TLIAW: Who Governs?

[Nevran]

A TLIAW by @Nevran

To start, this is, of course, inspired by and shamelessly following all the incredible TLIAW’s and other series that have come before. From @Vidal and @Enigma-Conundrum's What it Took, to @Oliveia and @Enigma-Conundrum ’s Camelot Lost, to @Steve Brinson's Bring Us Together or Tear Us Apart and @Callan's wikibox series of the same name.

While I love all these TLIAWs, they’re almost always focused on America. Britain is often only mentioned in passing or in a leaders list in the appendix. And with Britain offering so many opportunities, I wanted to make my own TL, following all the same TLIAW format as those before. As you can probably guess, the P.O.D comes in early 1974, with the “Who Governs?” election being just that bit sooner.

This series is a long running project of mine, has been for many years actually, and has gone through so many iterations, changes, retractions and everything else just to get to here. That means the good news is, a lot has already been done. The first few updates are ready and raring to go.

And for any fans of Exocet (buy my merch folks) that series hasn’t been abandoned, but I needed to get this itch out of the way first.

And to cut a story short, I present, Who Governs?

 

[Nevran]

Edward Heath (Conservative) 1970-1977
My generation did not have the option of living in the past; we had to work for the future.​

Edward ‘Ted’ Heath, the man, his record, his reputation and his legacy have continually been reconsidered and recontextualized by both historians and the public at large. Considering he left office in a huff with his own misquoted words hounding him into resignation, it was easy at the time to define Heath by his row backs, his appeasements and his weaknesses. The long term view though, credits Heath for bringing Britain into Europe, laying the groundwork for the following economic and political revolution and breaking the ground on a lot of genuinely transformative public infrastructure. A kind assessment of Heath would be that he spent his time fixing the roof while the living room flooded.

Ted Heath was a grammar school boy from a poor family, equipped with an determined mind and a manic grin. He was a ruthless moderniser of the Conservative Party, and his political positions and early actions, forecast he could be the man to shatter the post-war consensus. Seen as more right-wing than his main rival Reginald ‘Reggie’ Maudling in the 1965 leadership contest, saw him elected leader of the Conservative Party, desperate for change. Heath would cultivate new talent in the party, by appointing fresh-faced men and women into prominent positions, who would then come to dominate the Conservative Party for decades to come.

And against Harold Wilson, his much loathed rival, Heath would win outright in 1970, a shock considering the political mood of the time and the previous 1966 campaign. Wilson, expected a comfortable majority, to serve another couple of years as Prime Minister, before handing off to whoever would be his preferred successor at the time of his resignation. Heath’s come-from-behind victory shattered Wilson politically and Wilson’s following four unhappy years as Leader of the Opposition defeated the man (and the party) who was the future once.

Heath saw the future across the shores, and Britain's future was in Europe. Heath a leading proponent of European integration and Georges Pompidou, a man desperate to step out of De Gaulle’s shadow, wanted to make history. As Heath would commit Britain to Europe and Pompidou finally said “Oui” to British ambitions, Heath would fight the political battle of his life to get Britain in. And when parliament backed the European Communities Bill, Heath would celebrate by retiring to Downing Street and triumphantly playing Bach on his piano.

The highs of the ascension to the Common Market would be met by the lows of a long-stalled economy. The original solution advocated by Heath was the all-encompassing and highly controversial Industrial Relations Act. The Act would impose (shocking at the time, now seen as sensible) restrictions on unions to try and cool inflation and reduce union power. This Act would earn the immediate ire of the unions and mark out Heath as an enemy to be defeated. U-turns followed, and as the British economy overheated from the ‘Barber Boom’, strikes and economic misery would follow.

Exacerbated by the Yom Kippur War, as oil prices increased fourfold and inflation skyrocketed, unions with all their varied reasons, from economic, to ideological, to militant, went on strike. Miners would be at the forefront of this strike action, made all the worse with coal stockpiles already being low.

As Parliament passed legislation to institute a three day week to limit energy use, and the nation prepared for the hardest winter since the war, Heath wanted a victory. When Jim Prior, one of Heath’s closest allies in Cabinet, proposed a January election, Heath was resistant, fearing a winter election and everything which would come from such a poll. But, after a moment of pause and reflection, Heath had a moment of confidence, and called an snap election for January.

Harold Wilson, in a depressed mood for all the election, was not the campaigner he once was, and with his party hopelessly split on almost every issue of the day, couldn’t effectively tackle Heath. Jeremy Thorpe, who was charismatic and well-liked by a public who didn’t like either Heath or Wilson, couldn’t get anywhere with first past the post. Enoch Powell, who devoted his time and energies to winning his seat in Wolverhampton as an independent, was quiet for the campaign, a blessing considering the troubles he had caused Heath in 1968 and in 1970. And with all these flawed choices, Heath would win, but with a narrower majority than what he won before in the previous election.

Trade unions, who had staked significant political capital on seeing a Labour victory, would back down, with (still generous) pay deals begrudgingly accepted and workplaces reopened. Most historians recognise the Winter of 1974 as the high point of union power. From here-on-out, as a network of nuclear reactors went online and North Sea oil and gas flowed into both the Treasury and into boilers and fuel tanks, unions lost their key chokepoint.

A brief respite followed for Heath, and as the economy picked up steam, significant infrastructure projects were authorised and organized, including the Channel Tunnel, opened in 1984. Alongside the Channel Tunnel, the first spades went in the ground for Maplin Sands Airport, built on Foulness Island, a necessity to lighten the load on Heathrow Airport. As construction also began on the Manchester “Futuroute”, a underground route for England’s third city to ease commuter traffic between Victoria and Piccadilly train stations, Heath could proclaim that Britain was building again.

As Heath toyed with the idea of leaving British politics wholesale with the position for European Commission President up for grabs, domestic concerns shattered this ambition. The economy reared its head once again. Subsequent budgets from 1972 had done little to tame both inflation and spending deficits. Compounded by income tax cuts implemented after 1974, along with the not-insignificant cost of such capital spending projects, the government found itself spending way outside of its means. Things would come to a head in February 1977.

Misleading government statistics aside on how significant the budget and the balance of payments deficits were, the pound sterling collapsed on the world markets. A bailout was required for the British government to maintain the price of sterling. Newly elected US President Ted Kennedy, perhaps out of his own prejudices towards Heath’s policies in Northern Ireland, offered little in the way of American support for the British economy, focusing on passing healthcare reform. Heath, as always, would look to Europe for answers. And with Heath’s close ally Geoffrey Rippon newly installed as Commission President, Heath found a receptive audience.

Heath negotiated that Britain would enter the European Monetary System on its inception, to link the Pound Sterling to the strong West German Deutschmark, would provide a long-term Bretton Woods-esque solution to Sterling’s weakness. The short-term was much more painful. And so with a humiliating IMF loan, littered with spending reductions and capital cutbacks, and with the assurances of West German Chancellor Kohl for the future, Britain was put back on the path to economic stability.

Economic stability was not cheap though. These austerity measures reduced the deficit by slashing welfare and depriving government departments of money. “Death by thousands of cuts” accused the Maxwell-owned papers, blaming Heath for his recklessness while minding the country’s purse and pre-emptively blaming him for pain which would come. Chancellor Barber was sacked during the crisis, and replaced by Geoffrey Howe, a man far closer to the soon-to-be prevalent economic thought of 'Friedmanomics' than Heath or Barber ever was. It was clear Heath was mortally wounded.

Whilst all the economic troubles dominated the headlines, Heath would seek to address the 'Troubles' in Northern Ireland. Working behind the scenes, negotiating with Liam Cosgrave in the aftermath of Sunningdale’s failure, Heath got the Anglo-Irish Framework. The framework committed the UK and Ireland to the peace process and to host regular meetings to facilitate co-operation, along with tacitly agreeing for the need for cross-border and cross-community solutions. More popular with nationalists than unionists, it paid political dividends to Irish Taoiseach Liam Cosgrave who would go on to re-elected by a healthy margin, (though Fine Gael was probably more helped by the newly 'Tullymandered' constituencies than the deal). The framework to unionists though was betrayal on the scale of Sunningdale, and put an irrevocable split between the Ulster Unionist Party and Conservatives. This split was made all the worse by Enoch Powell announcing that he was joining the Ulster Unionists in a fiery speech to Parliament, whilst remaining as an MP for Wolverhampton. Denouncing Heath and all he stood for, Conservatives whips found that far too many Tory backbenchers agreed with Powell.

As such, political tensions continued to ratchet up. As former Education Minister Keith Joseph began to making soundings for a leadership challenge, despite there being no official mechanism to challenge an incumbent, Heath’s off-the-cuff remark to journalists outside Number 10 about the (frequently misquoted) “Age of Malaise” was the final nail in the coffin.

A day of reflection followed for Heath, on his yacht sailing the Channel, where he made his decision to quit. A man who for all his talent, intelligence and determination preferred his beloved yacht with ocean for miles around than rubbing shoulders with those who kept him in Number 10. There was a pithy satisfaction for Heath as he would leave Downing Street. He had outlasted Wilson. That was enough for him.

 

[TrevorFromStarWarsBackup]

Watched

 

[Nezza 001]

Watched

Same.

 

[Tanner151]

Watched. Never see a British focused TLIAW so that’s new. Glad to see Ted Kennedy become President, hopefully he can work better with Congress than Carter did.

 

[SenatorChickpea]

Watched. Never see a British focused TLIAW so that’s new. Glad to see Ted Kennedy become President, hopefully he can work better with Congress than Carter did.

Oh my god, this makes me feel old.

TLIAWs were created by the great British posters who migrated to Sealion Press, and British timelines dominated the form for the best part of a decade.

 

[Nevran]

Francis Pym (Conservative) 1977-1982
The great leaders, both in war and in peace, have of course been strong and determined, but they have always shown a concern for everyone in their care, and they have always tried to anticipate the future. ​

Francis Pym was destined for higher office. His background lent well to this destiny, with his family been long steeped in public service, with five of his ancestors having served in the Commons. The most recent parliamentary ancestor was Pym’s father Leslie Ruthven Pym, being a Conservative MP for Monmouth elected in a 1939 by-election. Like father, like son, both began their careers as government whips. However, while Leslie’s death in 1945 cut short his political career, Francis would rise and rise through Cabinet under successive Tory leaders. Beginning as a whip under Macmillan and Douglas-Home, he would be appointed Chief Whip, then Northern Ireland Secretary, and then finally Foreign Secretary, all under Heath.

Equipped with Etonian charm and a vast network of connections, Pym was able to leverage both to keep climbing. He was also widely regarded as an effective and loyal cabinet minister, both by whipping some of the more consequential votes and kept on Heath's good side, even if Pym had privately disagreed with him bout the calling of the 1974 election, stood him in good stead among all his cabinet colleagues.

His work in Northern Ireland, having replacing William Whitelaw, was fraught with far more personal and political difficulties. Shortly after the 1974 election. with Sunningdale officially collapsing, Pym overworked himself resulting in both mental and physical distress, which necessitated two months to recover. Such depressive episodes would be an unfortunate trend which would follow Pym throughout his time in public life. Yet, as his health returned, Pym got back to work, working behind the scenes with both unionists and nationalists to try and bring them back to the table. Grafting and negotiating, Pym would do a lot to get the Anglo-Irish Framework agreed.

As Foreign Secretary, Pym would work closely to solve the sterling crisis and with US Secretary of State George Ball to open negotiations with the apartheid regimes of South Africa and Rhodesia. The negotiations focused on return Namibia to self-governance and peacefully transition Rhodesia to majority-rule.

When Heath announced his resignation in June 1977, Pym was an immediate frontrunner. He quickly coalesced supporters, including the highly influential William Whitelaw, the respected and fellow bright spark Peter Walker and the arch-Heathite, Jim Prior, to back his bid. As the only other serious contender was Keith Joseph (not including a smattering of long-shot candidates, most of whom dropped out before the first ballot) Pym remained the clear favourite. It was no surprise when he emerged triumphant.

​

Pym, in a move to try and unite the party, chose to have both supporters and rivals around him at the cabinet table. Believing that collective responsibility would restraint the now-public infighting, and that a healthy discourse in government would make it wiser and more capable. This approach was far better in practice than reality. As even erstwhile allies including Chancellor Whitelaw would overshadow Pym, those ideological opponents especially Keith Joseph (appointed Home Secretary) would be far from collected and capable, with Joseph committing multiple gaffes and launching multiple veiled criticisms of Pym throughout his time in post.

If his early decisions in his cabinet would cause him future headaches, they would not in the short term. Luckily for Pym, he would take office when the political and economic environment finally showed some signs of positivity. The formation of the European Monetary System (EMS) gave Sterling its monetary stability and being tied to the strong Deutschmark forced high interest rates which consequently calmed down inflation. Also of interest was the Bullock Report, published during Pym’s first ministry, which promoted the idea of industrial democracy and co-operatives, wherein employees would have stakes, shares and decision-making rights in their employers. This report would be eagerly endorsed by Pym, who saw the co-operative movement as a quintessential “one-nation” solution between extremes of mass nationalisations and Friedmanomics.

Things were so good in fact Pym was able to call an early summer election in 1978. Facing off against Peter Shore saw Pym returned with a slightly diminished majority, which if anything was an almost direct repeat of the 1974 election. Shore, despite his captivating rhetoric, was not the man who would bring Labour back to power. Ironically, Shore’s track record was focused on almost as much as Pym’s was. Shore’s time as Labour leader had been marked by row-backs, quixotic and contradictory policy positions, continual intraparty strife, and aggressive Euroscepticism. Shore as such seemed to struggle with even the basics of opposition, with even his own party opposing much of what he stood for. Yet despite many rumours that Labour might split, most of those who fundamentally opposed Shore chose to treat him as a sandbag and as a minor inconvenience. His reputation as “Harold’s lapdog” and his fundamentally ineffective time as a minister coloured the perception of Shore as a lightweight. And so, while Shore would stay on after the election, the vultures were circling.

​

Now re-elected, many of the electoral sweeteners promised were passed, including the Housing Act, finally allowing people to buy and own their own council homes. It would be both electorally popular and a core plank of the “home-owning democracy”. It would also be responsible for severely depleting the social housing stock in the long term. Pym, in a move lauded more after the event than during it, would also impose economic sanctions on Rhodesia and South Africa when negotiations broke down with both. As civil war and internal strife would plague these nations, with their apartheid governments clinging on, the packages would seem to do little, and cause significant problems domestically and politically. Yet, even these such achievements have been coloured by negatives and even then, they were few and far between.

At the start of 1980, the economy, as always, hit turbulence. The economy which had been cooled down for years as a result of high interest rates, finally resulted in living standards beginning to slump. As Chancellor Whitelaw saw inflation, rather than maintaining full employment, as the greatest objective of macro-economic policy, all efforts were placed remained in place to keep reducing inflation to manageable levels. The highly controversial 1980 budget, which included broad reductions in public spending across the board, did little to improve decaying living standards and instead caused unemployment to skyrocket. What had been a simmer of public discontent burned into the now infamous “scorching summer”, marked by riots breaking out nationwide and an ever-escalating series of strike actions and industrial disputes.

Making such times more miserable for Pym was the radicalisation of the National Union of Miners. More hostile leadership, in the aftermath of moderate Joe Gormley being voted out and replaced by the militant Arthur Scargill, saw more confrontation. Scargill would, after playing cat-and-mouse, would call and win a ballot to launch a national strike in the winter of 1980, which saw coal stockpiles dwindle to dangerous levels. Pym would later lament that in the darkest days of 1980, it seemed the country was falling apart at the seams.

There would be no U-turns, however. No matter how much Pym cautioned against “voodoo economics” to his cabinet colleagues, even he could recognise the economic and political calculus of the day had changed. Whitelaw would stubbornly stick to the painful course on both inflation and interest rates. Keith Joseph would crack down brutally on the striking miners, via both new anti-union laws, fiery speeches and police action. Alongside oil and gas from the North Sea, this would help alleviate just enough pressure and fund just enough of the welfare state to keep the course.

And so, by 1981 largely, despite crashed living standards and persistent unemployment, inflation had been tamed. But the years of turmoil had drained both Pym’s popularity and his patience. Attempts to reset the agenda, towards a more one-nation approach failed. One such failure was the proposals to pass minor devolution packages for Scotland and Wales, which fell foul to parliamentary tactics and tensions.

What would finish Pym was something that he, something that no-one, could’ve anticipated. At midnight on April 2, 1982, Argentina initiates Operation Rosario and launches a full-scale invasion of the Falklands Islands. Within 12 hours, British marines and local forces had surrendered. The invasion caught everyone off guard, and it hit Pym especially hard. Pym, who had struggled with depressive episodes in the past, was so shocked by the invasion, would ultimately fall ill. As the navy waited for orders, as voters looked on with apprehension and as politicians looked for leadership, Argentineans celebrated an incredible victory.

Pym, with his crisis of confidence, chose the cautious path. As such the first point of call to an ever-cautious civil service and a weary foreign office was to open diplomatic channels. Pym, for two brutally painful and difficult, months tried diplomacy. Protests were lodged at the U.N., sanctions packages prepared, and American-arbitrated negotiations held. It would all be to no avail. And when Falklanders began leaving their homes, there was nothing left to fight over anymore.

​

Various studies have all shown contradicting answers to whether the Las Malvinas crisis electorally doomed Pym. It was more nuanced than that though. Voters first rallied around the flag, then they blamed Argentina, then they blamed Pym, then the diplomats, then the US and then the UN and then, finally, they didn’t care anymore.

But in the end, Pym chose to fall on his sword. Resigning was a matter of principle to Pym, and his failure with the Falklands meant his resignation. As such, it would be to a bitterly apathetic nation that Pym announced he should no longer go on. As such there would be a new Prime Minister, with an election less than a year away, and they would have to pick up the pieces.

From Pym himself, there was very little in the way of defence or discussion of his time in office. His time in the House of Lords would be quiet, and his autobiography would devote page after page on the discussion of the procedures of parliament rather than a defence of his time in office. An unfortunate fact, is that while Pym's autobiography spoke little of his failures, history has more than made up for this. On domestic affairs, Pym became both the face of stagnation and, with his party lurching to the political right, would be attacked by his own faithful as the man who couldn’t stick the course. And on foreign affairs, Pym was seen as having lost his nerve at the worst possible time and became known as the man who lost the British Empire. If Pym was destined to become Prime Minister, then destiny made sure he suffered for it.

 

[TGW]

First of all, forgot that I hadn't commented. Really fun idea to read about!

Secondly, I have to credit you for picking a name I'd never heard of before for the top position. Which is particularly hard in the seventies to eighties period of UK politics. I have to say, I'm not sure how you've managed to get me to think "Poor bastard" for such a blunderer especially given the twelve year Tory dynasty but you've managed it and how!

Given that the party is lurching rightward I'm curious to see who they put up next.

 

[SultanArda]

Firstly, thanks @Nevran for this great TLIAW!
I really loved it!
Second of all, it seems like Conservatives lost the next elections, and in somewhat similar conditions as how Labour lost it in 1979 (with the extra kicker of foreign disaster, obviously), hmmm…
Does this mean that we see a leftist consensus being formed instead of Thatcherite one and this right-wing shift resulting in Michael Foot levels of controversy before Peter Walker gets the government like Blair?
Finally, this is a great timeline, really fun to read it, though I wonder about whether you are going to do a leader list for the world?
Given that we get some glimpses of changes in the world.

Given that the party is lurching rightward I'm curious to see who they put up next.

A sacrificial lamb, I say.
Someone who will do the job adequately enough that they have a hope to win the elections, but someone unimportant/disliked enough to accept being kicked to the House of Lords three days after the elections with making no angry screams.

 

[Nevran]

Watched. Never see a British focused TLIAW so that’s new. Glad to see Ted Kennedy become President, hopefully he can work better with Congress than Carter did.

Ah, well hope it lives up to expectations

Well, he get's healthcare reform sort-of-done but America is still America and let's just say the poisoned chalice of 1977-1981 hits Teddy hard.

First of all, forgot that I hadn't commented. Really fun idea to read about!

Secondly, I have to credit you for picking a name I'd never heard of before for the top position. Which is particularly hard in the seventies to eighties period of UK politics. I have to say, I'm not sure how you've managed to get me to think "Poor bastard" for such a blunderer especially given the twelve year Tory dynasty but you've managed it and how!

Given that the party is lurching rightward I'm curious to see who they put up next.

Thanks!

Pym is definitely underused and seems a perfect candidate for an either a longer Heath successor or a successor to a shorter Thatcher. He unfortunately in TTL gets the worst parts of Callaghan and Thatcher's time in office and bungles both.

Firstly, thanks @Nevran for this great TLIAW!
I really loved it!
Second of all, it seems like Conservatives lost the next elections, and in somewhat similar conditions as how Labour lost it in 1979 (with the extra kicker of foreign disaster, obviously), hmmm…
Does this mean that we see a leftist consensus being formed instead of Thatcherite one and this right-wing shift resulting in Michael Foot levels of controversy before Peter Walker gets the government like Blair?
Finally, this is a great timeline, really fun to read it, though I wonder about whether you are going to do a leader list for the world?
Given that we get some glimpses of changes in the world.


A sacrificial lamb, I say.
Someone who will do the job adequately enough that they have a hope to win the elections, but someone unimportant/disliked enough to accept being kicked to the House of Lords three days after the elections with making no angry screams.

Again thank you!

All I'll say is that 1983 is definitely going to be a brutal election and that your comment about the next leader might be rather inspired.

Ah, a leaders list is way off in the future, even if I've got some of the other leaders sort of picked out like America, France and (West) Germany.

 

[Nevran]

William Whitelaw (Conservative) 1982-1983
I always think that it is entirely wrong to prejudge the past.​

William ‘Willie’ Whitelaw was a man you could trust to have your back. In the cutthroat world of Westminster, this simple fact of character would propel him to the highest office in the land.

Coming from a Scottish political family, Whitelaw was born expecting to serve his country. Serving in Normandy during the Second World War, winning a MC for his heroism in the Battle of Caumont, Whitelaw saw horrors which marked him to be a committed advocate for Europe and for peace.

Serving his family, Whitelaw returned home after WWII to run his family’s thousand-acre Lanarkshire estate, rather than leaping straight into electoral politics. A committed family man, loved by his wife, Ceila, she would be one of his greatest defenders and advocates, and gave him his four daughters.

Serving successive Conservative leaders, rising up the greasy pole not through raw ambition but through the recognition and the respect gained by his contemporaries, would mark Whitelaw out amongst his peers. A close confidant and personal friend to three successive Conservative leaders, Douglas-Home, Heath, and Pym, he would be labelled as the “man with a direct line to God”, for his political foresight and his ability convince even the most stubborn of men to his way. This label ran even truer considering his close friendship with Robert Runcie, the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Whitelaw’s strength, if not obvious, was his knack for building relationships and for sticking by people when times got tough. When Chancellor Thorneycroft resigned in 1959, so did Whitelaw, who was serving in his team, which immediately marked him out on the backbenches as a man of loyalty and conviction. He could also overlook slights, difficult to do in politics, including his sacking as Northern Ireland Secretary by Heath and Pym’s public unease of his inflation busting budget of 1980.

Yet to regular Brits, it was not loyalty they acknowledged Whitelaw for, but his tough tenure as Chancellor which would define his reputation. Compared to his past career, his tenure would be so unlike the relatively moderate approach expected. His time as Employment Secretary and the continual economic crises of the 1970s and 1980s had convinced Whitelaw of the need for a fundamental change to the British economy. And so, even when such approaches rankled Pym and caused real economic hardship, Whitelaw had the foresight to stick to the path. And again, being one of the only voices in the Cabinet arguing for Britain to stick to its guns and not seek a US-brokered deal in response to the Falklands/Malvinas Crisis, his foresight would prove impeccable.

Francis Pym’s resignation in the summer of 1982, if a deeply principled decision on Pym’s part, began the undignified process of choosing a new party leader and Prime Minister. With an election less than a year away, after 12 years of Conservative government, ever-mounting domestic and foreign challenges plaguing the country, and a young and dynamic leader of the opposition, well, the historical parallels were uncanny to 1963.

Even before Pym’s resignation there was a lot of chatter and speculation about who would be the next Leader of the Conservative Party. Unfortunately, a lot of these candidates were men (and a woman) who was expected to serve as a Leader of the Opposition, rather than a PM. What was needed was a safe pair of hands. As such Margaret Thatcher, Nicholas Ridley, Michael Heseltine, and Jim Prior all ruled themselves out of running. As a consensus began to emerge, and when men in grey suits came calling, Whitelaw was asked to serve his country one last time.

With the grey man having secured his victory before Whitelaw was approached, he nonetheless went out his way to win backing of his main cabinet colleagues, Home Secretary Keith Joseph and Foreign Secretary Robert Carr respectively. With most Conservatives recognising a divisive balloting period would drain any of the remaining public goodwill with their party, it was to be a quick contest, with even the political gadflies on the backbenches recognising that now was not the time. Whitelaw was elected unopposed and was soon invited to Buckingham Palace. Whitelaw chose to keep most of the Cabinet the same, with the most notable change being Geoffrey Howe returning as Chancellor and backfilling Whitelaw himself.

It would be during Whitelaw’s tenure that the Las Malvinas were incorporated wholesale into Argentinean territory. Protests continued on the international stage, but when US Secretary of State Jeane Kirkpatrick called the matter “settled”, Whitelaw would at least be able to move on and consign the humiliation to the past.

With the government having fallen into a minority in February 1982 due to continual by-election defeats, any new policy attempts were also dashed. Despite leaning on what was left of the Liberals policy and parliamentary procedure ground to a halt. Attempts to gain parliamentary confidence were also doomed. Smaller parties, such as the SNP, having established a toehold in Parliament in the 70s, was swinging to the left under Margo MacDonald. They were not going to lend their support to prop up a dying Conservative government. Neither were the Ulster Unionists, meanwhile, both under the spell of Enoch Powell preparing to run for North Down and despises Whitelaw as the man who had negotiated Sunningdale. Whitelaw’s only solace was Labour’s own difficulties.

Such difficulties were encapsulated by the election of Peter Tatchell, who would be the first openly gay MP, to become Bermondsey’s MP in 1983. Tatchell beat back a spirited challenge from “Real Labour” candidate John O’Grady, who had been endorsed by the previous MP Bob Mellish. As left-wingers proclaimed victory, this election result was seized on by the government and lamented by the Leader of the Opposition.

​

As the “loony left” continued its rise in London, alongside the militant takeover of Liverpool City Council and floor fights at preceding conferences, with the famous image of then-Shadow President of the Board of Trade Neil Kinnock bloody, on a dirty bathroom floor, after being attacked by an expelled Militant member, all were signs of Labour’s troubles.

The accusations of extremism followed Labour, with its more radical candidates dominating front-pages with endless political hay being made against them and Labour. It would be the week after Bermondsey that Whitelaw announced an election would be held in early April. He sensed an opportunity.

SuperMac 2.0 was the phrase bandied around by the advertising firm Saatchi & Saatchi when trying to sell Whitelaw to the public. And well, both men were jovial, aristocratic, and grey haired who seemed to embody a clumsy form of optimism and geniality. A call-back to better times. It worked better than expected too, as polls kept narrowing and Labour’s once solid polling lead kept falling. The attack ads kept on writing themselves. Labour was too weak, too divided, too extreme. Whitelaw was trusted and needed just a bit more time, and the opportunity from voters to stick the course.

But, despite all the above, the Leader of the Opposition could at least offer change after 13 years of Conservative government.

And so, even though Labour only won a minority, it was clear they had won the election. Whitelaw, to not prolong the inevitable and to ensure stability, resigned immediately and recommended to the Queen that she send for the Leader of the Labour Party to form the next government.

His final act of service would be serving in the House of Lords for 3 years after leaving Downing Street. Whilst writing his memoirs of his time in Downing Street, alongside politely declining calls to take on a leadership position in the Lords, Lord Whitelaw would suffer a sudden and fatal stroke. His death was a shock to many, with tributes pouring in from across the political spectrum. While his half-written memoirs were later taken on and finished by his beloved wife, Whitelaw's reputation had already ensured his legacy.

 

[SultanArda]

His final act of service would be serving in the House of Lords for 3 years after leaving Downing Street

Called it!
As I thought, William Whitelaw, who from what I gather, was the most loyal person you can get as an ally of yours in Conservative Party, accepts to ends his political career as a caretaker Prime Minister.
I wonder who is the leader of the Labour Party?
He is someone from Loony Left, from what I gather but I don’t think Michael Foot would become the leader without Thatcher…
I want to say Benn, but he was too radical to be accepted by the British electorate, though a minority government and intensifying fights inside Labour Party makes me think he might be the Labour PM who would inevitably fall in a backstabbing filled meeting, or survive, as being in minority makes him forego much of his radical proposals.

 

[Nevran]

Called it!
As I thought, William Whitelaw, who from what I gather, was the most loyal person you can get as an ally of yours in Conservative Party, accepts to ends his political career as a caretaker Prime Minister.
I wonder who is the leader of the Labour Party?
He is someone from Loony Left, from what I gather but I don’t think Michael Foot would become the leader without Thatcher…
I want to say Benn, but he was too radical to be accepted by the British electorate, though a minority government and intensifying fights inside Labour Party makes me think he might be the Labour PM who would inevitably fall in a backstabbing filled meeting, or survive, as being in minority makes him forego much of his radical proposals.

That you did, Whitelaw ends on a high, and gets it with the support of every wing of the party.

Ah well, *spoilers*. But he might not be the lefty you expect, as he lamented Peter Tatchell's victory seeing it as (unfairly and unfortunately correctly) as a electoral trap for Labour.

 

[Nevran]

Roy Hattersley (Labour) 1983-1985
In politics, being ridiculous is more damaging than being extreme.
​

A lot of blood and ink has been spilled on Hattersley and his government. To the true left, including those armchair activists on YoungTurks.uk message boards and to the last members of the now comically irrelevant DSP, Hattersley’s premiership was one of missed opportunities, betrayals, and defeat. To those on the right, most see Hattersley’s premiership as fundamentally flawed and chronically unstable, the epitome of Labour’s mid-century divisions. To those not interested in politics Hattersley is either a friendly face on the telly, or his puppet, the man who put spit into Spitting Image.

Roy Hattersley was born in 1932 and grew up as Attlee’s Labour transformed Britain. From a working-class home, Hattersley would be educated at Sheffield Grammar School, on a scholarship. He would then go on to study at Hull University for a BSc in Economics (Hattersley would be the first Prime Minister since Churchill to attend neither Cambridge or Oxford) where he go on to become involved in local Labour politics. He would then spend a few years working at a Sheffield steelworks before elected as a member of Sheffield City Council. Whilst a Sheffield lad, Hattersley would be selected to represent the multi-ethnic Birmingham Sparkbrook seat for Labour in 1964.

Holding a series of minor ministerial posts in Wilson’s government, serving under both Barbara Castle and Denis Healey, Hattersley would align with and become a strong supporter of Roy Jenkins. Another sign of his centrism, Hattersley was one of the 69 pro-European Labour ‘rebels’ who voted in favour of the European Communities Bill 1971 saving Heath in the process. Even if Hattersley would remain loyal to the eventual party line on holding a consultative referendum on EEC/EC membership, this rebellion would be a black mark against him.

Serving as the campaign manager for Denis Healey’s ultimately unsuccessful bid to become Labour leader in 1974, whilst Hattersley would go on to serve in Peter Shore’s Shadow Cabinet from its inception in a variety of positions. Whilst growing increasingly disenchanted with the drift leftwards and Shore’s ineffective leader, Hattersley would fight to keep Labour united and the right in the proverbial tent.

His election as Labour leader was orchestrated by the “Gang of Four”, four former Labour cabinet ministers (Healey, Callaghan, Jenkins, and Crosland) who had all left frontline politics for their own reasons but remained on the backbenches. Discontent had reached a fever pitch, against Shore in the Summer of 1981, his unfocused leadership and anaemic polling numbers the greatest issues. It was Healey who suggested that Hattersley should be approached to challenge Shore. He had been loyal to all the present men at certain points of his career which certainly worked in his favour. Hattersley was also a fresh face, untarnished by the Wilson years and having worked his way up through Shadow Cabinet was popular with the PLP. Being consistently one of the most highly voted in Shadow Cabinet elections gave his candidacy credibility too. Hattersley was also openly ambitious and was planning a run for leader anyway. It made sense.

When Hattersley announced his bid for leader, he was expecting a fevered battle in the lead up to the 1981 Autumn conference. Shore, to the surprise of many, didn’t put up much of a fight. Shore privately admitted that being Leader wasn’t for him and alongside that he was a Labour man through-and-through, who valued and admired his colleagues, recognised that his time was up. Despite their significant policy disagreements, Shore didn’t want to drag down the party into an even more bitterness.

In the 1981 leadership election, even with the new leadership rules to allow affiliated unions and party members to have a say in such a contest (believed to allow candidates of the left a better shot at winning), Hattersley triumphed as the left split between Tony Benn, Albert Booth and Eric Heffer. This setback for the left was only temporary. With the grassroots and brand new ‘true left’ MPs such as Kate Allen, Peter Tatchell, Patricia Hewitt, and Martha Osamor joining parliament, their influence was ever-expanding, even under Hattersley’s time.

Splits aside, Hattersley won a minority in 1983 and quickly got around to forming a government. Promising the Scottish Nationalists sweeteners and a devolved assembly was enough to get their support and a workable majority.

​

The workable majority, however, require a workable party. As such, many in Labour expected an ideologically diverse Cabinet, with talent and views from all across the party represented. John Silkin (himself Deputy Leader of the Party) became both Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, an olive branch to the left. But by appointing Shirley Williams as Home Secretary and Roy Jenkins as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, (Hattersley would later write that Jenkins had threatened to quit the party if he wasn’t given a prominent position in Cabinet) was a clearer indication of the direction of government policy.

Chancellor Merlyn Rees’ was also a wound to the left. As North Sea oil flooded into the Treasury, Whitelaw and Howe had used the proceeds to fund their economic revolution. Rees’ decision to instead put this money into a sovereign wealth fund, to be invested in stocks, shares and markets, was a tragedy and a betrayal of so many socialist principles. Whilst the British Investment Bank and British Enterprise, partly funded by the sovereign wealth fund would be established during Rees’ time, he would simply mend the fence and tidy up the garden, which was not radical enough for those on the left.

What was radical was the urban regeneration undertaken by Hattersley. Representing Birmingham Sparkbrook, a multi-ethnic constituency which had suffered both significant economic and demographic changes and pressures, Hattersley understood the need for such policies. It would also be under Hattersley that many of infrastructure projects of Heath would be opened to the public and these benefits would finally be realised for millions. As money, both public and private, flowed into cities, Hattersley would establish Regional and Urban Development Agencies (affectionally known as Rudders) to spearhead change and rebuilding. Of course, the middle-class shires and the ever-shrinking industrial communities built in valleys, decorated by small churches, and surrounded by slag heaps would miss out on this economic revitalisation. Electorally, while Labour would actually enjoy an increase of votes in urban and deprived areas at the next election, the party would be turfed out of office by those who resented minority and urban politics.

What would scar Britain during Hattersley’s time was HIV/AIDS. With horrific estimates of over 70,000 dying, the theorized impending destruction of the nascent gay movement and to the self-satisfaction of social conservatives and moral crusaders, it was a challenge like no other.

As Peter Tatchell would read out an ever-growing list of names of the gay and queer men who died from HIV/AIDS to Parliament, Hattersley would spring into action. Spearheading in early 1984 a comprehensive public health and awareness campaign, Hattersley would invest significant time and resources in trying to mitigate the effect. The explicit and hard-hitting PR campaign begun was credited with educating communities in safe practices and destigmatising the disease.

When Health Secretary Margaret Jay hugged and consoled HIV/AIDS patients in one of the emergency sexual health clinics opened, and when Parliament passed a tight but ultimately successful vote to lower the age of consent, both as a health measure (most gay men became sexually active between 18 and 21 so health officials raised concerns that most gay men would refuse to admit to their actions between these ages fearing prison and sentencing) and to give respect to a community down, but not out, it was clear action was being taken. And in the end, while thousands died, many thousands more could have.

In early 1985, one of Labour’s main campaigns promises began to weigh the party down. One of Labour’s first acts when in power was to legislate referenda to authorise Parliament to created devolved assemblies for Scotland and Wales to run a variety of local issues. These referendums (one of the first of their kind) were held and while Wales handily rejected a separate assembly, Scotland eagerly supported its creation. The actual process on what the assembly would look like, however was far from positive. Labour and the SNP clashed on every issue; what powers should be granted; what voting system should be used; where the assembly should be and even the name of the institution, destroying any goodwill between the two parties. When the final bill was finally passed in late 1984, it was an unhappy compromise for all.

In the inaugural election for the Scottish Assembly, Labour’s campaign was abysmal. John Smith, the “lead candidate” (foregoing the Scottish Labour leader title), was boring and was (correctly) accused of only running to boost his profile for an eventual job as Labour leader nationally. Labour also gave a non-committal answer to where the revenue from North Sea resources would go, whilst the SNP summed their position up in four words: “our sea, our money”. Margo MacDonald also proved a strong campaigner, and despite her pro-independence policies, was moderated by her party and local candidates. As the economy remained sluggish and Hattersley’s government was seemingly listless, voters gave Labour a kicking. When the SNP won a majority, and the Conservatives came only a seat from being the official opposition, the Hattersley government almost collapsed from the electoral shock.

​

What would finally break Labour would be the pledge to hold an “in-out” referendum on EC membership. The brainchild of Tony Benn back in 1974, Peter Shore had embraced the idea as had the left of the Labour Party. Hattersley was privately against holding a referendum, as was a large section of his party, but not enough to remove the pledge from the 1983 Labour manifesto. Yet, as discontent grew and left-wingers grew more virulently euroskeptic, Hattersley was finally forced to agree to follow through on the manifesto pledge.

The Conservatives, despite the concurrent radical change in leadership and policy, still maintained a pro-European outlook, and promised to vote against any EEC referendum, arguing both the potential effects on parliamentary sovereignty (a public referendum/direct democracy would directly contradict a core tenant of representative Burkean democracy) and for its potential to fracture European relations. It would also give Labour a bloody nose.

As the referendum bill advanced to its second reading, dramatically, Roy Jenkins resigned from Cabinet and announced he would be voting against the bill. Joining Jenkins was 17 other Labour MPs including Bill Rodgers, Charles Kennedy, and Robin Cook. It was just enough Labour MPs to torpedo it. As the government seemingly could no longer pass legislation, fulfil its manifesto promises and topped off by Hattersley’s reluctance to punish the 17 was the final straw for a lot of Labour left-wing euroskeptics. As Eric Heffer would announce his defection from Labour to form the Democratic Socialist Party (DSP), joining with Tariq Ali, Patricia Hewitt, and Frank Field to form the “new alternative”, the fight was on.

Only days after Heffer’s defection the Leader of the Opposition called for a vote of no confidence in Hattersley. As the SNP chose to vote against the government, even if Peter Shore still backed the government, enough of his acolytes and supporters had already fled to the DSP to doom Labour. Decrying the chaos, the political turmoil, the broken promises, the focus on “minority issues”, it was clear the Leader of the Conservative Party spoke to a wider audience than just his party and found both Parliament and the country at large agreed with him. And when voters went to the polls, it was clear that Hattersley was done for. A small consolation was that the DSP did just as bad.

Whilst Hattersley would resign from Parliament shortly after his election defeat, he would go on to enjoy a resurgence in cultural affairs. He would become a prominent biographer, his catalogue including works on Winston Churchill and David Lloyd George. Hattersley would also go ont explore Britain by road and rail, writing all about his experiences in the Today tabloid. His column would prove so popular he got a collection of BBC documentary shows titled“[...] with Roy Hattersley”.

But, returning to politics, Hattersley controversially wrote in his autobiography that Labour could not govern Britain in the 1980s, without either tearing itself, or the country, apart. It was a defence of himself, his government, or at least was an excuse for all the turmoil and challenges he caused and faced. And as his legacy has improved, history has seemed to both forgive Hattersley for his failures and agreed that he was right.

