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

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tuerin)
    Birchington did not post in this entire thread.



    Progressive taxation and support of trade unions effectively disappeared in New Labour. The days when Labour's support for the under-privileged in our society was uncompromised are very firmly behind us. As I said, though, it is stupid to expect two coalition partners to agree on everything. Of course there are going to be differences; that's the point of coalition, as opposed to merging altogether, and there are few other partnerships that are compatible as Labour and the Liberals.
    "Here" was a link to a poll. If you look at it's results, you'll see Birchington voted that he didn't support income redistribution.

    And you're right to say that is unfortunately the case in real life. But here in the MHoC, Labour are still alive, well and fighting. Differences are one thing, but what you have here are fundamental ideological contradictions between the parties - no matter how keen you are to find power, I can't see Labour wanting a coalition with the Liberals.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CLS94)
    I can't see Labour wanting a coalition with the Liberals.
    I don't think we'd have wanted a coalition with them when they were the Lib Dems and offered some pretence to social democracy; now they're libers-lite I should hope the party doesn't go near them. Mechie's words above are good to hear.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CLS94)
    "Here" was a link to a poll. If you look at it's results, you'll see Birchington voted that he didn't support income redistribution.

    And you're right to say that is unfortunately the case in real life. But here in the MHoC, Labour are still alive, well and fighting. Differences are one thing, but what you have here are fundamental ideological contradictions between the parties - no matter how keen you are to find power, I can't see Labour wanting a coalition with the Liberals.
    I don't recall any Liberals expressing desire to partner with Labour, but once again I think you're ignoring the whole point of coalition, which is to ally politically with an ideologically different party. You're being a little too idealistic with your desired hypothetical coalition partner if you expect to be ideological twins. If you can't ally with the Liberals I don't see you allying with anyone, bar the Socialists.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tuerin)
    I don't recall any Liberals expressing desire to partner with Labour, but once again I think you're ignoring the whole point of coalition, which is to ally politically with an ideologically different party. You're being a little too idealistic with your desired hypothetical coalition partner if you expect to be ideological twins. If you can't ally with the Liberals I don't see you allying with anyone, bar the Socialists.
    Afraid of an opinion are you... :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tuerin)
    I don't recall any Liberals expressing desire to partner with Labour, but once again I think you're ignoring the whole point of coalition, which is to ally politically with an ideologically different party. You're being a little too idealistic with your desired hypothetical coalition partner if you expect to be ideological twins. If you can't ally with the Liberals I don't see you allying with anyone, bar the Socialists.
    I think you're wrong on this one. The point of a coalition is to ally with an ideologically similar party. It's for Labour to decide whether the Liberals are ideologically similar to them but the messages coming from both sides don't bode well.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    *takes dissertation notes*
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
    Afraid of an opinion are you... :rolleyes:
    What? If you read any of my posts you'll see I'm pretty opinionated myself
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    So, would the Liberal Party be willing to work only with the left in the coming coalition negotiations I imagine we'll be having? Let us say that the Liberal Party ends up with a decent number of seats, say 7, and the 'right' and 'left' don't really have enough to form a working majority. Perhaps Labour and the Tories have 14 seats each and other parties have small numbers, say. Would you be willing to look to the right?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Mad Dog)
    I think you're wrong on this one. The point of a coalition is to ally with an ideologically similar party. It's for Labour to decide whether the Liberals are ideologically similar to them but the messages coming from both sides don't bode well.
    This is semantics; we are both ideologically different and similar depending on what policy area you examine and how much detail you go into. Of course there are some individual differences but we are similar where it counts and that is in our general political persuasion, which is centre/centre-left. It would be bloody-minded to throw out any possibility of coalition between two parties because one of them doesn't agree with every position of the other, and in the interests of the political ground we share I and other Liberals would not want to make that foolish mistake.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
    So, would the Liberal Party be willing to work only with the left in the coming coalition negotiations I imagine we'll be having? Let us say that the Liberal Party ends up with a decent number of seats, say 7, and the 'right' and 'left' don't really have enough to form a working majority. Perhaps Labour and the Tories have 14 seats each and other parties have small numbers, say. Would you be willing to look to the right?
    Birchington's ultimate decision, but I certainly would be willing to work with parties from both sides (depending on the policy agreements) and I daresay others would too. Our options aren't limited.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
    Would you be willing to look to the right?
    Do you see the libers as being on the left or right on this scale?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tuerin)
    This is semantics; we are both ideologically different and similar depending on what policy area you examine and how much detail you go into. Of course there are some individual differences but we are similar where it counts and that is in our general political persuasion, which is centre/centre-left. It would be bloody-minded to throw out any possibility of coalition between two parties because one of them doesn't agree with every position of the other, and in the interests of the political ground we share I and other Liberals would not want to make that foolish mistake.
    Actually it isn't semantics it's a very important distinction to make. Ideologically similar implies that the parties have a lot in common, ideologically different implies they have very little in common. Although I think TSR Labour, if we must try and label left-right scales, are a fair bit further to left than you seem to think. It's nice that your so desperate for power as a party you're willing to work with either/or the polar opposites of the Tories and Labour. But this tells me your name change was simply an attempt to gain you more votes and hopefully get you into power and you don't care who with- or cynical electioneering.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Mad Dog)
    Actually it isn't semantics it's a very important distinction to make. Ideologically similar implies that the parties have a lot in common, ideologically different implies they have very little in common.
    Naive. My point was that parties can be ideologically similar and different simultaneously depending on what you looked at. Individual policy (application of ideology) - different. General grounding (actual ideology) - similar, if not identical.

    Although I think TSR Labour, if we must try and label left-right scales, are a fair bit further to left than you seem to think. It's nice that you're so desperate for power as a party you're willing to work with either/or the polar opposites of the Tories and Labour.
    How pathetic. Firstly, the party hasn't expressed an opinion, I expressed my own. Secondly, every party in MHoC wants to win the election; us preparing for coalition negotations doesn't make us 'desperate', it makes us organised. The fact that we are a fairly centrist party makes it possible for us to work with parties on both sides of the spectrum; to imply that our integrity is compromised for our geography on the political spectrum is ridiculous.

    But this tells me your name change was simply an attempt to gain you more votes and hopefully get you into power and you don't care who with- or cynical electioneering.
    Our name change, as I have explained to you innumerable times now, was an attempt to distance ourselves from the RL party whose unpopularity was unfairly impacting on us here in TSR. That was not cynical electioneering, it was a very transparent and unashamed way of making voters judge us for our actions in MHoC and not for the mistakes of the RL party.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tuerin)
    Progressive taxation and support of trade unions effectively disappeared in New Labour. The days when Labour's support for the under-privileged in our society was uncompromised are very firmly behind us. As I said, though, it is stupid to expect two coalition partners to agree on everything. Of course there are going to be differences; that's the point of coalition, as opposed to merging altogether, and there are few other partnerships that are compatible as Labour and the Liberals.
    Now who's confusing RL with TSR?

    As adorno said really, with this rebrand you seem to be much closer to the libertarian position than you've ever been before, and I don't think a coalition between the Liberals and Labour would be a suitable match, in much the same way I wouldn't form a coalition with the Libertarians.
    Offline

    12
    (Original post by Mechie)
    Now who's confusing RL with TSR?

    As adorno said really, with this rebrand you seem to be much closer to the libertarian position than you've ever been before, and I don't think a coalition between the Liberals and Labour would be a suitable match, in much the same way I wouldn't form a coalition with the Libertarians.
    :'(
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mechie)
    Now who's confusing RL with TSR?
    I didn't confuse anything; it seemed as if he had committed to discussing RL politics.

    As adorno said really, with this rebrand you seem to be much closer to the libertarian position than you've ever been before, and I don't think a coalition between the Liberals and Labour would be a suitable match, in much the same way I wouldn't form a coalition with the Libertarians.
    Please give some examples of policy changes after our re-brand which have brought us closer to the Libertarians. The re-brand was completely superficial. It was to stop voters confusing us with the RL party and punishing us accordingly. There has been no shift in position; this sounds like a cheap attempt to score some political capital for Labour from our change of name and logo.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mechie)
    As adorno said really, with this rebrand you seem to be much closer to the libertarian position than you've ever been before, and I don't think a coalition between the Liberals and Labour would be a suitable match, in much the same way I wouldn't form a coalition with the Libertarians.
    Apologies if I've missed anything, but when did we change our idealogical positioning? I'd love to know. :confused:

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tuerin)
    Naive. My point was that parties can be ideologically similar and different simultaneously depending on what you looked at. Individual policy (application of ideology) - different. General grounding (actual ideology) - similar, if not identical.
    You're talking utter *******s here. You're liberal parties ideology is not close enough to the Labour party at all for a Liberal-Labour coalition to work, the reason being coalitions have to have a shared common purpose and ideal. The point of a coalition is that similar parties come together to form a coalition. The fact you're claiming the general grounding of TSR Lab

    How pathetic. Firstly, the party hasn't expressed an opinion, I expressed my own. Secondly, every party in MHoC wants to win the election; us preparing for coalition negotations doesn't make us 'desperate', it makes us organised. The fact that we are a fairly centrist party makes it possible for us to work with parties on both sides of the spectrum; to imply that our integrity is compromised for our geography on the political spectrum is ridiculous.
    You implied with "and I daresay others would too" that this is an opinion held by at least a few members in your party. What you're fundamentally missing in you're idea that it's possible for you to be a party that works with Labour and the Tories depending on which can get you into power or offer you the best deal is that the two parties are wildly different entities in both social and economic terms. I'm not claiming you're integrity is compromised because of where you are on the political spectrum, I'm claiming you're integrity is compromised because you're prepared to work with two opposing parties with vastly different outlooks. Would you personally, as an individual, support a Liberal-UKIP and a Liberal-Labour coalition? After all there's a section of the Tory party that'd be fine in UKIP and you're happy to work with the Tories?

    Our name change, as I have explained to you innumerable times now, was an attempt to distance ourselves from the RL party whose unpopularity was unfairly impacting on us here in TSR. That was not cynical electioneering, it was a very transparent and unashamed way of making voters judge us for our actions in MHoC and not for the mistakes of the RL party.
    So you don't call changing your name to bump up your voteshare cynical electionerring? Is it not similar to the Socialists calling themselves the Labour Party to gain a few votes, if they wanted to?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Mad Dog)
    You're talking utter *******s here. Your liberal party's ideology is not close enough to the Labour party at all for a Liberal-Labour coalition to work, the reason being coalitions have to have a shared common purpose and ideal. The point of a coalition is that similar parties come together to form a coalition. The fact you're claiming the general grounding of TSR Lab
    Abrasive and incoherent. It's obvious when someone starts being abusive that they're losing faith in the strength of their argument and have resorted to offensiveness as compensation.
    You keep repeating that the Liberal position 'is not close enough' to Labour for a coalition to work without explaining this. Repeating the same idea over and over again won't persuade people of its validity, you have to explain it and evidence it properly.

    'coalitions have to have a shared common purpose and ideal'. Yes, but not necessarily ideologically. The Tories and the Lib Dems share a common purpose - the advancement of their own political agendas - but they share very little ideological ground. But even if they did Labour and Liberal are as close to sharing ideals as any parties are in MHoC short of the sister parties, (socialist; libertarian). We both value social justice and civil liberty. No, not to the same degree or with the same priorities, but as far as it is possible for two major parties to share 'a common purpose and ideal' without being two almost identical parties which it would make far more sense to merge into one, Labour and the Liberals fulfil this.

    You implied with "and I daresay others would too" that this is an opinion held by at least a few members in your party.
    I implied that it's likely, but not definite.

    What you're fundamentally missing in your idea that it's possible for you to be a party that works with Labour and the Tories depending on which can get you into power or offer you the best deal is that the two parties are wildly different entities in both social and economic terms.
    The two parties may be different to each other, (although I think you continue to exaggerate how much this is the case), but they are individually similar enough to the Liberals, which is what is important. You are dismissing the appropriateness of a Lib-Lab / Con-Lib coalition based on the differences between Labour and the Tories rather than comparing the Liberals to the individual parties. We don't have to be ashamed or apologise for attempting to get into power; every party member, including angelic old you, is rooting for their party to succeed.

    I'm not claiming your integrity is compromised because of where you are on the political spectrum, I'm claiming your integrity is compromised because you're prepared to work with two opposing parties with vastly different outlooks.
    This is a serious allegation with absolutely no justification. A centrist party being prepared to work in coalition with the left and the right does not compromise its integrity. Nor would a party that wanted to work with another party of a completely different political persuasion be compromised. Positions on policy would be compromised, but this =/= a compromise on integrity. To say that it does it purist and tribalistic. Politics is the 'art of the possible'; it involves compromise.

    Would you personally, as an individual, support a Liberal-UKIP and a Liberal-Labour coalition? After all there's a section of the Tory party that'd be fine in UKIP and you're happy to work with the Tories?
    Shameless fallacy. Being prepared to work with the Tories does not mean, by virtue of the fact that some Tories have UKIP sympathies, that we would also be happy work with UKIP. I would theoretically be willing to work with any party in MHoC, because what is important is not the membership constitution of a coalition but what its policies are; in practice, however, being in coalition with UKIP would probably require compromising over their EU and welfare hostility, so probably not.

    So you don't call changing your name to bump up your voteshare cynical electionerring? Is it not similar to the Socialists calling themselves the Labour Party to gain a few votes, if they wanted to?
    No, it's not, because, as I continue to have to explain to you, we were being unfairly punished at the ballot box for the electorate's opinions of the RL party. That is not the same as changing our name to a more electorally profitable name for the extra votes. We were escaping an injustice rather than embracing one ourselves.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    How can you possibly be having an argument about why people should get in to coalition with one another? Sometimes parties join for ideological reasons, some times for practical reasons only. This is not something to argue over, this is a fact!
 
 
 
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.

Updated: May 6, 2015
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.