And the idea that the desire to become 'a part of collective' is just a modern specialty, is something I certainly disagree with. People, have always wanted to belong - that is why, we gain comfort for example, for being a part of a family, or a friendship group. This doesn't mean that people define themselves exclusively in relation to these groups, but it certainly gives them a context to situate themselves within the world. When I was in secondary school, I found that people do not want to see themselves as 'individuals', but have a deep desire to 'belong', to fit in. Much of this shapes social interaction, and behaviours at school. This pretty much continues in the work place as well. Even in our use of stereotypes - 'typical woman', or 'typical man' - and the often used 'boys will be boys' - we in inadvertently see people as part of a group.
Lots of positioning going on the Labour party. Not witnessed anything quite like this before. Genuinely toxic.
Feels like a thunderstorm is brewing.
Have you only just noticed? At some point momentum are going to have to strike. What is the point to Corbyn if they do not. He is 66 and he and they never thought they would have this chance and never should have - so its now or never. They are not going to hum and hah are they?
Neither Labour nor Conservative supporters on here understand the Liberal Democrats. Why would they? They see politics as a binary system. If you are not Tory then you must be socialist and vice versa, with Lib Dems just being a pool of Tories and socialists that haven't been separated out yet. Not the case. At all.
Lib Dems unite on human rights, internationalism, anti-authoritarianism, open government involving people in the decisions that affect them, and thinking and questioning everything, hating prejudice and privilege. We take the piss out of everything, including ourselves, and are prepared to put the work in to make a difference, No way would we fit in either Corbyn's or Blair's versions of the Labour party, or Cameron or Osborne or May's versions of the Tory party. If for no other reason than we just won't do as we're told - which is both a blessing and a curse. I'm willing to admit we may look odd to others, but we feel like a family, even if some of the family members are people we would rather have nothing to do with - they are still family.
Oh really - such a family that they lost virtually all their seats just a few months ago.
Neither Labour nor Conservative supporters on here understand the Liberal Democrats. Why would they? They see politics as a binary system. If you are not Tory then you must be socialist and vice versa, with Lib Dems just being a pool of Tories and socialists that haven't been separated out yet. Not the case. At all.
Lib Dems unite on human rights, internationalism, anti-authoritarianism, open government involving people in the decisions that affect them, and thinking and questioning everything, hating prejudice and privilege. We take the piss out of everything, including ourselves, and are prepared to put the work in to make a difference, No way would we fit in either Corbyn's or Blair's versions of the Labour party, or Cameron or Osborne or May's versions of the Tory party. If for no other reason than we just won't do as we're told - which is both a blessing and a curse. I'm willing to admit we may look odd to others, but we feel like a family, even if some of the family members are people we would rather have nothing to do with - they are still family.
Not one of those policies or principles that you name don't fit in with either Blair's Labour or Cameron's Conservatives. As a liberal Conservative I believe in human rights, internationalism, anti-authoritarianism, open government, thinking and questioning everything and hating prejudice (I only query what you mean by hating priviledge). Many on Blair's left would agree with all of those without my final caveat. That absolutely completely fits in with Cameron's Conservatives which is why the Lib Dems were consumed by the Conservatives (as happened repeatedly in the 20th century).
The only remark that reveals a true and unique nature is the "family" concept but that is neither a policy nor a principle. That is a case of being Lib Dem for the sake of being a Lib Dem in the same way as a football fan backs their "team". But that is not principled and absolutely meaningless.
If you think that Cameron's Conservatives (or to be fair Blair's Labour) mean opposing human rights, being isolationist, authoritarianism, closed government, blind obedience and prejudice then you are comparing yourself to a straw man of your own making.
So yes the Lib Dems don't have any unique selling point that you've mentioned. Your whole post confirms exactly what we were saying.
Good post @MrsB. Only on PB could you get arguments that argue Conservatives are 'the true liberals'. It's the ultimate oxymoron. The Right, I've found (especially on this site) ignore that race, gender, and age are factors which can affect - and indeed do, I've found - how someone sees their own identity and life experiences. Does it mean we should only see people through the prism of race, gender, age or religion? No. Life is more complicated than that, and people are more than just women or men, black or white, old or young, etc. Does it mean that people define themselves purely in relation to race, gender etc? No, for most people this is not the case. But I don't think it's right to not acknowledge these things as factors. And indeed all parties - even PB's beloved Conservative party - does this. They have attempted to 'reach out' for example to ethnic minority voters, for example. Acknowledging that this group - for many different reasons does not tend vote Conservative. By doing so, potentially the Conservative party hierarchy has done something many PBers may have felt uncomfortable with - labelling whole voters as a 'group', rather than just individuals. It is impossible to see people completely as individuals, much as it is excessive to see people completely as a part of a group. Even on this site, we talk about over 65s, or White Van Mans and so on.
Apocalypse,
You just don't get it, and sadly probably never will.
Lots of positioning going on the Labour party. Not witnessed anything quite like this before. Genuinely toxic.
Feels like a thunderstorm is brewing.
Have you only just noticed? At some point momentum are going to have to strike. What is the point to Corbyn if they do not. He is 66 and he and they never thought they would have this chance and never should have - so its now or never. They are not going to hum and hah are they?
Its only been a matter of weeks and there are still four and a half more years of this potentially to come. We obsessives can get impatient.
The time for momentum to strike is in a few years time following the boundary review. This is the time to consolidate and secure power.
Good post @MrsB. Only on PB could you get arguments that argue Conservatives are 'the true liberals'. It's the ultimate oxymoron. The Right, I've found (especially on this site) ignore that race, gender, and age are factors which can affect - and indeed do, I've found - how someone sees their own identity and life experiences. Does it mean we should only see people through the prism of race, gender, age or religion? No. Life is more complicated than that, and people are more than just women or men, black or white, old or young, etc. Does it mean that people define themselves purely in relation to race, gender etc? No, for most people this is not the case. But I don't think it's right to not acknowledge these things as factors. And indeed all parties - even PB's beloved Conservative party - does this. They have attempted to 'reach out' for example to ethnic minority voters, for example. Acknowledging that this group - for many different reasons does not tend vote Conservative. By doing so, potentially the Conservative party hierarchy has done something many PBers may have felt uncomfortable with - labelling whole voters as a 'group', rather than just individuals. It is impossible to see people completely as individuals, much as it is excessive to see people completely as a part of a group. Even on this site, we talk about over 65s, or White Van Mans and so on.
Apocalypse,
You just don't get it, and sadly probably never will.
Responses like this are just as bad as the Corbynites on twitter who deem anyone who doesn't agree with Jeremy Corbyn on everything as bad or evil. Since this the kind of response I have gotten though, I will say BigRich, that it is perhaps you who does not get it, and sadly probably never will.
Possible warning signs could have been the lack of a UKIP surge/Labour freefall in National VI polls.. other than that all I can say is there was not any real, hard evidence that UKIP were doing well in the area.
UKIP 5/2 to win a seat with a 25% Muslim population, that has voted for a left wing Labour MP for 30 odd years... tsk tsk tsk why aren't we all rich off the back of laying that???
I am so disciplined in ignoring rumour and anecdote in my football betting, cant believe I was swayed here (although I was still offering UKIP at best price the whole time on here and laid a fiver!)
Before the election many UKIP supporters (absolutely not you I know full well) were talking about 90+ UKIP seats. I think from memory you were optimistic for about a dozen and thinking at least 5 right?
If in a by-election (which tends to favour insurgents) against a Labour Party in crisis the seat in which UKIP scored their 66th highest share of the vote out of 650 in the General Election is clearly a UKIP lay at 5/2 then where ultimately do you think UKIP will gain large swathes of seats in? Or do you think the notion of large swathes of seats is either never going to happen or for the distant future?
I would have thought UKIP's 66th highest share out of 650 (so just outside the top ten percentile nationally) is 'doing well in the area'/
There is some speculation (not least from some quarters of PB) that interest rates will rise in due course and start to cause all sorts of economic armageddon for the Tories (usually referred to as 'Osborne' by people distracted by such prejudices). However David Smith the Sunday Times Economic Editor suggests otherwise. http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/002137.html#more He points to evidence that world wide interest rates were trending to a lower level since before the crisis. ''There is no need to get hung up on the precise numbers. The essential point is that long-term interest rates are not just low because central banks have been operating with near-zero short-term rates. They are low because of a range of factors bearing down on them, and most of those factors were in place well before the crisis.'' ''If it were a case of having to get rates up from 0.5% to 5%, they might be more impatient to get started. If it ends at 2%, they see time as on their side. It is also why, despite a lot of scepticism about such guidance, it seems reasonable to accept the Bank’s line that interest rates will peak at much lower levels than in the past.'' ''Finally, that wait for the Bank to unwind its £375bn of quantitative easing will be a long one. We know now that it will not happen until Bank rate reaches 2%. Not so long ago that would have been a mere staging post for interest rates. Now it starts to look like the final destination.''
If the above is true then the next election will be fought against a backdrop of about 2% interest rates. Not bad news for the tories, sorry, 'Osborne'.
Good post @MrsB. Only on PB could you get arguments that argue Conservatives are 'the true liberals'. It's the ultimate oxymoron. The Right, I've found (especially on this site) ignore that race, gender, and age are factors which can affect - and indeed do, I've found - how someone sees their own identity and life experiences. Does it mean we should only see people through the prism of race, gender, age or religion? No. Life is more complicated than that, and people are more than just women or men, black or white, old or young, etc. Does it mean that people define themselves purely in relation to race, gender etc? No, for most people this is not the case. But I don't think it's right to not acknowledge these things as factors. And indeed all parties - even PB's beloved Conservative party - does this. They have attempted to 'reach out' for example to ethnic minority voters, for example. Acknowledging that this group - for many different reasons does not tend vote Conservative. By doing so, potentially the Conservative party hierarchy has done something many PBers may have felt uncomfortable with - labelling whole voters as a 'group', rather than just individuals. It is impossible to see people completely as individuals, much as it is excessive to see people completely as a part of a group. Even on this site, we talk about over 65s, or White Van Mans and so on.
Apocalypse,
You just don't get it, and sadly probably never will.
Responses like this are just as bad as the Corbynites on twitter who deem anyone who doesn't agree with Jeremy Corbyn on everything as bad or evil. Since this the kind of response I have gotten though, I will say BigRich, that it is perhaps you who does not get it, and sadly probably never will.
