The Westminster System - A British Interactive AAR

[Andrzej I]

Appearing is hardly being, is it?

Aye, and I've never said otherwise. I merely find myself charmed by his thespian appearance and his ability to quote classics, to list a few qualities.

 

[Dadarian]

I have just read everything since I last posted. Holy shit we like to post a whole lot about nothing in particular.

That said I advocate he splitting of the Liberal Party once and for all.

 

[ThaHoward]

I have just read everything since I last posted. Holy shit we like to post a whole lot about nothing in particular.

That said I advocate he splitting of the Liberal Party once and for all.

Advocate who splitting off?

 

[LordTempest]

I have just read everything since I last posted. Holy shit we like to post a whole lot about nothing in particular.

You may wish to revise that opinion of our recent discussions in a few years time.

 

[Antonine]

Well in that case it would certainly be the sort of policy which the Labour party at least should look into supporting for the future - given our fraternal links to the broader cooperative movement.

You're welcome for the provision of yet another policy to make up for Labour's own lack of originality

I do recognise that"is a considerable concession, which is why i said that "Labour has made considerable concessions, just as the Liberals have." Nevertheless, Britain is yet to have a referendum of nationalisation but has had one on proportional representation for Westminster - I'm sure you know where I'm going with this. (I reiterate however that NI is a special case and that STV for Stormont makes perfect sense in light of the current social crisis in Northern Ireland and instances of unionist gerrymandering in the past.

Which is why I agree that we should not implement PR in this parliament - however, I expect some other constitutional reform concessions in its place. To me regional assemblies (or, ideally, assemblies based broadly on the boundaries of the city regions and the boundaries of the historic counties of England, or groups of said counties where individual counties would be too small) and STV for local elections would be a suitable compromise.

I understand your concerns on this issue, and I personally would happily endorse the denationalisation of an industry I felt never needed to be nationalised in the first place. Unfortunately I can only speak for myself and not for the party on this issue, and in light of the recent crisis in Scotland over the Ravenscraig Steelworks (a profitable business which was nevertheless forced to go to the wall by the Tories economic zealotry) I hope you understand that this is an emotive issue for many Labour voters, especially those in Scotland, and that blanket commitments to privatisation will make many of our supporters uneasy. Moving towards mutualisation of the Steel Industry, or outright cooperatives, would in my view be a far more acceptable policy to Labour voters.

Mutualisation or, in a pinch, cooperatives, would be a suitable alternative to privatisation - providing that the new mutuals and cooperatives are given genuine independence of action and that their creation happens in at least some industries. Still, I feel this is a crucial area where we seem to be in broad agreement.

Well as I say, the chances of acceptance would in my view be greater if it was backed by a popular mandate. If however we can agree the conditions of entry with the EEC without committing ourselves to entry before holding a referendum then we can probably save face diplomatically, and if we make it clear to the British people that we are seeking conditions only and not outright entry unless they themselves want it, then we can probably save face domestically as well.

If all this can be made abundantly clear before negotiations begin, then negotiations conducted under that basis would be acceptable.

That is reasonable enough. If this can't be made clear before negotiations begin then a referendum on seeking accession would also be acceptable.

Opposition to this however I must be adamant about. Just as many prominent liberals opposed the introduction of PR, all Labour MPs must be free to follow their own consciences in regards to any proposal put forth at a referendum. The Labour Party itself must remain neutral in any referendum to allow its members to express their own views on Europe without real or perceived repurcussion, as befitting any democratic party.

I don't object to Labour MPs being free to follow their own consciences but I do not want a situation where we get a referendum and Labour immediately joins its might with the Tories to defeat joining the EEC. Your leadership remaining neutral is one thing but if we're going to have parts of the Labour machine swung against joining the EEC then it's only fair that those in the Labour leadership in favour of joining the EEC publicise that fact. Because there is no point in Labour in giving us a referendum if they then guarantee that we lose instead of giving us a fair shot.

Look, there are many people within the Labour movement who will see LVT as a wealth tax plain and simple, and therefore support it out of principle - this is why I said that in normal circumstances such policies could be easily agreed upon. I however am sceptical as to whether the lost revenue from income tax would be fully compensated, and am not inclined to take such risks during a time of social crisis.

The point of an LVT, however, is that it is meant to replace existing taxes, not merely act as an addition to them. Therefore, I would propose a limited introduction of LVT to replace business rates collected by local councils with any surplus revenue raised after the first year being earmarked for income tax cuts. This should be coupled with a one year Royal Commission to produce proposals for practically implementing LVT in a tax neutral way. These proposals should then begin to be enacted over the remainder of the parliament.

I have taken if for granted that Labour will move towards acceptance of the Social Market Economy, sooner rather than later if some kind of agreement with the Liberals is reached. This is quite a big compromise if you judge from our current manifesto, even if one accepts as I do that it is one that the party should have ought to have made long ago.

If this is a concession you are prepared to put down in writing in a programme for government then that is excellent. Otherwise, you'll have to forgive me if I'm dubious about trusting in your individual prediction of the future of Labour policy positions.

I would honestly expect that people who campaign for referenda will abide by the result of said referenda once they are held.

Referenda are a very poor tool, as I have previously explained. Firstly, we live in a representative democracy where many other major constitutional changes have been implemented without referenda (such as the universal franchise) and therefore referenda are inappropriate mechanisms for deciding policy as all they are is a cop-out when politicians can't make a decision on their own. Secondly, the last referendum was many years ago and public opinion may have changed since then as well as the fact that there is now a sizeable portion of voters who were unable to vote in the referendum themselves.

Nonetheless, I've already made it clear that we're prepared to concede the issue of PR in this parliament - but millions of people have voted for our manifesto which calls for PR without a referendum and this is an undeniable fact. Therefore our concession should be respected in these negotiations. If I wanted to be awkward I could have demanded it as my starting point instead of conceding it from the outset.

 

[Antonine]

You mean the longest post I've put up in this thread wasn't enough for you?

You explained why you defected in the first place - you haven't explained why you haven't come back when all the conditions for your original defection appear to have disappeared ;p

 

[Dadarian]

Advocate who splitting off?

Social Liberals from retar... I mean classical liberals. The time is over, and the leadership of the Yellows are overbearing to the extreme. This experiment has failed, death to the Liberal Party!

You may wish to revise that opinion of our recent discussions in a few years time.

I doubt it. It was a circular a conversation as mine and enewalds, and twice as dull.

 

[DensleyBlair]

Indeed, there is a lot of things which are... interesting about Mr. Thorpe.

I rather imagine that many within the Liberal camp will be hoping that, in many ways, he remains quite dull in this timeline.

Aye, and I've never said otherwise. I merely find myself charmed by his thespian appearance and his ability to quote classics, to list a few qualities.

In that case, I do hope that Simon Callow ends up in the Cabinet at some stage.

 

[DensleyBlair]

You explained why you defected in the first place - you haven't explained why you haven't come back when all the conditions for your original defection appear to have disappeared ;p

As I said earlier, to appear and to be are two incredibly different verbs.

 

[ThaHoward]

Social Liberals from retar... I mean classical liberals. The time is over, and the leadership of the Yellows are overbearing to the extreme. This experiment has failed, death to the Liberal Party!



I doubt it. It was a circular a conversation as mine and enewalds, and twice as dull.

Haha that make no sense Especially since you voted for Yellows, and the leadrship in the Liberal party and that the Yellow faction are dogmatic Social Liberals And who is this "he"? The leader of the Liberal Party? Well he's no classical liberal, and uåif you're thinking of Antonine, neither is he.

 

[Andrzej I]

I could be wrong, but I believe Dadarian means the last vestiges of the Orange Liberals and the Yellow Grimondites, respectively.

And the 'he' was likely a typo for 'the'.

 

[Antonine]

I would support the splitting of the Liberal party as well. We could have the Free Democrat Liberals to replace the Tories, the Radical Liberals to replace the Liberals and the Social Democrats to replace Labour

 

[ThaHoward]

I could be wrong, but I believe Dadarian means the last vestiges of the Orange Liberals and the Yellow Grimondites, respectively.

And the 'he' was likely a typo for 'the'.

But neither of them are classical liberals. He said he wanted the social liberals to split from the classical liberals.

 

[unmerged(321254)]

National Front

 

[LordTempest]

You're welcome for the provision of yet another policy to make up for Labour's own lack of originality

:rofl:

Which is why I agree that we should not implement PR in this parliament - however, I expect some other constitutional reform concessions in its place. To me regional assemblies (or, ideally, assemblies based broadly on the boundaries of the city regions and the boundaries of the historic counties of England, or groups of said counties where individual counties would be too small) and STV for local elections would be a suitable compromise.

I think you expect a little too much then. Even the advocacy of an English Assembly along the lines of those in Scotland, NI and Wales would be a bridge too far, let alone an assembly for Yorkshire, an assembly for East Anglia and so on. There is no public demand for such assemblies outside of the Liberal Party, and until circumstances change I feel you'll have to accept that such policies are a very low priority for any incoming government.

Mutualisation or, in a pinch, cooperatives, would be a suitable alternative to privatisation - providing that the new mutuals and cooperatives are given genuine independence of action and that their creation happens in at least some industries. Still, I feel this is a crucial area where we seem to be in broad agreement.

It is, and our differences appear to be more over semantics than over substance. However you must understand that we Gaitskellites have long memories: unlike the Member for Bolsover, we do not want a repeat of what happened to Nye Bevan in the 1950's. If the Labour Party were to come out and say that it would favour blanket privatisation in its next manifesto, then it would be a propaganda coup for the Communists and the left-wingers within the party like Lenin cat who wish to see a return to the Popular Front. We in the Labour Party therefore must take especial care over the precise wording of any agreement so as not to play into the hands of the entryists.

That is reasonable enough. If this can't be made clear before negotiations begin then a referendum on seeking accession would also be acceptable.

Then it's agreed then.

I don't object to Labour MPs being free to follow their own consciences but I do not want a situation where we get a referendum and Labour immediately joins its might with the Tories to defeat joining the EEC. Your leadership remaining neutral is one thing but if we're going to have parts of the Labour machine swung against joining the EEC then it's only fair that those in the Labour leadership in favour of joining the EEC publicise that fact. Because there is no point in Labour in giving us a referendum if they then guarantee that we lose instead of giving us a fair shot.

Labour remaining neutral and promising to abide by the result means exactly that. If Labour commits itself to holding a referendum then Labour should also commit itself to abiding by the result of said referendum, and so should any party in that position. It would be absolutely hypocritical of us to do anything less, and unlike certain other parties, we don't like hypocrisy.

The point of an LVT, however, is that it is meant to replace existing taxes, not merely act as an addition to them. Therefore, I would propose a limited introduction of LVT to replace business rates collected by local councils with any surplus revenue raised after the first year being earmarked for income tax cuts. This should be coupled with a one year Royal Commission to produce proposals for practically implementing LVT in a tax neutral way. These proposals should then begin to be enacted over the remainder of the parliament.

I would happily support such proposals were we not in the depths of a social crisis. I feel we must ensure that out social spending increases are met in order to end the crisis as quickly as possible. Keine Experimente!

If this is a concession you are prepared to put down in writing in a programme for government then that is excellent. Otherwise, you'll have to forgive me if I'm dubious about trusting in your individual prediction of the future of Labour policy positions.

It is the sort of concession that I would like for Tommy to put in the Labour Party's next manifesto, or failing that, the next one after that, and so on ad infinitum until the AAR ends. If Tommy gave me the power to dictate the Labour Party's next manifesto it would be the first change I would make. I do totally forgive you for holding doubts, because ultimately such a promise is not in my power to give - I certainly am however prepared to campaign vigourously and vocally for it in he hopes that it will become accepted "by osmosis."

Referenda are a very poor tool, as I have previously explained. Firstly, we live in a representative democracy where many other major constitutional changes have been implemented without referenda (such as the universal franchise) and therefore referenda are inappropriate mechanisms for deciding policy as all they are is a cop-out when politicians can't make a decision on their own. Secondly, the last referendum was many years ago and public opinion may have changed since then as well as the fact that there is now a sizeable portion of voters who were unable to vote in the referendum themselves.

So why do you keep on calling for "moar referendums plz!"

I agree with referenda being a bad idea, but I accept that if we are going to have them, then we should abide by them like democrats.

 

[LordTempest]

I doubt it. It was a circular a conversation as mine and enewalds, and twice as dull.

Sir, I demand satisfaction for that outrageous and insulting comparison! *slaps dadrian's face with white glove* At least this conversation actually has something to do with the AAR, unlike every single post Enewald has ever made in this thread!

 

[Dadarian]

I could be wrong, but I believe Dadarian means the last vestiges of the Orange Liberals and the Yellow Grimondites, respectively.

And the 'he' was likely a typo for 'the'.

Yup

But neither of them are classical liberals. He said he wanted the social liberals to split from the classical liberals.

Classical liberals, Grimondites. Same thing, Grimond handled things badly and established a precedent of Liberal unwillingness to work with people. I say the Oranges should just split or head to Labour. Makes sense really.

 

[Dadarian]

Sir, I demand satisfaction for that outrageous and insulting comparison! *slaps dadrian's face with white glove* At least this conversation actually has something to do with the AAR, unlike every single post Enewald has ever made in this thread!

Fine, half as pedantic and twice as dull.

 

[Contravarius]

National Front

*a very tired grin*

 

[LordTempest]

Fine, half as pedantic and twice as dull.

You're only saying that because you're jealous you're not involved in it.