The Anglo-Saxon Social Model

[Rattigan]

Representing the World's Citizens? Democratic Politics in the Commonwealth Assembly


Since the introduction of elections to the Commonwealth Assembly, the organisation had diluted the number of AMs given to each member state to accommodate new members, although each time ensuring that the Big Four had the largest, and equal, shares. Further elections were held in 1967, 1974 and 1981 and, in each case, the Socialists used their superior organisation and campaigning skills to secure the largest number of seats. The Socialists had governed in an informal alliance with the Liberals and Democrats without much controversy under the long speakership of the Socialist Tony Crosland (1962-1981), with the Assembly as a whole remaining a relatively dry and technical body. When Crosland announced that he would be stepping down following the 1981 elections, the Socialists went into them with Michael Manley, the former West Indian prime minister, as their Speaker-designate. Following the elections in 1981, Manley had managed his speakership in an alliance between his Socialists and the Green grouping lead by Enos Nkala.

During his tenure, Manley was vigorous in his assertion that the number of AMs should be apportioned according to population sizes and this campaign took on a force of its own and survived the announcement that Manley would be leaving the Assembly in 1988 to return to domestic politics. In 1985, the Armstrong Report had published a series of proposals for altering the make-up of the Assembly, including expanding the number of AMs from 410 to 525, reducing the number of AMs allocated to some countries and increasing the number allocated to others. After discussion at a Prime Minister’s conference in early 1986, agreement was eventually made on what became known as the Treaty of Auckland.

While the Auckland Treaty agreed to hold Commonwealth elections in 1988, on schedule, and with the AM proportionality suggested in the Armstrong Report, it contained a number of provisions to reserve power for the Commonwealth Cabinet and the member states’ governments. In particular, the Cabinet’s power to veto regulations passed by the Assembly were strengthened, as was the power of the prime ministers to conduct diplomacy, geopolitics and oversight of the Bank of England, the Asset Management Agency and the Financial Stability Fund. In addition, the treaty agreed to allow each member state to decide the methods by which AMs would be elected. Popularly and proportionally elected the Assembly may be, but it would only be in a limited sense and would continue to be a relatively dry, regulatory body for the foreseeable future. The apportionment of AMs was agreed as follows and was subject to review ahead of each election:

Although, because of the increase in seats, most of the parties gained seats, the fundamental configuration did not change much despite the reapportionment. The Socialists retained their position as the largest party in the Assembly and, indeed, slightly increased their position as a percentage of the seats. The Liberal Democrats once more came second, although under their leader (and Speaker-designate during the elections) Margaret Thatcher she attempted to pull them down an increasingly free market direction, which left them divided and often utterly ineffective on a legislative level.

The Conservative and Reformist group (renamed simply the Conservatives in 1969) had gone down a quixotic path. Taken over by Siaosi Tupou, the crown prince of Tonga (a division of the Pacific Islands Federation), in 1978, it had combined paternalistic support for welfare states with support for traditionalist social structures. Many joked that they were little more than a monarchist fan club but they were more serious than that label might imply. Tupou was a close ally of Ferdinand Mount in the UK and his politics were closer to Mount’s own tory socialism than anything else. They thus found themselves voting with the Socialists on several issues, certainly more than the supporters of either grouping liked to admit.

The other main right wing party was the Nationalist Party. Following the collapse of the pro-apartheid Commonwealth Grouping of Nations and Freedom in the late 1960s, the Nationalists had risen up over the course of the 1970s as a kind of representative of the far right, although of a very different character: rather than an implicit (or explicit) support for apartheid and white supremacy, the modern Nationalists were defined by their post-Hogg-Manley Angloscepticism. Following his controversial handling of the Commonwealth response to the Benglai War of Independence, Zia-ul-haq had left the army and entered politics, first as a member of the Pakistani legislature and later in the Commonwealth Assembly. While whether this Angloscepticism meant the full dissolution of the bloc or just a reform of its institutions differed according to each AM, it managed to be a loose umbrella under which a coalition that included Rhodesian segregationists and Pakistani Islamists could cohere. In practice, they took up an oppositional position in the Assembly, arguing against proposed new regulations that, they believed, would unfairly bind the member states closer to one another.

The final grouping was the only one to actually lose seats in the election (it was heavily damaged by the reduction in seats from Canada and Australia): the Greens. Growing out of Palme-Dutt’s Communist Free Alliance grouping, the Greens remained a home for the Commonwealth far left but had increasingly been taken over by the environmentalist movement. Prominent AMs such as Teddy Goldsmith (brother of the British Environment Secretary James Goldsmith) were significant public figures arguing in support of the environmental reforms of the 1970s and ‘80s. In practice, they voted with the Socialists on most matters.

