Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Albion and Empire - A (very) British Victoria II (NWO) Interactive AAR

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Downing College, Cambridge. December 1966.


‘You know, Eve, I am sick of this thing about pandering to voters as if they are stupid. In any other field, eloquence would be an asset.’

Parris Marr's eldest son makes a concordant hum.

‘Sylvia could talk, granted – but Alistair is hardly Dr Johnson. It's just lazy to keep at it with these attacks. If the Tories actually want to critique our policy, fine. But they don't; they just repeat these lines about intellectual snobbery and then sit there satisfied as if that's all there is to politics these days.’

‘It's an arrogance of its own, of course,’ Eve suggests. ‘It's just another type of us-against-them attitude. Everyone's at it.’

‘You've got at least twenty years before you're allowed to sound that jaded.’

Eve smiles sardonically.

‘Right, I'm off to vote. You want to come and see what you're missing out on?’

‘Of course. Stop by St Cat's and we can pick up David.’

And so the Marr men – or, more accurately in the eyes of the electoral register, the Marr man – went to vote. He hoped that he'd picked a winner this time.​
 
PRIVATE EYE



_____________________________________________________________________________________________

DECEMBER 1966 — NINEPENCE
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Article
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

I'm a Radical, You're a Radical, We all scream for Radicals!

cpgb-cnd-demo.png

​

Recent comments by the Alex Morgan and actions by the re-invigorated union movement have pushed forward an internal debate as to the state of radical leftism in Labour. The status of the employment of British workers, workplace democracy, and the influence of unions on Labour policy all swirl in the confluence of political discourse both in public (and one assumes) private circles. This is a healthy thing, as Labour and it's policies evolve beyond the constraints of the backrooms of Oxfordian clubs. Except of course for the glares from the Communist Party.

The Communist Party, a party of radical leftists, responded by increasingly radical Labour policies and discussion by calling them puppets of the capitalists of Europe. This dissolved into internecine slurs of "radical" this and "radical" that as politicians with little interest in changing the status quo start throwing about buzzwords like a hive got shook. Conservatives deride Labour as quasi-Communist radicals, Labour retort that Conservatives are radically drying paint, and the Communists rant in the background about stuff no one quite cares about.

Now, the Eye not wanting to be left behind, hereby, in the name of the Queen and the Common People of Britain, that all opinions held by politicians that differ from one another is inherently radical and to be subject to immense and intense denunciation by all sides. As such, the parties should change their names. The Eye recommends the following: The Union and Radical Party of Great Britain, the Radicalabour Party, the Communist Party of Great Britain, and the Liberal-Radical Alliance. This would make everything incredibly easier.

With this in place, every party can denounce each other gaily as radicals while eating taxpayer paid sandwiches at taxpayer paid galas. Much like Comrade and Revolution in the Soviet Union or Freedom and the Constitution in the United States, so can Radical lose all of its meaning as it is ceremonially used by any and all parties in whatever fashion they desire.

Which we think is totally radical.
 

richard-burton-1960.png

- John Epping, MP, shortly before addressing the workers of Teesside Steelworks

Comrades,

When I was invited here to speak you, naturally I could not resist. My purpose here is to reassure you that the Labour Party remains committed to the workers of this industry and we shall continue to fight on your behalf, for your rights and your jobs in Parliament and in government.

Many of you, and those like you across the country, live in fear every day and are right to. The Tory Party has opened up Britain to the terrors of the free market with an absolute disregard for the consequences. They have continuing to put at risk every industrial job in the country.

Comrades, the Free Market is not what the Conservatives say it is. It is not a way to eliminate the deficit, and end the stagnating economy. Free market is an arbitrary monster that places the power of the economy in the hands of irresponsible Executives that care more for increasing profit and reducing wages, than caring for the workers. The government's policy would have you believe that wealth trickles down from the top, when in fact it does not. Wealth bubbles up from the hard work and fierce labour of men like yourselves. It come from the miner’s pick and the builder’s hammers and drills; the machinist’s tools and the hot furnace’s of the steel workers .

