Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

TSR Progressive Party

Announcements Posted on
Applying to Uni? Let Universities come to you. Click here to get your perfect place 20-10-2014
    • Thread Starter
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:


    The MHoC is incredibly divided between left-wing and right-wing political parties; the last term demonstrated the impact this is having on its ability to pass bipartisan collaborative legislation. The TSR Centre Party, before its collapse, was a catalyst for successful bills - often passing more acts than other parties.

    I am proposing to start a truly centrist party to provide the house with sense and moderation, while at the same time being radical in its vision to pass bills that solve, rather than create, problems. The party would be as principled as its members, not driven by either a blind faith in markets or an insensitivity to the damage caused by an overreaching government.

    - Socially liberal.
    - Meritocratic.
    - Fiscally responsible.
    - Read my Election Manifesto for more.



    I am a man who believes with all fervor and intensity in moderate progress. Too often men who believe in moderation believe in it only moderately and tepidly and leave fervor to the extremists of the two sides.

    "We [must] hold the just balance and set ourselves as resolutely against improper corporate influence on the one hand as against demagogy and mob rule on the other."

    —Theodore Roosevelt


    If you're interested in forming/joining such a party, please send me a private message if I'm not in contact with you already. And - of course - comment on this thread. If successful we should form soon into the next term.

    Don't be put off if you're currently a member of some other party - any questions are welcome.


    Party Formation1) If wanting to form a party, someone should put a thread in the main House of Commons forum spelling out their main principles.

    2) Interested people should PM the Speaker and proposer.

    3) In deciding whether to allow a party to form, the Speaker should be primarily mindful of the support for the party. Precedent sets the hurdle as 10 eligible voters showing support, though the Speaker may want to consider other factors, such as whether those voters are active House of Commons members.
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JPKC)


    The MHoC is incredibly divided between left-wing and right-wing political parties; the last term demonstrated the impact this is having on its ability to pass bipartisan collaborative legislation. The TSR Centre Party, before its collapse, was a catalyst for successful bills - often passing more acts than other parties.

    I am proposing to start a truly centrist party to provide the house with sense and moderation, while at the same time being radical in its vision to pass bills that solve, rather than create, problems. The party would be as principled as its members, not driven by either a blind faith in markets or an insensitivity to the damage caused by an overreaching government.



    I am a man who believes with all fervor and intensity in moderate progress. Too often men who believe in moderation believe in it only moderately and tepidly and leave fervor to the extremists of the two sides.

    "We [must] hold the just balance and set ourselves as resolutely against improper corporate influence on the one hand as against demagogy and mob rule on the other."

    —Theodore Roosevelt


    If you're interested in forming/joining such a party, please send me a private message if I'm not in contact with you already. And - of course - comment on this thread. If successful we should form soon into the next term.

    Don't be put off if you're currently a member of some other party - any questions are welcome.


    Party Formation1) If wanting to form a party, someone should put a thread in the main House of Commons forum spelling out their main principles.

    2) Interested people should PM the Speaker and proposer.

    3) In deciding whether to allow a party to form, the Speaker should be primarily mindful of the support for the party. Precedent sets the hurdle as 10 eligible voters showing support, though the Speaker may want to consider other factors, such as whether those voters are active House of Commons members.
    so if you win a seat in the General Election, you intend to move straight into this new party? Is that not just a little deceptive?

    I do think the centre party filled a gap though, and would be glad to see a similar party formed at some point soon.
    • Thread Starter
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moleman1996)
    so if you win a seat in the General Election, you intend to move straight into this new party? Is that not just a little deceptive?

    I do think the centre party filled a gap though, and would be glad to see a similar party formed at some point soon.
    No. I'd still work towards fulfilling the policy commitments I made in my manifesto, just within the framework of this party.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Yeah, cause if there's anything we need, it's more of the same.
    • Thread Starter
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CyclopsRock)
    Yeah, cause if there's anything we need, it's more of the same.
    Standing as far away on the political spectrum as you do, everything back in reality probably looks very similar. Like people from an aircraft.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JPKC)
    Standing as far away on the political spectrum as you do, everything back in reality probably looks very similar. Like people from an aircraft.
    Not at all - I have an ideal scenario, no doubt, but I also acknowledge that small changes can have a huge effect. For example, I love the education policy of the current (IRL) coalition government. It's an excellent little nugget of libertarianism. It doesn't have to be a huge extreme for something to be great, in my books.

    What does make me assume this'll be more of the same - basically tinkering in the margins because everyone's too afraid of losing the votes associated with cutting public spending, whilst also not wanting to nationalise everything - is that you say "I am proposing to start a truly centrist party to provide the house with sense and moderation." I don't know what else I'm meant to assume.
    • Thread Starter
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CyclopsRock)
    Not at all - I have an ideal scenario, no doubt, but I also acknowledge that small changes can have a huge effect. For example, I love the education policy of the current (IRL) coalition government. It's an excellent little nugget of libertarianism. It doesn't have to be a huge extreme for something to be great, in my books.
    That's the problem. You only see policies in terms of how they match up to your idealised world, while seeming to never question the real world implications of such policies. There are some parts of the New Labour schools policy (the one that Gove is continuing in all but name) that are very good, but there are equally some parts that aren't great at all. Wouldn't life be fantastically easy if everything was "libertarian = insta-good".

    What does make me assume this'll be more of the same - basically tinkering in the margins because everyone's too afraid of losing the votes associated with cutting public spending, whilst also not wanting to nationalise everything - is that you say "I am proposing to start a truly centrist party to provide the house with sense and moderation." I don't know what else I'm meant to assume.
    So you're reading in between the lines here rather than considering the actualities of what I've set out. Okay.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JPKC)
    That's the problem. You only see policies in terms of how they match up to your idealised world, while seeming to never question the real world implications of such policies. There are some parts of the New Labour schools policy (the one that Gove is continuing in all but name) that are very good, but there are equally some parts that aren't great at all. Wouldn't life be fantastically easy if everything was "libertarian = insta-good".
    I don't understand this dichotomy. I'm not talking about some hither-to untried communist system that I'm just hoping works. I don't support things because I'm a Libertarian - I'm a Libertarian because of the things I support. I don't care about the theories, I care about practicalities - but if the practical effects of something are different to the theoretical, then the theory is wrong. Either the logic is faulty, or there's something it's not taking into account. I utterly reject the idea that "Well, really, I want A. But B is better than A so let's go for B". If that's your view, then you don't want A, you want B.

    And I supported that policy when it was New Labour - but it's not a left wing policy. It's decentralisation at it's best, which is the very antithesis of Labour's statist approach to most things. That's why Labour produced only a handful of academies where as now over 1/3rd of all secondary schools in the country are academies - because the Tories don't have a chancellor and other members of the treasury that are old school and hate the policy.

    Can you give me an example of where I've apparantly supported a theory in spite of the practical repercussions. I don't think there are any.

    So you're reading in between the lines here rather than considering the actualities of what I've set out. Okay.
    It's not like I quoted you out of context; you put it at the head of a paragraph in size 14 font. Given that you have literally no policy positions on there, again, I don't know what else I'm meant to assume.
    • Thread Starter
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CyclopsRock)
    I don't understand this dichotomy. I'm not talking about some hither-to untried communist system that I'm just hoping works. I don't support things because I'm a Libertarian - I'm a Libertarian because of the things I support. I don't care about the theories, I care about practicalities - but if the practical effects of something are different to the theoretical, then the theory is wrong. Either the logic is faulty, or there's something it's not taking into account. I utterly reject the idea that "Well, really, I want A. But B is better than A so let's go for B". If that's your view, then you don't want A, you want B.
    So the theory itself defines whether the theory is valid. I think there are far more value judgements involved in libertarianism than those that you lot profess.

    And I supported that policy when it was New Labour - but it's not a left wing policy. It's decentralisation at it's best, which is the very antithesis of Labour's statist approach to most things. That's why Labour produced only a handful of academies where as now over 1/3rd of all secondary schools in the country are academies - because the Tories don't have a chancellor and other members of the treasury that are old school and hate the policy.
    There's no causal correlation between the size of the state and the extent to which it's centralised. And just on a side note, though free schools have shown that it is beneficial to not micro-manage teaching, they've also demonstrated a very real hazard brought about by decentralisation - current academies are able to set the standards by which they are measured, they also overspend due to the lack of local authority oversight. Regarding localism, it's very ironic that academies are perhaps the least democratically accountable schools in the country due to their separation from elected councillors.

    Can you give me an example of where I've apparantly supported a theory in spite of the practical repercussions. I don't think there are any.
    In future I'll try and do just that. Though I fear you may brush aside the practical flaws as irrelevant or inconclusive etc.

    Edit: This is interesting, I'm going and try and find the more extensive report (even if in Svenska).
    • 35 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    We already have UKIP and the Liberal Democrats to fill the centre void.

    Ignoring the fact that your a leftie, not a centrist i wish you the best of luck but feel that your party would not have a niche given that two parties very close to the centre already exist.
    • 62 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    meritocracy :lol: if you are putting fictional concepts in your manifesto why not offer people free pet Unicorns?
    • 22 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    So let's get this straight, you want capitalism without the class system? is that not another form of socialism?

    Anyway you are a raging lefty not a centrist, UKIP and the Centre Party fill this gap well enough and we don't need some lefty in the guise of Centrism to come and start a party.
    • Thread Starter
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    So let's get this straight, you want capitalism without the class system? is that not another form of socialism?
    This is the problem. You see things too simplisticallty between "left" and "right" when really political philosophy is much more extensive; I don't fit the mould of other party's ideas at the moment, if I did I wouldn't think that a new party was necessary.

    Anyway you are a raging lefty not a centrist, UKIP and the Centre Party fill this gap well enough and we don't need some lefty in the guise of Centrism to come and start a party.
    UKIP is small and divided between genuine centrists and xenophobe bigots, and the Lib Dems are just incredibly bad as a Party. Neither are radical or properly reformist.
    • Thread Starter
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SciFiBoy)
    meritocracy :lol: if you are putting fictional concepts in your manifesto why not offer people free pet Unicorns?
    So Socialists don't believe in meriotocracy. I'm so shocked.
    • 62 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JPKC)
    So Socialists don't believe in meriotocracy. I'm so shocked.
    largely because it doesn't exist in our society...it's a pathetic bit of rhetoric used by far right morons who have no arguments of their own so think imaging that somehow everything is magically simplified to people having "merited" or not what they are/have in life.
    • Thread Starter
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SciFiBoy)
    largely because it doesn't exist in our society...it's a pathetic bit of rhetoric used by far right morons who have no arguments of their own so think imaging that somehow everything is magically simplified to people having "merited" or not what they are/have in life.
    You don't know what it means in that case.
    • 62 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JPKC)
    You don't know what it means in that case.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy

    "Meritocracy, in the first, most administrative sense, is a system of government or other administration (such as business administration) wherein appointments and responsibilities are objectively assigned to individuals based upon their "merits", namely intelligence, credentials, and education,[1] determined through evaluations or examinations."

    I am well aware thanks

    my issue is that "merit" is incredibly subjective, and the criteria used are dubiously judged as well, not everyone is suited to exams or certain evaluations that might be used, who decides what "credentials" are and which are needed and to what standard to be worthy, et al. education again people learn different ways and cope with exams in different ways. I could go on, but you get the picture, it's a highly flawed concept at best and a disastrous and naive way to make policies.
    • 20 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Awkward moment when nobody signs up
    • Thread Starter
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SciFiBoy)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy

    "Meritocracy, in the first, most administrative sense, is a system of government or other administration (such as business administration) wherein appointments and responsibilities are objectively assigned to individuals based upon their "merits", namely intelligence, credentials, and education,[1] determined through evaluations or examinations."

    I am well aware thanks

    my issue is that "merit" is incredibly subjective, and the criteria used are dubiously judged as well, not everyone is suited to exams or certain evaluations that might be used, who decides what "credentials" are and which are needed and to what standard to be worthy, et al. education again people learn different ways and cope with exams in different ways. I could go on, but you get the picture, it's a highly flawed concept at best and a disastrous and naive way to make policies.
    'Merit' as a concept is incredibly subjective, does that mean it is any less valuable? Society is always very good at defining things, and in the same way that we all share a similar conception of 'good' and 'bad' we all have the a common idea of 'merit'. I think you're focusing too heavily on meritocracy as a form of government, which I'm not advocating, compared to what I do believe in: a society where succes is allocated according to ability. It's rare to find someone who thinks that people should be judged by anything other than their talent, yet that is what exists in the current system where birth determines' a person's opportunities, alongside factors like gender, race etc. All that should matter is a person's character and ability.
    • 62 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JPKC)
    'Merit' as a concept is incredibly subjective, does that mean it is any less valuable? Society is always very good at defining things, and in the same way that we all share a similar conception of 'good' and 'bad' we all have the a common idea of 'merit'. I think you're focusing too heavily on meritocracy as a form of government, which I'm not advocating, compared to what I do believe in: a society where succes is allocated according to ability. It's rare to find someone who thinks that people should be judged by anything other than their talent, yet that is what exists in the current system where birth determines' a person's opportunities, alongside factors like gender, race etc. All that should matter is a person's character and ability.
    my critique of meritocracy focuses on it's own focus on the concept of merit, I don't think that we should be creating arbitrary and highly subjective concepts to use as a method of judging how someone should be paid or how much they should receive support from the state, etc...

    ability itself is highly subjective in many ways too, as is talent...

    when it comes to people's opportunities, imo everyone should get the same chances in life, regardless of "talent", "ability" or "merits", imo being a human being merits being treated humanely without exceptions. certain things to ensure a basic standard of living should be guaranteed to all humans as well imo, money should not determine whether or not you can get clean water, shelter, food, heating, healthcare, education, et al imo.

    I regard human rights as being anything humanity is capable of at the very least attempting to guarantee for all humans to maintain the highest possible living standards for all members of our species. no nationalism, no racism, no sexism, no discrimination, humans working together for our own betterment and that of our species as a whole, that's what I believe in and it's why im a Socialist.
Updated: April 4, 2012
New on TSR

Join the Welcome Squad

Become a part of the TSR team!

Article updates
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.