Conservative, Socialist, Libertarian, Liberal - What is the Difference

Jump to Last Post 1-3 of 3 discussions (80 posts)
  1. My Esoteric profile image90
    My Esotericposted 6 weeks ago

    Many people who call themselves Conservatives, IMO, aren't.  Many people who Conservatives call Socialists, aren't.  In studying politics, I ran across a couple of lectures which identified what the professor called minimal-state liberals (Libertarians) and active-state liberals (modern liberals) (yes, they are real things, you can google them).  So much depends on definitions, so I thought I would inquire about that.

    One metaphor I read concerns a race, so I thought I would use that to start a discussion:

    Two races to see who can run the fastest are run.

    In one, the contestants, one black, one white, who are equal in every respect except two, color and the black man (both are men) has a slight atrophy in one of his legs.  Clearly, the black man has a disadvantage relative to the white competitor.

    How will a conservative, socialist, minimal-state liberal, and active-state liberal respond to this imbalance?

    NOW, change the scenario to the following:

    In the second race, the contestants, one black, one white, who are equal in every respect except two, color and the black man (both are men) has, because of custom and tradition, has a heavy weight locked on one ankle by a third party interested in the outcome.  Clearly, the black man has a disadvantage relative to the white competitor.

    How will a conservative, socialist, minimal-state liberal, and active-state liberal respond to this imbalance?

  2. Nathanville profile image95
    Nathanvilleposted 6 weeks ago

    I’d be interested to see how Americans answer this because, across the pond, in Britain (and in Europe) our political spectrum is far wider than American politics; with a much wider spectrum of political parties.

    From a Brits perspective the USA only has a simple ‘two-party’ system of Republics (Conservatives) and Democrats (Liberalism); and to a Brit the Liberal Democrats (Liberalism) is just ‘centralist’ (middle of the road) politics; while the Labour Party in Britain (which is far more left wing than the Democrats) is a true Socialist party, something America lacks.

    1. My Esoteric profile image90
      My Esotericposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

      Thanks for the perspective, Nathan - good to know.

    2. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

      That's about what I get, too.  Although I'm not sure about the British meaning of "true socialism" - in the US "socialism" refers, more and more, to the entitlement philosophy of wealth redistribution in a misbegotten effort to "equalize" everyone; it has nothing to do with ownership of business or even price setting (much).  Just about charity programs to take the wealth from one and give it to someone else.

      1. My Esoteric profile image90
        My Esotericposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        Socialism must mean only one thing, socialism, the taking over the means of production and distribution for the benefit (supposedly) of society.  Socialism is not the only political-economic system with welfare.  In fact, ALL systems, from Fascism through capitalism to Communism has aspects of social welfare as part of their DNA.  Even in so-called democratic-socialist counties of Europe have differing degrees of social welfare programs in them.  More so in Northern Europe and less so in Southern Europe (in spite of Greece).  America has our own public assistance system, just not as generous as Europe.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          *sigh*  And it is that big difference between generosity, whether compared to Europe or to our own past, that is changing in America.  Which gives rise to what we call "socialism" in this country.

          No, you don't get to change the common meaning of the term according to either your opinion or usage from the past.  It is what it is, today, whether you agree with the slow change in meaning or not.

        2. Nathanville profile image95
          Nathanvilleposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          Impressive ‘My Esoteric’, you certainly do seem to have a good grasp on politics. 

          The one thing that keeps the Labour Party (in Britain) true to its Socialist roots is that the Trade Unions (who founded Labour as a Political Party in 1900) are to this day affiliated to the party and play a major role in electing its Leader and setting Labour Party Policy at its Annual Conference.

          The biggest bone of contention in the Labour Party at the moment is that Jeremy Corbyn (it’s current Leader) was elected by the Trade Unions and Party Membership against the wishes of the Parliamentary Labour Party MPs who supported a more Liberal Leader. 

          Consequently, Labour currently has a Leader who is extreme left wing, as left wing as the Socialist Labour Government who won the surprise landslide victory in 1945 (ousting the Liberal Party to third position) and within three years pushed through Radical Social Reforms such as the NHS, Social Welfare on a big scale, and various Nationalisation programmes; in spite of Britain being near bankrupt at the time because of the 2nd world war.

          Arthur (aka Nathanville)

          1. My Esoteric profile image90
            My Esotericposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            Thanks for the political lessons, Arthur; extremely interesting. So, given your response to Mizbejabbers, our Democratic Party (minus the Bernie Sanders wing) would fit within the left-side of Britain's Conservative Party?

            It is interesting to note that the Bernie Sanders wing (may I call it the BS wing) was quickly moving the Party to the Left.  With the help of #TraitorTrump, however, the 2018 election brought the Party back to the center with the huge influx of moderate Ds from previously Red districts.  As a result, there is a major power struggle within the Party as it tries to digest all of the new entrants, middle and left.  It is giving leadership fits.

            Are you guys going to get a second bite at the apple on BREXIT with a second vote?  Not sure what your position is (my guess is you are an anti-Brexiter) but from where I sit leaving the Union is an economic death sentence for Britain and may cost you Scotland.

            1. Nathanville profile image95
              Nathanvilleposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

              Thanks for your very astute feedback Esoteric. 

              Yep, your Bernie Sanders (if he was in the UK) would be far more comfortable on the right-side of our Labour Party than within the Liberal Democrats.  And as you say, without Bernie Sanders your Democrats (who are quite similar to our Liberal Democrats) would overlap the left of the Conservative Party and the right of the Labour Party within Britain.

              Yep, we have the same political osculation in Britain e.g. whenever the Conservatives goes swooning off to the far right Labour responds by swooning to the far left (polarization); then a decade or so later both start to move towards the centre again (and become far more moderate).

              Brexit, a chance for a second vote is a big question; of which nobody knows the answer to yet!!!

              In answer to your question, I am a ‘Remainer’ e.g. I voted to Remain and still support Remain.  And yes, I agree with you, leaving the EU will be an economic death sentence for Britain.  Not only would Scotland leave the UK to re-join the EU, but Northern Ireland would also leave the UK and re-unite with the Republic of Ireland (who is also part of the EU).   

              And in time it’s not inconceivable that, if Britain became a third rate country outside of the EU that Wales, and even Cornwall (ultimately) could seek Independence from England, and then seek EU membership; although it’s more likely that whatever is left of Britain would be seek re-joining the EU before it got that far.

              Getting back to the question of a 2nd Referendum; apart from the fact that the vote was split on the original Referendum, 1 million people recently marched in London for a 2nd Referendum, and over six million people recently signed a petition demanding the Government to Revoke Article 50; so there is plenty of public demand for a 2nd referendum. 

              In parliament, the vast majority of MPs are Remainers at heart, and many of them would like to see a 2nd Referendum; but it’s all a question of ‘politics’ e.g. the Conservative Government is fiercely opposed to a 2nd Referendum.  Ultimately, it’s whether and how the impasse over Brexit in Parliament is broken; some arguing that a 2nd Referendum maybe the only way to break the deadlock.

              There are 650 seats in Parliament, of which the Speaker is ‘politically neutral’ and Sinn Fein (9 MPs, who don’t sit on principle) therefore to get her Deal passed by Parliament Theresa May needs the support of 321 MPs. 

              •    Theresa May now has 314 Conservative MPs (of which about 90% are pro-Brexit, and don’t support a 2nd Referendum).

              •    DUP (who is anti EU, and don’t support a 2nd Referendum) have 10 MPs.

              •    Labour has 245 MPs, of which over 90% are pro-European and would support a 2nd Referendum.

              •    All the other Political Parties (excluding DUP and Sinn Fein) have 71 MPs between them, and they are all 100% pro EU, and are fighting hard for a 2nd Referendum.

              So when you add the numbers up in Parliament, in relation to support for a 2nd Referendum, it’s like everything with Brexit; almost an equal split; hence an impasse.

              1. My Esoteric profile image90
                My Esotericposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                Bummer!  If there is a second referendum, I hope the people come solidly down on the side of Remaining.  Given how close the results were the first time, the political shenanigans I read about by the Leavers, and that more facts and actual results are available, t think that would be a distinct possibility. 

                Sort of like our Trump-supporting farmers facing the reality of bankruptcy over the Trump-tariff debacle.

              2. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                Are you one of those that support a second referendum, then?  You didn't get the results you wanted from the first vote, so vote again? 

                If so, would you support voting again and again, as necessary, until you DO get the results you wanted?

                In a way that's what we're seeing in the US - if a vote goes against what is desired, chip away at it until you DO get what is wanted.  We see it in gun controls, we see it in abortion issues, and in other things.  Never give up the fight - never accept a compromise, never accept the wishes of the majority in a vote.

                1. My Esoteric profile image90
                  My Esotericposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Now that the British people have real facts, rather than the false promises and lies put out by the Leavers, don't you think they should get an informed chance to vote this time? 

                  It is not if the vote was 70 - 30 to leave, it was something like 51-49 with a lot of questions about the fairness of the vote left hanging.  Isn't that sort of like saying get rid of electing our House every two years.  Once a voter made their choice, they are stuck with it until the elected dies or quits.

