In 1980, there was an attempt to unseat Robert Muldoon, National Party Prime Minister of New Zealand at the time. It was called the Colonel's Coup, but contrary to what you might think, it was not a military coup but an attempt to remove him as leader of the National Party and replace him with Deputy PM Brian Talboys. It got a majority of votes in caucus initially(according to counts by people at the time, no vote was held to confirm whether this was truthful) but no vote was held as Muldoon fought back after returning from overseas and Talboys dithered over whether to challenge What if Talboys had not dithered and managed to topple Muldoon? How would Prime Minister Talboys go? What would he do about the Springbok Tour-given he was vigorously opposed to it, but may not go so far as force its cancellation? Could National win the 1981 election under Talboys or not? How would the 1980s go differently for New Zealand? What if?
 
Last edited:
Bump bump.

The 80s was a period of incredible change for New Zealand, taking Muldoon out of the loop would be huge.

No Springbok tour battles the following year? Does Labour win in 81 instead of 84? Do we get Rogernomics three years earlier? The break with the US would also be brought forward.
 
The 80s was a period of incredible change for New Zealand, taking Muldoon out of the loop would be huge.

No Springbok tour battles the following year? Does Labour win in 81 instead of 84? Do we get Rogernomics three years earlier? The break with the US would also be brought forward.

In 1981 Labour leader was Bill Rowling not Lange so it's likely if he wins Labour doesn't enact free-market reforms (maybe National does though)
 
Most likely Talboys loses 1981. Muldoon's fall, and his likely angry response, weaken Talboys. Plus if Talboys cancels the Tour or is attacked by both sides he loses Rob's Mob. Most likely PM Rowling.

However, less plausibly, perhaps Talboys can win. Muldoon was as much a liability as an asset by 1981, and National alienated urban liberals. His Tour stance turned off voters as well as attracting others. Perhaps Talboys could have a chance.

Most likely I think Bill Rowling wins in 1981. How is the Springbok Tour altered?
 
Most likely Talboys loses 1981. Muldoon's fall, and his likely angry response, weaken Talboys. Plus if Talboys cancels the Tour or is attacked by both sides he loses Rob's Mob. Most likely PM Rowling.

However, less plausibly, perhaps Talboys can win. Muldoon was as much a liability as an asset by 1981, and National alienated urban liberals. His Tour stance turned off voters as well as attracting others. Perhaps Talboys could have a chance.

Most likely I think Bill Rowling wins in 1981. How is the Springbok Tour altered?
I can't see much change to the Springbok tour unless Labour wins, then it's banned? Would a New Zealand Government really take on Rugby? That'd be a big call in 2016 let alone 1981. Is Labour then thrown out in 84 in a rugby fan backlash. Maybe then NZ never gets Rogernomics and we drift into the 90s still cocooned in Government handouts.
 
I can't see much change to the Springbok tour unless Labour wins, then it's banned? Would a New Zealand Government really take on Rugby? That'd be a big call in 2016 let alone 1981. Is Labour then thrown out in 84 in a rugby fan backlash. Maybe then NZ never gets Rogernomics and we drift into the 90s still cocooned in Government handouts.

The tour was in 1981 before the election. There was the precedent in 1973 of Kirk cancelling the tour, maybe Talboys does that. However Labour lost the next election after Kirk did that, even though Kirk was dead by then. And National would be divided and Talboys might take Muldoon's position of 'I oppose it but won't stop it'. That would mean all of OTL's events there. What do you think would happen with the tour? Would Talboys win in 1981 or would Rowling win?
 
Talboys was Foreign Affairs Minister, and had to perpetually clean up Muldoon's diplomatic messes. I see him blocking the tour.

As for how this affects 1981... I honestly have no idea. On one hand, the Rugby or Bust crowd will throw a hissy fit. On the other, Talboys is much less polarising than Muldoon: the sort of bizarre coalition of anti-Muldoon interests that wound up in Labour during the 1980s gets short-circuited. The other thing to remember is that the 1981 election was fought on Energy and Think Big as much as anything; Muldoon in OTL was talked out of running on a "law and order" platform because that'd be a bit much even for him. And in any case, the Neanderthals have nowhere to go - are they going to vote Labour or Social Credit?

If I had to guess, I think you get the New Zealand equivalent of the 1992 British election, with Muldoon as Thatcher and Talboys as Major. So a slightly bigger National win than OTL, with the Nats winning the popular vote. Without Muldoon running everything, I think you see a more collegial National, that probably starts moving to deregulate the economy. They still get clobbered in 1984.

Without the immediate Muldoonian currency crisis, Rogernomics lacks the excuse it did in OTL, so I think the Lange-Douglas Government would resemble the comparatively moderate Hawke-Keating regime more than OTL. Labour doesn't end up in civil war, short-circuiting the Alliance split. Also because the traditional supporters aren't so royally out for blood, and because 1981 went to the party winning the most votes, I think you butterfly away MMP.
 
There is a case to be made that Talboys would win in 1981. However, I think he would lose. His position on the Tour would alienate key voters National needs, and many of them in marginal seats might not vote National or just not vote. Muldoon would likely react very angrily, he would try to sabotage Talboys like he did McLay and National would likely be divided heading into 1981, and Talboys, if he cancels the Tour, would face fierce opposition in his own party. Likely a divided National governing with a bad economy and looking disorientated, without a strong leader, would fall and Rowling would win. Given how close 1981 was IOTL, and given the economy was not very good, it could easily have gone to Labour.
 
Except that National already has precedent for meddling in South African sporting contacts - in 1966, Keith Holyoake insisted that Maori must be included in any future tour (with the result that the 1967 tour was called off). Sure, the stakes are much higher by 1981 (no Maoris, no tour vs no Springbok tour to New Zealand at all), and Talboys lacks Holyoake's political skill, but at the same time, you're no longer forcing middle-class liberals to vote for the other side (or Social Credit), and "get rid of Talboys" lacks the same ring as "get rid of Muldoon".

To put it another way, you're risking losing the Nats' Neanderthal vote, but have a much better chance at nabbing crossovers from Labour or Social Credit - the latter in particular. In an era where everyone votes (turnout in 1984 was over 93%), I'd argue that Rob's Mob are still going to hold their noses and turnout in sufficient numbers to keep National afloat in 1981. Plus Talboys can (not without reason) blame the economy on his predecessor.
 
Supposing Rowling does win 1981 though...

It will be a government with a small majority, potentially having to deal with Social Credit to get stuff through (much as Muldoon did in OTL, though I imagine Rowling would actually try to keep his word). Roger Douglas at this point was not what he became a couple of years later, and Jim Anderton would still be Party President (rather than an MP). So you avoid the intense splits that happened later.

I think Rowling avoids the confrontation with the US over the nuclear issue: he lacks the charisma to appeal directly to the people (a la Kirk or Lange), and a Labour Government that actually behaves like a Labour Government has to work ten times harder to avoid Reds Under The Bed Accusations. I think he fudges the issue. Ditto South Africa, where the Labour Party had a track record of wanting the issue to go away (though I'd still bet on the closure of the South African consulate). You might see some of OTL 1980s social reform, though the Government's small majority might make the legalisation of homosexuality a bridge too far.

In terms of economics, I think Rowling really tries to run a continuation of the Third Labour Government. However, without the sort of stockmarket bubble or national pride factor that got OTL Labour re-elected, I'm not sure about his chances in 1984, especially if the Nats get their act together.
 
1981 NZ election-Talboys win
Brian Talboys-National: 48-3 38.9%
Bill Rowling-Labour: 43+3 38.7%
Bruce Beetham-Social Credit: 1_ 20.9%
92 seats
47 for majority

Brill and Young win for National, and Brash wins back East Coast Bays from Social Credit. Labour wins Gisborne, Taupo and Waitaki.

1981 NZ election
Bill Rowling-Labour: 47+7 39.5%
Brian Talboys-National: 43-8 37.8%
Bruce Beetham-Social Credit: 2+1 21.2%
92 seats
47 for majority

Labour wins above seats while National makes no gains, plus Labour wins Eden and Helensville
Thoughts on these two scenarios? Which is more plausible? What would be the effects? What if?
 
Top