((Just remember that Lega Nord was cheering with you.))((Meh, I don't dispute KH, only other players.
By the way, I may or may not have cheered in the lobby of a cheap Italian hotel when I found out that Britain had voted to leave.))
-
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.
http://
Column by the Rt. Hon. David Thornbloom PC MP
Usually it is the tabliods that divide this nation during contentious election times, digging up dirt and throwing mud at politicians for long forgotten acts, however, as polls indicate an upcoming defeat for the Labour Party on the ever sooner polling day, some Labour campaign strategists have embarked on a spree of personal attacks and unbased and factless statements regarding their political opponents. In this article I shall answer the allegations made against my person and the Conservative and Unionist Party during this vicious campaign.
That the Conservative and Unionist Party is inherintly opposed to the National Health Service - This Urban Myth is based on events more than two decades past and is incredibly faulty, indeed, even during the Attlee Ministry did the Conservative Parliamentry Party vote in favour of a memorandum concerning the National Health Service. Furthermore it was due to the financial restabilization by the Eden Ministry and economic growth that the National Health Service could grow and profit from an increased budget in both absolute and relative terms. It is therefore that a Conservative Government would be first and foremost concerned whether the National Health Service is run as efficiently for both the patients and the doctors as possible, rather than that we would be concerned with dissolving it in name of an outdated ideological dogma.
That the Conservative Party has no clear economic policy and would worsen the financial prospects for the working and middle class - This myth is based, as far as my colleagues and I can trace it, on the Labour Campaign Machine, which - following true and pure Stainesian thought - released this untruth into the world to win moderate voters. It was the Conservative Party that, during the short-lived but incredibly productive Jacobs Ministry, increased the real after-tax income for all Britons, while, due to Labour's economic policies, which - although they did increase productivity in the Government Industries - destabilized the markets and ended the period of speedy economic recovery after the Leighton Ministry recession, had to be reverted. The Conservative Party does not offer the prospect of continued regulatory and socio-economic changes in name of Progressivism and a "New Britain" - which, as I have set out in previous columns, is an empty term - but rather the reduction of state intervention in the financial markets and British Industries. This shall help the British Economy in two ways - it shall free investors and entrepeneurs to invest and expand the financial markets and British Industries, which form the backbone of our economy, and it shall give the Government the ability to reduce taxes on the incomes of the working and middle classes, as the costly and inefficient role of the State is reduced. This economic policy, of deregulation and fiscal conservatism, holds - contrary Labour belief - that the middle and working classes should play an active role in the economy, as both classes need to be financially health for a nation to truely prosper.
That the Conservative Party still holds its Victorian Foreign Policies - This myth is based on the Labour assumption that as former Shadow Foreign Secretary I should only be concerned with Labour's many failures in the field of Foreign Affairs and by focusing instead on Labour's economic faults, I am withholding the Conservative Party's Imperialistic and Victorian Foreign Policy. The Cyprus Incident was a foreign policy disaster, as the Labour constructed peace was not enfored by the Labour Government, which allowed extremists to destroy the peaceful status quo maintained under the Jacobs Ministry. This, combined with the cooling of US-UK relations due to the mismanagement by the Foreign Secretary, forced the Prime Minister, under the disingenious name of humanitarian aid, to commit the most shameful and largest about-turn of post-war Britain. This foreign policy disaster was supplemented by the continued disintergration of the Commonwealth first started under Dr. Bennett, with 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. Also noting that the Labour Party is divided on the issue of European Cooperation, as radical leftist Unions vye for control of the foreign policy to protect their own interests rather than the livelihoods of thousands of Britons, one can conclude that the Government's Foreign Policy was a disaster, much like its economic policy. The Labour Foreign Policy was defended by the Foreign Secretary as "all they could do", however, this list of "achievements" shows that their foreign policy is not good enough. The Conservative Foreign Policy, on the other hand, shall take into account Britain's changing position and interests in the world, with the reinvigeration of ties with both the United States and our other Atlanticists Allies, while maintaining strong economic and friendly diplomatic ties with our trading partners in Western Europe, where the continued demand for our products and a stable market can be guarenteed.
As Soctrates said many centuries before this one "There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." I can but hope that ignorance has been vanquisished by this article and the good work of the respectable journalists of this and many other newspapers, who see it as their duty to inform the British public of the status quo.
Column by the Rt. Hon. David Thornbloom PC MP
Usually it is the tabliods that divide this nation during contentious election times, digging up dirt and throwing mud at politicians for long forgotten acts, however, as polls indicate an upcoming defeat for the Labour Party on the ever sooner polling day, some Labour campaign strategists have embarked on a spree of personal attacks and unbased and factless statements regarding their political opponents. In this article I shall answer the allegations made against my person and the Conservative and Unionist Party during this vicious campaign.
That the Conservative and Unionist Party is inherintly opposed to the National Health Service - This Urban Myth is based on events more than two decades past and is incredibly faulty, indeed, even during the Attlee Ministry did the Conservative Parliamentry Party vote in favour of a memorandum concerning the National Health Service. Furthermore it was due to the financial restabilization by the Eden Ministry and economic growth that the National Health Service could grow and profit from an increased budget in both absolute and relative terms. It is therefore that a Conservative Government would be first and foremost concerned whether the National Health Service is run as efficiently for both the patients and the doctors as possible, rather than that we would be concerned with dissolving it in name of an outdated ideological dogma.
