What is Politics and why is it important?

What is Politics, and why is it important?

Politics has been famously described as ‘who gets what, when, and how

’. In essence, this broad summary of the concept of politics has truth, and effectively clarifies the most simplistic definition of what politics is.

However, in order to give a satisfying answer to the question posed, it is first essential to break down the stereotypical definition of politics; that is, move away from the idea of politics being merely a forum for pure debate, rather consider it as a basis for acting upon and attempting to resolve all levels of complications.

Immediately, a distinction must be made between Politics and the political. While both are entirely interlinked, the two are not the same. The political in itself constitutes any activity which involves engaging with others and making collective decisions, including an aggregate of many members. The political attempts to create unity on common difficulties (be they national, local, international etc.) where otherwise there would be a raucous difference in opinion; the result being that one can collectively make an informed decision based on the mean of all ideas and suggestions present.

However, the aforementioned applies foremost to a purely democratic society, where the average of all opinions is valued greater than the individual. In other, less libertarian, political circles, the political is not dealt with in the same way; authoritarian policy would argue that these complications are best resolved by the people who know best how to resolve them, thus resulting in a loss of potential freedom for the individual in the short run, in the hope it will be restored in the long term.

Through the use of the political, everything we see or do is touched by a law or a policy. Inanimate objects are a prime example a wall alone is just a wall, in 1990 when The Berlin Wall was torn down, no-one would classify it as purely bricks and mortar.

The alternative definition of Politics represents pure issues which affect us, and is deeply intertwined with the powers of Government and leading bodies. On a shallow level, Politics constitutes the relationship between the public and private sector; between The State and Society. Politics can be defined as the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area. Quintessentially, Politics represents the struggle for power, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve it.

Therefore it is clear that Politics as an idea is multi-faceted and exists entirely throughout everything we as society and community do. Such a hypothesis outlines its own importance; although there is no escaping the political, the discussion of Politics is essential for us to understand how best to make decisions which affect us all. World issues such as War, Draught, Hunger, AIDS and so on are all directly caused by or equally solvable through the use of Politics. It is only by investigation into the root causes and solutions to these problems that there is hope for those who would otherwise have none. Countries living under ideology of Anarchy without political structure or regime are incapable of sorting out the larger problems concerning them. Thus the importance of Politics is clear; to oversee in a rational manner both the small and the large problems which affect us and others alike today.

The dangers of Statism...

Let us abandon for one moment the old ideology of Left, Right, Conservative, Liberal and so on, and use a less commondly used one known as Statism.

Statism decrees that governments are the best solution for the problems that ail us, therefore believing that most of the things we take as being 'good' come from a Government or politic of some sort. Equally, statists would argue that the state is the best tool for helping people.

There is certainly merit to this idea; for instance, my local government is concerned with localised problems such as rubbish collection, policing, community action, sewage etc.Here, the government is simply doing what a government is for: acting as a body which concerns itself solely with the smooth functioning of certain needs of the population. Which is all very well for the smaller problems in life.

But Capitalism is the best system for improving lives. If someone wants to get ahead in life, Capitalism steps in as the helping hand. Instead of relying on the Government, study hard, work hard, be wise, and work your way up the Capitalist ladder so as to increase your quality of life as a whole. In a Socialist state, the problem is that things rarely matter. Unlike a Capitalist state, there is less of a drive for excellence, for innovation, for improvement.

And taxes aren't the only drain on businesses; lest we forget beaurocracy. Most government regulations is well meaning. Take, for example, a case where a Government intervened in the Google satellite imagery system, so as to protect privacy of citizens. Surely a good move (though, it is worth mentioning at this stage that I personally would much rather have my information stored by a private company run by shareholders such as Google, than any government). The problem is the weight of beaurocracy becoming a difficult burden. Deregulation is not ideal, yet far better than over-regulation.

So my point is this: the government needs to be limited. They can't solve all problems, the more they try, the worse it is for everyone. That is also why government require checks and balances to prevent it from slipping into tyranny.

Bu the real question is - can anyone name a nation which doesn't rely on Capitalism that is democratic, socialist, and a truly pleasant place to live?

Stand up for the Unlikely

Let's talk a little about the benefits system. I know it's an old topic, but it's good to clear some things up. Obviously, as a progressive Conservative you can see where I'm going to take this argument, but some people don't agree with me, and I'd love to see a debate forming here.
So let's look at the justification for over half of taxpayers' money going towards the benefits system. Well, there are certain examples of where this money is needed to get people into work, to get them back on their feet and help them into employment, from where they will no longer need the money and so will stop claiming. Likewise, there are those people who need the money for their basic necessities in life, as they physically cannot work, such as disabled people.
However, I'm going to stop the list there, because I believe that there a number of people who need benefits who do not deserve them. Consider for a moment a family where neither parent works because they cannot find a job, and so require benefits to help them survive. All very well, but then who's to say they will continue to try and find a job after they've realised they can cope without doing so. Admittedly, this isn't a high percentage, but all of a sudden it's the incentive which has gone.
Linked in with this is the concept of stealing from the rich to give to the poor. It's a concept which we all consider to be good, and worth commending, though one must ask oneslef again: where is the incentive to be rich if you only give to the poor and steal from the rich. Convenient, isn't it, how in Robin Hood, all the rich people are also evil and morally corrupt? Standing up for the rich just a little, it is worth recognising the amount of money given to charity by the rich of this charity, be it through taxes or voluntarily: as a proportion of income (emphasis on proportion) the upper and middle classes give the same amount as the working class. The difference is, that while everyone is being generous, the alrger amount comes from those who worked to get rich.
So what about those who didn't work to get rich, and were born into it? Surely resentment is justified there? Well, hold on a minute - it's not their fault. I do not deny that I am born into a wealthy background, though I do not live my life in any manner other than humile, with the occasional luxuries which my hard-working ancestors have bestowed upon us. Consider that for those with combined family income of £60,000+, tuition fees are free. Why should I have to pay the extra when my ancestors worked hard to ensure I wouldn't have to?
Please discuss.

Socialist Incompetence

Once again, the government has revealed its socialist incompetence with the rise in tax on beer; or rather, as the government would rather, a 'minimum price to combat social excessive drinking'.
There is a list of reasons why this disgusts me, the foremost being that Alistair Darling cares nothing for the future of the British Pub. Already, around 7 pubs are closing every week in the United Kingdom, and along comes a heavily publicised additional setback for every landlord and pubowner in the country. It seems to be utter madness.
Let's look at the pros and hopefully outweigh them with the cons. Firstly, as with smoking, increasing a tax thresold on a heavily consumed and relativiely inelastic good such as beer is a key way of raising money for spending in the economy: a lot of tax revenue for little effect to the consumer. All very well, but this is money which we don't know the future of. Either it will be reimbursed in the same spendaholic fashion that got us into this mess over the next years of Labour government, or it will be accumulating to help pay back some of that gigantic debt overshadowing the country; a debt which, I might add, the government fails to notice the existence of.
Of course, that is the very point. Lumbering the next government with yet another irreversible tax burden.

Respectful wishes

I would like to pay my sincerest respect to David Cameron and his family; it is little of our business what happens in his personal life, yet what is obvious is that David Cameron is ever man the media portray him as - the family man with honest, family values.
Let us not forget the fatherly message behind this, and highlight the plight of all those families who are going through such difficulties. May they also show the strenght David Cameron has shown, and such resilience to sleep on hospital floor through the night by their childrens' side, as their hopeful role model has done in the past.

Progressive Conservatism? A little bit goes a long way...

So Conservative leader David Cameron has placed further emphasis on the decentralisation of the state this week. He explained that “decentralisation, devolution and empowerment” are naturally part of a Conservative approach to government, and stressed the importance of an “empowering state” rather than an “overpowering state”.
It's a fascinating state of affairs, no pun intended, not least because of its underlying trust in human nature. It's something which Mr Cameron has been harking on about since his casual stroll into Conservative HQ; the reunification of society through diligence, hard voluntary work, and essential community action. The concept falls under the ideology of 'progressive Conservatism'. It's a wonderful two words, encompassing all that was good about former Conservatism with the relatively progressive ideal of caring for one another in a society. Everbody wins. We have a society where the individual has the power to do what he or she wants, yet still stays within the ultimate confines of the social contract. Everybody lives for themselves while not ignoring the others. It sounds rather ideal, I'm sure you'd agree.
But it's nothing new to the Conservative Party. Sir Robert Peel's metropolitan police established in 1829 put citizens into uniform to serve their local communities, not to act as the arm of the state. Disraeli's innovative social reforms in the late-1870s were what are now termed enabling measures: they made powers available to urban local authorities but left them free to use them as they thought best. Lord Salisbury's County Councils Act of 1888 provided elected institutions to implement the collective wishes of the myriad little platoons in the countryside without resort to Parliament. The Tories made Britain the most decentralised country in Europe.
.The situation we find ourselves in today couldn't be further from that ideal. We have a government which spoon-feeds us information, benefits the unworthy and keeps a beady eye on all of us and all of our money, just in case we do something it doesn't like. It's the complete opposite of what I believe is what we need to progress as a nation. And that is why I wholly applaud Mr Cameron's proposals.
It doesn't matter if there are some people who would rather ruin the system than obey by it; I believe that these people are a minority. No matter how you look at it, for a lot of citizens in the UK, things aren't all that bad. Many have warmth, clothing, a home, lighting, food, water, and all the basic benefits of life. They're not usually the people out on the streets. Perhaps Hobbs was therefore wrong, and intrinsic human nature is not all that bad. A government needn't be formed just for the sake of keeping people under control.
The proposals include a fascinating number of radical changes to the democratic system, such as local referendums on numerous matters, from mayoral elections of vetoing council tax hikes.
As Mr Cameron says himself: "Many worry that decentralisation is a step backwards. But localism isn't some romantic attachment to the past. It is absolutely essential to our economic, social and political future."
Giving the power back to the people. More on this later.

Welcome

Welcome to the first post on this political blog.