British Civil War 1987

You'd also need to do away with the SDP split, which is perhaps the hardest aspect to achieve: the further left Labour goes, the more likely a split occurs and the more successful a split is likely to be. I don't see any way that a split doesn't happen so the challenge then becomes how to render it ineffective? Perhaps a series of (orchestrated?) scandals?
I actually happen to think the SDP help, rather than hinder, the possibility of a left wing Labour government. There are plenty of Tory people who would not vote for Benn or Foot, but would vote for them. Running the 1983 figures through electoral calculus, Labour emerging as the largest party in a hung parliament even when finishing third in the popular vote is not at unlikely if the Alliance wins the most votes. Of course, you'd probably want a Labour majority for this scenario, but nevertheless, a large but even more unfocused Alliance vote (perhaps in an election that takes place within a year after their founding) could see Labour in with a majority as long as they could remain substantially ahead of the Tories. You could even have the Alliance edge the popular vote, thereby resulting in more people questioning the legitimacy of a Labour government, and dividing the opposition at the same time with about 140 MPs each, giving Labour a better chance at winning a second term.

Another consequence would be that it would get rid of a lot of troublesome right wingers, which makes it easier for a Labour government to be unabashedly left wing.
 
And why does fiction have to be based on what could feasibly happen, it's merely entertainment not and educational tool. Please let the creative forces on AltHistory run wild and free, not to be stifled, curtailed, belittled or otherwise shat on in anyway.

Different people have different approaches to alternate history. Some favour the wild and creative. I personally prefer the feeling one gets on reading a good piece of: "It may have turned out like that if things had fallen differently." I prefer my alternate history to be plausible (for values of plausible that vary from person to person). Indeed, fiction is bound by realism in a way that real life isn't.

When I write a timeline, I expect there will be glitches along the way. I expect that people will point them out. If they convince me that there's a better way, then that's good, and the timeline ends up being improved. There are subjects I know a great deal about, and there are subjects I don't.

The OP might consider skimming "A Very British Coup", a book by Chris Mullins, which takes a similar, but slightly different start point. If the OP wishes to go into some rather implausible developments, and people acting rather out of character (Livingstone, for example, appears to have been placed under the mental control of his newts), then fine, but it's not a timeline to be taken seriously.
 
If there is a situation where the executive whether it be by
  • Civil Defence (acting a pseudo-paramilitaries in this case); or
  • Police (not acting to protect MP's under instruction of the minister)
is creating a situation where the House of Commons cannot undertake a fair vote of no confidence, then the Crown has the power to dismiss the Prime Minister and their Cabinet without advice.

It is not unreasonable to conclude that a Government which is prohibiting MPs from voting on a no confidence vote in itself would probably lose the said vote if it was held without interference.

The Crown is more than open to dismiss the Prime Minister on the grounds that they have lost the support of the Commons.

Presumably this means the Conservative LOTO will be summoned to form a new Government which will ensure that the House of Commons can conduct its business without unlawful restraint.

At this point the deposed Labour Government may wish to occupy their offices and claim they are still the legitimate government, however their orders to the civil service will probably be ignored. Especially by the police and the armed forces. If they do not step down they would probably be evicted by force.

Under this scenario this would be the only violence in an otherwise constitutional crisis.
 
I think the idea of forums is to share ideas and opinions. We all have different ones so there will always be debate and sometimes even arguments. However we should all act like adults neither hand wavin away the historical facts that are being used to create a scenario or shooting down ideas with because we find them implausible or they don't subscribe to our world view.

For this scenario to be plausible I think that it would take more than the defeat in the Falkland's to both topple the Thatcher government and at the same time give Labour the huge majority it would need to pull this off (not just seats in parliament but also indicating a swing to the left of the middle ground). Especially as the POD is before the really unpopular events of the Thatcher era like the; miners strike, ERM and the poll tax. But even allowing for this as soon as the Queen, the law and the establishment side against the far left/trots, I suspect the the vast majority of the population and crucially the armed forces and police would follow suit. I can see the ITV news interviewing people on the street for some elderly gent to say something along the lines of "I fought in the war for our democratic freedoms and I'll be damned if some commie bar-stewards are going to take them away". Followed by episodes of Dad's Army liberated form the British Workers Broadcasting Commune or (BWBC).

Foreign forces putting down rioters wouldn't be required as British forces would be more than sufficient. At worse the troubles might require the redeployment of elements of the British Army of the Rhine. Perhaps some trots fight on after the even letting off the odd bomb and making a general nuisance of themselves. The end result would be the elimination of the left as a political movement. Paving the way for a less popular New Labour a decade early and a decade or two of Tory supremacy under the greatest leader in British history (YIKES).


th
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
@Threepenny, the point of divergence in the time frame you need is a bit too small for a Civil War by 1987. I suggest a PoD in either the early 70's or late 60's, when the paranoia of a Left-Wing revolution led to people like Airey Neave setting up Milita's 'just in case'. A PoD around 1968, for example, would give enough of a gestation period that an armed clash is an option 19 years down the line.
 
Top