The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Rakas21
So long as its a party list rather than candidates in fine with it. That way the parties can put forward 'experts' with less need to act as a delegate simply doing what people want as too many MP's do (if people knew what was good for them then we'd have direct democracy).

More important is the need to reduce the size of both parliaments.


Aye the House of Lords is ridiculously large, however to be fair a lot of them never bother to show up. And all our MPs can barely fit in the House of Commons.

So long as the use it to elect experts, and people who understand the legislative process I have no problem. But I have a feeling they will just fill the party list with retiring politicians and former cabinet members. Personally I'd prefer if only 2/3 was elected.
Original post by SBKA
I think they still associate themselves with 'law and order' because they want to be seen as a party that sticks by it's traditional principles.


Traditional principles don't enforce law or order, but crippling legal aid goes a good way to damaging the good functioning of the law under which everyone should be equal.
Reply 42
Original post by perspiracious
Because they are the party that most closely represents my views. I am just a little bit sceptical.


Fair enough. I think everyone is sceptical about politics in Britain at the moment.
Reply 43
Original post by Birkenhead
Traditional principles don't enforce law or order, but crippling legal aid goes a good way to damaging the good functioning of the law under which everyone should be equal.


I was not arguing that they do enforce 'law and order', but rather simply stating that to appeal to hardcore Tory voters they have to at least appear to be sticking by one of their original principles.
Original post by SBKA
I was not arguing that they do enforce 'law and order', but rather simply stating that to appeal to hardcore Tory voters they have to at least appear to be sticking by one of their original principles.


I understand this, but it doesn't stop it being a 'sickening' claim to me given their dreadful record on the law in this government.
Original post by SBKA
Any particular reason?


they don't seem very competent, even within a coalition
I'm right wing too so that's another thing
Original post by SBKA
I think that a Libertarian party that follows the practices of the old Liberal party still exists today. Not sure how popular they are though.


The closest party in today's politics to the Liberal party would be UKIP.

All the other parties are so economically conservative and socially liberal that they put the Progressive Liberals of the early 1900's to shame.

My view is that if a High Tory party was to reform in Britain it would get 30% of the vote no bother. There isn't a socially conservative party out their for anyone to vote for, this is why people are moving to UKIP.
Reply 47
Original post by Birkenhead
I understand this, but it doesn't stop it being a 'sickening' claim to me given their dreadful record on the law in this government.


Its not unlike political parties to make stupid and sickening claims though. :smile:
Reply 48
Original post by william walker
The closest party in today's politics to the Liberal party would be UKIP.

All the other parties are so economically conservative and socially liberal that they put the Progressive Liberals of the early 1900's to shame.

My view is that if a High Tory party was to reform in Britain it would get 30% of the vote no bother. There isn't a socially conservative party out their for anyone to vote for, this is why people are moving to UKIP.


Not just UKIP. Many, more extreme, nationalist groups have taken advantage of this gap in the political spectrum.
Lib Dem voter here :smile:

By any chance, did anyone just watch Nick Clegg on 'The Last Leg'? It was quite uncomfortable given the stupid questions you would expect to be asked to him, but I thought he conducted himself very well and hopefully this has changed some people's opinions of him, as opposed to the excessive soundbites of ridicule thrown at him and his party.
Original post by Gott
I'm not an indecisive person so NO


I'm a rational, non compulsive person so yes!
Original post by Gott
Is it rational to trust an arbitrary political doctrine or for that matter not to be ideologically motivated in politics?


It is rational to be skeptical of those in power and I think the lib dems represent this principle, unlike the big government parties of the other 4.
Original post by Gott
I'd recommend learning about politics and deciding on your politics rather than having faith in the lily livered, wishy washy centre party


Currently doing a masters in political thought, But I'll bear it in mind.
Original post by Gott
Can you tell me what defines their policies apart from tentativity then?


Their policies to me are about individual empowerment whether this is in protecting education, decentralising concentrated power, protecting liberties or a whole host of other things.

The tories have nicked their tax idea and labour have a shoddy version of their mansion tax.


Ukip and the greens policies, whilst certainly not tentative, are ill thought out and stupid.
Original post by Gott
I'm given to believe that the Tories and Labour just vie for the centre ground and use it to implement their economic policy. This is why I might seriously consider voting UKIP to pressure the Tories into legislating (perhaps more importantly not legislating like conservatives), even though this would be disastrous in the short term. Would you agree that the essence of real conservatism is libertarian?


Real is a somewhat loaded term. While the Tories do believe in a small state, part of conservatism also links to morality and tradition.

All depends on whether you view ideologies as purely economic or socioeconomic really.
Original post by Gott
I'm given to believe that the Tories and Labour just vie for the centre ground and use it to implement their economic policy. This is why I might seriously consider voting UKIP to pressure the Tories into legislating (perhaps more importantly not legislating like conservatives), even though this would be disastrous in the short term. Would you agree that the essence of real conservatism is libertarian?


To me the essence of conservatism is conservatism , e.g conserving existing power structures and maintaining the status quote of established groups.

libertarianism therfore, which aims for the smallest of possible States and for the smallest of involvement in the personal affairs of individuals would be quite incompatible with 'real' conservatism.

Nigel Farage is not a libertarian. Ukip is not a libertarian party, they are a protest party with a few unpleasant wealthy donors.

Gary Johnson and the U.S. libertarian party are libertarians.
Original post by Gott
I'm sure they don't believe in maintaining labour created institutions necessarily,



Such as, Farage got backlash from his party for hinting at NHS privatisation,



and perhaps don't show signs of returning things which Tories of yesteryear would have endorsed for ideological reasons.


like what?


What do you mean by a protest party? Farrage is clearly a 1950s Tory, though he may seem reactionary for party political reasons


He is in protest with the perceived direction the tories have taken. They are a protest oarty whose core aim, as farage is quite candid in admitting is leaving the EU. They are made up mainly of disaffected non voters dissatisfied with politics in General, (their popularity also coincidentally comes after a recession).
[QUOTE="Gott;53326555"]
Original post by Davij038
Such as, Farage got backlash from his party for hinting at NHS privatisation [QUOTE/]

Interesting

I don't know what to think about them now. My stance on the NHS is one of disgust, it is an extremely lethal socialist relic which is clearly a misfit in Europe, the continental model of the health system as it were using private hospitals which claim the charge back from the tax payer is ubiquitous is Europe and obviously much less dangerous


I prefer the European system also. As it stands though, the NHS is the second amendment of the UK, no party would campaign against it.

Im not that overly bothered by the NHS though, it's going to have to be radically changed at some point regardless.
[QUOTE="Gott;53326763"]
Original post by Davij038


It is a depressing thought how many people will die in the next century because of this party political cowardice and hypocrisy


I think it was Churchill who said that democracy was the best of a load of bad ideas. This is kinda why.

saying that though, I honestly prefer the NHS to the U.S. system.
Original post by Hal.E.Lujah
They're directly showing the system doesn't work. That a party can be elected not based on any obligation to enact policy but because of waffle, PR, and idealogical branding. I know individual MPs might not apply to this, but they haven't defected. :dontknow:


Every vote for LDems now is a vote against our voting system. A vote for them is someone putting their hands up and saying 'I don't know how this all works', or 'I want a two party system'. I know they'll linger around on 30ish seats most likely, but quite frankly if the LDems disbanded it would restore my faith in the right to vote. Right now I can't help but feel they're factually symbolic of why the political theatre is a tragedy.


That's why I feel that people voting for them are complacent in that mockery of any vestige of democracy that remains in England, and that we'd be better off without their input. I know that sounds heartless but quite frankly I'm angry that people are still voting for MPs that basically metaphorically urinated on them for the past 4 years; and I didn't even vote for them.


No offense but I don't think you understand what a coalition is, you seem to think that because The Tories and Lib Dems are in coalition that somehow means that they have similar levels of power, that is nowhere near the truth. All it means is that in exchange for The Tories being able to take power (something that would have happened anyway) The Tories agree to some compromises (small ones), like not trying to push bill X through (likely small ones Tories didn't care about anyway) or for them to seriously consider some of their own policies (AV being the big one). Lib Dems have 9% of the House of Commons, despite Clegg being deputy PM (a worthless title by all accounts) Labour have far more power to stop the Tories passing a law than Lib Dems do because they have far more seats and so more votes on whether a bill should be passed.

The 2010 general election campaign had basically bankrupted Labour whilst the Tories were rich, if the Lib Dems had said no to The Tories then the Tories would easily have out-muscled Labour in the re-election and won, we would have got the same outcome except The Tories would have far more seats than the public initially voted for and the Tories would have been able to pass their laws far more easily. Clegg isn't an idiot, I'm sure he knew when he made a deal with the devil that he was committing political suicide but he really had no other choice, it was form a coalition or bankrupt Labour and the Lib Dems and let The Tories have far more power than they were voted in for in 2010.

Latest

Trending

Trending