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

[Plank of Wood]

"Mr. Speaker, I never thought I would find myself publicly agreeing with the late Mr. Bevan, but I believe that social housing should not only be numerous, but of high quality. The fact is that if we start forcing councils to use their housing budgets on adhering to these quotas they will, especially in poorer councils or city councils with less building space, be forced to cut corners and will inevitably end up with a housing stock of much lower quality than if we had simply let councils get on with their own business at their own pace. And, moreover, the sold Social Housing does not disappear from existence - it becomes the property of the buying family and can be passed down to their children like any other asset, or can be, after the wait period has finished, be sold to another family.

As for the manifesto, I have already said publicly that our election manifesto had the purpose of outlining our policies in a way that the average voter could understand, rather than giving a shopping list of policies. The Housing Act fits the outline of transferring control of capital and property away from the state and into the hands of the people."

 

[Plank of Wood]

((A result of exam procrastination, I bring you ABE - historical figure parallels Round 1:

Spoiler

Dr. Arthur Bennett - Tony Blair

A young hopeful that overturned a Tory government people thought would never end. Successful in elections but drifted too close to the centre and cared a bit too much about the middle class vote for the party's liking. Now that he's gone, the party has shifted far to the left and want to forget he was ever there.

Sylvia Leighton - Alec Douglas-Home

Came to power under controversial circumstances and seen as a bit of a fuddy duddy by the public. Probably could have managed the whole government business but was beaten by a more media savvy rival before they had the chance the govern properly.

Stephen Harwick - Michael Heseltine

Too popular to be kicked out of the party but too unpopular to take it over. Now doomed to be the stalking horse for other candidates forever.

Sir Gibbons - Jim Callaghan

A throughly nice chap who inhereted a bad government and will be remembered more for election timing gambles than anything they've actually done.

Parris Marr - Boris Johnson

A floppy haired Oxbridge toff, nobody really knows if he was a political player first or a media personality first, but now he's a staple of late night television and somehow made stronger by gaffes than weakened by them. Now he's hovering at the sidelines and the Party is praying he doesn't make a move for power.

Lord Scarsdale - David Owen/Nick Clegg

Put too much faith in the power of centrist alliances and was a bit too pragmatic for his own good. A centre-rightist in charge of a party of centre-leftists.

T. R Jacobs - John Major

A fan of light monetarist politics and came to power in a gambit to stop anti-establishment forces taking over the party. Frustrating to Private Eye's writers because he's considered too boring to satirise and somehow managed to win an election anyway.

Robert MacAlister - Charles Kennedy

Scottish Liberal and constantly ignored despite usually being right. Well liked by the public but they don't vote for him regardless.
Sealy's contribution: Will drink himself to death after the SNP landslide looming on the horizon.

Sir Johnny Staines - Lord Mandelson

The master of the dark arts and possessor of antiquated titles. Had a lot more influence in his government than people would have liked and is now spending his retirement living off his book deals.

))

 

[Syriana]

Mr. Speaker,

I can answer the questions asked by the Right Honourable Member for Sutton and Cheam - as I have done - however, I cannot help her understand it.

The Rt. Hon. David Thornbloom MP FRS FRES
President of the Board of Trade

Mr Speaker,

The Rt Hon Member for Salisbury has answered nothing. He would make an excellent civil servant, but he is shaping up to be a slipshod minister. I have twice asked him now for a simple, off-the-cuff explanation of where the loss of revenue in Capital Gains Tax shall be compensated from. If the Rt Hon Member is unable to answer, then he has no business moving such a Bill in the first place. He cannot inject himself into fiscal policy well beyond his ministerial brief and then hide behind the Treasury.

"Mr. Speaker, I never thought I would find myself publicly agreeing with the late Mr. Bevan, but I believe that social housing should not only be numerous, but of high quality. The fact is that if we start forcing councils to use their housing budgets on adhering to these quotas they will, especially in poorer councils or city councils with less building space, be forced to cut corners and will inevitably end up with a housing stock of much lower quality than if we had simply let councils get on with their own business at their own pace. And, moreover, the sold Social Housing does not disappear from existence - it becomes the property of the buying family and can be passed down to their children like any other asset, or can be, after the wait period has finished, be sold to another family.

As for the manifesto, I have already said publicly that our election manifesto had the purpose of outlining our policies in a way that the average voter could understand, rather than giving a shopping list of policies. The Housing Act fits the outline of transferring control of capital and property away from the state and into the hands of the people."

Mr Speaker,

While I naturally concur that the British people should have access to the highest standards of accommodation, a home is still better than no home. If we are to start selling off social housing, than we should at least be earmarking for replacement. Privatised housing may not disappear from the market, but it does disappear from our social housing stock. If the cost of ensuring the adequate provision of accommodation for those who need it most desperately is to slow the pace of privatisation, is that not a price worth paying? The Prime Minister often rebuked recklessness when he was in my position. Would he not agree that a gradual and progressive transfer in social housing stock is superior to the overnight revolution he proposes?

Finally, it may matter little now, but the Prime Minister's understanding of a manifesto is contrary, in my opinion, to its intended purpose. He may not regard it as a 'shopping list of policies', but that is precisely what it should be: an outline of actions that the party will undertake in government, to enable the electorate to make an informed decision. That is precisely what is meant by manifest - to make clear and obvious. Naturally, a manifesto cannot be totally comprehensive, but one would think that the full-scale privatisation of social housing would merit an explicit mention. Nor was the issue ever raised on the campaign trail. Now that it is being proposed at the opening of Parliament, I can only comment that this Bill has been introduced with unseemly haste, no prior discussion and with obvious deficiencies in its content. This is not a natural recipe for sound legislation.

Rt. Hon. Sylvia Leighton PC MP
Leader of the Opposition
Member for Sutton and Cheam​

 

[Firehound15]

ENVIRONMENTAL ACTS, 1964​

Minimal - An amount which does not cause such harm to an aquatic environment, such as variations in water alkalinity and hardness that may cause damage to British fishing, aquatic recreation, or access to clean drinking water.

I. The natural aquatic environment of the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland is to be recognized as existing in common ownership, and that the unlawful violation of public aquatic property is, similarly, a violation of the common property of all British citizens, alive and yet to be born.

II. Ash residue from the burning of fuels such as coal is to be disposed of in a manner which will cause minimal damage to bodies of water, such as, but not limited to, rivers, lakes, estuaries and reservoirs. Violators are to be fined no more than 15,000 pounds for each repeated violation.

III. The dumping of sewage into rivers, streams, and bodies of water containing a volume equal to or greater than 500 cubic metres, such as that it will cause a greater than minimal effect, will be penalized as a wrongful behavior, carrying with it a fine of no greater than 10,000 pounds.

IV. The intentional release of any substance harmful to humans in any source of public drinking water is a crime punishable by fifteen years imprisonment in the case of an individual, and a fine of 30,000 pounds for any organization or corporation which engages in this behavior.

V. To aid in the institution and execution of this Act, the Fisheries and Pollution Board is hereby established, composed of seven non-partisan members, who will release an analysis of the tangible results and effects of this Act, as well as make recommendations as to further policy, five years from this Act’s passage.

Hereby establishes the following National Parks:

Peak District, Lake District, Snowdonia, Dartmoor, Pembrokeshire Coast, North York Moors, Yorkshire Dales, Exmoor, Northumberland, Brecon Beacons, and Outer Hebrides

Hereby creates a new designation, the Urban Conservation Area, which is a zone of special importance to be placed on the edge of significant urban centres. The UCA (as it will henceforth be referred to) is restricted to extremely low density zoning and is to be organized as a green belt.

Hereby establishes the following UCA's:

Metropolitan, Merseyside and Manchester, Yorkshire, and Birmingham

HM's Coastguard is henceforth granted the authority to conduct law enforcement activities in relation to offshore environmental violations, as well as the specific additional role of evaluating and monitoring offshore drilling activities for safety and adherence to operating standards.

Hereby bans the use of asbestos in housing materials, as well as in personal affects, such as, but not restricted to, gas mask filters, gloves, and cloth.

Hereby bans the manufacture and sale of lead paint;

Hereby requires the labeling of all products containing potentially harmful quantities of lead to be marked as posing a health risk.

"Mr. Speaker,

Proposed are a number of acts that work towards two particular aims: the first, public safety, such as that British citizens will no longer face concerns of possible dangers in their housing materials, drinking water, and public bodies of water. The second is an aim for the future - the conservation of the environment and the culmination of a great amount of progress that members of this body have been working towards since at least 1948, when the original National Parks Act was passed.

The Rivers, Lakes, and Estuaries Act is a proposal which I have already argued for, so I will make its mention brief. In essence, this proposal would place a regulatory component into our current water policy, as outlined in the Clean Water Act. This proposal's detractors may claim that this is an unnecessary addition, however, I would like to remind the Honourable Gentlemen that the prior proposal, while addressing the issue in name, did not grant the Clean Water Boards the appropriate authority or a regulation to enforce its objective.

The National Parks Act, in addition to organizing a number of national parks across Britain, will establish the formal designation of Urban Conservation Areas, which are the implementation of the green belt theory that has been suggested since even prior to the Second World War, and which will aim to ensure the continued presence of natural areas in the vicinity of metropolitan regions through the reduction of urban sprawl.

The other three acts are aimed primarily at improving safety, health, and inspection procedures, with the Asbestos and LPP Acts working to improve practices in the housing industry and commercial product production. The Coastguard Act, of course, is an expansion of the Coastguard's current role, giving it law enforcement authority as well as a role as inspector for North Sea activities.

Together, these proposals are this Government's Environmental Acts, which are aimed at improving the livelihoods of our citizenry. I hope that this body finds them acceptable and that our partisan divides might be set aside in the name of those future generations who will someday inherit the Britain that we now oversee."


Talfryn Ryley,
MP for Monmouth
Sec. of State for the Environment

 

[Plank of Wood]

"Mr. Speaker, as much as I do hate to sound like a broken record, I will once again state that we are continuing to invest in social housing, money from the sales will go towards social housing, and there will still be social housing available for generations to come. Artificially inflating the quota of housing to built with no regard for actual local space, demand, or resources will be bad for communities, it will be bad for local budgets, and it will be bad for the quality of social housing in this country. If we start telling housing authorities to build a number quota of houses that they can't afford to build and don't have the space or resources to build them with, then the result will be the opposite of the amendment's intended effect - slum-quality housing estates on the periphery of society!

If the Rt. Hon Member does not like to hear that answer that is no fault of mine, but that is my answer nonetheless."

 

[TJDS]

*Thornbloom wishpers to the Prime Minister*

That woman either does not seem to care for our answers or is too ignorant to understand them; either way she would be an excellent journalist

 

[Syriana]

Mr Speaker,

It is clear that the Prime Minister and the Opposition are simply irreconcilable on this point, so I shall leave it at that. Although I disagree with his stance, I thank the Prime Minister for articulating it - unlike his colleague the Rt Hon Member for Salisbury, who would prefer to whisper across the benches like a school-boy rather than address the House like an adult.

Rt. Hon. Sylvia Leighton PC MP
Leader of the Opposition
Member for Sutton and Cheam​

 

[99KingHigh]

Speaker: ORDER! ORDER! The Opposition Leader ought to be politer next time...
​

 

[Syriana]

Apologies, Mr Speaker; though I do opine that the Rt Hon Member for Salisbury ought to treat this House - and its members - with the dignity and respect to which they are entitled.

Rt. Hon. Sylvia Leighton PC MP
Leader of the Opposition
Member for Sutton and Cheam​

 

[TJDS]

Mr. Speaker,

There is only so much a Minister can do to satisfy the Right Honourable Lady Opposite. (The Government benches snigger) I have already repeatedly stated that this Government will look to relief the people of Britain from the ineffective tax burdens inherited by the Right Honourable Gentleman Opposite, while also passing constructive welfare reform to limit the overextended social services; furthermore, we shall seek to limit the bureaucratic red tape that formed the basis for the Right Honourable Lady's Government while maintaining support for vital services like the Police Force and HM's Customs and Revenue Service. We shall seek to limit the government intervention and overregulation of British economy, which ultimately distort market forces and cost the British taxpayer millions a year. Lastly, I must advice the Right Honourable Lady Opposite to attain some patience as all shall be once again explained, this time in detail and hopefully less futile, by my Right Honourable Friend, the Chancellor.

In light of the comments made by the Right Honourable Lady Opposite, I must say that it takes a most impressive intellect to misunderstand the explanation of a school boy.

