Richard Kettlewell

I wouldn't use it seriously with that meaning, but mostly because it's a cliche. I wouldn't necessarily disagree that it was a valid meaning if someone else wanted to use it that way, however. I don't think the meaning of the term when applied to social policy has a settled meaning yet (yes, strange, an obscure cliche...), but it clearly has valid application somewhere, and is no longer restricted to language-modification as it was when it arose. If it's just a term of abuse for self-defeating liberalism, irrational risk-aversion, and an absolute doctrine of the rights of the individual over the rights of the many, I'm happy for it to be used as such.