The Westminster System - A British Interactive AAR

[Contravarius]

((That is what I am saying. Contra and Andarak are voting for CPGB because of the "national bolsheviks". That is a faction/ideology contra made up.))

((Honestly, dom Contravarius is just disillusioned at the moment, he's on the verge of a big spiritual breakthrough that brings all the paperhats and national blanquists together so there's no need to name like five different non-canon political factions anymore.))

((Yes exactly. I agree with you. And I know it is mostly for jokes, but I find it weird that anadarak critize national liberals who vote for liberals instead of conservatives, when he himself vote for a party that contradict everything he stand for because of half-joke.))

((I think he didn't critizise NatLibs voting Liberals but more so your point that NatLibs should be canonically considered now more so a part of Liberals and less a faction of Tories because most people voted Liberals this time around.))

 

[LordTempest]

((That is what I am saying. Contra and Andarak are voting for CPGB because of the "national bolsheviks". That is a faction/ideology contra made up. And I agree, he doesn't mentin them, they doesn't exist. But I can see it as trends within the elecotratem that some are fascist. But it is no fascist faction in the conservative party, or nationalist one i the CPGB even if some voters are so.))

Well historically the Monday Club which Tommy mentioned in the last update was very pro-Rhodesia and very Pro-Empire; even if the Rhodesian Fascists don't exist as an organised faction, it would make perfect sense for an individual Rhodesian Fascist to ally himself with the Monday Club group of MPs. Just as there's no oprganised feminist faction, but it would make perfect sense for a feminist to ally herself with the pro-abortion Liberal or Labour parties.

As for national bolshevism, I just take that as the ramblings of a lone lunatic who likes to cause as much anarchy and chaos as humanly possible. No, for once that person isn't Enewald....

 

[99KingHigh]

((Honestly, dom Contravarius is just disillusioned at the moment, he's on the verge of a big spiritual breakthrough that brings all the paperhats and national blanquists together so there's no need to name like five different non-canon political factions anymore.))

You're Blanquism and National Bolshevism sentiment is far too leftist. Return to the true right, or be hanged.

 

[ThaHoward]

((Honestly, dom Contravarius is just disillusioned at the moment, he's on the verge of a big spiritual breakthrough that brings all the paperhats and national blanquists together so there's no need to name like five different non-canon political factions anymore.))


((I think he didn't critizise NatLibs voting Liberals but more so your point that NatLibs should be canonically considered now more so a part of Liberals and less a faction of Tories because most people voted Liberals this time around.))

Hence why I say that the national liberal party was split between liberal and conservative voters And that the biggest mistake the tories and nat libs did was merging. As the previous nat lib voters strengthened the liberal party ijstead of the tory party. It is a difference between what the party leadership believed, than what their voters believe. And by judging from their election programs they were actually in many aspects similar to the Liberal party. So it is perfectly natural for nat-lib vlters to vote for the Liberal party. ((Both canon and non-canon wise.))

 

[Contravarius]

You're Blanquism and National Bolshevism is far too leftist. Return to the true right, or be hanged.

*First time in his life Caesaropope dom Contravarius DOES NOT look magnificent or even fabulous, he looks tired and anxious and doesn't concentrate on anything that's said to him. It's clear that this high-powered mutant is on the verge of something and he hopes it isn't a total breakdown*

((Just you wait ))

 

[atomicsoda]

Uhm? Where the conservatives wanted to intervene in various conflicts such as the indonesian or kuwait conflict, the national liberals wanted to stay out of it and to be non interventionistic.



Conservative-Liberalism is not a conservative ideology. It is a liberal one, the difference is that they are much less radical and want small steps into a liberal society. It would be like saying Social-Liberalism is Marxism/Socialism because it have "social" in their name. Definitions:



Let us see the differences, national liberals are pro immigration, same are liberal while conservative are against it. National liberals are non interventionistic, same are liberals, conservative party are imperialistic and vigilant - something both the national liberals and liberals oppose. National Liberals are pro free trade, same are Liberal party, conservatives are agianst it. Only difference is that the Nat. Libs are against EEC because they think it is protectionistic, and would rather have free trade in general. Tories are against EEC since they are against free trade, Liberals are pro EEC since they are pro free trade. National Liberals and Liberals condemn apartheid and South Africa, Tories want to be friendly to South Africa. On the terms of privatizaton the Conservatives and National Liberals agree, but that is about it.

