Reply #2: And such an ideology is the ENEMY of most things that are good in the world. [View All]

[LeftishBrit]

Basically, it is saying that the poor, ill, weak or in any way vulnerable should be ground down by the iron heels of the rich and strong; and that this should be applauded as just great. Horrible and sickening.

'Small government' might work in a situation where people live and work in fairly small self-governing groups - but that is not the situation today, or likely to be. And some of the smaller-scale organizations, from local councils to trade unions, have been deliberately weakened by previous Tory governments. And for all the pious Tory talk of 'the family', the combination of globalism, free-market ideology and expectation that people should be prepared to relocate hundreds of miles if 'that's where the work is', goes completely against the likelihood of people living in or close to a large extended family. ('Family values' as used by Tories do not mean actual family-friendly, let alone kin-group-friendly, policies; they mean social conservativism and discrimination against the unconventional.)

So in the modern state, 'big government' is an absolutely necessary source of protection for poor or otherwise vulnerable people, and 'smashing the state' basically means wanting poor and vulnerable people *not* to be protected. '

Few people voted for this. Virtually no Labour voters wanted this, not even the Blairite types. Most LibDem voters were either tactical voters against the Tories; anti-Blairites to the left of Labour in many ways; or centrists opposed to any sort of radicalism of right or left. That leaves 36% who voted Tory - and I doubt that all of *them* wanted radical RW ideology (Cameron didn't look that radical before the election).

I had always thought that a hung parliament or even very small absolute majority would restrain a government from radical RW ideology, and that Maggie could not have wreaked such havoc without such a large majority. It's looking as though I was sadly wrong- though we'll see what happens when Labour actually has a leader to fight against the government.

ETA: who is this Julian Glover anyway? I assume it's not the actor?