WI: 1984, Brighton PM Thatcher and Husbond killed by IRA bomb

In Our timeline in 1984, Brighton UK, PM Margret Thatcher and husbond survived an IRA Terrorist-attack at the Conservative Party Conference that year.

But what if they had been killed? Who would have succeded her? How would her dearth have changed british policy towards the IRA and North Ireland?

Lets say british police guarding the conference failed to stop the bomber because the officers were not armed. Could such an incident have changed the british police policy on carring guns?

Which effect would having a PM killed by terrorists have had on british society today in a post 9.11 world?

/Fred
 

MrP

Banned
Simon Heffer did an article on this. Basically it states that Heseltine would have succeeded and Kinnock would have won the '92 election.

Any article by that . . . man instinctively makes me suspicious. ;)
 
In Our timeline in 1984, Brighton UK, PM Margret Thatcher and husbond survived an IRA Terrorist-attack at the Conservative Party Conference that year.

But what if they had been killed? Who would have succeded her? How would her dearth have changed british policy towards the IRA and North Ireland?

Lets say british police guarding the conference failed to stop the bomber because the officers were not armed. Could such an incident have changed the british police policy on carring guns?

Which effect would having a PM killed by terrorists have had on british society today in a post 9.11 world?

/Fred

1) The bomb was in the bathroom of one of the hotel rooms leased to a PIRA person (since out of jail) a week before. It was not delivered in person on the night.

2) There were armed police there, in addition to close protection officers assigned to protect members of the Cabinet.

3) Assuming it had killed her, the British would've been a little more aggressive with the destruction of PIRA (which was OTL was riddled with informants, dissenters and those fearful of being bumped-off by the SAS et al by the late '80s/early '90s).

4) It would've put immense pressure on the US to deal with funding terrorism: Reagan had a very close relationship with her.

5) Wille Whitelaw was deputy PM, so would've been in charge in the interim. Can't imagine much would've changed the flow of Thatcherism by that stage - look how unpopular Labour were at the time.
 
Yeh, me too; really hate Tories like him, and indeed the Conservatives. However, he does make the important point that Whitelaw was Viscount Whitelaw at the time. Thatcher dies, and assuming Whitelaw doesnt die cos the bombs that bit more powerful, you have PM Viscount Whitelaw, an interesting constitutional conundrum. Home did it, but really needed a by-election to legitimise position. Would Whitelaw rule from the Lords only briefly, until a new leader was elected? Also, is it ok that im thinking of doing a Francis Urquhart TL?

Had Thatcher been killed would Tony Blair ever have become PM in 1997?
 
The British people as one say: 'Huh? The IRA killed Thatcher? I thought they were supposed to be the bad guys?'


Had Thatcher been killed would Tony Blair ever have become PM in 1997?
No.
If Thatcher had decided to go on holiday to France for a weekend in 1986 the chances are that alone would have stopped Blair becoming PM in 1997.
 
The British people as one say: 'Huh? The IRA killed Thatcher? I thought they were supposed to be the bad guys?'



No.
If Thatcher had decided to go on holiday to France for a weekend in 1986 the chances are that alone would have stopped Blair becoming PM in 1997.

You are a funny man Leej :) I guess You didn't like her very much?
 
For this TL i think we should put up a poll on whether Thatcher deserved to die or not, but i think in hindsight thats a tad harsh. I still think Heseltine would have eventually succeeded as PM.

Was Heseltine a lesser hawk than Thatcher??
 
I think the tories would go for a candidate from the Party's right wing. If he was not too badly injured I would guess it would be Tebbit.

Repression in Northern Ireland would be more severe. It would NOT defeat the IRA

Northern Ireland would be in a worse mess than it is now.

Capital punishment might have been reintroduced for terrorism. I suspect that there is a fair chance that some innocent guys would get hanged.

By the late 1980s however the problems with "Thatcherism" would become evidenct.
 
Then the 10.000 pound question. How would UK society (In that timeline) have looked after 9.11??
Or maybe the Islamic fundamentalists who lived in UK and was involved in the planning of 9.11 would have been discovered and arrested in that timeline? So 9.11 wouldn't have happened?

/Fred
 
Thatcher dies, and assuming Whitelaw doesnt die cos the bombs that bit more powerful, you have PM Viscount Whitelaw, an interesting constitutional conundrum.

I'm ninety five percent certain there's no constitutional provision for the DPM (which is a pretty new office with no constitutional standing - there isn't even one at the moment) automatically becoming PM should the latter die. Whoever is PM is such at the behest of the soverign as the person who can command the most support in the House of Commons; I.E, the leader of the majority party. It's not like America where there is a chain of succession. If the PM died, then the post would be technically vacant. Now, Whitelaw may head up the government in the interim whilst a Tory leadership election takes place (Although I'm not sure how constitutional that would be either - it may be someone like the Lord Chancellor instead.) but that wouldn't mean he would be PM.

In any case, there's almost no chance Whitelaw would have wanted to take up the Premiership full-time by 1984 anyway, even if he was in the Commons.
 
Last edited:
I suspect Heseltine ends up the next PM; I'm not sure it would actually change the rise of Blair or the election success of Labour, going from memories of my own voting choices of the time at least.

As to the reaction to the IRA, we are talking at a time when the SAS are supposed to have said "give us 24 hours and a free hand and we'll deal with the IRA; give us 48 hours and we'll deal with the others as well, on both sides". They are given that 24/48 hours. The average person in Northern Ireland, who only wanted a chance to live in peace without either side trying to blow them up, is hardly going to object and, quite frankly, I doubt 99.9% of the rest of the population of the UK will worry that much either.

I think also that immediately afterwards something like the Good Friday settlement emerges, as moderates on both sides move to make sure that now the violent bastards (of both factions) are out the way, a new peaceful Northern Ireland with a better future can emerge.
 
I personally would love that scenario to get rid of the violent bastards, but im not sure the British public would stand for it; remember "death on the Rock"? With Britain still factionalised between Labour/Tory, im not sure........

I think the death of the Prime Minister would, at least for a short time, have united people. I remember many anti-Thatcher types who in the weeks after the bomb soften their views of her, ok it didn't last but still.

I think such a reaction would have happened within days of the death of the Prime Minister (and I think that's the important bit, many may say they wanted to murder Maggie, but a terrorist group killing the Prime Minister is different).

The scenario as put forward by the SAS was that this would be a secret op, the first the public would know about it would be when (or possibly if) a lot of bodies suddenly appeared; by which time the 48 hours would be up. It would be a risk and some would react but in the stunned grief in the aftermath of the bombing (esp as it would deal with both 'republican' and 'loyalist') I do truely believe that the majority of people would accept it, esp once they realised it had been done properly we were free of the risk of bombs in shopping centres, etc.

There would have to be an associated package of measures that would lead to a rapid improvement in the social situation in Northern Ireland (which was always part of the SAS proposal) so that the government could say "now the terrorists are gone, we will pump money into their schools, leisure facilities, create jobs".

I suppose the nearest equivilent is the initial post 9/11 situation; wide spread shock and outrage and at least a general acceptance that those behind this must be stopped before they did it again. The murder of a democratically elected leader could see at least a similar willingness to accept any reaction
 
Top