Talk:British neoconservatism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 2008[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

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

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

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

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)[reply]

People associated with British neoconservatism[edit]

I've removed the (wholly unreffed) section on public figures (Burchill, M Philips, Aaronovitch etc). The only one there broadly described as neo-con is Murray, who is already in the main body.

I've also removed three of the politicians (Osborne, G Stuart, L Fox), Fox was unreffed and the other two the refs refer to specific US neo-con measures (mainly Iraq war). Fairly obviously, if every MP who supported the Iraq war was a neo-con, most of the Labour party would need to be included. What is left is Gove - the Indy profile refers to him as a 'neo-con'. But I wonder what value the section now is.Pincrete (talk) 12:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with editing[edit]

I added a section on British neo-conservatism's general views surrounding economic structure. But it won't allow me to put it into the correct place. I'd be very grateful is someone would amend that for me. Cristiano Laurence (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_neoconservatism&oldid=1200366669"