Why doesn't UK trust Liberalism, why doesn't our friends the US trust Socialism?

I honestly hate how the UK doesn't elect Liberal Democrats to Numner 10 (Downing Street)/Office of power.

We know we're not China or Cuba and that we don't want an extreme National Socialist Party.
So why don't we give Liberalism a chance?

 

Because the Lib Dems are a bunch of treasonous ***** and the entire electorate knows it.

Bye bye Mr Clegg.

 

So what about Corbyn?
He's an IRA sympathising socialist.
Treasonous to a point of thinking of himself and his agenda during Brexit in our time of need.
London/UK remainers had to wait for Corbyn to leave Parliament Square to voice Brexit happening.
He occupied it for days on end only thinking about Labour Party Politics after we just voted Brexit.

 

And guess what? The Labour left is going to take over as a consequence of their performance this election.

The UK is in some real ****.

 

Liberal Democrats are not very liberal. They are more socialist than liberal.

The origins of the party are not "The Liberal Party", they are the Labour party.
It's a splinter group.

 

Lets me guess, socialists bad, conservatives good?

 

Which form of liberalism are you promoting and which current Lib Dem policies and proposals support that?

 

The ones that see the Labour Party's grip on the country gone, 'relegating' (for lack of a better word) the Labour Party to a joke outsider party instead of a viable candidate for office.

 

Also, legalising marijuana couldn't hurt.

 

close, socialists bad, liberals good, conservatives; best what we've got.

 

That’s just petty party politics. You’ve still not said what mean by "liberalism" (the term is commonly used to refer to lots of quite different things) and you’ve not explained exactly what makes the Lib Dems aligned with that principle.

 

Because it's like Labour with less of the socialism.

1p penny tax rise on income, I'd bite. I'd pay that.
Transparency in tax, I'd bite...
Labour's too quick to tax and so quick to say Westminster should control it's scary.

 

Do you always identify yourself by your political opinions?

I believe that all politicians are as pointless and worthless as each other and that anybody who votes for a politician is simply gullible and conformist.

People arguing over which flavour of politican is good/bad has always amused me....its like people arguing over Burger King, McDonlands and KFC while ignoring the fact that they are eating low grade sh!te.

 

Because the UK is basically a two-party system - Labor on the Left and the Conservative Party on the Right. (There is a third-party, the Liberal Democrats who have been members of a Conservative government, when their votes in Parliament were needed.)

(The US would make a major advance in its political system were it to dump Gerrymandering and the Electoral College, but that does not seem to be in the cards. Though Bernie just might try to "create" a significant Liberal movement amongst the Dems.)

The importance of modern politics is not in the names but in sentiments. A far, far greater number of people are shifting Left and Right depending upon "the flavor of the day" in each election. Politics is no longer what it was 20/30 years ago. Even in France, the Left is having a major upheaval having significantly lost in parliamentary elections this last week-end.

So, in general, we should understand that a New Formation of independent "Centrists" has been formulated within the voting population both in the US and Europê. They swing moderate-Left or moderate-Right given the political current of the moment.

Iow, we, the sheeple, are even more fickle politically than we have been in the past ...

 

Then you might think of moving to North Korea?

Never in the history of mankind has political choice been so free, and decisions made by the common will of the people so popular ...

PS: And people so lazy in participating in the choice-making political process. Bitching-in-a-blog requires soooooo much less effort ...

 

SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE

The dictionary-meaning of the word is well known. From here:

It's the application of "Liberalism" that is difficult. Because it means a lot of things to a lot of people, and sometimes in a self-contradictory sense.

But in the morass, one value is prominent and it regards the "self-regulating market". Which is a functional impossibility. Because on the one-hand (1) there is the dynamic of profit-making. Which (otoh) (2) can be in conflict with government oversight to assure avoiding Income Disparity and physical harm to the public.

But the day we get the knack for combining both of those two "virtues" above in a fair and decent way is the day we might be onto "something big". That is, a Political Force for the benefit of mankind in general.

And not just specific groups with individual political predilections, like:
*Amassing huge amounts of Wealth for a minority of the population. Or,
*Owning all the means of production to assure that all receive identical benefits from Supply and Demand.

Neither of the above two political extremes have worked well enough in the past, so here we are all expectant for the "next best thing" that is neither of the above and "something in the middle" ...

 

Wrong, wrong and wrong ...

 

True, but that doesn't mean the OP knows the dictionary definitions and it doesn't mean he is talking about principles actually reflect any of them. In practice these kind of terms are used by different people to mean all sorts of different things.

As it happens, I think he's just playing party politics and isn't thinking any deeper than that. He only used the word Liberalism because he's talking about the Liberal Democrats.

 

He's not stoopid. The word "liberalism*" is well-enough defined. It can take on different side-meanings for different people, but the definition remains all-encompassing (as below).

Are you confusing the meaning to suit your own purposes?

*Definition: Liberalism is a broad political ideology that emphasizes liberty and equality. While it encompasses a diverse range of views, common liberal ideas place value on constitutions, democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, free trade, and the separation of church and state.

 

No, I’m suggesting he is. By the conventional definitions we’ve discussed, the idea that the UK in general “doesn’t trust liberalism” is ridiculous and the fact the Liberal Democratic party isn’t currently doing very well electorally proves nothing on that basis. He’s basically running the political line of declaring “I stand for X so if you don’t vote for me, you must hate X!”.

 

Simplistic nonsense.

Try harder ...

 

Exactly, that was my opinion of the OP too but I was trying to be more friendly and constructive about it.

 

Despite what the Tory press said the Labour Manifesto was broadly centre left, not hard left as it was portrayed, the LibDems were also centre left but were sticking to their guns about Europe. In my mind the Tory manifesto was centre right, maybe a little more skewed towards the right than recent manifesto's.

 

In this forum, it's everyone for themselves ...

 

The Tories are responsible for Brexit. What Cameron had in his alleged mind in announcing it is beyond comprehension.

The reason we have "representative governance" in the form of a Legislature is that people vote issue-referendums not with their minds but with their hind-parts.

It is difficult enough to construct national parties with solid platforms that, in fact, everybody forgets 24 hours after the vote is taken ...