Not much good trying to identify "moderates" unless you have an agreed definition of what it means.
I floated one. Occupies a space between Cons ex ERG and Labour ex Socialism. Then appeals and exceptions processed ad hoc. Think it's working Ok.
I would suggest that you are defining a centrist not a moderate, and something which will change over time. I would suggest something like somebody who generally advocates (where appropriate) incremental change from the status quo as opposed to radical wide ranging solutions to perceived problems. As such a moderate is a moderate, regardless of the current position of the "Overton window".
A distinction from (small c) conservative might be that the latter might be broadly happy with the status quo and need strong persuasion for the need for much change at all. A moderate could perceive a huge number of ills/problems that need tackling, but still believe that change must/has to be pursued slowly and with as broad consensus across the political spectrum as possible (not least to ensure that changes are embedded).
Sometimes of course, the current centre of the political spectrum might move SO far from a moderate's true beliefs that they become radical as they can't see that a moderate stance will work anymore.
How important is the Republican machine to Trump? If the party activists lose the faith (and I mean the machinery that fights elections and gets the Vote out) in favour of fighting for local Senate/Congressmen and not Trump could that accelerate the (possible) defeat. From a distance is there any sense the Reps decide to abandon him?
That's entirely the point of the Buttigieg intervention
You can be a real Republican, or you can support trump...
This idea that there is a real Republican Party which will reappear when Trump goes may be a comforting one. But I fear that it may be an illusion: the Republican Party is now tied to Trump and his values and what he has made of it.
Parties change. We should not assume that there is some true essence carefully preserved somewhere in some distant place which will survive and grow again when current troubles pass. The Republican Party of Eisenhower has turned into the party of Trump. The Tory party has turned into a mix of Ukip and the Brexit party.
After 2 defeats Labour turned into Corbyn’s party - and may now turn into something else - we’ll see.
But if it does it will be because, in part, of last December’s humongous defeat and how much actual change there will be is still an open question. It is not at all clear that it will turn back into what it used to be.
The issue in the US is most moderate conservatives are now independents not Republicans leaving the Republican party the party of staunch conservatives. After McCain and Romney won the nomination but lost the election it will likely take at least another decade for another moderate to become nominee.
It would therefore take high independent voters turnout in open primaries for a moderate Republican like say Nikki Haley to beat a staunch conservative like Pence or Cruz for the nomination in 2024 even if Trump loses and does not run again.
After Blair went in 2007 it took 13 years for Labour to elect another moderate leader in a contested leadership election, after Major lost in 1997 it took 8 years for the Tories to elect a moderate as leader and if Biden loses expect AOC to run in 2024 on a populist left banner for the Democratic nomination and to try and pick up where Bernie Sanders left off.
Ed Miliband was a soft left moderate.
If you think Ed "No Labour didn't spend too much" Miliband was a moderate then it shows how the Overton Window has moved to the left within Labour.
Just take a look at the 2015 Labour manifesto. It makes my point beyond doubt.
Yes it was not moderate.
That it wasn't absolutely insanely crazy extremism doesn't make it moderate.
It was moderate TO a moderate. Course, viewed from the extreme right it was quite left. This is more a matter of geometry than politics.
Which moderate thought it was moderate?
If you mean you, then you're not a moderate. Last I checked you're still in denial that Labour under Brown overspent too.
All the moderates on here thought it was moderate.
Ask them.
Who is a moderate here in your eyes?
Easier to list who isn't -
Me You Contra Ave It Owls Mark Sandpit Ace Paris Charles Isam
Apologies to extremists accidentally omitted. Bound to be some.
I would never claim to be moderate and I agree that nobody in that list is.
But I don't think there are many moderates on this site in the first place. People who post on politics sites tend to have strong political opinions.
Moderate here doesn't mean apolitical or exact centre ground or the dreaded "pragmatic not ideological". It just means occupies a place in the spectrum bounded by the Cons ex ERG and Labour ex Socialism.
Cons ex ERG aren't all moderates and I say that as a Conservative. I'm not ERG and I would have never classed myself as moderate, even when I used to back Remain.
If you really wanted the ultimate moderate voter it would probably be someone who voted for Labour under Blair then Tory under Cameron or LD under Clegg then Tory under May and for Boris or the LDs in 2019 and is now voting for Labour again under Starmer or LD under Davey.
What a wuss.
I’ve voted Lib Lib Dem since my first vote in 1974, my 2019 vote will possibly be my last unless we return to the UK or they change the law.
Disenfranchized by Brexit. No small matter.
No, disenfranchised by the 15 year rule.
Ah, right. Cannot for a change rightfully blame Brexit for this one then.
Not worth a special trip, I don't suppose. Not even for the keenest politico.
It based on when you were last legally registered to vote in the UK when you apply for your vote it is to the local authority in which you were last registered.
Me You Contra Ave It Owls Mark Sandpit Ace Paris Charles Isam
Apologies to extremists accidentally omitted. Bound to be some.
Disappointed not to be on your list of extremists, especially given our bet on Trump. Has ruined my day.
OMG I deserve a slap. You're on.
Anybody rooting for Trump for other than betting reasons is not in any way shape or form a moderate.
Surely I should be on your list?
(As an aside, I do not support Trump, but I expect the Democrats to balls something up and allow the Marmalade Monster another 4 years. I hope otherwise...)
We're listing NOT moderates, Beverley. Posters whose politics are a bit dodgy.
I know. I used to be a moderate.
My politics have become rather dodgy thanks to the Bluekip Govt we have and the raving Marxists infecting the Labour Party. I have moved towards the Guido Fawkes position (the original gunpowder one, not the blogger).
I did not mention the LibDems because they no longer (effectively) exist.
Yes, I see. Centre ground on tax & spend but support blowing up the House of Commons. So you are a moderate as we are looking at things.
Me You Contra Ave It Owls Mark Sandpit Ace Paris Charles Isam
Apologies to extremists accidentally omitted. Bound to be some.
Disappointed not to be on your list of extremists, especially given our bet on Trump. Has ruined my day.
OMG I deserve a slap. You're on.
Anybody rooting for Trump for other than betting reasons is not in any way shape or form a moderate.
Surely I should be on your list?
(As an aside, I do not support Trump, but I expect the Democrats to balls something up and allow the Marmalade Monster another 4 years. I hope otherwise...)
We're listing NOT moderates, Beverley. Posters whose politics are a bit dodgy.
I know. I used to be a moderate.
My politics have become rather dodgy thanks to the Bluekip Govt we have and the raving Marxists infecting the Labour Party. I have moved towards the Guido Fawkes position (the original gunpowder one, not the blogger).
I did not mention the LibDems because they no longer (effectively) exist.
Yes, I see. Centre ground on tax & spend but support blowing up the House of Commons. So you are a moderate as we are looking at things.
In which case the word moderate has lost all meaning. 🙄
Me You Contra Ave It Owls Mark Sandpit Ace Paris Charles Isam
Apologies to extremists accidentally omitted. Bound to be some.
Disappointed not to be on your list of extremists, especially given our bet on Trump. Has ruined my day.
OMG I deserve a slap. You're on.
Anybody rooting for Trump for other than betting reasons is not in any way shape or form a moderate.
Surely I should be on your list?
(As an aside, I do not support Trump, but I expect the Democrats to balls something up and allow the Marmalade Monster another 4 years. I hope otherwise...)
We're listing NOT moderates, Beverley. Posters whose politics are a bit dodgy.
There's nothing dodgy about having strong political beliefs and you've missed out many people who could be on your list too like Alastair Meeks.
Just joshing. And Mr Meeks? No, moderate on all but you know what.
If Mr Meeks is a moderate then so is everyone else. Come off it.
Excluding Brexit, he is. The very definition of. Don't let your Brexitmania cloud your judgement.
I would define a moderate as someone that doesn't want to or is too scared to change anything.
Ah. Forgot you. You are an extremist, no question.
That's definitely it now.
It will never be it until you've named everyone.
Cyclefree, Richard Nabavi, OGH, TheScreamingEagles, Southam Observer and more.
You are not a Conservative. This emerges clearly from everything you post but perhaps most clearly from your rage against "nimbies." How dare people own private property and seek by lawful means to preserve its value, and the amenity of their surroundings, when the interest of the hive demands the construction of further cells? On the narrow point, yes, obviously we need to build more housing, but your way of putting the case is about as anti tory as it gets. Given your rabid collectivism and Brexitry, National Socialist describes your position as well as anything, though i fear the name is taken.
Me You Contra Ave It Owls Mark Sandpit Ace Paris Charles Isam
Apologies to extremists accidentally omitted. Bound to be some.
Disappointed not to be on your list of extremists, especially given our bet on Trump. Has ruined my day.
OMG I deserve a slap. You're on.
Anybody rooting for Trump for other than betting reasons is not in any way shape or form a moderate.
Surely I should be on your list?
(As an aside, I do not support Trump, but I expect the Democrats to balls something up and allow the Marmalade Monster another 4 years. I hope otherwise...)
We're listing NOT moderates, Beverley. Posters whose politics are a bit dodgy.
There's nothing dodgy about having strong political beliefs and you've missed out many people who could be on your list too like Alastair Meeks.
Just joshing. And Mr Meeks? No, moderate on all but you know what.
If Mr Meeks is a moderate then so is everyone else. Come off it.
Excluding Brexit, he is. The very definition of. Don't let your Brexitmania cloud your judgement.
It just means that apart from Brexit he was already getting everything he wanted.
As soon as there was one thing he didn't like then the toys quickly left the pram.
Just been to Costco for the first sally of Operation No Deal Stock Up. The first of several trips between now and Xmas. I’ll also be investing in loads of lamps, batteries, candles and a camping stove with plenty of gas bottles.
I sincerely hope my preparations are all, ultimately, pointless. But I would hate to be kicking myself in January if everything goes tits up and I didn’t prepare.
I’m fortunate, I’ve got plenty of room to store stuff and all the tinned and dried food will get eaten eventually anyway.
Also getting loads of long life milk and shit paper.
Brexit my arse.
"Brexit my arse"? Is that a physical function in the event of running out of loo roll?
Just been to Costco for the first sally of Operation No Deal Stock Up. The first of several trips between now and Xmas. I’ll also be investing in loads of lamps, batteries, candles and a camping stove with plenty of gas bottles.
I sincerely hope my preparations are all, ultimately, pointless. But I would hate to be kicking myself in January if everything goes tits up and I didn’t prepare.
I’m fortunate, I’ve got plenty of room to store stuff and all the tinned and dried food will get eaten eventually anyway.
Also getting loads of long life milk and shit paper.
Brexit my arse.
Extinction Rebellion may have limited your access to shit paper today.
And @another_richard can be a bit fruity with the "globalist" and "liberal elite" talk.
Think that's it.
I think an establishment/alternative split is often more appropriate than moderate/extremist.
There are peoples and views which are often described as 'moderate' or 'centrist' but I would class as extremist establishment - 'the gentleman in Whitehall knows best' is an example.
I would define a moderate as someone that doesn't want to or is too scared to change anything.
Ah. Forgot you. You are an extremist, no question.
