Healey beats Foot - then what?

The 1980 leadership race within Labour was very close, and arguably Healey handed the election to Foot when he alienated the Manifesto Group with his 'you've got nowhere else to go' comment. What if Healey doesn't make the remark, or phrases it in a more respectful manner that actually plays up how he deserves their support? My belief is that he would win, but just as closely as Foot did in OTL. He would inherit a deeply divided Labour Party and almost certainly not win in 1983 (assuming the Falklands happen as per OTL), but what are his chances for 87? What stances within Labour would change? Would the SDP still happen as it did, or would something else from the Left of Labour take its place?

I have a few ideas on this that I'd like to work into a fully-fledged TL, but am looking for some more opinions and options here - so beware that if you post something I think is really worth exploring it might end up in a proper TL, with credit of course.
 
No "longest suicide note in history" for one thing.

Oh, I agree that Labour under Healey has no realistic chance of beating Thatcher in '83 post-Falklands, but it would certainly be closer, I think. Perhaps the results of this ATL 1983 election are similar to OTL's 1987 election rather than the 15-point landslide of OTL. If that's the case, then Labour might have a chance in '87, depending on the butterflies.

Another change would be that there wouldn't be a merger of the Liberals and the Labour rebels since the rebels would stay in the party, meaning that the Liberals/Lib-dems would arguably remain a smaller party than OTL. However, what are the chances of some left-wing Labour MPs breaking off due to their fury of Foot being denied the leadership?
 

Thande

Donor
SDP wouldn't leave. After the Militant Tendency gets pushed away from power, expect a far-left splinter movement, but it's doubtful how many actual sitting Labour MPs would join it and it would be basically irrelevant.

If the Falklands War still happens, 1983 will still be a Conservative victory, but I agree with the poster above who said it would be more like OTL's 1987. The next election after that (the latest it could be would be 1989) would probably see a Labour victory, or at least it would be a more likely possibility.

What happens to the Liberal Party would be interesting - do they just dwindle away to nothing at long last? Stay on as an irrelevant party that struggles to reach double figures of MPs? Merge with the more moderate Labour in an anti-Conservative alliance?

How events like the miners' strikes are handled will be interesting given there is a more credible and mainstream Labour Party around to oppose Thatcher.
 
SDP wouldn't leave. After the Militant Tendency gets pushed away from power, expect a far-left splinter movement, but it's doubtful how many actual sitting Labour MPs would join it and it would be basically irrelevant.

If the Falklands War still happens, 1983 will still be a Conservative victory, but I agree with the poster above who said it would be more like OTL's 1987. The next election after that (the latest it could be would be 1989) would probably see a Labour victory, or at least it would be a more likely possibility.

What happens to the Liberal Party would be interesting - do they just dwindle away to nothing at long last? Stay on as an irrelevant party that struggles to reach double figures of MPs? Merge with the more moderate Labour in an anti-Conservative alliance?

How events like the miners' strikes are handled will be interesting given there is a more credible and mainstream Labour Party around to oppose Thatcher.

I wasn't around at the time so I wouldn't know, but I got the impression that Labour under Foot was sort of viewed like the Monster Raving Loony Party. Is that an accurate description?
 
I doubt the SDP split would happen. Tony Benn at least stated after Blair won that he would never leave Labour and he never considered it. In fact, I cant think of a high profile figure from the left of the party who would have left.

Without Foots presentational issues, Healey would have been able to exploit the explosion in unemployment which took place under Thatcher, so may have done well.

The stumbling bloc is the Trade Unions.

The Unions in the main at the time were run by people who considered Labour to be too right-wing. People like Arthur Scargill, Jimmy Reid and Jack Jones would have been very unhappy with a Healey leadership. This may have created divisions within the PLP, the CLP and amongst the unions themselves.

As it is, I can see a few potential outcomes.

1) Healey wins, the left create a rucus and there is infighting going on permenantly until '83 where Labour goes down to a heavy defeat, comparable to otl, this is followed by a lurch to the left as Healey is forced to quit.

2) Healey wins, but placates the left on several issues whilst using policies of the right. Labour take advantage and cut Thatch to a small majority govenment, even possibly a minority. Remember, in '83 there were treble the amount of unemplyed from when the Tories took office on their campaign of getting Britain into work.

3)Healey wins, the left splits along with several Trade Unions. The vote of the left is split even further and Thatcher wins a landslide which makes '83 look mild. (they would have an advantage over otls SDP, TU money)

These are just off the top of my head. There are many others. It is an interesting topic though. I hope you make the timeline.
 
Last edited:

Thande

Donor
I wasn't around at the time so I wouldn't know, but I got the impression that Labour under Foot was sort of viewed like the Monster Raving Loony Party. Is that an accurate description?

I wasn't there, or at least not at a politically aware age, either; but in retrospect I judge that Foot's Labour was viewed by moderate left-leaners (i.e., nearly everyone in the media, for instance) as sort of an embarrassment, outside of hardcore Labour strongholds you wouldn't publicly admit to having voted for Foot's Labour even if Thatcher's Conservatives were vocally hated in that environment.
 
Top