Exocet - the Effects of a different Falklands
- Thread starter Nevran
- Start date
Chris Cox is a good, underutilized alt-Gingrich. Shame the Dems couldn’t avoid getting 2010’d over health care again, seems like that’s always the third rail
That "Affordable Healthcare Repeal Act of 2005" at the bottom of the wikibox sounds ominous.
Cheers, fixed.
Unfortunately for Liz, the Reaganite consensus isn't ready to fall in 2002 and she's got nowhere near the mandate that Obama had in 2008. But she's done and is doing better than both Hart and Carter, (sure they might be a low goal post but still).
I'd imagine that there's a lot more sexist attacks as well on Holtzman as well, as is par the course for being a female politician, so the midterms would be even worse than the 2010 one.
Looking back at what I have, Bob Michel was Speaker from 1990-1994 so it's going to be a new experience for a Democratic executive with an intransigent Republican legislature. Holtzman-Cox is going to be probably even worse than Clinton-Gingrich was, as Holtzman's defending an unpopular policy (unlike Clinton who was defending Social Security and Medicaid/care).
Gingrich is in the Senate ITTL, having being primaried earlier in his Congressional career and deciding he'd better make the jump to state-wide politics. A little spoiler I guess but Gingrich is planning a presidential run in '04.
All I'll say is that as @KingSweden24 said, healthcare is the third rail of American politics. If there is a successful repeal effort, it's gonna be an electoral bloodbath for the people who do it.
Last edited:
"Affordable Healthcare Repeal Act" sounds a bit like spoilers for 2004, no?
I'm just gonna link this H3H3 video as a response. Anything else would be spoilers.
Let's just say that the 2004 Republican Presidential Primaries are gonna be of a lot greater interest and importance.
Terrorism Act of 2003
A.N. So, because I missed last Saturday’s update I wanted to post two this week, and this unfortunately, was the next one. So, sorry for this pretty grim update, which partially covers two terrorist attacks and their repercussions (amongst other things). The main thrust of this update is that I wanted to show a bit on the domestic effects of an early 2000s Tory government, which includes unfortunately such events. But, because of the day and this little note already being here, I just wanted to say thank you to everyone for reading Exocet, for keeping up it with it, and for potentially coming back to it. Finally, hope you have a great 2023!
The Patten government, after its election in 2000, was expected to take a harsher line on crime and terrorism. Events would confirm this direction of travel. On June 1, the Hammersmith Bridge, targeted twice before by Irish nationalists (once in 1939 and again in 1996) was attacked for a third time. Again targeted by Irish nationalists, this bomb, however, was far more powerful than the one planted in 1996 and caused catastrophic damage to the structure of the bridge. Engineers, brought in to assess the damage would recommend that Hammersmith Bridge be closed down and demolished, fearing it was unsafe for the public and that a collapse was imminent. The successful destruction and sabotage of the historic bridge (which was also seen as a symbol of British imperialism) was an ill omen for both the government and for the nascent Irish peace process. Despite significant progress with the Belfast Accord, the failure to negotiate a settlement between the Unionists and Nationalists in Northern Ireland to facilitate a power-sharing agreement for a NI Assembly remained a thorn in negotiations. The harder line taken by the government after an increase in IRA attacks on the mainland seemed to further freeze relations between the two groups and the governments of Britain and Ireland. So much so, Cook later admitted, before his death in 2003, that his greatest regret in his political life was that he had not being able to complete the Irish peace process.
Coinciding with the Hammersmith Bridge attack (alongside other attacks in Northern Ireland and the mainland), a bombing campaign by David Copeland, targeting ethnic minorities and LGBT-friendly areas and clubs in London saw the public demanding an even harder line on terrorism than was promised on the campaign trail.
It would fall to the Home Secretary, William Hague, to be the voice of the government to address these concerns. Ambitious and already picturing a future career in Number 10, Home Secretary William Hague began trumpeting a “Hard Power” approach to both crime and terrorism, with various parliamentary acts and statutory instruments. Harsher sentences for anti-social behaviour, increasing the length and severity of sentences and instituting and approving the use of controversial ‘stop-and-search’ techniques nationally (or at least in areas without devolved governments) would become hallmarks of Hague’s time as Home Secretary.
