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

TSR Libertarian Party Question Time - Ask A Porcupine! Watch

    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    Jammy is Speaker?! Have I missed something?!
    Apologies - I misread your post and thought you were talking about Adam.

    Yes, I'm surprised JD hasn't complained but as you say, he is an indie now anyway.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    Apologies - I misread your post and thought you were talking about Adam.

    Yes, I'm surprised JD hasn't complained but as you say, he is an indie now anyway.
    Adam is/was probably the least moany Tory in the House:lol:
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    Adam is/was probably the least moany Tory in the House:lol:
    Indeed
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByronicHero)
    qfa.
    I'm aware that as a newly formed party your plan is to allow your new members to influence policy.

    I'm curious if you personally are especially enthralled with the fact that should you allow your membership to dictate your foreign policy then you will likely be a pro-Russian party.
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I'm aware that as a newly formed party your plan is to allow your new members to influence policy.

    I'm curious if you personally are especially enthralled with the fact that should you allow your membership to dictate your foreign policy then you will likely be a pro-Russian party.
    Rakas, I think you are smart enough to know that my time of caring where I stand within the MHoC is long-passed. To answer your question though, I'm honestly not concerned right now about where we stand ideologically. What I will say, is that the two or three key members (other than myself) of this party have so far demonstrated a generally astute awareness of our goals, and have debated to that end. If you ask me this question 3 weeks from now, when we have more defined policies and members, you may get a different response. I'll always give an honest response because IDGAF about anyone else's opinion.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I'm aware that as a newly formed party your plan is to allow your new members to influence policy.

    I'm curious if you personally are especially enthralled with the fact that should you allow your membership to dictate your foreign policy then you will likely be a pro-Russian party.
    As the libertarian foreign policy spokesman, I would oppose any attempt to become pro-Russia as I personally find Putin's regime to be the antithesis of libertarianism and in pursuit of a quite vile policy of extreme neo-reactionism.

    The key defining principle of our party is individual freedom and liberty, persecuting gays, muslims and political opponents is authoritarianism at it's absolute worst, and is not something I would allow our party to support.

    If any new members came in and tried to push such an agenda I'd suggest UKIP as an alternative party for them.
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    As the libertarian foreign policy spokesman, I would oppose any attempt to become pro-Russia as I personally find Putin's regime to be the antithesis of libertarianism and in pursuit of a quite vile policy of extreme neo-reactionism.

    The key defining principle of our party is individual freedom and liberty, persecuting gays, muslims and political opponents is authoritarianism at it's absolute worst, and is not something I would allow our party to support.

    If any new members came in and tried to push such an agenda I'd suggest UKIP as an alternative party for them.
    Can we persecute some of the gays at least, the ones who don't make banging music?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByronicHero)
    Can we persecute some of the gays at least, the ones who don't make banging music?
    My avatar would be very displeased with this comment!
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gladstone1885)
    My avatar would be very displeased with this comment!
    Is that Madonna?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByronicHero)
    Can we persecute some of the gays at least, the ones who don't make banging music?
    Nah, that should go for everyone who isn't a member of our party
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _gcx)
    Nah, that should go for everyone who isn't a member of our party
    I'm willing to accept that non-party members might make banging music! Let them do their ting.
    • Aston Villa FC Supporter
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    ByronicHero I am interested in joining and agree with just about everything on the manifesto except for the decriminalisation of drugs.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Has nobody even bothered to consider what would happen if poor people suddenly had a massive benefit boost and the personal allowance was simultaneously removed (I am reasonably sure without doing the math, that 5-20 million people would suddenly be paid more for not working)
    Also not sure about the NHS reliving on NI contributions, it like saying all children can go and die (obviously only those over 20 something could have contributed NI after school, college, Uni ) I can't really begin to complain about your past bills that allow armour clad nutters to barge into parliament and allow random incest (seriously?).
    Otherwise your policy's are fine, except where they are clearly undefined or exactly the same as everybody else's policy (like immigration)
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JeremyOU)
    Has nobody even bothered to consider what would happen if poor people suddenly had a massive benefit boost and the personal allowance was simultaneously removed (I am reasonably sure without doing the math, that 5-20 million people would suddenly be paid more for not working)
    Also not sure about the NHS reliving on NI contributions, it like saying all children can go and die (obviously only those over 20 something could have contributed NI after school, college, Uni ) I can't really begin to complain about your past bills that allow armour clad nutters to barge into parliament and allow random incest (seriously?).
    Otherwise your policy's are fine, except where they are clearly undefined or exactly the same as everybody else's policy (like immigration)
    To be fair, we haven't really had a chance to develop policies yet. Byronic just wrote a general outline at the outset to attract members. Not all of the bills introduced by the LP have been supported by all members.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gladstone1885)
    To be fair, we haven't really had a chance to develop policies yet. Byronic just wrote a general outline at the outset to attract members. Not all of the bills introduced by the LP have been supported by all members.
    Please get some economic ones through because that's where I agree most with you guys😀


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JeremyOU)
    Has nobody even bothered to consider what would happen if poor people suddenly had a massive benefit boost and the personal allowance was simultaneously removed (I am reasonably sure without doing the math, that 5-20 million people would suddenly be paid more for not working)
    Also not sure about the NHS reliving on NI contributions, it like saying all children can go and die (obviously only those over 20 something could have contributed NI after school, college, Uni ) I can't really begin to complain about your past bills that allow armour clad nutters to barge into parliament and allow random incest (seriously?).
    Otherwise your policy's are fine, except where they are clearly undefined or exactly the same as everybody else's policy (like immigration)
    "Allowing so-called armour clad nutters into parliament" was more of a light hearted bill to repeal archaic legislature that has little place in contemporary society.

    I'm relatively unsuprised at the reaction to incest. It occurs to me that many people find things disgusting or taboo, without really knowing why. Most people provide the rationale "I personally find it disgusting", "I wouldn't do it", "it's unnatural" to which I'd say "well, this bill isn't intended for you, it's for people who wish to "commit" those acts". We need to note that these were the same arguments used against the legalisation of homosexual marriage, etc.

    The policies mentioned in the OP are more of a skeleton. They will obviously build up, as the party begins to pick up momentum.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _gcx)
    "Allowing so-called armour clad nutters into parliament" was more of a light hearted bill to repeal archaic legislature that has little place in contemporary society.

    I'm relatively unsuprised at the reaction to incest. It occurs to me that many people find things disgusting or taboo, without really knowing why. Most people provide the rationale "I personally find it disgusting", "I wouldn't do it", "it's unnatural" to which I'd say "well, this bill isn't intended for you, it's for people who wish to "commit" those acts". We need to note that these were the same arguments used against the legalisation of homosexual marriage, etc.

    The policies mentioned in the OP are more of a skeleton. They will obviously build up, as the party begins to pick up momentum.
    Although I can see your point of view, I still think that those two bills I complained about were not the best. (Based on legal morality and also on my personal view, so really i am biased)
    Really my main point is that the policy related to tax/benefits balancing needs more detail (because without detail it won't get anywhere, and it might be a good idea)
    Any policy detail would have to be based on creating incentives to work, so as to mantain a healthy national income, whilst also keeping a proper benefit system.
    Also your NHS policy needs some detail, otherwise it is just discrimating against certain age groups.
    • Community Assistant
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Erroneous- Please Ignore Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JeremyOU)
    Although I can see your point of view, I still think that those two bills I complained about were not the best. (Based on legal morality and also on my personal view, so really i am biased)
    Really my main point is that the policy related to tax/benefits balancing needs more detail (because without detail it won't get anywhere, and it might be a good idea)
    Any policy detail would have to be based on creating incentives to work, so as to mantain a healthy national income, whilst also keeping a proper benefit system.
    Also your NHS policy needs some detail, otherwise it is just discrimating against certain age groups.
    We are working on our policies but at the moment we do not have a sub forum to make it easier to communicate
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JeremyOU)
    Has nobody even bothered to consider what would happen if poor people suddenly had a massive benefit boost and the personal allowance was simultaneously removed (I am reasonably sure without doing the math, that 5-20 million people would suddenly be paid more for not working)
    Also not sure about the NHS reliving on NI contributions, it like saying all children can go and die (obviously only those over 20 something could have contributed NI after school, college, Uni ) I can't really begin to complain about your past bills that allow armour clad nutters to barge into parliament and allow random incest (seriously?).
    Otherwise your policy's are fine, except where they are clearly undefined or exactly the same as everybody else's policy (like immigration)
    The proposal isn't to 'increase benefits', it's to pay them to everybody, whether or not they're in work (generally advocates of this policy, especially those from the centre or right, support scrapping the minimum wage at the same time - so anybody can work at whatever the market deems them to be worth to supplement their income, but doesn't need to do so to enjoy a basic standard of living, thereby massively reducing the power imbalance between employer and employee).
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
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: November 17, 2017
  • 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
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • 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.