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

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    That is unfair. We are currently in a coalition with parties that are radically different to our own views. That means that Liberal members sometimes find themselves defending policies that are to the left of their own views. Similarly, if we were in a coalition with the Tories and libers we would sound a lot more right-wing than may otherwise seem. Government is about collective responsibility. I wasn't involved in the last election but looking at the numbers it seems that our party had a choice between being outside of a far-left government or being inside a centre-left government with the power to help pull it to the right a bit. I think my party made the right choice.

    Other than out-centering the current central party do you have any other differences to offer?
    Incorrect re the last election - a conliberlib coalition would’ve had a majority of 1.

    Policies will be discussed and implemented for the Dems in the days to come - for now, all you should know is that it’s a radical centrist alternative.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Incorrect re the last election - a conliberlib coalition would’ve had a majority of 1.

    Policies will be discussed and implemented for the Dems in the days to come - for now, all you should know is that it’s a radical centrist alternative.
    Getting the libers to work with Tories is hard enough, let alone us as well! Again, I wasn't involved during that election but if the choice was between a coalition with the left involving us and one not involving us then we made the right choice. If it was between a far left or far right government including us... well neither seems great to me, but as I don't know the situation at the time I can only trust that my party made an informed choice at the time.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    I am pleased to announce my candidacy for deputy leader of the democrats, a new radical centrist alternative for the house (in spite of what ever fake news cranbrook_aspie has been peddling) this rebrand and change of direction was approved by the green membership in a vote, it is NOT a “hostile takeover”...
    "radical centrism" - sure
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Incorrect re the last election - a conliberlib coalition would’ve had a majority of 1.

    Policies will be discussed and implemented for the Dems in the days to come - for now, all you should know is that it’s a radical centrist alternative.
    You do realise that you have a reputation as one of the most right-wing members of the House...
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    My assumption would be that a US style Democrat party would be basically the conservative party or the Liberals. Is this the case? And why of all parties is it the Greens who've formed this? (Led by hazzer? the Greens?)
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • TSR Support Team
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wow, you guys actually pulled this off.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    The Liberals aren’t a real centrist party, they have some centrist members but the leader and most of the parliamentary party are Centre-left, Labour-lite, social democrats who were willing to jump into bed with communists to get a taste of government.

    We would be a truly RADICAL centrist party that actually cares about moderate, centrist principles rather than going where the wind blows like the #FakeCentrists
    And radical centrist policies would be?.......
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Community Assistant
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Not that the fragmentation of the populist far-right isn't fun to watch, but I don't think this is good for the House in general. The MHoC simply does not have the numbers to facilitate a multiparty system. UKIP, the Libertarians and now the 'Democratic' party all but ensures an eternal Labour government. I doubt even Labour members want that, being in power does get boring.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    The party should be closed I don't see a difference between democrats and liberal party tbh. Unless someone can enlightened me and tell me how this party differs?
    • Community Assistant
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mr T 999)
    The party should be closed I don't see a difference between democrats and liberal party tbh. Unless someone can enlightened me and tell me how this party differs?
    ^^^This. :spank::shakecane:
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    Has the Speakership approved this? If so I'm disappointed. The Democrats are clearly not just a re-branded Green Party and should have to meet the new party requirements which they obviously don't. Rakas21
    Hear Hear. This is incredibly disappointing to see
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    It is different enough from the green party that it should be considered a new party. It is a huge shift to go from far left to centre-right (going by the fact that this new party is basically the same as the Liberal party so far, apart from the refusal to join a coalition with the socialists, maybe putting them slightly to the right of us). That said, as a new party, I think you have a claim to have enough activity to form this new party. Even if you don't actually have 10 members the activity of the members you do have is high enough to form a party imo.

    You should not be able to do so by taking over the old Greens though. Let the old party die, then throw proposals for your new party to be founded in time for the next GE.
    And yet it is a change that has been ongoing for months, it's not something that has happened overnight. If changing policy is the reason to close it then it should have been closed months ago (should have been closed months before that for inactivity too).
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Snufkin)
    Not that the fragmentation of the populist far-right isn't fun to watch, but I don't think this is good for the House in general. The MHoC simply does not have the numbers to facilitate a multiparty system. UKIP, the Libertarians and now the 'Democratic' party all but ensures an eternal Labour government. I doubt even Labour members want that, being in power does get boring.
    Do you ever say anything true?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    And yet it is a change that has been ongoing for months, it's not something that has happened overnight. If changing policy is the reason to close it then it should have been closed months ago (should have been closed months before that for inactivity too).
    Yes, the greens should have been closed months ago by the sounds of it. This party then has the opertunity to form along constitutional rules for setting up this party. One step being missed does not mean the second step can be skipped as well.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    Yes, the greens should have been closed months ago by the sounds of it. This party then has the opertunity to form along constitutional rules for setting up this party. One step being missed does not mean the second step can be skipped as well.
    This party is not a new party so those rules don’t apply
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    This party is not a new party so those rules don’t apply
    It is a new name, new logo, made from newish active members representing a completely different school of political thought. The fact that it squated a party that was (to my mind unconstitutionally) kept alive on life support for a while first is not grounds for circumventing the new party rules of the constitution.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    It is a new name, new logo, made from newish active members representing a completely different school of political thought. The fact that it squated a party that was (to my mind unconstitutionally) kept alive on life support for a while first is not grounds for circumventing the new party rules of the constitution.
    It’s not a new party when ukip and the liberals rebranded were they a new party? So you think rakas acted unconstitutionally yet supported him? The last leader was happy to accept the members and this is just members backing a rebrand.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    It’s not a new party when ukip and the liberals rebranded were they a new party? So you think rakas acted unconstitutionally yet supported him? The last leader was happy to accept the members and this is just members backing a rebrand.
    Those are poor comparisons. In one a party changed it's name to the closest RL party to itself, in the other a party removed a word from its name to disassociate itself from a RL party. In both examples, the most important features (active membership and political position) remained the same.

    As I understand it many speakers have kept that party going. As I was not around at the time I don't hold as much weight to those events as I do to more recent events due to not being able to fully understand the conditions at the time.

    The fact that it was so easy for the dead party to be taken over shows why the dead party should have been closed down long ago. Again, one mistake does not mean that it should be allowed to become two mistakes.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    This is a disgrace.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    It is a new name, new logo, made from newish active members representing a completely different school of political thought. The fact that it squated a party that was (to my mind unconstitutionally) kept alive on life support for a while first is not grounds for circumventing the new party rules of the constitution.
    So had it remained under the green name and green logo but merely had an ideological shift, as it did months ago, there would be no issue? Sounds like you're trying to find any reason possible to get a threat shut down.
 
 
 
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 10, 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
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • 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.