A new party? What do you think?

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    So, going straight to the point here, I think there needs to be a new party in this country. As an ex-Labour Party member, I have seen what it's like to be involved in party politics, and based on where everything is at right now, I feel we are just going to have Tory 'rule' until at least 2030.

    Looking at the parties, Labour seem to now be breaking apart - since Corbyn's reelection, membership has began to decline slowly, and the Momentum-folk are now beginning to push harder than ever (this will not unite the party at all). The Lib Dems are quite hard to describe right now. Some support is gaining as they want to put us back in the EU (well, presuming we have left by 2020). But right now, I don't feel they'll be making huge gains. UKIP will probably stay where it is. They've had their referendum, and with Diane James (the "Putin-sympathiser") in charge, I'm sure they won't be going far. The Greens may have potential, but as they're pushing for a "progressive alliance" with Labour, they may lose some support (and Caroline is likely to lose her seat in the boundary changes - maybe Bristol has a shot?).

    Right now, I see no credible opposition. I only see one credible party too - and I'm sad to say it's the Tories.

    So this is what I think. I think we need a party that is dead in the centre (the lib dems I'd say are losing touch with the centre). A centrist party that can push for equality, social justice, simplicity, a strong economy, and a more sounder country. Taking policies from all over the spectrum (whether it's pushing for a strong economy or having free education for example) is not a bad idea - and I think with the right planning, a centrist party could have a huge potential.

    Essentially, a modern outlook on politics without the corruption and infighting, and a clear view of where it is going - but most of all, it isn't left or right. People like that at times.

    What do you guys think? This is what I aim to pursue in my career, so any support would be fantastic (we can discuss things further if you like the idea!)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    No new party, someone needs to fool the voters then scrap the democratic elections in labour party and make it MPs only like Conservatives, fight off the hard left by removing the super high taxes, competitive to the conservative ideal tax rate. Then drop them like their no tomorrow.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Broadly-speaking, I sympathise with your position - but I think that we have to take a step back from our analyses. Sometimes we get too engrossed in what the media is saying that we fail to take account of the events happening in the world around us which - directly or indirectly, are probably going to be more influential on the future of British politics than any other influential factors the media is warning us about now.

    We are being led to think that the most important questions in British politics now revolve around Labour's demise and parties across the board. The average political scientist concludes that the future looks quite clear: the most important upcoming events are the triggering of Article 50, the possibility of a new opposition party and the possibility of an early election.

    I fear this is far from the truth and is the conclusion we arrive at when we read newspaper headlines and not newspaper articles and contributions. The European Union is a ticking timebomb and I fear events in it are going to shape up British politics far more than Brexit will. The continuing refugee crisis, the negotiations with Turkey, the upcoming elections in Germany and France and the precarious situation of Southern Mediterranean economies - including the woeful state of the Italian banks, on the brink of collapse - are individual ticking timebombs that are going to be a huge shock to the continent's politics when they explode, especially considering the volatility of left-right and liberal-authoritarian politics across America and the EU.

    We shouldn't, in my view, reflect on British politics with the insular mentality that events inside the Kingdom are going to define what happens next. Events outside the Kingdom are going to be more important, I think. The question isn't when Article 50 will be triggered, or whether a new party will be formed, or whether there'll be an early election. More importantly, the two questions are: what is going to happen in each of the above events, and the many more ticking timebombs in the European Union, and how will each of these events affect the UK? Some of them - especially the Eurozone's weakness and the elections in Germany and France - might well be more influential to British politics than whether or not a new opposition party forms. Will the elections happen before Article 50 is triggered? Will the Eurozone collapse before our next elections? What will be the effect of such changes on our country's economy and relations with the EU?

    I agree there is no credible opposition at the moment. Does it matter? Probably not, because this 'at the moment' is going to change very soon. British politics has never been more volatile or more exposed to events on the continent; the fallout from the EU referendum and the fact that Tim Farron is now the longest-serving leader of Britain's largest political parties exemplify this. Britain is likely to get further shocks that will define its politics further: don't waste your breath and energy speculating on what will happen on the rationale of what is happening now.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Why form a new party when you already have the Liberal Democrats who are operating in the compassionate capitalist left-wing space Labour once occupied?

    This is one of the biggest problems with the left, it's full of power-hungry narcissists who are obsessed with carving out their own insular petty kingdom, rather than outward focused men who wish to facilitate real change.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Maybe not a completely new party. As the LibDems have been completely obliterated, this could be their chance to to create a strong image for themselves as this 'new' party you want.

    "A centrist party that can push for equality, social justice, simplicity, a strong economy, and a more sounder country. Taking policies from all over the spectrum" - This is effectively what the LIbDems wanted to be. They may have lost touch now but they can become this again.

    It seems what you are asking for is a 'new'/'better' version of the LibDems.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ♥Samantha♥)
    Maybe not a completely new party. As the LibDems have been completely obliterated, this could be their chance to to create a strong image for themselves as this 'new' party you want.

    "A centrist party that can push for equality, social justice, simplicity, a strong economy, and a more sounder country. Taking policies from all over the spectrum" - This is effectively what the LIbDems wanted to be. They may have lost touch now but they can become this again.

    It seems what you are asking for is a 'new'/'better' version of the LibDems.
    My issue with the LD is that they messed up during the coalition, e.g. voting for tuition fees etc. The fact that many of their MPs voted against things like gay marriage to disappoints me. I think they could have potential, but right now, I don't think it will be happening anytime soon.

    My other points is that there is the odd minor policy I'm against, e.g. they support HS2 (which I don't support)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HarryEd9899)
    My issue with the LD is that they messed up during the coalition, e.g. voting for tuition fees etc. The fact that many of their MPs voted against things like gay marriage to disappoints me. I think they could have potential, but right now, I don't think it will be happening anytime soon.

    My other points is that there is the odd minor policy I'm against, e.g. they support HS2 (which I don't support)
    I don't buy this crap for a second, all political parties have done some dark and unpopular things and the electorate forgives the party once the individuals are removed from the front benches/shadow cabinet positions. The Labour politicians who genuinely want to form a new party, are selfish, power hungry morons who love the idea of being in charge of their own little kingdom which a few party donors, a speech and a nice meal every so often. :puke:If they actually had the interests of the people at heart and were true leadership material they would either take the damn party back or join the Lib Dems and build that into Britain's largest opposition group, but they won't do that, because it requires hard work, competition and humility.


    The problem isn't just with Corbyn, Owen Smith was never a real challenge to him, there is no credible opposition even within the Labour party right now.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HarryEd9899)
    My issue with the LD is that they messed up during the coalition, e.g. voting for tuition fees etc. The fact that many of their MPs voted against things like gay marriage to disappoints me. I think they could have potential, but right now, I don't think it will be happening anytime soon.

    My other points is that there is the odd minor policy I'm against, e.g. they support HS2 (which I don't support)
    Well you'll never find a party where you agree with everyone of their policies.

    I think it'll take a lot longer for a new party to be created and become established than for LD to recreate their image. In the end LD has a lot of history in British politics and I have hope that it's not over for them.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagnetoWasRight)
    Why form a new party when you already have the Liberal Democrats who are operating in the compassionate capitalist left-wing space Labour once occupied?

    This is one of the biggest problems with the left, it's full of power-hungry narcissists who are obsessed with carving out their own insular petty kingdom, rather than outward focused men who wish to facilitate real change.
    The Liberal Democrats have neither identity nor credibility. They are posing no significant challenge whatsoever to British politics. I broadly supported them until summer this year, and now support them only as the 'least-worst' option. I am so glad I have resisted my many temptations to join them since 2015.

    At the moment, their counterproductive messages are, if anything, attributing against British politics being more progressive.

    Let me list my four biggest issues:

    1. Their position on the EU - to suggest a second referendum on the rationale of people regretting Brexit, and not as a result of any new deal needing a new mandate - is both illiberal and undemocratic. Yes, there is an argument for having a second referendum or overturning Brexit (and I would still oppose Brexit at the ballot box), but the Liberal Democrats are making a whine of it. It's counterproductive to securing a good, soft-Brexit deal and to securing a second chance to vote on Brexit.

    2. Their assault on Labour's centrist voters is simply picking the weakest enemy and dividing the opposition further. If the Liberal Democrats truly cared about opposing the Tories, they would focus their ammunition on May's government and its already-poor record on climate change and various other policies, not on the Labour Party which will self-disintegrate even without Mr. Farron's intervention and vote-sniping. The best way to prove you are a party of opposition is to be a party of opposition, not to say you will be one once Labour joins you. Currently, the Lib Dems are only helping the Tories.

    3. Their policies have moved further to the left and further to the illiberal, including this new NHS tax (a costly and ineffective solution). The Lib Dems painstakingly, and with electoral expense, built up a reputation for centrist economic pragmatism during the coalition government - you might dislike their record on tuition fees, but you can trust them to handle the economy almost as much as you can trust the Tories now. Under Farron's direction, they have thrown this reputation for centrist economic pragmatism out of the window in exchange for populist leftist policies which betray core values of economic liberalism - and all in the hope of garnering some votes.

    4. It's quite ridiculous to claim that you can be the party of opposition with 8 MPs. Farron's aspiration to 'do a Trudeau' is admirable and correct, but it is mispitched. A party claiming it can take up Labour's space when it still has single-digit seats and single-digit poll vote shares is a party the electorate can find it easy to laugh at. I'm not saying Farron shouldn't aspire to 'do a Trudeau' (he rightly should!), but he should also be perceived to accept the fact that he has limited power as a minor opposition party leader and therefore that he can only make certain claims of the like manner.

    The Lib Dems are not currently fit to be the largest party of opposition. By adopting leftist policies and then trying to divide Corbyn's Labour, they have moved away from their old position. In doing so, they have lost both their identity and their credibility - whatever of each they had before 2015. Should a new party of opposition be created? Possibly - to fill the space not that Labour has vacated, but that the Liberal Democrats have vacated: A pro-EU party which is economically-liberal, fiscally-pragmatic, socially-revolutionary and which strives to be the opposition to the government, not the opposition to the opposition.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HarryEd9899)
    My issue with the LD is that they messed up during the coalition, e.g. voting for tuition fees etc. The fact that many of their MPs voted against things like gay marriage to disappoints me. I think they could have potential, but right now, I don't think it will be happening anytime soon.

    My other points is that there is the odd minor policy I'm against, e.g. they support HS2 (which I don't support)
    They did what they had to do, look at a tory government on their own after coalition, it collapsed in a year... thats saying something.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ♥Samantha♥)
    Well you'll never find a party where you agree with everyone of their policies.

    I think it'll take a lot longer for a new party to be created and become established than for LD to recreate their image. In the end LD has a lot of history in British politics and I have hope that it's not over for them.
    I agree, but things like HS2 and LGBT rights are very important to myself.

    HS2 I would only support if it didn't stop at Manchester/Leeds. Being a Cumbrian, I know that there is poor investment into our railway services up here, and the best investment in the "North" is Manchester. Anything above Manchester and the gov don't seem to be interested.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Southwestern)
    1. Their position on the EU - to suggest a second referendum on the rationale of people regretting Brexit, and not as a result of any new deal needing a new mandate - is both illiberal and undemocratic. Yes, there is an argument for having a second referendum or overturning Brexit (and I would still oppose Brexit at the ballot box), but the Liberal Democrats are making a whine of it. It's counterproductive to securing a good, soft-Brexit deal and to securing a second chance to vote on Brexit.
    Campaigning on a second referendum is a not undemocratic by its very nature, it's giving people the opportunity for a second vote, before official action is taken in the light of new information gained.


    (Original post by Southwestern)
    2. Their assault on Labour's centrist voters are simply picking the weakest enemy and dividing the opposition further. If the Liberal Democrats truly cared about opposing the Tories, they would focus their ammunition on May's government and its already-poor record on climate change and various other policies, not on the Labour Party which will self-disintegrate even without Mr. Farron's intervention and vote-sniping. The best way to prove you are a party of opposition is to be a party of opposition, not to say you will be one once Labour joins you. Currently, the Lib Dems are only helping the Tories.
    One of my biggest criticisms of the left is the middle class obsession with middle class issues such as climate change. If you're an unemployed father in a depressed former mining town or a refugee fleeing conflict in a dangerous part of an urban metropolis, the last thing you want to hear, is some grinning fool brag about his 5p plastic bag charge, nobody outside left-leaning UMC suburbs in Surrey or South Norfolk care about climate change, just drop it.

    (Original post by Southwestern)
    3. Their policies have moved further and further to the left and further to the illiberal, including this new NHS tax. The Lib Dems painstakingly, and with electoral expense, built up a reputation for centrist economic pragmatism during the coalition government. They have thrown this out of the window in exchange for populist leftist policies betraying core values of economic liberalism in the hope of garnering some votes
    A dedicated tax to fund one of the biggest costs to the chancellor's budget is hardly political suicide given the incompetence of not just Corbyn, but his opposition within the Labour party as well as the very right-wing Tory government which is clearly alienating huge numbers of people and can afford to do so, precisely because of the lack of opposition.

    (Original post by Southwestern)
    4. It's quite ridiculous to claim that you can be the party of opposition with 8 MPs. Farron's aspiration to 'do a Trudeau' is admirable and correct, but it is mispitched. A party claiming it can take up Labour's space when it still has single-digit seats and single-digit poll vote shares is a party the electorate can find it easy to laugh at. I'm not saying Farron shouldn't aspire to 'do a Trudeau' (he rightly should!), but he should also be perceived to accept the fact that he has limited power as a minor opposition party leader and therefore that he can only make certain claims of the like manner.
    No more ridiculous than the idea that an entirely new political party formed of politicians who couldn't even beat Corbyn, who have zero seats and zero party donors could form credible opposition. :rofl:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ♥Samantha♥)
    Well you'll never find a party where you agree with everyone of their policies.
    I agree with everything you said, but I'd like to highlight this, many of the problems within the left stem from this group of emotional manchildren who seem to throw a huge tantrum every time they don't get the party exactly to their liking, the right is very good at accepting internal differences and focusing on getting into power and making something happen.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagnetoWasRight)
    Campaigning on a second referendum is a not undemocratic by its very nature, it's giving people the opportunity for a second vote, before official action is taken in the light of new information gained.

    One of my biggest criticisms of the left is the middle class obsession with middle class issues such as climate change. If you're an unemployed father in a depressed former mining town or a refugee fleeing conflict in a dangerous part of an urban metropolis, the last thing you want to hear, is some grinning fool brag about his 5p plastic bag charge, nobody outside left-leaning UMC suburbs in Surrey or South Norfolk care about climate change, just just drop it.

    A dedicated tax to fund one of the biggest costs to the chancellor's budget is hardly political suicide given the incompetence of not just Corbyn, but his opposition within the Labour party as well as the very right-wing Tory government which is clearly alienating huge numbers of people and can afford to do so, precisely because of the lack of opposition.

    No more ridiculous than the idea that an entirely new political party formed of politicians who couldn't even beat Corbyn, who have zero seats and zero party donors could form credible opposition. :rofl:
    Campaigning for a second referendum is not undemocratic; I agree. I think there should be a second referendum too once we have a deal - and that this is the only way we can preserve proper democracy.

    I don't agree, however, with how the Liberal Democrats have campaigned for a second referendum. The argument for a second referendum must be that Brexit can be democratic only if the country votes in favour of it, not just against its alternative. When 'Brexit' doesn't mean anything, we need to vote on it once it has meaning. This is a compelling argument for a second referendum. Not the tat that the Liberal Democrats have been selling about people "regretting" Brexit, or that it wasn't informed because of lies. That is an awful argument for a second referendum. Like nobody regretted not voting for the Liberal Democrats in 2015, this is just wishful thinking: Brexit still leads in the polls, like the Lib Dems are hardly faring better than their 2015 performance. Sure, there may have been lies (and on both sides, note!), but the second argument also implicitly argues for a second referendum because the first one was invalid. Where's the democracy in that? There is a compelling democratic argument for a second referendum - I'm in favour of it - but the Lib Dems aren't making it. The Lib Dems' approach has lessened their credibility and liberal, democratic identity.

    I pulled out the example of climate change because, considering Hinkley Point and the redistribution of departmental responsibilities in the government, we have not much else to judge Theresa May on so far. There's good ground against the Tories that the Lib Dems can seize on in both these respects to oppose the government; they are actively choosing not to oppose these by focussing their attention on Labour voters instead.

    The NHS tax shouldn't be considered in terms of "political suicide". It's leftist and illiberal politics that the Liberal Democrats should not espouse. It's an ineffective and costly policy - the best solution would be to look abroad and see how the rest of the EU brings about its better standards of healthcare for less money. My concern isn't with how the NHS tax is going to reflect on the ballot box; it's with how it's a leftist and illiberal policy that damages the economic credibility of the Liberal Democrats.

    An entirely new political party is, in my view, no more the answer than promoting the Liberal Democrats. The Liberal Democrats have jumped on the bandwagon of Tory propaganda and the media in claiming that Corbyn has no chance to form a credible opposition; Farron has claimed Corbyn is unelectable ever since Corbyn was elected. He should stop going for Labour votes, which is dividing the opposition further, and start attacking the Tories - like an opposition party is meant to do. The electorate will decide for itself whether a new party is needed or whether the Lib Dems should overtake Labour. The job of Farron is to show what the Lib Dem message is - and he seems to have veered the Lib Dem message off to the illiberal left in the pursuit of Blairite votes.

    The question is: what do the Liberal Democrats stand for? It's sounding to me like you think the answer is 'to promote the Party, whatever the Party is'. In my view, it's instead to promote a liberal, democratic and sensible alternative to the Tory government. The current Lib Dem campaigning and policies are not doing this: they are illiberal and undemocratic campaigns and policies which are leftist and vote-seeking. I agree with Farron: the Lib Dems - for the sake of the country - need to oppose the Tory government. It's time they actually started doing this, but the greatest obstacle isn't Labour; it's their focus on it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Southwestern)
    Campaigning for a second referendum is not undemocratic; I agree. I think there should be a second referendum too once we have a deal - and that this is the only way we can preserve proper democracy.

    That incentivises the EU to give us a bad deal they have no intention of actually sticking to themselves in the hope the UK electorate will fold.



    (Original post by Southwestern)
    I pulled out the example of climate change because, considering Hinkley Point and the redistribution of departmental responsibilities in the government, we have not much else to judge Theresa May on so far. There's good ground against the Tories that the Lib Dems can seize on in both these respects to oppose the government; they are actively choosing not to oppose these by focussing their attention on Labour voters instead.
    Environmentalism is a hobby for middle class NIMBY's and the idle rich, it doesn't win you elections.

    (Original post by Southwestern)
    The NHS tax shouldn't be considered in terms of "political suicide". It's leftist and illiberal politics that the Liberal Democrats should not espouse. It's an ineffective and costly policy - the best solution would be to look abroad and see how the rest of the EU brings about its better standards of healthcare for less money. My concern isn't with how the NHS tax is going to reflect on the ballot box; it's with how it's a leftist and illiberal policy that damages the economic credibility of the Liberal Democrats.
    The UK spends less public money as a percentage of GDP on healthcare than many first world nations, you can talk about efficiency all you want, eventually those cuts are actual cuts and there is no way to avoid a real reduction in quality of service

    Spoiler:
    Show



    (Original post by Southwestern)
    An entirely new political party is, in my view, no more the answer than promoting the Liberal Democrats. The Liberal Democrats have jumped on the bandwagon of Tory propaganda and the media in claiming that Corbyn has no chance to form a credible opposition; Farron has claimed Corbyn is unelectable ever since Corbyn was elected. He should stop going for Labour votes, which is dividing the opposition further, and start attacking the Tories - like an opposition party is meant to do. The electorate will decide for itself whether a new party is needed or whether the Lib Dems should overtake Labour. The job of Farron is to show what the Lib Dem message is - and he seems to have veered the Lib Dem message off to the illiberal left in the pursuit of Blairite votes.
    You seem confused as to whether the Lib Dems are too right-wing or too left-wing for your tastes. He needs to move into the Blairite ground because that is where elections are won and they requires him to take votes from both Labour and the Tories.


    (Original post by Southwestern)
    The question is: what do the Liberal Democrats stand for? It's sounding to me like you think the answer is 'to promote the Party, whatever the Party is'. In my view, it's instead to promote a liberal, democratic and sensible alternative to the Tory government. The current Lib Dem campaigning and policies are not doing this: they are illiberal and undemocratic campaigns and policies which are leftist and vote-seeking. I agree with Farron: the Lib Dems - for the sake of the country - need to oppose the Tory government. It's time they actually started doing this, but the greatest obstacle isn't Labour; it's their focus on it.
    I'm not a Lib Dem member and in fact, I've never in my life voted Lib Dem, but creating a set of acceptable policies and gaining seats and winning elections is more important than any of these minor details about who to win voters from and who's a Blairite.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    omfg at first i thought this thread was about an actual party... but then i saw the category lol
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagnetoWasRight)
    That incentivises the EU to give us a bad deal they have no intention of actually sticking to themselves in the hope the UK electorate will fold.
    True, but it respects the UK's democracy far more than a second referendum with the same question does. In any case, I think the Eurocrats know that oppressing the UK by offering a bad deal could plausibly result in a hard Brexit: the EU has undermined the social contract between European Union citizens and the state far too often for it to hold out for much longer.

    (Original post by MagnetoWasRight)
    Environmentalism is a hobby for middle class NIMBY's and the idle rich, it doesn't win you elections.
    But you see, my concern isn't that the Liberal Democrats need to win elections; it's that they need to promote liberal values. Environmental sustainability has become an integral part of liberal politics and by pursuing Labour voters, the Liberal Democrats aren't standing up for the record for environmental sustainability which they have developed over so many years. Even worse, they're not standing up against the decisions of the government which they disagree with full-stop, so they're not opposing the government. This is tantamount to Labour's abstention on the Welfare Bill.

    Hinkley Point C deserves to be scrapped not because of environmentalist concerns, but because we would be forced to buy energy at twice the going market rate, pushing energy prices up for all consumers for many years. It's true it would disincentivise investment in renewables, but this isn't the immediate concern. The money is better spent in cheaper fuels (coal and oil) which can be switched on-and-off as necessary to meet demand. Why isn't the opposition railing against this? Because Labour is too concerned with self-disintegrating and the Liberal Democrats are too concerned with benefitting from Labour's losses. Clearly, neither are fit to be parties of opposition.

    (Original post by MagnetoWasRight)
    The UK spends less public money as a percentage of GDP on healthcare than many first world nations, you can talk about efficiency all you want, eventually those cuts are actual cuts and there is no way to avoid a real reduction in quality of service
    This is true, but fails to account for the quality of services we are receiving. Some areas in the UK have as few as 2 beds per 1,000 patients, about four times less than Germany's average. As your infographic shows, the public purse is spending only 1% more of GDP in Germany on healthcare - so there is clearly not just a compromise of service quality, but also of cost-effectiveness. Meanwhile, the only sustainable, long-term and liberal solution is to provide more options to the patient in the form of private healthcare alternatives.

    The Lib Dems' new tax is a pure leftist, populist approach, lacking the liberal pragmatism which was characteristic of them in coalition. Throwing more money in the face of the problem may work, but it is not the best solution possible in terms of raising healthcare standards cost-effectively.

    (Original post by MagnetoWasRight)
    You seem confused as to whether the Lib Dems are too right-wing or too left-wing for your tastes. He needs to move into the Blairite ground because that is where elections are won and they requires him to take votes from both Labour and the Tories.
    The Liberal Democrats are marching on the left-wing. It is this that is the issue: they are moving too much towards the left, whereas they previously occupied a unique ground on the right of Blairism which was distinctively liberal. I am not interested in the success of the party; I am interested in the success of the liberal values it aims to promote. The Lib Dems could march on the UKIP ground and get more votes than they currently do now; however, the point is not to steal votes wherever possible: it is to attract votes for your own agenda. The Liberal Democrats are ditching their identity in the vague hope of getting Blairite votes, and in doing so sacrificing the centrist liberalism which they and they alone represented as a party in British politics. They may be taking Labour's old ground, but they are vacating their own in a scorched-earth retreat. And at this crucial time in British political history, we need the full spectrum of colours, including a centrist pro-EU platform which increasingly neither Labour nor the Liberal Democrats can provide. That ground is being left to the Tories and the likes of Kenneth Clarke.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Southwestern)
    True, but it respects the UK's democracy far more than a second referendum with the same question does. In any case, I think the Eurocrats know that oppressing the UK by offering a bad deal could plausibly result in a hard Brexit: the EU has undermined the social contract between European Union citizens and the state far too often for it to hold out for much longer.
    I'm not so sure, Juncker is a loose cannon frankly, he could prevented Brexit by offering a few reasonable guarantees.



    (Original post by Southwestern)
    But you see, my concern isn't that the Liberal Democrats need to win elections; it's that they need to promote liberal values. Environmental sustainability has become an integral part of liberal politics and by pursuing Labour voters, the Liberal Democrats aren't standing up for the record for environmental sustainability which they have developed over so many years. Even worse, they're not standing up against the decisions of the government which they disagree with full-stop, so they're not opposing the government. This is tantamount to Labour's abstention on the Welfare Bill.
    You're thinking like a Corbynite, actually winning the election and making some progress is far better than ideological purity and getting smashed every election. Environmentalism was once a far-right facist policy and eugenics was once centre left Fabianist but things change and the left needs to learn it's a non-issue for most people. By all means invest in research, clean energy but don't make it a flagship policy.

    (Original post by Southwestern)
    Hinkley Point C deserves to be scrapped not because of environmentalist concerns, but because we would be forced to buy energy at twice the going market rate, pushing energy prices up for all consumers for many years. It's true it would disincentivise investment in renewables, but this isn't the immediate concern. The money is better spent in cheaper fuels (coal and oil) which can be switched on-and-off as necessary to meet demand. Why isn't the opposition railing against this? Because Labour is too concerned with self-disintegrating and the Liberal Democrats are too concerned with benefitting from Labour's losses. Clearly, neither are fit to be parties of opposition.
    I don't know much about Hinkley Point, but you make a compelling point, purely down to costs, I think it's a load of crap that British citizens should be forced to pay extra so foreign companies make profit.

    (Original post by Southwestern)
    This is true, but fails to account for the quality of services we are receiving. Some areas in the UK have as few as 2 beds per 1,000 patients, about four times less than Germany's average. As your infographic shows, the public purse is spending only 1% more of GDP in Germany on healthcare - so there is clearly not just a compromise of service quality, but also of cost-effectiveness. Meanwhile, the only sustainable, long-term and liberal solution is to provide more options to the patient in the form of private healthcare alternatives.
    Providing more options in the form of private healthcare alternatives is simply Tory-speak for cutting services the NHS once provided and forcing patients to pay for them themselves. Spending more on healthcare is a solution which will enable everyone to have access to those NHS services rather than them being restricted only to those who can afford it.



    (Original post by Southwestern)
    The Liberal Democrats are marching on the left-wing. It is this that is the issue: they are moving too much towards the left, whereas they previously occupied a unique ground on the right of Blairism which was distinctively liberal. I am not interested in the success of the party; I am interested in the success of the liberal values it aims to promote. The Lib Dems could march on the UKIP ground and get more votes than they currently do now; however, the point is not to steal votes wherever possible: it is to attract votes for your own agenda. The Liberal Democrats are ditching their identity in the vague hope of getting Blairite votes, and in doing so sacrificing the centrist liberalism which they and they alone represented as a party in British politics. They may be taking Labour's old ground, but they are vacating their own in a scorched-earth retreat. And at this crucial time in British political history, we need the full spectrum of colours, including a centrist pro-EU platform which increasingly neither Labour nor the Liberal Democrats can provide. That ground is being left to the Tories and the likes of Kenneth Clarke.
    The Lib Dems moving to the left into the nu Labour allowing them to win elections and get these popular and very workable policies into practice and to defeat the Tories sounds great to me, splitting up Labour into a hard left and a centre-left party, pushing Lib Dems back to where they weere under Clegg and having a 4 way (Greens) split of the left-wing vote sounds like a bloody disaster.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    this is basically the best thing that could possibly happen to the liberal democrats - labour have committed suicide. who else is possibly going to fill the void to balance the two parties in our electoral structure? obviously them.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: September 25, 2016
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.

Poll
Which is the best season?
Useful resources
Study resources

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.