Do two elections change everything 1968 US and 1970 UK

wi wILSON HAD won in 1970, ideally standing up to Callaghan and getting in Place of Strife througn but maybe with just getting the trade figures to look good. In OTL the balance of payments was seen at that time as the key economic number. It happend that shortly before the election the figures looked bad because of the one off costs of importing 747s.

Humphrey is easy, get Agnew exposed, Humprhey landslide is likley if it were esomehow combined by news of how Nixon's friends were sabotaging peace talks.

I assume Labour loses an election in 74 -5 because of party fatigue.

I think Humphrey wins 72 but Democrats lose in 76.

Conservatives and republicans face elections with the consequences of the oli shock

Greed it good capitalism does not become the dominant ideology in the West.

With a bit of luck 1989 is not followed by shock therapy in the East
 
No Rivers of Blood speech and the Tories don't win in 1970.

Heath is prime minister from 1975 to 1979, but who would be PM after him? Callaghan? Healey? Foot?
 
Humphrey winning 1968 would prevent the death of modern American liberalism. The New Dealers and the New Left would somehow find a way to coalesce in a big tent. The Democrats however wouldn't ditch true liberal populism to become the party of limousine liberalism.
 
Why would they keep Heath if he lost 1970?

They didn't get rid of him for a while after two defeats during 1974, so I don't see why its impossible that they'd keep him after a 1970 defeat. If they did get rid of him after Wilson's 1970 re-election, who would be the new leader in your opinion?
 
They didn't get rid of him for a while after two defeats during 1974, so I don't see why its impossible that they'd keep him after a 1970 defeat. If they did get rid of him after Wilson's 1970 re-election, who would be the new leader in your opinion?

Powell might have a shot without the RoB speech destroying his relations with the top men of the party but he wouldn't really win.

Candidates may include Iain Macleod, Julian Amery, Powell, Joseph, Prior, Barber (not likely though), Whitelaw and the such.
 
If Heath steps down in 1970 then the subsequent leader would probably be either Maudling or Macleod. Maudling would be far more acceptable to all wings of the party than Macleod, who had alienated the imperialist right as Colonial Secretary. Powell was hopeless in the 1965 leadership election and with or without RoB, it's highly unlikely that he would ever become leader. Out of the ones you mentioned Blackadder, Amery is too extreme and too junior, Joseph too isolated, and Whitelaw and Prior are too junior at this point in time.

It would be interesting to see how Labour progress from 1970. The economic situation will depend upon butterflies, who knows whether the OPEC shock and the breakdown of Bretton Woods will occur as in OTL. The impact on the leadership of the Labour party will be interesting, I think I remember Wilson wanting to retire around 1972/1973 if Labour continued in office and in 1970, Chancellor Roy Jenkins was seen as Wilson's heir. Perhaps Jenkins/Callaghan vs. Maudling in 1974/1975? I don't think that it's inevitable that Labour will lose the next election as the result of "party fatigue" (I don't like the concept). Could Labour as Wilson hoped become the "natural party of government", or could we see PM Maudling?
 
If Heath steps down in 1970 then the subsequent leader would probably be either Maudling or Macleod. Maudling would be far more acceptable to all wings of the party than Macleod, who had alienated the imperialist right as Colonial Secretary. Powell was hopeless in the 1965 leadership election and with or without RoB, it's highly unlikely that he would ever become leader. Out of the ones you mentioned Blackadder, Amery is too extreme and too junior, Joseph too isolated, and Whitelaw and Prior are too junior at this point in time.

It would be interesting to see how Labour progress from 1970. The economic situation will depend upon butterflies, who knows whether the OPEC shock and the breakdown of Bretton Woods will occur as in OTL. The impact on the leadership of the Labour party will be interesting, I think I remember Wilson wanting to retire around 1972/1973 if Labour continued in office and in 1970, Chancellor Roy Jenkins was seen as Wilson's heir. Perhaps Jenkins/Callaghan vs. Maudling in 1974/1975? I don't think that it's inevitable that Labour will lose the next election as the result of "party fatigue" (I don't like the concept). Could Labour as Wilson hoped become the "natural party of government", or could we see PM Maudling?

How could I forget Maudling? I had him in mind but couldn't put face to name. :eek:

Jenkins would have a problem considering the Euroscepticism of his backbenchers, he never seemed to have the patience for such a thing so I'd put money on Callaghan but with Roy close by to prevent party splits and no removing Place of Strife due to the pressure from the right. Ten years in power would mean Maudling would win if the revelation of his scandal is butterflied, that may go against him if it comes out, the problem will be if it costs him the Leadership as he can't escape the public eye now.
 

bguy

Donor
Humphrey winning 1968 would prevent the death of modern American liberalism. The New Dealers and the New Left would somehow find a way to coalesce in a big tent. The Democrats however wouldn't ditch true liberal populism to become the party of limousine liberalism.

President Humphrey is going to get from 3-5 Supreme Court appointments. That is going to irrevocably shift the court to the left, which means not only will abortion be made a constitutional right, but you will almost certainly see capital punishment irrevocably declared unconstitutional, and cross-district school busing mandated. Those decisions will make any New Deal-New Left coalition impossible. Working class whites will especially despise the busing decision since they will see it as an attack on their children, and they will flock to the GOP as a result.
 
Heath's position depends on whether Labour lose seats or not. Say Heath wins back the seats he lost in '66 but still loses, this will probably be a bonus for the Conservatives and nobody expected them to win anyway.

Wilson steps down before he starts to go a bit senile in 1972/3 and his successor is probably Callaghan. In Place of Strife going through probably means less industrial turmoil than Heath went through. Jenkins being there and not in Europe probably means trouble, Castle also didn't get on with Callaghan - perhaps an earlier SDP-style pressure group forms as Jenkins originally intended.

The government lingers on until 1975 when there's a big split over entry into Europe, maybe industrial relations suddenly get worse. Callaghan loses in 1975 to Heath who takes us into EEC on better terms than in OTL. Heath's government is a lot better than the original was, he introduces welfare reforms and tax breaks but flip-flops here and there, all in all a very clinical government.

Meanwhile, a leadership election tears Labour apart, with Healey appearing as the compromise candidate, Heath takes advantage in 1976 with a snap election disguised as a 'who governs Britain?' one on EEC entry whilst Labour's divided and wins. He takes the government right up to 1981 when there's an upset election which Heath loses and Healey wins.
 
Top