It would be the 2/10 bombings which saw concrete legislation introduced to take tougher action on terrorism. Three suicide bombers attacked the Westminster, Embankment and Piccadilly Underground stations on October 2, 2002, killing 46 and injuring hundreds. Minutes away from both Downing Street and Parliament, 2/10 hit the beating heart of London. In fact, a large portion of those injured were foreign nationals and tourists, a sign of London’s changing and multicultural character.
Investigations by MI5 and the Met discovered that attackers sought ‘revenge’ for British actions in Northern Africa. More worryingly however, was that the suicide bombers were all British citizens and all had been radicalised via the web. Patten spoke from Downing Street after the attack, and after paying tribute to the victims and emergency workers, announced that the government would be introducing new legislation to combat the three evils of “extremism, terrorism and radicalisation”. His rhetoric would eventually culminate in the Terrorism Act of 2003.
Working with the secret services and policy, Hague and the Home Department , the Terrorism Act was by far one of the most consequential pieces of legislation introduced by Patten Government. Alongside a wholesale reform of the current counterterrorism strategy, the Terrorism Act, as briefed to the media, would focus on three principles, “detect, defend and detain”. Alongside significant powers and resources being given to counter-terrorism organisations, such as M15 and GCHQ, new organisations and schemes such as the “Prevent” scheme were introduced to stop radicalisation. The most controversial parts of the policy included plans to allow the police to hold terrorists for up to 90 days without charge. Patten and Hague would be happy debating such a point on national television and justified that 90 days was necessary, as the police had advocated for such a timescale.
Clearly, the provisions were draconian and a significant subset of civil rights advocates, lawyers and interest groups feared the effects of the Act. While the Alliance would be the only major party to actively campaign and vote against it, (despite the party locked in a leadership melodrama between Simon Hughes and Andrew Adonis), significant opposition existed in Parliament to the bill. Most of this opposition came from Conservative backbenches, with David Davis in particular being highly critical of the bill, including to where he voluntarily gave the up the Conservative whip rather than vote for the bill.
Whilst the Terrorism Act 2003 did pass, it did see significant alterations at the behest of the libertarian Tory backbenchers. In a key victory for these backbenchers, the time a suspect could be held on grounds of terrorism without charge (the “detention” clause) was reduced from 90 days to 36 days. This compromise was well-received and doubled the already established 18 days, as laid out in an earlier Terrorism Act (1985), itself a reaction to the Brighton Bomb and Thatcher’s assassination.
Joining the government in favour of the Terrorism Act would be the majority of Margaret Beckett’s Labour Party, who’s support would be critical to its passage. The whipping and party debates on whether to back the act also helped raise the profile of the new Shadow Home Secretary, Paul Boateng, (who himself had only been recently promoted in the Shadow Cabinet) with both the public and within the Labour Party.
Further legislative changes came with the introduction of ID cards, again to the anger of the more libertarian aspects of the Conservative Party and Parliament as a whole. However, with strong backing from the public from the Beckett led Labour Party, which sought to shed the ‘soft’ image that had been stuck with the party prior to the upcoming 2004 general election. And so, it would be that mandatory ID cards would be introduced nationally by 2007. Hague, however, would not be remaining as Home Secretary to see it through to its introduction.
The Patten government, after its election in 2000, was expected to take a harsher line on crime and terrorism. Events would confirm this direction of travel. On June 1, the Hammersmith Bridge, targeted twice before by Irish nationalists (once in 1939 and again in 1996) was attacked for a third time. Again targeted by Irish nationalists, this bomb, however, was far more powerful than the one planted in 1996 and caused catastrophic damage to the structure of the bridge. Engineers, brought in to assess the damage would recommend that Hammersmith Bridge be closed down and demolished, fearing it was unsafe for the public and that a collapse was imminent. The successful destruction and sabotage of the historic bridge (which was also seen as a symbol of British imperialism) was an ill omen for both the government and for the nascent Irish peace process. Despite significant progress with the Belfast Accord, the failure to negotiate a settlement between the Unionists and Nationalists in Northern Ireland to facilitate a power-sharing agreement for a NI Assembly remained a thorn in negotiations. The harder line taken by the government after an increase in IRA attacks on the mainland seemed to further freeze relations between the two groups and the governments of Britain and Ireland. So much so, Cook later admitted, before his death in 2003, that his greatest regret in his political life was that he had not being able to complete the Irish peace process.
Coinciding with the Hammersmith Bridge attack (alongside other attacks in Northern Ireland and the mainland), a bombing campaign by David Copeland, targeting ethnic minorities and LGBT-friendly areas and clubs in London saw the public demanding an even harder line on terrorism than was promised on the campaign trail.
