The SDP - a realistic alternative?

[alt_historian]

(Please note, I don't know if this has been done before, I did a search and couldn't find any threads about it)

In the early 1980s, the new Social Democratic Party (or SDP) seemed to be a realistic, exciting alternative to the extremes of Thatcherism and the Labour left - a new, more European-style, moderate party. Their popularity further increased after the formation of the Alliance with the Liberal Party.

And yet, within a few years the SDP found itself forced to merge withthe Liberals in order to survive in any form, it's initial twenty-nine MPs in 1980 reduced to just five in the 1987 election.

What needed to change for the SDP, or Alliance, to become a viable candidate for at least second-party status?

Personally, it seems to me that the Falklands gave Thatcher's government the early boost they needed. Various sources state that the SDP was consistently outpolling both established parties, up until the Falklands. So possibly no Falklands?

Any comments would be appreciated.

 

[SteveW]

This is one of those questions that emerges in other TLs but doesn't always get one in its own right-probably because it's a pretty tough one to tackle.

I think people overrate the Falklands in terms of Mrs. T. getting re-elected: there were various factors, including the SDP's emergence.

I think that the SDP can't replace the Tories, but they could survive if, say, one or two of the moderate unions joined them. Say the Union of Democratic Mineworkers circa 1985?

 

[mtg999]

This is one of those questions that emerges in other TLs but doesn't always get one in its own right-probably because it's a pretty tough one to tackle.

I think people overrate the Falklands in terms of Mrs. T. getting re-elected: there were various factors, including the SDP's emergence.

I think that the SDP can't replace the Tories, but they could survive if, say, one or two of the moderate unions joined them. Say the Union of Democratic Mineworkers circa 1985?

I've done one or two TL's with a similar them. I try to stay away from using the introduction of proportional representation in them, as I think that's a too easy answer. Also I personally believe that the 2 major parties would collude in their own self-interest to ensure that it never got successfully introduced.

I agree that it would be very helpful to get some moderate unions to join them. however I dont really see that it is necessary for any sort of direct affiliation with the trade unions. Also I do think that one of the strategies they could have used for trying to get into the wet Tory vote. I'm not sure at that stage whether wet Tories were alienated enough in the 1980's to lose their party allegiance entirely.

I have heard that in the 1983 election one of the major flaws of the Alliance campaign was its emphasis on attacking the Tories. Many have said it would have been better to mainly attack Labour with the hope of becoming the opposition (although that would have been impossible in 1983). Also is there any conceivable way they could better target particular seats, which is necessary in the FPTP system.

 

[black angel]

a few things pop to mind, first kill Neil Kinnock, then Labor can stay left, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown leave the party some time shortly before 1987 election

 

[Berra]

Personally, it seems to me that the Falklands gave Thatcher's government the early boost they needed. Various sources state that the SDP was consistently outpolling both established parties, up until the Falklands. So possibly no Falklands?

That would leave a UK with a left and a left party which seems odd. It makes more sence having them replace Labour giving UK the usual political spectrum with a left and a right party.

 

[Fletch]

a few things pop to mind, first kill Neil Kinnock, then Labor can stay left, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown leave the party some time shortly before 1987 election

Neil Kinnock wasnt the only standard bearer of the right of the party. Following the drubbing in '83 the left destroyed itself, meaning you would simply get another to the right of the party taking charge.

The only real shot IMO the SDP had was in 1983 and they blew it.

Butterfly away the Falklands and Thatcher would have been in serious trouble for the '83 election though so more people may have turned to the SDP. Had this happened, they would at least have been a VERY strong third party and Thatchers majority would have been much smaller than in OTL.

Alternatively, a deal with either Labour(despite the bad blood), or the Tories(to split the centre-left votes) would have seen them perform far better.

Also, you are judging both Blair and Brown by todays UK politics. Both stood on the 1983 Labour manifesto. There was a considerable section of the Labour right who viewed the SDP traitors, who by instead of fighting inside the party and forming a new party ensured Thatcher would be in a far stronger position. IMO they were right.

 

[black angel]

you're right, i'm not a brit so i don't know as much about British politics as some one living there. any way, what has to happen to have the whole right wing of Labour leave with the gang of 4?

 

[alt_historian]

Interesting ideas so far, I would like to see this idea get its own timeline. Alas, I'm no writer, and although unemployed hope to have work soon, so wouldn't like to be the one writing it... I'll leave that to someone else if they would like to do so.

