For the Sake of a Shower: Mk. II
- Thread starter Lord Roem
- Start date
Chapter VI: I Don’t Like Monday Clubs
“Brussels is a shambles. You know what they say about the average Common Market official: he has the organizing ability of the Italians, the flexibility of the Germans, and the modesty of the French. And that's topped up by the imagination of the Belgians, the generosity of the Dutch and the intelligence of the Irish.”
“Brussels is a shambles. You know what they say about the average Common Market official: he has the organizing ability of the Italians, the flexibility of the Germans, and the modesty of the French. And that's topped up by the imagination of the Belgians, the generosity of the Dutch and the intelligence of the Irish.”
“Given the circumstances of her death, it is hard to articulate why the right-wing of the Conservative Party was not more dominant following the death of Mrs. Thatcher in October 1984. Certainly, with a Cabinet dominated by figures such as Tebbit, Gow and Clark, it is not hard to imagine a counterfactual that would have resulted an Orwellian response to the IRA arising in the United Kingdom.
Many commentators at the time questioned why, after the tough new 'Prevention of Terrorism Act' was rushed though with minimal criticism from the Opposition, more draconian measures where not forthcoming. Aside from a marginal rise in the number of republican dissidents being interred by the Security Services, most proposals were quietly dropped during the Christmas Parliamentary Recess.
The primary reason behind the limited Government response to only the second Prime Ministerial assassination in history can be seen in the personality of the new Prime Minister, Michael Heseltine. Heseltine was seen by many as a uniting force between the Thatcherite tendency which had come to power following the 1975 leadership election and the old “One Nation Wing” which had dominated the Party since the time of Baldwin. Heseltine was able to could count upon support from key players in both of these camps, even as the ugly spectre of European integration began to manifest itself towards the end of the decade.
With Heseltine’s often understated ability to keep potential leadership challengers on the Conservative Frontbench, the British Constitutional principle of “Collective Cabinet Responsibility” ensured that figures such as Norman Tebbit remained constrained by their more moderate colleagues.
Tebbit, who had campaigned in the subdued leadership race to replace Thatcher with the backing of the most security motivated section of Conservative MPs, lacked any real support base that would have been necessary to force a dramatic about-face in tested government policy. Prior to the assassination and Westminster Shootings, violence in Northern Ireland on the mainland was already falling from the heights seen during the seventies. The revanchist views that had briefly flared amongst the media and general public were already beginning to subside over the Christmas holiday, not least because of positive economic news brought a level of prosperity back to consumers that had not been seen for many years,
Although many self-appointed liberals protested the detaining of suspected IRA members, in reality, the British approach to security issues remained far more clement than that seen in comparative examples in continental Europe, such as those introduced by the Spanish Government during the recent Basque Insurgency.
-From: “Whatever Happened to Groupthink? High Stakes Decision Making in Democratic Governments” Mark Schafer, University of Wisconsin Press, 1996
"COMPREHENSIVE DEFEAT FOR DEATH PENALTY BILL
The controversial private members bill proposed by the Conservative backbencher John Biggs-Davison was defeated yesterday by over two-hundred votes. Despite backing from many senior Tory MPs, as well as many Northern Irish Unionists, collective opposition from all major party leaders ensured that the bill scuppered any hope of the bill being carried to the House of Lords. Harvey Procter, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, voted against the proposals despite his previous support for the reintroduction of Capital Punishment.
Following the vote, the Prime Minister stated that “terrorism must be dealt with strongly, yet we cannot sacrifice our most valued human rights in the process.” Neil Kinnock expressed approval of the Prime Minister’s stance, however, he also announced that “given the fact that senior Cabinet members had to be brow beaten into submission by the Prime Minister, the public cannot be feeling confident that Tory governments will adhere to basic human rights”.
In her first speech since returning to the Alliance Front Bench team, SDP Home Affairs Spokesperson Shirley Williams echoed Mr Kinnock’s remarks, criticising the Prime Minister for an alleged “abject failure to nip such dangerous and divisive proposals in bud. That the issue of state-sanctioned murder is even being debated in this House is testament to the rightward swing that this Prime Minister has been forced to accept as the price of his position.”
The bill, which would have reintroduced capital punishment for all those found guilty of mass murder, could have come into legal force before the trial of the three men accused of the Westminster Abbey Shootings last November.”
Norman Tebbit speaking in Conservative HQ yesterday, encouraging backbenchers to oppose Mr Biggs-Davison's Private Members' Bill
-From The Guardian: Wednesday 16th April 1985
"Genus est mortis male vivere"
-Enoch Powell on the Capital Punishment (Reform) Bill
“DAVID OWEN: I do not consider it to be an exaggeration to say that the Conservative Party has enjoyed a remarkable transformation over past six months. Certainly, the Prime Minister has been the architect of a rather gratifying volte-face away from the social upheaval of unrestricted monetarist economic policy.
PETER SNOW: You are aware that you are the leader of a party that is at least nominally suppose to oppose the Conservative government?
DAVID OWEN: I am well aware of that Peter. I remain very loyal to the basic principles of the Social Democratic Party. It is a simple fact however that the Party that was formed to combat the worst excesses of Thatcherism must now adjust to a different style of politics.
PETER SNOW: By endorsing everything the Prime Minister does?
DAVID OWEN: That is a dramatic oversimplification. Mr Heseltine and I are opposed on numerous matters of policy.
PETER SNOW: Would you be willing to give an example?
DAVID OWEN: That is really a question for the SDP National Executive, not me. It is not really the position of a party leader to hypothecate partisan fault-lines.”
-Excerpt from an interview with David Owen for Newsnight: Tuesday 23rd April 1985
“David Owen was not happy as leader of a party that now seemed irrelevant to the national mood. The Prime Minister, Alan Clark and myself all held a high opinion of him; even Margaret had always said that it was a shame to let such a capable political mind atrophy in permanent opposition. It was a valid point to make and certainly one that I had sympathy for.
However, appointing him to the Cabinet would have required both a guarantee of a Cabinet position and a safe Home Counties seat. Although this had always been Michael’s intention in the event of defection, it is far to say that it would not have been popular with any of the Party’s many grandees, Janet Young spoke for many of them when she articulated the popular right-wing view of Owen as a rather a political jellyfish, given his rightward trajectory from party to party. I thought that his arrival in the Cabinet would have been excellent for Conservative Party unity, but clearly Tebbit thought otherwise. It was precisely this right-wing opposition that so endeared the idea to me.
A secretive campaign was established by Michael’s Private Office as a means of bringing David in. The project was largely under the direction of Jerry Hayes, Michael’s fresh-faced Private Secretary. It was vital to keep the majority of the palaver free from the right-wing of the Party, who frankly were not happy with the moderate path that we were treading anyway. It was common knowledge that we were courting many members of the SDP for defection, but using party resources to achieve it was viewed by many as being too much, especially when it was being done without the full knowledge of all members of the Cabinet or Central Office.
I think the Owen Project was a sign of the endemic weaknesses of the Heseltine leadership. We stopped trying to push the centre of British politics towards us, instead being dragged towards it. Given the ideological composition of the activists and backbenchers that we had attracted from 1983 onwards, it is hardly a surprise what would transpire over the next few years."
-From: “A Moderate Voice: Memoirs of Westminster” Thomas King: HarperCollins, 1993
-Front cover of 2nd June 1985 edition of Private Eye
“As the first anniversary of the Brighton Bombing approached, the Conservative Government, on the surface at least, appeared to be in a state of robust health. The economy was experiencing resilient growth rate since the late-fifties. A lessening of the rate of privatisations had resulted in more clement relationships with the trade union relations. Finally, with the Labour Party still struggling in its battles against the Militant Tendency and the Alliance in a state of flux over various aborted merger talks, practical opposition to the Conservative majority in the House of Commons was far weaker than had been the case than during the previous Parliament. Michael Heseltine, still enjoying an extended honeymoon with the press, therefore seemed to be well on course for entrenching its majority in the next General Election.
