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.
OFFICIAL CONSERVATIVE SHADOW CABINET
__________________________________​

Leader of the Opposition: Talfryn Ryley ((Firehound15))
Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer: Reginald Maudling
Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury: Margaret Thatcher
Shadow Secretary of State for Foreign, Colonial and Commonwealth Affairs: David Thornbloom ((TJDS))
Shadow Leader of the House of Commons: David Thornbloom
Shadow Secretary of State for the Home Department: Johnathan Chips ((Jackbdolla))
Shadow Minister for Home Affairs: Joan Quennell
Shadow Secretary of State for Defence: Lochlan Fitzpatrick ((Eid3r))
Shadow Secretary of State for Education: Arthur Hornesby ((Somberg))
Shadow Secretary of State for Science and Technology: Norman St John-Stevas
Shadow Secretary of State for Employment, Productivity and Labour: Jeremy McCoy ((Naxhi24))
Shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Services: Sir Keith Joseph, Bt.
Shadow Secretary of State for Housing and Local Governance: Iain Mcleod
Shadow Secretary of State for Transport and the Environment: Talfryn Ryley
Shadow Secretary of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: James Prior
Shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry: Jeremy McCoy
Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland: Michael Noble
Shadow Secretary of State for Wales: Peter Thomas
Shadow Minister for Overseas Development: Timothy Blake ((Michaelangelo))
Shadow President of the Board of Trade: Clarence D. Abel ((Qwerty7))
 
 
Last edited:
__________

THE BELFAST TELEGRAPH
__________

Hwe7bbD.png


Fitzpatrick's fortune is riding high

The current Member of Parliament for South Antrim, Ulster Unionist Lochlan G. Fitzpatrick, has never seemed busier that in these last few days, as he was elected Parliamentary Leader of his Party as well as named Shadow Minister for Defence by the new Conservative Leader. The Telegraph sat with him for an interview in his Antrim constituency office.

Telegraph: Thanks for accepting our invitation. We will jump right in. The elections of 1966, the defeat. Did it come to you as a surprise?

Fitzpatrick: Absolutely. I mean, we always knew it was going to be a close contest, but we had some very solid support on the ground. When you look at the results, Northern Ireland is the only region where the conservative movement made substantial gain. Even in defeat, we were surprised because here in Northern Ireland, the Ulster Unionist Party received tremendous support from citizens of all stripes.

Telegraph: The leadership contest in the Conservative Party saw the triumph of Welsh MP Talfryn Ryley against MP David Thornbloom. What was the atmosphere like?

Fitzpatrick: Well it was quite difficult because as you know, the Ulster Unionist could not take part in the vote. We are talking about our close colleagues here. David Thornbloom has been a great friend of the working man with his numerous tax cuts for all citizens. Talfryn Ryley is a man with solid conservative value and a strong belief that we need to gear this country for what lies ahead, to think of the future. I believe that when voters gets acquainted with him, they will find him a true leader.

Telegraph: But let's talk a bit about you. A month ago, your colleagues elected you as Parliamentary Leader for the Ulster Unionists in Westminster. How do you feel about such honor?

Fitzpatrick: I must say I am indeed deeply honored that they put their trust in me. You know, winning all the constituencies in Northern Ireland really put a huge responsibility on my colleagues' shoulders. We need to constantly remind ourselves that we are representing all of Northern Irishmen, Catholics like Protestants. It is a role we take very seriously.

Telegraph: This week, you have been named by Opposition Leader Ryler as Shadow Minister for Defense. How do you intend to tackle this responsibility, and do you feel up to the task?

Fitzpatrick: Well, I will tackle this new challenge like every one of our citizens. Like the navy yard workers in Belfast, I rise up early, I work hard and I come back home late, knowing I gave it my best. That's the only way we know to get things done. And as an ex-soldier, I am quite acquainted to the realities of National Defense, which will certainly prove to be quite an asset.

Telegraph: Time flies, one last question. Many of your constituents were quite angered by your support of a liberal Bill on the subject of abortion. What would you answer to these people who saw it as a lack of character and principle on your part?

Fitzpatrick: I would tell them that I voted my conscience. That this is not a great bill, that there is no great bill on this subject, but that this bill struck a balance between the rights of the mother and the defense of unborn-life. I believe that this procedure should be legal, and that as a community, we should come together to support young mothers and make sure these abortions are as few a possibble. As a legislator, at the end of the day, my job is to vote for what seems the best course of action for the nation. That's why I was elected, and I stand ready to explain my decisions to any of my constituents.
 
((Hey everyone. The playthrough schedule may be a bit wonky over the next 48 hours as I'm presently enjoying after-prom in the Hamptons. So, either I'll start at a regular time today or sometime early tommorow.))
 
  • 2
Reactions:
99KingHigh said:
((Hey everyone. The playthrough schedule may be a bit wonky over the next 48 hours as I'm presently enjoying after-prom in the Hamptons. So, either I'll start at a regular time today or sometime early tommorow.))
Click to expand...

((k))
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Abolition of Death Penalty Act 1966: Aye
Abolition of Corporal Punishment Act 1966: Aye
Race Relations Act 1967: Aye
Sex Discrimination (Equal Pay) Act 1967: Aye
Abortion Act 1967 : Aye
Bill of Labour Rights 1967: Aye
Industrial Democracy Act 1967: Aye
Housing Provision Act 1966: Aye
Healthcare Provision Act 1967: Aye
Free Speech Act of 1967: Aye
The Northern Ireland Economic Diversification Act: Abstain
European Economic Community Withdrawal Act of 1967: Nay
Budget 1967: Aye

[Filthy Tab]
[Cabinet Minister: +2PP]
[Labour Operator: +2.5PP]
 
Firehound15 said:
OFFICIAL CONSERVATIVE SHADOW CABINET
__________________________________​

Leader of the Opposition: Talfryn Ryley ((Firehound15))
Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer: Reginald Maudling
Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury: Margaret Thatcher
Shadow Secretary of State for Foreign, Colonial and Commonwealth Affairs: David Thornbloom ((TJDS))
Shadow Leader of the House of Commons: David Thornbloom
Shadow Secretary of State for the Home Department: Johnathan Chips ((Jackbdolla))
Shadow Minister for Home Affairs: Joan Quennell
Shadow Secretary of State for Defence: Lochlan Fitzpatrick ((Eid3r))
Shadow Secretary of State for Education: Arthur Hornesby ((Somberg))
Shadow Secretary of State for Science and Technology: Norman St John-Stevas
Shadow Secretary of State for Employment, Productivity and Labour: Jeremy McCoy ((Naxhi24))
Shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Services: Sir Keith Joseph, Bt.
Shadow Secretary of State for Housing and Local Governance: Iain Mcleod
Shadow Secretary of State for Transport and the Environment: Talfryn Ryley
Shadow Secretary of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: James Prior
Shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry: Jeremy McCoy
Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland: Michael Noble
Shadow Secretary of State for Wales: Peter Thomas
Shadow Minister for Overseas Development: Timothy Blake ((Michaelangelo))
Shadow President of the Board of Trade: Clarence D. Abel ((Qwerty7))
Click to expand...

Monaghan whispers to Marr

"Shadow Home Secretary is right. He's hasn't made a speech in years; maybe he really is a shadow!"
 
*The Shadow Home Secretary does not respond.*
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
Abolition of Death Penalty Act 1966: Aye
Abolition of Corporal Punishment Act 1966: Aye
Race Relations Act 1967: Aye
Sex Discrimination (Equal Pay) Act 1967: Aye
Abortion Act 1967 : Aye
Bill of Labour Rights 1967: Aye
Industrial Democracy Act 1967: Aye
Housing Provision Act 1966: Aye
Healthcare Provision Act 1967: Aye
Free Speech Act of 1967: Aye
The Northern Ireland Economic Diversification Act: Nay
European Economic Community Withdrawal Act of 1967: Nay
Budget 1967: Aye

[Politician]
[No Bonus]
 
 
((Update playthrough will be tonight immediately after voting closes. Ministers should either come to IRC or PM orders.))
 
 
Voting's closed. Playthrough in 30 minutes.

EDIT: Scratch that. Technical difficulties.
 
Last edited:
Aldershot, United Kingdom
All Saints Royal Garrison Church,

Lochlan Fitzpatrick had taken a few days off the busy activity of Westminster. He made his way to Aldershot, in the Hampshire, to assist a memorial service for soldiers killed in action during World War II. Sitting in a pew of the All Saints Royal Garrison Church, he was discreetly talking with Major Johnny Burns, an old acquaintance from the Dunkirk debacle.

Fitzpatrick: How bad are the budget cuts? I mean, this 30% must be felt very deeply.

Burns: They are talking about closing military bases. I’m also hearing they have put military development projects on the ice.

Fitzpatrick: We’ll lose our edge against potential enemies. That is completely idiotic.

Burns: It just mean we need the Americans to hold the main show. The Red Army would make quick shred out of us right now.

Fitzpatrick: How’s the morale?

Burns : The guys feel unsupported by the governement. And for the old guys, well, it’s just a shame when you have known the superb war machine we were 20 years ago.

Fitzpatrick: I hear you brother. I’ll raise the subject in Parliament.

Burns: Remember, I can’t talk to politicians.

Fitzpatrick: Oh but you didn’t, weren’t we just reminiscing our good old days and the brothers in arms we lost?

They both turned their attention to the ceremony.
 
((The update should be up soon. It's extremely long, so it will be posted in two parts.))
 
((Recommended music for the updates.
]))


Chapter 20/21

Chapter 20: The White Heat of the Revolution
(December 1966-December 1967)​

In springtime, Britain was still swinging: Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, World Cup Champions, Blowup, hippies, The Piper at the Gates of Dawn, Cochrane’s Craft, Paint it Black, Marr and Monaghan. With the passing of the Duke of London, and the ultimate procession of formality and tradition, Britain stumbled into a new era. In lockstep with the new epoch came a new government - the infamous alliance between Old Labour and the New Left. The eclectic Labour administration, fraternizing all variations of Labourism from Attleism to Marrism, exhorted a revolutionary style of governance. For the defeated Conservative Party, Labour’s new blend proved absolutely execrable. Prime Minister Alistair Monaghan and his collaborator, the Home Secretary, espoused a political agenda that assailed every conventional view and aroused the deepest Tory enmity. Ted Jacobs, aghast that his inability to contain the Autumn strikes had launched Britain’s revolutionary cadre into power, hurriedly resigned his office. Determined to resist Monaghan’s Government at every opportunity, the Conservative Party scrambled to elect a new leader. With the exception of the anti-EEC Shadow Defense Secretary, Enoch Powell, the Tory election was monopolized by the post-Abadanites - recognizably the Shadow Chancellor and the Shadow Minister of the Environment. David Thornbloom and Talfryn Ryley, respectively, represented two very distinctive Conservative constituencies. Ryley’s ideology, rooted in ‘Green Conservatism’, was in sharp contrast to Thornbloom’s moralizing ‘Christian Democracy.’ Many commentators questioned whether the post-Abadanites were truly representing an adaptable vision of Conservatism, offering the great British public a choice between “a Welsh tree and the Archbishop of Canterbury.” In the end, Ryley was the first to accommodate Butskellite standards, assuring the public that “subsidies would be continued” and shrewdly evading the social reactionaryism that had become associated with the Conservative Party. Conservative MPs elected the former Environment Minister on the first ballot - an early indicator that the Tories wished to oppose Labour with the apparatus of unanimity.

8tIUUjO.png
dNfPrF2.png

Talfryn Ryley (left) and David Thornbloom (right).
​
While Monaghan and Marr drafted the most brazen legislative series in two decades behind closed doors, global turmoil made an unwelcome return to Britain. The splendid isolationism that had proved ubiquitous throughout Jacobs’ ‘Era of Good Times’ suddenly came to an impromptu conclusion. Across the Mediterranean, Leighton’s legacy of multicultural compromise was peeling away. Makarious III, the controversial Greek Cypriot, staged a coup in Cyprus, mobilizing a considerable portion of the local Greek population in a demonstration of non-violent protest against the British-imposed peace. The cover provided by the protests allowed Makarious to occupy key locations and dislodge the British Army from their strategic position. Although Makarious had not completed the coup, nor compelled the thirty-thousand strong British Army to retreat, Prime Minister Demirel in Ankara saw opportunity to procure a foothold on the island. Demirel launched a series of contingency plans, and ordered the Turkish Army into Cyprus, officially invading ‘to safeguard the local Turkish population from enosis.’ The Turkish Invasion caught Monaghan completely off guard; the British Army could not stumble into conflict with a fellow NATO member, nor could it legitimately ignore the local British population’s proclivity for either a local Greek government or a restored Domionship. In the United Nations, the United Kingdom actively called for a ceasefire resolution. President Johnson, however, was cautious not to irritate his most important regional ally, and vetoed Security Council motions denouncing the newly created Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Monaghan’s rational diffidence on galling the Americans prevented unilateral action or open condemnation. Confined to the vaguely acceptable arena of humanitarian aid, Monaghan offered evacuation for British subjects back to the British isles, and conceded the island in shame. The Cyprus Incident revealed Britain’s inability to dictate terms, and broadly revealed the United Kingdom’s international reduction to a simple Washington pooch. Monaghan’s relationship with President Johnson would prove tenuous. In some regards, the Prime Minister happily embraced the pro-American stance of his Labour predecessors, but utterly refuted the entire system of Americanized economics that gripped British enterprise. This strange mix - certainly enigmatic in the Labour Party - would later reveal a deep personal strife in Britain’s premier figure.

