[Closed] What is Right and Left (politics for numpty's)

right tory
centre libs
left labour

Far right BNP
less far right UKIP
Far left Socialist Worker party
less far left Dont think we have one
Policies
Right wing - individual freedom , small state, big business/enterprise/free trade, helping yourself, lower taxes - selfish/ help yourself
Centre mix of the two
Left wing - larger states, nationalisation, help from birth to grave, higher taxes state intervention in the market- help everyone/the community

this is very simplified

It refers to the old tradition of tories sitting on the right of the house and whigs on the left, I think.

Right wing = small government, lots of individual enterprise, flexibility, encouranging small businesses, low tax, low govt spending, more private insurance/eductation and so on.

Left wing = big givernment, big nationalised industries, higher tax, higher spending, favouring state schools, state health, protecting the rights of the workers etc.

That's leaving judgement out of it. Each approach seems to encourage certain personal traits in the population....

Right - care about themselves and others like them. Traditional weaknesses include lack of empathy for the less priviledged and institutional racism.
Centre - care about themselves and most others but not all. Generally perceived as a bit wishy washy
Left - care about everybody everywhere. Feared by everyone with money.

The tax ones are spin rather than the reality The tax burden has increased for about a century iirc under every govt left or right. All the tories do is switch the burden from the rich to the poor they dont actually reduce the take as a % of GDP - this will start a graph wars

The tax burden has increased for about a century iirc

Well the whole country has moved to the left in the last century. The principle of right wing govt is low tax. Whether or not the UK Tory party actually does that is another issue.

Traditional weakness of the right is making it the individual's responsibility. So if you fail, it's your own problem and you deal with the consequences. This is a self centred attitude really. People on the right tend to think that the poor or people in trouble are struggling through their own fault so they deserve what they get.

Traditional weakness of the left is a sense of entitlement. People think the government owes them a living, which results in people not working all that hard and going on strike any time an employer (particularly the government in state run businesses) wants to make changes they don't like ie efficiency gains.

That's rather crude of course, but it's been seen in history in the UK I think and around the world today.

They are not about low tax they are about the rich paying low tax and that is not the same thing

We moved to the left then back to the right unless you want to argue thatcher was left wing,that should really help someone confused understand this

They are not about low tax they are about the rich paying low tax and that is not the same thing

You're getting into contemporary politics now, I think.

Right wing in general (ie aroung the world) is about low tax. The recent UK tory party has realised that it can get big businesses and important people onside by slashing headline tax rates but they still need to balance the books (because we still have state schools, NHS etc) so they can raise taxes on the poor. Those people will never vote for them anyway so it's not lost votes.

The reason I say the country has moved to the left is that we now have state school to 16, universities, the NHS, social security and so on which we didn't have in Victorian times.

Well the whole country has moved to the left in the last century

As more of the population was allowed to vote, not surprising they moved to the left, although it was really after ww2 that there was a real swing to the left as everyone experienced something in which they really were "all in it together".
Unfortunately since the 80's when a large proportion of the voters no longer had direct experiences of that shared hardship, it has very much swung to the right.

Molgrips description is largely financial, there is also a social and political aspect.

right wing - individual responsibility.
left wing - shared responsibility.

That's a good summary MSP.

i might be wrong here but i thought the difference between right and left wing centres on who owns the means of production

In the UK, the right is the right and the left is a group of rich right wingers with politics slightly to the right of the right.

on a scale from left to right:

Labour - Conservatives - Democrats - Republicans

The far left elite would have all their citizens working in the salt mines so they can buy luxury goods produced under sweatshop conditions by the citizens ruled by the far right elite.

The key political takeaway is 'never trust a communist'.

never trust a communist

The free market, with politics pandering to the rich financiers is every bit as corrupt as anything seen under communism.

The key political takeaway is [s]'never trust a communist'.[/s]this poster is really right wing

😆

Labour - Conservatives - Democrats - Republicans

The Americans think we're a bunch of pinko socialists. Which we are compared to them.

Can't remember the person quoted, but someone once said that anyone wanting to be a politician should be barred from being one.

A different tack. The right viewed from the left. Selfish, greedy, elitist. Promoting greater disparity in wealth, staid.

The left viewed from the right. Profligate, disincentivising hard work, promoting mediocrity by supporting the ****less.

