This is literally true. I would advise all Liberals who want a change of leadership to not vote Liberal, just as I advised all Labour voters not to vote for Nye Bevan when he was leader.
-
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
This is literally true. I would advise all Liberals who want a change of leadership to not vote Liberal, just as I advised all Labour voters not to vote for Nye Bevan when he was leader.
I don't like him, no, but the party still has the best platform of the ones presented. I would prefer that the Liberals do well than not doing well and sacking Grimmond. That being said, if there is enough demand within the party for new leadership, something beneficial may happen.
So basically Oranges should vote for Labour, and non-fanatical Lemmons should go Tory this time.
((Sorry for somewhat fanatical support of Conservative Party, but I would like to see them win majority at least once. IMHO we need some change from centre-left))
Well you have to admire that sort of slavish devotion to party and leader, but - and I say this objectively, just as I did when Bevan was in change of Labour - that the only way to save the Liberal party electorally would be for it to suffer a colossal defeat at this election. At least a defeat large enough to see Grimond and his faction's position in the party untenable. Just as there was little point in kicking Bevan if someone like Michael Foot were his replacement, there would be little point kicking Grimond out if someone like Antonine were his replacement.
But then again, if you actually subscribe to Grimond's conservative manifesto, then why not vote Liberal and damn the long term consequences?
No, I believe that individual Liberals should vote for whichever party best matches their own views: be it Labour or Tory. (I can't honestly imagine any self-professed Liberal voting Bolshie.)
That depends how Tommy decides to handle the banter here i guess, given that events in the aar are sometimes effected by debate on here then if every Liberal voter declared they support their party but not their leader I wouldn't be surprised if the Liberal Party saw their own internal night of the long knives in the next update.
That depends how Tommy decides to handle the banter here i guess, given that events in the aar are sometimes effected by debate on here then if every Liberal voter declared they support their party but not their leader I wouldn't be surprised if the Liberal Party saw their own internal night of the long knives in the next update.
Wouldn't it be funny if the Liberals deposed Grimond only to replace him with someone who was even more obstinate and autocratic towards dissenters!
Wouldn't it be funny if the Liberals deposed Grimond only to replace him with someone who was even more obstinate and autocratic towards dissenters!
Hope they get a radical and feminist leader then
((Allthough that may lead to them becoming minor party.))
Hope they get a radical and feminist leader then
You would be fine with an autocrat if said autocrat happened to be radical and feminist? So if the Soviet Union elected a radical feminist Chairman who was also a Stalinist, you wouldn't object to that?
You would be fine with an autocrat if said autocrat happened to be radical and feminist? So if the Soviet Union elected a radical feminist Chairman who was also a Stalinist, you wouldn't object to that?
I said I hoped that it would become a new radical, and progressive, leader. Didn't say a word about autocracy.
Btw, do you believe the Royal Navy should implement a blockade and/or a no-flight zone to pressure Portugal? If yes, should it be done in Portugal proper or Angola or Mozambique?
She'll happily parley with misogyny as long as it's not directed at her.
But I said that they might get someone more autocratic then Grimond!
It might have to come to that. For instance, If Portugal insists on shipping goods to the illegal Salisbury regime via Mozambique , then we would be totally justified in seeking the UN's support to force an embargo over goods which we think are bound for the illegal Rhodesian regime.
But I said that they might get someone more autocratic then Grimond!
It might have to come to that. For instance, If Portugal insists on shipping goods to the illegal Salisbury regime via Mozambique , then we would be totally justified in seeking the UN's support to force an embargo over goods which we think are bound for the illegal Rhodesian regime.
Isn't it more likely that they'll do it throug Angola? And wouldn't it be wise ti implement a blockade to pressure them inti giving up their colonies isnce it will no longer be economical feasible? And wouldn't a no fly zone over the colonies prevent them from using aircrafts agains the population in these colonies? So blockade in Portugal to cripple their trade from the colonies, blockade in their colonies to prevent influx of arms and soldiers from Portugal or (/and ) a no floght zone to prevent bombing if civilians, could cripple their colonial empire and put a stop to the civil wars there.
((I say let us take the colonies from them
))And you have what evidence for that crazy assertion of yours?
Well she is conservative, and don't have a social progressive stance. Rven with that in mind I find it hard to label her as a misgonist.
My main worry (and main reason I didn't vote Labour) is that if the Liberals do so terribly that they are confined to obscurity for this election, even if they ditch Grimmond, they will be unelectable for several more years due to ex-Orange Liberals continuing to bandwagon on Labour. When unleashing a change in voting habits like that, one must be careful; people's habits can die hard. Grimmond does deserve to be punished for his domineering leadership, but not punished so badly that the party is completely destroyed as a consequence.
I'm pretty sure Rhodesia was supplied via Mozambique historically. Angola doesn't share a land border with Rhodesia.
[video=youtube;M60OI5nZ2LM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M60OI5nZ2LM[/video]
Solidarity with the defenders of order and stability.
Rhodesia, forever.
Solidarity with the defenders of order and stability.
Rhodesia, forever.
Isn't it more likely that they'll do it throug Angola? And wouldn't it be wise ti implement a blockade to pressure them inti giving up their colonies isnce it will no longer be economical feasible? And wouldn't a no fly zone over the colonies prevent them from using aircrafts agains the population in these colonies?
((I say let us take the colonies from them
Is it wise for Britain to take such action when Soviet Union is widely criticised for their intervention in Czechoslovakia? Is it wise to antagonise our oldest ally? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Portuguese_Treaty_of_1373
Well, fair enough, but suffice it to say that if either Grimond or his policies survive then what you fear will happen likely will happen anyway.
The Soviet Union did not blockade Czechoslovakia; they sent tanks through the streets of Prague.
- Status