Alternate Wikipedia Infoboxes IV (Do not post Current Politics Here)

Not open for further replies.
Winters Of Discontent: 1979


Margaret Thatcher and her proteges had hoped that a Conservative government she led would mark a neoliberal revolution. In a sense, it rather did; the government used its narrow majority to issue major cuts in public spending, though the Opposition emphasized the irresponsibility of doing this at the same time as enacting a 20% pay rise for the police, a move perceived by the left as a statement of intent with regard to the Tories' social policy.
The more distinct effect, however, was that the cuts began to worsen the economy, with the recession deepening and unemployment nearly doubling, reaching almost 2 million by autumn 1980 compared to around 1 million less than a year earlier. During one Parliamentary session, Tony Benn famously remarked, "If Labour wasn't working, Toryism really isn't working," and for once in his life, the public agreed with him: Thatcher had become the most unpopular Prime Minister in the history of public polling.

To make matters worse, numerous figures in her Cabinet such as Jim Prior, Francis Pym and Sir Ian Gilmour were dead set against her approach to government, and she quickly garnered a reputation for arrogance; during a meeting in August 1980 between her and Tory peer Lord Hailsham, who asserted that her policies would be as deadly to the party as Herbert Hoover's had been to the Republicans in 1932, she spat in his eye, and his revelation of the meeting made the front pages. The factionalism between her and her opponents was not helped by a reshuffle in September 1980, where she promoted ardent supporters of hers such as Norman Tebbit, Cecil Parkinson and (despite his reputation) Sir Keith Joseph while the aformentioned three 'wets' were dropped altogether; this was taken as an insult by moderate Tories, and is often viewed as instrumental in Thatcher's demise.

Despite the disastrous situation on the government benches, the Labour left was similarly disgruntled to the Tory left. Though Callaghan sought to balance the factions of the party, there was significant friction from the left, who clamored for him to step down so that a figure they cared more for such as Michael Foot or Peter Shore could replace him. Despite this, a bipartisan effort from figures ranging from Denis Healey to John Silkin stressed the need to 'deal with the bigger issue at hand', namely the extreme monetarism of the government. This front proved uniting enough to allow the party to achieve an embarrassing defeat for the government in the Southend East by-election of March 1980, when Thatcher ally Teddy Taylor lost as the candidate for a hitherto Tory stronghold.

Despite all her setbacks, Thatcher remained steadfast in her political convictions to the end. As she put it to the Conservative Party conference in October, 'You turn if you want to. The Lady's not for turning.' While her supporters touted this line triumphantly, in the end it highlighted her biggest flaw as a Prime Minister: her lack of capacity for compromise. In a delicious irony to Labour- not only thanks to her hubris, but to Callaghan narrowly avoiding the same fate- her government narrowly lost a motion of No Confidence on the 21st October, and she was forced to call a general election.

To her credit, Thatcher fought a clever campaign, capitalizing on Cecil Parkinson's skills as a campaigner to try and levy the potential Tory losses and putting forward a philosophy of 'Positive Change Takes Time'. However, the Tories' factionalism was immensely embarrassing, as some notable wets actively campaigned on their opposition to Thatcher's policies; by contrast, Labour organized campaigners carefully, with figures like Shore and Benn campaigning in poor or Labour-loyal areas to fire up the base whilst Shirley Williams and David Owen served as key campaigners for the marginals. Additionally, the SNP attacked Thatcher over her lack of consideration of Scotland's role in managing North Sea Oil, a more poignant issue given her by now developed reputation as a leader who cared more for ideology than unemployment.


While Callaghan was greeted with considerable skepticism due to his role in the Winter of Discontent, it was clear voters trusted him to be a more pragmatic and level-headed leader than Thatcher. Ultimately, Callaghan managed to win a fairly tight majority of 21; bigger, ironically, than he had enjoyed in his first term, but still the fifth consecutive election to deliver a majority of less than 40 seats for the government.

It is tempting (and certainly the accepted wisdom of people on the left) to characterize Thatcher as an ideologue blind to political reality, but it is perhaps fairer to characterize her approach as being in the wrong place at the wrong time; if given the time to develop properly, perhaps the neoliberal revolution dreamed of by her and her allies, and by economists like Hayek and Friedman, could have come. With a tight majority such as her government had, however, to have succeeded as a leader required compromises she was unwilling to make.

Despite the election seeming fairly underwhelming; a feeling reflected in the lower turnout compared to the previous year; the events of the next Parliamentary term would mark a seismic shift in British politics.
Last edited:
So, I've been finishing up the Ukrainian political parties, since I had done some of them last year and wanted to finish them up.

Anyways, some revisions that I haven't reposted here yet:


Formed as a unity list of several moderate regionalist parties, the All-Slavic Free Union is another Ukrainian oddity. While Panslavism has seen a resurgence in the Balkans, the Union is one of Europe's few Political Christianist parties to not embrace Synthesis Marxism and align with the Fifth International. Rather, the Union carries on the legacy of the Emergent Church of the early 21st century, basing its platform on the principle of brotherly love and compassion. The Union unites Ukrainians from all origins, whether they be ethnic Ukrainians from Kiev, Russians from the East, or Poles languishing in the Lviv refugee center. While their principles are based on Christian teaching, the brunt of their platform covers refugee rights, regional concerns, and social welfare.

The Party was the brainchild of Gregori Kurywczak, a seminary dropout and would-be poet. While his attempt to join the priesthood had ended in disaster, he still felt called to serve the lord. While scrapping by a living as a server at three different restaurants in Kiev, Kurywczak invested his free time in charity work and advocacy for refugees and migrants. While his writings and volunteerism went mostly unnoticed, in the Fall of 2025 he was asked to run for local office by his migrant advocacy group, which saw such a measure as the next step in spreading their message. While the campaign was unsuccessful, with Kurywczak garnering a mere 3.6% of the vote, the experience gave him a taste for politics. He ended up joining Ukraine's Christian Democratic Union. The party matched his values, but was undergoing the pains of their ideology rapidly becoming obsolete in the new, Post-Liberal world of the Long Crisis. Kurywczak, who began writing for the party newspaper, helped the party find a new foundation; using his platform, he worked to mesh contemporary Political Christianity with the party's aged Christian Democratic views. "Brotherhood" soon became his favorite word and the most common noun in the paper, and his writings on love as politics are still a notable component of the modern Thedomist canon. While he was never an active campaigner, there is little doubt that his blog and other writings contributed to the Christian Democratic Union's return to the Rada in 2039. Kurywczak was the 16th name on the party list, and the CDU won 16 seats through proportional representation.

Thrust into the position of MP of a minor party, Kurywczak was initially overwhelmed by the tumultuous Rada. Ukraine's parliament had been known for its brawls and lack of order since the Euromaidan, and these traditions continued under the Post-Liberal regime. Still, his impassioned rhetoric and appeals to the better nature of Ukraine's citizens made him a viral figure. As the CDU gained a greater foothold in the 2044 elections and sought to form a major bloc, Kurywczak was a key negotiator in shaping a shared platform and vision for the new organization. Wooing Russian regionalist and Polish refugee rights' parties, Kurywczak was able to craft a vision of a "fraternity of man," combining utopian rhetoric and Christian idealism as a path for Ukrainian greatness. In 2049, the All-Slavic Free Union list stood for elections and became the 4th largest party in the Rada.

After that point, the party's history became a bit less idyllic. While the bloc was a major player in the opposition, it frequently clashed with Ukrainian nationalist parties, who called the party "the traitor's list", accusing it of representing the Polish and Russian regimes more than it did Ukraine's. The party was almost dealt a death-knell when the Union attempted to build bridges with Svoboda , hoping to find common ground on Polish refugee issues. Svoboda quickly stabbed the Union in the back and aired the negotiation transcripts. While Svoboda's base didn't care about the event, the knowledge that the Union were in talks with Ultranationalists almost destroyed the list. The Union barely crawled over the 5% threshold in the 2054 and lost four-fifths of their seats. Kurywczak resigned as party leader in disgrace, retiring from politics to return to writing.

Fortunately for the Union, their voters' memories proved short. The Union was able to regain a good number of their seats in the 2059 elections, and formed a government with the Network Movement. While the Union and Movement both share a sincere progressive vision and compassion for Ukraine's people, there are still significant divides between the parties. The parties are split when it comes to body modification and the Movement's Zentrum membership, although the Union has acceded to the Movement's Synthetic Rights policies. The Union would also desire to see more social spending and refugee center expansion, but a Zentrum-sponsored government can only do so much. The 2064 elections saw further gains for the Union, whose new leader, Pavel Ozerov, has been quietly questioning whether working with the Movement is the best for Ukraine. Should the Free Union continue to work with the Transhumanists? Or is it time to lead the way towards a fraternity of man?


The Network Movement had its humble origins in the satirical Ukrainian Internet Party, a product of the tumultuous Euromaiden revolution. The Internet Party had its roots in pirate politics, with its platform covering topics such as internet access, tax reform, and e-democracy. Due to its peculiarities, the party was ignored as a joke party, and failed to gain any traction in the early 21st century. However, while the original founders of the party left politics to pursue ordinary lives, the mantle of the Internet Party was passed on, from activist group to activist group, who would use the party's brand and image to give their own spin on its message. Regardless, the core values of the party, freedom, human rights and democratic participation, stayed constant. Regional officers associated with the party began to win local elections. The party's brand slowly grew up in popularity, until 2025, when the party actually entered the Rada. This surprising win prompted reform and reorganization. The Internet Party renamed itself to the Network Movement, a signal of its new professionalism. While the Movement lost its seats in the Rada after the next elections, it dipped in and out of parliament through the coming years. The party entrenched its local support, developed a modern platform, and began to contest European elections. In 2059, the Movement became the largest party in the Rada and secured the Presidency.

This victory prompted panic and mobilization in neighboring Poland, with the United Polish regime terrified of the Movement's promise to allow more synthetics to immigrate to Ukraine, and thus, to the region. War would have likely broken out, save for the timely intervention of the Russian New Bolshevik Chairman, and tensions remain high til this day due to the Movement's success.

The Network Movement is a unique party. While the Movement was accepted as a member of the Zentrum International, the Movement only pays lip service to Post-Liberal ideology. While the Network movement does embrace market economics, their economic vision tends to herald back to earlier neoclassical economics and thus their policies can be described as either Rationalist in nature. While the party's platform has varied greatly over the decades, due to shifting leadership and a shifting zeitgeist, the party official endorsed Transhumanism as both a way of life and political aspiration at its 2045 party congress. During the Movement's tenures in government, it has been a fierce fighter for Synthetic rights and protections, as well as for safe and accessible RecTech.
Which part?

*He says, buying time...*

Really, all of it, but above all whether Synthesis Marxism is actually a left-wing ideology at all as its name suggests (I've been following this long enough not to be instantly fooled by names anymore), and by extension whether this means Political Christianity is some sort of Christian-social ideology.

Volkane Revy (13 July 1997–28 October 2073) was a Hephaestian diplomat who served as the Mechanical Republic of Hephaestia's Permanent Representative to the United Nations from 2049 until his death in 2073. Previously he was Director of the Hephaestian Border Guard (2047–2049), Ambassador to the United States of America (2042–2047) and Hephaestia (2038–2042). Volkane Revy was a professional linguist as well as polyglot; he was fluent in 11 Venusian languages, as well as English, Terran Greek, Terran Italian and Thai.

Volkane Revy was the son of famous Venusian/Hephaestian rebel general Volkane Alion and younger brother of Hephaestian adventurer Volkane Remiren. A true patriot of his country, Revy, as a diplomat, ardently defended his country's interests, especially when surronded by non-robotic Venusians who often stood against Hephaestia. He played a major role in the denouncement of the Venusian Corporate Act of 2049, which would cause the foreign plundering of Hephaestia's resources if approved, and managed to outline the administrative borders of the Meteor Rim in 2056. While distrusted for his unfortunate physical appearance, he was noted to be a "robot of intelligence and kindness" and "a diplomatic maestro".

Revy died in Harare on 28 October 2073 after his central processor violently malfunctioned. The Hephaestian Foreign Ministry and many other diplomats expressed their condolences.

An Eternity in Pulp:
Volkane Revy (YOU ARE HERE)

Martian Raider Conflict

How do robots have kids? Are they really cyborgs?
Really, all of it, but above all whether Synthesis Marxism is actually a left-wing ideology at all as its name suggests (I've been following this long enough not to be instantly fooled by names anymore), and by extension whether this means Political Christianity is some sort of Christian-social ideology.

