• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

Lists of Heads of Government and Heads of State

Thanks! Peggy is actually playing the part of Fanny Kaplan, though you're quite right that I used the method of Charlotte Corday.


As to the general

I can't be bothered doing any more parallel lists, but my vague idea would be that Britain: Imperial Japan, Bourbon Spain: Fascist Italy, and Prussia: Er, Germany.

You end up with a Germany divided between Satellite Republics in the west and absolutist monarchies in the east.

I have no idea how to make a list where 19th Century Absolutist Tsarist Russia: 20th Century USA, but you can see the shape of things.

It's all very gimmicky, but it was fun to write.
 
I’ll see if I can get a quick and dirty write-up for this later. For now, hope the story comes through the list.

Selling Britain by the Euro
1997 - 2011:
Tony Blair (Labour)
defeated, 2003: Iain Duncan-Smith (Conservative), Charles Kennedy (Liberal Democrats)
2004 Euro Referendum: 52% YES - ADOPT EURO, 47% NO - STAY WITH POUND
defeated, 2008: Tim Collins (Conservative), Charles Kennedy (Liberal Democrats), Nigel Farage (Bring Back the Pound)

2011 - 2015: Hilary Benn (Labour)
defeated, 2011 (Minority with Liberal Democrat Confidence & Supply): Nigel Farage (Sterling), Tim Collins (Conservative), Jenny Willott (Liberal Democrats)
2015 - 2017: Nigel Farage (Sterling)
defeated, 2015 (Minority): Hilary Benn (Labour), David Prior (Conservative), Jenny Willott (Liberal Democrats)
2017 - 2022: Caroline Flint (Labour)
defeated, 2017 (Minority with Union Confidence & Supply): Nigel Farage (Sterling), Deborah Brewer/Chuka Umunna (Liberal-Ind. Labour Pact - For Euro!), Kit Malthouse (Conservative)
2018 Euro Referendum: 50% POUND, 49% EURO
defeated, 2018: Steve Baker (Sterling), Chuka Umunna (Ind. Labour-Liberal Pact), Kit Malthouse (Conservative)


The PoD is a bit flimsy, but it works for what I was going for - IDS, just like OTL, challenges the membership to bring him down but unlike OTL the opposition is too flustered to muster up the votes to finish the job. However this doesn't mean that the rebels are completely neutered, and continue to try and undermine and sabotage IDS from the inside; Blair, sensing an opportunity with the beginning of the Iraq War and the Tories still in complete disarray, calls a snap election and goes to the country seeking a mandate (apparently the mandate from 2001 wouldn't cut it) to stand with President Bush in the War on Terror and - most importantly - to bring the United Kingdom into the Eurozone. With the Tories left scrambling to unite around IDS and the Liberal Democrats being the only meaningful opposition, Labour gets another landslide and gains seats in comparison to 2001. Iraq follows the same path as OTL, but the EuroRef doesn't go as Tony planned it. While some moderate One Nation Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats back the Prime Minister's campaign, Blair underestimates how divisive entering the Eurozone is, thinking that a full-on media blitz and Labour's electoral success would be enough to placate any concerns. Not so - Labour rebels rage at this neoliberal referendum forced upon the British people, Nigel Farage becomes a political superstar overnight, and for the first time this decade, the Conservatives (now led by Tim Collins) take an edge in the polls over Labour.

Blair wins his referendum in brings Britain into the Eurozone completely by early 2006, but as the public begins to think of the Iraq War as a disaster and the Great Recession crashes the economy, the good feelings are at a low. The long-suffering Gordon Brown is agitating for Blair to resign, the Conservatives are neck-and-neck with Labour in the polls after having dramatically slashed their majority in the 2008 Election, and worst of all, an all-out humanitarian crisis was blooming in Italy, as underreporting of debt levels by Prime Minister Clemente Mastella led to a loss-of-confidence in the Italian economy. The ensuing right-wing surge in Italy was mirrored by the rise of the 'Bring Back the Pound Party,' as an international movement centered around breaking up the Eurozone blossom. A spent Tony Blair resigns in 2011, and Hilary Benn narrowly gets into Number 10 by beating out 'yesterday's man' in Gordon Brown. Farage (now leading the 'Sterling Party') is treated by Benn as the 'real' Opposition over the Conservatives, and after Benn introduces an austerity budget and proposals for a new business district South London, leads a coalition of Labour backbenchers, Conservatives and 'Faragites' in tabling a successful VONC against Benn. The resulting campaign sees Sterling leapfrog the Conservatives into becoming the official Opposition and Benn having to rely on the Labour-friendly Jenny Willott to keep his government alive. The early 2010's are a truly dour period, as increased devolution in Wales, Scotland and the Northeast are offset by the sale of Royal Mail. Farage wins a minority government of his own, putting the anemic Benn and the disastrous Conservatives (now led by the technocrat David Prior, who sees his proposal to float 25% of the NHS' shares onto the LSE go down like a lead balloon) out to farm on a message of "British" (i.e. English) nationalism and finally getting the UK out of the Eurozone. The first Sterling Government in British history is chaotic - the Cabinet is in a state of near-constant reshuffle, as everyone from Steve Baker to Ann Widdecombe went for the knives once Farage entered Number 10. While taxes are slashed and the City of London is allowed to dictate financial policy, the Sterling government can't even muster up the votes to get a Referendum on the Euro through the House of Commons. Utterly toothless after over a year in power, a rebellion from within the Cabinet and a decisive VONC forces Farage to go back to the country. "Labour for the Pound" chairwoman and Labour Leader Caroline Flint wins the largest number of seats on a message of finally remedying the mistake made 13 years ago, but at the cost of splitting the party and a "Referendum Deal" with Sterling. Farage and Flint reach an agreement to get EuroRef2 through the Commons, to campaign for leaving the Eurozone, and then to promptly fuck off and call another election. While Chuka Umunna's Labour-Liberal Pact provided the only major opposition to the Government, fury at Flint's deal with Farage and a true desire to stay in Europe lead to an extraordinarily close Referendum. Flint, validated albeit by a narrow victory, wins an actual majority government against Steve Baker and Sterling.

