-
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
But the rich are not actually more "successful" and the system that produces them is not a meritocracy. Their "success" is simply the accumulation of wealth produced by the poor and redistributed from the poor to the rich by the system put into place by the state.
So any party seeking to maintain the riches of the wealthy would in no way be class neutral, as they are actively redistributing wealth from the poor who produce all of the wealth in Britain - in its farms and factories and on the battlefield.
There's nothing class neutral about continuing to rob from the poor to make the rich, well, rich. Maintaining evil institutions (such as slavery) is not a neutral position.
Your assertion that redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor is not a class neutral position also proves that continuing to redistribute wealth from the poor to the rich is not a class neutral position, despite your claims to the contrary. You have disproved your own false claims about nonexistent class neutrality among militantly anti-working-class parties like the Liberals.
Well, I'm not sure if this will get a section in the election update so I'll give you a rough idea here of the views of the British parties:
Labour - most pro Irish Republican. Many of the poorest workers in Britain are Irish and many major men in both the party and the workers' movement as a whole are of Irish descent. On top of this the partys's ideology contributes to an abhorence of conflict between different peoples and a greater willingness to give people self determination. Even after the shift to moderation of the Irish Parliamentary Party Labour is the most likely party to work with the IPP in government and give Ireland greater autonomy.
Liberals - could go either way. Whilst prefering Union the Liberals are not necessarily against giving Ireland some autonomy (although this would probably only happen if they need the support of the IPP in Parliament). The shift to moderation of the IPP has made it possible for these guys to work with them in Parliament if the situation to do so would present itself. However, I can't see them going all the way and supporting full independence under any normal circumstances.
Tories - would never support the IPP or any form of Irish autonomy. With the Unionist MPs in their back pocket and an ideological commitment to expand rather than relaxing British control in Ireland they would never even consider working towards Irish autonomy or with the IPP.
Basically, Labour and to a lesser extent the Liberals might look to give the Irish greater autonomy, but really only if they need the support of the IPP in Parliament. The Tories would prefer to do the opposite and support greater British control in Ireland.
As for the question why the election was called: Disraeli simply came to the end of his term, in fact we actually went over the limit by 6 weeks
- bad Disraeli 
So, as Attack has said and as today is neither Sunday -althought tomorrow will undoudabtley be 'today' tomorrow and today will be'yesterday' and so on and so forth about Sunday-, voting is not starting today. Hell, the parties haven't yet posted their "offers".
wait for the party run downs first oberst. Your vote may not count otherwise
I need not know their policies.
Conservative till the end.
L is for Labour, L is for lice!
True, if one only looks at the past.
Rogov said:
Note my emphasis in your statements. The key with determining government is always to be looking forward. Will the tories continue to actively rob from the poor to make the rich richer...probably in an indirect fashion (i.e. not supporting measures to curb corruption within the capitalist structure). This might also hold true for the Whigs as well, but I don't know their platform as well.
I can't see the Liberals turning a blind eye to such abuses though.
While the Labour party will most likely seek to actively redistribute from the rich to the poor...which can be construed as being just as corrupt (depending on how its done) as the rich robbing from the poor.
Rogov said:
Wealth redistribution is a fact of government as far back into the mists of time as we all can remember. Throughout history, the financial burden of community government has fallen most on those who were able to pay (i.e. the rich). You can never expect to pay the burden of government out of the pockets of the poor, as there isn't enough resources. Successful governments are those that find ways to harvest the resources of the rich WITHOUT destroying the capability of the rich to maintain that prosperous status. (Essentially, having rich people is like having a goose that lays golden eggs.) You don't kill the goose to get more gold, you nurture and (to take a gardening expression) prune the rich so that they bring forth a good yield.
The subtelty of my position is not what the government plans to do, but what the MOTIVES of the parties view are with respect to wealth distribution. The conservatives have the right idea that the rich are important for the financial security of the state, but they fail to prune them back, so corruption, indolence, and oppression will occur.
The labour party seems to want to kill the goose to feed the poor...but this is shortsighted. Until Labour recognizes that the rich people in Britain are a tremendous resource, and are willing to take a part in nurturing as well as pruning the rich...they will always be an extremist party. Use the rich people in Britain to accomplish the goals of the nation, but by all means, don't destroy them...that would be a waste of a tremendous opportunity.
You seem to be talking in circles here: the rich are the beneficiaries of wealth redistribution, but somehow you then forget that a few sentences later and mistakenly imply that they themselves are the source of their great wealth.
