Exocet - the Effects of a different Falklands

[Nevran]

Kim Beazley, now Prime Minister, was determined to stay as Prime Minister. As the economy continued to grow and the deficit decreased, Beazley and Labor introduced a series of popular measures to increasing funding for public services, including boosting Medicaid and reducing co-payments for those vulnerable and out-of-work.

Beazley’s first term however would be dominated by foreign affairs more than domestic ones. Supporting the NATO intervention in Northern Africa and sending Australia troops to North Korea, Beazley cemented his ‘Bomber Beazley’ reputation to the public at large. As these hard-power interventions proved popular with voters, what didn’t prove popular was the wave of people arriving on Australian shores; both economic migrants, displaced by the severe Asian financial crisis and political refugees, including those fleeing persecution, war and famine from war-torn regions like North Korea and East Timor.

Yet, as Beazley signed environmental treaties such as Kyoto and attended G20 summits, he gained himself a reputation of being an effective statesman and in a globally challenging time, voters approved of Beazley. Accordingly, Beazley proved popular and polled well against Liberal leader Peter Costello, a protégé of John Hewson, who began to suffer as a result.

As the Coalition languished in the polls and Costello himself was bracketed with internal Liberal divisions from his right (led by Bronwyn Bishop) and from his coalition partners, the Nationals. Since Hewson’s brutal sacking in 1995 by John Howard, the Liberals had been consumed by strife and internal party divisions. These divisions finally reached their climax when Bronwyn Bishop challenged Costello for the leadership in a December 1997 leadership spill. A brutal period followed, with insults hurled especially with regards to Costello’s support towards Beazley's foreign and constitutional agenda, and Bishop seemed set to win the leadership. Then, John Howard announced he would run for the leadership as well, a former Prime Minister, who had been roundly defeated in 1996.

Howard blamed his defeat on Hewson, both privately and publicly, and said that he was still by far the most effective communicator the Liberal party had, and was the only man best placed to unite the fractious party and win in 1999. Bishop, the change candidate, found her support flow to Howard and was eliminated in the first round. Costello defended his leadership, but the party moved against him. Howard found himself victorious, in a comeback story rivalling Helmut Kohl’s or Jacques Delors’.

Editorials and images of Howard’s triumphant (and completely unexpected return) dominated press headlines and political discourse for the remainder of the political term. Howard managed to successfully unify the party and gave Costello, much aggrieved by the power play, the position of shadow Finance Minister, while Bishop shadowed Foreign Affairs.

Beazley, overconfident, believed Howard to pose a minimal threat to his premiership and Labor’s hold on power. Voters, however, were not ready to reward Beazley with an increased mandate, from the admittedly high bar set by his 1996 landslide. Howard ran hard on trying to fix past mistakes and made frequent allusions to his repeal of the GST. Further, he attacked Beazley for focusing too much on foreign affairs and attacked the government’s lax immigration policies. While Howard made some good points, most voters approved of Beazley, the economy and the strong response to international crises. Beazley was re-elected, by a larger margin than predicted, and Howard was left humbled. His triumphant return had seen another defeat, and he was forced to stand down, for good this time.

After the election, all eyes turned to the scheduled referendum on whether Australia would become a republic.

And, contrary to popular belief, the referendum was a boring affair, with large scale political agreement. The question asked first was rather than having Queen Elizabeth II as the head of state, the legislature would appoint a head of state (a president), after a closed vote of its members. Quickly this became the biggest issue of the referendum campaign, with those in favour of a republic split with the anti-democratic nature of the appointment of the head of state.

To rectify this issue, a compromise was reached between the PM Beazley and the Coalition leader Peter Costello (who returned as leader after Howard resigned again) who both favoured a republic. Similar to Ireland, a presidential candidate would be elected by the popular vote but would only be eligible to become a candidate if they received significant support from political actors from state, federal and local authorities. Such would mean that a candidate would have to be consensual, well-supported and politically moderate/neutral. With this change, prior to the referendum campaign, Australia moved to vote on whether it would become a Republic.

The political establishment rallied behind the ‘Yes’ campaign. Both Prime Minister (Beazley), opposition leader (Peter Costello) and five former PMs (Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke, Keating and Hewson) all supported the establishment of a Republic. The Labor Party was overwhelmingly in favour of a republic, whilst the Liberals were more divided, with heavyweights like Howard and Bishop being monarchists even if the groundswell of Liberals supported the 'Yes' campaign. Also, the media was supportive, with Rupert Murdoch and his aligned press in favour of the move towards an elected head of state, believing the Queen to be an antiquated figure head of a by-gone age.

The ‘No’ campaign had no clear leader, and no prominent political backers. Attempts to secure either Howard or Bishop’s support failed, with both keeping their noses clean of the ‘No’ campaign. Deprived of oxygen, and the greatest asset of the ‘No’ campaign neutralised (the unelected President), the campaign highlighted the role of the monarchy to Australia and the potential of losing what little ties Australia had left with the UK as a result. With the UK sliding more and more into Europe, this argument of the monarchy’s staying power seemed redundant.

When the results came in, however, the No campaign almost did the impossible. While a solid majority (54%) of Aussies supported republicanism, thanks to the ‘double majority’ clause, which required a majority of states to back the change (4 out of 6 states), republicanism came within 5,000 votes of failing. Western Australia only barely backed the change.

​

Yet, regardless of how close the result was, Australia had voted in favour of becoming a republic. With the embarrassment of the Falklands, the handover of Hong Kong and Australia becoming a Republic, what remained of the British Empire seemed smaller every day.

 

[Taunay]

Kim Beazley, now Prime Minister, was determined to stay as Prime Minister. As the economy continued to grow and the deficit decreased, Beazley and Labor introduced a series of popular measures to increasing funding for public services, including boosting Medicaid and reducing co-payments for those vulnerable and out-of-work.

Beazley’s first term however would be dominated by foreign affairs more than domestic ones. Supporting the NATO intervention in Northern Africa and sending Australia troops to North Korea, Beazley cemented his ‘Bomber Beazley’ reputation to the public at large. As these hard-power interventions proved popular with voters, what didn’t prove popular was the wave of people arriving on Australian shores; both economic migrants, displaced by the severe Asian financial crisis and political refugees, including those fleeing persecution, war and famine from war-torn regions like North Korea and East Timor.