That the Conservative Party has no clear economic policy and would worsen the financial prospects for the working and middle class - This myth is based, as far as my colleagues and I can trace it, on the Labour Campaign Machine, which - following true and pure Stainesian thought - released this untruth into the world to win moderate voters. It was the Conservative Party that, during the short-lived but incredibly productive Jacobs Ministry, increased the real after-tax income for all Britons, while, due to Labour's economic policies, which - although they did increase productivity in the Government Industries - destabilized the markets and ended the period of speedy economic recovery after the Leighton Ministry recession, had to be reverted. The Conservative Party does not offer the prospect of continued regulatory and socio-economic changes in name of Progressivism and a "New Britain" - which, as I have set out in previous columns, is an empty term - but rather the reduction of state intervention in the financial markets and British Industries. This shall help the British Economy in two ways - it shall free investors and entrepeneurs to invest and expand the financial markets and British Industries, which form the backbone of our economy, and it shall give the Government the ability to reduce taxes on the incomes of the working and middle classes, as the costly and inefficient role of the State is reduced. This economic policy, of deregulation and fiscal conservatism, holds - contrary Labour belief - that the middle and working classes should play an active role in the economy, as both classes need to be financially health for a nation to truely prosper.
That the Conservative Party still holds its Victorian Foreign Policies - This myth is based on the Labour assumption that as former Shadow Foreign Secretary I should only be concerned with Labour's many failures in the field of Foreign Affairs and by focusing instead on Labour's economic faults, I am withholding the Conservative Party's Imperialistic and Victorian Foreign Policy. The Cyprus Incident was a foreign policy disaster, as the Labour constructed peace was not enfored by the Labour Government, which allowed extremists to destroy the peaceful status quo maintained under the Jacobs Ministry. This, combined with the cooling of US-UK relations due to the mismanagement by the Foreign Secretary, forced the Prime Minister, under the disingenious name of humanitarian aid, to commit the most shameful and largest about-turn of post-war Britain. This foreign policy disaster was supplemented by the continued disintergration of the Commonwealth first started under Dr. Bennett, with 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. Also noting that the Labour Party is divided on the issue of European Cooperation, as radical leftist Unions vye for control of the foreign policy to protect their own interests rather than the livelihoods of thousands of Britons, one can conclude that the Government's Foreign Policy was a disaster, much like its economic policy. The Labour Foreign Policy was defended by the Foreign Secretary as "all they could do", however, this list of "achievements" shows that their foreign policy is not good enough. The Conservative Foreign Policy, on the other hand, shall take into account Britain's changing position and interests in the world, with the reinvigeration of ties with both the United States and our other Atlanticists Allies, while maintaining strong economic and friendly diplomatic ties with our trading partners in Western Europe, where the continued demand for our products and a stable market can be guarenteed.
As Soctrates said many centuries before this one "There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." I can but hope that ignorance has been vanquisished by this article and the good work of the respectable journalists of this and many other newspapers, who see it as their duty to inform the British public of the status quo.
Last edited:
Thornbloom during the Press Conference
Mr. Thornbloom, are you concerned with the harsh language used by some Trade Unionists, including the General Secretary of the National Union of Mineworkers, regarding the Repeal of the Industrial Democracy Act and the Fiscal Conservative policies proposed by you and your party?
Of course it is concerning that some militant trade unionists completely shun the democratic process practised in Westminster, calling some of my colleagues fascists in the process. Those militant minorities, because that is what they are - the Great British Public understands the perils it faces today - need to understand that putting their own interests above those of the entire country and even their own industries will in the long run bleed the British Industry dry from investments and competativeness, which it both needs to maintain the employment and livelihoods of the working class Britons.
Would a Conservative Government have to wage a war of attrition against these unions?
I very much doubt that, the British have always been a problem-solving people and it was my great friend and colleagues, John Chips, who negotiated very stable compromises with many unions, including the NUM. Furthermore, I believe that many of the union members know the fragility of the British Industry at the moment and the dangers that industrial actions presents to it and will therefore not risk the livelihoods of their colleagues and friends to gain an ultimately unfavourable settlement of disputes.
There has been some opposition to the Conservative Economic Policy from Labour Economists and Lawmakers, saying a government spending spree should provide an economic stimulus to reinvigorate investment and economic growth.
"In the long run we are all dead", this sentence form the basis of their argument as debt weights less on their mind than the notion that all government stimuli will cause explosive economic growth, but I wish to add to that sentence "and our children are burdened with our bad debt!" A large government stimulus might increase growth with a few decimal percentage points for a year, but the accumulation of debt and interest weighing down on our treasury will hurt the economy in the long run. The British Economy must regain its competativeness, which can only be guarenteed through wide-ranging reform of the labour market and labour rights after, to guarentee any investment to have a constructive positive effect on the British economy. When a good business environment has been created with the overhaul of these ultimately ineffective systems, the investment by citizens themselves shall reinvigorate the economy, without the Government having to accumulate debt and interest.
