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
“It is not impossible for a 3rd party to win seats off the opposition (as the SNP showed in 2015)...”
Except the SNP was not 3rd party in 2015. We were 1st, and had been for eight years.
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.
Something that is irrelevant. I have already recognised that healthcare is more important than TV but ideologically they are the same principle.
Sorry, what was your 4th - liberal, libertarian, collectivist and ??
Conservatism. (Glad you`re taking notes by the way.)
By the way, I don`t think you are a lost cause, kinabalu, as far a liberalism is concerned. Phew ... There could, I suggest, be a liberal fighting to get out? Not with this woke stuff though. Never with that.
My greatest PB.com moment came a few weeks ago when a poster described you as "a pretty crap woke bloke."
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.
Yes, I agree. Back when the BBC was created it was the only option out there and funding via the license fee made sense. Even with 2, 3 the. 4 channels it was still justifiable. Now it is hard to justify given the prevalence of other means of obtaining news and entertainment. YouTube is the third most watched channel,and Netflix the fifth. This change is only going to accelerate and younger people are less and less interested in the BBC which is ironic as it shamelessly chases them.
A TV poll tax is no longer justifiable.
The TV License should be abolished. The BBC should be made to seek alternative means of obtaining funding. The means of distribution, the transmitters and other associates products should be funded via general taxation.
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'
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.
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.
People do not like paying to be preached to. You can stop paying for sky / BT or going to the footie if you want ( and I think some will). It is more difficult to stop paying for the BBC. Though it is possible.
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.
Yes, I agree. Back when the BBC was created it was the only option out there and funding via the license fee made sense. Even with 2, 3 the. 4 channels it was still justifiable. Now it is hard to justify given the prevalence of other means of obtaining news and entertainment. YouTube is the third most watched channel,and Netflix the fifth. This change is only going to accelerate and younger people are less and less interested in the BBC which is ironic as it shamelessly chases them.
A TV poll tax is no longer justifiable.
The TV License should be abolished. The BBC should be made to seek alternative means of obtaining funding. The means of distribution, the transmitters and other associates products should be funded via general taxation.
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.
No they are completely different.
The NHS is there for you whatever your ailment. Whatever your ailment is, you can go to the NHS and get treated. It doesn't matter what your ailment is the NHS will treat you.
The BBC is a TV tax for some of what is on TV. If I want to say watch The Big Bang Theory on TV then I can do so on either E4 or Netflix. I can't find it on the BBC despite paying the TV tax to them I either need to watch E4's ads or pay for Netflix.
The NHS is universal and common. The BBC is not. The BBC is simply one entertainment provider of many, its like forcing everyone in the country to pay to support Manchester United even if they support a different club.
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.
The way I'd put it is that there are shades of grey in each philosophy and a continuum between them. Few people start with a rule book and uses it to decide their position on each issue, and those that do make poor decisions.
In the real world, I rarely struggle to reconcile my views on individual issues with liberalism. I also rarely struggle to reconcile them with socialism. Of course there will be people from both ideologies who will tell me that I can't be a liberal/socialist if I believe X, but equally I could turn their argument on its head if I chose to.
I have to note @Philip_Thompson I agree there are compelling reasons for perhaps getting rid of the license fee, however I feel you are trying to justify it in an intellectually dishonest way.
It isn’t “the state should not force me to pay for this” rather “TV is not important enough for the state to force me to pay for this”.
The debate is therefore one of importance and appropriateness, not some A-level essay justification based on “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?
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.
A moderate compulsive liar and a thoroughly malign human being in so many respects.
Sorry, what was your 4th - liberal, libertarian, collectivist and ??
Conservatism. (Glad you`re taking notes by the way.)
By the way, I don`t think you are a lost cause, kinabalu, as far a liberalism is concerned. Phew ... There could, I suggest, be a liberal fighting to get out? Not with this woke stuff though. Never with that.
My greatest PB.com moment came a few weeks ago when a poster described you as "a pretty crap woke bloke."
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.
Um, Layla isn't the candidate from London, Malc.
London, Roedean, Oxford, it’s all Little Englandshire to us Jocks.
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.
No they are completely different.
The NHS is there for you whatever your ailment. Whatever your ailment is, you can go to the NHS and get treated. It doesn't matter what your ailment is the NHS will treat you.
The BBC is a TV tax for some of what is on TV. If I want to say watch The Big Bang Theory on TV then I can do so on either E4 or Netflix. I can't find it on the BBC despite paying the TV tax to them I either need to watch E4's ads or pay for Netflix.
The NHS is universal and common. The BBC is not. The BBC is simply one entertainment provider of many, its like forcing everyone in the country to pay to support Manchester United even if they support a different club.
There you go again. You’re trying to pretend the NHS is fundamentally different. It isn’t. There are alternatives to the NHS in the free market. People are not forced to use it. Likewise, there are alternatives to the BBC in the free market. People are not forced to use it.
The argument is simply that healthcare is more important than sport or TV.
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.
Well whether or not the BBC is good or not really is not the issue. The issue is really it is fair and reasonable to expect people to have to pay for it for the right to watch live TV broadcasts. To me this is less and less tenable as time goes by
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.
Re: "liberal can (possibly) support quite high tax & spend"
Yes - compared to libertarians. No - compared to collectivists.
I have to note @Philip_Thompson I agree there are compelling reasons for perhaps getting rid of the license fee, however I feel you are trying to justify it in an intellectually dishonest way.
It isn’t “the state should not force me to pay for this” rather “TV is not important enough for the state to force me to pay for this”.
The debate is therefore one of importance and appropriateness, not some A-level essay justification based on “liberalism”.
The Licence Fee does not pay for TV in the 21st Century.
Lets say I want to watch Brooklyn Nine Nine on TV. It is a TV show on TV and if I wish to watch that being broadcast live on TV then I must pay the Licence Fee to watch it.
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.
Mocking England flags strung across a house: snobbishness or intellectual elitism?
Sorry, what was your 4th - liberal, libertarian, collectivist and ??
Conservatism. (Glad you`re taking notes by the way.)
By the way, I don`t think you are a lost cause, kinabalu, as far a liberalism is concerned. Phew ... There could, I suggest, be a liberal fighting to get out? Not with this woke stuff though. Never with that.
My greatest PB.com moment came a few weeks ago when a poster described you as "a pretty crap woke bloke."
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?
Presumably their plan is to stand locally against planning reform and any housing development, while standing nationally for unlimited immigration from the EU, standing for freedom of speech so long as you don’t say that men aren’t women?
I still think there’s a gap for a genuinely liberal party in Britain, but in recent years the LDs have lost their way and have appeared hypocritical on many issues.
I’m currently a Conservative, but willing to be persuaded by both Labour and LD. I’m intending to live in a marginal UK constituency at the 2024 election
Sorry, what was your 4th - liberal, libertarian, collectivist and ??
I'm not sure people's beliefs can be categorised so simply. According to one of those FB quizzes I am a "libertarian socialist" - so not sure how I fit in.
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.
Mocking England flags strung across a house: snobbishness or intellectual elitism?
That was Thornberry. She`s a collectivist not a liberal so your off the subject.
It was certainly the latter and probably the former too.
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.
Unlikely in reality - the LDs would hold Orkney & Shetland and - probably - Farron's seat in Cumbria to leave them with 8.
I have to note @Philip_Thompson I agree there are compelling reasons for perhaps getting rid of the license fee, however I feel you are trying to justify it in an intellectually dishonest way.
It isn’t “the state should not force me to pay for this” rather “TV is not important enough for the state to force me to pay for this”.
The debate is therefore one of importance and appropriateness, not some A-level essay justification based on “liberalism”.
The Licence Fee does not pay for TV in the 21st Century.
Lets say I want to watch The Big Bang Theory on TV. It is a TV show on TV and if I wish to watch that being broadcast live on TV then I must pay the Licence Fee to watch it.
On which BBC Channel can I find it?
You’re moving the goal posts for absolutely no reason.
I can access cutting-edge medicine privately that is not available in the NHS. I am forced to pay for the NHS but yet I can’t access this hypothetical treatment under it.
Likewise your pointless Big Bang Theory analogy. I can access perhaps a less-good sitcom on the BBC.
