The British Civil War(s) 1984–1986

Decius00009

Banned
By that definition The Troubles 1969-1998 constitute a civil war
In no way, shape or form did the conflict in Northern Ireland constitute a civil war, it was a terrorist insurgency which purported to represent the needs of a minority against its lawful, internationally recognised government. The IRA was an effective terrorist network, admittedly, but it probably never numbered more than 1,000 effectives, even at its peak. Many more sympathisers, certainly, but nowhere near enough to form even a cadre for an army large enough, or well armed enough, to fight the conventional army in a notional civil war
 
How big is this civil war going to be in purely military terms? Like, would there be anything some future training officer will bring up as a lesson/example in purely tactical terms, with little or no politics involved?
 
In no way, shape or form did the conflict in Northern Ireland constitute a civil war, it was a terrorist insurgency which purported to represent the needs of a minority against its lawful, internationally recognised government. The IRA was an effective terrorist network, admittedly, but it probably never numbered more than 1,000 effectives, even at its peak. Many more sympathisers, certainly, but nowhere near enough to form even a cadre for an army large enough, or well armed enough, to fight the conventional army in a notional civil war

I do hope you're not going to discount the other terrorist organisations kicking around, such as the UVF, INLA, Red Hand, Third Force, IPLO, LVF, UFF and numerous others. I've not distinguished whether they were Loyalist or Republican, for obvious reasons.

I'm not entirely convinced a civil war has to be fought by conventional methods.
 

James G

Gone Fishin'
How about:

Con 289
Lab 300
Lib 21
SDP 15
SNP 5 (Dundee E, W. Isles, Moray, Banff and Buchan, Angus E)
PL C 3 (Merioneth, Caernarvon, Anglesey)
SDLP 3 (They pick up Down S. and Newry and Armagh)
Ind SDLP 1 (Gerry Fitt beats Gerry Adams)
SF 1 (Mid Ulster)
OUP 9
DUP 2
UPUP 1

That way you have 13 who would never support the Tories from the minor parties and 12 unionists who probably would, at least the OUP. Tony Benn would hold Bristol E. It doesn't really work though unless you increase the Alliance numbers which might well happen.

I like this. I didn't want to raise the Alliance vote too much; maybe I should have. Still, I'm going to go with you numbers. Thank you for your hard work on that!
Ah, Mr Benn... see the next update.

Waiting eagerly to see the proverbial matter spreading all around the fan...

It will splatter everywhere.

I have the feeling they won't be able to...

Nope. Impossible to do.

How big is this civil war going to be in purely military terms? Like, would there be anything some future training officer will bring up as a lesson/example in purely tactical terms, with little or no politics involved?

It will be big. I'm not ready for spoilers yet but use your imagination!
I don't think so. I'm still on politics at the minute but I will give that some consideration indeed.

I do hope you're not going to discount the other terrorist organisations kicking around, such as the UVF, INLA, Red Hand, Third Force, IPLO, LVF, UFF and numerous others. I've not distinguished whether they were Loyalist or Republican, for obvious reasons.

I'm not entirely convinced a civil war has to be fought by conventional methods.

'Third Force'. One I hadn't heard of until today. Interesting, added to notes section. All of the others I already have paid attention to in preparation. All the same: murderous bastards.
 
Betrayal after betrayal

James G

Gone Fishin'
II – Chaos, then bloodshed


Betrayal after betrayal

Tony Benn.

The name was enough to infuriate many, those on the right but also those who saw themselves as centralists, even soft-left. When he spoke, what he said, would drive many to distraction and they would rage against him and everything that he stood for in addition to what they misbelieved about him too. He was a polarising figure to rival Thatcher or Tebbit.

After two recounts, Benn had been elected in the constituency of Bristol East. It had been a close-run thing indeed but he had managed it. Time spent on the ground there in his constituency, softening his tone some, along with mistakes from his leading opponent had seen him elected to the Commons. A strong run from the Alliance there in the form of their Liberal candidate could have hurt him but instead votes were taken from the Conservative candidate. The closeness of the vote mattered little in the end: Benn was in the Commons.

During the 70s, Benn had been a minister and learnt some harsh lessons about the business of government. Civil servants, the big industrialists & the banks and the media: they ran things in Britain. The management team – an elected government – would change but things would stay the same with the establishment looking after itself. In 1980, Benn was regarded (fairly or not) as having driven away the Gang of Four and the others that followed them to form the Social Democrats a year later when he spoke of what a Labour government would do in its first days and first weeks in office to change the status quo. That was his hope; though he feared also what he had seen when he was in government would happen again upon Labour being elected with those in the establishment opposing the democratic will of the people.

He warned of betrayals being made.


Benn wasn’t one of Foot’s shadow ministers and neither was he appointed to a ministerial role by the new prime minister. Most of those who held shadow roles kept them with only a few yet key changes made after the election. Those ministers went to their ministries to implement Labour policies laid out in their manifesto and ran into immediate issues.

At the Home Office, Roy Hattersley was made aware of the growing threats to democratic security in the nation from extremist groups arming themselves. He had been made aware of some of this as shadow minister when information was shared with him following Privy Council rules yet he had underappreciated the scale before. Now he was being told about some missing weapons from official stocks but more than that illegal foreign imports of arms and reports of military training being undertaken by those on the far left and the far right. He endeavoured to do something about that. There would be no more watching this happening; something would be done to stop it: these radicals would be combatted. However, a key focus for him was on the changes to be made to policing. In places, the reaction of the police to urban rioting was over the top and unnecessary. The rule of law must be kept but what had been occurring was wrong and the deaths at police hands were to stop. Tebbit had also sent – through his personal intervention with Leon Brittan’s tenure as home secretary – the police against striking workers. There was a right to picket, as long as it was done lawfully. The police hadn’t been acting lawfully. Hattersley wanted to see changes made, reasonable changes. Civil servants had objections and explained how these matters weren’t as simple as portrayed but Hattersley was insistent. He had a fight on his hand at the Home Office.

Denis Healy had retained his foreign affairs brief. At the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, he wanted to start implementing Labour policy when it came to the European Economic Community (EEC): leaving that organisation as per the manifesto with his own personal feelings put aside. The newspapers were calling it ‘British withdrawal’, a clever double entrée. There had been members of the party calling for giving support to the ANC in South Africa and leaving NATO whose demands hadn’t made it into the manifesto but a planned new take on the country’s international relations especially when it came to the United States – the invasion of Grenada late last year was still rather contentious – was what he wanted to see undertaken. Again, it was the civil servants who spoke out in opposition… as Benn had said they would. What about treaties and international agreements with the United States and other allies in the Cold War stand-off? What would all of this cost in terms of trade and jobs when it came to pulling out of the EEC? They were employed to serve the elected government and would do so, but this hadn’t been thought through and the objections were valid.

Peter Shore at the Treasury as the new Chancellor of the Exchequer had more success there yet, again, there were questions asked and objections put as to the practicalities of those tax rises for the rich and the cuts for the poor… the definitions of rich and poor were questioned. The markets had already taken a tumble due to the Labour victory and weren’t going to recover; the flight of capital aboard was another concern. Yet, the Treasury was more adaptable than other ministries to the desires of new ministers. Civil servants nodded their heads rather than argued with the knowledge that their new Chancellor and his ministerial team would learn quick enough the realities of the situation.

At the Ministry of Defence, John Silkin was a man with experience of government. He understood civil servants. The facts from him were laid out clearly for them: the government had new policies and would implement them. Silkin would see the unilateral nuclear disarmament of Britain, the removal of Cruise from the country and a renegotiation when it came to American military presence in the nation more than just their nuclear-armed missiles: he spoke of their multiple air bases and the nuclear submarines in Scotland. The cruise missiles – the road-mobile GLCM weapon which had arrived at Greenham Common in late 1983 – were first on the agenda then everything else. He wanted to see other changes made to the British Armed Forces as well which following manifesto ideas and the will of the Labour Party. Silkin was informed like Hattersley about missing weapons and was more alarmed than the home secretary was especially as they were from Territorial Army stocks because there was the notion of strengthening that reserve force to cut back on regular forces elsewhere, yet his focus remained on the key issue of Cruise. There were agreements, the civil servants said. We’ll make new agreements, the new Defence Secretary told them.

Merlyn Rees had been made Northern Ireland Secretary in a post-election change of responsibilities. The situation in Ulster had been an outrage under Tebbit and Rees’ history there – he was a former Northern Ireland Secretary so he returned to the role he had held from 1976 to 1976 – was well-regarded by Foot. Collusion between the security services and loyalist terrorists would cease and those involved would be prosecuted. All terrorists, all law-breakers, would be treated the same. The Republicans would get nothing from a Labour government unless they respected democracy. There was a manifesto commitment (another late addition) to talking with the Republic of Ireland though again, there was no talk of overriding the will of the people in Ulster despite what many of Rees’ colleagues might have wanted. Civil servants at the Northern Ireland Office were sceptical of how this all might work and let him know. Rees was in-charge though and would make sure that the will of the democratically-elected government trumped the desires and prejudices of civil servants with vested interests.

Neil Kinnock and John Smith had gained new positions from what they held in the shadow cabinet to those they had in government. The former was now the Employment Secretary and the latter held the post of Energy Secretary. The two were seen by many as young modernisers. They had manifesto promises to honour though were not as passionate about them as others would have been. Each was wary of how far the hard left of the party had got such pledges into the manifesto. Kinnock and Smith both met with union leaders like Foot wanted them to. What was regarded as Tebbit’s war on the unions and the working man was over with. Smith had an especially personally unpleasant meeting with Arthur Scargill from the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) where Scargill was insistent that Tebbit was due to come after them next and made demands on the Energy Secretary for his members. Kinnock talked with the trade union bosses and they were eager for the roll-back to start of recent legislation first then move to renationalisation of so much which had been privatised under Conservative rule. The two secretaries of state put a lot of blame on their civil servants when things didn’t go as fast as planned. Much of that was true as laws needed changing and agreements needing renegotiation… yet each slowed things down so as to not let matters get out of hand with all that the unions wanted. Kinnock and Smith didn’t see that they were betraying anyone, just thinking of the country.


Overnight, Britain didn’t change too much. There were a lot of people that hoped that it would and others that dreaded the consequences of a Labour government but there were far too many sensible people involved. None of Foot’s senior cabinet members could ever be described as being from the loony left.

The new prime minister was relaxed about the slowness of things. He didn’t want to act too fast, there was plenty of time. He also didn’t want to upset people either. Foot had a minority government propped up by the Alliance whose votes he needed in the Commons to get anything done. He also didn’t want to upset his own party colleagues so didn’t pick fights. A just, fairer Britain was to be built under his leadership. That would take some time though. Where was the rush? Some comments were made about him personally when it came to these actions. There were whispers that he was still affected by the shooting the other year. He had officially only been lightly injured – ‘winged by a coward’s bullets’ – and recovered quickly. Questions were raised on whether he was fit to be a prime minister with the toll that perceived to be taking on him because he wasn’t as active as before he entered Downing Street. Those remarks ignored how busy he was as prime minister though, especially with running a government built upon the need to appease so many as he had to.

Militant hadn’t gone away. They had five allied MPs elected as Labour candidates. Those MPs had friendships and connections as well. They dreamed of a bigger role but were wholly frustrated in being of any importance. At first that was the case. However, things changed.

Owen from the Social Democrats crowed at the ‘moderating’ influence he and his supporters claimed to have over the government. There were those on the right of Labour who did the same. Whispers came that civil servants were to blame from Benn and his allies as well. A narrative started to form that the left was being blocked from doing what it had been elected to do and there were those who were going to stop what the people had voted for. It was a betrayal! There were rumblings of severe discontent and anger was brought forth.

An outlet was needed for this, but where was that to come from?
 
Last edited:

James G

Gone Fishin'
Readers should note that I am not going down a cliché route with Benn or Militant. No Viva la Revolution and inviting the Soviets in or executing the rich to baying crowds or any of that rubbish.
I have done my research and moved past silliness on how I viewed them before educating myself.

Next update will cover that outlet to stop the betrayals seen... a popular movement... some might say a People's Front.
 
'Third Force'. One I hadn't heard of until today. Interesting, added to notes section. All of the others I already have paid attention to in preparation. All the same: murderous bastards.

Some were murderous bastards with a clear agenda, some were murderous bastards without. My knowledge of The Troubles is 1970s rather than 1980s, but it wasn't a fun place to be. Drop me a PM if you need any background on 1970s NI.

To be fair to them, they weren't as bad as the murderous bastards in Beirut, but that was even less fun.
 

James G

Gone Fishin'
Some were murderous bastards with a clear agenda, some were murderous bastards without. My knowledge of The Troubles is 1970s rather than 1980s, but it wasn't a fun place to be. Drop me a PM if you need any background on 1970s NI.

To be fair to them, they weren't as bad as the murderous bastards in Beirut, but that was even less fun.

If needed, I will do thank you. Even as a sounding board for ideas I might have queries.
The stuff on NI I have read recently is horrible.
 
Now he was being told about missing weapons from official stocks and reports of military training being undertaken by those on the far left and the far right.

In general, interesting. However, I raise an eyebrow at this line. The British Armed Forces in the 1970s and 1980s were, for fairly obvious reasons, highly twitchy about weapons going walkabout. It could and did happen, but it tended to result in a fair bit of activity.

It was also really rather unnecessary. Lots of potential suppliers around who'll stump up serious equipment; America, Czechoslovakia, Libya, the list was endless. And I am talking serious kit; one bunch in NI in the late 1970s decided to rob a pub. Among the weapons they used was a flame thrower.
 

James G

Gone Fishin'
In general, interesting. However, I raise an eyebrow at this line. The British Armed Forces in the 1970s and 1980s were, for fairly obvious reasons, highly twitchy about weapons going walkabout. It could and did happen, but it tended to result in a fair bit of activity.

It was also really rather unnecessary. Lots of potential suppliers around who'll stump up serious equipment; America, Czechoslovakia, Libya, the list was endless. And I am talking serious kit; one bunch in NI in the late 1970s decided to rob a pub. Among the weapons they used was a flame thrower.

I'll think about that one. It isn't just in Ulster where the weapons are. I'll give it some consideration.
 
Northern Ireland not modernised or industrialised? Really? So I suppose the industrial sites such as the Harland & Wolff shipyards, the GEC generator manufacturing plant, the car factory were just figments of the imagination. Like many places, it had rural bits and urban bits and industrial bits, and stuff in between. Not modernised? It was as modernised as mainland Britain. To say otherwise is nonsense on stilts. Not industrialised or modernised? Seriously? Still, I must defer to your greater knowledge of The Troubles.

And don't forget Short Brothers ... at the time mostly building Light Aircraft and SAMs.
 
I think Kinnock and the other moderates within Labour would side with the other more establishment parties (Tories, Liberals, SDP, etc) in case of an armed rebellion from the far left.

Keep up the good work, James! :)
 

James G

Gone Fishin'
And don't forget Short Brothers ... at the time mostly building Light Aircraft and SAMs.

Thanks. Added to notes!

I think Kinnock and the other moderates within Labour would side with the other more establishment parties (Tories, Liberals, SDP, etc) in case of an armed rebellion from the far left.

Keep up the good work, James! :)

I agree. There may also be those on the right waiting in the wings for a rebellion too.
 
This feels like it should be in ASB. Short of mind control, there is no way a POD in 1982 can cause a civil war by 1984-6. The British Army and to be honest the British people are not going to reject the ballot box for the gun without a lot of provocation. It would take a decade or more for extremists even in the most favorable circumstances to build up the support and resources for a shooting war. A few terrorists is not a civil war , civil wars need shadow governments , forces acting in a conventional manner etc. And this does not even touch on the Cousins intervening massively to stop a nuclear power sliding into civil war ( especially as its still the cold war )
 

James G

Gone Fishin'
This feels like it should be in ASB. Short of mind control, there is no way a POD in 1982 can cause a civil war by 1984-6. The British Army and to be honest the British people are not going to reject the ballot box for the gun without a lot of provocation. It would take a decade or more for extremists even in the most favorable circumstances to build up the support and resources for a shooting war. A few terrorists is not a civil war , civil wars need shadow governments , forces acting in a conventional manner etc. And this does not even touch on the Cousins intervening massively to stop a nuclear power sliding into civil war ( especially as its still the cold war )
Thank you for your feedback.
My story shall hopefully show how that could have happened. I guess you'll have to see how it will play out.
 
Thank you for your feedback.
My story shall hopefully show how that could have happened. I guess you'll have to see how it will play out.
Don't let criticism dissuade you but I state as I have previously civil wars in western countries in this era are not just difficult to execute, their difficult to imagine.
 
Top