Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

The Westminster System - A British Interactive AAR

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Status
Not open for further replies.
atomicsoda said:
For the next election they can certainly decide if they want to work together but if they did it now it would be a huge kick in the face to the voters of Britain and a huge loss of all credibility of the NLP. The NLP and Conservatives had an electoral alliance and did not run against each other in any constituency. The NLP and Conservative voters voted for the same candidates as there was either a Conservative or NLP running but not both. For the NLP to suddenly abandon the Conservatives would be completely implausible.

((Economy and foreign policy really the only issues that matter, so NLP and Liberals are very different))
Click to expand...

I've never said they should abondon the alliance. But it could be nice in the future to cooperate with the liberals instead.

But it is other issues too, like social liberties, rights etc. And the foreign policy is similar so a compromise on economy may be the breakthrough. All though I suspect Mister (or. Miss?) Antoine want this alliance to weaken the National Liberals, the voices of a free market and to strenghten the Liberal Party.

For all we know it may be a split between the conservative and liberal forces in teh National Liberal party. Which would be disastrous for the struggle for a free market and liberty.
 
Last edited:
Erh, the Tories are our bloodbrothers and only allies against rising threat of communism, especially now, when the so-called Liberal Party is becoming increasingly corrupted by the ex-Labour socialists infiltrating their ranks.
 
Contravarius said:
Erh, the Tories are our bloodbrothers and only allies against rising threat of communism, especially now, when the so-called Liberal Party is becoming increasingly corrupted by the ex-Labour socialists infiltrating their ranks.
Click to expand...

See. We have highley conservative powers in our party. Last time I checked it is nothing liberal about what you want. I guess even your intentins for a free-market is wrong.

We're about peace and liberty, your views is simply about oppression.

WerehristianJews.jpg
 
Last edited:
ThaHoward said:
See. We have highley conservative powers in our party. Last time I checked it is nothing liberal about what you want. I guess even your intentins for a free-market is wrong.

We're about peace and liberty, your views is simply about oppression.

WerehristianJews.jpg
Click to expand...
*shoots the bird*
"It's called entryism, baby."
 
Contravarius said:
*shoots the bird*
"It's called entryism, baby."
Click to expand...

You preach hate, I preach love. You speak of oppression, I speak of liberty. You desire a strong state, I desire a strong individual.

You are no liberal. And it is many in the National-Liberal party who are not liberal at all. And of the few liberals most are blinded by free-marketism..

Think if it was the other way around. If you lived in a Jewish Totalitarian state. Wouldn't it be horrible? Liberalism will make it possible to live the life as you want, neither you or others can enforce violence and force the groups you hate - and they cannot use force/violence on you.

And why do you think you have the rights to detirmine over the lives of others and that simply because of which family they happened to be born in or which cultural heritage to be from and which sex they were born with?
 
atomicsoda said:
((Economy and foreign policy really the only issues that matter, so NLP and Liberals are very different
MP independence varies from nation to nation. In Canada, MPs generally must vote as directed by the Party or they will be removed from the party caucus. In UK, not as strict, by MPs do not have that much independence))
Click to expand...

Things were different in 1954 in both Britain and Canada. In those days Conservative addresses to constituency associations in Britain often featured Burke's maxim that a MP owes you his judgement - suffice it so say that such words are out of place in a Post-Blair British political party where everyone does as told.

That being said however, any break-up of an electoral alliance now would be electoral suicide. Once parliament is in session however, less so.
 
Contravarius said:
You mean both USA and CCCP, right? Thank God I was born a long-long time ago in a much-much better place.
Click to expand...

Well how are you any better than for example the USSR then? Why not respect the individuals and let people live how they want and not under force or violence?
 
Contravarius said:
I'm not jewish.
((Phah, well, that was an easy one for ol' dom Contravarius.))
Click to expand...

But how can you support one type of totalitarian regime, but be opposed to another? Why do you or any other groups have any rights to decide and oppress others?

Is it justified to oppress a group because you claim that they are oppressors in another? And btw USSR aren't that friendly to Jews, especially not unde the interwar period :)
 
The people have spoken and elected their representatives. The Liberals are the largest single party. Yes, the NLP has an agreement with the Conservatives but they are free to end that agreement within this parliament if they so choose.
 
Antonine said:
The people have spoken and elected their representatives. The Liberals are the largest single party. Yes, the NLP has an agreement with the Conservatives but they are free to end that agreement within this parliament if they so choose.
Click to expand...

Yes it all depend on the negotioatins.

((It do happen that electoral pacts failed. Happened this election, only two parties entered the promised alliance. It is easier to brag about alliances during the election than during actual government formation.))
 
ThaHoward said:
Yes it all depend on the negotioatins.

((It do happen that electoral pacts failed. Happened this election, only two parties entered the promised alliance. It is easier to brag about alliances during the election than during actual government formation.))
Click to expand...

My dear, there are "alliances" and there are Alliances. ;)
 
Tanzhang (譚張) said:
Things were different in 1954 in both Britain and Canada. In those days Conservative addresses to constituency associations in Britain often featured Burke's maxim that a MP owes you his judgement - suffice it so say that such words are out of place in a Post-Blair British political party where everyone does as told.

That being said however, any break-up of an electoral alliance now would be electoral suicide. Once parliament is in session however, less so.
Click to expand...

The two big threats a party whip can wield are the withholding of advancement and that of de-selection. There are also various inducements they can offer, such as promotion, honours, governmental priority being given to their constituency or pet policies, visits by prominent party figures, etc.

Ultimately though, given that most local parties and associations still select their parliamentary candidate (albeit with varying degrees of influence from the national party), an MP remains ultimately accountable to his local party and his voters first and foremost - if she maintains their support and does not seek promotion or advancement of any kind then there is precious little a whip can threaten her with.
 
((Actually the current UK parliament, the one elected in 2010, is going down as one of the most rebellious on record with MPs rebelling against the whip on a fairly regular basis. Though this is probably partly due to the circumstances created by a parliament with no overall majority - it's a lot harder to face the whip's wrath for rebelling if you know that the issue you're rebelling on is going to be passed anyway.))
 
Last edited:
Antonine said:
The people have spoken and elected their representatives. The Liberals are the largest single party. Yes, the NLP has an agreement with the Conservatives but they are free to end that agreement within this parliament if they so choose.

Ultimately though, given that most local parties and associations still select their parliamentary candidate (albeit with varying degrees of influence from the national party), an MP remains ultimately accountable to his local party and his voters first and foremost - if she maintains their support and does not seek promotion or advancement of any kind then there is precious little a whip can threaten her with.
Click to expand...
They could. It would piss off their voters and wouldn't make any sense. The tension between the Conservatives and NLP is due to the NLP being to the right of the Conservatives economically. The NLP opposes the Conservative support for a mixed economy, why would they ally with the Liberals who are even further left.

((In the UK that is true about candidate selection, not in other Westminster systems like Canada where Party leader can pick all candidates in reality))
 
Antonine said:
The two big threats a party whip can wield are the withholding of advancement and that of de-selection. There are also various inducements they can offer, such as promotion, honours, governmental priority being given to their constituency or pet policies, visits by prominent party figures, etc.

Ultimately though, given that most local parties and associations still select their parliamentary candidate (albeit with varying degrees of influence from the national party), an MP remains ultimately accountable to his local party and his voters first and foremost - if she maintains their support and does not seek promotion or advancement of any kind then there is precious little a whip can threaten her with.
Click to expand...

A Party Whip certainly couldn't seriously threaten a Member with deselection in 1954. He could expel said member from the Parliamentary Party, yes, but selection would be up to his local constituency party.
 
atomicsoda said:
They could. It would piss off their voters and wouldn't make any sense. The tension between the Conservatives and NLP is due to the NLP being to the right of the Conservatives economically. The NLP opposes the Conservative support for a mixed economy, why would they ally with the Liberals who are even further left.
Click to expand...

Indeed. It's important to also remember that this isn't the first election in which the NLs and Tories have fought as an alliance. To break such an alliance within the next parliament would be damaging and reek of sheer opportunism; to do so now might well destroy the party.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back