|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jun 21, 2023 1:17:35 GMT
Steve,
A:
- The flip side to the improved union picture is a better management one as well. This has been stimulated by a combination of the shock of the War of the Worlds and then a more direct response to the German challenge pre WW1; governments have out political and actual capital into incremental but very steady reforms along the way that sees quite marked changes from the 1930s onward
- Laissez faire lost out to Imperial Preference many generations ago and, in the absence of a pronounced decline, there is unlikely to be a shift in this area
- The military burden is seen as completely unavoidable and the cost of being a superpower at the top table. There have been no appreciable cuts to the military after the post WW2 demobbing/Korean War demobbing
B:
- The best way to understand it is as a multi-step process, rather than the “Right, we’re off. You do whatever you want.” of @. Firstly, there is domestic self-government, or the development of internal assemblies to a high enough stage of proficiency and efficiency. Then comes quasi independence as a ‘Dominion’ with trainer wheels on. Third is the removal of some of the trainer wheels in terms of control of armed forces and some external relations and policies. Fourth is what we’d consider as independent within the Commonwealth, albeit with a lot of residual connections and back channel influence amounting to control a la Francafrique. One analogy could be the progressive stages of a child growing up into a young adult, rather than a quick divorce
- The complication in the 1970s is that this won’t be a one way street and there will be some cases where the process is slowed or even wound back a step or so due to broader geopolitical reasons. Imperialism and colonialism are not obsolete dirty words as by the 1970s in @
C:
- Different universe. Here, I want to explore the ‘global cooling’ idea more than rehashing @. Oil fired power stations have never really had their pomp and now nuclear fusion is the coming thing. There will be a little bit of a trend that starts to arrest as the last factor comes into play. So, we have less fossil fuels used for power generation (25.9%), relatively fewer cars on the roads across the world yet (transport 13.1%), the opposite to deforestation (17.4%) as areas that will be smaller, whilst industry (20%) and agriculture (13.5%) will be a bit larger for a while. Residential and commercial buildings (7.9%) will likely fall right down with the advance of fusion generated electrickity
D:
- Rather.
E:
- Attlee was in the smaller part of a Lib-Lab coalition from 1945-1948, where the PM was the Liberal leader Sir Richard Harcourt. Attlee had the role of ‘domestic deputy’, implementing the welfare state and NHS, but there wasn’t any significant nationalisation wave or dramatic Labour control of the economy at large. MacDonald did not become PM at all in the 1920s, where the main opposition was a united Liberal Party, which took power in 1929. The closest resemblance from @ is the 1923 general election with Lib and Lab switched and Ireland still attached, without its own party.
F:
- That is happening quite strongly, being grouped under consumer goods. As detailed on the timeline, they are in the forefront (thanks in some ways to some hints from Lapcat)
G:
- Yes, Germany is larger in GDP on account of having more people
- Japan has been able to rebuild from scratch, but as you point out isn’t completely replacing ‘old states’ in all areas. They are still a big country and market in their own right
Simon
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,836 
Likes: 13,225
|
Post by stevep on Jun 21, 2023 14:48:41 GMT
Steve, A: - The flip side to the improved union picture is a better management one as well. This has been stimulated by a combination of the shock of the War of the Worlds and then a more direct response to the German challenge pre WW1; governments have out political and actual capital into incremental but very steady reforms along the way that sees quite marked changes from the 1930s onward - Laissez faire lost out to Imperial Preference many generations ago and, in the absence of a pronounced decline, there is unlikely to be a shift in this area - The military burden is seen as completely unavoidable and the cost of being a superpower at the top table. There have been no appreciable cuts to the military after the post WW2 demobbing/Korean War demobbing B: - The best way to understand it is as a multi-step process, rather than the “Right, we’re off. You do whatever you want.” of @. Firstly, there is domestic self-government, or the development of internal assemblies to a high enough stage of proficiency and efficiency. Then comes quasi independence as a ‘Dominion’ with trainer wheels on. Third is the removal of some of the trainer wheels in terms of control of armed forces and some external relations and policies. Fourth is what we’d consider as independent within the Commonwealth, albeit with a lot of residual connections and back channel influence amounting to control