I've just finished this, reading it in one sitting. You write well, Comisario - your style is engaging and reads like a modern history book, and you construct coherent narratives that don't leave us wondering 'eh? Who?' when somebody reappears. Perhaps you're aided in that regard by your characters being real people. Regardless, this flows very well.
I thank you for very much for the kind words. I'm glad that you enjoyed the flow of the TL.
The content, then: very good indeed. Early devaluation - and a leader with more electoral confidence and personal determination that Wilson - are the real ingredients of a 1960s Labour government that won't be seen as a wasted opportunity. I like TLs that get into economic nitty gritty without leaving casual readers behind (because I am very much a casual reader), and you pull that off here with aplomb. I particularly liked Heffer's appointment to DEA, and all that followed. Enoch not delivering 'rivers of blood' but nevertheless making his allegiances known is also a subtle alteration that could have led to his ascent to the leadership in the manner you show here.
I don't claim to be any economic expert, but I'm glad that I could make what I wrote down here and constructed over Greenwood's six years accessible.
Foreign policy as the only blip is interesting and you paint some interesting pictures, particularly on Rhodesia and disarmament. It is, however, my one quibble with the work: everything seems a little bit sunshine and roses apart from foreign affairs, and in spite of lines like 'the stuttering economy' I never really got the sense that the economy was indeed stuttering. Maybe it's OTL bias because of all the troubles Wilson and co faced IOTL, but these 60s seemed slightly more idyllic than I'd expected - though how much of that can be explained by a healthy majority Labour government not led by a paranoid chancer is fair enough.
I suppose I can understand your "quibble", given that I was worried about making it seem a bit too optimistic. Natural cynic that I am, I was thinking of revising a few bits. But, then again, other readers liked the plausibility of it and could see that - with an earlier devaluation and more stringent cuts to defence - Greenwood's economy would be a radical improvement upon Wilson's. Our OTL spending on defence (including research and development - which I touched on briefly) was closer to the USA than any of our European allies in this time period. To remove that financial burden and relocate funds to the domestic economy and "the high-tech jobs of the future", at the cost of Britain's international standing, was the smartest (and most plausible for a man like Tony Greenwood) thing to do.
Well done again. Finally, I'll just pick up on this rather Chat-level comment (about your nationalisation of public schools thing, which I liked but did think was a stretch, whatever Peart may have jotted down on a napkin IOTL - but you know Greenwood better than me):
That particular policy was something that Peart called for when he was involved with one of Labour's socialist youth groups back in the late '50s and early '60s. Greenwood was particularly positive about such groups and about their radicalism, including their pronouncements on education and the like, and so it seemed natural to give Peart free reign on education policy. Even in OTL, the idea of nationalising public schools was floated when Crosland was making his comprehensive education reforms.
As often happened in this TL, the policies of Greenwood and co. are the things that Harold Wilson shot down for being too "Bevanite".
Thank you again and I hope you read the follow-up!
EDIT:
Comisario, I've begun reading the sequel and I see that, almost immediately, the economic good times come crashing down. While I don't fully retract my above critique, please read it in light of that
And so you've already started - diamond.
I will read it in light of that and I hope that you read the former TL in light of my comments and in light of the sequel TL.
^the above makes hardly any sense - but, dammit, I tried!