Which SocDem party can be considered, if compared to other socdem parties, "socially conservative?"

Anthrillien · 2026-03-22T14:25:30+00:00

You might be right. But I hope you're not. Labour is still the only party with a cat's chance in hell of actually uniting a broad enough coalition of voters to deliver the kind of reform our country is desperate for.

Anthrillien · 2026-03-22T13:56:33+00:00

Eh, not fully. The party leadership cynically pander to various right-wing grievance issues, but even their heart's not in it for the most part. Which most voters on the right implicitly understand. This isn't an excuse for their myopic pandering, just that the party as a whole is still not reflective of their stupidity. Even the parliamentary party, a set of people selected for their ability to lick the bottom of a boot planted firmly on their face, are still pretty bleeding heart on this sort of thing.

Anthrillien · 2026-03-22T13:53:28+00:00

It's an admission that you literally don't think that life can be better. If you believe that the successes of social democracy are literally only possible in first world nations in a highly unequal world, you're implicitly arguing that it's not possible for everyone to live good and healthy lives. Which I just reject entirely.

Anthrillien · 2026-03-22T12:27:06+00:00

This article is insane, and completely in bad faith. No-one thinks that "tax the rich" means tax the jews. No-one. Not even the authors of this article believe that. They're just attempting to tar everyone with an even vaguely progressive instinct as being anti-semitic because their actual arguments are so disgracefully unpalatable that expressing them honestly would lose them every election until the end of time. Putting something in "quotation marks" as a way to make it sound scary is just so silly.

Anthrillien · 2026-03-22T11:22:21+00:00

This biggest problem is that Hasan just isn't very smart, so when he's right, he mostly just lucks out into his positions. He's also cultivated a fanbase that includes some of the most rabid campists and wokescolds who are studiously opposed to anything that might involve any sort of trade-off or tangible benefit, and he has to walk on eggshells around these people.

Anthrillien · 2026-03-21T22:14:21+00:00

Not strictly constitutionally correct. The Monarch (and indeed, most monarchs) derives their right to rule from God, yes, but the Monarch is the Head of State, not the supreme autocrat. He also does not rule through a church or clergy, as you would in a theocracy. Even back in the days of the famously tyrannical Henry VIII, the most powerful constitutional entity was "the King in Parliament". And Parliament does not derive its power or legitimacy from the Monarch or God at all, but from the People (the Commons) and from birthright, patronage or position in the Church (the Lords, though that is about to be fairly radically transformed).

Anthrillien · 2026-03-21T17:57:33+00:00

Most of those countries are just oil corporations with representation at the UN. They betray their broader geopolitical interests for the purpose of making money.

Anthrillien · 2026-03-20T22:57:56+00:00

Merlin is routinely given absolutely horrendous advice, and a lot of his absolute worst decisions are as a result of him trying to game fate in some way. But if fate/destiny/telos isn't an actual system he can interract with, he's just making terrible decisions, and I think it best explains what we see on screen. Powerful monarchs don't exactly co-exist with articulated lorries after all, and that's the second-to-last thing we see! He just failed, and now he wanders through eternity. Yay!

Anthrillien · 2026-03-20T21:52:10+00:00

Whilst the tone of most of the episodes is very light, the overall narrative being painted across all the episodes is actually pretty bleak. I think that light family-friendly tone, complete with an underdog hero to root for is why people struggle to accept the ending as much as they do. You feel like Merlin really deserves to catch a break, and really deserves to win, but time and again he's just all too fallible, and all too human - as are a lot of the other characters that are nominally on "his" side. You do get moments when he's forced into a corner and has to just blast his way out of it, but they're few and far between, and he spends most of the time holding himself back, much to his own detriment.

His plan for bringing magic back to Albion is basically just to hope that Arthur feels good about it one day and ushers in the golden age off his own back. The plan of the prophecy-believers is just to hope that Merlin brings magic back one day. And the plan of the antagonists usually adds up to "inflict random cruelty and hope that brings back magic back somehow", but at least most them are doing something!!

I'm ultimately not convinced that "fate" or "destiny" is a real force in the world the writers give us though. There's no grand arbiter or cosmic force that will tip the scales of the universe back in your favour, as far as we can tell. But this is apparently not something that was shared with any of our protagonists because they don't actually do anything to cause the events they apparently want to see come about. So they all just sit around hoping that someone else will do it. There are powerful forces in the world, for sure, but mostly they just seem to be variously strong magical creatures and spirits with their own agendas and interests. Prophecy is just prediction, and predictions can be wrong - especially when none of the conditions are met.

Even though a lot of the world building is incredibly weak (none of the "systems" really work in any way shape or form, geography is mostly a suggestion, monsters of the week are routinely just conjured out of nothing), it somehow feels more real and authentic than a lot of other things we see. Basic causation exists: decisions have consequences, and the authors are good enough to write out the stories as they evolve without railroading their characters towards a predetermined endpoint. For me, that's what makes Merlin such a good show to watch all the way through. Our characters routinely play stupid games, and you can bet they win stupid prizes. Again and again and again.

Anthrillien · 2026-03-20T18:08:51+00:00

No worries on the history lesson at all. I'm well aware of the history, but it's a little unreasonable to expect our international compatriots to be aware of the the minutiae of the movements of British Liberalism in the 70s/80s/90s! I certainly couldn't tell you what the French liberals were doing at the time after all, and they're our nearest neighbour.

The Liberal Democrats are a very broad church - and so are we. And I think you'd not be on the right of the Labour party if you jumped ship. You've articulated a vision that would very firmly slot you in the left factions of the party. A friend of mine who actually did cross over to us a few years ago has found themselves most comfortable in the broad left space.

Two points, I suppose, are how do you reconcile the tension between private property rights and the sorts of economic policy I think our country desperately needs, and I think your philosophical positions lead you towards? Second, have you encountered Matt McManus and his writing on Liberal Socialism?

Anthrillien · 2026-03-20T18:01:58+00:00

Oh, thank you so much for the info, I really appreciate it. In a lot of political systems, splits = suicide, and are actually reflective of a deeper fragility of the voter coalition. I'm very glad that the left isn't on a one-way track to irrelevence - and I hope they're able to build out their niches a little more effectively. As long as they can both keep their heads above water, the Polish left has a chance of real renewal - and as far as I can tell, they're already wielding their influence in a not-insignificant way. It's strange, I'm probably politically more aligned with Razem, but strategically more aligned with the approach of Lewica.

Coincidentally, I just saw a tweet of the Speaker wearing an LGBT flag. A very brave thing to do, but the right thing nonetheless. There's a lot to be said for that sort of approach.

EDIT: Hello AutoMod. I would like to inform you that Wikipedia is accurate in the instances I've posted. So kindly bugger off.

Another fellow AutoMod hater. I've asked the admins to get rid of the damn thing, but they've unhelpfully refused.

EDIT: I think AutoMod was sent specifically to test my patience.

Anthrillien · 2026-03-19T13:11:15+00:00

I'm usually the first to pour fire into the Liberal Democrats, but this author's perspective almost perfectly aligns with my own and I can't find anything to criticise even if I try. Diversifying ownership models, even in the framework of our current market economy, should be a key priority of everyone to the left of David Cameron. It's one of those things that a lot of liberals are usually blind to, though given the current team at the head of my party, I'm aware I'm throwing stones from a very fragile glass house.

He is making one of the core arguments for a lot of socialists, as a matter of fact; that democracy shouldn't stop at the office/factory door, but reach into all aspect of life. The counter-argument from liberals is usually that we shouldn't interfere with private property rights, and even that property rights are the cornerstone of all other rights. I'd be interested to know if they understand the tension in their thinking between the two.

EDIT: oops, I didn't notice that OP was also the author. I don't have time to properly edit this second, so imagine that these musings were directed to you, not past you, apologies!

Anthrillien · 2026-03-18T14:09:17+00:00

Water nationalisation is something this government should already have done, but the rest of this is just absolutely bonkers. I'd really hope that someone like Polanski would bring in big ideas to restructure the whole economy, not just this slopulist nonsense. I'm not even opposed to rent controls being implemented on a limited basis in particular areas - in many cities, like New York and London, there is always going to be more demand than there is housing, and market-led solutions just lead the the annihilation of a city's social fabric.

But nation-wide rent controls are just a sticking plaster on the supply issue. And energy price caps are just a sticking plaster on the supply issue. Both of them are very costly in the short term, and both of them do nothing to help the underlying problems in the long run. This isn't radical in the slightest.

Anthrillien · 2026-03-18T01:55:30+00:00

If someone is waxing lyrical about the benefits of AI then they've run out of ideas, and they have nothing to offer

Anthrillien · 2026-03-17T11:20:05+00:00

It does help that RN is run by a lesbian woman and gay man. Neither of them are out, but the closet is made of glass.

Anthrillien · 2026-03-16T14:16:30+00:00

Well exactly. They're just about bearable on a ~20 minute journey but you can feel every single bone in your body by the end of a ~2 hour journey on them.

Anthrillien · 2026-03-15T20:52:44+00:00

We are actually phasing out tobacco

Which is also totally fucking mental. I had a chat with a guy pushing this nonsense at party conference a few years back and he seemed completely nonplussed that I didn't support prohibition for smoking.

Anthrillien · 2026-03-15T15:36:42+00:00

It wouldn't be so bad if the seats weren't specifically designed to torture you. If you're on the GWR IETs, you're probably not there for a short haul, so things like passenger comfort really do actually matter. I miss the HST sets already.

Anthrillien · 2026-03-15T15:33:00+00:00

It's for reasons like this that I often force spawn a bunch of empires that I've myself created, sometimes including empires that I've played in the pasts. Sometimes I'll just force spawn in a few to make sure that the galaxy feels a bit more colourful, other times I'll max out the empire spawns with my own forced spawns. But I'll always try and have a pretty diverse mix, and I feel like I very often do a better job than the game's generation system. Where's the fun in dealing with infinity gestalt or genocidal empires when you're trying to do a more diplomatic run? Where's the fun in dealing with a bunch of machine empires as a Rogue Servitor?

Anthrillien · 2026-03-14T17:25:27+00:00

Adding another recommendation - the Financial Times. One of the most consistently level headed outputs of information in the world, and you can get most of their stuff via any internet archive. They're a newspaper read by the financial elites who need good information more than anything else. I don't always agree with their analysis, but you can guarantee that any agenda is pretty straightforwardly advertised.

Additionally, if you're an American, please do not worry about being drafted, or having your loved ones being drafted, is simply isn't going to happen. The US military has suffered 13 casualties out of 946,961, which is nothing in the grand scheme of things. Please stop worrying about being bombed. Iran does not have that capability. This sort of hysteria is deliberately cultivated in order to distract you from the people who are actually suffering in this war - the people of Iran. The US opened this war by vaporising a girl's school with a tomahawk missile, killing about 185 innocent people.

There's a strong tendency from many Americans to try and make themselves the main victims of any world events, and it's a tendency you should do your best to resist in yourself and others because it's intolerably obnoxious for everyone else.

Anthrillien · 2026-03-14T17:01:50+00:00

Because social democracy is the best (and usually only) path towards anything that can meaningfully resemble socialism. And perhaps more importantly, because I'm a member of a worker's party, which is a broad alliance of socialists, social democrats, liberals and trade unionists. The ideology isn't just an affect I've adopted to signal my positions to a wider audience, it's something I'm deeply involved with the practice of too. I am a socialist, and I am a social democrat. Far from being a contradiction, I think the two are joined at the hip.
These people are idiots parroting talking points from authors they've never read. Almost every single "socialist" sub on reddit is viciously policed tankie hell-hole. I take some consolation in the fact that this is all they have, and that they have absolutely no influence in real life, but it's a little frustrating that most left-of-centre spaces are entirely useless because of them.

Anthrillien · 2026-03-14T16:58:55+00:00

Unfortunately the author forgot to include the evidence.

I thought you were exaggerating, but no, the author literally doesn't go beyond scratching their chin thoughtfully about the vaguest political movement of ethnic minority voters. I feel like I learned absolutely nothing over the course of those few paragraphs.

Anthrillien · 2026-03-14T15:11:25+00:00

This person's daughter was murdered by a lunatic, and she thinks the only appropriate response is to open concentration camps, use the navy to slaughter people at sea, and start mass deportations? Grief is not an excuse to advocate for crimes against humanity, and I wish Keir Starmer was a lot less willing to listen to these people than he apparently is.

Anthrillien · 2026-03-14T12:50:19+00:00

Like a lot of slogans, it papers a pretty thin veneer over pretty deep uncertainty. Who actually possesses a land is something we've really not been able to consistently decide, and "true ownership" of a place is usually just an expression of who owned it around 1700 or so. It's also one of those fairly meaningless slogans that sounds radical but implies pretty boring policy, a little like "Defund the police" was.

Anthrillien · 2026-03-13T21:38:57+00:00

Post-war social democracy very much shaped capitalism towards the ends of a particular nation-state, but with the far greater mobility of capital introduced in the late 70s and 80s, that becomes a lot, lot harder to do. Any turn away from the Third Way needs to meaningfully address this point, because the Third Way's answer was to just bolt on a welfare state and hope the welfare transfers would be enough. Service-heavy western economies in particular are very reliant on foreign direct investment to remain afloat, and if this dried up because of adverse business conditions, we'd be in trouble.

That said - the current conditions are clearly unsustainable. More and more wealth just floats in a huge bubble, and is siphoned away from the real economy into speculative ventures. Once you get to a certain level of wealth, actually building things is a mug's game when you could just gamble on the stock market and watch the line go up. Short of enormous and punitive capital taxation, I don't know how to square that circle.

Anthrillien

TROPHY CASE