Alternate Wikipedia Infoboxes VI (Do Not Post Current Politics or Political Figures Here)
- Status
RAS British Airways is a British regional airline operating domestic services across the Commonwealth of Great Britain and Ireland. Founded in 1934 as Railway Air Services, the airline was originally founded as a joint venture by the five major British railway companies and Imperial Airways to complement the latter's international services. Under the 1947 Aviation Act the airline, now RAS - British Airways, was designated a monopoly over domestic air services to complement Commonwealth Airways's monopoly over international services.
Since then the airline has taken many different forms in terms of ownership and scope. As of 2021, the airline is jointly owned by the British Transport Commission, a holding company owned by the Ministry of Transport and Communications, and a consortium of privately owned airlines dominated by Commonwealth Airways, with which it has codesharing and joint-ticketing arrangements. The primary remit of RAS is to provide regional services that would not necessarily generate profit, and is allowed to dominate certain domestic trunk routes (such as the London - Dublin shuttle) to subsidise loss-making routes that are deemed to be in the public interest.
Since then the airline has taken many different forms in terms of ownership and scope. As of 2021, the airline is jointly owned by the British Transport Commission, a holding company owned by the Ministry of Transport and Communications, and a consortium of privately owned airlines dominated by Commonwealth Airways, with which it has codesharing and joint-ticketing arrangements. The primary remit of RAS is to provide regional services that would not necessarily generate profit, and is allowed to dominate certain domestic trunk routes (such as the London - Dublin shuttle) to subsidise loss-making routes that are deemed to be in the public interest.
Initially based off a game of Campaign Trail I tried as Dole, then it sort of spiraled out. If you have any questions feel free to ask.
you've found the only possible system that's somehow worse than the electoral collegeInitially based off a game of Campaign Trail I tried as Dole, then it sort of spiraled out. If you have any questions feel free to ask.
I love it
So you win the election based on how disproportionate your count of states won is to your total popular vote?Initially based off a game of Campaign Trail I tried as Dole, then it sort of spiraled out. If you have any questions feel free to ask.
This system would give Breckinridge the victory in 1860, and it wouldn't be close.
Well, the "Romans" part of this post gave me an idea
What if, during the Crisis of the Third Century, the Gallic and Palmyrene Empires were more successful in expanding against the central Roman government, but after war weariness and seeing the difficulties of the unified Empire in the preceding decades, established an accord with each-other and essentially just established the Eastern and Western Roman Empires via a different path than the Diocletian path?
Originally I was just going to make minor edits, because frankly it just amuses me to imagine the split being established differently like that but then going on to otherwise go the same. However that was kinda boring so I changed things up a bit
Might do some more with this scenario, its a bit of a change from the more modern/ideologically oriented stuff I tend to do
The Roman Empire emerged from the West, but by the Third Century, the Western half of the Empire was decidedly the weaker of the two, on paper at least. It had a smaller population than the East, a less dense and more spread-out population, a less developed economy (as compared to the East, with older and more urban population as well as more established trade routes), and a longer frontier. Indeed Postumus' revolt, which established the Western Empire, was in a large part done simply due to the difficulty of the central government to protect the frontier in Gaul during the third century crisis
Given the weaker position, and the strains that the entire empire was facing, it could be seen as something of a surprise that the west survived over a thousand years longer than the east. A major reason why the west was able to survive, despite its weaknesses, was a tolerance and pragmatic openness to working with foreigners. In the latter parts of the fourth century, the entire frontier saw pressure from largescale migrations of Germanic peoples, themselves being pressured by the Hunnic invasions.
The Gothic Affair is exemplary of the contrast between the east and west on that matter. The Goths were one of the Germanic tribes pushed by the Huns to the borders of the empire, to the Balkan territory of the eastern empire in particular. The Goths didn't come with intent of war, and merely sought refuge and the ability to settle and serve the empire. The Emperor in the east did reluctantly grant the request, being busy campaigning against the Sassanids, but at the Emperor's order, the officials tasked with managing the settlement of the Goths had subjected the Goths to many abuses and exploitations, with the goal of spending as few resources as possible on the Goths while extracting as much profit as possible from them. Things eventually came to a head, and the Goths rose up in open revolt, pillaging across the northern Balkan territories. The Emperor in the east, in a fit of rage, ordered the execution of the entirety of the Goths, and began to mobilize an army for that goal. But by the time the army had arrived the Goths were gone from the east
The Emperor in the west sensed opportunity. He was facing a war on the frontier himself, as well as famine and plague in parts of the empire, and a rather irate and dissatisfied aristocracy, putting him in a rather insecure position. The Emperor watched with interest as the Gothic Affair erupted in the East, and reached out to the leaders of the Gothic rebellion, with an offer - just leave the east, and fight for the west instead. The west was near-bankrupt, but could promise fair treatment and land on the frontier, as well as some portion of the spoils of war there. The Goths wearily agreed, their army played a key role in turning the tide on the frontier, the Emperor stayed true to his word and treated the Goths as countrymen no less Roman than Italians, and the Goths became stalwart western loyalists and citizens. The move was controversial among the western aristocracy, with negative sentiment towards the newcomer migrants and the tolerance shown towards them, but the Emperor argued against the backlash, citing history of the Social War as an example of how exclusivity in regards to citizenship could create major issues for Rome, and aristocratic dissent was, if not ended, at least made less of a threat, with the Emperor's position strengthening due to acclaim of the victory on the frontier
The western empire continued to experience strife within and without, but the leadership came to take a stance of acceptance, accommodation, fair treatment, and integration of outsiders - provided they were willing to be brought into the system - that allowed for a flexibility and vitality that allowed the west to punch above its apparent weight. Meanwhile, in the east, a short diplomatic crisis emerged, with the eastern Emperor demanding the heads of the leaders of the Goths to pay for their rebellion, and threatening to go to war over the dispute. But the Emperor in the east died before any such war could emerge. A new border crisis soon occurred, with the Vandals also fleeing the Huns, crossing the border and begging the eastern Emperor for refuge - he instead declared the Vandals invaders, and led an army against them, dying on the field of battle in defeat, while the Vandals in righteous rage poured into the Balkans, sacking many cities as they went. Following eastern Emperors restored friendly relations with the west, but further hardened their stance against the tribes on the border, and even when the east eventually relented and reluctantly tried to adapt by giving tribes foederati status, relations between the eastern leadership and the newcomers were very prone to conflict. Indeed, the empire in the east was only ended during the reign of Julianus due to the Roman aristocracy refusing to pay their Germanic troops and generals, leading to their revolt
The eastern empire had also faced conflict over religion that helped lead to its fall. It was the more Christian half of the empire, and had eventually ran into issues with emperors converting, attempting to convert the entire empire, and then facing backlash over this from the Pagans and from various competing sects of Christianity as well. By the late era of the eastern empire, conflict had caused several outright rebellions as well as see-sawing back and forth between Christian and Pagan emperors. The west, meanwhile, also had sizable amounts of religious diversity (with Christians, Jews, and 'foreign' Pagans), but the traditional Roman civic religion was still a solid majority, and the emperors felt less threatened (or bothered at all) by the existence of religious minorities, largely feeling content with integrating them into the state religion or just leaving them alone. The lack of religious wars was thus one more advantage for the west, one more headache avoided that the east had faced
The empire in the west proved more durable than the east, but nothing lasts forever. The west, too, would decline over time, shrinking and facing more and more external competition. In 1561, the west, too, would finally fall for good. But the empire had an expansive legacy in many ways that survived the fall of the empire (indeed, the Turkic peoples who conquered the empire styled themselves as "Rumans"), and that legacy is still seen even today
What if, during the Crisis of the Third Century, the Gallic and Palmyrene Empires were more successful in expanding against the central Roman government, but after war weariness and seeing the difficulties of the unified Empire in the preceding decades, established an accord with each-other and essentially just established the Eastern and Western Roman Empires via a different path than the Diocletian path?
Originally I was just going to make minor edits, because frankly it just amuses me to imagine the split being established differently like that but then going on to otherwise go the same. However that was kinda boring so I changed things up a bit
Might do some more with this scenario, its a bit of a change from the more modern/ideologically oriented stuff I tend to do
The Roman Empire emerged from the West, but by the Third Century, the Western half of the Empire was decidedly the weaker of the two, on paper at least. It had a smaller population than the East, a less dense and more spread-out population, a less developed economy (as compared to the East, with older and more urban population as well as more established trade routes), and a longer frontier. Indeed Postumus' revolt, which established the Western Empire, was in a large part done simply due to the difficulty of the central government to protect the frontier in Gaul during the third century crisis
Given the weaker position, and the strains that the entire empire was facing, it could be seen as something of a surprise that the west survived over a thousand years longer than the east. A major reason why the west was able to survive, despite its weaknesses, was a tolerance and pragmatic openness to working with foreigners. In the latter parts of the fourth century, the entire frontier saw pressure from largescale migrations of Germanic peoples, themselves being pressured by the Hunnic invasions.
The Gothic Affair is exemplary of the contrast between the east and west on that matter. The Goths were one of the Germanic tribes pushed by the Huns to the borders of the empire, to the Balkan territory of the eastern empire in particular. The Goths didn't come with intent of war, and merely sought refuge and the ability to settle and serve the empire. The Emperor in the east did reluctantly grant the request, being busy campaigning against the Sassanids, but at the Emperor's order, the officials tasked with managing the settlement of the Goths had subjected the Goths to many abuses and exploitations, with the goal of spending as few resources as possible on the Goths while extracting as much profit as possible from them. Things eventually came to a head, and the Goths rose up in open revolt, pillaging across the northern Balkan territories. The Emperor in the east, in a fit of rage, ordered the execution of the entirety of the Goths, and began to mobilize an army for that goal. But by the time the army had arrived the Goths were gone from the east
The Emperor in the west sensed opportunity. He was facing a war on the frontier himself, as well as famine and plague in parts of the empire, and a rather irate and dissatisfied aristocracy, putting him in a rather insecure position. The Emperor watched with interest as the Gothic Affair erupted in the East, and reached out to the leaders of the Gothic rebellion, with an offer - just leave the east, and fight for the west instead. The west was near-bankrupt, but could promise fair treatment and land on the frontier, as well as some portion of the spoils of war there. The Goths wearily agreed, their army played a key role in turning the tide on the frontier, the Emperor stayed true to his word and treated the Goths as countrymen no less Roman than Italians, and the Goths became stalwart western loyalists and citizens. The move was controversial among the western aristocracy, with negative sentiment towards the newcomer migrants and the tolerance shown towards them, but the Emperor argued against the backlash, citing history of the Social War as an example of how exclusivity in regards to citizenship could create major issues for Rome, and aristocratic dissent was, if not ended, at least made less of a threat, with the Emperor's position strengthening due to acclaim of the victory on the frontier
The western empire continued to experience strife within and without, but the leadership came to take a stance of acceptance, accommodation, fair treatment, and integration of outsiders - provided they were willing to be brought into the system - that allowed for a flexibility and vitality that allowed the west to punch above its apparent weight. Meanwhile, in the east, a short diplomatic crisis emerged, with the eastern Emperor demanding the heads of the leaders of the Goths to pay for their rebellion, and threatening to go to war over the dispute. But the Emperor in the east died before any such war could emerge. A new border crisis soon occurred, with the Vandals also fleeing the Huns, crossing the border and begging the eastern Emperor for refuge - he instead declared the Vandals invaders, and led an army against them, dying on the field of battle in defeat, while the Vandals in righteous rage poured into the Balkans, sacking many cities as they went. Following eastern Emperors restored friendly relations with the west, but further hardened their stance against the tribes on the border, and even when the east eventually relented and reluctantly tried to adapt by giving tribes foederati status, relations between the eastern leadership and the newcomers were very prone to conflict. Indeed, the empire in the east was only ended during the reign of Julianus due to the Roman aristocracy refusing to pay their Germanic troops and generals, leading to their revolt
