Talk Elections

Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion => Election What-ifs? => Topic started by: The Lord Marbury on September 08, 2012, 11:39:26 AM



Title: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on September 08, 2012, 11:39:26 AM
I'm doing a TL very loosely based on the collaborative American Commonwealth thread I sometimes contribute to over at AH.com. I'm not going to start the TL way back then, because my complex knowledge of signigicant political and historical events gets hazier the further back I go. So you can all join me on a trip to an alternate universe, in the oh-so-distant year of 1988. ;)

---------------------------------------------

The 1988 Federal Election is generally looked back on as one of the real game changers in American politics, especially when you focus on the Liberal Party. The party, which had been looked upon as the natural governing party ever since the 1930s, had been in a period of slow but gradual decline since the 1970s. Many Liberals at the time felt that 1988 would be the election which determined the party's future, and if they lost they would have to face their longest period out of government since the 1920s. Therefore, following their landslide loss in 1984 under the leadership of Walter Mondale, the Liberals decided that it was time for a change by electing the former Premier of Virginia, Chuck Robb, as party leader in 1986. Robb, a centrist and self-described "New Liberal", was a veteran from a traditionally Progressive Conservative leaning state, and at the age of 47 when elected party leader, he was also unusually young for a leader of the Liberal Party. In short, he was everything the previous Liberal leadership wasn't. On the other side of the aisle, the Progressive Conservatives were quite happy with the way things were going. Ronald Reagan was the party's most successful Prime Minister since Harold Stassen, and arguably the most conservative Prime Minister since Calvin Coolidge. But things weren't exactly all sunshine and roses for the Tories. While Reagan was still relatively popular among the public, the Iran-Contra affair had hit his record hard, leading to the resignation of his Defense minister Caspar Weiberger earlier in the year. And of course, as always, the rapidly shrinking group of more centrist or liberal PCs were not happy with how far to the right he was taking the party. But despite all this, the Progressive Conservative Party went into the 1988 election with a fairly united front.
-Excerpt from "Changing Times, American Political History, 1960-2000", published 2002

()
"A few hours ago, I dropped by Columbia Palace to ask for Governor-General Carter's permission to dissolve Parliament. He graciously agreed to my proposal, and federal election has been scheduled for Tuesday, September 20th. I look forward to a clean and honest campaign about the issues, but in the end I have the highest faith that the American people will choose to reelect this government which has only held their best interests at heart for the past nine years."
-Prime Minister Ronald Reagan, speaking on the steps of 1 America Avenue, August 19th 1988

()
ROBB CONFIDENT OF LIBERAL GAINS IN UPCOMING ELECTION
-New York Times, August 20th 1988

"Liberal leader Chuck Robb has agreed to the debate format proposed by ABS News, meaning that he will join Prime Minister Ronald Reagan, along Labor Party leader Ted Kennedy, Libertarian leader Ron Paul, and American Heritage leader Pat Buchanan, in the two upcoming party leaders debates, to be aired on ABS One on September 6th and 19th, respectively."
-Dan Rather, ABS Newsnight, August 26th 1988

POLLS SHOWS PROG CONS AHEAD, LIBS STAGNANT
Progressive Conservative - 37,4% - 328 (-23)
Liberal - 32,1% - 262 (+33)
Labor - 9,6% - 42 (-6)
Libertarian - 8,9% - 41 (-7)
American Heritage - 8,2% - 37 (+8)
Other - 3,9%


According to the projected seat totals, the Conservatives would fall well short of a majority government, and the Liberals would gain several seats, but still be unable to come anywhere close to the Conservatives, who in this scenario would be unable to govern by themselves. However they could most likely remain in power by the way of a supply and confidence, or coalition deal with either the Libertarians or American Heritage.
America Today, August 26th 1988


Title: Re: Into the next millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on September 08, 2012, 12:14:21 PM
Leaders of the Major Political Parties, as of 1988

Ronald Reagan
-Member of the Liberal Party (-1967)
-Member of the Progressive Conservative Party (1967-present)
-Member of the House of Commons for Hollywood-Los Angeles (1970-present)
-Minister of Culture, Sports and Media, Cabinet of Richard Nixon (1970-1972)
-Minister of Infrastructure, Cabinet of Richard Nixon (1972-1973)
-Minister of Veterans Affairs, Cabinet of Nelson Rockefeller (1973-1974)
-Shadow Minister of Energy, Shadow Cabinet of Nelson Rockefeller (1974-1977)
-Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party (1977-present)
-Leader of Her Majesty's Official Opposition (1977-1979)
-Prime Minister of the American Commonwealth (1979-present)


Chuck Robb
-Member of the Liberal Party
-Member of the Legislative Assembly of Virginia (1973-1986)
-Leader of the Virginia Liberal Party (1975-1986)
-Premier of Virginia (1977-1986)
-Leader of the Liberal Party (1986-present)
-Member of the House of Commons for Richmond (1986-present)
-Leader of Her Majesty's Official Opposition (1986-present)


Ted Kennedy
-Member of the Labor Party
-Member of the Legislative Assembly of Massachusetts (1965-1984)
-Leader of the Massachusetts Labor Party (1969-1984)
-Premier of Massachusetts (1970-1984)
-Member of the House of Commons for Lynn-Suffolk (1984-present)
-Leader of the Labor Party (1985-present)


Ron Paul
-Member of the Progressive Conservative Party (1958-1969)
-Member of the Libertarian Party (1969-present)
-Member of the House of Commons for Galveston (1974-present)
-Deputy Leader of the Libertarian Party (1980-1987)
-Leader of the Libertarian Party (1987-present)


Pat Buchanan
-Member of the Progressive Conservative Party (1962-1973)
-Member of the American Heritage Party (1973-present)
-Member of the House of Commons for Roanoke (1970-present)
-Deputy Leader of the American Heritage Party (1975-1986)
-Leader of the American Heritage Party (1986-present)



2nd Cabinet of Ronald Reagan (1984-1988)

Prime Minister: The Rt. Hon. Ronald Reagan (Prog Con.)
Deputy Prime Minister: The Rt. Hon. George H. W. Bush (Prog Con.)

Minister of Foreign Affairs: The Rt. Hon. George H. W. Bush (Prog Con.)
Minister of Finance: The Rt. Hon. Jack Kemp (Prog Con.)
Minister of Defense: The Rt. Hon. Jeane Kirkpatrick (Prog Con.)
Minister of Justice: The Rt. Hon. Pierre S. du Pont IV (Prog Con.)
Minister of Interior Affairs: The Rt. Hon. Dick Cheney (Prog Con.)
Minister of Trade, Industry and Business: The Rt. Hon. Paul Laxalt (Prog Con.)
Minister of Labor and Employment: The Rt. Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prog Con.)
Minister of Health and Social Affairs: The Rt. Hon. Howard Baker (Prog Con.)
Minister of Education: The Rt. Hon. Mark Hatfield (Prog Con.)
Minister of Energy: The Rt. Hon. Jean Charest (Prog Con.)
Minister of Agriculture and Food: The Rt. Hon. Robert Dole (Prog Con.)
Minister of Transportation: The Rt. Hon. Phil Crane (Prog Con.)
Minister of Infrastructure and Housing: The Rt. Hon. John Chaffee (Prog Con.)
Minister of Veterans Affairs: The Rt. Hon. John McCain (Prog Con.)
Minister of Aboriginal Affairs: The Rt. Hon. Alan Simpson (Prog Con.)
Minister of Culture, Sports and Media: The Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell (Prog Con.)

Minister without Portfolio: The Rt. Hon. Charles Percy (Prog Con.)

Leader of the Government in the House of Commons: The Rt. Hon. Robert Michel (Prog Con.)
Leader of the Government in the Senate: The Rt. Hon. Senator John Connally (Prog Con.)
Government Chief Whip in the House of Commons: The Rt. Hon. Newt Gingrich (Prog Con.)
Government Chief Whip in the Senate: The Rt. Hon. Senator Orrin Hatch (Prog Con.)


Chuck Robb Shadow Cabinet, as of August 1988

Leader of the Opposition: The Rt. Hon. Chuck Robb (Lib.)
Deputy Leader of the Opposition: The Rt. Hon. Al Gore (Lib.)

Shadow Minister of Foreign Affairs: The Rt. Hon. Lloyd Bentsen (Lib.)
Shadow Minister of Finance: The Rt. Hon. Paul Simon (Lib.)
Shadow Minister of Defense: The Rt. Hon. John Glenn (Lib.)
Shadow Minister of Justice: The Rt. Hon. Jerry Brown (Lib.)
Shadow Minister of Interior Affairs: The Rt. Hon. Gary Hart (Lib.)
Shadow Minister of Trade, Industry and Business: The Rt. Hon. Tom Foley (Lib.)
Shadow Minister of Labor and Employment: The Rt. Hon. Robert Byrd (Lib.)
Shadow Minister of Health and Social Affairs: The Rt. Hon. Jean Chrétien (Lib.)
Shadow Minister of Education: The Rt. Hon. John Kerry (Lib.)
Shadow Minister of Energy: The Rt. Hon. Al Gore (Lib.)
Shadow Minister of Agriculture and Food: The Rt. Hon. Max Baucus (Lib.)
Shadow Minister of Transportation: The Rt. Hon. Dick Gephardt (Lib.)
Shadow Minister of Infrastructure and Housing: The Rt. Hon. Geraldine Ferraro (Lib.)
Shadow Minister of Veterans Affairs: The Rt. Hon. Alan Cranston (Lib.)
Shadow Minister of Aboriginal Affairs: The Rt. Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell (Lib.)
Shadow Minister of Culture, Sports and Media: The Rt. Hon. John Turner (Lib.)

Shadow Minister without Portfolio: The Rt. Hon. Barbara B. Kennelly (Lib.)

Opposition Leader in the House of Commons: The Rt. Hon. Jim Wright (Lib.)
Opposition Leader in the Senate: The Rt. Hon. Senator Terry Sanford (Lib.)
Opposition Chief Whip in the House of Commons: The Rt. Hon. Ralph Goodale (Lib.)
Opposition Chief Whip in the Senate: The Rt. Hon. Senator Jim Sasser (Lib.)


Title: Re: Into the next millenium
Post by: Pingvin on September 08, 2012, 12:46:09 PM
Oh boy that's going to be epic.


Title: Re: Into the next millenium
Post by: Jerseyrules on September 08, 2012, 03:38:46 PM

^

Truly awesome stuff man.  Keep it up!  ;)


Title: Re: Into the next millenium
Post by: Atlas Has Shrugged on September 08, 2012, 03:49:48 PM
This is amazing. Keep up the amazing work :) The great amount of detail in the first post alone is indicative of this timelines future.


Title: Re: Into the next millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on September 08, 2012, 04:17:26 PM
Thanks a lot for all the encouragement guys! :D I'm working on the next update right now, which will cover the first debate, and I'm hoping to have it up either later tonight (it's almost 11:30 here), or some time tomorrow.


Title: Re: Into the next millenium
Post by: morgieb on September 08, 2012, 05:09:45 PM
Looks gun.


Title: Re: Into the next millenium
Post by: FEMA Camp Administrator on September 08, 2012, 05:19:16 PM
This looks friggin' awesome. Will we see a back-story at some point?


Title: Re: Into the next millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on September 08, 2012, 05:49:17 PM
I will be posting a list of Prime Ministers and important historical events later on, however it won't be extremely detailed, just a basic short summary of events, since I mostly want to focus on the events from 1988 and onwards.


Title: Re: Into the next millenium
Post by: Jerseyrules on September 08, 2012, 06:10:52 PM
Looking forward to it!


Title: Re: Into the next millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on September 09, 2012, 03:34:16 AM
While I polish the next update (fix typos, etc.), here's this:

Prime Ministers of the American Commonwealth
1. Sir Benjamin Franklin (1785-1791), cross-bencher; died in office
2. Joseph Galloway (1791-1795), Tory
3. Edmund Randolph (1795-1799), Tory
4. Albert Gallatin (1799-1807), Whig
5. James Madison (1807-1816), Whig
6. William Crawford (1816-1821), Whig,
7. Sir Henry Clay (1821-1827), Whig, then Liberal minority government
8. John Calhoun (1827-1839), Tory
9. Sir Henry Clay (1839-1847), Liberal
10. Lewis Cass (1847-1853), Tory
11. William A. Graham (1853-1855), Liberal-Liberty coalition
12. James Buchanan (1855-1859), Tory
13. Schuyler Colfax (1859-1862), Liberal; assassinated
14. Sir Abraham Lincoln (1862-1876), Liberal
15. Sir John A. MacDonald (1862-1885), Tory-National coalition, then Conservative
16. James Garfield (1885-1891), Liberal
17. Adlai Stevenson (1891-1899), Liberal
18. William McKinley (1899-1902), Liberal; assassinated
19. Thomas B. Reed (1902-1904), Liberal; died in office
20. Wilfrid Laurier (1904-1905), Liberal
21. Robert Borden (1905-1911), Conservative
22. Sir Theodore Roosevelt (1911-1920), Liberal, then Liberal-Farmer Labor coalition
23. Charles Evans Hughes (1920-1921), Liberal-Farmer Labor coalition
24. Calvin Coolidge (1921-1933), Conservative
25. Sir William Lyon Mackenzie King (1933-1946), Liberal
26. Claude Pepper (1946-1951), Liberal, then Liberal-Labor coalition
27. Harold Stassen (1951-1960), Progressive Conservative
28. Lyndon B. Johnson (1960-1970), Liberal
29. Richard M. Nixon (1970-1973), Progressive Conservative minority, then Progressive Conservative majority
30. Nelson Rockefeller (1973-1974), Progressive Conservative
31. Edmund Muskie (1974-1979), Liberal-Labor coalition
32. Ronald Reagan (1979-present), Conservative, with supply and confidence from Libertarians


Governor-Generals of the America Commonwealth
1. William Howe, 5th Viscount Howe (1785-1793)
2. Charles Grey, 1st Earl Grey (1793-1806), died in office
3. George Prévost, 1st Baronet (1806-1814)
4. Isaac Brock (1814-1824)
5. George Ramsey, 9th Earl of Dalhousie (1824-1830)
6. Matthew Withforth-Aylmer, 5th Baron Aylmer (1830-1834)
7. Archibald Acheson, 2nd Earl of Godford (1834-1836)
8. Charles Poulett Thomson, 1st Baron Syndenham (1836-1841)
9. Charles Bagot (1841-1843), died in office
10. James Bruce, 8th Earl of Elgin (1843-1855)
11. Edmund Lyons, 1st Baron Lyons (1855-1858)
12. Edmund Walker Head, 8th Baronet (1858-1865)
13. Prince George, Duke of Cambridge (1865-1885)
14. Frederick Stanley, 16th Earl of Derby (1885-1893)
15. George Robinson, 1st Marquess of Ripon (1893-1901)
16. Albert Grey, 4th Earl Grey (1901-1908)
17. Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught (1908-1919)
18. Sir John J. Pershing (1919-1934)
19. Franklin D. Roosevelt (1934-1943)
20. Herbert Hoover (1943-1947)
21. Dwight Eisenhower, 1st Duke of Pointe du Hoc (1947-1963)
22. Joseph P. Kennedy, 2nd Duke of Suffolk (1963-1969), died in office
23. Henry M. Jackson (1969-1974)
24. Gerald Ford (1974-1979)
25. James E. Carter (1979-present)


A lot of credit for this goes to lord cadeus over at AH.com, who came up with most of the pre-1900 officeholders.


Title: Re: Into the next millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on September 09, 2012, 07:04:05 AM
ROBB STUMBLES, REAGAN SHINES IN FIRST DEBATE
The New York Times, September 7th 1988

Following the first party leaders debate held yesterday, most political commentators, backed up by overnight polling, agree that Reagan was the big winner of the night while Liberal leader Chuck Robb was largely a disappointment. The poor performance of Robb was a bit of a surprise, considering how the consistently strong performance he has delivered at PMQs, however Liberal Party spokespersons attribute this to Robb being new to the format of the televised debates, and that he was going up against Ronald Reagan, who's real strength lies in big public debates, and not PMQs like Robb. One big star of the night, aside from Reagan, was former Massachusetts Premier and current Labor Party leader Ted Kennedy who attacked both Robb and Reagan for "letting the working class and the poor down".

Selected quotes from the leaders' closing statements:

()
"This Prime Minister is just all talk. Sure he can talk about how believes in preserving traditional American values, but does he act? No! When a young woman can just walk into a so-called 'Doctor's' office and murder an unborn child, does your Prime Minister do anything about it? No! When our children aren't being brought up with the traditional values which will help them function in adult life, is your Prime Minister doing anything about it? No! When sodomy and other deviant behavior is being committed in an affront to the Christian morals our nation is founded upon, does your Prime Minister do anything about it? Of course not! Instead, he encourages it! America needs a Government which isn't all talk. America needs a government which will never stop defending our nations great values of Queen, God, and Country, no matter what happens."
-American Heritage Party leader Pat Buchanan

()
"It's time for someone in this room to just come out and say it. There's way too much wasteful and plain useless spending in this country. The Government can sure talk about fiscal responsibility, but then they just go on and do the same as the Liberals who came before them, just spend away at bridges to nowhere, leading to the ballooning deficit we have to live with now. We have a strong military highly capable of defending our borders from foreign aggression, but yet the government insists on useless pork barrel spending, we have a robust business world which could be even better than they are today, but the government insists on holding them down with suffocating regulations. Well I say enough is enough, it is long overdue that we stop throwing away the hard earned money of American citizes, at pointless projects. It is time for us to give that money back to the only people who really know how to use it wisely: the American people.
-Libertarian Party leader Ron Paul

()
"For too long we've had a government which cares about nothing else but it's Wall Street buddies and big business cronies, and the American people are sick of it. It's time for real change here in Philadelphia, it's time for someone to stand up for auto worker who's been fired after working for 30 years, it's time for someone to stand up for the high school graduate who can't afford to get into college, it's time for someone to stand up for the single mother who is struggling to make ends meet. It's time for a government that works for the people, not against them."
-Labor Party leader Ted Kennedy

()
"It's been nine years since Ronald Reagan came into to office, and sure, in the beginning people were all very enthusiastic about him, but now look at him. He and the rest of his party are just standing still, talking about what has been done, not what can be done, all while the budget deficit is grower bigger and bigger, dragging our country into serious debt. We need a change here in Philadelphia, we need a government which will not only take responsibility for our nation's needs in this rapidly changing world, but also take responsibility for solving today's issues today, instead of placing the results of our recklessness on the shoulders of our children and our grandchildren."
-Leader of the Opposition Chuck Robb (Lib.)