 

[Nyvis]

So these greens are on the far left rather than today's mostly center left green parties? Interesting.

 

[Rattigan]

So these greens are on the far left rather than today's mostly center left green parties? Interesting.

Yes. Should note that all of the other groupings (including the Nationalists) have their pro-environmentalist wings (or, at least, individual AMs).

 

[Rattigan]

A Taste of British Steel: The Liberal 'Revolution' of 1991

Amidst a background of a successful military campaign in Zulu-Natal and a strong economy, Labour was relatively confident of claiming a third term in an election which had been pencilled in for late 1990 or early 1991. However, this time they would be faced by a renewed Liberal party led by the dynamic David Steel. Under Cyril Smith, the moderates had re-gained control of the party machinery and their better-than-expected election results in 1986 had driven the Gladstonians into a sullen silence for the time being. When Steel won the contest to replace Smith in 1988, he was able to present himself as largely untainted by factional strife while ensuring that the more extreme Gladstonians were kept down (Thatcher, as we have seen, departed national politics for the Commonwealth stage).

At the last PMQs before the summer recess of 1990, Rodgers delivered a notably poor performance against an ebullient-looking Steel. This immediately put in doubt the original plan Labour’s strategists had sketched out earlier in the year: for Rodgers to engage in foreign and Commonwealth visits over the summer to boost his statesmanlike image and then to call a winter election in his party conference speech. These plans were quietly scrapped in favour of a government relaunch, followed by an election in the spring of 1991.

There was even some loose talk over and after conference season about the possibility of replacing Rodgers with the Chancellor John Smith or even David Owen, who had made the Ministry of Defence his own private fiefdom since 1981. However, Smith was uninterested in the top job and Owen was, although respected by his parliamentary colleagues, considered a rather factional figure and was by no means loved. Rodgers had gained the leadership in 1976 because he had good relationships with his MPs and was a master of party management and these skills had not diminished with time. Eventually an election was called for February 1991.

A week after the beginning of the campaign, Labour dipped behind the Liberals in the polls and never recovered its position. Right up to polling day, Labour figures told the media that the negative opinion polls were missing their true support, a classic sign of a campaign grasping for rebuttal to general negative vibes. Despite a strong get out the vote campaign, Labour lost nearly 90 seats, 78 to the Liberals and 10 to the Conservatives, a worse loss than their defeat in 1976. The one factor from which they could draw comfort was that their vote held up reasonably well as a percentage and they remained only 33 seats off a majority once more. The Liberals’ gains of 78 seats were significant and made them the largest party in the Commons, even though they remained only nine seats ahead of Labour and 24 off a majority. The Conservatives’ gain of 10 seats put them in a strong position, with a total of 55 seats, to hold the balance of power. This was a sign, Mount claimed on the morning after polling day, that the public no longer fully trusted either main party. Although this comment seemed a rather pro forma one made by a third party, it in fact pressaged a minor political crisis that would only become apparent further down the line.

But in the late winter of 1991, things didn’t seem that complicated. Labour’s big beasts were eager to use a period out of office as an opportunity to renew themselves and there was little appetite to frustrate Steel's ambitions. The fact was that, although on a legislative level Rodgers’ ministries remained popular in the country (although the somewhat unsatisfactory ending to the Third Anglo-Boer War made it curiously unpopular amongst the party grassroots), it had fallen victim to the general political rules of decay over time. Labour’s previous three decades in power, it was now clear, was a historical fluke, something perhaps only allowed because of the party’s ability to renew itself through new leadership in 1955 and 1963. David Steel thus got into his car and drove to the Palace to become Prime Minister at the head of a minority administration. In accordance with the Chamberlain Doctrine, Labour dutifully ordered its MPs to abstain on the first budget in the spring, which was prepared by the new Chancellor Malcolm Bruce.

Over the course of the year things became more complicated for the Liberals as Mount became more vocal about the feelings of his MPs needing to be taken into account ahead of further legislation. While the Liberal Chief Whip Donald Gorrie could elide these differences for some time by simply avoiding the tabling of controversial legislation (the Liberal manifesto in 1991 had not promised dramatic reform in any event), this was clearly not a tenable position to hold as the autumn statement approached. With Labour, under its new leader Margaret Beckett, likely to vote against any proposals (because that’s what oppositions do) and Mount threatening to whip the Conservatives into doing the same, Steel and his colleagues put out feelers to the Carlton Club.

