• 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

England-France analogue, unrealistically close for pop AH purposes

List of Heads of State of England

Old Regime (Stuart Kings of England, Scotland and Ireland)

1603-1628: James I
1628-1670: Henry IX
1670-1739: Henry X (grandson of the above)
1739-1770: Henry XI
1770-1789: Henry XII

Great English Upheaval of 1789

Stuart Kings of the English, Scotch and Irish

1789-1792: Henry XII† (de jure; executed)
1792-1795: Henry XIII (de jure)

First Commonwealth of England (NB the term 'England' as used by the republican regimes refers to the whole British Isles)

1795-1795: The Lord President of the English Council of State (rotating position; de facto from 1792)
1795-1799: The People's Witenegemot (collective office)
1799-1804: The Lords Protector (collective office; in practice dominated by the First Lord Protector, Arthur Wellesley)

First Bretwaldate of England (House of Wellesley)

1804-1814: Arthur II (a conceit supposing a succession from the legendary King Arthur; briefly exiled to the Channel Islands following his defeat)

First Stuart Restoration (Kings of England, Scotland and Ireland)

1814-1815: Henry XIV (fled following Wellesley's escape from Jersey)

First Bretwaldate of England, restored (House of Wellesley)

1815-1815: Arthur II (defeated following the Hundred Days and exiled to Mauritius)

Second Stuart Restoration (Kings of England, Scotland and Ireland)

1815-1824: Henry XIV (restored)
1824-1830: Charles II
1830-1830: Henry XV followed by Edward VII (brief, disputed)

May Day Upheaval of 1830

May Day Kingdom, House of York (Kings of the English)

1830-1848: Henry Benedict (The Burgher King)

Mad March Upheaval of 1848

Second Commonwealth of England

1848-1848: various (unstable government)
1848-1852: Arthur Wellesley-Pole

Second Bretwaldate of England (House of Wellesley)

1852-1870: Arthur III (captured by Dietsch forces during the Anglo-Dietsch War and the kingdom fell)

(In 1870 the 'Liberty of London' briefly ruled in the capital surrounded by Dietsch forces)

Third Commonwealth of England

1870-1940: Presidents of the Commonwealth

(Under Dietsch occupation)

English State a.k.a. 'Buxton England', Captain of State

1940-1944: H. H. Kitchener

Fourth Commonwealth of England

1944-1959: Presidents of the Commonwealth

Fifth Commonwealth of England

1959-????: Presidents of the Commonwealth (executive)
 
DENNIS THE MENACE

1974-1981: Gerald R. Ford (Republican) [1]
'76 (with Robert Dole) def. Mo Udall (Democratic)
1981-1985: Robert Dole (Republican) [2]
'80 (with Howard Callaway) def. Ted Kennedy (Democratic)
1985-1993: Dennis Kucinich (Democratic) [3]
'84 (with Ernest Hollings) def. Robert Dole (Republican)
'88 (with Elizabeth Holtzman [4]) def. Barry Goldwater Jr. (Republican) [6], Pat Buchanan (Independent), John B. Anderson (Independent), Jesse Jackson (PUSH) [5]

1993-: James Baker (Republican) [7]
'92 (with Dick Thornburgh) def. Bill Clinton (Democratic), Pat Buchanan (People's), Jesse Jackson (PUSH)

[1]: "FORD TO CITY: DROP DEAD" was the watchword of the Republican Party after Nixon. As the fiscal crisis of the '70s failed to go away by itself, as municipal budgets trembled in the grip of white flight and urban decay and inflation, as Republican policymakers from the growing suburbs of California and ever-more-Republican Southern metropolitan areas like Houston and Atlanta started to outright ignore the cities, indeed to see their unionized workforces as active generators of inflation, the industrial cities of the Steel Belt - Pittsburgh, Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee, and perhaps most of all Cleveland - became some of the staunchest opponents of the Ford administration.
In particular, Cleveland's boy mayor Dennis Kucinich became a national symbol. An uncompromising zealot for the interests of his working-class base in the white-ethnic neighborhoods of the West Side, Kucinich alienated the establishment at home with his opprobrium and unrepentant cronyism, but made up for it in the national press, who painted him as David fighting the federal Goliath - an image Kucinich spent quite a bit of effort actively seeking. His narrow victory in 1979 inspired a course-correction - in particular, from active hostility to the interests of Black communities on the East Side to wary clientelism - but not a change in approach.

[2] Ted Kennedy was supposed to end twelve years of Republican administration, but Ted was flighty, Hollywood, liberal, and covered in scandal, perhaps most significantly rumors that his team had approached General Secretary Gromyko to try to get his cooperation in the Presidential race. It was - by a couple thousand votes in Ford's native Michigan - not enough. Bob Dole continued Fordonomics - and with Paul Volcker in the Federal Reserve chairmanship, the hammer continued to come down on inflation and its causes - but also took a more aggressive turn in foreign policy, including committing American military aid to Central America. As "El Salvador Is Spanish For Vietnam" bumper stickers proliferated, the Supreme Court struck down the War Powers Act as unconstitutional, and the worst economic crisis since the Depression came into another year, the time was right for a 39-year-old Governor of Ohio to take the stage.

[3] The four-foot-nine son of a Croatian-American truck driver, the attack dog who turned his invective on anyone who seemed to oppose him, the unabashed candidate of the working-class neighborhoods of the "Rust Belt" who somehow got a new image as the darling of the coastal Democrats who appreciated his championing of unions and inveterate opposition to wars of choice - he was elected President in a landslide, practically locking Dole out of the country east of the Mississippi, in part due to his ability to - just barely - appeal to both Anglo Southern Democrats (in part thanks to his running mate) and Black voters who identified with his narrative of fighting the powerful and winning.
His Presidency would be more polarizing. On the positive side - an end to the Great Fumble, arguably the end of the Cold War, universal healthcare, an administration more responsive to gay rights than any beforehand, and economic revitalization for industrial cities from Portland, Maine to Omaha, Nebraska. On the other side, there was constant fighting between Kucinich and... well, everyone else except his loyalists; his cuts to military spending and 'withdrawal' from the world produced conniptions on the right, disruptions in domestic industries, and mixed results in places like Korea and Argentina, where formerly American-supported military regimes responded to losing their sponsor by dialing up bloody repression; his barely-even-tacit support for the IRA led to blood on the streets of Belfast and a decisive end to the "special relationship"; a strong nativist trend, including immigration restrictionism and an active protectionism that put the hammer down on cities from Seattle to Houston; an administration that pursued clientelist projects for local allies at the expense of civil rights bills; corruption throughout the federal government, including in the new National Health Administration; open political interference with the judiciary and Federal Reserve; and dozens of other controversies and scandals, major and minor. The Senate tried to impeach Kucinich twice, and failed twice, the second time by only a handful of votes.

[4] Another issue was the Vice President. A craggy old Southern conservative, his support had been vital to getting the nomination and perhaps to winning the Presidency, but by 1988 he was a liability, alienating liberals in general and Jewish, Black, and woman voters in specific. Kucinich responded by dropping him in favor of a liberal Jewish woman, and more than that, another tribune of urban reformism against the machine. It helped, but in hindsight wasn't as significant as it seemed.

[5] Mayor Jesse Jackson's molding of People United to Save Humanity into a new political party, combining urban liberals with feminist, Black, and immigrant-rights movements to build a "Rainbow Coalition", was widely viewed as the death knell for the Kucinich administration. It didn't quite take off, between Jackson's own anti-Semitic comments and many community leaders supporting a Kucinich administration they could do business with over a vanity campaign that might allow Goldwater in.

[6] But Goldwater himself had his own issues. For one, he was too Sun Belt, too WASPish (even with his grandfather's Judaism), and too affluent to challenge Kucinich in his home territory, where he was still genuinely personally popular. For another, he had his own discontents to deal with - on his left, liberal Republicans flocked to the independent candidacy of former House Majority Leader John B. Anderson, while on the right, Pat Buchanan was able to triangulate a conservative answer to Kucinich's white-ethnic grievance politics. It was a close-run thing the whole way through, but - despite the worst popular-vote margin since Wilson - Kucinich won another term.

[7] Second verse, same as the first. Kucinich was hardly personally corrupt, and he had no patience for the Daley machine or its ilk - but where local politicians lent him their loyalty, he would do what he could for them. Meanwhile, the Soviet Union had its own problems - the Cold War was as important to its legitimacy as it was to Washington, perhaps more so, and as much as Kucinich had no interest in war with them he had less than no desire to maintain the Russian position over Poland or Czechoslovakia or even Ukraine and Armenia. The Pinatubo Revolution and Kucinich's support for new President Ninoy Aquino seemed to help validate the Kucinich Doctrine, but at the same time the War of the Two Kims and the blood on the streets of Gwangju seemed a counterexample.
At the same time, though, employment was up, and so were wages, even if many consumers balked at the high cost of imported goods between tariffs and the inflating dollar. New housing and new funding seemed to be giving decaying industrial cities like Cleveland, the crown jewel of the administration, a new lease on life. Ignore the rampant segregation in the new developments (after all, that was on the people who chose the neighborhoods they wanted to live in, wasn't it?), the growing underclass of undocumented immigrants, the growing militancy of Western ranchers who refused to accept the Kucinich administration's environmentalist limits or its 'malign neglect', the frosty relations with Canada and Mexico. None of that mattered.
But in 1992, something else did matter. As Buddy Cianci stormed to the Republican nomination as "Kucinich in blue", as Liz Holtzman fought Coleman Young and Mario Cuomo and Bill Clinton for the right to carry the legacy forward for a third term, the full effects of Kucinich-era trade policy came home. Balance-of-payments crises in France, West Germany, and Japan - "another Axis attack", Kucinich groused - led to falling exports, and that punched a hole in the housing market right when it was needed least, and that spread out through the rest of the economy. Into the new crisis stepped a business Republican from Texas, someone who could act as the administrator Kucinich never could have been, who could reassure the markets and reform institutions and bring a bright new day. "Dennis the Menace" was out - and Baker, the gray tribune of austerity and a free market, was in.
 
[5] O'Neill elected to stay on until the Republicans could pick a replacement, but that proved more difficult than expected - Bob Michel, Trent Lott, and Newt Gingrich feuded over the caucus nomination, allowing Silvio Conte to squeeze through on a platform of solidifying the Cianci legacy among white ethnic voters.

the Cianci Boys will have their revenge...

Say, how's that one New York prosecutor, Rudy something doing?

His narrow victory in 1979 inspired a course-correction - in particular, from active hostility to the interests of Black communities on the East Side to wary clientelism - but not a change in approach.

Ah, that sounds a little grim.

On the other side, there was constant fighting between Kucinich and... well, everyone else except his loyalists; his cuts to military spending and 'withdrawal' from the world produced conniptions on the right, disruptions in domestic industries, and mixed results in places like Korea and Argentina, where formerly American-supported military regimes responded to losing their sponsor by dialing up bloody repression

How was the relationship between Kucinich's US and Yugoslavia?

I suppose President Kucinich - and the Democrats as a whole - aren't liked too much by immigrants (and war refugees), are they?
 
the Cianci Boys will have their revenge...

Say, how's that one New York prosecutor, Rudy something doing?
Ford appointed Rudy US Attorney from the get-go, and Cianci considered drafting him for the Roy Cohn Justice Department but ultimately kept him in SDNY, which saved his career when things went south. Rudy then ran for an outer-boroughs Congress seat, where he became a vocal and notable continuity Ciancite; he is currently the candidate for the Senate seat held by Bess Myerson, who replaced Moynihan when he was appointed SecState.

How was the relationship between Kucinich's US and Yugoslavia?
Complicated. Kucinich was opposed to bombing Serbia IOTL, but supported US peacekeeping efforts; Dole, on the other hand, was an active and enthusiastic interventionist IOTL. I imagine Kucinich probably tried to negotiate a planned and peaceful dissolution, with the support and cooperation of diaspora organizations in the US; that said, I have doubts about the likelihood of success there. Moreover, the fact of his Croatian heritage is probably pretty polarizing.
I suppose President Kucinich - and the Democrats as a whole - aren't liked too much by immigrants (and war refugees), are they?
It depends. European immigrants, especially from Ireland and Eastern Europe, tend to like him; the diaspora communities many of them joined fullthroatedly supported him, though some of them look askance at his anti-interventionism, diplomatic support of the IRA (Ireland, Northern and Republic, is not doing too well as of 1993, and a lot of that can be laid at his feet - that said, for at least some Irish immigrants, support for the IRA not considered a bad thing), or role in the financial crisis. Others, especially from Latin America and East Asia, not so much - that said, immigrants in the United States are by definition those who were not stopped by his immigration restrictions.
 
1985-1993: Dennis Kucinich (Democratic) [3]
'84 (with Ernest Hollings) def. Robert Dole (Republican)
'88 (with Elizabeth Holtzman [4]) def. Barry Goldwater Jr. (Republican) [6], Pat Buchanan (Independent), John B. Anderson (Independent), Jesse Jackson (PUSH) [5]



[6] But Goldwater himself had his own issues. For one, he was too Sun Belt, too WASPish (even with his grandfather's Judaism), and too affluent to challenge Kucinich in his home territory, where he was still genuinely personally popular. For another, he had his own discontents to deal with - on his left, liberal Republicans flocked to the independent candidacy of former House Majority Leader John B. Anderson, while on the right, Pat Buchanan was able to triangulate a conservative answer to Kucinich's white-ethnic grievance politics. It was a close-run thing the whole way through, but - despite the worst popular-vote margin since Wilson - Kucinich won another term.
Barry Jr. continues to be my fav New Right candidate to piss off the right - he makes for such a more interesting Jack Kemp than Jack Kemp.
 
