Not a chance in hell. The LDs aren't giving the Greens the creditability boost in return for the couple of seats the Greens could make the difference in. Plus, the LDs are still fighting to be seen as a major party. That is gone for good if they look like they need the Greens.
Not a chance in hell. The LDs aren't giving the Greens the creditability boost in return for the couple of seats the Greens could make the difference in. Plus, the LDs are still fighting to be seen as a major party. That is gone for good if they look like they need the Greens.
Not a chance in hell. The LDs aren't giving the Greens the creditability boost in return for the couple of seats the Greens could make the difference in. Plus, the LDs are still fighting to be seen as a major party. That is gone for good if they look like they need the Greens.
I mentioned on a previous thread the *marketing behaviour* that Kipper Voters are demonstrating. It's now in Considered Buyer mode. That's dangerous for Labour and others - those conservative customers now think UKIP is a Safe Brand to buy in to.
It's not the mavericks and Early Adopters we have on here or infest other places - it's become mainstream. Anyone with a spec of marketing nous knows what's going on in terms of acceptability
I wonder if the LDs have reached the point where they are leaving the mainstream, and becoming a flakey choice?
As I've said before, I don't really see what the point of the Lib Dems is any more. They don't seem to have a natural constituency. If you're a metropolitan pro-business type, you've got the Tories. If you're a metropolitan social democrat, you've got Labour. If you're a bearded anti-capitalist, you've got the Greens.
Some clear evidence of the vote being split on certain issues.
Higher social demographic will say Economy, lower demographic will say Jobs/Unemployment - two categories for the same thing.
EU and immigration is another one where the demography identifies the same issue but describes it in different ways.
Obvious age and wage related priorities - i.e the young don't care as much about healthcare as the elderly.
Curiously, the people least likely to mention the NHS are Labour voters. Surprising.
The Welsh don't mention the NHS more than the English or Scots, but they are much more likely to mention education and the economy.
Crime and unemployment much more likely to be mentioned by BME respondents, but immigration is half as frequently mentioned. That said, it's still an issue for 20%.
I don't understand how the Greens can be considered a 'major' party under any criteria.
Current polling-4-5% average. By elections-No impact European Elections-Their vote went down Last General election-Less than 1% of the vote 2015 Competitiveness-50/50 chance in 1 seat out of 650 Number of seats held- One, the same as George Galloway.
Maybe it's a conspiracy by the establishment I'm not aware of..
As I've said before, I don't really see what the point of the Lib Dems is any more. They don't seem to have a natural constituency. If you're a metropolitan pro-business type, you've got the Tories. If you're a metropolitan social democrat, you've got Labour. If you're a bearded anti-capitalist, you've got the Greens.
You're absolutely right: as the Conservatives have moved to the centre, they've trodden on the LibDem's natural ground.
That being said, if the Tories 'head right', or if Labour ends up in thrall to the unions again, then a gap will open up again.
As I've said before, I don't really see what the point of the Lib Dems is any more. They don't seem to have a natural constituency. If you're a metropolitan pro-business type, you've got the Tories. If you're a metropolitan social democrat, you've got Labour. If you're a bearded anti-capitalist, you've got the Greens.
If you favour sound finances within a caring society, you have the LibDems. It is a minority view at present, but will be back, once people have seen enough of Farage and Miliband.
"A nice story, but it is completely at odds with the facts."
Mr Murali is quoting the left wing phrase book. The fascist running dogs and the capitalist hyenas always use the poor immigrant as a cover for eating babies.
Only when the workers own the means of production will the Ovalitinees reappear and dance for the delight of the masses. Or something like that.
As I've said before, I don't really see what the point of the Lib Dems is any more. They don't seem to have a natural constituency. If you're a metropolitan pro-business type, you've got the Tories. If you're a metropolitan social democrat, you've got Labour. If you're a bearded anti-capitalist, you've got the Greens.
I've thought for a few months now that the LDs are probably better off not ending up in coalition again post-2015. A spell in opposition might benefit them; let the party redefine/reclarify what they stand for, both internally and in public messaging.
How Cameron can whip his MPs into handing over the right of habeas corpus to Brussels and then claim to be a eurosceptic is beyond me.
The erosion of civil liberties under Labour, Conservative and (now) LibDems is very disturbing. Habeus Corpus was already a hollow shell, the right to silence is no more.
The biggest threat is not terrorism, or Islam, the biggest threat has always been the state.
Over the history of mankind, people killed by their own governments outweighs deaths by religious fundemantalists 100,000-to-1, and war 10-to-1.
There is nothing more important than restricting the power of the state.
I mentioned on a previous thread the *marketing behaviour* that Kipper Voters are demonstrating. It's now in Considered Buyer mode. That's dangerous for Labour and others - those conservative customers now think UKIP is a Safe Brand to buy in to.
It's not the mavericks and Early Adopters we have on here or infest other places - it's become mainstream. Anyone with a spec of marketing nous knows what's going on in terms of acceptability
I wonder if the LDs have reached the point where they are leaving the mainstream, and becoming a flakey choice?
We are also near the point where we see if buyers remorse kicks in for the pro-kippers. At the moment it is all beer and unicorns, but soon we will have Kipper MPs. Will they vote to restore the spare bedroom subsidy? Will they vote against a tax cutting budget? Will they vote to defend the NHS or for further privatisation? The age of innocence is soon to be over.
Perhaps. But when Zimbabwe had 65,000% interest rates and mortality rates for both genders below that of medieval England (due to a combination of rampant AIDS and mass starvation) one suspects if another country had been running Zimbabwe instead of Mugabe it would've been in a rather better state of affairs.
The tyrannical rule of Mugabe does not justify autocratic rule instead. British rule did not particularly care for the natives. The literacy rate in India after two hundred years of British rule was just over 10%. Within 15 years of independence it was over 40% - more than tripling.
Quite difficult to measure surely? Are we talking over the entire subcontinent, or just the area that became India after the British left?
As I've said before, I don't really see what the point of the Lib Dems is any more. They don't seem to have a natural constituency. If you're a metropolitan pro-business type, you've got the Tories. If you're a metropolitan social democrat, you've got Labour. If you're a bearded anti-capitalist, you've got the Greens.
If you favour sound finances within a caring society, you have the LibDems. It is a minority view at present, but will be back, once people have seen enough of Farage and Miliband.
Indeed and the party could expand to incorporate pro EU Tories like Ken Clarke who looks like a fish out of water in the modern Tory party and maybe a few non partisan Blairites. Some kind of realignment is overdue.
How Cameron can whip his MPs into handing over the right of habeas corpus to Brussels and then claim to be a eurosceptic is beyond me.
The erosion of civil liberties under Labour, Conservative and (now) LibDems is very disturbing. Habeus Corpus was already a hollow shell, the right to silence is no more.
The biggest threat is not terrorism, or Islam, the biggest threat has always been the state. Over the history of mankind, people killed by their own governments outweighs deaths by religious fundemantalists 100,000-to-1, and war 10-to-1.
There is nothing more important than restricting the power of the state.
What about the history of modern democratic England? Do those ratios still hold up?
Although I agree keeping the state in check is the duty of all good citizens.
Perhaps. But when Zimbabwe had 65,000% interest rates and mortality rates for both genders below that of medieval England (due to a combination of rampant AIDS and mass starvation) one suspects if another country had been running Zimbabwe instead of Mugabe it would've been in a rather better state of affairs.
The tyrannical rule of Mugabe does not justify autocratic rule instead. British rule did not particularly care for the natives. The literacy rate in India after two hundred years of British rule was just over 10%. Within 15 years of independence it was over 40% - more than tripling.
Quite difficult to measure surely? Are we talking over the entire subcontinent, or just the area that became India after the British left?
You're getting a yellow for that Lucky.
PS - I'd give a F who you are I'm fairly sure I'm more clever than you
As I've said before, I don't really see what the point of the Lib Dems is any more. They don't seem to have a natural constituency. If you're a metropolitan pro-business type, you've got the Tories. If you're a metropolitan social democrat, you've got Labour. If you're a bearded anti-capitalist, you've got the Greens.
If you favour sound finances within a caring society, you have the LibDems. It is a minority view at present, but will be back, once people have seen enough of Farage and Miliband.
What does "caring" mean here though? Caring to taxpayers? Caring to victims of crime? Caring to those concerned by immigration?
No, the Lib Dem view of caring means caring to muggers, burglars and illegal immigrants. It makes marginally more sense than believing in liberal democracy and then supporting the EU but not much.
Perhaps. But when Zimbabwe had 65,000% interest rates and mortality rates for both genders below that of medieval England (due to a combination of rampant AIDS and mass starvation) one suspects if another country had been running Zimbabwe instead of Mugabe it would've been in a rather better state of affairs.
The tyrannical rule of Mugabe does not justify autocratic rule instead. British rule did not particularly care for the natives. The literacy rate in India after two hundred years of British rule was just over 10%. Within 15 years of independence it was over 40% - more than tripling.
Quite difficult to measure surely? Are we talking over the entire subcontinent, or just the area that became India after the British left?