They don't lay the egg, in a very real sense all of the golden eggs in Britain are produced by the working class - without farmers (or farmhands on the farms of the rich) we couldn't support craftsmen and a standing army, without craftsmen and a standing army we couldn't protect the farms.
As a Liberal you, as much as the Tories, want to continue hundreds of years of stamping on the neck of the geese that laid the golden egg - while pretending that when an aristocrat excretes gold after dining on the workers' golden eggs that he is the one who laid it.
If you want to unlock the wealth creating potential of Britain, you have to do something for the wealth creators - the working class. The notion that the State, if called on to administrate all of the productive property in Britain (ie: land and minerals), would do a worst job than the Aristocrats - who themselves do an awful job and have no right to administrate said property as it does not truly belong to them and they never earned it - does not change the fact that the ownership by the upper classes of such productive property is what allows them to accumulate wealth, which is created by the lower classes.
If you want to make an argument for the sake of limited government that it is better to have incompetent upper class twits owning bits and pieces of Britain then having a central authority, I can respect that. But whether the land and minerals are administrated by the state or by the upper class, the real problem is that it is used to unfairly redistribute wealth from the worker.
By promising shorter working days and higher wages, we can allow the worker to keep more of his wealth without any sort of collectivization of the natural property itself. It is sinful to allow the ownership of land, which is not based on merit, to entitle some to an unfair share of the labor of others. Let us let the workers keep more of their product and do with it as they would in the marketplace. That is itself the key lesson of capitalism: the producers should be allowed to keep their own surplus and do with it as they will, rather than have their surplus product redistributed into the hands of economic planners (the upper classes).
By arguing that the upper classes can make better use of the workers' surplus than the workers, you are making a case for economic planning, against my case for the free market.
They don't lay the egg, in a very real sense all of the golden eggs in Britain are produced by the working class - without farmers (or farmhands on the farms of the rich) we couldn't support craftsmen and a standing army, without craftsmen and a standing army we couldn't protect the farms.
As a Liberal you, as much as the Tories, want to continue hundreds of years of stamping on the neck of the geese that laid the golden egg - while pretending that when an aristocrat excretes gold after dining on the workers' golden eggs that he is the one who laid it.
If you want to unlock the wealth creating potential of Britain, you have to do something for the wealth creators - the working class. The notion that the State, if called on to administrate all of the productive property in Britain (ie: land and minerals), would do a worst job than the Aristocrats - who themselves do an awful job and have no right to administrate said property as it does not truly belong to them and they never earned it - does not change the fact that the ownership by the upper classes of such productive property is what allows them to accumulate wealth, which is created by the lower classes.
If you want to make an argument for the sake of limited government that it is better to have incompetent upper class twits owning bits and pieces of Britain then having a central authority, I can respect that. But whether the land and minerals are administrated by the state or by the upper class, the real problem is that it is used to unfairly redistribute wealth from the worker.
By promising shorter working days and higher wages, we can allow the worker to keep more of his wealth without any sort of collectivization of the natural property itself. It is sinful to allow the ownership of land, which is not based on merit, to entitle some to an unfair share of the labor of others. Let us let the workers keep more of their product and do with it as they would in the marketplace. That is itself the key lesson of capitalism: the producers should be allowed to keep their own surplus and do with it as they will, rather than have their surplus product redistributed into the hands of economic planners (the upper classes).
By arguing that the upper classes can make better use of the workers' surplus than the workers, you are making a case for economic planning, against my case for the free market.
My last post on this subject...
How are the rich the beneficiaries of wealth distribution? Your statement here makes no sense. It is not I, but you, who are thinking in circles.
And without rich people you wouldn't have the money to distribute tools, or have factories built, or pay tarrifs for selling into other countries. The farmer and craftsman are no more important to the functioning of the community than the rich man. The rich man is no more important than the farmer. They each have their roles. You seem to believe that society would be better off without rich people...that is an absurd ideal.
Actually, I'm not a Liberal. I'm a tory...but not because of economics, but for their pro-army, moralist stance.
And again, you perpetrate the fallacy that somehow ONLY the working class produce anything of value, while pretending that the rich classes don't do ANYTHING to help produce wealth. This is an absurd argument.
Again, wealth is NOT created SOLELY by the poorer classes. To believe that is to believe a falsehood.
I'm NOT advocating this. Do not think that by setting up such a strawman you are scoring points. You are only showcasing your own ideological bias.
This redistribution must be done in such a way that EVERYONE benefits...not JUST the lower classes. The owner of the land (regardless of his deserving it or not) IS entitled to a just proceed from that land. That just proceed is not necessarily the same as that afforded to each worker.
By arguing that the poorer classes can make better use of the owner's surplus than the owner, you are making a case for class war, against my case for a community dedicated to a common goal.
Now, we should not continue to argue like this in this thread. Neither of us will be budged from our positions (nor will our audience, I suspect). If you want to continue to debate this with me, send me a PM.
How are the rich the beneficiaries of wealth distribution? Your statement here makes no sense. It is not I, but you, who are thinking in circles.
Rogov said:
And without rich people you wouldn't have the money to distribute tools, or have factories built, or pay tarrifs for selling into other countries. The farmer and craftsman are no more important to the functioning of the community than the rich man. The rich man is no more important than the farmer. They each have their roles. You seem to believe that society would be better off without rich people...that is an absurd ideal.
Rogov said:
Actually, I'm not a Liberal. I'm a tory...but not because of economics, but for their pro-army, moralist stance.
And again, you perpetrate the fallacy that somehow ONLY the working class produce anything of value, while pretending that the rich classes don't do ANYTHING to help produce wealth. This is an absurd argument.
Rogov said:
Again, wealth is NOT created SOLELY by the poorer classes. To believe that is to believe a falsehood.
Rogov said:
I'm NOT advocating this. Do not think that by setting up such a strawman you are scoring points. You are only showcasing your own ideological bias.
Rogov said:
This redistribution must be done in such a way that EVERYONE benefits...not JUST the lower classes. The owner of the land (regardless of his deserving it or not) IS entitled to a just proceed from that land. That just proceed is not necessarily the same as that afforded to each worker.
Rogov said:
By arguing that the poorer classes can make better use of the owner's surplus than the owner, you are making a case for class war, against my case for a community dedicated to a common goal.
Now, we should not continue to argue like this in this thread. Neither of us will be budged from our positions (nor will our audience, I suspect). If you want to continue to debate this with me, send me a PM.
After what the Disraeli administration accomplished and the events that took place over in America I think I may very well stay within the "moderate" sphere. Or just be one of those swing voters come this weekend
I'm having fun, but there's nothing statesmanlike about leaving a parting blow and then denying one's debating partner the opportunity to rebuke it. I actually feel insulted that you felt you had to supplement your debating ability with a bullying tactic of criticizing my points in public but making sure any further criticisms of your points are in private. That kind of behavior is uncalled for and rude in my opinion.
You can only claim the higher ground and end a discussion peacefully if you don't actually levy a final salvo before banning your opponent from defending themselves.
Just something to keep in mind about fairness
You can only claim the higher ground and end a discussion peacefully if you don't actually levy a final salvo before banning your opponent from defending themselves.
Just something to keep in mind about fairness
I'm having fun, but there's nothing statesmanlike about leaving a parting blow and then denying one's debating partner the opportunity to rebuke it. I actually feel insulted that you felt you had to supplement your debating ability with a bullying tactic of criticizing my points in public but making sure any further criticisms of your points are in private. That kind of behavior is uncalled for and rude in my opinion.
You can only claim the higher ground and end a discussion peacefully if you don't actually levy a final salvo before banning your opponent from defending themselves.
Just something to keep in mind about fairness
To be fair, he makes the valid point that no one is going to be swayed by this debate, which I see as a compliment to your ability. I, however, call on you to continue, as I hadn't had a chance to join in yet!
I'm all for ending the debate in public, I like the idea of reasonableness and this not being a fight. I was enjoying the conversation and I imagine we're both taking a piss - I'm not nearly so radical and I imagine he's not nearly so fervent. This is a game after all. I just have never liked it when people get in the last word and THEN say the conversation is over. The price of being the grown up one and ending a debate is that you don't get the last word. You can either retort or you can end the argument, doing both is unfair as you launch an attack without giving the opponent an opportunity to defend themselves. Executer emasculated me in front of the crowd and refused me the opportunity to return the favor.
Generally speaking I was trying to do all debating "in character" as it were, which is why I tried to focus on trying to set up a recurring newspaper motif in this thread - which I still intend to do - but I guess I went off on a full blown "in character" response to an offhand comment made by Executor about "class neutrality".