So in short National Liberals and (new) Tory party agree on nothing but monetarism, and Liberals and National Liberals basically agree on everything (just diffeences in details) but their economical policies.

And I have many times said that social policies and reforms come before economics. So that is why I vote for Liberals, due to their support for gay and women's rigts and since National Liberals wanted to ban communism and crack down on the unions. And Enewald (and me too actually) have a different view of economics. It is not about having a nationalized or private economy, but all the actions of the individuals and how they are limited and what their freedoms is. So being anti immigration is then in effect a regulation of the market, the same with outlawing abortion. He have a different perspective and definition of the market and economics than you.

And according to the polls, the National Liberal fled to Liberal party instead of National Liberal party. That means that Nat Libs have a heavier presence in Liberal party than Conservative party. And who isn't better to show where the National Liberals stand ideologically than their voters?

Your view of Nat Libs policies does not match their platform in 1963 elections

They did not support non interventionism and staying out of Indonesia.

Foreign Policy:

The United Kingdom must stand firmly alongside its greatest ally – the United States of America – against the aggressive advance of Communist totalitarianism. The interests of our own nation, of the free world and of the United States are identical as we all fight together to end the advance of Soviet Communism – and as was accomplished in Korea, push back its frontiers. We therefore advocate a firm and unswerving commitment to the NATO alliance and total support for our allies.

The Nat Libs policy on the African settler colonies also was close to Conservative policy

Imperial Policy:

The National Liberal Party demands that the settler populations of East and South-Central Africa not be undermined nor their security threatened. Any future independent states must guarantee the safety of the settler populations.

The One Nation wing of the Conservatives are not protectionist. The Rightist are.

Although rebuffed from entry into the EEC, Britain should pursue a separate arrangement aimed at strong trading relations with the nations of Western Europe.

 

[Andarak]

And I find it hilarious you critize some national liberals to not vote for conservative party, when you yourself have weakened them by voting for the stalinist faction. Instead of making them a lot stronger and perhaps gaining over 35% or 45% you vote for a party that hate revinionism and nationalism, since you want them to become a revionistic party and a nationalist one. For nationalism you have much bette possibilities with a conservative party influencing a miniority lib-lab government. Now we might end up with a strong lib-lab majority, with a conservative party having to moderte itself to gain more voters. So your vote for the non existing "national bolsheviks" did nothing but strenghtening the Lib-Lab and weakening the Tories snd their new radical course.

Lastly if you and contra voted for conservstive instead of your made up faction, then conservatives would have had almost 34% votes and thus making them more appealing for other national liberals and closer to 35% thus making them into a position to influence the government greatly. But hey, let us vote for stalinists instead and let the only party you can agree with falling away and force them to moderate themselves to appease liberal-conservatives and conservative-liberals

I've already presented why I voted for Ceasaropapist Party of Great Brit... DAMN! for CPGB on several occassions, but I might as well say it again:

- I think that those elections are unfair because of the LibLab electoral pact. I've said it several times that I find voting for Conservatives this time pointless, because Destiny (also known as Tommy) basically decided that this time Liberals will win.
- NatLibs joining already too strong Liberals further discouraged me from voting for Conservatives. Please consider the fact that I've waited a long time before I voted, and if you guys have supported Conservatives, I would probably also took those elections more seriously,
- Conservatives beating 35% threeshold doesn't matter because of the electoral pact,
- Voting for CPGB weakens LibLab as much as voting for Conservatives, the difference is that with new leadership they will be even less inclined to work with LibLab than Conservatives,
- I support more moderate policies for Conservative Party,
- I like Contra's jokes,
- I think that some people here take those iAAR's way, WAY too much seriously,
- Last but not least, i like Red Army Choir.

[video=youtube;2SLvtP6KMUM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SLvtP6KMUM[/video]

((Also, please excuse me if I sound somewhat impolite. My English is poor and because of it I can't really express my thoughts as well as I would like to. I mean no offense to you, or other NatLib vote switchers. ))

 

[LordTempest]

The One Nation wing of the Conservatives are not protectionist. The Rightist are.

Okay, now that's just a blatant lie. Just because they're anti-EU doesn't make them protectionist. I don't understand how such an avowedly monetarist party/faction could ever be considered protectionist.

 

[atomicsoda]

Okay, now that's just a blatant lie. Just because they're anti-EU doesn't make them protectionist. I don't understand how such an avowedly monetarist party/faction could ever be considered protectionist.