That's definitely it now.
It will never be it until you've named everyone.
Cyclefree, Richard Nabavi, OGH, TheScreamingEagles, Southam Observer and more.
You are not a Conservative. This emerges clearly from everything you post but perhaps most clearly from your rage against "nimbies." How dare people own private property and seek by lawful means to preserve its value, and the amenity of their surroundings, when the interest of the hive demands the construction of further cells? On the narrow point, yes, obviously we need to build more housing, but your way of putting the case is about as anti tory as it gets. Given your rabid collectivism and Brexitry, National Socialist describes your position as well as anything, though i fear the name is taken.
I've never said I'm a conservative I am a libertarian.
NIMBYs are a disgrace. Trying to prevent others from building on their land? Awful. Preserve your own land fine but not other people's.
I am not at all collectivist at all, where on earth you got collectivism from is beyond me? I am a rabid individualist I believe everyone should be able to do what they want so long as it doesn't harm others ... And I do not accept prices going down as a harm, I consider it competition which I support.
Thanks as always to @david_herdson for an interesting and thought-provoking Saturday thread.
I've three thoughts - first, the experience of 2016 (as 1992 in the UK) overshadows everything. Those who genuinely thought Clinton would win and did not envisage the Trump victory because, perhaps, they thought the State polls were right when they weren't or that a narrow national lead would convert to a narrow EC lead which it didn't, are now desperate not to be on the wrong side of the bet and are desperately worried some form of "October Miracle" or a legion of shy Trump voters will tip the balance back in favour of the President.
The second is the weaponising of polling - those with an agenda are quick to promote headline poll numbers which look favourable for their side or candidate and deride those which aren't but a poll is only as good as its methodology or its sampling.
Too many US pollsters are unwilling to share their methodology or caveat it behind words like "representative" but that makes the poll meaningless sunless you know who has been sampled.
The Economist/YouGov poll publishes its sampling set and we can see if it is a reasonable representation of the probable voting profile of the country. Others don't so we are in the dark. Trafalgar's sampling notes for their Florida poll are useless unless you know how Florida voted last time and the demographic profile now.
My third thought is, on a wider level, Trump vs Biden encapsulates so much of modern political debate. There seem to be those who, while not personally being supporters of Trump, seem to prefer him because "he annoys the lefties". It's curious one's political views are based solely on whichever candidate annoys a group you don't like but there you are.
My view remains Biden will pile up votes in his strongholds and, curiously, will do better in Trump's strongholds though he won't win any of them. The polling in the "marginal fifteen" states chops and changes but from where I sit Biden is grinding out a 2-3% swing which will be enough. That doesn't mean he'll win TX and the poll from there quoted by OGH also lacks meaningful sampling data. I can't see him winning higher than 351 currently and his only loss is likely to be MInnesota so his floor is 222 so pitching the spread at 281-284 makes a lot of sense.
How important is the Republican machine to Trump? If the party activists lose the faith (and I mean the machinery that fights elections and gets the Vote out) in favour of fighting for local Senate/Congressmen and not Trump could that accelerate the (possible) defeat. From a distance is there any sense the Reps decide to abandon him?
That's entirely the point of the Buttigieg intervention
You can be a real Republican, or you can support trump...
This idea that there is a real Republican Party which will reappear when Trump goes may be a comforting one. But I fear that it may be an illusion: the Republican Party is now tied to Trump and his values and what he has made of it.
Parties change. We should not assume that there is some true essence carefully preserved somewhere in some distant place which will survive and grow again when current troubles pass. The Republican Party of Eisenhower has turned into the party of Trump. The Tory party has turned into a mix of Ukip and the Brexit party.
After 2 defeats Labour turned into Corbyn’s party - and may now turn into something else - we’ll see.
But if it does it will be because, in part, of last December’s humongous defeat and how much actual change there will be is still an open question. It is not at all clear that it will turn back into what it used to be.
The issue in the US is most moderate conservatives are now independents not Republicans leaving the Republican party the party of staunch conservatives. After McCain and Romney won the nomination but lost the election it will likely take at least another decade for another moderate to become nominee.
It would therefore take high independent voters turnout in open primaries for a moderate Republican like say Nikki Haley to beat a staunch conservative like Pence or Cruz for the nomination in 2024 even if Trump loses and does not run again.
After Blair went in 2007 it took 13 years for Labour to elect another moderate leader in a contested leadership election, after Major lost in 1997 it took 8 years for the Tories to elect a moderate as leader and if Biden loses expect AOC to run in 2024 on a populist left banner for the Democratic nomination and to try and pick up where Bernie Sanders left off.
Ed Miliband was a soft left moderate.
If you think Ed "No Labour didn't spend too much" Miliband was a moderate then it shows how the Overton Window has moved to the left within Labour.
Just take a look at the 2015 Labour manifesto. It makes my point beyond doubt.
Yes it was not moderate.
That it wasn't absolutely insanely crazy extremism doesn't make it moderate.
It was moderate TO a moderate. Course, viewed from the extreme right it was quite left. This is more a matter of geometry than politics.
Which moderate thought it was moderate?
If you mean you, then you're not a moderate. Last I checked you're still in denial that Labour under Brown overspent too.
All the moderates on here thought it was moderate.
Ask them.
Who is a moderate here in your eyes?
Easier to list who isn't -
Me You Contra Ave It Owls Mark Sandpit Ace Paris Charles Isam
Apologies to extremists accidentally omitted. Bound to be some.
I would never claim to be moderate and I agree that nobody in that list is.
But I don't think there are many moderates on this site in the first place. People who post on politics sites tend to have strong political opinions.
Moderate here doesn't mean apolitical or exact centre ground or the dreaded "pragmatic not ideological". It just means occupies a place in the spectrum bounded by the Cons ex ERG and Labour ex Socialism.
Cons ex ERG aren't all moderates and I say that as a Conservative. I'm not ERG and I would have never classed myself as moderate, even when I used to back Remain.
If you really wanted the ultimate moderate voter it would probably be someone who voted for Labour under Blair then Tory under Cameron or LD under Clegg then Tory under May and for Boris or the LDs in 2019 and is now voting for Labour again under Starmer or LD under Davey.
What a wuss.
I’ve voted Lib Lib Dem since my first vote in 1974, my 2019 vote will possibly be my last unless we return to the UK or they change the law.
I would define a moderate as someone that doesn't want to or is too scared to change anything.
Ah. Forgot you. You are an extremist, no question.
That's definitely it now.
It will never be it until you've named everyone.
Cyclefree, Richard Nabavi, OGH, TheScreamingEagles, Southam Observer and more.
You are not a Conservative. This emerges clearly from everything you post but perhaps most clearly from your rage against "nimbies." How dare people own private property and seek by lawful means to preserve its value, and the amenity of their surroundings, when the interest of the hive demands the construction of further cells? On the narrow point, yes, obviously we need to build more housing, but your way of putting the case is about as anti tory as it gets. Given your rabid collectivism and Brexitry, National Socialist describes your position as well as anything, though i fear the name is taken.
I've never said I'm a conservative I am a libertarian.
NIMBYs are a disgrace. Trying to prevent others from building on their land? Awful. Preserve your own land fine but not other people's.
I am not at all collectivist at all, where on earth you got collectivism from is beyond me? I am a rabid individualist I believe everyone should be able to do what they want so long as it doesn't harm others ... And I do not accept prices going down as a harm, I consider it competition which I support.
Libertarians are simply anarchists who lack the courage of their convictions....
For the purpose of information I'm putting together a plausible "Biden nightmare" spreadsheet together. Where he wins the popular vote by his current 538 score (50.4/43.0) yet Trump wins the EC and even takes Minnesota into the bargain.
It depends whether California swings further to the Democrats. rcs1000 was saying recently he thought it might move a little to Trump relatively speaking.
Not much good trying to identify "moderates" unless you have an agreed definition of what it means.
I floated one. Occupies a space between Cons ex ERG and Labour ex Socialism. Then appeals and exceptions processed ad hoc. Think it's working Ok.
I would suggest that you are defining a centrist not a moderate, and something which will change over time. I would suggest something like somebody who generally advocates (where appropriate) incremental change from the status quo as opposed to radical wide ranging solutions to perceived problems. As such a moderate is a moderate, regardless of the current position of the "Overton window".
A distinction from (small c) conservative might be that the latter might be broadly happy with the status quo and need strong persuasion for the need for much change at all. A moderate could perceive a huge number of ills/problems that need tackling, but still believe that change must/has to be pursued slowly and with as broad consensus across the political spectrum as possible (not least to ensure that changes are embedded).
Sometimes of course, the current centre of the political spectrum might move SO far from a moderate's true beliefs that they become radical as they can't see that a moderate stance will work anymore.
That is a very good definition of what moderate means in the political context. But I don't think it changes the list that much.
How important is the Republican machine to Trump? If the party activists lose the faith (and I mean the machinery that fights elections and gets the Vote out) in favour of fighting for local Senate/Congressmen and not Trump could that accelerate the (possible) defeat. From a distance is there any sense the Reps decide to abandon him?
That's entirely the point of the Buttigieg intervention
You can be a real Republican, or you can support trump...
This idea that there is a real Republican Party which will reappear when Trump goes may be a comforting one. But I fear that it may be an illusion: the Republican Party is now tied to Trump and his values and what he has made of it.
Parties change. We should not assume that there is some true essence carefully preserved somewhere in some distant place which will survive and grow again when current troubles pass. The Republican Party of Eisenhower has turned into the party of Trump. The Tory party has turned into a mix of Ukip and the Brexit party.
After 2 defeats Labour turned into Corbyn’s party - and may now turn into something else - we’ll see.
But if it does it will be because, in part, of last December’s humongous defeat and how much actual change there will be is still an open question. It is not at all clear that it will turn back into what it used to be.
The issue in the US is most moderate conservatives are now independents not Republicans leaving the Republican party the party of staunch conservatives. After McCain and Romney won the nomination but lost the election it will likely take at least another decade for another moderate to become nominee.
It would therefore take high independent voters turnout in open primaries for a moderate Republican like say Nikki Haley to beat a staunch conservative like Pence or Cruz for the nomination in 2024 even if Trump loses and does not run again.
After Blair went in 2007 it took 13 years for Labour to elect another moderate leader in a contested leadership election, after Major lost in 1997 it took 8 years for the Tories to elect a moderate as leader and if Biden loses expect AOC to run in 2024 on a populist left banner for the Democratic nomination and to try and pick up where Bernie Sanders left off.
Ed Miliband was a soft left moderate.
If you think Ed "No Labour didn't spend too much" Miliband was a moderate then it shows how the Overton Window has moved to the left within Labour.
Just take a look at the 2015 Labour manifesto. It makes my point beyond doubt.
Yes it was not moderate.
That it wasn't absolutely insanely crazy extremism doesn't make it moderate.
It was moderate TO a moderate. Course, viewed from the extreme right it was quite left. This is more a matter of geometry than politics.
Which moderate thought it was moderate?
If you mean you, then you're not a moderate. Last I checked you're still in denial that Labour under Brown overspent too.
All the moderates on here thought it was moderate.
Ask them.
Who is a moderate here in your eyes?
Easier to list who isn't -
Me You Contra Ave It Owls Mark Sandpit Ace Paris Charles Isam
Apologies to extremists accidentally omitted. Bound to be some.
I would never claim to be moderate and I agree that nobody in that list is.
But I don't think there are many moderates on this site in the first place. People who post on politics sites tend to have strong political opinions.
Moderate here doesn't mean apolitical or exact centre ground or the dreaded "pragmatic not ideological". It just means occupies a place in the spectrum bounded by the Cons ex ERG and Labour ex Socialism.
Cons ex ERG aren't all moderates and I say that as a Conservative. I'm not ERG and I would have never classed myself as moderate, even when I used to back Remain.
If you really wanted the ultimate moderate voter it would probably be someone who voted for Labour under Blair then Tory under Cameron or LD under Clegg then Tory under May and for Boris or the LDs in 2019 and is now voting for Labour again under Starmer or LD under Davey.
What a wuss.
I’ve voted Lib Lib Dem since my first vote in 1974, my 2019 vote will possibly be my last unless we return to the UK or they change the law.
Where are you living now IYDMMA?
Southern Costa Blanca Just on the Alicante side of the border with Murcia. About 50 meters from the sea.
A NIMBY not wanting another home to be built because it would drop the value of their home in as unacceptable to me as Tesco's not wanting an ALDI to be built because it would affect the value of their supermarket.
I believe in free choice and the free market. If someone wants to build a home, let them, if that causes others prices to fall then fine that is the free market in action.
I would define a moderate as someone that doesn't want to or is too scared to change anything.
Ah. Forgot you. You are an extremist, no question.
That's definitely it now.
It will never be it until you've named everyone.
Cyclefree, Richard Nabavi, OGH, TheScreamingEagles, Southam Observer and more.
You are not a Conservative. This emerges clearly from everything you post but perhaps most clearly from your rage against "nimbies." How dare people own private property and seek by lawful means to preserve its value, and the amenity of their surroundings, when the interest of the hive demands the construction of further cells? On the narrow point, yes, obviously we need to build more housing, but your way of putting the case is about as anti tory as it gets. Given your rabid collectivism and Brexitry, National Socialist describes your position as well as anything, though i fear the name is taken.
I've never said I'm a conservative I am a libertarian.
NIMBYs are a disgrace. Trying to prevent others from building on their land? Awful. Preserve your own land fine but not other people's.
I am not at all collectivist at all, where on earth you got collectivism from is beyond me? I am a rabid individualist I believe everyone should be able to do what they want so long as it doesn't harm others ... And I do not accept prices going down as a harm, I consider it competition which I support.
Libertarians are simply anarchists who lack the courage of their convictions....
A Libertarian believes people should be able to do what they want, so long as it doesn't harm others.
An anarchist believes people should be able to do what they want.
I would define a moderate as someone that doesn't want to or is too scared to change anything.
Ah. Forgot you. You are an extremist, no question.
That's definitely it now.
It will never be it until you've named everyone.
Cyclefree, Richard Nabavi, OGH, TheScreamingEagles, Southam Observer and more.
You are not a Conservative. This emerges clearly from everything you post but perhaps most clearly from your rage against "nimbies." How dare people own private property and seek by lawful means to preserve its value, and the amenity of their surroundings, when the interest of the hive demands the construction of further cells? On the narrow point, yes, obviously we need to build more housing, but your way of putting the case is about as anti tory as it gets. Given your rabid collectivism and Brexitry, National Socialist describes your position as well as anything, though i fear the name is taken.
I've never said I'm a conservative I am a libertarian.
NIMBYs are a disgrace. Trying to prevent others from building on their land? Awful. Preserve your own land fine but not other people's.
I am not at all collectivist at all, where on earth you got collectivism from is beyond me? I am a rabid individualist I believe everyone should be able to do what they want so long as it doesn't harm others ... And I do not accept prices going down as a harm, I consider it competition which I support.
Libertarians are simply anarchists who lack the courage of their convictions....
A Libertarian believes people should be able to do what they want, so long as it doesn't harm others.
An anarchist believes people should be able to do what they want.
You have been a vocal supporter of the rioting in the US.
I would define a moderate as someone that doesn't want to or is too scared to change anything.
Ah. Forgot you. You are an extremist, no question.
That's definitely it now.
It will never be it until you've named everyone.
Cyclefree, Richard Nabavi, OGH, TheScreamingEagles, Southam Observer and more.
You are not a Conservative. This emerges clearly from everything you post but perhaps most clearly from your rage against "nimbies." How dare people own private property and seek by lawful means to preserve its value, and the amenity of their surroundings, when the interest of the hive demands the construction of further cells? On the narrow point, yes, obviously we need to build more housing, but your way of putting the case is about as anti tory as it gets. Given your rabid collectivism and Brexitry, National Socialist describes your position as well as anything, though i fear the name is taken.
I've never said I'm a conservative I am a libertarian.
NIMBYs are a disgrace. Trying to prevent others from building on their land? Awful. Preserve your own land fine but not other people's.
I am not at all collectivist at all, where on earth you got collectivism from is beyond me? I am a rabid individualist I believe everyone should be able to do what they want so long as it doesn't harm others ... And I do not accept prices going down as a harm, I consider it competition which I support.
Libertarians are simply anarchists who lack the courage of their convictions....
A Libertarian believes people should be able to do what they want, so long as it doesn't harm others.
An anarchist believes people should be able to do what they want.
You have been a vocal supporter of the rioting in the US.
Presumably he may feel that such harm as may exist from that rioting is outweighed by the harm to society of not taking the action which the protests (and occasional riots) are agitating about.
For the purpose of information I'm putting together a plausible "Biden nightmare" spreadsheet together. Where he wins the popular vote by his current 538 score (50.4/43.0) yet Trump wins the EC and even takes Minnesota into the bargain.
It depends whether California swings further to the Democrats. rcs1000 was saying recently he thought it might move a little to Trump relatively speaking.
From my first pass the nightmare scenario looks plausible but does involve a quite dramatic build up of votes in California. I could spread them out somewhat into New York as well to make it less severe.
I would define a moderate as someone that doesn't want to or is too scared to change anything.
Ah. Forgot you. You are an extremist, no question.
That's definitely it now.
It will never be it until you've named everyone.
Cyclefree, Richard Nabavi, OGH, TheScreamingEagles, Southam Observer and more.
You are not a Conservative. This emerges clearly from everything you post but perhaps most clearly from your rage against "nimbies." How dare people own private property and seek by lawful means to preserve its value, and the amenity of their surroundings, when the interest of the hive demands the construction of further cells? On the narrow point, yes, obviously we need to build more housing, but your way of putting the case is about as anti tory as it gets. Given your rabid collectivism and Brexitry, National Socialist describes your position as well as anything, though i fear the name is taken.
I've never said I'm a conservative I am a libertarian.
NIMBYs are a disgrace. Trying to prevent others from building on their land? Awful. Preserve your own land fine but not other people's.
I am not at all collectivist at all, where on earth you got collectivism from is beyond me? I am a rabid individualist I believe everyone should be able to do what they want so long as it doesn't harm others ... And I do not accept prices going down as a harm, I consider it competition which I support.
Libertarians are simply anarchists who lack the courage of their convictions....
A Libertarian believes people should be able to do what they want, so long as it doesn't harm others.
An anarchist believes people should be able to do what they want.
That surely then categorises Johnson as an anarchist. He has spent his entire adult life "doing what (he) wants", socially, morally, politically and always without negative consequence for himself.
And @another_richard can be a bit fruity with the "globalist" and "liberal elite" talk.
Think that's it.
I think an establishment/alternative split is often more appropriate than moderate/extremist.
There are peoples and views which are often described as 'moderate' or 'centrist' but I would class as extremist establishment - 'the gentleman in Whitehall knows best' is an example.
No, "establishment vs alternative" is biased language. It steers heavily to the second being virtuous. We have to keep this neutral.
I would define a moderate as someone that doesn't want to or is too scared to change anything.
Ah. Forgot you. You are an extremist, no question.
That's definitely it now.
It will never be it until you've named everyone.
Cyclefree, Richard Nabavi, OGH, TheScreamingEagles, Southam Observer and more.
You are not a Conservative. This emerges clearly from everything you post but perhaps most clearly from your rage against "nimbies." How dare people own private property and seek by lawful means to preserve its value, and the amenity of their surroundings, when the interest of the hive demands the construction of further cells? On the narrow point, yes, obviously we need to build more housing, but your way of putting the case is about as anti tory as it gets. Given your rabid collectivism and Brexitry, National Socialist describes your position as well as anything, though i fear the name is taken.
I've never said I'm a conservative I am a libertarian.
NIMBYs are a disgrace. Trying to prevent others from building on their land? Awful. Preserve your own land fine but not other people's.
I am not at all collectivist at all, where on earth you got collectivism from is beyond me? I am a rabid individualist I believe everyone should be able to do what they want so long as it doesn't harm others ... And I do not accept prices going down as a harm, I consider it competition which I support.
Libertarians are simply anarchists who lack the courage of their convictions....
A Libertarian believes people should be able to do what they want, so long as it doesn't harm others.
An anarchist believes people should be able to do what they want.
You have been a vocal supporter of the rioting in the US.
Presumably he may feel that such harm as may exist from that rioting is outweighed by the harm to society of not taking the action which the protests (and occasional riots) are agitating about.
I would define a moderate as someone that doesn't want to or is too scared to change anything.
Ah. Forgot you. You are an extremist, no question.
That's definitely it now.
It will never be it until you've named everyone.
Cyclefree, Richard Nabavi, OGH, TheScreamingEagles, Southam Observer and more.
You are not a Conservative. This emerges clearly from everything you post but perhaps most clearly from your rage against "nimbies." How dare people own private property and seek by lawful means to preserve its value, and the amenity of their surroundings, when the interest of the hive demands the construction of further cells? On the narrow point, yes, obviously we need to build more housing, but your way of putting the case is about as anti tory as it gets. Given your rabid collectivism and Brexitry, National Socialist describes your position as well as anything, though i fear the name is taken.
I've never said I'm a conservative I am a libertarian.
NIMBYs are a disgrace. Trying to prevent others from building on their land? Awful. Preserve your own land fine but not other people's.
I am not at all collectivist at all, where on earth you got collectivism from is beyond me? I am a rabid individualist I believe everyone should be able to do what they want so long as it doesn't harm others ... And I do not accept prices going down as a harm, I consider it competition which I support.
Libertarians are simply anarchists who lack the courage of their convictions....
A Libertarian believes people should be able to do what they want, so long as it doesn't harm others.
An anarchist believes people should be able to do what they want.
You have been a vocal supporter of the rioting in the US.
Presumably he may feel that such harm as may exist from that rioting is outweighed by the harm to society of not taking the action which the protests (and occasional riots) are agitating about.
Perhaps you could argue that, it is a terrible argument, but the point is it's not a Libertarian position.
For the purpose of information I'm putting together a plausible "Biden nightmare" spreadsheet together. Where he wins the popular vote by his current 538 score (50.4/43.0) yet Trump wins the EC and even takes Minnesota into the bargain.
It depends whether California swings further to the Democrats. rcs1000 was saying recently he thought it might move a little to Trump relatively speaking.
From my first pass the nightmare scenario looks plausible but does involve a quite dramatic build up of votes in California. I could spread them out somewhat into New York as well to make it less severe.
You are a grade A masochist.
Please tell me when you are planning to post the results of the exercise so I can be out walking.
Votes for women, an end to slavery and legalisation of gay marriage would have been considered extreme opinions at one time.
Certainly would. I think there needs to be a distinction between views or actions which in of themselves are extreme regardless of the times, and views and actions which are simply beyond the political mainstream, that is a minority or extreme view. Something might be extreme/not extreme for the former, but then be a commonly held and thus not extreme view for the latter. Edward I expelling the jews from England was definitely an extreme action, but was also probably a very popular action at the time.
So when we say something or someone is extreme we need to be clearer if think their views are not common, or if they are dangerously extreme in some way . Or both.
I would define a moderate as someone that doesn't want to or is too scared to change anything.
Ah. Forgot you. You are an extremist, no question.
That's definitely it now.
It will never be it until you've named everyone.
Cyclefree, Richard Nabavi, OGH, TheScreamingEagles, Southam Observer and more.
You are not a Conservative. This emerges clearly from everything you post but perhaps most clearly from your rage against "nimbies." How dare people own private property and seek by lawful means to preserve its value, and the amenity of their surroundings, when the interest of the hive demands the construction of further cells? On the narrow point, yes, obviously we need to build more housing, but your way of putting the case is about as anti tory as it gets. Given your rabid collectivism and Brexitry, National Socialist describes your position as well as anything, though i fear the name is taken.
I've never said I'm a conservative I am a libertarian.
NIMBYs are a disgrace. Trying to prevent others from building on their land? Awful. Preserve your own land fine but not other people's.
I am not at all collectivist at all, where on earth you got collectivism from is beyond me? I am a rabid individualist I believe everyone should be able to do what they want so long as it doesn't harm others ... And I do not accept prices going down as a harm, I consider it competition which I support.
Libertarians are simply anarchists who lack the courage of their convictions....
A Libertarian believes people should be able to do what they want, so long as it doesn't harm others.
An anarchist believes people should be able to do what they want.
You have been a vocal supporter of the rioting in the US.
Protests not riots. Peaceful protests.
I do not support the riots. Nor do I think rioters represent the protesters.
Votes for women, an end to slavery and legalisation of gay marriage would have been considered extreme opinions at one time.
Yes, you will note I am imputing neither vice or virtue to moderation. It's merely an exercise commissioned by Philip Thompson to help us draw up a jury to answer the question that started all this -
Was Labour's 2015 manifesto moderate or was it not?
It was, of course. But we're having to do it the hard way. No probs since I'm not busy.
I would define a moderate as someone that doesn't want to or is too scared to change anything.
Ah. Forgot you. You are an extremist, no question.
That's definitely it now.
It will never be it until you've named everyone.
Cyclefree, Richard Nabavi, OGH, TheScreamingEagles, Southam Observer and more.
You are not a Conservative. This emerges clearly from everything you post but perhaps most clearly from your rage against "nimbies." How dare people own private property and seek by lawful means to preserve its value, and the amenity of their surroundings, when the interest of the hive demands the construction of further cells? On the narrow point, yes, obviously we need to build more housing, but your way of putting the case is about as anti tory as it gets. Given your rabid collectivism and Brexitry, National Socialist describes your position as well as anything, though i fear the name is taken.
I've never said I'm a conservative I am a libertarian.
NIMBYs are a disgrace. Trying to prevent others from building on their land? Awful. Preserve your own land fine but not other people's.
I am not at all collectivist at all, where on earth you got collectivism from is beyond me? I am a rabid individualist I believe everyone should be able to do what they want so long as it doesn't harm others ... And I do not accept prices going down as a harm, I consider it competition which I support.
Libertarians are simply anarchists who lack the courage of their convictions....
A Libertarian believes people should be able to do what they want, so long as it doesn't harm others.
An anarchist believes people should be able to do what they want.
You have been a vocal supporter of the rioting in the US.
Presumably he may feel that such harm as may exist from that rioting is outweighed by the harm to society of not taking the action which the protests (and occasional riots) are agitating about.
Perhaps you could argue that, it is a terrible argument, but the point is it's not a Libertarian position.
That people should have the right to protest is absolutely a Libertarian principle.
To call for the protests to be squashed is Authoritarian.
I would define a moderate as someone that doesn't want to or is too scared to change anything.
Ah. Forgot you. You are an extremist, no question.
That's definitely it now.
It will never be it until you've named everyone.
Cyclefree, Richard Nabavi, OGH, TheScreamingEagles, Southam Observer and more.
You are not a Conservative. This emerges clearly from everything you post but perhaps most clearly from your rage against "nimbies." How dare people own private property and seek by lawful means to preserve its value, and the amenity of their surroundings, when the interest of the hive demands the construction of further cells? On the narrow point, yes, obviously we need to build more housing, but your way of putting the case is about as anti tory as it gets. Given your rabid collectivism and Brexitry, National Socialist describes your position as well as anything, though i fear the name is taken.
I've never said I'm a conservative I am a libertarian.
NIMBYs are a disgrace. Trying to prevent others from building on their land? Awful. Preserve your own land fine but not other people's.
I am not at all collectivist at all, where on earth you got collectivism from is beyond me? I am a rabid individualist I believe everyone should be able to do what they want so long as it doesn't harm others ... And I do not accept prices going down as a harm, I consider it competition which I support.
Libertarians are simply anarchists who lack the courage of their convictions....
A Libertarian believes people should be able to do what they want, so long as it doesn't harm others.
An anarchist believes people should be able to do what they want.
You have been a vocal supporter of the rioting in the US.
Presumably he may feel that such harm as may exist from that rioting is outweighed by the harm to society of not taking the action which the protests (and occasional riots) are agitating about.
Perhaps you could argue that, it is a terrible argument, but the point is it's not a Libertarian position.
Well surely no one is a perfect libertarian/conservative/liberal, without it impacting the driving thrust of their ideological positions? All actions have some harm, depending on how you define harm, therefore even a libertarian, I assume, will have to balance which actions have the least harm.
I would define a moderate as someone that doesn't want to or is too scared to change anything.
Ah. Forgot you. You are an extremist, no question.
That's definitely it now.
It will never be it until you've named everyone.
Cyclefree, Richard Nabavi, OGH, TheScreamingEagles, Southam Observer and more.
You are not a Conservative. This emerges clearly from everything you post but perhaps most clearly from your rage against "nimbies." How dare people own private property and seek by lawful means to preserve its value, and the amenity of their surroundings, when the interest of the hive demands the construction of further cells? On the narrow point, yes, obviously we need to build more housing, but your way of putting the case is about as anti tory as it gets. Given your rabid collectivism and Brexitry, National Socialist describes your position as well as anything, though i fear the name is taken.
I've never said I'm a conservative I am a libertarian.
NIMBYs are a disgrace. Trying to prevent others from building on their land? Awful. Preserve your own land fine but not other people's.
I am not at all collectivist at all, where on earth you got collectivism from is beyond me? I am a rabid individualist I believe everyone should be able to do what they want so long as it doesn't harm others ... And I do not accept prices going down as a harm, I consider it competition which I support.
Libertarians are simply anarchists who lack the courage of their convictions....
A Libertarian believes people should be able to do what they want, so long as it doesn't harm others.
An anarchist believes people should be able to do what they want.
That surely then categorises Johnson as an anarchist. He has spent his entire adult life "doing what (he) wants", socially, morally, politically and always without negative consequence for himself.
It also explains the current situation of the country ...
Votes for women, an end to slavery and legalisation of gay marriage would have been considered extreme opinions at one time.
Yes, you will note I am imputing neither vice or virtue to moderation. It's merely an exercise commissioned by Philip Thompson to help us draw up a jury to answer the question that started all this -
Was Labour's 2015 manifesto moderate or was it not?
It was, of course. But we're having to do it the hard way. No probs since I'm not busy.
And you're doing it by defining moderate as people who think like you. Which makes the definition moot.
I would define a moderate as someone that doesn't want to or is too scared to change anything.
Ah. Forgot you. You are an extremist, no question.
That's definitely it now.
It will never be it until you've named everyone.
Cyclefree, Richard Nabavi, OGH, TheScreamingEagles, Southam Observer and more.
They are all moderates.
But we must draw the line or else gum up the entire thread and prevent discussions which have greater value.
None of them are moderates on every issue.
Moderates in politics are like fish biologically. There is no such thing.
Eh? Fish are non-tetrapod craniates as any fule kno. Easily defined.
Philip is reading from his CCHQ bible, if it is in his script he posts it, an indefatigable worker for the cult. His overtime bill must be huge.
If I worked for CCHQ why would I be such a passionate advocate for Scottish Independence and insist that an SNP majority means Scotland must have the mandate to hold a second referendum?
I would define a moderate as someone that doesn't want to or is too scared to change anything.
Ah. Forgot you. You are an extremist, no question.
That's definitely it now.
It will never be it until you've named everyone.
Cyclefree, Richard Nabavi, OGH, TheScreamingEagles, Southam Observer and more.
They are all moderates.
But we must draw the line or else gum up the entire thread and prevent discussions which have greater value.
None of them are moderates on every issue.
Moderates in politics are like fish biologically. There is no such thing.
Eh? Fish are non-tetrapod craniates as any fule kno. Easily defined.
Philip is reading from his CCHQ bible, if it is in his script he posts it, an indefatigable worker for the cult. His overtime bill must be huge.
If I worked for CCHQ why would I be such a passionate advocate for Scottish Independence and insist that an SNP majority means Scotland must have the mandate to hold a second referendum?
I would define a moderate as someone that doesn't want to or is too scared to change anything.
Ah. Forgot you. You are an extremist, no question.
That's definitely it now.
It will never be it until you've named everyone.
Cyclefree, Richard Nabavi, OGH, TheScreamingEagles, Southam Observer and more.
You are not a Conservative. This emerges clearly from everything you post but perhaps most clearly from your rage against "nimbies." How dare people own private property and seek by lawful means to preserve its value, and the amenity of their surroundings, when the interest of the hive demands the construction of further cells? On the narrow point, yes, obviously we need to build more housing, but your way of putting the case is about as anti tory as it gets. Given your rabid collectivism and Brexitry, National Socialist describes your position as well as anything, though i fear the name is taken.
I've never said I'm a conservative I am a libertarian.
NIMBYs are a disgrace. Trying to prevent others from building on their land? Awful. Preserve your own land fine but not other people's.
I am not at all collectivist at all, where on earth you got collectivism from is beyond me? I am a rabid individualist I believe everyone should be able to do what they want so long as it doesn't harm others ... And I do not accept prices going down as a harm, I consider it competition which I support.
