Alternate Wikipedia Infoboxes V (Do Not Post Current Politics Here)
- Status
The Yiddish isn't bad. I'd use Yiddisher Farband (יידישר פאַרבאַנד) instead, but Yiddish Farband (יידיש פאַרבאַנד) works decently as well. I get why you used the other variant of the word Yiddish (אידישע), but I think the other forms I used are more commonly used.
Please take this with a grain of salt, I'm still in the process of learning Yiddish.
You seem to have made a little typo in your introduction, or else the Californios have found a way to time travel back from annexation in 1866 to rebel in 1863...
Also posted on SLP, but this isn't so much alternate history as it is alternate historiography. Namely, the British-Dutch colonial wars in the Napoleonic era really ought to be elevated to the same level of macro-historical importance as the War of 1812.
Last edited:
You know, I wonder why no league in Europe's ever adopted something like the Irish GAA system, with the leagues being made up of teams representing individual subdivisions (regions/provinces at the highest level and municipalities at the lower level)
POD is Oswald misses JFK and hits LBJ instead.
Also LBJ being in the motorcade
He was in the motorcade, he's in the car behind the secret service car
The 1968 United States presidential election was the 46th quadrennial presidential election. It was held on Tuesday, November 5, 1968. The Democratic nominee, Senate Majority Leader Hubert Humphrey, defeated the Republican nominee, Michigan Governor Paul Bagwell.
Incumbent President Richard Nixon was term-limited and unable to seek a third term in office. Vice President Robert Anderson was seen as an early front-runner for the Republican nomination, but Anderson declared that he would not seek the nomination in October 1967. Governor Paul Bagwell, Senator Barry Goldwater, and Governor Nelson Rockefeller emerged as the Republican front-runners, with Bagwell eventually securing the nomination at the Republican National Convention as a compromise candidate. Bagwell chose Massachusetts Governor and former presidential candidate John Volpe as his running mate, a move that angered the conservative wing of the Republican Party. Hubert Humphrey, who had sought the presidency three times prior, emerged as the front-runner due to his position of Senate Majority Leader. Humphrey was able to defeat former California Governor Pat Brown, Florida Senator George Smathers, Idaho Senator Frank Church, and other candidates at the Democratic National Convention. Humphrey selected Texas Governor John Connally as his running mate, attempting to prevent southern Democrats from defecting.
The assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. and subsequent riots strained race relations during the campaign. Both Bagwell and Humphrey supported the Civil Rights Movement; however third party candidate George Wallace drew support from the movement's opponents. Humphrey campaigned on the slogan "Stability and Security" and advertised his "Great Deal" economic and social plan for America. Bagwell campaigned on the economy and maintaining Nixon's foreign policy to combat the Soviet Union. Both campaigns aggressively targeted the northeast, the west coast, and the mid-west. The Humphrey campaign also targeted the traditionally Democratic south to prevent Wallace from taking electoral votes from Humphrey. Bagwell and Humphrey always remained close in polls, with Humphrey having a narrow edge.
Despite close polling, Hubert Humphrey scored an electoral landslide of 386 electoral votes and nearly won a majority of the popular vote. Governor Bagwell performed poorer than expected, losing his home state of Michigan and most swing states. Governor Wallace also performed poorly, taking just five states and a faithless elector in North Carolina. This was the first election in sixteen years won by a Democrat and marked the end of nearly a generation of Republican rule.
The 1972 United States presidential election was the 47th quadrennial presidential election. It was held on Tuesday, November 7, 1972. Incumbent Democratic President Hubert Humphrey defeated Republican Senator Howard Baker of Tennessee.
Humphrey easily defeated primary challenges from Congressman John Rarick and former Alabama Governor George Wallace and secured re-nomination. Senator Howard Baker, one of the first Republican U.S. Senators elected from the former Confederacy since Reconstruction, was able to narrowly secure the Republican nomination, defeating New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller, 1968 nominee Paul Bagwell, Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, and Illinois Governor Charles Percy.
Humphrey campaigned on economic growth and continuing his Great Deal policies, while Baker campaigned on fiscal responsibility, repealing the National Healthcare Act of 1970, and embracing stronger foreign policy. Initial polling indicated a close race between Humphrey and Baker; however, the race gradually shifted in Humphrey's favor.
Humphrey and Connally won reelection by a sound margin, receiving a landslide of 391 electoral votes and securing 53.6% of the popular vote. Baker received 147 electoral votes and 44.9% of the popular vote. Despite his loss, Baker was able to flip Florida, Mississippi, North Carolina, his home state of Tennessee, and Virginia to the Republican column. This marked the first time since 1872 that Mississippi voted for a Republican candidate.
The FV201 Lancelot Universal Combat Tank is the primary UCT of the armoured formations of the British Empire, including the British Army, the All-India Army, the Constituent Armies and the armies of the Persian Gulf protectorates. The tank was designed with crew survival in mind at a time of international uncertainity regarding Austraia and north-central Europe. The engine is mounted in the front, and there is a small compartment in the rear for it to carry passengers a short distance--in combat in Afghanistan, for example, this allows the Lancelot to be used as a battlefield ambulance or a breacher vehicle. The Lancelot has also been widely exported to foreign countries, including Turkey, France, Portugal, Hejaz, Hesse, Brunswick, Savoy, Nassau and Tuscany. Modern contemporaries of the Lancelot include the Castilian Conquistador 3, the Prussian Wiking, the Burgundian Charlemagne, the Russian Ivan the Terrible, the Austrian P08 and the Japanese Type 99.
The MV25 Timberwolf was developed in the Michiganner Confederacy to serve as the backbone of its armoured infantry force, and it was quickly adopted by the armoured infantry, armoured cavalry and reconaissance strike formations of the British Empire. It's armed with a QF 1-pounder and twin anti-tank missile launchers, packing a powerful punch as a battle taxi, and it's seen extensive action in Afghanistan and the North-West Frontier where it has performed admirably, though its primary purpose was to speed quickly across the northern Louisana prairie and the north European plain. Meanwhile, the 8×8 Wheeled Combat Vehicle was developed in Ireland as a result of the lessons learned during Operation Boudica. The design was based off an original Provencal design, the 6×6 Dauphin V, and it has since been adopted by mounted regiments in the Imperial forces. It was originally intended to only be an interim vehicle in that role, but succesive governments of P.G. Sudhakarn cancelled MOD contracts because of cost overruns. Turreted variants of the WCV cannot fit in the cargo holds of Hannibal aircraft, a long-standing preference of the British Army.
The Grenadier Guards are the senior infantry regiment in the British Army and the Foot Guards, and currently serves as an armoured infantry regiment and is equipped primarily with MV25 Timberwolves. As with all regiments in the British and All-India Armies, it is a regimental combat team with three combined-arms armoured infantry battalions, an airmobile reconnaissance battalion, an artillery battalion and several combat arms support and combat services units including military intelligence, military police, engineering and logistical units, that allow it to be deployed independently. The Grenadier Guards remain one of the most elite units in the British Army, and it has been deployed frequently on combat rotations across the world. Members can be recruited to join the Household Guards Parachute Battalion (a special reconnaissance unit attached to HQ Special Forces's Joint Forward Operation Group), or to the Household Guard Command's Sniper Teams or Counter-Assault Teams. One incremental company, the Nijmegen Company, is detached from the main body of the regiment to serve on public duties that include (but not limited to) the mounting of the guard at royal residences and the Tomb of the Unknown Solider in Memorial Square, protection of the Bank of England at night, salutes and performances for visiting dignitaries, providing escorts during military funerals at the Royal War Cemetery at Windsor and drill teams.
The Royal Natal Carbineers are an armoured regiment from the Kingdom of South Africa. Unlike British or All-India Army regiments, regiments from the constituent kingdoms are generally one-battalion battlegroups that are comprised of a single maneuver battalion, an artillery battery and several combat arms support and combat services companies that allow it to operate independenlty much like larger regimental combat teams (that said, not all constituent kingdom regiments are like that, for example, the five Ohioan and Michiganner regiments of the Royal Iron Brigade--the Royal Illinois Borderers of the Palsgraviate of Illinois, The King's German Panzerjaegers and the Old Northwest Rifles of the Ohio Palitinate, and the 3rd Chicago Foot (St. Patrick's Own) and the Milwaukee Regiment of Michigan). The Royal Natal Carbineers are a one-battalion battlegroup that has recently been nationalized and consequently deployed to Afghanistan as a member of the 12th African Division. Constituent kingdom regiments are rarely deployed, but given the operational tempo in Afghanistan and the need to free up units for China, the Lynedoch Cabinet was left with little other choice.
The Sun Never Set
Black Friday Bombings / King-Emperor John II
Friedrich Wilhelm, Crown Prince of Prussia / Congress of Atomic Powers
Most-liked shouts
Parliament of the British Empire / Counsellors of State
Landgravine Guinevere of Pusan / Margrave Mordred II of Choseon
Eugen Flegel Graf von Weiser / Empress Anna Victoria
Maria Luisa of Provence
House of Tudor-Mercia: Constantine I, Constantine II, Catherine, Joanna, Michael
The Marquess of Lynedoch
Arthur, Prince of Wales / Rudolph, King of the English
Leaders of the Congress of Atomic Powers
Tetrarchs of the Kingdom of Palestine
Ludwig XV, Grand Duke of Hesse-Darmstadt / Friederike of Hesse Darmstadt
Last edited:
Inspired by this: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/32216962/the_irish_a_column_from_1979/
Basically, Carter collapses during the 1980 Democratic primaries but throws his weight behind Joe Biden at the Convention who manages to win. Biden barely beats Reagan and Rumsfeld but gets absolutely destroyed after primary challenger Jesse Jackson runs an independent campaign.
Basically, Carter collapses during the 1980 Democratic primaries but throws his weight behind Joe Biden at the Convention who manages to win. Biden barely beats Reagan and Rumsfeld but gets absolutely destroyed after primary challenger Jesse Jackson runs an independent campaign.
President Strom Thurmond, a central figure in the political transformation of the South and the longest-serving senator in American history, died today in Washington. He was 100. Thurmond, a symbol of Southern politics had been South Carolina's senior Senator before his unexpected ascension to the presidency on September 11, 2001. The president's legacy remains controversial, with critics pointing to his impassioned defense of segregation and his interventionist policies; but at a time when the nation faced great crisis, Thurmond provided leadership. Newly ascendant President Oliver North has taken the oath of office, pledging to "continue the legacy of an American patriot and deliver a victory over all terror."
---
In California, Two Different Celebrities Win Big
California is the center of show-business, and this runs deep into the state’s society. Paparazzi lurk around, trying to get photos of our favorites from the silver screen, photos that the stars need to pay tens of thousands to use themselves. Even publishing a photo of the Hollywood sign gets you in a whole host of legal disputes. This, quite naturally, spreads into politics. Actress and feminist Helen Gahagan Douglas was Richard Nixon’s opponent in 1950, George Murphy served California for one term in the U.S. Senate, and most famously, Ronald Reagan was the 40th President of this country. But in 2003, two vastly different politicians have won two of California’s top offices - Mayor of San Francisco and Governor of California. One is a socialist punk with a high-pitched voice, whilst the other is a macho libertarian.
Jello Biafra, whose real name is Eric Boucher, has run for political office previously. In 1979, he ran against now-Senator Dianne Feinstein for Mayor on a largely comedic platform. This time, Jello remained serious and articulate, a surprise for the man who sang “I Kill Children.” While it was shocking for Biafra, a Green, to end forty years of Democratic rule in San Francisco, he did not seem too shocked at his win. “After all, how could I be any worse than Gavin Newsom, who turned out to be a horrible Frankenstein of Dianne Feinstein, Gray Davis, and Tom Cruise?”, Biafra said.
Biafra ran against outgoing Mayor Willie Brown as much as he did against his Democratic opponent. Biafra holds Brown responsible for urban gentrification, or a “dotcom holocaust” as he calls it. The new mayor’s main initiative will be tackling homelessness in the city, starting with the halting of quality of life violations.
Since his start in the 1970s, Biafra has taken on the political establishment. On the 1989 song “Full Metal Jackoff”, he sang about a future President Oliver North declaring a “red, white, and blue Reich.” The new Mayor says he’d go as far as performing with Britney Spears to stop North’s re-election in 2004, although he absolutely rejects the idea of voting for one of the current Democratic candidates. Biafra has maintained his distaste for the Religious Right, calling them hypocrites for attacking the ultra-religious governments of Khamenei’s Iran and Rehman’s Pakistan while “supporting a Christian doomsday cult at home.”
Of course, the big race grabbing everyone’s attention was that for Governor. Grey Davis was successfully recalled by the Californian public, and the voters went for the legendary actor and former Mayor Clint Eastwood over Cruz Bustamante and Peter Camejo. Eastwood’s campaign was largely based on lowering unpopular tax hikes under Governor Davis and drastically downsizing the state government. Eastwood’s anti-administration rhetoric also appealed to voters in a heavily Democratic state. While Eastwood supported the Thurmond tax cuts, he made himself ambiguous on whether he supports North’s re-election campaign. His strongest objections to the president come on the issue of foreign policy.
When asked about the War on Terror, Eastwood said “I just wonder does this ever stop? And no, it doesn’t. So each time we get in these conflicts, it deserves a lot of thought before we go wading in or wading out. Going in or coming out. It needs a better thought process, I think.” Eastwood’s candidacy has already revealed some of the cracks in the Republican Party coming ahead of the 2004 elections. Anew band of libertarians within the party have coalesced around Ron Paul’s viral primary challenge.
After the collapse of the "Vermont First Party"[1] due to growing British influence in the republic, three new groups emerged:
The Christian Party: Formed by radical Christian farmers. It would support the abolition of slavery[2], lower taxes, the abolishment of private property, and for religion to be taught in schools. Led by the man himself, John Brown.
The Monarchist Party: These royalists called for the Republic's dominion status among the British Empire to throw away that, and truly become part of the glorious empire (maybe slavery to), and for Vermont to go to war with the U.S. once again. They chose Franklin Peirce as their candidate.
The Union Party: The more unpopular of the three, it would call for New Connecticut[3] to finally rejoin the United States. That was their only policy, they would refuse to talk about anything else. Martin Van Buren was their choice.
The actual election: With so many escaped slaves being given full citizenship in the Republic helped John Brown immensely. But suddenly when the American military came marching in for the return of all escaped slaves (most faced execution). When the people of this land refused, many were killed in the Slaughter of Franklin in Adams, the British finally came and pushed out the Americans. The army did not come back. Because the British saved their as*es, the Monarchists would get a boost in the polls. And of course, Martin Van Buren was almost assassinated. The main thing, the followers of Brown and the Piercists agreed on, was that the Unionists should be wiped out. So that's what happened, both the politicians convinced their base to take out any unionists referring to them as "Treasonous Tricksters". Many of Van Buren followers went into hiding. When the father of the former president, Thomas Chittenden II found out, he went to many rallies of the different parties and told them they should all be ashamed of themselves. Of course, then his head was blown off by a Royalist. The British had to send in troops to protect unionist voters (even though a lot of the time the Brits would kill them themselves). Finally, the day of the ballot came and the Christians won. So the civil war would begin.
---
[1] = That was the only party before then.
[2] = Slavery was already illegal, but they support the abolition in America as well (forced)
[3] = They are also referred to as the "Republic of New Connecticut"
Last edited:
Another post for my Gran Lago timeline, where a massive lake in Southern California doesn't dry up and sticks around to the modern day (with some help). This time something that I needed to redo. The thread for this timeline can be found here.
James Buchanan aspired to be a President like George Washington. However he was long overshadowed by his predecessor Lewis Cass, who led the United States against the successful war against Mexico. He aspired for such glory and more, so when when word reached Washington about an uprising by American settlers in the independent Republic of California, he saw his chance. in 1854, he recognized the break away Republic of Eureka and protested the Californian attempts to "rob gold miners and fortune seekers of their wealth" and openly began to call for a war. The United States, still in a nationalistic fervor following the territory gained from the Mexican Cession, mostly supported the war, except for notable anti-imperialists. However, their criticism was drowned out by the common sentiment among Americans that Manifest Destiny was not complete; since California was in the way, the country did not have enough access to the Pacific. In addition, men like William Seward, a prominent Whig, thought war would unify the country together in a time when sectionalism was rising over slavery. Besides, many thought that such a little small state with a population of only 500 thousand people would be easy to conquer...
The war began with the United States under prepared and overconfident that California would kneel over easily. Instead the well armed Californios beat back incursions by Eurekian militias and the first detachments of US Army forces., winning important battles at Monterey, Capo Sur, and Santa Cruz as well as laying siege to Ohlone. However American reinforcements from the East and better organized forces in the West forced the Californios to fall back, and California proper was invaded in December 1854. The number of American forces were so large, that the Californios rarely fought on conventional terms. Instead the Californio Army and volunteers used an unconventional tactic; first they attackedand looting American supply lines, used the terrain to mask large troop movements, and baited forces into ambushes using the stolen weapons. This strategy proved notoriously effective, especially among the inexperienced militiamen from Eureka, who died from the lack of supplies as often those killed from direct combat. However the Americans were still able to push onward and captured San Gabriel and other major cities by June 1855. However California refused to surrender, and the militia and the leadership went into hiding among a sympathetic population, turning completely to guerrilla warfare which would rage on for another year...
The last remaining Californian forces surrendered in September 1856, ending what was supposed to be a short and glorious war to fully achieve Manifest Destiny. Instead it turned into a quagmire for two and a half years, far longer than the Mexican-American War and with significantly more causalities. The war killed 6 times more men than the Mexican-American War in a shorter period, with around the same number of deaths from battle and from lack the supply. The war at first was popular, even with the setbacks, until the beginning of guerilla warfare. From then on, as the casualties mounted, opinion turned against the war and divided the country. Rumors that slavery was to be expanded to California outraged abolitionists and Whigs, further dividing the country...
While British Empire only supported California with the delivery of arms, the British government, looked to North America with concern. Twice now the revolts of American settlers was used as the pretext for an invasion by the United States. Furthermore Buchanan threw the previous treaty with California to the wind; Lewis Cass had signed that treaty along with the Oregon Treaty with the British. Authorities in Canada looked to the increasing number of American settlers in the Columbia District with a growing sense of dread...
Disgraced, James Buchanan announced that he would not stand in the 1856 Presidential Election, his dreams of glory dashed to pieces. The unpopular war saw the Whigs sweep to power under Millard Fillmore and the beginning of the break up of the Democratic Party...
James Buchanan aspired to be a President like George Washington. However he was long overshadowed by his predecessor Lewis Cass, who led the United States against the successful war against Mexico. He aspired for such glory and more, so when when word reached Washington about an uprising by American settlers in the independent Republic of California, he saw his chance. in 1854, he recognized the break away Republic of Eureka and protested the Californian attempts to "rob gold miners and fortune seekers of their wealth" and openly began to call for a war. The United States, still in a nationalistic fervor following the territory gained from the Mexican Cession, mostly supported the war, except for notable anti-imperialists. However, their criticism was drowned out by the common sentiment among Americans that Manifest Destiny was not complete; since California was in the way, the country did not have enough access to the Pacific. In addition, men like William Seward, a prominent Whig, thought war would unify the country together in a time when sectionalism was rising over slavery. Besides, many thought that such a little small state with a population of only 500 thousand people would be easy to conquer...
The war began with the United States under prepared and overconfident that California would kneel over easily. Instead the well armed Californios beat back incursions by Eurekian militias and the first detachments of US Army forces., winning important battles at Monterey, Capo Sur, and Santa Cruz as well as laying siege to Ohlone. However American reinforcements from the East and better organized forces in the West forced the Californios to fall back, and California proper was invaded in December 1854. The number of American forces were so large, that the Californios rarely fought on conventional terms. Instead the Californio Army and volunteers used an unconventional tactic; first they attackedand looting American supply lines, used the terrain to mask large troop movements, and baited forces into ambushes using the stolen weapons. This strategy proved notoriously effective, especially among the inexperienced militiamen from Eureka, who died from the lack of supplies as often those killed from direct combat. However the Americans were still able to push onward and captured San Gabriel and other major cities by June 1855. However California refused to surrender, and the militia and the leadership went into hiding among a sympathetic population, turning completely to guerrilla warfare which would rage on for another year...
The last remaining Californian forces surrendered in September 1856, ending what was supposed to be a short and glorious war to fully achieve Manifest Destiny. Instead it turned into a quagmire for two and a half years, far longer than the Mexican-American War and with significantly more causalities. The war killed 6 times more men than the Mexican-American War in a shorter period, with around the same number of deaths from battle and from lack the supply. The war at first was popular, even with the setbacks, until the beginning of guerilla warfare. From then on, as the casualties mounted, opinion turned against the war and divided the country. Rumors that slavery was to be expanded to California outraged abolitionists and Whigs, further dividing the country...
While British Empire only supported California with the delivery of arms, the British government, looked to North America with concern. Twice now the revolts of American settlers was used as the pretext for an invasion by the United States. Furthermore Buchanan threw the previous treaty with California to the wind; Lewis Cass had signed that treaty along with the Oregon Treaty with the British. Authorities in Canada looked to the increasing number of American settlers in the Columbia District with a growing sense of dread...
Disgraced, James Buchanan announced that he would not stand in the 1856 Presidential Election, his dreams of glory dashed to pieces. The unpopular war saw the Whigs sweep to power under Millard Fillmore and the beginning of the break up of the Democratic Party...
-Excerpts from Us, Americans.
The History of these United States with Sources
Volume 1: From Colonization to 1866.
The History of these United States with Sources
Volume 1: From Colonization to 1866.
From @Komodo and @Techdread's election game Time for Decision:
With the Western world caught in an economic recession triggered by revolution and civil war in the oil-rich Iran, governments across Europe found themselves now facing their support haemorrhage at the ballot box. There was little expectation for those parties in power across the European Community to come out of the 1979 European elections in a favourable position compared with their respective rivals. Indeed, in many cases, divisions generated in the already tumultuous previous years looked set to be exacerbated as the world coped with renewed recessions and rising fuel prices.
The rise on fuel prices and recession had triggered a wave of anti-government resentment across much of Europe, something that looked to benefit Eurosceptic and pro-Moscow left-wing movements alike. France’s dominant Union of Democrats for the Republic found its decade-long political monopoly under threat from the left, however their long-standing rival the Socialist Party looked set to be replaced by the revolutionary Communists in what many pundits were speculating to be Moscow’s attempt to subvert Western democracy. Similarly predicted performances in Italy looked set to make the elections a test for the previously popular United Socialist-led government as their centre-right coalition partners Christian Democrat faced rivals from the right-wing breakaway Christian People’s Party.
By the time the elections were finished, the pillars of democracy in Western Europe still stood though there had been shaking throughout the continent. Both UDR and the Socialists faced heavy losses in France, though the former was ably to retain its lead over a French Communist Party able to hold its own as the centre-left fractured. In Germany, the major parties also suffered electorally as newer parties, such as the right-wing National Democratic Party and liberal nationalist German Union, were able to capitalise on frustration and anger at the ‘establishment’ parties. The Danish left-wing People’s Movement against the EEC emerged victorious over the centre-left Social Democrats, a worrying sign for unity of the EEC. Even in the UK, with the Labour Party drifting further to the left and a continued anti-European rhetoric emerging from its leadership, the political consensus seemed to be questioned.
The final results showed falls in votes across much of the political spectrum with most gains taken in by the Eurosceptic voices of the centre-right. Surprising many, in spite of strong performances in two of the major powers within the EEC, the Communists and Allies faced the greatest losses of the election as they fell from fourth to sixth place in the European Parliament. The trend also worried many within the European Parliament itself; the fear of the Cold War was still strong, especially in an economic crisis, and the established politics of the continent were under threat. Inter-grouping discussions in Brussels were soon to gather pace as schisms within the dominant Socialist Group failed to provide unity, whilst the centre and centre-right united to choose the successor to European Commission President Willy Brandt.
Brandt had already upset many within the European Parliament with his ‘grandstanding’, as some put it, and those within the Socialist Group believe he was not forceful enough against the Soviets and the Eastern Bloc. The end of his term, although helping to ease tensions between Western Europe and Moscow, also served to bring factional disputes in his own political grouping to near-boiling point and the election of anti-communist Arnaldo Forlani as his successor.
The rise on fuel prices and recession had triggered a wave of anti-government resentment across much of Europe, something that looked to benefit Eurosceptic and pro-Moscow left-wing movements alike. France’s dominant Union of Democrats for the Republic found its decade-long political monopoly under threat from the left, however their long-standing rival the Socialist Party looked set to be replaced by the revolutionary Communists in what many pundits were speculating to be Moscow’s attempt to subvert Western democracy. Similarly predicted performances in Italy looked set to make the elections a test for the previously popular United Socialist-led government as their centre-right coalition partners Christian Democrat faced rivals from the right-wing breakaway Christian People’s Party.
By the time the elections were finished, the pillars of democracy in Western Europe still stood though there had been shaking throughout the continent. Both UDR and the Socialists faced heavy losses in France, though the former was ably to retain its lead over a French Communist Party able to hold its own as the centre-left fractured. In Germany, the major parties also suffered electorally as newer parties, such as the right-wing National Democratic Party and liberal nationalist German Union, were able to capitalise on frustration and anger at the ‘establishment’ parties. The Danish left-wing People’s Movement against the EEC emerged victorious over the centre-left Social Democrats, a worrying sign for unity of the EEC. Even in the UK, with the Labour Party drifting further to the left and a continued anti-European rhetoric emerging from its leadership, the political consensus seemed to be questioned.
The final results showed falls in votes across much of the political spectrum with most gains taken in by the Eurosceptic voices of the centre-right. Surprising many, in spite of strong performances in two of the major powers within the EEC, the Communists and Allies faced the greatest losses of the election as they fell from fourth to sixth place in the European Parliament. The trend also worried many within the European Parliament itself; the fear of the Cold War was still strong, especially in an economic crisis, and the established politics of the continent were under threat. Inter-grouping discussions in Brussels were soon to gather pace as schisms within the dominant Socialist Group failed to provide unity, whilst the centre and centre-right united to choose the successor to European Commission President Willy Brandt.
