I wouldn't know about the fox hunting to be honest, it was made illegal due to it being seen as cruel to kill the foxes with dogs not necessary as a class issue IMO, I have to admit I wonder how many communists have went over to labour and formed a sort of far left wing, to be fair this could split into a bunch of groups from anarchists to those who want full state control to those are left wing on social issues - those who advocate luxury space communism.
The Anglo-Saxon Social Model
- Thread starter Rattigan
- Start date
I think at this point any British far left is likely to result from the left wing of Labour thinking things aren't moving as quickly as they wish despite the means to decommodify and decapitalize are already at hand within the system than any outsider party running on a revolutionary line. Britain is too good at social democracy for that to take root without a significant failure riling up people.
Going back to trains, you mentioned BR so I imagine that the UK still as the equivalent of SNCF running the network? And did BR continue with the APT tilting train? I can imagine an InterCity 325 as an equivalent to the bullet trains and TGVs of other countries in OTL. Perhaps even a super controversial/expensive InterCity 425 Maglev line is projected, being TTL's equivalent of HS2? And to go completely over the top, a Commonwealth version of Elon Musk wants to develop an InterCity 1225 Hyperloop...?!
Latin America (1976-2000)
Challenging Frontiers: Latin America in the Twentieth Century
Great Power conflict in South America had appeared close to active war at several points during the first half of the twentieth century but on all occasions these would be avoided, albeit often this was due to luck rather than judgement (the dreadnought race in the 1900s only failed to end in a shooting war because Europe got there first). During the 1910s and ‘20s, the three most powerful countries on the continent at the time (Chile, Argentina and Brazil) all managed to stabilise and continue their economic development. The parliamentary system instituted in Chile following a civil war in the 1890s provided a relatively stable government which managed to diversify its economy away from a reliance on saltpeter exports and towards one which also had major roles for local finance and industry. Argentina’s economy was badly damaged by decreased trade with the United Kingdom following 1892, resulting in the long-term decline of the National Republican oligarchy and its eventual fall in 1916. Under governments of the Democratic Progressive Party and the National Democratic Party, however, the economy diversified and, in response to the global downturn of the 1930s, governments of the Radical Civic Union instituted a welfare state that became a great point of national pride. Brazil continued its constitutional developments and its luck with its monarchs: the death of Pedro II in 1891 resulted in the accession of his daughter Isabel as Empress and her gender resulted in her taking an even less active political role than either her father or grandfather. The development of trades unionist and syndicalist politics disrupted the late Pedroist duopoly of the Liberal and Radical parties, resulting in the rise of the Social Democratic party and the subsequent merger of the Liberals and Radicals into the Radical Liberals.
Brazil entered the postwar period as both the undisputed senior military power of Latin America, following her soldiers’ valiant fighting especially in the Middle East and prime minister Benedito Valdares’ important diplomatic role in the founding of the UN. With its large and diversified economy, Brazil was also well-placed to adapt to the constraints of the Lismore System and she soon took up a position as an important regional power with an outsized diplomatic footprint thanks to its role in the UN. In this context, she was often thought of as a southern parallel to Sweden during this period. During the 1950s, the Social Democratic governments of Alberto Pasquilani and Rui Carneiro toyed with the idea of developing an independent nuclear deterrent but embryonic plans were cancelled on cost grounds when the Radical Liberals of Robert Campos returned to power following elections in 1963. A permanent seat on the Security Council was a long term cross-party aim of Brazilian politics since they had been, unjustly in their view, cut out of the original formation in 1945. Eventually, they were granted one of the two extra seats (the other going to China) when the Council expanded in 1971, as a thanks for Brazilian diplomats delivering South American support behind the election of Max Jakobson as Secretary General.
Argentina’s immediate postwar development was dominated by the presidency of the National Conservative Robustiano Patros Costas (1946-58), who sought to diversify the Argentinian economy and repair relations with the superpowers, in particular the Commonwealth. By 2000, this diplomatic aim has largely been achieved and the Commonwealth and Argentina are noted diplomatic colleagues working on a number of issues internationally. The most obvious example of this was the agreement, reached in 1982, over the joint-lease of the naval station at Port Stanley in the Falklands. This effectively created a joint Argentinian-Royal Navy fleet that was tasked with serving the British Antarctic Territory and other assorted exploratory duties. A proposal in 1992 that the Falkland Islands should be sold to Argentina foundered, however, on the opposition of the local population. Elsewhere, substantial levels of tourism have improved relations, with Diego Maradona’s time at Arsenal (1982-84) and Dennis Law’s career at Boca Juniors (1961-73) being regarded as important exchanges of soft power between the two countries. After a break of several decades, the old adage that Argentinians are Italians who speak Spanish and think they’re British once again seemed to be true. On the economic front, however, successive governments have proved less successful at diversifying the country’s economy base. Argentina in 2000 was much less of an export economy than Argentina in 1900 but her main economic produce remained soybeans, beef and leather, mainly for export. This has lead to recurrent balance of payments issues which have bedeviled successive presidencies.
Brazil and Argentina continue to engage in great power competition with one another, with smaller countries occasionally getting in the way. A pro-Argentinian government in Uruguay was overthrown by a Brazilian-backed coup in 1973 and Argentinian commercial gas interests conspired in the overthrow of the democratically-elected Bolivian government in 1971. More happily, from a certain point of view, was the conspiracy between the Brazilian and American security services to aid the overthrow of the Mexican military government in 1985. Since then, Mexican politics has returned to a presidential democracy dominated by the centre-left Democratic Revolutionary Party and the centre-right National Action Party.
Cuba has continued its development as one of the wealthiest, per capita, countries in the world. It is generally now known as ‘Cuba’, including by most of its residents, even as successive governments insist on it being referred to in official documents as ‘the Kingdom of Spain.’ Politics is split between the left wing Socialist Workers and the right wing Conservatives. Although both parties generally take a moderately pro-business view, the premiership of Fidel Castro (1979-93) has effected a lasting change in political culture, with cooperatives and trades unionism being encouraged. Cuba continues to have an influence on the world, especially the Hispanophone world, outsized of its simple size due to its position as the centre of the Hispanic film industry and being home to the University of Havana and the University of Santiago, the two most prestigious Spanish-language higher education institutions in the world.
Chile, meanwhile, headed off down its own furrow. Since 1919, the government has been prominent in the workings of, first, the League of Nations and, later, the United Nations, its relatively large diplomatic clout leading to the long-term sidelining of the military in its politics. Thanks to careful and canny management of its domestic affairs by successive governments of the centre-left and centre-right, the country has an egalitarian political culture and is one of the most economically developed nations in the world. Chile retains a prominent manufacturing sector based largely on the production of specialist chemicals and pharmaceutical goods but the country’s predominant sector is in services, particularly banking and insurance. The country’s educated workforce, low banking taxes and secrecy laws had made it a prominent international finance hub, nicknamed ‘Latin America’s Bankers’ or the ‘Spanish Switzerland.’
Presidents of the Argentine Republic, 1976-2000
**Presidential terms shortened to four years in 1996.
Prime Ministers of Brazil, 1976-2000
Just to break character for a moment, below are the main Latin American countries with their rough OTL economic equivalents. This should not be taken to be a simple transposition of GDP levels, either in total or per capita, but it should give a pretty good idea of general standards of living.
Great Power conflict in South America had appeared close to active war at several points during the first half of the twentieth century but on all occasions these would be avoided, albeit often this was due to luck rather than judgement (the dreadnought race in the 1900s only failed to end in a shooting war because Europe got there first). During the 1910s and ‘20s, the three most powerful countries on the continent at the time (Chile, Argentina and Brazil) all managed to stabilise and continue their economic development. The parliamentary system instituted in Chile following a civil war in the 1890s provided a relatively stable government which managed to diversify its economy away from a reliance on saltpeter exports and towards one which also had major roles for local finance and industry. Argentina’s economy was badly damaged by decreased trade with the United Kingdom following 1892, resulting in the long-term decline of the National Republican oligarchy and its eventual fall in 1916. Under governments of the Democratic Progressive Party and the National Democratic Party, however, the economy diversified and, in response to the global downturn of the 1930s, governments of the Radical Civic Union instituted a welfare state that became a great point of national pride. Brazil continued its constitutional developments and its luck with its monarchs: the death of Pedro II in 1891 resulted in the accession of his daughter Isabel as Empress and her gender resulted in her taking an even less active political role than either her father or grandfather. The development of trades unionist and syndicalist politics disrupted the late Pedroist duopoly of the Liberal and Radical parties, resulting in the rise of the Social Democratic party and the subsequent merger of the Liberals and Radicals into the Radical Liberals.
Brazil entered the postwar period as both the undisputed senior military power of Latin America, following her soldiers’ valiant fighting especially in the Middle East and prime minister Benedito Valdares’ important diplomatic role in the founding of the UN. With its large and diversified economy, Brazil was also well-placed to adapt to the constraints of the Lismore System and she soon took up a position as an important regional power with an outsized diplomatic footprint thanks to its role in the UN. In this context, she was often thought of as a southern parallel to Sweden during this period. During the 1950s, the Social Democratic governments of Alberto Pasquilani and Rui Carneiro toyed with the idea of developing an independent nuclear deterrent but embryonic plans were cancelled on cost grounds when the Radical Liberals of Robert Campos returned to power following elections in 1963. A permanent seat on the Security Council was a long term cross-party aim of Brazilian politics since they had been, unjustly in their view, cut out of the original formation in 1945. Eventually, they were granted one of the two extra seats (the other going to China) when the Council expanded in 1971, as a thanks for Brazilian diplomats delivering South American support behind the election of Max Jakobson as Secretary General.
Argentina’s immediate postwar development was dominated by the presidency of the National Conservative Robustiano Patros Costas (1946-58), who sought to diversify the Argentinian economy and repair relations with the superpowers, in particular the Commonwealth. By 2000, this diplomatic aim has largely been achieved and the Commonwealth and Argentina are noted diplomatic colleagues working on a number of issues internationally. The most obvious example of this was the agreement, reached in 1982, over the joint-lease of the naval station at Port Stanley in the Falklands. This effectively created a joint Argentinian-Royal Navy fleet that was tasked with serving the British Antarctic Territory and other assorted exploratory duties. A proposal in 1992 that the Falkland Islands should be sold to Argentina foundered, however, on the opposition of the local population. Elsewhere, substantial levels of tourism have improved relations, with Diego Maradona’s time at Arsenal (1982-84) and Dennis Law’s career at Boca Juniors (1961-73) being regarded as important exchanges of soft power between the two countries. After a break of several decades, the old adage that Argentinians are Italians who speak Spanish and think they’re British once again seemed to be true. On the economic front, however, successive governments have proved less successful at diversifying the country’s economy base. Argentina in 2000 was much less of an export economy than Argentina in 1900 but her main economic produce remained soybeans, beef and leather, mainly for export. This has lead to recurrent balance of payments issues which have bedeviled successive presidencies.
Brazil and Argentina continue to engage in great power competition with one another, with smaller countries occasionally getting in the way. A pro-Argentinian government in Uruguay was overthrown by a Brazilian-backed coup in 1973 and Argentinian commercial gas interests conspired in the overthrow of the democratically-elected Bolivian government in 1971. More happily, from a certain point of view, was the conspiracy between the Brazilian and American security services to aid the overthrow of the Mexican military government in 1985. Since then, Mexican politics has returned to a presidential democracy dominated by the centre-left Democratic Revolutionary Party and the centre-right National Action Party.
Cuba has continued its development as one of the wealthiest, per capita, countries in the world. It is generally now known as ‘Cuba’, including by most of its residents, even as successive governments insist on it being referred to in official documents as ‘the Kingdom of Spain.’ Politics is split between the left wing Socialist Workers and the right wing Conservatives. Although both parties generally take a moderately pro-business view, the premiership of Fidel Castro (1979-93) has effected a lasting change in political culture, with cooperatives and trades unionism being encouraged. Cuba continues to have an influence on the world, especially the Hispanophone world, outsized of its simple size due to its position as the centre of the Hispanic film industry and being home to the University of Havana and the University of Santiago, the two most prestigious Spanish-language higher education institutions in the world.
Chile, meanwhile, headed off down its own furrow. Since 1919, the government has been prominent in the workings of, first, the League of Nations and, later, the United Nations, its relatively large diplomatic clout leading to the long-term sidelining of the military in its politics. Thanks to careful and canny management of its domestic affairs by successive governments of the centre-left and centre-right, the country has an egalitarian political culture and is one of the most economically developed nations in the world. Chile retains a prominent manufacturing sector based largely on the production of specialist chemicals and pharmaceutical goods but the country’s predominant sector is in services, particularly banking and insurance. The country’s educated workforce, low banking taxes and secrecy laws had made it a prominent international finance hub, nicknamed ‘Latin America’s Bankers’ or the ‘Spanish Switzerland.’
Presidents of the Argentine Republic, 1976-2000
- Isabella Martinez de Peron; National Democratic Party; October 1976 - October 1982
- Raul Alfonsin; Radical Civic Party; October 1982 - October 1988
- Carlos Menem; National Democratic Party; October 1988 - October 2000
- Nestor Kirchner; Radical Civic Party; October 2000 -
- Fernando Gutierrez Barrios; National Renewal Alliance; January 1969 - February 1985
- Cuauhtemoc Cardenas; Democratic Revolutionary Party; February 1985 - February 1995*
- Vicente Fox; National Action Party; February 1995 - **
**Presidential terms shortened to four years in 1996.
Prime Ministers of Brazil, 1976-2000
- Rogê Ferreira; Social Democratic Party; June 1968 - January 1978
- Jarbas Passarinho; Radical Liberal Party; January 1978 - July 1982
- Saturnino Braga; Social Democratic Party; July 1982 - June 1987
- José Maria Eymael; New Liberal Party; June 1987 - May 1992
- Lula da Silva; Workers’ Party; May 1992 -
- Jorge Montt; Liberal; September 1891 - July 1899
- Pedro Montt; United Conservative; July 1899 - June 1907
- Jorge Montt; Liberal; June 1907 - January 1914
- Juan Luis Safuentes; United Conservative; January 1914 - January 1917
- Arturo Alessandri; Liberal; January 1917 - May 1919
- Luis Emilio Recabarren; Radical; May 1919 - November 1922
- Arturo Alessandri; Liberal; November 1922 - October 1927
- Luis Barros Borgono; United Conservative; October 1927 - May 1936
- Arturo Alessandri; Liberal; May 1936 - September 1940
- Eduardo Cruz-Coke; National; September 1940 - September 1950
- Fernando Alessandri; Liberal; September 1950 - December 1955
- Jorge Alessandri; National; December 1955 - June 1962
- Bernardo Ibanez; Radical; June 1962 - May 1971
- Jorge Alessandri; National; May 1971 - July 1978
- Carlos Altamirano; Radical; July 1978 - March 1988
- Jose Pinera; National; April 1988 - December 1993
- Ricardo Lagos; Radical; December 1993 -
- Huber Matos; Conservative; October 1974 - March 1979
- Fidel Castro; Socialist Workers’; March 1979 - May 1993
- Erneido Oliva; Conservative; May 1993 - December 1996
- Ricardo Alarcon; Socialist Workers’; December 1996 -
Just to break character for a moment, below are the main Latin American countries with their rough OTL economic equivalents. This should not be taken to be a simple transposition of GDP levels, either in total or per capita, but it should give a pretty good idea of general standards of living.
- Argentina - Australia
- Brazil - South Korea
- Chile - Switzerland
- Cuba/Spain - Republic of Ireland
- Mexico - Croatia
Last edited:
Very nice S. American update.
I take it Brazil has avoided the worst of the forest clearanceS? Or does American ‘need’ for beef still led to huge clearances?
Better Falklands result. Is SS Great Britain still recovered from the islands?
Is British Guiana still in the Empire/Commonwealth? Is it used for space launches like the OTL French country?
I take it Brazil has avoided the worst of the forest clearanceS? Or does American ‘need’ for beef still led to huge clearances?
Better Falklands result. Is SS Great Britain still recovered from the islands?
Is British Guiana still in the Empire/Commonwealth? Is it used for space launches like the OTL French country?
As we've seen, environmental questions have become a cross-party issue in most of the great powers and Brazil is no difference. Preserving the Amazon has become a point of national pride.
Yup.
It's part of the West Indies as Guyana. The main Commonwealth launch base is at Woomera but I imagine that there would be other, smaller, bases around the world for other launches (I think someone else mentioned East Africa as a potential launch site in this context too).
Second Beckett Ministry (2000-2005)
House to House: The Second Beckett Ministry
Commonwealth soldiers from Australia engage AWB paramilitaries at the Battle of Ventersdorp, January 2003
As with her first term, much of Beckett’s second term would be taken up with affairs in South Africa. Violence had surrounded the first South African elections in 1999, with an estimated 70 people being killed across the country. The disestablishment of the various black ‘homelands’ had instigated vast emigration from those overcrowded and unsanitary lands into areas previously reserved for whites, which in turn precipitated a round of inter-communal and inter-ethnic violence. Eugene Terre-Blanche’s Afrikaaner Resistance Movement (“AWB”) was the foremost instigator of this violence, conducting a limited but nonetheless deadly campaign out of hidden bases in the countryside.
Cook was moved from the Foreign Office immediately following the election (he would serve as President of the Board of Trade until his death in 2005) and his role was taken by Jack Straw. However, the primary leader for negotiations regarding South Africa would be George Robertson, who had served as Defence Secretary for Beckett’s first term and had been appointed as the British member of the Commonwealth Cabinet in June 2000, taking the newly-created position of ‘High Representative to South Africa.’ (Anglosceptics at the time grumbled that this was just the precursor to the creation of a full Commonwealth ministry but future plans for the role after South Africa was ‘solved’ were left deliberately ambiguous.)
Robertson made visits to South Africa about once every two months, including holding high-level meetings with Zwelinzima Vavi and Nelson Mandela. Over this period, particular progress was made as regards land reform, with Robertson being key to brokering deals between the South African government and the Bank of England and the World Bank Group to provide loans for the (partially) compensated confiscation of the vast estates owned by Afrikaaner landlords. Hartzenberg’s trial took place in October and November 2002, with the former president refusing to recognise the black lawyers or jurors in the room (the judge was white owing to the apartheid-era ban on blacks holding judicial office) and unleashing a racist tirade when called to defend himself that lead to him being forcibly restrained. The death sentence was handed down at the end of the trial and Hartzenberg was hanged in December 2002, on a live video broadcast around the nation.
Hartzenberg’s death was the catalyst for a renewed round of violence across the country. In one particularly gory episode, known as the Battle of Ventersdorp, a band of over 3,000 AWB commandos attacked a United African Alliance rally, killing 48 attendees and seizing control of the town. This precipitated a severe response, with 11,000 Coalition soldiers (of which 10,000 were Commonwealth) and 2,000 troops from the new South African army deployed in response. Over the course of one month beginning on 7 January 2003, these coalition forces began an operation to clear the town in brutal house to house fighting, resulting in the deaths of nearly 2,000 AWB paramilitaries, and 95 Commonwealth soldiers (the South African army lost 4 men and the Brazilian army 11). The town was back under South African control on 23 February 2003. 800 civilians are estimated to have been killed, by both sides, during the course of the fighting. There was also much controversy surrounding the South African army’s alleged ‘no whites left alive’ policy.
In April 2003, the AWB attempted another dramatic raid, this time attacking the matriculation ceremony of the first black undergraduates admitted to Potchefstroom University. This time, Terre’Blanche would lead the attack himself. However, his cell was uncovered and stormed by South African police. In a brutal firefight, Terre’Blanche and four of his colleagues were killed. The death of Terre’Blanche was in many ways a turning point in the war, demonstrating the ability of the South Africans to take the lead on military and security operations. In September 2003, the independence of South West Africa, Eswatini and Lesotho was negotiated and became official. A timetable for Coalition withdrawal was announced soon after and the final Coalition forces left in December 2004, a timetable that enabled both the United African Alliance and various Commonwealth governments to go into elections with that in the public’s mind.
The major domestic reform of Beckett’s second ministry came from quite a different direction. British productivity had been growing consistently for several decades and at a rate that far outstripped their closest economic competitors. (Indeed, it was one of the many reasons behind the extraordinary economic growth since 1945.) Much of this productivity growth had been driven by the uptake of new technology, both in industry and out. Beckett had appointed Gordon Brown to the position of Welfare Secretary upon his election to Parliament in 2000 (previously he had served as Scottish first minister 1990-2000 following a distinguished rugby career) and Brown proposed to solve this problem of too much productivity in the simplest way possible: in April 2002 the Working Week Act 2002 was passed, reforming the working week to run from Monday to Thursday and a weekend from Friday to Sunday. This would be built upon by the Commonwealth’s Working Time Directive 2004, which would mandate an employee’s right to work no more than 35 hours a week, with at least six weeks paid holiday per year and a minimum of seven public bank/public holidays per year.
Although the Liberals opposed the measure, claiming that it would lead to the lowering of employment, it remains to be seen where this fresh leap in the dark would leave the nation.
Commonwealth soldiers from Australia engage AWB paramilitaries at the Battle of Ventersdorp, January 2003
As with her first term, much of Beckett’s second term would be taken up with affairs in South Africa. Violence had surrounded the first South African elections in 1999, with an estimated 70 people being killed across the country. The disestablishment of the various black ‘homelands’ had instigated vast emigration from those overcrowded and unsanitary lands into areas previously reserved for whites, which in turn precipitated a round of inter-communal and inter-ethnic violence. Eugene Terre-Blanche’s Afrikaaner Resistance Movement (“AWB”) was the foremost instigator of this violence, conducting a limited but nonetheless deadly campaign out of hidden bases in the countryside.
Cook was moved from the Foreign Office immediately following the election (he would serve as President of the Board of Trade until his death in 2005) and his role was taken by Jack Straw. However, the primary leader for negotiations regarding South Africa would be George Robertson, who had served as Defence Secretary for Beckett’s first term and had been appointed as the British member of the Commonwealth Cabinet in June 2000, taking the newly-created position of ‘High Representative to South Africa.’ (Anglosceptics at the time grumbled that this was just the precursor to the creation of a full Commonwealth ministry but future plans for the role after South Africa was ‘solved’ were left deliberately ambiguous.)
Robertson made visits to South Africa about once every two months, including holding high-level meetings with Zwelinzima Vavi and Nelson Mandela. Over this period, particular progress was made as regards land reform, with Robertson being key to brokering deals between the South African government and the Bank of England and the World Bank Group to provide loans for the (partially) compensated confiscation of the vast estates owned by Afrikaaner landlords. Hartzenberg’s trial took place in October and November 2002, with the former president refusing to recognise the black lawyers or jurors in the room (the judge was white owing to the apartheid-era ban on blacks holding judicial office) and unleashing a racist tirade when called to defend himself that lead to him being forcibly restrained. The death sentence was handed down at the end of the trial and Hartzenberg was hanged in December 2002, on a live video broadcast around the nation.
Hartzenberg’s death was the catalyst for a renewed round of violence across the country. In one particularly gory episode, known as the Battle of Ventersdorp, a band of over 3,000 AWB commandos attacked a United African Alliance rally, killing 48 attendees and seizing control of the town. This precipitated a severe response, with 11,000 Coalition soldiers (of which 10,000 were Commonwealth) and 2,000 troops from the new South African army deployed in response. Over the course of one month beginning on 7 January 2003, these coalition forces began an operation to clear the town in brutal house to house fighting, resulting in the deaths of nearly 2,000 AWB paramilitaries, and 95 Commonwealth soldiers (the South African army lost 4 men and the Brazilian army 11). The town was back under South African control on 23 February 2003. 800 civilians are estimated to have been killed, by both sides, during the course of the fighting. There was also much controversy surrounding the South African army’s alleged ‘no whites left alive’ policy.
In April 2003, the AWB attempted another dramatic raid, this time attacking the matriculation ceremony of the first black undergraduates admitted to Potchefstroom University. This time, Terre’Blanche would lead the attack himself. However, his cell was uncovered and stormed by South African police. In a brutal firefight, Terre’Blanche and four of his colleagues were killed. The death of Terre’Blanche was in many ways a turning point in the war, demonstrating the ability of the South Africans to take the lead on military and security operations. In September 2003, the independence of South West Africa, Eswatini and Lesotho was negotiated and became official. A timetable for Coalition withdrawal was announced soon after and the final Coalition forces left in December 2004, a timetable that enabled both the United African Alliance and various Commonwealth governments to go into elections with that in the public’s mind.
The major domestic reform of Beckett’s second ministry came from quite a different direction. British productivity had been growing consistently for several decades and at a rate that far outstripped their closest economic competitors. (Indeed, it was one of the many reasons behind the extraordinary economic growth since 1945.) Much of this productivity growth had been driven by the uptake of new technology, both in industry and out. Beckett had appointed Gordon Brown to the position of Welfare Secretary upon his election to Parliament in 2000 (previously he had served as Scottish first minister 1990-2000 following a distinguished rugby career) and Brown proposed to solve this problem of too much productivity in the simplest way possible: in April 2002 the Working Week Act 2002 was passed, reforming the working week to run from Monday to Thursday and a weekend from Friday to Sunday. This would be built upon by the Commonwealth’s Working Time Directive 2004, which would mandate an employee’s right to work no more than 35 hours a week, with at least six weeks paid holiday per year and a minimum of seven public bank/public holidays per year.
Although the Liberals opposed the measure, claiming that it would lead to the lowering of employment, it remains to be seen where this fresh leap in the dark would leave the nation.
Higher productivity means fewer people doing the same amount of work. Unless demand rises to compensate for this growth of efficiency, it could mean people being put out of work.
Hopefully Operation Enduring Teatime will go better than a certain other Operation I won't mention...
@Drunkrobot (below) has about the size of it. Basically the idea is that, if productivity rises consistently higher than demand, then you might end up with rising and potentially generational unemployment.
They're pottering along quite nicely. I was going to do an updated list of their leaders at some point next week. Hanover is still generally the closest ally of the Commonwealth, although there has been a certain cooling of relations recently because Hanover didn't commit troops to the invasion of South Africa. Austria and Bavaria are forming quite a close Southern European economic bloc with Portugal, Spain and Italy.
I have in mind that I'll finish it up in 2030. Any time after that I think it might become a bit too speculative. Also, I feel like I can kind of guess who might be big figures in Labour politics TTL for the next decade but after that I'd kind of just be making stuff up about Euan Blair (or whoever) and by that point I might as well just make up characters, which might be a fun SF TL but probably doesn't belong on this board. I have some ideas for how to bring it to a sort of satisfying(ish) conclusion but there won't be an apocalyptic nuclear war or anything like that.
Not really. I don't want to say that there is literally nobody around who advocates German unification because there are still a few (where they exist, they mostly find themselves on the far right of the politics of the relevant successor states) but not in any serious numbers. Any movement for reunification is held back by several contingent issues:
- Brandenburg and Saxony are still under Soviet domination as part of the CIS. So any open advocacy of unification with the other German successor states is treated, well, strictly.
- Hesse, the Rhineland and Baden-Wurttemberg are still very poor (think rough equivalence to the living standards of OTL Paraguay or Bolivia) so it's really unattractive for any of the richer states to have to absorb them (basically it's like the OTL arguments about reabsorbing the GDR but like x1,000,000).
- Also re the above, the elites in those countries are doing pretty well for themselves so don't want to undermine their own positions by opening it up to too much democracy or anything like that.
- Despite their shared language, the richer successor states (i.e. Austria, Bavaria and Hanover) don't really have much of a relationship with each other as a trio.
- Hanover has become a very much northern European country, with its closest relationship being with the Nordic Union and the Commonwealth.
- Austria and Bavaria do have close ties but it's often with other countries involved too. So, for example, they are working closely with Greece and Italy on security cooperation under the larger NATO umbrella. Similarly, as I've mentioned before, they do have a close relationship with Italy, Spain and Portugal on trade. If there's ever a push for inter-state integration TTL it's going to come from this direction rather than from German reunification.
To Rattigan's arguments, I would add another one. By the 90s, Brandenburg and Saxony may not even have an ethnically German majority anymore. I would assume that the Soviets have been shuffling lots of people around the CIS in the guise of 'economic development' (something that IOTL, the USSR did to Estonia and Latvia and China is doing to Tibet, Inner Mongolia and Xinjiang).
And then, IOTL, FRG, before the Ostpolitik, and GDR, for a shorter time, both pretended to be the sole legitimate German state thus proffering each its own vision or re-unification, with their relative patrons tolerating it. ITTL, the USSR and the WAllies are on terms good enough not to allow such ideas to take root in all their German client states.
The General Election of 2005
The Bare Necessities: The Limits of British Politics
The election of 2000 had been unusually vicious and ahead of the 2005 election officials from the three major parties met and hashed out a set of standards for the conduct of the next one. Importantly, this included rules regarding the transparency of private donations (either from individuals or trades unions), campaign spending limits and tentative agreements about funding political parties with public money. The campaign itself was conducted in reasonably good spirits, all things considered. Part of this, no doubt, was due to the fact that the result seemed inevitable. Labour had been fined by the Electoral Commission over the conduct of the previous general election and, following that, they had dipped behind the Liberals in the polls and never recovered. Despite by no means a disastrous second term, Beckett found herself in a similar position to the one Rodgers had been in in 1991: that people regarded her government as played out and that it was time for the Liberals to be given a go again. By all accounts, Beckett was more than reconciled to such a fate, with some rumours suggesting that she had considered resigning when the last British troops left South Africa in December 2004 but had been talked out of it.
The Liberals came into 2005 looking strong: they had not fallen into infighting following their loss in 1996 and had been united by the treatment of Ashdown in 2000. Bertie Ahern had won the leadership following Ashdown’s resignation in August 2000. Although Ahern had some Gladstonian bona fides, as well as close ties to the business community, he was also trusted by the moderates and progressives in the party to maintain the British welfare settlement. Notably, he did not publicly seek out the endorsement of Margaret Thatcher, even as he banked the votes of the Gladstonian caucus amongst Liberal MPs. Ahern’s naturally charming manner also reassured many in the public who associated liberalism either with Thatcherite harshness or a kind of moral superciliousness.
The Conservatives, too, looked strong under Jonathan Sumption’s leadership. Sumption had moderated the tory socialist line Mount had taken, putting more rhetorical focus on individual liberty than Mount had done, but the party’s pitch remained fundamentally the same, retaining their critique of official corruption and defence of the class system. As shown by the election of 1996, the majority of the party’s appeal came from intellectuals (both conservative and radical ones), with a sprinkling of shire smallholders and libertarian urban voters thrown in. This was, ultimately, a bit of a rut and severely limited the party’s room for further growth. But it was a rut that was still turning up psephological results and there was not enough energy to seriously move on from it.
On the night, the results showed a finely balanced electorate, with the Liberals just sneaking over the line and Ahern being granted a majority of two. As many commentators said afterwards, ‘any majority is a majority’ but it certainly made things difficult for Ahern and some of his more ambitious ministers. It also illustrated the limits of British party politics by this point. It had been 29 years since the Liberals had won a serviceable majority by themselves and, by now, it was becoming hard to foresee circumstances in which they would again. Too big to split but too small to challenge Labour on equal terms, in an odd way things looked bleak for the Liberals despite their victory.
On 9 April, Ahern secured an agreement from Beckett that Labour would abstain on the Liberals’ first budgetary proposals as if they were a minority government. Whatever plans Ahern had for his premiership, however, would be immediately thrown off the rails by an international crisis that emerged out of America only 11 days later.
The election of 2000 had been unusually vicious and ahead of the 2005 election officials from the three major parties met and hashed out a set of standards for the conduct of the next one. Importantly, this included rules regarding the transparency of private donations (either from individuals or trades unions), campaign spending limits and tentative agreements about funding political parties with public money. The campaign itself was conducted in reasonably good spirits, all things considered. Part of this, no doubt, was due to the fact that the result seemed inevitable. Labour had been fined by the Electoral Commission over the conduct of the previous general election and, following that, they had dipped behind the Liberals in the polls and never recovered. Despite by no means a disastrous second term, Beckett found herself in a similar position to the one Rodgers had been in in 1991: that people regarded her government as played out and that it was time for the Liberals to be given a go again. By all accounts, Beckett was more than reconciled to such a fate, with some rumours suggesting that she had considered resigning when the last British troops left South Africa in December 2004 but had been talked out of it.
The Liberals came into 2005 looking strong: they had not fallen into infighting following their loss in 1996 and had been united by the treatment of Ashdown in 2000. Bertie Ahern had won the leadership following Ashdown’s resignation in August 2000. Although Ahern had some Gladstonian bona fides, as well as close ties to the business community, he was also trusted by the moderates and progressives in the party to maintain the British welfare settlement. Notably, he did not publicly seek out the endorsement of Margaret Thatcher, even as he banked the votes of the Gladstonian caucus amongst Liberal MPs. Ahern’s naturally charming manner also reassured many in the public who associated liberalism either with Thatcherite harshness or a kind of moral superciliousness.
The Conservatives, too, looked strong under Jonathan Sumption’s leadership. Sumption had moderated the tory socialist line Mount had taken, putting more rhetorical focus on individual liberty than Mount had done, but the party’s pitch remained fundamentally the same, retaining their critique of official corruption and defence of the class system. As shown by the election of 1996, the majority of the party’s appeal came from intellectuals (both conservative and radical ones), with a sprinkling of shire smallholders and libertarian urban voters thrown in. This was, ultimately, a bit of a rut and severely limited the party’s room for further growth. But it was a rut that was still turning up psephological results and there was not enough energy to seriously move on from it.
On the night, the results showed a finely balanced electorate, with the Liberals just sneaking over the line and Ahern being granted a majority of two. As many commentators said afterwards, ‘any majority is a majority’ but it certainly made things difficult for Ahern and some of his more ambitious ministers. It also illustrated the limits of British party politics by this point. It had been 29 years since the Liberals had won a serviceable majority by themselves and, by now, it was becoming hard to foresee circumstances in which they would again. Too big to split but too small to challenge Labour on equal terms, in an odd way things looked bleak for the Liberals despite their victory.
On 9 April, Ahern secured an agreement from Beckett that Labour would abstain on the Liberals’ first budgetary proposals as if they were a minority government. Whatever plans Ahern had for his premiership, however, would be immediately thrown off the rails by an international crisis that emerged out of America only 11 days later.
That is a barely workable majority indeed. Do the Liberals look to the small parties for support here?
How are the Green faring here? I know the environmental cause is soaked up by the Main 2, but are they still present on the national or only local stage?
I suspect that Crisis is an alt 9/11 or a major disaster such as an earthquake/tsunami in California or similar.
How are the Green faring here? I know the environmental cause is soaked up by the Main 2, but are they still present on the national or only local stage?
I suspect that Crisis is an alt 9/11 or a major disaster such as an earthquake/tsunami in California or similar.