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
Two of our last three prime ministers were removed from their parents and raised by boarding schools. Maybe that is an unexplored divide in public life: boarding versus whatever the opposite of boarding schools is.
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.
Its perfectly possible to be radical and centrist. Imo the best solutions come from where there is a clear problem, and the widest possible toolkit is used to fix the issue.
Those on the extremes try to find a problem with everything, and then only want to consider the toolkit aligned with their values. That approach is rarely going to be optimal.
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
Two of our last three prime ministers were removed from their parents and raised by boarding schools. Maybe that is an unexplored divide in public life: boarding versus whatever the opposite of boarding schools is.
There has been research done about school holidays which suggests shorter but more frequent holidays are better for disadvantaged kids as they slip back less than over a long summer holiday.
While certainly boarding vs Day school should be researched due to the research I mentioned it wouldn't be enough to merely make all schools boarding schools to satisfy Kinablu's desire to take parents out of the educational loop
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
Two of our last three prime ministers were removed from their parents and raised by boarding schools. Maybe that is an unexplored divide in public life: boarding versus whatever the opposite of boarding schools is.
There has been research done about school holidays which suggests shorter but more frequent holidays are better for disadvantaged kids as they slip back less than over a long summer holiday.
While certainly boarding vs Day school should be researched due to the research I mentioned it wouldn't be enough to merely make all schools boarding schools to satisfy Kinablu's desire to take parents out of the educational loop
Perhaps Kinabalu would solve that problem by giving the children new identities and preventing them from having contact with their families?
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.
Its perfectly possible to be radical and centrist. Imo the best solutions come from where there is a clear problem, and the widest possible toolkit is used to fix the issue.
Those on the extremes try to find a problem with everything, and then only want to consider the toolkit aligned with their values. That approach is rarely going to be optimal.
Radical is in my view very much devolved from the right left axis of which moderate forms a part. There is certainly a status quo -> radical axis as well. For example as I have said before I want to abolish the lords, the commons and revisit the franchise. That however doesn't mean their replacements wouldn't result in moderate government.
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
Jeremy Corbyn is way to the left of left of centre. If I ever said otherwise it was a typo.
As to your judgement, the point is that people will always think they can be objective but the only way to prove whether Labour 2015 were essentially moderate is to ask a panel of moderates. Which excludes you, I'm afraid, but please note that it excludes me too. This is not a self-serving exercise I'm engaged in.
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
Two of our last three prime ministers were removed from their parents and raised by boarding schools. Maybe that is an unexplored divide in public life: boarding versus whatever the opposite of boarding schools is.
There has been research done about school holidays which suggests shorter but more frequent holidays are better for disadvantaged kids as they slip back less than over a long summer holiday.
While certainly boarding vs Day school should be researched due to the research I mentioned it wouldn't be enough to merely make all schools boarding schools to satisfy Kinablu's desire to take parents out of the educational loop
Perhaps Kinabalu would solve that problem by giving the children new identities and preventing them from having contact with their families?
Hmmm maybe they take all children born that year and randomly reassign them to families you mean? A birth lottery
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.
Having paid over £1m in tax during my life and that I still own property in the UK coupled with being British and the actions of the British government impact my life then maybe I should have one, but I wasn’t actually getting upset about it, most votes in the UK are a waste of paper anyway unless you live in the right place.
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.....)
Don Jnr. and Eric worry me, comparatively speaking, they appear to make Snr. look like Mother Theresa.
By November 2024, we might be looking at sine die accession rather than election.
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
Jeremy Corbyn is way to the left of left of centre. If I ever said otherwise it was a typo.
As to your judgement, the point is that people will always think they can be objective but the only way to prove whether Labour 2015 were essentially moderate is to ask a panel of moderates. Which excludes you, I'm afraid, but please note that it excludes me too. This is not a self-serving exercise I'm engaged in.
Have you got anyone to admit to being a moderate and to answer the Labour 2015 question yet?
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
Two of our last three prime ministers were removed from their parents and raised by boarding schools. Maybe that is an unexplored divide in public life: boarding versus whatever the opposite of boarding schools is.
There has been research done about school holidays which suggests shorter but more frequent holidays are better for disadvantaged kids as they slip back less than over a long summer holiday.
While certainly boarding vs Day school should be researched due to the research I mentioned it wouldn't be enough to merely make all schools boarding schools to satisfy Kinablu's desire to take parents out of the educational loop
Perhaps Kinabalu would solve that problem by giving the children new identities and preventing them from having contact with their families?
Hmmm maybe they take all children born that year and randomly reassign them to families you mean? A birth lottery
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.)
Well, without wishing to be rude to @Philip_Thompson, he often posts a lot of uninformed claptrap on legal matters. And we don’t share similar views on Brexit or on the actions of this government.
But he is certainly his own man and on other stuff we do agree. But then I agree with different posters on different topics (eg @kinabalu and @NickPalmer) and find some of @DavidL’s views a bit surprising.
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.
Swinson appealed to the first, Boris and the SNP to the second, Corbyn to the third.
"Nowhere people".
Very good as a bit of right wing comedy - which seems to be everywhere these days - but although it describes me well enough I hardly think it's suitable for general application. Most socialists are either somewhere or anywhere.
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.
Having paid over £1m in tax during my life and that I still own property in the UK coupled with being British and the actions of the British government impact my life then maybe I should have one, but I wasn’t actually getting upset about it, most votes in the UK are a waste of paper anyway unless you live in the right place.
The most votes wasted is something that is true and something that needs changing, the answer however is not pr but changing our system of government to something designed for the 21st century not the 18th
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
You know I don't mean that. I'm not doing that "rebutting the absurd extrapolation" business. Fool's errand.
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.)
Well, without wishing to be rude to @Philip_Thompson, he often posts a lot of uninformed claptrap on legal matters. And we don’t share similar views on Brexit or on the actions of this government.
But he is certainly his own man and on other stuff we do agree. But then I agree with different posters on different topics (eg @kinabalu and @NickPalmer) and find some of @DavidL’s views a bit surprising.
Personally I find DavidL the most interesting of posters, with considered views which often surprise.
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.
Having paid over £1m in tax during my life and that I still own property in the UK coupled with being British and the actions of the British government impact my life then maybe I should have one, but I wasn’t actually getting upset about it, most votes in the UK are a waste of paper anyway unless you live in the right place.
