Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thesabbath)
    What if the liberal moral high ground is so far removed from human nature that it will never work on a nationwide/worldwide scale? (hypothetical, of course)
    That's certainly possible, likely even.

    It takes strong, robust, formidable leaders to take liberalism or social democracy and turn it into something useful. It takes gutsy policies that may even be unpopular at first. I'm in agreement with your proposition. Given the wrong leaders or the wrong proponents, flimsy leftism is an almost useless attribute for actually applying said values to a nationwide/worldwide scale. The key ingredient is robust leadership that cares first and foremost about getting **** done and worrying about offending people second.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    That's certainly possible, likely even.

    It takes strong, robust, formidable leaders to take liberalism or social democracy and turn it into something useful. It takes gutsy policies that may even be unpopular at first. I'm in agreement with your proposition. Given the wrong leaders or the wrong proponents, flimsy leftism is an almost useless attribute for actually applying said values to a nationwide/worldwide scale. The key ingredient is robust leadership that cares first and foremost about getting **** done and worrying about offending people second.
    Sounds like Thatcher.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LexiswasmyNexis)
    Sounds like Thatcher.
    Not really.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance...cher-exploded/

    I think it describes the late Tommy Douglas of Canada's NDP.

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    See my response to thesabbath. The problem, as the republicans are realising, is that the millionaire businessman whose wife's grandmother is an illegal immigrant doesn't vote for you whatever your economic policy or your defence policy or your healthcare policy. Once you move out of the mainstream you build a coalition of the "not at any price" against you.
    Ultimately that is more to do with social policy than economic policy. The Republicans have made the mistake of not moving with the times socially as a result people who may have otherwise endorsed Mitt for an economic recovery won't vote for him due to the other policies. I don't think that is something the Tories suffer from, for them the problem is more that socially they are pretty central, but the right in general and EU sceptics are not happy with their fiscal policy, and as every the tradition labour vote is not going to switch sides. The trick is obviously to catch the swing voters while not alienating your traditional vote, something which admittedly is easier from the left.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by doggyfizzel)
    Ultimately that is more to do with social policy than economic policy. The Republicans have made the mistake of not moving with the times socially as a result people who may have otherwise endorsed Mitt for an economic recovery won't vote for him due to the other policies. I don't think that is something the Tories suffer from, for them the problem is more that socially they are pretty central, but the right in general and EU sceptics are not happy with their fiscal policy, and as every the tradition labour vote is not going to switch sides. The trick is obviously to catch the swing voters while not alienating your traditional vote, something which admittedly is easier from the left.
    I think you are only noting the views of people whose opinions you value. When voters say "anyone but" they are noting the views they abhore. It doesn't matter how many policies they agree with, it is the policies they dislike that closes them off.

    It is only easier from the left if you are a Conservative. If you are a Socialist, it is easier from the right.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    Not really.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance...cher-exploded/

    I think it describes the late Tommy Douglas of Canada's NDP.

    "It takes gutsy policies which may be unpopular"

    Yes it does.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LexiswasmyNexis)
    "It takes gutsy policies which may be unpopular"

    Yes it does.
    The reason I provided the link was because she isn't nearly as responsible for the things you probably give her credit for. It would be like appropriating "gutsy decision-making" to every politician responsible for a ****ty policy. One could even go so far as to credit Nick Clegg of all people with your rationale.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    I think you are only noting the views of people whose opinions you value. When voters say "anyone but" they are noting the views they abhore. It doesn't matter how many policies they agree with, it is the policies they dislike that closes them off.

    It is only easier from the left if you are a Conservative. If you are a Socialist, it is easier from the right.
    I agree with that which is why I think the right find that harder. Divisive issues such as immigration, LGBT rights, where it is make or break for many voters, I think tend to be generally accepted across the spectrum on the left where I don't think that is true of the right. Miliband I don't think has to worry too much about his stance on same sex marriage in terms of his voter base, Cameron has a far bigger problem losing the traditional vote or throwing away the centre. Social issues such as those are very important, you brought up the US election. Its quite telling the majority of Americans thought the economy was the most important issue and the polls indicated more American's trusted Romney on that issue than Obama, but its the no go social issues such as abortion and LGBT rights pandering to the traditional republican vote which meant Romney lost a huge chunk of that swing voter base.

    If you look at the situation in this country now, who is splintering the vote on the left? The Lib Dems seem to ridden the crest of their wave, whereas the Tories are having to deal with rise of UKIP.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The left could learn a thing or two from UKIP.

    Instead of constantly whinging about 'tax cuts for the rich' and 'austerity' (while we're still borrowing £150bn per year) they could put forward a positive message and clearly explain what changes they'd like to make.

    Lefties are good at moaning and picking holes. But they seem unusually reluctant to put forward theirr own vision of what Britain should look like, which kind of makes them a bit pointless.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    They're basically just the Thatcherite wing of the 1980s Conservative Party.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josh94)
    This is just copied and pasted from the first thing I noticed from 1 section:
    · Spend an extra 40% on defence annually,
    another 1% of GDP
    · Expand the Army by 25% to 125,000 personnel and double the size of the Territorial Army
    · Restore the Royal Navy to its 2001 strength
    with three new aircraft carriers and nearly 70
    other ships, at the same time guaranteeing the
    future of the Plymouth, Portsmouth and Rosyth
    bases

    What don't you understand, its quite clear. This is in addition to their EU and immigration stuff, grammar schools, more prisons etc. In any case they are updating it I think since that was 2010 and the media is likely going to offer more strenuous scrutiny
    Jesus, it's almost like the country isn't already massively in debt.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    They're basically just the Thatcherite wing of the 1980s Conservative Party.
    They are the people who thought Thatcher was too moderate.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    They are the people who thought Thatcher was too moderate.
    Not really. The activists are one issue zealots. The supporters are elderly men out of the economy and completely out of tune with the modern world. It would be interesting to get a figure on their internet use.

    35% of Tories are aged over 60, 48% of UKIP supporters are. 57% of UKIP supporters are male. Given the age profile and relative male and female life expectancy, that is a much more profound figure.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Not really. The activists are one issue zealots. The supporters are elderly men out of the economy and completely out of tune with the modern world. It would be interesting to get a figure on their internet use.

    35% of Tories are aged over 60, 48% of UKIP supporters are. 57% of UKIP supporters are male. Given the age profile and relative male and female life expectancy, that is a much more profound figure.
    I don't keep up with their membership profile, but maybe I should! Didn't Farage leave specifically because Maggie was too soft on the EU though?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oschene23)
    Burke didn't want everyone having a say because he wanted toconfine democracy only to the most educated (e.g people like him) like JS Mill, he also believe in the trustee model of representation whereby politicians work by their own conscious as they are apparently more intelligent and informed than the feeble electorate.

    I wouldn't be singing his praises too highly, I don't think you can transfer 18th century thinking to the modern day.
    I certainly would, and by all means do I still endorse it today. Such thinking strikes me as extremely sensible. What is wrong with wanting the 'most educated' running the country? What is wrong in wanting politicians, who, being 'most educated', would also be 'more intelligent and informed' than the electorate, working by their 'own [conscience]'?

    At the heart of his thinking was that in a representative democracy the representatives were not there to act as simple relays of public opinion, but rather could best serve the people by making their own decisions. These are people who have dedicated themselves to public service; naturally they will be more informed in their profession than the average Joe. They are also in most cases going to be highly intelligent. It makes a lot of sense that they should be making the decisions in how the country is governed.

    How on earth does it make more sense to have average Joe's, who will be less informed and less intelligent on average than our MPs, deciding how the country is governed?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tuerin)
    I certainly would, and by all means do I still endorse it today. Such thinking strikes me as extremely sensible. What is wrong with wanting the 'most educated' running the country? What is wrong in wanting politicians, who, being 'most educated', would also be 'more intelligent and informed' than the electorate, working by their 'own [conscience]'?

    At the heart of his thinking was that in a representative democracy the representatives were not there to act as simple relays of public opinion, but rather could best serve the people by making their own decisions. These are people who have dedicated themselves to public service; naturally they will be more informed in their profession than the average Joe. They are also in most cases going to be highly intelligent. It makes a lot of sense that they should be making the decisions in how the country is governed.

    How on earthd does it make more sense to have average Joe's, who will be less informed and less intelligent on average than our MPs, deciding how the country is governed?
    I by no means dispute the crux of your argument, it is simply fact however that such a system is tarnished by such vast impracticalities that it could only remain in the modern age a theoretical ideal. For instance firstly it would never stand up to popular consent (a basis of a legitimate state) because most people rightly or wrongly (your average joes) want their equal say regardless of their objective intelligence and will simply refute as unfair any other system whereby decisions are made on their behalf. (including all left-wingers who would scream elitism)

    Secondly, not all politicans are more intelligent than a lot of the electorate, and even if they do possess lots of intelligence may still opt for stupid and self-centred policy approaches think Diane Abbot (racist) and Nadine Dorris (idiot) , also think about Labour's continual short term approach to policy trying to harbour votes at the expense of the long-term economy, ignoring the most basic fundamentals of economics in the process (Ed Balls & Cronies).
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    I don't keep up with their membership profile, but maybe I should! Didn't Farage leave specifically because Maggie was too soft on the EU though?

    According to Wikipedia it was Major's signing of the Maastricht Treaty but information on Farage prior to 2000 is very sketchy.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    According to Wikipedia it was Major's signing of the Maastricht Treaty but information on Farage prior to 2000 is very sketchy.
    And why do you think that is? :rolleyes:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Morgsie)
    They want to pull out of the European Union without thinking of the consequences of this action. Their attendance in the EP (European Parliament) is shockingly bad.

    Their Leader just spouts populist rhetoric all the time
    So Sinn Fein don't got to Westminster much either!

    Anyhow the EP is just a talking shop, the real power is in the undemocratic EC
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Am I Really Here)
    Withdrawal from the EU.
    Points based immigration, with only people who will be a net benefit to the country granted citizenship, with others granted work permits.
    Far tougher prisons and prison sentences.
    Sounds good!
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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.

  • 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.