Political nomenclature, USA style

Ken Clark? :LOL: Oh boy, let's put it this way when he was the governments health minister (UK) he went round smoking in public. Tact ain't his strong suit.
 
Heathen said:
Ken Clark? :LOL: Oh boy, let's put it this way when he was the governments health minister (UK) he went round smoking in public. Tact ain't his strong suit.

He he! That proves it. The test must be flawed. :LOL:
Well I was rather close to Friedman too I found out. And I know who he is at least. (I must forget Ken Clark)
 
DemoCoder said:
I think Sweden's most right-wing politicians would be ultra-far left in the US, and US's ultra-left wing democrats would be considered right-wing fascists in Sweden.

It's not quite that bad, but it's true that the Swedish culture has been very leftist for a long time. I agree with pretty much everything the other Swedes in here have said, Sweden is more leftist than its people really, but the rightist parties are too scary sometimes. It's kinda interesting, we have seven major parties, of which only two are left, four and right and then we have this environment party (or green party) that's floating around not really belonging to either block. We have from left to right:

Left party - Formerly communists, but that changed quite some time ago. I respected their leader, Gudrun Shyman, until she got caught cheating on taxes recently. She made a lot for getting women equal in the society. It's scary however now that she left her position because of that tax scandal you can almost see some of that communistic ideas getting back.

Social democrats - The current government. Left of center. Too much leftists for my liking, but the only party that actually does anything to get rid of that huge national debt we have. They have brought us way too many governmental services through the years though that's bringing the economy down.

Center party - Considered to be on the right block. Pretty much a no-name party. They could probably get more votes if they made more noise during the election periods.

Christ democrats - Conservative christian. The party of the 1800's sort of. They seam so, I don't know, hypocritical. Not living according to their standards, at least that's my feelings.

Liberal party (Folkpartiet) - Had some respect for these guys until they brought rascism into their agenda in the last election. Scarily, the went from 10% to 20% most likely because of that.

Moderates - Conservative, far right. Every time you hear a politician propose a really stupid idea you can be pretty sure that it's a moderate. It never fails. The ideas tend to come back later on however in a patched version has fixed the faults that should have been obviuos to everyone with some common sense from the beginning.


Personally, I'm all over the place in my opionions. Which is the reason I didn't vote the last election, there was no party speaking for me. Would I have voted I would probably have voted on the social democrats, at least they do something right, but there's a lot left to fix. We really need more rightist thinking in economics, I'm all for privatising a load of federal services. Something gotta be done about the health-care system too. Sweden with the world strongest worker protection laws is the country with probably the highest rate of work-related early retirement. It's too easy to get an early retirement and live of tax money for the rest of the life. The social democrats however doesn't see this. And noone does anything about integrating the butt-load of immegrants we get into the society. Oh, well ...
 
That´s your opinion. Everyone should have one in a democracy. It´s good that you are interested.
Of course it´s not the way I see things.
What you say about "Moderaterna" is certainly nonsense in my opinion.
It´s the only true non-socialist alternative. At least if you use a international definition of socialism and not the swedish definition.
Right of center is still socialism in Sweden.
Half measures and psedu-socialism will not be enough to save the country.
Politics based on thinkers such as Friedman and Rand will be needed. Real change that makes a difference. It´s not stupid ideas. It´s a new future based on a growing economy , freedom and respect for democratic and individual rights.

Just the way I see it....
 
Humus said:
Liberal party (Folkpartiet) - Had some respect for these guys until they brought rascism into their agenda in the last election.

Though I didn't intend to discuss (as in argue) politics in this thread, especially not Swedish politics, I urge you to read what the Liberals actually said in their proposal. There was nothing of racism in it, and they are really way more immigration-friendly than e.g. the Social Democrats; for example, the Liberals actually want to increase immigration.

During the election campaign, other parties (most notably the Left party, the Social Democrats and the Centre party) not only grotesquely distorted the Liberals' proposal, but occasionally flat out lied about its contents - that, or they didn't bother reading it. It's not strange if the proposal is labeled racist if several other parties do nothing but shout it all the time, but it's nevertheless false. Once again, please, read it!

On a side note: Before this, I hadn't ruled out voting for the Social Democrats. Many faults as they have, they do have a limited but existing knack for pragmatic politics. After this low-water mark of base argumentation however, I have a hard time seeing that happen.
 
RM. Andersson said:
That´s your opinion. Everyone should have one in a democracy. It´s good that you are interested.
Of course it´s not the way I see things.
What you say about "Moderaterna" is certainly nonsense in my opinion.
It´s the only true non-socialist alternative. At least if you use a international definition of socialism and not the swedish definition.
Right of center is still socialism in Sweden.
Half measures and psedu-socialism will not be enough to save the country.
Politics based on thinkers such as Friedman and Rand will be needed. Real change that makes a difference. It´s not stupid ideas. It´s a new future based on a growing economy , freedom and respect for democratic and individual rights.

Just the way I see it....

Well, it was Moderaterna who proposed that we get rid of the whole health care system in favor for an optional health insurance for those interested in health care. An idea that will make less wealthy people decide they don't want the insurance because it's an unnecceary cost if they consider themself healthy. But then when an accident occurs they will be left there without any protection and will be either not get the health care they need or will be left with debts for the rest of the life. You shouldn't allow people to make stupid decisions, it's the same as with why we have a law mandating the use of security belt when driving. The idea came back in a patched form which mandated that people take this insurance.

As for how I would want the health care system, I would like it all being privatized, however, the goverment must still make sure that all people have the right to health care. Competition will make it more economically efficient, and the government can then buy health care services from private hospitals, preferrably people can decide themself what hospital they want to go to for their health care services. People should also have to pay some of the service themself to avoid artifical demand, but the higher the cost the lesser part you need to pay yourself. Also, the government must also arrange inspections or otherwise ensure that competition does not reduce the quality of the service provided. You don't want to get cheaper and worse medicine because the hospital tries to cut corners either.

Personally, I don't think socialism as such is a evil thing, everyone should have the right to education all the way up and through university and everyone should have the right to affordable health care regardless of economical status, but things needs to be balanced. Putting federal service onto third parties who can compete will reduce costs significantly and probably still give the same amount of service.
 
horvendile said:
Humus said:
Liberal party (Folkpartiet) - Had some respect for these guys until they brought rascism into their agenda in the last election.

Though I didn't intend to discuss (as in argue) politics in this thread, especially not Swedish politics, I urge you to read what the Liberals actually said in their proposal. There was nothing of racism in it, and they are really way more immigration-friendly than e.g. the Social Democrats; for example, the Liberals actually want to increase immigration.

During the election campaign, other parties (most notably the Left party, the Social Democrats and the Centre party) not only grotesquely distorted the Liberals' proposal, but occasionally flat out lied about its contents - that, or they didn't bother reading it. It's not strange if the proposal is labeled racist if several other parties do nothing but shout it all the time, but it's nevertheless false. Once again, please, read it!

On a side note: Before this, I hadn't ruled out voting for the Social Democrats. Many faults as they have, they do have a limited but existing knack for pragmatic politics. After this low-water mark of base argumentation however, I have a hard time seeing that happen.

Well, there's probably a lot of truth in that the other parties bastardized what Folkpartiet proposed a lot. Still however, what they said themself during the debates was not quite something that felt good in my ears. Not sure what they wanted to achieve with that Swedish language test. The way it was presented at least it sounded more like something to keep Sweden Swedish, pretty much blocking immigrants from getting into the country. And that's not just people fleeing from wars and so on, but also skilled workers seeking employment. But I'll check their ideas in more depth when I have more time though.
 
Humus said:
But I'll check their ideas in more depth when I have more time though.

Great!
I'm just going to point out an important thing that was missed by most:
The language test was only for citizenship. Nothing such was to be required for permanent residence permit. As far as I know, about the only difference between the two is that a citizenship is required to vote in the riksdag (I looked it up, it's actually called "riksdag" in English!) election. The important thing is that noone's going to get thrown out because they don't know Swedish.
 
Humus, I also want good heatlh care and education.
But we need money to pay for it. It´s not free.
A good economy with growth is crucial .

The swedish system is not working "landstingen" are loosing lots of money every day. They are about to break down. They do not have enough money to pay for what they are required to provide.
People have to wait to get help when they are ill. Unless it´s very serious they might have to wait for a very long time.
Thats why we need something new and better(systemskifte).

The healtcare must become better. But it´s important to change the whole system. The swedish economy must be improved. More freedom for individuals and companies and much lower taxes.
It must be a good option to work hard. It must be a good option to start new companies.
Claims and rights on a pice of paper cant pay for anything.
The foundation of a country is the economy. If there are problems with that nothing will help. Higher taxes will only make it worse. More rules and regulations for companies and individuals will also make it worse.
We need to rethink everything. We need a new fresh start. We need to turn around 180 degrees.

Regards!
 
Back
Top