Brandt had already upset many within the European Parliament with his ‘grandstanding’, as some put it, and those within the Socialist Group believe he was not forceful enough against the Soviets and the Eastern Bloc. The end of his term, although helping to ease tensions between Western Europe and Moscow, also served to bring factional disputes in his own political grouping to near-boiling point and the election of anti-communist Arnaldo Forlani as his successor.
As throughout much of the European Community, the voters of the United Kingdom took the chance to cast their ballots as a referendum on their national government. The onset of the 1979 recession had hit particularly hard across much of the UK, as the Joseph government’s economic & financial policies had made the nation more susceptible to outside rises and falls respectively. As with that year’s local elections, there was little surprise that most opinion polling showed a clear loss of public support for the Conservatives as they languished in the parliamentary quagmire of a minority government led by a divided party. The one boon to the Tories though was that Labour was in the midst of an open civil war between party leader Tony Benn’s radical left and the remaining moderates of the party, ostensibly led by former Foreign Secretary Denis Healey.
The challenge for the Labour Party leadership, launched by Healey following a series of by-election losses and poor local election results that spring, meant Labour found itself in an election that was seemingly being directed by two figures of differing styles. Whilst Benn put much of his focus on the arguments for democracy, Healey’s message was largely economic-driven. There was also a change in Labour’s message for the European elections; the promotion of anti-Marketeer Peter Shore to Shadow Foreign Secretary following Healey’s resignation was coupled with a more anti-European sentiment growing within the party membership. Although Labour did not advocate British withdrawal from the EC at this time, there were clear signs that the party which had brought the UK into Europe was undergoing a change of heart.
With the Conservatives facing crises in government and Labour amidst a bloody civil war, it appeared the main beneficiaries of the election would be the SDP and the Liberals. The election of Russell Johnston as Liberal Party leader saw the agreement the two parties to not directly compete against one another, although this was a matter largely mooted by the change in electoral system for the European elections in Britain.
The change of voting system was damning to both of the major parties; although Labour had managed to gain votes, STV meant that they would make a net loss of seats, whilst the Conservatives faced a severe drop of public support of over 6%. Although the Social Democrats made strong gains winning 12 seats, they were unable to match their performance from the previous year’s election. However, their electoral alliance with the Liberals provided a strong lifeline to the latter who saw a marked drop in support of 7.1% though managed to gain a seat. In the wake of this devastating loss in support, the Liberal leadership would soon engage in discussions with the SDP for closer cooperation between the two parties going forward.
The challenge for the Labour Party leadership, launched by Healey following a series of by-election losses and poor local election results that spring, meant Labour found itself in an election that was seemingly being directed by two figures of differing styles. Whilst Benn put much of his focus on the arguments for democracy, Healey’s message was largely economic-driven. There was also a change in Labour’s message for the European elections; the promotion of anti-Marketeer Peter Shore to Shadow Foreign Secretary following Healey’s resignation was coupled with a more anti-European sentiment growing within the party membership. Although Labour did not advocate British withdrawal from the EC at this time, there were clear signs that the party which had brought the UK into Europe was undergoing a change of heart.
With the Conservatives facing crises in government and Labour amidst a bloody civil war, it appeared the main beneficiaries of the election would be the SDP and the Liberals. The election of Russell Johnston as Liberal Party leader saw the agreement the two parties to not directly compete against one another, although this was a matter largely mooted by the change in electoral system for the European elections in Britain.
The change of voting system was damning to both of the major parties; although Labour had managed to gain votes, STV meant that they would make a net loss of seats, whilst the Conservatives faced a severe drop of public support of over 6%. Although the Social Democrats made strong gains winning 12 seats, they were unable to match their performance from the previous year’s election. However, their electoral alliance with the Liberals provided a strong lifeline to the latter who saw a marked drop in support of 7.1% though managed to gain a seat. In the wake of this devastating loss in support, the Liberal leadership would soon engage in discussions with the SDP for closer cooperation between the two parties going forward.
- Status