4EUuqyL.jpg

Turkish troops in Cyprus.​

Monaghan’s early disappointments, succeeded by the anti-Commonwealth independence of Niger and the overthrow of the Federation of South Arabia by the pro-Soviet People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, showcased Britain’s international malaise. But the Prime Minister, a ‘conscious’ amateur in foreign affairs, had never intended to score poll points abroad. Afflicted by deepening unpopularity in the aftermath of the Cyprus Incident, the Prime Minister pivoted homewards, where the government believed it could facilitate a true revolutionary transfiguration. Monaghan and Marr were all too aware that Monaghan’s Old Labour agenda would prove extraordinarily difficult to push through Parliament. Desirous of some popular victory, Monaghan conceded Labour’s legislative agenda to the Home Secretary. Marr began his ambitious program for reform with a needed mien-change, recasting ‘Old Labour’ as “New Britain:” Labour’s umbrella title for social change. Marr’s unwillingness to throw the dice on his agenda’s passage necessitated the participation of the Liberal Party. Liberal leader Jo Grimond and Liberal grandee Robert MacAlistair found plenty of common ground with Labour’s social crusader, procuring an agreement that would buttress Labour’s precarious two-seat majority. The legislative curriculum originally included in ‘New Britain’ was five-fold: the abolition of the death penalty, the abolition of corporal punishment, the criminalization of race-based discrimination, the illegalization of racial hate speech, and the equalization of gender pay. In an atmosphere of climbing crime and popular hysteria, Marr’s proposals were anything but timid. And yet, Marr did not evade the accusations pressed against him amidst an atmosphere of jittery apprehension. The Home Secretary, for example, warded off a critical assessment from the Belfast Telegraph, redirecting fault of ascending crimes rates to supposedly obsolete policing practices. In Westminster, Conservative MPs were not taciturn in response to the Lib-Lab arrangement; many struck hard at New Britain. But in an ingenious political move, Labour’s political operators drowned New Britain’s controversy in more controversy. When too much Conservative attention shifted to capital punishment or hate speech, Labour simply supported legislation relaxing abortion restrictions. The greatest controversies of the late twentieth century and the early twenty-first century - the subjects of hundreds of books and endless articles - cruised through Parliament in a matter of weeks. Mr. Marr’s great cause seemed to have been completed, but thereafter, the Home Secretary was tarnished by a rather unflattering public perception - an unequaled pomposity tainted by a thousand dirty deals.

RymWMGv.png
mKWYNE6.png

Parris Marr and Anti-Capital Punishment advocates.​

The solidification of the Home Secretary’s social program clinched the first stage of the Marr-Monaghan alliance. The next phase, however, would prove to be a far more contentious issue. As a matter of fact, New Britain’s ‘economic component’ would manifest into an apocalyptic political war - the undisputed center of British discourse for the foreseeable future. In this regard, the Prime Minister could not count upon Liberal support: Grimond and MacAlistair were rabid adversaries, willing and ready to force another general election upon the British public. The objects of oppositionary contempt were the the proposed Bill of Labour Rights and the infamous Industrial Democracy Act. The two bills were, essentially, a trade-union’s wet-dream. Monaghan’s Bill of Labour Rights provided remarkable economic and social rights to British workers, including obligatory compensations, gratuitous training, paid vacations, union privileges, and bargaining allowances. The Bill of Labour Rights was obviously the broad substratum for the ever-contentious Industrial Democracy Act (IDA), which stipulated that companies with more than sixty employees were compelled to universalize ownership to their workers. The particular delirium of the IDA was an inability to discriminate between types of companies. Financial services, including banks and hedge funds, would be compelled eventually to concede ownership to the sweepers and cleaners employed by the company, with a particular stipulation requiring the company to continue relinquishment until the enterprise was eventually owned by eighty-percent of the workforce. Furthermore, the IDA required an equalization of payment on equity, disincentivizing all careerist advancement by merit of egalitarian enforcement. Needless to say, the Industrial Democracy Act became the Mephistopheles of the Conservative Party. While some Conservative MPs attempted to attack the proposition before Labour’s endless stream of controversial issues continued, the new Tory leader fell victim to Labour’s trap. Rather than address the impending calamity, Ryley was sucked into a ridiculous debate on Hate Speech, and managed only to note once his displeasure with the IDA when he called it “the Industrial Evisceration Act.” The majority of Conservative disaffection with the Industrial Democracy Act came from infuriated Tory backbenchers, such as Timothy Blake, and the newly-reformed Daily Herald, now known as The Sun.

NbyJZiX.png

Pro-IDA union members marching in Newcastle.​

With the notable exception of the CPGB-Common Wealth Alliance, who conducted their affairs regarding New Britain in absentia, all three major parties set a three-line whip on the Industrial Democracy Act. The vote came to a head on April 30th 1967, in one of the most dramatic showdowns in parliamentary history. With a majority of two-seats, Labour’s victory essentially rested in total unanimity in order to overcome the combined opposition. The abstention of the four CPGB-Common Wealth MPs provided the Labour government with a small boost, but Labour’s diverse parliamentary electorate ensured that the vote was anything but set. Michael Foot, in 1983, recounted the episode to a 2004 BBC programme entitled The Plot Against Alistair Monaghan: “We’d been sitting there for some time as the final speech came winding to a close. Most of us were peeking around looking for the dark reds[1], but when they failed to show, I recall, Wilson leaned over and said ‘we may have a chance.’ Meanwhile, the Prime Minister, who was sitting next to Parris, was obviously nervous. They had all said it a million times: ‘it’s down to that damned Harwick. He better show.’ And you must recall, of course, that it was Stephen who had brought down Bennett. This was the man who had destroyed a Prime Minister. And of course, the fact that Harwick had been kicked out of cabinet by Monaghan and Marr did not exactly help the situation. So, while we’re waiting for the speeches to finish, Benn comes scrambling in, shuffles in the row behind Monaghan, and starts whispering to Marr and the PM. I think Benn thought that Harwick had ditched the vote, and I think the Tories thought it too. So we’re all sitting patiently, just waiting for a no-confidence vote, when Harwick strides into the Commons’ with fifteen of his fellow MPs, and sits about as far away from the front-bench as possible. And now I’m think, I thought he had the decency to at least abstain. Of course, I thought he was ready to vote against the IDA. Wilson and Benn, if I recall, buried their heads into their order papers, and Ryley looked smugger than anything. But sure enough, come division, Harwick toed the line. I think he enjoyed that moment very much.” The Industrial Democracy Act barely passed the House of Commons. Yet Monaghan’s fragile coalition survived the test, and New Britain’s economic agenda sneaked pass 316-311 in the Commons. As the plan for industrial democracy had been explicitly delineated in Labour’s 1966 electoral manifesto, the Conservative majority in the House of Lords was bound by the Salisbury-Addison-Scarsdale convention to submit to Labour’s legislation. Outside Westminster, reactions across the country were polarized. In Tory Britain, the Industrial Democracy Act and the Bill of Labour Rights represented the triumph of socialism, while blue-collar Labourites hailed ‘New Britain’ as a new era of economic history. Needless to say, the markets crashed the day after the vote.

Johnson-Monaghan: Burma
​
The passage of the Industrial Democracy Act invoked a gelid reaction in Washington D.C. Prominent figures in the Central Intelligence Agency cited disaffected MI5 sources to President Lyndon Johnson, categorizing Britain’s new Prime Minister as a Soviet stooge. There was open talk of a coup d'etat - presumably to install Lord Mountbatten at the helm of a pro-business government. Yet President Johnson shirked these assertions, determined to test Monaghan’s loyalty. On May 10th 1967, the United States Congress passed Joint Resolution 88-408, authorizing President Johnson the ability to deploy conventional forces in the People’s Republic of Myanmar, colloquially known as Burma in the Anglosphere. In previous months, the Burmese Army had conducted a string of military invasions, supporting popular left-wing uprisings in the Chin State and Kachin, where Anglo-American monied interests remained preeminent. The overthrow of the Chin and Kachin’s governments consolidated a corridor of left-wing nationalist Republics in Southeast Asia, armed and supplied through the People’s Republic of Shan, the elected Communist Party in Laos, and the North Vietnamese. As in so many other global arenas, Britain’s recession from the region prompted America’s intervention. In Congress, partisan hawks were eager to find connections between Ragoon and Moscow. In fact, there was little empirical evidence of amicable relations between the Soviet Union and Myanmar, although hawkish analysts believed the Indochinese weapons train, which originated in North Vietnam and supplied Burma, was orchestrated and supplied by Soviet manufacturers in North Korea. American military advisers were eager to impress upon President Johnson an aggressive agenda, conjuring impressive tales about potential Communism in India. Officially bound by the policy of Containment, President Johnson submitted to the Pentagon’s advice, and prepared for military action against Myanmar. In late 1966, President Johnson sent a considerable portion of the United States Seventh Fleet and Pentagon advisers to the Kingdom of Thailand. Most political analysts could discern that the United States was preparing for major military action in Southeast Asia. In early April, the United States Seventh Fleet parked in the Andaman Sea, and commenced provocative coastline patrols near Mawlamyine.

bK31O6i.png

Johnson signs Joint Resolution 88-408.
​
The USS Maddox, a U.S destroyer, was conducting a DESOTO patrol in the Andaman waters outside Mawlamine on May 7, 1966, when it reported an attack by three Burmese torpedo boats, which were attempting to close the distance between the vessels and maximize destructive capacity. Maddox responded by firing over 280 5-inch shells, while the Burmese boats expended all their torpedos and machinegun fire. When the vessels departed, four USN F-8 Crusaders bombed the Burmese torpedo boats from the aircraft carrier USS Ticonderoga. All three boats were damaged by the bombing raid. Two days later, with Washington still scrambling for information, Maddox again reported an attack, although Ragoon immediately denied any involvement. Whether or not Maddox had actually come under attack seemed to matter little; Congress whisked through a Joint Resolution, empowering the President to make undeclared war on Burma. After consultations with the Pentagon, President Johnson phoned Prime Minister Monaghan. Johnson sternly impressed upon Monaghan the need for British support, especially considering British familiarity with the region. Monaghan pledged logistical and technical support, but fell short of direct military involvement. The Prime Minister’s evasion infuriated President Johnson, who quietly encouraged the foreign-corporate exile prompted by the Industrial Democracy Act. In the meantime, American troops conducted a full-scale military invasion of Burma - a remarkable escalation of conflict and manpower. When American troops landed in Bago, Burmese troops and their allies proved remarkably resilient. But the plain-lands and lack of cover afforded the conventional forces a considerable advantage, and the United States Army began to occupy the surrounding region. In the House of Commons, debate over the Burma War worsened relations. Monaghan’s foremost supporters - generally opposed to the Prime Minister’s idiosyncratic leftist Atlanticism - harangued the United States for their ‘blatant aggression’. While American forces encountered fierce resistance throughout the summer, and U.S draft demands ballooned, British progressives proved to be some of the earliest anti-war activists. Baron Brockway founded the British Council for Peace in Burma, while the anti-nuclear Committee of 100 became radical “non-non-violent” opponents of the war. Early British opposition to the war, however, was merely based upon the perceived illegality of the movement, not the loss of human life or the pointlessness of the cause.

aplUW29.png

Depiction of the Andaman Incident.
​
Throughout 1967, the United States Army made slow advances in Burma, eventually capturing the Burmese former capital of Ragoon. But Thankin Soe - Brezhnev’s favorite - had relocated the capital to Mandalay nearly four years before. American forces would need to pierce the dreaded Burmese mountains: a convoluted mix of different ranges (including the Himalayas). Determined to vanquish the foe, President Johnson installed General Saw Maung as the President of Burma in Ragoon, and compelled Burma’s new dictator to assist in the war. Saw Maung’s authoritarian government failed, by all evaluations, to rouse the general population to action. In November, a North Burmese counter-offensive, backed by local guerilla fighters, dislodged America’s foothold on Pegu. The offensive allowed the North Burmese to form an impressive bulwark from the Chin capital of Sittwe to Kayuke. The unexpected involvement of guerilla warriors and the shock defeat in Pegu forced Johnson to escalate the Burma War. Against liberal advise, Congress authorized the generalization of conscription, and prepared to draft hundreds of thousands of American citizens into the war. The broadened conscription pool sparked an immediate reaction among the young citizenry of the United States. Early opposition to the Burma War quickly transformed into gargantuan protests: President Johnson had been sucked into an empty pit. As America tumbled into chaos, the stage was set for the most remarkable year of the 20th century. 1968.

[1] Labour's slang-term for the CPGB.

--
Wait.
 
Last edited:
((Recommended music for update:
))

Chapter 20/21

Chapter 21: 1968
(December 1967-December 1968)​

There are some years in human history that require a particularly scrupulous evaluation. According to most modern historians, and conventional historiography, nineteen sixty-eight earns a deserved spot beside 1066, 1452, 1789, 1814, 1914, and 1939. For this particular section, it is difficult to insulate the United States from the United Kingdom, given the contemporaneous hegemony of the United States. It is therefore likely, considering the cultural, social, and political impact of 1968 on the United Kingdom, that this section will sway across the Atlantic. For the purpose of historical relevance, the narrative will return to Westminster.

WtsThEM.jpg

​
The House of Commons was a tumultuous place in early 1968. Prime Minister Alistair Monaghan, the Conservative Party’s political Apollyon, had lost his de jure majority in December, surviving off opposition disunity and the occasional absenteeism of the far-left. Monaghan’s early months were uncommonly bitter; unemployment in Britain was mushrooming, economic growth remained constrained to the public sector, and trade unions canvassed Monaghan for nationalization. The Industrial Democracy Act, by merit of its simplicity, had incurred a corporate exodus. The large private companies who remained in Britain, particularly industrial companies, found themselves unable to sustain profitability, constrained by their worker’s ability to stifle closings and determine company policy. Even public statutory companies, such as the National Coal Board, were unable to properly manage their collieries. In terms of pure economic growth, industrial output exploded; massive stockpiles of coal, steel, and chemicals slashed energy prices. The inability to retain corporate power, however, ensured that companies were nearly driven to bankruptcy. The NCB, for example, notably increased the number of active coal mines, despite the indisputably meager return of profit on each colliery. The effect was pervasive corporate poverty: government industrial subsidies for private companies increased by nearly 400%, while the average nationalized industry saw costs rise two-fold. Elsewhere, home-grown private companies deliberately downsized their workforce to evade the IDA - sometimes well below 60 employees to diminish the effects of the Bill of Labour Rights. As subsidy costs quadrupled, the national deficit steepened to it’s largest level since the Second World War, forcing a systematic assembly-line of quantitative easing. Furthermore, economic decline in the private sector was recouped by massive injections into the National Health Service, which quickly surpassed the Red Army as the world’s largest employer. But even the advancement of social welfare had adverse effects; stronger worker power in hospitals and larger compensation fees diminished doctor pay, spelling markedly smaller physician populations in Medical School and in the National Health Service. Britain’s entire Social Economy - built by Arthur Bennett - seemed to be in the grips of an economic revolution.

YGOKVmp.png

The Prime Minister.
​
While the poor enjoyed relative prosperity, and the middle-class languished in stubbornly high unemployment, Monaghan confronted domestic insurrection. In late January, representatives of the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association - an activist group seeking the end of anti-Catholic discrimination in Northern Ireland - marched on a house in Caledon, where the local council had allocated the house to an unmarried 19-year-old Protestant (Emily Beattie, the secretary of a local UUP politician) instead of either of two large Catholic families with children. RUC officers - one of whom was Beattie’s brother - forcibly removed the activists. After the incident, Austin Currie, a nationalist MP brought the grievance to the local council and to Stormont, but were told twice to depart. The incident would prove to be the catalyst for the civil rights movement. While the early NICRA had a sizable Unionist contingency, Seamus Allen, the de facto leader of the Republican faction in the NICRA, quickly gained a dominant foothold in the movement. Two months after the Beattie Incident, the civil rights movement held its first march, from Coalisland to Dungannon. Many marchers were attacked by members of the Ulster Protestant Volunteers, while Protestants conducted counter-demonstrations in a bid to get the marches banned. The perceived inaction by the Royal Ulster Constabulary convinced the nationalists that the RUC, almost wholly Protestant, was backing the loyalists. On July 5 1968, a civil rights march in Derry was banned by the Stormont Government. In reaction to the crackdown, Allen published his famous ‘Demands to Baron O’Neil’ - the earliest memorandum of Irish Catholic demands. Among other things, Allen demanded “the immediate end to the sustained campaign of discrimination, the disbandment of the RUC, a permanent end to institutional gerrymandering, the end of disenfranchisement, creation of protections for the Catholic community, and a United Irish Republic.” When marchers defied the ban, RUC officers surrounded the marchers and beat them indiscriminately. Nearly one-hundred people were injured, including several nationalist politicians. And it was all filmed.

P3VZauL.png

A Civil Rights March in July 1968.
​
The broadcasted crackdown sparked two-days of rioting in Derry between nationalists and the Royal Ulster Constabulary. In reaction to the rioting and inaction from Baron O’Neil, the Home Secretary published a White Paper to cabinet that he had written a year before. The White Paper, entitled ‘In Place of Strife,’ proposed a top-down reform of North Ireland from Westminster, including reforms to fix the democratic malaise in Stormont. Determined to prevent Monaghan’s intervention, O’Neil introduced his Five Point Reform Programme. The reform granted a number of concessions that NICRA had demanded but importantly did not include one man-one vote in local elections. Despite the exclusion of widespread voting reform, NICRA’s moderate members sensed progress, and agreed to postpone marches. While the cessation of marchers were an indication of possible resolution, many Catholics were disappointed by the limited reforms. A radical group was formed in reaction to the NICRA ‘demobilization,’ named People’s Democracy, which prepared for a four-day march from Belfast-to-Derry on the first day of the new year. In Parliament, Unionists attempted to defuse the anticipated tension with the proposal of the The Northern Ireland Economic Diversification Act, which promised the elimination of economic discrimination, but simultaneously delegated economic power to Stormont. While Labour mostly opposed the legislation, the Secretary of State for Employment, Productivity, and Labour endorsed the bill, and the legislation passed Parliament. But much of the bill, by the nature of recent legislation, would be stifled by the regulations imposed by the Industrial Democracy Act and the Bill of Labour Rights. Industrial Democracy was not just for England.

The Bohemian Spring
​
In a Pravda article in September 1967, entitled Sovereignty and the International Obligations of Socialist Countries, and later reiterated in his speech to the Fifth Congress of the Polish United Workers' Party, General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev outlined the ‘Brezhnev Doctrine.’ In his ‘Doctrine,’ Brezhnev declared “When forces that are hostile to socialism try to turn the development of some socialist country towards capitalism, it becomes not only a problem of the country concerned, but a common problem and concern of all socialist countries.” This stratagem, a justification for the 1956 crackdown in Hungary, formed the basis of Soviet hegemony in Eastern Europe. The Brezhnev Doctrine was more than rhetoric; Soviet troops were aligned all over the Warsaw Pact, prepared for intervention at the first sign of insurrection. In spite of the considerable Soviet presence, however, Eastern European governments were not free from popular discontent or even internal dissent. In January 1968, Alexander Dubček was elected First Secretary of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia (KSC). Dubček was a known reformer, and deeply opposed the authoritarianism of Antonín Novotný, his predecessor. On the twentieth anniversary of Czechoslovakia’s "Victorious February, Dubček expressed his desire to change the very face of socialism. He declared his wish "to build an advanced socialist society on sound economic foundations ... a socialism that corresponds to the historical democratic traditions of Czechoslovakia, in accordance with the experience of other communist parties ..." In April, Dubček launched an Action Programme of liberalizations, which included increasing freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of movement, and even the possibility of a multiparty government. The Action Programme was based on a democratized socialism, possibly the antecedent to a federalized ČSSR. The programme also covered foreign policy, and was sure to promote the maintenance of good relations with the West and the Eastern Bloc. Even the most ardent reforms, however, were careful not to criticize the actions of the post-war Communist regime. Instead, the reformers illustrated heavy-handed Communism’s triumph over the class system, but believed those techniques were no longer needed. Czechoslovakia, in Dubček’s eyes, needed a scientific-technical revolution, rather than relying on Stalinist heavy-industry and brute labour power.

IqMykZL.png
j4pxel2.png

General Secretary Brezhnev (left) and First Secretary Dubček (right).
​
Although Dubček was certain to ensure that the reform would proceed under the Communist Party’s watch, eager crowds urged the government to implement the reforms immediately. Radical elements became vocalized, and even some anti-Soviet polemics appeared in the press after the formal abolition of censorship. At the Presidium of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, Dubček’s announced a programme of “socialism with a human face” and announced further reforms for the Fourteenth Congress; reforms proposed solutions to Czechslovakia’s economic problems, advising a mix between planned and market economics, with varying degrees of radicalism injected into these solutions. The reforms, especially the decentralization of administrative authority, were not well received in Moscow. At a 23 May meeting in Dresden, leaders of the Warsaw Five (USSR, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, and East Germany) questioned the Czech delegation over the planned reforms, implying that ‘democratization’ was a quiet critique of other Soviet-style policies. The Soviet leadership attempted to restrain the changes in the ČSSR through a series of negotiations, including bilateral talks in July at Čierna nad Tisou, near the Slovak-Soviet border. At the meeting, Dubček defended the proposals of the reformist wing of the Communist Party while pledging unwavering commitment to the Warsaw Pact and Comecon. The Czech leadership, however, was itself divided between committed reformers and conservatives. The division allowed Brezhnev to maneuver a compromise, and the Communist delegates reaffirmed their loyalty to the Warsaw Bloc and promised to prevent the revival of the Czechoslovak Social Democratic Party. The declaration asserted an unshakable fidelity to Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism against the bourgeois ideology. After the Bratislava conference, the Soviet Army left Czechoslovak territory but remained along its borders. Brezhnev’s toleration of Dubček proved short-lived, and Soviet politicians were quick to urge action. The United States and NATO largely turned a blind eye to the evolving situation in Czechoslovakia. While the Soviet Union was worried that it might lose an ally, the United States had absolutely no desire to gain it. President Johnson was already engulfed in the Burma War and was unlikely to be able to drum up support for a potential intervention in Czechoslovakia. Johnson also did not want to lose Soviet support for the SALT arms agreement, and willingly ignored the USSR. With the exception of Monaghan, who openly endorsed the liberalization, the USSR was given free-reign.

cEksy6C.png

Protesters and Soldiers during the Invasion.
​
At approximately 11 pm on 20 August 1968, Eastern Bloc armies from the Soviet Union, Bulgaria, Poland, and Hungary - invaded Czechoslovakia. Nearly 250,000 Warsaw Pact troops and 2,000 tanks entered the country. The invasion, which was highly coordinated, began with the procurement of the Ruzyne International Airport. As the operation of the airport commenced, columns of tanks and motorized rifle troops blitzed towards Prague and other urban centers, meeting little resistance. Dubček, however, galvanized by bad weather in the East, ordered Czech troops to resist the invasion. Moscow, which had expected Czechoslovakia to fold immediately, was suddenly confronted with a full-scale rebellion. The Prague Army, numbering over 100,000, swiftly recaptured the Airport, and prepared to defend the capital from the invading armies. Brezhnev intended to make an example of the insurgent Czechs, and advanced with the brute force of the Red Army. In the first conventional battle since the Second World War, the Soviet Army routed the Czechoslovakian Army, and occupied Prague. For the next few days, rioting in the capital was ruthlessly persecuted by Moscow. Vasiľ Biľak, a pro-Soviet member of the Communist Party, was appointed as First Secretary after the impromptu execution of Dubček.

The Burma War​

In mid-February 1968, Walter Cronkite traveled to Burma in the middle of the Pegu Offensive. Along with his executive producer, Ernest Leiser, Cronkite went to dinner with General Creighton Abrams, the current commander of all forces in Burma. According to Leiser, Abrams told Cronkite, "we cannot win this Goddamned war, and we ought to find a dignified way out.” On February 27, 1968, Cronkite closed "Report from Burma: Who, What, When, Where, Why?" with the following editorial report:

We have been too often disappointed by the optimism of the American leaders, both in Burma and Washington, to have faith any longer in the silver linings they find in the darkest clouds. They may be right, that Mandalay's winter-spring offensive has been forced by the Communist realization that they could not win the longer war of attrition, and that the Communists hope that any success in the offensive will improve their position for eventual negotiations. It would improve their position, and it would also require our realization, that we should have had all along, that any negotiations must be that – negotiations, not the dictation of peace terms. For it seems now more certain than ever that the bloody experience of Burma is to end in a stalemate. This summer's almost certain standoff will either end in real give-and-take negotiations or terrible escalation; and for every means we have to escalate, the enemy can match us, and that applies to invasion of the North, the use of nuclear weapons, or the mere commitment of one hundred, or two hundred, or three hundred thousand more American troops to the battle. And with each escalation, the world comes closer to the brink of cosmic disaster. To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of the evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past. To suggest we are on the edge of defeat is to yield to unreasonable pessimism. To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion. On the off chance that military and political analysts are right, in the next few months we must test the enemy's intentions, in case this is indeed his last big gasp before negotiations. But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could.

vBlxaP3.png

Walter Cronkite in Burma.
​
Following Cronkite's editorial report, President Lyndon Johnson is claimed by some to have said, "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost Middle America." The war in Burma, now in it’s second official year, was becoming a desperate matter. Failure to engage the Northern Burmese, and stalemate around Ragoon, dampened general moral. In early Spring, the Pentagon advised a new recruitment push, determined to spearhead Burmese-American troops into Northern Burma. To this entreaty, the American anti-war movement remonstrated further enlargement of the Burmese conflict. But Johnson, trapped down the rabbit hole, was compelled to fight onward, determined not to tarnish America’s pristine military record. On April 30th, 1968, American troops began a new offensive into North Burma, evading the impressive defensive line protecting Mandalay. Unable to directly access North Burma, American bombers laid waste to the Shan capital, Taunggyi. The Democratic People’s Republic of Shan, who previously had not been involved in the fighting, allowed North Burmese insurgents into the country, and dared the American army into the Shan Highlands. The vast mountainous range proved treacherous for American troops, who fought enemies shrouded behind distant hills and mountains. By May 5th, Cronkite’s ‘escalation’ came into fruition. Thousands of young American soldiers perished in the Shan Hills, unable to launch a concentrated push towards Taunggyi. Frustrated by the failures, the USAF devastated the Shan countryside, alienating the local village populations from the United States. American casualties, in just a year of warfare, exceeded thirty-thousand, while the United States appeared no closer to victory. By March 1968 Johnson was secretly desperate for an honourable way out of the war. The anti-war movement, which burned draft cards and chanted “Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?” was not Johnson’s torture. Rather, the growing anti-war sentiment in the United States was drowning Johnson’s popularity, and the President was haunted by his Democratic colleagues. On May 29th, Johnson spoke to the nation, and declared he would immediately halt the bombing of Shan, and announced his intention to seek out peace talks “anywhere at any time.” At the close of his speech, the President announced "I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President.”

Jy4gL8g.png

American soldiers in Shan.
​
America’s manpower involvement in Burma reached 450,000 in June 1968, while protesters back home in the United States radicalized. As a consequence, morale in Shan began to sink; open reports of mutiny, officer ‘fragging,’ drug abuse, and the general breakdown of military discipline trickled back to Washington. Thankin Soe, Burma’s nationalist hero, was playing a brutal war of attrition - and on his own turf. The amalgamation of these circumstances, and the escalation of racial unease after MLK’s Beyond Burma and his subsequent assassination, played into electoral fever. The Democratic Party became engulfed in a political contest between anti-war Senator Robert Kennedy, anti-war Senator Eugene McCarthy, and Vice-President Hubert Humphrey. Humphrey never made it to the Chicago convention. On 23 April 1968, the Vice-President was shot and killed by Palestinian militant Sirhan Sirhan, in response to Johnson’s support for the independent Israeli state. Humphrey’s death, which shocked the nation, froze political scenery for nearly a month. In his political stead, pro-war candidate Senator George Smathers vigorously defended Johnson’s record, and harangued Senator McCarthy and Senator Kennedy for their defeatism. At the convention in Chicago, anti-war protesters occupied by the scenery, protesting Smathers and his Burma position. In a clash which was covered on live television, Chicago police attacked anti-war protesters chanting “the whole world is watching,” Meanwhile, the convention itself was marred by the strong-arm tactics of Chicago's mayor Richard J. Daley (who was seen on television angrily cursing Connecticut senator Abraham Ribicoff, who made a speech at the convention denouncing the excesses of the Chicago police in the riots). After a circus of a convention, and the timely withdrawal of Senator McCarthy, Senator Robert Kennedy triumphed over George Smathers and secured the Democratic nomination. In contemporary American politics, the epoch of the uninterrupted New Deal, RFK’s convention victory was essentially considered the only contest that mattered. But down in Miami Beach, something more noteworthy was occurring.

BCEbe3Z.png
5pYtlqu.png

Robert Kennedy (left) and soldiers in Burma (right).
​
Senator Barry Goldwater, the no-nonsense traditional fusionist conservative, secured the Republican nomination over opponents William Scranton and Nelson Rockefeller in the 1968 Republican primary. The victory was completely unexpected; Senator Goldwater was everything that the Eastern Republican Establishment despised: ultra-conservative, western, and forthright. Goldwater’s Republican Party was a political establishment that had been reduced to meaningless junk. For the past thirty-six years, the Democratic Party had scored every single presidential election. The only thing that had kept the Republican Party alive was a consistently impressive performance in the United States Senate. As the intellectual progenitor to Senator Taft, Goldwater opposed the New Deal fervently, rebuked Civil Rights, and unabashedly encouraged the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in Burma. But Goldwater was also a towering intellectual figure, and was backed by William Buckley Jr.’s the National Review and a laundry list of established powers. In every respect, it was the perfect time for a Goldwater. The differences between Kennedy and Goldwater were almost as wide as those between Monaghan and Ryley; Kennedy despised the Burmese War, promoted the civil rights movement, yearned for social welfare, and demanded a fairer society. Goldwater, contrarily, vigorously supported anti-communism, opposed the Civil Rights Act, rebuked the New Deal, and defended inequality. The New York Times (not incorrectly) labeled the 1968 election “The Battle of Extremists.” For Kennedy, time was on his side. As fatalities in the Shan Highlands multiplied, anti-war sentiment in the United States became more pronounced. And yet, as Middle America (or ‘the Silent Majority) saw more and more student protesters burning the American flag, the more Goldwater appeared the messianic savior of American prestige. Either way, there was a change in American politics.

On November 5th, 1968, the Fifth Party System came to an abrupt end. Barry Goldwater secured a considerable electoral and popular majority, winning every state in the American South on the endorsement of Governor George Wallace.

