Building Jerusalem Mk2.0

[V-J]

I'm juggling a lot of balls right now![/Cherie Blair]

Believe it or not, I am working on this a lot of the time. In fact I was working on it just before I came online now. I may not be working on the next update, but I am working on it a lot. I've been getting stuck into 2000 a lot recently, specifically the presidential election.

But yeah, I've done a lot of work on the next update as well. It is coming, I promise, and I've actually been putting down a lot of stuff on it over the last week. So sooner rather than later.

Sorry if you're not happy that I've got a complete timeline of the night of the 2000 presidential election already done, but not the next update, but that's just how it is I'm afraid...

 

[ljofa]

Mutha-fricking bump.

 

[V-J]

Working on it now, actually.

The last word I wrote was "ayatollah".

 

[ljofa]

Is he being chased by some knee-high lizards?

 

[V-J]

Close; being ambushed by Baathist assasins.

 

[V-J]

1999​

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

By 1999, the clash between the mods and rockers of the Tory Party was reaching a head. The mods, the Portillo-inspired modernisers of the party, were now increasingly polarised, in their ideas, philosophy, and personalities against the rockers - the old-style Tory traditionalists. The late months of 1998 and the early months of 1999, leading up to the local, Scottish and Welsh elections, would be the crucible which would decide which way the party would turn - whether Portillo would lead the party into the next election, or whether the party would backtrack under the weight of its anxieties about the modernisation project. Perhaps the first major organised rumbles would come at the Conservative conference in late 1998. The first such conference since ‘year zero’ - the time at which modernisation had commenced - was always destined to be a tense time for all concerned within the party. For the Portillistas, it was a time to showcase modernisation to the public, that the party had moved on from its past and reinvented itself; that it had new ideas, new personalities, and a new direction - in short that it was on the road back to government. Many traditionalists expected that it would in part be a venue for them to make a stand, to make waves, to remind the leadership of their views and preferences; perhaps even to stop modernisation dead.

The mood of grassroots members in the constituencies was now hardening, and, in some cases, becoming fairly ripe. In some cases, the natural instinct was towards cautious support of the leader, to give him room to prove himself electorally. However, this was likely not the attitude of most members. “They hate him” as one anonymous MP would brief to a journalist about the members of his local constituency party. “Some of them think he’s slimy, but most dislike him because they think he’s gay.” Those with such attitudes naturally looked to their MPs, and indeed the national media to reflect such views…

… In the event, the first ‘modernisation’ conference was generally deemed by most commentators to be a success, to varying degrees. Some were amazed that Portillo had simply survived presenting himself to Tory conference, a body which in earlier times had been notoriously right-wing, most famously on capital punishment. In fact Portillo not only survived at conference, but in many cases made a genuine success of the experience, perhaps helped by the very fact that the composition of conference this year had been altered - gone was the increasingly familiar sea of white-haired heads in favour of a less uniform composition; ethnic minorities, younger members, and younger women in particular were more noticeable. New ideas on policy were tentatively advanced at fringe events, (albeit greatly in competition with the towering figure of Widdecombe) Alan Duncan, as party chair, announced a new policy review, and Portillo’s leader’s speech was inventive, bold, and caught the media’s attention. Injecting the occasional Spanish phrase or sentence, Portillo talked mostly about himself, in a calculated attempt to broaden and soften his image from the Thatcher years; about his father Luis fleeing from the Franco regime, about his family, and the sort of ‘new Britain’ he wanted to see. The media and Tory modernisers lapped up the speech, although more traditional Tories looked on with expressions which were now becoming regular features.

The 1998 conference, and the months leading into 1999, probably marked the point at which the modernisers and the traditionalists in the party finally broke faith with each other. However polished the 1998 conference had been, discontent amongst party traditionalists still rumbled on. Hoping that the pace of modernisation would slow or diminish, or that events would overtake it, had proved futile. And as their criticisms increasingly strode from anonymous briefings to journalists to public criticism, so opinions amongst the modernisers hardened against the disloyal ‘grumblers’ they found in their midst. And grumble they did, with increasing receptiveness in the media. A core of disaffected, largely socially conservative-leaning backbenchers, such as Kenneth Hind and Peter Bruinvels, began to join with Widdecombe in making known their discontent. [171] The media also began to look at the modernisation project with cynicism, perhaps most notoriously in the case of the Sun, which screamed the question ARE THE TORIES BEING LEAD BY A GAY MAFIA?, [172] a jibe at the increasing prominence of gay Tories in the upper reaches of the party, including the newly-out Alan Duncan. [173] In the event, the Sun’s contribution was largely seen as a wild over-reaction and was fairly broadly condemned…