I don't believe here, or anywhere for that matter, is a good place for highly spirited and highly theoretical political debate by amateurs like ourselves; and I know from the "Let The Ruling Classes Tremble" participatory AAR that out of character debate in AAR threads is as unproductive as IC debate is productive, especially when it is more of a setting piece than a debate with other posters (such as the articles people made in Tremble primarily addressed to famous people or factions in the game itself, rather than running discussions with other posters).
Generally speaking I was trying to do all debating "in character" as it were, which is why I tried to focus on trying to set up a recurring newspaper motif in this thread - which I still intend to do - but I guess I went off on a full blown "in character" response to an offhand comment made by Executor about "class neutrality".
I don't believe here, or anywhere for that matter, is a good place for highly spirited and highly theoretical political debate by amateurs like ourselves; and I know from the "Let The Ruling Classes Tremble" participatory AAR that out of character debate in AAR threads is as unproductive as IC debate is productive, especially when it is more of a setting piece than a debate with other posters (such as the articles people made in Tremble primarily addressed to famous people or factions in the game itself, rather than running discussions with other posters).
Last edited:
I feel I have a responsibility it point readers to BBB's interactive AAR, where the illustrious runner of this AAR is running a vote behind...
Alright, thanks! I hate to support the Labour party, but I think my Irish brothers need to govern themselves again.
The Election of 1858
The 4th Parliament under Prime Minister Disraeli saw Britain’s greatest economic prosperity, the most stable coalition since the creation of the Republic and advances in international affairs for Britain. But it also witnessed a bloody conflict with the Turks, turned Britain into a virtual pariah amongst the continental courts of Europe, a great deficit was built up and during this time class tensions reached another great peak in the aftermath of the Manhattan Commune.
The Labour Party
The Labour Party’s central principle was to better the conditions of the working class and by doing so create a fairer society. However this simple aim made it easy for a wide array of political views to exist within the party. On the Far Left of the party some (often calling themselves ‘communists’) supported the idea of giving the workers total control over the running of their industries and of society whilst on the Far Right some merely wanted to ensure that enough money passed down from the upper classes so that no one would starve. But the leadership stayed true to a sort of middle road.
Party Leader: George Julian Harney
Once seen as an outlandish radical, Harney has now become the effective centre of the Labour Party. He supports radical reforms to the British Republic – but with the objective of saving it rather than overthrowing it.
His stance against the revolutionary elements was made clear during the October demonstrations in solidarity with the New York workers when he proclaimed that the changes the workers needed could and should be achieved through the ballot box. What he didn’t say but was clear for all to see was the idea that if Parliament failed to look out for the working class then the workers might lose faith in Parliament and look to the radical sections of the labour movement for an answer to their plight.
Policies
Economic:
Our booming economy is currently working to the benefit of a tiny elite. We must reform the way our economy works so that it benefits all members of society.
The system of taxation is in need of a radical overhaul. The heaviest burden of taxation should be placed upon those who can most afford it – the wealthiest. We therefore support a progressive taxation system in which the wealthiest shall pay taxes 20% higher than those on middle incomes who shall in turn pay 10% more than the poorest.
We should raise social spending to the highest level it can reach.
If need be the state should intervene in order to ensure that vital factories remain open so that workingmen do not lose their jobs. We should use the state, when necessary, to expand our industries in both Britain and Ireland.
As much as a 5% tariff may be raised on imported goods.
Whilst we do hope to repay the large government debt by the end of the next Parliament we plan to cut slowly and steadily to ensure that the economy and individuals are not badly affected.
Reforms:
The conditions of the workers in Britain today are truly abominable. We are not slaves and should not be treated as such. The Labour Party therefore supports a broad manifesto of social reform:
There shall be a minimum wage to ensure that all workers can support themselves and their families.
There shall be a small state provided pension for retired workers to ensure that our elderly can live adequately after they are no longer able to work.
There shall be a small subsidy provided so that the poorest can have some degree of healthcare.
It is no secret that the central demand of so many workers in the 8 hour day. We must therefore accelerate our program of reform in this area and create an 8 hour day by the end of our Parliament.
The working man has grown tired of waiting for the world to change for the better around him. Parliament can only hold back his demands for so long before the tyranny becomes too much for him to bear. The Labour Party is the only party that can ensure peace in Britain between the classes, and this peace can only be secured by reforming the current political and economic system.
Foreign Policy:
Ask someone from Europe what they think of the British Republic. If they are not afraid of the prospect that you might be British and might wantonly assault them, then they will tell you of an island nation of crooks, thieves, ruffians, pirates and drunken aggressors. Around the world we have a reputation for military aggression and this is gravely affected our future prospects for peace. It is therefore imperative that we do not go to war again during the following Parliament, unless either we or one of our close allies are attacked by a foreign power.
The Conservative Party (Tories)
After a successful term in government during which time Disraeli and the Conservatives earned great respect from some and were vilified for others the Party as a whole has taken a strong step to the right in response to the Manhattan Commune. The Party believes that there is a need for a strong hand in dealing with the rising influence of Commune inspired revolutionaries in Britain.
Party Leader: Benjamin Disraeli
After becoming the first Prime Minister to serve the maximum term in office between elections Disraeli is eager to become the first man since the dawn of the Republic to win two elections. However, his Party started to splinter as the proper response to the Commune was discussed. Disraeli was force to reluctantly bow to the hawks on the issue in order to maintain Party unity.
Policies
Economic:
The last Tory government led this country through a period of economic growth that is unmatched in the Republic’s history. Needless to say, this party intends to continue those policies that were so very successful for the Republic. We also remain committed to fighting the deficit.
We propose a flat tax regime.
Tariffs shall be used to raise funds and to protect native industries.
If need be, to avoid unemployment, subsidies can be provided to ensure that industries remain operative if they start to lose money in the short term.
Finally, the state should openly intervene to protect industry in Ireland. Whilst Irish industry has seen great growth since the last election there remains a persistent unemployment problem.
A mixture of tax rises and tariffs should be use to eliminate the £120,000 deficit as soon as possible.
Reforms:
We must take a harsh line against the ungodly spectre of the Commune, of militancy and of foreign provocateurs. We cannot allow for our great Republic to be ravaged by these ‘Reds’.
Press censorship should be reinstated to ensure that violent and coercive articles are not published in the newspapers and magazines of our people. The primary root for the spread of violent ideas are through these newspapers and magazines and they have already started to breed a core of radicalised and violent workers – mostly dishevelled youths.
The foreign socialists and communists who have come to this country from the continent (Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels being chief amongst them) should be forced to leave this country forthwith. Their destabilising influence can no longer be tolerated.
Trade Unions openly promoting ideas that would entail the destruction of the Republic are to be made entirely illegal. This is just another root for the disgusting ideas of the Commune’s sycophants to find their way into the minds of otherwise peaceful workers.
Political groups openly supporting the destruction of the Republic are to be made illegal.
These measures, although harsh, are entirely necessary if we are to combat the evils of the communists who threaten the Republic and all of our freedom.
Foreign Policy:
At this time attempts to enlarge the Empire may be imprudent. However we should continue to support the BADF doctrine – it is especially important to show our support for the American government now at a time when we both must support one another against the internal threats to our Republics.
In Europe we should continue to undermine France – but we cannot afford to go back to war just yet.
The Liberal Party
Following their reunification with the Whigs the Liberal Party had restored a degree of confidence after its electoral collapse in 1851 and the years in the Tory dominated coalition. Now under the leadership of Lord Palmerston the Liberals are hopeful of restoring themselves to real power in Westminster.
Party Leader: Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston
Now 73 Palmerston is by far the oldest of the Party leaders having spent decades rising towards the top of British politics. As the inventor of the BADF doctrine he supported the idea of ‘Liberal Interventionism’ which, in essence, brought an end to the old Liberal idea of total isolation from Europe. Whilst both the Tories and Labour sought decisive action in the wake of the Manhattan Commune Palmerston saw little need for ‘hastiness’ and preferred to have faith in the institutions of the Republic to ensure that peace remained.
Economic:
A flat tax, no tariffs and no intervention in the free market shall secure the success of our economy.
The less restrictions we place on the market the less restrictions we place on the people.
Reforms:
Whilst we should fight against any violent action committed by extremist groups there is no need to infringe upon the central freedoms of the British people. It is good that intellectuals flock to this country – need we more proof that this Republic is not the greatest place in Europe to live? The workers must understand that in Britain they have more freedom, a greater say in politics and better lives than any other workers in the entire world. Conditions will only improve as the economy continues to grow – the wealth created by the richest shall then trickle down to the entirety of society. Everyone will benefit!
