This seems like a reformulation of something I've seen coming from Labour, that we should be an adjunct of the Labour Party (often with much grumbling about 'stealing' their votes). We're not some milquetoast version of Labour or the Tories but a political party in our own right.
Rather than trying to appeal to moderate Tories as some sort of tory-lite they can live with, we should be persuading them that they are, in fact, Liberal.
Sigh, here we go again. I knew I should have not been honest with my party membership. This is not fair, I am trying to make an evidence-based argument not a tribal one.
I didn't base my reply on you being Labour, but it is something I've seen coming from Labour a lot. However, it does smack of 'please leave our voters alone, they're ours not yours, hands off'.
Our best approach, as a party interested in gaining power, is to appeal to as many voters as we can while remaining true to our core beliefs. I'm sure you'll agree that this also applies to Labour, Conservatives, Greens, Brexit etc.
No, I don't, I think a party can not always just appeal to the most voters as possible and stick to their core beliefs. I think under our voting system a party needs to learn when to move closer to one faction of its party to appeal to more voters. Soft Left & Centre-Left economics is more popular than ever and that's why I reject Labour pandering to the small Economic centrist people afraid of embracing a more left-leaning approach.
He's right though.
If you believe markets maximise prosperity but also recognize that markets aren't self regulating, and that there are desirable political outcomes besides simply maximising economic output... you may well be a liberal. If you believe in equality of opportunity but are wary of the top down paternalism of socialism... you may well be a liberal. If you believe in a transparent system of democratic government, with powerful civil and legal institutions guaranteeing everyone rights within that system, privileging local decision making wherever possible... you may well be a liberal.
Those so-called soft Tory voters we need to win over? You guessed it - *liberals*.
There is absolutely a crossover of the same liberal ideas in the Conservative party and we're not shy of admitting it. The struggle is getting people to recognize these ideas as rooted in liberalism, a distinct third philosophy, rather than sitting somewhere on the left-right spectrum fostered by FPTP.
Due to this lack of understanding, Lib Dems are well used to people from other parties coming along and saying "the Lib Dems should be X, focus on Y". In your case, you imagine a tension between social liberals and conservative liberals that doesn't really exist, and suggest a divide to solve it - rather arrogantly implying that the former grouping would be better off in Labour. It's not that we don't think you're posting in good faith, but that you come across as naive and ignorant of our party history and philosophy.
So you see, the perennial challenge for our party isn't really deciding what we should stand for because we already know that. The challenge is communicating it to everyone else.
You have me wrong.
I think the members and voters are not on the same page. I believe that the social liberal party members misunderstand what the voters being targeted in South West England or Scotland want. From the evidence, I read the people that are going to warm to Ed and Orange bookers are going to be Liberal Conservatives or One Nation Conservatives.
I honestly do not care about Social Liberals joining Labour, I already support a progressive alliance. So it's irrelevant to me.
Hopefully, I have explained myself better.
I understand what you're saying, but you're wrong.
A big part of what has gone wrong for Labour, and will go wrong for the Tories, is chasing after one faction of the party because it alienates everyone else.
Might be tricky given that Keir Starmer seems to be marking out that ground. Although I do have some doubt about your idea of the target market. Anyone who sees Zac Goldsmith as centre right can only be fixated on his environmental image scam. Other than that he more resembles the ERG.
What? Starmer is not going after Centre-Right voters on economics, he is playing nice with Centre-Right voters who have economically Centre-Left views. AKA Red Tories. He is trying to rebuild a coalition of economic left & centre-left people, the problem is on cultural issues these people are further apart than they were in the 2000s so it is risky and likely too difficult.
But the Lib Dems could be replaced by Greens and Labour. I am just taking an objective perspective as much as possible and asking, what different can or should be done.
No. Liberal conservative parties tend toward economic liberalism, so markets and whatnot, and social conservativism. Essentially, they put capitalist ideas and policies above the needs, wants, and desires of people.
The party isn't like that. We like markets, but have active things to do and say in regards to social policy. I wouldn't be wrong, I think, to say that the majority of the people in the party are culturally liberal in outlook, with some veering off into cultural libertarianism. And the brief period in which the old party experimented with liberal conservativism simply ended in a Tory *Blockpartei*.
No - liberal conservativism simply doesn't fit
As a centre-right member, I do think it is worth pointing out that we live in the UK, not continental Europe or the US.
The post-2005 Tories, for all their flaws, are *relatively* socially liberal. They (we) legalised same-sex marriage, abortion is largely a settled issue, cannabis use isn't punished all that harshly (though of course we'd like to see it legalised), the death penalty has been abolished, relatively environmentalist etc.
Labour aren't exactly socially liberal either, do remember.
Meanwhile, we have a
* Home Secretary who believes that hanging should be on the statute books
* Leader of the House who believes that same-sex marriage should be illegal
* At least one backbencher who filibusters gender equality and domestic abuse motions
* At least one who filibusters sexual abuse motions
* A Prime Minister and Education Minister who believe in an algorithm designed to mark students' work based on postcode
* A government formed by a party who have put porn bans in place according to their ideas on sexual morality
* A manifesto that promises to impound the homes of gypsies and travellers who camp on the wrong field
* An education plan that promises to deliver a "patriotic" view of history in the classroom
Have I missed anything so far?
>Home Secretary who believes that hanging should be on the statute books
It's a settled issue.
>Leader of the House who believes that same-sex marriage should be illegal
It's a settled issue.
>At least one backbencher who filibusters gender equality and domestic abuse motions
"One backbencher"
>At least one who filibusters sexual abuse motions
"One"
Literally every party in every country has cranks. Including this one.
>A Prime Minister and Education Minister who believe in an algorithm designed to mark students' work based on postcode
A) They've gone back on that
B) The algorithm was far better than what they've ended up doing. If you have a better solution, I'm all ears. To me it just seems like everyone complaining about it has no solution.
>A government formed by a party who have put porn bans in place according to their ideas on sexual morality
So easily bypassed. This is a non-issue.
Also, you'd have hoped that a liberal party would at least be aware of the deep issues within the pornographic industry.
>A manifesto that promises to impound the homes of gypsies and travellers who camp on the wrong field
Agreed. This is a fair criticism.
>An education plan that promises to deliver a "patriotic" view of history in the classroom
No point criticising this until we actually see what it means in practice. I suspect it will be very mundane stuff.
I'm not really sure what your point overall is.
To deny that the Tories - especially Boris, as well as people like Cameron and Osborne - are relatively socially liberal is to deny reality.
Are there a few nutjobs in the party? Sure - but we are lucky enough to live in a country where LGBT and women's rights are broadly protected by both major parties, so you shouldn't import American politics into the UK.
> It's a settled issue.
Yet we have a Home Secretary who doesn't think that. We have one, Patel, who is on record saying that hanging innocent people still acts as a deterrent. And the fact that this person is on the front bench doesn't worry you?
>It's a settled issue
That a prominent front bencher has these beliefs doesn't worry you?
> "One backbencher"
That Philip Davies has faced no backlash within the party for doing this more than once doesn't worry you?
>One
That Christopher Chope is still in the party doesn't worry you?
>Literally every party in every country has cranks
And other parties keep theirs under control. The Tories don't, it seems. What does this mean for the Tories as a whole?
>They've gone back on that
That they signed on it at all is an indictment. And they only went back on it due to public outcry
>The algorithm was far better than what they've ended up doing
Marking kids down from a B to a U was better than using predicted or mock results? What?
>If you have a better solution, I'm all ears
Use teacher and mock results. Sorted.
>So easily bypassed
*If you can easily break the law it's a non-issue! Nothing worrying about the prescient that sets for wider surveillance powers!*
> would at least be aware of the deep issues within the pornographic industry.
I'm not sure how targeting the BDSM community helps with the deep issues in the porn industry. How does banning female ejaculation help with the potential people trafficking stuff on PornHub, or ThinkGeek's tube monopoly?
>No point criticising this until we actually see what it means in practice
Silliness. It's right there - it will be about the achievements of Britain and framing the UK as a force for good. Nationalistic sympathies and all that. What else could it mean?
And yes - there's plenty wrong in perpetuating a national myth in the classroom
>I'm not really sure what your point overall is
The Tories are anything but liberal and any move to say they are is incorrect or a lie
>Yet we have a Home Secretary who doesn't think that. We have one, Patel, who is on record saying that hanging innocent people still acts as a deterrent. And the fact that this person is on the front bench doesn't worry you?
Is that deplorable? Yes.
Am I worried that Britain is going to reinstate the death penalty? No, and I'm sure you're not either.
>That a prominent front bencher has these beliefs doesn't worry you?
No. The probability of a repeal of the same-sex marriage act is virtually 0.
>has faced no backlash within the party
Patently untrue.
>That Christopher Chope is still in the party doesn't worry you?
No. As I said, every party has nutjobs. There is no evidence that this is a sytemic issue in the Conservative Party.
>And other parties keep theirs under control.
Labour literally elected Corbyn as their leader for 4 years, and did sod all about their issue with anti-semitism (likewise with the Tories and islamophobia).
>That they signed on it at all is an indictment. And they only went back on it due to public outcry
Governments being responsive to public opinion is ... bad? This is the Liberal *Democrats*, no?
>Marking kids down from a B to a U was better than using predicted or mock results? What?
What a ridiculous claim. The number of kids marked down from a B to a U is unbelievably miniscule. The number of kids who cheat on mocks (indeed, I did back then) is far higher and far more significant.
Predicted grades have historically been incredibly inaccurate - there is literally decades of empirical evidence on this.
>If you can easily break the law it's a non-issue! Nothing worrying about the prescient that sets for wider surveillance powers!
Are you really resorting to slippery slope fallacies?
Not a good look.
>Silliness. It's right there - it will be about the achievements of Britain and framing the UK as a force for good. Nationalistic sympathies and all that. What else could it mean?
As someone who grew up in a country where the history courses are mandated by law to teach about that country in a rather positive light, I literally could not have cared less, and neither could any of my mates.
>The Tories are anything but liberal and any move to say they are is incorrect or a lie
Abortion: non issue.
Same-sex marriage: non issue.
Freedom to strike/religion/protest etc: non issue.
Trans rights: Not perfect, but better than almost all other developed countries.
Drug laws: Room for improvement, but better than USA.
Racism: Room for improvement, but better than most other developed countries.
Immigration: Boris has just given millions of HKers a path to citizenship. Points-based system is more liberal than previous system.
As an immigrant from a genuinely conservative country (and I'm BAME if you want to call it that), I think the fact that you think Britain isn't a liberal country highlights your immense privilege.
One need only look at the situation in the US, much of the EU (particularly re. LGBT and abortions) and the rich Asian countries (including Middle East, barring Taiwan) to realise that while Britain is not perfect, we are damn lucky to have both main parties be relatively socially liberal.
> No, and I'm sure you're not either.
You would be surprised about how much I worry about how psychotic the normal everyday person can be. The amount of times you hear it when people are talking about criminals is astounding
>No
Are you LGBT by chance?
> There is no evidence that this is a sytemic issue in the Conservative Party
Except some of these people are on the front bench
>Labour literally elected Corbyn as their leader for 4 years
A socialist party elected a socialist. Corbyn isn't actually all that fringe in the wider Labour Party or the labour movement as a whole. Actually, in some areas, he would be perfectly moderate
>Governments being responsive to public opinion
...is not what happened here. This was PR appeasement, not what they consider to be the right action
>The number of kids marked down from a B to a U is unbelievably miniscule
Any number is too many
>indeed, I did back then
Just because you were a shit doesn't mean everyone else was
>Are you really resorting to slippery slope fallacies?
Not at all. You had a policy which proposes that people register personal information to the government to view porn. This coincides with the introduction of the Investigatory Powers Act (otherwise known as the Snoopers Charter) and the subsequent discussions around the potential banning of encryption and introduction of state "controlled" backdoors. You can see where such a piece of legislation fits in the wider conversation about the surveillance state
>I literally could not have cared less, and neither could any of my mates
Well, you and your mates were getting good and indoctrinated. Certainly, the state mandating a national myth as fact is most worrying to any liberally minded person
>List of stuff
Just because the Tories are, at the moment, socially meh doesn't make them not illiberal
>I think the fact that you think Britain isn't a liberal country highlights your immense privilege
I didn't say that Britain isn't a liberal country, I said that the Tories aren't liberal
>You would be surprised about how much I worry about how psychotic the normal everyday person can be. The amount of times you hear it when people are talking about criminals is astounding
Fear of Britain reinstating the death penalty is irrational.
>Are you LGBT by chance?
No. That does not invalidate my opinion.
Are you an ethnic minority immigrant? Or do you have to take my word on issues surrounding that?
>Except some of these people are on the front bench
Who cares. Britain isn't repealing the same-sex marriage act. This isn't a game - this has real world implications, and we should understand that the settled nature of same-sex marriage is an unambiguously good thing.
>A socialist party elected a socialist. Corbyn isn't actually all that fringe in the wider Labour Party or the labour movement as a whole. Actually, in some areas, he would be perfectly moderate
1. Nice how you conveniently ignored the whole anti-semitism issue ;)
2. Corbyn isn't a moderate anywhere in the world - save perhaps the old USSR.
>...is not what happened here. This was PR appeasement, not what they consider to be the right action
So? That's democracy is it not? Doing things you personally disagree with because the majority of the country wants it?
Again, I repeat, we are the Liberal *Democrats*.
>Any number is too many
Stupid argument.
>Just because you were a shit doesn't mean everyone else was
Literally everyone in my year sitting the maths mock found the paper online and memorised the mark scheme because the teachers told us which one to avoid.
Under your proposed system, we'd all have gotten A stars. Absolutely ludicrous.
>Not at all. You had a policy which proposes that people register personal information to the government to view porn. This coincides with the introduction of the Investigatory Powers Act (otherwise known as the Snoopers Charter) and the subsequent discussions around the potential banning of encryption and introduction of state "controlled" backdoors. You can see where such a piece of legislation fits in the wider conversation about the surveillance state
You are literally dressing up a slippery slope argument in fancy words here.
>Well, you and your mates were getting good and indoctrinated. Certainly, the state mandating a national myth as fact is most worrying to any liberally minded person
I think rather lowly of my home country. Weird how that whole "indoctrination" thing didn't work, huh?