Libertarians are simply anarchists who lack the courage of their convictions....
A Libertarian believes people should be able to do what they want, so long as it doesn't harm others.
An anarchist believes people should be able to do what they want.
That surely then categorises Johnson as an anarchist. He has spent his entire adult life "doing what (he) wants", socially, morally, politically and always without negative consequence for himself.
Apart from shaking hands with Covid patients of course.
Votes for women, an end to slavery and legalisation of gay marriage would have been considered extreme opinions at one time.
Yes, you will note I am imputing neither vice or virtue to moderation. It's merely an exercise commissioned by Philip Thompson to help us draw up a jury to answer the question that started all this -
Was Labour's 2015 manifesto moderate or was it not?
It was, of course. But we're having to do it the hard way. No probs since I'm not busy.
And you're doing it by defining moderate as people who think like you. Which makes the definition moot.
Except I have placed myself on the list of people who are NOT moderates.
Votes for women, an end to slavery and legalisation of gay marriage would have been considered extreme opinions at one time.
Yes, you will note I am imputing neither vice or virtue to moderation. It's merely an exercise commissioned by Philip Thompson to help us draw up a jury to answer the question that started all this -
Was Labour's 2015 manifesto moderate or was it not?
It was, of course. But we're having to do it the hard way. No probs since I'm not busy.
I`d say that "moderate" usually refers to people who are centre-ish on the left to right spectrum.
So, I`d say that all liberals are moderates, some conservatives are and some collectivists are.
I think it would be peachy if we were all moderates.
Votes for women, an end to slavery and legalisation of gay marriage would have been considered extreme opinions at one time.
Yes, you will note I am imputing neither vice or virtue to moderation. It's merely an exercise commissioned by Philip Thompson to help us draw up a jury to answer the question that started all this -
Was Labour's 2015 manifesto moderate or was it not?
It was, of course. But we're having to do it the hard way. No probs since I'm not busy.
There's an interesting parallel between the Republicans and Labour in this: their respective party bases regarded Romney and Miliband as insipid, moderate offerings that had to be tolerated for the sake of gaining power. When they lost, both parties swung heavily into base-pleasing mode - since moderation had not yielded the promised results - and chose the candidates that made their hearts sing: Trump and Corbyn.
These candidates had more immediate success than the moderates, stunning the US establishment and threatening the UK one, but they also risked a more cataclysmic fall, like the one Corbyn endured and the one Trump may be about to.
Were Romney and Miliband actually moderates? Yes, relative to their successors; no, in the context of an election where Obama and Cameron were the alternatives on offer.
Moderate. Could you be comfortable in the Liberal Party of Canada? Prone to compromise, cronyism and corruption. But generally where the median voter is. Which explains their long term success.
Votes for women, an end to slavery and legalisation of gay marriage would have been considered extreme opinions at one time.
Yes, you will note I am imputing neither vice or virtue to moderation. It's merely an exercise commissioned by Philip Thompson to help us draw up a jury to answer the question that started all this -
Was Labour's 2015 manifesto moderate or was it not?
It was, of course. But we're having to do it the hard way. No probs since I'm not busy.
I`d say that "moderate" usually refers to people who are centre-ish on the left to right spectrum.
So, I`d say that all liberals are moderates, some conservatives are and some collectivists are.
I think it would be peachy if we were all moderates.
I consider myself a liberal (classical not guardian) leaning towards the libertarian end of the liberal scale. I doubt many consider me a moderate
I would define a moderate as someone that doesn't want to or is too scared to change anything.
Ah. Forgot you. You are an extremist, no question.
That's definitely it now.
It will never be it until you've named everyone.
Cyclefree, Richard Nabavi, OGH, TheScreamingEagles, Southam Observer and more.
You are not a Conservative. This emerges clearly from everything you post but perhaps most clearly from your rage against "nimbies." How dare people own private property and seek by lawful means to preserve its value, and the amenity of their surroundings, when the interest of the hive demands the construction of further cells? On the narrow point, yes, obviously we need to build more housing, but your way of putting the case is about as anti tory as it gets. Given your rabid collectivism and Brexitry, National Socialist describes your position as well as anything, though i fear the name is taken.
I've never said I'm a conservative I am a libertarian.
NIMBYs are a disgrace. Trying to prevent others from building on their land? Awful. Preserve your own land fine but not other people's.
I am not at all collectivist at all, where on earth you got collectivism from is beyond me? I am a rabid individualist I believe everyone should be able to do what they want so long as it doesn't harm others ... And I do not accept prices going down as a harm, I consider it competition which I support.
Libertarians are simply anarchists who lack the courage of their convictions....
A Libertarian believes people should be able to do what they want, so long as it doesn't harm others.
An anarchist believes people should be able to do what they want.
You have been a vocal supporter of the rioting in the US.
Presumably he may feel that such harm as may exist from that rioting is outweighed by the harm to society of not taking the action which the protests (and occasional riots) are agitating about.
Perhaps you could argue that, it is a terrible argument, but the point is it's not a Libertarian position.
That people should have the right to protest is absolutely a Libertarian principle.
To call for the protests to be squashed is Authoritarian.
I thought people weren't allowed to protest about housebuilding?
What characterises your position on pretty much everything is oversimplification and hopeless naivety. Your misconception for instance that property damage never spills over into violence against people. Only someone who has never seen a riot and lacks the imagination to realise what a riot might be like would think that.
Votes for women, an end to slavery and legalisation of gay marriage would have been considered extreme opinions at one time.
Yes, you will note I am imputing neither vice or virtue to moderation. It's merely an exercise commissioned by Philip Thompson to help us draw up a jury to answer the question that started all this -
Was Labour's 2015 manifesto moderate or was it not?
It was, of course. But we're having to do it the hard way. No probs since I'm not busy.
I`d say that "moderate" usually refers to people who are centre-ish on the left to right spectrum.
So, I`d say that all liberals are moderates, some conservatives are and some collectivists are.
I think it would be peachy if we were all moderates.
I normally agree with most of what you write but couldn't disagree more here on your final line.
I believe diversity of thought combined with competition leads to progress. Having everyone think the same or not want change would mean we would never get anything any better. That's a horrible frightening concept to me.
Let’s hope so, a good deal will be better than no deal.
Absolutely.
Good deal > No Deal > Bad deal.
No. Algaebraic error.
Good Deal > Bad Deal > No Deal.
And the 1st is not happening thus -
Bad Deal > No Deal.
And No Deal is not happening thus -
Bad Deal.
To be sold as Good Deal by Muscles.
If a bad deal was better than no deal it wouldn't be that bad of a deal. But no there is no reason to think a bad deal is better than no deal, only a zealot like yourself would think that.
My algebra is the algebra of a moderate. Zealots would say either that no deal is always best or always worst.
No deal (which isn't happening) would be VERY bad. Thus a merely bad deal beats it. This really is just algebra.
No deal isn't that bad.
A bad deal would be worse.
Let's say we agreed a deal with no more market access than we get from No Deal but paying billions of pounds a year to them for it and being forced to keep rules aligned without a say. Would that be better or worse than no deal?
Falls at the first. Cannot be rescued by absurd hypothetical which follows.
What's so bad about no deal? Go on then.
What is so bad about moving from frictionless trade with our largest and nearest market to trading with them on basic WTO terms?
You do ask some killer questions sometimes.
My head is hurting.
Yes serious question. What is so bad about moving from frictionless* trade to trading with them with an average 2% tariff?
Our currency fluctuates by more than 2%. Our currency fluctuates by more than tariffs.
* It was never frictionless.
There is another issue here which i think makes the use of currency fluctuations as a counter argument to tariffs spurious. Currency fluctuation is to some extent a zero sum game, even ignoring the fact that many businesses deal in both exports and imports within their production and supply lines.
Currency fluctuation works both ways. Where there are negatives from a strong £ (exporters potentially finding their goods uncompetitive) there are positives (lower prices for importers and UK consumers). And vice versa. Costs and prices go up in some areas, compensated by going down in others. And those businesses impacted negatively are driven to find efficiencies such that when currency changes turn in their favour the benefits will be the greater.
Tariffs are just additional costs for everyone, full stop. Exporters pay more. Importers pay more. Consumers pay more. The only thing they're good for is protecting UK industry, trading in the UK. Which in the long run is likely to discourage innovation and efficiency. Meaning future free trade deals and lowering of tariffs become actually harmful developments once such businesses are (re) exposed to global competition.
That people should have the right to protest is absolutely a Libertarian principle.
To call for the protests to be squashed is Authoritarian.
Supporting the right to peaceful protest isn't just Libertarian - Conservatives, Liberals, Socialists and many others would support that right.
I applaud those in Minsk who face down armed riot police but do so peacefully and the 1989 revolutions show what can be achieved by mass peaceful protest.
Those who peacefully protested against the war in Iraq or in support of the Countryside or a myriad of other causes - as long as it is done within the law. I may not agree with the protest and that's my right but they have the right to protest peacefully and that's all that matters.
I part company with protest when it turns violent though I accept very often the majority of protesters are peaceful and only a tiny minority latch on in the name of committing acts of violence. Those committing violence or criminal damage should be fully prosecuted within the law but that should not be used to vilify all protest or those protesting peacefully on a particular issue.
People have a right to be angry and to express that outrage but it has to be done without inciting further violence. The actions of a few American Police have been disgraceful and as accountable public servants they should hold themselves to the highest standards and those that fail to do so need to be dealt with appropriately.
Votes for women, an end to slavery and legalisation of gay marriage would have been considered extreme opinions at one time.
Yes, you will note I am imputing neither vice or virtue to moderation. It's merely an exercise commissioned by Philip Thompson to help us draw up a jury to answer the question that started all this -
Was Labour's 2015 manifesto moderate or was it not?
It was, of course. But we're having to do it the hard way. No probs since I'm not busy.
I`d say that "moderate" usually refers to people who are centre-ish on the left to right spectrum.
So, I`d say that all liberals are moderates, some conservatives are and some collectivists are.
I think it would be peachy if we were all moderates.
I consider myself a liberal (classical not guardian) leaning towards the libertarian end of the liberal scale. I doubt many consider me a moderate
No, you're not a moderate. You should have been one of the first names on the 'not moderate' team sheet. Another lapse on my part. But now rectified so no harm done.
And all it means is that you are ineligible for a place on the panel which will be charged with answering the question -
Was Ed Miliband's 2105 Labour manifesto a moderate offering?
(it's "yes" obviously but we need to confirm by proper due process)
I would define a moderate as someone that doesn't want to or is too scared to change anything.
Ah. Forgot you. You are an extremist, no question.
That's definitely it now.
It will never be it until you've named everyone.
Cyclefree, Richard Nabavi, OGH, TheScreamingEagles, Southam Observer and more.
They are all moderates.
But we must draw the line or else gum up the entire thread and prevent discussions which have greater value.
None of them are moderates on every issue.
Moderates in politics are like fish biologically. There is no such thing.
Eh? Fish are non-tetrapod craniates as any fule kno. Easily defined.
Philip is reading from his CCHQ bible, if it is in his script he posts it, an indefatigable worker for the cult. His overtime bill must be huge.
If I worked for CCHQ why would I be such a passionate advocate for Scottish Independence and insist that an SNP majority means Scotland must have the mandate to hold a second referendum?
Do you think that's the CCHQ script?
Pretending to be a double agent.
Well, quite. Look how they are always complaining about subsidising Scotland and how utterly awful it is to have those Jocks cluttering up Westminster instead of reliably voting for proper parties - in which case losing them would mean Tory victory forver and a Thousand Years of Brexit Sunny Uplands.
Votes for women, an end to slavery and legalisation of gay marriage would have been considered extreme opinions at one time.
Yes, you will note I am imputing neither vice or virtue to moderation. It's merely an exercise commissioned by Philip Thompson to help us draw up a jury to answer the question that started all this -
Was Labour's 2015 manifesto moderate or was it not?
It was, of course. But we're having to do it the hard way. No probs since I'm not busy.
I`d say that "moderate" usually refers to people who are centre-ish on the left to right spectrum.
So, I`d say that all liberals are moderates, some conservatives are and some collectivists are.
I think it would be peachy if we were all moderates.
I consider myself a liberal (classical not guardian) leaning towards the libertarian end of the liberal scale. I doubt many consider me a moderate
No, you're not a moderate. You should have been one of the first names on the 'not moderate' team sheet. Another lapse on my part. But now rectified so no harm done.
And all it means is that you are ineligible for a place on the panel which will be charged with answering the question -
Was Ed Miliband's 2105 Labour manifesto a moderate offering?
(it's "yes" obviously but we need to confirm by proper due process)
Moderate is like pornography, no one can define it but they know it when they see it. Millibrand,Edward was not a moderate. I will let you know on the other issue in 85 years when they release it to the public as I would not wish to usurp nostradamus and predict its contents
Votes for women, an end to slavery and legalisation of gay marriage would have been considered extreme opinions at one time.
Yes, you will note I am imputing neither vice or virtue to moderation. It's merely an exercise commissioned by Philip Thompson to help us draw up a jury to answer the question that started all this -
Was Labour's 2015 manifesto moderate or was it not?
It was, of course. But we're having to do it the hard way. No probs since I'm not busy.
There's an interesting parallel between the Republicans and Labour in this: their respective party bases regarded Romney and Miliband as insipid, moderate offerings that had to be tolerated for the sake of gaining power. When they lost, both parties swung heavily into base-pleasing mode - since moderation had not yielded the promised results - and chose the candidates that made their hearts sing: Trump and Corbyn.
These candidates had more immediate success than the moderates, stunning the US establishment and threatening the UK one, but they also risked a more cataclysmic fall, like the one Corbyn endured and the one Trump may be about to.
Were Romney and Miliband actually moderates? Yes, relative to their successors; no, in the context of an election where Obama and Cameron were the alternatives on offer.
I don't like the Trump Corbyn comparison as individuals - there is none - but that is a reasonable interpretation of events. And I do think Trump might get as big a pasting as Corbyn got.
Determined to deliver four more years of Trump and the end of American democracy
It is why I think the only way to be rid of Trump is Term Limits (and yes, I know about his daughter / family as his successors, but one step at a time.....)
In that case, why did she accept ennoblement? She would have helped her cause far more to have publicly declined the honour.
BTW - why the change of handle Malc? Did you get banned at some point?
I don't know why the Baroness-to-be did - perhaps she thought she had better take it when offered. It's also possible she felt she might be in for Sec of State for [not "of"] Scotland in the Cabinet, or whoever put her up to it wantyed the option.
But it could simply be the SCUP equivalent of getting up the LD's collective narial cavity - given how the SNP, but also many Scots, regard the honours system.
I would define a moderate as someone that doesn't want to or is too scared to change anything.
Ah. Forgot you. You are an extremist, no question.
That's definitely it now.
It will never be it until you've named everyone.
Cyclefree, Richard Nabavi, OGH, TheScreamingEagles, Southam Observer and more.
You are not a Conservative. This emerges clearly from everything you post but perhaps most clearly from your rage against "nimbies." How dare people own private property and seek by lawful means to preserve its value, and the amenity of their surroundings, when the interest of the hive demands the construction of further cells? On the narrow point, yes, obviously we need to build more housing, but your way of putting the case is about as anti tory as it gets. Given your rabid collectivism and Brexitry, National Socialist describes your position as well as anything, though i fear the name is taken.
I've never said I'm a conservative I am a libertarian.
NIMBYs are a disgrace. Trying to prevent others from building on their land? Awful. Preserve your own land fine but not other people's.
I am not at all collectivist at all, where on earth you got collectivism from is beyond me? I am a rabid individualist I believe everyone should be able to do what they want so long as it doesn't harm others ... And I do not accept prices going down as a harm, I consider it competition which I support.
Libertarians are simply anarchists who lack the courage of their convictions....
A Libertarian believes people should be able to do what they want, so long as it doesn't harm others.
An anarchist believes people should be able to do what they want.
You have been a vocal supporter of the rioting in the US.
Presumably he may feel that such harm as may exist from that rioting is outweighed by the harm to society of not taking the action which the protests (and occasional riots) are agitating about.
Perhaps you could argue that, it is a terrible argument, but the point is it's not a Libertarian position.
That people should have the right to protest is absolutely a Libertarian principle.
To call for the protests to be squashed is Authoritarian.
I thought people weren't allowed to protest about housebuilding?
What characterises your position on pretty much everything is oversimplification and hopeless naivety. Your misconception for instance that property damage never spills over into violence against people. Only someone who has never seen a riot and lacks the imagination to realise what a riot might be like would think that.
They should be allowed to do so. They should be ignored.
Votes for women, an end to slavery and legalisation of gay marriage would have been considered extreme opinions at one time.
Yes, you will note I am imputing neither vice or virtue to moderation. It's merely an exercise commissioned by Philip Thompson to help us draw up a jury to answer the question that started all this -
Was Labour's 2015 manifesto moderate or was it not?
It was, of course. But we're having to do it the hard way. No probs since I'm not busy.
I`d say that "moderate" usually refers to people who are centre-ish on the left to right spectrum.
So, I`d say that all liberals are moderates, some conservatives are and some collectivists are.
I think it would be peachy if we were all moderates.
I normally agree with most of what you write but couldn't disagree more here on your final line.
I believe diversity of thought combined with competition leads to progress. Having everyone think the same or not want change would mean we would never get anything any better. That's a horrible frightening concept to me.
Yes, I`m keen on diversity of thought too, as are all liberals. Even J S Mill argued for a devil`s advocate for issues that are seemingly settled. I don`t think it follows that "moderate" means not wanting change. Not having an entrenched left or right view on issues may make change more likely.
How important is the Republican machine to Trump? If the party activists lose the faith (and I mean the machinery that fights elections and gets the Vote out) in favour of fighting for local Senate/Congressmen and not Trump could that accelerate the (possible) defeat. From a distance is there any sense the Reps decide to abandon him?
That's entirely the point of the Buttigieg intervention
You can be a real Republican, or you can support trump...
This idea that there is a real Republican Party which will reappear when Trump goes may be a comforting one. But I fear that it may be an illusion: the Republican Party is now tied to Trump and his values and what he has made of it.
Parties change. We should not assume that there is some true essence carefully preserved somewhere in some distant place which will survive and grow again when current troubles pass. The Republican Party of Eisenhower has turned into the party of Trump. The Tory party has turned into a mix of Ukip and the Brexit party.
After 2 defeats Labour turned into Corbyn’s party - and may now turn into something else - we’ll see.
But if it does it will be because, in part, of last December’s humongous defeat and how much actual change there will be is still an open question. It is not at all clear that it will turn back into what it used to be.
The issue in the US is most moderate conservatives are now independents not Republicans leaving the Republican party the party of staunch conservatives. After McCain and Romney won the nomination but lost the election it will likely take at least another decade for another moderate to become nominee.
It would therefore take high independent voters turnout in open primaries for a moderate Republican like say Nikki Haley to beat a staunch conservative like Pence or Cruz for the nomination in 2024 even if Trump loses and does not run again.
After Blair went in 2007 it took 13 years for Labour to elect another moderate leader in a contested leadership election, after Major lost in 1997 it took 8 years for the Tories to elect a moderate as leader and if Biden loses expect AOC to run in 2024 on a populist left banner for the Democratic nomination and to try and pick up where Bernie Sanders left off.
Ed Miliband was a soft left moderate.
If you think Ed "No Labour didn't spend too much" Miliband was a moderate then it shows how the Overton Window has moved to the left within Labour.
Just take a look at the 2015 Labour manifesto. It makes my point beyond doubt.
Yes it was not moderate.
That it wasn't absolutely insanely crazy extremism doesn't make it moderate.
It was moderate TO a moderate. Course, viewed from the extreme right it was quite left. This is more a matter of geometry than politics.
Which moderate thought it was moderate?
If you mean you, then you're not a moderate. Last I checked you're still in denial that Labour under Brown overspent too.
All the moderates on here thought it was moderate.
Ask them.
Who is a moderate here in your eyes?
Easier to list who isn't -
Me You Contra Ave It Owls Mark Sandpit Ace Paris Charles Isam
Apologies to extremists accidentally omitted. Bound to be some.
I would never claim to be moderate and I agree that nobody in that list is.
But I don't think there are many moderates on this site in the first place. People who post on politics sites tend to have strong political opinions.
Moderate here doesn't mean apolitical or exact centre ground or the dreaded "pragmatic not ideological". It just means occupies a place in the spectrum bounded by the Cons ex ERG and Labour ex Socialism.
Cons ex ERG aren't all moderates and I say that as a Conservative. I'm not ERG and I would have never classed myself as moderate, even when I used to back Remain.
If you really wanted the ultimate moderate voter it would probably be someone who voted for Labour under Blair then Tory under Cameron or LD under Clegg then Tory under May and for Boris or the LDs in 2019 and is now voting for Labour again under Starmer or LD under Davey.
What a wuss.
I’ve voted Lib Lib Dem since my first vote in 1974, my 2019 vote will possibly be my last unless we return to the UK or they change the law.
Disenfranchized by Brexit. No small matter.
No, disenfranchised by the 15 year rule.
A rule that the current government have pledged to scrap before the next election. I hope you will thank them for it at the ballot box
Votes for women, an end to slavery and legalisation of gay marriage would have been considered extreme opinions at one time.
Yes, you will note I am imputing neither vice or virtue to moderation. It's merely an exercise commissioned by Philip Thompson to help us draw up a jury to answer the question that started all this -
Was Labour's 2015 manifesto moderate or was it not?
It was, of course. But we're having to do it the hard way. No probs since I'm not busy.
I`d say that "moderate" usually refers to people who are centre-ish on the left to right spectrum.
So, I`d say that all liberals are moderates, some conservatives are and some collectivists are.
I think it would be peachy if we were all moderates.
You're looking at it much the same as me. And as I said at the onset I think the vast majority of PB posters ARE moderates. Even I am really, if you exclude wanting a new economic model based on common ownership and parents removed from the loop as regards the education of their children.
Votes for women, an end to slavery and legalisation of gay marriage would have been considered extreme opinions at one time.
Yes, you will note I am imputing neither vice or virtue to moderation. It's merely an exercise commissioned by Philip Thompson to help us draw up a jury to answer the question that started all this -
Was Labour's 2015 manifesto moderate or was it not?
It was, of course. But we're having to do it the hard way. No probs since I'm not busy.
I`d say that "moderate" usually refers to people who are centre-ish on the left to right spectrum.
So, I`d say that all liberals are moderates, some conservatives are and some collectivists are.
I think it would be peachy if we were all moderates.
You're looking at it much the same as me. And as I said at the onset I think the vast majority of PB posters ARE moderates. Even I am really, if you exclude wanting a new economic model based on common ownership and parents removed from the loop as regards the education of their children.
"parents removed from the loop as regards the education of their children" - Wow - you`re right, that`s not moderate.
How important is the Republican machine to Trump? If the party activists lose the faith (and I mean the machinery that fights elections and gets the Vote out) in favour of fighting for local Senate/Congressmen and not Trump could that accelerate the (possible) defeat. From a distance is there any sense the Reps decide to abandon him?
That's entirely the point of the Buttigieg intervention
You can be a real Republican, or you can support trump...
This idea that there is a real Republican Party which will reappear when Trump goes may be a comforting one. But I fear that it may be an illusion: the Republican Party is now tied to Trump and his values and what he has made of it.
Parties change. We should not assume that there is some true essence carefully preserved somewhere in some distant place which will survive and grow again when current troubles pass. The Republican Party of Eisenhower has turned into the party of Trump. The Tory party has turned into a mix of Ukip and the Brexit party.
After 2 defeats Labour turned into Corbyn’s party - and may now turn into something else - we’ll see.
But if it does it will be because, in part, of last December’s humongous defeat and how much actual change there will be is still an open question. It is not at all clear that it will turn back into what it used to be.
The issue in the US is most moderate conservatives are now independents not Republicans leaving the Republican party the party of staunch conservatives. After McCain and Romney won the nomination but lost the election it will likely take at least another decade for another moderate to become nominee.
It would therefore take high independent voters turnout in open primaries for a moderate Republican like say Nikki Haley to beat a staunch conservative like Pence or Cruz for the nomination in 2024 even if Trump loses and does not run again.
After Blair went in 2007 it took 13 years for Labour to elect another moderate leader in a contested leadership election, after Major lost in 1997 it took 8 years for the Tories to elect a moderate as leader and if Biden loses expect AOC to run in 2024 on a populist left banner for the Democratic nomination and to try and pick up where Bernie Sanders left off.
Ed Miliband was a soft left moderate.
If you think Ed "No Labour didn't spend too much" Miliband was a moderate then it shows how the Overton Window has moved to the left within Labour.
Just take a look at the 2015 Labour manifesto. It makes my point beyond doubt.
Yes it was not moderate.
That it wasn't absolutely insanely crazy extremism doesn't make it moderate.
It was moderate TO a moderate. Course, viewed from the extreme right it was quite left. This is more a matter of geometry than politics.
Which moderate thought it was moderate?
If you mean you, then you're not a moderate. Last I checked you're still in denial that Labour under Brown overspent too.
All the moderates on here thought it was moderate.
Ask them.
Who is a moderate here in your eyes?
Easier to list who isn't -
Me You Contra Ave It Owls Mark Sandpit Ace Paris Charles Isam
Apologies to extremists accidentally omitted. Bound to be some.
I would never claim to be moderate and I agree that nobody in that list is.
But I don't think there are many moderates on this site in the first place. People who post on politics sites tend to have strong political opinions.
Moderate here doesn't mean apolitical or exact centre ground or the dreaded "pragmatic not ideological". It just means occupies a place in the spectrum bounded by the Cons ex ERG and Labour ex Socialism.
Cons ex ERG aren't all moderates and I say that as a Conservative. I'm not ERG and I would have never classed myself as moderate, even when I used to back Remain.
If you really wanted the ultimate moderate voter it would probably be someone who voted for Labour under Blair then Tory under Cameron or LD under Clegg then Tory under May and for Boris or the LDs in 2019 and is now voting for Labour again under Starmer or LD under Davey.
What a wuss.
I’ve voted Lib Lib Dem since my first vote in 1974, my 2019 vote will possibly be my last unless we return to the UK or they change the law.
Disenfranchized by Brexit. No small matter.
No, disenfranchised by the 15 year rule.
A rule that the current government have pledged to scrap before the next election. I hope you will thank them for it at the ballot box
Been promised umpteen times before, if I make it to 2024 I may think about it😉
Votes for women, an end to slavery and legalisation of gay marriage would have been considered extreme opinions at one time.
Yes, you will note I am imputing neither vice or virtue to moderation. It's merely an exercise commissioned by Philip Thompson to help us draw up a jury to answer the question that started all this -
Was Labour's 2015 manifesto moderate or was it not?
It was, of course. But we're having to do it the hard way. No probs since I'm not busy.
I`d say that "moderate" usually refers to people who are centre-ish on the left to right spectrum.
So, I`d say that all liberals are moderates, some conservatives are and some collectivists are.
I think it would be peachy if we were all moderates.
You're looking at it much the same as me. And as I said at the onset I think the vast majority of PB posters ARE moderates. Even I am really, if you exclude wanting a new economic model based on common ownership and parents removed from the loop as regards the education of their children.
You think children would do better if removed from their parents and raised by the state? Have you seen childrens homes run by the state? This is after all the only way to remove parents from the loop for education else some of those parents might tip the scales by horror of horrors reading to them or even worse giving them help with homework
Votes for women, an end to slavery and legalisation of gay marriage would have been considered extreme opinions at one time.
Yes, you will note I am imputing neither vice or virtue to moderation. It's merely an exercise commissioned by Philip Thompson to help us draw up a jury to answer the question that started all this -
Was Labour's 2015 manifesto moderate or was it not?
It was, of course. But we're having to do it the hard way. No probs since I'm not busy.
I`d say that "moderate" usually refers to people who are centre-ish on the left to right spectrum.
So, I`d say that all liberals are moderates, some conservatives are and some collectivists are.
I think it would be peachy if we were all moderates.
I normally agree with most of what you write but couldn't disagree more here on your final line.
I believe diversity of thought combined with competition leads to progress. Having everyone think the same or not want change would mean we would never get anything any better. That's a horrible frightening concept to me.
Yes, I`m keen on diversity of thought too, as are all liberals. Even J S Mill argued for a devil`s advocate for issues that are seemingly settled. I don`t think it follows that "moderate" means not wanting change. Not having an entrenched left or right view on issues may make change more likely.
But new ideas tend to come from those who are radical in one direction or another.
Most people being moderate is a good thing but we need some radicals to challenge assumptions and challenge existing thinking.
Votes for women, an end to slavery and legalisation of gay marriage would have been considered extreme opinions at one time.
Yes, you will note I am imputing neither vice or virtue to moderation. It's merely an exercise commissioned by Philip Thompson to help us draw up a jury to answer the question that started all this -
Was Labour's 2015 manifesto moderate or was it not?
It was, of course. But we're having to do it the hard way. No probs since I'm not busy.
I`d say that "moderate" usually refers to people who are centre-ish on the left to right spectrum.
So, I`d say that all liberals are moderates, some conservatives are and some collectivists are.
I think it would be peachy if we were all moderates.
I consider myself a liberal (classical not guardian) leaning towards the libertarian end of the liberal scale. I doubt many consider me a moderate
No, you're not a moderate. You should have been one of the first names on the 'not moderate' team sheet. Another lapse on my part. But now rectified so no harm done.
And all it means is that you are ineligible for a place on the panel which will be charged with answering the question -
Was Ed Miliband's 2015 Labour manifesto a moderate offering?
(it's "yes" obviously but we need to confirm by proper due process)
Moderate is like pornography, no one can define it but they know it when they see it. Millibrand,Edward was not a moderate. I will let you know on the other issue in 85 years when they release it to the public as I would not wish to usurp nostradamus and predict its contents
That's why you will not be on the panel. To you - a non moderate - a moderate manifesto will not look moderate. This is exactly why we've gone through all this.
I would define a moderate as someone that doesn't want to or is too scared to change anything.
Ah. Forgot you. You are an extremist, no question.
That's definitely it now.
It will never be it until you've named everyone.
Cyclefree, Richard Nabavi, OGH, TheScreamingEagles, Southam Observer and more.
You think I’m scared to change?
No! The polar opposite!
I think you have very strong opinions on issues you care about. I respect that, it's a compliment.
Thank you. You are the same and I enjoy my discussions with you, even if we do not often agree.
Given that you are both liberals it is curious that you think you don`t often agree with PT. (Admittedly, he is at the libertarian end of the spectrum.)
How important is the Republican machine to Trump? If the party activists lose the faith (and I mean the machinery that fights elections and gets the Vote out) in favour of fighting for local Senate/Congressmen and not Trump could that accelerate the (possible) defeat. From a distance is there any sense the Reps decide to abandon him?
That's entirely the point of the Buttigieg intervention
You can be a real Republican, or you can support trump...
This idea that there is a real Republican Party which will reappear when Trump goes may be a comforting one. But I fear that it may be an illusion: the Republican Party is now tied to Trump and his values and what he has made of it.
Parties change. We should not assume that there is some true essence carefully preserved somewhere in some distant place which will survive and grow again when current troubles pass. The Republican Party of Eisenhower has turned into the party of Trump. The Tory party has turned into a mix of Ukip and the Brexit party.
After 2 defeats Labour turned into Corbyn’s party - and may now turn into something else - we’ll see.
But if it does it will be because, in part, of last December’s humongous defeat and how much actual change there will be is still an open question. It is not at all clear that it will turn back into what it used to be.
The issue in the US is most moderate conservatives are now independents not Republicans leaving the Republican party the party of staunch conservatives. After McCain and Romney won the nomination but lost the election it will likely take at least another decade for another moderate to become nominee.
It would therefore take high independent voters turnout in open primaries for a moderate Republican like say Nikki Haley to beat a staunch conservative like Pence or Cruz for the nomination in 2024 even if Trump loses and does not run again.
After Blair went in 2007 it took 13 years for Labour to elect another moderate leader in a contested leadership election, after Major lost in 1997 it took 8 years for the Tories to elect a moderate as leader and if Biden loses expect AOC to run in 2024 on a populist left banner for the Democratic nomination and to try and pick up where Bernie Sanders left off.
Ed Miliband was a soft left moderate.
If you think Ed "No Labour didn't spend too much" Miliband was a moderate then it shows how the Overton Window has moved to the left within Labour.
Just take a look at the 2015 Labour manifesto. It makes my point beyond doubt.
Yes it was not moderate.
That it wasn't absolutely insanely crazy extremism doesn't make it moderate.
It was moderate TO a moderate. Course, viewed from the extreme right it was quite left. This is more a matter of geometry than politics.
Which moderate thought it was moderate?
If you mean you, then you're not a moderate. Last I checked you're still in denial that Labour under Brown overspent too.
All the moderates on here thought it was moderate.
Ask them.
Who is a moderate here in your eyes?
Easier to list who isn't -
Me You Contra Ave It Owls Mark Sandpit Ace Paris Charles Isam
Apologies to extremists accidentally omitted. Bound to be some.
I would never claim to be moderate and I agree that nobody in that list is.
But I don't think there are many moderates on this site in the first place. People who post on politics sites tend to have strong political opinions.
Moderate here doesn't mean apolitical or exact centre ground or the dreaded "pragmatic not ideological". It just means occupies a place in the spectrum bounded by the Cons ex ERG and Labour ex Socialism.
Cons ex ERG aren't all moderates and I say that as a Conservative. I'm not ERG and I would have never classed myself as moderate, even when I used to back Remain.
If you really wanted the ultimate moderate voter it would probably be someone who voted for Labour under Blair then Tory under Cameron or LD under Clegg then Tory under May and for Boris or the LDs in 2019 and is now voting for Labour again under Starmer or LD under Davey.
What a wuss.
I’ve voted Lib Lib Dem since my first vote in 1974, my 2019 vote will possibly be my last unless we return to the UK or they change the law.
Disenfranchized by Brexit. No small matter.
No, disenfranchised by the 15 year rule.
A rule that the current government have pledged to scrap before the next election. I hope you will thank them for it at the ballot box
Been promised umpteen times before, if I make it to 2024 I may think about it😉
Out of curiousity why do you think anyone living abroad (under the definition of living abroad) should get a vote in UK elections? Personally I think there is a stronger argument that only those that live here should and that it should be regardless of nationality.
And @another_richard can be a bit fruity with the "globalist" and "liberal elite" talk.
Think that's it.
I think an establishment/alternative split is often more appropriate than moderate/extremist.
There are peoples and views which are often described as 'moderate' or 'centrist' but I would class as extremist establishment - 'the gentleman in Whitehall knows best' is an example.
No, "establishment vs alternative" is biased language. It steers heavily to the second being virtuous. We have to keep this neutral.
In which case you need to provide different descriptions.
Its easy to imagine an 'establishment' viewpoint - its privileged background, Oxford PPE, metro-cosmo-internationalism.
Alternative, of any variety, is different to that.
Votes for women, an end to slavery and legalisation of gay marriage would have been considered extreme opinions at one time.
Yes, you will note I am imputing neither vice or virtue to moderation. It's merely an exercise commissioned by Philip Thompson to help us draw up a jury to answer the question that started all this -
Was Labour's 2015 manifesto moderate or was it not?
It was, of course. But we're having to do it the hard way. No probs since I'm not busy.
I`d say that "moderate" usually refers to people who are centre-ish on the left to right spectrum.
So, I`d say that all liberals are moderates, some conservatives are and some collectivists are.
I think it would be peachy if we were all moderates.
I consider myself a liberal (classical not guardian) leaning towards the libertarian end of the liberal scale. I doubt many consider me a moderate
No, you're not a moderate. You should have been one of the first names on the 'not moderate' team sheet. Another lapse on my part. But now rectified so no harm done.
And all it means is that you are ineligible for a place on the panel which will be charged with answering the question -
Was Ed Miliband's 2015 Labour manifesto a moderate offering?
(it's "yes" obviously but we need to confirm by proper due process)
Moderate is like pornography, no one can define it but they know it when they see it. Millibrand,Edward was not a moderate. I will let you know on the other issue in 85 years when they release it to the public as I would not wish to usurp nostradamus and predict its contents
That's why you will not be on the panel. To you - a non moderate - a moderate manifesto will not look moderate. This is exactly why we've gone through all this.
Not at all I would have certainly said Cameron's 2010 manifesto was moderate, the same as I would have said Blair's 1997 one was for example. Just because I don't agree with you that the E Milibrand one wasn't doesn't mean I can't judge a moderate manifesto when I see one. It wasn't. It was only moderate in your view because it matched your views but then , and I maybe wrong on this, but from memory you have described Corbyn as centre left
Comments
A distinction from (small c) conservative might be that the latter might be broadly happy with the status quo and need strong persuasion for the need for much change at all. A moderate could perceive a huge number of ills/problems that need tackling, but still believe that change must/has to be pursued slowly and with as broad consensus across the political spectrum as possible (not least to ensure that changes are embedded).
Sometimes of course, the current centre of the political spectrum might move SO far from a moderate's true beliefs that they become radical as they can't see that a moderate stance will work anymore.
Moderates in politics are like fish biologically. There is no such thing.
As soon as there was one thing he didn't like then the toys quickly left the pram.
It's certainly what I would do with Brexit!
There are peoples and views which are often described as 'moderate' or 'centrist' but I would class as extremist establishment - 'the gentleman in Whitehall knows best' is an example.
NIMBYs are a disgrace. Trying to prevent others from building on their land? Awful. Preserve your own land fine but not other people's.
I am not at all collectivist at all, where on earth you got collectivism from is beyond me? I am a rabid individualist I believe everyone should be able to do what they want so long as it doesn't harm others ... And I do not accept prices going down as a harm, I consider it competition which I support.
Thanks as always to @david_herdson for an interesting and thought-provoking Saturday thread.
I've three thoughts - first, the experience of 2016 (as 1992 in the UK) overshadows everything. Those who genuinely thought Clinton would win and did not envisage the Trump victory because, perhaps, they thought the State polls were right when they weren't or that a narrow national lead would convert to a narrow EC lead which it didn't, are now desperate not to be on the wrong side of the bet and are desperately worried some form of "October Miracle" or a legion of shy Trump voters will tip the balance back in favour of the President.
The second is the weaponising of polling - those with an agenda are quick to promote headline poll numbers which look favourable for their side or candidate and deride those which aren't but a poll is only as good as its methodology or its sampling.
Too many US pollsters are unwilling to share their methodology or caveat it behind words like "representative" but that makes the poll meaningless sunless you know who has been sampled.
The Economist/YouGov poll publishes its sampling set and we can see if it is a reasonable representation of the probable voting profile of the country. Others don't so we are in the dark. Trafalgar's sampling notes for their Florida poll are useless unless you know how Florida voted last time and the demographic profile now.
My third thought is, on a wider level, Trump vs Biden encapsulates so much of modern political debate. There seem to be those who, while not personally being supporters of Trump, seem to prefer him because "he annoys the lefties". It's curious one's political views are based solely on whichever candidate annoys a group you don't like but there you are.
My view remains Biden will pile up votes in his strongholds and, curiously, will do better in Trump's strongholds though he won't win any of them. The polling in the "marginal fifteen" states chops and changes but from where I sit Biden is grinding out a 2-3% swing which will be enough. That doesn't mean he'll win TX and the poll from there quoted by OGH also lacks meaningful sampling data. I can't see him winning higher than 351 currently and his only loss is likely to be MInnesota so his floor is 222 so pitching the spread at 281-284 makes a lot of sense.
I believe in free choice and the free market. If someone wants to build a home, let them, if that causes others prices to fall then fine that is the free market in action.
Change it quick before the non-moderate-grammar-enforcer (aka TSE) shows up
An anarchist believes people should be able to do what they want.
UN human rights experts have told China a new security law for Hong Kong poses a serious risk to the city's freedoms.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-54022461
https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1302214187968540672
Please tell me when you are planning to post the results of the exercise so I can be out walking.
So when we say something or someone is extreme we need to be clearer if think their views are not common, or if they are dangerously extreme in some way . Or both.
I do not support the riots. Nor do I think rioters represent the protesters.
Was Labour's 2015 manifesto moderate or was it not?
It was, of course. But we're having to do it the hard way. No probs since I'm not busy.
To call for the protests to be squashed is Authoritarian.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVNoClu0h9M
Do you think that's the CCHQ script?
Barry Gardiner.
Feeling silly?
So, I`d say that all liberals are moderates, some conservatives are and some collectivists are.
I think it would be peachy if we were all moderates.
This is the million dollar question.
These candidates had more immediate success than the moderates, stunning the US establishment and threatening the UK one, but they also risked a more cataclysmic fall, like the one Corbyn endured and the one Trump may be about to.
Were Romney and Miliband actually moderates? Yes, relative to their successors; no, in the context of an election where Obama and Cameron were the alternatives on offer.
Prone to compromise, cronyism and corruption.
But generally where the median voter is.
Which explains their long term success.
What characterises your position on pretty much everything is oversimplification and hopeless naivety. Your misconception for instance that property damage never spills over into violence against people. Only someone who has never seen a riot and lacks the imagination to realise what a riot might be like would think that.
I believe diversity of thought combined with competition leads to progress. Having everyone think the same or not want change would mean we would never get anything any better. That's a horrible frightening concept to me.
Currency fluctuation works both ways. Where there are negatives from a strong £ (exporters potentially finding their goods uncompetitive) there are positives (lower prices for importers and UK consumers). And vice versa. Costs and prices go up in some areas, compensated by going down in others. And those businesses impacted negatively are driven to find efficiencies such that when currency changes turn in their favour the benefits will be the greater.
Tariffs are just additional costs for everyone, full stop. Exporters pay more. Importers pay more. Consumers pay more. The only thing they're good for is protecting UK industry, trading in the UK. Which in the long run is likely to discourage innovation and efficiency. Meaning future free trade deals and lowering of tariffs become actually harmful developments once such businesses are (re) exposed to global competition.
I applaud those in Minsk who face down armed riot police but do so peacefully and the 1989 revolutions show what can be achieved by mass peaceful protest.
Those who peacefully protested against the war in Iraq or in support of the Countryside or a myriad of other causes - as long as it is done within the law. I may not agree with the protest and that's my right but they have the right to protest peacefully and that's all that matters.
I part company with protest when it turns violent though I accept very often the majority of protesters are peaceful and only a tiny minority latch on in the name of committing acts of violence. Those committing violence or criminal damage should be fully prosecuted within the law but that should not be used to vilify all protest or those protesting peacefully on a particular issue.
People have a right to be angry and to express that outrage but it has to be done without inciting further violence. The actions of a few American Police have been disgraceful and as accountable public servants they should hold themselves to the highest standards and those that fail to do so need to be dealt with appropriately.
And all it means is that you are ineligible for a place on the panel which will be charged with answering the question -
Was Ed Miliband's 2105 Labour manifesto a moderate offering?
(it's "yes" obviously but we need to confirm by proper due process)
BTW - why the change of handle Malc? Did you get banned at some point?
Determined to deliver four more years of Trump and the end of American democracy.
But it could simply be the SCUP equivalent of getting up the LD's collective narial cavity - given how the SNP, but also many Scots, regard the honours system.
I don't support riots.
This is coddling, call it what it is.
Most people being moderate is a good thing but we need some radicals to challenge assumptions and challenge existing thinking.
Its easy to imagine an 'establishment' viewpoint - its privileged background, Oxford PPE, metro-cosmo-internationalism.
Alternative, of any variety, is different to that.
But how about:
Anywhere people, somewhere people, nowhere people.
Swinson appealed to the first, Boris and the SNP to the second, Corbyn to the third.