[Birchington]

Your manifesto essentially outlines my political stance, but if you want to be a part of a "TSR Progressive Party", you're best to join the Lib Dems. The fate of the Centre Party suggests the inevitable fate of a future 'Progressive Party' as well - there's only so much success to be had from splitting the centrist vote.

[HarveyCanis]

Pointless, like many have said. The Lib Dems are very similar to what you aspire too. And considering what I've read of your posts here since you've joined, you appear to be a deeply unpleasant person who takes joy in insulting people.

[JPKC]

(Original post by SciFiBoy)
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.

So your fundamental assumption is that by 'meritocratic' I mean something different to the implacations of meritocracy. I honestly do not see your point. It's like you're saying that because talent is subjective we shouldn't value it. Also, I think you're working on the basis that people are born blank slates, which is just frankly ridiculous.

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.

You think everyone should have the same quality of life regardless of any accomplishment? I think that the very principle here is unnatural; you're taking the nature out of the human and there's more emotion behind the socialist ideology than there is rational scientific basis. Why should all humans be materially equal? Why?

[SciFiRory]

(Original post by JPKC)
So your fundamental assumption is that by 'meritocratic' I mean something different to the implacations of meritocracy. I honestly do not see your point. It's like you're saying that because talent is subjective we shouldn't value it. Also, I think you're working on the basis that people are born blank slates, which is just frankly ridiculous.

no, but I am aware that barely anyone who uses the concept does so literally but rather to mean they think "merit" should be used to judge something or another, which is exactly what you are talking about when you mentioned it talent should be valued in the same way as anything subjective (ie with a pinch of salt and never in isolation) that is what im saying...I never argued that, I argued that people should be born into equal life chances as much as is possible...

You think everyone should have the same quality of life regardless of any accomplishment? I think that the very principle here is unnatural; you're taking the nature out of the human and there's more emotion behind the socialist ideology than there is rational scientific basis. Why should all humans be materially equal? Why?

no. I think everyone should have the maximum basic rights possible to grant all people, certain things above and beyond that I have no issue with people earning through achieving things. what is more natural to a human being (or indeed any animal) than it's emotions? in what way does "rational" (another highly subjective term, you sure love em) science not provide a basis for this? human beings should as much as possible have equal rights and at the very least material starting points in life, that is the only way to have a fair and equal society.

[JPKC]

(Original post by Birchington)
Your manifesto essentially outlines my political stance, but if you want to be a part of a "TSR Progressive Party", you're best to join the Lib Dems. The fate of the Centre Party suggests the inevitable fate of a future 'Progressive Party' as well - there's only so much success to be had from splitting the centrist vote.

The TSR Lib Dem Party is just really poor. You don't have any solid policies on anything, sorry. Also, the RL situation is quite off-putting.

[lambert1]

What is your foreign policy?
What is your tax policy?
How do you intend to reduce the debt?
How do you intend to improve the economy?

[Birchington]

(Original post by JPKC)
The TSR Lib Dem Party is just really poor. You don't have any solid policies on anything, sorry. Also, the RL situation is quite off-putting.

Fair enough. All the best in the election.

[toronto353]

(Original post by JPKC)
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.

I disagree with this entirely, but it actually allows me to quote you to ask you a few questions. I would say (and this is to help you) I would set out your policies here rather than actually link to a manifesto because it means that the policies can be debated here for the purpose of party formation rather than in the general election thread where the discussion is about the election obviously.

Now taking that aside, how are you reformist? Really I don't think that your party fills a niche. Is this simply so that you can become a leader of a party rather than an independent with little clout? What will your party offer to the House?

[JPKC]

(Original post by toronto353)
I disagree with this entirely, but it actually allows me to quote you to ask you a few questions. I would say (and this is to help you) I would set out your policies here rather than actually link to a manifesto because it means that the policies can be debated here for the purpose of party formation rather than in the general election thread where the discussion is about the election obviously.

Now taking that aside, how are you reformist? Really I don't think that your party fills a niche. Is this simply so that you can become a leader of a party rather than an independent with little clout? What will your party offer to the House?

There're more details to come.

[toronto353]

(Original post by JPKC)
There're more details to come.

But what about my questions?

[JPKC]

(Original post by toronto353)
But what about my questions?

Fair enough. There are currently no radical centre parties for TSR, and the moderate parties that do exist are not practical options. The Lib Dems under Morgsie are very unimpressive, and you are already aware of my political objections to UKIP. The party I help form will offer sound solutions to the House that don't stray too far to either the left or the right. And I'm running as an indie simply because there was not enough time to form a new party before the election was called.

The new party will share a platform with the policies in my manifesto, which I believe appeal to a large section of the electorate that aren't efficiently represented here.

[thunder_chunky]

I'm a little confused, you want to run as an independent but also set up a party? How can you do both? If your party actually gets off the ground surely you won't be able to carry your seat (providing you get one) into your party because you ran as an independent. So no sooner would you get one, you'll have to give it up.

If you really want to set up a party perhaps you should wait until just before the next election.

[Moleman1996]

(Original post by thunder_chunky)
I'm a little confused, you want to run as an independent but also set up a party? How can you do both? If your party actually gets off the ground surely you won't be able to carry your seat (providing you get one) into your party because you ran as an independent. So no sooner would you get one, you'll have to give it up.

If you really want to set up a party perhaps you should wait until just before the next election.

I thought if an independent joined a party they could carry their seat? But even if he can its stupid timing, and misleading to those who vote for him...

[thunder_chunky]

(Original post by Moleman1996)
I thought if an independent joined a party they could carry their seat? But even if he can its stupid timing, and misleading to those who vote for him...

Apparantly there's nothing forbidding it (I just asked the speaker.) You're right though, generally speaking I find that practice a little off and doing it now just furthers that.

[JPKC]

(Original post by Moleman1996)
I thought if an independent joined a party they could carry their seat? But even if he can its stupid timing, and misleading to those who vote for him...

People won't vote for me simply because I'm an independent, they'd vote for me because they like my manifesto policies. That's what's key.

Me being a member of any party would not offset the dedication I would have as an MP to advocating the things I believe in, as outlined in my manifesto.

[toronto353]

(Original post by Metrobeans)
QFA

Is there any point keeping this thread open since JPKC hasn't come anywhere close to attracting the necessary amount of members needed to form a party?

[JPKC]

(Original post by toronto353)
Is there any point keeping this thread open since JPKC hasn't come anywhere close to attracting the necessary amount of members needed to form a party?

How will potential supporters find out about either of the parties looking to form if the threads are closed?

You're so keen to place unnecessary, arbitrary limits on the creation of new parties.

[Morgsie]

(Original post by JPKC)
How will potential supporters find out about either of the parties looking to form if the threads are closed?

You're so keen to place unnecessary, arbitrary limits on the creation of new parties.

You need 10 Members who are have been on TSR for over 3 months and have over 150 posts. It is stated in the Guidance Document that a proposed Party must state its principles and prospective members must PM the Speaker.

The Speaker is the one to decide whether Parties form and he may take account other factors.

[JPKC]

(Original post by Morgsie)
You need 10 Members who are have been on TSR for over 3 months and have over 150 posts. It is stated in the Guidance Document that a proposed Party must state its principles and prospective members must PM the Speaker.

The Speaker is the one to decide whether Parties form and he may take account other factors.

Morgsie I'd prefer it if you'd stop replying to my posts because the comments you make are just so irrelevant and utterly without reason or need. I know what is needed (if you actually read the OP you'd see I quoted the Guidance Document).

[toronto353]

(Original post by JPKC)
How will potential supporters find out about either of the parties looking to form if the threads are closed?

You're so keen to place unnecessary, arbitrary limits on the creation of new parties.

Parties are usually given a week to form and there's been no interest. I have merely pointed this out to Nick and I am not 'keen' to do so as you say. You clearly don't have the support to form this party so it might as well be closed.