• 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

2017 - 2019: Hilary Clinton (Democrat)
2019 - 2020: Tim Kaine (Democrat)
2021 - 2022: Donald Trump (Republican)
2022: Tulsi Gabbard (Republican)
2022 - 2023: Jack Dorsey (independent)


In a shock election result, Clinton's big victory doesn't happen and she's hamstrung by a minority in the legislature. Trying to pass law becomes nigh-impossible and by 2019 it's clear she has no confidence. The caretaker government under Kaine does little better and the lib-left fragments, leaving Sanders unable to win when facing the dual threat of 'scary left' and a resurgent Trump's slogan of Get MAGA Done.

Trump, however, has made few friends in the party in the last four years and makes little use of the Republican majority, being a crass and undisciplined figure. His lavish parties while America still reels from covid deaths and economic downturn craters his popularity, and knives are out once he puts forward an accused rapist for Supreme Court: now his party can impeach him. And Gabbard, his turncoat running mate, seems manageable and can--

OH SHIT SHE'S TERRIBLE AND MAKING EVERYTHING WORSE.

Democrats now dominate the polls and win big in the midterms, impeaching Gabbard. Now her fill-in-blanks choice of a Veep, awkward wealthy STEM guy Dorsey, is not even talking a good fight and tries to use culture wars, badly, as his last hope to entrench himself for 2024's election. People wonder if he'll still be president  in 2024.
 
There's Always a Bigger Apple

List of Presidents of the United States

1933–1945: Robert La Follette Jr. (Republican)

1932 [with Hiram Johnson] def. James Farley (Recovery), John Nance Garner (Democratic), Graham Stokes (Socialist)
1936 (endorsed by Labor) [with Hiram Johnson] def. Hugo Black (Democratic)
1940 (endorsed by Labor) [with Harold Ickes] def. Cordell Hull (Democratic)

1945–1950: Cordell Hull (Democratic)
1944 (endorsed by Labor) [with Frank Murphy] def. Edward Martin (Republican/Liberal), Charles Francis Adams III (Independent)
1948 [with Lyndon Baines Johnson] def. Charles Francis Adams III (Republican/Liberal), Jasper McLevy (Socialist)

1950–1953: Lyndon Baines Johnson (Democratic)
1953–1965: Joseph Clark (Democratic)

1952 [with Estes Kefauver] def. James Duff (Republican), Paul Douglas (Liberal)
1956 (endorsed by Liberal) [with Estes Kefauver] def. Prescott Bush (Republican), Archibald Roosevelt (Taxpayers)
1960 (endorsed by Liberal) [with Estes Kefauver] def. James Mitchell (Republican), Martin Dies Jr. (Citizens)

1965–1973: Clifford Case (Republican until 1969, then Liberal)
1964 (endorsed by Liberal) [with John Sherman Cooper] def. Foster Furcolo (Democratic/Civil Service), Frank Meyer (Conservative)
1968 [with Margaret Chase Smith] def. John Connally (Democratic/Civil Service), Norris Cotton (Republican/Conservative)

1973–1977: Foster Furcolo (Democratic)
1972 [with Terry Sanford] def. Norris Cotton (Republican), Wilbur Hobby (Liberal), Max Rafferty (Conservative)
1977–1989: Ronald Reagan (Democratic)
1976 [with Mo Udall] def. Ted Kennedy (Liberal), John Heinz (Republican), Roman Hruska (Conservative)
1980 (endorsed by Republican) [with Howard Baker] def. Paul Simon (Unity)
1984 [with Howard Baker] def. Bella Abzug (Liberal), Paula Hawkins (Republican/Conservative)

1989–1993: Andrew Young (Democratic)
1988 [with Joe Biden] def. Buddy Cianci (Republican/Liberal)
1993–2001: Buddy Cianci (Republican)
1992 (endorsed by Liberal) [with Dan Evans] def. Andrew Young (Democratic)
1996 (endorsed by Liberal) [with Dan Evans] def. Dudley Dudley (Democratic)

2001–2013: Mitt Romney (Republican until 2007, then Independent)
2000 (endorsed by Reform) [with Tommy Thompson] def. James Tierney (Democratic/Working Families), Sal DiMasi (Liberal)
2004 (endorsed by Liberal and Independence) [with Tommy Thompson] def. Ken Salazar (Democratic/Working Families), Dick Mountjoy (Conservative)
2008 (endorsed by Republican and Independence) [with John McCain] def. Ron Kirk (Democratic/Working Families)

2013–2021: Dan Malloy (Democratic)
2012 (endorsed by Working Families) [with Mary Landrieu] def. Chris Daggett (Republican/Conservative), Luis Gutierrez (Independence)
2016 (endorsed by Working Families) [with Mary Landrieu] def. Kelly Ayotte (Republican/Conservative), Joe Manchin (Reform)

2021–0000: Boris Johnson (Democratic)
2020 [with Kyrsten Sinema] def. Mark McCloskey (Republican), Nina Turner (Socialist)
 
Last edited:
A challenge for anyone with the appropriate political knowledge background - it's occurred to me that one could probably do an analogue list swapping postwar US politics for India's or vice versa, with the Democrats as Congress and the Republicans as the BJP and their precursors. I've looked at it myself, but I don't have enough in-depth knowledge of postwar Indian politics to come up with decent analogues.
 
1979 - 1988: Margaret Thatcher (Conservative)
1979 (Majority) def. James Callaghan (Labour), David Steel (Liberal)
1983 (Majority) def. Michael Foot (Labour), David Steel - Roy Jenkins (Liberal - Social Democratic)
1987 (Majority) def. Neil Kinnock (Labour), David Steel - David Owen (Liberal - Social Democratic)

1988 - 1991: John Wakeham (Conservative Majority)
1991 - 1995: Neil Kinnock (Labour)

1991 (Majority) def. John Wakeham (Conservative), Paddy Ashdown (Liberal Democrat), David Owen (Social Democratic)
1993 (Majority) def. Norman Lamont (Conservative), Paddy Ashdown (Liberal Democrat)

1995 - 1997: John Prescott (Labour Majority)
1997 - 2000: Michael Howard (Conservative)

1997 (Majority) def. John Prescott (Labour), Paddy Ashdown (Liberal Democrat)
2000 - : Francis Maude (Conservative)
2001 (Majority) def. Hilary Armstrong (Labour), Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat)

- The 1987 General Election brings dividends to Labour, as they not only muscle out Alliance out as the main party of the Centre Left, but gain a surprise forty seats even if there in London they lose a fair portion of seats.

- With a stronger Labour Party, declining opinion polls, soft discontent within her own party, and a soft push from her husband and family, Margaret Thatcher after nine years bows out from the Prime Minister’s office once and for all. In the wake of Thatcher’s stepping down, the seemingly initial front runners are Michael Heseltine, Peter Walker, Nigel Lawson and Norman Tebbit. But in the end John Wakeham, Leader of the House of Commons is pushed forward as a compromise candidate, Lawson, Walker sit out, and in the eventual Tebbit, Heseltine, Wakeham leadership campaign, the seemingly moderate Wakeham wins easily on the second ballot.

- Despite gains, things aren’t sunshine and rainbows for Labour. Neil Kinnock still suffers from his depressive episode that occurred in 1987 to 1988 and there’s still a challenge from Tony Benn, but also a Deputy Leadership challenge by Eric Heffer and John Prescott to Roy Hattersley. Whilst Kinnock is fairly able to bat off Benn, Hattersley is a different story. The predominantly Soft Left nature of the 87’ Labour Party gains means Prescott gains significant support. Kinnock’s personal intervention in Hattersley’s favour in the end stops the abortive Prescott takeover, but Prescott’s over thirty percent support despite it means that Hattersley’s political sway has been diminished significantly.

-In the aftermath of the 1988 Labour Party Conference, John Smith, the Shadow Chancellor dies of a sudden heart attack. In the wake of this tragedy, Neil Kinnock, fresh of leadership victory and no longer kowtowing to Hattersley, decides to make Bryan Gould, a firm Kinnock ally and popular in the wake of the successful 87’ campaign, Shadow Chancellor. Whilst some of Gould’s more esoteric ideas are curtailed in the Shadow Chancellor position, his ability to articulate Labour’s new message for the 90s seems to resonate.

- The Alliance of Liberals and Social Democrats decides that the Alliance system is untenable and decides to organise a merger. Whilst support by a majority of Liberals and Social Democrats, David Owen and his ‘Owenite’ supporters disagree and form the Continuity Social Democrats. Whilst the new Social & Liberal Democrats, gain support under its new leadership of Paddy Ashdown, it struggles with problems over finances and faces near bankruptcy. Meanwhile the Owenite SDP is flushed with cash, but suffers from a lack of activists.

- Even with the new appearance of John Wakeham, the Conservative’s are still somewhat struggling. The implementation of Poll Tax in Scotland is deeply unpopular (and leads to a Scottish National Party gain in Glasgow Govan due to Labour’s waffling on the issue and poor campaigning, in the aftermath, Gould and Blunkett are able to levy that Labour campaign on ending the poll tax) and the potential implementation in England and Wales lingers over the heads of the Conservative’s.

-SDP surprise results in Epping Forest and the surprise gain in Richmond (I see Leon Brittan still being begrudgingly pushed to become European Commissioner) followed by David Alton defecting to the Social Democrats leads to Paddy Ashdown calling a truce in the wake of a disastrous Euro Elections for both the LibDems and SocDems and a electoral pact is called. In the wake of this, both parties are able to win certain by-elections and stave off the collapse of the centre parties.

- After wobbly polls throughout 88’ to 89’, Labour manages to stabilise somewhat with Kinnock gaining popularity in the wake of Conservative poll tax blunders and general ill ease towards the decades longer Conservative government. In the wake of this, Kinnock and the party continues to oversee the ‘purge’ of party members affiliated to Trotskyist groups like Militant or Socialist Organiser. Members of Parliament, Frank Field, Dave Nellist and Lawrence ‘Lol’ Duffy are deselected, which whilst seen as ensuring that the Labour Party is seen as not housing ‘radical leftists’ does lead to the problem of said MPs being able to run fairly independent election campaigns, which for the cases of Nellist and Duffy becomes an ongoing annoyance for Labour. Meanwhile the seeming imposition of Wesley Kerr, a journalist and friend of Peter Mandelson over veteran Leftist Campaigner Martha Osamor as the candidate for the Vauxhall by-election leads to even more ongoing tensions between Kinnock and the Labour Left.

- Whilst Poll Tax protests still occur, Wakeham backs down earlier which leads to the Conservative’s stopping their polling decline and gains from Centre Parties and Labour. Additionally Wakeham handles the infighting over the ERM somewhat better, by not forcing out Pro-European figures within the party (though takes a cautious approach on the ERM, despite attempts to be pushed further by Chancellor John Major). Still the Conservative’s aren’t the most popular party and discussions about when to call an election continue.

- As Labour gets closer to the election, tensions between Gould and Kinnock emerge over Labour’s Economic Policies for the upcoming election. Not helping matters is Gould’s emerging dispute with Peter Mandelson, who Kinnock still relies on for advice. Despite this, Gould’s economic proposals (including a National Investment Bank and investing emerging digital technologies) and a replacement of the Poll Tax (with a model that is still being tinkered after being lambasted as overly confusing) despite being criticised for it’s lack of fiscal Conservatism by some is popular amongst the Working and Middle Class voters who Labour needs to court to gain power again.

- Additionally the Prawn Cocktail Campaign still occurs, and Gould and Kinnock are able to stay somewhat on the same message fiscally, leading to a more consistent Labour Message on the economy come 1991.

- Despite this, Labour’s Polling suffers a surprise dip in the wake of the Gulf War, as Wakeham is able to capitalise on the ‘Khaki Vote’ as it were and Labour turmoil over support for the War. The Election is eventually called for the Summer of 1991, in a hope to see a repeat of 1987 as the polls see a spike in Conservative support due to it’s popularity admits the Gulf War and a Budget that includes Tax Cuts for the Working and Middle Class.