Yet, as Beazley signed environmental treaties such as Kyoto and attended G20 summits, he gained himself a reputation of being an effective statesman and in a globally challenging time, voters approved of Beazley. Accordingly, Beazley proved popular and polled well against Liberal leader Peter Costello, a protégé of John Hewson, who began to suffer as a result.

As the Coalition languished in the polls and Costello himself was bracketed with internal Liberal divisions from his right (led by Bronwyn Bishop) and from his coalition partners, the Nationals. Since Hewson’s brutal sacking in 1995 by John Howard, the Liberals had been consumed by rife and internal party divisions. These divisions finally reached their climax when Bronwyn Bishop challenged Costello for the leadership in a December 1997 leadership spill. A brutal period followed, with insults hurled especially with regards to Costello’s support towards Beazley's foreign and constitutional agenda, and Bishop seemed set to win the leadership. Then, John Howard announced he would run for the leadership as well, a former Prime Minister, who had been roundly defeated in 1996.

Howard blamed his defeat on Hewson, both privately and publicly, and said that he was still by far the most effective communicator the Liberal party had, and was the only man best placed to unite the fractious party and win in 1999. Bishop, the change candidate, found her support flow to Howard and was eliminated in the first round. Costello defended his leadership, but the party moved against him. Howard found himself victorious, in a comeback story rivalling Helmut Kohl’s or Jacques Delors’.

Editorials and images of Howard’s triumphant (and completely unexpected return) dominated press headlines and political discourse for the remainder of the political term. Howard managed to successfully unify the party and gave Costello, much aggrieved by the power play, the position of shadow Finance Minister, while Bishop shadowed Foreign Affairs.

Beazley, overconfident, believed Howard to pose a minimal threat to his premiership and Labor’s hold on power. Voters, however, were not ready to reward Beazley with an increased mandate, from the admittedly high bar set by his 1996 landslide. Howard ran hard on trying to fix past mistakes and made frequent allusions to his repeal of the GST. Further, he attacked Beazley for focusing too much on foreign affairs and attacked the government’s lax immigration policies. While Howard made some good points, most voters approved of Beazley, the economy and the strong response to international crises. Beazley was re-elected, by a larger margin than predicted, and Howard was left humbled. His triumphant return had seen another defeat, and he was forced to stand down, for good this time.

After the election, all eyes turned to the scheduled referendum on whether Australia would become a republic.

And, contrary to popular belief, the referendum was a boring affair, with large scale political agreement. The question asked first was rather than having Queen Elizabeth II as the head of state, the legislature would appoint a head of state (a president), after a closed vote of its members. Quickly this became the biggest issue of the referendum campaign, with those in favour of a republic split with the anti-democratic nature of the appointment of the head of state.

To rectify this issue, a compromise was reached between the PM Beazley and the Coalition leader Peter Costello (who returned as leader after Howard resigned again) who both favoured a republic. Similar to Ireland, a presidential candidate would be elected by the popular vote but would only be eligible to become a candidate if they received significant support from political actors from state, federal and local authorities. Such would mean that a candidate would have to be consensual, well-supported and politically moderate/neutral. With this change, prior to the referendum campaign, Australia moved to vote on whether it would become a Republic.

The political establishment rallied behind the ‘Yes’ campaign. Both Prime Minister (Beazley), opposition leader (Peter Costello) and five former PMs (Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke, Keating and Hewson) all supported the establishment of a Republic. The Labor Party was overwhelmingly in favour of a republic, whilst the Liberals were more divided, with heavyweights like Howard and Bishop hesitant but still supportive of the change. Also, the media was supportive, with Rupert Murdoch and his aligned press in favour of the move towards an elected head of state, believing the Queen to be an antiquated figure head of a by-gone age.

The ‘No’ campaign had no clear leader, and no prominent political backers. Attempts to secure either Howard or Bishop’s support failed, with both keeping their noses clean of the ‘No’ campaign. Deprived of oxygen, and the greatest asset of the ‘No’ campaign neutralised (the unelected President), the campaign highlighted the role of the monarchy to Australia and the potential of losing what little ties Australia had left with the UK as a result. With the UK sliding more and more into Europe, this argument of the monarchy’s staying power seemed redundant.

When the results came in, however, the No campaign almost did the impossible. While a solid majority (54%) of Aussies supported republicanism, thanks to the ‘double majority’ clause, which required a majority of states to back the change (4 out of 6 states), republicanism came within 5,000 votes of failing. Western Australia only barely backed the change.

​

Yet, regardless of how close the result was, Australia had voted in favour of becoming a republic. With the embarrassment of the Falklands, the handover of Hong Kong and Australia becoming a Republic, what remained of the British Empire seemed smaller every day.

I guess it's truly over for the British Empire. They had it even worse than IOTL

 

[EvilJam]

Well that’s major, what caused the almost 10% swing from OTL? Poorer UK-Australia relations?

This might embolden UK republicans - albeit there has never been anywhere near enough of them for such a change

 

[C2sg]

Well that’s major, what caused the almost 10% swing from OTL? Poorer UK-Australia relations?

This might embolden UK republicans - albeit there has never been anywhere near enough of them for such a change

What it appears to be from my observation:
- IOTL the referendum failed because the republicans were divided over the proposals of the methods to elect a new President and thus voted down the republic proposal. A significant amount of republicans argued for a popularly elected president, and opposed the original compromise of bipartisanly agreed president, with subsequent appointment by two thirds of the Commonwealth Parliament (Which also was the initial proposal before the compromise ITTL). Without this unanimous support of the republicans the OTL referendum failed
- Having the Prime Minister and also the Leader of the Opposition in support of republicanism helped, unlike IOTL when Howard, a monarchist, was the Prime Minister and prominent in representing the 'no' side of the debate that year.
- Britain being more and more deeply integrated into Europe ITTL may have fed a sense of an 'its time' factor in Australia to cut off the remaining monarchical ties
- I'm surprised to see ITTL Howard and Bishop in favour, along with the Murdoch press...what happened? Maybe @Nevran can enlighten us! Its another great update and we are all looking forward for more eagerly.

