2 thoughts on “What can classical liberals expect from UK political parties in 2020?”

  1. Posted 12/01/2020 at 13:24 | Permalink

    The Liberal Democrats promised vastly more government spending than the Conservatives did – so as the article condemns the Conservatives for their government spending plans, why does it not condemn the Liberal Democrats more for their vastly bigger government spending plans?

    As for the way Boris Johnson speaks – he speaks in the way that most British people speak, it is not a “dog whistle” (unless you are claiming that most British people are dogs – of course you are entitled to call us dogs if you wish to do so) and a “Classical Liberalism” that condemns the way that most people speak is not a liberalism that Prime Minister Gladstone (perhaps the defining figure of Classical Liberalism), or Winston Churchill would have had anything to do with -after both Gladstone and Churchill used far stronger language (you might say more “hate speech” language) than Prime Minister Johnson does. I wonder what you must think of the songs of Flanders and Swan (note to you – they did not really think that all Scots people were mean, or that all Welsh people sang flat) – and most of the rest of British culture (for example the PLAYFUL television series “It Anit Half Hot Mum”). Do you regard British culture as one long “dog whistle”?

    Classical Liberalism is not the Frankfurt School of Marxism (or French Post Modernism – formally a different thing from Frankfurt School Marxism, but in practice much the same) with its doctrine of “hate speech” (its attacks on most people as “racist”, “sexist”, “Islamophobic”, “homophobic”, “transphobic” and-so-on), and I should not have to point out that Classical Liberals SUPPORT Freedom of Speech and are AGAINST the Frankfurt School of Marxism “P.C.”, “Woke”, “Social Justice Warrior” agenda.

  2. Posted 21/01/2020 at 13:45 | Permalink

    “…his [Boris’s] use of language, prior and since, such as describing young Africans as “piccaninnies” and having “watermelon smiles” when a journalist, or comparing Muslim women wearing veils to letterboxes…”

    I suggest that you read the articles in which these terms were used. In one, he was criticising Blair for his patronising attitude towards Africans -it was in this context that he used the term “picanninnies”.

    In the other, he was not comparing Muslim women to letterboxes. It was a liberal defence of their right to wear whatever they liked (as long as it was not being imposed on them against their will by others), in contrast to restrictive legislation in other European countries.. He didn’t describe the women concerned as letterboxes – he said that he thought it was ridiculous to choose (and he pointed out that it is not a requirement of their religion) to dress to look like one, but that that is their right. Can we no longer say that we think that people can look ridiculous when they choose to wear certain clothes, but that they have the right to do it, without being accused of airing “dog whistling populist sentiment” ?

Leave a Reply

Your e-mail address will not be published.