talkmagic.co.uk

More importantly nobody is completely left or completely right. I am left on some things and right on others.

What we really need is a party that is prepared to compromise. Like the Lib Dems but with a spine, a large dash of reality in their policies and a cats in hell chance of winning.

Sorry, thread hijack over.

A_n_t wrote:More importantly nobody is completely left or completely right. I am left on some things and right on others.

What we really need is a party that is prepared to compromise. Like the Lib Dems but with a spine, a large dash of reality in their policies and a cats in hell chance of winning.

Sorry, thread hijack over.

Indeed, my views on benefits and tax for example, is in line with one party, whereas my views on drugs etc may be in line with another party, my views on charities etc with another party, immigration with another party, etc etc

Authoritarian-Libertarian. . . color me surprised

I thought it was quite accurate, it placed me as a libertarian socialist.

Of course though, no party will represent anyone's views completley. It would be astonishing if three parties did represent an entire population's views, which is why centralized democracy can never work properly. Either you end up with something weak and indecisive like the Weimar regime (which is still ultimatley unrepresentative largley because of how indecisive it is) or you end up with something a little more uniform, less flexible but essentially unrepresentative which merley appeases public opinion. The latter is what we have. Unforuntatley, although perhaps not so much as America, our political constitution has a pious, religious rigity which will mean any meaningful reform is essentially impossible, even if democracy would be better served by doing so, both in terms of how it functions and the species of government the general will wants. Just the word 'democracy' will have congress or parliament declaring war rather meaninglessly and the belief that our political system is so honourable and noble decreases any possibility of improving it massivley through constitutional reforms.

Perhaps we shouldn't have parties if they now stand for so little. It seems we are all liberal democrats now and that we all support worker's rights and the welfare state to a largley similar degree, virtually by default. It also seems inconcievable to me that supporting a welfare system has anything to do with tolerating people who abuse it, for example. On the other issues there is such little uniformity. I despise the doctrine of conservativism, everything it represents and the fact that somebody would wish to label themselves as such. However, I refuse to accept this stupid political game where everything such and such a party does is wrong and horific and the greatest evil ever concieved. If we are supposedly a representative democracy, why not just have one government which simply does what people tell it?

SamGurney wrote:If we are supposedly a representative democracy, why not just have one government which simply does what people tell it?

Because politicians don't listen!

But I agree totally with what you said. Very well put. And they have the ability to do what we tell them even with different political parties, and that is through referendums. And they don't use them. They only use them when they know it will not get a majority. Why? Because they didn't want it in the 1st place.

Its all a "piece of nonsense".

I came out as a leftist libertarian. Slightly to the left of the llama.