Welcome to Gaia! ::

If parties werent such a ******** bad Idea in the first pplace, I might have joined one of them.
If the natural law wast a theocratic hippie freak party, I might have sided with them.
If the libertarians werent so damn extremist economically, I might have joined them.
If it werent for the federal department of education, I might have sided with the dems...that and the fact that they're still above the authoritarian line.
If reform...eh, what the ********, lets face it, reform blows.

hum?

labour is left wing (but nowadays adopt the same policies as the previous conservative govt.) leader tony blair

liberal democrats are in the middle (thats me) leader charles kennedy

conservative is right wing. leader michael howard


...hope that clears it up question

Labour keeps a leftist facade to retain the old guard but actually follows Thatcherite economc policies and has more of a right-wing approach to law and civil liberties than the Tories do.

The lib-dems however cannot be easily classified because in order to try and become a bigger party they have no real ideology and simply try to keep with populist whim. It's worked frustratingly well.

Not necessarily(sp). There are those of us, like myself, who do not belong to any party. Some, because every party holds some ideology that they cannot abide. Others, again like myself, of our own free will. Thus, we would belong here.

They're these views.

Speaking as another Lib Dem supporter, I'd say that they're more of a centre-left party than far left - but that's according to the UK's definitions of "far", which I think're a bit less extreme than the US' at the moment.

I think it's only the increasing shift of the previously left and right-wing parties to the right and far right that seems to be making the Lib Dems come across as more extreme - their own stance hasn't altered all that drastically.



Personally, I'd query that. The major sticking point I have on their policies is their stance on a federal Europe (ie. pro), which is a concept which has been peed on from a great height by several European nations and which has been a bone of contention amongst the British public (both informed and those who just don't like the idea of using the same currency as the Germans) for years. I'd hardly call it a populist attitude.

That or saying that if people want more money spent on things, then it has to come from somewhere.

It's not as though they even started out as pro something like Iraq, and then changed their minds. They were always the anti party - even when, if Blair had been proved right about his alleged justifications for the invasion/occupation, it would've gotten egg on their faces.

And besides... What's wrong with actually listening to the voters, if it won't hurt the country as a whole? Isn't that one of the things we should actually want politicians to do occasionally, rather than act like nannies the entire time?

(Yes, I accept that some allegedly competent voters need nannying, but..)

Wow...putting Libertarians and Green Party members into the same forum can be dangerous!

As for myself, I am registered as "Other" and for good reason, although it would appear that I don't need to explain my frustration with the current Two-Party system with anyone in this forum.

I voted Nader/Green Party in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004 - for one reason only: I was looking for a balance of power in the White House, and Nader had turned me off that year. I really don't follow any particular party because there hasn't been any one that I can follow whole-heartedly. The Green Party has a lot of ideals close to my own, but I differ on a lot of issues, such as gun control.


I'm intrigued by this statement, Darth Nader, what would you propose as a substitution?

I Agree with this, but there's so many parties it would be hard to put all of them down.

The...what? confused