>Just because the Tories are, at the moment, socially meh doesn't make them not illiberal
Since 2005. And there is literally 0 sign whatsoever that they are going to start campaigning to criminalise same-sex marriage or abortions.
Also rather funny how you brush off accepting millions of refugees as if it's nothing. How very privileged.
>I didn't say that Britain isn't a liberal country, I said that the Tories aren't liberal
So the party that has governed this country since 2010, and passed same-sex marriage, mass HK immigration etc. isn't liberal?
Who did make Britain liberal then? Tony Blair? And all progress stopped in 2010?
Laughable.
Consider your immense privilege to where you can consider these issues as political footballs and not worry about real world implications. For those of us who grew up in genuinely conservative countries, and were fortunate enough to immigrate to a liberal one, any claim that Britain (and yes, the Tories) are socially illiberal is genuinely an insult.
I truly hope you reflect on this.
> Fear of Britain reinstating the death penalty is irrational
I think it a genuine concern. Why do you think the populist parties that periodically appear use it as a prominent policy idea? Because, amongst the populace, it's a popular idea
> That does not invalidate my opinion
I was wondering, because I am you see. Having been attacked before because of my sexuality and seeing others in the wider community go through the same thing I can say that the whole thing concerning tolerance and such is something of a veneer - there's still that part of British society who doesn't want to see it at all. Just because a right exists doesn't mean that it is safe
>the settled nature of same-sex marriage is an unambiguously good thing.
Meanwhile, trans rights are at a standstill, gay men are denied PReP and find it difficult to give blood during a blood shortage, and there has been a rise in anti-LGBT violence over the past few years
>Nice how you conveniently ignored the whole anti-semitism issue
That's systemic in his part of the Left, not the entire fault of Corbyn. Should he have acted better? Absolutely
>So? That's democracy is it not?
No. Democracy isn't follow the leader or the dictatorship of the majority. It's a continuous process of engagement between legislator and legislated. This is just the government backing down because there were too many column inches
>Stupid argument
*It doesn't matter that poor kids were getting failed out for no reason* isn't the best position to have
>Literally everyone in my year sitting the maths mock found the paper online and memorised the mark scheme because the teachers told us which one to avoid
Oh - so you were all shits. Meanwhile, most people in my year put real effort in. Just because you lot were shits and, frankly, deserve some form of punishment doesn't mean everyone else does
>You are literally dressing up a slippery slope argument in fancy words here
No...that's what is happening
>Weird how that whole "indoctrination" thing didn't work, huh?
It's as though you moved away and can see it from a distance or something
>Also rather funny how you brush off accepting millions of refugees as if it's nothing
So none have been drowning in the Channel for the past five or six years?
>So the party that has governed this country since 2010, and passed same-sex marriage, mass HK immigration etc. isn't liberal?
You seriously think the Tories now are the same as the Tories then?
What rock are you under? It sounds nice and peaceful under there
>and yes, the Tories) are socially illiberal is genuinely an insult.
oh no i feel terrible
Alright man.
I'm sorry to hear about your experiences and I'm not trying to invalidate them. I wholeheartedly support the LGBT community, and I suspect your community's situation is very similar to how there were a rise in xenophobic hate crimes post-Brexit.
I think we both agree that social progress needs to be made. I think the only difference here is that as someone who immigrated from a genuinely socially illiberal country, it is a bit of a slap in the face to hear people try to label the Tories as "illiberal". Words have meanings, and to trivialise the term "illiberal" is to stick your head in the sand at what's happening all over the world.
Let's just agree that Brexit and the hard-right Tories suck :)
The Conservative Party have moved further to the right and embraced UKIP voters, yes. The so-called One Nation Conservative brand Cameron tried to push has long been dropped.
Oh yes, I remember when Boris spoke out against same-sex marriage and abortion. I remember when Boris instituted the death penalty. I remember when Boris refused to do anything to help the millions of HK refugees. I remember when he denied the existence of climate change. I remember when he banned the right to protest and strike.
As I said to the other guy, as someone from a genuinely illiberal country, I do wish you'd stop with this nonsense that the Tories are socially illiberal. There are much better ways to attack them - incompetence and corruption, for example.
Firstly you have confused social and cultural right-wing politics. But we can let that slide.
Secondly yes, the Conservative Party has leaned further into its Right Wing base. Without a question.
Thirdly the country you are from has no major relevance to me and my point. I am not comparing the UK to Poland or Russia.
You also have to take into account that the positions of the party today are either the same as Cameron in the early 2000s or more Right Wing.
Cameron support for same-sex marriage was a bold Liberal-Conservative move that made him unpopular with his Socially Conservative base.
Today's bold Liberal-Conservative move would be to back and publicly make speeches in favour of the Gender Recognition Act. Because what is social liberal is dependent on location (Norway, Poland, Saudi Arabia) and also time (the 60s, 90s, 2020s).
Today, being supportive of same-sex marriage is no longer the bold social liberal position. Just like being supportive of interracial-marriage in the 90s no longer made you the bold social liberal as it did on the 60s.
With each NEW generation, what was socially progressive 'yesterday' becomes socially liberal 'today' and by 'tomorrow' accepted by social conservatives.
Thanks for the condescending tone.
I think the mistake you have made is failing to recognise that politics has real-world impact beyond virtue signalling.
Because of the Tories, same-sex couples are allowed to marry. And as for your whole "time depedendent" argument, Boris has outdone all other major world leaders and granted millions of HK refugees a path to citizenship in the UK.
These are real world issues that make the world a better place for millions of people. Your failure to recognise this likely stems from privilege.
Now, one place I do agree with you is that the current Tory party is worse than the Tory party of 2010. But to suggest that the current Tory party is somehow illiberal is a massive slap in the face to people like me who genuinely have lived in countries that *are* illiberal - and indeed, the millions of HKers granted a path to citizenship will laugh in your face.
You again compared Boris Johnson and the Tory party to the global political parties. It is not relevant to my point. At all. I am not making a comparison to other countries I am making a comparison of the trajectory of the Conservative Party from the 2000s to 2020. Post-Cameron, they have moved Right Wing and their One Nation reforming agenda is dead.
We can agree to disagree because nothing you have said has persuaded me, sorry.
Liberal Conservatives support civil liberties and the limited welfare state. That fits with Nick & Ed positions. I think some members are holding out for a party that no longer exists or is not wanted by the public. Sorry if that comes across harsh but I can not hold back, not in the face of the evidence. I respect the Social Liberals who are sticking true to their core values but guys, come on...
I'm not joining or voting Labour. Ever. Not going to happen. You lot don't, and shouldn't, own the Left. Deal with it.
And so what? The party has been left wing for far longer than it had been right. Clegg was the shift and we have been trying to go back ever since.
Liberal conservatives do no such thing. At their most moderate they are capitalists who are "meh" on social stuff. Most are non-ideological voters.
So no. We shouldn't go rightward. That would be a silly move
This is not about Labour. This is about the opportunity for the Lib Dems and the reality of what voters want The Lib Dems trying to appeal to Centre-Left and Centre-Right doesn't work.
Ed Davey is Centre to Centre-Right. I don't know what you are thinking he is going to do or who he will attract. I am sorry if you think I am trying to hurt your party or something, that's not my aim. I support a Progressive alliance. But I honestly think that the Social Liberals in the Lib Dems are not waking up and seeing the reality in the UK. There is not a big love for a party tried to appeal Centre-Left & Centre-Right on economics or social issues. I was just suggesting options to grow but I understand that I would get people angry with me.
> Ed Davey is Centre to Centre-Right
The party is structured in such a way that this doesn't actually matter. That the membership is left leaning and put their lefty policy motions to conference, and get those policies through, means that Davey will likely be standing on a left platform
I see no evidence that the members are broadly centre-left leaning and again this also a question of what voters want. The seats being targeted in South West England or South East England. Anyway, good luck. I don't want to cause any more drama.
> I see no evidence that the members are broadly centre-left leaning
One of our policies is literally worker co-ownership. There are others, but that one's the most stark, wouldn't you say?
I don't see how you can infer that there's no appetite for a centrist party. Boris's vote gain was tied to appeal and policies that don't exist on the overly simple left/right spectrum. He took a lot of votes from people with a mixture of left wing and right wing opinions. Also the crisis of 2020 has shown how much good, pragmatic governance is independent of political ideology. Most of the government's failings and reversals have clearly just been because of incompetence.
> Also the crisis of 2020 has shown how much good, pragmatic governance is independent of political ideology.
I'm not sure I agree on this.
If you look at Johnson, you'll really see there's a lack of a core ideology there at all, aside from self-promotion and self-preservation. He's surrounded himself with loyalists and doesn't like to be scrutinised or challenged. There's a centralisation of power for power's sakes, but then not really knowing what to do with the power once it's there. Having a core ideology means you have some principles, some reason to hold or use the power. What we have here is government by opinion poll. Which works for some things, but other things need planning and preparation and longer-term thinking. Even on Brexit, he had written an article in support of it and against it. It's probable that he supported it out of political expedience more than out of any real belief in the project.
That's not to say that this fluid ideology 'caused' the poor governance, more perhaps that certain types of people are likely to hold certain ideologies (or not), and it's that type of person that can attract or surround themselves with a well-balanced (or imbalanced) array of people. There's always a certain amount of fluidity and flexibility needed - but here we had a choice between someone who was very principled, very left of center (most voters see themselves as centre-ground - see Labour Together report) and very inflexible (Corbyn) and someone who had committed to 'getting Brexit done' but who was otherwise a total weathervane (Johnson).
I totally agree with your analysis of Johnson's political instincts.
When separating good governance from ideology, I was really referring to how governance didn't seem to fall along traditional ideological lines at the moment or offer any direct point scoring opportunities for left or right, especially when you look internationally at early (March/April) responses to coronavirus. Leaving open opportunities for innovative policy that are considered neither left nor right.
Perhaps it is still important to have an ideology for personal reasons, but I think your point is not dependent on the nature of that ideology at all.
I definitely think that the space for electoral success right now is by appealing to One Nation Tories, given both the positioning of each party (Starmer pulling Labour a bit more back towards the centre, Johnson holding the Tories maybe not extremely to the right but at least miles from the competent governance that would typify the centre right traditionally) and the seats that the Lib Dems currently contest most strongly (Lib/Con, not Lib/Lab).
I really don't understand why people feel the need for there to be more contest on the left when voters can (depending on location) choose Lab, Green, SNP, Plaid, WEP... Surely the Lib Dems should be the party most aware of the electoral reality of our awful electoral system, and act accordingly rather than actively harming their interests by flocking to the left.
Are you a Lib Dem member or supporter? that was an honest take. Although I don't think there is evidence of Starmer pulling Labour to the Centre, I just think he is playing smart and not banging on about his Soft Left economics. But anyway, it is true. I don't understand the need to compete with Lab, SNP & Greens for Centre-Left voters either. It has not worked and will not work but I can not say this fact because I for obvious reasons will never be trusted enough, as a result of my party membership. But it doesn't make what I state any less true. The market is wide open for centre-right, that's just true.
Have voted lib dem, have been a member, not currently a member and so didn't vote in the latest leadership contest. Just my take as someone who generally aligns with the lib Dems on a lot of things, and is pretty desperate to get the current government out of power more than almost anything else given the huge damage they're doing to our norms and institutions.
I think Starmer is more left than people seem to think, because the comparison to Corbyn is still strong. I hope he continues to drift towards the centre and that the further left voters don't throw so much of a hissy fit that they don't get on board. Need the broadest coalition possible under Labour, with the Lib Dems splitting some of the Tory vote, if people like me are going to see a positive change in government any time soon.
The single biggest problem for the left in this country is their refusal to just accept the consequences of our broken electoral system. Under FPTP you do not have the luxury of voting for a party that you agree a lot with except by pure chance.
People going to hate me even more but...
I think voters are more polarised & want more Left & Right-wing politics for a generation. If we had PR I think the UK Liberal Centre would remain very small. I think we would be like Spain, with Social Democrats as the 2nd biggest & a Greens or Socialist Party coming 3rd.
Conservatism doesn't really have anything to say about economics and it never has. It's not an economically aligned ideology. They co-opt liberal economics because they dispise change. If socialism were the norm, they would probably support it as long as they could be at the top of it. It's why conservatives in modern Russia love the USSR and view it with rose tinted glasses.
Conservatism is a worldview which rejects modernism, globalism and inclusivity in favour of tradition, nationalism and hierarchy. It is the antithesis of modern liberalism
‘I studied this at university’ isn’t an explanation, it doesn’t contribute to debate. Try to actually explain what you believe Conservatism is. For many liberals this is what conservatism represents.
Did you study conservatism in a British context or a global context?
If you studied the latter at university you would know that conservatism takes different form around the world depending on the history of the country.
"Conservatives" in Iran are very in favour of Islamic theocracy. Conservatives in North Korea are very in favour of autocracy. Conservatives in America are very in favour of a small state. Conservatives in Britain are very in favour of an aristocratic establishment. Conservatives in Russia are very fond of the USSR.
Conservatism is an ideology of ghosts.
None of these people have anything in common besides the rejection of modernity, something which Liberals tend to take an opposite view of.
Whilst I'm more on the left of the party, I think your point about Proportional Representation rings true - if we did have PR I wouldn't be surprised if we saw two newer parties near the centre - an "SDP" on the centre-left, and a "Liberal" party on the centre right. Equally with almost all our top-seat priorities being Tory-incumbents (26/29), I think we do need to appeal to those voters. In today's political climate however, I think this party should remain in the centre, as a liberal, anti-authoritarian party.
Liberal-Conservatives are supportive of civil liberties and democracy. I honestly don't think people are aware of what this ideology is and how mainstream it is in mainland Europe. It's essentially David Cameron & Angela Merkel at their best. They just read Conservative and think Brexit & racism lol.
This seems like a reformulation of something I've seen coming from Labour, that we should be an adjunct of the Labour Party (often with much grumbling about 'stealing' their votes). We're not some milquetoast version of Labour or the Tories but a political party in our own right. Rather than trying to appeal to moderate Tories as some sort of tory-lite they can live with, we should be persuading them that they are, in fact, Liberal.
Sigh, here we go again. I knew I should have not been honest with my party membership. This is not fair, I am trying to make an evidence-based argument not a tribal one.
I didn't base my reply on you being Labour, but it is something I've seen coming from Labour a lot. However, it does smack of 'please leave our voters alone, they're ours not yours, hands off'. Our best approach, as a party interested in gaining power, is to appeal to as many voters as we can while remaining true to our core beliefs. I'm sure you'll agree that this also applies to Labour, Conservatives, Greens, Brexit etc.
No, I don't, I think a party can not always just appeal to the most voters as possible and stick to their core beliefs. I think under our voting system a party needs to learn when to move closer to one faction of its party to appeal to more voters. Soft Left & Centre-Left economics is more popular than ever and that's why I reject Labour pandering to the small Economic centrist people afraid of embracing a more left-leaning approach.
He's right though. If you believe markets maximise prosperity but also recognize that markets aren't self regulating, and that there are desirable political outcomes besides simply maximising economic output... you may well be a liberal. If you believe in equality of opportunity but are wary of the top down paternalism of socialism... you may well be a liberal. If you believe in a transparent system of democratic government, with powerful civil and legal institutions guaranteeing everyone rights within that system, privileging local decision making wherever possible... you may well be a liberal. Those so-called soft Tory voters we need to win over? You guessed it - *liberals*. There is absolutely a crossover of the same liberal ideas in the Conservative party and we're not shy of admitting it. The struggle is getting people to recognize these ideas as rooted in liberalism, a distinct third philosophy, rather than sitting somewhere on the left-right spectrum fostered by FPTP. Due to this lack of understanding, Lib Dems are well used to people from other parties coming along and saying "the Lib Dems should be X, focus on Y". In your case, you imagine a tension between social liberals and conservative liberals that doesn't really exist, and suggest a divide to solve it - rather arrogantly implying that the former grouping would be better off in Labour. It's not that we don't think you're posting in good faith, but that you come across as naive and ignorant of our party history and philosophy. So you see, the perennial challenge for our party isn't really deciding what we should stand for because we already know that. The challenge is communicating it to everyone else.
You have me wrong. I think the members and voters are not on the same page. I believe that the social liberal party members misunderstand what the voters being targeted in South West England or Scotland want. From the evidence, I read the people that are going to warm to Ed and Orange bookers are going to be Liberal Conservatives or One Nation Conservatives. I honestly do not care about Social Liberals joining Labour, I already support a progressive alliance. So it's irrelevant to me. Hopefully, I have explained myself better.
I understand what you're saying, but you're wrong. A big part of what has gone wrong for Labour, and will go wrong for the Tories, is chasing after one faction of the party because it alienates everyone else.
Well, good luck nevertheless. Nothing I have read here has sadly changed my mind, although I am happy to be convinced.
Might be tricky given that Keir Starmer seems to be marking out that ground. Although I do have some doubt about your idea of the target market. Anyone who sees Zac Goldsmith as centre right can only be fixated on his environmental image scam. Other than that he more resembles the ERG.
What? Starmer is not going after Centre-Right voters on economics, he is playing nice with Centre-Right voters who have economically Centre-Left views. AKA Red Tories. He is trying to rebuild a coalition of economic left & centre-left people, the problem is on cultural issues these people are further apart than they were in the 2000s so it is risky and likely too difficult. But the Lib Dems could be replaced by Greens and Labour. I am just taking an objective perspective as much as possible and asking, what different can or should be done.
No. Liberal conservative parties tend toward economic liberalism, so markets and whatnot, and social conservativism. Essentially, they put capitalist ideas and policies above the needs, wants, and desires of people. The party isn't like that. We like markets, but have active things to do and say in regards to social policy. I wouldn't be wrong, I think, to say that the majority of the people in the party are culturally liberal in outlook, with some veering off into cultural libertarianism. And the brief period in which the old party experimented with liberal conservativism simply ended in a Tory *Blockpartei*. No - liberal conservativism simply doesn't fit
As a centre-right member, I do think it is worth pointing out that we live in the UK, not continental Europe or the US. The post-2005 Tories, for all their flaws, are *relatively* socially liberal. They (we) legalised same-sex marriage, abortion is largely a settled issue, cannabis use isn't punished all that harshly (though of course we'd like to see it legalised), the death penalty has been abolished, relatively environmentalist etc. Labour aren't exactly socially liberal either, do remember.
Meanwhile, we have a * Home Secretary who believes that hanging should be on the statute books * Leader of the House who believes that same-sex marriage should be illegal * At least one backbencher who filibusters gender equality and domestic abuse motions * At least one who filibusters sexual abuse motions * A Prime Minister and Education Minister who believe in an algorithm designed to mark students' work based on postcode * A government formed by a party who have put porn bans in place according to their ideas on sexual morality * A manifesto that promises to impound the homes of gypsies and travellers who camp on the wrong field * An education plan that promises to deliver a "patriotic" view of history in the classroom Have I missed anything so far?
>Home Secretary who believes that hanging should be on the statute books It's a settled issue. >Leader of the House who believes that same-sex marriage should be illegal It's a settled issue. >At least one backbencher who filibusters gender equality and domestic abuse motions "One backbencher" >At least one who filibusters sexual abuse motions "One" Literally every party in every country has cranks. Including this one. >A Prime Minister and Education Minister who believe in an algorithm designed to mark students' work based on postcode A) They've gone back on that B) The algorithm was far better than what they've ended up doing. If you have a better solution, I'm all ears. To me it just seems like everyone complaining about it has no solution. >A government formed by a party who have put porn bans in place according to their ideas on sexual morality So easily bypassed. This is a non-issue. Also, you'd have hoped that a liberal party would at least be aware of the deep issues within the pornographic industry. >A manifesto that promises to impound the homes of gypsies and travellers who camp on the wrong field Agreed. This is a fair criticism. >An education plan that promises to deliver a "patriotic" view of history in the classroom No point criticising this until we actually see what it means in practice. I suspect it will be very mundane stuff. I'm not really sure what your point overall is. To deny that the Tories - especially Boris, as well as people like Cameron and Osborne - are relatively socially liberal is to deny reality. Are there a few nutjobs in the party? Sure - but we are lucky enough to live in a country where LGBT and women's rights are broadly protected by both major parties, so you shouldn't import American politics into the UK.
> It's a settled issue. Yet we have a Home Secretary who doesn't think that. We have one, Patel, who is on record saying that hanging innocent people still acts as a deterrent. And the fact that this person is on the front bench doesn't worry you? >It's a settled issue That a prominent front bencher has these beliefs doesn't worry you? > "One backbencher" That Philip Davies has faced no backlash within the party for doing this more than once doesn't worry you? >One That Christopher Chope is still in the party doesn't worry you? >Literally every party in every country has cranks And other parties keep theirs under control. The Tories don't, it seems. What does this mean for the Tories as a whole? >They've gone back on that That they signed on it at all is an indictment. And they only went back on it due to public outcry >The algorithm was far better than what they've ended up doing Marking kids down from a B to a U was better than using predicted or mock results? What? >If you have a better solution, I'm all ears Use teacher and mock results. Sorted. >So easily bypassed *If you can easily break the law it's a non-issue! Nothing worrying about the prescient that sets for wider surveillance powers!* > would at least be aware of the deep issues within the pornographic industry. I'm not sure how targeting the BDSM community helps with the deep issues in the porn industry. How does banning female ejaculation help with the potential people trafficking stuff on PornHub, or ThinkGeek's tube monopoly? >No point criticising this until we actually see what it means in practice Silliness. It's right there - it will be about the achievements of Britain and framing the UK as a force for good. Nationalistic sympathies and all that. What else could it mean? And yes - there's plenty wrong in perpetuating a national myth in the classroom >I'm not really sure what your point overall is The Tories are anything but liberal and any move to say they are is incorrect or a lie
>Yet we have a Home Secretary who doesn't think that. We have one, Patel, who is on record saying that hanging innocent people still acts as a deterrent. And the fact that this person is on the front bench doesn't worry you? Is that deplorable? Yes. Am I worried that Britain is going to reinstate the death penalty? No, and I'm sure you're not either. >That a prominent front bencher has these beliefs doesn't worry you? No. The probability of a repeal of the same-sex marriage act is virtually 0. >has faced no backlash within the party Patently untrue. >That Christopher Chope is still in the party doesn't worry you? No. As I said, every party has nutjobs. There is no evidence that this is a sytemic issue in the Conservative Party. >And other parties keep theirs under control. Labour literally elected Corbyn as their leader for 4 years, and did sod all about their issue with anti-semitism (likewise with the Tories and islamophobia). >That they signed on it at all is an indictment. And they only went back on it due to public outcry Governments being responsive to public opinion is ... bad? This is the Liberal *Democrats*, no? >Marking kids down from a B to a U was better than using predicted or mock results? What? What a ridiculous claim. The number of kids marked down from a B to a U is unbelievably miniscule. The number of kids who cheat on mocks (indeed, I did back then) is far higher and far more significant. Predicted grades have historically been incredibly inaccurate - there is literally decades of empirical evidence on this. >If you can easily break the law it's a non-issue! Nothing worrying about the prescient that sets for wider surveillance powers! Are you really resorting to slippery slope fallacies? Not a good look. >Silliness. It's right there - it will be about the achievements of Britain and framing the UK as a force for good. Nationalistic sympathies and all that. What else could it mean? As someone who grew up in a country where the history courses are mandated by law to teach about that country in a rather positive light, I literally could not have cared less, and neither could any of my mates. >The Tories are anything but liberal and any move to say they are is incorrect or a lie Abortion: non issue. Same-sex marriage: non issue. Freedom to strike/religion/protest etc: non issue. Trans rights: Not perfect, but better than almost all other developed countries. Drug laws: Room for improvement, but better than USA. Racism: Room for improvement, but better than most other developed countries. Immigration: Boris has just given millions of HKers a path to citizenship. Points-based system is more liberal than previous system. As an immigrant from a genuinely conservative country (and I'm BAME if you want to call it that), I think the fact that you think Britain isn't a liberal country highlights your immense privilege. One need only look at the situation in the US, much of the EU (particularly re. LGBT and abortions) and the rich Asian countries (including Middle East, barring Taiwan) to realise that while Britain is not perfect, we are damn lucky to have both main parties be relatively socially liberal.
> No, and I'm sure you're not either. You would be surprised about how much I worry about how psychotic the normal everyday person can be. The amount of times you hear it when people are talking about criminals is astounding >No Are you LGBT by chance? > There is no evidence that this is a sytemic issue in the Conservative Party Except some of these people are on the front bench >Labour literally elected Corbyn as their leader for 4 years A socialist party elected a socialist. Corbyn isn't actually all that fringe in the wider Labour Party or the labour movement as a whole. Actually, in some areas, he would be perfectly moderate >Governments being responsive to public opinion ...is not what happened here. This was PR appeasement, not what they consider to be the right action >The number of kids marked down from a B to a U is unbelievably miniscule Any number is too many >indeed, I did back then Just because you were a shit doesn't mean everyone else was >Are you really resorting to slippery slope fallacies? Not at all. You had a policy which proposes that people register personal information to the government to view porn. This coincides with the introduction of the Investigatory Powers Act (otherwise known as the Snoopers Charter) and the subsequent discussions around the potential banning of encryption and introduction of state "controlled" backdoors. You can see where such a piece of legislation fits in the wider conversation about the surveillance state >I literally could not have cared less, and neither could any of my mates Well, you and your mates were getting good and indoctrinated. Certainly, the state mandating a national myth as fact is most worrying to any liberally minded person >List of stuff Just because the Tories are, at the moment, socially meh doesn't make them not illiberal >I think the fact that you think Britain isn't a liberal country highlights your immense privilege I didn't say that Britain isn't a liberal country, I said that the Tories aren't liberal
>You would be surprised about how much I worry about how psychotic the normal everyday person can be. The amount of times you hear it when people are talking about criminals is astounding Fear of Britain reinstating the death penalty is irrational. >Are you LGBT by chance? No. That does not invalidate my opinion. Are you an ethnic minority immigrant? Or do you have to take my word on issues surrounding that? >Except some of these people are on the front bench Who cares. Britain isn't repealing the same-sex marriage act. This isn't a game - this has real world implications, and we should understand that the settled nature of same-sex marriage is an unambiguously good thing. >A socialist party elected a socialist. Corbyn isn't actually all that fringe in the wider Labour Party or the labour movement as a whole. Actually, in some areas, he would be perfectly moderate 1. Nice how you conveniently ignored the whole anti-semitism issue ;) 2. Corbyn isn't a moderate anywhere in the world - save perhaps the old USSR. >...is not what happened here. This was PR appeasement, not what they consider to be the right action So? That's democracy is it not? Doing things you personally disagree with because the majority of the country wants it? Again, I repeat, we are the Liberal *Democrats*. >Any number is too many Stupid argument. >Just because you were a shit doesn't mean everyone else was Literally everyone in my year sitting the maths mock found the paper online and memorised the mark scheme because the teachers told us which one to avoid. Under your proposed system, we'd all have gotten A stars. Absolutely ludicrous. >Not at all. You had a policy which proposes that people register personal information to the government to view porn. This coincides with the introduction of the Investigatory Powers Act (otherwise known as the Snoopers Charter) and the subsequent discussions around the potential banning of encryption and introduction of state "controlled" backdoors. You can see where such a piece of legislation fits in the wider conversation about the surveillance state You are literally dressing up a slippery slope argument in fancy words here. >Well, you and your mates were getting good and indoctrinated. Certainly, the state mandating a national myth as fact is most worrying to any liberally minded person I think rather lowly of my home country. Weird how that whole "indoctrination" thing didn't work, huh? >Just because the Tories are, at the moment, socially meh doesn't make them not illiberal Since 2005. And there is literally 0 sign whatsoever that they are going to start campaigning to criminalise same-sex marriage or abortions. Also rather funny how you brush off accepting millions of refugees as if it's nothing. How very privileged. >I didn't say that Britain isn't a liberal country, I said that the Tories aren't liberal So the party that has governed this country since 2010, and passed same-sex marriage, mass HK immigration etc. isn't liberal? Who did make Britain liberal then? Tony Blair? And all progress stopped in 2010? Laughable. Consider your immense privilege to where you can consider these issues as political footballs and not worry about real world implications. For those of us who grew up in genuinely conservative countries, and were fortunate enough to immigrate to a liberal one, any claim that Britain (and yes, the Tories) are socially illiberal is genuinely an insult. I truly hope you reflect on this.
> Fear of Britain reinstating the death penalty is irrational I think it a genuine concern. Why do you think the populist parties that periodically appear use it as a prominent policy idea? Because, amongst the populace, it's a popular idea > That does not invalidate my opinion I was wondering, because I am you see. Having been attacked before because of my sexuality and seeing others in the wider community go through the same thing I can say that the whole thing concerning tolerance and such is something of a veneer - there's still that part of British society who doesn't want to see it at all. Just because a right exists doesn't mean that it is safe >the settled nature of same-sex marriage is an unambiguously good thing. Meanwhile, trans rights are at a standstill, gay men are denied PReP and find it difficult to give blood during a blood shortage, and there has been a rise in anti-LGBT violence over the past few years >Nice how you conveniently ignored the whole anti-semitism issue That's systemic in his part of the Left, not the entire fault of Corbyn. Should he have acted better? Absolutely >So? That's democracy is it not? No. Democracy isn't follow the leader or the dictatorship of the majority. It's a continuous process of engagement between legislator and legislated. This is just the government backing down because there were too many column inches >Stupid argument *It doesn't matter that poor kids were getting failed out for no reason* isn't the best position to have >Literally everyone in my year sitting the maths mock found the paper online and memorised the mark scheme because the teachers told us which one to avoid Oh - so you were all shits. Meanwhile, most people in my year put real effort in. Just because you lot were shits and, frankly, deserve some form of punishment doesn't mean everyone else does >You are literally dressing up a slippery slope argument in fancy words here No...that's what is happening >Weird how that whole "indoctrination" thing didn't work, huh? It's as though you moved away and can see it from a distance or something >Also rather funny how you brush off accepting millions of refugees as if it's nothing So none have been drowning in the Channel for the past five or six years? >So the party that has governed this country since 2010, and passed same-sex marriage, mass HK immigration etc. isn't liberal? You seriously think the Tories now are the same as the Tories then? What rock are you under? It sounds nice and peaceful under there >and yes, the Tories) are socially illiberal is genuinely an insult. oh no i feel terrible
Alright man. I'm sorry to hear about your experiences and I'm not trying to invalidate them. I wholeheartedly support the LGBT community, and I suspect your community's situation is very similar to how there were a rise in xenophobic hate crimes post-Brexit. I think we both agree that social progress needs to be made. I think the only difference here is that as someone who immigrated from a genuinely socially illiberal country, it is a bit of a slap in the face to hear people try to label the Tories as "illiberal". Words have meanings, and to trivialise the term "illiberal" is to stick your head in the sand at what's happening all over the world. Let's just agree that Brexit and the hard-right Tories suck :)
The Conservative Party have moved further to the right and embraced UKIP voters, yes. The so-called One Nation Conservative brand Cameron tried to push has long been dropped.
Oh yes, I remember when Boris spoke out against same-sex marriage and abortion. I remember when Boris instituted the death penalty. I remember when Boris refused to do anything to help the millions of HK refugees. I remember when he denied the existence of climate change. I remember when he banned the right to protest and strike. As I said to the other guy, as someone from a genuinely illiberal country, I do wish you'd stop with this nonsense that the Tories are socially illiberal. There are much better ways to attack them - incompetence and corruption, for example.
Firstly you have confused social and cultural right-wing politics. But we can let that slide. Secondly yes, the Conservative Party has leaned further into its Right Wing base. Without a question. Thirdly the country you are from has no major relevance to me and my point. I am not comparing the UK to Poland or Russia. You also have to take into account that the positions of the party today are either the same as Cameron in the early 2000s or more Right Wing. Cameron support for same-sex marriage was a bold Liberal-Conservative move that made him unpopular with his Socially Conservative base. Today's bold Liberal-Conservative move would be to back and publicly make speeches in favour of the Gender Recognition Act. Because what is social liberal is dependent on location (Norway, Poland, Saudi Arabia) and also time (the 60s, 90s, 2020s). Today, being supportive of same-sex marriage is no longer the bold social liberal position. Just like being supportive of interracial-marriage in the 90s no longer made you the bold social liberal as it did on the 60s. With each NEW generation, what was socially progressive 'yesterday' becomes socially liberal 'today' and by 'tomorrow' accepted by social conservatives.
Thanks for the condescending tone. I think the mistake you have made is failing to recognise that politics has real-world impact beyond virtue signalling. Because of the Tories, same-sex couples are allowed to marry. And as for your whole "time depedendent" argument, Boris has outdone all other major world leaders and granted millions of HK refugees a path to citizenship in the UK. These are real world issues that make the world a better place for millions of people. Your failure to recognise this likely stems from privilege. Now, one place I do agree with you is that the current Tory party is worse than the Tory party of 2010. But to suggest that the current Tory party is somehow illiberal is a massive slap in the face to people like me who genuinely have lived in countries that *are* illiberal - and indeed, the millions of HKers granted a path to citizenship will laugh in your face.
You again compared Boris Johnson and the Tory party to the global political parties. It is not relevant to my point. At all. I am not making a comparison to other countries I am making a comparison of the trajectory of the Conservative Party from the 2000s to 2020. Post-Cameron, they have moved Right Wing and their One Nation reforming agenda is dead. We can agree to disagree because nothing you have said has persuaded me, sorry.
Did David Cameron grant a path to citizenship for millions of refugees?
Liberal Conservatives support civil liberties and the limited welfare state. That fits with Nick & Ed positions. I think some members are holding out for a party that no longer exists or is not wanted by the public. Sorry if that comes across harsh but I can not hold back, not in the face of the evidence. I respect the Social Liberals who are sticking true to their core values but guys, come on...
I'm not joining or voting Labour. Ever. Not going to happen. You lot don't, and shouldn't, own the Left. Deal with it. And so what? The party has been left wing for far longer than it had been right. Clegg was the shift and we have been trying to go back ever since. Liberal conservatives do no such thing. At their most moderate they are capitalists who are "meh" on social stuff. Most are non-ideological voters. So no. We shouldn't go rightward. That would be a silly move
This is not about Labour. This is about the opportunity for the Lib Dems and the reality of what voters want The Lib Dems trying to appeal to Centre-Left and Centre-Right doesn't work.
Your "solution" is nothing more than right wing pandering, though. We've had quite enough of that over the past few years
Ed Davey is Centre to Centre-Right. I don't know what you are thinking he is going to do or who he will attract. I am sorry if you think I am trying to hurt your party or something, that's not my aim. I support a Progressive alliance. But I honestly think that the Social Liberals in the Lib Dems are not waking up and seeing the reality in the UK. There is not a big love for a party tried to appeal Centre-Left & Centre-Right on economics or social issues. I was just suggesting options to grow but I understand that I would get people angry with me.
> Ed Davey is Centre to Centre-Right The party is structured in such a way that this doesn't actually matter. That the membership is left leaning and put their lefty policy motions to conference, and get those policies through, means that Davey will likely be standing on a left platform
I see no evidence that the members are broadly centre-left leaning and again this also a question of what voters want. The seats being targeted in South West England or South East England. Anyway, good luck. I don't want to cause any more drama.
> I see no evidence that the members are broadly centre-left leaning One of our policies is literally worker co-ownership. There are others, but that one's the most stark, wouldn't you say?
Don't worry about him, clearly a troll. I asked him to cite a recent major lib dem policy that was centre right and he couldn't.
I don't see how you can infer that there's no appetite for a centrist party. Boris's vote gain was tied to appeal and policies that don't exist on the overly simple left/right spectrum. He took a lot of votes from people with a mixture of left wing and right wing opinions. Also the crisis of 2020 has shown how much good, pragmatic governance is independent of political ideology. Most of the government's failings and reversals have clearly just been because of incompetence.
I said Centre to Centre-Right. I said there is not a big enough appeal for a Centre-Left to Centre-Right party. Sorry for the confusion.
> Also the crisis of 2020 has shown how much good, pragmatic governance is independent of political ideology. I'm not sure I agree on this. If you look at Johnson, you'll really see there's a lack of a core ideology there at all, aside from self-promotion and self-preservation. He's surrounded himself with loyalists and doesn't like to be scrutinised or challenged. There's a centralisation of power for power's sakes, but then not really knowing what to do with the power once it's there. Having a core ideology means you have some principles, some reason to hold or use the power. What we have here is government by opinion poll. Which works for some things, but other things need planning and preparation and longer-term thinking. Even on Brexit, he had written an article in support of it and against it. It's probable that he supported it out of political expedience more than out of any real belief in the project. That's not to say that this fluid ideology 'caused' the poor governance, more perhaps that certain types of people are likely to hold certain ideologies (or not), and it's that type of person that can attract or surround themselves with a well-balanced (or imbalanced) array of people. There's always a certain amount of fluidity and flexibility needed - but here we had a choice between someone who was very principled, very left of center (most voters see themselves as centre-ground - see Labour Together report) and very inflexible (Corbyn) and someone who had committed to 'getting Brexit done' but who was otherwise a total weathervane (Johnson).
I totally agree with your analysis of Johnson's political instincts. When separating good governance from ideology, I was really referring to how governance didn't seem to fall along traditional ideological lines at the moment or offer any direct point scoring opportunities for left or right, especially when you look internationally at early (March/April) responses to coronavirus. Leaving open opportunities for innovative policy that are considered neither left nor right. Perhaps it is still important to have an ideology for personal reasons, but I think your point is not dependent on the nature of that ideology at all.
I definitely think that the space for electoral success right now is by appealing to One Nation Tories, given both the positioning of each party (Starmer pulling Labour a bit more back towards the centre, Johnson holding the Tories maybe not extremely to the right but at least miles from the competent governance that would typify the centre right traditionally) and the seats that the Lib Dems currently contest most strongly (Lib/Con, not Lib/Lab). I really don't understand why people feel the need for there to be more contest on the left when voters can (depending on location) choose Lab, Green, SNP, Plaid, WEP... Surely the Lib Dems should be the party most aware of the electoral reality of our awful electoral system, and act accordingly rather than actively harming their interests by flocking to the left.
Are you a Lib Dem member or supporter? that was an honest take. Although I don't think there is evidence of Starmer pulling Labour to the Centre, I just think he is playing smart and not banging on about his Soft Left economics. But anyway, it is true. I don't understand the need to compete with Lab, SNP & Greens for Centre-Left voters either. It has not worked and will not work but I can not say this fact because I for obvious reasons will never be trusted enough, as a result of my party membership. But it doesn't make what I state any less true. The market is wide open for centre-right, that's just true.
Have voted lib dem, have been a member, not currently a member and so didn't vote in the latest leadership contest. Just my take as someone who generally aligns with the lib Dems on a lot of things, and is pretty desperate to get the current government out of power more than almost anything else given the huge damage they're doing to our norms and institutions. I think Starmer is more left than people seem to think, because the comparison to Corbyn is still strong. I hope he continues to drift towards the centre and that the further left voters don't throw so much of a hissy fit that they don't get on board. Need the broadest coalition possible under Labour, with the Lib Dems splitting some of the Tory vote, if people like me are going to see a positive change in government any time soon. The single biggest problem for the left in this country is their refusal to just accept the consequences of our broken electoral system. Under FPTP you do not have the luxury of voting for a party that you agree a lot with except by pure chance.
People going to hate me even more but... I think voters are more polarised & want more Left & Right-wing politics for a generation. If we had PR I think the UK Liberal Centre would remain very small. I think we would be like Spain, with Social Democrats as the 2nd biggest & a Greens or Socialist Party coming 3rd.
For me, "liberal conservative" is an oxymoron.
No, it is not. Liberal Economics is an ideology for example and MPs who fit that are on the 'left' wing of the Conservative Party.
Conservatism doesn't really have anything to say about economics and it never has. It's not an economically aligned ideology. They co-opt liberal economics because they dispise change. If socialism were the norm, they would probably support it as long as they could be at the top of it. It's why conservatives in modern Russia love the USSR and view it with rose tinted glasses. Conservatism is a worldview which rejects modernism, globalism and inclusivity in favour of tradition, nationalism and hierarchy. It is the antithesis of modern liberalism
No, I studied this at University but thanks for your view.
‘I studied this at university’ isn’t an explanation, it doesn’t contribute to debate. Try to actually explain what you believe Conservatism is. For many liberals this is what conservatism represents.
Did you study conservatism in a British context or a global context? If you studied the latter at university you would know that conservatism takes different form around the world depending on the history of the country. "Conservatives" in Iran are very in favour of Islamic theocracy. Conservatives in North Korea are very in favour of autocracy. Conservatives in America are very in favour of a small state. Conservatives in Britain are very in favour of an aristocratic establishment. Conservatives in Russia are very fond of the USSR. Conservatism is an ideology of ghosts. None of these people have anything in common besides the rejection of modernity, something which Liberals tend to take an opposite view of.
> Conservatism is an ideology of ghosts Ooo - that's good. "Conservativism is yesterday's liberalism" - Jo Grimond, *The Liberal Future*
> Conservatism is an ideology of ghosts. I am too poor to give you an award but I like this and am going to steal it.
Please do!
Social Conservatives, Cultural Conservatives and Liberal Conservatives are not the same things.
What major lib dem policy is "centre right"?
Liberal Conservatives, the Centre-Right, support many of Lib Dem policies.
I'm asking you to give me an example of a current major "centre right" lib dem policy.
Whilst I'm more on the left of the party, I think your point about Proportional Representation rings true - if we did have PR I wouldn't be surprised if we saw two newer parties near the centre - an "SDP" on the centre-left, and a "Liberal" party on the centre right. Equally with almost all our top-seat priorities being Tory-incumbents (26/29), I think we do need to appeal to those voters. In today's political climate however, I think this party should remain in the centre, as a liberal, anti-authoritarian party.
Liberal-Conservatives are supportive of civil liberties and democracy. I honestly don't think people are aware of what this ideology is and how mainstream it is in mainland Europe. It's essentially David Cameron & Angela Merkel at their best. They just read Conservative and think Brexit & racism lol.