davireland
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#41
Report 10 years ago
#41
(Original post by Gremlins)
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?
Yet their leader said he was going to vote Tory and shares almost all our beliefs in civil liberties and individuality?
0
reply
Nativeenglish
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#42
Report 10 years ago
#42
(Original post by Gremlins)


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?
So, you're honestly going to act as though this coalition was purely done for ideological reasons, rather than political malice? You did this because you didn't want a right-wing government, non? Which is fair enough, although slightly pathetic, but at least admit to it. If the Tories hadn't have had the majority vote (and the threat of holding government), then none of the left would have made a coalition; a tripartite coalition especially.
0
reply
Jace Falco
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#43
Report 10 years ago
#43
(Original post by Nativeenglish)
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.
So, on the one hand you denounce the Lib Dems for claiming to be centrist and actually being socialist, but when it suits you to say that our coalition has nothing in common, we're suddenly chalk and cheese.
0
reply
Gremlins
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#44
Report 10 years ago
#44
(Original post by Nativeenglish)
So, you're honestly going to act as though this coalition was purely done for ideological reasons, rather than political malice? You did this because you didn't want a right-wing government, non? Which is fair enough, although slightly pathetic, but at least admit to it. If the Tories hadn't have had the majority vote (and the threat of holding government), then none of the left would have made a coalition; a tripartite coalition especially.
Of course there was a political element, this is essentially a politics game. But that's not what you asked. You claimed we had no ideological similarities and just wanted power. I showed we were fine ideologically. And the Tories didn't have a majority, they had a plurality, and actually the left won the popular vote. So what, out of interest, was the purpose of the Tory-Liber coalition, if not to keep the left out?

As far as I can see this is fairly typical "oh crap, reframe the question, change the topic, go off on a random attack, anything so people forget how dumb what I said was!" behaviour. You've obviously been to the davireland [sic] School of Public Relations :p:
0
reply
davireland
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#45
Report 10 years ago
#45
(Original post by Jace Falco)
So say that. "None of your business" sounds defensive and secretive. Is it really something you feel you have to hide?

Well, I shan't push you.
No its not. In our coalition bills will still be submitted by the parties however they will be sent to our partners to check them and make suggestions, then we will vote together on them. If for some reason a bill is too economically Libertarian for our liking and too socially Conservative for them then we will submit a bill independent of the other.

What about yours?
0
reply
oriel historian
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#46
Report 10 years ago
#46
(Original post by Nativeenglish)
You did this because you didn't want a right-wing government, non? Which is fair enough, although slightly pathetic, but at least admit to it.
It is, surely, in the interests of the Left not to have a Right-wing government which retards the advancement of left-wing policies. It's not pathetic, it's a perfect playing out of game theory.

Consider, after all, the prisoners' dilemma.
0
reply
Nativeenglish
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#47
Report 10 years ago
#47
(Original post by Jace Falco)
So, on the one hand you denounce the Lib Dems for claiming to be centrist and actually being socialist, but when it suits you to say that our coalition has nothing in common, we're suddenly chalk and cheese.
Another one who's completely missed the point. You did not do this for political worth, you did not do this on ideological grounds. You would not have done this if there was no threat of a Tory government. You did this because you're all so desperate for power, on something that means so little, merely to spite the right-wing that you made a tripartite coalition (and it's legitimacy is still questionable). Seriously, you need to focus more on political rather than gaining one over the opposite wing.

And I never claimed that the Lib Dems were socialist, I believe they are far from it.

Also, the Socialist leader is an absolute joke.
0
reply
davireland
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#48
Report 10 years ago
#48
(Original post by Gremlins)
Of course there was a political element, this is essentially a politics game. But that's not what you asked. You claimed we had no ideological similarities and just wanted power. I showed we were fine ideologically. And the Tories didn't have a majority, they had a plurality, and actually the left won the popular vote.

So what, out of interest, was the purpose of the Tory-Liber coalition, if not to keep the left out?
How do u justify that to your voters though?

No cos if we wanted to keep the left out we would have took Dayne up on his offer.
0
reply
Jace Falco
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#49
Report 10 years ago
#49
(Original post by Nativeenglish)
So, you're honestly going to act as though this coalition was purely done for ideological reasons, rather than political malice? You did this because you didn't want a right-wing government, non? Which is fair enough, although slightly pathetic, but at least admit to it. If the Tories hadn't have had the majority vote (and the threat of holding government), then none of the left would have made a coalition; a tripartite coalition especially.
Well, yes, naturally we wanted to stop a right wing government. On ideological grounds. As Gremlins pointed out, we are ideologically as close together as your party is.

And yes, we certainly would have attempted a coalition regardless. Making a coalition makes it more likely that our measures will be passed, so there's always a benefit to it.
0
reply
Gremlins
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#50
Report 10 years ago
#50
(Original post by davireland)
How do u justify that to your voters though?
How do you justify the Tory-Liber coalition to your voters?
0
reply
Bagration
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#51
Report 10 years ago
#51
(Original post by oriel historian)
It is, surely, in the interests of the Left not to have a Right-wing government which retards the advancement of left-wing policies. It's not pathetic, it's a perfect playing out of game theory.

Consider, after all, the prisoners' dilemma.
Trying to stop it, therefore, is also a perfect playing out of game theory? (if we use your interpretation of the situation.)
0
reply
Nativeenglish
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#52
Report 10 years ago
#52
(Original post by Gremlins)
Of course there was a political element, this is essentially a politics game. But that's not what you asked. You claimed we had no ideological similarities and just wanted power. I showed we were fine ideologically. And the Tories didn't have a majority, they had a plurality, and actually the left won the popular vote. So what, out of interest, was the purpose of the Tory-Liber coalition, if not to keep the left out?
It would've, surely, served us greater gain to form a lib dem-con coalition, so that's really a moot point.
0
reply
Gremlins
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#53
Report 10 years ago
#53
(Original post by Bagration)
Trying to stop it, therefore, is also a perfect playing out of game theory? (if we use your interpretation of the situation.)
No, I think bending the rules (trying to precipitate a constitutional crisis) is slightly different tbh.

(Original post by nativeenglish)
It would've, surely, served us greater gain to form a lib dem-con coalition, so that's really a moot point.
Had you done that you'd be doing exactly what you're accusing us of doing - surrendering your ideological values just to get into government. Jeez, did nobody ever teach you people what consistency means?
0
reply
Nativeenglish
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#54
Report 10 years ago
#54
(Original post by Jace Falco)
Well, yes, naturally we wanted to stop a right wing government. On ideological grounds. As Gremlins pointed out, we are ideologically as close together as your party is.

And yes, we certainly would have attempted a coalition regardless. Making a coalition makes it more likely that our measures will be passed, so there's always a benefit to it.
So, even if we hadn't have gained the majority vote, you would've still done the tripartite coalition?
0
reply
Bagration
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#55
Report 10 years ago
#55
(Original post by Gremlins)
No, I think bending the rules (trying to precipitate a constitutional crisis) is slightly different tbh.
And what do you think the response to a TSR Molotov Ribbentrop pact would have been? What did you honestly expect?
0
reply
Gremlins
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#56
Report 10 years ago
#56
(Original post by Bagration)
And what do you think the response to a TSR Molotov Ribbentrop pact would have been? What did you honestly expect?
Us and the Lib Dems are ideologically pretty close, Bagration :rolleyes: See the political compass thread; we're only marginally more disparate than the Tory Party.
0
reply
oriel historian
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#57
Report 10 years ago
#57
(Original post by Bagration)
Trying to stop it, therefore, is also a perfect playing out of game theory? (if we use your interpretation of the situation.)
Yes, but stamping up and down and wailing "it's not fair" is somewhat outside of the rules, no.
0
reply
Bagration
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#58
Report 10 years ago
#58
(Original post by Gremlins)
Us and the Lib Dems are ideologically pretty close, Bagration See the political compass thread; we're only marginally more disparate than the Tory Party.
Then let them ADMIT that. Let them admit to being ******* Socialists. When I see that I will stop protesting. When the Liberal Democrats start acting like Socialists (to be fair, that's not too far a step away) and start admitting that they're Socialists, then I will no longer have a problem with this coalition.
0
reply
Alasdair
Badges: 14
#59
Report 10 years ago
#59
The Tories just don't understand coalitions - they're designed to advance each party's agenda, not to weld together all those of one 'ideology'.
0
reply
Gremlins
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#60
Report 10 years ago
#60
(Original post by Bagration)
Then let them ADMIT that. Let them admit to being ******* Socialists. When I see that I will stop protesting. When the Liberal Democrats start acting like Socialists (to be fair, that's not too far a step away) and start admitting that they're Socialists, then I will no longer have a problem with this coalition.
Once again, you've completely changed the topic, but fwiw several Lib Dems have said that theirs is a left-wing party.
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 (470)
66.67%
No (235)
33.33%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed