Basically the challenge is for something similar to the supposed 'Southern Strategy' of the Nixon campaign in 1968 and the GOP to appeal to traditional Democratic voters in the South, to occur in the United Kingdom - with the Tories (hypothetically) aiming to appeal to traditional Labour voters. The challenge is for a 'Northern Strategy' for the Tories, so to speak; to be feasible and even doable.
AHC: British 'Southern Strategy'
- Thread starter Gonzo
- Start date
shiftygiant
Gone Fishin'
Avoid Thatcher and have a Labour Government oversee the closure of the pits. It was something that needed to eventually happen, as Kinnock himself noted, but as he also said it was done so horribly it poisoned the Tories. IIRC, there was something to the fact the traditional Labour base voted Tory in 1979.
Any shift in the allegiance of the north would have to occur Pre-Thatcher. The Tories haven't been very popular in much of the north for a long time but the Thatcher government made them truly loathed. Northerners are willing to vote for some Tory policies but not the Tories themselves. For instance UKIP's 2015 policies weren't that much different from the Tories 2005 policies but saw considerably more success in winning northern votes.
If Kinnock wins in 1984, would Labour go for a "Dash for Gas" similar to OTL? Or would that be unacceptable because of the impact on coal mining?
Even if Labour doesn't do privatisation & deregulation, or more likely a state-mandated switch to diversify away from coal to cheaper and cleaner(ish) gas, how viable is British coal mining in the late 80s anyway?
If Heseltine gets the Tory leadership after 1984 (say, if there's no Falklands War to wrap Thatcher in a bloody shirt), he'll need a way to get back the Labour voters who tried Thatcher in '79 and yet were disenchanted with her economic performance. He did a report to shiv up Osborne in Oct 2012 that advised the sort of internal investment and incentivisation that his strangely-prescient younger self would need to see applied.
Having said that, I suspect there is a pretty basic problem, in that the UK will be moving away from large-headcount employers (except in the service sector) in the 1990s, and even a successful region with profitable startups won't generate as many jobs as the shrinking industries of the Imperial era once did.
Even if Labour doesn't do privatisation & deregulation, or more likely a state-mandated switch to diversify away from coal to cheaper and cleaner(ish) gas, how viable is British coal mining in the late 80s anyway?
If Heseltine gets the Tory leadership after 1984 (say, if there's no Falklands War to wrap Thatcher in a bloody shirt), he'll need a way to get back the Labour voters who tried Thatcher in '79 and yet were disenchanted with her economic performance. He did a report to shiv up Osborne in Oct 2012 that advised the sort of internal investment and incentivisation that his strangely-prescient younger self would need to see applied.
Having said that, I suspect there is a pretty basic problem, in that the UK will be moving away from large-headcount employers (except in the service sector) in the 1990s, and even a successful region with profitable startups won't generate as many jobs as the shrinking industries of the Imperial era once did.
Wasn't that at least theoretically part of Thatcher's original strategy, appealing to working-class voters by promoting aspiration so they can become house-owners as well? Of course, this scheme didn't really work out with the sell-out of state assets and the closure of the industries, but it definitely played a role.
Another idea is to turn the Conservative Party into becoming the 'migrants party' who also campaigns for the rights of minorities. Again, one could use the Thatcher years here, when the Tories had this campaign slogan:
Another idea is to turn the Conservative Party into becoming the 'migrants party' who also campaigns for the rights of minorities. Again, one could use the Thatcher years here, when the Tories had this campaign slogan:
One of the reasons that Nixon's Southern strategy was possible was because the Democrats had thrown away their supremacy over Civil Rights. Unless there's some equivalent issue that's toxified Labour, I don't see it really working. Nor, for that matter, does it need to. As 2015 proved, the Tories have enough support in the rural and suburban north to deliver an overall majority.
But if it was going to, then I'd suggest something like a combination of a far-left Labour leader combined with a Tory who played the patriot card to the white working class.
But if it was going to, then I'd suggest something like a combination of a far-left Labour leader combined with a Tory who played the patriot card to the white working class.
Labour wins in 1970, loses in 1974 due to a mediocre term, and Labour led by Roy Jenkins wins a landslide in 1979 due to the recession, pursuing some privatization and some of Thatcher's other reforms, leading to working-class voters being disenchanted with the Labour Party, and the Tories try to attract them in 1983.
shiftygiant
Gone Fishin'
So Tony Benn vs Airey Neave?
Though more seriously and on your first point, there were elements of this in 1979, in which the Conservatives targeted the Working Class who felt burnt by Labour and the Winter of Discontent. Looking at a map, of the 50 lost seats you can a noticeable loss in the Hull-Mersey belt, the Thames Estuary, and in a fair few of the Collieries Constituencies. This could be a bigger switch of seats without the lingering memories of the 3 Day Week and the strikes under Heath, and if the Tories drove up to the hilt for these votes. As fjihr just suggested as I was writing, Labour winning in 1970 could help the Conservatives a lot. Heath is replaced by someone more competent. Labour implements In Place of Strife and various other legislation, and Wilson steps down in 1972, replaced by either Jenkins, Callaghan, or Castle, with strife between the Party and Trade Unions over the implementation of the White Paper. The 1974/1975 Election will be crucial to this realignment- the Tories pursue a 'Northern Strategy' to gobble up seats burnt by Labour, with the Liberals benefiting by this move and further helping to erode Labour in certain areas, be it as simple as splitting votes. Labour will undoubtedly be wounded by this and loose the election, especially if the Tories get a foot in the Hull-Mersey belt; after this point, Labour lurches to the right with Callaghan or Jenkins or further left under Foot or Shore, none of which will really encourage the traditional base.
Whoever is the Conservative Leader from 1970-197x is crucial; this person has to recognize the gap being formed by Labour between them and the Unions and industrial worker force, and exploit this, and keep exploiting it with their successor.
I do remember back in 2014 how there was this sense of a re-alignment, in Cameron, by pursuing Osborne's Northern Powerhouse, was transforming the Conservatives into the Party of the Workers, whilst Labour began to shift towards business.
Immigration, and now Brexit, are issues with the potential to develop into that. If the Tories were a eurosceptic party that seeks lower immigration, but at the same time had some decisively one nation policies on the economy that emphasised standing up to vested interests, not unlike what May seems to be proposing, then I could see it winning over many northern voters, particularly if Labour is chasing southern, liberal voters. It is not all that implausible it could happen in the coming years, but in terms of the past, then I wonder whether Powellism with more centrist economic policies is possible.
My mind did go straight to the magisterial If Banks Had Played alternative history, which has a Powell-led Conservatives producing something of a southern strategy on precisely that basis, though I don't think that Powell himself had the willingness to play the low politics that might have been necessary (though others around him would have done).
The 1964 general election was incredibly close, all it would have taken was a change of roughly 3,600 votes in fourteen constituencies and the Conservatives would of had a majority of five. So how's this. Alec Douglas-Home remains Prime Minister, Harold Wilson stays as Leader of the Opposition since he'd only become Leader of the Labour Party shortly before the election, and this pretty much guarantees a Labour victory in 1969. This occurs, Douglas-Home steps down as Leader of the Conservatives to be replaced by Heath, after his first Ministry Wilson decides to resign due to health concerns and wanting a decent retirement, Callaghan is elected to replace him, Labour win the 1974 general election, and Heath having been fairly so-so as Leader of had Opposition gets dropped after his one chance at things.
In this scenario Labour will of had to take responsibility for the whole of the 1970s with all that entails. If the Conservatives win in 1979 as would seem likely and whoever takes over from Heath implements the needed reforms but in a better, less confrontational, manner than Margaret Thatcher then they could hang most of the blame on Labour and use it as a wedge issue. Avoiding some of the other major mistakes such as the Community Charge which was a needless error could see them potentially holding onto more of the Northern and Scottish voters that were successfully wooed in 1979. It's not a full-on 'Southern strategy' but it's the best I can come up with off the top of my head.
As a few people have noted already, by far the best chance for something analogous to this happening lies in the future, (or perhaps an alternate present) not the past.
But frankly there aren't really the opportunities for the level of tension that arose in the national Democratic Party between Southern interests and the rest of the party to manifest itself in Britain; and nor, for several reasons, is there the political structures, voting behaviour etc in place to enable something fairly extraordinary like the South's complete flip over decades to take place. (White Southerners were still often voting for Democrats below the presidential level until fairly recently) It's not like as if it's an easily replicated thing, the kind of thing that happens everyday. Properly western countries have not had those kind of regional literal one party states to the level that the south exhibited. The South's change was the collapse of a system, not just a change of votes. Pretty unique intra-nation.
A federal system in the UK where democracy collapses in the north, and it's tolerated by the centre... well, that's more like a thing from a list thread than anything a proper AHC thread should be dealing with.
But frankly there aren't really the opportunities for the level of tension that arose in the national Democratic Party between Southern interests and the rest of the party to manifest itself in Britain; and nor, for several reasons, is there the political structures, voting behaviour etc in place to enable something fairly extraordinary like the South's complete flip over decades to take place. (White Southerners were still often voting for Democrats below the presidential level until fairly recently) It's not like as if it's an easily replicated thing, the kind of thing that happens everyday. Properly western countries have not had those kind of regional literal one party states to the level that the south exhibited. The South's change was the collapse of a system, not just a change of votes. Pretty unique intra-nation.
A federal system in the UK where democracy collapses in the north, and it's tolerated by the centre... well, that's more like a thing from a list thread than anything a proper AHC thread should be dealing with.