Saying you "don't get it" is equivalent to saying you are "bad or evil". OK then ...*rolleyes*
Good post @MrsB. Only on PB could you get arguments that argue Conservatives are 'the true liberals'. It's the ultimate oxymoron. The Right, I've found (especially on this site) ignore that race, gender, and age are factors which can affect - and indeed do, I've found - how someone sees their own identity and life experiences. Does it mean we should only see people through the prism of race, gender, age or religion? No. Life is more complicated than that, and people are more than just women or men, black or white, old or young, etc. Does it mean that people define themselves purely in relation to race, gender etc? No, for most people this is not the case. But I don't think it's right to not acknowledge these things as factors. And indeed all parties - even PB's beloved Conservative party - does this. They have attempted to 'reach out' for example to ethnic minority voters, for example. Acknowledging that this group - for many different reasons does not tend vote Conservative. By doing so, potentially the Conservative party hierarchy has done something many PBers may have felt uncomfortable with - labelling whole voters as a 'group', rather than just individuals. It is impossible to see people completely as individuals, much as it is excessive to see people completely as a part of a group. Even on this site, we talk about over 65s, or White Van Mans and so on.
Apocalypse,
You just don't get it, and sadly probably never will.
Responses like this are just as bad as the Corbynites on twitter who deem anyone who doesn't agree with Jeremy Corbyn on everything as bad or evil. Since this the kind of response I have gotten though, I will say BigRich, that it is perhaps you who does not get it, and sadly probably never will.
Saying you "don't get it" is equivalent to saying you are "bad or evil". OK then ...*rolleyes*
*Side-eyeing*
The point I was trying to make it is that both are essentially dismissive responses, which do not engage with alternative arguments. In some sense PB reminds me of twitter. Twitter is full of left-wing activists going 'I am right, everyone else is wrong.' Swap left-wing for right-wing, and PB at times is just as bad.
Possible warning signs could have been the lack of a UKIP surge/Labour freefall in National VI polls.. other than that all I can say is there was not any real, hard evidence that UKIP were doing well in the area.
UKIP 5/2 to win a seat with a 25% Muslim population, that has voted for a left wing Labour MP for 30 odd years... tsk tsk tsk why aren't we all rich off the back of laying that???
I am so disciplined in ignoring rumour and anecdote in my football betting, cant believe I was swayed here (although I was still offering UKIP at best price the whole time on here and laid a fiver!)
Before the election many UKIP supporters (absolutely not you I know full well) were talking about 90+ UKIP seats. I think from memory you were optimistic for about a dozen and thinking at least 5 right?
If in a by-election (which tends to favour insurgents) against a Labour Party in crisis the seat in which UKIP scored their 66th highest share of the vote out of 650 in the General Election is clearly a UKIP lay at 5/2 then where ultimately do you think UKIP will gain large swathes of seats in? Or do you think the notion of large swathes of seats is either never going to happen or for the distant future?
I would have thought UKIP's 66th highest share out of 650 (so just outside the top ten percentile nationally) is 'doing well in the area'/
Yeah I thought UKIP would get 5 seats at the GE... I was certain they'd get 12-13% of the vote and extrapolated from that... wrongly!
But this seat never struck me as a possible gain. Fair enough, UKIP went from 3% in 2010 to 20% in May, but the large Muslim population meant the ceiling was much lower for UKIP than many other places where they got a lower % at the GE
I don't know that UKIP will ever get large swathes of seats to be honest. Without really thinking about it, I just don't see it happening and never really have. Much in the same way as I think Corbyn will never be PM.. I know the odds say there is a better than 10% chance, but it seems so far fetched I dismiss the possibility
If we are talking regions of the country, I would still say Essex and Kent are the most likely for UKIP. I live in Essex and they are pretty popular here.
Ms. Apocalypse, I think that's a common problem in politics. It's easy to dismiss the other side as brainless or heartless, and take to take an attack on a party or position as an attack on one's moral standing [occasionally this is the case].
Whilst often mistaken for a Conservative (or Kipper), not having a dog in the fight makes things easier, I think. As per F1.
@paulwaugh: Jeremy Corbyn backs Stop The War's 'vital, democratic' campaign and WILL go to its Xmas fundraiser. HuffPost latest: https://t.co/2mywgbGW8S
Good post @MrsB. Only on PB could you get arguments that argue Conservatives are 'the true liberals'. It's the ultimate oxymoron. The Right, I've found (especially on this site) ignore that race, gender, and age are factors which can affect - and indeed do, I've found - how someone sees their own identity and life experiences. Does it mean we should only see people through the prism of race, gender, age or religion? No. Life is more complicated than that, and people are more than just women or men, black or white, old or young, etc. Does it mean that people define themselves purely in relation to race, gender etc? No, for most people this is not the case. But I don't think it's right to not acknowledge these things as factors. And indeed all parties - even PB's beloved Conservative party - does this. They have attempted to 'reach out' for example to ethnic minority voters, for example. Acknowledging that this group - for many different reasons does not tend vote Conservative. By doing so, potentially the Conservative party hierarchy has done something many PBers may have felt uncomfortable with - labelling whole voters as a 'group', rather than just individuals. It is impossible to see people completely as individuals, much as it is excessive to see people completely as a part of a group. Even on this site, we talk about over 65s, or White Van Mans and so on.
Apocalypse,
You just don't get it, and sadly probably never will.
Responses like this are just as bad as the Corbynites on twitter who deem anyone who doesn't agree with Jeremy Corbyn on everything as bad or evil. Since this the kind of response I have gotten though, I will say BigRich, that it is perhaps you who does not get it, and sadly probably never will.
Saying you "don't get it" is equivalent to saying you are "bad or evil". OK then ...*rolleyes*
*Side-eyeing*
The point I was trying to make it is that both are essentially dismissive responses, which do not engage with alternative arguments. In some sense PB reminds me of twitter. Twitter is full of left-wing activists going 'I am right, everyone else is wrong.' Swap left-wing for right-wing, and PB at times is just as bad.
Except that on PB people have repeatedly engaged you and you are just totally dismissive and trite. So ultimately what goes around comes around.
Or was your totally dismissing the idea of Conservatives as liberals as "the ultimate oxymoron" without any argument as to why mere posts after both I and CornishBlue had both written posts as to why its not an oxymoron meant to be taken remotely seriously? If you want to be taken seriously, how about you act seriously and not dismissive of others?
Neither Labour nor Conservative supporters on here understand the Liberal Democrats. Why would they? They see politics as a binary system. If you are not Tory then you must be socialist and vice versa, with Lib Dems just being a pool of Tories and socialists that haven't been separated out yet. Not the case. At all.
Not one of those policies or principles that you name don't fit in with either Blair's Labour or Cameron's Conservatives. As a liberal Conservative I believe in human rights, internationalism, anti-authoritarianism, open government, thinking and questioning everything and hating prejudice (I only query what you mean by hating priviledge). Many on Blair's left would agree with all of those without my final caveat. That absolutely completely fits in with Cameron's Conservatives which is why the Lib Dems were consumed by the Conservatives (as happened repeatedly in the 20th century).
The only remark that reveals a true and unique nature is the "family" concept but that is neither a policy nor a principle. That is a case of being Lib Dem for the sake of being a Lib Dem in the same way as a football fan backs their "team". But that is not principled and absolutely meaningless.
If you think that Cameron's Conservatives (or to be fair Blair's Labour) mean opposing human rights, being isolationist, authoritarianism, closed government, blind obedience and prejudice then you are comparing yourself to a straw man of your own making.
So yes the Lib Dems don't have any unique selling point that you've mentioned. Your whole post confirms exactly what we were saying.
I think both your and @MrsB's posts confirms that individuals may believe in very similar things and yet be in different parties.
This is hardly unusual as both the politically aware and voters are often wedded to labels and affiliations without which they would agree on vast areas of policy without quibble. The Coalition government was a prime example of this where politicians were forced into bed and consummated the marriage with ease for five years.
On the divorce in May the voters rewarded the Conservative with the house and the LibDems with all the bills.
Good post @MrsB. Only on PB could you get arguments that argue Conservatives are 'the true liberals'. It's the ultimate oxymoron. The Right, I've found (especially on this site) ignore that race, gender, and age are factors which can affect - and indeed do, I've found - how someone sees their own identity and life experiences. Does it mean we should only see people through the prism of race, gender, age or religion? No. Life is more complicated than that, and people are more than just women or men, black or white, old or young, etc. Does it mean that people define themselves purely in relation to race, gender etc? No, for most people this is not the case. But I don't think it's right to not acknowledge these things as factors. And indeed all parties - even PB's beloved Conservative party - does this. They have attempted to 'reach out' for example to ethnic minority voters, for example. Acknowledging that this group - for many different reasons does not tend vote Conservative. By doing so, potentially the Conservative party hierarchy has done something many PBers may have felt uncomfortable with - labelling whole voters as a 'group', rather than just individuals. It is impossible to see people completely as individuals, much as it is excessive to see people completely as a part of a group. Even on this site, we talk about over 65s, or White Van Mans and so on.
Apocalypse,
You just don't get it, and sadly probably never will.
Responses like this are just as bad as the Corbynites on twitter who deem anyone who doesn't agree with Jeremy Corbyn on everything as bad or evil. Since this the kind of response I have gotten though, I will say BigRich, that it is perhaps you who does not get it, and sadly probably never will.
Saying you "don't get it" is equivalent to saying you are "bad or evil". OK then ...*rolleyes*
*Side-eyeing*
The point I was trying to make it is that both are essentially dismissive responses, which do not engage with alternative arguments. In some sense PB reminds me of twitter. Twitter is full of left-wing activists going 'I am right, everyone else is wrong.' Swap left-wing for right-wing, and PB at times is just as bad.
How many death threats, misogyny and vicious swearing examples do you see on the typical PB thread? The site is largely pretty civilised.
oh what a surprise. The non-Lib Dems on here despise the Liberal Democrats and think we are pointless.
Tell me, from my posts on here do you think I would fit into either the Labour party or the Conservative party?*
*QTWTAIN
We may amount to little more than an awkward squad to many of you but there will always be a need for the grit in the oyster, even if we remain a minority party for ever.
@paulwaugh: Jeremy Corbyn backs Stop The War's 'vital, democratic' campaign and WILL go to its Xmas fundraiser. HuffPost latest: https://t.co/2mywgbGW8S
Excellent - the shambles continues as JC learns all the wrong lessons from Oldham.
Except that on PB people have repeatedly engaged you and you are just totally dismissive and trite. So ultimately what goes around comes around.
Or was your totally dismissing the idea of Conservatives as liberals as "the ultimate oxymoron" a few posts without any argument after I and CornishBlue had both written posts as to why its not an oxymoron meant to be taken remotely seriously? If you want to be taken seriously, how about you act seriously and not dismissive of others?
Wow, I've upset someone with a critical observation of this site.
