• 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, but still you lash out on the national liberals since they would be better off with the conservatives. It is just hypocritical :)

Tell me Rosa, if the Tory Party followed Powell's lead and became Monetarist and pro-Free Market, what unique purpose would the Nat Lib's serve? Social reform? The Liberals already do that, as do Labour.

Labour is the only Democratic Socialist party in Britain today, and therefore has a reason to exist. The National Liberals are not a seriosu political party; they are Tories who like the free market - nothing more.
 
To be fair, the Nat Libs were the only party for a little while with non-Keynesian economics, and Labour and the Liberals do seem to hold some very similar views. That being said, especially now that the Rightists are reinstating old Conservative domestic policies, having the Nat Libs and Conservatives merge would not surprise me. Having Labour and the Liberals, on the other hand... I am not so sure of, especially as the Orange Liberals did not have quite so strong a showing, dividing the Liberals and Labour once again.
 
To be fair, the Nat Libs were the only party for a little while with non-Keynesian economics, and Labour and the Liberals do seem to hold some very similar views.

Not true; the Communists were also non-Keynesian. :)

That being said, especially now that the Rightists are reinstating old Conservative domestic policies, having the Nat Libs and Conservatives merge would not surprise me. Having Labour and the Liberals, on the other hand... I am not so sure of, especially as the Orange Liberals did not have quite so strong a showing, dividing the Liberals and Labour once again.

You have it backwards actually, the Rightists are introducing the Tories to traditional Liberal policies. The Tories were traditionally paternalistic and protectionist, a world view closer to that of the One Nation Tories.
 
You have it backwards actually, the Rightists are introducing the Tories to traditional Liberal policies. The Tories were traditionally paternalistic and protectionist, a world view closer to that of the One Nation Tories.
Funny how things work out sometimes, right?
Well, I'm certainly looking forward to all this chaos that will most probably ensue after the formation of this balancing-act-of-a-government.
I smell blood.

...Also, I taste blood. Maybe I should go see a doctor.
 
Not true; the Communists were also non-Keynesian. :)



You have it backwards actually, the Rightists are introducing the Tories to traditional Liberal policies. The Tories were traditionally paternalistic and protectionist, a world view closer to that of the One Nation Tories.

Art imitates life.
 
Monetarism requires active state intervention into the daily events and choices of the common acting man, something that requires use of violence by the state and use of force against the individual. The NLP refuse to support policies that enable the machine of oppression any more rights.
Monetarism is just reshaped Keynesianism, which both do their best to distort the market in favour of the state, resulting in losses for the individual human beings.

We want to set the markets free, not into a slightly larger cage of different colour and name!
State interventionism is the real reason behind boom and bust and the wicked money expansion schemes that bring forth wanton reallocation of existing resources (in favour of the bureaucrat and politician ofc)
 
You do realize National Liberal Party are pro monetarism? So both the rightists and national liberals ar monetarists and want to privatize all the nationalized industries. Not much diffeence there.
 
Monetarism requires active state intervention into the daily events and choices of the common acting man, something that requires use of violence by the state and use of force against the individual. The NLP refuse to support policies that enable the machine of oppression any more rights.
Monetarism is just reshaped Keynesianism, which both do their best to distort the market in favour of the state, resulting in losses for the individual human beings.

We want to set the markets free, not into a slightly larger cage of different colour and name!
State interventionism is the real reason behind boom and bust and the wicked money expansion schemes that bring forth wanton reallocation of existing resources (in favour of the bureaucrat and politician ofc)

Funny. I thought Tommy determined what the NLP believe in, not Enewald.
 
Dammit, whom can I vote now! :cool: :rolleyes:

The party that are the closest to your viewpoints. You got to expect to give away some of your principles in order to promote others or the core ones.

((When can we expect a new update? :3 ))
 
Last edited:
The party that are the closest to your viewpoints. You got to expect to give away some of your principles in order to promote others or the core ones.

And thus Tanzhang decreed that Rosa was the most intelligent of all Enewaldites, for she and she alone among them knew how politics actually works.
 
And thus Tanzhang decreed that Rosa was the most intelligent of all Enewaldites, for she and she alone among them knew how politics actually works.

Except that I am no enewaldist.
 
Not true; the Communists were also non-Keynesian. :)
Communists never count.
You have it backwards actually, the Rightists are introducing the Tories to traditional Liberal policies. The Tories were traditionally paternalistic and protectionist, a world view closer to that of the One Nation Tories.
Right, pardon. Mixed up words. Economic theory was never my strong point.
 
No time to go Wobbly
1963-1964


Macmillan’s delicately balanced government was instantly placed under pressure by the crisis in the Persian Gulf. Within a week of the new government taking office the Kuwaitis had surrendered their defence of the Sheikdom with the Royal Family and their remaining forces being evacuated by British forces – with a substantial British fleet being deployed from Aden to the Gulf in a show of force. The total Iraqi occupation of Kuwait complicated the situation significantly as it would no longer be possible to preserve an independent Kuwait merely by supporting local forces – instead an almost entirely British military operation would be required.

Even as substantial air and land forces were being redeployed to Aden, the British looked to pursue every diplomatic course of action. Lodging an official protest in the United Nations, the British rallied the friendly governments of Jordan, Iran, Syria and Turkey in condemning the Iraqi invasion. Although secular and left wing Iraqi Ba’athists found an unlikely ally in Saudi Arabia, who were themselves supporting a rebellion against the British backed monarchy in Oman; Iraq’s Soviet sponsors appeared frustrated with their only Middle Eastern ally. So soon after the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Soviets appeared unwilling to risk war in defence of Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait.


With the United States willing to turn a blind eye to a limited intervention in the Gulf, British forces launched a blitzing campaign in the first week of March that saw Iraqi forces ejected from Kuwait and the pro-British Sheikdom restored. As the Iraqis singularly failed to mount a successful counterattack through the rest of the month and the British remained unwilling to push further North a peace was agreed on April 2nd 1963 that saw both sides agree to return to the pre-war status quo.


In the aftermath of the Gulf Crisis Macmillan oversaw a large scale strengthening of Britain’s position in the Middle East. In Kuwait the restored government was forced to accept the construction of a permanent British military base, British troops (and more importantly aircraft) were sent to Oman to assist the government in its conflict with both Marxist and Saudi-sponsored rebellions. Finally, the garrison of South Yemen was doubled in size. The message appeared clear; this government was unwilling to surrender British power in the Middle East.

In the Far East, direct military involvement in the region’s guerrilla struggles was a far touchier subject. With the enhancement of Britain’s military presence in the Middle East, the country could scarcely afford to satisfy its American allies by sending troops whilst numerous groups both within and outside of the Conservative Party were strongly opposed to involving Britain in South-East Asia’s endless wars. Instead, Macmillan arranged for the deployment of military advisors to Malaysia and Australia with the two Commonwealth members also being supported with recently decommissioned military hardware. The Americans in Indonesia would receive only diplomatic support.


With the Liberals and Tory Rightists leaving Macmillan’s administration paralysed on a number of key issues, it was Powell’s Home Office that was able to secure the most important item of legislation passed by Macmillan’s administration. This was the Commonwealth Immigration Act that, for the first time, placed a limit on previously unrestricted immigration from Commonwealth members. With the Act ensuring that levels of immigration would not be allowed to rise above their present levels, although also not curtailed, the legislation was able to pass through parliament through parliament with massive cross-party support. Internationally, the Act was supported by Australia, whose government was greatly concerned by non-white immigration, with even more strident restrictions upon immigration being agreed by the Canberra government whilst India and Pakistan lodged vociferous complaint – accusing the British government of racial motivations.


Abroad, the fates of Kenya and Rhodesia were left in limbo as explosive nature of the issue of majority rule in these colonial possessions made it impossible for the government to take any action – even as elements of the settler community began to talk openly of alternative should Britain attempt to force them to accept majority rule. Elsewhere, the souring of relations with India and Pakistan coupled with the declaration of Republics in Tanzania and Uganda provided further blows to the dream of pursuing greater integration between the nations of the Commonwealth. Britain’s insistence on tightening its grip over the Middle East also contributed to enmity between Britain and many of its former colonies in Africa and South Asia.


As Macmillan’s government of the centre of the British political spectrum teetered on, the Prime Minister’s health started to become a major concern. After Macmillan was unable to attend consecutive meetings of the cabinet in January 1964 he was taken to hospital and subsequently diagnosed with an inoperable cancer of the lung. This diagnosis would set off a political crisis in Britain leading to the rapid polarisation of the nation’s politics that would make the cross chamber collaboration of the Macmillan government a hazy memory.

Realistically, only one man could ever succeed Harold Macmillan as leader of the Conservative Party, yet that man would inevitably be totally unacceptable to the Liberals. This meant that Enoch Powell could not hope to be named Prime Minister even if he easily moved from Deputy to Leader of his party as Macmillan stepped down as party leader.


Yet, it remained possible for a government to command a stable majority even with the breakdown of Liberal-Conservative collaboration that inevitably followed Enoch Powell’s replacement of Macmillan as Prime Minister. With the Liberals preparing to force a General Election, the leaders of the Communist Party of Great Britain made a public offer of support for a Liberal government provided it include Labour ministers and remain committed to progressive governance. Although Grimond would rebuff the Communists’ offer of support, just as he had the previous year, their declaration would have an unintended consequence on the Right whilst also provoking a divide within the CPGB.


For all the brave talk of ideological purity and defiance in the face of the political consensus, the abandonment of the Alliance had been a disaster for the National Liberals on almost every level. At the high tide of the Alliance in 1954 the party had won an impressive 138 seats, falling to 17 in 1958 and then 11 in 1963. Shorn of any real political influence, Thorneycroft’s group started to reconsider its relationship to the Conservative in the early 1960s as the Rightists began to gain influence. With Powell set to take control of the party leadership in early 1964 the Communists offer of support provided the final push to convince Thorneycroft to accept an offer from Enoch Powell. The incoming Tory leader had offered Thorneycroft the position of Chancellor he had craved for more than a decade and a commitment to pushing back the boundaries of state involvement in the economy. In return the National Liberal Party promised to dissolve itself into the Conservative Party, producing a behemoth on the Right capable of dominating British politics.


The dramatic unification of the British Right demanded drastic actions from the country’s Left. With Labour performing by far the strongest in areas where some degree of Gaitskellite Lib-Lab cooperation was in action, Hugh Gaitskell forced had forced Wilson into an outright leadership contest shortly after the 1963 election – claiming the party leadership in a tightly contested affair on the promise of extending Lib-Labery across the country and rejuvenating Labour’s fortunes. Yet, the Liberal leadership proved very resistant to furthering its cooperation with the Liberals, with the Yellow leadership fearing that the closer the two parties worked together the stronger the Social Democratic Orange Liberals would become within the party – threatening its integrity. However, the dissolution of the National Liberals into a radicalising Conservative Party forced the Liberals’ hand. Fearing that electoral defeat would be inevitable without some sort of electoral cooperation with Labour, the Liberals reluctantly agreed to a nationwide electoral pact. In an irony not lost on contemporary political commentators, the alliance of the Liberals and Labour stood as the defenders of the political status quo against a radical, Conservative Party, challenge.
 
I support this recent chain of political events. :)
 
It's been that way since 1948 - either the Communists are as thick as two planks or they like seeing right-wing governments get elected.

Just for the record, I can't speak for all CPGB voters, but I personally don't care for "the Left". I want the communists, and the communists only, to have the greatest possible role in governance, and thus I will only ever vote for a communist party, never the "lesser evil" of the capitalist duopoly. That's pretty much what my real life stance would be as well if there were a worthwhile communist party in my country. As far as I know, I'm not the only one who thinks like this.
 
Just for the record, I can't speak for all CPGB voters, but I personally don't care for "the Left". I want the communists, and the communists only, to have the greatest possible role in governance, and thus I will only ever vote for a communist party, never the "lesser evil" of the capitalist duopoly. That's pretty much what my real life stance would be as well if there were a worthwhile communist party in my country. As far as I know, I'm not the only one who thinks like this.

No, but thankfully like-minded individuals form only a minute portion of our degenerate capitalist bourgeois society. :)
 
Yey for a united Right that can bring Britain down on a domestic and international level!
 
Just for the record, I can't speak for all CPGB voters, but I personally don't care for "the Left". I want the communists, and the communists only, to have the greatest possible role in governance, and thus I will only ever vote for a communist party, never the "lesser evil" of the capitalist duopoly. That's pretty much what my real life stance would be as well if there were a worthwhile communist party in my country. As far as I know, I'm not the only one who thinks like this.
Sad, some. It's the dogmatic votes that tend to ruin these sorts of AARs, as often it gives unrealistic levels of support to certain parties, left or right. Especially sad because it's often the person's real life views, rather than trying to maintain any sort of historicity.

Anyways! Interesting developments. I'm intrigued to see how Labour might perform now, what with the electoral pact in play.
 
Sad, some. It's the dogmatic votes that tend to ruin these sorts of AARs, as often it gives unrealistic levels of support to certain parties, left or right. Especially sad because it's often the person's real life views, rather than trying to maintain any sort of historicity.

Anyways! Interesting developments. I'm intrigued to see how Labour might perform now, what with the electoral pact in play.
Ahem *cough* liberals *cough*
 
Status
Not open for further replies.