Lilitou's Liminal Letterbox

[Lilitou]

Political factions of the United Kingdom during the Prorogation Crisis

Parliamentarians

Three hundred and thirty years later, and yet again a Parliament has assembled in Oxford. The members of this Parliament-in-Exile are divided by many things, indeed, there are precious few things which they hold in common. In creed, they range from Corbynistas, to the soft left, to progressives and centrists, to the soft right of the One Nation and Cameronian traditions, all the way to libertarians.

The sole fact which unites the Parliamentarians who now sit in the historic Christ Church Hall is their strident opposition to the government which has assembled itself at Chequers. It was not their expectation that their defiance should spark civil strife. The MPs and Lords who answered the Speaker's call to reassemble Parliament on the 25th of September assumed that upon arriving at Westminster the government would see reason, adhere to the Supreme Court ruling, and reverse the false prorogation. They certainly did not expect to be barred from the Palace, chased from the city by confused police and frenzied Johnsonites, and forced to re-assemble in the City of Dreaming Spires. Yet that is exactly what happened. At the conclusion of the Longest Week of September, the Oxford Parliament finds itself at a crossroads, and many of its MPs have started to lose their nerves.

Speaker Bercow vows to hold them together for, he says, if they will not stand up for British democracy in the face of Johnsonian tyranny, then who will? In the background, Corbyn, McDonnell, Miliband, Watson, Benn, Swinson, Soubry, Clarke, Bebb, Blunt and Boles feud...

Johnsonians

There is great fear and loathing in the Chequers government. The ministers have stuck with the prime minister and his chief advisor, but cracks starting to show. The MPs who have remained loyal to the prime minister can be grouped into the loyal, the ambitious, the cowardly and the gullible. There was great enthusiasm when Boris Johnson made clear he would "fight the courts" and the "liberal elite", but it was not until the 25th and the barring of half of Parliament from Westminster that it sunk in for most how far he was willing to go to do so. The prorogation became more than a parliamentary tool, and instead became a symbol of the centralisation of power in the prime ministerial role; a centralisation which Johnson had no intention to revert. He is the prime minister, and his will be done.

Prime minister Johnson, and erstwhile advisor Dominic Cummings, will struggle on. They are so close, now, and need only finish the job. It remains to be seen whether Gove, Javid, Rees-Mogg, Patel, Raab, and Fox will back them to the hilt, however, when they have their own goals...

Separatists

The winds of change have graced the Home Nations. Sturgeon made the momentous decision to announce a Scottish divorce from the United Kingdom amid the crisis; and with two governments to the south, it was difficult to stop her momentum. She did not expect the Scottish Parliament to narrowly vote against her; and so the nascent Scottish Republic fled to more habitable climes in Glasgow. Sturgeon was, however, mirrored; in Bangor by Price, and in Derry by O'Neill.

 

[Kimkatya]

Political factions of the United Kingdom during the Prorogation Crisis

Parliamentarians

Three hundred and thirty years later, and yet again a Parliament has assembled in Oxford. The members of this Parliament-in-Exile are divided by many things, indeed, there are precious few things which they hold in common. The sole fact which unites the Parliamentarians who now sit in the historic Christ Church Hall is their strident opposition to the government which has assembled itself at Chequers.

It was not their expectation that their defiance should spark civil strife. The MPs and Lords who answered the Speaker's call to reassemble Parliament on the 25th of September assumed that upon arriving at Westminster the government would see reason, adhere to the Supreme Court ruling, and reverse the false prorogation. They certainly did not expect to be barred from the Palace, chased from the city by confused police and frenzied Johnsonites, and forced to re-assemble in the City of Dreaming Spires. Yet that is exactly what happened. At the conclusion of the Longest Week of September, the Oxford Parliament finds itself at a crossroads, and many of its MPs have started to lose their nerves.

Speaker Bercow vows to hold them together for, he says, if they will not stand up for British democracy in the face of Johnsonian tyranny, then who will?

Johnsonians

There is great fear and loathing in the Chequers government. The ministers have stuck with the prime minister and his chief advisor, but cracks starting to show. The MPs who have remained loyal to the prime minister can be grouped into the loyal, the ambitious, the cowardly and the gullible.