I guess we have redefined 'disagreeing' as 'dismissive' and 'trite'. And neither you nor CornishBlue actually did explain as to why Conservatives being 'liberals' was not an oxymoron. There was simply a mocking on the politics of the Left, and declaration that Conservatives are the 'true liberals'. That is hardly an explanation. So as you say, what goes around does indeed come around. I at least attempted to explain my position.
For the most part on PB, I've found that 'engaging' has be re-defined as telling people why they are wrong, and why the Conservative party and the Right, are always right.
This incidentally wasn't about me being taken seriously or not, you've created your own strawman argument there, I'm afraid.
There are many, many problems in the world. Growing population in a world of fast falling birth rates is not the highest priority.
Have you seen the birthrates across much of Africa? They're very high and not falling... Africa is going to be a colossal disaster zone (more so than it is now) and it's main export in the future will be people.... hundreds of millions of poor, unskilled people....
Outside a few trouble spots, Africa is booming. It's widely considered to be 'the next Asia', now manufacturing wages are getting too high in China. Lots of multinational companies are working out their entrance plan as we speak. Just look at the GDP growth rates: Kenya 6%, Tanzania 7%, Ethiopia 11%.
I look forward to that converting into lower birth rates. However I fear there is a cultural aspect to the problem that is overlooked/not wished to be looked into.
oh what a surprise. The non-Lib Dems on here despise the Liberal Democrats and think we are pointless.
Tell me, from my posts on here do you think I would fit into either the Labour party or the Conservative party?*
*QTWTAIN
We may amount to little more than an awkward squad to many of you but there will always be a need for the grit in the oyster, even if we remain a minority party for ever.
Who said despise?
Do I think you would fit in? Yes. Yes I do.
You're starting to morph from talking like any football fan, to a stereotypical Millwall fan specifically. Have you got an actual policy or principle for the country you believe in that doesn't fit in with either of the main parties?
@paulwaugh: Jeremy Corbyn backs Stop The War's 'vital, democratic' campaign and WILL go to its Xmas fundraiser. HuffPost latest: https://t.co/2mywgbGW8S
Excellent - the shambles continues as JC learns all the wrong lessons from Oldham.
oh what a surprise. The non-Lib Dems on here despise the Liberal Democrats and think we are pointless.
Tell me, from my posts on here do you think I would fit into either the Labour party or the Conservative party?*
*QTWTAIN
We may amount to little more than an awkward squad to many of you but there will always be a need for the grit in the oyster, even if we remain a minority party for ever.
Actually these days you are somewhat less than an awkward squad. That's kinda the whole point.
oh what a surprise. The non-Lib Dems on here despise the Liberal Democrats and think we are pointless.
Tell me, from my posts on here do you think I would fit into either the Labour party or the Conservative party?*
*QTWTAIN
We may amount to little more than an awkward squad to many of you but there will always be a need for the grit in the oyster, even if we remain a minority party for ever.
Its a pointless grit in the oyster. Remind me of the pearls that have emerged.
@felix I've seen plently of insults exchanged on PB. They may not come in the form of misogyny and death threats, but they are insults nonetheless. In a recent discussion this week there is a tendency for some to be all too patronising on topics that they either aren't interest in/don't know about, or aren't directly related to the Conservative party.
And neither you nor CornishBlue actually did explain as to why Conservatives being 'liberals' was not an oxymoron.
Ms Apocalypse, the onus to provide evidence for a statement is on the person who makes it, not the person who queries it. It's seems an extremely odd statement to me, but perhaps you have some reason to make it.
If you want me to take the article seriously then you should not start with a bogus graphic showing an incorrect figure of 17,322. Jim McMahon got 17,209 votes.
Except that on PB people have repeatedly engaged you and you are just totally dismissive and trite. So ultimately what goes around comes around.
Or was your totally dismissing the idea of Conservatives as liberals as "the ultimate oxymoron" a few posts without any argument after I and CornishBlue had both written posts as to why its not an oxymoron meant to be taken remotely seriously? If you want to be taken seriously, how about you act seriously and not dismissive of others?
Wow, I've upset someone with a critical observation of this site.
I guess we have redefined 'disagreeing' as 'dismissive' and 'trite'. And neither you nor CornishBlue actually did explain as to why Conservatives being 'liberals' was not an oxymoron. There was simply a mocking on the politics of the Left, and declaration that Conservatives are the 'true liberals'. That is hardly an explanation. So as you say, what goes around does indeed come around. I at least attempted to explain my position.
For the most part on PB, I've found that 'engaging' has be re-defined as telling people why they are wrong, and why the Conservative party and the Right, are always right.
This incidentally wasn't about me being taken seriously or not, you've created your own strawman argument there, I'm afraid.
Yes I did explain (as did CornishBlue) why being a Conservative liberal is not an oxymoron. It is a principle of belief in the individual, both economically and socially. We went into some detail about that on principles ... How did you explain yours? You just dismissed it matter of factly, if you think there is an oxymoron then where is it?
@felix I've seen plently of insults exchanged on PB. They may not come in the form of misogyny and death threats, but they are insults nonetheless. In a recent discussion this week there is a tendency for some to be all too patronising on topics that they either aren't interest in/don't know about, or aren't directly related to the Conservative party.
oh what a surprise. The non-Lib Dems on here despise the Liberal Democrats and think we are pointless.
Tell me, from my posts on here do you think I would fit into either the Labour party or the Conservative party?*
*QTWTAIN
We may amount to little more than an awkward squad to many of you but there will always be a need for the grit in the oyster, even if we remain a minority party for ever.
Actually these days you are somewhat less than an awkward squad. That's kinda the whole point.
Ms. Apocalypse, one hopes you're not referring to those shining beacons of intellectual rigour: classical history and F1.
It's worth noting that the site's composition does alter over time. It is very blue right now. Partly that's because many lefties have run away after the dire electoral results this year. It's also become more purple in the last 3 years or so.
The Conservatives will collapse at some point, and then I imagine it'll become redder again, as it was when I first joined in 2007.
And neither you nor CornishBlue actually did explain as to why Conservatives being 'liberals' was not an oxymoron.
Ms Apocalypse, the onus to provide evidence for a statement is on the person who makes it, not the person who queries it. It's seems an extremely odd statement to me, but perhaps you have some reason to make it.
Well, clearly Philip_Thompson does think that. After all, he stated that he and CornishBlue had explained why being a liberal and a Conservative was not an oxymoron, as you can see in his previous post.
Or was your totally dismissing the idea of Conservatives as liberals as "the ultimate oxymoron" without any argument as to why mere posts after both I and CornishBlue had both written posts as to why its not an oxymoron meant to be taken remotely seriously? If you want to be taken seriously, how about you act seriously and not dismissive of others?
Well, clearly Philip_Thompson does think that. After all, he stated that he and CornishBlue had explained why being a liberal and a Conservative was not an oxymoron, as you can see in his previous post.
Very generous of him, but we haven't heard why you think it is an oxymoron.
Ms. Apocalypse, one hopes you're not referring to those shining beacons of intellectual rigour: classical history and F1.
It's worth noting that the site's composition does alter over time. It is very blue right now. Partly that's because many lefties have run away after the dire electoral results this year. It's also become more purple in the last 3 years or so.
The Conservatives will collapse at some point, and then I imagine it'll become redder again, as it was when I first joined in 2007.
If the conservatives are to collapse - who will be the next Labour PM? We need to be told!
And neither you nor CornishBlue actually did explain as to why Conservatives being 'liberals' was not an oxymoron.
Ms Apocalypse, the onus to provide evidence for a statement is on the person who makes it, not the person who queries it. It's seems an extremely odd statement to me, but perhaps you have some reason to make it.
Well, clearly Philip_Thompson does think that. After all, he stated that he and CornishBlue had explained why being a liberal and a Conservative was not an oxymoron, as you can see in his previous post.
Or was your totally dismissing the idea of Conservatives as liberals as "the ultimate oxymoron" without any argument as to why mere posts after both I and CornishBlue had both written posts as to why its not an oxymoron meant to be taken remotely seriously? If you want to be taken seriously, how about you act seriously and not dismissive of others?
I was merely replying to what he had written.
Yes and I did. There is no oxymoron in believing in the power of the individual both socially and economically. That is liberal, that is Conservative, that is consistent. For more detail read what we wrote earlier.
But yes if you want to claim it is an oxymoron the onus would be on you to demonstrate some contradiction. You have not done so.
Ms. Apocalypse, one hopes you're not referring to those shining beacons of intellectual rigour: classical history and F1.
It's worth noting that the site's composition does alter over time. It is very blue right now. Partly that's because many lefties have run away after the dire electoral results this year. It's also become more purple in the last 3 years or so.
The Conservatives will collapse at some point, and then I imagine it'll become redder again, as it was when I first joined in 2007.
If the conservatives are to collapse - who will be the next Labour PM? We need to be told!
I hear there was a baby born yesterday, it could be them?
Well, clearly Philip_Thompson does think that. After all, he stated that he and CornishBlue had explained why being a liberal and a Conservative was not an oxymoron, as you can see in his previous post.
Very generous of him, but we haven't heard why you think it is an oxymoron.
oh what a surprise. The non-Lib Dems on here despise the Liberal Democrats and think we are pointless.
Tell me, from my posts on here do you think I would fit into either the Labour party or the Conservative party?*
*QTWTAIN
We may amount to little more than an awkward squad to many of you but there will always be a need for the grit in the oyster, even if we remain a minority party for ever.
Its a pointless grit in the oyster. Remind me of the pearls that have emerged.
Apocalypse. Classical liberalism, a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.
So, few laws and parliamentary systems of government. Which is where the problems with the EC start.
Possible warning signs could have been the lack of a UKIP surge/Labour freefall in National VI polls.. other than that all I can say is there was not any real, hard evidence that UKIP were doing well in the area.
UKIP 5/2 to win a seat with a 25% Muslim population, that has voted for a left wing Labour MP for 30 odd years... tsk tsk tsk why aren't we all rich off the back of laying that???
I am so disciplined in ignoring rumour and anecdote in my football betting, cant believe I was swayed here (although I was still offering UKIP at best price the whole time on here and laid a fiver!)
Before the election many UKIP supporters (absolutely not you I know full well) were talking about 90+ UKIP seats. I think from memory you were optimistic for about a dozen and thinking at least 5 right?
If in a by-election (which tends to favour insurgents) against a Labour Party in crisis the seat in which UKIP scored their 66th highest share of the vote out of 650 in the General Election is clearly a UKIP lay at 5/2 then where ultimately do you think UKIP will gain large swathes of seats in? Or do you think the notion of large swathes of seats is either never going to happen or for the distant future?
I would have thought UKIP's 66th highest share out of 650 (so just outside the top ten percentile nationally) is 'doing well in the area'/
Yeah I thought UKIP would get 5 seats at the GE... I was certain they'd get 12-13% of the vote and extrapolated from that... wrongly!
But this seat never struck me as a possible gain. Fair enough, UKIP went from 3% in 2010 to 20% in May, but the large Muslim population meant the ceiling was much lower for UKIP than many other places where they got a lower % at the GE
I don't know that UKIP will ever get large swathes of seats to be honest. Without really thinking about it, I just don't see it happening and never really have. Much in the same way as I think Corbyn will never be PM.. I know the odds say there is a better than 10% chance, but it seems so far fetched I dismiss the possibility
If we are talking regions of the country, I would still say Essex and Kent are the most likely for UKIP. I live in Essex and they are pretty popular here.
I would have expected an easy Labour hold, if we had not had all the reports of voters turning away from Labour.
Like you, I thought UKIP's vote share in May would result in 4-6 seats.
Thanks for sharing the link. I can't help but feel that there is some official misinformation going on in this article. Perhaps hiding a source already in Raqqa or maybe to get jihadists patrolling the scrubland around the city where they can be more easily picked off by drones or something.
Yes, I don't believe that is quite how it went down. It sounds very much like a "map" out of the new Tom Clancy Rainbow Six Siege computer game.
Mr Thompson - I hope you didn't go in too deep on Liverpool for the league....
LOL I'm a jinx right? Nah a tenner at 11/1. Still think that's value, I never said we should be odds on!
Football is a funny game - one of the most in form sides against one of the most out of form sides. Today demonstrated the sort of problems Liverpool could face if teams play deep against them.
Responses like this are just as bad as the Corbynites on twitter who deem anyone who doesn't agree with Jeremy Corbyn on everything as bad or evil. Since this the kind of response I have gotten though, I will say BigRich, that it is perhaps you who does not get it, and sadly probably never will.
I seem to have hit a nerve. I will try to explain and from there you can tell me if you understand.
you seem to condone, and least some to and so some extend seeing somebody as part of a group and not as the individual they are. The problem with this are many, but high amongst this is the that when you define a group, you instantly also define who is not in it, and this group identity politicise becomes very poisons, and can tern people who are originally good and well meaning bad. both the NAZIs and The communists started of defining themselves in the interest of a group, the German people, or the working class, so far so simple, but then to explane away anything bad that happened there leaders had to start criticising others who are not in the group, and call them oppresses, as time goes on and the leaders fail to provide the utopian society they have created, the blame shifting builds and critasimum become dangerous.
When Feminism started, it advocated for the removal of obstacles to some people who happened to be women, e.g. access to university's, certain careers, and impotently the Vote, this equality was a good thing and was supported and opposed, to some degree by both Men and woman.
This was all a good thing, and has achieved (almost) all its original objectives, and this can be seen in that the pay gap between 'unmarred and no children' has disappeared woman between the ages of 21 and 29 now actually earn slitiley more than men. However some politicians and public fingers, try to invoke 'feminism' and persuade people they are being discriminated against, when they are not, in order to gain the support of woman, this in my opinion is creating more division and disharmony in society than needs to be there, and is provoking 'men's rights' groups. this has the potential to escalate, and I don't want that.
Right I have tried to explain, and given one example, I don't know if you will now 'get it', but don't say I haven't tried.
Yes I did explain (as did CornishBlue) why being a Conservative liberal is not an oxymoron. It is a principle of belief in the individual, both economically and socially. We went into some detail about that on principles ... How did you explain yours? You just dismissed it matter of factly, if you think there is an oxymoron then where is it?
That is a vague statement. What does a belief in the individual 'both economically and socially' actually entail. I don't see the 'detail' on the principle being discussed, but rather extensive criticism on what you both seem to regard as a collectivist modern culture.
In relation to my point, I was referring to my argument on the individualist vs collectivist (as a way of seeing point). Liberalism and Conservativism are historically two contradictory ideologies - therefore it serves that a 'liberal conservative' is an oxymoron.
I've found that often, Conservatives have a contempt for social liberalism, regarding it as 'socialist'. They instead, identify with a liberalism last embraced by liberals centuries ago - classical liberalism, because of its small state ideology. That is how they argue they are 'liberal' conservatives. But that already shows a direct contradiction between Conservatism and modern-day liberalism. It seems appropriate for liberals, and those who have historically aligned with liberal parties to define what is liberal, as opposed to Conservatives, in harking back to an ideology that was of its time (classical liberalism), but in not one which is suited to a modern Britain were we all now demand that the state does more than just the basics, but provides an education and healthcare service, for example.
Yes and I did. There is no oxymoron in believing in the power of the individual both socially and economically. That is liberal, that is Conservative, that is consistent. For more detail read what we wrote earlier.
It may not be an oxymoron but it is utterly untrue. At best the ridiculousness of FPTP has forced both Liberal and Conservative Parties to move away from their ideological roots and embrace some behaviours and beliefs which are not innately true of their philosophy.
Personal and economic freedom are not conservative values in any way at all. They are liberal values and liberal values alone and require the necessary radical thought to achieve them.
The clue about Tories is in the name. They are conservative and their core belief is that what has happened before has, generally, been effective and as little as possible should be changed, the status quo should be defended.
FPTP has forced liberalism into the Conservative Party but this does not change the core conservative dogma.
Low tax is a liberal philosophy incorporated into the Tories by those who bring liberal values with them but have no prospect of power in the Liberal Party (or as it is now the Lib Dems).
The same is true of support for free trade, personal freedom, opposition to conscription, localism and all manner of concepts which are associated today with the Conservative Party but are not even remotely conservative in nature.
Well, clearly Philip_Thompson does think that. After all, he stated that he and CornishBlue had explained why being a liberal and a Conservative was not an oxymoron, as you can see in his previous post.
Very generous of him, but we haven't heard why you think it is an oxymoron.
He can't explain because it isn't.
It is not a he, it is a she. Also please see my recent post, and also @Richard_Nabavi too. @TCPoliticalBetting I knew that classical liberalism would be mentioned (see my previous post).
OT: A devastating day in Cumbria, it's not pleasant. The flooding seems worse than that happened in 2005. The expensive flood defences were ultimately overwhelmed with the volume of water. So much pain for so many.
Re the growth figures for African countries. Given the massive levels of corruption, more record keeping and general mismanagement by the ruling classes in many African countries, do we actually believe those figures? Nobody believes the Chinese figures in terms of actual % that the government pumps out.
Possible warning signs could have been the lack of a UKIP surge/Labour freefall in National VI polls.. other than that all I can say is there was not any real, hard evidence that UKIP were doing well in the area.
UKIP 5/2 to win a seat with a 25% Muslim population, that has voted for a left wing Labour MP for 30 odd years... tsk tsk tsk why aren't we all rich off the back of laying that???
I am so disciplined in ignoring rumour and anecdote in my football betting, cant believe I was swayed here (although I was still offering UKIP at best price the whole time on here and laid a fiver!)
Before the election many UKIP supporters (absolutely not you I know full well) were talking about 90+ UKIP seats. I think from memory you were optimistic for about a dozen and thinking at least 5 right?
If in a by-election (which tends to favour insurgents) against a Labour Party in crisis the seat in which UKIP scored their 66th highest share of the vote out of 650 in the General Election is clearly a UKIP lay at 5/2 then where ultimately do you think UKIP will gain large swathes of seats in? Or do you think the notion of large swathes of seats is either never going to happen or for the distant future?
I would have thought UKIP's 66th highest share out of 650 (so just outside the top ten percentile nationally) is 'doing well in the area'/
Yeah I thought UKIP would get 5 seats at the GE... I was certain they'd get 12-13% of the vote and extrapolated from that... wrongly!
But this seat never struck me as a possible gain. Fair enough, UKIP went from 3% in 2010 to 20% in May, but the large Muslim population meant the ceiling was much lower for UKIP than many other places where they got a lower % at the GE
I don't know that UKIP will ever get large swathes of seats to be honest. Without really thinking about it, I just don't see it happening and never really have. Much in the same way as I think Corbyn will never be PM.. I know the odds say there is a better than 10% chance, but it seems so far fetched I dismiss the possibility
If we are talking regions of the country, I would still say Essex and Kent are the most likely for UKIP. I live in Essex and they are pretty popular here.
I would have expected an easy Labour hold, if we had not had all the reports of voters turning away from Labour.
Like you, I thought UKIP's vote share in May would result in 4-6 seats.
If I remember correctly I bet on UKIP getting between 3-4 seats. Something along the lines of Clacton, Thurrock and something else from Rochester & Strood, Castle Point and Boston & Skegness. I didn't fancy Farage's chances so bet on the Tories winning South Thanet.
Yes I did explain (as did CornishBlue) why being a Conservative liberal is not an oxymoron. It is a principle of belief in the individual, both economically and socially. We went into some detail about that on principles ... How did you explain yours? You just dismissed it matter of factly, if you think there is an oxymoron then where is it?
That is a vague statement. What does a belief in the individual 'both economically and socially' actually entail. I don't see the 'detail' on the principle being discussed, but rather extensive criticism on what you both seem to regard as a collectivist modern culture.
In relation to my point, I was referring to my argument on the individualist vs collectivist (as a way of seeing point). Liberalism and Conservativism are historically two contradictory ideologies - therefore it serves that a 'liberal conservative' is an oxymoron.
I've found that often, Conservatives have a contempt for social liberalism, regarding it as 'socialist'. They instead, identify with a liberalism last embraced by liberals centuries ago - classical liberalism, because of its small state ideology. That is how they argue they are 'liberal' conservatives. But that already shows a direct contradiction between Conservatism and modern-day liberalism. It seems appropriate for liberals, and those who have historically aligned with liberal parties to define what is liberal, as opposed to Conservatives, in harking back to an ideology that was of its time (classical liberalism), but in not one which is suited to a modern Britain were we all now demand that the state does more than just the basics, but provides an education and healthcare service, for example.
Just out of interest, when you say "social liberalism" do you mean a laissez-faire approach to social policy, or do you mean active intervention by the government to provide welfare and other services?
OT: A devastating day in Cumbria, it's not pleasant. The flooding seems worse than that happened in 2005. The expensive flood defences were ultimately overwhelmed with the volume of water. So much pain for so many.
I wonder if Cameron will pledge that "money is no object" this time, or if that is only reserved for when the pampered Southern darlings suffer.
I don't see anything particularly bizarre about Philip Thomson's views.
The fact is that Liberalism and Conservatism are both broad churches, who's meaning has evolved over time. I would argue that Mrs Thatcher was a Gladstonian liberal, for example.
OT: A devastating day in Cumbria, it's not pleasant. The flooding seems worse than that happened in 2005. The expensive flood defences were ultimately overwhelmed with the volume of water. So much pain for so many.
I wonder if Cameron will pledge that "money is no object" this time, or if that is only reserved for when the pampered Southern darlings get much milder flooding as they did in early 2014.
Massively important marginal in Carlisle, as well as a top target of Barrow, and on a good night maybe Copeland
That is a vague statement. What does a belief in the individual 'both economically and socially' actually entail. I don't see the 'detail' on the principle being discussed, but rather extensive criticism on what you both seem to regard as a collectivist modern culture.
In relation to my point, I was referring to my argument on the individualist vs collectivist (as a way of seeing point). Liberalism and Conservativism are historically two contradictory ideologies - therefore it serves that a 'liberal conservative' is an oxymoron.
It's not an oxymoron. It is an incoherent non-sequitor. And it is one of the many contradictions created by FPTP. The Conservative Party of today is not conservative in a great many respects. That those tend to be values that human beings generally find appealling, it is common for Tories to embrace their liberal side and pretend that those liberal values are Tory.
Of course they are not. They are merely a marriage of convenience, enforced by a broken voting system. Toryism is about maintaining the status quo and is inherently linked to ensuring the inherited wealth and social inequality is maintained.
It is incoherent, inconsistent and contradictory. But it is not an oxymoron.
OT: A devastating day in Cumbria, it's not pleasant. The flooding seems worse than that happened in 2005. The expensive flood defences were ultimately overwhelmed with the volume of water. So much pain for so many.
I wonder if Cameron will pledge that "money is no object" this time, or if that is only reserved for when the pampered Southern darlings get much milder flooding as they did in early 2014.
Massively important marginal in Carlisle, as well as a top target of Barrow, and on a good night maybe Copeland
oh what a surprise. The non-Lib Dems on here despise the Liberal Democrats and think we are pointless.
Tell me, from my posts on here do you think I would fit into either the Labour party or the Conservative party?*
*QTWTAIN
We may amount to little more than an awkward squad to many of you but there will always be a need for the grit in the oyster, even if we remain a minority party for ever.
As a Non Lib Dem, I certainly do not despise you or your party, quite the opposed, when you joined the coalition in 2010, you did the right thing for the contrary and put national interest before party interest, and you deserve a lot of respect and admiration for this. while I am pleased that the Conservatives gained seats at the GE, it is still sad that more cam from your party than Labour.
When you see somebody who seems to 'get it' and says things you agree with, it is natural to try to recruit them to your 'party' but I really hope you don't think this is meant to be dismissive or an insult. its not meant that way.
Toryism is about maintaining the status quo and is inherently linked to ensuring the inherited wealth and social inequality is maintained.
Ah, one of those who thinks Margaret Thatcher wasn't a Conservative.
Well, it's a view, I suppose. If you choose a nonsensical definition, and say that anyone who doesn't meet it is not a 'Conservative', then you are going to be hard to argue with!
OT: A devastating day in Cumbria, it's not pleasant. The flooding seems worse than that happened in 2005. The expensive flood defences were ultimately overwhelmed with the volume of water. So much pain for so many.
I wonder if Cameron will pledge that "money is no object" this time, or if that is only reserved for when the pampered Southern darlings get much milder flooding as they did in early 2014.
Massively important marginal in Carlisle, as well as a top target of Barrow, and on a good night maybe Copeland
We had the 'money no object' in 2006. They got state of the art flood defences....
I have always thought that Conservatives could be liberals. What I have always understood Conservatism to be is the advocacy of sound money, a small state and the rights of the individual - that can lead you to an authoritarian view of the world or a very liberal one. I disagree with it because I think it ignores too many experiences, such as mine - which is that it is only through focusing on collective action and wealth redistribution that you get real, sustainable equality of opportunity. It is that belief which I think puts me to the left of centre. Collective action for me is not the dictatorship of the proletariat, but an interventionist, active state.
Well, clearly Philip_Thompson does think that. After all, he stated that he and CornishBlue had explained why being a liberal and a Conservative was not an oxymoron, as you can see in his previous post.
Very generous of him, but we haven't heard why you think it is an oxymoron.
He can't explain because it isn't.
It is not a he, it is a she. Also please see my recent post, and also @Richard_Nabavi too. @TCPoliticalBetting I knew that classical liberalism would be mentioned (see my previous post).
You wrote "as opposed to Conservatives, in harking back to an ideology that was of its time (classical liberalism), but in not one which is suited to a modern Britain were we all now demand that the state does more than just the basics, but provides an education and healthcare service, for example. " First your original point was how could Conservatives claim to be liberal and bemoaned no examples. You now state "a modern Britain w(h)ere we all now demand that the state does more than just the basics, " But not all of us demand more than the basics. Many of us want more personal responsibility and state funding limited to a genuine and need not a right irrespective of personal actions and decisions. For example, if I choose to have 10 kids, why should the state fund my choice? Or if I chose to have tatoos, why must the state pay for their removal?
I don't see anything particularly bizarre about Philip Thomson's views.
The fact is that Liberalism and Conservatism are both broad churches, who's meaning has evolved over time. I would argue that Mrs Thatcher was a Gladstonian liberal, for example.
Really Thatcher was both and is probably one of the best examples of being a modern Conservative (with a capital C) by incorporating both liberal and conservative (small C) values.
It is certainly a strong argument that most of her economic focus was classic liberalism. But it is also possible to argue that much of it was reversing Radical change in the UK economy between the 1950s and 1970s - which is classic conservatism.
Yes I did explain (as did CornishBlue) why being a Conservative liberal is not an oxymoron. It is a principle of belief in the individual, both economically and socially. We went into some detail about that on principles ... How did you explain yours? You just dismissed it matter of factly, if you think there is an oxymoron then where is it?
That is a vague statement. What does a belief in the individual 'both economically and socially' actually entail. I don't see the 'detail' on the principle being discussed, but rather extensive criticism on what you both seem to regard as a collectivist modern culture.
In relation to my point, I was referring to my argument on the individualist vs collectivist (as a way of seeing point). Liberalism and Conservativism are historically two contradictory ideologies - therefore it serves that a 'liberal conservative' is an oxymoron.
I've found that often, Conservatives have a contempt for social liberalism, regarding it as 'socialist'. They instead, identify with a liberalism last embraced by liberals centuries ago - classical liberalism, because of its small state ideology. That is how they argue they are 'liberal' conservatives. But that already shows a direct contradiction between Conservatism and modern-day liberalism. It seems appropriate for liberals, and those who have historically aligned with liberal parties to define what is liberal, as opposed to Conservatives, in harking back to an ideology that was of its time (classical liberalism), but in not one which is suited to a modern Britain were we all now demand that the state does more than just the basics, but provides an education and healthcare service, for example.
Actually the difference between classic Conservatives and classic Liberals were very minor in comparison to the difference between them and Socialists which is why the two old parties effectively merged when the Socialists appeared.
If by social liberalism you mean the freedom to do what you want so long as it doesn't harm others, the freedom to sleep with who you want (so long as they're a consenting adult) etc, etc then I agree with all that. If you mean vast welfare payments etc then that is socialism and not liberalism.
Classic liberalism is what it means to be liberal so yes that is what I mean. If you really mean what is actually socialism but prefer to use the word liberal as socialism is tarnished then no I don't believe that! Thankfully it isn't what the word means and socialism has its own word to define its philosophy though so that's not a problem.
If you can hang fire on the Tory/Liberal discussion for a few mins, I've got a new thread coming up that you can discuss that on, and it might be relevant to that topic
OT: A devastating day in Cumbria, it's not pleasant. The flooding seems worse than that happened in 2005. The expensive flood defences were ultimately overwhelmed with the volume of water. So much pain for so many.
I wonder if Cameron will pledge that "money is no object" this time, or if that is only reserved for when the pampered Southern darlings suffer.
Carlisle flooded 10 years ago. It has since had £30m+ spent to reduce that risk. Questions need to be asked about how that has been spent and WTF the local Council has done in those 10 years. People need to be held accountable.
The problem is you define 'getting it' as agreeing with your perspective, and therefore exclude other perspectives on the matter as having any kind of insight whatsoever. You have not hit a nerve, primarily because this a view that I encounter on PB all the time. As I stated previously, we see people as part of groups in everyday life all the time. We see people as part of friendship groups, as part of families. Even in the terms we use - women, ethnic minorities, men, Christians etc - we acknowledge people, by courtesy of gender, race or religion as belonging to a group in some way. I do not believe, as you appear to argue that this is as dangerous as Nazism and communism. Where group 'politics' becomes dangerous is when it is used in a divisive manner - where we begin to see people purely as members of a group, as opposed to individuals as well. It is that, that leads to divide and rule. But I have never met a woman, whose gender did not in some way, or form affect her identity. I cannot say that it has not affected mine whatsoever.
I should reiterate previously, I do not believe in seeing people purely in the context of a group. A woman is as much an individual as she is a woman, for example.
I also do not accept that Feminism has achieved almost all of its objectives. Feminism's prime objective is the achievement of equality. The things you have listed are things, which have contributed to the advancement of that cause, but we are not at the point of equality yet - not in the Western World, and certainly not in many other places in the world either. In regard to the politicians you mention. I would need to see the context for that statement.
OT: A devastating day in Cumbria, it's not pleasant. The flooding seems worse than that happened in 2005. The expensive flood defences were ultimately overwhelmed with the volume of water. So much pain for so many.
I wonder if Cameron will pledge that "money is no object" this time, or if that is only reserved for when the pampered Southern darlings suffer.
Carlisle flooded 10 years ago. It has since had £30m+ spent to reduce that risk. Questions need to be asked about how that has been spent and WTF the local Council has done in those 10 years. People need to be held accountable.
It is the fault of global warming, if people didn't dismiss the existence of it, people might fully comprehend it.
Toryism is about maintaining the status quo and is inherently linked to ensuring the inherited wealth and social inequality is maintained.
Ah, one of those who thinks Margaret Thatcher wasn't a Conservative.
Well, it's a view, I suppose. If you choose a nonsensical definition, and say that anyone who doesn't meet it is not a 'Conservative', then you are going to be hard to argue with!
I don't think Conservatism is about preserving the status quo in aspic. It's more that things have to change if they're to stay the same.
But, protecting inherited wealth is surely a core part of Conservatism?
OT: A devastating day in Cumbria, it's not pleasant. The flooding seems worse than that happened in 2005. The expensive flood defences were ultimately overwhelmed with the volume of water. So much pain for so many.
I wonder if Cameron will pledge that "money is no object" this time, or if that is only reserved for when the pampered Southern darlings suffer.
Carlisle flooded 10 years ago. It has since had £30m+ spent to reduce that risk. Questions need to be asked about how that has been spent and WTF the local Council has done in those 10 years. People need to be held accountable.
It is the fault of global warming, if people didn't dismiss the existence of it, people might fully comprehend it.
Toryism is about maintaining the status quo and is inherently linked to ensuring the inherited wealth and social inequality is maintained.
Ah, one of those who thinks Margaret Thatcher wasn't a Conservative.
Well, it's a view, I suppose. If you choose a nonsensical definition, and say that anyone who doesn't meet it is not a 'Conservative', then you are going to be hard to argue with!
I don't think Conservatism is about preserving the status quo in aspic. It's more that things have to change if they're to stay the same.
But, protecting inherited wealth is surely a core part of Conservatism?
And property rights. I'd say a right to roam - which I support - is not Conservative.
OT: A devastating day in Cumbria, it's not pleasant. The flooding seems worse than that happened in 2005. The expensive flood defences were ultimately overwhelmed with the volume of water. So much pain for so many.
I wonder if Cameron will pledge that "money is no object" this time, or if that is only reserved for when the pampered Southern darlings suffer.
Carlisle flooded 10 years ago. It has since had £30m+ spent to reduce that risk. Questions need to be asked about how that has been spent and WTF the local Council has done in those 10 years. People need to be held accountable.
It is the fault of global warming, if people didn't dismiss the existence of it, people might fully comprehend it.
Chortle. Clearly Carlisle has never flooded before...
OT: A devastating day in Cumbria, it's not pleasant. The flooding seems worse than that happened in 2005. The expensive flood defences were ultimately overwhelmed with the volume of water. So much pain for so many.
I wonder if Cameron will pledge that "money is no object" this time, or if that is only reserved for when the pampered Southern darlings suffer.
Carlisle flooded 10 years ago. It has since had £30m+ spent to reduce that risk. Questions need to be asked about how that has been spent and WTF the local Council has done in those 10 years. People need to be held accountable.
It is the fault of global warming, if people didn't dismiss the existence of it, people might fully comprehend it.
Lazy politician answer, non of the science shows increasing extremes in weather and storms as a result of the warming of 0.02 deg C we have seen in the last eighteen years.
OT: A devastating day in Cumbria, it's not pleasant. The flooding seems worse than that happened in 2005. The expensive flood defences were ultimately overwhelmed with the volume of water. So much pain for so many.
I wonder if Cameron will pledge that "money is no object" this time, or if that is only reserved for when the pampered Southern darlings get much milder flooding as they did in early 2014.
Massively important marginal in Carlisle, as well as a top target of Barrow, and on a good night maybe Copeland
We had the 'money no object' in 2006. They got state of the art flood defences....
Well it rained more that they forecasted in the worst case scenario of 2006. Same excuse for the Japanese Tsunami when it overwhelmed their defences too.
OT: A devastating day in Cumbria, it's not pleasant. The flooding seems worse than that happened in 2005. The expensive flood defences were ultimately overwhelmed with the volume of water. So much pain for so many.
I wonder if Cameron will pledge that "money is no object" this time, or if that is only reserved for when the pampered Southern darlings suffer.
Carlisle flooded 10 years ago. It has since had £30m+ spent to reduce that risk. Questions need to be asked about how that has been spent and WTF the local Council has done in those 10 years. People need to be held accountable.
It is the fault of global warming, if people didn't dismiss the existence of it, people might fully comprehend it.
so you want poor countries to stay poor.
Some countries have to take one for the planet (and humanity)
OT: A devastating day in Cumbria, it's not pleasant. The flooding seems worse than that happened in 2005. The expensive flood defences were ultimately overwhelmed with the volume of water. So much pain for so many.
I wonder if Cameron will pledge that "money is no object" this time, or if that is only reserved for when the pampered Southern darlings suffer.
Carlisle flooded 10 years ago. It has since had £30m+ spent to reduce that risk. Questions need to be asked about how that has been spent and WTF the local Council has done in those 10 years. People need to be held accountable.
It is the fault of global warming, if people didn't dismiss the existence of it, people might fully comprehend it.
No it is clearly the fault of the Environmental Agency and the local Council who clearly have no clue how to spend millions to avoid flooding.
OT: A devastating day in Cumbria, it's not pleasant. The flooding seems worse than that happened in 2005. The expensive flood defences were ultimately overwhelmed with the volume of water. So much pain for so many.
I wonder if Cameron will pledge that "money is no object" this time, or if that is only reserved for when the pampered Southern darlings suffer.
Carlisle flooded 10 years ago. It has since had £30m+ spent to reduce that risk. Questions need to be asked about how that has been spent and WTF the local Council has done in those 10 years. People need to be held accountable.
It is the fault of global warming, if people didn't dismiss the existence of it, people might fully comprehend it.
so you want poor countries to stay poor.
Some countries have to take one for the planet (and humanity)
Socialism is not big welfare payments, it is the collective ownership of the means of production and the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is Jeremy Corbyn's wettest dream. You can believe in generous welfare payments without being a socialist.
OT: A devastating day in Cumbria, it's not pleasant. The flooding seems worse than that happened in 2005. The expensive flood defences were ultimately overwhelmed with the volume of water. So much pain for so many.
I wonder if Cameron will pledge that "money is no object" this time, or if that is only reserved for when the pampered Southern darlings suffer.
Carlisle flooded 10 years ago. It has since had £30m+ spent to reduce that risk. Questions need to be asked about how that has been spent and WTF the local Council has done in those 10 years. People need to be held accountable.
It is the fault of global warming, if people didn't dismiss the existence of it, people might fully comprehend it.
so you want poor countries to stay poor.
Acknowledging the existence of global warming does not mean we need to go down the extremist Greenpeace anti-development back to the stone age claptrap to prevent it.
If we acknowledge a problem exists then we can look for a solution and more than one solution may be appropriate. I don't believe preventing global warming at all costs is the only solution - realising changes can happen and learning to adapt to climate change is another. Some climate change might be a price worth paying for development but then we need to pay the price of dealing with the risks of floods etc - the Netherlands is a nation largely built on flood plains without actually flooding. We could learn some lessons there.
OT: A devastating day in Cumbria, it's not pleasant. The flooding seems worse than that happened in 2005. The expensive flood defences were ultimately overwhelmed with the volume of water. So much pain for so many.
I wonder if Cameron will pledge that "money is no object" this time, or if that is only reserved for when the pampered Southern darlings get much milder flooding as they did in early 2014.
Massively important marginal in Carlisle, as well as a top target of Barrow, and on a good night maybe Copeland
We had the 'money no object' in 2006. They got state of the art flood defences....
Well it rained more that they forecasted in the worst case scenario of 2006. Same excuse for the Japanese Tsunami when it overwhelmed their defences too.
A foot of water in 24 hours is not an unreasonable forecast. It has happened to me several times.
OT: A devastating day in Cumbria, it's not pleasant. The flooding seems worse than that happened in 2005. The expensive flood defences were ultimately overwhelmed with the volume of water. So much pain for so many.
I wonder if Cameron will pledge that "money is no object" this time, or if that is only reserved for when the pampered Southern darlings suffer.
Carlisle flooded 10 years ago. It has since had £30m+ spent to reduce that risk. Questions need to be asked about how that has been spent and WTF the local Council has done in those 10 years. People need to be held accountable.
It is the fault of global warming, if people didn't dismiss the existence of it, people might fully comprehend it.
so you want poor countries to stay poor.
Acknowledging the existence of global warming does not mean we need to go down the extremist Greenpeace anti-development back to the stone age claptrap to prevent it.
If we acknowledge a problem exists then we can look for a solution and more than one solution may be appropriate. I don't believe preventing global warming at all costs is the only solution - realising changes can happen and learning to adapt to climate change is another. Some climate change might be a price worth paying for development but then we need to pay the price of dealing with the risks of floods etc - the Netherlands is a nation largely built on flood plains without actually flooding. We could learn some lessons there.
OT: A devastating day in Cumbria, it's not pleasant. The flooding seems worse than that happened in 2005. The expensive flood defences were ultimately overwhelmed with the volume of water. So much pain for so many.
I wonder if Cameron will pledge that "money is no object" this time, or if that is only reserved for when the pampered Southern darlings suffer.
Carlisle flooded 10 years ago. It has since had £30m+ spent to reduce that risk. Questions need to be asked about how that has been spent and WTF the local Council has done in those 10 years. People need to be held accountable.
It is the fault of global warming, if people didn't dismiss the existence of it, people might fully comprehend it.
No it is clearly the fault of the Environmental Agency and the local Council who clearly have no clue how to spend millions to avoid flooding.
Some rivers in England burst their banks more often than the Mississippi river, that is a cause for an investigation at least.
OT: A devastating day in Cumbria, it's not pleasant. The flooding seems worse than that happened in 2005. The expensive flood defences were ultimately overwhelmed with the volume of water. So much pain for so many.
I wonder if Cameron will pledge that "money is no object" this time, or if that is only reserved for when the pampered Southern darlings suffer.
Carlisle flooded 10 years ago. It has since had £30m+ spent to reduce that risk. Questions need to be asked about how that has been spent and WTF the local Council has done in those 10 years. People need to be held accountable.
It is the fault of global warming, if people didn't dismiss the existence of it, people might fully comprehend it.
Lazy politician answer, non of the science shows increasing extremes in weather and storms as a result of the warming of 0.02 deg C we have seen in the last eighteen years.
18 years ago was a peak. That is manipulative cherrypicking.
OT: A devastating day in Cumbria, it's not pleasant. The flooding seems worse than that happened in 2005. The expensive flood defences were ultimately overwhelmed with the volume of water. So much pain for so many.
I wonder if Cameron will pledge that "money is no object" this time, or if that is only reserved for when the pampered Southern darlings get much milder flooding as they did in early 2014.
Massively important marginal in Carlisle, as well as a top target of Barrow, and on a good night maybe Copeland
We had the 'money no object' in 2006. They got state of the art flood defences....
Well it rained more that they forecasted in the worst case scenario of 2006. Same excuse for the Japanese Tsunami when it overwhelmed their defences too.
A foot of water in 24 hours is not an unreasonable forecast. It has happened to me several times.
OT: A devastating day in Cumbria, it's not pleasant. The flooding seems worse than that happened in 2005. The expensive flood defences were ultimately overwhelmed with the volume of water. So much pain for so many.
I wonder if Cameron will pledge that "money is no object" this time, or if that is only reserved for when the pampered Southern darlings suffer.
Carlisle flooded 10 years ago. It has since had £30m+ spent to reduce that risk. Questions need to be asked about how that has been spent and WTF the local Council has done in those 10 years. People need to be held accountable.
It is the fault of global warming, if people didn't dismiss the existence of it, people might fully comprehend it.
so you want poor countries to stay poor.
Acknowledging the existence of global warming does not mean we need to go down the extremist Greenpeace anti-development back to the stone age claptrap to prevent it.
If we acknowledge a problem exists then we can look for a solution and more than one solution may be appropriate. I don't believe preventing global warming at all costs is the only solution - realising changes can happen and learning to adapt to climate change is another. Some climate change might be a price worth paying for development but then we need to pay the price of dealing with the risks of floods etc - the Netherlands is a nation largely built on flood plains without actually flooding. We could learn some lessons there.
Thde issue isn't the problem it's what causes it.
The issue is both. If flooding is a risk we need to plan to prevent it. If climate change means flooding will be more of a risk then we should plan for the future and do more than the bare minimum which is necessary today.
Toryism is about maintaining the status quo and is inherently linked to ensuring the inherited wealth and social inequality is maintained.
Ah, one of those who thinks Margaret Thatcher wasn't a Conservative.
Well, it's a view, I suppose. If you choose a nonsensical definition, and say that anyone who doesn't meet it is not a 'Conservative', then you are going to be hard to argue with!
I don't think Conservatism is about preserving the status quo in aspic. It's more that things have to change if they're to stay the same.
But, protecting inherited wealth is surely a core part of Conservatism?
Not in the sense of protecting individual families. At its core what matters is protecting the inherited wealth of the nation as a whole, in the economic, cultural and historical spheres. Conservatism is about preventing decline rather than inhibiting progress, whereas progressivism does not admit that decline is possible or relevant.
OT: A devastating day in Cumbria, it's not pleasant. The flooding seems worse than that happened in 2005. The expensive flood defences were ultimately overwhelmed with the volume of water. So much pain for so many.
I wonder if Cameron will pledge that "money is no object" this time, or if that is only reserved for when the pampered Southern darlings suffer.
Carlisle flooded 10 years ago. It has since had £30m+ spent to reduce that risk. Questions need to be asked about how that has been spent and WTF the local Council has done in those 10 years. People need to be held accountable.
It is the fault of global warming, if people didn't dismiss the existence of it, people might fully comprehend it.
so you want poor countries to stay poor.
Some countries have to take one for the planet (and humanity)
That is a vague statement. What does a belief in the individual 'both economically and socially' actually entail. I don't see the 'detail' on the principle being discussed, but rather extensive criticism on what you both seem to regard as a collectivist modern culture.
In relation to my point, I was referring to my argument on the individualist vs collectivist (as a way of seeing point). Liberalism and Conservativism are historically two contradictory ideologies - therefore it serves that a 'liberal conservative' is an oxymoron.
It's not an oxymoron. It is an incoherent non-sequitor. And it is one of the many contradictions created by FPTP. The Conservative Party of today is not conservative in a great many respects. That those tend to be values that human beings generally find appealling, it is common for Tories to embrace their liberal side and pretend that those liberal values are Tory.
Of course they are not. They are merely a marriage of convenience, enforced by a broken voting system. Toryism is about maintaining the status quo and is inherently linked to ensuring the inherited wealth and social inequality is maintained.
It is incoherent, inconsistent and contradictory. But it is not an oxymoron.
Good post, Over time party's change, they meander, things come in and out of fanon, and as there opponents change so donse positioning and emphasis. the influx of Liberal Unionise and National Unionists about 100 years ago started a change in the conservative party that is still playing out.
For a few decades now the conservative party could be defined as Liberal on economic policy, i.e. free markets, free trade, non intervention, low and flatter taxes. while at the same time being authoritarian on civil matters, e.g. resistant to Gay Marriage, or legalised Pot, and in favour of Conscription.
As Milton Freedman, discussed in his book, Capitalism and Freedom, economic policy tends to lead civil policy in the same direction.
The legalisation of Gay Marage, was I think a very public demonstration of these trends, which I truly hope will continue.
Toryism is about maintaining the status quo and is inherently linked to ensuring the inherited wealth and social inequality is maintained.
Ah, one of those who thinks Margaret Thatcher wasn't a Conservative.
Well, it's a view, I suppose. If you choose a nonsensical definition, and say that anyone who doesn't meet it is not a 'Conservative', then you are going to be hard to argue with!
I don't think Conservatism is about preserving the status quo in aspic. It's more that things have to change if they're to stay the same.
But, protecting inherited wealth is surely a core part of Conservatism?
Not in the sense of protecting individual families. At its core what matters is protecting the inherited wealth of the nation as a whole, in the economic, cultural and historical spheres. Conservatism is about preventing decline rather than inhibiting progress, whereas progressivism does not admit that decline is possible or relevant.
Conservatives are generally hostile to Inheritance taxes.
@Social liberalism: Lassiez-faire would be classical liberalism. Social liberalism can refer to government intervention in providing services, but it can also refer to attitudes of acceptance and equality in regard to race, gender and religion too.
@TCPoliticalBetting Some might not, but I would say the vast majority in this country expect the government to provide education for their children, and healthcare for them and their family. I would also say that the vast majority expect some kind of welfare state. They may support a smaller welfare state in terms of less unemployment, housing benefit, but I don't think removing the state pension for example, would go down too well.
@Philip_Thompson When you refer to parties merging do you mean the whole fall-out from the Liberal-Conservative coalition in the early 1900s? If so, Socialism had emerged well before that in the 1800s. Nonetheless, your post proves my point. Conservatives feel that they can be 'liberal' Conservatives, because they have sought to define liberalism as 'classical liberalism' - a liberalism from a world which is completely different to ours, and and a product of its time. Liberalism, like many ideologies changes and adapts for its time. That is why, Liberals realised that the state needed to help the poor in the early 1900s, and this continued into the 1940s.
Social Liberalism is the liberalism of William Beveridge. It is as much about freedom of the individual, as the achievement of equality - seen the Liberal Government of the early 1900s, which introduced the foundations of the welfare state.
Again, I have to argue: who are Conservatives to argue that 'classical' liberalism is true liberalism? Gladstone, one of the greatest liberals of British political history, started off as a classical liberal but later in life became a social liberal. Why is the judgement of that great liberal, alongside the rest of British Liberalism in the last 100 years, super-ceded by Conservatives?
What’s this? An SNP MP campaigning against tax avoidance schemes is revealed to have benefitted from a scheme that could have been used to minimise tax. The Mail on Sunday Scottish edition alleges that Phil Boswell enjoyed an £18,000 interest free loan via an employment contract. These activities are entirely legal, but awkwardly Boswell has made much of campaigning against them since becoming an MP in May. His explanation is a corker: “After finding myself previously employed in such a contract, I decided to utilise my knowledge and experience in my new role as an MP to highlight treasury management issues.”
Comments
At some point momentum are going to have to strike. What is the point to Corbyn if they do not. He is 66 and he and they never thought they would have this chance and never should have - so its now or never. They are not going to hum and hah are they?
The only remark that reveals a true and unique nature is the "family" concept but that is neither a policy nor a principle. That is a case of being Lib Dem for the sake of being a Lib Dem in the same way as a football fan backs their "team". But that is not principled and absolutely meaningless.
If you think that Cameron's Conservatives (or to be fair Blair's Labour) mean opposing human rights, being isolationist, authoritarianism, closed government, blind obedience and prejudice then you are comparing yourself to a straw man of your own making.
So yes the Lib Dems don't have any unique selling point that you've mentioned. Your whole post confirms exactly what we were saying.
You just don't get it, and sadly probably never will.
The time for momentum to strike is in a few years time following the boundary review. This is the time to consolidate and secure power.
If in a by-election (which tends to favour insurgents) against a Labour Party in crisis the seat in which UKIP scored their 66th highest share of the vote out of 650 in the General Election is clearly a UKIP lay at 5/2 then where ultimately do you think UKIP will gain large swathes of seats in? Or do you think the notion of large swathes of seats is either never going to happen or for the distant future?
I would have thought UKIP's 66th highest share out of 650 (so just outside the top ten percentile nationally) is 'doing well in the area'/
However David Smith the Sunday Times Economic Editor suggests otherwise.
http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/002137.html#more
He points to evidence that world wide interest rates were trending to a lower level since before the crisis.
''There is no need to get hung up on the precise numbers. The essential point is that long-term interest rates are not just low because central banks have been operating with near-zero short-term rates. They are low because of a range of factors bearing down on them, and most of those factors were in place well before the crisis.''
''If it were a case of having to get rates up from 0.5% to 5%, they might be more impatient to get started. If it ends at 2%, they see time as on their side. It is also why, despite a lot of scepticism about such guidance, it seems reasonable to accept the Bank’s line that interest rates will peak at much lower levels than in the past.''
''Finally, that wait for the Bank to unwind its £375bn of quantitative easing will be a long one. We know now that it will not happen until Bank rate reaches 2%. Not so long ago that would have been a mere staging post for interest rates. Now it starts to look like the final destination.''
If the above is true then the next election will be fought against a backdrop of about 2% interest rates. Not bad news for the tories, sorry, 'Osborne'.
The point I was trying to make it is that both are essentially dismissive responses, which do not engage with alternative arguments. In some sense PB reminds me of twitter. Twitter is full of left-wing activists going 'I am right, everyone else is wrong.' Swap left-wing for right-wing, and PB at times is just as bad.
But this seat never struck me as a possible gain. Fair enough, UKIP went from 3% in 2010 to 20% in May, but the large Muslim population meant the ceiling was much lower for UKIP than many other places where they got a lower % at the GE
I don't know that UKIP will ever get large swathes of seats to be honest. Without really thinking about it, I just don't see it happening and never really have. Much in the same way as I think Corbyn will never be PM.. I know the odds say there is a better than 10% chance, but it seems so far fetched I dismiss the possibility
If we are talking regions of the country, I would still say Essex and Kent are the most likely for UKIP. I live in Essex and they are pretty popular here.
Whilst often mistaken for a Conservative (or Kipper), not having a dog in the fight makes things easier, I think. As per F1.
Or was your totally dismissing the idea of Conservatives as liberals as "the ultimate oxymoron" without any argument as to why mere posts after both I and CornishBlue had both written posts as to why its not an oxymoron meant to be taken remotely seriously? If you want to be taken seriously, how about you act seriously and not dismissive of others?
This is hardly unusual as both the politically aware and voters are often wedded to labels and affiliations without which they would agree on vast areas of policy without quibble. The Coalition government was a prime example of this where politicians were forced into bed and consummated the marriage with ease for five years.
On the divorce in May the voters rewarded the Conservative with the house and the LibDems with all the bills.
Tell me, from my posts on here do you think I would fit into either the Labour party or the Conservative party?*
*QTWTAIN
We may amount to little more than an awkward squad to many of you but there will always be a need for the grit in the oyster, even if we remain a minority party for ever.
I guess we have redefined 'disagreeing' as 'dismissive' and 'trite'. And neither you nor CornishBlue actually did explain as to why Conservatives being 'liberals' was not an oxymoron. There was simply a mocking on the politics of the Left, and declaration that Conservatives are the 'true liberals'. That is hardly an explanation. So as you say, what goes around does indeed come around. I at least attempted to explain my position.
For the most part on PB, I've found that 'engaging' has be re-defined as telling people why they are wrong, and why the Conservative party and the Right, are always right.
This incidentally wasn't about me being taken seriously or not, you've created your own strawman argument there, I'm afraid.
Do I think you would fit in? Yes. Yes I do.
You're starting to morph from talking like any football fan, to a stereotypical Millwall fan specifically. Have you got an actual policy or principle for the country you believe in that doesn't fit in with either of the main parties?
It's worth noting that the site's composition does alter over time. It is very blue right now. Partly that's because many lefties have run away after the dire electoral results this year. It's also become more purple in the last 3 years or so.
The Conservatives will collapse at some point, and then I imagine it'll become redder again, as it was when I first joined in 2007.
But yes if you want to claim it is an oxymoron the onus would be on you to demonstrate some contradiction. You have not done so.
And who said Labour would replace them?
Classical liberalism, a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.
So, few laws and parliamentary systems of government. Which is where the problems with the EC start.
Like you, I thought UKIP's vote share in May would result in 4-6 seats.
you seem to condone, and least some to and so some extend seeing somebody as part of a group and not as the individual they are. The problem with this are many, but high amongst this is the that when you define a group, you instantly also define who is not in it, and this group identity politicise becomes very poisons, and can tern people who are originally good and well meaning bad. both the NAZIs and The communists started of defining themselves in the interest of a group, the German people, or the working class, so far so simple, but then to explane away anything bad that happened there leaders had to start criticising others who are not in the group, and call them oppresses, as time goes on and the leaders fail to provide the utopian society they have created, the blame shifting builds and critasimum become dangerous.
When Feminism started, it advocated for the removal of obstacles to some people who happened to be women, e.g. access to university's, certain careers, and impotently the Vote, this equality was a good thing and was supported and opposed, to some degree by both Men and woman.
This was all a good thing, and has achieved (almost) all its original objectives, and this can be seen in that the pay gap between 'unmarred and no children' has disappeared woman between the ages of 21 and 29 now actually earn slitiley more than men. However some politicians and public fingers, try to invoke 'feminism' and persuade people they are being discriminated against, when they are not, in order to gain the support of woman, this in my opinion is creating more division and disharmony in society than needs to be there, and is provoking 'men's rights' groups. this has the potential to escalate, and I don't want that.
Right I have tried to explain, and given one example, I don't know if you will now 'get it', but don't say I haven't tried.
In relation to my point, I was referring to my argument on the individualist vs collectivist (as a way of seeing point). Liberalism and Conservativism are historically two contradictory ideologies - therefore it serves that a 'liberal conservative' is an oxymoron.
I've found that often, Conservatives have a contempt for social liberalism, regarding it as 'socialist'. They instead, identify with a liberalism last embraced by liberals centuries ago - classical liberalism, because of its small state ideology. That is how they argue they are 'liberal' conservatives. But that already shows a direct contradiction between Conservatism and modern-day liberalism. It seems appropriate for liberals, and those who have historically aligned with liberal parties to define what is liberal, as opposed to Conservatives, in harking back to an ideology that was of its time (classical liberalism), but in not one which is suited to a modern Britain were we all now demand that the state does more than just the basics, but provides an education and healthcare service, for example.
Personal and economic freedom are not conservative values in any way at all. They are liberal values and liberal values alone and require the necessary radical thought to achieve them.
The clue about Tories is in the name. They are conservative and their core belief is that what has happened before has, generally, been effective and as little as possible should be changed, the status quo should be defended.
FPTP has forced liberalism into the Conservative Party but this does not change the core conservative dogma.
Low tax is a liberal philosophy incorporated into the Tories by those who bring liberal values with them but have no prospect of power in the Liberal Party (or as it is now the Lib Dems).
The same is true of support for free trade, personal freedom, opposition to conscription, localism and all manner of concepts which are associated today with the Conservative Party but are not even remotely conservative in nature.
A devastating day in Cumbria, it's not pleasant. The flooding seems worse than that happened in 2005. The expensive flood defences were ultimately overwhelmed with the volume of water. So much pain for so many.
I don't see anything particularly bizarre about Philip Thomson's views.
The fact is that Liberalism and Conservatism are both broad churches, who's meaning has evolved over time. I would argue that Mrs Thatcher was a Gladstonian liberal, for example.
@joshrogin
Hillary: "The nuclear option should not be taken off the table." .... "Oh, the military option, thank you." #Saban15
Of course they are not. They are merely a marriage of convenience, enforced by a broken voting system. Toryism is about maintaining the status quo and is inherently linked to ensuring the inherited wealth and social inequality is maintained.
It is incoherent, inconsistent and contradictory. But it is not an oxymoron.
When you see somebody who seems to 'get it' and says things you agree with, it is natural to try to recruit them to your 'party' but I really hope you don't think this is meant to be dismissive or an insult. its not meant that way.
Well, it's a view, I suppose. If you choose a nonsensical definition, and say that anyone who doesn't meet it is not a 'Conservative', then you are going to be hard to argue with!
First your original point was how could Conservatives claim to be liberal and bemoaned no examples.
You now state "a modern Britain w(h)ere we all now demand that the state does more than just the basics, " But not all of us demand more than the basics. Many of us want more personal responsibility and state funding limited to a genuine and need not a right irrespective of personal actions and decisions. For example, if I choose to have 10 kids, why should the state fund my choice? Or if I chose to have tatoos, why must the state pay for their removal?
Man charged with malicious communications by police investigating Facebook messages sent to UK MP
http://bbc.in/1Nzwpal
It is certainly a strong argument that most of her economic focus was classic liberalism. But it is also possible to argue that much of it was reversing Radical change in the UK economy between the 1950s and 1970s - which is classic conservatism.
If by social liberalism you mean the freedom to do what you want so long as it doesn't harm others, the freedom to sleep with who you want (so long as they're a consenting adult) etc, etc then I agree with all that. If you mean vast welfare payments etc then that is socialism and not liberalism.
Classic liberalism is what it means to be liberal so yes that is what I mean. If you really mean what is actually socialism but prefer to use the word liberal as socialism is tarnished then no I don't believe that! Thankfully it isn't what the word means and socialism has its own word to define its philosophy though so that's not a problem.
The problem is you define 'getting it' as agreeing with your perspective, and therefore exclude other perspectives on the matter as having any kind of insight whatsoever. You have not hit a nerve, primarily because this a view that I encounter on PB all the time. As I stated previously, we see people as part of groups in everyday life all the time. We see people as part of friendship groups, as part of families. Even in the terms we use - women, ethnic minorities, men, Christians etc - we acknowledge people, by courtesy of gender, race or religion as belonging to a group in some way. I do not believe, as you appear to argue that this is as dangerous as Nazism and communism. Where group 'politics' becomes dangerous is when it is used in a divisive manner - where we begin to see people purely as members of a group, as opposed to individuals as well. It is that, that leads to divide and rule. But I have never met a woman, whose gender did not in some way, or form affect her identity. I cannot say that it has not affected mine whatsoever.
I should reiterate previously, I do not believe in seeing people purely in the context of a group. A woman is as much an individual as she is a woman, for example.
I also do not accept that Feminism has achieved almost all of its objectives. Feminism's prime objective is the achievement of equality. The things you have listed are things, which have contributed to the advancement of that cause, but we are not at the point of equality yet - not in the Western World, and certainly not in many other places in the world either. In regard to the politicians you mention. I would need to see the context for that statement.
But, protecting inherited wealth is surely a core part of Conservatism?
http://www.geography.org.uk/resources/flooding/carlisle
So much for the pumping stations setup for Carlisle 5+ years ago.
https://environmentagency.blog.gov.uk/2015/01/08/10-years-on-from-the-cumbrian-and-carlisle-floods-of-2005/
Same excuse for the Japanese Tsunami when it overwhelmed their defences too.
If we acknowledge a problem exists then we can look for a solution and more than one solution may be appropriate. I don't believe preventing global warming at all costs is the only solution - realising changes can happen and learning to adapt to climate change is another. Some climate change might be a price worth paying for development but then we need to pay the price of dealing with the risks of floods etc - the Netherlands is a nation largely built on flood plains without actually flooding. We could learn some lessons there.
For a few decades now the conservative party could be defined as Liberal on economic policy, i.e. free markets, free trade, non intervention, low and flatter taxes. while at the same time being authoritarian on civil matters, e.g. resistant to Gay Marriage, or legalised Pot, and in favour of Conscription.
As Milton Freedman, discussed in his book, Capitalism and Freedom, economic policy tends to lead civil policy in the same direction.
The legalisation of Gay Marage, was I think a very public demonstration of these trends, which I truly hope will continue.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-35022119
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/12/06/support-syria-air-strikes-falls-again/
All: 36/44 (31/48)
CON: 16/59 (13/67)
LAB: 51/29 (42/35) Benn is toast
UKIP: 30/59 (31/57)
LD: 45/36 (39/43) Farron might have an issue here.
@TCPoliticalBetting Some might not, but I would say the vast majority in this country expect the government to provide education for their children, and healthcare for them and their family. I would also say that the vast majority expect some kind of welfare state. They may support a smaller welfare state in terms of less unemployment, housing benefit, but I don't think removing the state pension for example, would go down too well.
@Philip_Thompson When you refer to parties merging do you mean the whole fall-out from the Liberal-Conservative coalition in the early 1900s? If so, Socialism had emerged well before that in the 1800s. Nonetheless, your post proves my point. Conservatives feel that they can be 'liberal' Conservatives, because they have sought to define liberalism as 'classical liberalism' - a liberalism from a world which is completely different to ours, and and a product of its time. Liberalism, like many ideologies changes and adapts for its time. That is why, Liberals realised that the state needed to help the poor in the early 1900s, and this continued into the 1940s.
Social Liberalism is the liberalism of William Beveridge. It is as much about freedom of the individual, as the achievement of equality - seen the Liberal Government of the early 1900s, which introduced the foundations of the welfare state.
Again, I have to argue: who are Conservatives to argue that 'classical' liberalism is true liberalism? Gladstone, one of the greatest liberals of British political history, started off as a classical liberal but later in life became a social liberal. Why is the judgement of that great liberal, alongside the rest of British Liberalism in the last 100 years, super-ceded by Conservatives?
This one is potentially more interesting. The SNP cancelled maintenance for the the components that have failed on the Forth Road Bridge in 2010
https://archive.is/UKJ82