a la Francafrique. One analogy could be the progressive stages of a child growing up into a young adult, rather than a quick divorce - The complication in the 1970s is that this won’t be a one way street and there will be some cases where the process is slowed or even wound back a step or so due to broader geopolitical reasons. Imperialism and colonialism are not obsolete dirty words as by the 1970s in @ C: - Different universe. Here, I want to explore the ‘global cooling’ idea more than rehashing @. Oil fired power stations have never really had their pomp and now nuclear fusion is the coming thing. There will be a little bit of a trend that starts to arrest as the last factor comes into play. So, we have less fossil fuels used for power generation (25.9%), relatively fewer cars on the roads across the world yet (transport 13.1%), the opposite to deforestation (17.4%) as areas that will be smaller, whilst industry (20%) and agriculture (13.5%) will be a bit larger for a while. Residential and commercial buildings (7.9%) will likely fall right down with the advance of fusion generated electrickity D: - Rather. E: - Attlee was in the smaller part of a Lib-Lab coalition from 1945-1948, where the PM was the Liberal leader Sir Richard Harcourt. Attlee had the role of ‘domestic deputy’, implementing the welfare state and NHS, but there wasn’t any significant nationalisation wave or dramatic Labour control of the economy at large. MacDonald did not become PM at all in the 1920s, where the main opposition was a united Liberal Party, which took power in 1929. The closest resemblance from @ is the 1923 general election with Lib and Lab switched and Ireland still attached, without its own party. F: - That is happening quite strongly, being grouped under consumer goods. As detailed on the timeline, they are in the forefront (thanks in some ways to some hints from Lapcat) G: - Yes, Germany is larger in GDP on account of having more people - Japan has been able to rebuild from scratch, but as you point out isn’t completely replacing ‘old states’ in all areas. They are still a big country and market in their own right Simon
Thanks for the information. Clears up a lot.
On c) the only real global cooling aspect was there was some from heavy use of coal pollutants that tends to cause some cooling, as well as the poisonous smogs and acid rain which tended to counter global warming but the former largely disappeared after assorted clear air acts went into play as those pollutants were less long lasting than CO2. Less cars per person would reduce some of the impact of global warming but then there are more people overall and also longer distances to travel, which is even more of an issue with air and sea travel. Without major changes of the basic laws of science global warming will occur although it might be slower coming/being noticed in the DE environment.
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jun 22, 2023 15:06:03 GMT
Much obliged.
On global cooling, that is on Earth, which has its own physical laws, cycles and universe. DE is very similar, but fundamentally different at the same time, so I'm prepared to fudge some of the laws of science if and when necessary; that is a long, long way in the future from 1972 in any event.
As I see it, the transport/cars number will grow, but this is offset by the power generation number dropping off a cliff and the deforestation issues being counteracted with naturalist/ecological-friendly policies. At the same time, industrial emissions will fall earlier as the nature of industry transforms over time. Sea travel will be going down some particular propulsion methods with the onset of fusion and air travel is not yet big enough or widespread enough to be a significant contributor to emissions.
The other factor at play is that DE is fairly more advanced in terms of doing something about any problems that emerge through mitigation, magitech and emergent technologies, rather than the solutions that we have in Earth of the 2020s.
|
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jun 26, 2023 4:23:42 GMT
The second of three 'Musings on Musings':
General Spending Trends: In 1970, in descending order, education was 5.39 percent GDP, welfare was 5.35 percent GDP, health care was 4.02 percent GDP, and pensions were 3.83 percent GDP. (https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spending_history)
In DE 1972, the Barton percentages have held since 1964 - 5% on health and education, 3.5% on pensions and 3.5% on welfare. Defence is starting to drop, down to 9.2% in 1971/72 from the steady 10% of the Vietnam War era (1965-1971) and going to go further. The big driver for this has been the strength of the economy - the slice of the pie may decrease, but the amount of pie is still more than forecast 8 years ago. It won't fall much below 8-8.5% on current projections, though, with increased cost of weapons systems, R&D, technological integration and even manpower offsetting the wind down of 1960s rearmament; there will be a shift from procurement to maintenance/operations as complexity of gear rises.