How extended would such a push for competativeness be?
It would mean a realistic Government Policy towards Labour Rights, which has been forshadowed by Mr. Fitzpatrick's and the UUP's excellent new Bill of Rights. Unlike what some Labour Campaigners might want you to believe, the Conservatives will still protect the rights of pensioners, teachers, nurses and industrial workers when in Government, as they have done under Eden, Jacobs and Gibbons. Such a push would also mean the overhaul of the apprenticeships and education system, to teach British citizens, especially those learning to become craftsmen, the skills needed to allow them an easy transition into the Labour market, thereby lowering youth unemployment, which is an awful effect of uncompetative economy.
Lastly, what is your opinion of Labour's Foreign Policy Agenda?
Again, the Labour Party wishes to deny the enourmes mistakes they made during their time in office. Their actions in Cyprus are inexcusable, as is the continued disintergration of the Commonwealth. Combine these factors with the fact that the Labour Party is divided over the EEC - and trying to mask it by attacking the Conservatives - it shows us a picture of a Party unwilling to fullfill Britain's role on the International Stage and a Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister made incapable of doing anything meaningful on the international stage save accuse the Opposition of failure.
Of course it is concerning that some militant trade unionists completely shun the democratic process practised in Westminster, calling some of my colleagues fascists in the process. Those militant minorities, because that is what they are - the Great British Public understands the perils it faces today - need to understand that putting their own interests above those of the entire country and even their own industries will in the long run bleed the British Industry dry from investments and competativeness, which it both needs to maintain the employment and livelihoods of the working class Britons.
Would a Conservative Government have to wage a war of attrition against these unions?
I very much doubt that, the British have always been a problem-solving people and it was my great friend and colleagues, John Chips, who negotiated very stable compromises with many unions, including the NUM. Furthermore, I believe that many of the union members know the fragility of the British Industry at the moment and the dangers that industrial actions presents to it and will therefore not risk the livelihoods of their colleagues and friends to gain an ultimately unfavourable settlement of disputes.
There has been some opposition to the Conservative Economic Policy from Labour Economists and Lawmakers, saying a government spending spree should provide an economic stimulus to reinvigorate investment and economic growth.
"In the long run we are all dead", this sentence form the basis of their argument as debt weights less on their mind than the notion that all government stimuli will cause explosive economic growth, but I wish to add to that sentence "and our children are burdened with our bad debt!" A large government stimulus might increase growth with a few decimal percentage points for a year, but the accumulation of debt and interest weighing down on our treasury will hurt the economy in the long run. The British Economy must regain its competativeness, which can only be guarenteed through wide-ranging reform of the labour market and labour rights after, to guarentee any investment to have a constructive positive effect on the British economy. When a good business environment has been created with the overhaul of these ultimately ineffective systems, the investment by citizens themselves shall reinvigorate the economy, without the Government having to accumulate debt and interest.
How extended would such a push for competativeness be?
It would mean a realistic Government Policy towards Labour Rights, which has been forshadowed by Mr. Fitzpatrick's and the UUP's excellent new Bill of Rights. Unlike what some Labour Campaigners might want you to believe, the Conservatives will still protect the rights of pensioners, teachers, nurses and industrial workers when in Government, as they have done under Eden, Jacobs and Gibbons. Such a push would also mean the overhaul of the apprenticeships and education system, to teach British citizens, especially those learning to become craftsmen, the skills needed to allow them an easy transition into the Labour market, thereby lowering youth unemployment, which is an awful effect of uncompetative economy.
Lastly, what is your opinion of Labour's Foreign Policy Agenda?
Again, the Labour Party wishes to deny the enourmes mistakes they made during their time in office. Their actions in Cyprus are inexcusable, as is the continued disintergration of the Commonwealth. Combine these factors with the fact that the Labour Party is divided over the EEC - and trying to mask it by attacking the Conservatives - it shows us a picture of a Party unwilling to fullfill Britain's role on the International Stage and a Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister made incapable of doing anything meaningful on the international stage save accuse the Opposition of failure.
"The Liberal Party have made attempts to claim that they are the only ones who could lead Britain into the new decade, but as much as they may speak incessantly of their political "positions," their record makes most clearly evident the realities of what their party stands for - and that was the continuation of Monaghan's premiership, it was, and no matter how much they insist they are moderate, I would invite every Briton to examine their voting record in Parliament, as well as their penchant for supporting their own political gains ahead of any actual policywork on behalf of their constituents.
"The Liberals are a party without ideological claims. They are a party without principles, destined to place their thirst for power ahead of working in our interests, a fact made most clear by their refusal to join the Conservative Party in opposing the failed Labourite budget and working, instead, to continue Britain's mostly upward economic growth under Jacobs. This is the reality of their political "centrism." This is the reality of the Liberal Party.
