Heartland

Maisey wrote:The political right wing has, by and large, a survival of the fittest social and economic attitude whereas the left as more of an interest in social responsibility over self interest.

Thanks for the lesson, but sorry this is hopelessly confused and unhelpful.

As I said, it's woefully dated and confusing to talk of left and right wing like this. Right-wing where? The right-wing in the UK is not the same as the right-wing in the USA. And then which party?

By and large, all the parties in the UK believe in the same things. In a sense, they're post-ideology. In that, none of the parties are offering a radically different 'vision of society'. Sure, there are differences, but they're not substantial. Broadly, the view is that you manage a country like you manage a business, and it's just about getting from A to B. This can be seen as a good or a bad thing. It's not very inspiring, but it's probably realistic, and really reflects the fact that politics is a lot more pragmatic than we once thought it was.

I don't believe any party is promoting 'self-interest' as such. Even the Tories are big on social responsibility these days - they have a think-tank dedicated to the subject (Centre of Socail Justice). No one likes to see others wallowing in s**t. It's just about how to fix things.

the_inescapable_truth wrote: Even the Tories are big on social responsibility these days - they have a think-tank dedicated to the subject (Centre of Socail Justice). No one likes to see others wallowing in s**t.

And even if they would, taxes could cynically be motivated by "keep the underclasses happy enough not to turn against us". And I'd be surprised if that idea is new...

Several countries in South America have shown the benefits for the rich when the class differences decrease - like far less crime.

Edit: Could just add that I otherwise agree with what you write there, that there is a kind of overall agreement nowadays how to run a society/state. Ironically politicians might have found the perfectly balanced middle way where whole elections are about changing this or that tax 3 or 5 %, but thereby also making democracy redundant - why vote at all if your vote won't change anything?

Is there really any stable, developed country where voter turnout is on the rise?

the_inescapable_truth wrote:It's not contentious to say that brute intelligence (IQ) is largely due to biology (genetics). This is, I daresay, an established 'fact'.

Actually this is almost completely untrue. The genetic component of "intelligence" (and by the way, good luck defining intelligence without circular reasoning, or futile definitions such as "good at IQ tests") seems to be swamped by the environmental influences on (for example) brain development, socialisation skills, language formation, problem-solving, etc.

the_inescapable_truth wrote:We our equal not because of our talents but because we are all human and as such have our own conception of what the Good Life entails.

...

What is important is that individuals are free to flourish with the talents they do possess

As I think I made clear, I completely agree with this.

DeWinter wrote:My understanding was not that people denied global warming existed, but doubted the amount claimed to be "man made", and believed it was being used largely as a tax-raising/global redistribution ploy?

Perhaps I'm overstating the case then, although I think there are a few complete (political) denialists left.

My understanding of the scientific consensus is that human activity is responsible for the vast majority of the CO2 added to the atmosphere since c.1800, and that this added CO2 is in turn responsible for the majority of global warming. There is not really any scientific doubt of this situation, only, as I said, politically engineered "doubt" motivated by a desire to do nothing about the problem.