The Rt. Hon. David Thornbloom MP FRS FRES
President of the Board of Trade

((I am too procrastinating before exams))

 

[Michaelangelo]

Mr. Speaker, this government wishes it to be known that it condemns the recent actions of India, particularly its alliance with the Soviets and its complacency in allowing Soviet insurgents to pass through its lands to overthrow the lawful government in Burma. While the Indian government has not yet fallen to communism, the alliance alone is a threat to international security. It would seem that the Soviets have manipulated the Indian people for their own needs to secure a position in Asia, and thus provoked China into action to protect themselves from being encircled by hostile communist powers. It is a conflict the democratic world did not want, but one that we must now endure nonetheless.

This government shall endeavour to use our position within the UN to seek a peaceful resolution if possible, with the hopes that the Soviets will not risk further escalation. However, if the Soviets are unwilling to cooperate or India ignores any UN settlement, we shall support the Chinese Republic in its venture to remove Soviet influence from India and the rest of Asia. Due to the scale of this escalating conflict, Britain will defer to its American and Chinese allies in regards to India and the communist insurgents in Burma. We have no desire to be embroiled in an Asian war involving the most populated region of the world, but shall send material aid and assist our allies to ensure the threat is contained. Our primary commitment shall be to the security of Britain and its subjects, as well as ensuring the safety of any British nationals in the region of conflict.

In a sign of good faith to our Chinese allies, this government shall initiate talks with the Chinese Republic on the future of Hong Kong. We hope these discussions will serve as the start of further improved relations between our two peoples.

- Maxwell Macpherson, Foreign Minister & Tory MP for Bolton West

 

[Gen. Marshall]

constructive welfare reform (...) overextended social services (...) bureaucratic red tape

Mr. Speaker,

For a schoolboy, the Right Honourable President of the Board of Trade sure does know a lot of Conservative lingo. He speaks of "constructive welfare reform" and "bureaucratic red tape", when all of his colleagues know the true meaning behind these terms - that the Christian Democrats have ceded their dignity to the claws of Jacobs' far-right policies - that they intend to forego their Saviour's example and stab our society's hardworking labourers in the back.

Indeed, there is some truth to Thornbloom's remark that our "social services [will be] overextended"; for it is without doubt that once the party opposite is done with the Budget, there will be no room for the lower classes or social services, there will once again be queues for NHS care and 10 years of honest Labour will be gradually undone.

- Lachlan Barclay, SSoSfSS&H

 

[Plank of Wood]

"Mr. Speaker, if my policies are 'far-right' to the Rt. Hon Gentleman, that says more about how radically to the left Labour has drifted since they knifed their Dear Leader than it does about very moderate Conservative economic policy. This Government remains committed to reducing the burden on the taxpayer and eliminating the deficit regardless of what Labour and their new socialist grandees have to say about it."

 

[99KingHigh]

Mr. Speaker,

For a schoolboy, the Right Honourable President of the Board of Trade sure does know a lot of Conservative lingo. He speaks of "constructive welfare reform" and "bureaucratic red tape", when all of his colleagues know the true meaning behind these terms - that the Christian Democrats have ceded their dignity to the claws of Jacobs' far-right policies - that they intend to forego their Saviour's example and stab our society's hardworking labourers in the back.

Indeed, there is some truth to Thornbloom's remark that our "social services [will be] overextended"; for it is without doubt that once the party opposite is done with the Budget, there will be no room for the lower classes or social services, there will once again be queues for NHS care and 10 years of honest Labour will be gradually undone.

- Lachlan Barclay, SSoSfSS&H

Speaker: ORDER! Mr. Barclay, I'd ask you kindly heed your leader's advice and hush up!

Mr. Powell, please!
​

 

[Qwerty7]

Mr. Speaker,

For a schoolboy, the Right Honourable President of the Board of Trade sure does know a lot of Conservative lingo. He speaks of "constructive welfare reform" and "bureaucratic red tape", when all of his colleagues know the true meaning behind these terms - that the Christian Democrats have ceded their dignity to the claws of Jacobs' far-right policies - that they intend to forego their Saviour's example and stab our society's hardworking labourers in the back.

Indeed, there is some truth to Thornbloom's remark that our "social services [will be] overextended"; for it is without doubt that once the party opposite is done with the Budget, there will be no room for the lower classes or social services, there will once again be queues for NHS care and 10 years of honest Labour will be gradually undone.