The eastern empire had also faced conflict over religion that helped lead to its fall. It was the more Christian half of the empire, and had eventually ran into issues with emperors converting, attempting to convert the entire empire, and then facing backlash over this from the Pagans and from various competing sects of Christianity as well. By the late era of the eastern empire, conflict had caused several outright rebellions as well as see-sawing back and forth between Christian and Pagan emperors. The west, meanwhile, also had sizable amounts of religious diversity (with Christians, Jews, and 'foreign' Pagans), but the traditional Roman civic religion was still a solid majority, and the emperors felt less threatened (or bothered at all) by the existence of religious minorities, largely feeling content with integrating them into the state religion or just leaving them alone. The lack of religious wars was thus one more advantage for the west, one more headache avoided that the east had faced
The empire in the west proved more durable than the east, but nothing lasts forever. The west, too, would decline over time, shrinking and facing more and more external competition. In 1561, the west, too, would finally fall for good. But the empire had an expansive legacy in many ways that survived the fall of the empire (indeed, the Turkic peoples who conquered the empire styled themselves as "Rumans"), and that legacy is still seen even today
Last edited:
You have Bush 41 with three terms there.Initially based off a game of Campaign Trail I tried as Dole, then it sort of spiraled out. If you have any questions feel free to ask.
So when the EC was changed, were the presidential term limits abolished too? Or, was Bush not president before Clinton?
Wait, wouldn't Bush 41 not be able to run for a third term in 2004? Unless another reform was passed abolishing the 25(?)th amendmentInitially based off a game of Campaign Trail I tried as Dole, then it sort of spiraled out. If you have any questions feel free to ask.
------
Regarding what's going on in Ireland--you're making us out to be the bad guys here, when we're really not. The Republic of Ireland crossed the border into our country (the IRA is funded by the ROI, despite what the American and Soviet news say). All we did was chase them back out, and made sure they stayed put. No crime in that.
唐太宗: wut
Bahungave: Pretty sure it is a crime to cross borders with an army
LordOfTheRats: doesn't like most of northern ireland want to join the republic of ireland anyway lol
唐太宗: "these people"
iReomp: @唐太宗 aren't you from Hong Kong
唐太宗: Yah
iReomp: Uhh... thoughts?
唐太宗: No good ones
SecretarySky: All of the stuff I'm saying has reliable sources, trust me, and I have consulted extensively with people who live in Hong Kong. They hate the riots. Period.
唐太宗: Look, Sky, I'm actually from Hong Kong. I've been to a couple of the peaceful protests, even. Most people here support the movement, some more passively than others, but the people who nowadays say they appreciate British rule are mostly upper-class white folks who moved here a few years ago and work in the government. And by the way--they aren't riots. They're protests, and they almost always start out peaceful and only turn violent when the police or army decide the Geneva Convention is for losers.
SecretarySky: 🙄
Bahungave: Bruh
Helvetica (MOD): *sighs* I knew it was a mistake inviting a Brit on the server. @SecretarySky is banned for imperialistic apologia, racism and generally being a dick.
Bahungave: Thank god, they'd already been kicked like ten times
------
Here There Be Dragons
这里有龙
------
A "rogue nation" is a country regarded as breaking international law and posing a threat to the security of other nations. Rogue nations stand alone, and are erratic in their behavior towards their neighbors and enemies. They pose a direct threat to the fragile balance of peace in which the world hangs.Here There Be Dragons
这里有龙
------
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the empire at their heel, is a rogue nation.
The Second World War left behind three superpowers in the wake of Nazi Germany's rampaging desolation: the United States of America, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union. Wartime cooperation had been strained but nevertheless remained smooth up to the surrender of the Japanese Emperor in 1945. Then came the inevitable--without a common enemy, the diametrically opposed capitalist West split with the communist East and took the world with them.
The 1950s proved as eventful as the decade preceding. Korea, divided on a north/south line between Soviet and American occupation, soon erupted into war, and the communists would win out. Disheartened, the United States felt compelled to refuse France when it demanded help in reconquering Indochina, and continued its push to get the nations of Western Europe to shed their colonial empires. Everything came to a head in 1956, when the Suez Crisis sent shockwaves around the world. The young nations of the Arab Republic of Egypt and the State of Israel had come to arms. Gamal Abdel Nasser, the leader of Egypt, had just nationalized the Suez Canal, the vital waterway connecting the Mediterranean and Europe to the Red Sea and Asia. Working in the shadows, Israel had conspired with the United Kingdom and France to invade Egypt, take back the canal, and topple Nasser. American president Dwight D. Eisenhower had strongly warned Britain not to invade, threatening incredible damage to the British financial system by selling the US government's pound sterling bonds. But the United Kingdom called his bluff. They knew that such an action would destroy not only Britain's economy, but America's as well. In effect, it was a kamikaze proposal, and Britain stood firm. They never got Nasser--the Egyptians proved too much of a hassle to get anywhere more than ten miles west of the canal--but the Sinai Peninsula was given to Israel, and the Suez Canal was under British dominion once more.
What followed became known as the Anglo-American Split, rivaled in preeminence only by the concurrent Sino-Soviet Split. The United States and United Kingdom gradually broke off cordial relations, breaking the West in twain. Europe by and large fell into Britain's camp, joined together by the infant European Economic Community, while the Americas and capitalist Asia followed the Americans. Determined to maintain their crumbling empire--already lacking its crown jewels--the British battened down the hatches and put their all into fighting insurrections and clamping down on nascent nationalist movements. It worked... kind of. As the Twentieth Century rolled on, the UK became so preoccupied in bailing out its boat that it didn't realize another hole was being poked in the hull. Following the incredibly controversial elections of 1959, which ended in a fragile minority Labour government helmed by left-leaning Aneurin Bevan, England was consumed by protests and riots. Mass anti-communist hysteria ran rampant, as many claimed Bevan had ties to the Soviets. This opened the door for one Louis Mountbatten--war hero and current First Sea Lord--who launched a coup, toppled the Bevan government, installed a moderate conservative, and then proceeded to vanish into the ether once more. The UK seemed alright at first glance, but their democratic systems were irreversibly decayed.
Things only got worse. The 1960s proved tumultuous for the world at large. The United States underwent the transformative Civil Rights Movement and was instilled with the new virtues of two-term president Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society. The Soviet Union tore through party chairmen, premiers, and first secretaries like tissue paper. And the United Kingdom hit its second coup on its journey down the democratic backslide. Authoritarianism shuttered the British Empire and sent thousands fleeing for greener pastures in Canada, America, and mainland Europe. New and cruel systems of apartheid were implemented in what few colonies they had remaining in Africa and Asia, keeping the common man down while presenting a facade of "democracy". Still, the revolutions and rebellions came and went, some successful, some not, continuing on into the modern day. Armed with nuclear weapons, devoid of allies, and laughing in the face of awkward cohabitation between the US, USSR, and PRC in the wake of the Cold War's close, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has become exactly what it prided itself on never being: the evil empire.
Hong Kong is a complex piece of the modern British Empire, treated simultaneously as the Crown Jewel of Asia and a poverty-stricken garbage heap. A vibrant economic sector had been built in the city throughout the Twentieth Century, but it was built on a foundation of clay. Rampant issues with incredible income inequality, homelessness, and housing prices brought the average Chinese resident to their knees in the shadow of skyscrapers. Neglected for so long, and with the People's Republic of China doing so well for itself, it seemed inevitable that something might happen in that tiny corner of Asia...
------
------
Many thanks to my pal @XFE for his help on this.
Last edited:
As a Hongkonger, that hit too close for comfort.SecretarySky: The thing you don't understand is that these people are destroying themselves. They complain about homelessness and housing prices then go and loot and burn and riot. It's hilariously counterintuitive. Hong Kong was better off before Abbott came in and fucked up the Empire.
------
Regarding what's going on in Ireland--you're making us out to be the bad guys here, when we're really not. The Republic of Ireland crossed the border into our country (the IRA is funded by the ROI, despite what the American and Soviet news say). All we did was chase them back out, and made sure they stayed put. No crime in that.
唐太宗: wut
Bahungave: Pretty sure it is a crime to cross borders with an army
LordOfTheRats: doesn't like most of northern ireland want to join the republic of ireland anyway lol
唐太宗: "these people"
iReomp: @唐太宗 aren't you from Hong Kong
唐太宗: Yah
iReomp: Uhh... thoughts?
唐太宗: No good ones
SecretarySky: All of the stuff I'm saying has reliable sources, trust me, and I have consulted extensively with people who live in Hong Kong. They hate the riots. Period.
唐太宗: Look, Sky, I'm actually from Hong Kong. I've been to a couple of the peaceful protests, even. Most people here support the movement, some more passively than others, but the people who nowadays say they appreciate British rule are mostly upper-class white folks who moved here a few years ago and work in the government. And by the way--they aren't riots. They're protests, and they almost always start out peaceful and only turn violent when the police or army decide the Geneva Convention is for losers.
SecretarySky: 🙄
Bahungave: Bruh
Helvetica (MOD): *sighs* I knew it was a mistake inviting a Brit on the server. @SecretarySky is banned for imperialistic apologia, racism and generally being a dick.
Bahungave: Thank god, they'd already been kicked like ten times
------A "rogue nation" is a country regarded as breaking international law and posing a threat to the security of other nations. Rogue nations stand alone, and are erratic in their behavior towards their neighbors and enemies. They pose a direct threat to the fragile balance of peace in which the world hangs.
Here There Be Dragons
这里有龙
------
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the empire at their heel, is a rogue nation.
The Second World War left behind three superpowers in the wake of Nazi Germany's rampaging desolation: the United States of America, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union. Wartime cooperation had been strained but nevertheless remained smooth up to the surrender of the Japanese Emperor in 1945. Then came the inevitable--without a common enemy, the diametrically opposed capitalist West split with the communist East and took the world with them.
The 1950s proved as eventful as the decade preceding. Korea, divided on a north/south line between Soviet and American occupation, soon erupted into war, and the communists would win out. Disheartened, the United States felt compelled to refuse France when it demanded help in reconquering Indochina, and continued its push to get the nations of Western Europe to shed their colonial empires. Everything came to a head in 1956, when the Suez Crisis sent shockwaves around the world. The young nations of the Arab Republic of Egypt and the State of Israel had come to arms. Gamal Abdel Nasser, the leader of Egypt, had just nationalized the Suez Canal, the vital waterway connecting the Mediterranean and Europe to the Red Sea and Asia. Working in the shadows, Israel had conspired with the United Kingdom and France to invade Egypt, take back the canal, and topple Nasser. American president Dwight D. Eisenhower had strongly warned Britain not to invade, threatening incredible damage to the British financial system by selling the US government's pound sterling bonds. But the United Kingdom called his bluff. They knew that such an action would destroy not only Britain's economy, but America's as well. In effect, it was a kamikaze proposal, and Britain stood firm. They never got Nasser--the Egyptians proved too much of a hassle to get anywhere more than ten miles west of the canal--but the Sinai Peninsula was given to Israel, and the Suez Canal was under British dominion once more.
What followed became known as the Anglo-American Split, rivaled in preeminence only by the concurrent Sino-Soviet Split. The United States and United Kingdom gradually broke off cordial relations, breaking the West in twain. Europe by and large fell into Britain's camp, joined together by the infant European Economic Community, while the Americas and capitalist Asia followed the Americans. Determined to maintain their crumbling empire--already lacking its crown jewels--the British battened down the hatches and put their all into fighting insurrections and clamping down on nascent nationalist movements. It worked... kind of. As the Twentieth Century rolled on, the UK became so preoccupied in bailing out its boat that it didn't realize another hole was being poked in the hull. Following the incredibly controversial elections of 1959, which ended in a fragile minority Labour government helmed by left-leaning Aneurin Bevan, England was consumed by protests and riots. Mass anti-communist hysteria ran rampant, as many claimed Bevan had ties to the Soviets. This opened the door for one Louis Mountbatten--war hero and current First Sea Lord--who launched a coup, toppled the Bevan government, installed a moderate conservative, and then proceeded to vanish into the ether once more. The UK seemed alright at first glance, but their democratic systems were irreversibly decayed.
Things only got worse. The 1960s proved tumultuous for the world at large. The United States underwent the transformative Civil Rights Movement and was instilled with the new virtues of two-term president Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society. The Soviet Union tore through party chairmen, premiers, and first secretaries like tissue paper. And the United Kingdom hit its second coup on its journey down the democratic backslide. Authoritarianism shuttered the British Empire and sent thousands fleeing for greener pastures in Canada, America, and mainland Europe. New and cruel systems of apartheid were implemented in what few colonies they had remaining in Africa and Asia, keeping the common man down while presenting a facade of "democracy". Still, the revolutions and rebellions came and went, some successful, some not, continuing on into the modern day. Armed with nuclear weapons, devoid of allies, and laughing in the face of awkward cohabitation between the US, USSR, and PRC in the wake of the Cold War's close, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has become exactly what it prided itself on never being: the evil empire.
Hong Kong is a complex piece of the modern British Empire, treated simultaneously as the Crown Jewel of Asia and a poverty-stricken garbage heap. A vibrant economic sector had been build in the city throughout the Twentieth Century, but it was built on a foundation of clay. Rampant issues with incredible income inequality, homelessness, and housing prices brought the average Chinese resident to their knees in the shadow of skyscrapers. Neglected for so long, and with the People's Republic of China doing so well for itself, it seemed inevitable that something might happen in that tiny corner of Asia...
------Many thanks to my pal @XFE for his help on this.
------
Soft reboot of my Communist Germany scenario (election, DSL), in which a monarchist restoration during the Weimar Republic leads to a Franco-German war and a brief civil war won by a communist/socialist/liberal/Christian democratic coalition, producing a socialist-oriented republic in which the Communist Party is the most dominant force until its collapse on the late 80s.
- Democratic People's Party (DVP): a broad party of the centre to centre-right and the standard-bearer of liberalism in Germany. The DVP was the primary opposition of the KPD during the second republic, and has governed the country most of the time since 1989. They favour economic liberalism, decentralisation of government power, and European integration. On moral issues, the party is divided between a conservative southern wing and a more moderate northern one.
- German Socialist Left (DSL): the primary successor of the KPD, a democratic socialist party backed by most trade unions. Representing the mainstream left, they embrace progressivism, the welfare state, and industrial democracy. Though never as potent as force as the KPD, they remain the second force in parliament. Most recently in government 2007-15, which ended in a disastrous defeat from which they are still recovering.
- Reichsblock: a national conservative party with a völkisch streak and the black sheep of German politics. Still unable to shake their association with the monarchist dictatorship from which they descend, they retain a loyal voting bloc planted firmly on the right of the spectrum. Though excluded from government since the 70s, they are sometimes approached by the DVP for support during confidence motions.
- Progressive People's Party (FVP): the party of the progressive centre and home for many dissatisfied moderates. Since the end of the second republic, they play kingmaker between the DVP and DSL. Social liberal in orientation and attract notable support from Germany's minority populations.
- Communist Workers' Party (KAP): the wing of the old KPD which rejected the DSL's turn away from socialist orthodoxy. Backed by some trade unions, they have managed to carve out a niche among radical workers. Principled, but willing to join coalitions with the DSL should the need arise.
- Ecology: an environmentalist party positioned close to the FVP, but with differing priorities. Not often brought into government, but often agree to support coalitions externally.
- Socialist People's Party (SVP): a splinter from the DSL formed by deputies disillusioned by developments during its second term in government. Narrowly leapt into parliament in 2015 but failed to accomplish much since.
- Status