• 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

Screen Shot 2023-05-02 at 10.37.29 PM.png

1971-2003: Property mogul, CEO and President of the Trump Organisation
1996-2000: CEO of the Miss Universe Organisation
2000: Reform Party nominee for President of the United States

(with Jesse Ventura) lost to Al Gore/Joe Lieberman (Democratic), George W. Bush/Dick Cheney (Republican)
2003-2011: Cofounder and CEO of the Trump News Network (TNN)
(later Truth Media Corp.)
2004: Campaign co-chair, Joe Lieberman for America
Joe Lieberman/Matthew Martínez (Independent)
lost to Al Gore/John Kerry (Democratic), Rudy Giuliani/Tom Coburn (Republican)
2007-2009: Political commentator and media personality, Trump Tonight
2011-2014: Private citizen, public speaker and CNN political commentator
2014-2016: Member of the Board of Directors, Burisma Holdings
2016-2019: Chairman of the Board of Directors, the Trump Organisation
2016-2019: Principal Shareholder, Gab! Social
2017: Member of the Eric Adams Presidential Transition Committee
2018-2019: Member of President's Strategic and Policy Forum
2019-2023: Political exile, Russian Federation
2023-present: Private citizen, felon
(under house arrest)

2001-2009: Al Gore
(with Joe Lieberman) '00: defeated George W. Bush/Dick Cheney, Donald Trump/Jesse Ventura (Reform)
(with John Kerry) '04: defeated Rudy Giuliani/Tom Coburn, Joe Lieberman/Matthew Martínez (Independent)
2009-2017: Chuck Hagel
(with Marc Racicot) '08: defeated John Kerry/Tom Strickland
'12: defeated
Hillary Clinton/Bill Richardson
2017-2021: Eric Adams/Alan Grayson
defeated Chris Christie/Rob Portman
 
View attachment 68709

1971-2003: Property mogul, CEO and President of the Trump Organisation
1996-2000: CEO of the Miss Universe Organisation
2000: Reform Party nominee for President of the United States

(with Jesse Ventura) lost to Al Gore/Joe Lieberman (Democratic), George W. Bush/Dick Cheney (Republican)
2003-2011: Cofounder and CEO of the Trump News Network (TNN)
(later Truth Media Corp.)
2004: Campaign co-chair, Joe Lieberman for America
Joe Lieberman/Matthew Martínez (Independent)
lost to Al Gore/John Kerry (Democratic), Rudy Giuliani/Tom Coburn (Republican)
2007-2009: Political commentator and media personality, Trump Tonight
2011-2014: Private citizen, public speaker and CNN political commentator
2014-2016: Member of the Board of Directors, Burisma Holdings
2016-2019: Chairman of the Board of Directors, the Trump Organisation
2016-2019: Principal Shareholder, Gab! Social
2017: Member of the Eric Adams Presidential Transition Committee
2018-2019: Member of President's Strategic and Policy Forum
2019-2023: Political exile, Russian Federation
2023-present: Private citizen, felon
(under house arrest)

2001-2009: Al Gore
(with Joe Lieberman) '00: defeated George W. Bush/Dick Cheney, Donald Trump/Jesse Ventura (Reform)
(with John Kerry) '04: defeated Rudy Giuliani/Tom Coburn, Joe Lieberman/Matthew Martínez (Independent)
2009-2017: Chuck Hagel
(with Marc Racicot) '08: defeated John Kerry/Tom Strickland
'12: defeated
Hillary Clinton/Bill Richardson
2017-2021: Eric Adams/Alan Grayson
defeated Chris Christie/Rob Portman

Andrej Babiš is that you
 
The Man In Whitehall:

1951 - 1953: Winston Churchill (Conservative)
1951 (Majority) def. Clement Attlee (Labour), Clement Davies (Liberal)
1953 - 1957: Harold Macmillan (Conservative)
1955 (Majority) def. Clement Attlee (Labour), Clement Davies (Liberal)
1957 - 1960: Patrick Buchan-Hepburn (Conservative Majority)
1960 - 1963: Hugh Gaitskell (Labour)

1960 (Majority) def. Patrick Buchan-Hepburn (Conservative), Jo Grimond (Liberal)
1963 - 1967: Douglas Jay (Labour)
1964 (Majority) def. Peter Thorneycroft (Conservative), Jo Grimond (Liberal)
1967 - 1969: James Callaghan (Labour Majority)
1969 - : Iain Macleod (Conservative)

1969 (Majority) def. James Callaghan (Labour), Eric Lubbock (Liberal)

As the Sixties Dawned it seemed that things could change. Winston Churchill, the old befuddled man in the vaguely human suit of the Great War Hero would not long after the death of Eden, be shuffled off to pastures new, as his health began to decline. Harold Macmillan seemed a competent pair of hands, given the other choice was Rab who still had the lingering stench of appeasement, it seemed like a done deal.

The stumbling over Suez, the troubles in Malaya and Macmillan seeming out of touch with the everyday man would also do him in. The Scottish Unionist, Hepburn would be an attempt to staunch the bleeding, youthful and more in touch with the common man. But his attempts to run down the clock looked poor.

And so in came Gaitskell.

Hugh Gaitskell and his successor Douglas Jay can be judged as ushering in the 60s as a period of growth, stability and prosperity for all. Britain would forge it’s own unique form of Socialism, an island away from the raising forces of European Social Democracy and integration and away from the flashy Liberalism of John F. Kennedy.

Gaitskell and Jay, were firm believers in the power of the state to change and improve people’s lives. But this technocratic Social Democracy had its drawbacks, whilst liberalising reforms would occur on sexuality, abortion and on race, these were often slow and awkward affairs. Grammar Schools were to stay, as no one had the particular will power to tackle that in any meaningful way.

Gaitskell increasing bouts of illness in 1963 lead to his resignation and Chancellor Douglas Jay would take the lead. Whilst able to win easily in 1964 against a Conservative Party that found it’s own Goldwater with Peter Thorneycroft (much to Thorneycroft’s frustration as he found the comparison insulting), Jay was able to tackle the big two problems of his term in office; strikes and devaluation.

To say that Jay came up short on both is an understatement.

Devaluation came not long after the election in 1965, whilst it certainly helped Britain’s economy stop it’s overheating, to the man who had campaigned on ‘a strong pound for a strong Britain’ it was an embarrassment. Whilst Britain’s economy experienced a bounce back, Jay had to deal with other problems.

A series of wildcat strikes and Jay’s frustrated reaction to them permeated the period of 66 to 67. Jay, never considered a true friend of the Trade Unions, waffled. His popularity plummeted and a particularly tense and stormy Labour Conference in 1967 would seal Jay’s fate.

Feeling his age and conspiracy getting to him, Jay would resign and allow James Callaghan, the man the Trade Unions wanted, to win, beating a boozed Brown and an admirable attempt by Wilson.

Callaghan period in office would be difficult; escalating violence in Northern Ireland, a resurgence of action in the Malaysian Federation against the Indonesia regime and constant wildcat strikes permeated Britain. Not helping matters was infighting within his party over Europe, with Callaghan taking a Eurosceptic stance that angered portions of his party.

His lose in 69’ was a given, the Conservative’s had a popular leader who offered a manifesto that promised not to entirely abandon ‘Butskellism’ in it’s entirety. The Liberals, new vigorous leader courted the students and liberal Britons who had previously voted Labour.


And within Liverpool, a curious beast stirred. Ever since Nye Bevan’s expulsion in 1955, the left wing of Britain had stumbled around for a new champion. Within the Constituency of Liverpool Walton that Champion would emerge as Eric Heffer, Chairman of the Socialist Workers Federation, became a Member of Parliament…
 
Chairman of the National Economic Planning Board:

1953 - 1959: Lawrence Robson (Non Partisan - Liberal)
1953 def. Sir Andrew Duncan (Non Partisan - Progressive Conservative), G. D. H. Cole (Non Partisan - Independent Socialist)
1959 - 1965: Ernest Marples (Non Partisan - Progressive Conservative)
1959 def. Alexander Cairncross (Non Partisan - Liberal), Maurice Dobb (Socialist)
1965 - 1967: Aubrey Jones (Non Partisan - Liberal)
1965 def. Henry Brooke (Non Partisan - Progressive Conservative), Maurice Dobb (Socialist)
1967: Resignation Due to Disagreements over Liberal Economic Policy, subsequently runs for leadership of Liberal Party

1967 - 1973: David Layton (Non Partisan - Liberal)
1967 def. Frederick Erroll (Non Partisan - Progressive Conservative), Maurice Dobb (Socialist)
1973 - 1977: Richard W. B. Clarke (Non Partisan - Progressive Conservative)
1973 def. Derek Ezra (Non Partisan - Liberal), Oliver Smedley (Union), Tony Topham (Socialist)
1977: Resignation due to Disagreement with Liberal Government’s Economic Program and Ill Health

1977 - : Anthony Crosland (Non Partisan - Liberal)
1977 def. Patrick Jenkin (Non Partisan - Progressive Conservative), Ken Coates (Socialist), Oliver Smedley (Union)

The National Economic Planning Board (or as it’s more often called ‘neepad’) was one of the many creations of the Malcolm MacDonald Government that despite criticism have managed to weather an apathetic Progressive Conservative Governance.

The conception of NEPD was to help plan and ‘rationalise’ Britain’s economy, seeing the rapid growth of the Social Democracy’s of Europe and of the Communist Soviet Union, the increasingly Fabian dominated Liberals began to discuss ways for British Liberalism to triumph over the insidious Socialists of the Continent.

The Six Year Plan and the National Economic Planning Board would be to culmination of those efforts. The Chairman of the board was voted by Parliament allowing for the Liberals to claim that unlike the anti-democratic Socialists, they at least sought planning through democratic means.

Of course it was hogwash, as the government with a majority was more often than not going to be the one to elect a Chairman. Lawrence Robson was chosen primarily because he was loyal Liberal man and his background as an accountant gave the Liberals cover from Conservative attacks over reckless spending.

Robson was a fairly steady hand behind the wheel, administering the First Six Year Plan fairly even handedly that even when the Progressive Conservative’s came back into power he stayed on, being admired for his handling of crisis and for his working for the Finance Minister and Chancellor in an efficient and pragmatic manner.

His successor was anything but that. Ernest Marples was a controversial character, Marples claim that he would run Britain like a business and his Economic Plan included a number of pro-business incentives and tax breaks which be abused and exploited and lead to a spiralling of corruption within it’s wake. Marples also clashed hard with Trade Unions, despite his background as having worked in the Labour Movement, the increasingly Leftist tint of the Trade Union Leadership had Marples disparaging them as “wannabe Comrade Kirov’s” on many occasion.

With a Liberal victory in 1965 it became obvious that the Chairman position would shift back to the Liberals. Aubrey Jones was given the job by Selwyn Lloyd in the vain hope that Jones would be out of the way, this increasingly out of date view of the Chairmanship would come back to haunt Lloyd. Jones plan of Wage and Price Controls, Devaluation and of fairly radical proposals (including limited nationalisation and industrial democracy to help more ‘efficiently’ plan the economy) was too much for the more economically conservative Lloyd who tried to implement a balanced budget.

Jones resignation and sudden leadership challenge would see the end of Lloyd but also usher a realisation amongst many within Britain; that the Chairmanship was an increasingly powerful and important role that could make or break governments if utilised wrongly.

David Layton, son of the late great Sir Walter Layton, was a firm supporter of Aubrey Jones’s proposals but additionally sought a more even handed and democratic leadership than previous Chairman. His working with Trade Unions and Big Business, the framework for a ‘Social Market’ Economy as some deemed it would begin to take shape.

This wasn’t to say that Layton wasn’t without his controversy’s, his support for controls on exports and imports in the Early 70s would anger the ‘Free Trade’ community who would form the Union party in response and Byers more economically liberal beliefs clashed with the Economic Plans in place.

Richard W. B. Clarke was the man who would make Anthony Nutting’s ideas become a reality, a stern and autocratic leader, often dubbed ‘Otto’ as a result sought to bring control back towards the City of London instead of the Men in Whitehall. But Nutting’s support of King Hussein would lead to an oil shock during the Arabian War as United Arab Republic President Amin Al-Hafiz oversaw the halting of Oil production.

Clarke’s drawn up plans to hand control over to the city would be quickly wound up and much of time spent in office was trying to ensure corporations didn’t collapse and that strikes didn’t effect production quotas set. Whilst some nationalised industries were privatised, Clarke spent much of his time making them more ‘efficient’ rather than do anything particularly adventurous. Declining health and disdain towards the Liberals Manifesto which he accused of having the ‘Veneer of Bolshevik State Control’ would lead to him resigning.

Anthony Crosland is a lot of things, a ruthless pragmatist, the man who pretty much wrote the aggressively Fabian manifesto that Sykes campaigned on, someone who was needed in the late 70s to help guide the planning board further into the 80s.

For Crosland, true British Liberalism would be achieved, but the plans and aspirations would soon be hit rocky shores in the months to come…
 
Very interesting and I like the idea of the Chairman elected by Parliament (a bit like the US confirmation process I suppose). Had not heard of Lawrence Robson who looks like an interesting figure.

I wonder how this affects the Treasury and the Bank of England - I guess they become subordinate to the NEPB? (which would make sense if they have the legitimacy of an elected Chair, unlike the OTL DEA/HMT departmental demolition derby).

This kind of institutional focus is interesting, I think sometimes there is a tendency in political AH to just focus on the political leadership without exploring these kinds of system and policy changes. Given the post-war obsession with planning it was not at all inevitable that we would have kept the old Whitehall structure of Treasury dominance, and separately the gradual erosion of local government was not inevitable.
 
Very interesting and I like the idea of the Chairman elected by Parliament (a bit like the US confirmation process I suppose).
I would agree with that interpretation, also it helps the Liberals sell the concept to the Progressive Conservatives and Socialists who are ambivalent on the idea at best.
Had not heard of Lawrence Robson who looks like an interesting figure.
I believe I first heard of him in context of @monroe discussing about the Wolton-Teviot pact I believe. He seemed like a sensible first candidate for a political contentious role.
I wonder how this affects the Treasury and the Bank of England - I guess they become subordinate to the NEPB? (which would make sense if they have the legitimacy of an elected Chair, unlike the OTL DEA/HMT departmental demolition derby).
The Treasury and Bank of England are subordinate to the NEPB, they aren’t happy about this of course. Additionally the role is meant to be subordinate to the Finance Minister but this rapidly turns out to be a false assumption.
This kind of institutional focus is interesting, I think sometimes there is a tendency in political AH to just focus on the political leadership without exploring these kinds of system and policy changes. Given the post-war obsession with planning it was not at all inevitable that we would have kept the old Whitehall structure of Treasury dominance, and separately the gradual erosion of local government was not inevitable.
I think my personal political education has helped with that in a way, when your reading folks like Ken Coates or Bryan Gould or reading Liberal History articles or watching documentaries about the Treasury (which Jesus, there really fucking weird) certain opinions start to take shape.

Amusingly I’m fairly mixed on Planned Economy’s and Fabianism, which probably allows me to discuss them and ponder there alternate histories in a mixed manner, and I think those periods where those thoughts were most prevalent are the most interesting to write about.
 
Had an epiphany for a very cracked idea based off my last comment in the Macau convo.

List of Governors of Hong Kong

1947-1957: Sir Alexander Grantham

(1957-1958: Edgeworth Beresford David - Administrator as Colonial Secretary)
1958-1963: Sir Robert Brown Black †
(1963-1964: Claude Bramall Burgess - Administrator as Colonial Secretary)
1964-1968: Sir Humphrey Trevelyan
(1968-1968: David Ronald Holmes - Administrator as Colonial Secretary)
1968-1971: Sir John Addis
(1971-1971: David Ronald Holmes - Administrator as Colonial Secretary)
1971-1973: Sir Murray MacLehose
1973-????: Lieutenant-General Sir Walter Colyear Walker (military governor, also serving as Commander
of British Forces in Hong Kong) (disputed)
 
Last edited:
That's a really interesting list @TimeEnough - a deeper way of looking at an alternate economic structure and how it affects power relations beyond the party leaders. Makes me think of a more successful Department of Economic Affairs so has that OTL precedent.
I do need to read up on the DEA at somepoint, shame I find George Brown incredibly pompous and annoying about it.

But yeah, a Britain with an Economic Planning Board is one of those interesting things that does offer a potential power bases and alternate economic models for Britain.
 
This was my entry for last month's list challenge! The challenge for this month is themed around Kings, and there's still two more weeks to get your entry in!

Watering The Tree of Liberty
Governer-Generals of the United States of America
1789-1793: Henry Knox (Independent)
def 1789: (with John Jay) unopposed
1793-1801: Henry Knox (Federalist)
def 1792: (with Nathaniel Gorman) Thomas Jefferson (Republican)
def 1796: (with Benjamin Williams) Thomas Jefferson (Republican)

1801-1813: Samuel Chase (Federalist)
def 1800: (with Fisher Ames) Albert Gallatin (Republican)
def 1804: (with Fisher Ames) John Randolph (Republican), William Findley (Republican)
def 1808: (with Fisher Ames) unopposed

1813-1831: Harrison Gray Otis (Federalist)
def 1812: (with William Davie) Charles Pinckney (Southern Federalist)
def 1816: (with William Davie) unopposed
def 1820: (with Joseph Story) unopposed
def 1824: (with Joseph Story) unopposed
def 1828: (with Joseph Story) unopposed
overthrown 1831 by Second American Revolution


Presidents of the Confederated States of America
1831-1837: Smith Boughton (Jefferson and Liberty)
def 1832: William Heighton (Republican), Louis McLane (National)
1837-1841: Stephen Simpson (Jefferson and Liberty, endorsed by "Utopic" Republicans)
def 1836: Thomas Skidmore ("Workingman's" Republican), Daniel Webster (National)
1841-1845: Thomas W. Dorr (Jefferson and Liberty)
def 1840: George Ripley (Utopic-Republican), Daniel Webster (National), Thomas Skidmore (Workingman-Republican)
1845-1849: Frederick William Evans (Utopic-Republican)
def 1844: Daniel Webster (National), James Harper (Native American), George McDuffie (Jeffersonian), Josiah Warren (Workingman's), Thomas W. Dorr (Jefferson and Liberty)
1849-1850: John H. Noyes (Utopic-Republican)
def 1848: Lewis Charles Levin (Native American), Daniel Webster (National), Edmund Ruffin (Jeffersonian), Josiah Warren (Workingman's)
assassinated 1850 by Peter Sken Smith working with the Order of the Star-Spangled Banner

1850-1853: Lewis Charles Levin (Native American)
1853-1857: Robert Y. Hane (Jeffersonian)
def 1852: Frederic Hedge (Utopic-Republican), Josiah Warren (Workingman's), Daniel Webster (National), Charles Naylor (Native American)
1857-1861: James Henry Hammond (Jeffersonian)
def 1856: Moncure Conway (Utopic-Republican), William Greene (Workingman's), Levi Boone (Native American)
1861-1862: Charles Sumner (United Abolitionist Ticket)
def 1861: Jacob Thompson (Jeffersonian)
assassinated 1862 by the combined efforts of the Baltimore Ring

1862-1865: J. W. Booth (Jeffersonian)
def 1864: no election held
assassinated 1865 by Boston Corbett as part of Butler's Mutiny

1865-1869: Boston Corbett (Utopic-Republican)
1869-1877: Benjamin Butler (Utopic-Republican)
def 1868: August Willich (Social Democratic Workingman's), Daniel Vorhees ("Union" Jeffersonian), Lysander Spooner (Liberty)
def 1872: Horace Greeley (Union and Liberty), William H. Sylvis (Social Democratic)
def 1876: Otto Weydermeyer (Social Democratic), Carl Schurz (Union and Liberty)
assassinated 1877 by John "Black Jack" Kehoe as part of First American General Strike

1877-1881: John Kehoe (Social Democratic)
1881-1882: Thomas Ewing (Union and Liberty)
def 1880: Ira Steward (Social Democratic), Charles J. Guiteau (Utopic-Republican)
assassinated 1882 by Charles J. Guiteau

1882-0000: Charles J. Guiteau (Utopic-Republican)

Every step along the way to Hell was precedented, justified by what came before.

It was right to overthrow the Federalist junto. The country had been founded on such acts, of course, and the House of Hamilton (for even if Treasury Secretary was no longer the post it was when his father held it, "King Phillip II" was still on an equal level to Otis) had proved itself on an equal level of despotism to the House of Hanover. Sure, rioters storming the President's House, mutiny in the ranks, Mexican soldiers marching across the Mississippi to "restore order", all of these things were regrettable. But the violence of Federalist rule--the muzzling of the press and the hanging of seditionists and the fawning at Britain's feet--far outstripped the violence deployed against it. Wisely did the new government, on Jeffersonian principles, bind the Presidency's powers, so that America would never again be ruled by kings.

It was right for Levin to take the Presidency. His party commanded the largest fraction, if not a majority, of the Electors, and after a little debate a few of the more anti-Catholic Nationalists and anti-competition-for-jobs Workingmen agreed to back him. The previous president had had some...odd religious ideas, even for an Utopic, and owed his victory more to vote-splitting than to any actual election, so few bothered to look deeply into the assassins' sources of funding, or precisely who allowed them to slip past the few guards around Independence Square. Then, "General" Sken Smith was caught crossing the St Croix River into Canada, and was stupid enough to try and have his secret society bail him out. The American people soon rejected the party of a President who, even if he was unconnected with the death of his predecessor, had no clean hands when it came to such mob violence.

It was right for Corbett to slay the head of the Baltimore plotters. That cabal of Southern planters had been the aggressors, seizing the Presidency by force. Sumner bled out on the floor of a train carriage, and the Jeffersonians' "Electors", virtual hostages in New York under the guns of the city police, made a mockery of democracy and swore in a nine-days-wonder of an actor who'd greased the plot's wheels as Mayor of Baltimore. By the time the 1864 election was cancelled on the grounds of "public order", things reached a fever pitch. The Massachusetts State Militia, one of the few Northern militias to remain loyal, launched the final revolt, but it was a Jayhawker of New York who had been fighting from the beginning who fired the fatal shot on Booth. The rattled Electors' response was to proclaim him President, for the time being--if only because he was the only neutral figure willing to let them lead him, and who the country was willing to be led by.

It was right for Kehoe to take the Presidency. Butler, the general who fought for freedom and democracy, had turned into a petty showboater willing to go on and on and on in office. Government expropriation was widespread across the "special military districts", fuelling a civil service full of cronyist makework. By turns posing as the friend of labour and the friend of business, Butler ultimately chose his side by 1875, after negotiations to build in Mexico fell through and American-Pacific Rail collapsed. With millions out of work following "Black Tuesday", strikes and riots became commonplace across the States, and the government's response was to send in the militias, led by ex-Jayhawkers who viewed the rioters as godless. In revenge for Bloody Jim Lane's slaughter in St Louis, the Presidential train was derailed passing through Pennsylvania. The Social Democrats, in a violent mood, may not have known that Kehoe and the Molly Maguires were involved with the assassination, but when they learnt of it, they certainly didn't care, and neither did the American people.

And so, here the American people were. The year was 1882, and Charles J. Guiteau, former Governor of Niagara, was standing over the cooling body of President Ewing, holding a gun. In front of him, the Electors. Rather than run, or shoot some more, Guiteau calmly slid his pistol back into his trousers and began to speak. He cited the rebellions of 1831 and 1865, which had prevented tyranny by ending individual tyrants (ones everyone, not just Guiteau, considered tyrants). Kehoe and Levin, who had been confirmed after ordering the deaths of their predecessors (by a majority of the popularly-elected Electors, not a slim minority). Corbett, his "esteemed predecessor", sworn in as an emergency measure in similar circumstances. The speech was rambly, but the point was clear--and backed up by the Utopic militias outside. What better reward was there, for a man who, by slaying a tyrant and a scoundrel, had unified his party and saved his country, than the Presidency?

It was a precedent many would follow in the years to come.

The principles of Jefferson had been tortured until they turned upside down. Every twenty years, or near enough, the government was overthrown, but the old order was not renewed, merely the faces on top of it. Once, one man was legitimised to defend himself from the tyranny of a majority using force; now, one man was legitimised by his use of force to tyrannise a majority. Sovereginity had passed out of the hands of the people, but it had not passed into the hands of any one man, or one family. It remained floating free in the air, ready to be picked up by anyone with courage, and used.

Other nations have been said to have had despotism tempered with assassination. Only America proclaimed that fact.

--Marcus P. C. Lamar, One Nation Under Brutus: the United States, 1882-1962
 
Last edited:
UiuRt17.png

1931-1937: Neville Chamberlain (Conservative majority)
1931: Ramsay MacDonald (Labour), David Lloyd George (Liberal)
1935: Arthur Greenwood (Labour), Herbert Samuel (Liberal)

1937-1940: E.F.L. Wood, 3rd Viscount Halifax (Conservative majority)
1940-1942: E.F.L. Wood, 3rd Viscount Halifax (Conservative minority with 'Fourth Party' support)

1940: Arthur Greenwood (Labour), John Simon (Liberal)
1942-1942: Malcolm MacDonald (Labour majority)
1942: E.F.L. Wood, 3rd Viscount Halifax (Conservative), Leslie Hore-Belisha (Liberal)
1942-1946: Malcolm MacDonald (Labour leading Wartime Coalition)
1946-1951: Malcolm MacDonald (Labour-Progressive Conservative coalition)

1946: Anthony Eden (Progressive Conservative), Basil Brooke (National Opposition), Leslie Hore-Belisha (Liberal)
1951-1951: Malcolm MacDonald (Labour minority)
1951-1953: Anthony Eden (Progressive Conservative majority)

1951: Malcolm MacDonald (Labour), Basil Brooke (National Opposition), Edgar Granville (Liberal)
1953-1958: Quintin Hogg (Progressive Conservative majority)
1955: Malcolm MacDonald (Labour), Edgar Granville (Liberal), Thomas Galbraith, 1st Baron Strathclyde (Scottish Unionist), Ralph Assheton (National Opposition)
1958-1959: Quintin Hogg (Progressive Conservative minority with Liberal confidence and supply)


The thunder of war was distant in 1937. By 1940, it was deafening. Old England's stalwarts gathered in their manors and clubs to cheer Lord Halifax to the echo and endorse the peace they had known since 1918. Young England had its busy men of all classes, darting through the corridors of Westminster in the hopes of bringing the Halifax government to task. The 'Fourth Party' was never a tangible thing in its own right: it was the meeting point of appeasers, fascists, and fascist-sympathisers among the Labour and Liberal benches. There were not enough to form their own party (at least, not enough that would dare) but just enough to carry Halifax over the threshold for two years. When Arthur Greenwood gave up power, Young England leapt upon the contest to succeed him as if civilisation itself depended upon it. Malcolm MacDonald meant war and the awakening of the sleeping lion that the British Empire had become. The Fourth Party were routed and no-confidence was declared in Halifax. No other party could bear to support him and no ally would come to his aid. Halifax could barely bring himself to rail against the tide.

MacDonald formed his ministry, commandeered control of industry, and redirected the national economy towards armaments. Germany, meanwhile, threw its best and brightest young men into the snow to be crushed by the Soviet fortress-state. Their genocidal ambitions ran up against the Siege of Moscow in the east and the British declaration of war in the west. The British held their own against German bombing campaigns long enough to see America join the fray, pulling in Japan to the German alliance and making the conflict truly the Second World War. The back-and-forth naval campaigns in the North Sea and the Atlantic carried on for two years. Until 1944, the idea of an invasion force in continental Europe seemed utterly preposterous. It took until the signing of the Treaty of Dublin and the commitment of Irish troops to the Allied cause for the end of the Third Reich to come into view. Controversially, MacDonald signed away Ulster for the guarantee that Britain might win its war against Hitler. This made him a diabolical figure to the ardent unionists of the province and an accidental hero to their republican adversaries. The coup of the Grand Council of Fascism against Mussolini, the outbreak of civil war in France, and the retreat of the Wehrmacht through Belarus signalled the end of Hitler's days as master of Europe. From both north and south, Allied forces flooded into France and beat back the German war machine. Japan, meanwhile, held out against all advances until the Soviet invasion of July 1946. Peace the following month meant an election, which brought together the Labour Party and renamed Progressive Conservative Party in harmonious coalition.

MacDonald set about founding the modern welfare state, nationalising the commanding heights of industry, and committing British troops to the quelling of unionist rebellion in Ulster. He also instigated, with the approval and sanction of his centre-right coalition partners, the transformation of the British Empire into the British Commonwealth. Young England had its ministry in the Labour-Progressive Conservative coalition of 1946-1951. Sadly, the coalition would break down over MacDonald's insistence upon the formalisation of the 'sterling bloc' and the publication of the Thurtle White Paper on the future of Jewish migration to Palestine. By February 1951, it appeared time for change. Eden's party swept into power against MacDonald's four-month minority government. MacDonald might have been called a left-wing Edenite and Eden a right-wing MacDonaldite. Their positions were close but their approaches were quite far apart. Where MacDonald was cautious and methodical, Eden was played up in the ProgCon press as a debonair showman who had waited far too long for his time at centre-stage. He personally handled the disarmament of the unionist insurgents with grace and was keen to promote young men to positions of high power. In 1953, Young England's longest-serving champion would die of complications during surgery. Replacing him was the true showman of British politics: Quintin Hogg. Disclaiming his peerage in 1950 under legislation brought in under MacDonald, Hogg was a righteous lawyer with the sort of virility and moral certitude that inspired great support across all parties and all sections of society. 46 years of age upon his arrival to power proved, much as MacDonald's rise at just 41 years of age, that the days of Old England - of sneering aristocratic old fools with obsolescent ideals and class distinctions overriding all political considerations - were gone. Hogg was the thrusting young man to take Britain into the second half of the 20th century.
 
Chairs of the Parliamentary Select Committee on Subversive Activities:

1945-1952: Robert Vansittart, 1st Baron Vansittart (Conservative, then National)
1952-1954: Alfred Knox (National)
1954-1967: Tufton Beamish (National)

TODAY IN COUNTERFACT: Why no American Vansittartism?

After the end of WW2 led to the beginning of the Cold War, anti-communism became a fact of life across the Western Powers. America purged Soviet sympathisers from its civil service, West German and Japanese reconstruction was conditional on deporting their resident communists to join their co-nationals in the East and on Hokkaido, and in Greece and Italy the struggle reached the level of civil conflict. The defining image of anti-communism, however, comes not from America, which drove these movements, but from Britain.

For six long years, Britain was an island posessed by a singular mania--a fear of Reds under the bed. From the least significant journalist or academic, to the most notorious or powerful MP, all could be pulled up before the dreaded Subversive Activities Committee and have their names permanently tarred with accusations of communism. Any form of left-wing, trade unionist, or simply pro-free-speech beliefs could see you cast out of public life forever. While nominal leadership may have been in the hands of first an ailing Churchill and then a drug-addled Eden, the true power in Britain lay in the hands of the lord of red-baiting (quite literally), Robert Vansittart. Riding on the crest of a wave of paranoia, it took an attack on the Royal Family itself--accusing Louis Mountbatten of passing information to Russia--to bring him, and his movement, down. Even then, his Committee remained active censoring political activities until the wave of liberalisation following Avril '66, and to this day Vansittartism still casts a shadow over British politics.

But why Britain? Surely America, the nation which saw itself as the engine of anti-communism, and with a long tradition of populist demagogues, would have been a more logical place for something like Vansittartism to rise? Well, in this week's Counterfact, we'll consider what stood in the way of an American Vansittart.

1) A Red Flag To A Bull

While ultimately the paranoia of Vansittart was irrational, it was driven partly by a pre-existing pro-Soviet movement in the UK--one with plenty of power and influence. The trade union movement had historically been riddled with communist fronts like the National Minority Movement and the National Unemployed Workers' Movement, and had launched a general strike--nearly shutting down the nation's industry--less than 20 years before, well within living memory. Prominent Soviet apologists like George Bernard Shaw, Michael Redgrave, or Hewlett Johnson could be found throughout British political life, congregating in institutions like the Fabian Society and the New Statesman that would later be shattered by the SAC. There had even been Communist Party of Great Britain members sitting in the House of Commons itself!

America was quite different. The nearest the Communist Party of the United States got to relevancy was infiltrating the dying husk of the Progressive Party, itself only set up as a vanity platform for Wallace's presidential run. The trade union movement had long been dominated by more right-wing craft unionists, and thanks to their whole-hearted cooperation with New Deal programs, most of the less militant communist politicos could be digested by American liberalism. Socialism in America was weak, a mere phantom--it would take decades for groups like the Worker's Alliance of America and the Partisan Review to become prominent in American life. There wasn't much to aim an American Vansittartism at.

2) A Quiet Consensus

It's not even that accurate to say that there wasn't an American Vansittartism, in fact. Like we mentioned above, there was a program to purge suspected Communists from the civil service. It's just that that program started under Truman, and continued smoothly under Stassen and Clement. As hard as it may be to imagine these days, both the Republicans and the Democrats used to see themselves as straightforward liberal-capitalist parties, with no socialist heritage, and anti-communism was a mainstream position. Even Robert LaFollette, Jr., for a long time the only senator from the labour-backed Progressive Party, wasn't above using his Republican primary opponent's endorsement by the communist-infiltrated UE union to win re-election. With anti-communism agreed upon by both parties as a goal, there was no need for histrionics about it.

In the United Kingdom, however, the Labour Party felt very different about the matter. The party had been founded on an officially socialist platform, and many of their MPs--the "Russian Ministers" famously denounced by Orwell in his speech before the Committee--held far-left sympathies. This left Labour less willing to pick up the banner of anti-communism, and a free hand for the Conservatives. More than that, for the Conservatives fighting against the Soviets and fighting against Labour were the same thing. Many of the older members could well remember a time when Labour had been a small group of leftist rabble-rousers, and the whole leadership had been around for the Zinoviev Letter that claimed Russian support for Labour. The anti-communism of the UK was far more experienced, and far more partisan--an ideal environment for Vansittartism.

3) A Legacy Of Empire

Outside the bounds of politics, the material situations on both sides of the Atlantic were vastly different. For America, the war had been something far away, on Pacific isles and European beaches, that might have taken its toll on the doughboys but left their home untouched. For Britain, the war was something that came home. Merchantmen were sunk by German submarines, blockades forced cold and hunger upon civilians, and every night, bombs fell like rain on British cities. While America was able to enjoy a post-war boom as its factories were repurposed for consumer goods, Great Britain after the end of WW2 was a desloate half-spent place. Rationing of fuel and food, a teetering economy dependent on American loans, and thousands unemployed thanks to a post-war slump--the perfect breeding grounds for paranoia and resentment.

More than that, there was a fundamental difference at the heart of both nations. At the end of the day, we shouldn't forget that Vansittart was Lord Vansittart. For all Britain's pretensions to democracy, it had only fully bucked the power of the House of Lords 40 years before, and a hereditary aristocratic elite still dominated politics. Even socialists like Orwell fawned over the crown, which may explain why he flipped so dramatically. Vansittart was able to use his connections to slowly grow like a tumor through the system, and what he left behind him was maintained because, for all he was disgraced, he was still "one of us". In America, any scheme to police men's speech would be chucked out by the First Amendment; in Britain, royal attainder and hereditary peers could keep the assault on the free press and the organised left going for decades--Crosland had to abolish the House of Lords in all but name to end PSCSA.

Ultimately, there could never be an American Vansittartism because, in the cold light of a republic, such pretensions would just be laughed off stage. While some might carp about "populism" in our democracy, we should always remember the tremendous value of allowing the common man to question what the experts say--or, like Britain under Vansittart, we could succumb to an authoritive voice on the wireless telling us to burn the witch.
 
Chairs of the Parliamentary Select Committee on Subversive Activities:

1945-1952: Robert Vansittart, 1st Baron Vansittart (Conservative, then National)
1952-1954: Alfred Knox (National)
1954-1967: Tufton Beamish (National)

TODAY IN COUNTERFACT: Why no American Vansittartism?

After the end of WW2 led to the beginning of the Cold War, anti-communism became a fact of life across the Western Powers. America purged Soviet sympathisers from its civil service, West German and Japanese reconstruction was conditional on deporting their resident communists to join their co-nationals in the East and on Hokkaido, and in Greece and Italy the struggle reached the level of civil conflict. The defining image of anti-communism, however, comes not from America, which drove these movements, but from Britain.

For six long years, Britain was an island posessed by a singular mania--a fear of Reds under the bed. From the least significant journalist or academic, to the most notorious or powerful MP, all could be pulled up before the dreaded Subversive Activities Committee and have their names permanently tarred with accusations of communism. Any form of left-wing, trade unionist, or simply pro-free-speech beliefs could see you cast out of public life forever. While nominal leadership may have been in the hands of first an ailing Churchill and then a drug-addled Eden, the true power in Britain lay in the hands of the lord of red-baiting (quite literally), Robert Vansittart. Riding on the crest of a wave of paranoia, it took an attack on the Royal Family itself--accusing Louis Mountbatten of passing information to Russia--to bring him, and his movement, down. Even then, his Committee remained active censoring political activities until the wave of liberalisation following Avril '66, and to this day Vansittartism still casts a shadow over British politics.

But why Britain? Surely America, the nation which saw itself as the engine of anti-communism, and with a long tradition of populist demagogues, would have been a more logical place for something like Vansittartism to rise? Well, in this week's Counterfact, we'll consider what stood in the way of an American Vansittart.

1) A Red Flag To A Bull

While ultimately the paranoia of Vansittart was irrational, it was driven partly by a pre-existing pro-Soviet movement in the UK--one with plenty of power and influence. The trade union movement had historically been riddled with communist fronts like the National Minority Movement and the National Unemployed Workers' Movement, and had launched a general strike--nearly shutting down the nation's industry--less than 20 years before, well within living memory. Prominent Soviet apologists like George Bernard Shaw, Michael Redgrave, or Hewlett Johnson could be found throughout British political life, congregating in institutions like the Fabian Society and the New Statesman that would later be shattered by the SAC. There had even been Communist Party of Great Britain members sitting in the House of Commons itself!

America was quite different. The nearest the Communist Party of the United States got to relevancy was infiltrating the dying husk of the Progressive Party, itself only set up as a vanity platform for Wallace's presidential run. The trade union movement had long been dominated by more right-wing craft unionists, and thanks to their whole-hearted cooperation with New Deal programs, most of the less militant communist politicos could be digested by American liberalism. Socialism in America was weak, a mere phantom--it would take decades for groups like the Worker's Alliance of America and the Partisan Review to become prominent in American life. There wasn't much to aim an American Vansittartism at.

2) A Quiet Consensus

It's not even that accurate to say that there wasn't an American Vansittartism, in fact. Like we mentioned above, there was a program to purge suspected Communists from the civil service. It's just that that program started under Truman, and continued smoothly under Stassen and Clement. As hard as it may be to imagine these days, both the Republicans and the Democrats used to see themselves as straightforward liberal-capitalist parties, with no socialist heritage, and anti-communism was a mainstream position. Even Robert LaFollette, Jr., for a long time the only senator from the labour-backed Progressive Party, wasn't above using his Republican primary opponent's endorsement by the communist-infiltrated UE union to win re-election. With anti-communism agreed upon by both parties as a goal, there was no need for histrionics about it.

In the United Kingdom, however, the Labour Party felt very different about the matter. The party had been founded on an officially socialist platform, and many of their MPs--the "Russian Ministers" famously denounced by Orwell in his speech before the Committee--held far-left sympathies. This left Labour less willing to pick up the banner of anti-communism, and a free hand for the Conservatives. More than that, for the Conservatives fighting against the Soviets and fighting against Labour were the same thing. Many of the older members could well remember a time when Labour had been a small group of leftist rabble-rousers, and the whole leadership had been around for the Zinoviev Letter that claimed Russian support for Labour. The anti-communism of the UK was far more experienced, and far more partisan--an ideal environment for Vansittartism.

3) A Legacy Of Empire

Outside the bounds of politics, the material situations on both sides of the Atlantic were vastly different. For America, the war had been something far away, on Pacific isles and European beaches, that might have taken its toll on the doughboys but left their home untouched. For Britain, the war was something that came home. Merchantmen were sunk by German submarines, blockades forced cold and hunger upon civilians, and every night, bombs fell like rain on British cities. While America was able to enjoy a post-war boom as its factories were repurposed for consumer goods, Great Britain after the end of WW2 was a desloate half-spent place. Rationing of fuel and food, a teetering economy dependent on American loans, and thousands unemployed thanks to a post-war slump--the perfect breeding grounds for paranoia and resentment.

More than that, there was a fundamental difference at the heart of both nations. At the end of the day, we shouldn't forget that Vansittart was Lord Vansittart. For all Britain's pretensions to democracy, it had only fully bucked the power of the House of Lords 40 years before, and a hereditary aristocratic elite still dominated politics. Even socialists like Orwell fawned over the crown, which may explain why he flipped so dramatically. Vansittart was able to use his connections to slowly grow like a tumor through the system, and what he left behind him was maintained because, for all he was disgraced, he was still "one of us". In America, any scheme to police men's speech would be chucked out by the First Amendment; in Britain, royal attainder and hereditary peers could keep the assault on the free press and the organised left going for decades--Crosland had to abolish the House of Lords in all but name to end PSCSA.

Ultimately, there could never be an American Vansittartism because, in the cold light of a republic, such pretensions would just be laughed off stage. While some might carp about "populism" in our democracy, we should always remember the tremendous value of allowing the common man to question what the experts say--or, like Britain under Vansittart, we could succumb to an authoritive voice on the wireless telling us to burn the witch.
This is very, very

I genuinely found myself nodding along to the piece’s arguments and had to remind myself, “Wait, this is literally the opposite of what happened.”
 
1641-1673 Elizabeth II (House of Stuart)

1673-1680 Charles II (House of Stuart)

1680-1685 Charles III (House of Stuart)

1685-1722 Elizabeth III (House of Stuart)

1722-1744 Charlotte I (House of Stuart)


Consider this less of a list per se and more an examination of a scenario/setting that caught my eye in the second volume of the What If book series-that of the plague of August 1641 being more serious and Charles and his kids dying,leading to the Winter Queen becoming the new ruler.

Basically Lizzie (who from what I gathered was more of a tolerant compromiser than Charlie) comes back home,tired of the 30 Years Wars and giving up of the Palatine,is like "sorry about my idiot brother being an idiot,you can do whatever you want I guess" and Parliament accepts her as Queen,making sure however to eliminate some of powers of the Monarch,as well as specifying that the Monarch cannot rule without the consent of the Parliament.

Thus the English Civil War doesn't happen,religious tolerance is widespread (not sure if it applies to Jewish people which, uh,yeah,it sucks) and Locke and Hume never write their influential works,while conservative forces are still in power and progress happens slower. Early Republicanism is dead from infancy,due to Charlie dying and Lizzie saying yes to the Parliament's demands so there aren't any reasons for the OTL revolutionaries to want the monarch removed.

By 1744,Britain is a different place. By accident and indifference (mostly from the party hardy Charles the Third),most of the power in the land now is in the hands of the Chancellor. All the monarch really does in terms of governing is signing laws and building stuff. The Quakers are still around in England. The main political parties are the Whigs (OTL the Tories),the Hats (OTL the Whigs) and the Radicals (led by Sir William Penn).

It‘s difficult to tell from my knowledge how else 18th England/Britain looks like without the English Civil War happening since,well, it’s kinda hard to imagine a world without it personally. There have numerous talks in AH circles of various English Civil War scenarios but never one where it just doesn’t happen. It influenced and changed things so much that the world would be unrecognizable without it.

If anyone has more ideas about how this world would look,go ahead. I ain’t got much per se.
 
Back
Top