-
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
I was referring to those espousing the abolition of the monarchy, and who have usurped a position of mine which I never knew I held.
I see. Well I think it is more important issues. But I do support a refferendum, and do not think the party itself should make an official line other than listening to the refferendum. But I doubt most of the parliament will accept such a measure.
People whose capacity for silly ideas was disproportional to their capacity for common sense and practicality. Wiki it, it was a thing.
gratz on 5k posts Densley.
Cheers.
I guess I'll be able to return the favour when you hit 23k.
People whose capacity for silly ideas was disproportional to their capacity for common sense and practicality. Wiki it, it was a thing.
Hope I'm not one then
Hope I'm not one then
I wouldn't have thought so yesterday, but some of these recent posts of yours and Antonine's...
The Election of 1964
Following the collapse of the Conservative minority administration in the early weeks of 1964, Britain faced its second election in a year with the Right presenting a radical challenge to the post-war political order whilst the Liberal and Labour parties reached an unprecedented degree of unity in defence of that order.
The strength of the electoral pact forged by the Liberal and Labour parties just prior to the election allowed the Centre-Left to hold firm and achieve a major victory. With the Liberals seeing their vote fall for the second consecutive election to its lowest level since 1949, the pact allowed the party to maintain its large parliamentary representation. For Labour, it was far more transformative as the party achieved a major increase in its share of the vote whilst gaining an incredible 157 seats to overtake the Conservatives as the second largest party in parliament. Indeed, Liberal-Labour cooperation saw the Tories swept from virtually all of their marginal seats, with the Tories actually losing a small number of votes despite their merger with the National Liberal Party. Most surprisingly of all the unity of the turn of Labour towards the Liberals galvanised Communist support as disillusioned working class surged towards Britain’s primary party of protest – the Communists being frustratingly limited in their gains by the strength of the Lib-Lab Pact, this despite recording their highest ever share of the vote.
The greatest losers in 1964 were, of course, the Conservatives who saw their share of parliament cut in half. The most prominent Conservative to lose his seat was none other than the former leader of the recently dissolved National Liberal Party – Peter Thorneycroft. Having benefited from the relative strength of the local Liberal, Labour and Communist parties, and the weakness of the Conservatives, Thorneycroft had long retained his South Wales seat without being seriously challenged. However, with the Liberals backing a Labour candidate against him the public face of National Liberalism was knocked out of parliament for the first time since 1949. The repercussions of Thorneycroft’s defeat were very serious for the Conservative Party with the loss of such a prominent figure heaping further pressure of Powell’s leadership and bringing a number of ex-National Liberals to support the restoration of their party. However, as Margaret Thatcher, originally returned to parliament in a by-election in 1960, came to be the leading figure in the National Liberal group within the party she guided them towards a commitment to the unity of Right.
Gaitskell’s retention of his Leeds South seat in 1958 had famously been achieved through close cooperation between the Labour and Liberal parties. In the years since then across large parts of Yorkshire the two parties had increasingly started to fuse into a single organisation – much to the concern of the Liberal Party’s national leadership. The victory of Gaitskell’s close ally, Denis Healey, in Leeds East was typical of Yorkshire which returned a raft of Lib-Lab candidates – all of them either ‘Orange’ Liberals or moderate Labourites. With the Labour leadership closely tied to Yorkshire, the local Liberal Party had effectively come under Labour’s control.
The Communists had enviously eyed East Fife for decades. Bordering the most solidly Communist constituency in the country, West Fife having been held by the Party since 1935 – returning at times substantial majorities, the Communists had never managed to break Conservative-Liberal duopoly over the constituency. The London born ultra-radical Stalinist, Sid French, seemed an unlikely candidate to achieve the breakthrough. Yet popular disgust at Labour’s entrance into an alliance with the Liberals amongst the region’s notoriously radical working class allowed French to garner enough votes to win the seat with a majority of just 33 over the incumbent Conservative and 439 over the third placed Liberal challenger – making East Fife one of the night’s most closely contested elections.
Left to Right: Hugh Gaitskell – Foreign Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister, James Callaghan – Chancellor of the Exchequer and Emlyn Hooson – Home Secretary
Despite the impressive performance of Labour candidates as the polls, the cabinet remained heavily Liberal. As Callaghan and Hooson returned to the positions they had occupied from 1958-1963, Hugh Gaitskell replaced the retiring figures of Archibald Sinclair and Clement Davies as both Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary. Across the government Labour were granted just 1/3 of ministerial positions, in line with a pre-election agreement, as Grimond made clear his determination to ensure that the government would be controlled and directed by the Liberals.
It was widely believed that the Lib-Lab Alliance had both won the election and was held together by widespread fear concerning the radicalisation of the Conservative following Enoch Powell’s capture of the leadership. With Powell’s prestige badly damaged by the halving of the party’s parliamentary representation it was feared that splits and rebellions could tear the party apart. Instead, an unlikely alliance of One Nations around Edward Heath and National Liberals around Margaret Thatcher would rein in the power of the Rightist radicals in an effort to make the Conservative Party electable again.
Last edited:
From the Wiki page:
It's certainly a possibility.
I wouldn't call domestic violence and women not allowed to participate in the financial market for small and unimportant issues. It is thinking it is a non existent problem that makes it grow and worsen. And then we got other issues like conscription, or lack of help and support to victims of sexual abuse and laws against it. As a society, we need to take care of everyone. Including the miniority and those who are the weakest.
Last edited:
Not today, no, but domestic violence won't become a real issue here for a decade or so. As for the thing about stock brokers, I don't imagine it is on anyone's minds.
The phenomenon has as much to do with problem identification as to do with the proposed solutions for said problems.
Not today, no, but domestic violence won't become a real issue here for a decade or so. As for the thing about stock brokers, I don't imagine it is on anyone's minds.
No one, but the ones who cared about it and tried to advocate it. Remember that these issues were brought up during the 40's and 30's. Fortunately the people are getting more and more enlightened and suspectible to these ideas. The fact that homosexuality, and now perhaps abortion, have been legalized show this.
The phenomenon has as much to do with problem identification as to do with the proposed solutions for said problems.
It is better to try to combat it and spread awarness about it, than closing your eyes to it since it may be difficult combating and dealing with.
Denis, Tommy. He spelled it with only one n.
And Healey with an e.
Fixed
By a minority, yes.
I'm not saying the issues don't exist. I'm just saying that the wide scale awareness (and therefore public acceptance) isn't there yet.
I think we've found a closet Keynesian!
How? Keynesianism is about spending more, borrowing more and cutting in taxes during bad times and taxing more and spending less during good times.
By a minority, yes.
I'm not saying the issues don't exist. I'm just saying that the wide scale awareness (and therefore public acceptance) isn't there yet.
That I have not said anything against. It is still important issues to adress to. As we need to have the same rights and liberties for everyone. Even the miniority and the weakest.
Now I feel like a idiot, but what does "reign in" mean? Does that mean that Heath and Maggie alliance replaced Powell supporters, or that they are mearly contesting him and we will see another faction struggle in Conservative Party?
- Status