- The Labour Campaign starts off poorly, with Jack Cunningham being on holiday when the campaign is announced. Despite initially lagging behind, the campaign quickly gets back on track as Labour campaigns on the ongoing recession. It also helps that John Wakeham turns out to be a fairly dull campaigner and the Conservative’s find themselves attacked on three different sides as the three opposition parties all take chunks out of the Conservatives.

- With figures like Gould still in house as it were, the campaign is fought in somewhat a similar manner to the 87’ election. No big grandstanding events like the Sheffield rally occur, and the attacks on the economy and decline in living standards (as always the NHS and pensions appear) eventually manage to lead to a decline in Conservative support.

- In the end, the 1991 Election leads to Labour gaining a surprise majority (akin to otl I see much discussion of a ‘Progressive Coalition’ which doesn’t happen), albeit a slim majority of eight. Despite this, it’s still deemed a victory for Labour’s program (though it rapidly becomes apparent that LibDem support would be required on some bills, which we’ll get to in a little bit).

- In the wake of such an electoral defeat, John Wakeham resigns. The Conservatives head rightward as tends to happen in opposition, in the ensuing leadership election, Norman Lamont, the man who helped organise John Wakeham’s leadership campaign, surprisingly beats John Major and Michael Heseltine (who takes part yet again) to become leader on the back of a frustrated Thatcherite/Right Wing backbenchers.

- Labour see’s attempted capital flight upon taking office, which leads to additionally fears over Britain crashing out of the ERM. Gould rapidly tries to stabilise the pound and avoid crashing out (despite being a Eurosceptic, even Gould realises that crashing out of Exchange Rate Mechanism is bad) and is somewhat successful, with Gould devaluing the pound, though the devaluation is seen as unpopular by the press and public who remember Wilson.

- Despite keeping most of their seats (Labour regains Greenwhich despite the Lib Dem - SocDem pact), the Social Democrats under David Owen are seen as having done poorly in the election and tensions within the party emerge over the party’s future. Eventually in 1992 following Lord Sainsbury giving up funding following a string of poor local election results, Owen is offered a variety of roles in the private sector and diplomatic services. The party eventually collapses soon after, as Owen becomes distracted, David Alton and John Cartwright try to battle for the leadership which is messy and the party’s donations dry up. By the end of 1992, the party ceases to function, apart from occasional cranks who occupy the occasional Council seat under the party’s label.

- Despite initial unpopularity due to devaluation and additionally a series of riots that occur in late 1991 in British Cities like Bristol, which is blamed by the Conservative’s as Labour being soft on crime, by Early 1992, it seems that the Social Democratic model that Labour has embraced is somewhat popular. The National Investment Bank, abolition of poll tax and an increase of support for House Building all are fairly popular aims.

- Increased Devolution of power occurs, with a referendum for a Scottish Assembly seeing victory for pro-devolution forces (a similar referendum for Wales, see’s a narrow loss for pro-devolution forces in Wales), meanwhile in places like Yorkshire and London support for a regional ‘Super Council’ with an directly elected Mayor in place of an Assembly proves fairly popular.

- In the world of foreign policy, Kinnock and new Taoiseach Dick Spring (Irish Labour make enough gains to have Spring being Taoiseach as a price for coalition with Fine Gael) discuss overseeing further attempts at establishing peace in Northern Ireland. Whilst initial talks are stillborn, as Kinnock still supports the Unity via Consent policy which angers Loyalists, his relationship with Spring increases ties between Dublin and London after a long period of on and off relations under Thatcher. Meanwhile the Labour Government supports helping the UN in intervening in Yugoslavia, whilst a strong bulk of the party support intervention and humanitarian aid for Bosnia and Croatia, elements of the Left often state support for the Milošević regime to the embarrassment of Kinnock.

- Meanwhile the Conservative’s flail, after initially making hay over Labour being soft on crime, economic problems and Labour’s connections to Robert Maxwell, by the end of 1992 the party is riven by infighting and Lamont’s attempts to pursue an aggressively Eurosceptic approach doesn’t connect to an electoral who don’t care particularly much on the matter.

- A soft surge in support and relative stable economy (growth is sluggish but the nation is seeing itself leaving recession) Kinnock decides to see what the first ‘Regional’ Elections in early 93’ produce. Labour does fairly well, with either steady results or gains in a few places. As a result, Parliament is dissolved as Labour decides to gain a larger majority to ‘implement change’.

- Labour campaigns akin to 1966, campaigning on its good governance, the stable economy (to a point) and positive foreign policy in comparison to the reactionary Conservative’s. Conservative campaigning is rather poor and trying to attack Labour’s more popular schemes, not helping matters is a resurgent Liberal Democrats and Lamont’s style and presentation come off as aloof and forced in comparison to Kinnock. Additionally a series of scandals involving members of the Shadow Cabinet ranging from Financial scandals to affairs burn the Conservative’s, whilst Labour in comparison seems relatively clean (for now).

- Labour wins another majority, this time of close to thirty. Also Dave Nellist finally loses his seat much to the relief of Labour who have found him a perpetual annoyance. The Liberal Democrat’s also make some gains, mainly scalping former Social Democrats or Conservative MPs. The Conservative’s rather poor outcome see’s Lamont resigning soon after, as another leadership election occurs.

- Conservative Leadership election is a depressing affair, many see the possibility of another Labour Government in the late 90s, and many of the big guns from the Thatcher period decline, deciding to take up jobs in the private sector or in the case of John Major, pursue politics in either Europe or the new regional Councils. In the end the leadership election consists of Ken Clarke, Michael Howard and Peter Lilley. In the end, Howard following Lilley losing the first ballot, wins with the support of the Right of the Party over Clarke who is viewed as being hewing too close to the Centre. As a show of unity, Clarke is made Deputy Leader and Shadow Chancellor (it helps that both hold similar positions on Europe).

