New Deal Coalition Retained III: A New World

Just curious: how's gymnastics doing in TTL? Larry Nassar is dead (and good riddance; I was the one who asked he be killed off TTL) but it still had a large abuse problem IOTL (and ITTL) even without Nassar...

As far as sex abuse scandals, Communonationalists have been particularly harsh about this at the state level as far as prosecution, especially Governor Santorum in Pennsylvania. Republicans, per the mold of Ted Bundy, are increasingly not afraid of being "tough on crime and sin" which includes sexual abuse. Not to mention this helps with the female vote against the feminist friendly progs.

Basically, sexual abusers could get death penalty at the worst, and life prison if lenient. It would suck way more than OTL if you got into the "she said she was 18" situation ITL as the result of the legal and cultural environment.

Private orgs and some local governments have services to help sexual deviants (which I think is the nicest way to describe Larry Nassar). Basically a small carrot and big stick approach.

Gymnastics Popularity wise, having tennis be bigger really hurts, since its by far the most successful pro women's sport OTL and a better overall game does squeeze some talent out though both sports require different types of athletes.

That being said, athletics participation is up from OTL, and gymnastics is a great way to exercise, especially for kids, so this will probably balance out with stronger competition for athletes.

Expect the unified German team to dominate the sport internationally, especially with a divided and poor Russia.
Last edited:
FYI the "I'd" in that last post was supposed to be It would, don't know what happened. second and 2d too. never post from my phone lol
As far as sex abuse scandals, Communonationalists have been particularly harsh about this at the state level as far as prosecution, especially Governor Santorum in Pennsylvania. Republicans, per the mold of Ted Bundy, are increasingly not afraid of being "tough on crime and sin" which includes sexual abuse. Not to mention this helps with the female vote against the feminist friendly progs.

Basically, sexual abusers could get death penalty at the worst, and life prison if lenient. It would suck way more than OTL if you got into the "she said she was 18" situation ITL as the result of the legal and cultural environment.

Private orgs and some local governments have services to help sexual deviants (which I think is the nicest way to describe Larry Nassar). Basically a small carrot and big stick approach.

Gymnastics Popularity wise, having tennis be bigger really hurts, since its by far the most successful pro women's sport OTL and a better overall game does squeeze some talent out though both sports require different types of athletes.

That being said, athletics participation is up from OTL, and gymnastics is a great way to exercise, especially for kids, so this will probably balance out with stronger competition for athletes.

Expect the unified German team to dominate the sport internationally, especially with a divided and poor Russia.
I wonder if that sword might be turned ITTL on the nation's chief executive.
I would note that the Progressives, more Rockefellian, Reaganesque Republicans, and Bob Casey Dems are not as big on the tough on crime appoach, preferring a more "smart on crime approach" focusing on reducing the reasons crime emerges, treating addiction (both drugs and sexual) as a disease, promoting community relations with the police, etc.

Also, this is all at the state level so you'll see a whole zoo of policies though they lean to the tough side.

Trying to paint as accurate a picture as possible.
Last edited:
Not to keep harping on this, but I would add that liberal democrats are tough on crime than otl (mirroring communonationalists on sex crimes and ironically like liberal republicans otl (like nelson Rockefeller in New York who inspired Reagan OTL)) as part of the crossover with the more socially conservative dems.

Forgot this key part of the NDCR political spectrum. :hushedface:

Also, look for crime to be an issue in the future...

and an update on the uk under churchill and the 1995 elections will be coming relatively soon. stay tuned.
Saddam and Marianne: the fate of the Middle East

It was undisputed that one of the biggest winners coming out of the Treaty of Warsaw was the Republic of Iraq - a conclusion in the conniving and backstabbing history of President Saddam Hussein. Initially a minor commander in the Iraqi Ba’ath party, he was part of the coup in the early seventies that overthrew the country’s decrepit monarchy, then hoisted himself into absolute power by turning on his fellow party elders. Originally a Soviet ally, he shamelessly courted the United States and secured a lucrative alliance and trade pact in the aftermath of the Iranian Revolution. And now, after Iraq had been devastated in the frontline against the communist horde, he had left Warsaw with the additions of Kuwait, Khuzestan, a crippled Iran, and the puppet regime of Kurdistan (which was created completely on Iranian land). It wasn’t hard to realize why Saddam considered himself blessed by Allah.