I think instinct defines your ideology on those 4 areas discussed below .The real world then means people move away from that instinct but use it as a default position. Always a sign of a good politician or leader if they have a strong reasoned instinct as a default but then move from it to get the right outcome
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'
Certainly the opposite - illiberal - is ALWAYS used in a negative sense.
Sorry, what was your 4th - liberal, libertarian, collectivist and ??
I'm not sure people's beliefs can be categorised so simply. According to one of those FB quizzes I am a "libertarian socialist" - so not sure how I fit in.
I think they can. I had you down as a strong collectivist.
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.
Well whether or not the BBC is good or not really is not the issue. The issue is really it is fair and reasonable to expect people to have to pay for it for the right to watch live TV broadcasts. To me this is less and less tenable as time goes by
Precisely.
If I want to watch a non-BBC channel I am compelled at the threat of prison to pay for the BBC to do so.
Its like saying if I want to go to Anfield I'll go to prison if I don't pay Old Trafford first.
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.
I think that key is equality of opportunity (so health, education, anti-discrimination and protection of the individual, etc) other than that I generally want the State to butt out.
If I want to watch a non-BBC channel I am compelled at the threat of prison to pay for the BBC to do so.
Its like saying if I want to go to Anfield I'll go to prison if I don't pay Old Trafford first.
I’m not disagreeing with this. I am disagreeing with your mental gymnastics trying to pretend the concept is fundamentally different to the NHS. It isn’t.
Both are pooled resources to pay for a service. What differs is whether the state should be abel to “compel payment” under threat of prison. That is a question of degree.
I have to note @Philip_Thompson I agree there are compelling reasons for perhaps getting rid of the license fee, however I feel you are trying to justify it in an intellectually dishonest way.
It isn’t “the state should not force me to pay for this” rather “TV is not important enough for the state to force me to pay for this”.
The debate is therefore one of importance and appropriateness, not some A-level essay justification based on “liberalism”.
The Licence Fee does not pay for TV in the 21st Century.
Lets say I want to watch The Big Bang Theory on TV. It is a TV show on TV and if I wish to watch that being broadcast live on TV then I must pay the Licence Fee to watch it.
On which BBC Channel can I find it?
You’re moving the goal posts for absolutely no reason.
I can access cutting-edge medicine privately that is not available in the NHS. I am forced to pay for the NHS but yet I can’t access this hypothetical treatment under it.
Likewise your pointless Big Bang Theory analogy. I can access perhaps a less-good sitcom on the BBC.
This is the year 2020. We have hundreds or thousands of entertainment options. Non-BBC entertainment is neither niche nor cutting-edge.
Your "less-good sitcom on the BBC" is one entertainment option of many. Why should we be compelled for one entertainment choice of many?
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'
Certainly the opposite - illiberal - is ALWAYS used in a negative sense.
Yes you are right. A shame. The word "liberal" should no more be used in a positive or negative sense than any other ideological tag.
I believe that ideologies are innate. I cannot decide to wake up tomorrow as a collectivist or next week as a conservative. Liberalism is just "in me".
I have to note @Philip_Thompson I agree there are compelling reasons for perhaps getting rid of the license fee, however I feel you are trying to justify it in an intellectually dishonest way.
It isn’t “the state should not force me to pay for this” rather “TV is not important enough for the state to force me to pay for this”.
The debate is therefore one of importance and appropriateness, not some A-level essay justification based on “liberalism”.
The Licence Fee does not pay for TV in the 21st Century.
Lets say I want to watch The Big Bang Theory on TV. It is a TV show on TV and if I wish to watch that being broadcast live on TV then I must pay the Licence Fee to watch it.
On which BBC Channel can I find it?
You’re moving the goal posts for absolutely no reason.
I can access cutting-edge medicine privately that is not available in the NHS. I am forced to pay for the NHS but yet I can’t access this hypothetical treatment under it.
Likewise your pointless Big Bang Theory analogy. I can access perhaps a less-good sitcom on the BBC.
This is the year 2020. We have hundreds or thousands of entertainment options. Non-BBC entertainment is neither niche nor cutting-edge.
Your "less-good sitcom on the BBC" is one entertainment option of many. Why should we be compelled for one entertainment choice of many?
I hope the Lib Dems and Labour can press the government to pass a law to allow humanist marriages in England and NI very soon. Seems long overdue to me.
That's the wrong answer.
The way to do it is to make the registration system secular ie Registry Office, and treat the private ceremony of whatever kind as private.
That would mean eg Vicars losing their role as Registrar, and avoid treating the British Humanist Association as a mini-me religion, which is a bad idea.
Suspect they are partly taking that line for financial reasons, particularly given eg the surcharge the BHA puts on humanist funerals. Is it 10%?
Cameron should have reformed the system properly when he rushed gay marriages in.
I think instinct defines your ideology on those 4 areas discussed below .The real world then means people move away from that instinct but use it as a default position. Always a sign of a good politician or leader if they have a strong reasoned instinct as a default but then move from it to get the right outcome
If I want to watch a non-BBC channel I am compelled at the threat of prison to pay for the BBC to do so.
Its like saying if I want to go to Anfield I'll go to prison if I don't pay Old Trafford first.
I’m not disagreeing with this. I am disagreeing with your mental gymnastics trying to pretend the concept is fundamentally different to the NHS. It isn’t.
Both are pooled resources to pay for a service. What differs is whether the state should be abel to “compel payment” under threat of prison. That is a question of degree.
Healthcare is a universal need and the NHS covers virtually every health complication going.
Entertainment is a competitive market and the BBC is just one small fraction of it.
They're not the same thing. Why should we pay for BBC entertainment when it isn't universal or common entertainment?
If the NHS only paid for a small fraction of healthcare issues we shouldn't have to pay for that either. But it doesn't, its universal.
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.
Unlikely in reality - the LDs would hold Orkney & Shetland and - probably - Farron's seat in Cumbria to leave them with 8.
The SLD strategy in recent years appears to have been... well, calling it a "strategy" would be generous. I am perpetually surprised they haven't portrayed themselves as the all-out devo-max party. It fits in with the wider party's love of federalism perfectly.
If I want to watch a non-BBC channel I am compelled at the threat of prison to pay for the BBC to do so.
Its like saying if I want to go to Anfield I'll go to prison if I don't pay Old Trafford first.
I’m not disagreeing with this. I am disagreeing with your mental gymnastics trying to pretend the concept is fundamentally different to the NHS. It isn’t.
Both are pooled resources to pay for a service. What differs is whether the state should be abel to “compel payment” under threat of prison. That is a question of degree.
Healthcare is a universal need and the NHS covers virtually every health complication going.
Entertainment is a competitive market and the BBC is just one small fraction of it.
They're not the same thing. Why should we pay for BBC entertainment when it isn't universal or common entertainment?
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.
No they are completely different.
The NHS is there for you whatever your ailment. Whatever your ailment is, you can go to the NHS and get treated. It doesn't matter what your ailment is the NHS will treat you.
The BBC is a TV tax for some of what is on TV. If I want to say watch The Big Bang Theory on TV then I can do so on either E4 or Netflix. I can't find it on the BBC despite paying the TV tax to them I either need to watch E4's ads or pay for Netflix.
The NHS is universal and common. The BBC is not. The BBC is simply one entertainment provider of many, its like forcing everyone in the country to pay to support Manchester United even if they support a different club.
There you go again. You’re trying to pretend the NHS is fundamentally different. It isn’t. There are alternatives to the NHS in the free market. People are not forced to use it. Likewise, there are alternatives to the BBC in the free market. People are not forced to use it.
The argument is simply that healthcare is more important than sport or TV.
I don't mind public bodies like the BBC if they are well valued and provide a good service. For years I thought it was the best example of a well run public service even better than the NHS (which isn't bad either) . Nowadays I am not so sure . I see the BBC are consulting on cancelling BBC4 which is barmy to me and removes one of the reasons for a license or public funded model . If the BBC cannot provide educational material that could not otherwise be done through private TV then I am not sure what its use is anymore. They should certainly not be trying to compete in content with the likes of social media .
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.
Well whether or not the BBC is good or not really is not the issue. The issue is really it is fair and reasonable to expect people to have to pay for it for the right to watch live TV broadcasts. To me this is less and less tenable as time goes by
Precisely.
