With the election of Jeremy Corbyn as Labour Leader last September and the possibility (No comment on how likely/unlikely) of him remaining so until the next general election, many are seeing this as the great victory of the Bennite faction within Labour that have been diminished in numbers & influence since their heyday of the 1980s.

However another figure who has become referenced following Corbyn's election is the erstwhile Labour Leader, Michael Foot. Whilst Foot was himself a Bevanite, he was not of the Hard Left faction that Tony Benn subscribed to & led. Nevertheless, many are calling Corbyn the successor of Benn and Foot.

My challenge to is how can the Footite brand of Labour & leftism remaining a part, though not necessarily dominant, part of the Labour Party.
 
My challenge to is how can the Footite brand of Labour & leftism remaining a part, though not necessarily dominant, part of the Labour Party.
Left-wing, unilateralist, Robin Cook-esque foreign policy, libertarian socialism.

Broadly speaking, of course. :p

Well then, have most of the Labour Party split off into a centre-left SDP in 1981, leaving only the Footites:p
Labour proper then slides into minor party status, while the SDP and Liberals ascend as an anti-Thatcher coalition.
 
What are we defining as Footite?

Essentially, Bevanism without Bevan. It's non-revolutionary and more... "establishment" than Benn's followers (who were to the far left of the spectrum and were obsessed with grassroots democracy and extra-parliamentary action).
 
The Tribune faction, whilst representing the 'soft left' faction, also overlapped in places with the Footites.

Norman Atkinson, for one, was a Tribunite but also a radical who wasn't radical enough for Militant. He is the essence of Footism.
 
I was going to say that it might be easier to ask how Bevanism could remain a prominent, if not a major, part of the Labour Party given that Michael Foot served as the last hoorah of Bevanism within Labour IOTL. Could an earlier rise of Foot, say the 1976 leadership election, help that side of the party? Or was his kind of thinking already dwindling by that stage to remain strong enough to survive, let alone take root?
 
With regard to Bevanism staying prominent, Nye was Attlee's preferred choice of successor almost up until he resigned from the Shadow Cabinet. Keep him inside it and keep him on a more even keel and he might inherit the leadership and thus Bevanism becomes mainstream. That requires Attlee to get Gaitskell to back off over prescription charges though.
 
I was going to say that it might be easier to ask how Bevanism could remain a prominent, if not a major, part of the Labour Party given that Michael Foot served as the last hoorah of Bevanism within Labour IOTL. Could an earlier rise of Foot, say the 1976 leadership election, help that side of the party? Or was his kind of thinking already dwindling by that stage to remain strong enough to survive, let alone take root?

Interesting question, but a depressing answer.

Foot in '76 is a guaranteed defeat in '79, meaning the entire left will be out on its arse faster than you can say "neoliberalism". But, there are some overall positives for Labour - probably no SDP split with them having a chance to lead the party after '79, a sense that the leftward trend of Labour has been halted by defeat, and a stronger party going into 1983 or 1984. Labour might well win back power in the late '80's.

But, to save Bevanism, there needs to be a different leader to Wilson in the '60s. Greenwood, Castle and Crossman are your obvious bets who showed some interest IOTL, but anyone who had the ideological substance and not just the rhetoric could also work. Have them beat the candidate of the right after Gaitskell's death and Bevanism is saved, which then means Foot, though not ruling a "Footite" party, could lead a Bevanite party on roughly the same principles as he had IOTL.
 
Interesting question, but a depressing answer.

Foot in '76 is a guaranteed defeat in '79, meaning the entire left will be out on its arse faster than you can say "neoliberalism". But, there are some overall positives for Labour - probably no SDP split with them having a chance to lead the party after '79, a sense that the leftward trend of Labour has been halted by defeat, and a stronger party going into 1983 or 1984. Labour might well win back power in the late '80's.

But, to save Bevanism, there needs to be a different leader to Wilson in the '60s. Greenwood, Castle and Crossman are your obvious bets who showed some interest IOTL, but anyone who had the ideological substance and not just the rhetoric could also work. Have them beat the candidate of the right after Gaitskell's death and Bevanism is saved, which then means Foot, though not ruling a "Footite" party, could lead a Bevanite party on roughly the same principles as he had IOTL.
Essentially Walking Back to Happiness but with Foot and not Castle or Booth?
 
Interesting question, but a depressing answer.

Foot in '76 is a guaranteed defeat in '79, meaning the entire left will be out on its arse faster than you can say "neoliberalism". But, there are some overall positives for Labour - probably no SDP split with them having a chance to lead the party after '79, a sense that the leftward trend of Labour has been halted by defeat, and a stronger party going into 1983 or 1984. Labour might well win back power in the late '80's.

Well, it would seem that is the OPPOSITE to what I asked for. :p I'm somehow imagining Denis Healey leading Labour back into government in '87 or '88 in this scenario.

But, to save Bevanism, there needs to be a different leader to Wilson in the '60s. Greenwood, Castle and Crossman are your obvious bets who showed some interest IOTL, but anyone who had the ideological substance and not just the rhetoric could also work. Have them beat the candidate of the right after Gaitskell's death and Bevanism is saved, which then means Foot, though not ruling a "Footite" party, could lead a Bevanite party on roughly the same principles as he had IOTL.

Looks like this might be the best bet for it then, though I think we all know who your favoured candidate of those three would be. ;)
 
Essentially Walking Back to Happiness but with Foot and not Castle or Booth?

Oh, well now that you mention it. :p

I love Booth, but I've changed the Seventies a fair bit, so he won't be as prominent in the redux (whenever that gets done - Christ alive, I do too much at once).

Well, it would seem that is the OPPOSITE to what I asked for. :p I'm somehow imagining Denis Healey leading Labour back into government in '87 or '88 in this scenario.

He may be a bit too old at that point, but I could see someone like Eric Varley maybe taking over. John Golding is a little hipster choice, but he's so far to the right that there'd likely be a left-wing splinter.

Looks like this might be the best bet for it then, though I think we all know who your favoured candidate of those three would be. ;)

What can I say? I'm a sucker for a suave socialist.
 
Oh, well now that you mention it. :p

I love Booth, but I've changed the Seventies a fair bit, so he won't be as prominent in the redux (whenever that gets done - Christ alive, I do too much at once).



He may be a bit too old at that point, but I could see someone like Eric Varley maybe taking over. John Golding is a little hipster choice, but he's so far to the right that there'd likely be a left-wing splinter.



What can I say? I'm a sucker for a suave socialist.
Finish A Very Special Relationship first.
 
I will.

Probably.

I should have spent more time planning. I'm a bit all over the place at the moment.

One thing at a time there, pal. ;)

Anyway, it would seem that our only way to save the legacy of Michael Foot is to preserve the legacy of Nye Bevan... Yeah, that actually makes logical sense to me. Is that best done by preventing Bevan's resignation and making him Attlee's successor in '55 or by having a Bevanite succeed Gaitskell in '63 rather than the enigma of Harold Wilson?
 
Anyway, it would seem that our only way to save the legacy of Michael Foot is to preserve the legacy of Nye Bevan... Yeah, that actually makes logical sense to me. Is that best done by preventing Bevan's resignation and making him Attlee's successor in '55 or by having a Bevanite succeed Gaitskell in '63 rather than the enigma of Harold Wilson?

The earlier the better, probably. Foot can also keep his seat that way and maybe become leader in the '60s.
 
I'm intrigued as to what a successful non 80's Foot premiership would be like. His entry in PMs who never were has him as very hands off leaving much of the heavy lifting to Heley
 
Although we've preserved Bevanism as a main force within Labour now (I'm personally opting for the Bevan as Leader of the Labour Party in 1955 PoD here), how does that continue? What shape/form do the Bevanites have by the time we reach the end of the 20th Century and the start of 21st Century? And would the social democrats and Old Right possibly leave at any stage to form their own party? How would the Conservatives and Liberals react to have a more left-wing Labour under Bevan in the '50s - a better performance for the Liberals, if only marginal?
 
Top