"There is only one party that expresses the attitude necessary for our nation to recover from its state under Monaghan, and that is the party which expresses, above all else, the view that Britain must be governed pragmatically - but that we should never sacrifice the key principles of government in the name of our own political gains, as though the Liberals would. The only party which will return employment to Britain, promote self-sufficiency, and return us to our proper place in the world is the party which has proven itself before and will continue to do so, in even greater ways. That is why, even if you have never done so before, I urge you to turn out on election day and check the box for the Conservative Party of the United Kingdom."
"The Liberals are a party without ideological claims. They are a party without principles, destined to place their thirst for power ahead of working in our interests, a fact made most clear by their refusal to join the Conservative Party in opposing the failed Labourite budget and working, instead, to continue Britain's mostly upward economic growth under Jacobs. This is the reality of their political "centrism." This is the reality of the Liberal Party.
"There is only one party that expresses the attitude necessary for our nation to recover from its state under Monaghan, and that is the party which expresses, above all else, the view that Britain must be governed pragmatically - but that we should never sacrifice the key principles of government in the name of our own political gains, as though the Liberals would. The only party which will return employment to Britain, promote self-sufficiency, and return us to our proper place in the world is the party which has proven itself before and will continue to do so, in even greater ways. That is why, even if you have never done so before, I urge you to turn out on election day and check the box for the Conservative Party of the United Kingdom."
_________________________________________
Anyway, voting is closed, as @DensleyBlair has pointed out to me.
I typically do the actual results at the end of the update, so you're more than welcome to keep ICing.
I typically do the actual results at the end of the update, so you're more than welcome to keep ICing.
(It's a long election update, as it was a long campaign. But nonetheless, here's our BBC exit poll.)
Conservative: 340
Labour: 233
Liberal: 50
Cliff Michelmore: We'd ask our viewers to treat the Liberal numbers with extra caution, as their recent success makes the number difficult to predict. Labour: 233
Liberal: 50
The BBC, holding election night coverage, has a brief interview with Clarence D. Abel over the exit poll...
BBC: As we see, the exit poll has shown a large conservative majority with considerable gains for the Liberals and many losses for the Prime Minister's party. We have with us the Shadow President of the Board of Trade and Conservative Candidate for Beckenham, Clarence D. Abel. Mister Abel, what do you make of these numbers.
Abel: I think that they are tremendous news for my party and for the British people. It seems that the people are quite alright with a "pet welsh tree."
BBC: The Liberal Party is looking to gain some fourty seats at least, maybe even more. Do you think that the rise of the Liberal Party in polls recently is a sign of the public's disaffection towards the major parties?
Abel: The Liberal Party has the luxury that they will never have to govern alone for many years to come, and thus they do not have to make the difficult decisions one has to make when they are in government. Instead, they can blame the major parties for all of Britain's faults without having to worry about actually finding solutions to problems.
BBC: Finally, Mister Abel, have these results met the expectations of the Conservative Party coming into this election?
Abel: A government with a sizable majority is exactly what we were hoping for.
BBC: Thank you Mister Abel, Shadow President of the Board of Trade, for coming on with us tonight.
Abel: It was a pleasure.
BBC: As we see, the exit poll has shown a large conservative majority with considerable gains for the Liberals and many losses for the Prime Minister's party. We have with us the Shadow President of the Board of Trade and Conservative Candidate for Beckenham, Clarence D. Abel. Mister Abel, what do you make of these numbers.
Abel: I think that they are tremendous news for my party and for the British people. It seems that the people are quite alright with a "pet welsh tree."
BBC: The Liberal Party is looking to gain some fourty seats at least, maybe even more. Do you think that the rise of the Liberal Party in polls recently is a sign of the public's disaffection towards the major parties?
Abel: The Liberal Party has the luxury that they will never have to govern alone for many years to come, and thus they do not have to make the difficult decisions one has to make when they are in government. Instead, they can blame the major parties for all of Britain's faults without having to worry about actually finding solutions to problems.
BBC: Finally, Mister Abel, have these results met the expectations of the Conservative Party coming into this election?
Abel: A government with a sizable majority is exactly what we were hoping for.
BBC: Thank you Mister Abel, Shadow President of the Board of Trade, for coming on with us tonight.
Abel: It was a pleasure.
Election of 1969 (Results)
For the third time in just over five years, Britain shuffled off to the polling booths for the final general election of the decade. By all accounts, the sensation of decay and helpless was pervasive. Confidence in national advancement, strongest in the late years of the Bennett Ministry (a world away), was gradually displaced by fear of economic instability, social upheaval, and political violence. Although it is difficult to retrospectively presume the attitudes of the incumbent generation preceding the election, many modern historians have reached a ‘consensus of fatigue.’ Committed Labourites decried Tory mismanagement as the precursor to economic stagnation, while the Conservatives belted Labour for their self-destructive promotion of industrial democracy and social alterations. Across party lines, political warners were nigh apocalyptic. Ian Macleod, the Conservative Party’s ‘economic spokesman,’ warned of the gravity of the economic situation: “We now have the worst of both worlds-not just inflation on the one side of stagnation on the other, but both of them together. We have a sort of “stagnation” situation, aggravated by industrial democracy. And history, in modern terms, is indeed being made.” Overproduction in the public industrial sector, resulting in extensive inventory, coupled with a flailing private economy, encouraged a wild volatility in prices and wages. Without extensive empirical data to observe the effects of the Industrial Democracy Act’s repeal (a very recent nullification), neither party could claim that their economic model was the appropriate prediction. In the absence of sufficient evidence, Conservative and Labour politicians withdrew to portentous declarations of doom and gloom. Although the Tories could trumpet the repeal of the IDA as the precursor to economic stability, the recent Conservative record in government was anything but glistening. Traditionally, in times of despair and uncertainty, Labour would ascend as the de facto “natural party of government,” as the Labour Party had grappled power for seventeen of the last twenty-four years. Yet widespread disaffection with Conservative ineptitude and Labour’s ideological dogmatism created the perfect backdrop for a three-horse race.
Jo Grimond (left) and 'Lady Liberal' (right).
Arthur Hornesby, Chairman of the Conservative Party.
The winning electoral poster
Notably, Parris Marr did not feature in the election campaign. The memorable absence of the ‘social wing’ of the Labour Party, provided the Liberal Party and the increasing number of ‘progressive’ Tories a rather convenient material gift. Monaghan attempted to excoriate the ambiguity of the Conservative’s social policy, but the attempt necessarily critiqued a departure from the clearly delineated social conservatism of previous manifestos. Ryley was swift to recognize the inconsistency, and leaped out from the shadowy corridors back into the limelight. The Opposition Leader questioned why “a socialist would be sad over our [Conservative] desire to place principled, pragmatic, and realistic policy above the rejection of social control, although I suspect it does not play well with his belief in totalitarianism.” Ryley’s return into the electoral spotlight was, to some extent, overshadowed by the unexpected (and random) prominence of David Thornbloom and his fiscal conservatives. The sudden return of the former Chancellor galvanized Conservative poll numbers, as Thornbloom memorably declared “King and Country before Number 10.” It was hardly a vote of confidence in ‘the Welsh Tree,’ but it was better than open insurrection. Thornbloom proved thoroughly pro-Conservative, if not pro-Ryley, procuring a Times column to assail the Labour Party with animadversion. Elsewhere, Thornbloom proved brazen in his condemnation of militant trade union power - one of the first criticisms in recent years amidst the mood of union preeminence. Thornbloom’s entrance into the Conservative campaign boosted Tory popularity, and allowed Ryley to undertake a final offensive against the Liberal Party, accusing Grimond and MacAlistair of enabling Labour’s destructive program. Ryley’s attack on the Liberal Party was the ‘last word’ of the election - the British public shuffled off to the polling stations on June 6th 1969.
THE RESULTS
ignore the seventy
(Montage of 1945 election)
Cliff Michelmore: Well, how about that. That was how voting was done 35 years ago. But we’re now going to bring you the results of the 1969 general election with all the resources the BBC can muster in colour…
...We’ll try and bring you the results instantly and what they mean. We’ll also try and give you the flavour, feel, and really the smell of election night in Britain right onto your screen. All over the country tonight, there are BBC cameras and BBC reporters. In London, we’re in Smith Square, where the Labour Party and the Conservative Party both have their headquarters about a hundred yards apart. David Dimbleby is up in Glasgow, waiting for Mr. Monaghan’s own result. Michael Charlton is down in Monmouth, waiting for Mr. Ryley’s constituency results…
...And back here we’re all settling in for the program that is going to run for the best part of twenty-four hours on BBC One...
Desmond Wilcox: And we’re now down in Trafalgar Square at what we might call the ‘grassroots level.’ Traditionally, the Square is where the British come to protest and celebrate our most national occasions...already the crowd estimated with 3,000 to 5,000 and only 80 policemen. But so far the police have been gentle, and the crowd good humoured, and the score at the moment is fountaineers 3, police nil…
...I wonder if I could ask you sir, have you voted today?
Commoner #1: No, I did not.
DW: Why not?
Commoner #1: I’m away from home.
DW: Now this is the thing that the Prime Minister was worried about - too many people away on holiday.
Commoner: #1: No, I’m not on holiday. Imma driva.
DW: Why would you’ve voted?
Commoner #1: Labour.
DW: Do you expect them to get in this time?
Commoner #1: I think so…
...Robert McKenzie: The story of the night will be told on the State of the Parties Board. By tommorow, this board will show the composition of Parliament at the State Opening. And now to the opinion polls. ORC and Harris give the Conservative Party a three-percent lead. At the other extreme, Marplan in the Times was pointing to a nine-percent Labour swing. So obviously some huge variations in the opinion polls…
Cheltenham: The number of votes cast for each candidate was as follows. Douglas-George Aldridge [Liberal] - 10,431. Athur-Douglas Dodds-Parker [Conservative] - 22,823. Leslie-George Godwin [Labour] 14,233.
...So we’ve had two results from the best predictors, the average swing is four percent, which would give the Conservatives a working majority IF it is reflected in all other constituencies...
...Michelmore: With nearly fourty-five results in, we can confidently tell our viewers that tonight is going to be a miserable night for the Labour Party. The Conservative Party, and particularly the Liberals, are making extraordinary strides against the Labour Party...
...BBC ELECTION FLASH: We are now predicting a Conservative workable majority.
Newport: Yes, Mr. Harwick has been defeated by nearly 1200 votes here in his home consistency.
Butler: And hold on, it seems that the First Secretary of State has also been defeated. Yes, that's just been considered. It seems Mr Harwick and Mr Barclay have both been ejected from their constituencies in the span of mere seconds.
-
The election is over, but the night's tribulations have just begun. Anything you have to do or say or broadcast you should do today. Official business will start tomorrow night. Feel free to put yourself on the BBC programme. Also coming up this week are new bonuses and the 'Decade in Review.'
All over Northern Ireland, dedicated volunteers were hard at work to remove all the Ulster Unionist electoral signs. On the major intersections, new signs were put up...
BBC: Ladies and Gentlemen, we have only ten more results to go, but we can confirm that Talfryn Ryley's Conservative Party will have a majority. Mister Ryley will be meeting with the Queen in just a few hours now. Now, we bring back onto the show Shadow President of the Board of Trade Clarence D. Abel who has retained his seat in Beckenham. Mister Abel, your thoughts?
Abel: Thank you for having me on again. I think that if there's one thing that this election has proved it's that the British people will not accept the levels of socialism that was present in the Industrial Democracy Act. Labour's extended control of government in these past twenty-four years has made the Labour Party more and more radical. I believe that the next decade will be one of great prosperity for Britain if the British people reject radicalism like they have done so tonight.
BBC: There has been quite some talk about the fake Liberal Party manifestos being circulated, supposedly by yourself, and I must ask if you thought they had a significant impact on voters tonight?
Abel: Fake manifestos? When I received the Liberal Party's manifesto, "Multiple Different Directions," I thought it was the real deal.
*The interviewer gives a courtesy chuckle to Abel's attempt at comedy*
The British people realize that the Liberal Party has very few principles and therefore are not fit for government.
BBC: Parris Marr has been absent from the campaign trail and has taken up a peerage in the new House of Commons. Do you think his absence caused Labour voters to stay home?
Abel: Lord Marr is one of the greatest gifts to satire since the neo-Nazis at the UBP started their own choir! But I'm sure that Lord Marr will be sorely missed in the Commons by his Labour fellows.
BBC: Thank you for your time Mister Abel, and good luck in government.
Abel: It's been a pleasure.
Abel: Thank you for having me on again. I think that if there's one thing that this election has proved it's that the British people will not accept the levels of socialism that was present in the Industrial Democracy Act. Labour's extended control of government in these past twenty-four years has made the Labour Party more and more radical. I believe that the next decade will be one of great prosperity for Britain if the British people reject radicalism like they have done so tonight.
BBC: There has been quite some talk about the fake Liberal Party manifestos being circulated, supposedly by yourself, and I must ask if you thought they had a significant impact on voters tonight?
Abel: Fake manifestos? When I received the Liberal Party's manifesto, "Multiple Different Directions," I thought it was the real deal.
*The interviewer gives a courtesy chuckle to Abel's attempt at comedy*
The British people realize that the Liberal Party has very few principles and therefore are not fit for government.
BBC: Parris Marr has been absent from the campaign trail and has taken up a peerage in the new House of Commons. Do you think his absence caused Labour voters to stay home?
Abel: Lord Marr is one of the greatest gifts to satire since the neo-Nazis at the UBP started their own choir! But I'm sure that Lord Marr will be sorely missed in the Commons by his Labour fellows.
BBC: Thank you for your time Mister Abel, and good luck in government.
Abel: It's been a pleasure.
((Private))
At a house somewhere in Newport:"Well that was bloody dreadful."
"You only have yourself to blame, darling."
"Oh no, I didn't mean the defeat -- I meant all those miserable bastards offering me their 'sympathies.' What a load of nonsense! As if those buggers wanted to see me win; they hate me; they think I'm practically a Tory!"
"Well, you haven't done much to disprove that claim."
"I suppose I haven't. Anyway, I guess now I get to enjoy a nice respite for a while."
"A respite? Darling, I don't think you're grasping the gravity of the situation..."
"Don't worry, dear. Monaghan and the rest will drift back to the backbenches soon enough. I'll be back, don't you worry."
((Private-LK))
Dear Mister Stephen Harwick,
Word has reached me that you have lost your seat in the election. I offer my sincerest sympathies to you and your family.
Much Cheer,
Clarence David Abel
Dear Mister Stephen Harwick,
Word has reached me that you have lost your seat in the election. I offer my sincerest sympathies to you and your family.
Much Cheer,
Clarence David Abel
BBC: And we now turned to Northern Ireland, where the results seem to indicate an almost complete Unionist domination. Our correspondent, William McTaggert, is in Belfast with some updates.
McTaggert speaks in a very noisy room where UUP sympathizers are celebrating.
McTaggert: What has been dubbed the battle of Belfast as concluded seconds ago, with the victory of Brian McRoberts in West Belfast, a much contested seat where many experts believe the Unity Party was poised to make a breakthrough. All along the campaign, we had a sense that the Belfast region was seen as a bellwether for this election. Ulster Unionists and Unity were very strong on the ground, Lorcan Callaghan was here several times, as was Lochlan Fitzpatrick.