                2. Nathanville profile image95
                  Nathanvilleposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Yes ‘wilderness’ I am one of those who support a 2nd Referendum, but not for the reasons you state; ‘My Esoteric’ (in response to your point) sums it up succinctly enough.

                  If the Referendum had been decisive (as was the 2011 Referendum for Proportional Representation) then that would have been the end of the matter.  But it wasn’t decisive, the result was split; and it was on a ‘Constitutional Matter’, which in many countries can only be passed by a ‘qualifying majority’ e.g. 66%; apart from which under the British Constitution Referendums are ‘Advisory Only’.

                  As well as the points ‘My Esoteric’ makes, it’s now over three years since the Referendum (and we still haven’t left) and since then about 1.5 million elderly people have died (75% of whom voted for Brexit), while during the same time period there are now about 1.5 million new voters; 75% of whom support Remaining in the EU but were too young to vote at the time.

                  Yep, what you describe “if a vote goes against what is desired, chip away at it until you DO get what is wanted”. is Theresa May’s tactics.  Her Deal was defeated in Parliament by 432 votes to 202 (rejected by 230 votes); the largest defeat for a Government vote in Parliamentary history; and it’s been defeated twice since.  Yet Theresa May intends trying to bring her Deal back for a fourth vote in Parliament after the Easter holidays.   So the view of many is “what’s good for the Goose is good for the Gander” e.g. if Theresa May can keep trying to get her Deal passed (even though it has little support in Parliament) then holding a 2nd Referendum when the results on the 1st one was so marginal is fair and reasonable, and democratic.

                  One way Theresa May could break the deadlock (impasse) in Parliament is to put her Deal to the people e.g. let the people decide in a Referendum between her Deal and Remaining in the EU (such a proposal is likely to have a lot of support in Parliament).   However, she will not do that because firstly, she is scared that the People will ‘reject’ her Deal and vote to Remain in the EU; and secondly, her own political party (the Conservatives) will lynch her (albeit she is a dead woman walking anyway, which for the New Brexit date now set for Halloween seems quite appropriate).

                  To answer your second point: “would you support voting again and again, as necessary, until you DO get the results you wanted?”. The answer is NO, I would not support voting again and again, and few would. 

                  However, if Britain is taken out of the EU without the option of a 2nd Referendum then the fight is NOT over; it will drag on for decades, and if people are denied their democratic rights to reconsider it could get violent (a British thing) e.g. look at the Troubles in Northern Ireland, and the unrest in Scotland.  Historically, Britain is prone to riots and civil unrest periodically; I’ve seen a few in my time e.g. the 2011 riots in Bristol when Bristolians vehemently opposed the opening of a Tesco store (Food Supermarket Chain).  Also the Poll Tax Riots and mass civil unrest across the UK back in 1990 that contributed to the resignation of the then Conservative Prime Minister (Margaret Thatcher) and a reversal of her policy on Poll Tax e.g. it was axed.  A lesson Margaret Thatcher didn’t learn from history e.g. the ‘Peasants Revolt’ of 1381 following Parliament’s attempt to introduce the Poll Tax.

                  2011 Riots in Bristol due to local residents’ fierce opposition to a food supermarket chain opening a Branch in their street e.g. that area is the Bristol equivalent of Portobello Road in London, and the local residents want to keep it that way (anyone who’s watched ‘Bed knobs and broomsticks’ will know the significance of Portobello Road):- https://youtu.be/hkCvka1uwuo

                  1. My Esoteric profile image90
                    My Esotericposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                    But apparently, against Wilderness's wishes, May is trying and trying again until she gets her way.  I had forgotten that.

                    When Wilderness says "In a way that's what we're seeing in the US - if a vote goes against what is desired, chip away at it until you DO get what is wanted." - he is correct for sure.  Ever since the 1964 Civil Rights and the 1965 Voting Rights Acts against strong conservative opposition, they have been chipping away at it until it is becoming close to being a shadow of its former self.

                    The same was true in the late 1800s.  We fought a Civil War to end the slavery question (something England had done years earlier - end slavery, that is).  It resulted in our 13th (end slavery), 14th (apply the Bill of Rights to the States), and 15th (black voting rights) Amendments.  Conservatives battled back hard after the liberal Republicans were voted out and by about 1894, all but the 13th Amendment had been nullified by the Supreme Court.  It took until 1964 to restore the 14th and 15th Amendments to their proper place.  It was one of America's Dark Ages.

                  2. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                    "However, if Britain is taken out of the EU without the option of a 2nd Referendum then the fight is NOT over; it will drag on for decades..."

                    But doesn't that work both ways, with the fight NEVER being over?  If the 2nd Referendum goes YOUR way, then your opponents want a 3rd one to cancel out your win (just as you want one to cancel theirs) and the game goes on.  Forever, it seems to me, for even if the threat of riots is real, it certainly applies to both sides.

                    And maybe I'm just getting really, really tired of the refusal to accept defeat in our own elections/voting.  You lost - drop it and move on is my feeling, not continue to fight until you get your way, for that path leads to stagnation with nothing ever happening.

      2. PrettyPanther profile image85
        PrettyPantherposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        Falsely labeling a policy as socialism does not make it true. Unfortunately, quite a few people swallow the propaganda leveled at policies like Medicare, Social Security, and proposed increases in taxes for the wealthy.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          Hard to see medicare or social security as socialist, except in that they are required of every worker.  They are, after all, bought and paid for by the one benefitting.

          But taking from the rich simply to give it to someone else - plain old wealth redistribution - yes, that is modern socialism.  Almost by definition, it is socialism.

          1. PrettyPanther profile image85
            PrettyPantherposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            Again, saying it doesn't make it true.

            Apparently, ol' Mitch disagrees with you about Medicare, though. He's peddling the propaganda like a good soldier.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

              I haven't paid attention, but are you sure he isn't griping about medicaid?  They are two, very different, programs.

              I'll also not that I'm seeing more and more Democrats claiming that both medicare and social security are entitlement programs, no different than section 8 housing or food stamps.  Obviously not true, but it's being done in an effort to justify the massive entitlement programs forever pushed (and expanded) by the Democratic party.

              *edit*  Just saw your other thread on Mitch and medicare - I believe that you are trying to equate "free" health care for the population of America to medicare.  Granted that that is how it was proposed, with very sloppy language, but the medicare we have now is NOT the same as health care paid for 100% by government for everyone.

              1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                PrettyPantherposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                My point is that McConnell specifically said it should be Medicare for none. Do you think he was confused?

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                  I have to think he is just being sloppy in his language.  I highly doubt that any politician thinks they could get away with taking paid for health care from millions of seniors without a massive backlash.

                  I think he meant that he will not allow that "free" health care for all - not that he will end the existing medicare program.

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                    PrettyPantherposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                    I think he meant it, but I agree that, in the current political atmosphere, Republicans know it would be disastrous to attempt to repeal it.

              2. MizBejabbers profile image92
                MizBejabbersposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                Wilderness, all who are advocating health care for all keep calling it MEDICARE, not medicaid. This includes Mitch and everybody else who are trying to do away with the real medicare.

                And you are correct that medicare for the seniors is not the same as free health care for all. We seniors have paid into that fund all our working lives. It is not free to us, we still have to pay a fee out of our social security for it plus buy supplemental health and drug policies to supplement it. I say to them LEAVE OUR MEDICARE ALONE! But on SS, we still couldn't afford to pay the same prices that our younger family members have to pay for their health insurance. I told you that I am a middle-of-the-roader not a flaming liberal. To  me there is such a thing as paying ones dues to society. I will go ballistically conservative on this one.

                1. IslandBites profile image88
                  IslandBitesposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Yeah, all conservative!

                  President Trump released his budget proposal. According to the White House’s own assumptions, Trump’s budget would increase the deficit to over $1 trillion in the next two federal fiscal years. At the same time, the budget outlines a plan to cut roughly $1 trillion over the next decade from Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

                  The Trump budget estimates an $845 billion reduction in Medicare spending over the next 10 years. While some of those savings will be derived from plans like targeting fraud and waste, roughly 85 percent will come from cuts to health care providers.

                  Why is this important? Because if hospitals and doctors are not getting paid enough they will likely not serve as many Medicare beneficiaries, in turn reducing access to health care services.

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                    First, it isn't nearly as bad as we're being told by liberal flaks.  Second, few of those cuts will affect seniors at all; some 85% of the actual cuts (50B per year) do not change anything for the insured. 

                    https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/m … s-directly

                2. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                  I know they are.  I mentioned somewhere that it is a transparent effort to equate the medicare that you, I and millions of others prepaid so we would have health care in our later years to free medicare paid for by taxes.

                  As you say, medicare is not that at all; it is a program already paid for (although congress has seen fit to rob the funds for their pork barrel projects) and has nothing to do with the general tax base.  And just like you, I and millions of others will go ballistic if they try to take that (as they have our SS retirement savings) for their own use.  We have paid our dues to society - leave our savings alone!

                3. GA Anderson profile image93
                  GA Andersonposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Damn MizBeJabbers, you are a Purple! I have really enjoyed your forum participation this last week or so. I particularly liked your real-life comments relative to some issue, (can't remember the thread, might have been about reparations), concerning the South.

                  GA

    3. MizBejabbers profile image92
      MizBejabbersposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

      Yes, very interesting, Nathan. But in the U.S. we've had a Socialist Party and a Communist Party, neither of which did fly for long. Now we have the Socialists attempting to take over the Democrat Party. It will be interesting to see how that fares, and what will happen to the true Democrats if they succeed.
      There is more to the parties that meet the eye, however. Bill Clinton was called a conservative Democrat or more popular, a middle of the roader. I myself claim to be a Bill Clinton Democrat, not a Hillary Clinton Democrat, which is much more liberal but doesn't reach Bernie's socialism. There is a difference. Then there are Bernie Sanders Democrats and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Democrats who represent the young socialist Democrats. Don't know what difference is between her and Bernie exceptin' their ages. They both seem to want to give the country to the young before they've paid their dues as an adult.
      I've seen Republicans described as conservative Republicans and even heard that there are liberal Republicans, but I can't testify to that. The Libertarians seem to be a compromise between social liberals and fiscal conservatives, and the party claims to be built around personal freedoms. They don't seem to understand that it takes money to fix a road or maintain a school, and that money comes from taxes.  Their candidates seem to be very naive once they get past their own local area. Their knowledge of geography is atrocious as is their knowledge of what it takes to run a government.
      These are just the perspectives of an old Ozark girl. Maybe some of the lawyers and politicians on HP will explain it to you in technical terms.

      1. Nathanville profile image95
        Nathanvilleposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        Yep, I agree MizBejabbers, “there is more to the parties than meet the eye”; it’s the same thing in the UK.

        In Britain, the Conservative Party is a very ‘broad church’, although currently it is fracturing and in danger of splintering into two parties; with some Conservative MPs defecting to other parties, or going Independent, as has already happened in the past few weeks e.g. three Conservative MPs joining the new ‘Independent Party’ and a fourth going Independent.

        The moment a Conservative MP resigns from his Party to become an ‘Independent’ MP:  https://youtu.be/aM2XWT8NaFg

        The political spectrum within the Conservative Party in the UK is from extreme hard right-wing ‘Nationalists’, aka Brexiteers (members of the ERG group, a political party within a political party) to Conservative MPs on the left of the Party (soft left) who’s political philosophy is very akin to Liberalism.

        Likewise, the Labour Party is a very ‘broad church’ with MPs on the far left e.g. Jeremy Corbyn who in the eyes of many Conservatives are Marxists) to Labour MPs on the right of the party who’s political philosophy is very akin to Liberalism.

        It’s only the smaller political parties within Britain where political ideology within the parties is very narrow; these parties are:

        •    Right Wing:  DUP
        •    Centralist Politics:  Liberal Democrats and the New Independent Group
        •    Left Wing:  SNP, Plaid Cymru, the Green Party, and Sinn Fein (although Sinn Fein refuse to sit in the British Parliament on principle).

        The New Independent Group of MPs Explained:  https://youtu.be/R3VXLo9NZiI?t=37


        Arthur (aka nathanville)

    4. Misfit Chick profile image74
      Misfit Chickposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      This is about right, and it is a real problem in the US that there are only two political parties (there are more) powerful enough to elect our president. For instance, neither Trump nor Bernie Sanders were Republican or Democrat, respectively - but they hijacked those political parties (well, Bernie almost did) by running their extreme ideals under one of the main 'more generalized' parties.

      I'm not sure how/why anyone can run under the big parties. I would have thought they each would have had 'requirements' surrounding running under their organizations, but apparently not many if any. Bernie was originally of the Independent Party; and I'm pretty sure Trump used to be a Democrat. (Don't bash me if I got that wrong - I have no desire to go look him up to be sure, ha!)

      It was the same thing with Obama in 2008, except he was an actual Democrat instead of from outside of the party: the old-time Dems were dang MAD at him for awhile for pushing Hillary out WAY back then. He ran on a platform of 'change' - and 'we the people' were CRAVING that.

      Not that much 'change' actually happened. But, it was a start... its why we have Trump now. Oh yeah, LOTS of Obama voters voted for Trump - especially 'white males', according to stats. wink There are not enough Conservatives to win an election in this country by themselves, anymore.

      Of course, within the parties you can be a Liberal or 'Socialist' Democrat (a term which has really become big since Bernie turned Dem), a Moderate or 'Progressive' Democrat or a Conservative Democrat.

      The same is generally true for the other party, except there is no such thing as a Socialist Republican. But, there are Moderate Republicans (who are usually from 'purple' states as opposed to red or blue states - along with their Conservative Dem counterparts); and you can add uber-conservative 'Right Wing' Republicans - usually people who represent the Religious Right, such as Vice-President Pence.

      Obama and his affiliates consider him to be a progressive/moderate democrat; while many (not all) progressive/moderate democrats argue (with great disappointment) that he is a conservative democrat (or even an actual Conservative, what an insult!) - and of course, most GOP generally accuse Obama of being a raging liberal. Perspective is everything, ha!

      The last 'right-wing' group is considered to be 'the base' of the Republican Party - and yes, these are currently the people considered to be in power in our supposedly democratic society right now. They are having LOTS of fun enforcing their superstitious beliefs on us all - and of course, the rest of us are learning and making decisions. They ARE responsible for making us think and pay more attention - which, IMO, is the BEST thing Trump and his merry men have inspired in the populace across ALL of our diverse spectrums.

      Yeah, I still love my country. This is all temporary, and only 'the good' - whatever that is - will stick from it. Expanding consciousness, that is what is really happening; and that is all that is really happening - across the whole wide world.

      Having fun with Brexit? wink

      https://hubstatic.com/14493650.jpg


      https://hubstatic.com/14493651.jpg


      https://hubstatic.com/14493652.jpg


      I just thought this one was really funny - LoL!

      https://hubstatic.com/14493653.jpg

      1. My Esoteric profile image90
        My Esotericposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

        Great comments, Misfit!!

      2. Nathanville profile image95
        Nathanvilleposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

        An interesting read ‘Misfit Chick’.  Yep, I like the IKEA poster in your post of Theresa May looking for a ‘New Cabinet’; very apt.   

        There certainly is a lot of ‘well deserved’ Brexit Parody floating around (all of them with more than just a grain of truth); including this one (which put a smile on my face):-

        Brexit: A Titanic Disaster:  https://youtu.be/svwslRDTyzU

  3. GA Anderson profile image93
    GA Andersonposted 5 weeks ago

    I am not sure where to place the credit, or where to assign the blame, but my perception of both the culture(s) and Brexit votes of England and Great Britain is generally as you described them to be, and not at all like your New York friend's.

    Your description of the Brexit vote demographics also seems to follow the conservative vs. liberal perspectives attributed to stay or leave voters. Which in turn, I also think aligns with my perception of our national identity/sense of sovereignty discussion.

    Even with the very loose correlation of my American perception of Conservative vs. Liberal categorization with the British complexities of those categories, it seems safe to say that Britain is a majority conservative voter population. And it is the concept and importance of national identity and sovereignty that I think is mostly attributed to be an important Conservative issue.

    This seems to strongly indicate that the immigration crisis of recent years was most impactful on voters that felt the loss of control of their borders was also felt as a loss of their national sovereignty.

    That may seem like a; "Well, yeah, everybody understands that." point to make, but I am using it to get to a discussion about the commonly heard, (at least over here), claim that it is only the Far Right that feels that way. I don't think that is correct.

    Just as everyone talks about Pres. Trump's "base" over here, it wasn't just his base that got him elected, just as I don't think it was just your "Far-right,' (however you would describe it), that is only pro-Brexit because of the sovereignty issue.

    Pres. Trump's base is loosely estimated to be around 35% of Conservative voters, it took a lot more (small-C), conservative voters, (Independent, Republican, etc.), to get him elected.  By that same explanation, I think it took a lot more than just your "Far-right" voters to get Brexit passed.  So it seems like more than just those uninformed, under-educated old folks worried about national identity and sovereignty.

    Can that large a segment of your population be that out of touch with modern societal evolution? Wait! That was a trick question. I wouldn't be surprised if your response, (a generic liberal/socialist "your"), was "Yes!" Just as I would bet you wouldn't be surprised that my perspective would be a "No."

    One last thing: Regarding your "we" and "45 years ago," are you talking about when the UK joined the European Communities? My initial confusion was the math. The EU was founded in 1992/3, and since that was what we had been discussing, I couldn't get the math to work.

    GA

    1. Nathanville profile image95
      Nathanvilleposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      Your perception and assessment isn’t far off GA; just a few minor adjustments needed to some of the info; as follows:-

      #1    “….it seems safe to say that Britain is a majority conservative voter population.”

      No the majority of Britain isn’t Conservative voters:-

      About 1/3rd of the UK is Conservative voters, about 1/3rd of voters are Labour supporters and about 1/3rd of the country votes for the other political parties (who are all Socialist or Liberal, except for DUP).

      In the 2015 General Election (the last General Election before the Brexit Referendum):-

      •    The Conservatives won 50.8% of the seats with just 36.8% of the votes.
      •    Labour won 35.7% of the seats with just 30.4% of the votes, and
      •    All the other political parties won 13.5% of the seats with 32.8% of the votes.

      The problem we have in the UK with General Elections is that we still use the ‘1st Past the Post’ System; which favours the big parties.

      #2    “….And it is the concept and importance of national identity and sovereignty that I think is mostly attributed to be an important Conservative issue.”

      Broadly correct, but the Conservative Party is a ‘Broad Church’.  ‘National identity and sovereignty’ is ‘nationalism’, and it’s only DUP, and the right-wing of the Conservative Party who are ‘Nationalists’ e.g. the ERG Group within the Conservative Party; which is why Theresa May’s Cabinet and her own party is split over Brexit.

      #3    “….the immigration crisis of recent years was most impactful on voters that felt the loss of control of their borders was also felt as a loss of their national sovereignty.”

      Yes, this was a major factor that swung the Referendum in favour of Brexit; but only because of a ‘single’ propaganda poster by UKIP that swung wavering voters in the last few days of the campaign. 

      Another factor that persuaded a lot of the less well educated voters to vote Brexit was propaganda by the ‘Official Leave’ Campaign Group who spread a blatant lie that the NHS would be given more money by the Government if we left the EU.  A lie that was exposed shortly after the Referendum results e.g. Theresa May’s Government has made it perfectly clear that the NHS will NOT be getting more money because of Brexit. 

      N.B. Government support for the NHS in General Elections is a big vote winner e.g. in the 2015 General Election (prior to the Referendum) the NHS was the most important issue:-

      •    With 74% of voters saying the NHS was ‘very important’, and 93% saying it was ‘fairly important’

      •    The 2nd most important issue in the General Election was the Economy with 69% of voters saying it was ‘very important’ and 92% saying it was ‘fairly important’.

      #4    ”….So it seems like more than just those uninformed, under-educated old folks worried about national identity and sovereignty.”

      I will generalise here for simplicity.  I don’t know how it works in the USA, but generally, in the UK; the ‘uninformed, under-educated old folks’ tend to be the ‘lower working class and unemployed’.

      Labour’s vote base is generally an equal split between the middle classes and working classes (I don’t have the precise percentages at this point).  However, for Labour, the lower working classes (the less well educated) tends to be a more volatile vote base e.g. more easily persuaded by propaganda; and therefore easy pickings for the Conservatives to poach votes when they run a good propaganda programme.

      In this context the British Newspapers play a major role: 

      In Britain, apart from the Daily Mail who relish in printing ‘fake news’, the newspapers fall into two camps; ‘quality press’ and ‘gutter press’.  The ‘Quality Press’ will use ‘political spin’ but not propaganda; whereas the ‘Gutter Press’ relish in using ‘propaganda’.

      The main British ‘Quality Press’ newspapers read mainly by the middle classes include the:-

      •    Financial Times (Conservative).
      •    Daily Telegraph (aka Tory Graph (nickname given by the opposition)) is also a Conservative newspaper.
      •    Independent (no political alignment i.e. apolitical), but very popular with middle class Liberal Democrat and middle class Labour voters), and
      •    Guardian (aimed at the middle class Labour voter)

      The two ‘gutter press’ newspapers are:-

      •    The Sun:  A conservative newspaper who targets the less well educated lower working class Labour voters; and is renowned for using ‘simple words’, and simple easy to read sentences, and smut.
      •    The Mirror: A Labour newspaper who also targets the less well educated lower working class Labour voters; and uses similar propaganda tactics to the Sun newspaper.   

      In Britain, unlike the newspapers, British TV is heavily regulated making the broadcasting of propaganda illegal; other than reporting it in a news item, which then has to be balanced to give an overall unbiased TV reporting.

      Albeit, one of my favourite TV News Channels on British TV is the ‘Good Morning Europe’ on Euronews (broadcasted in English from France).

      'Good Morning Europe' launches on Euronews:  https://youtu.be/eqQUcuiGB5s

      1974 Referendum
      My error, I said EU, but at the time it was the EEC e.g. the EEC was founded in 1957, we joined it in 1974 (with our membership subject to a Referendum); but it was not until the signing of the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 by all National Governments of ALL Member States that the EEC became the EU. 

      All the other Member States were happy to sign the Maastricht Treaty; it was only Britain threatening to use its veto because the British Parliament (Nationalists in the Conservative Party) threw a wobbler; so Margaret Thatcher (although she had a large majority in the House of Commons) had to rely heavily on the Opposition Parties, and Conservatives on the left of her party, so that she could push Britain's acceptance of the Maastricht Treaty through the British Parliament, so that she could then add her signature to the Treaty.

      1. JAKE Earthshine profile image76
        JAKE Earthshineposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

        Vladimir Putin's scheme called "Brexit" which was designed to WEAKEN our European Allies will NEVER happen: Putin managed to achieve one of his two short term goals by manipulating the 2016 presidential election in Daffy Donald Trump's favor, the people of Europe will stop this blatant undermining of NATO by the Kremlin:

        1. Nathanville profile image95
          Nathanvilleposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

          Yep, well said Jake; as you might be aware, the ‘Vote Leave’ Campaign Group have already been ‘find’ £61,000 ($80,000) in the courts last December, for electoral offences committed during the Brexit referendum; and there still remains many other unanswered questions including Putin’s involvement.

          Currently; concerns over Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit Referendum, which brings the legal validity of the Referendum into question, is part of an ongoing investigation by the UK Electoral Commission, the UK Parliament’s Culture Select Committee, and the United States Senate.

          1. JAKE Earthshine profile image76
            JAKE Earthshineposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

            YES Nathanville, intelligence agencies of the USA have already established the FACT with hardcore evidence that Vladimir Putin did indeed use massive resources to commit espionage and other serious crimes against the USA and of course influenced our election in Donald Trump's favor so he could establish his "Satellite Kremlin" within the bounds of our white house: This appears to be one of many reasons WHY Mr. Trump has his frequent little incoherent "Tizzy Tantrums" directed at our FBI, CIA and law enforcement agencies: He must be IMPEACHED and or Indicted to save this country from complete failure and set the precedent that even a president can't commit crimes in broad daylight with impunity:

            "Brexit" will also be invalidated one way or another, it was a gargantuan mistake PUSHED by Putin, and although common sense dictates Vladimir Putin did indeed infiltrate in a concerted effort to "Break-Up & Weaken" Europe under the guise of this ridiculous "Immigration" nonsense, UK Officials must perform their due diligence to establish the evidence:

            Just ask yourself this question: Who would have been the primary beneficiary of "BREXIT"? The clear answer? Vladimir Putin of course:

            We here in the USA want a Non-Brexit, Connected, STRONG, Vibrant and Contiguous Europe, a MIGHTY Force of allies which has kept this world relatively Safe & Secure for decades: Vladimir Putin and radical nationalists would of course desire the OPPOSITE:

            1. Nathanville profile image95
              Nathanvilleposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

              Yep, I agree with what you say Jake.

              Although UK Officials will perform their due diligence, by the time the ‘Reports’ are published it will be academic e.g. it will come too late to make any difference to whether Britain leaves the EU or not. 

              What could stop Brexit is a 2nd Referendum, but the Nationalists (although a minority in Parliament and the country) are bitterly fighting to stop a 2nd Referendum; so there is no guarantee there will be a 2nd Referendum.

              Nationalism in Parliament (and in the country), best estimates (based on the information I have) is somewhere between 12% and about 30% in the UK; so realistically it’s probably somewhere in the middle e.g. about 20%.

              If the UK does leave the EU then it will almost certainly mean the breakup of the UK as Scotland seeks Independence from the UK to re-join the EU as an Independent State; and support for Sinn Fein (the political wing of the IRA) in the Northern Ireland elections will grow giving them a large enough majority in their Parliament to trigger a Referendum for the re-unification of Ireland (and thus become part of the EU again). 

              Part of the Northern Ireland Peace Treaty of 1998 includes the right for ‘self-determination’ (the ‘will’ of the people); in this context, Sinn Fein’s primary gaol is a Referendum for the reunification of Ireland, which DUP bitterly opposes.  The main stumbling block (currently) to any progress on this is that the Northern Ireland’s Parliament has been suspended for the past two years (Since January 2017) due to a bitter row between Sinn Fein and DUP due to DUP’s involvement with a ‘scam’ over public spending.

              Although I am English (my wife is half Irish), I fully support the breakup of the UK because ‘historically’ England has held the Union together predominantly by ‘force’ and I believe in the principle that the Celtic Nations should have the ‘right’ for ‘self-determination’ (the will of the people); which fortunately is now embedded into British Law governing the legal rights of the Celtic Nations who have legal (EU Law) ‘national minority status’ recognition.

              As regards England’s future (and whichever parts of the UK remains tied to England).  If we do leave the EU, then the fight to re-join begins.  In this respect, the prime ‘Policy’ of both the Liberal Parties (Liberal Democrats and the New ‘UK Change – The Independent Party’) is to start a vigorous political campaign to take us back into the EU; it might take 10 years, it might take a generation, but there is little doubt that Britain will eventually re-join the EU.

              As regards the EU, historically, crisis (whether it’s the financial crisis, immigration crisis or Brexit etc.) have always served to strengthen and unite the EU; so with or without Britain (to the Russian’s dismay) the EU will grow and flourish.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)