British politics without thatcher in the 80's
- Thread starter samcster94
- Start date
The unions never would have been brought under any semblance of control if the Tory establishment of the time had been in charge. Britain would still have many noncompetitive state controlled industries, issues with labour militancy, and I don't think they would have privatized very much at all or instituted a home buying scheme.
However, I do think that they would fight over the Falklands, without a doubt, and would hold the line on Northern Ireland. The concerns of the Tory establishment would likely have been more rural in nature and less focused on confronting the challenges of industrial Britain. Perhaps they would lower taxes across the board, at least as much as they could before the next rounds of expensive union demands. But they would maintain many of the old patriotic elements of High Toryism while avoiding the painful dose of radical Liberalism that Thatcherism represented.
On Europe, its tough to say. Edward Heath was devoted to the idea but in many ways, the party as a whole had to be dragged to that point of view and Thatcher had real reservations about it.
I think ultimately the contradictions inherent in the postwar British economy would become too great to be ignored anymore. I think actually that it would be the Labour Party that would confront them, however, with a Blair figure emerging and perhaps more gently, but certainly not less controversially, bringing Britain into rationality.
Britain without the Thatcherist reforms would still be the sick man of Europe. Could they plod on indefinitely like that? Perhaps, and they might eventually resemble France in many ways, with the public sector unions becoming more prominent after the fall of Communism and competing with the industrial unions for resources. That is a somewhat scary scenario, but its possible.
However, I do think that they would fight over the Falklands, without a doubt, and would hold the line on Northern Ireland. The concerns of the Tory establishment would likely have been more rural in nature and less focused on confronting the challenges of industrial Britain. Perhaps they would lower taxes across the board, at least as much as they could before the next rounds of expensive union demands. But they would maintain many of the old patriotic elements of High Toryism while avoiding the painful dose of radical Liberalism that Thatcherism represented.
On Europe, its tough to say. Edward Heath was devoted to the idea but in many ways, the party as a whole had to be dragged to that point of view and Thatcher had real reservations about it.
I think ultimately the contradictions inherent in the postwar British economy would become too great to be ignored anymore. I think actually that it would be the Labour Party that would confront them, however, with a Blair figure emerging and perhaps more gently, but certainly not less controversially, bringing Britain into rationality.
Britain without the Thatcherist reforms would still be the sick man of Europe. Could they plod on indefinitely like that? Perhaps, and they might eventually resemble France in many ways, with the public sector unions becoming more prominent after the fall of Communism and competing with the industrial unions for resources. That is a somewhat scary scenario, but its possible.
There would probably still be a move toward monetarism and attempts to bring the unions under control. Keep in mind that this was what the Callaghan government began moving toward anyway in its later days. People were out of ideas, and it seemed to be the only one left on the table.
The main difference is that under Whitelaw or somebody it probably wouldn't go as far. Some utilities would stay in public hands, and the eighties wouldn't be remembered as such a divisive decade now. The Tories will if anything be more popular because of that during this time, and they would be in power for even longer. Labour would still have to modernize and we would still see Blair or an equivalent in the nineties. But they will be taking over a country whose economic model would probably resemble something more like France or Germany rather than OTLs UK, rather than being the sick man of Europe. The political class at least would be more Europhile too, without the growth in Tory euroscepticism which has its roots in Thatcherism.
The main difference is that under Whitelaw or somebody it probably wouldn't go as far. Some utilities would stay in public hands, and the eighties wouldn't be remembered as such a divisive decade now. The Tories will if anything be more popular because of that during this time, and they would be in power for even longer. Labour would still have to modernize and we would still see Blair or an equivalent in the nineties. But they will be taking over a country whose economic model would probably resemble something more like France or Germany rather than OTLs UK, rather than being the sick man of Europe. The political class at least would be more Europhile too, without the growth in Tory euroscepticism which has its roots in Thatcherism.
In very, very late-period Thatcherism, post-Thatcher really, when she was caballing against Major. At the time, the Anglo-Irish Agreement caused miles more of a ruckus than the SEA did. I think if the right isn't in power and being directed by the leadership then Euroscepticism would grow as a force earlier in the party, which is pretty much what happen OTL.
