I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.
Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.
You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.
I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.
But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.
You have a massive Nation State thing going on too. This is clear.
Actually I have a small Nation State thing going on. It's why I support Sindy etc.
Those look pretty good prices, particularly the Pfizer and moderna.
That's the dose price and for that they've got pretty rubbish delivery timeframes. The opportunity cost of securing small discounts is absolutely huge.
Taking time to negotiate a price on this while ending at the 'back of the queue' is surely a case of "knowing the price of everything but the value of nothing".
The pandemic is costing us billions a month and thousands of lives. Even if we paid $5 more per dose to get it months sooner you're talking about $200mn extra in vaccine cost but billions and thousands of lives saved.
Should surely be a no brainer?
I think we already made that point. The prices are nonetheless interesting - particularly in respect of countries to whom the price is of great significance.
They're a curious bunch. They appear to believe you can only win if you are incapable of doing any good (although not even likely to win, in this case), ergo winning is itself proof of being wrong.
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.
Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.
You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.
I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.
But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.
You have a massive Nation State thing going on too. This is clear.
Actually I have a small Nation State thing going on. It's why I support Sindy etc.
Smaller is better. Closer to the people.
Ha. Very good. But you know what I mean, I think. You're quite nationalistic.
So far, eligible people appear to be very patient waiting to hear about their COVID jab; that may reflect the older generation’s deference towards the NHS. My own Mother is adamant that she will wait to hear from her GP. However, as time passes and stories keep appearing on the news about this person and that person getting the jab, patience will begin to fade. What odds that “COVID jab” and “postcode lottery” appear in a Daily Mail headline before the year is out?
Absolutely << crucial >> to the LD's for regaining visibility and in their identity, that should say below. ID cards were another very important issue for them like this, which the Tories temporarily piggy-backed off before more common and predictable authoritarian instincts among them number started to re-enter the frame.
I've said before that the LD's biggest problem is that they are no longer third party in Parliament, so don't get 'called'. SNP are in that position, that's why we get Blackford banging on all the time. Back in the day first Jo Grimond, then Jeremy Thorpe could say something which would grab a headline.... lay down his friends for his life,........... for example. Even Cable...... Stalin to Mr Bean..... had the opportunity to do it. Now??????
What are the LDs for now? Their website still has the 2019 manifesto with its foreword by PMJS wishing to stop Brexit and build a brighter future.
Is that still the plan?
As I mentioned at the time, Layla Moran would have given much greater media-friendly quotability as a newer younger face. Because of his ties to the coalition, which still put a lot of left of centre voters off, and because Starmer is beginning to attract both left and centre-right voters, Davey needs to do a lot more to grab any attention away from the populist right. He was a very popular choice on PB as a more centre right-friendly figure, but without wanting to say I told you so, I did predict a scenario similar to the current one at the time. He could still turn it round in his tenure, because it's very early on , and he's an intelligent man who's also quite widely respected, but it's going to take a hell of a new approach.
Layla Moran's problem was that she was perceived as too "woke" and competing in that crowded segment. She might have got publicity but the wrong sort. [Is there such a thing?]
Ed Davey seems to be focussed on carers which is a deserving segment but I don't know how large it is.
That could have indeed been more of a crowded market in the Corbyn era, but I think she also would have been assumed by more voters to be occupying a social/liberal space, not just an identity/liberal space, purely because of her differing profile. These images and first- perceptions matter a lot in politics. Davey can still turn it around , but he's got a hell of a long way to go.
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.
Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.
You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.
I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.
But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.
You have a massive Nation State thing going on too. This is clear.
Actually I have a small Nation State thing going on. It's why I support Sindy etc.
Smaller is better. Closer to the people.
Ha. Very good. But you know what I mean, I think. You're quite nationalistic.
It depends upon how you define nationalism.
I think citizens of a nation should vote for that nations laws absolutely. But that's democracy not nationalism.
I also believe people should be able (within reason) to choose which nation they want to be their nation.
I despise things like birtherism. I like relatively open borders globally. Let people who want to come and become citizens of this nation.
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.
Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.
You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.
I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.
But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.
You have a massive Nation State thing going on too. This is clear.
Actually I have a small Nation State thing going on. It's why I support Sindy etc.
Smaller is better. Closer to the people.
Ha. Very good. But you know what I mean, I think. You're quite nationalistic.
It depends upon how you define nationalism.
I think citizens of a nation should vote for that nations laws absolutely. But that's democracy not nationalism.
I also believe people should be able (within reason) to choose which nation they want to be their nation.
I despise things like birtherism. I like relatively open borders globally. Let people who want to come and become citizens of this nation.
A lot, I have to say probably most, of your fellow Brexiters will be very much hoping the opposite ;.)
So far, eligible people appear to be very patient waiting to hear about their COVID jab; that may reflect the older generation’s deference towards the NHS. My own Mother is adamant that she will wait to hear from her GP. However, as time passes and stories keep appearing on the news about this person and that person getting the jab, patience will begin to fade. What odds that “COVID jab” and “postcode lottery” appear in a Daily Mail headline before the year is out?
The Coastal States a bit like no-dealers - Certainty of no fish immediately, like certainty of tariffs and quotas immediately, or possibility in future if things don't work out.
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.
Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.
You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.
I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.
But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.
You have a massive Nation State thing going on too. This is clear.
Actually I have a small Nation State thing going on. It's why I support Sindy etc.
Smaller is better. Closer to the people.
Ha. Very good. But you know what I mean, I think. You're quite nationalistic.
It depends upon how you define nationalism.
I think citizens of a nation should vote for that nations laws absolutely. But that's democracy not nationalism.
I also believe people should be able (within reason) to choose which nation they want to be their nation.
I despise things like birtherism. I like relatively open borders globally. Let people who want to come and become citizens of this nation.
Spot on. My personal view - which seems to be unpopular with both sides of the Brexit debate and is certainly a minority view - is that we should not be restricting those who want to come to this country if their intent is to become a citizen. I would not even say they need to adopt all of our traditions and customs and certainly not our religions even though I have a deep love for our customs and traditions (if not for religion in any form). There is room enough for different customs and traditions living side by side.
They would however have to adopt some of the fundamental principles and ethical positions that underlie our democracy. Belief in democracy, adherence to the law which can only be changed by the traditional means of the democratic process, acceptance of equality of gender, race, sexuality and any other equalities passed by our Parliament. Our judicial and Governmental principles (although the practices are open to debate and reform). Also absolute acceptance of freedom of speech and association and the laws and customs that underpin all these things.
This is just a list off the top of my head and I am sure there would be others. But if people are willing to accept these things and wish to become British/English/Scottish etc then I would be welcoming them.
For concrete examples I would be encouraging EU nationals to stay and be welcome. I would also welcome any from Hong Kong who wish to come here.
What is quite amusing is that at least one newspaper is misrepresenting the redacted content.
I would be interested to hear why it was redacted. Are Ministers not supposed to make political speeches?
But neither is Guido?
Anyway, why has the speech been modified? Didn't go down well?
In reporting the edited text of this speech, he is, imo - as it can be fact-checked. One thing he is good at is arsecover.
With Guido his inaccuracy imo is usually either reporting rumour without claiming it is true, or throwing in occasional exaggerations that look credible but are not enough to invest the £25k necessary to sue him.
Compare with the tabloid embroidery of the David Mellors / Antonia de Sanchez affair which added in that Mellors insisted on rumpy-pumpy wearing a Chelsea football strip. Which, whilst startling, was I think invented by Max Clifford.
Not sure why it has been modified, unless it is easily-demolishable or deemed a crossover to a party role. I would have though being character-assassinated by the Guardian would be a plus point at present.
I thought for a moment we still on the Rolling Stones debate. I mused, surely Mandy Smith is older.
Anyway age is no excuse for behaviour. Brandon Barnard, 40, recently executed by Federal Government as an accessory to murder in 2000, aged 19 at the time of the offence.
Executing her for it may be seen as somewhat harsh..
Who? Liz Truss or Mandy Smith. I told you I was confused!
Truss, for being a republican Lib Dem. It was rather treasonous behaviour but I'm prepared to forgive and forget.
I like the sound of the 19 year old Liz Truss, I was not married, sans Children and our ages are not too far apart (at a big push). I could have kept her on the straight and narrow.
Back in the day..
Looks like a young Grant Shapps with her; another of his nom de plumes?
How can any PM justify relaxing the rules in these circumstances, this is absolutely nuts.
Because schools, workplaces and other usual mixing will be closed.
And because this is a critical part of many people's mental health.
And because it is World Health Organisation advice that it is better to make informed recommendations and let people decide for themselves not to mingle than to try to over the top forbid it by law.
My prediction: this is theatrics to allow Johnson to claim the EU blinked on fish at the last minute, in order to distract from his compromise on dynamic alignment. Deal close to nailed on.
The problem is that the Brexiteers' definition of the EU blinking on fish may not match the reality. Will Johnson be able to sell a deal that his own supporters regard as a sell out?
With Labour support or even Labour abstention yes, Boris can then get a Deal through even if 50-100 Tory MPs join the DUP, the LDs, the SNP, Lucas and Plaid and vote against it
Would it be his final act as Tory leader?
No, as 2/3 of Tory MPs would still have voted for a Deal, as would his most likely replacement Rishi Sunak, so he would survive any confidence vote
Sunak? Keep up, Liz Truss is the future!
She's no Benny Hill, though, and Sunak even less so. Neither can be visualized chasing housewives on a milk float.
I think you're onto something with that btw. No kidding.
Have you not noticed the Fred Scuttle salute, gait, posture, clothing fit, and hair?
Tonight Matthew, I am Benny Hill!
Yep. It was a revelation when I saw your thesis and thought about it. It's spot on. It beats my Jimmy Savile one hands down. That was a stretch and not quite right. Again, for the sake of clarity, I consider this to be a totally serious and extremely insightful political exchange we're having here. No smiley face, note. Because it's no laughing matter. Johnson has tapped into exactly what you're describing - as Hill did - and has gained enormous success on the back of it. As Hill did.
It's this stage persona that has got him to the place in his career he has craved. I am sure he also entertains a variety of personal persona in order to achieve what he desires privately. There is very little of even the vaguest hint of Jimmy Saville malign about Johnson. Very, very little cuts through for me. Saville, by contrast, was a wicked sociopath and psychopath. Johnson I believe has sociopathic tendencies, in that he puts his own interests head and shoulders above everyone else, including loved ones, but he is no Jimmy Saville.
No, I agree. Your take is perfect. My "Savile" comparison was in allusion to people who develop a very distinct, eccentric, larger-than-life "persona" which allows them to sail through things that others could not. Allows them to deflect and confuse and entertain, all the time hiding who and what they really are. I think Johnson has that in spades, as Savile did. But I do mean just specifically that. Other than this, of course no. Any case, doesn't matter, we have this one now. Benny Hill. He's our PM. Yes he is.
The Saville stage persona and Johnson stage persona do indeed, both cut through normal expectations. Both are/were cartoon characters. I agree and don't think Johnson's undoubted cynicism can be compared to Saville's wicked malevolence.
How can any PM justify relaxing the rules in these circumstances, this is absolutely nuts.
Because schools, workplaces and other usual mixing will be closed.
And because this is a critical part of many people's mental health.
And because it is World Health Organisation advice that it is better to make informed recommendations and let people decide for themselves not to mingle than to try to over the top forbid it by law.
When a nutter tries to defend something, it only makes it seem more nuts.
Labour has recovered some of the Brexit base, I wonder how much they recover from the Tories/BXP if they vote for a Brexit deal and/or Brexit is perceived to be finished.
We discuss complicated reasons for voting Tory but frankly I think it's quite simple: Corbyn and being anti-Brexit.
Those two are removed and the polls revert to a tie, which is basically what we saw post 2017.
I'm not sure its that simple..... Labour's vote share amongst the leave demographic had been declining during the Blair era. Perception that the party does not hold the values of the working man has led to a drift towards the socially conservative spectrum. With the conservatives actively courting said voters its now gonna be difficult to lure them back.
I'm of the opinion that peak New-Labour would be unable to win in this situation. Few Scottish seats, Wales being strongly contested and a much more partisan electorate in both age, education and urbane/rural. There is an enlightening GQ interview between Campbell and Blair (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nu-J16VQho8) where Blair bemoans the strength of the press in pushing the Brexit narratives. He seems to feel betrayed by the old barons who once tacitly supported him. After Blair, Labour has no longer had their support and a decade of partisan scribblings have definitely taken their toll.
Labour need to rebuild from the communities they left behind during the 2000's. I mean prioritising candidates from the areas they lost. No more parachuting the well spoken, well educated and well meaning into places that are alien to them. I would like to see more Prescotts and less Benns.
I think localism is the future for Labour. Aping the Libs if you will. Showing the lost demographics who have been primed to hate the party that it can and will fight their corner even when not in power.
Prescotts are few and far between.
Apparently he was encouraged to try a political career by Harold McMillan, who was recuperating on a cruise at the time. Prescott was a steward and they struck up a friendship.
Comments
Smaller is better. Closer to the people.
The prices are nonetheless interesting - particularly in respect of countries to whom the price is of great significance.
I think citizens of a nation should vote for that nations laws absolutely. But that's democracy not nationalism.
I also believe people should be able (within reason) to choose which nation they want to be their nation.
I despise things like birtherism. I like relatively open borders globally. Let people who want to come and become citizens of this nation.
Gov website has apparently removed all references to the speech?
The Coastal States a bit like no-dealers - Certainty of no fish immediately, like certainty of tariffs and quotas immediately, or possibility in future if things don't work out.
https://twitter.com/Mij_Europe/status/1339962567930818562?s=20
A sixth of it has been replaced with "[political content]". See Guido of all people with the missing bits highlighted:
https://order-order.com/2020/12/18/read-the-bits-of-liz-trusss-speech-removed-from-government-website/
What is quite amusing is that at least one newspaper is misrepresenting the redacted content.
I would be interested to hear why it was redacted. Are Ministers not supposed to make political speeches?
They would however have to adopt some of the fundamental principles and ethical positions that underlie our democracy. Belief in democracy, adherence to the law which can only be changed by the traditional means of the democratic process, acceptance of equality of gender, race, sexuality and any other equalities passed by our Parliament. Our judicial and Governmental principles (although the practices are open to debate and reform). Also absolute acceptance of freedom of speech and association and the laws and customs that underpin all these things.
This is just a list off the top of my head and I am sure there would be others. But if people are willing to accept these things and wish to become British/English/Scottish etc then I would be welcoming them.
For concrete examples I would be encouraging EU nationals to stay and be welcome. I would also welcome any from Hong Kong who wish to come here.
Anyway, why has the speech been modified? Didn't go down well?
With Guido his inaccuracy imo is usually either reporting rumour without claiming it is true, or throwing in occasional exaggerations that look credible but are not enough to invest the £25k necessary to sue him.
Compare with the tabloid embroidery of the David Mellors / Antonia de Sanchez affair which added in that Mellors insisted on rumpy-pumpy wearing a Chelsea football strip. Which, whilst startling, was I think invented by Max Clifford.
Not sure why it has been modified, unless it is easily-demolishable or deemed a crossover to a party role. I would have though being character-assassinated by the Guardian would be a plus point at present.
Keir is right but he needs to go further and call for another lockdown.
How can any PM justify relaxing the rules in these circumstances, this is absolutely nuts.
And because this is a critical part of many people's mental health.
And because it is World Health Organisation advice that it is better to make informed recommendations and let people decide for themselves not to mingle than to try to over the top forbid it by law.