Why I’m Not Centre-Right, Although Liberals Do It Too

The Times newspaper that is owned by NewsCorp, has a reputation for being a right-wing or conservative newspaper. However the about page of The Times says that they don’t have a strong consistent preference for political parties, which I can believe, as The Independent doesn’t endorse any party and The Sun and The Guardian keep switching their party alliance (Labour or Conservative alongside Labour and Lib Dem). So imagine my surprise when researching online to try to find out the sociopolitical bias difference between The Times and The Telegraph, to then find that The Times isn’t technically fully right-wing but instead centre-right. Or even better, that although The Telegraph wanted Britain to leave the European Union, however The Times campaigned for remaining inside the EU. Imagine that! How could that be? Wonder, I did.

In case you’re wondering, The Telegraph best matches my sociopolitical beliefs and it just feels more me, than The Times does. Well I am not a liberal but you already knew that! Given how it’s much harder to tell the difference between marginal and factional differences between two seemingly similar sociopolitical ideologies, than it is when talking about things with more reliable statistics or biomarkers, like economics, design styles or design philosophies, I suppose that the only way I could answer that question, is to make a makeshift and foolhearted attempt of answering it myself. I’ll try to be concise, comprehensive but not purely all-encompassing here. I don’t claim to be authorative, definitive or centralised on this, even not an expert but this is my best attempt, from what I see from how I disagree with self declared conservatives, on a more meta level of what metrics they use to gauge their morality. Here goes!

Where does the cognitive bias lie?

It’s a very interesting fact, that despite being both classed as right-wing newspapers or conservative under the public knowledge, to have The Telegraph campaign for leaving the EU whilst The Times wanted us to stay within it.

It is also a very interesting fact, that when the british government proposed the Online Harms Act, that The Times published an editorial to show the newspaper’s official editorial line (which implies that their writers often disagree with each other about things that falls outside the editorial line), which said that The Times was against the Online Harms Bill from Day One as it would be used for censorship, political correctness and obstructing smaller technology companies from an avalanche of extra lawsuits. However The Telegraph was the right-wing newspaper that agreed with the Online Harms Bill, to then start flip flopping years later, to then claim that the Online Harms Bill must go back to its original purpose, as its focus on race, gender, transgenders, vaccines and whatever else, is a law about cyberbullying, trolling and protecting children from pro-anorexia content, to be evolving into a monster that is bad for the citizens for debasing and eroding our democratic rights (ie. free speech) and civil liberties.

Why could this be? If I wasn’t a writer and if I wasn’t moving my content away from Big Tech onto my own startups, would I of also thought the same initially in the beginning about the Online Harms Act as The Telegraph did, as a telegraphite? I’ll guess what the editor of The Telegraph hadn’t written both fiction and non-fiction books like me!

  • Linus Tech Tips: Floatplane
  • Trainwrecks tv: Kick (an investor, not a founder)

To even begin to explain that one, for why that could be, I’d have to give my analogy.

GCSE Exam Paper analogy (circa 2008)

I finished school at 16 in 2008 to then start college in 2010 before attending university in 2010. Nowadays the mandatory school leaving age was increased from 16 to 18, forcing kids to either attend college (Including sixth form) or do an apprenticeship. I think that it’s a bad idea and that it won’t help children get better skills but to explain why, that’s a different topic for another time. From 12 years of mandatory public schooling to 14.

When I was at school, for every single subject, we had three different exam papers, a foundation paper, an intermediate paper and a higher paper. They all contain the same amount of questions.

  • Foundation Paper: 1-3 marks // maximum C grade
  • Intermediate Paper: 2-4 marks // maximum B grade
  • Higher Paper: 3-5 marks // maximum A grade (and even A+)

You’re probably wondering, if the higher paper is worth more marks, then why doesn’t every child do the foundation paper? The reason is that for each level of exam paper, there is a minimum mark threshold that is needed in order for a child to pass and if a child doesn’t meet this minimum mark threshold, then they’ll fail the entire exam (D or below). As soon as the Conservative Party got into power in 2010, they removed the intermediate paper, to make it harder for children from poor and disadvantaged backgrounds, to get into university.

As the child progresses through the exam paper, the beginning questions are worth a lowest amount of marks (1-3), gradually increasing to eventually become higher and higher, so the hardest questions are at the end of the exam paper.

Now imagine that timesian people can accurately predict the quantity of questions but are bad at predicting the weight of questions whereas telegraphites can accurately predict the weight of questions but are bad at predicting the quantity of questions.

Now it should all make sense! Using this analogy, using this logic, ahem, reasoning as I lean more towards deductive reasoning, it should start to make sense why The Times campaigned to remain in the EU whereas The Telegraph wanted to leave the EU.

The problem for the telegraphite, is if they underestimate the amount of questions on the exam, to then practically learn in the heat of the moment, on the live run, that there’s actually more questions than they’d expected there to be.

When looked at from this perspective, it starts to make sense, a key difference (or moral and problem solving lens) between The Times and The Telegraph.

#1 Mollycoddling Panopticons, this very combination, gives authorities self-paralysis

Examples of mollycoddling in british regulations

Mollycoddling seems to be a british term as I’ve never seen any americans using it, as it’s more common for americans to say infantilising instead. But mollycoddling seems more specific for what I want to use it for here, along with how other british people would use it.

Mollycoddling is a rule that’s designed to regulate other people’s behaviour, whether informal or not, that tends to treat those subjected to it, as if they’re not able to make their own decisions, as if they’re children who need to be wrapped up in bubble wool, as if they could not adapt to spontaneously leave their once insulated lives.

A first example is how Health And Safety regulations often are excessive, to the point where in retail, often an Incident Report can be written on paper to report every spill, even if it is in a restricted area where customers are not permitted, even if it’s within the “back room” like the stock cupboard or the offices on the third floor.

A second example is how I know a supported housing company (designed for vulnerable people) which now has to perform weekly fire alarm checks, as when a tenant committed suicide by setting himself on fire, although luckily it was a successful attempt with no lifelong suffering in a wheelchair and that the house managed to remain intact without needing a structural repair – the CEO of the company ended up getting arrested on manslaughter charges then going to court, when it’s not really her fault if a fire alarm was found to of had the battery run out coincidentally in that week, does it? The same council in the same city, shut down a supported housing company because one of their tenants who had depression, committed suicide, as if somehow, that’s the company’s fault for not giving her enough emotional support, when suicide is a complex issue with a multitude of overlapping causes.

A third example is when Clarks Shoes was notoriously caught for having their staff be measuring the kids shoes to be smaller than the correct size, around 0.5-2.0 sizes smaller than their feet actually was. This was back in the 90s when there was no Amazon in the UK, or at least it wasn’t very popular. Online shopping wasn’t really a big thing back then. This was done so that parents would buy 2-6 extra shoes for while their child was in primary school from aged 4 to 11. After people complained to Trading Standards for them selling products that wasn’t “fit for purpose” as they were overselling, the council did fine Clarks which helped them measure the child’s feet correctly. But a few months later after they improved their behaviour, rather than there being a council mandated sign on the wall of the shop, to warn customers against the pitfalls of having salespeople doing overselling, the customers were instead were subjected to a form made by the council, where a customer would have to tick a box then give their name and date, to show that the staff was measuring their child correctly, after the parent read the notice at the top of the page. And they didn’t think to just put an easily noticeable sign on the shop wall, the council? That’s mollycoddling if you ask me!

What is a panopticon?

The combination we see in right-wing politician pledges, during election season

Seeing as it’s about specific politicians and their pledges during the election season, for time’s sake, I’ll give my opinion over here instead. Well for Rishi Sunak anyway

  • Banning tobacco for anyone born after 2024 (like New Zealand)
  • More regulations on vaping, despite them being around or over 10 years, so there’s probably already regulations in it already
  • Tough on crime (increasing sentences for the most severe crimes)
  • Showing videos of judges sentencing guilty people in court on the news on tv, so you can actually HEAR the verdict being made, when cameras are historically strictly prohibited in court
  • More “nanny state” regulations on food for Public Health

It’s all just hamster wheel politics that is designed to attract the “floating voter” who are either indifferent (no opinion) or ambivalent (weak opinion) amongst various political issues, just to win the election cheap and easy, to avoid going for the opposite end of the spectrum. Well as it’s hamster wheel politics, no matter how much the hamster spins whether 2 hours, 4 days, 4 months or years, it’ll be back in the same place it was when it started.

#2 Ashton Kutcher style double reformer

I’ve found the perfect example of a person to describe these type of centre-right people, (although the centre-left and liberals do it too). Ashton Kutcher Why? Here goes!

The concise definition of a double reformer

You’re a double reformer.
I’ll explain.

Imagine that someone says that something should be illegal then there’s a debate
Should X be illegal?

Then there’s 3 people in the debate
One person who wants it legal, as for
One person who is undecided, as on the fence
One person who wants it banned, as against

The person who is undecided makes a lot of “devil’s advocate” arguments.
The person who wants it to remain legal, claims they are pro-choice and believes in self-autonomy over their own selves

However, here is where is where the distinction is made, to make the pro-choice person different from a typical pro-choice person, to make a diversion

The pro-choice is a DOUBLE REFORMER
The pro-choice says they’re happy with it being legal, it’s just that we need to add some extra regulations, some extra barriers, extra red tape, extra eligibility checks

However unbeknownst to the self-declared pro-choice person, all the regulations they ever need to prevent and curtail the negative aspects of the X activity, ALREADY exist and are already regulated for.
So by being a DOUBLE reformer, the pro-choice person only serves to advance the agenda of the anti-choice abolishionist, by making the enclave permieter smaller than what it should be, as the relevant regulations ALREADY EXIST, of which the DOUBLE REFORMER is either ignorant of or unintentionally overlooking

Double reformers when debating prostitution

Centre-right people, much like timesians, are a double reformer.
I’ll explain.

Imagine that someone says that something should be illegal then there’s a debate
Should X be illegal?

Then there’s 3 people in the debate

  • One person who wants it legal, as for
  • One person who is undecided, as on the fence
  • One person who wants it banned, as against

The person who is undecided makes a lot of “devil’s advocate” arguments.
The person who wants it to remain legal, claims they are pro-choice and believes in self-autonomy over their own selves

However, here is where is where the distinction is made, to make the pro-choice person different from a typical pro-choice person, to make a diversion

The pro-choice is a DOUBLE REFORMER
The pro-choice says they’re happy with it being legal, it’s just that we need to add some extra regulations, some extra barriers, extra red tape, extra eligibility checks

However unbeknownst to the self-declared pro-choice person, all the regulations they ever need to prevent and curtail the negative aspects of the X activity, ALREADY exist and are already regulated for.
So by being a DOUBLE reformer, the pro-choice person only serves to advance the agenda of the anti-choice abolishionist, by making the enclave permieter smaller than what it should be, as the relevant regulations ALREADY EXIST, of which the DOUBLE REFORMER is either ignorant of or unintentionally overlooking.

The double reformer is what the centre-right does, despite claiming to be right-wing (or maybe centre-left) just like Ashton Kutcher (who claims to be a liberal).

Double reformers debating objectification, unrealistic beauty standards and whether we should copy France by banning photoshopped images in magazines and adverts

Imagine if a liberal tv channel (like the BBC, ABC, NBC, CNN or Channel 4) is having a debate about…………unrealistic beauty standards along with airbrushed or photoshopped images

But with something like porn and prostitution, you can conflate it to human trafficking and “paid rape”, something which cannot be done so easily towards something so extreme, when it comes to photoshopping models and actors.

Did you know that in France, photoshopped images of models or anyone else in adverts, has been banned?

