• 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

This reminds me: does everyone have a favorite nutty party they've made up for these?
Not strictly a party, but I'm pleased with having made an OTL Archbishop and Governor-General of NZ into a guerrilla leader aligned with the Socialist Unity Party in that Smith's Dream/Sleeping Dogs list I did a couple months back.


You're a real cold sonofabitch, Gunga Din
Published by SLP
Albany, NY
My personal pick incidentally is (Independent (Left) Section of the Square Deal Party) the CIOish wing of a Populist-Progressive-Socialist Party
Copying your Neighbors Homework

(What if the UK adopted the basic structures of the Irish constitution in 1945)

Part 1

1945 Elections


King George VI could probably claim to be the most popular monarch among the British people in history, yet soon he would cease to be one at all. As the legal scholars layman alike poured over every article and word in the codified constitution, by far the most contentious issue was that of the Head of State. Churchill was furious and he was not alone, the entire Conservative party, the Liberal Nationals, the Liberals, and National Labour were all staunchly Royalist. Churchill hoped that by nominating Windsor and fighting Labour's candidate in the presidential race he could gain votes in the general and cast them as unpatriotic republican Bolsheviks.

Labour was split, no one in the party had even considered removing the popular King from the throne but now that it had happened things were...different. The republican left of the party wanted to nominate a socialist statesman and seemed all but certain to nominate Deputy Leader of the Labour party, former Cabinet Minister and Leader of the Opposition Arthur Greenwood. Although the right of the party of vehemently opposed any nomination but the King, Greenwood remained a popular figure in the party and it only required 10% of MPs to nominate a candidate. Attlee sensed trouble and quietly sought out private meetings with all sides to come to an agreement. Sensing that republican position could lose them the general, he pressured his friend Greenwood to withdraw with the promise of a Great Office of State under any future Labour government. After publicly announcing Labour's decision to nominate Windsor, very few Labour MPs opposed Attlee's decision. Staunch republican Ernest Thurtle attempted to nominate himself but failed due to lack of support from either Common Wealth or the ILP, despite both failing to nominate a candidate from their own parties.

Therefore on the 18th July 1945 the King would become the President, without a single poster printed or ballot counted. A bastion of tradition and normalcy in changing times; and my how they were changing...

George Windsor (Independent)

House of Commons

As unexpected constitutional stipulations were cropping up everywhere, one of the most logistically difficult was that according an obscure subsection, the number of MPs were bound by population and there would have to be somewhere between 963 and 1647. The Government wanted to keep the numbers as low as possible and opted for 1000, they would have to meet in Westminster Hall.

Second of all was how they would be elected. The constitution was quite clear: Single-Transferable-Vote. 200 Constituencies were drawn mostly through combining existing ones, with the rural seats like the Scottish highlands and Mid Wales having three seats and the most urban seats in Central and North London having eight.

At first it seemed as though the new Constitution caused an anti-republican backlash and shifted voters towards the Tories, as the election campaign went on however this changed. The primary reason was the decision to only nominate George VI for the Presidency and a powerful campaign by Labour. Labour had already been 18% ahead in the polls in February and despite the brief confusion at the new Constitution, Social Reform from the popular Beveridge Report on issues such as Housing, Healthcare, Employment and Education were at the top of voters minds.

The results however, shocked just about everyone:

Labour 453
Conservatives(Including Scottish and Ulster Unionists) 266
Liberal 93
Common Wealth 47
Liberal National 41
Independent 31
Independent Labour Party 19
National Independent 15
Irish Nationalist 11
Communist 11
Plaid Cymru 4

As the days went by and the results came in, it became increasingly clear that Clement Attlee would be the next Prime Minister. Two weeks after polling day he realised that Labour would not have a majority, so he began negotiations with the other parties. Although there was clearly a socialist majority in the House, it would be difficult to form a secure majority, Labour MPs fought the election on a manifesto pledging nationalisations and universal health care, they would not throw that away for yet more national government. This meant that the only parties they could work with were Common Wealth, the ILP and a dozen or so independents. Relations between the ILP and Labour turned out to be too sour to lead anywhere but Common Wealth was more hopeful. CW leader Tom Wintringham forced major concessions on a more democratic model of worker ownership and got his MPs in line to join the government. Although the majority in the HoC barely existed, they could rely on the socialist majority on an issue by issue basis and the socialist independents would vote for Attlee's nomination as Prime Minister. Wintringham would be Deputy PM and Aurhur Greenland would be Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs as promised.

Nomination of Prime Minister vote for Clement Attlee (Labour)

Yes: 514
No: 454
Abstention: 32

Clement Attlee (Labour)/ Tom Wintringham (Common Wealth)

End of Part 1
Last edited:
¿Sufragio Efectivo? ¡No, Reelección!

Presidents of the United Mexican States

1877 - 1880: Porfirio Díaz (Partido Liberal)
1880 - 1884: Manuel González (Partido Liberal)
1884 - 1910: Porfirio Díaz (Partido Nacional Porfirista / Partido Re-eleccionista)
1910 - 1912: Ramón Corral (Partido Nacional Porfirista)
1912 - 1913 (interim, disputed): Bernardo Reyes (Independiente)
1912(/1913, disputed) - 1928: Jose Yves Limantour (Partido Nacional)
1928 - 1934: Félix Díaz (Partido Nacional)
1934 - 1940: Luis Morones (Partido Nacional/Partido Nacional Institucional)
1940 - 1946: Nemesio García Naranjo (Partido Nacional Institucional)
1946 - 1952: Manuel Gómez Morín (Partido Nacional Institucional)
1952 - 1955: Rodolfo Sánchez Taboada (Partido Mexicano Institucional)†
1955 - 1958: Teodoro Amerlinck y Zirión (Partido Mexicano Institucional)
1958 - 1964: Venustiano Echeverría (Partido Nacional)
1964 - 0000: Fidel Velázquez (Partido Nacional [later Grupo Reelectionista])

Presidents recognised by the Provisional Government (Oaxaca)
(following the disputed election of 1970)

1970 (Jul - Nov): Carlos Alberto Madrazo (Partido Nacional Institucional - Grupo Reformista)†
1970 - 1971: Artemio Fuentes Macias (Grupo Reformista)‡
1971 (Aug, interim): Octavio Paz (Grupo Reformista)
1971 - 1973: Porfirio Muñoz Ledo (Frente Popular)
1973 - 0000: Benicio Martínez Verdugo (México Insumisa)

Last edited:


Ciclavex Jarl av Nya Sverige
Patreon supporter
Penn’s Woods
Yet More Fashions Made Sacred Monarchs

Part 2: The Old Dominion

The Most Excellent and American Kings and Queens of Virginia, Their Majesties, by the Grace of God (House of Corotoman — 1838-present)
1838-1854: Robert I [1]
1854-1866: Robert II [2]
1866-1874: Andrew [3]
1874-1904: Thomas I [4]
1904-1920: Thomas II [5]
1920-1965: Phoebe I [6]
1965-1990: Robert III [7]
1990-0000: Phoebe II [8]
Phoebe Alice Elizabeth Stephanie Roberta Carter, Her Royal Highness the Princess of Lancaster
0000-0000: Her Royal Highness, Princess Phoebe Elizabeth Margaret Christina Amelia Roberta Carter of Lancaster

Royal Consorts of the Kingdom of Virginia (by birthright style — 1838-present)
1838-1854: Miss Amelia Bolling Spencer
1854-1866: Lady Louise de Saint-Hilaire
1869-1870: Lady Mary Lee of the Eastern Shore
1874-1876: Lady Jane Robinson of Middlesex
1885-1904: Henrietta, Titular Princess of Maryland
1918-1920: Lady Sarah Haroldson-Smith of the Attican Valley
1920-1945: Prince Simeon of Roumania
1965-1990: Lady Elizabeth Woodruffe of Kentucky
1990-0000: Lord James Bolling of Appomattox
Prince Henrik of Denmark

[1] When Robert I took the Virginian Crown after the collapse of the short-lived Commonwealth of Virginia, he took control of a realm in financial ruin, with much of the country not only in ruins, but suffering from the ongoing war which the Commonwealth's Council of State had triggered with their once-brothers in arms against English rule in Ohio and Pennsylvania. King Robert quickly brought his former allies to the diplomatic table, conceding the regions which the Council of State had claimed from Ohio and Pennsylvania, and set about putting the realm on solid foundations. He spent most of his reign rebuilding the nation from its war of independence, reestablishing its agricultural base.

[2] Robert II was already a man when his father took the throne, making him the heir-apparent to the new realm. He set the precedent for other members of the royal family to be as active in the state as monarch, taking his seat in the House of Lords. Though always a loyalist to his father's governments, he also took on his own initiatives, and publicly disagreed with his father on some matters. When he became king, he doubled down on the efforts he had made as Prince of Lancaster. Where his father had focused on Virginia's agricultural history, Robert II looked forward to a Virginia built as much upon industry, learning and yeomen as it was on tobacco, maize and planters. Robert encouraged the development of industry in the northern settlements on the Potomac and Rappahanock, still the industrial heartland of Virginia today, and he founded - upon the base of the proud College of William and Mary - the University of Williamsburg, founding Robert College, Corotoman College, St. Matthias' College and St. John Wesley's College, and encouraging the nobility to do the same. Robert II is today considered to be, for his efforts, the real founder of the Church of Virginia, the first fully-formed Wesleyan church not to be governed by the monarch of England and Ireland.

Robert II became a much more controversial monarch when, in 1860, he acceded to the terms of the Treaty of Cape Liberation, in which New Spain finally called in the promise made by the Commonwealth's Council of State in exchange for Bescós Veracruz' vital aid in their war for independence. The aristocracy, whose power was built upon their plantations, resisted the king's Emancipation Decree, which would require the beginning of a fifteen-year process of gradual emancipation beginning in 1870. When Robert II went to dissolve the General Assembly in 1866, to prevent the passage of a resolution revoking the Decree, he was murdered by a member of the House of Burgesses as he sat on his throne in the House of Lords' chamber.

[3] As Prince of Lancaster, Andrew had been a reluctant supporter of the Emancipation Decree. He was generally closer to the nobility than his father had been in his inclinations, but he, better than they, understood the consequences if Virginia failed to live up to its obligations under Cape Liberation -- being abandoned to their fate and surrendered back into the fold of the English Empire, which had already banned slavery. The murder of his father, however, changed his outlook considerably, and Andrew became a fierce convert to the cause of abolition, and bringing the nobility to heel, once and for all. Andrew seized the assassin's family's property, and attainted his brother's title, rendering forfeit his seat in the House of Lords. Not waiting the Decree, King Andrew freed their slaves; further, he established an expedited plan to emancipate all of the royal family's slaves by 1871, and pressured loyal nobles to do the same to prove their loyalty to the Crown.

Tensions rose higher and higher across the realm as the process of emancipation began to accelerate, and certain eastern and southern nobles began to gather together "militias"; Andrew's control of these regions of Virginia began to stretch thinner and thinner. In 1870, an assassination attempt was made on King Andrew, but only succeeded in murdering his pregnant queen, just shy of the first anniversary of their wedding. Andrew responded by attempting a violent crackdown on the militias, but they - with the support of Carolina - began an uprising to restore the Commonwealth, and abolish the monarchy, rather than abolish slavery.

Andrew led his armies onto the field of battle for the next four years, and died after his horse fell on him, after being struck by a cannonball at the Battle of Attican Valley.

[4] Thomas I took the throne after his brother's demise, but, where his brother had led Virginia's armies to war, Thomas, then the Duke of Port Amelia, had become his right-hand man, stewarding the country from Williamsburg in the king's stead. Thomas was a more able administrator, and a more politic man, than his brother was, but was no less out for vengeance from the nobles who had so turned on the royal family. Thomas' constitutional reforms may as well be called constitutional rewriting, for the powers which he seized for the Crown, and took away from the aristocracy -- by the end, the lords' only remaining effective, constitutional power was to sit in the House of Lords. Upon taking the Crown, King Thomas issued the Revised Emancipation Decree, immediately freeing the slaves of any man who had taken up arms against the Crown, unless they laid down arms and returned to their homes within thirty days, formalizing a haphazard policy which his brother had adopted. After two more long years of fighting, Thomas I - with the support of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maryland and Virginia - brought the rebels and Carolina to heel, and his generals marched on Ameliasborough and Charleston. Thomas and the rest of the coalition forced Carolina to accede to the Treaty of Cape Liberation, bringing a close to the final chapter of slavery in the English-speaking world.

Thomas I spent the rest of his long reign bringing the kingdom back to order, and reconstructing his realm from the devastating six-year civil war.

[5] Thomas II took the throne at the age of sixteen, and was quickly brought under the influence of the nobility, jealous for power after a king who had kept them in line. Thomas II was largely a weak king, who allowed the more conservative elements of his country to take hold and reverse much of the progress his father had made. It was during his reign that the infamous Contracts of Labor were approved by the Crown, which many accused of bringing many rural Black Virginians back into bondage, if of an arguably lesser tyranny than the old chattel slavery. Thomas I spent much of his time on royal plantations, avoiding Williamsburg as much as he could, and he seemed to idealize the old Virginia of the colonial era and his great-grandfather, rather than living in the Virginia which existed in his own time.

