Downing Street Mortar Attack successful

In 1991, then-Prime Minister John Major and his cabinet and many other senior officials were meeting at 10 Downing Street to discuss the Gulf War. At the same time, the IRA had decided to launch an attack by mortar on 10 Downing Street.

OTL, the mortar, narrowly, missed the building twice, and one exploded in the rear garden of the building.

What would have happened if one or more of the shells had successfully hit the building?
 
ok at the meeting were John Major(Prime Minister), David Mellor(Chief Secretary to the Treasury), Douglas Hurd(Secretary of Foreign Affairs), Tom King(Secretary of Defence), Norman Lamont(Chancellor of the Exchequer), Peter Lilley(Secretary for Trade and Industry), John Wakeham(Secretary of Energy), Robin Butler(Secretary of the Cabinet/Head of the Home Civil Service), David Craig(Chief of the Defence Staff), Patrick Mayhew(Attorney General), Percy Cradock(Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee), Charles Powell(Private Secretary to the PM) and Gus O'Donnell(Press Secretary to the PM), if they all die,
 
ok at the meeting were John Major(Prime Minister), David Mellor(Chief Secretary to the Treasury), Douglas Hurd(Secretary of Foreign Affairs), Tom King(Secretary of Defence), Norman Lamont(Chancellor of the Exchequer), Peter Lilley(Secretary for Trade and Industry), John Wakeham(Secretary of Energy), Robin Butler(Secretary of the Cabinet/Head of the Home Civil Service), David Craig(Chief of the Defence Staff), Patrick Mayhew(Attorney General), Percy Cradock(Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee), Charles Powell(Private Secretary to the PM) and Gus O'Donnell(Press Secretary to the PM), if they all die,

Care to finish that sentence?:)
 
Was Kenneth Baker present? If not he would appear to be the highest ranking surviving Cabinet member (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_rank cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_secretary#Home_Secretaries.2C_1900.E2.80.932001). Unfortunately the one example of a British Prime Minister being assassinated (Spencer Percival) doesn't yield a very clear picture of what happens, constitutionally. There's also the consideration that this takes place during the Gulf War, and it doesn't appear that Baker was part of the War Cabinet. This could impact on the coalition offensives on 24 February (the attack took place on the 7th).
 
Last edited:
Baker probably would be asked to become Prime Minister, but, as ever when these sorts of things come up, there is no line of succession when it comes to the Premiership. The Home Secretary is the obvious person to lead the country in the time of a crisis such as this, but that is purely at the behest of the Prime Minister, The Queen could have asked Neil Kinnock to head a National Government if she wanted.

It would not have been outside the realms of the living for the Conservatives to ask Mrs Thatcher to come back, at least for a few weeks.
 
Would the IRA claim responsibility, or could they try to pass it off as an Iraqi military action?

They took responsibility for the near-miss , so I don't see why not. The assassination of a serving Prime Minister and most of his senior Cabinet is pretty much unprecedented, though - surely this would be likely to trigger at the very least widespread military action in Northern Ireland? I imagine Baker and the remaining Cabinet is immediately taken into the nearest COBR bunker. Surviving Cabinet members: Lord Mackay, Kenneth Baker, John Gummer, Kenneth Clarke, Michael Howard, Michael Heseltine, William Waldegrave, Peter Brook, John MacGregor, Lord Waddington, Chris Patten, Tony Newton, Ian Lang, Malcolm Rifkind, David Hunt and Richard Ryder.

I've been unable to find any reference to Baker's views on the Gulf War (though his omission from the War Cabinet is suggestive) - is there any possibility he or another caretaker PM would scale back Britain's involvement in the upcoming offensives? Kinnock apparently backed the war, for what it's worth.

Alberto Knox did a short TL on this - he had Michael Howard emerge as PM, deeming Baker and Heseltine too divisive: https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=138155

He does point out that the attack happened on Baker's watch as Home Secretary, which might be seen as a black mark against him. I should also mention that at this time he's about to become the first government minister in British history to be found guilty of contempt of court, though for a TL this might be interesting - the ruling refers to his ignoring a court order and deporting an asylum seeker. In the wake of a post-mass-assassination crackdown it could make him look like a strong leader.
 
Last edited:
They took responsibility for the near-miss , so I don't see why not.

Yes, the IRA would certainly claim responsibility. But I wonder if Saddam might have the gumption to also claim responsibility, if it's successful - he can certainly big himself up in the Arab world by doing so.

The assassination of a serving Prime Minister and most of his senior Cabinet is pretty much unprecedented, though - surely this would be likely to trigger at the very least widespread military action in Northern Ireland?

What form could such action take, though? Who would it be directed against? If the government suddenly starts rounding-up Catholics, or just "known Nationalists", or even just "people suspected of links to the IRA" en masse and interning them then it's going to encounter widespread protest within the UK and stern condemnation from other countries.

There's really nothing the government could be doing to combat terrorism in NI, that it wasn't already doing - it is already as engaged as it can be, and not always legitimately. Even more military action in NI in any form isn't going to have public support; I doubt it would even have majority support within the Tory Party. The "troubles" were seen as the tragic legacy of historical errors and outrages, and escalation on the government's side as just bringing escalation on the terrorists' side. As unprecedented as this attack would be, the most it might conceivably do is reduce the disquiet over the legality and morality of some of the government's tactics in NI (but it seems just as likely to be dismissed as the inevitable blowback for those tactics).

I've been unable to find any reference to Baker's views on the Gulf War (though his omission from the War Cabinet is suggestive) - is there any possibility he or another caretaker PM would scale back Britain's involvement in the upcoming offensives?

It is suggestive, not least because the government was worried about Iraq retaliating through terrorism (enough to do things that would probably cause an outcry if they happened today) and that very much falls under Baker's brief. But I'm not sure his omission is indicative of his view on the Gulf War so much as his closeness to Thatcher (something that wasn't particular obvious to the public at the time but must surely have been known about within the parliamentary Conservative party - and is clear now from the fact that Baker is reportedly second only to Norman Tebbit in the circle of former ministers and staff who continue to dine with Thatcher today).

We might speculate that that closeness to Thatcher spilled over into Baker sharing her view that the war aim should be more than just forcing the Iraqis out of Kuwait, that America and Britain should "go all the way", and that that might have been why he was kept out of the war cabinet. But I think it's more likely that it's just a personality issue, Major preferring to work closely with people who are part of his own circle rather than Thatcher's.
 
Top