No Thatcher

[AndyC]

Monetarist policies were first implemeted by Chancellor of the Exchequer Denis Healey after 1976. Inflation was brought down quickly after that.

From the 1976 Budget (April '76) until the 1979 general Election (April 79):

[FONT=Times New Roman]1976 04           18.9[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]1976 05           15.4[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]1976 06           13.8[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]1976 07           12.9[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]1976 08           13.8[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]1976 09           14.3[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]1976 10           14.7[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]1976 11           15[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]1976 12           15.1[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]1977 01           16.6[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]1977 02           16.2[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]1977 03           16.7[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]1977 04           17.5[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]1977 05           17.1[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]1977 06           17.7[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]1977 07           17.6[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]1977 08           16.5[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]1977 09           15.6[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]1977 10           14.1[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]1977 11           13[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]1977 12           12.1[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]1978 01           9.9[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]1978 02           9.5[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]1978 03           9.1[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]1978 04           7.9[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]1978 05           7.7[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]1978 06           7.4[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]1978 07           7.8[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]1978 08           8[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]1978 09           7.8[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]1978 10           7.8[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]1978 11           8.1[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]1978 12           8.4[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]1979 01           9.3[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]1979 02           9.6[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]1979 03           9.8[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]1979 04           10.1[/FONT]

I'd agree that inflation fell but wouldn't describe it as "fell quickly". It was stubbornly difficult to keep down and kept heading upwards again.

Under Thatcher inflation fell below 10% after 1982. However inflation was falling everywhere in the developed world by then and the UK had at best an average record until the 1990's when Thatcher was gone.

I'd be interested in comparative figures for that. It's very possible that you're right, but I don't know where to find the figures (I usually use the ONS but they're unlikely to keep them for other countries )

No Thatcher means possibly Willie Whitelaw replacing Heath sometime in 1976.

If he wins he would be similar to Heath but less of a buffoon. Higher unemployment caused by the global slump from 1979-82 would mean labour unrest and inflationary pressures would decline anyway. When the economy recovers Britain has more manufacturing industry but a weaker Financial sector and less of a property speculation boom.

Agree that it would probably be Whitelaw, but it's difficult to say whether he'd be tougher than Heath (Although his consistent support for her against "the wets" adds strength to your contention). The inflationary pressures during the slump were actually very high. Assuming monetarist policies were sustained, they'd probably have ended up with similar inflation rates (as you say, unemployment reduces inflation (at least wage inflation) so it's hard to see significantly lower inflation in that period with a different leader - unless unemployment was much higher!)

It's quite surprising to many to learn that manufacturing industry ended up higher at the end of Thatcher's term than when she took over (from about 85% of the level it was in 2005 to 95% of the level it was in 2005). The large downwards push in the early Eighties was more than matched by an upwards climb as the EIghties wore on.

However, the pain caused by the transition was strongly felt - the loss of industries from the unprofitable areas never found a replacement. In fact, the increase in home ownership encouraged by Thatcher may have made the pain worse - home owners are necessarily more static than renters.

GDP is probably similar as it will have been boosted by oil revenues.

Definitely arguable - oil revenues are only a small fraction of GDP.
The abolition of the closed shop, labour flexibility laws, privatisation of British Leyland and British Telecoms definitely helped (I'm not necessarily a fan of other privatisations, but those were definitely very sensible).

The composition of taxation definitely has an effect on GDP growth - for example, loading the tax system towards income taxes and away from consumption taxes (VAT) slows growth but arguably is better to avoid increased inequality; the reverse can increase inequality and GDP growth.
Any further speculation gets very - well - speculative!

Falklands are invaded as OTL. Whitelaw would be reluctant to fight but may be persuaded by the Admiralty that a war is winnable.

I'm not convinced that any male in Parliament would necessarily have fought. The problem was that the majority of males in a position of power had some military experience (but rarely at the highest ranks) and were well aware of the variious rules of thumb about logistics and the difficulty of prosecuting a campaign at that kind of range. That the Admiralty were convinced it was, after all, doable wouldn't cut much ice.

We had to do a detailed investigation of the conflict on a Staff Officer course, and ended up fairly shocked that any PM would actually have gone for it. The smart money should have been on the junta getting away with it. I'd actually assess any alternative male Conservative PM as being less likely than a supposed male Labour PM to go for it, simply due to the memories of Suez. And I wouldn't rate any of them as being very likely at all.

Maybe it's a kind of reverse sexism on my part - I feel that males have a tendency to want to emphasise to military commanders that they are in charge (even Churchill suffered from it - there's many cases of excessive interference during WWII. Hitler really had it bad on the other side as well). A female during those sexist times is more likely (in my opinion) to simply treat military commanders as just like any other field of expert advice - and going along with advice wouldn't impugn the PM's masculinity.

As an aside, my personal opinion as to the biggest mistake of the Thatcher government(s) (aside from the suicide of the poll tax) was the national curriculum and excessive centralisation of education.

 

[Thande]

Agree that it would probably be Whitelaw, but it's difficult to say whether he'd be tougher than Heath (Although his consistent support for her against "the wets" adds strength to your contention). The inflationary pressures during the slump were actually very high. Assuming monetarist policies were sustained, they'd probably have ended up with similar inflation rates (as you say, unemployment reduces inflation (at least wage inflation) so it's hard to see significantly lower inflation in that period with a different leader - unless unemployment was much higher!)

Whitelaw's actions OTL seem to be motivated more by a sense of party loyalty than anything: he refused to stand against Heath, stood after Heath stepped down against Thatcher, and then supported Thatcher more because he wanted to hold the party together than any ideological convictions.

 

[Charles James Fox]

Yes, I think that Whitelaw was a pragmatist with no real ideological ties. I remember listening to an interview he had with Dimbleby during the 1975 leadership election in which he fumbled questions about economics, saying that elements of both monetarism and incomes policy would have to play a part in fixing the country's economic problems. Party unity would probably be his pre-dominant concern.