Imagine there’s a debate on tv
The person who is for photoshopping models, would be someone like Kate Moss, Lucy Pinder or Kate Upton
The person who is AGAINST photoshopping people in adverts, would be someone like Emily Rataj, as she published an article in Cosmopolitan where she says that she hates “the male gaze” and objectification, yet how else is she to make money under capitalism other than modelling, unless she lives off the grid or is unemployed?
The person who is undecided and on the fence, would be someone like Laci Green or Marina Wanatabe, someone notorious for contradicting themselves

The person who is against, wants to copy France’s laws, where photoshopping models and actors in adverts AND magazines, is illegal

The person who is indifferent, makes lots of “devil’s advocate” arguments like “Don’t you think the eligibility requirements for a catwalk model is different than a glamour model, which would make the burden to use photoshopping, drastically higher or lower for each one?” and also “Isn’t the nature of all advertising to be selling a fantasy and idealistic lifestyle instead of the product. If you eat Green Giant peas, you become a strong giant. If you wear Loreal, you’ll be born with it. If you buy T-Mobile credit, you’re getting more from life. Wouldn’t you have to rewrite the whole modus operandi of advertising, to apply your logic?”

The person who is for, claims that they don’t want to outright ban it but just to ban it from front covers and billboard adverts where people will be subjected to it without their prior consent from walking down the street or shop, whilst also labelling it in size 18 font when used inside the magazine, while ALSO creating laws to BAN the lightening or darkening of someone’s skin complexion, on the basis that it’s racist for enforcing anglocentric beauty standards and neo-colonialist imperalism. But you can surely make someone’s eyes bigger or more symetrical, right?

However the person who is a pro-choice activist, as they are a DOUBLE REFORMER, them wanting an excessive amount of regulations for something that is either already regulated against, or easily mitigated by using personal responsibility from online derived information, by them wanting an EXCESSIVE amount of regulations, it only serves to advance the strategy and goals of the anti-choice abolishionist, by applying the “path of least resistance” to move a couple of inches closer to the abolishionist’s end goal.

But what about those micro-scale interactions between person to person?
Like how gender roles are so oppressive and repressive towards women and girls?
What shall be done about that, those small scale social interactions between two parties, that cannot be as easily regulated by merely banning something or applying more media regulations?
What about laws and policies against spoken word?

As you know, liberals hijacked the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) in 2017 to ban adverts that depict a gender stereotype. These 2 adverts were the first to be banned.

So you would see the liberals who want the advert banned, as the anti-choice abolishionists, who you would distance yourself from.

The person who is undecided, would be reading lots of articles from liberal websites like LA Times High, Washington Post, Daily Dot, which argue about how HARMFUL gender roles are.

To then read a government letterhead and official policy FINAL consultation document like this one

Which the anti-choice government used as a justification to ban those adverts.

The person who is undecided, who makes lots of “devil’s advocate” arguments, would be asking questions like this, after reading the state policy PDF

  1. Why is objectification of women bad, if celebrities and influencers intentionally do it to themselves?
  2. If objectification is so harmful, why do women still do it to themselves, when you remove money and profit from the equation?
  3. Why is it harmful to say that men and women have naturally different interests and skillsets? Is that not a valid point?
  4. Would the prevalence of anorexia, bulimia and negative body image, drastically reduce, if models in billboard and print adverts, had to be taken with Polaroid INSTANT cameras. Because not everyone is polaroid photogenic either? Are they not?
  5. Using the “women as a reward”, “women as trophies” argument that feminists complain about (eg. Anita Sarkeesian), if a man acquiring sex is seen as an achievement but for women it’s like breathing oxygen, if you disregard the shaming language on both sides (eg. player, slut), does banning sexualised imagery really change these attitudes, because it doesn’t make “the chase” before the “pull or number” any easier for men or women, does it?

As I said months ago, well last year.