If I want to watch a non-BBC channel I am compelled at the threat of prison to pay for the BBC to do so.
Its like saying if I want to go to Anfield I'll go to prison if I don't pay Old Trafford first.
I know we are out of Europe now, but was there ever an anti-trust case against the BBC in front of the European Courts? or an illegal state subsidy case?
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.
I think he'll take the Rust Belt AND the Sun Belt route. Spelling landslide.
But people know what I think. If I'm wrong it will be a very large slice of pie of the most humble variety.
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.
Unlikely in reality - the LDs would hold Orkney & Shetland and - probably - Farron's seat in Cumbria to leave them with 8.
The future for the lib dems depends on how the organization on the ground is holding up in individual constituencies. The best measure for this will be next years local elections, they will give an indication of where there is strength on the ground, which seats can be defended and where a few possible gains may come.
If I want to watch a non-BBC channel I am compelled at the threat of prison to pay for the BBC to do so.
Its like saying if I want to go to Anfield I'll go to prison if I don't pay Old Trafford first.
I’m not disagreeing with this. I am disagreeing with your mental gymnastics trying to pretend the concept is fundamentally different to the NHS. It isn’t.
Both are pooled resources to pay for a service. What differs is whether the state should be abel to “compel payment” under threat of prison. That is a question of degree.
Healthcare is a universal need and the NHS covers virtually every health complication going.
Entertainment is a competitive market and the BBC is just one small fraction of it.
They're not the same thing. Why should we pay for BBC entertainment when it isn't universal or common entertainment?
Healthcare is also a competitive market.
But the NHS covers it universally.
It is the universality that is the difference. The BBC is not universal.
WTF? Neither the NHS nor the BBC license fee are liberal concepts, there's a reason both were brought in under the post-war Labour government and not before.
Sorry, what was your 4th - liberal, libertarian, collectivist and ??
I'm not sure people's beliefs can be categorised so simply. According to one of those FB quizzes I am a "libertarian socialist" - so not sure how I fit in.
I think they can. I had you down as a strong collectivist.
I doubt it. I am a big believer in individual freedoms. Collectivist makes me sound like I want everyone to put on Hessian peasant dress and toil all day on the collective farm. My belief in individual freedom comes first. You can't exercise your freedom if you lack the material resources, good health, equality under the law and a good education, or if you have to work for the man seven days a week. Socialism is necessary for real freedom to flourish. Classical liberalism is the freedom of the plantation owner.
Public sector broadcasting is a public good, like a comprehensive health system and education for under 18s.
The argument is perhaps the scale of the BBC versus the truly “public sector broadcasting” part.
It does not help that the BBC itself seems to have only a fuzzy idea of what public sector broadcasting is; it has lost confidence in itself - this problem seems to go back to the Blair years...
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.
I'd prefer Starmer's Labour to win the next election, and I'd prefer Biden to win in the US. Neither prospect fills me with much excitement though.
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.
Well whether or not the BBC is good or not really is not the issue. The issue is really it is fair and reasonable to expect people to have to pay for it for the right to watch live TV broadcasts. To me this is less and less tenable as time goes by
Precisely.
If I want to watch a non-BBC channel I am compelled at the threat of prison to pay for the BBC to do so.
Its like saying if I want to go to Anfield I'll go to prison if I don't pay Old Trafford first.
Have you ever tried paying less than your full supermarket bill, explaining that the only TV you watch is the BBC, and therefore you shouldn't have to pay the advertising overheads on the products you bought?
It must be appreciated that I am not arguing that the NHS should be abolished in favour of private healthcare and neither am I arguing that we should keep the BBC.
I am merely arguing that the justification for doing either is simply a question of degree. Ideologically they are both examples of the state requiring the population to contribute towards a service, despite there being alternatives, for the good of everyone.
Pretending that the NHS is somehow “ring-fenced” as special so you can remain “pure” in your belief in a “small state” is ridiculous. You merely believe that the NHS is worthwhile enough to be something the state *SHOULD* be doing.
If I want to watch a non-BBC channel I am compelled at the threat of prison to pay for the BBC to do so.
Its like saying if I want to go to Anfield I'll go to prison if I don't pay Old Trafford first.
I’m not disagreeing with this. I am disagreeing with your mental gymnastics trying to pretend the concept is fundamentally different to the NHS. It isn’t.
Both are pooled resources to pay for a service. What differs is whether the state should be abel to “compel payment” under threat of prison. That is a question of degree.
Healthcare is a universal need and the NHS covers virtually every health complication going.
Entertainment is a competitive market and the BBC is just one small fraction of it.
They're not the same thing. Why should we pay for BBC entertainment when it isn't universal or common entertainment?
Healthcare is also a competitive market.
There can be a competitive market whilst still being free at the point of use
If I want to watch a non-BBC channel I am compelled at the threat of prison to pay for the BBC to do so.
Its like saying if I want to go to Anfield I'll go to prison if I don't pay Old Trafford first.
I’m not disagreeing with this. I am disagreeing with your mental gymnastics trying to pretend the concept is fundamentally different to the NHS. It isn’t.
Both are pooled resources to pay for a service. What differs is whether the state should be abel to “compel payment” under threat of prison. That is a question of degree.
Healthcare is a universal need and the NHS covers virtually every health complication going.
Entertainment is a competitive market and the BBC is just one small fraction of it.
They're not the same thing. Why should we pay for BBC entertainment when it isn't universal or common entertainment?
Healthcare is also a competitive market.
But the NHS covers it universally.
It is the universality that is the difference. The BBC is not universal.
You’re going to have to explain what “universal” means in this context and what relevance is has to whether the state should be compelling people to contribute towards it under threat of violence.
WTF? Neither the NHS nor the BBC license fee are liberal concepts, there's a reason both were brought in under the post-war Labour government and not before.
They are liberal concepts in that they seek to promote positive liberty to all - efficiently and fairly. Liberal aims of promoting individual flourishment and equality of status are upheld.
The NHS and BBC aren`t libertarian concepts - maybe that is what you mean?
I hope the Lib Dems and Labour can press the government to pass a law to allow humanist marriages in England and NI very soon. Seems long overdue to me.
That's the wrong answer.
The way to do it is to make the registration system secular ie Registry Office, and treat the private ceremony of whatever kind as private.
That would mean eg Vicars losing their role as Registrar, and avoid treating the British Humanist Association as a mini-me religion, which is a bad idea.
Suspect they are partly taking that line for financial reasons, particularly given eg the surcharge the BHA puts on humanist funerals. Is it 10%?
Cameron should have reformed the system properly when he rushed gay marriages in.
There was non-trivial push back from the gay community at the idea that the civil partnerships would be opened up to the non-gay community.
In fact, an attempt to amend the gay marriage bill to do just that was described as a "wrecking amendment".
WTF? Neither the NHS nor the BBC license fee are liberal concepts, there's a reason both were brought in under the post-war Labour government and not before.
This is my point. Both are deviations to what could be considered “pure 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.
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.
Well whether or not the BBC is good or not really is not the issue. The issue is really it is fair and reasonable to expect people to have to pay for it for the right to watch live TV broadcasts. To me this is less and less tenable as time goes by
Precisely.
If I want to watch a non-BBC channel I am compelled at the threat of prison to pay for the BBC to do so.
Its like saying if I want to go to Anfield I'll go to prison if I don't pay Old Trafford first.
Have you ever tried paying less than your full supermarket bill, explaining that the only TV you watch is the BBC, and therefore you shouldn't have to pay the advertising overheads on the products you bought?
The BBC is like having to pay a membership fee to Waitrose before you are allowed to go shopping elsewhere - even if you want to go shopping in Aldi.
Sorry, what was your 4th - liberal, libertarian, collectivist and ??
Conservatism. (Glad you`re taking notes by the way.)
By the way, I don`t think you are a lost cause, kinabalu, as far a liberalism is concerned. Phew ... There could, I suggest, be a liberal fighting to get out? Not with this woke stuff though. Never with that.
My greatest PB.com moment came a few weeks ago when a poster described you as "a pretty crap woke bloke."
How I chuckled.
kinabalu is definitely not a lost caused as I find I agree with him far too often for that to be the case, with the added bonus of always finding his posts entertaining.