By subsequent accounts, Mount was surprised by what the Liberals were prepared to offer at that first meeting. Mount had been willing to settle for a confidence and supply arrangement with a measure of Conservative input into the budget and autumn statements but Steel instead came out with the offer of a full coalition with Conservatives taking a percentage of cabinet posts, including that of Lord President and one of the other three great offices of state. Mount later confided in his memoirs that his main challenge in the negotiations was not taking the Liberal offer too quickly. After getting the support of his party members in a special conference, Mount accepted Steel’s offer and he (as Lord President), Rupert Carrington (Foreign Secretary), Peter Walker (President of the Board of Trade), Stephen Dorrell (Employment Secretary), Sir David Gilmour (Minister for Culture and Sport) and David Hunt (Minister for Transport) became the first Conservatives to sit in the cabinet since 1945. In addition, there was a Conservative MP placed as an under-secretary in every other department and George Young joined the Whips’ Office as their Conservative representative.

 

[Analytical Engine]

Hmm, this reminds me of something involving podiums and rose gardens. Can't think why.

Also, yay another Liberal(mostly) government. Steel is the Real Deal.

How strong are the other parties ITTL? Also, how strong are the big parties in Ireland?

 

[Rattigan]

Hmm, this reminds me of something involving podiums and rose gardens. Can't think why.

In defence of difference, this coalition will have a different vibe because the Tories have effectively blackmailed their way into government and are going to have control of enough ministries to have their own distinct agenda.

How strong are the other parties ITTL? Also, how strong are the big parties in Ireland?

Generally quite weak. The big three have successfully navigated the introduction of List MPs through their deep ties in the various communities around the country. (I have a longer update to come reviewing the British political and cultural scene in 2000, which goes into more detail on this.) The smaller parties as a result are severely squeezed, having no MPs at the 1991 election and having not had one since 2 Sinn Fein MPs were elected in 1981. The rules of the List MPs is that you have to get over 5% of the popular vote before you qualify to get one, so most don't reach that threshold. For reference, if there have been elections where the total number of MPs in the big three parties is smaller than the total number of MPs in the Commons then the difference is made up by nationalist parties of the various non-English nations (i.e. Sinn Fein in Ireland, the SNP in Scotland, Plaid Cymru in Wales and Mebyon Kernow in Cornwall). England, divided into different devolved administrations, doesn't have a unified English nationalist party, although there are some provincialist parties which have had a degree of success on a local level and some far right parties (little more than violent thug groupings in truth) which have an anti-Celtic tinge to their views.

The nature of the British post-Edwardian political settlement is such that the four major nationalist parties aren't actively secessionist as a matter of formal political positioning (although some of the parties' individual members are). Instead they are basically Celtic revivalist parties who often don't have much to say about politics on a national level. This is particularly true of Plaid Cymru and Mebyon Kernow, whose party structures are very closely involved in arts funding and distribution in those regions. Certain parties have had success in the devolved assemblies (this is also something I'll go into in the longer update in 2000) and vote-splitting is quite common between devolved and national politics.

Irish nationalism was mostly killed off by a mixture of Home Rule and the failure of the Dublin Rising during the Great War. Sinn Fein have managed to stage a recovery by dumping their secessionist rhetoric and moving into the field of Celtic revivalism. It's been the most successful of the four nationalist parties but, again, that's something of a relative term. Ireland was a Liberal stronghold (with the exception of Ulster) from the 1920s up to the 1950s, after which it began to look much more like the rest of the UK. Ulster remained Conservative until 1945, when Labour made huge gains in working class communities.

 

[Kurt_Steiner]

Could the Tories make a comeback in a distant future?

 

[traveller76]

With the inclusion of Ceylon, Pakistan, and other Asian and African members in the Commonwealth, how well are immigrants treated in the UK and the Commonwealth?

 

[Rattigan]

Could the Tories make a comeback in a distant future?

Oh yes. I plan to run this TL up to 2030 and the Tories still have their part to play...

With the inclusion of Ceylon, Pakistan, and other Asian and African members in the Commonwealth, how well are immigrants treated in the UK and the Commonwealth?

Many of the countries in the Commonwealth that are developing countries OTL (notably Ceylon and Pakistan, which you mentioned) are much more developed by the end of the 20th century so there's far more cross-pollination of immigration back and forth from the UK. The main countries which provide migrants to the rest of the Commonwealth are the Pacific Islands, Sarawak, East Africa and, to a lesser extent, Puerto Rico.

As regards the treatment of immigrants in the UK, I'd say it's pretty good. Obviously it would be wrong to say that there is no racism or racists in the UK, they're generally far to the margins. Labour formally adopted a pro-multicultural position in the 1960s and the Liberals are, well, liberal when it comes to immigration. In practice, this manifests as a kind of relaxed not-caring about how other people live their lives.

 

[Nyvis]

The nature of the British post-Edwardian political settlement is such that the four major nationalist parties aren't actively secessionist as a matter of formal political positioning (although some of the parties' individual members are). Instead they are basically Celtic revivalist parties who often don't have much to say about politics on a national level. This is particularly true of Plaid Cymru and Mebyon Kernow, whose party structures are very closely involved in arts funding and distribution in those regions. Certain parties have had success in the devolved assemblies (this is also something I'll go into in the longer update in 2000) and vote-splitting is quite common between devolved and national politics.

Hearing about the devolved assemblies would be interesting. I imagine their politics are a bit more diverse.


Regarding this election cycle, I wonder how much the Liberals will do, and how that will impact the future. Being associated with the Tories could be good or bad for them. On one hand, it could give them excuses and a scapegoat for being "blackmailed" into the less popular policies. On the other hand, it's likely to lead them away from the consensus and into things Labour will be able to rally against.

How are cultural and social issues taken? A personal interest of mine is everything dealing with LGBT, and more specifically trans issues. OTL, Britain's feminists are dominated by 2nd wave activists and theorists who are very hostile to trans people. Is that the same here? How do the parties fall on the spectrum of cultural issues?

Unrelated, what kind of platform did everyone adopt on immigration, both from within the commonwealth and from without?

 

[Rattigan]

How are cultural and social issues taken? A personal interest of mine is everything dealing with LGBT, and more specifically trans issues. OTL, Britain's feminists are dominated by 2nd wave activists and theorists who are very hostile to trans people. Is that the same here? How do the parties fall on the spectrum of cultural issues?

The LGBT cause is, in general, more advanced than in OTL. Homosexuality was decriminalised in the 1920s and then formally legalised along with the introduction of equal marriage in the 1960s. Around the Commonwealth, other member states generally followed this lead, with homosexuality either legalised or decriminalised in all member states by 1970. The gay scenes in Bristol, Mombasa and Miri are particularly famous around the world.

On trans right specifically, the picture is more mixed, I'm afraid. In the first place, trans rights are (as with other LGBT issues) a cross party issue so you don't have the kind of deathly culture wars that you see in OTL America and Britain. The requisite drugs and surgery to transition are available on the NHS but can only be accessed with the signatures of two psychologists testifying that the individual is 'genuinely' suffering from gender dysphoria. (This is very similar to the requirements to obtain an abortion in the OTL UK and, in practice, very few people are going to be unable to get those signatures, even if it's a less than ideal system.) TTL UK's good provision of women's shelters are also available to trans individuals and has proven to be a great benefit to that community. Because they're better funded, shelters are generally more able to provide separate space, as needed, for cisgendered women, trans women and trans men.

On the negative side, the mainstream of the British/Commonwealth feminist intellectual movement is basically the same as in OTL, with people like Germaine Greer and, later on, Helen Lewis (I'm not sure if these were the people you were thinking of but they were the two names that came to my head when I read your question) being prominent. That being said, we shouldn't overestimate their influence.

Unrelated, what kind of platform did everyone adopt on immigration, both from within the commonwealth and from without?

There is generally free movement of people between the different Commonwealth states. Immigration periodically comes up as an issue in right and right-of-centre politics but the sheer size of the Commonwealth means that there's not nearly as much casual movement as there is between the member states of the OTL EU, for example.

Non-Commonwealth immigration is a bit more complicated. Theoretically every member state has the right to set their own immigration policies for non-Commonwealth countries. So, in theory, the UK could simply have no visa requirement for anybody. In practice, the question of visas always comes up whenever the Commonwealth is negotiating trade relations with other countries so there is a lot of intra-Commonwealth coordination. A good example of this dynamic is in the relations between the Commonwealth and Mozambique and Botswana. For a bunch of reasons, the Commonwealth wants to have good relations with both those countries and vice versa. When they were negotiating a formal trade relationship in the 1980s, the Botswana and Mozambique governments wanted an expedited visa relationship with the Commonwealth but this was vetoed by East Africa and Rhodesia, who didn't want foreigners to be able to come in and supposedly take the jobs of their local agricultural workers.

In general however, British and Commonwealth culture is regarded as very open and tolerant, partly thanks to a governing ideology and general popular cultural feeling that the Commonwealth is a multinational space where people can express their own differences. This is multiculturalism but it has a slightly different flavour than OTL's version. In particular, it places less of an emphasis on integration than OTL. For example, if British workers in Pakistan don't speak particularly good Urdu then that's generally fine, just as it's not a problem when Pakistani immigrants in Rhodesia campaign to have a mosque built in central Chamberlain [equivalent of OTL Salisbury, with the name changed because Joseph Chamberlain was the PM when it was founded - it just occurred to me that i've mentioned the name before without necessarily making that clear] for their community.

That being said, racism has hardly been eliminated. Popular prejudice against Aboriginal people remains in Australia, for example, even if the horrors of forced adoption there and Canada have been avoided. Particular targets for racist feelings tend to be migrants from places considered 'poor', so the most vulnerable communities are Hessians, Wurttembergers, Rhinelanders and Indians.

 

[Nyvis]

On trans right specifically, the picture is more mixed, I'm afraid. In the first place, trans rights are (as with other LGBT issues) a cross party issue so you don't have the kind of deathly culture wars that you see in OTL America and Britain. The requisite drugs and surgery to transition are available on the NHS but can only be accessed with the signatures of two psychologists testifying that the individual is 'genuinely' suffering from gender dysphoria. (This is very similar to the requirements to obtain an abortion in the OTL UK and, in practice, very few people are going to be unable to get those signatures, even if it's a less than ideal system.) TTL UK's good provision of women's shelters are also available to trans individuals and has proven to be a great benefit to that community. Because they're better funded, shelters are generally more able to provide separate space, as needed, for cisgendered women, trans women and trans men.

On the negative side, the mainstream of the British/Commonwealth feminist intellectual movement is basically the same as in OTL, with people like Germaine Greer and, later on, Helen Lewis (I'm not sure if these were the people you were thinking of but they were the two names that came to my head when I read your question) being prominent. That being said, we shouldn't overestimate their influence.

You can't expect miracles from TERF country I guess. 2 psychologists is a bit of a pain depending on how much they insist on digging into your background before granting it, but that's fairly standard yeah. France still works on the basis of psychiatrist (not just psychologist either) approval. Is it a legal thing, or a responsibility thing? Here doctors could technically give you an estrogen prescription without the psychiatrist but they usually don't want to take the responsibility. Testosterone is another can of worm because of doping.

Good to see it is a cross party issue though. Is no one trying to capitalize on culture war style issues? I could see the Tories trying it to dig themselves out of their hole here?

In general however, British and Commonwealth culture is regarded as very open and tolerant, partly thanks to a governing ideology and general popular cultural feeling that the Commonwealth is a multinational space where people can express their own differences. This is multiculturalism but it has a slightly different flavour than OTL's version. In particular, it places less of an emphasis on integration than OTL. For example, if British workers in Pakistan don't speak particularly good Urdu then that's generally fine, just as it's not a problem when Pakistani immigrants in Rhodesia campaign to have a mosque built in central Chamberlain [equivalent of OTL Salisbury, with the name changed because Joseph Chamberlain was the PM when it was founded - it just occurred to me that i've mentioned the name before without necessarily making that clear] for their community.

Less focus on integration is an interesting development. Does it lead to subcommunities like in the US? British town in Pakistani cities and vice versa? I expect everyone try to speak at least basic English to get their point across since it's likely to be the most universal language in the commonwealth?

 

[Rattigan]

The Vision: Scandinavia and Finland in the 20th Century

The flag of the Kalmar Union - resurrected in 1991 as the flag of the Nordic Union


During the early years of the twentieth century, rising nationalism lead to the dissolution of the personal union between Norway and Sweden, with the former gaining independence under a cadet branch of the Danish royal family. In 1918, Iceland would sever legislative ties with Denmark, eventually transitioning to a republic in 1944. Although these countries had been neutral in the Great War, during the World War they could not remain outside of world affairs: Denmark and Norway were occupied by the Axis and Iceland became a de facto Anglo-American protectorate. Sweden managed to walk the tightrope of neutrality while providing clandestine support for the Allies. By 1945, all countries had managed to escape the war relatively unscathed (the occupations of Norway and Denmark being relatively light). The exception here was Finland, who fought a protracted and bloody, but ultimately successful, war for independence against the Soviet Union.

From the outset of the post-war world, the Scandinavian countries found themselves as rich but small countries in an uncertain world. Although the postwar architecture proved well-designed to contain superpower conflicts, for other countries there was a distinct concern that they could be trampled underfoot. Sweden, in particular soon threw itself into the UN architecture, sending over large delegations and attempting to stitch together informal alliances with the republics of Latin America and the newly-independent countries created in Asia and Africa in the wake of decolonisation. Dag Hammarskjold’s appointment to the position of Secretary General of the UN in 1956 was a major coup for Sweden and his tenure did much to establish the organisation’s moral authority.

In this context the previous direction of Nordic relations (towards greater balkanisation - with serious suggestions in the 1930s that Sweden might further divide into Scania and Lapland) switched dramatically. Scandiavianist and Nordicist movements (shorn of the racist, reactionary elements that had populated these ideologies previously) exploded back into life in the years after 1945 as a way of protecting the distinctive Nordic political and social culture in relations with the superpowers. A particular point in reigniting this was the so-called ‘Cod War’ of 1948, where the Commonwealth used its international heft and influence to attain highly favourable agreements regarding fishing rights in the North Atlantic at the expense of Iceland.

Prior to his work at the UN, Hammarskjold was an influential Scandinavianist voice in the region as Sweden’s delegate to the Organisation for Nordic Economic Cooperation (1947-53) and as Foreign Secretary in the government of Tage Erlander (1953-56). In the former role he was key in the establishment of the Nordic Cooperation Council in 1953, which established a passport union and institutions to work on the sharing of energy resources and regulation. Further developments in Nordic unity came in the 1960s, with the Nordic Economic Community (“NEC”) being formed in 1961 as a result of the Treaty of Malmo. The NEC was a major step forward in Nordic cooperation, creating a common market and customs union between the five countries and making vague gestures towards further economic integration. The Treaty of Malmo also provided a structure for the creation of a unicameral Nordic Parliament (opened in 1965) and a single Nordic krona (established in 1979 pursuant to exchange rate harmonisation set up in 1964). It was under these structures that the Aaland Islands, the Faroe Islands and Greenland achieved self government as members of the NEC. In 1973 a complete single market was achieved between all eight members.

In the increasingly internationalist mood of the 1980s, Hammarskjold (now President of the Nordic Parliament) began to campaign for a full union of the seven countries into a single sovereign state. In 1986, a referendum on unity was held across the member states, with unification being supported by between 70% and 80% of voters. On 1 January 1987, the Nordic Union came into being. The Nordic Parliament was expanded into a bicameral federal legislature, with the Chancellor (the first being Hammarskjold) heading the government. The monarchies of Denmark, Norway and Sweden were to remain in place and Iceland and Finland would continue to hold presidential elections, all of whom retained a ceremonial role in the devolved governments of their nations. The title of ‘President of the Nordic Union’ was created to be the new nation’s head of state. Technically appointed by the Cabinet every five years, by convention it rotates between the heads of state of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Iceland (something inspired by the complicated merry-go-round of the Benelux).

Hammarskjold would eventually die in September 1991, at the age of 86. Chancellor until his dying day, he was given a full state funeral and the honorific title of ‘Father of the Nation.’ He left behind several significant works of posthumously-published spiritual and theological writings, along with volumes of diaries dating from 1930 and which are due for publication in 2041. His funeral in his hometown of Jönköping was attended by dignitaries from around the world and former American president John F. Kennedy delivered his eulogy, stating that “In comparison to him, I am a small man. He was the greatest statesman of our century.” At the time, there were few that would disagree.

 

[Analytical Engine]

So, how much of the Nordic Union based on "Hmm, that Commonwealth thing looks interesting, we should try that"?

 

[Nyvis]

Kalmar union 2.0 time it is!

So, how much of the Nordic Union based on "Hmm, that Commonwealth thing looks interesting, we should try that"?

Probably very little? It's much closer to OTL EU with more support and cohesion, thus quicker integration. the commonwealth is an extension of colonial history, and mostly a thing you opt out of if you are an ex-English possession rather than something you opt into. It does evolve into something more fair as time goes on, but it doesn't start that way. This is a lot more equal and collaborative from the beginning.

I wonder how their internal politics look like? If they adopt something like Denmark's OTL PR government, you could have a very diverse and interesting field.

 

[Rattigan]

So, how much of the Nordic Union based on "Hmm, that Commonwealth thing looks interesting, we should try that"?

Probably very little? It's much closer to OTL EU with more support and cohesion, thus quicker integration. the commonwealth is an extension of colonial history, and mostly a thing you opt out of if you are an ex-English possession rather than something you opt into. It does evolve into something more fair as time goes on, but it doesn't start that way. This is a lot more equal and collaborative from the beginning.

I think the answer is 'yes and no'. It's worth remembering that most of the former British colonies in Africa (and, of course, India too) didn't want anything to do with the Commonwealth in the 50s and 60s. The ones that did had specific reasons for doing so. But @Nyvis is right that the vibe with the Commonwealth was sort of the mother country inviting the colonies into the club and the colonies (sort of) making the club their own subsequently. (By the 1990s the Commonwealth has evolved into something that is more genuinely democratic and equitable between the members but that's by the by for these purposes.) That being said, the successes of countries like the US, the Commonwealth, the Soviet Union and, to a slightly lesser extent, Brazil and China did teach many other statesmen the advantages of scale and that argument was regularly deployed by those favour of Nordic integration.

What I've tried to do with Nordicism TTL is combine OTL European integrationism with TTL's Commonwealth. What I would say about Nordicism and Commonwealth integration TTL is that both are very concerned with geopolitics: in the Nordics' case preserving their distinct cultures without being trampled by the superpowers; in the Commonwealth's case not fracturing and being superseded by the Americans. Particularly in the case of Finland, Nordic integration is seen primarily through a national security lens as a way of ensuring their protection from the Soviets. (Whether the Swedish nuclear deterrent would ever be used to prevent aggression against the other Nordic countries was a persistent controversy in Swedish politics in the 1970s and 1980s.)

I wonder how their internal politics look like? If they adopt something like Denmark's OTL PR government, you could have a very diverse and interesting field.

Danish-style PR was adopted. So the make-up of the Assembly is a bit of a fun mess. At some point I'll have a list of Chancellors.

Less focus on integration is an interesting development. Does it lead to subcommunities like in the US? British town in Pakistani cities and vice versa? I expect everyone try to speak at least basic English to get their point across since it's likely to be the most universal language in the commonwealth?

Yes, absolutely, I had pictured 'Anglo-town' in Ludhiana and 'Little Karachi' in London and so forth.

As regards languages, by the 1990s there probably isn't anyone in the Commonwealth (excepting those living in very remote areas of Papua New Guinea or the Pacific Islands) who wouldn't be able to at least hold a conversation in English. Most Commonwealth citizens will be at least bilingual, with many/most having a third language: local 'native' languages, English as a kind of 'language of the state' (not to mention something that everyone knows everyone else in the Commonwealth can speak), and a third foreign language (the most popular ones offered at school would be Mandarin, Portuguese, Spanish, Russian, French or Japanese). The only exception to this would probably be England, where there obviously isn't quite a local language to learn, meaning that the English would probably only speak two. Puerto Rico, obviously, would speak Spanish as a local language rather than a foreign one but another language is offered in school as a foreign one. In Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Cornwall, the relevant Celtic dialects have staged a comeback in the past few decades but they are spoken less than the 'local' dialects in, for example, Ceylon or East Africa.

For citizens of other Commonwealth states living in another member state, language teaching can get a bit more complicated. So if you're a Tamil Ceylonese family living in Nairobi, your kids won't have the option of learning Tamil at school, as you would have had if you had remained in Ceylon. Instead, the child will be taught Swahili, English and a foreign language. However, the Commonwealth Assembly has made funds available for 'non-native communities' in member states to have language classes in their native languages, it just has to be additional to state schooling.

 

[Rattigan]

You can't expect miracles from TERF country I guess. 2 psychologists is a bit of a pain depending on how much they insist on digging into your background before granting it, but that's fairly standard yeah. France still works on the basis of psychiatrist (not just psychologist either) approval. Is it a legal thing, or a responsibility thing? Here doctors could technically give you an estrogen prescription without the psychiatrist but they usually don't want to take the responsibility. Testosterone is another can of worm because of doping.

I'm not going to pretend to know much about this so will defer to you. I had meant the process to be relatively simple and don't imagine that there would be an awful lot of unnecessary digging. There probably are psychologists who would try this but I imagined that the trans community would have a list (formal or not) of which psychologists are 'good' or not.

Owing to the decentralised nature of the NHS after the reforms of the 1980s, I think that there are doctors who would be willing to give you a testosterone or oestrogen prescription but that would depend on the provider.

Good to see it is a cross party issue though. Is no one trying to capitalize on culture war style issues? I could see the Tories trying it to dig themselves out of their hole here?

I don't think the Tories are really that sort of party TTL. While there are some people on their far right who are, well, pretty far right, that's not the case with most of the party and Ferdinand Mount has managed to mostly exorcise them from the party. I think part of the confusion comes from me having called them libertarians in an earlier update, which understandably makes a lot of people think of the right wing of the OTL GOP. How I meant it is that they're intensely relaxed on social issues, adopting a 'live and let live' attitude combined with a large spoonful of noblesse oblige. There are people in the party who grumble about 'changes in the neighbourhood' but in more of a Jane-Jacobs way than a twitching-net-curtain way. Since Mount took over as a 'Tory socialist', the party has got more expansive in their policies regarding social security and the welfare state but has retained that attitude on social and cultural issues.

The other thing I'd say is that I don't think that, by the 1990s, there are many Tories who still consider themselves 'in a hole' as such. There certainly were people in the 1950s who thought they were in a bit of temporary difficulty and would come back but I don't think people still subscribe to that anymore. They now see themselves as a natural third party, a home to intellectuals (including some figures generally on the political left, who are attracted to the TTL Tories' catholic tastes), those with oppositionist tastes and so forth. Getting into coalition with Steel is kind of what they were looking for at this stage, rather than looking to form a majority government (although who knows what the future will look like).

 

[Nyvis]

Danish-style PR was adopted. So the make-up of the Assembly is a bit of a fun mess. At some point I'll have a list of Chancellors.

Cool cool. I expect government move from center right to center left with critical support from people further away from the center if that's the case, with the main question being how many concessions those sides can get in exchange depending on how big they are.

I'm not going to pretend to know much about this so will defer to you. I had meant the process to be relatively simple and don't imagine that there would be an awful lot of unnecessary digging. There probably are psychologists who would try this but I imagined that the trans community would have a list (formal or not) of which psychologists are 'good' or not.

Owing to the decentralised nature of the NHS after the reforms of the 1980s, I think that there are doctors who would be willing to give you a testosterone or oestrogen prescription but that would depend on the provider.

Maintaining lists of good and bad doctors is exactly what we do yeah. But requiring two is a bit of a pain because getting appointments can take a long time. I imagine a basic demand of the movement would be to reduce it to one. But really, people will be demanding informed consent style solutions where all you have to do is listen to a bit of information about what it'll do to you and confirm you're sure.

I don't think the Tories are really that sort of party TTL. While there are some people on their far right who are, well, pretty far right, that's not the case with most of the party and Ferdinand Mount has managed to mostly exorcise them from the party. I think part of the confusion comes from me having called them libertarians in an earlier update, which understandably makes a lot of people think of the right wing of the OTL GOP. How I meant it is that they're intensely relaxed on social issues, adopting a 'live and let live' attitude combined with a large spoonful of noblesse oblige. There are people in the party who grumble about 'changes in the neighbourhood' but in more of a Jane-Jacobs way than a twitching-net-curtain way. Since Mount took over as a 'Tory socialist', the party has got more expansive in their policies regarding social security and the welfare state but has retained that attitude on social and cultural issues.

The other thing I'd say is that I don't think that, by the 1990s, there are many Tories who still consider themselves 'in a hole' as such. There certainly were people in the 1950s who thought they were in a bit of temporary difficulty and would come back but I don't think people still subscribe to that anymore. They now see themselves as a natural third party, a home to intellectuals (including some figures generally on the political left, who are attracted to the TTL Tories' catholic tastes), those with oppositionist tastes and so forth. Getting into coalition with Steel is kind of what they were looking for at this stage, rather than looking to form a majority government (although who knows what the future will look like).

So there's genuinely no party for people with reactionary leanings? Yeah I don't really buy that. Unless that's the liberals, that would make sense considering Thatcher.

 

[Teiresias]

As regards languages, by the 1990s there probably isn't anyone in the Commonwealth (excepting those living in very remote areas of Papua New Guinea or the Pacific Islands) who wouldn't be able to at least hold a conversation in English. Most Commonwealth citizens will be at least bilingual, with many/most having a third language: local 'native' languages, English as a kind of 'language of the state' (not to mention something that everyone knows everyone else in the Commonwealth can speak), and a third foreign language (the most popular ones offered at school would be Mandarin, Portuguese, Spanish, Russian, French or Japanese). The only exception to this would probably be England, where there obviously isn't quite a local language to learn, meaning that the English would probably only speak two. Puerto Rico, obviously, would speak Spanish as a local language rather than a foreign one but another language is offered in school as a foreign one. In Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Cornwall, the relevant Celtic dialects have staged a comeback in the past few decades but they are spoken less than the 'local' dialects in, for example, Ceylon or East Africa.

What about Australia, Canada and New Zealand?

 

[Analytical Engine]

What about Australia, Canada and New Zealand?

Canada has French and New Zealand has...Maori, I guess.

Make your own jokes about how mutually intelligible Australian-English and British-English are.