-
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
Understood it was something like that, was mostly joking
But difficult choices. Really need to think over who to vote for now
The Liberals will support free trade with Europe. We will support cutting taxes on earned income. We will support privatising unprofitable nationalised industries. We will end the government's illiberal opposition to legitimate immigration. We will use limited force to defend our interests and allies (such as in the Middle East) when diplomatic means fail. We will support and protect the social gains of recent decades against the forces of reaction and social conservatism. We will end the strife in Northern Ireland through a fair electoral system and replacing institutionally prejudiced organs of the sate with non-partisan organs which will uphold civil rights for all.
Clearly we are the only party to best match your views
As you know I am a staunch supporter of democracy, freedom of speech and political freedom
Remember I left National Liberal because of this alone? Aaaand on a practical matter, it will mean that the PA ate stretghened, and even worse the voters will go from CPGB to Labour making them having a constant majority
So the free marketer votes for opposition to free trade with Europe, opposition to the free movement of people and support for greater use of state violence against citizens.
That's it - I'm revoking your libera(lism/tarianism) license.
The Liberals will support free trade with Europe. We will support cutting taxes on earned income. We will support privatising unprofitable nationalised industries. We will end the government's illiberal opposition to legitimate immigration. We will use limited force to defend our interests and allies (such as in the Middle East) when diplomatic means fail. We will support and protect the social gains of recent decades against the forces of reaction and social conservatism. We will end the strife in Northern Ireland through a fair electoral system and replacing institutionally prejudiced organs of the sate with non-partisan organs which will uphold civil rights for all.
Clearly we are the only party to best match your views
Yes indeed. I like that you want to enter EEC, which imo will solve the current economic situation. Furthermore you don't want to nationalize industries, but even privatize some - which is also the solution to the current problem. And you will make a smoother transition into a free market. And you don't have an illebral approach to the unions and freedom of movement. And more importantly to have a fairer voting system and democrazie the nation. But you want to decrease our foreign presence, protect Israel and the middle east and you want to cut down the military. And I do not like the other faction, who do not want further liberalization and even want to cooperate with Labour. Difficult to find a solution.
Now now, don't be too harsh :laugh:
Which faction do you support btw?
Last edited:
Once again I voted for the least disgusting choice.
Communist are out of question, so Labour, and you modern day 'liberals' are so socialist that Marx would be proud of your petty socialist-bourgeoisie ideas.
also, check last post on previous page; I replied to your LVT posts
Once again I voted for the least disgusting choice.
Communist are out of question, so Labour, and you modern day 'liberals' are so socialist that Marx would be proud of your petty socialist-bourgeoisie ideas.
also, check last post on previous page; I replied to your LVT posts
Liberals want to privatize the most inefficient industries, don't support further nationalization and want further free trade and free migration. That is not so socialist, Marx would still think Liberal party would be capitalist
Once again I voted for the least disgusting choice.
Communist are out of question, so Labour, and you modern day 'liberals' are so socialist that Marx would be proud of your petty socialist-bourgeoisie ideas.
also, check last post on previous page; I replied to your LVT posts
I've given up on having arguments with you - I don't want to spam this thread with yet more economic posts about your wilful ignorance of free market forces or of the practical realities of anything you already have a fixed, ideological opinion about which you refuse to ever reconsider
Also Tommy, thank you so much for that wish fulfilment Liberal manifesto. I could kiss you right now.
I've given up on having arguments with you - I don't want to spam this thread with yet more economic posts about your wilful ignorance of free market forces or of the practical realities of anything you already have a fixed, ideological opinion about which you refuse to ever reconsider
You claim to follow the principles set by 'greater minds than ours', yet when I write criticize those ideas with sound economic logic, you say you give up.
A minor victory, but I would prefer you actually learned and figure something out by yourself without relying on some 'superior minds' that can be easily proven wrong.
Sapere aude, dearest Antonine
There's no point having a larger military than we can afford - is it really in our interest to have a massive military with out of date equipment instead of a large military with modern equipment? We do wish to decrease our foreign presence where it does not make sense - why do we need British military units protecting royal dictatorships at the taxpayer's expense?
If we are Liberal in our foreign policy then we will promote Liberal values in countries under our influence, reducing the need to station military units abroad and building firm, democratic allies instead of serfs chafing under an imperial yoke. And yes we will protect our allies in the Middle East but only against the even worse threat of Ba'athist oppression - other than that we will use diplomatic and economic pressure to force them to reform in ways in keeping with respect for democracy and human rights.
Liberals want to privatize the most inefficient industries, don't support further nationalization and want further free trade and free migration. That is not so socialist, Marx would still think Liberal party would be capitalist
They defend state ownership of many companies that would be more efficient under private ownership.
Furthermore welfare state is not affordable and I've now wrote several long posts detailing why LVT does not work and only makes the country as a whole worse off.
If you cannot follow the sound logical conclusions detailing why LVT is a bad concept, then you Fräulein Howard, are little different from the rest of the socialists in this thread.
So Liberals want PR in spite of referendum and EEC without it? That's sooo democratic!
They defend state ownership of many companies that would be more efficient under private ownership.
Furthermore welfare state is not affordable and I've now wrote several long posts detailing why LVT does not work and only makes the country as a whole worse off.
If you cannot follow the sound logical conclusions detailing why LVT is a bad concept, then you Fräulein Howard, are little different from the rest of the socialists in this thread.
The world according to Enewald - anyone who disagrees with him about anything is a socialist.
We elect parliament to decide war and peace, the economy, welfare, education, health, agriculture, industry, energy and a myriad of other policies without a referendum. Why do we need referenda on those two issues when we have had devolved assemblies without referenda and massive other foreign and economic policy changes without a referenda?
Either we're a representative democracy, where decisions are made by our representatives for us, or we're a direct democracy with referenda and plebiscites on anything and everything. You can't have it both ways.
Plus, a referendum gets out of date very quickly. You vote on a topic once and that's deemed to be an end of it despite some people who voted in it having died and people who weren't old enough to vote in it at the time now being eligible to vote. With parliament, on the other hand, you get to vote again every five years.
I'd vote for direct democracy.
Less power to naive foolish politicians. If you have a direct referendum about how much the population is willing to pay to finance a war against, say UAR, what would you expect to achieve?
Common folk to do not launch wars, the politicians do.
I'd vote for direct democracy.
Less power to naive foolish politicians. If you have a direct referendum about how much the population is willing to pay to finance a war against, say UAR, what would you expect to achieve?
Common folk to do not launch wars, the politicians do.
Then move to Switzerland
We can afford the current size. And Conservatives also want to modernize the armed forces. And practically speaking we actually need to be vigilant on the foreign politics, only that way can we ensure international peace and encourage democracy. And we would need a big presence in the middle east to discourage the fascist UAR from oppressing further nations.
Economically the large armed forces is also positive in the sense of employment, it boost demand and more importantly our steel industries etc become more productive to meet the demands of the armed forces. Also we can see that we actually are trading with other nations, as China for starters are buying jet figthers from us. So in that sense the armed forces are positive for the nation.
I'm a realist when it comes to foreign policy, and not naiive. Sadly enough, it means we need big armed forces that are able to deal with the threats of totalitarianism. But I agree that we should steer our allies and friends into a democratic path. But it is easier doing so if we got got military presence there, and they see that we're commited to protect them and liberty.
They defend state ownership of many companies that would be more efficient under private ownership.
Furthermore welfare state is not affordable and I've now wrote several long posts detailing why LVT does not work and only makes the country as a whole worse off.
If you cannot follow the sound logical conclusions detailing why LVT is a bad concept, then you Fräulein Howard, are little different from the rest of the socialists in this thread.
The Liberals don't want to introduce LVT. But if other taxes are cut, LVT aren't that bad I suppose. Of course not optimal. And yes the state do protect the keeping of nationalization of industries, but at least they want to continue the privatization of the steel industry, and privatize elements of others. It is better than letting Labour or CPGB privatize it all right? And they want free migration and free trade, something that are better for not only the economy, but also philosophically.
I must admit I would like refferendum for EEC. But on the other handl if the Liberal party get majority of the seats, it means that the population have indirectly voted yes for EEC.
Hehe.
I'd vote for direct democracy.
Less power to naive foolish politicians. If you have a direct referendum about how much the population is willing to pay to finance a war against, say UAR, what would you expect to achieve?
Common folk to do not launch wars, the politicians do.
And if we had a refferendum on immigration, what do you think thye would vote? Or concerning the steel industries?
Then move to Switzerland
Well it is a nice place
The Liberals don't want to introduce LVT. But if other taxes are cut, LVT aren't that bad I suppose. Of course not optimal. And yes the state do protect the keeping of nationalization of industries, but at least they want to continue the privatization of the steel industry, and privatize elements of others. It is better than letting Labour or CPGB privatize it all right? And they want free migration and free trade, something that are better for not only the economy, but also philosophically.
And if we had a refferendum on immigration, what do you think thye would vote? Or concerning the steel industries?
Well it is a nice place
The Liberals want LVT, read their program again.
If we had a referendum on immigration, people would vote according to their preferences. Democracy sucks, especially if you are not part of the majority.
But since we cannot achieve a benevolent monarchy/dictatorship, it is a relatively form of governing.
Free trade and immigration stand to benefit the overall welfare of everyone, but there will be special groups who see their short term benefit decrease, and thus have a rational reason to fear increased competition. If the population were enlightened enough, we would have no fools supporting restriction of free trade and free movement.
On a vote for steel industries, those who work for the industries would vote to get more subsidies, whilst those who do not work for the steel industries would not want to subsidize other people with their own money.
I'm confused here. You support the free market but you argue for a large military to provide more employment? In that case why not have the state employ everyone so that no one won't have a job?
We have a big enough armed forces and the fact is that modern equipment costs more per unit than old equipment - a modern frigate costs hundreds of times more than a 17th century frigate but is also hundreds of times more potent militarily.
Make no mistake, even if we were to halve the size of our military we could still beat the UAR in a shooting war. We do not need a massive military, we just need a modern, mobile and adaptable military which is capable of reacting swiftly when our foreign policy requires it.
That being said, I'd like it if Tommy could give us some stats on the state of Britain's military so we can have some idea of what size we're talking about here.
- Status