The first one is easy. Synthesis Marxism is both left-wing and right-wing, or rather is a collection of tools and theories that can serve both left-wing and right-wing purposes.

Economically, Synthesis Marxism is left-wing, very much so. It's based on "quasi-markets," collective ownership and exchange based on "social debt/credit."

Culturally, it depends. About 50% of Synthesis Marxist parties are secular and are considered left-wing. The rest are religious, Theodomists, and are considered right wing. When it comes to parties that are actually in power, you're looking at 20% Left-wing and 80% Right-wing. For example, the primary Italian, Greek and Pakistani synthesis Marxist parties are secular left-wing parties, while most of the parties that came out of the Second Muslim Brotherhood are Islamic Theodomists and right-wing Synthesis Marxists.

Both sides believe in the same economic system and the same "Inverted Base-Superstructure" theory, but they differ on the type of society they are trying to create.

Political Christianity is the result of Christian Democracy selling its soul to the Post-Liberal devil.

The victory of the Greater Islamic Revolution sent a shockwave across the world. For the first time in decades, the West had been beaten decisively. The C.I.M. became the model for every organization trying to bring radical social change, including the Christian Right. Thus, you had the formation of the Christian International, an organization to bring together the Christian political movement. However, there were problems with this organization, namely, that it got captured by radicals. On one side, you had the Theodomists, and the other, the Christian Remnant.

Christian Theodomy was originally derived from Dominion Theology and other forms of religious conservatism in the west, and developed parallel to Political Islamism. In addition, parts of the ideology was inspired by Liberation Theology, although Theodomist academics will never admit it. Theodomy explicitly rejects the idea that secular idealism can serve as the basis of human law and morality. Theodomist thinkers have harshly criticized the individualist conception of human rights and ethics that were dominant in the post-modern world, pointing out that they served to create a society in which individual consumption was viewed as the ultimate goal of humanity. This, Theodomists claim, stripped mankind of its dignity and purpose as the created children of God. To solve this issue, the bedrock of society must be shifted from an individualist conception of a social contract, which they felt allowed individuals to manipulate and dominate one another, to a collective conception of a divine covenant with God. Theodomists also condemned earlier religious conservatives for having what they felt was an obsession with sexual immorality. While many Theodomist thinkers themselves did not exactly appreciate it, they did feel that it was a form of "surface immorality" and that hysteria and attempting to use the power of the state to repress it would only prevent one from curing "bedrock immorality," the true source of mankind's ills. Theodomists would find that their ideas meshed well with newly revitalized strains of leftist economic thought, and many Theodomists ended up advocating for Synthesis Marxism or Anarchism. The development of a formalized Islamic Theodomy, which involved a great deal of discussion between Christian and Muslim Theodomists, served as the bridge for leftist ideologies to become adopted by various Islamist organizations, including the Second Muslim Brotherhood.

The Christian Remnant in Europe was a product of the failure of the Christian International and the technocratic backlash against right-wing populism. The Vienna Consensus was the spark, and convinced many of these fundamentalists that anti-Christian forces were now in power, and that the Tribulation had begun. The movement justified their violence by claiming that the world had entered a new dispensation, and that such terror was now acceptable to destroy servants of the anti-Christ and liberate true Christians from its grasp.

The Christian Remnant movement has mostly died down. After all, the tribulation was only supposed to be around seven years long. While there are still true believers holed up in safehouses across the continent, they aren't as major a concern.

Conflict between these two visions of Christianity destroyed the Christian Right. Organizations either took sides, or became illegitimate and soon irrelevant.

This, of course, was an European phenomenon. The Christians of the developing world had different problems, and never got drawn into the radicals' debate. Rather, they would form their own political ideology, Political Christianity, a holistic form of social Christianity that paralleled Islamism.

EDIT: As for the Panslavism in the Balkans thing, the Second Bosnian War convinced a lot of locals that trying to discard ethnic differences in exchange for a common identity might not be the worst idea, especially if helps to stand up against further Serbian aggression.
Last edited:
Well, I know that you're all tired of Ukraine. I mean, it's a country with a government made of Transhumanists and Religious Progressive Panslavists, with more than 42 flavors of Nazi in the opposition. Of course, that's just the parties that broke the 5% threshold.

Really, I ought to make some boxes about someplace interesting, like Indonesia, or Scotland, or Brazil, or Italy.

But, I made all the Ukrainian logos, so you'll just have to wait for something else.


The Green-Agrarian Bloc is a unity list comprised of multiple mutualist, market socialist and unreformed socialist parties, and is the largest Left party in Ukraine. The Left in Ukraine has struggled to remain relevant since the fall of the USSR. Few trusted the post-Communists, and the Left found very little support among the masses. While the country had a fair number of Left parties, none were able to take more than a few seats in the Rada, and even fewer could keep those seats for more than a single election. However, Svoboda's fall opened up an opportunity. While many of Svoboda's voters supported their racist policies, others actually did vote for Svoboda for their radical economic plan, hoping for a blow against capitalism. To respond to this, fifteen socialist and green parties decided to form a united list, choosing a name evocative of the country's history of peasant parties, as opposed to a more explicitly socialist image. While the party had a campaign of change and populism, their platform was a genuine left-libertarian document, advocating for empowered unions and cooperatives, economic guarantees, and increased watches on the country's businesses. The party has also taken a strong anti-corruption stance, pointing out the progressives' failure to crackdown on the oligarchs that enriched themselves during the neo-Putinist period. While they remain a small force in the Rada, it was enough for them to finally break the 5% threshold, shooting up from a combined 1 seat to 19 seats.

At this point, the Bloc is looking to expand by absorbing more Left parties, uniting them under a successful banner. The Bloc's leaders have also been conferring with Ozerov, seeing if he'd be willing to potentially work with them in to form a government after the 2069 elections. While Ozerov hasn't said yes, they would be a preferable partner to the nationalists, assuming that the All-Slavic Free Union decides to part ways with the transhumanists.

Larger version of the logo:



Named after the squares in which their forums meet, the Maidan Party is the Municipalist party of Ukraine. The fierce suppression of Municipalism by the New Bolshevik government in Russia forced many of Municipalists there to seek refugee in Ukraine, and have become the core of a rejuvenated Municipalist movement in the country. Prior to this movement, Ukraine had some Municipalists, but not enough to start a popular movement. However, these Russian refugees included Municipalist thinkers like Lucas Anisimov and Clara Yegorova, important Municipalist writers and poets that had done their best to resist the old Russian regime, only to face a new, darker one. While their dreams of a sovereign Moscow and Saint Petersburg and the rejuvenation of Russian culture were at a close, they would turn their attention to aiding the struggling Ukrainian Municipalists build their movement. Kiev, a city famous for its public gatherings, was a fertile ground for Municipalist organizing. While the Municipalists would run for city government, they would begin organizing independent forums in Independence Square in 2053, allowing for any citizen to come with their concerns, complaints or propositions. While many mocked the Municipalists and their "play government," the Maidan forum quickly developed a reputation for being more effective than the city government. While they only had volunteers and individual contributions, the forums produced an atmosphere of solidarity and mutual aid. While they had little to share, forum-goers would do their best to help their neighbor, contributing labor, food and talent. With their notoriety growing, the Municipalist party changed their name to the Maidan party. The Maidan Party would establish permanent forums across Ukraine, some more successful than others. And while many thought that the Municipalists were strange and quaint, most respected their service.

The Maidan's biggest hurdle in gaining widespread popularity are their biological views. Ukraine is the most synth friendly country in Europe, and by some standards, the entire world. While the Maidan downplays their Deep Ecologist views, it's well known that Municipalists think that synths shouldn't exist, and it's an opinion that offends many Ukrainians. Those Ukrainians who strongly agree with anti-Synth sentiments are often ultranationalists, who see Municipalism as nation-wide suicide pill. The Maidan has gained some voters from Svoboda's fall, and were able to cross the 5% threshold in 2064, growing from 4 seats to 25. However, the Maidan will have a tough time growing larger, and even a tougher time entering government.
Last edited:
Miroslav Yegorova

No. No.

Miroslav is a Russian (if obscure) name, but it's a masculine name. Yegorova is a perfectly normal Russian surname, but look at its inflection. It's obviously a female surname.

That said, nice one, and I really love the irony of Russian influence in a party named after the Maidan.
Not open for further replies.