We are also near the point where we see if buyers remorse kicks in for the pro-kippers. At the moment it is all beer and unicorns, but soon we will have Kipper MPs. Will they vote to restore the spare bedroom subsidy (UKIP Policy)? Will they vote against a tax cutting budget (UKIP Policy is for tax cuts)? Will they vote to defend the NHS(UKIP Policy) or for further privatisation? The age of innocence is soon to be over.
As I've said before, I don't really see what the point of the Lib Dems is any more. They don't seem to have a natural constituency. If you're a metropolitan pro-business type, you've got the Tories. If you're a metropolitan social democrat, you've got Labour. If you're a bearded anti-capitalist, you've got the Greens.
If you favour sound finances within a caring society, you have the LibDems. It is a minority view at present, but will be back, once people have seen enough of Farage and Miliband.
What does "caring" mean here though? Caring to taxpayers? Caring to victims of crime? Caring to those concerned by immigration?
No, the Lib Dem view of caring means caring to muggers, burglars and illegal immigrants. It makes marginally more sense than believing in liberal democracy and then supporting the EU but not much.
You may already know this Socrates, it's a philosophical discussion-
As I've said before, I don't really see what the point of the Lib Dems is any more. They don't seem to have a natural constituency. If you're a metropolitan pro-business type, you've got the Tories. If you're a metropolitan social democrat, you've got Labour. If you're a bearded anti-capitalist, you've got the Greens.
If you favour sound finances within a caring society, you have the LibDems.
Well duh. Who wouldn't want such a thing in an ideal world? But the problem is "Sound finances" and a "caring society" contradict eachother -- a properly caring society costs a heck of a lot of money, and the pain that would be necessary to achieve so-called "sound finances" would inevitably mean anything that constitutes a caring society being cut.
Even I as a card-carrying leftie don't believe the Tories are so evil that they would deliberately screw over poor people and public services if there was some magic, cost-free way of achieving it. The issue is that they care more about sound finances and looking after the rich than they do about that caring society. Whereas I believe that, although I'd have no problem with sound finances as an additional extra, getting a caring soctety and strong public services should be the top priority. But some happy-clappy fantasy nonsense from the Lib Dems that it's possible to have the penny and the bun at the same time will rightly be laughed out of the room by the electorate.
As I've said before, I don't really see what the point of the Lib Dems is any more. They don't seem to have a natural constituency. If you're a metropolitan pro-business type, you've got the Tories. If you're a metropolitan social democrat, you've got Labour. If you're a bearded anti-capitalist, you've got the Greens.
If you favour sound finances within a caring society, you have the LibDems.
Well duh. Who wouldn't want such a thing in an ideal world? But the problem is "Sound finances" and a "caring society" contradict eachother -- a properly caring society costs a heck of a lot of money, and the pain that would be necessary to achieve so-called "sound finances" would inevitably mean anything that constitutes a caring society being cut.
Even I as a card-carrying leftie don't believe the Tories are so evil that they would deliberately screw over poor people and public services if there was some magic, cost-free way of achieving it. The issue is that they care more about sound finances and looking after the rich than they do about that caring society. Whereas I believe that, although I'd have no problem with sound finances as an additional extra, getting a caring soctety and strong public services should be the top priority. But some happy-clappy fantasy nonsense from the Lib Dems that it's possible to have the penny and the bun at the same time will rightly be laughed out of the room by the electorate.
This is what we LDs love.
Your leader may or may not have been a paper candidate and yet we always have to deal with so many words.
As I've said before, I don't really see what the point of the Lib Dems is any more. They don't seem to have a natural constituency. If you're a metropolitan pro-business type, you've got the Tories. If you're a metropolitan social democrat, you've got Labour. If you're a bearded anti-capitalist, you've got the Greens.
If you favour sound finances within a caring society, you have the LibDems. It is a minority view at present, but will be back, once people have seen enough of Farage and Miliband.
What does "caring" mean here though? Caring to taxpayers? Caring to victims of crime? Caring to those concerned by immigration?
No, the Lib Dem view of caring means caring to muggers, burglars and illegal immigrants. It makes marginally more sense than believing in liberal democracy and then supporting the EU but not much.
You may already know this Socrates, it's a philosophical discussion-
Well surely in a scenario where governments and political parties are intent on imposing social norms often through legislation there is no such thing as 'Positive Liberty'?
As I've said before, I don't really see what the point of the Lib Dems is any more. They don't seem to have a natural constituency. If you're a metropolitan pro-business type, you've got the Tories. If you're a metropolitan social democrat, you've got Labour. If you're a bearded anti-capitalist, you've got the Greens.
If you favour sound finances within a caring society, you have the LibDems. It is a minority view at present, but will be back, once people have seen enough of Farage and Miliband.
What does "caring" mean here though? Caring to taxpayers? Caring to victims of crime? Caring to those concerned by immigration?
No, the Lib Dem view of caring means caring to muggers, burglars and illegal immigrants. It makes marginally more sense than believing in liberal democracy and then supporting the EU but not much.
You may already know this Socrates, it's a philosophical discussion-
I know the concepts very well, but I don't see how they fit into my arguments. Nick Clegg once called for "muscular liberalism", but he has not been muscular on the abuse of civil liberties by his government, he has not been muscular on defending liberal values from intolerance among certain immigrant groups and he has not been muscular on standing up to the illiberal and undemocratic aspects of the EU.
What he's left with is a social policy of "let's just be nice to everyone all the time". There's definitely a political constituency for that, but it's not the same political constituency that wants to be realistic about public finances. If you accept there are constraints and trade-offs to helping out everyone economically, you also do socially.
As I've said before, I don't really see what the point of the Lib Dems is any more. They don't seem to have a natural constituency. If you're a metropolitan pro-business type, you've got the Tories. If you're a metropolitan social democrat, you've got Labour. If you're a bearded anti-capitalist, you've got the Greens.
If you favour sound finances within a caring society, you have the LibDems.
Well duh. Who wouldn't want such a thing in an ideal world? But the problem is "Sound finances" and a "caring society" contradict eachother -- a properly caring society costs a heck of a lot of money, and the pain that would be necessary to achieve so-called "sound finances" would inevitably mean anything that constitutes a caring society being cut.
Even I as a card-carrying leftie don't believe the Tories are so evil that they would deliberately screw over poor people and public services if there was some magic, cost-free way of achieving it. The issue is that they care more about sound finances and looking after the rich than they do about that caring society. Whereas I believe that, although I'd have no problem with sound finances as an additional extra, getting a caring soctety and strong public services should be the top priority. But some happy-clappy fantasy nonsense from the Lib Dems that it's possible to have the penny and the bun at the same time will rightly be laughed out of the room by the electorate.
This is what we LDs love.
Your leader may or may not have been a paper candidate and yet we always have to deal with so many words.
As I've said before, I don't really see what the point of the Lib Dems is any more. They don't seem to have a natural constituency. If you're a metropolitan pro-business type, you've got the Tories. If you're a metropolitan social democrat, you've got Labour. If you're a bearded anti-capitalist, you've got the Greens.
If you favour sound finances within a caring society, you have the LibDems. It is a minority view at present, but will be back, once people have seen enough of Farage and Miliband.
What does "caring" mean here though? Caring to taxpayers? Caring to victims of crime? Caring to those concerned by immigration?
No, the Lib Dem view of caring means caring to muggers, burglars and illegal immigrants. It makes marginally more sense than believing in liberal democracy and then supporting the EU but not much.
You may already know this Socrates, it's a philosophical discussion-
Well surely in a scenario where governments and political parties are intent on imposing social norms often through legislation there is no such thing as 'Positive Liberty'?
As I've said before, I don't really see what the point of the Lib Dems is any more. They don't seem to have a natural constituency. If you're a metropolitan pro-business type, you've got the Tories. If you're a metropolitan social democrat, you've got Labour. If you're a bearded anti-capitalist, you've got the Greens.
If you favour sound finances within a caring society, you have the LibDems.
Well duh. Who wouldn't want such a thing in an ideal world? But the problem is "Sound finances" and a "caring society" contradict eachother -- a properly caring society costs a heck of a lot of money, and the pain that would be necessary to achieve so-called "sound finances" would inevitably mean anything that constitutes a caring society being cut.
Even I as a card-carrying leftie don't believe the Tories are so evil that they would deliberately screw over poor people and public services if there was some magic, cost-free way of achieving it. The issue is that they care more about sound finances and looking after the rich than they do about that caring society. Whereas I believe that, although I'd have no problem with sound finances as an additional extra, getting a caring soctety and strong public services should be the top priority. But some happy-clappy fantasy nonsense from the Lib Dems that it's possible to have the penny and the bun at the same time will rightly be laughed out of the room by the electorate.
This is what we LDs love.
Your leader may or may not have been a paper candidate and yet we always have to deal with so many words.
One wonders why we bother.
I'm not following...
A - I watched PMQs today
B - [But the problem is "Sound finances" and a "caring society" contradict eachother] - Where would you like me to start?
We are also near the point where we see if buyers remorse kicks in for the pro-kippers. At the moment it is all beer and unicorns, but soon we will have Kipper MPs. Will they vote to restore the spare bedroom subsidy (UKIP Policy)? Will they vote against a tax cutting budget (UKIP Policy is for tax cuts)? Will they vote to defend the NHS(UKIP Policy) or for further privatisation? The age of innocence is soon to be over.