The Tories aren't going to forget 1974, and by 1979 things were in too much of a mess anyway to ignore the issue; There would be some attempt to rein in King Union. What would be different is there would be no Monetarist experiment of the early eighties, and economic policy would be more interventionist generally, you'd probably get more Nissan-Sunderlands. Overall, no bad thing.
Last edited:
"Out of control unions" is largely a right-wing myth created to describe how terrible Britain was before Maggie sold off major state industries to her pals. The example usually brought up is how in 1974 the unions got rid of Ted Heath by causing him to hold a general election, where the out of control British people decided they'd rather have Harold back to sort out the mess the Tories had created.
As for the OP, it is possible that Heath would still be leader going into the 1979 election but its unlikely. The basis for Maggie's run against him would still be there and I'd wager that there would still be a potential for someone of the Keith Joseph/Enoch Powell persuasion to be propped up by Airey Neave. Alternatively you have a less dramatic turn of events with Heath being quietly ushered out to be replaced by someone like Whitelaw. How British politics unfolds will be decided by which way it goes.
Last edited:
The direct impact of strikes in 1970s Britain is overblown, the economy only lost a teeny fraction of working hours to industrial action during the decade. However British unions were also incredibly fragmented which meant while in relative terms not many hours were lost, there were enough individual actions to create a mindset of near constant unrest.
Chuck in radical stewards and the young tabloid press and you've got 'villains' the likes of Red Robbo. Ironically a big drive at the time by people across the mainstream spectrum was to consolidate the unions into bigger entities as union leaders and normal members were usually very reluctant to strike - it was the middle men, often stewards, who pushed the more confrontational style and had more proportional influence in the smaller outfits.
Heath's fight with the miners is important due to the botched handling by a man who actually had very good relations with union leadership initially, it encouraged union radicals, created the image of government hostage to union power and ensured the Conservative Party had a 'personal' motivation to go into open battle with the unions and particularly the miners, further down the line.
Its important to look at the British unions in context, they just like British business and government were wary when it came to internal reform. Post-Falklands, post-SDP, the Tory Right was at its height and used the breathing room to hit hard at the malaise, often going beyond practical goals into the ideological.
In a different set of circumstances with a different leader, a more moderate reform agenda might have taken hold but broad inertia combined with past defeats to a Tory government and a crippled opposition means I doubt "*Whitelaw's Britain" would be a decade of unity.
Chuck in radical stewards and the young tabloid press and you've got 'villains' the likes of Red Robbo. Ironically a big drive at the time by people across the mainstream spectrum was to consolidate the unions into bigger entities as union leaders and normal members were usually very reluctant to strike - it was the middle men, often stewards, who pushed the more confrontational style and had more proportional influence in the smaller outfits.
Heath's fight with the miners is important due to the botched handling by a man who actually had very good relations with union leadership initially, it encouraged union radicals, created the image of government hostage to union power and ensured the Conservative Party had a 'personal' motivation to go into open battle with the unions and particularly the miners, further down the line.
Its important to look at the British unions in context, they just like British business and government were wary when it came to internal reform. Post-Falklands, post-SDP, the Tory Right was at its height and used the breathing room to hit hard at the malaise, often going beyond practical goals into the ideological.
In a different set of circumstances with a different leader, a more moderate reform agenda might have taken hold but broad inertia combined with past defeats to a Tory government and a crippled opposition means I doubt "*Whitelaw's Britain" would be a decade of unity.
Last edited:
Yep, perhaps we might have had a reasonable curtailing of the power of the unions that didn't leave vast swathes of the north unemployed.
That might have helped the Tories long run, as they struggle to win seats outside of the home counties and have struggled to win a majority in recent years.
That might have helped the Tories long run, as they struggle to win seats outside of the home counties and have struggled to win a majority in recent years.
An average of 12.9 million working days lost isn't that small. And that is the average over the 1970s. The Winter of Discontent of 1979 caused the loss of 29.4 million days.
Then there were the rolling blackouts, the shortage of candles, the bread strike, the three-day-week...
Most of the job losses in coal mining and heavy industry were inevitable due to inefficient and uncompetitive nature of British industry in the period.
The Tories were going to refight the 70s battle with the unions, do it right, and win. Read Campbell's biography of Thatcher for more details.
