Mr. Speaker,
If the Tories are just going to use Labour Policies, maybe they should have lets us stay in power.
-
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.
If the Tories are just going to use Labour Policies, maybe they should have lets us stay in power.
"Mr. Speaker, if Labour had wanted to stay in power, they shouldn't have tried so hard to convince the public to kick them out." The tone of his voice implies he thought the comment was actually pretty funny, but had to reply regardless.
For interested souls.
As you can see, tariffs have apparently been the same since Jesus.
As you can see, tariffs have apparently been the same since Jesus.
- 4
- 1
Mr. Speaker,
It is a Soviet idea! Collectivization may not be totally communist in a sense, but the Soviets were the ones who mastered it and made it national policy. Stalin used widespread collectivization in order to boast production. However, it came at a price in the form of 4 to 10 million Soviet lives. I for one do not want to see a deadly policy like that enforced in the British Isles.
-Jeremy McCoy
Mr. Speaker,
I humbly request the Honorable Gentleman to explain to me, in plain English, what in God's name is "deadly" about companies paying their workers partly in stock. Go on, I'll wait.
Last edited:
Mr Speaker,
When the Soviets used a similar method in the late 20s/early 30s, while production did grow, the worker's standard of living fell. Stalin's laws to "tighten work discipline" made the situation worse. For example, a 1932 change to the RSFSR labor law code enabled firing workers who had been absent without a reason from the work place for just one day. Being fired accordingly meant losing "the right to use ration and commodity cards" as well as the "loss of the right to use an apartment″ and even blacklisted for new employment which altogether meant a threat of starving. Another example, in the 1940s a law was passed that stated being absent or even 20 minutes late were grounds for becoming fired; managers who failed to enforce these laws faced criminal prosecution. From 1921 until 1954, the police state operated at high intensity, seeking out anyone accused of sabotaging the system. The estimated numbers vary greatly. Perhaps, 3.7 million people were sentenced for alleged counter-revolutionary crimes, including 600,000 sentenced to death, 2.4 million sentenced to labor camps, and 700,000 sentenced to expatriation.
To the honorable gentleman asking the question, if you wish for an answer in plain English, "Collectivization equals harsher work laws which equals starvation/criminal punishment which equals death".
-Jeremy McCoy
"Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform Parliament that on the 1st of December, 1966, after this set of legislation has been passed, I will inform Her Majesty the Queen to dissolve Parliament and call fresh elections."
Mr. Speaker,
Mr. McCoy stands upon a slope so slippery that not a million hungry monkeys could provide it with enough banana peels. Allow me to take similar leaps of faith with the Right Honorable Prime Minister's Police Act for a moment: Increased surveilence leads to random arrests of citizens leads to the declaration of martial law leads to the destruction of democracy. Right there in black and white, according to the Honorable Gentleman opposite's own logic. I do trust that my counterpart across the aisle recognizes this laughable and fallacious argument for what it is.
"Mister Speaker,
If the Rt. Hon. Gentleman could return to reality for just a moment, could he also tell this House how granting workers partial ownership of the firms for which they work via shares of stock equates to Stalinist oppression? Furthermore, if the Rt. Hon. Gentleman's KGB handlers keep him better informed of Soviet affairs than those of the Labour Party, then perhaps he should be investigated by certain intelligence agencies."
~ The Rt. Hon. Stephen Harwick, Shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Services, and Labour MP for Newport
Mr. Speaker,
I just want to say that knowing history prevents one from repeating it.
-Jeremy McCoy
Mr Speaker,
I would like very briefly, very briefly only, to question the attitudes of the Leader of the Opposition and his party. In particular, that, as a party dedicated to social "progress" and the supposed rights of British citizens to choose their own lot in life, that it would be so willing to force the hand of a private industry to treat its employees in such an oddly specific manner, when there already exist the proper mediums for such an approach. Certainly, while the unions are not popular among these benches, they were created for a reason, no?
And, before there are objections about the environmental policies of this Government, I will make plain this: that there are certain matters to which all Britons engage in collective ownership, and that there are certain matters in which they do not. In turn, if there is any modicum of respect for the individual among the Opposition benches, perhaps they would realize that the forced collectivization of private business is not a democratic principle, but a communist one, evocative only of those honorable, progressive regimes such as those which have been openly disavowed by his party's elders for many years prior.
Talfryn Ryley,
MP for Monmouth,
Minister of the Environment
I would like very briefly, very briefly only, to question the attitudes of the Leader of the Opposition and his party. In particular, that, as a party dedicated to social "progress" and the supposed rights of British citizens to choose their own lot in life, that it would be so willing to force the hand of a private industry to treat its employees in such an oddly specific manner, when there already exist the proper mediums for such an approach. Certainly, while the unions are not popular among these benches, they were created for a reason, no?
And, before there are objections about the environmental policies of this Government, I will make plain this: that there are certain matters to which all Britons engage in collective ownership, and that there are certain matters in which they do not. In turn, if there is any modicum of respect for the individual among the Opposition benches, perhaps they would realize that the forced collectivization of private business is not a democratic principle, but a communist one, evocative only of those honorable, progressive regimes such as those which have been openly disavowed by his party's elders for many years prior.
Talfryn Ryley,
MP for Monmouth,
Minister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker,
Such as the rise of Hitler. The simple fact is that the Leader of the Opposition is right, the Right Honorable Gentleman's statement is a pure fallacy, and should not be headed.
-Roland Carpenter
Mr. Speaker,
May the Opposition not resort to childish fascist-baiting and debate the Honorable Gentlemen?
- "Xandy" Cochrane, MP for Isle of Thanet
Mr. Speaker,
The Right Honorable Gentlemen is the one who likened us to Stalinists. We are just responding to his hilariously slippery argument in the only way it deserves.
- Roland Carpenter
On the contrary, if one Honorable member of this institution stands upon a slippery slope, it is the Right Honorable Leader of the Opposition. The slope being the reasons for which his political formation opposes a Bill aimed at tackling crime, particularly, financial matters such as corruption. While we understand that Soviet Russia is of particular inspiration for the Honorable Leader Opposite's policies for industries, we are quite baffled to see such opposition to rooting out corruption.
Meanwhile, it is also very disturbing to see that the Labour Party is stuck in a conundrum where they would gladly put industries in the hands of the nation, but can't formulate a position other than utter silence when we suggest, as the Safer Communities Act suggest, to give them a role in the betterment and security of their communities.
PRIVATE EYE
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
OCTOBER 1966 — NINEPENCE
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
ARTICLE
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Plain English?
With the return of parliamentary debate we here at Private Eye see the return of the "Plain English" being thrown around. Now, for the uneducated reader, one may assume that this is naturally the contemporary saying. That is, "Plain English" means English spoken clearly. However this clearly isn't the case. "Plain English" (hereafter without the quotations to save money on ink) is a form of English propagated within Westminster since time forgotten. Plain English is, to put it plainly, the English language when utilised to obfuscate a point by needless logical jumps, Oxfordian wording, or simple length. _____________________________________________________________________________________________
OCTOBER 1966 — NINEPENCE
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
ARTICLE
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Plain English?
A perfect example of Plain English is as follows. If the query is: how does one think that raising taxes on the poor exhibit anything less than a tax raise in Plain English? The answer would be: due to the natural results of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff signed in 1930 by the American congress, which was propagated by fat-cat bankers in which to fatten their pockets with illicitly achieved funds, much like the natural robbery you are committing by raising taxes of the oppressed proletariat.
A second example of Plain English would be the following. Query: how can one morally oppose the foundation of a national parks system for Great Britain in Plain English. Answer: because the national parks system, stolen from the policies of American President Theodore Roosevelt, an avid imperialist dedicated to the foundation of an American Empire within North America and Asia; thus naturally connecting the national park system with revigoured imperialist policy.
Thus examined, it should be clear to all the confusing language is in it's natural habitation when spoken in the halls and corridors of Parliament. Though it's origin is completely unknown, it is of the opinion of this paper that it is completely dedicated to making the reporters lives a living hell trying to follow leaps of logic that involve more leap than logic. With this in mind, each and every one of our readers, each and every one of you, can now proudly say they understand the concept of Westminster's Plain English; although not a single Briton can confidently say they understand what is spoken in Parliament when described in Plain English.
- 2
Mr. Speaker,
The Right Honorable Gentleman is displaying a distressing lack of understanding of sarcasm. What the Right Honorable Leader of the Opposition was saying is that his fallacy is like the original one made about Stalinist policies, his statement is just as silly. Apparently this needed to be spilled out.
-Roland Carpenter
The Prime Minister throws a ball of paper at the Speaker to wake him up from his slumber and put a stop to this Hitler-Stalin nonsense.
While we thank the Honourable Gentleman for his kind explanations of something we previously understood, we would invite him to pay more attention to the proceedings of the House, for I was here when sooner he made his opposition to the aforementioned bill and dared not to formulate a position on the Safer Communities Act. A sad spectacle I must say, which was followed by other members of the Opposition.
The speaker suddenly awakes, unsure of what's happening. He gets up and randomly declares:
The Speaker: Mr. Powell, please will you stop (yawn) your blabbering! And Ms. Leighton, please make some bloody sens-oh, wait. Never-mind.
The Prime Minister!
The Speaker: Mr. Powell, please will you stop (yawn) your blabbering! And Ms. Leighton, please make some bloody sens-oh, wait. Never-mind.
The Prime Minister!
- 2