Hartford Academics Poll: Top 10 Presidents of the United States in the 20th Century

Sister list to this one of British PMs in the 20th Century
  1. Stuart Symington – Democrat (1961-1973)
  2. Nelson Rockefeller – Republican (1973-1979)
  3. Harold Stassen – Republican (1949-1953)
  4. Albert J. Beveridge – Republican (1913-1921)
  5. Gary Hart – Democratic (1985-1993)
  6. Wendell Willkie – Democratic (1941-1945)
  7. Earl Warren – Republican (1953-1961)
  8. James M. Cox – Democratic (1921-1929)
  9. William Jennings Bryan – Democratic (1901-1905)
  10. James S. Sherman – Republican (1905-1912)
[1] Finest President of the United States in the 20th Century, as agreed upon by the nation’s finest academics. Stuart Symington presided over some of the biggest changes in the nation’s history. Uniquely, the only President to serve more than two term, and for many Americans it wasn’t enough. Symington rarely appears out of the top 5 in any kind of list. It fell to him to guide the nation as the Cold War reached its zenith, and America finally overtook Britain as leader of the West against the Soviets, drawing a line in the sand that neither China nor Moscow could cross. At home, after years of unrest and back and forth, Symington overturned the legacy of segregation and Jim Crow with the ’63 Civil Right Bill, the 24th Amendment that broke voting discrimination, as well as his ‘Greater Union’ policies that overhauled healthcare, public works, market regulation and military funding. The modern United States has much owed to the Mighty Missourian.

[2] Rockefeller. Not merely the name of the 38th President, but a word that has defined the modern Republican Party since his election. New York’s favourite son, Rocky had been a Republican insider for much of his early life, before being propelled to Vice Presidency in the turbulent late 50’s before spending Symington’s Presidency as a Senator for New York. From this position, Rockefeller marshalled the forces of the Eastern Republicans behind the President’s agenda, making earning the irritation of the Conservative Coalition in the Senate. As President, he then ensure the longevity to the best of Symington’s work, reforming healthcare and welfare with national requirements before aid was give, housing programs and overseeing the Abortion Reform Act 1977. In foreign affairs, Rockefeller carried on American primacy in the Cold War: his Vice President would famously be charged to ensure détente with China, setting it off against Moscow; while the President signed the Vancouver Agreement with Prime Ministers Prior (UK), Hayden (Australia) and MacDonald (Canada) of the Commonwealth once more making official cooperation between the two against the Warsaw Pact. Though expected to follow through and match his predecessor’s achievement of a third term in office, tensions within a resurging conservative movement began to push back, and there was talk of a new amendment to prevent Presidential third terms, but before Rockefeller could respond he was struck down by a heart attack. The image of Rocky slumped over his desk, working for the nation to the end, is assured to grant him posterity.

[3] Before there was Rockefeller and Symington, there was Stassen. America of the late 1940s was a very troubled nation, struggling to come to terms with its position in the world post-WW2 and the vast social/economic changes it had undergone as a result. Polarisation was greater than ever, more than merely Republican vs Democrat but farm vs factory; North vs South; Atlantic vs Pacific; black vs white; labour vs business etc. Stassen’s time as President was one largely of moderate conservativism, typical of what would be known as Rockefeller Republicans, though tragedy would intervene to make Stassen the lesser of the two men in History’s eyes. Struggling with the fractious state of the nation and Congress for his first term, Stassen was able to bind a kind of moderate coalition together from his Mid-West basis, but they forced him to compromise on the interventionist foreign policy he had hoped to push, especially in Asia and West Europe. However the famous crux came in 1952 with crises in the West Pacific. The Quasis-War that ensued with the Japanese Empire, the Soviet-Manchu, Wang Jingwei and the Philippines was not Stassen’s fault by any stretch, but as the increased attacks on American civilian and military shipping increased, he increasingly became blamed by the public, culminating in his assassination after winning a narrow victory. Much of what followed in the decade has given Stassen the image of a kind of prophet for many Republicans that followed, a man who had all the solutions to problems to come, he had just come too early and to a Party that wasn’t ready for him yet…

[4] If the 20th Century was going to belong to any country, then it would belong to America. That was the basis of the everything Albert Beveridge did as President, whether dialling up the Progressive Movements hold on the reins of power to an eleven, or taking the nation head first into the First World War.

These policies were as controversial when they were enacted as they are today, Beveridge had no trouble with a second Naval Bill to Sherman’s first, and adding an Army Bill to the Congressional agenda. To many, this put America on collision course for the storm brewing in Europe though initially these extended arms of American power were sent to buttress the fledgling colonies and to support the Constitutionals in the Mexican Revolution before the first shot in Europe was fired. When the Great War did arrive, Beveridge was pro-Entente from the start and encouraged his Party and American business to get behind their war effort, naturally antagonizing the Central Powers who began making deals with Mexican rebels and influenced the German decision of unrestricted submarine warfare.

Despite the President’s confidence never once shaking throughout his tenure, confidence in him would fall into question by the 1916 election. One year into the American struggle, the allied war effort ran into deep trouble as US troops arrived on the Western front in time to take the brunt of the Verdun Offensive. The meat grinder that followed dominated the election, however a divided Democratic Party still meant that Beveridge swept the country. Eventually, the allies managed to cohere in 1917, and drove back on the Western Front, breaking through at Passchendaele and holding the German offensives to a standstill, the President consistently made sure that American troops did their part and got a fair share of the credit, himself crossing the Atlantic on General Wood’s invitation in time to see US Marines reach the Rhine in February 1918.

Victory brought its own trials however, and changes in government in both France and Britain meant Beveridge quickly began to form a rift with his former allies. Likewise at home, Beveridge was facing new enemies. During the War, Congress had been accept (if reluctant) to the need for allowing the Executive a massive increase in power to oversee its conduct, though many protested – one of the main critics by Democrats in 1916 were those similar to Lincoln had faced 50 years before – that the President had become a tyrant. Yet in Peace, Beveridge tried to hold on to much of his powers, particularly as regards the economy. The final years of Beveridge was marked by arguments on all front as now more and more deemed Progressivism and Imperialism had had its day in America.

[5] The last President of the Cold War came to office at a turbulent time. John Connally’s resignation was still raw and details of the financial scandals around him were still trickling out, and the split in the Republican Party went to the marrow. As a result, the former Senator from Colorado had his work cut out for him in uniting the country and getting the wavy economy back on track. Hartenomics became one of the defining words of the 1980s in America, as the President reengineered Keynesian policies of Symington and Rockefeller, boosting the power of labour unions and moving investments away from traditional industry, and towards the up and coming ones of the Microchip Age. By the end of his first tenure, Hart had the beginnings of what became ‘Digital Detroit’ as manufacturing in certain areas of the Rust Belt began to decline in favour of computers and the burgeoning internet to compete with Silicon Valley and Japan, and by the time Hart left office future giants Amazon and eBay would be based out of the city. Under Hart, inflation came under control (though not by enough to keep out of people’s minds) and GDP had an annual growth of 4%.

Foreign Affairs became a mixed bag, though dominated by his one major success: Ending the Cold War, and the collapse of the USSR. The new Soviet leadership were reform minded, and Hart eager to work with them, however, he had to tread carefully and as they faced crisis after crisis Soviet leadership kept pushing it back. ‘Bleeding Hart’, as Republicans derogatorily referred to the President and his attitude to the Russians, began outreach programmes to the Soviets which for a time seemed to work, until for the Central Committee it began to work too well. When Moscow tried to close down the American programmes active in the Soviet Union, the people on the streets reacted badly, as their patience finally ran out with the regime and took to the streets. The unrest soon spread to puppets of the Warsaw Pact in Warsaw, Gdansk, Budapest, Changchun, and Bucharest, and so the divided house couldn’t stand. In America, Hart was lauded for his tact and understanding of the Russian people even by the most hostile Republicans, which made Hart’s failings in Central Asia and the Middle East, and as his time in office wound down, this provided useful cover for the ongoing crisis inside the White House.

It was an open secret in the White House about Hart’s extramarital affairs from the beginning of his Presidency, however during the ’88 campaign, the first rumours began to leak to the press. They managed to be shrugged off as rumours by sore Republicans, however they never quite went away. The Washington Post gained confirmation of the President’s ongoing affair with Donna Rice in Summer 1992, but declined to print the evidence while the President remained in office, his popularity at the time being to great as he was on a high from shaking hands with the new ‘Democratic’ Russian Premier. Nevertheless, White House staff caught scent of the story and threatened legal action (whether this was with Hart’s approval remains unclear), which prompted the Post to react in self-defence and publish the story anyway. The whole episode was blown totally out proportion, and while Hart remained personally popular, polls declared that ‘the Administration’ was failing, with the main fallout from the scandal being the contamination of VP Mario Cuomo’s ticket to succeed Hart.

[6] For better and for worst, Wendell Willkie was not Albert Beveridge – is the epitaph by which most Americans remember the 34th President. Elected in 1941, while WW2 was less than a year old, Willkie was already out of his depth as an ardent interventionist elected on an isolationist platform and owed much of his political capitalist to his VP, David Walsh, who did his best to ensure the President kept this to this tack. Early on Willkie scored huge success with the Matsuoka-Hull Agreement that ended talk of war between Japan and America as a result of the Knox Administration’s embargos. But even then events conspired in the President’s favour in the worst possible way when German U-boats torpedoed USS Ranger.

America was at war, and Willkie, now vindicated moved the nation to a war footing and he was thrown onto the world stage with Joe Stalin and Britain’s J.R. Clynes. Sadly, this was an arena into which Willkie was rapidly outclassed in: conscious that Britain in skies of southern England, the Breton Redoubt, Norway and North Africa and Russia across the vast spaces of the Eastern Front were facing the brunt of the war, Willkie made concessions which prioritised Lend Lease (which the Democrats had been hoping to end) over supply America’s war effort. On some level this made sense, as the American armed forces were tiny compared to its allies and enemies, and needed time to build themselves up to a substantial force that act independently, but the President’s unwillingness to take risks and project American power frustrated many and for much of the war Americans, even in places when they would outnumber their allies, went severely underrepresented in High Command.

The fact was Willkie was an idealist, and it was to the post-war future that he was most keen to look forward to best personified in his Twenty Point Plan for Peace published after the Baghdad Conference with support from the Stalin and Morrison (Clynes’ successor). While mostly clarifying allied war aims, the Plan went further in calling for a United League of Nations which could arbitrate international disputes with out the need for violence. In this Willkie became the Father of the modern United Nations, however his good intentions and plans for the post-War world soon became compromised, as shortly before the 1944 election, the President suffered several heart attacks. Forced by doctors to remain in the US, Willkie had to leave more work to others until he was finally subdued by another heart attack and was succeeded by the dreaded isolationist Walsh.

[7] Out of the tragedy of Stassen’s death came Warren, which initially had many people groaning and little was expect to come from the effectively retired former California governor. Despite this Warren is largely said to have done a decent enough job given the turbulent period that he oversaw. At a time when the Civil Rights movement was getting its feet well and truly off the ground, Warren provided an impartial hand that oversaw the Truman Court ruling in Parks vs Montgomery, the deployment of federal troops in the Atlanta Crisis – events which began the end of segregation and Jim Crow, however the President would often drag his heels over civil rights as a price for his impartiality and Warren would be long out of power by the time it ran its course.

One of the excuses Warren had for his lack of urgency on Civil Rights were events across the Pacific. As the Japanese position in South East Asia began to collapse under its own weight, and China descended into civil war between Jingwei and Zhou, Warren initially withdrew from the conflict until he reengaged again to prevent the islands Taiwan and Hainan from falling into Communist hands or back into Japanese. The occupation of the islands would notoriously bloody as American troops fought CCP insurgents and guerrilla Japanese settlers for increasingly vague reasoning, in addition to the fight they were already engaged in the Philippines, which was at least in defence of a legitimate government from armed rebels. The news reel footage especially painted a poor picture and rumours of atrocities on both sides compelled international condemnation, nevertheless the regime change in Tokyo and American material power soon made a difference and as the decade turned resistance died down and V. K. Wellington Koo was inaugurated as President of 2nd Chinese Republic in Taipei. While this might have given some retrospective purpose to the Quasi War in Asia, Americans nevertheless held a sour taste in their mouth, and record low opinion polls predicted a complete wash out of Republicans, first in the midterms, and then is the Presidential election.

Ultimately, Warren’s term as President speaks for itself – good intentions and sound thinking, confounded by procrastination in the White House and events beyond its control.

[8] As recent as ten years ago, its possible that Cox might have been raised higher in this list, but as public and academic opinion of the United States in the 1920s had dropped, so to does the defining President of that decade. James M. Cox would be the last President of the Progressive Era, though few expected him to amount to much until his shock defeat of war hero Gen. Leonard Wood in 1920.

Cox’s campaign pledge to ‘return to prosperity’ hit exactly the right tone with the war weary public and to avoid a post-war slump taxes were cut and selective tariffs were increased which would work mostly through the entire decade. Though beneath the surface Cox’s America was a myriad of contradictions: it was anti-big business, yet began to roll back regulations and trust busting; campaigned for tougher action on crime, yet post-Volstead Act the White House still stocked liquor, and VP Carter Glass had financial links to moonshiners in his native Virginia; Cox was vocal in support for self-determination for the Philippines and anti-Imperialist, but endorsed legislation that restricted enfranchisement of immigrants and minorities at home.

Part of the appeal of Cox era as the Roaring Twenties comes from the general zeitgeist of the period, but also a very structured and consistent effort by the President and his deputy Glass to control the image of them and the government. Both men had considerable newspaper interests and used them widely for their own ends in a manner not seen since the Jefferson/Hamilton era. Later in the decade, Cox then took to the radio and his weekly national broadcast became staple listening in millions of household. In effect, Cox was the first mass media president and his innovations would change campaigning and public relations forever and would for 50 years shield Cox from much of the blame that should fall on his administration for the Depression that gripped the country until WW2

[9] For some people, the Presidency is a waste for time – and so it was for William Jennings Bryan. The first President of the Century came to office after William McKinley declined a second term in office and a fractious Republican Party dubiously nominated Admiral Dewey at the last minute. Bryan had a solid reputation from the 1896 campaign and again planned to introduce a progressive and populist agenda. However, despite his lofty goals, Bryan ran into the brick wall of a vindictive Republican dominated Congress that refused to play ball. Bryan hoped to outflank Congress by once more appealing to the general public and in 1902 went on a speaking tour of the nation to drum up support of his agenda and force the Republicans to budge in face of public opinion.

While popularly received wherever he went (becoming one of the most seen national politicians of the time), Bryan was repeatedly attack in the press by friends – who wished to get on with the business of running the country – and foes – who simply wished he just stop. Returning to Washington he found little had changed, and little was accomplished in the rest of his tenure, besides the independence of Cuba. He, like his rival McKinley, refused re-election and has been since characterised as either President before his time, or being better off out of office altogether where he could better shape public opinion and policy for the better.

[10] Still cautious over the Bryan presidency, the Republicans would shackle their progressives by selecting the stalwart New York conservative as their candidate for the Presidency, whose ticket was finely balanced with Robert La Follette, and delivered a sound defeat to the Democrats on two occasions making him the first President since Grant to be successively elected to the Office. Despite Sherman’s conservativism, he had to suffer a Congress which was more and more receptive to Progressive ideas on both sides, and Sherman would reticently throw support behind Food and Drug regulation. Sherman also wanted to better project American power, in light of developments in Japan and post the Spanish-American War, signing the First Naval Bill that began a massive expansion of the Navy and introduced it as the third Dreadnought power.

This move would antagonise Tokyo and the already fraught relations with Japan would be strained further when the administration introduced limits on immigration that singled out Japanese moving to California. It’s from Sherman’s attitude toward racial minorities would tarnish his legacy among most Presidents of his era, though none have been so linked to the poor relations that would exist between the USA and an entire nation for the next 30-40 years.

Perhaps Sherman’s defining characteristic was that he managed to govern quietly in between Presidents whose terms were extremely tumultuous even by the standards of the time. Despite his double tenure in the office, few can identify Sherman as President and is only thought of (if ever) as the first President to die in office during the 20th Century.

1901-1905: William Jennings Bryan/Arthur Sewall (Democratic)
1900 def. George Dewey/Mark Hanna (Republican), Louis C. Hughes/Joshua Levering (Prohibition)

1905-1912: James S. Sherman*/Robert La Follette (Republican)
1904 def. William Randolph Hearst/Francis Cockrell (Democratic)
1908 def. George Gray/John A. Johnson (Democratic), Eugene V. Debs/Benjamin Hanford (Socialist)


1912-1913: Robert La Follette/Vacant (Republican)

1913-1921: Albert J. Beveridge/Henry Cabot Lodge Sr. (Republican)
1912 def. Oscar Underwood/George E. Chamberlain (Democratic), Eugene V. Debs/Benjamin Hanford (Socialist)
1916 def. Thomas Gore/Simeon Baldwin (Peace Democrats), Robert Lansing/Franklin D. Roosevelt (War Democrats), Robert La Follette/Victor Murdock (Progressive), Eugene V. Debs/Benjamin Hanford (Socialist)


1921-1929: James M. Cox/Carter Glass (Democratic)
1920 def. Leonard Wood/Miles Poindexter (Republican), Robert La Follette/Ernest Lundeen (Progressive)
1924 def. James Watson/Peter Norbeck (Republican), Robert La Follette/Magnus Johnson (Progressive)


1929-1933: Andrew Mellon/Hiram Johnson (Republican)
1928 def. Duncan U. Fletcher/William Gibbs McAdoo (Democratic)

1933-1937: William A. Ayres/Daniel J. Moody (Democratic)
1932 def. Joseph J. Blaine/George W. Norris (Republican)

1937-1941: Frank Knox/Charles L. McNary (Republican)
1936 def. William A. Ayres/Daniel J. Moody (Democratic)

1941-1945: Wendell Willkie*/David I. Walsh (Democratic)
1940 def. Frank Knox/Charles L. McNary (Republican)
1944 def. Arthur H. Vanderberg/Alf Landon (Republican), Richard Russel Jr./Leadner Perez (Dixiecrat)


1945-1949: David I. Walsh/Vacant (Democratic)

1949-1953: Harold Stassen*/Earl Warren (Republican)
1948 def. Claude Pepper/Harry F. Byrd (Democratic)
1952 def. Robert S. Kerr/W. Averell Harriman (Democratic)


1953-1957: Earl Warren/Vacant (Republican)

1957-1961: Earl Warren/Nelson Rockefeller (Republican)
1956 def. W. Averell Harriman/Albert Gore Sr. (Democratic)

1961-1969: Stuart Symington/Lyndon B. Johnson (Democratic)
1960 def. Henry Cabot Lodge Jr./William F. Knowland (Republican)
1964 def. George H. Bender/Everett Dirksen (Republican), John Sparkman/James Eastland (Dixiecrat)


1969-1973: Stuart Symington/Ralph Yarborough (Democratic)
1968 def. Hiram Fong/Richard Schweiker (Republican), Strom Thurmond/George Wallace (Dixiecrat)

1973-1979: Nelson Rockefeller*/John Connally (Republican)
1972 def. Terry Sanford/Wilbur Mills (Democratic), Ross Barnett/Curtis LeMay (Dixiecrat)
1976 def. Robert Byrd/Milton Shapp (Democratic)


1979-1983: John Connally**/Charles H. Percy (Republican)
1980 def. Henry M. Jackson/Cliff Finch (Democratic)

1983-1985: Charles H. Percy/Barry Goldwater (Republican)

1985-1993: Gary Hart/Mario Cuomo (Democratic)
1984 def. Charles H. Percy/John B. Anderson (Republican), Barry Goldwater/Bill Clements (National Union)
1988 def. Pete du Pont/Bob Dole (Republican)


1993-1997: Jack Kemp/James Stockdale (Republican)
1992 def. Mario Cuomo/Joe Biden (Democratic)

1997-????: Robert P. Casey/Barbara Boxer (Democratic)
1996 def. Jack Kemp/James Stockdale (Republican)
 


2009-2014 Mircea Geoană (PSD,AUR after 24 March 2012,PSD+PC after 14 September 2014)
2009 Presidential Elections First Round def: Traian Bãsescu (PD-L),Crin Antonescu (PNL),Corneliu Vadim Tudor (PRM)
2009 Presidential Elections Second Round def: Traian Bãsescu (PD-L)
2012 Parliamentary Elections: AUR [277],PD-L [138],PMP [70],PP-DD [70],UDMR [27]
2014 European Parliament Elections: AUR [16],PD-L [7],PMP [5],UDMR [2],PP-DD [1],Monica Macovei-Independent


2014-2015 Traian Băsescu (PMP)
2014 Presidential Elections First Round def: Mircea Geoană (PSD+PC),Crin Antonescu (PNL),Călin Popescu-Tăriceanu (PLR)
2014 Presidential Elections Second Round def: Mircea Geoană (PSD+PC)


2015-2016 Călin Popescu-Tariceanu (PLR,Interimary President)
2015 Presidential Impeachment Referendum: 68,90% No,voting turnout 48,90%-DISPUTED

2016-2019 Traian Băsescu (PMP)
2016 Parliamentary Elections: PSD+ALDE [230],PMP [95],PD-L [46],PNL [40],UDMR [27],USR [25],M10 [20]
2017 Constitutional Referendum regarding the definition of the family: 94% Yes,voting turnout 29,10%-DISPUTED
2019 European Parliament Elections: PSD+ALDE [9],ACD [9],USR+M10 [9],PMP [4],UDMR [2]


2019-present day Ion-Aurel Pop (PSD+ALDE)
2019 Presidential Elections First Round def: Ciprian Ciucu (USR+M10),Ilie Bolojan (ACD),Elena Udrea (PMP)
2019 Presidential Elections Second Round def: Ciprian Ciucu (USR+M10)
2020 Local and Parliamentary Elections Postponed due to CoVid til 3 November 2021
 
Political Rundown of The Workers' International c.1968

Bolsheviks - Still considered a 'first amongst equals' due to their dominating position in the USSR, which retains a level of respect as flagbearers of the Revolution. Increasingly isolated these days, since the heights of power they achieved in the 1920s and 30s. Trotsky is long dead at this point and a new generation of revolutionaries have singularly failed to emerge from the ranks of either the military or the intelligentsia. However, that spiritual respect we mentioned before is matched by the sheer scale of the USSR's military organisation - and the fact that their possession of nuclear weapons means that the rest of the International is effectively under their atomic umbrella. Russian bombs deterring Franco-British revanchism buys a lot of respect.

Spartacists - The first major non-Bolshevists to emerge in the International, they also enjoy respect as those who opened the door for other rebels from the Moscow line to enter the room. Like the Bolsheviks they are looking a little old-fashioned these days - perhaps because their more decentralised ideals of communism have basically become the norm everywhere, and their social ideas have not really progressed much further than what was being mulled over in the 40s. Very distinctly the grouping for 'Germans and their mates' these days.

Agrarians - The up-and-comers, who will take the world by storm. If they can make their numbers tell. The Indian Revolution may have been the International's biggest success since the Anti-Fascist Crusade, but it also definitively started the Cold War, hardening the FBU's resolve and putting China firmly on the side of the West. And the International's reward is a fairly sclerotic mess on the subcontinent. India is by its nature very decentralised and while its the spiritual leader of the global Agrarian movement, that movement lacks much central or ideological discipline. So yeah, while they are big and get bigger, they are still definitively playing third fiddle.

Point Fivers - Yesterday's men, if they were ever really a thing yesterday. Mostly in the 'observer' position these days since the Cold War began and their few governing representatives got cleaved apart by anti-communist sentiment and a failure by the Point Fivers to either commit to revolution or milquetoast social democracy in their home countries. Their only real member with teeth are the Spanish, but they are fucking weird - they have kept up a cozy relationship with anarchists since the Anti-Fascist Crusade. My dude that was two internationals ago, what is going on.

Rainbow Group - Again, mostly observers. But maybe they will inherit the earth. Their flagbearer is the militant Civil Rights movement in the United States, and they have managed to articulate a coherent anti-capitalist and (perhaps more importantly) anti-colonial ideology which is catching on in Franco-British Africa. I mean, it is freaking the Yanks out no end, and could end up being snuffed out by Hoover any day now - but the Rainbow Group are way more organised than the Agrarians. They aren't disappearing any time soon.
 
German Government of Occupied British Territory (1941-1947)

Monarch of the United Kingdom:
  • Edward VIII (1941-1947) [1]
Prime Minister:
  • David Lloyd George* MP (1941-1945) – Liberal Party [2]
  • Sir Oswald Mosely MP (1945-1947) – BUF
Lord President of the Council:
  • Sir Oswald Mosely MP (1941-1945) – BUF
  • Harold Harmsworth, Viscount Rothermere (1943-1945) – Independent
  • Patrick Boyle, Earl of Glasgow (1945-1947) - BUF
Lord Privy Seal:
  • Harold Harmsworth, Viscount Rothermere (1941-1947) – Independent
Leader of the House of Lords:
  • Edward Wood, The Viscount Halifax* (1941-1943) – Conservative Party [3]
  • Harold Harmsworth, Viscount Rothermere (1943-1945) – Independent
  • Patrick Boyle, Earl of Glasgow (1945-1947) - BUF
Leader of the House of Commons:
  • Sir Oswald Mosely MP (1941-1947) - BUF
Chancellor of the Exchequer:
  • Montagu Norman (1941-1945) - Independent
  • Alexander Raven Thomson (1945-1947) – BUF
Foreign Secretary:
  • Edward Wood, The Viscount Halifax* (1941-1943) – Conservative Party [3]
  • Harold Nicolson* MP (1943-1945) – National Labour [4]
  • John Beckett MP (1945-1947) – BUF
Home Secretary:
  • William Joyce (1941-1947) - BUF
Reichscommissar:
  • Ernst Wilhelm Bohle (1941-1947)
First Lord of the Admiralty:
  • Rear Admiral Murray Sueter MP (1941-1944) - Independent [5]
Minister of Defence:
  • Major-General J.F.C. Fuller (1941-1943) - BUF
  • Sir Oswald Mosely MP (1943-1947) - BUF
First Sea Lord:
  • Admiral Barry Domvile (1941-1947) - BUF
Commander-in-Chief German force, Great Britain
  • Leo Geyr von Schweppenburg (1941-1945) [6]
  • Gerd von Rundstedt (1945-1947)
SS Commandant, Great Britain
  • Franz Six* (1941-1943) [7]
  • Walter Schellenberg (1943-1947)
Minister of Labour:
  • Mary Sophia Allen (1941-1947) - BUF
Minister of Supply:
  • William Morris, Viscount Nuffield (1941-1944) - Independent [8]
  • John Beckett (1944-1947) – BUF
Minister of Production:
  • Archibald Ramsay (1941-1947) – Conservative Party
Cheif of the Imperial General Staff:
  • Lieutenant-General Arthur Percival (1941-1943) [9]
  • Field Marshal J.F.C. Fuller (1943-1947) - BUF
[1] In name only by order of Adolf Hitler, Edward never acknowldeged his second reign and made no attempt to return to Britain. The legitiment government would remove him from his governorship of the Bahamas to Vancouver for his "protection".

[2] Died slightly earlier than OTL, effectively puppet of Germans and BUF who vetted all his decsions and appoinments. Repeatedly considered for removal by German authorities, but political considerations of the Reich kept him in place.

[3] Assassinated by British Auxillary Michael Foot, while visiting the German HQ at Blenhiem Palace. Sevre blow to the legitmacy of the Occupation Government, and failure to capture the assassin undermined German claims of peaceful occupation and Britons demanded of Peace inspite of Exile government in Belfast.

[4] Discovered by Gestapo and SS to be resistance member, passing information to the Allies and active Auxillaries. He would imprisoned and shot at the Tower of London.

[5] Removed from office by SS with Mosley approval over doubts of his loyalty inlight of the Domesday landings and to strengthen BUF supremacy.

[6] Fired by Hitler for being "too soft" in the occupation and his failure to stop Allied landings in Operation Domesday

[7] Assassinated by Peter Fleming and 'Mad Mike' Calvert in the same raid on Blenhiem Palace that killed Halifax. The specifics of which man killed him are disputed as Fleming sprayed the car he was escaping in with a Sten gun, while Calvert threw the grenade that blew the car up before it crashed.

[8] Removed in a dispute with Schweppenburg of British failure to adiquatley provide the German army in its preperation for the Allied invasion. Nuffield prioritiesed British troops, whom the Germans had doubts to their loyalty and General Fuller had personal doubts over the numbers he could muster and maintain.

[9] Percival had been the highest ranking officer caputered by the Germans, and his release was quickly negotiated by the occupation government and accepted a request to revive the British Army from POWs and pro-German volunteers. After the Belhiem Raid he was fired by the government after the slow reaction of British units in the area, and when the SD discovered how many complicit officers there were in his Command he was imprsioned in the Tower of London. Fuller and the Germans would later conduct a purge of British forces and require tests of loyalty, both of which contributed to the poor performance of Axis-aligned units in during and after Domesday.
 
1861-1862: Jefferson Davis (Nonpartisan) [Provisional]
1862-1868: Jefferson Davis (Nonpartisan)
1861 (with Alexander Stephens) def. scattered opposition
1868-1874: Alexander Stephens (Southern Rights)
1867 (with Thomas Bragg) def. Robert Toombs (Whig)
1874-1880: Thomas Bragg (Southern Rights)
1873 (with Isham G. Harris) def. Joseph E. Brown (Whig)
1880-1886: Lucius Lamar (Southern Rights)
1879 (with John H. Reagan) def. Robert M. Patton (Whig)
1886-1892: James Longstreet (Whig)
1885 (with Zebulon Vance) def. Judah P. Benjamin (Southern Rights)
1892-1898: Wade Hampton III (Southern Rights)
1891 (with Pendleton Murrah) def. Thomas H. Watts (Whig)
1898-1904: John Y. Brown (Southern Rights)
1897 (with Joseph Wheeler) def. John Brown Gordon (Whig)
1904-1910: Henry W. Grady (Whig)
1903 (with Jim Hogg) def. Stephen Mallory II (Southern Rights)
1910-1916: Thomas S. Martin (Conservative)
1909 (with John Sewell) def. Jeff Davis (Agrarian Labor)
1916-1922: Jefferson B. Snyder (Conservative)
1915 (with Lee Cruce) def. Benjamin Tillman (Agrarian Labor)
1921-1921: Charles Culberson* (Conservative) [As President-Elect]
1921 (with Locke Craig) def. James K. Vardaman (Agrarian Labor)

1921-1923: Confederate Civil War
Redneck militias def. National Government


CSACivilWar.png

1923-1924: James K. Vardaman** (Agrarian Labor)
Replaced Culberson - 1923 Constitutional Convention held

* Overthrown by Rednecks.
** Presidency abolished.
 
Last edited:
1861-1862: Jefferson Davis (Nonpartisan) [Provisional]
1862-1868: Jefferson Davis (Nonpartisan)
1861 (with Alexander Stephens) def. scattered opposition
1868-1874: Alexander Stephens (Southern Rights)
1867 (with Thomas Bragg) def. Robert Toombs (Whig)
1874-1880: Thomas Bragg (Southern Rights)
1873 (with Isham Harris) def. Joseph E. Brown (Whig)
1880-1886: Lucius Lamar (Southern Rights)
1879 (with John H. Reagan) def. Robert M. Patton (Whig)
1886-1892: James Longstreet (Whig)
1885 (with Zebulon Vance) def. Judah P. Benjamin (Southern Rights)
1892-1898: Wade Hampton III (Southern Rights)
1891 (with Pendleton Murrah) def. Thomas H. Watts (Whig)
1898-1904: James Brown Gordon (Southern Rights)
1897 (with Stephen Mallory II) def. Henry DeBardeleben (Whig)
1904-1910: Henry W. Grady (Whig)
1903 (with Jim Hogg) def. Stephen Mallory II (Southern Rights)
1910-1916: Thomas S. Martin (Conservative)
1909 (with John Sewell) def. Jeff Davis (Agrarian Labor)
1916-1922: Jefferson B. Snyder (Conservative)
1915 (with Lee Cruce) def. Benjamin Tillman (Agrarian Labor)
1922-1923: Charles Culbertson* (Conservative)
1921 (with Locke Craig) def. James K. Vardaman (Agrarian Labor)
1923-1930: James K. Vardaman** (Agrarian Labor)
1923 Constitutional Convention held
1930-1931: William Joseph Simmons (Agrarian Labor)
Replaced Vardaman
1931-////: William H. “Alfalfa Bill” Murray (Agrarian Labor)
1931 def. Huey Long (Agrarian Labor), William Joseph Simmons (Agrarian Labor), Ellison D. Smith (Agrarian Labor) and Nicolás Rodríguez Carrasco (Agrarian Labor)

* Overthrown by Rednecks.
** Died of natural causes.
First Party System (1867-1909):
Southern Rights Party: Right-wing, federalism, elitism, expansionism, pro-British sentiment, free trade (faction)
Despite being formed by the supporters of Jefferson Davis (as well as members of the Knights of the Golden Circle), it quickly expanded into a party of the planter elite and military men who wished to stick to the old ways of the South and fight against industrialization.
Whig Party: Center-left to center-right, decentralization, industrialization, modernization, pro-French sentiment, populism (faction)
Founded by those who criticized the Davis administration (such as their surprising lack of support for state's rights), the Whig Party eventually changed their goal into that of bringing about a "New South" through modernization.

Second Party System (1909-1921):
Conservative Party: Center-right to right-wing, conservatism, industrialization, elitism, paternalism, free trade (faction)
Soon after the planter class embraced industrialization, the two main parties of the Confederacy joined together to preserve slavery, trade with their allies, and keeping the poor in their place.
Agrarian Labor: Big-tent (economically left-wing, socially far-right), anti-elitism, populism, agrarianism, white supremacy, white socialism (faction)
Established due to the backlash from the modernization of Dixieland (and the bosses' choice to use slave labor over good ol' white workers), the Agrarian Labor Party was an electoral coalition united against the elite and their slaves comprised of poor farmers, populists, white supremacists, and labor unionists.

Third Party System (1923-):
Agrarian Labor: Big-tent (economically left-wing, socially far-right), authoritarianism, populism, agrarianism, white supremacy, white socialism (faction)
Following the Agrarian Labor Party and their "Redneck" cronies' victory in the Civil War, the new regime took on an increasingly dictatorial (yet still populistic) tone.
 
Last edited:
1978-1981: Margaret Thatcher (Conservative)†
1978 (Majority) def: James Callaghan (Labour), David Steel (Liberal)
1981-1984: Michael Heseltine (Conservative)
1983 (Majority) def: Denis Healey (Labour), David Steel-Roy Jenkins (Liberal-SDP Alliance)
1984-1989: Denis Healey (Labour)
1984 (Coalition with Alliance) def: Michael Heseltine (Conservative), David Steel-Roy Jenkins (Liberal-SDP Alliance)
1989-: Airey Neave (Conservative)
1989 (Majority) def: Denis Healey (Labour), David Penhaligon-Shirley Williams (Alliance), Seamus Lynch (Workers), David Owen (SDP)
1993 (Reform Confidence & Supply) def: Jack Straw (Labour), Paddy Ashdown-Lindsay Granshaw (Alliance), Seamus Lynch-Tilda Swinton (Democratic Left Alliance), David Alton (Reform)


So based upon @Wolfram President Kucinich list I picked through his test thread and found Neave being PM and other bobbins, so here’s a possible list about it.

So Callaghan calls an election in 1978 and loses but not as much as OTL 79. Thatcher is more cautious with the Unions and Monetarism but still similar events to OTL 79-81 occur, Strikes, Unemployment and Race Riots become the mood music of the era. Additionally Neave peruses an aggressive action against the PIRA and IRSP particularly in the wake of Lord Mountbatten death in 79’. Then Thatcher is killed on a Glasgow visit by Adam Busby in a surreal suicide attack, Busby who believed that Thatcher and Neave conspired to crackdown on Scottish Nationalist movements in the wake of the failure of the Devolution referendum and the Group 79’s connection the the PIRA decided to not go with Letter Bombing Campaign and instead with makes a bomb vest.

In the ensuing chaos, Heseltine becomes leader though no one particularly likes him. Heseltine tries to be a Wet Monetarist but still peruses austerity policies and his ‘Inner City Relief’ fund dries up rather quickly. Whilst the Argentines would be scared off from pursuing the Falklands (instead a war between them and Chile would erupt in time) the whole event makes Heseltine seem paranoid not helped by his prancing around the isles wearing a flak jacket. The police cracking heads of peaceful protestors at Greenham Common and continued IRA Bombings made Britian feel miserable in the coming years. Heseltine managed squeak out a slim majority in 1983 thanks to Labour and Alliance battling each other more than Heseltine.

Then the Miners Strike happened. Ian MacGregors plan was still approved and Scragill still peruses striking and flying pickets. But with a weaker government and leader the Tories repeat 74’ again with Heseltine demanding who run Britain. In the end Labour and the Alliance decide that an awkward coalition government is the way to go and so five awkward years of a halfway house between Monetarist Social Democracy and a Keneysian Mixed Market occurs.

Meanwhile continuing with Neave’s policy of Containment, MI5 spends the 80s supporting the Workers Party as a possible ‘non-sectarian fighter’ in the troubles. Flushed with extra cash and arms, the Workers Party and the OIRA pursue aggressive campaigns against there enemies and popular political campaigns (helped by Mr Adams being car bombed) means that the Workers Party becomes one of the major parties of Ireland (especially after Dick Spring loses his seat in 87’ leaving the Irish Labour Party moribund). With De Rossa behind the steering wheel it’s decide that the Workers Party should capitalise on minor breakthroughs in Northern Ireland.

With discontent on the Left over Healey, the Workers party sense an opportunity, fielding candidates in Irish communities across Britain and particularly Scotland where a number of former Scottish Socialist activists join up. As the Alliance breaks up over it’s future with David Owen storming out to do his own Social Democratic Party with Blackjack and Libertarian Workerism and Healey has to deal with another attempted leadership challenge by the Left it’s no surprise that the Tories sweep in.

Airey Neave is the grand old man of British Toryism, despite being in his 70s upon taking power he is as vigorous as ever, his tenure helped by a split Left and most his potential Tory enemies being victims of scandal or dead. Neave though is unable to capitalise on this to the full extent he would like, even as the Kucinich begins to end and the PIRA begin to subside. The economy enters a recession in the aftermath of a Stock Market crash and calls for further European Integration by his cabinet, troubles Neave.

Neave manages to slip into No10 again in 1993, as the Left is split again and David Alton decides the devil he knows is better than a possible ‘Socialist’ cabinet. The Democratic Left chugs on, as the Workers Party becomes the main opposition force in Ireland and MI5 and the Soviets regret protecting there strange little bunch of Irish Marxists who could know hold the keys to power for any future Left Wing Government. Now as 1993 begins to end, Neave is pondering retirement and preparing his potential successor and son in law to the martyr Thatcher, Jonathan Aitken for leadership of the Conservative Party.

What’s the worst that could happen...
 
The Workers Party being successful on both sides of the border, despite sounding fucking bonkers seemed doable for a hot second in the Mid 80s as Sinn Fein's Post Hunger Strike popularity flamed out by 83' and the Adam's Squad of Modernisers hadn't got going yet. The main problem for the Northern Irish section of the party was lack of support from Down South and there weird belief in trying to gain support from Protestant Working Class just ended up costing them there Catholic voters.

Also MI5 did have contacts with the party at several points though didn't do anything other than using them to identify prominent Republicans.
 
Pondering some more up-to-date analogues for your basic UK-as-US-scenario:

2017-2021: Richard Desmond/Philip Davies (Conservative)
2016 def: Cherie Blair/Andy Burnham (Labour)
2021-????: John Prescott/Priti Patel (Labour)
2020 def: Richard Desmond/Philip Davies (Conservative)

I want to take this further back but I'm stymied by the lack of a convincing Labour Obama analogue, nobody BAME I can think of seems to be of the right age, socio-economic background or have comparable charisma. One could, of course, do the same thing I've done with Patel and imply that some BAME people who are in the Conservatives in OTL might be in Labour in a US-analogous situation (or vice versa depending on context). Thoughts?
 
nobody BAME I can think of seems to be of the right age, socio-economic background or have comparable charisma
Claude Moraes? I have no fucking clue. Like Paul Boateng is probably the closest in terms of charisma I guess.

Maybe find barristers who are BAME or something.
 
Claude Moraes? I have no fucking clue. Like Paul Boateng is probably the closest in terms of charisma I guess.

Maybe find barristers who are BAME or something.
Paul Boateng is the one usually brought up and feels like the best fit, but I feel like the age difference is too much for Obama's backstory. Though on looking it up, it's less than I thought it was, so maybe.
 
1912-1920
Theodore Roosevelt
Progressive
1920- 1928
Eugene Debb
Socialist
1928-1936
Calvin Coolidge
Progressive
Charles Lindbergh
1936-1940
Democratic
H.p. Lovecraft
1940-1952
Progressive
Dwight Eisenhower
Democratic
1952-1964
Barry Goldwater
Progressive
1964-1968
Joe Kennedy jr
Democratic
1968-1972
Richard M.Nixon
Democratic
1972_1984
Gil Peterson
Progressive
1984_1992

I mean no offence, but this is so difficult to read, your formatting is very inconsistent.

Honestly, I tried to make a point by putting into my usual formatting and I think you've got one too many Presidents or something it makes no sense.
 
Back
Top