Well it looks to me like UKIP got there first!
I put them in because they are mooted UKIP policies (like the hanbag tax we will have to see how long they last!).
But we will then see how tax cuts go down in Rotherham, and restoring the spare bedroom tax and protecting the NHS. Indeed I am rather looking forward to hearing Nuttal speak for the former and Carswell for the latter.
As I've said before, I don't really see what the point of the Lib Dems is any more. They don't seem to have a natural constituency. If you're a metropolitan pro-business type, you've got the Tories. If you're a metropolitan social democrat, you've got Labour. If you're a bearded anti-capitalist, you've got the Greens.
If you favour sound finances within a caring society, you have the LibDems. It is a minority view at present, but will be back, once people have seen enough of Farage and Miliband.
What does "caring" mean here though? Caring to taxpayers? Caring to victims of crime? Caring to those concerned by immigration?
No, the Lib Dem view of caring means caring to muggers, burglars and illegal immigrants. It makes marginally more sense than believing in liberal democracy and then supporting the EU but not much.
You may already know this Socrates, it's a philosophical discussion-
I know the concepts very well, but I don't see how they fit into my arguments. Nick Clegg once called for "muscular liberalism", but he has not been muscular on the abuse of civil liberties by his government, he has not been muscular on defending liberal values from intolerance among certain immigrant groups and he has not been muscular on standing up to the illiberal and undemocratic aspects of the EU.
What he's left with is a social policy of "let's just be nice to everyone all the time". There's definitely a political constituency for that, but it's not the same political constituency that wants to be realistic about public finances. If you accept there are constraints and trade-offs to helping out everyone economically, you also do socially.
I think you're mixing different concepts here. I think it would be very difficult for anyone to prove that the LDs are not realistic about public finances.
The mixture of the two is what the Ukippers love in debates.
I admit some of it's above my head.
PS - I watched PMQs today! Brisky points for anyone else who states the same on this thread.
As I've said before, I don't really see what the point of the Lib Dems is any more. They don't seem to have a natural constituency. If you're a metropolitan pro-business type, you've got the Tories. If you're a metropolitan social democrat, you've got Labour. If you're a bearded anti-capitalist, you've got the Greens.
If you favour sound finances within a caring society, you have the LibDems. It is a minority view at present, but will be back, once people have seen enough of Farage and Miliband.
What does "caring" mean here though? Caring to taxpayers? Caring to victims of crime? Caring to those concerned by immigration?
No, the Lib Dem view of caring means caring to muggers, burglars and illegal immigrants. It makes marginally more sense than believing in liberal democracy and then supporting the EU but not much.
You may already know this Socrates, it's a philosophical discussion-
Well surely in a scenario where governments and political parties are intent on imposing social norms often through legislation there is no such thing as 'Positive Liberty'?
It's all negative.....
I think you may have got this 100% wrong.
As I stated, It's an academic discussion...
Then instead of just telling me I'm wrong with no justification do please put forward a counter argument although when the negative_liberty article begins:
Negative liberty is freedom from interference by other people. Negative liberty is primarily concerned with freedom from external restraint and contrasts with positive liberty (the possession of the power and resources to fulfill one's own potential)
Then I would be very much interested in how Government and political intervention is not considered interference and 'external restraint'?
As I've said before, I don't really see what the point of the Lib Dems is any more. They don't seem to have a natural constituency. If you're a metropolitan pro-business type, you've got the Tories. If you're a metropolitan social democrat, you've got Labour. If you're a bearded anti-capitalist, you've got the Greens.
If you favour sound finances within a caring society, you have the LibDems.
Well duh. Who wouldn't want such a thing in an ideal world? But the problem is "Sound finances" and a "caring society" contradict eachother -- a properly caring society costs a heck of a lot of money, and the pain that would be necessary to achieve so-called "sound finances" would inevitably mean anything that constitutes a caring society being cut.
Even I as a card-carrying leftie don't believe the Tories are so evil that they would deliberately screw over poor people and public services if there was some magic, cost-free way of achieving it. The issue is that they care more about sound finances and looking after the rich than they do about that caring society. Whereas I believe that, although I'd have no problem with sound finances as an additional extra, getting a caring soctety and strong public services should be the top priority. But some happy-clappy fantasy nonsense from the Lib Dems that it's possible to have the penny and the bun at the same time will rightly be laughed out of the room by the electorate.
I shouldn't complain, because your stance is way more coherent and reasonable than the majority of your cohort -but do you not appreciate that in order to provide those top quality public services, you must have a sound economy first? And that in order to maintain them in perpetuity, you must continue to have one?
As I've said before, I don't really see what the point of the Lib Dems is any more. They don't seem to have a natural constituency. If you're a metropolitan pro-business type, you've got the Tories. If you're a metropolitan social democrat, you've got Labour. If you're a bearded anti-capitalist, you've got the Greens.
If you favour sound finances within a caring society, you have the LibDems. It is a minority view at present, but will be back, once people have seen enough of Farage and Miliband.
What does "caring" mean here though? Caring to taxpayers? Caring to victims of crime? Caring to those concerned by immigration?
No, the Lib Dem view of caring means caring to muggers, burglars and illegal immigrants. It makes marginally more sense than believing in liberal democracy and then supporting the EU but not much.
You may already know this Socrates, it's a philosophical discussion-
Well surely in a scenario where governments and political parties are intent on imposing social norms often through legislation there is no such thing as 'Positive Liberty'?
It's all negative.....
I think you may have got this 100% wrong.
As I stated, It's an academic discussion...
Then instead of just telling me I'm wrong with no justification do please put forward a counter argument although when the negative_liberty article begins:
Negative liberty is freedom from interference by other people. Negative liberty is primarily concerned with freedom from external restraint and contrasts with positive liberty (the possession of the power and resources to fulfill one's own potential)
Then I would be very much interested in how Government and political intervention is not considered interference and 'external restraint'?
Okay, if you're not winding me up, as ever, Brisky got some blunt analysis-
Commie China - (yes, I did get this from someone from the Tv) - you don't starve to death, eveyone gets food - Now you see I've been taought to put that in the positive liberty bracket
Commie China _ totalatiran apparently.
PS - I think you are abusing the term social norms - I'm calling Kipper!!!!
As I've said before, I don't really see what the point of the Lib Dems is any more. They don't seem to have a natural constituency. If you're a metropolitan pro-business type, you've got the Tories. If you're a metropolitan social democrat, you've got Labour. If you're a bearded anti-capitalist, you've got the Greens.
If you favour sound finances within a caring society, you have the LibDems. It is a minority view at present, but will be back, once people have seen enough of Farage and Miliband.
What does "caring" mean here though? Caring to taxpayers? Caring to victims of crime? Caring to those concerned by immigration?
No, the Lib Dem view of caring means caring to muggers, burglars and illegal immigrants. It makes marginally more sense than believing in liberal democracy and then supporting the EU but not much.
You may already know this Socrates, it's a philosophical discussion-
I know the concepts very well, but I don't see how they fit into my arguments. Nick Clegg once called for "muscular liberalism", but he has not been muscular on the abuse of civil liberties by his government, he has not been muscular on defending liberal values from intolerance among certain immigrant groups and he has not been muscular on standing up to the illiberal and undemocratic aspects of the EU.
What he's left with is a social policy of "let's just be nice to everyone all the time". There's definitely a political constituency for that, but it's not the same political constituency that wants to be realistic about public finances. If you accept there are constraints and trade-offs to helping out everyone economically, you also do socially.
There is a case to be made that we should run sound finances and let the markets deal with the rest, and also that the vulnerable in society must be made safe from predatory capitalists. There is also a case for a middle way with both extremes attenuated. It clearly is not your view, but it is one that remains quite a mainstream view in the UK. The LDs will return. At times of economic hardship and austerity the two extremes become more popular than the centre, but when these are over the centre will once again dominate politics.
If today's PMQ's was anything to go by, Labour will get nowhere on the NHS. Every criticism was confidently batted away. Miliband was much more effective on immigration, even though he has no story to be proud of.
The decline of the economy as an issue tells us what about the "cost of living crisis"?
That it isn't an effective narrative, at least not one that immediately jumps into people's minds?
Sub-consciously, the public think the government has fixed the economy.
Immigration is about the country's cultural decay.
The problem with Labour going on the "cost of living crisis" is several-fold:
- As you say, many of the public think the government has fixed things and that even if things aren't getting better now, they soon will.
- They cannot simply ignore the part they played in creating the situation that created the so-called 'crisis' in the first place. (Well, they can but the other parties won't).
- The scale of immigration - which they introduced and as far as I know, still back - is a major part of the rising rents, low wage increases and increased pressures on public services.
As I've said before, I don't really see what the point of the Lib Dems is any more. They don't seem to have a natural constituency. If you're a metropolitan pro-business type, you've got the Tories. If you're a metropolitan social democrat, you've got Labour. If you're a bearded anti-capitalist, you've got the Greens.
If you favour sound finances within a caring society, you have the LibDems. It is a minority view at present, but will be back, once people have seen enough of Farage and Miliband.
Sorry, Foxy.
That's the Tory position.
Remember, Society is not the same thing as the State.
I mentioned on a previous thread the *marketing behaviour* that Kipper Voters are demonstrating. It's now in Considered Buyer mode. That's dangerous for Labour and others - those conservative customers now think UKIP is a Safe Brand to buy in to.
It's not the mavericks and Early Adopters we have on here or infest other places - it's become mainstream. Anyone with a spec of marketing nous knows what's going on in terms of acceptability
I wonder if the LDs have reached the point where they are leaving the mainstream, and becoming a flakey choice?
We are also near the point where we see if buyers remorse kicks in for the pro-kippers. At the moment it is all beer and unicorns, but soon we will have Kipper MPs. Will they vote to restore the spare bedroom subsidy? Will they vote against a tax cutting budget? Will they vote to defend the NHS or for further privatisation? The age of innocence is soon to be over.
UKIP will be perfectly happy to have such a problem. Five years ago they had hardly any councillors, never mind MPs. They ambitions at the then forthcoming general election stretched mainly to holding deposits in most constituencies (something they failed to do by and large).
In any case, being populist in opposition is dead easy, as is playing different tunes in different parts of the country. The Lib Dems were past masters at it until the music finally stopped when they were holding the parcel.
As I've said before, I don't really see what the point of the Lib Dems is any more. They don't seem to have a natural constituency. If you're a metropolitan pro-business type, you've got the Tories. If you're a metropolitan social democrat, you've got Labour. If you're a bearded anti-capitalist, you've got the Greens.
If you favour sound finances within a caring society, you have the LibDems. It is a minority view at present, but will be back, once people have seen enough of Farage and Miliband.
Sorry, Foxy.
That's the Tory position.
Remember, Society is not the same thing as the State.
Is it Charles or Financier that does the fincncial reports?
Everyone know Brisky and Avery get it right every time.
Anything to say about the Fed decision today Charles?
As I've said before, I don't really see what the point of the Lib Dems is any more. They don't seem to have a natural constituency. If you're a metropolitan pro-business type, you've got the Tories. If you're a metropolitan social democrat, you've got Labour. If you're a bearded anti-capitalist, you've got the Greens.
If you favour sound finances within a caring society, you have the LibDems. It is a minority view at present, but will be back, once people have seen enough of Farage and Miliband.
Sorry, Foxy.
That's the Tory position.
Remember, Society is not the same thing as the State.
I think that differing views on the States role in society are what most separates Tories and LDs.
And the belief in sound finances is what separates Labour and LDs.
Well I'm only winding you up to the extent that I believe associating the concepts of positive and negative liberty with contemporary establishment political parties and the way in which our government operates is a complete nonsense. Therefore from my perspective there is no debate academic or not to be had.
Evoking contemporary China does nothing to change that view. Nor does some spurious query regarding my use of the term 'social norms' or the gratuitous reference to the party of my choice. Sadly whilst you may or may not have a level of 'negative liberty' your partisan conditioning seems to have ensured you have virtually no positive liberty!
Obviously you have yet to evolve to a level of consciousness where you can comprehend such liberties!
There is a case to be made that we should run sound finances and let the markets deal with the rest, and also that the vulnerable in society must be made safe from predatory capitalists. There is also a case for a middle way with both extremes attenuated. It clearly is not your view, but it is one that remains quite a mainstream view in the UK. The LDs will return. At times of economic hardship and austerity the two extremes become more popular than the centre, but when these are over the centre will once again dominate politics.
But I'm completely middle way. I have talked a lot on here about inequality, of opportunity as well as of outcomes and various things I'd do to improve it. But the Lib Dems are not middle way at all on social matters. They don't acknowledge the trade-offs. They think that we can continue to let in millions of people from the worst parts of the world and it won't have negative effects on the native workforce, not to mention the cause of liberalism, here. They think that we can just not put people in prison for long periods, even after multiple crimes, and it won't cause a criminal underclass. They think we can just praise diversity and multiculturalism, without realising that looking the other way to intolerance among immigrant groups just causes it to breed. They think we can just celebrate the union of nations in the EU, and not realise that handing over power to an undemocratic, illiberal mess reduces liberty in the UK. They think they can have a policy of inclusion of troublesome kids in classrooms and it won't lead to the rest of class having their education disrupted.
Again and again on social matters, the Liberal Democrats stick to the idealistic utopian position that they criticise on economic matters. What then happens is the economic realists look around for other parties that are more socialy realistic, while the social utopians look for parties that are more economically utopian.
There is a case to be made that we should run sound finances and let the markets deal with the rest, and also that the vulnerable in society must be made safe from predatory capitalists. There is also a case for a middle way with both extremes attenuated. It clearly is not your view, but it is one that remains quite a mainstream view in the UK. The LDs will return. At times of economic hardship and austerity the two extremes become more popular than the centre, but when these are over the centre will once again dominate politics.
But I'm completely middle way. I have talked a lot on here about inequality, of opportunity as well as of outcomes and various things I'd do to improve it. But the Lib Dems are not middle way at all on social matters. They don't acknowledge the trade-offs. They think that we can continue to let in millions of people from the worst parts of the world and it won't have negative effects on the native workforce, not to mention the cause of liberalism, here. They think that we can just not put people in prison for long periods, even after multiple crimes, and it won't cause a criminal underclass. They think we can just praise diversity and multiculturalism, without realising that looking the other way to intolerance among immigrant groups just causes it to breed. They think we can just celebrate the union of nations in the EU, and not realise that handing over power to an undemocratic, illiberal mess reduces liberty in the UK. They think they can have a policy of inclusion of troublesome kids in classrooms and it won't lead to the rest of class having their education disrupted.
Again and again on social matters, the Liberal Democrats stick to the idealistic utopian position that they criticise on economic matters. What then happens is the economic realists look around for other parties that are more socialy realistic, while the social utopians look for parties that are more economically utopian.
I must say - I think this is very well played Socrates.
If only the Pb tories (and I ain't inclduding me! Tonight!) could live us to such high expectattions.
'Imagine if the situation was reversed: imagine if it was revealed that large gangs of white men were consistently grooming and raping THOUSANDS of Asian and black girls, and choosing their victim"
Completely horrific. It reminds me of those repulsive and grotesque middle aged white men who pray on nubile young Asian girls in Bangkok by giving them gifts and money for sordid sex. Some even come online and boast about it.
Urgh!
It also reminds me of sad, fat, ageing, retired tampon-ad directors who claimed that Jimmy Savile's infant victims probably lied, or if they didn't lie, they probably enjoyed being raped. You are always so oddly keen to exonerate the child rapists.
Why is that?
Is this what PB has turned into? A pile of old men slinging paedo allegations at each other?
I wonder how long before Mike bans all discussion of child abuse on PB. I'll go;
Before Friday: Evens Next week: 3/1 After that: 3/1
There has been a deliberate strategy by certain Labour posters - tim and two others that I am banned from referencing - to turn discussions on the subject into nasty ad hominem attacks. Their plan is exactly this: make it such a nasty issue on here that people can't discuss it, thus avoiding news about a major scandal for the Labour party. Mike would be mad to play into their hands.
Well, UKIP have campaigned vigorously on this issue. Alone.
John Bickley in the H & M by-election. Nigel Garage's conference speech. Numerous interventions by Jane Collins MEP. The South Yorkshire PCC election (Thread from OGH, to his credit)
I think UKIP will go for it again in the three Rotherham constituencies come GE2015.
Also, there many people in the doghouse anxious to earn brownie points:
BBC Roman Catholics The Press (Leveson)
This simply isn't going to go away politically. This wouldn't be much of a political site if it ignored the most explosive political topic of the day.
On topic: does child abuse feature as a law and order topic in Ipsos/MORI?
There is a case to be made that we should run sound finances and let the markets deal with the rest, and also that the vulnerable in society must be made safe from predatory capitalists. There is also a case for a middle way with both extremes attenuated. It clearly is not your view, but it is one that remains quite a mainstream view in the UK. The LDs will return. At times of economic hardship and austerity the two extremes become more popular than the centre, but when these are over the centre will once again dominate politics.
But I'm completely middle way. I have talked a lot on here about inequality, of opportunity as well as of outcomes and various things I'd do to improve it. But the Lib Dems are not middle way at all on social matters. They don't acknowledge the trade-offs. They think that we can continue to let in millions of people from the worst parts of the world and it won't have negative effects on the native workforce, not to mention the cause of liberalism, here. They think that we can just not put people in prison for long periods, even after multiple crimes, and it won't cause a criminal underclass. They think we can just praise diversity and multiculturalism, without realising that looking the other way to intolerance among immigrant groups just causes it to breed. They think we can just celebrate the union of nations in the EU, and not realise that handing over power to an undemocratic, illiberal mess reduces liberty in the UK. They think they can have a policy of inclusion of troublesome kids in classrooms and it won't lead to the rest of class having their education disrupted.
Again and again on social matters, the Liberal Democrats stick to the idealistic utopian position that they criticise on economic matters. What then happens is the economic realists look around for other parties that are more socialy realistic, while the social utopians look for parties that are more economically utopian.
This is very astute. Your concept of 'laissez faire socionomics' as a description of the current consensus on social policy is very apt.