Everyone, particularly the Labour front bench, supported taking back the Falklands. However, without the budget cuts removing the islands military protection, the need might not have arisen.
Everyone, particularly the Labour front bench, supported taking back the Falklands. However, without the budget cuts removing the islands military protection, the need might not have arisen.
I agree. To me it depends if a "wet" or a Thatcherite holds power. If the later the same monetarist policies will still come to prominence perhaps softened by having someone who possessed a heart or a modicum of human warmth in charge rather than the evil machine we got in Thatcher.
David Flin
Gone Fishin'
The trouble is, whenever you look at the individuals for this, they all become non-viable. Joseph had blotted his copybook badly with his 1974 Edgbaston speech, and was no longer a contender. He also underwent a change of philosophy around this time, and was "thrashing around like a lunatic". Enoch Powell was an Ulster Unionist by this stage, and not really in a position to lead the Tory party. Airey Neave had drawn sufficient attention to himself by assorted parties that he'd never have got further than he did.
It's too early for the others traditionally associated with the Thatcherite side of the party.
Most likely, we'd be looking at Howe, Whitelaw, du Caan, or similar.
Just read any decent historical account of Britain in the seventies. I mean rising union militancy in the sixties/seventies was a pan-western phenomenon, particularly post-oil shock with the inflationary pressure on wages, but it's very hard not to conclude the unions in this country weren't borderline out of control. Significant increases in man hours lost, investment was drying up. And of course, any kind of regulation whatsoever, even the milquetoast regulation-recognition of in Place of Strife, (Labour government proposal) was TORY. They were classic over-mighty subjects who abused their very, very powerful status, even against their political bedfellows, and they unsurprisingly got cut down as a result when the public got fed up with their antics.
The Tories seriously buggered things up of course with the Heath Boom, which only increased the inflationary problem, and the Industrial Relations Act, so the right doesn't escape censure either.
Last edited:
While certainly the unions didn’t help, especially in the car industry, the main reason for the problems of firms like BL was bad management and poor products. Contemporary Fords and Vauxhall’s were just as likely to leave you stranded on the hard shoulder and the workforces of Fiat and Renault were just as strike prone. The difference was their cars were better products so that their owners were willing to tolerate the crap build quality and the extra wait for your car because Dagenham was on strike.
BL had the worst of all worlds, crap products, crap quality and crap industrial relations.
Not necessarily. Whilst the Tory government would be less radical than OTL, it would still be more likely to embrace what we would now call neoliberal economics far more than any post war government. Labour would still have its shift to the left, so there is a good chance they still suffer heavy defeats to the Tories in the eighties as the economy booms and they struggle to come to terms with the new order. Callaghan believed that whoever won 1979 election would be in power for some time after, because of the oil money coming in. You also might see Labour more hesitant to abandon Euroscepticism for a time as Europe wouldn't look like as much of a bulwark against more moderate Tories who embrace it wholeheartedly. A more moderate Conservative leader might also be able to appeal to those parts of the country that Thatcher failed too IOTL. Maybe Labour would return to power in the early nineties, but it would probably be as much of a tall order as it was for Kinnock in 1992 being so many seats behind.
Butterflies might prevent Blair becoming leader and PM, but I don't think this PoD eliminates the need for Blair altogether. After such a long time out of power, Labour will push more toward the centre until they win. Let's remember that third way politicians like Jospin and Schroder led their parties in the nineties and 2000s in France and Germany, even though they were somewhat to the left of the UK. Maybe this TL's Blair would be relatively further to the left, but he would still be firmly in the centre of this TL's consensus.
Last edited:
The Tories problem in recent years has been the age gap and a lack of ability to win the massive waves of Blair era immigrants.
The careerist and cosmopolitan Cameron era party didn't really offer traditional party supporters much, being really more like a right leaning version of the Lib Dems. But the area they really failed on the most was understanding the social forces shaping youth experiences of politics and how they were perceived.
Geographically speaking, I dont really buy it. They have rebounded in Scotland, have the vast majority of rural seats south of the Yorkshire, and have by and large squashed the LibDems in Cornwall and East Anglia.
If anything, they have lost support in the Home Counties and gained elsewhere. The age gap has to be their big concern.