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

Interesting to see a Scottish Parliament coming in 14 years early! Are they using First Past the Post? No Libs elected in Scotland? I would have thought they'd do quite well. I've always thought one of the main reasons we don't have a British Sovereign Wealth fund from oil is because it would give Scottish nats something to point at and say 'that should be ours'.

 

[West234]

Labor finally got a shot at running things I see. I don't know a ton about British political history but still very nice timeline.

 

[SultanArda]

I wonder who is the Conservative Leader who won the election.
From what we see from few sentences about him, he (or she, though very unlikely) is one that can unify most people that can unify most people, which means that he is someone popular and uncontroversial.
I want to say Michael Portillo solely because of the fact that, in real life, he was the one who got lots of train related documentaries, but he is too young and seems too right-wing so… I have no idea.

 

[Nezza 001]

I wonder who is the Conservative Leader who won the election.
From what we see from few sentences about him, he (or she, though very unlikely) is one that can unify most people that can unify most people, which means that he is someone popular and uncontroversial.
I want to say Michael Portillo solely because of the fact that, in real life, he was the one who got lots of train related documentaries, but he is too young and seems too right-wing so… I have no idea.

Portillo became an MP in 1984.

 

[Nevran]

Interesting to see a Scottish Parliament coming in 14 years early! Are they using First Past the Post? No Libs elected in Scotland? I would have thought they'd do quite well. I've always thought one of the main reasons we don't have a British Sovereign Wealth fund from oil is because it would give Scottish nats something to point at and say 'that should be ours'.

Ah the Libs have sorted of collapsed in on themselves. David Steel defeated in 1979 (better nationalist performance anyway), Simon Hughes not winning in Bermondsey and then collapsing to be the 5th largest party in 1983 sort of kills the Liberals off. By 1985, it's mostly people like Alan Beith, David Penhaligon and Paddy Ashdown who are remarkably popular characters and win individual campaigns, under the Liberal banner. No Thatcher (and likeable if ineffective Tory MPs, including the Scot Whitelaw) means as well the Scottish Conservatives are able to win over the moderate and farmers/fishers etc which would've backed the Liberals.

Ah that's the first I've heard about the sovereign wealth fund being blocked because of the Scottish Nationalists. I thought it was blocked/not implemented because of short-term thinking by Thatcher and as a way to prop up the state affording spending and taxes.

I think in both OTL and TTL its clear that Scots are furious about their oil and revenues being taken away when things are bad already, but at least here they have an Assembly to actively fight against it.

EDIT: They use FPTP, which was a deal breaker for Labour. The SNP are already using their control to push through a new voting system, but that power is held by Westminster, so is setting up a fight with the incoming government.

Labor finally got a shot at running things I see. I don't know a ton about British political history but still very nice timeline.

Thank you!

I wonder who is the Conservative Leader who won the election.
From what we see from few sentences about him, he (or she, though very unlikely) is one that can unify most people that can unify most people, which means that he is someone popular and uncontroversial.
I want to say Michael Portillo solely because of the fact that, in real life, he was the one who got lots of train related documentaries, but he is too young and seems too right-wing so… I have no idea.

Again, spoilers but whoever they are they are economically radical, pro-European and politically astute (or at least someone who can recognise political winds).

Apologies as well for the delay, I'll have the next update up soon as well.

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

Ah the Libs have sorted of collapsed in on themselves. David Steel defeated in 1979 (better nationalist performance anyway), Simon Hughes not winning in Bermondsey and then collapsing to be the 5th largest party in 1983 sort of kills the Liberals off. By 1985, it's mostly people like Alan Beith, David Penhaligon and Paddy Ashdown who are remarkably popular characters and win individual campaigns, under the Liberal banner. No Thatcher (and likeable if ineffective Tory MPs, including the Scot Whitelaw) means as well the Scottish Conservatives are able to win over the moderate and farmers/fishers etc which would've backed the Liberals.

Ah that's the first I've heard about the sovereign wealth fund being blocked because of the Scottish Nationalists. I thought it was blocked/not implemented because of short-term thinking by Thatcher and as a way to prop up the state affording spending and taxes.

I think in both OTL and TTL its clear that Scots are furious about their oil and revenues being taken away when things are bad already, but at least here they have an Assembly to actively fight against it.

EDIT: They use FPTP, which was a deal breaker for Labour. The SNP are already using their control to push through a new voting system, but that power is held by Westminster, so is setting up a fight with the incoming government.

Re: the Libs. Ah, fair enough that's the sort of thing that can be hard to pick up between the lines in a timeline but once explained makes absolute sense and is a great addition to the story.

Re: a sovereign wealth fund: I think it's a mixture of both reasons. Maybe more so the short termist reasons you outline. In the long term it would of hugely strengthened nationalism in Scotland to have a pot of money worth XXX hundred billion, 90% of which is from tax and licensing revenue generated in Scotland and which is managed in London by predominantly English authorities.

In 2001 the Norwegian fund was worth around £75 billion. If the UK fund was worth £60 billion in the same time period (accounting for the difference in Norwegian and Scottish oil and gas deposits etc) that would be worth £12,000 to every Scot. 'Its Scotland's Oil' was potent in OTL, now imagine you can promise Scots you can make them £12,000 richer overnight...

Hmm. I'm not sure the SNP would push for a proportional system in the context of this timeline. Arguably in OTL it was the Liberal Democrats who were the driving force in ensuring De'Hont, with SNP support as they feared Labour dominance.

In this timeline the Libs are irrelevant. The Conservatives are a dangerous third party but unlikely to take the crown. It looks like a straight fight between the SNP and Labour, which the SNP can win by utilising the same 'blame Scottish labour for Westminster's problems' which they do OTL.

Of the three main actors only the Conservatives in Scotland might have a reason for supporting PR and I can't see them doing so.

No it's in both the SNP and Labours interest to keep FPTP in Scotland, until some third party (Lib Dems, SSP etc) disrupts the status quo.

Edit: Even in OTL there were some in the SNP arguing for getting rid of the party list part of D'Hont once they were in power.