[6] When her brother died, suddenly, in a boiler explosion on his way back from a state visit to New England, the nobility's greatest fear in the royal family - Phoebe I - came to the Virginian throne. Phoebe was one of the New Women, as they had been foreseen and named by the zenobian philosopher Ignacia Bescós Ybaigurén, who demanded a radical change to the makeup of human society, and, in her case, to Virginian society in particular. She represented a new generation of Virginian women, and not only spoke, but acted on their behalf, modifying the laws of succession and inheritance, property laws, voting laws, as well as lifting the long-since-ignored laws against contraception, to bring women onto a more equal footing with men. Her zenobian radicalism alienated much of the General Assembly, leading her to follow her grandfather's habit of trying to call it sparingly.

However, Phoebe I's radicalism ended with zenobianism -- indeed, she was, as her brother had been, an outspoken skin-tone phulonist, who did little for Black Virginians or, indeed, even for common Virginians who shared her racial background.

[7] Where Phoebe I was a New Woman, her son, Robert III, was a "new man", who not only accepted the great strides of progress for the opposite sex, but sought to entrench and expand them; he was far less apprehensive of the General Assembly than his mother and, proving an able negotiator, brought the finances of the kingdom into order in a way that hadn't been seen since the time of his two namesakes. Robert III brought Virginia into another war with Carolina, the backlash of which - including great resistance to conscription - led directly to the Universal Liberty Movement. With its roots buried deep in the radical element of the Church of Virginia - epitomized by Saint Stephen of Edo's ministry during the reign of Thomas I before his return to Niphon - the Universal Liberty Movement echoed in some ways both the Radical and Democratic movements of Europe and other parts of America, adapted to the unique circumstance of Virginia, a country where the nobility and the industrial elite were more united than in other parts of the world.

Decades of protests, worker secessions and labor occupations plunged Virginia into a long civil disorder, which King Robert found himself unable to stop; Robert III, so used to working with the Lords and the Burgesses, struggled when it came to those Virginians without a voice in the halls of the General Assembly. The king, after some time, ultimately sought to embrace the more Democratic elements of the Universal Liberty Movement, while spurning the radical, but he managed primarily to alienate the General Assembly by this measure. Ultimately, though the Movement - and not the king - brought the General Assembly to the table, and universal suffrage and official skin-tone equality were, at least, in law, adopted in 1983. Though he struggled with the new reality, by the end of his reign, Robert III was slowly beginning to come to terms with the new Virginia the ULM had wrought.

[8] Phoebe II, who had been hostile to the ULM for most of her time as Princess of Lancaster, was forced to come to terms with them upon taking the throne in 1990. Though their relationship has been rocky, she has successfully navigated the waters of Virginia's new world, even seeing her first government led by a Black Virginian take office in 2015. Much of the conviviality now enjoyed between the Universal Liberty Movement and more traditional ends of power has been the renewed rivalry with Carolina, brought into full effect by the Global War, which was devastating to southern Virginia, once again serving as the chief battleground of the English-speaking American states. Carolina's unrepentant phulonistic government, in which the common person has no say, is now the villain both to the Virginian royal and the Virginian commoner, both the Virginian aristocrat and the Virginian industrialist.

They dare not strike any new blow against Carolina, though. If the tripwire of French and Polish troops standing in between them is snapped ...

Well, maybe Virginia is far enough away to survive an originalistic war.



You're a real cold sonofabitch, Gunga Din
Published by SLP
Albany, NY
"Scott Is Lost!"

1845-1849: James K. Polk / George M. Dallas (Democratic)
1844: Henry Clay / Theodore Frelinghuysen (Whiggish)
1849-1851: Daniel Webster / Thomas B. King (Whiggish)
1848: Martin Van Buren / William R. King (Democratic), James K. Polk / scattered (Independent Democratic)
1851-1853: Thomas B. King / vacant (Whiggish)
1853-1857: William H. Seward / John J. Crittenden (Whiggish)

1852: James Buchanan / Henry Dodge (Democratic), Andrew J. Donaldson / Lewis D. Campbell (American “Know Nothing”)
1857-1861: Sam Houston / Lewis Cass (Washingtonian Coupon --- Independent)
1861-1863: Sam Houston / Andrew Johnson (Washingtonian Coupon --- Independent)

1856: Stephen A. Douglas / Linn Boyd (Official Democratic), Millard Filmore / William C. Rives (Official Whiggish)
1860: James A. Bayard / Horatio Seymour (Official Democratic), Edward Everett / John M. Botts (Official Whiggish), Robert F. Stockton / Cassius M. Clay (Free Soil)
1863-1865: Andrew Johnson / vacant (Washingtonian Independent)
1865-1869: John A. McClernand / John C. Breckinridge (Democratic)

1864: John P. Hale / William L. Dayton (Free Soil), Richard Taylor / Nathaniel P. Banks (American), Andrew Johnson / Jesse D. Bright (Independent / True Washintonian)
1869-1873: Salmon P. Chase / Roscoe Conkling (Free Soil)
1868: John C. Breckinridge / Fernando Wood (Constitutional “Atlanta” Democratic), Cornelius Vanderbuilt / Francis P. Blair, Jr. (“Havana or Hellfire” Independent / American / Washingtonian), George H. Pendleton / Henry S. Foote (National “New York” Democratic), James R. Doolittle / Alexander H. Stephens (Popular “Chicago” Democratic)

In April of 1847 the Mexican War was going well for the administration of James K. Polk, under the command of General Zachary Taylor the US forces which had begun the war in the disputed Texas borderlands had won dramatic victories at Monterrey and Buena Vista and what news was arriving from the distant campaigns in New Mexico and California showed the true prizes of the President's War of Choice were surely in hand. But there had been problems, the Mexican Government at the start of the war which refused to accept the annexation of Texas continued to refuse to see reason, and so the President had ordered the US government to aid Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna in his efforts to return to Mexico. Mexico's great on again, off again strongman though upon seizing power abandoned any pretense of seeking peace with the Yanquis and instead sought to secure his position with continuing the War of National Defense. And so it had been earlier in the year when President Polk and General-in-Chief of the Army Winfield Scott agreed on a daring plan to take fresh forces, the cream of the crop of Veterans under Taylor and the might of the US Shipping and Naval Fleets and land an army at the Port of Vera Cruz, bypassing a thousand miles of desert to push directly upon Mexico City itself and to end the war there.

The Siege of Vera Cruz and the battles there had gone well, and then Polk received word, the port taken, Scott had decided mostly due to the dangers of disease on the coast to abandon the city and move his entire force upon Mexico City, tossing the greatest Army the United States had yet created into a single, daring push. Reinforcement would have to fight their way in, supplies would be replaced with forage, and defeat could only end in death or dishonor: retreat would not be an option though already scoured lands.

Polk was appauled but his orders countering the move would only arrive too late. Another figure upon hearing the news declared that Scott and his entire command were doomed by it. And as this force pushed inland, Santa Anna would soon prove the Duke of Wellington right on that point. The Mexican Warlord chose a daring strategy of his own, abandoning all between Scott and the valley of Mexico in the highlands where the capital was located, leaving just enough supplies for Scott's column to continue the advance as it was strung out and weakened by hunger and the difficult terrain. And then, after months of waiting and husbanding his strength, he ordered his forces forward. Over the course of six weeks in August and September the American Army was picked off, bit by bit. Battle by battle brave men perished in massive numbers: Robert E. Lee, Thomas J. Jackson, John Quitman, George McClellan, Don Carlos Buell and thousands upon thousands of their men died for Scott's folly. Eventually word did make its way to US forces of the plight of Scott's Army and two daring missions were organized to try and charge their way up the old trails of Cortez, the cost being the death of the two relief commanders, Franklin Pierce and Jefferson Davis. Scott was no fool, and fought to secure defensible positions and to consolidate his forces, aiming for a strike to take the fortresses around Mexico and thus to dramatically overturn the crisis. But too many men were lost, too many capable young men were dead, wounded or captured, and Santa Anna had momentum. And then at Molino Del Rey it all came to an end. The American left flank broke and the whole line was wound up. In the bloodbath that followed, Scott was mortally wounded and captured, and General David E. Twiggs surrendered the surviving component of the main force the next day. But some units had scattered, a platoon here, a volunteer regiment there and in the classic Santa Anna form these men ere given no quarter. Surrender not being an option some dug in to die behind defensive works, others tried to push either North or back to the coast. Every Bar and Schoolhouse in America would come to know the result thanks to the painting "The Remains of the Army": Showing the scouts of the terrified Third Relief meeting Captain Ulysses S. Grant on foot, leading his broken down horse with a wounded Private atop it, grasping the horses mane, pale with shock. More then then the young Captain Grant and Private Hull made it back, but not too many.