This is why Labour has pushed for Democracy in the Workplace, because it is the men at work who are the real power behind this country and its Empire of industry and enterprise, the backbone of its commerce and the heart of its national spirit. Mr Jacobs and his Party know this, and they fear it. They go to bed at night shaking in fear of what might happen if the real people of this country had a say in its real power. They are terrified what might change, of how men and women will finally have control over the industries they contribute to. That their friends at the top of the boards which seek to trample on the rights of working men might not be able to do so anymore.

Repeatedly, the Tories have tried to brainwash the workers of this island into believing that they cannot be trusted to make their own decisions. It is the most outrageous insult to the intelligence of every single person who will benefit from it.

With your help, the Labour Party will continue the fight against these backwards horse fiddlers and make sure no Briton shall ever have to live under the mercy of the free market or go without their voice being heard in their place of work. Vote Labour!
 
Antrim (Northern Ireland)
Voting day

Lochlan Fitzpatrick was still waiting in line, his position suffering from good manners as he gave his place in the line repeatedly to older folks less tolerant to the weather.

But he was making progress and the company was entertaining. When asked by a fellow voter what was all the EEC ruckus about, he answered plainly.

"Well Gary, it boils down to this. It's free trade so they knock down their tarrifs and barriers, we do the same and we duke it out in all fairness. We, Ulster Unionist, believe our boys lack nothing to cream the French and the Germans, after all, they know of the steel we are made of. Now Labour, well, they are cowering thinking that we cant win on a leveled playing field. I don't know for you but I don't like the buggers who place a bet against their Home Team."

It was simply said.
 
Xandy Cochrane delivers a speech to a crowd of voters in East London on Europe. His words are broadcast by radio and printed in newspapers...

In the past few days, the question of Britain's membership in the European Economic Community has never been more discussed. The disapproval of membership voiced by prominent Trade Unionists and Labourites such as NUM President George Whiterose has brought the topic to the forefront of national politics. Now, every single party, having before said barely a word on Europe, scrambled to inform the public of their stance. It seems only once the testicle of Europe was squeezed by a Trade Unionist did the Major Parties finally squirm on the issue.

The Leader of the Opposition delivered a speech on Europe where he appeared quite confused. He says that supports the EEC because of the potential for cooperation on security matters. He says that he believes that Europe is an avenue through Britain may project its power. But then he turns around and says that there are other avenues for power. That the Labour Party does not wish to see Britain's sovereignty eroded, and that the EEC poses a danger to the British worker. The Leader of the Opposition concludes by saying that he simultaneously support the interests of the British worker, supports standing with Europe, yet also supports standing with America and the Commonwealth. The Leader of the Opposition does not appear to even remotely entertain the idea that these three distinct camps could have very different interests.

How can the Labour Party claim to be the party of the British Worker while supporting the EEC. Britain's entry in the EEC will, many predict, see a drastic increase in the price of food, something which occupies a large portion of the Worker's monthly budget. That the price of most basic foods such as butter will, in real terms, double! The EEC's disastrous Common Agricultural Policy will lead to Britain to pay far more to import her food then if she were independent. The EEC provides Britain with subsidies* in the hopes that the loss of imports will be offset. It's estimated that the EEC would spend somewhere from 300 to 400 million pounds per year because of these subsidies. And despite such a extraordinarily high amount being paid because of these subsidies and because of other highly ineffective and inefficient policies, Britain is a net contributor to the community.

However, do not be mistaken, the question of membership is not merely a question of economics. It is, at its root, a question of sovereignty. A question of nation, or province? To put it clearly, should we let our democratic institutions be eroded, let Parliament's status as the sole legislative body in Britain be taken away, just to feel the false security of union with a continent whom many times in our history we have been at odds with, to delegate our independence to an unelected foreign bureaucracy? Or, will we firmly grasp the mantle of fate and march onwards towards the end of this century, our destiny unmolested by foreign institutions, to controlled only by the will of Parliament as expressed by the people of these great islands?

The question is one which must be asked. And I fear what lies ahead if it is not.
 
Outside St. Catherine's College, Cambridge. December 1966.


‘So Dad, about Europe?’ Eve Marr asked from the passenger seat of his father's Triumph 1300.

‘Go on…’

‘Has the Labour Party really been forced by the electorate to subscribe to rampant free-marketeering?’

Parris checked the mirror before answering.

‘Hang on, David's just behind us. — Ah, hello David. Ready to watch me vote?’

‘Can't wait.’

‘Excellent. We're just about to discuss the socialist argument for Europe as well, so you're in for a treat.’

‘Jesus.’

‘Blame your brother. — Anyway: Europe. The Tories, reckless free-marketeers that they are, feel ideologically bound to enter Europe so as to prove the supremacy of free trade, if not the supremacy of British goods. This is coated in patriotic language about British products being the best in Europe and our markets being the strongest and what have you – which, for all I know, is true. But don't be fooled: it's a gamble. A massive gamble, in fact.— Pausing to make a right turn.

‘The fears of the unions are founded: our economy may well soon be flooded with German coal and French beef and whatever else you care to mention. We can't know until we try it.’

‘And this supports socialist utopia how?’

‘An excellent question. What the Tories probably don't care for are the internationalist prospects Europe has: economic diplomacy, pan-national human rights commitments and that sort of thing. Britain, many of my friends and I believe, can use its position in Europe to lead the way towards a peaceful, social-democratic Europe. This, I imagine, would be far more to the unions liking. It would probably also be more to the average voter's liking; aside from a John Bull sense of British superiority, little can give us confidence that our markets will survive the transition to the EEC unscathed.

‘This, my boys, is why we need to get in: to rescue our entry to Europe before the Tories blindly follow the path to rampant economic libertarianism to the enth degree and wreck our economy in the process. Done well, Europe is an internationalist masterstroke; done by the Tories and it's just thinly disguised dogma in praxis. Just look at them, for God's sake: They were so eager to get a piece of the action that they paid for the pleasure! That's not patriotism. It's not even a ballsy foreign policy. It's just desperate. Some might even call it prostitution – although that's a tetchy subject on the government benches.’

The Marr boys took in what their father had to say diligently as he wended the car through Cambridge's narrow inner-city streets. David, from the back, developed a devilish grin.

‘Wonderful. Just no need to swallow a thesaurus beforehand next time, alright?’

Marr's face was trying not to laugh.

‘Eve, if you feel like killing him when we get out I'll have a word with some people and you'll be in the clear.’

Laughter spread through the car. Soon, they arrived at the polling station and the futility of Marr's European lecture became truly apparent. The matter was now far too big to be contained by the family saloon.​
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Downton Abbey Café, Wigan. December 1966.


‘You know, Arthur, sometimes I feel like making a statement as to how I actually feel about what is going on but can't due to limiting circumstances.’

Harry H. Cunningham, Burr-Hewitt's best friend, confided.

‘Indeed Harry, sometimes I feel like I limited to what I can comprehend in this life. I almost feel like a character in a game whose owner is dissatisfied with either the political or the social culture of the game he's playing.’

‘It's an arrogance of its own, of course,’ Harry suggests. ‘To act this like you aren't some pithy statement in turn in which this universe exists.’

‘You've got at least twenty years before you're to act like a doddling old man, besides, if you are making a pointed statement now of some questionable feelings of all powerful nether gods, I'm sure this sort of humour has been utilised in the past by some unwitting fellow.’

Harry smiles sardonically.

‘Yes, but in this hypothetical world, would it not be easier to actually say your opinions instead of not quite but kinda stating your opinions?’

‘Of course not. It's not like the conversation we're having now is in turn created due to another of these 'gods' is actually stealing a style developed by the one you are currently influenced by in another world and another nation centuries and at the same time years ago. That'd be truly absurd.’

And so the Private Eye men – or, more accurately in the eyes of the Private Eye pay-register, the Private Eye man – looked up into the sky, looking, searching, seeing nothing.​
 
During the 1966 General Election, an adaptation of the socialist "Red Flag" was written called "The British Flag." Its lyrics were sung by UBPers around Britain.

The British Flag
​

The British Flag is good as dead,
Pissed on by both blue and red,
Have some respect old Jacky told,
They turned around, called Jacky cold.​
​
So wave the British banner high,
When Europe shoots, Britain dies,
While Brussels spits, and Paris sneers,
We'll keep old Jacky alive in here.​
​
Our independence is now the past,
Long gone the hope of the iconoclast,
The people's might, the people's pain,
Is tossed aside for Tory gain.​
​
So wave the British banner high,
When Europe shoots, Britain dies,
While Brussels spits, and Paris sneers,
We'll keep old Jacky alive in here.​
​
With Britain know to be dead by all,
To our former country we must call,
For she is now but a province,
And Belgium is our newfound Prince.​
​
So wave the British banner high,
When Europe shoots, Britain dies,
While Brussels spits, and Paris sneers,
We'll keep old Jacky alive in here.​
 

The mind of Parris Marr. December 1966.


‘Truly, we live in a golden age of satire.’​
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
The mind of Arthur Burr-Hewitt. December 1966.


‘Truly, my satire is god awful.’​
 
  • 1
Reactions:
After hearing some marchers singing on the way to Bristol station to carry on the campaign trail

"Good God, Cordelia. I don't think I want to live in a world where Xandy Cochrane gets a record deal."
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Voting is closed. Update tonight.
 
BBC Exit Poll

Conservative Minority (Workable Majority) Government ​
 
((Private))

The mind of Xandy Cochrane. Everyday.

2R2PDRp.png
 
"Maggie, I cannot wait for this holiday. Ibiza is not prepared for the likes of T. R. Jaco-"

"Mr. Jacobs, I believe you may have technically won!"

"FU-"
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Election of 1966 (Results)​

For the first time in twelve years, British polemics and publications estimated that nearly eighty-percent of the population would turn to the polls. The palpable atmosphere of personalized enmity and an extraordinary partisan ‘gap’ (claimed an endless wave of BBC analysts), had stirred the great British public to brave the December weather and march upon local booths. What had created this remarkable ambience? Labour publications claimed Conservative negligence on union affairs, Torygraphs asserted it was the fear of the radical ‘Marr-Monaghan alliance,’ and Liberal activists declared the national mood “a general disaffection.” Whatever the reasoning, the election spirit was certainly alive. Ted Jacobs and Alistair Monaghan launched unprecedented national campaigns, imploring Britons to sway one way whilst avoiding disaster on the other. The Labour Party launched headstrong into the election, littering the Government record with accusations of “sloth on social reform...to Tory obliviousness in foreign affairs.” Monaghan proved himself a devoted political crusader – starkly in contrast with the Prime Minister’s ‘evanescent’ personality. He deployed his plebeian personality to electrify populist principles from industrial democracy to a fairer distribution of corporate financial equity. His iconoclastic assault on conventional economic norms earned him the particular contempt of the British Establishment, and the Conservative press soon thereafter deployed all efforts to soften his principles. The Daily Telegraph reinforced the Conservative motivation for airplane subsidy withdrawal, while The Daily Herald chided Monaghan for the accused juvenility of his equity-distribution proposals. In some especially secretive corridors, whispers of a military-government under Lord Mountbatten were examined. [1] Disregarding the accuracy of these suspicions, the Labour leader had managed to make a real enemy of White’s and Boodle’s. For some, Marr’s ‘enabling’ of Mr Monaghan drew the scorn of many rightists. For others, Mr Marr had become the great unifier of the Labour Party. In all corridors, however, there was a pervasive feeling of doom; Tory decay or Labourite revolution. The almost apocalyptic aura of the 1966 general election seemed almost unstoppable. And then the Duke of London’s heart stopped beating.

The tragic death of Winston Churchill, Duke of London, and Prime Minister (1940-1945), came at a remarkably difficult time. With Parliament dissolved, and provisions for a state-funeral unable to be allocated until the traditional opening of Parliament, a sense of urgency gripped the electoral mood. Ted Jacobs’ inability to capitalize on the Duke’s death, either to extol his legacy, or even publicly mourn his death, severely handicapped his campaign. [2] Only Talfryn Ryley, a prominent post-Abadanite, dedicated considerable campaign time to the old bulldog. With Jacobs’ suffering from his first (and hilariously terrible) electoral gaffe, and the Labour Party locked in a grinding dispute regarding economic policy, Jo Grimond and the Liberal Party stole the advantage. The early publication of the Liberal Manifesto – entitled “A New Way” – earned Grimond, MacAlistair, and the Liberal Party a considerable electoral boost. The Liberals flaunted the recent passage of local administrative reform, and promised further delegation of authority away from central power and towards localism. But deprived of the rhetorical force of Lord Scarsdale and other former Liberal Alliance politicians, coupled with the rather lackluster endorsement of [in]famous satirist Arthur Burr-Hewitt, the Liberal Party was unable to ever match the impressive poll numbers they had scored in the early 1950s. Meanwhile, consistently strong nationalist efforts in Scotland and Wales proved more relevant to regionalized voters. The brief Liberal blossom was soon overtaken by a chorus of Conservative ministers (notably not the Prime Minister). Chancellor David Thornbloom gave consistently acclaimed speeches to the Christian Democratic Fellowship, while Ryley adulated ‘green conservatism’ to a rising number of liberal/left-wing ecological publications. Even the Foreign Secretary, Jacobs’ most senior cabinet member, proved more sprightly than the Prime Minister, happily supplying interviews on every topic from the airplane controversy to international relations. Indeed, modern historians can rightly claim that the Prime Minister, following his blunder, was anything but at the forefront of the campaign. His appearances were consistently scanty, and only noteworthy at the end of the election.

yBnh6pK.png
​
The Labour Party was not imperceptive of the Conservative weakness. Tory overconfidence had transfigured into quiet foreboding, excited by the inconsistencies in the Government’s campaign. Tasting Conservative blood and the opportunity for national attention, Monaghan quickly published his truly remarkable manifesto. Labour called for “drastic reform” in corporate-industrial relations, the establishment of intrinsic worker rights in statute, and sweeping changes in welfare and public provisions. In other respects, however, the manifesto was thoroughly unconventional. “Forward with Labour” – or “A Just Society” – avoided all mention of industrial nationalization, indicating an unpredicted (or just unexpected) continuity with the Bennite years. Given Monaghan’s reputation, the quiet rebuttal of nationalization was an impermissible treason for long-time hard-right supports, and simultaneously, appealing to the previously apprehensive Labour right. Despite the diminution of Labour’s orthodox principles of industrialization, Labour’s radicalism [3] was magnified elsewhere. Presumably in the legacy of Leighton, Alistair Monaghan gave sanction to Labour’s social wing, appealing for extensive social reforms. The comparative similarity between Leighton’s 1964 manifesto and Monaghan’s 1966 manifesto is historically attributed to the political influence exerted by Parris Marr – himself the de facto apologist for the socially reformative Left. The Conservative Party countered Labour’s left-lite turn with it’s own dreary-eyed image for Britain – promulgating prudence, free-trade, regulation-here-not-there, Bustekillism, and a stalwart defense of Britain’s moral values. Despite the typical normalities of the Tory manifesto, the Prime Minister did demonstrate one remarkably shrewd policy. Noticing Monaghan’s intentional evasion of the European Economic Community, the Conservative Party gleefully publicized their success in procuring the UK’s membership in the Community. With the somewhat local relevance of the United British People’s Party – a white nationalist, pseudo-fascist, anti-EEC party – the Conservative Party hoped to compel Monaghan to denounce the EEC and Labourite europhiles, psychologically linking the Labour leader with the UBP and other ‘wacko-skeptics.’

In an effort to dilute the misperception, Labour’s industrial appendage, the trade unions, made their long-anticipated intervention into British politics. Rather than scrounge behind closed doors, President George Whiterose of the National Union of Mineworkers, backed by a considerable number of industrial trade unions, publically denounced the European Economic Community for its domestic implications. For Whiterose, the move was a shrewd one. Not only did Whiterose manage to widen the anti-EEC movement with a diverse injection of leftist activism[4], but also, the ‘Union Tsar’ scored considerable popular points with far-left Labour MPs. Monaghan, meanwhile, was forced to give a feckless response, famously reciting the amusing platitude “We stand with Europe...we stand with America and the Commonwealth...we stand with the British working class.” The Daily Mail’s headline read: All This Standing, Doesn’t He Get Tired? Monaghan’s weak response prompted the long-anticipated arrival of the Prime Minister into the election. Jacobs, in rare form, attacked the Labour Party for characteristically bowing to external pressures, accusing Monaghan of obliging to a shameless U-Turn on the EEC. Labour’s leader responded with equal force; Monaghan accused Jacobs of hysteria and misinterpretation, overblowing any alleged reversal in official Labour position. By one means or another, the conflict between the two leaders yielded a wild debate in the Labour Party regarding ‘radicalism.’ In most electoral corners, the debate was ridiculously off-putting, especially considering the proximity to the election. Labour’s compulsive need to ward off accusations of radicalism yielded just the opposite; Labour politicians used the word ‘radicalism’ four times as much as the Conservative Party, and garnered five times the media attention. The amalgamation of different fears; radicalism, Europe, dead men, revolution, and gaffes – that is what produced the extraordinary election of 1966.

[1] Homage to the Harold Wilson conspiracies.
[2] These things matter people.
[3] I get to decide what's radical and what's not.

mv3Wp37.jpg

Cliff Michelmore: It’s 9:29, election night. 1966. We in this studio waiting now, to bring you, the results of the votes that have been counted throughout the day. But now, the very very first result of the night. Have we got it ready?

Producer: No, no. Not quite

Michelmore: The very first result of the night is just coming in on a piece of tape. We’re loading it into this very special machine, which will bring to you and to us, the results, as fast as they can go. And there is the first result of the night…

..Hull City 1: 3 Chelsea... a result I think which will have more electoral repercussions in Hull than it will have in Chelsea. But now, for the six-hundred and thirty results that are really concerning us in the coming hours….

NaQUTsx.png
​
Bob Mckenzie: Well, here’s the story on the swingometer as it will be coming in later tonight. The present position is that the Conservatives have an overall majority of twenty-eight, that is over the Liberals (the shaded area), and Labour. Now if there is a swing of one voter to every one-hundred from Conservative to Labour, than we are predicting a hung parliament. If on the other hand, there is a swing to Conservative, the Tory majority will likely increase considerably…

...And here’s what they’ve been saying in their final opinion poll estimates...you take the final report from the services provided by the Observer last sunday, around a 1% swing to Conservative, something like an small majority for the Conservatives. The National Opinion Poll, provided by the Daily Mail last Sunday, predicted about a .5% swing to Labour, yielding a hung parliament.

Michelmore: We believe it is exactly three minutes past ten. We think perhaps we should be getting a result any second now from Cheltenham, yes, let’s go there first.

…

VBkKBZY.png
​
Trefowen: And that’s about a one and a half percent swing to the Labour Party, which would yield a small Labour majority--

--Michelmore: and to Wolverhampton N.E now for the returning officer.

…

Trefowen: And that’s a negligible swing, about point four percent to Labour.

Michelmore: And now we go to the Salford constituency for our third announcement.


…

Trefowen: With Salford’s two-percent swing to Labour, the average of our early three scores indicate a hung parliament but with the Labour Party as the largest party.

…

Michelmore: Well, after nearly two-hundred counts, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the Labour Party will be the largest party, with either a workable minority or a small majority government.

LWNbTGm.png


KE5yQP1.png

​
--
The election is over, but the night's tribulations have just begun. Anything you have to do or say or broadcast you should do today. Official business will start tomorrow night. Feel free to put yourself on the BBC programme.

((Pictures and whatever corrections I need to make to this update tomorrow. I'm off to bed.))
 
Last edited:
"In light of the results, I believe that, despite my best efforts, I cannot continue to lead the Conservative Party into the next session of Parliament. I have done my best, but I have failed. Though I know my friends within the Party will forgive me, I do not feel it will be for the good of the country to continue to lead the Conservative Party.

Therefore, I call for an immediate leadership election for the Conservative Party."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back