"A Very British Transition" - A Post-Junta Britain TL

This remains a fascinating and well-argued TL.

Trying NOT to put a spanner in the works, I had some time stuck on a train today (don't ask) to muse on the politics of the Junta and the composition of the National Party.

The thread advertises it as a merger of the Conservatives, Liberals and Ulster Unionists and I'll consider each in turn.

In 1968, the Conservatives had bene out of power for four years having lost the October 1964 election and then suffered a crushing defeat in 1966. Edward Heath had led since 1965 and few had actively blamed him for the 1966 defeat which occurred at a time of good economic fortune for the Labour Government.

Fast forward a year and the devaluation crisis of November 1967 led to Callaghan's resignation and a collapse in Labour fortunes - I don't know when the coup happened in 1968 but the local elections of that year were superb for the Conservatives. In London, the Conservatives gained 770 Councillors and ended up in control of 28 of the 32 London Boroughs - Barking, Southwark and Tower Hamlets remained Labour while Newham was left with No Overall Control. In Harrow, Hillingdon and Richmond, the Conservatives won every seat. Labour lost 668 seats, the Liberals were reduced to just 10 Councillors in the whole of London. Labour were left with just 350 Councillors in the capital while the Conservatives had 1,438.

That kind of result, repeated nationally, would have resulted in a 1931 style landslide for Heath so it begs the question why Mountbatten and the conspirators would have moved with the political runes looking so bad for Labour.

Heath's Shadow Cabinet foreshadowed the Government which won in June 1970. I cannot conceive of Heath, Carrington, Whitelaw, Douglas-Hume and some of the others actively supporting Mountbatten but other Conservatives of the time - Margaret Thatcher, who was Shadow Education Secretary, Edward Du Cann and then there's Enoch Powell who was a hugely divisive figure. He had been sacked by Heath in April 1968 following the "Rivers of Blood" speech but Michael Heseltine has claimed had Powell stood against Heath in the summer of 1968 he'd have become first Conservative leader and later Prime Minister.

Would Powell have joined Mountbatten? I don't know but his Morecambe Budget foreshadowed many of the Thatcherite free market policies of the 1980s.

What of Airey Neave? I think he's a more likely candidate from within the Conservative Party - ex-military himself and he loathed Heath.

So, can we conceive of a post-coup upheaval within the Conservative Party with Heath and those close to him ousted and expelled by the likes of Thatcher, Keith Joseph, Du Cann and Neave who announce their support for Mountbatten's new "National Salvation Council" (the precursor of the National Party?).

As for the Liberals, I really struggle to see who you would find to support Mountbatten. Thorpe was leader but his questionable sexuality which doubtless would have been revealed to Mountbatten by allies in MI5 would have seen the Liberal leader quickly incarcerated. In OTL, Thorpe faced a challenge from senior liberals and the Young Liberals led by Peter Hain - I suspect Mountbatten would have had little truck with Hain and the Young Liberals.

I really struggle to see who among the other Liberal MPs would back Mountbatten - the National Liberals such as John Nott were already with the Conservatives. I suspect the Liberal Party would end up being banned or forced underground.

As for the Ulster Unionists, I'd be looking a men like Brian Faulkner, Harry West and Bill Craig as Mountbatten's greatest allies and I'd have one of them as National's presence in Ulster rather than a former Conservative MP - just a suggestion.
 
Had a goofy thought while watching The Good, the Bad and the Ugly for the umpteenth time. With UK economy being largely in the toilet, but having lovely vistas, historic buildings and lots of rolling hills, does Hollywood and mid-budget dealers and wheelers come calling to shoot films in the UK that are not contemporary. Think Yugoslavia or Franco's Spain, where tons of movies get made so long as they are not about local politics or current world affairs to give much needed hard cash and jobs for the locals. We may see a mid range budget War & Peace filmed in Britain as a take that against the Soviet production, or a strain of terrible gangster films about Chicago in the 1920s with parts of London standing in for the town, and perhaps even a UK version of spaghetti westerns.

On the other side of the coin, you can kiss goodbye the Goldcrest films and the rise of the critical British darling films at the box office. There is no room for Gandhi in the junta UK, though I suppose a much awkward version of Chariots of Fire can happen. Poor James Bond is not going to do very well, with folks not going to pay good money to watch an agent of a repressive government going about the world killing people.

Now if you excuse me I am going to picture a drunken Charles Bronson glaring about Yorkshire during the filming of "Once Upon a Time in the West" with Anthony Hopkins in a minor role and the man in charge of making sure Chuck gets on the set each day.
 
Had a goofy thought while watching The Good, the Bad and the Ugly for the umpteenth time. With UK economy being largely in the toilet, but having lovely vistas, historic buildings and lots of rolling hills, does Hollywood and mid-budget dealers and wheelers come calling to shoot films in the UK that are not contemporary. Think Yugoslavia or Franco's Spain, where tons of movies get made so long as they are not about local politics or current world affairs to give much needed hard cash and jobs for the locals. We may see a mid range budget War & Peace filmed in Britain as a take that against the Soviet production, or a strain of terrible gangster films about Chicago in the 1920s with parts of London standing in for the town, and perhaps even a UK version of spaghetti westerns.
You kinda already had that with Straw Dogs IOTL (the Spaghetti Western, I mean), which was very controversial even with the censors. Ken Russell would have a very hard time getting his films through the junta ITTL, meaning Women in Love and The Devils just won't happen, and that's for starters. There's an entire British film history that just would not exist, or would have to be relocated elsewhere to make it work. OTOH, Hollywood studios did have British subsidiaries, yet around the late 1960s into the 1970s they started to severely cut back on British films, meaning it would be difficult to get Hollywood interested in making any more - while, at the same time, the Rank Organisation was doing its very best to get out of films as soon as possible in pursuit of money. Now, if Rank started to wind down its film operations in the 1970s (so it could focus on its non-core operations), and EMI was able to up its game, then the British film industry could survive and something like what you're proposing could work. Gaumont-British, for example, could undergo a revival (around the time Nicolas Seydoux was taking over Gaumont père), both as a cinema chain and as a film company, out of the remnants of Rank as would Paramount possibly getting a shot in the arm. Also, Rank's now-former studios would probably go independent and could be open to all sorts of companies, so they wouldn't be exclusive to any one film company and provide an opening for newer independent companies (even the BBC, when not using spare capacity at its own London studios, Broadcasting Houses, and Television Centres). At the same time, there would be British films IOTL that would have to be done elsewhere ITTL (Chariots of Fire is one that comes to mind), which may provide openings elsewhere.
 
Also, there's a thought: How different does British Policing look ITTL? Organisation, Equipment, attitudes etc.
In terms of organisation, most policing is run provincially, with only specialist units such as counter terrorism being run centrally from the home office

British policing is generally more militarised, both due to the fact British society is more authoritarian and the long history of political violence and armed groups making policing a lot more dangerous. British police are a lot closer to their OTL American counterparts in this regard, including beat bobbies carrying handguns.

In terms of attitude most officers, especially those higher up tend to have right wing/pro-national opinions, during the Junta years you had to be a National member to get high up the police force. Lower down bobbies are a bit more mixed politically but years of watching their friends get attacked by red brigade/various separatists has led them to generally leaning more to the right of OTL officers.
 
Last edited:
This remains a fascinating and well-argued TL.

Trying NOT to put a spanner in the works, I had some time stuck on a train today (don't ask) to muse on the politics of the Junta and the composition of the National Party.
Please spanner away, if I didn't want any feedback I'd read this TL to my cat rather than posting it here!

This criticism has been raised before, especially in regards to the Liberals. I'd like to clarify it wasn't that Mountbatten sat down Heath/Thorpe and said "right lads I'm launching a coup on Tuesday you in?" It was more armed soldiers bursting into their parliamentary offices saying "Wilson's a commie spy, we're in charge now, you can either get on board or join Harold on the farm far far away".

Of course some politicians would have taken to the Junta more enthusiastically than others, as you say people like Thatcher and Neave, but in all the chaos of a military coup its hard to say no.

The Wilson Government of this TL, is more radical the OTL, think Wilson the Bevanite rather than Wilson the technocrat, it was precisely because Labour was polling poorly that the Junta believed they had public support to get rid of him.

Powell did join the Junta, seeing it as a necessary evil to prevent the spread of socialism and protect the empire.

I guess my main summary would be coups are scary and chaotic. the only reason many Labour politicians fled abroad or joined resistance groups wasn't because they were braver then their Liberal counterparts, it was because they didn't have a choice, as far as the military was concerned it was a whole party of soviet spies.
 
Had a goofy thought while watching The Good, the Bad and the Ugly for the umpteenth time. With UK economy being largely in the toilet, but having lovely vistas, historic buildings and lots of rolling hills, does Hollywood and mid-budget dealers and wheelers come calling to shoot films in the UK that are not contemporary. Think Yugoslavia or Franco's Spain, where tons of movies get made so long as they are not about local politics or current world affairs to give much needed hard cash and jobs for the locals. We may see a mid range budget War & Peace filmed in Britain as a take that against the Soviet production, or a strain of terrible gangster films about Chicago in the 1920s with parts of London standing in for the town, and perhaps even a UK version of spaghetti westerns.
Yes absolutely, whilst Britain's creative industry is significantly weaker than OTL, it is much cheaper to shoot films, so its production industry remains as strong as OTL. World War films are especially popular to film as Britain is the only North European company where it's cheap and legal to shoot. Saving Private Ryan for example was largely shot in Britain.
 
In terms of organisation, most policing is run provincially, with only specialist units such as counter terrorism being run centrally from the home office

British policing is generally more militarised, both due to the fact British society is more authoritarian and the long history of political violence and armed groups making policing a lot more dangerous. British police are a lot closer to their OTL American counterparts in this regard.

In terms of attitude most officers, especially those higher up tend to have right wing/pro-national opinions, during the Junta years you had to be a National member to get high up the police force. Lower down bobbies are a bit more mixed politically but years of watching their friends get attacked by red brigade/various separatists has led them to generally leaning more to the right of OTL officers.
And the big question: Did the Junta cross the Rubicon and arm the rank and file bobbies?
 
And the big question: Did the Junta cross the Rubicon and arm the rank and file bobbies?

Yes they did, I completely forgot to write that!
I think that I disagree here. More Armed Response Units I can see. However even the most Right Wing of people are proud of the tradition that the rank and file Bobby is unarmed. It would take a massive armed uprising for that to change and that didn't happen ITTL. IMHO arming the rank and file Bobby would be the fastest way for the Junta to lose even the tacit support it seemed to enjoy from the British Public ITTL.
 
Please spanner away, if I didn't want any feedback I'd read this TL to my cat rather than posting it here!

This criticism has been raised before, especially in regards to the Liberals. I'd like to clarify it wasn't that Mountbatten sat down Heath/Thorpe and said "right lads I'm launching a coup on Tuesday you in?" It was more armed soldiers bursting into their parliamentary offices saying "Wilson's a commie spy, we're in charge now, you can either get on board or join Harold on the farm far far away".

Of course some politicians would have taken to the Junta more enthusiastically than others, as you say people like Thatcher and Neave, but in all the chaos of a military coup its hard to say no.

The Wilson Government of this TL, is more radical the OTL, think Wilson the Bevanite rather than Wilson the technocrat, it was precisely because Labour was polling poorly that the Junta believed they had public support to get rid of him.

Powell did join the Junta, seeing it as a necessary evil to prevent the spread of socialism and protect the empire.

I guess my main summary would be coups are scary and chaotic. the only reason many Labour politicians fled abroad or joined resistance groups wasn't because they were braver then their Liberal counterparts, it was because they didn't have a choice, as far as the military was concerned it was a whole party of soviet spies.
I still think a number of Conservatives and Liberals would have refused to have anything to do with Mountbatten or his soldiers. They would be appalled at the sight of Labour MPs being arrested and taken away.

The question then becomes, despite what you have said, whether the coup instigators had made any kind of preparatory political plan. It would be so much easier for Mountbatten if Government and indeed Parliament were seen to continue, albeit as a "rump" without the Labour Party. Indeed, allowing a certain level of "legal Opposition" would look good to the wider international community.

This is why, for all Mountbatten might call himself "First Lord" and be the de facto Head of State, the role of Head of Government is less clear. Would Mountbatten ask Powell to form a new administration in the aftermath of the coup?

As an example, I can't see Mountbatten wanting National to be the sole arbiter of power at local level so I suspect "Independents", "Residents" and the like would still exist on Parish, District and County Councils for example even if Labour Councillors were removed.

I assume the National Party was that attempt to put some political legitimacy on the coup. There might be contested elections at local level if not national.

Legally then, the Liberals (possibly) are banned and the Conservatives wind up the party voluntarily and join National.

I'm far from convinced the Queen would be a willing participant either - in some ways, she'd be a hostage of Mountbatten and the question is whether she would be compelled to abdicate in favour of Charles - the new young boy-king under the spell of his Uncle Louis. He might be a very different man in this reality but I can't believe he'd be anything other than appalled once the repressive nature of the Junta becomes clear. Perhaps the key relationship is between Mountbatten and Philip.

It's hard to see the Monarchy's public standing as being anything other than much reduced with the return of democracy and there would be plenty arguing for a further severe restriction of royal power and patronage let alone abolition.
 
I think that I disagree here. More Armed Response Units I can see. However even the most Right Wing of people are proud of the tradition that the rank and file Bobby is unarmed. It would take a massive armed uprising for that to change and that didn't happen ITTL. IMHO arming the rank and file Bobby would be the fastest way for the Junta to lose even the tacit support it seemed to enjoy from the British Public ITTL.
It wasn't a straight away thing but as political violence grew, especially over the 70s, and as several officers were murdered, police began to be routinely armed with handguns, especially in "troubled" regions like Merseyside, South Western Scotland and Northern Ireland.

We see this in OTL with the Northern Irish police, where all officers receive firearms training and are routinely armed while on duty.
 
I still think a number of Conservatives and Liberals would have refused to have anything to do with Mountbatten or his soldiers. They would be appalled at the sight of Labour MPs being arrested and taken away.

The question then becomes, despite what you have said, whether the coup instigators had made any kind of preparatory political plan. It would be so much easier for Mountbatten if Government and indeed Parliament were seen to continue, albeit as a "rump" without the Labour Party. Indeed, allowing a certain level of "legal Opposition" would look good to the wider international community.

This is why, for all Mountbatten might call himself "First Lord" and be the de facto Head of State, the role of Head of Government is less clear. Would Mountbatten ask Powell to form a new administration in the aftermath of the coup?

As an example, I can't see Mountbatten wanting National to be the sole arbiter of power at local level so I suspect "Independents", "Residents" and the like would still exist on Parish, District and County Councils for example even if Labour Councillors were removed.

I assume the National Party was that attempt to put some political legitimacy on the coup. There might be contested elections at local level if not national.

Legally then, the Liberals (possibly) are banned and the Conservatives wind up the party voluntarily and join National.

I'm far from convinced the Queen would be a willing participant either - in some ways, she'd be a hostage of Mountbatten and the question is whether she would be compelled to abdicate in favour of Charles - the new young boy-king under the spell of his Uncle Louis. He might be a very different man in this reality but I can't believe he'd be anything other than appalled once the repressive nature of the Junta becomes clear. Perhaps the key relationship is between Mountbatten and Philip.

It's hard to see the Monarchy's public standing as being anything other than much reduced with the return of democracy and there would be plenty arguing for a further severe restriction of royal power and patronage let alone abolition.
There absolutely was a number of Liberals and Conservatives who opposed the coup, unlike with Labour MPs where the Junta had "proof" they were Soviet spies, they had no justification to arrest dissident Conservative or Liberal MPs, so most were just forcibly retired, like Alec Douglas-Home for example. There was a political plan involving the Junta's allies like Thatcher and Parliament was allowed to keep existing. The Junta justified having no real opposition by stating they had formed a National Government in the face of the Soviet Infiltration Crisis, similar to the National Unity governments of WW2.

The powers and office of Prime Minister was absorbed into the title of First Lord as Mountbatten wanted to be seen as above politics and didn't want to move to the Commons. The Prime Minister Office was only restored as a de-facto deputy role when Hill-Norton rose to the title of First Lord.

Yes there was some limited democracy at a local level but political parties were banned meaning anyone who sort local office had to run as an independent, this obviously benefited National supporters as they could run as "independents" whilst using the political apparatus of the party behind them. However several genuine independents and residents associations did rise to prominence locally. This is one of the reasons the post-Junta electoral system is D'Hondt rather than STV or FPTP, both party leaderships worried Parliament would be flooded with independent "parish council chairmen and pub landlords".

You are correct that realistically Palace involvement with a coup is unlikely, but it is the only way I can envisage the coup working. Obviously the Windsors and Moutbattens were close so that players in his favour. How far the Queen was a willing participant and how far she was a hostage is debated by historians ITTL, but I imagine the political capital Mountbatten would have to spend to get Lizzie to resign would be more expensive than the political benefits.

There is absolutely a much strong republican sentiment than in OTL, with the SA, RISE and half the SDP supporting an elected Head of State, however the monarchy is working hard to reinvent itself in the post Junta world (also personally as I just did a republican TL I'm not touching the Windsors again with a barge pole).
 
Last edited:
Historically, the term "First Lord" was used for the head of Government - the term "Prime Minister" is a 20th Century creation. I believe the letterbox at No.10 holds the title "Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury".

Separating the posts might have been an astute move by Mountbatten - No.10 was historically the home of the First Lord so he could be there under that title while holding Cabinet or Council meetings yet keep himself aloof from the Rump Parliament.

There's an interesting nuance I'd like to mention - many of those we have agreed would have supported Mountbatten from within the Conservative Party were free marketeers, supporters of Harris, the Austrian School and monetarism. That was their model for a post-Butskellite economic policy. It's also likely Mountbatten's administration would have included some non-political figures from business who would have supported legislation from Robert Carr which would have mirrored the OTL 1971 Industrial Relations Act but would likely have abolished the right to strike and suppressed the unions.

The problem is we know by 2005, according to the Americans, the UK economy is still in a 60s/70s model. I can only assume the radical reforms enacted by Thatcher in OTL were blocked by Mountbatten and Hill-Norton so the question I have is wouldn't the free marketeers, at some point, have parted company with the Junta and formed an opposition group.

That would only have left the more technocratic elements such as Lawson until the arrival of the next generation of political leaders who would have filled the vacuum.
 
The problem is we know by 2005, according to the Americans, the UK economy is still in a 60s/70s model. I can only assume the radical reforms enacted by Thatcher in OTL were blocked by Mountbatten and Hill-Norton so the question I have is wouldn't the free marketeers, at some point, have parted company with the Junta and formed an opposition group.

That would only have left the more technocratic elements such as Lawson until the arrival of the next generation of political leaders who would have filled the vacuum.
There was some free market reforms under the Junta administration, especially when Hill-Norton rose to power as he was generally more pro-free market then Mountbatten. Many of the free-marketeers would go on to from the backbone of the reformist wing of National, wanting to see the country liberalise in order to attract more business and gain EU membership. Similar to the Cameroons and Orange Bookers of OTL they are socially and economically liberal.
 
Chapter 8: Departure Lounge
1623684454870.png

The new democratic Home Office would be tested by a spate of attacks

“The Home Office was completely unprepared for what happened. Half of the most senior officials had been removed in the transition for various offences and the other half were pissed off at us for firing their mates. There was such a gap in the top level of national security that we had junior staff barely out of university being rapidly promoted just to fill the gaps. Was there a deliberate conspiracy from within the Home Office? I don’t think so, but a lot of the old guard didn’t seem too fussed about emerging threats, they’d work slowly and clock off at 5:30 without a care in the world”
- Unnamed SDP Home Office SPaD (2005)

The press tried to invent several names for July 2005, “Red July '', “The Month of Blood '' The Summer of Death”; none of them particularly stuck. What did stick in people’s minds was that July 2005 was one of the worst months for political violence in decades. By the end of July, nearly a hundred people would lie dead and hundreds more would be wounded in the most difficult year for the transition yet. Whilst sporadic attacks like the assassination of Bob Wareing had become somewhat common, several attacks within a few weeks of each other, all from different, often opposing organisations, gave the Government reeling with no room to breathe.

The first and largest attack of the month was a coordinated bombing campaign across London by a dissident faction of the Scottish National Liberation Army, the most noticeable of these attacks was the bombing of Heathrow’s Terminal Four. Two bombs were detonated during rush hour at the peak of the summer holidays, one in the car park and one in the terminal itself. The attack killed 55 people including several children. Over 800 kilograms of explosives had been used at the scene, enough to cause considerable damage to the terminal building, Heathrow Airport was closed and all flights in and out of the UK were grounded for fear of further attacks.

As well as the deaths the SNLA had great political ramifications. The three SNP provincial Presidents, as well as their leader John Swinney condemned the attack and called for a maintaining of the Scottish peace process. RISE, the political wing of the SNLA, denied responsibility for the attack, attributing it to dissident factions. Despite this RISE spokesperson Tommy Sheridan refused to condemn the attack and denied the Scottish peace process had been damaged. Sheridan’s refusal to condemn the attack and Swinney's unflinching condemnation led RISE to slip in the polls as the SNP asserted itself as the main party of Scottish Nationalism.

1623684316868.png

Whilst some Scottish nationalists did support the Heathrow Attack, the average Scott was strongly opposed

“Nationalists now have a political stake in post-Junta Scotland. The union still has significant weaknesses. Nonetheless it has endured for a century and the flaws of the Union appear less than the weaknesses of dissident republicanism. Aspirations among nationalists for independence remain and this option has never been put before to the electorate. But, there is less equivocation and more condemnation of violence as the means of attainment of independence than before. There is also cognisance of the seeming impossibility of imposing Independence upon reluctant unionists without consent. An episodic dissident armed campaign limps on, a violent sideshow alongside nationalist participation in the political stage.”
- The Unwelcome Brothers: Dissident Scottish Nationalists During the British Transition, Professor Richard Finlay, University of Strathclyde (2007)

Dissident factions of the Red Brigades also launched several attacks at this time. The most successful being a series of letter bombs sent to right-wing news publications and journalists. The most successful attack was at the headquarters of pro-Junta newspaper the daily mail, where several journalists were killed and editor Paul Dacre was severely injured. Arthur Scargil, one of the most senior Red Brigade leaders to refuse to sign up to the Cardiff Accords took credit for the attack, in a televised statement he declared it a “good day for enemies of the fascist press and the working class of Great Britain''.

1623684590167.png

Scargill was the face of Red Brigade Dissidents

In the weeks after the attacks the Terrorism Victims Defence Association (TVDA) launched a protest outside Callaghan House, demanding Johnson’s resignation. The TVDA was founded as an association of victims of terror attacks in the mid 80s, it had often been used as a propaganda tool of the Junta against organisations like the Red Brigades, SNLA and IRA. Several had accused it of political bias as it refused to condemn right-leaning organisations such as Civil Assistance, and several of its leading members had ties to National, or the far-right NPP. Despite this the TVDA would grow to be one of the most influential pressure groups of transition Britain, it’s support swelling after each example of political violence.

For the opposition in Parliament, blame for the attacks fell squarely at the feet of the Johnson administration. Collins accused Johnson of showing his “softness” on terrorism by getting into bed with the Socialist Alternative and blamed Home Secretary Peter Tatchell’s “light touch approach” for the SNLA’s attack. For the Socialist Alternative blame was placed on the security services at best failing to act properly, or at worst allowing the attack to happen, with SA Home Affairs spokesperson Diane Abbott demanding an investigation into Home Office corruption, with both figurative and literal grenades being thrown on either side, the SDP was caught in the middle. Johnson’s unflappable honeymoon persona began to crack.

“The root cause of terrorism is not a decision on policy, but contentious, it is a doctrine of fanaticism. We must fight not just the methods of this terrorism but their motivation, their twisted reasoning. At the same time of course, by contrast, we should fulfil our duty to act against injustice. We support the resolution for conflict prevention in Ireland and Scotland. We should show our own strength and belief in the values of democracy and tolerance. Above all we should prove that the future does not, and never will, belong to fanatics. It will be with those who believe that we should live in peace with each other, whatever our race, nation, colour or religion. They do indeed have their strategy, but we have ours, and we should use it to defeat them.” - Alan Johnson speaking outside Terminal 4 (2005)

1623684415013.png

Terrorism and political violence would dominate Johnson's first years in office
 
Last edited:
Was there some sort of 'Pact of Forgetting' during the Transition? Did most parties agree not to prosecute the Junta's human rights abuses in return for democratization?
 
Was there some sort of 'Pact of Forgetting' during the Transition? Did most parties agree not to prosecute the Junta's human rights abuses in return for democratization?
The peak of repression and human rights abuses was in the early days of the Junta, so most the worst offenders were dead. As for living officials it depends on the severity of the crime and seniority of the position, very few were actually prosecuted with most "choosing" to retire.
 
Top