- Lachlan Barclay, SSoSfSS&H

Mr. Speaker,

When will the Marxists in the House begin debating the issues this session? From this bench all I hear is childish insults being thrown at the government. Frankly, I'm waiting eagerly for the moment when the opposition starts calling the Prime Minister a Fascist!

- Alexander Cochrane, Independent MP for Isle of Thanet

 

[LatinKaiser]

Mr. Speaker,

When will the Marxists in the House begin debating the issues this session? From this bench all I hear is childish insults being thrown at the government. Frankly, I'm waiting eagerly for the moment when the opposition starts calling the Prime Minister a Fascist!

- Alexander Cochrane, Independent MP for Isle of Thanet

The Shadow Chancellor leans over to whisper to the Shadow Home Secretary:

"As if he could ever become Prime Minister!"

 

[Scrapknight]

The Shadow Chancellor leans over to whisper to the Shadow Home Secretary:

"As if he could ever become Prime Minister!"

Monaghan chuckles before addressing the house

Mr. Speaker,

Speaking as a former Secretary for Employment and Productivity, I can unequivocally state that the Tory Housing Act, as it might be called, would have the effect of shattering the lives of many of Britain's poorest. Simply put, selling off state housing will put a place to live, to sleep, in the hands of fewer Britons rather than more. The Tories talk of bringing the "dream" of home ownership to the middle class. I say that instead of offering the middle class "dreams", the government should be in the business of offering realities - the reality of a place to live - to those in this country who need them the most. We cannot merely cater to the bourgeois, those who hold the majority of political power in this nation despite being the minority in numbers. We must remember the poor, the working class, the downtrodden, who desperately need this state housing that the Tories would so callously dispose of. I beseech those MPs on the opposition benches, those with a conscience, those who truly care for all Britons as their party platform claims to do, to vote against this act.

- The Hon. Alistair Monaghan MP, Shadow Home Secretary

 

[Syriana]

Mr. Speaker,

There is only so much a Minister can do to satisfy the Right Honourable Lady Opposite. (The Government benches snigger) I have already repeatedly stated that this Government will look to relief the people of Britain from the ineffective tax burdens inherited by the Right Honourable Gentleman Opposite, while also passing constructive welfare reform to limit the overextended social services; furthermore, we shall seek to limit the bureaucratic red tape that formed the basis for the Right Honourable Lady's Government while maintaining support for vital services like the Police Force and HM's Customs and Revenue Service. We shall seek to limit the government intervention and overregulation of British economy, which ultimately distort market forces and cost the British taxpayer millions a year. Lastly, I must advice the Right Honourable Lady Opposite to attain some patience as all shall be once again explained, this time in detail and hopefully less futile, by my Right Honourable Friend, the Chancellor.

In light of the comments made by the Right Honourable Lady Opposite, I must say that it takes a most impressive intellect to misunderstand the explanation of a school boy.

The Rt. Hon. David Thornbloom MP FRS FRES
President of the Board of Trade

((I am too procrastinating before exams))

Mr Speaker,

I am swiftly detecting a pattern in the responses of the Rt Hon Member for Salisbury. Every time he is posed a question regarding the Government, he immediately conducts a roundabout tour of the previous administration, ultimately evading the question altogether. Perhaps if he was posed a question regarding the previous administration, he would finally answer on behalf of the present administration.

I asked him to specifically identify what areas of expenditure would be reduced, or what alternative streams of revenue would be accessed. Instead, we are treated to this 'Greatest Hits' album of the Conservative Party manifesto. If the Gentleman simply cannot answer the question, then, once again, he has no business moving this Bill - especially prior to the Budget. If I were to move a Bill to abolish the police force, and one of the Members Opposite - quite reasonably - asked who would then preserve law and order, I could not simply throw up my hands and state, "Do not ask me, ask the Shadow Home Secretary!" His Bill, his responsibility. If he does not know how the Bill is to be payed for, then he should not have moved it in the first place.

We are not yet a year into this session, and the Rt Hon Member is already blotting his copybook. I suggest that he sees the Prime Minister after class.

Mr. Speaker, this government wishes it to be known that it condemns the recent actions of India, particularly its alliance with the Soviets and its complacency in allowing Soviet insurgents to pass through its lands to overthrow the lawful government in Burma. While the Indian government has not yet fallen to communism, the alliance alone is a threat to international security. It would seem that the Soviets have manipulated the Indian people for their own needs to secure a position in Asia, and thus provoked China into action to protect themselves from being encircled by hostile communist powers. It is a conflict the democratic world did not want, but one that we must now endure nonetheless.

This government shall endeavour to use our position within the UN to seek a peaceful resolution if possible, with the hopes that the Soviets will not risk further escalation. However, if the Soviets are unwilling to cooperate or India ignores any UN settlement, we shall support the Chinese Republic in its venture to remove Soviet influence from India and the rest of Asia. Due to the scale of this escalating conflict, Britain will defer to its American and Chinese allies in regards to India and the communist insurgents in Burma. We have no desire to be embroiled in an Asian war involving the most populated region of the world, but shall send material aid and assist our allies to ensure the threat is contained. Our primary commitment shall be to the security of Britain and its subjects, as well as ensuring the safety of any British nationals in the region of conflict.

In a sign of good faith to our Chinese allies, this government shall initiate talks with the Chinese Republic on the future of Hong Kong. We hope these discussions will serve as the start of further improved relations between our two peoples.

- Maxwell Macpherson, Foreign Minister & Tory MP for Bolton West

Mr Speaker,

The House is naturally appalled at the Faustian pact struck between the Indian Government and the Soviet Empire. Even so, the Opposition supports the Government in its initiative to avoid the outbreak of hostilities and maintain international peace.

Should war break out between India and China, shall the Soviet Union not honour its alliance to the former and intervene? The Sino-Soviet border is almost 3000 miles. Surely, then, the Chinese plight would be hopeless, and we would be faced by the very dangerous possibility of the Sovietisation of that country a mere decade after it suppressed the Bolshevist insurrection? At the very least, the balance of power in Asia would be irretrievably upended. It would be a sad day, indeed, if Soviet supremacy was achieved from the Indian Ocean to the Pacific.

As the Spanish crisis demonstrated, the Security Council is often toothless when it comes to conflicts involving the Soviet Union. Once the Soviets have swatted aside our resolution, that appears to be the end of our peace-keeping initiative. Thereafter, we are committed to standing on the side-lines, whilst two great nations collide and hundreds of millions of people are plunged into war. The implication is that the Chinese offensive would eradicate Soviet influence in India, presumably by overrunning the country and deposing the Government. Speaking as someone who lived through the Pacific War, I must state that even the Imperial Japanese Army was incapable of such a feat. As such, any Sino-Indian conflict is likely to either end in stalemate, or Chinese defeat due to Soviet invasion.

Given that deterrence of conflict is imperative, as the most likely outcomes are contrary to the British interest and the Free World, can the Government not offer a more decisive and direct intervention in the name of mediation and resolution?

Rt. Hon. Sylvia Leighton PC MP
Leader of the Opposition
Member for Sutton and Cheam​

 

[Firehound15]

Monaghan chuckles before addressing the house

Mr. Speaker,

Speaking as a former Secretary for Employment and Productivity, I can unequivocally state that the Tory Housing Act, as it might be called, would have the effect of shattering the lives of many of Britain's poorest. Simply put, selling off state housing will put a place to live, to sleep, in the hands of fewer Britons rather than more. The Tories talk of bringing the "dream" of home ownership to the middle class. I say that instead of offering the middle class "dreams", the government should be in the business of offering realities - the reality of a place to live - to those in this country who need them the most. We cannot merely cater to the bourgeois, those who hold the majority of political power in this nation despite being the minority in numbers. We must remember the poor, the working class, the downtrodden, who desperately need this state housing that the Tories would so callously dispose of. I beseech those MPs on the opposition benches, those with a conscience, those who truly care for all Britons as their party platform claims to do, to vote against this act.

- The Hon. Alistair Monaghan MP, Shadow Home Secretary

Mr. Speaker,

I can not help but hear in this argument a belief not in an individual's right to determine their own course in life, but rather a belief that, instead of allowing the middle class and lower class to thrive and prosper, the Honourable Gentleman simply wishes to see them be dependent upon the government. As has already been made quite plain, this proposal will not destroy social housing, it won't. Instead it will work to reduce the burden of a system that, while necessary in part, should not be the end result while giving individuals the opportunity to reduce the weighty hand of government in their lives - is not control over one's life something admirable? That is what the Opposition has suggested they believe, but is it true?


Talfryn Ryley
MP for Monmouth
Sec. of State for the Environment

 

[Plank of Wood]

Mr Speaker,

The House is naturally appalled at the Faustian pact struck between the Indian Government and the Soviet Empire. Even so, the Opposition supports the Government in its initiative to avoid the outbreak of hostilities and maintain international peace.

Should war break out between India and China, shall the Soviet Union not honour its alliance to the former and intervene? The Sino-Soviet border is almost 3000 miles. Surely, then, the Chinese plight would be hopeless, and we would be faced by the very dangerous possibility of the Sovietisation of that country a mere decade after it suppressed the Bolshevist insurrection? At the very least, the balance of power in Asia would be irretrievably upended. It would be a sad day, indeed, if Soviet supremacy was achieved from the Indian Ocean to the Pacific.

As the Spanish crisis demonstrated, the Security Council is often toothless when it comes to conflicts involving the Soviet Union. Once the Soviets have swatted aside our resolution, that appears to be the end of our peace-keeping initiative. Thereafter, we are committed to standing on the side-lines, whilst two great nations collide and hundreds of millions of people are plunged into war. The implication is that the Chinese offensive would eradicate Soviet influence in India, presumably by overrunning the country and deposing the Government. Speaking as someone who lived through the Pacific War, I must state that even the Imperial Japanese Army was incapable of such a feat. As such, any Sino-Indian conflict is likely to either end in stalemate, or Chinese defeat due to Soviet invasion.

Given that deterrence of conflict is imperative, as the most likely outcomes are contrary to the British interest and the Free World, can the Government not offer a more decisive and direct intervention in the name of mediation and resolution?

Rt. Hon. Sylvia Leighton PC MP
Leader of the Opposition
Member for Sutton and Cheam​

"Mr. Speaker, I will assure the house I did not make this choice lightly. If the worst case scenario does occur - the Soviet invasion of China - then it is certain that American intervention would become inevitable. In which case, this will no longer be an Asian Conflict but a World conflict. And I can think of no worse place for our soldiers to be, propping up a hopelessly troubled government in Burma, if the USSR makes preemptive moves towards Berlin and the Rhine. If Soviet Navies swarm into the North Sea, I want the Royal Navy to be in the Atlantic protecting our coast, not enforcing a blockade of a country so massive and self-sustaining that it would be a blockade in the same way gnats blockade a horse. She may have lived through the Pacific War, but I lived through the Blitz, and the RAF cannot be on the other side of the world when we potentially stand on the verge of a global conflict with potential to be more destructive than imaginable. No, our forces will stay in Europe and keep the British people safe and free at all costs.

But let's instead imagine the lesser scenario - a low intensity border conflict between two young nations with unclear boundaries. The fact is that we are not an Imperial power any more and we do not have the resources to act as if we are. She is well aware of this, as she has spoke frequently of the progress of decolonisation under her watch. We cannot have it both ways - we cannot swear off acting like an Empire but then become the global policeman the moment a Chinese man shoots and Indian. And it is a common adage that 'you do not go to war with the army you want, you go to war with the one you have.' This country is not prepared to jump into a conflict between nations of this scale two days into a new Premiership and 10 years in to the greatest downsizing of an Empire this world has ever seen. We must prioritise our assets and forces towards the defence of our own people until we know what scale this conflict will be, what our allies in the United States and NATO feel will be the best response, and not blindly jump into action with no regard to the consequences.

The Rt. Honourable Lady, as always, might value an idealistic vision, but I will not send a generation of young British men to die on adventures in jungles when, if she is correct and Soviet invasion is on the horizon, the safety of this very island could be at risk. I do not hold such a hopelessly pessimistic view of Chinese competence - I have full confidence in both their ability and their manpower to win a conflict with India. If they need supplies, we will give it to them. If they need training, we will give it to them. If they need us to lease ships to them, and there is no indication that we need them more, we can give them to them. If ethnic independence movements in India need support, we will give it to them. But I will always value the safety and integrity of the United Kingdom over blatant adventurism in the East, and I previously would have thought that the Rt. Hon. Lady would have agreed with me."