The triumph in hand dragged the war on for another year. Taylor managed to best Santa Anna when the General came north, but was forced to withdraw back across the Rio Grande. A Mexican column sent to roll back American gains in California was blunted but retook San Diego, and the US forces in New Mexico were forced to withdraw a few months later. Victory had turned sour in Polk's mouth, but war opposition was on the rise and the states of Europe started to talk about forcing a negotiated settlement. Taylor would refuse to cross back over the Rio Grande without forces that Polk couldn't raise. But 1848 lead to some European distractions that allowed Polk to drag the war on. His victory not in hand he abandoned his plans for a single term only to find the Democrats were souring to him. And so too was the nation. In the Spring of 1849, with the drama in Europe at an end Daniel Webster requested the British Foreign Office supply the proposals for a peace to Mexico, and Santa Anna agreed to them, the ensuing Treaty of Kingston saw the US paying an indemnity to Mexico in exchange for a treaty that established the US-Mexican Border along the Nueces River in Texas, and along the 37th Parallel from the Indian Territory to the Pacific.

The war ended Webster would seek to settle the slavery question which proved easier then anyone imagined. Texas was already a slave state, what parts of California were now in the hands of the United States was made a free state and the old Missouri Compromise was, with little debate extended over the new Deseret and Jefferson Territories. The South, with defeat on their minds and hearts filled with grief for the majority southern volunteer army lost, developed new plans. Webster and after 1852, Seward could go on all they wanted with their highminded Yankee ideals, for the South now the goal had to be to find new lands for states. And while Mexico was for the time closed to them, other points of the Golden Circle beckoned. Seward complained and hawed all he wanted about it, and tried to enforce the neutrality acts where he could. But William Walker and his ilk marched, with grand funding goals and modern weapons and huge numbers of volunteers. The governments of Nicaragua, of Honduras, of the Domenican Republic fell. Wars were waged against Honduras, Columbia, and Venezuela. Wars almost begain with France, Spain and the United Kingdom. The South was on a mission and no one, hell or high water was going to stop them from at least trying. The North could be uncomfortable about it but many made money off of it anyway. And many dreamed of their own victories to be had and the flag expanding its domain more. And, unfortunately in defeat they were busy finding their own ways to shed blood. The San Patrico's a unit of Irish-Americans serving under the Mexican Army after deserting the US Army had played a minor if visible and important component of Scott's defeat and this act of treason was enough to convince man of the need to turn against other potentially disloyal Catholics in the United States.

In 1856 these two forces in American Politics: Nativism and Filibusterism, along with a mess of Young Americanism, Manifest Destiny, and Revenge found their voice in the form of Sam Houston and the Washingtonian Society. In giving him two term they would settle many questions in the United States, and amid the blood and horror of a war of conquest and the birthing of something more then halfway to the fabled Golden Circle they would awaken another one: The Slavery Question. And its answer was rapidly forthcoming.


Hostess with the Shitpostest
c l e g g m a n i a. The Final version

2007-2010: Gordon Brown (Labour
2010-2015: Nick Clegg (Labour-Liberal Democrat Coalition)

David Cameron (Conservative) Gordon Brown (Labour) Nick Clegg (Liberal Democrat) Peter Robinson (DUP) Alex Salmond (SNP) Gerry Adams (Sinn Fein) Iuan Wynn Jones (Plaid Cymru) Margaret Ritchie (SDLP) Caroline Lucas (Green Party England & Wales) David Ford (Alliance) Sylvia Herman (Independent) John Bercow (Speaker)
STV Referendum: Yes 54% No 46%
Scottish Independence Referendum: Yes 45% No 55%
2015-2016: Theresa May (Conservative Minority with UKIP S&C)
Def: Nick Clegg (Liberal Democrat) David Miliband (Labour) Nigel Farage (UKIP) Alex Salmond (SNP) Caroline Lucas/ John McDonnell (Green-Left Alliance) Gerry Adams (Sinn Fein) Iuan Wynn Jones (Plaid Cymru) Margaret Ritchie (SDLP) David Ford (Alliance) Sylvia Herman (Independent) Sir Menzies Campbell (Speaker)
EU Referendum: Remain: 52% Leave 48%
2016-2016: Theresa May (Conservative Minority)
2016-20__: Yvette Cooper (Labour Minority with GLA, LD, SNP and PC S&C)

Theresa May (Conservative) Ed Davey (Liberal Democrat) Nicola Sturgeon (SNP) Nigel Farage (UKIP) Caroline Lucas/John McDonnell (Green-Left Alliance) Gerry Adams (Sinn Fein) Leanne Wood (Plaid Cymru) Margaret Ritchie (SDLP) Naomi Long (Alliance) Sylvia Herman (Independent) Sir Menzies Campbell (Speaker)

PoD is there is only one leader's debate and the election comes at the peak of Clegg's popularity. Due to the weirdness of FPTP Labour secure the most seats while getting the least number of votes of the big three with the opposite happening for the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives in the middle.

After the backwards nature of the election Labour are more willing to budge on electoral reform than the Conservatives who are reluctant to even give away a referendum on County based Single Transferrable Vote and while the Tories found more economic ground with the Liberal Democrats Labour are more willing to compromise to Lib Dem policies.

After weeks of debate between the Lib Dems and the other two parties a plan is laid out. So Nick Clegg goes to the Parliament to form a Labour-Liberal Democrat government. Clegg insisted Brown resign as Labour leader and traded off the top job for allowing Labour to have more roles in the cabinet than the Liberal Democrats. The role of Deputy Prime Minister would go to the eventual winner of the Labour leadership election (as it happens, David Miliband).

The government survives despite a big despite over tutition fees in which the eventual compromise involving lower fees for STEM subjects is soundly rejected by the Lib Dem Voter base and they don't quite recover. The slow economic recovery is blamed on the coalition and the Tories lead in the polls keeps the coalition together for its full five years. the Conservatives fall a few seats short of a majority and agree to supply and confidence arrangements with UKIP and the DUP. Meanwhile a split between the centre-Left Labour and the Green-Left alliance leads to a respectable number of Lib Dem MPs being returned on second and third preferences.

A narrow victory for remain in the 2016 EU membership referendum leads to both parties withdrawing from the agreement and Yvette Cooper tabling a vote of no confidence not long afterwards. The vote passes with Lib Dem, SNP and GLA support (and abstention by UKIP) who hope they can replace the Tories as the force of the right.

in the Autumn 2016 election the GLA receive a big spike in support from Lib Dems over social policies, Labour as an additional and from some greens across centre and left. The eventual agreement was branded as a "Progressive Platform" by the prime Minister with a complicated series of Supply and confidence agreements on certain areas of Labours centre-left platform from the GLA, The Lib Dems and the Regional Parties. Somehow this has stayed together for three years. Polling for the next election is chaotic with the each member of the progressive platform blaming each other for the government's failures meanwhile The Conservatives are losing votes to UKIP over their hesitation over a "People's Vote" to rerun the EU membership referendum.
Last edited:
New World Order

Presidents of the Republic of Indonesia

1945–1965: Sukarno (Non-partisan)
1965–1965: Ahmad Yani † (Military) [1]
1965–1965: Sarwo Edhie Wibowo (Military)
1965–1968: Suharto † (Military / Golkar) [2]
1968–1978: Sarwo Edhie Wibowo (Military / IPKI / Pekena)
1978–1989: Sarwo Edhie Wibowo † (Pekena) [3]
1978 presidential referendum: Elected
1984 presidential referendum: Elected

1989–1989: Hartono Rekso Dharsono (Pekena) [4]
1989–2000: Sumitro † (Non-partisan) [5]
1990 presidential referendum: Elected
1996 presidential referendum: Elected

2000–0000: Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (Milenium Baru) [6]
2000 presidential election def: Sidarto Danusubroto (Front Demokrasi Marhaenis)

[1] Officially Chairman of the National Defence Council and Acting Head of State, Yani found himself at odds with the majority of the junta he led. Officers loyal to the late General Nasution didn't trust him, and officers loyal to Suharto didn't respect him or his commitment to the Konfrontasi, preferring to shed Communist blood rather than Malayan blood. When Yani attempted to secure support outside the junta, Suharto and his allies ousted him and he was killed in unclear circumstances.

[2] While the officer corps were content with murdering leftists for a time, eventually they demanded real changes from the ancient regime. Suharto's two fatal mistakes were his failure to abolish political parties and his lack of attention towards the "radicals" in his regime. At a routine National Defence Council meeting in April 1968, Lieutenant Colonel Untung Syamsuri stood and accused Suharto and his aide Ali Murtopo of corruption and treason. The accusation was repeated by other officers, and all hell broke loose. While the intention had been to capture Suharto alive and bring him to trial, a stray bullet put an end to that.

[3] A protégé of Yani and an ally of Suharto, the Butcher of Bandung/Sorong stepped over their bodies to become Supreme Leader of Indonesia for the next twenty-one years, though his rule was marred by multiple insurgencies and bloody repression, culminating in genocide in West Papua. A pragmatist, Wibowo adopted bits from his predecessors' ideological projects. All political parties were banned, eventually replaced by the nonpartisan National Welfare and Development Union (Pekena). He also introduced the direct election of the president, eventually shuttering the Legislative Assembly altogether. In the foreign sphere, Wibowo tried to cultivate ASEAN as an anti-Chinese military bloc. Today his legacy can be seen in statues, plaques, and international airports in Jakarta, Bandung, and Purworejo.

[4] The intellectual architect of the Wibowo regime, Dharsono's time in office was brief and fractious, being removed after less than a month by a much more solid presence in Indonesian politics.

[5] A taciturn general who fell out of favor first with Suharto and then with Wibowo, Sumitro set about reducing the military's role in politics, presiding over a cabinet composed mostly of civilians for the first time in decades. Though he held onto power till his death, it would not be wrong to credit Sumitro with clearing a path for the nation's transition from military rule to flawed democracy.

[6] The year is 2002. SBY may be Wibowo's son-in-law and a military man, but he seems committed to the democratic experiment at the moment. With the Cold War drawing to some sort of conclusion and the Indonesian economy on the brink of collapse, the Republic faces interesting times ahead. Economic liberalization, normalization of relations with the PRC, the grim specter of the IMF knocking at the door, and so, so many riots; who knows what's next for Indonesia?


Always mysterious!
Published by SLP
Municipal Commune of Bourne
More Things Change, More They Stay The Same

1945-1956: Clement Attlee (Labour)
1945 (Majority) def. Winston Churchill (Conservative), Archibald Sinclair (Liberal), Ernest Brown (Liberal National), Harry Pollitt (Communist)
1950 (Majority) def. Harold Macmillan (Conservative), Clement Davies (Liberal), John Maclay (Liberal National), Rajani Palme Dutt (Communist), Richard Law (Democratic National)
1953 (Majority) def. Rab Butler (Conservative), Clement Davies (Liberal), Richard Law (Democratic National), Harry Pollitt (Communist), Michael Traynor (Sinn Fein)

1956-1958: Herbert Morrison (Labour majority)
1958-1964: Alec Douglas-Home (Conservative)
1958 (Coalition with Liberals) def. Herbert Morrison (Labour), Jo Grimond (Liberal), Peter Thorneycroft (Democratic National), Harry Pollitt (Communist), Michael Traynor (Sinn Fein)
1962 Workers self-management referendum, NO 55%, YES 45%
1963 (Majority) def. George Brown (Labour), Jeanne Hoban (Communist), Jo Grimond (Liberal), Peter Thorneycroft (Democratic National)
1964 EEC & EDC membership referendum, ENTER 52%, REMAIN 48%

1964-1967: Priscilla Buchan (Conservative)
1965 (Minority, with DNP confidence and supply) def. Fenner Brockway (Labour), Jeanne Hoban (Communist), Richard Wainwright (Liberal), Margaret Thatcher (Democratic National), Michael Traynor (Sinn Fein)
1967-1970: Randolph Churchill (Conservative minority, with Democratic National confidence and supply)

just a little update to a list i did before june 2017

So Brentry is going as well as expected, with the constitutional adjustments demanded by Massu and Franco going over about as well as cold soup amongst those who voted to Remain outside the EEC and EDC. Its brought down Buchan, reawoken reactionary forces within the Tories who want to roll over for the Elysee, and a rapid polarisation has been seen across the country. While Brockway won a record swing in 2017, the CPGB is polling well, as are the Liberals, as hardline opponents to Brentry. About the only saving grace is the Union Movement which got us into this mess has crashed into single figures - the local elections this year were marked by a spate of [checks notes] throwing cold Horlicks at Union Movement candidates. Even that silver lining has a cloud though, as Oswald Mosley has launched his Enter Europe Party which has rapidly displaced the Union Movement and at one point was polling first alongside the Liberals.

I have to say, we love to see it.
Last edited: