Building Jerusalem Mk2.0

[V-J]

Just been catching up on Mk2, as lovely as the original VJ

Ta.

Portillo is an intriguing choice, I'm all for him eventually becoming PM if it means we can avoid his trundling shambles of a media career.

No This Week, no Moral Maze! Imagine the loss to humanity!

Blair is still at the FO but with Smith in the drivers seat what will Labour foriegn policy be? As gung ho?

Different to OTL, but mainly in fairly small ways on the whole. I don't want to give anything away, but Smith's foreign policy legacy within the party will be very different to Blair's, but similar in some aspects too.

Tbh, I actually got irritated with myself when I was finishing off the planning of this TL, because a lot of interesting stuff will happen off stage when the main body of it finished. I'll have to chalk that one down to experience I suppose, though it does give me plenty to cover in the epilogue.

Blair's career, I might add, will be amusingly different ITTL.

 

[ljofa]

Andrew Mitchell wouldn't have been returned as MP for Gedling in 1997...trust me, I lived there at the time. No...way.

 

[V-J]

He only lost by 3,800 and had a 10,000 majority in 1992. Somebody must have liked him....

Come on ljofa, time to come clean - you're a closet Tory.

Vernon Coaker's majority went up in 2001, which also suggests there wasn't a huge anti-Mitchell vote in 1997.

 

[ljofa]

Gedling is a mining town/area and the DUM heartland. After the pit closures, there were plenty of angry, anti-Tories. The Carlton lot propped up the Tory vote but too many ex-miners in the area.

 

[V-J]

1998​

Taken from Making Sense of the Troubles by David McKittrick and David McVea (Penguin, 2001)

… The election of John Smith, and the departure of Michael Heseltine and the Conservatives broke the deadlock of the previous few years, with the British government no longer relying on Unionism to sustain it at Westminster. For the first time since 1992, a British government had sufficient authority both inside and outside Westminster to commit itself to the peace process in a meaningful way and press forward. Both Smith and his Northern Ireland Secretary, Jack Cunningham, were experienced political hands and both exuded confidence and authority in office in respect of the issue. Nationalists and Republicans, however, were wary of Smith’s background as a Scottish Presbyterian and believed that his sympathies lay more with Unionism than Nationalism. [132] The changing political landscape therefore generated hope but also expectation….

… Within weeks the government moved to break the deadlock, with Smith announcing the reopening of direct contacts with Sinn Féin in a bid to push forward with the process. Although the contacts brought renewed hope of a ceasefire, that hope received a setback when the IRA killed two policeman on foot patrol in Lurgan in County Armagh. The fact that these killings took place just miles from Drumcree suggested to some that the IRA was bent on generating renewed tension ahead of the annual marching season, now just weeks away. Smith, though, perservered with the process and invited the IRA to commit to a renewed ceasefire as a goodwill gesture, ahead of formal talks. Both Dublin and London stated that decommissioning was not a precondition of talks, although Smith noted that “the expectation has to be that sectarian violence has to be brought to a permanent conclusion sooner rather than later.” The offer rested on a calculated gamble that the Ulster Unionists would stay if Sinn Féin were allowed in; if the UUP withdrew then the process would collapse, as Paisley and other hardline unionists had already made clear their opposition to any involvement of republicans. Although the IRA announced a second cessation in July, the atmosphere in Northern Ireland was still uneasy and hesitant…

… Although the IRA was on ceasefire, the cessation was not observed by smaller groups - both loyalist and republican - some of them intent on sabotaging talks. On the republican side, such elements included the INLA and on the loyalist side included the Loyalist Volunteer Force (LVF) which was based mainly in Portadown and had broke with the much larger UVF. The LVF’s leader, Billy Wright, otherwise known as King Rat, had become a larger-than-life figure of considerable public notoriety. Wright’s prominence, however, also put him at extreme risk. In 1997 Wright was serving a sentence for intimidation in the Maze prison, and it was in the Maze that he would be shot dead by an INLA prisoner using a smuggled weapon. The shooting which took place days before Christmas, ensured that 1998 would open not with peace but a wave of retaliatory violence…

.. Wright’s shooting would spark a new wave of killings, as loyalists sought to take revenge by shooting Catholic civilians. A stream of violence followed, and UDA prisoners in the Maze would stage a small-scale riot when three RUC officers were shot dead in their patrol car in Craigavon. [133] Apart from the mainstream IRA, a group styling itself the Continuity IRA was also active. Consisting mainly of former IRA members who disapproved of the peace process, it would be linked to many of the killings at this time, including the most notorious acts…

… The killings had immediate political implications for the talks, since the RUC said it believed that both the IRA and UDA were involved in the killings. As a result, the political representatives for each, the Ulster Democratic Party and Sinn Féin, were excluded from the talks. Although disruptive, most of the small scale violence would not deflect the participants from the talks themselves, and the process proceeded and many remained hopeful. The major crisis which threatened to derail the entire process came in March. In perhaps the worst single incident of the troubles, republican dissidents would set off a huge 1200lb bomb in Lisburn on a busy Saturday afternoon. [134] The bomb, which was detonated outside a pub which was close to Thiepval Barracks, and which was apparently believed to be popular with soldiers, would cause widespread devastation and was believed to be the work of a group styling itself the 'Real IRA'. A misleading telephone call had caused police to direct shoppers towards the device rather than away from it. In total, seventy-one people would lose their lives and many more would be injured. Of those, sixty-seven were civilians, three were police officers, and one was a British soldier. The dead consisted of both Catholics and Protestants, young and old, fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, grandfathers and grandmothers. A visiting German businessman died, as did a four month-old baby.

