The only current AAR has to be read in two tabs simultaneously due to the choice of end notes. Not the most incisive of comments I know, but one that struck me.
I approve of this methodology.
Bit of a weird view, oppression and authoritarianism is surely the whole point of the Commonwealth not a threat to it. Utterly crushing anyone who dares express a view outside the approved socialist options is literally the law of the land.
And yet in the last chapter a fascist flag was flown openly on the streets of Birmingham with nary a second glance from Whitehall.
An organisation that explicitly preaches hatred against a group of people just because of where they are born turns out to be a breeding ground for violent terrorists?
I’ll be polite and describe this merely as a bizarre characterisation of an explicitly non-violent organisation campaigning for the promotion of the Welsh language.
The footnote was particularly depressing, the Welsh justifying murder of a scapegoat because the community refuses to admit it's own faults.
I’m going to leave aside your rather provocative assessment of Aberfan, because I really don’t want to get into a debate on it here.
What I will say is, on the murder point, the one time I’ve been entirely explicit about the fact that the Commonwealth authorities seem to have, to put it mildly, conducted a somewhat irregular trial, I’m surprised at your willingness to accept that the verdict is entirely sound.
Still at least the reservoir still got built, that is one positive.
I know you’re being glib, and I’m happy to engage in our backs and forths, but I do take issue with this sentiment as going beyond the realms of spirited critique and I feel like for the avoidance of doubt I should probably say as much.
(I accept in the Commonwealth there is no point in voting hence the low turnouts, but in a proper democracy this would be relevant).
Turnout at the March 1967 election was 73 per-cent. Turnout at last July’s election in our own world was under 60 per-cent. Am I to infer that you do not believe we live in a proper democracy?
Either way 'Empowering' an unaccountable commission is just an abdication of responsibility from the politicians, the terms of reference they set will determine what the outcome is so the commission is just a formality.
With respect, I think either this is a slight misreading of what’s being proposed, or I’ve been unclear in my writing. “Empowering a commission” here means setting up a commission to make a full audit of the state of the coalfields and make recommendations (and, I stress again, recommendations) for closure based on a reasoned review of the situation. The alternative, as proposed in Lewis’s bill, is an incredibly blunt instrument whereby the fact that safety standards need to be improved would be automatic justification for closing a pit. Never mind whether it needs £10 of investment or £1 million. It will be in the firing line. Setting a commission up is an admission from the Labourists that closures will probably need to take place, as they have been throughout the Sixties, but it shouldn’t be so as hoc or potentially motivated by grievances against the miners’ unions.
The second part makes it more damning because the two matters are absolutely linked. The safety measures needed will depend on the local geology, age of mine, type of mining, etc so there will be huge variations in cost and indeed final outcome. If Pit A needs £10 to improve safety but Pit B needs £1,000,000 then that really should feed into which one you shut, surely you want the most safety for your money. Or at least you should, but I realise I shouldn't expect such things from the Commonwealth, that sort of thinking is probably illegal.
See above. You summarise quite nicely what is in fact the proposal under consideration.
Damning if true. "The quality of this chamber is so piss poor that even someone I personally cannot stand to work with and have just formally split with, is still the right man to lead." Actually looking at the Assembly that probably is true.
Quite. A sticky wicket, and obviously unsustainable. Hence everything that follows.
Hard to feel much sympathy for him I must admit and I doubt his reputation is going to improve with time, given the hints of how the future turns out there is no "If only he'd done this moment", or at least none which anyone will want to openly speak about.
I know already that the Seventies will not satisfy your desire for total, biblical vengeance to be wrought against all who participate in the Keynesian welfarist entity known as “the Commonwealth”, but nevertheless: wait and see.
As there is an epilogue to come I will hold off on the full congratulations, but my compliments on reaching this point and completing the main work. As always I look forward to the Epilogue to enjoy the writing, while trying not to think too much about the baleful content.
Thank you Pip. Always a pleasure.
Unless there are worker committees, there is no practical difference between a cabal of owners controlling the coal mines...and a cabal of politicians, particularly politicians who have refused to enact reform or serve the interests of labor.
It's just the same thing, with slightly different people trying to do the same thing.
I don’t disagree. Except to point out the one very key difference that, under nationalisation, the coalfields aren’t run for private profit but (in theory, I know) for the common good.
And because we’re still in the Twenties and no one has seen how bad nationalisation can turn out yet, this theory remains as good as any, and certainly a damn sight more appealing than the coal owner getting rich off appalling suffering and exploitation.
Masterful, Denss! Just masterful. Finally got round to reading this last portion and it strikes me as very much "the more things change, the more they stay the same." Which is not to say the interpretation of this alt-history is lazy but rather it seems inevitable that such unrest, especially vis-a-vis youth vs. the elder generation, would rear its head in such ways.
Thank you, coz! Very kind.
Glad you’ve found the time to read.
If I had to quibble at all, I would say I do not for a second believe that John Lennon and Vanessa Redgrave would be partners. Though, of course, I appreciate the leading song as Lennon is my hero in life even if I disagreed with his politics (shoot...I bet 1980 Lennon disagreed with 1970 Lennon, so he and I are of like minds). What John required was a mum. Strong, yes...which Redgrave might provide (as we know her.) But also comforting and she has never struck me as such. Mayhap I am wrong.
I take your point. I can’t remember whether I’ve ever articulated this so I’ll have to go back and check my working, but in my mind Lennon has a much less troubled relationship with his mum in this world so the root of his exact neurosis is slightly different.
Having delightedly watched A Complete Unknown the other week when it came out, it occurred to me actually that this Lennon is much more of a young Dylan than necessarily a compete analogue for our own Lennon. Sort of indiscriminately anti-establishment rather than psychologically wounded.
But then I’ve never had the pleasure of meeting Vanessa, so maybe she’s comforting after all and the point is moot?
This would never be done without an attempt to utilize the army to regain control. Even an ineffective Labour government would have tried it...
This is stretching disbelief beyond breaking point. No government is this stupid.
Let's take examples from real history...I would characterize the Irish nationalists as far better organized, motivated, and trained than your groups here...and they struggled against the types of paramilitary organizations like the OMW. When they fought the actual army, they invariably lost.
This idea that somehow workers militias would be this competent is laughable.
Ha.
Hahahahahahaha.
It's not that easy. It's never that easy.
I have no doubt the people believe they are close to final victory...but man, will they be wrong.
I was in a few minds over how to respond to this. There’s a handful of things I want to say, and I’ll try and get them in as concise and coherent an order as I can.
The first and most important thing to remember is that, even though it is very heavily disguised, this is still an AAR, based on a game of Vicky 2 that I played six years ago. I never actually planned for this to become an AAR (never mind the behemoth it grew to be), but when late in the game the UK fell to a Communist rebellion I thought it seemed the basis for an interesting story and I decided that I would try and work out some way of telling it.
Now immediately of course this presented a problem, because as much as I am about as left-wing as it’s possible to be in Britain these days without being committed, I don’t really think that a mass social revolution is even remotely possible here. So approaching the task of trying to write something vaguely coherent while also having to grapple with what the game had given me – namely, 4 million communists (!), armed and disciplined enough to the point that they defeated the entire British army in the first year of uprising and then spent the next eighteen months consolidating control over the whole island of Great Britain – was never going to be straightforward. In game there was never any question of raising the troops for the simple reason that what little of a standing army Britain has had already been totally destroyed, and other manpower reserves had been drained by those 4 million communists laying siege to every single tile on the board.
This was another problem in itself. Never in the history of Britain have there ever been 4 million communists alive at one time. Any scenario which calls upon 4 million British communists is already – really – totally preposterous, either because it is a gross exaggeration, or because it evidently relies upon the existence of some sort of zombie army made up of every single communist who has ever lived in this country since the publication of the Manifesto. Totally absurd – unless, of course, one takes refuge in the world of fiction, which is where this work resides.
Which brings us squarely to the rub of it. Personally, I have always considered
Echoes to be a work of magical realism, or surrealism, or fantasy, or some sort of fairy tale. Contrary to what I suspect some may believe, this is not my attempt to outline how I think Britain could’ve fallen to a social revolution in 1929. Britain, birthplace of capitalism, boasts just about the most well-established, sophisticated counter-revolutionary apparatus in the world. In our own time, the 1926 general strike that
Echoes takes as its major departure point lasted nine days and ended in total defeat. The idea that this tepid affair could prolong itself for a
month, never mind the nearly three years I had to drag it out for, is almost unthinkable. If you hadn’t already left your sense of disbelief at the door when you saw the words “revolution” and “Britain” in the same sentence in the title, then I would politely suggest you are already taking this saga’s premise far too seriously.
None of this is to say I don’t stand by the fact that the story I’ve written is internally consistent. Of course, looking back six years on I would change some things. And knowing where I ended up taking things I’d tidy up a few early elements here and there. But fundamentally, given the massive caveats I’ve already laid out above, I don’t think the premise of this particular episode is “laughable” or “would never be done”. Why not send in the army? Well, the government
did send in the army. Multiple times. And each time it landed them in ever hotter water, radicalised more and more sections of the strike movement and put more people off an all-out civil war. Millions are out on strike by 1929. Leaving aside reactionary bluster about “taking back control”, what on earth would deploying the troops even look like? Seriously. Tens if not hundreds of thousands dead, and the same or more condemned as enemies of the restored state; the economy in tatters; the political system completely discredited; armed fascists emboldened and openly in control of the streets. Ramsay MacDonald may not have been so completely spineless as I’ve written him, but Christ, I’d have a hard time accepting he’d have the stomach for what “sending in the troops” actually implies by 1929. And it would all be for what? Winning back control of a terminally broken United Kingdom that would be all but a failed state.
As for the comparison with the Irish nationalists, I must admit I don’t agree with your assertion that they were more organised, more motivated and so on. To be blunt, anyone who’s stayed out on strike for over two years already possesses preternatural levels of motivation and belief in their cause. And why on Earth couldn’t they be organised? The left has its old soldiers and tacticians as much as any other group. Maybe they’d have a hard time getting materiel for so many people – but we’ve already established the Soviets are providing support in some way and this will surely include money and guns, smuggled in through the docks the workers have under their control. But all of this is still to miss the far more fundamental point that the Irish nationalists did actually win. Struggling against the army be damned, it didn’t help the British in the end.
All of which is a very long way of saying: your mileage may vary. But if you find this isn’t to your taste, I won’t be offended if you choose not to read the following hundred chapters.
It's not that easy. It's never that easy.
With the considerable caveat, “unless you are playing late-game Vicky 2”.
Another page finished. And I'm enjoying reading the comments and discussions as well.
The strike has gone from a low rumbling, to a tremor. Soon chaos will break loose.
Cheers Jak! Glad to hear you’ve been motoring along. Thank you for all your thoughts as you go.
It's ironic, the government and mine owners are reluctant to trust the strikers who return to work, yet the CPGB has no qualms about taking those right back. Really highlights the different priorities and beliefs of both sides.
And if the strike had ended in a way the government/owners wanted (as OTL), they would have to accept all the strikers back anyway. Otherwise they risk a shortage of workers. I guess while the strike is ongoing and a source of inspiration, the owners feel they can't risk it.
Sacking miners who’d returned to work wasn’t unheard of, sadly. Protections for people on strike in Britain at this time are minimal to nonexistent, and bosses often found they had a free hand to enact reprisals in practice. Certainly, by this stage in proceedings here it wouldn’t really improve things for the coal owners.
