And now they'll give the vote to illiterates and idiots. What's next? Women, children, pets and furniture? Absurd! This is the end of rational government.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
my chair votes liberal but my rabbit votes for whoever does not want to eat him
Know this, Tories and Whigs: the harder you resist us, the workers of Britain, the sooner you will wake up and fiind yourselves abolished.
The people of Britain demand your coffee table have the right to free speech!
Now my jingoistic tea set keeps talking about conquering the Far East in order to be reunited with their China bretheren; I hope you're all happy now
Ugh, if all the noble families' antique suits of armor get their way in elections we'll be at war with the French again. "We can beat them this time, I'm sure of it!" they say.
I guessed a Liberal- Chartist coalition would be most feasible. Now we shall reform society!
And this is intended to persuade us to JOIN you?
You have a serious deficit in persuasive skill. All the above does is convince the Tories and Whigs that you are their enemy, and that they need to resist to the last man...as you clearly mean to do them harm. Why should they join a party that sees them as an enemy?
Indeed. He should watch and learn from the suits of armor. They've just about got me convinced that Normandy is rightfully ours.
The Third Parliament of the Republic of Britain - 1847-1851
The period of the third Parliament witnessed stable successes in expanding Britain’s influence overseas, instability in its politics at home and a great degree of economic prosperity.
The key indicator of industrial production made the economic successes after the victory of the Liberal-Chartist alliance extremely apparent. In the 3 years after the foundation of the Republic in 1836 industrial production had greatly increased due to a high level of investment, large supplies of surplus labour in the cities (due to the return of former soldiers to the cities after the Civil War) and, importantly, the proliferation of railroads across the country. But in the 8 years between the end of the boom and the election of the Russell government industrial production remained stagnant – even declining during the tumultuous period around the General Strike.
The boom that began after the election in 1847 had actually been created over the course of the past decade. Years of outrageously low taxes on the wealthy and state encouragement for the development of a new propertied class had supported the rapid expansion of the bourgeoisie as a class and of their hoards of wealth. By 1847 this comparatively small urban elite of businessmen had amassed a huge quantity of wealth – but little investment had found its way into the industrial sector.
Why this changed in 1847 is not entirely clear. General market exuberance, feelings that the danger of revolution had been averted following the political reforms of the new government, fear that future governments might not be so friendly to investment, wealth from the growing Empire and continued rural-urban migration all contributed to the beginning of the boom. Once the first new successful ventures started to gain the attention of investors they descended upon the manufacturing sector like a swarm of piranhas – everyone desperate to gain a piece of the latest boom market.
Ironically the economic prosperity ushered in under the new government would later play its part in bringing it down. For, despite the impressive growth in the British economy all the gains of this continued to be monopolised by the very same elite who had provided the investment. The continued pressure from its support base to address this problem would severely affect the Chartist Party.
On the international stage the period was a successful time for British Imperialism. In 1848 the Kingdom of Mysore in Southern India agreed to trade deals similar to those earlier accepted by the Nizam. Britain’s aim of creating an economic bloc of Indian states in Southern India seemed to be a very successful policy. The overbearing presence of the French and failed military operations by both the Dutch and Portuguese in the region seemed to be pushing many Princes back towards the people they had thrown from their continent not two decades before.
In the Pacific Ocean the tiny Kingdom of Hawaii was invaded and annexed by British sailors. The reasons for the invasion are pretty clear. It was felt that the Republic needed a military base in the Pacific Ocean, no one was ever going to raise a finger to protect Hawaii and the Americans (following the recent acquisition of a small stretch of Pacific coastline in the Oregon territory) were a growing influence on the islands meaning that if the British did not seize them the Americans might.
Finally the Persian Empire was brought into the British economic sphere. A recent war with the Russians and the decline of the Ottomans from the forefront of international politics (economic and political stagnation coupled with a defeat to the Swedes in a recent war made sure of that) left Persia feeling exposed and without friends. Britain’s offer of friendship was therefore readily accepted by the Shah.
Beyond Britain the past decades – whilst clearly more violent than the period between the Napoleonic Wars and British Civil War – had still remained relatively peaceable. There had been few major wars in continental Europe, even if there had been extensive expansionism in Asia, Africa and to a lesser extent in the Americas. The most major change in international affairs had been the rise of Sweden – a friend of the British – the Swedes had gained economic power from the emergence of industries in several key cities, had conquered Tunisia and then gone on to defeat Ottoman attempts to wrestle the colony from them.
But during the 3rd Parliament the greatest changes of all occurred on the domestic political scene.
The first great change began with the death of Daniel O’Connell just three weeks into the new Parliamentary. The 72 year old was known as ‘’The Liberator’’, a national hero to the Irish people, he had dominated politics in Ireland for decades. Campaigning for Catholic emancipation and the repeal of the Union between the British and Irish Parliaments from the 1810s by the beginning of the collapse of the British Empire he was the supreme political figure in Irish politics. Despite always being a champion of pacifism as the primary tool to combat Imperialism he gave his blessing for the armed uprising that would force the British out of Ireland during the Civil War. When the new Irish Republic settled down for its first elections in 1835 he won by a landslide (gaining over 70% of all votes cast) but after his retirement in 1840 things started to go downhill for Ireland. Tensions with the Northern Protestants and a more hard line anti-British President in Dublin contributed to the war with Britain that destroyed the young Irish Republic. Following the annexation O’Connell re-emerged from retirement to form the Irish Parliamentary Party – a group that would campaign peacefully for Irish rights and for great autonomy with the ultimate goal of a restoration of the independent Republic. O’Connell’s death was a disaster for the moderates and for Anglo-Irish relations.
The IPP leadership fell into the hands of the radicals, of William O’Brien and his clique of ‘Young Irelanders’ who advocated armed resistance against British attempts to extent their control over Ireland. With the Liberal government in Westminster desperate to avoid a large scale rebellion in Ireland the province would be purposely neglected with little government or private investment or interference in most of Ireland. Indeed, by the end of the Parliament whilst in Britain industry boomed and even in Protestant Ulster new factories grew up Ireland actually saw many of its factories close down as investment dried up. By 1851 there were 25,000 unemployed Irish workers. Investors simply saw no reason to set up factories in unstable Ireland whilst projects were prospering just across the Irish Sea.
In 1849 pressure from the rest of the Tory Party finally forced Robert Peel out. After over a decade of his leadership the Party had simply had enough. But the man who rose to replace him was a great surprise. Benjamin Disraeli was chosen to succeed Peel due to the feeling of the party that he could represent a bridge between the Tory Party’s core values and the newly enfranchised working class. It was his belief that the landed aristocracy could use their political power to ensure the protection of the workers from the exploitative mercantile class. He was also a defender of protectionism, a strong Imperialist and one who despised the new socialist ideology that had been growing in influence for several years. He was also, controversially at the time, of Jewish descent – a fact the British press often took gleeful delight in highlighting at every possible opportunity.
But the forces that would eventually bring down the government did not come from the opposition but from within the government itself.
Following the Chartist triumphs of universal male suffrage, the repeal of all anti-union legislation and the institution of secret ballots so that landlords could not exert pressure on their tenants to vote the right way (as had been a problem in the past) the Chartists seemed to find themselves in a strange situation. The battles for liberalism that they had fought for had now been one, many – most important O’Connor himself – now seemed to think that the job of the Chartists had been done and now they need not worry so much about reform as merely ensuring that the freedom of the workers was not infringed upon.
The Chartist Left did not agree. Led by George Harney and focussed around the editorial board of the radical but highly popular newspaper ‘’The Red Republican’’ the Chartist Left fought for an embrace of socialism by the Party. Demanding greater influence for Trade Unions, a wholesale shift in the party’s direction and new campaign for workers’ rights – this time for shorter hours, for healthcare and for a minimum wage rather than for universal suffrage. As the years progressed O’Connor’s popularity started to plummet within his own party as Harney’s supporters agitated against him and damned his expulsion of several radical cells from the Party.
In what would later be described as tantamount to a Palace coup on December 19th 1850 George Harney stormed into O’Connor’s office and presented to him a long petition of thousands of Chartist Party members demanding that he resign and a new leader be elected. When O’Connor refused Harney’s supporters, extraordinarily, locked him in the office and refused to allow him to leave until he agreed to their demands. Fearing for his safety O’Connor signed his resignation and called for a new leader to be elected.
When leading Chartist officials gathered to elect their new leader in January Harney won the vote hands down.
The dynamic of the governing coalition had now been radically altered. After the Liberals had given him the reforms he demanded O’Connor had allowed his coalition partners to lead the way in government, doing little to disrupt Liberal governance. However, Harney would make things much more difficult. He quickly started to demand that the coalition be properly rebalanced so that the Chartists would have an equal say in government – rebelling against Liberal dominance. In effect Parliament was being brought to a grinding halt as Prime Minister Russell found it increasingly difficult to deal with his allies.
If Russell thought that things might improve in time he was badly mistaken. For on May 1st 1851 the Chartist Party was officially abolished and replaced by the ‘Labour Party’. On May 1st Harney had gathered a great many Trade Unionists, most leading Chartists, Owenites, Christian Socialists, other smaller (often more radical) pro-worker political parties and groups together. They would then go on to found the new Labour Party. In reality Labour was merely a rebranded Chartist Party just with liberalism replaced by socialism as its central ideology. Harney described the new Party as a broad movement for the entire working class that would forever strive to further the interests of that class in Britain. Despite his own sympathies for more radical philosophies Harney ensured that the Labour Party did not embrace revolutionary ideals and instead called for the reform of the British state and society rather than its overthrow.
In the aftermath of the foundation of the party Russell tried desperately to heal the gaping wounds between the Liberals and their official allies in the newly founded Labour Party. But any hopes for the survival of the coalition were ended in June when Labour published a Manifesto – in it they demanded a set and shortened working day, a minimum wage for a day’s labour, a small state provided pension for retired workers, a set of universal safety requirements that all employers would have to accept and a progressive tax system. In effect Labour had torpedoed the coalition. When Harney went before Parliament on June 17th and proposed the altering of the tax regime the refusal of the Liberal MPs to vote with him led to the official breakup of the coalition.
For the next couple of months Russell would limp on with a minority government – relying entirely on the support of the Tories, Whigs and Unionists to survive. This unstable arrangement finally came to an end after Disraeli demanded something in return for his support – namely the raising of a tariff on imported Belgian steel which he felt was undermining the native industry. In August Russell dissolved Parliament and called for a new general election.
The period of the third Parliament witnessed stable successes in expanding Britain’s influence overseas, instability in its politics at home and a great degree of economic prosperity.
The key indicator of industrial production made the economic successes after the victory of the Liberal-Chartist alliance extremely apparent. In the 3 years after the foundation of the Republic in 1836 industrial production had greatly increased due to a high level of investment, large supplies of surplus labour in the cities (due to the return of former soldiers to the cities after the Civil War) and, importantly, the proliferation of railroads across the country. But in the 8 years between the end of the boom and the election of the Russell government industrial production remained stagnant – even declining during the tumultuous period around the General Strike.
The boom that began after the election in 1847 had actually been created over the course of the past decade. Years of outrageously low taxes on the wealthy and state encouragement for the development of a new propertied class had supported the rapid expansion of the bourgeoisie as a class and of their hoards of wealth. By 1847 this comparatively small urban elite of businessmen had amassed a huge quantity of wealth – but little investment had found its way into the industrial sector.
Why this changed in 1847 is not entirely clear. General market exuberance, feelings that the danger of revolution had been averted following the political reforms of the new government, fear that future governments might not be so friendly to investment, wealth from the growing Empire and continued rural-urban migration all contributed to the beginning of the boom. Once the first new successful ventures started to gain the attention of investors they descended upon the manufacturing sector like a swarm of piranhas – everyone desperate to gain a piece of the latest boom market.
Ironically the economic prosperity ushered in under the new government would later play its part in bringing it down. For, despite the impressive growth in the British economy all the gains of this continued to be monopolised by the very same elite who had provided the investment. The continued pressure from its support base to address this problem would severely affect the Chartist Party.
On the international stage the period was a successful time for British Imperialism. In 1848 the Kingdom of Mysore in Southern India agreed to trade deals similar to those earlier accepted by the Nizam. Britain’s aim of creating an economic bloc of Indian states in Southern India seemed to be a very successful policy. The overbearing presence of the French and failed military operations by both the Dutch and Portuguese in the region seemed to be pushing many Princes back towards the people they had thrown from their continent not two decades before.
In the Pacific Ocean the tiny Kingdom of Hawaii was invaded and annexed by British sailors. The reasons for the invasion are pretty clear. It was felt that the Republic needed a military base in the Pacific Ocean, no one was ever going to raise a finger to protect Hawaii and the Americans (following the recent acquisition of a small stretch of Pacific coastline in the Oregon territory) were a growing influence on the islands meaning that if the British did not seize them the Americans might.
Finally the Persian Empire was brought into the British economic sphere. A recent war with the Russians and the decline of the Ottomans from the forefront of international politics (economic and political stagnation coupled with a defeat to the Swedes in a recent war made sure of that) left Persia feeling exposed and without friends. Britain’s offer of friendship was therefore readily accepted by the Shah.
Beyond Britain the past decades – whilst clearly more violent than the period between the Napoleonic Wars and British Civil War – had still remained relatively peaceable. There had been few major wars in continental Europe, even if there had been extensive expansionism in Asia, Africa and to a lesser extent in the Americas. The most major change in international affairs had been the rise of Sweden – a friend of the British – the Swedes had gained economic power from the emergence of industries in several key cities, had conquered Tunisia and then gone on to defeat Ottoman attempts to wrestle the colony from them.
But during the 3rd Parliament the greatest changes of all occurred on the domestic political scene.
The first great change began with the death of Daniel O’Connell just three weeks into the new Parliamentary. The 72 year old was known as ‘’The Liberator’’, a national hero to the Irish people, he had dominated politics in Ireland for decades. Campaigning for Catholic emancipation and the repeal of the Union between the British and Irish Parliaments from the 1810s by the beginning of the collapse of the British Empire he was the supreme political figure in Irish politics. Despite always being a champion of pacifism as the primary tool to combat Imperialism he gave his blessing for the armed uprising that would force the British out of Ireland during the Civil War. When the new Irish Republic settled down for its first elections in 1835 he won by a landslide (gaining over 70% of all votes cast) but after his retirement in 1840 things started to go downhill for Ireland. Tensions with the Northern Protestants and a more hard line anti-British President in Dublin contributed to the war with Britain that destroyed the young Irish Republic. Following the annexation O’Connell re-emerged from retirement to form the Irish Parliamentary Party – a group that would campaign peacefully for Irish rights and for great autonomy with the ultimate goal of a restoration of the independent Republic. O’Connell’s death was a disaster for the moderates and for Anglo-Irish relations.
The IPP leadership fell into the hands of the radicals, of William O’Brien and his clique of ‘Young Irelanders’ who advocated armed resistance against British attempts to extent their control over Ireland. With the Liberal government in Westminster desperate to avoid a large scale rebellion in Ireland the province would be purposely neglected with little government or private investment or interference in most of Ireland. Indeed, by the end of the Parliament whilst in Britain industry boomed and even in Protestant Ulster new factories grew up Ireland actually saw many of its factories close down as investment dried up. By 1851 there were 25,000 unemployed Irish workers. Investors simply saw no reason to set up factories in unstable Ireland whilst projects were prospering just across the Irish Sea.
In 1849 pressure from the rest of the Tory Party finally forced Robert Peel out. After over a decade of his leadership the Party had simply had enough. But the man who rose to replace him was a great surprise. Benjamin Disraeli was chosen to succeed Peel due to the feeling of the party that he could represent a bridge between the Tory Party’s core values and the newly enfranchised working class. It was his belief that the landed aristocracy could use their political power to ensure the protection of the workers from the exploitative mercantile class. He was also a defender of protectionism, a strong Imperialist and one who despised the new socialist ideology that had been growing in influence for several years. He was also, controversially at the time, of Jewish descent – a fact the British press often took gleeful delight in highlighting at every possible opportunity.
But the forces that would eventually bring down the government did not come from the opposition but from within the government itself.
Following the Chartist triumphs of universal male suffrage, the repeal of all anti-union legislation and the institution of secret ballots so that landlords could not exert pressure on their tenants to vote the right way (as had been a problem in the past) the Chartists seemed to find themselves in a strange situation. The battles for liberalism that they had fought for had now been one, many – most important O’Connor himself – now seemed to think that the job of the Chartists had been done and now they need not worry so much about reform as merely ensuring that the freedom of the workers was not infringed upon.
The Chartist Left did not agree. Led by George Harney and focussed around the editorial board of the radical but highly popular newspaper ‘’The Red Republican’’ the Chartist Left fought for an embrace of socialism by the Party. Demanding greater influence for Trade Unions, a wholesale shift in the party’s direction and new campaign for workers’ rights – this time for shorter hours, for healthcare and for a minimum wage rather than for universal suffrage. As the years progressed O’Connor’s popularity started to plummet within his own party as Harney’s supporters agitated against him and damned his expulsion of several radical cells from the Party.
In what would later be described as tantamount to a Palace coup on December 19th 1850 George Harney stormed into O’Connor’s office and presented to him a long petition of thousands of Chartist Party members demanding that he resign and a new leader be elected. When O’Connor refused Harney’s supporters, extraordinarily, locked him in the office and refused to allow him to leave until he agreed to their demands. Fearing for his safety O’Connor signed his resignation and called for a new leader to be elected.
When leading Chartist officials gathered to elect their new leader in January Harney won the vote hands down.
The dynamic of the governing coalition had now been radically altered. After the Liberals had given him the reforms he demanded O’Connor had allowed his coalition partners to lead the way in government, doing little to disrupt Liberal governance. However, Harney would make things much more difficult. He quickly started to demand that the coalition be properly rebalanced so that the Chartists would have an equal say in government – rebelling against Liberal dominance. In effect Parliament was being brought to a grinding halt as Prime Minister Russell found it increasingly difficult to deal with his allies.
If Russell thought that things might improve in time he was badly mistaken. For on May 1st 1851 the Chartist Party was officially abolished and replaced by the ‘Labour Party’. On May 1st Harney had gathered a great many Trade Unionists, most leading Chartists, Owenites, Christian Socialists, other smaller (often more radical) pro-worker political parties and groups together. They would then go on to found the new Labour Party. In reality Labour was merely a rebranded Chartist Party just with liberalism replaced by socialism as its central ideology. Harney described the new Party as a broad movement for the entire working class that would forever strive to further the interests of that class in Britain. Despite his own sympathies for more radical philosophies Harney ensured that the Labour Party did not embrace revolutionary ideals and instead called for the reform of the British state and society rather than its overthrow.
In the aftermath of the foundation of the party Russell tried desperately to heal the gaping wounds between the Liberals and their official allies in the newly founded Labour Party. But any hopes for the survival of the coalition were ended in June when Labour published a Manifesto – in it they demanded a set and shortened working day, a minimum wage for a day’s labour, a small state provided pension for retired workers, a set of universal safety requirements that all employers would have to accept and a progressive tax system. In effect Labour had torpedoed the coalition. When Harney went before Parliament on June 17th and proposed the altering of the tax regime the refusal of the Liberal MPs to vote with him led to the official breakup of the coalition.
For the next couple of months Russell would limp on with a minority government – relying entirely on the support of the Tories, Whigs and Unionists to survive. This unstable arrangement finally came to an end after Disraeli demanded something in return for his support – namely the raising of a tariff on imported Belgian steel which he felt was undermining the native industry. In August Russell dissolved Parliament and called for a new general election.
You misunderstand my intentions. I do not wish to persuade them at all. Instead, I wish to enrage them until they feel that cooperation and negotiation with even the most moderate members of Labour is impossible. Then those most moderate members will feel they have no choice but to join my wing of the Party, where they will be welcome so long as they give up their moderation.
And then they will be 'free' to do whatever the Labour party tells them, or else they can be locked in their office (or worse) until they kowtow the line.
How is this any different than under the tyrrany of the monarchy?
Bah, the 'Chartist' and 'Labour' Parties are nothing more than a ruse intended to lull us to sleep so that they can ensure the dictatorship of the working man (by which I mean the dictatorship of the Directory of chosen men who 'represent' the working man) can rise up and destroy all those who oppose the will of the leadership of the Party.
As such, I shall continue to VOTE TORY.
Last edited:
I couldn't have said it better myself. After this shameful experience, I can only but vote Tory
You guys do realise the next election hasn't started yet right?
Well, we couldn't refrain
- Status