04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#81
Report 1 month ago
#81
(Original post by Baron of Sealand)
More socially conservative?! Interesting claim when we're headed by a gay person of colour atheist immigrant.
The leader doesn't have to embody the entire ideology of the party.
0
reply
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#82
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#82
(Original post by Baron of Sealand)
The point here is that if he got the positions from the manifesto and the answers, then how come it's not 100% for me? He didn't do a survey of the "average" Tory member.
some answers came from rakas and other Tories at the time in the debate thread where they directly addressed points I asked questions about.

And as I said, if you use agree/disagree a lot you'll get a lower score.
0
reply
Baron of Sealand
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#83
Report 1 month ago
#83
(Original post by Aph)
some answers came from rakas and other Tories at the time in the debate thread where they directly addressed points I asked questions about.

And as I said, if you use agree/disagree a lot you'll get a lower score.
That explains it. I did use agree/disagree more than I did the extreme options.
0
reply
Baron of Sealand
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#84
Report 1 month ago
#84
(Original post by 04MR17)
The leader doesn't have to embody the entire ideology of the party.
No. But if they hated LGBT like Glaz likes to claim, then they wouldn't have voted me in.

I'm not saying we are the most socially liberal party, because that wasn't in the post I quoted initially. The claim was that we are more socially conservative than the RL Tories, which I don't believe to be the case.
0
reply
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#85
Report 1 month ago
#85
(Original post by Baron of Sealand)
No. But if they hated LGBT like Glaz likes to claim, then they wouldn't have voted me in.

I'm not saying we are the most socially liberal party, because that wasn't in the post I quoted initially. The claim was that we are more socially conservative than the RL Tories, which I don't believe to be the case.
I understand the previous conversation, I did read it first time. My point was your personal identity proves very very little about party policy, since your post suggested otherwise.

My personal identity of a dead South African (as you so rightly pointed out) didn't influence the Lib Dems when I led them.
Last edited by 04MR17; 1 month ago
0
reply
Baron of Sealand
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#86
Report 1 month ago
#86
(Original post by 04MR17)
I understand the previous conversation, I did read it first time. My point was your personal identity proves very very little about party policy, since your post suggested otherwise.

My personal identity of a death South African (as you so rightly pointed out) didn't influence the Lib Dems when I led them.
*dead
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#87
Report 1 month ago
#87
(Original post by tubphonecase)
Attachment 873422


I hate that my libdem is so high - I don't support the libdems at all. No where near a tory though so phew for that.
These results are based on the mhoc party policies. Since the liberals are in government with labour and have liberal left prominent members it explains the similarity.
0
reply
eggtart
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#88
Report 1 month ago
#88
(Original post by BosslyGaming)
Absolutely! Your results above suggest that you'd be a great fit for our party. Let me know if you do send a join request and I'll ask for a dupe check (mandatory procedure for new members, to check that you don't already have an account involved)
hii i requested
1
reply
BosslyGaming
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#89
Report 1 month ago
#89
(Original post by eggtart)
hii i requested
Wonderful to hear. You'll be accepted once the dupe check comes back.
0
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#90
Report 1 month ago
#90
(Original post by Aph)
Questions are mostly taken from the Manifestos at the last GE
Which gives you very little, and on top of that there is a massive difference between what parties claim to believe in manifestos and what they are shown to believe in their output/voting.
0
reply
Joleee
Badges: 18
#91
Report 1 month ago
#91
(Original post by Baron of Sealand)
I'm not saying we are the most socially liberal party, because that wasn't in the post I quoted initially. The claim was that we are more socially conservative than the RL Tories, which I don't believe to be the case.
sexuality and ethnicity has nothing to do with social liberalism. ‘friends with a gay person’ is also not socially liberal – that’s 2005.

far right commentator Milo Yiannopoulos is gay as day and is married to a black man but no one would confuse him for being socially liberal. Caitlyn Jenner is a proud republican, one-time Trump supporter and said on Ellen that she opposes same-sex marriage. your assumption that being even somewhat LGBT adjacent makes you more socially liberal makes you socially in denial.

your party's perpetual arguments against the poor, the old, and the disabled makes you no where near the real life Conservatives. what policies and arguments have you and your party made that would compare you to the real life Conservative party?
1
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#92
Report 1 month ago
#92
(Original post by Joleee)
sexuality and ethnicity has nothing to do with social liberalism. ‘friends with a gay person’ is also not socially liberal – that’s 2005.

far right commentator Milo Yiannopoulos is gay as day and is married to a black man but no one would confuse him for being socially liberal. Caitlyn Jenner is a proud republican, one-time Trump supporter and said on Ellen that she opposes same-sex marriage. your assumption that being even somewhat LGBT adjacent makes you more socially liberal makes you socially in denial.

your party's perpetual arguments against the poor, the old, and the disabled makes you no where near the real life Conservatives. what policies and arguments have you and your party made that would compare you to the real life Conservative party?
Which mhoc policies have damaged the poor, the old or the disabled.

It is the conservatives here that raised the tax threshold for the working poor, that has historically tied the minimum wage to the employment rate (increasing at a faster rate) and mandated that high revenue growth firms increase wage growth at a faster rate than inflation.

I sense that an RL bias may be clouding your judgment. The great Mhoc Conservative and Unionist Party is the party of the working poor.
0
reply
Joleee
Badges: 18
#93
Report 1 month ago
#93
(Original post by Rakas21)
Which mhoc policies have damaged the poor, the old or the disabled.

It is the conservatives here that raised the tax threshold for the working poor, that has historically tied the minimum wage to the employment rate (increasing at a faster rate) and mandated that high revenue growth firms increase wage growth at a faster rate than inflation.

I sense that an RL bias may be clouding your judgment. The great Mhoc Conservative and Unionist Party is the party of the working poor.
specifically the coin bill, which we argued was undemocratic and against pensioners and the disabled. and the universal credit regulations. do you need me to link you to your own bill cuz i can, no problem.

did you not say that gayness is a biological flaw in another thread or am i wrong.
Last edited by Joleee; 1 month ago
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#94
Report 1 month ago
#94
(Original post by Joleee)
specifically the coin bill, which we argued was undemocratic and against pensioners and the disabled. and the universal credit regulations. do you need me to link you to your own bill cuz i can, no problem.

did you not say that gayness is a biological flaw in another thread or am i wrong.
Ah. None of those actually reduce money to those groups though so I consider such assertions speculative.

I was pointing out that homosexuality is not a desirable evolutionary trait. At any rate that in itself does not substantiate your view of the party being any more socially conservative than RL given that I actually support gay marriage.

Your argument is akin to me saying that immigration should increase to 500,000 net but declaring me a xenophobic for stating that no immigrants should be Muslim for example. In objective terms your statement would be flawed given the definition of the term in relation to the policy outcome. Your argument can only be seen as true if viewing through a very narrow liberal lens.
0
reply
Baron of Sealand
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#95
Report 1 month ago
#95
(Original post by Joleee)
sexuality and ethnicity has nothing to do with social liberalism. ‘friends with a gay person’ is also not socially liberal – that’s 2005.

far right commentator Milo Yiannopoulos is gay as day and is married to a black man but no one would confuse him for being socially liberal. Caitlyn Jenner is a proud republican, one-time Trump supporter and said on Ellen that she opposes same-sex marriage. your assumption that being even somewhat LGBT adjacent makes you more socially liberal makes you socially in denial.

your party's perpetual arguments against the poor, the old, and the disabled makes you no where near the real life Conservatives. what policies and arguments have you and your party made that would compare you to the real life Conservative party?
Why did we ever have arguments against the poor, the disabled, and the old? I don't have the burden of proof, as I wasn't the one making that claim first. So far, there has been 0 evidence presented.

I just saw your other post: the Universal Credits legislation aims to help them better manage their finances and to hopefully make healthier choices in their life. On the contrary, we care so much about then we would like the poor to stay away from drugs, alcohol, gambling, cigarettes, and so on. These things not only waste their money, but could kill them. You may disagree with our approach but to paint our attempt as anti-poor is just laughable.

The only person who's ever really said anything against gay people, as far as I'm aware, was LP, and he used the word "not normal" because he doesn't recognize the negative connotation associated. We support gay marriage so your claim is on very shaky grounds.

Trans people can very easily be conservative. They are the ones who seem to be saying that being male or female is more than just biology or genetics.

The coins bill was co-sponsored by the TSR Labour so I guess if you have to use that, you will also have to use it against them. And once again, nobody intended for it to negatively affect old and disabled people, and just because you think it would have, doesn't make it true, and certainly doesn't mean we pushed it to harm the elderly and the disabled.
0
reply
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#96
Report 1 month ago
#96
Ruhab Dabeer, try completing the quiz in the OP and see what you get. This will help to work out the best party for you in the TSR Model House of Commons.

I'll answer your other questions in that thread tomorrow. :yep:
1
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#97
Report 1 month ago
#97
Has anybody here signed up for Citizens?
0
reply
Joleee
Badges: 18
#98
Report 1 month ago
#98
(Original post by Baron of Sealand)
More socially conservative?! Interesting claim when we're headed by a gay person of colour atheist immigrant.
(Original post by Joleee)
sexuality and ethnicity has nothing to do with social liberalism. ‘friends with a gay person’ is also not socially liberal – that’s 2005.

far right commentator Milo Yiannopoulos is gay as day and is married to a black man but no one would confuse him for being socially liberal. Caitlyn Jenner is a proud republican, one-time Trump supporter and said on Ellen that she opposes same-sex marriage. your assumption that being even somewhat LGBT adjacent makes you more socially liberal makes you socially in denial.

your party's perpetual arguments against the poor, the old, and the disabled makes you no where near the real life Conservatives. what policies and arguments have you and your party made that would compare you to the real life Conservative party?
(Original post by Baron of Sealand)
Why did we ever have arguments against the poor, the disabled, and the old? I don't have the burden of proof, as I wasn't the one making that claim first. So far, there has been 0 evidence presented.

I just saw your other post: the Universal Credits legislation aims to help them better manage their finances and to hopefully make healthier choices in their life. On the contrary, we care so much about then we would like the poor to stay away from drugs, alcohol, gambling, cigarettes, and so on. These things not only waste their money, but could kill them. You may disagree with our approach but to paint our attempt as anti-poor is just laughable.

The only person who's ever really said anything against gay people, as far as I'm aware, was LP, and he used the word "not normal" because he doesn't recognize the negative connotation associated. We support gay marriage so your claim is on very shaky grounds.

Trans people can very easily be conservative. They are the ones who seem to be saying that being male or female is more than just biology or genetics.

The coins bill was co-sponsored by the TSR Labour so I guess if you have to use that, you will also have to use it against them. And once again, nobody intended for it to negatively affect old and disabled people, and just because you think it would have, doesn't make it true, and certainly doesn't mean we pushed it to harm the elderly and the disabled.
your burden of proof is that you are as socially liberal as the real life Conservatives - that's what you claimed and that's what i was challenging if you read the last para of my comment. your only argument to Aph was that you are a gay person of colour atheist immigrant. i proved you wrong that sexuality and ethnicity has nothing to do with it.

the Universal Credit legislation would never, ever, ever be suggested by the real life Conservatives. the fact that you don't see it as an invasion of privacy shows how you are not on the same spectrum as they are.

i wasn't suggesting you don't support 'gay marriage'. i was suggesting that supporting 'gay marriage' is old news and doesn't make one socially liberal in 2020. btw - it's just marriage, not 'gay marriage'.

i know the coins bill was sponsored by labour members who had no idea what they were sponsoring. i don't do identity politics - i only care about policy. and you have not shown your polices are reflective of real live Conservatives. please prove me the opposite.
1
reply
Baron of Sealand
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#99
Report 1 month ago
#99
(Original post by Joleee)
your burden of proof is that you are as socially liberal as the real life Conservatives - that's what you claimed and that's what i was challenging if you read the last para of my comment. your only argument to Aph was that you are a gay person of colour atheist immigrant. i proved you wrong that sexuality and ethnicity has nothing to do with it.

the Universal Credit legislation would never, ever, ever be suggested by the real life Conservatives. the fact that you don't see it as an invasion of privacy shows how you are not on the same spectrum as they are.

i wasn't suggesting you don't support 'gay marriage'. i was suggesting that supporting 'gay marriage' is old news and doesn't make one socially liberal in 2020. btw - it's just marriage, not 'gay marriage'.

i know the coins bill was sponsored by labour members who had no idea what they were sponsoring. i don't do identity politics - i only care about policy. and you have not shown your polices are reflective of real live Conservatives. please prove me the opposite.
(Original post by Joleee)
your burden of proof is that you are as socially liberal as the real life Conservatives - that's what you claimed and that's what i was challenging if you read the last para of my comment. your only argument to Aph was that you are a gay person of colour atheist immigrant. i proved you wrong that sexuality and ethnicity has nothing to do with it.

the Universal Credit legislation would never, ever, ever be suggested by the real life Conservatives. the fact that you don't see it as an invasion of privacy shows how you are not on the same spectrum as they are.

i wasn't suggesting you don't support 'gay marriage'. i was suggesting that supporting 'gay marriage' is old news and doesn't make one socially liberal in 2020. btw - it's just marriage, not 'gay marriage'.

i know the coins bill was sponsored by labour members who had no idea what they were sponsoring. i don't do identity politics - i only care about policy. and you have not shown your polices are reflective of real live Conservatives. please prove me the opposite.
If you had read the whole conversation carefully, you would've realised that I was responding to Aph's claim. But I guess if you chose to read out of context, then it's not surprising that you are under the incorrect impression that I carried the burden of proof, by being the person who questioned a claim.

What 04 and you either fail, or are unwilling to understand, is that I was not claiming that *my* identity or *my* views per se means anything, But that their voting for me meant that was not a problem for them. Benito Juárez did nothing for Native Americans in Mexico, but his becoming president of Mexico despite his background and appearance he became president and that suggested something about the people who supported him. I cannot make this any more clearer, so if you simply continue misinterpreting my point, then I will give up on you just like I have given up on 04.

Speaking of the burden of claim, here's another one. Whether the RL Tories would push the same piece of legislation is purely your unsubstantiated assertion. Just because you say it, doesn't make it true. I already explained to you there is a difference between the intent and the action. You can disagree with our action, but you're judging us based on intent and you have nothing to say other than simply refusing to accept our intent.

So Labourites are allowed to support something without knowing what your claimed the consequences would be, but we are not given the benefit of the doubt? Oh so you're partisan about this. OK.
0
reply
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#100
Report 1 month ago
#100
(Original post by Baron of Sealand)
What 04 and you either fail, or are unwilling to understand, is that I was not claiming that *my* identity or *my* views per se means anything, But that their voting for me meant that was not a problem for them. Benito Juárez did nothing for Native Americans in Mexico, but his becoming president of Mexico despite his background and appearance he became president and that suggested something about the people who supported him. I cannot make this any more clearer, so if you simply continue misinterpreting my point, then I will give up on you just like I have given up on 04.
Why is it the place of others to speculate about why you were or weren't elected as leader? I don't think it's my place to speculate that you were elected for one reason or another. And electing you doesn't demonstrate anything about party views on an issue, just that they preferred you to the other options. As a former party leader, I'd politely suggest you don't try to take personal responsibility for any shift in party opinion.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (479)
66.44%
No (242)
33.56%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed