George Osborne Quotes

I'm definitely a centrist and feel like both parties can be absurd.

Most people perceive moderates as timid middle-of-the-roaders who can't take a stand.

I think liberals would love to see the conservative party be more moderate, more middle of the road. I mean, my gosh, what do you call John McCain? Some would argue, what do you call Mitt Romney?

In a democratic party, where internal democracy is alive, there are bound to be different views.

Sometimes I feel like the most liberal person among conservatives, and sometimes like the most conservative among liberals.

I think President Obama is a committed, practicing nonideologue. He's consumed by neither tactics nor ideology. He is more concerned about outcomes than he is about process and categorizations.

Centrism is bogus.

I am neither left wing nor right wing. I am middle-of-the-bird.

From the political angle, I'm trying to be apolitical if you will. I mean people say, 'Are you a red state or blue state?', I say, 'I'm purple.' I think there are great ideas on both sides of the aisle and neither side has cornered the market.

I'm a moderate. I hang out in the middle. I vote against my party with some regularity and try to compromise. It doesn't appear right now that the Republican Party is welcoming moderates any more.

A candidate who tries to steer a path down the middle in an effort to 'win independents' runs the risk of convincing everyone that they have no core values. As much as - or more than - any other voters, independents want to see conviction and authenticity.

When most presidents get in, they move to the center because they realize that this is a centrist country - even Reagan.

I never heard the word 'compromise' used. So I'm starting to believe that these terms only come into play to try and force Republicans to do what the Democrats want.

The more entrenched a party in power becomes, the less likely it is to allow the kind of diversity in views that helped it achieve power in the first place.

Democratic politics involves both principals and power. To argue only for principles is narcissistically self indulgent.

In all political regulations, good cannot be complete, it can only be predominant.

The best position the government could assume would be that of moderation between opposite extremes of Ultra-Toryism and Radicalism

[Ideological] Purity is fine but it doesn’t win elections and is not a governing strategy. Compromise is required.

Whenever a political party is out of power for a number of years and finally is back in power, they always overreach.

I've never understood multi-party democracy. It's hard enough with two parties.

If we look conservative, it's because the other guys are so far to the left.

I would consider myself more a passionate centrist.

What I've found in being around political people is they're willing to negotiate their ideology somewhere around 5 percent. They believe that's really stepping out. And it's really hard to do business when you only move 5 percent from your ideology.

I believe zealously in conservative ideals, but Nebraskans want people who get things done, not just those who scream at each other.

Sometimes you hear that many politicians vote for a bill in various forms before they vote against it, or vice versa. The conflict, negotiation, and eventual compromise involved in this process form the essence of the democratic process.