- Labour is initially rather please at having won the election, but tensions that have be dormant re-emerge. Bryan Gould and several other prominent Eurosceptics hope for a referendum joining the Maastricht Treaty, in the hopes that Britain can avoid it. Whilst this is initially pushed to the side before the election, it rears its ugly head in the aftermath of the election. Disagreements over Maastricht dogging the initial early cabinet of Kinnock, who refuses to call a referendum over it. As a result Gould steps down from Cabinet in early 1994 (whilst Gould and Kinnock I see having a successful partnership, Europe was always going to be the rock tied around there neck due to there disagreements on it).

- Despite disputes over Maastricht, Kinnock’s relationship with Europe is quite good, getting amicably with Jacques Delors and trying to integrate Britain within the European system. Meanwhile America under Tom Harkin and Kinnock continue intervening in former Yugoslavia and would provide support to the beleaguered Yeltsin regime in the wake of the 1993 Constitutional Crisis.

- Kinnock spends much of 1994 fending off scandals and a Labour Government that is beginning to strain under the pressure of ‘Unity’. Gould’s resignation coincides with scandals like whiz kid Education Secretary Tony Blair being caught taking dodgy political donations, Minister for Social Security, Michael Meacher is caught owning five separate houses and Peter Mandelson becomes involved dodgy deals with foreign businessmen. Meanwhile bickering resumes between the ‘modernisers’ who think the Kinnock government hasn’t gone far enough and the ‘old guard’ who mainly coalesce around John Prescott who thinks that Kinnock could do more to support Trade Unions.

- Kinnock enters another depressive episode, often described as his ‘bunker period’ in the latter half of 1994, often consulting his selection of advisers over the advice of cabinet. A brief bright spark of the period is the organisation of a ceasefire with the IRA, with the beginnings of the Irish Forum also being discussed in the same period.

- Kinnock is offered the President of the European Commission, and Kinnock seeing a way out of dealing with the issues of British politics, agrees. Kinnock announces his resignation and in early January 1995, Kinnock would leave office to take up the job as President of the European Commission.

- In the ensuing Leadership Contest, Secretary for Transport John Prescott becomes the front runner, having built a strong support group, Gordon Brown, Secretary for Trade and Industry runs as a Moderniser whilst Bryan Gould runs as the candidate supported by the ‘radical left’ and Ken Livingstone runs as the Campaign Group candidate. Meanwhile Chancellor Robin Cook declines, acting self depreciating over his chances.

- Prescott wins the leadership election on a platform of ‘returning to the Labour Roots’ which appeals to the Trade Unions and CLPs. Meanwhile in the Deputy Leadership, Ann Clwyd beats Bernie Grant, Bryan Gould and Margaret Beckett with some dubbing Clwyd as ‘Keeping the Spirit of Kinnock Alive’.

- Prescott is initially rather popular and his Populist ‘Man of the People’ image is allowed to resonate (it helps that Prescott would definitely have a different media team around him compared to Kinnock). Prescott also reshuffles his cabinet, with a consensus towards a “Democratic Socialist” ideal (or the Trade Union rooted ideal of that), though stuff like renationalisation of certain industries is down played to try avoid another attempt at capital flight.

- Primarily the brief Prescott Government is remembered for it’s reform of Trade Union laws, the further decentralisation of Britain with the creation of the ‘Northern Assembly’ or ‘Blunkengrad’ after the Secretary for the Environment and Local Government, David Blunkett, the creation of the Northern Ireland Forum alongside the ‘Antrim Agreement’ which would eventually see the creation of a proper Northern Irish Assembly by 2000, an end to the Yugoslav War (with support from President Sobchak) and some of the first legal protections for transgender people (I can see April Ashley sending a similar letter to Prescott and it coinciding with P v S and Cornwall County Council).

- Prescott’s initial ‘Man of the People’ image does progressively become worn away due to his gaffe prone behaviour and allegations of affairs being brought about in the media. The ever persistent allegations of corruption in the cabinet carry on, Jack Cunningham, Leader of the House becoming investigated for lobbying allegations becoming known as ‘Cunningate’.

- The Conservative’s meanwhile are also doing poorly in the polls, public opinion on politics is rather dismal, voter apathy is quite high and Michael Howard is consistently the butt of (at times quite anti-Semitic) jokes, whilst Prescott is portrayed as a working class slob.

- In the wake of general voter apathy, various smaller parties get a look in. James Goldsmith and his Referendum Party are briefly a thing, causing headaches for the Conservative’s at times. Meanwhile thanks to a more beneficial voting system at the devolved level, various Nationalist, Leftist and Environmentalist candidates make appearances.

- Prescott calls a snap election in 1997, after a series of regional elections that see Labour’s numbers being fairly static and so Prescott is confident in re-election.

- Labour’s confidence quickly falls away as the first waves of the 1997 - 1998 Financial Crisis hit the Stock Market and Labour’s Economic Competence is questioned, this occurs whilst Robin Cook’s long running affair is revealed in the papers. The election becomes less an election on whether people prefer the Tories, but more a referendum on Labour and Prescott.

- Whilst still being an awkward sod, Michael Howard is able to least present a challenge to Prescott. In the end, Referendum turns out to be a damp squib and the Conservative’s win a surprise, if somewhat slim majority of just under fifteen.

- Prescott tries to stay on as Labour Leader and there is certainly enough support for him to do that. But in the Winter of 1997, another bout of allegations over Prescott’s affairs and additional accusations of sexual assault reemerge. Depressed and frustrated, Prescott resigns soon after under internal pressure.

- The Labour Leadership election initially seems like a battle between the former Health Secretary Jack Straw, former Secretary for the Environment David Blunkett and former Secretary for Employment Michael Meacher. But it rapidly becomes apparent that Blunkett isn’t interested in the role and that in the wake of Prescott’s allegations, calls for nominating a female leader emerge. Initial speculation arises around Ann Clwyd, the deputy leader, though she decides to step down so she can focus on her work with the Kurds and Margaret Beckett, who decides to continue in Shadowing the foreign office. However Former Whip and Minister for Local Government Hilary Armstrong, connected with the Right of Party but also a loyal member of the last Kinnock’s and Prescott’s cabinet who is seen as being diligent and mostly successful in her briefs emerges as a candidate with support from Modernisers and also some Trade Unions.

- In the end, Armstrong wins due to gaining the establishment support over Straw (who’s occasional gaffes quickly dissolve his campaign) and Meacher who only narrowly loses to Armstrong after running a rather Left Wing Campaign. Meanwhile the Deputy Leadership contest is between Paul Boateng, Ian Davidson and Alan Simpson, Davidson managing to eke out a surprise victory against Boateng.

- Armstrong initially has strong National support, helped by Michael Howard dealing with a often rebellious backbench, the ramifications of the 1997 - 1998 Financial Crisis (whilst America and Britain weather it well though fall into recession, much of Asia, Russia and parts of Europe sink into deep recession) and additionally his Pro-European policies being unpopular with Eurosceptic elements of the British public.

- Armstrong’s popularity dips slightly following infighting within the party over the possibility of changing Clause Four (again) and any possible interventions in Kosovo. Meanwhile Simon Hughes wins the Liberal Democrat leadership election and his victory see’s a slow trickle of support for the Liberal Democrat’s from Labour and Conservative supporters.

- The 1999 European Elections and the 1999 - 2000 local elections are a disaster for the Conservatives, though Labour also does poorly as the Liberal Democrat’s, Greens and UKIP all see surges of support. In the wake of the disastrous results, Michael Howard quietly resigns. In the wake of such losses, the leadership election turns into a battle between ‘Modernisers’ like Francis Maude, the ‘Europhiles’ like Ken Clarke and ‘Thatcherites’ like Michael Portillo and Peter Lilley.

- In the end, Portillo’s campaign flames out when it’s discovered he had a same sex relationship with a former teacher, Lilley and Clarke suffer from a problem of age and being associated with the Thatcher and Wakeham years, meanwhile Maude runs an aggressive campaign that promises to uphold Conservative principles whilst making the party more up to date with the times and wins.

- Maude’s victory helps the Conservative polling decline somewhat, seen as charismatic, youthful, friendly with new President Ashcroft and in his first cabinet, see’s the first fruits of Britain leaving its brief recession behind. Additionally his implementation of Social Liberal policies (like the Civil Partnership bill that had been kicking around the backbench’s since the end of the Prescott Government) alongside being seen as being tough on the resurgent Trade Unions made Maude seen as a positive improvement over Howard.

- The 2001 election is initially a rather terse affair, with the main parties neck and neck and discussions of ‘coalition’ emerging. However Maude and his supporters have modernised the campaigning style of the party, whilst Labour is still battling like it’s the mid 90s. Whilst Conservatives.com is a bit of a joke, the use of aggressive marketing and new digital technologies in combination with a vigorous ground campaign, see’s the Conservative’s regain a lead.

- Even on election night, it’s still a nail biter. Discussions of a hung Parliament and coalitions loom large until around one in morning when Maude’s Majority quickly becomes apparent. In the end, Maude makes some small gains over Labour and gains a majority of just over twenty in the wake of a tense election.

- Maude is able to pursue his own unencumbered agenda, with a majority by his side and it seems a relatively peaceful world. Meanwhile Labour ponders it’s future yet again, as Hilary Armstrong states she’ll be resigning following the failure to secure government. It seems the leadership battle between Alan Johnson, Andrew Smith and Ian Davidson will help decide the future for the party going forward…
 
Forgot to mention that parts of this are inspired by stuff done or mentioned by @AlfieJ @AH Layard and others.

I feel a ‘Kinnock is somewhat Successful’ is an underrated idea, of course for it to happen, you do need to have pods in the late 80s that would permeate such an event as shown.
 
A challenge for anyone with the appropriate political knowledge background - it's occurred to me that one could probably do an analogue list swapping postwar US politics for India's or vice versa, with the Democrats as Congress and the Republicans as the BJP and their precursors. I've looked at it myself, but I don't have enough in-depth knowledge of postwar Indian politics to come up with decent analogues.
I don't know enough either, but based on the broad strokes of Indian politics, a Democrat-INC Republican-BJP analogue seems like it'd work very well
 
A challenge for anyone with the appropriate political knowledge background - it's occurred to me that one could probably do an analogue list swapping postwar US politics for India's or vice versa, with the Democrats as Congress and the Republicans as the BJP and their precursors. I've looked at it myself, but I don't have enough in-depth knowledge of postwar Indian politics to come up with decent analogues.
I once tried my hand at it, ehhh...

 
A challenge for anyone with the appropriate political knowledge background - it's occurred to me that one could probably do an analogue list swapping postwar US politics for India's or vice versa, with the Democrats as Congress and the Republicans as the BJP and their precursors. I've looked at it myself, but I don't have enough in-depth knowledge of postwar Indian politics to come up with decent analogues.
I do have a slightly silly idea, inspired a stray comparison I read somewhere, of Calhoun as Jinnah. So there was Seward as the first president of a divided United States, his son the defeater of Dixie and liberator of Southern California and then after a lot of events murdered by his Mormon bodyguards, some southern Populist as a Bhutto equivalent, and so on and so forth. But I found it hard to translate the all-important regional dynamics - I think as far as I went was a permanent San Francisco Committee of Vigilance ruling Northern California with an iron fist as an analogue of the West Bengali Marxists.
 
I thought about the India-US analogue briefly a while back (note the obvious FLG ‘72 influence and ASBs here). This is silly but the vague idea was RFK getting elected as President and pushing through civil rights and anti-poverty programmes to enormous resistance, leading to the increased use of federal powers and curbs in protest to suppress demonstrations in the South (the ‘Emergency’ parallel).

The 1972 election sees ‘National’ Democrats and Republicans join in nominating James Gavin as a compromise candidate who defeats RFK, while extreme conservatives with a spiritual revival gravitate to the Christian Values party (Jana Singh/BJP). Gavin struggles to hold this diverse coalition together (particularly with CV militias emerging in the South) and attempts to investigate the Kennedy administration and officials for abuses of power backfire drastically. RFK returns in 1976, but continued aggressive attempts to enforce legislation in the South lead to his assassination in 1979. Ted Kennedy picks up the Nehru-Gandhi parallel through the 1980s until he is assassinated too.

My Rao parallel was Lloyd Bentsen as a senior Democratic figure from the South prepared to undo the interventionist policies of the Kennedy dynasty.

My Vajpayee parallel was Bob Dole as someone senior, genuinely respected across the aisle, who is able to ‘normalise’ the CV in government. OTL Dole was not personally social conservative but was prepared to be cynical to retain his influence.

My Manmohan Singh parallel was Ben Bernanke - although I like the suggestion of Robert Reich better.

Struggled on the Modi parallel, had thought maybe Jerry Falwell Jr. (this was before the scandals) who in this ATL was controversial Governor of Virginia presiding over the ‘Richmond Riots‘ targeted at African-American communities. It would have to be someone fanatical, prepared to use violence, charismatic, and who had dedicated their life to the Right.

My Sonia Gandhi parallel (don’t laugh) was Arianna Stassinopoulos, who in this universe comes to America and marries Ted Kennedy instead of Michael Huffington, and goes on to become the ambitious ‘power behind the throne’ in the Democratic Party. Their son would be the hapless Rahul parallel.
 
Presidents of the Board of Administration for the Trusteeship of India in the World Socialist Commonwealth

1923-1932: Sydney Olivier (Socialist, then Independent)

1923: Selected by the Provisional Imperial Committee of the Revolutionary Worker's Parliament

1932-1935: Stafford Cripps (Independent--'Anticolonialist')
1932: Elected by General Conference of Indian Provincial Councils

1935-1948: Ernest Bevin (Independent--'Colonialist')
1935: Selected by the Committee for Trusteeships of the Worker's Parliament

1948-1955: Herbert Morrison (Independent--'Colonialist')
1948: Selected by the Committee for Trusteeships of the Worker's Parliament

1955-1961: Eric Arthur Blair (Independent--'Reform Colonialist')
1955: Selected by the Committee for Trusteeships of the Worker's Parliament

1961-1965: Enoch Powell (Independent--'Reform Colonialist')
1961: Selected by the Committee for Trusteeships of the Worker's Parliament

1965-1966: Michael Foot (Independent--'Anticolonialist')
1965: Selected by the Committee for Trusteeship Self-Government of the Worker's Parliament

Review: "The Life and Times of Jawaharlal 'Comrade' Nehru" by Shashi Tharoor, reviewed for the Bombay Chronicle

Jawaharlal Nehru, a polarizing figure among Indians, is the central subject of Shashi Tharoor's biography. Despite being a controversial figure, Nehru's autobiography and his famed "The Discovery of India" have left a lasting mark on the Indian nation and beyond, the latter in particular appealing to both his supporters and detractors.

Tharoor's book delves into Nehru's early life in an elite Allahabadi household, exploring his early interest in Theosophy and gradual embrace of moderate Indian nationalism. His sojourn in Britain, where he associated with the Fabian Society and its then radical reformist ideals, is detailed. Nehru's transformation into a radical nationalist upon returning to India and his pivotal role in the Congress's Home Rule stance during World War I are also covered, as well as his imprisonment during and after the war - until the British Revolution.

Following the British Revolution and India's transition to from a colony to a land under Socialist Commonwealth "trusteeship" little different, Nehru's leadership within the Left Congress faction willing to work with the Socialists becomes prominent. Tharoor discusses his controversial decision to join the Board of Administration and his proposal for India to become an independent socialist state within the World Commonwealth, with as in England a non-partisan Workers' Parliament overseeing an enlightened reformist bureaucracy.

The book discusses Nehru's shifting alliances within Congress, particularly his Left Congress's reunion with the Right, with the full support of Gandhi. Nehru's contributions to the non-cooperation movement and his efforts to secure self-rule promises for India are explored, including his success in securing votes to make his friend Stafford Cripps leader of the Indian Administration; and then an all-abiding failure to achieve any reform beyond the cosmetic which led Congress to turn against him - and the Worker's Parliament's choice of for Cripps' successor secured India's unfreedom.

Throughout the narrative, Tharoor underscores the paradoxical nature of Nehru's legacy – reviled as a collaborator by many fellow freedom fighters, yet valued for his socialist leanings gave him invaluable connections to the British establishment. Nehru's stint as Congress envoy to London, where he failed to influence colonial reform despite making quick friends with figures such as Harold Laski, is discussed, along with his eventual return to India and imprisonment during Morrison's nationalist crackdown.

In jail, Nehru wrote "The Discovery of India," a celebrated work that went beyond his ideology and instead spoke to a romantic secular nationalism. Tharoor delves into Nehru's role in securing the appointment of colonial reformist Eric Arthur Blair and his persistent protests against Blair's refusal to go beyond more than appointing more Indians as Land Trustees. When Blair resigned, he did much the same against Powell's strange mix of Indophilia and sincere colonialism.

The book culminates in the appointment of Nehru's friend Michael Foot, his handover of India to President Desai, and Nehru's final days, marked by his political maneuvering within the Indian National Congress. Tharoor argues that Nehru's actions in the Constituent Assembly, first of securing that the new legislature would be named the Indian National Congress in honor of the freedom struggle, and second that this renaming would quite incidentally mean the Congress would need to be dissolved, were strategic, aimed at securing his vision for a left-wing opposition and weaking the position of the liberal-conservatives he knew would govern India for the foreseeable future. He led a small Indian Radical Party until his death in 1972, fighting for a homegrown radical ideology which, though much akin to socialism, he never called that word, dirty as it is in modern India.

Tharoor's assessment of Nehru is nuanced, emphasizing his commitment to freedom fighting but critiquing that he was blind to the imperialism Tharoor regards as inherent to socialism. He suggests that the recent reassessments of Nehru's legacy following the election of his distant political successor Meira Kumar may lean too far towards sympathy. Despite Tharoor's sympathies for the Liberal Party, his biography offers a balanced and recommended read.
 
There's so much good stuff here--I'm a sucker for exploring Fabianism's unique failure states--but I think maybe my favourite detail is Orwell trying to do the Raj with an Indian face, which fits his semi-contradictory existing views so well, and the schizoid rhetoric of the regime he's working for in the bargain.

"England, it is true, in causing a social revolution in Hindustan was actuated only by the vilest interests, and was stupid in her manner of enforcing them. But that is not the question. The question is, can mankind fulfil her destiny without a fundamental revolution in the social state of Asia? If not, whatever may have been the crimes of England, she was the unconscious tool of history in bringing about that revolution."
--Karl Marx​
 
Great to see so many responses to my post!

I once tried my hand at it, ehhh...

I see, so you took a different path in analogising the later BJP. Interesting work.

I do have a slightly silly idea, inspired a stray comparison I read somewhere, of Calhoun as Jinnah. So there was Seward as the first president of a divided United States, his son the defeater of Dixie and liberator of Southern California and then after a lot of events murdered by his Mormon bodyguards, some southern Populist as a Bhutto equivalent, and so on and so forth. But I found it hard to translate the all-important regional dynamics - I think as far as I went was a permanent San Francisco Committee of Vigilance ruling Northern California with an iron fist as an analogue of the West Bengali Marxists.
Now this I like a lot. I had some vague ideas about trying to transpose it by suggesting a setup where the American colonies only became fully independent from Britain post-WW2 analogue, but that doesn't really make sense; your notion of shifting it to that era is intriguing.
I thought about the India-US analogue briefly a while back (note the obvious FLG ‘72 influence and ASBs here). This is silly but the vague idea was RFK getting elected as President and pushing through civil rights and anti-poverty programmes to enormous resistance, leading to the increased use of federal powers and curbs in protest to suppress demonstrations in the South (the ‘Emergency’ parallel).

The 1972 election sees ‘National’ Democrats and Republicans join in nominating James Gavin as a compromise candidate who defeats RFK, while extreme conservatives with a spiritual revival gravitate to the Christian Values party (Jana Singh/BJP). Gavin struggles to hold this diverse coalition together (particularly with CV militias emerging in the South) and attempts to investigate the Kennedy administration and officials for abuses of power backfire drastically. RFK returns in 1976, but continued aggressive attempts to enforce legislation in the South lead to his assassination in 1979. Ted Kennedy picks up the Nehru-Gandhi parallel through the 1980s until he is assassinated too.

My Rao parallel was Lloyd Bentsen as a senior Democratic figure from the South prepared to undo the interventionist policies of the Kennedy dynasty.

My Vajpayee parallel was Bob Dole as someone senior, genuinely respected across the aisle, who is able to ‘normalise’ the CV in government. OTL Dole was not personally social conservative but was prepared to be cynical to retain his influence.

My Manmohan Singh parallel was Ben Bernanke - although I like the suggestion of Robert Reich better.

Struggled on the Modi parallel, had thought maybe Jerry Falwell Jr. (this was before the scandals) who in this ATL was controversial Governor of Virginia presiding over the ‘Richmond Riots‘ targeted at African-American communities. It would have to be someone fanatical, prepared to use violence, charismatic, and who had dedicated their life to the Right.

My Sonia Gandhi parallel (don’t laugh) was Arianna Stassinopoulos, who in this universe comes to America and marries Ted Kennedy instead of Michael Huffington, and goes on to become the ambitious ‘power behind the throne’ in the Democratic Party. Their son would be the hapless Rahul parallel.
This is more like what I had envisaged, the trouble is that the national situations are so different. Still, the analogues are interesting.

Presidents of the Board of Administration for the Trusteeship of India in the World Socialist Commonwealth

1923-1932: Sydney Olivier (Socialist, then Independent)

1923: Selected by the Provisional Imperial Committee of the Revolutionary Worker's Parliament

1932-1935: Stafford Cripps (Independent--'Anticolonialist')
1932: Elected by General Conference of Indian Provincial Councils

1935-1948: Ernest Bevin (Independent--'Colonialist')
1935: Selected by the Committee for Trusteeships of the Worker's Parliament

1948-1955: Herbert Morrison (Independent--'Colonialist')
1948: Selected by the Committee for Trusteeships of the Worker's Parliament

1955-1961: Eric Arthur Blair (Independent--'Reform Colonialist')
1955: Selected by the Committee for Trusteeships of the Worker's Parliament

1961-1965: Enoch Powell (Independent--'Reform Colonialist')
1961: Selected by the Committee for Trusteeships of the Worker's Parliament

1965-1966: Michael Foot (Independent--'Anticolonialist')
1965: Selected by the Committee for Trusteeship Self-Government of the Worker's Parliament

Review: "The Life and Times of Jawaharlal 'Comrade' Nehru" by Shashi Tharoor, reviewed for the Bombay Chronicle

Jawaharlal Nehru, a polarizing figure among Indians, is the central subject of Shashi Tharoor's biography. Despite being a controversial figure, Nehru's autobiography and his famed "The Discovery of India" have left a lasting mark on the Indian nation and beyond, the latter in particular appealing to both his supporters and detractors.

Tharoor's book delves into Nehru's early life in an elite Allahabadi household, exploring his early interest in Theosophy and gradual embrace of moderate Indian nationalism. His sojourn in Britain, where he associated with the Fabian Society and its then radical reformist ideals, is detailed. Nehru's transformation into a radical nationalist upon returning to India and his pivotal role in the Congress's Home Rule stance during World War I are also covered, as well as his imprisonment during and after the war - until the British Revolution.

Following the British Revolution and India's transition to from a colony to a land under Socialist Commonwealth "trusteeship" little different, Nehru's leadership within the Left Congress faction willing to work with the Socialists becomes prominent. Tharoor discusses his controversial decision to join the Board of Administration and his proposal for India to become an independent socialist state within the World Commonwealth, with as in England a non-partisan Workers' Parliament overseeing an enlightened reformist bureaucracy.

The book discusses Nehru's shifting alliances within Congress, particularly his Left Congress's reunion with the Right, with the full support of Gandhi. Nehru's contributions to the non-cooperation movement and his efforts to secure self-rule promises for India are explored, including his success in securing votes to make his friend Stafford Cripps leader of the Indian Administration; and then an all-abiding failure to achieve any reform beyond the cosmetic which led Congress to turn against him - and the Worker's Parliament's choice of for Cripps' successor secured India's unfreedom.

