Closer to the Netherlands, the Jackson plan wanted to be more ambitious in tackling grammar and private schools, but this was shot down by civil servants and the education establishment. The Reid plan is a lot more moderate, changing the curriculum and funding regime, rather than tackling educational structure itself.
"A Very British Transition" - A Post-Junta Britain TL
- Thread starter powerab
- Start date
Very little, only in that the Spanish Monarchy are no longer the only monarchy in Europe involved in a Junta.
What's the status of the various religious groups in the UK? What was the relationship between them and the dictatorship?
I'd be particularly interested in how Muslim and Jewish folk were treated. Did the UK still take refugees from Uganda?
I'm not quite sure I've understood the powers of the regional governments. They don't have control over Education then?
In OTL, the government tried to stick them on a remote island. Both the Solomons and Falklands were considered before being turned down. We even asked quite a few countries to take them in. I imagine the junta wouldn't be so shy about sticking them elsewhere remote.
Minority religions are tolerated but that's about it - Mosques and Hindu temples do exist but are fairly rare, as are non-Christian religious schools. While minorities aren't as directly oppressed as in openly fascist regimes such as Francoist Spain, it's still not great being a religious minority.
Jewish folk were generally left alone - the Junta realising that oppressing British jews only 20 years after the holocaust probably wasn't a great idea. Jews would form a large part of non-violence resistance to the Junta, with figures such as Alf Dubbs acting as leading civil rights activists. Muslims were treated worse, generally seen as more "alien", as such British Muslims would become active in the various left-wing resistance groups - leading Muslim civil rights campaigner Salma Yaqoob is a leading member of the Alternative. In the aftermath of 9/11 we saw a harsh crackdown on Muslims.
Britain did take some refugees from Uganda but its a lot less than OTL due to Britain being a less attractive place to emigrate, and the government generally being more hostile. The Junta did send most (around 13,000) to the Solomon Islands - another 6,000 settled on the mainland UK.
The central government has the power to set the national curriculum (mandatory subjects, exam boards etc) that regional governments have to follow, but within that curriculum provinces are able to conduct education how they wish. Education is funded locally with some subsidies from the London Government.
@powerab I think you should see this. It is a response of sorts to your TL, and I think you would like it
www.deviantart.com
The Sunday Times Coup by Mobiyuz on DeviantArt
www.deviantart.com
I wonder what were the power dynamics within the Church of England - it was a pillar of the establishment and derided as the "Tory Party at prayer". Does it become the "Junta at prayer"? IOTL, churches in many dictatorships gave the resistance moral legitimacy - does someone like Desmond Tutu arise within the Anglican Church? Also, many clergy were active in social movements, and would displease the junta. How much would the junta try to control the Anglican Church? If it tries too hard, the Anglican Church would face a schism.
How did Father John's superiors try to manage him? IOTL, the first years of the junta coincided with a major shift in the Catholic Church's social teachings. In Spain and Portugal, the Catholic hierarchy shifted from supporting the dictatorship to providing moral resistance. Does the British junta return to the bad old days and discriminate against Catholics? If so, how bad would sectarian tensions in Northern Ireland, Glasgow, and Liverpool last? If that happened, that would further isolate the junta abroad.
Can you also add a British version of 23-F, which would greatly boost Elizabeth's social prestige?
I mean, it might just be me, but I feel like a 23-F-esque coup attempt will almost certainly be made at some point.
The Anglican Church became heavily politicised under the Junta years, lend much of it's support to the Junta. This means the Church of England is a lot less liberal than in OTL, liberal figures like Justin Welby never rose to prominence and liberal reforms such as the ordation of women were never passed. There have been attempts at a schism by some liberal figures with the Anglican Church but these were mostly unsuccessful. The non-British branches of the Anglican Church have moved away from the British branch of the church so figures like Desmond Tutu were still able to rise in the South African Anglican Church.
The Catholic Church still liberalise in this TL, leading to frequent clashes with the Junta. Whilst Catholics aren't treated as badly as "alien" religions like Islam, they are still placed below the Anglican Church in the pecking order. It's not a coincidence that the most Catholic cities in Britain like Liverpool and Glasgow are also some of the biggest hotbeds on anti-Junta activity. John McDonnell, probably the most well known resistance commander is an ordained Catholic Priest, he was refered to as the "Mad Priest of Merseyside" by the 80s tabloids.
If Catholicism becomes a symbol of the resistance, I won't be surprised if it booms during the dictatorship, and its social prestige increases in the first years of democracy. That's what happened in South Korea. No comment from the Queen of the Scots.
In fact, this would be a boon to the Vatican's social prestige worldwide, given Britain's position in the world's attention. For decades, people around the world would hear on the evening news like, "The Vatican has denounced the latest crackdown on pro-democracy protesters in Britain, meanwhile there have been cautious remarks from Washington".
In fact, this would be a boon to the Vatican's social prestige worldwide, given Britain's position in the world's attention. For decades, people around the world would hear on the evening news like, "The Vatican has denounced the latest crackdown on pro-democracy protesters in Britain, meanwhile there have been cautious remarks from Washington".
Chapter 29: We Don’t Need No Thought Control
After years of political interference, the Anglican Church had ultra-conservative leadership
“Those calling the people onto the streets were not professional politicians, but bishops. The demonstration added up to an impressive display of strength. As the bishops were quick to point out, the Anglican Church is one of Britain's biggest social movements. But they did not limit themselves to spiritual matters. Their words were full of raw politics, and their target was clear. Prime Minister Alan Johnson, they averred, was leading the country towards moral and democratic ruin. “We are heading towards the end of democracy,” said one bishop. Britain was “going backwards” on human rights, claimed another. The family was under “serious attack”, said a third. Lay speakers piled on the anti-government rhetoric. “Don't leave the hearts and minds of your children in the hands of anyone, and especially not of the state,” said one.” - Johnson and the Church: The Bishops' Revolt, The Economist (2007)
Things continued to not go well for the SDP as opposition mounted to the Reid curriculum. The Church of England continued to speak openly against the government as protesters marched around Parliament Square demanding religion classes be kept. The Archbishop of Canterbury Michael Nazir-Ali was an arch conservative and had actively campaigned against the transition to democracy. He had a close relationship with many senior members of the National Party, working together they were able to coordinate a powerful political response to the reforms. Nazir-Aliwarned that if the Government didn’t back down then the Church would be forced to “walk away” from hundreds of schools it managed.
With Britain’s education struggling as it was and the Department for Education on its knees, the SPD administration couldn’t afford to directly administer hundreds of new schools. Nazir-Ali’ intervention marked the first major religious intervention in the post-transition era, and showed the Church of England as a powerful force against the transition. On the left, the Socialist Alternative was outraged that resistance martyrs such as Mark Ashton would be treated on the same level as Junta era war criminals, and the equivocation between Junta violence and the violence of those resisting it. Ronnie Campbell, The Alternative’s Education Spokesperson confirmed the SA would not support the passage of the Reid curriculum unless it was reformed with the Junta as the ambiguous villains of history.
With the Alternative invoking their Confidence and Supply right not to support the government, majority support for the bill was now gone. Johnson and Reid had a choice, to compromise with National and the Church to get a bipartisan white paper through, or to work with the Alternative on a more critical thesis of Junta history. Reid, ever the pragmatist, looked at his options, if Nazir-Ali wasn’t bluffing they could lose hundreds of schools and face an immediate educational crisis. On the other hand if he annoyed the Alternative they would stomp their feet but ultimately they had only two dozen MPs and nowhere else to go. Reid made his decision, Tim Collins and Liam Fox from National, along with Michael Nazir-Ali from the Church were invited to a meeting at Downing Street to hammer out a curriculum compromise.
The Church under Nazir-Ali continued to flex their political muscles
After several days of negotiation a compromise bargain was struck, in terms of history the balanced approach would remain. As well as this both parties accepted desegregating gendered subjects. In terms of the main sticking point - religious studies - schools would be free to choose whether to make religion and civics both mandatory, or just civics with federal guidelines strongly advising schools to make only civics mandatory. In reality this led to provincial run comprehensives, mostly in the inner city to abandon religion as a mandatory subject, whilst in the parishes and villages of rural Britain, where Church education reigned supreme, things would continue on pretty much as normal. In return for these concessions, National would abstain on the White Paper
“One of the positive results of Britain's transition was the reduction in the school-leaving rate. With aggressive military recruitment at an end, students had little option but to stay on at school after 16. The share of all jobs requiring only a secondary education in Britain was higher in Britain(24%) than in any other OECD country. The supply of low-educated workers exceeded demand. At the other end of the labour force, Britain faced a high over-qualification and field-of-study mismatch. ‘Rising educational attainment has created a large supply of highly-qualified adults. But many of them are working in jobs for which they are overqualified’, the OECD noted in a report at the time” - The labour market in Transition Britain, Lecture by William Chislett, London School of Economics (2018)
The deal between the two parties became known as the "Reid Pact"
There were two main interpretations of the Reid Pact, for those on the right and centre it was the sign of a mature democracy, two opposite parties coming together with civil society to decide a mutually beneficial compromise, the mature adults in the room. For the left it was a sign that the Junta’s power was never truly broken, that despite being tossed out of office National and their allies in the Church and civil service could still dictate how education policy was run. In the Alternative the party’s radicals, led by backbench MP Lindsey German, saw this as the last straw and demanded the Alternative withdraw support for the government.
McDonnell used what was left of his goodwill and political capital to hold them back, he feared if the government collapsed now, National would be straight back in office, and all they had fought for would be lost. Latest polls showed National dangerously close to the SDP, polling at 40% to the SDP’s 42%. The Alternative was polling at 5%, so in the event of a snap election the left-wing bloc would be short of a majority. McDonnell, Britain’s most wanted terrorist turned elder statesman was doing everything he could to hold it together, despite it violating all his principles McDonnell believed this government making until the end of it’s term was the only way to save British democracy.
“Do you want to let those bastards back in? Because comrades if I'm totally honest I'd really rather not go back to prison, bourgeoisie and decadent as that opinion may be. The number one priority of this party and us as its elected representatives - is anti fascism - no parasan. The curriculum won't matter if the tanks are rolling down the streets again, our legacies won't matter if we fail here, today, in 2007. I understand why some comrades are angry and I share that anger but I say look how far we've come. Working with other parties we have secured democracy, we scrapped the bomb for god's sake. We're winning. We are winning and we will keep winning as long as this party and this movement sticks together.” - John McDonnell’s speech to a reportedly rambunctious meeting of the SA’s Parliamentary Caucus (2007)
McDonnell seemed to be the only person keeping the SDP/SA pact together, and he was retiring before the next election
Last edited:
The problem is, they've been all but bending over backwards for National. If they don't start taking a harder stance, well, voters might vote for someone who will.
Chapter 30: Price Tag
Hughes demonstrated an uncharacteristic lack of restraint with the 2007 budget
“The Chancellor on Tuesday unveiled a generous budget for 2007, fuelling speculation around a snap election. Simon Hughes is to provide more than €4bn in tax breaks for single parents and families with newborn children. As well as rent subsidies for young adults who cannot afford to leave the parental nest. The handouts will cut the budget surplus from an estimated 0.6 per cent of gross domestic product in 2006 to just about breaking even next year. Mr Hughes has kept a tight lid on public spending since the Social Democrats came to power in 2004 as Britain sought to join the EU. But with the government on thin ice, he has faced pressure from all sides to loosen the reins. This has sometimes put the Chancellor at loggerheads with Alan Johnson and cabinet colleagues.” - Hughes’ ‘baby cheque budget targets families, Leslie Crawford, Financial Times (2007)
With the Reid pact still fresh in voters' minds, it came to budget season, the second annual budget of the new democratic Britain, and the first as a full member of the European Union. Chancellor Simon Hughes had a difficult balancing act to perform, he had to draw up a budget that would both please Britain’s EU partners, as well as keeping the Alternative on side. Hughes also sought to attract international business to the UK, long shut out by strong state regulations and high taxes. Britain’s difficulty attracting investment was only exacerbated by having Ireland on its doorstep. With it’s low corporation tax and high level of education (partly due to British emigrants) Ireland was quickly becoming an economic powerhouse, the go-to place for multinationals to set up their European headquarters.
Hughes also announced Britain would spend 600 million euros on alleviating child poverty, after a UN report revealed Britain was the worst place to grow up in the developed world. These new policies included an increase to child benefit and generous tax credits. The Junta had always tried to encourage birth rates through policy with lavish one-off payments to new mothers, however Junta era policy lacked long-term support after the child was born, leading to huge levels of child poverty, neglect and adoption. This of course would feed into the various organised crimes and paramilitary groups, able to swell their numbers from disadvantaged youths. Hughes promised “cradle to adulthood” support for Britain’s children, with a target of eradicating child poverty by the end of the next Parliament.
Trying to keep everyone happy at the same time, and with the additional wiggle room created by EU membership and the scrapping of trident, the 2007 budget would involve a spending splurge. The 2007 budget saw a huge increase of federal subsidies into education, infrastructure and research. This additional spending not only made the Alternative happy, but made Britain an attractive location for multinationals. The most notable part of the infrastructure spending was the announcement of a high speed rail network going from London to the Channel Tunnel and continuing on to Paris, Britain would officially have a high-speed link to the continent, predicted to be finished in 2014.
Britain's infrastructure was decades behind other leading nations
“Plans for a new high-speed rail network have been announced by Development Secretary Chris Huhne. The government is recommending “HS2” a route for a new line between London and Ashford, to connect on to Paris via the Channel Tunnel. This follows on from the HS1 link between London and Birmingham developed by the Junta in the 90s. The public will be consulted on the proposed route, with work unlikely to start until 2009 at the earliest. The Ministry for Development said high-speed rail "can drive economic growth and boost jobs". Secretary Huhne told the House of Commons that the views of communities along the route would be particularly sought. He said the 60 miles between London and Ashford would cost around 15bn euros.” - BBC News Bulletin (2007)
Hughes also announced cuts to the basic rate of tax, dropping from 29% to just 25%. The Junta had always kept personal tax rates high and the SDP government hoped by associating democracy with prosperity they could protect their transition. Corporation tax would also be cut from 34% to 30% Whilst popular these measures would drag Britain into a budget deficit, Hughes justified this arguing the investments in infrastructure and tax cuts would pay for themselves, encouraging further investment in the UK and growth to the British economy. Hughes’ gambled that by increasing spending in the short term, Britain could boost productivity and overtake regional rivals like Ireland.
Dublin had been the most popular site for Junta exiles - both political and economic
In the days since the fall of the Junta Britain’s economy had indeed exploded, London has relatively cheap office rents for a major European city and the British government was happy to bend over backwards to accommodate new business. Some academics nicknamed this “Jack in the Box Economics”, the thesis Britain's economy had been stifled for so long during the Junta years that economic “pressure” had built, being released all at once with the return of democracy. However this explosive growth had slowed over the last two years, if Hughes’ investments paid off the upwards growth would continue, making Britain even stronger, but if this massive growth slowed or even stopped, Britain would not have a surplus to cushion any fall.
Another elephant in the room was Britain’s bloated military spending, whilst Hughes had made some minor cutbacks the Ministry of Defence was left mostly untouched, due to the Government’s deal with Defence Secretary Charles Gunthrie. Military spending was glossed over by both major parties in their budget speeches, with only interventions from the Alternative raising the issue in Parliament for Hansard. Britain’s military spending as a percentage of GDP still matched that of authoritarian regimes such as Russia or Saudi Arabia. Both parties' silence on the issue spoke volumes, behind the scenes the army establishment was still untouchable, and the taxpayer footed the bill.
“At a time when the Government’s spending faces-growing challenges, there is one area where Britain could impose more austerity. And that is the arena of military spending and the arms industry. Abolishing nuclear weapons saved several billions of euros every year. Reductions of all military spending to Ireland’s levels (1% of GDP) would save many more billions. Writing off dirty debts caused by arms deals would be a good first step to lay the bill for the crisis with those who helped cause it. Such measures would also prove that at a time of crisis, Britain is prepared to invest in a future desired by its citizens rather than its warmongers.” - Guns, Debt and Corruption: Military Spending in Transition Britain, Lecture by Paul Cornish, London School of Economics (2009)
The military still had money for elaborate parades
What's the government's stance about the IT sector? A good amount of investment in digital infrastructure can bring much needed money into the economy.
I can't help but think that Guthrie would have been happy to accept savage cuts to the Parade Budget in order to help protect more pragmatic capabilities, personally. It would give the SDP a public/showy 'Win' whilst maintaining capabilities (keeping the Brass happy,) which seems like a win-win to me.