Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Moderate Democrats - New party proposal! Watch

    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PhysicsKid)
    It's Centrist not Centralist though- I just discovered the far-left associations of the latter & they are worrying. Abuses the definition of 'Centralist' indeed.
    I'd be interested to hear why you think it's worrying. I'm a member of the Socialist Party and we operate on the basis of democratic centralism; my experience as a member has only been positive. We have a vibrant level of internal debate - ordinary members are genuinely more powerful when it comes to setting policy than the leadership. As a previous member of Labour, it's very refreshing to actually be in a party where the grassroots determines what the leadership does, and not vice versa. In Labour, the party mechanisms work against members who seek to challenge the leadership on anything - motions are "lost", party full-timers have a massive amount of influence over selections, and the level of bureaucracy makes initiating anything very difficult. What democratic centralism means, in practice, is that what we democratically decide is recognised by members as the position of the party. It's very organisationally useful, and prevents factionalism.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birchington)
    A quick look at Hansard suggests otherwise.

    I wish you well with forming a new party, if you get enough support. I just think a new centrist party would always remain irrelevant trying to compete alongside the experience and strong track record of the Liberals. Just look at what happened with the Centre Party.

    I'm not sure 'largely absent' is an accurate description for someone who logs on daily and contributes regularly.

    I think your comments on our policy and legislation are rather misguided. A quick look at Hansard will show you everything we have achieved - a wide range of well-researched and progressive legislation.
    The Liberals were much more competitive then.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PhysicsKid)
    The Liberals were much more competitive then.
    It depends how you define 'competitive'. Our electoral dominance pre-2010 was due to our links with the then-popular Lib Dems.

    Since 2012, we have maintained our vote share (average of 7-8%) and in August 2013 were 0.24% away from beating the Greens into third place. With a good manifesto, strong policies and regular legislation, there is no reason why we should ever be uncompetitive.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Faland)
    I'd be interested to hear why you think it's worrying. I'm a member of the Socialist Party and we operate on the basis of democratic centralism; my experience as a member has only been positive. We have a vibrant level of internal debate - ordinary members are genuinely more powerful when it comes to setting policy than the leadership. As a previous member of Labour, it's very refreshing to actually be in a party where the grassroots determines what the leadership does, and not vice versa. In Labour, the party mechanisms work against members who seek to challenge the leadership on anything - motions are "lost", party full-timers have a massive amount of influence over selections, and the level of bureaucracy makes initiating anything very difficult. What democratic centralism means, in practice, is that what we democratically decide is recognised by members as the position of the party. It's very organisationally useful, and prevents factionalism.
    I agree with your comments about Labour, in particular the electoral college system (too much like the disappointing US system) and the trade union domination is unappealing. However, with the democratic centralism you describe, there are anarchist Trotskyists forcing the 'majority' (however thin) will on all other members; silencing dissent. This is reminisicent of the somewhat enforced false consensus that holds back the big political players in our country; thanks in part to the whip system which seems a diluted version of what you describe.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birchington)
    It depends how you define 'competitive'. Our electoral dominance pre-2010 was due to our links with the then-popular Lib Dems.

    Since 2012, we have maintained our vote share (average of 7-8%) and in August 2013 were 0.24% away from beating the Greens into third place. With a good manifesto, strong policies and regular legislation, there is no reason why we should ever be uncompetitive.
    That's exactly what I mean. Despite attempting to put distance between your party and the Lib Dems, your fortunes continue to move in tandem with them- a 50% collapse this term like the Lib Dems are expected to experience. This makes you a very volatile party where a party of the centre would now be more palatable.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PhysicsKid)
    That's exactly what I mean. Despite attempting to put distance between your party and the Lib Dems, your fortunes continue to move in tandem with them- a 50% collapse this term like the Lib Dems are expected to experience. This makes you a very volatile party where a party of the centre would now be more palatable.
    I don't think the Lib Dems have a massive impact on our vote share to be honest. The fact our vote has remained steady and even increased since the rename in contrast to the continued decline of the RL party doesn't demonstrate 'volatility'.

    With highly active MPs and regular legislation, I believe we can compete independently and be judged by TSR's voters on merit rather than RL prejudices.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PhysicsKid)
    I agree with your comments about Labour, in particular the electoral college system (too much like the disappointing US system) and the trade union domination is unappealing. However, with the democratic centralism you describe, there are anarchist Trotskyists forcing the 'majority' (however thin) will on all other members; silencing dissent. This is reminisicent of the somewhat enforced false consensus that holds back the big political players in our country; thanks in part to the whip system which seems a diluted version of what you describe.
    Speaking as a Trot, the idea of an anarchist (a totally different branch of politics entirely) joining a democratic centralist party amuses me - you don't get a person being a member of a democratic centralist party unless they agree with the idea of collective policy and anti-factionalism, as us Trots all do. And democratic centralism isn't about silencing dissent. Here's a recent example of how the DC method works in real life: a small group of comrades in the SP initiated a debate on how the party should understand the recent financial crisis. They wanted to stick with the orthodox position that attributes the crisis to the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, which went against the interpretation already popular in the Party. In response, the Party organised a series of debates and membership bulletins to fully discuss the issues raised. In the end, the orthodox group lost in a democratic vote by quite a massive margin. But they remained in the party because, as Trots, they believe in accepting the collectively made judgement. Now, had they not agreed with the decision, they would be free to leave the party and find one more suitable for themselves. So at no stage in the process would there be scope for authoritarian silencing, much unlike in the mainstream parties.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    I also think that the naming chaos (is that the third name, already?) and uncertainty indicates the same in situation regarding policies and added value, unfortunately.
    Second, the name change benefitted the conservatives strongly. So yeah, not chaos.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birchington)
    I don't think the Lib Dems have a massive impact on our vote share to be honest. The fact our vote has remained steady and even increased since the rename in contrast to the continued decline of the RL party doesn't demonstrate 'volatility'.

    With highly active MPs and regular legislation, I believe we can compete independently and be judged by TSR's voters on merit rather than RL prejudices.
    Once the Mass PM goes, then maybe, but not before.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    your only housing policy is very London centric...you do know it's not just the capital suffering because of buy to let right?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SciFiRory)
    your only housing policy is very London centric...you do know it's not just the capital suffering because of buy to let right?
    Yes, however currently that is the major place that is suffering from foreign investors buying up housing and buy to letting. However the party would most definitely look at rolling it out across other large metropolitan areas.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cryptographic)
    Yes, however currently that is the major place that is suffering from foreign investors buying up housing and buy to letting. However the party would most definitely look at rolling it out across other large metropolitan areas.
    I would have thought for such a policy to serve best purpose it would be prudent to roll it out nationwide, no?
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SciFiRory)
    I would have thought for such a policy to serve best purpose it would be prudent to roll it out nationwide, no?
    Since buy to let is not stopping the state or private companies from building additional housing how do you plan to deal with the shortfall in supply that a ban on 'buy to let' would provide.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Since buy to let is not stopping the state or private companies from building additional housing how do you plan to deal with the shortfall in supply that a ban on 'buy to let' would provide.
    Ban on buy to let (in large metropolitan areas) by non EU citizens or non EU citizen owned. Not buy to let ban on EU citizens.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Since buy to let is not stopping the state or private companies from building additional housing how do you plan to deal with the shortfall in supply that a ban on 'buy to let' would provide.
    a large and wide scale house building programme, focused solely on social and council housing.

    I would also like to see an outright ban on owning multiple homes for anyone, and councils being given the power to seize unused properties or land in order to use it for the social housing.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SciFiRory)
    a large and wide scale house building programme, focused solely on social and council housing.

    I would also like to see an outright ban on owning multiple homes for anyone, and councils being given the power to seize unused properties or land in order to use it for the social housing.
    I do agree with building more housing (though i would not restrict buy to let and would keep the right to buy) however i don't agree with your second sentence.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cryptographic)
    Once the Mass PM goes, then maybe, but not before.
    Before the mass PM we were actually at one point first then second then when the mass PM hit us we did not benefits like others did, but yes naturally some RL lib dems saw that we were the Lib Dems except in name.

    Its one of the natural inbuilt disadvantage of not have a RL party which is linked to you directly.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Will95206)
    Before the mass PM we were actually at one point first then second then when the mass PM hit us we did not benefits like others did, but yes naturally some RL lib dems saw that we were the Lib Dems except in name.

    Its one of the natural inbuilt disadvantage of not have a RL party which is linked to you directly.
    Arguably it also would leave the party with more stability.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Who is going to be the Katrine Fonsmark of this new party?
 
 
 
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?

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.