Bulldoggus
Banned
Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to make the UK National Front a major force, with seats in Parliament and local councils, and a major influence on British affairs. POD before, say, 1990.
The TL itself makes no sense because Powell, to be blunt, wouldn't and didn't touch National Front with a mile long bargepole. Man was a racist demagogue, but NF was fundamentally incompatible with his world view, even in a watered down version.I recall a rather fantastical timeline here in which Enoch Powell led the National Front to a victory. It was a fun, if at times scary and outright ASB wank TL. A Powell defection to the National Front, so long as the party remains a reasonable force on the far-right (IE, decidedly not neo-Nazi) would be the best start.
That TL did have the reasonable POD of keeping the neo-Nazis from taking over the NF as I recall, it was mostly reactionaries when Powell joined it - which isn't totally implausible if one keeps folks like Tyndall out.The TL itself makes no sense because Powell, to be blunt, wouldn't and didn't touch National Front with a mile long bargepole. Man was a racist demagogue, but NF was fundamentally incompatible with his world view, even in a watered down version.
Well I suppose keeping the GBM out might be a way to make them electorally palatable, but there is still issue with trying to shove Powell into it as the man is ultimately a red herring in all of this.That TL did have the reasonable POD of keeping the neo-Nazis from taking over the NF as I recall, it was mostly reactionaries when Powell joined it - which isn't totally implausible if one keeps folks like Tyndall out.
Again, Powell is the wrong way to go with NF succeeding. The reasons why he joined the UUP are complicated, but they were largely spurred by three factors: His growing affection of the Province (as indicative of his frequent travel there pre-1970), his opposition to Heath's policy regarding the land he was growing to love, and his strong support for the UUP, born out of his strong beliefs in Unionism and that the UUP embodied the Toryism that was integral to his political identity and he saw the Conservative Party as abandoning. With National Front, there isn't really any of that.And if you are going to have something like the NF succeed it would need popular politicians defecting to it, Powell is the most obvious candidate and I guess if he could stomach the UUP he could stomach the NF's economic policy. Someone like a Colin Mitchell would probably be better though.
It's one or the other. Either the Tories are more Liberal, or they're more Neo-Liberal, and we can see from history how that plays out (they embraced both after much foot dragging and grumbling).You would also need a serious rift in the Tories, have some strongly liberal faction take over? It would be better if the Tories were more economically neo-liberal as well.
The issue with this is that it's going to be hard if not impossible for the NF to not go neo-Nazi or Fascist.Basically if one keeps the NF from ever going Nazi and having it be more of a reactionary party then I think it could do okay - if you figure out how to leave a space open for it. It is as much dependent upon the other parties as upon the NF.
Depends when they need to become a major force by, if they manage to stay relevant for long enough I could see them riding a populist wave as plenty of other far right parties are doing now. The best way to do that is to bring in PR. Perhaps, as you touch on, Labour drifts off to the left (a better PoD imo is Healey wins the leadership and then Benn challenges him for it and wins), and Alliance begin to replace them? If the NF can hold onto their seats till Alliance wins power and implements PR, they could establish a fairly regular presence in the Commons, particularly if you could find a way to get AMS (probably through a more left wing Labour Party participating in coalition) rather than STV, which punishes marginal parties more. In the new realignment, the SDP could take the more middle class Labour areas and Tory marginals, Labour clings onto the inner cities, and the NF is able to take advantage of both parties being perceived as too liberal to become competitive in a few working class areas. Fast forward to today, then they could play a similar role in politics to the one that UKIP are now, albeit with greater representation due to PR.How about have the NF do better for the GLC election in 1977 and potentially win a seat or two (they got over 5% of the vote, representing a gain of around 4.8% in the vote for them.) Perhaps then have them consolidate or even extend their support come 1981 for the GLC election once again. During this time the NF did gain decent percentages of the vote in seats such as those of Ian Mikardo and Peter Shore, in East London. ITTL they do better come 1979 and don't see their vote 'collapse.' Come 1983 have Labour do far worse for some reason (Benn winning the deputy leadership perhaps?) coupled with a strong Alliance vote, this could see the Front gain a seat or two in this area, on low turnout and with a small plurality of the vote. I can't see the party becoming a major force, but they could at a stretch get into parliament if everything goes right for them.
When did Clarke write this (not in a 'I doubt you way', just in a general 'what year')? I was thinking that if it was after 1973, the PoD could be that Tyndall is perhaps killed in a car accident of some kind before he returns to being openly hardline, but after the Parties largest bought of growth.Clark joining only really needs a small PoD; not having Tyndall as leader. Clark, who wrote that he admired NF members, stated that Tyndall was "a bit of a blockhead."
Details would be nice, because I can tell you that by the time Corbyn is ready to be Leader, NF was dead, the Conservatives who were abusing you boys weren't going to rise to Leadership, and if both Labour and the Conservatives have internal issues, then it's the Liberals and other centralist 3rd Parties who will benefit, not a fringe far-right organisations. And you can't 'throw out the clowns' if the clowns are the Party through and through.Easy. The Front moderates and throws out the clowns as many other European nationalist parties did. Jeremy Corbyn is elected leader of Labour sometime earlier, at the same time people find the Conservative Prime Minister in bed with a young boy. The Front avoids polarizing economic issues in favor of a generic nationalism. 25% of the vote.
When did Clarke write this (not in a 'I doubt you way', just in a general 'what year')? I was thinking that if it was after 1973, the PoD could be that Tyndall is perhaps killed in a car accident of some kind before he returns to being openly hardline, but after the Parties largest bought of growth.
Details would be nice, because I can tell you that by the time Corbyn is ready to be Leader, NF was dead, the Conservatives who were abusing you boys weren't going to rise to Leadership, and if both Labour and the Conservatives have internal issues, then it's the Liberals and other centralist 3rd Parties who will benefit, not a fringe far-right organisations. And you can't 'throw out the clowns' if the clowns are the Party through and through.
It's going to take a lot more than what you've proposed.
An earlier Corbyn leadership wouldn't happen till at least the mid eighties, by which point the NF are past the point of saving. Not only that, but I don't think some realize that he isn't the kind of person who seriously wanted the leadership. He was only nominated in the first place because the left wanted to broaden the debate and they had become so marginalised that they didn't have anyone who actually wanted to run and so he had to be roped into it, basically due to seniority. If the left were to win the leadership at a time the NF could grow, then they would surely nominate someone with a bit more substance, since these were the days when they had former cabinet ministers in their ranks. Benn is the prime candidate, and if it isn't him the maybe Heffer or Meacher, but certainly not Corbyn.When did Clarke write this (not in a 'I doubt you way', just in a general 'what year')? I was thinking that if it was after 1973, the PoD could be that Tyndall is perhaps killed in a car accident of some kind before he returns to being openly hardline, but after the Parties largest bought of growth.
Details would be nice, because I can tell you that by the time Corbyn is ready to be Leader, NF was dead, the Conservatives who were abusing you boys weren't going to rise to Leadership, and if both Labour and the Conservatives have internal issues, then it's the Liberals and other centralist 3rd Parties who will benefit, not a fringe far-right organisations. And you can't 'throw out the clowns' if the clowns are the Party through and through.
It's going to take a lot more than what you've proposed.
New people can enter, but that doesn't really solve the bugbear of the entire Party having a foundation of White Supremacy. Alan Clarke entering and become leader whilst Tyndall being killed is the best bet to actually having the Party gain some success, but you still have the issues of that White Supremacy.I'm assuming new people enter the party, throw out some of the clowns, and force others to behave. About pedophilia, it's possible, but what I meant was any highly embarrassing scandal, bribery is probably more likely.
French National Front and the Italian Social Movement took decades to 'moderate' their stance and become electorally palatable. This isn't impossible with National Front, but a party of immigration restrictions and (relative) euro-skeptisism already existed in British Society. Simply Silencing the clowns, as you keep saying, will unfortunatly for the OP not really cut it. You need something a lot more drastic in the Party, and in British Society.As the (French) National Front has shown, there's appetite out there for an immigrantion restrictionist, euro-skeptic party, and clowns can be silenced or run out.
First half I agree strongly with, for probably the first time. Whilst Britain from 1968-1982 was, to put it kindly, fragile and breaking, if the crisis during the period was worse, then you may see more people turn to National Front in some kind of desperate alternative, especially if you can remove Tyndall and put someone who-dare I say- appears more moderate. The second half I don't really see happening with either Labour or the Conservatives.If we're assuming the Front's politics and personality don't change, something more radical would be necessary, perhaps a second Great Depression(though I don't think it's very likely, we learned a bit from the first one) or the government in a fit of Imperial nostalgia declaring that Indians/Pakistanis/ect could freely immigrate.
Yes, indeed.An earlier Corbyn leadership wouldn't happen till at least the mid eighties, by which point the NF are past the point of saving. Not only that, but I don't think some realize that he isn't the kind of person who seriously wanted the leadership. He was only nominated in the first place because the left wanted to broaden the debate and they had become so marginalised that they didn't have anyone who actually wanted to run and so he had to be roped into it, basically due to seniority. If the left were to win the leadership at a time the NF could grow, then they would surely nominate someone with a bit more substance, since these were the days when they had former cabinet ministers in their ranks. Benn is the prime candidate, and if it isn't him the maybe Heffer or Meacher, but certainly not Corbyn.
When did Clarke write this (not in a 'I doubt you way', just in a general 'what year')? I was thinking that if it was after 1973, the PoD could be that Tyndall is perhaps killed in a car accident of some kind before he returns to being openly hardline, but after the Parties largest bought of growth.