I'm kind of lost at what your point is, though.
Sorry... this is a tough format to play pundit (and I'm ignoring work while playing on my phone anyway, and doing a bad job at both). I / we were speculating what role Bruce Dickinson's obvious admiration for Churchill might've played (or revealed) about his political leanings, in light of his recent comments about the EU. Someone said that Churchill favored a United Europe; I pointed out that he actually fought against it.I'm kind of lost at what your point is, though.
He isn’t wrong. Living in the US, I often find that, while I disagree with them, conservatives are friendlier to people and better at expressing their beliefs than liberals who prefer to shout down anyone who disagrees. There’s good and bad in every faction and most of the time people just have different ways of looking at the world and trying to help others out. For instance, I think my beliefs are the right ones. You would hate a good bit of them.
This still says quite a lot, to me, about his background though. One, that his parents would consider this. And two, that they could afford it.... and Bruce was sent to stuffy old fashioned private boarding school.
In an odd way, this is also very similar to past British behaviour; talking up Britain in the face of the stark reality, so much so that it begins to look/sound deluded.Bruce is also huge on marketing. He's trying to sell Britain as a brand in all of this, and be ultra-positive about the future, at a time when it's very clear that the country's leadership is hideously disorganised. He's harking back to past glory days because it's an image of strength, decisiveness and influence.
Not sure who this was a response to, but agreed. For anyone unfamiliar with secondary care in the UK: you still wouldn't choose to get an operation done privately if it involved a medium-to-long stay in hospital. If you knew the facts that is...For the record, the NHS isn't a third class healthcare system that routinely endangers the lives of cancer patients. Basic private healthcare is practically identical to NHS healthcare unless it's for a very niche service. Only gold-plated healthcare packages would be significantly better, and part of the attraction there is exclusivity.
It's a shame the partisan dogma isn't meaningless everywhere. To see people going on about political philosophies as if it's a football team they support is absolutely moronic. Especially when it gets down to the level where people are looking at a particular issue and deciding how they are going to feel about it by looking at what their "rivals" opinion of it is first and then choosing the opposite side arbitrarily.Just FYI, the conservative-liberal binary is essentially meaningless outside the US.
I wouldn't agree with that. It's a centrist position. Becomes center-left if you're a social liberal, center-right if you're a libertarian, dead center if you're a classical liberal.Also, liberalism is a right wing position to begin with.
I think srfc has hit the nail on the head. While most places do have a division between at last two political stances or parties, this habit of automatically labelling everything in line with the team philosophy ahead of analysing any situation independently is really building up massively in democratic countries, maybe with the help of social media. It's possible to bury yourself in an existence where everything fits your/your team's perception of the world, and block everything else that doesn't fit. Who needs censorship? I heard this kind of 'I'll do the opposite of what my least favourite politicians probably want' being used as a deciding factor by someone in the EU referendum. Cameron says remain, and I hate Cameron, so I'll vote leave. Some of my least favourite Conservative ministers say leave, but it's probably just a ruse set up by Cameron because he knows everyone hates those ministers and will vote against what they say, therefore I'll vote leave.It's a shame the partisan dogma isn't meaningless everywhere. To see people going on about political philosophies as if it's a football team they support is absolutely moronic. Especially when it gets down to the level where people are looking at a particular issue and deciding how they are going to feel about it by looking at what their "rivals" opinion of it is first and then choosing the opposite side arbitrarily.
It's more nuanced than that. Social liberals, or welfare capitalists, have a more favorable view toward regulation and taxes than do libertarians and conservatives. Their support for such policies may pale in comparison to a social democrat, but it's still clearly distinct from center-right/right-wing capitalism.I would say srfc is correct, in the context of economy. Cut down taxes, de-fund the state programs, replace them with market programs, that's both the "liberal" and the "center-right/right-wing capitalist" talk.
That's an unreasonable statement to make. There are plenty of ideologies that want to dictate the way you live your life, which is the exact reason why "liberalism" came to be as a movement. What you consider to be "normal" isn't the norm for many ideologies, and isn't the norm for many current societies.I also won't accept the social category of "liberal". If I don't care what you fuck or how you spend your life, if I think that's your right to do so as you wish, that doesn't make me a liberal, that makes me a normal person.
I certainly get this among a certain crew of my mates. They would all consider themselves open minded, left leaning people but gods forbid ye want a reasoned debate about the grey areas of an issue. Not possible. They seemingly want to ban or drown out any discussion or argument from the other side. Their minds seems fully (and predictably) made up on any political or social topic that comes up. They all seem to think en masse and on one side of a very rigid line.To see people going on about political philosophies as if it's a football team they support is absolutely moronic.