The President of Iraq had much to smile about in the years following WWIII.

While the war nearly steamrolled Iraq into a failed state, the acquisition of Kuwait and Khuzestan added to the nation’s own sizable oil reserves. With a rebuilding world hungry for oil - and with the Russian Civil War and South American instability preventing Siberian and Venezuelan petroleum from reaching world markets for years - Iraq never wanted for funds. Quick expenditures to rebuild the wells left it the largest petroleum producer in the world after the United States. By 1992, little remained of the devastation WWIII had brought to Iraq. Billions in oil wealth had been put to good use, creating a top notch infrastructure network, schools, utilities, modernized factories, and public gardens and monuments to beautify the cities (Saddam had stated on multiple occasions that he dreamed of rebuilding the Hanging Gardens of Babylon simply because he could).

However, the Iraqi public was not the main recipient for the largesse, though it did make Saddam one of the most popular leaders in the Middle East. Aside from the immense graft he shifted to himself and his family/loyalists, Saddam’s main pet project was the Iraqi military. Battle hardened and well-trained, the new glut of oil money and spoils of war found it modernized even further. New weaponry was bought from eager American, Japanese, and British defense contractors while oil funds were put to creating a domestic system of factories and industrial towns that could create a native source of weaponry (modeled after Israel; notwithstanding Saddam’s personal dislike of the Jewish state, the two were nominal allies and currently had no disputes). Huge fanfare rocked Baghdad on October 12, 1995 when Saddam oversaw the unveiling of the Nebuchadnezzar main battle tank, an indigenously produced version of the British Cataphract MBT (A/N: the ITTL version of the Chieftain).

Iraq’s military would consistently be the largest in the Middle East, worrying many over the direction of Saddam’s ambitions. Such proved initially puzzling as to the directions of where Saddam wished to expand. Churchill and Iacocca were known to worry about the Iraqis ambitions on their allies in the gulf states, but Iraqi-Jordanian and Iraqi-Saudi relations were warm, lavish gifts presented to the ruling monarchs of said Kingdoms on royal birthdays as a token of good faith and fair dealing. Iran was considered the most likely target early on with large concentrations of the Iraqi military positioned on the nation’s eastern border. Worries about any potential Iranian revanchist sentiment were understandable… but dissipated whenever one looked closer at the Iranian government.

Ali Reza Shah with the Shahbanou at the royal palace in 1993. Understanding the precarious situation Iran found itself in after WWIII, the ambitious new Shah was willing to rule modestly for the time being until the opportunity arose.

Since taking power following the fall of the Tudeh Party, Ali Reza Shah had been ruling a turbulent and sundered country. Inflation was rampant, civil unrest was high, and the economy was largely reliant on Anglo-American aid due to the lack of Khuzestan oil wealth. The various Islamist, socialist, and republican opposition groups had little to go on with the former Shah’s 26-year old second son, and many considered him youthful and indecisive. He would quickly prove them wrong. Relying heavily on his cunning Prime Minister, Eraj Shafae, the Shah utilized the remnants of the military to ruthlessly hunt down the remaining communist and socialist guerrilla fighters remaining in the country. Influential clergy were bought off with lavish gifts and promises to implement certain Islamic moral codes (while Iran remained relatively liberal in comparison to places such as Saudi Arabia and Yemen, to the rest of the world the average Iranian would be seen as rather socially modest). Any attempt to institute limited democracy was shot down by the crown, leading Ali-Reza to be known as the Iron Shah and Shafae as the “Persian Bismarck.”

While the Shah did wish to retake Khuzestan and the rest of the territory lost by the communists in the war, he was not stupid or irrationally revanchist (unlike the Argentine military junta for example). He and Shafae understood that Iran was weak, and would need patience and cunning for the moment, even if that meant letting foreigners walk all over them. Thus, the Shah traveled to Baghdad in April 1994 to mend relations and establish mutual trade. He was received positively by Saddam Hussein, and the trip was considered a success. Seeking a stick as well as a carrot, Iran allowed for a massive Anglo-American naval base at Bandar Abbas, and signed free trade agreements with Churchill in 1996 and Bundy in 1997. While still weak, Iran was on the track to pull itself out of its hole - and thus not seen as a plausible target for Saddam.

No, by the mid-1990s the foreign enemy of the Iraqi President turned out to be France.

A prominent member of the right-wing of the Front Nationale, Foreign Minister Bruno Megret was seen as the architect of the Concordat of Nations and France’s assertive policy on the world stage. Many critics dubbed his views neo-Imperialist.

Under the ambitions of FN leaders Prime Minister Alain Juppe, President and party leader Michel Roquejoffre, and Foreign Minister Bruno Megret, the Fourth Republic sought to assert itself as a world superpower to rival that of the United States. Knowing the limitations of their nation, they combined the resource potential of their former colonies in the French Community with alliances with like-minded nations: Portugal-Brazil, Spain, South Africa, Rhodesia, the Netherlands, Greece, Pakistan, and various others. The new “Concordat of Nations” grew as a powerful alliance bloc within NATO to even eclipse the British Commonwealth in power, and one sphere of influence it flexed its muscles in was the Middle East. The increasing economic integration and mutual partnership between the Concordat states also increased immeasurably, which only strengthened ties [more on this in a future post]. The Treaty of Warsaw ceded Lebanon and Syria back to France as protectorates (they had been after WWI), French and other Concordat soldiers on the ground to ensure the security of the allied governments there. Thus bringing conflict with Saddam Hussein.

As cunning as a jackal - and advised by other cunning jackals such as Tariq Aziz, son-in-law Hussein Kamal, and his son and heir Qusay - Saddam could spot the weak link in his neighbors. While the Christian and Shiite populations in Lebanon (oppressed by the Syrians during their longtime occupation of the country) were very loyal to France, the largely Sunni population of Syria wasn’t, and resented the European occupiers. A situation that Saddam and director of the Amn-al-Khass security agency Hussein Kamel were happy to exploit.

Anti-French rally in Damascus. Opponents of the puppet Syrian government viewed Saddam as a potential liberator, “a sword of the Prophet’s will rather than a tool of the crusaders” according to one protest leader.
In 1995, riots and demonstrations rocked the major Syrian cities. Anti-corruption and economic conditions were the stated reasons - the pro-French Syrian government of George Sabra was hopelessly corrupt - but French intelligence quickly informed Paris that signs pointed to significant funding from the Iraqi security services. Organic though it mostly was, the Iraqi government was behind the timing and initial organization, the message quickly turning into vociferous anti-French and anti-Christian rhetoric. Saddam and his government were hailed as Islamic heroes, many proclaiming him a Caliph reborn to drive the infidels out of the entire Middle East (ironic, since Saddam confidant Tariq Aziz was Christian).

While not going as far as that, Saddam milked the image for all that it was worth. Going to Mecca for a Hajj in 1996, he very publicly declared the French were “Seeking to do what the Soviet devils couldn’t” in driving Islam from the Levant, in reference to Juppe’s decision to send three additional divisions to Syria to quell the unrest. The desert border with Syria was fortified greatly, and increased pressure was made internally to eliminate domestic threats - while policy for Iranian Shiites in Khuzestan and Iraqi Kurds to emigrate to Iran and Kurdistan respectively was entirely voluntary, Amn-al-Khass was known to give an extra ‘incentive’ to pressure them to emigrate. The Concordat responded by sending an entire Corps of French troops and two Dutch Armored divisions to Syria, beginning a tense staredown.

That Saddam would secretly visit Belgrade, Kampala, Buenos Aires, Beijing, and most importantly New Delhi in December 1996 did not bode well for the tension in the Middle East.
Sorry, completely forgot to comment on this.

Nice update. Gotta give Saddam credit for his politicking and power building. Didn't expect the tensions with France, so that's something. And I see we have another power bloc forming.
One must wonder what the other powers in the world are thinking of this entire affair.
The US, UK, and various other powers have four options ahead of them:
  1. Stay neutral—this probably won't draw the ire of either France or Iraq (at least not too much), but it also possesses a certain risk of things escalating out of control, especially in the rather precarious post-war environment and with a stark possibility of terrorism against France should Saddam find a way to maintain plausible deniability
  2. Side with Iraq—great for boosting their credibility among the Islamic world and would probably, but would risk alienating France and legitimizing Saddam's antics, not to mention the fact that France was granted these territories by the Treaty of Warsaw; also could result in a certain legitimizing of terrorism should events transpire that way
  3. Side with France—adherence to the Treaty of Warsaw and solidify France's position in the Western bloc, but would draw the ire of Iraq (a vital oil producing nation), much of the Middle East, and opens up the risk of Islamic terrorist attacks on other western countries besides France.
  4. Intervene with an international peacekeeping force—could be seen as the most multilateral thing to do and thus mitigate potential Middle East criticism (sort of like how the Suez Canal crisis ended when UN troops moved in), but the status quo thus favors France and there is a risk of the peacekeepers being caught in the middle of a crossfire and even sparking another conflict.
Time Magazine Person of the Year

1957- Nikita Khrushchev
1958- Gamal Abdel Nasser
1959- Dwight D. Eisenhower
1960- Georges Bidault
1961- Richard Nixon
1962- Che Guevara
1963- Martin Luther King Jr. and Richard Nixon
1964- Nelson Rockefeller
1965- Nguyen Ngoc Tho
1966- Youth (representing the counterculture and student protests)
1967- The Peacemakers Iain Macleod, Levi Eshkol, and King Hussein; and John F. Kennedy and Alexander Dubcek
1968- Vladimir Semichastny
1969- The Ascendant: Harrison Schmitt, Michael Collins, and Fred Haise
1970- George Wallace
1971- Menachem Begin
1972- Yukio Mishima, Indira Gandhi, and Jiang Qing (for charging a new course in Asia)
1973- Alexander Haig
1974- The Radical (Representing the SLA, Weather Underground, Rotkampferbund, and other leftist terrorist groups)
1975- Alvaro Cunhal
1976- Ronald Reagan
1977- Helmut Schmidt
1978- The "Entebbe Four" Idi Amin, Mobuto Sese Seko, Jonas Savimbi, and Barack Obama Sr.
1979- Pope Leo XIV
1980- Ronald Reagan and Huber Matos
1981- Andries Treurnicht
1982- The Bull Moose
1983- Jacques Cousteu
1984 - Donald Rumsfeld
1985- Alexander Yakovlev
1986- Lech Walesa
1987- The Soviet Coup Plotters
1988- Gerhard Frey and Kaiser Georg
1989- The Warring Leaders: Donald Rumsfeld and Vladimir Kryuchkov
1990- Commanders: Colin Powell, Augusto Pinochet, Ernst Kruse, and Boris Gromov
1991- The Allied Fighting Man
1992- Marburg Virus
1993- Lee Iacocca
1994- Sanjay Gandhi
1995- The New Portugal: Kaulza I, Carlos Alberto Brilhante Ustra, Goncalo Telles, and Jair Bolsonaro
1996- Ted Bundy
Last edited:

1992-1997 UK Update+ 1995 UK Elections

Churchill the Younger worked to finally whit away at the “Nationalized State”, partially the love child of Foreign Secretary, Margaret Thatcher, who would famously “crossover” into economic affairs. Crossman, while a Laborite, had already privatized British Telecoms and British Sugar in the early 1980’s. “Mad Mitchell” had privatized British Airways, in order to fund military spending, his only notable economic reform for a ministry defined by foreign affairs outside the country. Churchill wanted to establish an economic legacy that would be just as permanent as his father’s foreign legacy. So he finished the job those before him started.

Churchill would sell privatization as “building upon the immediate post-war success”. He said, “when times are good, one must prepare for bad times”. Moreover, inflation was a key issue in the post-war environment, as it was elsewhere, and privatization was seen as the key cure. The economy was still growing, but there was fear of it overheating.

Churchill would begin by ending British involvement in the lorry industry outside of key export subsidies, a compromise with the “one-nationers” he would regret in trade agreements later.

Unlike American Conservatives, Churchill would also focus on reducing taxation, especially the VAT by 5%. While the right wing of the party preferred the VAT, which taxed spending, over a tax on income, Churchill knew that the VAT was a “tax paid by everyone” and wanted to ensure, “everyone got a tax cut” as a way to get the moderates to agree to the “essential nature” of the tax cut, although income taxes would also be slashed by 15%. The budget looked to be a bit off kilter, and thus Churchill would then move undo what he called “The Big Two: Council Houses and Steel”.

Churchill wanted to build a culture of homeownership in the UK, resembling that of the United States. Moreover, he wanted the new neighborhoods built at great expense post-war to remain something the UK to proud of. He felt that through homeownership, a sense of community and self-worth would be instilled into middle income Britons. He also felt that if given something property and land to conserve and defend, more voters would pull for the Tories. Moreover, a recent report had found cases of corruption in the lower end of the council house business.

Churchill would pass the 1994 Housing Act. This act allowed tenants who owned their houses for two years to buy their houses at a 35% discount of market prices and a 45% discount for a flat. Tenants of over 15 years received a 51% discount. Moreover, council houses would now be the property of designated non-profit housing associations, not the government. These organizations were allowed to receive private financing. Their tenants would also be moved to the “right to buy” scheme. Certain standards would be set to set overcrowding as a criminal offense as many unscrupulous people had been abusing the system post-war.

These privatizations created a nation of shareholders and NGO’s (the housing associations) and credited for inspiring Bundy, though Bundy would point more towards Bob Dole.

Churchill discussing his economic reforms, and their relationship to Bundy’s policies, with ABC News

Churchill would continue by privatizing British Steel. British steel had been losing money steadily, and was approaching complete disaster. Churchill would sell all of the government’s steel holdings and move towards complete privatization. The unions, fearful for their jobs, would roar in protest with a series of marches. However, England had just watched America break down in labour strikes, leading to the start of a trade war. Churchill would pound that the UK “was better than the damned cowboys, gangsters, and hoodlums”. After a two days of protests, Churchill threatened to bring in new workers, even famously busing in the unemployed outside the gates to steel mills. While Labour Governments had whittled away at the early 70’s labour restrictions, labour still was not as powerful as in the past, and both sides knew they would lose with escalation.

The economy started to get going again, as demand for steel from the United States suddenly rose on the back of announced French export quotas leading to investors publicly announcing that if privatized, more furnaces would open. The steel unions, confident employment would be steady, called off the strikes as Churchill promised he would not “fight a stupid trade war” and would slow down liberalization for a while.

However, Churchill’s rapid moves scared some. When ideas of privatization of Petroleum, Railways, and Coal came, many moderates were fearful of further union unrest (which had been avoided outside for the steel strikes) and Churchill had to either move on or stand down on them in cabinet meetings. Churchill was forceful, but feared that if he did too much, all the gains would be lost.

When Canada abandoned the trade deal just negotiated a couple years previously by Churchill, under the NDP government, and an Indian trade agreement fell apart, Churchill looked in a bit of a rut, although he had secured access to Ukrainian wheat and beet sugar through an FTA. Churchill promised he would focus on trade, after selling off government control of all UK airports (most had been sold off by Crossman and Mitchell to fund military spending leaving a few northern airports) a minor move supported even by the liberal party.

Churchill would then travel to Japan to secure an FTA. He would personally greet the Emperor, in a moment of great fanfare. They would start the trip with a quiet dinner between the two leaders. Churchill hoped to seal a cultural bond between Japan and Great Britain, one that had been ruptured by the second world war, but could very much grow again between the two island nations.


[A/N: British commonwealth dominions are covered by these trade arrangements. Especially important in the far east with Japan. Reminder from earlier ITL.

· Hong Kong
· Singapore
· Honduras
· Aden
· Guiana
· Gambia
· Malta
· North Borneo
· Mauritius]

However, on the trip back to the UK Churchill fell ill, and after being bedridden for two weeks, announced he would call for another election later that year, and resign after the results. Many believed that the war and post-war recovery, while both excellent, had drained him. While popular, the old grandees and landowners of the One-Nation faction disliked him. They united around the candidacy of Foreign Minister Michael Heseltine. The Monday Club tories put up Margaret Thatcher, but she was getting long in the tooth. Churchill, acknowledging that winning another election would be difficult, decided against putting up much of a fight, after securing a promise (at the threat of a no-confidence vote), that a Heseltine government would not reverse any of Churchill’s more liberal (in the European sense of the term) economic initiatives (Heseltine was even an evangelist for the Right to Buy scheme, all the better).

While only PM for a short while, Churchill built a legacy worthy of the family name.

Meanwhile, Labour was relieved that they would not have to run against a Churchill.

Roy Mason would campaign as the defender of industry, labour, and the coal mines. Mason also wanted to exploit the recent North Sea oil discoveries [ITL WWIII delays north sea oil exploitation]. He also made an enemy out of India, a rising world power, specifically focusing on the Indian Scooters that had become ubiquitous in the richer neighborhoods of London, railing against cheap Indian labor flooding the market with knockoffs of British products. (This was part of a modernization initiative from India, and these industries helped advance a growing middle class).

His slogan went, “Mason, friend of the miners, tough on cheaters.”

The Liberals saw the anti-Indian and pro-industry focus of Labor, and the “Churchillite ”Liberty Conservative Imperialist” nature of the Conservatives, and saw an opening. They chose to “elect the defector”, Tony Blair. While many long-time liberals disliked the move, many saw his “immense electoral potential”.

Newly minted Liberal, Tony Blair saw that privatization was relatively popular amongst the wealthy, but socially progressive, liberal constituencies in certain areas. He would “walk the line” on privatization by defending the cuts already made, but rejecting further cuts that would ”lead to instability”. This balancing act would allow the liberals to remain competitive in Scotland, although Wales looked like a lost cause as Roy rallied the miners. Tony Blair campaigned against trident, for integration with Europe, social liberalism, and moderate economics. The liberals also stood for closer relations with Europe, as both Churchill and Roy Mason “distrusted the Continent”. Moreover, Blair was younger and had more “personality” than “Churchill the Younger” and “Uncle Roy”.

The New Face of the Liberal Party

A final twist to the election came on the night before the elections. Michael Heseltine was caught in a car accident in which he hit a cyclist. He had been speeding, apparently as he was to show up at an event that day and was running late. While he had already done a poor job of defending Churchill’s record, an increasingly strong economy (especially given world conditions) was thought to be the key to what many saw as a potential Tory upset, especially after (untrue) rumors came out that he had been drunk. However, these accusations, which would be proven to be wrong later on, wouldn’t primarily benefit the “rough and tumble” ex-coal miner Mason, but the young, handsome, and “goodie two shoes” Tony Blair.

[Wikibox: Roy Mason defeats Conservative Michael Heseltine

and Liberal Tony Blair but is forced to have an alliance with Blair.]

Previous 1992 results: Tories (Churchill) 326 Labour (Mason) 262 Liberals (Paddy Ashdown) 55

297 Labour (Roy Mason) 91 Liberals (Tony Blair) (Lab-Lib Coalition) 272 Tories (Michael Heseltine) 330 seats needed for a majority

When election night came, what everyone had come to fear, came to be. A hung parliament. Many believe that if there was no last minute surprise, Mason or Heseltine would have won outright, but we will never know.

Thankfully, Mason and Blair had been prepared to work together and a deal was hatched. The liberals would accept 4 appointments in the Cabinet, and a few key policy concessions.

The Tories, meanwhile, were shocked at the pre-election night surprise, but happy that even with such accusations they had forced a hung parliament, and moved on, with the exceptions of the One-Nation faction, who had lost a great leader, but the Josephites and Churchillites also needed help.

Firstly, no industries were to be re-nationalized. Blair did not "lust for privatization" like Thatcher or Churchill, but didn’t believe “going back would do any good” as far as other nationalizations Roy Mason might have had in mind.

Secondly, Roy Mason would continue negotiations with Germany and begin negotiations with the Kalmar Union, over trade and work towards an arrangement, regardless of his Euroscepticism.

Thirdly, The Scots would receive greater autonomy regarding “social laws”.

The Liberals would agree not to “interfere” in much else. Roy Mason, seeing that maybe this would be the way forward, agreed.

Roy Mason accepted that major new nationalization would not occur. However, he decided instead to “double down” on the nationalized energy industries. He wanted to make them modern and competitive. He asked for massive increases in state-controlled research in these industries, to make them more useful and successful long term. British coal transport became safer and swifter under Mason’s leadership. Moreover, wages for workers would increase by 10% and pensions by 5%, as the unions demanded. Both would occur. Moreover, the various mines and nuclear plants would be established into the Ministry of Coal and Nuclear Power. This centralization would streamline the bureaucracy without “cutting into the working stiff”. Moreover, more pits would be opened up and new nuclear plants built, which would decrease energy costs. These new expenses would be paid for by devaluing the pound sterling by printing more money and increases to the inheritance tax. France, Japan, and the US would protest this currency manipulation but refused to start a currency war, especially as they wanted to focus on punishing India for its long-time poor behavior.

Roy Mason forced the UK become the exclusive outside coal supplier for the Nordic Union, thanks to promises of good worker treatment, in return for opening up fish markets in the UK and increased immigration and education rights. In addition, British Petroleum gained rights to previously unknown North Sea oil, even in Norwegian territory, in return for a cheap deal on forty British-made cargo ships (there being a shortage post-war), eight submarines (two for each member of the union), and other military equipment (small arms and ammunition).

The Miners with “Uncle Roy”, their best friend

British Coal Mines experienced a renaissance thanks to “their good friend Roy”. Meanwhile, the “North Sea Swindle” as it would be termed in the Norway, lead to a Northern Oil Boom. However, those industries that Labour had “avoided”-British Telecoms, Airways and Steel, had also benefited, and voters disliked the idea of nationalizing them as well, especially in such good times. Moreover, some would criticize Labour for turning the United Kingdom into a commodity focused economy and even a “PetroState”. Fees would be cut, nationalized industries support (e.g. new rail tracks would be laid), and welfare payment of the disabled raised, thanks to money from the Nationalized Oil Industry. Tories and Laborites would fight on who had achieved more, and on where to go, which would make for great television, while the liberals would take credit for “keeping both sides in line”.

Roy Mason would also attack India as a currency manipulator. India had been steadily devaluing their currency, even during their economic growth rapid economic growth. Combined with subsidies, cheap Indian products had begun to food the British markets while British products and services were denied entry by the Indian Government. Churchill had tried to negotiate a fair trade agreement with India that would grant greater access to British firms, but failed miserably.

Roy Mason would work with his fellow Commonwealth leaders in 1997, and officially announce a united 5% tariff on all Indian goods that would be in retaliation for their currency manipulation. Mason was even able to get the tariff-hating Bundy regime to follow this policy. Sanjay Gandhi's India would be increasingly squeezed and punished for its “bad behavior”. This made Sanjay very unhappy, but didn't hurt relations too much and Mason was also credited for preserving British Jobs. Eventually, by the end of the year India would allow their currency to increase in value over the following months to a natural level. Mason had "kept India from breaking the rules” and won a massive moral victory in favor of the British Spirit and economic victory in favor of the common laborer. While the Liberals disliked the tariffs, Mason's embrace of the Kalmar Union, unusual for a Euroskeptic like himself, won Tony Blair (a Europhile) over.

Roy Mason, leader of the British Empire, admiring an air show at what looked like the height of his power.
Last edited: