Quote: Aaron @ 8th April 2017, 8:54 PM

Aren't we all?

In 21st Century politics, yes. Not to confuse with too much history, but politics - at least in Britain - has essentially flipped in the last century-and-a-bit, from the right being quite authoritarian and favouring a large, powerful state, with a left keen on more liberal attitudes and reform, to almost the binary opposite. Indeed, libertarianism was born of the left, but is

Yes. American labels are utterly bizarre and quite opposing the true meaning of the words. In US politics 'liberal' is a synonym for 'socialist', whilst true liberals would be inclined away from those kind of big-government policies and programmes that socialism loves. Pure conjecture here, I've never been interested enough to study it, but I wonder if that has come to be the case due to the involvement of religion in US politics. The God squad (most often of the right?) brandishing the term around pejoratively to refer to those who oppose them - in favouring gay marriage, etc - and thus 'liberal', a word which would actually mean less big state and control, has become stuck to the left.

The word liberal derives from the latin meaning free (man). Consider this definition: "(in a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform."

View original

Pretty much the same thing happened in the US I think some time shortly after Lincoln's presidency. He was technically a republican, but he was very much the opposite of what we now call 'republican' and the current american conception 'democrat' fits him much better. The two terms flip-flopped. Don't remember how or why though.

I think US 'liberal' goes beyond 'socialism' (as I understand it) in a way. When I think liberal, I think, yes on taxes, yes on the government being heavily involved in allocating funds for public services like police, firefighters, libraries, postal system etc. all being funded and regulated by the government. As well as funding for social programs that promote the wellfare of all, like some of the programs I've mentioned before, and also universal healthcare is a big one. So far so socialist. But there's an equal emphasis, not just on promoting welfare and access to services, but on protecting various freedoms/liberties. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of press, separation of church and state, lots of civil rights stuff (nowadays even talk of things like making internet access and access free clean drinking water civil rights.) freedom to marry whomever you like, freedom to vote etc. There are a lot of things associated with the word 'liberal' here. (all generally good things as far as I'm concerned.)

I'm pretty sure your party system is as confusing from my perspective as mine is from yours. Perhaps yours is perfectly logical and has kept consistent meanings for political category terms across time, but I kind of doubt that's the case.

I just did a bit of digging to try to figure out how the meaning of the word liberal developed and changed throughout history in the US....and came to the conclusion that it was extremely complicated, and that the meaning has changed numerous times for numerous reasons over the decades.

Quote: Davida Grimes @ 8th April 2017, 9:55 PM

But there's an equal emphasis, not just on promoting welfare and access to services, but on protecting various freedoms/liberties. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of press, separation of church and state, lots of civil rights stuff (nowadays even talk of things like making internet access and access free clean drinking water civil rights.) freedom to marry whomever you like, freedom to vote etc.

View original

Those are essentially what one would expect from 'liberal' if the term was used in its true definition, yes.

Quote: Davida Grimes @ 8th April 2017, 9:55 PM

I'm pretty sure your party system is as confusing from my perspective as mine is from yours. Perhaps yours is perfectly logical and has kept consistent meanings for political category terms across time, but I kind of doubt that's the case.

View original

It's not that different: we have two main parties, one broadly of the left and one broadly of the right. The biggest difference is the gulf between the entire political spheres in our countries. American political culture is so far to the right of that in Britain, that your (left) Democrats are in many cases to the right of our (right) Conservatives.

Really?! My left is way considerably less far left than yours? My left is pretty left! It's different depending on what part of the country you're in though.

Can you give me an example of some UK left-ish ideas/policies that my left would consider too far left? Or something to that effect.

Quote: Davida Grimes @ 9th April 2017, 12:05 AM

Really?! My left is way considerably less far left than yours? My left is pretty left! It's different depending on what part of the country you're in though.

Can you give me an example of some UK left-ish ideas/policies that my left would consider too far left? Or something to that effect.

View original

Yes, our political systems are way out of line. The different attitudes to things like education and healthcare are probably the best example. Here they are both under the more or less direct control and ownership of central, national government in London. No one in any mainstream party - with the exception of the odd outlying loony - would even suggest they stop being publicly funded. Meanwhile your ACA (Obamacare) seems to be little more than a subsidy of private insurance, if I've followed correctly.

You also alluded to de-funding police and fire services in your posts earlier. Our parties might argue about how much money is needed where at different times, but there would never be any such notion. We are far more at ease with the state providing services through central taxation than is even fathomable in American politics.