()
"You know, I've been standing here tonight and faced attacks and complaints from all the other party leaders up on stage here with me, but I find it kind of funny how in the midst of all the attacks on my government, we haven't seen any kind of real tangible proposals coming from all the guys up here with me. Oh sure, there's big talk and lofty goals in there, but like my former opponents Mr. Mondale said to me four years ago, 'where's the beef?' Look people, I'm going to be honest with you. My government isn't the best, isn't the smartest, and sure isn't the prettiest in the world, and mistakes have of course been made along the road, because we are just only human. But I remember nine years ago when I debated Prime Minister Muskie during the 1979 campaign, and I asked the question: "Are you better off than you were five years ago?". Well America, on September 20th I would like you to ask yourselves if you are better off today than you were nine years ago? If you are, then I know in my heart that you will vote for us, because the Progressive Conservative Party is the only party which will ensure that you will be better off the five years after that, and the five years after that, and the five years after that. Because the Progressive Conservative Party is not only the right party to bring all of us into the next decade, it is also the right party to bring us into the next millennium."
-Prime Minister Ronald Reagan (Prog Con.)


API Opinion Polling - "Who would you say 'won' the first party leaders debate?"
Reagan - 46%
Kennedy - 25%
Robb - 15%
Buchanan - 7%
Paul - 7%



Title: Re: Into the next millenium
Post by: MrHuman on September 09, 2012, 08:03:42 AM
This looks awesome.


Title: Re: Into the next millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on September 09, 2012, 08:11:08 AM

Thanks! :D


Title: Re: Into the next millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on September 09, 2012, 08:11:36 AM
Leaders of the Liberal Party
1. Sir Henry Clay (1824-1852), died in office
2. William A. Graham (1852-1857)
3. William Seward (1857-1862), assassinated
4. Sir Abraham Lincoln (1862-1880)
5. James Garfield (1880-1891)
6. Adlai Stevenson (1891-1899)
7. William McKinley (1899-1902), assassinated
8. Thomas B. Reed (1902-1904), died in office
9. Wilfrid Laurier (1904-1908)
10. Theodore Roosevelt (1908-1920)
11. Charles Evans Hughes (1920-1926)
12. William Lyon Mackenzie King (1926-1946)
13. Claude Pepper (1946-1955)
14. Lyndon B. Johnson (1955-1971)
15. Edmund Muskie (1971-1980)
16. Walter Mondale (1980-1986)
17. Chuck Robb (1986-present)

Leaders of the Conservative Party
1. Sir John A. MacDonald (1869-1891), died in office
2. Grover Cleveland (1894-1904)
3. Robert Borden (1907-1918)
4. Calvin Coolidge (1918-1933), died in office
5. John Nance Garner (1933-1942) [1]

Leaders of the Progressive Conservative Party
1. Thomas E. Dewey (1942-1950)
2. Harold Stassen (1950-1963)
3. Richard M. Nixon (1963-1973)
4. Gerald Ford (1973), interim
5. Nelson Rockefeller (1973-1977)
6. Ronald Reagan (1977-present)

Leaders of the Labor Party
1. Eugene V. Debs (1901-1924)
2. Norman Thomas (1924-1937)
3. Henry A. Wallace (1937-1954)
4. Glen H. Taylor (1954-1962)
5. Martin Luther King (1962-1968)
6. Birch Bayh (1968-1973)
7. Ron Dellums (1973-1985)
8. Ted Kennedy (1985-present)

Leaders of the Libertarian Party
1. Barry Goldwater (1969-1986)
2. Ron Paul (1986-present)

Leaders of the Southern People's Party
1. Strom Thurmond (1948-1966) [2]

Leaders of the American Heritage Party
1. Strom Thurmond (1966-1973)
2. Lester Maddox (1973-1986)
3. Pat Buchanan (1986-present)


[1] After the Conservatives lose seats despite being in opposition for the second time in a row, a group of reform minded members of the party rebel against the leadership of John Nance Garner and the rest of the high ranking members of the party. Garner tries to hang on, but is ousted in an extremely close leadership election which puts Thomas Dewey, leader of the reformist wing, in power. After he and his acolytes gain power of Conservative Party, they start to embrace the majority of the most popular reforms put into place by the Liberals, and change the party's name to the Progressive Conservative Party in order to present a new image to the voters.

[2] The leaders of the Southern People's Party make a joint decision to try and ensure the party's survival by expanding into other parts of the country, and in order to wash of the image of only being a Southern interests party, they change the party's name to the American Heritage Party and reinvent themselves as more of a mainstream socially conservative party which doesn't only focus on the issue of segregation.


Title: Re: Into the next millenium
Post by: Pingvin on September 09, 2012, 08:20:17 AM
You got LBJ as Prog Con in the PM list.


Title: Re: Into the next millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on September 09, 2012, 08:21:35 AM
You got LBJ as Prog Con in the PM list.

Thanks for the heads up, I've got it fixed now.


Title: Re: Into the next millenium
Post by: Atlas Has Shrugged on September 09, 2012, 12:38:58 PM
Great updates! I really enjoyed the debates. This is an amazing timeline! Keep up the amazing work :)


Title: Re: Into the next millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on September 09, 2012, 02:10:43 PM
Great updates! I really enjoyed the debates. This is an amazing timeline! Keep up the amazing work :)

Well it's good that you liked it. :) The next update will be up tomorrow, and in the meanwhile I'm going to post a map to give you an impression of what the American Commonwealth looks like ITTL, and I'm also working on a list of senators.


Title: Re: Into the next millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on September 09, 2012, 02:14:39 PM
Here's the map, with a complete list of Provinces and Territories below.
()

1. Province of Newfoundland and Labrador
2. Province of Canada
3. Province of St. John's
4. Province of Nova Scotia
5. Province of Maine
6. Province of New Hampshire
7. Province of Vermont
8. Province of Massachusetts
9. Province of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations
10. Province of Connecticut
11. Province of New York
12. Province of New Jersey
13. Province of Pennsylvania
14. Province of Delaware
15. Province of Maryland
16. Province of Virginia
17. Province of North Carolina
18. Province of South Carolina
19. Province of Georgia
20. Province of East Florida
21. Province of West Florida
22. Province of Alabama
23. Province of Mississippi
24. Province of Louisiana
25. Province of Arkansas
26. Province of Tennessee
27. Province of Kentucky
28. Province of Missouri
29. Province of Illinois
30. Province of Indiana
31. Province of Ohio
32. Province of Wisconsin
33. Province of Michigan
34. Province of Ontario
35. Province of Hudson
36. Province of Minnesota
37. Province of Iowa
38. Province of Texas
39. Province of Sequoyah
40. Province of Kansas
41. Province of Nebraska
42. Province of Dakota
43. Province of Manitoba
44. Province of Saskatchewan
45. Province of Montana
46. Province of Wyoming
47. Province of Colorado
48. Province of Arizuma
49. Province of Utah
50. Province of Nevada
51. Province of California
52. Province of Oregon
53. Province of British Columbia
54. Province of Alberta
55. Province of Alaska
56. Province of Hawaii
57. Province of the Bahamas
58. Province of Jamaica
59. Province of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands
60. Ungava Territory
61. Nunavut Territory
62. Northwest Territories
63. Yukon Territory


Title: Re: Into the next millenium
Post by: Vote UKIP! on September 09, 2012, 02:59:16 PM
Great so far!


Title: Re: Into the next millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on September 10, 2012, 05:26:33 AM
The next update will be up in a few hours, but in the meanwhile, here's the complete list of Senators for future reference.

Alabama
-George C. Wallace (Liberal), since 1972
-Howell Heflin (Liberal), since 1979


Alaska
-Ted Stevens (Progressive Conservative, since 1974
-Jay Hammond (Progressive Conservative), since 1981


Alberta
-Bud Olson (Liberal), since 1978
-Peter Lougheed (Progressive Conservative), since 1985


Arizuma
-Mo Udall (Liberal), since 1978
-Manuel Lujan, Jr. (Progressive Conservative), since 1983


Arkansas
-David Hampton Pryor (Liberal), since 1975
-John Paul Hammerschmidt (Progressive Conservative), since 1984


Bahamas
-Clifford Darling (Liberal), since 1974
-Lynden Pindling (Liberal), since 1987


British Columbia
-Dave Barrett (Labor), since 1979
-Daniel J. Evans (Progressive Conservative), since 1984


California
-Pat Brown (Liberal), since 1967
-Robert Finch (Progressive Conservative), since 1971


Canada
-Pierre Trudeau (Liberal), since 1976
-Paul David (Progressive Conservative), since 1985


Colorado
-John Arthur Love (Progressive Conservative), since 1973
-William L. Armstrong (Progressive Conservative), since 1986

Connecticut
-John N. Dempsey (Liberal), since 1968
-Ronald A. Sarasin (Progressive Conservative), 1982

Dakota
-John E. Davis (Progressive Conservative), since 1970
-George McGovern (Labor), since 1975


Delaware
-Russell W. Peterson (Progressive Conservative), since 1981
-William V. Roth, Jr. (Progressive Conservative), since 1984


East Florida
-Jack Edwards (Progressive Conservative), since 1979
-Earl Dewitt Hutto (Liberal), since 1987


Georgia
-John James Flynt, Jr. (Liberal), since 1975
-Lester Maddox (American Heritage), since 1986


Hawaii
-William F. Quinn (Progressive Conservative), since 1959
-Spark Matsunaga (Labor), since 1969


Hudson
-Rhéal Bélisle (Progressive Conservative), since 1960
-Saul Laskin (Liberal), since 1974

Illinois
-Richard M. Daley (Liberal), since 1976
-John B. Anderson (Independent), since 1981*

*Anderson left the Progressive Conservative Party to sit as an Independent, in 1987

Indiana
-Edgar Whitcomb (Progressive Conservative), since 1974
-Birch Bayh (Labor), since 1979

Iowa
-Roger Jepsen (Progressive Conservative), since 1972
-Neal Edward Smith (Liberal), since 1974


Jamaica
-Hugh Shearer (Jamaica Labour/Progressive Conservative), since 1974*
-Michael Manley (People's National/Labor), since 1985*


*Shearer sits as a member of the Jamaica Labour Party, but caucuses with the Progressive Conservatives, while Manley sits as a member of the People's National Party, but caucuses with the Labor Party.

Kansas
-William H. Avery (Progressive Conservative), since 1971
-Garner E. Shriver (Progressive Conservative), since 1980


Kentucky
-Wendell H. Ford (Liberal), since 1975
-Gene Snyder (Progressive Conservative), since 1987


Louisiana
-John McKeithen (Liberal), since 1979
-Paul Hardy (Progressive Conservative), since 1988


Maine
-Kenneth M. Curtis (Liberal), since 1975
-David F. Emery (Progressive Conservative), since 1986


Manitoba
-Joseph-Philippe Guay (Liberal), since 1979
-Dean Whiteway (Progressive Conservative), since 1981


Maryland
-Marvin Mandel (Liberal), since 1978
-Marjorie Hold (Progressive Conservative), since 1982


Massachusetts
-Tip O'Neill (Liberal), since 1978
-Elliot Richardson (Progressive Conservative), since 1983


Michigan
-George W. Romney (Progressive Conservative), since 1970
-William D. Ford (Liberal), since 1978


Minnesota
-Alexander M. Keith (Liberal), since 1975
-Al Quie (Progressive Conservative), since 1984


Mississippi
-Thad Cochran (Progressive Conservative), since 1985
-Bill Waller (Liberal), since 1978

Missouri
-William C. Phelps (Progressive Conservative), since 1982
-Thomas Eagleton (Liberal), since 1977


Montana
-Mike Mansfield (Liberal), since 1961
-Tim M. Babcock (Progressive Conservative), since 1970


Nebraska
-Norbert Tieman (Progressive Conservative), since 1974
-Virginia Smith (Progressive Conservative), since 1986

Nevada
-Howard Cannon (Liberal), since 1975
-Bob Cashell (Progressive Conservative), since 1988

Newfoundland & Labrador
-Frederick William Rowe (Liberal), since 1969
-Jack Marshall (Progressive Conservative), since 1979


New Hampshire
-Thomas J. McIntyre (Liberal), since 1968
-Walter R. Peterson, Jr. (Progressive Conservative), since 1980


New Jersey
-William T. Cahill (Progressive Conservative), since 1974
-William J. Hughes (Liberal), since 1978


New York
-Malcolm Wilson (Progressive Conservative), since 1972
-John Lindsay (Liberal), since 1979


North Carolina
-Terry Sanford (Liberal), since 1970
-Robert W. Scott (Liberal), since 1978


Nova Scotia
-Charles McElman (Liberal), since 1967
-Robert Stanfield (Progressive Conservative), since 1980


Ohio
-John William Brown (Progressive Conservative), since 1974
-Lud Ashley (Liberal), since 1977


Ontario
-Edgar Benson (Liberal), since 1977
-David Crombie (Progressive Conservative), since 1986


Oregon
-Howell Appling, Jr. (Progressive Conservative), since 1972
-Robert B. Duncan (Liberal), since 1978


Pennsylvania
-Ernest Kline (Liberal), since 1978
-Richard Schweicker (Progressive Conservative), since 1981


Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands
-Roberto Sánchez Viella (Labor), since 1975
-Hamilton Lavity Stoutt (Progressive Conservative), since 1983


Rhode Island
-Claiborne Pell (Liberal), since 1969
-Fernand St. Germain (Liberal), since 1978


Saskatchewan
-David Steuart (Liberal), since 1976
-Lorne Nystrom (Labor), since 1979


Sequoyah
-David Hall (Liberal), since 1975
-Henry Bellmon (Progressive Conservative), since 1982


South Carolina
-Ernest Hollings (Liberal), since 1976
-Strom Thurmond (American Heritage), since 1985


St. John's
-Alex Campbell (Liberal), since 1979
-Heath MacQuarrie (Progressive Conservative), since 1983


Tennessee
-Jim Sasser (Liberal), since 1978
-Winfield Dunn (Progressive Conservative), since 1982


Texas
-John Connally (Progressive Conservative), since 1967*
-Ralph Yarborough (Liberal), since 1978


*Connally previously sat as a Liberal, but he switched party affiliations to Progressive Conservative in 1971.

Utah
-Calvin L. Rampton (Liberal), since 1976
-Orrin Hatch (Progressive Conservative), since 1981


Vermont
-F. Ray Keyser, Jr. (Progressive Conservative), since 1970
-Robert Stafford (Progressive Conservative), since 1980


Virginia
-Hulett C. Smith (Liberal), since 1976
-Miles E. Godwin, Jr. (Progressive Conservative), since 1982

West Florida
-Jim Williams (Liberal), since 1977
-Louis A. Bafalis (Progressive Conservative), since 1985


Wisconsin
-Patrick Lucey (Liberal), since 1978
-Bob Kasten (Progressive Conservative), since 1987


Wyoming
-Teno Roncalio (Liberal), since 1976
-Gale W. McGee (Liberal), since 1978


-----

Northwest Territories
-Gordon Wray (Independent), since 1984

Nunavut Territory
-Jack Anawak (Liberal), since 1987

Ungava Territory
-Armand Caouette (Independent-Progressive Conservative), since 1984

Yukon Territory
-Erik Nielsen (Progressive Conservative), since 1986

-------

The American Senate ITTL is very much like the Canadian one IOTL when it comes to the amount of power it is capable of excercising, with the biggest differences being that very province has two senators each, like the US Senate IOTL, with each territory having one. Also, unlike the Canadian Senate, there's no obligatory retirement age of 75 for Senators in the American one.


Title: Re: Into the next millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on September 10, 2012, 11:29:08 AM
PROG CON. LEAD HOLDING STEADY, LAB GOES UP AT EXPENSE OF LIBS, IN LATEST POLLS
-The American Post, September 9th 1988

API Opinion Polling - Which party would you vote for if the election was held today?
Progressive Conservatives - 37,7% (+0,3%)
Liberals - 29,7% (-2,4%)
Labor - 12,0% (+2,4%)
Libertarians - 8,4% (-0,5%)
American Heritage - 8,4% (+0,3%)
Others/Undecided - 3,8% (-0,1%)


DEMOCRATS REELECTED IN UK ELECTIONS, LABOUR REACHES RECORD LOW
While we Americans have been following our very own election campaign for the past few weeks, it can be easy to forget that the Brits had their very own election season going on as well. In yesterdays general election, the Democrats, formerly known as the SDP-Liberal Alliance prior to the merger of the two parties, were reelected easily under the leadership of Prime Minister Shirley Williams. The Conservatives, led by Margaret Thatcher, came in second, while the Labour Party under the leadership of Tony Benn, came in a distant third. The Democrats attained just over 40% of the popular vote, however due to the implementation of Mixed-Member Proportional Representation, the same voting system used here in America, the Dems fell just short of an outright majority. However it is expected that the party will achieve a workable majority in the House of Commons by aligning itself with minor parties such as the Green Party, or nationalist parties like the SNP or Plaid Cymru.
The New York Times, September 9th 1988

United Kingdom General Election, 1988
Democrat (Shirley Williams) - 40,3% - 331 seats
Conservative (Margaret Thatcher) - 30,7% -197 seats
Labour (Tony Benn) -  17,4% - 102 seats
Green (Sara Parkin) - 6% - 24 seats
Other/Nationalist - 4,6% - 16 seats


Title: Re: Into the next millenium
Post by: Captain Chaos on September 10, 2012, 11:37:09 AM
The next update will be up in a few hours, but in the meanwhile, here's the complete list of Senators for future reference.

Alabama
-George C. Wallace (Liberal), since 1972
-Howell Heflin (Liberal), since 1979


Alaska
-Ted Stevens (Progressive Conservative, since 1974
-Jay Hammond (Progressive Conservative), since 1981


Alberta
-Bud Olson (Liberal), since 1978
-Peter Lougheed (Progressive Conservative), since 1985


Arizuma
-Mo Udall (Liberal), since 1978
-Manuel Lujan, Jr. (Progressive Conservative), since 1983


Arkansas
-David Hampton Pryor (Liberal), since 1975
-John Paul Hammerschmidt (Progressive Conservative), since 1984


Bahamas
-Clifford Darling (Liberal), since 1974
-Lynden Pindling (Liberal), since 1987


British Columbia
-Dave Barrett (Labor), since 1979
-Daniel J. Evans (Progressive Conservative), since 1984


California
-Pat Brown (Liberal), since 1967
-Robert Finch (Progressive Conservative), since 1971


Canada
-Pierre Trudeau (Liberal), since 1976
-Paul David (Progressive Conservative), since 1985


Colorado
-John Arthur Love (Progressive Conservative), since 1973
-William L. Armstrong (Progressive Conservative), since 1986

Connecticut
-John N. Dempsey (Liberal), since 1968
-Ronald A. Sarasin (Progressive Conservative), 1982

Dakota
-John E. Davis (Progressive Conservative), since 1970
-George McGovern (Labor), since 1975


Delaware
-Russell W. Peterson (Progressive Conservative), since 1981
-William V. Roth, Jr. (Progressive Conservative), since 1984


East Florida
-Jack Edwards (Progressive Conservative), since 1979
-Earl Dewitt Hutto (Liberal), since 1987


Georgia
-John James Flynt, Jr. (Liberal), since 1975
-Lester Maddox (American Heritage), since 1986


Hawaii
-William F. Quinn (Progressive Conservative), since 1959
-Spark Matsunaga (Labor), since 1969


Hudson
-Rhéal Bélisle (Progressive Conservative), since 1960
-Saul Laskin (Liberal), since 1974

Illinois
-Richard M. Daley (Liberal), since 1976
-John B. Anderson (Independent), since 1981*

*Anderson left the Progressive Conservative Party to sit as an Independent, in 1987

Indiana
-Edgar Whitcomb (Progressive Conservative), since 1974
-Birch Bayh (Labor), since 1979

Iowa
-Roger Jepsen (Progressive Conservative), since 1972
-Neal Edward Smith (Liberal), since 1974


Kansas
-William H. Avery (Progressive Conservative), since 1971
-Garner E. Shriver (Progressive Conservative), since 1980


Kentucky
-Wendell H. Ford (Liberal), since 1975
-Gene Snyder (Progressive Conservative), since 1987


Louisiana
-John McKeithen (Liberal), since 1979
-Paul Hardy (Progressive Conservative), since 1988


Maine
-Kenneth M. Curtis (Liberal), since 1975
-David F. Emery (Progressive Conservative), since 1986


Manitoba
-Joseph-Philippe Guay (Liberal), since 1979
-Dean Whiteway (Progressive Conservative), since 1981


Maryland
-Marvin Mandel (Liberal), since 1978
-Marjorie Hold (Progressive Conservative), since 1982


Massachusetts
-Tip O'Neill (Liberal), since 1978
-Elliot Richardson (Progressive Conservative), since 1983


Michigan
-George W. Romney (Progressive Conservative), since 1970
-William D. Ford (Liberal), since 1978


Minnesota
-Alexander M. Keith (Liberal), since 1975
-Al Quie (Progressive Conservative), since 1984


Mississippi
-Thad Cochran (Progressive Conservative), since 1985
-Bill Waller (Liberal), since 1978

Missouri
-William C. Phelps (Progressive Conservative), since 1982
-Thomas Eagleton (Liberal), since 1977


Montana
-Mike Mansfield (Liberal), since 1961
-Tim M. Babcock (Progressive Conservative), since 1970


Nebraska
-Norbert Tieman (Progressive Conservative), since 1974
-Virginia Smith (Progressive Conservative), since 1986

Nevada
-Howard Cannon (Liberal), since 1975
-Bob Cashell (Progressive Conservative), since 1988

Newfoundland & Labrador
-Frederick William Rowe (Liberal), since 1969
-Jack Marshall (Progressive Conservative), since 1979


New Hampshire
-Thomas J. McIntyre (Liberal), since 1968
-Walter R. Peterson, Jr. (Progressive Conservative), since 1980


New Jersey
-William T. Cahill (Progressive Conservative), since 1974
-William J. Hughes (Liberal), since 1978


New York
-Malcolm Wilson (Progressive Conservative), since 1972
-John Lindsay (Liberal), since 1979


North Carolina
-Terry Sanford (Liberal), since 1970
-Robert W. Scott (Liberal), since 1978


Nova Scotia
-Charles McElman (Liberal), since 1967
-Robert Stanfield (Progressive Conservative), since 1974


Ohio
-John William Brown (Progressive Conservative), since 1974
-Lud Ashley (Liberal), since 1977


Oregon
-Howell Appling, Jr. (Progressive Conservative), since 1972
-Robert B. Duncan (Liberal), since 1978


Pennsylvania
-Ernest Kline (Liberal), since 1978
-Richard Schweicker (Progressive Conservative), since 1981


Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands
-Roberto Sánchez Viella (Labor), since 1975
-Hamilton Lavity Stoutt (Progressive Conservative), since 1983


Rhode Island
-Claiborne Pell (Liberal), since 1969
-Fernand St. Germain (Liberal), since 1978


Saskatchewan
-David Steuart (Liberal), since 1976
-Lorne Nystrom (Labor), since 1979


Sequoyah
-David Hall (Liberal), since 1975
-Henry Bellmon (Progressive Conservative), since 1982


South Carolina
-Ernest Hollings (Liberal), since 1976
-Strom Thurmond (American Heritage), since 1985


St. John's
-Alex Campbell (Liberal), since 1979
-Heath MacQuarrie (Progressive Conservative), since 1983


Tennessee
-Jim Sasser (Liberal), since 1978
-Winfield Dunn (Progressive Conservative), since 1982


Texas
-John Connally (Progressive Conservative), since 1967*
-Ralph Yarborough (Liberal), since 1978


*Connally previously sat as a Liberal, but he switched party affiliations to Progressive Conservative in 1971.

Utah
-Calvin L. Rampton (Liberal), since 1976
-Orrin Hatch (Progressive Conservative), since 1981


Vermont
-F. Ray Keyser, Jr. (Progressive Conservative), since 1970
-Robert Stafford (Progressive Conservative), since 1980


Virginia
-Hulett C. Smith (Liberal), since 1976
-Miles E. Godwin, Jr. (Progressive Conservative), since 1982

West Florida
-Jim Williams (Liberal), since 1977
-Louis A. Bafalis (Progressive Conservative), since 1985


Wisconsin
-Patrick Lucey (Liberal), since 1978
-Bob Kasten (Progressive Conservative), since 1987


Wyoming
-Teno Roncalio (Liberal), since 1976
-Gale W. McGee (Liberal), since 1978


-----

Northwest Territories
-Gordon Wray (Independent), since 1984

Nunavut Territory
-Jack Anawak (Liberal), since 1987

Ungava Territory
-Armand Caouette (Independent-Progressive Conservative), since 1984

Yukon Territory
-Erik Nielsen (Progressive Conservative), since 1986

-------

The American Senate ITTL is very much like the Canadian one IOTL when it comes to the amount of power it is capable of excercising, with the biggest differences being that very province has two senators each, like the US Senate IOTL, with each territory having one. Also, unlike the Canadian Senate, there's no obligatory retirement age of 75 for Senators in the American one.

You forgot Jamaica.


Title: Re: Into the next millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on September 10, 2012, 11:47:10 AM
^ Yeah I noticed that too, so I've fixed it now.


Title: Re: Into the next millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on September 10, 2012, 12:18:41 PM
FMR. MISS VIRGINIA ADMITS SHE HAD AN AFFAIR WITH CHUCK ROBB
()
"In an exclusive interview with The Dominion, former Miss Virginia, Tai Collins, tells all about the secret affair she had with Liberal leader Chuck Robb during his time as Premier of Virginia. Read it all about it on pages 2, 3 and 4."
-Frontpage blurb, The Dominion, September 12th 1988

()
"We had always been happy with Robb as Liberal leader at Prog Con HQ, despite how "centrist" he was, and despite the fact that on several times he had taken more conservative positions than our own MPs, which could've drawn in a lot of swing voters and Reagan Liberals. But the very public turmoil his leadership created within the Liberal Party was just complete gold to us. Every other month, like clockwork, Liberal MPs, MLAs, or Premiers would hit Robb for "betraying Liberal values", and sometimes even real high profile Liberals, like former Labor Minister-[then] Senator Pierre Trudeau, who once said that Robb's leadership was "a slap in the face of every single person who had ever voted for the Liberal Party", would pitch in. Of course Trudeau didn't know the microphone was on at the time, but that didn't matter, and the resulting media frenzy was like Christmas for us Tories. And then of course the whole Miss Virginia thing hit, and that once and for all proved that Chuck Robb was just the gift that kept on giving."
-Lee Atwater, fmr. President of the Progressive Conservative Party (1986-1990), being interviewed by The American Post in January, 1990


Title: Re: Into the next millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on September 11, 2012, 02:18:05 PM
A CLOSER LOOK AT….

The Progressive Conservative Party leadership election of 1977

The 1977 Progressive Conservative leadership election, nicknamed the "geezer election" by media due to the main contenders being older than the age of 60, took place during August of 1977, during the annual Progressive Conservative National Convention.

Incumbent party leader Nelson Rockefeller ran for reelection, and despite the controversy surrounding his leadership due complaints over his liberals policies by more conservative MPs, many among the media thought that he would be reelected unopposed. However that all changed two weeks out after the de facto leader of the party's conservative wing, Ronald Reagan, who came in second to Rockefeller in the 1974 leadership election, announced his intention to challenge Rockefeller for the leadership of the party. Shortly after Reagan entered the race, backbench MP George Bush, considered to ideologically be in the party's middle, threw his hat into the ring as well, but most of the attention was still directed at Rockefeller and Reagan.

The first ballot resulted in no candidate holding a clear lead among votes cast, with Rockefeller holding a narrow lead over Reagan, however following his failure to attain a clear majority in the first round of votes, Rockefeller surprised everyone by announcing that he would be withdrawing his name from the ballot. Instead he introduced another candidate who he would throw his full support behind. Robert Stanfield was considered to be slightly to the right of Rockefeller, but still in the liberal wing of the party, and still respected enough by conservative, moderate and liberal alike due to his service as Foreign Minister between 1970 and 74. Victory looked like it was in the bag for Stanfield, but then another candidate entered the fray, out of the blue. Shadow Education Minister, and strong liberal, John Anderson joined the race, and this resulted in the second ballot also being tied, followed by the third and the fourth. By the fifth ballot the candidates were getting desperate and started to bargain with each other. Firstly Stanfield attempted to convince Anderson to quit the race, but they were unable to reach a deal acceptable to both camps, while Reagan went to Bush and offered him, in exchange for dropping out, the Deputy leadership as well as the position of Shadow Foreign Minister. Bush thought long and hard about this, and since he no longer saw a chance of getting elected leader, he decided to accept the offer. Bush withdrew his candidacy, and with a majority of just two votes, Reagan was elected leader of the Progressive Conservative Party.

This was one of the most tumultuous leadership elections in the history of the Progressive Conservatives at the time, and it was the catalyst in the decision to change the system of electing party leaders to a one where the candidate which placed last in each ballot would be eliminated, thus ensuring that the elections would go more smoothly.

()

-----------------

I was thinking of doing a few of these between updates now and then. You know, factual, but brief, looks into things which aren't that closely connected to the stuff happening at the point in time where the main timeline takes place. Thoughts?

EDIT:
Also, the pictured I posted appears smaller than its actual size. Here's a link if it's too small for any of you.
http://i.imgur.com/dWvFT.png (http://i.imgur.com/dWvFT.png)


Title: Re: Into the next millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on September 12, 2012, 12:28:05 PM
ROBB: "I DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH THAT WOMAN"
()

Following the allegations that he had an affair with a former Miss Virginia, ABS Newsnight caught Mr. Robb just after exiting the Liberal Party headquarters. There he firmly denied all allegations and dismissed them as slander, while saying that he was "excited to get out there and tell the country about the Liberal vision for America".
-The New York Times, September 13th 1988

KENNEDY BARNSTORMS IN RUST BELT; SLAMS REAGAN
()

Today Labor Party leader Ted Kennedy barnstormed in the two rust belt provinces of Michigan and Ohio, spending the first half of the day visiting a manufacturing plant in Ohio, where half the workforce is being laid off with their jobs being shipped overseas, and the second half of the day he spent in Flint, Michigan, a city which has been hit harshly by unemployment and economic malaise after General Motors chose to close down several of its plants in the city. It was also in Flint where Kennedy chose to hold his big speech of the day.

"This is the Tories' vision of America, people!", Kennedy exclaimed, standing outside of a closed down GM plant. "An America where it's completely fine for a conglomerate making billions in profit, to just cut off the livelihood of an entire city, and ship those jobs overseas. Does that seem fair to you? Of course not! It's time for a change in this country. It's time for a government which doesn't look the other way while big corporations move jobs overseas. It's time for a government which will fight poverty instead of sweeping it under the carpet. It's time for a government which cares about the people it's supposed to serve. It is time for a Labor government!"
-The Globe, September 13th 1988

RON PAUL BOOED AT EVENT IN FLORIDA
()

At a party event in Florida today, Libertarian leader Ron Paul was booed after he advocated for the gradual dismantlement of the Federal Health Insurance in favor of free market oriented alternatives. The FHI has long been considered the third rail of American politics ever since it was was implemented by Prime Minister Claude Pepper in 1949, and even former Libertarian leader Barry Goldwater didn't argue for the complete dismantlement of the system, he only argued that the operations of the health care system should be devolved to a provincial level, so that the individual provinces could decide if they wanted to keep the FHI in place or not. Mr. Paul on the other hand, has shown that he has very little fear of going against popular opinion on the big issues.
-The American Post, September 15th 1988


Title: Re: Into the next millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on September 15, 2012, 01:04:13 PM
TAI COLLINS SAYS ROBB IS LYING
()

With Chuck Robb having denied all accusations that he had an affair with Miss Collins, The Globe asked for her comments on Mr. Robbs denials. This is what she had to say: "While I certainly understand why Chuck is denying it all, I don't think it's fair to his wife, the voters, or himself if he keeps up with it. I think it's time for him to own up for his mistakes just like I'm trying to."
-The Globe, September 15th 1988

WHAT HAVE YOU BEEN UP TO, CHUCK?

Infidelity scandals in politics is something none of us are unfamiliar with, and therefore, despite all the big headlines about Chuck Robb and his alleged mistress Tai Collins, very few people were surprised that a politician had been cheating on his wife. But now The New York Times can exclusively report that according to sources within his former staff as Premier of Virginia, then-Premier Robb had on several instances been on parties in Virginia Beach, where cocaine was used, however it is currently unknown if Robb actually used the illegal substances while present at the parties. The staff of Chuck Robb has refused to comment on the information.
-The New York Times, September 15th 1988

PAUL ACCUSES THE GOVERNMENT OF ECONOMIC IRRESPONSIBILITY
()

Following the bad welcome he got while speaking in Florida yesterday, today Ron Paul got right back up on the horse by attacking the Reagan government on their economic record.

"The Tories like to say how they are the only ones you can trust with this country's economy, that they are the only ones able to craft a fair and responsible budget. There is only one problem with that argument: it's all lies. Oh sure, Ronald Reagan and his friends like to say how their being economically responsible, even though the country's deficit is growing bigger by the minute. They like to say how they support the free market, even though they're holding it down with useless legislation. Well I think it's time to make a change in this country. It's time to say no to high taxes, it's time to say no reckless spending, it's time to say no to cumbersome regulations, and it's time to say yes to a Libertarian government!"
-Segment from Ron Paul's speech in Dallas, Texas, September 16th 1988


Title: Re: Into the next millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on September 18, 2012, 08:01:18 AM
MASSIVE DROP IN LIBERAL SUPPORT IN FRESH POLLS, LAB AND PC MAKING GAINS
With all the drama surrounding Chuck Robb during the past, things are just going from bad to worse for the Liberals, with these fresh polls showing that the Liberals have lost over 8 points during the past week, with most of their support going to the Labor and Progressive Conservative parties. The question is if Robb will be able to turn this slump around in tomorrows debate, or if the party will keep sinking in the polls all the way up to election day.
-The Dominion, September 18th 1988

API Opinion Polling - Who would you vote for if the election was held today?
Progressive Conservative - 40,9% (+3,2%)
Liberal - 20,1% (-9,7%)
Labor - 18,5% (+6,5%)
Libertarian - 9,0% (+0,6%)
American Heritage - 8,8% (+0,4%)
Other/Undecided - 2,7% (-1,1%)


--------

I realize my updates have been a bit erratic lately, but unfortunately I'm sick at the moment so I haven't exactly felt up to writing. I'm attempting to get some work done on the final debate (which is going to be the next update), but you shouldn't expect to see it for a few days at least.

Any comments on the TL so far?


Title: Re: Into the next millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on September 24, 2012, 12:06:38 PM
I'm back. :)

-------

REAGAN APPEARS DISORIENTATED IN SECOND DEBATE

With the Tories preforming strongly in recent polls, expectations were high for Ronald Reagan in last nights debate, with people wondering if he would be able to continue the governments policies over the past nine years. Well, unfortunately for his supporters, Reagan failed to reach up to all expectations, and his performance during the debate sparked new life into the debate about wether the Prime Minister is getting to old and afflicted by memory problems to continue leading the government.

Transcript:

Moderator: Mr. Reagan, you have come under criticism from both sides of the aisle for not being able to balance the budget. My question is how is how your party will rein in the deficit if you are given a third term in government?

Reagan: Umm… well you see um.. the budget is important and… err.. if you elect me leader of the Progressive Conservative Party -no, wait, um… I vow that the budget deficit will me maintained in my second term, because a strong budget deficit is key…. -no, um… It would be good if the budget deficit… it should be eliminated. Yes. We're getting rid of the budget -no, the budget deficit.

Meanwhile Liberal leader Chuck Robb came under fire following the allegations that he had cheated on his wife with former Miss Virginia, Tai Collins, as well as having been present at several parties where cocaine was used, during the early 80s. Most of the criticism came from American Heritage leader Pat Buchanan.

Transcript:

Buchanan: Personally, I wouldn't trust Mr. Robb to be faithful to this country and the needs of its people, since he couldn't even be faithful to his wife. And now there's that rumor going around that Mr. Robb might have been taking the illegal drug cocaine at parties, or at least stood idly by while others were taking it. And this is rumor which Mr. Robb hasn't even bothered to refute, considering the seriousness of the allegation. I think that the American people deserve to know if an elected official has broken the law, so I'm asking you here and now, Mr. Robb, have you ever used cocaine?

Robb: Look, all the talk about me having taken cocaine is nothing but lies. I don't even know what the stuff looks like, and-

Buchanan: Wait, wait, wait, I just have to stop you there. Are you seriously saying that you don't even know what the substance looks like? So either you're just very bad at lying, or you genuinely have no idea what the drug looks like. A drug which, along with other illegal substances, is a plague upon American youths and the American way of life.

Robb: I resent that those accusations.

Labor leader Ted Kennedy also took centre stage in last nights debate, with his harsh attacks on both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition

Transcript:

Kennedy: It's time for a real change to come to this country, instead of the empty words coming from the other side of the aisle. I know what you at home are thinking when I say that. "Every politician talks about 'change', so what makes him so different?" remember nine years ago when Ronald Reagan debated Ed Muskie and said "it's time for a change here in Philadelphia". Likewise I remember the five years before that when Muskie debated Nelson Rockefeller and said "it's time for a change". Ronnie Reagan and Ed Muskie have two things in common. They both came into office promising sweeping reform, and a great new tomorrow for all Americans, and in the end they didn't change anything at all. And we've all heard what Mr. Reagan and Mr. Robb have said during this election campaign. They've said your only choice is between two old and grey parties which have been running things the same way for the past 50 years, with no true difference between them. I'm here tonight to tell you all that there is an alternative. Tomorrow all of you across this great nation can make the choice to do things differently for once. The choice to say no to the old corrupt back room policies of the Liberals and the Conservatives, and say yes to true change. Together we can make the decision to do things differently in order to create a more fair and open society built upon decent no nonsense politics, which benefit the everyday working American. We need a government which will serve the people that elected it, instead of just itself alone, and I promise you all that a Labor government is that government.
-The New York Times, September 20th

REAGAN'S ABILITY TO SERVE AS PM CALLED INTO QUESTION

Following Prime Minister Ronald Reagan's, to say the least, erratic performance during last nights debate, a great deal of people, pundits and regular voters alike, are starting to wonder whether Mr. Reagan is getting to old to continue to serve as this nation's Prime Minister. During the debate the Prime Minister displayed signs of confusion and memory issues, and at one point it appeared as if he was unaware of where he was. The Prime Minister's Office were quick to issue a press release which explained how the events of the night were a result of the Prime Minister accidentally taking the wrong medication before the debate. However overnight polling by Gallup shows that it may be too little, too late. Fourth months ago Gallup polled voters, asking them the question: "do you think Ronald Reagan is fit to continue serving as Prime Minister?". Then 50% answered yes, while 35% answered no, with 15% being undecided. This latest poll shows that the tide has surely turned.