 

[Taunay]

It would be very nice to get a world map when this TL ends!

 

[Nevran]

I guess it's truly over for the British Empire. They had it even worse than IOTL

Rather than fireworks in Hong Kong, the British Empire dies with explosions in the South Atlantic. I started the TL with a different Falklands to try and show what could’ve happen to Britain without the reputational and morale boost the Falklands gave the nation. I'd also say that a different Falklands would've just reinforced the real sense of malaise felt by Brits in the 60s and 70s when looking at Britain's place in the world. A litany of drawbacks and defeats (The Suez Crisis, the withdrawal East of Suez, rejection by De Gaulle on joining the EEC on multiple occasions, the Falklands, irrelevance of the Commonwealth etc) all contribute to this malaise and there's no event which points to a reversal of this decline. The decline is worse definitely in IOTL, but in a way it's better for Britain, as the decline is grudgingly accepted and acknowledged and so Britain moves on from Empire better than in OTL.

Well that’s major, what caused the almost 10% swing from OTL? Poorer UK-Australia relations?

This might embolden UK republicans - albeit there has never been anywhere near enough of them for such a change

@C2sg covered a lot of the reasons for the far different result and did so much better I could've! The main reasons for this is a more appealing option to republicans (they'd be able to directly elect a head of state), rather than the Bi-partisan appointment republican model which was what OTL Australian's were asked about. Polling showed solid majorities in favour of republicanism both before and after the referendum, it's just the polls are right ITTL.
The results will certainly help the case for pressure groups like Republic in the UK but you're likely right that there's nowhere near enough support politically or publicly in the UK to de-establish the monarchy.

- I'm surprised to see ITTL Howard and Bishop in favour, along with the Murdoch press...what happened? Maybe @Nevran can enlighten us! Its another great update and we are all looking forward for more eagerly.

Damn, that's a mistake on my behalf r.e. the Howard Bishop being republicans. I've changed the Howard/Bishop to what it should've been which is they were against the change but accepted that most of their fellow Liberals were.
Murdoch was actually in favour of republican Australia, and all his papers supported the 'Yes' campaign.
Thanks as well!

It would be very nice to get a world map when this TL ends!

I'll put it on my to-do list!

 

[Taunay]

I'll put it on my to-do list!

Sorry if it's annoying, but if you want to, it would be really great to see more about Brazil ITTL. The 1990s were a really important decade, as we had inflation under control but at the cost of stagnant economic growth. There were also many interesting figures, such as Brizola (Whose relevance was decreasing), Lula (Becoming the new face of the Left) and many others.
If you want to ask me anything about Brazil, just send me a PM

 

[Nevran]

A.N. This post is dedicated to @SultanArda, who encouraged me to and helped me make this update on Turkey. They helped me plan, write, re-write and check it over before I put it up. So, thanks Sultan for helping me and hope you enjoy the update!

Turkey, a nation at the crossroads of the world, has struggled with its identity its inception from the ruins of the Ottoman Empire. The leading figure of Turkey, and the man who defined the nation, was Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, a nationalist and secularist who launched wide-scale reforms to modernize Turkey and secure its independence. His legacy was profound (the Turkish parliament granted him the surname ‘Atatürk’, which means “father of turks” in 1937) but his commitment to secularism created profound rifts, which continue to this day, for Turkey.

The military, perhaps the strongest force in modern day Turkey, has continually interfered with domestic politics, ostensibly to ‘safeguard’ the nation. When elected politicians failed to control violence, govern effectively or became overtly Islamic in nature, the military would intervene. In 1979, fearing the rising wave of Islamic politics seen in the once-secular Iran, martial law was extended across Turkey by the military. This was a precursor to a military coup, which saw General Kenan Evren sworn in as President and depose prime minister Süleyman Demirel from office.

To secure stability the military and its allies proposed a new constitution which was controversially approved by voters in a 1982 referendum. As part of this new constitution reforms, strict limits were placed on unions, political parties and political figures and new elections were held. Part of these reforms, to solidify the military-backed political theatre and the new status quo, was the so-called "temporary article", Article 4. This article of the constitution forbid 242 people, the once prominent politicians of the now banned political parties, including former prime minister Demirel, from holding public office.

The subsequent election was won by the Motherland Party (ANAP) over the military’s favoured centre-right (NDP) and centre-left (PP) political vehicles. The ANAP, a catch-all party comprising of liberal, nationalist, social democrats and Islamic groupings was a sign of both the public’s unwillingness to subscribed fully to the military’s designs for Turkey and the popularity of the ANAP’s leader Turgut Özal, a well-renowned economist. After the ANAP’s victory, Turkey experienced strong economic growth under Özal’s premiership, which helped to calm tensions from the crises of the early 1980s.

However, opposition parties continued to push for constitutional changes and a return to the political liberties which had been lost with the 1982 constitution. An agreement between the governing ANAP and the opposition parties saw a referendum scheduled in 1987 to readmit the banned public figures back into politics. A divisive campaign followed with the ANAP supporting “No” and almost all the opposition parties backing “Yes”. It would be a short public address by President Evren warning Turks of the risks of political change and hinting at the potential for a military incursion that swayed enough voters to vote No and keep the ten-year ban on political figures in place.

The subsequent election campaign in 1987 validated the ANAP’s opportunistic reasons for backing ‘No’. The incumbent ANAP won the election in a landslide, thanks to its strong economic record but won additional support from supporters of the now-banned True Path Party. True Path had found itself disqualified for the 1987 election after True Path’s de-facto party leader (and former prime minister) Demriel openly criticised the result of the referendum claiming the ‘No’ result to be fraudulent. With the party subsequently banned by the Turkish Constitutional Court, most its members and voters joined the ANAP for the election. While this secured a landslide for the party in 1987, it also contributed to the ANAP’s drift rightwards.