The long term goal of the Grand Design remains to be able to fund pensions through the income of the Imperial Sovereign Fund/sovereign wealth fund, allowing that 3.5% to be redirected to other priorities. Labour doesn't have an innate urge to cut the percentage of government spending from its current ~24% of GDP, but the Conservatives and Liberals have different positions; this is one way that some degree of political difference will play out over the 1970s. There may also be some moves by the other parties, driven by less perceived need, to make reductions to the percentage allotted to health from 5%
Pensions and Related Reforms: Retirement Annuity Plans were introduced in 1970 in @, later evolving into Personal Pension Schemes in 1988. I'm leaning towards an earlier development of something similar to Australian superannuation in Britain as a means of consolidating various personal pensions and allowing for further governmental oversight and regulation; nothing like the Maxwell raid on the Mirror Pension Fund will happen here. Additionally, it would create a further pool of funds for investment capital in time. However, it doesn't seem to be a reform on Labour's cards at this time.
Foreign Affairs: A major focus on the Prime Minister, rather than gradually devolving to the Foreign Secretary as in @. The Special Relationship is quite different, with the balance of power definitely in America's favour, but not by a seeming order of magnitude. JFK and Barton have a working relationship, but not a close friendly one in the manner of Kennedy and Macmillan or later iterations, and it is driven by strategic needs and economic ties. Anglo-German relations are better than Anglo-French ones, whilst the Austrians are very close, the Italians a bit miffed, the Scandinavians very friendly and Benelux similar due to location; the Belgian-Dutch position is trying to shift the centre of political gravity onto the Continent more, but they can't really find an avenue for it, with the French and Germans being at odds.
Crime: Opposite direction to @, with it continuing to gradually fall. 1971 murders were 109 compared to ~350 and general anti-social behaviour is at a low level. Some cracks are beginning to emerge, but there aren't the drivers that I can see for any major changes here. There will be some increasing voices against the relatively harsh approach to crime and punishment, but as discussed earlier, the issue is effectively triangulated by Left and Right.
Food: No 'globalisation of cuisine' in the West, where individual styles and cuisines began to merge in an Americanised whole from the 1970s-2000s in something of a strange mirror image of the commonality of haute cuisine across Europe and North America during La Belle Epoque. Rather, distinct dishes, tastes and styles will continue to come to the fore and the spread of American fast food chains (I'm looking at you McDonalds, Kentucky Fried Chicken and Pizza Hut)
Shops and Shopping Hours: Supermarkets are still not dominant. Historically, their numbers rose from the first in 1951 to 572 in 1961 and ~3400 in 1969, whereas here, the numbers are still in the region of ~800-900 across Britain in 1972. Sunday trading/opening is still not legal, even for corner shops. Most still operate on 0800-1800 Monday-Friday with half day closing on Wednesday and 0800-1300 on Saturday, with the half day Wednesday coming from the Liberal reforms of the 1900s and not applying to shops selling medicines, perishable goods, newspapers and aircraft supplies, as in @. There hasn't been the emergence of Gujarati owned corner shops opening 0600-2200, but there are some places that are 'open all hours', serving as the exception rather than the rule.
Immigration: Markedly smaller than @, but this isn't known in universe. As such, some of the bits of tension that occurred historically from the late 50s-mid 60s will start to burble up into public and political consciousness. There will be some slight bristling against the migration of Maltese from some reactionary groups
Infrastructure: British infrastructure is quite well developed at this point - extensive rail network and roads, including the modern Royal Highways; a modern power grid and very cheap electricity from the increasing number of nuclear plants (including fusion) plus the Severn Barrage; and over 50 major civilian airports. There are new (post WW2 1950s and 1960s construction) ports at Felixstowe, Yarmouth, Immingham, Redcar, Haven (Milford Haven) and another planned on Wigtown Bay in Scotland.
International Trends: There has been a marked rise in terrorism since the late 1960s and into the early 1970s, albeit without the Arab-Israeli conflict being a background to a significant amount of it, and this has been driven in DE by left wing revolutionary organisations. Their rationalisation is that if there are no means of confronting the imperialist west through wars of national liberation, then lower level conflicts are employed. This makes the thread both more unpredictable in a certain sense and less volatile in others.