It would fall to the Home Secretary, William Hague, to be the voice of the government to address these concerns. Ambitious and already picturing a future career in Number 10, Home Secretary William Hague began trumpeting a “Hard Power” approach to both crime and terrorism, with various parliamentary acts and statutory instruments. Harsher sentences for anti-social behaviour, increasing the length and severity of sentences and instituting and approving the use of controversial ‘stop-and-search’ techniques nationally (or at least in areas without devolved governments) would become hallmarks of Hague’s time as Home Secretary.
It would be the 2/10 bombings which saw concrete legislation introduced to take tougher action on terrorism. Three suicide bombers attacked the Westminster, Embankment and Piccadilly Underground stations on October 2, 2002, killing 46 and injuring hundreds. Minutes away from both Downing Street and Parliament, 2/10 hit the beating heart of London. In fact, a large portion of those injured were foreign nationals and tourists, a sign of London’s changing and multicultural character.
Investigations by MI5 and the Met discovered that attackers sought ‘revenge’ for British actions in Northern Africa. More worryingly however, was that the suicide bombers were all British citizens and all had been radicalised via the web. Patten spoke from Downing Street after the attack, and after paying tribute to the victims and emergency workers, announced that the government would be introducing new legislation to combat the three evils of “extremism, terrorism and radicalisation”. His rhetoric would eventually culminate in the Terrorism Act of 2003.
Working with the secret services and policy, Hague and the Home Department , the Terrorism Act was by far one of the most consequential pieces of legislation introduced by Patten Government. Alongside a wholesale reform of the current counterterrorism strategy, the Terrorism Act, as briefed to the media, would focus on three principles, “detect, defend and detain”. Alongside significant powers and resources being given to counter-terrorism organisations, such as M15 and GCHQ, new organisations and schemes such as the “Prevent” scheme were introduced to stop radicalisation. The most controversial parts of the policy included plans to allow the police to hold terrorists for up to 90 days without charge. Patten and Hague would be happy debating such a point on national television and justified that 90 days was necessary, as the police had advocated for such a timescale.
Clearly, the provisions were draconian and a significant subset of civil rights advocates, lawyers and interest groups feared the effects of the Act. While the Alliance would be the only major party to actively campaign and vote against it, (despite the party locked in a leadership melodrama between Simon Hughes and Andrew Adonis), significant opposition existed in Parliament to the bill. Most of this opposition came from Conservative backbenches, with David Davis in particular being highly critical of the bill, including to where he voluntarily gave the up the Conservative whip rather than vote for the bill.
Whilst the Terrorism Act 2003 did pass, it did see significant alterations at the behest of the libertarian Tory backbenchers. In a key victory for these backbenchers, the time a suspect could be held on grounds of terrorism without charge (the “detention” clause) was reduced from 90 days to 36 days. This compromise was well-received and doubled the already established 18 days, as laid out in an earlier Terrorism Act (1985), itself a reaction to the Brighton Bomb and Thatcher’s assassination.
Joining the government in favour of the Terrorism Act would be the majority of Margaret Beckett’s Labour Party, who’s support would be critical to its passage. The whipping and party debates on whether to back the act also helped raise the profile of the new Shadow Home Secretary, Paul Boateng, (who himself had only been recently promoted in the Shadow Cabinet) with both the public and within the Labour Party.
Further legislative changes came with the introduction of ID cards, again to the anger of the more libertarian aspects of the Conservative Party and Parliament as a whole. However, with strong backing from the public from the Beckett led Labour Party, which sought to shed the ‘soft’ image that had been stuck with the party prior to the upcoming 2004 general election. And so, it would be that mandatory ID cards would be introduced nationally by 2007. Hague, however, would not be remaining as Home Secretary to see it through to its introduction.
Ooh ID Cards - seen them a bit in news recently as again, they’ve always seemed to me as a bit of a solution looking for a problem but I’m sure they’ll add something of value
That act was always going to be controversial, I can easily imagine the cries of ‘if you’ve not got anything to hide, why are you worried?’ ringing out from supporters
That act was always going to be controversial, I can easily imagine the cries of ‘if you’ve not got anything to hide, why are you worried?’ ringing out from supporters
One Exocet missile from an Argentinian Super Étendard fighter jet, changed the tide of the Falklands War. The HMS Invincible, one of two British aircraft carriers in the South Atlantic at the time, was struck and rendered inoperable by the hit. The killing of 28 of the sailors onboard, including HRH Prince Andrew, was a profound blow to both the morale and the strategic position of the British armed forces.
Without the HMS Invincible at peak capacity, British air supremacy was lost, leaving both the troops fighting in the Falklands and the navy at sea in a far more tenuous position. Further, with the air capacity of the British cut in half, the fighters, and helicopters, critical to supporting the conflict, soon found themselves lacking a safe place to refuel and resupply. Images of a Westland Wasp being pushed into the sea from the deck of the HMS Invincible, encapsulated the crisis. By June 10, British military command recognised the situation to be untenable and ordered a tactical and temporary retreat from the Falklands, with the belief that by September, with the arrival of HMS Illustrious, the conflict could be won.
Margaret Thatcher, the British Prime Minister and one of the strongest advocates for military action, promised a return to fighting whilst the fleet limped home to Portsmouth. The apathetic British public, meanwhile, were consigned to defeat and proved resistant to continuing the conflict. Opposition leader Michael Foot, who in an ill-timed but immortalized quote, called this the “end of the British Empire”. The cries of “SHAME!” from the Sun newspaper, in response, proved out-of-touch with the public mood. Instead, the headline from Time magazine, ‘The Empire Strikes Out’ proved a more cutting and prescient appraisal of the conflict.
Military command, recognising the human and economic costs of the conflict alongside the Argentineans digging in, advised Thatcher against a second attempt to liberate the islands which she grudgingly agreed to. She would, however, continue to sabre-rattle and threaten the Argentinean junta, whilst diplomatic channels were opened by the Americans.
Through these secret backchannels (and the collapse of the Galtieri junta), by December 1982, an agreement was reached which saw the U.N. establish a protectorate in the Falklands. This protectorate would last for ten years with Argentina gaining access to the fishing reserves around the islands. Thatcher almost refused to sign the Madrid Accords, wanting instead to send Foreign Secretary Francis Pym in her stead. Thatcher, partially elected on her promise to cure the declinism infecting the British spirit, had overseen the greatest embarrassment since the Suez Crisis.
Whatever else is true, it's a far better ending for Prince Andrew.
I've got the impression that being against ID cards seems to be one of those things which has become part of the British character. But, enough can change with 30 years of butterflies and so are brought back in, along with the controversial data registry, to make ID cards function . Whether they're effective is another question. I'd imagine that drivers licenses are still mostly used for ID purposes (in bars, clubs etc) and passports are still used at airports.
Yeah, that's roughly how the debate would go (but perhaps it would be a bit less controversial than OTL without Blair spearheading the change and without the opposition actively opposing it, ITTL Labour held a free vote on it).
Well, in a slightly ironic twist, an Andrew would always be second-in-line for the British throne (OTL Andrew up until his death, and then this TTL's Drew [a month gap in June 1981]). And I think its fair to say that's where Andrew would want to be.
Nope, no 9/11, but instead we had the Noël Attack, which was similar to 9/11 in terms of motive, means and outcome. Noël had roughly the same effect on airline security, anti-terrorism legislation, as 9/11 did globally. France, suffers a fate similar to what America went through though, and there's an upsurge in both political violence and radicalisation (Jospin/Le Pen etc) as a result. But no 9/11 is averted (or I guess brought forward) and there won't be another attack on that scale in the West.
So, Russia is EU member TTL?A.N. So, because I missed last Saturday’s update I wanted to post two this week, and this unfortunately, was the next one. So, sorry for this pretty grim update, which partially covers two terrorist attacks and their repercussions (amongst other things). The main thrust of this update is that I wanted to show a bit on the domestic effects of an early 2000s Tory government, which includes unfortunately such events. But, because of the day and this little note already being here, I just wanted to say thank you to everyone for reading Exocet, for keeping up it with it, and for potentially coming back to it. Finally, hope you have a great 2023!
The Patten government, after its election in 2000, was expected to take a harsher line on crime and terrorism. Events would confirm this direction of travel. On June 1, the Hammersmith Bridge, targeted twice before by Irish nationalists (once in 1939 and again in 1996) was attacked for a third time. Again targeted by Irish nationalists, this bomb, however, was far more powerful than the one planted in 1996 and caused catastrophic damage to the structure of the bridge. Engineers, brought in to assess the damage would recommend that Hammersmith Bridge be closed down and demolished, fearing it was unsafe for the public and that a collapse was imminent. The successful destruction and sabotage of the historic bridge (which was also seen as a symbol of British imperialism) was an ill omen for both the government and for the nascent Irish peace process. Despite significant progress with the Belfast Accord, the failure to negotiate a settlement between the Unionists and Nationalists in Northern Ireland to facilitate a power-sharing agreement for a NI Assembly remained a thorn in negotiations. The harder line taken by the government after an increase in IRA attacks on the mainland seemed to further freeze relations between the two groups and the governments of Britain and Ireland. So much so, Cook later admitted, before his death in 2003, that his greatest regret in his political life was that he had not being able to complete the Irish peace process.
Coinciding with the Hammersmith Bridge attack (alongside other attacks in Northern Ireland and the mainland), a bombing campaign by David Copeland, targeting ethnic minorities and LGBT-friendly areas and clubs in London saw the public demanding an even harder line on terrorism than was promised on the campaign trail.
It would fall to the Home Secretary, William Hague, to be the voice of the government to address these concerns. Ambitious and already picturing a future career in Number 10, Home Secretary William Hague began trumpeting a “Hard Power” approach to both crime and terrorism, with various parliamentary acts and statutory instruments. Harsher sentences for anti-social behaviour, increasing the length and severity of sentences and instituting and approving the use of controversial ‘stop-and-search’ techniques nationally (or at least in areas without devolved governments) would become hallmarks of Hague’s time as Home Secretary.
It would be the 2/10 bombings which saw concrete legislation introduced to take tougher action on terrorism. Three suicide bombers attacked the Westminster, Embankment and Piccadilly Underground stations on October 2, 2002, killing 46 and injuring hundreds. Minutes away from both Downing Street and Parliament, 2/10 hit the beating heart of London. In fact, a large portion of those injured were foreign nationals and tourists, a sign of London’s changing and multicultural character.
Investigations by MI5 and the Met discovered that attackers sought ‘revenge’ for British actions in Northern Africa. More worryingly however, was that the suicide bombers were all British citizens and all had been radicalised via the web. Patten spoke from Downing Street after the attack, and after paying tribute to the victims and emergency workers, announced that the government would be introducing new legislation to combat the three evils of “extremism, terrorism and radicalisation”. His rhetoric would eventually culminate in the Terrorism Act of 2003.
Working with the secret services and policy, Hague and the Home Department , the Terrorism Act was by far one of the most consequential pieces of legislation introduced by Patten Government. Alongside a wholesale reform of the current counterterrorism strategy, the Terrorism Act, as briefed to the media, would focus on three principles, “detect, defend and detain”. Alongside significant powers and resources being given to counter-terrorism organisations, such as M15 and GCHQ, new organisations and schemes such as the “Prevent” scheme were introduced to stop radicalisation. The most controversial parts of the policy included plans to allow the police to hold terrorists for up to 90 days without charge. Patten and Hague would be happy debating such a point on national television and justified that 90 days was necessary, as the police had advocated for such a timescale.
Clearly, the provisions were draconian and a significant subset of civil rights advocates, lawyers and interest groups feared the effects of the Act. While the Alliance would be the only major party to actively campaign and vote against it, (despite the party locked in a leadership melodrama between Simon Hughes and Andrew Adonis), significant opposition existed in Parliament to the bill. Most of this opposition came from Conservative backbenches, with David Davis in particular being highly critical of the bill, including to where he voluntarily gave the up the Conservative whip rather than vote for the bill.
Whilst the Terrorism Act 2003 did pass, it did see significant alterations at the behest of the libertarian Tory backbenchers. In a key victory for these backbenchers, the time a suspect could be held on grounds of terrorism without charge (the “detention” clause) was reduced from 90 days to 36 days. This compromise was well-received and doubled the already established 18 days, as laid out in an earlier Terrorism Act (1985), itself a reaction to the Brighton Bomb and Thatcher’s assassination.
Joining the government in favour of the Terrorism Act would be the majority of Margaret Beckett’s Labour Party, who’s support would be critical to its passage. The whipping and party debates on whether to back the act also helped raise the profile of the new Shadow Home Secretary, Paul Boateng, (who himself had only been recently promoted in the Shadow Cabinet) with both the public and within the Labour Party.
Further legislative changes came with the introduction of ID cards, again to the anger of the more libertarian aspects of the Conservative Party and Parliament as a whole. However, with strong backing from the public from the Beckett led Labour Party, which sought to shed the ‘soft’ image that had been stuck with the party prior to the upcoming 2004 general election. And so, it would be that mandatory ID cards would be introduced nationally by 2007. Hague, however, would not be remaining as Home Secretary to see it through to its introduction.
