Talk:British neoconservatism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Conservatism (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Thanks, Deb and Alienking

I don't mind changing the title, but hey, I only just started setting the page out! I was intending to structure it as a series of individual philosophers, mentioning briefly their political influence usually via quotation. This was of course all to be introduced, saying what they had in common. That (first start at an) intro is what Deb has read to now change the page title.

Here's few of the 'characters', I reckon we need about 30 to make sense of it. Hence I prefer the first name of the page.


The majority of them see themselves as 'moral philosophers' pushing what they call 'virtue ethics' - which stems from 'Aristotle the Aristocrat' whose version of morality is that the world divides neatly up into classes.

Bernard Williams Onora O'Neill ( both of these are typical Oxbridge types who later went to the US, O'Neill unusually has an interest in animals), AC Grayling, (another crusty Oxbridge philosopher) Roger Scruton (who has written in favour of foxhunting and so on) Oliver Letwin (Oxbridge Man and 'chairman of the Policy Review and Chairman of the Conservative Research Department')

My idea is to avoid economics and stick more to the social and cultural aspects of the 'British neoconservatives'

Any feedback/ ideas - start here!

There's Isiah Berlin... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.17.76.6 (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

cleanup-essay tag[edit]

Tagging because this article is listing the ideas of several neoconservatives with apparently no order, and it has no discernable sections.

It should first have a section giving an overall description, another section describing how the thinking appeared and progressed. It also needs to explain the real-world relevance: how it has affected the politics of UK, the voter support, how it has pervaded into society, etc. The first paragraph(s) should be a summary of what the rest of the article says, as WP:LEAD says. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

What is it?[edit]

This article is a model of obfuscation. It does not actually say what British Conservatism is - perhaps modelled on the Conservatism article which also does not say what conservatism is. It ought to start out with an outline of British Conservative ideology. Jayarava (talk) 09:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on British neoconservatism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on British neoconservatism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

More socially liberal than US?[edit]

I don't think it is correct to say that American neoconservatism is any less socially liberal than the British variant. Sure, I mean, the American neocons had to hookwink some Evangelical thickos to get enough votes, which the Brits didn't have to bother going through the motions of, but they were never really upheld the family and so on (as say paleoconservatives do) as part of their platform. The only difference is the British neocons are more subtle, understated and cunning in their embrace and advancement of "social liberalism" (for instance, they promote "women's engagement in society" and "gay rights" in a Malthusian way to lower the birth rate in Commonwealth nations in the name of "stability" and "progress".) Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)