Throughout the narrative, Tharoor underscores the paradoxical nature of Nehru's legacy – reviled as a collaborator by many fellow freedom fighters, yet valued for his socialist leanings gave him invaluable connections to the British establishment. Nehru's stint as Congress envoy to London, where he failed to influence colonial reform despite making quick friends with figures such as Harold Laski, is discussed, along with his eventual return to India and imprisonment during Morrison's nationalist crackdown.

In jail, Nehru wrote "The Discovery of India," a celebrated work that went beyond his ideology and instead spoke to a romantic secular nationalism. Tharoor delves into Nehru's role in securing the appointment of colonial reformist Eric Arthur Blair and his persistent protests against Blair's refusal to go beyond more than appointing more Indians as Land Trustees. When Blair resigned, he did much the same against Powell's strange mix of Indophilia and sincere colonialism.

The book culminates in the appointment of Nehru's friend Michael Foot, his handover of India to President Desai, and Nehru's final days, marked by his political maneuvering within the Indian National Congress. Tharoor argues that Nehru's actions in the Constituent Assembly, first of securing that the new legislature would be named the Indian National Congress in honor of the freedom struggle, and second that this renaming would quite incidentally mean the Congress would need to be dissolved, were strategic, aimed at securing his vision for a left-wing opposition and weaking the position of the liberal-conservatives he knew would govern India for the foreseeable future. He led a small Indian Radical Party until his death in 1972, fighting for a homegrown radical ideology which, though much akin to socialism, he never called that word, dirty as it is in modern India.

Tharoor's assessment of Nehru is nuanced, emphasizing his commitment to freedom fighting but critiquing that he was blind to the imperialism Tharoor regards as inherent to socialism. He suggests that the recent reassessments of Nehru's legacy following the election of his distant political successor Meira Kumar may lean too far towards sympathy. Despite Tharoor's sympathies for the Liberal Party, his biography offers a balanced and recommended read.
Not directly related to the previous discussion, but this is also fascinating. It reminds me of my first thoughts when I cottoned on to where EdT was going in "Fight and Be Right". It seems so obvious when you see it. Well, obviously a Soviet-analogue Britain would also include the British Empire as SSR-equivalents; it's not as if Lenin decolonised Kazakhstan, is it? But that's not to say that something like what you suggest here wouldn't go on to happen (in fact I think Ed even implies an interviewee of 'Benny Moss' thinks it will happen in "The World of Fight and Be Right", though I can't remember the details).
 
There's so much good stuff here--I'm a sucker for exploring Fabianism's unique failure states--but I think maybe my favourite detail is Orwell trying to do the Raj with an Indian face, which fits his semi-contradictory existing views so well, and the schizoid rhetoric of the regime he's working for in the bargain.

"England, it is true, in causing a social revolution in Hindustan was actuated only by the vilest interests, and was stupid in her manner of enforcing them. But that is not the question. The question is, can mankind fulfil her destiny without a fundamental revolution in the social state of Asia? If not, whatever may have been the crimes of England, she was the unconscious tool of history in bringing about that revolution."
--Karl Marx​
Yes, I was sorely tempted to include that quote somewhere in the review. To be completely fair to Marx, he supported the Indian Mutiny when the general European reaction was revulsion at what they saw as race war - so he was probably less racist than the norm.

I couldn't help but include Orwell - I recall reading distantly a timeline on the Old Country (I think it was 1984 happens, but only in Britain) with Orwell the last viceroy of India. Combined with learning that Orwell really did believe in the White Man's Burden But Socialist, well.

Not directly related to the previous discussion, but this is also fascinating. It reminds me of my first thoughts when I cottoned on to where EdT was going in "Fight and Be Right". It seems so obvious when you see it. Well, obviously a Soviet-analogue Britain would also include the British Empire as SSR-equivalents; it's not as if Lenin decolonised Kazakhstan, is it? But that's not to say that something like what you suggest here wouldn't go on to happen (in fact I think Ed even implies an interviewee of 'Benny Moss' thinks it will happen in "The World of Fight and Be Right", though I can't remember the details).
I think Fight and Be Right's socialist Britain is supposed to be a Home Rule All Round Britain or an Imperial Federation, or something along those lines, turned into a socialist state, and yeah in that context the British Empire as SSR-equivalents makes sense as an extension of that.

I'm going here for Fabianism writ large. Fabian imperialists spoke of ruling colonies as "trusts" to be "exploited for the common good" within the "Socialist Commonwealth", and they viewed empires as the next polity beyond the nation-state. I think in that context, they would just be honest imperialists.
 
"England, it is true, in causing a social revolution in Hindustan was actuated only by the vilest interests, and was stupid in her manner of enforcing them. But that is not the question. The question is, can mankind fulfil her destiny without a fundamental revolution in the social state of Asia? If not, whatever may have been the crimes of England, she was the unconscious tool of history in bringing about that revolution."
--Karl Marx​
This is also IMO what happened in Northern Kurdistan. Kemalist Turkey’s successful consolidation of control over the Kurdish areas by force came paired with the weakening of the clans, and introduction of a modern education system and just a general introduction of modernity to the peasantry, which a couple generations later became the founders of the modern Kurdish movement.

Even at the last election, the districts with the highest vote for the CHP’s candidate were either Kurdish areas that saw the least amount of cultural penetration by the AKP government, the communist Alevis in Dersim, the left-wing Arab Alawaites in Southern Hatay, and the Atheist Azeri Turks in Ardahan, and only after them do you get supposed Kemalist strongholds like Ankara’s Çankaya, and Istanbul’s Kadiköy and Beşiktaş, and even the latter two have a particularly strong anti-statist left-wing community.
 
Why unfortunately?
She is against a progressive primary challenge by Pervez Agwan against Lizzie Fletcher (who is notoriously pro-oil and moderate) on the grounds of abortion, when... Agwan is hugely pro-choice, and even says so on his campaign website. (Also Fletcher is a AIPAC endorsee).

She's like very supportive of the Democratic establishment (and honestly a lot of her support for Fletcher was probably her trying to gain support, she's a wannabe careerist).

 
Back
Top