Why is that a lie when ThaHoward called the Conservative Party Protectionist and you said nothing. I may be mistaken in my characterization of the Rightist trade policy but I hardly lied.

 

[99KingHigh]

Okay, now that's just a blatant lie. Just because they're anti-EU doesn't make them protectionist. I don't understand how such an avowedly monetarist party/faction could ever be considered protectionist.

But lies are not treason. Insulting the Right is treason.

 

[LordTempest]

Why is that a lie when ThaHoward called the Conservative Party Protectionist and you said nothing.

Two lies don't make a truth.

I may be mistaken in my characterization of the Rightist trade policy but I hardly lied.

Ok, we'll go with that definition then. You were blatantly mistaken. (and indeed, so was Rosa unless she was speaking in a purely historical sense, which I doubt she was.)

Actually, I think I understand why she said that. The Tory manifesto refers to "Political and Economic Independence" as a reason not to join the EU - I can understand why someone might consider "Economic Independence" to be a euphemism for protectionism, even if that is not necessarily what the Tories mean by it.

 

[atomicsoda]

Two lies don't make a truth.



Ok, we'll go with that definition then. You were blatantly mistaken. (and indeed, so was Rosa unless she was speaking in a purely historical sense, which I doubt she was.)

I just looked at the platform and it is not clear what the conservative Party trade policy is. They support a close integration with a smaller commonwealth of only the monarchies. This seems like the classic British policy of free trade in the Empire and protectionism to others. In any event, your insinuations are an affront to my honour. I challenge you to a duel sir. We shall settle this like Gentlemen. The choice of weapons is yours.

 

[LordTempest]

I just looked at the platform and it is not clear what the conservative Party trade policy is. They support a close integration with a smaller commonwealth of only the monarchies. This seems like the classic British policy of free trade in the Empire and protectionism to others.

But they don't actually have a policy to introduce or raise tariffs on non-Commonwealth goods, do they? It's not really Empire Free Trade unless you construct a tariff wall on non-Empire imports, hence I'd just assume that they're after closer political integration.

In any event, your insinuations are an affront to my honour. I challenge you to a duel sir. We shall settle this like Gentlemen.

Sorry, my dueling calendar is booked out, I'm afraid. I'm facing Dadrian with swords on Thursday and Enewald with pistols on Friday. I could make Tuesday were it not for Densley's insistence that we duel with cannons (they have to be imported from Heidelberg, you see...) but I'd rather not have to reschedule a second time (damn Contra.)

 

[Contravarius]

I just looked at the platform and it is not clear what the conservative Party trade policy is. They support a close integration with a smaller commonwealth of only the monarchies. This seems like the classic British policy of free trade in the Empire and protectionism to others. In any event, your insinuations are an affront to my honour. I challenge you to a duel sir. We shall settle this like Gentlemen. The choice of weapons is yours.

This is an exquisite idea! And so deliciously illegal too!
I'm sure that Tanzhang is far from being a dishonorable coward and will accept you challenge right away.

...

Oh, well it seems he IS a dishonorable coward who uses childish excuses to not fight.
Well... I'll fight FOR him, how's that?

 

[LordTempest]

Oh, well it seems he IS a dishonorable coward who uses childish excuses to not fight.
Well... I'll fight FOR him, how's that?

If you survive don't forget we have a duel on Wednesday.

 

[Contravarius]

If you survive don't forget we have a duel on Wednesday.

Yeah, I'm sure You'll find some other excuse not to show up.

So, my dearest atomicsoda... Is it acceptable that I'll fight in Tanz's place?

 

[LordTempest]

So, my dearest atomicsoda... Is it acceptable that I'll fight in Tanz's place?

No.

 

[John Forseti]

Anyone who claims that monetarism is 'radical right wing'-stuff is joking IMO.

It might not be considered so today in 2014 in our neo-con/lib thatcherist reaganite whatever consensus but in the 1960s after 20 or so years of a consensus around an interventionist mixed model with significant amounts of nationalised industry it bloody well is. You and your personal preferences are the not axis around which the world turns.

 

[LordTempest]

It might not be considered so today in 2014 in our neo-con/lib thatcherist reaganite whatever consensus but after 20 or so years of a consensus around an interventionist mixed model with significant amounts of nationalised industry it bloody well is. You and your personal preferences are the not axis around which the world turns.

May I call you Brother John?

 

[John Forseti]

May I call you Brother John?

Very well, brother Tanzhang.