A Far Left Government in Britain in 1992

Arctofire

Banned
For those of you who are unfamiliar with British history, the 1980s was a very turbulent time. There were numerous strikes, riots, and protests against the government of Margaret Thatcher, and unlike most countries such as the US and the eastern bloc countries, where public opinion moved to the right, in Britain polls showed a strong move to the left. The Keynesian consensus of all major parties had broken down due to economic collapse. The oil crisis in 1973, and stagflation due to decreased demand, required capitalism to re-adjust itself, and the achievements of the post-war boom looked to be undone in a blink of eye under the new doctrine of the Chicago School and supply side economics.

Because I will be here forever talking about the decade and the events that happened, I'm going to presume those here at least have a partial understanding of the history, and proceed from there. If you are unfamiliar, you can easily find Wikipedia articles on the topics I am discussing.

The biggest reason why the Miners Strike of 1984-1985 failed was Arthur Scargill's arrogant refusal to call a national ballot. This allowed the government to push a version of events that he was an undemocratic leader and that the unions were out for themselves. Despite the heroic struggle of numerous communities to defend their livelihoods, the strike was divided from the start. Because there was no national ballot, miners who chose not to go on strike were to a certain degree legitimised. This led to waves of violence against non striking miners, such as the famous death of David Wilkie, which in turn led to declining popular support for the miners cause. This is a real shame, because had Scargill called the ballot, it is almost certain that he would have won, and would have avoided the division that the NUM had.

Meanwhile, there was a struggle in the Labour Party between the left and the right. Part of the right had broken off in 1981, there still was major division between the likes of Dennis Healy and Neil Kinnock, and radicals such as Tony Benn. Militant, a Trotskyist organisation within the party, had control of the party's youth organisation, the Labour Party Young Socialists, and control over Liverpool City Council, which illegally defied the government over rate capping and went into 'deficit spending' to stop jobs and services from being cut. Unfortunately, they grew timid at the last minute and did not call a general strike in the area, and tried to buy time by threatening job losses, harming their credibility.

In 1988, there was a leadership challenge to Neil Kinnock by the far left radical Tony Benn. However, because a large proportion of Militant had been expelled and the left was demoralised after the defeat of the miners, Kinnock won by a landslide.

Tony Benn was extremely radical in his beliefs. Not only did he want to re-nationalise all privatised services without compensation for their former owners, but wanted to establish direct workers control over the running of industry and services. The top 100 companies in Britain were to be nationalised, the House of Lords abolished, and Britain to move out of the American sphere of influence.

In the aftermath of the Poll Tax Riots, Labour was consistently ahead of the polls. People were sick to death of more than 10 years of Tory rule. However, Kinnock's rejection of the struggle, and his refusal to engage on the grassroots level, meant that momentum died down, the people let the press influence the during the run up to the 1992 election, and ultimately Labour was defeated for a third time in a row.

What is Scargill had called a national ballot in 1984, Liverpool City Council had gone ahead with the city wide general strike, Militant had opened up to independent membership outside Labour, and as a result, Tony Benn won the leadership contest with the support of the NUM in 1988 during a major swing to the left?

Imagine if Tony Benn had been on the front lines of the struggle against the poll tax, and stopped the Militant witch hunts, incorporating them into major positions of influence within the party? In 1992, Labour wins in a landslide. Benn's government implements sweeping reforms. A constituent assembly is called for the drafting of a new constitution, abolishing the house of lords, the established Church of England, and switching to proportional representation. Britain announces its intention to leave NATO, believing that the organisation no longer serves any purpose due to the Cold War being over, and disarms all of it's nuclear arsenal. Industries are re-nationalised immediately and taken into workers control, mines and many factories are re-opened, and Britain starts to transition to a socialist society. Naturally, the British establishment, including not only the financial elites and the press, but also the military, are appalled, as is the US.

Throughout the mid 1990's, Britain goes through a period of severe political and economic turmoil.
Mob violence is commonplace on the streets, as capitalists hire militias to attack workers on strike, and refuse to recognise the government. Eventually, the military tries to take power and remove Benn from office to restore stability.

Who do you think would win this battle? Do you think this scenario is plausible?
 
Last edited:
switching to proportional representation
I doubt that would happen. Labour has historically been hostile to the idea of PR (being one of the main beneficiaries of Britain's FPTP system) and the Labour Left in particular saw the strong majorities that FPTP could give them as essential for a parliamentary road to socialism as under a PR system they would have to compromise with capitalist parties to form a government. Though, that being said, I did find out that Arthur Scargill was apparently in favour of it.
 

Arctofire

Banned
I doubt that would happen. Labour has historically been hostile to the idea of PR (being one of the main beneficiaries of Britain's FPTP system) and the Labour Left in particular saw the strong majorities that FPTP could give them as essential for a parliamentary road to socialism as under a PR system they would have to compromise with capitalist parties to form a government. Though, that being said, I did find out that Arthur Scargill was apparently in favour of it.

Yes, perhaps this is true, but what do you think about the rest of the scenario?
 
Imagine if Tony Benn had been on the front lines of the struggle against the poll tax, and stopped the Militant witch hunts, incorporating them into major positions of influence within the party? In 1992, Labour wins in a landslide.

Do you think this scenario is plausible?

No, see 1983.
 
While not holding a ballot in 1984, is in hindsight, stupid. Scargill convinced himself that he already had the support needed because of a previous ballot. Also the miners shot themselves in the foot. The power stations had a years supply of coal. The miners had been working overtime since the last strike to get the money (very understandable) and to suggest otherwise would have been the fastest way to no longer lead the union. Thatcher was NOT stupid, she knew that she would have to, at some time, confront and defeat the NUM and prepared for it.

Also the British public tended to be conservative with a small c, the pipe dreams of the left were just that and not supported in any meaningful manner by more than a very small minority even within the Labour Party. Labour could not win an election with that sort of manifesto (re. the longest suicide note in history).

Scargill fought the right battle at the wrong time in the wrong way. Now if he had won the previous dispute more convincingly!

NOTE: I was in my twenties when this happened. Even my most left leaning friends (and one or two made Militant look right wing!) thought that the miners were on a hiding to nothing in the circumstances (but still hoped).
 
Last edited:
Yes, perhaps this is true, but what do you think about the rest of the scenario?

Sorry, but it's not particularly plausible. When given the chance to vote for a far-left Labour Party the British electorate have shown no real interest in it. Even when the rulling Tory Party is useless, or unpopular. See 1983 and 2016.

Scargill fought the right battle at the wrong time.

No. He fought the wrong battle at the wrong time. He wanted to bring down an elected government and preserve an industry that was heading for inevitable decline. If Scargill had won in 1984 he'd have lost worst a decade, or so later.
 
In 1988, there was a leadership challenge to Neil Kinnock by the far left radical Tony Benn. However, because a large proportion of Militant had been expelled and the left was demoralised after the defeat of the miners, Kinnock won by a landslide.
I think your overestimating the strength of Militant here. They were only a couple of thousand of activists (albeit highly committed ones) in a party of hundreds of thousands. They could never really have much influence on Labour's development at a national level.
Mob violence is commonplace on the streets, as capitalists hire militias to attack workers on strike, and refuse to recognise the government. Eventually, the military tries to take power and remove Benn from office to restore stability.

Who do you think would win this battle? Do you think this scenario is plausible?
It isn't by the 1990s. Settling the Miners Strike would be a blow to the Tories, but it wouldn't do much to change the underlying factors, some domestic, some global, that meant people weren't in much of a mood for overhauling the entire economy by 1992. You might see a more left wing Labour Party, which clings onto things like euroscepticism for a little longer, but it wouldn't go full on Bennite, and if it did, it wouldn't win an election.

I could just about see a Benn government in a situation similar to the one you described in the late 1970s to early 1980s, when things were a lot more turbulent, but you'd still probably need a lot of things to go wrong before that could happen.
Sorry, but it's not particularly plausible. When given the chance to vote for a far-left Labour Party the British electorate have shown no real interest in it. Even when the rulling Tory Party is useless, or unpopular. See 1983 and 2016.
Surely you mean 2017? To be fair, Labour came extremely close then, despite also being highly divided with a not particularly popular leader even by the end of the campaign. The left wing policies were probably the strongest asset of the Labour campaign.

I don't buy the idea that the UK is an inherently right wing country. It just happened to have the correct circumstances to allow a right wing leader (Thatcher) come to power at a time when the post war consensus (which was to the left of most western countries) was breaking down. A radical left government could have easily been elected in the late 1970s or early 1980s, especially if the Labour leader was someone with more charisma than Foot, but more pragmatic than Benn. But the 1990s is probably too late for it, without some pretty dramatic PoDs decades earlier.
 
He was fighting the right battle for the miners. Coal was going to be phased out but it was being gone about in the wrong way.
I was brought up with we have 400 years worth of coal reserves in the 60s and early 70s. How times change!
 