However, within the Cabinet, cracks were beginning to emerge in this seemingly excellent state of affairs. The new European Commission, led by the former Belgian Prime Minister and ardent Europhile, Leo Tindermans was now embarking on a absolute program of economic and social restructuring of the European Union that would eventually be codified in the Treaty of Bruges. Although this nascent attempt at further integration was backed by the Prime Minister and Chancellor King, Eurosceptics within the Cabinet, led by the Home Secretary, were vehemently opposed to it. In public however, such emotions were kept in check, with little evidence to suggest that private disagreements resonated with the public.
The Commission’s draft settlement was drawn-up throughout 1985, with British public opinion typically uninterested, or at least, unaware of the proposals. Conservative Party opposition meanwhile was confined to the so-called “Grantham Group,” an uneasy alliance of libertarian newcomers and traditionalist Conservatives affiliated with the Monday Club. Although named after the late Prime Minister’s Lincolnshire hometown, many Thatcherites refused to join the organisation, feeling that it held little connection with their former Leader’s erstwhile supportive perception of the EEC as a force for free-trade.”
"Founded in September 1985, the Grantham Group (well known for the 'No Left Turn' logo shown here) was an early sign of the debate on Europe that would prove so damaging to the Conservative Party towards the end of the 1980s."
-From: “Decades of Division: Fifty Years of Anglo-European Relations” by David Miliband: Alan Lane Publishing, 2007
"FINAL DETAILS OF RESHUFFLE CONFIRMED
Downing Street has announced the full list of changes to the Government reshuffle which began yesterday owing to the resignation of EEC Commissioner, Christopher Tugendhat. As expected, Peter Walker is to be appointed to fill the vacency in Brussels, with his replacement as Secretary of State for Energy Secretary taken by Folkestone MP, Michael Howard. Harvey Procter replaces Cecil Parkinson at Employment in a move believed to be prompted by latest revelations regarding the latter’s private life. Mr Procter’s vacated position as as Chief Secretary to the Treasury to be filled by Christopher Patten with David Waddington also entering the Cabinet as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
Reports that Sir Geoffrey Howe and Norman Lamont were to leave the frontbench have not proven manifested themselves as was predicted yesterday. However, it is understood that the Foreign Secretary threatened to resign rather than accept a change of position with the Economic Affairs Secretary in what is understood to have been an attempt by the Prime Minister to gain a firmer position with a growing number of senior MPs opposed to the current integrationist policies being adopted by the European Commission."
-From The Daily Telegraph: Thursday 12th September 1985
“With the botched reshuffle over rising backbench dissatisfaction with our EEC policy and a souring relationship between the Heseltine and the Foreign Secretary, Cabinet meetings during this time become strained to say the least. I was only present on occasion given my only occasional right to attend Cabinet as Minister for Europe, but every time anything vaguely connected to foreign affairs came up, someone, usually Tebbit, but oftentimes Clark or Gow, would accuse every notion of further moves towards the European Community as being “the end of Britain as a viable nation state”. Of course, I knew such talk was ludicrous, especially as our policy was largely unchanged on what Margaret Thatcher’s had been. Yet it seemed that the idea of Europe was being used as an effective proxy to challenge Michael’s position, especially as he had perhaps the least amount of support from the ’83 intake, most of who were considerably to his right."
-Former Leader of the Opposition Sir Douglas Hurd in an interview from the recent BBC2 documentary “The European Enigma”
“PM TO CABINET: “EUROPE IS MY RESPONSIBILITY”
Speaking at the Conservative Party Conference in Brighton, the Prime Minister has announced that, whilst debate over Europe is welcome within Parliament, all final decision-making over the matter are to be made “by the joint agreement of myself, the Foreign Secretary and the collective vote of Parliament”. In his keynote speech to the Party Conference, held in memorial of Mrs Thatcher, the Prime Minister spoke out against the growing rumbles of dissent from senior backbenches as well as allegedly from serving members of the Cabinet against the current pro-European stance of the Government.
However, with the recent announcement by the EEC Commission to create formal preparations for introduction of a Single European Currency by the end of 1995, anti-EEC activists within the party are not felt to occupy anything approaching a majority of Conservative MPs."
-From The Times: Friday 18th October 1985
“I was not alone in thinking, “first it’ll be our pound, then our flag and then our forces”. The talk of the forthcoming EU superstate was only increasing in volume. Heseltine didn’t seem to care though, he was content with continuing his long, ideologically-based fall into the quagmire of a full scale party revolt”
-Former Freedom Party MP and Foreign Secretary, Lord Farage of Bromley in an interview from the recent BBC2 documentary “The European Enigma”
“PETER SNOW: The question remains Prime Minister, how can you possibly claim that the Cabinet is united over Europe when high-profile backbenchers such as Mr Portillo have been seen actively calling for you to step down in favour of one of your Cabinet Ministers?
THE PRIME MINISTER: Peter, I am not totally oblivious to tabloid-esc rumours. The Cabinet will remain united as we near a European Treaty, a Treaty which all my colleagues have pledged to support. I do not deny that a small minority of my fellow MPs are opposed to some elements of the proposed bill, but such is the nature of internal party democracy. Your report totally failed to mention the anti-European wing of the Labour Party.
PETER SNOW: No Labour MP has challenged Mr Kinnock for the leadership though Prime Minister.
THE PRIME MINISTER: Nor has any Conservative one done the same to me Mr Snow! This so-called “challenge” equates to little more than a single quote from an unattributed MP. When the Chairman of the 1922 calls me to his office then I may take some stock in the rumours but until that happens I shall continue to see them for what they are, total and utter bilge!”
-Excerpt from an interview between Peter Snow and The Rt. Hon. Michael Heseltine MP for Newsnight: Thursday 14th November 1985.
“The Prime Minister, Jon Cruddas has joined the list of tributes being paid to former US President George Bush, who has died at the age of 88. President Bush, who served as leader of the United States between 1986 and 1989, died at his summer home in Connecticut in the early hours of Wednesday morning. In a personal tribute from the White House, Russ Feingold and Vice-President Wesley Clarke stated that the former President “served to bring respect and honour back to a battered White House.”
Republican Presumptive Candidate, Gary Johnson, echoed the White House statement, in addition calling for a week-long memorandum on campaigning.
A spokesperson for the Bush family stated that details regarding the memorial service would be announced on Tuesday."
-From The Guardian: Saturday 16th June 2012
Last edited:
Jon Cruddas as PM, interesting.
I've got a lot of respect for the guy as being as close to a principled politician as possible, and the name sounds like something out of Yes Minister or the FU series.
I've got a lot of respect for the guy as being as close to a principled politician as possible, and the name sounds like something out of Yes Minister or the FU series.
Lord Farage ?! Bloody hell I didn't spot that one.
Just one thing, in the original timeline Red Dwarf was effectively stillborn, please say that doesn't happen in this reboot. I heard a rumour they were originally going to cast Alfred Molina and Alan Rickman as Lister and Rimmer respectively (anyone any good with photoshop?). In a TL where this happens I can't see Rickman ever living that role down. Somehow the phrase "Smeghead" in his voice seems even funnier.
Just one thing, in the original timeline Red Dwarf was effectively stillborn, please say that doesn't happen in this reboot. I heard a rumour they were originally going to cast Alfred Molina and Alan Rickman as Lister and Rimmer respectively (anyone any good with photoshop?). In a TL where this happens I can't see Rickman ever living that role down. Somehow the phrase "Smeghead" in his voice seems even funnier.
Last edited:
I was a Lurker when this Timeline was first up and running, but I enjoyed reading it then, even if you did kill one of my favourite programmes, 'Blue Jam', by making it's creater an MP.
Looking forward to more updates-and being able to comment on them.
Looking forward to more updates-and being able to comment on them.
Chapter VII: “There Is No Alternative!”
“Why should we, the country that produced Shakespeare, Churchill and Christopher Wren (and those are just the people on our banknotes for Christ's sake!) cower down to the countries that produced Hitler, Napoleon, the Mafia, and the Smurfs?”
“Christmas is always a time for reflection, but this year, I felt even more minded to do so mark the first one I enjoy as a member the Cabinet. Sadly, the atmosphere at present is hardly a celebratory one.
We had our final meeting of 1985 at Downing Street this morning. As fucking usual, it was a total farce. Michael has no backbone whatsoever. He is pleasant enough at dealing with rudimentary business, but when it comes to matters of state, he is as weak and insipid as a polio affected tortoise.
The Lady’s legacy is slipping though our fingers! We have given into the IRA, given into the miners and given into the Wets. We may as well just invite Heath back, establish a three-day week and run up the red flag for the Soviets.
I hate paying attention to opinion polls, but having a Ministerial salary seems to make one wonder about job security far more than one was just Commons room meat. Labour are drawing disconcertingly close, but no one aside we Granthamites seem to even countenance the very real possibility that we may lose the next election.
Had dinner at the Athenaeum with Portillo. Norman is desperate to get him to the Government, but he is too young, and Michael cannot reshuffle after the car crash that the last one represented. Geoffrey seems to be quite serious when he talks of giving Michael another six months. Can’t think why, he is even more of a Brussels apparatchik than Michael is. Frankly, I think that we should have a quiet word with Cranny Onslow in the event of us having to get rid of him. Better for everyone concerned for the PM to step down than force him out, I don’t know anyone who has any chance of replacing him.”
-From “Diaries Volume Two: In Crisis” Alan Clark: Phoenix 1997
“The Brecon by-election in March represented a real nadir for the Conservatives. Heseltine was fading fast after his party were pummelled into third place, and the swing was beyond even the worst media predictions for them. Surprisingly, opinion polls now tended to overstate public levels of support for the Tories, the reverse of what had been the case under Thatcher’s leadership, which I rather think contrasted nicely with the difference in leadership styles between her and her replacement.
At the time, we were busy trying to force out the bog-brained Militants in Merseyside. I was well aware that the Cabinet tribulations made our Trotskyite ones seem less of an anathema to the public, but Labour was still a long way off being able to return to government with a strong, united message.
The 'Unite for Britain' logo was used at all meetings in which Labour and Liberal-SDP (Williams) Alliance members shared a stage as an alternative to party emblems.
As a result of this, we surreptitiously started opening discussions with the Liberals and dissident SDP members regarding common ground in the event of a hung parliament. The launch of “Alliance for Britain” in late-January was supposed to be an early sign of challenging Heseltine’s grasp of the centre ground. In retrospect, we possibly moved too early in doing so whilst the grassroots were still under siege from Militant, but I maintain that it was still the right thing to do, the ’87 election wouldn’t have turned out as it did had we not done so.”
-Former Education Secretary Christopher Morris in a recent interview, "The Days We Make Today" for The Observer Magazine
“HESELTINE: 'PUT UP OR SHUT UP!'
After a February dominated by various rumours regarding a challenge for the leadership of the Conservative Party, the Prime Minister has announced that he will resign as Party leader before the end of the month before putting himself up for re-election. Speaking at Conservative Central Office yesterday evening, Mr Heseltine stated that “While I remain confident that I have the support of the overwhelming majority of the Conservative Party, I no longer feel that I can continue to remain Prime Minister whilst persistent attacks from a small minority of the party continue to harm our internal stability.”
The Prime Minister has already received endorsements from senior Conservative ministers including the Chancellor, Tom King and the Foreign Secretary, Sir Geoffrey Howe. However, sources close to the Home Secretary claim that Mr Tebbit is holding back from a formal announcement of support owing to differences in opinion on Northern Ireland and welfare reform between the two men. Candidates to challenge the Prime Minister are unknown at the moment, although Westminster insiders claim that the Home Office Minister, Michael Portillo is preparing a challenge from with the backing of backbench grandees. Richard Shepard, a former Deputy Whip, has also been mooted as a potential candidate to run on an explicitly anti-European ticket.
Neil Kinnock, the Leader of the Opposition, repeated calls for an immediate General Election.”
-From The Times Thursday 13th March 1986
“MP SHOT IN BELFAST CINEMA
The Member for Belfast East, Peter Robinson, suffered severe injury yesterday after being shot by an unidentified assailant in a Belfast cinema. Mr Robinson, a member of the DUP and a prominent critic of the Government’s moderate stance on violence in the Province, suffered large internal wounds from the attack which took place as he and his wife were leaving the movie theatre at around eight o’clock last night, the attacker managed to escape security by fleeing though a fire exit and is still at large despite a nationwide man hunt.
Despite the nature of the attack, doctors at the Royal Victoria Hospital have announced his condition to be “serious, but not life threatening” and expect him to make a full recovery within the near future. The event marks the first high profile attack on a politician since the assassinations at Westminster Abbey in 1984. They represent a humiliation to Northern Ireland Secretary Ian Gow who last week announced that “security in Northern Ireland is now firmly back under the control of the British Government.”
No statement of responsibility from paramilitary organisations, nor any comment from the Government were available at the time of going to press.”
-From The Belfast Telegraph Monday 17th March 1986
“No one at the time had the courage to even consider making a serious challenge to the Prime Minister at the time of the leadership election at the end of March. Many senior figures I knew back then would have liked to, had I been in Parliament back then I may well have considered it, yet in the end, hardly any serious candidate had the guts to and Michael easily defeated the token challenger. However, the election was notable from the fact than well over 50 members of the Parliamentary Party abstained. I was a senior researcher for the Home Secretary at this point and Norman said afterwards that he would have stood had he seen how fragile Heseltine’s support really was.
The election only served to hold back the rumblings of dissent from the backbenches, the calm lasted until about September before it all came back in earnest following the publication of the draft plan for European integration. Then things really began to look serious. Of course, I was always loyal to the party leader, but one cannot always make a difference by oneself”
-Former Freedom Party MP and Foreign Secretary, Lord Farage of Bromley in an interview from the recent BBC2 documentary “The European Enigma”
“US President Russ Feingold has led tributes to Edward Kennedy, who died at his home in Connecticut on Sunday. Mr Kennedy, who served as both Senator from Massachusetts and Secretary of State during his long career, was suffering from brain cancer at the time of his death at the age of 77.
Speaking from the G12 Summit in Mather’s Vineyard, President Feingold described Mr Kennedy as “an icon for all Americans, regardless of political affiliation” as well as a “resolute defender of Congressional liberties against the unchecked powers of the executive.” Senator Kennedy is perceived by many as playing a leading role in uncovering the Contra Scandal of the late 1980s before retiring from the Senate in 1993.
Following the President’s remarks, other world leaders followed joined in tribute, with Eurasian President Kasparov also praising Edward Kennedy’s work in defusing the Yugoslav War of 1994 as well as his mediating role in the disputed Federal election the following year.
Senator Patrick Buchanan, a long-standing domestic critic of Kennedy, has meanwhile received a motion of censure from the Republican-controlled Senate for his remarks concerning Kennedy’s private life.”
Edward Kennedy, as Secretary of State, served in two Presidential administrations. Prior to his recent illness, President Feingold had considered appointing him Ambassador to the United Kingdom, a position once held by his father.
