The Pat Kenny Show

Grolschevik

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Why?

Modern liberalism evolved into a more 'developmental' stream after and because of John Stuart Mill. It's where we get the likes of Rawls and Macpherson from.

Conservatives stole the clothes of Locke-based 'classical liberals' and that strand of conservatism is now commonly referred to as 'neo-liberalism'. It's where we get the likes of Hayek and Friedman from.

Chapter 3 of the most common current introduction to politics book in use today, as I'm sure you will remember.

Also, ideological beliefs can of course have multiple axes, so it's of course possible that one cam be socially liberal (in the modern sense) but economically conservative. FG are certainly conservative (ie neo-liberal) in the latter sense, and have only recently begun paying lip-service to social liberalism (the era of Fitzgerald may be an exception, though it's arguable). Remember, Leo opposed marriage equality initially, and Coveney was anti-repeal initially.

DickSwiveller

Grolschevik wrote: »

Modern liberalism evolved into a more 'developmental' stream after and because of John Stuart Mill. It's where we get the likes of Rawls and Macpherson from.

Conservatives stole the clothes of Locke-based 'classical liberals' and that strand of conservatism is now commonly referred to as 'neo-liberalism'. It's where we get the likes of Hayek and Friedman from.

Chapter 3 of the most common current introduction to politics book in use today, as I'm sure you will remember.

Also, ideological beliefs can of course have multiple axes, so it's of course possible that one cam be socially liberal (in the modern sense) but economically conservative. FG are certainly conservative (ie neo-liberal) in the latter sense, and have only recently begun paying lip-service to social liberalism (the era of Fitzgerald may be an exception, though it's arguable). Remember, Leo opposed marriage equality initially, and Coveney was anti-repeal initially.

Yes, it's all very confusing. In the 1940's the Labour government in Britain was very left wing when it came to the economy. They introduced the NHS and nationalised many industries. However, many members of the cabinet were deeply religious and socially Conservative.

DickSwiveller

Also, if you read someone like Roger Scruton, a British conservative writer, he is very critical of capitalism, arguing that it destroys much of what conservatism values.

Grolschevik

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Also, if you read someone like Roger Scruton, a British conservative writer, he is very critical of capitalism, arguing that it destroys much of what conservatism values.

Scruton is good. I don't agree with him often, but there's no denying the rigour.

DickSwiveller

Tell me how wrote: »

It absolutely can be. Opinions are formed based on experience, education, personal beliefs and available factual knowledge.

If you discount the factual knowledge, your opinion is incorrect.

You have the right to hold an opinion. But others have the right to dismiss them.

Some have the opinion global warming is a myth. I think that opinion is wrong largely because of the sheer volume of evidence from reputable sources that it exists.

If global warming is 100 per cent a fact (I don't know anything about it) then it is impossible to have an opinion it. It would be like me saying that in my opinion Leo Varadkar has blonde hair. Same with flat earthers. It is an observable, objective fact that the world is spherical. On moral questions, however, a person is entitled to their opinion without being told they are 'wrong'. That is the problem with a lot of liberals. They have mistaken their opinion for fact.

Leroy42

You were doing so well up until this:

That is the problem with a lot of liberals. They have mistaken their opinion for fact.

Why would you need to include the label in there? Is that no a problem across all types of people, or is it simply a curse on liberals?

But as you say there are certain things, like flat earth, that we can all agree there is only one position no room for opinion.

I would have thought that separating children from their parents to be used as political pawns is such a position. It really shouldn't be a moral issue, anymore than child abuse is a moral issue.

Seems I was wrong and whether you think taking children away from their parents and locking them in cages is something that is open to opinion.

DickSwiveller

Leroy42 wrote: »

You were doing so well up until this:



Why would you need to include the label in there? Is that no a problem across all types of people, or is it simply a curse on liberals?

But as you say there are certain things, like flat earth, that we can all agree there is only one position no room for opinion.

I would have thought that separating children from their parents to be used as political pawns is such a position. It really shouldn't be a moral issue, anymore than child abuse is a moral issue.

Seems I was wrong and whether you think taking children away from their parents and locking them in cages is something that is open to opinion.

I wasn't referencing that. I meant other social issues like abortion, euthanasia etc.

DickSwiveller

Leroy, go to the 8th ref thread in after hours and look how No voters are treated. Its an eye opener. It was the same during the marriage ref.

anthonyjmaher

Okay, lads forget about left and right, pro hilary and pro trump, pro mainstream media and pro independent media...
Can we all just agree on one thing. David Drumm should be put in a charge of a bank again before Jonathan Healy is put in front of a microphone?

DickSwiveller

anthonyjmaher wrote: »

Okay, lads forget about left and right, pro hilary and pro trump, pro mainstream media and pro independent media...
Can we all just agree on one thing. David Drumm should be put in a charge of a bank again before Jonathan Healy is put in front of a microphone?

He's awful. Is it just me or does he have a strange accent? 'Almost Cork' is the only way I can describe it.

quintana76

Grolschevik wrote: »

Modern liberalism evolved into a more 'developmental' stream after and because of John Stuart Mill. It's where we get the likes of Rawls and Macpherson from.

Conservatives stole the clothes of Locke-based 'classical liberals' and that strand of conservatism is now commonly referred to as 'neo-liberalism'. It's where we get the likes of Hayek and Friedman from.

Chapter 3 of the most common current introduction to politics book in use today, as I'm sure you will remember.

Also, ideological beliefs can of course have multiple axes, so it's of course possible that one cam be socially liberal (in the modern sense) but economically conservative. FG are certainly conservative (ie neo-liberal) in the latter sense, and have only recently begun paying lip-service to social liberalism (the era of Fitzgerald may be an exception, though it's arguable). Remember, Leo opposed marriage equality initially, and Coveney was anti-repeal initially.

The big change came with the advent of Thatcherism. It was the influence of her economic/political guru Keith Joseph. He was a successful advocate of the double liberal. The two different meanings of the same word combined in a philosophy. Liberal socially and liberal in the economic sense. The latter would be in traditional American terms be called libertarianism.
Garret Fitz's Government followed contemporary opinion because it was fashionable and seemed to work. He discouraged most of Fine Gael's traditional social conservatism which has never really recovered. We can see that the said liberal philosophy still carries weight to this day via Leo etc. It is now the norm in most Western polities. It was hated at the time but even the left didn't discount it completely even up to this day.

Ironically, Trump is the direct economic opposite of Thatcherism and it's associated neo-liberalism due to his belief in tariffs etc. He has more in common with the economic nationalism of the 1930s and the early British Labour party rather than the right.

monstermag

Leroy42 wrote: »

Sounds to me like you've already made up your mind and when you talk about balance what you really mean is that you want someone to agree with your POV.

I'm not asking anyone to agree with me, l don't go around forcing my views on anyone. I'm just adding my tuppence worth to the thread. Make of it what you will.

Grolschevik

quintana76 wrote: »

The big change came with the advent of Thatcherism. It was the influence of her economic/political guru Keith Joseph. He was a successful advocate of the double liberal. The two different meanings of the same word combined in a philosophy. Liberal socially and liberal in the economic sense. The latter would be in traditional American terms be called libertarianism.
Garret Fitz's Government followed contemporary opinion because it was fashionable and seemed to work. He discouraged most of Fine Gael's traditional social conservatism which has never really recovered. We can see that the said liberal philosophy still carries weight to this day via Leo etc. It is now the norm in most Western polities. It was hated at the time but even the left didn't discount it completely even up to this day.

Ironically, Trump is the direct economic opposite of Thatcherism and it's associated neo-liberalism due to his belief in tariffs etc. He has more in common with the economic nationalism of the 1930s and the early British Labour party rather than the right.

Good point, actually! I would only add that Joseph was in turn heavily influenced by Hayek.

quintana76

Grolschevik wrote: »

Good point, actually! I would only add that Joseph was in turn heavily influenced by Hayek.

Absolutely. He was a disciple

Technocentral

Afraid to listen,is Healy still on?

DickSwiveller

Technocentral wrote: »

Afraid to listen,is Healy still on?

Think it's Cuddihy. Even worse.

Technocentral

Impossible to be worse than Healy.

Uncharted

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Think it's Cuddihy. Even worse.

Same arse. Different cheek.

meeeeh

I like Cuddihy but then unlike some here I'm not horrified by anybody with slightly liberal outlook.

Grolschevik

I quite like Cuddihy too. Better than Healy, and there's a streak of fun in him, I always think. Believe he's a solicitor, too.

humberklog

I find Cuddihy grand too. Easy going and lighthearted approach to presenting.

I can't listen to Healy so don't. He puts me off my day.

DickSwiveller

Cuddihy isn't a bad presenter but he's a bit dismissive of texters who don't agree with him.

Uncharted

Cuddihy is well ahead of Healy in the presenting stakes,but that's a very very low bar.

Tell me how

Steve Cortez on this morning. Somewhat of a proponent of Trumps approach in dealing with immigrants in to US.

But of course this thread is still about trying to determine just how bad the presenters are and next week we'll have posts again saying how it's only ever liberal voices on Irish radio.

ghostdancer

meeeeh wrote: »

I like Cuddihy but then unlike some here I'm not horrified by anybody with slightly liberal outlook.

so many of the right-wing knuckledraggers on here are such special little snowflakes, constantly listening to Newstalk for something to be outraged over.

Tell me how

ghostdancer wrote:

so many of the right-wing knuckledraggers on here are such special little snowflakes, constantly listening to Newstalk for something to be outraged over.

Correction. They don't listen anymore because it's just so terrible.
But they still manage to become outraged.

DickSwiveller

ghostdancer wrote: »

so many of the right-wing knuckledraggers on here are such special little snowflakes, constantly listening to Newstalk for something to be outraged over.

Don't underestimate how enjoyable moaning can be

Tell me how

DickSwiveller wrote:

Don't underestimate how enjoyable moaning can be

I presume this is tongue in cheek, but it's so much more fun to be optimistic.

Life is tough enough without having to search for things to be negative about.

quintana76

quintana76 wrote: »

Absolutely. He was a disciple

...and Friedman of course.

DickSwiveller

Tell me how wrote: »

I presume this is tongue in cheek, but it's so much more fun to be optimistic.

Life is tough enough without having to search for things to be negative about.

I prefer cynical