TLIAW: Walking Back To Happiness

Nothing much to say to this, except keep it up.

All the same, thank you for the encouragement.

The end of public schools (What's the policy of grammar schools with this, if I might ask?), Heath serving as a martyr for his own European cause to little avail, and Enoch being Enoch.

The grammar schools are on the "to destroy" list for Peart, just as they were for Crosland in OTL. Policy is pretty much the same, as they are being shut down as selective institutions at a similar pace/slower pace to accommodate the simultaneous public school shutdowns.

This is making me really want to live in this world you're making, though then rather than whatever now may be like as a result!

Well, I'll take that as the highest compliment! I hope that it is as plausible as it is liveable, though.

I haven't done much thinking on the later result of this TL. At least, not beyond the mid-1970s. I don't think I'll take this particular TLIAW beyond 1970, as that's the decade from 1960 to 1970 done by then.

In the future, there might be a follow-up TL to show the world after the socialist Sixties.
 
The grammar schools are on the "to destroy" list for Peart, just as they were for Crosland in OTL. Policy is pretty much the same, as they are being shut down as selective institutions at a similar pace/slower pace to accommodate the simultaneous public school shutdowns.

Doesn't look like my own education would be too altered by this then. :p

Well, I'll take that as the highest compliment! I hope that it is as plausible as it is liveable, though.

I haven't done much thinking on the later result of this TL. At least, not beyond the mid-1970s. I don't think I'll take this particular TLIAW beyond 1970, as that's the decade from 1960 to 1970 done by then.

In the future, there might be a follow-up TL to show the world after the socialist Sixties.

I'd like to think it was; I'm already someone most people believe is living in the wrong time and this version of the '60s sounds like an ideal new home!

It'd be great if you did do a follow-up to it, but I'm already enjoying what you've done so far & looking forward to what else there is still to come! :D
 
I'd like to think it was; I'm already someone most people believe is living in the wrong time and this version of the '60s sounds like an ideal new home!

You're a man after my own heart! People always say that I'd have fit in with the '60s better than any other time (including today) because of my love of the music, the fashion, the culture, and the politics.

It'd be great if you did do a follow-up to it, but I'm already enjoying what you've done so far & looking forward to what else there is still to come! :D

Ah, that's good to hear! I'll keep up this one, of course, and make sure to complete it.

I have to say that we're not far from the end of things, now. It probably won't be done by tomorrow, but I won't be far off.
 
You're a man after my own heart! People always say that I'd have fit in with the '60s better than any other time (including today) because of my love of the music, the fashion, the culture, and the politics.

It's good to find another lost time traveller! I'm exactly the same, though I think might also manage to fit in anywhere from the 30s onwards :p 60s do take a special place for me though, despite not quite knowing why...

Ah, that's good to hear! I'll keep up this one, of course, and make sure to complete it.

I have to say that we're not far from the end of things, now. It probably won't be done by tomorrow, but I won't be far off.

Ah, so soon? I'll be sad when it's over but glad to see what the finished piece is like as well. I do hope that we might be able to revisit it at some point in the future to see how things would eventually turn out when it reaches the modern day!
 
Yp90nhq.jpg

Beyond Britain

Foreign policy would prove to be one of Greenwood’s more mixed legacies in government and one of the areas upon which Maudling’s Conservative Party was able to lay popular and effective criticism.

Upon coming to power in 1964, Greenwood appointed Michael Stewart as Foreign Secretary and Denis Healey as Defence Minister. The pair, both right-wingers within the party and opposed to quite a few of Greenwood’s “peacenik” ideals, appeared frequently on British televisions throughout the 1960s as they announced military, material and political retreats from Britain’s former role as “policeman of the world”. The first instance of retreat was in the situation of the Aden Insurgency. The Labour government called for an immediate ceasefire and sent the new Colonial Secretary, James Callaghan, to treat with the leaders of the left-wing insurgency against the Federation of South Arabia. The official government policy was to seek a peace accord and accommodate the interests of the socialist rebels into the state based on “sound principles of democracy and respect for human rights”. The loftiness of this ideal was, however, rather undermined by the fact that Callaghan had been briefed by the Prime Minister to work out a strategy of handing over control of South Arabia to the Aden Trade Union Congress leader, Abdullah al Asnag, at the same time as Britain evacuated its bases in the colony. Callaghan was displeased at the government’s real intentions towards the South Arabian people, but found himself dropping his protestations once he met Asnag. The two men bonded, their trade unionism and respective patriotisms obviously aiding this, and Callaghan was determined to see Asnag in power so as to keep the Marxist “National Liberation Front” from seizing power as the British abandoned the emirs of the Federation. The old polity of South Arabia was suspended and a new “Union of South Arabia” was created in 1965 under the leadership of Abdullah al Asnag, who was made President of the Union in the free elections of that year. Parts of the NLF joined Asnag’s government, but the more doctrinaire Marxists continued to push for revolution. The various minor monarchs of South Arabia either fled the new country or stayed and fought personal insurgencies to retake power.

Asnag was an organiser, however, and these problems were effectively staved off by concessions to the old emirs and to the Marxists in a balancing act that would keep him in power for years to come. Greenwood’s retreat appeared to be working, though the Conservative Party and their allies in print media lambasted the contraction of British power and Callaghan’s “spineless betrayal” of the South Arabian people.

At the same time, Britain was dealing with the tense situation in Rhodesia. The white minority government of Southern Rhodesia had felt prepared for independence since the beginning of the decade and yet successive governments were unwilling to give independence due to Rhodesia’s “middle course between apartheid and black nationalist government”. Ian Smith, the Prime Minister of Rhodesia, was headed towards a unilateral declaration of independence if consultation with the Greenwood government brought Rhodesia no closer to full sovereignty. The firm statement of the British against the possibility of Rhodesia declaring independence without the consent of the majority of the Rhodesian people, including threats of severing all political and economic ties with the southern African colony, led Smith to take the initiative and consult the country in a referendum for independence under the 1961 constitution on the 15th November 1964. “Yes” to independence won 90% of the vote and Smith promptly wrote to Greenwood asking him to send a representative, preferably the Colonial Secretary, to Salisbury, Rhodesia for talks on a new independence settlement. Greenwood resisted at first, asking Smith to come to London due to the engagement of James Callaghan in Aden. Only in January 1965, during Winston Churchill’s funeral, did Greenwood and Smith finally agree to meet.

Greenwood laid out, plainly and simply, the fact that he needed Smith’s government to agree to the principle of majority rule in Rhodesia. There would be no compromise on this issue, especially considering that Greenwood had been a vocal campaigner against apartheid in South Africa for decades. The dialogue created by the January talks broke down once again when Smith refused to commit his cabinet to agreeing to majority rule, even with the caveat that no majority (Rhodesian blacks) could force its will upon a minority (Rhodesian whites). Greenwood refused to budge on the issue and, in September 1965, he sent Callaghan to Salisbury to speak directly to the Rhodesian government and ask them for understanding on the racial issue. The situation had deteriorated so far that black nationalist guerrillas were beginning to make their presence felt in the country and a state of emergency was declared in October 1965 – the first step towards the UDI. The next month, with the country gripped by fears of an African Marxist rebellion, the Rhodesian government crafted a declaration of independence with a new constitution. On the 11th November 1965, Rhodesia became its own nation under the sovereignty of the “Rhodesian Crown” (Elizabeth II became “Queen of Rhodesia”) and the executive power of Ian Smith. The reaction in London was one of outrage, which then led to harsh economic sanctions being placed upon the insurgent white settler state and a call for international condemnation of the rogue Smith government. America was slow to support the sanctions, given the fact that Britain was seemingly moving away from American influence under the anti-imperialist Labour government. But, with Greenwood’s sanctions supported by the United Nations in 1966 and enforced by the international body, no Western nation with pretences towards democracy and civil rights could give even the slightest measure of support to the independent Rhodesians.

However, America’s relationship with Britain was changing radically for the first time since the Second World War.

Lyndon B. Johnson, the successor to JFK, found Britain’s new direction to be a frustrating display of weakness. Britain’s cuts to defence expenditure, mandated by Barbara Castle (Chancellor of the Exchequer) and implemented by Denis Healey, particularly rankled the “leader of the free world” as he proposed to trade economic aid for military and political support in Vietnam. His escalation of the war in Indochina was, in principle, anathema to Greenwood and his allies in cabinet. Britain’s refusal to meet its commitments east of Aden and severe cuts to its defence budget made the option of joining in America’s war in Vietnam practically impossible even if Greenwood’s party and the nation as a whole were opposed to intervention in Southeast Asia. But, this wasn’t the only worry for the Johnson Administration’s foreign and defence policies.

Polaris was endangered by Greenwood’s Labour Party, which had every intention of scrapping it since Greenwood had Gaitskell’s overturning of the Scarborough vote overturned once more to commit the party to unilateral nuclear disarmament. Of all the legacies of the Greenwood government, this was the one that caused such a distinct split between the Left and Right of the Labour Party. Appointing Michael Foot, the grey-haired eminence of the unilateralist Left, as Minister of Disarmament in 1964 signalled to the world that Britain was on the verge of becoming nuclear-free. 270 million pounds had been spent on Polaris by the time of the 1964 general election and there was reluctance amongst quite a few Labour MPs to scrap it altogether, with the Foreign Secretary and Defence Secretary trying to convince Greenwood of its benefits in cabinet whilst putting questions from the Americans regarding the continued development of the Polaris project.

Further development of Polaris would be halted in the summer of 1965, with a Parliamentary vote on the proposal to scrap it entirely expected to be held by 1967. These predictions would come true in June 1967, when the scrapping of Polaris was passed by the House of Commons after a series of amendments and compromises between all parties involved led to the passing of a watered-down disarmament agreement. Polaris would be scrapped within eight years, with the materials and facilities for nuclear proliferation retained by the Ministry of Defence and the remaining funds reallocated to conventional forces.

Britain, by the end of 1967, was becoming a true island nation. Although far from becoming part of the Non-Aligned Movement, Britain was on the verge of completely losing its supposed “special relationship” with the USA for the first time since the war. Imperilled by Greenwood’s anti-imperialism and “suspect” socialist domestic policy, America’s ties to Britain had grown weaker with each passing year. With elections coming up in 1968 for both nations, the world’s main bloc against the Soviet Union was at a crucial juncture in the history of the Cold War.​
 
Interesting. I especially like what you did in Aden. How come this Rhodesia is a monarchy?

The Aden solution was what Greenwood attempted in our timeline, but was vetoed by Wilson and American interests.

On Rhodesia, that's actually what happened in OTL. Her Maj was made "Queen of Rhodesia" by the 1965 Rhodesian Constitution.
 
A very different foreign policy for Labour here and an interesting impact for Polaris and the 'Special Relationship' as well! Keep it up, Comrade Comisario!
 
Sorry for the lack of an update today! It's been my birthday weekend and I've been out for a bit today, so it looks like we'll be running over a week.

Expect an update Monday night at the earliest.
 
Sorry for the lack of an update today! It's been my birthday weekend and I've been out for a bit today, so it looks like we'll be running over a week.

Expect an update Monday night at the earliest.

Happy birthday. And that's an acceptable excuse :p
 
oYEG54W.jpg

You Only Win Twice

The 1968 general election pitted a deeply divided Conservative Party against a Labour government headed by one of its most popular and charismatic leaders for decades. Labour’s victory should have seemed like a foregone conclusion at the time, but the future looked more precarious for Greenwood than it should have been.

The beginning of 1968 saw Labour come under fire for its lack of intervention in Nigeria, where a vicious civil war was being fought between the Federal Military Government and the Republic of Biafra. The official Conservative Party policy was to promote intervention as a way of resolving the conflict in favour of the Nigerian government and countering the possibility of Soviet involvement. The Prime Minister, on the other hand, remained officially neutral in the conflict whilst also supporting an arms embargo on Nigeria to bring it closer to a peace settlement. Within the cabinet, opinion was bitterly divided and the Foreign Office after Michael Stewart’s resignation over the policy of neutrality was not totally enamoured by the choice of James Callaghan as the new Foreign Secretary. Callaghan had been convinced of the rightness of the official policy and had stayed loyal to Greenwood even whilst disagreeing with him on a host of other policies. Television debates between Conservative MPs and Labour ministers did little to assuage Labour’s worries that they were losing the argument in the country.

At the same time, Britain was accepting ever-increasing numbers of Kenyan Asians who were fleeing discrimination in their East African homeland. The Labour Party pledged to take a “humanitarian and moral stance” on the issue, welcoming the new migrants without restrictions due to their Commonwealth citizenship. This, however, constituted a move away from the opinions of the nation at large. Polls taken in March and May 1968 showed that nearly 60% of the British people were “concerned” or “very concerned” about the government’s immigration policy. For Labour’s working-class supporters, there were underlying fears of immigrants undercutting their wages. These fears and many more would be articulated by a man not of the Left, but of the libertarian Right: Enoch Powell.

Powell had been known as a spokesman for the right-wing fringe of the Conservative Party, but he added his voice to the many thousands who were speaking up against “uncontrolled immigration” and his reputation was changing as a result. From monetarist rebel to patriotic hero, Powell had seen his significance rise to a point where his speeches against the government’s immigration policy were attracting audiences to pack out hotel conference rooms, theatres and town halls in every corner of the country. This, of course, caused further splits in the Conservatives as senior members of the party (including former Prime Minister, Quintin Hogg) made public appeals for his immediate sacking from the shadow cabinet. Maudling wasn’t prepared for the onslaught of appeals from both Powell’s detractors and his supporters to either remove or promote Powell in the upcoming campaign. In a show of typical Maudling-esque politics, the Conservative Party leader did absolutely nothing for two months and then found himself threatened by One Nation grandees and cabinet members that they wouldn’t relent on their calls for Powell’s resignation. Reggie was caught in the middle of a Left-Right conflict that he’d rather not have faced before an election was expected to be called. Powell was summarily sacked from his position as Shadow Defence Secretary in April 1968 – an action that many believe served as the catalyst for Greenwood dissolving Parliament on the 22nd May with polling day scheduled for the 15th June.

Greenwood was, understandably, shaken by the feeling in the country that his government had failed and was failing in foreign policy. The debacle with Powell was a distraction that allowed Greenwood to paint his party as united and coherent on its own policies, however, and thus gave Greenwood the confidence to strike whilst the Conservatives fought themselves and lost the voters that Powell’s prominence would have otherwise brought in. Immigration reform – at least on the scale that Powell advocated – was out of the question for Maudling’s manifesto for the 1968 election. Another reason for the sudden election was the Trades Union Congress and its General Secretary, the aging George Woodcock. A moderate with close relationships in the Labour government, Woodcock had successfully co-operated with Ray Gunter (Minister of Labour) and leaders in Britain’s nationalised industries to keep wage claims reasonable and reduce the number of working days lost to strike action. His success could only be fleeting, though, due to rumours that his age was catching up to him and the sixty-four year old union boss might step down in favour of a younger man. If a left-winger was to be chosen – a militant who might jeopardise the economic stability that devaluation had temporarily brought –, then Greenwood might be forced to take issue with the unions without a mandate. The 1968 has often been viewed as Greenwood’s attempts to prepare for any future confrontation with the unions: a likely outcome if Britain’s balance of payments figures sank back into deficit.

The campaign was heavily television-focused, with Greenwood and Castle appearing on a variety of interview programmes and political broadcast slots. The unflappable Prime Minister with his Surbiton accent and irrepressible charisma once more proved a hit on the small screen, though some in the right-wing press were eager to stress that “Britain is not Opportunity Knocks”. The editor of The Times, William Rees-Mogg, was vehemently opposed to offering Greenwood’s time on television any positive space in his newspaper. The paper essentially ignored this new development and instead soldiered on with its predictions of a Conservative victory.

“Mystic Mogg” was proven wrong in the end when Labour won four more seats from the Conservatives and Reggie Maudling was left embarrassed and confused by the entire situation.​
 
Labour gaining more seats in '68, Enoch being Enoch again and a rather muddled Maudling - it looks set to be a very interesting late 60s & 70s ahead!
 

Sideways

Donor
Again, I am enjoying this, especially the Rees-Mogg bit, and the believability of it all. Thanks for spending so much time researching and writing something that entertains me for a few minutes a go.
 
Top