|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on May 2, 2022 19:38:45 GMT
Are the Lib Dems happy to be described as "left of centre"? Yes. Absolutely. Our origin is as one of two parties in a left v right battle. The fact that we have been displaced as the major left party by one further to our left doesn't change that. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on May 2, 2022 19:40:57 GMT
Central Devon is one of the reasons I am reluctant for Labour just to "give up" here. I recognise the party is highly unlikely to be successful but given there will be several seats throughout the south west that are potential gains at the next election, to my view giving the Liberals a free run sends the wrong signal and may be counter-productive. Well tbf Labour didn't "give up" in North Shropshire (there's a reasonable case to say they did in Chesham/Amersham) but "force majeure" meant things still went the way they did. Its not unreasonable to see a high possibility of the same happening here. And tbh I am dubious a LibDem gain here would harm the party's prospects in more promising territory (NS shouldn't make Shrewsbury harder to win for us either) Ideally that's the way these things should work - one party rapidly establishing themselves as challenger, neither giving up before the event. |
|
|
|
Post by aargauer on May 2, 2022 19:49:45 GMT
Are the Lib Dems happy to be described as "left of centre"? Yes. Absolutely. Our origin is as one of two parties in a left v right battle. The fact that we have been displaced as the major left party by one further to our left doesn't change that. Funny I thought your origin was that you wanted to decapitate the head of state! On a serious note - given it was the whigs who were resolute in defence of free trade against the Tory's protectionism isn't there a case that you were the right wing party? I wonder what a lot of your party would make of the Swiss liberal party who are significantly to the right of the UK Conservatives on economics? (And anti-EU membership) |
|
|
|
Post by tonyhill on May 2, 2022 20:23:14 GMT
Let's not start down that road. I remember at the time of the merger between the Liberal Party and the SDP when the name was being discussed someone arguing that we couldn't be called the Liberal Democrats because the voters would think we were politically similar to the Japanese Liberal Democrats.
|
|
|
|
Post by carolus on May 2, 2022 20:46:56 GMT
Let's not start down that road. I remember at the time of the merger between the Liberal Party and the SDP when the name was being discussed someone arguing that we couldn't be called the Liberal Democrats because the voters would think we were politically similar to the Japanese Liberal Democrats. Well, better than the Russians... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2022 21:00:35 GMT
Though the last few years suggest that being associated with a governing corrupt cartel with right-wing politics might not do you much harm
|
|
DrW
Conservative
Posts: 578
|
Post by DrW on May 2, 2022 22:47:57 GMT
What protections do MPs have against unfair or constructive dismissal? They don't, because they can only be removed by a vote of MPs or by one of a set of specific, legally defined, things (which is also a reason to dismiss people in 'regular' jobs). They don't have protection against constructive dismissal because no one does. It is a choice to resign and you can take it to a tribunal if you think you have a claim (90+% of cases fail though). As MPs don't have an employer, they don't have the opportunity to go to the ET but then MPs hardly ever actually need to resign. Well indeed - MPs are not like employees in any workplace so rhetoric about conduct being unacceptable in another workplace is nothing but cheap (but alas apparently effective) rhetoric. |
|
polupolu
Lib Dem
Liberal (Democrat). Socially Liberal, Economically Keynesian.
Posts: 1,261 
|
Post by polupolu on May 3, 2022 8:01:15 GMT
Yes. Absolutely. Our origin is as one of two parties in a left v right battle. The fact that we have been displaced as the major left party by one further to our left doesn't change that. Funny I thought your origin was that you wanted to decapitate the head of state! On a serious note - given it was the whigs who were resolute in defence of free trade against the Tory's protectionism isn't there a case that you were the right wing party? I wonder what a lot of your party would make of the Swiss liberal party who are significantly to the right of the UK Conservatives on economics? (And anti-EU membership) I think if you had told anyone in the 19th century that you thought abolishing the corn laws was a right wing policy they would have considered you insane. The right was firmly mercantilist, and continued to be for roughly the next century. (A latter-day example of a mercantilist outlook would be Mr. Trump - I assume you would agree he is hardly an exemplar of the left).
Furthemore, if you look at other European Liberal parties, you will see that some of their names even translate as "Left", whatever their current position on the ever-chaning left-right axis is nowadays.
Liberalism has always had dual aspects depending on whether "Freedom From" is judged more important than "Freedom To". Indeed there have been many examples of two Liberal parties in one country, where both would have recognised each other as Liberal (whereas the British Liberal party lost many of its "Freedom To" elements to the Tories with the rise of the Labour party, not surprisingly given the electoral system). The preamble to the Liberal Party consitituion is an example of the influence of the "Freedom From" approach: "[where] none shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity".
|
|
|
|
Post by aargauer on May 3, 2022 8:15:32 GMT
Funny I thought your origin was that you wanted to decapitate the head of state! On a serious note - given it was the whigs who were resolute in defence of free trade against the Tory's protectionism isn't there a case that you were the right wing party? I wonder what a lot of your party would make of the Swiss liberal party who are significantly to the right of the UK Conservatives on economics? (And anti-EU membership) I think if you had told anyone in the 19th century that you thought abolishing the corn laws was a right wing policy they would have considered you insane. The right was firmly mercantilist, and continued to be for roughly the next century. (A latter-day example of a mercantilist outlook would be Mr. Trump - I assume you would agree he is hardly an exemplar of the left).
Furthemore, if you look at other European Liberal parties, you will see that some of their names even translate as "Left", whatever their current position on the ever-chaning left-right axis is nowadays.
Liberalism has always had dual aspects depending on whether "Freedom From" is judged more important than "Freedom To". Indeed there have been many examples of two Liberal parties in one country, where both would have recognised each other as Liberal (whereas the British Liberal party lost many of its "Freedom To" elements to the Tories with the rise of the Labour party, not surprisingly given the electoral system). The preamble to the Liberal Party consitituion is an example of the influence of the "Freedom From" approach: "[where] none shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity".
Personally I'd consider Trump a populist centrist who consciously appealed to the right at times. My problem with the freedom from definition is that it is indistinguishable from social democracy and means freedom to liberals (who are significantly more distinct) have to share turf with the religious right and allies - which is uncomfortable turf. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on May 3, 2022 8:29:27 GMT
Yes. Absolutely. Our origin is as one of two parties in a left v right battle. The fact that we have been displaced as the major left party by one further to our left doesn't change that. Funny I thought your origin was that you wanted to decapitate the head of state! On a serious note - given it was the whigs who were resolute in defence of free trade against the Tory's protectionism isn't there a case that you were the right wing party? I wonder what a lot of your party would make of the Swiss liberal party who are significantly to the right of the UK Conservatives on economics? (And anti-EU membership) Ah well, once we'd got rid of the Stuarts we were all for the Head of State, and it was the Tories who had a little soft spot for overthrowing the royal family in association with foreign military invasions! I suppose on the right-wing Whigs it is all about how you define "right wing" - on a free trade vs state intervention definition you may be right, on a conserving-the-status quo v "progress" definition (which I think is more classical - I mean in the original left v right wings of the French National Assembly I don't think free trade came into it much) I think not. State religion v freedom of conscience were bigger deals than economic theory back in the day too. Liberals on the continent have a strong link to nationalism (liberal = sovereignty of the people over sovereignty by divine right, the people = the nation,) and I think you could draw an ideological line through some German C19th liberals to the Nazis, but I think Georg Ebner or Sibboleth would be yer man for that sort of thing. |
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,796
|
Post by Georg Ebner on May 3, 2022 10:44:47 GMT
Funny I thought your origin was that you wanted to decapitate the head of state! On a serious note - given it was the whigs who were resolute in defence of free trade against the Tory's protectionism isn't there a case that you were the right wing party? I wonder what a lot of your party would make of the Swiss liberal party who are significantly to the right of the UK Conservatives on economics? (And anti-EU membership) Ah well, once we'd got rid of the Stuarts we were all for the Head of State, and it was the Tories who had a little soft spot for overthrowing the royal family in association with foreign military invasions! I suppose on the right-wing Whigs it is all about how you define "right wing" - on a free trade vs state intervention definition you may be right, on a conserving-the-status quo v "progress" definition (which I think is more classical - I mean in the original left v right wings of the French National Assembly I don't think free trade came into it much) I think not. State religion v freedom of conscience were bigger deals than economic theory back in the day too. Liberals on the continent have a strong link to nationalism (liberal = sovereignty of the people over sovereignty by divine right, the people = the nation,) and I think you could draw an ideological line through some German C19th liberals to the Nazis, but I think Georg Ebner or Sibboleth would be yer man for that sort of thing. The democratic liberalism thought so, indeed. Yet, liberalism per se has nothing to do with "sovereignity of the people", liberty is not the same as egality (or fraternity). Cannot see, why free trade should be conservative/right, it wasn't so before Reagan&Thatcher and isn't so since Trump&BoJo. NationalSocialism was - what is also psephically obvious - the case of a proletarized bourgeoisie and bourgeoisized proletariat (incl. craftsMen, some farmers aso.) with only the salvation-"religions" around 2 Jews - CHRISTians & MARXists - resisting. |
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,796
|
Post by Georg Ebner on May 3, 2022 11:54:25 GMT
By the way: It's not unfunny to look at the meanders of British & Swiss liberalism.
In the XVIIth the Puritans, who are these days the hard-right, were the left-extremists and Britons had around 1700 the reputation of being revolutionary&instable (quasi full of "Irish blood"...). Under Hanover the Whigs became the fairly conservative StatusQuo-party, while the Tories were the popular OutSiders having to combine their genuine conservativism with radical elements. Then the picture of "the British phlegma" was emerging.
In the C.H. the development was naturally very similar to the world's other republic - the U.S.A.: The old anti-democratic, but liberal patricians were sidelined in the early XIXth by the democrats (Jackson-Dem.s sive Radicals/FreiSinnige) and the latter were very egalitaristic ("EidGenossen = NeidGenossen" [OathComrades = EnvyComrades]; CH as "the swamp of Europe" [v.METTERNICH]). But as soon as they had bred out "their" democratic republics and antiCapistalism was rising both became quite conservative, argueably the 2 most conservative demoCracies in the XXth. With the CultureCatch in presence and near future CH (this time without the USA) is moving to the left, but the conFrontation of Trumps vs. tramps (= workers vs. nonWorkers) in the further future will surely push SwitzerLand back sharply to the right (at least within WestEurope).
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on May 3, 2022 13:02:51 GMT
The issue with the 'freedom from' definition, for me, is that it smacks a little of 'you're free from laws that make you do XXX' etc, which still gives the state too much power. It's got a whiff of 'there are people who know better' about it, rather like the old Clause IV saying 'secure for the workers...', as though the workers are too stupid to do it themselves.
|
|
polupolu
Lib Dem
Liberal (Democrat). Socially Liberal, Economically Keynesian.
Posts: 1,261
|
Post by polupolu on May 3, 2022 14:56:02 GMT
The issue with the 'freedom from' definition, for me, is that it smacks a little of 'you're free from laws that make you do XXX' etc, which still gives the state too much power. It's got a whiff of 'there are people who know better' about it, rather like the old Clause IV saying 'secure for the workers...', as though the workers are too stupid to do it themselves. It is really about how you analyse the advantages and disadvantages of a policy. Look at any given policy - and the implications of not having that policy - in terms of whose freedoms are impacted in what way. Then you have to weigh those to decide if freedoms are advanced or hampered overall by the policy.
The classic (non-financial) example is banning smoking on the underground. Weigh the freedom to smoke against the freedom to not have to inhale other people's smoke etc.
This is why European Liberalism has the dual tendency, the weight you give to certain freedoms over other freedoms is a deciding factor. However, if you analyse a policy in these terms then I believe you are doing a Liberal analysis. That is why I, as a left-Liberal, would find common ground with a right-Liberal party. We can talk the same language even if our weightings are different.
It is a sort of inverted utilitarianism. Rather than the most good for the most people, it looks to the least damage to the fewest people.
|
|
cogload
Lib Dem
I jumped in the river and what did I see...
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by cogload on May 4, 2022 12:24:23 GMT
Parish has been appointed to Northstead.
Let the by election begin...
|
|
|
|
Post by janwhitby on May 4, 2022 13:46:17 GMT
I don’t actually think this man needed to resign. I think he had enough anyway and it was a nice excuse.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wisconsin on May 4, 2022 13:47:36 GMT
I can think of less embarrassing excuses.
|
|
|
|
Post by janwhitby on May 4, 2022 13:57:17 GMT
Are the Lib Dems happy to be described as "left of centre"? Yes. Absolutely. Our origin is as one of two parties in a left v right battle. The fact that we have been displaced as the major left party by one further to our left doesn't change that. I miss the old liberals. Im of a view the social democrats ruin the lib dems and have ruined labour and conservatives. They’re the issue that creates this blandness within aspects of politics. You could easily imagine Keir Starmer, Ed Miliband, Chukka Umunna, David Cameron, George Osborne, Rishi Sunak, Nick Clegg and the funny eyed bushy haired libdem pansexual (can’t recall name) in the same party and happy too. I can think of less embarrassing excuses. You make my point about missing Liberals in the Lib Dems as the liberals against regulation of sin like this would have told him to stand proud, not characterise this as an embarassment. He might be looked at as liberated! His wife’s response was certainly liberal. |
|
|
|
Post by BucksDucks on May 4, 2022 14:05:53 GMT
You make my point about missing Liberals in the Lib Dems as the liberals against regulation of sin like this would have told him to stand proud, not characterise this as an embarassment. He might be looked at as liberated! He certainly liberated himself from being a Member of Parliament. |
|
will
Non-Aligned
Posts: 211
|
Post by will on May 5, 2022 6:20:43 GMT
Funny I thought your origin was that you wanted to decapitate the head of state! On a serious note - given it was the whigs who were resolute in defence of free trade against the Tory's protectionism isn't there a case that you were the right wing party? I wonder what a lot of your party would make of the Swiss liberal party who are significantly to the right of the UK Conservatives on economics? (And anti-EU membership) Ah well, once we'd got rid of the Stuarts we were all for the Head of State, and it was the Tories who had a little soft spot for overthrowing the royal family in association with foreign military invasions! I suppose on the right-wing Whigs it is all about how you define "right wing" - on a free trade vs state intervention definition you may be right, on a conserving-the-status quo v "progress" definition (which I think is more classical - I mean in the original left v right wings of the French National Assembly I don't think free trade came into it much) I think not. State religion v freedom of conscience were bigger deals than economic theory back in the day too. Free trade was a liberal/left policy in the 18th/19th centuries because protectionism was identified with "Old Corruption": state monopolies, the funding of sinecures and patronage, and the levying of higher prices on the working poor for the benefit of aristocratical landowners. Basically the argument of free trade liberals was that protectionism existed for elites who lived off inherited privilege and exploited those who produced the country's wealth - which meant the 19th century Liberal coalition was able to be a big tent including both progressive industrial capitalists and parts of the urban working class, both opposed to the interests of reactionary Toryism. The conservative argument for protection was a familiar nationalist one that subsidising landowners was necessary to strengthen the nation by maintaining self-sufficiency in food production and supply, particularly important in times of war, and to preserve the beloved traditional rural economy from liquid modernity. So there was also a cosmopolitan versus nationalist aspect to the tariff debate, where trade policy was either viewed as dictated by the enlightened cooperation of free individuals for mutual benefit or a zero-sum struggle of national competition. Both these aspects, nationalist and traditionalist appeals versus the progressive extirpation of privilege, map pretty well onto contemporary left/right cleavages. |
|