Has the United States passed bills on the level of Bush-Era Draconian laws or are they weaker?
No they're not part of the EU. And there's no way they will be, just like in OTL.
Lebed is growing increasingly authoritarian, and there's still the expansion of NATO and the EU into Eastern Europe which blows up any of the goodwill gained during the more liberal (well liberal-ish) Sobchak or Chernomyrdin presidencies.
Socially, the US has less codified anti-discrimination laws than in OTL, but there's less draconian or socially conservative laws on the books so...
I'd imagine something similar to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 would have been passed with Hart, but there's little to no action under Thompson on social rights. Thompson isn't a hard-core social conservative and there's bigger issues on his plate regardless. His greatest impact on such policies would probably be the appointment on Ken Starr and Edith Jones to the Supreme Court, replacing Byron White and Harry Blackmun.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell hasn't been passed, which was a way to allow gay men and women to serve in the military, so Congress has passed a gay ban bill. Whether that bill would've survived the Supreme Court or even been signed by the President, is controversial and I'm not sure what would've happened in such circumstances. Probably during Holtzman's presidency there would be executive action to allow gay people to serve in the military through executive orders, but it would still be controversial and probably stuck in litigation, so the issue is still simmering.
However, I'd say a very loose and probably quite weak Employment Non-Discrimination Act would have been passed in the early 2000s by Holtzman and perhaps a hate crimes bill, but there's little time before the 2002 Midterms to pass serious anti-discrimination legislation. There'd also be no partial-birth abortion bill and AG Barbara Boxer so... it sort of evens itself out really.
Rupert Murdoch
The great man theory is a way in which historians analyse history according to which ‘great men’, singlehandly, (for better or for worse) change the world. Such examples would be Julius Caesar, Shakespeare and Napoleon. One man which would fall under this definition of history would be, Rupert Murdoch.
The son of a newspaper magnate, Sir Keith Murdoch and Dame Elisabeth Greene, Murdoch would have a comfortable start in life. However, in 1953, when Rupert Murdoch was only 21, his father died suddenly, forcing Rupert to cut short his studies at Oxford University. Filling in his father’s shoes, Murdoch took over ownership of the Adelaide’s News and Sunday Mail publications and made a success out of them, acquiring further newspapers as he went. Moving then to England, Murdoch took over the populist tabloid News of the World in 1968 and then followed it up by purchasing The Sun newspaper in 1969, converting it into its current tabloid format.
From then on, Murdoch would amass a great business empire, in Britain, Australia and the United States. Focusing primarily on media and newspapers as his acquisitions, Murdoch would move from newspapers to TV media and into broadsheets/newspapers of record. With TV news stations such as Fox News and BSkyB, newspapers such as the Times, Wall Street Journal entering his hands, Murdoch would become one of the most influential men in the world, a role in which he would relish and would use to push his own political agenda.
Despite being know as a leftist in university, both being called “Red Rupert” and having a bust of Lenin in his dorm room at Oxford, Murdoch would form close alliances with conservatives. Strongly supportive of the UK Conservative Party, under Margaret Thatcher, Murdoch helped discredit both Labour PM Jim Callaghan and opposition leader Michael Foot in 1979 and 1983 respectively. Thatcher’s assassination at the hands of the IRA in 1984 saw Michael Heseltine become Prime Minister, to which Murdoch shared a more testy relationship. While both men enjoyed a personal friendship, Murdoch was distrustful of Heseltine’s support for further European integration and his more conciliatory approach to governing while Heseltine, ever-ambitious, feared Murdoch’s influence on the public and the right of his party.
For most of Heseltine’s premiership, Murdoch papers would follow the spend time its time discredited Labour, with much success in 1991, with then-Labour leader Neil Kinnock, blaming The Sun in particular for its often brutal (but effective) coverage in stopping Labour from winning the election. However, by 1992, Murdoch would move to actively support leadership challenges against Heseltine and promoting right-wing alternatives such as the Referendum Party and later the Union Party.