The reality is that the British mainstream left and right are very similar as they have to operate within reasonable norms, otherwise they wouldn't get elected because, get this, the British public are not as stupid (on the whole) as the politicians would like to believe.

They will happily have the press troll on their behalf, though, getting supposedly respectable columnists to push their agenda. When you look at it like this, the rantings of Peter Hitchens and ravings of George Monbiot are painfully transparent.

Kryton57 - Member

What is meant by " the right", "the left" and "the centre" when referring to politics?

[b]A simple definition is 'maggots'. All of them. [/b]

They are all hungry for power in their twisted minds. They are all dishonest.

But Supreme Dear Leader is honest where power is absolute. No arguing or debate, where everyone is treated as maggot and everyone must bow to thank the Supreme Dear Leader for stepping on them.

🙄

[url= http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/left-vs-right-world/ ]Information is Beautiful Left-Right Infographic.[/url]

The right (capitalism) is unfair because people are inherently selfish and too few of the wealthy care for the poor. The left (socialism) is unfair because people are inherently selfish and will abuse any system that tries to distribute wealth and power equally. And as already mentioned, anyone that wants to be a politician shouldn't be allowed to be a politician.

Personally think the two axis model is more useful: right vs left economics, and authoritarian vs liberal.

The reality is that the British mainstream left and right are very similar as they have to operate within reasonable norms, otherwise they wouldn't get elected because, get this, the British public are not as stupid (on the whole) as the politicians would like to believe.

Have to agree with this - the differences between Labour and the Conservatives is pretty slim these days.

FTFY

Going Edinburgh, I missed my smiley - although I grew up in the States under Reagan and that was certainly the prevailing view. That said, in STW terms I'm certainly on the right. Without giving it too much thought, if New Labour had been had been more honest and less authoritarian and less war-mongery I think I'd be there.

Labour/Conservatives -------------- Democrats - Republicans

Is there mainstream Western party to balance the Republicans on the left and leave Labour and the Conservatives in the middle? The Socialists in France or Greece?

people are inherently selfish

In my experience most people are not, unfortunately it tends to be the selfish, greedy immoral ****s who rise to the top under all political systems.

Is there mainstream Western party to balance the Republicans on the left and leave Labour and the Conservatives in the middle? The Socialists in France or Greece?

The Communists still win a fair few seats in Spain, although they're never going to get into government. The Spanish Socialist party ended up doing all sorts of right wing things when the current recession started, slashing public spending and the like...

The Communists still win a fair few seats in Spain, although they're never going to get into government.

because the last time they did, the army wouldn't let them

Right - blue ties
Left - Red ties

As ever its never as simple as right vs left. The link I post every time this discussion come up.

Don't pay too much attention to the survey its more the concept that right and left is overly simple.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Labour/Conservatives -------------- Democrats - Republicans------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------tea party

Far left Socialist Worker party

Totally subjective of course, but I consider the SWP, along with most other Trots, Maoists, etc, to be ultra-leftists. Far-left better describes those who are prepared to work within a capitalist system to achieve immediate gains, as oppose to those who maintain that revolution should be the only goal.

I particularly dislike the meaningless terms centre-right and centre-left. Have confidence in your convictions FFS.

BTW, I don't believe that the OP didn't know [i]What is meant by " the right", "the left" and "the centre" when referring to politics.[/i] I've seen enough posts by Kryton57 to know he isn't that clueless.

------tea party---anarchist.

favourite graph

[img] http://www.politicalcompass.org/charts/uk2010.php [/img]

We are right to be suspicious of all extremists, but while the Nazis on the extreme right represents an obvious recent political evil, Stalin's communist vision could make the Nazis look like pussycats.

Anyway, it's probably time we hauled this one out again, seeing as it's directly relevant to this discussion:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

The test is well worth doing, and sheds a lot of light on the more complex nature of right and left politics.

EDIT: See graph above, then go to the site to see where you fit in, and where all the other parties sit. You'll be surprised.

Damn. Missed the edit cut-off.

And see now that TheBrick posted the link long before I did. Anyways, here is me:

[img] [/img]

Someone up there ^said that mainstream British politics are within reasonable normes. Viewed from the inside maybe, from the outside, not at all. What's with £9000+ university fees and a royal as head of state?