BBC: But it appears that the Province remains blue, while returning an independent member in Mid-Ulster, I believe it is Mr. Callaghan’s seat.
McTaggert: Quite so indeed. A very ferocious campaign in Mid-Ulster, it is clear that the Ulster Unionist deployed heavy artillery to try to dislodge Callaghan and reassert their complete domination but the results indicate that they fell short of their objective, Mid-Ulster returning to Westminster Lorcan Callaghan as the sole Independent, so far tonight.
BBC: Any other important battlegrounds in Northern Ireland?
McTaggert: All eyes were on the Londonderry seat, given that the city had been the epicentre of recent revolts and violent clashes between Protestants and Catholics. It appears that the Ulster Unionists’ policy of appeasement kept enough voter on board to ensure the seat remains safely on their column. Other than that, it came as no surprise that the UUP Parliamentary Leader, Lochlan G. Fitzpatrick, was re-elected in South Antrim with a very comfortable majority.
BBC: Yes I believe we will have the pleasure to host him in our coverage later on. Moving on now, to Wales.
McTaggert speaks in a very noisy room where UUP sympathizers are celebrating.
McTaggert: What has been dubbed the battle of Belfast as concluded seconds ago, with the victory of Brian McRoberts in West Belfast, a much contested seat where many experts believe the Unity Party was poised to make a breakthrough. All along the campaign, we had a sense that the Belfast region was seen as a bellwether for this election. Ulster Unionists and Unity were very strong on the ground, Lorcan Callaghan was here several times, as was Lochlan Fitzpatrick.
BBC: But it appears that the Province remains blue, while returning an independent member in Mid-Ulster, I believe it is Mr. Callaghan’s seat.
McTaggert: Quite so indeed. A very ferocious campaign in Mid-Ulster, it is clear that the Ulster Unionist deployed heavy artillery to try to dislodge Callaghan and reassert their complete domination but the results indicate that they fell short of their objective, Mid-Ulster returning to Westminster Lorcan Callaghan as the sole Independent, so far tonight.
BBC: Any other important battlegrounds in Northern Ireland?
McTaggert: All eyes were on the Londonderry seat, given that the city had been the epicentre of recent revolts and violent clashes between Protestants and Catholics. It appears that the Ulster Unionists’ policy of appeasement kept enough voter on board to ensure the seat remains safely on their column. Other than that, it came as no surprise that the UUP Parliamentary Leader, Lochlan G. Fitzpatrick, was re-elected in South Antrim with a very comfortable majority.
BBC: Yes I believe we will have the pleasure to host him in our coverage later on. Moving on now, to Wales.
George Kellaghan
Kellaghan at the 1972 Labour conference.
Kellaghan at the 1972 Labour conference.
George David Kellaghan, OM PC AC FRS FRSL (born May 17 1925, in Melbourne, Australia) was a British–Australian politician, journalist and academic. He served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1989 until 1995, and led the Labour Party from 1980 to 1995.
As prime minister, Kellaghan oversaw economic growth and social reform at the head of the first Labour government since 1969. His term coincided with a shift in Britain's focus from the Commonwealth to Europe, which helped to exacerbate tensions both within his cabinet and with the Conservative press. Just over a year after leading Labour to a second victory in 1994, Kellaghan announced his resignation as prime minister.
Early Life (1925–47)
Kellaghan was born in Melbourne, Victoria as the eldest of two brothers to Harry Kellaghan and his wife Emily (née Whitlam). His father was a lawyer, and later Commonwealth crown solicitor, whose internationalism and firm defences of human rights at a time when the field was uncommon in Australian law influenced his sons greatly. Kellaghan grew up in the South Yarra suburb of Melbourne, where he attended local primary and grammar schools. In 1942 he was awarded a prize by the Governor-General Lord Gowrie for an essay on the Australian constitution.
In 1943 Kellaghan was offered a place at St. John's College, Oxford to read law, though only completed the first year of his degree before choosing to defer his studies and enlist in the Royal Air Force. He saw service in Burma as a Spitfire pilot in the expeditionary force, fighting in the campaign that ultimately saw the liberation of Rangoon from Japanese forces. By the end of the war he had achieved the rank of flight lieutenant.
Kellaghan returned to Oxford in 1945, completing his studies two years later. He was awarded a first-class honours degree. At Oxford, Kellaghan remained largely apolitical, though had demonstrated socialist sympathies whilst still in Australia. He dedicated himself more enthusiastically to sports, batting for the university cricket team against Cambridge in 1946 and 1947. At this time he also took up a position as a writer for student magazine Isis. In 1947 he served as president of St. John's common room.
Journalism and Entry to Politics (1947–59)
Staying in England after leaving Oxford, Kellaghan was called to the Bar in 1948 but spurned a legal career in favour of going into journalism full-time. He accepted a job at the Manchester Guardian as a correspondent on Commonwealth affairs, bringing him into contact with then-Colonial Secretary Parris Marr, who wrote occasionally for the newspaper. Marr finally convinced Kellaghan to join the Labour Party in 1948, supposedly after a heated discussion on British responsibility in Burma. Marr employed Kellaghan as his constituency agent at the 1949 election, where he was successful in overseeing Labour's defence of the seat and an increased majority for Marr despite a dramatic fall in Labour support nationwide.
Kellaghan became a member of the Fabian Society in 1950, as well as a councillor for the Royal Institute of International Affairs. In 1954 he was appointed a member of the Fabian Society's international bureau, later becoming a member of its executive in 1959. He continued to write for the Manchester Guardian and also published often for the Fabian Society. In the 1954 general election he fought unsuccessfully for the seat of Battersea South, instead taking up a teaching position at the London School of Economics as a lecturer in international relations and political science. The following year he was appointed Washington correspondent at the Manchester Guardian and moved to the city, covering the cooling in the special relationship that occurred at the height of the Spanish Crisis in 1956. Kellaghan was highly critical of what he described as President Barkley's ‘Anglophobia’ and argued that American distance from Britain served only to strengthen the Soviet forces. Whilst in America he lectured on a couple of occasions at Yale University.
When Parris Marr chose not to stand for reelection at the 1959 general election, Kellaghan was selected as his successor and finally entered Parliament as MP for the City of York. He quickly became associated with a group of modernising MPs including Denis Healey and Anthony Crosland who had previously worked with Marr.
Member of Parliament (1959–1980)
Soon talent spotted by the party elite, Kellaghan was appointed to a position in Arthur Bennett's government as Minister of State for Overseas Development in 1961, working under Foreign Secretary Roland Carpenter, a former colleague at the LSE. As Bennett grew more insecure about his position within the party, however, Kellaghan's modernist links hindered any further advancement. When Bennett resigned in favour of Sylvia Leighton in 1963, Kellaghan was moved in the subsequent cabinet reshuffle to work as Anthony Crosland's deputy at the Department of Trade and Industry.
At the 1964 general election, which Labour lost, Kellaghan narrowly held on to his seat in York. He missed out on a frontbench position after performing poorly in the party's shadow cabinet elections, but was appointed as the opposition spokesperson for overseas development and spoke often on the subject in Parliament. When Sylvia Leighton was succeeded as Labour leader by the leftist Alastair Monaghan, having been forced to stand down due to illness, Kellaghan and his fellow modernisers were sidelined in favour of young, collectivist MPs. His fortunes were revived in 1966 when Parris Marr re-entered Parliament, becoming his personal private secretary for a brief period before the 1966 general election, after which Kellaghan was appointed Minister of State for the Home Department with responsibility for Northern Irish affairs, during which time he helped to draft a white paper, ‘In Place of Strife’, calling for reform of the Stormont government.
In October 1967, Kellaghan was appointed to the newly-created Department of Commonwealth Relations as its secretary of state. The department was formed to alleviate some of the pressure on Roland Carpenter, who held the foreign, colonial and Commonweath affairs portfolios. When Monaghan's government was defeated at the 1969 general election, Kellaghan finally joined the shadow cabinet as Shadow Secretary of State for Overseas Development. Following Monaghan's resignation as party leader later that year, Kellaghan stood for the Labour leadership as the candidate of the modernists. He was eliminated in the second ballot, though commented at the time that he had “left [his] calling card”. In new leader Roland Carpenter's shadow cabinet he continued to hold the overseas development portfolio. As a member of the shadow cabinet, Kellaghan was an enthusiastic supporter of the Commonwealth of Nations. In 1972 he delivered the inaugural Leighton Lecture to the Royal Institute of International Affairs on the subject of internationalism in the Commonwealth, which was warmly received by commentators. He expanded upon many of the themes of the lecture in Modern Socialism, co-authored with Anthony Crosland (Gollancz, 1972), which analysed the future of the Labour Party and offered an alternative vision to continued collectivism.
Following Labour's second consecutive defeat at the 1974 general election, Kellaghan was promoted within the shadow cabinet along with other modernisers (notably Crosland, who became shadow chancellor) in reaction to the voters’ rejection of Carpenter's ‘continuity’ strategy. Taking the education and technology brief, Kellaghan proved an energetic spokesman within the Commons. He was proactive in refashioning Labour's education policy in response to Conservative criticism that it was outdated, developing the idea of “education for all” and proposing the active use of education to combat inequality. In 1976 he wrote policy paper ‘A Plan for the Future’, which he presented at that year's Labour conference. Most controversially, the paper made explicit for the first time Labour's plan to abolish fee-paying schools in Britain.
Leader of the Oppositon (1980–1989)
Following Labour's third successive defeat at the 1979 general election, leader Roland Carpenter resigned. In the resulting leadership election, Kellaghan won after three closely-fought rounds, beating Harold Wilson by 152 votes on February 7th 1980.
Prime Minister (1989–1995)
Personal Life
Kellaghan's family was of Irish descent on his father's side and of Anglo–Scottish descent via his mother. Matrilineally he was a first cousin of Australian prime minister and Labor Party leader Gough Whitlam.
He came out as gay in 1995, months after stepping down as prime minister.
Last edited: