A Very British Coup

Can I take it that you weren't alive or politically aware in the 1970s?

No, I wasn't. I have admitted several times I don't know much about the era.

Read the OP's original post as well as the emoticons showing :rolleyes: & :p indicating sarcasm, as in "I don't believe this, its just for the lulz". The :mad:'s were just to play off the anti-american anger of the time regarding how the ultra-left in the UK played up every American sin out there, real and imagined, while the USSR scarcely seemed to even exist in their universe. OK? I was not accusing OTL Labour IRL of being Soviet agents, I was simply reading what the OP had posted. Even as an American I know that Labour never had a history of any Soviet infiltration, not at the level of elected office (including backbenchers, in power parties or opposition). The British Civil Service was another matter, and that was not a thing of conspiracy theories.

It is often very hard on the internet to ascertain whether someone is being serious or not, the problem is that while you (I'm including myself in this you as I am in fact guilty of this below if you read on) may know its a joke but other don't. I see now that I should have taken the copious use of similes as evidence of the 'ironic' nature of your comment. Thats my mistake.

1) I suggest you take a look at my own board history before you make such outrageous charges. I am a pronounced anglophile who wishes I lived under the parliamentary system, as it is far superior to the American republican one (one civil war, McCarthyism, Jim Crow, W, Tea Party, etc).

Nevertheless, since I don't want things to get any worse, I will delete the portion of that post you find so incredibly offensive.

BTW? Hair trigger accusations of trolling IS trolling. I just thought you might want to remember that in future.

'I suggest you take your trolling elsewhere sir' was meant in a playful manner, alas I am guilty of the very fault I pointed out above in not making my language clear enough to convey my emotions. Perhaps if I had posted a ':p' after my last sentence this would have been made more clear. The rest of that last paragraph I will admit was due to misunderstanding the tone and meaning of your post as a whole.

The first half stays, as it simply represents a "shoe-on-the-other-foot" example.

I struggle with recognising sarcasm on the internet. I tend to take myself and others far too seriously. I can only apologise if I have come across as brash or rude in any manner, that was not and will never be my intention.
 
The problem with any military coup against the government of the UK is that the CinC of the armed forces is ultimately the reigning monarch (in this case Queen Elizabeth II), and the prime minister is appointed directly by her.

Of course you might be able to postulate a situation where the government was so bad that the Queen (perhaps on the advice of some of her privy councilors) chose to ignore convention and exercise her right to dissolve parliament herself and appoint somebody else as prime minister, but if that somebody else is not able to command a majority in the House of Commons, then her only other choice would be to dissolve parliament and call a general election.

To get a 'proper' coup, you're looking at a situation where the monarch is overthrown, and for that a far-left revolution is much more likely than a military coup. Still highly unlikely, as the revolutionaries would have to defeat both the armed forces and the police (both of whom swear loyalty to the monarch). Even in the 1970s or early 1980s, I don't think there are enough committed far-left activists willing to engage in violent revolution, and even if there were, I don't think they'd be able to get hold of sufficient weapons and equipment to make a serious attempt.

I'm not a particular fan of constitutional monarchy, but to paraphrase Churchill, it seems to be the worst form of government, apart from all of the other forms that have been tried from time to time (IIRC, the original quotation was about democracy).
 
Yeah thats the wild card. Does the Queen support the coup or not? If she doesn't we see fresh elections which radical Labour win again (unless they are banned from participating or have their leadership removed) and the military-reactionaries are defeated. Does anyone want to comment on this? I'm really interested in what would happen but my own knowledge is severely limited.


What would happen if it were a Socialist or Communist Coup and it announced because of it's political beliefs that it was ending the British Monarchy?
 
What would happen if it were a Socialist or Communist Coup and it announced because of it's political beliefs that it was ending the British Monarchy?

A communist-inspired uprising of the UK's armed forces is highly ASB. Even amongst the enlisted ranks, support for the monarchy is a fair bit higher than in the general public as a whole.

Any far-left revolution is going to start in the highly unionised workforce of the (at the time) nationalised industries - coal, steel, the docks, British Leyland, British Shipbuilders, etc. Whilst they may have plenty of bodies, there's no way they're going to be able to seize power. Whilst the police probably aren't up to dealing with an attempted revolution on their own, with the support of the armed forces and possibly a bit of emergency legislation it should be possible to keep things under control (think Northern Ireland in the 1970s and 1980s).
 
No, I wasn't. I have admitted several times I don't know much about the era.

And I missed your saying that, and that's my fault.:eek: Sorry.

As an American of Draft age (first round in the nation to have to sign up for the newly activated Selective Service) I paid a huge amount of attention to foreign affairs for a twenty year old (was I going to have to fight in the 1980 US-Iran War?:eek:). Hence, following things like the nuclear freeze movements of the time and the radicalism of the British Left seemed to be a big worry. If an election like that in the BBC film "A Very British Coup" had happened in real life...! To an American who didn't understand the ins-and-outs of parliamentary politics in the 1980s, I didn't see that not only was Labour not winning any converts (the constant protests helped to disguise this fact) but their ever growing surge to the Left meant that a British PM like Thatcher, who would have lost without the Falklands, even WITH the Falklands would not have survived more than a few more years were it not for the nature of Labour politics at the time.

I realize now that while the contempt the West European governments at the time had for the nuclear freeze movement (Unilateralist, unlike the Bilateralist American version) was a very mature one, to American viewers across the pond it looked as if half of Europe was in the streets, and a "Finlandization of Europe" might seem possible.

Pure BS in hindsight, and European political leaders of the time certainly knew this, but it was a very real concern in Washington. Not of NATO's collapse, but its being rendered meaningless if (in some cases covertly Soviet-supported) demonstrations were all that sufficed to get the West to cancel its response to the USSR's SS-20 missile deployments.:(

It is often very hard on the internet to ascertain whether someone is being serious or not, the problem is that while you (I'm including myself in this you as I am in fact guilty of this below if you read on) may know its a joke but other don't. I see now that I should have taken the copious use of similes as evidence of the 'ironic' nature of your comment. Thats my mistake.

OK. God knows, I'm no one to throw stones if someone is making an honest mistake. If I HADN'T used smilies, I would hope you would have reported me. And deservedly so.:(:eek:

'I suggest you take your trolling elsewhere sir' was meant in a playful manner, alas I am guilty of the very fault I pointed out above in not making my language clear enough to convey my emotions. Perhaps if I had posted a ':p' after my last sentence this would have been made more clear. The rest of that last paragraph I will admit was due to misunderstanding the tone and meaning of your post as a whole.

Gotcha. In a silent medium of texting, with no tone, inflection, or emphasis of any kind it takes a delicate balancing act of vocabulary and grammar to weave the necessary word craft to prevent misunderstandings.:( I know I lack this talent, which is why I live and die by the emoticons Ian has provided. That, and [SIZE][FONT][COLOR], and so on.

I struggle with recognising sarcasm on the internet. I tend to take myself and others far too seriously. I can only apologise if I have come across as brash or rude in any manner, that was not and will never be my intention.

Thank you. Apology accepted. I completely understand your meaning now. Alls well that ends well. Can we be friends?:)

Just think of how hard it is for us Yanks to discern dry British wit on the internet!:eek:

Just remember these words:

If the Lord had meant us never to use smilies, he never would have given us the Seventies!:)

And after all this, I'll delete the remaining part of that old post, OK?:D
 
Top