I've recently seen a lot of americans (that would identify as further left than the democrats there) use liberal as a word to essentially mean "socially liberal, fiscally conservative". Which is actually more in line with what I think we'd consider the "British" definition to be, so it's not quite as cut and dry as that.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK General Election - 8th June 2017 |OT| - The Red Wedding
- Thread starter Jezbollah
- Start date
- Status
I've recently seen a lot of americans (that would identify as further left than the democrats there) use liberal as a word to essentially mean "socially liberal, fiscally conservative". Which is actually more in line with what I think we'd consider the "British" definition to be, so it's not quite as cut and dry as that.
PJV3
Member
Daily politics had Edwina Currie spying on foodbank users, hiding in the car park judging their lifestyles.
RobotNinjaHornets
Banned
Tbf there seems to have been an upswing in people who would rather call themselves socialist than liberal in America, what with the increasing membership of the DSA, podcasts like Chapo Trap House gaining popularity and such
I'd agree with that definition but I've mostly seen the American definition used to label everyone from Communists, social democrats and small c conservatives liberal.
Spuck-uk
Banned
True, the US democrats would be described as Liberal there, and they don't give a shit about workers rights.
RobotNinjaHornets
Banned
American Liberalism: The oppressive system isn't a problem, it just needs more diversity in the upper classes
Same appeal as Katie Hopkins I expect.
You should look up the row she got into over the midwife strikes a few years back. What an absolute cunt.
I'd say the majority even here would actively work against workers rights not just apathy. Under some false fairness to employer bs.
The idea of legislated holidays would turn many "liberals" beetroot.
I think bringing it back sets a dangerous precedent regarding animal rights.
Maybe we need to cull foxes. If we do, there are better ways. It's utterly barbaric.
PJV3
Member
She got a bee in her bonnet about nobody really needing to use one, the BBC decided to send her and see what she thought.
I don't think she could grasp that people were moving in and out of work and benefits were struggling to fill in the gaps etc. If you had a car you weren't really hungry or they could make do and make sacrifices.
I ended up more pissed off at the programme than that stupid sod.
edwina cuntie said:
More than minimum wage=no right to strike. Silly fucking bint.http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/5975984
Things like that (benefits st) enable middle class sneering so they can feel moral about voting to take away someone's lifeline.
She's a cunt, as you said the programme is worse for giving her a platform. She shouldn't exist, she's nothing. She shags greyman and resigned in disgrace as a junior health minister or something.
RobotNinjaHornets
Banned
Shit like that makes my "Eat the rich, nationalise everything, fuck the bourgeoisie" comments increasingly unironic. Fucking shitheels.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
We'l probably never agree on the foxhunting thing, so I'll just try to wrap it up with a few replies.
Pretty good reason for a stance, yes I agree. For an outright ban, maybe not - I suspect a bunch of regulation might have been more effective than the rather dodgy law that we have. Keep the fun and ritual and spare the fox the cruelty would seem to me to be the best of both worlds.
I'd be much more comfortable with the whole thing if could convince myself (which I can't) that the then government would have done the exact same thing if foxhunting took place in marginal seats rather than predominantly safe Tory ones.
This isn't an anti-Labour thing by the way, the Tories (and the Republicans and the Democrats) have done or attempted similar things.
On your last point, I would steer strictly clear of Iain Duncan Smith - which I have been wholly successful at so far.
Yes, it's showboating, and it is an unwelcome distraction in this campaign. But it is no more showboating than Labour expending all the parliamentary time and the Parliament Acts the way they did in implementing the ban in the first place.
This I think comes to the crux of the matter. It is about where "I don't approve of X" slips over into "X should be illegal". I'm deliberately eliding the reasoning behind the ban here, because there's always reasoning of some sort behind everything, and which reasoning you accept tends to depend which side of the argument you are on. It's a difficult thing to pin down, and the best I can come up with is that if something is that divisive it should be approached with caution, with consensus and without use of the Parliament Acts. Which is a bit waffly, but I hope you see what I'm getting at.
Short answer to long post I'm sorry - but I don't want to make this about foxhunting itself, as I mostly agree with you so there would be nothing to discuss.
But I'm a long way from American Classical Liberalism here - all in favour of sensible regulation and taxing the hell out of things where appropriate. Just not in favour of illiberally banning things just to satisfy your base and rile the opposition (c.f. anything Trump does).
Pretty good reason for a stance, yes I agree. For an outright ban, maybe not - I suspect a bunch of regulation might have been more effective than the rather dodgy law that we have. Keep the fun and ritual and spare the fox the cruelty would seem to me to be the best of both worlds.
