Mortar shells over Downing St

The Tories still had a solid majority at this point, even factoring in cabinet loses (which would probably have been filled with new Tory members pretty quickly through by-elections anyway.) - we're talking about the 1987 parliament, not post-1992. I don't really see any need for an immediate general election at all, nor a 'national' government. We've had substantial terrorist atrocities before and on the whole we've just sailed on as normal for the most part, electorally/politically speaking.

Tosh

February 1991 - the Conservative government are deeply unpopular and the country is teetering on the edge of Recession. Although Thatcher is gone, most of her supporters are still about in government, if not in the cabinet then in junior ministerial posts and it wasn't until 1997 that most of them are cleared out.

Suddenly the IRA fire mortars at Downing Street on 7th February, hit the cabinet meeting and Major is killed whilst several cabinet ministers are injured, some seriously. At once COBRA swings into action, sealing off the surviving MPs. It isn't clear who is in charge but "constitutionally", the Lord Chancellor Baron Mackay, takes nominal leadership until the Conservative party members can elect one of their own to become leader. This has to be done PDQ as the UK are members of the coalition fighting Iraqi occupation forces in the Gulf War.

Eventually, it is decided that Douglas Hurd should be appointed as PM - although he finished third in the race to succeed Thatcher, he is a more palatable choice than Heseltine who has been suffering from a dodgy heart for some time and was quietly being briefed against in Central Office. Hurd has been doing a lot of work behind the scenes in the run up to Operation Desert Storm and is generally seen as a safe pair of hands. It is being examined whether the IRA and Saddam have any links.

Britain cannot particularly afford to be fighting both in the Gulf and against the IRA at home and the both the army regulars and the TA are somewhat stretched so Bush negotiates to send US troops to help police Ulster for the time being. Massive internment is implemented - at least as long as the Allies are pounding Iraqi positions and the province is locked up tight.

Although Bush declared a ceasefire 4 days after the start of the ground campaign, Hurd is successful in persuading the President that the Iraqis should not be allowed to use military helicopters as it's clear revolt is about to break out and this is the best chance for indigenous regime change rather than one forced by the coaliton which could make a martyr of Hussein. Instead the revolt should be backed by the Allies which would probably see the Generals overthrow Hussein, negotiate with the rebels and the coalition and put the country back together again. This is precisely what happens and the coalition take care of Iraqi security whilst rebuilding the nation, keeping it together but allowing more autonomy in the north and south of the country, turning it into a Federal Republic.

Domestically, the war is won although the IRA are at large in the UK. Fortunately Bush who is shaken by the assassination of the British Prime Minister (and is predominantly English in ancestry) decides to take measures to stop IRA fundraising activities in the USA and suspend bank accounts. It has been known for a while that Libya has been training IRA terrorists and ways are being sought to stop this too although this won't come to fruition until the Iraq mess is resolved. The US units have been very successful in peace keeping actions although Ian Paisley's DUP haven't been too welcoming given his particular anti-American stance. It's decided to keep the Americans in Ulster in exchange for greater British commitments abroad to counter-balance the two. This leads to further charges of colonialism in reverse in the more left-wing media and Spitting Image get a second number one in the charts with "In the UK of A" which was a hit in a 1990 episode of the show.

Kinnock decides that the time is right for an attack. Although recent events have quelled party politics for the time being, there has to be an election within the next twelve months. Before Major's demise, he thought Labour were a shoe-in, what with the 1987 crash, recession, unemployment, the Poll Tax and general Tory nepotism but with Hurd at the reigns, he cannot afford to be complacent. The 1991 Labour Party conference is very slick, professional and authoratitive. Some more exuberant party members wanted to play Queen's "We Are The Champions" but were quickly derided by Kinnock's team who wanted to keep the event high profile and serious - these were serious times and didn't need such friviolity.

In a move that helped win the election for Bill Clinton a year later, the theme of the Labour campaign now that the policy battles had been won was that of the economy and taxation. The Labour party lambasted the failures of the Conservatives time and time again. The manifesto wasn't as austere as it could have been although the abolition of the Poll Tax was at the top of the agenda together the promise to abolish Clause IV of the party's constitution emphasising social democracy rather than wholesale public ownership.

In contrast, Hurd could hardly point to military success in the Gulf with the paramilitary assassination of his predecessor. There wasn't even peace in Northern Ireland as all sides refused to sit around a negotiation table although there was clear evidence that the American financial moves were hurting the IRA and all the other groups in Ulster. The economy underwent a small period of growth in the aftermath of the Iraq campaign but the electorate had long memories and Hurd knew his days were numbered, the object of the Conservative campaign was to minimise losses.

Also there was a brief war in Yugoslavia when Croatia and Slovenia declared independence. Yugoslav troops marched in to restore order but the EU managed to broker a ceasefire after ten days. Shortly after this, the Warsaw Pact was dissolved and in August, the USSR fell to bits after an attempted coup on Gorbachev. Change was in the air and the British people weren't immune to it.

The election was called for November 1991 in order to capitalise on whatever goodwill there was left from the Gulf War. Election day was a very quiet one and the newspapers were quite mute about it, even the Sun wasn't screaming at its readers to vote Conservative because the Labour Party manifesto actually looked a decent read. The results were a comfortable 40 seat majority for the Labour Party and Neil Kinnock became Prime Minister. The first job on his table - peacekeeping operations in Yugoslavia. The UK are somewhat obligated to take the lead on this given the deal between Bush and Hurd.
 
The Tories still had a solid majority at this point, even factoring in cabinet loses (which would probably have been filled with new Tory members pretty quickly through by-elections anyway.) - we're talking about the 1987 parliament, not post-1992. I don't really see any need for an immediate general election at all, nor a 'national' government. We've had substantial terrorist atrocities before and on the whole we've just sailed on as normal for the most part, electorally/politically speaking.

Yes, if there cabinet members killed still leave the Conservative Parliamentary party with a majority there certainly wouldn't be a 'national' government. But there would still be overwhelming pressure for a General Election within the year.

I think Ljofa's suggestion that Douglas Hurd would be elected by the Tory MPs as their leader is an excellent one.
 
The Conservative leadership election would have to be called very quickly. People would still be in shock. I suspect that the mood of both the country and the Conservative Party would have shifted way right. If it were not Thatcher it would have been an identifiably right wing candidate.

I also think that the shock of such an event would give the tories a big advantage in the General election which they would call as early as they could decently get away with.
 
Bush

Britain cannot particularly afford to be fighting both in the Gulf and against the IRA at home and the both the army regulars and the TA are somewhat stretched so Bush negotiates to send US troops to help police Ulster for the time being.

As an American and an Irish-American at that I can not see Bush deploying troops in N. Ireland. The chances of that happening are practically nonexistent. For one thing, short of WWIII they wouldn't have any authority in another Nato country. That would be like the British or the French deploying troops to the south during the riots in the 60's. Not going to happen.
 
The Conservative leadership election would have to be called very quickly. People would still be in shock. I suspect that the mood of both the country and the Conservative Party would have shifted way right. If it were not Thatcher it would have been an identifiably right wing candidate.

I also think that the shock of such an event would give the tories a big advantage in the General election which they would call as early as they could decently get away with.

Just because a Prime Minister is martyred doesn't mean that their party will necessarily win the election. The Madrid bombings in 2004 complete swung the election the other way for the Spanish. Winning WW2 didn't work for the Conservatives under Churchill - he was turfed out within a month of peace against Germany. Johnson didn't win in 64 because Kennedy was martyred, he won because Goldwater ran such a hopeless campaign.

Why would a political party win an election on security issues when it can't even guarantee the safety of its own leader? No, any interim leader would be precisely that as Margaret Beckett was in 1994 whilst the rest of the party rallies behind who they want as the next leader in smoke filled rooms.
 
As an American and an Irish-American at that I can not see Bush deploying troops in N. Ireland. The chances of that happening are practically nonexistent. For one thing, short of WWIII they wouldn't have any authority in another Nato country. That would be like the British or the French deploying troops to the south during the riots in the 60's. Not going to happen.

Bush wouldn't unilaterally deploy troops in Northern Ireland but as the US army is over a million strong and the British have been scraping it's German and Cypriot bases for more Gulf-bound troope, the USA has excess capacity and the UK Government could quite easily ask Bush to lend 10,000 in a peace keeping role.

Paramilitary organisations would think twice about blowing up and shooting up troops from a country that provides a lot of financial support.
 
@ljofa: Yes, but in Spain there was also the problem that prime minister Aznar tried to pin the blame for the train bombings on the ETA, which soon was proven to be wrong. If he hadn't lied: Maybe he could've won the election?
 
Partially - and it was also felt that his support for the second Gulf War (or whatever it's name is) led directly to the carnage hence why so many of his supporters suddenly switched to the Socialists who were on course to lose the election that year.
 
Britain cannot particularly afford to be fighting both in the Gulf and against the IRA at home and the both the army regulars and the TA are somewhat stretched so Bush negotiates to send US troops to help police Ulster for the time being. Massive internment is implemented - at least as long as the Allies are pounding Iraqi positions and the province is locked up tight.

No way. The IRA would have just won a propaganda coup (in their eyes), but the reality in Northern Ireland is there are more than enough troops and police to keep control. Internment will not be implemented unless the Republic of Ireland does too. NI-only Internment in the 70's was widely acknowledged to be a failure - and British governments do not usually repeat the same mistake twice (unless it's short-changing the armed forces:mad:).

US troops are not going to be policing Northern Ireland. Not only will they have no understanding of the situation, they'll be a red flag to most Loyalists. Trumping this, no PM would ever want to answer questions in the house about US troops gunning down British Citizens in the UK.

Domestically, the war is won although the IRA are at large in the UK. Fortunately Bush who is shaken by the assassination of the British Prime Minister (and is predominantly English in ancestry) decides to take measures to stop IRA fundraising activities in the USA and suspend bank accounts. It has been known for a while that Libya has been training IRA terrorists and ways are being sought to stop this too although this won't come to fruition until the Iraq mess is resolved.

What's your point? The IRA were always 'at large' in the UK. These are just small active service units. Special Branch and the Intelligence Services will continue to be on their case and will manage to limit their activities.

The US units have been very successful in peace keeping actions although Ian Paisley's DUP haven't been too welcoming given his particular anti-American stance. It's decided to keep the Americans in Ulster in exchange for greater British commitments abroad to counter-balance the two. This leads to further charges of colonialism in reverse in the more left-wing media and Spitting Image get a second number one in the charts with "In the UK of A" which was a hit in a 1990 episode of the show.

I doubt the US units would be very successful in peacekeeping actions. Once people start getting shot dead by US troops then it's open season on the US Army.

Kinnock decides that the time is right for an attack.

If he does that then he blows it for the Labour Party for a good while. The population will see him as siding with the IRA, letting them get what they want.

A goverment of national unity might be on the cards. Labour may have to tone down their 'United Ireland' policies.[/quote]


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldawg85
As an American and an Irish-American at that I can not see Bush deploying troops in N. Ireland. The chances of that happening are practically nonexistent. For one thing, short of WWIII they wouldn't have any authority in another Nato country. That would be like the British or the French deploying troops to the south during the riots in the 60's. Not going to happen.

Bush wouldn't unilaterally deploy troops in Northern Ireland but as the US army is over a million strong and the British have been scraping it's German and Cypriot bases for more Gulf-bound troope, the USA has excess capacity and the UK Government could quite easily ask Bush to lend 10,000 in a peace keeping role.

Paramilitary organisations would think twice about blowing up and shooting up troops from a country that provides a lot of financial support.

Why do you think the garrison in Northern Ireland has been run down? The UK always had to keep enough troops in NI to ensure they could maintain law and order.

As for terrorists refraining from attacking US troops; first - the Loyalists don't have much support coming from the US; second once the first rioter/terrorist/person in the wrong place at the wrong time is shot dead - all bets are off. The IRA, UVF, INLA et al have to respond to the moods of their communities. If the mood is 'Those B*&%$£ds shot Joe Murphy dead in the street' then US troops are going to catch hell.

Starviking
 

Fanciful in many respects. Politically, the main problem is that you're terribly underestimating the 'khaki' factors which would have been in play; particularly in the hypothetical arrival of Hurd (Who was a pronounced member of the centre/left of the party and would probably have been the last person Tory MP's would have turned to in a security crisis - or as Thatcher herself might have said, "This is no time to go wobbly".) and Kinnock's 'exploitation' of the situation. I don't think the assasination of a PM would have ground normal politics to a halt, but it would also have demanded some restraint of the sort we saw in the run up to the most recent Iraq war, which would have hurt Labour. I also don't see any substantive reason for believing that Labour would have made a better go of domestic issues here than they did in 1992. Indeed, Labour pretty much lost 1992 on the economy as being seen too much in the mould of 'tax-and-spend'. You don't seem to illustrate clearly why there is (or should be) a different approach in your scenario.

You're also woefully underestimating the 'bounce' which the Tories recieved after they jetisoned Thatcher, and which would in all likelihood have been more pronounced if Major had died a martyr. Pre-removal, the polls looked vaguely like: Con 36%, Lab 47%, Liberals 10%. Post-removal, just a month or two later, (I.E, The time we're talking about) they looked more like: Con 46%, Lab 40%, Liberals more or less the same. If anyone looked likely to win a snap election, it was the Tories. I can't see any possible reason, other than wishful thinking, for believing that an event like the one outlined would have made that less likely.

The Tories couldn't have gone on to win the 1992 election had it not been for the dumping of Thatcher - and we may view this counterfactual as a kind of Thatcher II. The main problem here, for the Tories, is that a security crisis of the nature outlined would have likely resulted in the arrival of a man who was not as personally sympathetic as Major and may have been truer to Thatcher in tone and actions than he was; but that may not have manifested itself fully before an election and may even have been a boost in a time of percieved emergency.

Oh, and one more thing: Contrary to what you appear to believe, the Poll Tax issue had already been effectively neutralised as soon as Major came to office, as he appointed Heseltine - as Environment Secretary, curiously enough - as the man set with abolishing it. (Which Heseltine made public reasonably quickly.) By the '92 election it was already gone in law if not in implementation. I can't see this process being significantly derailed even if Major went - certainly not if replaced by Hurd, as in your scenario - as it was such an obvious election-wreaking issue that by the end only Thatcher was still convinced of it's merits. (And still is, strangely enough. According to her, it simply wasn't given enough time to work properly...)
 
Last edited:
I'm not underestimating the khaki factors, I don't think that they'll come into play in this scenario. I remember what happened in the UK after the Gulf War was over, we all carried on as normal. A martyred PM might elicit sympathy but I doubt whether that will necessarily translate into an automatic electoral victory. When Olof Palme in Sweden was shot in 1986, his party didn't win the next election.

And Starviking - I note many of your criticisms as valid but at least half of them are non-sensical. How does Neil Kinnock going on the political offensive translate as being seen as pro-IRA?
 

zarkov

Banned
The end on John Major, a sad story but none the less it changes things for the worse, it all depends on who you are. Well let's start with the Conservative party, they have lost a leader, he will be missed but they will have anew prime minister. Also in the longer term, we may see a resurgent Conservative party but evanually they ill fall out of power. Two things will be their downfall, sleaze and the IRA.

Now as for the IRA, in the short term they have scored a propaganda coup with their people, they can strike anywhere. Howevr, in the long term they are going to lose more support and evanually the MI5 and the CIA secret services will crack them down. Then all hell will break lose. As for labour, well they have some advantages and disadvantages.

Labour will have to upport the conservatives security measures in the short term. However, as time goes on and the measures start to crack down on civil rights, then the Labour party will have the amunition to fire at the Conservatives and gain support.

In the end when all is said and done, there is a labour governmet that will still get in evanually. Here's a question, how will this affect the peace process in Ireland ?
 
I'm not underestimating the khaki factors, I don't think that they'll come into play in this scenario. I remember what happened in the UK after the Gulf War was over, we all carried on as normal. A martyred PM might elicit sympathy but I doubt whether that will necessarily translate into an automatic electoral victory. When Olof Palme in Sweden was shot in 1986, his party didn't win the next election.

And Starviking - I note many of your criticisms as valid but at least half of them are non-sensical. How does Neil Kinnock going on the political offensive translate as being seen as pro-IRA?

The IRA kill the PM. Kinnock thinks "They've been weakened by the loss of John Major" and goes on the offensive.

The public might see this as showing a lack of solidarity at the least, or working to the same goals as the enemy at worst. Don't forget that the Labour Party wanted a United Ireland at the time, so does the IRA.

Starviking
 
I'm not underestimating the khaki factors, I don't think that they'll come into play in this scenario.

The Gulf War - or even the 1945 situation - is not really comparable to this situation. There is a grave internal threat from a co-ordinated terrorist group here which has been successful in claiming the life of the elected Head of Government. Even the Olof Palme murder is not comparable because, as far as anyone knows - or at least, knew at the time - Palme was just murdered, possibly by a random madman. There was no overarching political/security struggle behind that, which you have here.

A martyred PM might elicit sympathy but I doubt whether that will necessarily translate into an automatic electoral victory.

So why would it translate into an automatic victory for Labour, as you contend? All you outlined above was something along the lines of ".... blah domestic issues, Labour win", which is a rather perculiar line of reasoning, since Labour lost the 1992 election precisely on domestic issues, which they were widely seen as being incompetent on.

How does Neil Kinnock going on the political offensive translate as being seen as pro-IRA?

You're working on your own perceptions here, which, while quite correct objectively, would not be shared by the gutter press or even most people in general. Nobody is saying that Kinnock would neccessarily be actually supporting the IRA if he did that - but that is most certainly what it would be capitalised as by his opponents. (And I think that it would work, too.)
 
Top