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.
Well whether or not the BBC is good or not really is not the issue. The issue is really it is fair and reasonable to expect people to have to pay for it for the right to watch live TV broadcasts. To me this is less and less tenable as time goes by
Precisely.
If I want to watch a non-BBC channel I am compelled at the threat of prison to pay for the BBC to do so.
Its like saying if I want to go to Anfield I'll go to prison if I don't pay Old Trafford first.
Have you ever tried paying less than your full supermarket bill, explaining that the only TV you watch is the BBC, and therefore you shouldn't have to pay the advertising overheads on the products you bought?
The BBC is like having to pay a membership fee to Waitrose before you are allowed to go shopping elsewhere - even if you want to go shopping in Aldi.
The NHS is like having to pay a membership fee to Lidl before you go shopping at Waitrose away from the plebs. Whether or not its “universal” is irrelevant to that.
WTF? Neither the NHS nor the BBC license fee are liberal concepts, there's a reason both were brought in under the post-war Labour government and not before.
This is my point. Both are deviations to what could be considered “pure liberalism”.
Yes if we're using liberalism in the correct, quaint way.
If I want to watch a non-BBC channel I am compelled at the threat of prison to pay for the BBC to do so.
Its like saying if I want to go to Anfield I'll go to prison if I don't pay Old Trafford first.
Have you ever tried paying less than your full supermarket bill, explaining that the only TV you watch is the BBC, and therefore you shouldn't have to pay the advertising overheads on the products you bought?
Not often I chime in in support of Philip's philosophy, but that's a lousy analogy.
It would be a better parallel to ask whether I've ever chosen not to buy a particular product at the supermarket because I don't want my money to go to the publications the manufacturers advertise in. And yes, I've done that, and so have thousands of others - it's called #StopFundingHate, you may have heard of it.
Sorry, what was your 4th - liberal, libertarian, collectivist and ??
I'm not sure people's beliefs can be categorised so simply. According to one of those FB quizzes I am a "libertarian socialist" - so not sure how I fit in.
I think they can. I had you down as a strong collectivist.
I doubt it. I am a big believer in individual freedoms. Collectivist makes me sound like I want everyone to put on Hessian peasant dress and toil all day on the collective farm. My belief in individual freedom comes first. You can't exercise your freedom if you lack the material resources, good health, equality under the law and a good education, or if you have to work for the man seven days a week. Socialism is necessary for real freedom to flourish. Classical liberalism is the freedom of the plantation owner.
The acid test for me is this: do you see the unit of importance as the individual or the collective?
Listen to collectivists speak. Corbyn is a prime example. He struggles to utter sentence without the word "community" being in it. Liberals recoil at this.
If I want to watch a non-BBC channel I am compelled at the threat of prison to pay for the BBC to do so.
Its like saying if I want to go to Anfield I'll go to prison if I don't pay Old Trafford first.
I’m not disagreeing with this. I am disagreeing with your mental gymnastics trying to pretend the concept is fundamentally different to the NHS. It isn’t.
Both are pooled resources to pay for a service. What differs is whether the state should be abel to “compel payment” under threat of prison. That is a question of degree.
Healthcare is a universal need and the NHS covers virtually every health complication going.
Entertainment is a competitive market and the BBC is just one small fraction of it.
They're not the same thing. Why should we pay for BBC entertainment when it isn't universal or common entertainment?
Healthcare is also a competitive market.
But the NHS covers it universally.
It is the universality that is the difference. The BBC is not universal.
You’re going to have to explain what “universal” means in this context and what relevance is has to whether the state should be compelling people to contribute towards it under threat of violence.
Healthcare is a universal need and regardless of what ailment you have or what you need treating the NHS will look after you.
Entertainment is a matter of personal preference and depending upon what entertainment you prefer the BBC may provide it or an alternative provider may do so.
The two are not remotely the same thing. Maybe 50 years ago you could compare them, not now.
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.
Unlikely in reality - the LDs would hold Orkney & Shetland and - probably - Farron's seat in Cumbria to leave them with 8.
That's probably correct. Farron's seat is a bit of an odd one even though it voted remain and I wouldn't have been shocked if he'd lost it in 2019 but he may have ridden out the danger now.
I'm not sure about Orkney and Shetland due to the local politics that goes on there, in some ways I think Edinburgh West is actually more secure for the lib Dems.
Sorry, what was your 4th - liberal, libertarian, collectivist and ??
Conservatism. (Glad you`re taking notes by the way.)
By the way, I don`t think you are a lost cause, kinabalu, as far a liberalism is concerned. Phew ... There could, I suggest, be a liberal fighting to get out? Not with this woke stuff though. Never with that.
My greatest PB.com moment came a few weeks ago when a poster described you as "a pretty crap woke bloke."
How I chuckled.
[Resurfaces]
[Submerges]
I was a "you PB Tories" the other week.
To be fair, I'd made a rapid fire comment in two spare minutes to register the untenability of some LEA plans and went the full Cantona on it, so I probably deserved it.
If I want to watch a non-BBC channel I am compelled at the threat of prison to pay for the BBC to do so.
Its like saying if I want to go to Anfield I'll go to prison if I don't pay Old Trafford first.
I’m not disagreeing with this. I am disagreeing with your mental gymnastics trying to pretend the concept is fundamentally different to the NHS. It isn’t.
Both are pooled resources to pay for a service. What differs is whether the state should be abel to “compel payment” under threat of prison. That is a question of degree.
Healthcare is a universal need and the NHS covers virtually every health complication going.
Entertainment is a competitive market and the BBC is just one small fraction of it.
They're not the same thing. Why should we pay for BBC entertainment when it isn't universal or common entertainment?
Healthcare is also a competitive market.
But the NHS covers it universally.
It is the universality that is the difference. The BBC is not universal.
You’re going to have to explain what “universal” means in this context and what relevance is has to whether the state should be compelling people to contribute towards it under threat of violence.
Healthcare is a universal need and regardless of what ailment you have or what you need treating the NHS will look after you.
Entertainment is a matter of personal preference and depending upon what entertainment you prefer the BBC may provide it or an alternative provider may do so.
The two are not remotely the same thing. Maybe 50 years ago you could compare them, not now.
The BBC’s mission is to inform, educate, and entertain - in that order.
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.
The LDs have actually won many Labour seats in recent decades - Bermondsey - Brent East - Leicester South - Hornsey & Wood Green - Burnley - Redcar - Birmingham Yardley - Manchester Withington - Leeds NW - to name but a few.
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.
Well whether or not the BBC is good or not really is not the issue. The issue is really it is fair and reasonable to expect people to have to pay for it for the right to watch live TV broadcasts. To me this is less and less tenable as time goes by
Precisely.
If I want to watch a non-BBC channel I am compelled at the threat of prison to pay for the BBC to do so.
Its like saying if I want to go to Anfield I'll go to prison if I don't pay Old Trafford first.
Have you ever tried paying less than your full supermarket bill, explaining that the only TV you watch is the BBC, and therefore you shouldn't have to pay the advertising overheads on the products you bought?
The BBC is like having to pay a membership fee to Waitrose before you are allowed to go shopping elsewhere - even if you want to go shopping in Aldi.
The NHS is like having to pay a membership fee to Lidl before you go shopping at Waitrose away from the plebs. Whether or not its “universal” is irrelevant to that.
Without the NHS people who could not afford healthcare would suffer and die.
Without the BBC people would have a slightly less wide choice of which TV channel to watch.
If I want to watch a non-BBC channel I am compelled at the threat of prison to pay for the BBC to do so.
Its like saying if I want to go to Anfield I'll go to prison if I don't pay Old Trafford first.
I’m not disagreeing with this. I am disagreeing with your mental gymnastics trying to pretend the concept is fundamentally different to the NHS. It isn’t.
Both are pooled resources to pay for a service. What differs is whether the state should be abel to “compel payment” under threat of prison. That is a question of degree.
Healthcare is a universal need and the NHS covers virtually every health complication going.
Entertainment is a competitive market and the BBC is just one small fraction of it.
They're not the same thing. Why should we pay for BBC entertainment when it isn't universal or common entertainment?
Healthcare is also a competitive market.
But the NHS covers it universally.
It is the universality that is the difference. The BBC is not universal.
You’re going to have to explain what “universal” means in this context and what relevance is has to whether the state should be compelling people to contribute towards it under threat of violence.
Healthcare is a universal need and regardless of what ailment you have or what you need treating the NHS will look after you.
Entertainment is a matter of personal preference and depending upon what entertainment you prefer the BBC may provide it or an alternative provider may do so.
The two are not remotely the same thing. Maybe 50 years ago you could compare them, not now.
I’m not saying they are similar in content or justification. I am saying that they are both examples of the state requiring contribution towards a service.
You are merely arguing that the NHS is worthy of such a compellence. That’s fine.
You clearly believe that healthcare is one area where the state SHOULD restrict individual liberty to choose.
I've often wondered if I would be more bothered by direct taxation funding the BBC, rather than the licence fee. I think there is an issue with the concept of the licence fee (why should a Sky customer have to pay the BBC too?), but there is also a role for a national broadcaster so that everyone has a basic access. Where I get really cross is when the BBC acts in some ways in competition with purely commercial stations (we have to pay the 'talent' the best rates or they will leave) yet is bolstered by a massive guaranteed income each year. If stars want to go elsewhere for more money, let them. The pool of people who can say, read the news, or be chatty on a sofa, is not THAT small. Remove the licence fee and make the BBC subscription - I would pay. I get enough good shows, and the lack of adverts (aside from the BBC own adverts) make it worthwhile. But I also like many other channels, and there is no doubt that competitors have shifted sport coverage to an entirely different level. I am old enough to remember test cricket on the BBC being interrupted for horse races and Wimbledon. Unthinkable to todays viewer, albeit that they have paid far more.
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.
Well whether or not the BBC is good or not really is not the issue. The issue is really it is fair and reasonable to expect people to have to pay for it for the right to watch live TV broadcasts. To me this is less and less tenable as time goes by
Precisely.
If I want to watch a non-BBC channel I am compelled at the threat of prison to pay for the BBC to do so.
Its like saying if I want to go to Anfield I'll go to prison if I don't pay Old Trafford first.
Have you ever tried paying less than your full supermarket bill, explaining that the only TV you watch is the BBC, and therefore you shouldn't have to pay the advertising overheads on the products you bought?
The BBC is like having to pay a membership fee to Waitrose before you are allowed to go shopping elsewhere - even if you want to go shopping in Aldi.
The NHS is like having to pay a membership fee to Lidl before you go shopping at Waitrose away from the plebs. Whether or not its “universal” is irrelevant to that.
Without the NHS people who could not afford healthcare would suffer and die.
Without the BBC people would have a slightly less wide choice of which TV channel to watch.
Yes I know. Thanks for your irrelevant contribution.
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.
Unlikely in reality - the LDs would hold Orkney & Shetland and - probably - Farron's seat in Cumbria to leave them with 8.
That's probably correct. Farron's seat is a bit of an odd one even though it voted remain and I wouldn't have been shocked if he'd lost it in 2019 but he may have ridden out the danger now.
I'm not sure about Orkney and Shetland due to the local politics that goes on there, in some ways I think Edinburgh West is actually more secure for the lib Dems.
Orkney and Shetland: Whig or Liberal since God knows when, except a decade or so between the wars iirc.
If I want to watch a non-BBC channel I am compelled at the threat of prison to pay for the BBC to do so.
Its like saying if I want to go to Anfield I'll go to prison if I don't pay Old Trafford first.
I’m not disagreeing with this. I am disagreeing with your mental gymnastics trying to pretend the concept is fundamentally different to the NHS. It isn’t.
Both are pooled resources to pay for a service. What differs is whether the state should be abel to “compel payment” under threat of prison. That is a question of degree.
Healthcare is a universal need and the NHS covers virtually every health complication going.
Entertainment is a competitive market and the BBC is just one small fraction of it.
They're not the same thing. Why should we pay for BBC entertainment when it isn't universal or common entertainment?
Healthcare is also a competitive market.
But the NHS covers it universally.
It is the universality that is the difference. The BBC is not universal.
You’re going to have to explain what “universal” means in this context and what relevance is has to whether the state should be compelling people to contribute towards it under threat of violence.
Healthcare is a universal need and regardless of what ailment you have or what you need treating the NHS will look after you.
Entertainment is a matter of personal preference and depending upon what entertainment you prefer the BBC may provide it or an alternative provider may do so.
The two are not remotely the same thing. Maybe 50 years ago you could compare them, not now.
The BBC’s mission is to inform, educate, and entertain - in that order.
Which is great and I support them when they do but tbh their website is looking more like Hello magazine (with a large sprinkle of unchallenged wokeness) every day
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.
I'd prefer Starmer's Labour to win the next election, and I'd prefer Biden to win in the US. Neither prospect fills me with much excitement though.
I get you.
Stateside, though, I despise Trump and all things Trump to such an extent that if Nov 3rd goes as I think it will - a thumping loss for him - I will be punching the ceiling and making odd guttural sounds and all of that.
And in this case - unlike (say) GE19 over here - I have my betting aligned with my preferred outcome, i.e. what I expect to happen is the same as what I want to happen. Which will be quite nice (touch wood!).
"I glimpsed the hideous strength of this bubble during my brief formal time in party politics as David Cameron’s speechwriter. On the night of the 2010 coalition deal, I suggested to the new Prime Minister that he might exploit the new collegiate style of politics by allowing MPs to speak more freely on issues rather than forcing them to parrot party lines. He paused briefly, then shook his head and said it was impossible.
I remain convinced it is the remorseless spin, rooted in tribalism, that is so destructive for politics and sets the tone for much of the national debate. Ironically, a big chunk of the blame lies with Blair, who made much of Tory politicians’ personal problems under John Major — then unleashed a ruthless spin operation after winning office and deceived the public over Iraq, further eroding public trust.
This combative tribal stance is a world away from the reality of most people’s lives. "
I hope the Lib Dems and Labour can press the government to pass a law to allow humanist marriages in England and NI very soon. Seems long overdue to me.
That's the wrong answer.
The way to do it is to make the registration system secular ie Registry Office, and treat the private ceremony of whatever kind as private.
That would mean eg Vicars losing their role as Registrar, and avoid treating the British Humanist Association as a mini-me religion, which is a bad idea.
Suspect they are partly taking that line for financial reasons, particularly given eg the surcharge the BHA puts on humanist funerals. Is it 10%?
Cameron should have reformed the system properly when he rushed gay marriages in.
There was non-trivial push back from the gay community at the idea that the civil partnerships would be opened up to the non-gay community.
In fact, an attempt to amend the gay marriage bill to do just that was described as a "wrecking amendment".
Yep. I would make the legal consequences and benefits of marriage essentially a state thing, and the private ceremony a private thing.
Cameron imo cocked up by not taking enough time. One aspect was that he did not think through the role of CofE in national law, and how it all related. He just did not sufficiently sweat the detail.
I can see no reason against say a Civil Partnership between relations or friends, which would give an incentive to reverse the trend towards single person households - helping the intensity of use of housing stock, for example.
If I want to watch a non-BBC channel I am compelled at the threat of prison to pay for the BBC to do so.
Its like saying if I want to go to Anfield I'll go to prison if I don't pay Old Trafford first.
Have you ever tried paying less than your full supermarket bill, explaining that the only TV you watch is the BBC, and therefore you shouldn't have to pay the advertising overheads on the products you bought?
Not often I chime in in support of Philip's philosophy, but that's a lousy analogy.
It would be a better parallel to ask whether I've ever chosen not to buy a particular product at the supermarket because I don't want my money to go to the publications the manufacturers advertise in. And yes, I've done that, and so have thousands of others - it's called #StopFundingHate, you may have heard of it.
You are wrong. If it were feasible to get food for yourself and your family without paying for advertising, you would have a point. It is not.
Every single one of us funds every TV channel that hosts advertising, and (short of becoming subsistence farmers) we have no choice in the matter.
Sorry, what was your 4th - liberal, libertarian, collectivist and ??
Conservatism. (Glad you`re taking notes by the way.)
By the way, I don`t think you are a lost cause, kinabalu, as far a liberalism is concerned. Phew ... There could, I suggest, be a liberal fighting to get out? Not with this woke stuff though. Never with that.
My greatest PB.com moment came a few weeks ago when a poster described you as "a pretty crap woke bloke."
How I chuckled.
kinabalu is definitely not a lost caused as I find I agree with him far too often for that to be the case, with the added bonus of always finding his posts entertaining.
Same here. It is most disconcerting. I should dislike him, but can`t quite manage it. I`ve told him before that he should be a politician. Maybe he is?
It often strikes me that many posters on this site would make better politicians than the crop that we currently enjoy.
I`ve love to vote for AndyCooke, Cyclefree, Nabavi, Stodge, Foxy, DavidL etc etc.
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.
The LDs have actually won many Labour seats in recent decades - Bermondsey - Brent East - Leicester South - Hornsey & Wood Green - Burnley - Redcar - Birmingham Yardley - Manchester Withington - Leeds NW - to name but a few.
Couldn't get Hallam back even with Corbyn in charge. The middle class Labour vote is bigger than ever.
If I want to watch a non-BBC channel I am compelled at the threat of prison to pay for the BBC to do so.
Its like saying if I want to go to Anfield I'll go to prison if I don't pay Old Trafford first.
I’m not disagreeing with this. I am disagreeing with your mental gymnastics trying to pretend the concept is fundamentally different to the NHS. It isn’t.
Both are pooled resources to pay for a service. What differs is whether the state should be abel to “compel payment” under threat of prison. That is a question of degree.
Healthcare is a universal need and the NHS covers virtually every health complication going.
Entertainment is a competitive market and the BBC is just one small fraction of it.
They're not the same thing. Why should we pay for BBC entertainment when it isn't universal or common entertainment?
Healthcare is also a competitive market.
But the NHS covers it universally.
It is the universality that is the difference. The BBC is not universal.
You’re going to have to explain what “universal” means in this context and what relevance is has to whether the state should be compelling people to contribute towards it under threat of violence.
Healthcare is a universal need and regardless of what ailment you have or what you need treating the NHS will look after you.
Entertainment is a matter of personal preference and depending upon what entertainment you prefer the BBC may provide it or an alternative provider may do so.
The two are not remotely the same thing. Maybe 50 years ago you could compare them, not now.
I’m not saying they are similar in content or justification. I am saying that they are both examples of the state requiring contribution towards a service.
You are merely arguing that the NHS is worthy of such a compellence. That’s fine.
You clearly believe that healthcare is one area where the state SHOULD restrict individual liberty to choose.
The NHS is a universal service, like the Police or fire brigade.
If I want to watch a non-BBC channel I am compelled at the threat of prison to pay for the BBC to do so.
Its like saying if I want to go to Anfield I'll go to prison if I don't pay Old Trafford first.
I’m not disagreeing with this. I am disagreeing with your mental gymnastics trying to pretend the concept is fundamentally different to the NHS. It isn’t.
Both are pooled resources to pay for a service. What differs is whether the state should be abel to “compel payment” under threat of prison. That is a question of degree.
Healthcare is a universal need and the NHS covers virtually every health complication going.
Entertainment is a competitive market and the BBC is just one small fraction of it.
They're not the same thing. Why should we pay for BBC entertainment when it isn't universal or common entertainment?
Healthcare is also a competitive market.
But the NHS covers it universally.
It is the universality that is the difference. The BBC is not universal.
You’re going to have to explain what “universal” means in this context and what relevance is has to whether the state should be compelling people to contribute towards it under threat of violence.
Healthcare is a universal need and regardless of what ailment you have or what you need treating the NHS will look after you.
Entertainment is a matter of personal preference and depending upon what entertainment you prefer the BBC may provide it or an alternative provider may do so.
The two are not remotely the same thing. Maybe 50 years ago you could compare them, not now.
I’m not saying they are similar in content or justification. I am saying that they are both examples of the state requiring contribution towards a service.
You are merely arguing that the NHS is worthy of such a compellence. That’s fine.
You clearly believe that healthcare is one area where the state SHOULD restrict individual liberty to choose.
The NHS is a universal service, like the Police or fire brigade.
The BBC is not.
Can you not see the difference?
What are you arguing here? Are you physically unable to recalibrate to what is being said?
Sorry, what was your 4th - liberal, libertarian, collectivist and ??
I'm not sure people's beliefs can be categorised so simply. According to one of those FB quizzes I am a "libertarian socialist" - so not sure how I fit in.
I think they can. I had you down as a strong collectivist.
I doubt it. I am a big believer in individual freedoms. Collectivist makes me sound like I want everyone to put on Hessian peasant dress and toil all day on the collective farm. My belief in individual freedom comes first. You can't exercise your freedom if you lack the material resources, good health, equality under the law and a good education, or if you have to work for the man seven days a week. Socialism is necessary for real freedom to flourish. Classical liberalism is the freedom of the plantation owner.
The acid test for me is this: do you see the unit of importance as the individual or the collective?
Listen to collectivists speak. Corbyn is a prime example. He struggles to utter sentence without the word "community" being in it. Liberals recoil at this.
Then I am not a collectivist! It's all about the individual *and* the community, recognising that the individual cannot succeed on their own, and that the community cannot thrive unless everyone within it has the freedom to flourish. It is not either-or, it is both.
Sorry, what was your 4th - liberal, libertarian, collectivist and ??
I'm not sure people's beliefs can be categorised so simply. According to one of those FB quizzes I am a "libertarian socialist" - so not sure how I fit in.
I think they can. I had you down as a strong collectivist.
I doubt it. I am a big believer in individual freedoms. Collectivist makes me sound like I want everyone to put on Hessian peasant dress and toil all day on the collective farm. My belief in individual freedom comes first. You can't exercise your freedom if you lack the material resources, good health, equality under the law and a good education, or if you have to work for the man seven days a week. Socialism is necessary for real freedom to flourish. Classical liberalism is the freedom of the plantation owner.
The acid test for me is this: do you see the unit of importance as the individual or the collective?
Listen to collectivists speak. Corbyn is a prime example. He struggles to utter sentence without the word "community" being in it. Liberals recoil at this.
Then I am not a collectivist! It's all about the individual *and* the community, recognising that the individual cannot succeed on their own, and that the community cannot thrive unless everyone within it has the freedom to flourish. It is not either-or, it is both.
Sorry, what was your 4th - liberal, libertarian, collectivist and ??
I'm not sure people's beliefs can be categorised so simply. According to one of those FB quizzes I am a "libertarian socialist" - so not sure how I fit in.
I think they can. I had you down as a strong collectivist.
I doubt it. I am a big believer in individual freedoms. Collectivist makes me sound like I want everyone to put on Hessian peasant dress and toil all day on the collective farm. My belief in individual freedom comes first. You can't exercise your freedom if you lack the material resources, good health, equality under the law and a good education, or if you have to work for the man seven days a week. Socialism is necessary for real freedom to flourish. Classical liberalism is the freedom of the plantation owner.
The acid test for me is this: do you see the unit of importance as the individual or the collective?
Listen to collectivists speak. Corbyn is a prime example. He struggles to utter sentence without the word "community" being in it. Liberals recoil at this.
I see the individual, overwhelmingly, as the unit of importance. And I am a socialist.
Sorry, what was your 4th - liberal, libertarian, collectivist and ??
Conservatism. (Glad you`re taking notes by the way.)
By the way, I don`t think you are a lost cause, kinabalu, as far a liberalism is concerned. Phew ... There could, I suggest, be a liberal fighting to get out? Not with this woke stuff though. Never with that.
My greatest PB.com moment came a few weeks ago when a poster described you as "a pretty crap woke bloke."
How I chuckled.
kinabalu is definitely not a lost caused as I find I agree with him far too often for that to be the case, with the added bonus of always finding his posts entertaining.
Same here. It is most disconcerting. I should dislike him, but can`t quite manage it. I`ve told him before that he should be a politician. Maybe he is?
It often strikes me that many posters on this site would make better politicians than the crop that we currently enjoy.
I`ve love to vote for AndyCooke, Cyclefree, Nabavi, Stodge, Foxy, DavidL etc etc.
Not kinabalu though. Not quite.
No he definitely has my vote (might have to keep an eye on him though).
Sorry, what was your 4th - liberal, libertarian, collectivist and ??
I'm not sure people's beliefs can be categorised so simply. According to one of those FB quizzes I am a "libertarian socialist" - so not sure how I fit in.
I think they can. I had you down as a strong collectivist.
I doubt it. I am a big believer in individual freedoms. Collectivist makes me sound like I want everyone to put on Hessian peasant dress and toil all day on the collective farm. My belief in individual freedom comes first. You can't exercise your freedom if you lack the material resources, good health, equality under the law and a good education, or if you have to work for the man seven days a week. Socialism is necessary for real freedom to flourish. Classical liberalism is the freedom of the plantation owner.
The acid test for me is this: do you see the unit of importance as the individual or the collective?
Listen to collectivists speak. Corbyn is a prime example. He struggles to utter sentence without the word "community" being in it. Liberals recoil at this.
I see the individual, overwhelmingly, as the unit of importance. And I am a socialist.
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.
Unlikely in reality - the LDs would hold Orkney & Shetland and - probably - Farron's seat in Cumbria to leave them with 8.
That's probably correct. Farron's seat is a bit of an odd one even though it voted remain and I wouldn't have been shocked if he'd lost it in 2019 but he may have ridden out the danger now.
I'm not sure about Orkney and Shetland due to the local politics that goes on there, in some ways I think Edinburgh West is actually more secure for the lib Dems.
Farron's seat will be altered beyond recognition in the boundary review. Cumbria is likely to lose a seat, or at very least a half of one. Meaning big changes in which W+L, if it survives at all will get much bigger. And as it is completely surrounded by strongly Tory areas it is going to be very difficult for him unless there is a big nationwide movement to the LDs.
If I want to watch a non-BBC channel I am compelled at the threat of prison to pay for the BBC to do so.
Its like saying if I want to go to Anfield I'll go to prison if I don't pay Old Trafford first.
I’m not disagreeing with this. I am disagreeing with your mental gymnastics trying to pretend the concept is fundamentally different to the NHS. It isn’t.
Both are pooled resources to pay for a service. What differs is whether the state should be abel to “compel payment” under threat of prison. That is a question of degree.
Healthcare is a universal need and the NHS covers virtually every health complication going.
Entertainment is a competitive market and the BBC is just one small fraction of it.
They're not the same thing. Why should we pay for BBC entertainment when it isn't universal or common entertainment?
Healthcare is also a competitive market.
But the NHS covers it universally.
It is the universality that is the difference. The BBC is not universal.
You’re going to have to explain what “universal” means in this context and what relevance is has to whether the state should be compelling people to contribute towards it under threat of violence.
Healthcare is a universal need and regardless of what ailment you have or what you need treating the NHS will look after you.
Entertainment is a matter of personal preference and depending upon what entertainment you prefer the BBC may provide it or an alternative provider may do so.
The two are not remotely the same thing. Maybe 50 years ago you could compare them, not now.
I’m not saying they are similar in content or justification. I am saying that they are both examples of the state requiring contribution towards a service.
You are merely arguing that the NHS is worthy of such a compellence. That’s fine.
You clearly believe that healthcare is one area where the state SHOULD restrict individual liberty to choose.
The NHS is a universal service, like the Police or fire brigade.
The BBC is not.
Can you not see the difference?
What are you arguing here? Are you physically unable to recalibrate to what is being said?
I am saying you are comparing apples to tadpoles.
Your analogy is completely flawed. They're not the same thing.
@Philip_Thompson you are trying to argue that ideologically the concept of the “BBC” is different to the “NHS” or the Police. It isn’t.
What you are simply saying is that the NHS and the Police are worthwhile enough for the state to compel people to contribute towards them under threat of violence and therefore restricting individual liberty.
And I agree with you.
This “universal” dead-end is just that. A complete irrelevance.
Moran might be colourful, but for all the wrong reasons.
Davey is drab, but he won’t destroy the party.
He should appoint Daisy Cooper as effective co-leader and go big on family economic security, improving opportunities for youth, environmental, food standards, international co-operation, and civil liberty issues.
If I want to watch a non-BBC channel I am compelled at the threat of prison to pay for the BBC to do so.
Its like saying if I want to go to Anfield I'll go to prison if I don't pay Old Trafford first.
I’m not disagreeing with this. I am disagreeing with your mental gymnastics trying to pretend the concept is fundamentally different to the NHS. It isn’t.
Both are pooled resources to pay for a service. What differs is whether the state should be abel to “compel payment” under threat of prison. That is a question of degree.
Healthcare is a universal need and the NHS covers virtually every health complication going.
Entertainment is a competitive market and the BBC is just one small fraction of it.
They're not the same thing. Why should we pay for BBC entertainment when it isn't universal or common entertainment?
Healthcare is also a competitive market.
But the NHS covers it universally.
It is the universality that is the difference. The BBC is not universal.
You’re going to have to explain what “universal” means in this context and what relevance is has to whether the state should be compelling people to contribute towards it under threat of violence.
Healthcare is a universal need and regardless of what ailment you have or what you need treating the NHS will look after you.
Entertainment is a matter of personal preference and depending upon what entertainment you prefer the BBC may provide it or an alternative provider may do so.
The two are not remotely the same thing. Maybe 50 years ago you could compare them, not now.
I’m not saying they are similar in content or justification. I am saying that they are both examples of the state requiring contribution towards a service.
You are merely arguing that the NHS is worthy of such a compellence. That’s fine.
You clearly believe that healthcare is one area where the state SHOULD restrict individual liberty to choose.
The NHS is a universal service, like the Police or fire brigade.
The BBC is not.
Can you not see the difference?
What are you arguing here? Are you physically unable to recalibrate to what is being said?
I am saying you are comparing apples to tadpoles.
Your analogy is completely flawed. They're not the same thing.
They are the same thing. They are both examples of the state compelling the individual to contribute towards a service they perhaps do not want to use.
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.
The LDs have actually won many Labour seats in recent decades - Bermondsey - Brent East - Leicester South - Hornsey & Wood Green - Burnley - Redcar - Birmingham Yardley - Manchester Withington - Leeds NW - to name but a few.
Couldn't get Hallam back even with Corbyn in charge. The middle class Labour vote is bigger than ever.
Think Hallam could well become a safe Labour seat now. It's exactly the sort of constituency you'd think Starmer would be very popular in.
@Philip_Thompson you are trying to argue that ideologically the concept of the “BBC” is different to the “NHS” or the Police. It isn’t.
What you are simply saying is that the NHS and the Police are worthwhile enough for the state to compel people to contribute towards them under threat of violence and therefore restricting individual liberty.
And I agree with you.
This “universal” dead-end is just that. A complete irrelevance.
I am saying both.
Maybe 50 years ago when the only way to get entertainment broadcast was to do so collectively then it was justified to pay collectively to do so. That's not been true for decades.
The BBC is both not important enough to justify general taxation nor universal enough to justify compulsion.
Let people choose. If people want to pay for the BBC that should be their choice.
The BBC faces an existential crisis in the age of Netflix and social media.
But one can also argue that “fake news” makes the BBC more important than it has been for a long time?
Someone refers to some eye-opening corona stats on “More or Less” upthread. Who else is performing that function in the current media landscape?
C4, but the middle to far right that now dominates government and the Party formally known as Conservative, hates them too. Extremists always want to dismantle organisations that do not share their extreme world view. Civil service today, BBC tomorrow, NHS eventually.
Comments
His twitter acc seems to have changed?
Except the SNP was not 3rd party in 2015. We were 1st, and had been for eight years.
By the way, I don`t think you are a lost cause, kinabalu, as far a liberalism is concerned. Phew ... There could, I suggest, be a liberal fighting to get out? Not with this woke stuff though. Never with that.
My greatest PB.com moment came a few weeks ago when a poster described you as "a pretty crap woke bloke."
How I chuckled.
A TV poll tax is no longer justifiable.
The TV License should be abolished. The BBC should be made to seek alternative means of obtaining funding. The means of distribution, the transmitters and other associates products should be funded via general taxation.
The NHS is there for you whatever your ailment. Whatever your ailment is, you can go to the NHS and get treated. It doesn't matter what your ailment is the NHS will treat you.