Farage's resignation as Leader, coming immediately after the "achievement of his life's goal" once the results came in, is typically cited as the beginning of Sterling's decline and the revival of the Conservative Party in the aftermath of EuroRef2.
Got the write-up for this finished, I'm happy with how it turned out but I think the actual writing isn't that great, need to improve on that at some point.

Anyways, here's a fun list that I might do something with sometime in the future:

Chavismo!
1969 - 1973: Richard Nixon / Spiro Agnew (Republican)

defeated, 1968: Hubert Humphrey / Ed Muskie (Democratic), George Wallace / Curtis LeMay (American Independent)
1973 - 1974: Richard Nixon / John Connally (Republican)
defeated, 1972: George McGovern / Sargent Shriver (Democratic)
1974 - 1977: John Connally / Gerald Ford (Republican)
1977 - present: Cesar Chávez / Fred Harris (Democratic)

defeated, 1976: John Connally / Gerald Ford (Republican)
1981 - 1989: Ronald Reagan / Donald Rumsfeld (Republican)
defeated, 1980: Cesar Chávez / Jimmy Carter (Democratic), Dixy Lee Ray / David Boren (Independent)
defeated, 1984: Brendan Byrne / Harold Washington (Democratic)

1989 - 1990: Joe Biden / Dale Bumpers (Democratic)
defeated, 1988: Donald Rumsfeld / Footsie Britt (Republican)
1990 - 1993: Dale Bumpers / Jim Florio (Democratic)
1993 - 1997: Clayton Williams / Elizabeth Dole (Republican)

defeated, 1992: Jesse Jackson / William O'Neill (Democratic), Lee Iacocca / Ed Zschau (America for Iacocca)
1997 - 2005: Paul Wellstone / Nate Holden (Democratic)
defeated, 1996: Clayton Williams / Elizabeth Dole (Republican)
defeated, 2000: Chuck Haytaian / Larry Craig (Republican)
2005 - 2009: Geraldine Ferraro / Daniel Mongiardo (Democratic)
defeated, 2004: Sam Brownback / Pete Sessions (Republican)
2009 - 2017: Sam Brownback / Jack Welch (Republican)
defeated, 2008: Geraldine Ferraro / Daniel Mongiardo (Democratic)
defeated, 2012: Hillary Reich / Buddy Dyer (Democratic)
2017 - present: Kevin de León / Wendy Davis (Democratic)
defeated, 2016: Mark Levin / Adam Laxalt (Republican)
 
The POD herein comes with the drafting of the First Home Rule Bill; Gladstone is less secretive with its composition and his Cabinet more subsequently opposed, in particular one Joseph Chamberlain, to whom the Bill is insufficient in the expansion of democracy. "Either Home Rule for all or none to be had at all", becomes his watchword. He does not join the Liberal Unionists, instead aggressively both defending the Prime Minister's intentions and criticising his timidity. Such actions do not go down well in the genteel and patrician age of High Victorian politics, but it does give his bitter rival the Marquess of Hartington much fewer qualms about heading a coalition with the Conservatives and thereby representing a coherent strain of Unionist opinion. Gladstone himself dies shortly thereafter and Chamberlain's moving eulogy as well as his radical, populist credentials secure him the Liberal leadership.

Cavendish, with Lord Salisbury as his Foreign Secretary, presides over a government combining gentle Whiggery and paternal Toryism, in contrast to the frenzied leadership of the Liberals. Residual land reform in Ireland, local government reform (a particular irritation to Chamberlain), and a detached foreign policy of not being too entangled with foreign powers are among their achievements. Defence spending provokes disagreement among the coalition, Cavendish eventually negotiating a reduced budget in exchange for an emphasis on the protection of Suez and Aden; the twin Hartington and Salisbury Forts on either end of the Red Sea stood well into the next century.

Upon Cavendish's asenscion to the Lords, he and Salisbury (whose wife had died in 1889), both now old men, fell out over their successor: they had fallen out over the defence estimates, Salisbury's nephew Arthur Balfour was efficient and studious but frequently steamrolled by the Leader of the Opposition, and the First Lord of the Treasury William Henry Smith preferred to retire to his bookshops. Instead they let the talented but mercurial Chancellor, who had come close to resignation several times before, ascend to the Premiership, hoping his demagogic inclinations would hold back Chamberlain and his inexperience would allow the deliberately older Cabinet to dominate his overactive mind.

The 1892 election would be defined by grand, ostentatious showman politics, the new Prime Minister, a staunch believer in populist conservatism, clashing with the equally radical, equally energetic Chamberlain. The older generation hated it, but the two leaders threw themselves into it with gusto, titans of the masses with all to gain and all to lose. Chamberlain promised "prosperity for our time" with ambitious social reform, although was vaguer on the issue of Home Rule, but his love of the Empire was unimpeachable, while Churchill offered to drag the Tory Party and the country into a new age of popular, patriotic radicalism. The disconnect between the grandees and the new blood was enormous, apocalyptic fears of the vulgarisation of politics coming from higher quarters, but the size of the Liberal majority went some way to dissuade this.

Chamberlain at once embarked on an ambitious program combining radical welfare reform and promotion of the Empire; for him the reasoning was simple: in order for British power and prestige to be maintained, all people under her power had to posses the means to prosper. In practice, his titanic energy and ego meant he had to balance the radicals, in whose roots his career lay, with the pro-Imperials, with whom he shared the great passion for Empire. Pleasing neither and offending many, Chamberlain earned the sobriquet "Great Uncle Birmingham" for his reform of workers' compensation, closing of poorhouses, old-age pensions, and greater powers to local government, including the establishment of an elected Mayor of London with limited powers over housing and welfare, although Cabinet opposition prevented his loftier plans of full Home Rule for Great Britain and Ireland being enacted. The seeming abandonment of specifically Irish devolution provoked increasing despair for the Irish Parliamentary caucus, now split by the indiscretions of their past leader, Charles Parnell, before reuniting under the moderate figure of William O'Brien in 1903. In foreign affairs Chamberlain sought closer ties with Germany and the United States, but the mutual rivalry between the three was too great for any Anglo-Saxon alliance that he dreamed of to form.

As he assembled a circle of young, talented proteges including the young Herbert Asquith and Edward Grey, Chamberlain's immense popularity in the country belied his dwindling support in the Government. Resignations became more frequent and whereas Queen Victoria had despised Gladstone, she would not even speak of that "Birmingham upstart", without manners, vain, and swaggering. The split with his old radical colleagues was confirmed with his violent campaign against the Boers, the uncompromising tactics proving brutal but effective, earning him even greater accolades from the public and the grudging respect of the Opposition. At the height of his powers and popularity, Great Uncle Birmingham was rewarded with the twin scandals of the revelation of the appalling health of so many army volunteers and the negligence of the concentration camps used to secure victory that ended in considerable death and dysentery. The sloppiness smacked of arrogance, and when the criticism mounted, he used Edward VII's coronation as an excuse to relinquish the leadership.

The new Liberal Prime Minister was chosen as a unity candidate by the new monarch, almost every bit the opposite of his predecessor: reserved, intellectual, a Gladstonian faithful, an opponent of imperialism and a vociferous critic of Chamberlain's handling of the Boer War, John Morley moved to secure Home Rule for Ireland once more. Despite the vast backing of the Commons, it failed in the Lords, and when noises were made about calling an election of "the people versus the Peers", the party split. The antipathy between Chamberlain and Morley was too great to bridge, and believing in the totality of Home Rule, Chamberlain took his followers into Opposition in a fit of pique. There were other calculations at play: he had become ever more inclined to support a system of empire-wide tariffs on foreign goods as a means of strengthening the Empire and raising revenue for social reform. When the soft-protectionist Balfour offered Chamberlain a senior Cabinet post, his mind was made up.

Balfour reformed the Unionist coalition in an age of Imperial zenith, although he could not prevent a Free Trade splinter joining the Liberals in opposition. Mild protective tariffs, lowered taxes, and a collective strengthening of Empire against all enemies were the order of the day for the philosopher-premier. He clashed more often than not with Chamberlain, despite being the junior partner in coalition, as Balfour moved to keep Britain separate from foreign affairs, in which he was largely successful, despite the former Prime Minister's insistence on going to war to support Russia in the Manchurian War of 1905. The bloody fate of the Romanovs was always laid at Balfour's feet by his critics on the right.
Another split seemed possible until Chamberlain suffered an enormous stroke on his 70th birthday. Gravely ill, he slowly declined, and without his egocentric gravity the Chamberlainites dissolved.


Most of the protectionists remained with the Conservatives, others joining the re-branded Free Trade grouping, now a pro-Imperial faction rooted decidedly in incremental social reform lead by the son of another former Prime Minister, to whom he owed a great intellectual debt. Balfour triumphed over the divided opposition to secure his own mandate, his languid, detached leadership only allowing trade union discontent and Irish radicalism to grow. By the time a former Chamberlainite lead the Liberals to victory, they had ambitious plans for ever greater social reform and redistributionist taxes, a new international order, Home Rule for Ireland at last. The only remaining obstacle is the still-Conservative dominated House of Lords, and the new King Edward VIII is rumoured to be sympathetic to both the Irish question and the Lords' long-neglected veto. Nonetheless organised labour remains a simmering kettle, though mostly satisfied with the Liberal-Labour organisation, the more radical Social Democratic Party and the rising wave of suffragette protests threaten to upend the fragile order.

William Ewart Gladstone (Liberal minority with IPP confidence and supply, 1885-6)
Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury (Conservative minority with Liberal Unionist confidence and supply, 1886-7)
1886 def. William Ewart Gladstone (Liberal), Charles Stewart Parnell (Irish Parliamentary);
Spencer Cavendish, Marquess of Hartington (Liberal Unionist, leading First Unionist Coalition with Conservatives, 1887-91)
Lord Randolph Churchill (Conservative, leading First Unionist Coalition with Liberal Unionists, 1891-2)
Joseph Chamberlain (Liberal majority, 1892-1900)

1892 def. Lord Randolph Churchill (Conservative & Liberal Unionist), Justin McCarthy (Irish National Federation), John Redmond (Irish National League);
1897 def. Arthur Balfour (Conservative and Liberal Unionist), John Dillon (Irish National Federation), John Redmond (Irish National League);

John Morley (Liberal majority, 1900-3)
Arthur Balfour (Conservative, leading Second Unionist Coalition with ‘Chamberlainite’ Liberals, 1903-7)

1903 def. John Morley (Liberal), Joseph Chamberlain (Chamberlainite Liberal), John Redmond (Irish Parliamentary), Lord George Hamilton (Free Trade), William O’Brien (United Ireland League), Henry Broadhurst (Liberal-Labour);
Arthur Balfour (Conservative majority, 1907-13)
1907 def. Edward Grey (Liberal), Winston Churchill (One Empire), John Redmond (Irish Parliamentary), William O’Brien (United Ireland League), Henry Broadhurst (Liberal-Labour), Henry Hyndman (Social Democratic);
Edward Grey (Liberal minority with One Empire and Liberal-Labour confidence and supply, 1913-)
1913 def.
Arthur Balfour (Conservative), Winston Churchill (One Empire), William O’Brien (Irish Constitutional), John Redmond (Irish Parliamentary), Arthur Griffith (Sinn Fein), Andrew Fisher (Liberal-Labour), Ramsay MacDonald (Social Democratic);
 
Last edited:
A Christmas Carol,
Being a counterfactual list of Prime Ministers in four staves​

1835-1836: Charles Fezziwig, 1st Earl of Fezziwig (Whig leading Caretaker Ministry)
1836-1838: Charles Fezziwig, 1st Earl of Fezziwig (Whig minority)
1838-1844: Sir Ebeneezer Scrooge (Whig)
1838 (Minority with Pickwickite support) def. Sir Lester Dedlock (Tory), Conversation Kenge (Pickwickite)
1840 (Majority) def. Samuel Pickwick (Conservative)


Stave I

In the aftermath of the resignation of Samuel Pickwick as Prime Minister over the repeal of the Corn Laws, Charles Fezziwig, (a minor member of the House of Lords from London, ennobled for his services to business and universally respected for his good nature) would become PM. His appointment came under the assumption that Fezziwig's ministry would be a brief caretaker administration, and indeed this was the man's own intentions. For the clique of ambitious young men around the Earl of Fezziwig, however, this was an unparalleled opportunity for advancement. Chief among these were Joseph Marley and Ebeneezer Scrooge. Marley had been elected to parliament some years before, and Scrooge, a long-time protégée of the bumbling Prime Minister and Marley's business partner, quickly found a constituency and entered parliament. These two Svengalis now set about working to convince the Earl to stay on as PM, rather than call an early election. This was no mean feat, and though Fezziwig was eventually persuaded round, getting the party on side was harder. Yet for most Whigs the only other option was rule by the Tories or alliance with the Pickwickites to avoid splitting the pro-Free Trade vote: in the end the party had no choice, and Fezziwig was induced to announce he would stay on until the next election, with Pickwick advising his allies to abstain to keep the Tories out. Marley and Scrooge were rewarded for their work with postings in the cabinet as Chancellor and President of the Board of Trade respectively. Marley would quickly begin his hard-nosed agenda, limiting state welfare commitments and reducing taxation wherever possible. The effects were catastrophic for the poor of England, and having seen the dark effects of his government's policies, Fezziwig resigned just four months before a planned General Election.

This was a nightmare for a party still concerned it was on the verge of being thrown out and replaced by a Tory-Pickwick duopoly, and the search for a new Prime Minister began at once. In many ways Marley was the natural successor, but his policies were not popular with an increasingly rebellious lower class, and besides the uncharismatic money man had literal interest in the office. Instead, the party leaders turned to Scrooge. Fezziwig's erstwhile protégée was now flung into high office just three years after entering parliament as a compromise between the money men and the Old Whig grandees, but in many ways he remained a Marleyite creature. In 1838 Scrooge would manage to cling onto power, and solidified this into a majority in 1840, as the public rejected first the unfeeling Toryism of Dedlock and the bloviating of 'Pidwick's placeman' the flamboyant Conversation Kenge, and then Pickwick's new "Conservative Party". The five years of the First ad Second Scrooge ministries were lean for most of the country as unfettered Marleyism dominated at the exchequer and a radical free trading, imperialist, agenda came to dominate British policy. When deplored once in parliament about the state of poverty in the country by an incensed Tory MP Scrooge is said to have remarked "We can’t afford to make idle people merry. My government helps to support the establishments I have mentioned [debtors prisons and poor houses]: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there.” To those who saw the early career of old Miserly Mister Scrooge, then, the great twist at the denouement of his political career was, no doubt, a shock beyond belief. Indeed, it is not without cause that it has gone down in history as "the Christmas miracle of '43".

1844-1844: Sir Ebeneezer Scrooge ('Scroogite Whigs' in coalition with Conservatives)

Stave II

On the night of Christmas Eve 1843, after a day of relentless work as always, Ebeneezer Scrooge went to bed and, by some miracle, returned changed the following day. Where the hard nosed miser of a Prime Minister had been was now a man of tremendous generosity, dedicated above all else to the alleviation of poverty and the spread of good feeling. There has been considerable speculation about why this happened. A certain school of thought has argued that Scrooge, like Fezziwig, was a victim of the "evil advisor" Marley, and that after his death in September 1843 Scrooge had already begun to drift away from Marley's ideology. However few today accept this theory when so many of Scrooge's speeches, letters, diary entries, and other writings endorsed Marleyism. Other scholars have suggested some kind of mental break or possible a stroke, whilst Scrooge himself would later claim that he had received a miraculous revelation. Regardless of the cause of the change, it was apparent that Scrooge would now seek a radical change of policy, abandoning his austere economic approach in favour of one of paternalism welfare, limits on employers ability to underpay and overwork their employees, and the provision of medicine for the young. This did not go down well with the party grandees.

Scrooge did not care one bit. Combining his old stubbornness with a new dedication to reform and relief, Scrooge refused to resign as Prime Minister, and instead summoned Pickwick to strike a deal. The Conservatives had already drifted to a position supporting Paternalist reforms in opposition to the Whigs' harsh economics, and were happy to accept this reversal, thinking they could have Scrooge out within the year. But Scrooge proved popular with his promise of "A Job for Every Man and a Goose on every table at Christmas", and his popularity extended to Tory MPs as well as the electorate. Instead, by December 1844, Scrooge had been able to reach his next coup de grace: the fusion of the Scroogite Whigs (or 'Liberals' as they were referring to themselves in elections) and sympathetic Conservatives into a new party. Though refusing to stand for parliament again, Scrooge dissolved his government and called an election in 1844: many had expected he might now resign in favour of Pickwick or some other reformer. Instead, raised to the peerage as the Viscount Cornhill, Scrooge would lead the Liberal Conservatives election campaign. The mandate he would return with as Prime Minister was unquestionable. The great remaking of Britain could begin.

1844-1845: Ebeneezer Scrooge, 1st Viscount Cornhill (Liberal Conservative)
1844 (Majority) def. Edward Murdstone (Whig), Sir Lester Dedlock (Old Tories)
1845-1861: Fred Scrooge, 2nd Viscount Cornhill (Liberal Conservative)
1847 (Majority) def. Edward Murdstone (Whig), Oliver Brownlow (Radical)
1854 (Majority) def. Oliver Brownlow (Radical), Eugene Wrayburn (Whig)


With the draconian Home Secretary Edward Murdstone and the out of touch old Tory Dedlock his only rivals, Cornhill stood no true chance of losing. His Doctor's Mandate to cure Britain's ills would likely have seen a spate of serious reforms, had the old man not died six months into his fourth ministry. Still gripped by the Scrooge Mircale, the party quickly elevated his newphew, the Second Viscount to the Premiership, but though he was able to deliver easy electoral victories, Fred Scrooge was little more than a steady hand on the tiller. Indeed, it was the undelivered promise of Ebeneezer Scrooge which would prove his newphew's undoing. When it became clear that the agenda promised in 1844 would not be delivered on, the reformist Liberal Conservative MP Oliver Brownlow, the adopted son of the recently ennobled Earl Brownlow, quit the party, determined that no one would have to suffer the hard life he had as an orphan sucked into London's criminal underworld ever again. The solution to that was, of course, the alleviation of poverty. Though Scrooge and Murdstone kept the duopoly going in 1847, the outcry at the Crimean War, and the rapidly growing gap between the richest and poorest bouyed the radicals in the early 1850s. In 1854, with the public revolting against a disaster in Crimea in conjunction with the Emperor of France under the second Darnay dynasty and with unemployment higher even than under Marley, whilst the Whigs floundered on the rakish Wrayburn, Brownlow's Radicals shot up to second place, though vote splitting between anti government voters meant that the government took 397 seats to 143 for the Radicals and 114 for the Whigs.

It was in 1861, however, that Cornhill made a truly fatal mistake. A good spirited and kind, but generally clueless man under the influence of old Tory and Whig magnates in his social circle, he had tried to be a gentle Prime Minister but had found opposition from a neo-Marleyite Treasury as the economy grew worse. His one great prejudice, however, was a profound distaste for America. Describing the Ynited States as the home of "Despicable trickery at elections; under-handed tamperings with public officers; and cowardly attacks upon opponents, with scurrilous newspapers for shields, and hired pens for daggers" and of great immorality and materialism, Cornhill would come out in support for the Confederacy in 1861. This was quite unexpected from a man who had begun his political career as a foppish but kind inheritor of a shining legacy, but as Cornhill had ruled, the old Scoorge misery had gripped him. Now embittered (particularly after the Anglo-French humiliation in Crimea over which his government had nearly fallen), Cornhill wanted a win, and who better to go for than his great enemy, America? For those Liberals on his backbenches, who, like the Radicals, saw the Union as a force crusading for justice and liberty, however, this was a horrific betrayal. Many defected to the radicals, and many more sat as independents in opposition. The War would bring down the government, and in 1861 a new election was called.

Stave III

1861-1865: Peter Cratchit (Radical)
1861 (Minority) def. Fred Scrooge, 2nd Viscount Cornhill (Liberal Conservative), Bentley Drummle, 3rd Baronet Drummle (Whig)

Stave IV

Britain's first Radical Prime Minister Peter Cratchit (later the Earl Camden) was a man of nearly unparalleled virtue. Having cared, in his youth, for his ailing younger brother Tim and witnessed his death in the hard years of of Marleyite austerity, he had a conviction parallel only to that of the First Viscount Cornhill himself, that the country was on the wrong path. In power at the head of a minority after the fall of the second Viscount, Cratchit began to implement the manifesto promised by Scrooge, a family friend in his later years. Although he would leave office in 1865 without putting a Goose on quite every table, Cratchit, his Chancellor Brownlow, and the Foreign Secretary Philip Pirrip weee on the ascent. These were the new men whose zeal for reform and general good cheer would dominate in the "happy decade" of the 1870s when Cratchit returned to the Premiership as the Earl Camden. The anti-war government of 1861, therefore, can well and truly be considered the start of Britain's true transformation from a land of misery and inequality to one of peace, cheer, and good will to all men.


As has become a bit of a tradition for me, here's my annual Christmas list :) Merry Christmas everyone!
 
Bad Habits

1981-1989: Ronald Reagan (Republican)
1980 (with George Bush) def. Jimmy Carter (Democratic), John B. Anderson (Independent)
1984 (with George Bush) def. Walter Mondale (Democratic)

1989-1990: Joe Biden (Democratic)
1988 (with Jim Traficant) def. George Bush (Republican)
1990-1992: Jim Traficant (Democratic)
1992-1997: Jim Traficant (Republican)
1992 (with Ross Perot) def. Jesse Jackson (Democratic)
1997-1997: Jesse Jackson (Democratic)
1996 (with Mario Cuomo) def. Ross Perot (Independent), Pat Buchanan (Republican)
1997-1998: Jim Traficant (Republican leading Emergency Government)
1998-2000: William Stuart (US Army leading Emergency Government)
2000-2001: Simon Gruber (Free Peoples' Army leading Free Peoples' Government)
2001-2007: Lenora Fulani (Free Peoples')
2000 (Patriotic Front) def. effectively unopposed
2004 (Patriotic Front) def. effectively unopposed

2007-2013: Viktor Chagarin (Red Army leading Reconstruction Government)
2013-2014: Yuri Komarov (Independent leading Reconstruction Government)
2014-0000: Peter Thiel (Republican)
2016 def. Donald Trump (Independent)

1988: The terrorist attack by rogue elements of the Volksfrei movement on Nakatomi Plaza saw a spate of copycat attacks by homegrown terrorists, which only grew worse when it became clear that they had stolen nearly half a billion from the Nakatomi vault. This was enough to destroy the Reagan Administration's 'law and order' credentials and allow a Democrat to triumph at that year's election.

1990: Biden's untimely death interrupted his work in reversing Operation Condor policies in Latin America - and the newborn Traficant administration took a softer approach than might have been expected when Valverdean dictator Ramon Esperanza was extracted from imprisonment. This simply presaged 'Condor 2.0' as Washington closed its grip upon its southern neighbours.

1995: The theft of the contents of the Federal Reserve collapsed the US economy overnight - while the Traficant administration tried to hold together the country, things rapidly spiralled out of control. Controversially, they ended up hiring mercenaries and empowering the military with extraordinary powers to keep order. It was no surprise when Jesse Jackson triumphed in 1996 - and equally no surprise when the government simply ignored the result. Traficant ended up getting displaced by the very forces he had empowered - who were themselves removed by the East Germans enriched by billions of dollars of Federal Reserve gold.

2007: AmeriSyn collapsed in the 'fire sale' cyberattack and the most reliable 'second wing' of world communism crumbled - requiring an intervention from Moscow to prevent total catastrophe.

2013: The capture of a truly spectacular amount of weapons grade uranium gave Komarov the leverage he required to pry the former United States from the clutches of the Kremlin and make it into his personal domain. For the first time in over a decade a second nuclear power to challenge the Soviet Union bestrode the world, under an American Komarov trusted to make things as he wished. Thiel has ushered in a new era of capitalism - ensuring it will stand unchallenged by reinstituting a property franchise and keeping the vote out of the hands of women.
 
Last edited:
List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
2010-2015: David Cameron (Conservative-Liberal Democrats Coalition)
2015-2016: David Cameron (Conservative)
2016-2017: Theresa May (Conservative)
2017-2019: Theresa May (Conservative minority with Democratic Unionist confidence and supply)
2019: Boris Johnson (Conservative minority with Democratic Unionist confidence and supply)
2019-2024: Boris Johnson (Conservative) [1]
2024-2025: Rebecca Long-Bailey (Labour minority with Scottish National confidence and supply) [2]
2025-2035: Priti Patel (Conservative) [3]
2035-2037: Helen Whately (Conservative minority with Liberal Democrats confidence and supply) [4]
2037-2042: Hannah Thompson (Labour) [5]
2042-2047: Matthew Jordan (Labour) [6]


List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom of England and Wales
2047: Matthew Jordan (Labour)
2047-2050: Daniel Wallace (Labour)
2050-2053: Nahida Tariq (Labour)
2053-2056: Ashleigh Brown (Labour) [7]
2056-2071: Kelly-Ann John (Labour) [8]


List of Prime Minsters of the People's Union of Britain
2071-2080: Kelly-Ann John (Labour)
2080-2086: Natalie Whittaker (Labour) [9]
2086-2098: Louise Bell (Labour)

Position abolished


[1] The initial Brexit boom was followed by an economic bust, and then Britain was sucked into the global economic recession of 2020 before markets could adjust to the new reality. Strict austerity measures were implemented, but nothing compared to what was about to come. Social unrest grew as Johnson's approval rating continued to decline. By the time 2024 was approaching, pressure grew on the Prime Minister to resign. But he managed to wave the bloody flag of Brexit to fend off a disorganized leadership challenge before leading the Tories to their first defeat in nearly two decades.

[2] The short government of Long-Bailey was dominated by the issue of Scottish independence. While austerity programs were put on hold, every proposed nationalization was blocked until the Scottish issue could be resolved. The second referendum resulted in a narrow victory for independence, destroying whatever political capital Long-Bailey had as she was forced to negotiate an expedited deal before the mathematical collapse of her government.

[3] The logic of the Patel government was that Johnson hadn't gone far enough. Unhappy with the previous government's Scotland deal, she proceeded to start a trade war with Britain's new northern neighbor. This was combined with an economic restructuring program designed to make Britain a tax haven for American and European capital. Following her controversial privatization of the NHS, many even in her own party assumed she would be a martyr for her cause. But she survived ten tumultuous years and two questionable elections that would be the subject of considerable investigation by future governments.

[4] The protests following the 2035 election were some of the largest and most militant Britain had ever seen. Allegations of American interference resulted in a high profile siege of the US embassy. Things were only resolved once the Liberal Democrats forced Patel to resign as part of their agreement to back the new government. This put the Lib Dems in their familiar role of having to defend an uncomfortably right-wing government, as Whately's “responsible conservatism” looked little different from what had come before it.

[5] The end of the arrangement ushered in new elections and a new era of British politics. Thompson was no Bolshevik, coming from the more moderate wing of the Labour Party. But her program of nationalizations was anathema to Britain's ruling class, which proceeded to attack her through the media in new and innovative ways. The BBC was cleared out of its Patel era leadership, providing an alternative to the private media. But even they couldn't cover up the massive capital flight that plagued Thompson's first two years of government. As a response, she laid the groundwork for closer relations between the struggling fledgling anti-austerity governments that had popped up across the West. Still others within her own party claimed that she was not doing enough. Thompson would leave Downing Street not seeing the Global Class War for what it truly was.

[6] Jordan marked a more left-wing turn within the people's government. He immediately expanded the program of nationalizations and worked to build the engine of the mass movement that would defend these gains. One of his first actions was to grant the government of Iraq's request to extradite former Prime Minister Tony Blair to the Middle Eastern nation on charges of war crimes. Blair would serve three years in Iraqi prison before being allowed to die on British soil. Jordan also was tasked with overseeing the Northern Ireland referendum that had been negotiated with the Irish government ten years previous. The position of Jordan's faction was that the referendum itself was illegitimate as Northern Ireland itself was merely a product of British colonialism. This position resulted in Jordan refusing to provide observers or, most controversially, security personnel. The local Northern Irish and Irish police were ill equipped to handle the violent Unionist attacks on polling stations resulting in the deaths of several dozen workers. Although Ireland was successfully unified, Jordan resigned as a show of his acceptance of partial responsibility for the tragedy.

[7] The following nine years saw three Labour governments rise and fall as the struggle within the party between market and orthodox socialists intensified. This was exacerbated by the increasingly desperate opposition attempting to take advantage of the divisions within the government in order to restore capitalism. These opposition forces, based out of British expat communities in Eastern Europe, attacked the government from several angles. The mainstream were middle class liberals who accused the Labour government of violating democratic norms and bringing about economic disaster. These protesters were often joined by more right-wing forces, ranging from Patelites to outright neo-nazis. Yet others attempted to fund Islamist and Hindu nationalist groups. But the biggest headline grabbers were the separatists. While attempts to astroturf a right-wing nationalist group in Labour-dominated Wales largely failed, a small but committed group of Warsaw-based Cornish separatists conducted a concerted campaign of bombings and cyberterrorism. All in all, the attempts to undermine the Wallace, Tariq, and Brown governments only served to discredit the increasingly marginalized opposition among the British working class, paving the way for the John years.

[8] The daughter of Grenadian and Jamaican immigrants, Kelly-Ann John would become the face of the final victory of socialism in Britain. Although she entered office as part of the London-based reform faction, John would ultimately move to the left, completing nationalization and implementing democratic control of the British economy. Under John, Britain would move from a lagger to a leader, shaking off the last ill effects of the neoliberal era. With a growing and increasingly innovative economy, Britain became a leading force in providing socialist aid to Africa and the Middle East, helping free them from the legacy of centuries of colonialism and underdevelopment. British scientists also played a leading role in the Global Space Initiative's successful establishment of worker's colonies on the Moon and Mars. By the time John retired, British class society was nearly obliterated, and with it the social base of the British opposition. The 2071 Constitution codified the gains of the British workers, casting off the last vestiges of feudalism and capitalism. Notably the de facto dual-power system was not included, as no meaningful opposition to the Labour Party existed.

[9] Long time party organizer and first Premier of England, Whittaker made a natural successor to John. She was followed by former Mayor of London Louise Bell. Under their leadership, the first signs of the withering away of the state began. As the last nations began to convert to the socialist system, the last bases of opposition disappeared. And while the state media ran scare stories about secret cabals based out of the South Pacific, these proved to be nothing more than the paranoia of a class that had lived through the reactionary terror of decades previous. For young Britons, it seemed as if socialism had always been around. Party membership declined, along with general attendance of political meetings. The state budget was slowly whittled away. And while some bureaucrats fought it to the very end, few workers could deny that Labour had fulfilled its long time campaign promise of achieving full communism by the end of the century.
 
What if Nixon-Rockefeller won the 1960 election and passed civil rights legislation?

1953-1961: Dwight D Eisenhower (Republican)
1961- 1969: Richard M Nixon (Republican)
1969-1977: Bobby Kennedy (Democratic)
1977-1981: Ronald Reagan (Republican)
1981-1989: Walter Mondale (Democratic)
1989-1993: Miachel Dukarkis (Democratic)

1993-2001: George Bush (Republican)
2001-2009: John Kerry (Democratic)
2009-2016: John McCain (Republican)
2017- Bernie Sanders (Democratic)
 
What if Nixon-Rockefeller won the 1960 election and passed civil rights legislation?

1953-1961: Dwight D Eisenhower (Republican)
1961- 1969: Richard M Nixon (Republican)
1969-1977: Bobby Kennedy (Democratic)
1977-1981: Ronald Reagan (Republican)
1981-1989: Walter Mondale (Democratic)
1989-1993: Miachel Dukarkis (Democratic)

1993-2001: George Bush (Republican)
2001-2009: John Kerry (Democratic)
2009-2016: John McCain (Republican)
2017- Bernie Sanders (Democratic)
I like the fact that the Republicans don't change at all. Accurate depiction of how Nixon's interest in Civil Rights in 1960 was entirely a ploy to break up the New Deal.
 
What if Nixon-Rockefeller won the 1960 election and passed civil rights legislation?

1953-1961: Dwight D Eisenhower (Republican)
1961- 1969: Richard M Nixon (Republican)
1969-1977: Bobby Kennedy (Democratic)
1977-1981: Ronald Reagan (Republican)
1981-1989: Walter Mondale (Democratic)
1989-1993: Miachel Dukarkis (Democratic)

1993-2001: George Bush (Republican)
2001-2009: John Kerry (Democratic)
2009-2016: John McCain (Republican)
2017- Bernie Sanders (Democratic)

I hate to be that guy, but have you considered using people who were not in OTL primaries or presidential elections? It makes the list more interesting if butterflies are acknowledged.
 
It does in some ways- the genearl gist is the Rockefller Republicans gain power, Vietnam occurs, Bobby elected President, Republicans defeated twice in a row and veer to the right, Raegan elected but economic crisis hits, Mondale elected as moderate democrat fallowed by Durkarkis, economic recession means Bush is elected (moderate Republican), then moderate democrat as the high surplus increases calls for higher spending, Republicans nominate someone like Newt Gingrich in 2004 and lose, they veer to the centre and McCain becomes President. Because the Clintons are out of the running, Bernie becomes President in 2016
 
I hate to be that guy, but have you considered using people who were not in OTL primaries or presidential elections? It makes the list more interesting if butterflies are acknowledged.

I think the butterfly effect is overexagered- generally people mould themselves around the circumstances and climb the greasy pole to power. They may have completely different ideological suppositions, but those who make it often do so for a reason polticially.
 
Other alternative (if the Cuban missile crisis goes wrong)
Last President of the USA:

Richard Nixon (1960-1963)
Killed in the great nuclear catastrophe of 1963.
 
It does in some ways- the genearl gist is the Rockefller Republicans gain power, Vietnam occurs, Bobby elected President, Republicans defeated twice in a row and veer to the right, Raegan elected but economic crisis hits, Mondale elected as moderate democrat fallowed by Durkarkis, economic recession means Bush is elected (moderate Republican), then moderate democrat as the high surplus increases calls for higher spending, Republicans nominate someone like Newt Gingrich in 2004 and lose, they veer to the centre and McCain becomes President. Because the Clintons are out of the running, Bernie becomes President in 2016

This is the main reason why people usually include defeated tickets and write-ups for their lists--it helps us show how things have changed thanks to the divergence, and why. Without that it's just a list of meaningless names.
 
1960: Nixon vs Kennedy (Nixon Win)
1964: Nixon vs Johnson (Nixon win)
1968: Rockefeller vs Bobby Kennedy (Kennedy win)
1972: Kennedy vs Ford (Kennedy Win)
1976: Jackson vs Raegan (Raegan Win)
1980: Mondale vs Raegan (Mondale Win)
1984: Mondale vs Anderson (Mondale win)
1988: Dukakis vs Dole (Durkarkis win)
1992: Durkarkis vs Bush (Bush win)
1996: Clinton vs Bush (Bush win)
2000: Kerry vs McCain (Kerry Win)
2004: Kerry vs Gingrich (Kerry Win)
2008: Edwards vs McCain (McCain win)
2012: Obama vs McCain (McCain win)
2016: Sanders vs Rubio (Sanders win)
 
I think the butterfly effect is overexagered- generally people mould themselves around the circumstances and climb the greasy pole to power. They may have completely different ideological suppositions, but those who make it often do so for a reason polticially.

I heartily agree with you that many people in politics adapt their policies and ideological positions to obtain power, Lyndon B. Johnson in all probability being the best example of this, but nonetheless, given any presidential election, there are certainly far more many people around to vie for the Presidency than who ever make it into the primaries.

Further, there are many political careers who essentially are but odd flukes. Barack Obama is perhaps the most memorable recent example, but Jimmy Carter, Harry Truman, and Gerald Ford also achieved their places in history by simply being fortunate enough to be at the right place at the right time. And then there is the fact that sometimes, what is conventionally the smart thing to do can very easily be upset by the fact that, well, the not even the cleverest politicians really know everything. Jeb Bush's seemingly irresistable rise to the Republican nomination in 2016 turned out to be eminently resistible.

And then there's the fact that popular opinion regarding certain figures who under other circumstances would have been considered very elligible candidates simply, by dumb luck, end up being seen as very "meh": Joe Biden has steadily remained the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for 2020 for over a year, and he has managed to build a pretty solid image of being, in the words of Community, "folksy, yet progressive". Back in 2008, he was considered so bland as to be entirely forgettable, and Saturday Night Live were making jokes about him and Christopher Dodd being completely indistinguishable from one another, a situation that was underlined when he and Christopher Dodd both dropped out after the Iowa Caucus where they scored 4% and 2% respectively (Bill Richardson scored 6%).

Do you know what Dodd is up to these days? He left politics in 2010, first to work as a lobbyist for the Motion Picture Association of America, and now works as a lawyer for the firm Arnold & Porter. And that was after thirty years in the Senate and having served as chair of the Senate Banking Committee. It is very easy to imagine that a similar fate could have awaited Joe Biden.
 
I like the fact that the Republicans don't change at all. Accurate depiction of how Nixon's interest in Civil Rights in 1960 was entirely a ploy to break up the New Deal.

It might have been entirely a ploy, but, frankly, you should read Robert Caro's Master of the Senate. Whatever Nixon's motivations might have been, in the fifties, Nixon was one of the most powerful allies that Civil Rights had in Washington, at one time cooperating with Humphrey to try to come up with a strategy to abolish the filibuster by procedural chicanery, and in 1957, he fought tooth and nail to the bitter end to get the original text of the 1957 Civil Rights Act made into law.

I consider Nixon along with LBJ, to be the most interesting Presidents the United States had in the 20th century, as they both provide such intriguing and rich character studies into the interaction of ambition, pragmatism, cynicism, blunt paranoia and delusion, and yet in both cases, there certainly are moments where both man manages to shine through as true champions of what is the morally right thing to do.
 
It might have been entirely a ploy, but, frankly, you should read Robert Caro's Master of the Senate. Whatever Nixon's motivations might have been, in the fifties, Nixon was one of the most powerful allies that Civil Rights had in Washington, at one time cooperating with Humphrey to try to come up with a strategy to abolish the filibuster by procedural chicanery, and in 1957, he fought tooth and nail to the bitter end to get the original text of the 1957 Civil Rights Act made into law.

I consider Nixon along with LBJ, to be the most interesting Presidents the United States had in the 20th century, as they both provide such intriguing and rich character studies into the interaction of ambition, pragmatism, cynicism, blunt paranoia and delusion, and yet in both cases, there certainly are moments where both man manages to shine through as true champions of what is the morally right thing to do.

I’d heard about this and this motivated my TL in the making. I’d love your input. You’ll notice I don’t have Nixon resign. He was altogether less jaded and less scandalous in 1960. His 1960 losd hardened him. As for people as leaders, the more important thing was his re-election and Bobby Kennedy’s election in 1968. Past that it was speculation based on the economic circumstances of the time
 
It might have been entirely a ploy, but, frankly, you should read Robert Caro's Master of the Senate. Whatever Nixon's motivations might have been, in the fifties, Nixon was one of the most powerful allies that Civil Rights had in Washington, at one time cooperating with Humphrey to try to come up with a strategy to abolish the filibuster by procedural chicanery, and in 1957, he fought tooth and nail to the bitter end to get the original text of the 1957 Civil Rights Act made into law.

I consider Nixon along with LBJ, to be the most interesting Presidents the United States had in the 20th century, as they both provide such intriguing and rich character studies into the interaction of ambition, pragmatism, cynicism, blunt paranoia and delusion, and yet in both cases, there certainly are moments where both man manages to shine through as true champions of what is the morally right thing to do.
Oh I've read it. Caro's biggest problem over the whole length of the Biography is that he is determined to place laurels around the heads of all of LBJs opponents (See his sanctifying of Coke Stevenson past reason.) obviously in the fight Nixon did matter but the key thing is beyond "This will damage the Democrats" there was never any follow-up. At best his work would have been comparable to the stonewall Civil Rights hit under Carter and Reagan but earlier. Obviously progress is good but motivation matters too.

I would say that Nixon pulling off his strategy in an early 60s administration would see the Democrats shift to the right earlier but I don't think the GOP would shift left at all as a result.
 
Back
Top