The Commons Bar Mk IX - MHoC Chat Thread Watch

This discussion is closed.
Kittiara
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#3961
Report 4 years ago
#3961
(Original post by thehistorybore)
It'll be a tense night I'm sure.

Ah, I wouldn't have thought students ever would be anti-green. It's all to play for then!
It is everything to play for! Once the mass-PM goes out (which I do hope will be before the 7th, otherwise people might be sick and tired of election stuff), a good percentage of our voters will be voting according to RL party lines. If/when that happens, the Liberals will be suffering from the unpopularity of the Liberal Democrats, and many people think the RL Greens are, well, nuts at best and dangerous at worst. It is what it is.

---

On the topic of avatars, I can't wait to get back to Axl. Might actually end up doing so before the election.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3962
Report 4 years ago
#3962
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
Oh yes, of course. That was at the height of the credit crunch though (and when was the last time you heard it called that?) when Labour were at the height of unpopularity, but before Cleggmania could set in.

A Grand Coalition in all but name? It'll be a time of compromise though, that's for sure.

It would be interesting to see whether an EU referendum could get through. It could potentially on the SNP's terms (i.e. all 4 Home Nations have to vote to exit for Britain to exit).
Cleggmania never really affected TSR Politics for more than the 2010 election which the Libs won here. In the early days it was all Lib Dem/MRLP then the Great Recession came and the Tories and Libs shared the electorate spoils while Labour throughout the 05-10 period struggled. Election for the 14th parliament (Oct 2011) was when the Tory vote collapsed to our 16-19% range and Labour have won most elections since albeit their support has been more moderate than stellar (twice they were within 2% of us).

Not really, business would be pretty limited and effectively it would be a zombie parliament.

I doubt Miliband would go for it.

(Original post by RayApparently)
For the sake of the United Kingdom Labour has to win. For the sake of the Labour Party's continued health they need to Tories to win and continue to suck whilst they regather their strength. They found their vision too late and aren't ready for governance.
Labour have the better solution for the union but i think Ed would be stupid enough to throw devolution at them. We need the federal senate to give them a bigger stake in the union rather than devolution or EVEL which will amplify legal differences over time.

Both parties are rubbish at the moment and i'm not sure which leaders could drag them back up. Possibly Chucka for Labour, the Tories don't have somebody to breach 40% right now though.
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3963
Report 4 years ago
#3963
(Original post by Rakas21)
Labour have the better solution for the union but i think Ed would be stupid enough to throw devolution at them. We need the federal senate to give them a bigger stake in the union rather than devolution or EVEL which will amplify legal differences over time.

Both parties are rubbish at the moment and i'm not sure which leaders could drag them back up. Possibly Chucka for Labour, the Tories don't have somebody to breach 40% right now though.
Chucka? Eww. I know your just shy of Blairite but I don't think he has the charisma (not that we can chat much about charisma after Miliband vs Cameron) or strength of character. Sadiq Khan's in with a shot imo
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3964
Report 4 years ago
#3964
(Original post by RayApparently)
Chucka? Eww. I know your just shy of Blairite but I don't think he has the charisma (not that we can chat much about charisma after Miliband vs Cameron) or strength of character. Sadiq Khan's in with a shot imo
If Labour are to breach 40% again they need somebody who does not believe profit is a dirty word, if the Tories are to breach 40% again they need a strategy regarding getting nothing less than 30% in Scotland, Wales and the North East.
0
thehistorybore
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#3965
Report 4 years ago
#3965
(Original post by Rakas21)
I'm not massively opposed to a zombie government myself, it would be rather nice to see a health or education system played out rather than constantly changed for once. The Royal Pergoative would allow ministers enough power to keep things ticking when they need to.
It'll be interesting to see, certainly. Personally, I would prefer clear leadership in any case.
0
thehistorybore
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#3966
Report 4 years ago
#3966
(Original post by Kittiara)
It is everything to play for! Once the mass-PM goes out (which I do hope will be before the 7th, otherwise people might be sick and tired of election stuff), a good percentage of our voters will be voting according to RL party lines. If/when that happens, the Liberals will be suffering from the unpopularity of the Liberal Democrats, and many people think the RL Greens are, well, nuts at best and dangerous at worst. It is what it is.

---

On the topic of avatars, I can't wait to get back to Axl. Might actually end up doing so before the election.
Presumably the mass PM goes out to all members of TSR? Yeah I can see that; I suppose it will be indicative of the RL election result to an extent. Without wishing to be rude, the RL Greens are, in my opinion, dangerous in the extreme. Their economic policies horrify me.
0
KingStannis
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#3967
Report 4 years ago
#3967
To start a new conversation: I don't agree with this new trendy "political compass" thing. Here's a brief political philosophical argument:

I see no reason for the principle of individual rights to be right wing when applied to economics, but not when applied to personal freedoms. The ideology behind it is one and the same, and the former is just an extension of the latter.

Furthermore, if you imagine any economic system which is left alone entirely, and let human nature occur without restrictions, you're left with an extremely right winged capitalism. What specific type of "liberal" label you'd give that i don't know. But then you try to control that; you regulate things etc. You have a more left winged system. I think that if you analyse the reasons why that is, then you can start to link those left vs right distinctions intrinsically to the nature of the State.

So, the reasons why regulation is left winged economic policy is because it's putting a paternalist conception of an authority acting in the public good as the principle of society. The more right winged capitalism is putting the freedoms of individuals at the forefront of thinking, and allowing markets of independent to decide. Using markets to achieve the first idea is somewhere in the centre.

Therefore the freer the society, the more right wing it is. If this is the case, then an "authoritative" government is a left winged one, because the principle of the state ruling is in effect, and our previous thought experiments shows us that the rationale of left and right means that that is left winged. This where where the compass fan boys say "ah, but an authoritative government can have right winged economics. Therefore the two must be different concepts.". However, there is no reason why a given government can have left winged policy X, and right winged policy Y. Let X be an authoritarian State, and Y be a Laisse Faire economic system. This dissolves the so called problem into a struggle in referencing the ideology of this given State. This problem disappears when you label X "Sociopolitical ideology" and Y "Economic/socioeconomic ideology". We can obviously allow a State to have both. Therefore, the need for the political compass's "authoritarian/libertarian" social dimension is redundant, because all political ideology can be discussed purely in the language of left vs right.

tldr

>Liberalism is the basis for right wing ideology, interventionism is left.

>This is seen from the reasoning behind why right wing economics is right, and left is left.

>The reasoning can be applied to social policy and the nature of government, because if authoritarian States aren't left winged, the the distinction between even left vs right in economics, something which we all must keep, would break down.

>Therefore the political compass doesn't need to refrain from using the language of left vs right socially, and is in fact trendy nonsense.

> Liberals; you're right wingers. Accept it. Yes, you.

> banter


Any objections? Discuss.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#3968
Report 4 years ago
#3968
(Original post by KingStannis)
To start a new conversation: I don't agree with this new trendy "political compass" thing.

I see no reason for the principle of individual rights to be right wing when applied to economics, but not when applied to personal freedoms. The ideology behind it is one and the same, and the former is just an extension of the latter.

Furthermore, if you imagine any economic system which is left alone entirely, and let human nature occur without restrictions, you're left with an extremely right winged capitalism. What specific type of "liberal" label you'd give that i don't know. But then you try to control that; you regulate things etc. You have a more left winged system. I think that if you analyse the reasons why that is, then you can start to link those left vs right distinctions intrinsically to the nature of the State.

So, the reasons why regulation is left winged economic policy is because it's putting a paternalist conception of an authority acting in the public good as the principle of society. The more right winged capitalism is putting the freedoms of individuals at the forefront of thinking, and allowing markets of independent to decide. Using markets to achieve the first idea is somewhere in the centre.

Therefore the freer the society, the more right wing it is. If this is the case, then an "authoritative" government is a left winged one, because the principle of the state ruling is in effect, and our previous thought experiments shows us that the rationale of left and right means that that is left winged. This where where the compass fan boys say "ah, but an authoritative government can have right winged economics. Therefore the two must be different concepts.". However, there is no reason why a given government can have left winged policy X, and right winged policy Y. Let X be an authoritarian State, and Y be a Laisse Faire economic system. This dissolves the so called problem into a struggle in referencing the ideology of this given State. This problem disappears when you label X "Sociopolitical ideology" and Y "Economic/socioeconomic ideology". We can obviously allow a State to have both. Therefore, the need for the political compass's "authoritarian/libertarian" social dimension is redundant, because all political ideology can be discussed purely in the language of left vs right.

tldr

>Liberalism is the basis for right wing ideology, interventionism is left.

>This is seen from the reasoning behind why right wing economics is right, and left is left.

>The reasoning can be applied to social policy and the nature of government, because if authoritarian States aren't left winged, the the distinction between even left vs right in economics, something which we all must keep, would break down.

>Therefore the political compass doesn't need to refrain from using the language of left vs right socially, and is in fact trendy nonsense.

> Liberals; you're right wingers. Accept it. Yes, you.

> banter


Any objections? Discuss.
You say that but the right are authoritatian socially and the left are socalially liberal...
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3969
Report 4 years ago
#3969
(Original post by thehistorybore)
It'll be interesting to see, certainly. Personally, I would prefer clear leadership in any case.
Well i'd prefer a majority or strong coalition like this one but i'd prefer a zombie government to a coalition of say 4 parties which scrapes over the line and is at risk of by-elections.
0
thehistorybore
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#3970
Report 4 years ago
#3970
(Original post by Rakas21)
Well i'd prefer a majority or strong coalition like this one but i'd prefer a zombie government to a coalition of say 4 parties which scrapes over the line and is at risk of by-elections.
Come to think of it, I agree with you.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#3971
Report 4 years ago
#3971
(Original post by Rakas21)
Well i'd prefer a majority or strong coalition like this one but i'd prefer a zombie government to a coalition of say 4 parties which scrapes over the line and is at risk of by-elections.
National unity government FTW.
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3972
Report 4 years ago
#3972
(Original post by KingStannis)

>This is seen from the reasoning behind why right wing economics is right, and left is left.

>The reasoning can be applied to social policy and the nature of government, because if authoritarian States aren't left winged, the the distinction between even left vs right in economics, something which we all must keep, would break down.

>Therefore the political compass doesn't need to refrain from using the language of left vs right socially, and is in fact trendy nonsense.

> Liberals; you're right wingers. Accept it. Yes, you.

> banter


Any objections? Discuss.
Its not the intervention that makes you left wing. Its caring about fairness and equality.

So nice idea, but its wrong haha
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3973
Report 4 years ago
#3973
(Original post by Aph)
You say that but the right are authoritatian socially and the left are socalially liberal...
Not always. Libertarians, national socialists (though the left will no doubt tell me they are not real socialists - you won't convince me, it's a post USSR marketing approach)..
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#3974
Report 4 years ago
#3974
(Original post by Rakas21)
Not always. Libertarians, national socialists (though the left will no doubt tell me they are not real socialists - you won't convince me, it's a post USSR marketing approach)..
I meant on TSR but I would say that liberal right wing people are few and far between, and ever since classical communism failed communists moved towards a nacho-communism.
0
KingStannis
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#3975
Report 4 years ago
#3975
(Original post by Aph)
You say that but the right are authoritatian socially and the left are socalially liberal...
Not all left winged people. The most left winged people of the 20th century were the most authoritarianism.

The left has bean linked to social liberalism, but I consider this to be then accepting right wing ideas of personal freedoms. For economics, you'd accept that freedom = right, collective welbeing = left. So the same MUST apply to the State. The fact that, perhaps, more left wingers than right wingers don't care about homosexuality say, is behavior not ideology. Attitudes to homosexuality are apolitical in terms of ideology, however, the principle that they should be free to be gay irrespective of how we feel is right winged. EDIT: Left winged would be the State making rules against discriminating against them.

For my theory to work, I've pretty much reduced conservatism to political behavior, rather than an ideology.
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3976
Report 4 years ago
#3976
http://www.dontbea****ingidiot.uk/
0
KingStannis
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#3977
Report 4 years ago
#3977
(Original post by RayApparently)
Its not the intervention that makes you left wing. Its caring about fairness and equality.

So nice idea, but its wrong haha
Under those definitions anyone can call themselves left wing. Plenty of right wingers believe in fairness. They think what is fair is giving people economic freedoms. Leftists believe what is fair is protecting people from the negative impacts of freedoms.

Niether example, a priori, can just be labelled "fair". The distinction between left and right comes from your notions of fairness, or what you believing in. From the left, it's reducing freedoms but increasing well being. For the right, it's increasing freedoms but knowing that as a result, there will be unfortunate "losers" in society.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#3978
Report 4 years ago
#3978
(Original post by KingStannis)
Not all left winged people. The most left winged people of the 20th century were the most authoritarianism.

The left has bean linked to social liberalism, but I consider this to be then accepting right wing ideas of personal freedoms. For economics, you'd accept that freedom = right, collective welbeing = left. So the same MUST apply to the State. The fact that, perhaps, more left wingers than right wingers don't care about homosexuality say, is behavior not ideology. Attitudes to homosexuality are apolitical in terms of ideology, however, the principle that they should be free to be gay irrespective of how we feel is right winged.

For my theory to work, I've pretty much reduced conservatism to political behavior, rather than an ideology.
What??? Behaviour not ideology? The left tend to belive that people should do what they want and should have the money they need to do so.
the right tend to belive that people should be allowed to be used by others ect. But they belive in harsh punishment.

I think you are trying to simplify this too much or just debating for the sake of it. I could be right for education but left for crime for instance.
0
KingStannis
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#3979
Report 4 years ago
#3979
Your link won't work.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#3980
Report 4 years ago
#3980
(Original post by KingStannis)
Your link won't work.
:facepalm: it's not hard to work out the address. Plus posting the real link would likely get you banned.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How has the start of this academic year been for you?

Loving it - gonna be a great year (142)
17.95%
It's just nice to be back! (213)
26.93%
Not great so far... (283)
35.78%
I want to drop out! (153)
19.34%

Watched Threads

View All