The BBC is a TV tax for some of what is on TV. If I want to say watch The Big Bang Theory on TV then I can do so on either E4 or Netflix. I can't find it on the BBC despite paying the TV tax to them I either need to watch E4's ads or pay for Netflix.
The NHS is universal and common. The BBC is not. The BBC is simply one entertainment provider of many, its like forcing everyone in the country to pay to support Manchester United even if they support a different club.
In the real world, I rarely struggle to reconcile my views on individual issues with liberalism. I also rarely struggle to reconcile them with socialism. Of course there will be people from both ideologies who will tell me that I can't be a liberal/socialist if I believe X, but equally I could turn their argument on its head if I chose to.
It isn’t “the state should not force me to pay for this” rather “TV is not important enough for the state to force me to pay for this”.
The debate is therefore one of importance and appropriateness, not some A-level essay justification based on “liberalism”.
[Submerges]
The argument is simply that healthcare is more important than sport or TV.
Yes - compared to libertarians. No - compared to collectivists.
Lets say I want to watch Brooklyn Nine Nine on TV. It is a TV show on TV and if I wish to watch that being broadcast live on TV then I must pay the Licence Fee to watch it.
On which BBC Channel can I find it?
I still think there’s a gap for a genuinely liberal party in Britain, but in recent years the LDs have lost their way and have appeared hypocritical on many issues.
I’m currently a Conservative, but willing to be persuaded by both Labour and LD. I’m intending to live in a marginal UK constituency at the 2024 election
It was certainly the latter and probably the former too.
I can access cutting-edge medicine privately that is not available in the NHS. I am forced to pay for the NHS but yet I can’t access this hypothetical treatment under it.
Likewise your pointless Big Bang Theory analogy. I can access perhaps a less-good sitcom on the BBC.
If I want to watch a non-BBC channel I am compelled at the threat of prison to pay for the BBC to do so.
Its like saying if I want to go to Anfield I'll go to prison if I don't pay Old Trafford first.
Both are pooled resources to pay for a service. What differs is whether the state should be abel to “compel payment” under threat of prison. That is a question of degree.
Your "less-good sitcom on the BBC" is one entertainment option of many. Why should we be compelled for one entertainment choice of many?
I believe that ideologies are innate. I cannot decide to wake up tomorrow as a collectivist or next week as a conservative. Liberalism is just "in me".
The way to do it is to make the registration system secular ie Registry Office, and treat the private ceremony of whatever kind as private.
That would mean eg Vicars losing their role as Registrar, and avoid treating the British Humanist Association as a mini-me religion, which is a bad idea.
Suspect they are partly taking that line for financial reasons, particularly given eg the surcharge the BHA puts on humanist funerals. Is it 10%?
Cameron should have reformed the system properly when he rushed gay marriages in.
Entertainment is a competitive market and the BBC is just one small fraction of it.
They're not the same thing. Why should we pay for BBC entertainment when it isn't universal or common entertainment?
If the NHS only paid for a small fraction of healthcare issues we shouldn't have to pay for that either. But it doesn't, its universal.
But people know what I think. If I'm wrong it will be a very large slice of pie of the most humble variety.
It is the universality that is the difference. The BBC is not universal.
The argument is perhaps the scale of the BBC versus the truly “public sector broadcasting” part.
It does not help that the BBC itself seems to have only a fuzzy idea of what public sector broadcasting is; it has lost confidence in itself - this problem seems to go back to the Blair years...
I am merely arguing that the justification for doing either is simply a question of degree. Ideologically they are both examples of the state requiring the population to contribute towards a service, despite there being alternatives, for the good of everyone.
Pretending that the NHS is somehow “ring-fenced” as special so you can remain “pure” in your belief in a “small state” is ridiculous. You merely believe that the NHS is worthwhile enough to be something the state *SHOULD* be doing.
The NHS and BBC aren`t libertarian concepts - maybe that is what you mean?
In fact, an attempt to amend the gay marriage bill to do just that was described as a "wrecking amendment".
It would be a better parallel to ask whether I've ever chosen not to buy a particular product at the supermarket because I don't want my money to go to the publications the manufacturers advertise in. And yes, I've done that, and so have thousands of others - it's called #StopFundingHate, you may have heard of it.
Listen to collectivists speak. Corbyn is a prime example. He struggles to utter sentence without the word "community" being in it. Liberals recoil at this.
Entertainment is a matter of personal preference and depending upon what entertainment you prefer the BBC may provide it or an alternative provider may do so.
The two are not remotely the same thing. Maybe 50 years ago you could compare them, not now.
I'm not sure about Orkney and Shetland due to the local politics that goes on there, in some ways I think Edinburgh West is actually more secure for the lib Dems.
To be fair, I'd made a rapid fire comment in two spare minutes to register the untenability of some LEA plans and went the full Cantona on it, so I probably deserved it.
Without the BBC people would have a slightly less wide choice of which TV channel to watch.
You are merely arguing that the NHS is worthy of such a compellence. That’s fine.
You clearly believe that healthcare is one area where the state SHOULD restrict individual liberty to choose.
Remove the licence fee and make the BBC subscription - I would pay. I get enough good shows, and the lack of adverts (aside from the BBC own adverts) make it worthwhile. But I also like many other channels, and there is no doubt that competitors have shifted sport coverage to an entirely different level. I am old enough to remember test cricket on the BBC being interrupted for horse races and Wimbledon. Unthinkable to todays viewer, albeit that they have paid far more.
Stateside, though, I despise Trump and all things Trump to such an extent that if Nov 3rd goes as I think it will - a thumping loss for him - I will be punching the ceiling and making odd guttural sounds and all of that.
And in this case - unlike (say) GE19 over here - I have my betting aligned with my preferred outcome, i.e. what I expect to happen is the same as what I want to happen. Which will be quite nice (touch wood!).
I remain convinced it is the remorseless spin, rooted in tribalism, that is so destructive for politics and sets the tone for much of the national debate. Ironically, a big chunk of the blame lies with Blair, who made much of Tory politicians’ personal problems under John Major — then unleashed a ruthless spin operation after winning office and deceived the public over Iraq, further eroding public trust.
This combative tribal stance is a world away from the reality of most people’s lives. "
https://unherd.com/2020/07/is-tony-blair-to-blame-for-our-tribal-politicians/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups[0]=18743&tl_period_type=3
Cameron imo cocked up by not taking enough time. One aspect was that he did not think through the role of CofE in national law, and how it all related. He just did not sufficiently sweat the detail.
I can see no reason against say a Civil Partnership between relations or friends, which would give an incentive to reverse the trend towards single person households - helping the intensity of use of housing stock, for example.
Hinge & Bracket is the wave of the future.
Every single one of us funds every TV channel that hosts advertising, and (short of becoming subsistence farmers) we have no choice in the matter.
It often strikes me that many posters on this site would make better politicians than the crop that we currently enjoy.
I`ve love to vote for AndyCooke, Cyclefree, Nabavi, Stodge, Foxy, DavidL etc etc.
Not kinabalu though. Not quite.
The BBC is not.
Can you not see the difference?
But one can also argue that “fake news” makes the BBC more important than it has been for a long time?
Someone refers to some eye-opening corona stats on “More or Less” upthread. Who else is performing that function in the current media landscape?
Meaning big changes in which W+L, if it survives at all will get much bigger. And as it is completely surrounded by strongly Tory areas it is going to be very difficult for him unless there is a big nationwide movement to the LDs.
Your analogy is completely flawed. They're not the same thing.
What you are simply saying is that the NHS and the Police are worthwhile enough for the state to compel people to contribute towards them under threat of violence and therefore restricting individual liberty.
And I agree with you.
This “universal” dead-end is just that. A complete irrelevance.
Davey is drab, but he won’t destroy the party.
He should appoint Daisy Cooper as effective co-leader and go big on family economic security, improving opportunities for youth, environmental, food standards, international co-operation, and civil liberty issues.
Maybe 50 years ago when the only way to get entertainment broadcast was to do so collectively then it was justified to pay collectively to do so. That's not been true for decades.
The BBC is both not important enough to justify general taxation nor universal enough to justify compulsion.
Let people choose. If people want to pay for the BBC that should be their choice.