Again and again on social matters, the Liberal Democrats stick to the idealistic utopian position that they criticise on economic matters. What then happens is the economic realists look around for other parties that are more socialy realistic, while the social utopians look for parties that are more economically utopian.
Even though I'm coming at this from a different perspective to you, I think that's a very good summary.
The good news for the Lib Dems is that the party's own voters are now very close to the types of views Clegg (and Foxinsox) has -- the polls consistently show the remaining LIb Dem voters are fiscally conservative, while being more left-wing on the EU/immigration/the environment than any other party's voters. The bad news is that that fiscally conservative/socially liberal market is just very limited in this country. Most people who are in favour of deficit reduction being the top priority and in favour of good treatment for the super-rich, will also usually be socially conservative. On the other side, most people who are pro-EU and into tree-hugging will usually also be people who are outraged at the way the government has treated poor people and outraged at how the super-rich are getting away with murder. The socially conservative/economically left-wing mix remains the great untapped market of British politics.
@manofkent2014 Interesting to note that you are one of those who would walk on bye, Did I meet you or your relatives on a bus to Rainham in the seventies?
There is a case to be made that we should run sound finances and let the markets deal with the rest, and also that the vulnerable in society must be made safe from predatory capitalists. There is also a case for a middle way with both extremes attenuated. It clearly is not your view, but it is one that remains quite a mainstream view in the UK. The LDs will return. At times of economic hardship and austerity the two extremes become more popular than the centre, but when these are over the centre will once again dominate politics.
But I'm completely middle way. I have talked a lot on here about inequality, of opportunity as well as of outcomes and various things I'd do to improve it. But the Lib Dems are not middle way at all on social matters. They don't acknowledge the trade-offs. They think that we can continue to let in millions of people from the worst parts of the world and it won't have negative effects on the native workforce, not to mention the cause of liberalism, here. They think that we can just not put people in prison for long periods, even after multiple crimes, and it won't cause a criminal underclass. They think we can just praise diversity and multiculturalism, without realising that looking the other way to intolerance among immigrant groups just causes it to breed. They think we can just celebrate the union of nations in the EU, and not realise that handing over power to an undemocratic, illiberal mess reduces liberty in the UK. They think they can have a policy of inclusion of troublesome kids in classrooms and it won't lead to the rest of class having their education disrupted.
Again and again on social matters, the Liberal Democrats stick to the idealistic utopian position that they criticise on economic matters. What then happens is the economic realists look around for other parties that are more socialy realistic, while the social utopians look for parties that are more economically utopian.
This is very astute. Your concept of 'laissez faire socionomics' as a description of the current consensus on social policy is very apt.
Lol - I are you positive or negative liberty then Lucky83 - I bet you can't even answer.
@manofkent2014 Interesting to note that you are one of those who would walk on bye, Did I meet you or your relatives on a bus to Rainham in the seventies?
Interesting to note that you wish to replicate the experiment in Canada by impersonating the bigot in question......
manofkent2014 I can't disagree about it being very similar, it was a elderly Sikh gentleman and three skinheads mouthing off, but apart from that, pretty much the same..
There is a case to be made that we should run sound finances and let the markets deal with the rest, and also that the vulnerable in society must be made safe from predatory capitalists. There is also a case for a middle way with both extremes attenuated. It clearly is not your view, but it is one that remains quite a mainstream view in the UK. The LDs will return. At times of economic hardship and austerity the two extremes become more popular than the centre, but when these are over the centre will once again dominate politics.
But I'm completely middle way. I have talked a lot on here about inequality, of opportunity as well as of outcomes and various things I'd do to improve it. But the Lib Dems are not middle way at all on social matters. They don't acknowledge the trade-offs. They think that we can continue to let in millions of people from the worst parts of the world and it won't have negative effects on the native workforce, not to mention the cause of liberalism, here. They think that we can just not put people in prison for long periods, even after multiple crimes, and it won't cause a criminal underclass. They think we can just praise diversity and multiculturalism, without realising that looking the other way to intolerance among immigrant groups just causes it to breed. They think we can just celebrate the union of nations in the EU, and not realise that handing over power to an undemocratic, illiberal mess reduces liberty in the UK. They think they can have a policy of inclusion of troublesome kids in classrooms and it won't lead to the rest of class having their education disrupted.
Again and again on social matters, the Liberal Democrats stick to the idealistic utopian position that they criticise on economic matters. What then happens is the economic realists look around for other parties that are more socialy realistic, while the social utopians look for parties that are more economically utopian.
This is very astute. Your concept of 'laissez faire socionomics' as a description of the current consensus on social policy is very apt.
Lol - I are you positive or negative liberty then Lucky83 - I bet you can't even answer.
I don't believe in 'positive liberty'. Therefore it is unnecessary to call liberty 'negative' liberty. I just believe in liberty. It seems to me to be yet another word that has been undermined and subverted by an unnecessary prefix. See also correctness vs political correctness, justice vs social justice etc.
There is a case to be made that we should run sound finances and let the markets deal with the rest, and also that the vulnerable in society must be made safe from predatory capitalists. There is also a case for a middle way with both extremes attenuated. It clearly is not your view, but it is one that remains quite a mainstream view in the UK. The LDs will return. At times of economic hardship and austerity the two extremes become more popular than the centre, but when these are over the centre will once again dominate politics.
But I'm completely middle way. I have talked a lot on here about inequality, of opportunity as well as of outcomes and various things I'd do to improve it. But the Lib Dems are not middle way at all on social matters. They don't acknowledge the trade-offs. They think that we can continue to let in millions of people from the worst parts of the world and it won't have negative effects on the native workforce, not to mention the cause of liberalism, here. They think that we can just not put people in prison for long periods, even after multiple crimes, and it won't cause a criminal underclass. They think we can just praise diversity and multiculturalism, without realising that looking the other way to intolerance among immigrant groups just causes it to breed.
Again and again on social matters, the Liberal Democrats stick to the idealistic utopian position that they criticise on economic matters. What then happens is the economic realists look around for other parties that are more socialy realistic, while the social utopians look for parties that are more economically utopian.
I think Utopian is a fair description of LibDems, and one of the reasons that at times they have found the difficult compromises of government so uncomfortable.
LibDems are essentially optomists at heart and believe in the inherent goodness of mankind: Wars can be stopped if we sit down and discuss our differences, with international bodies as mediators; Criminals can be reformed and remade as useful productive citizens; differing cultures can live side by side in harmony and learn from each other; the EU can provide a structure for the stability and economic development of europe and that the benefit to the UK outweighs the drawbacks.
It is why I remain a LibDem at heart. I accept that I may be a little too idealistic, but I have seen how cynicism and materialism have damaged the fabric of British political and social life.
I even remain optomistic that the British public will see sense, turn its back on fear, suspiscion and xenophobia and start voting LD again (Though even I am not naive enough to expect this next May)!
There is a case to be made that we should run sound finances and let the markets deal with the rest, and also that the vulnerable in society must be made safe from predatory capitalists. There is also a case for a middle way with both extremes attenuated. It clearly is not your view, but it is one that remains quite a mainstream view in the UK. The LDs will return. At times of economic hardship and austerity the two extremes become more popular than the centre, but when these are over the centre will once again dominate politics.
But I'm completely middle way. I have talked a lot on here about inequality, of opportunity as well as of outcomes and various things I'd do to improve it. But the Lib Dems are not middle way at all on social matters. They don't acknowledge the trade-offs. They think that we can continue to let in millions of people from the worst parts of the world and it won't have negative effects on the native workforce, not to mention the cause of liberalism, here. They think that we can just not put people in prison for long periods, even after multiple crimes, and it won't cause a criminal underclass. They think we can just praise diversity and multiculturalism, without realising that looking the other way to intolerance among immigrant groups just causes it to breed. They think we can just celebrate the union of nations in the EU, and not realise that handing over power to an undemocratic, illiberal mess reduces liberty in the UK. They think they can have a policy of inclusion of troublesome kids in classrooms and it won't lead to the rest of class having their education disrupted.
Again and again on social matters, the Liberal Democrats stick to the idealistic utopian position that they criticise on economic matters. What then happens is the economic realists look around for other parties that are more socialy realistic, while the social utopians look for parties that are more economically utopian.
This is very astute. Your concept of 'laissez faire socionomics' as a description of the current consensus on social policy is very apt.
Lol - I are you positive or negative liberty then Lucky83 - I bet you can't even answer.
I don't believe in 'positive liberty'. Therefore it is unnecessary to call liberty 'negative' liberty. I just believe in liberty. It seems to me to be yet another word that has been undermined and subverted by an unnecessary prefix. See also correctness vs political correctness, justice vs social justice etc.
Lol - You a going to get pwned by me at some point - there's your warning shot
Again and again on social matters, the Liberal Democrats stick to the idealistic utopian position that they criticise on economic matters. What then happens is the economic realists look around for other parties that are more socialy realistic, while the social utopians look for parties that are more economically utopian.
Even though I'm coming at this from a different perspective to you, I think that's a very good summary.
The good news for the Lib Dems is that the party's own voters are now very close to the types of views Clegg (and Foxinsox) has -- the polls consistently show the remaining LIb Dem voters are fiscally conservative, while being more left-wing on the EU/immigration/the environment than any other party's voters. The bad news is that that fiscally conservative/socially liberal market is just very limited in this country. Most people who are in favour of deficit reduction being the top priority and in favour of good treatment for the super-rich, will also usually be socially conservative. On the other side, most people who are pro-EU and into tree-hugging will usually also be people who are outraged at the way the government has treated poor people and outraged at how the super-rich are getting away with murder. The socially conservative/economically left-wing mix remains the great untapped market of British politics.
I think there is definitely something in what you say. I personally quite like the idea of mixing fiscal conservatism with social liberalism - I suppose the Cameroons are aiming for that bracket to a certain extent, but it's clearly been hated by the base of the wider party, or at the least the noisier parts of it, so I don't think that will last - but like many LD positions, it is not a group which will yield massive returns for them apparently. Though I had thought the social conservative yet economically left wing market was precisely what UKIP was now gunning for. It certainly seems to have been a good move to attempt it, for the moment at the least.
I think Utopian is a fair description of LibDems, and one of the reasons that at times they have found the difficult compromises of government so uncomfortable.
LibDems are essentially optomists at heart and believe in the inherent goodness of mankind: Wars can be stopped if we sit down and discuss our differences, with international bodies as mediators; Criminals can be reformed and remade as useful productive citizens; differing cultures can live side by side in harmony and learn from each other; the EU can provide a structure for the stability and economic development of europe and that the benefit to the UK outweighs the drawbacks.
It is why I remain a LibDem at heart. I accept that I may be a little too idealistic, but I have seen how cynicism and materialism have damaged the fabric of British political and social life.
I even remain optomistic that the British public will see sense, turn its back on fear, suspiscion and xenophobia and start voting LD again (Though even I am not naive enough to expect this next May)!
Yes that explains the collapse of the Lib Dem vote -you're just too NICE for Britain. Let us hope that one fine day the ghastly plebs SEE SENSE, lose their grubby interest in how their tax money is spent and how their 'quality of life' is ebbing away and realise it's FOR THEIR OWN GOOD. It's not easy being so idealistic and non cynical, but we all have our cross to bear (or other multi-faith reference).
Indeed I think Rotherham-gate, and associated problems, is a major factor behind UKIP's recent and apparently relentless ascent.
Just as legalising gay marriage showed the socially conservative that they were just seen by the Conservatives as vote fodder to be exploited, Rotherhamgate has shown the native British working class that they are to Labour just vote fodder to be exploited.
Everyone says that elections can only be won from the centre, however that is because historically the working class and lower middle class (C1+C2 and D) have always been divided between Labour and the Tories.
A party that can unite C1, C2 and D need not worry about A, B and E.
It also reminds me of sad, fat, ageing, retired tampon-ad directors who claimed that Jimmy Savile's infant victims probably lied, or if they didn't lie, they probably enjoyed being raped. You are always so oddly keen to exonerate the child rapists.
Why is that?
Is this what PB has turned into? A pile of old men slinging paedo allegations at each other?
I wonder how long before Mike bans all discussion of child abuse on PB. I'll go;
Before Friday: Evens Next week: 3/1 After that: 3/1
There has been a deliberate strategy by certain Labour posters - tim and two others that I am banned from referencing - to turn discussions on the subject into nasty ad hominem attacks. Their plan is exactly this: make it such a nasty issue on here that people can't discuss it, thus avoiding news about a major scandal for the Labour party. Mike would be mad to play into their hands.
Well, UKIP have campaigned vigorously on this issue. Alone.
John Bickley in the H & M by-election. Nigel Garage's conference speech. Numerous interventions by Jane Collins MEP. The South Yorkshire PCC election (Thread from OGH, to his credit)
I think UKIP will go for it again in the three Rotherham constituencies come GE2015.
Also, there many people in the doghouse anxious to earn brownie points:
BBC Roman Catholics The Press (Leveson)
This simply isn't going to go away politically. This wouldn't be much of a political site if it ignored the most explosive political topic of the day.
On topic: does child abuse feature as a law and order topic in Ipsos/MORI?
From the Times, today (£££) - just catching up with it over supper.
"a confidential 2012 intelligence profile by West Mids police found that 75% of the region's suspected sex grooming offenders were of 'Asian ethnicity' and 82% of known victims were white girls aged 14-16"
This is a simply enormous, scaldingly controversial issue-of-the-day. The fact it hasn't *exploded* yet doesn't mean it won't.
And, of course, we may be seeing the political effects of this, vicariously, through the rise of UKIP.
Indeed I think Rotherham-gate, and associated problems, is a major factor behind UKIP's recent and apparently relentless ascent.
Someone ought to write a textbook on the psychology of those involved in the scandal, and why they put political considerations before tracking down criminals.
I think Utopian is a fair description of LibDems, and one of the reasons that at times they have found the difficult compromises of government so uncomfortable.
LibDems are essentially optomists at heart and believe in the inherent goodness of mankind: Wars can be stopped if we sit down and discuss our differences, with international bodies as mediators; Criminals can be reformed and remade as useful productive citizens; differing cultures can live side by side in harmony and learn from each other; the EU can provide a structure for the stability and economic development of europe and that the benefit to the UK outweighs the drawbacks.
It is why I remain a LibDem at heart. I accept that I may be a little too idealistic, but I have seen how cynicism and materialism have damaged the fabric of British political and social life.
I even remain optomistic that the British public will see sense, turn its back on fear, suspiscion and xenophobia and start voting LD again (Though even I am not naive enough to expect this next May)!
Yes that explains the collapse of the Lib Dem vote -you're just too NICE for Britain. Let us hope that one fine day the ghastly plebs SEE SENSE, lose their grubby interest in how their tax money is spent and how their 'quality of life' is ebbing away and realise it's FOR THEIR OWN GOOD. It's not easy being so idealistic and non cynical, but we all have our cross to bear (or other multi-faith reference).
A major flaw with the lib dems is that they think that if people are educated and shown reason, they will act logically.
They won't. People are animals not computers, for many, especially for relatively inconsequential decisions then they can be persuaded that logic is a useful decision tool. But not the big ones, career choice, which house to buy, who to mate with, things affecting their offspring (eg school choice) and anything on the outside world that impinges on their family.
Who gets to run the country is one of those big decisions and the voters use instinct in the polling station.
Its also the reason why rabid socialist MPs end up conducting intellectual contortions to justify their sprogs going to private schools.
There is a case to be made that we should run sound finances and let the markets deal with the rest, and also that the vulnerable in society must be made safe from predatory capitalists. There is also a case for a middle way with both extremes attenuated. It clearly is not your view, but it is one that remains quite a mainstream view in the UK. The LDs will return. At times of economic hardship and austerity the two extremes become more popular than the centre, but when these are over the centre will once again dominate politics.
Again and again on social matters, the Liberal Democrats stick to the idealistic utopian position that they criticise on economic matters. What then happens is the economic realists look around for other parties that are more socialy realistic, while the social utopians look for parties that are more economically utopian.
I think Utopian is a fair description of LibDems, and one of the reasons that at times they have found the difficult compromises of government so uncomfortable.
It is why I remain a LibDem at heart. I accept that I may be a little too idealistic, but I have seen how cynicism and materialism have damaged the fabric of British political and social life.
I even remain optomistic that the British public will see sense, turn its back on fear, suspiscion and xenophobia and start voting LD again (Though even I am not naive enough to expect this next May)!
Socrates' analysis is piercing, perceptive and cogent. Yours is just waffle. It is mellifluously meaningless when it isn't perniciously vapid - "different cultures can live side by side in harmony and learn from each other"??
You know what? I also like apple pie and I am happy to share it with nice people, especially kindly mothers. But I don't use this insight as a philosophical code to unlock the world's problems.
The contrast between the two posts is very telling, and salutary, and not in the way you'd like. The Lib Dems are best put out of their misery and silly people like you need to wise up and find a new way of thinking, and voting.
We can all choose to go through life being selfish, materialistic, cynical and mistrusting; or we can go through life believing that the world can be a better place if we have love for our fellow man in our hearts.
The fact that you do not see this shows how little you understand of religion, despite having blogged on the subject.
There is a case to be made that we should run sound finances and let the markets deal with the rest, and also that the vulnerable in society must be made safe from predatory capitalists. There is also a case for a middle way with both extremes attenuated. It clearly is not your view, but it is one that remains quite a mainstream view in the UK. The LDs will return. At times of economic hardship and austerity the two extremes become more popular than the centre, but when these are over the centre will once again dominate politics.
Again and again on social matters, the Liberal Democrats stick to the idealistic utopian position that they criticise on economic matters. What then happens is the economic realists look around for other parties that are more socialy realistic, while the social utopians look for parties that are more economically utopian.
I think Utopian is a fair description of LibDems, and one of the reasons that at times they have found the difficult compromises of government so uncomfortable.
It is why I remain a LibDem at heart. I accept that I may be a little too idealistic, but I have seen how cynicism and materialism have damaged the fabric of British political and social life.
I even remain optomistic that the British public will see sense, turn its back on fear, suspiscion and xenophobia and start voting LD again (Though even I am not naive enough to expect this next May)!
Socrates' analysis is piercing, perceptive and cogent. Yours is just waffle. It is mellifluously meaningless when it isn't perniciously vapid - "different cultures can live side by side in harmony and learn from each other"??
You know what? I also like apple pie and I am happy to share it with nice people, especially kindly mothers. But I don't use this insight as a philosophical code to unlock the world's problems.
The contrast between the two posts is very telling, and salutary, and not in the way you'd like. The Lib Dems are best put out of their misery and silly people like you need to wise up and find a new way of thinking, and voting.
We can all choose to go through life being selfish, materialistic, cynical and mistrusting; or we can go through life believing that the world can be a better place if we have love for our fellow man in our hearts.
The fact that you do not see this shows how little you understand of religion, despite having blogged on the subject.
Surely the world needs both dreamers and realists. They keep each other in check.
These days we have too many cynics masquerading as realists and too many dreamers dreaming yesterday's dreams.
It also reminds me of sad, fat, ageing, retired tampon-ad directors who claimed that Jimmy Savile's infant victims probably lied, or if they didn't lie, they probably enjoyed being raped. You are always so oddly keen to exonerate the child rapists.
Why is that?
Is this what PB has turned into? A pile of old men slinging paedo allegations at each other?
I wonder how long before Mike bans all discussion of child abuse on PB. I'll go;
Before Friday: Evens Next week: 3/1 After that: 3/1
their hands.
Well, UKIP have campaigned vigorously on this issue. Alone.
John Bickley in the H & M by-election. Nigel Garage's conference speech. Numerous interventions by Jane Collins MEP. The South Yorkshire PCC election (Thread from OGH, to his credit)
I think UKIP will go for it again in the three Rotherham constituencies come GE2015.
Also, there many people in the doghouse anxious to earn brownie points:
BBC Roman Catholics The Press (Leveson)
On topic: does child abuse feature as a law and order topic in Ipsos/MORI?
From the Times, today (£££) - just catching up with it over supper.
"a confidential 2012 intelligence profile by West Mids police found that 75% of the region's suspected sex grooming offenders were of 'Asian ethnicity' and 82% of known victims were white girls aged 14-16"
This is a simply enormous, scaldingly controversial issue-of-the-day. The fact it hasn't *exploded* yet doesn't mean it won't.
And, of course, we may be seeing the political effects of this, vicariously, through the rise of UKIP.
Indeed I think Rotherham-gate, and associated problems, is a major factor behind UKIP's recent and apparently relentless ascent.
Someone ought to write a textbook on the psychology of those involved in the scandal, and why they put political considerations before tracking down criminals.
It's a classic coverup case. As long as the public don't find out, people feel free to do what they want to, our to look the other way. Or to make it more direct, if crime X is revealed you will lose votes Y, so you cover it up in the hope that it is not revealed and you become an accomplish in the crime, then if it is ever revealed you will lose votes 2xY so you have to try harder and harder to cover it up as the potential costs of coming clean keep rising until in the end the coverup collapses.
To make it simple, it's sweeping the problems under the carpet, in the hope no one notices.
Murphy has a real difficult task on his hands to beat Findlay in my opinion. He is going to have to try and kill the Blairite image of himself, as well as convincing MSPs that appointing a Westminster politician as Scottish Labour leader is a good idea.
I would expect Jim Murphy to be a very strong favourite now. Frankly the only issue I can see would be a commitment to leave Westminster and come to Holyrood.
If SLAB don't go for him the rumours of self harming will be confirmed.
There is a case to be made that we should run sound finances and let the markets deal with the rest, and also that the vulnerable in society must be made safe from predatory capitalists. There is also a case for a middle way with both extremes attenuated. It clearly is not your view, but it is one that remains quite a mainstream view in the UK. The LDs will return. At times of economic hardship and austerity the two extremes become more popular than the centre, but when these are over the centre will once again dominate politics.
Again and again on social matters, the Liberal Democrats stick to the idealistic utopian position that they criticise on economic matters. What then happens is the economic realists look around for other parties that are more socialy realistic, while the social utopians look for parties that are more economically utopian.
I think Utopian is a fair description of LibDems, and one of the reasons that at times they have found the difficult compromises of government so uncomfortable.
It is why I remain a LibDem at heart. I accept that I may be a little too idealistic, but I have seen how cynicism and materialism have damaged the fabric of British political and social life.
I even remain optomistic that the British public will see sense, turn its back on fear, suspiscion and xenophobia and start voting LD again (Though even I am not naive enough to expect this next May)!
Socrates' analysis is piercing, perceptive and cogent. Yours is just waffle. It is mellifluously meaningless when it isn't perniciously vapid - "different cultures can live side by side in harmony and learn from each other
The contrast between the two posts is very telling, and salutary, and not in the way you'd like. The Lib Dems are best put out of their misery and silly people like you need to wise up and find a new way of thinking, and voting.
We can all choose to go through life being selfish, materialistic, cynical and mistrusting; or we can go through life believing that the world can be a better place if we have love for our fellow man in our hearts.
The fact that you do not see this shows how little you understand of religion, despite having blogged on the subject.
Surely the world needs both dreamers and realists. They keep each other in check.
These days we have too many cynics masquerading as realists and too many dreamers dreaming yesterday's dreams.
And there is some truth to this. While there is a lot of fear, xenophobia and mistrust to the kipper manifesto, there also a hankering for yesterdays dreams, for a 1950's British Utopia.
There is a case to be made that we should run sound finances and let the markets deal with the rest, and also that the vulnerable in society must be made safe from predatory capitalists. There is also a case for a middle way with both extremes attenuated. It clearly is not your view, but it is one that remains quite a mainstream view in the UK. The LDs will return. At times of economic hardship and austerity the two extremes become more popular than the centre, but when these are over the centre will once again dominate politics.
Again and again on social matters, the Liberal Democrats stick to the idealistic utopian position that they criticise on economic matters. What then happens is the economic realists look around for other parties that are more socialy realistic, while the social utopians look for parties that are more economically utopian.
I think Utopian is a fair description of LibDems, and one of the reasons that at times they have found the difficult compromises of government so uncomfortable.
LibDems are essentially optomists at heart and believe in the inherent goodness of mankind: Wars can be stopped if we sit down and discuss our differences, with international bodies as mediators; Criminals can be reformed and remade as useful productive citizens; differing cultures can live side by side in harmony and learn from each other; the EU can provide a structure for the stability and economic development of europe and that the benefit to the UK outweighs the drawbacks.
It is why I remain a LibDem at heart. I accept that I may be a little too idealistic, but I have seen how cynicism and materialism have damaged the fabric of British political and social life.
I even remain optomistic that the British public will see sense, turn its back on fear, suspiscion and xenophobia and start voting LD again (Though even I am not naive enough to expect this next May)!
Socrates' analysis is piercing, perceptive and cogent. Yours is just waffle. It is mellifluously meaningless when it isn't perniciously vapid - "different cultures can live side by side in harmony and learn from each other"??
You know what? I also like apple pie and I am happy to share it with nice people, especially kindly mothers. But I don't use this insight as a philosophical code to unlock the world's problems.
The contrast between the two posts is very telling, and salutary, and not in the way you'd like. The Lib Dems are best put out of their misery and silly people like you need to wise up and find a new way of thinking, and voting.
Are you in North London tmrw eve? Going for a political beer
Comments
I'm at 4/5 tonight by the way.
Has the Briskmeister managed to put the fix in?
Has the Briskmeister managed to put the fix in?
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/527537790188548096
Hundreds of 'missing' children at risk in Greater Manchester
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-29814588
Higher social demographic will say Economy, lower demographic will say Jobs/Unemployment - two categories for the same thing.
EU and immigration is another one where the demography identifies the same issue but describes it in different ways.
Obvious age and wage related priorities - i.e the young don't care as much about healthcare as the elderly.
Curiously, the people least likely to mention the NHS are Labour voters. Surprising.
The Welsh don't mention the NHS more than the English or Scots, but they are much more likely to mention education and the economy.
Crime and unemployment much more likely to be mentioned by BME respondents, but immigration is half as frequently mentioned. That said, it's still an issue for 20%.
Current polling-4-5% average.
By elections-No impact
European Elections-Their vote went down
Last General election-Less than 1% of the vote
2015 Competitiveness-50/50 chance in 1 seat out of 650
Number of seats held- One, the same as George Galloway.
Maybe it's a conspiracy by the establishment I'm not aware of..
That being said, if the Tories 'head right', or if Labour ends up in thrall to the unions again, then a gap will open up again.
"A nice story, but it is completely at odds with the facts."
Mr Murali is quoting the left wing phrase book. The fascist running dogs and the capitalist hyenas always use the poor immigrant as a cover for eating babies.
Only when the workers own the means of production will the Ovalitinees reappear and dance for the delight of the masses. Or something like that.
The biggest threat is not terrorism, or Islam, the biggest threat has always been the state.
Over the history of mankind, people killed by their own governments outweighs deaths by religious fundemantalists 100,000-to-1, and war 10-to-1.
There is nothing more important than restricting the power of the state.
What about the history of modern democratic England? Do those ratios still hold up?
Although I agree keeping the state in check is the duty of all good citizens.
PS - I'd give a F who you are I'm fairly sure I'm more clever than you
No, the Lib Dem view of caring means caring to muggers, burglars and illegal immigrants. It makes marginally more sense than believing in liberal democracy and then supporting the EU but not much.
Apparently Briskin and co going live at 1955
Well it looks to me like UKIP got there first!
Choochters know their shotguns - people seem to want to whatever bluff that they k'now their Kurds
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty
Even I as a card-carrying leftie don't believe the Tories are so evil that they would deliberately screw over poor people and public services if there was some magic, cost-free way of achieving it. The issue is that they care more about sound finances and looking after the rich than they do about that caring society. Whereas I believe that, although I'd have no problem with sound finances as an additional extra, getting a caring soctety and strong public services should be the top priority. But some happy-clappy fantasy nonsense from the Lib Dems that it's possible to have the penny and the bun at the same time will rightly be laughed out of the room by the electorate.
Your leader may or may not have been a paper candidate and yet we always have to deal with so many words.
One wonders why we bother.
It's all negative.....
What he's left with is a social policy of "let's just be nice to everyone all the time". There's definitely a political constituency for that, but it's not the same political constituency that wants to be realistic about public finances. If you accept there are constraints and trade-offs to helping out everyone economically, you also do socially.
As I stated, It's an academic discussion...
B - [But the problem is "Sound finances" and a "caring society" contradict eachother] - Where would you like me to start?
But we will then see how tax cuts go down in Rotherham, and restoring the spare bedroom tax and protecting the NHS. Indeed I am rather looking forward to hearing Nuttal speak for the former and Carswell for the latter.
The mixture of the two is what the Ukippers love in debates.
I admit some of it's above my head.
PS - I watched PMQs today! Brisky points for anyone else who states the same on this thread.
Negative liberty is freedom from interference by other people. Negative liberty is primarily concerned with freedom from external restraint and contrasts with positive liberty (the possession of the power and resources to fulfill one's own potential)
Then I would be very much interested in how Government and political intervention is not considered interference and 'external restraint'?
Commie China - (yes, I did get this from someone from the Tv) - you don't starve to death, eveyone gets food - Now you see I've been taought to put that in the positive liberty bracket
Commie China _ totalatiran apparently.
PS - I think you are abusing the term social norms - I'm calling Kipper!!!!
- As you say, many of the public think the government has fixed things and that even if things aren't getting better now, they soon will.
- They cannot simply ignore the part they played in creating the situation that created the so-called 'crisis' in the first place. (Well, they can but the other parties won't).
- The scale of immigration - which they introduced and as far as I know, still back - is a major part of the rising rents, low wage increases and increased pressures on public services.
That's the Tory position.
Remember, Society is not the same thing as the State.
In any case, being populist in opposition is dead easy, as is playing different tunes in different parts of the country. The Lib Dems were past masters at it until the music finally stopped when they were holding the parcel.
Everyone know Brisky and Avery get it right every time.
Anything to say about the Fed decision today Charles?
And the belief in sound finances is what separates Labour and LDs.
Well I'm only winding you up to the extent that I believe associating the concepts of positive and negative liberty with contemporary establishment political parties and the way in which our government operates is a complete nonsense. Therefore from my perspective there is no debate academic or not to be had.
Evoking contemporary China does nothing to change that view. Nor does some spurious query regarding my use of the term 'social norms' or the gratuitous reference to the party of my choice. Sadly whilst you may or may not have a level of 'negative liberty' your partisan conditioning seems to have ensured you have virtually no positive liberty!
Obviously you have yet to evolve to a level of consciousness where you can comprehend such liberties!
Betfair offering 21/20 on Man City win.
I better check how my fix is going...
Who is in London tmrw evening? There is a meet!!
Here you go silly Scot football fans-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/football/29779614
Again and again on social matters, the Liberal Democrats stick to the idealistic utopian position that they criticise on economic matters. What then happens is the economic realists look around for other parties that are more socialy realistic, while the social utopians look for parties that are more economically utopian.
I bet it was the Daily Mail.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2811200/Partick-Thistle-defender-Jake-Carroll-forced-train-muscle-onesie-worst-performer-previous-sessions.html
Great to see
If only the Pb tories (and I ain't inclduding me! Tonight!) could live us to such high expectattions.
FIXING MATCHES AIN'T EASY
John Bickley in the H & M by-election.
Nigel Garage's conference speech.
Numerous interventions by Jane Collins MEP.
The South Yorkshire PCC election (Thread from OGH, to his credit)
I think UKIP will go for it again in the three Rotherham constituencies come GE2015.
Also, there many people in the doghouse anxious to earn brownie points:
BBC
Roman Catholics
The Press (Leveson)
This simply isn't going to go away politically. This wouldn't be much of a political site if it ignored the most explosive political topic of the day.
On topic: does child abuse feature as a law and order topic in Ipsos/MORI?
The good news for the Lib Dems is that the party's own voters are now very close to the types of views Clegg (and Foxinsox) has -- the polls consistently show the remaining LIb Dem voters are fiscally conservative, while being more left-wing on the EU/immigration/the environment than any other party's voters. The bad news is that that fiscally conservative/socially liberal market is just very limited in this country. Most people who are in favour of deficit reduction being the top priority and in favour of good treatment for the super-rich, will also usually be socially conservative. On the other side, most people who are pro-EU and into tree-hugging will usually also be people who are outraged at the way the government has treated poor people and outraged at how the super-rich are getting away with murder. The socially conservative/economically left-wing mix remains the great untapped market of British politics.
Abuse figures in Manchester dwarf Rotherham by nearly a factor of 10
@C4Ciaran
"Abusers have avoided conviction in 12,000 child sex cases reported to police in Manchester over last six years. Shocking new stat. #c4news"
Labour are in deep Sh1t
Interesting to note that you are one of those who would walk on bye, Did I meet you or your relatives on a bus to Rainham in the seventies?
Anyone see Poch's excuse for our poor home form earlier? The WHL pitch is too small....
I can't disagree about it being very similar, it was a elderly Sikh gentleman and three skinheads mouthing off, but apart from that, pretty much the same..
Proper Nawty in those days.
Then I became an accountant and went all right wing!
LibDems are essentially optomists at heart and believe in the inherent goodness of mankind: Wars can be stopped if we sit down and discuss our differences, with international bodies as mediators; Criminals can be reformed and remade as useful productive citizens; differing cultures can live side by side in harmony and learn from each other; the EU can provide a structure for the stability and economic development of europe and that the benefit to the UK outweighs the drawbacks.
It is why I remain a LibDem at heart. I accept that I may be a little too idealistic, but I have seen how cynicism and materialism have damaged the fabric of British political and social life.
I even remain optomistic that the British public will see sense, turn its back on fear, suspiscion and xenophobia and start voting LD again (Though even I am not naive enough to expect this next May)!
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/10/29/frankie-boyle-nigel-farage-andrew-lawrence-_n_6066256.html?1414574643
You can quote me on that.
As for Brisky fixing the football?
Well, It's something to do...
Nae happy time yet
I must mean happy hour.
My style guide would probably say two anyway.
Reminder. Next PB gathering Friday Nov 21 - the day after Rochester.
http://www.dirtydicks.co.uk/Usual place - Dirty Dicks opposite Liverpool Street station London from 1830
Everyone says that elections can only be won from the centre, however that is because historically the working class and lower middle class (C1+C2 and D) have always been divided between Labour and the Tories.
A party that can unite C1, C2 and D need not worry about A, B and E.
You'll have to let me know when it happens -I don't think I'll notice.
The Ilkley and Manchester ones only had about 12 and 10 PBers respectively.
Should be fun.
They won't. People are animals not computers, for many, especially for relatively inconsequential decisions then they can be persuaded that logic is a useful decision tool. But not the big ones, career choice, which house to buy, who to mate with, things affecting their offspring (eg school choice) and anything on the outside world that impinges on their family.
Who gets to run the country is one of those big decisions and the voters use instinct in the polling station.
Its also the reason why rabid socialist MPs end up conducting intellectual contortions to justify their sprogs going to private schools.
ohhhh
"Scottish Labour leadership: MP Jim Murphy joins contest."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29826513
The fact that you do not see this shows how little you understand of religion, despite having blogged on the subject.
These days we have too many cynics masquerading as realists and too many dreamers dreaming yesterday's dreams.
As long as the public don't find out, people feel free to do what they want to, our to look the other way.
Or to make it more direct, if crime X is revealed you will lose votes Y, so you cover it up in the hope that it is not revealed and you become an accomplish in the crime, then if it is ever revealed you will lose votes 2xY so you have to try harder and harder to cover it up as the potential costs of coming clean keep rising until in the end the coverup collapses.
To make it simple, it's sweeping the problems under the carpet, in the hope no one notices.
(1) Do we think these 46 letters will be forthcoming after the Tories lose Rochester?
(2) Will there be any further Tory > UKIP MP defections?
If SLAB don't go for him the rumours of self harming will be confirmed.
On no.2 everyone is anticipating it.
The european arrest warrant doesn't help as it provides for an excuse for those two things to occur even easier.