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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birchington)
    I'm opposed to any cuts to the national minimum wage. If anything, we need a national living wage, and I don't buy the Tory crap about it harming our economy.
    Good stuff, that's pretty well what I was hoping you'd say
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Oh, and how is this party any different from the Liberal Democrats? You seem to be trying to re-brand yourselves as the champions of civil liberties etc. (rather like the Libers, in all honesty) but then you're throwing in things like supporting a living wage? Given that Mazzini stated in an AdHoc interview a while back that this kind of "liberalism had had its heydey" (OWTTE) and the rest of the party members' views seem unchanged, how can you convince anyone that this name change and ostensible re-branding mission is not merely superficial?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Endless Blue)
    So, what really did happen with Morgsie? His sig provided a little taster, but I'm itching to know more. And given this whole openness and transparency business I've seen many of you harping on about, I'd like the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Please.
    You're barking up the wrong tree. The mods know what happened and have discouraged any discussion on the matter.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Endless Blue)
    So, what really did happen with Morgsie? His sig provided a little taster, but I'm itching to know more. And given this whole openness and transparency business I've seen many of you harping on about, I'd like the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Please.
    The moderators have asked us not to discuss Morgsie in this forum, and they would probably appreciate you to respect that request as well.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birchington)
    The moderators have asked us not to discuss Morgsie in this forum, and they would probably appreciate you to respect that request as well.

    (Original post by Tuerin)
    You're barking up the wrong tree. The mods know what happened and have discouraged any discussion on the matter.
    Oh okay. I wasn't really aware of this, but I'll expect a temporary ban immanently anyway. Could either of you also respond to my second question? Thanks.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Endless Blue)
    Oh, and how is this party any different from the Liberal Democrats? You seem to be trying to re-brand yourselves as the champions of civil liberties etc. (rather like the Libers, in all honesty) but then you're throwing in things like supporting a living wage? Given that Mazzini stated in an AdHoc interview a while back that this kind of "liberalism had had its heydey" (OWTTE) and the rest of the party members' views seem unchanged, how can you convince anyone that this name change and ostensible re-branding mission is not merely superficial?
    Our name change has reasserted our support for liberal values. The Lib Dem ideology was often confused and conflicted between social democracy and liberalism, but the name change has reinforced what we actually stand for. If anything, my personal view is that the Lib Dem brand was at times a little superficial.

    We're champions of freedom - freedom from the government, freedom from oppression but also freedom from poverty - supporting the living wage is not an illiberal idea. I think as a party our social liberal instincts outweigh our support for economic liberalism hence the support for the living wage etc.

    (Original post by Endless Blue)
    Oh okay. I wasn't really aware of this, but I'll expect a temporary ban immanently anyway. Could either of you also respond to my second question? Thanks.
    You weren't to know, don't worry about it
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Endless Blue)
    Oh, and how is this party any different from the Liberal Democrats? You seem to be trying to re-brand yourselves as the champions of civil liberties etc. (rather like the Libers, in all honesty) but then you're throwing in things like supporting a living wage? Given that Mazzini stated in an AdHoc interview a while back that this kind of "liberalism had had its heydey" (OWTTE) and the rest of the party members' views seem unchanged, how can you convince anyone that this name change and ostensible re-branding mission is not merely superficial?
    (To supplement Birch's answer) I don't think the superficiality of the re-brand - which it largely is - is anything to be ashamed of. The sad truth is that much of the electorate take a look at party names, logos, maybe a glance at the manifestos, and base their decisions on that. The RL LD's have become incredibly unpopular, especially with student voters, and we felt that we were being penalised in MHoC, despite stellar contributions, for the actions of the RL party. Distancing ourselves from them by changing the party face was superficial but it was a noble superficiality which should hopefully see us judged more on our policies and contributions to the House than those of the RL party. By making this superficial change we hope to prevent the more superficial dismissal at the ballot box we have recently suffered unfairly.

    Whether or not 'this kind of Liberalism has had its heyday' or not will, I guess, be decided in the forthcoming election result.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birchington)
    Our name change has reasserted our support for liberal values. The Lib Dem ideology was often confused and conflicted between social democracy and liberalism, but the name change has reinforced what we actually stand for. If anything, my personal view is that the Lib Dem brand was at times a little superficial.

    We're champions of freedom - freedom from the government, freedom from oppression but also freedom from poverty - supporting the living wage is not an illiberal idea. I think as a party our social liberal instincts outweigh our support for economic liberalism hence the support for the living wage etc.
    That's fine, and I understand that. However, I simply still do not understand why this name was necessary. It seems odd: you want/ed to "reassert your support for liberal views" - why did they need reasserting, anyway?

    (Original post by Tuerin)
    (To supplement Birch's answer) I don't think the superficiality of the re-brand - which it largely is - is anything to be ashamed of. The sad truth is that much of the electorate take a look at party names, logos, maybe a glance at the manifestos, and base their decisions on that. The RL LD's have become incredibly unpopular, especially with student voters, and we felt that we were being penalised in MHoC, despite stellar contributions, for the actions of the RL party. Distancing ourselves from them by changing the party face was superficial but it was a noble superficiality which should hopefully see us judged more on our policies and contributions to the House than those of the RL party. By making this superficial change we hope to prevent the more superficial dismissal at the ballot box we have recently suffered unfairly.

    I don't think that supporting civil liberties in social politics (which the LD's were in favour of before us) and economic fairness in economic politics (which the LD's were also in favour of before us) are incompatible positions.

    Our party positions have not changed much; it has been a superficial change of name and logo and a re-assertion of our policy priorities. Whether or not 'this kind of Liberalism has had its heyday' or not will, I guess, be decided in the forthcoming election result.
    This explains a lot, thanks. But, why then (and I can't remember whether or not you were involved at this point) did the party categorically oppose several pieces of legislation that sought to remove/limit the RL influence in MHoC elections? The LDs were staunchly, staunchly against the Bill that would have not allowed TSR parties to share names with RL parties with 1% of the vote at the last RL GE (or something like that), and for you to now decide to change your name in order to remove RL influences, it somewhat contradicts all of the arguments the party made against such legislation. [That last bit is very poorly articulated but my brain's too fried to edit it for now, sorry.]

    And what if you still perform poorly after this election?
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Endless Blue)
    This explains a lot, thanks. But, why then (and I can't remember whether or not you were involved at this point) did the party categorically oppose several pieces of legislation that sought to remove/limit the RL influence in MHoC elections? The LDs were staunchly, staunchly against the Bill that would have not allowed TSR parties to share names with RL parties with 1% of the vote at the last RL GE (or something like that), and for you to now decide to change your name in order to remove RL influences, it somewhat contradicts all of the arguments the party made against such legislation. [That last bit is very poorly articulated but my brain's too fried to edit it for now, sorry.]

    And what if you still perform poorly after this election?
    Our position on the naming issue gradually changed as our party became vastly more active compared to other parties. We seriously had to address the fact that our activity was being restricted by our association with the RL Lib Dems - we have a lot of fine, active members but RL biases meant we didn't win the amount of seats we really deserved.

    Hopefully we'll perform better and gain seats, but ultimately the voters will decide. Hopefully most will have read through the manifestos and liked what we proposed.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tuerin)
    I would argue that the party that rejected those pieces of legislation was so different in member constitution (members involved then aren't now, members here now weren't then) that it was effectively a different party. It isn't really fair to accuse us of hypocrisy on this issue when 'us' should really be two separate bodies.

    Additionally, I think it's perfectly acceptable for a party to change its view on an issue, even if (which it's not) the current party was the same one as that which rejected the legislation before. Changing mind on an issue isn't necessarily done on opportunistic grounds, even if it may appear that way. It's possible a party may simply change its viewpoint on principle.

    Birch is ultimately the decider, but I expect we will retain our new name and build on our performance. However, we expect the change to have some effect.
    It was a month or so ago.

    It would be pretty hypocritical for the party to change your mind now the problem suddenly would not affect you.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    It was a month or so ago.

    It would be pretty hypocritical for the party to change your mind now the problem suddenly would not affect you.
    Let me get this straight:

    The previous legislation to prevent MHoC parties from using RL names was submitted a month ago.
    You are suggesting that we rejected that because we benefitted greatly from using the LD brand.
    Yet the LDs have been intensely unpopular for a good couple of years.
    :confused:
    Nonsensical.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    It would be pretty hypocritical for the party to change your mind now the problem suddenly would not affect you.
    This is politics, hypocritical decisions are always made.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tuerin)
    Let me get this straight:

    The previous legislation to prevent MHoC parties from using RL names was submitted a month ago.
    You are suggesting that we rejected that because we benefitted greatly from using the LD brand.
    Yet the LDs have been intensely unpopular for a good couple of years.
    :confused:
    Nonsensical.
    Clearly not but whatever your reasoning i am deeply suspicious when somebody changes their name and then suddenly switches support.

    Lets just leave it to parties, you changed of your own accord, Labour could merge with the Socialists and then everybody can leave the Tories and Ukip to it with our own names.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Clearly not but whatever your reasoning i am deeply suspicious when somebody changes their name and then suddenly switches support.

    Lets just leave it to parties, you changed of your own accord, Labour could merge with the Socialists and then everybody can leave the Tories and Ukip to it with our own names.
    I note you're not actually pointing out anything illogical in what I have said... The argument that we changed our name on opportunistic grounds is nonsensical in the timeframe.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    The name change isn't some opportunistic gamble just for the election, it's now permanent as a majority of the party agreed to it.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Birchington)
    The name change isn't some opportunistic gamble just for the election, it's now permanent as a majority of the party agreed to it.
    Apparently it passed with less than 51%, that is not the majority of the party.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    Apparently it passed with less than 51%, that is not the majority of the party.
    You misread Morgsie's signature; he was referring to turnout levels. The vote was 9:2 in favour. That most certainly is a majority victory, and Birchington made a point of keeping the vote open for a wholesome 5 days, giving plenty of time for all active members to have their say.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Endless Blue)
    Oh, and how is this party any different from the Liberal Democrats? You seem to be trying to re-brand yourselves as the champions of civil liberties etc. (rather like the Libers, in all honesty) but then you're throwing in things like supporting a living wage? Given that Mazzini stated in an AdHoc interview a while back that this kind of "liberalism had had its heydey" (OWTTE) and the rest of the party members' views seem unchanged, how can you convince anyone that this name change and ostensible re-branding mission is not merely superficial?
    I was referring to classical liberalism in economic terms. I don't think we can have a government which does not intervene economically.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Tuerin)
    You misread Morgsie's signature; he was referring to turnout levels. The vote was 9:2 in favour. That most certainly is a majority victory, and Birchington made a point of keeping the vote open for a wholesome 5 days, giving plenty of time for all active members to have their say.
    Well that isn't me misreading if he is intentionally making it vague. To be honest this so called 'Liberal' party is nothing more than than 'Partito Nazionale Fascista'.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    Well that isn't me misreading if he is intentionally making it vague. To be honest this so called 'Liberal' party is nothing more than than 'Partito Nazionale Fascista'.
    No better than the US Tea Party. Can't disagree intellectually with any of our actual policies so just chuck on a disagreeable political label with no basis in reality
 
 
 
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
Which web browser do you use?

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.