The most votes wasted is something that is true and something that needs changing, the answer however is not pr but changing our system of government to something designed for the 21st century not the 18th
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.)
Well, without wishing to be rude to @Philip_Thompson, he often posts a lot of uninformed claptrap on legal matters. And we don’t share similar views on Brexit or on the actions of this government.
But he is certainly his own man and on other stuff we do agree. But then I agree with different posters on different topics (eg @kinabalu and @NickPalmer) and find some of @DavidL’s views a bit surprising.
Personally I find DavidL the most interesting of posters, with considered views which often surprise.
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
You know I don't mean that. I'm not doing that "rebutting the absurd extrapolation" business. Fool's errand.
Then perhaps don't post absurd statements such as "Removing parents from the education loop". Where while you call mine an absurd extrapolation it is in fact the only way of doing what your statement suggests
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.
Having paid over £1m in tax during my life and that I still own property in the UK coupled with being British and the actions of the British government impact my life then maybe I should have one, but I wasn’t actually getting upset about it, most votes in the UK are a waste of paper anyway unless you live in the right place.
The most votes wasted is something that is true and something that needs changing, the answer however is not pr but changing our system of government to something designed for the 21st century not the 18th
Care to expand?
I have expanded on some of it before to answer Kinablu, I wouldnt wish to bore people with it again but if I can find the post will pm it to you
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.
Having paid over £1m in tax during my life and that I still own property in the UK coupled with being British and the actions of the British government impact my life then maybe I should have one, but I wasn’t actually getting upset about it, most votes in the UK are a waste of paper anyway unless you live in the right place.
The most votes wasted is something that is true and something that needs changing, the answer however is not pr but changing our system of government to something designed for the 21st century not the 18th
Care to expand?
I have expanded on some of it before to answer Kinablu, I wouldnt wish to bore people with it again but if I can find the post will pm it to you
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 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.
Its perfectly possible to be radical and centrist. Imo the best solutions come from where there is a clear problem, and the widest possible toolkit is used to fix the issue.
Those on the extremes try to find a problem with everything, and then only want to consider the toolkit aligned with their values. That approach is rarely going to be optimal.
I never said their approach is going to be optimal but some times it will be. Many things that are centrist or taken for granted today were extremely radical in the past.
Stocky said "I think it would be peachy if we were all moderates." All is a very strong word. Moderates need non moderates to challenge their assumptions.
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.
It perhaps triggers a harrowing mental image involving little hands being forcibly pulled from the handles of car doors, but that's just my clumsy language. I should make the effort to sell it better. I will one day. I'll give it my best shot and see if I can convert any moderates. Odds against.
McCain chose Sarah Palin. Is there a third option.
The problem Buttigieg has with that proposal is that McCain lost and Trump won.
Not many Republicans will be happy to win the moral high ground if it also means they lose the election
It doesn't take many. Plus this seems to be just a reflection of how you think: my party right or wrong. A lot of people don't really identify with a political party. I don't, and I can't think of anyone I know personally who seems to.
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
It is absurd that people who have lived abroad for a generation have the right to vote here. Only those who are normally resident should get a vote.
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.
It perhaps triggers a harrowing mental image involving little hands being forcibly pulled from the handles of car doors, but that's just my clumsy language. I should make the effort to sell it better. I will one day. I'll give it my best shot and see if I can convert any moderates. Odds against.
I think your real game is to push up house prices even more near good schools.
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.)
Well, without wishing to be rude to @Philip_Thompson, he often posts a lot of uninformed claptrap on legal matters. And we don’t share similar views on Brexit or on the actions of this government.
But he is certainly his own man and on other stuff we do agree. But then I agree with different posters on different topics (eg @kinabalu and @NickPalmer) and find some of @DavidL’s views a bit surprising.
I try generally not to engage on actual legal matters.
If I write something I'm normally saying how I think things should be, not how they actually are.
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.
It perhaps triggers a harrowing mental image involving little hands being forcibly pulled from the handles of car doors, but that's just my clumsy language. I should make the effort to sell it better. I will one day. I'll give it my best shot and see if I can convert any moderates. Odds against.
If it looks more like a care home than a private boarding school, levelling down rather than levelling up, you’re going to struggle to find any support for it whatsoever.
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.
It perhaps triggers a harrowing mental image involving little hands being forcibly pulled from the handles of car doors, but that's just my clumsy language. I should make the effort to sell it better. I will one day. I'll give it my best shot and see if I can convert any moderates. Odds against.
I agree - odds against. You`re arguing against freedom, always a tough call for you lefties.
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
Jeremy Corbyn is way to the left of left of centre. If I ever said otherwise it was a typo.
As to your judgement, the point is that people will always think they can be objective but the only way to prove whether Labour 2015 were essentially moderate is to ask a panel of moderates. Which excludes you, I'm afraid, but please note that it excludes me too. This is not a self-serving exercise I'm engaged in.
Have you got anyone to admit to being a moderate and to answer the Labour 2015 question yet?
Ah good point. No, we've got sidetracked by the secondary matter of who is moderate in the first place.
And you're one - so you could kick it off. 1st vote, I'll keep track.
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.
It perhaps triggers a harrowing mental image involving little hands being forcibly pulled from the handles of car doors, but that's just my clumsy language. I should make the effort to sell it better. I will one day. I'll give it my best shot and see if I can convert any moderates. Odds against.
I agree - odds against. You`re arguing against freedom, always a tough call for you lefties.
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.
It perhaps triggers a harrowing mental image involving little hands being forcibly pulled from the handles of car doors, but that's just my clumsy language. I should make the effort to sell it better. I will one day. I'll give it my best shot and see if I can convert any moderates. Odds against.
If it looks more like a care home than a private boarding school, levelling down rather than levelling up, you’re going to struggle to find any support for it whatsoever.
Well thankfully it won't. That's a low bar which will be cleared with ease.
They’ll be very thankful there’s not 100,000 tifosi there, to watch the red cars qualify 13th and 17th! I’d be able to hear the booing from 3,000 miles away.
If LH wins from pole tomorrow, he can equal MSC’s all time wins record at Ferrari’s private little Mugello garden party next weekend, which would be delightful
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.
It perhaps triggers a harrowing mental image involving little hands being forcibly pulled from the handles of car doors, but that's just my clumsy language. I should make the effort to sell it better. I will one day. I'll give it my best shot and see if I can convert any moderates. Odds against.
I think your real game is to push up house prices even more near good schools.
Ah that old chestnut. No, I can deal with that one Ok.
It's the liberty argument "Why can't I spend my own money to give my own children the best possible life chances?" which is the most challenging.
Plus "Will you not be simply replacing one elite with another?" That comes second.
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.
It perhaps triggers a harrowing mental image involving little hands being forcibly pulled from the handles of car doors, but that's just my clumsy language. I should make the effort to sell it better. I will one day. I'll give it my best shot and see if I can convert any moderates. Odds against.
I agree - odds against. You`re arguing against freedom, always a tough call for you lefties.
Lefties are frequently against freedom.
Indeed, though they deny it. Look how some have relished how lockdown has clipped individuals` wings.
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.
It perhaps triggers a harrowing mental image involving little hands being forcibly pulled from the handles of car doors, but that's just my clumsy language. I should make the effort to sell it better. I will one day. I'll give it my best shot and see if I can convert any moderates. Odds against.
If it looks more like a care home than a private boarding school, levelling down rather than levelling up, you’re going to struggle to find any support for it whatsoever.
Well thankfully it won't. That's a low bar which will be cleared with ease.
Good to hear. The next bars to clear are the several billion in foreign currency revenue that out best schools get from overseas students, and how you would stop the British wealthy sending their kids to boarding schools abroad, as the wealthy do elsewhere in the world when they send them to the U.K.
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
Two of our last three prime ministers were removed from their parents and raised by boarding schools. Maybe that is an unexplored divide in public life: boarding versus whatever the opposite of boarding schools is.
There has been research done about school holidays which suggests shorter but more frequent holidays are better for disadvantaged kids as they slip back less than over a long summer holiday.
While certainly boarding vs Day school should be researched due to the research I mentioned it wouldn't be enough to merely make all schools boarding schools to satisfy Kinablu's desire to take parents out of the educational loop
Perhaps Kinabalu would solve that problem by giving the children new identities and preventing them from having contact with their families?
Hmmm maybe they take all children born that year and randomly reassign them to families you mean? A birth lottery
In fact your own view - that the problem is not with schools but with problem kids from problem families who do not wish to learn - plays into my reforms rather than against them if you think about it.
I'm enjoying the woke outrage about Abbott being appointed to a nonsense position. It's pure politics to rile up the lefty luvvies and show the government are irritating the right people.
Fwiw, he's probably going to be pretty good at the job as former PM of a nation that actually needed an independent trade policy. That he's whatever doesn't really make a difference to his ability to advise the government on having an independent trade policy.
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
You know I don't mean that. I'm not doing that "rebutting the absurd extrapolation" business. Fool's errand.
So you are heading for Plato's republic? Where children would be raised and educated away from their stupid, evil parents by philosopher kings?
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 are responsible for a huge amount of their children's education: removing them from the loop would be child abuse.
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.
It perhaps triggers a harrowing mental image involving little hands being forcibly pulled from the handles of car doors, but that's just my clumsy language. I should make the effort to sell it better. I will one day. I'll give it my best shot and see if I can convert any moderates. Odds against.
If it looks more like a care home than a private boarding school, levelling down rather than levelling up, you’re going to struggle to find any support for it whatsoever.
Well thankfully it won't. That's a low bar which will be cleared with ease.
Good to hear. The next bars to clear are the several billion in foreign currency revenue that out best schools get from overseas students, and how you would stop the British wealthy sending their kids to boarding schools abroad, as the wealthy do elsewhere in the world when they send them to the U.K.
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
Two of our last three prime ministers were removed from their parents and raised by boarding schools. Maybe that is an unexplored divide in public life: boarding versus whatever the opposite of boarding schools is.
There has been research done about school holidays which suggests shorter but more frequent holidays are better for disadvantaged kids as they slip back less than over a long summer holiday.
While certainly boarding vs Day school should be researched due to the research I mentioned it wouldn't be enough to merely make all schools boarding schools to satisfy Kinablu's desire to take parents out of the educational loop
Perhaps Kinabalu would solve that problem by giving the children new identities and preventing them from having contact with their families?
Hmmm maybe they take all children born that year and randomly reassign them to families you mean? A birth lottery
In fact your own view - that the problem is not with schools but with problem kids from problem families who do not wish to learn - plays into my reforms rather than against them if you think about it.
I never claimed there weren't problems with schools. What I said was that even if you moved all the teachers from a good school to a failing school that it wouldn't make as much difference as you think because often the problem in a failing school starts with the attitude to education of the kids and their parents
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
Two of our last three prime ministers were removed from their parents and raised by boarding schools. Maybe that is an unexplored divide in public life: boarding versus whatever the opposite of boarding schools is.
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 are responsible for a huge amount of their children's education: removing them from the loop would be child abuse.
I'm pretty sure that trying to block parental participation in education would fall foul of various Human Rights laws.
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.
It perhaps triggers a harrowing mental image involving little hands being forcibly pulled from the handles of car doors, but that's just my clumsy language. I should make the effort to sell it better. I will one day. I'll give it my best shot and see if I can convert any moderates. Odds against.
I agree - odds against. You`re arguing against freedom, always a tough call for you lefties.
Lefties are frequently against freedom.
Depends what you mean by 'freedom' and 'whos'
Been skim-reading while depressing myself watching Essex lose their t20 to that lot South of the River; never mind we were in as bad, at least, a place as this last year and we ended up winning the Vitality Blast. Back to skim-reading; voted Labour as soon as I could vote (1959) because it seemed right to do so, and I really didn't like the views expressed by of my 'elders and betters' who apparently voted Tory. They seemed to me not to recognise that 'all men are created equal', which by then I had come to believe. Then I got loosly involved with the Anti-Apartheid movement for the same reason. Joined the Liberals in the early 60's...... didn't like some of the monolithic trades unions......stayed with them until the merger with the SDP...... just wasn't as keen. Voted Labour, for the candidate and against the Tory, in 1997, 2001 and, although in a different constituency for the same reason in 2005. Since then Labour, again because I'd met both Labour and Tory candidates in 2010, 2015 and 2017. 2019 Labour; I'd not met the Labour candidate, but I live in Witham! Was involved with the CAB for 30 years, although retired from it now. Really don't like the 'pull up the ladder, Jack' attitude of much of modern Conservatism.
So I reckon I'm centre-left. Had a lot of sympathy for the path Corbyn walked; could have done it myself, but really, really didn't like the anti-semitism, although I'm anti the Israeli government.
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
You know I don't mean that. I'm not doing that "rebutting the absurd extrapolation" business. Fool's errand.
So you are heading for Plato's republic? Where children would be raised and educated away from their stupid, evil parents by philosopher kings?
I always thought that Plato`s Republic has some mileage when dealing with a small tribal entity (say 500 individuals or less) when everyone knows everyone else and they are proceeding towards a common goal. However, this can`t extend to the human populations we now exist within, cheek by jowl with masses of people that we don`t know and, indeed, compete with.
I'm enjoying the woke outrage about Abbott being appointed to a nonsense position. It's pure politics to rile up the lefty luvvies and show the government are irritating the right people.
Fwiw, he's probably going to be pretty good at the job as former PM of a nation that actually needed an independent trade policy. That he's whatever doesn't really make a difference to his ability to advise the government on having an independent trade policy.
Do you not think that government should have a more noble purpose than "to rile up the left luvvies" and "irritate the right people". Or is this the sort of infantilism that we have come to expect from our current rulers?
I'd prefer it if appointments were made on merit rather than on cronyism or winding up government opponents. I've no strong view on Abbott's abilities (though he does seem a bit of a neanderthal boor).
I'm enjoying the woke outrage about Abbott being appointed to a nonsense position. It's pure politics to rile up the lefty luvvies and show the government are irritating the right people.
Fwiw, he's probably going to be pretty good at the job as former PM of a nation that actually needed an independent trade policy. That he's whatever doesn't really make a difference to his ability to advise the government on having an independent trade policy.
Do you not think that government should have a more noble purpose than "to rile up the left luvvies" and "irritate the right people". Or is this the sort of infantilism that we have come to expect from our current rulers?
I'd prefer it if appointments were made on merit rather than on cronyism or winding up government opponents. I've no strong view on Abbott's abilities (though he does seem a bit of a neanderthal boor).
He seems ideally suited to offer advice on how to go about securing trade deals given his track record.
I'm enjoying the woke outrage about Abbott being appointed to a nonsense position. It's pure politics to rile up the lefty luvvies and show the government are irritating the right people.
Fwiw, he's probably going to be pretty good at the job as former PM of a nation that actually needed an independent trade policy. That he's whatever doesn't really make a difference to his ability to advise the government on having an independent trade policy.
Do you not think that government should have a more noble purpose than "to rile up the left luvvies" and "irritate the right people". Or is this the sort of infantilism that we have come to expect from our current rulers?
I'd prefer it if appointments were made on merit rather than on cronyism or winding up government opponents. I've no strong view on Abbott's abilities (though he does seem a bit of a neanderthal boor).
Did you skip Max's second paragraph? That's the noble purpose.
All governments have always tried to wind up their opponents at times. How you do that matters though.
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
You know I don't mean that. I'm not doing that "rebutting the absurd extrapolation" business. Fool's errand.
So you are heading for Plato's republic? Where children would be raised and educated away from their stupid, evil parents by philosopher kings?
I always thought that Plato`s Republic has some mileage when dealing with a small tribal entity (say 500 individuals or less) when everyone knows everyone else and they are proceeding towards a common goal. However, this can`t extend to the human populations we now exist within, cheek by jowl with masses of people that we don`t know and, indeed, compete with.
I think democracy begins to break down itself when you go above a certain amount of individuals, which is why I support localism of decision making and think that decisions should be made at the lowest possible level of government. Instead we have ever more centralised governments....the uk and the eu and local democracy is viewed as unimportant as they really don't get to make a lot of decisions.
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 are responsible for a huge amount of their children's education: removing them from the loop would be child abuse.
We're mainly talking about no more school fees. Hardly think 93% of parents are guilty of child abuse.
Good "Hodas & Assoc" poll out for Biden today, +6 PA. Also PA-10 (Smalltown PA, definitely not Pittsburgh or Philly) +5 for the Dems, which is also good for them.
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 are responsible for a huge amount of their children's education: removing them from the loop would be child abuse.
I'm pretty sure that trying to block parental participation in education would fall foul of various Human Rights laws.
You could do a lot - and imo enough - within the law.
I'm enjoying the woke outrage about Abbott being appointed to a nonsense position. It's pure politics to rile up the lefty luvvies and show the government are irritating the right people.
Fwiw, he's probably going to be pretty good at the job as former PM of a nation that actually needed an independent trade policy. That he's whatever doesn't really make a difference to his ability to advise the government on having an independent trade policy.
Do you not think that government should have a more noble purpose than "to rile up the left luvvies" and "irritate the right people". Or is this the sort of infantilism that we have come to expect from our current rulers?
I'd prefer it if appointments were made on merit rather than on cronyism or winding up government opponents. I've no strong view on Abbott's abilities (though he does seem a bit of a neanderthal boor).
Did you skip Max's second paragraph? That's the noble purpose.
All governments have always tried to wind up their opponents at times. How you do that matters though.
I was fine with Max's second paragraph. I thought the first paragraph was puerile playground stuff, that's all.
I'm enjoying the woke outrage about Abbott being appointed to a nonsense position. It's pure politics to rile up the lefty luvvies and show the government are irritating the right people.
Fwiw, he's probably going to be pretty good at the job as former PM of a nation that actually needed an independent trade policy. That he's whatever doesn't really make a difference to his ability to advise the government on having an independent trade policy.
Do you not think that government should have a more noble purpose than "to rile up the left luvvies" and "irritate the right people". Or is this the sort of infantilism that we have come to expect from our current rulers?
I'd prefer it if appointments were made on merit rather than on cronyism or winding up government opponents. I've no strong view on Abbott's abilities (though he does seem a bit of a neanderthal boor).
Governments may well have more noble purposes, but few that are more fun...
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
Two of our last three prime ministers were removed from their parents and raised by boarding schools. Maybe that is an unexplored divide in public life: boarding versus whatever the opposite of boarding schools is.
There has been research done about school holidays which suggests shorter but more frequent holidays are better for disadvantaged kids as they slip back less than over a long summer holiday.
While certainly boarding vs Day school should be researched due to the research I mentioned it wouldn't be enough to merely make all schools boarding schools to satisfy Kinablu's desire to take parents out of the educational loop
Perhaps Kinabalu would solve that problem by giving the children new identities and preventing them from having contact with their families?
Hmmm maybe they take all children born that year and randomly reassign them to families you mean? A birth lottery
In fact your own view - that the problem is not with schools but with problem kids from problem families who do not wish to learn - plays into my reforms rather than against them if you think about it.
I never claimed there weren't problems with schools. What I said was that even if you moved all the teachers from a good school to a failing school that it wouldn't make as much difference as you think because often the problem in a failing school starts with the attitude to education of the kids and their parents
Yes, exactly. You stress that aspect of why some kids do badly at school. Their parents.
I'm enjoying the woke outrage about Abbott being appointed to a nonsense position. It's pure politics to rile up the lefty luvvies and show the government are irritating the right people.
Fwiw, he's probably going to be pretty good at the job as former PM of a nation that actually needed an independent trade policy. That he's whatever doesn't really make a difference to his ability to advise the government on having an independent trade policy.
Do you not think that government should have a more noble purpose than "to rile up the left luvvies" and "irritate the right people". Or is this the sort of infantilism that we have come to expect from our current rulers?
I'd prefer it if appointments were made on merit rather than on cronyism or winding up government opponents. I've no strong view on Abbott's abilities (though he does seem a bit of a neanderthal boor).
Did you skip Max's second paragraph? That's the noble purpose.
All governments have always tried to wind up their opponents at times. How you do that matters though.
I was fine with Max's second paragraph. I thought the first paragraph was puerile playground stuff, that's all.
Did you complain when labour decided "to rub the rights nose in diversity"? As reported by a civil servant from meetings. I doubt it
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
It is absurd that people who have lived abroad for a generation have the right to vote here. Only those who are normally resident should get a vote.
Apartheid era South Africans did John Major proud in 1992.
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 are responsible for a huge amount of their children's education: removing them from the loop would be child abuse.
We're mainly talking about no more school fees. Hardly think 93% of parents are guilty of child abuse.
Do you really think that paying for an education is the only way that parents are "in the loop" of their children's education? And where are you getting the 93% figure from?
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
You know I don't mean that. I'm not doing that "rebutting the absurd extrapolation" business. Fool's errand.
So you are heading for Plato's republic? Where children would be raised and educated away from their stupid, evil parents by philosopher kings?
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
You know I don't mean that. I'm not doing that "rebutting the absurd extrapolation" business. Fool's errand.
So you are heading for Plato's republic? Where children would be raised and educated away from their stupid, evil parents by philosopher kings?
I said I wasn't doing the "rebut the absurd projection" thing!
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 are responsible for a huge amount of their children's education: removing them from the loop would be child abuse.
We're mainly talking about no more school fees. Hardly think 93% of parents are guilty of child abuse.
Do you really think that paying for an education is the only way that parents are "in the loop" of their children's education? And where are you getting the 93% figure from?
7% of kids are privately educated is what he alludes to, he just handwaves away all the other stuff like buying houses near the right school and claims it won't happen nor the richest sending their children overseas, nor hiring private tutors.
I'm enjoying the woke outrage about Abbott being appointed to a nonsense position. It's pure politics to rile up the lefty luvvies and show the government are irritating the right people.
Fwiw, he's probably going to be pretty good at the job as former PM of a nation that actually needed an independent trade policy. That he's whatever doesn't really make a difference to his ability to advise the government on having an independent trade policy.
Do you not think that government should have a more noble purpose than "to rile up the left luvvies" and "irritate the right people". Or is this the sort of infantilism that we have come to expect from our current rulers?
I'd prefer it if appointments were made on merit rather than on cronyism or winding up government opponents. I've no strong view on Abbott's abilities (though he does seem a bit of a neanderthal boor).
He seems ideally suited to offer advice on how to go about securing trade deals given his track record.
The ones that led to economic colonisation by China and the end of the Australian automotive and clothing industries, amongst others?
Unbelievable scenes in the Tour de France. First time I’ve watched one of the mountain top finishes this year - how can they be allowing the usual stuff of spectators standing in front of the riders basically screaming encouragement into their faces? There’s Covid scepticism/trying to get back to normal, and there’s this!
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 are responsible for a huge amount of their children's education: removing them from the loop would be child abuse.
We're mainly talking about no more school fees. Hardly think 93% of parents are guilty of child abuse.
Do you really think that paying for an education is the only way that parents are "in the loop" of their children's education? And where are you getting the 93% figure from?
7% of kids are privately educated is what he alludes to, he just handwaves away all the other stuff like buying houses near the right school and claims it won't happen nor the richest sending their children overseas, nor hiring private tutors.
Never understood the obsession that some of the left have with the 7% who go to private school - they might turn out a bit pompous but generally ok .Its the bottom 7% in the sense whose parents have no respect for education or teachers that they should concern themselves with if they really want to help kids
Unbelievable scenes in the Tour de France. First time I’ve watched one of the mountain top finishes this year - how can they be allowing the usual stuff of spectators standing in front of the riders basically screaming encouragement into their faces? There’s Covid scepticism/trying to get back to normal, and there’s this!
Most cyclists test positive for something in the end though
I'm enjoying the woke outrage about Abbott being appointed to a nonsense position. It's pure politics to rile up the lefty luvvies and show the government are irritating the right people.
Fwiw, he's probably going to be pretty good at the job as former PM of a nation that actually needed an independent trade policy. That he's whatever doesn't really make a difference to his ability to advise the government on having an independent trade policy.
Do you not think that government should have a more noble purpose than "to rile up the left luvvies" and "irritate the right people". Or is this the sort of infantilism that we have come to expect from our current rulers?
I'd prefer it if appointments were made on merit rather than on cronyism or winding up government opponents. I've no strong view on Abbott's abilities (though he does seem a bit of a neanderthal boor).
He seems ideally suited to offer advice on how to go about securing trade deals given his track record.
The ones that led to economic colonisation by China and the end of the Australian automotive and clothing industries, amongst others?
You can't really blame Tony Abbott for the end of car manufacturing in Australia. He only became PM in 2013.
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 are responsible for a huge amount of their children's education: removing them from the loop would be child abuse.
We're mainly talking about no more school fees. Hardly think 93% of parents are guilty of child abuse.
Do you really think that paying for an education is the only way that parents are "in the loop" of their children's education? And where are you getting the 93% figure from?
Of course not. Parents do loads of stuff to help their children develop and learn, some bad, mostly good. And long may it remain so - with maximum good and minimum bad. All will agree with that.
We can replace "remove from the loop" with "substantially reduce the impact of parental bank balance" if we want to be more cuddly sounding. But I was wanting to make it sound more radical than it truly is so that I didn't get tagged as a moderate.
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 are responsible for a huge amount of their children's education: removing them from the loop would be child abuse.
We're mainly talking about no more school fees. Hardly think 93% of parents are guilty of child abuse.
Do you really think that paying for an education is the only way that parents are "in the loop" of their children's education? And where are you getting the 93% figure from?
7% of kids are privately educated is what he alludes to, he just handwaves away all the other stuff like buying houses near the right school and claims it won't happen nor the richest sending their children overseas, nor hiring private tutors.
Never understood the obsession that some of the left have with the 7% who go to private school - they might turn out a bit pompous but generally ok .Its the bottom 7% in the sense whose parents have no respect for education or teachers that they should concern themselves with if they really want to help kids
Me neither, I would interestingly fall foul of his "taking the parents out the education loop". Not because my child went private but when he began primary school they said he was educationally backwards and should be put in a special school. His mother and I refused and said he was bright but had a hearing problem which we were fighting to get sorted. We ended up getting it done privately as our gp refused saying he would grow out of it by 12. 6 years later he was the only one in his year to pass the 11 plus and since went on to get a first and msc in biochem from ucl.
However we did use money to improve his education by going the private medecine route
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 are responsible for a huge amount of their children's education: removing them from the loop would be child abuse.
We're mainly talking about no more school fees. Hardly think 93% of parents are guilty of child abuse.
Do you really think that paying for an education is the only way that parents are "in the loop" of their children's education? And where are you getting the 93% figure from?
7% of kids are privately educated is what he alludes to, he just handwaves away all the other stuff like buying houses near the right school and claims it won't happen nor the richest sending their children overseas, nor hiring private tutors.
7% is the number at any given time. The number who have some private education is about double that (18% of those over 16 are at fee paying schools for instance). Add in the percentage who pay for private tuition and it would probably double again.
I'm enjoying the woke outrage about Abbott being appointed to a nonsense position. It's pure politics to rile up the lefty luvvies and show the government are irritating the right people.
Fwiw, he's probably going to be pretty good at the job as former PM of a nation that actually needed an independent trade policy. That he's whatever doesn't really make a difference to his ability to advise the government on having an independent trade policy.
Do you not think that government should have a more noble purpose than "to rile up the left luvvies" and "irritate the right people". Or is this the sort of infantilism that we have come to expect from our current rulers?
I'd prefer it if appointments were made on merit rather than on cronyism or winding up government opponents. I've no strong view on Abbott's abilities (though he does seem a bit of a neanderthal boor).
Did you skip Max's second paragraph? That's the noble purpose.
All governments have always tried to wind up their opponents at times. How you do that matters though.
I was fine with Max's second paragraph. I thought the first paragraph was puerile playground stuff, that's all.
Have a heart, the same folk were saying the same about Trump 4 years ago, now even they know that's beyond the pale. They've got to insert the most hilarious concept that they've ever encountered into some context or other.
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
Jeremy Corbyn is way to the left of left of centre. If I ever said otherwise it was a typo.
As to your judgement, the point is that people will always think they can be objective but the only way to prove whether Labour 2015 were essentially moderate is to ask a panel of moderates. Which excludes you, I'm afraid, but please note that it excludes me too. This is not a self-serving exercise I'm engaged in.
Have you got anyone to admit to being a moderate and to answer the Labour 2015 question yet?
Ah good point. No, we've got sidetracked by the secondary matter of who is moderate in the first place.
And you're one - so you could kick it off. 1st vote, I'll keep track.
We need 12 and a majority 9/3 will be accepted.
Labour 2015 manifesto was moderate. It was a bit confused and all over the place but not extreme.
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 are responsible for a huge amount of their children's education: removing them from the loop would be child abuse.
We're mainly talking about no more school fees. Hardly think 93% of parents are guilty of child abuse.
Do you really think that paying for an education is the only way that parents are "in the loop" of their children's education? And where are you getting the 93% figure from?
7% of kids are privately educated is what he alludes to, he just handwaves away all the other stuff like buying houses near the right school and claims it won't happen nor the richest sending their children overseas, nor hiring private tutors.
Never understood the obsession that some of the left have with the 7% who go to private school - they might turn out a bit pompous but generally ok .Its the bottom 7% in the sense whose parents have no respect for education or teachers that they should concern themselves with if they really want to help kids
It's the privilege the children get as a result of 'contacts' etc that are offensive. Otherwise I agree; somehow we have to rediscover the thought that 'no child of mine is ever going to have to work in the conditions I've had to'. Up thread mention has been made of sons following their fathers down the pit; plenty of fathers ..... and mothers ..... said that 'no son of mine is going to have to work the way I/his father had to'. As one set of my grandparents said.
I'm enjoying the woke outrage about Abbott being appointed to a nonsense position. It's pure politics to rile up the lefty luvvies and show the government are irritating the right people.
Fwiw, he's probably going to be pretty good at the job as former PM of a nation that actually needed an independent trade policy. That he's whatever doesn't really make a difference to his ability to advise the government on having an independent trade policy.
Do you not think that government should have a more noble purpose than "to rile up the left luvvies" and "irritate the right people". Or is this the sort of infantilism that we have come to expect from our current rulers?
I'd prefer it if appointments were made on merit rather than on cronyism or winding up government opponents. I've no strong view on Abbott's abilities (though he does seem a bit of a neanderthal boor).
He seems ideally suited to offer advice on how to go about securing trade deals given his track record.
The ones that led to economic colonisation by China and the end of the Australian automotive and clothing industries, amongst others?
Those deals were a direct cause of the declines of those industries?
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.
It perhaps triggers a harrowing mental image involving little hands being forcibly pulled from the handles of car doors, but that's just my clumsy language. I should make the effort to sell it better. I will one day. I'll give it my best shot and see if I can convert any moderates. Odds against.
I agree - odds against. You`re arguing against freedom, always a tough call for you lefties.
Lefties are frequently against freedom.
Depends what you mean by 'freedom' and 'whos'
Been skim-reading while depressing myself watching Essex lose their t20 to that lot South of the River; never mind we were in as bad, at least, a place as this last year and we ended up winning the Vitality Blast. Back to skim-reading; voted Labour as soon as I could vote (1959) because it seemed right to do so, and I really didn't like the views expressed by of my 'elders and betters' who apparently voted Tory. They seemed to me not to recognise that 'all men are created equal', which by then I had come to believe. Then I got loosly involved with the Anti-Apartheid movement for the same reason. Joined the Liberals in the early 60's...... didn't like some of the monolithic trades unions......stayed with them until the merger with the SDP...... just wasn't as keen. Voted Labour, for the candidate and against the Tory, in 1997, 2001 and, although in a different constituency for the same reason in 2005. Since then Labour, again because I'd met both Labour and Tory candidates in 2010, 2015 and 2017. 2019 Labour; I'd not met the Labour candidate, but I live in Witham! Was involved with the CAB for 30 years, although retired from it now. Really don't like the 'pull up the ladder, Jack' attitude of much of modern Conservatism.
So I reckon I'm centre-left. Had a lot of sympathy for the path Corbyn walked; could have done it myself, but really, really didn't like the anti-semitism, although I'm anti the Israeli government.
I'm enjoying the woke outrage about Abbott being appointed to a nonsense position. It's pure politics to rile up the lefty luvvies and show the government are irritating the right people.
Fwiw, he's probably going to be pretty good at the job as former PM of a nation that actually needed an independent trade policy. That he's whatever doesn't really make a difference to his ability to advise the government on having an independent trade policy.
Do you not think that government should have a more noble purpose than "to rile up the left luvvies" and "irritate the right people". Or is this the sort of infantilism that we have come to expect from our current rulers?
I'd prefer it if appointments were made on merit rather than on cronyism or winding up government opponents. I've no strong view on Abbott's abilities (though he does seem a bit of a neanderthal boor).
He seems ideally suited to offer advice on how to go about securing trade deals given his track record.
The ones that led to economic colonisation by China and the end of the Australian automotive and clothing industries, amongst others?
You can't really blame Tony Abbott for the end of car manufacturing in Australia. He only became PM in 2013.
"Following an unsuccessful attempt to secure the extra funding required from the new Liberal/National coalition government, on 11 December 2013, General Motors announced that Holden would cease engine and vehicle manufacturing operations in Australia by the end of 2017. As a result, 2,900 jobs would be lost over four years". From Wikipedia
I'm enjoying the woke outrage about Abbott being appointed to a nonsense position. It's pure politics to rile up the lefty luvvies and show the government are irritating the right people.
Fwiw, he's probably going to be pretty good at the job as former PM of a nation that actually needed an independent trade policy. That he's whatever doesn't really make a difference to his ability to advise the government on having an independent trade policy.
Do you not think that government should have a more noble purpose than "to rile up the left luvvies" and "irritate the right people". Or is this the sort of infantilism that we have come to expect from our current rulers?
I'd prefer it if appointments were made on merit rather than on cronyism or winding up government opponents. I've no strong view on Abbott's abilities (though he does seem a bit of a neanderthal boor).
He seems ideally suited to offer advice on how to go about securing trade deals given his track record.
The ones that led to economic colonisation by China and the end of the Australian automotive and clothing industries, amongst others?
Maybe his advice will be that a bad deal is better than no deal?
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 are responsible for a huge amount of their children's education: removing them from the loop would be child abuse.
We're mainly talking about no more school fees. Hardly think 93% of parents are guilty of child abuse.
Do you really think that paying for an education is the only way that parents are "in the loop" of their children's education? And where are you getting the 93% figure from?
Of course not. Parents do loads of stuff to help their children develop and learn, some bad, mostly good. And long may it remain so - with maximum good and minimum bad. All will agree with that.
We can replace "remove from the loop" with "substantially reduce the impact of parental bank balance" if we want to be more cuddly sounding. But I was wanting to make it sound more radical than it truly is so that I didn't get tagged as a moderate.
The 93% is those who do not pay school fees.
You didn't say ban private schools because you have been told its a stupid idea and told why its a stupid idea many many times on here is why you tried an alternative phrase.
Banning private schools would only make the disadvantaged worse off.
7% reduction in education spend per child 7% larger class sizes No hope of renting a house in an area with a good school as they are snapped up by the rich so their offspring don't need to go to gastown secondary modern. Extra money for those that used to pay school fees to spend on home education to make sure their offspring still get the best results and use up the places that some of the disadvantaged got previously in grammar and state selective schools.
Its a policy where if ever implemented you would soon be bemoaning all the unintended side affects on the worst off kids
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
You know I don't mean that. I'm not doing that "rebutting the absurd extrapolation" business. Fool's errand.
So you are heading for Plato's republic? Where children would be raised and educated away from their stupid, evil parents by philosopher kings?
I always thought that Plato`s Republic has some mileage when dealing with a small tribal entity (say 500 individuals or less) when everyone knows everyone else and they are proceeding towards a common goal. However, this can`t extend to the human populations we now exist within, cheek by jowl with masses of people that we don`t know and, indeed, compete with.
I think democracy begins to break down itself when you go above a certain amount of individuals, which is why I support localism of decision making and think that decisions should be made at the lowest possible level of government. Instead we have ever more centralised governments....the uk and the eu and local democracy is viewed as unimportant as they really don't get to make a lot of decisions.
Quite a lot of philosophers now use the "He was joking" or it was "all a metaphor" to excuse the insanity of the design of the Republic.
We're all still part of the UK, for the moment, it is relevant to him even if he lives in one of the more unionist parts of the UK and it won't a decision he takes part in.
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
You know I don't mean that. I'm not doing that "rebutting the absurd extrapolation" business. Fool's errand.
So you are heading for Plato's republic? Where children would be raised and educated away from their stupid, evil parents by philosopher kings?
I always thought that Plato`s Republic has some mileage when dealing with a small tribal entity (say 500 individuals or less) when everyone knows everyone else and they are proceeding towards a common goal. However, this can`t extend to the human populations we now exist within, cheek by jowl with masses of people that we don`t know and, indeed, compete with.
I think democracy begins to break down itself when you go above a certain amount of individuals, which is why I support localism of decision making and think that decisions should be made at the lowest possible level of government. Instead we have ever more centralised governments....the uk and the eu and local democracy is viewed as unimportant as they really don't get to make a lot of decisions.
Quite a lot of philosophers now use the "He was joking" or it was "all a metaphor" to excuse the insanity of the design of the Republic.
If he was joking he should have put a smiley at the end
Comments
The effort to rein in the engine qualifying modes not quite going according to plan, as Mercedes blitz the front row by 0.8s.
Those on the extremes try to find a problem with everything, and then only want to consider the toolkit aligned with their values. That approach is rarely going to be optimal.
While certainly boarding vs Day school should be researched due to the research I mentioned it wouldn't be enough to merely make all schools boarding schools to satisfy Kinablu's desire to take parents out of the educational loop
As to your judgement, the point is that people will always think they can be objective but the only way to prove whether Labour 2015 were essentially moderate is to ask a panel of moderates. Which excludes you, I'm afraid, but please note that it excludes me too. This is not a self-serving exercise I'm engaged in.
By November 2024, we might be looking at sine die accession rather than election.
But he is certainly his own man and on other stuff we do agree. But then I agree with different posters on different topics (eg @kinabalu and @NickPalmer) and find some of @DavidL’s views a bit surprising.
Very good as a bit of right wing comedy - which seems to be everywhere these days - but although it describes me well enough I hardly think it's suitable for general application. Most socialists are either somewhere or anywhere.
Stocky said "I think it would be peachy if we were all moderates." All is a very strong word. Moderates need non moderates to challenge their assumptions.
If I write something I'm normally saying how I think things should be, not how they actually are.
PS thank you for the compliment.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/09/04/in-defence-of-tony-abbott/
And you're one - so you could kick it off. 1st vote, I'll keep track.
We need 12 and a majority 9/3 will be accepted.
https://twitter.com/GracenoteLive/status/1302238474502799361
I disagree with Abbott on gay marriage but it has absolutely nothing to do with this role.
If LH wins from pole tomorrow, he can equal MSC’s all time wins record at Ferrari’s private little Mugello garden party next weekend, which would be delightful
It's the liberty argument "Why can't I spend my own money to give my own children the best possible life chances?" which is the most challenging.
Plus "Will you not be simply replacing one elite with another?" That comes second.
Biden 1.97
Dem 1.9
Trump 2.08
Rep 2.1
You can get better odds against the Republican Party than against Trump.
But you are (like me) zero tolerance on fuzzy logic. Iron fist on that.
Fwiw, he's probably going to be pretty good at the job as former PM of a nation that actually needed an independent trade policy. That he's whatever doesn't really make a difference to his ability to advise the government on having an independent trade policy.
Please see my 4.10 post for the toughies.
Been skim-reading while depressing myself watching Essex lose their t20 to that lot South of the River; never mind we were in as bad, at least, a place as this last year and we ended up winning the Vitality Blast.
Back to skim-reading; voted Labour as soon as I could vote (1959) because it seemed right to do so, and I really didn't like the views expressed by of my 'elders and betters' who apparently voted Tory. They seemed to me not to recognise that 'all men are created equal', which by then I had come to believe. Then I got loosly involved with the Anti-Apartheid movement for the same reason.
Joined the Liberals in the early 60's...... didn't like some of the monolithic trades unions......stayed with them until the merger with the SDP...... just wasn't as keen. Voted Labour, for the candidate and against the Tory, in 1997, 2001 and, although in a different constituency for the same reason in 2005. Since then Labour, again because I'd met both Labour and Tory candidates in 2010, 2015 and 2017. 2019 Labour; I'd not met the Labour candidate, but I live in Witham!
Was involved with the CAB for 30 years, although retired from it now.
Really don't like the 'pull up the ladder, Jack' attitude of much of modern Conservatism.
So I reckon I'm centre-left. Had a lot of sympathy for the path Corbyn walked; could have done it myself, but really, really didn't like the anti-semitism, although I'm anti the Israeli government.
Where does that leave me?
I'd prefer it if appointments were made on merit rather than on cronyism or winding up government opponents. I've no strong view on Abbott's abilities (though he does seem a bit of a neanderthal boor).
All governments have always tried to wind up their opponents at times. How you do that matters though.
Also PA-10 (Smalltown PA, definitely not Pittsburgh or Philly) +5 for the Dems, which is also good for them.
But in a word - No.
We can replace "remove from the loop" with "substantially reduce the impact of parental bank balance" if we want to be more cuddly sounding. But I was wanting to make it sound more radical than it truly is so that I didn't get tagged as a moderate.
The 93% is those who do not pay school fees.
However we did use money to improve his education by going the private medecine route
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32284159
Up thread mention has been made of sons following their fathers down the pit; plenty of fathers ..... and mothers ..... said that 'no son of mine is going to have to work the way I/his father had to'.
As one set of my grandparents said.
https://twitter.com/benatipsosmori/status/1301842654741889024
But what a twat Ian Brown is, he's nearly as bad as Matt Le Tissier who is proving what a disgraceful numpty he is.
No wonder the dregs of the internet love him.
Maybe his advice will be that a bad deal is better than no deal?
Banning private schools would only make the disadvantaged worse off.
7% reduction in education spend per child
7% larger class sizes
No hope of renting a house in an area with a good school as they are snapped up by the rich so their offspring don't need to go to gastown secondary modern.
Extra money for those that used to pay school fees to spend on home education to make sure their offspring still get the best results and use up the places that some of the disadvantaged got previously in grammar and state selective schools.
Its a policy where if ever implemented you would soon be bemoaning all the unintended side affects on the worst off kids