I'd be much more comfortable with the whole thing if could convince myself (which I can't) that the then government would have done the exact same thing if foxhunting took place in marginal seats rather than predominantly safe Tory ones.
This isn't an anti-Labour thing by the way, the Tories (and the Republicans and the Democrats) have done or attempted similar things.
On your last point, I would steer strictly clear of Iain Duncan Smith - which I have been wholly successful at so far.
Yes, it's showboating, and it is an unwelcome distraction in this campaign. But it is no more showboating than Labour expending all the parliamentary time and the Parliament Acts the way they did in implementing the ban in the first place.
This I think comes to the crux of the matter. It is about where "I don't approve of X" slips over into "X should be illegal". I'm deliberately eliding the reasoning behind the ban here, because there's always reasoning of some sort behind everything, and which reasoning you accept tends to depend which side of the argument you are on. It's a difficult thing to pin down, and the best I can come up with is that if something is that divisive it should be approached with caution, with consensus and without use of the Parliament Acts. Which is a bit waffly, but I hope you see what I'm getting at.
Short answer to long post I'm sorry - but I don't want to make this about foxhunting itself, as I mostly agree with you so there would be nothing to discuss.
But I'm a long way from American Classical Liberalism here - all in favour of sensible regulation and taxing the hell out of things where appropriate. Just not in favour of illiberally banning things just to satisfy your base and rile the opposition (c.f. anything Trump does).
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
???
The 'democrats' in 'Liberal Democrats' does come from the 'Social Democratic Party', you know...
And the Lib Dems were a social democratic party largely before the orange bookers got Clegg elected.
Ashdown and Kennedy's platforms were social democratic. Part of the voter blowback after coalition was because some voters still thought they were social democratic, not small c conservatives.
They were explicitly to the left of Blair and Labour for the entirety of 'New labour'.
Not like May's inspiring anyone either. "Unremarkable" would be a competitive improvement over Corbyn.
Miliband would beat her, hell Brown might of. She just hides, screens questions from media and tries to cosplay Thatcher type declarations. Zero charisma, any picture with children or in an open setting looks like she is about to devour souls.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Inclined to agree.
I call anybody male or female a cunt, post history would confirm this. Don't tend to use bitch.
Meh need to cut down on swearing actually.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Ditto. I rather fondly remember that Agatha Christie short story where the Prime Minister was able to travel on a train incognito in the sure knowledge that no disguise was needed because nobody knew what he looked like.
EDIT: probably one of her earlier ones I guess
Someone is keeping a spreadsheet with a bunch of predictions, including majority.
Roberto I think?
Jezbollah
Member
No, but right now I'm thinking around 50.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
That's... very pessimistic about Conservative chances?
Jezbollah
Member
I think the Tories have been *very* lacklustre, and I think Labour have done better than what I had expected, to be honest.
Audioboxer
Member
I don't think the ban is illiberal, but I appreciate you conveying your thoughts.
WARNING, graphic tweet (gore/blood), but yeah...
https://twitter.com/AngrySalmond/status/862382074023604224
Cunt is still the harshest swear word you can get and I think most people will roll their eyes if members of the public are going around dropping it like casual bombs in public. The British way tends to be save a lot of the banter for "safe spaces", aka with friends or online in groups etc. Be generally polite and well spoken when around complete randoms.
Plus, in Scotland because it's Scotland words like cunt end up being used as terms of endearment. It's still pretty taboo in America so it's funny sometimes seeing GAFers a bit taken aback by British-GAF being potty mouths.
Jezbollah
Member
So, "exclusive" from the Telegraph (take with a pinch of salt). Leaked Labour manifesto:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...my-corbyns-left-wing-labour-manifesto-leaked/
- "Mr Corbyn plans to nationalise energy, rail and mail"
- "will introduce a 20:1 pay cap for businesses"
- "Labour will rule out a "no deal" Brexit and refuse to set a migration target"
- "will also create a Ministry of Labour to hand more power to trade unions"
- "Pay bargaining and increased unionisation across the workforce"
- "The party will fund its socialist agenda though a huge programme of increased tax and £250billion of borrowing over the next decade with more spending on education and health and big levies on business and industry."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...my-corbyns-left-wing-labour-manifesto-leaked/
- "Mr Corbyn plans to nationalise energy, rail and mail"
- "will introduce a 20:1 pay cap for businesses"
- "Labour will rule out a "no deal" Brexit and refuse to set a migration target"
- "will also create a Ministry of Labour to hand more power to trade unions"
- "Pay bargaining and increased unionisation across the workforce"
- "The party will fund its socialist agenda though a huge programme of increased tax and £250billion of borrowing over the next decade with more spending on education and health and big levies on business and industry."
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
from the BBC
I do really try to be reasonably level headed here, even if I sometimes draw rather far-fetch parallels that people get upset about.
But this really pisses me off. Thanks Jeremy.
Perspective: I have a shop. It is a limited company. From it I earn less than half of the minimum wage per hour worked. I pay my taxes well in time. I do not qualify for benefits. the government mandates that if I employ someone I must pay them twice as much as I earn (tbh I don't have a problem with that). I provide services that local people like and enjoy and would miss, I do it willingly and have fun. But I am no way rich.
And Jeremy wants to increase my taxes. Thanks.
Who does he think this will hit? For the big companies who can somehow shuffle profits abroad it will mean nearly nothing. For me it is straight bottom line hit - and times that by several million for UK small businesses.
I paid more in corporation tax in the last financial year, which was my worst year ever, than the whole of fucking Starbucks UK did in 13 years.
Grr.
But it's all tribal innit. Corporation tax = corporations = fat cats = capitalists = grind down the workers. Real life is nowhere near.
I do really try to be reasonably level headed here, even if I sometimes draw rather far-fetch parallels that people get upset about.
But this really pisses me off. Thanks Jeremy.
Perspective: I have a shop. It is a limited company. From it I earn less than half of the minimum wage per hour worked. I pay my taxes well in time. I do not qualify for benefits. the government mandates that if I employ someone I must pay them twice as much as I earn (tbh I don't have a problem with that). I provide services that local people like and enjoy and would miss, I do it willingly and have fun. But I am no way rich.
And Jeremy wants to increase my taxes. Thanks.
Who does he think this will hit? For the big companies who can somehow shuffle profits abroad it will mean nearly nothing. For me it is straight bottom line hit - and times that by several million for UK small businesses.
I paid more in corporation tax in the last financial year, which was my worst year ever, than the whole of fucking Starbucks UK did in 13 years.
Grr.
But it's all tribal innit. Corporation tax = corporations = fat cats = capitalists = grind down the workers. Real life is nowhere near.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Corporation tax is banded, phi. As far as I'm aware, he's not talking about the small business rate. You won't be affected unless you earn more than £300,000 in profit, in which case give yourself a damn pay rise! 
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Corporation tax is banded, phi. As far as I'm aware, he's not talking about the small business rate. You won't be affected unless you earn more than £300,000 in profit, in which case give yourself a damn pay rise!
It's not banded any more Crab. The bands were unified last year.
EDIT: I guess they could be ununified again, but you know, people ought to be clear about that?
Very good policies.
The pay cap is only for government contractors so executives like in G4S can't pay themselves millions while paying their employees the minimum wage.
Tax rises and closing of loopholes that allow tax dodging for large multinationals, increased income tax for the top 5%.
Typical Torygraph scaremongering with HUGE LEVIES and UNIONS.
Time for government to stop subsidising large corporations.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
They are both are the same amount at the moment, but they're still legally distinct. The SBR hasn't been abolished or anything.
Hot Coldman
Banned
Yeah that manifesto sounds all right to me. Nationalising rail is pretty much the single biggest issue I'll be glad to vote for, ha.
Maleficence
Member
I'm really hoping british voters actually look into issues other than fucking brexit and look at the party manifestos, if people voted based on principles rather than whatever other fuckery they're considering, Labour would have a strong chance.
Fuck the tories.
Fuck the tories.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Yes it has been (but I was wrong about the year). From HMRC website:
Thank you - that helps me understand it. Still not happy about it though (as you can probably understand!).
Miles Quaritch
Member
Yeah, this is never happening and they really shouldn't have put it in their manifesto.
Nah, tories have everyone convinced that the "economy" (read: nations credit card, lol) and the cash flow of big business is more important than their own well being at the moment.
Energy seems unlikely (and as an employee of a utility with lots of shares, I could do without the uncertainty), but the mail would be easy (though at a huge loss after the tories gave it to their mates), and they actually have the public's support for nationalising the railways.
Audioboxer
Member
lol
This vote is almost Brexit 2.0. Scotland is about indyref2 yes or no and the rUK is about Brexit 2.0.
The general public doesn't have time for these "complicated" manifesto things.
Maleficence
Member
I said I hope, I'm not expecting it to happen. Most people are stupid.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
Some pretty good policies there. Nationalising rail should be shouted very loudly because that has wide support because it is a no brainer.
Billy_Pilgrim
Member
If it is actually costed, I would definitely vote for that. All very good, except maybe Royal Mail, which is not really worth kicking up a fuss about.
I'm voting for him anyway so at least I can feel as though there was something I agreed with.
I'm voting for him anyway so at least I can feel as though there was something I agreed with.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked