-
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.
Wait... I caught up? Nonono, that can't be true.. Where's the next page? I've been 'flipping' for bloody ages now... Come on, don't hide it... Erh, wait a sec.. *scratches head..* This is it? I have to wait for new updates like everyone else now? Oh my... Bummer.. I'd just gotten used to updates flying off the pages, albeit only once every 3-5 pages or so.. But still.. I can't wait.. I need an update.. Now!! Just a little update.. Just one.. I really need it you know.. Please?
Get in line buddy, the rest of us have been waiting since 2007!
- 1
Its stimulates the mind. The RN is particulary interesting, as it includes some of the never-were designs.
- 1
Chapter LXXXII: A Third Way.
Chapter LXXXII: A Third Way.
When Sir Johns Simons announced his grand gesture of leaving the government he managed to carry his party with him, both the MPs and constituency associations agreeing they had been marginalised and couldn't tolerate being blackmailed or their leader unceremoniously demoted. However it soon became apparent this unity did not extend to any clear idea of the party's next move, a problem only exacerbated by the emergence of something of an existential crisis amongst the membership. To understand this problem we must first note that the original rift in the Liberal Party over trade had, if not healed, then certainly scabbed over well enough to be worked around. Therefore, as the remaining differences in political platform were considered scalable, there was a strong body of opinion in the National Liberal party that a merger with the Liberals was not only possible but desirable. In pursuit of this tentative talks had been attempted several times, however they always broke down over the question of support for the National Government. It is therefore easy to see why many wondered what the point of being a National Liberal was if they were not in government, with the single biggest barrier to merger removed it was hoped a reunification could be engineered and with it the dream of a Liberal majority government. The key problem for the party was the significant portion who did not think that way, those who drew the opposite conclusion and decided they should abandon the pretence of being a different party and just merge with the Conservatives they had supported for years. Had this problem occurred in isolation it is likely the party would have split along such lines and the body politic moved on with a rump National Liberal Party withering to extinction as it was squeezed between the Conservatives and Liberals. However it did not occur in isolation, as Simons was leaving Downing Street the Labour party was involved in a most almighty fight over it's own future, a fight that provided the impetus for a most unexpected development.
The Labour row had been brewing since the election of the TUC's (Trade Union Congress) candidate, Arthur Greenwood, as Labour leader at the 1936 spring party conference. In the months that followed Greenwood and the TUC had worked tirelessly behind the scenes to reshape the party, increasing trade union influence at the cost of the other pillars of the party. As one unchangeable Labour Party rule was that 'Party conference is the supreme authority of the party" the first real fruits of their efforts blossomed at a specially arranged autumn conference in early October. The tone was set when the union block vote pushed through the solid union man George Dallas as the new chair of the National Executive Committee (NEC), Dallas being selected for his vehement anti-communism and 'reliable' views on nationalisation. The following week would see the conference presented with several large changes to the party programme (the specific policy proposals and ideas which formed the basis of any manifesto and to which the whole party was theoretically committed). The changes began gently enough, dropping the commitments to collective security and disarmament in favour of re-armament and stronger Imperial Defence. While this riled the still somewhat pacifist Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) the rest of the conference fell into line, recognising that a continuation of their old policies, especially such extreme ideas as trying to abolish national air forces, had been unfortunate mistakes. However as the week progressed and the emphasis shifted to economic areas this limited sense of agreement vanished, divides opening up between the "worker" and the "intellectual" wings of the party. The first issue was trade policy, from the TUC the matter was clear; Empire Free Trade and Imperial Preference had worked and helped to keep their membership employed and safe from foreign competition. This was in stark contrast to much of the PLP and the socialist societies who believed full free trade was the correct path, in the event however they were outvoted by the unions and the constituency associations who recognised it's populist appeal. The problems only worsened as the arguments continued over the latest interpretation of Clause IV, the clause of the Labour constitution that committed the party to "Common ownership of the means of production". After two Labour governments had entirely failed to deliver meaningful progress towards this objective, the TUC was keen for a nailed down and unequivocal commitment to nationalisation of the 'commanding heights' of the economy as a top priority, complete with either worker control or significant worker representation. This was opposed by both the economic moderates of the right and the constituency associations; the former believed in 'public ownership' where industries were run for the good of the country not just the workers, while the latter feared it would undo all the work of MacDonald's government in making Labour seem 'safe' and electable. However with the TUC, socialist societies and the remainder of the PLP united this too was pushed through on the final day of the conference.
The Labour MPs Herbert Morrison and Philip Baker. Entirely aptly their position in the photo mirrors their party allegiances, Morrison on the right while Baker is on the left. Both men were out of favour with the new leadership though for different reasons; the tireless disarmament campaigner Baker falling foul of the new policies on re-armament and arms exporters (his books such as "Hawkers of Death: The Private Manufacture and Trade in Arms" being thought particularly unsuitable) while Morrison was considered 'unsound' as his nationalisation of London's transport system into the London Passenger Transport Board had not ensured 'suitable' trade union and worker representation. While there was unarguably a degree of personality clashes in such exclusions the dominant theme was of a union clampdown, having gained control the TUC was determined not to 'waste' the next Labour government on MPs who it didn't completely trust to carry out the new policy platform as soon as possible.
As the party digested the conference it appeared party unity would triumph over disagreements, the end of the Parliamentary recess certainly helped matters as it allowed the PLP to focus back onto Westminster and away from the bruising encounters of the conference. However hanging over the party remained the issue of the shadow cabinet elections, Labour having the unique practice of electing the membership of it's shadow cabinet, the party leader reduced to the role of assigning jobs from a selected 'pool' of MPs. With the election delayed first by the conference, then by overseas matters the date was finally set for the New Year and the PLP moved into full on electioneering move, 'going on manoeuvres' in Westminster speak, to push their own cause and get a shadow cabinet position. After the squeeze at conference the PLP hoped their acceptance of the TUCs programme would lead to a return to normal party politics and a few gestures of reconciliation, in both expectations they were to be sorely disappointed. As the rounds of voting and back room dealing progressed the key problem soon became apparent; the TUC's idea of compromise and a 'Shadow Cabinet reflective of the Labour Party' didn't match the visions the PLP and constituency parties had. For the union barons having the entirely non-union Clement Attlee as Deputy Party Leader was considered a major compromise, while letting the 'troublemaker' Aneurin Bevan in the shadow cabinet at all was their version of an olive branch (Bevan's 'crime' being to speak in favour of a British Popular Front of all left leaning parties, including the harder left parties so despised of the TUC). In the eyes of much of the PLP however it was the final straw, already marginalised on the NEC and with declining influence over party policy they now saw their career prospects reduced to hoping for favours from the Union barons. Strained too far the PLP moved to open revolt and the party splintered.
On the left of the party the pacifist grouping around Stafford Cirpps and George Strauss, still cowed after Cripps' disastrous leadership election run, saw the writing on the wall and decamped to the more left leaning Independent Labour Party to continue their dreams of disarmament, a Popular Front and 'true socialism'. Those on the right however faced a somewhat more complex problem, not only did they lack an existing party to jin but they were a less cohesive group to begin with. Indeed on purely policy grounds the differences were not insurmountable; disagreements over the exact definition of "Common Ownership" were not serious enough to cause a split in normal circumstances while the differences between 'fair trade' as opposed to 'free trade' were fairly academic when Labour was already committed to state control of prices and all imports and exports. The problem was therefore partly personality but mostly one of trust, men such as Herbert Morrison and Hugh Dalton were just not trusted to implement the new party platform as they were both on the right of the party and had been a part of MacDonald's 'failed' governments. The latter was particularly serious and, though a select few MacDonald men were let in as a gesture, many were not as the leadership pinned it's hopes on the new generation of candidates standing at the next election. Unsurprisingly the rejected MPs did not relish the prospect of a life on the backbenches as 'penance' for something many were actually proud of and began looking for alternatives. They soon realised that the only sensible options were acceptance of their fate and hoping for a change in the leaderships thinking or the radical option of leaving the party. While staying and hoping was unpalatable, especially to the ambitious, without the 'grass roots' support of volunteers and constituency associations leaving the party would mean all but certain defeat at the next election, and for much the group it was thought better to be a back bencher than a no-bencher. It was at this stage that Labour right's search for a better option overlapped with the ongoing Liberal reunification talks, a long and liquid meeting between the parties at the House of Common's bar prompting a most radical solution; a new party of the left.
Sir Archibald Sinclair, Liberal Party leader. Sinclair had continued the leftward drift of the Liberal party that had began under Asquith and Lloyd-George, preferring the legacy of 'social' liberalism and the retributive 'People's Budget' to the 'classic' liberalism of Gladstone. There was however a distinct lack of ideological drive or vision for the country, successive leaders had limited their horizons to holding the party together and trying to shore up their vote, limited goals that Sinclair's predecessor Herbert Samuel had failed at so badly he had lost his own seat and seen the party slip to fourth place in the 1935 election behind the National Liberals. When the idea of a new party was proposed therefore the problems would not be policy, though there were differences (Temperance 'reform' being one, introducing Prohibition to Britain was not considered a good idea by the Labour contingent) there was also much common ground on ideas such as free trade, massive state interventionism and nationalisation (though not the worker control favoured by the TUC) and punitive redistributive taxes. One distinct Liberal policy that did interest the Labour group was electoral reform, their conversion to the policy coinciding with their discovery of the advantages proportional representation gave to smaller parties.
The new grouping was inevitably based on the Liberals, the local Liberal Associations were the only organisation that could form the basis of the vital constituency machinery and they initially had more MPs, though as notional National Liberals returned to the Conservative Party and wavering Labour members defected as the party gained momentum that advantage became slenderer. The knotty question of Leadership threatened to derail the entire project; after tense negotiations the Labour contingent agreed to settle for a Liberal leader provided they could propose one of their own as an influential deputy leader, a vital concession but one that merely highlighted Liberal divisions. This should have been a simple problem, the National Liberal leader John Simons indicated he had no intention of joining the new 'leftist' party and indeed was trying to turn his fellow party members against it, thus the Liberal leader Archibald Sinclair should have been the only choice. However Sinclair was not an impressive character, having been selected as Liberal leader almost by default he had failed to tackle the large hole where a vision for the country should have been while his main leadership idea (opposition to continental dictatorships) had been thoroughly hijacked by the other parties with his party gaining almost none of the credit. Worse still he had a personal manner to rival that of the thoroughly dislikeable John Simons, hardly an ideal qualification for a man who had to weld several disparate groups into a cohesive party. The choice therefore fell to the National Liberal deputy leader Ernest Brown, his key qualifications being the cabinet experience deemed vital for the party to be taken seriously and a broad base of support, quite aside from the remaining National Liberals he was well thought of in Labour circles for his efforts assisting distribution workers to form trade unions and his work on wage control and compulsory labour arbitration. That just left the question of a name, while many favoured keeping a 'Liberal' based name that was a double edged sword, while the tag of 'Liberal' still carried both cachet and votes it was a confused label; it was not uncommon for pure Conservative candidates to claim to be 'National Liberals' to boost their vote, worse the previous election had seen some constituencies producing ballots containing the options Liberal, Liberal National, National Liberal and Independent Liberal and thoroughly confusing the voters. The decisive requirement though was the need to reflect the permanent leftward shift of the party, a vital condition of the Labour contingent and recognised as a necessary step to end the Liberal confusion. In stark contrast to the earlier wrangling the naming debate was mercifully brief, the new leadership rapidly settling on the somewhat unwieldy choice of Liberal Social Democrats or LSD.
Notes:
Another beast of an update but what can I say? How often do you get to start a new party named LSD? Should be fun if they survive till the 1960s!
Was this likely? Well the TUC never had much faith in it's MPs, McDonald's two governments weren't particularly effective or indeed very socialist so the strains were already present. The reason given by McDonald's apologists was such timidity was needed for the party to 'become respectable', an argument that only works if the party does indeed make progress. Now TTL the TUC isn't seeing that progress, the 1935 election didn't go well (OTL they gained 100 seats, TTL barely 50) and they blame the MPs for being too pacifist and not being bold enough enough and they're probably right on both, certainly the PLP was pacifist and wasn't very bold on anything till after the war was well under way. Therefore I can see the TUC saying going for a clear out, what's the point in compromising your beliefs for 'electability' if you're not even getting elected?
The new party, now that is less clear. Cripps and Co. heading off for the far left is easy enough, he was thrown out OTL for wanting a popular front and was an avowed Marxist so would never get on with the anti-communist TUC. The Liberal-Nat Liberal merger was apparently regularly on the cards but kept stumbling over the 'support the national government' blocker, presumably there was some fudge on trade policy and the rest of the Liberal platform was so vague no-one noticed the huge policy chasms elsewhere. So I can see it happening, but with a great deal of Nat Lib MPs jumping ship and formally joining the Tories as they don't like the new leftward lean of the new party.
The big question though is would the Labour right join? Morrison was not popular with the unions and was massively ambitious so he would certainly do something, while Dalton was on the right of the party (look at his protégés Gaitskell and Crosland) and was not above scheming or madcap ideas. So not impossible or indeed even that unlikely I'd say. For those who charge me with another convenient event I say two things; 1. Wait and see
and 2. If I was doing convenient change I'd have a proper classical liberal party come back espousing economic liberalism and personal freedoms and then install them for 50 years of constant rule ala the LDP in Japan.Anyway for those bored of politics and such you will be relieved to hear I have abandoned plans for making welding interesting and will go straight to the boat porn in the next update.
Last edited:
- 2
- 1
You really hate Labour, eh? Considering that I had Morisson defect and act as Winston's Home Secretary....
- 1
A new party LSD or £S D or Pounds, shillings and pence. A sensible party committed to free trade and sound progressive and modernist industrial polices.. as long as it not lead by Brown!
- 1
Well, LSD certainly sounds diverse/incoherent enough that I wonder about its staying power--though it certainly is a big tent and might be able to grab a number of constituencies.
Perhaps you can work the contemporary "welding v. riveting" debate into the naval update.
Perhaps you can work the contemporary "welding v. riveting" debate into the naval update.
- 1
"If I was doing convenient change I'd have a proper classical liberal party come back espousing economic liberalism and personal freedoms and then install them for 50 years of constant rule ala the LDP in Japan."
How cruelly you dangle this before us only to snatch it away...
The demise of the liberals, beginning I suppose with Gladstone's departure, is, I think, one of the saddest tales of British history, and probably represents the latent demise of much of the whig tradition and by extension much of what was viewed as having defined Britain for centuries.
This country never did recover.
How cruelly you dangle this before us only to snatch it away...
The demise of the liberals, beginning I suppose with Gladstone's departure, is, I think, one of the saddest tales of British history, and probably represents the latent demise of much of the whig tradition and by extension much of what was viewed as having defined Britain for centuries.
This country never did recover.
- 1
LSD? Do I sense Labour-hate and a comparison to weed smoking numbskulls?
PS: To your credit, I do believe labour parties of Europe have lately gone soft. And I don't know of this is an appropriate place to do so, but please, please, please stop trying to hawk Tony Blair as EU president! We don't want him either!
PS: To your credit, I do believe labour parties of Europe have lately gone soft. And I don't know of this is an appropriate place to do so, but please, please, please stop trying to hawk Tony Blair as EU president! We don't want him either!
- 1
trekaddict - Not hate, that's far too mild a word for what I feel about those gentlemen. The absolute, most generous interpretation I will allow is that they don't try to ruin the country it just happens because they're jaw droopingly inept and could be out witted by a severely retarded puppy with ADHD.
Chief Ragusa - That's one possibility, though probably not the most likely!
DonnieBaseball - I have a far more cunning plan for the fascinating subject of welding.
And yes LSD will have internal problems, though as always success can mask almost anything so it depends on whether the public buys into the idea or not.
Praetonia - If you can think of a plausible way to have a classical Liberal revival I'd love to go for it. However I think you'd need a pre-WW1 PoD, certainly I fear the 1930s are far too late.
Onto cause, I'd say while Asquith was less than ideal the real damage came from David Lloyd-George, if he had been kept away from the Liberal party there might have been a chance for it to survive. It could be a marvellous timeline, depends on the butterflies for WW1.
C&D - I never wanted him for anything save perhaps target practice (see rant at top). However as the EU insists on having a President despite almost no-one being allowed to vote on it (and even then told to keep voting till they get the right answer) inflicting Blair on Brussels is the very least we can do as a form of revenge. I personally hope 'Agent Blair' is so successful the entire EU project is abandoned and Europe agrees a Common Market was about right.
As for the Liberals, it's not really hate just intense annoyance at their abandonment of their roots in favour of a social democrat authoritarian mess. No real Liberal would ever dream of Prohibition for instance, personal liberty was the foundation of the party. If your going to drop that and decide that in fact you know best and want to tell everyone what to do at least have the decency to change your name to 'Not Very Liberal Actually' party.
And as a cheerful thought for the tankers out there, I was on holiday last week and managed to see the quite excellent Tank Museum at Bovington. This has caused a significant rethink of the up coming tank update with, I hope, results you'll like.
Chief Ragusa - That's one possibility, though probably not the most likely!
DonnieBaseball - I have a far more cunning plan for the fascinating subject of welding.
And yes LSD will have internal problems, though as always success can mask almost anything so it depends on whether the public buys into the idea or not.
Praetonia - If you can think of a plausible way to have a classical Liberal revival I'd love to go for it. However I think you'd need a pre-WW1 PoD, certainly I fear the 1930s are far too late.
Onto cause, I'd say while Asquith was less than ideal the real damage came from David Lloyd-George, if he had been kept away from the Liberal party there might have been a chance for it to survive. It could be a marvellous timeline, depends on the butterflies for WW1.
C&D - I never wanted him for anything save perhaps target practice (see rant at top). However as the EU insists on having a President despite almost no-one being allowed to vote on it (and even then told to keep voting till they get the right answer) inflicting Blair on Brussels is the very least we can do as a form of revenge. I personally hope 'Agent Blair' is so successful the entire EU project is abandoned and Europe agrees a Common Market was about right.
As for the Liberals, it's not really hate just intense annoyance at their abandonment of their roots in favour of a social democrat authoritarian mess. No real Liberal would ever dream of Prohibition for instance, personal liberty was the foundation of the party. If your going to drop that and decide that in fact you know best and want to tell everyone what to do at least have the decency to change your name to 'Not Very Liberal Actually' party.
And as a cheerful thought for the tankers out there, I was on holiday last week and managed to see the quite excellent Tank Museum at Bovington. This has caused a significant rethink of the up coming tank update with, I hope, results you'll like.
- 1
I'll admit a party, lead by a man named Brown, named for a 1960s hallucengenic experience has a pretty far-feetched expectation of General Election success.
I rather doubt Blair wants the job, anyway. With your TTL, El Pip, may the EU never get off the ground.
With all the politicking, I have clean forgot there's a war going in. Makes a change for troops to actually have the kit they need before fighting the critical battles.
I rather doubt Blair wants the job, anyway. With your TTL, El Pip, may the EU never get off the ground.
With all the politicking, I have clean forgot there's a war going in. Makes a change for troops to actually have the kit they need before fighting the critical battles.
- 1
That picture makes me think that Sinclair looks a little like Marlon Brando, especially the eyes and the lips. "The horror, the horror" indeed.
- 1
Good lord! Liberal This...Liberal That...makes my head spin.
Morrison: Why is my bag so heavy?
Morrison: Why is my bag so heavy?
Last edited:
- 1
I think you're right about that. The whole tradition of liberalism started to go out of fashion in the late 19th century and by the 30s it was just various groups of authoritarian collectivists fighting it out amongst themselves over minor points of dogma. While a lot worse in Europe, this was epitomised in the UK, I think, by Oswald Moseley's having been a fascist, a Labour minister and a Tory within the space of a few years, and without any major alterations to his views (another, incidentally, in favour of future European Empire, another 30s collectivist authoritarian idea, but I fear I am going terribly off-topic...)
That said, I think the real intellectual damage to the Liberals can be traced back to J S Mill. By replacing an absolute attachment to human liberty with a mere utilitarian preference for it, the Liberals simply became more and more socialist at the time when socialism seemed a better utilitarian choice to most of the intelligensia. They weren't defeated or out-argued as such, they simply started believing in their opponents' ideas and abandoned their old ones. Arguably Thatcher revived liberalism in this country somewhat, but relying on the Tories for enduring principles is a very risky business, as the Post-War Concensus and now Cameron are showing.
Some sort of United Crown Commonwealth of the white dominions under almost continuous classical liberal rule, and with stepped introduction of voting and/or home rule for India and other colonies, would be a very rosy world indeed, though I fear rather too gamey for HoI2.
- 1
Reminds me of the old joke...
Q. What do you call a union official who takes his dog for a walk?
A. A new faction!
Can I suggest that electoral success may mean that the volume of former Labour converts would mean the removal of the 'L' in LSD long before the 60's make the name electorally problematic.
And if it isn't electorally successful... then the 60's are the least of the party's problems!
One thing I didn't get to do in England was go to Bovington... Mrs Duritz drew a line in the sand and it was a 2 pounder shot short of going there!
I wait with baited breath for your tanking update... and maybe you took some good shots while you were there? Going with the tank porn theme, I'm expecting a pic of you stradling a Churchill ala Cher in her music clip!
Dury.
Q. What do you call a union official who takes his dog for a walk?
A. A new faction!
Can I suggest that electoral success may mean that the volume of former Labour converts would mean the removal of the 'L' in LSD long before the 60's make the name electorally problematic.
And if it isn't electorally successful... then the 60's are the least of the party's problems!
One thing I didn't get to do in England was go to Bovington... Mrs Duritz drew a line in the sand and it was a 2 pounder shot short of going there!
I wait with baited breath for your tanking update... and maybe you took some good shots while you were there? Going with the tank porn theme, I'm expecting a pic of you stradling a Churchill ala Cher in her music clip!
Dury.
- 1
Chief Ragusa - Well LSD will be pitching themselves as the safe alternative to the Conservatives. If you don't like the Tories but are (entirely correctly) afraid voting Labour will mean the state running everything badly and inspectors nosing into your house then you should vote LSD.
It's not an impossible platform but I'm not expecting to see Ernest Brown as PM come the next in game election. Which will probably not happen till after the next real UK election.
Sir Humphrey - Apparently Sinclair was considered quite the charming and daper gentlemen in public. Just an unbearable and antisocial arse in private and not really very good at politics.
Nathan Madien - It is confusing, fortunately there are now only three parties that really need worrying about. Certainly that will be my policy going forward as I really cannot face the prospect of even seriously thinking about the mass of stragglers; the rump National Liberals, Lloyd-George's merry band of Independent Liberals, the actual independents and so on. Not to mention National Labour, Independent National Labour and a dozen other groups that I'm fairly sure no-one is that bothered about.
Praetonia - One should never rely on any UK political party for enduring principles, indeed I would wager a similar statement applies to any political party the world over on a reasonable timeframe (i.e being voted out of office then returning to power).
On JS Mill I admit I'd not thought of it that way, but I concede it is a most interesting theory and one I will have to consider. Equally a United Crown Commonwealth sounds an excellent utopia(ish) idea, perhaps have Cecil Rhodes convince a not-Asquith Liberal Leader that an Imperial Parliament type idea is a good one. Not impossible though given the problems over Irish Home Rule I suspect the domestic fall out would be severe, possibly even fatal.
Duritz - Dropping the L would be more honest certainly, though I think it will depends on the election results and if I make the mistake of opening up the UK election to reader voting. Based on what happened in the US election I dread to think what could happen, it could be an LSD landslide!
Shame you missed Bovington, it was an excellent experience though sadly I'm less than convinced with some of the photos. Still you can do wonders with photo-editing these days I'm told.
It's not an impossible platform but I'm not expecting to see Ernest Brown as PM come the next in game election. Which will probably not happen till after the next real UK election.
Sir Humphrey - Apparently Sinclair was considered quite the charming and daper gentlemen in public. Just an unbearable and antisocial arse in private and not really very good at politics.
Nathan Madien - It is confusing, fortunately there are now only three parties that really need worrying about. Certainly that will be my policy going forward as I really cannot face the prospect of even seriously thinking about the mass of stragglers; the rump National Liberals, Lloyd-George's merry band of Independent Liberals, the actual independents and so on. Not to mention National Labour, Independent National Labour and a dozen other groups that I'm fairly sure no-one is that bothered about.
Praetonia - One should never rely on any UK political party for enduring principles, indeed I would wager a similar statement applies to any political party the world over on a reasonable timeframe (i.e being voted out of office then returning to power).
On JS Mill I admit I'd not thought of it that way, but I concede it is a most interesting theory and one I will have to consider. Equally a United Crown Commonwealth sounds an excellent utopia(ish) idea, perhaps have Cecil Rhodes convince a not-Asquith Liberal Leader that an Imperial Parliament type idea is a good one. Not impossible though given the problems over Irish Home Rule I suspect the domestic fall out would be severe, possibly even fatal.
Duritz - Dropping the L would be more honest certainly, though I think it will depends on the election results and if I make the mistake of opening up the UK election to reader voting. Based on what happened in the US election I dread to think what could happen, it could be an LSD landslide!
Shame you missed Bovington, it was an excellent experience though sadly I'm less than convinced with some of the photos. Still you can do wonders with photo-editing these days I'm told.
- 1
Kinda reminds me of the United States. For the Democrats, we got Liberals, Blue Dogs, and Joe Lieberman. For the Republicans, we got Moderate, Conservative, Neoconservative, Ultra Conservative, Right Wing Conservative, and I-Don't-Know-What-Channels-I-Have-Because-I-Only-Watch-Fox-News Conservative.
Last edited:
- 1
it could be an LSD landslide!
Look at the groovy colours, man!
- 1