Foreign Policy:
The alliances with Sweden and Belgium are imperative to our foreign policy and should be maintained. We should also look to support the North German Confederation as a counter against both France and Russia. However, it is equally important that the Confederation is not allowed to conquer the states of Southern Germany – thus creating a threat equal, perhaps greater in strength than France. Friendship with the Americans should also be maintained so that we can ensure peace in the West.
At this time it may be impossible for further colonies to be conquered.
The election is now open!
Every reader has one vote and may only vote once per election.
You may vote for:
Conservatives (you may also write Tories)
Liberals
Labour
Please either bold your vote or place it in a separate post to make it easier for me to count them.
Polls shall close at Midday on Thursday.
Good Luck!
The 4th Parliament under Prime Minister Disraeli saw Britain’s greatest economic prosperity, the most stable coalition since the creation of the Republic and advances in international affairs for Britain. But it also witnessed a bloody conflict with the Turks, turned Britain into a virtual pariah amongst the continental courts of Europe, a great deficit was built up and during this time class tensions reached another great peak in the aftermath of the Manhattan Commune.
The Labour Party
The Labour Party’s central principle was to better the conditions of the working class and by doing so create a fairer society. However this simple aim made it easy for a wide array of political views to exist within the party. On the Far Left of the party some (often calling themselves ‘communists’) supported the idea of giving the workers total control over the running of their industries and of society whilst on the Far Right some merely wanted to ensure that enough money passed down from the upper classes so that no one would starve. But the leadership stayed true to a sort of middle road.
Party Leader: George Julian Harney
Once seen as an outlandish radical, Harney has now become the effective centre of the Labour Party. He supports radical reforms to the British Republic – but with the objective of saving it rather than overthrowing it.
His stance against the revolutionary elements was made clear during the October demonstrations in solidarity with the New York workers when he proclaimed that the changes the workers needed could and should be achieved through the ballot box. What he didn’t say but was clear for all to see was the idea that if Parliament failed to look out for the working class then the workers might lose faith in Parliament and look to the radical sections of the labour movement for an answer to their plight.
Policies
Economic:
Our booming economy is currently working to the benefit of a tiny elite. We must reform the way our economy works so that it benefits all members of society.
The system of taxation is in need of a radical overhaul. The heaviest burden of taxation should be placed upon those who can most afford it – the wealthiest. We therefore support a progressive taxation system in which the wealthiest shall pay taxes 20% higher than those on middle incomes who shall in turn pay 10% more than the poorest.
We should raise social spending to the highest level it can reach.
If need be the state should intervene in order to ensure that vital factories remain open so that workingmen do not lose their jobs. We should use the state, when necessary, to expand our industries in both Britain and Ireland.
As much as a 5% tariff may be raised on imported goods.
Whilst we do hope to repay the large government debt by the end of the next Parliament we plan to cut slowly and steadily to ensure that the economy and individuals are not badly affected.
Reforms:
The conditions of the workers in Britain today are truly abominable. We are not slaves and should not be treated as such. The Labour Party therefore supports a broad manifesto of social reform:
There shall be a minimum wage to ensure that all workers can support themselves and their families.
There shall be a small state provided pension for retired workers to ensure that our elderly can live adequately after they are no longer able to work.
There shall be a small subsidy provided so that the poorest can have some degree of healthcare.
It is no secret that the central demand of so many workers in the 8 hour day. We must therefore accelerate our program of reform in this area and create an 8 hour day by the end of our Parliament.
The working man has grown tired of waiting for the world to change for the better around him. Parliament can only hold back his demands for so long before the tyranny becomes too much for him to bear. The Labour Party is the only party that can ensure peace in Britain between the classes, and this peace can only be secured by reforming the current political and economic system.
Foreign Policy:
Ask someone from Europe what they think of the British Republic. If they are not afraid of the prospect that you might be British and might wantonly assault them, then they will tell you of an island nation of crooks, thieves, ruffians, pirates and drunken aggressors. Around the world we have a reputation for military aggression and this is gravely affected our future prospects for peace. It is therefore imperative that we do not go to war again during the following Parliament, unless either we or one of our close allies are attacked by a foreign power.
The Conservative Party (Tories)
After a successful term in government during which time Disraeli and the Conservatives earned great respect from some and were vilified for others the Party as a whole has taken a strong step to the right in response to the Manhattan Commune. The Party believes that there is a need for a strong hand in dealing with the rising influence of Commune inspired revolutionaries in Britain.
Party Leader: Benjamin Disraeli
After becoming the first Prime Minister to serve the maximum term in office between elections Disraeli is eager to become the first man since the dawn of the Republic to win two elections. However, his Party started to splinter as the proper response to the Commune was discussed. Disraeli was force to reluctantly bow to the hawks on the issue in order to maintain Party unity.
Policies
Economic:
The last Tory government led this country through a period of economic growth that is unmatched in the Republic’s history. Needless to say, this party intends to continue those policies that were so very successful for the Republic. We also remain committed to fighting the deficit.
We propose a flat tax regime.
Tariffs shall be used to raise funds and to protect native industries.
If need be, to avoid unemployment, subsidies can be provided to ensure that industries remain operative if they start to lose money in the short term.
Finally, the state should openly intervene to protect industry in Ireland. Whilst Irish industry has seen great growth since the last election there remains a persistent unemployment problem.
A mixture of tax rises and tariffs should be use to eliminate the £120,000 deficit as soon as possible.
Reforms:
We must take a harsh line against the ungodly spectre of the Commune, of militancy and of foreign provocateurs. We cannot allow for our great Republic to be ravaged by these ‘Reds’.
Press censorship should be reinstated to ensure that violent and coercive articles are not published in the newspapers and magazines of our people. The primary root for the spread of violent ideas are through these newspapers and magazines and they have already started to breed a core of radicalised and violent workers – mostly dishevelled youths.
The foreign socialists and communists who have come to this country from the continent (Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels being chief amongst them) should be forced to leave this country forthwith. Their destabilising influence can no longer be tolerated.
Trade Unions openly promoting ideas that would entail the destruction of the Republic are to be made entirely illegal. This is just another root for the disgusting ideas of the Commune’s sycophants to find their way into the minds of otherwise peaceful workers.
Political groups openly supporting the destruction of the Republic are to be made illegal.
These measures, although harsh, are entirely necessary if we are to combat the evils of the communists who threaten the Republic and all of our freedom.
Foreign Policy:
At this time attempts to enlarge the Empire may be imprudent. However we should continue to support the BADF doctrine – it is especially important to show our support for the American government now at a time when we both must support one another against the internal threats to our Republics.
In Europe we should continue to undermine France – but we cannot afford to go back to war just yet.
The Liberal Party
Following their reunification with the Whigs the Liberal Party had restored a degree of confidence after its electoral collapse in 1851 and the years in the Tory dominated coalition. Now under the leadership of Lord Palmerston the Liberals are hopeful of restoring themselves to real power in Westminster.
Party Leader: Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston
Now 73 Palmerston is by far the oldest of the Party leaders having spent decades rising towards the top of British politics. As the inventor of the BADF doctrine he supported the idea of ‘Liberal Interventionism’ which, in essence, brought an end to the old Liberal idea of total isolation from Europe. Whilst both the Tories and Labour sought decisive action in the wake of the Manhattan Commune Palmerston saw little need for ‘hastiness’ and preferred to have faith in the institutions of the Republic to ensure that peace remained.
Economic:
A flat tax, no tariffs and no intervention in the free market shall secure the success of our economy.
The less restrictions we place on the market the less restrictions we place on the people.
Reforms:
Whilst we should fight against any violent action committed by extremist groups there is no need to infringe upon the central freedoms of the British people. It is good that intellectuals flock to this country – need we more proof that this Republic is not the greatest place in Europe to live? The workers must understand that in Britain they have more freedom, a greater say in politics and better lives than any other workers in the entire world. Conditions will only improve as the economy continues to grow – the wealth created by the richest shall then trickle down to the entirety of society. Everyone will benefit!
Foreign Policy:
The alliances with Sweden and Belgium are imperative to our foreign policy and should be maintained. We should also look to support the North German Confederation as a counter against both France and Russia. However, it is equally important that the Confederation is not allowed to conquer the states of Southern Germany – thus creating a threat equal, perhaps greater in strength than France. Friendship with the Americans should also be maintained so that we can ensure peace in the West.
At this time it may be impossible for further colonies to be conquered.
The election is now open!
Every reader has one vote and may only vote once per election.
You may vote for:
Conservatives (you may also write Tories)
Liberals
Labour
Please either bold your vote or place it in a separate post to make it easier for me to count them.
Polls shall close at Midday on Thursday.
Good Luck!
- Status