The Unofficial TSR Libertarian Party

Announcements Posted on
How helpful is our apprenticeship zone? Have your say with our short survey 02-12-2016
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    ... k
    You say that now but when you're counting on us to bring you into government you'll rue the day

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    So the past is what matters not the future, why does something that happened years ago effect the party today when it is clear that the people who made the party 'sufficiently active' have left and that is why they are not as active today
    I talked about potential, i.e. the future.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I talked about potential, i.e. the future.
    The potential you talked about focused entirely on the past and how things were not how things are currently going and are likely to go.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    The potential you talked about focused entirely on the past and how things were not how things are currently going and are likely to go.
    Potential is about the future. I was not talking about some special kind of potential.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Potential is about the future. I was not talking about some special kind of potential.
    And if the libertarians formed they would have the potential to win all the seats at the next election, it's highly unlikely they would but they have the potential.

    They definitely have the potential to become sufficiently active if handled properly at the start something which the current rules don't help with.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    And if the libertarians formed they would have the potential to win all the seats at the next election, it's highly unlikely they would but they have the potential.
    Umm no they don't

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    Umm no they don't

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Schrödinger's cat.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    And if the libertarians formed they would have the potential to win all the seats at the next election, it's highly unlikely they would but they have the potential.
    *incredulous look* They've not demonstrated that potential though. They can't even muster up the support of more than two people or meet a reasonable threshold of activity that another party (the National Liberals) met and still folded soon after. I don't see why they should have it easier than the National Liberals. But if you want to join their cause to increase their chances of forming then you should go ahead and do so.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    Umm no they don't

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Yes they do, it's never going to happen though and that was my point saying the greens have the potential to become 'sufficiently active' again is really based on nothing and then to use that argument to stop a party being formed is wrong while other parties haven't been for a long time.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    *incredulous look* They've not demonstrated that potential though. They can't even muster up the support of more than two people or meet a reasonable threshold of activity that another party (the National Liberals) met and still folded soon after. I don't see why they should have it easier than the National Liberals. But if you want to join their cause to increase their chances of forming then you should go ahead and do so.
    So parties have been successful who didn't meet the current requirements (every party around now) and the party formed under the current requirements lasted 2 minutes that says a lot and should make you question the requirements.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Yes they do, it's never going to happen though and that was my point saying the greens have the potential to become 'sufficiently active' again is really based on nothing and then to use that argument to stop a party being formed is wrong while other parties haven't been for a long time.
    There's a difference and you'll see it over the next few days.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    So parties have been successful who didn't meet the current requirements (every party around now) and the party formed under the current requirements lasted 2 minutes that says a lot and should make you question the requirements.
    Not really. You think that having a lot of active members makes you less active? I'd be interested in hearing the mental gymnastics required to put that together.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Not really. You think that having a lot of active members makes you less active? I'd be interested in hearing the mental gymnastics required to put that together.
    Where are these 'active' members now?

    To build a wall you don't just throw a lot of bricks somewhere and say done, you start with 1 brick and then build it from there something the current rules inhibit.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Where are these 'active' members now?

    To build a wall you don't just throw a lot of bricks somewhere and say done, you start with 1 brick and then build it from there something the current rules inhibit.
    Where are the Libs (possible) members?

    The current rules don't inhibit having a core of active people from which you can 'build a wall'. Rather they force party proposers to prove they're putting forward an idea that has support and that they're dedicated to.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Where are these 'active' members now?

    To build a wall you don't just throw a lot of bricks somewhere and say done, you start with 1 brick and then build it from there something the current rules inhibit.
    The nat libs managed although they fell through shortly after. It's possible though, as they proved.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    The nat libs managed although they fell through shortly after. It's possible though, as they proved.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I'm not denying that the nat libs managed it but it's amazing that people who want to avoid another party like the nat libs use the nat libs as the example and push for the same conditions that clearly didn't work last time and there has been no cases of them working at all.

    I'd say rather than requiring 10 members why not think does this actually work there is no proof my guess would be because people get desperate and go recruit the wrong people as they want instant gratification and I admit at the moment it may not be perfect and maybe slightly more around 5 like the greens required as I would rather a small committed party working well together than a party with a lot of members all trying to pull the new party in different directions.

    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Where are the Libs (possible) members?

    The current rules don't inhibit having a core of active people from which you can 'build a wall'. Rather they force party proposers to prove they're putting forward an idea that has support and that they're dedicated to.
    They were around until it looked like the idea was dead, where are these potential new green members you say are around?
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    They were around until it looked like the idea was dead, where are these potential new green members you say are around?
    Closing a party because it's in a slump and approving a party of two people are not the same thing. But as I mentioned earlier, feel free to make it three.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Closing a party because it's in a slump and approving a party of two people are not the same thing. But as I mentioned earlier, feel free to make it three.
    What evidence do you have that it's just a temporary slump and not the beginning of the end? Where are these new members to pull it out of the slump?

    I did just say maybe 2 isn't enough but it's a lot better than demanding something that has only resulted in failure and the libertarians had a lot of interest but the huge hurdles put in front of them scares a few people off, if it became a party I have no doubt that some of the people who were interested would join.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    What evidence do you have that it's just a temporary slump and not the beginning of the end? Where are these new members to pull it out of the slump?

    I did just say maybe 2 isn't enough but it's a lot better than demanding something that has only resulted in failure and the libertarians had a lot of interest but the huge hurdles put in front of them scares a few people off, if it became a party I have no doubt that some of the people who were interested would join.
    What evidence is there that it isn't? The conditions for party closure haven't been met so the party isn't being forcibly closed. It's not complicated.

    If anything the NatLibs proved the conditions are too lenient. Hence the Speaker recommending that some of those proposers have MHoC experience.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    What evidence is there that it isn't? The conditions for party closure haven't been met so the party isn't being forcibly closed. It's not complicated.

    If anything the NatLibs proved the conditions are too lenient. Hence the Speaker recommending that some of those proposers have MHoC experience.
    I never said that the conditions have been met but defending one parties inactivity while saying a different party who haven't been given a chance wouldn't be active does not seem like a consistent position.

    There is more evidence to suggest that people outside of current MHoC members want to join a libertarian party than the Green Party yet you claim the libertarians wouldn't attract members and the greens can.

    So we should move further away from what has successfully created parties to a system that hasn't been tried? as Aph has stated the current parties would have struggled to form under the current conditions.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: October 23, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Today on TSR
Poll
Would you rather have...?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

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