<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Comparing the parties&#8230;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.antoniabance.org.uk/2005/02/10/comparing-the-parties/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.antoniabance.org.uk/2005/02/10/comparing-the-parties/</link>
	<description>Thoughts of Antonia, Labour activist and feminist in Oxford</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 04:04:55 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Dubious</title>
		<link>http://www.antoniabance.org.uk/2005/02/10/comparing-the-parties/#comment-7</link>
		<dc:creator>Dubious</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:09:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antoniabance.org.uk/?p=13#comment-7</guid>
		<description>Well, of course the parties aren't *exactly* the same, because that would be silly. But surely you have to admit that they are both on basically the same part of the political spectrum, with differences over nuance rather than massive issues of principle?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;i.e. none of them are going to renationalise anything, they all support the creeping privatisation of our public services (PFI etc), Labour/Conservative support ID cards, the war in Iraq and so on, they all think that increasing free trade under the aegis of the WTO is a good thing, none of them are going to do anything radical about the environment, and they all take massive donations from corporations.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Your analysis reminds me of the mainstream media in America - 'the NYT and Wall Street Journal disagree on some issues, so they must be radically different' - despite basically reporting the same stuff with a slightly different slant of opinion.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;There's a reason that people are so disillusioned with politics, and I don't think denying that there is a problem helps very much. As someone apparently on the left of Labour, surely you must agree that Labour could be very very much more different from the Tories than they are?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, of course the parties aren&#8217;t *exactly* the same, because that would be silly. But surely you have to admit that they are both on basically the same part of the political spectrum, with differences over nuance rather than massive issues of principle?</p>
<p>i.e. none of them are going to renationalise anything, they all support the creeping privatisation of our public services (PFI etc), Labour/Conservative support ID cards, the war in Iraq and so on, they all think that increasing free trade under the aegis of the WTO is a good thing, none of them are going to do anything radical about the environment, and they all take massive donations from corporations.</p>
<p>Your analysis reminds me of the mainstream media in America - &#8216;the NYT and Wall Street Journal disagree on some issues, so they must be radically different&#8217; - despite basically reporting the same stuff with a slightly different slant of opinion.</p>
<p>There&#8217;s a reason that people are so disillusioned with politics, and I don&#8217;t think denying that there is a problem helps very much. As someone apparently on the left of Labour, surely you must agree that Labour could be very very much more different from the Tories than they are?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