Gallup - Do you think Ronald Reagan is fit to continue serving as Prime Minister?
No - 51% (+16%)
Yes - 38% (-12%)
Undecided - 11%


And the polling on last nights debate is just more bad news for the PC campaign, with the Prime Minister coming in second to last, just above Libertarian leader Ron Paul, who was largely sidelined during the final debate. American Heritage leader Pat Buchanan on the other hand, makes a surprisingly strong second place finish, with voters especially citing his position on law and order as the reason for their support. This is a major success for Buchanan, as in the past few years he has been trying to wash away the old image of the American Heritage Party as a party only for pro-segregation southerners. But the big winner of the night was Ted Kennedy of the Labor Party who rallied against both the Liberal and Progressive Conservative, and referred to them as two sides of the same coin. The question is, with the polls opening today, just how will the election turn out, because one thing is certain, and that's the fact that Reagan's poor preformance and Robb's scandals means that all bets are off.

API Opinion Polling - Who do you think won the second debate?
Ted Kennedy (Labor) - 37%
Pat Buchanan (American Heritage) - 22%
Chuck Robb (Liberal) - 16%
Ronald Reagan (Progressive Conservative) - 15%
Ron Paul (Libertarian) - 10%


-America Today, September 20th 1988

-----

Questions? Comments? Critiques?


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: Negusa Nagast 🚀 on September 24, 2012, 01:58:28 PM
This is fantastic. Go Labor!


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: Jerseyrules on September 24, 2012, 10:33:54 PM
This is fantastic. Go Labor Reagan!


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: Goldwater on September 24, 2012, 11:31:12 PM


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: Lief 🗽 on September 24, 2012, 11:50:55 PM
This is great! I love the fake Wikipedia updates, since that's how I learned a lot of what I know about foreign politics. It's a little strange that this super America+Canada country would still be ruled, even indirectly, by the British monarchy, but I can suspend my disbelief there. :)


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on September 25, 2012, 03:10:26 PM
Great to see that you're all enjoying this, guys! :D

This is great! I love the fake Wikipedia updates, since that's how I learned a lot of what I know about foreign politics. It's a little strange that this super America+Canada country would still be ruled, even indirectly, by the British monarchy, but I can suspend my disbelief there. :)

Yeah well, the intention is for the reader to suspend his disbeliefs on some issues. The main one being that with a POD way back in the 1700s, our current day politicians probably wouldn't even exist, and if by some chance one or two of them did, they probably wouldn't even be in the same line of work. But a timeline filled with nothing but completely fictional people probably wouldn't be as interesting. ;)


----------------------------------

POLLS OPEN AS PARTY LEADERS ENTER FINAL STRETCH OF CAMPAIGNING

Today the American people will decide which party will govern this country for the next few years, and the leaders  of the main five political parties are kicking their campaigns into overdrive during the day in order to convince you that their party is the right one to govern this nation.

Liberal leader Chuck Robb will be starting the day with voting in his home district of Richmond, followed by a meet and greet with voters. After that he will fly to New York City where he is going to hold his last major campaign speech of this election cycle. He will be joined by former Prime Minister Ed Muskie and Liberal Party chairman, Senator Richard Daley. Following that he will do another brief meet with voters at a small polling station in Queens, before going flying down to Liberal Party HQ in Philadelphia to await the result.  

Pat Buchanan, leader of the American Heritage Party, will be spending most of his day in the midwest, where he will hold two separate campaign rallies. A smaller one will be held at 10PM in Des Moines, Iowa, while the bigger one, where he will be joined by prominent party figures like Jesse Helms, will be held in Kansas City later during the day. Following that he will return to his home district Roanoke where he will vote and campaign for the remainder of the evening until polling stations close, and he returns to American Heritage HQ in Philadelphia.

Libertarian Ron Paul will be voting in his district Galveston this morning, and go on to campaign in his home province Texas during the day, with a major campaign rally being held in Houston during the afternoon. After polling stations close he will await the election results during a party event in Galveston.

Ted Kennedy is kicking off the day by voting in his district Lynn-Suffolk, which will be followed by several last minute campaign stops in the states of Ontario, Michigan, Ohio, and finally Pennsylvania, where he, along with former party leaders Ron Dellums and Birch Bayh, will speak before supporters in Pittsburgh before returning to Labor HQ in Philadelphia.

Prime Minister Ronald Reagan was originally supposed to speak in Detroit at noon, however the Prime Minister's Office has released a statement to the press which says that all of Prime Minister Reagan's engagements during the first part of the day have been cancelled to allow the Prime Minister to rest and regain his energy after weeks of harsh campaigning. His planned trip home to Los Angeles has also been cancelled, which means that he will only campaign in Philadelphia during the day. According to his new schedule, he will first vote at a local polling station and then go on to speak at a campaign rally alongside Defense Minister Jeane Kirkpatrick and Lee Atwater, President of the Progressive Conservative Party, followed by returning to 1 America Avenue to finish some work and have dinner with his wife, before going to the PCHQ later during the evening. Foreign Minister and PC Deputy Leader George H.W. Bush will replace Reagan at the event in Detroit.
-The American Post, September 20th 1988

FORMER PM THATCHER STEPS DOWN AS LEADER OF CONSERVATIVE PARTY
()

In some political news from across the pond, Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom between 1978 and 1980, has announced her intent to step down as leader of the Conservative Party, following three election losses in a row. Thatcher became the first female UK Prime Minister after leading the Conservatives to a narrow victory over James Callaghan's Labour Party in the 1978 General Election. However her short time in office proved to be a controversial one, with Thatcher often backing many unpopular reforms which drew ire from the other side of the aisle, as well as members of her own party. In January of 1980 she lost her already small majority in a by-election, and a few months later her government would be narrowly defeated in a confidence vote. In the subsequent election the Conservatives finished second after the SDP-Liberal Alliance which won in a major upset, gaining nearly 300 seats compared to their seat total prior to the election. Thatcher was succeeded as Prime Minister by current PM Shirley Williams, but she held on to the leadership of the Conservative Party through the next two elections, despite a leadership challenge by Michael Heseltine in 1983, which Thatcher barely managed to win. Now however, she has decided to step down without a fight.
-The Globe, September 20th 1988

_______

Next up is the first part of the election night coverage, which will most likely be up some time tomorrow.


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: Atlas Has Shrugged on September 25, 2012, 03:25:13 PM
I really look forward to seeing the election night coverage :) Can't wait.


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: Jerseyrules on September 25, 2012, 05:42:20 PM
I really look forward to seeing the election night coverage :) Can't wait.

Me too; I really have no idea how parliamentary style systems call elections and how news networks project them; will be an interesting learning experience ;)


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: Lief 🗽 on September 25, 2012, 05:51:21 PM
I wonder if we would call our races the British way, where all the candidates get on stage and the returning officer announces who got the most votes once all the ballots have been counted, in this timeline.


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on September 26, 2012, 03:31:28 PM
I really look forward to seeing the election night coverage :) Can't wait.

Me too; I really have no idea how parliamentary style systems call elections and how news networks project them; will be an interesting learning experience ;)

Well if you're interested in knowing more, you could always watch this for educational purposes. ;)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiF1D7Uh1QA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiF1D7Uh1QA)

Hmmm.... Is it weird that I actually enjoy watching old election nights from other countries just for entertainment purposes? :P

I wonder if we would call our races the British way, where all the candidates get on stage and the returning officer announces who got the most votes once all the ballots have been counted, in this timeline.

Well that would most likely be the case for the constituencies, however it's important that I've made the choice to have ATL America use a voting system used by Germany ITTL, where roughly half of the Members of Parliament are elected as representatives from individual constituencies or districts, just like the UK or Canadian House of Commons or the US House of Representatives IOTL, while the other half are elected by a party list system where a number of seats are divided proportionally amongst the parties getting more than 5% of the vote nationally, based on their national popular vote totals.


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on September 26, 2012, 05:38:34 PM
Unfortunately real life prevented me from getting much work done on this today, so I'm only able to post the preface (along with exit polls) to the actual election night. But the real thing with some actual results should be up some time tomorrow.

-----------------

ABS ELECTION NIGHT 1988


()

"Good evening and welcome to ABS' coverage of the 1988 Federal Election. It's been one of most unpredictable and exciting elections in years, and tonight, we here at ABS will tell you what happens, as it happens. It's been a long and arduous campaign for both politicians and voters alike, and during this evening we will all see the culmination of the past four weeks of campaigning. And we will find out if Ronald Reagan will be the first Tory Prime Minister since the 1920s to win a third term in office, or if Chuck Robb will be able to lead the Liberal Party back into government after 10 years out in the cold, or if one of the underdogs, like Ted Kennedy, Pat Buchanan, or Ron Paul, will be able to lead his respective party to success? Those questions will all be answered here tonight.

In 353 districts across the nation, voters will elect their individual members of parliament to represent their interests at Parliament House in Philadelphia, and together with the 354 list seats which will be divided proportionally between all the parties based on their national popular vote totals, they make up the House of Commons. The polls have just closed on the eastern seaboard at this time, however no results are in yet. But despite this, we here at ABS are able to give you the results of our exit poll. Thousands of voters across the nation have been asked about their voting preferences, and remember, this is not an opinion poll where we have asked how people intend to vote, this is a poll where we have asked how people have actually voted. However it's important to remember that, as with any poll, there is a small margin of error.

But now let's take a look at the results of the exit poll, starting with the popular vote."
()

"As we can see here, the Progressive Conservatives would end up at around 37 percent of the vote, which is four points down from their result in 1984, and also down from the result predicted in opinion polls. However we do need to keep in mind that the last opinion poll was released prior to the final debate. On second place, in a perhaps the biggest political shake-up of the century, we find the Labor Party at 22 percent, nearly doubling their vote total from 1984, and achieving their best result in party history, beating the record set in 1916 during the leadership of Eugene Debs, when the party got 19 percent. Moving on to the Liberals, our exit poll places them at 20,5 percent, meaning that should this poll be correct, the Liberals will have fallen to their lowest result in all the 160 years for which the party has existed. And looking at the minor parties, the American Heritage Party appears to be performing better than in the last election, with gains of 3 to 4 percent being projected, while a 2 percent drop in support has been projected for the Libertarians under new leader Ron Paul.

Now we'll have a look at what the House of Commons would look like based on these figures."
()

"As expected, the Tories lose a significant number of seats, and while they are currently in a supply and confidence deal with the Libertarians in order to achieve a workable majority in the Commons, even the Tories and Libertarians together would fall one seat short of a majority at this time. Meaning that in order to continue governing, the Tories would need to reach an agreement with one additional party, such as American Heritage. However it is possible that they would be able to convince Wally Hickel, a former Tory turned Alaska Independence Party member, who is projected to become the next MP from Alaska in a landslide victory, to throw his support behind them. But perhaps the most interesting part is that we can see that despite that the Labor Party is projected to win almost two percent more of the popular vote than the Liberals, they will still fall more than 20 seats short of surpassing the Liberal Party as the main opposition party. What do you make of this, Bruce?"

()

"Well for starters I would say that if the commons end up looking roughly like this with those popular vote numbers, tomorrow there's going to be a lot of angry Labor voters out there who will feel that they've been cheated of the Official Opposition status by the Liberals, and I think we'll start seeing strong pushes for further voting reform coming from those droves of disappointed Labor supporters around the country. And while all that is happening, the Liberals will be in almost complete disarray, because all their work to get back the image of the Liberals as being the natural governing party of the nation, has been completely shattered. And the big question is if this 'Labormania', that seems to be happening right now, is just a one time flash in the pan, or if it's signifying the next big political shift in this country?"


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: Jerseyrules on September 27, 2012, 07:55:22 PM
I'm guessing a Tory-Liberal coalition is out of the question?


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on September 28, 2012, 04:20:07 AM
I'm guessing a Tory-Liberal coalition is out of the question?

Pretty much. The Tories and the Liberals have been bitter rivals for more than a century, so short of something like wartime coalition, it'd be very hard to get them to band together without significant problems.

BTW, the reason why I didn't post the next part of election night when I said I would, is because I'm suffering from a minor case of writer's block. But I'll attempt to have the next update up by the end of the week.


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: Jerseyrules on September 28, 2012, 09:51:08 PM
I'm guessing a Tory-Liberal coalition is out of the question?

Pretty much. The Tories and the Liberals have been bitter rivals for more than a century, so short of something like wartime coalition, it'd be very hard to get them to band together without significant problems.

BTW, the reason why I didn't post the next part of election night when I said I would, is because I'm suffering from a minor case of writer's block. But I'll attempt to have the next update up by the end of the week.

Interesting, because it seems like they're closer to each other than Tory is to American Heritage or Labor is to Liberal.  Just my opinion though.

Anyway looking forward to an update! ;)


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on September 30, 2012, 05:05:11 PM
I'm guessing a Tory-Liberal coalition is out of the question?

Pretty much. The Tories and the Liberals have been bitter rivals for more than a century, so short of something like wartime coalition, it'd be very hard to get them to band together without significant problems.

BTW, the reason why I didn't post the next part of election night when I said I would, is because I'm suffering from a minor case of writer's block. But I'll attempt to have the next update up by the end of the week.

Interesting, because it seems like they're closer to each other than Tory is to American Heritage or Labor is to Liberal.  Just my opinion though.

Anyway looking forward to an update! ;)

Well both parties are actually fairly big tent, and while there are centrist factions in both parties which are very close together ideologically, any possibility of a Liberal-Tory coalition is made impossible due to the precense of strong left and right wings in each party, which would make any closer cooperation between the two parties too hard, since those wings would much rather work with either Labor or the Libertarians/American Heritage. And the Liberal's identity used to be far more leftwing (considering that LBJ was once leader) than under the leadership of Chuck Robb, who is the most rightwing leader that the party has had for a long time.


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: Atlas Has Shrugged on September 30, 2012, 05:22:26 PM
I'm eagerly awaiting the election night coverage :)


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on September 30, 2012, 05:22:50 PM
Here's finally a new update. I decided the really cut down on election night and not do the whole map thing because it would just be too much work. Therefore I just chose to do some brief updates like this one, instead of just listing results seat by seat. There's going to be another update like this one, which will wrap up election night, and then we'll move on to what happens afterwards.

-----------------------

"I hereby declare Richard John Santorum of the American Heritage Party, to be the duly elected Member of Parliament for the constituency of Chambersburg-Johnstown."
-Returning officer, 1988 election in Chambersburg-Johnstown


Election Night Part Two: Electric Boogaloo

()

RATHER: "Welcome back, we are now just over one hour into Election Night 1988, and while several seats have already been called, we are still far from seeing just what the full result will look like. But one thing that is for certain is that the Liberals are not having a great night, and here to comment on that we have Richard Daley Jr., Senator from Illinois and campaign coordinator for the Liberal Party. Welcome"

DALEY: "It's great to be here."

RATHER: "Now Senator Daley, I guess it's been pretty rough for your party tonight?"

DALEY: "Well the night is far from over, so we can't be sure about what the House of Commons will look like when all the votes have finally been counted, and I am confident that by tomorrow morning the people of this great nation will have resoundingly rejected the irresponsible policies of the Progressive Conservative Party, and embraced the many great ideas that we in the opposition have put out there."

RATHER: "But you can't deny that based on our exit poll, as well as the results we have seen so far, it would appear to your party is actually set to lose a great deal of seats. In fact, more seats than you lost in 1980 or 1984 combined. Do you honestly think that there's even chance for a Liberal government after such a major defeat?"

DALEY: "Well an exit poll doesn't determine the election, and we'd prefer to wait and see just how all Americans will vote. And I wouldn't say that things have been all bad for us Liberals tonight, because we've actually gained some seats as well.

RATHER: "You are of course referring to the election in Middletown-Connecticut, the one seat you have gained so far, where Liberal candidate Joseph Lieberman narrowly defeated incumbent Progressive Conservative Lowell Weicker."

DALEY: "That is correct, and I think that the victory of Mr. Lieberman proves that there's a great deal of people out there who still want strong Liberal values of good government in parliament."

RATHER: "But what does it say about the future of the Liberal Party, when your only new MP had to go to the right of his main opponent in order to get elected?"

DALEY: "Well I wouldn't say that this signals a big ideological shift in the Liberal, it is merely a testament to Joe Lieberman and his ability to unite people from both sides of the political spectrum, and both Mr. Robb and I are very excited to have him as part of our parliamentary caucus."

RATHER: "Speaking about Chuck Robb, there's no denying that all the rumors about his extramarital affair and alleged cocaine use, have been a serious detriment to the Liberal national campaign, but what most national political commentators forget is the effect the scandals have had in Mr. Robb's home constituency of Richmond. No polling was held in the constituency during the actual campaign since it was believed that Robb would win the constituency with a solid majority since he won it by over 60% in the 1986 by-election, so because of that us journalists got quite the shock after the exit poll came in earlier this evening, which showed Mr. Robb only holding a narrow two point lead over his main opponents, Progressive Conservative Thomas Bliley Jr., and Labor candidate Henry L. Marsh III. With his narrow reelection race in his own constituency, are you worried that Chuck Robb might not be reelected to parliament?"

DALEY: "Not at all, Dan. For the past two years Chuck Robb has been a great MP for the people of Richmond, who's wishes and ideas he always places into consideration when making a decision. Chuck Robb is a man who cares deeply about the people he has been elected to serve in the House of Commons, and I have no doubt at all that tonight the people of Richmond will reelect the man who always serve their interests in Philadelphia. Because Chuck Robb is-

RATHER: "I'm sorry, Senator, I have to cut you off there, because I'm now hearing that a winner has been announced in Richmond. We now go to Leslie Stahl who is present at the count in Richmond."

--

()

STAHL: "Thank you Dan. Just moments ago, on the stage behind me, the returning officer walked up and declared that the winner and new MP for Richmond was to be Labor Party candidate Henry L. Marsh III, who by a margin of just over a thousand votes, defeated Liberal Party leader Chuck Robb and PC candidate Thomas Bliley, for the seat. Chuck Robb himself was not present as the results were announced, but he was able to listen over the phone. One wonders just where the Liberal Party, and Chuck Robb, will go from here. The party is looking to make their worst election result in history, and how their leader has lost his seat, something which a hasn't happened to a political party in the House of Commons since 1933, when then-Prime Minister Calvin Coolidge lost reelection. Back to you, Dan."

--

RATHER: "Well there we have it. Senator, this sure didn't go as well as you expected it to."

DALEY: "Uh…"

-----

Richmond (federal electoral constituency), 1988 Election
Henry L. Marsh III (Labor) - 33,9%
Chuck Robb (Liberal) - 33,1%
Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (Progressive Conservative) - 31,2%
Others - 1,2%


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on September 30, 2012, 05:24:47 PM
I'm eagerly awaiting the election night coverage :)

Yeah I decided not to do a big traditional election night like you see in a lot of threads on this forum, since it'd just be too much work.


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: Peter the Lefty on September 30, 2012, 08:08:28 PM
This is an awesome TL!  Ted Kennedy would be an awesome Labor leader.  Just one question: Would the Kennedy family be multi-party?  Joe Kennedy seems like he'd be a Tory, and John seems like he'd be more of a liberal (a left-leaning one, no doubt).  Robert and Ted seem like Labor types, but it's tricky to see how it'd work out in this system. 


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on October 01, 2012, 06:43:28 AM
This is an awesome TL!  Ted Kennedy would be an awesome Labor leader.  Just one question: Would the Kennedy family be multi-party?  Joe Kennedy seems like he'd be a Tory, and John seems like he'd be more of a liberal (a left-leaning one, no doubt).  Robert and Ted seem like Labor types, but it's tricky to see how it'd work out in this system. 

Well things are quite different for the Kennedys ITTL since Ted Kennedy is actually the only member of the family to be actively involved in politics. Joe Kennedy was actually nobility, holding the title 'Duke of Suffolk', which then passed on to John after he died. Because of that Joe didn't see much of a reason to get all that involved in politics. Though you are correct that he would primarily sympathize with the Tories. John on the other hand got a bit involved as big contributor and advisor to the Liberal Party, and he later served as the AC Ambassador to Ireland from 1968 to 1979. Bobby meanwhile didn't get much involved in politics at all. He supported and advised his brother Ted in his work as the Premier of Massachusetts, but ITTL he primarily chooses to focus on charitable work.


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on October 01, 2012, 07:16:39 AM
Here's something while you wait for the next real update.


-------------


Chuck Robb: "How the **** could you guys let this happen!?"

Daniel P. Moynihan: "…How could we let this happen?"

CR: "Yes, how could you let this happen!? All the way through the campaign you told me that I didn't have to worry about Richmond, 'people love you there, Chuck, you're gonna get more than 60 percent of the vote'. You guys said that to me. I ask you again, how the **** could this happen to me!?"

DPM: "We know about as much as you do. We had done polling there when the campaign started, and every single one showed you leading by 30 points over your closest challenger. Obviously we should have gone back there at a later point to double check everything."

CR: "No sh*t, Sherlock. I don't care what you have to do, you're gonna fix this, Danny. Just get some nobody backbencher with the safest seat there is, to step down so I can get back in."

DPM: "Chuck, we've lost every single seat we had Virginia."

CR: "I don't give a ****! I'd move to the ****ing moon and give that smarmy fake smile to every single stupid martian just to get back into parliament! Remember that you need me. How the hell am I gonna lead the opposition if I'm not even in parliament!? Huh, have you thought about that!?"

DPM: "Well it won't matter either way, because you probably wouldn't lead the opposition even if you were in parliament."

CR: "What the **** are you saying?"

DPM: "I'm saying that it won't matter who we put up as leader of the party, because he's not going to be Leader of the Opposition. That'll be ****ing Ted Kennedy."

CR: "Are you serious? I thought that exit poll said that we would still be the bigger party."

DPM:
"Yeah well, the exit poll showed that you'd win Richmond, and we both know how that turned out. The Labor Party is sweeping seat after seat, and by our projections, by the time the west coast results come in they'll have gone past us by at least five seats."

CR: "Well, sh*t."

-Phone conversation between party leader Chuck Robb and Liberal Party Chairman Daniel P. Moynihan


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on October 09, 2012, 08:25:58 AM
"….but the ones I want to thank the most is the people of Hawaii for putting your faith in me to represent your interests in Parliament for another term. I promise that during the next five years I will always first and foremost put your wishes first, like I always have during these past 18 years..."

--

()
"That was of course Labor Foreign Policy Spokesman, Sir Daniel Inouye speaking before supporters in Honolulu, following his landslide reelection, which hardly came as a surprise to anyone. But Mr. Inouye's seat was also the last seat to be called during this long night, which means that we now for the first time have a definite look at the shape of the 49th Parliament."
()

"As we can see the Progressives Conservatives are at 297 seats, down 54 from their 1984 result, while the Labor have gained 115 seats, reaching a total of 163, and the Liberal Party is down 73 seats to 156. This means that for the first time ever in a federal election, the Liberal Party has ended up on third place. But the most important thing to glean from those results is that we now have a hung parliament with no party having a clear majority of seats. This means that Mr. Reagan, who gets the first chance to attempt and form a government due to being the sitting Prime Minister, will be negotiating with the other parties in the the House of Commons in an attempt to reach a majority of seats. However should he be unable to do that, the torch passes to Mr. Kennedy as the leader of the second biggest party.

We'll now have a look at the national percentages"
()

---------

()
"Thank you, thank you my friends for being here to celebrate this great night!"

[crowd cheers]

"Throughout this campaign we the members of this party have gone out to the voters and told them that there was an alternative which would put Americans back in work, which would make sure that our children had proper education, improve the quality of healthcare, and ensure that Philadelphia would start working for the people of this great nation. The response we've gotten tonight proves that our message has been heard across the land!"

[crowd cheers]

"This is a tremendous call to action and I, along with my team, will work every day to prove the trust that you the voters have placed in us have not been in vain. Tonight we may celebrate this victory, but tomorrow the real work begins. Tomorrow the Labor Party will start the work to bring real change to this country, a change we've been needing for too long!"

[crowd chants, "Labor, Labor, Labor"…]

-Ted Kennedy's election night speech, 1988


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: Peter the Lefty on October 09, 2012, 09:52:57 AM
Yayyy!!! Ted Kennedy for PM in 1992!


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on October 09, 2012, 02:40:42 PM
Ronald Reagan: "Well, that certainly could've gone better."

Lee Atwater:
"Could've gone a lot worse too."

RR: "I suppose. So where do you think we should go from here, Lee?"

LA: "Well we obviously need to start talking with some of the other party leaders to see if we can work something out. I've got some staffers suggesting that we should be considering talking with the Liberals since they're on third, but we both know that it's going to be pointless. They wouldn't be able to stomach the idea of being a junior coalition partner because they're just too damn stubborn, prideful and stuck in the times when they were the state bearing party. So I think our next move should be to talk with Paul and Buchanan."

RR: "You know that some people aren't very comfortable with the idea of giving the American Heritagers a significant deal of power. Maybe I should just talk to Paul alone? Buchanan's probably not going to go against me anyway, because the Liberals or Laborites aren't exactly going to be more friendly to his ideas."

LA: "I wouldn't bet on that, Prime Minister. Ever since Buchanan got the leadership a few years ago he's done everything to wash off the stains segregation from the party, and make it seem like it could be a credible part of government. It doesn't matter how we choose to interpret the election result, because Buchanan will see it as nothing but a validation of his ideas, even though I, and several other people, just see it as a fluke. Because of this massive ego boost Buchanan will have no problems with taking down your government, so you definitely need to talk to him."

RR: [sighs] "Okay. So I'll talk to Buchanan first since he's got more seats than Paul. I'll see if we can reach some kind of supply and confidence agreement so that I won't have to give him any seats. Do you think Buchanan will go for it?"

LA: "Well it depends on just how cocky he's gotten. There's a chance that he won't settle for anything less than cabinet positions, and in that case our options are to either agree or hold on as a minority for a few months and then call a new election."

RR: "Hmm. I'm not sure about calling a new election, because I don't think we'll manage to gain a lot of seats from that. To be honest it'll probably go in the other direction. So what do you recommend if the American Heritagers won't settle for anything less than cabinet positions?"

LA: "Well I guess we'll just have to try and keep them away from the places where they'd do the most damage, such as Education, Media, or Aboriginal Affairs. And it's important to remember that if we give American Heritage cabinet positions, the Libertarians are gonna come out and demand ones too, so we'll have them to deal with as well."

RR: [sighs] "Okay then. I guess it's time to face the music."

[Reagan picks up the phone; starts dialing]

-Conversation between Ronald Reagan and Lee Atwater, morning of September 21st


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on October 09, 2012, 03:11:15 PM
Chuch Robb: "Hello?"

Daniel P. Moynihan: "Chuck, it's me."

CR: [sighs] "Yeah. Look, Daniel, I'm sorry about the way I blew off at you earlier."

DPM: "Don't give it a second thought, it's pretty understandable considering what's happened."

CR: "Yeah, what happened….."

DPM: "Look, Chuck, it's not easy for me to say this, but I've talked with the rest of the members of the Federal Committee, and we all agreed that the best way to move on from this is for-"

CR: "-Me to resign?"

DPM: [sighs] "You have to understand that it's nothing directed personally at you. It's just that you don't have a seat anymore, and we've just suffered our worst defeat in history, so we feel that it's time for a fresh start."

CR: "No, I fully understand. If you hadn't come to me I would've voluntarily resigned anyway. It's the best thing for my family and the party."

DPM: "Okay then. I'll have the speechwriters draw up some kind of statement for you. We'll do a press conference in a few days, have you make a calm and dignified exit."

CR: [sighs] "Yeah…"


Phone conversation between Chuck Robb and Daniel P. Moynihan, September 21st 1988

--------

Jim Jeffords: George, please don't tell me that the rumors are true!

George Bush: I'm sorry, Jim, but what are you talking about?"

JJ: "Oh come on, you know. Everyone in the parliamentary party is talking about how Reagan is considering jumping into bed the with goddamn segregationists! Sure, we always knew that Reagan was a right-winger, but we never in a million years expected that he'd cut deals with the likes of Pat Buchanan and Jesse Helms."

GB: "Look Jim, I have no idea where you're getting this from, but I can personally guarantee to that Ron won't be letting any American Heritagers into the cabinet."

JJ: "You sure about that?"

GB: "Completely."

JJ: "Well fine, I just hope you're right about that, because otherwise I'm not sure what I'd do."

Conversation between Jim Jeffords and George H.W. Bush, September 21st 1988


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: Atlas Has Shrugged on October 09, 2012, 08:47:06 PM
Pat Buchanan has Reagan between a rock and a hard place. How is Reagans mental health holding up? His alzheimers likely is becoming a growing concern at this point, so we could see a snap election in 1990 under this scenario. Keep it coming, this is great :)


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: Peter the Lefty on October 10, 2012, 03:19:24 PM
So...maybe Reagan can retire and Bush sr will take over and call new elections? 


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on October 12, 2012, 03:15:59 PM
"Our negotiation team of course consisted of me, Newt Gingrich, John Tower and Kim Campbell, while they sent Jesse Helms, Lester Maddox and James Edwards. In other words, three people half of our party never wanted to deal with under any circumstances. And things weren't exactly going great four us seven people in that room, because when we entered, basically they wanted to have everything, and we wanted to give them nothing. We of course all came to the conclusion that any plan where the American Heritage Party didn't have cabinet positions wasn't going to work, so we agreed that they'd have the position of Deputy PM, which would clearly go to Buchanan, as well as relatively free reign over one single ministry. The specific ministry would be decided on at a later date when Buchanan and Reagan finally met. But the biggest issues weren't the kind of representation they'd have in the cabinet, it was policy. Namely school prayer and abortion, the two big things that the Heritagers weren't ever going to let go."
-Paul Laxalt, interviewed by ABS NewsNight in 1994

-----------

GB: "What the hell are you doing, Ron!?"

RR: "Excuse me, George?"

GB: "Oh you know exactly what I'm talking about. A day ago I flat out told several of our own MPs that we would not in a million years jump into bed with American Heritage. I told them this because I was pretty certain that due to my position as Deputy Leader of the party, as Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, I'd actually be informed if something like that was happening. So I guess you can imagine my surprise when I pick up my copy of the Inquirer this morning, and read about how Laxalt, Gingirch, Tower and Campbell were talking to Helms and his gang for five hours yesterday!"

RR: "Look, George, you know as well as I do that we have to deal with the Heritagers, they're the fourth biggest party in parliament."

GB: "Of course I'm aware of that, and I knew that I was probably lying when I told those people that we wouldn't deal with them, but I thought that I'd actually be informed if we were talking with them, especially if we were talking with them about cabinet posts!"

RR: "It's my prerogative to compartmentalize information as I choose, and I chose keep the information about our negotiations on a need to know basis because I felt that it would be the best way to prevent to leaks to the press, but obviously it didn't work."

GB: "Ron, I'm the goddamn Deputy Leader, if anyone should be informed of whatever party we're negotiating with, it should be me!"

RR: "I'm sorry that you feel disappointed that I didn't include you George, but I felt that your duties are Foreign Minister came first, and your position as Deputy Leader doesn't entitle you to be more informed than the other cabinet members."

GB: "Don't think I don't know what this is, Ron. Eleven years ago we made a deal. I'd give up my leadership run and you'd agree to not serve more than two terms as Prime Minister. Well two terms has gone by now, and from what I'm seeing now, you've got no intention to step down anytime soon."

RR: …. "George, eleven years is a very long time and you know that things change. With everything that's happing in this country and the rest of the world right now, I just can't leave yet. There's so much work that still needs to be done."

GB: "That's no excuse, Ron. We had a deal, but if you're not going to keep up your end, then you might find that me and my supporters are not going to be as inclined to support you and your legislative agenda as easily as we have in the past."

[Bush hangs up the phone]

-Phone conversation between Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, September 22nd 1988


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: Jerseyrules on October 13, 2012, 01:10:36 AM
Interesting.


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: Peter the Lefty on October 13, 2012, 10:27:07 AM
Wow, I was actually just thinking this would end with a Thatcher-Major scenario, where some moderate (Specter, perhaps?) could try and stab Reagan and Bush would take over as the unifying candidate.  Now this is looking more like Blair-Brown...


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on October 14, 2012, 09:23:21 AM
RR: "I want him gone"

LA: "What? Who do you want gone?"

RR: "Bush. I know that we only discussed dropping him if we managed to only lose less than 10 seats, but he's starting to become a real problem. I want him gone as foreign minister and deputy leader."

LA: "Ron, you do realize that if you dump him he'll probably challenge you for the leadership sometime down the road."

RR: "I do, but I can beat him."

LA: "I'm not sure that I share your confidence."

RR: "Lee, I'm this party's most successful Prime Minister since Calvin Coolidge, and my approvals among our members are in their mid 80s. I can and will beat him."

LA: "Well either way, you won't be able to dump him as Deputy Leader until the next national convention this spring, and because of that you'll have to keep him in the cabinet for the time being."

RR: "Fine, but he's not going to be my foreign minister. I'll make him a minister without portfolio, he'll still be in the cabinet, but he won't have any real power to speak of."

LA: "Are you completely sure that this is what you want to do, Ron?"

RR: "Yes, I am."

-Conversation between Ronald Reagan and Lee Atwater, September 22nd 1988


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on October 14, 2012, 09:24:23 AM
Wow, I was actually just thinking this would end with a Thatcher-Major scenario, where some moderate (Specter, perhaps?) could try and stab Reagan and Bush would take over as the unifying candidate.  Now this is looking more like Blair-Brown...

I was actually going for a bit of a Blair-Brown here. Nice to see that you noticed that.


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on October 14, 2012, 09:32:21 AM
PRESERVING AMERICA'S GREATNESS - TOGETHER

The results of this years' federal election show a clear majority in favor of conservative ideals and fiscal responsibility in this country, however they also show that the American people do not wish for one single party to hold a parliamentary majority. Therefore we, the leaders of the Progressive Conservative, American Heritage and Libertarian parties have decided to band together and form a government of consensus as desired by the voters.

We do this because we all recognize that in order for there to be a strong and effective government which can serve and protect the American people, there needs to be a government of the majority, not the minority. We have agreed to a joint program for a five year term in office where we place the preservation of the strength of our country first and foremost. We pledge to defend the ideals which this nation is founded upon; faith, family, and good government.

Ronald Reagan
Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party

Pat Buchanan
Leader of the American Heritage Party

Ron Paul
Leader of the Libertarian Party


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: Atlas Has Shrugged on October 14, 2012, 11:09:32 AM
That's a fine coalition in my book. Is Ron Paul still safe, or will the loss of Libertarian seats force him out?


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on October 14, 2012, 01:09:28 PM
That's a fine coalition in my book. Is Ron Paul still safe, or will the loss of Libertarian seats force him out?

Well ITTL the Libertarian Party is quite pragmatic when it comes to their leaders, so they won't just swap them out for a new one after a disappointing election result (especially if the losses weren't that big). Just look at Barry Goldwater, he led the party for 17 years. Instead they'll just try to figure where things went wrong, why their message didn't connect with the voters, and then move on from there. But Paul will have some problems if the party starts to lose seats in consecutive elections.


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on October 18, 2012, 07:43:15 AM
The Third Term of Ronald Wilson Reagan, 1988-? (Part 1)

()

Prime Minister: The Rt. Hon. Ronald Reagan (Prog Con.)
-Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of State for Intergovernmental Affairs: The Rt. Hon. Pat Buchanan (AmH.)
-Leader of the American Heritage Party

Minister of Foreign Affairs: The Rt. Hon. Jeane Kirkpatrick (Prog Con.)
Minister of Finance: The Rt. Hon. Jack Kemp (Prog Con.)
Minister of Defense: The Rt. Hon. Donald Rumsfeld (Prog. Con.)
Minister of Justice: The Rt. Hon. Paul Laxalt (Prog Con.)
Minister of Trade, Industry and Business: The Rt. Hon. Ron Paul (Lbt.)
-Leader of the Libertarian Party
Minister of Labor and Employment: The Rt. Hon. Dick Cheney (Prog Con.)
Minister of Health and Social Affairs: The Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell (Prog Con.)
Minister of Education: The Rt. Hon. Newt Gingrich (Prog Con.)
Minister of Energy: The Rt. Hon. Nancy Landon Kassebaum (Prog Con.)
Minister of Agriculture and Food: The Rt. Hon. Jesse Helms (AmH.)
-Deputy Leader of the American Heritage Party
Minister of Transportation: The Rt. Hon. Robert Michel (Prog Con.)
Minister of Infrastructure and Housing: The Rt. Hon. Phil Crane (Prog Con.)
Minister of Veterans Affairs: The Rt. Hon. John McCain (Prog Con.)
Minister of Aboriginal Affairs: The Rt. Hon. Alan Simpson (Prog Con.)
Minister of Culture and Media: The Rt. Hon. Jean Charest (Prog Con.)

Minister without Portfolio: The Rt. Hon. George H.W. Bush (Prog Con.)
-Deputy Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party

Leader of the Government in the House of Commons: The Rt. Hon. Robert Dole (Prog Con.)
Leader of the Government in the Senate: The Rt. Hon. Senator Orrin Hatch (Prog Con.)
Government Chief Whip in the House of Commons: The Rt. Hon. John Tower (Prog Con.)
Government Chief Whip in the Senate: The Rt. Hon. Senator Ted Stevens (Prog Con.)

Reagan knew from the start that going into a coalition with the Libertarians and the American Heritage Party was going to be tricky. Not only the members of his party, but also the Libertarians, were quite weary about going into a coalition with the socially conservative American Heritage Party, so it was important that in the first months of the coalition that no piece of legislation was proposed which could create a major rift between the three parties. Because of this an agreement was made that the more controversial pieces of legislation that the American Heritage Party wanted to put forth, such as school prayer, and a late term abortion ban (the Libertarians or Red Tories would not agree to a full ban, so a compromise was reached), would be delayed for at least six months, and the only significant piece of legislation introduced by the government by the fall was the merger of the Ministry of Interior Affairs with the Ministry of Justice, which was an attempt by the coalition to streamline the way the government worked and eliminate pointless bureaucracy. However the fall budget introduced by the coalition was fairly uncontroversial. Of course it included the traditional tax cuts as one would expect from a Reagan government, including a cut of the income tax for the top bracket from 35 to 28 percent, as well as corporate tax cut from 25 to 19 percent. This drew large amounts of criticism from Opposition Leader Ted Kennedy, who railed against the government for, as he saw it, favoring the super wealthy over the poor and the middle class. And because of this Kennedy effectively shifted public opinion against the government and portrayed them as out of touch with the average American. But despite of this the budget passed with the full support of the Libertarian and American Heritage parties, and the support of all except nine Progressive Conservative MPs. In addition to the previously mentioned tax cuts the budget also included the Agricultural Tax Incentive, a brainchild by Agriculture Minister Jesse Helms (AmH.), which brought down the effective tax rate for farmers and other agricultural businesses to 11 percent. But all was not sunshine and roses for the coalition during their first time in office, because just one week after its formation, Vermont MP Jim Jeffords announced his intention to leave the Progressive Conservative Party and sit as an independent in the House of Commons. During the announcement of his departure Jeffords also strongly criticised Prime Minister Reagan and said that he had betrayed Progressive Conservative and American values by going into coalition with the American Heritage Party.


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: DC Al Fine on October 20, 2012, 10:27:50 AM
Love the timeline, keep up the great work.


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on October 24, 2012, 04:42:35 PM
The Shadow Cabinet of Edward Moore Kennedy

()

Following the monumental electoral success the Labor Party had in the 1988 election, you could say that the entire party was up on cloud nine. But as the dust settled following the election, things were clear, especially for Ted Kennedy and the party's inner circle, that the party still had a lot of work to do. Out of all the MPs elected, more than two thirds were freshmen, most with very little legislative experience prior to taking their seats in parliament. Because of this it was of the highest importance that Kennedy put together a strong team which could not only keep the new inexperienced MPs in check, but also come off as a strong and professional alternative to the Progressive Conservatives come the next federal election. The Labor frontbench appointed following the election mostly consisted of relatively young MPs who had only served in the House of Commons since the 1979 election, bar a few exceptions. This was because Kennedy wanted to create a strong contrast between the government and the opposition, one where they would come off as young and virile, more energetic, and full of new ideas and innovation, in comparison to a weak, tired and ineffectual government. However the most important positions of all, Shadow Foreign Minister, Shadow Finance Minister, Shadow Defense Minister and Shadow Justice Minister, were all filled by experienced party veterans such as Daniel Inouye, Patrick Leahy, Pete Stark and former party leader Ron Dellums.

Leader of the Opposition: The Rt. Hon. Ted Kennedy (Lab.)
-Leader of the Labor Party
Deputy Leader of the Opposition: The Rt. Hon. Joe Biden (Lab.)
-Deputy Leader of the Labor Party

Shadow Minister of Foreign Affairs: The Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Inouye (Lab.)
Shadow Minister of Finance: The Rt. Hon. Patrick Leahy (Lab.)
Shadow Minister of Defense: The Rt. Hon. Pete Stark (Lab.)
Shadow Minister of Justice: The Rt. Hon. Ronald Dellums (Lab.)
Shadow Minister of Trade, Industry and Business: The Rt. Hon. Mario Cuomo (Lab.)
Shadow Minister of Labor and Employment: The Rt. Hon. Joe Biden (Lab.)
Shadow Minister of Health and Social Affairs: The Rt. Hon. Bernie Sanders (Lab.)
Shadow Minister of Education: The Rt. Hon. Barbara Mikulski (Lab.)
Shadow Minister of Energy: The Rt. Hon. Paul Wellstone (Lab.)
Shadow Minister of Agriculture and Food: The Rt. Hon. Russ Feingold (Lab.)
Shadow Minister of Transportation: The Rt. Hon. Simon De Jong (Lab.)
Shadow Minister of Infrastructure and Housing: The Rt. Hon. Nancy Pelosi (Lab.)
Shadow Minister of Veterans Affairs: The Rt. Hon. David Bonior (Lab.)
Shadow Minister of Aboriginal Affairs: The Rt. Hon. Patsy Mink (Lab.)
Shadow Minister of Culture and Media: The Rt. Hon. Marion Dewar (Lab.)

Shadow Minister without Portfolio: The Rt. Hon. Barbara Boxer (Lab.)
-Chief Campaign Coordinator for the Labor Party

Opposition Leader in the House of Commons: The Rt. Hon. Ed Broadbent (Lab.)
Opposition Leader in the Senate: The Rt. Hon. George McGovern (Lab.)
Opposition Whip in the House of Commons: The Rt. Hon. Svend Robinson (Lab.)
Opposition Whip in the Senate: The Rt. Hon. Roberto Sánchez Viella (Lab.)


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on October 24, 2012, 04:52:57 PM
RIFKIND ELECTED LEADER OF UK CONSERVATIVE PARTY
()

In a leadership held election following the resignation of Margaret Thatcher as party leader following eleven years at the helm, including two years as Prime Minister, Shadow Energy Minister Malcolm Rifkind narrowly prevailed over Shadow Chancellor Norman Lamont. Rifkind's election as leader came as a surprise to many since most political analysts had expected Michael Heseltine, who previously challenged Thatcher for the leadership in 1983, to walk away with the victory. Because of this the media and most of the political establishment was shocked as Heseltine came last in the third round of voting, just one single vote behind Rifkind. Mr. Rifkind, at age 42 is younger than both Prime Minister Williams and Mrs. Thatcher, and he is also generally considered to be more moderate than his predecessor, having pledged to "bring the Conservative Party into the 1990s" and "present a brave new vision for [the] country which will connect with all Britons".  
-The New York Times, October 3 1988

UK Conservative Party leadership election, 1988 - 4th round

Malcolm Rifkind - 112
Norman Lamont - 85


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on November 01, 2012, 05:54:16 PM
WHO WILL THEY PICK?

()

With Chuck Robb's resignation as leader of the Liberal Party just over a week ago, many are wondering just who the Liberals will pick as their next leader. Whomever that person will be, they will surely have a hard job ahead of them to rebuild their party and return to being one of the the top two parties once again. It is also important to briefly cover just how the Liberal leadership elections tend to work, since they are quite different from the other parties in the House of Commons in how they elect their leaders. While the other parties tend to elect their leaders either by a straight up vote between several candidates by the parliamentary party group, a delegate vote with participation from the provincial parties, or some similar variation, the Liberal Party generally only has one single candidate running for the leadership. Now there is nothing explicitly forbidding several candidates from running for the Liberal leadership, but historical precedence has led to the party's Executive Committee first picking person that they recommend to the leadership convention, who then confirms him or her. There is nothing preventing another candidate from entering the race at the convention, but it has not happened since 1929. Therefore, you could say that the members of the Executive Committee are the ones which will ultimately pick the next leader, no matter what the rank and file party members may think.

[...]

-The American Post, October 4th 1988

-------------------------------------

RD: "Daniel, it's me."

DPM: "Hello Dick, it's nice to hear from you. What can I help you with?"

RD: "It's about the meeting on Monday. I know that we planned to discuss the leadership candidates then with the rest of the committee, but I thought you and I could get a bit of a heads start today if you have the time."

DPM: "Sure, I'm not busy at the moment."

RD: "Right, let's get going then. Firstly, we need to look at what we did wrong last time. Now we did have the right idea when we went with Robb. He was a moderate war veteran from a traditionally conservative state who could've really challenged Reagan if it wasn't for his…. indiscretions. Because of this I don't think we need to change much from the strategy we used two years ago, except for putting measures in place to ensure that we don't make the same mistake again. Namely, not picking an outsider who hasn't spent any time in the Commons before. We need someone who's young and exciting, but still has and good deal of experience, but isn't tied in some major way to former Liberal governments."

DPM: "Well that all sounds very nice, but just where are we going to find this magical person? The Wonderful Land of Oz?"

RD: "Yes, yes, I know that that list of requirements is quite long, and we're probably not going to be able to find anyone who fills all the criteria, but I still think it's worthwhile to at least go through a few of the prospective candidates and see if they can meet at least some of the requirements."

DPM: *laughs* "Fine, knock yourself out."

RD: "Alright then, I think we should start with the only candidate I can think of which might manage to fill all these requirements: Al Gore. He's young, relatively fresh to the voters despite having served as deputy for the past two years, and he's been in the Commons for over 10 years, so he definitely has the required experience for the job. In addition to that he's southerner, which is a region in which we're losing ground by the minute, so hopefully he'd be able to help us out with that."

DPM: "That sounds great, but there's only problem with your reasoning."

RD: "What?"

DPM: "He doesn't want the job."

RD: … "You have to be kidding me!?"

DPM: "No, I talked to him yesterday, and he plainly said to me that he doesn't want the job now because he wants to be Prime Minister one day."

RD: "Call me crazy, but don't you have to actually be a party leader to become PM?"

DPM: "Well, legally you don't, but that's beside the point. But Al's opinion is that the next leader will not have a chance at living in 1 America Avenue since he'll be too busy with rebuilding the party to its former glory. Al think's that since he's relatively young he can come back in 5 or 10 years and take his shot at the leadership then.

RD: "You're sure that there's no way to convince him otherwise?"

DPM: "Don't you think I've tried? Besides, maybe it would just better to actually find someone who wants the job?"

RD: *sighs* "Fine, let's move on then."

DPM: "Okay, who's next?"

RD: "Michael Dukakis."

DPM: "Absolutely not."

RD: "He would help us with taking back the left."

DPM: "Yeah, but he was a Labor party member for 20 years before running for federal parliament, not to mention that he served in Ted Kennedy's provincial cabinet for gods sake! Sure, it'd be nice if we could challenge Labor and gain back a lot of the people who voted for them, but we can't do that with Dukakis. We need someone who can actually attack Kennedy, and  Dukakis just won't be able to do that. Besides, I think a better strategy would be to focus on the centre, because going to the left is not going to help us get back into government. If we manage to take back the centre from the Prog Cons, while at the same time painting the Laborites as extremists who'll run the country into ground, then we're back in the ball game."

RD: "I suppose you're right. So Dukakis is out, and we'll move on to the next guy."

[…]

-Part of a phone of conversation between Richard Daley Jr. and Daniel P. Moynihan, October 4th 1988


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: Lief 🗽 on November 01, 2012, 06:18:41 PM
Great update!


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: Atlas Has Shrugged on November 01, 2012, 07:01:28 PM
Bentsen is a safe bet for the Liberal leadership. Robert Byrd would make a good interim leader.


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: Peter the Lefty on November 01, 2012, 07:41:31 PM
Hmm...Paul Tsongas, perhaps?  That is, I'd be saying that if I were a Liberal.  But fortunately, I'd be staunchly Labor in this TL.  And quite happy with Teddy's leadership, too.  :D


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on November 19, 2012, 08:21:30 AM
WHO WILL THEY PICK? (Part 2)


DPM: "Well, what about Lloyd?"

RD: "You mean---Bentsen?"

DPM: "No, I mean Bridges; or course Lloyd Bentsen."

RD: "The man has the charisma of a tree."

DPM: "Yeah, but he is respected by both wings of the party and is extremely strong among the foot soldiers down in the south. He would be able to rebuild the party infrastructure and get us back in the game"

RD: "You might be right, even though the left aren't that happy with his positions on school prayer and business deregulation. But let’s put Lloyd on the back burner for a minute and talk about Brown."

DPM: "Oh God, I don't think that would turn out well."

RD: "How so?"

DPM: "He's just too much of a wildcard. Sure, his fiscal conservative streak would probably play well with swing voters, but his strong social liberalism and opposition to the death penalty would kill us with values voters and middle class families, which are exactly the kinds of people we want to get back into our fold."

RD: "But he is more charismatic than Bentsen so it could work if you're there to rein in most of his more crazy ideas."

DPM: "Well the problem with that plan is that I'm not gonna be around as much after the convention. I was gonna wait until next week to tell everyone, but I'm not going to run for another term as chairman."

RD: "What!? Why? Everyone thinks you've done a great job during the past two elections, and none of us are placing the blame for the losses on your shoulders."

DPM: "None of you perhaps, but a lot of the grassroots aren't as happy with me as they used to be. Besides, six years is good run, longer than most of my predecessors."

RD: "But who's going to replace you?"

DPM: "Well I was thinking about this one guy who has done a lot of good work for the party in recent years. You may have heard of him, he's one of the current Senators from Illinois."

RD: "……. Huh?"

[…]

-Part of a phone of conversation between Richard Daley Jr. and Daniel P. Moynihan, October 4th 1988

This update was partly written by Moore2012 at AH.com. :)

I'm also planning on jumping forward to December '88 now, in order to cover the Liberal convention, but I'll cover some of the events of October and November in some headlines I'll post next.


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: MrMittens on November 19, 2012, 09:45:02 AM
This is great.


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: Captain Chaos on November 19, 2012, 11:50:21 AM
Thumbs up.


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on November 27, 2012, 05:48:43 PM
Here's a series of headlines covering some of the events of October and early November.

JEFFORDS TO REMAIN INDEPENDENT; CAUCUS WITH LABOR
October 10, 1988
After weeks of speculation it has become clear. Vermont MP Jim Jeffords will not join the Labor or Liberal parties, however he has decided to caucus with the Labor Party in the future after, according to sources, Labor leader Ted Kennedy made a "convincing argument".

()
BENTSEN IS THE ONE
October 14, 1988
The Liberal Executive Committee today announced that it will endorse Lloyd Bentsen for the leadership of the party. Bentsen has served as Minister of Energy and Minister of Defense under Prime Minister Muskie, and later Shadow Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Shadow Cabinet of Chuck Robb.

()
GORE HANDS OVER REINS TO BENTSEN
October 17, 1988
Earlier today interim Liberal leader Al Gore handed over the parliamentary leadership responsibilities to Lloyd Bentsen after the Executive Committee officially endorsed him for the leadership.

()
BANK OF AMERICA LOWERS ECONOMIC GROWTH PROJECTION FOR '89
October 26, 1988
Bank of America, the central bank of the American Commonwealth, has officially lowered it's economic growth projection for 1989. This caused increased concern on the market over the possibility of a recession being over the horizon.

()
KENNEDY ATTACKS REAGAN OVER "FINANCIAL IRRESPONSIBILITY"
October 29, 1988
Following the lowered economic growth projections for 1989 Opposition Leader Ted Kennedy attacked Ronald Reagan for what he sees as "financial irresponsibility by giving away drastic tax cuts to billionaires and multinational corporations while cutting spending on vital anti-poverty programs". The Prime Minister has not yet responded to the attacks.

()
MONDALE ALLEGEDLY "NOT HAPPY" WITH THE BENTSEN PICK
November 2, 1988
According to sources within the Liberal parliamentary group, the former Health Minister and Liberal leader is not happy with the Executive Committee's decision to endorse Lloyd Bentsen due to Bentsen's support of free trade, and that he would've liked to see them picking a more traditional Liberal closer to his ideological positions.

Next up, part one of the Liberal convention and leadership election....

It's probably going to be up either tomorrow or the day after tomorrow.


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on November 28, 2012, 04:04:15 PM
Liberal Party National Convention, 1988 (Part 1)

()

The Liberal Convention held in Toronto, Ontario opened with a somber atmosphere in contrast to excitement felt two years prior in Dallas, when Chuck Robb was elected leader. In 1986 the Liberals were in high spirits, they had just won a string of by-elections, the government was being hit hard by the Iran-Contra Affair, and the party looked poised to get back into government in the next election with a young and strong leader at the helm. Alas, it was not to be, and in 1988 it was a battered and beaten Liberal Party which came to Toronto to elect its new leader Lloyd Bentsen. Not a fresh face, not a very charismatic figure, but calm and steady hand which they hoped could guide the party out of the wilderness.

Normally a convention dealing with an election of a new party leader would open with a speech from the outgoing leader, however as revealed years later, both Daniel Moynihan and Richard Daley felt that it was important to use the convention to take the focus off the Chuck Robb scandal, and a speech by Robb would most likely do the opposite of this. Robb was also eager to get out of the public spotlight as soon as possible, so he agreed not to hold a speech and just be at the convention as a regular attendee. Instead Deputy Leader Al Gore got the spot, and his speech, while well received by most, wasn't exactly awe inspiring in the end.

Following Gore former leader Walter Mondale got his chance to address the convention, and he caused quite a stir when towards the end of his speech he said that he hoped that "[Bentsen] will consider the interests of America first and foremost and not gamble America's wealth on risky free trade agreements with third world countries". The speech recieved great applause by left wing Liberals who commended Mondale for standing up for "traditional Liberal ideals that favor the average American", while he was derided by centrist Liberals and Bentsen supporters who called the speech a thinly veiled attack on [Bentsen's] viewpoints".

After Mondale's controversial speech it was time for the election of a new party President to replace the retiring Daniel P. Moynihan. As Senator Richard M. Daley or Illinois was the only candidate in the running he won the post with unanimous approval. Following this it was time for all the candidates running for the leadership position to officially hand in the required 5000 signatures from party members and make a brief address to the convention, due to an old party bylaw remaining from the early 1900s when it was actually common that several candidates would run at once.

Since Lloyd Bentsen was the only declared candidate in the running, everyone expected this to be a brief affair with Bentsen handing over the signatures to Moynihan and giving a brief and lofty speech to the attendees. And that was what it was, at least up until, according to tradition, Moynihan asked if there were any other candidates who wished to enter the race and hand in the required signatures. Normally, this question would go simply go unanswered, but not this time. A man walked up on stage, handed over 5000 signatures from registered party members to Moynihan, and then stepped up to the podium while the convention attendees looked on in what seemed to be stunned silence. All eyes, ears and cameras were focused on him as he began to speak….

To Be Continued


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: Mehmentum on November 28, 2012, 04:42:52 PM
The suspense!

Edit:  Keep up the good work! I really enjoy this.


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on December 09, 2012, 05:05:47 PM
I just wanted to let you guys know that I'm suffering from a minor case of writer's block, so writing the next update is progressing quite slowly, however I'm hoping to have something up during the coming week.


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: Atlas Has Shrugged on December 09, 2012, 06:56:00 PM
I just wanted to let you guys know that I'm suffering from a minor case of writer's block, so writing the next update is progressing quite slowly, however I'm hoping to have something up during the coming week.
Take your time and keep on writing great stuff! :)


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on December 30, 2012, 12:30:44 PM
Well it's been a while, but after a month of writer's block I'm making an attempt to get back at writing this. Though I can't promise that updates will come at a regular basis.

Liberal National Convention 1988 (Part 2)

"I, Edmund Gerry Brown, hereby declare my candidacy for leader of the Liberal Party of America. My reasons for making this decision is not one of personal greed, lust for fame or power, but a deep desire to make this country and this party better than it is today. I sincerely hope I'll have your support in this endeavor."

It was chaos. Pure unfiltered chaos. Mere seconds after Brown finished his brief statement, one third of the audience was screaming bloody murder, another one was happily cheering him on, and the rest were just staring at him, confused over what the hell just happened. It took nearly a full 15 minutes for Moynihan to successfully calm most of them down and call for the convention to take a recess until the next day.

()
It's Brown, Baby!
New York Times headine, the morning after the first day of the Liberal Convention

----

()
"There is only one man who is fit to lead this party back into government. That man is someone who has proudly served his province as its Premier for nearly 10 years and now continues to serve it as a member of the House of Commons. Ladies and gentlemen, that man is my good friend, the Right Honorable Jerry Brown of California!"
-Senator Pierre Trudeau, speaking to supporters outside of Maple Leaf Gardens, site of the Liberal National Convention

----

WM: "Hello?"

PT: "Walter, it's Pierre. I was hoping maybe you and I could sit down and talk about the future of our party. "

WM: [brief pause] "Alright then. I'm interested."

----

The Brown Coalition

The group of Liberals who ended up coalescing around Jerry Brown as their candidate, commonly referred to the Brown Coalition by the press, was indeed a most peculiar one. On paper there should be no way that a candidate like Brown, who was a known budget hawk with an independent streak would get the backing of left-liberal big shots like Walter Mondale and Pierre Trudeau, as well as the institutional backing of all who followed them, but somehow, someway, it all worked. Maybe it was a common belief in larger focus on social programs over defense spending, maybe a joint opposition to Bentsen's social conservatism and death penalty support, but together they certainly made up a formidable alliance which Bentsen had all the reason to fear.


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on December 30, 2012, 05:29:53 PM
Moynihan: "California?"

Head of CA Delegation: "It is with great pride that the Province of California gives its 94 electoral votes to its native son, Jerry Brown!"

Moynihan: "94 votes from California to Brown. Current standing is 117 to 73 votes, in favor of Brown. Canada?"

[...]

----

Brown would quickly rack up quite a nice lead as the count started, with him grabbing most of the big provinces such as California, however Bentsen was certainly not out of the race as he would sweep the south and the plains provinces, as well as the big prize of Illinois which ended up in his fold largely due to Richard Daley's efforts. In the end it would be close, and Brown did indeed preform very well, even taking provinces like Pennsylvania, which would've most likely gone for Bentsen had it not been for the efforts of Walter Mondale and Pierre Trudeau. Alas for Brown, Bentsen would prevail in the end with 610 electoral votes to Brown's 587. It was close, very close, but when it was over everyone expected Brown to concede graciously and vow to work with together Bentsen to take the Liberals back into power. Boy were they wrong.

()
"I accept that it is the wish of a slim majority of the party to have Mr. Bentsen as leader and not me, and I respect their decision, just like I respect Mr. Bentsen. However I cannot in good conscience remain in a party which is following an ideological path I simply cannot I agree with. I first joined the Liberal Party because of its opposition to the backwards social agenda supported by the conservatives and its commitment to helping those in our society which cannot help themselves. To remain in the party when it now is starting to prioritize pork barrel spending over the needs of the poor and no longer emphasizes its opposition to school prayer and capital punishment is simply something I cannot do. Therefore, on this day I bid my goodbyes to the Liberal Party, and to all the friends I made during my time as a member, I want to say that I hope that my decision to depart from the party won't hinder our ability to work together in the future."

On that day Brown would leave the Liberal Party and never look back. And in his departure, he would be joined by an additional 15 Members of Parliament and 5 Senators, including his own father Pat Brown.


Meanwhile, far away in Philadelphia, Lee Atwater was watching the events of the Convention play out on live television…

Atwater: "I think we just won the next election."


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: Jerseyrules on December 30, 2012, 05:59:43 PM
:o

Truly awesome stuff man!


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: Atlas Has Shrugged on December 30, 2012, 06:18:54 PM
Is Brown joining Labor or forming a new party?


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on December 31, 2012, 10:01:49 AM
Is Brown joining Labor or forming a new party?

He's forming a new party.


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on December 31, 2012, 10:11:01 AM
Still Standing

()

It was a battered, beaten and disunited Liberal Party which left Toronto following the end of the convention. A divisive leadership election had resulted in 15 MPs and 5 Senators, including highly prolific individuals like Walter Mondale, Pierre Trudeau, Geraldine Ferraro and Michael Dukakis, leaving the party to form the breakaway Progressive Liberal Party under the leadership of Jerry Brown. The December opinion poll which followed the convention was simply nothing short of disastrous for the Liberals.

API Opinion Polling - Which party would you vote for if the election was held today?
Progressive Conservative - 31,0%
Labor - 27,1%
Liberal - 14,0%
Libertarian - 9,9%
American Heritage - 8,8%
Progressive Liberal - 8,2%
Other - 1,0%


14 percent. 14 rotten percent of the population still supported the Liberal after their mess of a Convention, and now it was Bentsen's job to win back the confidence of the voters. And it would start, as it usually does; with a strong frontbench team.

Leader of the Liberal Party: The Rt. Hon. Lloyd Bentsen (Lib.)
Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party: The Rt. Hon. Max Baucus (Lib.)

Foreign Affairs Spokesman: The Rt. Hon. John Glenn (Lib.)
Finance Spokesman: The Rt. Hon. Max Baucus (Lib.)
Defense Spokesman: The Rt. Hon. Sam Nunn (Lib.)
Justice Spokesman: The Rt. Hon. Bruce Babbit (Lib.)
Trade, Industry and Business Spokesman: The Rt. Hon. Tom Foley (Lib.)
Labor and Employment Spokesman: The Rt. Hon. Al Gore (Lib.)
Health and Social Affairs Spokesman: The Rt. Hon. Robert Byrd (Lib.)
Education Spokesman: The Rt. Hon. Dale Bumpers (Lib.)
Energy Spokesman: The Rt. Hon. John Kerry (Lib.)
Agriculture and Food Spokesman: The Rt. Hon. Dick Gephardt (Lib.)
Transportation Spokesman: The Rt. Hon. John Turner (Lib.)
Infrastructure and Housing Spokesman: The Rt. Hon. Lawton Chiles (Lib.)
Veterans Affairs Spokesman: The Rt. Hon. Joe Lieberman (Lib.)
Aboriginal Affairs Spokesman: The Rt. Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell (Lib.)
Culture, Sports and Media Spokesman: The Rt. Hon. Charlie Wilson (Lib.)

Leader of the Liberals in the House of Commons: The Rt. Hon. Ralph Goodale (Lib.)
Leader of the Liberals in the Senate: The Rt. Hon. Terry Sanford (Lib.)
Liberal Whip in the House of Commons: The Rt. Hon. Tim Wirth (Lib.)
Liberal Whip in the Senate: The Rt. Hon. Jim Sasser (Lib.)


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: Jerseyrules on December 31, 2012, 01:14:49 PM
Interesting stuff.  Are any labor supporters leaving the party to support the Progressive Liberals?


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on December 31, 2012, 02:24:10 PM
Interesting stuff.  Are any labor supporters leaving the party to support the Progressive Liberals?

A few, possibly, but there's not going to be any major shift in support from Labor to the Progressive Liberals.


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: Jerseyrules on December 31, 2012, 04:53:46 PM
Interesting stuff.  Are any labor supporters leaving the party to support the Progressive Liberals?

A few, possibly, but there's not going to be any major shift in support from Labor to the Progressive Liberals.

No MPs either?


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on December 31, 2012, 05:23:15 PM
Interesting stuff.  Are any labor supporters leaving the party to support the Progressive Liberals?

A few, possibly, but there's not going to be any major shift in support from Labor to the Progressive Liberals.

No MPs either?

Nope, this is pretty much an entirely Liberal affair.


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: Jerseyrules on December 31, 2012, 05:25:27 PM
Interesting stuff.  Are any labor supporters leaving the party to support the Progressive Liberals?

A few, possibly, but there's not going to be any major shift in support from Labor to the Progressive Liberals.

No MPs either?

Nope, this is pretty much an entirely Liberal affair.

Wow.  Cool stuff, I'm looking forward to the next update :)


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: Peter the Lefty on January 01, 2013, 11:22:02 PM
Wow.  The vote splitting will really cut them to a rump in 92.  I take it Teddy's own...indiscretions will mean that he won't be Labor leader anymore by then, so here's to Broadbent for PM!


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: Del Tachi on January 07, 2013, 05:48:07 PM
I'm guessing that now, due to the establishment of the Progressive Liberals, that the Liberal Party's membership is now a good bit more "conservative" than it was before. 

Any chance that it may come to align itself with the Progressive Conservatives?  AmHeritage could be kicked-out of the coalition of that happened...


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: Peter the Lefty on January 19, 2013, 02:37:21 PM
Hey, just a question: what did you use to make your graphs of parliament during election night? 


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on January 20, 2013, 05:00:58 PM
I'm guessing that now, due to the establishment of the Progressive Liberals, that the Liberal Party's membership is now a good bit more "conservative" than it was before. 

Any chance that it may come to align itself with the Progressive Conservatives?  AmHeritage could be kicked-out of the coalition of that happened...

The Liberals and Progressive Conservatives have pretty much been sworn enemies for a century or so, and because of that there is not going to be any real cooperation between the parties when the Liberals have only been in third place for a few months or so. They wouldn't be inclined to work with the Conservatives until they've at least made an attempt taking down Labor, and even if that's unsuccessful there'd be a lot of handwringing among the Liberals.

Hey, just a question: what did you use to make your graphs of parliament during election night? 

I just made them in Excel.


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on January 21, 2013, 12:16:15 PM
Desperation: The Rise of the Progressive Liberal Party

()
Official logo of the Progressive Liberal Party

The formation of the Progressive Liberals certainly came out of the blue to everyone, even if they were aware or unaware of ongoing political events. But after the shock of their formation had subsided they would have to avoid not quickly dropping out of the public consciousness and end up nothing but a brief flash in the pan. The Progressive Liberals, unlike other minor parties formed throughout the years, had the benefit of several prominent individuals like Jerry Brown, Walter Mondale, Pierre Trudeau, Ralph Nader, Paul Tsongas and Michael Dukakis already being in the party from the start. Early on Jerry Brown's mini-superstardom certainly helped the party as he made several media appearances during the months following the party's formation.

But the party of course couldn't keep going on Brownmania alone, and Brown himself obviously realized this, and therefore a "Platform Development Commission", with goal of developing the official platform of the new party, was put together as soon as Brown had officially been elected as the leader of the new party. The commission was chaired by Paul Tsongas, and included a few fellow MPs, as well as policy buffs from outside of elected office.

But one major problem for them was that while the party was founded largely on opposition to the direction that Bentsen was taking the Liberals in, the people who formed the Progressive Liberals did not see eye to eye that well either. On one side you had social liberals and fiscal hawks like Jerry Brown or Paul Tsongas, while on the other you had left liberals like Pierre Trudeau, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis who with their strong focus on social programs probably would've been a better fit for the Labor Party. In fact, it was largely thanks to these strong individuals that the party was able to survive its first few months in existense with relatively high polling numbers, however as they all would soon experience, a party held together by little other than several powerful personalities is not a good recipe for long term stability.

Progressive Liberal MPs
Jerry Brown, California
Jean Chretien, Canada
Don Johnston, Canada
David Berger, Canada
Ralph Nader, Connecticut
Michael Dukakis, Massachusetts
Paul Tsongas, Massachusetts
Walter Mondale, Minnesota
Bruce Vento, Minnesota
Jim Oberstar, Minnesota
Martin Olav Sabo, Minnesota
Geraldine Ferraro, New York
Charles Schumer, New York
Dennis E. Eckart, Ohio
Sheila Copps, Ontario
Les AuCoin, Oregon

Senators
Pierre Trudeau, Canada
Mo Udall, Arizuma
Pat Brown, California
Tip O'Neill, Massachusetts
Ralph Yarborough, Texas


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on January 22, 2013, 02:56:40 AM
()
Coalition leaders announce tax credits for new cars; private education and health services
The American Post, January 22nd 1989

Following a tour of a General Motors plant in Oshawa, Ontario, Prime Minister Reagan, flanked on both sides by Deputy PM Pat Buchanan and Trade Minister Ron Paul, announced a new government initiative which would give cars owners the ability to deduct any car bought after August 1989 and onwards for a period of three years after purchase. The government hopes that this will help boost consumption in an economy which appears to become more and more sluggish. They also discussed, in less details, plans for tax credits for education and health services not provided by the federal government, which could hint that there may be something to the rumors about a school voucher program being in the early stages of development by the Ministry of Education.

Reactions to the new initiatives were generally negative on the opposition benches. While Ted Kennedy was positive to idea of making it cheaper in order to boost consumption, he was doubtful if a tax credit was the right was the right way to go about it, and he was also highly critical of the government making the tax credit available for any car, which he called "Nothing but a give to foreign conglomorates at the cost of American companies and auto workers". And when it came to the  tax credit for private education and health care, Kennedy clearly did not hold back when he said "The government is clearly not concerned with the needs of the poor or the average American worker since [the] tax credits would only benefit those who can afford those highly expensive services already, and the money wasted could just as easily have been spent on the public health and education systems instead." The leaders of the other opposition parties largely shared Kennedy's sentiments about the health and education deductions, while Lloyd Bentsen was somewhat positive to the tax credit for new cars and Jerry Brown opposed both on the grounds that it would add to the growing federal deficit.


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on January 26, 2013, 06:59:20 PM
()
Gingrich under fire for "sweetheart" remark
New York Times, January 28th 1989

During a debate in the House of Commons yesterday between Education Minister Newt Gingrich (Prog Con.) and his shadow Barbara Mikulski (Lab.), Gingrich delivered a comment perceived as sexist which caused outrage among the Opposition benches.

Transcript:

The Rt. Hon. Brian Mulroney, Speaker of the House of Commons: "The Right Honourable 2nd list member from the Province of Maryland has the word."

The Rt. Hon. Barbara Mikulski, Shadow Minister of Education: "Mr. Speaker, these latest news regarding proposed tax credits for private education coupled with the planned cuts to federal public education funding as a whole, are indeed most disconcerting. Can the minister give the American people an answer as to why the current government is prioritizing expensive private schools only affordable to the very rich while at the same time they are cutting back on the public education which is so desperately needed by the working people of our nation?"

The Rt. Hon. Newt Gingrich, Minister of Education: "Mr. Speaker, to the Right Honourable member from Maryland I can only say the she does not need to worry her little head with this particular issue. Sweetheart, in a few years it will become absolutely clear that…"

[Gingrich's voice is drowned out by heckles and cries of "shame" from the Opposition benches]

Gingrich's comments were quickly condemned by the leaders of the three opposition parties, with Jerry Brown calling Gingrich's behavior "demeaning and disrespectful towards the Shadow Minister of Education for no other reason than her gender", while Bentsen's office released a statement saying that Gingrich's words were "disrespectful and unworthy of a government Minister", and Ted Kennedy said that "[Gingrich] showed a clear lack of respect towards a fellow Member of Parliament and should be thoroughly reprimanded by the leader of his party for portraying such a clear lack of common decency." Neither Mr. Gingrich nor Prime Minister Reagan have been willing comment on the matter.

------

Disappointing numbers for the Tories
The American Post, January 30th 1989

API Opinion Polling has in the past month or so done extensive polling on several key issues, and news are far from good for the Progressive Conservatives, with 41% saying that the country is currently going in the wrong direction, and the public trusting the Labor Party more on important issues such as job creation, education and healthcare. But all is not bad for the Tories, as they are still the most trusted on defense and handling the economy, and Ronald Reagan still holds a comfortable lead over Kennedy and Bentsen when it comes to who would be the best Prime Minister.

Do you believe the country is going in the right direction?
No - 41,2%
Yes - 36,4%
Not sure - 22,4%


Which government do you think would have the best policies for….

A strong economy?
A PC government - 39,0%
A Labor government - 31,6%
Neither/other/unsure - 29,4%

A strong military?
A PC government - 48,5%
Neither/other/unsure - 25,9%
A Labor government - 25,6%

Creating jobs and lowering unemployment?
A Labor government - 40,3%
A PC government - 30,8%
Neither/other/unsure - 28,9%

A good healthcare system?
A Labor government - 39,5%
A PC government - 31,4%
Neither/other/unsure - 29,1%

A good education system?
A Labor government - 35,0%
A PC government - 33,6%
Neither/other/unsure - 31,3%

Which party leader do you believe is/would be the most capable Prime Minister?
Ronald Reagan - 38,2%
Ted Kennedy - 20,3%
Lloyd Bentsen - 19,4%
Ron Paul - 7,4%
Jerry Brown - 6,5%
Pat Buchanan - 5,9%
Neither/other/unsure - 2,3%


------

PM reported to be in good health
The Globe, February 7th 1989

The Office of the Prime Minister today released a full report of the Prime Minister's yearly physical, wherein, aside from some slightly elevated blood pressure, the PM was declared to in excellent physical condition for his age. Reagan's poor debate performance in the last election caused some fears that he was starting to develop memory issues, however the medical report should most likely lay most of those rumors to rest.


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on January 27, 2013, 11:27:54 AM
()
Carter in 1979, shortly after being sworn in to his first term as Governor General.

Carter says no to third term
New York Times, February 10th 1989

Governor General Jimmy Carter was present yesterday at the opening of a new exhibition at the Metropolitan Art Museum in New York City, when he was asked by reporters if he was open to serving for another five year term as Governor General. Carter's term expires on April 23rd, and while he has previously been unwilling to say whether he is willing to commit to another five years as G-G, it has now become clear that he is not. "I am tremendously proud of the last ten years in which I have served my country, but now it is time for me to retire and get back into private life.", Carter said to reporters. Carter started first his career as in the Royal American Navy, however he would later resign his commission following the death of his father in order to to run the family owned peanut farm. Under his leadership the business bloomed and expanded until by the end of the 1960s the Carter Peanut Company was the largest provider of peanuts in the entire American Commonwealth.

A bit of a political activist and known supporter of the Liberal Party, Carter was approached by Prime Minister Lyndon B. Johnson to run for federal parliament in 1965 election, however he declined, instead opting to continue with his business. At least until 1973, when he was approached by then-Governor General Henry Jackson, in consultation with Prime Minister Nelson Rockefeller and Georgia Premier Zell Miller, to serve as the Lieutenant Governor of his home state of Georgia. After much consideration, he accepted and would hold the office until 1979 when Prime Minister Muskie nominated him as the next Governor General to replace Gerald Ford. Despite his known affiliations with the Liberals, Carter never got involved in any of ongoing political conflicts in the country, unless it was deemed absolutely necessary. This served only to endear him with the public, and as a result it came as no surprise when Prime Minister Reagan nominated him for another 5 year term in 1984. But now, when Carter is definitely out of the running for another five years, the Prime Minister will have to nominate a new Governor General to the Queen for consideration by April 2nd at the latest.


------


Comments? Questions? Critiques? :)


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on January 28, 2013, 12:42:22 PM
Here's a little infodump:

Premiers of American Provinces, as of the beginning of February 1989

Alabama
Jim Folsom Jr., since January 1989
Liberal majority

Alaska
Frank Murkowski, since August 1988
Alaskan Independence-Progressive Conservative coalition

Alberta
Don Mazankowski, since September 1985
Progressive Conservative majority

Arizuma
Peter Domenici, since January 1983
Progressive Conservative majority

Arkansas
Bill Clinton, since October 1976
Liberal majority

Bahamas
Hubert Ingraham, since August 1986
Progressive Conservative majority

British Columbia
Michael Harcourt, since May 1987
Labor majority

California
Tom Bradley, since February 1988
Labor-Liberal coalition

Canada
Marc Lalonde, since November 1985
Liberal majority

Colorado
Dick Lamm, since April 1981
Liberal majority

Connecticut
Christopher Dodd, since October 1985
Liberal majority

Dakota
Quentin N. Burdick, since March 1978 (also from 1960 to 1967)
Liberal majority

Delaware
Shien Biau Woo, since June 1983
Liberal majority

East Florida
Maurice Ferre, since September 1985
Liberal minority

Georgia
Zell Miller, since May 1985 (also from 1971 to 1976)
Liberal majority

Hawaii
Pat Saiki, since November 1988
Progressive Consevative-Liberal coalition

Hudson
Jack Masters, since March 1984
Liberal majority

Illinois
Adlai Stevenson III, since April 1982
Labor-Liberal coalition

Indiana
Dan Quayle, since September 1981
Progressive Conservative minority with supply and confidence from American Heritage and Libertarian

Iowa
Neal Smith, since February 1979 (also from 1966 to 1971)
Liberal minority

Jamaica
Edward Seaga, since June 1984
Jamaica Labour Party majority

Kansas
John W. Carlin, since July 1976
Liberal minority with supply and confidence from Labor

Kentucky
Walter Huddleston, since December 1979
Liberal majority

Louisiana
Buddy Roemer, since August 1986
Liberal majority

Maine
Olympia Snowe, since May 1987
Progressive Conservative majority

Manitoba
Howard Pawley, since April 1980
Labor majority

Maryland
Paul Sarbanes, since April 1982
Liberal majority

Massachusetts
Edward Brooke, since May 1985
Progressive Conservative majority

Michigan
Donald W. Riegle Jr., since October 1979
Progressive Conservative majority

Minnesota
Arne H. Carlson, since September 1987
Liberal majority

Mississippi
Kirk Fordice, since March 1985
American Heritage-Progressive Conservative coalition

Missouri
Thomas Eagleton, since June 1981
Liberal-Labor coalition

Montana
John Melcher, since November 1977
Liberal majority

Nebraska
J. James Exon, since February 1984 (also from 1969 to 1977)
Liberal majority

Nevada
Harry Reid, since May 1987
Liberal majority

Newfoundland & Labrador
John Crosbie, since September 1984
Progressive Conservative majority

New Hampshire
Judd Gregg, since October 1986
Progressive Conservative majority

New Jersey
Thomas Kean, since April 1979
Progressive Conservative majority

New York
Al D'Amato, since August 1985
Progressive Conservative minority

North Carolina
Jim Hunt, since October 1981
Liberal majority

Nova Scotia
Donald W. Cameron, since November 1988
Progressive Conservative majority

Ohio
Howard Metzenbaum, since June 1980 (also from 1972 to 1976)
Liberal majority

Ontario
Jack Layton, since August 1986
Labor-Liberal coalition

Oregon
Victor Atiyeh, since July 1983
Progressive Conservative majority

Pennsylvania
Robert P. Casey, since October 1986
Liberal minority with supply and confidence from Labor

Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands
Rafael Hernández Colón, since April 1975
Labor majority

Rhode Island
Claudine Schneider, since January 1987
Progressive Conservative majority

Saskatchewan
Allan Blakeney, since May 1985 (also from 1970 to 1981)
Labor minority with supply and confidence from Liberals

Sequoyah
W.W. Keeler, since August 1974
Sequoyahn People's Party minority with supply and confidence from Liberals

South Carolina
Arthur Ravenel Jr., since September 1988
American Heritage-Progressive Conservative coalition

St. John's
James Lee, since November 1985
Progressive Conservative majority

Tennessee
Lamar Alexander, since February 1977
Progressive Conservative minority with supply and confidence from American Heritage

Texas
Ann Richards, since June 1988
Liberal-Labor coalition

Utah
James V. Hansen, since March 1984
Progressive Conservative majority

Vermont
Madeleine M. Kunin, since November 1981
Labor majority

Virginia
Douglas Wilder, since March 1986
Liberal majority

West Florida
Sonny Callahan, since July 1985
Progressive Conservative-American Heritage coalition

Wisconsin
Dave Obey, since October 1986
Labor-Liberal coalition

Wyoming
Malcolm Wallop, since March 1980
Progressive Conservative majority


Liberal - 24*
Progressive Conservative - 20
Labor - 9
American Heritage - 2
Minnesota Liberal - 1*
Alaskan Independence - 1
Seqouyahn People's - 1
Jamaica Labour - 1**


*While official numbers put 25 provincial parliaments under Liberal control, in reality it is only 24 since the Minnesota Liberal Party, while using the same name and colors, is not affiliated with the federal Liberal party due to generally be more right of centre and more in line with the conservatives due to having been the main opposition to the provincial Labor Party for the better part of the century.
**The Jamaica Labour Party, while in affiliation with the Tories when it comes to federal elections, has no ties to the party on the provincial level despite sharing most of their views on policy matters.

------

Comments? Questions? Critiques? :)


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: Del Tachi on January 28, 2013, 05:57:47 PM
Keep up the good work!

I'd love to see Reagan get ousted as PM ;)


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: Peter the Lefty on January 28, 2013, 06:26:33 PM
Loving it!


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on January 29, 2013, 04:22:04 AM
Keep up the good work!

I'd love to see Reagan get ousted as PM ;)

That could possibly be arranged... ;)

------------

Desperation Part Deux: A Party in Crisis

Some four months or so following the formation of the Progressive Liberals it was finally time for the party to hold its own national convention. In the time since its formation the party had managed to recruit a sizable number of members, with provincial and territorial level chapters having been formed in every province and territory except for the Northwest Territories, Nunavut and Jamaica. But what remained was probably even more important, and that was to actually agree on a common platform which the party would run on in the next federal election, in addition to forming the basis for future platforms. That job was left to the platform development commission, created by Brown in mid-December 1988 and chaired by Paul Tsongas. The new platform was essentially finished by the middle of February, when it was presented Brown who gave it his full approval. But no other high up members in the party would have the chance to read it prior to the convention, which indeed caused quite a stir with many criticizing Brown for the same kind of top heavy control prevalent in the Liberal Party. However the media came to the rescue, as a copy of the document was leaked to a New York Times reporter and they did in fact get a chance to read it, along with the rest of the world. But the reception was not really as positive as Brown would have hoped for….

------

"The ultimate goal of what we choose to define as 'progressive liberalism' is to shape a society based on the ideals of democracy and the inalienable individual liberties of all human beings."
-Jerry Brown, leader of the Progressive Liberal Party

"Long lasting prosperity and social progress are the primary goals of the Progressive Liberal Party. Therefore we recognize how irresponsible fiscal policies are one of the major obstacles in reaching these goals, and because of this we as party vow to always promote fiscal restraint and balanced budgets […]"

"A 13% flat tax along with a goods and services tax set as the same level is deemed to be ideal for reaching strong and long lasting economic prosperity in this country […]"

"As a party we are in favor of an official federally mandated implementation of trilingualism […]"

"As a party we strongly support placing a federal ban on the death penalty [...]"

"A reform of the way the social welfare system works, in order to remove excess bureaucracy, is deemed necessary to secure the long term survival of those important services we often take for granted […]"

Exerpts from "Innovation and Progress: A Roadmap to American Prosperity" - 1989 proposed Progressive Liberal Party platform

------

"Flat tax, balanced budgets, welfare reform, what the hell is that goddamn Californian hippie trying to turn us into, Libertarians!?"
-Quote attributed to Tip O'Neill

------

WM: "This is a disaster. We left the Liberal Party because of their drift rightwards, and now we have a leader who wants to take us all the way over to the far right fringe. Something needs to be done."

MD: "No argument from me. Have you talked to Brown?"

WM: "I called, but he won't budge. He drones on about how studies have shown that flat tax would more efficient than our current tax scheme, the need to focus on economic growth over fighting poverty, and blah blah blah. I'm telling you, the man has gone completely crazy."

MD: "Well that's that then. I guess it's back home to the Liberals for us."

WM: "Don't get ahead of yourself, Michael, we'll fix this. I'll talk to Pierre, and the two of us will go see Brown together. Together we'll let him know that he simply does not have the backing of his party on this."

MD: "Very well then. Good luck, I guess. You're going to need it."


To Be Continued….


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: Peter the Lefty on January 29, 2013, 03:05:37 PM
LIBERAL OBLIVION!!!! :D


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on February 02, 2013, 12:04:26 PM
While I'm working on the next update, I thought I'd give you a bit of a closer look at some past elections. :)


Federal Election of 1943
()
With the start of World War II, Mackenzie King, despite commanding a sizable majority in the House of Commons, formed a national government with the Progressive Conservative and Labor parties in 1940. As a result of all parties being in government together, campaigning for the 1943 election was very low key and the Liberals gained several seats mostly as a result of many voters lining up behind them as the natural governing party in a time of national crisis.

Federal Election of 1946
()
Electoral fatigue started hitting the Liberals following the end of the war, and coupled with the election of Claude Pepper as party leader, it looked as if Dewey's Prog Cons were all but assured to win the next election. Pepper, who was percieved as too far to the left on many issues, as well being weak on Communism and a bit of an opportunist (he had switched party affiliation from Labor to Liberal in order to get elected to parliament), even caused a rift in his own party, when several MPs led by Harry Truman left the party to sit as Independent Liberals in protest over Pepper's foreign policy. But against all odds, Pepper's Liberals prevailed with a one seat majority. Dewey, who was blamed for squandering a 20 point lead at the start of the campaign, was eventually forced to step down as Tory leader.

Federal Election of 1951
()
Pepper's government had grown deeply unpopular by the time the next election came around, and despite being able to reconcile things with the Independent Liberals by offering significant concessions in areas such as foreign policy and defense, the Liberal Party suffered a major defeat and were ousted by the Progressive Conservatives led by Harold Stassen. The Labor Party, which had joined the Liberals in a coalition for the last two years of the term after the government lost its majority following a by-election, also saw its vote share collapse, resulting in Henry Wallace announcing his intention to step down as party leader. This was also the first time an election was contested by the Southern National Party led by Strom Thurmond, a party formed by a group of former Liberal and Progressive Conservative MPs, largely in opposition to Pepper's strong support of civil rights for African-Americans in the southern provinces.

Federal Election of 1955
()
The 1955 election was largely uneventful, with Stassen's government rather popular, quite few seats were lost, although the increase in the number of the seats in parliament from the last election twist the numbers. The Liberals, now under Lyndon Johnson's leadership, were able to recover some of their losses from the previous election, as was the Labor Party under Glen Taylor's leadership, but it was still not even close to overcoming big lead that the Prog Cons had.

----

Links to larger versions of the 46, 51 & 55 infoboxes:
http://i.imgur.com/iYh5V9I.png (http://i.imgur.com/iYh5V9I.png)
http://i.imgur.com/dgZ5Z0z.png (http://i.imgur.com/dgZ5Z0z.png)
http://i.imgur.com/FLEAJyS.png (http://i.imgur.com/FLEAJyS.png)


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: Peter the Lefty on February 02, 2013, 12:42:20 PM
Awesome!  What do you use to make those?


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on February 02, 2013, 01:08:00 PM
Awesome!  What do you use to make those?

I edit original election infoboxes in the wikipedia sandbox, and if some changes are needed which I can't do in wiki I fix that in Photoshop.


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: Lief 🗽 on February 05, 2013, 02:21:58 AM
From the name of LBJ's constituency, I take it Stephen F. Austin stayed in Tennessee in this timeline? hehe

Love the fake Wikipedia articles!


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on February 14, 2013, 04:51:02 PM
Jerry Brown's Office - Meeting between Brown and Walter Mondale - February 15th, 1989

JB: "Walter, it's good to see you. I understand you wanted to have a talk?"

WM: "Yes Jerry, I do, and I wish that I could say that I was happy to see you as well, but we really need to discuss this proposed party platform."

JB: [sighs] "Walter, I realize that this is all must come as shock for you, but please trust me when I say that this is a good thing. It's new and different from anything that the other parties have to offer an it will create enough excitement for our party to carry us through the next election."

WM: "Oh come on Jerry, you can't seriously think that.

JB: "Of course I do, Walter. You especially should realize the importance of running on a strong platform in a general election."

WM: "Yes, but the difference between the two is that the platform I ran with at least reflected the views of a solid majority of the party's MPs and voters, while what you're proposing looks like something written up by an escaped mental patient."

JB: "Seriously Walter, that was just uncalled for."

WM: "I am serious about this. If you do not agree to open the program for changes you are going to have revolt on your hands, and I am sure not going to be there to help you."

JB: "Then so be it. Over these past months thousands of members have joined this party largely thanks to me and what I have brought to the movement, and come the convention they will finally have the chance to make their voices heard. And then we will find out just who's voices matter the most; those of thousands of young people yearning for change, or those of some stuffy old politicians who can't evolve with the rest of society."

WM: [brief pause] "Is this really what you want, Jerry? An open fight between factions just months after the party has been formed. You'll tear the party apart."

JB: "If tearing it apart and putting it back together again is what's required to get the party on the right track, then that's what I'll do."

WM: … "You can't seriously think that."

JB: "Yes, I do."

WM: "Well okay then. I guess the only other thing I can say to that is that I promise to fight you tooth and nail for the soul of this party when on the convention floor. Good bye, Jerry."

[Mondale walks out of the office]

-------

PM's Office - Weekly meeting between Reagan, Buchanan and Paul - February 17th, 1989

RR: "So we can all agree to a pilot program for school vouchers encompassing 1500 schools nationwide, with further evaluation in three years time?"

RP: "Yes."

PB: "Yes, that's fine with me."

RR: "Excellent, then I think we'll announce it as soon as possible. Make it a cornerstone of the new budget. However I feel that it might be best if it's the three of us who present the idea to the public at large prior to the Education Ministry's announcement. Newt certainly won't be happy about it, but I think it would be good if he stayed out of the public eye for while, considering his comments a few weeks ago."

[All three men laugh]

PB: "Oh yes, I heard about that. Boy, the opposition will think of any excuse to complain nowadays, won't they?"

RR: "Well in their defense it is in their job description. Though personally I do wish that they could be at least a little bit worse at doing their job."

RP: [chuckles] "Yes, don't we all."

RR: "Yeah. Now, with the voucher program done, I think we should move on to the growing deficit. It has turned out to be quite the problem lately with the opposition being very successful at using it to attack us. Research shows that it has rose from 11th to 4th in the ranking of matters the voters are the most concerned about. Not to mention with a recession looming on the horizon, it is high time that we do something to address this issue in order to secure the public's confidence in our economic policy."

PB: "Well then what do you propose we do?"

RR: [sighs] "I want you to know that what I am about to suggest did not come easy to me, as it goes against a lot of my core principles. But after discussing this both with Jack [Kemp] and Don [Regan], I have come to realize that it is the best course of action, with the least backlash attached to it."

RP: "Ronnie, you actually have to tell us what it is too."

RR: "I know. I propose increasing the federal Goods and Services Tax from the current 2% to 6%."

RP: "Ronnie, I have to say that I would not be comfortable supporting such a thing without a significant cut of government spending to come along with it. Yes, the idea of a sales tax replacing the federal income tax is something which I am in favor of in the long run, but this is just a needless tax increase used to justify more reckless spending. I'm sorry, but neither me nor my party can support it."

PB: "Yes, I'm afraid I have to side with Ron here. My party's core constituents are on average a lot less well off than the average American, and I would have a very hard time trying to sell a spike in the tax on food and other necessities when the time comes for the next election."

RR: "Ron, I have to say that the notion that this tax hike would come with no cuts in spending what so ever is a fallacy. As an example, the cut to federal higher education funding we agreed upon in October will under the new deficit reduction plan be at 8% instead of the 4 we agreed on then, the same for the aid to First Nations which will be reduced by 10% instead of 5. I would also be prepared to at least open discussions in regards to reducing funding for the Strategic Defense Initiative as you proposed during the fall, as well as certain other cuts. This isn't some demand I'm placing on you two, this is very much a work in progress I hope we can reach an agreement on which will be suitable to our separate parties. And as for your concerns Pat, I would hope that your voters would see the values of the income tax cuts we've already given then, as well as the cuts to First Nations funding, which if I remember correctly, was a key point of your campaign in the last election."

RP: "Well it's at least good that you seem to have finally realized the problem we're having with the deficit, and that you're also willing to look at ways to solve it, but I'm still going to have a hard time selling any hike in taxes to my party without significant cuts to areas such as health and education."

RR: "Well we can certainly talk about that. I was thinking that perhaps the three of us, together with Jack [Kemp], Andre [Marrou] and Bob [Dornan], could sit down and discuss potential cuts and privatizations. Just nothing too drastic, as to not awaken anger from the public."

RP: "Well, we can certainly discuss it."

RR: "Good. What do you think, Pat?"

PB: "Well with the increased cuts to the waste spent on First Nations, I think we can at least talk about it. But I can't make any promises, as I'm still not happy with the GST hike."

RR: "Being willing to at least have a discussion is good enough. I'll have a meeting scheduled. Now onto the next order of business…"



Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: Del Tachi on February 15, 2013, 02:09:20 PM
Still reading!


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: DKrol on April 17, 2013, 09:21:17 PM
This is a really high quality TL and has partially inspired my Parliamentary US TL "General Election - 1990". I hope you continue this, it's interesting.


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: The Lord Marbury on April 18, 2013, 12:17:52 PM
This is a really high quality TL and has partially inspired my Parliamentary US TL "General Election - 1990". I hope you continue this, it's interesting.

Thanks a lot. :) I will be continuing this at some point just to make things clear, but I'm currently so busy with stuff IRL that I probably won't have the chance to return to this until june/july at the earliest.


Title: Re: Into the Next Millenium
Post by: auburntiger on April 20, 2013, 02:38:22 PM
I would love to see a geographical representation of the election outcomes if that's possible :)