Lib Dem pains

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

Probs little point in this but gonna reply anyway (just coz I meant to):

I'm going to ignore Ian's post, party because I'm too lazy to have this argument with two people but mostly because him criticising me for using "loaded" terminology is just too funny. Sorry, Ian.

Yep. This isn't in dispute. The modus vivendi approach to liberalism is, among other things, an attempt to wrestle with this problem.

You can’t, no. However, this is only a massive problem for liberals who think liberalism means fighting the LGBT cause (or other minority group causes) in all circumstances no matter what.

The ‘rational consensus’ liberalism dominant on the left is heavily influenced by the vaguely Marxist idea that the right side to back in any conflict is the one with the most credible historic claim to victimhood. In any squabble between LGBT folk and Christians, then, being a ‘good liberal’ means batting for Team LGBT.

The potential for problems here is obvious, unless you imagine the world to be a kind of moral fable in which LGBT people are always in the right and all LGBT claims of discrimination are fair and reasonable.

Well, I think they have generally tended to be. I'm quite happy for everything to be assessed on its merits but also think it's worth viewing this in a historical context where gay people have been persecuted and regarded as sub-human. I think that all gay people have ever wanted is to be treated as equals, quite honestly. Even in the somewhat unclear gay cake case I struggle to sympathise with the bigoted bakers.

It’s not always that simple, unfortunately. Again, consider the “gay cake” row. In that case, service was not denied on the basis of sexuality. If the claimant had asked for a sausage roll and two steak pies, there would have been no issue. The dispute arose because the claimant requested something very specific (a cake bearing a slogan expressing support for gay marriage) that the defendant didn’t want to produce.

Refusing service outright on identity grounds (“sorry, no Muslims”) is not the same as refusing to provide a very specific service on moral/political/religious grounds (“sorry, Mr Rahman, but I’d rather not print your pamphlet calling for the mass extermination of all infidels"), but in the “gay cake” case these things were conflated and a judgement was made that has some very worrying implications for freedom of expression and freedom of conscience. If memory serves, even Peter Tatchell came round to that view.

IMO, a proper liberal worries about these things, even when it applies to people he doesn’t particularly like. And while I don’t know enough about Farron’s legislative transgressions to convincingly defend them, I do think there is a worthwhile general point to be teased out of all this, namely that a good liberal ought to do more (and be expected to do more) than just uncritically accept any well-intentioned equalities legislation that comes along.

I know from personal experience that it’s hard to criticise the Human Rights Act (and the ECHR it links to) without being accused of being against human rights – as though having reservations about the loose way Article 8 is written makes you an apologist for murder, rape and the Gulag. There is often a similar lack of nuance in discussions about equalities legislation – as though having any reservations about any specifics automatically makes you some kind of bigoted enemy of progress.

I have some sympathy with this but from what I've read the "gay cake" row looks a bit more complex than reporting would suggest. As I understand it, in NI, political belief is a protected characteristic. This wouldn't be the case in the rest of the UK, but there are obvious historical reasons as to why this would apply to NI. The judgement suggested that there was direct discrimination both on the grounds of sexuality and political belief. I'm not sure that the former was the case (might he not have been heterosexual?) and unsure whether the latter ought to constitute valid grounds, but there you go. I think it's a curious case and I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion (though I have no sympathy for the owners of the bakery who had initially accepted the order. Fulfilling the service as requested didn't constitute an endorsement the message).

Either way, I don't think it exactly negatively reflects on equality legislation. The Equalities Act (Sexual Orientation Regs) was hugely important. Without it, B&B owners could freely turn away gay couples, as could adoption agencies and registrars acting on behalf of the state.

Well, as I wrote in my earlier post, the ‘rational consensus’ approach is pretty uncompromising. One is expected to pick a side. You demonstrate the basic thinking very well.

The modus vivendi approach isn’t averse to picking a side. It’s just more open to the idea that messy compromises are sometimes possible and perhaps beneficial in a vaguely utilitarian sense. I support gay marriage but I don’t think much good would come from legislation criminalising a priest or Iman’s religious objection to performing a gay marriage ceremony. Does that make me mushy-headed? Does that make me confused? Or is it an attempt to find something that kinda works for two groups of people with very different (and possibly irreconcilable) views about how to live a good life?

By favouring this sort of compromise, am I friend to your enemy; and, if so, does that make me your enemy? Genuine questions, not rhetorical. I’m very mindful that the equivocal approach I’m defending here has the distinct whiff of moral relativism (which I often criticise) about it. My thoughts are a bit messy in this area, so your thoughts would be appreciated.

In truth, I pondered a bit while writing that sentence. As a rule I don't really like adversarial language - eg regarding people as enemies - because I do see the world in shades of grey. That said, I think it's an absolutely appropriate way to respond to people who don't believe you ought to have the most basic of rights and oppose any legislation promoting equality (this does accurately represent the views of the the Catholic Church, the Church of England, bodies such as Christian Concern, the Christian Institute, and actually, most other religious denominations). If they can't see any worth in our relationships I struggle to see how they can find much worth in us as people.

I think messy compromises are problematic. For instance, would that not lead you to taking a cultural relativist approach? To take one of many possible examples, in some cultures, based around a particular view on morality, the practice of female genital mutilation is perfectly permissible, so why not allow them to be performed in the UK? How far ought we to go when it comes to accommodating differing views?

I'm a bit conflicted on the example of gay marriage in a religious setting. Personally, it's not a priority for me and I don't think it impinges on my rights whatsoever - I'm not in the least bit religious (you may have gathered) so I would have no desire to be married by a priest or an iman! Ask a gay Christian, a gay Jew, a gay Muslim etc, and I suspect they may have a rather different view. The problem I have with it is more from a secularist/humanist perspective. To my mind the religious are still being afforded special rights/privileges that no other body or institution can lay claim to. Is that not wrong? Why should we kowtow to them? I don't think your approach makes you an enemy by any means - I think it's a very complicated area! But I'm unsure as to whether it's something which can be properly justified.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

As a life long Liberal until the Clegg-up, the idea of Vince running the ship terrifies me.

The party needs a cleansing and a good purge of all the bad stains from that coalition if it is going to move forward.

Why's that? Think he's always generally seemed a good egg (in the grand scheme of things). Of their current MPs only the complete newbies can really be said to be untainted by the coalition years and they're scarcely ready to partake in a leadership campaign.

 

[Look Out There Are Llamas]

Farron has to go, Sir Vince has to replace him.

Called it.

I am also now a member of the Liberal Democrats btw.

 

[Aber gas]

Called it.

I am also now a member of the Liberal Democrats btw.

 

[Aber gas]

I'm extremely disappointed in you llamas.

 

[Look Out There Are Llamas]

 

[TheMinsterman]

Why's that? Think he's always generally seemed a good egg (in the grand scheme of things). Of their current MPs only the complete newbies can really be said to be untainted by the coalition years and they're scarcely ready to partake in a leadership campaign.

Sorry computer issues when this came up.

He's a relic of an era of the party which is toxic, he has a muddied name that will not encourage people to come back to the Lib Dems, they needed a fresh start, a truly fresh start, instead they've gone with Cable.

 

[JaseTheVillain]

Sorry computer issues when this came up.

He's a relic of an era of the party which is toxic, he has a muddied name that will not encourage people to come back to the Lib Dems, they needed a fresh start, a truly fresh start, instead they've gone with Cable.

Didn't have much choice to be fair seeing as he stood uncontested.

 

[Aber gas]

Sorry computer issues when this came up.

He's a relic of an era of the party which is toxic, he has a muddied name that will not encourage people to come back to the Lib Dems, they needed a fresh start, a truly fresh start, instead they've gone with Cable.

He was a minister in the coalition. Him and Clegg did Brexit effectively. I remember a time when Lib Dems had some ferocious politicians( I didn't agree with them but they were serious contenders)
Cable is a spineless political pygmy with the blood of disabled folk on his hands.
The Lib Dems can fuck off and then fuck off a bit more tbh.

 

[Look Out There Are Llamas]

In what universe did Clegg and Cable do Brexit? The biggest failure of the Lib Dems during their time as junior partner in the coalition (apart from entering it) was the AV referendum.

 

[TheMinsterman]

Didn't have much choice to be fair seeing as he stood uncontested.

Perhaps not, but then surely that shows you the state they're in if there's no actual alternative to more of the same.

 

[Aber gas]

In what universe did Clegg and Cable do Brexit? The biggest failure of the Lib Dems during their time as junior partner in the coalition (apart from entering it) was the AV referendum.

They propped up a Tory government. They sold all of their principles for a bag of fuck all. Along the way they managed to destroy their own party, embolden Cameron to the extent that he decided to sort his own party issues by having a referendum ( Clegg did Brexit) and supported, were cheerleaders for and designed austerity.
Cheers Lib Dems, thanks very much.

 

[Look Out There Are Llamas]

Didn't really see Mr Corbyn having one of his rallies when the Brexit referendum rolled around. Just saying.

 

[Aber gas]

Didn't you? The bloke was up and down the country giving speechs constantly. Perhaps if they'd put Jezza in charge instead of that twat Alan Johnson Brexit might've been stopped.
Remain didn't want Corbyn front and centre " cos he's not popular"
" Brexits Corbyn's fault"
Beyond parody.

 

[Look Out There Are Llamas]

Sort of like saying Brexit is Clegg's/ Lib Dems fault then. Look, dude was/is a dick and there's a ton of crap you can put at his door, Brexit isn't one of them.

 

[Aber gas]

Sort of like saying Brexit is Clegg's/ Lib Dems fault then. Look, dude was/is a dick and there's a ton of crap you can put at his door, Brexit isn't one of them.

Yes I can. For his own ambition and avarice he sold his party ( and a lot of good folk) down the river. The referendum and Brexit wouldn't have occurred without the Lib Dims being the useful idiots for a vicious and complacent prime minister. Clegg and Cable should own it.

 

[Look Out There Are Llamas]

The ascendancy of UKIP and the growing anti-EU sentiment within the right of the Tory makes your point absolutely null. Additionally given the swing from Labour to Tories in 2010 and the subsequent majority gained in 2015 it's highly likely if there was no coalition the Conservative's would have gained a majority anyway, the recession (and Labour's alleged culpability) were very much at the forefront of people's minds.

I'm not arguing that the Lib Dems did well going down the whole coalition road, 2010 was the last time I voted for them and I vowed I'd never go down that route again. But circumstances change. On one side we have one of the most hopeless governments we've had in fuck knows how long and on the other side we have an opposition whose Brexit stance isn't exactly Lotal friendly and whose economic positionality is likely to increase the lack of confidence given the current climate.

I'd argue what we need now more than ever is a decent centre ground where we can stop for a second and ask ourselves what the fuck we're doing. With no En Marche! on the table and a horrible electoral system, what other alternative is there to the Lib Dems?

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

Not really following how the Lib Dems are somehow more at fault than Labour for Brexit. We ended up having a referendum because the Tories won a majority in 2015, simple as that. Think it's the Labour Party's job to prevent that eventuality too, is it not?

 

[Martino Knockavelli]

positionality

 

[Aber gas]

The ascendancy of UKIP and the growing anti-EU sentiment within the right of the Tory makes your point absolutely null. Additionally given the swing from Labour to Tories in 2010 and the subsequent majority gained in 2015 it's highly likely if there was no coalition the Conservative's would have gained a majority anyway, the recession (and Labour's alleged culpability) were very much at the forefront of people's minds.

I'm not arguing that the Lib Dems did well going down the whole coalition road, 2010 was the last time I voted for them and I vowed I'd never go down that route again. But circumstances change. On one side we have one of the most hopeless governments we've had in fuck knows how long and on the other side we have an opposition whose Brexit stance isn't exactly Lotal friendly and whose economic positionality is likely to increase the lack of confidence given the current climate.

I'd argue what we need now more than ever is a decent centre ground where we can stop for a second and ask ourselves what the fuck we're doing. With no En Marche! on the table and a horrible electoral system, what other alternative is there to the Lib Dems?

With the Overton window set so far to the right centralism is effectively arguing for more of the same. More suppression, more austerity, more economic misery for millions, more imperialism. The system is completely corrupt and rigged. Centralism is devoid of ideas, the only response it has is more cuts and austerity. Without the ability ( or willingness) to use borrowing or currency devaluation in order to invest in society centralists will always be punching down economically. See also the aversion to any kind of meaningful progressive tax system.
Macron's first summer as poster boy for the centre has seen him take on the unions https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/5f80f0ae-34a9-11e7-99bd-13beb0903fa3
Cosy up to fascists
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.te...art-strong-emmanuel-macron-loves-holding/amp/
Cheerlead for imperialism and racism https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.in...-eight-children-colonialism-a7835586.html?amp
and demolish worker's rights
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/05/23/macr-m23.html?view=article_mobile
He's a unreconstructed neoliberal hawk who because he's pro EU and has a slick presentation is seen as the way forward.
In this country the centralist hopes appear to feature around Blair. A man so deeply unpopular that his own party want nothing to do with him.
It actually saddens me that people will support and associate with such creatures because of Brexit.

 

[Aber gas]

On another note. Farron appears to have shit himself in public again.
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/tim-farron-youre-meant-feel-marginalised-christian/

 

[Abertawe]

Religious wack job.

 

[HertsWolf]

With the Overton window set so far to the right centralism is effectively arguing for more of the same. More suppression, more austerity, more economic misery for millions, more imperialism. The system is completely corrupt and rigged. Centralism is devoid of ideas, the only response it has is more cuts and austerity. Without the ability ( or willingness) to use borrowing or currency devaluation in order to invest in society centralists will always be punching down economically. See also the aversion to any kind of meaningful progressive tax system.
Macron's first summer as poster boy for the centre has seen him take on the unions https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/5f80f0ae-34a9-11e7-99bd-13beb0903fa3
Cosy up to fascists
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.te...art-strong-emmanuel-macron-loves-holding/amp/
Cheerlead for imperialism and racism https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/emmanuel-macron-africa-development-civilisation-problems-women-seven-eight-children-colonialism-a7835586.html?amp
and demolish worker's rights
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/05/23/macr-m23.html?view=article_mobile
He's a unreconstructed neoliberal hawk who because he's pro EU and has a slick presentation is seen as the way forward.
In this country the centralist hopes appear to feature around Blair. A man so deeply unpopular that his own party want nothing to do with him.
It actually saddens me that people will support and associate with such creatures because of Brexit.

Is the Overton window really set to the right now? Surely the last election has shown that what is acceptable to the public is far wider than before, rather than to the right. Corbyn's performance was (to most people) unexpectedly good and he stood on a solid Leftist platform, much more Left than in previous campaigns. At the other end, even though the UKIP vote collapsed, there were many Tory MPs that felt like UKIP Lite (and not even very Lite).

I'm not sure it if it's all rigged and corrupt (although I hate the malevolent influence of media barons) but I agree that there seems to be little interest in a more progressive tax system.

With respect to Macron, the French situation is very different from the UK and the good news is that, so far, the French unions have been willing to talk and discuss reforms. Is it really taking them on? Macron had campaigned - and won - on a platform that included these reforms.
His relationship with Trump is difficult to fathom. He's professional and he's the leader of a nation: just because Trump acts like a child, doesn't mean Macron should reciprocate. Many probably feel queasy at the budding bromance, but what does it mean in real, practical terms?
On Africa, yes he said stupid, reprehensible things but he'll move on. (I'm not going to comment on the World Socialist website commentary as it's just too far off the left-hand end of the spectrum).

I think it's too early to judge Macron (or Cable) for that matter. I'm uneasy with the past of both, but also recognise that these are difficult times. But I'd rather have a Centrist in power than the unreconstructed populists like Trump or Le Pen.

 

[Aber gas]

s the Overton window really set to the right now?

I'd say so. Before the election ( and still to an extent) the conversation has been dominated by learned folk banging on about how the left is dead and we have to be more sensible. Media critique and discourse is invariably sceptical of socialist ideas and socialist movements. That the people of this country embrace a leftist platform despite the propaganda/ discourse is obviously fantastic.

I'm not sure it if it's all rigged and corrupt

I'm not sure if we're talking about different things here. My point is about the corrupt and rigged economic system which continues to cause misery and despair for the benefit of a tiny proportion. Obviously your point about Murdoch et al is absolutely true.

the French unions have been willing to talk and discuss reforms.

They have ( not sure they had much choice) but why is it his big thing? Always punching left these people. Look at the big, tough man taking on the Unions.

Many probably feel queasy at the budding bromance, but what does it mean in real, practical terms?

It means that he's perfectly happy to indulge Trump. He's more than happy in his company. I suppose they have a fair bit in common.

But I'd rather have a Centrist in power than the unreconstructed populists like Trump or Le Pen.

well yes but I'm certainly not going to fall over myself for someone like Macron because he's not Le Pen. Macron and his ilk are enablers for the likes of Le Pen.

 

[HertsWolf]

They have ( not sure they had much choice) but why is it his big thing? Always punching left these people. Look at the big, tough man taking on the Unions.

Just going out, but saw this.

I think the point about the French unions is that they have had it pretty good for a long time. France has (had) some progressive labour laws compared to most of the rest of Europe. The right will argue that that has led to higher unemployment levels, but then the left will shoot back that this has probably also contributed to legally protecting a lot of French industry. Like car manufacturing, specialist steel, aerospace.
Macron is unlikely to become Maggie Thatcher wrt unions, and change is likely to be incremental. It may be worth seeing how it goes.

 

[Aber gas]

Just going out, but saw this.

I think the point about the French unions is that they have had it pretty good for a long time. France has (had) some progressive labour laws compared to most of the rest of Europe. The right will argue that that has led to higher unemployment levels, but then the left will shoot back that this has probably also contributed to legally protecting a lot of French industry. Like car manufacturing, specialist steel, aerospace.
Macron is unlikely to become Maggie Thatcher wrt unions, and change is likely to be incremental. It may be worth seeing how it goes.

Have a good evening, I shall try and think of a non- bolshy,non- grumpy response.

 

[Aber gas]

I've been having a look at Vince Cable's voting record ( I'm a sad bastard, don't need you people to tell me) Anyway it's fairly shocking. I've always known he's a bit dodgy but wow. I honestly think this is a huge mistake for the Lib Dems.

 

[Abertawe]

Wow just seen he worked for royal dutch shell. Vince Cable the lovely liberal grandad, well except for when you need to massacre African people, cuz money.

And yeah Aber G is right with his voting record. Man he must really hate the disabled.

 

[Aber gas]

Wow just seen he worked for royal dutch shell. Vince Cable the lovely liberal grandad, well except for when you need to massacre African people, cuz money.

And yeah Aber G is right with his voting record. Man he must really hate the disabled.

And poor people and civil liberties.

 

[JaseTheVillain]

... And the NHS.