Can't remember the person quoted, but someone once said that anyone wanting to be a politician should be barred from being one.

I think that's a corruption of a Douglas Adams quote (referring to president of the galaxy).

[img] http://www.politicalcompass.org/charts/uk2010.php [/img]

[s]Eat[/s] Drink the rich

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Edukator - Member
Someone up there ^said that mainstream British politics are within reasonable normes. Viewed from the inside maybe, from the outside, not at all. What's with £9000+ university fees and a royal as head of state?

Having a royal as head of state is not remotely bizarre. Most member states of the Commonwealth maintain a Crown, as do some very well-functioning, liberal, states in Europe. Meanwhile, there are some very smart political philosophers who would argue in favour of constitutional monarchy on sound, reasonable, and liberal social grounds.

It's how a country legislates that matters.

The law lords!

Most member states of the Commonwealth maintain a Crown

As for constitutional monarchy no one would actually create that notion form scratch as clearly having a monarch is an archaic system - you may as well argue for chieftains and/or clans

In modern politics it's largelly an illusion to make elections seem worthwhile. The system is now corporate funded populist malignant centerism.

As for constitutional monarchy no one would actually create that notion form scratch as clearly having a monarch is an archaic system - you may as well argue for chieftains and/or clans

Or, put another way...

Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. Oh, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you.

In modern politics it's largelly an illusion to make elections seem worthwhile.

So how do you explain the fact that all the major parties play down whether they are left or right ?

The system is now corporate funded populist malignant centerism.

When is STW going to put a Facebook/YouTube "like" symbol in the smiles?

Junkyard - lazarus
Most member states of the Commonwealth maintain a Crown

Well that is conclusive then- not exactly pre selecting the sample then is it ...face palms
As for constitutional monarchy no one would actually create that notion form scratch as clearly having a monarch is an archaic system - you may as well argue for chieftains and/or clans

'Archaic' is not synonymous with 'bad', or even 'ineffective'. There were members of the French Resistance that wished they had a crown when they were being accused of treason for their refusal to acknowledge the Nazi puppet head of state. Because of the guarantee of lineage, the same situation could not have arisen in Britain.

And what's to say that government by chieftains doesn't work [i]in places where that form of government has been in operation for hundreds of years[/i]? There are tribes of Indians in Canada, such as [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gitxsan_people ]the Gitksan[/url] that, when compared to the tribes that had a 'democratic' government imposed on them by Federal Treaty, are thriving.

druidh - Member
You do know that the Labour and Tory parties are simply operating a good cop/bad cop scam on you, don't you? The Tories are obviously the "baddies" in this instance. They implement all the nasty policies while the Labour party stand on the sidelines whinging. After a while, they "pop out for a coffee" and in come Labour, talking all friendly and pally but not actually undoing anything the Tories did. They are both complicit in this - it's to give the electorate the impression that they actually have a say in how the country is run via the ballot box and both parties need each other to survive.

There were members of the French Resistance that wished they had a crown when they were being accused of treason for their refusal to acknowledge the Nazi puppet head of state.

That's the weirdest thing I've read in a while. Do you think the Belgium and Dutch Resistance had an advantage over the French Resistance because they had constitutional monarchies ?

There were members of the French Resistance

Most of the early resistants were journalists and teachers of left-wing, republican convictions. Once Germany attacked the Soviets the Nazis went about their business of repressing communists which forced communists into the maquis soon to be joined by those who refused the STO. None of the resistants were royalists.

There were members of the French Resistance that wished they had a crown when they were being accused of treason for their refusal to acknowledge the Nazi puppet head of state. Because of the guarantee of lineage, the same situation could not have arisen in Britain.

thanks for pointing out that tribal government works well for tribes

* they would as they did in constitutional monarchies

There is also the small fact that there was very pro-Nazi sympathy at the very top of the British royal family.

not forgetting that Edward VII gave away the Allied defense plans to the Nazis thus facilitating their advance.

So how do you explain the fact that all the major parties play down whether they are left or right ?

It's laregelly irrelevant to their brand - and traditional voters will continue to vote left or right regardless?

I'd argue that mos t issue we face today are not even on a left-right spectrum. I think I have more influence on the government via the like of 38degrees than via my MP.

It's laregelly irrelevant to their brand

So they are not part of this "illusion to make elections seem worthwhile".