There is going to be no 1973 oil crisis, as said before, and that has a bearing on a lot of 1970s developments, to the extent that so many internal and international events are no longer likely.
What will emerge in the Cold War is not detente, which in part emerges from the weakened US position in the aftermath of the defeat in Vietnam. Here, the combination of victory in Vietnam and a change in US government is likely to lead to chillier US-Soviet relations
Once inflation is tamed, and it will be, then the overall rise in prices over the decade will be far more typical in historical terms
|
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jun 26, 2023 13:58:55 GMT
The above is now done.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Jul 15, 2023 22:10:52 GMT
After looking into TTL, I find that this list of dates and events lacks something: Not every event has the same weight. To take one example, from the very first post here: The sentences of Nuremberg certainly should have more importance than "Scotland Yard conducts several raids on underground jazz clubs in London, arresting 56 on charges related to illegal drugs, indecency and offending public morality"! That's not directed at you. My Chaos TL sucks too in this regard. Also, it's improbable that there are no days on which more than one significant event happens (hell, if we want to, why not 100?). Or that there are no days on which really nothing significant happens. We don't have to fill newspapers after all. Certainly, there's room for improvement. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jul 16, 2023 9:26:11 GMT
The initial years were done in 2016-2017 - I reached 1958 in January 2018.
Since then, I’ve certainly fleshed out more and go into greater depth across the board. I do intend to go back and revisit 1946-1955, when I ever get time. Certainly there are some bits and pieces that need different weighting, sure. Another factor is that when the first few years were written, I probably had less confidence as a writer to branch off away from the familiar, as well as fewer of the other, extended works which add to the depth of seeming throwaway events or teasers.
There are days where there are no events of note, but for those, there is always *something* that is occurring, whether it be in sports, popular culture or simply the opportunity to show snippets of the world and its development. It is a decision I made from the start to not have a day like the historical one from the 1930s of “Today there is no news”. A contrivance, for sure, but a deliberate one.
On the other hand, there are days where there are more than one thing going on, but a lot of that gets lost in the sweeping nature of a whole world year-by-year picture. I have adopted that for the WW1 and WW2 accounts I’m working on behind the scenes, as well as for the 1956 War and the 1960 Red Shadow Crisis.
In the ‘second half’ of the postwar TL, I’ve made a greater point of working with the yearly statistical material, which is something I’ve not seen in many other works. I want to go back and add more to the early years; when doing WW2 month by month, statistics and cumulative data is very handy.
So, what makes up the amalgamated Timeline, which isn’t standalone in any sense, is effectively two eras of writing - one from 2016-early 2018 that covered 1947-1958 and mid 2018-now for 1959-1971. The latter builds upon many of the factfiles, non-fiction pieces/histories and fictional stories that also make up DE; the TL is intended as something of a newsreel, with the other works being the longer feature length pieces.
