The Westminster System - A British Interactive AAR

[LordTempest]

Sad, some. It's the dogmatic votes that tend to ruin these sorts of AARs, as often it gives unrealistic levels of support to certain parties, left or right. Especially sad because it's often the person's real life views, rather than trying to maintain any sort of historicity.

This plus infinity.

 

[Enewald]

Why not just call the Liberals 'Social Democrats', as they represent what is best known as social democracy on the continent? They are hardly liberal in any way!

I'm not sure how much I approve becoming a Tory, but the times are dire and commies building barricades behind every corner...

All parties supporting the restriction of free movement? Back to times of feudalism, with the poor serfs tied to the land?
No one championing for the unrestricted movement of humans in this state of ours?

Shame on you all.

 

[LordTempest]

Why not just call the Liberals 'Social Democrats', as they represent what is best known as social democracy on the continent? They are hardly liberal in any way!

Remove Beardies from premises. Insert Claret!

 

[unmerged(271387)]

This plus infinity.

oh yes, because interactive AARs are made in order for people to follow history and not, oh dear God how will I say this, have fun with voting for a party that didn't get many votes during the time period.
And it doesn't really matter if they vote according to their real life views or not.

 

[Enewald]

Sad, some. It's the dogmatic votes that tend to ruin these sorts of AARs, as often it gives unrealistic levels of support to certain parties, left or right. Especially sad because it's often the person's real life views, rather than trying to maintain any sort of historicity.

Anyways! Interesting developments. I'm intrigued to see how Labour might perform now, what with the electoral pact in play.

Communism existed since Marx? Unrealistic and unhistorical how?
Same for the ideals of laissez faire and minimalistic state interventionism?
They did not maybe gain the amount of seats in parliament as they do in this AAR, but the parliament is in no way intended to mirror OTL 100%, otherwise we would be reading a history book.
Just accept that certain individuals have different individual political opinions.

 

[LordTempest]

And it doesn't really matter if they vote according to their real life views or not.

Yeah it does. Especially when they use their real life political views in order to push forth their real-life political agenda, and do so in every IAAR they join and at every available opportunity.

Variety is good in these sorts of AARs, especially when they tend to be a little incestuous and made up of the same readers each time.

 

[LordTempest]

Communism existed since Marx? Unrealistic and unhistorical how?
Same for the ideals of laissez faire and minimalistic state interventionism?
They did not maybe gain the amount of seats in parliament as they do in this AAR, but the parliament is in no way intended to mirror OTL 100%, otherwise we would be reading a history book.
Just accept that certain individuals have different individual political opinions.

Reading comprehension test.

Sad, some. It's the dogmatic votes that tend to ruin these sorts of AARs, as often it gives unrealistic levels of support to certain parties, left or right. Especially sad because it's often the person's real life views, rather than trying to maintain any sort of historicity.

Anyways! Interesting developments. I'm intrigued to see how Labour might perform now, what with the electoral pact in play.

 

[Andrzej I]

Ahem *cough* liberals *cough*

Them too, but more interested in seeing if this brings Labour back above 15% or not.

Communism existed since Marx? Unrealistic and unhistorical how?

Please actually bother to read the entire sentence. I give you the courtesy of reading your economic rants when they are directed at me. I'd appreciate the same level of courtesy in return. Unrealistic levels of support. Not that it's unrealistic that the CPGB exists, but that it's getting about 20% of the vote, mostly because of the people who read 'Communist' and vote for it for that sole purpose.

Essentially...

Yeah it does. Especially when they use their real life political views in order to push forth their real-life political agenda, and do so in every IAAR they join and at every available opportunity.

Variety is good in these sorts of AARs, especially when they tend to be a little incestuous and made up of the same readers each time.

This.

Edit: Honestly, I'm fine with people having their real life views influence their votes. How could they not? But it's one thing to have it influence, it's another to have it dictate. It's really just the dogmatic insistence on views that ruin the game, not being 'loyal' to an idea.

 

[Enewald]

Yeah it does. Especially when they use their real life political views in order to push forth their real-life political agenda, and do so in every IAAR they join and at every available opportunity.

Variety is good in these sorts of AARs, especially when they tend to be a little incestuous and made up of the same readers each time.

Not true. I've been playing pro-laissez faire only in this and two other AARs. There was an AARland before you joined, you know?
Stop making simplifications and blaming people for being too divergent politically! This is not North Korea with one party allowed!

 

[unmerged(216158)]

Not true. I've been playing pro-laissez faire only in this and two other AARs. There was an AARland before you joined, you know?
Stop making simplifications and blaming people for being too divergent politically! This is not North Korea with one party allowed!

Are all parties except yours the same because their are plenty of parties around.

 

[Contravarius]

This is not North Korea with one party allowed!

What Korea? I thought there was only one Korea, my cannibalistic friend.

 

[Enewald]

Guise, plz you voting wrong and these gents do not approve! Pls leave thread so they can get a more realistic AAR experience! :laugh:

welcome to Soviet AARland. Unhistorical AARs not allowed!

 

[LordTempest]

Not true. I've been playing pro-laissez faire only in this and two other AARs. There was an AARland before you joined, you know?

Once is enough.

Stop making simplifications and blaming people for being too divergent politically! This is not North Korea with one party allowed!

Clearly nobody told Enewald, who does nothing but make simplifications and argue that other political parties need to be banned.

 

[unmerged(216158)]

Guise, plz you voting wrong and these gents do not approve! Pls leave thread so they can get a more realistic AAR experience! :laugh:

welcome to Soviet AARland. Unhistorical AARs not allowed!

Your being willfully obtuse.

 

[Enewald]

Once is enough.



Clearly nobody told Enewald, who does nothing but make simplifications and argue that other political parties need to be banned.

Because you don't like laissez faire, but if I were a British 'liberal' promoting socialist virtues you would just keep smiling and telling how much right he is?

First you claim that people are playing unhistorical, then you whine that NLP seeks to ban commies, which is not very far fetched? Parties on the right trying to fight parties on the left, so unheard of! Commies getting banned, what, so unhistorical!

Would you be happy if this AAR mirrors OTL 100%? Then go get a history book. This is an interactive game, different people vote for different parties for different reasons. Don't keep complaining about how unrealistic it is that some party gets more support here than IRL: THIS IS A GAME. You don't go in HoI3 AARs and complaining that Germans should not be winning Barbarossa!

Enjoy the AAR.

 

[Battle bunny]

Sad, some. It's the dogmatic votes that tend to ruin these sorts of AARs, as often it gives unrealistic levels of support to certain parties, left or right. Especially sad because it's often the person's real life views, rather than trying to maintain any sort of historicity.

If we want historicity, screw the whole "interactive" thing and let's just use historical results.

 

[unmerged(216158)]

If we want historicity, screw the whole "interactive" thing and let's just use historical results.

I don't think anyone is saying that though, his concern is with plausibility.

 

[LordTempest]

If we want historicity, screw the whole "interactive" thing and let's just use historical results.

There is such a thing as "historically plausible" which is clearly what he was referring to. No strawmen, please.

 

[Andrzej I]

My thanks for straw-manning the argument! How very mature and considerate! I never said 100% historicity, because that's absurd. What I am arguing against is the dogmatic insistence of taking real life convictions and, regardless of what has been going on in the IAAR, voting accordingly to those real life biases.

Also...

First you claim that people are playing unhistorical, then you whine that NLP seeks to ban commies, which is not very far fetched? Parties on the right trying to fight parties on the left, so unheard of! Commies getting banned, what, so unhistorical!

You're thinking of ThaHoward. I almost voted Nat Lib for that sole stance.

 

[unmerged(216158)]

There is such a thing as "historically plausible" which is clearly what he was referring to. No strawmen, please.

Such a mind reader you are...

With the Pact in place I'm seriously considering flipping back to labor as I feel the oranges would be better served with our pink compatriots...