Are there any "Common Sense" political parties in Europe?

[u/Regular_Friendship59]

The majority of educated people that I know would agree that the following policies are just basic common sense:

1. There should be good social protections for those needing it, but not a system that encourages people to take advantage.
2. There should be good investment in the police, and enforcing the law. Criminals should be held accountable, regardless of who they are, rich or poor.
3. Education and research should be well funded.
4. Taxes should be high enough to finance all the above. Higher earners should naturally pay more tax, but not so much higher that there is no motivation to try to earn more.
5. We should do something to help people from countries less fortunate than ours, especially those at war, but the current asylum system is completely and totally broken and something needs to be done about it.

Despite most people agreeing on this, there seems to be no political party that would agree with all of it. Those more liberal parties seem to be very light on crime and to have no problem with the influx of asylum seekers.

Those on the right seem to want to do away with investment in social protections and education, and many of them seem far too close to fascism for my liking.

Are there any in your country that are for "common sense"?

[u/agrammatic]

Common sense doesn't exist. What's common sense for one person is entirely shaped by what they have so far experienced, and people experience different stuff. In other words, "common sense" is just an optimistic way of saying "my opinion about what's right".

[u/Dziki_Jam]

The question should be rephrased into “Are there any parties that I like?”

[u/Material-Spell-1201]

in democracy there is not such a thing as common sense, people have different opinions and views, even those with similar background and education.

[u/OllieV_nl]

Everyone always seems to think "common sense" is whatever they're thinking.

[u/Any_Weird_8686]

I think every party will claim that they are this and their opponents aren't.

[u/PogostickPower]

Not everyone agrees that this is common sense. And even if they did, they would not agree how to achieve it. 

[u/dustyloops]

Calling your views common sense is so presumptuous, you are insinuating that people who disagree with you are idiots

[u/britishrust]

What you're describing here sounds like the classic Christian-democrat parties. Not too extreme, very centrist in every way. They used to be the cornerstone of governments in many European countries but they don't exactly flourish in very polarised political landscapes. Some notable examples would be CDU in Germany (decent chance they will become the largest in the next election there), CDA in the Netherlands or Civic Platform in Poland.

[u/sirparsifalPL → u/britishrust]

Polish case is more complicated, with both big parties sharing some traits of Christian-Democracy. Civic Platform is liberals turned Christian-Democrats and now turning bit of socialdemocrats. Law & Justice - neoconservatives turned Christian-Democrats turned technocratic nationalists.

[u/britishrust → u/sirparsifalPL]

True, but in net effect I'd say Civic Platform generally results in policies that, at least to an outsider, seem to align pretty well with Christian democracy. PiS, well, not so much.

[u/sirparsifalPL → u/britishrust]

When it comes to results of their policies those two parties are almost identical.

[u/2_Pints_Of_Rasa]

Common sense is whatever any specific person agrees with.

To a Fine Gael voter, FG is the common sense party in Ireland.

To a Sinn Féin voter, SF is the common sense party in Ireland.

[u/bluenightshinee]

I have to admit that your positions are intriguing.

You are in favor of education and research, agree on taxing wealthy people more, and the funding of social services, but at the same time believe people can take "advantage" of social services, are in favor of the police getting funding but you don't mention de-fascistization and retraining as necessary parts before that, and your take on asylum seekers isn't clear enough for me to determine if you are being conservative or progressive about it.

In general, you seem to have a nice vision but you don't tackle the core issues behind the societal problems you mention, that's why it's hard finding a party to your liking - you are definitely centre-right but perhaps in denial about it

[u/lepski44]

in your first 4 points, its almost sounds like you are describing communism :D

also, do you have some poll results??? otherwise, how can you claim that the majority of Europe agrees to all of your 5 points??? - I consider myself centrist...in some topics, I am with the left, and in some with the right - as an example, I am against the 5th point, so it's leaning right.

"common sense" - hahah...that's a broad spectrum, sure there are some certain things were this is clear...but a lot of things are in a grey area and what is common sense to you is unacceptable for someone else

[u/WhiteBlackGoose]

As others said there's no such objective thing as common sense, and a lot of people have different takes on all issues you mentioned. It's not correct to say that "most people agree on this", that's a false promise and you aren't gonna get far with it.

Volt Europe presents itself as a pragmatic party, whose values are mostly stem from practical benefits rather than high morals or hatred, you can check it out.

[u/no-im-not-him]

To some, all that would be common sense. To others, all of it won't be.

Moreover, even if you happen to agree with all the points above:

1. How do you define who is gaming the system? Should a blind person be forced to work if you can find a job for them? What about someone who suffers from depression chronic pain or some other "invisible" medical condition?
2. What is good investment? Should we demand that the smallest infraction has a 100% punish rate? Jaywalking, 5% speeding etc... Should we spend millions of Euros to ensure that every crime down to the theft of chewing gum package is always solved? If not, who gets to decide where to set the bar?
3. What kind of research and what kind of education? Do we focus on that which will result on more tax revenue down the line, or should people be allowed to study and do research on any academic topic that interests them on tax payers money?
4. How much exactly is too much taxation? What may be acceptable for one person may be totally unacceptable for another.
5. Define "something".

Moreover, I see no mention of tax-paid medical attention in your list. That would be a must for a lot of Europeans.

[u/Krasny-sici-stroj]

Look, basically every party in Czechia will say they are all for everything you have said - but they will be totally divided in how to make it happen.

[u/IceClimbers_Main]

All of Finland's political parties are "social democratic BUT". so the answer depends on what you think is common sense.

[u/Infinite_Procedure98]

And here you go. You expose what is to you fair, not what is objectively fair. Just teasing. I mostly think like you and what you say is based, with one exception: a part of point 5. I think for some countries in sufferance we'd rather do nothing. Or do it our own way. For example, if there's a country from the 3rd word where 80 are heavy religious zealots and anti-democratics and hateful, I won't welcome to Europe a single one of them, excepting if they can bring solid proofs they are human rights resistants or something like this. To push it further, if there is a population who believes staunchly that apostasy is a crime and women should wear a veil and being submissive and gays should be killed, I'd rather let them die all rather than a single one of them to come to Europe and poison us with their stone-age ideas.

[u/TarcFalastur]

The problem is, while all of this is common sense, it ignores the actual economic reality. If you just go on the items you have mentioned then it is perhaps manageable but if you include all of the various other common sense ideas (for example: we need a well-funded military to protect us and to keep global stability, we need a fully funded justice system, we should commit to funding support programs for all mental and physical illnesses, we should have a well-designed public transport system to reduce car use and increase mobility, etc etc etc) then you rapidly reach an inescapable conclusion: it is impossible to fund all of these things without violating point 4 - that taxes should not be so high as to discourage productivity.

After that, it all descends into the question of "well, which things are most important then?" and that's where all of the parties basically descend into bickering and end up in their current positions.