Did you know that in the UK it's considered to be LEGALLY classed as sexual harasssment for a woman in an office to be made into the errand girl, by being made to make the tea and biscuits, present the powerpoint presentations for visitors and fetch the print-outs from the printer, on the basis that it's perpeptuating a gendered stereotype that women are to be subservient to men?

A woman can sue her employer in an employment tribunal for gender discrimination and the company will have to pay a MINIMUM of £50,000 in damages towards the woman, if she is made to repeatedly or excessively do errands in the office.

Crazy right?

That's how far they've expanded the definition of sexual harassment.

Someone probably class them as an anti-choice liberal bracket.

But those centre-right people being a DOUBLE REFORMER like Ashton Kutcher, you would be putting up an ERRAND ROTA in the office, to then equalise and harmonise the amount of errands that men and women do in the office workplace, despite the workload amount, deadlines and difficulity of work, being constantly changing. So you would be the TYPE of person to implement an ERRAND ROTA to HARMONISE the amount of work given to men and women. To use the carrot and stick metaphor, there will be no £50k lawsuits to beat the horse with a stick but instead a lovely carrot from a chirpy and smiley manager as a soft motivator. Maybe a pack of Ferrero Rocher thrown in.

But that would provide EXCESSIVE regulations that needn’t exist, to only further advance the goals of the anti-choice liberal, though providing the “path of least resistance”, to chip at it away gradually like coastal erosion or Michaelangelo chipping away to make stone statue art. With something as dynamic as a workplace, a STRICT rota, however softly or strongly enforced, doesn’t quite work, does it?

So there you go! The centre-right is a double reformer, just like Ashton Kutcher.

#3 Trying to legislate the social contract, when couplets chart off course

Let’s quote a blog article from Gab News, the blog of the free speech Twitter alternative.

Any time a conservative Christian proposes laws to address issues of public morality, he is always told “you can’t legislate morality.” This is a mantra that is deep in the bones of liberal, democratic society. You hear it all the time.

Want to pass laws to stop abortion? “You can’t legislate morality.”

Want to eliminate gay marriage? “You can’t legislate morality.”

Want to stop children being castrated? “You can’t legislate morality.”

Want to stop the dissemination of pornography? “You can’t legislate morality.”

But simply repeating something ad nauseam doesn’t make it true.

The reality is that law really does “legislate morality.”

The very idea that morality is separable from external society—from the norms and standards of everyone else around you—betrays a liberal individualism that is completely out of touch with reality. Human beings do not develop their moral bearings in isolation. Only the most antisocial personalities and the mentally ill are capable of bootstrapping a novel and idiosyncratic morality apart from what everyone around them believes. The overwhelming majority of people acquire their moral senses from those around them, especially those in authority over them. Parents, teachers, peers, media, and yes, even government instill moral principles upon them. The Bible commands Christian parents to do this very thing (Pr. 22:6, Eph. 6:4). Naturally, it isn’t as simple as giving a child a set of rules and downloading them into their brain. The human heart does not work this way. However, the moral training parents give their children does become internalized over time. Children really do believe what their parents tell them is right and wrong, and though some can and do rebel against it, the majority will more or less follow what they have been taught. Outward conformity to external rules usually becomes internalized over time.

* * *

Yes, You Can Legislate Morality
by andrew isker

Now he’s not saying he’s particularly against homosexuality or gay marriage, he’s just using it as a representative example of how blunt a knife the government will play for the role of government.

Okay so if some centre-right and timesian politician like Rishi Sunak wants to regulate morality by creating laws, oh okay but what do I as a telegraphite say?

You can’t use laws to regulate a social contract, as social ties surpass law.

tynamite

Should sociopolitical opinions be allowed in schools?

Well according to centre-right timesian Rishi Sunak and David Cameron, they should be. For me, it shouldn’t.

Reforming marriage by abolishing alimony to help men

Marriage is just a piece of paper, just like a worthless degree. Do you get lower income tax, energy rebates, extra welfare, business funding or career bootcamps for being married? ……….. NO

I bet those timesian centre-right people (never mind liberals) was one of those people who were in unison with the self declared liberals who believed in Obama listening to the Human Rights Campaign, with that viral blue and yellow equals sign logo, who WANTED AND LOVED homosexual people being given the right to marry by Obama. And for what? A worthless piece of paper? Typical liberal and centre-right logic getting all outraged about a TOKENISTIC DECORATIVE WORTHLESS paper, just like those certificates that says you own a star constellation in space?

I’ll get married if you can get the vicar or priest in church to sign their signature on my gender studies degree.

Well according to centre-right timesian Rishi Sunak and David Cameron, they should be. For me, it shouldn’t. I view it as a mollycoddling panopticon, for something that women could easily do of themselves of their own accord.

Match Group which owns match.com, Tinder, POF, OKCupid, Hinge and Meetic, are collaborating with a criminal record company, to give americans who join the dating website, criminal record checks, to be given to women

They say that they won’t include speeding tickets, smoking weed, prostitution and arrests without charge in the criminal record checks that women receive. Anyone who believes that is naive. They will include it eventually. It’s not a matter of what but when.

If Match Group can moderate for off-platform behaviour, then why can’t startups also moderate for off-platform behaviour as well, in a way that supercedes the 1990s style thinking of privacy and civil liberties?

If Match Group can do it, then why can’t Twitch ban someone for posting anti-vaxx content on their twitter account, despite their twitch account only showing video games?

As you can imagine, Twitch did do this.

I’ll follow onwards, from that logic.

In the UK because of feminists, they’ve now got the

  • Violent Offender Disclosure Scheme
  • Sexual Offender Disclosure Scheme

It’s nicknamed Claire’s Law or Sarah’s Law, after some woman got murdered by their partner or ex-partner

The way I see it, why can’t the woman ask the man for his consent, to fill out a Criminal Record Check?
If an employer cannot get my criminal record unless I consent to signing the signature, then why can’t a woman ask a man to sign that paper or e-signature, as well?

It’s just treating women with kid gloves, as if they can’t be trusted to make decisions themselves, as if they’ll be dropping things if they never had the kid gloves on.

The way I see it, if a woman is too scared to ask a man to fill out a Criminal Record check after matching with him on Tinder, then MAYBE she PROBABLY shouldn’t be dating him in the first place because she ALREADY knows what the REACTION is going to be. But somehow him going to your house, or him to yours, is okay?

So maybe you shouldn’t be dating him in the first place, if you can’t get him to fill out a Criminal Record Check (CRB is now DRB in the UK), with his own signed name, date and signature, as you already know or with high probability, that he has a glaring twisted attitude problem if to use your words, you’re not asking for such a huge newly accommodation or concession from the politicians or yourself.

And no, that’s not victim blaming!

But here’s the thing!
If women are going to be treated with kid gloves, to have the snouty prefect be getting the man’s Criminal Record Check without the man’s consent or prior knowledge (ie. the police station), then if they can do something that women could easily do themselves, despite women failing to acknowledge that a man who REACTS badly PROBABLY should be disqualified from her dating him, then if the government can be excessive in their over-reach and over-punitive, then why can’t COMPANIES do it too and why can’t OTHER public sector departments, do it too?

If they can do it and you're forced to pay taxes to the government under the threat of prison, then why can't a company who you consent to pay for, do it too as well?

Do you see where I’m going with this?

This is called The Shock Doctrine and people will fall for it, hook, like and sinker.

  • Think of the children
  • Think of the murder victims
  • Think of the rape victims
  • Think of the terrorist attacks
  • Think of your higher income taxes
Feminist: We need those 2 new laws in because of "think of the murder/rape victims"

Claire’s Law and Sarah’s Law is social credit through the backdoor

  • think of the children (internet censorship)
  • think of the murder or suicide victims (banning internet anonymity and requiring ID to use a social network, chat room, video sharing website or forum)
  • think of the rape victims (social credit like when Canadian Prime Minister Justin Traudeau froze people’s bank accounts for protesting against coronavirus lockdowns and vaccine passports, which killed the economy by forcing companies to close)
  • think of the terrorist attack victims (mass survelliance)
  • think of your income tax increasing (extortionately high rents and gentrification under free market capitalism)

We are sleepwalking into a quasi-dictatorship where they’ll take away our democratic rights, our civil liberties, our rule of law, all within a LABYRINTHIAN justice system that is FULL of (1) get-out clauses (2) caveats and (3) exemptions

We have rule of law………BUT we have all these get-out clauses and caveats because of…….think of the children/rape/murder victims.

All for laws that we didn’t even need, to give the government excessive powers that were statutorily unwarranted, for something over-reaching and over-punitive, when a woman could easily ask a man from her Tinder matches, to sign it herself?

I’m sure that the government LOVES these 2 new laws, as it provides social conditioning for them to become accustomed to them taking away our human rights, slowly and gradually, it’ll be death by a million cuts, from the path of least resistance.

And I’m sure that the mainstream media at Disney/Comcast/Warner/BBC/Sky LOVES it as well, as the more the alternative media and New Media is censored and obstructed, the MORE money they make.

So there ya go!
Two laws that got added we didn’t need, that is Social Credit through the backdoor, that is symptomatic of YOUR typical THINKING PATTERNS, of where being a double reformer like Ashton Kutcher, gets you.

#4 Centralising power or centralising routes, to rectify failing standards, rather than improving policies within the current semi-autonomous hierarchical strata

This one deserves its own article so we can look at the differences in the policies of Rishi Sunak, Laurence Fox and David Cameron. I could be more generalised and theoretical but only examples will do it justice. But to also focus on singular politicians, it’ll inevitably derail the topic. So you’ll have to read my article here about why I vote for Reform Party, as the Conservative Party has nothing to do with the right-wing conservative ideology that I believe in.

PS. The Conservative Party in 2023 compared to in the 1980s, it has shifted further left, so to all you foreigners, it is not as traditional in the traditional sense, as that Free Market Capitalism aka neoliberalism as sprouted by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, it’s either a thing of the past (depending on who you ask) or it’s been restrained.

Here’s the article so you can see more information about point four.

Centre-Right conservatives adopt liberal Collectivist Traits, Unless the repercussions starts affecting Themselves Personally

A centre-right person might seem or adopt an individualist way of thinking but that’s only when they feel they have the short end of the stick. Once they stop feeling like second class citizens (beyond underprivileged), they’ll then revert back into their collectivist ways.

So with that said, it would then make sense, that Reform Party and hard-right The Telegraph is more individualist than the centre-right Conservative Party and The Times.

  • Banning mobile phones in school
  • Installing CCTV inside school classrooms
  • Defunding or banning creative arts and soft science courses, in favour of STEM, as only STEM courses lead to “real jobs”
  • Doctors who provide annual health checks in schools for hundreds of kids, how they shouldn’t just weigh a child and disclose if they are overweight or obese but they should ALSO disclose the child’s numerical BMI score. (An individualist would see no strong need to also disclose the BMI score, whereas a liberal would ban both the weight disclosure and the BMI disclosure to be politically correct to end fat shaming kids)
  • Affirmative action (diversity quotas)
  • Banning grammar schools
  • Open borders

Conclusion

Perceive the below as in what I believe in, not me saying the opinions of my alliances or detractors.

  • Guns should be banned
  • Creative arts, performing arts, humanities and sport courses at schools and universities, should not be scrapped or defunded
  • Capital punishment should be banned
  • Stronger sentences for criminals should not happen
  • Reconciliation justice (like the UK and Sweden) should be done instead of retribution justice (America and Russia)
  • Mass surveillance should be significantly reduced or banned (technically this is neither a liberal or conservative belief)
  • Abortion and euthanasia should be legal (technically banning it, is more of a collectivist and fundamentalist belief, than it is conservative)

Although I’m a conservative, there are some conservative opinions that I’d disagree with, so I’d be going against the party line there!

Related Posts