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

December 2016 UK General Election, Part 1
1645454916456.png

Some feared the wrong election result risked Britain crashing out of the euro

“By refusing to change procedures, we have made political turmoil defining features of democracy. A few weeks ago, Austria almost elected its first far-right president, while a Dutch referendum voted down a trade agreement with Ukraine. My country, Belgium, became the laughing stock of Europe a few years earlier, when it failed to form a government for 541 days. But nobody is laughing now that it seems that many western democracies are turning “Belgian”. Countless western societies are currently afflicted by “democratic fatigue syndrome”. Symptoms may include referendum fever, declining party membership, and low voter turnout. Or government impotence – under relentless media scrutiny, widespread public distrust, and populist upheavals.”
- Why elections are bad for democracy, David Van Reybrouck, The Guardian (2016)

Snap elections are always a crude tool for unblocking political quagmires, and rarely end well for any involved. In the stable democracies of Germany, France and the Netherlands observers were worried Britain could cascade into a cycle of divisive elections, stubborn coalition negotiations, unstable government, followed again by divisive elections. Estonia, Portugal and Sweden had all collapsed into snap elections over the last few years and Italy had been through four Prime Ministers in the last four years, the prospect of Britain turning into another Italy - a real possibility - kept eurocrats and civil servants up at night. Merkel and Sarkozy, who had funnelled a lot of political capital into the UK bailout, feared political consequences at home should another bailout be needed.

Some parties hoped to ride this fear of “Italification” straight to Downing Street, most notably National. As by far Britain’s largest party with a respectable lead in the polls, William Hague’s pitch to the electorate was easy - just a few more votes and we can secure a stable majority - a tantalising prospect to a politically-weary electorate. National particularly targeted moderate Social Democratic voters, arguing if Burnham had agreed to a grand coalition all of this could’ve been avoided. Older SDP voters were especially spooked by the UPA wave and Scottish separatists; warnings of a leftist “coalition of chaos” were particularly effective in pushing them towards the National camp.

1645455056474.png

Fear of the People's Alliance and RISE was particularly high among swing voters

The Social Democrats meanwhile were busy trying to squash the UPA threat to their flank, in a repeat of history polls showed the SDP falling to third place in the general election. Burnhan’s spin doctors, led by his bruiser campaign coordinator Richard Angell conducted a vicious negative campaign against the People’s Alliance, highlighting the communist element of the leftist coalition and dire warnings of a radical UPA Government bringing the entire British state to its knees. However Burnham’s campaign was continually dogged by divisions in his party, with several leading MPs planning a leadership challenge when Burnham lost, his authority was irreversibly shot.

“Andy Burnham, assured today that the SDP "is not going to support a National Government and Ribeiro is not going to be Prime Minister." In an interview with the BBC Burnham insisted that "between the extremists of Hague and Ribeiro-Addy there is an alternative, with a plan". He stressed that "the stronger the SDP is, the stronger and more inclusive that change will be" and he encouraged undecided voters to support the SDP. The SDP leader pointed out the three basic principles on which the SDP is going to come to terms with other political formations. "We are not going to support any government led by William Hague or the National Party. We are not going to support any government that fragments the United Kingdom. Finally we are not going to support any government that questions the economic and social viability of our welfare state.” - Andy Burnham: Between the bad and the worst there is an alternative, SDP Press Release (2016)

Internal party strife lent some extra spice to election proceedings, the People’s Alliance, Social Democrats and National all had internal splits and spats spilling out into public, with all three main leaders facing at least rumblings of a leadership challenge. The only party not openly eating itself was Unity, run effectively as Sugar’s personal fiefdom. Whilst these divisions were most notable in the Social Democrats, the People’s Alliance was also suffering from internal problems as centralist allies found themselves pushed down party lists in internal primaries. Pro-nuclear weapons Clive Lewis was demoted as the Alliance’s foreign affairs spokesperson alongside Paul Mason and Caroline Lucas, all seen as internal critics of Ribeiro-Addy who favoured the party professionalising.

1645454791505.png

The Social Democrats were being pushed back into their Northern heartlands

Despite Jones' allies complaining, polls showed unifying the party around Ribeiro-Addy personally was paying off, Ribeiro-Addy had long outperformed her party personally in opinion polls from her time as a TV pundit. Election posters and social media memes were plastered with Bell’s face with the caption “your next Prime Minister” whilst critics within and without the party attacked the “presidential campaign” it seemed to be working as the radical left picked up steam. This didn’t stop discontent on the Alliance’s backbenches especially among older politicians from the Socialist Alternative who were finding themselves increasingly sidelined for the new kinds of the block.

Ribeiro-Addy continued to attract headlines after in a BBC interview she declared support for Prime Ministerial term limits, promising not to spend more than two terms in Downing Street and “walk away entirely” from politics after finishing her time in office. The UPA also made the unprecedented move of publishing it’s manifesto early, another gambit that seemed to pay off as proposals such as dramatically increasing tax on the highest earners and a 15% increase in public spending proved popular with voters. Ribeiro-Addy’s campaign strategy was one of high-risk high reward, if she could keep the war machine moving all the way to Downing Street she could have it all, if she failed there was only one person to blame.

At the centre of the storm sat William Hague, playing it safe and not taking any risk, his campaign was a boring affair of leisure centre stump speeches and crisp interviews on the Today programme. Hague had been mocked by his opponents in National as “William Vague” when he first rose to the leadership, known as all things to all men without strong ideological drives. This reputation for being overly cautious was only exacerbated when Hague refused King’s Charles' request to try and form a Commons majority. But Hague banked that with chaos all around them the voting public would turn to zen-like William Vague to lead them away from populists and temptation.

“Hague goes into December’s election in a similar position to the one he found himself in six months ago: his personal approval ratings on the floor, but his party nonetheless leading polls. “He’s had staying power in his party and he went into government at a difficult time for the UK. He’s risk-averse but that has paid off for him, although I don’t know if it’s been to the UK's advantage.” says one European diplomat. Assuming he can see off the leftist United People Alternative, which polls suggest is close behind, Hague will win again. But he will need the support of others to govern. National's most natural ally, Unity, has suggested it would only offer its backing if Hague steps aside as party leader. Staying in power into the new year may be one challenge too far for the great survivor of British politics.” - William Vague’s Final Stand, Guy Hedgecoe, Politico (2016)

1645454974785.png

Hague needed to win big if he hoped to save the top job
 
Last edited:

Turtledove voting is up for this TL if you want to vote, this TL definitely deserves it
 

Turtledove voting is up for this TL if you want to vote, this TL definitely deserves it
Voted
 
Internal party strife lent some extra spice to election proceedings, the People’s Alliance, Social Democrats and National all had internal splits and spats spilling out into public, with all three main leaders facing at least rumblings of a leadership challenge. The only party not openly eating itself was Unity, run effectively as Sugar’s personal fiefdom. Whilst these divisions were most notable in the Social Democrats, the People’s Alliance was also suffering from internal problems as centralist allies found themselves pushed down party lists in internal primaries. Pro-nuclear weapons Clive Lewis was demoted as the Alliance’s foreign affairs spokesperson alongside Paul Mason and Caroline Lucas, all seen as internal critics of Ribiero-Addy who favoured the party professionalising.

All three solid candidates for a purging, good on Ribiero-Addy.
 
December 2016 Election Debate
Hague Survives UK Election Debate

Politico


1645528985745.png

LONDON — Britain’s acting prime minister, William Hague of the National Party, came out of a four-way electoral debate Monday alive.

The debate was the only one he will take part in during the campaign for the country’s first repeat election in its modern history, to be held December 7.

Hague, faced two newcomers who have shaken up the two-party dominance: the far-left UPA, and centrist Unity.

Reflecting the political shift Britain has undergone, the debate was the first to put the UPA and Unity on the same footing as National and the SDP.

Hague also had to contend with his traditional rival, Social Democrat Andy Burnham, whom he had already debated in July.

Over the two-hour exchange, opposition leaders spent most of their time criticising Hague’s austerity policies.

Hague defended his record, saying: “To govern is difficult, to preach is easy.”

Hague's bet is that he will fare better in new elections, but the future doesn’t look promising. He may well end up winning the ballot again, only to fail to put together a ruling coalition. He may even be rejected as a viable candidate.

Audiences were curious how Hague would respond to his much more telegenic rivals.

Hague wasn’t brilliant, but he didn’t make any terrible mistakes. He survived the debate by deploying his usual weapons: the economic recovery card, his experience, and clichés about how good a country Britain is.

"You don’t come here to do an internship, you need to come here already grown up,” he lectured his three rivals, highlighting his main rival Bell Ribeiro-Addy's inexperience, being only 29 years old, and an MP for only a few months. He criticised the others for sharing a “sad view” of their country.

Hague took a beating when the debate turned to corruption, as it happened during the last campaign with Burnham. This time it was Sugar who pulled the trigger on the acting prime minister, who responded by calling Sugar an “inquisitor.”

In a conservative debate, with all candidates focused on avoiding mistakes, Sugar was the most aggressive.

The liberal leader of Unity pushed ahead with his campaign strategy of media visibility over precise policy proposals.

Sugar hammered Hague on the issue he knew would be most effective: corruption.

Brits consider corruption the second most important problem in the country, behind unemployment.

Hague's National Party has weathered repeated allegations of graft over the last few years. In response millions of regular National voters defected to Unity in December.

Sugar accused Hague of having received more than €400,000 in tainted funds, referring to a pending National corruption case. He suggested the acting prime minister should resign for the good of the country.

“It is very difficult to trust you anymore and you keep prioritising your chair over the country,” Sugar argued.

Sugar also went for Ribeiro-Addy’s jugular, portraying her as the champion of the Greek-based model of economic failure.

“Don’t dress up like a Social Democrat, don’t hide the wolf in the sheep’s clothing,” he told Ribeiro-Addy.

Andy Burnham, seen by many as a dead man walking, seems determined to struggle until the end. During the debate, he tried to communicate a few simple ideas. First, he could be the prime minister by now if Ribeiro-Addy hadn’t rejected him. Second, the UPA supports the self-determination of Scotland, in contrast with his SDP, which defends the union. Third, he was still available to lead what he called a “progressive government of change.”

He repeated the first of these messages around a dozen times.

“I keep thinking that you should have resigned, but you are still the acting prime minister thanks to Ms Ribeiro-Addy,” he told Hague. “I tried to become Prime Minister and the two extremes rejected me,” he added.

When Ribeiro-Addy argued she didn’t want Scotland to leave Britain, Burnham countered by showing a newspaper headline of Mhairi Black - the UPA's Scottish leader saying she would vote for independence.

The Social Democrats believe they can win back up to one third of the People's Alliance's 7 million July voters. They’re targeting those who are dissatisfied with Ribeiro-Addy's’ “intransigence” during coalition negotiations. If they manage to win back a million, they still won’t beat Hague, but Burnham will have a second chance at trying to head a ruling coalition.

Bell Ribeiro-Addy, the 29-year-old People's Party leader, played it safe Monday. That’s likely the result of an attempt to cement the advantage polls say she has over the SDP — her priority is to beat the Social Democrats into third place.

Ribeiro-Addy left her revolutionary gestures at home and tried to project a serious statesman image. She used lots of data, quoting institutions like the OECD, defended Barack Obama and softened her language.

She ignored Sugar and tried to antagonise Hague to portray herself as the true alternative to National.

Ribeiro-Addy also argued the Social Democrats, with whom he wants to rule after the elections, are the People's Party's natural allies. She praised some of Burnham’s proposals and argued they should both be fighting against Hague instead.

“You are mistaking your rival Andy,” she countered after the Social Democrat criticised her over coalition negations.

Ribeiro-Addy also pressured Burnham to reveal if the SDP will help a National-led government or if it will support a UPA coalition.

“There are two options: a government with National or a government with People's Alliance and the SDP together,” Ribeiro-Addy said.

Burnham didn’t say whether he will support Ribeiro-Addy as prime minister if he ends up in third place, as polls forecast.

The debate made it clear: There’s no easy solution to Britain's political stalemate. Polls also suggest that no individual party will gain a governing majority.

The four leaders each blamed one another for their failure to reach agreement on a coalition government.

The four leaders pledged to do everything possible to avoid a repeat of the impasse of the last six months. “There will be no further elections,” said Ribeiro-Addy. Sugar said he would support “a government of change”, without going into further details. Burnham said he would be mobilising support among his party’s grassroots, while Hague called on Unity and the SDP to form a grand coalition

Last week, the YouGov put the National in the lead on 37% of the vote, compared with 34% in December. The UPA were second on 21%, forecasting no change form their 21% in the previous ballot.

The SDP was down on the 23% it gained in July (on 20%) relegating it to third place for the first time since democracy returned to Britain. Unity is forecast to remain in fourth place on 11%, down from its previous 12%.
 
Last edited:
The Social Democrats believe they can win back up to one third of Podemos’ 7 million July voters. They’re targeting those who are dissatisfied with Ribeiro-Addy's’ “intransigence” during coalition negotiations. If they manage to win back a million, they still won’t beat Hague, but Burnham will have a second chance at trying to head a ruling coalition.
Might wanna correct this 🤔
 
Prediction: National Party -Unity Party Coalition. Sugar will be become Chancellor again but his popularity will plummet.
 
Last edited:
Prediction: National Party -Unity Party Coalition. Sugar will be become Chancellor again but his popularity will plummet.
You could call it a government of National Unity.
But in all seriousness, I think Sugar will have the fate of Reform in the back of his mind and will be hesitant to actually form a government with Hague.
If he does do it it could be the end of centrist political parties in Britain, which could leave it with a weird Canada-style right-centre left-left political split
 
December 2016 General Election Reader's Poll
1645621069356.png

Good afternoon friends colleagues and lovers!

Probably sooner than some of us expected by yet again the good readers of this TL most go the polls to vote on who they would elect from our colourful cast of transition parties. As usual this will have no impact on the plot aside from a few Easter eggs and is purely for my own curiosity/to find out how many lurkers I have.

Cast your vote here

All the best,

Powerab
 
Last edited:
Top