Given that at every single opportunity the TSR Tories have rolled back the state -- and, may I remind you, to extremely heavy Socialist resistance -- it's ludicrous to call us "fascists."
I did not call you a fascist i merly asked you why some people call you that. If i called you one i would have phrased it better.
Except the Liberal Democrats are ideologically pretty similar to Labour on this Forum - actually, the space on the political compass taken up by LD and Labour is smaller than the area covered by the Conservative Party. Do you therefore support your own dissolution, Dav, since by your own standards your party's got to be a "marriage of convenience"? And if you don't believe in marriages of convenience why did you make a Bill with the Lib Dems (who are ideologically further from you than we are) last term?
Again, it's just duplicity, and I bet if Lab-Soc had 24 seats you'd be opposed to a coalition between us, too.
If the Lib Dems would actually admit that they are Socialists then there would be no problem with it, IMO. At present they pretend to be some kind of centre-left organisation when we really know that they are etatists of a 19th century variety with a bit of social liberalism thrown in here and there.
I dont oppose you having a union with Labour because your ideology is not that much different, I dont mind a Lib-Lab coalition for the same reason, I dont mind a Con-Lib coalition. However I do not believe a LibDem-Lab-Soc coalition is anything other than a marriage of convenience.
Yeah but that's politics so what's your point? On the one hand yes, there will policy disagreements between our parties I'm sure. But through a coalition you make the best of the situation as presented to you and try to work past those differences.
I agree wholly with Gremlins here; you don't like it that an equal sized coalition (in terms of seats) has formed.
Whatever, what's the Tory position on Nuclear power?
Political = the right has no voice
Logical = tyranny of the majority
What an abject display of moral cowardice, even from you. You're going to make your MPs vote against something that is right merely because it has a political downside for you.
Frankly, you're a snivelling wretch of a politician. We'd be better off if you pissed off and left us to it. I can't believe I'm going to say this - but it wouldn't have happened under UoL...
What an abject display of moral cowardice, even from you. You're going to make your MPs vote against something that is right merely because it has a political downside for you.
That isn't even true because a Lib-Lab-Soc coalition would never propose anything that is remotely right, ever.
That isn't even true because a Lib-Lab-Soc coalition would never propose anything that is remotely right, ever.
So, wait, when we vote against Bills it's because we're the ultra-partisan socialist wolfpack who just go against things 'cos they've got Conservative on the top but when you do it it's out of some fundamental principal ? Could the Tories at least try not to be such hyprocrites? Please?
So, wait, when we vote against Bills it's because we're the ultra-partisan socialist wolfpack who just go against things 'cos they've got Conservative on the top but when you do it it's out of some fundamental principal ? Could the Tories at least try not to be such hyprocrites? Please?
Are you trying to deny your coalition isn't an "ultra partisan socialist wolfpack"? 'Cos that's a better description of it that I could come up with.
That isn't even true because a Lib-Lab-Soc coalition would never propose anything that is remotely right, ever.
And you're no bloody better, sitting there crowing in your absolutes. It is unquestionably right that three parties - whoever they are - should be allowed to form a coalition. But your leader is going to make you vote against it because it has a political downside.
When I came to this house while you were wonder what that funny hair on your left nut was, it's members liked to play the game - and we made our decisions on amendments and what we'd now call constitutional matters on what made the game more fair and fun. But you've apparently decided that you don't like the rules of the game unless they swing firmly in your favour.
It's ******* disgusting, and I'm angry not as a Socialist, but as a player of the game.
No I actually wouldnt, I would be saying congratulations and looking forward to an interesting term.
So now it's Lab+Soc+a party which is politically about the same as Lab, and suddenly it's OMG the worst thing evarrr?
And anyway, it's still more than a little bit toys-out-of-the-pram to try and ban all 3-party coalitions just because you don't like the one we formed.
As somebody pointed out, you don't care who you're in coalition with, you're more than willing to align yourself with any party as long as you have power. Nobody can pretend that lib-lab-soc has strong ideological grounds for making a coalition, is was for one thing only; to stop a right-wing government. That's what's politically inept.
As somebody pointed out, you don't care who you're in coalition with, you're more than willing to align yourself with any party as long as you have power. Nobody can pretend that lib-lab-soc has strong ideological grounds for making a coalition, is was for one thing only; to stop a right-wing government. That's what's politically inept.
We cover only a marginally lager area of the political spectrum than the Tory party does. So is that two Tories who think their own party should be dissolved since it's made up of people with no common ideological ground but who just want to get into power?
And you're no bloody better, sitting there crowing in your absolutes. It is unquestionably right that three parties - whoever they are - should be allowed to form a coalition. But your leader is going to make you vote against it because it has a political downside.
When I came to this house while you were wonder what that funny hair on your left nut was, it's members liked to play the game - and we made our decisions on amendments and what we'd now call constitutional matters on what made the game more fair and fun. But you've apparently decided that you don't like the rules of the game unless they swing firmly in your favour.
It's ******* disgusting, and I'm angry not as a Socialist, but as a player of the game.
1. I'm not really bothered who is in Government.
2. I am concerned with the behaviour of the left as demonstrated everywhere in this House over the past 24 hours.
3. You have no grounds upon which to say you have some sort of moral superiority over the rest of us.
What an abject display of moral cowardice, even from you. You're going to make your MPs vote against something that is right merely because it has a political downside for you.
I wont need to force them to do anything, they are more angry than I am.
Frankly, you're a snivelling wretch of a politician. We'd be better off if you pissed off and left us to it. I can't believe I'm going to say this - but it wouldn't have happened under UoL...
No one asked you to come in here and ask questions, if youre just going to insult me then bitch in your sub-forum and grow up, what did u honestly expect from us? a pat on the back and a congratulations?. I know you dont like me but I havent ever said anything offensive to you.
Also if I pissed off there are 20 others waiting to take my place and none are as moderate as i am, they are all baying for blood.
TSR's model parliament.
Useful Resources:
Re: Ask a Tory Thread
? Could the Tories at least try not to be such hyprocrites? Please?
