The British Civil War(s) 1984–1986

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.
Weren't the Cadet Corps armouries relocated to Army bases in the '70s because of thefts?
 
While the 1970s (and 1930s) are a more popular period for allohistorical UK Civil Wars I wouldn't rule out one in the 1980s as impossible. Implausible yes, but then a lot of history was implausible. There was an awful lot of anger, dislocation and desperation ("Gizza' job!") sloshing around. If it had found something to coalesce around who know what might have happened.


On the subject of firearms, the 1988 amnesty (post Hungerford) yielded approximately 48,000 weapons.
 

James G

Gone Fishin'
subscribed.

I hope not to disappoint.

Weren't the Cadet Corps armouries relocated to Army bases in the '70s because of thefts?

As David said last night, this idea of mine here needs a rework. Will do that this evening.

While the 1970s (and 1930s) are a more popular period for allohistorical UK Civil Wars I wouldn't rule out one in the 1980s as impossible. Implausible yes, but then a lot of history was implausible. There was an awful lot of anger, dislocation and desperation ("Gizza' job!") sloshing around. If it had found something to coalesce around who know what might have happened.


On the subject of firearms, the 1988 amnesty (post Hungerford) yielded approximately 48,000 weapons.

My initial ideas of a organised revolution were based on the 70s transferred to the 80s. But that was implausible and a load of crap. I had to be imaginative in my new plans for this. So, my ideas changed to make it more messy, more desperate and wholly unorganised.
Post Falklands, there will be national gloom then there was a rather authoritarian government afterwards. An outlet was offered, a change of people. Then that looks like it is being taken away from them before it is even given.
3million unemployed at the time and they will be told lies over and over again.
48000? That's a lot. I'm guessing shotguns and former WW2 weapons, but still... wow.
 
As David said last night, this idea of mine here needs a rework. Will do that this evening.
Well that was the stuff that'd been kept in the schools.

My initial ideas of a organised revolution were based on the 70s transferred to the 80s. But that was implausible and a load of crap. I had to be imaginative in my new plans for this. So, my ideas changed to make it more messy, more desperate and wholly unorganised.
Well there was enough unrest, IMO. It just never triggered.

Post Falklands, there will be national gloom then there was a rather authoritarian government afterwards. An outlet was offered, a change of people. Then that looks like it is being taken away from them before it is even given.
3million unemployed at the time and they will be told lies over and over again.
48000? That's a lot. I'm guessing shotguns and former WW2 weapons, but still... wow.
Most of that lot were souvenirs, including a fair number of working automatic weapons. About 4,000 no longer legal semi-automatic were bought by the government too.

The 1997 amnesty (Dunblane) netted 162,000 weapons though most of these were previously legal handguns.
 
My initial ideas of a organised revolution were based on the 70s transferred to the 80s. But that was implausible and a load of crap. I had to be imaginative in my new plans for this. So, my ideas changed to make it more messy, more desperate and wholly unorganised.

The problem is that this messy, unorganised infrastructure isn't very likely to result in a total collapse, or anything beyond just spurts of violence that prevent mainstream support and do nothing to hit the foundations of the state. If you want that sort of total collapse, I'd say declare the TL a narrative one, make an acknowledgment that it's implausible, and then go ahead with your original plan.
 
My initial ideas of a organised revolution were based on the 70s transferred to the 80s. But that was implausible and a load of crap. I had to be imaginative in my new plans for this. So, my ideas changed to make it more messy, more desperate and wholly unorganised.

What you have here sounds like civil unrest writ large, with basically bunches of people opposing things without quite having a clear idea of what they're opposing or what they want instead. You'll have already had things like the Toxteth riots (1981, thus pre POD). You've already had things like the Grunwick industrial dispute as the precusor of the Miners' Strike. The IRA was still active on the mainland (including London), although they had been penetrated by Five and were starting to suffer from a lot of "bad luck".
 

James G

Gone Fishin'
The problem is that this messy, unorganised infrastructure isn't very likely to result in a total collapse, or anything beyond just spurts of violence that prevent mainstream support and do nothing to hit the foundations of the state. If you want that sort of total collapse, I'd say declare the TL a narrative one, make an acknowledgment that it's implausible, and then go ahead with your original plan.

I think I have a way to do what I want to do so I'm going to stick with this one and this idea.
I have all sorts of ideas.

What you have here sounds like civil unrest writ large, with basically bunches of people opposing things without quite having a clear idea of what they're opposing or what they want instead. You'll have already had things like the Toxteth riots (1981, thus pre POD). You've already had things like the Grunwick industrial dispute as the precusor of the Miners' Strike. The IRA was still active on the mainland (including London), although they had been penetrated by Five and were starting to suffer from a lot of "bad luck".

There's been a lot of that unrest already - riots that Tebbit had the police crack down on hard, plus striking industrial workers getting it in the neck hard too - and more to come.
As to what that will lead into, it is just as you say: opposition without a well-thought out strategy towards an endgame. Then a vacuum.
Then add in Ulster in chaos lit by a spark - just one bullet - followed by officialdom making stupid, stupid mistakes.
That's my plan.
 
A popular movement

James G

Gone Fishin'
A Popular movement

The Peoples Front was formed the day after the result of the election was revealed. It should have been nothing more than a pipe-dream for those behind it who wanted to keep the progress they saw as having been made with a Labour victory ongoing. The hope given with the new government was feared early on to be in danger of slipping away if there weren’t those calling for it to continue.

Two small, electorally-insignificant parties were behind the Peoples Front at the outset: the Revolutionary Democratic Group (RDG) and the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP). Who an earth were they? They were tiny organisations in terms of political significance who rarely contested elections and faced what everyone else would see as humiliation but they regarded as trying their best. In the past few years, they had turned to grassroots efforts in helping people in Tebbit-led Britain. The unemployed and the disaffected were shown how to get help in their situations and offered advice in troubling personal situations. Politics remained a part of each party yet they were less dramatic than other, bigger parties who attracted attention: those such as the interfering Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and the insane Workers Revolutionary Party (WRP). Where there was often despair in the big cities of London and Birmingham in the main – through elsewhere too – there would be small parties like these two on the ground and working to increase their profile by helping people rather than making a show of themselves.

The Labour Party manifesto contained many ideas that the RDG and especially the RCP liked. There were other parts, naturally, which they didn’t but the benefits were seen as outweighing the negatives for now. Those people they worked with in some communities were offered much by the new government and those who formed the People’s Front wanted those promises to come to fruition. With no money and no real organisation alone, they worked together. They planned for a series of marches to remind the new government of the people who had voted for them and the expectations of them. Marches occurred in mid- & late-May. Marchers turned out, far more than the Peoples Front had planned for. They wanted what was promised to them and were vocal but peaceful in calling for that. An end to despair had been offered and they didn’t want to see it taken away.

Jealous and wanting to make an impact themselves without previously being able to, the Peoples Front was hi-jacked by the end of the month by the SWP and the WRP. They had the organisation and the bigger presence if not deeper appeal. With political events such as the – natural – delays occurring to implementing Labour policies where their effects would be felt, and seen to be felt, the Peoples Front got bigger. They had more marches, in more places across England and Wales though with little success in Scotland. There was no real violence within the marches as event stewards were present. The new steering committee for the Peoples Front was quickly SWP and WRP dominated – they quickly put aside most difference for the time being – though with token contributions elsewhere from other figures who saw the Peoples Front as being a just organisation and only calling for what was right and nothing unreasonable.

A favourable opinion was gained by many and the Peoples Front was rather popular as a movement among those who usually didn’t play an active role in politics nor had a voice that was listened to. There were the unemployed on the marches but the employed too; the young & the old & the middle-aged were there with family groups attending. It was ordinary people. The Peoples Front grew fast and with that, many of the initial ideas it had were pushed aside for a more pressing agenda than just reminding the government on its promises and stopping a betrayal but demanding the impossible too. The first founders floundered in their attempts to regain control of the agenda. Within weeks, what they had started had metamorphosed into something else. The lunatics had taken over the asylum.


The Peoples Front was dismissed as ‘a bunch of unruly Trots’ by many influential figures on the left when notice started to be taken of it. Attention was focused upon the loud activists and the professional protesters. When groups such as Stop The City and then War On Want became involved, the first a group of unruly anarchists and the second seen recently as a vanity project for its outspoken leader, joined and open demands were being made by the Peoples Front there was a lot of rejection from some.

Benn wanted nothing to do with it. He wasn’t alone. Through early June, it became a seemingly chaotic organisation with the public face of its leadership unappealing to those in Parliament and in the top tiers of politics of the Left. There were accusations levelled that such critics were jealous of the appeal that the Peoples Front had to the ordinary people; to counter this, the millions of voters who democratically elected MPs were pointed to. When the Peoples Front demanded jobs for all and an immediate redistribution of wealth – the impossible – rather than just the government keeping its promises and making Britain fairer, it was seen as out of control.

The Peoples Front would run out of steam, it was said. It had no real agenda laid out in any organised fashion, detractors continued, and those who attended the marches would soon realise they were being taken for fools and manipulated. There was no democracy in the leadership and those who were running it, those from the SWP and the WRP, really didn’t care about the people they claimed to lead only their own, selfish agendas to gain attention. What mattered was the real struggle to keep Labour to its manifesto promises and that wouldn’t be done by shouting in the street.

Those such as Benn might have dismissed the Peoples Front as Trots who were going nowhere fast, a car crash happening right now and exploiting the reasonable wishes of people being betrayed, but others saw it as an opportunity. The SWP and the WRP had taken over the Peoples Front for their own ends but they wouldn’t be alone in joining and seeking to gain serious influence over the organisation which was holding marches that were attracting a larger turn out of ordinary people each time.

Militant MPs – those five who stood as Labour candidates had been elected against the wishes of the party leadership – joined the Peoples Front with a significant part of the organisation they belonged to following. They didn’t like many ideas of the movement yet embraced some others. This was a popular movement and they wanted part of it for what it was capable of becoming.


One of the leading figures within the Peoples Front was Gerry Healy, recently re-established as leader of the WRP due to internal politics. The Workers Revolutionary Party was a high-profile organisation yet with little influence before. Healy himself was divisive and had distasteful personal behaviour that was excused away by his followers. The WRP was fractionised though despite its leader with other key figures such as Michael Banda having ideas of their own.

Groups like the RDG and the RCP might have spent the past few years engaged in hard work locally, but the WRP had been thinking bigger. They hadn’t helped people with the troubles in their lives, they had instead caused people trouble. Those who had looked for hope and an end to the seeming despair of their lives – millions were unemployed and the Tebbit government gave the impression that it really didn’t care – came upon the WRP like they did others of all political shades and were often caught up in the movement and its extreme ideas. It was a party of chaos and also recent radicalisation. When Tebbit had taken action against urban rioting and also seemed to declare war on the unions – the latter which he certainly hadn’t done so –, the WRP had stood up to him… or claimed to anyway. They had held noisy protests and gained attention without doing anything. They certainly didn’t speak for the unemployed youths in the city nor striking industrial workers. Doing so would mean working hard to address those problems and create a solution: it was easier to make a fuss and be seen doing so.

The WRP had managed to financially survive for as long as it had with such demands as were caused by its many activities by help from many sources. Those included the support from certain rich backers and also what came from foreign donations. Those foreign donations being regimes in the Middle East such as Iraq but more so Libya. There was a price for the fraternal assistance when it came to the WRP monitoring opponents and exiles in Britain for those countries and the WRP was heavily-involved in identifying those. Foreign money, especially that from Libya, was put to use. A pre-Tebbit idea to run training centres for youths to teach them how to combat police activities (evade capture, block deployments even fight back: not serious violence against them) using Libyan money was put into practise when riots in first Liverpool then Leeds in mid-1982 occurred. Just a crazy idea became a reality. Industrial workers on strike had their unions, who had the Labour Party behind them, so they told the WRP where to stick their foolish Trotskyist ideas, but the WRP did manage to attract support from many urban areas. They protested at police stations after arrests were made and made a scene of doing so. There was a message of hate with the WRP though, not one of hope that others had: hate filled many who became associated with them too.