[SDP becoming the main opposition] would leave a UK with a left and a left party which seems odd. It makes more sense having them replace Labour giving UK the usual political spectrum with a left and a right party.

I didn't specify which party they would displace to become the main opposition...

Ideally, I would like to see them make British politics a three-way race, in a way the Lib Dems have still not managed.

 

[Lord Douglas]

What is interesting about the Falklands is that it tends to cover up the real reason for Thatcher's victory in 1983 - the recovering economy. By the end of 1982 the recession had come to an end, and I believe that by the time of the election unemployment was coming down too (though could be wrong). The Falklands extended the bounce backwards, if you will. The SDP were getting 50% in the polls in December 1981, with the Tories at 24% or so, but after New Year 1982 the Conservatives were consistantly rising and the SDP falling. In fact, the 1983 election was only so close between Labour and the SDP because Foot ran an absolutely awful campaign. The May local elections had Labour at 32%, which is probably what they would have got if the Labour campaign hadn't been god-awful.

 

[Berra]

I didn't specify which party they would displace to become the main opposition...

No but it feels like wishful thinking and that always make me sceptical.

 

[alt_historian]

What is interesting about the Falklands is that it tends to cover up the real reason for Thatcher's victory in 1983 - the recovering economy. By the end of 1982 the recession had come to an end, and I believe that by the time of the election unemployment was coming down too (though could be wrong). The Falklands extended the bounce backwards, if you will. The SDP were getting 50% in the polls in December 1981, with the Tories at 24% or so, but after New Year 1982 the Conservatives were consistantly rising and the SDP falling. In fact, the 1983 election was only so close between Labour and the SDP because Foot ran an absolutely awful campaign. The May local elections had Labour at 32%, which is probably what they would have got if the Labour campaign hadn't been god-awful.

OK, thanks for that... so maybe the Falklands is not so important.

Is it possible for the Conservatives to also run an awful campaign, while the SDP run a good one? Would that make the difference here?

Or is the initial idea simply not feasible? It certainly has to be more so than the infamous sea-mammal...

 

[black angel]

OK, thanks for that... so maybe the Falklands is not so important.

Is it possible for the Conservatives to also run an awful campaign, while the SDP run a good one? Would that make the difference here?

Or is the initial idea simply not feasible? It certainly has to be more so than the infamous sea-mammal...

as said before, the SDP run against the Tories, thus lost, if they'd ran hard against Labour they would of won pushing Labour into 3rd and maybe making it the 3rd party in british life.

 

[alt_historian]

as said before, the SDP run against the Tories, thus lost, if they'd ran hard against Labour they would of won pushing Labour into 3rd and maybe making it the 3rd party in british life.

Interesting. So basically New Labour 10 years early, but with the added problems of a party split?

 

[black angel]

Interesting. So basically New Labour 10 years early, but with the added problems of a party split?

bing! you got it, coming in 3rd after some upstarts and washed up old men will demoralize Labour and i think you'll see much of it's right wing jump ship to the SDP, and many just leave government all together, leaving Labour a sad far-left 3rd party happy to get 20 seats. once the SDP and Liberals are put together as one, or the Lib Dems, i think they'll pull off a win in 1992, at the latest 1997

 

[alt_historian]

bing! you got it, coming in 3rd after some upstarts and washed up old men will demoralize Labour and i think you'll see much of it's right wing jump ship to the SDP, and many just leave government all together, leaving Labour a sad far-left 3rd party happy to get 20 seats. once the SDP and Liberals are put together as one, or the Lib Dems, i think they'll pull off a win in 1992, at the latest 1997

Hmm... anyone else have different opinions on this? Could it have become a stable 3-party system? What I was thinking was maybe the SDP becoming the centrist party, taking both the OTL right-wing Labour types and One Nation Tories like Ted Heath... then maybe the electoral system gets reformed if there's a deadlock.

 

[mtg999]

Hmm... anyone else have different opinions on this? Could it have become a stable 3-party system? What I was thinking was maybe the SDP becoming the centrist party, taking both the OTL right-wing Labour types and One Nation Tories like Ted Heath... then maybe the electoral system gets reformed if there's a deadlock.

This idea is quite appealing to me and is in fact very similar to the Canadian Liberals.

As stated before I tend to not put to much stock into introducing proportional representation in these timelines. Not because I don't like it (although I must admit I do have a preference for single-member electorates) but because I do believe that whatever the 2 major parties are at the time will collude together against PR being introduced.

This could happen if we are going with the idea that sometime say in the late 1980's the SDP is a very powerful 3rd party, getting a significant share of seats. Even if they are powerful enough to form a coalition with another party I can see one of the two parties being willing to allow the other major party to form government, just to avoid introducing PR. I have heard quite a few Labour and Conservative MPs saying over the years that they would prefer to be opposition for another term, knowing that at least when they get into power they won't have to be forever relying on coalitions.

That being said could a 3-party system under single-member constituencies be stable? I would say reasonably so. For instance the Tories would hold onto some of their safe seats, Labour retaining most of its industrial heartland and the SDP getting the other seats. This deals with the problem raised in one of my ATL regarding the SDP, which is that short of Labour absolutely collapsing from within (which is could under such circumstances) its very safe industrial heartland is held by such strong margins that even a party getting in the low 20% of the national vote would hold onto these seats. I don't have any data on this but would it be easier for the SDP to capture Tory safe seats than Labour safe seats?

 

[alt_historian]

Bumpitudinal.

 

[Jape]

Things to do:

Tony Benn wins Deputy-Leadership of the Labour Party
Falklands War is a catastrophy
SDP goes for Labour's jugular in 1983, basically a "Tories aren't working, your only option is the SDP", presenting itself as the competent left-centre
Moderate Trade Unions break with Labour (not nessecarily affiliate with SDP though)

all of this, plus a strategy focusing on marginal seats over the popular vote (the Alliance got more votes in the late 80s than the Lib Dems do now but only about a third as many seats)

I'd also hope to get Owen out of the leadership, he was one of the SDP's biggest vote losers for being a big-headed blatantly powerhungry twerp. Say Benn's acsension sees more of the Labour Right break away, maybe a more competent chap can come in.

Really 1983 has to be the SDPs year to demolish Labour, to get their foot in the door, its was Owen's cocky manner and fantasy of No.10 that wasted plenty of time on attacking Thatcher and looking to seize government in one swoop

 

[Thande]

How about if something split the Conservative Party (if the Falklands goes badly, or perhaps the response to the strikes) and some high-profile anti-Thatcherites go over to the SDP? That would let the SDP present itself as a centrist alternative that's above the other two parties' ideological extremes.

(Alternatively, and more realistically, they could be 'independent conservatives allied with the SDP', like the Liberals were)

 

[Spike Torch]

I think we need a slower economic recovery, coupled with a Benn deputy leadership in Labour, and no Falklands, and have Owen in a less prominant position in order to see the SDP do better.

Also I think we need to look at the make up of safe Labour seats, safe Tory seats, and swing seats, I think that would show us that if the SDP had concentrated on suburban white upper working/lower middle class seats they could have done a lot better, and at least got themselves into a stronger position after 1983, taking seats off both the Tories and Labour. I don't think it would have been that difficult for the SDP to get some one nation Conservatives to join either.

It's easy to forget just how much excitement there was about the SDP at that time as well, they initially managed to appeal to left wingers, liberals, greens, and all sorts of random political types, not just moderate social democrats.

As for the unions it's possible genuinely moderate unions like NALGO may have given them cautious support, but there's no way any would have affiliated, especially not those already affiliated to Labour. The UDM didn't even exist in 1983 as far as I know, and anyway it was wholly owned and bankrolled by Thatcher supporters, and would not have backed a rival party.

I'd say that the SDP could have become the other main party (against the Conservatives) by 1987, and have won by '92, by then it would probably have absorbed the majority of the Liberal Party leaving the rump who quit OTL around Micheal Meadowcroft to merge with the industrial heartland Labour rump, that by now would have probably seen much of it's rightwing quit politics, or even give in and join the best vehicle for their careers the SDP. We would have a similar two and a half party system to now, but with Labour being a stronger third party than the Libdems, with over a hundred MPs, and often having the power to support an SDP coalition in return for a few crumbs, but an ever declining vote as traditional supporters increasingly decide to cut out the middle man and just vote SDP, or stay at home, or vote for the National Front "who at least stick up for our people."

Yesterday, May 2nd 2005 was an historic event when new Prime Minister Charlie Kennedy entered number ten to a massive round of applause and cheering to lead the SDP government into it's third term, he was accompanied by the newly elected president of the SDP, and the man hotly tipped to take over from Shirley Williams as Chancellor, Anthony Blair QC. An hour later accompanied mainly by jeers and catcalls from protesters from the latest leftwing split from his party, Gordon Brown Labour leader arrived looking solemn as usual, for a private meeting with Mr Kennedy where he is expected to keep his cabinet post as foreign secretary, in return for the support of his seventy MPs