"A Very British Transition" - A Post-Junta Britain TL
- Thread starter powerab
- Start date
Today I learned that Subreddit r/Monarchism is not ironic
Speaking of the now King Charles what became of a certain Diana Spencer ITTL?
IOTL Mountbatten was a father figure to Charles and was apparently quite keen at one point for Charles to marry is own granddaughter Amanda Knatchbull. Apparently Charles did propose to her but following the then very recent murder of Mountbatten and various other members of her close family she turned him down as she was now reluctant to join the Royal Family.
With Mountbatten having led a very different life ITTL and having been much more powerful did Charles end up marrying Amanda Knatchbull or still Diana or possibly someone else?
Does the closeness of his relationship with Mountbatten ever in any way come back to haunt the new king?
IOTL Mountbatten was a father figure to Charles and was apparently quite keen at one point for Charles to marry is own granddaughter Amanda Knatchbull. Apparently Charles did propose to her but following the then very recent murder of Mountbatten and various other members of her close family she turned him down as she was now reluctant to join the Royal Family.
With Mountbatten having led a very different life ITTL and having been much more powerful did Charles end up marrying Amanda Knatchbull or still Diana or possibly someone else?
Does the closeness of his relationship with Mountbatten ever in any way come back to haunt the new king?
Charles still married Spencer and she died in a car crash as per OTL.
Mountbatten was keen for Charles and Knatchbull to marry, but by the time a marriage was on the cards Mountbatten was first Lord and the Royal Family didn't want to politicise themselves through a marriage between Charles and Knatchbull.
However Mountbatten remained a close friend and mentor to Charles, Charles spoke at Mountbattens funeral and refused to condemn him in the post Junta era, this had led to criticisms especially from the left.
Is republicanism and anti monarchism more prevalent in post junta Britain than OTL?
Yes absolutely 56% of Brits favour the Monarchy over a Republic in ITL, compared to 76% in OTL
Was there a state sponsored dating service, similar to the Singapore Social Development Unit? Protecting large families, and encouraging national recreation, a smaller version of the Fascist Doloprano, or Strength Through Joy?
No nothing like that, whilst life in the Junta was certainly worse for women that OTL, it was never actively fascist. Whilst things like the pill and abortion were harder to get, and marrying young was encouraged, the Junta didn't have much in the way of relationship policy
Chapter 86: Bunker Mentality
Burnham gambled on shaming other parties into supporting him
“Andy Burnham addressed the Commons on Tuesday to ask for support for a "Government of change and dialogue" that will get Britain "past the blockade". His message was addressed especially to the UPA, calling on them to "promote political change". For Ribeiro-Addy's party, Burnham's message is still insufficient and he must break with Unity to negotiate the support of the UPA. The leader of the SDP attended the debate with the agreement signed with Unity, insufficient to be elected PM. "I have summoned everyone, except National, to this agreement and the transfer of power: we are obligated to talk to each other. It is a moral imperative, and also a functional necessity. This is how the people have decided. They demand risking a dialogue even if we fail". - Burnham summons People’s Alliance to give their votes for a “Government of change”, BBC News Bulletin (2016)
Rather than force the UPA’s hand the deal with Unity only enraged the leftist parties, the People’s Alliance, RISE and Forward Wales all pulled out of talks with the SDP. Ribeiro-Addy accused Burnham of dishonesty and confirmed channels between the two parties would remain closed until Burnham’s confidence vote. Salvation wouldn’t come from the right as Hague decrypted the centre-left pact as “useless” without a parliamentary majority, confirming National would vote against Burnham regardless of his choice in political partners. Even the pact itself wasn’t massively steady - with differing interpretations from each party. For example, in an attempt to court the UPA Burnham claimed the document allowed for the repeal of Hague era trade union laws, whilst Sugar believed the document would keep these laws in place.
Addressing the Commons Burnham made one last plea for the UPA to join him, he hailed his governing programme as one of “fundamental change” and told parliamentarians even if he failed he was proud to have played his role in “fixing our broken politics''. In his counter speech Hague described Burnham’s government as a “fantasy” and a “personal promotion campaign, aimed at saving his party leadership”. In the ensuing debate insults would fly between the two men - both blaming each other for the impasse - as relations between Britain's two great parties continued to deteriorate. Ribeiro-Addy confirmed the People’s Alliance would also vote against the government, accusing Burnham of betraying his socialist principles. For his part Sugar welcomed the accord with the SDP, calling on “decent and moderate” National MPs to break with Hague and “join the change”.
Relations between the parties were at an all time low
Despite attempts to shame National or UPA legislators into supporting the government, not one other MP would cross the floor, hopes that the leftist parties would at least abstain were dashed as the tribunes of the plebs filled into the no lobby. Losing the confidence vote 317 votes to 171 Burnham had been rejected by the Commons in a landslide defeat, making him the first person to lose a Parliamentary confidence vote in transition history. The underdog tried his best and the underdog lost. The harsh words exchanged by both Hague and Ribeiro-Addy made it clear that any further deal was unlikely, with doors rapidly closing a second election was beckoning.
“After Wednesday’s marathon session, Bell Ribeiro-Addy has called on forces across the left to sit down and negotiate. The emerging political force is determined to form a “government of progress” with representatives from the SDP, UPA and RISE. “From Friday,” Ribeiro-Addy told reporters, “it would be good news to hear that all the forces for a progressive coalition government have met.” In her opinion, Burnham's failed confidence vote shows that his party’s “deal with Unity does not make for a government.” Burnham, meanwhile, insisted on Wednesday that a deal between all the leftist parties is not enough to create a government. He called for a cross-party deal between the left and centre.” - Burnham loses confidence vote, what happens now?, Jon Stone, The Independent (2016)
After meeting with Commons Speaker George Bridges an enraged King Charles told journalists he wouldn’t be summoning any further candidates for Prime Minister unless a workable majority was presented to him. Bridges went even further, declaring that a majority in the current Commons was “unforeseeable” Rather than make any further attempts for Downing Street, most parties dug into their trenches and prepared for snap elections. With Burnham mortally wounded Hague called on the Social Democrats to step aside and let him govern, whilst Burnham and Sugar continued to call on Hague to submit to their centre-left government.
Bastani had tried to bring the People's Party's local affiliates under central control
As the parties settled in for a siege, the ultra-democratic People’s Party were struggling, several newly elected regional legislators in the London Provinces left the party, accusing its central leadership of “excessive authoritarianism”. Divisions were further exacerbated when Ribeiro-Addy sacked Aaron Bastani, the party’s controversial National Secretary and close ally of Deputy Leader Owen Jones. Whilst Ribeiro-Addy was against any deal with the Social Democrats, Jones was more open to working with Burnham, and believed the party’s momentum would collapse if it faced a second snap election. Bastani’s removal led to rumours that Ribeiro-Addy was preparing for a purge of Jones allies from the party leadership.
Whilst an internal spat was alleviated by the elevation of James Meadway, popular among both wings of the party to the National Secretaryship and a public making up between the two party leaders, fundamental divisions still dominated the People’s Party - from centralisation, to the alliance with the Alternative, and possible coalition with the Social Democrats - it was clear the party would struggle to survive a prolonged period in the trenches without an enemy to fight. Meadway announced he would be undertaking a comprehensive review of the party under “decentralising” principles. In typical leftist fashion with a snap election on the table it was time for some internal politicking. The populist war machine had stalled and now it was looking inwards.
“Bell Ribeiro-Addy has sent a letter to party members contradicting reports of internal strife within the People's Party. “The London resignations provided fodder for the story that supporters of the status quo like to tell. We must not commit a mistake of this kind again, and accountability must be demanded" she wrote. With the SDP and UPA now willing to resume talks, Ribeiro-Addy is keen to show that her party is a united group. “It is crucial for each one of us to be up to the task and to not play into the hands of our adversaries,” said Ribeiro-Addy in her letter to party members. Party members range from hardline anti-capitalists to more pragmatic individuals who seek to effect change from within. ” - People’s Party staves off internal rebellion, Sam Jones, The Guardian (2016)
Jones wanted the People's Party to professionalise it's internal structures, and formally merge with the Alternative
Chapter 87: An Inconvenient Election
The Commons were running out of road
“In a statement on Tuesday, the palace said the king would meet Britain's two leftist parties, the centrist SDP and the anti-austerity UPA, on Monday. Chances of a leftist coalition have improved since Bell Ribeiro-Addy said on Friday she was willing to soften her red lines to negotiate a pact. But, a deal is still not a certainty, given the Andy Burnham would need to agree pacts with several nationalist parties to gain a majority. The UPA pounced on news that an anti-corruption operation had arrested 34 people many linked to National, by warning the SDP against a grand coalition. "Anybody that talks about political regeneration cannot enter into agreements with National," People's Party number two Owen Jones said in parliament.“ - UK leftist parties to discuss new government with king next week, Angus Berwick, Reuters (2016)
With discontent in her own camp growing, Ribeiro-Addy softened her negotiation red lines. Polls showed many Brits blaming the UPA for stalling coalition talks and as such the party was falling in the polls, leading to her opening up a dialogue with the Social Democrats. In her offering to Burnham’s office she agreed to drop her demands for the Deputy Prime Ministership and announced she was open to three way talks with Alan Sugar and even a government propped up by Unity so long as they weren’t granted Cabinet positions. Whilst Burnham continued to favour a broad spectrum coalition government of all three parties, both he and Sugar agreed to three way talks.
Whilst three way talks were open, both secondary parties were suspicious of each other, Sugar feared the SDP would negotiate a unilateral alliance with the UPA, leaving Unity out in the cold. Relations between Sugar and Ribeiro personally also weren’t great, Ribeiro-Addy had described Sugar as a “misogynistic ego-maniac” whilst Sugar had compared the UPA leader to Stalin. A mutual distrust between the three parties would bring talks to a stall, both the UPA and Unity wanted ministerial posts, but refused to allow the other into the Cabinet, Unity in particular refused any further compromises believing the party had already moved too far to the left by even speaking with the radical left.
Ribeiro-Addy would walk out of three way talks after just a week, accusing Burnham of being “kidnapped” by Unity and the right of the Social Democrats. With all other options exhausted a German-style National/SDP Government was the only option left, however this was increasingly difficult. The Social Democrats wanted to keep their accord with Unity, with National acting as a confidence partner or abstaining, whilst National wanted a coalition government led by Hague and excluding Unity, noting that the two parties alone could reach a majority. Hague knew Burnham would refuse, and planned for the Social Democrats to topple him and make way for a grand coalition, but no internal challenger came.
A poll of leading politicians and celebrities showed Attenborough at the top, outpacing established party leaders
Talk of a technocratic Government led by an independent was also raised by Alan Sugar, this had precedent on the continent in countries like Italy and could avert a chaotic second election. Possible candidates included Senator David Attenborough, Supreme Court Chief Justice Patricia Scotland, Civil Service Chief Tom Scholar, UN Ambassador Michael Tatham or even Oxford University Chancellor Nick Phillips. Of course this was how Mountbatten had been “invited” to lead Britain into the Junta dark days so this was thoroughly rejected by everyone, although a “draft David Attenborough” campaign did pick up steam on Twitter, leading to parody accounts such as “draft Stormzy” and “draft David Beckham”.
“As Lord Mountbatten learnt, the prime minister does not have to be a member of parliament. As long as he, or she, can command a majority in the House of Commons, they can be elected PM. With the current prime minister not even trying to form a government it’s safe to say we’re close to hitting rock bottom. The UK hasn’t seen such a crisis in decades. With this in mind, I propose we let Sir David lead a government of national unity to deal with this mess. He is the only logical choice. A man more popular with left wing UPA voters than Saint Bell herself. A man comfortable in a tweed jacket and a gilet who can appeal to the countryside toffs. The only man who, when he meets The Queen, leaves her starstruck. Sir David Attenborough got us out of one mess caused by allowing the public to vote on things (Boaty McBoatFace) let’s let him get us out of another.” - Arise, Prime Minister David Attenborough, Medium (2016)
As the deadline clock hit five minutes to midnight, the last scramble across Westminster occurred. Patrick Harvie tried desperately to revive a broad left government, proposing a six-month renewing coalition deal, with Cabinet posts for all parties involved, only to be rebuffed by the Social Democrats and People’s Alliance. The SDP approached Unity asking to keep their coalition pact in place and run a joint centre-left ticket in the election, which Sugar refused. Journalists reported the mood in the Commons was bitter as party staffers enjoyed one last subsidised drink, relations between the Social Democrats and UPA were particularly bad with one drunken staffer fight breaking out during a karaoke session of “The Red Flag”, both parties claiming the song as their own.
Burnham wasn't on speaking terms with many of his Shadow Ministers, let alone Ribeiro-Addy
After three months of standoffs, negotiations and backstabbing Britain was still without a government. The King’s deadline passed and the United Kingdom officially entered a constitutional crisis. King Charles dissolved the 2016 House of Commons the same day, at a little over three months old it was the shortest Parliament in modern British history. Fresh elections were scheduled for the 7th of December - a thoroughly inconvenient time for everyone. Politicians bought new dog-bite resistance coats as activists got ready for cold canvasses and short days.
Spin-doctors across London tried to contextualise the snap election in favour of their boss. Hague blamed the Social Democrats and Unity for refusing to make any compromises with his party. Sugar told reporters he was proud to have kept “populists out of Downing Street” through holding a hardline against the People's Party. Burnham told party activists they could go into elections with their “heads held high” as the only party who even tried to form a government. Polls showed little had changed over the last few months, with National in the lead with three other parties squabbling behind them. The biggest losers had been the Social Democrats, having tried to form a majority and failed Burnham had sparked open warfare in his party, with senior frontbenchers briefing against him. Like in a Shakespearean duel, the man who made the first move looked likely to lose it all.
“The UPA, led by the charismatic Bell Ribeiro-Addy has made no secret of its desire to supplant the Social Democrats as Britain's main left-wing grouping. "Ms Ribiero-Addy never wanted a progressive prime minister,” Burnham said, accusing her of having “closed the door” to a reformist government. At an earlier press conference, Ribeiro accused Burnham of saying “no” to everything. Research polls have suggested that fresh elections will do little to change the December outcome. Hague's conservatives could gain ground, while the Social Democrats, as well as the People's Party and its allies may lose a little. But parties are very likely to have to sit down for new coalition talks after the fresh election – meaning yet another headache.” - Social Democrats blame People’s Alliance for snap elections, BBC News Bulletin (2016)
Burnham hoped the UPA would collapse faced with another election
Last edited:
Where's the "lady exasperated at the thought of another election" when we need her?
The King seems to be very active in this mess and the parties have no one else to blame, but themselves.