. Inflation can be kept under control by ensuring that the supply meets the demand and the debt is kept under control by ensuring that a time frame for repayment is locked in.
Lifting people out of poverty has far more benefits than doing nothing. Seeing that all government spending is backed by the people through their taxation, then why not use the money taxed to benefit the people, as opposed to financial institutions, that only serve their shareholders who are only interested in getting richer. Getting rich is not a crime and should be encouraged, but getting rich should not be at the expense of the rest of society getting poorer.
Conservative Politics of Care, with sensible administration of Modern Monetary Theory supporting a nation building programme, is far better than the Socialist Politics of Care, which uses Modern Monetary Theory simply to throw money at problems, without any thought of the consequences.
Socialists argue for a policy of Universal Basic Income, where everyone is guaranteed a minimum basic income. Although the policy has social merit, the fact remains, that it does not take into account, that some people will simply rort the system. However, instead of a Universal Basic Income, you should have instead a policy of full employment by creating a Universal Basic Wage, where everyone is employed. Although this is far more expensive, then unemployment benefit or Universal Basic Income, the fact that everyone is working, can only be a positive thing. It will end unemployment and change the mindset of people, that they cannot expect to be paid just to sit at home doing nothing.
Short term Universal Basic Work enables you to tackle far more issues that relate directly to care, than any long-term benefits that austerity might bring. Policies of care over policies of austerity might just help us solve many of our problems in a much quicker time frame.