He was fighting the right battle for the miners. Coal was going to be phased out but it was being gone about in the wrong way.

Yep, quite

I was brought up with we have 400 years worth of coal reserves in the 60s and early 70s. How times change!

The issue was not a question of coal reserves suddenly disappearing but was it coal that was economical to get out in an international coal market and changing energy market. But there was political motivation behind how these were interpreted and applied!

The real issue for people at the er 'coal face' was though while there had been coal closures and downsizing all the way through the previous 50 years (and often larger reductions than the ones in the 80's) this set of closures had a proportionally huge impact because they were often the last mines in the area that had hung on through that having been the most economically viable. And losing the 'last mine / last shifts' in a town has far more impact than say the first mine or first 10% of the shifts to be cut. The economic argument the Tories applied either ignored that or even saw it as a bonus for "incentivising" they're wider economic (and ideological) goals.



However even though the Tories fucked it up, it was still looks like pinning colors to the mast of a sinking ship. So there was kind of an attitude of OK the Tories are shits but what do you want for the coal industry that doesn't involve turning back time?


There was also the national geographical division over it all as well. During the 80's I grew up on benefits on a council estate in central london, and I have to say the general attitude of those around me (who were no friends of Tory policy, and were fighting their own battles with them) towards all this was largely, "Northerners whining about coal mines" because partly Londoners like to take the piss ;), but also just out of ignorance having no clue as to what was actually going on. This was fuelled by a tabloid press, and bafflement at lots of images of one set of miners attacking another*.

Or put it another way no issue getting a ready supply of bussed in met officers happy to crack skulls while being paid overtime!


*I think londoners kind of got what that particular aspect was about a couple of years latter at Wapping, but it still doesn't look good and is always used as divide and conquer.
 
Last edited:
Yes, perhaps this is true, but what do you think about the rest of the scenario?

A nightmare - Benn had a guilt complex about his background, and wanted to get back at the aristo's. But not a clue about the economic consequences. It's bad enough these days thinking about what a disaster a Corbyn Government could be - especially him being such an admirer of Venezuela!

So, what does Benn do when it doesn't work, no compensation means no one will risk they own money on any large scale investment again. When he has to go to the IMF asking for help, or the EU, it'll be like Greece only worse.
 

Arctofire

Banned
While not holding a ballot in 1984, is in hindsight, stupid. Scargill convinced himself that he already had the support needed because of a previous ballot. Also the miners shot themselves in the foot. The power stations had a years supply of coal. The miners had been working overtime since the last strike to get the money (very understandable) and to suggest otherwise would have been the fastest way to no longer lead the union. Thatcher was NOT stupid, she knew that she would have to, at some time, confront and defeat the NUM and prepared for it.

Also the British public tended to be conservative with a small c, the pipe dreams of the left were just that and not supported in any meaningful manner by more than a very small minority even within the Labour Party. Labour could not win an election with that sort of manifesto (re. the longest suicide note in history).

Scargill fought the right battle at the wrong time in the wrong way. Now if he had won the previous dispute more convincingly!

NOTE: I was in my twenties when this happened. Even my most left leaning friends (and one or two made Militant look right wing!) thought that the miners were on a hiding to nothing in the circumstances (but still hoped).

That 'longest suicide note in history' statement is very stupid, and was used by the right to discredit the left of the party. The biggest reasons for Labour's defeat in 1983 was the split off of the SDP, which involved numerous Labour MPs, which divided the left vote and this was especially fatal in a FPTP system, and also that Thatcher was able to use the Falklands war to be seen as a strong leader.
 
That 'longest suicide note in history' statement is very stupid, and was used by the right to discredit the left of the party. The biggest reasons for Labour's defeat in 1983 was the split off of the SDP, which involved numerous Labour MPs, which divided the left vote and this was especially fatal in a FPTP system, and also that Thatcher was able to use the Falklands war to be seen as a strong leader.
The idea that the SDP cost Labour by splitting the left wing vote in 1983 is something of a myth. Polling evidence from the time indicated that, although Alliance voters were more likely to have supported Labour in 1979, they also preferred the Tories to Labour by 1983. So the SDP might have actually helped Labour.
 
That 'longest suicide note in history' statement is very stupid, and was used by the right to discredit the left of the party. The biggest reasons for Labour's defeat in 1983 was the split off of the SDP, which involved numerous Labour MPs, which divided the left vote and this was especially fatal in a FPTP system, and also that Thatcher was able to use the Falklands war to be seen as a strong leader.
Gerald Kaufman MP (Labour) might have been to the centre politically (at least for the time) but he was hardly right wing.
 
The idea that the SDP cost Labour by splitting the left wing vote in 1983 is something of a myth. Polling evidence from the time indicated that, although Alliance voters were more likely to have supported Labour in 1979, they also preferred the Tories to Labour by 1983. So the SDP might have actually helped Labour.

I've never really got how people believe that voters who voted for a party which was formed entirely on the basis that Labour was too left-wing would have all voted for that party had that option not being available. A priori it's a strange belief - but as you say, the actual evidence on second preferences confirms that Alliance voters mildly preferred the Tories over Labour as their second preference. As such, as you say, it probably slightly helped Labour.

The Falklands is also not reckoned to be a decisive factor these days either, though it's generally believed it contributed to the scale, rather than the outcome.
 
Last edited:
For those of you who are unfamiliar with British history, the 1980s was a very turbulent time. There were numerous strikes, riots, and protests against the government of Margaret Thatcher, and unlike most countries such as the US and the eastern bloc countries, where public opinion moved to the right, in Britain polls showed a strong move to the left. The Keynesian consensus of all major parties had broken down due to economic collapse. The oil crisis in 1973, and stagflation due to decreased demand, required capitalism to re-adjust itself, and the achievements of the post-war boom looked to be undone in a blink of eye under the new doctrine of the Chicago School and supply side economics.

Because I will be here forever talking about the decade and the events that happened, I'm going to presume those here at least have a partial understanding of the history, and proceed from there. If you are unfamiliar, you can easily find Wikipedia articles on the topics I am discussing.

The biggest reason why the Miners Strike of 1984-1985 failed was Arthur Scargill's arrogant refusal to call a national ballot. This allowed the government to push a version of events that he was an undemocratic leader and that the unions were out for themselves. Despite the heroic struggle of numerous communities to defend their livelihoods, the strike was divided from the start. Because there was no national ballot, miners who chose not to go on strike were to a certain degree legitimised. This led to waves of violence against non striking miners, such as the famous death of David Wilkie, which in turn led to declining popular support for the miners cause. This is a real shame, because had Scargill called the ballot, it is almost certain that he would have won, and would have avoided the division that the NUM had.

Meanwhile, there was a struggle in the Labour Party between the left and the right. Part of the right had broken off in 1981, there still was major division between the likes of Dennis Healy and Neil Kinnock, and radicals such as Tony Benn. Militant, a Trotskyist organisation within the party, had control of the party's youth organisation, the Labour Party Young Socialists, and control over Liverpool City Council, which illegally defied the government over rate capping and went into 'deficit spending' to stop jobs and services from being cut. Unfortunately, they grew timid at the last minute and did not call a general strike in the area, and tried to buy time by threatening job losses, harming their credibility.

In 1988, there was a leadership challenge to Neil Kinnock by the far left radical Tony Benn. However, because a large proportion of Militant had been expelled and the left was demoralised after the defeat of the miners, Kinnock won by a landslide.

Tony Benn was extremely radical in his beliefs. Not only did he want to re-nationalise all privatised services without compensation for their former owners, but wanted to establish direct workers control over the running of industry and services. The top 100 companies in Britain were to be nationalised, the House of Lords abolished, and Britain to move out of the American sphere of influence.

In the aftermath of the Poll Tax Riots, Labour was consistently ahead of the polls. People were sick to death of more than 10 years of Tory rule. However, Kinnock's rejection of the struggle, and his refusal to engage on the grassroots level, meant that momentum died down, the people let the press influence the during the run up to the 1992 election, and ultimately Labour was defeated for a third time in a row.

What is Scargill had called a national ballot in 1984, Liverpool City Council had gone ahead with the city wide general strike, Militant had opened up to independent membership outside Labour, and as a result, Tony Benn won the leadership contest with the support of the NUM in 1988 during a major swing to the left?

Imagine if Tony Benn had been on the front lines of the struggle against the poll tax, and stopped the Militant witch hunts, incorporating them into major positions of influence within the party? In 1992, Labour wins in a landslide. Benn's government implements sweeping reforms. A constituent assembly is called for the drafting of a new constitution, abolishing the house of lords, the established Church of England, and switching to proportional representation. Britain announces its intention to leave NATO, believing that the organisation no longer serves any purpose due to the Cold War being over, and disarms all of it's nuclear arsenal. Industries are re-nationalised immediately and taken into workers control, mines and many factories are re-opened, and Britain starts to transition to a socialist society. Naturally, the British establishment, including not only the financial elites and the press, but also the military, are appalled, as is the US.

Throughout the mid 1990's, Britain goes through a period of severe political and economic turmoil.
Mob violence is commonplace on the streets, as capitalists hire militias to attack workers on strike, and refuse to recognise the government. Eventually, the military tries to take power and remove Benn from office to restore stability.

Who do you think would win this battle? Do you think this scenario is plausible?


I think the problem with the scenario is your equating the electorate's attitude described by the first bit in bold, with an assumed general electoral appeal for the rest (especially the 2nd bit in bold)

Basically labour didn't lose in 1992 because Kinnock betrayed the struggle. I like Tony Benn even when i don't agree with some of the things he's argued (and that's not often), but he ain't winning any elections in the 80's or 90's

(Kinnock, man I'd hate to know what your position on Blair is ;)!)
 
Last edited:
I've never really got how people believe that voters who voted for a party which was formed entirely on the basis that Labour was too left-wing would have all voted for that party had that option not being available. A priori it's a strange belief - but as you say, the actual evidence on second preferences confirms that Alliance voters mildly preferred the Tories over Labour as their second preference. As such, as you say, it probably slightly helped Labour.
Not to mention that this line of argument completely overlooks how people actually had reasons for voting for the Alliance too- Labour voters abandoning them for a centrist party en masse is somehow presented as evidence that the 1983 manifesto wasn't too left wing. Very strange.
 
Benn's government implements sweeping reforms. A constituent assembly is called for the drafting of a new constitution, abolishing the house of lords, the established Church of England, and switching to proportional representation. Britain announces its intention to leave NATO, believing that the organisation no longer serves any purpose due to the Cold War being over, and disarms all of it's nuclear arsenal. Industries are re-nationalised immediately and taken into workers control, mines and many factories are re-opened, and Britain starts to transition to a socialist society. Naturally, the British establishment, including not only the financial elites and the press, but also the military, are appalled, as is the US.

Throughout the mid 1990's, Britain goes through a period of severe political and economic turmoil.
Mob violence is commonplace on the streets, as capitalists hire militias to attack workers on strike, and refuse to recognise the government. Eventually, the military tries to take power and remove Benn from office to restore stability.

Wait, why are the workers striking if suddenly they own the means of production through nationalization and workers' councils? If anything the mob violence would be against the capitalists and others who are protesting the new system.

Historically the "transitioning" phase to socialism has required authoritarian measures to safeguard the revolution.
 
Bascially labour didn't lose in 1992 because Kinnock betrayed the struggle. I like Tony Benn even when i don't agree with some of the things he's argued (and that's not often), but he ain't winng any elections in the 80's or 90's

Especially not in 1992 when the Soviet Union has just collapsed in chaos.

And you're pitting:

2nd Viscount Stansgate, educated at Eaton House Belgravia, Westminster, and New College Oxford

against

upload_2018-8-31_14-17-56.jpeg
 
Especially not in 1992 when the Soviet Union has just collapsed in chaos.


Eh, I don't really think that's a connection that any but the most frothy anti-socialist-ne-communist would really take seriously

And you're pitting:

2nd Viscount Stansgate, educated at Eaton House Belgravia, Westminster, and New College Oxford

against

View attachment 405459

Well while in theory that's right (kinda), it rather telling that the actual measure of the two politicians in reality would make that completely irrelevant (as the wiki says about Tony Benn and that title "briefly and unwillingly"), that's just not a comparison that's going to hold any water.

EDIT: you know what though maybe I'm felling nostalgic particularly in comparison to the current crop of Tory losers but Major was alright (for a Tory PM :)), he just was always going to be fucked due to following Thatcher.
 
Eh, I don't really think that's a connection that any but the most frothy anti-socialist-ne-communist would really take seriously

Really?

The "model socialist paradise" collapses, and a party runs on a platform of nationalising the top 100 companies? It would get hammered home by the Conservative campaign managers. Moscow in 1992 was awful, and would be covered as "the result of 75 years worth of Benn's policies"

Well while in theory that's right (kinda), ... that's just not a comparison that's going to hold any water.

Again it's a gift to the Conservative campaign, probably along the lines of "wealthy, out-of-touch aristocrat/hereditary politician who is well insulated against the impact of his own party's policies vs self-made man of the people who understands the ordinary man". The reality is less important than how it can be marketed.
 
Last edited:
Top