|
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jan 1, 2024 7:19:25 GMT
List of British Prime Ministers
Stanley Barton (Labour) 1964-
Sir Anthony Eden (Conservative) 1955-1964
Sir Winston Churchill (Conservative) 1948-1955
Sir Richard Harcourt (Liberal) 1945-1948
Sir Winston Churchill (Conservative) 1940-1945
Sir Neville Chamberlain (Conservative) 1937-1940
Sir Stanley Baldwin (Conservative) 1933-1937
David Lloyd George (Liberal/National Government) 1929-1933
Stanley Baldwin (Conservative) 1926-1929
David Lloyd George (Liberal) 1925-1926
Stanley Baldwin (Conservative) 1923-1925
Andrew Bonar Law (Conservative) 1921-1923
David Lloyd George (Liberal) 1916-1921
Sir Herbert Asquith (Liberal) 1906-1916
Sir Joseph Chamberlain (Conservative) 1899-1906
Lord Salisbury (Conservative) 1889-1899
William Gladstone (Liberal) 1885-1889
Benjamin Disraeli (Conservative) 1875-1885
William Gladstone (Liberal) 1868-1875
Benjamin Disraeli (Conservative) 1865-1868
Lord Palmerston (Liberal) 1855-1865
The Earl of Aberdeen (Whig) 1852-1855
Lord John Russell (Whig) 1847-1852
Sir Robert Peel (Conservative) 1839-1847
Lord Melbourne (Whig) 1834-1839
The Duke of Wellington (Tory) 1834
Earl Grey (Whig) 1831-1834
The Duke of Wellington (Tory) 1828-1831
Earl Grey (Whig) 1825-1828
George Canning (Tory) 1820-1825
The Earl of Liverpool (Tory) 1812-1820
William Pitt the Younger (Whig) 1783-1812
The Earl of Shelburne (Whig) 1782-1783
Lord North (Tory) 1770-1782
The Duke of Grafton (Whig) 1768-1770
William Pitt (Whig) 1762-1768
The Duke of Newcastle (Whig) 1754-1762
Henry Pelham (Whig) 1742-1754
Sir Robert Walpole (Whig) 1721-1742
Robert Harley 1720-1721
The Duke of Marlborough 1712-1720
Various earlier chief ministers have been described as the first Prime Minister, with some favouring Prince Rupert in the 1650s and 1660s, Sir Thomas Lacey in the 1650s but the pre 1688 system was quite different. Perhaps the earliest was Lord Blackadder during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,836
Likes: 13,225
|
Post by stevep on Jan 1, 2024 11:23:35 GMT
List of British Prime Ministers Stanley Barton (Labour) 1964- Sir Anthony Eden (Conservative) 1955-1964 Sir Winston Churchill (Conservative) 1948-1955 Sir Richard Harcourt (Liberal) 1945-1948 Sir Winston Churchill (Conservative) 1940-1945 Sir Neville Chamberlain (Conservative) 1933-1940 Sir Stanley Baldwin (Conservative) 1933-1937 David Lloyd George (Liberal/National Government) 1929-1933 Stanley Baldwin (Conservative) 1926-1929 David Lloyd George (Liberal) 1925-1926 Stanley Baldwin (Conservative) 1923-1929 Andrew Bonar Law (Conservative) 1921-1923 David Lloyd George (Liberal) 1916-1921 Sir Herbert Asquith (Liberal) 1906-1916 Sir Joseph Chamberlain (Conservative) 1899-1906 Lord Salisbury (Conservative) 1889-1899 William Gladstone (Liberal) 1885-1889 Benjamin Disraeli (Conservative) 1875-1885 William Gladstone (Liberal) 1868-1875 Benjamin Disraeli (Conservative) 1865-1868 Lord Palmerston (Liberal) 1855-1865 The Earl of Aberdeen (Whig) 1852-1855 Lord John Russell (Whig) 1847-1852 Sir Robert Peel (Conservative) 1839-1847 Lord Melbourne (Whig) 1834-1839 The Duke of Wellington (Tory) 1834 Earl Grey (Whig) 1831-1834 The Duke of Wellington (Tory) 1828-1831 Earl Grey (Whig) 1825-1828 George Canning (Tory) 1820-1825 The Earl of Liverpool (Tory) 1812-1820 William Pitt the Younger (Whig) 1783-1812 The Earl of Shelburne (Whig) 1782-1783 Lord North (Tory) 1770-1782 The Duke of Grafton (Whig) 1768-1770 William Pitt (Whig) 1762-1768 The Duke of Newcastle (Whig) 1754-1762 Henry Pelham (Whig) 1742-1754 Sir Robert Walpole (Whig) 1721-1742 Robert Harley 1720-1721 The Duke of Marlborough 1712-1720 Various earlier chief ministers have been described as the first Prime Minister, with some favouring Prince Rupert in the 1650s and 1660s, Sir Thomas Lacey in the 1650s but the pre 1688 system was quite different. Perhaps the earliest was Lord Blackadder during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I.
Interesting list thanks. Some familiar names but also some different ones and also dates. Hadn't realised [or had forgotten] that Barton was the 1st Labour PM, which makes for a significantly different 20thC. Also that Joe Chamberlain makes it to the top job for a number of years - which may have given a big push for closer co-operation with the dominion and also effectively butterflied Cambell-Bannerman.
In the earlier period I notice both Pitts have longer in power, although the elder doesn't seem to have gained power until toward the end of the Seven Years War here. That does mean his son lasted longer, governing and hence living at least till 1812 which also butterflies Spencer Percival and hence probably no assassination of a British PM. Plus that the younger Pitt is down as a Whig rather than a Tory as OTL.
Right at the start I wonder what Marlborough would have been like as a politician especially since 1712 would butterfly his final campaigns in the OTL War of the Spanish Succession.
Probably a lot of other changes but those that come from memory.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,990
Likes: 49,390
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 1, 2024 11:27:09 GMT
List of British Prime Ministers Stanley Barton (Labour) 1964- Sir Anthony Eden (Conservative) 1955-1964 Sir Winston Churchill (Conservative) 1948-1955 Sir Richard Harcourt (Liberal) 1945-1948 Sir Winston Churchill (Conservative) 1940-1945 Sir Neville Chamberlain (Conservative) 1933-1940 Sir Stanley Baldwin (Conservative) 1933-1937 David Lloyd George (Liberal/National Government) 1929-1933 Stanley Baldwin (Conservative) 1926-1929 David Lloyd George (Liberal) 1925-1926 Stanley Baldwin (Conservative) 1923-1929 Andrew Bonar Law (Conservative) 1921-1923 David Lloyd George (Liberal) 1916-1921 Sir Herbert Asquith (Liberal) 1906-1916 Sir Joseph Chamberlain (Conservative) 1899-1906 Lord Salisbury (Conservative) 1889-1899 William Gladstone (Liberal) 1885-1889 Benjamin Disraeli (Conservative) 1875-1885 William Gladstone (Liberal) 1868-1875 Benjamin Disraeli (Conservative) 1865-1868 Lord Palmerston (Liberal) 1855-1865 The Earl of Aberdeen (Whig) 1852-1855 Lord John Russell (Whig) 1847-1852 Sir Robert Peel (Conservative) 1839-1847 Lord Melbourne (Whig) 1834-1839 The Duke of Wellington (Tory) 1834 Earl Grey (Whig) 1831-1834 The Duke of Wellington (Tory) 1828-1831 Earl Grey (Whig) 1825-1828 George Canning (Tory) 1820-1825 The Earl of Liverpool (Tory) 1812-1820 William Pitt the Younger (Whig) 1783-1812 The Earl of Shelburne (Whig) 1782-1783 Lord North (Tory) 1770-1782 The Duke of Grafton (Whig) 1768-1770 William Pitt (Whig) 1762-1768 The Duke of Newcastle (Whig) 1754-1762 Henry Pelham (Whig) 1742-1754 Sir Robert Walpole (Whig) 1721-1742 Robert Harley 1720-1721 The Duke of Marlborough 1712-1720 Various earlier chief ministers have been described as the first Prime Minister, with some favouring Prince Rupert in the 1650s and 1660s, Sir Thomas Lacey in the 1650s but the pre 1688 system was quite different. Perhaps the earliest was Lord Blackadder during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. Hope William Pitt the Younger (Whig) was like this. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jan 1, 2024 11:34:38 GMT
No, Lordroel, he is like the the historical William Pitt the Younger. As amusing as Blackadder the Third was, he was just a tad older!  |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,990
Likes: 49,390
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 1, 2024 11:46:06 GMT
No, Lordroel, he is like the the historical William Pitt the Younger. As amusing as Blackadder the Third was, he was just a tad older! Copy that. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jan 1, 2024 11:48:45 GMT
List of British Prime Ministers Stanley Barton (Labour) 1964- Sir Anthony Eden (Conservative) 1955-1964 Sir Winston Churchill (Conservative) 1948-1955 Sir Richard Harcourt (Liberal) 1945-1948 Sir Winston Churchill (Conservative) 1940-1945 Sir Neville Chamberlain (Conservative) 1933-1940 Sir Stanley Baldwin (Conservative) 1933-1937 David Lloyd George (Liberal/National Government) 1929-1933 Stanley Baldwin (Conservative) 1926-1929 David Lloyd George (Liberal) 1925-1926 Stanley Baldwin (Conservative) 1923-1929 Andrew Bonar Law (Conservative) 1921-1923 David Lloyd George (Liberal) 1916-1921 Sir Herbert Asquith (Liberal) 1906-1916 Sir Joseph Chamberlain (Conservative) 1899-1906 Lord Salisbury (Conservative) 1889-1899 William Gladstone (Liberal) 1885-1889 Benjamin Disraeli (Conservative) 1875-1885 William Gladstone (Liberal) 1868-1875 Benjamin Disraeli (Conservative) 1865-1868 Lord Palmerston (Liberal) 1855-1865 The Earl of Aberdeen (Whig) 1852-1855 Lord John Russell (Whig) 1847-1852 Sir Robert Peel (Conservative) 1839-1847 Lord Melbourne (Whig) 1834-1839 The Duke of Wellington (Tory) 1834 Earl Grey (Whig) 1831-1834 The Duke of Wellington (Tory) 1828-1831 Earl Grey (Whig) 1825-1828 George Canning (Tory) 1820-1825 The Earl of Liverpool (Tory) 1812-1820 William Pitt the Younger (Tory) 1783-1812 The Earl of Shelburne (Whig) 1782-1783 Lord North (Tory) 1770-1782 The Duke of Grafton (Whig) 1768-1770 William Pitt (Whig) 1762-1768 The Duke of Newcastle (Whig) 1754-1762 Henry Pelham (Whig) 1742-1754 Sir Robert Walpole (Whig) 1721-1742 Robert Harley 1720-1721 The Duke of Marlborough 1712-1720 Various earlier chief ministers have been described as the first Prime Minister, with some favouring Prince Rupert in the 1650s and 1660s, Sir Thomas Lacey in the 1650s but the pre 1688 system was quite different. Perhaps the earliest was Lord Blackadder during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I.
Interesting list thanks. Some familiar names but also some different ones and also dates. Hadn't realised [or had forgotten] that Barton was the 1st Labour PM, which makes for a significantly different 20thC.
Also that Joe Chamberlain makes it to the top job for a number of years - which may have given a big push for closer co-operation with the dominion and also effectively butterflied Cambell-Bannerman.
In the earlier period I notice both Pitts have longer in power, although the elder doesn't seem to have gained power until toward the end of the Seven Years War here. That does mean his son lasted longer, governing and hence living at least till 1812 which also butterflies Spencer Percival and hence probably no assassination of a British PM. Plus that the younger Pitt is down as a Whig rather than a Tory as OTL.
Right at the start I wonder what Marlborough would have been like as a politician especially since 1712 would butterfly his final campaigns in the OTL War of the Spanish Succession.
Probably a lot of other changes but those that come from memory.
Steve, Correct on the dates and differences. I think the Barton issue was discussed a bit earlier in the TL thread or ANJ, but it comes down to the stronger Liberal performance in the 20s butterflying the brief Macdonald premiership and no Liberal split enabling Lloyd George to get another run at the top slot in place of the Macdonald National Government. Joe Chamberlain makes sense given the drive for closer Imperial ties in response to the growing power of the other GPs (particularly on the Continent) and economic factors. He rides the khaki election of 1900, pushes through the second major phase of Imperial Preference and sets the stage for a different tone to the first decade. Campbell-Bannerman, who for all his pretty minimal faults was a decent, good man, makes his mark in earlier Liberal governments, but unfortunately the more militarised dawn of the 20th Century is less of a place for an advocate of peace and retrenchment. Both Pitts do spend longer in power, with Pitt the Elder being de facto leader through the Seven Years' War, but only getting the top job in name in 1762. Correct on the lack of Spencer Percival and all that entails. On Pitt the Younger, the 'Whig' part was simply a typo as I was dashing off the final details and trying not to be late for dinner!  Marlborough didn't miss anything really, as the Treaty of Utrecht came on 11th April 1713. His role as the 'First Prime Minister' comes down to the use of the title; Walpole very much fills the substance of the role as well as its style in a more recognisable modern way. What I did was delve back into the latter end of here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_chief_ministers and make the transition a bit more nebulous. Probably the only one that you didn't pick was the small matter of Gladstone having 2 terms rather than 4 (with a few of those being very short) but spending roughly the same period in office, and Disraeli having a longer time at the top and living longer to boot. Simon |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,836
Likes: 13,225
|
Post by stevep on Jan 1, 2024 12:01:08 GMT
Interesting list thanks. Some familiar names but also some different ones and also dates. Hadn't realised [or had forgotten] that Barton was the 1st Labour PM, which makes for a significantly different 20thC.