There was great enthusiasm when Boris Johnson made clear he would "fight the courts" and the "liberal elite", but it was not until the 25th and the barring of half of Parliament from Westminster that it sunk in for most how far he was willing to go to do so. The prorogation became more than a parliamentary tool, and instead became a symbol of the centralisation of power in the prime ministerial role; a centralisation which Johnson had no intention to revert. He is the prime minister, and his will be done.

Prime minister Johnson, and erstwhile advisor Dominic Cummings, will struggle on. They are so close, now, and need only finish the job.

Separatists

tbd

Student republics

tbd

ew

 

[Walpurgisnacht]

Can definitely see Bercow yelling "You are no Parliament!" while holding the mace.

 

[Lilitou]

I really wanted to revisit this, so enjoy a little map set in around 1918/19 of that timeline!

View attachment 64179

"By 1948, the German Empire was conclusively defeated, and the fear that had forced the uneasy 'Historic Understanding' between the black-hundredist government in Petrograd and the councillist governments in the west quickly evaporated. The race to secure as much territory in Germany and the Balkans very nearly caused the outbreak of hostilities between the two sides - the most notable example of this being the attempted Bulgarian pogrom of Salonica - but this was avoided, in part due to clandestine negotiations. In public, the two sides agreed to a peace summit hosted by the notoriously neutral and non-interventionist United States of America.

The subsequent Los Angeles Conference agreed to strictly delineated borders between eastern and western spheres of influence, which included the division of the former German Empire and the recognition of Russian ownership of the Straits, which had been annexed years prior, alongside the dissolution of the last of Europe's monarchies outside of Scandinavia. There were no German delegates present. President Taft hailed the signing of the Treaty of Los Angeles as "peace on the ground for Europe, and peace of mind for America", but it quickly became clear that neither side saw the treaty as anything more than a temporary arrangement. The border of the two spheres quickly became one of the most heavily militarised borders in the world, and press bans from either side gave rise to a feeling that the border was not just political, but social, cultural and economic, physically separating the two sides into two distinct societies.

It was in this context that Foreign Secretary Ishbel MacDonald made her famed speech to the Congress of British Workers' Deputies, in which she dubbed this border 'an obfuscating shroud, alike that autumnal mist, but instead assembled with strongest steel'. The Societal Struggle had begun."




I'm partially tempted to try throw these together and do the whole "textbook" that they're from as a page or two write-up. Would there be any interest in that?

 

[Time Enough]

I'm partially tempted to try throw these together and do the whole "textbook" that they're from as a page or two write-up. Would there be any interest in that?

I would interested, I do find a British Socialist/Council Communist state an intriguing and fun concept.

 

[Yokai Man]

"By 1948, the German Empire was conclusively defeated, and the fear that had forced the uneasy 'Historic Understanding' between the black-hundredist government in Petrograd and the councillist governments in the west quickly evaporated. The race to secure as much territory in Germany and the Balkans very nearly caused the outbreak of hostilities between the two sides - the most notable example of this being the attempted Bulgarian pogrom of Salonica - but this was avoided, in part due to clandestine negotiations. In public, the two sides agreed to a peace summit hosted by the notoriously neutral and non-interventionist United States of America.

The subsequent Los Angeles Conference agreed to strictly delineated borders between eastern and western spheres of influence, which included the division of the former German Empire and the recognition of Russian ownership of the Straits, which had been annexed years prior, alongside the dissolution of the last of Europe's monarchies outside of Scandinavia. There were no German delegates present. President Taft hailed the signing of the Treaty of Los Angeles as "peace on the ground for Europe, and peace of mind for America", but it quickly became clear that neither side saw the treaty as anything more than a temporary arrangement. The border of the two spheres quickly became one of the most heavily militarised borders in the world, and press bans from either side gave rise to a feeling that the border was not just political, but social, cultural and economic, physically separating the two sides into two distinct societies.

It was in this context that Foreign Secretary Ishbel MacDonald made her famed speech to the Congress of British Workers' Deputies, in which she dubbed this border 'an obfuscating shroud, alike that autumnal mist, but instead assembled with strongest steel'. The Societal Struggle had begun."


View attachment 65877

I'm partially tempted to try throw these together and do the whole "textbook" that they're from as a page or two write-up. Would there be any interest in that?

Yes.

Who runs the Brother Republics and Romania respectively?

 

[Lilitou]

I would interested, I do find a British Socialist/Council Communist state an intriguing and fun concept.

Yes.

Who runs the Brother Republics and Romania respectively?

Interesting, thanks for the feedback, I think I might give that a go then

I hadn't figured out any exact leadership for the eastern spherelings yet; so would be open for ideas there. For Romania, I hadn't considered, but given they broadly get the most screwed in the Russian redrawing of the Balkans, I imagine it's a very weak leader installed by the Russians who relies almost entirely on them for support, perhaps also with the expected anti-communist rhetoric to keep landholders in line.

The Brother Republics are, as you might be able to infer, all based on pan-Slavist thinking; initially I had them (and Poland) as autonomous parts of Russia directly, drawing on the old pan-Slavist idea that was prominent in Hapsburg-era Czechy and Slovakia and elsewhere best expressed by Štúr that all Slavic lands should be united under Russia as the only sovereign Slavic power at the time (OTL, this thinking was obviously discredited by the independence of Bulgaria and Serbia prior to the GW, and then majorly by that of Poland and Czechoslovakia after the GW, which also saw pan-Slavism displaced by Czechoslovakism in those circles). In the end I decided that just wasn't tenable (particularly for the South Slavs), so instead they're "Brothers in Union" to Russia, drawing on the mythology of Lech, Czech and Rus (well, Lech is getting Russified; but you get the idea!). So, in terms of leadership, they'd be pan-Slavists or OTL nationalists that were pro-Ruskie, or generally anti-communist authoritarians who vibe with the Black Hundreds.

 

[Yokai Man]

Interesting, thanks for the feedback, I think I might give that a go then

I hadn't figured out any exact leadership for the eastern spherelings yet; so would be open for ideas there. For Romania, I hadn't considered, but given they broadly get the most screwed in the Russian redrawing of the Balkans, I imagine it's a very weak leader installed by the Russians who relies almost entirely on them for support, perhaps also with the expected anti-communist rhetoric to keep landholders in line.

The Brother Republics are, as you might be able to infer, all based on pan-Slavist thinking; initially I had them (and Poland) as autonomous parts of Russia directly, drawing on the old pan-Slavist idea that was prominent in Hapsburg-era Czechy and Slovakia and elsewhere best expressed by Štúr that all Slavic lands should be united under Russia as the only sovereign Slavic power at the time (OTL, this thinking was obviously discredited by the independence of Bulgaria and Serbia prior to the GW, and then majorly by that of Poland and Czechoslovakia after the GW, which also saw pan-Slavism displaced by Czechoslovakism in those circles). In the end I decided that just wasn't tenable (particularly for the South Slavs), so instead they're "Brothers in Union" to Russia, drawing on the mythology of Lech, Czech and Rus (well, Lech is getting Russified; but you get the idea!). So, in terms of leadership, they'd be pan-Slavists or OTL nationalists that were pro-Ruskie, or generally anti-communist authoritarians who vibe with the Black Hundreds.

Oh,I have an idea-have Iorga's National Democrats last slighty longer and have them take over after WW1 and create their horrible peasant anti landlord and anti tehnology state.

 

[Lilitou]

Post-War Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom

1945-1951: Winston Churchill (Conservative)
1945 (Majority) def: Clement Attlee (Labour), Archibald Sinclair (Liberal)
1950 (Majority) def: Clement Attlee (Labour), Archibald Sinclair (Liberal)
1951-1957: Clement Attlee (Labour)
1951 (Majority) def: Winston Churchill (Conservative), Clement Davies (Liberal)
1955 (Majority) def: Anthony Eden (Conservative), Clement Davies (Liberal)
1957-1963: Hugh Gaitskell (Labour)
1959 (Majority) def: Harold Macmillan (Conservative), Jo Grimond (Liberal)
1963-1964: Harold Wilson (Labour)
1964-1970: Alec Douglas-Home (Conservative)
1964 (Majority) def: Harold Wilson (Labour), Jo Grimond (Liberal)
1966 (Majority) def: Harold Wilson (Labour), Jo Grimond (Liberal)
1970-1974: Harold Wilson (Labour)
1970 (Majority) def: Alec Douglas-Home (Conservative), Jeremy Thorpe (Liberal)
1974-1979: Edward Heath (Conservative)
Feb 1974 (Coalition with Liberal) def: Harold Wilson (Labour), Jeremy Thorpe (Liberal)
Oct 1974 (Majority) def: James Callaghan (Labour), Jeremy Thorpe (Liberal)
1979-1980: James Callaghan (Labour)
1979 (Majority) def: Margaret Thatcher (Conservative), David Steel (Liberal)
1980-1990: Michael Foot (Labour)
1983 (Majority) def: Margaret Thatcher (Conservative), David Steel and Jim Prior (Liberal-Progressive Conservative Pact)
1987 (Majority) def: Michael Heseltine (Conservative), David Steel and Francis Pym (Liberal-Progressive Conservative Pact)
1990-1997: Neil Kinnock (Labour)
1992 (Majority) def: John Major (Conservative), Paddy Ashdown (Alliance 90)
1997-2007: William Hague (Conservative)
1992 (Majority) def: Neil Kinnock (Labour), Paddy Ashdown (Alliance 90)
2001 (Majority) def: Tony Blair (Labour), Ken Clarke (Alliance 90)
2005 (Majority) def: Tony Blair (Labour), Ken Clarke (Alliance 90)
2007-2010: David Cameron (Conservative)
2010-2016: Gordon Brown (Labour)
2010 (Coalition with Alliance 90) def: David Cameron (Conservative), Nick Clegg (Alliance 90)
2015 (Majority) def: David Cameron (Conservative), Andrew Boff (Metropolitan), Nick Clegg (Alliance 90)
2016-2016: Ed Miliband (Labour)
2016-2022: Jeremy Corbyn (Labour)
2017 (Minority with NICRA support) def: Theresa May (Conservative), Andrew Boff (Metropolitan), Tim Farron (Alliance 90)
2019 (Majority) def: Boris Johnson (Conservative), Andrew Boff (Metropolitan), Jo Swinson (Alliance 90)
2022-2022: Laura Pidcock (Labour)
2022-2024: Keir Starmer (Labour)
2024-prsnt: Rishi Sunak (Conservative)
2024 (Majority) def: Keir Starmer (Labour), Ed Davey (Alliance 90), Sadiq Khan (Metropolitan)

 

[Lilitou]

​

Extract from A Very British Revolution: The History of Modern Britain, 1917–1991, published 2009 by the Historical Educational Authority (HEA) for distribution on behalf of the Education Committee of the General Congress of British Workers' Deputies (EDUCOM)

Eden Reclaimed: A Revolutionary Society, 1921–1936
4 - Social issues and demographic changes

The establishment of Black-Hundredist Russia under Admiral Kolchak and his clique had wide-ranging consequences for the rest of the world in many ways, but the main way it affected Britain in the immediate revolutionary period was in terms of immigration. Antisemitism had been an issue in Europe for some time, but the Great War and its impact had led to a surge of antisemitic activity the likes of which hadn't been observed since the 1903-1906 pogroms. This activity was centred in Russia and sanctioned by the Russian state, but outbursts of antisemitic feeling were felt across the continent, such as in victorious Germany and the former Ottoman Empire.

The trend of Jews leaving Russia in search of greener pastures predates the revolutionary period, having been spurred on by prior pogroms. Historically, most headed to the United States, but there had also been a small Jewish exodus to Britain and other nations. The Kolchak pogroms however quickened this ongoing trend; the Jewish population in the United States more than tripled between 1900 and 1935. In Europe, however, Britain was the main centre of emigration. There were a number of reasons for this; the British Revolution had been relatively peaceful and so Britain was still seen as a stable and prosperous nation worth the extra miles of travel, the exclusionary pre-war Alien Act was void along with most bourgeois legislation which meant that there were few controls on immigration, and the sizable pre-existing Ashkenazi Jewish community lobbied on behalf of the migrants to ensure their safe passage. As a result of this, the British Jewish population sky-rocketed throughout the early revolutionary period. Estimates place 250,000 Jews in Britain at the turn of the century; this number almost doubled to 450,000 by 1925, and rose again to just over 750,000 by 1935.

The majority of these new arrivals settled in the East End of London, where there was already a well-established Jewish community. Poplar specifically became the centre of a thriving Jewish community, but other major centres of Jewish migration included Leeds, Bury, Salford and other major urban areas. In Wales, Cardiff and the capital Merthyr Tydfil both saw an influx of Jewish immigrants, leading to the revival of the Merthyr Hebrew Congregation. These new arrivals brought with them their culture, religion and language, contributing to the wider emerging revolutionary culture, for example popularising the bagel in British cuisine. This culture was generally Ashkenazi; the majority of Sephardic Jews seeking asylum instead did so in Salonica. As many arrived impoverished having had their possessions appropriated by the Russian government, they were generally sympathetic to the revolutionary government and the cause of socialism.

In spite of this revolutionary zeal, their arrival was nevertheless controversial and the new arrivals were viewed with suspicion by some. Antisemitic feeling was no less present in Britain as on the continent, and many reactions to the new Jewish population were negative. In some of the newly-empowered workers' councils, local labour laws were passed which prevented the employment of Jewish immigrants in favour of native British workers. In opposition to this, Jewish migrant communities organised to participate in council democracy, eventually becoming a major force on the London councils. The anti-Jewish employment laws were eventually challenged and overturned by the Judicial Committee of the General Congress, but they set the stage for many councils to actively discriminate against migrants.

They also allowed immigration to become a national political debate, one which stretched across factional lines. The majority of nationalist delegates were resolutely opposed to any immigration and became the loudest voices in favour of migration controls reform, but no other group had a coherent stance. Centralists and Libertarians alike found themselves in favour and in opposition to the controls, on the basis of protecting British jobs or protecting the international proletariat. Eventually, the General Congress passed the Migration and Asylum Act in 1924, which codified controls on migration. They were not as restrictive as the pre-revolutionary Aliens Acts, but did introduce certain restrictions, and introduced the requirement for new arrivals to register with their council. The Act allowed for migrants to claim asylum in Britain as long as the individual could prove that return to their country of origin would likely mean death. This was almost certainly true for Jewish migrants fleeing the All-Russian State; but as the onus was on them to prove it, whether they were accepted or turned away was entirely at the discretion of the council that they found themselves in. This essentially meant that Jewish arrivals continued, but that they concentrated even further in areas like Poplar.

Immigration - particularly Jewish immigration - remained a political issue in Britain throughout the period. MacDonald came out strongly in favour of further controls in 1934, as the population of British Jews approached 750,000, which led to further restrictions as the Centralists embraced a more anti-immigration position more broadly. It was not until the German War, when the true horror of the Black Hundreds' regime was let loose across eastern Europe, that public opinion solidified in favour of accepting Jewish asylum seekers.

 

[AH Layard]

That is really excellent, fascinating to speculate how the history of Britain and of East London in particular would have been different with higher Jewish immigration.

 

[Lilitou]

That is really excellent, fascinating to speculate how the history of Britain and of East London in particular would have been different with higher Jewish immigration.

Thanks! It was something that dawned on me as I'm working out what I'm dubbing the Sylviaverse; Black-Hundreds Russia is obviously really, really awful for its Jewish population, but I didn't quite realise just how profound that is; that with the Pale of Settlement, Russia has millions of Jewish people within its borders. But Britain is in quite a unique situation to blunt the blow (unintentionally), and I think that even with the anti-immigration turn, it's still a bit of a bright spot. Essentially half a million people were saved in the immediate revolutionary period; and during the German War, that number rises further.

I did want to throw in this in-universe "source", too, but couldn't find the right place to! "New Jerusalems: Poplar, Pigna and the Pletzl 1917-1970, E. J. E. Hobsbaum, 1975."

 

[AH Layard]

V much looking forward to the Sylviaverse!

There is some discussion of the electoral dynamics of Eastern European immigration in London in Pelling’s Social Geography of British Elections 1885-1910 (I cite this a lot only as it is full of interesting topics like this!)

 

[Lilitou]

V much looking forward to the Sylviaverse!

There is some discussion of the electoral dynamics of Eastern European immigration in London in Pelling’s Social Geography of British Elections 1885-1910 (I cite this a lot only as it is full of interesting topics like this!)

That's really helpful; thank you. I've been meaning to give that a read in general every time you mention it in TWTWL, but now I think I definitely have to!

 

[AH Layard]

That's really helpful; thank you. I've been meaning to give that a read in general every time you mention it in TWTWL, but now I think I definitely have to!

No worries, there’s a version on archive.org.

 

[Lilitou]

a thought i had

Presidents and Vice Presidents of the United States of America

1912-1916: Woodrow Wilson (Democratic) [1]
1912 (with Thomas R. Marshall) def: Theodore Roosevelt/Hiram Johnson (Progressive), William Howard Taft/Nicholas M. Butler (Republican), Eugene V. Debs/Emil Seidel (Socialist)
1916-1925: Charles Evans Hughes (Republican)
1916 (with Charles W. Fairbanks) def: Woodrow Wilson/Thomas R. Marshall (Democratic), Allan Louis Benson/George Ross Kirkpatrick (Socialist)
1920 (with Charles W. Fairbanks) def: Thomas R. Marshall/A. Mitchell Palmer (Democratic), Eugene V. Debs/Seymour Stedman (Socialist)
1925-1933: A. Mitchell Palmer (Democratic)
1924 (with Al Smith) def: Charles W. Fairbanks/Nicholas M. Butler (Republican), Robert M. La Follette/Burton K. Wheeler (Progressive)
1928 (with Al Smith) def: Charles Curtis/Hiram Johnson (Republican)
1933-19??: Hiram Johnson (Republican)
1932 (with Charles Curtis) def: Al Smith/Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democratic), Norman Thomas/James Maurer (Socialist)

[1] - Resigned along with Vice President Marshall after appointing Charles Evans Hughes as Secretary of State, making Hughes acting President until March 1917 to avoid a lame duck presidency.

 

[Time Enough]

1925-1933: A. Mitchell Palmer (Democratic)
1924 (with Al Smith) def: Charles W. Fairbanks/Nicholas M. Butler (Republican), Robert M. La Follette/Burton K. Wheeler (Progressive)
1928 (with Al Smith) def: Charles Curtis/Hiram Johnson (Republican)

Guessing this is, Progressive Quacker Palmer over the paranoid nut job who thought there were Reds under the Bed?

Palmer is interesting in that regard, easy to have him to be a solid Moderate to Progressive choice as it were.

 

[Lilitou]

Guessing this is, Progressive Quacker Palmer over the paranoid nut job who thought there were Reds under the Bed?

Palmer is interesting in that regard, easy to have him to be a solid Moderate to Progressive choice as it were.

Reds under the Beds was what I was thinking. Get the Republicans largely led by Progressives (the historiography writes itself; if you appeal to Progressives you win, if you alienate them the Democrats do) so the Democrats lean more into conservativism.

 

[Turquoise Blue]

Reds under the Beds was what I was thinking. Get the Republicans largely led by Progressives (the historiography writes itself; if you appeal to Progressives you win, if you alienate them the Democrats do) so the Democrats lean more into conservativism.

I've always thought the idea of conservative Democrats deeply deeply overplayed up in AH.

Like, you have Al Smith. That alone suggests a massive mobilisation of Catholic voters in the cities. City voters will determine a lot of politics. The Democrats will always adopt policies that the cities, and especially the voters of their machines, see as in their interest, once the cities are strong in the coalition.

I would actually refrain from simplistic labels. The Republicans can be progressive, sure, but that doesn't imply the Democrats will go conservative. It means some fun political divisions, but "conservative" Democrats are impossible after 1896.

 

[Lilitou]

I've always thought the idea of conservative Democrats deeply deeply overplayed up in AH.

Like, you have Al Smith. That alone suggests a massive mobilisation of Catholic voters in the cities. City voters will determine a lot of politics. The Democrats will always adopt policies that the cities, and especially the voters of their machines, see as in their interest, once the cities are strong in the coalition.

I would actually refrain from simplistic labels. The Republicans can be progressive, sure, but that doesn't imply the Democrats will go conservative. It means some fun political divisions, but "conservative" Democrats are impossible after 1896.

Yeah, this is why I generally don't bother with American althist haha. This all spawned from a campaign trail game where I found the 1916 presidential election was stupidly close!