I’d be interested in whichever candidate bravely advocated the core tenants of Liberalism from first principles. Really adding something very important to the national debate.
No?
Me neither.
Unfortunately the constituency for that in Britain is like 3 dudes and a dog named Albert
Its one of the things the public might say it wants but doesnt, like politicians cooperating
Just a gut feeling, but I suspect that Davey would go down better with Scottish Lib Dem voters than Moran. Does anyone have any inside info on how the SLDs are planning to vote?
'The general election left the party with just 11 MPs even though its national vote share was up markedly. Of those who were elected the male-female split is 4-7 making it the first national party to have women in the majority in its parliamentary party.'
The Greens may feel this does them less than justice, of course.
Is the Green Party of England and Wales a “national party”? No S, no NI.
Is the Liberal Democratic Party a “national party”? No NI.
Fair point on the NI, in which case only the Tories are (UK)national as they did stand some candidates in NI?
'The general election left the party with just 11 MPs even though its national vote share was up markedly. Of those who were elected the male-female split is 4-7 making it the first national party to have women in the majority in its parliamentary party.'
The Greens may feel this does them less than justice, of course.
Is the Green Party of England and Wales a “national party”? No S, no NI.
Is the Liberal Democratic Party a “national party”? No NI.
By that logic there is only one national party.
As the Greens are in alliance with parties in Scotland and Northern Ireland - like the Liberal Democrats and Labour are in a looser structure with parties in Northern Ireland - and would undoubtedly caucus together if any were elected, I think you are splitting hairs somewhat there.
Well, as the SNP are in alliance with Plaid, and more informally with the English Greens and the SDLP, are we a British national party too? I think not.
Oooh, there's such an easy pun I could make there...
But planning calls!
I set you up with a beautiful lob in front of an open goal, and you decline to thump the ball home. Jolly poor show.
Perhaps he just felt it would be impolite to suggest that the SNP bore any resemblance to some kind of BNP-lite ? Even in the service of a pun.
My only dip into this market so far was an early £3 bet on Wera Hobhouse at Betfair odds of 143. Luckily I was able to lay £2 of it off after she'd withdrawn, at 140. So I'm in for a loss of £1.
I think I can hide that when I make my quarterly report to She Who Must Be Obeyed, so it shouldn't threaten the renewal of my licence to engage in political betting.
The question is: should I punt on Ed Davey? Ladbrokes' 2.20 looks quite attractive.
How are you going to hide from her your losses investment in the Farr Vintners sale which has just launched?
That's a tricky one. Normally I get the stuff delivered to my office so I can bring it home and sneak it into the cellar at an opportune moment. Can't do that during lockdown.
Of course, that hasn't stopped me dipping into the 2019 En Primeurs...
Bl**dy tempting I agree although some of the drinking windows leave me profoundly depressed!!
Have either candidate gone into what it means to be a Liberal?
Have either candidate gone into what makes them different than moderate Labour/Tories?
Given that the word liberal in terms of politics has a different meaning in every country, I'm sure both candidates type of liberalism fits in somewhere.
That's why I said it would be interesting to know what they mean as "liberal".
I am a liberal who votes Conservative but my views of liberalism can be quite different to other people's definitions. I've been tempted by the yellows in the past, especially when the Tories had illiberal leaders (not now thankfully) but in recent years liberalism seems to have vanished from the LDs philosophy as its all become about Europe instead.
It would be good to know what both candidates thinks it means to be liberal.
Have either candidate gone into what it means to be a Liberal?
Have either candidate gone into what makes them different than moderate Labour/Tories?
Gosh - wouldn`t that be wonderful. Be still my beating heart.
Challenge for you (or anyone) if not too big a faff -
A concise description of what "liberalism" means - avoiding 'motherhood and apple pie' sentiments which no person of sound mind and good character could take issue with.
Of the four ideologies, liberalism is the easiest to define.
Liberals believe that the individual is the unit of importance. Not the nation , not a collective, not tradition – the individual. Liberals priorities two things: freedom and equality.
Freedom: Each individual is the best author of his/her own life. Liberals seek to minimise coercion by the state and by societal pressures and they encourage and applaud diversity and eccentricity. Individuals should be free to live their lives in the way that they want without restriction – right up until the point that they do harm to others. At this point, and at this point only, their freedom stops. This clearly differentiates liberals from collectivists, who see the world as groups of individuals (e.g. women, black people, LGBT people etc) rather than regarding individuals as entities in themselves with rights and a wide range of civil liberties. Freedom of speech and many other freedoms are essential to liberals.
Equality: all individuals are equal. Equality here means equality before the law, equality of status and equality of opportunity. Not equality of outcome. Liberals are never snobbish towards others and, likewise, do not doff their caps to others. Liberals are often, but not always, republicans and, I`d say, tend to be athiest. They are not patriotic – at least not in the way conservatives tend to be. Unlike conservatives, liberals are forward-looking and do not defer to tradition. Many liberals are environmentalists.
On the right/left axis, liberals range from mildly left wing to mildly right wing. Liberals are defined by prioritising individual liberty (freedom) rather than how right or left wing they are.
In summary, liberalism is all about individual flourishment, free from arbitrary custom and popular morality. Autonomy over one`s own life with only minimal state interference is vital for an individual to be free. Individuals are an entity in themselves, not seen as part of a collective.
How`s that for an attempt at short notice? Maybe not concise enough for you?
Just a gut feeling, but I suspect that Davey would go down better with Scottish Lib Dem voters than Moran. Does anyone have any inside info on how the SLDs are planning to vote?
The Lib Dems must be to the right of Labour, so they pick up seats that won't vote Labour.
Competing with Labour on the left is moronic.
Competing with the Tories on the right makes no sense at all for the Lib Dems, people on the right will vote for the real thing. The mindset of a Tory voter is one that knows he or she is going against the liberal consensus, they already know that their liberal friends are going to hate them so why go to a halfway house?
The Lib Dems are better forgotten because they are neither liberal nor democratic. I'd welcome the return of the old Liberal Party but the current Lib Dems are a disgrace to the name.
Have either candidate gone into what it means to be a Liberal? Have either candidate gone into what makes them different than moderate Labour/Tories?
Moderate Labour and most certainly moderate Tories are almost certainly in the wrong party.
I was. Took a relapse whilst in a terrible mental state back in April to cement that
Are you back in the yellows or reds now? I'm confused.
Yellows. Under a massive depressive cloud I listened to the people telling me to rejoin the reds and wage war against the Trots. So abruptly quit the LibDems and applied to rejoin Labour. Which prompted a massive shit storm in the CLP and my application was rejected and rightly so.
Its only as the shit storm was raging that it was clear that my time in Labour really was done. I'm not a socialist, don't identify any longer with the state control ask the unions approach. My local LibDems are nice people, they understood my relapse, I've been welcomed back. I should have stood my ground and stuck with what I had started - but I genuinely went a little crazy through April and craved any kind of old world normal. When you are climbing the walls and feeling trapped, you make daft decisions. Mine was abruptly to try and rejoin Labour.
You didn't need to wage war actively against the far left. You just needed to turn up to vote in parliamentary selection meetings and ward councillor selections, and vote in key ballots such as NEC elections. You could choose where you put your efforts in selecting how and where you campaigned if you wanted to be active. Control of your CLP means very little by itself so there really wasn't any need to turn up and indulge the far left.
My only dip into this market so far was an early £3 bet on Wera Hobhouse at Betfair odds of 143. Luckily I was able to lay £2 of it off after she'd withdrawn, at 140. So I'm in for a loss of £1.
I think I can hide that when I make my quarterly report to She Who Must Be Obeyed, so it shouldn't threaten the renewal of my licence to engage in political betting.
The question is: should I punt on Ed Davey? Ladbrokes' 2.20 looks quite attractive.
How are you going to hide from her your losses investment in the Farr Vintners sale which has just launched?
That's a tricky one. Normally I get the stuff delivered to my office so I can bring it home and sneak it into the cellar at an opportune moment. Can't do that during lockdown.
Of course, that hasn't stopped me dipping into the 2019 En Primeurs...
Bl**dy tempting I agree although some of the drinking windows leave me profoundly depressed!!
Yes, at my age the top left bank ones are actuarially ruled out. I've been going for some of the lesser ones and the right bank. Hot tip: La Gaffelière is absolutely singing at the moment; we visited the château just before the vintage last year and we were hugely impressed both by the operation and the wines. The critics seem to agree, but it's still under the radar (relatively speaking).
Just a gut feeling, but I suspect that Davey would go down better with Scottish Lib Dem voters than Moran. Does anyone have any inside info on how the SLDs are planning to vote?
I honk Moran would go down better, she gives woke Scottish people a unionist place to vote, at the moment a woke Scottish person is voting for the SNP, there is no other choice. Moran gives unionists that voice in Scotland that Ruth used to be an outlet for.
'The general election left the party with just 11 MPs even though its national vote share was up markedly. Of those who were elected the male-female split is 4-7 making it the first national party to have women in the majority in its parliamentary party.'
The Greens may feel this does them less than justice, of course.
Is the Green Party of England and Wales a “national party”? No S, no NI.
Is the Liberal Democratic Party a “national party”? No NI.
By that logic there is only one national party.
As the Greens are in alliance with parties in Scotland and Northern Ireland - like the Liberal Democrats and Labour are in a looser structure with parties in Northern Ireland - and would undoubtedly caucus together if any were elected, I think you are splitting hairs somewhat there.
Well, as the SNP are in alliance with Plaid, and more informally with the English Greens and the SDLP, are we a British national party too? I think not.
Oooh, there's such an easy pun I could make there...
But planning calls!
I set you up with a beautiful lob in front of an open goal, and you decline to thump the ball home. Jolly poor show.
Perhaps he just felt it would be impolite to suggest that the SNP bore any resemblance to some kind of BNP-lite ? Even in the service of a pun.
I didnt think there was anything ydoethur would not do for a pun. He may be unwell.
Have either candidate gone into what it means to be a Liberal?
Have either candidate gone into what makes them different than moderate Labour/Tories?
Gosh - wouldn`t that be wonderful. Be still my beating heart.
Challenge for you (or anyone) if not too big a faff -
A concise description of what "liberalism" means - avoiding 'motherhood and apple pie' sentiments which no person of sound mind and good character could take issue with.
Of the four ideologies, liberalism is the easiest to define.
Liberals believe that the individual is the unit of importance. Not the nation , not a collective, not tradition – the individual. Liberals priorities two things: freedom and equality.
Freedom: Each individual is the best author of his/her own life. Liberals seek to minimise coercion by the state and by societal pressures and they encourage and applaud diversity and eccentricity. Individuals should be free to live their lives in the way that they want without restriction – right up until the point that they do harm to others. At this point, and at this point only, their freedom stops. This clearly differentiates liberals from collectivists, who see the world as groups of individuals (e.g. women, black people, LGBT people etc) rather than regarding individuals as entities in themselves with rights and a wide range of civil liberties. Freedom of speech and many other freedoms are essential to liberals.
Equality: all individuals are equal. Equality here means equality before the law, equality of status and equality of opportunity. Not equality of outcome. Liberals are never snobbish towards others and, likewise, do not doff their caps to others. Liberals are often, but not always, republicans and, I`d say, tend to be athiest. They are not patriotic – at least not in the way conservatives tend to be. Unlike conservatives, liberals are forward-looking and do not defer to tradition. Many liberals are environmentalists.
On the right/left axis, liberals range from mildly left wing to mildly right wing. Liberals are defined by prioritising individual liberty (freedom) rather than how right or left wing they are.
In summary, liberalism is all about individual flourishment, free from arbitrary custom and popular morality. Autonomy over one`s own life with only minimal state interference is vital for an individual to be free. Individuals are an entity in themselves, not seen as part of a collective.
How`s that for an attempt at short notice? Maybe not concise enough for you?
I believe in and agree with all of this definition.
Though I don't consider myself "mildly right wing" economically, that is my only exception. I consider myself very right wing economically but otherwise 100% agree with you. Right down to being an atheist, a republic and believing in environmentalism.
The Lib Dems must be to the right of Labour, so they pick up seats that won't vote Labour.
Competing with Labour on the left is moronic.
Competing with the Tories on the right makes no sense at all for the Lib Dems, people on the right will vote for the real thing. The mindset of a Tory voter is one that knows he or she is going against the liberal consensus, they already know that their liberal friends are going to hate them so why go to a halfway house?
The Lib Dems are better forgotten because they are neither liberal nor democratic. I'd welcome the return of the old Liberal Party but the current Lib Dems are a disgrace to the name.
In seats like Cheltenham, Cities of London and Westminster, Surrey SW, Wokingham, Esher and Walton, Guildford etc, the electorate are mostly centre right economically ie Labour never won there but they also voted Remain.
That is the LD target audience, Tory Remainers, particularly if we go to WTO terms Brexit
That's pretty poor for Labour after months of Boris and Dom completely fucking up in the virus and everything else.
Agreed. I’m beginning to wonder if I (and in fairness many others) have been over-rating Keir Starmer? Compared to Corbyn he’s a superstar, but in absolute terms he’s still pretty mediocre.
That Lib Dem figure of 6 MPs is truly horrific: Baxter predicts them losing all 4 of their Scottish MPs. And yet another SCon wipeout (-6). The only non-SNP MP would be Ian Murray in my “home” constituency of Edinburgh South.
Sir Keir's problem is that he's up against Boris - an alchemist who can turn base metal into gold. But we're unlikely to see that kind of genius again. Post-Boris, I can't see the party that the Tories have become being remotely electable.
Have either candidate gone into what it means to be a Liberal?
Have either candidate gone into what makes them different than moderate Labour/Tories?
Gosh - wouldn`t that be wonderful. Be still my beating heart.
Challenge for you (or anyone) if not too big a faff -
A concise description of what "liberalism" means - avoiding 'motherhood and apple pie' sentiments which no person of sound mind and good character could take issue with.
Of the four ideologies, liberalism is the easiest to define.
Liberals believe that the individual is the unit of importance. Not the nation , not a collective, not tradition – the individual. Liberals priorities two things: freedom and equality.
Freedom: Each individual is the best author of his/her own life. Liberals seek to minimise coercion by the state and by societal pressures and they encourage and applaud diversity and eccentricity. Individuals should be free to live their lives in the way that they want without restriction – right up until the point that they do harm to others. At this point, and at this point only, their freedom stops. This clearly differentiates liberals from collectivists, who see the world as groups of individuals (e.g. women, black people, LGBT people etc) rather than regarding individuals as entities in themselves with rights and a wide range of civil liberties. Freedom of speech and many other freedoms are essential to liberals.
Equality: all individuals are equal. Equality here means equality before the law, equality of status and equality of opportunity. Not equality of outcome. Liberals are never snobbish towards others and, likewise, do not doff their caps to others. Liberals are often, but not always, republicans and, I`d say, tend to be athiest. They are not patriotic – at least not in the way conservatives tend to be. Unlike conservatives, liberals are forward-looking and do not defer to tradition. Many liberals are environmentalists.
On the right/left axis, liberals range from mildly left wing to mildly right wing. Liberals are defined by prioritising individual liberty (freedom) rather than how right or left wing they are.
In summary, liberalism is all about individual flourishment, free from arbitrary custom and popular morality. Autonomy over one`s own life with only minimal state interference is vital for an individual to be free. Individuals are an entity in themselves, not seen as part of a collective.
How`s that for an attempt at short notice? Maybe not concise enough for you?
Doesn't liberal mean, 80% of the time, "people like me"?
'The general election left the party with just 11 MPs even though its national vote share was up markedly. Of those who were elected the male-female split is 4-7 making it the first national party to have women in the majority in its parliamentary party.'
The Greens may feel this does them less than justice, of course.
Is the Green Party of England and Wales a “national party”? No S, no NI.
Is the Liberal Democratic Party a “national party”? No NI.
By that logic there is only one national party.
As the Greens are in alliance with parties in Scotland and Northern Ireland - like the Liberal Democrats and Labour are in a looser structure with parties in Northern Ireland - and would undoubtedly caucus together if any were elected, I think you are splitting hairs somewhat there.
Well, as the SNP are in alliance with Plaid, and more informally with the English Greens and the SDLP, are we a British national party too? I think not.
Oooh, there's such an easy pun I could make there...
But planning calls!
I set you up with a beautiful lob in front of an open goal, and you decline to thump the ball home. Jolly poor show.
Perhaps he just felt it would be impolite to suggest that the SNP bore any resemblance to some kind of BNP-lite ? Even in the service of a pun.
I didnt think there was anything ydoethur would not do for a pun. He may be unwell.
Have either candidate gone into what it means to be a Liberal? Have either candidate gone into what makes them different than moderate Labour/Tories?
Moderate Labour and most certainly moderate Tories are almost certainly in the wrong party.
I was. Took a relapse whilst in a terrible mental state back in April to cement that
Are you back in the yellows or reds now? I'm confused.
Yellows. Under a massive depressive cloud I listened to the people telling me to rejoin the reds and wage war against the Trots. So abruptly quit the LibDems and applied to rejoin Labour. Which prompted a massive shit storm in the CLP and my application was rejected and rightly so.
Its only as the shit storm was raging that it was clear that my time in Labour really was done. I'm not a socialist, don't identify any longer with the state control ask the unions approach. My local LibDems are nice people, they understood my relapse, I've been welcomed back. I should have stood my ground and stuck with what I had started - but I genuinely went a little crazy through April and craved any kind of old world normal. When you are climbing the walls and feeling trapped, you make daft decisions. Mine was abruptly to try and rejoin Labour.
You didn't need to wage war actively against the far left. You just needed to turn up to vote in parliamentary selection meetings and ward councillor selections, and vote in key ballots such as NEC elections. You could choose where you put your efforts in selecting how and where you campaigned if you wanted to be active. Control of your CLP means very little by itself so there really wasn't any need to turn up and indulge the far left.
Oh yes I did. The lunatics still infest the asylum. They are a cancerous growth on the body politic that needs zapping. As I didn't really have much interest in Labour politics all that I had was some good friends and war with loonies.
After losing to Jo Swinson in 2019 it seems Davey will win the leadership this time.
Given Norman Lamb lost to Tim Farron in 2015 it would be the first time the more liberal rather than social democrat candidate has won since Nick Clegg
And Clegg, as we all know, was a roaring success, taking the party from 60-odd seats to 8.
In 2010 though Clegg won over 50 seats and 23% of the vote and became Deputy PM
The Lib Dems must be to the right of Labour, so they pick up seats that won't vote Labour.
Competing with Labour on the left is moronic.
Competing with the Tories on the right makes no sense at all for the Lib Dems, people on the right will vote for the real thing. The mindset of a Tory voter is one that knows he or she is going against the liberal consensus, they already know that their liberal friends are going to hate them so why go to a halfway house?
The Lib Dems are better forgotten because they are neither liberal nor democratic. I'd welcome the return of the old Liberal Party but the current Lib Dems are a disgrace to the name.
The Lib Dems fucking well better be liberal - I agree - I think Davey will bring them back. let`s not forget that a lot of people ARE liberal. LibDems have lost their way, I agree. If a Liberal Party (not LibDem) candidate stood in my constituency he/she would get my vote if Moran becomes LibDem leader.
My only dip into this market so far was an early £3 bet on Wera Hobhouse at Betfair odds of 143. Luckily I was able to lay £2 of it off after she'd withdrawn, at 140. So I'm in for a loss of £1.
I think I can hide that when I make my quarterly report to She Who Must Be Obeyed, so it shouldn't threaten the renewal of my licence to engage in political betting.
The question is: should I punt on Ed Davey? Ladbrokes' 2.20 looks quite attractive.
How are you going to hide from her your losses investment in the Farr Vintners sale which has just launched?
That's a tricky one. Normally I get the stuff delivered to my office so I can bring it home and sneak it into the cellar at an opportune moment. Can't do that during lockdown.
Of course, that hasn't stopped me dipping into the 2019 En Primeurs...
Bl**dy tempting I agree although some of the drinking windows leave me profoundly depressed!!
Yes, at my age the top left bank ones are actuarially ruled out. I've been going for some of the lesser ones and the right bank. Hot tip: La Gaffelière is absolutely singing at the moment; we visited the château just before the vintage last year and we were hugely impressed both by the operation and the wines. The critics seem to agree, but it's still under the radar (relatively speaking).
Thanks and yep I've seen it come up I'll take another look.
Just a gut feeling, but I suspect that Davey would go down better with Scottish Lib Dem voters than Moran. Does anyone have any inside info on how the SLDs are planning to vote?
I honk Moran would go down better, she gives woke Scottish people a unionist place to vote, at the moment a woke Scottish person is voting for the SNP, there is no other choice. Moran gives unionists that voice in Scotland that Ruth used to be an outlet for.
I think you’re over-analysing there.
Quite frankly, the SLDs just want to feel good about themselves again. To drop the guilt of horrific underperformance, over many years. Davey strikes me as being a bit more bright and breezy. Moran is too earnest and serious and thoughtful. They don’t want a thinker, they want a smiler.
That's pretty poor for Labour after months of Boris and Dom completely fucking up in the virus and everything else.
Agreed. I’m beginning to wonder if I (and in fairness many others) have been over-rating Keir Starmer? Compared to Corbyn he’s a superstar, but in absolute terms he’s still pretty mediocre.
That Lib Dem figure of 6 MPs is truly horrific: Baxter predicts them losing all 4 of their Scottish MPs. And yet another SCon wipeout (-6). The only non-SNP MP would be Ian Murray in my “home” constituency of Edinburgh South.
Sir Keir's problem is that he's up against Boris - an alchemist who can turn base metal into gold. But we're unlikely to see that kind of genius again. Post-Boris, I can't see the party that the Tories have become being remotely electable.
UKIP were an electoral disaster. I can’t see UKIP-lite doing much better.
Have either candidate gone into what it means to be a Liberal?
Have either candidate gone into what makes them different than moderate Labour/Tories?
Gosh - wouldn`t that be wonderful. Be still my beating heart.
Challenge for you (or anyone) if not too big a faff -
A concise description of what "liberalism" means - avoiding 'motherhood and apple pie' sentiments which no person of sound mind and good character could take issue with.
Of the four ideologies, liberalism is the easiest to define.
Liberals believe that the individual is the unit of importance. Not the nation , not a collective, not tradition – the individual. Liberals priorities two things: freedom and equality.
Freedom: Each individual is the best author of his/her own life. Liberals seek to minimise coercion by the state and by societal pressures and they encourage and applaud diversity and eccentricity. Individuals should be free to live their lives in the way that they want without restriction – right up until the point that they do harm to others. At this point, and at this point only, their freedom stops. This clearly differentiates liberals from collectivists, who see the world as groups of individuals (e.g. women, black people, LGBT people etc) rather than regarding individuals as entities in themselves with rights and a wide range of civil liberties. Freedom of speech and many other freedoms are essential to liberals.
Equality: all individuals are equal. Equality here means equality before the law, equality of status and equality of opportunity. Not equality of outcome. Liberals are never snobbish towards others and, likewise, do not doff their caps to others. Liberals are often, but not always, republicans and, I`d say, tend to be athiest. They are not patriotic – at least not in the way conservatives tend to be. Unlike conservatives, liberals are forward-looking and do not defer to tradition. Many liberals are environmentalists.
On the right/left axis, liberals range from mildly left wing to mildly right wing. Liberals are defined by prioritising individual liberty (freedom) rather than how right or left wing they are.
In summary, liberalism is all about individual flourishment, free from arbitrary custom and popular morality. Autonomy over one`s own life with only minimal state interference is vital for an individual to be free. Individuals are an entity in themselves, not seen as part of a collective.
How`s that for an attempt at short notice? Maybe not concise enough for you?
Doesn't liberal mean, 80% of the time, "people like me"?
People can have a tendency to use it to mean 'good'
'The general election left the party with just 11 MPs even though its national vote share was up markedly. Of those who were elected the male-female split is 4-7 making it the first national party to have women in the majority in its parliamentary party.'
The Greens may feel this does them less than justice, of course.
Is the Green Party of England and Wales a “national party”? No S, no NI.
Is the Liberal Democratic Party a “national party”? No NI.
By that logic there is only one national party.
As the Greens are in alliance with parties in Scotland and Northern Ireland - like the Liberal Democrats and Labour are in a looser structure with parties in Northern Ireland - and would undoubtedly caucus together if any were elected, I think you are splitting hairs somewhat there.
Well, as the SNP are in alliance with Plaid, and more informally with the English Greens and the SDLP, are we a British national party too? I think not.
Oooh, there's such an easy pun I could make there...
But planning calls!
I set you up with a beautiful lob in front of an open goal, and you decline to thump the ball home. Jolly poor show.
Perhaps he just felt it would be impolite to suggest that the SNP bore any resemblance to some kind of BNP-lite ?
There's an absolute tonne of possible paths for Biden. Perhaps Maine would be in play if the GOP were on the up this time round perhaps, but I don't think Biden will lose any Clinton states.
Have either candidate gone into what it means to be a Liberal?
Have either candidate gone into what makes them different than moderate Labour/Tories?
Gosh - wouldn`t that be wonderful. Be still my beating heart.
Challenge for you (or anyone) if not too big a faff -
A concise description of what "liberalism" means - avoiding 'motherhood and apple pie' sentiments which no person of sound mind and good character could take issue with.
Of the four ideologies, liberalism is the easiest to define.
Liberals believe that the individual is the unit of importance. Not the nation , not a collective, not tradition – the individual. Liberals priorities two things: freedom and equality.
Freedom: Each individual is the best author of his/her own life. Liberals seek to minimise coercion by the state and by societal pressures and they encourage and applaud diversity and eccentricity. Individuals should be free to live their lives in the way that they want without restriction – right up until the point that they do harm to others. At this point, and at this point only, their freedom stops. This clearly differentiates liberals from collectivists, who see the world as groups of individuals (e.g. women, black people, LGBT people etc) rather than regarding individuals as entities in themselves with rights and a wide range of civil liberties. Freedom of speech and many other freedoms are essential to liberals.
Equality: all individuals are equal. Equality here means equality before the law, equality of status and equality of opportunity. Not equality of outcome. Liberals are never snobbish towards others and, likewise, do not doff their caps to others. Liberals are often, but not always, republicans and, I`d say, tend to be athiest. They are not patriotic – at least not in the way conservatives tend to be. Unlike conservatives, liberals are forward-looking and do not defer to tradition. Many liberals are environmentalists.
On the right/left axis, liberals range from mildly left wing to mildly right wing. Liberals are defined by prioritising individual liberty (freedom) rather than how right or left wing they are.
In summary, liberalism is all about individual flourishment, free from arbitrary custom and popular morality. Autonomy over one`s own life with only minimal state interference is vital for an individual to be free. Individuals are an entity in themselves, not seen as part of a collective.
How`s that for an attempt at short notice? Maybe not concise enough for you?
That's very good. You MUST have had that already on your floppy.
It passes my test (mainly) because I can pick out some bits and say I do NOT believe this myself. But let's not do that now.
One follow up. What's the key difference iyo between what you've said makes a liberal and people who ID as "libertarians"?
Isn't the whole point of whack-a-mole that when you bash one back another pops up? I'm not sure that's quite what the government should be trying to achieve.
Isn't the whole point of whack-a-mole that when you bash one back another pops up? I'm not sure that's quite what the government should be trying to achieve.
A more valid criticism of the metaphor than faux outrage it is not sufficiently serious. However, as more are expected it is accurate I imagine and thus understandable.
I’d be interested in whichever candidate bravely advocated the core tenants of Liberalism from first principles. Really adding something very important to the national debate.
No?
Me neither.
Unfortunately the constituency for that in Britain is like 3 dudes and a dog named Albert
Its one of the things the public might say it wants but doesnt, like politicians cooperating
The Lib Dems must be to the right of Labour, so they pick up seats that won't vote Labour.
Competing with Labour on the left is moronic.
Spot on.
It is not impossible for a 3rd party to win seats off the opposition (as the SNP showed in 2015) but the path of least resistance is to win seats off the Government.
If you look at the LD target list 26 out of the top 30 targets are Con held, 2 Lab, 1 Plaid, 1 SNP
Another point to make is about the candidates themselves. Davey comes across a as a genial chap. Moran comes across as a bit kooky and I could see her backstory becoming a major campaign issue (remember Farron and abortion)
Prediction: If Davey wins then with a fair wind the LDs could win 25 seats and be on the road back to relevance. If Moran wins the LDs will struggle and end up merging with the Greens
You are absurd and I dont even believe you are genuinely outraged by a metaphor by a politician or that your example can be equated. At best he could have used different words, but dont try and pretend this pearl clutching mawkishness at every utterance is real, I respect your intellect enough not to believe that.
Have either candidate gone into what it means to be a Liberal?
Have either candidate gone into what makes them different than moderate Labour/Tories?
Gosh - wouldn`t that be wonderful. Be still my beating heart.
Challenge for you (or anyone) if not too big a faff -
A concise description of what "liberalism" means - avoiding 'motherhood and apple pie' sentiments which no person of sound mind and good character could take issue with.
Of the four ideologies, liberalism is the easiest to define.
Liberals believe that the individual is the unit of importance. Not the nation , not a collective, not tradition – the individual. Liberals priorities two things: freedom and equality.
Freedom: Each individual is the best author of his/her own life. Liberals seek to minimise coercion by the state and by societal pressures and they encourage and applaud diversity and eccentricity. Individuals should be free to live their lives in the way that they want without restriction – right up until the point that they do harm to others. At this point, and at this point only, their freedom stops. This clearly differentiates liberals from collectivists, who see the world as groups of individuals (e.g. women, black people, LGBT people etc) rather than regarding individuals as entities in themselves with rights and a wide range of civil liberties. Freedom of speech and many other freedoms are essential to liberals.
Equality: all individuals are equal. Equality here means equality before the law, equality of status and equality of opportunity. Not equality of outcome. Liberals are never snobbish towards others and, likewise, do not doff their caps to others. Liberals are often, but not always, republicans and, I`d say, tend to be athiest. They are not patriotic – at least not in the way conservatives tend to be. Unlike conservatives, liberals are forward-looking and do not defer to tradition. Many liberals are environmentalists.
On the right/left axis, liberals range from mildly left wing to mildly right wing. Liberals are defined by prioritising individual liberty (freedom) rather than how right or left wing they are.
In summary, liberalism is all about individual flourishment, free from arbitrary custom and popular morality. Autonomy over one`s own life with only minimal state interference is vital for an individual to be free. Individuals are an entity in themselves, not seen as part of a collective.
How`s that for an attempt at short notice? Maybe not concise enough for you?
I believe in and agree with all of this definition.
Though I don't consider myself "mildly right wing" economically, that is my only exception. I consider myself very right wing economically but otherwise 100% agree with you....
That is perhaps the difference between a liberal and a libertarian ?
Have either candidate gone into what it means to be a Liberal? Have either candidate gone into what makes them different than moderate Labour/Tories?
Moderate Labour and most certainly moderate Tories are almost certainly in the wrong party.
No, not if they want a moderate government.
If you want a moderate left wing government go Labour, if you want a moderate right wing government go Tory. Abandoning those parties leads to them being taken up with the Corbynistas/HYUFDs of this world.
Thankfully right now both major parties seem to be headed by moderates
Dominic Cummings is a moderate? I hope for your sake he doesn't come across that comment. He'll be livid.
Dominics Cummings isn't a Conservative. He's not heading the party, Johnson is and Johnson is a moderate.
OK - he's not heading the party, this is true.
Boris Johnson, I agree, is a "moderate" in the sense that he is not wedded - either intellectually or emotionally - to a right wing ideology.
See how carefully and deftly I have phrased this (about Johnson) so as to agree with your statement but at the same time hint at an underlying and important disagreement?
But the main point I wish to make - make again rather since I mentioned it yesterday - is how fabulous it is to see "Johnson" instead of "Boris" now flowing from your pen. Some think this is trivial but I do not. It adds much gravitas to posts from Johnson supporters when they use his surname. Also it's still just a small minority who do this, so they stand out.
To be fair I don't consciously choose either. He is Boris and he is Johnson, you know who I mean either way and I don't particularly care at all. Its really not an issue that bothers me whatsoever.
That's my exact point. I sense that "Johnson" is starting to flow naturally from your pen without you having to think too much about it.
And it really does add something - certainly EYE appreciate it when I see "Johnson" rather than "Boris" in any notes that you write to me.
You are absurd and I dont even believe you are genuinely outraged by a metaphor by a politician or that your example can be equated. At best he could have used different words, but dont try and pretend this pearl clutching mawkishness at every utterance is real, I respect your intellect enough not to believe that.
Intellect??
He spends all night and day reposting tweets, where is the intelligence in that?
'The general election left the party with just 11 MPs even though its national vote share was up markedly. Of those who were elected the male-female split is 4-7 making it the first national party to have women in the majority in its parliamentary party.'
The Greens may feel this does them less than justice, of course.
Is the Green Party of England and Wales a “national party”? No S, no NI.
Is the Liberal Democratic Party a “national party”? No NI.
By that logic there is only one national party.
As the Greens are in alliance with parties in Scotland and Northern Ireland - like the Liberal Democrats and Labour are in a looser structure with parties in Northern Ireland - and would undoubtedly caucus together if any were elected, I think you are splitting hairs somewhat there.
Well, as the SNP are in alliance with Plaid, and more informally with the English Greens and the SDLP, are we a British national party too? I think not.
Oooh, there's such an easy pun I could make there...
But planning calls!
I set you up with a beautiful lob in front of an open goal, and you decline to thump the ball home. Jolly poor show.
Perhaps he just felt it would be impolite to suggest that the SNP bore any resemblance to some kind of BNP-lite ?
After losing to Jo Swinson in 2019 it seems Davey will win the leadership this time.
Given Norman Lamb lost to Tim Farron in 2015 it would be the first time the more liberal rather than social democrat candidate has won since Nick Clegg
And Clegg, as we all know, was a roaring success, taking the party from 60-odd seats to 8.
In 2010 though Clegg won over 50 seats and 23% of the vote and became Deputy PM
Right. How well did that go for him?
More broadly, I do find the whole left-wing/right-wing dialogue about the two Lib Dem candidates frustrating, because it ain't that simple.
The trick for the third party is not to be "more left" or "more right", it is to be distinct and compelling.
That does not mean putting up a uniform slate of policies to the left or right of Labour. It does not mean Moran saying "Labour is multilateralist so we must be unilateralist", or conversely Davey saying "Labour is pro-nationalisation so we must be pro-privatisation". And they both clearly know this, but unfortunately the debate is being framed in these rather sixth-form "more left-wing"/"less left-wing" terms, which does a disservice to both candidates.
I think Moran has a better chance of being distinct and compelling, not least because I can remember about half a dozen of her policies whereas all I can remember about Davey's is that he likes renewable energy. But whoever wins, they're not going to succeed just by defining the Lib Dems in relation to Labour.
Have either candidate gone into what it means to be a Liberal?
Have either candidate gone into what makes them different than moderate Labour/Tories?
Gosh - wouldn`t that be wonderful. Be still my beating heart.
Challenge for you (or anyone) if not too big a faff -
A concise description of what "liberalism" means - avoiding 'motherhood and apple pie' sentiments which no person of sound mind and good character could take issue with.
Of the four ideologies, liberalism is the easiest to define.
Liberals believe that the individual is the unit of importance. Not the nation , not a collective, not tradition – the individual. Liberals priorities two things: freedom and equality.
Freedom: Each individual is the best author of his/her own life. Liberals seek to minimise coercion by the state and by societal pressures and they encourage and applaud diversity and eccentricity. Individuals should be free to live their lives in the way that they want without restriction – right up until the point that they do harm to others. At this point, and at this point only, their freedom stops. This clearly differentiates liberals from collectivists, who see the world as groups of individuals (e.g. women, black people, LGBT people etc) rather than regarding individuals as entities in themselves with rights and a wide range of civil liberties. Freedom of speech and many other freedoms are essential to liberals.
Equality: all individuals are equal. Equality here means equality before the law, equality of status and equality of opportunity. Not equality of outcome. Liberals are never snobbish towards others and, likewise, do not doff their caps to others. Liberals are often, but not always, republicans and, I`d say, tend to be athiest. They are not patriotic – at least not in the way conservatives tend to be. Unlike conservatives, liberals are forward-looking and do not defer to tradition. Many liberals are environmentalists.
On the right/left axis, liberals range from mildly left wing to mildly right wing. Liberals are defined by prioritising individual liberty (freedom) rather than how right or left wing they are.
In summary, liberalism is all about individual flourishment, free from arbitrary custom and popular morality. Autonomy over one`s own life with only minimal state interference is vital for an individual to be free. Individuals are an entity in themselves, not seen as part of a collective.
How`s that for an attempt at short notice? Maybe not concise enough for you?
That's very good. You MUST have had that already on your floppy.
It passes my test (mainly) because I can pick out some bits and say I do NOT believe this myself. But let's not do that now.
One follow up. What's the key difference iyo between what you've said makes a liberal and people who ID as "libertarians"?
Libertarians, I`d argue, counts as a seperate, fourth, ideology.
Libertarianism spouts from liberalism to be sure but it is way out at the edge of it. I think of it as "Wild West thinking". Very anti-state - much more so than liberalism.
Libertarians are deeply suspicious of all politicians. It is almost an anarchist position. They despise political authority and state dictate. It follows that libertarians believe in VERY small government – one that is limited to basic infrastructure, such as border control, roads and defence.
Libertarians object to many state-enforced laws which, they say, always curtail individual freedom. For example, they may object to: compulsory schooling, compulsory wearing of seat belts, the need to pass a driving test, the law against foxhunting, the banning of smoking in public places, the need to restrict or licence firearms, the fluoridation of drinking water, planning-permission regulations. And the need to follow lockdown rules!
Like liberals, libertarians think that individuals should be free to make their own mistakes in life. But unlike liberals, libertarians will be vehemently against any form of social safety net.
Libertarians will oppose any form of humanitarian action for any other country, including militaristic action and international financial aid. They are non-interventionist. Other countries problems are nothing to do with us.
Libertarianism is probably much more common in the US than the UK. Hence Wild West analogy. It is every man/woman for himself/herself.
Have either candidate gone into what it means to be a Liberal?
Have either candidate gone into what makes them different than moderate Labour/Tories?
Gosh - wouldn`t that be wonderful. Be still my beating heart.
Challenge for you (or anyone) if not too big a faff -
A concise description of what "liberalism" means - avoiding 'motherhood and apple pie' sentiments which no person of sound mind and good character could take issue with.
Of the four ideologies, liberalism is the easiest to define.
Liberals believe that the individual is the unit of importance. Not the nation , not a collective, not tradition – the individual. Liberals priorities two things: freedom and equality.
Freedom: Each individual is the best author of his/her own life. Liberals seek to minimise coercion by the state and by societal pressures and they encourage and applaud diversity and eccentricity. Individuals should be free to live their lives in the way that they want without restriction – right up until the point that they do harm to others. At this point, and at this point only, their freedom stops. This clearly differentiates liberals from collectivists, who see the world as groups of individuals (e.g. women, black people, LGBT people etc) rather than regarding individuals as entities in themselves with rights and a wide range of civil liberties. Freedom of speech and many other freedoms are essential to liberals.
Equality: all individuals are equal. Equality here means equality before the law, equality of status and equality of opportunity. Not equality of outcome. Liberals are never snobbish towards others and, likewise, do not doff their caps to others. Liberals are often, but not always, republicans and, I`d say, tend to be athiest. They are not patriotic – at least not in the way conservatives tend to be. Unlike conservatives, liberals are forward-looking and do not defer to tradition. Many liberals are environmentalists.
On the right/left axis, liberals range from mildly left wing to mildly right wing. Liberals are defined by prioritising individual liberty (freedom) rather than how right or left wing they are.
In summary, liberalism is all about individual flourishment, free from arbitrary custom and popular morality. Autonomy over one`s own life with only minimal state interference is vital for an individual to be free. Individuals are an entity in themselves, not seen as part of a collective.
How`s that for an attempt at short notice? Maybe not concise enough for you?
As a characterisation, of what a liberal should be, that's pretty good.
A couple of thoughts:
There is tension between the freedom and equality points. What if, for example, the only way to ensure equality of opportunity is by interference by the state? If you are a liberal who believes that the equality takes priority here, then you're not far from being socialist. Take one step further and say that society must give some support even to those who struggle after being given a fair opportunity (which I think most liberals believe in practise), then you're practically there. This is where I am, identifying both as a socialist and a liberal though I'm not a pure version of either.
"Liberals are never snobbish towards others". This should be the case, yes. However it is the snobbishness of self-described liberals towards others that has driven me away from them (e.g. Brexit, though I was a passionate Remainer). Religious belief should be orthogonal to liberalism or even positively correlated with it, but there's a snobbery towards religious people which drives them away. And I say that as an agnostic myself.
Not meaning to be antagonistic with the second point. I call myself a liberal myself. But I think it's illuminating how political philosophies can become narrower than they need to be.
The Lib Dems should probably go with Davey. He can always be replaced with Cooper later on.
The LDs don't need too much of a swing to gain Wimbledon, Esher and Walton, Guildford, Winchester, Cheltenham, Cheadle, South Cambs even if the Tories are still riding very high but they really need to be gaining lots of soft Tories in constituencies like Wokingham and Hitchin and Harpenden.
I suspect it will come down to succesful expectation management for the local elections which should be easy for the lib Dems to do next year as opposed to anything the leader does which improves the LDs poll rating.
I wish I shared Rochdale's view about the grip of the left on the Labour party. Unfortunately I think we're going to be out in the wilderness for quite some time. I think many of the people who got into leftist politics in the last four years haven't yet developed the grit to deal with spending most of their time out of power, out of party-political influence and out of mainstream attention. Hopefully we'll adapt to the new reality soon and find ways to be productive outside of electoral politics, until we can find a way back in.
On topic, my view is it makes sense for the Lib Dems - and would be good for Starmer - to elect Davey and pitch your offer at (reasonably) socially liberal, pro-remain, economically centre-right voters who do not like the bluster of Boris but worry that they need to vote Conservative to keep "the loons" out. There are a bunch of commuter seats which the Lib Dems could win quite nicely, especially if there is an exodus of professional London types moving out of London post-crisis into these areas.
If they elect Moran, they risk competing for the culturally left share of the vote with Labour and the Greens. That is probably negative for Starmer on two fronts (1) because it splits that vote and (2) I can see a situation where elements of the Labour party who want a more "woke" agenda could find common cause with a Moran-led LD party
Have either candidate gone into what it means to be a Liberal?
Have either candidate gone into what makes them different than moderate Labour/Tories?
Gosh - wouldn`t that be wonderful. Be still my beating heart.
Challenge for you (or anyone) if not too big a faff -
A concise description of what "liberalism" means - avoiding 'motherhood and apple pie' sentiments which no person of sound mind and good character could take issue with.
Of the four ideologies, liberalism is the easiest to define.
Liberals believe that the individual is the unit of importance. Not the nation , not a collective, not tradition – the individual. Liberals priorities two things: freedom and equality.
Freedom: Each individual is the best author of his/her own life. Liberals seek to minimise coercion by the state and by societal pressures and they encourage and applaud diversity and eccentricity. Individuals should be free to live their lives in the way that they want without restriction – right up until the point that they do harm to others. At this point, and at this point only, their freedom stops. This clearly differentiates liberals from collectivists, who see the world as groups of individuals (e.g. women, black people, LGBT people etc) rather than regarding individuals as entities in themselves with rights and a wide range of civil liberties. Freedom of speech and many other freedoms are essential to liberals.
Equality: all individuals are equal. Equality here means equality before the law, equality of status and equality of opportunity. Not equality of outcome. Liberals are never snobbish towards others and, likewise, do not doff their caps to others. Liberals are often, but not always, republicans and, I`d say, tend to be athiest. They are not patriotic – at least not in the way conservatives tend to be. Unlike conservatives, liberals are forward-looking and do not defer to tradition. Many liberals are environmentalists.
On the right/left axis, liberals range from mildly left wing to mildly right wing. Liberals are defined by prioritising individual liberty (freedom) rather than how right or left wing they are.
In summary, liberalism is all about individual flourishment, free from arbitrary custom and popular morality. Autonomy over one`s own life with only minimal state interference is vital for an individual to be free. Individuals are an entity in themselves, not seen as part of a collective.
How`s that for an attempt at short notice? Maybe not concise enough for you?
As a characterisation, of what a liberal should be, that's pretty good.
A couple of thoughts:
There is tension between the freedom and equality points. What if, for example, the only way to ensure equality of opportunity is by interference by the state? If you are a liberal who believes that the equality takes priority here, then you're not far from being socialist. Take one step further and say that society must give some support even to those who struggle after being given a fair opportunity (which I think most liberals believe in practise), then you're practically there. This is where I am, identifying both as a socialist and a liberal though I'm not a pure version of either.
"Liberals are never snobbish towards others". This should be the case, yes. However it is the snobbishness of self-described liberals towards others that has driven me away from them (e.g. Brexit, though I was a passionate Remainer). Religious belief should be orthogonal to liberalism, but there's a snobbery towards religious people which drives them away. And I say that as an agnostic myself.
Not meaning to be antagonistic with the second point. I call myself a liberal myself. But I think it's illuminating how political philosophies can become narrower than they need to be.
A good reply to a very good post. I'd agree on the tension between freedom and equality; I think the point of liberalism might be that it tries to seek a balance between the two, though, rather than prioritise one or the other?
(And on the second point, agreed. Though it's a little difficult to see how a fundamentalist religious belief could sit comfortably with liberalism.)
Have either candidate gone into what it means to be a Liberal?
Have either candidate gone into what makes them different than moderate Labour/Tories?
Gosh - wouldn`t that be wonderful. Be still my beating heart.
Challenge for you (or anyone) if not too big a faff -
A concise description of what "liberalism" means - avoiding 'motherhood and apple pie' sentiments which no person of sound mind and good character could take issue with.
Of the four ideologies, liberalism is the easiest to define.
Liberals believe that the individual is the unit of importance. Not the nation , not a collective, not tradition – the individual. Liberals priorities two things: freedom and equality.
Freedom: Each individual is the best author of his/her own life. Liberals seek to minimise coercion by the state and by societal pressures and they encourage and applaud diversity and eccentricity. Individuals should be free to live their lives in the way that they want without restriction – right up until the point that they do harm to others. At this point, and at this point only, their freedom stops. This clearly differentiates liberals from collectivists, who see the world as groups of individuals (e.g. women, black people, LGBT people etc) rather than regarding individuals as entities in themselves with rights and a wide range of civil liberties. Freedom of speech and many other freedoms are essential to liberals.
Equality: all individuals are equal. Equality here means equality before the law, equality of status and equality of opportunity. Not equality of outcome. Liberals are never snobbish towards others and, likewise, do not doff their caps to others. Liberals are often, but not always, republicans and, I`d say, tend to be athiest. They are not patriotic – at least not in the way conservatives tend to be. Unlike conservatives, liberals are forward-looking and do not defer to tradition. Many liberals are environmentalists.
On the right/left axis, liberals range from mildly left wing to mildly right wing. Liberals are defined by prioritising individual liberty (freedom) rather than how right or left wing they are.
In summary, liberalism is all about individual flourishment, free from arbitrary custom and popular morality. Autonomy over one`s own life with only minimal state interference is vital for an individual to be free. Individuals are an entity in themselves, not seen as part of a collective.
How`s that for an attempt at short notice? Maybe not concise enough for you?
That's very good. You MUST have had that already on your floppy.
It passes my test (mainly) because I can pick out some bits and say I do NOT believe this myself. But let's not do that now.
One follow up. What's the key difference iyo between what you've said makes a liberal and people who ID as "libertarians"?
Libertarians, I`d argue, counts as a seperate, fourth, ideology.
Libertarianism spouts from liberalism to be sure but it is way out at the edge of it. I think of it as "Wild West thinking". Very anti-state - much more so than liberalism.
Libertarians are deeply suspicious of all politicians. It is almost an anarchist position. They despise political authority and state dictate. It follows that libertarians believe in VERY small government – one that is limited to basic infrastructure, such as border control, roads and defence.
Libertarians object to many state-enforced laws which, they say, always curtail individual freedom. For example, they may object to: compulsory schooling, compulsory wearing of seat belts, the need to pass a driving test, the law against foxhunting, the banning of smoking in public places, the need to restrict or licence firearms, the fluoridation of drinking water, planning-permission regulations. And the need to follow lockdown rules!
Like liberals, libertarians think that individuals should be free to make their own mistakes in life. But unlike liberals, libertarians will be vehemently against any form of social safety net.
Libertarians will oppose any form of humanitarian action for any other country, including militaristic action and international financial aid. They are non-interventionist. Other countries problems are nothing to do with us.
Libertarianism is probably much more common in the US than the UK. Hence Wild West analogy. It is every man/woman for himself/herself.
And leave my floppy out of it.
This is interesting I kind of feel closer to your definition of liberal than libertarian.
'The general election left the party with just 11 MPs even though its national vote share was up markedly. Of those who were elected the male-female split is 4-7 making it the first national party to have women in the majority in its parliamentary party.'
The Greens may feel this does them less than justice, of course.
Is the Green Party of England and Wales a “national party”? No S, no NI.
Is the Liberal Democratic Party a “national party”? No NI.
Fair point on the NI, in which case only the Tories are (UK)national as they did stand some candidates in NI?
@Nigelb - to your question on the previous thread about Mrs Ed.
So, she is a Republican-registered voter but has not voted Republican since 2004 - she voted Obama in 2008 and 2012, and Jill Stein in 2016 (rationale - didn't like Clinton or Trump but determined to vote and wanted to say she had voted for a woman as President). This time round she is 100% for Trump with the catalyst being the protests in the States
@Nigelb - to your question on the previous thread about Mrs Ed.
So, she is a Republican-registered voter but has not voted Republican since 2004 - she voted Obama in 2008 and 2012, and Jill Stein in 2016 (rationale - didn't like Clinton or Trump but determined to vote and wanted to say she had voted for a woman as President). This time round she is 100% for Trump with the catalyst being the protests in the States
Interesting, even if I don't follow the logic. Thanks.
Have either candidate gone into what it means to be a Liberal?
Have either candidate gone into what makes them different than moderate Labour/Tories?
Gosh - wouldn`t that be wonderful. Be still my beating heart.
Challenge for you (or anyone) if not too big a faff -
A concise description of what "liberalism" means - avoiding 'motherhood and apple pie' sentiments which no person of sound mind and good character could take issue with.
Of the four ideologies, liberalism is the easiest to define.
Liberals believe that the individual is the unit of importance. Not the nation , not a collective, not tradition – the individual. Liberals priorities two things: freedom and equality.
Freedom: Each individual is the best author of his/her own life. Liberals seek to minimise coercion by the state and by societal pressures and they encourage and applaud diversity and eccentricity. Individuals should be free to live their lives in the way that they want without restriction – right up until the point that they do harm to others. At this point, and at this point only, their freedom stops. This clearly differentiates liberals from collectivists, who see the world as groups of individuals (e.g. women, black people, LGBT people etc) rather than regarding individuals as entities in themselves with rights and a wide range of civil liberties. Freedom of speech and many other freedoms are essential to liberals.
Equality: all individuals are equal. Equality here means equality before the law, equality of status and equality of opportunity. Not equality of outcome. Liberals are never snobbish towards others and, likewise, do not doff their caps to others. Liberals are often, but not always, republicans and, I`d say, tend to be athiest. They are not patriotic – at least not in the way conservatives tend to be. Unlike conservatives, liberals are forward-looking and do not defer to tradition. Many liberals are environmentalists.
On the right/left axis, liberals range from mildly left wing to mildly right wing. Liberals are defined by prioritising individual liberty (freedom) rather than how right or left wing they are.
In summary, liberalism is all about individual flourishment, free from arbitrary custom and popular morality. Autonomy over one`s own life with only minimal state interference is vital for an individual to be free. Individuals are an entity in themselves, not seen as part of a collective.
How`s that for an attempt at short notice? Maybe not concise enough for you?
As a characterisation, of what a liberal should be, that's pretty good.
A couple of thoughts:
There is tension between the freedom and equality points. What if, for example, the only way to ensure equality of opportunity is by interference by the state? If you are a liberal who believes that the equality takes priority here, then you're not far from being socialist. Take one step further and say that society must give some support even to those who struggle after being given a fair opportunity (which I think most liberals believe in practise), then you're practically there. This is where I am, identifying both as a socialist and a liberal though I'm not a pure version of either.
"Liberals are never snobbish towards others". This should be the case, yes. However it is the snobbishness of self-described liberals towards others that has driven me away from them (e.g. Brexit, though I was a passionate Remainer). Religious belief should be orthogonal to liberalism, but there's a snobbery towards religious people which drives them away. And I say that as an agnostic myself.
Not meaning to be antagonistic with the second point. I call myself a liberal myself. But I think it's illuminating how political philosophies can become narrower than they need to be.
You can`t be socialist and liberal. They are fundamentally opposed. Socialism is a sub-set of collectivism. There is a yawning gap between collectivism and liberalism. Just as there is between liberalism and conservatism.
I agree with your first comment about a tension. Every ideology is internally incoherent when you look beneath the bonnet. Unlike libertarians, liberals will tolerate a larger state when it is to promote positive liberty in order to help individuals make good on their negative liberty.
Re snobbishness: I`d differentiate snobbishness and intellectual elitism. I`d hold my hand up to the latter but never the former.
Have either candidate gone into what it means to be a Liberal?
Have either candidate gone into what makes them different than moderate Labour/Tories?
Gosh - wouldn`t that be wonderful. Be still my beating heart.
Challenge for you (or anyone) if not too big a faff -
A concise description of what "liberalism" means - avoiding 'motherhood and apple pie' sentiments which no person of sound mind and good character could take issue with.
Of the four ideologies, liberalism is the easiest to define.
Liberals believe that the individual is the unit of importance. Not the nation , not a collective, not tradition – the individual. Liberals priorities two things: freedom and equality.
Freedom: Each individual is the best author of his/her own life. Liberals seek to minimise coercion by the state and by societal pressures and they encourage and applaud diversity and eccentricity. Individuals should be free to live their lives in the way that they want without restriction – right up until the point that they do harm to others. At this point, and at this point only, their freedom stops. This clearly differentiates liberals from collectivists, who see the world as groups of individuals (e.g. women, black people, LGBT people etc) rather than regarding individuals as entities in themselves with rights and a wide range of civil liberties. Freedom of speech and many other freedoms are essential to liberals.
Equality: all individuals are equal. Equality here means equality before the law, equality of status and equality of opportunity. Not equality of outcome. Liberals are never snobbish towards others and, likewise, do not doff their caps to others. Liberals are often, but not always, republicans and, I`d say, tend to be athiest. They are not patriotic – at least not in the way conservatives tend to be. Unlike conservatives, liberals are forward-looking and do not defer to tradition. Many liberals are environmentalists.
On the right/left axis, liberals range from mildly left wing to mildly right wing. Liberals are defined by prioritising individual liberty (freedom) rather than how right or left wing they are.
In summary, liberalism is all about individual flourishment, free from arbitrary custom and popular morality. Autonomy over one`s own life with only minimal state interference is vital for an individual to be free. Individuals are an entity in themselves, not seen as part of a collective.
How`s that for an attempt at short notice? Maybe not concise enough for you?
I think that is excellent. Many moons ago I stole this from here (I think it might have been posted by Stodge):
My view is that a Liberal stand for Freedom, illustrated by:
a)- Individual freedom (free from government interference)
b)- Free markets (free from government intervention)
c)- Free trade (between all countries not just within the EU) and against protectionism
d)- Free education (up to age 18)
e)- Free health treatment (at the point of delivery)
f)- Welfare for those unable to look after themselves
g)- Health and welfare paid for by a contributory system which qualifies you (a la Beveridge)
h)- A small state so as to let people run their own lives
Have either candidate gone into what it means to be a Liberal?
Have either candidate gone into what makes them different than moderate Labour/Tories?
Gosh - wouldn`t that be wonderful. Be still my beating heart.
Challenge for you (or anyone) if not too big a faff -
A concise description of what "liberalism" means - avoiding 'motherhood and apple pie' sentiments which no person of sound mind and good character could take issue with.
Of the four ideologies, liberalism is the easiest to define.
Liberals believe that the individual is the unit of importance. Not the nation , not a collective, not tradition – the individual. Liberals priorities two things: freedom and equality.
Freedom: Each individual is the best author of his/her own life. Liberals seek to minimise coercion by the state and by societal pressures and they encourage and applaud diversity and eccentricity. Individuals should be free to live their lives in the way that they want without restriction – right up until the point that they do harm to others. At this point, and at this point only, their freedom stops. This clearly differentiates liberals from collectivists, who see the world as groups of individuals (e.g. women, black people, LGBT people etc) rather than regarding individuals as entities in themselves with rights and a wide range of civil liberties. Freedom of speech and many other freedoms are essential to liberals.
Equality: all individuals are equal. Equality here means equality before the law, equality of status and equality of opportunity. Not equality of outcome. Liberals are never snobbish towards others and, likewise, do not doff their caps to others. Liberals are often, but not always, republicans and, I`d say, tend to be athiest. They are not patriotic – at least not in the way conservatives tend to be. Unlike conservatives, liberals are forward-looking and do not defer to tradition. Many liberals are environmentalists.
On the right/left axis, liberals range from mildly left wing to mildly right wing. Liberals are defined by prioritising individual liberty (freedom) rather than how right or left wing they are.
In summary, liberalism is all about individual flourishment, free from arbitrary custom and popular morality. Autonomy over one`s own life with only minimal state interference is vital for an individual to be free. Individuals are an entity in themselves, not seen as part of a collective.
How`s that for an attempt at short notice? Maybe not concise enough for you?
That's very good. You MUST have had that already on your floppy.
It passes my test (mainly) because I can pick out some bits and say I do NOT believe this myself. But let's not do that now.
One follow up. What's the key difference iyo between what you've said makes a liberal and people who ID as "libertarians"?
Libertarians, I`d argue, counts as a seperate, fourth, ideology.
Libertarianism spouts from liberalism to be sure but it is way out at the edge of it. I think of it as "Wild West thinking". Very anti-state - much more so than liberalism.
Libertarians are deeply suspicious of all politicians. It is almost an anarchist position. They despise political authority and state dictate. It follows that libertarians believe in VERY small government – one that is limited to basic infrastructure, such as border control, roads and defence.
Libertarians object to many state-enforced laws which, they say, always curtail individual freedom. For example, they may object to: compulsory schooling, compulsory wearing of seat belts, the need to pass a driving test, the law against foxhunting, the banning of smoking in public places, the need to restrict or licence firearms, the fluoridation of drinking water, planning-permission regulations. And the need to follow lockdown rules!
Like liberals, libertarians think that individuals should be free to make their own mistakes in life. But unlike liberals, libertarians will be vehemently against any form of social safety net.
Libertarians will oppose any form of humanitarian action for any other country, including militaristic action and international financial aid. They are non-interventionist. Other countries problems are nothing to do with us.
Libertarianism is probably much more common in the US than the UK. Hence Wild West analogy. It is every man/woman for himself/herself.
And leave my floppy out of it.
This is interesting I kind of feel closer to your definition of liberal than libertarian.
Your libertarians are more anarchist than I am.
Perhaps it is fair to point out that Libertarianism is not an absolute. A tiny number of fanatics believe in No State, true. But there are far more small "l" libertarians who are concerned about protection of individual rights, privacy, etc. while supporting *some* state actions.
Bit like Socialism is, in practise, a continuum from state safety nets (though it was a noted Liberal who brought State Pensions to the UK) to "The State owns everything. Your shoes included. And You".
Three retweets on a single metaphor? That does suggest an amusing lack of any substantive criticism...
It's a metaphor that many other people and organisations use, and unfortunately it it also apt as many other countries are seeing right now. We really will be playing whack-a-mole with COVID-19 until there are much better treatments, a vaccine, or herd immunity.
I wish I shared Rochdale's view about the grip of the left on the Labour party. Unfortunately I think we're going to be out in the wilderness for quite some time. I think many of the people who got into leftist politics in the last four years haven't yet developed the grit to deal with spending most of their time out of power, out of party-political influence and out of mainstream attention. Hopefully we'll adapt to the new reality soon and find ways to be productive outside of electoral politics, until we can find a way back in.
I don't have a problem with the left left, especially the younger idealists. Its just that the voters aren't there to deliver your ideas into government and in trying to take over Labour all you guaranteed was Tory government. Which for the other part of the left left - hardened middle class zealots - suits them fine. Better to be self-righteous condemning all and sundry in opposition than have to actually make the tough choices that constitutes real life.
Have either candidate gone into what it means to be a Liberal?
Have either candidate gone into what makes them different than moderate Labour/Tories?
Gosh - wouldn`t that be wonderful. Be still my beating heart.
Challenge for you (or anyone) if not too big a faff -
A concise description of what "liberalism" means - avoiding 'motherhood and apple pie' sentiments which no person of sound mind and good character could take issue with.
Of the four ideologies, liberalism is the easiest to define.
Liberals believe that the individual is the unit of importance. Not the nation , not a collective, not tradition – the individual. Liberals priorities two things: freedom and equality.
Freedom: Each individual is the best author of his/her own life. Liberals seek to minimise coercion by the state and by societal pressures and they encourage and applaud diversity and eccentricity. Individuals should be free to live their lives in the way that they want without restriction – right up until the point that they do harm to others. At this point, and at this point only, their freedom stops. This clearly differentiates liberals from collectivists, who see the world as groups of individuals (e.g. women, black people, LGBT people etc) rather than regarding individuals as entities in themselves with rights and a wide range of civil liberties. Freedom of speech and many other freedoms are essential to liberals.
Equality: all individuals are equal. Equality here means equality before the law, equality of status and equality of opportunity. Not equality of outcome. Liberals are never snobbish towards others and, likewise, do not doff their caps to others. Liberals are often, but not always, republicans and, I`d say, tend to be athiest. They are not patriotic – at least not in the way conservatives tend to be. Unlike conservatives, liberals are forward-looking and do not defer to tradition. Many liberals are environmentalists.
On the right/left axis, liberals range from mildly left wing to mildly right wing. Liberals are defined by prioritising individual liberty (freedom) rather than how right or left wing they are.
In summary, liberalism is all about individual flourishment, free from arbitrary custom and popular morality. Autonomy over one`s own life with only minimal state interference is vital for an individual to be free. Individuals are an entity in themselves, not seen as part of a collective.
How`s that for an attempt at short notice? Maybe not concise enough for you?
That's very good. You MUST have had that already on your floppy.
It passes my test (mainly) because I can pick out some bits and say I do NOT believe this myself. But let's not do that now.
One follow up. What's the key difference iyo between what you've said makes a liberal and people who ID as "libertarians"?
Libertarians, I`d argue, counts as a seperate, fourth, ideology.
Libertarianism spouts from liberalism to be sure but it is way out at the edge of it. I think of it as "Wild West thinking". Very anti-state - much more so than liberalism.
Libertarians are deeply suspicious of all politicians. It is almost an anarchist position. They despise political authority and state dictate. It follows that libertarians believe in VERY small government – one that is limited to basic infrastructure, such as border control, roads and defence.
Libertarians object to many state-enforced laws which, they say, always curtail individual freedom. For example, they may object to: compulsory schooling, compulsory wearing of seat belts, the need to pass a driving test, the law against foxhunting, the banning of smoking in public places, the need to restrict or licence firearms, the fluoridation of drinking water, planning-permission regulations. And the need to follow lockdown rules!
Like liberals, libertarians think that individuals should be free to make their own mistakes in life. But unlike liberals, libertarians will be vehemently against any form of social safety net.
Libertarians will oppose any form of humanitarian action for any other country, including militaristic action and international financial aid. They are non-interventionist. Other countries problems are nothing to do with us.
Libertarianism is probably much more common in the US than the UK. Hence Wild West analogy. It is every man/woman for himself/herself.
And leave my floppy out of it.
This is interesting I kind of feel closer to your definition of liberal than libertarian.
Your libertarians are more anarchist than I am.
Then I think you need to re-look at your attitude towards the BBC - which we have locked horns about before. A liberal endeavour to the core. You think that people should only pay for what they themselves use as opposed to everyone contributing to a common good. This is a clear libertarian attitude.
I wish I shared Rochdale's view about the grip of the left on the Labour party. Unfortunately I think we're going to be out in the wilderness for quite some time. I think many of the people who got into leftist politics in the last four years haven't yet developed the grit to deal with spending most of their time out of power, out of party-political influence and out of mainstream attention. Hopefully we'll adapt to the new reality soon and find ways to be productive outside of electoral politics, until we can find a way back in.
My sense of things broadly accords with this. I fear we could be marching back to tinkerism. Nevertheless I would like to win the next election and I think it's crucial that we do. A 5th defeat in a row - especially if it comes against a backdrop of poor economic performance (which I think is inevitable) - would make me start to question the purpose of the party.
Have either candidate gone into what it means to be a Liberal?
Have either candidate gone into what makes them different than moderate Labour/Tories?
Gosh - wouldn`t that be wonderful. Be still my beating heart.
Challenge for you (or anyone) if not too big a faff -
A concise description of what "liberalism" means - avoiding 'motherhood and apple pie' sentiments which no person of sound mind and good character could take issue with.
Of the four ideologies, liberalism is the easiest to define.
Liberals believe that the individual is the unit of importance. Not the nation , not a collective, not tradition – the individual. Liberals priorities two things: freedom and equality.
Freedom: Each individual is the best author of his/her own life. Liberals seek to minimise coercion by the state and by societal pressures and they encourage and applaud diversity and eccentricity. Individuals should be free to live their lives in the way that they want without restriction – right up until the point that they do harm to others. At this point, and at this point only, their freedom stops. This clearly differentiates liberals from collectivists, who see the world as groups of individuals (e.g. women, black people, LGBT people etc) rather than regarding individuals as entities in themselves with rights and a wide range of civil liberties. Freedom of speech and many other freedoms are essential to liberals.
Equality: all individuals are equal. Equality here means equality before the law, equality of status and equality of opportunity. Not equality of outcome. Liberals are never snobbish towards others and, likewise, do not doff their caps to others. Liberals are often, but not always, republicans and, I`d say, tend to be athiest. They are not patriotic – at least not in the way conservatives tend to be. Unlike conservatives, liberals are forward-looking and do not defer to tradition. Many liberals are environmentalists.
On the right/left axis, liberals range from mildly left wing to mildly right wing. Liberals are defined by prioritising individual liberty (freedom) rather than how right or left wing they are.
In summary, liberalism is all about individual flourishment, free from arbitrary custom and popular morality. Autonomy over one`s own life with only minimal state interference is vital for an individual to be free. Individuals are an entity in themselves, not seen as part of a collective.
How`s that for an attempt at short notice? Maybe not concise enough for you?
That's very good. You MUST have had that already on your floppy.
It passes my test (mainly) because I can pick out some bits and say I do NOT believe this myself. But let's not do that now.
One follow up. What's the key difference iyo between what you've said makes a liberal and people who ID as "libertarians"?
Libertarians, I`d argue, counts as a seperate, fourth, ideology.
Libertarianism spouts from liberalism to be sure but it is way out at the edge of it. I think of it as "Wild West thinking". Very anti-state - much more so than liberalism.
Libertarians are deeply suspicious of all politicians. It is almost an anarchist position. They despise political authority and state dictate. It follows that libertarians believe in VERY small government – one that is limited to basic infrastructure, such as border control, roads and defence.
Libertarians object to many state-enforced laws which, they say, always curtail individual freedom. For example, they may object to: compulsory schooling, compulsory wearing of seat belts, the need to pass a driving test, the law against foxhunting, the banning of smoking in public places, the need to restrict or licence firearms, the fluoridation of drinking water, planning-permission regulations. And the need to follow lockdown rules!
Like liberals, libertarians think that individuals should be free to make their own mistakes in life. But unlike liberals, libertarians will be vehemently against any form of social safety net.
Libertarians will oppose any form of humanitarian action for any other country, including militaristic action and international financial aid. They are non-interventionist. Other countries problems are nothing to do with us.
Libertarianism is probably much more common in the US than the UK. Hence Wild West analogy. It is every man/woman for himself/herself.
And leave my floppy out of it.
This is interesting I kind of feel closer to your definition of liberal than libertarian.
Your libertarians are more anarchist than I am.
Then I think you need to re-look at your attitude towards the BBC - which we have locked horns about before. A liberal endeavour to the core. You think that people should only pay for what they themselves use as opposed to everyone contributing to a common good. This is a clear libertarian attitude.
It is fundamentally illiberal to oblige people to pay for a liberal endeavour that they don't want, especially when it is not universal and there are so many alternatives in this day and age.
If people want to pay for the BBC they should be free to do so.
I’d be interested in whichever candidate bravely advocated the core tenants of Liberalism from first principles. Really adding something very important to the national debate.
No?
Me neither.
Unfortunately the constituency for that in Britain is like 3 dudes and a dog named Albert
Nonsense. Plenty of liberals in Scotland. Only problem is that next to none of them votes SLD. Why? Because they are fundamentally illiberal.
As well as anti-Scottish, just sock puppets for London
That's pretty poor for Labour after months of Boris and Dom completely fucking up in the virus and everything else.
On UNS the figures would be Con 332 and Lab 231 - Tory majority 14. It also assumes the Tories gain Farron's seat in Cumbria - not sure that is very likely.
Have either candidate gone into what it means to be a Liberal?
Have either candidate gone into what makes them different than moderate Labour/Tories?
Gosh - wouldn`t that be wonderful. Be still my beating heart.
Challenge for you (or anyone) if not too big a faff -
A concise description of what "liberalism" means - avoiding 'motherhood and apple pie' sentiments which no person of sound mind and good character could take issue with.
Of the four ideologies, liberalism is the easiest to define.
Liberals believe that the individual is the unit of importance. Not the nation , not a collective, not tradition – the individual. Liberals priorities two things: freedom and equality.
Freedom: Each individual is the best author of his/her own life. Liberals seek to minimise coercion by the state and by societal pressures and they encourage and applaud diversity and eccentricity. Individuals should be free to live their lives in the way that they want without restriction – right up until the point that they do harm to others. At this point, and at this point only, their freedom stops. This clearly differentiates liberals from collectivists, who see the world as groups of individuals (e.g. women, black people, LGBT people etc) rather than regarding individuals as entities in themselves with rights and a wide range of civil liberties. Freedom of speech and many other freedoms are essential to liberals.
Equality: all individuals are equal. Equality here means equality before the law, equality of status and equality of opportunity. Not equality of outcome. Liberals are never snobbish towards others and, likewise, do not doff their caps to others. Liberals are often, but not always, republicans and, I`d say, tend to be athiest. They are not patriotic – at least not in the way conservatives tend to be. Unlike conservatives, liberals are forward-looking and do not defer to tradition. Many liberals are environmentalists.
On the right/left axis, liberals range from mildly left wing to mildly right wing. Liberals are defined by prioritising individual liberty (freedom) rather than how right or left wing they are.
In summary, liberalism is all about individual flourishment, free from arbitrary custom and popular morality. Autonomy over one`s own life with only minimal state interference is vital for an individual to be free. Individuals are an entity in themselves, not seen as part of a collective.
How`s that for an attempt at short notice? Maybe not concise enough for you?
That's very good. You MUST have had that already on your floppy.
It passes my test (mainly) because I can pick out some bits and say I do NOT believe this myself. But let's not do that now.
One follow up. What's the key difference iyo between what you've said makes a liberal and people who ID as "libertarians"?
Libertarians, I`d argue, counts as a seperate, fourth, ideology.
Libertarianism spouts from liberalism to be sure but it is way out at the edge of it. I think of it as "Wild West thinking". Very anti-state - much more so than liberalism.
Libertarians are deeply suspicious of all politicians. It is almost an anarchist position. They despise political authority and state dictate. It follows that libertarians believe in VERY small government – one that is limited to basic infrastructure, such as border control, roads and defence.
Libertarians object to many state-enforced laws which, they say, always curtail individual freedom. For example, they may object to: compulsory schooling, compulsory wearing of seat belts, the need to pass a driving test, the law against foxhunting, the banning of smoking in public places, the need to restrict or licence firearms, the fluoridation of drinking water, planning-permission regulations. And the need to follow lockdown rules!
Like liberals, libertarians think that individuals should be free to make their own mistakes in life. But unlike liberals, libertarians will be vehemently against any form of social safety net.
Libertarians will oppose any form of humanitarian action for any other country, including militaristic action and international financial aid. They are non-interventionist. Other countries problems are nothing to do with us.
Libertarianism is probably much more common in the US than the UK. Hence Wild West analogy. It is every man/woman for himself/herself.
And leave my floppy out of it.
This is interesting I kind of feel closer to your definition of liberal than libertarian.
Your libertarians are more anarchist than I am.
Then I think you need to re-look at your attitude towards the BBC - which we have locked horns about before. A liberal endeavour to the core. You think that people should only pay for what they themselves use as opposed to everyone contributing to a common good. This is a clear libertarian attitude.
It is fundamentally illiberal to oblige people to pay for a liberal endeavour that they don't want, especially when it is not universal and there are so many alternatives in this day and age.
If people want to pay for the BBC they should be free to do so.
The same argument can be said about the NHS. You pay for it even if you don’t use it.
You are essentially picking and choosing what is “liberal” because you have a vendetta against the BBC.
Have either candidate gone into what it means to be a Liberal?
Have either candidate gone into what makes them different than moderate Labour/Tories?
Gosh - wouldn`t that be wonderful. Be still my beating heart.
Challenge for you (or anyone) if not too big a faff -
A concise description of what "liberalism" means - avoiding 'motherhood and apple pie' sentiments which no person of sound mind and good character could take issue with.
Of the four ideologies, liberalism is the easiest to define.
Liberals believe that the individual is the unit of importance. Not the nation , not a collective, not tradition – the individual. Liberals priorities two things: freedom and equality.
Freedom: Each individual is the best author of his/her own life. Liberals seek to minimise coercion by the state and by societal pressures and they encourage and applaud diversity and eccentricity. Individuals should be free to live their lives in the way that they want without restriction – right up until the point that they do harm to others. At this point, and at this point only, their freedom stops. This clearly differentiates liberals from collectivists, who see the world as groups of individuals (e.g. women, black people, LGBT people etc) rather than regarding individuals as entities in themselves with rights and a wide range of civil liberties. Freedom of speech and many other freedoms are essential to liberals.
Equality: all individuals are equal. Equality here means equality before the law, equality of status and equality of opportunity. Not equality of outcome. Liberals are never snobbish towards others and, likewise, do not doff their caps to others. Liberals are often, but not always, republicans and, I`d say, tend to be athiest. They are not patriotic – at least not in the way conservatives tend to be. Unlike conservatives, liberals are forward-looking and do not defer to tradition. Many liberals are environmentalists.
On the right/left axis, liberals range from mildly left wing to mildly right wing. Liberals are defined by prioritising individual liberty (freedom) rather than how right or left wing they are.
In summary, liberalism is all about individual flourishment, free from arbitrary custom and popular morality. Autonomy over one`s own life with only minimal state interference is vital for an individual to be free. Individuals are an entity in themselves, not seen as part of a collective.
How`s that for an attempt at short notice? Maybe not concise enough for you?
That's very good. You MUST have had that already on your floppy.
It passes my test (mainly) because I can pick out some bits and say I do NOT believe this myself. But let's not do that now.
One follow up. What's the key difference iyo between what you've said makes a liberal and people who ID as "libertarians"?
Libertarians, I`d argue, counts as a seperate, fourth, ideology.
Libertarianism spouts from liberalism to be sure but it is way out at the edge of it. I think of it as "Wild West thinking". Very anti-state - much more so than liberalism.
Libertarians are deeply suspicious of all politicians. It is almost an anarchist position. They despise political authority and state dictate. It follows that libertarians believe in VERY small government – one that is limited to basic infrastructure, such as border control, roads and defence.
Libertarians object to many state-enforced laws which, they say, always curtail individual freedom. For example, they may object to: compulsory schooling, compulsory wearing of seat belts, the need to pass a driving test, the law against foxhunting, the banning of smoking in public places, the need to restrict or licence firearms, the fluoridation of drinking water, planning-permission regulations. And the need to follow lockdown rules!
Like liberals, libertarians think that individuals should be free to make their own mistakes in life. But unlike liberals, libertarians will be vehemently against any form of social safety net.
Libertarians will oppose any form of humanitarian action for any other country, including militaristic action and international financial aid. They are non-interventionist. Other countries problems are nothing to do with us.
Libertarianism is probably much more common in the US than the UK. Hence Wild West analogy. It is every man/woman for himself/herself.
And leave my floppy out of it.
This is interesting I kind of feel closer to your definition of liberal than libertarian.
Your libertarians are more anarchist than I am.
Perhaps it is fair to point out that Libertarianism is not an absolute. A tiny number of fanatics believe in No State, true. But there are far more small "l" libertarians who are concerned about protection of individual rights, privacy, etc. while supporting *some* state actions.
Bit like Socialism is, in practise, a continuum from state safety nets (though it was a noted Liberal who brought State Pensions to the UK) to "The State owns everything. Your shoes included. And You".
Re: "But there are far more small "l" libertarians who are concerned about protection of individual rights, privacy, etc. while supporting *some* state actions."
Have either candidate gone into what it means to be a Liberal?
Have either candidate gone into what makes them different than moderate Labour/Tories?
Gosh - wouldn`t that be wonderful. Be still my beating heart.
Challenge for you (or anyone) if not too big a faff -
A concise description of what "liberalism" means - avoiding 'motherhood and apple pie' sentiments which no person of sound mind and good character could take issue with.
Of the four ideologies, liberalism is the easiest to define.
Liberals believe that the individual is the unit of importance. Not the nation , not a collective, not tradition – the individual. Liberals priorities two things: freedom and equality.
Freedom: Each individual is the best author of his/her own life. Liberals seek to minimise coercion by the state and by societal pressures and they encourage and applaud diversity and eccentricity. Individuals should be free to live their lives in the way that they want without restriction – right up until the point that they do harm to others. At this point, and at this point only, their freedom stops. This clearly differentiates liberals from collectivists, who see the world as groups of individuals (e.g. women, black people, LGBT people etc) rather than regarding individuals as entities in themselves with rights and a wide range of civil liberties. Freedom of speech and many other freedoms are essential to liberals.
Equality: all individuals are equal. Equality here means equality before the law, equality of status and equality of opportunity. Not equality of outcome. Liberals are never snobbish towards others and, likewise, do not doff their caps to others. Liberals are often, but not always, republicans and, I`d say, tend to be athiest. They are not patriotic – at least not in the way conservatives tend to be. Unlike conservatives, liberals are forward-looking and do not defer to tradition. Many liberals are environmentalists.
On the right/left axis, liberals range from mildly left wing to mildly right wing. Liberals are defined by prioritising individual liberty (freedom) rather than how right or left wing they are.
In summary, liberalism is all about individual flourishment, free from arbitrary custom and popular morality. Autonomy over one`s own life with only minimal state interference is vital for an individual to be free. Individuals are an entity in themselves, not seen as part of a collective.
How`s that for an attempt at short notice? Maybe not concise enough for you?
That's very good. You MUST have had that already on your floppy.
It passes my test (mainly) because I can pick out some bits and say I do NOT believe this myself. But let's not do that now.
One follow up. What's the key difference iyo between what you've said makes a liberal and people who ID as "libertarians"?
Libertarians, I`d argue, counts as a seperate, fourth, ideology.
Libertarianism spouts from liberalism to be sure but it is way out at the edge of it. I think of it as "Wild West thinking". Very anti-state - much more so than liberalism.
Libertarians are deeply suspicious of all politicians. It is almost an anarchist position. They despise political authority and state dictate. It follows that libertarians believe in VERY small government – one that is limited to basic infrastructure, such as border control, roads and defence.
Libertarians object to many state-enforced laws which, they say, always curtail individual freedom. For example, they may object to: compulsory schooling, compulsory wearing of seat belts, the need to pass a driving test, the law against foxhunting, the banning of smoking in public places, the need to restrict or licence firearms, the fluoridation of drinking water, planning-permission regulations. And the need to follow lockdown rules!
Like liberals, libertarians think that individuals should be free to make their own mistakes in life. But unlike liberals, libertarians will be vehemently against any form of social safety net.
Libertarians will oppose any form of humanitarian action for any other country, including militaristic action and international financial aid. They are non-interventionist. Other countries problems are nothing to do with us.
Libertarianism is probably much more common in the US than the UK. Hence Wild West analogy. It is every man/woman for himself/herself.
And leave my floppy out of it.
This is interesting I kind of feel closer to your definition of liberal than libertarian.
Your libertarians are more anarchist than I am.
Perhaps it is fair to point out that Libertarianism is not an absolute. A tiny number of fanatics believe in No State, true. But there are far more small "l" libertarians who are concerned about protection of individual rights, privacy, etc. while supporting *some* state actions.
Bit like Socialism is, in practise, a continuum from state safety nets (though it was a noted Liberal who brought State Pensions to the UK) to "The State owns everything. Your shoes included. And You".
Re: "But there are far more small "l" libertarians who are concerned about protection of individual rights, privacy, etc. while supporting *some* state actions."
Have either candidate gone into what it means to be a Liberal?
Have either candidate gone into what makes them different than moderate Labour/Tories?
Gosh - wouldn`t that be wonderful. Be still my beating heart.
Challenge for you (or anyone) if not too big a faff -
A concise description of what "liberalism" means - avoiding 'motherhood and apple pie' sentiments which no person of sound mind and good character could take issue with.
Of the four ideologies, liberalism is the easiest to define.
Liberals believe that the individual is the unit of importance. Not the nation , not a collective, not tradition – the individual. Liberals priorities two things: freedom and equality.
Freedom: Each individual is the best author of his/her own life. Liberals seek to minimise coercion by the state and by societal pressures and they encourage and applaud diversity and eccentricity. Individuals should be free to live their lives in the way that they want without restriction – right up until the point that they do harm to others. At this point, and at this point only, their freedom stops. This clearly differentiates liberals from collectivists, who see the world as groups of individuals (e.g. women, black people, LGBT people etc) rather than regarding individuals as entities in themselves with rights and a wide range of civil liberties. Freedom of speech and many other freedoms are essential to liberals.
Equality: all individuals are equal. Equality here means equality before the law, equality of status and equality of opportunity. Not equality of outcome. Liberals are never snobbish towards others and, likewise, do not doff their caps to others. Liberals are often, but not always, republicans and, I`d say, tend to be athiest. They are not patriotic – at least not in the way conservatives tend to be. Unlike conservatives, liberals are forward-looking and do not defer to tradition. Many liberals are environmentalists.
