Building a Nation - an Interactive British AAR

[Serpent]

The Liberal party is the only real option in this election.

Though I think they should enact the press-rights reform immediately after the election to sooth the fears of the workers and should adjust taxation so that the common man can meet their daily needs. And if they need a coalition partner they should look to Labour, not the reactionaries.

 

[Kurt_Steiner]

Well, after some rereading...

Liberal for me.

I'm going to regret it, but let's go.

 

[TheExecuter]

The Liberal party is the only real option in this election.

Though I think they should enact the press-rights reform immediately after the election to sooth the fears of the workers and should adjust taxation so that the common man can meet their daily needs. And if they need a coalition partner they should look to Labour, not the reactionaries.

Hopefully, they won't NEED a coalition partner...

Well, after some rereading...

Liberal for me.

I'm going to regret it, but let's go.

I too will probably regret it...but I will regret it less than I would voting for any other party now available.

 

[Franconian]

Summing up: the Tories are sold to the extreme right and the Socialists are extreme leftist. Extremes are hardly a good thing for a country. Liberals have in this game, I have the feeling, a tendency of being shy or ashamed of acting in a determined way for some reason that evades me. Finally, Labourist are too theoretical here and seems to forgot reality.

In short, no single political party has a program that catch my eyes. I'm sorry if my intervention has offended your or anyone here. Sometimes I'm rusty of social graces, I'm afraid.



Pray, tell me what is the alternative to the blasted radicals of the NCP. The Liberals, who in the past terms have sat on the fence hoping that no harm happens while they are in office? The Socialists, whose radical program is going to be used by the rightwingers as an excuse to crush the "revolution"?

I'll take another view on the issue, and let's see what I can gather.

The least? You've given me an idea.

Labour. NPC and Socialists are radicals, Liberals failed (and fail) due to their tax. So that only leaves Labour. I know, shocking. But imho the lesser evil.

 

[Kurt_Steiner]

Labour. NPC and Socialists are radicals, Liberals failed (and fail) due to their tax. So that only leaves Labour. I know, shocking. But imho the lesser evil.

The problems is, with the present rate of vote, I don't think they stand a chance, IMHO.

 

[Franconian]

The problems is, with the present rate of vote, I don't think they stand a chance, IMHO.

True. But it would be enough, if a Liberal/Labour coalition formed. I think the chance of changing the current tax would be high and no radicals would be in the coalition. However, if the Liberals are too strong, the tax will stay. Since that (imho) is one of the main reasons for the current crisis, we should do our best to prevent that.

 

[Felicity]

Better late than never to start following this! Looks really cool.

Throwing my hat in for the Labour Party!

Though it looks like the liberals have it set already.

 

[Moonstruck]

Could someone please explain to me why a radical position is necessarily bad? It seems that it has merely been decided that because X has an 'extreme' policy, it must be bad. How about arguing against their actual policies, instead of merely denouncing them as radical extremists?

 

[TheExecuter]

Could someone please explain to me why a radical position is necessarily bad? It seems that it has merely been decided that because X has an 'extreme' policy, it must be bad. How about arguing against their actual policies, instead of merely denouncing them as radical extremists?

The two extremist parties (socialists, and NCP) have been advocating violence to achieve their ends. The NCP has advocated it in their party platform ('german method'), while the socialist voters are at 100% readiness to start the revolution in the game.

Ergo, their respective homages to violent solutions leads them to be extremist. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have the nation's future in the hands of those who DON'T think that condemning their political opponents violently is an acceptable case of behavior.

 

[Moonstruck]

... the socialist voters are at 100% readiness to start the revolution ...

Is not the same as

The two extremist parties (socialists, and NCP) have been advocating violence to achieve their ends.

The actual socialist party has never advocated violence. It can hardly be held accountable for what unaffiliated socialists are doing.

 

[TheExecuter]

The actual socialist party has never advocated violence. It can hardly be held accountable for what unaffiliated socialists are doing.

I refer you to my previous post regarding the violent nature of the socialist platform.

#1. Parliament to be removed and replaced with a Grand Council, answerable only to worker's committee's. This will disenfranchise a signficant number of the population. Freedom? Pshah...

#2. Land reform. Land is to be stolen from its current owners and redistributed to workers. This is an act of violence.

#3. Inheritance to be abolished. Theft by the state. Another act of violence.

#4. Property owned by emigres and rebels, to be seized. Who, pray tell, are the rebels? Honest, hardworking Britons, whose only 'crime' is to have more than 'the state' thinks they 'deserve.' Tyrrany, fellow Britons, Tyrrany.

#5. Nationalization of industry, banking, transportation, and communications. This isn't the founding of a 'Workers Republic'...it's the founding of a Communist State. The Republic would be dead.

You seek to tar the right with 'fascist' and 'tory'...but you yourselves want to return us to slavery...strip us of the right's of man (no vote, no property rights, no right to fair compensation, etc.)...

No, the socialists are NOT a pacifist party. And they are certainly not a party that can claim the mantle of 'defender of freedom.'

The socialists are intent on class warfare, of violence and civil war throughout ALL of Britain. Even now, they are organized and are awaiting the chance to rise up and start ANOTHER civil war.

I say we rise up and vote Liberal. That we say no to their ideology of eternal class struggle, and yes to government of all the people, and BY all the people. Their tyrrany SHALL NOT STAND. Britain's future is in your hands:

VOTE LIBERAL

 

[unmerged(127276)]

I refer you to my previous post regarding the violent nature of the socialist platform.

The socialist party will enfranchise far more people than it disenfranchises.

 

[TheExecuter]

The socialist party will enfranchise far more people than it disenfranchises.

Why disenfranchise people at all?

 

[Seek75]

The actual socialist party has never advocated violence. It can hardly be held accountable for what unaffiliated socialists are doing.

Oh sure, the Socialist Party has never advocated violence, only the 5 million or so ((I got this straight from Attack's update before the election, so no exaggeration!)) armed men who follow popular revolutionary groups and generally tend to vote Socialist have.

Vote Socialist: We don't advocate violence, but our supporters do!

 

[Raph]

Oh sure, the Socialist Party has never advocated violence, only the 5 million or so ((I got this straight from Attack's update before the election, so no exaggeration!)) armed men who follow popular revolutionary groups and generally tend to vote Socialist have.

Vote Socialist: We don't advocate violence, but our supporters do!

And the NCP doesn't? Those arms are a necessary precaution when one of the former coalition parties are advocating extrajudicial executions of socialists.

 

[oberstbrooksy]

And the NCP doesn't? Those arms are a nessecary precaution when one of the former coalition parties are advocating extrajudical executions of socialists.

At least they have stated what they intend to do, its not like the land owners will then be signaled for death by these ''workers councils''

 

[Seek75]

And the NCP doesn't? Those arms are a nessecary precaution when one of the former coalition parties are advocating extrajudical executions of socialists.

I'm not saying the NPC doesn't advocate violence, I just don't like how the teapot is calling the kettle black.

Besides, 5 million against around 15,000 (if memory serves correctly). With these numbers, is it even possible to implement the German Method? If not, why take such precautions as to arm 5 million men?

 

[unmerged(260001)]

I'm not saying the NPC doesn't advocate violence, I just don't like how the teapot is calling the kettle black.

Besides, 5 million against around 15,000 (if memory serves correctly). With these numbers, is it even possible to implement the German Method? If not, why take such precautions as to arm 5 million men?

5 million members of the in game group. 1/3 of those brigades are ready to revolt (according to the in game thing). 150k troops in Britain.

 

[Raph]

I'm not saying the NPC doesn't advocate violence, I just don't like how the teapot is calling the kettle black.

Besides, 5 million against around 15,000 (if memory serves correctly). With these numbers, is it even possible to implement the German Method? If not, why take such precautions as to arm 5 million men?

If the government (or those potentially in government) threatened to execute you for your beliefs, what would you do?

 

[unmerged(252567)]

So when Labour first won in an election, you fellows thought you had a right to stage a lock-in and use force to deprive workers of their livelihood and kill them if they or the government resisted; but the Red Front Brotherhood forming to protect workers ONLY AFTER the government and British Nationalist thugs had been beating their heads in for a time somehow makes them proponents of violence?

Since when was self-defense a form of violence? And how can the victims, the Socialists, be seen as the moral equivalent of the aggressors, the NCP?

Until the most recent round of conservative oppression of the working class, which has sparked the opportunity for an armed revolution and created an armed camp of reactionaries who would indeed be rebels to any popular workers state and would need to be dealt with as such, there has been absolutely no evidence that the Socialist platform would include the purging, execution, or arrest of the wealthy or any other acts of violence or oppression. And the redistribution of wealth to the workers is no more of an act of violence than the original redistribution of wealth from the peasant farmers of Britain to hereditary landholders in the first place, or the constant redistribution of wealth frfom the factory workers who create it to the bourgeoisie who have no right to it except the conservative state using force to make it so by decree.

You struck first. The Socialist Party never promised violence, no offered violence, never intended violence. It has only taken up violence in self-defense during this current administration, all previous administrations and Socialist platforms have been in good faith and there has never been anything to suggest the slanderous stories you perpetuate about a one-party dictatorship over the workers or of recriminations against the upper classes.