-From bbcnews.gb: Wednesday 26th August 2009
“Tuesday 8th April 1986
Arriving back from the Easter Recess, I was struck by how despondent most of the Tories seem to be within the House. Regardless of where one is; be it the House, the Lobbies, the Bars or the Terrace, every single Conservative Member of Parliament has the same gloomy, downcast expression that was so prevalent within our ranks during the last few months of the Callaghan Administration. It seems curious how a Government with such a large majority seems so paralysed by inaction. Ted Heath thinks that Heseltine should fire Tebbit and his ilk, declare a General Election on the issue of Europe and hopefully win enough seats to end opposition to his foreign policy. While I do admit that this plan has merit, I cannot see the Prime Minister having the courage or the political wherewithal to do such a thing. This seems all the more relevant given the fact that our own party should be calling for our own referendum on Europe, especially given the fact that the Commission which is already attempting to do exactly the same thing we warned about in ten years ago.
Ted and many other colleagues of his all think that Heseltine is a man cursed. The leadership “election” solved nothing for him as it simply served to bring his fundamental problems with doing things into a public forum.
I have heard that even ultra-loyalists like Francis Pym (who was hoping to return to the Cabinet) are convinced that Tebbit is simply binding his time before he can resign and mount a formal challenge for the Premiership. The PM is due to go to Brussels at the end of the month to make a speech on European integration. While I oppose this concept with every fibre of my being, part of me does rather hope it is successful in wounding Heseltine, not destroying him.
Whilst the idea of Tebbit becoming Prime Minister is laughable, I am becoming increasing concerned that he could just about manage to worm his way in, especially if a left-wing candidate splits the moderate vote should another leadership election come to fruition. Dinner with the Blairs was a great relief. Tony is making his case as a dominant left winger and Cherie should win Cardiff South with ease at the next election, regardless of when it comes.
I am tempted to support Tony when the Shadow Cabinet elections come around, but I feel Cherie is more likely to succeed in the long run.”
-From: “Diaries 1983-1990” Tony Benn: Penguin 1993
“It was no real surprise that Michael Heseltine managed to regain some momentum on after the summer failed to yield any real challenge to his position. Although telling in retrospect, at the time, the performance by Michael Portillo was seen as being rather pathetic and something that had served only to destroy a promising Ministerial career.
However, the party opposition to the Bruges Treaty was simply resting, it had not vanished. I was still working for the Home Secretary at this point and he had managed to wangle a safe seat [Gravesham] for the next election. At time, most of the Eurosceptic wing of the party needed a strong figure to rally behind, despite what naive people like Tony Benn may have thought, Tebbit had no desire at all to become Prime Minister, he felt that it was too old and, by his own admission “not really television material.” I profoundly disagreed with this, he was always Mrs Thatcher’s favoured successor and I felt that his reliably comprehensive school educated personality represented the best way of winning back the working class voters that had propelled the Conservatives to victory in 1983.
He could not be persuaded, so the Grantham Group decided held a meeting at the Ivy in September in which informally choose an unofficial leader of the Sovereigntist faction of the Conservative MPs. We considered several candidates, but had to reject most of them as being too private school, which we felt would alienate Sun readers, or too junior, which we felt would be unlikely to provide much gravitas. However, a chance recommendation by Marcus Fox seemed to represent a happy medium.
Norman Lamont was the most senior figure to have openly come out against the Bruges Treaty, a patriotic and courageous decision that had resulted in him having his Department abolished in the post-contest reshuffle. As Norman quite rightly saw Transport Secretary as a demotion, he had returned to the backbenches to collective relief from the anti-Heseltine group. He began gathering allies for a proper challenge soon afterwards.”
"That said, I never quite knew if Lamont was acting out of patriotism, or anger at being ill-treated by a Prime Minister he never quite saw as a Conservative."
-Former Freedom Party MP and Foreign Secretary, Lord Farage of Bromley in an interview from the recent BBC2 documentary “The European Enigma”
“The President of the European Commission, Leo Tindermans, is to formally announce a draft program of legislation regarding the further economic integration of the EEC later today. An advanced copy of the program, which is to form the basis of a new European Treaty, was acquired by this paper from a researcher from within the EEC Parliament in Strasbourg.
The program of reform wishes to see the introduction of a new EU single currency by 1995 as well as the establishment of a unified program of social and welfare legislation for all member states. The source behind this information, who asked not be named, claimed that the proposals are intended to become law following the signing of the proposed “Treaty of Bruges” by the end of 1988. The EEC Commission has refused to comment on the documents however, Labour MEP Robert Cryer stated his cynicism at the proposals being carried out claiming that “given the ideological opposition to further integration of many within the Socialist Group coupled with the disunity of our own Conservative Party, I doubt that the entire program will see the light of day”. Downing Street was unavailable for comment, however it is understood that the Prime Minister will give the Government’s view on the proposals when he addresses the European Parliament later this month.”
-From The Daily Telegraph: Thursday 9th October 1986
“We see the harbinger of the European superstate amongst us. Where once stood Rome there now shall be Brussels, grasping out with her many arms. However, whereas Rome was a civilising element, all the new European Empire shall serve to do is drown the United Kingdom in her ocean of grey bureaucracy and civil servants. Europe and her mass of cultures will simply become one homogeneous whole. What need is there for a millennium of nationalist struggle, the liberal awakening of the Enlightenment and the war against Fascism if Hitler’s dream of a centralised and bland continent is to come true?
Many say that the EEC represents a new hope for Europe. Well, if you will just allow me to paraphrase the late Labour leader, I say it only marks the end of a thousand years of history.”
-Speech by Alan Sked to the Ivy League Against European Federalisation in October 1986, cited in “The Middle Path: Britain in the Eighties” Peter Hennessy: Faber and Faber 2010
“The man arrested for creating a public disturbance in a downtown restaurant yesterday has been named as Colonel Oliver North, a senior figure within the NSC. Colonel North is understood to have been drinking heavily around the time of the incident in which he accosted several members of staff for poor service. Upon his arrest, eyewitnesses reported him as appearing to have been under extreme stress.
A statement from the MPDC announced that Colonel North had been placed in police custody and had been later released on bail pending formal charges.”
-From The Washington Post: Wednesday 15th October 1986
“Mr President; could I just ask you a few questions regarding these documents published in the Lebanese Press?”
-CBS Reporter Lesley Stahl to Ronald Reagan: White House Press Conference, November 4th 1986, recently recorded in the recent HBO documentary, “Night of the Neo-Cons: A New Perspective on Iran-Contra."
Last edited:
Very nice to see it back. Can't wait to see how much you have revised this already excellent TL.
Chapter VIII: Contraception
“He's a soldier, and a hero, and a novelist, and now he's DUI…”
“My fellow Americans.
Over the past few weeks, certain allegations have been raised, both in Congress and the newspapers, which have accused senior officials within the State Department of certain improprieties over the conduct of America’s foreign policy.
I have seen all this with a mounting sense of sadness and depression.
When I became President nearly six years ago, we were a nation that was no longer confident of our future. ‘Stagflation’ was the word of the day back then, and I remember getting letters from many young people that spoke of little more than despair for the future.
I still get letters from college graduates, but the tone of them could hardly be more different from what they once were. Six short years has been enough to make people realise that they no longer need to fear for their future.
The horrors of nuclear weapons, the fear of not being able to raise a family, a life of listlessness on the unemployment figures once dominated the thoughts of many Americans, young and old.
After these six years of a Republican in the White House, none of these seem to dominate our national psyche any more. George Bush and I are proud of what we have managed to achieve.
Yet these allegations of moral and military misconduct have continued to dominate our newspapers, and I can no longer remain aloof and distant from what has transpired.
I remain truthful, my fellow citizens, when I tell you that our country’s dealings with the freedom fighters of Nicaragua has always been done with regards to the full extent of the law.
Yet it is also clear to me that mistakes have been made by this Administration. Many fine men and women have had their careers threatened by certain elements of the media that can no longer be ignored by either myself, nor the Federal Departments they work for.
The decision that I have made today therefore is not one that I ever thought I would have to make. However, as Chief Executive of our great Republic, I am a man that must take responsibility for decisions made by my fellow Cabinet members. I am also not quite the fighter that I was ten years ago, and I owe it to my family not to damage their health as well by fighting a battle others have forced upon me.
There will be many that see this statement as a victory, a vindication perhaps for pacifism and surrender to despotic governments. That is not the case. Our Founding Fathers ensured that the work of any elected representative would remain, even in the event of their term ending early. This White House will continue to promote freedom, liberty and peace throughout the world.
It is with great regret my fellow Americans; that I feel minded to resign my position as President of the United States, but where my political career ends, I know that Vice-President Bush will be a worthy successor.
I know that the great work of the Republican Party will fulfil the promises we stood on in 1984.
I know America, the greatest nation on earth, will continue to achieve her legacy”
"A grim-faced George Bush was sworn in as President before Reagan had even left the White House for his California exile. This represented an even faster turn around of Administrations than had been the case between Nixon and Ford."
-President Reagan’s Resignation Speech: Saturday 12th December 1986, recently recorded in the recent HBO documentary, “Night of the Neo-Cons: A New Perspective on Iran-Contra."
“I dunno, had the While House been able to get a fall guy, North or whoever, I think that the President could have survived easily. But we left it too late and the public were convinced that the Prez must have had a hand in the arms sales. I’ve said it before that that is simply baloney, Reagan knew little about the extent of the deal, but with a Democrat controlled House; the Senate could only block the possibility of Impeachment for a certain amount of time. In reality, I think that the President did the right thing, had he not resigned, the Senate would have looked as if it was covering for him and that could well have led to a Democratic landslide in 1988.
Of course that did happen, but not as much as it would have done otherwise.
In reality it was that woman who was to blame for not having the initiative to shred certain documents that negatively implicated the President”
-Former White House Chief of Staff Donald Regan, recently interviewed in the recent HBO documentary, “Night of the Neo-Cons: A New Perspective on Iran-Contra."
“The breaking of the Iran-Contra Scandal marked the greatest crisis for the American Executive since Watergate twelve years prior. Coming as it was at the height of the Gulf War between Iran and Iraq, the month long inquiry and resignation of President Reagan would have the effect of bringing American international standing to an historic low. Given the various high profile resignations of senior figures, President Bush would have to contend with a number of challenges to nurse the United States’ battered reputation back to health.
The first of these challenges was the Soviet Union. While President Bush originally aimed to continue Reagan’s hard-line policy towards the Soviet Union with the abandonment of détente, the public outcry over Iran-Contra, which was seen by many as being morally inexcusable, gave the new President little chance of a foreign policy honeymoon and consequently, a return to the old mantra of “Peaceful Co-Existence” was called for. Bush however, given his former experience as director of the CIA was more than capable of understanding the true nature of US-Soviet relations. Like Reagan, he understood the fact that the USSR was doomed to fall under the pressure of economic mismanagement, however, unlike the former occupant of the White House, Bush also feared the possibility of a conservative faction seizing power in the Kremlin in the event of Gorbachev failing in his desire to reform the Soviet economy. Thus, at the high profile meeting between the leaders of the two world Power Blocks in March 1987, a new series of programs regarding economic co-operation was decided to move the Soviet Union towards the free market. Behind the scenes, the phased Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan and the US promise to stop the covert funding of the anti-Soviet guerrillas was also planned.
While ultimately limited to little more than modernisation of the Soviet Union's decaying nuclear power facilities and the importation of new agrarian machinery, the Copenhagen Summit did much to improve US-Soviet relations prior to the gradual disintegration of the Warsaw Pact in the late 1980’s. Gorbachev lacked the time needed to reform the Soviet Union’s economy, but the increased economic aid between the two superpowers did help to ensure that the new Russia which was arise during the early 1990’s would be able to survive as a stable and relatively wealthy Eurasian authority."
-From “The Rise to Globalism: American Foreign Policy Since 1938” Stephen Ambrose: Penguin 1998
“Reagan’s gone now; can’t we impeach the PM at some point?”
-Comment by Dennis Skinner MP, cited in "MTV to the Master System: Capturing the Eighties' Zeitgeist" Dominic Sandbrook: Allan Lane 2008
The most recent opinion polls, released yesterday evening, continue to show a persistent trend towards an increased lead for the Labour Party over the Government.
Continued reports of Cabinet infighting over Europe and the expulsion of the Trotskyite Militant Tendency seem to be impacting the recent trend towards the Opposition, aided in part by a spike in petrol prices over the Christmas Holiday.
If the latest Ipsos-MORI poll commissioned by this newspaper were to hold true at the next General Election, Labour would be the largest party in the House of Commons, but would almost certainly find themselves leading a minority administration in a hung parliament.
A statement from Conservative Central Office was quick to label the findings as “disappointing, but not ultimately a cause for concern.” However, it is understood by this newspaper that many senior Conservative figures are privately beginning to consider the position of the Prime Minister. Speaking to this newspaper, Richard Shepherd, a vocal opponent of Mr Heseltine’s European policy, stated the government’s support for a new Treaty on the European Union as an “unelectable and impossible stance to take.”
Within hours of the release of the poll, the Shadow Foreign Secretary and Deputy Labour Leader Roy Hattersley stated that “Michael Heseltine has once again shown that he lacks the political gravitas, and indeed, competence, to lead this country though the important foreign policy choices that need to be made over the next few years”. It is also understood that Christopher Smith, the Shadow Leader of the House, has conducted talks with Alliance Home Affairs Spokesperson Shirley Williams regarding the formation of a coalition government as a substitute for a minority administration.
Neil Kinnock, the Leader of the Opposition, repeated calls for an immediate General Election.”
-From The Guardian: Thursday 5th February 1987
“Conditions within the Party were now far more homogenous and cordial than they had been less that a year prior. Whilst the group of Europlegic wrongcocks around Tony Benn and his absurd protégés were vocal in their opposition to the European Union, ultimately, the expulsion of Militant and the increasingly dire state of intra-Cabinet relationships only served to improve our poll standing. Indeed, the focus for the Front Bench was on saying only the bare minimum on policy for fear of creating negative newspaper reports from the right-wing press. While we had every intention of curbing the rise of neo-Liberal economics and the “Little Englander” mentality of the Conservative Party, our primary focus was on demonstrating a calm, united, respectable portrayal of a Government-in-Waiting.”
-Former Education Secretary Christopher Morris in a recent interview, "The Days We Make Today" for The Observer Magazine
The recent skirmishes between Greek and Turkish ships within the Aegean Sea will only serve to bring the two nations to a formal declaration of war. This has been defiance of the stark warning of the new US Secretary of State William Casey in a statement to the US Congress last week. Since then, conditions have only deteriorated further owing to Athens’s opposition to a number of Turkish vessels carrying out surveys in the region. Should the two nations come to war, it can only serve to increase opposition to Turkish membership of the European Union, given the position of Greece as a member state. Indeed, several prominent Turkish politicians are now considering the possibility of creating a new power block for Balkan nations in the event of the fall of the Warsaw Pact.”
-From The Economist: Friday 6th March 1987
-From Time: Friday 13th March 1987
Senate Majority Leader Robert Dole has been nominated by President Bush for the post of Vice-President to fill the position left vacant since President Reagan’s resignation. In a joint press conference yesterday evening, the President praised Senator Dole’s “experience and commitment to traditional American values” in his long tenure as the Senior Senator from Kansas. Dole, who was the Republican nominee for Vice-President in Gerald Ford’s unsuccessful 1976 election campaign, is now considered by many to represent the right-wing of the Party since the mass resignations caused by Iran-Contra. While the conformation of Senator Dole requires a majority vote in both Houses, sources in the Democratic Party have stated that they do not intend to challenge the vote in the House owing to, in the words of an unnamed Representative “a desire to at least restore some honour to our gravely wounded Executive”. Assuming the vote passes, Senator Dole is expected to be confirmed by the end of the month.”
-From The New York Times: Friday 13th March 1987
“By March, formal talks between Labour and myself were proving increasing fruitful, while the Labour left remained highly opposed to the concept of the Treaty of Bruges, the Opposition front bench and the Alliance were almost entirely in favour of it. John Smith himself had managed to completely wrong-foot King at the despatch box over the ERM. While many of us on the opposition benches were loath to admit it, King’s low inflation policy made joining the exchange rate mechanism a very sensible policy to follow. Indeed, many of us joked that Smith was a bigger supporter of the Treasury than the Cabinet as a whole.
It was about this time that the inherent problems of the Alliance system became clear, what had started off as an electoral pact had become increasing close to a formal merger and calls for the formation of a true party were starting to materialise. David naturally opposed this, but his limp leadership during this period damaged both his own position as well as that of his supporters. It was a common view that under him, the SDP was without a clear leader.
Yet the problem of which party to back in the event of a hung parliament remained. Maclennan and I were both supportive of the Labour side, as was David Steel, but most of the so-called Owenites remained loyal to the “soft-Freidmanism” of the Conservatives.
Something would have to give in the end; the Alliance would find itself split over the issue of a hung parliament and who to support in it. After a time, the leadership decided to support whoever would promise to reform the electoral system. While this was greeted with derision amongst some Labour MP’s, an increasingly large number of them did see the merit of the proposals. Still, it would take a large number of meetings in remote conference rooms in Westminster and many arguments before we managed to get a settlement that we were all content with!”
-From “A Woman’s Place” Shirley Williams: HarperCollins 1998
“The Conservative Party is rather similar to a car crash at the Nuremburg Trials at the moment. One understands the severity of the situation but one doesn’t really mind laughing because they are probably all guilty as sin.”
-From a comment by Shadow Secretary of State for Social Security Frank Dobson MP, cited in "MTV to the Master System: Capturing the Eighties' Zeitgeist" Dominic Sandbrook: Allan Lane 2008
"The former Indian Finance Minister, Sitaram Kesri, takes over as Prime Minister of that country next week following the resignation of Indira Gandhi. Mr. Kesri, who is seen by many as formulating the economic policy credited with stopping the runaway depreciation of the Rupee over the past five years is seen as marking a generational shift in the leadership of the Indian National Congress, although only three years the junior of Mrs. Gandhi, Mr. Kersri does demonstrate a reduction in the power of the Gandhi family over Indian politics, which they have controlled since the time of India’s first republican Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru."
-From The Economist: Monday 23rd March 1987
An explosion at a café in Turkey’s largest city yesterday killed more than a dozen people in what is believed to be a terrorist action caused by a Kurdish separatist group. The Kurdistan Worker’s Party, a Marxist terrorist organisation, is believed to have mounted the attack in response to a crackdown by Ankara in the separatist region in the south of the country. Sources in Turkey have claimed that the increased tensions with Greece over territorial waters in the Aegean may have acted as an incentive for the attack given the high level of international attention currently focused on the region. No official statement has been made by either the KWP or the Turkish government regarding responsibility.
The Greek Prime Minister, Andreas Papandreou has made no comment on the terrorist attack and has continued to demand an immediate halt to Turkish shipping entering Greek territorial waters. While conflict between the two nations still appears unlikely, eyewitnesses have claimed that a sizable build-up of armed personnel on Rhodes has occurred over the past week. This, coupled with troop movements in Northern Cyprus can only serve to exacerbate tensions in the region.”
-From The Times: Thursday 2nd April 1987
“DAY: Our next question comes from the gentleman with the red sweatshirt.
MAN: Given the Prime Minister’s comments over the EEC Treaty and taking into account the support given from both the Labour Party and Alliance, who is going to stand up from British interests being sold down the river to Brussels? I can’t see it being our lame duck of a Prime Minister!
[APPLAUSE FROM AUDIENCE]
DAY: European integration; how much is too much? Do you have a response Mr Lamont?
LAMONT: I can assure you sir, that the vast majority of the Tory Party do share your fears. For too long now successive governments have been taking British heritage for granted, and I would not be sitting as a Conservative MP if I did not hold a belief in the integrity of the United Kingdom as a nation state.
DAY: Seeing that a Conservative MP is not willing to back the Government, would another panellist like to? Mr. Smith?
SMITH: Frankly, it is people like Mr. Lamont who demonstrate what a total shambles the Conservative government has become. The Labour position on the EEC is simply that we wish to have the same influence in Europe as France and Germany, that can only come with integration and seizing the initiative in Brussels. Unless we act decisively now, Britain will for ever remain on the periphery on the continent, unloved and unwelcome, rather akin to a person who turns up at a party as Father Christmas only to realise that it is not fancy dress.
[AUDIENCE LAUGHTER]
DAY: Very droll Shadow Chancellor. Mrs. Williams, what is your opinion?
WILLIAMS: Unlike both Labour and the Conservatives, I am happy to state that the Alliance is committed to the principle of European integration, I must admit that I am delighted that senior figures on the opposition support the Treaty of Bruges, however, with figures like Tony Blair giving out the same tabloid-esk comment as Mr. Lamont and the man in the audience, I would happily state that only the Alliance represents a united voice for those Britons who are not xenophobic or anti-capitalist, I group I believe to be a majority voice for the public.
DAY: And your opinion on the matter Rowan Atkinson?
ATKINSON: Well, as I am obviously here to represent light relief, I would rather like to point out that the gentleman up there is perhaps being too kind to the Prime Minister. Rather than a lame duck I would argue that Michael Heseltine represents a shredded duck, the sort you get in a Chinese takeaway represented by the number twenty-seven.
[AUDIENCE LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE]
DAY: Thank you very much. Our next question comes from the woman on the back row…”
"I'm sorry Mrs Williams, but aren't you supposed to be in a different party from Mr Smith now?
-From Question Time: Wednesday 16th April 1987
“I think that we should mount a formal challenge during the conference season Norman. That should give us enough time to develop our campaign over the summer. Heh-heh, lets see how Michael wiggles his way out of that!”
-From a conversation between Michael Portillo and Norman Lamont, cited in “The Middle Path: Britain in the Eighties” Peter Hennessy: Faber and Faber 2010
“In the end, what Michael did was the best option available to him, it was bound to happen at some point and frankly, he made a sensible choice given the nature of the plotting against him.
People said a great deal about Heseltine but he could a very shrewd person.
Well, on a good day at least."
-Former Leader of the Opposition Sir Douglas Hurd in an interview from the recent BBC2 documentary “The European Enigma”
“He's a soldier, and a hero, and a novelist, and now he's DUI…”
“My fellow Americans.
Over the past few weeks, certain allegations have been raised, both in Congress and the newspapers, which have accused senior officials within the State Department of certain improprieties over the conduct of America’s foreign policy.
I have seen all this with a mounting sense of sadness and depression.
When I became President nearly six years ago, we were a nation that was no longer confident of our future. ‘Stagflation’ was the word of the day back then, and I remember getting letters from many young people that spoke of little more than despair for the future.
I still get letters from college graduates, but the tone of them could hardly be more different from what they once were. Six short years has been enough to make people realise that they no longer need to fear for their future.
The horrors of nuclear weapons, the fear of not being able to raise a family, a life of listlessness on the unemployment figures once dominated the thoughts of many Americans, young and old.
After these six years of a Republican in the White House, none of these seem to dominate our national psyche any more. George Bush and I are proud of what we have managed to achieve.
Yet these allegations of moral and military misconduct have continued to dominate our newspapers, and I can no longer remain aloof and distant from what has transpired.
I remain truthful, my fellow citizens, when I tell you that our country’s dealings with the freedom fighters of Nicaragua has always been done with regards to the full extent of the law.
Yet it is also clear to me that mistakes have been made by this Administration. Many fine men and women have had their careers threatened by certain elements of the media that can no longer be ignored by either myself, nor the Federal Departments they work for.
The decision that I have made today therefore is not one that I ever thought I would have to make. However, as Chief Executive of our great Republic, I am a man that must take responsibility for decisions made by my fellow Cabinet members. I am also not quite the fighter that I was ten years ago, and I owe it to my family not to damage their health as well by fighting a battle others have forced upon me.
There will be many that see this statement as a victory, a vindication perhaps for pacifism and surrender to despotic governments. That is not the case. Our Founding Fathers ensured that the work of any elected representative would remain, even in the event of their term ending early. This White House will continue to promote freedom, liberty and peace throughout the world.
It is with great regret my fellow Americans; that I feel minded to resign my position as President of the United States, but where my political career ends, I know that Vice-President Bush will be a worthy successor.
I know that the great work of the Republican Party will fulfil the promises we stood on in 1984.
I know America, the greatest nation on earth, will continue to achieve her legacy”
"A grim-faced George Bush was sworn in as President before Reagan had even left the White House for his California exile. This represented an even faster turn around of Administrations than had been the case between Nixon and Ford."
-President Reagan’s Resignation Speech: Saturday 12th December 1986, recently recorded in the recent HBO documentary, “Night of the Neo-Cons: A New Perspective on Iran-Contra."
“I dunno, had the While House been able to get a fall guy, North or whoever, I think that the President could have survived easily. But we left it too late and the public were convinced that the Prez must have had a hand in the arms sales. I’ve said it before that that is simply baloney, Reagan knew little about the extent of the deal, but with a Democrat controlled House; the Senate could only block the possibility of Impeachment for a certain amount of time. In reality, I think that the President did the right thing, had he not resigned, the Senate would have looked as if it was covering for him and that could well have led to a Democratic landslide in 1988.
Of course that did happen, but not as much as it would have done otherwise.
In reality it was that woman who was to blame for not having the initiative to shred certain documents that negatively implicated the President”
-Former White House Chief of Staff Donald Regan, recently interviewed in the recent HBO documentary, “Night of the Neo-Cons: A New Perspective on Iran-Contra."
“The breaking of the Iran-Contra Scandal marked the greatest crisis for the American Executive since Watergate twelve years prior. Coming as it was at the height of the Gulf War between Iran and Iraq, the month long inquiry and resignation of President Reagan would have the effect of bringing American international standing to an historic low. Given the various high profile resignations of senior figures, President Bush would have to contend with a number of challenges to nurse the United States’ battered reputation back to health.
The first of these challenges was the Soviet Union. While President Bush originally aimed to continue Reagan’s hard-line policy towards the Soviet Union with the abandonment of détente, the public outcry over Iran-Contra, which was seen by many as being morally inexcusable, gave the new President little chance of a foreign policy honeymoon and consequently, a return to the old mantra of “Peaceful Co-Existence” was called for. Bush however, given his former experience as director of the CIA was more than capable of understanding the true nature of US-Soviet relations. Like Reagan, he understood the fact that the USSR was doomed to fall under the pressure of economic mismanagement, however, unlike the former occupant of the White House, Bush also feared the possibility of a conservative faction seizing power in the Kremlin in the event of Gorbachev failing in his desire to reform the Soviet economy. Thus, at the high profile meeting between the leaders of the two world Power Blocks in March 1987, a new series of programs regarding economic co-operation was decided to move the Soviet Union towards the free market. Behind the scenes, the phased Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan and the US promise to stop the covert funding of the anti-Soviet guerrillas was also planned.
While ultimately limited to little more than modernisation of the Soviet Union's decaying nuclear power facilities and the importation of new agrarian machinery, the Copenhagen Summit did much to improve US-Soviet relations prior to the gradual disintegration of the Warsaw Pact in the late 1980’s. Gorbachev lacked the time needed to reform the Soviet Union’s economy, but the increased economic aid between the two superpowers did help to ensure that the new Russia which was arise during the early 1990’s would be able to survive as a stable and relatively wealthy Eurasian authority."
-From “The Rise to Globalism: American Foreign Policy Since 1938” Stephen Ambrose: Penguin 1998
“Reagan’s gone now; can’t we impeach the PM at some point?”
-Comment by Dennis Skinner MP, cited in "MTV to the Master System: Capturing the Eighties' Zeitgeist" Dominic Sandbrook: Allan Lane 2008
“LABOUR INCREASE LEAD AS TORY LEADERSHIP WOES CONTINUE
The most recent opinion polls, released yesterday evening, continue to show a persistent trend towards an increased lead for the Labour Party over the Government.
Continued reports of Cabinet infighting over Europe and the expulsion of the Trotskyite Militant Tendency seem to be impacting the recent trend towards the Opposition, aided in part by a spike in petrol prices over the Christmas Holiday.
If the latest Ipsos-MORI poll commissioned by this newspaper were to hold true at the next General Election, Labour would be the largest party in the House of Commons, but would almost certainly find themselves leading a minority administration in a hung parliament.
A statement from Conservative Central Office was quick to label the findings as “disappointing, but not ultimately a cause for concern.” However, it is understood by this newspaper that many senior Conservative figures are privately beginning to consider the position of the Prime Minister. Speaking to this newspaper, Richard Shepherd, a vocal opponent of Mr Heseltine’s European policy, stated the government’s support for a new Treaty on the European Union as an “unelectable and impossible stance to take.”
Within hours of the release of the poll, the Shadow Foreign Secretary and Deputy Labour Leader Roy Hattersley stated that “Michael Heseltine has once again shown that he lacks the political gravitas, and indeed, competence, to lead this country though the important foreign policy choices that need to be made over the next few years”. It is also understood that Christopher Smith, the Shadow Leader of the House, has conducted talks with Alliance Home Affairs Spokesperson Shirley Williams regarding the formation of a coalition government as a substitute for a minority administration.
Neil Kinnock, the Leader of the Opposition, repeated calls for an immediate General Election.”
-From The Guardian: Thursday 5th February 1987
“Conditions within the Party were now far more homogenous and cordial than they had been less that a year prior. Whilst the group of Europlegic wrongcocks around Tony Benn and his absurd protégés were vocal in their opposition to the European Union, ultimately, the expulsion of Militant and the increasingly dire state of intra-Cabinet relationships only served to improve our poll standing. Indeed, the focus for the Front Bench was on saying only the bare minimum on policy for fear of creating negative newspaper reports from the right-wing press. While we had every intention of curbing the rise of neo-Liberal economics and the “Little Englander” mentality of the Conservative Party, our primary focus was on demonstrating a calm, united, respectable portrayal of a Government-in-Waiting.”
-Former Education Secretary Christopher Morris in a recent interview, "The Days We Make Today" for The Observer Magazine
“The Athens-Ankara Antagonism
The recent skirmishes between Greek and Turkish ships within the Aegean Sea will only serve to bring the two nations to a formal declaration of war. This has been defiance of the stark warning of the new US Secretary of State William Casey in a statement to the US Congress last week. Since then, conditions have only deteriorated further owing to Athens’s opposition to a number of Turkish vessels carrying out surveys in the region. Should the two nations come to war, it can only serve to increase opposition to Turkish membership of the European Union, given the position of Greece as a member state. Indeed, several prominent Turkish politicians are now considering the possibility of creating a new power block for Balkan nations in the event of the fall of the Warsaw Pact.”
-From The Economist: Friday 6th March 1987
-From Time: Friday 13th March 1987
“DOLE NOMINATED AS VICE-PRESIDENT
Senate Majority Leader Robert Dole has been nominated by President Bush for the post of Vice-President to fill the position left vacant since President Reagan’s resignation. In a joint press conference yesterday evening, the President praised Senator Dole’s “experience and commitment to traditional American values” in his long tenure as the Senior Senator from Kansas. Dole, who was the Republican nominee for Vice-President in Gerald Ford’s unsuccessful 1976 election campaign, is now considered by many to represent the right-wing of the Party since the mass resignations caused by Iran-Contra. While the conformation of Senator Dole requires a majority vote in both Houses, sources in the Democratic Party have stated that they do not intend to challenge the vote in the House owing to, in the words of an unnamed Representative “a desire to at least restore some honour to our gravely wounded Executive”. Assuming the vote passes, Senator Dole is expected to be confirmed by the end of the month.”
-From The New York Times: Friday 13th March 1987
“By March, formal talks between Labour and myself were proving increasing fruitful, while the Labour left remained highly opposed to the concept of the Treaty of Bruges, the Opposition front bench and the Alliance were almost entirely in favour of it. John Smith himself had managed to completely wrong-foot King at the despatch box over the ERM. While many of us on the opposition benches were loath to admit it, King’s low inflation policy made joining the exchange rate mechanism a very sensible policy to follow. Indeed, many of us joked that Smith was a bigger supporter of the Treasury than the Cabinet as a whole.
It was about this time that the inherent problems of the Alliance system became clear, what had started off as an electoral pact had become increasing close to a formal merger and calls for the formation of a true party were starting to materialise. David naturally opposed this, but his limp leadership during this period damaged both his own position as well as that of his supporters. It was a common view that under him, the SDP was without a clear leader.
Yet the problem of which party to back in the event of a hung parliament remained. Maclennan and I were both supportive of the Labour side, as was David Steel, but most of the so-called Owenites remained loyal to the “soft-Freidmanism” of the Conservatives.
Something would have to give in the end; the Alliance would find itself split over the issue of a hung parliament and who to support in it. After a time, the leadership decided to support whoever would promise to reform the electoral system. While this was greeted with derision amongst some Labour MP’s, an increasingly large number of them did see the merit of the proposals. Still, it would take a large number of meetings in remote conference rooms in Westminster and many arguments before we managed to get a settlement that we were all content with!”
-From “A Woman’s Place” Shirley Williams: HarperCollins 1998
“The Conservative Party is rather similar to a car crash at the Nuremburg Trials at the moment. One understands the severity of the situation but one doesn’t really mind laughing because they are probably all guilty as sin.”
-From a comment by Shadow Secretary of State for Social Security Frank Dobson MP, cited in "MTV to the Master System: Capturing the Eighties' Zeitgeist" Dominic Sandbrook: Allan Lane 2008
"The former Indian Finance Minister, Sitaram Kesri, takes over as Prime Minister of that country next week following the resignation of Indira Gandhi. Mr. Kesri, who is seen by many as formulating the economic policy credited with stopping the runaway depreciation of the Rupee over the past five years is seen as marking a generational shift in the leadership of the Indian National Congress, although only three years the junior of Mrs. Gandhi, Mr. Kersri does demonstrate a reduction in the power of the Gandhi family over Indian politics, which they have controlled since the time of India’s first republican Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru."
-From The Economist: Monday 23rd March 1987
“BLAST IN ISTANBUL KILLS FIFTEEN AS TENSIONS MOUNT
An explosion at a café in Turkey’s largest city yesterday killed more than a dozen people in what is believed to be a terrorist action caused by a Kurdish separatist group. The Kurdistan Worker’s Party, a Marxist terrorist organisation, is believed to have mounted the attack in response to a crackdown by Ankara in the separatist region in the south of the country. Sources in Turkey have claimed that the increased tensions with Greece over territorial waters in the Aegean may have acted as an incentive for the attack given the high level of international attention currently focused on the region. No official statement has been made by either the KWP or the Turkish government regarding responsibility.
The Greek Prime Minister, Andreas Papandreou has made no comment on the terrorist attack and has continued to demand an immediate halt to Turkish shipping entering Greek territorial waters. While conflict between the two nations still appears unlikely, eyewitnesses have claimed that a sizable build-up of armed personnel on Rhodes has occurred over the past week. This, coupled with troop movements in Northern Cyprus can only serve to exacerbate tensions in the region.”
-From The Times: Thursday 2nd April 1987
“DAY: Our next question comes from the gentleman with the red sweatshirt.
MAN: Given the Prime Minister’s comments over the EEC Treaty and taking into account the support given from both the Labour Party and Alliance, who is going to stand up from British interests being sold down the river to Brussels? I can’t see it being our lame duck of a Prime Minister!
[APPLAUSE FROM AUDIENCE]
DAY: European integration; how much is too much? Do you have a response Mr Lamont?
LAMONT: I can assure you sir, that the vast majority of the Tory Party do share your fears. For too long now successive governments have been taking British heritage for granted, and I would not be sitting as a Conservative MP if I did not hold a belief in the integrity of the United Kingdom as a nation state.
DAY: Seeing that a Conservative MP is not willing to back the Government, would another panellist like to? Mr. Smith?
SMITH: Frankly, it is people like Mr. Lamont who demonstrate what a total shambles the Conservative government has become. The Labour position on the EEC is simply that we wish to have the same influence in Europe as France and Germany, that can only come with integration and seizing the initiative in Brussels. Unless we act decisively now, Britain will for ever remain on the periphery on the continent, unloved and unwelcome, rather akin to a person who turns up at a party as Father Christmas only to realise that it is not fancy dress.
[AUDIENCE LAUGHTER]
DAY: Very droll Shadow Chancellor. Mrs. Williams, what is your opinion?
WILLIAMS: Unlike both Labour and the Conservatives, I am happy to state that the Alliance is committed to the principle of European integration, I must admit that I am delighted that senior figures on the opposition support the Treaty of Bruges, however, with figures like Tony Blair giving out the same tabloid-esk comment as Mr. Lamont and the man in the audience, I would happily state that only the Alliance represents a united voice for those Britons who are not xenophobic or anti-capitalist, I group I believe to be a majority voice for the public.
DAY: And your opinion on the matter Rowan Atkinson?
ATKINSON: Well, as I am obviously here to represent light relief, I would rather like to point out that the gentleman up there is perhaps being too kind to the Prime Minister. Rather than a lame duck I would argue that Michael Heseltine represents a shredded duck, the sort you get in a Chinese takeaway represented by the number twenty-seven.
[AUDIENCE LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE]
DAY: Thank you very much. Our next question comes from the woman on the back row…”
"I'm sorry Mrs Williams, but aren't you supposed to be in a different party from Mr Smith now?
-From Question Time: Wednesday 16th April 1987
“I think that we should mount a formal challenge during the conference season Norman. That should give us enough time to develop our campaign over the summer. Heh-heh, lets see how Michael wiggles his way out of that!”
-From a conversation between Michael Portillo and Norman Lamont, cited in “The Middle Path: Britain in the Eighties” Peter Hennessy: Faber and Faber 2010
“In the end, what Michael did was the best option available to him, it was bound to happen at some point and frankly, he made a sensible choice given the nature of the plotting against him.
People said a great deal about Heseltine but he could a very shrewd person.
Well, on a good day at least."
-Former Leader of the Opposition Sir Douglas Hurd in an interview from the recent BBC2 documentary “The European Enigma”
Last edited:
Cool stuff! Hope you can keep it up with Chamberlain also in the works...
"Eurasian President Kasparov"
Hm. If the USSR collapsed as OTL, why not "Russian president"? Did Russia hold onto a few more chunks of the old USSR?
And is that Garry Kasparov...?
Bruce
I have revised this timeline extensively from Mk. I, hence why it has taken me the best part of a year to finally get around to posting again, but the majority of what happened back then will still occur this time around.
With regards to Eurasia, I have to give the Urquhart Response.