Who is then ?

None of the resistants were royalists.

Having no knowledge of this, and assuming that 'resistants' is a term for all resistance fighters, not just a particular group, is this true? I would have thought that resisting the occupation would have drawn in people from across the political spectrum, as I imagine would have been the case in the UK. Ah, or is it that no royalist 'groups' became resistance groups?

There would be next to no royalists in France at that point in history (other than perhaps a few descendants of aristos longing for a forgotten past). Just like there were no roundheads or cavaliers fighting in the British army.

Ah! Thanks!

France had a revolution 150 years before WW11 and disposed of its royal family. A few royalists formed the Action Française in the 30s and collaborated with the Vichy régime undr the Nazis. They were collaborateurs rather than résistants.

My wife interviewed lots of maquisards for her doctorate on the maquis in the Dijon area and her masters on the passeurs in the Pyrenees. She knows the profile of maquis members quite well. My son is studying the resistance at present at school.

romanesco broccolli - infinitely more interesting than the rich and untouchable mafiosi ****ers that squabble over the rights to embezzle us as a society..

[img] [/img]

Junkyard - lazarus

So if the nazi took over here because we had monarch they would not have considered the resistance to be traitors* - well when you put it like that all my criticisms are firmly defeated - No offence but are you drinking or something that is just a weird argument tbh
thanks for pointing out that tribal government works well for tribes

* they would as they did in constitutional monarchies

Look, I don't want to take a defence of what I said too far, as I was only repeating something I read many years ago and can no reference now. In other words, my argument won't hold any water at all.

That said, I do need to clarify a few things.

What I was trying to say was this:

If you take de Gaulle's trial for treason against the Vichy government as typical of what countless Resistance fighters also faced, they were accused of betraying France. But what was France? Was it the Third Republic? Or was it another idea of France? And [i]where[/i] was France? Was it the German-occupied North, or the Vichy South? What is to say that the Vichy government was not legit, and that the Resistance was not indeed committing treason, punishable by death? These are questions that some members of the Resistance reported asking themselves when they were arrested, meaning that their confidence was shaken when they stood trial.

This is a problem that a British person would not have faced had the Germans taken over and installed a new government. Because they could not simply break the lineage that bore the Crown, they could not have made the same claim that a resistor was disloyal. A captured resistor might still have faced trial and execution, but he/she could still have claimed loyalty to the Crown, which could not be limited to one region or a puppet governor.

Now, by all means say that the argument is faulty. I am not drunk, and therefore can not offer much by way of defending it. But perhaps now it is a bit clearer...

Oh, and Junkyard: was that comment about tribal government in response to my example of it functioning meant to be sarcastic? I mean, I don't mind if what I said doesn't stand up to argument, but you had made an earlier comment implying that all tribal government would be faulty by virtue of being archaic, and I was simply offering an example suggesting otherwise.

Now, by all means say that the argument is faulty.

It's certainly one of the worse argument I've ever heard to justify retaining the monarchy.

But it's so creative (I mean who would have thought of bringing in the Nazi occupation of Britain into the the argument ffs) that I actually like it 8)

I meant archaic as in old fashioned and out of date / no longer in date
yes it was sarcastic re tribal.
Tribal govt is fine if you are a tribe, monarchies are great if you are a feudal country but we are neither though we were in the past hence archaic.

I do get your argument I dont agree

Plenty argue that constitutional monarchy brings stability - Check out Thailand for a very interesting example of every kind of govt imaginable but all have been a constitutional monarchy

Since the political reform of the absolute monarchy in 1932, Thailand has had 17 constitutions and charters.[24][25] Throughout this time, the form of government has ranged from military dictatorship to electoral democracy, but all governments have acknowledged a hereditary monarch as the head of state

This is an interesting thread, particularly as just this very evening I was trying to explain this very thing to my youngest, I went down the route organised labour on the left and capitalist business owners on the right as my starting point with which to simplify the beginning, then went on pretty much along the lines above, but pointing out the shift to the right of New Labour which I personally feel was more right wing than the current coalition was trying to be prior to the UKIP surge at the elections.

Personally I think that Greens could prove the new left with a bit more marketing effort than they currently seem capable of.

On the Nazi thing, wasn't the plan to install Edward and Mrs Simpson on the throne, thereby giving the US an American Queen of England that might have helped keep them out of the war and secure a single front for the assault on Russia, I'm sure I either read that some where or thought of it as a possible novel, whatever...

I see now why I struggle.

My view is generally one of helping ourselves - I believe in hard work and related reward, looking after your family, your posessions are yours to own and look after.

Although I also believe that I pay taxes and part of that tax money fund things like the NHS, my kids educations and a few other things which because I pay those taxes, I deserve to enjoy part of.

Here's the controversial part - i do believe in - and I think I've got the right word - patriotism. I'm all for a national identity, respecting our (english, although obviously anglo saxon) culture and that people coming to out country should work and seek to live to our cultural rules and not try to change it to thier own. I have nothing against foriegners races or religions but do expect them to respect our cultural background and not try to / be allowed to change it.

Does that ultimately make me "The centre" or slightly Left?

I should say that I raised the original questions becuase, when asked why I favour a particular newspaper (The Times) I couldn't explain it in a left/right wing concept.

I do get vexed when "patriotism" and "racism" are bundled as synonyms.

Anywhere else, being proud of your country is something to be celebrated; here if you wave an English flag people assume you're either a football fan or a member of the EDL. Go to Wales or Scotland and see how many Welsh / Scottish flags you see in comparison to Union Flags.

Well said Cougar, we shouldn't be ashamed to be English, unfortunately some of history and minority groups have tarred that brush. I don't believe though that because of that the rest of us should hide our patriotism in shame.

The Times is pretty right wing imo.

What do you mean about foreigners 'changing the cultural background'?

Culture is nothing more than the things that people do in a particular place. There is no official culture to change. We've chaged our own culture far more in the last 100 years than immigrants have.

You're getting into questions about what a nation or a state actually is.

Does that ultimately make me "The centre" or slightly Left?

It makes you right wing.

And bringing unnecessary patriotism and statements like " I have nothing against foriegners races or religions but" makes you sound like a daily mail reading colonel blimp right wing frothing loon, or a troll of course which is much more likely.

I think the definition of left versus right given so far are fairly good.

Politics in the UK has definitely moved to the right since the 80's

Tony Blair realised that without any left wing opposition he only had to be one step to the left of the tories to capture both the left wing vote and the centre ground.

Labour have been punished for this strategy in Scotland though where a credible centre left party exists.

Labour have been punished for this strategy in Scotland though where a credible centre left party exists.

I doubt it matters whether UKIP is left or right either.

Being patriotic is viewed as a right wing tendency, God Queen and Country and all that, it's viewed with contempt by the left, the extreme opinion being there should be no nation states and we are all one planetary group.

It gets very confusing, you can have left wing views yet be called a fascist for waving the flag at the wrong time and your suggestions of British culture will have the left crying racist sooner than you can say STW.

I can sympathise with the views that the typical Englishness that we knew in our youth has changed quite dramatically and it is indeed interesting to note how various regions have changed with the influx of different cultures. Driving through London on a back road to Alexander Palace the other week with a group of friends I was taking to an exhibition, had them astounded at the costumes of the Hesidic & Orhtodox jews wandering around seemingly aimlessly early on the Saturday morning with their peculiar cake like hats and curly pig tails.

All manner of dress types then emerged as we passed from one part to another, more familiar Muslim stuff with Burkha clad women and bearded men, Afro Caribbean Rasta men, easy to become unsettled by it all if all you have known is a village like upbringing in the Weald of Kent.

But, it's a Global village these days, cheap air travel, has opened the world up to us, I dare say, various parts of Africa just love yuppie Motor bike tours roaring through their villages, and wonder what is going on in the Western style cities that have been inflicted upon them as their resources have been plundered.

It's a tough one, but you can't expect to act the colonial master for hundreds of years and not have your people return to the country that at one time ruled and set the standards that they should all aspire to.
Especially since when it was all going on we didn't exactly change our habits to suit their culture.

So it is what it is, all part and parcel of living in a post colonial country with enough wealth to offer human rights and living costs to anyone who manages to show up here.

Sometimes, simple question can be the hardest to answer. The OP is a case in point. Even when you might have a vaguely sensible theoretical answer, you then face the challenge of placing political parties, or more precisely, their actions, accurately along the theoretical spectrum. In the UK, where we generally have broadly centre/moderate politics IMO, we often see that the positioning of the major parties overlapping along the spectrum with some odd ironies or anomalies where so-called parties of the right take stances on issues or implement policies that could be considered relatively left wing and vice versa. Then you have the challenge of defining Liberalism!

It gets very confusing, you can have left wing views yet be called a fascist for waving the flag at the wrong time and your suggestions of British culture will have the left crying racist sooner than you can say STW.

Indeed, look:

MSP - Member

And bringing unnecessary patriotism and statements like " I have nothing against foriegners races or religions but" makes you sound like a daily mail reading colonel blimp right wing frothing loon, or a troll of course which is much more likely.

The highs and lows of STW - some quite excellent answers which have helped me understand my original question, follow by this. FWIW MSP I made that statement to out-qualify my comments as potentially racist, whilst making them in an attempt to summarise my political view - no need for insults.

Racism isn't left or right wing, but you decided to plant it right into the debate, why? And then cry fowl when you are called on it.

Although it has to be said, the right tend to very much use it as a tool to hide the real inequalities. Much like the American right hide behind Christianity and abortion. They know it will garner support, no matter how many of their other policies harm the supporters.

As pointed out phrases like "British culture not being respected" are meaningless soundbites designed to fool the dimwitted into ignoring the realities and create an easy diversionary target. What exactly is "British culture" as I travel around I find I have more in common with large sections of Germany and France, than I do with those inside the m25. I long got over the fact that in reality there is nothing unique about being british.

MSP - Member
Racism isn't left or right wing, but you decided to plant it right into the debate, why?

I planted my view of cultural identity into my statement in case it had a bearing on my perceived political alignment, which I am seeking to identify.

Although I do agree with you that its difficult to write down what is british culture today, I think there are various elements of "british-ism" which we all identify with, or moreover elements of foreign culture being introduced which we may or may not be comfortable with.

Edit: granted that's true all over the world, we've seen McD's in Russia etc

Left and Right wing are dogmas, as such they are inflexible and unchanging and so neither can be right more than half the time. A country needs to be run according to the evidence and state of things on the ground.

And, just maybe, this is what happens - with the difference between two govts being the actions they choose to highlight and the language they use to do so, more than the choices they make.

But maybe not.

moreover elements of foreign culture being introduced which we may or may not be comfortable with.

Why would you be uncomfortable with people doing their own thing?

Is something being imposed on you that you don't like? That would be bad regardless of its geographical origin, would it not?

If there were anything to define British culture, I would nominate globalism and inclusivity as candidates.

Why would you be uncomfortable with people doing their own thing?

whitegoodman - Member
The extreme opinion being there should be no nation states and we are all one planetary group.

Which is the only hope for the survival of the human race. About time we got over all this pettiness based on an accident of birth.

Its interesting isn't it?

Tory boys profess to be all about personal responsibility and choice yet they lock up more people for breaking the rules than anyone.

They profess to be in favour of small government and therefore low taxation, yet invariably when they are in the majority pay more and receive less.

I am starting to suspect that the truth is that they a bunch of self opinionated, self serving twunts. Could be wrong of course, but the evidence does seem to be stacking up a bit.

Sadly the culture of 'being English and Englishness' we have killed ourselves, no outsiders did it.

What used to be proffered, English reserve, stiff upper lip, good manners, polite respect for all, modesty, thrift, and no sex please, have long gone, thanks to the excesses of the 60's, 70's and 80's.

Where we used to be modest we now have the culture of celebrity for all, where we used to be thrifty, we spend it a long time before we earn it, where we used to have manners we have loutish behaviour encouraged by years of sitcoms and men behaving badly, where we used to be sexually behind closed doors we are now liberated to the point that anything goes almost anywhere.

So quite what English culture folk might feel has been eroded by foreigners I'm not sure. Indeed it is our lack of moral compass that alienates other cultures from integrating.

I have travelled all my working life and cringe if I end up in the company of the latter day British abroad and take my vacations as far from the beaten track as possible. That said on a personal level and in the sporting arenas of bikes, and watersports Brits generally are OK.

The Right wing can be blamed for the financial and greed excesses where the left may take the blame for the sexual revolution, but either way, both political wings destroyed that original essential "Englishness' that other nations used to admire about us.