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

[powerab]

Mob violence made a return in the lead up to the election

“In the space of a couple of weeks Britain's largest shopping mall has been targeted in a bomb attack and gunmen have fired on the headquarters of the ruling National party. Now fears are mounting that Britain's fragile political stability could be shattered. "The government is very, very concerned," said a senior aide to William Hague. "Political stability is essential to getting through the year." In a nation that thought the spectre of terrorism had been laid to rest the resurgence of political violence has put authorities on edge. In a bid to limit the influence of far-right extremists, the conservative National Party has given added emphasis to law and order. "The police, by cracking down, are attempting to reclaim the law and order mantle," says former US diplomat Brady Kiesling.” - Britain’s fragile political stability at risk as violence escalates, NPR News (2016)

Britain had seen a steady decline in political violence since the attempted coup of 2009. With all parties seeking to lower the temperature of debate and dismissing assassinations or paramilitary movements as legitimate forms of political action. This was also the result of a generation shift as men like John McDonnell, Tommy Sheridan, who had once been paramilitaries, lost control of their parties to younger leaders with less storied pasts. In 2015 there were only 55 reported incidents of political violence, down from the over 2,000 incidents in 2005. The Red Brigades had almost entirely collapsed, and the momentum behind Scottish Independence had forced the SNLA into a dormant period. Of these 55 incidents most were between rival political activists and paramilitaries rather than targeting elected officials. With growing security for elected officials, a sitting British politician hadn’t been assassinated since 2009, a record for the nation.

The murder of Kingslee Daley, better known by his stage name Akala, shattered this peace. Daley had been mobbed and stabbed by a group of nearly 60 paramilitaries whilst watching a football match in Kentish Town. Eyewitnesses reported a pair of nearby police officers doing nothing to stop the attack, with debates on whether the officers were complicit, or simply overwhelmed. The attackers were believed to be part of Civil Assistance, and had targeted Daley for his outspoken anti-facist and anti-racist views. In the day’s following Daley’s assassinations Daley’s murderer, 48 year old George Roberts, would be arrested and brought to justice.

Civil Assistance would harass refugees in port towns like Dover and Medway

Police investigations discovered Roberts was a supporter of the far-right Centrists party, and had even been employed by the party as a cleaner in their London head office. In the weeks directly following Daley’s death political violence would flare once again, armed masked men would invade the Centrist’s head office killing nearly a dozen staffers in retribution for Daley’s death. Violence wasn’t the only form of direct political action as a United Left Social Club in Croydon was burnt down in the night. Forces on the left accused the police of allowing Civil Assistance to act unimpeded with Searchlight Director Ruth Smeeth telling reporters “Civil Assistance is enjoying complete asylum from the police.”

“Police have arrested a colleague who has been volunteering as a fighter for Civil Assistance, during a raid on its safe-houses. The officer has been suspended since last year, suspected of joining attacks on immigrant market stalls. There is intense scrutiny of perceived links between the paramilitary and police. The group is also under pressure after the killing of a left-wing activist, by a Civil Assistance supporter. After the fatal stabbing of Akala, 31, last week, Prime Minister William Hague vowed not to let CA "undermine" democracy. Two senior police officials have resigned in the wake of that incident. Police have also recently been criticised for not investigating CA over violent incidents and the keeping of weapons. In a raid on a safe-house in Reading on Tuesday, authorities said wooden bats and shotgun cartridges were found.” - Police officer held in Civil Assistance raid, BBC News Bulletin (2016)

With the election purdah period only weeks away the police announced a crackdown on Civil Assistance and other paramilitary groups. Nearly 500 accused members of Civil Assistance were arrested, embarrassingly for the Centrists who had been polling well enough to enter the Commons, a handful of those arrested were party members, including one Westminster candidate for the party. Whilst police refused to investigate the Centrists, citing a lack of evidence, the incident deeply wounded the party who had been working so hard to scrub any connection to the paramilitary far right from their brand. In response to the controversy Godfrey Bloom, one of the Centrist’s founders and former leader of the NNP was expelled from the party.

There were rumours of a leadership challenge to Burnham who was third in preferred Prime Minister polling

Britain’s democracy was at its most unstable point since the 2009 coup. With third parties like the People’s Party, Unity, RISE and the Centrists seeing their support explode, polls showed a parliament divided between dozens of parties, with three or four parties needed to form the slimmest of majorities. Even within the duopoly there was trouble, as both William Hague and Andy Burnham faced increasingly vocal critics from their own backbenches. As one National MP darkly predicted “the knives will come out after the elections, both figuratively and literally”.

Daley’s death also deeply struck the music community, whilst British music had always been political, the songs of the left had given way from 70s folk anthems to grime and other forms of underground music. Led by artists such as Novelist, M.I.A, Jme and Stormzy a group called Grime4Hope was set up to organise communities against facism and encourage young people to vote. More than 50 stars would record as part of a tribute single to Akala titled “I Won’t Cry”. The song reached the number one UK spot in iTunes two hours after it’s release, raising several million euros in a few short days. Electoral Commission figures also reported a record increase in voter registration after Akala’s death, with nearly a million signing up to vote in one month.

“Daley's sister Niomi nonetheless says she regrets the widespread reduction of Akala to an anti-fascist musician. “So many people focus on the songs about his anti-fascist actions,” he says, frustrated. “Kingslee was not only that, although he was [an anti-fascist]. He had songs about friendship, family, life and what to do with society. He was the type of person who would help you with anything.” Back in her home, Niomi says her family will continue to fight despite feeling that no legal measures will provide justice. “What we do is for everyone who is still out there,” she maintains. “Like we lost Kingslee, someone else may be killed in the same way.” She concludes: “Kingslee died as a free man who tried to kill fear that night. He stayed back to defend his friends, and he may have known that it would cost him his life.” - UK mourns slain anti-fascist rapper Kingslee Daley, Patrick Strickland, Al Jazerra

Several notable black activists emigrated after Akala's death, not wanting to be martyrs

 

[powerab]

The election sat in the middle of a global populist storm

“Many still hope the populist threat will fade. William Hague, thinks he can ride to re-election later this year on the back of an economic recovery, despite the pounding that his National Party is taking in the polls. Fractious and amateurish, some populist parties may melt away once they try their hand at governance. But others have shown staying power. Geert Wilders’s Party for Freedom is now part of the political furniture in the Netherlands. Populists can also help keep the established parties honest. Voters troubled by immigration, bail-outs or austerity need channels for their concerns. The People’s Party may be led by Gramsci-wielding ideologues, but many of the youngsters who make up much of its base are motivated by a more homely concern. “What’s up? We still don’t have a house!” runs a favoured chant.” - Part of the furniture, The Economist (2016)

The fact the Hague administration had survived a full four year term was a minor miracle. Built on unstable foundations of a three way deal between National, Reform and the SNP, the Hague government had implemented unpopular austerity whilst facing down corruption scandals and internal splits. Both of the supporting parties had stayed loyal to their confidence and supply deal, despite the SNP losing its position as Scotland’s largest party and Reform facing electoral oblivion in the polls. Despite being personally unpopular, Hague had managed to stay in control of National through shrewd deals and careful party management, with no clear successor as leader.

Hague also benefited from the weakness of his opposition, going through three SDP leaders since ascending to Downing Street with the most recent leader Andy Burnham facing loud criticism within his own party and struggling with the rising support of the People’s Party. Attempts to unite the left of British politics had seen mixed results, whilst the People’s Party and Socialist Alternative had agreed a Ribiero-Addy coalition named the “United People’s Alliance”, this had been rejected by RISE, Forward Wales and the Workers Party - citing the UPA’s federalist, rather than separatist political positions. Political fragmentation was the main theme of opposition to National with five parties running a effective national campaign and dozens of smaller parties in the nations and regions.

The OutRage movement had broken politics

Polling at the start of the short campaign showed National in the lead with 28% of the vote, with a three way battle for the silver medal with the UPA on 23%, SDP on 20% and Unity on 16%. Both Reform and the Centrists were polling around 2%, meaning they would struggle to get into Parliament, with Reform crushed by its alliance with National and squeezed by Unity for the centrist vote, whilst the Centrists were damaged by the assassination of of Akala and the expulsion of Godfrey Bloom. In Scotland, RISE called the election a “last chance” for a multilateral, legal independence referendum, calling for Scottish voters to deliver Patrick Harvie a strong mandate to take to Westminster.

“The SNP must contend with tensions within its own party organisation on the issue of unilateral independence. Whilst the majority liberal faction of the SNP, has come to embrace this constitutional goal, its smaller conservative faction is opposed to a unilateral referendum. Voters don't like divided parties and a poor result for the SNP could lead to a party split over this issue. There is little doubt that in the coming months, British politics will be dominated by the constitutional question. What is less clear is the extent to which the Scottish sovereignty movement will be able to secure the response it wants from voters in July. Whatever the outcome, Scots look set to have to endure yet another year of wrangling over the future governance of their nation.” - The challenge for pro-independence parties ahead of the 2016 elections, Lecture by Anwen Elias, LSE (2016)

Hague’s main pitch to the public was economic recovery and stability, pointing towards Britain’s stabilising economy and the repayment of Troika debts telling a rally in Coventry “we’ve shown the British people we can make tough decisions”. Hague also warned of growing instability, highlighting Britain had - for the first time ever - four parties polling above 15%. National campaigns warned of a hard-left coalition of chaos led by the UPA where dozens of squabbling parties would struggle to get anything passed. With the Greek Syriza Government hitting a rocky patch, National Party strategists were keen to squash the growing radical left insurgency.

A strong result for separatist parties would bolster the case for a unilateral referendum

Andy Burnham and the opposition meanwhile made corruption a central plank of their campaign, with the Rupert Harrison inquiry conveniently expected to deliver it’s findings after the election, Burnham hammered home the need for radical constitutional overhaul, including more power for regions, stronger checks on MPs and a more proportional voting system. Burnham also needed to squeeze the progressive votes leaking on his left and right, reminding voters the SDP was the only party that could realistically challenge National’s hegemony. The Social Democrats were especially pushing to retake Britain's cities where the UPA dominated, appealing to younger and ethnic minority voters, as well as the SDP’s core base in the towns and smaller cities of Northern England.

With four parties competing for Downing Street the chance of a clear majority was becoming increasingly slim - thus talk naturally moved to post election coalitions - however after several years of animosity none of the party leaders were in the mood to compromise. With all four having at least a slim chance of winning the Prime Ministership, none wanted to accept the need for coalition and thus make them look weak and weaken their claim to the top job. All four parties would claim they were fighting to win and refused to answer when journalists pushed them on this issue. The biggest beneficiary of this was National, with the Centrists on the run their right-wing flank was secure, and Hague could make a reasonable claim to be the man with the best chance of forming a stable majority.

“William Hague has said he does not want to speculate about any possible pact or offer he might make to Unity after July’s general election. He told the BBC Radio’s Today Program on Wednesday that “all the parties are tied at zero” until the election, and avoided talk of any deal with Alan Sugar. Unity is the only political force expected to garner the results on July 1st with which National would consider a post-election deal. For his part, Sugar said on Wednesday that he was against signing any deal with either National or the SDPs. “Brits need a new government,” he said. “Neither Hague nor Burnham represent that change.” The latest opinion poll carried out by YouGov shows the National winning between 169 and 173 MPs. The UPA are predicted to place second, earning between 121 and 124 MPs, with the SDP third (114 to 116 seats).” - PM steers clear of post-election pacts talk, BBC News Bulletin (2016)

National led in the polls but had few viable coalition partners

 

[powerab]

Hague's approval ratings had climbed over the campaign

“A 17-year-old man was arrested in Pontefract on Wednesday night after landing a heavy punch in the face of Prime Minister William Hague. The impact of the blow left the National Party candidate for re-election with broken glasses and a visible bruise on the left side of his face. The assailant approached the PM while he was campaigning on the streets of the West Yorkshire town, to take a selfie with the politician. But he struck Hague with a huge amount of force, taking him completely by surprise. Shortly after the incident, Hague made a statement in the street, saying: “I’m fine, very well, no problem at all.” Later on, the prime minister posted a message on his official Twitter account, saying: “We continue to work.” The prime minister had spent half-an-hour on the streets of Pontefract, having visited a bakery owned by a friend.” - PM punched in face while on campaign trail, BBC News Bulletin (2016)

Assaults on the sitting Prime Minister were somewhat of a tradition for British politics, in 2009 Alan Johnson had been nearly blown up after a failed bomb attack on a regional party office. An optimist could say it was a sign of Britain’s maturity, that over the course of the election campaign, the worst thing that happened to Hague was simple assault. Whilst touring the West Yorkshire town of Pontefract alongside Development Secretary Jonathon Oates, Hague was attacked by an unarmed teenager, who got a few good punches to Hague’s temple before being dragged away by security. The defining image of the campaign was Hague laughing off the attack before entering a local pub.

Whilst Hague received an outpouring of support from domestic and international politicians, among most security forces the main feeling was relief, with many concerned an attack on a major party leader was imminent. The attack on Hague also gave an excuse for Angela Merkel, German Chancellor and a Hague ally to wade into the election debate. At a joint press conference in Brussels after a European Council meeting Merkel strongly expressed her concerns on the UPA becoming Britain's leading party, warning a Britain led by the radical left would find itself isolated on the European stage, the unspoken implication being Merkel was giving her backing to Hague and the National Party.

Merkel’s support did help the stable, calm and rational campaign Hague was trying to run, it also damaged Unity’s campaign who were trying to pitch themselves as the party of Europe. Unity was trailing in fourth place between the four main parties as Sugar’s gruff mannerisms and autocratic control of his party turned off many potential supporters. The amateurish nature of the party - being only a few years old - meant it had no internal structures or vetting, with several parliamentary candidates having to step aside for misplaced tweets or accusations of corruption. Unity increasingly became the Alan Sugar party as other Unity politicians, including the popular Ruth Davidson were sidelined.

Hardliner and Trotskyist elements of the UPA would turn on the party leadership

The UPA also faced internal divisions but for the opposition reason. Whilst Unity was criticised for it’s all-powerful leader, the UPA seemed rudderless. Due to it’s ultra-democratic internal structures, with Leader Ribeiro-Addy acting as a figurehead rather than a leader, with no real internal power the party would frequently break out into internal battles. One major internal battle would be on the issue of NATO, in one interview the party’s Foreign Affairs spokesperson Clive Lewis would declare the coalition’s support for the alliance, only to be later contradicted by the party's Defence Spokesperson Kate Hudson. These splits and contradictions would repeat themselves across the country with local branches and candidates all seemingly fighting on different manifestos, from communists, to anarchists to social democrats the UPA had no uniting policy programme.

“So far left-wing city halls appear to have delivered limited change beyond symbolic acts. The Union of Tenants has criticised its old comrades now running Brighton for not doing enough to stop evictions. Alternative MPs have often adapted to the ways and means of People's Party reformism. for example excusing Ribeiro-Addy's handpicking of a pro-NATO soldier as future Foreign Secretary. This has led to splits and expulsions of revolutionaries from the Trotskyist grouping of the Alternative. Another weakness at all levels of the new parties has been a tendency to neglect debate over policy. Ken Livingstone has written of the urgent need to develop an alternative program to the failed hope of “concessions from the troika''. Yet there is little evidence that the UPA grassroots are having this discussion.” - For the People?, Luke Stobart, Jacobin (2016)

With the insurgent parties losing momentum, Hague decided to go on the attack, with Daesh terror attacks in Europe and increasingly tense standoffs with Edinburgh dominating headlines, Hague pushed for a rally-round-the-flag affect. Hague warned of “three headed beast” of terrorism in the UK, namely radical Scottish Nationalists, Islamists and the Far-Right. Hague warned the UPA, with it’s liberal approach to terrorism and immigration, as well as it’s support for a British federation would embolden terrorism and put the British people at risk; “when it comes to terrorism, Britain doesn’t need experiments” said one party political broadcast.

The SDP hoped to be the tortoise to the UPA's hare

Ribiero-Addy met these attacks head on, confirming if she was elected to Downing Street on July 1st she would allow a legally binding referendum on Scottish Independence - the only national party leader to do so. With uncertainty dominating the mood of the election, with nearly a quarter of Brits undecided, the UPA needed every vote they could get, even if this meant “poaching” votes from fellow left-wing parties. Ribeiro-Addy remained the radical-left’s greatest asset, with the highest approval rating of all four major leaders, far beyond her party’s public approval. Whilst the UPA had slipped in the polls over the election campaign, UPA strategists hedged their bets on a strong performance from their leader on the campaign trail.

Whilst Ribiero-Addy was loud and bombastic, holding massive rallies in cities across the country, her rival for the left-wing vote Andy Burnham was running a much more subdued campaign. At intimate campaign stops in pubs, community centres and town halls Burnham tried to shore up support for his stalling campaign. The SDP’s campaign had started out by ignoring the UPA, and had become increasingly aggressive in it’s campaign, with negative attack ads targeting UPA/SDP swingers in the cities. The SDP drew unflattering comparisons to the faltering Syriza government in Greece and the increasingly authoritarian populist-left governments in South America. Whilst the aggressive campaign might win Burnham more votes, he was burning any remaining bridges to the UPA camp. With all four parties at each other's throats, a stable Government seemed less and less likely.

“The People's Party earthquake has already shattered the status quo, forcing the SDP into electing a young new leader – Andy Burnham. Some polls make the UPA Brian's most popular party, but it cannot enter government without seeking coalition allies. That may force it into opposition. “Hopefully the UPA would be willing to work with us,” former SDP minister Iain McNicol told me in Brussels in December. “But so far, I perceive a threatening mix of arrogance, self-infatuation and condescension.” It is tempting to see the UPA as a well-planned operation by a group of talented academics, but that would be too simple. It is the result of an open-ended effort by unorthodox idealists to effect change, with a desire to test out their ideas in the real world. As it attempts to forge a new consensus, it is drifting away from its radical roots.” - How a small group of radical academics changed European politics, Giles Tremlett, The Guardian (2016)

The UPA particularly worried Brussels insiders

 

[powerab]

Hi everyone,

Once again we'll be holding a readers poll for you lovely people to decide who you'd vote for at the 2016 General Election. The results won't directly affect the plot of the TL but may affect Easter eggs, news quotes and things like that.

You can vote here!

 

[powerab]

Insults fly as UK election debate erupts into row

CNBC Bulletin

Britain's election debate exploded into an angry row on Monday when the opposition leader accused William Hague of not being a “decent” man.

The humdrum election campaign burst into drama when SDP leader Andy Burnham attacked Hague over corruption. A red-faced Hague rejected his charges.

“If you continue to be prime minister, the cost for our democracy will be enormous, because the prime minister, Mr. Hague, has to be a decent person and you are not,” Burnham said in a televised debate watched by millions.

“You are young. You are going to lose these elections,” Hague, 55, told his 45-year-old rival. “You can recover from an election loss, but you can’t recover from the contemptible, mean and despicable statement you have made here today.”

“I am an honourable politician, at least as honourable as you,” Hague said.

The debate was a late chance for both men to bolster their support in the face of an unprecedented challenge from new parties.

Britain’s economy is picking up after a severe economic and banking crisis but unemployment remains over 20 percent.

Polls show Hague's party ahead but short of a parliamentary majority, while new parties, UPA and Unity challenge the SDP for second place.

Many voters remain undecided, but the most likely outcome appears a coalition or minority government.

Burnham touched on a corruption case that erupted in 2013 when National collected millions in cash donations from a construction magnate. Hague has denied that he or the National Party had accepted illegal payments.

Burnham told Hague he should have resigned.

“Nobody has ever accused me of appropriating anything,” an angry Hague shot back. “I don’t devote myself to politics for money, Mr. Burnham.”

"We are ashamed about the corruption, and we have approved the most important plan since Britain returned to democracy to deal with it. There will be no impunity,” he added.

Burnham also accused Hague of lying by saying the UK had avoided a bailout under his tenure. While the UK dodged a sovereign bailout in 2012, it did receive around 60 billion euros in European aid for its nationalised banks.

In response, the National Party leader focused on the government’s handling of the economic crisis since taking office in 2012.

“The only way that Hague is leaving office is if the SDP win,” said Burnham, claiming his party alone could “lead the country to change.”

The Prime Minister defended his government’s handling of the crisis, particularly when Britain came close to having the ECB intervene in restructuring it's economy. “It’s easy to see that you weren’t here four years ago,” he said at one point. He also highlighted Burnham's lack of experience in office: “Talking is easy, governing is very difficult.”

The pair also discussed the EU assessment of Britain’s economic situation, which is due to be released this week. The assessment reportedly calls for continued austerity measures after the July 1st election.

Burnham called for a renegotiation of the conditions imposed by the EU on Britain after the elections.

The two politicians also outlined their party’s views on independence for Scotland. Hague called for “respect for the Union” making it clear that his party did not support changes to the law or a referendum. Burnham said that Constitutional reform was needed before the issue could be resolved.

Hague turned down invitations to take part in debates with the up-and-coming parties, agreeing only to debate with Burnham. British media said it may be the last time that only National and the SDP take part in an election debate.

Bell Ribiero-Addy, leader of anti-austerity UPA, said the debate was an anachronism. “It was a debate in black and white, we have seen something that forms part of the past. The two-party system no longer exists.” she said.

Alan Sugar, leader of Unity, also declared the two-party system finished.

The debate organisers have been criticised for excluding Britain's two emerging parties.

Residents of London said they were disappointed with the debate, with one calling the two leaders a “disaster.”

“Hague and Burnham did everything possible to make people realise what a disaster the leaders of this country are. They made people think the solution can be elsewhere, in UPA or in Unity or somewhere else. But what I saw last night made me realise that trusting them will be difficult.”

 

[powerab]

In total, ten people were killed in various incidents throughout the campaign

“In Manchester, Britain’s third-largest city, the accuser and the accused of the Junta are still honoured side by side, at least on its street map. One of the avenues here is named after Julian Tudor-Hart, a prominent doctor and socialist. Running parallel to the avenue is a street named after another doctor, Andrew Wakefield, a juntista who testified against Tudor-Hart, leading to his death. On Friday, it will be 30 years since the death of Louis Mountbatten, but there will be no official commemorations. The street names and other symbols stand as a failure of this maturing democracy to grapple with Mountbatten's legacy to this day. The shadow of Mountbatten continues to be a potent source of division between right and left, despite his death.” - Junta Legacy Continues to Divide UK’s Politics and Its Streets, Raphael Minder, New York Times (2016)

The debate between the two main party leaders showed a deadlock with 49% of watchers declaring Burnham the winner compared to Hague’s 46% in snap polls after the debate. Still the two party debate polls showed support for third parties falling as internal spats pushed both the UPA and Unity down in voter’s estimation. The UPA’s pledge to hold a Scottish Referendum seemed to backfire as polls showed the party losing support in England whilst failing to make up for these losses among Scottish voters. National Party attack ads against the UPA, RISE and SNP were particularly brutal, and seemingly very effective as Ribiero-Addy was forced onto the back-foot.

The rural/urban continued to grow over the course of the campaign as polls showed rural voters remaining loyal to the duopoly whilst city voters abandoned them in droves. Polling in London showed National and the SDP falling into third and fourth place respectively as the capital gave their support to the insurgent parties. Polling from Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds showed a similar result as National was pushed to the suburbs and the SDP was obliterated entirely. Polarisation became the name of the game as polls showed the SDP retreating to it’s northern heartlands whilst National was pushed into southern citadels, with voters increasingly polarised along provincial lines.

In the face of this polarisation, National’s lead began to increase as voters turned to the party best placed to bring the country back together. With National attack campaigns being demonstrably effective, other parties joined in on negative campaign attacks. National also made a final push for older voters, with Hague announcing a last-minute pledge - promising to scrap income tax for those who kept working over 65. With the strong support of older voters, Hague was likely to be the leader of the largest party, second place was still up for grabs as the SDP and UPA spared for second place, with Unity not far behind.

Calls for a grand coalition were slammed as a Hague stitch-up

Hague also benefited from a surge in postal voters, mostly National, as the election took place during the peak school holiday season whilst many wealthier Brits were away on holiday. With Hague’s lead solidifying, talk began to move to coalition partners, especially in the case of a UPA led opposition. Hague could turn to either Unity, the SDP or a mixture of smaller parties. Some pundits warned if the UPA had a particularly strong result then the three parties of the centre would be forced together to keep Ribiero-Addy out in a government of national unity. Of course such a pact would echo Mountbatten’s more forceful coalition forming in 1968.

“National's Deputy Leader ruling party has said the party would consider forming a grand coalition "in the German style" with the SDP. Speaking to the BBC Theresa May said, "We would contemplate a grand coalition in the German style if we could not reach a majority". Germany is no stranger to grand coalitions; Angela Merkel, governs with the support of social democrats. May's comments come in the wake of the unstoppable rise of the United People Alliance which has seen a huge surge in popularity this year. The joint list, less than a year old, has topped some polls of voter intentions published by the Sun and Daily Mail. The UPA recently announced it planned to introduce a 35-hour working week, and a guaranteed living 'subsidy'.” - National ‘won’t rule out’ grand coalition, BBC News Bulletin (2016)

The unemployed, numbering a fifth of voters, would decide this election. With all campaigns targeting the unwieldy block in the last days of the campaign. Whilst the SDP pledged to tackle National corruption and invest in high-quality jobs, National warned a socialist government under a SDP/UPA coalition would trash the economy and push Britain back into recession - “just look at Greece was a popular phrase by National candidates in local hustings”. Polling reflected National’s divided record, when YouGov asked respondents to describe National in one word the most popular phrase was “competent”, followed by “corrupt”, with many respondents offering both words. Voters were falling in line behind the devil they knew.

A strong majority for anyone seemed impossible

Whilst polling day itself was fairly quiet, with only a handful of polling stations closing due to violence or intimidation, the mood was still apprehensive. The voters have been pushed into stark voting blocks, divided on age, education, location and values, whoever won the election would have a hard time making the United Kingdom governable again. The worst case scenario for both Brussels and civil servants would be an inconclusive result. Analysts feared a hung parliament followed by a series of snap elections and short lived cabinets, eurocrats worried Britain could become the next Italy, with dozens of parties and an ungovernable Parliament.

With Trump to the West, Trispas to the East and Le Pen rising to the South, Britain was in the eye of the storm as people turned out to vote on a roasting July day. Student cities like Leeds and Brighton showed young people moving in droves to vote before holding impromptu barbecues and street parties, a good sign for the political left. As the last ballots were posted and the polls closed, sweating politicians gathered in poorly ventilated arenas and leisure centres to hear their fate decided. It had been a long, hot summer and everyone knew what hot summers led to - if the politicians couldn’t get a workable solution to Britain's ills - the rioting would start.

“In what is presumably their penultimate general election poll Ipsos MORI have topline figures of NAT 30%, UPA 25%, SDP 22%, UNI 15%, RISE 3%. It’s quite a shift from their previous poll, which had a two point SDP lead over the UPA, so usual caveats apply. Panelbase meanwhile have new figures of NAT 28%, UPA 24%, SDP 20%, UNI 14%, RISE 2%. The daily YouGov poll for the Sun has topline figures of NAT 30%, UPA 26%, SDP 22%, UNI 15, RISE 2%. Meanwhile the ICM/Guardian leaders poll found William Hague came out on top – 21%, 18% Burnham, 16% for Bell and Sugar each. Scottish poll shows, as ever, a RISE lead. Topline figures are RISE 24%, SNP 18%, UPA 18%, with SDP, UNI and NAT all joint at 13%. This would be enough for RISE to win every province.” - UK Polling Report, June 2016

The SDP was creeping up to the UPA in last-minute polls

 

[powerab]

Hi everyone,

Here is the result from our ultimately meaningless reader's poll.

• United People Alliance: 133 (+60)
• Social Democratic Party: 121 (-5)
• National Party: 95 (-79)
• Reform Party: 50 (-6)
• The Centrists : 25 (+25)
• Mebyon Kernow: 19 (+18)
• RISE: 12 (+2)
• Scottish National Party : 12 (-8)
• Unity: 6 (+6)
• Plaid Cymru: 6 (-3)
• Forward Wales: 6 (-2)
• Sinn Fein: 6 (-)
• Social Democratic and Labour Party: 6 (+5)

If the readers decided the election result it would be a disaster for the National Party, reduced to less than a hundred MPs, other parties to make losses include the SNP, Reform and the SDP - but nowhere on the same scale as National. The biggest winners of the night would be the UPA, nearly doubling their caucus to 133 MPs, the Centrists and Mebyon Kernow (where are all these MK stans coming from!?) would also have a good night.

The most likely result from this election I can see is a grand coalition of SDP, National and Reform teaming up to keep the radical left out of office. Other possibilities include a popular front government of UPA and SDP, or a SDP government propped up by Reform, Unity and a variety of seperatist parties.

Real result coming soon!

 

[powerab]

(Big Ben Chimes)

NATIONAL PARTY WIN

FORECAST NATIONAL LARGEST PARTY IN HOUSE OF COMMONS WITH 170 SEATS

Jeremy Vine - It’s ten o’clock which means our omerta code of silence is broken and we can tell you the results of our exit poll. We are saying National is the largest party; although with a smaller crop of MPs. Our exit poll predicts National on 170 seats, down 4. The People’s Alliance on 114, that’s up 41. The SDP on 113, down 13. Unity returned 57 MPs, up 54. RISE on 12 Seats, up 2. The SNP are on 7, down 13. Finally all the other parties are on 24 seats. We now go to Babita Sharma for her analysis.

BS - A strong result for the National Party, even as two party politics shatters into four, five even six party politics. National has a strong 60 seat lead over it’s nearest rival. Even working together it will be very hard for the parties of the left to stop William Hague gaining a second term. Still National are far from a parliamentary majority, even with Unity they’d still need dozens of seats to form a government, and after apparently being badly burned I can’t see the SNP wanting to prop up the blue team again.

JV - Many analysts had been saying they expected the National Party to do well, but they have very few friends in Westminster, so getting those extra 80 they need for a majority will be quite difficult. Especially considering as you say the SNP is badly bruised and Reform has been completely wiped out.

BS - Yes, not a good night for Sarah Brown. I'm hearing reports she’ll even struggle to hold onto her home seat of Eastern Scotland. Speaking of bad nights we should look to Andy Burnham, whilst the SDP rout isn’t as dramatic as some pollsters predicted, if this exit poll is correct the Social Democrats have lost the official opposition spot.

JV - Yes however we should note this is only an exit poll and there is just one seat in it between Ms Ribeiro-Addy and Mr Burnham. It looks like in our coverage tonight it won’t just be the race to Downing Street but also the race to Norman Shaw North, the much less glamorous office of the Leader of the Opposition.

BS - It could well be that no-one claims Downing Street, looking at the numbers we have it’s very hard to see how anyone can form a Government. The National/Reform/SNP axis of the last four years can’t reach a majority, even if you sub out Sarah Brown for Alan Sugar. Almost every party of the centre and right has refused to work with the UPA so they can’t reach a majority, and if the SDP comes third it will be very difficult for Andy Burnham to stake a claim to the top job. The only achievable government from first glance would be a grand coalition, which both parties have already ruled out.

JV - Yes, I doubt few want to be Andy Burnham right now, the only other path to Downing Street could be if Unity abandons their long-standing opposition to the radical left and agrees to support a SDP/UPA coalition. But again Alan Sugar has poured cold water on the idea of working with the SDP, let alone the People’s Alliance.

BS - We should also note the interesting situation in Scotland, the SNP has gone down 13 seats but RISE has only picked up two - meaning the number of separatist MPs in Parliament has actually gone down. Can Patrick Harvie claim this as a win as his party is doing well in isolation, or does he look at the broader arithmetic? That could decide if the Scottish Government pushes ahead with a unilateral independence referendum.

JV - I have with me now Nick Timothy, he is the National Party MP for the West Midlands. Mr Timothy thanks for joining us. Would you agree that all things considered this exit poll is probably the best your party could have hoped for, or are you disappointed with this result?

 

[powerab]

The transition parties both saw poor results​

“A new political era opened up in the UK on Sunday. Brits have decided to end over a decade of two-party rule by the National and Social Democratic Parties. Instead, their voting choices in Sunday’s general election have created a fragmented Commons. The conservative incumbent, William Hague, was the first of the main candidates to make a public statement after the Sunday ballot. Speaking a little after midnight, the prime minister insisted on the need to reach deals in the new scenario. “Whoever wins the elections has the obligation to try to form a government” he told supporters. “It’s not going to be easy. We will need to talk a lot, but I am going to try.” For his part, the SDP's Andy Burnham thanked the more than seven million Brits who voted for him “in the face of the attempt to make the SDP disappear.” - National Party wins British election but will find it difficult to govern, Marc Herman, Politico (2016)

Expectations are a funny thing, one the face of it, Britain’s insurgent parties had a very good night on July 1st. The UPA, Unity and RISE all made unprecedented gains, with the leftists a few seats away from securing the office opposition office, but expectations had soured these victories. Britain had drawn the eyes of the world with pundits declaring a dramatic death for Britain’s two party adversarial system, but this did not materialise. The duopoly lost eighteen seats between them - not brilliant, but not a disaster. The main story of the night was the complete collapse of Reform - down to one seat - cannibalised by Alan Sugar’s new movement.

For the UPA, the night was a disappointment, polls across the campaign had shown the People’s Alliance as Britain second largest party, and some even showed them coming first, a third place result - no matter how strong - was still a third place result. Unity too, who had also been polling well before the campaign, found itself in last place of the four GB-wide parties. Whilst RISE had made moderate gains, it’s frenemy in the SNP had made much worse losses, decreasing the overall number of separatist MPs in Westminster and damaging the Scottish Government's call for a unilateral independence referendum, whilst moderate nationalists were leaving the SNP, they weren’t turning to RISE.

The SNP was torn apart between governing partners - National at Westminster and RISE in Edinburgh​

Low expectations arguably saved Andy Burnham, for whom holding onto his six Prime Minister’s Questions as Leader of the Opposition was a miracle, but now Burnham faced a choice. Whilst Hague had secured a clear victory in the election, leading all others by 60 seats, a lone National Government was mathematically impossible. Even with an alliance of all centrist and right wing parties (and that was quite the task), there still wouldn’t be a majority for a Hague premiership. A Social Democratic Government would also be nigh-impossible, even if Burnham could get Ribeiro-Addy on-side (unlikely considering their fractious relationship) he would still have to recruit almost every other progressive party, or get Alan Sugar to abandon all principles and support a government including the radical left.

“The UPA has refused to join any coalition including the National Party which won last week's election but fell short of a majority. The People's Party was launched two years ago, based on mass anti-austerity protests. It came third, with 106 seats. UPA leader Bell Ribeiro-Addy rebuffed the National leader and acting Prime Minister William Hague. New elections might have to be held. National came top with 168 seats in the 497-seat lower house of parliament - far short of a majority. In second place was the SDP with 113, and the new liberal Unity party was fourth with 58. Speaking after talks with Mr Hague, Ms Ribeiro-Addy said her priority was "social emergency" legislation. She refused to support Mr Hague - ruling out a coalition partnership or abstention in a confidence vote.” - No UPA coalition deal with Hague, BBC News Bulletin (2016)

Considering he had built his entire campaign around political stability, as he had the Troika breathing down his neck, Hague made the first move alluding to a grand coalition in his post election statement: “the United Kingdom cannot allow itself a period of political uncertainty that squanders the progress that has been achieved in the last four years”, he would tell cameras. This effectively threw a hand grenade into the already divided Social Democrats, as Shadow Cabinet Ministers and MPs loudly and openly debated the merits of grand coalition, including spats on Twitter. SDP Parliamentarians were well aware of what happened to their cousins in the Greek PASOK, who got into bed with the right only to be swept away.

Hague would struggle to unite his party, let alone a coalition

Notably absent in the post-election scrum was Andy Burnham, the only major party leader to refuse to talk to the press in the aftermath of the result. He was stuck between a rock and a hard place, joining with Hague and he’d alienate millions of left wing voters, align with the UPA, or allow fresh elections to happen and he risked pushing Britain closer to the abyss. Ribiero-Addy didn’t make things easier for Burnham when she declared support for a Scottish Referendum would be a red line in any coalition negotiations. With Unity and the UPA doing very well in these elections, Burnham’s MPs on left and right had political options unheard of before, if he played his cards wrong he faced a party splits, with his own Shadow Housing Secretary Len McCluskey threatening a defection to the UPA if Burnham made a “deal with the devil”.

Whilst the UPA failed to usurp the SDP, they still did remarkably well across the country. As well as the Westminster picture they won control of Provincial Governments for the first time, including three of the four London Provinces and Greater Manchester. As well as strong results in unexpected places like South Yorkshire, Berkshire and Gloucestershire. Ribiero-Addy could afford to bide her time, and some Social Democrats accused her of purposely sabotaging coalition negotiations by demanding a Scottish Referendum, something Unity would never agree to. The People’s Alliance instead called for a popular front of the left, including not only the SDP, UPA and RISE but other smaller parties like the SNP, Ecology and Plaid in a similar manner to the Portuguese “engenhoca” government. Whatever Government was formed, it was likely to be a marriage of convenience at best.

“Britain's SDP on Monday ruled out forming a new government with any party that supported a referendum on independence in Scotland. This is a stand that prolongs political uncertainty after this month’s inconclusive national election. As the four main parties in Britain vie to form a government following the election, Scotland has emerged as one of the main sticking points. National and the SDP, both reject any referendum in Scotland, where separatists won a majority of Scottish seats in the election. Leftist UPA, which has been cast as potential kingmaker and says Britain should be recognized as a multinational state. “We will not discuss questions about the territorial integrity of the country,” SDP Leader Andy Burnham said at a news conference.” - Britain’s Social Democrats reject coalition deal with any party urging Scottish referendum, Angus Berwick, Reuters (2016)

The election results prompted an existential crisis for the SNP

 

[powerab]

• National Party - 168 (-5)
• Social Democratic Party - 113 (-13)
• United People Alliance: 106 (+33)
• Unity: 58 (+55)
• RISE: 14 (+4)
• Scottish National Party: 8 (-12)
• Ecology Party: 6 (+4)
• Plaid Cymru: 6 (-3)
• Sinn Fein: 5 (-1)
• Forward Wales: 4 (-4)
• Ulster Conservatives: 3 (-1)
• Social Democratic and Labour Party 1 (-)
• The Centrists: 1 (+1)
• The Reform Party: 1 (-55)
• Worker's Party of Scotland: 1 (-2)
• Northern Irish Liberals: 1 (-)
• Mebyon Kernow: 1 (-)

 

[powerab]

Despite leading the largest party, Hague stalled submitting himself to Parliament for a confidence vote

“Britain's Social Democrats have told the National Party to form a Government or move aside, as politicians jostle for power. National won the most votes, trading accusations of stalling and delays with the second-place SDP. Weeks of post-election maneuvering has left the country little closer to getting a government. This has fueled uncertainty that could be damaging for Britain's economic recovery. "William Hague is obliged to present himself as the candidate to be invested or to renounce his right to do so for good," a SDP spokesperson said. They said Mr Hague's "wait-and-see" stance was irresponsible and a ploy to ensure his political survival. Mr Hague deferred a decision on Friday to bring matters to a head and seek a confidence vote in parliament, admitting that did not have enough backing.” - UK Stand-off stalls formation of new government, ABC News (2016)

Politics entered into the world’s nerdiest Mexican standoff as all four parties sat in a circle, refusing to compromise and waiting to see who would flinch. The UPA’s demands for massive constitutional change and a referendum on Scotland made them untouchable for any mainstream party. Alan Sugar doubled down on his campaign promise not to enter coalition with the traditional parties (although he kept open the possibility of abstention). RISE too refused a deal with any party unless they acquiesced to an independence referendum, cancelling out three of the four major parties. With the SNP shell shocked from it’s disastrous result and other smaller parties keen to avoid the SNP’s fate, the chance of a solid deal was looking ever distant.

This placed the SDP in the kingmaker spot, and immediately caused internal ruptures. Many on the right of the party including Yvette Cooper, Rachel Reeves and Margaret Hodge united around Shadow Foreign Secretary Polly Toynbee calling on Burnham to rule out any collaboration with the UPA, these calls would be echoed by the few remaining Social Democratic Provincial Premiers, who had been even more bruised than the national party. They argued the SDP should abstain from any future confidence votes to allow National a clear shot at forming a stable Government. This idea would pick up further steam as Unity said they would join the SDP in any abstention to allow for a period of “national regeneration”.

Bookies predicted a second election

After a brief meeting with Hague Burnham dismissed either abstention or coalition with the National Party, further enraging his party’s right flank. Burnham had overseen the worst election defeat for the SDP in democratic history and being a relative outsider had few close allies in the parliamentary party. The party’s Federal Committee, dominated by it’s moderate wing passed a resolution ruling out any deal with the People’s Alliance whilst it kept it’s Scottish “red line” - against the wishes of Burnham. The Social Democrats being on the verge of civil war delighted it’s political opponents, further weakening its claim to Downing Street. When asked in one interview how far negotiations were progressing, Alan Sugar retorted “we have to wait for the Social Democrats to sort out their issues first”.

“Alan Sugar has reiterated in a meeting with William Hague his decision not to support his investiture as PM with an affirmative vote. Sugar has also asked the National Party Leader to keep him abreast of his negotiations with the SDP to form a stable majority. The two leaders have come to the meeting sharing the same thesis, summarised by the Prime Minister in a tweet: "Stability and certainty". Hague hopes that this approach will convince a sector of the SDP to allow his investiture as PM, joining the abstention that Unity. "Andy Burnham's word now is no, no, and no" Alan Sugar told reporters. "We need the SDP to make a move," he added before showing his opposition to the SDP accepting an agreement with UPA, which asks for a referendum in Scotland.” - Sugar Calls on SDP to “Make a Move” - BBC News Bulletin (2016)

National wasn't laughing for very long as a spate of corruption scandals shook their party, whilst several investigations into the party had been put on hold for the election, shocking evidence uncovered by police and journalists revealed dozens of indictments. Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt had received millions of pounds of kickbacks through a property firm he owned, after refusing to resign Hunt was forcibly expelled by the National Party. This was shortly followed by one of Deputy Prime Minister Theresa May’s senior staffers resigning after it emerged he had been fraudulently awarding public contracts, in Berkshire an illegal financing network by the National-led provincial government was uncovered by police leading to the arrest of dozens of party officials.

The SDP was paralysed by internal maneuvering

The Home Office weren’t the only ones digging through National’s dirty laundry, a HMRC investigation into New Century Consulting a military consultancy firm run by former National Leader Tim Collins found the firm had engaged in mass tax evasion and millions of euros worth of fraudulent contracts with NATO Defence Ministers, including the Pentagon. The HMRC investigation found nearly 200 million euros of “unsupported costs” paid to New Century by the National-run Ministry of Defence, with some opposition politics alleging Collins had been in cahoots with senior ministers and possibly even the Secretary of Defence himself.

The most explosive finding however was the conclusion of the Rupert Harrison inquiry of money laundering by National’s former treasurer. The report found National to be “institutionally corrupt” accusing party leaders of actively “destroying evidence, hindering investigations and acting outside the law”. This marked the first time a British political party had been judicially charged for criminal activity. Whilst no elected officials were arrested, Harrison himself was given a prison sentence and dozens of senior staffers within the party hierarchy were arrested. All of these scandals breaking at the same time possessed disaster for Hague, who went from Britain's most likely Prime Minister, to barely keeping his party together.

With the Commons tea-rooms facing a riot Britain’s new King decided it was time to step in and knock some heads together and invited the leaders of all of Britain’s parliamentary political parties to the Palace for some tea from National to Mebyon Kernow and the Northern Irish Liberals all were welcome. Charles’ intervention was the most capital-p' political action of a reigning British monarch since George V intervened to help pass the Parliament Act in 1911. The fragmentation of the Commons put the King in an unprecedented situation, his role as the man to summon and dismiss the Prime Minister was no longer a formality, now he could hold the balance of power in his hands.

“King Charles will earn 20 percent less than his abdicated mother, the palace said on Tuesday, detailing its first budget since he took the crown. The 67-year-old will receive €41 million euros in sovereign grant as head of state, the palace said in a budget statement published on its website. That is one-fifth less than the €51 million his mother Elizabeth was paid as Queen in 2015. Charles himself earned half that amount last year as prince, as he took over as head of state from Elizabeth, 90. The palace's overall budget is unchanged at €69.2 million, under the state spending plan approved last year. Tuesday's statement detailed how that money will be spent, part of the palace's efforts to appear more transparent. Charles's wife, Queen Camilla, gets a salary of €400,00 in the new budget.” - King Charles slashes his own salary by a fifth, Chris Jewers, Daily Mail (2016)

The vacant premiership gave Charles unprecedented influence over politics

 

[powerab]

The King was growing frustrated at Britain's politicians

“William Hague has turned down an offer by the king to try to form a new government following last month’s inconclusive elections. The news, in a statement from Buckingham Palace on Friday evening, followed a week of talks between the monarch and party leaders. In a statement, the palace said the king would begin fresh talks with the leaders next Wednesday in a bid to find another candidate. Hague's National Party won most seats – 168 – in the 1 July election but that was well short of a majority in the Commons. The king will now most likely call on the leader of the opposition, Andy Burnham, to try to form a government. The SDP came second in the election with 113 seats and appears to have a better chance of mustering support from other groups in parliament.” - Hauge turns down king's offer to form new government, BBC News Bulletin (2016)

If Charles had thought the grandeur of Buckingham Palace would be enough to bring Britain's bickering politicians together he was sorely disappointed. Burnham continued his refusal to be part of any government led by National, and Unity - with it’s policy of equidistance - refused to favour one party or another, calling for grand coalition government. With no formal agreement reached after nearly two months the markets, and Britain's troika creditors were getting nervous as investors began to cash out of the British economy. The King put his foot down, demanding someone, anyone be presented to Parliament for an “indicative” confidence vote.

In an awfully polite British fashion, all the leaders held the door open, insisting someone else go first. Ribiero-Addy ruled out putting her name forward, instead offering to join a SDP coalition with radical devolution of powers. Burnham also refused to put his name to Parliament stating that Hague - as the incumbent and the man with the largest party - should take the first shot. With no other option the King sent for Hague to try and form a Government. Hague refused Charles’ summons, stating that with the People’s Alliance offering their support to Burnham there was a qualified majority against him, insiders also whispered National MPs would use a failed confidence vote as a springboard for a leadership challenge, a risk Hague wasn't willing to take, preferring to let Burnham fall first.

The protests outside Parliament square were becoming louder and more violent

With Hague seemingly withdrawing from the contest altogether it fell to the Social Democrats to make a play for Downing Street. With the open support of the UPA, Burnham now had the largest bloc in Parliament with over 200 seats, it fell to him to either reject or accept the leftist’s offer. Former leader David Miliband described the UPA’s offer and National’s subsequent withdrawal as a “trap” designed to “humiliate” the Social Democrats. Ribiero-Addy welcomed Hague’s withdrawal, telling journalists Burnham could seize a “once in a lifetime opportunity” for a truly radical government. Burnham had the same issues Hague did, if he reached for the crown and missed, the sharks in his party would use that opportunity to strike.

“This week in parliament could prove to be the SDP leader’s make-or-break moment. “Andy Burnham will either be elected prime minister or he’ll leave Parliament wounded,” noted columnist Helen Pidd. If he fails to gather a simple majority this month, Parliament will have another three months in which to form a government. During that time frame, the king could invite Hague — or even someone else from the SDP — to end the deadlock. If the deadline is missed, fresh elections will be called. With enemies in his own party waiting for an excuse to replace him and a possible leadership contest, the next few days will prove to be decisive. Burnham relishes defying those who wrote him off, the question now is whether he can deliver a solution to one of the deepest political crises of the UK's modern history.” - Andy Burnham on thin ice, Guy Hedgecoe, Politico (2016)

Boxed into a corner by the other parties, Burnham accepted King Charles’ offer to form a government, giving himself a negotiation period of one month to gather the votes needed for a majority. The King gave a 7th of October deadline for any party to form a Government, before he would dissolve Parliament and call snap elections. Now firmly in the arena Burnham's options began to run away from him, National continued to state they wouldn’t support any Government unless it was led by Hague, whilst both the UPA and Unity stated they would not accept a coalition containing the other. With Ribiero-Addy wanting a government backed by a rainbow of parties, whilst Sugar hoped a SDP-Unity pact could convince National to at least abstain in any confidence vote.

Burnham had too many plates spinning

Talks between Burnham and Sugar went fairly well, whilst Sugar kept to his People’s Alliance red line, his stance went from abstaining from a SDP Government to actively voting for and even joining in coalition with the Social Democrats. Still a SDP/Unity pact would cancel out any arrangement with the populist left, leaving Burnham with only 171 seats, a far cry from the 249 seats needed. In talks with the smaller parties, Ecology was open to supporting a Social Democratic led-government but the SNP and RISE both refused to support any government without an independence referendum. The Welsh parties however were more receptive, with Plaid agreeing to support Burnham in return for a united Welsh Parliament and even the radical Forward Wales open to supporting “real change”. So desperate for votes Burnham even offered Diane Abbott a Cabinet post, in return for the Alternative withdrawing from the UPA and supporting him instead - which she of course refused.

Negotiations would reach a breakthrough, when Burnham announced he and Sugar had signed a coalition government agreement named simply a “A Pact for Progress”. Calling on parties from left and right to “get on board or get out of the way” Burnham outlined an ambitious programme including constitutional reforms with a more proportional parliament and compulsory open primaries for party leadership elections. The pact also included tax reform and strong measures against corruption to tempt the UPA into abstaining. However much of the agreement was a bitter pill for the left to follow, it included further regulation on trade unions, a ban on any referendum in Scotland and a very little public investment. It was a risky move, Burnham hadn’t informed the leftist parties of the document beforehand. If it worked it could force them into supporting his government, if it failed it could collapse negotiations completely.

“The SDP was the formateur party and this meant that its work to build a parliamentary coalition would be crucial. Three main workable majorities could be built by Andy Burnham. A, an alliance with the UPA with the abstention of Unity and/or pro-independence parties (229 seats). B, an alliance with Unity and the support of other parties but the abstention of the UPA (171 seats). C, the support of the UPA and Unity (267 seats) But, each of those paths had difficulties. The SDP had internally vetoed any agreement with pro-independence parties and they competed with the UPA to be the leading party on the left. The UPA and Unity vetoed each other, so the support for or the abstention of one in favour of the other seemed unlikely.” - The Challenges of the New British Multipartism, Lecture by Damien Bol, King’s College London (2016)

The UPA would be enraged by the SDP/Unity pact

 

[powerab]

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

 

[powerab]

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

 

[powerab]

Hello friends,

Thank you to the kind people who nominated this TL for a Turtledove. Voting is now open if anyone wants to throw us a vote!

 

[powerab]

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.

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.

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)

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

 

[powerab]

Hague Survives UK Election Debate

Politico

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%.

 

[powerab]

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

 

[powerab]

The People's Party was badly divided on EU integration

“How would a Ribeiro-Addy UK deal with the European Union? The UPA prefers to point to Portugal — rather than Greece — when asked about a possible confrontation with the troika. The UPA prefers calm reforms rather than direct confrontation to the EU austerity hawks. If such a strategy were not allowed, such a government would need large support and mobilisation across the European Union. In fact, it is possible that Germany would aim at crushing a government of this kind as soon as possible, like it did with Syriza in Greece. The deteriorating global economy might also make UPA's economic plans difficult to realise. But, a government of the Left could also mean a new era in the UK, one that would face fierce opposition from British elites. Whatever happens, we know there are difficult roads ahead.” - The UK’s Uncertain Future, Peter Hallward, Jacobin (2016)

As the campaign wore on the Social Democrats fell into a death-spiral; as the party did worse in the polls - it’s supporters continued to abandon it. Either moderates voting National to keep the radical left out, or it’s left wing supporters desperate to elect any kind of progressive government. Unity too also saw a decline in the polls as voters moved into either the conservative or leftist camps. Ironically whilst most polls claimed getting past the political deadlock was voter’s most important issue, actual voting intention showed otherwise as the electorate moved to the extreme. Whilst National’s polling lead continued to grow they still remained far away from forming a government, as most of their new support came from the SDP and Unity, the same people who would be needed to prop up a Hague government.

In what became known as a groundhog day election, the same beats as July seemed to be playing again, internal party splits, a narrow lead for National and general public dissatisfaction all remained the major themes of the campaign. National suffered yet another internal scandal as leaked recordings from 2014 showed Deputy Prime Minister Theresa May discussing with senior intelligence officials on ways to discredit Scottish seperatist parties ahead of the European Election. The scandal forced May to resign but for voters on the left it further cemented distrust of the electoral system, and fears the nation’s establishment would be actively working against them.

Conspiratorial attitudes to the intelligence services would only grow as the Home Office announced it was opening an investigation into People’s Party links with the Venezuelan Government. This came after opposition legislators in Venezuela accused the Chavez and Maduro administrations of funneling millions into populist-left parties abroad, including 10 million euros to "The Outrage" - the People’s Party’s official think tank. The Home Office called for interviews with several leading People’s Party officials, including Ribeiro-Addy herself and her Deputy Owen Jones. The People’s Party denied any links to Maduro, accusing the Home Office of a politically motivated smear campaign against a legal political party.

Older working class voters - the SDP's backbone - were expected to stay at home

These scandals in both National and the UPA fed into a political culture of gloom and pessimism, the terrible weather didn’t help either. Polls showed 74% of Brits describing the UK’s political situation as “very bad”. Approval ratings for politicians as a class continued to plummet as studies showed MPs trusted less than bankers and even estate agents. The raft of corruption scandals hadn’t helped the situation with 55% of respondents believing Hague’s Cabinet had acted illegally. What was interesting however was that instead of blaming Hague himself or the National party more broadly, respondents tended to blame the entire House of Commons of political establishment for the Nation’s woes. National had lost the public trust, but they dragged all the other parties down with them.

“An often expressed hope is that political trust should recover as soon as economic and social problems are mitigated or resolved. Voters across Europe have reacted positively to economic recovery, restoring trust to pre-2008 levels. But, this finding does not reflect the situation in the UK, where political trust remains low. Here, the crisis served as a “test” for British democracy, leading to a decline in voters’ evaluations of the novel democratic system. This, combined with a series of political corruption incidents hindered the recovery of trust in democracy. This also paved the way to the proliferation of populist parties in Britain that often appeal to their greater moral integrity. Britain follows the model of countries such as Greece, which are facing similar problems of corruption and deficits. They too have also failed to restore political trust to pre-2008 levels.” - Decline of Political Trust in the UK, Lecture by Jennifer Gaskell, University of Southampton (2016)

The lack of political clarity led to a lack of investment, both from British voters reluctant to spend and outside investors unwilling to take a risk on the UK’s economy. The consequences of political stagnation rippled out to the economy as unemployment began to rise again - for the first time in nearly three years. Several leading firms, including those in construction and services, were moving their companies to Germany, Ireland or the Netherlands - where politics was more stable. Investigations by leading think tanks showed unemployment might be even worse than it appeared on the surface, with many of the UK’s employed young people in precarious zero-hour jobs for gig-economy employers like Deliveroo and Uber.

The UK's gig economy workers had doubled since 2012

One issue that gained salience over the course of the campaign was immigration and refugees. With winter upon Europe, reports of Syrian exiles freezing in tents and increasingly desperate attempts to enter Europe reached television screens. Over 100 refugees were rescued from British shores during the course of the campaign. Coastal communities like East Kent would quickly become electoral battlegrounds as the People’s Party launched refugees welcome rallies on Dover shores whilst The Centrists would record party political broadcasts as migrants unloaded. Burnham found himself outflanked by National as he called for the UK to leave the EU’s covenant on European refugees, leading Bell Ribeiro-Addy to accuse him of “following James Cleverly into the gutter”.

With a metaphorical cloud over every party, and literal clouds on election day itself, turnout was expected to be low, with most voters voting against their most feared party - usually National or the UPA - rather than for the party they’d most like to see lead the country. The election day itself was unusually quiet, with the parties having long spent every last euro in their war-chest and volunteers too exhausted to put up a proper election day fight after weeks of abuse on the doorstep. Britain was tired, everyone from communist students in Liverpool to retired army officers in the shire prayed for reprieve. Britain’s political system had barely made it through a second election, it was unlikely to survive a third.

“David Miliband blames his own SDP and William Hague’s conservatives for paving the way for the anti-austerity movement. Miliband, who was a minister under Alan Johnson then led the SDP to an election defeat in 2012, regrets that the SDP are “still licking our wounds.” Polls predict the SDP could be relegated to third place, behind National and the People's Party-Socialist Alternative alliance. The SDP considered Miliband's 25% in 2012 a humiliation and he resigned on election night. His successor Andy Burnham will be lucky to break 20, which would confront the SDP with three unappetising choices: support Hague; support Ribeiro-Addy; or push for a third election. The third option is unthinkable in a country now facing the first repeat ballot in its modern democratic history.” - David Miliband: ‘UK is playing with fire’, Alex Spence, Politico (2016)

British politics had it's back to the abyss

 

[powerab]

And the result are in from the "what if the UK electorate was replaced by 80 Alt History Readers" poll:

• United People Alliance: 195 (+91)
• Social Democratic Party: 100 (-13)
• National Party: 50 (-63)
• Unity: 37 (-21)
• The Centrists: 31 (+30)
• Plaid Cymru: 18 (+12)
• Mebyon Kernow: 18 (+17)
• RISE: 12 (-2)
• SNP: 12 (+4)
• Sinn Fein: 12 (+7)
• Ulster Conservatives: 6 (+3)
• Northern Irish Liberals: 6 (+5)

If readers had their way the election would be a huge victory for the UPA, who would nearly double their parliamentary reputation, mostly at the expense of National and Unity who would both decline in support. The Centrists on the Far Right and bizarrely Mebyon Kernow would also have a good night, returning dozens of seats. The political situation in Scotland would swing slightly towards the centre, as both RISE and the Worker's Party would lose seats to the SNP.

The most likely result from this election I can see is a People's Alliance led Government supported by various separatist parties like Plaid and Mebyon Kernow. The only other alternative I see is a mega anti-Ribeiro alliance encompassing the centre all the way to the far-right.

Guess we'll have to stay tuned for the real result.