In October 1989, Özal was elected president succeeding Evren, and succeeding Özal was his lackey Yıldırım Akbulut became Prime Minister. Akbulut was seen as a continuation of Özal’s policies, but without the charisma or the competence. The economy crashed in 1989 and corruption scandals became to plague the government. Voter disenchantment grew with Akbulut and seemed set to bring down the AKAP. Özal, still in charge, cut his losses with his protégé and organised an internal party coup against Akbulut. This coup took place in 1991, just prior to the upcoming parliament election, with Adnan Kahveci winning the leadership contest after.

Kahveci, the former finance minister and mastermind of the Turkish economic growth seen before the downturn in the late-1980s was another close ally of Özal but had kept his distance from the President. Kahveci was well known for having a ‘maverick’ persona and was well regarded by both voters and by the military.

Kahveci also proved a highly effective campaigner and would often make arguments based on his own personal experiences. Having been born into poverty in a peasant community in Trabzon, Kahveci worked as a tea seller during high school to support his family and succeeded thanks to a hard-earned scholarship. As the Turksih economy stuttered Kahveci was able to effectively communicate with the voters and proved able to turn around the ailing ANAP. And so, despite the political scandals, corruption and ever-present threat of the military, the ANAP was able to win again in 1991.

Meanwhile, whilst Turkish politics seemed to be stabilising, the situation with Kurdistan was getting worse. The Kurdish Worker’s Party (PKK) reached its armed peak in the early 1990s with over 15,000 and 20,000 guerrillas operating in the countryside in the south-eastern regions of Turkey. This war between the government and Kurds seemed to be unending and needlessly violent, so steps were taken to agree a peace deal.

As expected, the military was resistant to any form of peace deal or ceasefire. However, with the military having been appeased by the 1987 referendum and the continued domination of the ANAP in the political scene, Özal and Kahveci organised a “Kurdish Opening” and negotiated a ceasefire with the PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan. This ceasefire would remain in effect until 1998 and marked the first step on the long road of reconciliation between the people.

The 1995 elections, the first in the 242 political figures banned in 1982 were allowed to run for and hold public offices, saw the AKAP lose in a landslide, with the Welfare Party, led by Necmettin Erbakan winning a solid plurality of the seats. Erbakan, the former deputy prime minister under Demriel, formed a government with Demriel and his centre-right Democratic Party. Rumours of a potential coup against the newly elected Islamist government were misplaced despite the military fearing the influence of the newly formed government on the secular constitution. The military, instead of direct action against the government, organised civil campaign of resistance, which focused on challenging the legitimacy of Welfare through the judiciary, constitutional debates and in media campaigns.

At the same time as the new government was formed, the ceasefire between the PKK collapsed and soon violence return to the countryside. In fact, it is believed that the Turkish military, always opposed to the ceasefire, held off on destabilising the coalition government (such as by issuing a military memorandum) as a way to try and (successfully) end the ceasefire.

It would be the presidential election in 1998 to succeed Özal which forced the military’s hand. With Özal retiring, incumbent PM Necmettin Erbakan announced he would run for President and had the support of parliament (thanks to the coalition deal between him and Demriel) to become President. The election was held on the 26 October 1998 which saw Erbakan become President. On the 15th November, the military acted.

And so began the November coup. Military higher-ups and generals, now confronted with an Islamic government controlling both the executive and legislature, organised action.

Military troops stormed government buildings and arrested key members of the government, including high-ranking members of Welfare and the Democratic Party. Erbakan himself was captured and arrested, accused of sedition and for violating the constitution. Prime Minister Demirel fled the nation, finding refuge in the United Arab Emirates, following him were many Islamic activists and prominent opposition and democratic figures.

General Çevik Bir the organiser of the November coup took the position of President, once held by Erbakan and took the title of “Emergency President”. Bir appointed Opposition Leader and ANAP leader Mesut Yılmaz as Demirel’s successor. A controversial vote held by parliament in November 1999 acclaimed Bir as President for a full term of his own. The coup had succeeded. The legacy of Atatürk would be respected and protected.

 

[EvilJam]

Well, they certainly aren’t getting into the EU

 

[Nevran]

Well, they certainly aren’t getting into the EU

An irony to what you said is that the EU would probably get on better politically with the ANAP than Welfare. But, as you're also right to say, the coup has blown any chance of membership for Turkey in the foreseeable future.

 

[Nevran]

And after the Turkey update, we're finally into the 2000s, so I made a quick Wikibox to mark it, more as a reference point for me more than anything else.

 

[Nevran]

Anatoly Sobchak’s election as President of Russia in 1996 was widely regarded as a victory for the West and for liberal capitalism. Sobchak, a democratic activist in the dying days of the Soviet Union, and the first directly elected Mayor of St Petersburg was widely perceived as being supportive of Western liberal values. With tacit western support and backing from kleptocrats (the men and women who earned billions from both the ruble crash and the liberalisations of the economy), Sobchak was easily elected President of Russia, beating the incumbent Khasbulatov and communist Zyuganov.

The West was jubilant with his election, with politicians and media alike showering the newly elected President with praise, including Time Magazine naming Sobchak its "Person of the Year” in 1996. Almost immediately after entering office Sobchak embarked on a radical program of economic liberalisation (organised by his Vice President Viktor Chernomyrdin and his first Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar), undoing the protectionist measures of Khasbulatov. Immediately, the economy contracted as public spending was slashed, which caused the economy to crash in 1998. This crash prolonged the economic crisis started under Khasbulatov and meant that, from 1992, GDP and economic output fell for six continuous years and by around 45 per cent. The public recoiled at the measures, even though the kleptocrats made billions more from the economic turmoil and further liberalisations of the economy. With their support, Sobchak’s political will and the power of the presidency, saw this economic course continuing until 2000.

Russia also aligned itself diplomatically with Western ambitions, such as providing diplomatic and logistical efforts to the Americans in the North Korean Civil War and the Second Korean War. Russia also became a global actor, working multilaterally within international organisations and supporting controversial UN resolutions, such as establishing a protectorate in North Korea. As a reward, the West welcomed Russia into the decision room with it joining the G7, a diplomatic coup for Sobchak and a sign of the changing times.

