For Want of a Leader

July 15th 2013

BBC Four: Labour History Night



"Tonight's series of programs and documentaries detailing the Labour Party's years in both opposition and government from 1983 to 2013 are dedicated to the memory of Neil Kinnock who died thirty years ago today."



neil_kinnock.jpg


FOR WANT OF A LEADER

An Alternate History
By
Alfie J Steer
 
For Want of a Leader (Part One)

THE DREAM TICKET

(Taken from "Unite or Die" by Roy Hattersley, Harper Collins 1996)

"...I got the phone call Friday night. I had been waiting by the phone since the accident and by the time it finally rang I was overcome with dread. Michael was on the other end of the line his usually "clumsy" voice seemed painfully broken. He told me everything and I sunk deep into sofa, Molly grabbed my hand and watched me as I spoke with Michael. Neil was dead. He had been fighting in hospital for two days and had looked like he could recover, but his body just gave out.

The party fell into mourning when it was officially announced the next day. We had lost not only a great MP and colleague but who many had hoped would be the next leader of the party. Since Michael's resignation the month before, me, Neil, Peter and Eric had all joined the race to succeed him. Now just the three of us remained. Neil had been seen as the unifying candidate, one who could appeal to both sides of the party as well as the public. I had been seen as the right-wing challenger while Peter and Eric appeared to most as the left wing firebrands who tried to cling to Labour's traditionalist ways.

For many all hopes at victory in the next election were dashed and the party would lurch yet again to the extreme left or split apart completely.

After Neil's funeral, Michael and a few others came to see me. They said that without Neil I was their best bet at moving the party forward, keeping it together and winning the next election. Despite being much further to the right of many of them they believed party unity rose above their own political aims and beliefs. However, with their backing I would have to agree to Peter remaining as Shadow Chancellor and supporting their candidate Robin Cook for the deputy leadership.

I accepted and the rest is history..."


(Taken from "Too Ethical for Politics" by Robin Cook, Random House 2006)

"...Neil's death shocked the entire party, including us the soft leftists. Without him we knew we had no viable candidate for the leadership. John was working for Roy and I was too junior for the job. Instead it was agreed that I would stand as deputy, we saw it as the best way to unite the party from both sides of the spectrum. Michael called it the "dream ticket"..."


(Taken from "Results of the 1983 Labour Leadership and Deputy Leadership Elections" dated 2nd October 1983)

Roy Hattersley: 54%
Peter Shore: 33%
Eric Heffer: 13%

Robin Cook: 58%
Michael Meacher: 25%
Gwyneth Dunwoody: 10%
Denzil Davies: 7%
 
Last edited:
So, that's why you kept asking. I think this works very well as an opening, but I'd make two comments.

Firstly, I don't think Hattersley would characterise his opponents in so bald a manner ("dinosaurs" etc). Other commentators might (Kaufman, say) but Hattersley is generally much more generous in retrospect, and wouldn't have used that sort of language. And Hattersley absolutely wouldn't yield the mantle of socialism to his opponents - he is a socialist, views and has always viewed himself as a socialist. He might attack them then and criticise them in retrospect as unilateralists (though I'm not whether Shore was), as anti-Europe, as soft on Militant; but not as "dinosaurs" and even less so as socialists. Also, Peter Shore was not an unreconstructed lefty, or at all easy to pin down. Shore flitted between the various wings and factions, without any single base, and usually just with the effect of pissing everyone off. I think Heffer would have done better than Shore, incidentally - at a guess, maybe Hattersley 55%, Heffer 30%, Shore 15%.

Secondly, I'd like to see some quote from Cook (who, I agree, would inherit the leadership the soft left if Kinnock died) to the effect of deciding to concentrate on the deputy leadership and support Hattersley for the leadership (the opposite of OTL, where they concentrated on the leadership). I can well imagine Cook making that decision. Also, Dunwoody and Davies would still be in the deputy leadership, probably doing a bit better than OTL by picking up votes from right-wingers who refuse to vote for Cook (while Cook in turn would peel some left-wing votes from Meacher). So perhaps Cook 58%, Meacher 25%, Dunwoody 10%, Davies 7%.
 
So, that's why you kept asking. I think this works very well as an opening, but I'd make two comments.

Firstly, I don't think Hattersley would characterise his opponents in so bald a manner ("dinosaurs" etc). Other commentators might (Kaufman, say) but Hattersley is generally much more generous in retrospect, and wouldn't have used that sort of language. And Hattersley absolutely wouldn't yield the mantle of socialism to his opponents - he is a socialist, views and has always viewed himself as a socialist. He might attack them then and criticise them in retrospect as unilateralists (though I'm not whether Shore was), as anti-Europe, as soft on Militant; but not as "dinosaurs" and even less so as socialists. Also, Peter Shore was not an unreconstructed lefty, or at all easy to pin down. Shore flitted between the various wings and factions, without any single base, and usually just with the effect of pissing everyone off. I think Heffer would have done better than Shore, incidentally - at a guess, maybe Hattersley 55%, Heffer 30%, Shore 15%.

Secondly, I'd like to see some quote from Cook (who, I agree, would inherit the leadership the soft left if Kinnock died) to the effect of deciding to concentrate on the deputy leadership and support Hattersley for the leadership (the opposite of OTL, where they concentrated on the leadership). I can well imagine Cook making that decision. Also, Dunwoody and Davies would still be in the deputy leadership, probably doing a bit better than OTL by picking up votes from right-wingers who refuse to vote for Cook (while Cook in turn would peel some left-wing votes from Meacher). So perhaps Cook 58%, Meacher 25%, Dunwoody 10%, Davies 7%.

Thanks for the feedback.
 
Top