Although there was now a serious breach between the leadership and other sections of the party, modernisation had not stalled as a result. Partly this was because the subjects it had touched on were, while divisive, not sacred cows of the party. The call for the party to adapt to a changed social environment had ruffled feathers, but it had not caused a mass revolt against Portillo’s leadership. That could only arise out of a misstep on the party’s most core principles – namely, on the economy, and public services. It was these subjects which would stretch the Portillo Project to breaking point.

Under Portillo, party policy on the two subjects had begun, as with others, from a purely traditional standpoint. The party opposed Labour’s attempts to undo the market-reforms of the previous Conservative governments; it opposed the minimum wage, and it had broadly opposed Labour’s tax plans. None of these stances had garnered the party a great deal of public sympathy. The Conservatives had rode hard – some commentators suggested partly as compensation to traditionalists while modernisation proceeded on other fronts - on Labour’s plans for a national minimum wage, warning, in sometimes mildly apocalyptic terms on the fringes of the debate, about the effect on employment and the economy. The same approach had also been taken with regards to tax; Tory spokesman had warned of a “mass exodus” from the City if Labour’s plans to tax non-doms went ahead; a stance which had occasioned some embarrassment as a result of the financial status of several Conservative donors. In both instances, the policy went ahead in any case. In both instances, not a great deal happened in respect of the City or the economy after they had been implemented. The Tories appeared to have egg on their face.

Although this had largely passed by some Tories, modernisers were quick to judge, based on polling and the setbacks the party had suffered over recent years, that public tastes had changed. Now favouring better public services over lean and efficient economic management, public attitudes posed a challenge to the Conservatives; how to respond to those desires within a recognisably Conservative ideological framework. That was a policy challenge, but it was also a political challenge to Portillo – any suggestion that he was fundamentally revising one of the key tenets of the party’s belief, that in the usefulness of the market and market-based philosophy in the provision of public services, would provoke overwhelming hostility from within the party.

Portillo, however, was not one to shy away from an issue. And in doing what he did to address the issue, he could hardly have been more direct or provide for greater visibility to what he was about to say. The day he gave the annual Rab Butler memorial lecture was the twenty-fifth anniversary of Margaret Thatcher’s accession to the leadership of the Conservative Party. [174] It is not plausible to believe some of the suggestions that were later forwarded by modernisers that the later controversy garnered by this speech was unintentional; Portillo’s people were fully aware of the significance of the occasion, and determined to take advantage of the potential for a spot of iconoclasm.

Ostensibly, Portillo did not repudiate the Thatcher legacy. Indeed, he praised it, sometimes effusively. But as the speech drew on, Portillo bemoaned “the poverty of ambition” of some Conservatives, who decreed that issues like the public services would always be ‘Labour issues’. Portillo was emphatic: “I say to you – this party will win or lose based on whether or not it can win the debate on health, education and crime.” Portillo went on to say that the public had often believed that the Tories had “a kind of animus against the public services, and the ultimate goal of diverting people off into the private sector while running down the public sector.” However much that view was “nonsense”, Conservatives had to be emphatic: “there is no conflict between the private and public sector. The future lies in a partnership between both.” Probably most Tories would have had little dispute over all that. The sticking point of the anniversary speech, however, came in a single, small word. A single, small word, which, so charged modernisers, was taken entirely out of context by opponents of Portillo who were already baying for blood. A single, small word, which, for traditionalists, confirmed Portillo’s heresy. In concluding his speech, Portillo would state that the idea of the market, the private sector, providing public services was “limited.” Portillo concluded the remark, however, by stating that the exact same was true of state provider monopolies, and reaffirming that partnership between the two was his vision of the future.

In retrospect, it may be asked why this speech was ever so contentious at the time. It is almost impossible to believe it would cause anywhere near the same level of rancour if it was delivered today, by a politician of either party. But speeches are not delivered in vacuums, and the suspicion of Portillo, of where he was leading the party, had a rich pre-history by 1999. Quite simply, the right felt that one of the core tenets of Thatcherism was under attack. The old ideology had often given the impression that private and public provision was a zero-sum game, and that way of thinking easily lead into believing that ‘partnership’ was essentially code for surrender to the unreformed public sector…

The occasion also had a more immediate political significance, as this was only a few weeks before the Conservatives went into the European Parliament, Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, and local government elections, which would be interpreted as a clear electoral test for the government and the Tories. But the right were not cowed by any charge that they were damaging the party’s electoral prospects. A wave of invective, condemnation and near-hysteria went up in the party. This was, needless to say, never how the modernisers had wanted to enter a crucial electoral test, and it is testament to a certain naivety – or perhaps arrogance - that they did not foresee precisely this sort of problem. The lines were now drawn, however, and the knives were being sharpened. All now depended on how the party’s electoral fortunes played out, how they could be spun by the opposing sides. Whether the Portillo Project had finally courted nemesis would only be resolved – finally resolved – by the ballot box…

Taken from The Tony Benn Diaries: Free at Last! Diaries 1991–2000 (Hutchinson, 2002), April 2nd, 1999

There’s an article in the Telegraph today by Ashdown saying that it’s natural now for Labour and the Liberals to be closer and that we should re-establish the idea of the ‘radical centre’. So here we have a party made up of a group of people that tried to destroy the Labour Party and now they want to have a go at absorbing it through coalition. The thing is though that there are people in the Cabinet who are said to be interested in this sort of thing. So I suppose if things get difficult for John or his health fails, then Cook or Blair will take over the party and go into alliance with the Liberals, the left will be jettisoned, and of course it’ll be the National Government all over again.

I have to say I am very depressed about how things are at the moment. I think we are witnessing the end of the Labour Party really. There are a lot of people coming through at the moment such as Mandelson and the like who are not just anti-Socialism like Jim Callaghan or John, but are anti-labour, anti-working class, anti-clause four, anti-trade union and so forth. They are only interested in completely repudiating the entire history of the Labour Movement, getting into office, and getting us joined up to a federal Europe run by the bankers.

If Labour does go under, then that would very sad from a personal position but it may lead to a revival of Socialist analysis so you have to consider the long term really.

Taken from Reforming Government – Constitutional Reform Since 1997 by Nina Bowman (Palgrave Macmillan, 2006)

The most significant constitutional change was the reform of the House of Lords which the government affected in 1999. Reform of the Lords had, as we have seen, been a long time in the making, with the most recent reform attempt of the late sixties testifying to the length of time the issue had been unresolved. Labour’s plans revolved around a ‘two stage’ reform plan, with the removal of hereditary peers the first stage, and proper democratic reform of the second chamber coming later. The upper house had been permanently controlled by the Conservatives ever since the 19th century, and the disproportionate nature of its composition was a serious grievance, one which had only been exacerbated by the long stretch of Conservative government between 1979 and 1997. However, the Conservatives under Michael Portillo had little warmth towards the Lords either, with the Lords seriously out of step with his modernising agenda in his own party – indeed a hereditary lords itself was viewed as anachronistic. The Conservative peers probably put themselves beyond the pale with Central Office when, in 1998, they began organising around combating the government’s gay rights agenda, and in the event agreement between the Opposition and the Government proved relatively easy. The Labour and Conservative leaderships in the upper house brokered a compromise which would allow one hundred and two of hereditary peers – mostly Conservatives, but with some crossbenchers – to stay on in the reformed house as life peers. These members of the house were given life peerages soon after the government introduced the legislation in January 1999, thereby largely heading off a challenge to it on the part of the ‘working’ Conservative peers. On October 13th the House of Lords Reform Act 1999 was given royal assent, and all of the hereditary peers in the upper house were removed as members…

The government’s record in other areas of constitutional reform was mixed, although historically-speaking, still wide-ranging. The government enshrined the independence of the Office of National Statistics in law in the 1999 Statistics and Registration Act, a move which would foreshadow the later creation of the independent Office of Budgetary Statistics in 2002. [175] The government also passed a relatively broad Freedom of Information Act, which nevertheless established certain exemptions in the form of information such as advice to ministers. A public interest test was established, with the new Information Commissioner having the final say on disclosure… [176]

Although criticised as being modest at first, the Smith government’s initial reforms would set in train a range of further such reforms later, including the election of Select Committee chairs in 2001, the Constitutional Reform Act of 2005, and reform of Commons hours and working practises throughout the 2000-2004 Parliament, notably including the creation of the Commons crèche in 2002….

Taken from The Politics of Death - Iraq under the al-Tikritis by Najib Salih (Bloomsbury, 2001)

… Saddam’s macabre, and at times ludicrous, choreographed dance with the biological and chemical weapon inspectors, stretching back to the war, came to a head in December 1998, with Richard Butler of the UN inspections regime issuing a report declaring Iraq was in non-compliance and was failing to co-operate. The UN ordered its inspectors out hours later, and only hours later still, the Americans and British began blasting at Iraq with cruise missiles and laser-guided bombs. Saddam was, typically, bombastic and defiant. “By God we will not compromise. Iraq will be victorious. God damn them all to hell. Shame will be their fate, those followers of Satan and evil,” Saddam declared to his beleaguered people…

… the bombing took a heavy toll on Saddam’s infrastructure, both in security and military terms. Analysts have attempted to discern something from the damage inflicted by the American bombs and the proceeding events, although this can only be pure speculation. What is certain is that rumours of plots against Saddam increased noticeably during this period, and Saddam’s internal status appeared weakened by his clear and embarrassing defeat… [177]

Such weakness was amply illustrated by the botched assassination attempt, in all likelihood by Saddam’s security forces, of Imam and Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Sadiq al-Sadr and his two sons. al-Sadr had grown to become a critic of Saddam and the West, holding both to account for the suffering of the Iraqi people. al-Sadr was ambushed as he drove from his office to his house in Najaf, with his younger brother and two sons. However, as al-Sadr’s car approached a turn, an unidentified man reportedly shouted at the vehicle, throwing the ambush. al-Sadr was able to escape, disappearing underground and eventually abroad… [178]

The febrile atmosphere, with its backdrop of killings, executions, plots and conspiracies would be a fitting prelude to the end of Saddam. As he had fomented such an environment for many years, so he would eventually be consumed by it.

Saddam’s assassination would be a highly unusual operation, and has naturally prompted intense speculation. The facts of the matter are still largely unclear; how the assassination was planned, and who carried it out in particular. Saddam had survived assassinations before, most famously at Dujail, but after Dujail, Saddam’s populist façade had dropped. When he visited sites in Iraq, he did so unscheduled. Multiple failed attempts had created a determined and experienced regime of protection around Saddam, which reportedly went so far as to encompass Saddam’s use of kevlar-lined hats. The nature of this operation therefore prompts the question of whether Saddam’s assassination was partly or wholly executed by internal elements in the regime, a hypothesis strengthened by the mass-executions which occurred after the assassination…

… Saddam had travelled to Karbala in order to meet with the regional governor, although the reasons for this trip are unclear; it may have been simply a routine tour of inspection on the part of Saddam. However, it is possible to piece together the general train of events. As Saddam’s convoy approached the town, there was reportedly an explosion close by. Some have suggested this was a bomb, either a conventional one, likely positioned in advance at the roadside, or a suicide attack; due to the confusion that followed, it is not possible to clarify either suggestion. The explosion – whatever it was – was the prompt for an intense fire-fight. The gun battle reportedly raged for nearly half an hour before the attackers were either overcome or dispersed, and the convoy could be reinforced. Nor is it even possible to establish the cause of Saddam’s death – understandably this has never been disclosed by the Iraqi regime. It seems unlikely that Saddam could have been claimed by the subsequent gun-battle, and if that original explosion did kill Saddam then it throws the mystery over it into even greater shadow...

… the news travelled fast. Qusay raced to the Radwaniyah Palace in Baghdad, in order to convene the Revolutionary Command Council – in effect, Iraq’s presidential cabinet – which selected the President. Unsurprisingly, Qusay was selected as President by the RCC later that evening, in a unanimous vote. This was testament not only to Saddam’s absolute hold over the body, even in death, but also to the certain knowledge on the part of the twenty-two members of the RCC that popular discontent arising after Saddam’s death would not be far ahead, and internal instability would only weaken the regime’s power in the face of such threats to its standing. That night there were hundreds, if not thousands of political murders across Iraq by the SSO, as both the regime, and Qusay, settled scores with old or potential enemies….

… Qusay had also ordered that the main television stations should be taken over by forces loyal him, and appropriately restaffed where necessary. This was significant, as much of the television media were ostensibly under the control of Uday. Uday appears to have received the news of his father’s death not as swiftly as Qusay; whether this was deliberate or simply because of Uday’s increasingly lower political status is unclear. By the time Uday was informed, Qusay had already established himself as President-in-waiting, and Uday would have had good reason to fear for his safety. Uday appears to have dithered over his response, however, not wishing to do anything which would increase suspicion. However, when Qusay sent for Uday to join him at the Radwaniyah, events would spiral out of control; the course of the proceeding events is, like much of this episode, ambiguous, but a fire fight commenced around Uday’s Al Abit Palace between Qusay’s Republican Guards and Uday’s Fedayeen Saddam, a rag-tag group of mainly ex-convict paramilitaries under Uday’s personal command. Some reports suggest that the firing was initiated by an accidental discharge, others, that the Republican Guards began firing indiscriminately. What is known for certain is that the Al Abit was quickly overwhelmed, and Uday was not taken alive. Officially, Uday died a martyr fighting the attempted coup which had murdered Saddam. Whether he was killed on Qusay’s orders, killed accidentally, or took his own life is ultimately unclear….

… Qusay did not officially announce the death of Saddam immediately, likely fearing that it would be the trigger for an uprising against the regime. Although rumours of Saddam’s death began to circulate in both Iraq and the wider world relatively swiftly, within Iraq the news was regarded with suspicion. After two decades, a mixture of fear, paranoia and disbelief prevented the population from truly believing they were free of Saddam’s tyranny. Only after nearly two weeks – weeks in which Qusay strengthened his position and reorganised the regime – was Saddam’s death and Qusay’s accession officially announced by Qusay on state television, in a speech which was, in typical style, at turns sentimental and hysterically aggressive. Sombre, patriotic music was played all day on all channels, and an official week of mourning was declared. The regime declared that Saddam had been murdered by “Zionist agents”, thereby seeking to capitalise on anti-Israeli sentiment and also to deflect the minds of Iraqis away from the real hatred of Saddam within Iraq itself.

To the obvious disappointment of the West, and to the presumed relief of the regime, there was no general uprising in the wake of Saddam’s death. The last serious uprising against Saddam, had, as we have seen, ended as a bloody fiasco, as assumed US support had not in the event been forthcoming. Clinton was also politically weakened at this time, and the post-Somalia mood of America was not favourable to substantive interventions. The vain hope of some quarters was that Qusay would succumb to internal pressure, and either be forced aside or reform. This illiterate attitude, which ignored both the nature of the regime and the country it ruled, would prove to be no more than a cry in the wilderness…

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

… Although the principle of devolution itself was never contentious within the party by the time of its implementation, the process by which Labour would choose its leadership for the new devolved bodies threatened to cause a serious rift within Labour. Differing systems were felt to give advantages to certain candidates and tendencies within the party, and so which method was used was seen as vital in the internal dynamics of the party.

In Scotland there was little doubt that Donald Dewar would become Labour’s candidate for First Minister, and that Dewar was a choice who was uncontroversial, safe, and very broadly respected within the party. In London, Wales and the North East, however, there was much greater uncertainty, not only about who would lead Labour but about the candidates themselves. The two obvious candidates for leadership in Wales and the North East, Ann Clwyd and Mo Mowlam respectively, both declined to run for the positions of First Minister; Clwyd, who had found high office uncomfortable, returned to the Westminster backbenches after the successful implementation of devolution in Wales, while Mowlam preferred to focus on her ministerial career at Westminster. In London, the obvious candidate for Mayor was Ken Livingstone, former leader of the GLC, a figure who polarised opinion within Labour, and who was believed by many to represent the worst aspects of Labour’s eighties past…

Labour published its plan for nominating its candidate for Mayor in August 1998; a candidate would need to be nominated by 12.5% of London constituency Labour parties. Successful candidates would then go through to an alternative vote runoff, in which every London member would cast their ballots on a one member, one vote basis. Almost at once, the plans came under criticism from both the unions, and from modernisers within the party, both acting in an unlikely coalition of interest over the issue. There was little doubt that Livingstone would win a straight poll of London Labour members, a fact which modernisers were fully aware of, while unions objected to the principle of pure one member one vote, which deprived their members of any say over Labour’s candidates. There was significant pressure for the implementation of an electoral college system, identical to that which Labour used to elect its national leader. After a great deal of criticism, the plan was modified, with the inclusion of members from affiliated organisations able to participate in the elections, but only on a one member one vote principle, with no electoral college, and the plan was subsequently endorsed by the NEC. This appeased the unions, but angered modernisers, leading to a great deal of briefing against John Smith’s leadership…

… in Wales, Rhodri Morgan was selected as Labour’s candidate for First Minister unopposed, while Livingstone was chosen in London in a closer than expected contest against Glenda Jackson, eventually winning the nomination by 47% to 53%. In the North East, former Europe minister Joyce Quin was chosen as Labour’s candidate for First Minister, in a three-way contest against former Chief Whip Derek Foster and MP Jim Cousins...

Taken from Conservatives in Crisis - the Conservative Party Since Thatcher by John Schulzberger (Penguin, 2008)

… rebuilding the party in Scotland was always going to stretch the talents of any Conservative leader. At the general election, the party had largely been routed, suffering its worst ever result in Scotland, and had come within a few thousand votes of having no MPs at all north of the border. However, such depths of failure made the case for wide-ranging reform of the Scottish party. Just as modernisers wished to appeal to the widest social spectrum, so they were also determined to revive the party’s position geographically, reviving the party in Scotland and Wales. In many respects, the techniques used by the party leadership in Scotland to reform the party in their own image would prefigure later attempts in the rest of the country; centrally-driven, energetic and intolerant of opposing viewpoints, this was a style of management which was determined to drive through change and to recreate the party for the new devolved settlement.

The modernisers faced a very central difficulty in Scotland: effectively none of the likely candidates to lead the Tories in the Scottish Parliament had any affection for Portillo’s new brand of politics. The two main candidates were Phil Gallie and David McLetchie. Gallie was an unlikely front-runner for the position: a populist, plain-spoken former Tory MP and Scotland Office minister, who would even describe himself as “a bit of a loose cannon”. This was effectively the definition of the last sort of person Central Office wanted running the party in Scotland. McLetchie was little better from their point of view: McLetchie, a former President of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Association, was close to the arch-Thatcherite former Scottish Secretary Michael Forsyth, and had last stood for Parliament twenty years ago, unsuccessfully. Neither of these candidates had any appeal to the Portillistas, and the weaknesses of both encouraged Central Office to look wider for an ‘acceptable’ candidate. By the time the party came to elect its leader in late 1998, Central Office had found just such a person in the shape of Mary Scanlon. Scanlon was a former civil servant and college lecturer: not the sort of person traditionally likely to lead the Conservatives. She was also, notably out of the main parties in Scotland, a woman. Scanlon defeated Gallie and McLetchie fairly comfortably in a ballot of the party’s senior figures and prospective candidates, but problems arose in just how those prospective candidates had been selected. In truth, their selection had just been as closely engineered as Scanlon’s had.

Despite the devastation of 1997, there was little drive at a local level in Scotland to change the face of the party in terms of candidates. Prior to modernisation, the assumption had been that candidates for the Parliament would be mainly composed of old hands, those who had put in time over the decades on the party’s committee rooms and associations. The modernisers cast that assumption out, and with brutality. When the party’s candidates came to be selected, an almost audible howl went up from the party regulars – practically on every regional list they had been forced back down the ranks into third or fourth, in favour of new, young modernising candidates. McLetchie himself came in second on the Lothians regional list behind former MP James Douglas-Hamilton, prompting accusations of vindictiveness. [179] And in perhaps the most contentious and notable case, in Glasgow, Bailie William Aitken, a Glasgow councillor for decades, was forced into third behind young turks Tasmina Ahmed-Sheik and Catherine Pickering. [180] There were suggestions that Aitken had been offered a peerage in order to stand aside from the process entirely. The process was so questionable, “bordering on sharp practise” in the words of one disgruntled participant, that there were threats of legal action, although in the event nothing came of this.

Although the modernisers did succeed in freshening the party’s image in Scotland and effecting a re-organisation of the party, the ultimately ineffectual resistance that they encountered during the process only emboldened some, and that boldness would be put fully to the test in the rest of the country… [181]

Notes and Clarifications​

[171] Portillo has simply been very, very unlucky with what type of MPs were elected in 1997 here in comparison to OTL - both Hind and Bruinvels were from the socially conservative side of the party, but both failed in their attempts to win election IOTL.

[172] IOTL, The Sun asked something similar about New Labour.

[173] IOTL, Duncan came out in 2002.

[174] IOTL Peter Lilley, then Deputy Leader of the party, gave a similar speech, which prompted a row which in retrospect looks almost surreal. Although this speech is more carefully prepared and executed, Portillo also prompts an almighty uproar in the party, and the speech is the trigger for a strong backlash against Portillo’s leadership.

[175] This is similar to OTL’s Office of Budgetary Responsibility.

[176] This is a slightly stronger version of OTL’s Freedom of Information Act.

[177] The bombing reportedly took a similarly heavy toll on Saddam’s security apparatus IOTL, prompting similar rumours. ITTL perhaps a few more bombs go astray, or have different trajectories…

[178] IOTL al-Sadr was successfully assassinated, most likely by Saddam’s security services.

[179] There were similar sorts of accusations flying around IOTL, although here the procedure is even more fraught.

[180] IOTL, Ahmed-Sheik and Pickering were second and third on the Glasgow list, respectively. Neither was elected, and Ahmed-Sheik eventually defected to the SNP.

[181] It’s perhaps worth point out that although there are obvious parallels to the way New Labour approached devolution IOTL, most of this will go under the radar of the public consciousness in a way that New Labour‘s manipulation in Wales and London did not; there’s no expectation of the Tories playing a leading role in Scotland, and Central Office has more of a blank canvass here in a way Millbank didn’t have with Wales. So while much of this will deeply irritate Tories, the Conservatives are unlikely to be greatly punished by the electorate - in fact on balance it’s probably beneficial.

 

[Arachnid]

You've got Tony Benn down to to tee in his Diary entry, still dreaming of Socialism. I'm always shocked when his generation of Labour Left attack Callaghan as having been born after he left office my default image of him is as an unreformed socialist.


Your descriptions of the activities of the Portallistas have got me growling at the screen and thinking of OTL parallels so good job on that. I don't know where you are going to take this but I'm surprised they've been able to get away with so much. After a narrower loss and less time in opposition there is no way the Party would be desperate enough for on Cameroonism but that's what Portillo seems to be doing.

 

[Julius Vogel]

Good to see this is back

 

[Peelitebkearns]

I echo the last 2 posts-great to see this TL back, especially with such a detailed update!

I hope you continue this.

 

[V-J]

You've got Tony Benn down to to tee in his Diary entry, still dreaming of Socialism.

I've been commended on the diary entries by others; augurs well for the next projekt, which will be a lot more narrative than this.

Your descriptions of the activities of the Portallistas have got me growling at the screen and thinking of OTL parallels so good job on that.

haha, excellent!

I don't know where you are going to take this but I'm surprised they've been able to get away with so much. After a narrower loss and less time in opposition there is no way the Party would be desperate enough for on Cameroonism but that's what Portillo seems to be doing.

Well, as the update implies, things are going to come to a bit of a head soon on that score. It took a while both for people to mobolise and their anger to build (It's only about a year since modernisation has been going, and in some respects it was fairly light-touch at first) but now there's a genuine opposition building. The next year or so will be a fun time, that's all I'm saying.

Good to see this is back

Cheers.

I echo the last 2 posts-great to see this TL back, especially with such a detailed update!

Thanks!

I hope you continue this.

Yup, definetly, and already working on the next update too incidentally.

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

Welcome back to this great TL.

I sort of echo Arachnid's comments about the modernisation- though, from what I've read, the early Portillo brand of modernisation was more about social issues than economics, right? There'll be a lot more talking about the power of the free market and tax cuts compared to Cameron's term in Opposition, I would think?

 

[V-J]

Welcome back to this great TL.

Thank you.

I sort of echo Arachnid's comments about the modernisation- though, from what I've read, the early Portillo brand of modernisation was more about social issues than economics, right? There'll be a lot more talking about the power of the free market and tax cuts compared to Cameron's term in Opposition, I would think?

It was generally more focused on broadening the social appeal of the party and how the party presented itself, but this was a product of the fact that it was generally an internal and reactive critique and so never had to take a complete view on policy. I wouldn't say it was neccessarily much more to the right of Cameroonianism, but ITTL of course there's no New Labour, so that position looks more distinctively of the right. Economically the party at the moment is prioritising public spending above tax cuts, but that doesn't mean it accepts all of Labour's argument about economic management by any means. There is going to be a big push for reform of the public sector as well, something which Labour at present does not accept or have an interest in.

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

All sounds pretty interesting. What are the opinion poll results at this stage of the Parliament, out of interest? I'm guessing a smaller than OTL but nonetheless reasonably consistent Labour lead, with the Conservatives breaking out ahead by a point or two every once in a while?

 

[V-J]

All sounds pretty interesting. What are the opinion poll results at this stage of the Parliament, out of interest? I'm guessing a smaller than OTL but nonetheless reasonably consistent Labour lead, with the Conservatives breaking out ahead by a point or two every once in a while?

I've deliberately avoided getting too heavily into the polling position because at the end of the day it's a pretty massive judgement call. All I'll say at the moment is that I think the fact that Old Labour has got into government and the world hasn't exploded would give them a boost with some people, and Portillo's reforms are a divisive process which may not reap instant rewards in the polls.

 

[Lord Douglas]

I'm glad to see this excellent TL back in harness!

I suppose the thing about Portillo taking the party a lot further than most of it wanted is that he has taken it by surprise. When Cameron was elected most party members realised that the party machinery, policy platform and image was going to be overhauled - he won fair and square on that platform and his victory had the effect of diminishing criticism from the right until about 2007. Portillo on the other hand won because of the backing of the Thatcherite right. They thought they were getting Thatcher's heir and instead they've been completely surprised and gobsmacked by what would have been seen as the right's leadership more or less defecting. So I feel that means that Portillo got an easier ride than expected in the short run, but once the right actually begins to mobilise and realise what on earth's happened then he is on very shaky ground indeed - more than Cameron experienced, even in 2007 IOTL.

And when you consider that Portillo hasn't exactly endeared himself to the left of the party with his actions before modernisation began in earnest, and even after (many 'wets' were socially conservative after all), then his position begins to look fairly precarious.

EDIT: I was also going to say that I believe David McLetchie had stood before in 1979 - Edinburgh Central I think - not that it's all that important and of course he had never sat in Parliament. Lord James Douglas-Hamilton also doesn't seem like your arch-typical moderniser but I suppose he could be counted upon by the party machine to remain loyal - the occasion during the mid-90s where he disclaimed a hereditary peerage in order to avoid a disastrous by-election particularly springs to mind.

 

[V-J]

I'm glad to see this excellent TL back in harness!

I suppose the thing about Portillo taking the party a lot further than most of it wanted is that he has taken it by surprise. When Cameron was elected most party members realised that the party machinery, policy platform and image was going to be overhauled - he won fair and square on that platform and his victory had the effect of diminishing criticism from the right until about 2007. Portillo on the other hand won because of the backing of the Thatcherite right. They thought they were getting Thatcher's heir and instead they've been completely surprised and gobsmacked by what would have been seen as the right's leadership more or less defecting. So I feel that means that Portillo got an easier ride than expected in the short run, but once the right actually begins to mobilise and realise what on earth's happened then he is on very shaky ground indeed - more than Cameron experienced, even in 2007 IOTL.

And when you consider that Portillo hasn't exactly endeared himself to the left of the party with his actions before modernisation began in earnest, and even after (many 'wets' were socially conservative after all), then his position begins to look fairly precarious.

Yeah, that's an excellent assesment.

EDIT: I was also going to say that I believe David McLetchie had stood before in 1979 - Edinburgh Central I think - not that it's all that important and of course he had never sat in Parliament.

Edited, thanks!

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton also doesn't seem like your arch-typical moderniser but I suppose he could be counted upon by the party machine to remain loyal - the occasion during the mid-90s where he disclaimed a hereditary peerage in order to avoid a disastrous by-election particularly springs to mind.

My thinking was that it would have been a bit of a step too far on the part of the leadership to put McLetchie behind some totally unknown bright young thing. Putting Lucky Jimmy at the top is actually a perfectly reasonable thing for them to do, in fact he has a much better claim to that position than McLetchie really, being a former MP and minister. The fact that it lessens McLetchie's chances of actually getting elected is of course purely incidental...

 

[Analytical Engine]

It lives!!!!

As much as I dislike the Tories, I hope that they improve their image in Scotland. Mostly to ensure a right-wing alternative to the SNP-right...

 

[V-J]

It lives!!!!

IT'S ALIVE

As much as I dislike the Tories, I hope that they improve their image in Scotland. Mostly to ensure a right-wing alternative to the SNP-right...

The Scottish Tories have an interesting future ahead of them, that's all I'm saying at this stage. I don't want to say anything else or I'd give the game away.

 

[ljofa]

What's the latest?

 

[V-J]

Will crack on tonight. I may delay the rails as that's the most difficult section of the next update, and I generally leave those until last. Will PM/email you as soon as I've got something.