• 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

What would a 1980s Tony Benn premiership look like?

Benn's one of the few politicians I could believe would, when gaining the power of the PM, then reduce the power of the PM out of principle. Certainly he was in favour of reducing the power of PM and increasing the power of Parliament when he was an MP, but nowhere close to being PM. Would he be so in favour should he be PM? Possibly, and there are few politicians that I think would.
It's one of those propositions that seems silly to a lot of people (who are, quite rightly, cynical of large swathes of the political class) before it happens and then seems right and proper once it has been done. Devolution would fall into a similar category, I should think, given how long it took for Britain to finally adopt any measure of decentralising power and then how quickly many instances followed (Scotland, Wales, London, the attempt in the North East, etc.).

Benn was, as most know, progressive and forward-thinking on social issues when even compared to other Labour MP’s. Would some of the reforms that passed during Blair’s premiership (equalization of the age consent, removing the ban on LGBT people serving in the armed forces) happen a decade earlier under Benn?
More than likely, yes. I could see some of the "smaller" reforms of that period being implemented too, such as banning bloodsports and hunting. Corporal punishment in state schools is probably banned a little quicker (that was 1986, but I imagine it's quietly banned in a Benn first term).
 
Also, this one is fairly obvious, but the Electoral College would never get created under a 70’s Benn leadership, and he would push an alt-Comission of Inquiry to just turn leadership elections over to the membership.
 
Due to another thread here, I'm thinking: what happens with Zimbabwe-Rhodesia and South Africa? Far as I can tell, the unrecognised Z-R government would still turn to Benn's Britain to help get the Bush War ended and the country brought in from the cold, and I'm betting Mugabe is going to do Mugabe shit whoever's in London. But that will mean Mugabe's doing his OTL nastiness in a world where the PM is a big leftie and is going to pressure South Africa to end apartheid - I can see a lot of talk from Conservatives, the right-wing pundits, and people abroad (esp. America), "look how Benn screwed up in Zimbabwe, I know he means well in South Africa but what happens if that becomes Zimbabwe II?"

I doubt that would stop a Benn Labour government from trying but it would be a pain in the arse for it.

Would some of the reforms that passed during Blair’s premiership (equalization of the age of consent, removing the ban on LGBT people serving in the armed forces) happen a decade earlier under Benn?

I can see some getting through but not as many, or as strong as Blair, simply because it's the early 1980s and not the late 1990s, society's less tolerant. Equalisation of age of consent, sure; reforms for trans people and being able to openly serve, no. (Of course that could then happen earlier ITTL under a different government because Benn started things earlier)

A more gay-friendly, big-state left-wing government mind respond better to AIDS, which would be a huge change to recent British history - and for other countries too, if Britain pioneers methods/treatments that other countries go "what a good idea" over. Though that would depend on how long Benn is in office, and who was Health Secretary.
 
Also, this one is fairly obvious, but the Electoral College would never get created under a 70’s Benn leadership, and he would push an alt-Comission of Inquiry to just turn leadership elections over to the membership.

The only reason the electoral college came into being was because he opposed OMOV, which he and his faction suspected would undermine the hard left in the party, something they were absolutely correct on as during the deputy leadership election when ballots took place they produced much more pro-Healey results than when things were restricted to the activist apparatus as he favoured, which is the only reason he ended up with that totally incredible result you see in that section of the college; CLP business committees consulted themselves and then awarded their vote on a winner-takes-all basis.

This is why his claims of being some great disinterested selfless democrat should be taken with a big bag of salt. Benn was a politician and like almost all of them he advocated selectively, just as the right of Labour would do on this issue as well incidentally in fairness, in them championing membership democracy during the eighties and nineties - originally only if they couldn't keep the choice of leader restricted to MPs - and then suddenly becoming decidedly more comfortable with the electoral college under Ed.
 
I realise that I opened up the topic of someone as decisive as Tony Benn there would likely be the start of an intense debate, though I will admit to my expectations being a bit loftier than some of the comments put forward here. My thanks to those who have provided more constructive discussion points: @Comisario, @Avalanches, and @Charles EP M.. I feel I should also note that even with a PM in office, that doesn't equate to their entire personal views & policies being enacted and passed either; Mrs May could probably tell you a thing or two about that!

As @AlfieJ commented, I wanted to see what the thoughts were here on what a realistic Benn premiership would like; what would his government want to work on, could it pass such legislation in the Commons through the PLP, the impacts of such policies, etc. I've not seen much in terms of a detailed TL with a PM Tony Benn which is one of the reasons I ask this question; we've had a few PM Enoch Powell TLs (for better or worse) but never one of the other key and controversial figures of the 1970s & 1980s.
 
Due to another thread here, I'm thinking: what happens with Zimbabwe-Rhodesia and South Africa? Far as I can tell, the unrecognised Z-R government would still turn to Benn's Britain to help get the Bush War ended and the country brought in from the cold, and I'm betting Mugabe is going to do Mugabe shit whoever's in London. But that will mean Mugabe's doing his OTL nastiness in a world where the PM is a big leftie and is going to pressure South Africa to end apartheid - I can see a lot of talk from Conservatives, the right-wing pundits, and people abroad (esp. America), "look how Benn screwed up in Zimbabwe, I know he means well in South Africa but what happens if that becomes Zimbabwe II?"

I doubt that would stop a Benn Labour government from trying but it would be a pain in the arse for it.

It depends partly on who is Foreign Secretary and how much true power they have. Peter Shore is a strong contender for the FO. He was a 'Commonwealth Man' and while anti-colonial was very positive towards British-descended settler communities. He may push quite hard for a real biracial solution in Zimbabwe, probably throwing in a trade deal and promise of British interest going forward. Of course, this doesn't guarantee a prosperous Zimbabwe (cos Mugabe) but a left-wing Commonwealth-focused Africa policy based on promoting true biracial solutions while also being doggedly anti-imperialist towards the likes of South Africa is a pretty interesting avenue of thought.

Shore attempting to organise a Commonwealth trade bloc would be very interesting.


I can see some getting through but not as many, or as strong as Blair, simply because it's the early 1980s and not the late 1990s, society's less tolerant. Equalisation of age of consent, sure; reforms for trans people and being able to openly serve, no. (Of course that could then happen earlier ITTL under a different government because Benn started things earlier)

A more gay-friendly, big-state left-wing government mind respond better to AIDS, which would be a huge change to recent British history - and for other countries too, if Britain pioneers methods/treatments that other countries go "what a good idea" over. Though that would depend on how long Benn is in office, and who was Health Secretary.

Benn was very pro gay rights - you'd get the age of consent lowered, anti-work discrimination legislation (possibly part of a broader equality bill) put through. Benn was an early supporter of gay marriage but that is just way too radical for 1970s/80s Britain. Also while he was big on it and grassroots support for gay rights increased greatly in the Labour Party in the 1980s, many members were not keen. Casual homophobia was common and many, even on the left, viewed the negative tabloid coverage of their LGBT policies as not worth it. Notably Neil Kinnock saw it as electoral poison and his stint as Party Leader is stained by a pretty cowardly approach to gay rights. So overall some landmark bits of legislation possibly but disinterest from much of the Labour leadership - left and right - and no doubt plenty more to distract him as PM, would probably see a burst of reform and then very little.
 
One question I'd have about this scenario is what exactly is the make up of Benn's cabinet? I find it very difficult to see him winning among the PLP in the mid 1970s on the programme he was advocating after '79, so I'd imagine he'd initially have to win as a soft left candidate, then tack to the left during his leadership. I imagine that that would mean that at least some moderates serve in his shadow cabinet-especially ones with whom he was on relatively good terms, like Callaghan (if he doesn't retire) and Crosland.

The right probably wouldn't take too kindly to the shift toward a more hardline platform, so I imagine we would see some resignations over the course of the parliament, and at least some attempt to unseat Benn-maybe a VoNC in the PLP, which he might just about be able to win if he could point to Labour leads in the polls.

By the time he takes power, I'd think his cabinet would probably resemble something like Corbyn's first Shadow cabinet, a mixture of hard left and soft left MPs, with a smattering of relatively junior rightwingers there too. As has been pointed out, Shore probably gets a quite important job, as does Foot, and maybe Castle too, if Benn doesn't retire her early as Callaghan effectively did. Some other left wingers who made their way into Foot's shadow cabinet like Heffer, Booth, and Silkin would be there too.

We'd probably get some hardcore Bennites in some of the most senior positions, but since there weren't too many of them on the frontbench around this time, I'm not sure who that might include, other than Meacher probably.
 
This question was asked in the Other Place too, this was my spitballing about how Benn can reach Number 10:

Warning: Very Long

In Place of Strife passes in 1968. This reduces strike action overall and introduces partial employee ownership into the British economic mainstream. In annoys the more radical wing of the TUC overall, lowering their opinion even further of the Labour leadership. It also ends the closed shop, which decreases union membership and would hit the many (many) smaller unions harder, encouraging mergers. Many politicians and union bosses favoured mergers as larger unions theoretically weakened the power of the stewards to agitate for strike action. Its been argued Britain's trade union woes of the 1970s weren't that bad in terms of total work hours lost compared to contemporaries but the sheer number of strikes by smaller unions that really made the difference both economically and in the minds of the public. However as big unions like the NUM show, that doesn't automatically equal moderate labour relations.

Fewer strikes doesn't mean the 1970s is great for Britain though. You'll still see economic chaos to some degree. Have Heath win in 1970 and survive 1974/5. Its a hung parliament but Heath and Thorpe come to an agreement. Many in Labour are convinced it will collapse quickly so Wilson holds onto the Party leadership by his fingnertips for most of the decade, becoming increasingly stale. He is basically forced out.

In the meantime the Lib-Con government make no effort to hold a referendum on the EEC, as Labour did in 1975 IOTL. Although anti-Brussels feeling was nowhere the level it would get to (1975 ended in a 68-32 split to Remain) it was not inconsequential and the lack of a referendum would have effects. The Labour membership was anti-EEC 2 to 1 in the mid-70s. Labour backbenchers were often split down the middle on EEC related legislation put forward during the 1974 Wilson government. Similar to how Thatcher would lead Tory MPs to support Wilson's EEC legislation to ensure it passed, you could easily see similar from the Labour Right to the Heath government of TTL as the Eurosceptic wing of the Tories rebel.

Heath was great at negotiating and schmoozing one-on-one but pretty tone deaf to public relations. I can see him managing to woo the Liberals for a few years to stay in power while pissing off the Tory Right and making public gaffes as was his style. You also have Jenkins & Co angling for the Labour leadership (let's say Callaghan's health leads him to retire early), while claiming the 1974 general election result was proof the public was pro-EEC and there was no need for a referendum. Chuck in some anti-EEC news stories (Cod Wars etc.) and a growing public opinion that is less anti-Brussels than pro-referendum, the likes of Benn claiming the EEC has not been an economic magic wand and the lack of a public debate shows its the whim of the Establishment.

Benn was IOTL and even more so ITTL the face of Euroscepticism (Powell was close but outside the relative mainstream). It is on this issue he beats Jenkins to Labour Leader, not simply anti-Europe but played as a populist pro-democratic movement. It is also a slap to the Labour Right as a whole, who many feel have let the side down ever since In Place of Strife. Ironically many opponents of these reforms back Benn, who is pretty keen on worker ownership.

Benn as leader would be far from flawless and might have a fair few gaffes. A Gang of Four style split is likely but it might happen differently. Here Labour has not just been kicked out of government but is seemingly just waiting for the Lib-Con government to collapse. The careerist types would be less inclined to jump (I'm looking at you Owen), while fearing a Labour government would equal leaving the EEC, maybe Jenkins, with less support for a new party, simply crosses to the Liberals as he had considered.

If Jenkins and a few people cross over to the coalition benches, it can be jumped on as a symbol of the patricians of all three parties uniting to defend the free-market swindle known as the EEC. Tribal loyalty is very strong in the Labour Party, even to this day. By joining the Liberals, the ideas and allies of Jenkins still in the Party would be worth bugger all in the short term - poisoned by 'treason'. You may also see some traditional conservative MPs leaving, becoming "Democratic Labour" and the like.

Now the Heath government finally enters it last act circa 1977-1980. Sunningdale has been a worse mess than OTL thanks to Heath just not giving up, meaning more violence, maybe even Unionist paramilitaries attacking more Government targets, claiming London is trying to betray them. 'Quit Ireland' is slowly becoming a thing. The labour reforms have limited strike actions compared to OTL but a big confrontation (say the Miners' Strike is simply put off for a few years) finally brings the whole edifice crumbling down.

Hell on top of the EEC, union tensions and Northern Ireland, let's throw in some nukes. During the Heath government's last days a very scary cock-up happens involving a US nuke. A scare, no mushroom clouds over Norfolk but enough to shit people up and lead to pointed questions in Parliament about how much oversight the government has over foriegn WMDs on British soil.

An election is called, lets say summer of 1978. You have a tired government led by an unpopular PM, the right-wing of his party very unhappy, the moderates stained with the economic malaise and grubby compromises of coalition government. Labour election posters show the three heads of Heath, Thorpe and Jenkins, representing the stale status quo.

Benn, formerly Labour's election guru, is aware of the need for a good campaign and maybe even bites his lip and hires some big marketing folk to help out. The message is simple and populist - the consensus politicians are undemocratic and out of touch, unwilling to take bold action in the face of Britain's many problems, which naturally they helped cause. It might be a little too cute to have an iconic "The Conservatives Aren't Working" poster but you get the idea.

The message is rather than socialist, democratic, focusing on "putting power in your hands". Benn promises a referendum on the EEC and a full national debate, which leads Enoch Powell to once more openly back Labour as the only chance of ending the European experiment. Peter Shore, a fellow Eurosceptic Labour Left figure with a patriotics streak, is central to the more 'nationalistic' part of the campaign, attempting to woo over Tory and floating voters to what is ultimately a pretty radical Labour Party in the name of the country.

The effects of In Place of Strife creating a more moderate, concentrated elite of TUC bosses, combined with watching Heath 'prune' the national industries has led Benn to decide the 1945 ideal of state industries and strong unions means squat for the socialist revolution when the TUC bosses are dining with Heath, and a nationalised industry can be easily privatised once more. So his 'democratic' policy extends to economics, give workers larger stakes in the economy, to entrench 'their' ownership over that of unionists or government officials. Note this doesn't mean Labour's campaign would anti-union but it would focus on the foot soldiers over the bosses. This also makes it much harder for future governments to privatise if the employees have a direct financial stake. This is combined with devolution of power (including devolved assemblies), establishing national referenda as a common means to decide major issues. All of this gels pretty well with Benn's OTL views.

Benn wins an okay majority that is stronger than Labour's popular vote. The Tories and Liberals are stained by the chaos of the 1970s and keen to blame each other, while the various *SDP exiles lack organisation and due to Jenkins' tarnished reputation are wary of an electoral alliance. Due to the optics of the election as change versus consensus means these candidates' impact of splitting the Labour vote is limited, with non-partisan Eurosceptic voters voting Labour outweighing defectors.
 
Last edited:
As has been pointed out, Shore probably gets a quite important job, as does Foot, and maybe Castle too, if Benn doesn't retire her early as Callaghan effectively did. Some other left wingers who made their way into Foot's shadow cabinet like Heffer, Booth, and Silkin would be there too.

With Foot one of the biggies on the Labour left at the time, would he end up as Benn's Chancellor?

It depends partly on who is Foreign Secretary and how much true power they have. Peter Shore is a strong contender for the FO. He was a 'Commonwealth Man' and while anti-colonial was very positive towards British-descended settler communities. He may push quite hard for a real biracial solution in Zimbabwe, probably throwing in a trade deal and promise of British interest going forward. Of course, this doesn't guarantee a prosperous Zimbabwe (cos Mugabe) but a left-wing Commonwealth-focused Africa policy based on promoting true biracial solutions while also being doggedly anti-imperialist towards the likes of South Africa is a pretty interesting avenue of thought.

That is going to be interesting. I could also see Mugabe going along with it if Britain's giving him a r£a$on to, as he initially worked with white Zimbabweans until it was politically handy for him to not do that. And if Zimbabwe's less terrible than OTL and white South Africans are assured Britain will back a multiracial solution, that could end apartheid sooner too.

Of course, that all depends on Benn and Shore staying in their respective offices, or whoever comes after continuing their policies. If a Conservative government gets in after five years and has very different policies, it could all go tits up!
 
With Foot one of the biggies on the Labour left at the time, would he end up as Benn's Chancellor?
Possibly, although their relations did deteriorate considerably over this time period, so he might be reshuffled eventually in favour of Meacher or another true believer.

If he wasnt Chancellor, he'd probably get another one of the two top jobs. His left wing but anti-authoritarian credentials would make him a good candidate for the foreign office- he would agree with most of what Benn wanted to do in that area, but also reassure the right by steering clear of some of the apologism for leftist dictators that Benn was sometimes accused of.
 
I have a feeling that given what's been stated about his views on China, Benn would be far quicker to cede Hong Kong, especially if he were to let the Sinologists have sway over the Sino-British negotiations like Thatcher did. I can't find any specific reference to how he actually felt about it, especially after the Handover, but he did at one stage equate Irish unification positively to "pulling out" of the territory, so I'm confident that he'd sign terms that probably be worse for the territory than the Joint Declaration was. Sure, Hong Kong might have a Special Economic Zone status to keep the banks in the city, but a Chinese annexation without the guarantee of political autonomy would not only see its institutions "Mainland-ised" more quickly and thoroughly than OTL, but also see a much larger exodus of wealth and people out of the city. And if the political situation in China deteriorates just the same, I have a feeling that the name of Tony Benn would be cursed by Hongkongers in the same breath of Mao Zedong and Li Peng.
 
Last edited:
I can't find any specific reference to how he actually felt about it, especially after the Handover

I've found a reprint of a Catholic Herald interview in 1989, where he briefly mentions it in this context:

On Ireland, Benn is uncompromising. Set a date and withdraw, he says. It’s as simple as that. Indeed, he can see it all happening. “Mrs Thatcher pulled out of Hong Kong, she’s obviously pulling out of Gibraltar, she will eventually pull out of the Falklands. The process is a very common one. When I was born, 20 per cent of the world was governed from the House of Commons. When I was a child I went to the Coronation in 1937, and I sat on a stand and watched all these soldiers march by — they were from everywhere, and it was just normal. Everyone who fought „agaiost us was a ‘terrorist’, and then the ‘terrorists’ always end up having tea with the Queen at Buckingham Palace, because they became heads of Commonwealth countries.”

“Yes, I see Gerry Adams ending up having tea with the Queen, as easily as anything. Look at the number who have done it before. Don’t misunderstand me — I want problems to be solved by peaceful means. But I can never recall Mrs Thatcher describing the people in Afghanistan fighting to get rid of the Russians as terrorists.”

(He wasn't wrong about the Queen and Sinn Fein, in the end!)

So he probably would try to handover Hong Kong quicker, and I think you're right that it wouldn't be a great legacy for him in the long run. Also sounds like he'd have been willing to hand back the Falklands and Gibraltar. The last one he'd probably get talked out of, the Falklands could be a big one - and previous governmetn we were hoping to come to a deal w/ Argentina about them before 1982 anyway, so this is a semi-mainstream view.

Though possible crisis point: Argentina will still be a junta at the time, negotiations might break down between them and the very leftie government who'll likely want some protections for the islanders. What will Benn do if they break down and there's sabre-rattling, or an invasion attempt? OTL he wanted the United Nations called in to arbitrate, I assume he'd still do that if there's sabre-rattling, but could he remain as pacifistic if he's the Prime Minister, and would he if he's been trying to negotiate in (to him) good faith and Argentina tries violence/threat of violence anyway? I think he'd still go to the UN as first option if there was an attack.

Outcomes I can see are:

a) Benn gets a deal done with Argentina. This is a bigger deal in Argentina (and the Falklands) than the UK. In the long run, Anglo-Argentine relations are good.

b) Benn cannot get a deal done, it gets into argy-bargy (ho ho), the UN may be asked in. A big deal in both countries and it looks good for Benn, he's standing his ground with a foreign government and a dodgy one, at that. This might lead to a deal later, proving ITTL that UN work is the way to go

c) Sabre-rattling - Benn is pressured to respond to it. 50/50 on whether this will work, but he'll likely still want to negotiate and have the UN involved even if he's rattling. He may get a 'rally around the flag' reaction in the UK

d) As in OTL, Argentina invades. Benn will not go to war over it. Big political issue in the UK, possibly a fatal wound to his government
 
I've found a reprint of a Catholic Herald interview in 1989, where he briefly mentions it in this context:



(He wasn't wrong about the Queen and Sinn Fein, in the end!)

So he probably would try to handover Hong Kong quicker, and I think you're right that it wouldn't be a great legacy for him in the long run. Also sounds like he'd have been willing to hand back the Falklands and Gibraltar. The last one he'd probably get talked out of, the Falklands could be a big one - and previous governmetn we were hoping to come to a deal w/ Argentina about them before 1982 anyway, so this is a semi-mainstream view.

Though possible crisis point: Argentina will still be a junta at the time, negotiations might break down between them and the very leftie government who'll likely want some protections for the islanders. What will Benn do if they break down and there's sabre-rattling, or an invasion attempt? OTL he wanted the United Nations called in to arbitrate, I assume he'd still do that if there's sabre-rattling, but could he remain as pacifistic if he's the Prime Minister, and would he if he's been trying to negotiate in (to him) good faith and Argentina tries violence/threat of violence anyway? I think he'd still go to the UN as first option if there was an attack.

Outcomes I can see are:

a) Benn gets a deal done with Argentina. This is a bigger deal in Argentina (and the Falklands) than the UK. In the long run, Anglo-Argentine relations are good.

b) Benn cannot get a deal done, it gets into argy-bargy (ho ho), the UN may be asked in. A big deal in both countries and it looks good for Benn, he's standing his ground with a foreign government and a dodgy one, at that. This might lead to a deal later, proving ITTL that UN work is the way to go

c) Sabre-rattling - Benn is pressured to respond to it. 50/50 on whether this will work, but he'll likely still want to negotiate and have the UN involved even if he's rattling. He may get a 'rally around the flag' reaction in the UK

d) As in OTL, Argentina invades. Benn will not go to war over it. Big political issue in the UK, possibly a fatal wound to his government


I think Britain would need to be ready to pull out of Ireland (or at least soften to a 'hands off' approach) for Benn to win an election to begin with. The logistics of this would be massive as everyone expected a blood bath if the Army just pulled out. I imagine he would get the UN involved. Plenty of the Labour Left, Benn included, believed radical Unionists aimed for a quasi-fascist independent Ulster, purified of Catholics and free of the meddling of the Fenian-lovers in Westminster. As such he would organise something to replace the British Army - Suez style, maybe a UN force?

Benn would happily hand the Falklands over diplomatically if Argentina offers some assurances on the locals. Come war, as long he hasn't packed it with yes men, the Cabinet will back war. Michael Foot IOTL enthusiastically backed Thatcher over the Falklands. If he refuses he's out frankly, despite their unilateralism the Labour Left held few true pacifists, self-defence with conventional forces was another matter and against a Fascist Junta, all the better. So Benn would go along I think but he might faff about, bother the UN, argue with his Cabinet.


Question: Benn wins, pulls Britain out of EEC. How do the Irish react? Do they follow suit because of the major trade links they have, or does Ireland stay put in Brussels?
 
This seems a sticking point then: a majority of British voters have to be fine (or at least don;'tm consider it a dealbreaker) with withdrawing troops and Irish reunification, and in 1979. How do you get that? Something would need to happen in Heath's second term, either something to make people go "screw this" or "see, it's calmed down". (Or is actually calmer compared to OTL) What would that be?


Question: Benn wins, pulls Britain out of EEC. How do the Irish react? Do they follow suit because of the major trade links they have, or does Ireland stay put in Brussels?

From the chat of a lot of the Irish in recent months, I figure Ireland stays put: being in the EEC gives Ireland a better hand in dealings with Britain, and more so if they're in and we're out.
 
OTL 1979.

Note that this is only a partial record

So in order to make withdrawal seem more acceptable to a voting majority, things need to be a lot calmer (or at least look it to the mainland) which means Heath has to do... something after 1974. Or Benn promises/is convinced to promise that he'll withdraw when violence has gone down, which will punt the issue into the long grass even though he doesn't want to.
 
This seems a sticking point then: a majority of British voters have to be fine (or at least don;'tm consider it a dealbreaker) with withdrawing troops and Irish reunification, and in 1979. How do you get that? Something would need to happen in Heath's second term, either something to make people go "screw this" or "see, it's calmed down". (Or is actually calmer compared to OTL) What would that be?

Heath having a second term would probably provide fodder in of itself. Labour in 1974 walked into a minefield on Northern Ireland. Heath's Sunningdale Agreement had received pretty stern opposition from hard-line unionists in December 1973 but nothing prepared Harold Wilson for the UWC strike. The scale and organisation of the strike took the British totally by surprise - Wilson pondered withdrawal, he asked the Army about taking over essential services and 'clamping down' but they knew the Ulster police wouldn't play along and it would only escalate the situation. In the end he went with his gut and just tried to end the standoff, dropping Sunningdale, which was never his baby, and reimposing direct rule. After that Labour's NI policy was basically "keep the lid on".

If Heath is in power when the UWC strike happens, it could be something very different. It's his baby on the line and he liked his decisive action. Some people did suggest plowing through the Unionist roadblocks and arresting the strike leaders straight away before the strike expanded and entrenched itself but again the Army weren't keen - during the strike soldiers at roadblocks were often little more than fifty yards away from armed paramilitaries on patrol. Also Heath despite his actions often being swift, he wasn't very good at timing and would probably be as confused as Wilson for the first crucial days.

Then the power goes out, the water stops running. Heath would want to intervene. Probably send some engineers to ensure the electricity, they'd be rejected by the strikers, then the engineers would come back with armed soldiers. Stand-off. Would he use force? Probably not, at least at first. The Army would be very loud by this point that they're not cool with all of this. A violent confrontation with the strikers will trigger attacks from the Unionist paramilitaries. The Ulster police will either join the strikes or 'return to barracks'. This would leave the British Army with a genuine occupation.

So what if Heath stays at stand-off and claims these extremists won't dictate the future of Northern Ireland? Then, the strike drags on for a long time. Despite the UWC having a fairly impressive organisation in terms of ensuring essentials for the local Protestants, there was plenty of shortages, seizures and worse. Sympathy will decline for the strikes if left alone but the political core would not be unbowed. I can see minor confrontations, soldiers removing roadblocks etc. definitely blood.

The need for supplies for the strikers would get worse. Probably raids to seize food stores and livestock from other areas (there were incidents of cattle rustling IOTL I believe). This is were 'containment' would probably lead to the most blood but also make the strike lose momentum. Again, the likes of Ian Paisley are not accepting Sunningdale in any form.

So either:

1) Drop Sunningdale, reimpose direct rule
2) Get stuck in, escalating things extremely
3) Talks

Heath would totally ignore 1, dabble in 2 until the RUC makes rumbles and then finally organise 3, which would probably lead to 1 with an empty agreement to continue discussions further. Regardless Heath isn't walking away like Wilson did even if he might have to eventually, leading probably to a few more weeks of striking at least, some blood and eventually a step down or muddled compromise that changes nothing.

Whether Heath goes for confrontation or containment with eventual talks, you'll probably see increased Unionist bombings outside of Ulster. In the Republic but also, depending on Wesminster's approach, possibly attacks on the mainland. Shooting the NI Secretary might seem crazy but if the Government is playing bolshy and insisting Sunningdale will go through, it is far from impossible.

If unionists and soldiers are fighting on the streets, British ministers are dying and Protestant leaders are unrepentant, staying in Northern Ireland becomes a lot less attractive. Despite all the talk of the province being a legal part of the UK, if both communities don't want you, why bother? This is where Benn could waltz in to cut the Gordian Knot.

From the chat of a lot of the Irish in recent months, I figure Ireland stays put: being in the EEC gives Ireland a better hand in dealings with Britain, and more so if they're in and we're out.

But is this in relation to the situation in 2019 or 1975? Back then the EEC was the CAP to Ireland and pretty much nothing else. There's a reason Ireland withdrew their EEC application after De Gaulle vetoed Britain's entry in the 1960s. Here you have much closer direct connections to the UK and weaker ones to the EEC. If things like the Sunningdale Mutiny happen as above, I can totally see Ireland sticking with the EEC but I've been trying to find info on Irish opinion of Britain's 1975 Referendum but have come up with nowt.
 
@Jape seems to have the solution for getting Benn in re NI: it gets nastier under Heath due to how he tries to sort things, and in the case of unionist attacks outside Ulster and on soldiers it's stuff the public notice more. Enough of the British public are happy to be out as long as Benn can promise X, Y, or Z from the UN/EEC/someone will prevent a bloodbath.

If Northern Ireland goes more to hell after Benn's in and pulls the troops out, that's going to be a thing hanging over his first (only?) term, impairing a lot of his planned domestic and economic reforms. That might also cripple the talks he might want to do with the Falklands and Hong Kong, because who'd want to do them when Northern Ireland blew up in his face?
 
To be clear I think Benn pulling out of NI even with some 'framework' would probably be awful for civilians in the Province. He might get a boost in popularity on the mainland and get some rare praise from the Army. Northern Ireland isn't a former colony on the other side of the planet, the bloodshed will still be -literally- close to home and reported on. It won't be a good legacy for Benn, even if the British are glad they're out. God knows what horrors will just be allowed to happen by disinterested blue helmets with overly conservative orders.

This would be Benn's goal but the realities of government might make him pause, particularly when he's got Dublin on the phone saying, "for God's sake don't pull out". However, even if he negotiated with the Republic I don't think he'd lose track of his end goal.


If such a pull-out effects Argentine negotiations and the Falklands are peacefully ceded, you may see a rising market for countries with a territorial axe to grind against Britain.

An interesting one is Guatemala's claim on Belize (self-governing colony right up until 1981) which was being dealt with in the late 1970s. Guatemala had the support of most Latin Amerian countries, the NAM and a majority of the UN General Assembly in 1975. Interestingly LBJ had suggested a 'devolved' government for Belize overseen by Guatemala - none of the parties were keen on this. However by 1980 all their support had cracked and self-determination was the popular solution, which led to independence in 1981. If we have a 'soft' Labour Government willing to sign away the likes of the Falklands and walk out of Ulster, it would encourage Guatemala but they have already lost the diplomatic battle. In fact I can see Benn making a concerted effort to woo the Non-Aligned Movement which might reduce their support even further.

However this doesn't remove the possibility of military action. IOTL Britain was very concerned by the possibility of Guatemala taking advantage of the Falklands War. We might not have that ITTL but a generally reductionist military policy by Benn might be enough to chance their arm.

This would be helped immensely by Benn pulling out of NATO. As Belize is above the Equator, such an attack would fall under NATO collective defence guidelines. Although in no scenario are you going to get Danish and West German troops heading to Central America, if America is iffy (as they became) they wouldn't risk it. If Britain is no longer in NATO and Benn has pissed off Washington (not only through policy but I can't see Reagan and Benn getting on personally at all), the Yanks might insist on strict 'neutrality'.

Unlike the Falklands which is a tiny archipelago with a tiny population that's a drain on the Treasury, Belize is a full-blown country moving towards independence. Again despite his private worries, he'd probably go to war to defend Belize if push came to shove. You could end up in a strange situation were Britain is not getting covert support from the US like the Falklands but from the local anti-annexationist countries - namely Mexico and Cuba. I don't see the CIA actively working against the British, but in the murky waters of Cold War Central America, some elements on the ground might decide Guatemala's junta is a better bet than a British pinko psuedo-colony and provide some intel. It would be a very different war to the Falklands, in scale, being land rather than naval focused, the terrain, etc. and a much larger civilian population in the mix.


Speaking of Cuba - Grenada. The airfield that officially triggered the US invasion in 1983 was originally designed by British contractors. Despite its pinko government, Thatcher was pissed when the Americans invaded as it was a Commonwealth nation. Grenada's PM Maurice Bishop did attempt to make ties with the US but attending the SED Party Conference with a massive banner of your own face above the podium probably didn't help matters. Benn would be friendly (it was a democratically-elected government after all) and maybe if he hasn't burnt all of his bridges with Washington yet, he can help establish proper links.

The airfield was constructed partly by Cuban 'workers', military-trained construction units, which really helped trigger the invasion IOTL. What if ITTL, Benn gets a British contract? Even better (in terms of diplomatic 'fun') have Britain only be a partner in the project, so you end up with a media expose on British government contractors working directly with the Cubans. Benn, as long as he saw it as legitimate, would have no problem but "British Taxpayer bankrolls Castro's Airbase" is pretty bad optics.
 
Last edited:
As it happen re NI, there's a section like this in the new Sea Lion, "You've Always Had It This Good". There, British troops are replaced in Northern Ireland with
an American-heavy NATO peacekeeping force.
That's definitely not on the cards for a Benn government, though is there a country he could turn to for the bulk of work? (I can't see the Irish wanting to do much beyond maybe the border, if asked, because they'd be immediately petrol-bombed and shot at as Invaders by the unionist paras)

An interesting one is Guatemala's claim on Belize

Oh man. This and Grenada are good stuff. I can see Benn reluctantly sending troops to reinforce Belize and the resulting tensions with America & local CIA. (Probably not pleasing a number of people in Britain either, "you abandoned Ulster but have sent men to die in a far-off land we know nothing about!")

Northern Ireland and foreign issues like Belize - oh god, and Iran's gonna come up! - seem like they'll be a millstone around Benn's neck when he wants to focus on widespread domestic & economic reforms.
 
Back
Top