Healy liked being the leader of the WRP because it gave him publicity… and also access to young women. Those such as Banda (who had been witness to the strong police reaction to a riot in Birmingham in late 1982 and was said to have been hardened afterwards) and some others around him – new additions to the party – wanted more. The ability to defend themselves and others were sought, that being weapons. The Libyans were approached, the Iraqis too. There was a no to that. What could the WRP provide in exchange? Where they going to offer to return some of the money given to them by those regimes back to each in return for arms? The two countries weren’t going to do that. They also didn’t want the blowback of flooding Britain with guns traceable to them. It was not in their interests to do so. Those who had first floated the idea of weapons became obsessed with the idea of being armed. They created reasons to have them: to fight for the people, to smash the racists & fascists etc. They went elsewhere if their fraternal allies abroad couldn’t, wouldn’t help them. There were other far-left extremist groups out there and Banda’s WRP faction – not always doing everything with his full knowledge, what could be attributed to him anyway – approached some of them. Barter agreements were made with the anti-fascists from Red Action, those who bombed the Monday Club and been hit hard by the security services afterwards but survived to grow; the Maoist English People’s Liberation Army wanted cash, thank you. These small groups had been arming themselves too without doing anything major and they could provide weapons directly or through suppliers. There was another issue though: having weapons was one thing, knowing how to use them was another. More links were made with such other groups so training could be given. There became a tipping point where eventually the WRP armed faction was dependent upon others with far more radical agendas than their own. Their pool of potential recruits was exploited. Some dreamed of a Red Army… an impossible, stupid idea.

This all took place before the 1984 May general election and before Healy left behind his lifestyle of a cult-leader enjoying the spoils at the WRP mansion in Derbyshire and went to London to take a major role in the Peoples Front. He was never in control of his party like he would never been in control of the Peoples Front either… but he believed that he was.


The Peoples Front with its popular appeal and one cult-like but radicalised non-important political party were not seen by most as important. Other things were meanwhile going on that was seen as more important. There were defining political events occurring in June 1984 and outbreaks of extreme violence elsewhere within Britain; the former in Parliament and the latter in The Province.
 
Last edited:
House of Cards

James G

Gone Fishin'
House of Cards

Through early June and towards the middle of the month, the business of Parliament continued. The Queen’s Speech had been voted for with Labour supported by Alliance votes and the government was getting underway trying to fulfil its election promises and running into problems as they did so. The growing Peoples Front was no more than a nuisance and there wasn’t that much attention being paid to Northern Ireland either. Parliamentarians were busy and party politics continued.

Amendments to the Queen’s Speech were put forward in the Commons concerning several matters though quickly a Conservative amendment was tabled when it came to the EEC and British Withdrawal which attracted attention. There was enough support gained for a vote to be scheduled on the issue and this became rather contentious. The tabled motion put before the Commons was for there to be a referendum on whether the country should pull out with the voters having a say on the matter. Labour had given the people a vote in 1975 when they were last in government and wanted to leave the trade bloc and the Conservatives wanted that done again. The intention behind the amendment wasn’t fully honest though; there was an eagerness from Tebbit to be seen to doing something important and to maintain his position after his election defeat. Furthermore, it was realised that such a vote, which could go either way if some of the whispers about the Social Democrats were true, was going to cause serious problems for Labour in the Commons and bring embarrassment. The Liberals and the Social Democrats weren’t formal coalition partners in any shape or form; there were also possible Labour rebels to the government whip as well with the EEC not something that Labour MPs were united on. The public might not have shared the excitement in Parliament over the EEC but that didn’t really matter.

The Liberals were firmly wielded to voting with the government on the issue and the number of Labour rebels was thought to be very small. Promises were made to those who might rebel on other issues and reminders made that they as Labour MPs would be voting with Tebbit’s Conservatives. When it came to the Social Democrats, their views on Europe were well-known but it had been the decision of the party leadership, pushed by their parliamentary partners with the Liberals, to vote against the amendment. The Conservatives were causing trouble and angling to strike a blow against the government. Moreover, the talk within the Social Democrats was remaining with Labour in the Commons to influence events from inside rather than be left impotent outside: British Withdraw could be moderated, even stopped, at a later date, there was no rush.

On the evening of the vote, which took place on June 11th, Labour was focused on their Militant MPs and making sure that they turned up to vote with the government. In addition, attention was paid too in trying to gain extra votes from smaller parties such as those with the SNP, Plaid and the SDLP whose views on the EEC were similar to that of Labour. Several Labour MPs were committed to rebelling or abstaining – the latter was better than the former for the government – but the measures elsewhere were hoped to work. The Liberals were all onside and the Social Democrats were meant to be as well.

The government lost the vote. Even with SNP votes, they failed to defeat the tabled amendment due to their own rebels and also a total of eight Social Democrats (more than half of the MPs with that party) either abstaining in the case of two or outright voting for the proposal for a second referendum put forth by the Conservatives by the other half a dozen.

The immediate fallout were two resignations from the Social Democrats while Labour was still in shock. The chief whip resigned for he had failed to keep his MPs in-line and then Jenkins announced that he couldn’t continue; the former president of the European Commission was no fan of British Withdrawal but he had been humiliated and his parliamentary party was out of control. Owen and those others who didn’t toe the party line stated afterwards that they believed in the right of the people to choose either a pull-out from the EEC or continuing membership. They were not tied to the government in anything more than confidence and supply and this vote had been on neither. There was talk too of how the economy had taken a hard hit upon the result of the general election and British Withdrawal would doom the country to poverty as a result of an end to free trade with Western Europe. There was no explanation given on why they had been as deceiving as they had been though in how they had acted like they had; they didn’t want to talk about how they had lied to John Cartwright, the departed chief whip, nor not told their party leader or allies either what they were going to do. Labour rebels were just as culpable as the faction of the Social Democrats that Owen now led but they had not deceived their party whips or leadership beforehand. They weren’t making dramatic public statements afterwards nor holding press events or desperate to get media interviews.

Christmas had come early for the Conservatives. They got an immediate morale boost. Tebbit still had those with their knives sharpened and ready to be drawn for his leadership but he had kept his MPs in-line – well… his whips had – and afterwards there was a feeling that the party was on the path to return to power. There was talk of bringing about a vote of no confidence in the government soon enough and seeing how that would turn out. The infighting within the Social Democrats, the Alliance and Labour (less so with the latter but still present a little) all pointed to a good chance of success with such a strategy. A victory there would be far more significant than one of the EEC and the now stalled British Withdrawal: Labour’s one month old government was susceptible at the moment to collapse and with that, there would have to be another election, wouldn’t there?

That political drama with the vote in the Commons and then the recriminations afterwards went on through the rest of the working week. During the coming weekend, a Peoples Front march had been refused permission to take place in London due to the Trooping of the Colour. No one in power gave that any serious thought due to the political machinations ongoing in Parliament after the vote on the Monday night.


Where there were those on the extreme left who had been radicalised and had been slowly arming themselves, the same had been occurring on the far right too over the past few years with again no serious major outlet for their potential.

The odious National Front (NF) had been beset by splits during the Thatcher’s premiership. With Tebbit in Downing Street there were growing internal problems within the party yet, at the same time and somewhat contradictorily, the NF was on the ascendancy as well. The situation with urban riots, oftentimes (though not always) with racial issues among them, was fertile breeding ground for them. The British National Party (BNP) had broken off and taken away a lot of active, important members with them and started to gain recruits like the competing NF did. The two preyed on feelings of division and tension within communities, sweeping in with their messages of hate and putting all perceived wrongs right if only they were listened to. That would start with the race issue, naturally. The NF had always been beset by the problem that when met with greater force than their own showing of force, their weakness was shown. Big-mouths would be the first to disappear when counter-protesters showed up or communities forcefully stood up to them and while skinheads might fight for a few moments, they would often fold too. The police would gain no reprimand from their superiors for cracking skinheads either. First known as the New National Front, the BNP had the same difficulties.

Then came the idea of the Political Soldier. It was an ill-defined faction within the NF though had some adherents in the BNP. The concept was still forming but it was one of violence and revolutionary zeal at its core. Younger members of the NF and the BNP indoctrinated new recruits in tenants of the overall idea. They spoke of a broken Britain which had suffered the humiliation in the Falklands and blamed the minorities… which was laughable. The message was passed on that Ulster was next to be lost and then the rest of Britain would break up too. Racial purity could stop this yet minorities had powerful allies supporting them in the form of the establishment of all political colours. Fighting them was what needed to be done.

Political Soldier factions formed in both the NF and the BNP. There were some who soon lost interest as well as others who spoke to the authorities as informers. The passion expressed by adherents to the Political Soldier idea didn’t seem to concern those in authority but the sudden moved to gain weapons plus learn how to use them did. Some measures were taken to stop the efforts and seize weapons already in far-right extremist hands, but it wasn’t enough. Twice arms caches coming from fellow extremists in Northern Ireland were stopped and arrests made. What the authorities didn’t get a-hold of were other weapons that the NF and BNP armed factions, those Political Soldiers, were gaining from less dramatic sources: the theft of privately-held weapons taking place with sudden frequency and ended up being stored ready to one day be used. There would be an issue with training and also ammunition too, but guns were gathered.


Patriotic groups, those who saw themselves as on the right but certainly not extremists, had been around in the 70s. GB75 had been one man talking big, Civil Assistance had been real. Such movements (imagined and real) had folded with Thatcher’s win in 1979, but towards the end of the Tebbit premiership several sprung up again. Patriots saw themselves as those who would step up in the event of a major national crisis where there was paralysis from officialdom. The violent riots where outbreaks of unrest were cracked down hard upon leading to later unrest brought to another halt, an endless cycle, were looked at with concern. Where there were industrial strikes too that attracted flying pickets bringing with that state action to put a forceful end to that was in again looked at with worry. Tebbit was seen as strong by many people, but Patriots weren’t so sure. The wind was blowing towards something big happening. Tebbit’s premiership had been regarded as radicalising people nationwide against him and the whole establishment rather than bringing a sense of security as was the feeling elsewhere. A revolution was feared with the disastrous consequences of that. In such a situation, Patriots would step in when chaos came and keep the country running, bringing order if they had to.

The peaceful Labour return to power wasn’t anticipated by Patriots. The wide variety of groups who were geographically separate and with different ideas hadn’t read the mood of the voters right. They quickly saw something they did fear though: the loony left in-charge and then a street movement run by those demanding further drastic measures for the government to take. These threatened not just the health of the country but democracy itself, such was how Patriots saw this. Disunited at first, Patriots started to come together. They had financial connections with some well-off, even rich backers and also shared printing facilities for their mountains of literature predicting dire outcomes that they undertook with zeal. There was a lot of harmony at the top during discussions and mergers between leaders who were united in alarm at the present and especially the future more than seeking personal power and the vanity of being at the very top.

Members of the Patriots, the multiple groups nationwide, came from all walks of life and backgrounds. It took all sorts to join the various groups who came together as the Patriots and those who did tended to stick with it for some time either. By mid-1984, they had a large following of serving policemen and military personnel and others such as prison officers and retired people from those professions as well as reservists who belonged to the groups; there was too a Masonic presence that brought together organisational skills and sturdy supporters. The Patriots in their various forms were not illegal nor were they high-profile. They didn’t attract official attention nor commit acts of violence. They didn’t have a violent ideology. They were present though and worried at what they saw happening. They weren’t going to act unless something else happened first to bring chaos and disruption. Should that occur, bringing order in a welcome manner was their only official intention of their individual group and when they started to unite under the banner of the Patriots.

Not everyone who joined the Patriots thought like that though and a lot of those people used the cover of a peaceful organisation to plot and plan their own actions for when that need came to commit them. It was an organisation with manpower and access to legally-held firearms, plus people who knew how to use them. For those with nefarious ideas, that was appealing.


The British Armed Forces were apolitical. Like the Monarchy, the military was a political football at times to be kicked around and whose victories & defeats were treated like a game.

The Falklands had been a defeat for the British Armed Forces. Arguments could be made that the war hadn’t been lost on the battlefield just at home and there had been a very good chance of military success if it hadn’t been for the Hermes being hit, but that hardly mattered overall. British ships had sailed home with troops aboard them and the islands in the South Atlantic remained in Argentinian hands. Humiliation came and there was a lot of demoralisation across those who wore the uniform. Recruitment and retention was hit hard. The losses suffered in the Falklands – Hermes was the most dramatic but not the only loss – weren’t replaced. Tebbit’s government had remained committed to spending plans and the military as a whole but there was no zeal when it came to defence issues after that defeat. The NATO deployment in West Germany remained and there were troops in Northern Ireland involved in the security situation there; the mission was the same for the military in defending the nation. The Royal Navy took more of a knock than the British Army or the Royal Air Force but throughout the British Armed Forces, there was a feeling of shared shame at the defeat inflicted. There were those who pointed their fingers at the government to shoulder that blame and who should be ashamed – self-serving politicians! –, not those who served their country and were treated like they were.

The Labour victory in the election came as a surprise to the military. There was already an awareness of the party’s policies on defence matters but such things hadn’t been feared. The thinking among the generals and the admirals was that should Labour have been elected, they would hardly carry those out. The party was full of sensible people and those who understood the need for a strong military. Foot was no appeaser nor was Labour about to sell the country out to the Kremlin either. The manifesto was all fluff and none of those promises were any of the sort. Upon forming a government, Labour went to try to keep to their commitments that they had made to the electorate. Any idea that the people hadn’t voted for such ideas was rubbished by politicians; of course the people had.

Unilateral nuclear disarmament was not welcome yet still rather abstract to those in uniform. It didn’t upset many and those that it did realised that it was something difficult to achieve politically especially with a minority government relying on smaller parties. What was of more pressing concern were the ideas for ‘reorganisation’ of the British Armed Forces. A less reliance on professionals and instead reservists was what the new government had as its policy. A withdrawal from military facilities aboard (Gibraltar, Cyprus etc.) apart from those in West Germany was called for too. Capabilities for long-range deployments were to be cut. It was the offensive side of the military, the ability to act as a great power would, that the new government wanted to bring an end to. When it came to that reorganisation, there was a worry from those in uniform that while government policy itself was something that they didn’t agree with, worse was going to come later on with those opposed to the military in Parliament further moving against them on ideological grounds.

There was something else too: that reorganisation spoke of personnel cuts to those at the very top to get rid of the bloated senior military staff of so many generals and admirals.

However… the military wouldn’t dare act against Her Majesty’s Government (HMG). The British Armed Forces were servants of the crown and the crown’s ministers. That was a duly elected government. It would be unacceptable to do anything against HMG. There was no appetite generally for ‘stepping-in for the sake of democracy’ or ‘safeguarding the country’ like a few comments made by some at the top suggested in passing to others. Those who made such remarks were shot down and told not just that would never have support but it was near-treason too. The elected government wasn’t one of traitors. Blood wasn’t being spilt in the streets. The people had a functioning government. There was security and stability. The changes which were being proposed would have to be managed as best as possible and there was too the feeling that a new election would come soon enough.

One general and some of his adherents in uniform stopped sharing their thoughts with their comrades-in-arms. They talked among themselves instead and plotted and planned should the worst happen. All that they would do, the said to each other, was ‘act in the national interest’.
 
Last edited:
I'm really enjoying the build up.
When I look back at the state of the country post Falklands, the way the far right was at the depth of that decline before beginning to rise again towards the end of the 80's, how some of the hard left and militant were looking to get into a fight with Thatcher. Easy to read this and think it rather feasible.
 

Jack Brisco

Banned
While I admit I don't know that much about British politics, it certainly looks like the shit is going to hit the fan, big-time.

James G, what's the position of the USA about all this? There are a number of US bases in the UK. Any idea yet how they will be affected by the upcoming civil war?
 

James G

Gone Fishin'
I'm really enjoying the build up.
When I look back at the state of the country post Falklands, the way the far right was at the depth of that decline before beginning to rise again towards the end of the 80's, how some of the hard left and militant were looking to get into a fight with Thatcher. Easy to read this and think it rather feasible.

Thank you.
My thinking is that these situations will explode with a bang if combined all at once. Most of those players have no immediate agenda apart from 'we will do this and then everything will be fixed'. The idea of mine is that what comes next when the happy-ever-after doesn't work: disaster.
I should get to the fighting by the end of the weekend... I've stretched out the pre-fighting states more than I planned just a bit when finding new information.

While I admit I don't know that much about British politics, it certainly looks like the shit is going to hit the fan, big-time.

James G, what's the position of the USA about all this? There are a number of US bases in the UK. Any idea yet how they will be affected by the upcoming civil war?

It will. And it will spread far and wide.
The UK was a US military base writ-large: the country was full of military facilities officially UK bases but American. USAF active airfields as well as standby ones. Non-flying stations. Holy Loch SSBN facility. Strategic intel posts. Oh and Greenham Common with the GLCM road-mobile missiles was active by this point; Molesworth was yet to be.
I have an idea on the US reaction. It is election year in the US and that makes things complicated. Grenada and the previous PMs ITTL reaction to that wasn't the same as it was in OTL with Thatcher. The US state department knows all about the new government and knows they aren't Soviet-supporters. The Americans also know that there are hanger-oners with an anti-US agenda too. Plus, with it being election year and Ulster being the next update, the Irish Factor will be an issue. That is all after the shooting starts though: things will be too fast and too unexpected for the US to fully understand what is happening much less even consider how to act. Afterwards is a different matter entirely.
 

Jack Brisco

Banned
Thank you.
My thinking is that these situations will explode with a bang if combined all at once. Most of those players have no immediate agenda apart from 'we will do this and then everything will be fixed'. The idea of mine is that what comes next when the happy-ever-after doesn't work: disaster.
I should get to the fighting by the end of the weekend... I've stretched out the pre-fighting states more than I planned just a bit when finding new information.



It will. And it will spread far and wide.
The UK was a US military base writ-large: the country was full of military facilities officially UK bases but American. USAF active airfields as well as standby ones. Non-flying stations. Holy Loch SSBN facility. Strategic intel posts. Oh and Greenham Common with the GLCM road-mobile missiles was active by this point; Molesworth was yet to be.
I have an idea on the US reaction. It is election year in the US and that makes things complicated. Grenada and the previous PMs ITTL reaction to that wasn't the same as it was in OTL with Thatcher. The US state department knows all about the new government and knows they aren't Soviet-supporters. The Americans also know that there are hanger-oners with an anti-US agenda too. Plus, with it being election year and Ulster being the next update, the Irish Factor will be an issue. That is all after the shooting starts though: things will be too fast and too unexpected for the US to fully understand what is happening much less even consider how to act. Afterwards is a different matter entirely.

Yeah, was looking at going to RAF Chicksands many years ago. Didn't happen, though.

Do you expect any US bases to be attacked/placed under siege during this civil war?
 
If any are attacked, it's very unlikely to end well for the attackers. Plus the RAF Regiment provide airfield security, (mostly via Rapier AAM).
 

James G

Gone Fishin'
Yeah, was looking at going to RAF Chicksands many years ago. Didn't happen, though.

Do you expect any US bases to be attacked/placed under siege during this civil war?

If any are attacked, it's very unlikely to end well for the attackers. Plus the RAF Regiment provide airfield security, (mostly via Rapier AAM).

I don't plan for this. Would take me down a different route. There will be some tense external standoffs though early on.
 
I don't plan for this. Would take me down a different route. There will be some tense external standoffs though early on.

One thing to remember is that the RAF Regiment is not as well versed in this period in dealing with tense confrontations with unruly civilians. The Army (well, bits of it) and the Royal Marines were all too familiar with such incidents, and knew how to contain a confrontation. I'm not entirely convinced that the RAF Regiment would have this experience. As a result, it would be very easy for them to overreact to a situation. How that could pan out is a bit of an open question. My first guess would be that it wouldn't end well for protesters, and the publicity fall-out would be horrible for all concerned.

Plus, with it being election year and Ulster being the next update, the Irish Factor will be an issue.

Ulster is an area I know a bit about.
 
Top