Political Crossfire Forums

There's been talk of reviving the PCF party system, and I as a former leader of one of those during the whole golden age of it when we used to have debates and shit (I used to run the Libertarian HQ, yeah I did for realz), would like to argue against having them.

"O' DISCORIA! Why must you say such a thing Boris!?!"

Well let me present my reasoning:

-There's a huge amount of overlap between several of them. For example the radical and anarchist hq depending on the board activity (e.g if the ancap level is low) would often be the same thing.
-The normally two biggest parties (democrat and republican) were irrelevant to anyone not from the U.S
-Several of them e.g. the Greens barely ever had any action in them.

In short, its a fairly antiquated system that never really made much sense anyway.

And suggest instead 'Fractions', which would actually be based upon fairly homogeneous ideological grouping.

e.g
-The Conservatives
-The Social Liberals
-The Classical Liberals
-The Social Democrats
-The Anarcho-Socialists
-The Libertarians
-The Environmentalists

Or summit like that, obviously these are open to debate.

but international cons and say british cons are totally oil and water

i would break it down like this

radicals
right parties
left parties(both are fairly consistent throughout the world, give or take)
libertarians

for someone wanting to simplify things you have way too many splinters.

Then where will boris go?

Also why dissolve most mainstream politics into 'left and right' and then give the liberatarians there own grouping.

Also radical makes me think of someone like this:

Totally bodacious bra!

Politically however, I find it to be a far more nebulous concept.


How about this then.
-Conservatives
-Social Liberals
-Classical Liberals
-Marxist-super-best-friends
-'Free market pioneers'

R we getting there yet? (the first three are serious)

i mean there are socially liberal conservatives and conservative democrats. it doesn't help much.

which is why "left parties and right parties" makes sense otherwise the "social liberals" is going to be a bunch of democrats and moderates and the "conservatives" is still going to be all republicans and then you'll have professor by himself in the classic liberal zone.

Well that basically collapses about 70% of posters into two nebulous groups, if we aim to have debates, I think that's going to impoverish them a bit. Don't you?

Let's try this another way then, how many groupings do you think there should aim to be in total?


Also am I taking everyone else s silence on the matter to imply me and com have everyone's proxy?

because 70% of posters are conservatives or labour, or democrats and republicans.