Murdoch would find a much hated enemy with Robin Cook, who he mocked as “Red Robin” in 1993 and 1995. Murdoch would also attempt to stop British entry into the ecuzone during the pivotal 1999 referendum, but would fail in this quest, and he blamed Cook for his humiliating defeat. It was of no surprise then that in 2000, his papers proved scathing to Labour. In fact, it was Murdoch’s favoured paper in the UK, the News of the World, which brought to light the sensational story of Cook’s marital affair, his personal foibles, and his alleged alcoholism. Murdoch had exacted his revenge on Cook and would (along with his successor) find a close ally in Chris Patten.
However, perhaps as a result of the changing political dynamics in the UK after 1991, Murdoch would shift his personal focus to America. Murdoch's (through Fox News) promotion of, at the time, the little known Governor of Wisconsin, Tommy Thompson, proved critical to his presidential campaign. The gleaming editorials paired with the table-thumping endorsements from right wing commentators on Fox News of Thompson’s attributes and his record as Governor was enough to propel the Governor to the Republican nomination. And with the incumbent unpopular, Thompson rode Murdoch’s support to the White House.
In Australia, Murdoch’s influence saw both John Hewson elected in 1993 and then thrown out of office in 1995. Unlike Cook, Murdoch shared a good relationship with Australian Prime Minister Kim Beazley, who would see through the 1999 Australian republic referendum.
However, like his father before him, at a relatively young age, Murdoch struggled from ill health and was diagnosed with incurable prostate cancer in 2001. After a series of experimental treatments and chemotherapy (which caused a severe heart attack), Murdoch was forced to stand back from his role as Chairman of his media empire to focus on his health. It would be his protégé and favoured child, Elisabeth, who would take up the mantle.
Elisabeth, at the time of her accession was the chairwoman of BSkyB, was a success story within the company. Having created her own production film studio (BsBFilm Studios), then having succeeded in making BSkyB the most profitable channel in the UK and then leading negotiations towards the successful acquisition of Manchester United F.C. cemented her position as the heir apparent within the Murdoch empire to shareholders, employees and most importantly, her father.
Widely seen as more politically moderate than either of her brothers (James and Lachlan) she was nonetheless recognised as an incredible intelligent and efficent businesswoman. With sexist undercurrents, it was her marriage to prominent Labour support Matthew Freud that would cause the most concern to shareholders. While her marriage would cause tensions during her time as interim Chairwoman, iron-clad guarantees of editorial independence mollified the corporate board of the (right-wing) News Corp. Largely as a result of this deal, a similar political agenda was continued, despite the change in leadership.
One big difference in policy, championed by Elisabeth, was the expansion of Murdoch operations into Europe wholesale. Using the existing power base enjoyed by News Corp and BSkyB in the UK, Elisabeth would extensively lobby EU lawmakers to expand the company’s operations in Europe. Her work would see that News Corp entities, Sky and Sky-affiliates would become one of the most watched media channels in Europe by 2011. Elisabeth would, controversially, be given an MBE in 2012 for her services to the press and media.
[filler]
The son of a newspaper magnate, Sir Keith Murdoch and Dame Elisabeth Greene, Murdoch would have a comfortable start in life. However, in 1953, when Rupert Murdoch was only 21, his father died suddenly, forcing Rupert to cut short his studies at Oxford University. Filling in his father’s shoes, Murdoch took over ownership of the Adelaide’s News and Sunday Mail publications and made a success out of them, acquiring further newspapers as he went. Moving then to England, Murdoch took over the populist tabloid News of the World in 1968 and then followed it up by purchasing The Sun newspaper in 1969, converting it into its current tabloid format.
From then on, Murdoch would amass a great business empire, in Britain, Australia and the United States. Focusing primarily on media and newspapers as his acquisitions, Murdoch would move from newspapers to TV media and into broadsheets/newspapers of record. With TV news stations such as Fox News and BSkyB, newspapers such as the Times, Wall Street Journal entering his hands, Murdoch would become one of the most influential men in the world, a role in which he would relish and would use to push his own political agenda.
Despite being know as a leftist in university, both being called “Red Rupert” and having a bust of Lenin in his dorm room at Oxford, Murdoch would form close alliances with conservatives. Strongly supportive of the UK Conservative Party, under Margaret Thatcher, Murdoch helped discredit both Labour PM Jim Callaghan and opposition leader Michael Foot in 1979 and 1983 respectively. Thatcher’s assassination at the hands of the IRA in 1984 saw Michael Heseltine become Prime Minister, to which Murdoch shared a more testy relationship. While both men enjoyed a personal friendship, Murdoch was distrustful of Heseltine’s support for further European integration and his more conciliatory approach to governing while Heseltine, ever-ambitious, feared Murdoch’s influence on the public and the right of his party.
For most of Heseltine’s premiership, Murdoch papers would follow the spend time its time discredited Labour, with much success in 1991, with then-Labour leader Neil Kinnock, blaming The Sun in particular for its often brutal (but effective) coverage in stopping Labour from winning the election. However, by 1992, Murdoch would move to actively support leadership challenges against Heseltine and promoting right-wing alternatives such as the Referendum Party and later the Union Party.
Murdoch would find a much hated enemy with Robin Cook, who he mocked as “Red Robin” in 1993 and 1995. Murdoch would also attempt to stop British entry into the ecuzone during the pivotal 1999 referendum, but would fail in this quest, and he blamed Cook for his humiliating defeat. It was of no surprise then that in 2000, his papers proved scathing to Labour. In fact, it was Murdoch’s favoured paper in the UK, the News of the World, which brought to light the sensational story of Cook’s marital affair, his personal foibles, and his alleged alcoholism. Murdoch had exacted his revenge on Cook and would (along with his successor) find a close ally in Chris Patten.
However, perhaps as a result of the changing political dynamics in the UK after 1991, Murdoch would shift his personal focus to America. Murdoch's (through Fox News) promotion of, at the time, the little known Governor of Wisconsin, Tommy Thompson, proved critical to his presidential campaign. The gleaming editorials paired with the table-thumping endorsements from right wing commentators on Fox News of Thompson’s attributes and his record as Governor was enough to propel the Governor to the Republican nomination. And with the incumbent unpopular, Thompson rode Murdoch’s support to the White House.
In Australia, Murdoch’s influence saw both John Hewson elected in 1993 and then thrown out of office in 1995. Unlike Cook, Murdoch shared a good relationship with Australian Prime Minister Kim Beazley, who would see through the 1999 Australian republic referendum.
However, like his father before him, at a relatively young age, Murdoch struggled from ill health and was diagnosed with incurable prostate cancer in 2001. After a series of experimental treatments and chemotherapy (which caused a severe heart attack), Murdoch was forced to stand back from his role as Chairman of his media empire to focus on his health. It would be his protégé and favoured child, Elisabeth, who would take up the mantle.
Elisabeth, at the time of her accession was the chairwoman of BSkyB, was a success story within the company. Having created her own production film studio (BsBFilm Studios), then having succeeded in making BSkyB the most profitable channel in the UK and then leading negotiations towards the successful acquisition of Manchester United F.C. cemented her position as the heir apparent within the Murdoch empire to shareholders, employees and most importantly, her father.
Widely seen as more politically moderate than either of her brothers (James and Lachlan) she was nonetheless recognised as an incredible intelligent and efficent businesswoman. With sexist undercurrents, it was her marriage to prominent Labour support Matthew Freud that would cause the most concern to shareholders. While her marriage would cause tensions during her time as interim Chairwoman, iron-clad guarantees of editorial independence mollified the corporate board of the (right-wing) News Corp. Largely as a result of this deal, a similar political agenda was continued, despite the change in leadership.
One big difference in policy, championed by Elisabeth, was the expansion of Murdoch operations into Europe wholesale. Using the existing power base enjoyed by News Corp and BSkyB in the UK, Elisabeth would extensively lobby EU lawmakers to expand the company’s operations in Europe. Her work would see that News Corp entities, Sky and Sky-affiliates would become one of the most watched media channels in Europe by 2011. Elisabeth would, controversially, be given an MBE in 2012 for her services to the press and media.
Last edited:
Interesting. Killing off Rupert early does lend itself to a better world, imo.
I take it he bought WSJ way earlier here? I believe IOTL that purchase was not made until 2007/08 or thereabouts
I take it he bought WSJ way earlier here? I believe IOTL that purchase was not made until 2007/08 or thereabouts
Elisabeth Murdoch as Chairwoman gives Fox and the Murdoch empire a competent and well qualified leader to take the company forward and offer it long term stability (sorry Lachlan). Also as the update hints at, Murdoch-esque papers have more influence in Europe than in OTL which is probably bad for the world.
One of the benefits of a Republican presidency is the nineties means there’s a more amenable administration in charge. That and Murdoch focusing more on America means there’s more of a ambition to buy Dow Jones.
Whether the Murdoch’s ITL will be better owners than the Glazers OTL is a pretty horrible question to think about actually. For Man United fans at least.