TSR General Election - Vote here!

Not to deprive the Lib Dems of a voter, but we always like to reach out to new people. Is there anything you'd like to know about our party or policies?

please ask rather me,Thunder_Chunky or Morgsie about the liberal democrats polices and we do our very best to answer any questions you have.

Well, one of the thing that's not mentioned it in your manifesto is military (I'm not blaming you. It's a small wordcount ). You've probably already mentioned in the last few pages or so, but what are you positions on a) Trident, and b) Afghanistan.

My personal view on Trident renewal is that it simply isn't necessary. Mutually assured destruction holds even if we have no nuclear weapons at all - we're a member of NATO, and were we (in the very unlikely situation) to be attacked, then all of the other NATO members would retaliate for us. I think some level of nuclear capability is probably necessary to justify our position on the Security Council and to act as just a little bit of extra disincentive for any possible aggressors, so I'd steer clear of total disarmament, but the complete renewal of Trident seems totally unnecessary. As Richard Garwin, the US nuclear expert, pointed out, it's just too soon and too expensive when the current nuclear payload system could last until at least 2025. When we reach 2025, and our nuclear systems actually need to updating instead of it simply being a nice thing to do, I'd gladly go ahead, but right now that seems an unreasonable and excessive cost. Our current Trident system works very well, and we don't want to get rid of that at all.

In terms of defence, I'd like to see staggered retreat from Aghanistan. "Hearts and minds" may have worked if it had been mission goal from the very conception, but US and UK forces are simply tainted now. The longer we stay, the more Taliban converts we create. Our only goal now should be to train the current Afghan troops as best we can - they're the future of Afghanistan. In terms of spending, I think we have to recognise we're not the superpower we once were. It seems almost ridiculous that we have the third largest spending of any country on our military, when we're an island nation which hasn't been engaged in homeland combat since 1945. This doesn't mean we cut down on equipment - ideally, I'd like to direct money towards improving the equipment our soldiers have - but actually reducing the size of the army. A smaller, better equipped, better trained army is the direction in which we need to be headed. Right now, we have an inefficient lumbering army which is endangers the soldiers who serve it unnecessarily. We want the best trained, best equipped troops we can get.

No Monster Raving Loony this year?

Out of interest do any of the parties actively support the ACTA movement?

I hope that helps answer your questions, but please do ask more if you need to!

As for your earlier concern about our activity, I wouldn't worry. Essentially, a while back, our leader became inactive and the party suffered as a result. Eventually, we had a VoNC in our leader, and replaced him with a new one, davidmarsh01. Since then, we've had a surge of activity and brought in several new MPs, including myself (and hopefully you can see I'm fairly active!). The TSR Conservatives, despite suffering from exactly the same problem of a dying leadership leading to their party going inactive before a last minute recovery, have tried to make this into some petty point-scoring issue. Their plan was to call a VoNC in us as government and then form their own coalition, without ever going to an election. We wanted the people to chose, which is why we called this snap election in the first place.

Labour is quite inactive, but so were most parties last term. I was a Labour member until I left last weekend, any chance I can waft you over my way?

I've been a member for two months and have contributed a lot to each debate in the House despite only having been a Labour MP for one week. I've authored two bills in the last two months, and have many more in the pipe.

(Btw, the Lib Dems have been worse than Labour in terms of activity, according to the Speaker's figures at least.)

The TSR Labour Party covers quite a wide spread on both. Given the Socialists are the only truly and really inactive party, and as such many people avoid them, the "left" tends to split between us and the Lib Dems, where as on the right, it goes between the Conservatives, UKIP, and Libertarians, meaning they're a bit better defined. We cover everything them from Socialists to New Liberals in economic terms.

Socially, we're a lot more liberal than our real life equivalent.

The trouble with JPKC is that a vote for JPKC is a wasted vote. Once he wins his seat, which he only needs 2% to do, any further votes don't go down the list, they just get wasted. That means he is draining votes from other similar parties, like us. Given I imagine he will get 2% fairly quickly, there's not much point in voting for him after that - it just damages the left. Not that I think he's a bad candidate, just that electoral arithmetic means voting for him isn't the same as voting Labour or Lib Dem or what have you.

okay xXediXxx sorry if i didnt answer your whole question,what do u want to ask me or the liberal democrat party concerning our election manifesto?

That is incorrect, on the first page it says the following: "*If you meet this criteria but have neg rep, you may find yourself unable to vote. If this is the case, PM me and I'll add your vote in." usainlightning meets the requirements but just needs to PM Metrobeans.

Look at the **** we have to put up with and have had to over the past 2 years?

Bringing Real Life into it are we? TSR Conservatives are not the same as the RL Tories.

Bringing Real Life into it are we? TSR Conservatives are not the same as the RL Tories.

Bringing Real Life into it are we? TSR Conservatives are not the same as the RL Tories.

In terms of defence, I'd like to see staggered retreat from Aghanistan. "Hearts and minds" may have worked if it had been mission goal from the very conception, but US and UK forces are simply tainted now. The longer we stay, the more Taliban converts we create. Our only goal now should be to train the current Afghan troops as best we can - they're the future of Afghanistan. In terms of spending, I think we have to recognise we're not the superpower we once were. It seems almost ridiculous that we have the third largest spending of any country on our military, when we're an island nation which hasn't been engaged in homeland combat since 1945. This doesn't mean we cut down on equipment - ideally, I'd like to direct money towards improving the equipment our soldiers have - but actually reducing the size of the army. A smaller, better equipped, better trained army is the direction in which we need to be headed. Right now, we have an inefficient lumbering army which is endangers the soldiers who serve it unnecessarily. We want the best trained, best equipped troops we can get.

Alright, to start off your views on Afghanistan and foreign intervention in general.

Secondly, what would be your position on bailing out another Eurozone country i.e. criteria for bailout etc.?