An eye-witness described the scene: “The whole scene was one of blood, or pieces of people flung everywhere - limbs, body parts, organs. Arms and legs were all across the street. I could not stomach it and I had to rest against the side of a wall. I fell to my knees and I threw up. I couldn’t really get up again because my hands were shaking too violently. Tears and blood from my forehead were streaming down my cheeks and eventually I had difficulty seeing from the blood. It was pure hell. The smell is something you never forget. It will haunt me to my dying day.” …

… The incident immediately generated an international shock wave. Both the British and Irish governments hurried through tough new security measures. The political damage, however, was, great. Unionists had already been suspicious of the motives and reliability of the IRA ceasefire before the talks, and Trimble came under renewed pressure from hardliners within his own party to withdraw. Paisley said that the talks were now “totally finished”. Although Adams denounced the attack, and President Clinton publicly declared that the talks must continue in spite of the provocation, many now wondered how the talks could survive such a total breakdown of confidence between the participants. Six days later the situation would be further complicated when a smaller device would detonate in London’s docklands. Believed to be the work of a group styling itself ‘the Real IRA’, the device had likely been transported before the Lisburn bombing and was intended to ape the Canary Wharf bombing two years earlier. [135] The device claimed three lives, although unlike the Canary Wharf bombing of two years previously, the damage to property was minimal. But it brought the British government under increasing scrutiny at home and increased the pressure in an already volatile situation. Although Sinn Féin would be temporarily suspended from the talks after the bombings, the real focus was now on the Unionist Party.

Trimble now faced intense pressure from unionist hardliners within his own party and a vociferous response from unionists outside the talks. Some loyalist groups had already begun a new cycle of killings. Twelve Catholics would be shot dead in a pub in West Belfast soon after the Lisburn bomb. Despite intense pressure to continue with the talks from both the British and Irish governments, and internationally, massive internal pressure forced Trimble to put the issue to his party’s Ulster Unionist Council. In early April the council voted 455 to 397 to suspend involvement in the talks if Sinn Féin was readmitted, and the party subsequently withdrew. Hume was adamant that the only way to agreement was through the inclusion of Sinn Fein, and that without them the talks would be meaningless. Despite Smith and Ahern setting a joint deadline of April 23rd for agreement between the parties on re-entry to the talks, the killings continued and no agreement was reached. The talks were suspended without further progress…

Taken from Alan Clark - The Last Diaries 1993 - 1999, (Phoenix, 2003) 5th of February, 1998

Excellent night, slept almost right through from 10 until 6. (How many times can I say that these days) Only got up once at about 2 to tinkle, albeit massively.

EMT then straight to the Members Lobby where little Cameron [136] was milling about uselessly. Beautiful, almost baby food advert/John Moore complexion but just a weeninly bit tiddly. Thankfully showing less willingness to smirk deferentially now. Michael Ancram came along and was characteristically genial and reassuring. Good man.

There were three of those interesting morning adjournments. Our side almost totally empty except for big, bufferish Jim Lester [137] and a few youngsters. Horrific number of Libs; I couldn’t help looking at them and then back at JL for purposes of morbid comparison. Very curious sensation.

Then came a complete shambles. Little Letwin [138] cheekily with his detailed sequences etc tried to ‘get’ T.B. (As Labour call him) in respect of the Middle East. Walked into a firestorm. Stuttered and stalled. Michael Howard speaking from the backbenches (why?) equally useless.

But what is it all for? I couldn’t even get the Chair of the ‘22. The ultimate humiliation! Must ‘plan’ more, think about a big speech to go with BB. Is the Party finished? Is it on the verge of a ‘renewal for the millennium’? Either way it’s balls. I’m finished now. Obsolete. I am to the new generation as Harold M was to me back in ‘74. But without the money, or the prestige necessary to shift into being the Party’s ‘guru‘. Hopeless situation.

Fear God, and stay calm.

Taken from Devolution in Perspective - Regional and National Government in the United Kingdom ed. Paul and Singh, (Oxford University Press, 2007)

The public endorsement of devolution in Wales and Scotland had, in a way, been the biggest hurdle that Labour would have to face. A ‘no’ vote against devolution would have almost certainly killed any further devolution stone dead for at least another political generation. The ‘yes’ votes would instead provide the license for Labour to proceed with it’s stage two plans for devolution within the English regions - a much more electoral fraught area than devolution to the nations.

Labour was well-prepared on that front, however. The party had been mulling over how to restore at least some form of London-wide administration to the capital ever since the Conservatives had abolished the GLC. Ideas had been tossed around for what would replace it; a simple restoration of the GLC, an entirely new structure, or some kind of hybridisation. By the time of the election, Labour had generally settled on the notion of a separate elected Mayor and Assembly. This would avoid one of the main perceived problems with the old GLC - the way that control of it’s executive was out of the hands of voters and in the hands of the Council’s Labour group, a fact which notoriously allowed Ken Livingstone to oust Andrew McIntosh a mere few days after the latter had oversaw the Labour group‘s re-election. However, the extent to which the Mayor’s powers and the powers of the Assembly would come together would have to be resolved. The other main issue was education - the GLC had been famed for it’s ILEA (Inner London Education Authority) which had eventually perished under the Thatcher government’s assault on what it perceived to be ‘progressive’ education and excessively high budgets, and a post-GLC successor system had never gotten off the ground. Some hankered after a restoration of an ILEA-style system which by the 1990s was looking increasingly remote. Labour therefore had to resolve how any new London-wide body would be elected, function, and what it’s powers would be.

While in opposition Labour set up a working group, principally under shadow ministers Mo Mowlam, John Prescott and Margaret Beckett to resolve these issues. The group’s recommendations, Labour’s Policy For the Capital was published in August 1996 and outlined the way in which the broad basis on which the new London body would be constituted, further elaborated on in Labour’s June 1997 White Paper Government for London. The eventual proposals emerging from this process would be both conservative and radical. Labour envisaged a new GLE (Greater London Executive) which would, notably, be headed by a directly-elected Mayor. Similar to the Welsh Assembly, the London Executive would, however, be very much a part of a new Assembly. [139] The Assembly would be a forty-five member body, [140] elected simultaneously with the Mayor, which would approve and oversee much of the Executive’s functions. The Executive itself would have authority over most pan-London ‘strategic’ functions, through quangos under the supervision of the Assembly - policing, transport, economic regeneration and culture. Little of that was controversial, and, indeed, much of it was overdue, democratising and streamlining what had previously been murky areas of responsibility for a multitude of London bodies. Labour’s proposals also, however, envisaged the administration of education to the general oversight of the Assembly and the Executive. This was a both a direct revival of GLC practise and a bold piece of political experimentation, as the powers and responsibilities of LEAs had been generally declining for years. Like the GLC, the proposals also gave representation to local boroughs in the process of formulation. The London proposals were, therefore, very much a conscious experimentation with reversing a centralising trend which had been evident for some decades. The Mayor would have the power to appoint, subject to the endorsement of the Assembly, a Deputy Mayor - in effect, the Executive’s floor leader - a Supervisor of Transport and Public Safety, a Supervisor of Economic Development and Wellbeing, and a Supervisor of Education which would, together with the Mayor, comprise the elected Executive. [141] The Assembly would have the power to reject major nominations to the new quangos and the Mayor’s overall budget. (see Fig 1.2) The Assembly would also have it’s own select committees on the relevant areas of covered by the Executive’s members.

