Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

By-Election for the 25th Parliament (2) Watch

  • View Poll Results: Who should be elected as member of parliament in this by-election?
    Barnetlad - Endorsed By TSR Green Party
    4
    5.56%
    Gcx- Endorsed by TSR Libertarian Party
    15
    20.83%
    Saoirce - Endorsed by both the TSR Labour and TSR Socialist Parties
    27
    37.50%
    That'sAGoodOne - Endorsed by TSR Conservative and Unionist Party
    23
    31.94%
    Spoilt Ballot
    3
    4.17%

    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Accuses people of being rude:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    I’ve asked a question it is you being rude and personally attacking me
    Says this:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    barnetlad your manifesto looks like something I came up with in 5 minutes
    :flute:
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 04MR17)
    Accuses people of being rude:
    Says this::flute:
    PRSOM
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 04MR17)
    Accuses people of being rude:
    Says this::flute:
    That was unrelated to the question I asked afc but nice try
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    If you're referring to the act that it failed to pass, I'm not sure how new you are to MHoC, but it's quite common for Govt Bills to fail, and opposition Bills to pass.
    Well I must be a newborn, straight out the womb, freshly packed MHoCer if I understand that if you have a majority you should be able to pass bills quite easily unless there's a rebellion or members are half-arsed and can't turn up to a vote...
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    That was unrelated to the question I asked afc but nice try
    K :yy:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    Well I must be a newborn, straight out the womb, freshly packed MHoCer if I understand that if you have a majority you should be able to pass bills quite easily unless there's a rebellion or members are half-arsed and can't turn up to a vote...
    I'm not sure that Labour being unable to fill double the amount of the seats the Tories have with active members is exactly scandalous.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    I'm not sure that Labour being unable to fill double the amount of the seats the Tories have with active members is exactly scandalous.
    No not really and I wasn't trying to suggest it is scandalous. I was trying to suggest that it's still a failure and it shows incompetence.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 04MR17)
    K :yy:
    When I ran for speaker my manifesto was criticised in a similar manner it wasn’t rude it was fair criticism.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    When I ran for speaker my manifesto was criticised in a similar manner it wasn’t rude it was fair criticism.
    Good to know. Thank you for telling me.:yep:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    Libertarians - Most of it is just attacking the Government and the Opposition. Except the difference is there's reasoning for why the Government is failing but not the Opposition... Policy makes up a small part of the manifesto which is what I wanted to see but unfortunately it's diluted with unnecessary waffle.
    Labour - Don't remember the Conservative Party proposing a tax haven on TSR but... ok. I don't think you guys can talk about the housing crisis when in government you produced the hideous Modular Housing Bill in response to the Conservatives' motion that didn't do anything but try to mess with the housing market and worsen the housing crisis. And it failed in the division, despite "commanding" a majority.
    Conservatives - I'm delighted to see my good colleague ThatsAGoodOne349 displaying resilience and diligence by representing the Conservative & Unionist Party in this by-election. The policies proposed are pragmatic, practical and prudent. Focusing mainly on policy for the future instead of attacking, and not making promises that we realistically cannot meet - the Conservative & Unionist Party is the sensible alternative to the other parties standing here today.

    Oh dear, forgot about the Greens. Well I think the fact that their manifesto didn't really catch my eye is telling. I say no more.
    Because of MHoC protocal, we have to remember that should the real-life government attempt to implement a catastrophically hard Brexit, we too would suffer the same fate unless we have a Government with the courage in their convictions to stand up to it. I would already question whether the TSR Conservative Party harbours such convictions, let alone the courage to stand up for them. The fact that your candidate fails to even mention brexit in his manifesto only serves to justify those fears. That being said, if you wish to rule out your party's backing, right hear and right now, for such a Brexit, I would be only too happy to hear it. Until then, my point stands - only a vote for our pragmatic, Labour-left Government, can shield us from such an unwelcome outcome.
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    The choice is clear vote gcx if you do not support this government
    Spoiler:
    Show





    Or barnetlad





    You know what you are getting with labour and the socs, the tories don’t have any true beliefs so went begging everyone they could to vote for them offering to support a party in governments policies in exchange for votes.


    ThatsAGoodOne349 how can you run as an alternative to a party that you’re offering to pass their policies?
    Unown Uzer do you back the attempted deal or are you hoping to grab onto the tories pocket?
    Saoirse:3 why should anyone vote for you when your own party haven’t made you a mp despite having MPs who struggle to reach a 70% voting record
    barnetlad your manifesto looks like something I came up with in 5 minutes for the speaker election, if that’s the effort you put in why should people think if you become mp you will put the effort in?
    I would always prefer to afford a less experienced member the chance to represent us as an MP rather than take up that mantel myself. Unfortunately, with our unprecedented recent electoral success, we haven't been able to field quite as many such MPs able to consistently contribute as we'd like. What's more, I believe that with my greater experience and as a well-known figure it's only fair that I subject myself to the scrutiny of the House rather than delegate such a responsibilty to someone unused to the rigour and competitivity of a MHoC by-election campaign. A vote for me is a vote for an MP you can trust to maintain consistent activity, nurture younger members, and help restore the House as a whole to a better place than it's currently in.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    Because of MHoC protocal, we have to remember that should the real-life government attempt to implement a catastrophically hard Brexit, we too would suffer the same fate unless we have a Government with the courage in their convictions to stand up to it. I would already question whether the TSR Conservative Party harbours such convictions, let alone the courage to stand up for them. The fact that your candidate fails to even mention brexit in his manifesto only serves to justify those fears. That being said, if you wish to rule out your party's backing, right hear and right now, for such a Brexit, I would be only too happy to hear it. Until then, my point stands - only a vote for our pragmatic, Labour-left Government, can shield us from such an unwelcome outcome.
    I thought we were talking about tax havens? Not the kind of Brexit we wish to pursue? It’s not a requirement to mention Brexit in the manifesto - not that it is debated as much on TSR MHoC as RL...
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    Because of MHoC protocal, we have to remember that should the real-life government attempt to implement a catastrophically hard Brexit, we too would suffer the same fate unless we have a Government with the courage in their convictions to stand up to it. I would already question whether the TSR Conservative Party harbours such convictions, let alone the courage to stand up for them. The fact that your candidate fails to even mention brexit in his manifesto only serves to justify those fears. That being said, if you wish to rule out your party's backing, right hear and right now, for such a Brexit, I would be only too happy to hear it. Until then, my point stands - only a vote for our pragmatic, Labour-left Government, can shield us from such an unwelcome outcome.


    I would always prefer to afford a less experienced member the chance to represent us as an MP rather than take up that mantel myself. Unfortunately, with our unprecedented recent electoral success, we haven't been able to field quite as many such MPs able to consistently contribute as we'd like. What's more, I believe that with my greater experience and as a well-known figure it's only fair that I subject myself to the scrutiny of the House rather than delegate such a responsibilty to someone unused to the rigour and competitivity of a MHoC by-election campaign. A vote for me is a vote for an MP you can trust to maintain consistent activity, nurture younger members, and help restore the House as a whole to a better place than it's currently in.
    How exactly is a vote for you going to change it over a vote for the tories when any rl deal is agreed it comes into affect here
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    I thought we were talking about tax havens? Not the kind of Brexit we wish to pursue? It’s not a requirement to mention Brexit in the manifesto - not that it is debated as much on TSR MHoC as RL...
    Let's not pretend you don't understand how the two are related. There is an element of the Tory party who would love nothing more than to use the populist vote for Brexit to justify turning us into a tax haven which we could never be under EU law. By cutting the costs to businesses to the bare minimum, they hope not to help the British people but rather to damage Europe in a warped kind of revenge for a decision we rather than they have ultimately made. As May, Boris and David Davis continue to hurtle unwittingly towards a No Deal scenario, such an outcome becomes only all the more plausible despite the shocking implications for our nation.

    If this is such an unrealistic possibility then I urge you again - rule it out. Rule out further cuts to corporation tax, further income tax reform to benefit the rich, and further destruction of wroker's rights. If you cannot do that, then the electorate must wonder why exactly this disaster is a policy you insist on retainining the possibility to pursue.

    There may be no compulsion to menton Brexit, but given the fact that it's the issue of the day and that it's ultimately your party who has set us on this path, it makes for an odd omission - one that would almost suggest to someone clearly far more cynical than I that your approach to it might be one that you'd rather hide from the electorate.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    There is only one alternative to the Keynesian consensus here.

    What a surprise to see Afcwimbledon2 and his other Lyin' Liberal comrades supporting a commie SJW like Saorise.

    The Tories claim to be an alternative, yet they have MPs that vote for protectionism like Life_peer , mobbsy91 and DreamlinerFinder. It is also worth saying, as my right honourable friend joecphillips has already mentioned. That the Tories were willing to prostitute themselves to a Liberal Party led by a self described Socialist to get his votes, reeks of desperation and opportunism. Another point with their candidate is his inexperience; in the last by election he showed a gross misunderstanding of how the electoral process works and he has a minimal number of posts in the MHOC, can we really trust such a person to provide the stern opposition that the MHOC needs?

    I commend barnetlad for standing up for environmental issues in this election and I do hope that he siphons off at least some of the left vote; but we all know he has no chance of victory.

    Indeed, there is only one man who can defeat Labour here, one man who can provide an alternative to the Socialist consensus that has harmed this country and this house over the last two terms.

    Don't just dream of a better Britain, Vote for One.

    Vote Libertarian and Vote _gcx.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    Let's not pretend you don't understand how the two are related. There is an element of the Tory party who would love nothing more than to use the populist vote for Brexit to justify turning us into a tax haven which we could never be under EU law. By cutting the costs to businesses to the bare minimum, they hope not to help the British people but rather to damage Europe in a warped kind of revenge for a decision we rather than they have ultimately made. As May, Boris and David Davis continue to hurtle unwittingly towards a No Deal scenario, such an outcome becomes only all the more plausible despite the shocking implications for our nation.

    If this is such an unrealistic possibility then I urge you again - rule it out. Rule out further cuts to corporation tax, further income tax reform to benefit the rich, and further destruction of wroker's rights. If you cannot do that, then the electorate must wonder why exactly this disaster is a policy you insist on retainining the possibility to pursue.

    There may be no compulsion to menton Brexit, but given the fact that it's the issue of the day and that it's ultimately your party who has set us on this path, it makes for an odd omission - one that would almost suggest to someone clearly far more cynical than I that your approach to it might be one that you'd rather hide from the electorate.
    I would prefer us to remain in the EU. As that is unlikely, let us have the customs union and be in the single market, so that the damage to living standards, the wider economy and the environment is minimised. As is in my manifesto.

    So that we do not end up with a shortage of doctors, nurses and others in the NHS, so that we do not end up with a bus driver shortage, so that food in our farms can be picked.
    Online

    10
    ReputationRep:
    I second the sentiments of my colleagues, joecphillips and Connor27, and would like to put my own two cents into the ring and reply to some of the comments made so far.

    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    Libertarians - Most of it is just attacking the Government and the Opposition. Except the difference is there's reasoning for why the Government is failing but not the Opposition
    My fellow leader, CoffeeGeek, remarks that there is no reasoning for why we believe the Opposition are failing. Well, the reasoning is quite clear. You had a great opportunity in the previous by-election to gain a seat yet the electorate favoured our own party, the party your members have made consistently clear they believe to be inferior. Furthermore, your promises may be pragmatic but they differ little from the government. As stated earlier, members of your party have defended protectionism which fails to generate confidence as to why your party can deliver a better Brexit than Saoirse's.

    (Original post by Afcwimbledon2)
    The Libertarians - close to releasing bills? We're close to releasing a budget yet apparently we've not done our jobs. We've got substantive SOI achievements and worked towards decent legislation. Clearly we're the worst government ever - or maybe it's just that they're not in on the fun.

    A vote for the Libertarians at present is a vote for a house that is fractious, rude and not worth being part of.
    Your coalition were elected with 29 seats. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that is the biggest (or one of the biggest) governments in the MHoC's history. Out of all your 'decent' legislation, your most notable is probably the nationalisation of prisons. SOI's don't matter if you don't act upon them and the point about the budget remains in tact. With 29 seats, you easily could have passed the most important vote of your time in power. Now, it will become a lot more difficult and a failing budget will prove your time in power to have been a let down.

    We may be divisive and not politically correct, but at least we do our job in opposing the government. You are failing to govern well as I have outlined and your government is not something that I believe is worth being a part of either - unless you're a self-described socialist


    On the topic of Saoirse:3, you have conducted yourself very well, your manifesto was well-written and your responses to the Conservatives were superior. I can see why the government chose another ex-leader to represent them. However, I can't help but have one simple question to ask: why should anybody believe that your government will do what they pledge?


    I commend barnetlad for running and I am glad to see an environmentalist voice in this by-election. Nonetheless, there is indeed only one choice if you wish to stand up to the government and it remains my own party. We have kept our manifesto short and not added to the pledges we have already made, because - unlike our opponents - we plan on sticking to our promises. Tonight, we will be doing what the government should be doing in tackling the big issues and releasing a bill that makes the case for the decriminalisation of drugs.

    Don't just dream of a better Britain - vote for one.

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by barnetlad)
    I would prefer us to remain in the EU. As that is unlikely, let us have the customs union and be in the single market, so that the damage to living standards, the wider economy and the environment is minimised. As is in my manifesto.

    So that we do not end up with a shortage of doctors, nurses and others in the NHS, so that we do not end up with a bus driver shortage, so that food in our farms can be picked.
    I certainly emphasise with that point of view and entirely agree that some of the potential immigration policies being suggested would be a disaster. At least in the short-medium term we do need migrants to fill those roles until there are a sufficient number of British people adequately trained to fill them.

    However, that doesn't necessarily mean we have to stay in the single market and the customs union. The former in particular, I feel, would be against the spirit if not the letter of the referendum. An end to free movement, lawmaking from Brusells and rulings from European courts were clearly very important motivations for those who voted to Leave. If we maintained them anyway, it would alienate millions and damage further trust in British democracy and politicians. Of course we should keep our options open - the single market is likely superior to a no-deal scenario and may be preferable even in the future - but for now we shouldn't be aiming towards continued membership. Rather, we should be re-framing the debate and pursuing a sensible migration policy including the total acceptance of workers in key industries for once we leave.

    (Original post by Saunders16)
    I second the sentiments of my colleagues, joecphillips and Connor27, and would like to put my own two cents into the ring and reply to some of the comments made so far.



    My fellow leader, CoffeeGeek, remarks that there is no reasoning for why we believe the Opposition are failing. Well, the reasoning is quite clear. You had a great opportunity in the previous by-election to gain a seat yet the electorate favoured our own party, the party your members have made consistently clear they believe to be inferior. Furthermore, your promises may be pragmatic but they differ little from the government. As stated earlier, members of your party have defended protectionism which fails to generate confidence as to why your party can deliver a better Brexit than Saoirse's.



    Your coalition were elected with 29 seats. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that is the biggest (or one of the biggest) governments in the MHoC's history. Out of all your 'decent' legislation, your most notable is probably the nationalisation of prisons. SOI's don't matter if you don't act upon them and the point about the budget remains in tact. With 29 seats, you easily could have passed the most important vote of your time in power. Now, it will become a lot more difficult and a failing budget will prove your time in power to have been a let down.

    We may be divisive and not politically correct, but at least we do our job in opposing the government. You are failing to govern well as I have outlined and your government is not something that I believe is worth being a part of either - unless you're a self-described socialist


    On the topic of Saoirse:3, you have conducted yourself very well, your manifesto was well-written and your responses to the Conservatives were superior. I can see why the government chose another ex-leader to represent them. However, I can't help but have one simple question to ask: why should anybody believe that your government will do what they pledge?


    I commend barnetlad for running and I am glad to see an environmentalist voice in this by-election. Nonetheless, there is indeed only one choice if you wish to stand up to the government and it remains my own party. We have kept our manifesto short and not added to the pledges we have already made, because - unlike our opponents - we plan on sticking to our promises. Tonight, we will be doing what the government should be doing in tackling the big issues and releasing a bill that makes the case for the decriminalisation of drugs.

    Don't just dream of a better Britain - vote for one.

    We'd hardly be the first Government to kick on more in the second half of term - if anything thats the rule rather than the exception! With the recent change in Labour's leadership roles and the unfortunate departure of Cesca from the Liberal leadership, we have an opportunity and a plan to revitalise activity and fulfill our manifesto comittmemts. You can trust me to work to ensure we keep down that road. I must commend you on the strength of your party- you've certainly been an asset to the house since reforming, the questionable activities of some members aside - but only I can be the powerful and active voice in Government that is so needed.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    Let's not pretend you don't understand how the two are related. There is an element of the Tory party who would love nothing more than to use the populist vote for Brexit to justify turning us into a tax haven which we could never be under EU law. By cutting the costs to businesses to the bare minimum, they hope not to help the British people but rather to damage Europe in a warped kind of revenge for a decision we rather than they have ultimately made. As May, Boris and David Davis continue to hurtle unwittingly towards a No Deal scenario, such an outcome becomes only all the more plausible despite the shocking implications for our nation.
    Any Government would be insanely stupid to rule out a no deal scenario in the public. It suggests that we will accept any deal given to us by the EU, that's not exactly helpful to the British people is it? With that approach towards Brexit I could easily see ourselves get a crap deal that we will be forced to accept because we ruled out no deal scenario, which could also have shocking implications for our nation.

    If this is such an unrealistic possibility then I urge you again - rule it out. Rule out further cuts to corporation tax, further income tax reform to benefit the rich, and further destruction of wroker's rights. If you cannot do that, then the electorate must wonder why exactly this disaster is a policy you insist on retainining the possibility to pursue.
    Here you seem to be suggesting that we are doing the exact same thing as the IRL Conservative Party when in some areas we take a different approach. I'm not going to rule out anything that goes against our values which aim to better the society we live in. However, things such as corporation tax reduction isn't just for the sake of it, it brings investment into the country. As aforementioned, it would be insanely stupid for a Government to tie their hands and rule out a no deal scenario.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    There is only one alternative to the Keynesian consensus here.
    This is cringe.

    The Tories claim to be an alternative, yet they have MPs that vote for protectionism like Life_peer , mobbsy91 and DreamlinerFinder. It is also worth saying, as my right honourable friend joecphillips has already mentioned. That the Tories were willing to prostitute themselves to a Liberal Party led by a self described Socialist to get his votes, reeks of desperation and opportunism. Another point with their candidate is his inexperience; in the last by election he showed a gross misunderstanding of how the electoral process works and he has a minimal number of posts in the MHOC, can we really trust such a person to provide the stern opposition that the MHOC needs?
    And then you're forgetting that the other 6 MPs we have did not vote for protectionism - lovely cherry-picking there.

    At one point everyone here was inexperienced and were trying to settle in, including yourself. So it's not surprising that some newer members might not understand everything and instead of attacking them and saying that they cannot "provide the stern opposition" is inappropriate and not helpful. What the MHoC needs is to be welcoming to new members, but with the growing number of wretched members like yourself I'm starting to think that the MHoC has become an attacking and bullying corner of TSR. It's not welcoming, it's rude and just downright disgusting. I do not wish to think of how you guys treat newer members in your party but I'll assume it's the same how you treat newer members in the MHoC in general, which is with absolute bitterness and disrespect.

    Indeed, there is only one man who can defeat Labour here, one man who can provide an alternative to the Socialist consensus that has harmed this country and this house over the last two terms.

    Don't just dream of a better Britain, Vote for One.

    Vote Libertarian and Vote _gcx.
    Again, cringe.

    (Original post by Saunders16)
    My fellow leader, CoffeeGeek, remarks that there is no reasoning for why we believe the Opposition are failing. Well, the reasoning is quite clear. You had a great opportunity in the previous by-election to gain a seat yet the electorate favoured our own party, the party your members have made consistently clear they believe to be inferior. Furthermore, your promises may be pragmatic but they differ little from the government. As stated earlier, members of your party have defended protectionism which fails to generate confidence as to why your party can deliver a better Brexit than Saoirse's.
    I do not wish to disclose the details of negotiations but I think you and I know that there wasn't any "opportunity" - let's not talk bullsh*t.

    I think they do differ from the Government, where is the Government proposing to reform the school system? Where is the Government proposing to encourage people to get onto apprenticeship programmes and stay on them? Where is the Government proposing to review PCC policy and foreign aid? I could go on forever but I do not wish to. Don't make vacuous claims that you cannot defend - our policies differ from all the parties standing here today.

    3 MPs out of the 9 we have defended protectionism. How does that suggest the party endorses the protectionism when that's not even a majority of the parliamentary party? Looks like the Leader of the Libertarians is aiming for cheap shots here because it's becoming extremely easy to debunk these myths.

    And you know, it's quite funny. Your manifesto says everything, it's mainly full of attacks with little substance on policy. It seems to represent the character Libertarian Party very accurately, no substance, just attacks. And then you have aspirations of working with us in Government... perhaps you guys need to try harder and stop making such a buffoonery of yourselves.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    Any Government would be insanely stupid to rule out a no deal scenario in the public. It suggests that we will accept any deal given to us by the EU, that's not exactly helpful to the British people is it? With that approach towards Brexit I could easily see ourselves get a crap deal that we will be forced to accept because we ruled out no deal scenario, which could also have shocking implications for our nation.



    Here you seem to be suggesting that we are doing the exact same thing as the IRL Conservative Party when in some areas we take a different approach. I'm not going to rule out anything that goes against our values which aim to better the society we live in. However, things such as corporation tax reduction isn't just for the sake of it, it brings investment into the country. As aforementioned, it would be insanely stupid for a Government to tie their hands and rule out a no deal scenario.
    First of all, I want to deal with how "no deal" seems to have become synonymous with "no trade deal". No trade deal would not be ideal, but as you say can't be ruled out -although the RL government should spend less time talking about it and more time avoiding it. No deal whatsoever would literally be the greatest disaster this country has seen in the post-war era. It means an energy crisis and power cuts, gigantic inflation in food and other basic products, planes being grounded. It would bring the nation to a halt and cannot even be contemplated. You're right in that this hurts our negotiation position, but that's unavoidable - the EU is fully aware that it's simply not an option for us whatever May says. The only way to avoid this would've been to spend time working on a plan to extract ourselves as neatly as possible with backups in every area before we triggered Article 50, but that ship has already sailed.

    That brings me nicely onto my second point. Not all of the theoretical options mentioned are ever going to be the right option for our country. Notably, trying to turn us into an island tax haven is never, ever going to be in our interests. It exists and is supported simply because it would be a way to try and bring Europe down with us when we leave. We would see a collapse in our tax base leading to a fall in living standards on am unprecedented scale; but countries across the EU would face a smaller version of the same problem.

    This is not a solution. It is a ridiculous negotiating strategy from a Tory party that it out of ideas and out of its depth. It antagonises the people we have no choice but to make a deal with using an option that involves pointing a gun at our own heads and telling them that if they don't give us what we want they'll have to clean up our splattered remains. It's beyond immature and beyond stupid.

    I'm aware not everyone in your party supports this. But if it's the route the real life government pursues, that isn't enough. We have to know that you'd use your MPs, if elected, to block such an outcome. Until we know that, it would be irresponsible to elect yet another Tory we can't trust to put the British people ahead of their personal vendettas.

    So I ask you one final time: will you do the right thing and rule this out?

    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    This is cringe.



    And then you're forgetting that the other 6 MPs we have did not vote for protectionism - lovely cherry-picking there.

    At one point everyone here was inexperienced and were trying to settle in, including yourself. So it's not surprising that some newer members might not understand everything and instead of attacking them and saying that they cannot "provide the stern opposition" is inappropriate and not helpful. What the MHoC needs is to be welcoming to new members, but with the growing number of wretched members like yourself I'm starting to think that the MHoC has become an attacking and bullying corner of TSR. It's not welcoming, it's rude and just downright disgusting. I do not wish to think of how you guys treat newer members in your party but I'll assume it's the same how you treat newer members in the MHoC in general, which is with absolute bitterness and disrespect.



    Again, cringe.



    I do not wish to disclose the details of negotiations but I think you and I know that there wasn't any "opportunity" - let's not talk bullsh*t.

    I think they do differ from the Government, where is the Government proposing to reform the school system? Where is the Government proposing to encourage people to get onto apprenticeship programmes and stay on them? Where is the Government proposing to review PCC policy and foreign aid? I could go on forever but I do not wish to. Don't make vacuous claims that you cannot defend - our policies differ from all the parties standing here today.

    3 MPs out of the 9 we have defended protectionism. How does that suggest the party endorses the protectionism when that's not even a majority of the parliamentary party? Looks like the Leader of the Libertarians is aiming for cheap shots here because it's becoming extremely easy to debunk these myths.

    And you know, it's quite funny. Your manifesto says everything, it's mainly full of attacks with little substance on policy. It seems to represent the character Libertarian Party very accurately, no substance, just attacks. And then you have aspirations of working with us in Government... perhaps you guys need to try harder and stop making such a buffoonery of yourselves.
    Let's try and keep the tone amicable in here. You can't criticise someone for attacking and bullying and then refer to them as wretched and a buffoon in the same post. There's really no need for that over a political disagreement and it degrades the reputation of the MHoC.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.