Of course, it would be during the inaugural G8 in Birmingham that Anatoly Sobchak died on the plane coming home. Unlike in the times of the Soviet Union, the succession did not see deadly power struggles or political displacement, but instead an orderly transition with Vice President Viktor Chernomyrdin peacefully assuming the office of the presidency and becoming Russia’s fourth president.

Chernomyrdin, rather than being known for taking advantage of Russia’s new position would instead become associated with the terrible Chechen War. After the Grozny truck bombing in 1995 against Khasbulatov, who had tried to negotiate a peace settlement, Chechnya fell into anarchy.
Violence escalated in the region, despite Russia’s military withdrawal organised by Khasbulatov in 1996. The intervening years and the internal strife Chechnya faced left the region economically devasted, with half a million people (roughly 40% of Chechnya’s pre-war population) internally displaced. Warlords ruled devasted countryside and terrorism was common. The first president of Chechnya (who attempted to negotiate a peace agreement between himself and President Khasbulatov) Dzhokhar Dudayev was assassinated by a poisoned letter, arranged by the FSB, leading to a presidential election in 1998.

Experts predicted that the election would be unable to be held, due to the near anarchic state of Chechnya. However, Western influence saw the successful running of the 1998 Chechen presidential election. It was through the influence of American communication giant AT&T, which donated $670,000, ensuring that election observers were present, which meant the election could be held.

The election and its results escalated the Chechen War to a new phase, one of open conflict between the Chechen government and Russian troops. The frontrunner was Shamil Basayev who was hated by Moscow, for leading a raid on the Russian town of Butennovsk in 1995 which killed more than a hundred people. Basayev however was very popular with Chechen youth and his actions, horrific to Moscow, were highly popular in Chechnya.

Basayev’s narrow victory over the more moderate Aslan Maskhadov, (even though all 13 candidates who ran pledged independence from Russia) inflamed tensions between Grozny and Moscow. Along with the junking of preliminary negotiations between the government and Russia, Chechen militias invading the neighbouring Dagestan saw the Chechen War begin. Russian troops fought difficult battles in the countryside and in Dagestan to secure regions, and soon violence spread to Russian urban and ethnic centres. Soon after a deadly terrorist attack in Moscow, Chernomyrdin dismissed his Prime Minister Boris Nemtsov and called for a greater push, into Chechnya itself to win the war.

Replacing Nemtsov was Nikolay Bordyuzha, a former member of the KGB and general who became a close ally of Chernomyrdin. Bordyuzha would later be asked to serve as Chernomyrdin’s running mate in 2000, a symbol of their close relationship. Bordyuzha would oversee planning for a major Russian incursion into Chechnya, which culminated in the Battle of Grozny, which killed Basayev and ended the offensive capabilities of the Chechen government. This operation would also cripple the terrorist network which plagued Russia around the millennium. Unfortunately for Chernomyrdin, it would be his successor who gained credit for ending the Chechen War.

Corruption has been a pervasive problem throughout Russian history. Thanks to the free media and the economic inequalities which grew during the late 1990s, it was during Chernomyrdin’s government that it seemed to finally impact on the public scene. With the robust system of checks and balances created by the liberal 1996 constitution, investigations by the Supreme Soviet (the legislative body), led by former presidential candidate Alexander Rutskoy, uncovered a series of government payouts and illegal practices orchestrated by the executive branch. Partisan fights raged between parties within the legislature, fights between the legislature and the executive, and internal fighting in all areas of government, saw legislation grind to a halt and gridlock descend on Russia. It seemed to many as if Russia and its experiment with democracy had seen the nation collapse into an ungovernable mess.

When NTV uncovered that former President Sobchak, a noted purveyor of the arts and culture, (especially Western art), had been using his office to fund this interest, it didn’t take long for Chernomyrdin to become caught up in the scandal. The public anger, rather than focused on the dead Sobchak (who held far more responsibility for the scandal) fell on Chernomyrdin instead. An embarrassing incident came when a painting in Chernomyrdin’s presidential office was found to have been bought by illegal funds and coerced from a private collector through blackmail and threats of government action.

By September 1999, Chernomyrdin was averaging an 8% approval rating and seemed set for defeat in the upcoming election. The upcoming presidential election sent shivers down the spines of the kleptocrats and Westerners. Polling showed the likely successor was communist candidate Gennady Zyuganov, Sobchak’s runner up in 1996. Rabidly anti-western, a fierce opponent of the liberal reforms undertaken by both Khasbulatov (human and democratic rights) and Chernomyrdin (economic), and openly calling for a restoration of Soviet pride, Zyuganov seemed set to return to a Cold War mentality. Only one candidate had the name recognition, polling stats and charisma to beat Zyuganov. That candidate was, Alexander Lebed.

A war hero, both in resisting the Soviet Coup and attempting to end the Chechen war, Lebed was the most popular public figure in Russia, according to opinion polls. Lebed had always made his intentions clear, that he wanted to be President, but had backed Ruslan Khasbulatov (a close ally and personal friend) in 1996, instead of making the leap for the office in 1996. When Khasbulatov ruled himself out of running for a second non-consecutive term, (preferring the lecture circuit to cleaning up Chernomyrdin’s mess), Lebed announced he was running and ran as an independent, avoiding the political partisanship which had consumed the Supreme Soviet.

Voters gravitated towards Lebed, who held confident and patriotic rallies, blasting the ‘enemies within’ and the ‘disruptors of the state’. His oratory skills, and with support from big beasts like Khasbulatov, Rutskoy and his running mate Sergei Stepashin, opened doors from Siberian village town halls to kleptocrat mansions in Saint Petersburg.

Lebed ran hard against Chernomyrdin for corruption and elitism, while praising the martyred Sobchak and appearing at campaign rallies with Sobchak’s widow and his two daughters. Lebed attacked the Zyuganov, especially for his support for the August Coup, saying he had been the man who stood with Yeltsin and the Russian people. Lebed also got the unofficial backing and support of the Russian military-industrial complex both because of his uncompromising stance towards Chechnya and his own military background.

When Lebed became the frontrunner, Western interests and kleptocrats once supportive of Chernomyrdin jumped ship and supported Lebed, seeing him as a winner. While trying to curry favour with the likely to be new President, they sealed Chernomyrdin’s chances of re-election. Lebed didn’t even need a second round to win the election. Zyuganov, like in 1996 before, was defeated. The candidate who had the support and money of the kleptocrats lost. Chernomyrdin received only 11% of the vote, a humiliation for the incumbent President. Lebed would get his chance to change history.

 

[Aceitunejo]

I wonder if Russia can avoid falling into autocracy. At least the 1995 Constitution seems to offer solid checks and balances.

 

[Time Enough]

Alexander Lebed is interesting, because he was kind of a half way point between being just an empty suit for the oligarchs but also a fellow Russian Conservative Nationalist, important to note when I mean Conservative I mean the Rutskoy style Conservative who believes in some level of Government Intervention and Statist ideals alongside a semi-market economy.

 

[EvilJam]

Interesting for Russia, although the demographic crisis there means very little can truly be done about their decline other than making it more protracted

 

[KingSweden24]

Was wondering earlier ITTL if/when Lebed would show up. Very intriguing.

Alexander Lebed is interesting, because he was kind of a half way point between being just an empty suit for the oligarchs but also a fellow Russian Conservative Nationalist, important to note when I mean Conservative I mean the Rutskoy style Conservative who believes in some level of Government Intervention and Statist ideals alongside a semi-market economy.

Lebed was certainly no liberal, but you’d get some of the more measured, sorta Western-accommodating 2000-08 version of Putin with him without all the paranoid KGB thug post-2011 Putin

 

[Time Enough]

Lebed was certainly no liberal, but you’d get some of the more measured, sorta Western-accommodating 2000-08 version of Putin with him without all the paranoid KGB thug post-2011 Putin

He was one of the founders of Rodina-Congress of Russian Communities in OTL which was a National Conservative party.

It wouldn’t surprise me if in time he probably starts making Nationalistic statements, Anti-Americanism and advocating for Statist solutions and pander to his eventual base (and given even in this universe he’s friendly to Rutskoy, who’s also Anti-American Nationalist alongside his Socialistic beliefs at times) though but as I said, he’s a bit of an empty suit, so it’ll be all talk and no show most likely so he’ll probably be like what you said in a manner.

 

[Nevran]

I wonder if Russia can avoid falling into autocracy. At least the 1995 Constitution seems to offer solid checks and balances.

A constitution is only strong if civil actors respect what it says and enforces it. In some cases, too, a liberal constitution can lead to even greater turmoil and dysfunction, especially in nations, like Russia, which haven't experienced a long history of liberal rights and democracy.

Alexander Lebed is interesting, because he was kind of a half way point between being just an empty suit for the oligarchs but also a fellow Russian Conservative Nationalist, important to note when I mean Conservative I mean the Rutskoy style Conservative who believes in some level of Government Intervention and Statist ideals alongside a semi-market economy.

Lebed presented himself as a man of the people at this election (and the empty suits were against him under Chernomyrdin). The friends he keeps as well (like you say later), Rutskoy, Khasbulatov (who at least to me seems like they would be politically allied [more on economic matters than anything] and Stepashin might impact him too. Lebed is also hot-headed, impulsive and had little long-standing political principle and political allies, judging by his time as governor of Krasnoyarsk, so god knows if he can keep those friends.

Interesting for Russia, although the demographic crisis there means very little can truly be done about their decline other than making it more protracted

It's definitely not going to be a case of returning Russia to its Soviet greatness but securing the country and its people (both internally and externally). Lebed understood this and would do his best to try and prepare for this eventuality. What he thought was Russia and Russian though is a different question. I'd be worried though if I were his neighbours, which had a lot of Russian-speaking minorities in them.

Was wondering earlier ITTL if/when Lebed would show up. Very intriguing.

Lebed was certainly no liberal, but you’d get some of the more measured, sorta Western-accommodating 2000-08 version of Putin with him without all the paranoid KGB thug post-2011 Putin

He was one of the founders of Rodina-Congress of Russian Communities in OTL which was a National Conservative party.

It wouldn’t surprise me if in time he probably starts making Nationalistic statements, Anti-Americanism and advocating for Statist solutions and pander to his eventual base (and given even in this universe he’s friendly to Rutskoy, who’s also Anti-American Nationalist alongside his Socialistic beliefs at times) though but as I said, he’s a bit of an empty suit, so it’ll be all talk and no show most likely so he’ll probably be like what you said in a manner.

He's a pretty well-known guy both on here and in the real world but I think he's still very underrated and maybe even a bit misunderstood (which I'm inevitably guilty of too).

To me, first and foremost, Lebed is a populist, and shared his nationalistic sentiments with the general public. He's a political enigma and is something to everyone (a perfect populist).
He's also not liberal and he's got some *concerning* views on the world and Russia's place in it. He's gruff, hot-headed and didn't build political networks around him. Doesn't bode well for diplomacy especially as NATO expands.
There's going to be more tension with the West than in OTL [between 2000-2010], also because Lebed is seen as an outsider rather than a continuation (like Putin was to Yeltsin) in the early 2000s. Events might also worsen the relationship between the West and Russia.

He does have some positives, however.
He cared about the people of Russia and seemed like he did want to tackle corruption, even if he was ineffective at it when Governor.
He was the second most popular figure amongst the military (Boris Gromov and Lebed were the only two generals who received higher than 50% whether they trusted him amongst a Friedrich Ebert poll of 615 Russian officers) and three-quarters of academy cadets wanted him as defence minister in 1994. He had a real following in the military which is a testament to his leadership skills and his reformist mentality.
But he's a military man and he'll likely follow what the military wants and does, if it gives him stuff as well.

He's going to be a mixture of what you guys both said. And events dear boy, events.

 

[Nevran]

A.N. Probably classifies as Manchester-wank but when your drunk friend decides to lie down on the tram lines and refuses to get up, you wish you were Underground.

Manchester, the home of the Industrial Revolution, had won the right to host the 2000 Summer Olympics thanks to a slick PR campaign and intense political lobbying by both Michael Heseltine’s and Robin Cook’s governments. The slick PR campaign, which gained celebrity endorsements from British sporting stars, groundswells of public support, pledges towards promoting the Olympic Games’ legacy and sustainability, and Manchester’s own Coronation Street, one of the most popular British TV soap’s backing the move and getting its audience to back the bid as well, Manchester gained enough support to beat both Sydney and Rome for the right to host the games. Heseltine had laid the groundwork and done the planning for the bid, but it would be Robin Cook’s government which won the bid and began building for the Games.

Cook’s government largely continued the plans of Heseltine’s government but soon found the project bogged down by bureaucracy and far more costly than the predicted cost of £1.5bn. While this £1.5bn had been pledged by private sources, the project soon incurred additional costs of £1bn, which was all funded by the taxpayer. The widely mocked slogan “The Spirit of Friendship - United in Diversity” and the logo, of a flame with the Olympic colours were negatively received by the public, especially as the tax burden continued to rise. The Games seemed not to be a celebration of Britain, sport and the millennium, but a costly national embarrassment.

So much so, the laborious process to prepare the games inspired a BBC mockumentary “Y2K”, which poked fun at the often overbearing and difficult process of hosting the Olympic Games. The show, part comedy (devised mostly by the Mancunians Caroline Aherne and Craig Cash), part satire (with Armando Iannucci being drafted in to craft the political side) and part farce, proved wildly popular with British viewers. Y2K, named after a computer virus which itself proved to be widely overstated, became a blueprint for future comedies and was later re-adapted for American and Australian television for their respective Olympic games.

A legacy of the games was the modernisation of Manchester, in part because of the horrific 1996 IRA bombing. The bombing, which destroyed the city centre and caused millions in damage, luckily killed no-one but almost stalled the Games completely.

The attack, rather than scare the citizens of Manchester, empowered the city. With the bomb destroying most of the city centre, the reconstruction efforts saw the city centre rapidly modernise and with the construction of stadiums and accommodations Manchester would become one of the most economically active areas in England from the late 1990s onwards. Major urban renewal took place in almost every corner of the city thanks to both private and public investment. The Olympics also became part of Cook’s pledge to reduce regional inequalities between London and the rest. Brown’s first budget pledged massive amounts of public money to invest in Manchester, for the Olympics.

This money would be used to invest and saw the regeneration and gentrification of the West of Manchester, centred around a joint public-private investment to create the Millennium Stadium, which would eventually be used by Manchester City F.C. as its home. A key part of this investment, an idea which was championed by Cook and a sizeable contingent on Northern Labour MPs, was to upgrade the sorely lacking transportation infrastructure around Manchester.

Historically, Manchester’s infrastructure was highly outdated, with most of its infrastructure built in the Victorian times. This meant the region was full of canals to transport goods like cotton and coal around but lacking in railways and other facilities. Manchester’s rail network was also poorly constructed. Thanks to two rival companies building and finance the rail network in the 19th and 20th century’s, Manchester had two rail nexuses, Victoria, and Piccadilly. Both stations, however, were unconnected to each other, thanks to this rivalry, and were on the outskirts of Manchester’s city centre, making it difficult to get people were they needed to go.

Since the 1920s, Manchester has attempted on six times to build a rail network beneath the city (an Underground) and join London, Glasgow, and Newcastle as one of only four cities in the UK to enjoy this. Of these plans, the closest Manchester came to an underground was in the 1970s , prior to the millennium, with the Picc-Vic “Futuroute”. The aptly named route would connect Piccadilly and Victoria station by an underground network, with multiple stops in between. This plan almost came to fruition after changes to local authority and government funding was approved. But, as with most infrastructure works during the 1970s, the plan was placed on indefinite hold until a time in which Manchester would justify the expense. That time came finally came with Manchester hosting the Games.

Due to the time constraints and planning permissions required, the inaugural line, the ‘Olympic Line’, was an extension of the 1970s ‘Picc-Vic’ route, which was extended to the Millennium Stadium, to transport people. With only 7 stations approved by time construction began, with most of these plans originating from the Futuroute. Ground was broken in 1995 and thanks to some good fortune, including the discovery of the Arndale Void, a literal hole-in-the-ground beneath the main shopping centre, left intentionally empty for the Futuroute, the work progressed quickly. An important supporter of this rail network was Rupert Murdoch, who as of 1999, became the owner of Manchester United F.C. His support for the underground, and the support of his media outlets, proved critical to its construction. The Olympic Line was officially opened in March 2000 and became one of the main legacies of the 2000 Summer Olympics, when compared to Britain’s middling 7th place showing.

The Manchester Underground proved popular and profitable, so much so that by 2004 Manchester Mayor Tony Lloyd officially petitioned the government for additional funding to build a second line, to connect Salford and both Old Trafford stadiums (Manchester United FC and a cricket stadium) to the network. Further, the connection of Salford Central and Oxford Road to the Underground connected both the third and fourth busiest rail stations to the network. The plan had clear economic benefits and with the political capital and will there (with an upcoming election), the plan was approved quickly. And so, the “Jubilee Line” was opened in 2012, named in celebration of the Queen’s 2012 jubilee.

​

The third and most recent line, the “Turing Line”, was opened in 2022. Named after Alan Turing, the line and its construction was a key campaign pledge of the Manchester Metro Mayor Paul Mason. The line connected the educational facilities of Manchester (like the two universities) and the Royal Infirmary to the Underground, with plans to extend the line to Manchester Airport (MAN) being considered for a future date.

Spoiler: Map of the Manchester Underground

 

[Nevran]

Robin Cook saw the new millennium and with it a new opportunity for his government. Perhaps the most controversial issue, Europe and Britain’s place in Europe, had been successfully concluded in the government’s favour. Preparations to join the ecu accelerated at the Treasury and it seemed as if the next parliamentary term would she dominated by the ecu's adoption. With Chancellor Margaret Beckett and Shadow Chancellor Stephen Dorrell almost in-sync with one another and with both in-line with Treasury orthodoxy on the matter, it seemed as if the laggard growth (averaging 0.9%) wouldn’t be used as a weapon of attack. Also of opportunity for Cook’s Labour was the rise of the right-wing Union (formerly known as KeepUK) and the potential for the party to split the right-wing vote. With the party preforming best in the South of England, with euroskeptic voters, the potential for Labour to win re-election grew as the Union polled at 15% in the Spring of 2000.

Further, Labour had achieved significant and progressive changes during its term in office. The final legislative act just prior to the calling of the election, was the legalisation of civil unions between gay couples, which was warmly welcomed by social liberals and progressive voters. A success of Labour, turned into hopes that the vote would divide the Conservatives, just prior to the election.

Robin Cook called an election for the 4 May. Outside of Downing Street, Cook, with his Cabinet behind him, spoke to the nation and asked them to renew his and Labour’s mandate. He hailed the social progress seen under his watch, Britain’s new role in Europe and the progressive changes introduced to the tax code and credit systems. Things seemed optimistic for Labour in the early days of April and the party began to hope that under Cook it could finally win a second (full) consecutive term in Number 10.

It’s become a misnomer in British politics that ‘Secretarygate’ saw Labour lost the 2000 election. Secretarygate, the name coined by the tabloid News of the World, which first reported the story three weeks before the election, heavily damaged the Prime Minister personally and professionally. The News of the World revealed that Robin Cook was having an extra-marital affair with his secretary Gaynor Reagan and that the affair had been ongoing for multiple years, which had led his wife to file for divorce. Tabloid rumours became salacious, especially after his wife Margaret withdrew from public life and leaks from Number 10 pointed to Cook engaging in multiple affairs with multiple different staffers. Further damaging (and potentially libellous) accusations from The Sun implied that Cook was an alcoholic and had repeatedly turned up to Cabinet meetings drunk. The flood of rumours saw Cook disappear of the campaign trail for three days and skip a leader's debate the night after the affair was revealed.

The coverage of these affairs and accusations led to a quick downturn in Cook’s personal ratings and dominated the campaign thereafter. The media criticised Cook’s character and began to accuse that PM wasn't in the right state of mind and health to deserve another term. Conservative supporting papers and tabloids used Secretarygate to draw a distinction between Cook and Patten. They would highlight the Conservative’s campaign focus on ‘family values’ and ‘personal responsibility’, lines agreed prior to the election. And so, with the media’s influence, Patten and the Conservatives seemed both like a tonic to those disheartened by the social change and Cook's behaviour, yet inoffensive enough to those shocked by the media’s scrutiny and the salacious gossip of Cook’s personal life.

But the long-term trends indicated that Labour was always set to lose the 2000 election. Labour’s 7-year stint in government had achieved a lot, but it had come at a cost to its electability. The economy, never truly experiencing the highs that was seen under the Thatcher and Heseltine governments (thanks to Britain’s high interest rates in the E.E.R.M), was not a strong issue for the party of government. Further, if Labour had won in 2000, the economy even saw a slight downturn in the early 2000s both as the .web bubble burst and the costs of switching to the ecu were fully processed. While the 2000s economic expansion would be far greater than predicted at the turn of the millennium, Labour governed as the foundations for growth were laid, and the fruits of which were enjoyed by successive governments.

It had also seemed that the government had placed for more attention on foreign affairs than domestic issues. The larger-than-life Foreign Secretary Tony Blair had become the second most well-known face in government often been seen at summits, in warzones and mediating diplomatic conundrums. British troops in North Africa and in Korea, even if a sign of Britain’s dedication to an “Ethical Foreign Policy”, began to weigh on voters’ minds as the costs and implications of their presence on foreign soil grew. Voters, inherently concerned more about domestic challenges than foreign ones, wanted a different approach in government. Labour canvassers would often hear on the doorstep similar attitudes and views.

Patten also ran a strong campaign. Unlike Heseltine, who had to defend his government, and Hurd who was both a symbol and an eventual victim of Tory infighting, Patten was able to present the Conservatives in a new light. Patten was thus able to soothe the splits between Tory MPs and members and right-wing voters on the issue of Europe, by saying that while Conservatives would respect the referendum result, they would ‘stand up’ for British interests in the bloc and the currency union. Patten also, if in rhetoric more than action, distinguished himself as a "New Conservative", taking the line from London mayor Michael Portillo.

With the FPTP voting system, Union struggled to effectively target seats, and with only a few Tory MPs jumping ship, struggled to gain the advantages of incumbency. Under David Campbell Bannerman, the party micro-targeted seats and placed its most prominent figures in winnable seats. Campbell Bannerman ran for Clacton, one of the most Keep supporting seats in England, and won, while other prominent Union figures, like David Bellamy (elected for St Ives) and political scion Zac Goldsmith (lost in North East Norfolk). Union got 6.3% of the vote, an incredible result for a party only a year after its formation.

The Alliance under Simon Hughes had been struggling since Menzies Campbell retired in 1998. The party had been squeezed by a centrist Conservative Party and without the distinguished presence of Menzies Campbell, failed to show itself to be a party which could effectively hold the balance of power in a potential hung parliament. Hughes’ admission that the Alliance would prefer a Labour government to a Conservative one, saw its middle class and rural voters flock to the Conservative Party. Further, Simon Hughes faced accusations of being homophobic, stemming from the 1982 Bermondsey by-election where he beat Peter Tatchell. His official apology for the by-election and smears of it only drew attention to Hughes and damaged the Alliance. The Alliance saw a dramatic fall in the seat share (if not the popular vote), losing almost all its representation in the South East of England, outside of Paddy Ashdown’s Yeovil seat, with almost every lost seat going to Patten’s Conservatives.

The BBC/ITN and BSkyB exit poll predicted a comfortable Conservative majority. As battleground seats up and down the country turned blue, with both the Alliance and Labour losing out, this prediction soon turned into reality. Robin Cook would make a short statement at his Livingston count where he announced that he would be stepping down as Labour leader effective noon tomorrow, after he tendered his resignation as PM to the Queen. In an emotional and passionate concession speech Cook thanked voters, both in his constituency and in the nation at-large, for placing their trust in him and went on to congratulate Patten for his victory.

And so, Patten found himself Prime Minister, with a majority government. The 'natural party of government' was back where it belonged.