Also that Joe Chamberlain makes it to the top job for a number of years - which may have given a big push for closer co-operation with the dominion and also effectively butterflied Cambell-Bannerman.
In the earlier period I notice both Pitts have longer in power, although the elder doesn't seem to have gained power until toward the end of the Seven Years War here. That does mean his son lasted longer, governing and hence living at least till 1812 which also butterflies Spencer Percival and hence probably no assassination of a British PM. Plus that the younger Pitt is down as a Whig rather than a Tory as OTL.
Right at the start I wonder what Marlborough would have been like as a politician especially since 1712 would butterfly his final campaigns in the OTL War of the Spanish Succession.
Probably a lot of other changes but those that come from memory.
Steve, Correct on the dates and differences. I think the Barton issue was discussed a bit earlier in the TL thread or ANJ, but it comes down to the stronger Liberal performance in the 20s butterflying the brief Macdonald premiership and no Liberal split enabling Lloyd George to get another run at the top slot in place of the Macdonald National Government. Joe Chamberlain makes sense given the drive for closer Imperial ties in response to the growing power of the other GPs (particularly on the Continent) and economic factors. He rides the khaki election of 1900, pushes through the second major phase of Imperial Preference and sets the stage for a different tone to the first decade. Campbell-Bannerman, who for all his pretty minimal faults was a decent, good man, makes his mark in earlier Liberal governments, but unfortunately the more militarised dawn of the 20th Century is less of a place for an advocate of peace and retrenchment. Both Pitts do spend longer in power, with Pitt the Elder being de facto leader through the Seven Years' War, but only getting the top job in name in 1762. Correct on the lack of Spencer Percival and all that entails. On Pitt the Younger, the 'Whig' part was simply a typo as I was dashing off the final details and trying not to be late for dinner! Marlborough didn't miss anything really, as the Treaty of Utrecht came on 11th April 1713. His role as the 'First Prime Minister' comes down to the use of the title; Walpole very much fills the substance of the role as well as its style in a more recognisable modern way. What I did was delve back into the latter end of here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_chief_ministers and make the transition a bit more nebulous. Probably the only one that you didn't pick was the small matter of Gladstone having 2 terms rather than 4 (with a few of those being very short) but spending roughly the same period in office, and Disraeli having a longer time at the top and living longer to boot. Simon
Ah, interesting on Marlborough. As you say OTL he was Master-General of the Ordnance which I hadn't known. Knew his wife Sarah was very influential until she lost the support of Queen Anne IIRC and thought the war continued until 1714 but obviously remembering wrong.
Had overlooked the fact of Gladstone and Disraeli having a different cycle of power. Prefer the latter as a leader although he did at least one very nasty bit of work, helping to delay the adoption pf the Pimsole Line which blackens his reputation given the number of people who would have died as a result and of course his famous error on the ape or angel quote.
|
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jan 1, 2024 12:33:48 GMT
Steve,
All good; twas but a short matter of months. Ultimately, DE Marlborough is very much a transitional figure who only gets on the list by virtue of being called the name.
Disraeli is an interesting character. Whilst I don't seek to defend any long dead folk of @, the Plimsoll Line adoption was in one sense only delayed by a year from July 1875, but in effect until 1890 (https://victorianweb.org/history/plimsoll.html One of my favourite lovely websites to while away many an hour upon). In Dark Earth, we can take it that there was no delay, with advances in shipping, trade and the space race pushing the cause of efficiency and its older brother safety.
|
|
