Neo Liberal in the Emmanuel Macron sense is what Jezza means. The emphasis is more on being libertarian - ie. giving big business free rein - than socially liberal.
Sounds like that Corbynite supporter on this week (the other week.) "I'm not a social democrat, I am a democratic socialist."
Yeah, that one's a far finer distinction; what is a social democrat if not a democratic socialist? Perhaps the term is associated with specific political parties (like the former SDP now merged with the Liberals to form the LibDems) who were anything but socialist. I once met my former Lib Dem MP Lynn Featherstone, who was at pains to point out that she was "not a socialist", though at the time she was, on some issues, to the left of her predecessor, Labour MP Barbara Roche. It quickly became obvious that her fellow Liberal Vince Cable, wasn't a socialist either, when he came to power in a coalition and rushed to privitise Royal Mail; something for which I will never forgive either him nor his party.
This is a great idea. https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/17...-homes-to-house-southamptons-homeless-people/
It's the difference between capitalism and communism, Or capitalism and socialism in Corbyn's case. One is liberal economically with free trade while the other is very controlled. That's the distinction he's making. It's quite a big one.
I _think_ this is political rather than football related https://newsthump.com/2018/12/11/so...VsOOgWUV1dLBSli1-IUrrtvcKyyRzSan0-QJQo7uq0FOQ
So how does supporting Globalism reconcile with being a socialist? I think the reality is that the Globalist model is actually very controlling of free trade. That is why big business likes it. It is controlled in their favour.
There are whispers that the 48 letters has been reached. Won't be announced while she is out of the country though. Have to find my membership card now just in case.
i saw a really good idea in Portland USA, people with large gardens or spare land sign up to a plan where the authority builds a small house on their land, a homeless family live there for 5 years and then move onto a hopefully their own apartment, and the land owner keeps the house
Think what you like (I know you like your conspiracy theories) but what it means in reality is that anyone from anywhere can compete with you. Business in general would prefer to have a monopoly with no competition. It's globalisation and the associated competition that explains why this evening you'll probably be sitting in front of a TV set bigger than you ever imagined possible thirty years ago and it didn't bankrupt you to buy it. Vin
Well, you could be China. But you've basically answered your own question. Give businesses incentives to control them that also works in their favour while adding some restrictions in other ways. It's what the EU tries to do and another reason I support it. Though I get the impression you meant the idea of buisness being supported as a negative. I'm with Vin on that though.
I'm for supporting business but with a bit of moral duty while doing so. I'm not for letting business ride roughshod, which in my eyes (as with many others) is what is hidden behind the globalism's facade. So they like to control everything.......including the "market rate" which of course includes wages.
I read a tweet earlier saying "Gove as caretaker, heard it here first." That was probs about 3pm and I didn't really take much notice of it. However just seen George Freeman MP tweeted this morning begging Tory MPs not to send letters in and that a caretaker would be a better idea!!
Surely the entire government have made such a complete mess of the whole Brexit process, not to mention the contempt vote last week, that nobody associated with May can possibly be trusted to be in charge?
"The entire government" has indeed made a complete mess of Brexit. The problem being that they have let her get away with micromanaging and been too worried about "another leader election" to remove her. While from the outside it might seem there is a lot of boatrocking there has been a vast amount more "holding tongues" than there has been boatrocking especially from those on or close to front benches. Davis should have come out early once she wouldn;t listen and resigned early, spilling the beans early rather than be diplomatic. Others should have too. So yes, in failing to stand up to her, and then failing to remove her once it was clear she wouldn't listen they have let this get to where it is now. A repeat of Cameron going over to Brussels to come back with something "minute" and sell it as a huge concession. People should have been speaking when she announced a General Election with minimal warning. The most definitely should have been talking when she produced a manifesto they were unaware of (Dementia Tax) and they should have been very vocal when Chequers appeared from nowhere replacing what the DexEU had been working on. She just does not learn and keeps on using her inner circle instead of the cabinet and letting her cabinet take the flak for things she has been in control of.