May be great in long run, so the votes of younger people should be those that really counted.

But is that so? You need to be over about57 to remember what it was like to not be in the EEC/EU, so is it not right that those who knew are the ones to vote to get out!

Or looked at another way, it's those who are over 60 who are the ones that voted the UK into the EEC/EU (sort of) so should it not be they, who having realised what a terrible mistake that was, be the ones to vote the UK out again?

But, I think what fopdoodle was saying is that all of the people who were allowed to work normal people jobs, like doctors, and nurses, factory workers, office workers etc. who were previously allowed to work in any country in the EU without hassle, are now getting screwed over, and I guess are going to have to move back to their countries of origin (including all UK citizens working in other EU countries). That's the understanding I've got. But I could be way off.

You are way off indeed; the likely-hood of any EU citizen who legally moved into the UK to work, being forced to return to their own country is extremely remote. It isn't going to happen. The EU workers are not the only 'foreign' workers in the UK and there is no more probability of EU workers being sent home than there is of USA workers in the UK being sent home.

There's a lot of talk about it, but it is all 'sabre-rattling' mostly, I suspect, to keep the EU countries from threatening to send the UK workers in the EU back to the UK.

Quote: Aaron @ 9th April 2017, 12:28 AM

Yes, our political systems are way out of line. The different attitudes to things like education and healthcare are probably the best example. Here they are both under the more or less direct control and ownership of central, national government in London. No one in any mainstream party - with the exception of the odd outlying loony - would even suggest they stop being publicly funded. Meanwhile your ACA (Obamacare) seems to be little more than a subsidy of private insurance, if I've followed correctly.

You also alluded to de-funding police and fire services in your posts earlier. Our parties might argue about how much money is needed where at different times, but there would never be any such notion. We are far more at ease with the state providing services through central taxation than is even fathomable in American politics.

View original

Ah, okay. The education thing I can see. Although, I think with America being the size that it is, it kind of make sense that our state schools (the government run ones, just on a state, rather than national level. I know we have different words/concepts for college/university and words like that. Here a university is somewhere that offers both bachelor degree's (basic 4 year degree) as well as masters and PhD programs (aka Graduate School). What we would call a 'college' is the same thing, minus the graduate programs. So colleges are undergrad only campuses. And for us, a private school is the expensive kind that doesn't get any government funding, and for the most part offer a higher quality education than many state schools (the government funded ones). What's the cost of college/university there? Here a decent private school is around 80,000$ a year, and a state school is somewhere between 13-20,000 or thereabouts. Private schools offer a lot of grants though. I got 17,000$ in grants a year at the private school I went to. I'm rambling. What was I trying to say. Oh, just that I'm not sure having university's run by the federal government would be feasible. The country is just too big, and has too many schools to manage by one body. There are at least 40 state schools in my state. I'm sure it's double or quadruple that in places like California. I'm not sure what your system is for tuition and whatnot, but I'm assuming puts ours to shame.

And healthcare too. Obamacare, in my understanding, just kind of forced everyone to buy private insurance, of if you're poor enough (like I am) then you can get your state's medicaid coverage for free (which is great...but if you make like more than 13,000$ a year you lose is. I'm going to lose it soon no matter what, either from earning too much or from Trump scrapping the program). My parents have had to pay higher and higher premiums to get more and more limited coverage each year. I think it's something like $1200 a month, and their coverage is worse than my free coverage. They chose the cheapest option available. I think that's what most people do. If you don't buy insurance, then you get slammed with a 400$ (I think) fine every year you're not insured. The liberal folks certainly aren't happy with this setup, and I don't think our/their idea of what proper healthcare, or a good school system would be like really differs that much from yours, the difference is my country is a bit of a nightmare right now, and in your country dreams actually do sometimes come true.

Also, the thing I said about defunding fire fighters and police was misleading, I don't think, anyone, even libertarians, would actually wants defund those services. Make budget cuts, sure, everyone has to deal with budget cuts, that's just the way it goes. But I was just sort of just pondering how a purely libertarian society would work out a feasible way of having a fire stations and police etc. without having any taxes.

So, I guess my thought is, it's not so much that your left-leaners want have ideas that are way furher left than our lefties would consider. I think our left and your left want basically the same things. My lefties just haven't actually had much of any success in enacting policies that will get us what we want.

Quote: Davida Grimes @ 8th April 2017, 11:19 AM

Wait, so citizens from other countries were/are allowed to work and make policies for your government because of being in the EU?

View original

You're putting words into my mouth. Being part of the EU, Britain based some of its policies and legislation to adhere to EU rules. https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-law-what-proportion-influenced-eu

Quote: Davida Grimes @ 8th April 2017, 11:19 AM

But, I think what fopdoodle was saying is that all of the people who were allowed to work normal people jobs, like doctors, and nurses, factory workers, office workers etc. who were previously allowed to work in any country in the EU without hassle, are now getting screwed over, and I guess are going to have to move back to their countries of origin (including all UK citizens working in other EU countries).

View original

Precisely. But I strongly disagree. If your skills are in demand in a certain country, your employer will arrange for you the requisite documentation for legal employment.

Quote: Davida Grimes @ 8th April 2017, 11:19 AM

If so, I think Kenneth might be just the kind of person you were referring to re: not giving those people's situations much thought. (No offense meant Kenneth.)

View original

None taken. I have spent most of my life as a "foreigner", working in countries outside Australia (my 'home' country). So I give a lot of thought to freedom of movement and employment. As I said, if you're in demand, you can work anywhere.

Quote: Stephen Goodlad @ 8th April 2017, 12:23 PM

Right, for that, I'm not watching The Rebel.

View original

Finally! Some humor returns to these boards! I will watch the new series of The Rebel if it contains a character named Steve Goodlad being told he has "a screw loose". Ideally, played by James Cotter.

Quote: zooo @ 8th April 2017, 9:26 PM

To be honest my brain has switched off with all this in depth political discussion.

View original

I'm with yooo zooo - Never has so much been written by so few in such a small space.

Quote: billwill @ 9th April 2017, 2:10 AM

You are way off indeed; the likely-hood of any EU citizen who legally moved into the UK to work, being forced to return to their own country is extremely remote. It isn't going to happen.

View original

Hopefully that's true! And I'm sure it is.
But it's easy for us born in England to brush it off and say it'll all be fine. But the people it actually affects are genuinely worried they're going to be sent to live somewhere else.

Quote: zooo @ 9th April 2017, 11:20 AM

Hopefully that's true! And I'm sure it is.
But it's easy for us born in England to brush it off and say it'll all be fine. But the people it actually affects are genuinely worried they're going to be sent to live somewhere else.

View original

And that worry has only been created by the scaremongering of continued remain campaigners. Such a suggestion has never, ever been on the cards.

Quote: zooo @ 9th April 2017, 11:20 AM

Hopefully that's true! And I'm sure it is.
But it's easy for us born in England to brush it off and say it'll all be fine. But the people it actually affects are genuinely worried they're going to be sent to live somewhere else.

View original

But nobody really knows - and that also put me off opting out. It wouldn't affect me personally, but I had to consider those for whom it might.

Quote: fopdoodle @ 9th April 2017, 11:27 AM

But nobody really knows...

View original

... No more than they know the future of law and policy of the EU. At least British law we can vote for in our General Elections.

Quote: zooo @ 9th April 2017, 11:20 AM

Hopefully that's true! And I'm sure it is.
But it's easy for us born in England to brush it off and say it'll all be fine. But the people it actually affects are genuinely worried they're going to be sent to live somewhere else.

View original

To be fair that is mainly because of scaremongering by the Remain lobby.

PS I see Aaron beat me to it on that one.

Quote: Tursiops @ 9th April 2017, 12:13 PM

To be fair that is mainly because of scaremongering by the Remain lobby.

PS I see Aaron beat me to it on that one.

View original

To be fair, did anyone predict Theresa May and her views and proposals? No.

Quote: fopdoodle @ 9th April 2017, 12:17 PM

To be fair, did anyone predict Theresa May and her views and proposals? No.

View original

Her low profile strategy during the referendum debate made her a shoo in for unity candidate, so yes her becoming PM was highly predictable, in fact the word I would use is 'planned'. Whatever her views are, and I doubt her best friends are that certain, her 'proposals' at this stage are just posturing, the same as on the other side. As you would expect. But she is still not suggesting sending anyone home. If that happens it will be because the EU refuses a reciprocal arrangement, which they won't, for obvious reasons - no matter how determined they are to punish us for leaving (which given our negative trade balance with practically every country in the EU would seem a bit of an own goal anyway.)

I say this incidentally as someone who is no fan of May or her ghastly crew.