The proposals for London were themselves reasonably broad, but by 1997 increasingly few strenuously objected to the idea of at least some kind of democratically responsive body for London, and the capital had a history of it’s own government within living memory and seemed to form a natural unity. Regional government within England, having no such history and with few natural boundaries, was therefore a much more ambitious proposition. The most obvious starting point to trial regional government was in areas of England where there was a likely appetite for such schemes, and consequently Labour would choose the North East as the region for the trial of it’s proposals. Here there had long been complaints about the remoteness of the London-based centre, and opinion polling suggested North Easterners were amenable to regional devolution. Labour’s proposals in it’s White Paper Regional Government for England, moving on from the formulations of the working group, envisaged a ‘mini-London’-style system with most of the regional executive’s powers being focused on strategic issues which were not easily handled by local government - economic development, cross-regional cultural initiatives, and transport - and was therefore the most tentative of Labour’s devolution proposals… [142]

… Perhaps the hardest barrier for the government would be the referendums on the proposals, which, contrary to Wales and Scotland, had a variable and uncertain level of public support behind them. However, the creation of a entirely new political structures would itself provoke great debate within the parties over who should man them and how they should be chosen…

Taken from Clear Blue Water - the Conservative Party in the age of Portillo by Paul Powell (Penguin, 2004)

Why had Portillo’s early leadership been viewed by the commentariat as such a failure? It is an important question, as the answers provide clues as to why Portillo took the party in the subsequent direction he did. Partly the drop in Conservative support in the polls was a natural expression of the internal turmoil generated by revising the party’s position on Europe - the alienation of the former establishment had given the impression of a divided party, although as the membership ballot confirmed, that impression was relatively superficial. The party was always likely to settle into a strongly sceptical position after 1997, come what may. Portillo had at least made the process a quick one, if not a smooth one. Nevertheless, the impression given by the sight of the party’s pro-European centre-left enraged and envenomed was one of a strong shift to the right, despite the Conservatives not substantially changing their overall policies. Portillo was portrayed as distancing himself from the centre-ground for no apparent electoral gain. Perhaps, in part this contributed to an irritation in the media, well-accustomed to ‘sleaze’ and internal fissures, about a more cohesive party; with much of it‘s internal divisions resolved in one bloody episode; the party seemed less interesting. It is stretching credulity to say that Portillo re-positioned the party simply to make headlines, but the media was certainly frequently far more interested in the new government than it was in the opposition as 1997 went into 1998. After eighteen long years in government, and then a decisive rejection by the electorate, the Conservatives seemed slightly old-hat, and uninteresting.

Some on the right of the party concluded, from the result of the election, that a mixture of Conservative internal division and the nature of Heseltine’s government had combined to frustrate the Tories at the polls. Some in the Portillo camp took this view, while some - perhaps most - did not. In the alternative view, the party had been swept away even under a moderate leader, in favour of a much more left-wing alternative, and the situation in the polls had not been remedied by the burst of eurosceptic infusion that Portillo had delivered; if anything, it had been made worse. Under this view, it was hard not to conclude that the electoral tastes of the public had moved on from the Thatcher years, years when Labour had been much more obviously unelectable and the opposition divided between Labour and the Alliance. The prescription resulting from that view was that the Tories needed to freshen their image to take account of the changing times; to take what was best from the Thatcher years, but mould it into something newer and more relevant.

The decision also seems to have been an intensely personal one. Friends and close associates seem to suggest almost something close to a political breakdown occurring in Portillo over the winter - there are suggestions - and they were anonymously voiced even at the time in the press - that he was now, more than ever, regretting his decision not to stand against Heseltine in 1995, that he was not enjoying opposition, and that his enthusiasm for the front line seemed to be waning. There were some slightly wild murmurings of a ‘snap’ leadership election in the summer. Doubtless this political long dark night of the soul was fed by the rumours that had been circulating about Portillo with increasing prominence in the press, reaching a fever by 1997. Red top tabloids found little to pin on Portillo other than innuendo, but their desire to uncover more ‘sleaze’ at the top of the party seemed to be insatiate. Even after government, the press seemed to want to hound the party further. An intense opposition to Portillo personally amongst some on the left, almost approaching hate, which had already been present for some years, was still very much in evidence, and in December Portillo had been egged by protestors whilst attending a speech, to the apparent wholehearted delight of the many members of the general public. It would be hardly surprising for any political leader to want to put the past behind them in some fashion and branch out in a new direction. [143]

The immediate background for what would become the ‘Portillo Revolution’ was unremarkable. In February of the new year, Portillo reshuffled the Shadow Cabinet. Out went most of Portillo’s former Cabinet colleagues, with Virginia Bottomley and Brian Mahwinney - mainstays of the party’s loyalist centre - departing. Fresher faces, such as Alan Duncan, Bernard Jenkin, Nick Gibb and David Cameron [144] would be promoted to fill the gaps. Notably, Portillo promoted Francis Maude to Shadow Home Secretary and, in a surprise move, brought back Phillip Oppenheim to head Education. These two biggest changes were moves which surprised some and seemed to send mixed messages. Economically, Maude had been one of the driest of the drys under Thatcher. His Conservative pedigree was impeccable, with his father Angus having been on the right of the party well before that status became fashionable. A conclusion based on these facts could have lead to an assumption that Maude was a traditional right-winger on social issues and crime - and yet they were far from it. Maude’s social views were liberal. Watching his gay brother, Charles, die from AIDS had had a profound personal impact on Maude, and the experience had lead to an empathy and a broadening of his political horizons which would have been unusual amongst traditional Thatcherites. Maude had always been expected to be a big player after 1997, when he returned to the Commons (he had, perhaps fortuitously, been ejected from his North Warwickshire seat in 1992 and thus had avoided becoming entangled in the internal warfare of the Major-Heseltine years) but his promotion to the inner core of the Shadow Cabinet would signify something more - It is not overdramatic to say that it was the tentative beginning of an entirely new strand of thinking within Conservatism. Oppenheim was of a more traditional left-wing Conservative blend - formerly close to Ken Clarke, he had also worked closely with Portillo at Employment and as his number two at the treasury from 1996, and the two men had developed something of a rapport. Oppenheim was a touchy-feely sort of Conservative who had represented a former Derbyshire mining seat, and even after spending fourteen years in the Commons was still relatively youthful. Portillo had generously - considering his relations with Clarke - encouraged him to return to the Commons after 1997, and as a former Cabinet minister it had not been a tough ride for Oppenheim to win Beckenham after Piers Merchant resigned. [145] Oppenheim’s return signified two things - a desire on the part of Portillo to re-establish the Conservatives on the centre-ground, and his need to have loyal lieutenants in the Shadow Cabinet, who he could trust. Both tendencies would be the source of much of the debate within the party in the years ahead.

Beyond the traditional left of the party, which had always had an antagonistic relationship with Portillo, there was an increasing murmur of disquiet amongst the party even before Portillo began to branch out in new political directions. ‘An over-reliance on a small core of advisers’ and complaints of too much central power within a party are familiar refrains heard from the politically excluded, but here they had genuine merit, coming from some who were far from natural enemies of Portillo. The Shadow Cabinet was being consulted less and less; Portillo was increasingly relying on Gibb, MacGregor and a handful of special advisers and confidants to strategise and plan policy. “There is an in-group and an out-group” one aggrieved shadow minister would tell the Telegraph in the new year. “and if you’re out, you’re a nobody. Michael is a good chairman of the shadow cabinet but it’s not a decision-making process. He gathers opinion simply to so people can talk things out and that he can better head off dissent.” Even Gillian Shepherd would complain openly that she had “too little to do” at Central Office. It would be in this atmosphere of concentrated power, political renewal, and personal loyalties which would enable and give succour to Portillo decisively re-casting the party’s image. Many even wondered the extent to which Portillo’s increasing reliance on a small coterie of advisers had subsequently swayed his judgement over social issues…

… Portillo’s famous interview with the Times combined both the personal and the political. It was revelatory in both senses. It exposed a party leader to more personal scrutiny, derision and attention than had ever been the case within living memory. It was not about tax. It was not about policy. It was not about ideas. It was about sex.

The choice of the paper was not random. The Times was friendly territory for Portillo, with his biographer, Michael Gove, being a leader writer on the paper. Portillo was also friendly with the paper’s editor, Peter Stothard. The Times interview was designed to both put to bed rumours about Portillo‘s past, but it was also an opportunity to use the headlines that it would generate to steer the party in a new direction. Words and sentences which would have once seemed utterly alien emerging from Portillo were given free range: “I think too often in the past, the way we have approached matters has left [the public] feeling that we were harsh and negative, and that we resented more than we encouraged.” This was very much self-critical stuff - not what Portillo was known for. And, most revealingly, Portillo described that he had had “homosexual experiences as a young person”. Explaining his previous opposition to equalising the age of consent, [146] Portillo would almost facetiously brush it off: “I took the view that gay sex could easily be more traumatic for a young man of 16 than heterosexual sex would generally be for a girl of 16. By the way, do you think that may possibly be true?” When asked if this was the sort of policy which had made minorities feel that the Conservative Party was against them, Portillo approached the issue carefully: “I think we have made policy in the past in a way which has had the effect of saying to certain groups of people, regardless of the intentions behind the policy, ‘really, we do not like you very much’ I don’t want people to feel that way about us in the future.” When asked why he had decided to be so direct about his past, Portillo stated that he had become “fed up with all the innuendo … I think if I read this about somebody else, my reaction would be to say 'so what'.”

As previously noted, low rumours had been stirring around Westminster and Fleet Street for some time before this interview. The revelation was not, to those in the know, so much of a surprise. Yet it’s effect in the country was electric. Nobody had heard this sort of frankness about their personal life from, it is fair to say, any major political leader before in Britain in modern times. It was both revealing, and startling. It lead in all the newspapers, and all the news bulletins. It immediately put the Conservative Party back into the news. The problem was that many of the party faithful could not decide whether this was fame or notoriety. The revelation of Nigel Hart, one of Portillo’s old flames, of an eight-year relationship soon afterwards propelled the story onwards, sparking anger among some who believed that Portillo’s description of his “very mild” encounters had itself been deceptive. The revelation had, quite pointedly, been a huge gamble. Probably Gibb and Portillo’s public relations team had not been fully sure how the story would play out. Yet, to some amazement, the interview seemed to give Portillo a huge boost. Not only had a politician been largely honest about their private life without immediate prompting, but few seemed to actually care about Portillo’s prior relationships, and to the extent that they did, it likely humanised him. More than three quarters of those questioned by MORI responded that it had not changed their overall view of Portillo, with over seven in ten ready to accept a Prime Minister who had had a prior homosexual relationship. How forgiving the Conservative Party itself would be remained to be seen.

Almost until the point the interview was printed, British Conservatism had followed a smooth progression - the increasing dominance of Thatcher-style policy, both economically and socially - in favour of a smaller economic role for government, support for the traditional family unit, and intense euroscepticism. Heseltine had been in this little more than an interlude. What Thatcherites had therefore been expecting when they elected Portillo was a return to that purist Thatcherism, that old-time religion - and in that they could hardly have been faulted. Portillo had flaunted his credentials in that department for years. Their fury when it was shown to them that they had in fact got something quite different from that which they had expected can hardly be put into words. Some former admirers, such as Norman Tebbit, were open in their opposition - Tebbit would bear down on Portillo’s “deceit“ regarding his “deviance“. Others had a more cerebral objection, believing that Portillo had sold out in order to avoid the charge of hypocrisy - that he could simply no longer hold up an anti-gay rights stance as the rumours about his university experiences intensified to the point that they looked likely to emerge at some point in the future; a notion which confirmed existing critiques of Portillo amongst some on the right as being slick and untrustworthy. Traditional Thatcherites - some never totally in awe of Portillo to begin with - felt betrayed. They felt confused, and they felt angry.

And yet it was more than a simple change of political direction from an individual. Portillo was genuinely articulating what many up-and-coming Tories felt, being less burdened by the battles of the 1970s and 80s and with a wider social horizon than the previous political generation. What in fact Portillo’s Damascene conversion marked was the beginning of an ideological split in the party into three strains of thinking - old style, ‘wet’ and leftist pro-Europeans of the Heseltine-Clarke variety, Thatcherites, and now, as they would be called ‘Portillistas‘ or ‘modernisers‘, taking elements from both camps - the One-Nation-style rhetoric and inclusivity of the left, and the dogged euroscepticism and small-state ideology of the Thatcherites….

…. One of the hardest feats in politics is to overhaul and change an established public image. And yet what Portillo was embarking on was, although few knew it at the time, little more than total in that respect. It was decisive, it was radical, and it was daring. Even at the time of writing, it’s effects have still not fully played themselves out.

Taken from This Blessed Plot by Hugo Young (Macmillan, 1998)

For the first time in all of this history, Britain had a government which was properly ‘European’ and which had a solid political standing. It had a Prime Minister who, indeed, went out of his way to affirm the European nature of his economic ideas, his standing within the world, his commitment to the architecture of Europe. Full scale resisters within the governing party, in so far as they remained, had been intellectually routed and stood under the shadow of the Prime Minister’s stature and confidence. It is not too much to call this a revolutionary moment. It was - could be - the start of the process by which passion dulled, and struggle ceased: when vituperation and bullying and gut-driven piety and the sanctimony of exclusive patriotism, all the coinage of permanent threat which had been the currency of political trade in this matter almost since the beginning, finally lost their power of command. [147] This was the opportunity the leader had made for himself. As a therapy for the nation, it would be disturbing, after so many years in a different psychological condition. How, one had to wonder, would he use it?…

… In opposition, Smith had put one of his more youthful shadow cabinet members, Tony Blair, in charge of foreign affairs. Blair seemed almost unlike anything that had gone before. Committed to Europe, Blair nonetheless never made it a huge issue. Acceptance of it’s meaning, the necessity of integration, seemed to be entirely implicit. There was no need to drum forward the issue of Europe, because the debate had passed. This represented a shift in Labour thinking, but it may have also represented a wider generational shift in British politics and British society. Blair embodied many of the qualities which the younger generations admired - an open-mind, a lack of disfiguring ideological extremity, a cosmopolitan and outward-looking view of the world, and Britain. Blair seemed to be the perfect choice to both work with Europe and for it…

… the change of atmosphere was instant, and, to them, stunning. Accustomed to British delegations that were not only hostile, but incapable of guaranteeing the passage of any agreements they did manage to complete, the continentals were now dealing with a government that saw itself as part of Europe, aspired to make Europe work, and a leader, aided by his Foreign Secretary, whose skills as a bargainer immediately made themselves felt in the Treaty of Amsterdam. ‘You can’t imagine how wonderful it is to feel you are actually being listened to’ a British official, steeped in the pessimism of the Major and the instability of the Heseltine years, told a journalist…

… Europe, with the fiery exception of EMU, looked as though it was cooling down to an atmosphere dominated by compromise, and endless, boring, relatively uninflammatory pragmatism. Britain had, as the continentals recognised, changed. The Prime Minister saw himself as European, and didn’t fear to say so. He listened to what other leaders had to say, instead of reverting to the familiar tactic of preaching to those suffering from the apparent misfortune of inhabiting the wrong side of the Channel; or the heresy in British relations with Europe known as dialogue. Smith took time to cultivate relationships not only with other leaders, but other Socialist leaders in Europe as well, whether in or out of power. Europeans respected him, and Britain gained respect in turn, facilitating business within the Union. His relations with the French could even be considered warm. Lionel Jospin, elected Prime Minister at just about the same time as Smith, came from the same generation, shared Smith’s slightly unfashionable, possibly dull, association - in both cases only partly justified - with Socialism-in-tooth-and-claw, which made no concessions to the more vogue notions of how politics on the left should be conducted. Both came from cultural minorities within their respective nations. To some surprise, Smith took time to court Jospin, sometimes over the claims of established bastions such as Kohl, and the two seemed to draw succour from it, in spite of the weight of national associations pressing towards the opposite. [148] This was truly evidence of something new, something different emerging in British politics; a train of thought on Europe not previously encountered. The ambition of it could only be matched by ambition of a similar awesome magnitude at home….

Appendix​

(The Shadow Cabinet, as composed under the Leader of the Opposition, The Rt. Hon. Michael Portillo, MP, February, 1998)​

Leader of Her Majesty’s Most Loyal Opposition and Leader of the Conservative Party - The Rt. Hon. Michael Portillo, MP
Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer - The Rt. Hon. Peter Lilley, MP
Shadow Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs - The Rt. Hon. Michael Howard, QC, MP
Shadow Secretary of State for the Home Department - The Rt. Hon. Francis Maude, MP
Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Science - The Rt. Hon. Philip Oppenheim, MP
Shadow Secretary of State for Defence - The Hon. Bernard Jenkin, MP
Shadow Secretary of State for Transport - Nick Gibb, MP
Shadow Secretary of State for Health - Alan Duncan, MP
Shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade - David Willets, MP
Shadow Secretary of State for Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food - The Rt. Hon. Edward Leigh, MP
Shadow Secretary of State for Local Government, Housing, and the Regions - The Rt. Hon. William Hague, MP
Shadow Secretary of State for Social Security - The Rt. Hon. Ann Widdecombe, MP
Shadow Secretary of State for Employment - Andrew Mitchell, MP
Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media, and Sport - The Rt. Hon. Iain Sproat, MP
Shadow Secretary of State for Environmental Protection - The Rt. Hon. Sir Robert Atkins, MP
Shadow Secretary of State for International Development and Co-operation - Peter Ainsworth, MP
Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland - Paul Cullen, QC, MP
Shadow Secretary of State for Wales - Roger Evans, MP
Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland - The Rt. Hon. Michael Ancram, QC, MP
Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury - David Cameron, MP
Conservative Chief Whip - The Rt. Hon. Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd, MP
Shadow Leader of the House of Commons - The Rt. Hon. Sir George Young, Bt., MP
Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for Women and Equality - Cheryl Gillan, MP
Chairman of the Conservative Party - The Rt. Hon. Gillian Shepherd, MP
Shadow Leader of the House of Lords and Conservative Leader in the House of Lords - The Rt. Hon. The Viscount Cranborne, DL, PC

Notes and Clarifications​

[132] This is rather unfair, although Smith does approach the issue from a more conventional and conservative standpoint than Blair in OTL.

[133] In OTL, Mowlam went into the Maze to court the loyalists; that doesn’t happen here.

[134] In OTL, Gardaí intercepted this bomb at the border, and it was never detonated. Republican dissidents would later detonate a bomb in a similar fashion in Omagh, but only after Good Friday had been signed.

ITTL, the Garda are less lucky, the bomb is detonated, and the political fallout is, to say the least, severe.

[135] This is another bomb which was fortunately intercepted in OTL before it was transported.

[136] Young Mr Cameron has been MP for Ashford since the election.

In OTL he was PPC for Stafford, but lost the seat narrowly - he was selected there after missing a selection meeting in Ashford in December 1994. ITTL, there are just enough butterflies for things turn out a little differently.

Alan Clark, incidentally, has had an identical progression to OTL, standing and winning in Kensington and Chelsea. Whatever Nick Scott did, it was relatively similar to OTL. ITTL he has ran for the chairmanship of the 1922 Committee but has lost - This hasn't done a whole lot for his already faltering self-esteem.

[137] Returned at Broxtowe ITTL.

[138] ITTL, MP for North Wiltshire.

[139] The London Assembly is a fair bit stronger than it is in OTL, and there’s much less of a focus on the individual position of the Mayor. (Although the powers of the Mayoralty itself are quite strong, relatively speaking.) Equally, however, no Labour government really wants to be seen as supporting a return to the ‘bad old days’ of the old GLC in which the voters had no real control over the executive, hence the direct election of the Mayor.

In theory, the Mayor is elected simultaneously not just as Mayor, but also as a special Assembly Member, which re-enforces the centrality of the Assembly - the Mayor is a part of the Assembly as well as being slightly above it. It’s a cross between standard devolved/local government and the more presidential approach of OTL’s directly-elected mayors. Make your own mind up on whether it’s a stroke of genius or just a bit of a mess.

[140] The GLA in OTL has a large membership, closer to that of the original GLC, rather than the relatively compact body of OTL.

[141] These positions are laid out in statute, a la the mayoralty. This is done partly because Labour is more focused on the nitty-gritty of devolution ITTL, partly in order to divide power within this rather more stronger executive.

[142] Labour is more committed to the spirit of devolution ITTL, and in consequence it will press on beyond it’s OTL limits under Blair’s first term; in OTL it only managed this in 2003, when the North East had a devolution referendum which was clearly rejected.

[143] I think there are many reasons why Portillo would likely have changed gear regardless of what happened in 1997; the continuing pressure over his private life, which would have been intense had he become leader; the fact that people around Portillo were moving in the same direction; the fact that his change in views is often over-emotionalised.

That’s not to say that Portillo or the party has changed overnight - modernisation will be a gradual process, and in some ways different and more restrained than OTL; there’ll be less of an acceptance of Labour policy here than there was in OTL, particularly on the economy.

[144] In OTL, of course, Cameron avoided the internal battles of 1997-2001 (as some, notably Shaun Woodward, did not) and later developed as a ‘second generation’ moderniser untainted by them. Here he will be very directly associated with Portillo.

[145] In OTL, this by-election was won by Jacqui Lait.

[146] Although this is problematical for Portillo, he does not have OTLs record of opposition to gays in the military as Defence Secrtary hanging over him ITTL, so his record looks slightly less hypocritical here.

[147] Well, this is Hugo Young of course, so the language is not exactly neutral on the issue…

[148] I could find no evidence in my research for this TL that Smith knew anything in particular about Jospin, much less knew him personally to any great extent by the time of his death - Jospin only came to real prominence after Smith had died - but I feel that this just works somehow. Jospin and Smith seem to be both in personality and politics rather alike, and are of the same political generation - it’s easy to imagine them getting along, unlike Jospin’s poor relationship with Blair in OTL.

 

[V-J]

And on that resounding wave of indifference, now might be a good time to take stock of where things go from here. (I didn't think it was that shocking an update...)

I had a think about how I wanted to end this for a long time, and I eventually concluded that it was best to take this up to the millenium, and then stop. I really can't lie about this - I think two years' work, on and off, on this is more than enough. I want to move onto other things, now that I've thrashed out what works, what doesn't etc. I hope that 2000 will be understood as an appropriate place to stop when it comes around.

I'll do an epilogue from TTLs 2008 offering a few snapshots, an 'overview' of where things are at that point of course. I might do a 'where are they now' style thing if I get a few suggestions. I have a few ideas but nothing conclusive at this stage.

And then I acknowledge the people who helped along the way. (a fair few of you)

Anyway. I hope the next update will be along sometime this week, maybe early next one. So stay tuned, whoever is still watching.

 

[Incognitia]

V-J

I wish I could comment; but I read your work and I am in awe at the detail and plausibility, and don't know what to say to it.
My knowledge of British politics in this period is insufficient to really help.

 

[V-J]

I honestly don't mind what people say about it tbh. But I hope people say something. Even if it's just yah-boo stuff, small inquiries about individual people, that's fine by me. I was pretty astounded tbh that nobody said anything about Good Friday not happening in TTL. That's a pretty big (and bad) divergence from OTL - probably one of the biggest so far.

I think too much detail may be part of the problem with this, but I've actually tried to keep it down from what I originally envisaged. One to change for the next one I think. The subject matter is as you say quite obscure on this as well, and there's less possibilites for major butterflies. I don't know how far back I'll go next time, but it will be farther back.

Thanks for the kind words though. I hope you keep reading.

 

[EdT]

Interesting stuff here, and hopefully I can provide a personal insight into some of this. I like, and find plausible, your Portillo-Gibb axis- however, I suspect that if Nick is as influential in the party as this he won't accept anyhing other than Education. I'd suggest swapping him with Oppenheim. This, in turn opens up a number of interesting options. Labour education policy ITTL is presumably less 'Blairite' than OTL; this would lead a rather large opening for the Tories to exploit and I imagine we'd see Conservative plans for a massive expansion of the CTC system. An earlier Grammar School crisis would probably follow.

I suspect that TTL might see increasing leakage to UKIP from the Tory right. The Tories are certainly going to have a 'Gay Mafia' problem and this may send a number of people over the edge.

I wonder what happens to Andrew Adonis? If, as I suspect, his move to Labour is butterlied ITTL than a properly Gibbite education policy is going to mean that he is awfully friendly with the Tories. I could see him leaving the Liberals for Conservatism ITTL, or at least adding significant weight to TTL's Orange Bookers.

 

[Lord Douglas]

A few queries:

Does Alan Clark get selected for Kensington and Chelsea as in real life? I'm not sure where but somehow I got the impression that he wasn't - obviously he's in Parliament so he must have got selected for somewhere. And did he run for the Chairmanship of the 1922? Given the little bit in your diary entry I wondered if he had failed to stand, as in real life, or run and lost.

Secondly, I'm surprised Oppenheim managed to keep his seat! Did he shift to a safer one? Amber Valley had a very small majority in 1992, but, given that a number of Tory MPs fled for safer prospects, it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that he might have looked for a safe Conservative seat nearby.
EDIT: D'oh! I should really read things more carefully before opening my mouth.

The final question I wanted to ask was what's going on in the Scottish Tory Party? OTL there was a real round of blood-letting after the Conservatives lost all their seats and Eastwood especially - I believe a number of those involved in the Scottish Tory Reform Group, who had been accused of leaking details about Mickey Hirst in order to prevent him from getting the Eastwood nomination, defected to the Lib Dems. Also there's the question of the Tory leadership in Scotland, which was fought by David McLetchie (the Establishment candidate and OTL winner) and Phil Gallie (ex-MP for Ayr, relatively young and Thatcherite populist). Given that the Tories hang on in Eastwood, is Paul Cullen in the race there, or, since the Tories nationally are in a better state, is someone like Malcolm Rifkind or Ian Lang prepared to step up?

 

[Ed Costello]

That was, I have to say, a rather affecting update.

Although the failure of talks regarding the Good Friday Agreement is sobering, I found the Lisburn bombing deeply shocking on a personal level - I have friends who grew up in Lisburn, and the possibility they would be victims of that attack is... too enormous to contemplate, really.

On the other hand, the unique relationship Smith and Blair seem to be cultivating with the Continent looks fascinating - maybe there'll be less knee-jerk Europhobia in TTL's 2000s?

Kudos on an excellent update.

 

[V-J]

Interesting stuff here, and hopefully I can provide a personal insight into some of this.

Cool.

I like, and find plausible, your Portillo-Gibb axis- however, I suspect that if Nick is as influential in the party as this he won't accept anyhing other than Education. I'd suggest swapping him with Oppenheim.

Not for the first time, you've read my mind - Gibb is only at Transport until a more suitable post can open up. Tbh I was considering putting him in at Health in the not too distant future. (I thought about putting him in at Education/Health now, but that smacked too much of an over-promotion, which would get people's hackles up; there's also an element of him having to 'win his spurs' in other briefs, and being groomed for something greater by Portillo) But of course, with your timely reminder of his policy interests, I think I'll swap him with Oppenheim, with O going to Health. Oppenheim would be reassuring at Health, which is more given to that kind of thing than Education. As you say, he's more comfortable there. (Although I'm not sure - didn't he develop an interest in it over time while in Parliament?)

Anyway, there will shortly be a big flushing out of some of the more middle ranking cabinet posts for reasons which may be slightly obvious. (Widdy) But more on that in the next update.

This, in turn opens up a number of interesting options. Labour education policy ITTL is presumably less 'Blairite' than OTL; this would lead a rather large opening for the Tories to exploit and I imagine we'd see Conservative plans for a massive expansion of the CTC system. An earlier Grammar School crisis would probably follow.

Yes, much less Blairite than OTL. Of course, how this will impact on the main TL, I'm not sure; Blair himself was quite regressive in respect of education and health in OTL in the first term. But the Tories will be beating a Blairite drum on public service standards whilst at the same time seaking to reassure about their overall attitude. If you want to give me a few pointers regarding education policy then I'd be delighted.

I suspect that TTL might see increasing leakage to UKIP from the Tory right. The Tories are certainly going to have a 'Gay Mafia' problem and this may send a number of people over the edge.

Oh, it will drive a few people absolutely crazy. But that's still to come...

I wonder what happens to Andrew Adonis? If, as I suspect, his move to Labour is butterlied ITTL than a properly Gibbite education policy is going to mean that he is awfully friendly with the Tories. I could see him leaving the Liberals for Conservatism ITTL, or at least adding significant weight to TTL's Orange Bookers.

Yes, he certainly won't be defecting to Labour ITTL. I'm not sure whether he'll ever become as prominent as he is in OTL; I can see him settling into being a policy wonk.

Does Alan Clark get selected for Kensington and Chelsea as in real life? I'm not sure where but somehow I got the impression that he wasn't - obviously he's in Parliament so he must have got selected for somewhere. And did he run for the Chairmanship of the 1922? Given the little bit in your diary entry I wondered if he had failed to stand, as in real life, or run and lost.

Yeah, sorry, I didn't make that plain. He gets in at K+C (it's convergence, I know, but still) and runs for the '22 and loses. This hasn't done a whole lot for his already faltering self-esteem.

EDIT: D'oh! I should really read things more carefully before opening my mouth.

The final question I wanted to ask was what's going on in the Scottish Tory Party?

That'll all be covered soon, in some depth.

You are right in flagging-up Gallie and McLetchie, neither of which easily fit in with the new brand of Tory politics - there is room for an awful lot of problems north of the border for the Tories.

That was, I have to say, a rather affecting update.

Well, I wanted to give some idea of the horror of the thing (and consequently, some angle on why the political impact was such as it is) without going over the top. I spared the reader some of the more grusome stories from Omagh in OTL.

Although the failure of talks regarding the Good Friday Agreement is sobering, I found the Lisburn bombing deeply shocking on a personal level - I have friends who grew up in Lisburn, and the possibility they would be victims of that attack is... too enormous to contemplate, really.

I suppose that's one of the problems with writing alternate history - there's no comfort in knowing how it pans out as there is with proper history.

Dissident republicans were so close to disrupting the talks in OTL with bombings it's a miracle they didn't succeed really - it didn't take a lot to push things in a different direction.

On the other hand, the unique relationship Smith and Blair seem to be cultivating with the Continent looks fascinating - maybe there'll be less knee-jerk Europhobia in TTL's 2000s?

The Labour Party will be very committed to European integration ITTL; it's likely that there'll be a referendum on at least something regarding it before the epilogue comes around. Whether it will be won is a different matter of course.

Kudos on an excellent update.

Thanks!

I think you will like the rest of the TL - there will be something of a notable scouse prescence in government ITTL.

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

I'm sorry, I entirely forgot to comment on here when I first read the update. Firstly, the Northern Irish stuff does seem very interesting indeed. With peace looking more distant than ever, I wonder how this will affect Smith's popularity, and his relations with the United States? It'll certainly give the Tories a stick to beat him with, but conversely, after such a setback, I can imagine if Smith turns things round by 2001 it could be represented as a far greater triumph than it was for Blair in OTL.

I do feel sorry for poor Alan Clark, it was quite a poignant entry you did there. Can we have him dying happily in a more senior position: or maybe not dying at all?

And finally, I really like this "Portillista" faction of the Tory party- it seems to look like a Cameroonism with teeth. It's definitely a brand of Conservatism I sympathise with. I only wonder if it'll do much for the Tories in 2001, but I suspect it'll be useful for winning back a lot of voters who went Liberal in '97...

 

[Fletch]

The final question I wanted to ask was what's going on in the Scottish Tory Party? OTL there was a real round of blood-letting after the Conservatives lost all their seats and Eastwood especially - I believe a number of those involved in the Scottish Tory Reform Group, who had been accused of leaking details about Mickey Hirst in order to prevent him from getting the Eastwood nomination, defected to the Lib Dems. Also there's the question of the Tory leadership in Scotland, which was fought by David McLetchie (the Establishment candidate and OTL winner) and Phil Gallie (ex-MP for Ayr, relatively young and Thatcherite populist). Given that the Tories hang on in Eastwood, is Paul Cullen in the race there, or, since the Tories nationally are in a better state, is someone like Malcolm Rifkind or Ian Lang prepared to step up?

Lang refused to stand for Holyrood although, I think he would do better than McLetchie ittl. Ditto Rifkind. Brian Montieth might be an option, although his taking to briefing against his own party might not help him in the long run or Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, who makes David Cameron look like an oik. If you want someone with a more common touch, what about Mary Scanlon?

The trouble with so few known MPs standing for the Scottish Parliament is that an unkown was almost certainly going to win.

 

[V-J]

I'm sorry, I entirely forgot to comment on here when I first read the update.

No probs!

Firstly, the Northern Irish stuff does seem very interesting indeed. With peace looking more distant than ever, I wonder how this will affect Smith's popularity, and his relations with the United States?

Well, relations with Clinton won't be the love-in they were with Blair for obvious reasons unrelated to NI, but I get the feeling they'll stay pretty good. Not Blair-Clinton good, but not too bad all the same.

It'll certainly give the Tories a stick to beat him with,

Particularly with Ancram shadowing NI.

but conversely, after such a setback, I can imagine if Smith turns things round by 2001 it could be represented as a far greater triumph than it was for Blair in OTL.

Perhaps - the opportunity may have been lost for the time being, though.

I do feel sorry for poor Alan Clark, it was quite a poignant entry you did there. Can we have him dying happily in a more senior position: or maybe not dying at all?

Well, that'll be the last diary entry from Clark that you have right there. I wanted to include him to give some idea of the stresses and strains within the Tories, partly because he's so good a diarist, partly because even with him despairing and eventually expiring with his political ambitions unfulfilled ITTL, there is the possiblity of him reviving, phoenix-like, in my next TL....

And finally, I really like this "Portillista" faction of the Tory party- it seems to look like a Cameroonism with teeth.

'Cameroonism with teeth' would be an excellent description - it'll need teeth, because it will have a very bumpy ride within the party.

I only wonder if it'll do much for the Tories in 2001, but I suspect it'll be useful for winning back a lot of voters who went Liberal in '97...

Especially when you see the next update...

The trouble with so few known MPs standing for the Scottish Parliament is that an unkown was almost certainly going to win.

Of course, the fact that it's bound to be an unknown means that Portillo can verge towards the unconventional in who he supports - and in his choice of who fills the party lists.

Not that he would try to rig them or anything...

 

[alt_historian]

And on that resounding wave of indifference, now might be a good time to take stock of where things go from here. (I didn't think it was that shocking an update...)

Um... I managed to miss it, somehow. Otherwise I'd've said something!

I had a think about how I wanted to end this for a long time, and I eventually concluded that it was best to take this up to the millenium, and then stop. I really can't lie about this - I think two years' work, on and off, on this is more than enough. I want to move onto other things, now that I've thrashed out what works, what doesn't etc. I hope that 2000 will be understood as an appropriate place to stop when it comes around.

I'll do an epilogue from TTLs 2008 offering a few snapshots, an 'overview' of where things are at that point of course. I might do a 'where are they now' style thing if I get a few suggestions. I have a few ideas but nothing conclusive at this stage.

Makes sense, I look forward to the next instalment

 

[Thande]

Following this. Liking the detail. It will be interesting to see how Smith's ministry responds to international crises like Bosnia and (if they're not butterflied away) the September 11th attacks.

 

[V-J]

Um... I managed to miss it, somehow. Otherwise I'd've said something!

Subscribe, perhaps?

Makes sense, I look forward to the next instalment

Thanks.

Following this. Liking the detail.

Ta very much, always nice to have a new reader.

It will be interesting to see how Smith's ministry responds to international crises like Bosnia and (if they're not butterflied away) the September 11th attacks.

Bosnia is largely over with now - I didn't suppose there would be any major butterflies considering the POD is '94 and Dayton was signed in '95. Are you thinking of Kosovo perhaps?

I'm sure you'll be pleased to know, though, that the 2000 US presidential election will be covered in detail, as will a few other international 'hiccups'.

As said, though, I will be taking this only to around the millenium, so the War on Turror (or it's equivalent here) won't be covered in detail. Which is a shame really, but then, I didn't think these things over when I started...

 

[Thande]

Bosnia is largely over with now - I didn't suppose there would be any major butterflies considering the POD is '94 and Dayton was signed in '95. Are you thinking of Kosovo perhaps?

Kosovo, yes...all those Balkan crises with people murdering each other blur into one in my memory.

 

[V-J]

Well, to answer the question, I can't see any likely 'big' divergence there - Blair was very strong with Clinton over the possible need for a ground invasion ITOL, but that eventually became academic when Milosevic caved and withdrew his forces, allowing KFOR in. So whether Smith is as hawkish or not on the issue is sort of academic.

Not saying there won't be differences, but I can't see anything huge. If anyone with greater knowledge wants to suggest anything though, then I'd be interested to hear anything about it.