When did "Liberalism" and "Socialism" become dirty words....?

Breadman wrote:

bwfc71 wrote:And yes I could be classed as a "liberal socialist"  or a "socialist liberal"!!  As in I always keep my mind open to new ideologies and new ways but, as there has to be a but being any form a liberal, it has to work or revert back until another ideology can be tried and tested, to see if it can work.

At some point though, you've got to stop looking for the answer in someone else's ideology and decide what works for you.

Or maybe that's the whole point of being a liberal with a big L.

You don't ever have to decide what you firmly believe in, you just keep trying to pick out the bits that you agree with from other peoples' convictions, without ever setting out your own.

However no ideology fits the bill so there will always be an ideological compromise in voting for a party. 
Most people prioritise their issues and vote on the balance of priorities so e.g. you might agree with UKIP's approach to immigration but disagree with their attitude to women.

And as long as there is ideological compromise, so people will continue to look around for other ideas and options.

This chap's summed it up pretty nicely for me:

http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/comment/comment/11276030.Why_I_voted_UKIP/?ref=ms

Boring

Apart from the different labels given to political parties, and their followers, I think there is a fundamental change in the way our country is governed. I feel that politicians in the past became so because they genuinely wanted to help, and to further the aims of the country and its people, hence outstanding politicians of the past. Nowadays, politics has developed into just another career, with the promise of good money, power and influence. I genuinely believe that when picking a party, at the beginning of their schooling, or training, they pick a party purely on what they feel is the most profitable in the long term. It is because of this that we now have politicians concentrating on their own aims, political bitching, infighting, and doing and saying anything to hold onto power, regardless of the consequences, or any shame in doing so.

gloswhite wrote:Apart from the different labels given to political parties, and their followers, I think there is a fundamental change in the way our country is governed. I feel that politicians in the past became so because they genuinely wanted to help, and to further the aims of the country and its people, hence outstanding politicians of the past. Nowadays, politics has developed into just another career, with the promise of good money, power and influence. I genuinely believe that when picking a party, at the beginning of their schooling, or training, they pick a party purely on what they feel is the most profitable in the long term. It is because of this that we now have politicians concentrating on their own aims, political bitching, infighting, and doing and saying anything to hold onto power, regardless of the consequences, or any shame in doing so.

Absolutely. And although we are supposed to be a United Kingdom there is still a political north and south divide.

I think your right RT. and this approach is becoming even more blatant with Cameron's care and consideration given to his own 'friends', who just happen to be wealthy, from the same school/university, live south of the Watford Gap, or have have backed him personally, in the past. I think this applies to all the main parties nowadays.
The only time we are united, is when we send our armed forces to fight pointless wars for vague political reasons. Its the old adage that there's nothing like a good war for getting the country pulling together.

I might be wrong but I reckon the bulk of the squaddies in the armed forces are made up of working class lads from the north of England and the officers are mainly from the south.

Not quite, but I believe the majority of the entrants to the Officers Training colleges are from the well-heeled South. Even the colleges, (at least in the old days), had their own discrimination, (all very unofficial), in that Sandhurst was for the upper class, and Welbeck College was for the working to middle class.
Very much the same as the universities of today, where the 'red brick' ones are regarded as the 'better' ones, (again attended by the well heeled and well connected).

Reebok Trotter wrote:I might be wrong but I reckon the bulk of the squaddies in the armed forces are made up of working class lads from the north of England and the officers are mainly from the south.

RT, this would have been more obvious in the past when regiments were recruited local, although I have to say I'm not aware of troops/regiments being used in such a way