On the right/left axis, liberals range from mildly left wing to mildly right wing. Liberals are defined by prioritising individual liberty (freedom) rather than how right or left wing they are.
In summary, liberalism is all about individual flourishment, free from arbitrary custom and popular morality. Autonomy over one`s own life with only minimal state interference is vital for an individual to be free. Individuals are an entity in themselves, not seen as part of a collective.
How`s that for an attempt at short notice? Maybe not concise enough for you?
That's very good. You MUST have had that already on your floppy.
It passes my test (mainly) because I can pick out some bits and say I do NOT believe this myself. But let's not do that now.
One follow up. What's the key difference iyo between what you've said makes a liberal and people who ID as "libertarians"?
Libertarians, I`d argue, counts as a seperate, fourth, ideology.
Libertarianism spouts from liberalism to be sure but it is way out at the edge of it. I think of it as "Wild West thinking". Very anti-state - much more so than liberalism.
Libertarians are deeply suspicious of all politicians. It is almost an anarchist position. They despise political authority and state dictate. It follows that libertarians believe in VERY small government – one that is limited to basic infrastructure, such as border control, roads and defence.
Libertarians object to many state-enforced laws which, they say, always curtail individual freedom. For example, they may object to: compulsory schooling, compulsory wearing of seat belts, the need to pass a driving test, the law against foxhunting, the banning of smoking in public places, the need to restrict or licence firearms, the fluoridation of drinking water, planning-permission regulations. And the need to follow lockdown rules!
Like liberals, libertarians think that individuals should be free to make their own mistakes in life. But unlike liberals, libertarians will be vehemently against any form of social safety net.
Libertarians will oppose any form of humanitarian action for any other country, including militaristic action and international financial aid. They are non-interventionist. Other countries problems are nothing to do with us.
Libertarianism is probably much more common in the US than the UK. Hence Wild West analogy. It is every man/woman for himself/herself.
And leave my floppy out of it.
I think it's closer to the negative liberties/positive liberties division.
Negative liberty: freedom from interference and coercion. This doesn't automatically give the individual control over their life and to meet their potential. Someone with zero education, who is ill or injured, or completely brassic may be free from anyone else interfering with their lives, but they ain't fulfilling much in the way of potential, and their captaincy over their own lives is rather limited.
Positive liberty involves enabling the individual to act on their will - to possess power and opportunity. Ensuring that they do, in fact, have equal opportunities. Education provides a positive liberty, as does health care, and as does a safety net financially.
This is where a lot of argument can arise - at what point do you shift from enabling someone to carrying them? (Possibly where you start pushing to equalise outcomes. As Sir Pterry put in the mouth of the Patrician "Freedom includes the freedom to take the consequences. In fact, it's the freedom on which all others are based." If you shield them from the consequences of their choices, you're removing their freedom and possibly replacing it with privilege instead.)
However, a libertarian is likely to strike out all of the positive liberty stuff entirely.
Have either candidate gone into what it means to be a Liberal?
Have either candidate gone into what makes them different than moderate Labour/Tories?
Gosh - wouldn`t that be wonderful. Be still my beating heart.
Challenge for you (or anyone) if not too big a faff -
A concise description of what "liberalism" means - avoiding 'motherhood and apple pie' sentiments which no person of sound mind and good character could take issue with.
Of the four ideologies, liberalism is the easiest to define.
Liberals believe that the individual is the unit of importance. Not the nation , not a collective, not tradition – the individual. Liberals priorities two things: freedom and equality.
Freedom: Each individual is the best author of his/her own life. Liberals seek to minimise coercion by the state and by societal pressures and they encourage and applaud diversity and eccentricity. Individuals should be free to live their lives in the way that they want without restriction – right up until the point that they do harm to others. At this point, and at this point only, their freedom stops. This clearly differentiates liberals from collectivists, who see the world as groups of individuals (e.g. women, black people, LGBT people etc) rather than regarding individuals as entities in themselves with rights and a wide range of civil liberties. Freedom of speech and many other freedoms are essential to liberals.
Equality: all individuals are equal. Equality here means equality before the law, equality of status and equality of opportunity. Not equality of outcome. Liberals are never snobbish towards others and, likewise, do not doff their caps to others. Liberals are often, but not always, republicans and, I`d say, tend to be athiest. They are not patriotic – at least not in the way conservatives tend to be. Unlike conservatives, liberals are forward-looking and do not defer to tradition. Many liberals are environmentalists.
On the right/left axis, liberals range from mildly left wing to mildly right wing. Liberals are defined by prioritising individual liberty (freedom) rather than how right or left wing they are.
In summary, liberalism is all about individual flourishment, free from arbitrary custom and popular morality. Autonomy over one`s own life with only minimal state interference is vital for an individual to be free. Individuals are an entity in themselves, not seen as part of a collective.
How`s that for an attempt at short notice? Maybe not concise enough for you?
That's very good. You MUST have had that already on your floppy.
It passes my test (mainly) because I can pick out some bits and say I do NOT believe this myself. But let's not do that now.
One follow up. What's the key difference iyo between what you've said makes a liberal and people who ID as "libertarians"?
Libertarians, I`d argue, counts as a seperate, fourth, ideology.
Libertarianism spouts from liberalism to be sure but it is way out at the edge of it. I think of it as "Wild West thinking". Very anti-state - much more so than liberalism.
Libertarians are deeply suspicious of all politicians. It is almost an anarchist position. They despise political authority and state dictate. It follows that libertarians believe in VERY small government – one that is limited to basic infrastructure, such as border control, roads and defence.
Libertarians object to many state-enforced laws which, they say, always curtail individual freedom. For example, they may object to: compulsory schooling, compulsory wearing of seat belts, the need to pass a driving test, the law against foxhunting, the banning of smoking in public places, the need to restrict or licence firearms, the fluoridation of drinking water, planning-permission regulations. And the need to follow lockdown rules!
Like liberals, libertarians think that individuals should be free to make their own mistakes in life. But unlike liberals, libertarians will be vehemently against any form of social safety net.
Libertarians will oppose any form of humanitarian action for any other country, including militaristic action and international financial aid. They are non-interventionist. Other countries problems are nothing to do with us.
Libertarianism is probably much more common in the US than the UK. Hence Wild West analogy. It is every man/woman for himself/herself.
And leave my floppy out of it.
This is interesting I kind of feel closer to your definition of liberal than libertarian.
Your libertarians are more anarchist than I am.
Then I think you need to re-look at your attitude towards the BBC - which we have locked horns about before. A liberal endeavour to the core. You think that people should only pay for what they themselves use as opposed to everyone contributing to a common good. This is a clear libertarian attitude.
It is fundamentally illiberal to oblige people to pay for a liberal endeavour that they don't want, especially when it is not universal and there are so many alternatives in this day and age.
If people want to pay for the BBC they should be free to do so.
The same argument can be said about the NHS. You pay for it even if you don’t use it.
You are essentially picking and choosing what is “liberal” because you have a vendetta against the BBC.
No because healthcare is universal. If you get sick, you are able to be treated and you don't know if or when you get sick. Plus it doesn't matter what your ailment is: cancer, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, fertility, failing organs, CF or a plethora of other issues the NHS is there universally to try and treat it as best as can be done.
The BBC is not the same. It is one entertainment provider of many but if you want alternative entertainment you are still obliged to pay for the BBC even if you want something else.
The BBC/NHS analogy would be like having an NHS that only treated cancer and you were taxed a fortune only to treat cancer but if you had a heart attack you were charged in full for your treatment - despite paying for the NHS.
Have either candidate gone into what it means to be a Liberal?
Have either candidate gone into what makes them different than moderate Labour/Tories?
Gosh - wouldn`t that be wonderful. Be still my beating heart.
Challenge for you (or anyone) if not too big a faff -
A concise description of what "liberalism" means - avoiding 'motherhood and apple pie' sentiments which no person of sound mind and good character could take issue with.
Of the four ideologies, liberalism is the easiest to define.
Liberals believe that the individual is the unit of importance. Not the nation , not a collective, not tradition – the individual. Liberals priorities two things: freedom and equality.
Freedom: Each individual is the best author of his/her own life. Liberals seek to minimise coercion by the state and by societal pressures and they encourage and applaud diversity and eccentricity. Individuals should be free to live their lives in the way that they want without restriction – right up until the point that they do harm to others. At this point, and at this point only, their freedom stops. This clearly differentiates liberals from collectivists, who see the world as groups of individuals (e.g. women, black people, LGBT people etc) rather than regarding individuals as entities in themselves with rights and a wide range of civil liberties. Freedom of speech and many other freedoms are essential to liberals.
Equality: all individuals are equal. Equality here means equality before the law, equality of status and equality of opportunity. Not equality of outcome. Liberals are never snobbish towards others and, likewise, do not doff their caps to others. Liberals are often, but not always, republicans and, I`d say, tend to be athiest. They are not patriotic – at least not in the way conservatives tend to be. Unlike conservatives, liberals are forward-looking and do not defer to tradition. Many liberals are environmentalists.
On the right/left axis, liberals range from mildly left wing to mildly right wing. Liberals are defined by prioritising individual liberty (freedom) rather than how right or left wing they are.
In summary, liberalism is all about individual flourishment, free from arbitrary custom and popular morality. Autonomy over one`s own life with only minimal state interference is vital for an individual to be free. Individuals are an entity in themselves, not seen as part of a collective.
How`s that for an attempt at short notice? Maybe not concise enough for you?
That's very good. You MUST have had that already on your floppy.
It passes my test (mainly) because I can pick out some bits and say I do NOT believe this myself. But let's not do that now.
One follow up. What's the key difference iyo between what you've said makes a liberal and people who ID as "libertarians"?
Libertarians, I`d argue, counts as a seperate, fourth, ideology.
Libertarianism spouts from liberalism to be sure but it is way out at the edge of it. I think of it as "Wild West thinking". Very anti-state - much more so than liberalism.
Libertarians are deeply suspicious of all politicians. It is almost an anarchist position. They despise political authority and state dictate. It follows that libertarians believe in VERY small government – one that is limited to basic infrastructure, such as border control, roads and defence.
Libertarians object to many state-enforced laws which, they say, always curtail individual freedom. For example, they may object to: compulsory schooling, compulsory wearing of seat belts, the need to pass a driving test, the law against foxhunting, the banning of smoking in public places, the need to restrict or licence firearms, the fluoridation of drinking water, planning-permission regulations. And the need to follow lockdown rules!
Like liberals, libertarians think that individuals should be free to make their own mistakes in life. But unlike liberals, libertarians will be vehemently against any form of social safety net.
Libertarians will oppose any form of humanitarian action for any other country, including militaristic action and international financial aid. They are non-interventionist. Other countries problems are nothing to do with us.
Libertarianism is probably much more common in the US than the UK. Hence Wild West analogy. It is every man/woman for himself/herself.
And leave my floppy out of it.
This is interesting I kind of feel closer to your definition of liberal than libertarian.
Your libertarians are more anarchist than I am.
Perhaps it is fair to point out that Libertarianism is not an absolute. A tiny number of fanatics believe in No State, true. But there are far more small "l" libertarians who are concerned about protection of individual rights, privacy, etc. while supporting *some* state actions.
Bit like Socialism is, in practise, a continuum from state safety nets (though it was a noted Liberal who brought State Pensions to the UK) to "The State owns everything. Your shoes included. And You".
Re: "But there are far more small "l" libertarians who are concerned about protection of individual rights, privacy, etc. while supporting *some* state actions."
No - they are liberals.
Does the label really matter?
Yes. Everyone should know what ideology they hold. It is the key thing that should inform voting. A failure to do this is why we have so many floating voters, who don`t have a scooby.
Have either candidate gone into what it means to be a Liberal?
Have either candidate gone into what makes them different than moderate Labour/Tories?
Gosh - wouldn`t that be wonderful. Be still my beating heart.
Challenge for you (or anyone) if not too big a faff -
A concise description of what "liberalism" means - avoiding 'motherhood and apple pie' sentiments which no person of sound mind and good character could take issue with.
Of the four ideologies, liberalism is the easiest to define.
Liberals believe that the individual is the unit of importance. Not the nation , not a collective, not tradition – the individual. Liberals priorities two things: freedom and equality.
Freedom: Each individual is the best author of his/her own life. Liberals seek to minimise coercion by the state and by societal pressures and they encourage and applaud diversity and eccentricity. Individuals should be free to live their lives in the way that they want without restriction – right up until the point that they do harm to others. At this point, and at this point only, their freedom stops. This clearly differentiates liberals from collectivists, who see the world as groups of individuals (e.g. women, black people, LGBT people etc) rather than regarding individuals as entities in themselves with rights and a wide range of civil liberties. Freedom of speech and many other freedoms are essential to liberals.
Equality: all individuals are equal. Equality here means equality before the law, equality of status and equality of opportunity. Not equality of outcome. Liberals are never snobbish towards others and, likewise, do not doff their caps to others. Liberals are often, but not always, republicans and, I`d say, tend to be athiest. They are not patriotic – at least not in the way conservatives tend to be. Unlike conservatives, liberals are forward-looking and do not defer to tradition. Many liberals are environmentalists.
On the right/left axis, liberals range from mildly left wing to mildly right wing. Liberals are defined by prioritising individual liberty (freedom) rather than how right or left wing they are.
In summary, liberalism is all about individual flourishment, free from arbitrary custom and popular morality. Autonomy over one`s own life with only minimal state interference is vital for an individual to be free. Individuals are an entity in themselves, not seen as part of a collective.
How`s that for an attempt at short notice? Maybe not concise enough for you?
That's very good. You MUST have had that already on your floppy.
It passes my test (mainly) because I can pick out some bits and say I do NOT believe this myself. But let's not do that now.
One follow up. What's the key difference iyo between what you've said makes a liberal and people who ID as "libertarians"?
Libertarians, I`d argue, counts as a seperate, fourth, ideology.
Libertarianism spouts from liberalism to be sure but it is way out at the edge of it. I think of it as "Wild West thinking". Very anti-state - much more so than liberalism.
Libertarians are deeply suspicious of all politicians. It is almost an anarchist position. They despise political authority and state dictate. It follows that libertarians believe in VERY small government – one that is limited to basic infrastructure, such as border control, roads and defence.
Libertarians object to many state-enforced laws which, they say, always curtail individual freedom. For example, they may object to: compulsory schooling, compulsory wearing of seat belts, the need to pass a driving test, the law against foxhunting, the banning of smoking in public places, the need to restrict or licence firearms, the fluoridation of drinking water, planning-permission regulations. And the need to follow lockdown rules!
Like liberals, libertarians think that individuals should be free to make their own mistakes in life. But unlike liberals, libertarians will be vehemently against any form of social safety net.
Libertarians will oppose any form of humanitarian action for any other country, including militaristic action and international financial aid. They are non-interventionist. Other countries problems are nothing to do with us.
Libertarianism is probably much more common in the US than the UK. Hence Wild West analogy. It is every man/woman for himself/herself.
And leave my floppy out of it.
Thanks. That (again) is very clear and helpful. So a liberal can (possibly) support quite high tax & spend but a libertarian never will. That is a big difference.
A visceral objection to paying a dime to the government and it's "Get off a ma porch and don't come back" when somebody comes to read the meter.
Like you, I do associate this far more with America than over here.
Have either candidate gone into what it means to be a Liberal?
Have either candidate gone into what makes them different than moderate Labour/Tories?
Gosh - wouldn`t that be wonderful. Be still my beating heart.
Challenge for you (or anyone) if not too big a faff -
A concise description of what "liberalism" means - avoiding 'motherhood and apple pie' sentiments which no person of sound mind and good character could take issue with.
Of the four ideologies, liberalism is the easiest to define.
Liberals believe that the individual is the unit of importance. Not the nation , not a collective, not tradition – the individual. Liberals priorities two things: freedom and equality.
Freedom: Each individual is the best author of his/her own life. Liberals seek to minimise coercion by the state and by societal pressures and they encourage and applaud diversity and eccentricity. Individuals should be free to live their lives in the way that they want without restriction – right up until the point that they do harm to others. At this point, and at this point only, their freedom stops. This clearly differentiates liberals from collectivists, who see the world as groups of individuals (e.g. women, black people, LGBT people etc) rather than regarding individuals as entities in themselves with rights and a wide range of civil liberties. Freedom of speech and many other freedoms are essential to liberals.
Equality: all individuals are equal. Equality here means equality before the law, equality of status and equality of opportunity. Not equality of outcome. Liberals are never snobbish towards others and, likewise, do not doff their caps to others. Liberals are often, but not always, republicans and, I`d say, tend to be athiest. They are not patriotic – at least not in the way conservatives tend to be. Unlike conservatives, liberals are forward-looking and do not defer to tradition. Many liberals are environmentalists.
On the right/left axis, liberals range from mildly left wing to mildly right wing. Liberals are defined by prioritising individual liberty (freedom) rather than how right or left wing they are.
In summary, liberalism is all about individual flourishment, free from arbitrary custom and popular morality. Autonomy over one`s own life with only minimal state interference is vital for an individual to be free. Individuals are an entity in themselves, not seen as part of a collective.
How`s that for an attempt at short notice? Maybe not concise enough for you?
That's very good. You MUST have had that already on your floppy.
It passes my test (mainly) because I can pick out some bits and say I do NOT believe this myself. But let's not do that now.
One follow up. What's the key difference iyo between what you've said makes a liberal and people who ID as "libertarians"?
Libertarians, I`d argue, counts as a seperate, fourth, ideology.
Libertarianism spouts from liberalism to be sure but it is way out at the edge of it. I think of it as "Wild West thinking". Very anti-state - much more so than liberalism.
Libertarians are deeply suspicious of all politicians. It is almost an anarchist position. They despise political authority and state dictate. It follows that libertarians believe in VERY small government – one that is limited to basic infrastructure, such as border control, roads and defence.
Libertarians object to many state-enforced laws which, they say, always curtail individual freedom. For example, they may object to: compulsory schooling, compulsory wearing of seat belts, the need to pass a driving test, the law against foxhunting, the banning of smoking in public places, the need to restrict or licence firearms, the fluoridation of drinking water, planning-permission regulations. And the need to follow lockdown rules!
Like liberals, libertarians think that individuals should be free to make their own mistakes in life. But unlike liberals, libertarians will be vehemently against any form of social safety net.
Libertarians will oppose any form of humanitarian action for any other country, including militaristic action and international financial aid. They are non-interventionist. Other countries problems are nothing to do with us.
Libertarianism is probably much more common in the US than the UK. Hence Wild West analogy. It is every man/woman for himself/herself.
And leave my floppy out of it.
This is interesting I kind of feel closer to your definition of liberal than libertarian.
Your libertarians are more anarchist than I am.
Then I think you need to re-look at your attitude towards the BBC - which we have locked horns about before. A liberal endeavour to the core. You think that people should only pay for what they themselves use as opposed to everyone contributing to a common good. This is a clear libertarian attitude.
It is fundamentally illiberal to oblige people to pay for a liberal endeavour that they don't want, especially when it is not universal and there are so many alternatives in this day and age.
If people want to pay for the BBC they should be free to do so.
The same argument can be said about the NHS. You pay for it even if you don’t use it.
You are essentially picking and choosing what is “liberal” because you have a vendetta against the BBC.
The NHS is about life and death. The BBC is about whether you want to watch Gary Lineker.
Just a gut feeling, but I suspect that Davey would go down better with Scottish Lib Dem voters than Moran. Does anyone have any inside info on how the SLDs are planning to vote?
I honk Moran would go down better, she gives woke Scottish people a unionist place to vote, at the moment a woke Scottish person is voting for the SNP, there is no other choice. Moran gives unionists that voice in Scotland that Ruth used to be an outlet for.
Both she personally and London Lib Dems will not go down well in Scotland. They have sh*t in their own nest with their illiberal attitudes. Competition with Labour for dunces seat.
Have either candidate gone into what it means to be a Liberal?
Have either candidate gone into what makes them different than moderate Labour/Tories?
Gosh - wouldn`t that be wonderful. Be still my beating heart.
Challenge for you (or anyone) if not too big a faff -
A concise description of what "liberalism" means - avoiding 'motherhood and apple pie' sentiments which no person of sound mind and good character could take issue with.
Of the four ideologies, liberalism is the easiest to define.
Liberals believe that the individual is the unit of importance. Not the nation , not a collective, not tradition – the individual. Liberals priorities two things: freedom and equality.
Freedom: Each individual is the best author of his/her own life. Liberals seek to minimise coercion by the state and by societal pressures and they encourage and applaud diversity and eccentricity. Individuals should be free to live their lives in the way that they want without restriction – right up until the point that they do harm to others. At this point, and at this point only, their freedom stops. This clearly differentiates liberals from collectivists, who see the world as groups of individuals (e.g. women, black people, LGBT people etc) rather than regarding individuals as entities in themselves with rights and a wide range of civil liberties. Freedom of speech and many other freedoms are essential to liberals.
Equality: all individuals are equal. Equality here means equality before the law, equality of status and equality of opportunity. Not equality of outcome. Liberals are never snobbish towards others and, likewise, do not doff their caps to others. Liberals are often, but not always, republicans and, I`d say, tend to be athiest. They are not patriotic – at least not in the way conservatives tend to be. Unlike conservatives, liberals are forward-looking and do not defer to tradition. Many liberals are environmentalists.
On the right/left axis, liberals range from mildly left wing to mildly right wing. Liberals are defined by prioritising individual liberty (freedom) rather than how right or left wing they are.
In summary, liberalism is all about individual flourishment, free from arbitrary custom and popular morality. Autonomy over one`s own life with only minimal state interference is vital for an individual to be free. Individuals are an entity in themselves, not seen as part of a collective.
How`s that for an attempt at short notice? Maybe not concise enough for you?
That's very good. You MUST have had that already on your floppy.
It passes my test (mainly) because I can pick out some bits and say I do NOT believe this myself. But let's not do that now.
One follow up. What's the key difference iyo between what you've said makes a liberal and people who ID as "libertarians"?
Libertarians, I`d argue, counts as a seperate, fourth, ideology.
Libertarianism spouts from liberalism to be sure but it is way out at the edge of it. I think of it as "Wild West thinking". Very anti-state - much more so than liberalism.
Libertarians are deeply suspicious of all politicians. It is almost an anarchist position. They despise political authority and state dictate. It follows that libertarians believe in VERY small government – one that is limited to basic infrastructure, such as border control, roads and defence.
Libertarians object to many state-enforced laws which, they say, always curtail individual freedom. For example, they may object to: compulsory schooling, compulsory wearing of seat belts, the need to pass a driving test, the law against foxhunting, the banning of smoking in public places, the need to restrict or licence firearms, the fluoridation of drinking water, planning-permission regulations. And the need to follow lockdown rules!
Like liberals, libertarians think that individuals should be free to make their own mistakes in life. But unlike liberals, libertarians will be vehemently against any form of social safety net.
Libertarians will oppose any form of humanitarian action for any other country, including militaristic action and international financial aid. They are non-interventionist. Other countries problems are nothing to do with us.
Libertarianism is probably much more common in the US than the UK. Hence Wild West analogy. It is every man/woman for himself/herself.
And leave my floppy out of it.
I think it's closer to the negative liberties/positive liberties division.
Negative liberty: freedom from interference and coercion. This doesn't automatically give the individual control over their life and to meet their potential. Someone with zero education, who is ill or injured, or completely brassic may be free from anyone else interfering with their lives, but they ain't fulfilling much in the way of potential, and their captaincy over their own lives is rather limited.
Positive liberty involves enabling the individual to act on their will - to possess power and opportunity. Ensuring that they do, in fact, have equal opportunities. Education provides a positive liberty, as does health care, and as does a safety net financially.
This is where a lot of argument can arise - at what point do you shift from enabling someone to carrying them? (Possibly where you start pushing to equalise outcomes. As Sir Pterry put in the mouth of the Patrician "Freedom includes the freedom to take the consequences. In fact, it's the freedom on which all others are based." If you shield them from the consequences of their choices, you're removing their freedom and possibly replacing it with privilege instead.)
However, a libertarian is likely to strike out all of the positive liberty stuff entirely.
Excellent post. BBC and Open University (as was) represent excellent examples of how positive liberty is needed to realise negative liberty. Liberals will always support a larger state than bare bones to promote positive liberty.
Have either candidate gone into what it means to be a Liberal?
Have either candidate gone into what makes them different than moderate Labour/Tories?
Gosh - wouldn`t that be wonderful. Be still my beating heart.
Challenge for you (or anyone) if not too big a faff -
A concise description of what "liberalism" means - avoiding 'motherhood and apple pie' sentiments which no person of sound mind and good character could take issue with.
Of the four ideologies, liberalism is the easiest to define.
Liberals believe that the individual is the unit of importance. Not the nation , not a collective, not tradition – the individual. Liberals priorities two things: freedom and equality.
Freedom: Each individual is the best author of his/her own life. Liberals seek to minimise coercion by the state and by societal pressures and they encourage and applaud diversity and eccentricity. Individuals should be free to live their lives in the way that they want without restriction – right up until the point that they do harm to others. At this point, and at this point only, their freedom stops. This clearly differentiates liberals from collectivists, who see the world as groups of individuals (e.g. women, black people, LGBT people etc) rather than regarding individuals as entities in themselves with rights and a wide range of civil liberties. Freedom of speech and many other freedoms are essential to liberals.
Equality: all individuals are equal. Equality here means equality before the law, equality of status and equality of opportunity. Not equality of outcome. Liberals are never snobbish towards others and, likewise, do not doff their caps to others. Liberals are often, but not always, republicans and, I`d say, tend to be athiest. They are not patriotic – at least not in the way conservatives tend to be. Unlike conservatives, liberals are forward-looking and do not defer to tradition. Many liberals are environmentalists.
On the right/left axis, liberals range from mildly left wing to mildly right wing. Liberals are defined by prioritising individual liberty (freedom) rather than how right or left wing they are.
In summary, liberalism is all about individual flourishment, free from arbitrary custom and popular morality. Autonomy over one`s own life with only minimal state interference is vital for an individual to be free. Individuals are an entity in themselves, not seen as part of a collective.
How`s that for an attempt at short notice? Maybe not concise enough for you?
That's very good. You MUST have had that already on your floppy.
It passes my test (mainly) because I can pick out some bits and say I do NOT believe this myself. But let's not do that now.
One follow up. What's the key difference iyo between what you've said makes a liberal and people who ID as "libertarians"?
Libertarians, I`d argue, counts as a seperate, fourth, ideology.
Libertarianism spouts from liberalism to be sure but it is way out at the edge of it. I think of it as "Wild West thinking". Very anti-state - much more so than liberalism.
Libertarians are deeply suspicious of all politicians. It is almost an anarchist position. They despise political authority and state dictate. It follows that libertarians believe in VERY small government – one that is limited to basic infrastructure, such as border control, roads and defence.
Libertarians object to many state-enforced laws which, they say, always curtail individual freedom. For example, they may object to: compulsory schooling, compulsory wearing of seat belts, the need to pass a driving test, the law against foxhunting, the banning of smoking in public places, the need to restrict or licence firearms, the fluoridation of drinking water, planning-permission regulations. And the need to follow lockdown rules!
Like liberals, libertarians think that individuals should be free to make their own mistakes in life. But unlike liberals, libertarians will be vehemently against any form of social safety net.
Libertarians will oppose any form of humanitarian action for any other country, including militaristic action and international financial aid. They are non-interventionist. Other countries problems are nothing to do with us.
Libertarianism is probably much more common in the US than the UK. Hence Wild West analogy. It is every man/woman for himself/herself.
And leave my floppy out of it.
This is interesting I kind of feel closer to your definition of liberal than libertarian.
Your libertarians are more anarchist than I am.
Then I think you need to re-look at your attitude towards the BBC - which we have locked horns about before. A liberal endeavour to the core. You think that people should only pay for what they themselves use as opposed to everyone contributing to a common good. This is a clear libertarian attitude.
It is fundamentally illiberal to oblige people to pay for a liberal endeavour that they don't want, especially when it is not universal and there are so many alternatives in this day and age.
If people want to pay for the BBC they should be free to do so.
The same argument can be said about the NHS. You pay for it even if you don’t use it.
You are essentially picking and choosing what is “liberal” because you have a vendetta against the BBC.
The NHS is about life and death. The BBC is about whether you want to watch Gary Lineker.
The BBC is not a "common good" and is frankly a bit pants.
@Nigelb - to your question on the previous thread about Mrs Ed.
So, she is a Republican-registered voter but has not voted Republican since 2004 - she voted Obama in 2008 and 2012, and Jill Stein in 2016 (rationale - didn't like Clinton or Trump but determined to vote and wanted to say she had voted for a woman as President). This time round she is 100% for Trump with the catalyst being the protests in the States
Interesting, even if I don't follow the logic. Thanks.
Well, her conversion to Trump is very sudden - earlier this year, she would not vote for him.
Have either candidate gone into what it means to be a Liberal?
Have either candidate gone into what makes them different than moderate Labour/Tories?
Gosh - wouldn`t that be wonderful. Be still my beating heart.
Challenge for you (or anyone) if not too big a faff -
A concise description of what "liberalism" means - avoiding 'motherhood and apple pie' sentiments which no person of sound mind and good character could take issue with.
Of the four ideologies, liberalism is the easiest to define.
Liberals believe that the individual is the unit of importance. Not the nation , not a collective, not tradition – the individual. Liberals priorities two things: freedom and equality.
Freedom: Each individual is the best author of his/her own life. Liberals seek to minimise coercion by the state and by societal pressures and they encourage and applaud diversity and eccentricity. Individuals should be free to live their lives in the way that they want without restriction – right up until the point that they do harm to others. At this point, and at this point only, their freedom stops. This clearly differentiates liberals from collectivists, who see the world as groups of individuals (e.g. women, black people, LGBT people etc) rather than regarding individuals as entities in themselves with rights and a wide range of civil liberties. Freedom of speech and many other freedoms are essential to liberals.
Equality: all individuals are equal. Equality here means equality before the law, equality of status and equality of opportunity. Not equality of outcome. Liberals are never snobbish towards others and, likewise, do not doff their caps to others. Liberals are often, but not always, republicans and, I`d say, tend to be athiest. They are not patriotic – at least not in the way conservatives tend to be. Unlike conservatives, liberals are forward-looking and do not defer to tradition. Many liberals are environmentalists.
On the right/left axis, liberals range from mildly left wing to mildly right wing. Liberals are defined by prioritising individual liberty (freedom) rather than how right or left wing they are.
In summary, liberalism is all about individual flourishment, free from arbitrary custom and popular morality. Autonomy over one`s own life with only minimal state interference is vital for an individual to be free. Individuals are an entity in themselves, not seen as part of a collective.
How`s that for an attempt at short notice? Maybe not concise enough for you?
That's very good. You MUST have had that already on your floppy.
It passes my test (mainly) because I can pick out some bits and say I do NOT believe this myself. But let's not do that now.
One follow up. What's the key difference iyo between what you've said makes a liberal and people who ID as "libertarians"?
Libertarians, I`d argue, counts as a seperate, fourth, ideology.
Libertarianism spouts from liberalism to be sure but it is way out at the edge of it. I think of it as "Wild West thinking". Very anti-state - much more so than liberalism.
Libertarians are deeply suspicious of all politicians. It is almost an anarchist position. They despise political authority and state dictate. It follows that libertarians believe in VERY small government – one that is limited to basic infrastructure, such as border control, roads and defence.
Libertarians object to many state-enforced laws which, they say, always curtail individual freedom. For example, they may object to: compulsory schooling, compulsory wearing of seat belts, the need to pass a driving test, the law against foxhunting, the banning of smoking in public places, the need to restrict or licence firearms, the fluoridation of drinking water, planning-permission regulations. And the need to follow lockdown rules!
Like liberals, libertarians think that individuals should be free to make their own mistakes in life. But unlike liberals, libertarians will be vehemently against any form of social safety net.
Libertarians will oppose any form of humanitarian action for any other country, including militaristic action and international financial aid. They are non-interventionist. Other countries problems are nothing to do with us.
Libertarianism is probably much more common in the US than the UK. Hence Wild West analogy. It is every man/woman for himself/herself.
And leave my floppy out of it.
This is interesting I kind of feel closer to your definition of liberal than libertarian.
Your libertarians are more anarchist than I am.
Then I think you need to re-look at your attitude towards the BBC - which we have locked horns about before. A liberal endeavour to the core. You think that people should only pay for what they themselves use as opposed to everyone contributing to a common good. This is a clear libertarian attitude.
It is fundamentally illiberal to oblige people to pay for a liberal endeavour that they don't want, especially when it is not universal and there are so many alternatives in this day and age.
If people want to pay for the BBC they should be free to do so.
The same argument can be said about the NHS. You pay for it even if you don’t use it.
You are essentially picking and choosing what is “liberal” because you have a vendetta against the BBC.
No because healthcare is universal. If you get sick, you are able to be treated and you don't know if or when you get sick. Plus it doesn't matter what your ailment is: cancer, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, fertility, failing organs, CF or a plethora of other issues the NHS is there universally to try and treat it as best as can be done.
The BBC is not the same. It is one entertainment provider of many but if you want alternative entertainment you are still obliged to pay for the BBC even if you want something else.
The BBC/NHS analogy would be like having an NHS that only treated cancer and you were taxed a fortune only to treat cancer but if you had a heart attack you were charged in full for your treatment - despite paying for the NHS.
What are you on about? You are just doing intellectual gymnastics to justify your position. You are being inconsistent, which is fine, but it’s still inconsistent.
You have no choice whether to contribute to the NHS as a taxpayer, even if you choose to use private healthcare in its entirety.
You have no choice whether to contribute to the BBC as a taxpayer (assuming you watch live TV), even if you choose to use private television providers in its entirety.
They are in principal the same. The only difference is that healthcare is obviously “more important” than television.
Raab statement - sticking by BNO Passport holders in Hong Kong - Lisa Nancy asking about what happens to non-BNO passport holders - the young demonstrators, for example.
Have either candidate gone into what it means to be a Liberal?
Have either candidate gone into what makes them different than moderate Labour/Tories?
Gosh - wouldn`t that be wonderful. Be still my beating heart.
Challenge for you (or anyone) if not too big a faff -
A concise description of what "liberalism" means - avoiding 'motherhood and apple pie' sentiments which no person of sound mind and good character could take issue with.
Of the four ideologies, liberalism is the easiest to define.
Liberals believe that the individual is the unit of importance. Not the nation , not a collective, not tradition – the individual. Liberals priorities two things: freedom and equality.
Freedom: Each individual is the best author of his/her own life. Liberals seek to minimise coercion by the state and by societal pressures and they encourage and applaud diversity and eccentricity. Individuals should be free to live their lives in the way that they want without restriction – right up until the point that they do harm to others. At this point, and at this point only, their freedom stops. This clearly differentiates liberals from collectivists, who see the world as groups of individuals (e.g. women, black people, LGBT people etc) rather than regarding individuals as entities in themselves with rights and a wide range of civil liberties. Freedom of speech and many other freedoms are essential to liberals.
Equality: all individuals are equal. Equality here means equality before the law, equality of status and equality of opportunity. Not equality of outcome. Liberals are never snobbish towards others and, likewise, do not doff their caps to others. Liberals are often, but not always, republicans and, I`d say, tend to be athiest. They are not patriotic – at least not in the way conservatives tend to be. Unlike conservatives, liberals are forward-looking and do not defer to tradition. Many liberals are environmentalists.
On the right/left axis, liberals range from mildly left wing to mildly right wing. Liberals are defined by prioritising individual liberty (freedom) rather than how right or left wing they are.
In summary, liberalism is all about individual flourishment, free from arbitrary custom and popular morality. Autonomy over one`s own life with only minimal state interference is vital for an individual to be free. Individuals are an entity in themselves, not seen as part of a collective.
How`s that for an attempt at short notice? Maybe not concise enough for you?
That's very good. You MUST have had that already on your floppy.
It passes my test (mainly) because I can pick out some bits and say I do NOT believe this myself. But let's not do that now.
One follow up. What's the key difference iyo between what you've said makes a liberal and people who ID as "libertarians"?
Libertarians, I`d argue, counts as a seperate, fourth, ideology.
Libertarianism spouts from liberalism to be sure but it is way out at the edge of it. I think of it as "Wild West thinking". Very anti-state - much more so than liberalism.
Libertarians are deeply suspicious of all politicians. It is almost an anarchist position. They despise political authority and state dictate. It follows that libertarians believe in VERY small government – one that is limited to basic infrastructure, such as border control, roads and defence.
Libertarians object to many state-enforced laws which, they say, always curtail individual freedom. For example, they may object to: compulsory schooling, compulsory wearing of seat belts, the need to pass a driving test, the law against foxhunting, the banning of smoking in public places, the need to restrict or licence firearms, the fluoridation of drinking water, planning-permission regulations. And the need to follow lockdown rules!
Like liberals, libertarians think that individuals should be free to make their own mistakes in life. But unlike liberals, libertarians will be vehemently against any form of social safety net.
Libertarians will oppose any form of humanitarian action for any other country, including militaristic action and international financial aid. They are non-interventionist. Other countries problems are nothing to do with us.
Libertarianism is probably much more common in the US than the UK. Hence Wild West analogy. It is every man/woman for himself/herself.
And leave my floppy out of it.
This is interesting I kind of feel closer to your definition of liberal than libertarian.
Your libertarians are more anarchist than I am.
Perhaps it is fair to point out that Libertarianism is not an absolute. A tiny number of fanatics believe in No State, true. But there are far more small "l" libertarians who are concerned about protection of individual rights, privacy, etc. while supporting *some* state actions.
Bit like Socialism is, in practise, a continuum from state safety nets (though it was a noted Liberal who brought State Pensions to the UK) to "The State owns everything. Your shoes included. And You".
Re: "But there are far more small "l" libertarians who are concerned about protection of individual rights, privacy, etc. while supporting *some* state actions."
No - they are liberals.
I think we are arguing at cross purposes here - definitions of political groups are very hard. Especially over time.
I can certainly think of a few moderate libertarians who would claim *not* to be Classical Liberals. Then again, there are some who see themselves as The True Heirs to the Classical Liberal throne....
Comments
Even in the service of a pun.
I am a liberal who votes Conservative but my views of liberalism can be quite different to other people's definitions. I've been tempted by the yellows in the past, especially when the Tories had illiberal leaders (not now thankfully) but in recent years liberalism seems to have vanished from the LDs philosophy as its all become about Europe instead.
It would be good to know what both candidates thinks it means to be liberal.
Liberals believe that the individual is the unit of importance. Not the nation , not a collective, not tradition – the individual. Liberals priorities two things: freedom and equality.
Freedom: Each individual is the best author of his/her own life. Liberals seek to minimise coercion by the state and by societal pressures and they encourage and applaud diversity and eccentricity. Individuals should be free to live their lives in the way that they want without restriction – right up until the point that they do harm to others. At this point, and at this point only, their freedom stops. This clearly differentiates liberals from collectivists, who see the world as groups of individuals (e.g. women, black people, LGBT people etc) rather than regarding individuals as entities in themselves with rights and a wide range of civil liberties. Freedom of speech and many other freedoms are essential to liberals.
Equality: all individuals are equal. Equality here means equality before the law, equality of status and equality of opportunity. Not equality of outcome. Liberals are never snobbish towards others and, likewise, do not doff their caps to others. Liberals are often, but not always, republicans and, I`d say, tend to be athiest. They are not patriotic – at least not in the way conservatives tend to be. Unlike conservatives, liberals are forward-looking and do not defer to tradition. Many liberals are environmentalists.
On the right/left axis, liberals range from mildly left wing to mildly right wing. Liberals are defined by prioritising individual liberty (freedom) rather than how right or left wing they are.
In summary, liberalism is all about individual flourishment, free from arbitrary custom and popular morality. Autonomy over one`s own life with only minimal state interference is vital for an individual to be free. Individuals are an entity in themselves, not seen as part of a collective.
How`s that for an attempt at short notice? Maybe not concise enough for you?
#obviousjokes
The Lib Dems are better forgotten because they are neither liberal nor democratic. I'd welcome the return of the old Liberal Party but the current Lib Dems are a disgrace to the name.
Visualizing the effectiveness of face masks in obstructing respiratory jets
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/5.0016018
Basically multi layer well fitting cotton masks are quite effective.
Though I don't consider myself "mildly right wing" economically, that is my only exception. I consider myself very right wing economically but otherwise 100% agree with you. Right down to being an atheist, a republic and believing in environmentalism.
That is the LD target audience, Tory Remainers, particularly if we go to WTO terms Brexit
Quite frankly, the SLDs just want to feel good about themselves again. To drop the guilt of horrific underperformance, over many years. Davey strikes me as being a bit more bright and breezy. Moran is too earnest and serious and thoughtful. They don’t want a thinker, they want a smiler.
Arizona increasingly looking like a serious route to the Presidency (WI+MI+AZ +NE2 = 270).
Source: twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1278275369146212352
He sprayed a lead bar with gold paint. Now it's flaking off...
It passes my test (mainly) because I can pick out some bits and say I do NOT believe this myself. But let's not do that now.
One follow up. What's the key difference iyo between what you've said makes a liberal and people who ID as "libertarians"?
We didn't whack that mole fast enough...
Ok, no problem.
It is not impossible for a 3rd party to win seats off the opposition (as the SNP showed in 2015) but the path of least resistance is to win seats off the Government.
If you look at the LD target list 26 out of the top 30 targets are Con held, 2 Lab, 1 Plaid, 1 SNP
Another point to make is about the candidates themselves. Davey comes across a as a genial chap. Moran comes across as a bit kooky and I could see her backstory becoming a major campaign issue (remember Farron and abortion)
Prediction: If Davey wins then with a fair wind the LDs could win 25 seats and be on the road back to relevance. If Moran wins the LDs will struggle and end up merging with the Greens
And it really does add something - certainly EYE appreciate it when I see "Johnson" rather than "Boris" in any notes that you write to me.
He spends all night and day reposting tweets, where is the intelligence in that?
LOL.
Some of us do try... occasionally.
More broadly, I do find the whole left-wing/right-wing dialogue about the two Lib Dem candidates frustrating, because it ain't that simple.
The trick for the third party is not to be "more left" or "more right", it is to be distinct and compelling.
That does not mean putting up a uniform slate of policies to the left or right of Labour. It does not mean Moran saying "Labour is multilateralist so we must be unilateralist", or conversely Davey saying "Labour is pro-nationalisation so we must be pro-privatisation". And they both clearly know this, but unfortunately the debate is being framed in these rather sixth-form "more left-wing"/"less left-wing" terms, which does a disservice to both candidates.
I think Moran has a better chance of being distinct and compelling, not least because I can remember about half a dozen of her policies whereas all I can remember about Davey's is that he likes renewable energy. But whoever wins, they're not going to succeed just by defining the Lib Dems in relation to Labour.
Boris is the character he plays
Libertarianism spouts from liberalism to be sure but it is way out at the edge of it. I think of it as "Wild West thinking". Very anti-state - much more so than liberalism.
Libertarians are deeply suspicious of all politicians. It is almost an anarchist position. They despise political authority and state dictate. It follows that libertarians believe in VERY small government – one that is limited to basic infrastructure, such as border control, roads and defence.
Libertarians object to many state-enforced laws which, they say, always curtail individual freedom. For example, they may object to: compulsory schooling, compulsory wearing of seat belts, the need to pass a driving test, the law against foxhunting, the banning of smoking in public places, the need to restrict or licence firearms, the fluoridation of drinking water, planning-permission regulations. And the need to follow lockdown rules!
Like liberals, libertarians think that individuals should be free to make their own mistakes in life. But unlike liberals, libertarians will be vehemently against any form of social safety net.
Libertarians will oppose any form of humanitarian action for any other country, including militaristic action and international financial aid. They are non-interventionist. Other countries problems are nothing to do with us.
Libertarianism is probably much more common in the US than the UK. Hence Wild West analogy. It is every man/woman for himself/herself.
And leave my floppy out of it.
A couple of thoughts:
There is tension between the freedom and equality points. What if, for example, the only way to ensure equality of opportunity is by interference by the state? If you are a liberal who believes that the equality takes priority here, then you're not far from being socialist. Take one step further and say that society must give some support even to those who struggle after being given a fair opportunity (which I think most liberals believe in practise), then you're practically there. This is where I am, identifying both as a socialist and a liberal though I'm not a pure version of either.
"Liberals are never snobbish towards others". This should be the case, yes. However it is the snobbishness of self-described liberals towards others that has driven me away from them (e.g. Brexit, though I was a passionate Remainer). Religious belief should be orthogonal to liberalism or even positively correlated with it, but there's a snobbery towards religious people which drives them away. And I say that as an agnostic myself.
Not meaning to be antagonistic with the second point. I call myself a liberal myself. But I think it's illuminating how political philosophies can become narrower than they need to be.
How is that difficult to understand.
Some people are deliberately obtuse. This is like "what do Stay Alert mean though" all over again.
The LDs don't need too much of a swing to gain Wimbledon, Esher and Walton, Guildford, Winchester, Cheltenham, Cheadle, South Cambs even if the Tories are still riding very high but they really need to be gaining lots of soft Tories in constituencies like Wokingham and Hitchin and Harpenden.
I suspect it will come down to succesful expectation management for the local elections which should be easy for the lib Dems to do next year as opposed to anything the leader does which improves the LDs poll rating.
On topic, my view is it makes sense for the Lib Dems - and would be good for Starmer - to elect Davey and pitch your offer at (reasonably) socially liberal, pro-remain, economically centre-right voters who do not like the bluster of Boris but worry that they need to vote Conservative to keep "the loons" out. There are a bunch of commuter seats which the Lib Dems could win quite nicely, especially if there is an exodus of professional London types moving out of London post-crisis into these areas.
If they elect Moran, they risk competing for the culturally left share of the vote with Labour and the Greens. That is probably negative for Starmer on two fronts (1) because it splits that vote and (2) I can see a situation where elements of the Labour party who want a more "woke" agenda could find common cause with a Moran-led LD party
I'd agree on the tension between freedom and equality; I think the point of liberalism might be that it tries to seek a balance between the two, though, rather than prioritise one or the other?
(And on the second point, agreed. Though it's a little difficult to see how a fundamentalist religious belief could sit comfortably with liberalism.)
Your libertarians are more anarchist than I am.
So, she is a Republican-registered voter but has not voted Republican since 2004 - she voted Obama in 2008 and 2012, and Jill Stein in 2016 (rationale - didn't like Clinton or Trump but determined to vote and wanted to say she had voted for a woman as President). This time round she is 100% for Trump with the catalyst being the protests in the States
Ans: ...come on Philip you can do it...
Thanks.
I agree with your first comment about a tension. Every ideology is internally incoherent when you look beneath the bonnet. Unlike libertarians, liberals will tolerate a larger state when it is to promote positive liberty in order to help individuals make good on their negative liberty.
Re snobbishness: I`d differentiate snobbishness and intellectual elitism. I`d hold my hand up to the latter but never the former.
My view is that a Liberal stand for Freedom, illustrated by:
a)- Individual freedom (free from government interference)
b)- Free markets (free from government intervention)
c)- Free trade (between all countries not just within the EU) and against protectionism
d)- Free education (up to age 18)
e)- Free health treatment (at the point of delivery)
f)- Welfare for those unable to look after themselves
g)- Health and welfare paid for by a contributory system which qualifies you (a la Beveridge)
h)- A small state so as to let people run their own lives
Bit like Socialism is, in practise, a continuum from state safety nets (though it was a noted Liberal who brought State Pensions to the UK) to "The State owns everything. Your shoes included. And You".
If people want to pay for the BBC they should be free to do so.
You are essentially picking and choosing what is “liberal” because you have a vendetta against the BBC.
No - they are liberals.
Negative liberty: freedom from interference and coercion.
This doesn't automatically give the individual control over their life and to meet their potential. Someone with zero education, who is ill or injured, or completely brassic may be free from anyone else interfering with their lives, but they ain't fulfilling much in the way of potential, and their captaincy over their own lives is rather limited.
Positive liberty involves enabling the individual to act on their will - to possess power and opportunity. Ensuring that they do, in fact, have equal opportunities. Education provides a positive liberty, as does health care, and as does a safety net financially.
This is where a lot of argument can arise - at what point do you shift from enabling someone to carrying them? (Possibly where you start pushing to equalise outcomes. As Sir Pterry put in the mouth of the Patrician "Freedom includes the freedom to take the consequences. In fact, it's the freedom on which all others are based." If you shield them from the consequences of their choices, you're removing their freedom and possibly replacing it with privilege instead.)
However, a libertarian is likely to strike out all of the positive liberty stuff entirely.
The BBC is not the same. It is one entertainment provider of many but if you want alternative entertainment you are still obliged to pay for the BBC even if you want something else.
The BBC/NHS analogy would be like having an NHS that only treated cancer and you were taxed a fortune only to treat cancer but if you had a heart attack you were charged in full for your treatment - despite paying for the NHS.
A visceral objection to paying a dime to the government and it's "Get off a ma porch and don't come back" when somebody comes to read the meter.
Like you, I do associate this far more with America than over here.
Sorry, what was your 4th - liberal, libertarian, collectivist and ??
You have no choice whether to contribute to the NHS as a taxpayer, even if you choose to use private healthcare in its entirety.
You have no choice whether to contribute to the BBC as a taxpayer (assuming you watch live TV), even if you choose to use private television providers in its entirety.
They are in principal the same. The only difference is that healthcare is obviously “more important” than television.
I can certainly think of a few moderate libertarians who would claim *not* to be Classical Liberals. Then again, there are some who see themselves as The True Heirs to the Classical Liberal throne....