A Far Left Government in Britain in 1992

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 not be a decisive factor these days either, though it's generally believed it contributed to the scale, rather than the outcome.

Its tough to know how much effect the Falklands had on numbers of votes. But I do think it was v.important for Thatcher's national image in terms of where she got placed in the overall national consciousness (as opposed to those who like or disliked her policies and how she went about enacting them).
 
Last edited:
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 covered as "the result of 75 years worth of Benn's policies".

I don't doubt that's what conservatives would go with (see also putting Kinnock's head in the light bulb), but everyone knows the USSR in 1992 is collapsing no one is identifying with it even if they're talking about nationalising stuff. It's too much of a reach to stick. Scare-comparing labour to the USSR in 1992 might seem like having your finger on the pulse of the zeitgeist if your the kind of detached tory politico who considers a nationalised railways and beatniks this year means a 5 year plan and gulags next year is some kind of a-priori fact. But to paraphrase Homer Simpson they said it so often it lost all meaning. (Seriously that was an attack levelled at every labour party or labour Government since 1918, and yet despite labour electoral wins even when the USSR wasn't failing, no home counties gulags!)



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.

Only like I said TB had been such a figure for so long (and Major was never able to sell his working class origins even in OTL) it's a comparison that's just not going to stick. Or put this way the moment both stand up and talk any attempt to characterise these two as these two things will disappear.

An idea of how Brixton feels about Tony Benn (although excuse me *ahem* fuck Bob Crow).

More oddly this is an Eton educated posh white man who at 78 got involved in a R'n'B recording of his speeches and bizarre though it was it wasn't a joke!

TB was technically posh by background and birth, but he's the kind of educated, well spoken radical that the Tories have a hard time dealing with, and has broad appeal and respect in the national psyche. He's kind of like the political equivalent of WW1 war poetry.


Also "look, look at the posh eton educated, insulated from reality and the common man, politician" is really not an attack the Tories in general can make for very long before they look foolish, no matter how Brixton & working class Major was.
Which was in fact not very. He was born in Surry, lived in Merton, where he was a grammer boy only moving to Brixton when he was 12 when his dad's business started weakening, a decade later he was in banking, it's not exactly "the long good friday". Perhaps more relevantly to selling it, Brixton in '55 and Brixton in '92 are somewhat different places.
 
Last edited:
@Politibrit yes, I meant 2017, oops. Why is there not an embarrassed emote?

I still stand by the assertion that left-wing Labour had a populist programme and went up against a Tory government led by a robot it still lost. A decent opposition should have won; OTOH a half competent Tory leader should have defeated a JC led Labour.

I don't think we Brits are inherently conservative, but I do think we're largely turned off by extremes.
 
I don't doubt that's what conservatives would go with (see also putting Kinnock's head in the light bulb), but everyone knows the USSR in 1992 is collapsing no one is identifying with it even if they're talking about nationalising stuff. It's too much of a reach to stick.

Labour manifesto 1992

A government which business can do business with
Modern government has a strategic role not to replace the market but to ensure that the market works properly. Other competitors in Europe and elsewhere recognise that industrial policy must be at the heart of economic policy. It is the government's responsibility to create the conditions for enterprise to thrive.

Labour manifesto 1983

Return to public ownership the public assets and rights hived off by the Tories, with compensation of no more than that received when the assets were denationalised. We will establish a significant public stake in electronics, pharmaceuticals, health equipment and building materials; and also in other important sectors, as required in the national interest.

Hypothetical Labour manifesto 1992

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

Labour lost in 1992 after moving to the centre and abandoning widespread nationalisation. The proposed 1992 manifesto is far more left-wing and statist than that of 1983, and at a time when the Soviet Union has collapsed, and eastern Europe moving to large scale privatisation, it will look very old-fashioned and against the tide of history (eg The End of History and the Last Man).
 
@Politibrit yes, I meant 2017, oops. Why is there not an embarrassed emote?

I still stand by the assertion that left-wing Labour had a populist programme and went up against a Tory government led by a robot it still lost. A decent opposition should have won; OTOH a half competent Tory leader should have defeated a JC led Labour.

I don't think we Brits are inherently conservative, but I do think we're largely turned off by extremes.
It's worth pointing out where Labour were coming from beforehand- more than twenty points behind in most polls when the campaign started. Before that campaign, I'd argue that all most people knew about Jeremy Corbyn was that he was incompetent and a borderline pacificist when it came to foreign policy-those things were what fuelled Labour's drop in the polls. However, when Labour's economic proposals actually received some attention, they began to rise considerably. I guess what I'm trying to say is that, although Labour should have won in 2017 (when you put aside the fact that that election would never have happened if it was a semi competent opposition before then) they lost in spite of their left wing economic policies, not because of them- any glance at public polling on those measures will demonstrate that they are broadly popular.

As for being turned off by extremes, I'd say Brexit is a pretty major counterpoint to that argument.
 

Arctofire

Banned
For all of the people saying that the reason why Labour lost in 1983 was because it was too left wing, I'm sorry but it just does not stick up to scrutiny. Lots of former Labour MPs defected to the SPD, and if you have had your MP for a long while, you will want to go with who is familiar to you. In addition, Michael Foot was ridiculed in the press as an ineffective leader and an essentially eccentric and incompetent figure, which affected performance at the ballot box. These are two big reasons as to why Labour lost in 1983, but they get overlooked by the right wing who want to pin everything on the manifesto being 'too left wing.'

Also remember that a right wing Labour government had betrayed its base under the Callahan government, giving into the IMF and implementing real wage cuts. Voting behaviour for a lot of people is very strange, and is based on emotion rather than policy. But perhaps, despite the SDP being a right wing split of Labour, people jumped at the chance of having 'something new,' after being tired with the main parties.

In contrast to Michael Foot, Tony Benn was a strong, inspiring figure. Handsome, charismatic, frequently giving passionate speeches in the name of concern for the underprivileged. If he had led the campaign against the poll tax, and with the miners strike having been won, I think he easily could have become prime minister in 1992 if becoming leader in 1988.
 
Last edited:

Tovarich

Banned
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.

There was an almost McCarthyist level of paranoia about Militant within Labour at the time, like they were lurking round every corner.

I remember a wonderful piece in the 'Sensible Labour' Daily Mirror, about "How To Spot A Member Of Militant In Your Organisation".


Ooh, Mr Maxwell sir, I think I've spotted a member of Militant in my organisation.

You have?

Yes, it's him over there. The one selling 'Militant'.
 
For all of the people saying that the reason why Labour lost in 1983 was because it was too left wing, I'm sorry but it just does not stick up to scrutiny. Lots of former Labour MPs defected to the SPD, and if you have had your MP for a long while, you will want to go with who is familiar to you. In addition, Michael Foot was ridiculed in the press as an ineffective leader and an essentially eccentric and incompetent figure, which affected performance at the ballot box. These are two big reasons as to why Labour lost in 1983, but they get overlooked by the right wing who want to pin everything on the manifesto being 'too left wing.'
28 sitting Labour MPs joined the SDP, representing under 5% of constituencies. And that is before we get into the fact that many contested different seats from their previous ones in 1983 precisely because they had no hope of winning in the place they used to represent. Plus if you look at where the Alliance was strongest, most of those were seats that were not Labour held beforehand. They did best in middle class towns and suburbs in the south of England, where they basically replaced Labour as the main opposition. So it's absurd to claim that incumbency was a significant factor in them winning over a quarter of the national vote.
In contrast to Michael Foot, Tony Benn was a strong, inspiring figure. Handsome, charismatic, frequently giving passionate speeches in the name of concern for the underprivileged. If he had led the campaign against the poll tax, and with the miners strike having been won, I think he easily could have become prime minister in 1992 if becoming leader in 1988.
Foot is regarded as one of the best public speakers in British political history, but I otherwise take your point. However, the flip side is that Benn was far more dogmatic than Foot, who was a well liked figure who had at least some concern for party unity. Benn would alienate more of the Labour right, and you might see the likes of John Smith, Roy Hattersley, and Donald Dewar crossing over to the SDP as well in this situation, or at least refusing to serve on the frontbench. Labour's civil war would be a lot worse, and therefore people could be even more turned off of them. Though they would still go down to a landslide defeat, I wouldn't rule out Labour doing a bit better under Benn than Foot in 1983, but when it comes to actually winning in 1992, he has no chance.
 
Last edited:

Tovarich

Banned
Benn would alienate more of the Labour right, and you might see the likes of John Smith, Roy Hattersley, and Donald Dewar crossing over to the SDP as well in this situation, or at least refusing to serve on the frontbench.

I can never fathom why Hattersley is regarded as almost-SDP.

You'd need a crowbar to get that guy out of the Labour Party, his contempt for the Gang Of Four (especially Owen) puts mine and other Labour Leftists in the shade.
 
I can never fathom why Hattersley is regarded as almost-SDP.

You'd need a crowbar to get that guy out of the Labour Party, his contempt for the Gang Of Four (especially Owen) puts mine and other Labour Leftists in the shade.
Okay, maybe not Hattersley, he comes more under the 'refusing to serve on the frontbench' category.
 
There was an almost McCarthyist level of paranoia about Militant within Labour at the time, like they were lurking round every corner.

I remember a wonderful piece in the 'Sensible Labour' Daily Mirror, about "How To Spot A Member Of Militant In Your Organisation".
Ooh, Mr Maxwell sir, I think I've spotted a member of Militant in my organisation.
You have?
Yes, it's him over there. The one selling 'Militant'.

Yes, I remember those times - then Labour succeeded in dealing with Militant - the Party within a Party. But that was then now - Momentum has succeeded in its take over. Momentum supporters flood Labour constituency associations, get elected to committees, and threaten to deselect the MP if he wavers from the Corbynites party-line'!
 
Yes, I remember those times - then Labour succeeded in dealing with Militant - the Party within a Party. But that was then now - Momentum has succeeded in its take over. Momentum supporters flood Labour constituency associations, get elected to committees, and threaten to deselect the MP if he wavers from the Corbynites party-line'!
But Momentum aren't Trotskyists- by and large. They are mostly just run of the mill Corbynistas- more comparable to Bennites than Militant really in terms of the space they occupy on Labour's political spectrum. Secondly, anyone who has followed Labour selections over the last few years will tell you that they haven't 'flooded' CLPs by any means. Whilst there has been a definite uptick in the selection of hard left candidates, Momentum backed candidates haven't won selections in the majority of open seats. One of the key differences between the 1970s/80s and now is that then the left were gaining power as party membership declined and ordinary right wing types drifted away or became inactive, whilst now membership is on the up, but a lot of the new left wing recruits don't participate in much other than the national elections, so moderates are still doing pretty well at a local level.

When it comes to deselection, their has been a lot of smoke but not much fire. Individual Momentum supporters might want mandatory deslection, but the national organisation hasn't endorsed it. It's worth noting that the only MPs to have fallen foul of the current process thus far have been Brexiteers, which is something all sides of the party dislike.
 
I'm not finding the scenario credible for two reasons:

Multiple POD

The Cousins not throwing people out of helicopters; starting with PM Harry Perkins and disappearing their bloody way down the list
 
Top