politically incorrect truths


Veteren member
Now you may think from reading my posts in 'the lounge' that i'm a conservative somewhere to the right of thatcher, but actually I would describe myself as a' pragmatic free market internationalist social democrat, - with a vision.'

Pragmatism involves us in dealing with the world as it is, not as we want it to be, so without a vision - how will the world ever change?

As a forward,
When Tony Blair came to power with the single largest majority in modern political histoty (that was incidentally repeated in the 2001 election) he told his cabinet to 'think the un-thinkable' in a rallying call for radical reform. 6 years on and this pragmatist has achieved little domestically as the unthink-able would cost votes. Frank Field found this out when he presented his plan for wholesale reform of the 'welfare state' that was rejected by his then boss harriet harman, and tony blair as being un-thinkable.' He subsequently and honorably resigned.

What was his mistake? -he actually thought the un-thinkable, ie: that people must begin to start fending for themselves and that the state should act only as 'safety net' to the disadvantaged.

On the night before Nixon left office he was having a last walk around the west wing of the whitehouse, and looking at a portrait of JFK he was reputadely heard to say, 'you reminded people of who they wanted to be....I remind them of who they actually are.'

My point is that the things that the politicians think are actually vote-losers, sold with the right amount of passion and belief - are actually vote winners. Ie: the things that we believe to be politically incorrect and will not be touched by governments, should be put full square before the people.


Crime: When you remove the fear of the state, it's instruments and agencies, disorder will follow, and disorder begets disorder until such time as the electorate mature and realise this. The answer to crime isn't more prisons and police per say, it's to temper the liberalsim with some responsibilities and citizenship duty.'

Most crimes are committed by young men aged between 18-35. In today's society these men are left to grow and mature-unsupervised. National service allowed men to mature quickly and properly under supervision, so reinstating conscription would generate a respect for the state and a duty of citizenship.

Britain has many off-shore dominions still, Christmas Island, and three mile Island for examples. We should turn over one of these Islands to a penal colony and empty our prisons on the mainland, with a policy of 'three strikes and you are out' imposing harsh sentences for repeat offenders who must learn that the law will be imposed and that society will not tolerate unlawful behaviour.

These measures may seem draconian but expansive liberalism has to be tempered.

We are already at a stage where the new measure of full employment has been reached, ie not that everyone is employed, but that the number of jobs available in the economy exceeds the number out of work.

This could not be said in the 70's 80's and early 90's. Crime doubled between 1979 and 1997, why,? the socio effects of monetarist policies coupled with a relaxing of the power of the state and it's institutions, and a net decrease in public service spending.

Ie you cannot deprive people of the alternatives to crime, (employment, good housing, health etc,) whilst relaxing the power of the state, and expect anything over than social incohesion.

So the simple un-palatable truth is without such measures crime will stay at present levels or grow. These measures along with a zero tolerance culture would reduce crime by at least 50% in 10 years.

The public services:
The key to public services is first of all getting the public to make the link between good public services and a strong economy.

It is no good trying to tax and spend our way out of a problem. If you increase the size of the economy you increase the overall tax revenue, and decrease the associated welfare costs. So the key is to grow the economy by creating more jobs, more controlled money supply and hence more spending, it is not to over tax the existing economy that only serves to create less spending, = contraction, and recessionary conditions=higher borrowing etc=higher taxes.

So the simple unpalatable truth here is that the public services will only improve commensurate with the growth of the economy. This is of course is cold comfort to the person on a waiting list for a life saving operation, but unfortuntaley it's a cold hard economic and fact of life.

agree or disagree?
Last edited:


Veteren member
I am wondering why you started the thread.

politics and religion do not tend to generate debate,just argument
and often abuse.


Veteren member
politics and religion generate interest howsoever expressed. the reason i started the thread was to generate some reaction as some light relief during trading....nothing else, also in hearing other people's views, I always learn something.


Veteren member
oatman I'm currently fixed odds trading and scalping so plenty of time inbetween to fill, mostly by forward testing further strategies for day trading, and occasionally writing provacative messages for discussion.




Junior member


An interesting topic.

I would hazard a guess that two immediate reactions will be felt by others when reading what you have to say.

Either they will be repulsed by your views and consider you an out of date neo nazi or they will heartily agree and want your concepts to be taken to an even further level.

Personally, I find myself somewhere in the middle. As a former Thatcherite who realised that her sound beliefs were also heavily accompanied by dogma (and lacking in any great compassion for the struggles faced in modern living), I consider liberalism more attractive than I once did.

However, I agree that there is now an imbalance of a huge scale where rights and responsibilities are concerned. We embrace the former and disregard the latter.

I think we can learn lessons from elsewhere but know we never will. The Western mindset doesn't lend itself to learning from cultures it considers "less advanced" (even though China et al will very soon be prospering further, partly by exploiting Western economic weakness in the same way that we have exploited the advancing nations for decades or centuries).

Singapore is a very good example of a system that seems to work and finds balance between factors such as free trade, entreprenuerialism, zero tolerance, joblessness, self support, responsibility and idleness. As I've said, I doubt the paradigm shifts necessary to examine their model with genuine interest and open-mindedness will happen in my life time ... tis a shame though.


Veteren member
hi - fotheringham

I reluctantly have to temper my own overt liberalism with this pragmatism.

As an example I am a passionate advocate AGAINST the death penalty. Most murders are not pre-meditated (85%+)so the death penalty acts as little deterant, Life in prison should of course mean life, if the assailant has shown a propensity to take life, ie more than 1. All other cases should be treated on their respective merits and mitigation, and may involve life imprisonment.

But I simply don't believe that if we continue along our road of increased freedom and rights without the responsibility built in, as you correctly identify, the situation will get worse.

Example: 30 years ago Murder was headline news, now it barely gets a mention, Why? becasue we have got used to it, and learned to accept it as a fact of life, the same with burglary and all the lesser nuisance crimes that rob us of a deserved quality of life that we should expect if we act as good responsible citizens.

So things that shock us today will not in a generations time,.....so where does it end? We must act to arrest the decline before legalised anarchy sets in as part of our culture, and it becomes too late to reverse.

Every citizen should have a duty of responsibility and if this is broken - then punishment and deterence must follow.

The police equate most low level nuisance crimes and they include burglary in this (!) - with drugs. Ie mostly caused by the attempts to fund the habit. These classifications of crimes make up 90%+ of all crimes. What's the answer,? reluctantly we must legalise drugs to take the criminal element out, and in so doing make them more affordable to users.

Crime is one of the single biggest social issues facing any modern democracy, yet Japan, Israel, Denmark and some others have a significantly lower level of crime than us, why? Because they have not dismantled all the instruments of responsibility that pertain to citizenship.

It would take a sea change in culture for us to do it here, but all changes in culture have to start somewhere, and as an aside, if any politician were to stand on a forum and repeat the policies discussed in this thread he would be guaranteed election, such is the public appetite that something radical needs to be done.

We need to foster a culture of acceptance and tolerance of each other regardless of economic social political opinion, regardless to of sexuality, ethnic, or religious stand point or belief. But within this culture there has to be deterrence, and respect of each other and for the state and it's instuments of justice and order.
* My point is that the things that the politicians think are actually vote-losers, sold with the right amount of passion and belief - are actually vote winners. Ie: the things that we believe to be politically incorrect and will not be touched by governments, should be put full square before the people. *

In theory this may be correct , but in reality there are still massive sections of UK society still heavily connected to the state for their living and status in 1 form or another . so this constitutes a huge voting block that almost guarantees big swing votes for politicians who support their causes. No politician who depends on this will cut his own throat , no way .

Crime in UK is a cultural outlet for those who feel disenfranchised ( the majority ) . the elites know this and and turn a blind eye to it as a trade off for power . if they clamped down on it , then the serfs would have no relief to their own enslavement , they might then see the severity of their own predicament can have that can we ?

Singapore : what has been said is true but it is an incredibly BLAND place and it has also sold out to the NWO , that is why it is so strictly controlled . BTW UK is also NWO.
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

But it's thanks to our sponsors that access to Trade2Win remains free for all. By viewing our ads you help us pay our bills, so please support the site and disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock    No Thanks