YThAxJ8.jpg

​

L3
​
As early as 1961, the Soviet leadership had made public and private pronouncements regarding a potential moon landing and the establishment of a lunar base. The foremost Soviet engineer, Sergei Korolev, was more interested in the deployment of heavy orbital stations and manned flights to Mars and Venus. With this in consideration, Korolev commenced development of the super-heavy N-1 rocket. After developing the N1, beginning in 1963, Korolev began to plan a Moon landing mission using two launches and docking. Korolev later managed to increase the payload of the N1 to 92-93 tons, providing enough power to accomplish the mission with a single launch. Another lunar-capable design was forwarded by Vladmir Chelomi, who proposed a competing cislunar orbiting mission using the heavy UR-500K rocket (known as the proton rocket) and a two-man LK-1 spacecraft. The Soviet government contracted Chelomei to develop a Moon flyby program with a projected first flight by 1966, while Korolev was instructed to develop the landing program with a first flight by the end of 1968. When Korolev died in 1966, Chelomi continued to observe the project designation, retaining the N-1 Rocket for the lunar landing. The manned landing plan adopted a similar method to the single launch; for mission safety, weeks before the manned mission, an LK-R unmanned L3 complex and two rovers would be sent to the Moon as effective radio beans for manned mission. The N1 rocket would then carry the L3 Moon expedition complex - containing two spacecraft and two boosters. An LOK craft command ship would host the two men, and was significantly lighter than competing Apollo designs. During the L3 complexes journey to the moon, there would be no need to un-dock and re-dock the orbital and landing craft as the cosmonaut would transfer the LOK to LK by a ‘spacewalk.’ On the Moon, the cosmonaut would take moonwalks, use Lunokhods, collect rocks, and plant the Soviet flag.

On December 12 1968, astronauts Yuri Vaslovich and Anton Denkavra were launched into orbit on Korolev’s N1 rocket. As the world watched the journey, the LOK command ship accelerated towards the Moon, arriving in lunar orbit on December 17 1968. While Denkavra remained in the vehicle, Vaslovich descended the lunar vehicle's steps and said those immortal words: “For the Motherland, I take this stride.”

7BbImoN.jpg

​
--
I think y'all get the idea. Debate, discussion, proposals, etc, etc, etc are now open.

God help us.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Speaker,

Labour has proven itself to be utterly incompetent at managing the British economy. The radical economic agenda it has passed has not only brought us a step closer to communism but it has devastated private investment and led to a dramatic increase in unemployment. Companies are going bankrupt, small business are downsizing their workforces, millions of Britons are being left without a job because of Labour's policies. Britons are suffering because Labour is too beholden to trade unions and doing what is best for them, not what is best for the British people. It is time we end this Labour-induced economic turmoil and return Britain to prosperity and put hardworking Britons back to work rather than continuing to let them languish at Labour's hands.

The Industrial Democracy Act needs to be repealed!

Tory MPs cheer.

The Bill of Labour Rights needs to be repealed!

Tory MPs continue to cheer.

We need to pass measures to end corporate poverty and reduce government subsidies of industry. We need to once again return companies to profitability so that economic growth can return to the private sector. We need to bring companies back to Britain and encourage entrepreneurship so that our economy can become strong again. Britons should no longer be squeezed because of Labour and should be able to find good paying jobs. Labour mismanagement and recklessness needs to be ended so that Britain can be made prosperous again!

~ Arthur Hornesby, MP for Hertford
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Speaking at a Liberal conference in Cornwall, Mrs. Browne stands to speak.

"Thank you all for being here today to show your loyalty for not just the Liberal Party, but the policies and principles that we stand by. Ours is a goal of progressive reform for our nation, coupled by a steady, balanced economy to stimulate national growth. It is also our goal to stop radicalism, from the left and right, from forcing their ideals on the British people. While the Liberal Party is proud to stand as a protector to all people of every race, religion, class, and creed, and it is our duty to stand against those that ignore this principle. We stand for a stable, progressive democracy backed with the force of a ever growing social market economy for all of it's citizens.

Today I must give my dissent to the Labour government about their radical laws and policies targeting our middle class citizens and entrepreneurs, and incompetent governance of our fair country. The increasing authoritarian policies produced by Labour is a frightening reality to a free, just society. Our citizens should not be forced to accept the clear fantasy of workplace democracy in exchange for the death of the economy as we see it. Labour's blatant class war against the middle class and industrial class is simply atrocious; with the IDA putting small businesses out of business at an unprecedented rate, hasn't the average Briton suffered enough in this Labour squeeze? And even though Labour may claim a record of helping the poor, it rings hollow when they are actively increasing that bracket through high taxes, out of control spending, a ballooning deficit, and an ongoing recession. No, not even the poor are safe from the wide, damaging effects of this Labour government, for when our economy crashes who will take the hit first? This government has single-handedly tanked our national economy in one fell swoop, and has put millions of Britons into unemployment. As even the communists have lessened their opposition to government bills, we need to take a minute to think about which way the government is taking us...

And then, in foreign affairs, we suffer a great humiliation on part of our national prestige. The war in Cyprus, the fall of South Yemen to the hands of communists, the costly war in Burma, and of course the harm of relations with our American allies. I ask, haven't they done enough? Sooner or later, our government will have us retreating from Northern Ireland at the first sign of conflict. The shear failure of the Labour foreign policy is simply an embarrassment to the country, and we must take active steps to ensure they implement it no further.

We in our party now are able to hold the government accountable for their extreme, destructive policies and take matters into our hands to make the path for a new way forward. We have this option. We see now the people fighting back against this threat to democracy, as Labour's majority dwindles down, our party is enjoying a swing in the popular vote. The voters are now fighting back against the duopoly, and more importantly the government to correct the critical mistakes they have made. Now we watch as Labour takes the plunge for their fatal errors, and there has never been a better time to stand up as the We in the Liberal Party has advocated a sensible, responsible national policy for centuries, and we want people to realize that a return to that is just a vote away."

~Scarlet Ethel Browne, MP of North Cornwall
 
Armagh, Northern Ireland

The past few months had taken a toll on Lochlan G. Fitzpatrick. The troubles in his beloved Northern Ireland had made the situation rather difficult for him, his ideals of trans-faith unity being in jeopardy, as the Catholics agitated and the Protestants answered in a lackluster way. He had navigated a fine line in public opinion, careful not to antagonize Baron O’Neill’s supporters, and therefore loose his support, and careful to appear like an honest broker, to appease the moderates.

The car ride from Antrim had take just under an hour, as the car was entering the old streets of Armagh. Fitzpatrick was discussing with his aide.

Fitzpatrick: We’ll be doomed if Parris Marr goes forward with his ideas. He’ll throw kerosene on the fire and get the Ulstermen riled up to no end.

Aide: But Baron O’Neill’s reforms have calmed the situation.

Fitzpatrick: For now, but it cannot be anything else than a temporary fix, and he knows it. They’ll be back for the voting rights.

Aide: And we can kiss our lock-down on Northern Ireland goodbye.

Fitzpatrick: Not if I have a say about it. Mind you, there are conservatives among the catholics too.

The car stopped in the shadow of the tall building. Ushered inside by a back door, the politician was introduced to the man he came all this way to meet. He kneeled and kissed the man’s ring, before taking a seat next to him.

Fitzpatrick: Your eminence, there is much to discuss.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back