4 ms·

Despite the members having elected a leftist leader for the first time in 30 years, the liberals in the Labour Party continue to wield considerable power. That

by kebolio 10y ago

Despite the members having elected a leftist leader for the first time in 30 years, the liberals in the Labour Party continue to wield considerable power. Thatcher even said that there was "nothing to be afraid about" (paraphrasing slightly) over Blair's government. The Labour Party has not been a party of labour and work for a very long while, rather a typical liberal party as seen in the two-party systems of North America. One cannot claim to be part of a worker's party if he supports mass immigration to replace nationals for cheaper work and a welfare bureaucracy that pays more for slacking than working. The decision to support the barely amended IPB is upsetting and a disgrace to the Labour Party. I would have hoped that Jeremy Corbyn would get the party to oppose the British surveillance state, consistent with his principles on war, human rights and so on and so on.

asuffield 10y ago
I don't understand where you think you can find the slightest shred of liberalism in this piece of legislation. This is very much old labour: maximising state power and control over individuals, because the state knows best. A liberal bill would minimise the state's authority to do this sort of thing.
- toyg 10y ago
  "as seen in the two-party systems of North America." aka Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Dianne Feinstein, Joe Lieberman... total hawks on civil rights (except on '60s causes like abortion and black voting, which most sane people already take for granted), but still very much "liberals" in the American sense. In the European sense, "liberals" are also pretty much "liberalists", aka freetraders/pro-business with a right-wing approach to civil liberties and immigration. The meaning of liberal issues as being about individual-rights and protection-from-state is rapidly disappearing. I guess it's been subsumed in the "libertarian" hodgepodge.

by kebolio 10y ago

asuffield 10y ago

I don't understand where you think you can find the slightest shred of liberalism in this piece of legislation. This is very much old labour: maximising state power and control over individuals, because the state knows best. A liberal bill would minimise the state's authority to do this sort of thing.

toyg 10y ago
"as seen in the two-party systems of North America." aka Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Dianne Feinstein, Joe Lieberman... total hawks on civil rights (except on '60s causes like abortion and black voting, which most sane people already take for granted), but still very much "liberals" in the American sense. In the European sense, "liberals" are also pretty much "liberalists", aka freetraders/pro-business with a right-wing approach to civil liberties and immigration. The meaning of liberal issues as being about individual-rights and protection-from-state is rapidly disappearing. I guess it's been subsumed in the "libertarian" hodgepodge.