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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    I read his blog on occasion, needless to say I think he's wrong; I'm surprised you're a fan of his given that his version of 'thick' libertarianism is waaaaay to the left of your style of conservatism.
    I'm not a fan of his in the sense that I take his political positions but I enjoy debating with him on the blogs and I read a few non-conservative blogs.

    But I need some more "liberal-left" type blogs to read, do you know any?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    I'm not a fan of his in the sense that I take his political positions but I enjoy debating with him on the blogs and I read a few non-conservative blogs.

    But I need some more "liberal-left" type blogs to read, do you know any?
    EconLog
    Will Wilkinson
    Samizdata
    Roderick Long

    are a few good ones, off the top of my head. If you are looking for anything more specific, I might have other ideas.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    "Gay marriage" is an oxymoron.

    Iraq, no. Afganistan, not sure.

    Yes.

    I want to read your verdict and justifications.

    Well firstly you support the US war on drugs, which true Conservative traditionalists argue is an illegal form of prohibition, which violates the principles of a limited government embodied in the Constitution. It was neo conservatives like Richard Nixon who coined the phrase war on drugs, thereby ignoring the constituition. Prohibition against alcohol required an amendment to the constitution, because this was not a power of the federal government.

    Again by enacting a federal law against Gay mairriage you would violate the principles of a limited Government and the essnece of the Constitution which proclaims equal rights for all individuals, once again you are ignoring the constitution, which many in America would describe as the attributes of NeoConservatism. Also the constituition states "Congress shall pass no laws respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The injunction against Gay marriage exists and remains solely on the basis that it is forbidden by the Bible and therefore, like any other regulations of sexual activity between consenting adults, exist in defiance of that prohibition and give Christian doctrine the force of civil law.


    True Conservatives in the USA would be regarded as strict constitutionalists (like R.P). Traditionally following and conserving the rights layed out in the constitution. By disregarding many of these rights, and ignoring them while enacting federal laws that go against the constitution. You would be displaying the characteristics of a typical NeoCon stereotype. Although your views on foreign policy would be regarded as traditionally conservative.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Turdburger)
    Ooo can I have a go.

    Yes
    Freetrade. Minimal political union
    No
    No
    No
    No
    No No
    No

    Do I get to be Hilary? Please say no



    You get to be GLENN BECK !




    .......Just kidding :ninja:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    I actually think you're wrong here, in the sense that it's fairly obvious that Ron Paul is more culturally sympathetic to conservative ideals than anything else (have you seen Bruno yet?).

    I felt so sorry for him :laugh: Although it was obvious Cohen had gone to desperate lengths to set him up, i couldn't help but cringe when Paul started shouting "queer"!




    So to the extent that the left-right dichotomy applies to personal views, he is on the right. But of course if it's about your willingness to have the state enforce your personal morality, then you're correct. This is why talk of left/right is a bit silly, IMO.

    I was arguing under the impression that we were judging his public views rather than his personal ones. By remaining a strict constitutionalist regardless of his personal views his social policy remains very liberal.

    I agree that talk of left/right is silly. Especially in this day and age when defining it simply as rightist or leftist can create so much confusion.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Here's the famous Nolan chart, I'm interested where you would place the BNP?


    Doesn't their low Personal Freedom and Low Economic Freedoms place them on the Bottom Left?


    As I would expect, I always point out where someone has proved me wrong or where someone has a good point, but you have seemingly just picked up on all the weaker elements - which leads me to think that this is fruitless and you will continue to argue even if I do actually prove you wrong. But still, that's OK.

    (Original post by littleshambles)
    Eh... The result will be everyone in Britain being the same, but they conceptualise humans as being fundamentally dissimilar (in both type and rank) based on their race, and seek to preserve and promote that perceived dissimilarity and hierarchy through racial segregation. That is the opposite of egalitarianism of the left kind.
    Perhaps, (firstly, I will assume that you agree that in all Communist governments, like Russia, the general public have their lives controlled?) but the BNP want to force that everyone is white, and wants to control their lives and businesses. They want to make everyone buy British only products, and as the anti-BNP leaflet on my desk says "The BNP hates freedom and democracy", and goes on to quote something Griffin said about 'Defending Rights for Whites' with 'boots and fists' if necessary.


    (Original post by littleshambles)
    Er, not really. Conservatism has no inherent ideological attachment to laissez-faire.
    Doesn't it? I think you are a little bit off the mark here, if I convince you of anything I say here it should be this: Economic Freedom is the raison d'etre of the Conservative Party.

    "Wikipedia: "the Right has also encompassed views supporting capitalism and free markets".

    Again: "Rafael Di Tella (Harvard Business School) and Robert MacCulloch (Imperial College London) claim that economic freedom correlates with right-leaning governments.[53] Ronald Reagan said in an interview: "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."

    (OK, wikipedia's hardly amazing, but it's points are valid here)

    Right wingers do traditionally believe in a laissez faire economy, relating to the quote, look at Ronald Reagan's presidency in America, there was some quote of his about having a Trickle Down Laissez Faire economy, but I admit that I have no idea what it was anymore. Look at Thatcher, the woman was pure, undeniable right wing. Do you agree? Well her idea of privatising industry, allowing them to fend for themselves, and do literally anything (within the law) that they wanted couldn't be described as anything else but Economic Freedom. Another example, a Right wing party would traditionally not bail out the banks in an economic crisis like Labour have just done, they believe in leaving them to their own devices.

    Now the BNP, have they not just backed that very move - the bailing out of the banks? They have supported nationalisation of companies, like what happened with Northern Rock, too. Here's something from their own website:

    “The economy should be managed for the benefit of the nation. The other parties are enslaved to laissez-faire globalism”

    Based on everything I just said, that isn't Right Wing. That idea of a Command and Control Economy puts them directly in league with the USSR and China. Have you seen the cars the Russians drove during the Cold War? And only Russian cars were allowed, that reminds me of the BNP's "British products only" 'idea'.


    (Original post by littleshambles)
    What? Labour came up with that British jobs for British workers spiel because of the BNP. The BNP appropriated the slogan because they knew Labour were trying, vainly, to appeal to BNP voters. That doesn't mean that the idea is a left-wing policy simply because New Labour used it.


    Er... Yes they can. You think no former Tories have swapped their vote to the BNP? And that fact doesn't indicate that they are similar, just that they are trying to appeal to similar sets of voters. A voter may vote for any number of conflicting parties. They may vote for both Labour and the Tories. It's a lot more complicated than this, although I agree that they are primarily targeting former Labour voters, but that is more because they appeal to the working and lower middle class than because they appeal to the left.
    OK, I admit that I will avoid this side of the argument, it's impossible for me to prove, only the BNP themselves know what they're up to. But their claim to be like Old Labour is worth something at least.

    (Original post by littleshambles)
    Lenin was authoritarian left. The BNP are very much unlike Lenin. Except that they are both authoritarian.
    Hmm, I respect that if it's your view, but I have to disagree. He was clearly a different type of Authoritarian Left, he was more of a traditional Populist, but still not that different in some ways at all. Look at both his and Stalin's views on the economy especially, Russian-only products, nationalised industry, vertical collectivism etc.

    I'm not alone in thinking this. A good book is the very famous 'The Road To Serfdom' by Friedrich Hayek, he argues quite eloquently and convincingly of the similarities of National Socialism (like the BNP) and International Socialism like the USSR (though obviously before the BNP existed) and points out that their hatred of each other is closer to that of a Turf War. The author held two PhDs and a Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences, not a stupid man. Please, go ahead and write a book disproving him.

    And there's not many politicians in the world that I respect more than the Tory Daniel Hannan. Please read this before you jump and disagree with me, he's an interesting man and his opinions are not a bad read, again, he's an MEP and understands politics very well, better than I could ever imagine of doing:
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/da...about_the_BNP/

    And this (http://fildebrandt.ca/?p=232) website which says:

    "The CBC is reporting that the BNP - which made a breakthrough in yesterdays’s EU elections - is a “far-right party”. So: nationalizing industries, running factories through ‘workers councils’, protectionism and staunch resistance to privatization is “far right”? What then is the ‘centre-right’ that opposes bailouts, supports private ownership of industry and promotes free trade?"
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Well firstly you support the US war on drugs, which true Conservative traditionalists argue is an illegal form of prohibition, which violates the principles of a limited government embodied in the Constitution. It was neo conservatives like Richard Nixon who coined the phrase war on drugs, thereby ignoring the constituition. Prohibition against alcohol required an amendment to the constitution, because this was not a power of the federal government.

    Again by enacting a federal law against Gay mairriage you would violate the principles of a limited Government and the essnece of the Constitution which proclaims equal rights for all individuals, once again you are ignoring the constitution, which many in America would describe as the attributes of NeoConservatism. Also the constituition states "Congress shall pass no laws respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The injunction against Gay marriage exists and remains solely on the basis that it is forbidden by the Bible and therefore, like any other regulations of sexual activity between consenting adults, exist in defiance of that prohibition and give Christian doctrine the force of civil law.


    True Conservatives in the USA would be regarded as strict constitutionalists (like R.P). Traditionally following and conserving the rights layed out in the constitution. By disregarding many of these rights, and ignoring them while enacting federal laws that go against the constitution. You would be displaying the characteristics of a typical NeoCon stereotype. Although your views on foreign policy would be regarded as traditionally conservative.
    First of all, I will answer your points and then I will discuss what a conservative is and what a Neocon is. And remember that I'm British so as a British Conservative I support the monarchy, the established Church and that I have no real connection with the US constitution.

    First of all in Britain many drugs have been illegal for a considerable amount of type and I'm guessing that this is the case in the US as well. Therefore a conservative would argue that those who wish to legalise drugs have the burden of providing proof that it is beneficial to do so. As much as I know of the US constitution it mentions nothing about drugs. Perhaps under US federalism drug laws should be left to the states but in Britain there is no constitutional against the national prohibition of drugs.

    On the issue of gay marriage (which is an impossibility) the US constitution makes no mention of it. You say that this goes against the principles of "equal rights for all individuals" even though it clearly doesn't. There is no mention of marriage in the constitution and no mention of a "right" to marry someone of the same sex. So I'm not ignoring the US constitution (which wouldn't be a problem even if I was as I'm not American). You also say that a ban on gay marriage is a violation of the American constitution's secular principles because:

    "The injunction against Gay marriage exists and remains solely on the basis that it is forbidden by the Bible and therefore, like any other regulations of sexual activity between consenting adults, exist in defiance of that prohibition and give Christian doctrine the force of civil law."

    First of all this is clearly wrong as their are many atheists who are opposed to gay marriage. And second of all the US constitution doesn't ban Christianity being an influence on law at all. One of the first acts of the US was to buy 20,000 Bibles to replace those lost during the revolution. And the US constitution only bans the establishment of religion (i.e. like we have in Britain) and the prohibition of the free exercise of religion as your quote shows.


    And now onto the Neocons. The original neoconservatives were Trots and other leftists who moved to the right but they still remained to the left of the original conservatives. Neoconservatives aren't completly opposed to the welfare state like the Old Right was. Some like Fukuyama even praise it. Neoconservatives are also fairly socially leftist and have little regard for actually being conservative when they are in power.

    But the biggest difference between neoconservatives and traditional conservatives is that they believe in universal human rights while traditionalists don't. This causes them to want to spread democracy and even feminism (and some how we are to believe that they are conservatives!) to the rest of the world.

    Traditional conservatives are very different. They are opposed to the welfare state (in the US at least but in Britain many also are), they are socially conservative, they are anti-immigration (as is Ron Paul) and they most certainly do not believe in universal human rights.

    And the fact of the matter is that I (as a Burkean) am absolutely nothing like the Neoconservatives.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Well your whole argument is irellevent then. Our original discussion was wether you would be considered a Neo Con in America. Not in the UK, where the laws beliefs and political system are completely different.
    I then went on and assumed if I was American.

    You should read the rest of the post, you need to learn what a Neoconservative is.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    By universal human rights I mean rights that apply to every human regardless of situation.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    EconLog
    Will Wilkinson
    Samizdata
    Roderick Long

    are a few good ones, off the top of my head. If you are looking for anything more specific, I might have other ideas.
    I meant the statist liberal left. You know, Rawlsian types.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Craig_D)
    Here's the famous Nolan chart, I'm interested where you would place the BNP?


    Doesn't their low Personal Freedom and Low Economic Freedoms place them on the Bottom Left?
    A lot of difficulties with that chart. Yes, they do, but I would object to placing all ideologies with low personal and economic freedom under the "totalitarian" banner and then relating that banner to the usual "left" and "right".

    As I would expect, I always point out where someone has proved me wrong or where someone has a good point, but you have seemingly just picked up on all the weaker elements - which leads me to think that this is fruitless and you will continue to argue even if I do actually prove you wrong. But still, that's OK.
    What are you talking about?

    Perhaps, (firstly, I will assume that you agree that in all Communist governments, like Russia, the general public have their lives controlled?) but the BNP want to force that everyone is white, and wants to control their lives and businesses. They want to make everyone buy British only products, and as the anti-BNP leaflet on my desk says "The BNP hates freedom and democracy", and goes on to quote something Griffin said about 'Defending Rights for Whites' with 'boots and fists' if necessary.
    Yesssss... You're missing the point. It's not about how the BNP wants to make Britain. It's about how the BNP conceives humanity fundamentally. In socialist thinking humans are fundamentally equal and differences, inequalities and hierarchies in society are unnatural and should be eradicated (primarily class inequalities, from which most other inequalities stem - e.g. in Marxist feminist thinking capitalism dominates patriarchy; patriarchy is a function of capitalism). In BNP thinking humans are fundamentally unequal (with regards to races), differences, inequalities and hierarchies in society (racial and with regards to sexuality and gender as well) are natural and should be preserved.

    That is why they want non-whites out of Britain. And that is, to an extent, why they pursue socialist economic policy (note their objection to globalism - they know capitalism entails the free movement of labour, it entails immigration, it entails social change and the blurring of traditional boundaries between humans like nation and "race".) In this sense the BNP are extreme right because they have such a great aversion to any social change whatsoever, and because they'd rather go back to some utopic past time when Britain was 100% white and we lived off blood and soil and so on and so forth.

    Doesn't it?

    "Wikipedia: "the Right has also encompassed views supporting capitalism and free markets".

    Again: "Robert MacCulloch (Imperial College London) claim that economic freedom correlates with right-leaning governments.[53] Ronald Reagan said in an interview: "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."

    (OK, wikipedia's hardly amazing, but it's points are valid here)
    Yeah, I'm not saying that laissez-faire isn't something traditionally right-wing, simply that you don't have to be laissez-faire to be right-wing.

    Right wingers do traditionally believe in a laissez faire economy, relating to the quote, look at Ronald Reagan's presidency in America, there was some quote of his about having a Trickle Down Laissez Faire economy, but I admit that I have no idea what it was anymore. Look at Thatcher, the woman was pure, undeniable right wing. Do you agree? Well her idea of privatising industry, allowing them to fend for themselves, and do literally anything (within the law) that they wanted couldn't be described as anything else but Economic Freedom. Another example, a Right wing party would traditionally not bail out the banks in an economic crisis like Labour have just done, they believe in leaving them to their own devices.
    Again, I'm not disputing that the "right" is traditionally laissez-faire, simply that you must be laissez-faire to be on the right. Again, there is nothing in conservatism that is inherently pro-free trade. Conservatives (particularly British ones) were pro-free trade because capitalism, like the family and the nation, is an institution they seek to preserve.

    Now the BNP, have they not just backed that very move - the bailing out of the banks? They have supported nationalisation of companies, like what happened with Northern Rock, too. Here's something from their own website:

    “The economy should be managed for the benefit of the nation. The other parties are enslaved to laissez-faire globalism”

    Based on everything I just said, that isn't Right Wing. That idea of a Command and Control Economy puts them directly in league with the USSR and China. Have you seen the cars the Russians drove during the Cold War? And only Russian cars were allowed, that reminds me of the BNP's "British products only" 'idea'.
    You don't have to patronise me, you know. No, it isn't right-wing. I'm actually fairly sure that I agreed that their economic policies were at surface left-wing. I would be wary, incidentally, of citing much of what was policy during the Cold War as representative of left-wing thinking. (Various reasons, Russia's international and domestic state for one; by the end of WWII the ideology of the USSR was already heavily patriotic, and the danger of free trade to the continued existence of the state itself meant it obviously was out. Yes this is very similar to some things I spoke about above but that is Socialism In One Country for you.)

    Hmm, I respect that if it's your view, but I have to disagree. He was clearly a different type of Authoritarian Left, he was more of a traditional Populist, but still not that different in some ways at all. Look at both his and Stalin's views on the economy especially, Russian-only products, nationalised industry, vertical collectivism etc.
    Interesting. I would be interested to know how far these were seen as necessary and how far these were actually wanted; the motivations for these policies. I won't deny Lenin engaged in populist rhetoric.

    I'm not alone in thinking this. A good book is the very famous 'The Road To Serfdom' by Friedrich Hayek, he argues quite eloquently and convincingly of the similarities of National Socialism (like the BNP) and International Socialism like the USSR (though obviously before the BNP existed) and points out that their hatred of each other is closer to that of a Turf War. The author held two PhDs and a Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences, not a stupid man. Please, go ahead and write a book disproving him.
    Yeah, this is what I'm talking about. What the ****? Who said I was ever going to call Hayek stupid? I'm not even saying there were no similarities in practice between the two. There were obviously similarities galore. But that does not mean that Nazism and neo-Nazism are left-wing.

    And there's not many politicians in the world that I respect more than the Tory Daniel Hannan. Please read this before you jump and disagree with me, he's an interesting man and his opinions are not a bad read, again, he's an MEP and understands politics very well, better than I could ever imagine of doing:
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/da...about_the_BNP/
    Yeah, whatever. Having been roundly patronised and metaphorically patted on the head ("jump and disagree with you", eh? Yeah, that's me, so eager to disagree. I'm not eight.), I'm finished here. Go and make somebody else your primary school class.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Since such a revolution would undoubtedly be an extremist socialist movement, I would not support it. They rise in chaos, and they collapse in chaos, the Soviet Union demonstrated that quite well.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by littleshambles)
    Having been roundly patronised and metaphorically patted on the head ("jump and disagree with you", eh? Yeah, that's me, so eager to disagree. I'm not eight.), I'm finished here. Go and make somebody else your primary school class.
    OK, I'll finish the BNP/Socialist deal there too, we clearly will have to agree to disagree. However, that's hardly fair of you to say is it? I'm amazed. Was ...

    (Original post by littleshambles)
    I suppose you think North Korea is a People's Democratic Republic?


    Hmm, a spark of self-awareness.
    Not meant to be metephorically 'patting me on the head' first? I didn't think it was entirely appropriate to condescend me like that straight off the bat in your first post to me, followed by a torrent of ...

    Er, not really.

    Er... Yes they can.
    At the start of several points, implying that what I was saying was obviously wrong, and I must be a little bit thick. So perhaps by the end I was starting to react and do it back, I apologise. I know it was rude, but you shouldn't have done it either :dontknow: (however strangely enough, my very last paragraph was not intended that way ) If you you read back my first post to you I called you intelligent, and I still stand by that, a stupid person could not even begin to fathom your arguments. I was pleasantly surprised in that regard, it's nice to see someone who really knows their stuff and has a real political opinion. I'm sure there are millions of topics where we would completely agree with each other, but unfortunately obviously not here.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Richard_A_Garner)
    'Cos if you don't you will end up in the gulag?!
    Nah it'd be rockin', I'd love to see so many good for nothings at the top dethroned!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jamesmor1)
    Nah it'd be rockin', I'd love to see so many good for nothings at the top dethroned!
    I don't mean the queen by this...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    You have a complete misunderstanding of the political sceptrum.
    No, I have a complete understanding of how flawed it is. Just look at its history: The term "left wing" and "right wing" come from the French assembly, where those who sat on the left of the house were the radicals and republicans, and those who sat on the right were the conservatives and the royalists. The consequence was that Frederick Bastiat, the extreme free market liberal, sat next to the socialist anarchist Pierre Joseph Proudhon, on the left of the house.

    First of all libertarianism and classical liberalism are NOT the same thing. And I would put many Classical liberals on the right and others like Mill probably on the left. Libertarianism is also diverse with many on the left and others on the right.

    Socialism is left wing, not centrist, even though some versions are more or less radical than others.
    But that is precisely my point: Since fascists favour socialistic economic positions coupled with a cultural conservatism, whilst classical liberals reject both, fasicts are the diametric opposite of the classical liberals. And since socialists accept an economic stance similar to that of the fascists, whilst accepting a position on culutural issues closer to the classical liberals, that puts socialists somewhere in between the liberals and the fascists, since they neither reject fascism entirely, nor liberalism entirely.

    But that means that if fascism is an ideology of the far right, and liberalism is the diametric opposite, and socialism somewhere between the two, liassez faire liberalism is left-wing, and socialism is centrist.

    Conservatism isn't centrist but clearly right wing. Just because some conservatives supported tariffs in the 19th century doesn't mean that they are in any way "left wing".

    And Italian fascists were rightist, yes but Nazism was far more to the left. Many fascists such as Peron were leftist.
    That puts them closer to the centre, which is the socialist position.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    Rockwell is a rightist.
    On what grounds? The only reason that people would call him right-wing is because he favours free-market capitalism and private enterprise. But that is precisely what makes him different from the far right.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Marsha2112)
    Well, I dunno...if people are that money obsessed then we're doomed, but wouldn't you rather take an interesting job you love for 40k than a boring one for 60k?
    The inherent impossibility of socialism has little to do with the fact that that incentives are reduced, and all to do with that fact that, whether there is an incentive to do a job or not, those planning the economy have no idea what jobs need doing and what jobs don't.
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by Richard_A_Garner)
    On what grounds? The only reason that people would call him right-wing is because he favours free-market capitalism and private enterprise. But that is precisely what makes him different from the far right.
    On TSR we call the BNP left-wing for being socialists, so over here it's correct to imply that free-market capitalism means being right-wing, just look at Maggie Thatcher, hardly a leftie was she.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by littleshambles)
    Look. Get some context. Read my goshdarned posts.

    If one takes a broad definition of socialism as anything short of a completely radical individualism, the fact you seek to promote and preserve conceptual collectives like the nation, the race, and particularly that you are willing to use the state to do so, you are in that sense a socialist. (A better word might be collectivist.

    Being opposed to capitalism, for example (and you do not fully embrace it in that you support protectionist policies for God knows what reason), because it conflicts with the imperative of the race-nation-culture-state is not left-wing simply because it is in opposition to capitalism.
    Exactly. Anybody looking at The Meaning of Conservatism or nineteenth century Tory and Conservative writings would see that this is precisely the difference between conservatism and liberalism: Conservatives are/were collectivists. That explains precisely just why nineteenth century Tories objected to capitalism and full liberal ownership of property: That liberal ownership failed to recognise bonds between pwnership and the wider society, and that the actions of entrepreneurs destabalised traditional hierarchies.

    Alan Clarke, in his documentary on the Conservatives, said that Margaret Thatcher was not a conservatives, she was a radical and a reformer. This seems true, though of course it is belayed by the fact that she once told Hayek that she would like to follow him completely, but couldn't in the end, because she was at heart a Tory, whilst he identified himself as an old Whig.
 
 
 
  • 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's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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.